Delaware Watch

Noam Chomsky Denied Entry into Israel

2010-05-17T12:32:00.003-04:00

Israel is supposed to be one of our partners in democracy, a bastion of freedom in the Middle East. Yet when it comes to allowing the free speech of one of its critics, Israel can be repressive:

Professor Noam Chomsky, an American linguist and left-wing activist, was denied entry into Israel on Sunday, for reasons that were not immediately clear.

Chomsky, who was scheduled to deliver a lecture at Bir Zeit University near Jerusalem, told the Right to Enter activist group by telephone that inspectors had stamped the words "denied entry" onto his passport when he tried to cross from Jordan over Allenby Bridge.

When he asked an Israeli inspector why he had not received permission, he was told that an explanation would be sent in writing to the American embassy. (link)

He was held for questioning for three hours as well:

Chomsky arrived at the Allenby Bridge at around 1:30 in the afternoon and was taken for questioning, before being released back to Amman at 4:30 P.M.

While we are still awaiting “official” word for the denial of entry into Israel, Chomsky was told the reason by one of his interrogators:

In a telephone interview with Channel 10, Chomsky said the interrogators had told him he had written things that the Israeli government did not like.

As usual Chomsky was able to put the matter into its proper perspective:

"I suggested [the interrogator try to] find any government in the world that likes anything I say," he said.

Tea Party Mask Depicts Obama with a Bloody Face

2010-04-15T14:40:00.000-04:00

Tea Party NutJobs to Form Armed Militia

2010-04-13T11:47:00.001-04:00

Given the paranoid nature of the tea party movement, this development is perfectly predictable. Expect these nutjobs to form more militias in other states as well.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com

OKLAHOMA CITY — Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.

"Is it scary? It sure is," said tea party leader Al Gerhart of Oklahoma City, who heads an umbrella group of tea party factions called the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"

Obama Administration Covering Up Reality in Honduras

2010-04-09T18:53:00.001-04:00

This is straight from from the classic US posture of propping up illegitimate regimes in the Americas. It's ugly and it's wrong.

clipped from www.youtube.com

Israel Won't Disclose Its Nukes: Netanyahu Won't Attend Nuclear Conference

2010-04-09T13:00:00.001-04:00

Yet another Israeli outrage.

clipped from www.commondreams.org

Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu has cancelled a planned trip to Washington
next week for President Barack Obama's 47-country nuclear
security conference.

He made the decision after learning Egypt and Turkey
intended to raise the issue of Israel's assumed atomic arsenal
at the meeting, a senior government official said on Friday.

Israel is believed to be the only nuclear-armed power in the
Middle East, but has never confirmed or denied it. It has not
signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Netanyahu saw Obama at the White House late last month to
discuss the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process. But they
failed to see eye to eye and bilateral ties remain strained.

"The prime minister has decided to cancel his trip to
Washington to attend the nuclear conference next week, after
learning that some countries including Egypt and Turkey plan to
say Israel must sign the NPT," the official said.

How the New Health Reform Really Works

2010-04-07T03:15:00.001-04:00

clipped from www.youtube.com

Man Charged with Threatening Senator Over Health Care Vote

2010-04-06T15:40:00.001-04:00

The roaches are crawling out of the cracks.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com

SEATTLE — A Washington state man has been charged with threatening to kill Democratic Sen. Patty Murray over her support for health care reform.

Court documents say federal agents arrested Charles Alan Wilson in Yakima on Tuesday.

An FBI agent's probable cause statement says Murray's office in Seattle reported the threats, which were left on voice mail from a blocked telephone number. Agents say they traced the calls to Wilson's home in Selah, near Yakima.

Murray's office told the FBI it had been receiving harassing messages from the caller for months, but they became more threatening as Congress was voting on health care legislation.

Excerpts of the expletive-laced messages transcribed in court documents show the caller saying he wanted to kill the senator, and it would just take one piece of lead.

The US is Shooting an Amazing Number of Innocent People in Afghanistan

2010-04-03T04:06:00.002-04:00

This, of course, was perfectly predictable and has been known for some time, but the USA is just now admitting it.

We have no right to use rules of engagement that result in our killing innocent people in their own country. We are behaving as an imperial power does in foreign territory.

Only fool would think that such actions will not result in more terrorism. There will be blowback someday.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com

As reported in the New York Times last week, a significant number of innocent Afghans continue to be killed by US and NATO forces despite new rules issued by Gen. Stanley McChrystal meant to help reduce civilian casualties. Indeed, the number of Afghans who have been killed or hurt by troop shootings at convoys and military checkpoints has basically remained the same since McChrystal announced his directives.

"We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat," said McChrystal during a recent video-conference with troops, the Times reported.

Road Rage Incident Over Obama Bumper Sticker

2010-03-26T17:14:00.001-04:00

The right-wing lunatics are beginning to show their real colors. This is but one example.

clipped from www.wkrn.com

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A Nashville man says he and his 10-year-old daughter were victims of road rage Thursday afternoon, all because of a political bumper sticker on his car.

Mark Duren told News 2 the incident happened around 4:30p.m., while he was driving on Blair Boulevard, not far from Belmont University.

He said Harry Weisiger gave him the bird and rammed into his vehicle, after noticing an Obama-Biden sticker on his car bumper.

"He pointed at the back of my car," Duren said, "the bumper, flipped me off, one finger salute."

But it didn't end there.

Duren told News 2 that Weisiger honked his horn at him for awhile, as Duren stopped at a stop sign.

Duren said he applied his brake and the SUV smashed into the back of his car.

He then put his car in park to take care of the accident, but Weisiger started pushing the car using his SUV.

Duren said, "He pushed my car up towards the sidewalk, almost onto the sidewalk."

Police say Harry Weisiger is charged with felony reckless endangerment

Bush Wipes Hand on Clinton's Shirt After Shaking Haitian's Hand

2010-03-24T13:58:00.000-04:00

No Longer Isolated Incidents But a Disturbing Pattern from Tea Partiers

2010-03-23T02:59:00.000-04:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Tea Partiers/GOP reactionaries explain the mean-spirited antics of their crazies as "isolated incidents." But given all the red-baiting and threatening signs, the screaming out of racial and homophobic slurs, the spitting on African American congressmen, these so-called "isolated incidents" are becoming a pattern. Olberman makes that case well.

Threatening Tea Party Sign

2010-03-20T18:43:00.001-04:00

Scary, scary people.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com

Tea Party Sign Suggests Obama is a Terrorist

2010-03-16T19:41:00.002-04:00

Yet another right-wing slander from a tea partier.

clipped from images.huffingtonpost.com

Flogging the Scientists

2010-03-16T05:25:00.002-04:00

This is especially dedicated to WDEL's Rick Jensen. Your bogus evidence and counter evidence are exposed.

How Western anti-Muslim Bigotry Became Respectable

2010-03-05T01:31:00.001-05:00

Good historical analysis.

Get It, America: Obama Lowered Your Taxes!

2010-02-12T18:03:00.001-05:00

The Republicans lie that Obama hasn't lowered the taxes of the vast majority of Americans has taken seed. The Republicans are proof that if you tell a lie long enough in time the public will come to believe that it's true. This is what happens when regaining power is more important than integrity.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com

Only 12 percent of the public say that the Obama administration has lowered their taxes since coming to office, despite the fact that the White House's stimulus package cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, a new opinion survey found.

In addition, the CBS/NYT poll found that 24 percent of respondents said that their taxes had actually increased under the Obama administration -- which is, again, not true. Fifty-three percent said their taxes stayed the same.

More Republican Lying About National Security Matters

2010-02-11T00:18:00.000-05:00

It turns out that the lying that Congressional Republicans have been doing about National Security matters is legion. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow chronicles more lies by more Republicans. Newt Gingrich is but one instance.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Newt Gingrich Lying in Order to Smear Obama

2010-02-10T14:34:00.002-05:00

Well, Newt Gingrich has told another whopper. This time he was caught in short order. His lie was clearly intended to smear Obama. Apparently, these right-wing lunatrons feel they are entitled to simply invent facts to achieve their rhetorical aims.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, leveling harsh criticism against the Obama administration.

After Gingrich assailed the administration for reading Miranda Rights to Detroit undie bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Stewart drew a comparison to something that happened under George W. Bush.

"Didn't they do the same with Richard Reid, who was the shoe bomber?" he asked the Republican icon.

"Richard Reid was an American citizen," insisted Gingrich.

Reid is actually a British citizen of Jamaican descent.

At the end of the show, Stewart realized that Gingrich had falsely claimed the shoe bomber was an American citizen and noted that to his audience.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Newt Gingrich

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

A Collision of Kooks in Texas

2010-02-09T21:40:00.002-05:00

I have always thought that many of the politicians and would-be politicians in the tea party movement were nothing more than outright opportunists. But if you want evidence, notice how the tea partiers have turned on one of their own:

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who is considered by some to be the "father of the Tea Party movement" faces three opponents in the March Republican primary, the Dallas Morning News reports.

"The Tea Parties have awakened a lot of everyday people here and across America," Tim Graney, one of Paul's opponents, told the Morning News. (link)

All of Paul's primary opponents are associated with the tea party movement and they constitute "more [primary challengers] than he has faced in the past six primaries combined" (link).

The Paulites must be experiencing political shock. He isn't loved by the tea party movement. He is an outsider. One has to laugh.

Isn't Paul kooky enough for the tea partiers? What is their problem with him?

The newspaper reports that Paul's challengers say he is too focused on national ambitions and that he has has not voted in support of federal aid for his district. They have also criticized his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (link)

In other words, Paul isn't enough like a conventional Republican. That shows you what the tea party is really all about: it's a movement supporting conventional Republican positions. It's not really about Independents. That's just window dressing.

Two Faced Republicans

2010-02-09T20:49:00.003-05:00

Let's say for the sake of argument that the Congressional Republicans are correct. That the Obama stimulus is bad for the economy, that it won't create jobs and it will not work. Wouldn't it follow that these Congressional Republicans wouldn't want any of the stimulus funds given to their state? How, then, can this be explained?

Sen. Christopher S. Bond regularly railed against President Obama's economic stimulus plan as irresponsible spending that would drive up the national debt. But behind the scenes, the Missouri Republican quietly sought more than $50 million from a federal agency for two projects in his state.

Mr. Bond was not alone. More than a dozen Republican lawmakers, while denouncing the stimulus to the media and their constituents, privately sent letters to just one of the federal government's many agencies seeking stimulus money for home-state pork projects.

The letters to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, expose the gulf between lawmakers' public criticism of the overall stimulus package and their private lobbying for projects close to home. (link)

And why did Senator Bond want these toxic funds for his state?

In a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Mr. Bond noted that one project applying to the USDA for stimulus money would "create jobs and ultimately spur economic opportunities."

It would what? Create jobs? Spur economic opportunity?

But Senator Bond isn't the only federal legislator who admits privately what he denies publicly. Remember Rep. Joe Wilson who yelled "You lie!" to President Obama during his speech to Congress last September? He voted against the stimulus bill, but guess what benefit he hopes to gain from the stimulus funds for his congressional district.

Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican who became famous after yelling, "You lie," during Mr. Obama's addresses to Congress in September, voted against the stimulus. Nonetheless, Mr. Wilson elbowed his way into the rush for federal stimulus cash in a letter he sent to Mr. Vilsack on behalf of a foundation seeking funding.

"We know their endeavor will provide jobs and investment in one of the poorer sections of the Congressional District," he wrote to Mr. Vilsack in the Aug. 26, 2009, letter.

At times this kind of hypocrisy from the Congressional Republicans has a short time frame:

On Feb. 13, 2009, Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican, issued a statement criticizing the stimulus — but two days earlier, he privately forwarded to Mr. Vilsack a list of projects seeking stimulus money.

"I believe the addition of federal funds to these projects would maximize the stimulative effect of these projects on the local economy," he wrote.

Isn't that interesting? Just two days before Senator Bennett was—publicly—certain that the stimulus package wouldn't work. Two days later—privately—Senator Bennett had his hand out and praised that "stimulus effect" that the funds would provide.

And on and on it goes: Congressional Republicans who publicly opposed the stimulus bill, privately endeavoring to have their states and districts benefit from it. What explains this dissonance?

I believe the explanation for their hypocrisy is simple, in spite of their attempts to justify it. These Congressional Republicans are liars. They took a public position for political purposes that was contrary to their privately held beliefs. They knew that the stimulus package would create and save jobs. They simply lied publicly about what they knew. But when they thought no one would find out, they expressed their privately held belief that the stimulus package would be helpful to their states and districts.

