White House Points on Health Care Reform

The White House has put out the following series of three 8-point summaries of 1) why health care reform provides security and stability for all; 2) myths about health care reform; and (3) reasons we need health care reform now. These are offered specifically to dispel the large amount of deliberate disinformation and propaganda being disseminated by insurance industry and Right Wing lobbies, media outlets, commentators and political organizations, who have organized and/or promoted "shoutdowns" in an attempt to stifle and shut down reasoned debate on this issue. It's one thing to have civil disagreements and policy differences. It's quite another to use scare tactics, deliberate lies, and intimidation to try to shut down debate.

PLEASE READ. This is a crucial issue for the future of our country. Thank you.


8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

8 common myths about health insurance reform

1. Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
2. We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
3. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
4. Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
5. Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
7. You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

1. Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
2. Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
3. Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
4. Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
5. Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
6. The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
7. Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
8. The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

Public Health Care -- an Anecdotal Account

There's a common belief among Americans, which I believe is almost entirely the result of deliberate disinformational propaganda, that in countries which have universal, fair public health care, such as the UK, Taiwan, South Korea, Canada, Japan, France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, etc.,* people resent the public systems and receive unreasonably rationed, substandard care. (This bad reputation is most often attached to the UK's National Health Service, probably because there is a segment of society (some rich people) in the UK that opts for private medical care). Anecdotal evidence must always be discounted, but this account, published in TPM today, certainly shows that the automatic assumption that "public" health care automatically means "lousy" health care should not be taken for granted:

I am an middle aged, white male American who lives in the UK working for a medium sized US company. The following is a true story about my many years experience of the NHS (National Health Service) in the UK, only the names have been changed to protect the identity of my family.

I live with my wife and son just outside of London. When our son Leo was due to be born, like virtually every family in the UK (rich or poor), we went to our local NHS hospital for the delivery. An unpredictable chain of events resulted in unforeseeable complications during his birth. Leo was born in very poor health and was immediately transferred to a SCBU (Special Care Birth Unit) in another hospital. Because of the severity of Leo's condition we were transferred to the most advanced SCBU in the region.

Leo spent the next three weeks in the SCBU being cared for 24/7 by highly trained nursing staff using the latest technology and a team was formed with about a dozen specialists from around the country working together to ensure Leo's many complex problems were dealt with using the best medical knowledge available. As parents we stayed with Leo in the parents residence just down the hall from the SCBU. Our room was basic, but it had cable TV and we got clean bedding and towels as well as three meals a day for three weeks. How much did all of this cost? I will never know because as a UK resident and taxpayer it was provided as a public service. By the time Leo was three months old it was obvious he was experiencing many very difficult problems. Leo was referred to one of the top specialists in Europe, a professor consultant in neonatal neurology. The professor determined Leo needed a MRI scan, but because of Leo's small size and constant abnormal movement, no existing scanner could safely be used. It was decided the newest and fastest scanner in the country would be modified to accommodate Leo's situation. When we arrived for the scan we were greeted not only by the professor and her team but by a team of technicians and scientists from the manufacturer. The MRI magnets were partially dismantled and recalibrated and a frame for Leo was built on the spot so he could safely undergo the scanning procedure. How much did all of this cost? I will never know because as a UK resident and taxpayer it was provided as a public service. The scan showed that Leo had received a profound brain injury before birth. He had many different tests to determine the extent of his disabilities including EEG, X-ray, video fluoroscopy, endoscopy, sight tests, hearing tests, and others. Leo was referred to eight different specialists to deal with his problems and underwent surgery to implant a portal in his stomach so he can be fed directly by tube, without danger of food being "swallowed" into his lungs. Leo's dietary requirements are very special and all food, as well as the daily feeding kits and the pump needed to deliver the feed are provided by the NHS. Leo is on about a dozen different medications and all meds, syringes and other daily disposable equipment are provided by the NHS. Leo has a wheelchair, sitting frame, standing frame, sleep system, leg and hand splints and other equipment, all designed for him and all replaced or adjusted every few months because he is a growing boy. All equipment as well as the technicians who maintain the equipment are provided by the NHS. How much does all of this cost? I will never know because as a UK resident and taxpayer it was provided as a public service. Is the NHS perfect? Far from it! Can it be more bureaucratic and slower than I would like at times? Of course! Has there ever been an issue about Leo not receiving care because he is profoundly disabled? Never! Have we ever had to stand before a "Death Panel" and justify the vast ongoing expense of Leo's care, even though he will never be a productive member of society? NO! When surveys ask people what is the single thing they are proudest about the UK, the winner is The National Health Service.

