Showing posts with label Barack Obama's presidency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama's presidency. Show all posts

Jun 25, 2015

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare, Rejects Activist Rightwingers

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Obamacare, in a blow to rightwing activists and a political victory for the Obama administration cementing an accomplishment that sociologist and historian Paul Starr notes in 2010, is a "stunning historical achievement and the most important liberal reform since the 1960s" (Mal Contends).

The case is David King, et al., Petitioners v. Sylvia Burwell (No. 14-114). See also David King, et al., Petitioners v. Sylvia Burwell at the Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School.

The Court upheld Obamacare that had been challenged on the basis that five words out of a massive law demanded its destruction.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor to form a 6-3 majority.

Some six million Americans faced losing their healthcare insurance had the Court ruled against the ACA.

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote.

Justice Scalia penned a dissenting opinion joined by rightwing activists justices, Thomas and Alito, that even for the often peevish Scalia reads as petulant and polemical. "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," writes Scalia (p.47).

Scalia's currency on the Court has been declining in recent years as his increasingly incoherent opinions have veered into what Judge Richard Posner derided as "gotcha' jurisprudence," as described in Posner's book Reflections on Judging (Harvard University Press. 2013) (p.182).

Many legal observers prior to today's decision doubted that the Court would follow Scalia as Scalia has devolved into a radical and activist ideologue; see "A Court of One" (Murphy, Simon & Schuster). (Greenhouse, NYT) (See also Moncrieff, The New Republic; and Lithwick, Slate).

President Obama Delivered a Statement on Today's Affordable Care Act Ruling

Jun 29, 2012

Paul Starr: Endorses Health Care Reform in 2010 as stunning historical achievement

A look back at January 2010.

Paul Starr came out vigorously for passing health care reform into law, narrowly held as constitutional by the Roberts court.

Starr's advocacy in the pages of The American Prospect marked an endorsement by perhaps the preeminent social historian of American medical care.

Starr is the author of The Social Transformation of American Medicine (Basic Books, 1982) that likely does not occupy a place on the book shelves of the Tea Party and assorted imbeciles like Senators Jim Demint and John McCain screaming about a "government take-over" of the American health care system. Today, we can add Scott Walker and other members of the Tea Party set.

Writes Starr in 2010:

[Health care reform] is a stunning historical achievement and the most important liberal reform since the 1960s. It may also be the most underappreciated social legislation in recent history. Never in my experience has such a big reform been treated as so small. Never have Democratic members of Congress who are putting their careers on the line for something they believe in been so vilified as sellouts by influential progressives. And never have those progressives been so grudging in their endorsement of landmark legislation or so willing to see it defeated.

How this happened is clear. Facing united Republican opposition, Democratic leaders made a series of concessions to win over centrists in their own caucus and to neutralize key interest groups. One point of contention -- the public option -- came to symbolize hopes on the left, and when that provision was unable to pass the 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, some progressives such as Howard Dean concluded that the entire bill had been gutted.

But that conclusion is wrong. The legislation [is a] major advance in two important respects. After a long period of rising inequality, it would boost the living standards of low-wage workers and their families and improve economic security for the middle class as well. And it would be the most ambitious effort in recent history to reorganize a major institution on a basis that agrees more closely with principles of justice and efficiency.

Feb 24, 2012

Obama v. Koch Brothers

Think the Koch Brothers are trying to buy the presidency, having already bought off Scott Walker.

Obama's reelection team certainly does (and for good reason). From an Obama fund-raising e-mail.

In just about 24 hours, Mitt Romney is headed to a hotel ballroom to give a speech sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, a front group founded and funded by the Koch brothers.

Those are the same Koch brothers whose business model is to make millions by jacking up prices at the pump, and who have bankrolled Tea Party extremism and committed $200 million to try to destroy President Obama before Election Day.

So in the hours before Romney courts two men obsessed with making Barack Obama a one-term president, let's see how many of us can chip in to the Two-Term Fund.

