Updated: 11/1/07; 8:25:00 AM.
Patricia Thurston's Radio Weblog
        

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Scientists denounce White House censoring..

Scientists and public and environmental health experts today [base "]overwhelmingly denounced[per thou] the White House[base ']s editing of CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding[base ']s congressional testimony on global warming. They called the edits [base "]frustrating,[per thou] [base "]terrible[per thou] and [base "]appalling,[per thou] and acknowledged that the White House is denying widely accepted scientific conclusions:

[base "]What was removed was an uncontroversial report of what is currently known and believed about the fact of climate change, its health effects and its likely impacts on the United States.[per thou] [~] Dale Jamieson, director of environmental studies at New York University

[base "]All of these [topics] are routinely mentioned in public health coursework across the nation. Each can be found in the pages of leading journals, such as Science and Nature. If anything, they understate the problem.[per thou] [~] Dr. Alan Ducatman, a professor of community medicine at the West Virginia University School of Medicine

[base "]We talk of the politicization of science. In the politicization of this topic [~] the science wasn[base ']t changed, it was deleted.[per thou] [~] Dr. Linda Rosenstock, dean of the UCLA School of Public Health

DeSmogBlog has more on the White House[base ']s politicization of science.

[Think Progress]
10:15:44 PM    comment []

Rick Jacobs: Blackwater to California: Hire us to Put Out Your Fires.

We couldn't make this stuff up. Brian Bonfiglio, vice president of Blackwater West, "I see a tactical operation center for East County fires," said Bonfiglio, noting that Blackwater's proposal includes water tanks capable of holding 35,000 gallons. "Can you imagine how much of a benefit it would be if we were operational now?"

This takes great big balls. This is from the guy who takes orders from billionaire Erik Prince, whom Congressman Waxman is now investigating for tax fraud, among other abuses. It's from the same company that sent an email Tuesday asking its undoubtedly well-paid supporters to lobby congress for Blackwater and help think of a newer, softer logo.

Mr. Bonfiglio has learned at the Mark Penn School of PR, where George Orwell lives. As a reminder, Hillary Clintons' top advisor, Mark Penn, runs a huge PR firm called Burson Marstellar which was hired by Mr. Prince before he appeared before Mr. Waxman's committee. Let's see if we can tie all these strands together.

1. Blackwater kills Iraqi civilians in open daylight and then claims that they are helping America improve its image. The Iraqi government excoriates Blackwater and the US Government for allowing these guys to run wild. US general officers point out that killing unarmed civilians while moving American diplomats around is bad for America's image in a country in which they already distrust us. And besides, it makes it much harder for our soldiers to do their jobs.

But here's the Mark Penn/ George Orwell/Blackwater summation: A few dead Iraqis is a small price to pay for America's democracy.

2. Blackwater hires soldiers that cost US taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each to train, but they are only paid maybe $3,000 a month. Blackwater then makes a sweetheart, no bid deal with Bush and Co. to be able to hire those same men for $20,000 or more a month. It's still your taxpayer dollars, but now these talented men are outside of the chain of command, providing exorbitant profit to Mr. Prince and unavailable to the US government. Put simply, we are paying Blackwater to poach our best soldiers and ultimately make us LESS SAFE in Iraq. Ask the US Army colonel who nearly got shot by a Blackwater operative.

But here's the Mark Penn/ George Orwell/Blackwater summation: Blackwater does a better job of protecting American interests than the US military for a lower price. Huh?

3. Fires of historic proportion break out all over southern California, including an as yet to be contained fire in Potrero, hundreds of yards from where Blackwater wants to open its 824 acre base including eleven live fire ranges. As Courage Campaign and 10,000 others wrote to Senators Feinstein and Boxer weeks ago, one of the major concerns people have about such a mercenary training facility is the risk of fire. It already happened without Blackwater there; think what would have happened had Blackwater been there with tons of live ammunition? And what about a spark from a live round used in training? Blackwater would be required by law to have 35,000 gallons of water on such a facility as a minimal defense to prevent itself from blowing up the neighborhood. That's equivalent to just under three DC-10 tanker runs. It's taken hundreds of such flights and a shift in winds to begin to contain the fires. It is literally inconceivable that the wilderness and small towns near such a base would be safer by having Blackwater there.

But here's the Mark Penn/ George Orwell/Blackwater summation: Blackwater needs to build a base in an environmentally sensitive fire hazard area because we'll make you safer.

I have begun to think of Blackwater as the Wal-Mart of mercenary firms. The laws don't apply to Wal-Mart or Blackwater. They say whatever they have to say in order to grow. And they'll do it again as long as we allow. Just this week, the people of neighboring Orange County, California succeeded in preventing Wal-Mart from opening another job-sucking superstore. Let's work to assure that the trend continues for Blackwater. If Mr. Prince were a true patriot, he'd announce that his firm will not proceed to build a fire-inducing mercenary training facility in East San Diego County. He'd give the several million he's spending trying to cram this down the local residents' throats to help them rebuild their lives. And he'd go shoot 'em up somewhere else. Like maybe in jail.

Until that time, we have to support our friends in Potrero as they recover from this conflagration and as they then face the Blackwater juggernaut.

[The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
6:03:35 PM    comment []

FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA:



On the June 25 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, while apparently commenting on prior remarks he made in which he called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, host Pat Robertson said that "now we've begun to see the kind of person he is and more and more people are saying to me, 'I think you were right.' " He also said that "[n]obody even knew who Hugo Chavez was" when Robertson first made his call for assassination: "They thought he was some grape picker from out in California. And all of a sudden my comments put him on the front page."

As Media Matters for America documented, Robertson first called for the assassination of Chavez on the August 22, 2005, broadcast of The 700 Club. He said, "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war." He added, "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." Two days later, Robertson falsely claimed that he never called for the assassination of Chavez, saying that his remarks were "misinterpreted." Robertson subsequently issued a press release in which he stated, "Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement." Robertson reiterated his call for Chavez's assassination on the February 2, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, as Media Matters has also documented.

From the June 25 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club:

ROBERTSON: Well, a couple of years ago I made a comment or two about Mr. Chavez. Nobody even knew who Hugo Chavez was. They thought he was some grape picker from out in California. And all of a sudden my comments put him on the front page, and now we've begun to see the kind of person he is, and more and more people are saying to me, "I think you were right." Now he's talking about war with America. I knew this was going to happen. Before long, he's going to get atomic bombs. He's going to have missiles. He spent three billion, count them, three billion dollars acquiring arms from the Soviet Union, and you ask yourself, "What does a peaceful country at the head of South America, what do they need with three billion dollars' worth of arms?" We're not going to fight them. Are they going to take over Colombia? What's their next target? Are they trying to be the next Cuba? He is a very dangerous man. They call him "El Loco," and it's a well-deserved name.

