|
 |
Tuesday, April 1, 2008 |
Stiglitz: Paulson Is ‘Wrong,’ Current Economic Crisis ‘Is A Failure Of Regulation’. This week, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson proposed a shake-up of financial regulations, a plan that had its “genesis in a yearlong effort to limit Washington[base ']Äôs role in the market.” The administration’s proposed new oversight, however, “would have a light touch, enabling the government to do little beyond collecting information [base ']Äî except in times of crisis,” the New York Times observed.
On Monday, Paulson stuck up for this hands-off regulatory approach:
I do not believe it is fair or accurate to blame our regulatory structure for the current turmoil. [base ']Ķ I am not suggesting that more regulation is the answer.
In contrast, yesterday on CNN, Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz sharply disagreed with Paulson, stating that the regulatory failures were indeed to blame for our current situation: “He [Paulson] is wrong, it is a failure of regulation.” Noting the recent Bear Stearns bailout, Stiglitz made an analogy concerning the need for more effective regulation:
[T]hat[base ']Äôs why you have regulations. You just don[base ']Äôt build better hospitals. You try to stop the diseases before they lead you to be in the hospital.
Watch it:
<script type="text/javascript">
var flvstiglitzdobbs132024021126 = new SWFObject('/wp-content/plugins/flvplayer.swf?file=http://video.thinkprogress.org/2008/04/stiglitzdobbs1.320.240.flv&;autoStart=false', 'em-flvstiglitzdobbs132024021126', '320', '260', '6', '#ffffff');
flvstiglitzdobbs132024021126.addParam('quality', 'high');
flvstiglitzdobbs132024021126.addParam('wmode', 'transparent');
flvstiglitzdobbs132024021126.write('flvstiglitzdobbs132024021126');
</script>
Paulson’s plan does, however, expand power of the Federal Reserve. Stiglitz argued this decision is highly ironic considering the Fed’s actions until now:
One of the ironies of this whole discussion is they want to give more power to the Fed, the Fed which flooded the market with liquidity, which did not bring regulations until after the crisis. It[base ']Äôs like closing the barn door after the horse is out. And now, to reward them for their excellent job, they want to give them more power.
In response to Paulson’s proposal, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) argued it reflected misplaced priorities, a “failure to utilize the regulatory tools” such as the Home Owners Protection Act 1994 that could have prevented the current housing crisis.
The Wonk Room has more on the the Bush administration’s and conservatives’ failed laissez faire approach to regulation.
[Think Progress]
5:15:29 PM 
|
|
Rev. Astrid Storm: Students of Christianity, Yes. Virginity, No..
Sunday's piece in the New York Times Magazine, "Students of Virginity," was interesting to me both professionally and personally -- professionally, because I'm a Christian priest who sometimes deals with such issues in my parishioners' lives, and personally, because I used to be a student of virginity myself.
My education in virginity began as a teenager in a conservative Baptist church, and continued at Wheaton College, an evangelical liberal arts school where some students go so far as to refuse to kiss before marriage. In those settings, I learned the Biblical arguments against premarital sex, as well as the more consequential arguments: that people who engage in it will struggle with self-esteem, depression, connecting with a future spouse, maintaining discipline and restraint in other areas of their lives, and, in case all this isn't scary enough, may even go blind or become sterile.
At Yale, however, both at the Divinity School and on the wider campus, I was surrounded by unmarried sexually active (or at least openly so) people my age who were put together and, contrary to what I'd been taught, were handling their complex sex lives just fine (with eyesight intact). Where they weren't, they seemed able to convert their sufferings into important lessons about life and vulnerability that they may not have learned had they shielded themselves from sexual intimacy.