Thanks,


Messina

Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
---
We're helping him, as we should," Koch says of Walker. "We've gotten pretty good at this over the years. We've spent a lot of money in Wisconsin. We're going to spend more." (Singer.  Palm Beach Post)

Jan 26, 2010

G.I Bill Benefits Pushed Aggressively by VA

Delivering the Dept of Veterans Affairs (DVA) education benefits from the Post-9/11 GI Bill is one area the DVA does not want to screw up and its commitment in the face of continuing criticism from veterans groups on other DVA benefits is the topic of DVA communiques to state veteran affairs bureaucrats to presume a veteran is eligible and move the benefits process forward.

Standing in stark contrast to the infamous DVA culture of no and denial of benefits for disabilities sustained during service, the intended message from the DVA regarding the GI Bill appears a message of yes. The apparent effort behind the presumption of eligibility for education benefits actually has the tone of the-guy's-a-vet, get-him/her-what-he-needs urgency that would represent a historic departure in this government agency that has taken on the face of an implacable enemy for many veterans.

Reviewing some statistics from last year, implementation of the GI Bill arguably represents the greatest success of the Obama administration for veterans during its first year in office, and will likely get prominent mention in the State of the Union address Wednesday night, taking note of the fact that states and educational institutions had initially been bogged down as the early point of contact in the process of getting veterans their new education benefits.

In a Jan. 14, 2010 Dear Colleague letter to state veterans affairs directors and members of the veterans' community from Michael Walcoff, DVA Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits, Walcoffnotes the DVA has processed some $1.3 billion in education payments for some 137,000 student veterans, while urging improvements and positive action.

DVA secretary Eric Shinseki similarly notes some 1,200 DVA employees have been assigned duties to process education benefits in a letter to state veterans affairs directors and staff.
The Jan. 14 Shinseki letter urges states to pursue the streamlined delivery of information about education benefits to students, colleges and universities, and expedite the subsequent delivery of education benefit claims to the national DVA resulting in paying student-veterans in a matter of weeks and months; and not years like the processing of typical disability benefits claims.

"A Certificate of Eligibility is not required for submission of the enrollment certification. If a student has provided any documentation to show that he or she is a veteran or dependent that is likely entitled to benefits, an enrollment certification should be submitted as soon as the student enrolls in classes.," reads a Lessons Learned memorandum [emphasis mine] accompying the Shinseki letter.

Post-9/11 GI Bill Lessons Learned

With a semester of the Post-9/11 GI Bill behind us, we are providing a list of 'lessons learned' in hopes of working together for a smoother spring enrollment period - Early submission of enrollment certifications is essential to timely payment.

- A Certificate of Eligibility is not required for submission of the enrollment certification. If a student has provided any documentation to show that he or she is a veteran or dependent that is likely entitled to benefits, an enrollment certification should be submitted as soon as the student enrolls in classes.

- The Post-9/11 GI Bill brought a new dimension to VA education benefits that now involves schools’ business offices. Many payment issues can be addressed by the school’s certifying official.

- It is critical to VA’s processing that students are correctly identified as chapter 33 participants to prevent misrouting of claims.

- Correct direct deposit information is essential for accurate payment routing. If the school’s deposit account information changes the school VA certifying official should notify their Education Liaison Representative immediately.

Jan 25, 2010

Paul Starr Endorses Health Care Reform as "stunning historical achievement"

Paul Starr has come out vigorously for passing even the U.S. Senate version of health care reform into law.

Starr's advocacy in the pages of The American Prospect marks an endorsement by perhaps the preeminent social historian of American medical care.

Starr is the author of The Social Transformation of American Medicine (Basic Books, 1982) that likely does not occupy a place on the book shelves of the Tea Party and assorted imbeciles like Senators Jim Demint and John McCain screaming about a "government take-over" of the American health care system.

Starr's endorsement could be critical as the support of perhaps the most perspicuous of academics on American health care should carry weight with the U.S. House Progressive caucus that has understandably looked askance at the Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson-depleted legislation passed by the U.S. Senate.

