Thursday, November 26, 2009

Triage Doctor from Little Rock Free Clinic: Public Option Needed to “Alleviate the Suffering” from Firedoglake


Ralph Freidin MD, is an internist.  Dr. Freidin traveled from Massachusetts to Little Rock, Arkansas last week to volunteer his professional services at the Little Rock Free Health Clinic, which I also attended. He was assigned to The Line.

I met this good man the night before the clinic opened. He told me he would be the triage doctor working The Line–the long line of folks, some with appointments, some without, waiting to get in to the clinic.  I was taken aback that there was the need for a triage doctor, and I asked him what this entailed.  He explained that it was likely we'd have people who needed emergency medical treatment simply because they haven't had the financial resources or health insurance to access care, and this free clinic was their last hope. He was correct. There were some desperately ill people who required immediate transportation to an emergency room.

So, Dr. Freidin spent the day evaluating the people patiently waiting to go into the Free Clinic to determine if they could wait no longer. Well into the evening, the good doctor looked for those who required urgent emergency care.  Tragically, some did.

Dr. Freidin emailed me his thoughts about the uniquely American shame he witnessed in Little Rock. It's a message of damnation to America, especially directed at politicians like Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, and others who are responsible for this catastrophe, but are nonetheless determined to maintain the depraved status quo.

Here's Dr. Freidin in his own words. . . .

Suffering in Silence in Little Rock

They began to line up about 45 minutes before the doors to the one-day health clinic opened. The event, organized by the National Association of Free Clinics, was going to provide free medical care to anyone wanting to be seen as long as they did not have any health insurance.

Perhaps because I have had 40 years of experience practicing medicine, I was assigned to be the person to look for anyone in the line who needed urgent care.  As the line grew I made my way through introducing myself and asking how we could help them today.

In the first hour of speaking to over a hundred people, (ten percent of all those seen) I saw five middle aged men with untreated hypertension all with diastolic pressures of over 100. Standard medical practice is to treat a diastolic pressure greater than the low 80's. Two of these people had not seen a doctor in more than two years and the others had not seen a doctor at all. Either they did not have the cash or the insurance. The two who had been to the doctor were not taking medication because they could not afford it.

Sitting in a wheel chair in the midst of the crowd was a middle-aged man with below knee amputation who hoped that we would be able to help him obtain prosthesis. He had some medical insurance but it had just denied his request sinking his hopes to be able to walk again so that he could return to his job as plumber and support his family.

There was a woman who had cancer treatment two years ago but was unable to continue with her care again because she did not have insurance. But it was not her cancer that was her concern today of. Her face was grimacing with the pain of a terrible toothache that she had been suffering with for the past two weeks. Again – no insurance, no physician, no medication.

Then I spotted a woman off to the side of the line wearing a trench coat to cover her emaciated frame. She did not have an appointment but had had three grand mal seizures in the past two weeks. A week ago she had been seen in a local emergency room where she was told that anti seizure medications was "OK" and then discharged without arrangement for any follow up. In addition to her uncontrolled seizures, she had terrible dental pain such that she could not eat. I could only see the roots of her teeth. There was not an intact tooth visible.

Leaning on the railing was a woman panting after walking a half a block to get in line. She had no asthma medication and had not had any in more than six months.  Behind her was a thirties year old man who had already been given a wheelchair because he was having difficulty breathing. In a soft voice he said that he had just been discharged from the intensive care unit of a local hospital where he had been treated for swollen ankles and shortness of breath. He was not sure what was wrong with him but for the past month he had been having chest pains every time he walked more than a few yards, he was sleeping propped up on pillows, and his ankles had begun to swell. When he was discharged he was given a list of medications that he could not afford, did not understand and arrangements for his continued care had not been made. About an hour after, I had brought this gentleman to the front of the line he was being attended by an ambulance crew on his way back to the emergency room with a possible heart attack.

Looking further down the line I saw a young man avoiding any eye contact. His slouched posture told me he did not want to talk but had something very heavy on his mind. Later I heard that there had been three young people who had plans for suicide that had been foiled. I was quiet sure that he was one of them.

<strong>I knew that I was in Little Rock, Arkansas because it was written on the school buses I had seen the day before parked outside of the Central High School and it was written on the front of the airport terminal. But I did not feel I was in America – at least not the America of the 21st century. Sure I had seen patients with these illnesses before but the last time was in my first year of medical school, which was the first year of Medicare. </strong>

What is it with my profession? What is it with those who set policy in an agriculturally rich but morally poor midwestern state? What is it with our county that gives so little value to the 'small person'?

I feel as embarrassed by my profession as I did when I read the hysterical fear generating campaign to block the passage of Medicare in 1965. OK, this time the American Medical Association says that it supports health reform, but I did not see them in Little Rock at the free clinic. Nor were the politicians who brag that a 'public option' is something they cannot vote for because they must first think of what is in the best interest of the people of their state. When I juxtapose my experience in the Free Clinic to these self-righteous proclamations, I hear the clarion of hypocrisy. No self respecting educated person could possibly believe that without the pressure of a public option will a private insurance company ever write policies to alleviate the amount of suffering of so many people I witnessed last Saturday in Little Rock.

It is not a question only how much reforming our healthcare will cost, it also is a question how much it will cost not to fix it. It is a question of equality, how we as a nation value our neighbor – how we see ourselves.

I am convinced that if the Declaration of Independence were written today 'the pursuit of happiness' would include access to basic health care.

[emphasis added]

Ralph Freidin, MD
Lexington, Massachusetts

Sarah Palin wants to dismantle Canadian healthcare? from Crooks and Liars


Because she can see it from her house.

From The Canadian Press (syndicated)

Marg Delahunty has braved the wilds of the American Midwest to come face-to-face with Sarah Palin. Comedian Mary Walsh's beloved character button-holed the former Alaska governor at a recent book-signing in Columbus, Ohio...

"Marg Delahunty" has been compared to the more famous Dame Edna, and Stephen Colbert owes her five bucks, too. Marg is a character, dressed up as some kind of "Canadian Warrior" right winger, etc. Here's a pic of her in full regalia:

I think she's got a Palinesque look to her, but anyhoo...

"We told her we're from Canada, and we're just looking for a few words of encouragement for the Canadian conservatives who have worked so tirelessly to destroy the socialized medicare that we have," Walsh recalled Tuesday from St. John's.

After being kicked out of the book-signing, Walsh and her crew then waited outside at a loading dock close to where Palin's bus was parked. When Palin emerged from the Borders bookstore, Walsh said, Delahunty — dressed in a more toned-down version of her trademark warrior princess costume — called out to her.

"Hey, remember us, we're the Canadians! We came all the way here from Canada!" Delahunty yelled. "When we asked you that question, we didn't hear your answer."

Palin strolled over, looking down on Walsh and her crew to tell them that "Canada needs to dismantle its public health-care system and allow private enterprise to get involved and turn a profit."

"Basically, she said government should stop doing the work that private enterprise should do," Walsh said.

There are no words, Sarah Palin. No words.

crossposted from Blue Gal; h/t TD in comments for the tip

REPORT: At Least 40 GOP Lawmakers Fail A Principle Of The ‘Purity Test’ from Think Progress


Yesterday, Republican National Committee member Jim Bopp unveiled a resolution to deny funding of candidates who do not uphold right-wing conservative values. The resolution, termed a "purity test," is being touted as a mechanism for actually avoiding the party schism that occurred in the NY-23 special election, when the Republican Party nominated a moderate who violated several of the resolution dictates.

As the Hotline has noted, the resolution, if adopted, would boot key Republican candidates running for the Senate next year. National Republicans recruited Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) to run for the Senate, even though they have bucked conservative orthodoxy in the past.

ThinkProgress has conducted an analysis that finds at least 40 current Republican members of Congress have violated at least one principle of the purity test:

Purity Pledge #1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill

– The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus) was passed with support from Republican Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

Purity Pledge #2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare

– Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) voted for the health reform bill passed by the House.

Purity Pledge #3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation

– The Waxman Markey cap and trade clean energy bill was passed with support from GOP Reps. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), Mike Castle (R-DE), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Dave Reichert (R-WA), and Chris Smith (R-NJ).

Purity Pledge #4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check

– In 2007, the House passed the Employee Free Choice Act with support from Republican Reps. Tim Murphy (R-PA), Don Young (R-AK), Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Peter King (R-NY), and Steve LaTourette (R-OH).

Purity Pledge #5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants

– The McCain-Kennedy 2006 immigration bill would have "legalized millions of undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. if they paid fines, paid back taxes and learned English." Republican Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Dick Lugar (R-IN), George Voinovich (R-OH), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bob Bennett (R-UT), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Susan Collins (R-ME), Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) voted for the bill.

Purity Pledge #6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges

– In 2007, both Republican Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) cosponsored resolutions opposing a troop surge in Iraq. In the House, Reps. Bob Inglis (R-SC), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Dean Heller (R-NV), Walter Jones (R-NC), Tim Johnson (R-IL), Mike Castle (R-DE), Howard Coble (R-NC), Ron Paul (R-TX), Tom Petri (R-WI), Fred Upton (R-MI), and Steve LaTourette (R-OH) supported a resolution opposing the Iraq surge. In addition, Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX), Walter Jones (R-NC), Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), John Duncan (R-TN), and Tim Johnson (R-IL) have signed onto a letter opposing a troop surge in Afghanistan.

Purity Pledge #7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat

– Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Dick Lugar (R-IN) both voted to remove North Korea from the state-sponsors of terror list. Sen. Lugar also voted against a 2007 resolution urging action against Iran. In the House, Reps. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Ron Paul (R-TX), and Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) voted against further sanctions against Iran in 2007.

Purity Pledge #10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

– Earlier this year, Sen. John Thune's (R-SD) "concealed carry" gun amendment failed to receive the 60 votes it needed to pass. Republican Senators Dick Lugar (R-IN) and George Voinovich (R-OH) opposed the measure.

Already, conservative leaders like RedState's Erik Erickson are saying that Bopp's purity resolution doesn't even go far enough. On Monday night, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann noted that President Ronald Reagan violated 6 of the 10 purity tests. "Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?" asked Olbermann, tongue planted firmly in cheek.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Lou Dobbs Loves Immigrants Now, Everyone [Assholes] from Gawker

Oh, seriously? "In a little-noticed interview Friday, Mr. Dobbs told Spanish-language network Telemundo he now supports a plan to legalize millions of undocumented workers, a stance he long lambasted as an unfair 'amnesty.'"

Well. What a fast turnaround, right?

"Whatever you have thought of me in the past, I can tell you right now that I am one of your greatest friends and I mean for us to work together," he said in a live interview with Telemundo's Maria Celeste. "I hope that will begin with Maria and me and Telemundo and other media organizations and others in this national debate that we should turn into a solution rather than a continuing debate and factional contest."

Mr. Dobbs twice mentioned a possible legalization plan for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., saying at one point that "we need the ability to legalize illegal immigrants under certain conditions."

It's great that Lou Dobbs saw the light, and that he now favors liberalization of our broken immigration and naturalization process.

But—and, you know, we hate to do this two days in a row—fuck you, Lou Dobbs.

Mr. Dobbs couldn't be reached Tuesday. Spokesman Bob Dilenschneider said Mr. Dobbs draws a distinction between illegal immigrants who have committed crimes since arriving in the U.S. and those who are "living upright, positive and constructive lives" who should be "integrated" into society. He said Mr. Dobbs recognizes the political importance of Latinos and is "smoothing the water and clearing the air."

The funny thing, Lou, is that you were the one who attempted to create the impression, without evidence, that all illegal immigrants were criminals. You know-nothing prick.

You made your name on one issue, Lou, and one issue alone: that there are too many Mexicans, that the Mexicans are scary, and that they should all go back to Mexico, because they are disease-ridden criminals. You lied about how many immigrants there are, you called them "an army of invaders," you said they wanted to reannex the Southwestern United States, you claimed they were spreading leprosy, you spent hours of airtime openly, blatantly lying, in order to inflame anti-immigrant hysteria. That is what you did. For years. You doughy, lying, sack of shit.

Video via Anyguey.

Biggest Loser : Basically Killing Fat People for Your Amusement [Fitness] from Gawker

 

Most obese Americans, meaning most Americans, have given up hope of ever losing that weight unless they can land a spot as a contestant on NBC's Biggest Loser. Unfortunately, Biggest Loser is made of 100% evil.

The New York Times wrote a story about Biggest Loser. What did they find out?

  • The winner of season one "dropped some of the weight by fasting and dehydrating himself to the point that he was urinating blood." Actually many of the people dropped mostly water weight, and gained much of it back after the show ended and they began hydrating properly.
  • Whose fault is it that these dangerously fat people are dangerously dehydrating themselves in pursuit of a cash prize? The fault of the fat people themselves, according to the professional fitness trainer Jillian "Evil" Michaels. "Contestants can get a little too crazy and they can get too thin," she said.
  • Don't go blaming the show for that; they never said they were qualified to know about health and weight loss and whatever! The show's waivers state that no guarantees have been made that the medical professionals are qualified to "diagnose medical conditions that may affect my fitness to participate in the series."
  • Also the show tried to intimidate former contestants into not speaking to the New York Times.
So: Take a bunch of dangerously obese people, tempt them with a cash prize, exercise them for six hours(!) a day, and let them dehydrate themselves until they piss blood, all while forswearing any legal responsibility for their health. Good job, NBC!

Overweight Americans: Would you like to slim down, but don't have access to evil fitness trainer Jillian Michaels? Here is the secret formula! Eat a few hundred calories less than you burn every day; exercise for no more than an hour five days a week, with a sensible mix of interval cardio workouts and basic weight training; lose a couple pounds a week; continue until satisfied. Just read this! Better yet, forget about losing weight altogether. Put that weight to work for you. You can gain up to 30 pounds of pure power with THIS:

Former Insurance Company Executive: Health Insurers Stand Between Patients And Their Doctors from Think Progress


ellenhayden3 One of the most common right-wing memes used by opponents of health care reform is that progressive solutions to America's health care problems place "Washington bureaucrats firmly between you and your doctor." Again and again, conservatives have deployed this meme to demagogue the health care debate.

However, the reality is there already is someone standing between you and your doctor: health insurance companies. Single mother Ellen Hayden knows this from experience. After losing her mother at the age of 7 from breast cancer, Hayden has done everything she can to get regular mammograms. Following an abnormal mammogram, her doctor recommended that she have an MRI. After the scan, her insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, refused to pay for the procedure and is also refusing to pay for a follow-up second MRI her doctor has suggested.

Ned Helms, a former health insurance industry executive who now works at the University of New Hampshire, told Sea Coast Online that this is Hayden's case is an example of "insurance people" getting between patients and their doctors:

"It's understandable that this is an emotional issue because most patients believe that 'nothing is going to stand between me and what I want to get done,'" said Ned Helms, a former health insurance industry executive and director of the N.H. Institute of Health Policy and Practice at the University of New Hampshire. [...]

"We have this notion in our political debate and popular culture that we can't have reform because that means that government bureaucrats will make decisions but we already have insurance people playing that role," said Helms

Helms went on to say that one of the major obstacles to attaining proper reform is the way insurance companies often "write their own rules for the road." Late last year, former Cigna executive Wendell Potter left his 15-year career at the major health insurer and joined the fight for universal health care. He told Bill Moyers last July that politicians who warn about the government getting between patients and their doctors are "ideologically aligned with the [health insurance] industry."

Dobbs Calls Himself Latinos’ ‘Greatest Friend,’ Denies Tying Leprosy To Undocumented Immigrants from Think Progress


Today in an interview with Maria Celeste on Telemundo's Al Rojo Vivo, ousted CNN anchor Lou Dobbs denied ever erroneously claiming that undocumented immigrants are bringing leprosy to the United States. Instead he attacked Celeste for bringing up reports that he aired on his show in the past. From interview (translated from Spanish):

DOBBS: Let's be very clear: I did not support that report, in fact we corrected that report. And secondly, in fairness to me, I never said a word about leprosy and undocumented immigrants as you call them. My correspondent on our broadcast ad-libbed…obviously she was wrong. My only declaration in response to that report was one word: "incredible."

CELESTE: You were also confronted with this erroneous information by Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes and you said that you supported 100% of what you had said on the show, and that you were the managing editor of the program, and in your show, everything that was said was factual….

DOBBS: Maria, in the interest of fairness, would you like to tell your audience how long ago that report was?

CELESTE:That was a few years ago…

DOBBS: No, Maria, that was four years ago…

CELESTE: It doesn't matter how many years ago, you never retracted…This is your opportunity to clarify that and once and for all put it to rest doing whatever you choose to do — an apology, a retraction — whatever you feel most comfortable with.

Watch it:

Popout

Despite the fact that Dobbs did in fact state that "the invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans," he refused to issue a retraction or apology on Telemundo.

However, Dobbs did tell the Latino community that he is one of its "greatest friends," and he wants to work with them. He defended himself on the show by explaining that he is not "an enemy of Latinos," but rather that the far-left has characterized him as such with its propaganda. The CBS website shows the 60 Minutes segment that aired in 2007.

Health Insurance Reform: The Enslavement of American Citizens to Corporate Rule from AfterDowningStreet.org

 

Health Insurance Reform: The Enslavement of American Citizens to Corporate Rule
By debbierlus | DemocraticUnderground

After months of silent, closed door negotiations between the holy trinity (the executive branch, the congress, & the health care industry), we stand on the brink of health insurance reform.

Health insurance reform. Do not confuse this with health care reform as that was never the intent of this legislation. This is not a minor point. Health care reform would have addressed the central problem of our current health care system and confronted the reality that in order to provide universal, affordable health care for all citizens, we would need to stop treating human health as a commodity. It would have taken a moral imperative to place human life over profit. But, right from the very beginning, the central GOAL in creating this legislation was just the opposite, the development of a plan that not only maintained, but expanded the ability of the health care industry (private insurers, big pharm, large hospitals) to profit off human illness.

And, that has what has been created. A bill that enshrines private health care companies as the government mandated model for health care administration. A bill that will provide 70 billion dollars in subsidies to private insurance companies, at the expense of universal, affordable coverage for every American citizen. A bill that negotiated away the government's ability to stop big pharm price gouging, in exchange for a phony bargain where the pharmaceutical companies would cut up to 8 billion dollars in costs over the next ten years while they elevated prices 10 billion this year alone. A bill that does not allow reimportation of drugs from Canada and holds the American people hostage to a mob type system of pay or die. Under this bill, millions will not be able to afford their prescriptions. Millions more will be forced to choose medication, food, or heat. Read more.

read more

The Best Reason to Ignore ‘Climategate’: The Climate Really Is Changing from The Washington Independent


Yesterday, I picked apart the "Climategate" scandal, arguing that climate change skeptics' position — that the leaked emails proved the science behind global warming was fraudulent — didn't hold water, simply because the emails just weren't that incriminating. Well, there's another, far more important reason why their argument is flawed, and that's the overwhelming evidence that global warming is, in fact, slowly (or not so slowly) changing our planet as we know it.

Case in point: a study released today by 26 leading climatologists, which finds that the climate situation is actually far more dire than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had led us to believe.

The new report, dubbed "The Copenhagen Diagnosis," seeks to fill in the gaps since the last IPCC assessment, published in 2007 but drafted earlier. Its authors include 14 members of the IPCC, the world's top climate change authority.

Jonathan Hiskes, who's compared the two reports in greater depth than I have, writes:

The new diagnosis finds that arctic sea ice is melting 40 percent faster than the panel estimated just a few years ago. Another startling finding: Satellites have found that the global average for rising sea levels was 3.4 millimeters per year from 1993-2008. The IPCC estimated it would be 1.9 mm for that period—short by 80 percent.

Here's a summary of the new report's key findings:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present –day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2oC. Even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increase the chances of exceeding 2oC warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.190C per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. This area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimates: Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

Sea-level prediction revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4, for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as – 2 meters sea-level rise by 2100. Sea-level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperature have been stabilized and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental ice-sheets. Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds ("tipping points") increase strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2oC above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society – with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases – need to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-90% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.

GOP Lawmakers Complain About Revised Mammogram Guidelines While Opposing Requirements For More Tests from Think Progress


On Wednesday, a group of women GOP lawmakers held a press conference to denounce a new recommendation by the federal Preventive Services Task Force that women receive mammograms less frequently. "This is how rationing begins," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). "This is the little toe in the edge of the water."

"Women in particular may lose a great deal of clout in decision making," said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). "We don't know how far government will go in this bureaucracy," she added, noting that they "want to empower women" and "want to have all the data on the table so individuals can make the best decision they can."

On MSNBC this afternoon, Dr. Nancy Snyderman took Blackburn to task for getting the "public health message lost in the politics." "Now, there's nothing that came out of this panel recommending rationing," said Snyderman. "Just a prudent use of screening tests." When Blackburn tried to claim that the guidelines meant "bureaucrats deciding what they're going to allow," Snyderman pointed out that Blackburn was acting as a "bureaucrat" standing between patients and "the best possible evidence":

BLACKBURN: It is troubling also that another of our colleagues has said many times, we. And that we means bureaucrats deciding what they're going to allow.

SNYDERMAN: But you're one of those bureaucrats. You're my bureaucrat!

BLACKBURN: But I'm not, no. And you see, I don't think a bureaucrat should be between a patient and a doctor. See, I don't want to be that bureaucrat.

SNYDERMAN: Excuse me, I think that's exactly where you are right now.

Watch it:

Popout

As the Washington Independent's Mike Lillis notes, the concern of the congresswomen about rationed mammograms is especially ironic considering that they oppose legislation that "would require insurance companies that cover diagnostic mammograms also to cover routine, annual breast cancer screenings for all women 40 and older."

How the media and the GOP turn lies into zombie lies - a health care case study from Open Left - Front Page


In my column two weeks ago, I made this very simple point about the reporting surrounding the cost of the health care bill:
Political headlines of late have all been some version of Dow Jones newswire's recent screamer: "CBO Puts Health Bill Cost At $1 Trillion." That's as true as an Enron press release touting only one side of the company's ledger. Though the bill's expenditures do total $1 trillion, the CBO confirms its other provisions recover more than that, meaning headlines should read "CBO Says Health Bill Saves $110 Billion."

This is not speculation or my own interpretation - this is a concrete fact, which you can see right on the CBO's website. And yet, other than this single Financial Times headline and article which tells the real story, the media hasn't stopped pushing the "health care will increase the deficit" lie. Indeed, the media has helped turn this Republican lie into a full-on zombie lie - ie. a lie that will not die.

As both Media Matters and the Washington Post's Ezra Klein show, the lie is now framing the discussion over the Senate version of the health care bill. That's to be expected - it's Washington, D.C. after all, the beating heart of the American Idiocracy. But where that standard D.C. lie becomes a zombie lie is at the local level. When a lie starts getting repeated as fact in local news outlets where most average non-Beltway Americans get their news, it quickly becomes a zombie lie.

In the extended entry I provide a case study - you have to see it to believe it.
Colorado (where I live) provides a perfect example. Check out this blaring front page of the Denver Post from last Thursday:

Now watch this clip from the top of KDVR's local news broadcast right after the Senate's big health care vote on Saturday night - specifically, watch the very end:

Popout

So, if you are the typical non-political junkie who glanced at the front page of the Denver Post, giant red font and a whopping 9 zeroes (for extra effect, of course) misled you to believe that the CBO says the Senate health care bill costs $849 billion - not that the CBO actually says the Senate health care bill will reduce the deficit by $127 billion over 10 years and up to $650 billion over 20 years.

Likewise, if you are the typical non-political junkie who caught the evening news on Saturday, you were given at least a little more accurate information - but only in a he-said-he-said way that calls into question the whole numbers. Specifically, you heard only that one guy - David Sirota - claims the bill will reduce the deficit, and that another guy - Colorado Republican Party chairman Dick Wadhams - insists the bill costs $2.5 trillion. You didn't hear that, in fact, it wasn't David Sirota who said the bill will reduce the deficit - it was the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that the Republican Party itself cites as an unquestionably credible source. And you didn't hear that Dick Wadhams literally made up his $2.5 trillion number out of thin air.

While the Republican spin is obviously deliberately dishonest, the media's misleading frame is more likely a product of pressure for oversenationalism and a lack of reporting resources. With newspapers desperately trying to attract readership, it's a better, more outrage-generating headline to put a giant number in bold red type on a cover, rather than to have a headline saying that a bill will actually save taxpayers' money (and I have to give the Denver Post's opinion editors - who are distinct from their front-page news editors - at least some credit for printing my original column about this kind of budgetary misinformation in its opinion section). Similarly, a general local correspondent on deadline who covers everything from local fires to state budget issues to national health care debates might not have the time nor the researchers to verify numbers - and so it's just easier to cite them in the he-said-he-said way (and hey, at least a shred of the real story was reported in some way, even if it was delivered in a he-said-he-said form).