There is no nuance here. Just lying. Just publicly denying what is good and helpful as part of a strategy to regain political power. In other words, just anti-social behavior.

I Call It Demagoguery

2010-02-07T22:29:00.001-05:00

When Democrats criticized President Bush regarding national security concerns, their patriotism was questioned by Republicans. My, how things have changed with a change in administrations:

President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser said Sunday that lawmakers and others are using national security to score political points and defended the handling of the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner.

Deputy national security adviser John Brennan complained that politicians, many of them Republicans, were unfairly criticizing the administration for partisan purposes and second-guessing the case with a "500-mile screwdriver" that reaches from Washington to the scene of the abortive attack in Detroit. (link)

When the Republicans had an opportunity to voice concerns when the cameras weren't rolling, they were mute:

Brennan said he had personally briefed top GOP lawmakers on Christmas night about the arrest of accused bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and that none of them raised objections….

Among those he said he briefed were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio; and the top Republicans on the congressional intelligence committees, Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri and Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan.

It's only when the cameras are rolling that they complain, which demonstrates they are politicizing their national security "concerns."

Republicans have been outspoken in criticizing the administration for treating Abdulmutallab as a civilian and reading him his rights.

I call it demagoguery.

Run! NAMBLA is at the Breach!

2010-02-06T19:18:00.000-05:00

Oh, I just had to share this one. Mendacity rarely becomes more "righteous" than this:

Don't Tell Me the Stimulus Hasn't Been Effective

2010-02-05T19:58:00.000-05:00

Perhaps a picture will help the dimwits see that the Obama stimulus has stopped the hemorraging of the economy which began under George W. Bush:

See. Unemployment grew under Bush during the last year of his presidency and has steadily declined during the first year of the Obama presidency. Only fools and the benighted disagree.

Tea Bagging Candidate Crushed in Illinois Primary

2010-02-03T09:51:00.001-05:00

Tea bagger Republican candidate for the US Senate (Illinois) Patrick Hughes lost his primary bid in a landslide that was so large it can only be regarded as a repudiation of his reactionary, tea-bagging orientation:

Mark Kirk handily won the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate from Illinois, defeating his closest challenger Patrick Hughes by a landslide.

With 98% of precincts reporting, Kirk led with 56% of the vote to Hughes's 19%. (link)

The next time tea baggers or tea bagging fellow travelers "predict" that tea bagging candidates will sweep the elections in November 2010, just repeat "56 percent to 19 percent" and then laugh uproariously in their benighted faces.

Why We have a Budget Deficit

2010-02-01T21:56:00.000-05:00

Want to know what's driving the current US budget deficit? The largest factor isn't Obama's economic stimulus or TARP. By far the largest single factor is the Bush tax cuts that mostly benefited the wealthy:

Those tax cuts need to be rolled back from the wealthy now. You can't pay your bills without income.

What about those Royalties?

2010-02-01T21:27:00.001-05:00

At first glance, it seems innocuous enough:

Sarah PAC, Sarah Palin's political action committee, raised more than $1.4 million in the second-half of 2009, according to the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza. That figure brings the group's fundraising haul to $2.1 million for 2009.

But it's in the expenditures that things get interesting:

The former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate had her political organization spend more than $63,000 on what her reports describe as "books for fundraising donor fulfillment." The payments went to Harper Collins, her publisher, and in some instances to HSP Direct, a Virginia-based direct mail fundraising firm that serves a number of well-known conservative politicians and pundits.

Sarah PAC spent another $8,000 on colorful bookmarks designed by a Nashville-based event branding firm. And her committee paid her publisher $20,000 for what appears to have been the cost of sending her personal photographer and another aide along on her book tour.

Let's see how this works. In part Sarah Palin uses the money she gets for her PAC (money that is supposed to go to political candidates) to buy copies of her books—books for which she is paid royalties. Unless she received no royalties for those books, things look very fishy.

And how much did political candidates receive from the Sarah PAC? Less than the total of what was expended on the "books for fundraising donor fulfillment."

She donated $64,600 to candidates and party committees.

Meanwhile, Rand Paul (Ron Paul's son) is thrilled to get Sarah Palin's endorsement in his bid to become a US Senator for Kentucky.

"Governor Palin is providing tremendous leadership as the Tea Party movement and constitutional conservatives strive to take our country back," Rand Paul said in a statement. "Sarah Palin is a giant in American politics. I am proud to receive her support."

Paul also acknowledged that he "has received a generous donation from Governor Palin's PAC."

Palin, Tea Partiers, and another Paul. The kooks run together.

Obama’s “Freeze” is Reactionary

2010-01-26T14:41:00.003-05:00

My first reaction is the feeling that I am hallucinating and it's a bad trip:

President Barack Obama will propose a three-year freeze in discretionary, "non-security" spending as part of a budget he will unveil one week from now, a senior administration official told the Huffington Post and other reporters Monday evening.

The president will unveil the proposal during his State of the Union address on Wednesday….(link)

Say what? True, the economy has been spared another Great Depression—something that was accomplished by spending during a significant recessionary downturn—but it is hardly whole. Recessionary forces are still at work and there is a double-digit unemployment rate. If anything, what the economy needs is a second stimulus--a real one this time and not the largely token stimulus that Obama proposed and passed when he first entered office, one that doesn't merely spare us the worst but brings us to prosperity.

My second reaction is that when Obama had the chance to stride like FDR, he has retreated into becoming just another Herbert Hoover. It turns out I am not alone in that assessment:

Jonathan Zasloff writes that Obama seems to have decided to fire Tim Geithner and replace him with "the rotting corpse of Andrew Mellon" (Mellon was Herbert Hoover's Treasury Secretary, who according to Hoover told him to "liquidate the workers, liquidate the farmers, purge the rottenness".) (link)

My third reaction is that Obama must be panicked politically. He has taken the wrong lessons from the Massachusetts Senatorial special election. Instead of becoming truly populist, he has become reactionary. His budget freeze proposal isn't merely a move to the center--where he doesn't need to move in any case--but to the right. Besides, this move will not endear Obama to the reactionary right in the USA. Obama's liability is that he has a "D" after his name. The relatively tiny but vociferous reactionary right faction (and I include the tea partiers especially in this group) in the USA is a largely Republican phenomenon. That won't like anything Obama does because he is a Democrat. End of story.

My final reaction is one of concern. How exactly is the economy supposed to get jump started again? If the government doesn't do it, no one else will:

The bigger news is Obama is planning a three-year budget freeze on a big chunk of discretionary spending. Wall Street is delighted. But it means Main Street is in worse trouble than ever.

A pending [sic] freeze will make it even harder to get jobs back because government is the last spender around. Consumers have pulled back, investors won't do much until they know consumers are out there, and exports are miniscule. (link)

If the "last spender around" isn't spending, then the best the economy can hope for is stagnation. How is that going to help?

State Senate Bill 81 Could Save Your Life

2010-01-20T10:06:00.002-05:00

Thanks to federal government regulations I can go to a supermarket and examine how many calories, grams of saturated fat and carbohydrates, and milligrams of sodium a food product has before I purchase it. In other words, I can engage in comparison shopping because of government regulations. I can't engage in that kind of comparison shopping among restaurants in Delaware, especially among chain restaurants.

State Senate Bill 81 would address that problem. The principal sponsors of state SB 81 are state Senator David Sokola and state Representative John Kowalko. Their bill would require chain restaurants (defined as "retail food establishment…that does business under the same trade name as used by ten…or more other establishments doing business in Delaware or nationally….") to provide information to consumers about "[t]he total number of calories (rounded to the nearest ten calories), grams of saturated fat, grams of carbohydrates and milligrams of sodium, per menu item as offered for sale."

Because SB81 will allow consumers to engage in comparison shopping, it also should spur competition among restaurants to offer healthier foods. That makes SB 81 a win-win for consumers. It deserves our support.

It’s Time to Fight

2010-01-19T23:04:00.005-05:00

If history attests to anything, it attests to the fact that when a people opt for progress and change (even a modicum of change as represented by the Presidency of Barack Obama), the forces of reaction will rise shortly thereafter with all their vehemence, energy, ugliness and political primitivism. Witness the tea party movement. Witness also the result of the Massachusetts US Senatorial campaign. It shows that when mobilized the forces of reaction will support choices that lack profundity and possess a surfeit of superficiality:

That is Scott Brown, the next Senator for the state of Massachusetts. A Republican. A Republican taking the seat once held by the now deceased Ted Kennedy. A Republican who ran on a reactionary platform of no universal health care for Americans, of no stimulus program that has a realistic chance of getting Americans back to work, of no to just about anything that smacks of economic progress for middle and lower class Americans.

How did this happen in a state with a 3 to 1 Democratic voter registration? Of course, it didn't help when Martha Coakley opportunistically and preemptively announced her candidacy within a few short days after Ted Kennedy's death. It left a bad taste in the mouths of the voters. Of course, it also didn't help that Ms. Coakley decided to take a vacation during the middle of the campaign, taking that Democratic voter registration for granted. Of course, it further didn't help that she ran a campaign that by the friendliest of accounts was characterized as "atrocious" and "awful."

It also doesn't help when high ranking Democrats don't know history: namely, that reactionary forces will dog and give no quarter to the forces of change and progress. None whatsoever. They cannot be negotiated with; they cannot be assuaged; they will not simply go away. They can only be fought politically and defeated. That's why, for example, it was mystifying when President Obama talked bipartisanship about health care legislation when the Republicans were explicitly saying that they wanted to turn the Democratic health care legislative initiative into President Obama's Waterloo. The position of the Republicans was trippingly clear: their reaction would not be bipartisan; it would be reactionary.

A year's worth of Democratic mollification has not worked. It's time to fight. Instead of retreating from an agenda of progress and change, it's time to press it. Actually, press it for the first time because so far that hasn't been done. That's what the voters want to see. They don't merely want change they can believe in. They want change and progress that they can see and experience. And that hasn't happened. That's why the Democrats lost in Massachusetts today. Scott Brown was a mere protest vote. The vote for him represents nothing that really fighting for a progressive agenda won't solve.

God and Guns on a Holiday

2010-01-18T15:39:00.001-05:00

"This is probably the best example of violation of the separation of church and state in this country.… It's literally pushing fundamentalist Christianity at the point of a gun against the people that we're fighting. We're emboldening an enemy."

Those trenchant words by Michael "Mikey" Weinstein ("of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group that seeks to preserve the separation of church and state in the military") can only be an understatement given the enormity of this breach of the separation of church and state:

Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the United States military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.

The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army….

One of the citations on the gun sights, 2COR4:6, is an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

Other references include citations from the books of Revelation, Matthew and John dealing with Jesus as "the light of the world." John 8:12, referred to on the gun sights as JN8:12, reads, "Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

A company spokesperson defended the practice by characterizing the opposition:

Trijicon confirmed to ABCNews.com that it adds the biblical codes to the sights sold to the U.S. military. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon, which is based in Wixom, Michigan, said the inscriptions "have always been there" and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them. Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is "not Christian."

Apparently, no Christian would object to this practice. Moreover, apparently, no Christian would think it bizarre that references to the Bible would be printed on instruments that are used to kill people. The implication is that Christianity is of one type and that type sees no obligation to honor the separation of church and state much less waver at the prospect of killing people. Besides, what if non-Christians do object to this practice? Does that make their objection somehow invalid?

The US military's response?

Spokespeople for the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps both said their services were unaware of the biblical markings. They said officials were discussing what steps, if any, to take in the wake of the ABCNews.com report.

"What steps, if any"—surely they jest. If this egregious practice isn't wrong, what is?

Mike Castle and the “C” Word

2010-01-17T15:06:00.001-05:00

It seems that the News Journal is trying its best to display Rep. Mike Castle as a moderate. Almost certainly this effort is a prelude to the News Journal endorsing Mike Castle campaign for the US Senate. Here is the News Journal's logic for characterizing Castle as a moderate:

Castle ranked among the top 10 House Republicans in his support for Obama, siding with the president nearly 56 percent of the time on votes where Obama took a clear position, a Congressional Quarterly vote study showed. On average, House Republicans supported Obama's position on 26 percent of votes last year.

During President George W. Bush's last year in office, Castle voted with his position less often -- 41 percent of the time.