Writes Starr:

If Congress can complete work on health-care legislation and send it to the president(as of mid-January, the final bill is still under negotiation), it will be a stunning historical achievement and the most important liberal reform since the 1960s. It may also be the most underappreciated social legislation in recent history. Never in my experience has such a big reform been treated as so small. Never have Democratic members of Congress who are putting their careers on the line for something they believe in been so vilified as sellouts by influential progressives. And never have those progressives been so grudging in their endorsement of landmark legislation or so willing to see it defeated.

How this happened is clear. Facing united Republican opposition,Democratic leaders made a series of concessions to win over centrists in their own caucus and to neutralize key interest groups. One point of contention -- the public option -- came to symbolize hopes on the left, and when that provision was unable to pass the 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, some progressives such as Howard Dean concluded that the entire bill had been gutted.

But that conclusion is wrong. The legislation would be a major advance in two important respects. After a long period of rising inequality, it would boost the living standards of low-wage workers and their families and improve economic security for the middle class as well. And it would be the most ambitious effort in recent history to reorganize a major institution on a basis that agrees more closely with principles of justice and efficiency.



- via mal contends

Jan 9, 2010

Stiglitz, Johnson, Krugman Sound Alarm

Three economists who during the Bush-Cheney years became political-economic pundits of sorts are sounding the macro-economic alarm.

As President Obama turns the political focus onto “jobs, jobs, jobs,” Joseph Stiglitz, Simon Johnson and Paul Krugman warn of a "enormous catastrophe" (Johnson), and real-economy circumstances about which economists are "almost universally pessimistic (Nobel Laureate Stiglitz)."

One understands the political imperative of not placing all bets [political-economic initiatives] on a single swing when mainstream Republicans will happily court more catastrophe if they can garner a political advantage out of the rubble, but Obama needs to swing for the fences and follow the advice of another economist, Nobel Laureate Krugman, who warns that "2010 [may] be a year that began in false economic hope and ended in grief."


Nov 29, 2009

Obama's Cowardly Betrayal

Some forty-five years after the passage of the first civil rights legislation guided into law by JFK and LBJ, the civil rights and peace movements tower as monuments to American progress.

Through the work of ordinary citizens, today's America stands in stark contrast to the contemporary Republican Party earning itself the moniker, the White Party and its retrograde agenda bearing an unseemly resemblance to 1960s institutional racism and endless war.

The GOP conducted massive voter suppression campaigns against Obama who captured the imagination of the country, earning an earnest belief in the possibility of change, peace, and justice. Not just in words but in real-life deeds, and not just in the United States but throughout the world.

Afghanistan

Yet on foreign policy, President Obama's address to the nation Tuesday will apparently demonstrate anew that not much has changed in the national security state as Obama is insistent that America remain as the world's worst purveyor of violence. Sending more troops to Afghanistan is not what America needs or wants and one man's decision on this matter will mark history.

So what explains Obama's military escalation? A foolish political calculation? Human cowardice in the face of the military-industrial complex? A perceived irresistible array of war lobbyists? An insensitivity to the new generation of wounded veterans he will create?

The answers to these questions are not clear.

What is clear is that this former supporter of Barack Obama has lost some respect for the man and the administration that deserves the strongest condemnation and militant challenge from the American people for his cowardly betrayal.


- mal contends

Nov 17, 2009

Democratic Strategist Blows It

James Vega has a piece in the Democratic Strategist arguing in essence: If there is an escalation in Afghanistan—progressives, peace-minded folk and those just plain not wanting to see our troops kill and be killed should all be happy because President Obama has performed as though we do not live in a military junta. "Obama’s strategic review this fall may be seen by historians as the moment when America first began to 'step on the breaks' to slow the 'Long War' and Progressive and anti-war Democrats should keep this clearly in mind as they express their understandable disappointment and frustration," writes Vega.

What a tortured piece of reasoning. Is that what we can expect from Democrats defending the indefensible?

Sure, there is an escalation (if that happens), but Obama acted as though he had a choice. Most reassuring Mr. Vega.

Jul 30, 2009

Our Crisis

As the corporate bought-and-paid-for Blue Dogs do their worst to ensure that health care reform is not universal, President Obama faces another problem: The economy and jobs are foremost on the public mind.