Regardless of the motives or explanations, however, this is how a standard Washington lie becomes a zombie lie - a lie that simply will not die. It is repeated over and over and over again - sometimes deliberately, sometimes negligently - until it becomes conventional wisdom that the most trusted nonpartisan experts in the CBO say the health care bill will balloon the federal deficit...even when those nonpartisan experts are saying exactly the opposite.

Campaign Contributions from Insurance Companies to Senators Blocking the Public Option from Firedoglake

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/22/campaign-contributions-from-insurance-companies-to-senators-blocking-the-public-option/

"Sure, follow the money. . . I do."

"Sure, follow the money. . . I do."

Here's how much they have raked in this year:

Ben Nelson $63,000

Mary Landrieu $10,500

Blanche Lincoln: $112,500

Joe Lieberman: $5,500

Of course, Lincoln is the only one up for reelection in 2010. Over their careers, Nelson and Lincoln have received in excess of a half million each, and Lieberman is well over a million.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

1,500 Uninsured Arkansans Line Up For A Free Health Care Clinic from Think Progress


One out of every five people in Arkansas lacks health insurance coverage. However, today over 1,500 uninsured Arkansans received health care at a free clinic hosted by Communities Are Responding Everyday (CARE) at the Statehouse Convention Center in Little Rock, which was made possible in part because of calls for donations by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. A wide variety of medical services, including physicals and screenings for such conditions as high blood pressure and high cholesterol, were provided at the clinic.

The Arkansas Times spoke both to volunteers and people waiting to receive care. Several of the volunteers expressed their enthusiasm to help their fellow community members, while at the same time feeling "ashamed" to be in a country where health care is still a privilege:

MAN: Well I came to get health. I do have diabetes and I haven't been able to get healthcare since I lost my last job. And I am a student so it's been a little difficult to get a full time job where I can get benefits. [...] I haven't seen a doctor probably in three or four years. [...] I thank all of the volunteers.

WOMAN: I got laid off in 2008 and since I haven't had insurance [...]

MAN: I don't make really enough money to pay bills and have healthcare also. This is a good opportunity for me. And I haven't really had a check up or anything in more years than I'd like to admit. [...] I'm really thankful.

Watch it:

Popout

Earlier today, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) announced today that she would provide the 60th vote "in support of cloture on the motion to proceed" to the health care reform bill. But Lincoln also stressed that she is "opposed to a new government administered health care plan as a part of health care reform and will not vote on the health care proposal introduced by leader Reid as it is written."

As it is currently written, the Senate health bill would reduce the number of uninsured by 31 million while also reducing the deficit by $130 billion in ten years. So while Lincoln considers voting against the bill, free clinics like the one today remain the only option for hundreds of thousands of people in her state. The next free clinic event is scheduled for December 9-10 in Kansas City, Mo.

Unwritten Stories Reveal New Climate Scandal! from WorldChanging


There's been a lot of talk recently about the "hacked climate emails." Long story, short: Hacker steals email, posts. Wingnuts take some lines out of context, claim they show a cover-up, cry conspiracy. Scientists refute, in detail. Media covers "controversy." Driven by talk radio and oil money, the whole thing escalates into a scandal.

But a much bigger scandal is just waiting to break.

That scandal?

1) Climate change is real, it's here, we're causing it, and it's worse than we thought it was.

2) There is no "debate" about #1; the completely massively overwhelming majority of all the scientists studying this issue, from nearly every angle, agree. Indeed, they agree in such a total majority that we might as well say all scientists agree that climate change is real, is here, is caused by people and is worse than we thought it was.

3) We know what causes climate change, therefore we know how to stop it.

4) The actions we need to take to stop it will cut into some companies' profits (such as oil and coal companies); therefore they have funded a well-documented, three-decade propaganda campaign to distort the science, vilify the scientists and dupe the American people into thinking they're being lied to.

5) There is no credible institutional opposition to climate action that isn't directly or indirectly funded by these companies and their political allies. The entire "skeptic" movement is an astroturf creation: the fact that some regular guys believe it and parrot its talking points just makes it sadder, not more credible.

6) There is no good reason, ever, to repeat those talking points, or to allow them to be repeated without challenge in your presence. They are lies, and their effectiveness depends on educated people's natural tendency to try to give all the "sides" in a debate a hearing; the validation that comes from being presented as a credible position -- even if only to refute that position -- helps perpetuate the lie.

7) The American media is particularly guilt of a collapse of journalistic ethics when it comes to climate change, seizing on every opportunity to portray a given talking point as a "controversy" and therefore important news. We've seen several hundred different climate lies become "climate controversy" stories; we've seen professional climate denialists like Bjorn Lomborg be treated as serious opposing experts; we've seen the characters of serious climate scientists and leaders -- from Jim Hansen and Al Gore to the University of East Anglia (the source of the hacked email) -- assassinated through repeated innuendo and quoted slander in print and broadcast media.

8) The lies will eventually be pointed out, and people will know the truth. That's happened, and continues to happen. In the meantime, though, more and more people are convinced that with this much "controversy," there must actually be some kind of a debate. Support for climate action weakens. Progress slows. The liars win, the oil and coal companies continue to make record profits.

9) And meanwhile, altogether elsewhere, ice sheets melt, deserts grow, forests burn, crops fail, hunger deepens, storms intensify, diseases spread and the prospects of our children, grandchildren and generations to come grow dimmer, and hotter, by the day.

That, my friends, is the real scandal. Surely it'll break soon, and get massive coverage in print, radio, TV and on the Net; surely the media will be flabbergasted to know they're been had, and will respond with prolonged investigative reports and round-the-clock scandal coverage, right? Surely.


PS: If you want the full, detailed story of the manufactured opposition to climate science and climate action, look no further than James Hoggan's comprehensive and compelling Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (Greystone, 2009). It's the real story on climate change and the media, with footnotes.

PPS: Don't even bother leaving a denialist comment. Since this is a site dedicated to solutions to the planetary crisis we face, and denialism is a dishonest effort to block progress towards those solutions, we delete denialist comments on principle.

PPPS: Yeah, I'm tired of this crap.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Alex Steffen in Climate Change at 1:31 PM)

Tea partiers heckle woman whose daughter-in-law died because she didn’t have health insurance. from Think Progress


At a town hall event on health care reform hosted by Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) earlier this month, Midge Hough told the tragic story of how her daughter-in-law, Jenny, and her unborn grandchild died recently because they didn't have health insurance. Jenny came down with "severe double pneumonia, Septic shock and Respitory failure," Hough said, "and laid in an ICU unit for the next two months at a cost of $22,000 a day." Her baby died in the womb and Jenny died a few weeks later. But as Hough was telling her story, tea partiers at the meeting "ridiculed" her, the South Town Star reports. "They moaned and rolled their eyes and interrupted," laughing loudly and shouting her down at points. Watch it (beginning at 1:30):

Popout

Chicago Tea Party Patriots sent out a flyer to encourage attendance at the event, saying Lipinski had "sold us out!" by voting "to pass socialized medicine." In defense of the heckling, an organizer for the group falsely claimed that the Houghs fabricated their story and called them operatives of President Barack Obama who "go from event to event and (cry) the same story." At another recent event, Hough told Gov. Pat Quinn (D-IL) that she has been "personally attacked" by tea party activists at her home address. (HT: Crooks and Liars)

Hypocritical GOP Senators Go On An Orgy Of Healthcare Fear-Mongering from DownWithTyranny!


http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/11/hypocritical-gop-senators-go-on-orgy-of.html

Republicans hardly waited for the Sunday morning bobblehead shows to go into the greatest display of political hypocrisy anyone has ever heard. One after another, they came up to the podium all day Saturday, and railed against the healthcare reform bill they have been trying to sabotage from the moment Democrats announced they would try to pass it-- in the 1940s. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse captured their unctuous mummery and bad faith sanctimoniousness better than anyone. He reminded us of GOP perfidy-- highway robbery... in broad daylight-- in running up billions of dollars in deficits on behalf of their cronies in the pharmaceutical industry when they controlled the House, Senate and White House and decided to toss senior citizens into a donut hole so squeeze out even greater profits for Big PhRMA. In 2006 that industry alone showered over $14,000,000 in barely veiled bribes on incumbent members of Congress-- more than $10,000,000 of it to Republicans, the 3 current sitting senators who received the most being anti-reform fanatics Orrin Hatch (R-UT-$369,781), Joe Lieberman (I-CT-$295,090) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ-$167,250). Since 1990 Pharma has "donated" around $100,000,000 (not counting close to 2 billion dollars for "lobbying" these same worthies), the bulk of it going to Republicans and the biggest current members on the receiving end being Orrin Hatch (R-UT-$1,368,909), Arlen Specter (R/D-PA-$1,111,016), John McCain (R-AZ-$852,915). Did you think it was a coincidence that Orrin Hatch lead the right-wing onslaught against reform yesterday or that when he was tired Dick Burr (R-NC-$773,416) took over? It was considered rude of Whitehouse to bring up the GOP connection, even subtly, to Big PhRMA. And he didn't stop there:

"Now, when at least we take on the Insurance Industry, suddenly they discover a concern about deficits. Well, I would urge that based on that trajectory these remarks have a lot less to do about the deficit than they do about protecting the Insurance Industry... It is very hard to find any daylight between the position of the insurance industry and the position of our Republican friends."

Of course not; whatever daylight there may have once been, has been long blotted out with cascading greenbacks-- $324,658,744 since 1990 (62% to Republicans) plus another $1.3 billion in lobbying. And the biggest recipients spoke with the loudest voices yesterday. We haven't heard McCain ($2,919,753)-- the biggest Insurance Industry bribe taker in the history of the U.S. Congress-- get so worked up about anything since he decided to prove Baghdad was safe for a casual stroll. The bipartisan circle of steel protecting Big Insurance-- Ben Nelson ($1,258,299), Joe Lieberman ($1,037,652), Chuck Grassley ($983,674) and Miss McConnell ($953,557)-- are all determined to eviscerate healthcare reform on behalf of their benefactors.

I'm not a big viewer of the Sunday talk shows. Normally I just watch bits of them at Crooks and Liars but today I wanted to see the way the Republicans would extend their fear mongering from yesterday. I wasn't disappointed. One after the other, the Republicans went on the shows-- with Lieberman in an all too familiar role-- to predict the end of the world if healthcare reform passes. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) must have felt he was on a roll as he took his minstrel show over to Fox News Sunday to drill into the heads of worried white seniors that they will be "dumped into a ghetto," the same program that encouraged Kit Bond to reprise his line from yesterday about how healthcare was "something Bernie Madoff would really envy."

The defenders of the status quo, which in the end is all any conservative party ever is, fears change-- and wants to share the fear with anyone who will listen. Had Americans listened to hysterical conservative fears at the great moments in our country's history we would never have promulgated the Declaration of Independence. Nor would we have fought the Revolutionary War against the British monarchy they remained loyal to, many of them leaving for England, Canada and the Bahamas after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown in 1781, followed by the British evacuations of Savannah, Charleston and New York City in 1782-3. And we certainly would never have had a Bill of Rights-- which conservatives fought with as much vitriol as they are using against healthcare reform. In his brilliant book, The Progressive Revolution: How The Best In America Came To Be, Mike Lux take us through a whole litany of conservative cause cรฉlรจbres that progressives beat back in the name of moving the nation forward. I tweeted them all during the debate yesterday, reminding people that the #1 weapon in the conservative tool box is fear. They used it to try to stop universal suffrage and claimed doom would descend on us all if anyone but wealthy white property owners was allowed to vote. They used the same language to oppose free public education, the emancipation of women, the emancipation of slaves, a minimum wage, an 8-hour work week, the right of working people to use collective bargaining, the end of child labor laws, regulations protecting consumers from poisonous meat and crooked banksters and every civil rights bill that ever came up for a vote. And then there was Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all of which Republicans claimed would lead to the end of the world and the rise of socialism.

After Democrats began ignoring their hysteria and passing legislation to ameliorate the Great Depression caused by the Republican economic and fiscal policies of the 1920s, the media began creating an atmosphere of conventional wisdom that would see the Republicans swept back into power in 1934, just as they are busy doing today as they warn weak sisters like Blanche Lincoln, John Barrow, Glenn Nye and Larry Kissell that their political careers will end if they support Obama's program of reforms.

It didn't quite work out the way they predicted it would in 1934 or 1936. Instead the Republicans lost 10 more seats in the Senate in 1934, bringing them down to a paltry 25, followed two years later-- after more virulent obstructionism-- with 8 more losses for a grand total of 17 Senate seats. The same thing happened in the House. Just when the GOP, believing its own hype, was preparing to take back the House leadership, 1934 saw them shrink to 103 seats (of 425), followed two years later by another electoral massacre that left them with 88 impotent screaming obstructionists that even the media stopped paying attention to. Yesterday's Raleigh News & Observer, North Carolina's second largest newspaper, noted that the self-inflicted shrinkage of their pup tent may purity may cost the GOP very dearly. In North Carolina the Republican Party is likely to follow California in prohibiting independents from voting in their primaries, "in theory screening out some moderate voters." There's nothing theoretical about it; it's an intraparty suicide pact.
In this age of polarization, it is politically incorrect to be a moderate.

The Republican Party likes to bill itself as the conservative voice of North Carolina and that is true enough, although the Libertarian Party might take exception.

But the state Republican Party has historically been far broader than the Helmsian party, with strong ties to the more moderate GOP brand of the mountains, the foothills, the board rooms and the suburbs.

Sometimes the Republican Party forgets that.

And not just in North Carolina. "As conservative British Prime Minister HaroldMcMillan (1957-63) once noted: 'A successful party of the right must continue to recruit from the center and even from the left center. Once it begins to shrink into itself like a snail, it will be doomed.'"

DICK Morris again uses Fox News to raise funds to oppose health care reform

Media Matters for America


http://mediamatters.org/items/200911240023

On Fox News' Hannity, Fox News contributor Dick Morris touted "the work we're trying to do through DickMorris.com" to oppose health care reform and instructed viewers to "go there and help us." Morris has repeatedly used his frequent appearances on Fox News to raise money for conservative political organizations, including those in which he has a financial interest, a practice that also has been followed by Fox News' Mike Huckabee.

Morris touts DickMorris.com: "[G]o there and help us"

From the November 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

MORRIS: When this bill passed the House four weeks ago, it was 45 [percent] support, 52 oppose. Well, it's 38 support, 56 oppose.

SEAN HANNITY (host): That's correct.

MORRIS: And a lot of that movement is coming, as I've said on your show, from some of the work we're trying to do through DickMorris.com -- go there and help us -- is switching young people. The question among them has gone from "Oh, yeah, we really need insurance" to "What, am I going to go to jail if I don't have it?"

Morris frequently raises funds for conservative groups on Fox News

Morris asked Fox viewers to "give funds to GOPTrust.com" without noting his apparent financial ties to the organization. Between October 27, 2008, and November 17, 2008, Morris mentioned GOPTrust.com during at least 13 Fox News appearances and asked viewers to "give funds to GOPTrust.com," the website of the National Republican Trust PAC, without disclosing that the organization has paid $24,000 to a company apparently connected to Morris. Through publicly available records with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Media Matters for America found that GOPTrust.com paid Triangulation Strategies at least $24,000 from the beginning of October 2008 to November 24, 2008, mostly for "Email Communication." The "Mailing Address" for Triangulation Strategies is listed in one of the National Republican Trust PAC's FEC filings as "dickmorris.com."

Morris brags about raising $2.5 million on his website for ads against health care reform. On the October 19 edition of Hannity, Morris claimed that "at DickMorris.com we've raised now $2.5 million to run ads" against health care reform through the League of American Voters (LAV). Morris previously used Fox News to solicit donations for LAV, stating on the September 21 edition of Hannity, "[O]n my website, DickMorris.com, I'll tell you how to contribute to 10-second ads we are now running." His website featured an LAV ad and solicited donations for "[t]he New Ad Against Obamacare." While Morris stated on the September 28 edition of Hannity that he has no "financial stake in these ads," he is LAV's "chief strategist," and according to LAV executive director Bob Adams, Morris "actually crafted our ads and national campaign."

Huckabee has also raised money on Fox News -- for PAC that supports GOP candidates and pays his daughter's salary

Huckabee sends viewers to his PAC under the guise of signing a petition. On two Fox News shows, Huckabee directed viewers to "go to balancecutsave.com," urging them to sign a petition telling Congress to "balance the budget," "cut their spending," and "save American families." However, balancecutsave.com redirects visitors to a Web page soliciting donations for Huckabee's political action committee, which financially supports Republican candidates and also pays Huckabee's daughter's salary.

Contact:
Fox News Channel

FOX News Channel
1-888-369-4762
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
http://twitter.com/foxnews

Contact:
Dick Morris

Dick Morris

Contact:
Hannity

http://twitter.com/hannityshow

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.

ESPN1000 in Chicago reports - Charlie Weiss will not make west coast recruiting trip after Sanford game - means he's pretty much fired

ESPN1000 in Chicago reports - Charlie Weiss will not make west coast recruiting trip after Sanford game - means he's pretty much fired

What Health Care Reform Means for: The Underinsured from ProPublica: Articles and Investigations


Using results from a questionnaire we did with American Public Media's Public Insight Network, we're looking at how the proposed health care reforms will actually affect people facing common health care coverage situations. See our previous posts on what health care reform means for the uninsured, small businesses, and those enrolled in Medicare programs.

Mary and Mack Kroner

Age: 53, 57 Location: Austin, Texas Work Status: Employed Health Care Status: Underinsured with a high deductible Income: Combined $50,000 per year

Their story:

Mack is a self-employed cab driver and Mary is a self-employed writer; they both pay for their own health insurance. Though together they pay about $600 a month in premiums, they have what Mary Kroner calls "junk insurance."

Rapidly rising premiums have forced them to increase their deductible every year, and now they have a policy with a $5,000 deductible per illness per year. That means that they've been paying essentially all their health care costs out of pocket. Mary pays $100 for her annual mammogram—a must because her sister had breast cancer—but she skips recommended pelvic exams. A recent colonoscopy recommended for Mack after he showed signs of bowel cancer cost them $1,376, roughly half their monthly income.

"We just bite the bullet and don't attend to things because we can't afford it," Mary said.

What Health Care Reform Means for Them:

The Kroners would qualify to purchase insurance through a health care exchange because they are not part of a government program and do not have insurance through their employers. They could choose one from of an array of private plans, and one public plan, that conform to set levels of coverage.

The House plan would create a national exchange, the Senate plan state-based exchanges—and states would be able to opt out of the public option.

The plans in the exchange are likely to cost less for individuals like the Kroners because they pool risk, much the way that employer policies do. Setting levels of coverage also encourages plans to compete based on price.

Both the Senate and House plans would help the underinsured by requiring generous coverage for preventive care, like Mack's colonoscopy and Mary's mammograms. They would also cap out-of-pocket costs.

The Kroners would also qualify for government help in paying their premiums, but would fare slightly better with the Senate plan. Both plans offer subsidies on a sliding scale, which would ensure that people making less than 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Line would spend only a certain percentage of their salary on premiums. Mary and Mack make about 300 to 350 percent of the poverty line, which in 2009 is $14,570 for a family of two. Under the Senate plan, the Kroners' premium would be capped at 9.8 percent ($4,900). That's $2,300 less than they pay now. Under the House plan, their premium would be capped at 10 to 11 percent of their income ($5,000 to $5,500), which would save the Kroners between $2,200 and $1,700 from their current premium.

Under the Senate and House plans, the Kroners would also qualify for cost-sharing credits.

If the Kroners decided to keep buying private insurance outside the exchange, they would have to buy a policy that covered  preventive services, pre-existing conditions, hospitalization and a series of other services ("essential benefits" in official jargon) or they would face a steep tax penalty under both proposals.

Under the House bill, that tax would equal 2.5 percent of their annual income, or $1,250. Under the Senate bill, which phases the penalty in over the next six years, by 2016 they would owe $750 a person, or $1,500.

There’s a Reason Why Health Reform Must Include a Viable Public Option from Firedoglake

 by Scarecrow http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/16068

With so much attention focused on four conservative, obstructionist Democrats, the Democratic leadership seems driven to find some way to placate them. So, it's easy to forget that there are compelling reasons why health reform should not get watered down or sidetracked to satisfy the egos and fears of Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu or Blanche Lincoln.

It's not just that it would be insulting to the Senate and House majorities and to Democrats generally to undermine essential reforms just to mollify the electoral fears, misapprehensions, or unprincipled opportunism of this less than stellar group. Nor is it that none of these has made a coherent, truthful argument against the public option or for shielding private insurers from a viable competitor. This isn't about some abstract market principle.

The nation's health care system is in crisis, and it's getting worse, inexorably and without mercy for those whose lives are being literally and financially destroyed. On Saturday in Arkansas, there were a thousand people lined up for a free clinic, a thousand reasons among millions like them why passing health insurace and care reform is a moral imperative. But the breakdown isn't simply in the growing number of uninsured, under-insured and fraudulently insured and abused.

The folks who monitor the nation's health insurance systems have been telling us for years that the employer-based system is systematically eroding, and the only thing saving us is the expansion of public health progrrams. In the last decade alone, the employer-based system has fallen from covering nearly 65 percent to covering less than 60 percent. As health care costs and insurance premiums escalate, employers will continue to limit and drop coverage, and the pace of that erosion will quicken. Despite all the rhetoric about "preserving what works," the employer-based insurance system is failing and must be replaced.

We could have chosen a single-payer insurance system to replace it; we know it works, because we use it for those over 65. But it was dismissed out of hand partly for indefensible ideological reasons but mostly because few believed displacing an entire industry with enormous political power was achievable in a Congress as corrupt as ours. So the pragmatic excuse became that such a radical transition was simply too disruptive.

But if that's the excuse, it follows that meaningful reforms needed to provide a more careful, less-disruptive, but steady transition to a new sustainable foundation. Having abandoned a single-payer government insurance system, Democrats bought into a combination of private insurance reforms, enhanced regulation, and a government-sponsored public option to reinforce and, if needed, expand enough to potentially replace the rest.

If it were sufficiently viable when the exchange(s) opened, the public option would hold the rest of the reforms together and reinforce the regulatory goals. But if it were too crippled to even get started — the debate about Medicare rates and providers was a proxy for that fight — or too weak to become viable, all the other reforms would be at risk, gradually undermined and likely fail.

A viable public option would provide a meaningful choice to shoppers in the new exchange(s); it would put downward pressure on private insurer premiums; it could provide a payment platform for implementing cost-control and payment-incentive measures among select providers.

Equally important, but often overlooked, a viable public option would provide the necessary safety net for the millions of Americans who, as CBO and knowledgable experts predicted, would be discriminated against by the private insurers seeking to cherry pick the younger, healthier enrollees in the exchange. CBO confirmed that view, implicitly conceding that the insurance reforms would not work as intended, so a safety net would be needed as a check. In short, a viable public option would make all the other transitional elements work better.

Once this new structure became functional, the doors to the exchange could be gradually opened to more and more employers and enrollees, allowing a controlled but systematic migration from the employer-based system to the new regime. It is impossible to predict how this market would sort out; perhaps the public option would dominate, perhaps not; but the system would move towards some equilibrium combination of public and private insurers.

What's important is that without the public option, an equilibrium would likely exclude the more costly patients through systematic discrimination that regulators would find difficult either to detect or prevent — and the reform effort would eventually fail.

It's necessary to restate this theory, because the Senate is in great danger of forgetting what it's about. The four recalcitrant Senators do not understand even the basic concepts, and so far, none of them has been honest or coherent in explaining their opposition to the logical case for a public option. They don't get it, and they don't care, but they should not be coddled because it matters to the rest of us.

The public option is at the heart of insurance reform, the core piece in a transition that must take place. It's not a bargaining chip for rounding up four clueless Senators. It would be unconcionable for the Senate leadership to cut out the heart to accommodate the know-nothings of their party.

Howard Dean is right; Arianna Huffington is right; Jane Hamsher is right. The public option is essential to reform. It must be retained, protected and strengthened. Without it, health insurance reform will be just a very bad, very foolish, and very expensive experiment — and clearly not the platform Democrats should want in 2010.

Andrea Mitchell Reminds Michael Steele Palin Quit After He Calls Her a "Successful Governor" from Crooks and Liars

 

DOWNLOADS: (419)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (3394)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

You've got to love watching these guys trying to put a good spin on Sarah Palin's potential return to politics. Michael Steele gets stopped in his tracks by Andrea Mitchell while calling Palin a "successful governor" when Mitchell points out that she quit half way through her term. Of course Steele plays the victim card for Palin and blames her quitting on the media making it impossible for her to do her job. Steele also claims that we've never seen this level of disrespect shown for a female political candidate.