Castle also ranked 17th among 177 House Republicans in the number of times he voted out of sync with most other members of his party. The study showed he voted against his party 24 percent of the time. In 2008, he ranked 6th, voting against the majority of his party nearly 30 percent of the time. (link)

Voting with President Obama 56% of the time, voted less often for former President Bush's position, out of sync with his fellow House Republicans who have only sided with President Obama 26% of the time. At first blush it sounds impressive. It creates the impression that Castle is a moderate and Delaware could safely send this Republican back to Washington as its next Senator. But notice this statement which gets short shrift in the News Journal article, one made earlier in the article before the discussion of Castle's voting record:

Democrats say Castle has voted against the interests of Delaware's residents on the most important pieces of legislation, including health care reform, job creation, stimulus money, and financial regulatory reform. They note that his party-line votes increased almost 11 percent, when comparing last year with his average voting record from 1993-2008. (link) (emphasis mine)

In other words, when it comes to the most important legislation—legislation that will help most Delawareans during the current ailing economy—Mike Castle can be relied upon by the GOP to toe the conservative line. He can be counted on to side with big finance and the health care industry, part of the GOP's historic moneyed constituency.

Except for one vote on global warming, Castle will side with President Obama when it matters least, not when it matters most. That makes Castle a moderate only on the margins but a hard core conservative at the center. That should be too conservative for Delaware.

Pretending It’s Not Happening: Cuba Helps Haiti

2010-01-17T02:45:00.003-05:00

It's the unofficial policy of the USA not to acknowledge the humanitarian efforts of the Cuban government throughout various parts of the world. The US media largely complies with this policy. Unsurprisingly, Cuba's contribution to the humanitarian efforts in Haiti after the earthquake were largely ignored by the US media in its early reports:

There are only two US media outlets that have reported on Cuba's response to the deadly 7.0 earthquake that hit Haiti. One was Fox News, which claimed, wrongly, that the Cubans were absent from the list of neighboring Caribbean countries providing aid. The other was the Christian Science Monitor (a respected news organization that recently shut down its print edition), which reported correctly that Cuba had dispatched 30 doctors to the stricken nation….

As for the rest of the US media, they have simply ignored Cuba's role and actions. (link)

Not only did the 30 doctors Cuba sent to Haiti go largely unreported, but the doctors that Cuba already had working in Haiti scarcely warranted a mention:

In fact, left unmentioned is the reality that Cuba already had over 400 doctors posted to Haiti to help with the day-to-day health needs of this poorest nation in the Americas, and that those doctors were the first to respond to the disaster, setting up a hospital right next to the main hospital in Port-au-Prince which collapsed in the earthquake. (link) (emphasis original)

But this got plenty of media attention:

The United States struck a rare deal Friday with the Cuban government to send medical evacuation flights with victims of the Haiti earthquake through restricted Cuban airspace, a White House official told Fox News.

The flights, from the U.S. naval station at Guantanamo Bay to Miami, will be cut by 90 minutes in each direction by using the airspace. (link)

To the extent that Cuba facilitates the USA's humanitarian efforts, it's newsworthy. To the extent that Cuba exercises its own humanitarian efforts, it's not newsworthy. Fascinating.

Credit Card Companies Skimming Charitable Donations

2010-01-14T14:30:00.001-05:00

Do you think that every charitable dollar you send to help Haitians actually goes to their benefit? Think again if you use a credit card. Like the mafia skimming the profits from a casino, credit card companies skim as much as 3% of your donation for their profits.

You'd think that they would waive these fees on charitable organizations, especially during a time of disaster.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com

As a massive human tragedy unfolds in Haiti, relief organizations are soliciting credit-card donations through their hotlines and websites. About 97 percent of these donations will actually make it to the designated organizations -- but the other 3 percent will be skimmed off by banks and credit card companies to cover their "transaction costs."

Thanks to this hidden fee, American banks and credit card companies are making huge profits -- somewhere in the neighborhood of $250 million a year -- off of people's charitable donations, according to a Huffington Post analysis.

Those profits rise sharply after major disasters, when humanitarian relief organizations such as Oxfam and Operation USA take in more than 85 percent of their donations via credit card -- and the credit card providers, with only a few exceptions, refuse to waive their fees.

Pat Robertson Blames the Victims in Haiti

2010-01-13T22:51:00.000-05:00

Televangelist and GOP stalwart Pat Robertson blamed the victims in Haiti for the devastating earthquake, which, according to some estimates, have left one hundred thousand dead:

Televangelist Pat Robertson said Wednesday that earthquake-ravaged Haiti has been "cursed" by a "pact to the devil."

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it," he said on Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club." "They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal."
Robertson said that "ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other" and he contrasted Haiti with its neighbor, the Dominican Republic.

"That island of Hispaniola is one island. It is cut down the middle; on the one side is Haiti on the other is the Dominican Republic," he said. "Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. (link)

Robertson is notorious for exploiting disasters for theological purposes. Follow this link to see what he said about the 9/11 and Katrina hurricane tragedies.

Federal Reserve Makes Record Profits in 2009

2010-01-12T09:35:00.003-05:00

B-b-but, conservatives, I thought that the Federal Reserve's intervention into the economy was supposed to fail:

Wall Street firms aren't the only banks that had a banner year. The Federal Reserve made record profits in 2009, as its unconventional efforts to prop up the economy created a windfall for the government.

The Fed will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009, according to calculations by The Washington Post based on public documents. That reflects the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury.

The numbers are good news for the federal budget and a sign that the Fed has been successful, at least so far, in protecting taxpayers as it intervenes in the economy….(link)

What heresy! Yet it is an apparent fact. After intervening in the US economy by making loans to lending institutions, "[t]he Fed will return about $45 billion to the US Treasury." Intervention = return to the US Treasury. Egad! How can this be, conservatives?

While "[m]uch of the higher earnings came about because of the Fed's aggressive program of buying bonds, aiming to push interest rates down across the economy and thus stimulate growth," "[t]he Fed also made money on its emergency loans to banks and other firms and on special programs to prop up lending, such as one that supports credit cards, auto loans, and other consumer and business lending." Well there it is in black and white. I guess those conservatives were wrong…again.

Military Service Suicide Rates on the Rise

2010-01-11T21:45:00.002-05:00

We don't count them among the casualties of our wars, but perhaps we should. I'm talking about those who, we think, return from war safely, only to kill themselves later. What horrors they must have witnessed. And often we ask them to experience these horrors in conflicts that have no clear national security necessity. For some, skewed by depression and pain, that must make their service seem meaningless.

We need to do more to help them, to identify the ones that are hurting, and to provide them the care they need. A responsible nation cannot simply wink at the problems it creates.

clipped from www.nydailynews.com

In and out of uniform, those who have served the nation in the military are killing themselves at rates never seen before.

In November, Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the Army’s vice chief of staff, said the 211 suicides in the Army in 2009 had already surpassed the record rate of 2008. Chiarelli called the problem the toughest he had faced in his 37 years of distinguished service.

Today, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, said the suicide rate for men aged 18-29 who have been discharged had gone up by 26% from 2005-07.

At a suicide prevention conference, Shinseki said: “As I’ve often asked, mostly of myself, but also of others from time to time, why do we know so much about suicides but so little about how to prevent them?”

“Of the more than 30,000 suicides in this country each year, fully 20% of them are acts by veterans,” Shinseki said.

That means on average 18 veterans commit suicide each day. Five of those veterans are under our care at VA.

Rudy Giuliani: "We had no domestic attacks under Bush"

2010-01-08T15:09:00.001-05:00

Given that Dana Perino and Mary Matalin made similiar statements, writing off Giuliani's omission of 9/11 as a memory lapse could be a mistake. It could very well be that some in the GOP are trying to rewrite history for the purpose of making the public think that a domestic attack by terrorists on US soil only occurred under Obama.

Don't mention 9/11. Maybe the public will forget. What audacious historical revisionism.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com

Rudy Giuliani has joined fellow Republicans Dana Perino and Mary Matalin in seeming to forget that the September 11th attacks happened under President Bush.

On "Good Morning America" Friday, the former New York mayor declared, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama."

Not only does the statement suggest Giuliani does not remember the devastating attack in his own city, it also omits the anthrax attacks and the attempted shoe bomber attack.

A day earlier, Giuliani falsely claimed that the shoe bomber attack occurred before September 11th.

Curiously, the Associated Press did a long write-up of Giuliani's Obama criticisms but omitted the startling mistake. George Stephanopoulos, who conducted the ABC interview, included the quote in a blog post but did not question it.

Public Announcement: Free Screening of “The Times of Harvey Milk”

2010-01-08T12:53:00.001-05:00

On Tuesday, January 12, 2010, at 7:00 PM there will be a free screening of "The Times of Harvey Milk" at Theatre N. Theatre N is located in the Nemours building at 11^th and Tatnall Streets in Wilmington, DE. More information can be found here.

The free film is presented by the Laborers International Union of North America, (LiUNA) and Laborers Political League of Delaware.

Possible War Crimes in Sri Lanka

2010-01-08T12:27:00.003-05:00

Below is some footage of possible war crimes committed by the army forces of the Sri Lanka government. The images are disturbing.

The government of Sri Lanka disputes the authenticity of the footage, although some experts attest to its authenticity. More about the story and dispute can be found here.

Quitting for the Best of Reasons

2010-01-08T12:01:00.004-05:00

I have known Dover, Delaware, City Councilperson Timothy Slavin for several years. He is a highly intelligent, capable and compassionate person with considerable personal integrity. He has decided not to run for reelection to Dover City Council:

Timothy A. Slavin has announced that he won't run for re-election to City Council, saying he had been able to accomplish much of his agenda during three two-year terms in the District 3 seat.

"I never saw it as an entitlement," Slavin, who lives on Hazel Road, said. "I think it's time for me to spend more time with my family and make way for a new face."

Slavin, 47, director of the state Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs, has served on council since May 2004. He currently is chairman of council's Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee. (link)

"I never saw [holding the office] as an entitlement." That sounds exactly like the Timothy Slavin I know and respect.

Public Announcement: Important Delaware Family Law Commission Meeting

2010-01-07T09:25:00.004-05:00

The Family Law Commission has announced their 2010 annual public hearing. The hearing will be held January 12^th in House Chambers at Legislative Hall, Dover. The hearing will begin at 7:00pm.

I have attached the description of the public hearing found on the Commission's website.* It includes a "preferred" format to follow when giving testimony.

The Commission wants to hear from you. You can help improve the Family Court system. Don't just make a complaint; offer a solution. You are not the only person who has experienced horrors of the Family Court system; let's stand up and speak up for change. If you have positive suggestions on how Family Court can better serve those who "must" enter the system, this is your opportunity. The Family Law Commission will meet 5 more times this year to discuss those issues and concerns brought before them during this hearing.

Let Your Voice Be Heard. Write and submit your comments. You will be given 5 minutes to give your testimony. If, however, you cannot attend the hearing in person, the Commission takes written testimony before and after the hearing. You can submit written testimony to Drew Slater, Legislative Assistant, at Drew.Slater@state.de.us .

Every year, Delaware Court Reform Initiative asks those who attend the hearing to fill out an anonymous survey. This survey assists advocates in their efforts to reform Family Court. But...

WITHOUT "YOU" NOTHING WILL CHANGE !!

Never give up, your voice does make a difference.

Raetta McCall
Delaware Court Reform Initiative

# # # #

*Annual Public Hearing
January 12, 2009
7pm Legislative Hall

The Family Law Commission is again holding an annual Public Hearing to enhance our understanding of the concerns from the public regarding Family Court. In past years, the public comments would be focused on each person's individual trials and history with Family Court. While this is immensely helpful to the Family Law Commission it can tend to take more than the allotted five minutes for each speaker.

In order for the Family Law Commission to better understand the public input, we would like each speaker to state the problem they have with Family Court as succinctly as possible and tell us how the Family Law Commission can help. There are forms available to help each speaker: 1) describe the issue 2) recommend how the issue can be resolved and 3) explain why the issue is important.

We request that each speaker fill out this form and leave it with the undersigned after the meeting. The Commission can then review the public recommendations to improving the system.

Thank you for your help! Any questions, please feel free to contact me at 302-744-4039 or Drew.Slater@state.de.us.