6:00:49 PM    comment []

A "fearless" Rudy Giuliani 'Leaves door open to waterboarding,' and Jonathan Turley, who said in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey's 'evasive remarks on "waterboarding" should disqualify him from the job,' again forcefully argues his case in an appearance on MSNBC. [Cursor.org]
2:57:32 PM    comment []

As the New York Times reports on the bunker reality of Blackwater's Green Zone compound, the Kuwaiti contractor being blamed for flaws in the construction of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, "is still winning lucrative new contracts to build U.S. diplomatic installations overseas," reports McClatchy. [Cursor.org]
2:56:17 PM    comment []

ForeignPolicy: Pentagon Orders "Bunker-Busters" for Urgent Delivery; Strike on Iran in the Works?. Where would the military use a stealth bomber armed with a 30,000-pound bomb, and why the rush? [AlterNet.org]
2:51:58 PM    comment []




2:49:25 PM    comment []



S.F. offering healthcare to neediest

Trailblazing city plan provides services regardless of residents' immigration status or medical history.

By John M. Glionna

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer


October 22, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO -- Forget the driver's license and credit cards. The most important piece of plastic in Cheng Wang's wallet is his new medical identification card featuring a picture of a heart and this city's signature skyline.

Wang, who has diabetes and other ailments, says the Healthy San Francisco program saved his life.

When he immigrated here in May to be closer to his elderly mother, the 64-year-old Taiwan native brought enough pills to last seven months. When those ran out, he didn't know what to do. He had no medical insurance. And it scared him.

Then he learned about a groundbreaking city health plan that provides a network of care to residents regardless of their ability to pay, immigration status or existing medical conditions. Wang, a proud man with oversized glasses, said it's important to him that the program is not purely a handout. It's a bona fide medical plan offering care free of charge to those who can't pay and on a sliding scale to those who can afford to contribute to their care. When he finds work, he'll pay, he said.

"It's precious," said the retired printer, holding out his card. "It gives me peace of mind."

The city's initiative is a first-of-its-kind local solution to what has become a pressing issue nationwide: how to provide the poor and middle class with affordable healthcare.

Americans spend more than $2 trillion a year on healthcare -- nearly a fifth of the national economy, according to federal statistics. Still, more than 60 million people remain uninsured or under-insured.

"We struggle every day to see that the poor do not fall into a chasm without medical care," said Linda Bien, president of North East Medical Services, which is participating in the San Francisco program. "Across the country, even people with medical insurance have trouble receiving care. The system is broken. And new models have to be put out there so we can reconsider: What does work?"

Launched in July at two pilot clinics in Chinatown, Healthy San Francisco now has 14 city health clinics and eight affiliated community clinics. More than 82,000 San Franciscans are without healthcare of any kind. Program managers hope to have enrolled all of them over the next two years by advertising the service in three languages at clinics and social service agencies.

Officials stress that their universal healthcare plan is not insurance. The program does not travel with members, who are only covered for visits to participating clinics and the public hospital in San Francisco. It also does not cover dental or eye care. Those below the federal poverty level of $10,210 in annual income for a single person and $20,650 for a family of four pay no fees.

Starting next month, the plan will be open to individuals with incomes up to 500% of the poverty level. Quarterly fees on the sliding scale range from $60 to $675. Co-payments for those who don't qualify for free care range from $10 to $20 for clinic visits and $200 to $350 for a hospital stay.

The goal of Healthy San Francisco is simple: Get involved earlier in preventive care for city residents before chronic illnesses become serious enough to require hospital care at the county's expense.

"Our system didn't serve the population," said program director Tangerine Brigham. "It was easy for people to do episodic care or seek no care at all.

"The idea was, 'Well, if I don't have my own Marcus Welby, I might wait for trauma care.' We're trying to give everyone their own Marcus Welby," Brigham added, referring to the fictional family doctor in a 1970s television drama.

The program's inception dates to 1998, when voters in a citywide referendum endorsed universal access to healthcare. But the next step did not come until Mayor Gavin Newsom took office in 2004.

Newsom began studying the matter. City officials estimated that they were spending $111 million annually to treat the uninsured at San Francisco General Hospital. Why not, Newsom and his staff asked, take some of that money and invest in prevention so that underprivileged residents would not have to resort to hospital visits to treat illnesses?

"We simply asked a profoundly different question," Newsom said. "For years, people here beat their head against the wall figuring out how to provide universal health insurance to the uninsured. Then we asked another question: How do we provide universal health care? That made all the difference."

Brigham said the program should cost $200 million the first year, and officials expect to finance it without a tax increase. They will also receive a federal grant of $24 million a year. In addition to membership fees and co-payments, the city will also receive money for the program from employers with more than 20 employees, who, starting in 2008, will be required to contribute a set amount to healthcare.

Dr. Mitchell Katz, the city's health director, said many of the 2,800 Healthy San Francisco members enrolled so far consider it important that the city is doing what the state and federal government have not done.

"People like the fact that they're not on the dole; they belong to a plan," he said. "With the people I have talked to, that is the key. It's not labeled charity care -- you're a poor person, come here. Sure, the poorest of the poor will receive free care, but for the others, they pay what they can afford to pay."

Dunyi Lei knows the gamble of going without medical care. For years, the 63-year-old immigrant from south China worked as a supermarket stock clerk without medical insurance for either himself or his family.

"For so long I could not afford to even get in the door of a doctor's office," he said. "When I got sick, I would buy over-the-counter medications. If things got worse, I'd go see an herbalist. Doctors were a last resort."

Lei joined Healthy San Francisco in July and immediately began receiving care for a heart condition. In August, when he suffered a minor heart attack, his son knew what to do: He rushed Lei to San Francisco General Hospital.

"Without my plan," Lei said, "I might not be here today."

Dr. Ted Li has worked at North East Medical Services in Chinatown for two years. He knows there are people in the community who are dying slowly from undiagnosed diseases. Maybe now, he says, that will change. "There are so many conditions that would not be fatal if we can only catch them in time," he said.

Li said he recently saw two Healthy San Francisco members who arrived for routine checkups. Both men appeared in good health. But simple tests showed that both suffered from dangerously high cholesterol and high blood pressure. They are now under treatment.

"For months, I saw a woman on the street with these festering scars on her face. I knew she was sick and I always wondered if she was a patient at our clinic," he said. "Then one day after Healthy San Francisco started, I saw her in the waiting room and I asked her why she had never come in before. She said it was the cost. It's a common story."

Officials hope the new program catches on with needy San Franciscans. The fact that the plan is not portable will discourage people from dropping existing plans -- and Healthy San Francisco will be there for people who need it most, they say.

"In the absence of universal health insurance nationwide, we have to deal with reality. If history is our guide, we shouldn't hold our breath," Newsom said. "We have to look at the issue of healthcare in a different light and not just funnel more resources into the existing framework of the insurance model. Here in San Francisco, we seem to have stumbled onto something that is working so far and we really believe can deliver."