And the objective of providing universal care is akin to throwing a man falling from a building a steak dinner.

Health care needs to be done, if nothing else for the long-term fiscal health of the country, but the obvious threat to the project is that those who profit from making health care a commodity and product have a lot of money that can buy a lot of politicians.

Today's Republican Party and its Blue Dog allies have already proven that throwing the country into fiscal crisis is of no concern, and neither is health care costs.

As for the economy and jobs, Carl Ginsberg has a piece out in CounterPunch, Our Crisis, Their Gain, capturing the cause of the growing populist resentment.

There is no denying the inequitable manner in which the government is addressing the economic crisis. I have to believe that there is a political strategy in this, I just don't know what that would be.

Writes Ginsberg:

For some, joblessness is the antithesis of crisis. It is opportunity. People without work equates to competition for employment which means low wages which means enhanced profits. In case you haven’t noticed, the stock market is up. Bond sales by businesses were $570 billion in Q1, a record…. Net financial investment in Q1 was $340 billion, also a record. Go Go. ...

Back to your crisis: The banks are now aggressively pressing people who are delinquent on loans and mortgages in order to extract what they can, charge usurious interest and fees (thank you, Joe Biden), hound you --- to capitalize on your crisis. That is the business model Barack Obama invested in for all of us. Small wonder JP Morgan CEO James Dimon invited White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to visit with his board of directors.

Had President Obama taken our trillions and set up what William Greider calls for in the current Nation magazine, a development fund for long-term capital investment, or what Mike Davis has described, a national debt bank to relieve excessive consumer and mortgage debt, your government would be addressing your crisis. But of course there’s plenty of time for that.

Jun 18, 2009

Democratic Values Voters

President Obama's election was an inspiring event in American history.

What brought out the passionate outpouring of support for Obama's candidacy is the hope that electing this American president was the elevation of, to put it simply, one of the good guys, a man committed to civil rights, human rights, due process, equal protection, peace, openness, equality, and the firm belief that, to borrow from Justice Robert Jackson, the United States can afford to be just.

To those Americans committed to democratic values - whom the Republicans mocked as defeatocrats and so on - President Obama has not yet demonstrated an abiding commitment to the values voters, those with whom democratic values and human rights remain an abiding concern.

John Aravosis in Salon sums up the sentiment that not just impatience but a sense of betrayal is gripping the civil rights community.

Everyone loves a parade, but we don't like being betrayed. And while gay and lesbian Americans were initially willing to cut our new president some slack, the president's now-clear reticence to follow through on even one of his many campaign promises to the gay community has put the Democratic Party on the precipice of an ugly and very public divorce with this once-solid constituency.

It's only been five months since assuming office, but President Obama needs to understand that seeing bigots, chickenhawks and outright fascists carry the day is intolerable.

Jun 4, 2009

Obama to Muslims: Assalaamu Alaykum

Update: National Review's Michael Rubin caught writing about Obama's speech without listening to, or reading the speech. Typical Republican. [Via Jonathan Chait, The New Republic)

Sprinkled with allusions and passages from the Bible, Koran and the Torah [with a lot of RFKesque inspirational language), President Obama's address from Cairo, Egypt this morning marked an unprecedented outreach to the world's Muslim populations.

Entitled A New Beginning, the address was an implicit repudiation of the America-Israeli manichaean conception of Islam and the West and its hostile cultural-political stance against Islam.

"I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam," said Obama.

The tone of Obama's speech is being reported as a "sweeping" and "forceful" address that is "perhaps, the riskiest speech of his young presidency (Zeleny and Cooper, NYT)" made during a political milieu in America of widespread xenophobia accelerated during eight years of wars of aggression committed by the Bush administration.