Sincerely,
Drew Slater
Legislative Assistant

Why I Don't Fear the 2010 Elections for Democrats

2010-01-06T23:30:00.000-05:00

All the hand wringing about the prospects of the Democratic Party losing control of Congress in the 2010 elections fails to take into account how the Republicans are sabotaging their own prospects in 2010. The GOP is defining itself as the party of the birthers, the tea partiers, the red baiters, and in other sundry reactionary ways. As Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) says:

"Whether it is the tea party people or the birthers or others, the reality is that the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, they keep pushing their candidates further and further to the right... So, the bottom line is, they are going to be out of sync of where the mainstream electorate is in the midterm election." (link)

While no doubt many in the GOP dislike the their party's drift to the extreme right-wing, what can they do about it? Disenfranchise their reactionary base? That's not likely to happen. I'd say that on balance the Democrats are in a better position in 2010 than the Republicans.

Making Delaware’s FOIA Compliance Timely

2010-01-06T12:00:00.004-05:00

I have long thought that a Delawarean's right to freedom of information should be a constitutional right and not merely a statutory one. That way in many cases there could be no legal question about a citizen's right to information and government agencies would have to staff their agencies to comply with a citizen's constitutional right. Nevertheless, after a long period of citizen advocacy, Delaware has recently made vast improvements to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) law. FOIA now extends to the Delaware legislature.

One of the lagging areas in Delaware's FOIA law has been in the timeliness with which government agencies must comply with FOIA requests. But Rep. E. Bradford Bennett has proposed legislation to address the timeliness issue, legislation that deserves citizen support:

A custodian of a record for the appropriate public body who receives a request for a public record shall grant access to such public record or deny access to such public record as soon as possible, but not later than ten business days after receiving the request for a public record.

Requests are to be complied with "as soon as possible, but not later than ten business days after receiving the request for a public record." That sounds fair.

Of course, some requests can be voluminous and some requests might infringe on other rights and laws and require an expert legal opinion before they can be acted upon (e.g. requests that might compromise confidential personnel information). Rep. Bennett's proposed legislation addresses these eventualities as well:

Additional time shall be allowed beyond the ten business days provided for in subsection when a request is for voluminous records, requires legal advice or a public record is in storage or archived. In any of these cases, the requestor shall be advised by the custodian of a record, within 10 business days after the custodian of a record receives the request, stating the need for additional time. Such additional time provided for in this subsection shall be reasonable.

Rep. Bennett's proposed legislation hits the right balance.

Tea Partier Sign

2010-01-05T14:26:00.001-05:00

Don't tell me that many of the tea partiers aren't filled with hate.

FOX's Brit Hume Pushes Christianity on Air

2010-01-04T23:16:00.001-05:00

One expects this kind of behavior from a newsperson in a nation with a strong theocratic orientation. So much for being "fair and balanced."

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com

On Monday night on the "O'Reilly Factor", Brit Hume had the chance to reiterate the personal advice he offered to Tiger Woods last Sunday morning: for a full recovery, the scandal plagued (and Buddhist) golfer should "turn to Christianity."

O'Reilly played a clip of Hume's comments, then asked him: "Was that proselytizing?"

"I don't think so," Hume said, and added that the content of Woods' character was "not what we thought it was."

Hume went on to reassert his belief that "Jesus Christ" offers something that Woods "badly needs."

"He needs something that Christianity especially provides and gives and offers, and that is redemption and forgiveness. I was really meaning to say in those comments yesterday more about Christianity than anything else...I think that Jesus Christ offers Tiger Woods something that Tiger Woods badly needs."

“Harsh Lessons We May Need to Learn Again”

2010-01-03T22:08:00.001-05:00

Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz sums up the economic lessons of the waning years of the last decade (I will only cover the first three). Unfortunately, given the grip that high finance has over Washington DC, Stiglitz must call them "Harsh lessons we may need to learn again." Nevertheless, these lessons are transparent to anyone interested in the truth and not under the sway of free market fantasies. We must insist that our elected representatives in Washington DC effectively recognize these truths legislatively.

Lesson One: Unfettered Capitalism Doesn't Work

Stiglitz writes:

The first lesson is that markets are not self-correcting. Indeed, without adequate regulation, they are prone to excess. In 2009, we again saw why Adam Smith's invisible hand often appeared invisible: it is not there. The bankers' pursuit of self-interest (greed) did not lead to the well-being of society; it did not even serve their shareholders and bondholders well. It certainly did not serve homeowners who are losing their homes, workers who have lost their jobs, retirees who have seen their retirement funds vanish, or taxpayers who paid hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the banks.

The excesses of largely unregulated capitalism led to an historical irony:

Under the threat of a collapse of the entire system, the safety net - intended to help unfortunate individuals meet the exigencies of life - was generously extended to commercial banks, then to investment banks, insurance firms, auto companies, even car-loan companies. Never has so much money been transferred from so many to so few.

Because the taxpayers' money came with few strings attached (again, a lack of adequate regulation) banks have largely reneged on assisting a full economic recovery:

The justification was that bailing out the banks, however messily, would enable a resumption of lending. That has not happened. All that happened was that average taxpayers gave money to the very institutions that had been gouging them for years - through predatory lending, usurious credit-card interest rates, and non-transparent fees.

In short, unfettered capitalism does not work. It cannot be trusted to work, even unwittingly, for the benefit of all.

Lesson Two: The Reasons Why Markets Fail

The reasons why markets fail can be many and complex and their recent failures are not any less so even though some reasons can be identified:

The second important lesson involves understanding why markets often do not work the way they are meant to. There are many reasons for market failures. In this case, too-big-to-fail financial institutions had perverse incentives: if they gambled and succeeded, they walked off with the profits; if they lost, the taxpayer would pay. Moreover, when information is imperfect, markets often do not work well - and information imperfections are central in finance. Externalities are pervasive: the failure of one bank imposed costs on others, and failures in the financial system imposed costs on taxpayers and workers all over the world.

Lesson Three: Keynesian Policies Work

This reason will make the free market fetishists grind their teeth. But the truth comes with contemporary examples:

The third lesson is that Keynesian policies do work. Countries, like Australia, that implemented large, well-designed stimulus programs early emerged from the crisis faster. Other countries succumbed to the old orthodoxy pushed by the financial wizards who got us into this mess in the first place.

Whenever an economy goes into recession, deficits appear, as tax revenues fall faster than expenditures. The old orthodoxy held that one had to cut the deficit - raise taxes or cut expenditures - to "restore confidence." But those policies almost always reduced aggregate demand, pushed the economy into a deeper slump, and further undermined confidence - most recently when the International Monetary Fund insisted on them in East Asia in the 1990's.

Readers are encouraged to read the fourth and fifth lessons here.

Stiglitz ends with this stern warning:

We will soon find out whether we have learned the lessons of this crisis any better than we should have learned the same lessons from previous crises.

Regrettably, unless the United States and other advanced industrial countries make much greater progress on financial-sector reforms in 2010 we may find ourselves faced with another opportunity to learn them.

Short of a second and truly substantial stimulus, I fear that we will not learn these lessons and that the economy will fall into a slump again by the third quarter of 2010. I hope that I am wrong because the economic and electoral consequences for 2010 could be effectively catastrophic for years to come. I am not the only one who thinks so.

The Three is Enough Campaign: Hypocrisy in Capitalism at Work

2010-01-02T23:39:00.003-05:00

I don't like the prospect of new casinos coming to Delaware. So much about it stinks. It would be a parasitical and irresponsible to allow new gambling venues to feed on the low wages of desperate Delaware workers, especially during economic hard times. And it is a testament to the lack of vision and imagination of the Delaware state government to boost its revenue through expanding gambling.

Nevertheless, it is instructive that Delaware's extant three gambling casinos oppose a possible expansion as well. It teaches us about how capitalistic enterprises operate in the real world (as opposed to the fantastical "free market" scenarios dreamt in capitalistic theory):

Dover Downs, Delaware Park, and Harrington Raceway have launched a public relations campaign -- including a Web site and a self-commissioned study -- condemning the idea of added [gambling] venues and encouraging employees to pressure lawmakers.

The initiative comes ahead of the Jan. 12 start of the legislative session and provides a look into the looming battle over changes to the gaming landscape, which will likely pit longstanding lobbying powers against leadership in Dover. (link)

Once in operation, business enterprises often seek virtual monopolistic domination of the market through the auspices of government. What businesses often want is not a free market but a closed market. Why compete if you can get the government to crush your potential competitors?

And don't expect the so-called advocates of free markets to act any differently. After all, their clients—their bread and butter—are the monopolists:

The Three is Enough campaign also boasts other supporters, including the Kent County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Delmarva Cleaning and Maintenance, the AmericInn Harrington and the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce. (link)

Did you notice that? The Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce. That is only surprising to those who understand capitalism platitudinously and not the way it operates in reality.

I’m Back

2010-01-02T18:20:00.001-05:00

It simply came down to this: I missed blogging too much.

During the past 3 months, things were happening locally and elsewhere that I felt a strong urge to comment about and I said nothing. For example, I sat out the health care debate in Congress when it reached its critical stage. The things I wanted to say then, but I thought I should give quitting more of a chance.

I was busy though with teaching and I will be in the months ahead as well. But I did develop a work pace that left me with more time than I imagined I'd possess. So I'll be able to do both: do justice to my job and blog.

I'm back.

Goodbye for Now

2009-09-14T11:53:00.001-04:00

You might have noticed that lately I have only been sporadically active on Delaware Watch. There is a reason for that. I am now employed teaching at a local college. My new duties consume all of my available spare time. Studying for lectures and grading papers (I teach 2 writing classes and one philosophy class) leaves virtually no time for me to research news reports, much less to blog.

So I am suspending Delaware Watch for now. Once I get my lectures written and can free up some time during the week, I might return to blogging. But I don't know when, if ever, that will be.

I want you to know that I am suspending Delaware Watch for no other reason than that I am too busy to do it justice. I can't do anything half-baked. If I must choose between blogging well and teaching well, I choose teaching. It's my job, after all. Besides, I love to teach.

I will continue to comment on local blogs when I have time. I'll keep Delaware Watch online as long as I can (who knows? I might start it up again in a few months).

Thank you for reading Delaware Watch. I'm grateful for the many new friends and acquaintances I made because of this blog.

The USA Led the World in Weapons Sales in 2008

2009-09-07T00:42:00.003-04:00

For a nation that supposedly wants to see peace in the world, we (the USA) certainly love to merchandize the weapons of war:

The United States accounted for more than two-thirds of foreign weapons sales in 2008, a year in which global sales were at a three-year low, The New York Times reported on Sunday.

Citing a congressional study released on Friday, the Times said the United States was involved in 68.4 percent of the global sales of arms.

U.S. weapons sales jumped nearly 50 percent in 2008 despite the global economic recession to $37.8 billion from $25.4 billion the year before.

The USA sold so many weapons in 2008 ($37.8 billion worth) that the second place merchandiser of weapons didn't come close to the amount of the USA sales:

Italy, the second ranked country, amassed only $3.7 billion in arms sales, while Russia ranked third with sales falling to $3.5 billion in 2008, down from $10.8 billion in 2007.

The biggest chunk of our weapon sales went to developing nations, some with a record of significant human rights abuses and the lack of a democratic government:

The United States also led in arms sales to the developing world, signing 70.1 percent of these weapons agreements at a value of $29.6 billion in 2008, the report said.

Such deals with the developing world included a $6.5 billion air defense system for the United Arab Emirates, a $2.1 billion jet fighter for Morocco and a $2 billion attack helicopter for Taiwan.

India, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, South Korea and Brazil also reached weapons deals with the United States, the Times said.

The report revealed the United Arab Emirates was the top buyer of arms in the developing world with $9.7 billion in arms purchases in 2008.

Saudi Arabia ranked second with $8.7 billion in weapons agreements, and Morocco was third with $5.4 billion in deals.

American foreign policy: making the world dangerous for our weapons manufacturers.

Working and in Need of Food Stamps

2009-09-05T16:33:00.002-04:00

In the USA you can be employed and still be very poor:

The number of working Americans turning to free government food stamps has surged as their hours and wages erode, in a stark sign that the recession is inflicting pain on the employed as well as the newly jobless.

While the increase in take-up is often attributed to the sharp rise in unemployment – which on Friday hit 9.7 per cent – the Financial Times has learnt that some 40 per cent of the families now on food stamps have "earned income", up from 25 per cent two years ago.

The reason for this increase?

The agriculture department, which runs the programme, attributes this rise to workers having their hours cut back.

While much attention is being paid to the serious problem of increasing unemployment,

Less attention has been paid to those still in the workforce, whose incomes are also being squeezed. The average working week is now about 33 hours, the lowest on record, while the number forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time work has risen more than 50 per cent in the past year to a record 8.8m. Wages and benefits have decelerated.