Brigham said that she has already heard from several cities considering such an approach, including New Orleans. "Things can still go wrong," she said. "Maybe we haven't effectively communicated our availability, so people won't enroll. But we think we're ready to make a difference in people's lives here."

Still, challenges remain. The Golden Gate Restaurant Assn. has sued the city to challenge the required contributions by employers, saying the new rules will adversely affect small businesses operating on slim profit margins. A hearing is set for November.

Association Executive Director Kevin Westlye says the city should enact a quarter-cent sales tax to cover the program's costs.

"They tell us to absorb the added costs by raising menu prices," he said. "But we know that if you do that, the public buys down to less expensive entrees or they don't show up at all. This could be catastrophic to small restaurant owners."

As for Cheng Wang, he's enjoying his new life as a San Francisco resident with his health concerns under control. He sees doctors regularly for his diabetes, hypertension and heart problems. Even his mother, age 93, says he looks better.

"All I can say is that not knowing if you will be able to get the medication you need is a terrible way to live," he said. "It's a gamble I could have lost."





2:40:29 PM    comment []


Eric Alterman: The Blackwater Scandal or The More Things Don't Change.

It's become obvious to almost everyone paying attention that the operations of the Blackwater Corporation, among other private contractors, constitute yet another Bush administration scandal of significant proportions. The companies are reaping hitherto unimaginable profits while operating with a virtual -- and sometimes literal -- license to kill.

The oddest aspect of these operations is that they are, in most cases, fully within the law. Blackwater's friends in the administration, the State Department and Pentagon set it up that way, and in doing so set up a system with next to no oversight. Then again, to put all the onus on these contractors themselves is in many ways to miss the point. Blackwater is merely an extreme version of the way our system operates. And while there has been some exceptional journalism looking into their operations of late, this central point is being missed. We have a defense sector in the United States that is out of control. And it's been that way nearly from the start.

Until Franklin Roosevelt began preparing the country to enter into World War II, the United States did not have a significant defense sector. In early 1941, the government had already issued $10 billion in private defense contracts, before America even entered the war. On a muddy plot of land outside Washington, the Pentagon was being constructed and would stand as the largest office building in the world. As the stream of dollars flowing to defense contracts swelled into a torrent, an obscure senator from Missouri named Harry S. Truman began hearing complaints from his constituents about rampant profiteering in the construction of Fort Leonard Wood in his home state of Missouri.

Truman embarked on a 10,000 mile car trip to investigate the building of Fort Leonard Wood and several other army camps across the country. He returned to Washington astonished. "It was the same everywhere, he found," writes Truman biographer David McCullough. "Millions of dollars were being squandered. Had there been such mismanagement of federal help for the poor and unemployed a few years earlier, he thought, the outcry would have been overwhelming. As it was, no one seemed to care or to be saying anything."

On Monday, February 10, 1941, Truman took the Senate floor and forever entered the spotlight of history by proposing the establishment of a Senate committee to investigate how defense contracts were awarded. The Truman Commission, formally titled the Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program, was formed a month later. Over the course of its investigations -- which resulted in 50 reports, 400 hearings, and 1,798 witnesses -- the Truman Committee would be credited with saving taxpayers billions of dollars.

The committee began by investigating the construction of Army camps. It found that the contracts awarded to developers provided a legal incentive for graft -- they were "cost-plus" contracts, meaning the contractor was reimbursed for the costs of construction, plus a percentage of the profits--an obvious incentive to drive up the profits of the project. The Truman Commission found one architect who increased his income by 1000 percent through a defense contract, and one army camp in Texas rose from a cost projection of $480,000 to $2.54 million.

The Truman Commission saved taxpayers $250 million in Army camp building costs alone and then moved on to investigating even bigger defense contracts -- those awarded to companies providing crucial materials for the war machine, like fuel for the ships and steel for the planes. A substantial number of these companies were found to be ripping off the taxpayers and unintentionally -- although in some cases intentionally -- helping the enemy.

The American aluminum firm Alcoa was found to be holding back on the production of magnesium, a key component of aluminum, in order to protect its American aluminum market. The company had also agreed to sell what magnesium it did have to a German company at a discounted price. This led to Germany having more magnesium than America, McCullough writes, and a strategic advantage in their aluminum production.

The Truman Commission also discovered that the Curtiss-Wright company sold faulty airplane engines to combat forces. And when the U.S. warship Schenectady literally broke in half in Portland, Oregon, the Commission discovered widespread--and intentional--selling of defective steel by American companies to the U.S. Navy. When the swindling companies squealed at Truman's investigations, he only promised to "give them hell" to the thrills of his cheering constituents.

The commission didn't attribute any direct "unpatriotic" motives to the war profiteers, writes McCullough, but rather wrote in its reports that it was "big business playing the game according to the rules," with a heavy price "to be borne by the entire nation."

Truman drew significant public attention to the rampant profiteering and convinced President Roosevelt to disband the Office of Production Management and establish an all-new War Production Board. In doing so, Truman saved the country billions of dollars and became famous in the process, earning the cover of Time magazine in 1943 as "Investigator Truman."

His career only improved from there, of course, as he earned a vice presidential nod from Roosevelt and the Oval Office upon FDR's death. (Interestingly, Truman first learned about the Manhattan Project during his time heading the Truman Commission, as he began receiving bits of information about a large project with vast, unexplained expenditures). Overall, the Truman Commission is largely hailed as the most successful congressional investigation effort of all time.

Certainly it would stand to reason that, all these years after the triumph of the Truman Commission, we should have an even better system for monitoring graft in such a vital area of national security profiteering. Instead we have merely institutionalized the profiteering process. Now we are all bearing the cost, though none so much as the soldiers who must depend on contractors.

The New York Times reported Wednesday that the amount of money the State Department pays to private security contractors has skyrocketed to $4 billion, from just $1 billion four years ago. Unfortunately, the budget for oversight of the contracts has remained virtually unchanged, and few officials have been added to oversee the contracts. This leads to unsurprising reports like this one, from Reuters this week: "The State Department does not know specifically what it received for a billion-dollar contract with security firm DynCorp International to provide training services for Iraqi police, a U.S. watchdog agency said on Tuesday."

The added dimension to our 21st century crisis in military privatization is that the impunity legally given to companies like Blackwater also extends to possibly criminal acts of violence. The most well-known incident involving Blackwater was one that roiled Iraq -- the shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians on Sept. 16 in Baghdad, which American soldiers at the scene called "criminal event." There are many other cases of inexcusable violence, too, like the intoxicated Blackwater contractor who killed a bodyguard for Iraq's vice president last December.

None of these violations appears to be prosecutable by law. Blackwater likes to claim it's part of the U.S. Armed Forces when it's being sued in America, but in order to give itself immunity, the company alternately defines itself as an "independent contractor" when it comes to being subjected to the military's court martial system, thus rendering it immune from any prosecution. This slippery move is thanks to L. Paul Bremmer, who signed the order allowing it on his final day in Baghdad.