I'd like to see Steele tell Hillary Clinton that to her face if he thinks no other female politician has ever been treated disrespectfully. I'd also like to ask Steele how President Obama is managing to concentrate on doing his job with amount of constant attacks being leveled at him by the media, primarily Fox and the right wing talk show hate machine?

How long will it take before the right wing blogs are trying to spin Mrs. Greenspan as an evil "librul" picking on poor old Sarah for this interview?

GlaxoSmithKline Pulls Swine Flu Vaccines in Canada: May “Trigger Life-Threatening Allergies” from cryptogon.com

 

Via: AP:

Pharmaceuticals company GlaxoSmithKline PLC said Tuesday it has advised medical staff in Canada to not use one batch of swine flu vaccines in case they trigger life-threatening allergies.

Company spokeswoman Gwenan White said that they issued the advice after reports that one batch of the swine flu vaccine might have caused more allergic reactions than normal.

"We have advised health care professionals not to use that batch while health authorities and GlaxoSmithKline investigate," she said.

White said the batch at issue, which has been distributed across Canada, contains 172,000 doses of the vaccine. She declined to say how many doses had been administered before the advice to stop using them was given.

White said U.K.-based GlaxoSmithKline wrote to Canadian health care professionals advising them to stop using the batch on Nov. 18. She says a total of 7.5 million doses of the vaccine have been distributed in Canada.

Study: CEOs cashed in before Wall Street meltdown from Raw Story Breaking News

 

lehmanbrothersbank Study: CEOs cashed in before Wall Street meltdownThe CEOs of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, the two investment banks that collapsed during last year's financial meltdown, walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation even as the company's shareholders lost everything, says a new report from Harvard Law School.

The top five executives at Bear Stearns made a total of $1.4 billion from bonuses and equity sales between 2000 and 2008, while the top five executives at Lehman Brothers made around $1 billion during that same period -- the period during which the companies ran up the bad investments that would see them collapse in 2008, according to "The Wages of Failure" (PDF), a report from Harvard Law School's Program on Corporate Governance.

"The people who invested in these companies should feel betrayed," Nell Minow, a compensation expert at the Corporate Library, told NBC's Lisa Myers. "The whole idea of capitalism is that the people provide the capital and the executives take care of it for us. In this case, the people provided the capital, and the executives took it."

Bear Stearns CEO James Cayne personally made $388 million in the eight-year period leading up to the bank's collapse, while Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld made $541 million. Boomberg news service notes that "shareholders who held their shares throughout the period analyzed in the report lost most of their initial investment."

NBC's Myers points out that both Cayne and Fuld are being sued by shareholders.

Story continues below...

CNBC business anchor Jim Cramer told NBC's Matt Lauer that the corporate culture that led to the huge bonuses and financial collapse isn't going away.

"What happened to these people? Nothing," Cramer said. "They got the money, they left. ... They got away with it, so why shouldn't the next guy try?"

This video is from NBC's Today Show, broadcast Nov. 24, 2009.



Download video via RawReplay.com

Hey, Dick? STFU: Cheney served under two former presidents who bowed to foreign leaders

Mr. Protocol Himself

Hey, Dick? STFU:

When the President of the United States bows to a foreign leader, our friends and allies don't expect it and our adversaries perceive it as a sign of weakness. I think it's fundamentally harmful and it shows in my mind that this is a guy, a president, who would bow, for example, who doesn't fully understand or have the same perception of the U.S. role in the world that I think most Americans have...

What I see in President Obama is somebody who bows before foreign leaders and spends his trips aboard primarily apologizing for U.S. behavior. I find that very upsetting.

And leaving aside the point made by Greg Sargent at The Plum Line that Cheney served under two former presidents who bowed to foreign leaders, does Dick really think he should be the go-to guy on matters of protocol?

dick
Dick Cheney representing the United States at the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz

RNC Hires ‘Father Of The Modern Attack Ad’ To Run Communications Shop from Think Progress

 

CastellanosYesterday, a senior aide to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, Trevor Francis, resigned from his position as communications director. "Trevor's talents will be missed at the RNC," said Steele in a statement. "We have accomplished a great deal in the year he was here. He worked tirelessly, as did the whole team, on the victories in Virginia and his home state of New Jersey."

But Politico's Jonathan Martin reports that Francis' abrupt departure was not by choice, quoting two Republican strategists who say that Francis was "pushed out" because Steele "didn't feel he was getting enough credit for the GOP's electoral success earlier this month." Steele apparently attributes this to a communications failure by Francis.

Francis is being replaced by Alex Castellanos, a CNN contributor who fashions himself as the "father of the modern attack ad." Castellanos is no stranger to the RNC, having received four payments totaling $434,336 from them for media work since July. Castellanos has also been a key player in the effort to stop health care reform:

– His political consulting firm, National Media, was the ad buyer for the insurance industry group America's Health Insurance Plan's (AHIP) recent ad blitz attacking Democratic health reform plans.

– In July, he wrote a memo for the GOP leadership on how to kill health reform that emphasized the use of buzzwords to characterize Democratic plans — like "risky" and "experiment" — but most importantly defined the ultimate goal: "If we slow this sausage-making process down, we can defeat it."

– He has repeatedly used his pundit perch on CNN to attack President Obama's health care reform effort, calling it "a big gamble" and an "expensive trillion-dollar experiment."

Before the health care debate, Castellanos was best known as the creator of the racially-charged "Hands" advertisement, which ran on behalf of former Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC). In May 2008, Castellanos defended sexism during the 2008 campaign by saying that sometimes it's "accurate" to describe a woman as a "bitch."

GOP purity test would have banished Bush, Reagan from Raw Story Breaking News

 

Ronald%20Reagan GOP purity test would have banished Bush, ReaganThe latest trend in the Republican Party is an effort to weed out moderates -- witness New York Republicans' successful effort to oust their own candidate in an upstate House race, in preference for an independent conservative.

But a new GOP "purity test" named for Ronald Reagan moves the line even farther to the right, and a liberal website has found that the test -- if used in the past -- would have screened out President Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush as viable conservatives.

The test was conceived by conservative attorney Jim Bopp, Jr., who recently pushed a resolution to the Republican National Committee which proposed referring to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Socialist Party." (The proposal was rejected.)

Bopp's litmus test, titled the "Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates," includes the following guidelines:

(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill

Story continues below...

(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) Workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check

(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat

(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

Trouble is, the measure would likely have screened out President Ronald Reagan, under whose watch the US deficit ballooned. The federal deficit mushroomed from 2.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1980, to 6 percent in 1983.

Reagan also agreed to a $165 billion bailout of Social Security, in contradiction of conservative orthodoxy (though he did drastically reduce the top income tax brackets for Americans).

The Gipper also raised the gasoline tax in 1983.

George W. Bush would have had trouble too, Washington Monthly notes.

Bush, too, dramatically increased the size of the federal deficit, which was turning surpluses under his predecessor, President Bill Clinton. He also broke with conservatives on the issue of opposing blanket amnesty for undocumented immigrants.

Who else would fail the test?

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Republicans' 2008 presidential nominee, who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in the Senate, which would have enshrined in federal law a prohibition against same sex marriage benefits. McCain, however, hasn't been in far-right conservatives' good graces for some time.

This video is from MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast Nov. 23, 2009.



Download video via RawReplay.com

AZ Woman Forced To Give Birth In Shackles By Sheriff Arpaio Deputy from Crooks and Liars

 

4019688_93da5.47.jpg

AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio needs no introduction, his bigotry and illegal activity has been well documented. The latest outrage on his watch comes at the hands of one of his deputies, who forced a woman to give birth while cuffed at the wrists and ankles, then ordered the baby taken from the mother:

The bleeding kept her up all night, drenching her black-and-white-striped jail uniform.

Alma Chacรณn feared her baby would arrive early. Her nightmare had started with a traffic stop a day earlier. She'd been weeping since. "What if the baby is born here, in the jail?" she thought.

In the afternoon, she was shackled and transported to Maricopa County Medical Center, where she gave birth in a "forensic restraint." She couldn't hold her baby daughter or kiss her. She could only watch as hospital personnel carried the infant out the door. She wouldn't see the baby for 72 days.

Her case raises questions about the use of racial profiling by Maricopa County sheriff's deputies during traffic stops, but, most importantly, sheds light on the mistreatment of unconvicted immigrants inside county jails. Read on...

Chacon did have two warrants for her arrest, but this sort of barbaric treatment goes beyond the pale. The officer claimed he had no choice, but it does raise some serious red flags. Somehow I doubt he truly thought Chacon was a flight risk, or capable of doing serious harm to hospital staff in the middle of giving birth. There is an online petition to remove Sheriff Arpaio, you can view it and sign it here.

Denigrating women isn't new to Arpaio. He has made no secret of his disdain for women and their reproductive rights.

Cops: Kenosha man built 'shrine' to child porn from Chicago Breaking News

  http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11/cops-kenosha-man-built-shrine-to-child-porn.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChicagoBreakingNews+%28Chicago+Breaking+News%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

w_derks125x150.jpg

Authorities say a Kenosha man built a shrine to child pornography in his apartment.

Police searching Kevin M. Derks' apartment discovered mannequins, DVDs of child pornography and photos of girls on Kenosha area beaches, according to a criminal complaint.

The walls were decorated with posters and photos of young girls. One showed actresses Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. Other photos included kidnap victim Elizabeth Smart and actress Dakota Fanning.

A criminal complaint said Derks, 53, denied ever having sexual contact with a child, and said no children had been to his apartment and that he never tried to lure any there.

Authorities said they also recovered 21 firearms and ammunition.  He said he kept so many guns in case a "drunkard or crazy nut came though his door," according to the complaint.

State Department of Justice agents learned about Derks through a tip from federal immigration officials investigating online child pornography. They said Derks purchased a 30-day membership to a site in 2006, according to court documents.

Derks fainted when state agents tried to interview him, and he was taken to an area hospital.

He faces 20 felony counts of possessing child pornography.

-- Associated Press

New Blog: “Economists for Firing Larry Summers” from The Big Picture

 

While many people seem to be agitating for Turbo Timmy's dismissal, an underground drumbeat has begun calling for Summer's head:

How can you not find some appreciation for a blog that is devoted to helping a man spend more time with his loved ones?

fire sumers bog

Economists for Firing Larry Summers:

This blog is devoted to seeing to it that Larry Summers gets to spend more time with his family.

-Thorstein Veblen

Brilliant!

Here's a quick excerpt:

This from Vanity Fair:

Summers has plenty of other things figured out as well, including the origins of the current financial crisis, for which he has crafted a cogent explanation worthy of his reputation as a policy wonk and his days as a college debating champion at M.I.T. "I think crises like this get made by multiple cascading misjudgments," he explains, and then catalogues them: too much government spending, not enough private-sector saving, too much dependence on foreign debt, too much demand for "riskless" financial instruments that weren't, in fact, riskless …

The first three of these were, at best, only tangentially related. As much as I think the Bush tax cuts were a mistake, Republican inability to balance the budget really did not have anything to do with the crisis. Ditto for Private-sector saving (even though i think saving is good, generally…) Dependence on foreign debt had nothing to do with the crisis.

Nov 23-25 call Obama: No More Troops for Afganistan: White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111 from AfterDowningStreet.org

Michael Munk submitted this action call from the American Friends Service Committee:

Nov 23-25 call Obama: No more troops for Afganistan

Dear Friend, VIA"Peace and Justice Works"

Today, we have much news to share about our Afghanistan peace campaign and an opportunity for action.

First, thank you all for your calls to the White House last week -- and for your photos and comments on our Facebook Postcards to Obama initiative.

This week, we are redoubling our efforts. AFSC is joining with many other peace and justice groups for White House Call-in Days, Monday through Wednesday. And we need your help.

Last week, the White House held three meetings to reach out to academics and peace activists, development agencies, and representatives from faith communities to elicit their views on Afghanistan strategy. An AFSC colleague of ours in Washington attended the faith communities meeting, and tells us that the Obama Administration is clearly listening.

So, this week's call-in days are all the more important.

Please take action today and join with the pro-peace majority in calling for an end to this war.

Call the White House to Say "No More Troops in Afghanistan"

National White House Call-In Days
Monday, November 23 - Wednesday, November 25

We are at a cross roads. President Obama will soon announce the U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, including the role of U.S. troops. Call him and tell him that more troops will not bring more peace.

This situation needs a strategy based on diplomacy, the rule of law, government accountability and development. This long-term vision requires transparent and sustained support for civilian led and accountable community institutions. Investment in civilian institutions helps citizens strengthen their communities, which will help to prevent rather than escalate violence. It also costs a fraction of the price of a military surge. This would mean more money at home for job creation, prevention of foreclosures, healthcare and other human needs.

Previous U.S. governments have shown that the U.S. is prepared to invest lives and treasures in war. Encourage this administration to invest in peace.

White House comment line:
202-456-1111

Talking points:

1. No additional troops to Afghanistan.
2. A timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and for diplomacy and dialogue with all parties to the conflict, without preconditions.
3. Badly needed development aid provided, to be coordinated by civilian-led organizations, not the military.
4. Redirect the more than $44 billion spent yearly on war to supporting real human needs in Afghanistan and at home.

Help President Obama make the best decision on Afghanistan. Please take a moment and make your call today.

The National White House Call-in Days are being jointly organized by United for Peace and Justice, American Friends Service Committee, Peace Action, CODEPINK, Just Foreign Policy, Voters for Peace, Pax Christi USA, Common Dreams, Historians Against War, and others. Please forward this action alert to your group or community.

Thank you for taking the steps to support a more peaceful world and have a happy Thanksgiving.

Peace,
Peter Lems and Mary Zerkel
American Friends Service Committee

P.S. While you are at your phone, won't you call to your Representative and Senators? They approve the money for war and will be asked for additional funds if more troops are sent. United Against Afghanistan Escalation is an excellent companion to this effort that
provides contact information for your representative, bills to support, and a grid that will allow you to post the response you receive.

P.P.S. For more ideas on what a better strategy for Afghanistan will look like, see AFSC's op-ed in the Huffington Post. If you'd like, take a moment to share your thoughts on the site as well.

American Friends Service Committee
1501 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102

visit my website: Michael Munk

QuizTime: If Obama reduced the deficit, would the media and FOX report it? from Crooks and Liars

voters_deficit_6fc6d.png

And the answer is...No!

And if they did, America wouldn't even know it. Take a look at the above chart. Paul Krugman then writes:

But the political argument against focusing on the deficit is even stronger than he realizes — because there are very good odds that even if Obama exhibited iron fiscal discipline, voters wouldn't notice. There's a remarkable, depressing paper by Achen and Bartels that includes an analysis of voter views of the deficit in 1996 — by which time the huge deficit that Bill Clinton inherited had been drastically reduced.

Yep: after one of the biggest moves toward budget balance in history, a majority of Republicans, and a plurality of all voters, believed that deficits had increased.

Not to put too fine a point on it: if Obama succeeded in reducing the deficit, would Fox News or the Washington Times report it? The truth is that the truth about budgets plays almost no role in real politics.

Bill Clinton actually reduced the deficit and Americans thought just the opposite and that was before FOX News had existed. Ask any of your friends that are deficit scolds this simple question. How is the deficit hurting their life? Ask them to give you real examples. They can't. It's fiction created by Grover Norquist and his conservatives cronies to tear down anything that has to do with the left. I'm not dismissing the deficit, but it's beyond belief the nonsense America believes about it.

Proof That Palin Fans Know Nothing from THE DAILY BANTER.COM

 by Ben Cohen http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2009/11/proof-that-palin-fans-know-nothing.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Fbenfu1%2Ftdb+%28THE+DAILY+BANTER.COM%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Chase Whiteside and Erick Stoll of NewLeftMedia.com went down to a Sarah Palin book signing event in Columbus Ohio and interviewed eager fans on their thoughts about the former VP candidate. The result was a shocking indictment of Palinmania, and proof she is a media creation rather than a serious politician. Watch, and try not to laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk

Is PhRMA Afraid of the Progressive Block? from Firedoglake

by Jon Walker http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/24/is-phrma-afraid-of-the-progressive-block/

Obviously, PhRMA wants the Senate bill to pass because it contains so many sweetheart deals for the drug industry. Even though PhRMA would like to see the public option eliminated, it is a low-level priority compared with maintaining all the other great giveaways for their industry in this bill .

I suspect if PhRMA were 100% confident Joe Lieberman could successfully remove the public option and still ensure the rest of the bill would pass intact, they would be supporting his efforts. The fact that PhRMA is asking Lieberman not to fight indicates to me that they actually fear the possibility that the progressive block might kill the current bill because if it lacks a public option. Whether health care reform dies completely or is forced to go through reconciliation, both would be equally bad news for PhRMA. This is the first indication I have seen that an industry player fears a possible revolt on the left and is starting to take the progressive block seriously.

Feds: Former US Prosecutor Helped Rub Out Witnesses For Gangster Clients, Ran Drugs And Call-Girls from TPMmuckraker

 

From federal prosecutor to accused violent gangster, pimp, and drug-dealer...That's the unusual career trajectory taken, say the Feds, by Paul Bergrin, who was indicted earlier this month in a 39-count racketeering indictment.

In a drama that could have been made for HBO, Bergrin -- a white-collar defense lawyer who once represented, pro bono, a solider accused of abusing Abu Ghraib detainees -- seems to have allowed his gangster clients to drag him into a world of violent crime. And he may have gone a lot further than Maury Levy ever did for Stringer Bell.

Bergrin, a former prosecutor with the U.S. attorney's office in New Jersey, is charged with leading a criminal enterprise that used violence, intimidation, and deceit to generate millions of dollars, reports the Philadelphia Inquirer. Among the most eye-catching allegations against him:
- That he used a Newark restaurant as a front for a cocaine-distribution network.
- That he oversaw a $1,000-an-hour call-girl ring in New York City.
- That he had a witness killed in one drug case, and hired a hitman to kill another.

Bergrin was first arrested in May. His lawyers have argued in court papers that prosecutors have tied together baseless cases. And they have argued successfully to have Bergrin removed from solitary confinement, where he had been held after his arrest in May. But since a more detailed indictment was filed earlier this month, they have said little publicly.

According to an affidavit from an FBI agent, Bergrin came to serve as "house counsel for a number of criminal organizations, including . . . the Latin Kings, the Bloods, and a number of high-level drug-trafficking organizations." And Bergrin had "essentially become one of the criminals he represents," according to Ralph Marra, the acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey.

His client list has also included Queen Latifah, Lil' Kim, and mobster Angelo Prisco, as well as a U.S. soldier accused of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, who Bergrin represented pro bono. Bergrin also repped the "King of All Pimps," Jason Itzler, who ran the high-end New York escort service, New York Confidential, that proved to be Eliot Spitzer's undoing. (Itzler called Ashley Dupre, "one of the best hookers ever.") Indeed, prosecutors allege that Bergrin took over the management of the company after Itzler was jailed in 2005.

A retired Army Reserve major and the son of a New York City police officer, Bergrin, 53, was an Essex County prosecutor who later worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Newark, before starting a criminal defense practice in 1991.

But he may have offered his clients more than just legal representation. The Inquirer reports:

Though the indictment includes one murder and one murder conspiracy, investigators contend that witnesses have linked Bergrin to at least three other homicides.

They also say Bergrin routinely bribed witnesses to win cases. And, they contend, when bribery wasn't an option, he resorted to violence.

"No witness, no case" was the phrase he used repeatedly in his criminal-defense work, authorities say.

In addition to the charges related to bribery, witness intimidation, and running the escort service, Bergrin also allegedly used a Newark restaurant, Isabella's, as a front for drug dealing; and formed a real estate company that conducted phony mortgage deals.

Bergrin's undoing may have come when he allegedly smuggled a cellphone into a jail so a client could call a Chicago hitman to set up the murder of a witness. Bergrin himself then traveled to Chicago to meet with the hitman, say the Feds.

But the hitman was a cooperating witness. According to prosecutors, he recorded Bergrin saying things like: "Put on a ski mask and make it look like a robbery. . . . It cannot under any circumstances look like a hit . . . make it look like a home-invasion robbery."

The hitman also recorded a conversation in which he told another lawyer, working with Bergrin, that Bergrin wanted to personally take part in the hit.

"He said he wants to do it with me," the hitman said "I said, 'No, Paul. For what you went to law school to become . . . stick with that s-.' Let me do what I have to do.' "

Replied the other lawyer: "Paul's a stone killer, bro. . . . That's what he is. . . . He's done work [meaning, committed murder], bro."

One underworld source, a former Bergrin client, told the Inquirer that Bergrin
"enjoyed life on the edge." Sounds like he may have enjoyed it just a little too much.

Monday, November 23, 2009

The Senate Health Care Bill and the Stupid Politics of Printing [Polidicks] from Gawker

 

Ugh: So, single- vs. double-sided printing is now a health care issue. Republicans are lugging around copies of the health care bill to protest "big" government (HA)—but they are unsustainably printing single-sided to make the bill look bigger!

Politicians frequently use props to help the American people understand them if they happen to be watching CNN with the volume down in order to hear when their microwave pizza is done in the next room. In the health care debate, the sheer size of the Democrat's bill itself has made it a popular prop for opponents, and this weekend they dragged out huge blocks of paper in advance of the vote on whether to hear the bill in the Senate. (On Saturday, the Senate voted 60-39 to bring the bill to the floor.) Writes the Washington Times:

The real star of the health care debate this weekend has been the 2,074-page bill - a physical manifestation of the size and scope of what's at stake as senators consider the overhaul of one-sixth of the nation's economy.

"It's a massive increase in government, as shown by this bill," Mr. Ensign told a reporter off the floor later, spreading his arms wide as if to encompass the stack of papers that comes in at more than a foot tall.

Wow, over a foot tall! If only there was some way to make it exactly half that tall... Wait, Mr. Ensign, you did print double-sided, right? Because that's not what New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall says:

"You only have print on one side, which isn't even the way we print them up around here. I've had mine printed up on both sides, so I use both sides of the paper. So they've made an attempt here to make it look a lot higher than it is," he said.

Mr. Udall said when the official print of the bill arrives, the type will be much smaller as well, and said at that point it will amount to "an average-size book."

Republicans here are acting like desperate undergraduates trying to meet a page requirement for an essay about the Sociology of the Bicycle: MARGINS: 3.5"; FONT: 25pt; SPACING: 2.999. GRADE: C-

But still, Udall should really just let the GOP throw out their well-insured backs carrying a millstone they so giddily fashioned from printer paper, looped with twine and hung around their own stupid necks. Don't play the printing game; otherwise pretty soon the whole health care debate will descend into a never-ending stream of tricks meant to make the bill bigger or smaller depending on one's political affinity:

TO: All Democratic Senators
FROM: Sen. Tom Udall
SUBJECT: Health Care Bill Printing

Fellow Senators,

As you may know, Republicans are currently unfairly inflating the size of our health care bill via printing only on one side of the page, and using a ridiculously large font. This is such a good and clever idea that we must fight back.

Allow me to introduce Yiskah. Yiskah—who I met through my Au Pair—is skilled in the ancient Turkish art of rice writing. Tomorrow, each of you will be given a copy of the health care bill written on grains of rice, which should fit in a small Ziploc bag. Please display these grains to the media and constituents to reinforce how efficient, healthful and multi-functional our bill is. Shake the bag around a bit. Throw it high into the air to emphasize the compactness of the bill. If need be, cook the rice and feed it to a homeless person. (Photo op!) Just make sure you contact Yiskah for another copy.

Best of Luck,

Tom Udall

Next week: We will read the entire Senate health care bill twice and conduct an in-depth, 20-year cost-benefit analysis of the proposals contained therein.

Lieberman refuses to debate Maddow on health care because she has a ‘point of view.’ from Think Progress

 by Amanda Terkel http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/23/maddow-lieberman-no/

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow has repeatedly tried to get Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to come on her show and debate health care. However, he and his office have refused to even respond to her requests for statements. Last week, Mike Stark caught up with Lieberman and asked him whether he'd go on Maddow's show. The senator declined, saying the tv host has "a point of view":

STARK: You've expressed an interest to have a serious policy debate instead of all the invective and that. And I think one of the best folks from the progressive side is Rachel Maddow —

LIEBERMAN: (LAUGHTER)

STARK: — and she's been trying to get you on her show for a really long time.

LIEBERMAN: She's got a point of view. I think we're going to have this debate on the floor of the Senate. And I look forward to it. In other words —

STARK: There's no chance you'll do her show?

LIEBERMAN: I don't think so.