It's amazing that some people still believe that this has just been an average recession.

Seeing Through a Glass Darkly: Our Coming Muted Glimpse into the Obama White House

2009-09-05T01:53:00.003-04:00

They hemmed and hawed and hedged, but it seems that mostly the Obama administration is coming through on one of its campaign promises:

President Barack Obama said Friday that his administration will start releasing the names of people who visit the White House, reversing a long-standing policy transcending both Democratic and Republican presidents.

The move, which could shed light on who influences White House decision-making, comes after a White House review of its disclosure policy and legal pressure from the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Until now, the Obama administration had sided with the Bush administration's stand of refusing to release records, in contrast with Obama's pledge of transparency.

But Obama said Friday after the review was completed: "We will achieve our goal of making this administration the most open and transparent administration in history, not only by opening the doors of the White House to more Americans, but by shining a light on the business conducted inside."

"Americans have a right to know whose voices are being heard in the policymaking process," the president said.

BUT "No records will be released right away." Okay, that makes sense. Some people might have visited the White House on secret national security measures and the administration wants to make sure that those names don't get disclosed. BUT that's not entirely it. Records prior to Sept 15 will be handled differently:

The records of visitors from the January 20 start of Obama's presidency through September 15 will not be covered by the policy. Instead, the White House's counsel office will respond to individual requests for records during that time, but only if those requests are deemed to be reasonable, narrow and specific.

That's a pity because a lot has happened since January 20 until now. The bailouts, the stimulus package, the health care debate. It would be great to have the visitor logs online for that period to see what persons might have affected the administration's judgment and policies. Now one must endure the painstaking process of a FOIA request.

After September 15 the White House visitor's log will be posted online. BUT

Going forward, the policy covers visits starting Sept. 15, and each bunch of records will cover visits from the previous 90 to 120 days.

That means the first wave of records should be posted to the White House Web site around Dec. 31.

It's a pity that the turnaround time isn't, say, 30 days max because a lot of people can be seen and decisions made during a 90 to 120 day period. It might be too late to see who is influencing the administration and bring public pressure on the White House not to hike down an obvious policy path. But then we are talking about "tens of thousands of electronic records."

Still, this sounds significantly better:

The public is expected to see the full name of visitors, whom they met with, when they entered and when they left.

Obama said the policy will apply to virtually every visitor who comes to the White House for "an appointment, a tour, or to conduct business."

BUT there are some exceptions to the disclosure policy:

Some names will be kept private, though. Those include people who are attending meetings of particular sensitivity, such as possible Supreme Court nominees, and those who identity cannot be disclosed because of what the White House called national security imperatives.

The White House will not release records related to "purely personal guests" of the president's family and the vice president's family.

I get the national security visitors and the "purely personal guests" (I believe in the private lives of all citizens, even Presidents). But possible Supreme Court nominees? Why not them? I think that Republicans and conservatives have a right to whine in advance about a possible Supreme Court pick. Why shouldn't the public know who the President is considering and talking to about possibly serving on the highest court in the USA? I don't get that one.

Still, this policy is better—light years better—than what we saw under the Bush administration.

Major Medical Fraud Case and the Economic Right Wing is Silent

2009-09-05T00:53:00.003-04:00

Yea, trust the private sector all right:

Drug maker Pfizer Inc. will pay a record fine to settle a federal investigation into illegal marketing practices, as the Obama administration signaled its intent to curb fraud in government medical programs.

The Justice Department said Wednesday that Pfizer, the world's largest drug maker, will pay a $2.3 billion civil and criminal penalty over allegations that the company marketed drugs for uses not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The department said the $2.3 billion settlement included a $1.2 billion criminal fine, the largest criminal fine in U.S. history. The agreement also included a criminal forfeiture of $105 million.

I emphasized the criminal aspect of the passage so that our economic right wing friends didn't miss it. This major pharmaceutical company acted the criminal. What did it do exactly?

The government said Pfizer promoted four prescription drugs, including the painkiller Bextra, as treatments for so-called off-label medical conditions. To promote the drugs, authorities said Pfizer invited doctors to consultant meetings at resort locations, paying their expenses and providing perks.

As I read it, Pfizer encouraged—to put it kindly—doctors to prescribe four drugs for medical conditions that the FDA hadn't approved the drugs for. That sounds safe, doesn't it? It certainly sounds profitable and that's what matters in the private sector.

Oh, but we are not done yet:

Separately, Pfizer reached a nationwide settlement Wednesday with 43 states on charges of improper marketing of the antipsychotic Geodon. The drug maker will pay $33 million to the states, including $448,200 to the Delaware Consumer Protection Fund.

My, my, this giant of free enterprise certainly has been up to some shenanigans.

Did I just hear some economic conservative say that this is only an isolated case? Think again:

Marketing fraud cases are increasingly common in the pharmaceutical industry….

Oh, no! Horror of horrors! Does this mean we actually need government agencies like the FDA to regulate the pharmaceutical industry? Can you believe there are actually people who believe we don't? As surreal as it sounds, it's true.

This is yet another story that the economic right-wing was silent about.

In any case, hats off to the Obama administration for socking it to Pfizer. Such a penalty would never have been assessed during the Bush administration.

The Republicans Want to End Medicare

2009-09-04T18:49:00.001-04:00

Paybacks are a bitch, Republicans!

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele penned an op-ed in the Washington Post on Monday accusing Democrats of looking to gut Medicare.

Five days later -- on the eve of a three-day weekend -- Democrats are hitting back.

Republicans are no friends of seniors, a new ad from the Democratic National Committee argues. The party is reminding voters that Republicans opposed Medicare from the beginning and in recent years have even voted to end it for younger generations.

The GOP did, in fact, oppose Medicare when President Lyndon Johnson signed it into law and conservative elements of the party have long sought to end it.

Recalculating the USA’s Poverty Rate

2009-09-04T17:11:00.002-04:00

If we use a scalpel instead of an ax in dissecting the poverty rate in the USA, we get a different but, sadly, grimmer picture:

The poverty rate among older Americans could be nearly twice as high as the traditional 10 percent level, according to a revision of a half-century-old formula for calculating medical costs and geographic variations in the cost of living.

The National Academy of Science's formula, which is gaining credibility with public officials including some in the Obama administration, would put the poverty rate for Americans 65 and over at 18.6 percent, or 6.8 million people, compared with 9.7 percent, or 3.6 million people, under the existing measure….

The overall official poverty rate would increase, from 12.5 percent to 15.3 percent, for a total of 45.7 million people, according to rough calculations by the Census Bureau.

What was wrong with the current way of calculating the poverty rate?

The original government formula, created in 1955, doesn't take account of rising costs of medical care and other factors….

The current calculation sets the poverty level at three times the annual cost of groceries. For a family of four that is $21,203. That calculation does not factor in rising medical, transportation, child care and housing expenses or geographical variations in living costs. Nor does the current formula consider noncash aid when calculating income, despite the recent expansion of food stamps and tax credits in the federal economic stimulus and other government programs. The result: The poverty rate has varied little from its current 12.5 percent.

Just so our conservative friends don't think that the new way of calculating the poverty rate is a vast liberal conspiracy designed to increase welfare rolls and besmirch the image of the USA as a beacon of prosperity for all, the new way makes for some happier results:

The rate for children under 18 in poverty would decline slightly, to 17.9 percent.

Single mothers and their children, who disproportionately receive food stamps, would see declines in the rates of poverty because noncash aid would be taken into account….

The rate for extreme poverty, defined as income falling below 50 percent of the poverty line, would decrease due to housing and other noncash benefits….

…. more rural areas in the Midwest and South might see declines.

But, alas, the myth that the USA is a beacon of prosperity for all is just a myth. The new rate does make the poverty rate of other demographic groups look bleaker:

Low-income people who are working could see increases in poverty rates, a reflection of transportation and child-care costs.

Cities with higher costs of living, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco, would see higher poverty rates….

Immigrant poverty rates would go up, due to transportation costs and lower participation in government aid programs.

The truth is often such a pisser.

The Little Guy is Violated and the Economic Right Wing is Silent

2009-09-03T10:03:00.002-04:00

Where is the economic right-wing outrage for this violation of the "little guy?"

Low-wage workers are routinely denied proper overtime pay and are often paid less than the minimum wage, according to a new study based on a survey of workers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

The study, the most comprehensive examination of wage-law violations in a decade, also found that 68 percent of the workers interviewed had experienced at least one pay-related violation in the previous work week….

The study found that 26 percent of the workers had been paid less than the minimum wage the week before being surveyed and that one in seven had worked off the clock the previous week. In addition, 76 percent of those who had worked overtime the week before were not paid their proper overtime, the researchers found.

I'm trying to think of why our economic right-wing friends have been silent about these outrages. It could be because

They despise minimum wage laws and so they quietly rejoice when some employers manage to pay their workers less than minimum wage.
To admit these abuses is tantamount to admitting that a modestly regulated economic private sector is inadequate to keep many employers from cheating their workers.

Just so we are clear regarding what we are talking about…we are talking about losing 15% of one's paycheck:

In surveying 4,387 workers in various low-wage industries, including apparel manufacturing, child care and discount retailing, the researchers found that the typical worker had lost $51 the previous week through wage violations, out of average weekly earnings of $339. That translates into a 15 percent loss in pay.

Why do I think that this would be cause for many economic right-wingers to rejoice?

The researchers said one of the most surprising findings was how successful low-wage employers were in pressuring workers not to file for workers' compensation. Only 8 percent of those who suffered serious injuries on the job filed for compensation to pay for medical care and missed days at work stemming from those injuries….

In instances when workers' compensation should have been used, the study found, one third of workers injured on the job paid the bills for treatment out of their own pocket and 22 percent used their health insurance. Workers' compensation insurance paid medical expenses for only 6 percent of the injured workers surveyed, the researchers found.

Are the economic right-wingers silent about this study and perhaps secretly rejoicing because they also despise worker compensation laws? Could they be thinking to themselves, "If a worker gets injured on the job, then that should only be cause to say 'tough luck'?"

Ah, but these right wingers, they are sometimes inclined to invent excuses. Can't you hear them say, "Oh, this is something only a minuscule number of employers do." Think again:

"The conventional wisdom has been that to the extent there were violations, it was confined to a few rogue employers or to especially disadvantaged workers, like undocumented immigrants," said Nik Theodore, an author of the study and a professor of urban planning and policy at the University of Illinois, Chicago. "What our study shows is that this is a widespread phenomenon across the low-wage labor market in the United States."

According to the study, 39 percent of those surveyed were illegal immigrants, 31 percent legal immigrants and 30 percent native-born Americans.

Of course, another excuse by the economic right-wingers could be "It's a recession for crying out loud. Of course these kinds of problems are going to arise during a bad recession." I must repeat. Think again:

The new study, "Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers," was conducted in the first half of 2008, before the brunt of the recession hit.

The next excuse? Just wait. It is no doubt coming. My guess: there is something wrong with the survey.

It's Coming Soon

2009-08-27T20:45:00.001-04:00

Capitalism: A Love Story will appear in movie theaters on October 2, 2009.

Cash for Clunkers: A Stellar Success

2009-08-26T17:38:00.002-04:00

It's enough to make an economic conservative gnash his teeth in anger, but the truth must be said: the cash for clunkers program was a stellar success:

The popular Cash for Clunkers program generated nearly 700,000 new car sales during the past month, giving the U.S. auto industry a badly needed jolt of activity during the deepest decline in auto sales in two decades.

The government, releasing final data on the car incentives, said Wednesday that dealers submitted 690,114 sales totaling $2.88 billion, bringing the program to a close under its $3 billion budget.

Hear that, conservatives? The program ended under budget. Perhaps more significantly, the program was so successful it ended ahead of schedule.

It proved far more popular than lawmakers originally thought. Congress added another $2 billion to the original $1 billion budget when the first pot of money nearly ran out in a week. The extra money was supposed to last through Labor Day, but the funding only lasted about a month.

That's a measure of both how popular the program was with the public and the high level of economic activity it generated.

While no one thinks that auto sales will continue at the same frenzied pace now that the program has ended, there is ample indication that auto-makers believe that sales will substantially increase above pre-program levels. They have added shifts in their manufacturing plants and have rehired some laid-off workers. The White House estimates that "42,000 jobs will be created or saved because of the program."