At the same time, my studies there confirmed that the Biblical arguments for premarital abstinence are fairly flimsy. Jesus said nothing about premarital sex, period. As for Paul, whose writings make up much of the New Testament outside the Gospels, I had been taught that the word sometimes translated as "fornicate" (porneia), which Paul uses quite a lot, frequently refers to premarital sex -- an assumption that's common in conservative Christian writings on this topic. But in fact, Paul uses "fornicate" in myriad ways, and in only one verse -- I Corinthians 7:9 -- does it seem to refer to sex before marriage. Setting aside the fact that Paul was hardly referring here to two professional twenty-somethings living in a culture of birth control and later marriages, more careful reading of the Bible revealed that this verse appears in a chapter of Paul's writing in which he is more deferential about what he's saying than usual, adding disclaimers like "This is me speaking, and not the Lord," or "This I say by way of concession and not demand." It almost sounds as if he was fearful of reducing Jesus' teachings to lessons on sexual propriety, like so many of his followers have since done.
When Christians venture beyond Paul to support their argument against premarital sex, they're also on shaky ground. To use a typical example, the author of a popular book sold on Focus on the Family's website supports her argument that premarital sex leads to sexually transmitted diseases with this verse from Proverbs: "And you groan at your latter end, when your flesh and your body are consumed." In fact, the chapter of Proverbs in which this verse appears seems to be warning married men to avoid prostitutes, and I don't even need to elaborate on her absurd interpretation of "latter end." As with passages from Paul's writings, many of the arguments against premarital sex are drawn from passages that refer to entirely different sexual improprieties. In short: even if you call yourself a Biblical literalist, there's simply not much of a case there against premarital sex, except by way of such exegetical sleights of hand as this one.
Besides giving me a sense of what the Bible really says -- or doesn't say -- about premarital sex, divinity school also introduced me to some of the recent attempts to construct a framework for Christian sexual ethics that takes into account such changes in our culture as later marriages, increased sexual activity with lower risk of sexually-transmitted disease and pregnancy, and so on. Whether for sexual relationships inside or outside of marriage, various criteria have been suggested for such a framework -- justice, vulnerability, reciprocity, sexual enjoyment, intimacy, community, and so on. The Christian tradition has shown itself capable of adjusting to cultural shifts every bit as monumental as this one, and these efforts are part of that long standing tradition of helping Christianity move into the future, just like it has plenty of times before.
In my six years of being a priest, I've encountered a few people who felt premarital abstinence was right for them, and I've encouraged them in that. But more often than not, I've found that it's something people choose not to practice. Since it's not a divine mandate as far as I can tell, I've encouraged those people in their decision, as well. And as for me, I'm no longer a student of virginity, but I'm still a student of Christianity. Maybe even a better one than I was before.
 [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
4:14:03 PM
|
|
Leslie Griffith: Soldiers Do What Reporters Should -- Lift the Camcorders, Press the Button and Record Reality.
Tonight you can watch the mother lode of reality shows. It's called Bad Voodoo's War, and it airs on PBS' Frontline. Bad Voodoo's War is the story of a platoon of 30 soldiers in Iraq armed with both military might and camcorders. Cameras are attached to their Humvees and carried in their hands as they take us on a mind-molesting mine-field of monotony that turns into an eruption of violence and leaves viewers sitting as anxious as nervous fingers on a loaded gun.
Director Deborah Scranton (The War Tapes) uses her brilliant "subject as reporter" theme to tell Bad Voodoo's War. With very few "embeds" (journalists reporting from Iraq), Scranton jars us into the reality of war by forcing us to see through the eyes of the soldiers.
She chose a California based National Guard unit with seasoned soldiers. Almost all of them have seen prior active duty. They are not wide-eyed "want to be" warriors. They know the ropes, and they know a meaningful mission when they see one. Viewers get the impression there are many reasons to doubt this mission is worth the lives of the extraordinary men Scranton's cameras introduce us to.
At 18-years-old, when most of our sons are working to get into someone's pants, Jason Shaw learned how to tie tourniquets around his pant legs to keep himself and his fellow soldiers from "bleeding out" during battle. While fighting for control of the Baghdad airport in 1993, the 18-year-old Shaw was awarded the Military's third highest award for valor, The Silver Star.