Watch Maddow's segment on Friday:

Shadowy GOP-Linked Group Plans Barrage Of 2010 Robo-Calls from TPMmuckraker

 
http://bit.ly/6w3men

A shadowy conservative group with ties to the operatives behind a host of GOP dirty tricks is working to undermine state restrictions on political robo-calls, as it gears up to unleash a barrage of such calls in 2010 races.

Last month, American Future Fund Political Action (AFFPA) informed the FEC that it's planning robo-calls in congressional races. Jason Torchinsky, a lawyer for AFFPA wrote that the group "wishes to distribute pre-recorded telephone calls ... as part of a nationwide program of political outreach." The calls, wrote Torchinsky, "will expressly advocate the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates for Federal office."

AFFPA was asking the FEC for an advisory opinion on whether state laws restricting robo-calls should apply, or whether, as AFFPA argues, they're pre-empted by a less restrictive federal law that sought to standardize the regulation of robo-calls. An FEC ruling in AFFPA's favor would badly undermine state laws such as Minnesota's, which requires the listener to actively consent to hearing a recorded message before the message can be played.

That's worth paying attention to in itself. But behind the robo-call effort is a team of high-powered GOP operatives behind a slew of sleazy campaign tactics over the years.

You might remember Torchinsky, AFFPA's lawyer, as one of the architects of the American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR), the bogus "voting-rights" group that was set up by GOP operatives in 2005 to "give 'think tank' academic cachet to the unproven idea that voter fraud is a major problem in elections," as election law expert Rick Hasen has written.

For several months, ACVR's executive director was Alex Vogel, a former RNC lawyer whose consulting firm reportedly was paid $75,000 for the ACVR gig. (Also involved with ACVR: TPMmuckraker favorite Pat Rogers, the New Mexico GOP activist who helped get David Iglesias fired for not pursuing bogus voter fraud complaints.)

Vogel also appears to have a hand in AFF: Torchinsky, a former Bush campaign lawyer, works for the law firm run by Vogel and his wife, Virginia State Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel.

Holtzman Vogel's own political career may owe something to similarly hardball tactics. A former RNC counsel herself, she faced a tight primary in her Virginia Senate race, but prevailed after her opponent, Mike Tate, was indicted for campaign finance irregularities. The person who brought the complaint to the attention of authorities was Holtzman Vogel's baby-sitter, and the local prosecutor who initially handled it was a Holtzman Vogel supporter. The charges against Tate were eventually dropped.

As for AFF itself, the group has already has earned a reputation for trafficking in vicious and misleading shots against Democrats. A typical recent ad alleged that the government "planned to give flu shots to detainees at Guantanamo."

It also has worked closely with Dick Armey's FreedomWorks to help promote the Tea Party rallies against health-care reform. Republican heavy-hitters Jan Van Lohuizen, Ed Tobin, Ben Ginsberg are all reportedly involved with the group.

Because AFF is a 501c4, it's not required by law to release much information about itself, and no one seems eager to speak on its behalf. Torchinsky declined to speak to TPMmuckraker on the record. Tim Albrecht, an Iowa GOP activist who now works for the gubernatorial campaign of Terry Branstad, was quoted earlier this month as a spokesman for the group, but told TPMmuckraker that he could no longer speak for the group, and declined to pass our inquiry on to any other specific representative, saying only that he could forward it to the group's general mailbox. A separate email to that address went unreturned. AFF's website lists Sandra Greiner, another Iowa Republican, as president, while the Iowa secretary of states database lists Nicole Schlinger, a local GOP consultant as president. Neither Greiner nor Schlinger returned a call.

But it seems clear that voters will be hearing plenty from AFF in the coming year.

Watchdog Groups Detail Political Campaign Contributions in Ways Never Before Documented from Capital Eye by Communications

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE http://bit.ly/07WYr3Q

Contact: Dave Levinthal, 202-354-0111 (CRP); Edwin Bender, 406-449-2480 (National Institute on Money in State Politics)
 
WASHINGTON – Thousands of U.S. companies and special interest groups attempt to influence government through campaign donations in ways never before documented, a joint project by two of the nation's premier government watchdog groups now reveals.

The project, conducted by the National Institute on Money in State Politics and the Center for Responsive Politics, also provides an unprecedented resource: Profiles of these organizations' political giving patterns during the 2008 election at both the state and national level.

The "Top National Donors" project integrates the Institute's state contributions data with the Center for Responsive Politics' federal contributions data – something never before accomplished.

"Innovative policy ideas often flow between the states and the U.S. Congress. For the first time ever, this resource is available and will allow users to see who is trying to exert influence on multiple levels," said Edwin Bender, executive director of the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

"Whether you're a reporter, activist or ordinary citizen, this data mash-up allows you to explore the extent to which specific interests may be battling over policy armed with political I.O.U.s," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.

It reveals, for example, that companies and organizations with piqued interest in the federal debate over health care reform are at the same time attempting to bend state-level lawmakers to their corporate and special interests on the same topic.

The CRP/Institute study uncovers that several historically active federal-level campaign donors also gave a collective $15.1 million to campaigns in 47 states. They include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Pfizer, American Medical Association, American Hospital Association, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, AARP and Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America.

While plenty of large, nationally notable companies and organizations top the list – National Education Association, Service Employees International Union, AT&T – others prove less renowned.

The Pechanga Band of Mission Indians and Clean Energy Fuels Corp., for example, also rank highly, in large part because of their state-level ballot measure activity.

These and a host of other results are available online in a publicly accessible database.

State donors were selected by their total contributions to state-level candidates, party committees and state ballot initiatives during the 2008 election cycle. Federal donors were selected by their total contributions to federal candidates, leadership PACs and party committees in the 2008 election cycle. The totals listed for an organization include contributions from its PACs, employees and subsidiaries.

This unique data mash-up is funded by a grant from the Ford Foundation. The work forms the foundation for expanded independent investigation of nationwide influence-peddling trends.

# # #

ABOUT THE CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS


The Center for Responsive Politics is the nation's premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. The nonpartisan, nonprofit Center aims to create a more educated voter, an involved citizenry and a more responsive government. CRP's award-winning website, OpenSecrets.org, is the most comprehensive resource for campaign contributions, lobbying data and analysis available anywhere. CRP relies on support from a combination of foundation grants and individual contributions. The Center accepts no contributions from businesses, labor unions or trade associations.

ABOUT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR MONEY IN STATE POLITICS

The National Institute for Money in State Politics is the only nonpartisan, nonprofit organization revealing the influence of campaign money on state-level elections and public policy in all 50 states. Its comprehensive and verifiable campaign-finance database and relevant issue analyses are available for free through its website, FollowTheMoney.org.

Sign our petition to Harry Reid: Get lobbyist-owned Democrats in line, or use reconciliation to pass a public option.

FDL Action

Sign our petition to Harry Reid: Reconciliation = Majority Rule

"The power to pass a public option is yours alone.  Don't let corrupt Democratic senators owned by insurance industry lobbyists kill the public option
and block majority rule. 

"Get corrupt Democrats in line, or use reconciliation to pass a public option with a majority vote.

Click here to sign our petition.


The Senate starts debating health care next week.  But if it passes without a public option, there's only one person to blame: Harry Reid.

As the majority leader of the Senate, the power to pass a public option is squarely in Reid's hands.  Will Reid let three or four corrupt Senators owned by the insurance industry hold the public option hostage?  Or will he use the reconciliation process to allow a simple majority vote on a public option?

The choice is Reid's and Reid's alone.  Let's make sure he knows it.

Sign our petition to Harry Reid: Get lobbyist-owned Democrats in line, or use reconciliation to pass a public option.

Click here to sign: http://action.firedoglake.com/reconciliation


During debate in the Senate this weekend, a handful of corrupt Democratic senators like Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu, who have taken big donations from insurance companies, promised to vote against health care if it included a public option.[1]

If Harry Reid can't get them in line for a simple procedural vote, then he can use "reconciliation" and call for a majority vote on the public option.  Otherwise, Harry Reid is using his power as Majority Leader to allow a handful of corrupt senators thwart the democratic process.  We can't let that happen.

Let Harry Reid know the public option rests on his shoulders.  Click here to sign our petition:

http://action.firedoglake.com/reconciliation


We know who the corrupt Democrats are working for -- the insurance companies want to kill the public option once and for all.  Goldman Sachs expects insurance stocks to rise by 59% in 10 years if there is no public option, but drop by 36% if there is one.  That's what happens when nobody likes your product.  Their fat profits depend on being the only game in town.[2]

The American people understand that.  That's why 72% support a public option, to end insurance monopolies, increase competition and control the crushing burden of health care costs for American families.[3]  A majority in the Senate understands that, too -- that's why 51 have said they will vote for a bill with a public option.[4]

It comes down to a simple question: will Harry Reid allow for majority rule?  Or will he let corrupt members of his own caucus block a majority of the public and Congress who want a public option?

Sign our petition to Reid: whip the corrupt ConservaDems into line, or use reconciliation to give Americans what they want and pass a public option.

Click here to sign: http://action.firedoglake.com/reconciliation


Thanks for all you do.

Sincerely,

Jane, Ben, Eve, Jon, Lowell, Michael, Noelle, and the rest of the FDL Action team

 

Sources:

1. Campaign Contributions From Insurance Companies to Senators Blocking the Public Option

2.  Goldman Sachs: Insurance Stocks Would Drop 36% By 2019 With House Public Option

3.  October 27 NBC News Poll: Public Option Has 72% support

4.  Jon Tester Would Vote For Schumer's Public Option: That's 51

Friday, November 20, 2009

The McGangBang: A McChicken Sandwich INSIDE a Double Cheeseburger http://bit.ly/1XNfMz

The McGangBang: A McChicken Sandwich INSIDE a Double Cheeseburger  http://bit.ly/1XNfMz

Out-of-Control Rick Perry Overrides Rare Clemency Vote, Executes Man Who Killed No One

AlterNet


By Liliana Segura, AlterNet
Posted on November 20, 2009, Printed on November 20, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/144086/

This post originally appeared in PEEK.

Rick Perry is out of control.

Even as the controversy over his execution of an innocent man goes unresolved, last night the Texas Governor rejected a rare clemency recommendation from the state Board of Pardons and Paroles for a man facing execution for a murder he did not commit.

Robert Lee Thompson was an accomplice in a violent convenience store robbery in Houston in 1996, when his co-conspirator fatally shot the sales clerk, a man named Mansoor Bhai Rahim Mohammed. Thompson himself fired shots that wounded Mohammed, but it was his partner, Sammy Butler, who pulled the trigger that would leave him dead. Butler was tried and sentenced to life. A different jury found Thompson guilty and sentenced him to death.

Thompson was sentenced under Texas's Law of Parties, a cynical legal statute that allows multiple parties to be found guilty of the same crime, even if they did not directly participate in it. Similar to other felony murder statutes, Texas's law states that "if, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it."

Under the Law of Parties, defendants can be held responsible for "failing to anticipate" that the "conspiracy" would lead to a murder.

Numerous defendants who did not kill anyone have been executed under the Law of Parties; that Perry wouldn't hesitate to sign off on Thompson's execution should comes as no surprise. But yesterday Thompson was granted a recommendation for clemency by the state's Board of Pardons and Paroles -- an extremely rare move. The Board, whose members are political appointments, has only recommended clemency two other times in recent memory.

One of these was two years ago in the case of Kenneth Foster, Jr., who also faced execution under the Law of Parties. In his case, the murder took place while he was in a car, 18 feet away. A grassroots campaign rose up to stop Foster's execution and in August 2007, Perry took the Board's recommendation and spared his life.

Yesterday, the Board voted 5 to 2 to spare Robert Lee Thompson, a "highly unusual" move in the words of the Houston Chronicle, and one described by Thompson's lawyer, as "hugely significant."

"I'm thrilled," he said, upon hearing news of the Board vote.

But in Texas, the Governor has the final say in clemency decisions. Despite the rare recommendation, Perry, who faces a close primary election next year against Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, was unmoved. Hours after the Board's vote, he released a statement saying that he saw "no reason" to spare Thompson's life.

Thompson was executed on schedule, at 6pm Texas time. According to AP reporter Michael Graczyk, "his mother cried uncontrollably, stomped her feet and finally demanded to be taken from the witness area before her son was pronounced dead at 6:19 p.m."

Statements were released by the Texas Moratorium Network on behalf of family members of death row prisoners also sentenced under the Law of Parties, including one from Terri Been, whose brother, Jeff Wood, came close to being executed in August 2008 for a murder he did not commit.

"I must say that I was surprised to hear that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles grew a conscious and voted in favor of clemency for Robert Thompson, since they unanimously voted for the execution of my brother, Jeff Wood, who was also convicted under the law of parties despite the fact that he is factually innocent of murder," said Been. "However, I was not surprised to hear Perry didn't jump on board the clemency train as the man has no sense of true justice."  

Efforts have been made to roll back the Law of Parties. This year, the Texas House of Representatives passed a bill to ban executions of people convicted under the Law of Parties who did not actually kill anyone. The legislation never made it out of the Senate.

Scott Cobb of the Texas Moratorium Network accused Perry of playing politics with the death penalty.

"Rick Perry is using the death penalty issue to endear himself to right-wing voters in the upcoming Republican primary, but his actions do not reflect the priorities of mainstream Texans who are increasingly concerned about the fairness of the Texas death penalty system," he said.

This summer, Perry signed off on the 200th execution of his career, a record unmatched even by his predecessor, George W. Bush. It is a grotesque figure, one that includes the killing of more than one prisoner with overwhelming innocence claims, including Reginald Blanton, who was executed last month.

Robert Lee Thompson may have committed a violent crime, but in the end, he was not a murderer. The same cannot be said for Perry.

Liliana Segura is a staff writer and editor of AlterNet's Rights and Liberties and World Special Coverage.

© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/144086/

Mom Lets Cops Taze 10 Year-Old Daughter Who Refused to Take a Shower

AlterNet


By Lindsay Beyerstein, Majikthise
Posted on November 20, 2009, Printed on November 20, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://majikthise.typepad.com//144085/

This story should put the annoying "bad mommy" confessional genre out of its misery. Nothing can top this. Bad mommies have officially jumped the shark:

An Arkansas mom allegedly allowed a police office to taze (link fixed) her 10-year-old daughter because the girl was having a tantrum. The girl will face disorderly conduct charges. The head of the Arkansas State Police says he isn't sure if the officer made a mistake when he shocked an unarmed child who wouldn't take a shower.

Lindsay Beyerstein a New York writer blogging at Majikthise.

© 2009 Majikthise All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://majikthise.typepad.com//144085/

Good god - Right-wing media figures discuss what's "wrong" with Obama, identify "deep psychological problems"

Media Matters for America

Right-wing media put Obama on the couch for inch-deep analysis

http://mediamatters.org/items/200911200034

Right-wing media figures, including Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and The Washington Times' Wesley Pruden, have in recent days attacked President Obama while discussing his mental state. While claiming, "I'm not asking you to psychoanalyze the president," Beck asked psychiatrist and Fox News contributor Keith Ablow, "Are we crazy for saying something is not right?"; Savage offered a psychological diagnosis of Obama, claiming that the president has "deep psychological problems" and "deep-seated inferiority feelings."

Right-wing media figures discuss what's "wrong" with Obama, identify "deep psychological problems"

Beck and psychiatrist Ablow not psychoanalyzing the president -- just discussing what's "wrong" with him. On the November 11 edition of his Fox news program, Beck stated to Ablow: "I wrote to you, and I said, 'Do you see anything wrong here as a -- ' I'm not asking you to psychoanalyze the president. I'm saying, psychoanalyze the American people. Are we crazy for saying something is not right?" In his reply, Ablow stated: "We're not crazy for saying something's not right. It's a little crazy that more people aren't saying it more loudly." Ablow later stated: "[T]here is a big, cavernous gulf, apparently, between the president's ability to generate emotion and charisma and gripping words that move people when he's scripted. And then, when there's less time to prepare, there's some sort of lack of connectedness, a true lack of connectedness with at least what moves the majority of us." In discussing Obama's statements about the Fort Hood shooting, which Beck claimed were "disconnected," Ablow said: "[I]f he's not scripted to deliver the emotional cues, if he's not scripted to have lots of time and a teleprompter to do it, then he tends to stumble. And this was a huge stumble. This was a big, big window on the man's soul, I think." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 11/11/09]

Savage's psychoanalysis: Obama has "deep psychological problems," "deep-seated inferiority feelings." While discussing Obama's bow to Japanese Emperor Akihito, Savage stated that "this man has deep psychological problems" and that "since we know he is only a man, and therefore since all men suffer from psychological problems, is it not logical to assume that he may have psychological problems? And if so, what are his psychological problems, and how do they affect this man's behavior and his overt contempt for America, its history, and its people and his love of everything third-world?" He later claimed that "you start to put a picture together of a guy who has such deep-seated inferiority feelings, it seems as though he's looking for his father all over the world." [Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation, 11/17/09]

Pruden: "Obama's curious compulsion to travel the world to make endless apologies for America could stem from his spending the most formative years of his childhood in the Third World." In a November 17 column, Pruden, The Washington Times' editor emeritus, wrote that Obama's bow to Emperor Akihito was "a sign of a really deep sense of inferiority." In a November 20 column, Pruden wrote: "Barack Obama's curious compulsion to travel the world to make endless apologies for America could stem from his spending the most formative years of his childhood in the Third World."

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.

Worried pimp 'called off Rabbi Baruch Chalomish's three-day drug-fuelled orgy'

http://bit.ly/1sYcz3

An eminent rabbi was so exhausted after three days of constant cocaine-fuelled partying with escorts that his pimp grew worried and cancelled that day's supply of girls, a jury was told.

Rabbi Baruch Chalomish, 55, who has a £6 million fortune, was a scholarly academic, an accomplished businessman, a charity giver and a dutiful family man until his first wife died of cancer and his world fell apart.

He turned to alcohol in his depression, then took refuge in cocaine, spending up to £1,000 a week. He lived in squalor, seeking comfort from prostitutes, Manchester Crown Court was told.

The prosecution said that Chalomish was the financier in a commercial cocaine supply business while Nasir Abbas, 54, a convicted drug dealer, provided the drugs and the customers.

The pair rented a luxury flat in Manchester and for ten days over the new year enjoyed a non-stop party. Mr Abbas admitted to police that he procured a supply of girls from an agency called Pure Class. They were also offered cocaine.

The court was told that on the ninth day, and after the rabbi had stayed up for three straight days, Mr Abbas was so concerned about his health that he scrapped that day's supply of prostitutes. In a text message to a woman called Clio he wrote: "Hi Clio, I have tried to wake Shel up but I don't want to wake him. He was very tired because he had no sleep for three days, needed to rest, because he is going to his office to work on Monday at 8. Please cancel the party today."

Michael Goldwater, for the prosecution, said that at 9am on January 5 police raided the flat finding evidence of a substantial drugs operation including cocaine, cutting agents and scales. Officers found an equal amount of the drug at Chalomish's home in Prestwich, in the heart of Manchester's Orthodox Jewish community, as well as cutting agents and more than £15,000 in cash.

Chalomish denies supplying the drug but admits having it. Mr Abbas, who said that he was too scared to attend the trial after the rabbi "sent around some heavies" to threaten him, faces charges of having cocaine with intent to supply.

Jonathan Goldberg, QC, for the defence, said that the rabbi's fall from grace was a tragedy. He said that his client never supplied the drug but hoarded large supplies of pure cocaine to evade "unscrupulous dealers" known to use rat poison and other dangerous mixing agents. The trial continues.




Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Audit The Fed Bill Approved In House Finance Committee from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

 by http://bit.ly/8Xg1Yp

Chalk up a rare victory for the little guy (and the nation itself). The Bill To Audit Federal Reserve Passes Key Hurdle

In an unprecedented defeat for the Federal Reserve, an amendment to audit the multi-trillion dollar institution was approved by the House Finance Committee with an overwhelming and bipartisan 43-26 vote on Thursday afternoon despite harried last-minute lobbying from top Fed officials and the surprise opposition of Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had previously been a supporter.

The measure, cosponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), authorizes the Government Accountability Office to conduct a wide-ranging audit of the Fed's opaque deals with foreign central banks and major U.S. financial institutions. The Fed has never had a real audit in its history and little is known of what it does with the trillions of dollars at its disposal.

Backers of the Watt amendment pressed their case on Wednesday by sending a letter from a "political cross section of prominent economists" backing a measure like Watt's. HuffPost reported, however, that those economists might well have be prominent, but they certainly aren't a "political cross section." Seven of the eight economists in question have extensive connections to the Fed -- and half of them are currently on the Fed payroll. Those affiliations were not noted in the letter.

The playbook in Washington often goes like this: When a measure that threatens the establishment builds enough momentum that it must be dealt with, it is labeled as "unserious." The Washington Post editorial board, true to the script, called Paul's measure "an unserious answer to a serious question."

And it particularly rankles the center that a pair of "wingnuts" are behind a successful effort to challenge the prevailing order. [See Grayson Called "Wingnut" By New York Times].

For anyone remaining confused, the debate was further clarified by the central bank itself: Federal Reserve Vice Chair Don Cohn and General Counsel Scott Alvarez spent much of the day calling committee members, urging them to oppose the Paul-Grayson amendment in favor of Watt's, a member of Congress who asked for confidentiality told HuffPost.

Paul's opponents also placed a letter from former Fed chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker on the seats of every committee member. Such a move is in violation of House rules and Grayson was able to have the letters removed.

As the day wore on and support held for the Paul-Grayson side, the Fed still could hope that both would pass. Watt's amendment, which included additional restriction, would then trump Paul's.

To counter that possibility, the Paul-Grayson side moved to fully replace Watt's amendment with theirs, leaving only one amendment to vote on. The motion carried and the amendment passed in a landslide.

Frank said he was opposing the Paul amendment because it could be perceived as influencing monetary policy, which can have inflationary pressure. "Perception is very important in monetary policy," said Frank.

He urged a no vote, yet 15 Democrats bucked him, voting with Paul.

"Today was Waterloo for Fed secrecy," a victorious Grayson said afterwards.
Listen To Grayson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8EKGtf_YrY

Clearly Grayson has this story cold. Equally as clearly, Barney Frank is a liar who never supported a true audit the Fed proposal in the first place.

Thanks to the Huffington Post for running these stories. Also thanks go to everyone who called, phoned, or faxed in support for the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson amendment.

Bear in mind there will be other attempts to water down this bill and/or to change it dramatically in the Senate. Be prepared to phone, fax, and call in again as necessary.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List
Mike "Mish" Shedlock is a registered investment advisor representative for SitkaPacific Capital Management. Sitka Pacific is an asset management firm whose goal is strong performance and low volatility, regardless of market direction. Visit http://www.sitkapacific.com/account_management.html to learn more about wealth management and capital preservation strategies of Sitka Pacific.

Congressional Democrats Call For Investigation Into Drug Price Increases from Crooks and Liars

 by Susie Madrak http://bit.ly/4AAgY4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca5VHlfBzA0

Congressional Democrats are calling for two inquiries after the New York Times reported earlier this week that drug companies were jacking up their prices, negating savings they promised for healthcare reform:

Responding to news reports of unusually high wholesale price increases in brand-name prescription drugs, four House leaders and one senator asked for government reviews of the pricing practices.

Although drug makers challenge the theory, some experts say the run-up in wholesale prices may be partly related to the industry's concerns about future cost containment under any health care legislation.

"Recent studies have indicated that the industry may be artificially raising prices for certain pharmaceutical products in expectation of new reforms," the House Democrats wrote in a letter to the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress. "Any price gouging is unacceptable, but anticipatory price gouging is especially offensive," the letter added, asking the G.A.O. to conduct an expedited review of the price increases.

[...] Separately, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, a Democrat who has led efforts in the Senate to seek more concessions from drug makers, wrote to the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services asking for "an immediate and thorough investigation into drug industry pricing and recent increases, and the extent to which these increases may affect the Medicare and Medicaid programs."

Yes, Palin Backed the Bailouts from The Washington Independent

 by David Weigel http://bit.ly/5O9llv

Why has MSNBC embedded one of its top on-air talents with Sarah Palin's book tour? That's a good question, but I thought Norah O'Donnell's grilling of a young Palin fan was a fair use of the network's time. O'Donnell asked Jackie (no last name given), who was wearing a T-shirt criticizing the bailouts, if she knew that Palin had supported them. Jackie refused to believe it.

"The reason I ask you," said O'Donnell, "is that I think there's some confusion about Sarah Palin's policies."

It wasn't a man-on-the-street interview with a dopey tourist being asked a surprise question, of the kind John Ziegler conducted with Obama supporters to "prove" that they had no idea what Obama believed. Jackie was a political activist with a political message. And the history of the bailouts has really been mangled by conservative spin since September 2008, when, in a panic, most Republicans (in Congress) supported them. When former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gave a speech at the Value Voters Summit this year and attacked "bailing out banks," few people in the crowd remembered that Romney had supported the bailouts.