No doubt the perennial naysayers will make much of this:

The biggest industry beneficiaries were Japanese automakers Toyota, Honda and Nissan, which accounted for 41 percent of the new vehicle sales. That outpaced Detroit automakers General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, which had a share of nearly 39 percent. Toyota Motor Corp. led the industry with 19.4 percent of new sales, followed by General Motors Co. with 17.6 percent and Ford Motor Co. with 14.4 percent.

The Japanese automakers fared better. But look more closely at the facts:

The Toyota Corolla was the most popular new vehicle purchased under the program. The Honda Civic, Toyota Camry and Ford Focus held the next three top spots. All four are built in the United States.

In short, the sales are helping the US economy. That's not the only thing that the program helped:

The government said 84 percent of the trade-ins were trucks and 59 percent of the new vehicles were passenger cars. New vehicles bought through Cash for Clunkers had an average fuel-efficiency of 24.9 miles per gallon, compared with an average of 15.8 mpg for trade-ins, a 58 percent improvement.

Great news all around, right? But, reader, if you hear a note of weeping in the national celebration of this program's success, it's those economic conservatives who, for entirely doctrinaire reasons, simply cannot admit they were wrong. A government stimulus program worked—in fact, it exceeded expectations—and that must be denied at all costs. You see, if they admit that a government stimulus program worked here, then they'll have to admit that such programs might work in other aspects of the economy as well. Too bad for them. Reality is rarely kind to dogmatists.

Ted Kennedy is Dead

2009-08-26T02:21:00.001-04:00

He lived too long to receive the mythologizing that his older brothers received and, so, strode among us more like a man than a demigod. Of course, the mythologizing of Jack and Bobby placed them at level Ted Kennedy would never achieve. His lot was to stay behind and watch over the Kennedy clan and do the hard work in the Senate over decades, work that has wrought justice and help for millions of Americans. He has always been my favorite of the three and I have often wished that he could have been President. I think he would have made a good and principled president.

I'm sorry that he's gone. I'll miss his fire and compassion and fearlessness in promoting a righteous cause. Many are the better because Ted Kennedy lived.

clipped from abcnews.go.com

Sen. Ted Kennedy died shortly before midnight Tuesday at his home in Hyannis Port, Mass., at age 77.

The man known as the "liberal lion of the Senate" had fought a more than year-long battle with brain cancer, and according to his son had lived longer with the disease than his doctors expected him to.

Sen. Edward Moore Kennedy, the youngest Kennedy brother who was left to head the family's political dynasty after his brothers President John F. Kennedy and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated.

Kennedy championed health care reform, working wages and equal rights in his storied career. In August, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom -- the nation's highest civilian honor -- by President Obama. His daughter, Kara Kennedy, accepted the award on his behalf.

Limbaugh: American Penises Endangered by Obama

2009-08-25T18:52:00.002-04:00

We've had evocations of "death panels," government run "reeducation camps," "death books," (the standard) socialism, Nazism, (locally) fascism and so on. But now Rush Limbaugh has come up with a new bugbear about President Obama to incite hysteria about him: President Obama is a threat to American penises. I'm not kidding:

LIMBAUGH: I have been mentioned in a rap song by the rapper Jay-Z. Got a new song out there, what's the name of the song? Don't know what the name of the song is, new song out mentions me and the moderate Bill O'Reilly.

JAY-Z [audio clip]: Black vs. white my nigga, we off that. Please tell Bill O'Reilly to fall back. Tell Rush Limbaugh to get off my balls, it's 2010 not 1864. Yeah we come so far. How's that for a mix, got a black president, got green presidents.

LIMBAUGH: Is this - Snerdly, mark a new development in my career, to be singled out in a rap song by the famous rapper Jay-Z? I guess it is, I guess it's - as far as I know, I've never been mentioned in a rap song by anybody. I guess it means I made it, I'm now in a rap tune by the famous rapper Jay-Z. "Tell Rush Limbaugh to get off my balls, tell Bill O'Reilly to fall back." I would remind the rapper Jay-Z, Mr. Z, it is President Obama that wants to mandate circumcision. We had that yesterday, and that means if anybody - if we need to save our penises from anybody, it's Obama

What will the kooks, cranks and crackpots come up with next?

Losing Expensively: Delaware’s Awful Day in Court

2009-08-24T23:09:00.002-04:00

I should have saved the article about it, but the state of Delaware is paying private attorneys from two law firms a lot of money to represent the state in a lawsuit filed by the USA's major professional sports leagues and the NCAA. The plaintiffs want to stop the state from proceeding to hold Los Vegas style sports betting beginning September 1, 2009. The money the state of Delaware paid these exemplary attorneys went down the crapper today:

Delaware's proposal to launch single-game sports betting next week violates federal law and cannot proceed, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today.

The panel made its surprise ruling from the bench after a nearly two-hour hearing. Judge Theodore McKee said a written order outlining their ruling would be issued later today. Sports betting was set to start in Delaware Sept. 1.

The case presented by the state's well paid attorneys was so bad that the three-judge panel didn't need to take much time to rule against the state. The judges virtually ruled from the bench:

The panel was only expected to rule Monday on the issue of a temporary order to stop Delaware from launching sports betting with single-game wagers against a point spread and bets on all sports except pro football while the leagues' federal lawsuit moved through the court system.

However, during the oral arguments, members of the three-judge panel indicated there appeared to be no factual dispute between the state and the sports leagues and it was a simple matter of law that they could resolve at this stage.

Although today's order was a temporary one pending a full hearing before the Circuit Court, the judges basically told the state's attorneys that the state's case has little chance of prevailing:

And after leaving the bench and conferring together for about 40 minutes, the three judges -- McKee, Julio Fuentes and Thomas Hardiman -- returned to the bench and announced that not only did they think there was a "likelihood" the leagues would prevail at trial, but had decided the state's plan violated the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992.

The state has 14 days to decide if it wants to appeal today's decision to the Circuit Court or directly to the US Supreme Court. Given the Circuit Court's language today about Delaware's chances, appealing to it seems like an exercise in futility. Besides, if Delaware's attorneys believe there might be reason to wonder about the constitutionality of the Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, then that would be decided by the Supreme Court eventually in any case.

The rub is that Delaware counted on the legality of its new sports betting legislation to generate $17 million in revenue, an amount needed to balance the state's budget. Did the state of Delaware plan on this money for the purposes of creating a final budget bill but knowing full well that its case would be weak in Court? Regardless of the answer to that question, what will the state do now to make up the apparently lost $17 million in lost revenue? Will it require a special legislative session? Where will the $17 million come from? It seems that many recently past issues about how Delaware would resolve its budget shortfall have suddenly become relevant again.

In the meantime, there is one bottom line the state should consider. If its legal case is weak, why spend a fortune on high priced attorneys for the rest of the court proceedings? There is no virtue in losing expensively.

Leon Panetta Should Be Fired

2009-08-24T17:44:00.002-04:00

If CIA Director Leon Panetta cannot accept that it's a proper role of the Department of Justice to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute anyone in the CIA for possibly breaking federal laws against torture, then he should be removed from his job. He should be fired.

His primary duty is NOT to give cover to potential criminals within the CIA but to help in upholding the law.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com

CIA Director threatened to quit over an potential criminal investigation of CIA torture, ABC News reported Monday.

A "profanity-laced screaming match" at the White House involving CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the expected release today of another damning internal investigation, has administration officials worrying about the direction of its newly-appoint intelligence team, current and former senior intelligence officials tell ABC News.com.

According to intelligence officials, Panetta erupted in a tirade last month during a meeting with a senior White House staff member. Panetta was reportedly upset over plans by Attorney General Eric Holder to open a criminal investigation of allegations that CIA officers broke the law in carrying out certain interrogation techniques that President Obama has termed "torture."

Panetta was apparently also upset over the release, happening today, of an internal 2004 report on CIA torture.

Rand Paul: A Chip Off the Same Lunatic Block

2009-08-23T18:05:00.003-04:00

Like his father Ron Paul, who sponsored the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (ASRA), which would withdraw the US from the United Nations, Rand Paul (who is running for the US Senate for the state of Kentucky) sees a dangerous conspiracy afoot in the USA's relationship with its neighbors:

The diehard supporters of GOP maverick Ron Paul are back in campaign mode. But they're not backing another presidential run by America's favorite libertarian. Paul's son, Dr. Rand Paul, is running for a 2010 U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky. To hear the other Dr. Paul's take on one-world government and abolishing the Federal Reserve, you'd swear you were listening to his dad.

I called Rand Paul at his medical office in Bowling Green, Kentucky. In a drawling voice, Paul echoed his father's strong isolationist streak. He brought up fears of a united North American government, including Mexico and Canada, that would replace American currency, an idea he said was being actively promoted by David Rockefeller.

Rand Paul doesn't discount all conspiracy theories. "Some of the fears of world government are legitimate," he said.

Oooo! Watch out for that world government. I guess Daddy's ASRA is on target, eh?

But Rand is individuating from Dad a bit. His specific concern is about the brewing plot to replace the USA dollar:

"When you hear about the 'Amero,' a new North American money," he said, "you might say that those people are just conspiracy theorists. But if you said the same thing about the euro 30 years ago they would have said, 'Oh, you're crazy, we'll never get rid of the pound and those currencies, and lo and behold we have a euro currency. So some of the fears of world government are legitimate."

Perhaps xenophobia is an inherited trait.

The Torturers Were Not Prosecuted

2009-08-23T10:41:00.002-04:00

Guess what happened to the CIA officer who threatened a terror suspect with a gun? He got a slap on the wrist. That's all.

A CIA officer who allegedly used a gun to intimidate a captured al-Qaeda suspect was formally disciplined for violating the agency's rules for conducting interrogations, but Bush administration Justice Department officials ultimately declined to file charges against him, according to two former intelligence officials familiar with the case.

The officer, who has not been identified, was immediately called back to CIA headquarters to face an internal accountability board and was "reprimanded and reassigned" for committing acts outside the CIA's legal guidelines for interrogating terrorism suspects. At the time of the 2002 incident, the guidelines permitted the use of sleep deprivation and waterboarding -- simulated drowning -- on some suspects, according to a former senior intelligence official who closely followed the events.

What about the officer who threatened a terror suspect with a revolving power drill? What happened to him? Same thing. A slap on the wrist:

In a separate incident, interrogators reportedly used an electric drill to intimidate the same detainee, al-Qaeda commander Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the group's former chief in the Persian Gulf and the alleged mastermind of the deadly USS Cole suicide bombing in 2000.

"The agency, where appropriate, took its own disciplinary action when the Department of Justice declined prosecution," CIA spokesman George Little said Saturday.

Is there reason to believe that these CIA officers committed any crime(s). Indeed, there is, but the Justice Department declined to prosecute for inexplicable reasons:

Some officials involved in the case viewed the use of a gun during interrogation as a possible violation of a U.S. law that prohibits threatening detainees with imminent death. But Justice Department lawyers reviewed the case and declined to file charges, according to several former and current intelligence officials who tracked the case. It was unclear why the lawyers took that position….

The U.S. anti-torture statute bans acts intended to inflict severe mental or physical pain or suffering resulting from, among other things, "the threat of imminent death" or threats of being "subjected to death."

According to one expert, however, prosecuting torturers isn't likely to result in convictions:

A. John Radsan, a former federal prosecutor who also served as assistant general counsel at the CIA, said such a case might be difficult to successfully prosecute.

"The victims are not sympathetic. Witnesses may not talk. Evidence may be gone," Radsan said. "If anyone is indicted, there will be the usual graymail. The defendant is going to push [Justice] to reveal things about the program that will even make this administration uncomfortable. The defendant will say whatever he did was reasonable reliance on advice from government lawyers."

What a nice tidy little system. A law against torture exists on the books for, it appears, largely PR reasons. But it is virtually impossible to successfully prosecute anyone on the basis of the law. So, CIA officers can torture people with virtual impunity. And some people say that the government can't be efficient.

Mock Executions and Power Drills

2009-08-22T14:04:00.004-04:00

Is there anything that interrogators didn't do to terrorist suspects in USA custody?

A long-suppressed report by the Central Intelligence Agency's inspector general to be released next week reveals that CIA interrogators staged mock executions as part of the agency's post-9/11 program to detain and question terror suspects, NEWSWEEK has learned.