He lost six of his best friends during that tour, returned to the states and moved to California to help care for the child of one of those buddies killed in action. Shaw suffered from post traumatic stress syndrome, lost his girlfriend and his religion and insisted on returning to die with his "brothers" if he had to. He did not want them in a fight he might be able to help them win. His fear of them dying on the battlefield without him was stronger than his fear of returning to Iraq. He is now 22-years-old in Bad Voodoo's War. I wonder if he understands the bravest people are always afraid.
By now you know, the group calls itself Bad Voodoo, taking the nickname of their trusted Sergeant First Class Toby Nunn. It shows incredible insight on Nunn's part, the group's father figure. Nunn adopted the name while in the Balkans where Muslims and Christians were arguing over religion and wanted to know his. He said he was "Bad Voodoo." The name stuck. The message clear -- religion is nothing to kill over.
In the PBS Frontline film, to air Tuesday night, Nunn and his platoon's mission on this tour is to "Secure military and non-military elements going into Iraq." The 30-man platoon protects the convoys as they drive from Kuwait into Iraq in an area known as IED (Improvised explosive devices) ally. It is clearly one of the "worst stretches of theater," Nunn explains. Toby Nunn is not one for hyperbole, so when he says the road is dangerous his men believe him, and it did not take long for them to see for themselves.
"The (new) surge," he says, "has brought so many forces and so much equipment." What Sergeant Nunn does not say is his 30 men are road Kamikazes. They keep their eyes peeled day and night for road side bombs, many bombs on IED alley are not on the side of the road at all, but in the middle, and those are often the hardest to see in the dark even with night goggles because the bombs are buried and waiting for a tire to trigger an explosion. Nunn uses his tripod and camera to show shrapnel following an explosion and explains how it flies -- helter skelter, jagged and burning hot -- cutting off legs and body parts and destroying what appear to be very vulnerable military vehicles. If an IED awaits the convoy, Nunn and his men will find it one way or another. Hopefully, they will find it when they are still alive.
When they make it through a particularly stressful 48 hour convoy escort alive, Nunn resembles a doting father, walking past the men's beds making sure they sleep before he considers closing his eyes himself. He wants to hug them for their bravery, but he knows he cannot. He would gladly give his life for them, and after watching the documentary, is it clear they know this. As Sergeant First Class Nunn takes one last look at his men, before trying to sleep himself, he knows tomorrow will only bring another kamikaze trip down the most dangerous road in Iraq. Lying awake alone -- ever vigilant -- he sometimes talks to the camera as it were his closest confidant.
The road "Bad Voodoo" is guarding is the only access road the Bush administration and private companies (supporting and benefiting from the war) have to bring supplies in. This was certainly not the battlefield Nunn and his men were trained to navigate.
It's a strange coincidence that I know Toby Nunn. I met him after his tours in the Balkans, Afghanistan and then his first tour in Iraq. We met through a friend of mine who was on Nunn's striker team during one of Nunn's first Iraqi tours. I was told by my friend that Toby Nunn was the "one of the finest soldiers" he had ever met. My friend is brilliant in his own right, so I agreed to meet Toby Nunn. I am proud to know him. Just as the men he watches over in Bad Voodoo's War.
Toby has a loving wife and a new baby girl, as well as two sons. In Iraq, he now has 30 sons. They listen to his every word. They know he can help save their lives. When Toby got the call to return to Iraq, I remember thinking, "So much is given by so few in this country." They fight, so many of us can pretend there is no war. Many Americans can't wait to get home from work to watch reality shows, but this time Toby's reality is scheduled to air. This is reality that teaches. Thank goodness for director Deborah Scranton.
There are many things disturbing about his film. Why are U.S. soldiers protecting private contractors on "death ally" when the contractors "Bad Voodoo" protects, clearly have the money to hire private security of their own? It's time for Toby Nunn and his men to come home. They have given enough.