By and large, I've found that Tea Party activists and conservatives do not forgive Republicans who supported the bailouts — there is a lot of anger toward former President George W. Bush, and more toward former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. And here is what Palin said about the bailouts in her debate with Joe Biden.

John McCain thankfully has been one representing reform. Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures. He sounded that warning bell.

People in the Senate with him, his colleagues, didn't want to listen to him and wouldn't go towards that reform that was needed then. I think that the alarm has been heard, though, and there will be that greater oversight, again thanks to John McCain's bipartisan efforts that he was so instrumental in bringing folks together over this past week, even suspending his own campaign to make sure he was putting excessive politics aside and putting the country first.

In September 2008, McCain suspended his campaign to go to Washington to help negotiate a government response to the financial crisis, resulting in a $700 billion bailout bill.

And here is what Palin says in "Going Rogue" about the bailouts, on page 270.

[T]he House of Representatives rejected a Bush-backed economic bailout plan in a vote in which two-thirds of Republicans voted no. The impression this made on the electorate was not helpful to our cause. Millions of Americans were poised to go bankrupt or lose their savings, and the perception was that Republicans had failed to respond.

I don't think you can avoid the conclusion that Palin supported the bailout package. If a Palin supporter doesn't know this, it's perfectly legitimate to find out why. And yet The Weekly Standard, not alone in the conservative media, takes this exchange and makes it all about a brave 17-year-old girl battling back against an "ambush" from MSNBC.

Depressed Lady Loses Benefits Because Of Her Facebook Photos [Facebook] from Consumerist

 by Ben Popken http://bit.ly/6mvPfK

A depressed woman has lost her benefits because her insurance agent found Facebook photos where she appears to be having fun.

CBC:

A Quebec woman on long-term sick leave is fighting to have her benefits reinstated after her employer's insurance company cut them, she says, because of photos posted on Facebook...She said her insurance agent described several pictures Blanchard posted on the popular social networking site, including ones showing her having a good time at a Chippendales bar show, at her birthday party and on a sun holiday - evidence that she is no longer depressed, Manulife said.

While Canada has a magical health care system where a unicorn wearing a blue pocketed shirt shows up at your door and your benefits stream out its mouth in a Care Bear rainbow, the fairy dust apparently does not extend to their private insurance market.

In any event, depression is an illness diagnosed by doctors, not by desk jerks conducting amateur "photographic analysis."

Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling

AlterNet


By Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica
Posted on November 10, 2009, Printed on November 20, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/143850/

As New York gears up for a massive expansion of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale, state officials have made a potentially troubling discovery about the wastewater created by the process: It's radioactive. And they have yet to say how they'll deal with it.

The information comes from New York's Department of Environmental Conservation, which analyzed 13 samples of wastewater brought thousands of feet to the surface from drilling and found that they contain levels of radium-226, a derivative of uranium, as high as 267 times the limit safe for discharge into the environment and thousands of times the limit safe for people to drink.

The findings, if backed up with more tests, have several implications: The energy industry would likely face stiffer regulations and expenses, and have more trouble finding treatment plants to accept its waste -- if any would at all. Companies would need to license their waste handlers and test their workers for radioactive exposure, and possibly ship waste across the country. And the state would have to sort out how its laws for radioactive waste might apply to drilling and how the waste could impact water supplies and the environment.

What is less clear is how the wastewater may affect the health of New Yorkers, since the danger depends on how much radiation people are exposed to and how they are exposed to it. Radium is known to cause bone, liver and breast cancers, and the EPA publishes exposure guidelines for it, but there is still disagreement over exactly how dangerous low-level doses can be to workers who handle it, or to the public.

The DEC has yet to address any of these questions. But New York's Health Department raised concerns about the amount of radioactive materials in the wastewater in a confidential letter to the DEC's oil and gas regulators in July.

"Handling and disposal of this wastewater could be a public health concern," DOH officials said in the letter, which was obtained by ProPublica. "The issues raised are not trivial, but are also not insurmountable."

The letter warned that the state may have difficulty disposing of the drilling waste, that thorough testing will be needed at water treatment plants, and that workers may need to be monitored for radiation as much as they might be at nuclear facilities.

Health Department officials declined to comment on the letter. The DEC sent an e-mail response to questions about the radioactivity stating that "concentrations are generally not a problem for water discharges, or in solid waste streams" in New York state. But the agency did not directly address the radioactivity levels, which were disclosed in the appendices of the agency's environmental review of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale, released Sept. 30.

The review did not calculate how much radioactivity people may be exposed to, even though such calculations are routinely completed by scientists studying radiation exposure. Yet the review concluded that radiation levels were "very low" and that the wastewater "does not present a risk to workers." DEC officials declined to explain how they reached this conclusion.

Although the review pointed to a possible need for radioactive licensing and disposal for certain materials, and it looked at other states with laws aimed at radioactive waste from drilling, the DEC said there is no precedent for examining how these radioactive materials might affect the environment when brought to the surface at the volumes and scale expected in New York. And it said that more study is needed before the DEC can lay out precise plans to deal with the waste.

In comments to ProPublica, the DEC emphasized that the environmental review proposes testing all wastewater for radioactivity before it is allowed to leave the well site, and said that the volumes of brine water, which contain most of the radioactivity detected, would be far less than the volumes of fluid from hydraulic fracturing that are removed from the well.

What scientists call naturally occurring radioactive materials -- known by the acronym NORM -- are common in oil and gas drilling waste, and especially in brine, the dirty water that has been soaking in the shale for centuries. Radium, a potent carcinogen, is among the most dangerous of these metals because it gives off radon gas, accumulates in plants and vegetables and takes 1,600 years to decay. Geologists say radioactivity levels can vary across the Marcellus, but the tests taken so far suggest the amount of radioactive material measured in New York is far higher than in many other places.

The state took its 13 samples -- 11 of which significantly exceeded legal limits -- between October 2008 and April 2009. The DEC did not respond to questions about whether additional sampling has begun or whether the state would begin issuing drilling permits before the radioactivity issues are resolved. The DEC told ProPublica it did not know where the wastewater would be treated.

"It's got to go somewhere," said Theodore Adams, a radiation remediation and water treatment consultant with 30 years of experience with radioactive waste. "It's not going to just go away."

A Vague Threat

Determining the health threat that radioactive material poses to workers and to the public is complicated. Measuring human exposure -- which is quantified in doses of millirems per year -- from radiation is notoriously difficult, in part because it depends on variables like whether objects interfere with radiation, or how sustained exposure is over long periods of time.

Gas industry workers, for example, would almost certainly face an increased risk of cancer if they worked in a confined space where radon gas, a leading cause of lung cancer and a derivative of radium, can collect to dangerous levels. They would also be at risk if they somehow swallowed or breathed fumes from the radioactive wastewater, or handled the concentrated materials regularly for 20 years. But without these types of intensive or confined exposures, the materials may be less dangerous, making it difficult to discern effects on workers' health, experts say.

People absorb radioactivity in their daily routines, complicating health assessments. Eighty percent of human radioactivity exposure comes from natural sources, according to the EPA. Everything from granite countertops to a pile of playground dirt can emit radioactivity that is higher than the EPA, which regulates based on a theory that zero exposure is best, may prefer.

"You start with the world where you and I are getting an exposure from the sun, from the soil we walk on, from the brick in our house that on average is about 400 millirems a year -- which is dangerous," said Tom Lenhart, a former member of the federal-state Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards. "The EPA would never allow that kind of exposure. So you are starting from a baseline of dangerous exposure, and this is what makes regulating it a nightmare."

The EPA estimates that Americans are exposed to about 300 to 360 millirems per year, including routine artificial exposures like getting an X-ray or flying in an airplane. Each multiple of this "background level" denotes a proportional increase in the chance of getting cancer.

The natural radioactivity of the Marcellus Shale has caused concern since the mid-1980s, when high levels of radon gas were found in the basements of homes in Marcellus, a town in upstate New York, where the shale reaches the surface. The question has long been, if the Marcellus can cause radioactive gas to seep into people's basements, how much radioactivity might be infused into the water left over from drilling? Add to that the question of how much human exposure can be expected from the radiation detected at some Marcellus drilling sites.

In its environmental review, the state said it couldn't answer those questions because exposure depends on so many variables and because the units of measurement for human exposure and concentrations in water are incompatible. There is "no simple or universally accepted equivalence between these units," the DEC wrote in its environmental review.

But Rick Kessy, operations manager for Fortuna Energy, a subsidiary of Canadian Talisman Energy and the largest gas producer in New York, says his company has assessed worker exposure at two of the company's well sites in Pennsylvania, where it found no serious risk.

And a U.S. Department of Energy expert who specializes in such exposure conversions said an analysis in New York should be "very easy to do."

"If they know the concentrations and they know the exposure pathways it should be straightforward to calculate that," said Charley Yu, who runs the national computer dose modeling program at Argonne National Labs for the U.S. Department of Energy.

In fact, New York's DEC used Yu's government modeling program, called RESRAD, in a 1999 study [1] to establish radioactivity exposure risks for oilfield brine spread on roads, a common disposal practice. Its brine samples in that case contained far less radium than the Marcellus water. It laid out a simple scenario, assuming a person walked on the road for two hours a day over 20 years and a fixed quantity of brine was spread there. That study found no threat to human health.

No such analysis was included in the state's recent supplemental environmental impact statement.

Few Disposal Options

All this would be of substantially less concern if New York were like most of the other states that produce some radioactive waste during natural gas drilling. In those states, the waste is re-injected underground. But in New York, injection disposal wells are uncommon, and those that do exist aren't licensed to receive radioactive waste or Marcellus Shale wastewater, according to the EPA. Instead, most drilling wastewater is treated by municipal or industrial water treatment plants and discharged back into public waterways.

The radium-laden wastewater would almost certainly need to be carefully treated by plants capable of filtering out the radioactive substances. Kessy, the Fortuna manager, which operates five of the wells with spiked readings in New York, said the levels are higher than he has seen elsewhere. Treatment plants in Pennsylvania are accepting Fortuna wastewater with much lower levels of radioactivity from the company's wells there, Kessy said, but if plants can't take the higher concentrations, it could be crippling.

"In the event that they were not able to comply due to high radioactivity, they would reject the water," Kessy said. "And if we did not have a viable option for it, our operations would just shut down. There is no other option."

It is not clear which treatment plants, if any in New York, are capable of handling such material.

DEC spokesman Yancey Roy said that "there are currently no facilities specifically designated for treating them." He added that the state depends on the drilling companies to make sure there is a legal treatment option for the water, and then reviews those plans.

"The department has not received any permit submissions from the well operators that include details about treatment options for the brine containing NORM," he said. "So we do not know what treatment options are being considered or how effective NORM removal will be."

ProPublica contacted several plant managers in central New York who said they could not take the waste or were not familiar with state regulations.

"We are not set up to take radioactive substances," said Patricia Pastella, commissioner of the Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection, which operates the Metropolitan plant in Syracuse, N.Y. "It does present a problem with disposal."

Filtering the water is just one of several problems. Plants that can filter out the radioactive materials are left with a concentrated sludge that has substantially higher radioactivity than the wastewater. Sludge can also collect inside the pipes at well sites, in waste pits and in holding tanks.

Federal laws don't directly address naturally occurring radioactivity, and the oil and gas industry is exempt from federal laws dictating handling of toxic waste, leaving the burden on New York state. New York has laws governing radioactive materials, but the state's drilling plans don't specify when they would apply.

Experts who reviewed the concentrations of radioactive metals found in New York's wastewater said the leftover sludge is likely to exceed the legal limits for hazardous waste and would need to be shipped to Idaho or Washington, to some of the only landfills in the country permitted to accept it.

Fortuna's Kessy said that's an acceptable cost of doing business. "We'll be willing, of course, to fund the necessary disposal means," he said.

The same may be required of some of the equipment used in drilling, which can eventually emit much higher levels of radiation than the water itself. Louisiana, for example, began regulating radioactive materials after it found radioactive build-up in pipes [2] dumped in scrap yards and in the steel used to build schoolyard bleachers.

But the levels in that state were just one-eighth of those measured so far in New York.

"I don't believe anyone has taken a look, seriously, at what the unintended consequences are to dealing with these kinds of materials," said Theodore Adams, the radioactive waste disposal consultant. "It's a unique animal -- a unique disposal -- and depending on where it is located and who is receiving it, it could have an impact."

Abrahm Lustgarten is a former staff writer and contributor for Fortune, and has written for Salon, Esquire, the Washington Post and the New York Times since receiving his master's in journalism from Columbia University in 2003.

© 2009 ProPublica All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/143850/

California's Water Crisis Is Just the Beginning for Water Woes in the U.S.

AlterNet

The thirst for water in California, and across the country, has only just begun.

By Susan J. Marks, AlterNet
Posted on November 13, 2009, Printed on November 20, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/143902/

Legislators silenced some of the outcry over water in California last week with the passage of a sweeping water-reform bill.

But the thirst for water in California, and across the country, has only just begun.

Many Californians blame their water problems on drought, the Endangered Species Act (the "farmers vs. fish" debate) and inadequate infrastructure.

Others point to mismanagement, overallocated water rights and a lack of conservation. The reasons, though, behind the state's water crisis, and that which threatens the rest of the country and many places around the globe, go well beyond that.

Fresh water, once considered Earth's infinite, simply is not inexhaustible. Demand has soared, and supplies dwindled. Factor in climate change and drought, and the result is shortage and conflict over what's left.

The contentious battles plaguing California over the past year -- marches, protests, dried-up fields, demands for massive aid, and more -- will spread across the country. Sooner rather than later our once-abundant water taps could run dry, and the water battles to come will make the health care debate seem like a tea party.

Why such doom and gloom? Water is the new oil, only there is no alternative. Every living being on this planet needs water to survive. Each of us has a vested interest in this elixir of life.

Complicating the equation, no one wants to relinquish his or her share. California approved a controversial water reform, but stay tuned. Californians still thirst for diminishing supplies, as do other areas of the country.

Beyond drought, fish and canals, overpopulation exacerbates our water troubles. The U.S. population is up more than 70 percent in the last 50 years. With that boom comes huge demands for water, and not only to drink. It takes water to produce and deliver our energy, grow our food, manufacture our goods, mine our minerals, and even to deliver the water we drink.

Populations, too, have moved to where the water is not. Arid cities like Albuquerque, N.M.; Phoenix; Tucson, Ariz.; Dallas; Denver and Las Vegas have limited water supplies.

In a paper written in February 2008, researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California predict a 50 percent chance that by 2017 Lake Mead, the primary water supply for Las Vegas, will hit "dead pool" status. That's when the lake's water level drops below the intakes for Hoover Dam, energy production ceases and no more water is released downstream. ("When Will Lake Mead Go Dry?" [PDF] by Tim Barnett, a research marine physicist, and David Pierce, a climate scientist.)

"It's not a question of if it's going to happen; it's when," says Pat Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority in the new book, Aqua Shock: The Water Crisis in America (Bloomberg Press).

Our nation's water woes don't end with shortages, either. Pollution fouls much of our water and waterways -- naturally occurring pollutants such as arsenic, uranium, radon, radium and selenium, as well as man-made ones. The latter include industrial and human wastes, mining and agriculture runoffs and storm water runoff. The New York Times and the Associated Press have reported on the fertilizers, pharmaceuticals and other scary substances in our water.

How we develop our cities, towns and communities compounds the water crisis.

Look outside, especially in urban areas, at the acres of concrete, parking lots, buildings and sidewalks. All pave out and over Earth's natural ability to replenish and, to some extent, clean up its water. Sewers and downspouts connected to sewers cause water to run off and away instead of soaking into the ground.

We overuse water, too. The United States consumes a mind-boggling 410 billion gallons every single day. Individually, Americans use 80 to 100 gallons per person daily for in-home personal use, according to the latest estimates from the U.S. Geological Survey.

Of course, as with everything else to do with water, the numbers are controversial and vary depending on who is counting, how and where they're doing so, and so on.

Laws -- old and new -- or their absence, add to the water fray. California's lawmakers tried to address some of what they considered legal shortcomings in their state, but plenty more legal issues clog the system there and elsewhere. Local, state, regional and national water laws tend to be antiquated and outdated, convoluted, confusing and open to broad interpretation.

Adding to the legal morass, more than 20 federal agencies have some hand in water issues, according to Mike Hightower, water expert, environmental engineer, and Distinguished Member of the technical staff of Sandia National Laboratories, part of the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration.

With about 250 transboundary rivers globally, water is a national security issue, too.

Old and antiquated water infrastructure creates still more problems. Today's water-treatment plants weren't built to handle 21st century pollutants, and often don't. The end result is more than H2O in drinking water.

And many of the 700,000 miles of water-delivery pipes that crisscross beneath our cities, towns and fields are worn out, crumbling or clogged with years of buildup. Some peg the price tag to fix this mess at up to more than a trillion dollars. (Read that as a major job generator of the 21st century!)

How divisive is the issue of water?

Who in Las Vegas or Phoenix, or anywhere else for that matter, is willing to give up their backyard swimming pool or abandon a lifestyle centered around golf on verdant courses in the middle of deserts? Which farmers who grow water-intensive crops are willing to rethink what they grow in arid climates? How many people will sit back quietly as water prices soar, as costs of developments, housing, goods and services skyrocket to accommodate water priced on its value? These are all questions that must eventually be addressed and answered.

As the resource becomes scarcer, it could be time to rethink how the nation uses its water, says Colorado State University Professor Steve Mumme, an expert on the Colorado and Rio Grande rivers.

"We must think more carefully about how we need to use this resource -- not how we want to use this resource," Mumme says in Aqua Shock. It's as much about lifestyle as it is economics, he adds. The question is whether we can afford to sustain the lifestyle.

All this doom and gloom, though, does have some bright spots.

Solutions start with recognizing the problems, like in California, Congress is also trying to take its own steps as it discusses water law reforms. Many communities, organizations and individuals -- public and private -- across the country are working to do something, too.

Still many others resist. It's no one single problem, and there's no single silver bullet either. It's time to wake up to the realities of our planet's water supply in crisis. We're out of alternatives.

Susan J. Marks is an award-winning journalist with more that 30 years experience. Her new book, Aqua Shock, sounds the alarm for states throughout the U.S., warning that water is a shrinking resource and is threatened by contaminants, overdevelopment, water overuse, rising population, climate change, antiquated infrastructure and outdated water-treatment plants.

© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/143902/

Yes Men Strike Again, Launch New Coke Brand Bottled Water Called 'Deception' [with Video]

AlterNet

The best part is when they run into an actual Coke employee.

By Tara Lohan, AlterNet
Posted on November 18, 2009, Printed on November 20, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/144049/

The notorious and hilarious pranksters, The Yes Men have done it again. This time their target was Coca-Cola. The company bottles Dasani water, which is basically just tap water that you pay a whole lot more for. The only difference really is that then you have a plastic bottle, which 80 percent of people toss in the garbage instead of a recycling bin.

While Pepsi, which uses tap water for its Aquafina bottled water, has now caved to pressure and labeled their water as "public water source" -- Coke still refuses. So, the Yes Men teamed up with pressure group Corporate Accountability International and launched a faux Coke campaign for a new bottled water called Deception. Genius!

You can watch the video below (or here). My favorite part is when they actually run into a real employee from Coke. And click here to read more about Coke's bad track record when it comes to bottled water.

 

Tara Lohan is a senior editor at AlterNet.

© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/144049/

Poseidon's Financial Shell Game: Why Is a Private Desalination Plant Asking for Public Money?

AlterNet

After years of claiming that they needed no public support to build this plant, this claim has finally been proven false.

By Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute
Posted on November 19, 2009, Printed on November 20, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/144043/

Last week, I wrote about the demand by the Poseidon Group to receive two major public subsidies to build a private desalination plant at Carlsbad near San Diego. After years of claiming that they needed no public support to build this plant, this claim has finally been proven false. The private profits they need will only be possible with public subsidies.

Water Number: $350 million in public subsidies to a private group. Earlier this week, one of the subsidies demanded by Poseidon was granted. The Metropolitan Water Board approved a subsidy of up to $250 per acre foot per year for 25 years, which will make MWD customers pay more for water than they would otherwise have paid, with the profits going to a private company. Up to $350 million over 25 years.

This decision by MWD effectively proves two things: first, that desalination, as envisioned and designed by Poseidon, remains a premature and expensive choice for California. Second, that for all of Southern California's claims of improved efficiency, it is still easier for water agencies to spend $2 (or $3 or $4) to build a water-supply project than to spend $1 to get the same water through water-efficiency programs.

I've argued before, and I say again, I believe this project will give a black eye to the reputation of desalination, all because of intensive efforts to gain private financial benefit on the backs of the public.

In the end, it was clear the project would not go ahead without public subsidy. "The project will not be financeable," said Steve Howard of Barclays Capital, which is advising Poseidon on financing. He admitted that the MWD subsidy would provide 15% to 20% of the project's revenue in its early years, without which the profit Poseidon has promised its private financers would not materialize. In fact, this money is probably almost exactly the profit Poseidon has to generate for its investors.

Mitch Dion, a director of one of the water districts buying the expensive water, said, "Without it [the MWD subsidy], the project will die."

It should die. Until a proposal for desalination is made that meets all environmental standards, is financially sound, economically superior to alternatives, and actually reduces dependence on other, unsustainable sources of water, projects should be rejected. Public subsidies for these private projects should be rejected as well. And the MWD Board should be ashamed.

In the meantime, it would be interested to see exactly what financial returns have been promised to Poseidon and its funders — money that will come from water ratepayers and MWD. Is that information and the details of the financing agreements available to the public that is throwing in so much money? What salaries are being drawn by Poseidon executives, and how do they compare to the salaries of the public water agencies that should build our water systems? Don't hold your breath that this information will be forthcoming.

Dr. Peter Gleick is president of the Pacific Institute, an internationally recognized water expert and a MacArthur Fellow.

© 2009 Pacific Institute All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/144043/

How Limousine Liberals, Water Oligarchs and Even Sean Hannity Are Hijacking Our Water Supply

A group of water oligarchs engineered a disastrous privatization scheme to make a fortune out of California's most precious natural resource.

AlterNet


By Yasha Levine, AlterNet
Posted on November 19, 2009, Printed on November 20, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/144020/

A group of water oligarchs in California have engineered a disastrous deregulation and privatization scheme. And they've pulled in hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars without causing much public outrage. The amount of power and control they wield over California's most precious resource, water, should shock and frighten us -- and it would, if more people were aware of it. But here is the scary thing: They are plotting to gain an even larger share of California's increasingly-scarce, over-tapped water supply, which will surely lead to shortages, higher prices and untold destruction to California's environment. 

California is in year three of a fairly nasty dry spell. And some very powerful forces are not letting this mini-crisis go to waste, fiercely lobbying Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Dianne Feinstein, paying off corporate shills like Fox News' Sean Hannity and capitalizing on people's fear of drought to push a massive waterworks project that will pump more water, build more dams and keep sucking the state's rivers dry. The fearmongering schtick goes like this: California is on the brink of a water crisis of cataclysmic proportions, with a life-or-death struggle just around the corner, pitting small farmers who want to save their livelihood against big city elitists who care more about the environment than they do about American jobs. But in reality, this drought hysteria is nothing more than political theatrics, a scare tactic backed by big agribusiness to strong-arm California voters into building a multi-billion dollar system of dams and canals that would not really help small farmers -- of which there are very few anyway -- but would deliver more water to corporations, subsidize their landholdings, fuel real estate development and enable large-scale water privatization. At its core, it is a war waged for water by California's megarich on everyone else. 

The leader of these recent water privatization efforts in California is a Beverly Hills billionaire named Stewart Resnick. Stewart and his wife, Lynda Resnick, own Roll International Corporation, a private umbrella company that controls the flowers-by-wire company Teleflora, Fiji Water, Pom Wonderful, pesticide manufacturer Suterra and Paramount Agribusiness, the largest farming company in America and the largest pistachio and almond producer in the world. Roll Corp. was ranked #246 on Forbes' list of America's largest private companies in 2008 and had an estimated revenue of $1.98 billion in 2007.