According to two sources—one who has read a draft of the paper and one who was briefed on it—the report describes how one detainee, suspected USS Cole bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was threatened with a gun and a power drill during the course of CIA interrogation. According to the sources, who like others quoted in this article asked not to be named while discussing sensitive information, Nashiri's interrogators brandished the gun in an effort to convince him that he was going to be shot. Interrogators also turned on a power drill and held it near him. "The purpose was to scare him into giving [information] up," said one of the sources. A federal law banning the use of torture expressly forbids threatening a detainee with "imminent death." (emphasis mine)

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri wasn't the ojnly omne subject to such treatment:

The report also says, according to the sources, that a mock execution was staged in a room next to a detainee, during which a gunshot was fired in an effort to make the suspect believe that another prisoner had been killed. The inspector general's report alludes to more than one mock execution.

Videotapes of Nashiri's interrogation were subsequently destroyed, "an action that has been under investigation for more than a year by a federal prosecutor."

The report containing this information was completed by the CIA's Inspector General in May of 2004 and it is just now coming to light.

The use of mock execution and threatening detainees with power drills was not authorized by Justice Department memoranda sanctioning "enhanced interrogation techniques." In short, these practices exceeded the kinds of torture that the Bush administration sanctioned.

Just as shocking is when the Justice Department and some members of Congress learned about these practices:

The inspector general's report, commissioned by then CIA director George Tenet, was sent to the Justice Department and congressional intelligence committee leaders shortly after it was written. But it was not shown to all members of the intelligence committees until September 2006, around the time that President Bush publicly acknowledged the CIA detention-and-interrogation program and instructed the agency, which had been holding detainees in a network of secret overseas prisons, to transfer them to the U.S. military detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. (emphasis mine)

Were these forms of torture effective?

According to another source who has seen the document, the report says that the agency's interrogation program did produce usable intelligence.

The prosecution of the torturers and torture-sanctioners is long overdue.

An Idiot Rich Man

2009-08-21T18:13:00.003-04:00

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is well known for his business acumen and philanthropy, but when it comes to understanding wealth disparity in the USA, apparently he is an idiot:

Billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical companies and their chief executives on Friday, declaring that they "don't make a lot of money" and shouldn't be scapegoats in the health care debate….

"You know, last time I checked, pharmaceutical companies don't make a lot of money, their executives don't make a lot of money – not that they couldn't be better," Bloomberg said.

One would think that this assertion couldn't possibly be made because it is preposterous on an intuitive level alone. Given the magnitude of business that pharmaceutical companies generate both nationally and internationally, how is it even possible to hypothesize that the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies don't make a lot of money? But let's look at two examples of suffering CEOs of big pharmaceutical companies:

Abbott Laboratories Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Miles White's compensation was $25.3 million in 2008. The North Chicago, Ill.-based company saw profit rising 35 percent to $4.88 billion.

Merck & Co.'s chief executive, Richard T. Clark, received a $17.3 million compensation package for 2008. The company's profit more than doubled to $7.8 billion.

How did Michael Bloomberg arrive at his mind numbing conclusion? It results from the fact that Bloomberg views the compensation of the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies from the perspective of himself:

The mayor – and wealthiest person in New York City with a fortune estimated at $16.5 billion – made the comments on his radio show Friday during a discussion about health care.

As long as "me" is the standard in assessing wealth distribution and adequacy, instead of "we," then idiotic and insensitive statements like Bloomberg's should be an expected consequence from many among the rich.

Anonymous Blogger Unmasked by Court

2009-08-19T18:10:00.001-04:00

Anonymous blogging is supposed to give the blogger a level of protection that the self-identified blogger lacks: freedom from the repercussions that come from self disclosure. But the veil of protection has just been pierced by a court.

The court ordered Google to give up the IP address to the plaintiff of the blogger who used words like "skanky," "ho", and "whoring" beneath the photographs of the plaintiff (a model).

Be careful my anonymous blogger friends.

clipped from www.abcnews.go.com

She had graced the cover of Vogue and found success as a model. But Liskula Cohen's latest achievement came in the courtroom.

Horrified by the hateful words of an anonymous blogger, Cohen took Google to court in hopes of forcing the company to reveal the writer's identity -- and won.

Google initially refused to unmask the unidentified writer, who Cohen, 36, claimed defamed her by posting words like "skanky," "ho", and "whoring" below her photographs. The IP address turned over by Google revealed that the blogger was an acquaintance of Cohen's.

Cohen said it was a woman she hadn't seen in about a year, but who was a regular fixture at dinners and parties, but she was not, as Cohen had feared, someone who was close to her.

"Why should anybody let it go? If somebody attacks somebody on the street, you're not going to let it go … why should I just ignore it?" Cohen told "Good Morning America" exclusively today. "I couldn't find one reason to ignore it."

That's Telling Them, Barney

2009-08-19T10:46:00.001-04:00

The contempt of the kooks, cranks, crackpots, red- and Nazi-baiters deserve to be met with contempt, the more condescending the better.

House Democrats and Unions Revolt Over Public Option

2009-08-18T20:43:00.002-04:00

If President Barack Obama won't stand up for the public option in health care reform, some liberal and progressive members of Congress will. They pledge not to vote for any health care reform that doesn't include the public option:

The White House's signal that it's willing to back off support for a public health insurance option has sent congressional liberals into full revolt, bluntly warning the administration that no legislation will pass without a government-run plan.

A group of left-leaning House Democrats tells POLITICO that a bill without a public option simply won't win enough votes in their caucus - a sentiment that raises fresh questions about the prospects to enact sweeping health care reform this year.

"A bill without a public option won't pass the House," said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), a member of Energy & Commerce Health subcommittee. "Not only are they weakening their proposal, but they are also weakening their hand. This is legislative subtraction by subtraction."

Privately, the leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus sent the same message to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who said Sunday that a public plan is "not the essential element" of comprehensive reform. (link)

Indeed, 60 members of the House of Representatives sent to following letter to Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius:

Dear Secretary Sebelius,

We write to you concerning your recent comments about the public option in health insurance reform.

We stand in strong opposition to your statement that the public option is "not the essential element" of comprehensive reform. The opportunity to improve access to healthcare is a onetime opportunity. Americans deserve reform that is real-not smoke and mirrors. We cannot rely solely on the insurance companies' good faith efforts to provide for our constituents. A robust public option is essential, if we are to ensure that all Americans can receive healthcare that is accessible, guaranteed and of high-quality.

To take the public option off the table would be a grave error; passage in the House of Representatives depends upon inclusion of it.

We have attached, for your review, a letter from 60 Members of Congress who are firm in their Position that any legislation that moves forward through both chambers, and into a final proposal for the President's signature, MUST contain a public option. (link)

According to Politico:

The letter's unequivocal: Five dozen House Dems say, No public option, no support. (link)

A revolt in the House of Representatives could mean that any health reform will be stalemated this year if the Senate (especially those damn Blue Dog Democrats) stands pat on no public option.

The question then becomes how to get Democratic Senators to change their mind. The nation's labor unions have come up with a strategy: hit the anti-public option Democrats where they live in campaign contributions and workers:

One of the country's most prominent union officials is warning that big labor may pull its support from Democrats who don't fight for a government-run insurance plan.

In an interview with the Huffington Post on Saturday, Richard Trumka, the secretary-treasurer and likely next president of the AFL-CIO, said his federation is drawing a line in the sand when it comes to a public option in the health care bill. Lawmakers who don't support the provision, he said, shouldn't take anything for granted.

"We'll look at every one of their votes," Trumka said after his speech at the Netroots Nation convention. "If they're against the Employee Free Choice Act, if they're against health care for that reason, I think it'll be tough for them to get support from working people."

Trumka's remarks were echoed privately by several other labor officials at the convention in Pittsburgh. In particular, the emerging Senate Finance Committee plan - which seems unlikely to contain a public option and could end up taxing pricey health care packages - seems almost guaranteed to incite the unions.

"We'll oppose it," Trumka said, when asked about any bill that ends the tax exemption for employer coverage. "It's actually a stupid concept because if you tax those that have it to pay for those that don't, eventually those that have [benefits] won't. Then who do you ultimately tax?"

Trumka's warning shots come at a time that the AFL-CIO is charting out a more aggressive campaign to target lawmakers who, as one official put it, "take labor's help but don't vote for labor's interests." Part of that process is to hold out the prospect of electoral consequences. (link)

Former Democratic Party Chairperson Howard Dean predicted electoral consequences for those who vote against a public option:

Former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean fired one of the clearest warning shots at hesitant Democratic lawmakers on Thursday, insisting that if the party was unable to produce a health care bill with a public plan, there would be electoral consequences.

"I do think there will be primaries as the result of all this, if the bill doesn't pass with a public option," Dean said, in a phone interview with the Huffington Post. (link)

Dean is probably dreaming. But let's indulge the dream for a moment and then suppose all three of these vows and predictions obtain:

House Democrats stand pat and won't pass a health care bill without a public option
Unions don't walk away from their vow to not support Democrats who will vote for health care bill without a public option
There is early indication in various states that potential primary candidates will run against Senators and Representatives if they don't support a public option

Since I am dreaming, allow me to raise the ante:

President Obama draws a line in the sand and says a public option must be a part of any bill that he signs.

If all four of the factors obtained, do you think that a public option would pass Congress? I do. I don't think that some of the blue dogs would want to be left isolated, twisting in the wind in 2010, beset by primary challengers who have union support and the tacit disfavor of the President, stigmatized with the epitaph that they killed health care reform.

All that is doable, but, then, I'm just dreaming.

Richard Korn Announces Run for Delaware State Auditor

2009-08-18T17:17:00.003-04:00

Citizen advocate Richard Korn has announced his run for Delaware State Auditor. Presumably, his opponent will be the long-time incumbent Tom Wagner. (I am not certain if Wagner has yet announced his intention to run for State Auditor again.)

In his press release, Korn writes:

Our community, state and nation are going through one of, if not the most challenging economic times in recent history. Due to a lack of oversight and foresight, greed and irresponsibility have run rampant and have nearly ruined our economy. It's no wonder so much anxiety about this economic black hole looms over the homes of our friends, neighbors and families.

NOW, MORE THAN EVER, IT'S PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT TO ENSURE THAT OUR GOVERNMENT USES OUR TAXES IN THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT WAYS POSSIBLE. It's not just a challenge, but an obligation and an opportunity for us to work together to make our government more transparent and accountable.

THE STATE AUDITOR IS YOUR WATCHDOG AGAINST FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE. I'm running for State Auditor because - as a citizen taxpayer - I've been accountable to you in the past and will continue to do so as your State Auditor. I've FOUGHT for and won accountability and transparency in New Castle County's budget. I've FOUGHT against fraud by helping pass the Delaware Workplace Fraud Act, which should bring millions of dollars to our state treasury and prevents employers from taking advantage of their employees. I've FOUGHT for the poor by helping bring over a million gallons of discounted and free heating oil to low-income families annually. Throughout OUR campaign I will be releasing plans to further my watchdog work as your State Auditor.

This should be an interesting race. The campaign website can be found here.

Is Obama Trying to Have It Both Ways on DOMA?

2009-08-17T22:17:00.002-04:00

Is President Barack Obama trying to have it both ways on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?

President Obama made clear Monday that he favors the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and intends to ask Congress to repeal the 13-year-old law that denies benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and allows states to reject same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Obama has long opposed the law, which he has called discriminatory. But his Justice Department has angered the gay community, which favored Obama by a wide margin in last year's election, by defending the law in court. The administration has said it is standard practice for the Justice Department to do so, even for laws that it does not agree with.

I want to take up later the so-called standard practice of the Justice Department defending laws it doesn't agree with. For the moment, I want readers to get the picture in focus. Although the Obama administration opposes DOMA, it is defending the law in Court.

Because the defense of the law in court has angered many civil libertarians, the Obama administration has now hit upon the strategy of stating its policy objections to DOMA in its court briefs defending DOMA:

The Justice Department did so again Monday in its response in Smelt v. United States, a case before a U.S. District Court in California. But, for the first time, the filing itself made clear that the administration "does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal."

Obama and his senior advisers have made that statement before, but never in a court brief. In addition, Obama issued a statement noting that, although his administration is again defending DOMA in court, "this brief makes clear...that my administration believes the act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress."

If the administration really believes that DOMA is discriminatory, presumably ala the 14^th amendment, then why does the Justice Department feel obliged to defend DOMA? Surely it is not the proper business of the Justice Department to defend laws it finds unconstitutional.