Another question that haunts me that Toby Nunn and his men are not allowed to answer in this film is -- what are they risking their lives for? What is in those convoys of trucks and tankers going into and out of Iraq? What they carry in them would give the country great insight into the bush administration's agenda. I hope whatever they are risking their lives to transport is helping to protect America and not lining the pockets of multi-billion-dollar-corporations who care little for anything but profit. Toby Nunn -- and his men should not be sacrificed for money. They are priceless.
In one segment of the film, Nunn tries to communicate to Iraqi police. It is an impossible situation, and clearly Iraqi police have no idea how to lead. At one point, an Iraqi police officer asks, "Who do we complain to when the (Iraqi police) disobey orders?" No infrastructure is in place. How can American soldiers teach Iraqi soldiers who lived under a dictatorship how to lead? They are trained to be followers.
One final note to Toby and his men if I may? Toby is seen talking late at night to the cameras. He wonders if anyone cares they are traveling the highway of death everyday. He wonders how long they can live with the uncertainty and monotony and sleep deprivation and IEDs. He wonders out loud and without judgment if anyone understands what this war has become.
This is for you, "Bad Voodoo." It is a poem I recently put under the pillows of my children when they arrived for our latest family reunion. The poem is written by the poet e.e. cummings.
"...here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud and the sky of the sky of a tree called life; which grows higher than soul can hope or mind can hide -- and this is the wonder keeping the stars apart.
I carry your heart -- I carry it in my heart..."
"Bad Voodoo," take the personal pronouns and turn them into the collective. We carry you in our hearts. Come home safe to us.
 [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
11:16:32 AM
|
|
Greg Mitchell: Gen. Petraeus and a High-Level Suicide in Iraq.
The scourge of suicides among American troops in Iraq is a serious, and seriously underreported, problem. One of the few high-profile cases involves a much-admired Army colonel named Ted Westhusing -- who, in his 2005 suicide note, pointed a finger at a then little-known U.S. general named David Petraeus. Westhusing's widow, asked by a friend what killed this West Point scholar, had replied simply: "Iraq."
Now there is a disturbing update on this case.
Before putting a bullet through his head, Westhusing had been deeply disturbed by abuses carried out by American contractors in Iraq, including allegations that they had witnessed or even participated in the murder of Iraqis. His suicide note included claims that his two commanders tolerated a mission based on "corruption, human right abuses and liars." One of those commanders: the future leader of the "surge" campaign in Iraq, Gen. Petraeus.
Westhusing, 44, had been found dead in a trailer at a military base near the Baghdad airport in June 2005, a single gunshot wound to the head. At the time, he was the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq. The Army concluded that he committed suicide with his service pistol. Westhusing was an unusual case: "one of the Army's leading scholars of military ethics, a full professor at West Point who volunteered to serve in Iraq to be able to better teach his students. He had a doctorate in philosophy; his dissertation was an extended meditation on the meaning of honor," as Christian Miller explained in a major Los Angeles Times piece.
"In e-mails to his family," Miller wrote, "Westhusing seemed especially upset by one conclusion he had reached: that traditional military values such as duty, honor and country had been replaced by profit motives in Iraq, where the U.S. had come to rely heavily on contractors for jobs once done by the military." His death followed quickly. "He was sick of money-grubbing contractors," one official recounted. Westhusing said that "he had not come over to Iraq for this." After a three-month inquiry, investigators declared Westhusing's death a suicide.
Last March, The Texas Observer published a cover story by contributor Robert Bryce titled "I Am Sullied No More." It is featured in a chapter in my new book on Iraq and the media.
Bryce covered much of the same ground paved by Miller but added details on the Petraeus angle. Now, in the past few weeks, Bryce has added more in an update -- which explores whether Westhusing was murdered.
"When he was in Iraq, Westhusing worked for one of the most famous generals in the U.S. military, David Petraeus," Bryce observed last year. "As the head of counterterrorism and special operations under Petraeus, Westhusing oversaw the single most important task facing the U.S. military in Iraq then and now: training the Iraqi security forces."