They are a limousine liberal power couple. Hyperactive in politics, business and philanthropy, the two raise huge amounts of cash for the Democratic party, donate to the arts, support education and hobnob with influential progressives like Arianna Huffington and the anti-global warming activist and producer of An Inconvenient Truth, Laurie David. Stewart Resnick gave over $350,000 to the Gray Davis campaign and various anti-recall groups between 2000 and 2003, a favor Governor Davis returned by appointing Resnick to co-chair his agriculture-water transition team. A shrewd businesswoman, Lynda is credited with single-handedly creating the pomegranate health fad to sell her Pom Wonderful and catapulted Fiji Water to its recent success, one that environmentalists love to hate as was recently documented in Mother Jones by Anna Lenzer

But there is a gaping hole in most accounts of the jet-set Baby Boomer couple: their company, Roll International, is one of the largest, if not the largest, private water brokers in America. Through a series of subsidiary companies and organizations, Roll International is able to convert California's water from a public, shared resource into a private asset that can be sold on the market to the highest bidder.

It all comes down to Stewart Resnick's involvement in the creation of a powerful but little-known entity called the Kern County Water Bank -- an underground water storage facility at the center of a plan to bring deregulation to California's most important public utility: water.

According to a 2003 Public Citizen report titled "Water Heist," the Kern County Water Bank is an underground reservoir in the hottest, driest, southernmost edge of the Central Valley with a capacity of 1 million acre-feet, enough to convert the entire state of Rhode Island into a swampland one-foot deep or supply the City of Los Angeles with water for 1.7 years. The water bank was envisioned in the late '80s by the Department of Water Resources as a safeguard against prolonged drought. During wet years, it would serve as a repository for excess water coming in from Northern California and the Sierras, and pumped out in dry years. California spent nearly a hundred million dollars to develop the underground reservoir and connect it to the state's public canals and aqueducts, but in 1995, California's Department of Water Resources suddenly, and without any public debate, transferred it to a handful of corporate interests.

Here is how Los Angeles Times writer Mark Arax described it in 2003:


The story of how the state's largest water bank -- jump-started with $74 million in taxpayer money -- ended up as an integral piece of the private empire of Stewart Resnick begins with a lawsuit, or at least the threat of it.

A seven-year drought ending in the early 1990s pitted Southern California water contractors, such as the Metropolitan Water District, against agricultural contractors, such as the Kern County Water Agency. Each region made its case to the state, telling why it deserved to receive the water guaranteed by long-standing contracts. In the drought's worst years, urban users got 30% of the draw, while Kern farmers received less than 5%.

In 1994, agricultural and urban interests threatened to sue the state for nondelivery. The main parties gathered in a closed-door meeting in Monterey to hash out a settlement. Public interest groups, environmentalists and smaller water contractors -- locked out of the meeting -- cried foul.

When it was over, the very flow of California water had been redirected.

Redirected, as in "privatized."

The details of the transfer are complicated and opaque, but, put simply, the State of California transformed a small number of corporate farmers into a de facto water oligarchy by signing over a massive water holding facility and the many billions of gallons of government-subsidized water that it could store. Arcane and trivial as it may seem, the transfer of the water bank circumvented the usual resale restrictions placed on subsidized water purchased from the state. After the water enters the Kern County Water Bank, it stops being a public resource that could otherwise be used to irrigate crops locally or sold on the free-market to the highest bidder. The transfer privatized water without actually needing to do so explicitly.

But the secretive crew that met in Monterey did more than just privatize one underground water reservoir. California's water oligarchy hammered out a plan that put them at the controls of the state's water market and gave them the ability to create non-existent water out of thin air.

The Monterey Amendments, as the revisions that emerged from the closed meetings came to be called, established a legal framework that, for the first time in history, made unregulated water commerce in California possible by creating the concept of "paper water," which could be traded, transferred, divvied up and put on the books as easily as money in the bank or collateral on a loan without anyone having to transfer a drop. It proved to be a blessing for land speculators during the housing boom that was just around the corner.

Every large real estate development in California has to prove that a secure water source will be available for the project decades into the future. It was a requirement that, until "paper water" came along, posed a serious hurdle to developers building low-income suburban paradises in the Southern California desert. Water is not a easy resource to come by in the West. Underground sources are being depleted at a record pace and the state's aqueduct system, which pumps rainwater and snow that melts hundreds of miles south, does not have the capacity to support both exponentially growing sprawl and massive farming operations out in the desert. Even if there were an abundance of virgin rivers to dam and redirect, the hundreds of millions of dollars such projects would cost would eat into the fat profit margins of real estate developers and bring suburban sprawl expansion to a crawl. The "paper water" market banished this pesky problem once and for all. From the mid-90s on, real estate developers could satisfy all their hydration needs by shopping for "paper water," meaning that they were able to satisfy planning regulations simply by convincing a city or county to purchase virtual water rights. They weren't securing a real water supply, or even transferring a single ounce. But it didn't matter as long as the water was on their books.

Most urban dwellers would not be happy with the water even if it did arrive. Because private water storage facilities are not subject to public oversight, "paper water" merchants are not required to adhere to basic water quality requirements, or even to test it. Reports of polluted water being pumped out of private banks and contaminating clean water flowing in the aqueduct are rare only because no one cares to look. In 2008, water pumped out by one of the stakeholders in the Kern bank, Semitropic, had arsenic levels six times higher than federal EPA limits, which caused a plume of arsenic-tainted water to flow south down the state aqueduct towards Los Angeles County and surrounding districts, according to the Antelope Valley Press.

But development-crazed Southern California does not seem to care, and neither do the water merchants. Real estate development needed "paper water" as a person in a vegetative state needs their IV drip.

And so, with no warning and negligible media attention, the Monterey Agreements created the strange, new and unregulated "paper water" market, not unlike mortgage-backed securities and other exotic debt instruments dreamed up by Wall Street, if only because the "paper water" market trades in pure fantasy and is built on deception. For decades, California's water authorities have been in denial about the amount of water they can deliver to their customers. Contractually, the state is obligated to deliver 4 million acre-feet a year. (Los Angeles uses roughly 600,000 acre-feet a year). But in reality, the state can only deliver half the water it promises. Which means that half of the "paper water" being traded on the open market simply does not exist, and never has. And everyone who deals in water knows it, too. Naturally, this posed a problem. Why would anyone buy water that didn't exist?

The Monterey Amendments got around this problem by making a few legal alterations that made the state explicitly accountable for its original water contracts, regardless of whether there was water or not. This gave buyers the confidence to fuel real estate developments with non-existent water because the government was contractually obligated to bail them out, rain or shine. Where will the state get that water? Well, it could take it away from small farmers, rural communities and anyone else who is poor and politically unconnected.

California's newly established "paper water" market was a speculator's wet dream. It was a scam opportunity too promising for the deregulation con artists at Enron to pass up. A few years after the Monterey Amendments, Enron apparently took a cue from the Kern bank, set up a water division, bought up a huge chunk of land in the Central Valley that sat atop a natural underground reservoir and started working on a water bank of their own. But Enron's snake oil brain trust was scheming on a bigger, more global level. Still in the grips of the Dot Com Bubble, Enron wanted to spark an Internet-based water trading revolution and launched a site that they hoped would become the etrade.com of H20. Called Azurix, it would function as an "exchange on the Internet for buying, selling, storing and transporting water in the West, hoping to make water a traded commodity much like natural gas or electricity," the Wall Street Journal wrote in 2000.

An e-water market where people could buy, sell, trade and speculate on water like any other tradeable commodity? It was the kind of delusional that only people in the grips of a speculative boom centered on the limitless possibilities of a technological revolution could believe in. To think that you could wake up in Shanghai, check out a few weather forecasts and purchase a few million gallons of California water, aiming to buy wet and sell dry -- a scam built on insane dreams. A few years later, Azurix went belly up.

But while Enron's futuristic vision of water speculation may have come before its time, a more modest version of the water trade was thriving in the Golden State, and it apparently owed it all to one man: Stewart Resnick.  

Public Citizen's "Water Heist" report uncovered evidence that the Beverly Hills farmer was instrumental in the privatization of the Kern Water Bank. Not surprisingly, Resnick's Paramount Farms emerged with a majority stake in the venture. In fact, Resnick's farm empire controls the Kern Water Bank so thoroughly that it is not easy to discern where Paramount ends and the Kern Water Bank begins. The Kern Water Bank Authority, which administers the bank, is located in Paramount's corporate office building outside of Bakersfield, California. 

This has brought in massive profits to owners of the Kern bank at taxpayers' expense, and frequently involve nothing more than buying water at subsidized rates from the state, then turning around and selling it back to a different government agency for a tidy profit.

Just as the Federal Reserve allows banks to borrow money from taxpayers so they can reap huge profits by lending it right back to the masses at a higher rate, the Kern bank allows a handful of corporate farmers to sell a public resource back to the public at markup. According to Public Citizen, in 2001, the Kern County Water Bank bought subsidized water from the State Water Project at $161 an acre-foot and flipped it back to the state's Environmental Water Account for $250 an acre-foot, making a cool $6.3 million for its owners -- just for having the right friends in the right places.

The Environmental Water Account (EWA) was set up in 2000 by the state of California to protect salmon populations in the Sacramento Delta. In dry periods, when Delta water levels would drop below a critical level and pumping stations would start slurping up too many fish and grinding them into mush, the state would slow down pumping and supplement water deliveries by buying back water from whoever had any to spare. The plan looked good on paper, but it turned into a very expensive and useless failure -- but only for us and the fish. For members of the Kern County Water Bank, who raked in nearly $40 million dollars by reselling water to the EWA from 2001 to 2004, it worked out pretty well.


As majority stakeholder, Resnick took the lion's share of the profits. A recent investigation by the Contra Costa Times revealed that even as its fish populations teetered on the brink of extinction, California pumped "unprecedented amounts of water out of the Delta only to effectively buy some of it back at taxpayers expense." From 2000 to 2007, California spent $200 million on buying water for the EWA, of which Stewart Resnick's subsidiary companies skimmed 20 cents of every dollar for a total profit of $40 million in seven years. With such gracious help from taxpayers, it is no wonder the Resnicks were able to build such a successful business empire.

"For a program that was supposed to benefit the environment, it apparently did two things -- it didn't benefit the environment and it appears to have enriched private individuals using public money," said Jonas Minton, a water policy expert with the Planning and Conservation League, a California environmental advocacy group, as quoted by the Contra Costa Times

In a 2008 interview with the New Yorker, Stewart Resnick said he initially got into farming in 1978 as a hedge against inflation. Either he was feigning naivete, or he must have quickly realized that he stumbled upon the money-making opportunity of his life, one that helped grow Paramount Farms into an agribusiness empire.

While California's farming industry was steadily shedding land and farms all through the 90s, the Resnicks were expanding production and acreage, nearly doubling their cultivated land holdings just in the three years after the Monterey Agreements.

But the profiteering off California's environment-friendly water program by Resnick and the rest of the Kern Water Bank crew is chump change compared to the  profits water merchants like him can make by selling paper water to real estate developers in the semi-desert wastelands of Southern California.

Take the deal that went down this summer between a farmer with a stake in the Kern bank and a McTractHome paradise in the Mojave Desert, 100 miles east of Los Angeles. For roughly $73 million, the Mojave Water Agency acquired permanent rights to 14,000 acre-feet of water pumped out of the Sacramento Delta and delivered via the State Aqueduct, enough water to flood an area the size of San Francisco six inches deep or hydrate up to 30,000 families for a whole year.

The farmer selling the water was not really a "farmer" in the poor, homesteading, buck-toothed sense of the word, but a private Bay Area-based company called Sandridge Partners owned by the Vidovich family. In addition to running a lucrative cotton and almond growing operation in the heart of the Central Valley, the Vidoviches also control a small real estate empire in the Silicon Valley, building and managing estate developments: office complexes, condominiums, mobile home parks, hotels and shopping centers.

John Vidovich, the current patriarch of the family business, and his wife Lydia live in an $11.4 million Los Altos Hills home. Hilly, wooded and overlooking the bay just south of San Francisco, it's one of the ritziest places to live in Northern California and the 8th most expensive zip code in America. (The president of Resnick's Paramount Farms, Joseph MacIlvane, rubs shoulders with the Vidovich family, sharing a post on the board of directors of the Dudley Ranch Water District, a private water district that owns 9.62% the Kern bank, along with John Vidovich.)

Despite -- or maybe because of -- the family's extreme wealth, Sandridge Partners is one of the top welfare queen-farmers in the country. In 2007, it received $1 million in federal farm subsidies, more than any other farmer that year, raking in an additional $6.8 million between 1995 and 2006, according to the Environmental Working Group. Known as "direct payments," the subsidies are made each year mostly to growers of corn, wheat, rice and cotton, with payout amounts based on past production, sometimes even regardless of whether the crops are still being grown.

But their $73-million water deal shows that farm subsidies aren't the only, or even the most, lucrative handout that has the Vidoviches living well. The money paid out via farm subsidies pale in comparison to the massive profits that can be reaped from simply reselling the heavily taxpayer subsidized water they receive from the state.

According one state water official, the Vidovich's $5,200 per acre-foot deal with the Mojave Water Agency was nearly double previous record price paid for water in California.

Just look at these profit margins: these days, Central Valley farmers buy water from California's Department of Water Resources for a heavily-subsidized $100 to $500 per acre-foot, while city slickers in San Francisco pay around $8,500 for the same water. With this kind of discount, Vidoviches could score a ten- to fifty-fold spread on their purchase-to-sale price. Even if they paid the maximum price of $500 per acre-foot, the water they sold to the Mojave Desert for $73 million would have only cost them $7 million. That's $66 million in pure profit, and all they have to do is let a couple of hundred acres of almond groves wither and let California taxpayers, their ritzy Los Altos Hills neighbors included, fill up their bank accounts.

Shocking as this textbook example of transfer of wealth is, it is neither an isolated incident nor a freak loophole. It was the intended effect of the deregulation and privatization of water hashed in Monterey almost 15 years ago, which transformed water into a truly liquid asset that could be traded with ease on the market. (In 2002, the Sacramento Bee estimated that members of the Kern County Water Bank made at least $128 million from water sales to other cities and counties, which the paper admitted was an incomplete and low-ball figure.)

"Think of the Bank of America, the way it operates with dollars, that's the way we operate with water," said Jonathan Parker, general manager of the Kern Water Bank Authority. "What we do is provide a service. We store water at cost and then take water out of the ground, at cost. They pay us to provide that service in the least expensive manner."

Parker was quoted in 2003. With all the bank bailouts that happened since then, the money-bank to water-bank analogy works even better. The Kern Water Bank shifts the cost for its water onto taxpayers and shifts all of the profits it makes by selling the water to itself. As it turns out, the money-making ideology of "nationalizing losses, privatizing profits" is no longer limited to Wall Street, and hasn't been for a long time. It's all part of the business plan for California's corporate farmers, and a glimpse into the future of California's water trade.

This is the backdrop against which the hysterics and fearmongering of California's water debate are being played out. The drought has been getting increasing political and media attention in recent months. At the core of the discussions are plans for a multi-billion dollar Peripheral Canal, a huge aqueduct that would be constructed to bypass the dying Sacramento Delta and tap into fresh water further upstream with supposedly less harm. It sounds nice on paper. But in reality, the Peripheral Canal is a water privatization con that would move water over to Central Valley water bankers and balloon California's already over-leveraged "paper water" market.

Governor Schwarzenegger has been trying to push the project through California's legislature for months, and has received ample support from both sides of the isle. In September, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein backed the governor and badgered the Obama administration to step in and help California's struggling farmers, going as far as including a letter personally written by Stewart Resnick in one of her communiques. In it Resnick went after Obama officials for siding with environmental interests over those "struggling" farmers. That same month, second-rate FOX news anchor Sean Hannity jetted to Fresno to lead an AstroTurf campaign -- complete with paid Latino "protesters" and funded by the PR firm Burson-Marsteller, which has done work for a wide range of evil clients, from the tobacco industry to Blackwater to the junta in Argentina -- and push for exactly the same thing. Hannity isn't losing any sleep for backing Resnick's "liberal" agenda. The Peripheral Canal is backed by powerful corporate interests regardless of party affiliation.

Of course, the profit drive of corporate America is relentless. And we, the people, have short lives and short memories. And that's the funny thing: this isn't even a new scam. "The Peripheral Canal had been a top priority of the water interests for forty years," wrote the late and much admired Marc Reisner in 1986 in his book Cadillac Desert, one of the most eye-opening and sweeping histories of water use in the American West. It was part of Governor Pat Brown's original master plan for the California Aqueduct, the baby he pushed through in 1960. His son, Jerry Brown tried to finish what his dad started when he took the governor's seat in the mid-late 70s. But Gov. Brown's attempt to get it passed collapsed amid a worsening economy and a wet year.

Reisner chronicles the infighting, corruption, fraud and blatant media manipulation of public opinion that took place when corporate interests launched an all-out, yet ultimately unsuccessful, blitz to convince the Californian people that apocalypse would be at hand if the Peripheral Canal was not built 25 years ago.

Now, three decades later California's legislature is trying to hammer out exactly the same plan, which is as much about opening up more farm land as it is about securing more paper water to fuel suburban sprawl in the desert. And the corporate powers-that-be are using the exact same strategy -- fear -- to convince California taxpayers to finance their personal wealth.

To learn more about the Kern County Water Bank -- Check out Public Citizen's report, "Water Heist: How Corporations Are Cashing in on California's Water."

Yasha Levine is a freelance writer and Editor of eXiledOnline.com

© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/144020/



The 7 Signs of a Leader - A Must Read from Dumb Little Man - Tips for Life

 by Mr. Self Development  http://bit.ly/1YBjVv

We all need leaders in our lives: mentors, people to look up to, people that simply get it. Leaders inspire us, help us accomplish our dreams, and teach by example. Leaders make us better people and give us an ideal to strive for.

The measure of leadership is always influence; leaders have an amazing ability to influence our lives. Leaders lead wherever they go; they lead at work, at home, or wherever they happen to be.

So after that intro, it's easy to conclude that being a leader is not an easy task; it requires a collection of very important skills that have to be ingrained into your daily practice - your soul.

Below are the 7 Signs of a Leader. How many of these do you believe you have? More importantly perhaps, do you look up to someone today that doesn't have many of these traits? Are they really the person to look up to? The choices you make today and the people you surround yourself with will determine much of your path in life; choose wisely.

  1. Vision

    "It's a terrible thing to see, and have no vision." – Helen Keller


    Leaders are visionaries; they know where they're going, and their committed to bringing others along. They have a clear vision of what they want to accomplish and their vision is so compelling that it inspires others to participate in the fulfillment of the vision.

  2. Discipline

    "Discipline is the bridge between goals and accomplishment." – Jim Rohn


    Leaders are disciplined individuals! They are the first partaker of what they preach and they exemplify unprecedented discipline, focus, and commitment in the achievement of their vision.

  3. Emotional Strength

    "He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit, than he who captures a city." - Proverbs


    Leaders are not easily shaken. Leaders anticipate challenges and are not derailed by obstacles. Leaders remain strong when things get tough; they don't faint when adversity strikes.

    Leaders have an amazing level of emotional strength.


  4. Experience

    "Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." – Jim Horning


    Leaders have experience. In other words, they've been around the block a few times and they know where they're going. Their experience has taught them how to get things done and they can differentiate between activity and accomplishment, between efficiency and effectiveness.

    Leaders focus their efforts on the tasks that produce the greatest rewards.

  5. Respect

    "Respect is love in plain clothes." – Frankie Byrne

    Leaders are respected and trusted individuals. Leaders have earned the respect of their followers by becoming an "example." They chart the course, follow their destiny, and inspire others in the process.

    Leaders are respected because they earn respect. The second they demand respect is the second they are no longer a leader.

  6. People Skills

    Arguing with a fool proves there are two. - Doris M. Smith


    Leaders have great people skills; they are friendly to the unfriendly, they know how to respond in every situation. Leaders do not engage in personal battles, they save their strength for the task at hand.

    Leaders treat people with respect and dignity; they connect with others on a personal and emotional level.

  7. Momentum and Timing

    "If you're coasting, you're either losing momentum or else you're headed downhill." – Joan Welsh

    Finally, leaders know how to create momentum, and they know when to act. Nothing great is ever accomplished without momentum and timing.
Leaders Develop Leaders

The test of a great leader is who they develop. A great leader will develop great followers; those followers will become great leaders.

It takes a leader to make a leader. A leader's legacy is measured by succession. Are you a great leader?

Thank you for reading.

Written on 11/20/2009 by Mr. Self Development who is a motivational author that offers a practical guide to success and wealth; support him by visiting his blog at mrselfdevelopment.com. . Photo Credit: I'll Never Grow Up

Time management: How an MIT postdoc writes 3 books, a PhD defense, and 6+ peer-reviewed papers — and finishes by 5:30pm from I Will Teach You To Be Rich

 by Ramit Sethi  http://bit.ly/6PpmmE

I'm always on the lookout for "hidden gems," or people who are doing remarkable work that the whole world hasn't caught on to, yet.

Today, I asked my friend Cal Newport to illustrate how he completely dominates as a post-doc at MIT, author of multiple books, and popular blogger. How does he do it all?

Cal writes one of the best blogs on the Internet: Study Hacks. His guest post shows how you can take I Will Teach You To Be Rich principles — plus many others — and integrate them into a way to use your time effectively.

Below, you'll learn:

  • How to use fixed-schedule productivity — similar to the Think, Want, Do Technique — to consciously choose what you want to work on and ignore worthless busywork
  • When to say no — and how to do it
  • How a $60,000-a-speech professional manages his time
  • Case study: How to use email for maximum time productivity

Read on.

* * *

From Cal:

I recently conducted a simple experiment: I recorded the timestamps of the last 50 e-mails in my sent messages folder. These timestamps covered one week of my e-mail behavior, starting on Thursday, October 22nd and ending Thursday, October 29th.

My interest was to measure when during the day I spent time on e-mail. Here's what I found:

E-mail Chart 2 (png)

Notice that over this week-long period, I didn't send any e-mail after 7:00 pm, and only one e-mail after 6:00 pm. There's a good explanation for this discipline: I end all work around 5:30 every day. No Internet. No computer. No to-do lists. Once I shutdown my day, it's time to relax.

I must emphasize that I'm not some laid-back lifestyle entrepreneur who monitors an automated business from a hammock in Aruba. I have a normal job (I'm a postdoc) and a lot on my plate.

This past summer, for example, I completed my PhD in computer science at MIT. Simultaneous with writing my dissertation I finished the manuscript for my third book, which was handed in a month after my PhD defense and will be published by Random House in the summer of 2010. During this past year, I also managed to maintain my blog, Study Hacks, which enjoys over 50,000 unique visitors a month, and publish over a half-dozen peer-reviewed academic papers.

Put another way: I'm no slacker. But with only a few exceptions, all of this work took place between 8:30 and 5:30, only on weekdays. (My exercise, which I do every day, is also included in this block, as is an hour of dog walking. I really like my post-5:30 free time to be completely free.)

I call this approach fixed-scheduled productivity, and it's something I've been following and preaching since early 2008. The idea is simple:

  • Fix your ideal schedule, then work backwards to make everything fit — ruthlessly culling obligations, turning people down, becoming hard to reach, and shedding marginally useful tasks along the way.

The beneficial effects of this strategy on your sense of control, stress levels, and amount of important work accomplished, is profound.

The notion is not new. Tim Ferriss famously recommend strict time constraints in The 4-Hour Work Week. He argued that much of the work we do is of questionable importance and conducted at low efficiency. (He made a popular — if not somewhat dubious — appeal to Parkinson's Law to support the point that more time does not necessarily lead to more results.) If we instead identify only the most important tasks, he said, and tackle them under severe constraints, we'd be surprised by how little time we actually require.

In this article, I want to tell the stories of real people who successfully implemented this strategy – radically improving the quality of their lives without scuttling their professional success.

Jim Collins' Whiteboard
Jim Collins' Whiteboard (Photo by Kevin Moloney for The New York Times)

(photo by Kevin Moloney for The New York Times)

Jim Collins has sold over seven million copies of his canonical business guides, Good to Great and Built to Last. He attributes the success of these books to his research discipline. As he revealed in a New York Times profile from last May, he leads teams of up to a dozen undergraduates in the process of information gathering. His books require, on average, a half-decade of time and a half-million dollars of expenses to get from their initial premise to the polished ideas. When he enters his "monk" mode to covert this research into a manuscript, he produces, at best, a page a day.

In other words, Collins is a hardworking guy. You would expect, therefore, that like many hard-charging business-world types he would be a blackberry-by-the-bedside workaholic.

But he's not.

Scrawled on a whiteboard in the conference room of Collins' Boulder, Colorado office is a simple formula:

Creative 53%
Teaching 28%
Other 19%

Collins decided years ago that a "big goal" in his life was to spend half of his working time on creative work — thinking, researching, and writing — a third of his time on teaching, and then cram everything else into the last 20%. The numbers on the whiteboard are a snapshot of his current distribution. (He tracks his time with a stop watch and monitors his progress in a spreadsheet.)