.....................
* There are so many... in the developed world, other than here, health care is generally considered a right.
.....................
Of course, what the NHS is is universal public service health care, which according to the right-wing framing we all blithely accept, is misleadingly called "single payer" in this country. We're so benighted with right wing propaganda in this country that (almost) no one in public life is even proposing such a system. Yet the unsatisfactory compromise with the health care denial and profiteering industry (inaccurately referred to as "insurance") being proposed is being labeled as "socialism," "fascism," etc. etc., and the outrageous antics of the far right are actually being acknowledged as politically effective, as in likely to result in still more watering down of reform.

Sometimes it's just unbelievable to me what our country has come to.

My Letter to President Obama on Health Care today

Dear President Obama,

I am writing to strongly urge you to become much more proactive in the program to achieve serious and meaningful health care reform. This was a keystone of your campaign to become president, and will, if successful, become a major element of your legacy. But there are well-organized and surprisingly effective forces on the right arrayed against this effort, and I fear that they are having much more effect than their relatively small numbers — in terms of public support — would indicate. I refer, of course, to the right-wing interest group funded “Astroturf shoutdowns” which are drawing far more media attention than is justified. I also have serious concerns that your legislative program is not effective enough in making clear to members of Congress that the bill must include a meaningful public program.

Part of the problem is framing the issue and communicating with the public. I understand you have read and been influenced to some extent by George Lakoff, who has discussed the importance of not accepting the right-wing framing. We must avoid terms like “public option” and “single payer” and use words like “fair health care for all” and “meaningful competition.” I urge you to use the bully pulpit, as often as necessary, with your very considerable communication skills at their fullest, to explain to the American people exactly what is at stake. Ask for their support. Ask them to demand support for your bill. And communicate to Congressional leaders exactly what the bill must contain.

Rahm Emmanuel is way off base condemning progressives for resisting attempts by so-called “Blue Dogs” to sell out to the Republicans. We need to make it clear that this is a critical issue, and we will pass this bill without Republican support if necessary— which it will be. Reconciliation should remain an option. But first, you need to stand firm. You need to be willing to say to the American people that the time is now, this opportunity cannot be allowed to slip away, and you will not sign a bill that does not contain meaningful reform, including a robust and effective public plan to ensure affordable health care for all.

Please, Mr. President. This is a crucial issue. It’s the reason many of us contributed more of our hard-earned money and time than we could comfortably afford to elect you. You simply cannot let us down on this.

Jack Vance

The New York Times Magazine has published a lovely piece on Jack Vance, who is publishing a short autobiography this summer, at 92. If you don't know Vance, you ought to give him a try.

Gazpacho Andaluz

Its being summer, here's a modification of a traditional Andalusian recipe found in Foods and Wines of Spain by Penelope Casas. (The original has no pear or olive oil; I find both add something). It's fresh and simple, without unnecessary heavy ingredients found in some other gazpachos like breadcrumbs, mayonnaise or eggs.

Gazpacho Andaluz

1½ lbs very ripe fresh tomatoes (Don't use supermarket tomatoes; if you don't have garden tomatoes, use canned, at least they're ripe)
1 medium green pepper (or equivalent of sweet hungarian peppers, or mix of both)
1 medium sweet onion (e.g. Maui or Vidalia)
1 cucumber
4 tbs red wine vinegar
1 tsp (+) fresh shredded tarragon (or use whatever you have; such as basil or even mint)
1 small can pear halves in juice, with juice (not syrup) (or use fresh, peeled pear, cut in pieces; add a little sugar)
1-2 cloves garlic
1 cup tomato juice, or ice water (use juice if tomatoes less ripe or flavorful; I usually use juice).
2 tbs. extra virgin olive oil
Sea Salt

Diced cucumber, tomatoes, onions, and croutons for garnish (optional)

Cook the bell pepper, garlic and onion (separately) very briefly, whole, in microwave, if desired. (Makes them sweeter). Cool them in cold water. Peel cucumber and chop coarsely. Rinse tomatoes, and chop coarsely. Peel and coarsely chop onions. Seed and coarsely chop the pepper. Place all ingredients (except garnish) in blender, in batches, blending thoroughly. Force mixture through through sieve into large bowl or pitcher. (I use a flat bottomed plastic strainer, and force the mixture through it with a silicon spatula). Add salt to taste, and chill the entire mixture for at least two hours, preferably longer; use a little ice in place of ice water if it needs to chill quickly. Salt to taste. You can also add other seasoning if desired.

Gazpacho improves if left overnight before serving, and keeps several days in the refrigerator.

Serve with garnish, if desired. Serves 6.

I've found this recipe can be doubled, tripled, or even quadrupled with no ill effect.