Many of Obama's political opponents during last year's presidential campaign fought his election to the presidency by appealing to American xenophobia and overt racism.
---
A New Beginning

The full text of President Obama's speech at Cairo University via Salon
Jun. 04, 2009

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam –- at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers –- Thomas Jefferson –- kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words –- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."
Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores –- that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not –- and never will be –- at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al-Qaida and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al-Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al-Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
That's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths –- more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -– it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future –- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction –- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews –- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people –- Muslims and Christians –- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations –- large and small –- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers –- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them –- and all of us –- to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation -– including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments –- provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld –- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action –- whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity –- men and women –- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations –- including my own –- this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek –- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many –- Muslim and non-Muslim –- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -– that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country –- you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort –- to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion –- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples –- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

May 21, 2009

Obama Pushing Forward on Health Care

One thing Obama will not back off from is Health Care.

Most readers here would like to see single payer on the table, but getting anything from this Congress is like pulling teeth, though congressional leaders have set the end of June as a deadline for getting reform through.

From Obama's e-mail message on health care:

The chance to finally reform our nation's health care system is here. While Congress moves rapidly to produce a detailed plan, I have made it clear that real reform must uphold three core principles -- it must reduce costs, guarantee choice, and ensure quality care for every American.

As we know, challenging the status quo will not be easy. Its defenders will claim our goals are too big, that we should once again settle for half measures and empty talk. Left unanswered, these voices of doubt might yet again derail the comprehensive reform we so badly need. That's where you come in.When our opponents spread fear and confusion about the changes we seek, your support for these core principles will show clarity and resolve. When the lobbyists for the status quo tell Congress to hold back, your personal story will give them the courage to press forward.

Join my call: Ask Congress to pass real health care reform in 2009.

After adding your name, please consider sharing your personal story about the importance of health care reform in your life and the lives of those you love.I will be personally reviewing many of these signatures and stories. If you speak up now, your voice will make a difference.http://my.barackobama.com/HealthCareOrganizing

American families are watching their premiums rise four times faster than their wages. Spiraling health care costs are shackling America's businesses, curtailing job growth and slowing the economy at the worst possible time. This has got to change.I know personal stories can drive that change, because I know how my mother's experience continues to drive me. She passed away from ovarian cancer a little over a decade ago. And in the last weeks of her life, when she was coming to grips with her own mortality and showing extraordinary courage just to get through each day, she was spending too much time worrying about whether her health insurance would cover her bills. She deserved better. Every American deserves better. And that's why I will not rest until the dream of health care reform is finally achieved in the United States of America.Please add your name to join my call. Then share your personal story about why you too will not rest until this job is done.
http://my.barackobama.com/HealthCareOrganizing

Last November, the American people sent Washington a clear mandate for change. But when the polls close, the true work of citizenship begins. That's what Organizing for America is all about. Now, in these crucial moments, your voice once again has extraordinary power. I'm counting on you to use it.

May 17, 2009

Marcy Wheeler's The Torture 13

Marcy Wheeler has an important piece in Salon naming the The Torture 13.

These key Bush administration officials authorized it, decided how to implement it and crafted the legal fig leaf to justify it.

[Top row from left: Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales. Second row: David Addington, William "Jim" Haynes, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, George Tenet (Wikipedia)]

It's clear that Obama has no intention at this point of pursuing transparency and accountability for what was done in our names the last eight years. There's another name for a government that behaves this way, no matter the rationale and intentions: A tyranny.

Swiftboating Healthcare

Among one of very bad things that the GOP hates Obama for is healthcare reform to guarantee that every American will have access to what is perceived by the vast majority of the world as a human right.

Not surprisingly the GOP and its allies are out to swiftboat Obama's initiative that is planned to get through Congress by June 31.

Obama is fighting back, with the same innovations that knocked back the GOP in the 2008 campaign. The GOP is going to find out very quickly 2009 is 1993.

Medicare needs this for to halt the costs of healthcare; America needs this and so does the administration that needs to repair some bridges with the people who put him into office very fast.

From the Obama Organizing for America:

We knew healthcare reform would face fierce opposition -- and it's begun.

As we speak, the same people behind the notorious 'swiftboat' ads of 2004 are already pumping millions of dollars into deceptive television ads.

Their plan is simple: torpedo healthcare reform before it sees the light of day by scaring the public and distorting the President's approach.