Collins is a pristine example of fixed-schedule productivity in action. An author with his level of success could easily fall into an overwork trap: long nights spent updating twitter, signing partnerships, building elaborate web sites and launching product lines, speaking at every possible venue. But he avoids this fate.

Even though Collins demands over $60,000 per speech, for example, he gives fewer than 18 per year, and a third of these are donated for free to non-profit groups. He doesn't do book tours. His web site is mediocre. He keeps his living expenses in check so that he's not dependent on drumming up income (he and his wife have lived in the same California bungalow for the past 14 years), and he keeps only a small staff, preferring to bring on volunteers as needed.

"Mr. Collins…is quite practiced at saying 'no,'" is how The Times described him. (He once wrote an article for USA Today titled: "Best New Years Resolution? A 'Stop-Doing' list.")

His fixed-schedule approach to life comes from his simple conviction "to produce a lasting and distinctive body of work," and his "willingness…to focus on what not to do as much as what to do" has made that possible.

He's not alone in reaping the benefits of the fixed-schedule approach…

Elizabeth's Conversion

When Elizabeth Grace Saunders started her first business, a professional copy-writing service, her schedule has "hazardous."

"I would answer e-mails after going out with friends," she told me, "and stay up until 2 a.m. finishing projects."

At some point, she snapped. "I'm not a secretary," she declared. "I'm not required to jump to respond to everything that crosses my path."

Saunders adopted a 40-hour a week schedule. This new structure had two immediate impacts. First, she found herself focusing only on the most important tasks. With only a few hours to spare on business development, for example, she couldn't justify wasting time with the small, ineffectual website tweaks and exploratory e-mails that used to keep her up late into the night. Instead she focused on the core activities that produced results, such as sales calls or the development of new products. The focus generated by this constraint ended up generating more results than her previous schedule, which was more expansive, but also more scattered.

The second impact was her discovery that she could teach her clients how to treat her.

"I'll answer your e-mail within 24 hours (not 24 minutes), I need notice before starting a project, I will say 'no' if my schedule for the near future is already full, and I might schedule meetings up to a month in advance."

"Choosing how and when I respond to requests has had a dramatic impact," Saunders notes.

Friends and clients were impressed enough with Saunders' lifestyle that she eventually left copywriting to become a "time coach" that works with other women in business to achieve similar results. (Her flagship service is called a Schedule Makeover.)

Here's a typical day in Saunders' life:

  • She's up at 6 and by 8:30 she's at the computer.
  • The first 1 – 2 hours of her work day are spent doing what she calls "routine processing," which includes checking calendars, clearing e-mail inboxes, and cementing a plan to follow for the rest of the day. As Saunders describes it, this morning routine prevents her from wasting time deciding how to start, and it frees her of the "compulsion" to be checking e-mail throughout the day.
  • She continues with an hour of sales calls. This is often the most dreaded activity for the solo entrepreneur. But by having a regular place in her constrained schedule, she avoids pushing it aside.
  • The rest of the day follows the schedule she fixed in the morning: usually a mix of client assignments and at least one business development activity.
  • By 5:30 she's done.

Most entrepreneurs work well past 5:30 (and claim that this is absolutely unavoidable), but Saunders' business is thriving. The reason is clear: her fixed schedule forces her to do the work that produces results (sales calls, client assignments, major business development activities) and eliminates the hours of pseudowork that many use to fill their day in an effort to feel "busy" (tweaking websites, compulsive e-mail checking, chasing down small business development opportunities).

Saunders is not the only young entrepreneur I've met who was surprised to discover that doing less helped the bottom line…

The Baby Factor

Michael Simmons, a good friend of mine, reported a similar story. His company, the Extreme Entrepreneurship Education Corporation, expanded quickly in the years following college graduation. Around the time I was reading The 4-Hour Work Week, I started to discuss the possibility that Simmons tone down the hours. It was his company, I argued, so why not take advantage of this fact to craft an awesome life.

Among the specific topics we discussed, I remember suggesting that Simmons cut down the time spent on e-mail and social networks.

"This isn't optional for me," he explained. "Any of these contacts could turn into a important partner or sale."

But then Simmons' daughter, Halle, was born.

Simmons' work schedule reduced from 10 to 12 hours days to 3 to 5 hour days. He took care of the baby in the morning, then worked in the afternoon while his wife, and company co-founder, took over the childcare responsibilities. Evenings were family together time.

Halle forced Simmons into the type of constrained schedule that he had previously declared impossible. And yet the business didn't flounder.

"The baby turns 'shoulds' into 'musts'," Simmons explained to me. "In the past I used to put off key decisions, or saying 'no', because I didn't want to deal with the discomfort. Now I have no choice. I have to make the decisions because my time has been slashed in half."

"Since out daughter was born about a year ago, our business has more than doubled."

The Fixed-Schedule Effect

Collins, Saunders, and Simmons all share a similar discovery. When they constrained their schedule to the point where non-essential work was eliminated and colleagues and clients had to retrain their expectations, they discovered two surprising results.

First, the essentials — be it making sales calls, or focusing on the core research behind a book — are what really matter, and the non-essentials — be it random e-mail conversations, or managing an overhaul to your blog template — are more disposable than many believe.

Second, by focusing only the essentials, they'll receive more attention than when your schedule was unbounded. The paradoxic effect, as with Collins' bestsellers, or Saunders and Simmons' fast-growing businesses, you achieve more results.

Living the Fixed-Scheduled Lifestyle

The steps to adopting fixed-schedule productivity are straightforward:

  1. Choose a work schedule that you think provides the ideal balance of effort and relaxation.
  2. Do whatever it takes to avoid violating this schedule.

This sounds simple. But of course it's not. Satisfying rule 2 is non-trivial. If you took your current projects, obligations, and work habits, you'd probably fall well short of satisfying your ideal schedule.

Here's a simple truth that you must confront when considering fixed-schedule productivity: sticking to your ideal schedule will require drastic actions. For example, you may have to:

  • Dramatically cut back on the number of projects you are working on.
  • Ruthlessly cull inefficient habits from your daily schedule.
  • Risk mildly annoying or upsetting some people in exchange for large gains in time freedom.
  • Stop procrastinating.

In the abstract, these are all hard goals to accomplish. But when you're focused on a specific goal — "I refuse to work past 5:30 on weekdays!" — you'd be surprised by how much easier it becomes to deploy these strategies in your daily life.

Let's look at one more example…

Case Study: My Schedule

My schedule from my time as a grad student provides a good case study. To reach my relatively small work hour limit, I had to be careful about how I approached my day. I saw enough bleary-eyed insomniacs around here to know how easy it is to slip into a noon to 3 a.m. routine (the infamous "MIT cycle.")

Here are some of the techniques I regularly used to remain within the confines of my fixed schedule:

  • I'm ruthlessly results oriented. What's the ultimate goal of a graduate student? To produce good research that answers important questions. Nothing else really matters. For some of my peers, however, their answer to this metaphysical prompt was: "work really long hours to prove that you belong." It was as if some future arbiter of their future was going to look back at their time clock punch card and declare whether they sufficiently paid their dues. Nonsense! I wanted to produce a few good papers a year. Anything that got in the way of this goal was treated with suspicion. This results-oriented vision made it easy to keep the middling crap from crowding my schedule.
  • I'm ultra-clear about when to expect results from me. And it's not always soon. If someone slips something onto my queue, I make an honest evaluation of when it will percolate to the top. I communicate this date. Then I make it happen when the time comes. You can get away with telling people to expect a result a long time in the future, if — and this is a big if — you actually deliver when promised. Long lead times allow to you to side step the pile-ups (which will bust a fixed-schedule) that accrue when you insist on an immature, "do things only when the deadline looms" attitude.
  • I refuse. If my queue is too crowded for a potential project to get done in time, I turn it down.
  • I drop projects and quit. If a project gets out of control and starts to sap too much time from my schedule, or strays from my results-oriented vision: I drop it. If something demonstrably more important comes along, and it conflicts with something else in my queue, I drop the less important project. Here's a secret: no one really cares what you do on the small scale, or what things you quit. In the end you're judged on your results. If something is hindering your production of the important results in your field, you have to ask why you're keeping it around.
  • I'm not available. I often work in hidden nooks of the various libraries on campus, or from my apartment. I check and respond to work e-mail only a couple times a day, and never at night or on weekends. People have to wait for responses from me. It's often hard to find me. Sometimes people get upset when they send me something urgent on Friday night that need done by Saturday morning. But eventually they get over it. Just as important, I'm not a jerk about it. I don't have sanctimonious auto-responders about my e-mail habits. I just do what I do, and people adapt.
  • I batch and habitatize. Any regularly occurring work gets turned into a habit — something I do at a fixed time on a fixed date. For example, I work on my blog in the afternoon after lunch. I write first thing in the morning. When I was taking classes, I had reoccuring blocks set aside during the week for tackling their assignments. Habit-based schedules for regular work makes it easier to tackle the non-regular projects. It also prevents schedule-busting pile-ups.
  • I start early. Sometimes real early. On certain projects that I know are important, I don't tolerate procrastination. It doesn't interest me. If I need to start something 2 or 3 weeks in advance so that my queue proceeds as needed, I do so.
  • I don't ask permission. I think it's wrong to assume that you automatically have the right to work whatever schedule you want. It's a valuable prize that most be earned. And results are the currency you must spend to buy it. So long as I'm actually accomplishing the big picture goals I'm paid to accomplish, I feel comfortable to handle my schedule my own way. If I was producing mediocre crap, people would have a right to demand more access.

Conclusion

You could fill any arbitrary number of hours with what feels to be productive work. Between e-mail, and crucial web surfing, and to-do lists that, in the age of David Allen, grow to lengths that rival the bible, there is always something you could be doing. At some point, however, you have to put a stake in the ground and say: I know I have a never-ending stream of work, but this is when I'm going to face it. If you don't, you'll let this work push you around like a bully. It will force you into tiring, inefficient schedules, and you'll end up more stressed and no more accomplished.

Fix the schedule you want. Then make everything else fit around your needs. Be flexible. Be efficient. If you can't make it fit: change your work. But in the end, don't compromise.

Cal Newport is an MIT postdoc, author, and founder of Study Hacks, the Internet's most popular student advice blog.

New Right-Wing Craze - “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8,” which reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.” from Think Progress

 by Amanda Terkel http://bit.ly/3o3ErK

Pray For Obama Merchandise The newest far-right craze is an anti-Obama slogan that is making its way onto t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, and even teddy bears: "Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8," which reads, "Let his days be few; and let another take his office." The meme is also taking off on Twitter, with conservatives calling it "hilarious." Commentators have noted that it's unclear whether the intent is to hope for an end to Obama's time in office — or an end to his life. But a look at the lines in the rest of the psalm hint at the latter:

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.

Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor.
Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.

Diana Butler Bass at Beliefnet explains that Psalm 109 is one of the "imprecatory" prayers, "a lament in the form of petition to destroy one's enemies." While perhaps intended to be a joke, she notes that the psalm actually "entreats God to destroy the president":

It is the personal prayer of an individual, someone who has been dealt an injustice by another–and usually more powerful–person. The words of Psalm 109 are those of deep agony, the longings of a victim for retribution and justice. This psalm is considered one of the most difficult of all the psalms–full of violent images of vengeance and death.

Quite a few of the "Pray for Obama" items are being sold at CafePress.com, although many of them have been taken off of the site (here's a cached version of some of them). Cafe Press representative Margene H. told ThinkProgress that while the site took down some of the "Pray for Obama" items today, it is now in the process of reinstating them:

We initially pulled the Psalm 109:8 content from our products today because broader media dialog indicated that these designs potentially suggested violence towards the president. Based on current public discourse and further review of the actual content, we have determined that it is fair political commentary and we are in the process of reinstating this merchandise. As with all of our content, these designs will continue to be reviewed and if at any time their meaning is construed as advocating violence we will revisit our decision.

On Tuesday, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow spoke with "Patience With God" author Frank Schaeffer, who said that while the psalm was "frightening" in a secular context, it's even "more threatening" in a biblical context.

Gentle Giant Plays Pimp My Astromech- fully-loaded deluxe version of R2-D2 complete with eight accessories.- from Topless Robot

http://bit.ly/1EzfsU

poses.jpg

Star Wars revealed Gentle Giant's newest statue, due next spring, to be R2-D2 with all the bells and whistles. And when I say bells and whistles, I mean saws and lightsabers and shit. This fully-loaded, 7-inch Artoo statue has 8 accessories for you to attach or not attach, including:

• The mechanical gripper he uses to wrestle Yoda for snacks
• The periscope scanner he uses to navigate through Dabobah's swamp
• The interface thing he uses to hack into every computer and ship in the galaxy
• That other radar he uses to look for Luke and Han on Hoth
• The saw he cuts Leia's chains with on Jabba's sail barge
• The electric shocker he tases Yoda with (which is kind of badass, actually)
• Luke's ROTJ lightsaber
• Something else

Pretty sweet, right? And telling that there's no jet attachments. Frankly, I probably would've paid full price for this thing just for holding Luke's lightsaber, the event that blew my 6-year-old mind almost as much as Vader's parental reveal. Seriously, if I could have a droid, all I would want it to do would be to fire lightsabers at me upon request. (Via Geeks of Doom)

holy shit - Gang Kill Lonely Obese People, Sell Their Fat For Cosmetics [Fat Killers] from Gawker

 by Ravi Somaiya http://bit.ly/4nU8CD

In a story that can only be described as made-up-but-not, police have busted a gang in Peru who targeted fat people on "lonely roads," killed them, extracted their fat and sold it, possibly to make anti-wrinkle treatments.

The extracted, liquidized fat sold for $15,000 a liter, report the BBC, and it apparently went to "European countries." Four people have been arrested and five, adds the journalist with a straight face, remain "at large." Some of those captured were carrying soft drinks bottles of human fat. To reiterate: bottles of human motherfucking fat. One of them admitted that they'd been luring the chubby with fake job offers, then bumping them off, in the Huanaco and Pasco regions for up to three decades. Police estimate that they may be behind the disappearances of up to 60 people.

The gang has been referred to as the Pishtacos, after an ancient Peruvian legend of killers who attack people on lonely roads and murder them for their fat.

The genesis of this ancient legend is not so hard to trace. The last alleged murder happened in September. Before you get comfortable, and laugh at the people in Peru:

Gen Felix Burga, head of Peru's police criminal division, said there were indications that "an international network trafficking human fat" was operating from Peru.

Stay off those lonely roads.

Why are so many conservatives obsessed with 'rape"? from Gawker

Good Morning, Obama Wants to Rape You [Rape]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCY23hWWgRI

Maybe it is too early on a Friday for this, but, you know, there is not really a "good time" to post a 2-minute montage of conservative media figures—mostly Rush—repeatedly saying "rape." Over and over again.

News: New iPhone Apps Perform Background Checks on Your Date from MOST POPULAR

 

Everything you need for a hot night is in the palm of your hand. Your iPhone can find you a date, help you choose a restaurant, and let your friends know how the evening is going in various formats. With the launch of two new iPhone apps, you can now ensure that your date will live up to your standards even before you meet. PeopleFinders has created "Stud or Dud?" and "Are They Really Single?", which search through public records to find out the type of information you might want to know before that romantic dinner. Information like whether or not your date is married, if he or she has a criminal record, or if he or she is a registered sex offender.

Democrats Raise Re-Imbursement Rates For Medicare Doctors Over Determined GOP Opposition from DownWithTyranny!

http://bit.ly/2J8nvJ

July 30, 1965, LBJ signs Medicare bill, Truman looks on, Republicans start plotting how to kill the program

Yesterday the House voted 243-183, only one Republican, Michael Burgess (R-TX) joining the Democrats, to pass John Dingell's Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). The bill will "revise the Medicare sustainable growth rate (SGR) payment system for determining the annual updates to the Medicare physician fee schedule." In plain English, it is meant to protect health care for seniors and military families, the two groups who would have suffered in Republicans would have had their way on this. It prevents a 21% cut in Medicare physician payment rates scheduled for January. Instead of temporarily overriding the cut as Congress has done six times before, this bill replaces the broken Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula with a permanent, sustainable solution.

Although Republicans and several conservative Democrats who habitually vote with them, opposed the bill, it was vigorously supported by the American Medical Association, AARP, the Military Officers Association of America, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Surgeons, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, the Medicare Rights Center, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. Still 11 right-wing Democrats crossed the aisle to vote against the bill. The Republicans, who never seem to have a probelm spending money on wars and bailing out banksters and giving billions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, claim that this is too expensive. They opposed Medicare from the day it was introduced and have never stopped trying to undermine it.

Brian Baird (D-WA)
Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)
Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
Chet Edwards (D-TX)
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (Blue Dog-SD)
Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL)
Dan Lipinski (D-IL/TN)
Michael McMahon (D-NY)
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
Adam Smith (D-WA)
Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS)

Highlighted members also joined the GOP to vote against the healthcare reform bill that passed the House a week and a half ago. Like the Republicans, their answer to healthcare is "Don't get sick or, if you do, do quickly."

Man charged with using Craigslist to rob 11 people from Chicago Breaking News

http://bit.ly/8CbZZL

w_DwayneWilliams125x150.jpgA Chicago man used Craigslist to rob 11 people by luring them to a South Side alley on the promise of selling them televisions and other items, police said.

Dwayne Williams, 20, of the 120000 block of South Justine, would brandish a handgun instead of a television and make off with their money, police said.

Williams was arrested Tuesday by Calumet Area detectives who had noticed a rash of robberies in the area.

The detectives answered an ad placed by Williams who claimed to be selling a television.  Police met Williams in the 8700 block of South Parnell Avenue. As the undercover detectives approached Williams, he displayed a revolver and the police identified themselves.
Williams was arrested as the tried to flee, police said. Police recovered the gun, and victims identified him in line-ups, police said.

Williams faces charges of armed robbery with a firearm charges, including aggravated robbery and weapons violations.

-- Carlos Sadovi

‘Read the stimulus’ advocate Dick Armey slammed for not bothering to read the stimulus. from Think Progress

 

Yesterday, the House Oversight and Government Reform committee held a hearing on the implementation of the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus. Republican members invited former GOP Majority Leader Dick Armey, who now leads the corporate front group FreedomWorks, to testify as their expert witness. After listening to Armey argue at length about the merits of even having any government intervention in the economy, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) asked him if he supported the unemployment compensation provisions of the bill. Armey said he might, but conceded that he had not read that portion of the bill. Van Hollen then extracted a confession that Armey had not even read the bill at all, even though he was appearing as an expert and repeatedly goes before the press to criticize the stimulus:

VAN HOLLEN: Let me ask you think. You keep saying 'if there were,' did you read the Economic Recovery bill?

ARMEY: No I didn't. I had no reason to read it, I wasn't voting on it.

VAN HOLLEN: You're commenting on it an awful lot, both here and in the press, about the Economic Recovery bill. We ask members of Congress to read it when they vote on it and are considering it. You've said a lot about it, so I'm a little surprised that you have not read it. [...] It seems to me we owe it to people we are communicating with we have an understanding an read the information.

Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXN5nF5ln20

Ironically, as part of an effort to obstruct and derail the bill, Armey launched an online petition called "ReadTheStimulus.org." In another bit of irony, although he postures as a fierce ideological opponent of the stimulus, Armey actually worked as a lobbyist to help businesses gain from the stimulus. According to disclosures, he was paid to lobby on behalf of Cape Wind Associates and the Medicines Company on the stimulus. His son, Scott Armey, who runs his own lobbying shop, has also worked with businesses to gain stimulus funds.

One in Seven U.S. Mortgages Foreclosing or Delinquent from cryptogon.com

 


Via: Reuters:

A record one in seven U.S. mortgages were in foreclosure or at least one payment past due in the third quarter, according to fresh data signaling the recovery in the housing market will be tepid at best.

U.S. mortgage delinquency rates and the percentage of loans that entered the foreclosure process also jumped to records from July to September, the Mortgage Bankers Association said on Thursday.

Rising job losses were behind the increasingly bleak portrait of the housing market in a trend that will continue into next year, the group said in data that adds to recent evidence of a still-struggling housing market.

Housing and related business account for about 20 percent of the economy and recovery is essential to bring unemployment down from a 26-1/2-year high and kick-start economic growth.

Yet record foreclosures will add to the growing supply of unsold homes, sapping the housing market as it attempts to recover from the worst slump since the Great Depression.

The MBA said the percentage of loans in foreclosure rose to 1.42 percent, from 1.36 percent in the second quarter and 1.07 percent in the third quarter of 2008.

"Foreclosures remain the biggest hurdle to the housing recovery," said Michelle Meyer, economist at Barclays Capital in New York.

"Foreclosures will be worse in the first part of 2010 and we do not see a peak in foreclosures until the middle of next year."

 

Democrats blast McConnell for “lying” about health reform from Raw Story Breaking News

 

dnc%20mcconnell%20ad Democrats blast McConnell for lying about health reform

After releasing their sweeping health care bill in the Senate Wednesday, Democrats are on the attack with a video montage "calling out" GOP leader Mitch McConnell for what they describe as his dishonest effort to obfuscate and kill the legislation.

"The Republican Party is going to have to answer to voters for opposing health insurance reform... all for the sake of politics," said DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan, in a statement to RAW STORY.

The clip, titled "Mitch McConnell: Lying On Health Reform," and website carrying it feature various sources refuting McConnell's assertions that the Democratic plan will cut Medicare, drive private insurers out of business, force government bureaucrats between doctors and patients, and lead to a single-payer insurance system.

It rebuffs his claim that a public option "may cost you your life," and includes footage of physician and former Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist saying "what the Obama administration is doing is not socialized medicine." It also slams McConnell for having "cited discredited 'experts'" -- including a GOP strategist whose assertions have been taken apart by FactCheck.org.

Story continues below...

"It's clear that we need to slow down," McConnell is featured as saying. Jen O'Malley Dillon, the DNC's Executive Director, claimed that is a ruse to "bury reform under endless delays and distortions."

"McConnell seems willing to use every trick in the book to delay a fair debate on reform," said Dillon, in an email to constituents Thursday. "Each day reform is postponed is another day for him to attack it with another distortion. It's a desperate gambit to confuse the American people, derail the effort in Congress, and block reform."

This new offensive may be an attempt by DNC to quell rising public skepticism over their legislation. President Obama's handling of health care now faces higher disapproval (49 percent) than approval (47 percent) for the first time in his presidency, a Washington Post poll found this week. The bill faces a tough challenge in the Senate as Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman and several Democrats -- including Sens. Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln -- might block it from even reaching a vote.

McConnell and other Republicans have been fiercely and consistently critical of the Democratic proposal for months, saying it will drive up premiums, increase the federal deficit and lead to single-payer insurance. In a testament to their resolute disapproval, only one House Republican (out of 177) voted for the narrowly successful bill earlier this month, while 39 Democrats -- mostly representing conservative districts -- rejected it.

The clip opens and closes with President Obama's warning to opponents of reform in his September 17, 2009 speech to Congress: "If you misrepresent what's in our plan, we'll call you out," he said.

WATCH:

Popout

Unemployment Rate Increases in 29 States in October from Calculated Risk

 From the BLS: Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Summary

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia recorded over-the-month unemployment rate increases, 13 states registered rate decreases, and 8 states had no rate change, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the year, jobless rates increased in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
...
Michigan again recorded the highest unemployment rate among the states, 15.1 percent, in October. The states with the next highest rates were Nevada, 13.0 percent; Rhode Island, 12.9 percent; California, 12.5 percent; and South Carolina, 12.1 percent. The rate in California set a new series high, as did the rates in Delaware (8.7 percent) and Florida (11.2 percent). The District of Columbia also set a series high, 11.9 percent.
emphasis added
State Unemployment Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the high and low unemployment rates for each state (and D.C.) since 1976. The red bar is the current unemployment rate (sorted by the current unemployment rate).

Fourteen states and D.C. now have double digit unemployment rates. New Jersey, Indiana, and Mississippi are all close.

Three states are at record unemployment rates: California, Delaware and Rhode Island. Several others are close.

Sarah Palin Gets Booed from The Washington Independent

 by David Weigel http://bit.ly/37fho7

It's the dark side of the media sensation book tour: the disappointed fans who, in the age of YouTube and blog comments, have louder voices than ever. Liberal blogger Kevin K. at Rumproast has video and angry comments from Sarah Palin fans. One angry comment:

Went to the book signing in Noblesville, IN. Waited three hours in the cold to get a wristband to reserve my spot at the book signing tonight. We were told she would sign book for the first 1000 people. Not so. The event ended promptly at 9:00pm, though there were still at least 150 people left. Wasted my day, wasted money on a babysitter, and wasted my money on this book.