When asked about the Blackwater employee who killed the Iraqi vice president's bodyguard, Blackwater CEO Erik Prince said the company could fire or fine the employee, but not detain him. Asked if Blackwater helped the employee escape the country following the killing, Prince said "It could easily be."

How has the situation metastasized so incredibly, from the days when Truman and company sought to clamp down on fraud in the burgeoning military-industrial complex, to today, when the number of private security contractors in Iraq outnumbers U.S. troops, and as the CEOs of these companies bank billions of taxpayer dollars while some employees kill at will?

One obvious explanation is that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the initiator of ongoing congressional investigations, faces something Truman never did--an executive branch that aggressively opposes any intrusion whatsoever into how it awards these contracts. In response to increasing pressure to rein in Blackwater, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice responded this week only with a plan for sensitivity training for Blackwater employees. (Spencer Ackerman offers an improved lesson plan, starting with "Don't drunkenly murder bodyguards of Iraqi dignitaries.")

Nevertheless, the American people should still be outraged over the profiteering of companies like Blackwater. They are accountable to neither the taxpayers who fund them, nor the soldiers they serve with. "The man from Missouri," said former Sen. Claude Pepper (D-FL), "dared to say 'show me' to the powerful military-industrial complex and he had caught many people in the act." Once again, the profiteers have been caught in the act -- this time only to be given sensitivity training.

True the Bush administration's characteristic mix of incompetence, extremism, and corruption has worsened these abuses, but the problem is the system itself. Before anything gets fixed, reporters will have to find a way to communicate clearly how it works -- or more accurately, does not. Only then can congressmen like Waxman give them the "hell" -- to borrow a phrase from his predecessor, Truman -- they have so richly earned.


**
Eric Alterman is a Senior Fellow of the Center for American Progress and a Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College, and a professor of journalism at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. His blog, "Altercation," appears at www.mediamatters.org/altercation. His seventh book, Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America, will appear early next year.

George Zornick is a New York-based writer.

Originally posted here.

[The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
2:36:08 PM    comment []

Hagel: New Unilateral Iran Sanctions [OE]Escalate The Danger Of A Military Confrontation[base '].

chuckha.jpg Today, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson accused the Quds division of Iran[base ']s Revolutionary Guard Corps of proliferating weapons of mass destruction and sponsoring terrorism. They announecd new unilateral sanctions, the [base "]broadest set of punitive measures imposed on Tehran since 1979.[per thou]

In his weekly news conference today, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sharply criticized the administration[base ']s move, warning that it brings the United States one step closer to war:

[base "]Unilateral sanctions rarely, ever work,[per thou] Hagel said by phone during his weekly news conference. [base "]I just don[base ']t think the unilateral approach and giving war speeches helps the situation. It will just drive the Iranians closer together.[per thou] [[sigma]]

[base "]It escalates the danger of a military confrontation,[per thou] Hagel said.

[base "]I certainly think engagement is critical [sigma] direct engagement,[per thou] said Hagel. [base "]That[base ']s what great powers do.[per thou]

In the press conference today, Rice insisted that the United States continues to pursue the [base "]path of cooperation[per thou] with Iran. But the administration[base ']s announcement comes just a day after CQ reported on the administration[base ']s $88-million request to equip B-2 [base "]stealth[per thou] bombers with a new 30,000-pound bunker buster [~] a weapon [base "]meant for the kind of hardened targets found chiefly in Iran.[per thou]

On Sunday, Vice President Cheney issued [base "]his sternest warning to date on Iran,[per thou] promising that there will be [base "]serious consequences[per thou] if Iran continues [base "]on its present course.[per thou] President Bush also last week publicly warned for the first time of the risk of [base "]World War III[per thou] if Iran gets nuclear weapons.

[Think Progress]
2:27:42 PM    comment []

JUST A NOTE TO APOLOGIZE WHEN I GET ODD CHARACTERS ON SOME OF THESE POSTS.  I TRY TO CORRECT THEM - THEY TEND TO HAPPEN MOSTLY WITH PUNCTUATION.  BUT SOMETIMES I DON'T REALIZE THAT THE POST HAS CHANGED AND THE CHARACTERS ARE NOW CODED.

TRY TO READ PAST IT WHEN IT OCCURS.  THANKS.  pt


10:54:03 AM    comment []

I KNOW I'VE POSTED A COUPLE OTHER OF THESE ARTICLES, BUT THIS REALLY IS AMAZING.

PLEASE CLICK THE LINK THAT TAKES YOU TO THE REDACTED AND UNREDACTED VERSIONS OF DR. GERBERDING'S SPEECH. 

OFTEN WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION ONE WONDERS WHAT THE SPIN ON ANY GIVEN ISSUE WILL BE ..... THIS TIME IT ISN'T REALLY ROVIAN, IT'S MORE MONTY PYTHONIAN!!! pt



Perino: 'There Are Public Health Benefits To Climate Change' For People Who Die From 'Cold'.

In her press briefing yesterday, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino responded to reports that the White House"eviscerated"Center for Disease Control director Dr. Julie Gerberding[base ']s Senate testimony on the "Human Impacts of Global Warming." She claimed that "the decision" was"to focus that testimony on public health benefits" of climate change." "There are public health benefits to climate change," asserted Perino.

Asked to explain what some of those benefits are, Perino said that climate change "would help those individuals" who die from cold-related deaths every winter":

Q: And one more. You mentioned that there are health benefits to climate change. Could you describe some of those?

MS. PERINO: Sure. In some cases, there are [~] look, this is an issue where I[base ']m sure lots of people would love to ridicule me when I say this, but it is true that many people die from cold-related deaths every winter. And there are studies that say that climate change in certain areas of the world would help those individuals. There are also concerns that it would increase tropical diseases and that[base ']s [~] again, I[base ']m not an expert in that, I[base ']m going to let Julie Gerberding testify in regards to that, but there are many studies about this that you can look into.

Watch it:

Screenshot

While the National Research Council (NRC) has found that "cold-related stress is likely to decline" with climate change, it comes at the cost of "heat stress," which "is projected to increase." According to the NRC, "those with heart problems, asthma, the elderly, the very young and the homeless can be especially vulnerable to extreme heat."

On the whole, the negative "health impacts of climate change are potentially huge":

First, these hazards are diverse, global and probably irreversible over human time scales. They range from increased risks of extreme weather, such as fatal heat waves, floods and storms, to less dramatic but potentially more serious effects on infectious disease dynamics, shifts to long-term drought conditions in many regions, melting of glaciers that supply freshwater to large population centres, and sea level increases leading to salination of sources of agriculture and drinking water. Second, the health impacts of climate change are potentially huge. Many of the most important global killers are highly sensitive to climatic conditions. Malaria, diarrhoea and protein-energy malnutrition together cause more than 3 million deaths each year.