We need the resources to take them head on with an urgent, grassroots campaign to pass real healthcare reform in 2009.When the swiftboaters flood the airwaves with distortions, we'll flood the streets with volunteers armed with facts. When they send lobbyists to tell Congress to back down, we'll send millions of calls, letters, and stories from real Americans asking them to stand up.

Please donate $5 or more by midnight Sunday to fight back against these phony attacks and take our message of reform to the American people.

The swiftboaters are once again trying to sell the American people short. As during the election, we deserve a serious conversation -- not fear-mongering and deceit. You and I see the importance of healthcare reform every day. We can't miss this once in a lifetime opportunity to face one of America's greatest challenges head on.

Passing real healthcare reform will be the toughest, most important challenge we've faced together since electing Barack Obama President.

But it's also a big reason we fought so hard to get here. I know that by working together, and speaking with one, determined voice, we can prevail over the cynics and defenders of the status quo. America's families are counting on us to do just that.

May 15, 2009

Stiglitz Is Coming to Town

Update: A reader recommends a March piece by Paul Krugman in which he blasts the bank bailout plan. "But Treasury is still clinging to the idea that this is just a panic attack, and that all it needs to do is calm the markets by buying up a bunch of troubled assets. Actually, that’s not quite it: the Obama administration has apparently made the judgment that there would be a public outcry if it announced a straightforward plan along these lines, so it has produced what Yves Smith calls 'a lot of bells and whistles to finesse the fact that the government will wind up paying well above market ... .'"

Next Tuesday's (May 19) Joint Economic Committee (JEC) hearing will hear testimony by Nobel Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz.

Stiglitz is widely admired for his book (co-authored with Linda J. Bilmes), The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict, putting a price tag on the obscene Bush-Cheney-Rice lie that continues to kill to this day.

That's the thing about Nobel Laureates. They often feel free and obliged to tell the hard, unvarnished truth.

To give you an idea of what Stiglitz will say on the economy, consider his commentary in The Spring of the Zombies, excerpted below after this political aside.
---
No one envies the Obama administration's task to revitalize after 20 years of neo-liberal/neo-conservative globalization, offshoring of jobs, and facilitation of financial speculators.

But Obama's resort to Bushian secrecy on matters ranging from the bank bailout plan to photos of American torture victims does not inspire confidence, much less reassurance that our president is on the same team as we.

An unprecedented number of Americans (myself included) worked to get Obama into the White House; and America still suffers from eight years of a genuinely hostile force in the White House.

We expect better from Obama. In so many words: You don't lie to a man who just got out of the can.

We are either in this together or we are not

Obama's refusal to provide the pubic with details on the mysterious creation of Zombie banks and the censorship of the black art of American torture makes everyone wonder about the nature of the man in charge.

The audacity of opacity is not the message that any administration should be sending to American citizens especially now. It's a tremendous mistake.
---
From Stiglitz:

(E)xamine the fundamentals: in America, real estate prices continue to fall, millions of homes are underwater, with the value of mortgages exceeding the market price, and unemployment is increasing, with hundreds of thousands reaching the end of their 39 weeks of unemployment insurance. States are being forced to lay off workers as tax revenues plummet.

The banking system has just been tested to see if it is adequately capitalized – a ‘stress’ test that involved no stress – and some couldn’t pass muster. But, rather than welcoming the opportunity to recapitalize, perhaps with government help, the banks seem to prefer a Japanese-style response: we will muddle through.

‘Zombie’ banks – dead but still walking among the living – are, in Ed Kane’s immortal words, ‘gambling on resurrection.’ Repeating the Savings & Loan debacle of the 1980’s, the banks are using bad accounting (they were allowed, for example, to keep impaired assets on their books without writing them down, on the fiction that they might be held to maturity and somehow turn healthy). Worse still, they are being allowed to borrow cheaply from the United States Federal Reserve, on the basis of poor collateral, and simultaneously to take risky positions. ...