The video (after the jump) of the scene in Noblesville is even worse. "You want somebody who's gonna be quittin' on the job?" yells one heckler. "Right there! Quittin' on the job."

Popout

Insurance Company Mails Out Postcards With SSNs [Identity Theft Risk] from Consumerist

 

It's always nice when an insurance company mails your Social Security Number out on bare naked postcards for anyone to ogle, right?

Universal American Action Network, a subsidiary of Universal American Insurance, mailed out 80,000 such postcards to Medicare recipients around the country, WGAL of Pennsylvania reports.

The story gives the insurance company's response to the epic failure:

UAM Action Network recently sent a mailer to approximately 80,000 Medicare Advantage plan members which mistakenly listed the member's Medicare number on the postcard. The Medicare number was listed as part of the member's mailing address and no indication was given as to its reference. We at the UAM Action Network sincerely apologize for this error, which was made by our mailing vendor without our knowledge. We have taken immediate steps to address the situation. The vendor has been fired. In addition, UAM Action Network will send a letter to those members who received the original mailer. The letter will notify them of the error and offer to provide the member with one year of free credit monitoring. Any member who received the mailer and has questions or concerns can contact us by calling 1-877-697-6228.

It's nice that UAM is standing up and attempting to rectify the mistake, but frightening that something like this could ever happen in the first place.

80,000 Mailers Sent Out With Recipients' Social Security Numbers In Plain View [WGAL (Pennsylvania)]

Economic Crisis Is Getting Bloody -- Violent Deaths Are Now Following Evictions, Foreclosures and Job Losses from Truthout - All Articles

http://bit.ly/XQwQ4

Despite ever rosier economic predictions and a surging stock market, the body count from the economic crisis is destined only to grow in the weeks and months ahead.

Despite ever rosier economic predictions and a surging stock market, the body count from the economic crisis is destined only to grow in the weeks and months ahead.

In 2007, Jason Rodriguez was fired from his position at an Orlando, Florida engineering firm and ended up taking a job as a "sandwich artist" at a Subway restaurant. His salary was cut nearly in half and his debts mounted until, last May, he filed for bankruptcy, listing his assets at just over $4,600 and his liabilities at nearly $90,000. Although he lived only 30 minutes away, according to his former mother-in-law, America Holloway, Rodriguez barely saw his son. When the boy asked why his father didn't visit, Holloway said Rodriguez told him: "'Because I don't have any money. I don't have a job. I don't have anything to eat. When things get better, I'll come see you.'"

Things never got better. On November 6th, the 40-year-old Rodriguez went back to the downtown high-rise office building where he had worked and reportedly opened fire, killing one person and wounding five others at his old firm. Asked to comment following the shooting, a local lawyer who represented Rodriguez in his bankruptcy proceedings, said "That's how it is right now. He's a very typical client. Of people that are suffering through the economy right now, there's nothing extraordinary about him… except that."

In the wake of the massacre at Fort Hood -- which took place a day before the Florida incident -- there has, quite understandably, been a search for answers as to the cause of the shooting that left more than 50 dead or injured. Much less attention, however, has been devoted to uncovering the reasons for the much larger number of men and women -- including those allegedly shot by Jason Rodriguez -- who have fallen victim to violence stemming from the global economic crisis.

An analysis of national, regional, and local news reports from 2008-2009 indicates a largely silent, nationwide epidemic of drastic measures and extreme acts for which the economy seems to have been a catalyst. News of such deeds linked to economic woes -- from armed robberies to pay the rent to financially-motivated suicides to familicides (murder/suicides in which both parents and their children die) in the face of financial ruin -- has filtered out of cities and towns in most U.S. states. Since only a fraction of these acts ever receive media coverage, what is being reported -- most of it in local newspapers -- is startling. And while it's impossible to know the myriad factors, including deeply personal ones, that contribute to people resorting to drastic measures, violent or otherwise, many press reports suggest that the global economic crisis has played no small part in a wide range of extreme acts.

Going to Extremes

Earlier this year, for example, "Binghamton Shooter" Jiverly Wong garnered front-page headlines nationwide and set off a cable news frenzy when, "bitter over job loss," he massacred 13 people at an immigration center in upstate New York. Similarly, coverage was brisk after Pittsburgh resident Richard Poplawski, "upset about recently losing a job," shot four local police officers, killing three of them. Many others have directed violence inward, sometimes shooting themselves as sheriff's deputies stood at the door with eviction papers, other times engaging in armed standoffs designed to end in a suicide-by-cop killing.

One such case occurred recently when 64-year-old Kurt Aho of Phoenix, Arizona decided to take a stand. Aho had been struggling to find work and was preparing for his daughter and grandson -- who had lost their house to foreclosure -- to move in with him, but on September 29th, his own foreclosed home of 30 years was sold at auction. Vowing that he wouldn't just walk away, Aho cracked open a beer and had drink with neighbor Jeffrey Hobson who recalled, "He said, 'When the cops get here, either I'm gonna die by them or I'm gonna kill myself." When the two new owners arrived, Aho promptly shot out the tires of their trucks. He then retrieved a .357 Magnum from his house and chased the pair away. Next came the police who rolled up and ordered Aho to drop his weapon. Instead, the self-employed contractor ignored them and walked into his house to grab a few more beers. Neighbors warned the cops that Aho was suicidal and that he would fire on them if they advanced, but the SWAT team stepped up the confrontation by shooting Aho with rubber bullets. Aho responded by firing his pistol twice, striking the SWAT team's armored vehicle with one of the bullets. With that, a SWAT team member fired on Aho, killing him.

In the days that followed, as they have all year long, other economically-motivated extreme acts were carried out across the country. In an attempt to save their home from foreclosure, Daniel Weston and Mary Ann Parmelee, both 52, hired a pair of loan modification agents. Believing they had been ripped off, the Los Angeles couple later lured the men into an ambush, on October 20th, in which "Weston and another man, Gustavo Canez, 36, allegedly beat and robbed them" using a handgun and wooden knuckles. 

On October 29th, in New Orleans, Louisiana, a man facing eviction armed himself with a rifle and barricaded himself inside his home. The act wasn't an isolated extreme for the area. "We've had a couple of suicides," Lambert Boissiere Jr., New Orleans's 1st City Court Constable remarked recently. "When the deputies get there, they find the person inside. Or sometimes you knock on the door and boom, they commit suicide." 

One such incident took place on November 5th when Patrick Sanchez of Irvine, California answered his door to find a sheriff's deputy serving him an eviction notice. Sanchez asked the deputy to wait, walked back into his home and shot himself. It was, reportedly, at least the third eviction-related suicide in that area this year.

Elkhart Revisited

Right now, having suffered 13 deaths at the hands of a lone gunman, Fort Hood, Texas is the media's anguished community du jour. In February, however, it was the former "RV capital of the world," Elkhart, Indiana -- a financially-devastated community where President Barack Obama made an appearance to push his economic recovery package. In his speech at Elkhart's town hall, Obama caught the town's plight dramatically: "[This] area has lost jobs faster than anywhere else in the United States of America, with an unemployment rate of over 15 percent when it was 4.7 percent just last year… We're talking about people who have lost their livelihood and don't know what will take its place… That's what those numbers and statistics mean. That is the true measure of this economic crisis."

In reality, however, the "true measure" has only become clear as the year has ground on. As of early November there had been 22 confirmed suicides in Elkhart and two other likely self-inflicted deaths, outpacing the county average of 16. According to coroner John White, in more than a quarter of the suicides financial distress or job loss was a deciding factor for the victims. "They left notes specifically stating that the reason they did this was because of the economy," he said recently. He continued, "Everyone needs to be more aware with the stresses of 17 percent to 18 percent unemployment."

People do need to be aware of the stresses -- and the dire costs associated with them, but the chances of that happening are slim. The massacre at Fort Hood is bound to produce volumes of analyses resulting from multiple government inquiries into the killings. But neither the FBI nor Congress nor any other government agency will ever convene an investigation into the slow motion bloodbath resulting from the global economic crisis. For this reason, there will never be anything approaching a full tally of all the victims who were killed or died or were wounded or psychologically devastated as a result of evictions, foreclosures, job losses, and other forms of financial distress over the last years. Nor will President Obama head back to Elkhart, or anywhere else for that matter, to attend a memorial service to the fallen from this less spectacular, but far deadlier bloodbath. As a result of the inattention, and despite ever rosier economic predictions and a surging stock market, the body count from the economic crisis is destined only to grow in the weeks and months ahead.

No Stupak Language in Senate Bill; Boxer "Couldn't Be Happier," Hatch Promises "Holy War"

AlterNet


By Adele Stan, AlterNet
Posted on November 19, 2009, Printed on November 20, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/144062/

At Majority Leader Harry Reid's announcement yesterday about the health-care bill he seeks to introduce on the Senate floor, the elephant in the room was women's reproductive rights, which were not addressed from the podium.

But ever since the House passed its health-care bill with the egregious Stupak amendment attached -- which bars virtually all abortion coverage from being offered in the exchanges through which most individual policies will be purchased -- battles over reproductive rights have taken center stage as the Senate hammered out its version of the legislation, titled the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The Washington Post reports that the bill does not go the Stupak route, and instead establishes a "firewall" between federally-funded subsidies for insurance premiums and private funds that could be used to pay for plans that contain abortion coverage. ""I couldn't be happier," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told the Post. "For those who want to keep abortion out of this bill, Senator Reid did it the right way." Boxer is regarded as the Senate's foremost pro-choice advocate.

On the issue of reproductive rights, Reid, who is anti-choice himself, had no good options. With the passage of the Stupak amendment in the House, the stage has been set for a battle royale. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., last week promised to withhold his support from any bill that didn't contain the Stupak language. That matters because the Democrats need every single vote of the 60 their caucus holds in the Senate in order to merely move the bill to the floor. Yesterday, Reid told reporters he was cautiously optimistic that he could get all 60 votes to prevent Republicans from successfully launching a filibuster, the procedural move used to block the legislative process.

Republicans have promised to pull out all the stops to keep the Senate from passing Reid's bill. "It's going to be a holy war," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, the ardently anti-choice Republican from Utah, told the New York Times. It was unclear from the Times report whether Hatch was referring to the reproductive health provisions or the bill as a whole. Hatch promised earlier this week to offer a Stupak-like amendment to the bill, despite the fact that he plans not to vote for the bill in the end.

Whether Hatch's holy war is waged specifically on the abortion front, or against the whole of the bill, it all adds up to the same thing in the end. Republicans have been using the false specter of government-funded abortions throughout the health-care debate as a means to scuttle the legislation from passing.

Other provisions that make Republicans unhappy include the public option, for which Reid offers states an escape route called an "opt-out", and a tax on individuals earning more than $250,000 a year to help pay for the plan.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill's cost at $849 billion -- below the $900 billion threshold set by President Obama -- and projects that it will cut the deficit by $130 billion through cost savings.

Word is that the process to bring the bill to the Senate floor will begin on Saturday. In the meantime, pro- and anti-choice forces are staking their positions, with the National Right to Life Committee, a group allied with the Roman Catholic bishops, declaring Reid's firewall language on abortion coverage "unacceptable."

 

Adele M. Stan is AlterNet's Washington bureau chief.

© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/144062/

Economy Is Going to Get Much Worse

AlterNet


By Steven D., Booman Tribune
Posted on November 19, 2009, Printed on November 20, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.boomantribune.com//144076/

I think the economy is pretty darn awful, but with record profits on Wall Street and all the happy talk about a recovery from the recession (albeit a jobless recovery) it's confusing for many people as to what our economic future really holds. Well, here's relevant statistic that sums it up nicely, one that shows the so-called recovery is mostly a smoke and mirrors vaudeville magician's routine by the same people who either got us into this fine mess in the first place, or enabled the ones who did. Take a peek at this excerpt from Inner Workings David Goldman's blog at Asia Times:

This morning's news that housing starts "unexpectedly" dropped by 11 percent month on month is consistent with my grim view of the American economy. The crystal-meth monetary policy at the Fed makes everyone feel better, until they don't. The nonstop rise in the price of dollar hedges tells us that it can't last forever. Large balance sheets attached to the Fed's money pump can show profits, and the price of spread assets (as PIMCO's Bill Gross keeps emphasizing) is stupid rich. But at the capillary level, through, the economy is dying and gangrene is setting in.

Here's year on year growth in commercial and industrial loans from weekly reporting banks in the US:

[Attached chart shows 20% decline in commercial and industrial loans in the 12 months]

A TWENTY PERCENT decline in commercial and industrial loans? That's not a recovery, it's a fricking catastrophic collapse in the fundamental underpinnings of our economy. It's Wall Street sucking Main Street and Government dry, grabbing all the cash while they can. Not surprisingly they are using that cash pump from the Federal Reserve to drive up commodities prices. What does that tell you? It tells me things are about to get much, much worse, and no one in Washington has a clue what to do. It's, and let's be honest, the worst economic performance since the Great Depression. Jobs that created the foundation of our economic growth in the 20th Century have flat disappeared, as Nouriel Roubini (you know, the economist whose predictions were right all along while the Friedman disciples like Alan Greenspan fiddled as the US economy burned to the ground) makes clear.

 

While America's official unemployment rate is already 10.2 per cent, the figure jumps to a whopping 17.5 per cent when discouraged workers and partially employed workers are included. And, while data from firms suggest that job losses in the past three months were about 600,000, household surveys, which include self-employed workers and small entrepreneurs, suggest a number above two million.

Moreover, the total effect on labour income – the product of jobs times hours worked times average hourly wages – has been more severe than that implied by the job losses alone, because many firms are cutting their workers' hours, placing them on furlough or lowering their wages as a way to share the pain.

Many of the lost jobs – in construction, finance, and outsourced manufacturing and services – are gone forever, and recent studies suggest that a quarter of U.S. jobs can be fully outsourced over time to other countries. Thus, a growing proportion of the work force – often below the radar screen of official statistics – is losing hope of finding gainful employment, while the unemployment rate (especially for poor, unskilled workers) will remain high for a much longer period of time than in previous recessions. [...]

[T]he credit crunch for non-investment-grade firms and smaller firms, which rely mostly on access to bank loans rather than capital markets, is still severe. Or consider bankruptcies and defaults by households and firms. Larger firms – even those with large debt problems – can refinance their excessive liabilities in or out of court, but an unprecedented number of small businesses are going bankrupt. The same holds for households, with millions of weaker and poorer borrowers defaulting on mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, student loans and other consumer credit.

Consider also what is happening to private consumption and retail sales. Recent monthly figures suggest a rise in retail sales. But, because the official statistics capture mostly sales by larger retailers and exclude the fall by hundreds of thousands of smaller stores and businesses that have failed, consumption looks better than it really is. [...]

Moreover, income and wealth inequality is rising again. Poorer households are at greater risk of unemployment, falling wages or reductions in hours worked, all leading to lower labour income, whereas on Wall Street, outrageous bonuses have returned with a vengeance. With the stock market rising and home prices still falling, the wealthy are becoming richer, while the middle class and the poor – whose main wealth is a house rather than equities – are becoming poorer and being saddled with an unsustainable debt burden.

So, while the United States may technically be close to the end of a severe recession, most of America is facing a near-depression. Little wonder, then, that few Americans believe that what walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is actually the phoenix of recovery.

The Tea Baggers and their talk of a tax revolt and railing against the mythical socialist takeover of America by the Obama administration isn't the problem.

The problem is that we've been scammed by Wall Street financial firms (the megalithic survivors) into juicing their balance sheets while getting less than zero in return for our billions of dollars of bailout expenditures by the Fed and Congress and trillions more for Federal guarantees of Wall Street's toxic junk financial derivatives.

In short, our investment of tax dollars in an essentially opaque, unregulated, subsidized and protected financial sector is proving to be a very, very bad bet for the future of any real economic recovery for the vast majority of Americans who don't work for Goldman Sachs and their ilk. This isn't a rational free market by anyone's definition. It's a con game, one that Obama's economic team has been more than willing to ignore in the interest of helping their friends, even if that means unacceptably high unemployment and lower investment in the real drivers of our economy -- small businesses, workers and manufacturing.

And unless we see a sea change in the economic strategies being pursued by the Obama administration, any talk of a fundamental political realignment in which Democrats benefit from a generational shift in political power is as much a pipe dream as Karl Rove's plan for a one party Republican state. Indeed, if Democrats in the Executive Branch and in Congress continue to ignore the fundamental changes in economic policy necessary to reverse our present course, the likelihood of something far sinister, a fascist or neo-fascist movement or a coup by a right wing military junta is not out of the question. Because when democratic civil governments becomes unable or unwilling to address fundamental issues of economic security they can lose their legitimacy literally overnight.

Just look at the history of the Weimar Republic, or Italy after WWI, if you want an object lesson in democratic governments that failed because their political leaders, operating within a weak, corrupted and gridlocked systems, were more concerned about their political careers and futures than addressing the critical economic issues that had spread misery and despair among millions of their constituents.

 

 

 Without FDR, America might have gone down that same road to tyranny and dictatorship that bedeviled so many nations in the 20th Century, where income inequality led to ideologically rigid, dictatorial regimes on both the left and the right. The common factor in each instance was massive income inequality and the willingness of demagogues and elites to take advantage of the inability of weak central governments to correct that fundamental flaw to the development of stable economies that gave most, if not of all their citizens, a comfortable middle class life style. That was the true reason why America was so successful following WWII: the tremendous growth of our middle class, which fueled the greatest economic engine of the last century.

Well, now we have reversed the course that made us great, which insured our power and stability. We are flirting with an economic collapse which will lead to a political nightmare, unless we radically change the way business is done "Inside the Beltway." That was the platform on which Democrats ran last year. So far they have failed to live up to the promises of fundamental change that they made to the American Public, and that failure if it continues will hurt not only their electoral future in 2010 and beyond. It will also spread misery and social unrest across America on a scale we have not witnessed in generations.

© 2009 Booman Tribune All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.boomantribune.com//144076/

Why Fiscal Conservatives Should Love the Senate Health Care Bill

AlterNet


By Steve Benen, Washington Monthly
Posted on November 19, 2009, Printed on November 20, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/144078/

BENDING THE PROVERBIAL CURVE.... For some conservatives, including some center-right Democrats, the very point of tackling health care reform is to get health care costs under control. Ezra Klein has a great item today, explaining how the Senate reform bill does just that.

If this piece of the bill was passed on its own, it would be the most important cost control bill ever considered by the United States Congress. But you could never have passed it on its own. You needed the coverage to make the grand bargain work. Republicans like to call this bill a trillion-dollar experiment to expand the health-care system, and in some ways, it is. But it's also a multitrillion-dollar experiment to cut costs in the health-care system, and it deserves credit for that, and support from fiscal conservatives. It's easy to talk about cutting costs, but this is the chance for people to actually do it.

The "grand bargain" is an important concept that often goes overlooked in the debate. For the left, which has been clamoring for health care reform for several generations now, the point of fixing the system is the moral outrage of allowing tens of millions of Americans to go without coverage. The uninsured are one serious illness away from bankruptcy, or one layoff away from family peril, and progressives have long demanded a remedy.

For the right, the principal reason to even entertain the possibility of reform is fiscal -- conservatives are worried about spiraling costs and massive deficits.

 

 Which leads to the bargain. The left wants to expand coverage; the right wants to get costs under control. Neither side would be especially willing to entertain the other's goal, were it not for the satisfactory resolution of their main concern. Harry Reid's bill, warts and all, gets the bargain largely right.

Indeed, were our political landscape slightly saner, Republicans -- you know, the ones who've invested heavily in the notion of cutting costs and shrinking deficits -- would embrace this bill with both arms. For that to happen, they'd have to be serious about public policy, and willing to put national considerations above short-term political interests. I know, it's hard to type this with a straight face, too.

But that doesn't change the underlying truth. As Kevin Drum explained, the Senate bill is the most "ambitious" attempt to "rein in both Medicare costs, and healthcare costs generally, than anything ever done. Nothing else even comes close." He added that Reid's measure may be the "best prospects for healthcare cost control we've ever seen."

Postscript: And speaking of Ezra, he also has a good post sketching out the kinds of positive reform changes we could expect before 2014. The fairly long list includes all kinds of consumer protections for those of us with private coverage, include a ban on lifetime limits, a ban on annual caps, the elimination of rescissions, and coverage for preventive care and immunizations.

Steve Benen is "blogger in chief" of the popular Washington Monthly online blog, Political Animal. His background includes publishing The Carpetbagger Report, and writing for a variety of publications, including Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect, the Huffington Post, and The Guardian. He has also appeared on NPR's "Talk of the Nation," MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," Air America Radio's "Sam Seder Show," and XM Radio's "POTUS '08."

© 2009 Washington Monthly All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/144078/

Why Fiscal Conservatives Should Love the Senate Health Care Bill

AlterNet


By Steve Benen, Washington Monthly
Posted on November 19, 2009, Printed on November 20, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/144078/

BENDING THE PROVERBIAL CURVE.... For some conservatives, including some center-right Democrats, the very point of tackling health care reform is to get health care costs under control. Ezra Klein has a great item today, explaining how the Senate reform bill does just that.

If this piece of the bill was passed on its own, it would be the most important cost control bill ever considered by the United States Congress. But you could never have passed it on its own. You needed the coverage to make the grand bargain work. Republicans like to call this bill a trillion-dollar experiment to expand the health-care system, and in some ways, it is. But it's also a multitrillion-dollar experiment to cut costs in the health-care system, and it deserves credit for that, and support from fiscal conservatives. It's easy to talk about cutting costs, but this is the chance for people to actually do it.

The "grand bargain" is an important concept that often goes overlooked in the debate. For the left, which has been clamoring for health care reform for several generations now, the point of fixing the system is the moral outrage of allowing tens of millions of Americans to go without coverage. The uninsured are one serious illness away from bankruptcy, or one layoff away from family peril, and progressives have long demanded a remedy.

For the right, the principal reason to even entertain the possibility of reform is fiscal -- conservatives are worried about spiraling costs and massive deficits.

 

 Which leads to the bargain. The left wants to expand coverage; the right wants to get costs under control. Neither side would be especially willing to entertain the other's goal, were it not for the satisfactory resolution of their main concern. Harry Reid's bill, warts and all, gets the bargain largely right.

Indeed, were our political landscape slightly saner, Republicans -- you know, the ones who've invested heavily in the notion of cutting costs and shrinking deficits -- would embrace this bill with both arms. For that to happen, they'd have to be serious about public policy, and willing to put national considerations above short-term political interests. I know, it's hard to type this with a straight face, too.

But that doesn't change the underlying truth. As Kevin Drum explained, the Senate bill is the most "ambitious" attempt to "rein in both Medicare costs, and healthcare costs generally, than anything ever done. Nothing else even comes close." He added that Reid's measure may be the "best prospects for healthcare cost control we've ever seen."

Postscript: And speaking of Ezra, he also has a good post sketching out the kinds of positive reform changes we could expect before 2014. The fairly long list includes all kinds of consumer protections for those of us with private coverage, include a ban on lifetime limits, a ban on annual caps, the elimination of rescissions, and coverage for preventive care and immunizations.

Steve Benen is "blogger in chief" of the popular Washington Monthly online blog, Political Animal. His background includes publishing The Carpetbagger Report, and writing for a variety of publications, including Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect, the Huffington Post, and The Guardian. He has also appeared on NPR's "Talk of the Nation," MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," Air America Radio's "Sam Seder Show," and XM Radio's "POTUS '08."

© 2009 Washington Monthly All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/144078/

The Best Paragraph Written About Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue"

AlterNet


By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on November 19, 2009, Printed on November 20, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/144080/

I'm giving the nod to va, at Whiskey Fire:

The most unbelievable thing about Going Rogue, by the author-function "Sarah Palin," is that it's supposed to be self-serving. The problem a self-serving narrative about Sarah Palin confronts is that it's about Sarah Palin, whose entire life, it appears, consists of worse and worse attempts to create self-serving narratives explaining away bigger and bigger fuck-ups. Going Rogue's burden is that it must claim to be the definitive, encyclopedic explanation, the final excuse, for a long history of failure begat by failure; it's an epic of failure, if you will, and if the goal here is some kind of ultimate vindication, well, it is monumentally unsuccessful. Going Rogue is, at bottom, the story of every one of Sarah Palin's projects ending in grotesque catastrophe; it is only self-serving in the sense that these catastrophes either prove benign or turn out to be some other schlub's fault. If everything I knew about Sarah Palin came from this book (and basically it does), I would say her life has been like a play in which a deus-ex-machina descends at the end of every act to bestow peace and harmony, except the deus forgot to put on pants and everyone's just standing around going "uhhhh..." and then the lights go out and the scene changes.

Paragraphs 2 through 5 offer some fine and fun writing as well, so I urge you to read the whole thing.

© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/144080/