In the unredacted version of Dr. Gerberding[base ']s testimony provided by Science Progress, the only mention of "public health benefits" related to climate change are a result of "activities needed to protect Americans from the health effects of climate change."

[Think Progress]
10:51:46 AM    comment []

The Gift That Keeps On Giving: Dana Perino Reveals The Awesome Benefits Of Global Warming.

2007-10-25-Perino.jpgWhile White House Press Secretary Dana Perino may lack the showstopping musical theatre skills of her doppelganger, Kristin Chenoweth, she nevertheless provides us with almost daily entertainment. She's also recently remarked that parody and criticism of her efforts don't bother her in the least. When asked if ribbing of the sort she's been receiving from Doonesbury this week "gets under her skin," she brushed it off: "I hardly have time to check it out." Bully for her! She won't mind, then, if we put her under the microscope. Please join us on these pages for "The Gift That Keeps on Giving," and if something at the gaggle makes you gag, feel free to share your thoughts.



While the California wildfires and the upcoming Iraq supplemental bill dominated the early part of yesterday's presser, the conversation eventually turned to the testimony of CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding, whose testimony on the public health impact of climate change was alleged to have been "heavily edited" by the Washington Post (well, the Post says "heavily edited," anyway--their source says "eviscerated").



When directly questioned on the deletions (which included Gerberding's blanket conclusion, "CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern"), Perino launched into a four paragraph dodge in which she claimed to not have seen the edits, touted the administrations "open book" policy on climate change, and orated a lengthy filibuster in praise of the CDC. Near the end of these remarks, however, Perino took a flying leap into the eternal sunshine, saying: "And so the decision on behalf of CDC was to focus that testimony on public health benefits -- there are public health benefits to climate change, as well, but both benefits and concerns that somebody like a Dr. Gerberding, who is the expert in the field, could address."



Public health benefits? Yea, verily, this was a theme Perino tried to advance, in spite of the fact that she was simultaneously attempting to tout the President's concern over the issue:



Anybody who wants to look at what the President thinks about climate change looks -- needs to only look back three weeks ago to when he gave a major address on climate change when he invited all 15 of the major economies of this world to come together to work on a solution -- work on a path to get to a solution to help the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.


Still, you have to be intrigued at the prospect of possible health benefits from global warming. As Steve Benen of the Carpetbagger Report blueskies, "Less hypothermia? Fewer instances of frostbite? A steep decline in the number of snowball-fight-related injuries?"



Lest you think that Perino had blinded the White House Press Corps with pseudo-science, someone did eventually question her assertion. Perino's response:



...this is an issue where I'm sure lots of people would love to ridicule me when I say this, but it is true that many people die from cold-related deaths every winter. And there are studies that say that climate change in certain areas of the world would help those individuals. There are also concerns that it would increase tropical diseases and that's -- again, I'm not an expert in that, I'm going to let Julie Gerberding testify in regards to that...


Uhm...but they didn't let Gerberding testify to that, did they?

[The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
10:40:58 AM    comment []

Andrew Greeley | Those Who Love America Feeling Brokenhearted. Andrew Greeley, in an op-ed for The Chicago Sun-Times, writes: "I am ashamed for America. Note carefully that I do not say I am ashamed of America. Despite all its inherent flaws and all its tragic mistakes, the United States stands, however incompletely and with whatever imperfections, for the highest standards of freedom and democracy that the world has yet known. I am ashamed for America because all the evil done in the nation's name in recent years is turning off the light on the mountaintop." [t r u t h o u t]
10:36:56 AM    comment []

TP: one of America[base ']s [OE]most dangerous organizations.[base '].

The conservative front group Family Security Matters (FSM) today released its list of [base "]The Ten Most Dangerous Organizations in America.[per thou] ThinkProgress earned the 10th spot in the rankings. FSM writes that these 10 [base "]hate[per thou] organizations are [base "]growing powerful in the world of politics[per thou] and share a common [base "]unwillingness to bend in their strictly biased view of the world.[per thou] FSM[base ']s board of advisers includes Frank Gaffney, Barbara Comstock, and Laura Ingraham. Here are 10 most dangerous organizations:

10) ThinkProgress
9) Muslim Student Association
8) CodePINK
7) American Civil Liberties Union, National
6) Family Research Council
5) Center for American Progress
4) League of the South
3) MoveOn.org
2) Universities and Colleges
1) Media Matters for America

Watch your back, Universities and Colleges. We[base ']re coming after you.

Digg It!

[Think Progress]
10:33:04 AM    comment []

Rudy Jokes About Torture: âo[breve]On That Theory, Iâo[dot accent]m Getting Tortured Running For Presidentâo[dot accent].

rudy.jpgAsked last night in Iowa about Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey[base ']s refusal to call waterboarding torture, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) said [base "]it depends on the circumstances[per thou] and [base "]on who does it[per thou] because [base "]liberal newspapers have exaggerated it.[per thou]

Giuliani then called liberals [base "]silly[per thou] for describing [base "]sleep deprivation[per thou] as torture, joking that [base "]on that theory, I[base ']m getting tortured running for president of the United States[per thou]:

And I see, when the Democrats are talking about torture, they[base ']re not just talking about even this definition of waterboarding, which again, if you look at the liberal media and you look at the way they describe it, you could say it was torture and you shouldn[base ']t do it. But they talk about sleep deprivation. I mean, on that theory, I[base ']m getting tortured running for president of the United States. That[base ']s plain silly. That[base ']s silly.

Giuliani should familiarize himself with the US Army Field Manual on Interrogation, which describes [base "]abnormal sleep deprivation[per thou] as a form of mental torture. Both the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of Israel have ruled sleep deprivation to be inhumane and unlawful.

Even John Yoo, the prime author of the administrations infamous torture memo, has conceded that sustained sleep deprivation can [base "]amount to a violation of the Geneva Convention.[per thou]

Giuliani[base ']s dismissive joke echoes a similarly tasteless joke made by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in 2002. In the margins of an [base "]action memo[per thou] declaring [base "]stress positions,[per thou] such as standing for up to 4 hours, to be acceptable interrogation techniques, Rumsfeld scrawled [base "]I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to four hours?[per thou]

[Think Progress]
10:32:00 AM    comment []

Senator To Fight For Redacted Testimony On Health Risks Of Climate Change

Bush administration officials acknowledged yesterday that they heavily edited testimony on global warming, delivered to Congress on Tuesday by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, after the president's top science adviser and other officials questioned its scientific basis.

Senate Democrats say they want to investigate the circumstances involved in the editing of CDC Director Julie L. Gerberding's written testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on "climate change and public health." Gerberding testimony shrank from 12 pages to six after it was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

- The Huffington Post News Editors [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
10:21:49 AM    comment []

Shocker: Double Standards Apply To Female Newscasters

Anchor. The word evokes the heft and weightiness needed to secure a vessel. In television news, an anchorperson must ''hook'' the audience, and make them pay attention -- ideally stopping all other activity to focus on the messenger of the news. In America, there's a strong tradition of male news anchors -- Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather -- perched at their ''electronic hearths,'' detailing America's history. Jonathan Last of the Philadelphia Inquirer noted: ''Anchors are the journalistic rocks; the news washes over them and then recedes.''