In earlier crises, as in East Asia a decade ago, recovery was quick, because the affected countries could export their way to renewed prosperity. But this is a synchronous global downturn. America and Europe can’t export their way out of their doldrums.

Fixing the financial system is necessary, but not sufficient, for recovery. America’s strategy for fixing its financial system is costly and unfair, for it is rewarding the people who caused the economic mess. But there is an alternative that essentially means playing by the rules of a normal market economy: a debt-for-equity swap.

With such a swap, confidence could be restored to the banking system, and lending could be reignited with little or no cost to the taxpayer. It’s neither particularly complicated nor novel. Bondholders obviously don’t like it – they would rather get a gift from the government. But there are far better uses of the public’s money, including another round of stimulus.

Every downturn comes to an end. The question is how long and deep this downturn will be. In spite of some spring sprouts, we should prepare for another dark winter: it’s time for Plan B in bank restructuring and another dose of Keynesian medicine.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, Professor of Economics at Columbia University, chairs a Commission of Experts, appointed by the President of the UN General Assembly, on reforms of the international monetary and financial system. A new global reserve currency system is discussed in his 2006 book, Making Globalization Work.

May 14, 2009

Islam Knows War Is Depraved

Update: Greenwald: We wouldn't want to inflame anti-American sentiment:

We're currently occupying two Muslim countries. We're killing civilians regularly (as usual) -- with airplanes and unmanned sky robots. We're imprisoning tens of thousands of Muslims with no trial, for years. Our government continues to insist that it has the power to abduct people -- virtually all Muslim -- ship them to Bagram, put them in cages, and keep them there indefinitely with no charges of any kind. We're denying our torture victims any ability to obtain justice for what was done to them by insisting that the way we tortured them is a "state secret" and that we need to 'look to the future.'

We provide Israel with the arms and money used to do things like devastate Gaza. Independent of whether any or all of these policies are justifiable, the extent to which those actions 'inflame anti-American sentiment' is impossible to overstate.

And now, the very same people who are doing all of that are claiming that they must suppress evidence of our government's abuse of detainees because to allow the evidence to be seen would 'inflame anti-American sentiment.' It's not hard to believe that releasing the photos would do so to some extent -- people generally consider it a bad thing to torture and brutally abuse helpless detainees -- but compared to everything else we're doing, the notion that releasing or concealing these photos would make an appreciable difference in terms of how we're perceived in the Muslim world is laughable on its face.

---
Do not look at the pictures below - they are disgusting and repulsive to any civilized human being. [ I took them down, they make me feel sick. AfterDowningStreet keeps them to remind people that war is not a video game.]

But they make a point: That War, is awful and depraved.

Understand that President Obama's sub-moronic statement - "(T)he most direct consequence of releasing (the Abu Ghraib photos), I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger" - is ludicrous in the face of the 1,000,000s killed, wounded and traumatized for life in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Who wrote that for Obama?

Put aside the anti-democratic nature of secrecy and domestic government censorship for a moment, the families of the people we killed would gladly be tortured if they could bring back their children, their brothers, their fathers. Hey, these guys are actual human beings.

To reduce it to political terms President Obama, think of war as a bad PR strategy, a rude thing to do to your fellow human beings in other countries and something that inflames anti-American opinion. War supports the message that we don't like you.

What the hell do you think war does for anti-American opinion?

Obama Critics to Appear at Joint Economic Committee

Update: See Too Much To Handle? Why I expect Obama's poll numbers to plummet soon at TNR by John Judis.

Via Robert Kuttner:

'Part of the Way with LBJ'
- Students for a Democratic Society button, circa 1964

The Joint Economic Committee (JEC) hearing next Tuesday (May 19) will feature testimony from leading critics that one hopes will highlight the 'absurdity of the Summers/Geithner approach (to the financial crisis) and help animate skepticism in the media, the public, and eventually the President.'

Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz; former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson, whose recent piece in the Atlantic Monthly compared the US to third-world kleptocracies, and Thomas Hoenig, the most outspokenly critical of the regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents (are scheduled to appear before the committee).