Unless the Obama administration holds that DOMA is discriminatory in a way that is not unconstitutional, then it seems that the Obama administration is trying to have it both ways. It's trying through policy to assuage the civil libertarians, homosexual or otherwise, that gave Obama considerable support during the election of 2008 while at the same time trying to assuage voters who support DOMA by defending it in court.

Having it both ways might be an emerging trend with the Obama administration.

It's Likely That Cocaine is on Your Dollar Bill

2009-08-17T15:35:00.001-04:00

This is a shocker. There is a 90% chance that traces of cocaine can be found on your folding money. I would have never thought the percentage would be so--not to pun--high.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com

On Sunday, the American Chemical Society, a nonprofit scientific society chartered by Congress, released a study claiming that up to 90 percent of U.S. paper money contains traces of cocaine. Of the 5 countries studied, The U.S. and Canada had the highest levels tested, with China and Japan ranking lowest, from 12 to 20 percent contamination levels.

"To my surprise, we're finding more and more cocaine in banknotes," said study leader Yuegang Zuo, Ph.D., of the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth.

"I'm not sure why we've seen this apparent increase, but it could be related to the economic downturn, with stressed people turning to cocaine," Zuo says.

Did Kathleen Sebelius Misspeak, Really?

2009-08-16T23:38:00.003-04:00

Did Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius misspeak when she said earlier today that the Obama administration was willing to drop the public option in favor health insurance co-ops? It depends on who you talk to in the administration:

An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "misspoke" when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option "is not an essential part" of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president's view, the most important element of the reform package.

But another White official said in an e-mail "that Sebelius didn't misspeak.'The media misplayed it'." That was quite a misplay since it came from Sebelius herself on national television.

Then there is the wiggle-room interpretation of Health and Human Services Secretary's words:

A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.

"Nothing has changed.," she said. "The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals."

I suppose the President could think that the public option is the "best way" to lower costs, etc, but still find co-ops an acceptable way if they make it to his desk in a final bill. It's not as though the President is saying that the public option is the only way to go.

Here the wiggling is explicit:

Appearing on Face the Nation, press secretary Robert Gibbs said that fostering competition and choice were non-negotiable, but the specific mechanism designed to do so was up for discussion. That's been interpreted as a signal that the White House is getting behind the idea of adding publicly owned health cooperatives to the menu of choices that consumers without insurance will recieve. Still, this isn't exactly a walk-back -- the White House, Gibbs included, have mused favorably about the co-ops before. (emphasis mine)

If that is not enough indication of hedging, there are the words of President Obama himself:

On Saturday, Mr. Obama defended the public plan before an audience in Colorado Springs. At the same time, he said that the government option was not the single critical element of reform, pointing instead to the provisions preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people, requiring them to offer plans to everyone, and capping premium increases.

"The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it. One aspect of it," Obama said. (emphasis mine)

It sounds as though the President is trying to have it both ways for the time being. He wants to keep the favor of the liberals and progressives while signaling to Congress and Americans afraid of the public option that he is willing to drop the public option in favor of a relatively more bi-partisan approach: viz., the co-ops. He doesn't want to take a stand.

Union Jobs Provide More Vacation Time

2009-08-16T18:25:00.002-04:00

Leave it to the marketplace and workers would get very little, if any, vacation time. In the USA there are no federal laws requiring paid vacation time, a position the USA alone occupies among industrialized nations. Union representation, however, makes a difference.

But the paid vacation act, pending in Congress, hopes to address the larger problem of mostly non-unionized workplaces. It's hardly adequate. It requires firms with 100 employees or more to provide only a week of paid vacation. But it is a start and it deserves our support.

clipped from www.epi.org

The United States has been called "the no-vacation nation."¹ In fact, it is alone among industrialized countries in having no statutory paid leave. European Union rules entitle all workers to a minimum of 20 paid days of leave per year, and many European countries do better than that.

In the United States, one out of four workers has no paid vacation or public holiday leave at all. Belonging to a union, however, is a clear advantage in this regard. The average non-unionized worker will work a lifetime and still never reach the European minimum amount of paid annual leave (see chart). A study of the entire workforce—adjusted for occupation, industry, and other factors—found that, after 25 years, union members receive 26.6% more vacation weeks than non-union workers.²

The Paid Vacation Act currently before Congress would be the first broadly applied U.S. vacation law.

It would require firms with 100 employees or more to provide a week of paid vacation

Obama Abandons Public Option

2009-08-16T15:12:00.003-04:00

Many progressives had hoped for a single-payer, universal health care system, the kind that many industrialized countries have and which have a demonstrable history of working well. But it was clear that when Obama ran for president that possibility would never materialize during his administration. The "public option" was the best one could hope for. Now Obama is ready to abandon that idea in favor of co-ops, a sort of Fanny-Med approach to public health care. Because these co-ops will be required to maintain the same financial reserves as private insurerers, the competitive advantage they will provide to private insurers will probably little better than marginal.

The upshot will be the continuation of millions of Americans without health insurance of any kind. Continued bankruptcies, the continuation of people dying from the lack of health care, etc. A slight improvement perhaps, but everything remaining much the same. The political need for Obama to declare victory usurped the health care provision needs of millions of Americans.

clipped from www.commondreams.org

Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new U.S. health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession would likely enrage his liberal supporters but could deliver Obama a much-needed win on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

The Face of Liberty Without Responsibility

2009-08-15T22:29:00.001-04:00

Some seem to believe that once the right of free speech is established, nothing else interesting and significant can be said about speech...not even the personal moral responsibility to tell the truth.

Have Delaware’s Lawmakers Gone Yellow?

2009-08-15T10:35:00.002-04:00

There is excellent reason to believe that Delaware's federal lawmakers have gone yellow. They don't plan to hold any town hall meetings during August:

Constituents hoping to speak in person to Delaware's two U.S. senators about health care reform and other legislative issues may catch them at various gatherings during their August recess.

But there's one place they won't find them: a town hall meeting.

Senator Carper explicitly linked his refusal to hold a town hall meeting to the atmosphere of many town hall meetings in recent weeks in other states:

While Democratic Sen. Tom Carper plans to travel the state and hold a telephone town hall during the August recess to discuss health care and the economy, he won't hold any traditional town hall meetings, said his spokeswoman, Bette Phelan.

"As everyone has seen on television lately, many recent town hall meetings on health care held by members of Congress have been very disruptive and unproductive," she said.

Not that our Democratic legislators are very democratic in this regard in any case:

Carper doesn't regularly hold traditional town halls, and Kaufman has never held one.

That should be a reason for shame.

Our Republican Congressperson Mike Castle holds town hall meetings, in person and telephonically, and might hold one in August. But so far his plans are:

Castle holds a monthly telephone town hall, and will continue to hold small meetings with constituents during the recess.

With all the poppycock going around about "death panels," it seems our lawmakers would be anxious to allow their constituents to air their concerns and have their questions answered. I only ask (quite selfishly) that the town hall meetings be held in the evening on nights I can attend.

Then let the kooks, cranks, crackpots, goons, red- and fascist-baiters, birthers and deathers all emerge from the woodwork. Let the gun toting heroes with their implicitly threatening signage and others with signs making explicit threats come. And let local bloggers and commenters give contorted cover to this vociferous few. I just want to be there with my video camera and laptop recording all that is sincere and noble, insane and frightening, and be part, however imperfectly and miniscule, of the clear light of day as it does it slow and patient work of sorting it all out over time. Publicity and time are agents of progress.

Lying Works

2009-08-15T02:40:00.002-04:00

Well, the end of life counseling, which would have allowed Medicare to "pay to pay doctors who counsel patients about planning for end-of-life decisions," has now been removed from the Senate health care bill.

The lies about the "death panels" worked.

clipped from www.latimes.com

A Senate panel has decided to scrap the part of its healthcare bill that in recent days has given rise to fears of government "death panels," with one lawmaker suggesting the proposal was just too confusing.

For Democrats, the decision was an apparent acknowledgment that the provision had become a lightning rod for critics of a proposed overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system. Democratic lawmakers and President Obama are trying to extend health insurance to more people, rein in health costs and make other changes.

Recently, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin speculated that Obama and other Democrats wanted to set up "death panels" to decide who gets medical services and who does not.

In reality, the provision was designed to allow Medicare to pay doctors who counsel patients about planning for end-of-life decisions. The consultations would be voluntary and would provide information about living wills, healthcare proxies, pain medication and hospice.

And Some Think Nothing Scary is Going On

2009-08-15T01:29:00.003-04:00

When you hear people suggest that frightening speech isn't going on in the USA right now, think again.

Just remember: it's a characteristic of ideological apologists of any persuasion to mitigate the extremism of their comrades, especially when that extremism represents a valid, if distant, conclusion of their ideology. Keep that in mind and all the special pleading of the ideological apologists won't seem confusing.

clipped from abcnews.go.com

The Secret Service is investigating a Maryland man who held a sign reading "Death to Obama" and "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids" outside a town hall meeting this week.

Delaware Watch

Noam Chomsky Denied Entry into Israel

Tea Party Mask Depicts Obama with a Bloody Face

Tea Party NutJobs to Form Armed Militia

Obama Administration Covering Up Reality in Honduras

Israel Won't Disclose Its Nukes: Netanyahu Won't Attend Nuclear Conference

How the New Health Reform Really Works

Man Charged with Threatening Senator Over Health Care Vote

The US is Shooting an Amazing Number of Innocent People in Afghanistan

Related articles by Zemanta

Road Rage Incident Over Obama Bumper Sticker

Bush Wipes Hand on Clinton's Shirt After Shaking Haitian's Hand

No Longer Isolated Incidents But a Disturbing Pattern from Tea Partiers

Threatening Tea Party Sign

Tea Party Sign Suggests Obama is a Terrorist

Flogging the Scientists

How Western anti-Muslim Bigotry Became Respectable

Get It, America: Obama Lowered Your Taxes!

More Republican Lying About National Security Matters

Newt Gingrich Lying in Order to Smear Obama

A Collision of Kooks in Texas

Two Faced Republicans

I Call It Demagoguery

Run! NAMBLA is at the Breach!

Don't Tell Me the Stimulus Hasn't Been Effective

Tea Bagging Candidate Crushed in Illinois Primary

Why We have a Budget Deficit

What about those Royalties?

Obama’s “Freeze” is Reactionary

State Senate Bill 81 Could Save Your Life

It’s Time to Fight

God and Guns on a Holiday

Mike Castle and the “C” Word

Pretending It’s Not Happening: Cuba Helps Haiti

Credit Card Companies Skimming Charitable Donations

Pat Robertson Blames the Victims in Haiti

Federal Reserve Makes Record Profits in 2009

Military Service Suicide Rates on the Rise

Rudy Giuliani: "We had no domestic attacks under Bush"

Public Announcement: Free Screening of “The Times of Harvey Milk”

Possible War Crimes in Sri Lanka

Quitting for the Best of Reasons

Public Announcement: Important Delaware Family Law Commission Meeting

Why I Don't Fear the 2010 Elections for Democrats

Making Delaware’s FOIA Compliance Timely

Tea Partier Sign

FOX's Brit Hume Pushes Christianity on Air

“Harsh Lessons We May Need to Learn Again”

The Three is Enough Campaign: Hypocrisy in Capitalism at Work

I’m Back

Goodbye for Now

The USA Led the World in Weapons Sales in 2008

Working and in Need of Food Stamps

Seeing Through a Glass Darkly: Our Coming Muted Glimpse into the Obama White House

Major Medical Fraud Case and the Economic Right Wing is Silent

The Republicans Want to End Medicare

Recalculating the USA’s Poverty Rate

The Little Guy is Violated and the Economic Right Wing is Silent

It's Coming Soon

Cash for Clunkers: A Stellar Success

Ted Kennedy is Dead

Limbaugh: American Penises Endangered by Obama

Losing Expensively: Delaware’s Awful Day in Court

Leon Panetta Should Be Fired

Rand Paul: A Chip Off the Same Lunatic Block

The Torturers Were Not Prosecuted

Mock Executions and Power Drills

An Idiot Rich Man

Anonymous Blogger Unmasked by Court

That's Telling Them, Barney

House Democrats and Unions Revolt Over Public Option

Richard Korn Announces Run for Delaware State Auditor

Is Obama Trying to Have It Both Ways on DOMA?

It's Likely That Cocaine is on Your Dollar Bill

Did Kathleen Sebelius Misspeak, Really?

Union Jobs Provide More Vacation Time

Obama Abandons Public Option

The Face of Liberty Without Responsibility

Have Delaware’s Lawmakers Gone Yellow?

Lying Works