Today, women are visible in every area of television news -- even in the hallowed evening news anchor chair. But, their presence in broadcasting has been hard-fought and continues to present unique challenges. From Barbara Walters' varied career that spans more than half a century, to Katie Couric's historic appointment as the sole anchor of the CBS Evening News, viewers have come to rely on these professionals to relay historic events. When war breaks out, we expect flak-jacketed, cerebral and world traveling CNN broadcaster Christiane Amanpour to update us. Diane Sawyer and Lesley Stahl have worked on television for years, cultivating their reputations as savvy newswomen. In fact, some of the top newswomen are as famous as the guests they interview, and they have worked decades to get where they are. Allentonian Richard Albert remembers vividly his classmate at the University of Pennsylvania, Andrea Mitchell, who he said in the mid 1960s ''was very passionate about radio'' and worked 24/7 at the university's radio station, WXPN. It was, he notes, ''very unusual for a woman at the time.''

- The Huffington Post News Editors [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
10:20:33 AM    comment []

Mystery Grows: Why Is Bush Admin Suppressing Air Safety Survey?

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which has a mandate to enhance the safety of air travel, has been suppressing huge quantities of data that apparently show the risks for civilian aircraft are much higher than commonly estimated. The agency's lame excuses for refusing to release the information must make any traveler wonder how bad the implications might be.

Several years ago, NASA began interviewing airline and general aviation pilots about how often they saw risky incidents, like near collisions, or stressful last- second changes in landing instructions. Some 24,000 interviews were conducted over a four-year period before the program, and plans to interview air traffic controllers, flight attendants and mechanics, were scrapped.

- The Huffington Post News Editors [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
10:16:39 AM    comment []

As Wildfires Rage, White House Talks Up 'Public Health Benefits' Of Global Warming

Following up on an earlier item, Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testified before a Senate panel yesterday on the impact of climate change on public health, but the White House altered her testimony before it was delivered. References to potential health risks were removed; one CDC official said Gerberding's draft "was eviscerated"; and details on how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming were deleted.

This afternoon, reporters asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino to explain what happened.

Q: On the CDC testimony, you said this morning on Dr. G's testimony was not "watered down." Can you tell us why it was altered to leave out any discussion of serious health effects related to global warming, and to leave out her original comment, that "CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern"?

PERINO: I haven't seen the specific edits.... As I understand it, in the draft there was broad characterizations about climate-change science that didn't align with the IPCC. And we have experts and scientists across this administration that can take a look at that testimony and say, "This is an error," or, "This doesn't make sense." And so the decision was made on behalf of CDC to focus that testimony on public health benefits.

Well, there are public health benefits to climate change, as well, both benefits and concerns, that someone line Dr. Gerberding, who is the expert in the field, could address. And so that's the testimony she provided yesterday....

"Public health benefits." Seriously. The White House touched up the director of the CDC's Senate testimony, coincidentally taking out the information the Bush gang finds politically inconvenient, and the president's press secretary is left talking about the silver lining of global warming.

- The Huffington Post News Editors [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
10:15:28 AM    comment []

Dan Brown: Rescuing the Child Health Insurance Bill (and Our National Humanity)

After falling 13 House votes short last week to override President Bush's veto of expanding the State Child Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP), bipartisan champions of the bill are offering a new version to the floor.

The bill will still cost $35 billion and cover 10 million Americans (mostly kids) in households making more money than the rock-bottom limit to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance.

However, the new version addresses Bush's main reasons for why he vetoed the bill:

- Federal money won't cover illegal immigrants;
- No childless adults will have access to the program;
-Children of families with incomes exceeding three times the poverty level will be ineligible: $61,950 will be the ceiling household income for a family of four.

The New York Times reports, "Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, said the income limits in the new bill 'completely obliterate' Mr. Bush's argument that Congress wanted to provide coverage to families making $83,000 a year, which is about four times the poverty level for a family of four."

This has been an ugly month in America for loving our neighbors. First came the initial veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act on the grounds that it might cover some struggling lower-middle class Americans, and not just the desperately poor.

For a mean-spirited encore, Bush quietly announced last Friday evening he intends to cut back funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), a move which will literally cut the heat to 30 million officially desperately poor Americans this winter.

Then the Dream Act, a bill which would help the children of illegal immigrants achieve citizenship by graduating high school or joining the American military, failed a Senate test vote.

It's an ugly season in Washington when the keepers of power are actively working to deny heat and medical care to those in need, and to refuse citizenship to achievers brought unwittingly to the U.S. as small children and, in many cases, willing to fight and die for America.

We are in dark and dangerous territory as a country, and the new chance to pass the child health insurance bill could provide a badly needed glimmer of light.

- Dan Brown [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
8:46:06 AM    comment []

Byron Williams: Change? We don't Need no Stinkin Change!

Elections, as a rule, are usually referendums on the previous term. If the people are content with how things are going, that will either reelect the incumbent or someone who fits closest to the current trend.

If poll numbers are any indicator, 2008 should, by all accounts, be a change election. A Gallup poll taken earlier this month indicates that only 25 percent are satisfied with the way things are going in the country, while a whopping 73 percent are dissatisfied.

The 73 percent that are dissatisfied comes hardly as a surprise. As a father on a pre-teen who has witnessed my once vaunted approval dwindle to almost single digits, I'm probably one of the few envious of the president's poll numbers that hover in the low 30's to high 20's percentile range.

The Democrats take delight on the campaign trail and in their debate forums taking shots at the president. Watching Republicans, however, the name George W. Bush seldom is heard.

Why then, does it feel that at the least the leading candidates for president are running stay-the-course campaigns?

In the classic sense, this is not a change election. There is no incumbent running for reelection as was the case in 1980 (Carter v. Reagan) or 1992 (Bush v. Clinton). But the country wants something different, or so they say.

Every election offers some form of change. In 1980, Reagan the candidate was asking: "are better off today than you were four years ago?" But by 1984, President Reagan was running on "Morning in America."

Since 9/11 we have changed as a nation; we've morphed into the behemoth that is guided by fear. Fear makes it understandable that such a large percentage of the American people are dissatisfied with the current direction of the country, but not clamoring for structural change.

Though a single vote has yet to be cast, the commanding lead by Senator Hilary Clinton indicates that rank and file Democrats are opting for the safest of choices. I suspect that part of Sen. Clinton's commanding lead is due in part that Bill Clinton is the first Democrat since FDR who could have won a third term. Thus, the current Clinton campaign becomes the closest thing to circumventing the 22nd Amendment for nostalgic Democrats.

Speaking of Sen. Clinton, she along with 74 of her colleagues voted in favor of a measure, which asked the Bush administration to declare Iran's 125,000-member Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization.