Bryce referred to a "two-inch stack of documents, obtained over the past 15 months under the Freedom of Information Act, that provides many details of Westhusing's suicide....The documents echo the story told by Westhusing's friends. 'Something he saw [in Iraq] drove him to this,' one Army officer who was close to Westhusing said in an interview. 'The sum of what he saw going on drove him' to take his own life. 'It's because he believed in duty, honor, country that he's dead.'"
In Iraq, Westhusing worked under two generals: Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, and Petraeus, then a lieutenant general. But Bryce continued: "By late May, Westhusing was becoming despondent over what he was seeing." When his body was found on June, a note was found nearby addressed to Petraeus and Fil. According to Bryce it read:
"Thanks for telling me it was a good day until I briefed you. [Redacted name]--You are only interested in your career and provide no support to your staff--no msn [mission] support and you don't care. I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human right abuses and liars. I am sullied--no more. I didn't volunteer to support corrupt, money grubbing contractors, nor work for commanders only interested in themselves. I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored. I trust no Iraqi. I cannot live this way. All my love to my family, my wife and my precious children. I love you and trust you only. Death before being dishonored any more.
"Trust is essential--I don't know who trust anymore. Why serve when you cannot accomplish the mission, when you no longer believe in the cause, when your every effort and breath to succeed meets with lies, lack of support, and selfishness? No more. Reevaluate yourselves, cdrs [commanders]. You are not what you think you are and I know it."
Twelve days after Westhusing's body was found, Army investigators talked with his widow, who told them: "I think Ted gave his life to let everyone know what was going on. They need to get to the bottom of it, and hope all these bad things get cleaned up."
Bryce concluded: "In September 2005, the Army's inspector general concluded an investigation into allegations raised in the anonymous letter to Westhusing shortly before his death. It found no basis for any of the issues raised. Although the report is redacted in places, it is clear that the investigation was aimed at determining whether Fil or Petraeus had ignored the corruption and human rights abuses allegedly occurring within the training program for Iraqi security personnel." Since then, the corruption and failed training angles have drawn wide attention although the Petraeus's role, good or bad, has not.
The writer returned to the case this past February with another Texas Observer article. I've run out of space here so I will merely quote its opening and link to it:
Since last March, when I wrote a story about the apparent suicide of Col. Ted Westhusing in Iraq, I had believed there was nothing else to write about his tragic death.
But in December, I talked to a source in the Department of Defense who met Westhusing in Iraq about three months before his death. The source, who asked not to be identified for fear of reprisals, was investigating claims of wrongdoing against military contractors working in Iraq. After a short introduction, I asked him what he thought had happened to Westhusing. 'I think he was killed. I honestly do. I think he was murdered,' the source told me. 'Maybe DOD didn't have enough evidence to call it murder, so they called it suicide.'"
Bryce doesn't yet back the "murder" claim but notes that Rep. Henry Waxman is now looking into the Westhusing case.
Link: http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2682
*
Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits and the President Failed on Iraq. It features a foreword by Joe Galloway and a preface by Bruce Springsteen, and has been hailed by our own Arianna, Bill Moyers, Glenn Greenwald and others.
 [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
11:12:05 AM
|
|
Cenk Uygur: How Would Hillary Handle the Cuban Missile Crisis?.
Throughout the primaries there has been a credulous discussion about the different reasons why Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War authorization bill. Senator Clinton has said that she thought the president should have the authority to threaten force so he would have better negotiation leverage. Senator Obama has said she showed poor judgment in trusting President Bush to use that authority wisely.
Neither one of these things is true. Let's get real. She voted for the Iraq War because she thought it was in her political interest. I'm not one to think that every wink and nod of Senator Clinton is a meticulously thought out political strategy. But come on, this isn't a laugh here or a tear there - this was the biggest political vote of their careers. Did they take politics into consideration? Of course!!!!