The JEC is a "bicameral Congressional Committee composed of ten members from ... the Senate and the House of Representatives. ... Its main purpose is to make a continuing study of matters relating to the US economy."

Suffice it to say that Obama does not deserve and has not earned the benefit of the doubt on foreign policy, the financial crisis, civil rights for gays, transparency, well anything.

May 4, 2009

Low Wages Are No Good

You offshore American jobs and people lose their jobs.

No good, not for Americans and not for the economy.

Krugman offer some advice against falling wages; might seem obvious but Republicans love the idea of falling wages.

Concern about falling wages isn’t just theory. Japan — where private-sector wages fell an average of more than 1 percent a year from 1997 to 2003 — is an object lesson in how wage deflation can contribute to economic stagnation.

So what should we conclude from the growing evidence of sagging wages in America? Mainly that stabilizing the economy isn’t enough: we need a real recovery.

There has been a lot of talk lately about green shoots and all that, and there are indeed indications that the economic plunge that began last fall may be leveling off. The National Bureau of Economic Research might even declare the recession over later this year.

But the unemployment rate is almost certainly still rising. And all signs point to a terrible job market for many months if not years to come — which is a recipe for continuing wage cuts, which will in turn keep the economy weak.

To break that vicious circle, we basically need more: more stimulus, more decisive action on the banks, more job creation.

Credit where credit is due: President Obama and his economic advisers seem to have steered the economy away from the abyss. But the risk that America will turn into Japan — that we’ll face years of deflation and stagnation — seems, if anything, to be rising.

Apr 30, 2009

Pew Center Data Is Trouble for GOP

If you want to know why RNC Chair Michael Steele and his allies have become so shrill, it's not only because these guys are unhinged.

They have access to electoral data and a changing America spells trouble for a major political party that is overwhelmingly white, xenophobic, hateful and ignorant. These guys are desperate and Rush and the crew are increasingly impotent.

Consider the just-released Pew Research Center data in the Dissecting the 2008 Electorate: Most Diverse in U.S. History report.

Black, Hispanic and Asian participation is up, and white voting is down. As a percentage of the population, whites' share of the voting electorate has decreased from 84 percent (1988) to 76 percent (2008). That's because the composition of eligible voters has changed in roughly the same proportion.

White voters did support John McCain (55%) over Barack Obama (43%) nationwide.

But white voters alone do not decide who is president, no matter the voter suppression efforts of John McCain and the GOP.

And the sub-headline at Pew: "Black women had the highest voter turnout rate in November's election -- a first". There goes the neighborhood.

Obams Is a True Believer, Says Michael Goodwin

Michael Goodwin's piece in the New York Daily News this morning is a ridiculous knock that Obama is to be feared because the public is behind him and Obama is eloquent and confident.

Typical of rightwingers Goodwin just wants to smear; that it has no grounding in fact or evidence is besides the point. Nor is it important that Goodwin likes to quote from books that he hasn't read. Good enough for the Daily News.

Goodwin borrows from Eric Hoffer's The True Believer: Thoughts on The Nature of Mass Movements by insisting that Obama is a scary "true believer" because he seems so well-spoken and confident.

One has to believe that Goodwin never actually read Hoffer's book that popularized a serious domain of social-psychological research in the 1950s that tried to explain why people would do stupid things like join fascist movements and align themselves unthinkingly with authoritarians.

The true believer is a fanatic. He has no intellectual curiosity, no sense of history, and no need to critically examine any aspect of the ideology or the authoritarian to which he assigns himself, and certainly no need to read the book from which he cites. Writes Goodwin:

It's too early for Obama to back up all his claims, but midway through his compelling press conference on Wednesday night, after he had asserted a list of accomplishments, I scribbled the words 'The True Believer' in my notebook.

After only 100 days on the job, our talented new President shows no signs of doubt.

He is a follower who can be found jumping from one crazy movement - NAZIism, Communism, Nationalism - to another.

Considering this uncontroversial thrust of Hoffer's work, are we then to assign the term "true believer" to Obama as an unthinking follower or an authoritarian?

Goodwin doesn't even try to make the case.

- via mal contends