According to Clinton she supported the amendment to a defense policy bill to clear the way for sanctions against Iran and to push the country toward negotiations. More than sounding reminiscent of her justification for her vote authorizing the president to use force against Iraq, it potentially bolsters an administration that needs little as it continues its saber rattling at Iran.

Is this not more of the same? Is change what we really want or is it something, we the voter, like to periodically quip?

I am aware of one presidential candidate--Sen. Chris Dodd--who is running to restore the Constitution. I don't expect wholesale change, but where are the congressional hearings something akin to the Fulbright Hearings during Vietnam? If no one is making the case for change status quo is the obvious default.

Assuming the campaigns of the presidential candidates are an accurate barometer, pantomiming change is about as far most are willing to go. Moreover, it may be as much as we are willing to accept. Change is not only difficult it would demand something of the electorate as well as the elected official.

The Republicans are a party devoid of ideas or vision whose best hope for victory lies in the Democrat's inability to make the case for change. I see the Democrats not as a party that is priming for change in 2008, but one that merely wants to sit in the big chair in a house constructed by neo-con architects.

Back in 1988, President Reagan speaking at the Republican Convention stated: "We are the change!" Little has happened since to prove Reagan wrong. And little is happening now to render his words obsolete.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. E-mail byron@byronspeaks.com or leave a message at 510-208-6417


- Byron Williams [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
8:43:09 AM    comment []

Naomi Klein: My Unrequited Love for the Business Press

On a recent visit to Calgary, Alberta, I was taken aback to see my book on disaster capitalism selling briskly at the airport. Calgary is ground zero of North America's oil and gas boom, where business suits and cowboy hats are the de facto uniform. I had a sudden sinking feeling: did Calgary's business class think The Shock Doctrine was a how-to guide -- a manual for making millions from catastrophe? Were they hoping for tips on landing no-bid contracts if the U.S. bombs Iran?

When I get worried about inadvertently fueling the disaster complex, I take comfort in the response the book has elicited from the world's leading business journalists. That's where I learn that the very notion of disaster capitalism is my delusion -- or, as Otto Reich, former adviser to President George Bush, told BBC Business Daily, it is the work "of a very confused person."

Many publications have seen fit to assign business journalists to review the book. And why not? They are the experts. Unabashed fans of the late free-market evangeliser Milton Friedman, these are our primary purveyors of the idea that ballooning corporate profits are on the verge of trickling down to the citizens of the world in the form of freedom and democracy. So in the Times, for instance, the book was reviewed by Robert Cole, who writes the paper's personal investor column and is author of the volume Getting Started in Unit and Investment Trusts (Chapter 7 -- Taxing Questions: Pepping up Your Prospects). Cole was none too pepped by The Shock Doctrine, which disappointed him as "too easy to dismiss as a leftist rant." In The New York Times, the task of explaining why "it's all a grand capitalist conspiracy" fell to Tom Redburn, author of its Economic View column. "That's a lot to lay on poor Milton," Redburn sniffed.

No one took it quite as hard as Terence Corcoran, the business editor of Canada's National Post. Disaster capitalism is apparently my "fevered creation." And how could I have said those things about Friedman, a man Corcoran has described as "the last great lion of free market economics"? In the Financial Times, the unbiased dissection was carried out by John Willman, the paper's UK business editor (who, on the side, advocates shifting healthcare costs to families in Britain and tuition increases in Scotland). Willman declared the book "a polemic" and warned "impressionable readers" not to be fooled by my 60 pages of endnotes. While Cole claims I rely on "partisan contributions from the cuttings library," Willman accuses me of a far greater crime: relying on cuttings from the FT. "She quotes the Financial Times when it suits her, for example, but not when it would be inconvenient."

It's true. I do, in fact, quote the FT when it suits me. In The Shock Doctrine, I cite the paper 26 times. And this is what hurts most about the attacks from the world's business editors: even as they find new ways to dismiss me, I remain a devoted reader of their pages. Sure, financial editors have to do PR for capitalism. Their reporters, however, have a crucial market role. Investors require reliable information, and it's their job to supply it. Without this honest reporting, I would never have understood how economic shock therapy programmes relied on external disasters -- the very disaster capitalism I now learn, from these same pages, does not exist.

It was from the FT that I learned of the so-called Davos Dilemma. Columnist Martin Wolf describes it as "the contrast between the world's favourable economics and troublesome politics." He explains that, in recent years, the economy has faced "a series of shocks" -- from the dotcom crash to September 11 to chaos in the Middle East. And yet the market is in "a golden period of broadly shared growth."

A great deal of light is shed on the Davos Dilemma by the FT. For instance, it reported that Lockheed Martin -- the biggest single winner from the economy of disaster -- has begun "buying companies in the $1,000bn-a-year healthcare market". It's just one glimpse into the exploding economy of privatised disaster, with Lockheed poised to profit not only from making weapons but also from treating the people injured by them -- a new era of morbid vertical integration.

The FT has long explored how politicians harness disasters to push through unwanted economic policies. In 1998, for instance, the FT published an article by Jeffrey Sachs outlining how the IMF took South Korea's democracy hostage, withholding a desperately needed loan until all presidential candidates committed in writing to a harsh austerity plan. Some months later, Hurricane Mitch swept Central America. I learned from the FT that, with countries still knee-deep in rubble, foreign lenders were demanding privatisations.

In the first months after the U.S. "shock and awe" attack on Iraq, the FT reported on U.S. envoy Paul Bremer's shock therapy programme. The paper stated his decrees "make Iraq one of the most open economies in the developing world and go beyond even legislation in many rich countries." It's a concise summary that I often draw upon.

But now, after all these years of fruitful (if one-way) collaboration, the FT calls my thesis "ultimately dishonest." Stinging as this may be, I stand behind the honesty of the FT's reporting, which has been so very helpful in the evolution of my world view.

I wish disaster capitalism were a product of my fevered imagination. I have recently, however, come across more evidence to support its existence. It comes from Paul B Farrell, author of publishing sensations such as The Millionaire Code and The Lazy Person's Guide to Investing. "Hot tip: Invest in 'disaster capitalism'," begins his review in Dow Jones Business News. Farrell acknowledges that an economy built on disaster "is a hot-button political issue. But for the moment, let's put aside partisan politics ... Let's look at this strictly as investors and briefly consider what may also be a guide for aggressive investors." Many unmentionable stock tips follow.

It is just as I had feared -- The Shock Doctrine as a how-to-guide. At the end, however, Farrell shows some misgivings. "Is 'Disaster Capitalism' merely a hot short-term investment opportunity for you? Or is it a national 'crisis,' a warning bell, a 'shocking' call to ... rein in the 'military-industrial complex' mindset that's pushing America into a disastrous, self-destructive future?"

Moral confusion in the business pages? Where am I supposed to get my news now?