And what was the political calculation here? All the Democrats who had national ambitions thought they would be called weak on national security if they didn't vote for the war. You know it, I know it and everyone who was paying any degree of attention knows it.
So, what does this vote reveal about Senator Clinton? She is willing to side with Republicans on matters of great importance to avoid the appearance of weakness. Instead of challenging the Republican frame on national security, she succumbs to it.
It's not just the Iraq authorization vote. It's the Kyl-Lieberman amendment where she agreed that Iran was killing our soldiers and was a terrorist threat to us (on very flimsy evidence), thereby paving the way for another possible war. We might or might not have that war, but she was willing to take that risk so she didn't appear weak on national security.
She also accepts the Republican position that negotiating with our enemies is a foolhardy and na[radical]ɬØve idea (I know, Reagan was such a na[radical]ɬØf when he negotiated with the Soviets). Why does she take this extreme position? Because otherwise the Republicans might call her ... weak on national security.
So, how will she react if God forbid there is a serious threat to this country when she is president? I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming she will not pull the trigger on imagined threats dreamed up by neocons. But if there is a real threat, what do we want our president doing? Worrying about the consequences of her decision to the real security of this country or worrying about how she'll be perceived by the Republicans?
Will they call her weak on national security? Should she pull the trigger to show them how tough she is?
At this point, every Republican reading this is screaming, "But she should pull the trigger! You said there was real national security threat!" It seems we have forgotten the days when firing first was not our only option. Remember when we had the Cuban Missile Crisis and John F. Kennedy was a hero for not getting us into war?
Remember when we thought war was a bad idea? Remember when we realized the true costs of war and didn't treat it as just a video game for America to win? Remember when avoiding war was considered a strong act of presidential leadership, not a weak one?
Sometimes war is necessary. But, although you couldn't tell these days, sometimes it isn't. We need a president strong enough to tell the difference. Is someone who has been tailoring all of her foreign policy moves to avoid criticism by the warmongering Republicans going to be able to show that kind of judgment, that kind of strength?
If we had a current day Cuban Missile Crisis, would Hillary pull the trigger just to show the Republicans she wasn't weak on national security? You can reasonably say she wouldn't. But even her most ardent supporters, in their heart of hearts, would have to admit they aren't quite sure. That has been her pattern. That has been her experience. That has been her record.
How sure could you possibly be that she wouldn't act in what she perceived was her political interest rather than what the moment truly called for? Now, I understand that every politician considers their political interest to some degree (though, to what degree matters a tremendous amount). But that's not the only problem for Senator Clinton. The other problem is that she has calculated her political interest all wrong.
She would be better served to take on the Republicans on the idea of what is truly a strong foreign policy. For example, when Barack Obama was challenged on his idea that we should meet with foreign leaders we don't like, he did not back down. He didn't accept the current Republican position. He held strong to what we have done in this country from George Washington to Bill Clinton. We meet with our adversaries, we hold to our position and we negotiate from strength. The current Republican position is a radical departure from previous bipartisan foreign policy. You don't bend to that position, you meet it head on. That's strength.
Instead, Hillary Clinton has calculated that being Republican-light in the area of national security is the better approach. She accepts John McCain's position that being hostile to all of our adversaries is the correct path. But then she argues that she won't be quite as hostile. When you accept their position from the beginning of the debate, you have already lost. The frame is the name of the game.
And Senator Clinton has never fully understood or accepted this. She buys into all of the Republican frames and then wonders how they keep losing legislative battles to the most unpopular president of all time. Once you accept that cutting off funding for the war is cutting off funding for the troops then you've already lost the argument before it began.
Since she has never understood this, why would you have any confidence that she would magically change when she becomes president? Why would you have any confidence that the next time we have a crisis she won't take aggressive military option just to show people she is not weak on national security?
That's a chance we can't afford to take.
Watch The Young Turks Here
 [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
9:44:39 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2008 Patricia Thurston.
|
|
|