- Naomi Klein [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
8:42:10 AM    comment []

See also:     
AOL/Microsoft-Hotmail Preventing Delivery of Truthout Communications    

    Go to Original

    Revealed: the Little-Known Device Used to Block Democrats in the House
    By Elana Schor
    The Guardian Unlimited

    Wednesday 24 October 2007

Republicans use obscure motion 16 times in a year, compared to just 14 for the Democrats in more than a decade of opposition.

    All year long, Democrats in the House of Representatives have watched with increasing impatience as their Senate counterparts find themselves bedevilled by a filibuster-wielding Republican minority. On measures criticising the war in Iraq, the House has passed four since May to the Senate's zero; on annual spending bills, the House has cleared all 12 to the Senate's six.

    That Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and his Senate Republican colleagues routinely have blocked the Democrats from getting the needed 60 votes on many measures has received considerable press attention, even inspiring a splashy "anti-obstruction" media campaign.

    What's far less well known, though, is that the party has almost as nasty a bugaboo in the House. Republicans there have found stunning success with a procedural tool called the motion to recommit, and they have repeatedly used it to divide the Democratic caucus and block key initiatives.

    Sometimes called the MTR, its full name is the motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Ironically offered as a minority-party right by Newt Gingrich in the heyday of the Contract With America, its aim is to allow the often-powerless House minority a chance to shape legislation as it moves toward a vote. Even if Democrats allow no debate on amendments to a bill, the MTR guarantees Republicans a vote - usually minutes before final passage - either on new additions they have written or on forcing the measure back to square one.

    Republicans have mastered the game of crafting MTRs they know will force Democrats to defect to their side or risk political consequences, especially among the 60 or so Democrats who represent "red" districts. Some Republicans motions are phrased to ensure a delay of the bill at hand if they pass, compelling Democrats to pull measures from the floor rather than lose precious ground.

    When Democrats were in the House minority, they succeeded only rarely in blocking Republican initiatives with the gambit. The MTR helped push through the television filter known as the "v-chip" in 1995 and nearly closed campaign-finance loopholes aimed at free-spending political groups four years before the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth targeted John Kerry. Only 14 of the motions, or 7.6 percent of the minority's efforts, prevailed between 1995 and 2006.

    This year, 16 of the House Republican motions have passed, several with significant support from across the aisle, blocking initiatives large and small. Remember the effort to bring voting rights in the House to the District of Columbia, which stalled before falling short over the summer? It was derailed first by a successful MTR that called for overturning the US capital's gun ban, which many red-state Democrats supported. Another gave legal immunity to anyone reporting suspected terrorist activity on public transportation, which some Democrats decried as a call to racial profiling.

    But the biggest MTR intrusion of the year came last week, when the Republicans stalled a bill to provide greater judicial oversight of secret wiretapping by the Bush administration with a proposed MTR that even critics begrudgingly called clever. The motion provided that no court order would be needed to tap the phones of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida members - a caveat that frustrated Democrats noted was already in their measure.

    "All members and all Americans believe in this goal," one Democratic memo stated, "so the authors cynically wrote this redundant motion in such a way that if it passed it would KILL this important national security bill."

    The MTR now threatens to become as aggravating to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, as the filibuster has for Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader. House Democrats have vowed to bring back the wiretapping bill soon, but there are few solutions in sight for how to defeat the Republican MTR should it rear its head.

    "We need some discipline on motions to recommit," said Massachusetts Democratic congressman Jim McGovern, a veteran of the rules committee that sets procedures for House debate. "That's going to come."

    Indeed, Republicans stopped the majority of Democratic MTRs under Mr Gingrich and former speaker Dennis Hastert by treating the votes as purely political. Even if the minority's alternative plan had merit, Republican leaders urged solidarity, and the motion's defeat, as a matter of party loyalty.

    Despite a 93% record of sticking together on House votes this year compared to 84% for Republicans, Democrats have found party loyalty elusive on several MTRs. The clash between a Democratic bill and its forced amendment can be stark: to legislation cracking down on the "no-bid" contracts that have driven charges of Bush administration cronyism, Republicans added language requiring colleges to welcome military recruiters onto campus.

    Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein, who recently wrote a book on the health of the legislature titled The Broken Branch, predicted that Democrats might have to consider changing the rules for the pesky motions.

    "Democrats are not anticipating as well as perhaps they might some things that can come to the floor and heading them off with language that might be in the bill ... to cut the pins out from under the motions to recommit," Mr Ornstein said.

    Such an attempt risks unsavoury coverage that contrasts a mid-year rules change with vows from Ms Pelosi and others to run an open and transparent House. When some Democrats suggested in March altering the guidelines for relevance ("germaneness," in Congress-speak) of the MTRs, Republicans threatened to walk out of the chamber and halt business altogether.

    John Boehner, an Ohio Republican and the House minority leader, crowed at those reports of a planned rules change.

    "Perhaps before they game the system by changing the rules to their liking, the Democrat leadership should ask its own members why they are voting in droves for our proposals," Mr Boehner said, dropping the "-ic" suffix from his rivals' party in a common Washington putdown.

    Faced with the choice between limiting Republican attempts to split their caucus and prodding those members to resist the MTRs, Democrats are likely to choose the latter, at least for the time being. The Republicans' 30-second campaign ad on the wiretapping motion may write itself - featuring ominous Bin Laden visuals and a voiceover murmuring, "Democratic congressman X voted to stop the government from listening to terrorists' phone calls" - but the party's nearly 10-to-1 fundraising advantage over Republicans helps take the sting out of that threat.

    Besides, as Mr McGovern pointed out, "If I order the wrong thing for lunch, these guys will run a 30-second ad against me."

    The stakes are particularly high for the House wire-tapping vote. Democrats believe they have the votes to pass their bill, which largely threads the needle in satisfying the liberals and conservatives among them. But a difficult battle remains with their filibuster-plagued Senate counterparts.

    The Senate intelligence committee has offered legal immunity to the telecommunications companies that allowed the Bush administration to eavesdrop without a court order. That group of senators is the only congressional panel to win access to documents on the purported legal framework for the wiretapping, and Democrats in the House have refused to discuss immunity until their members can examine the documents.

    "We can't provide immunity when we don't know what we're providing immunity for," said Stacey Farnen Bernards, a spokeswoman for House majority leader and Maryland Democrat Steny Hoyer.

    The Senate judiciary committee soon will take up the intelligence committee's measure, and its members remain in the dark with the House, denied access to the Bush administration documents. Even if the Senate begins debating a bill without a shield for the telecoms, however, Republicans there are almost certain to insist on 60 votes to end a filibuster.

    Thus Democrats' ability to beat back an MTR and pass the House bill becomes crucial to establishing the party's position, as George Bush continues to insist on his way or a veto.

 


8:39:38 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2007 Patricia Thurston.
 
October 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Sep   Nov
Home
Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website.

Subscribe to "Patricia Thurston's Radio Weblog" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.