Conway Morris on Evolution, science and religion

I've been reading The Crucible of Creation (about the Burgess Shale, but also about evolutionary principles) and Life's Solutions, Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe by Simon Conway Morris, whom I've mentioned before here. Some of his ideas were conventional wisdom 50 or even 100 years ago and only more recently heterodox, others are more original and based on his insights from a profound study of ancient life. I find his views compelling. Of course, as a Buddhist, my view of the spiritual implications of what he talks about is somewhat different from his, although not as much as you might think. Here's a summary from Wikipedia, which seems reasonably accurate based on what I've read of him so far [notes omitted]:

...[Conway Morris] is an increasingly active participant in discussions relating to science and religion. He is active in the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion and has lectured there on "Evolution and fine-tuning in Biology". He gave the University of Edinburgh's prestigious Gifford Lectures for 2007 in a series titled "Darwin's Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Song of Creation". In these lectures he suggests that:

• Evolution shows an eerie predictability, leading to the direct contradiction of the widely-held view that insists on evolution being governed by the contingencies of circumstance
• Eyes are not the only example of repeated evolutionary convergence on the same solution. There is evidence for fundamental equivalences of sensory perception and the implication that deeper in the nervous system there is only one mentality. Minds may be not only universal, but also the same.
• Evolutionary convergence can give us some very strong hints as to how any aliens will sense their environment, how they will move, how they will evolve agriculture, and intelligence.
• Humans have passed a threshold that means we now transcend our animal origins. But birds, whales and humans all converge in song, and far from being the pinnacle of Creation we may be mere juveniles.
• The regularities of the physical world, strongly indicate that there must be universal principles of mind. The evidence from evolutionary convergence, not least in terms of intelligence and music, is that the trajectories towards consciousness are embedded in a universe that in some ways is strangely familiar, where personal knowledge (to use Polanyi’s phrase) is valid.
• Any attempt to explain, entirely in naturalistic terms, the fact that universe can now understand itself seems doomed to failure. Not only is the Creation open-ended and endlessly fertile, suggesting that in the future science itself faces an infinity of understandings, but so too there is good evidence of realities orthogonal to every-day experiences. Rather than trudging across the arid landscapes skimpily sketched by the materialists, we need to accept the invitation and accompany the Artist that brought Creation into being.

He is a strong critic of materialism and of reductionism:

That satisfactory definitions of life elude us may be one hint that when materialists step forward and declare with a brisk slap of the hands that this is it, we should be deeply skeptical. Whether the “it” be that of Richard Dawkins’ reductionist gene-centred worldpicture, the “universal acid” of Daniel Dennett’s meaningless Darwinism, or David Sloan Wilson’s faith in group selection (not least to explain the role of human religions), we certainly need to acknowledge each provides insights but as total explanations of what we see around us they are, to put it politely, somewhat incomplete.

and of: "the scientist who boomingly — and they always boom — declares that those who believe in the Deity are unavoidably crazy, “cracked” as my dear father would have said, although I should add that I have every reason to believe he was — and now hope is — on the side of the angels."

I hope Feinstein runs for governor

It's rumored that Dianne Feinstein is considering leaving the Senate and running for Governor. I hope she does. It'll be pretty easy, I think, to replace her in the Senate with a real Democrat, and I look forward to her sound defeat in the Democratic primary when she tries to run for Governor. Maybe I'm engaging in wishful thinking, but I'd dearly love to see her retreat into private life. As far as I'm concerned, she should not be considered a Democrat in any meaningful sense of the word.

How & Why the Claim of Opponents to «Public Option» that it's Anti-Competitive is an OUTRIGHT LIE

see this. People who claim to be in favor of competition and private enterprise should support a plan that prevents monopolies. If they don't, their hypocrisy is showing.

Pyrrhic Victory -- Clean Energy Bill

Not merely, I fear, because it kowtows to the phony (and oxymoronic) "Clean Coal" lobby, but because its margin of victory was so frightfully narrow, I fear that the Clean Energy Bill that just passed the House is a pyrrhic victory for environmentalists. The prospects for the bill surviving as anything like meaningful environmental reform in the Senate are bleak. This would be really terrible news: cause for national mourning, if we only would wake up and realize what's really going on in this world. PLEASE write your Senators and ask them to support this legislation, including any amendments to make it stronger.

My e-mail to Dianne Feinstein

Dear Ms. Feinstein:

I find it very troubling, as a Californian, when a large majority of my fellow Californians favor more robust health care reform than is even being proposed by the Obama administration, for you to be dismissive of the efforts of some these constituents to communicate this to you. After all, although you seem to forget it, you ARE SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, not whatever special interests are pressing the regressive views you seem to be representing.

Ms. Feinstein, Californians will settle for NOTHING LESS than a robust so-called "public option." I for one will NEVER vote for any Democrat who fails to support this, AT A MINIMUM.

I have been disappointed with your failure to represent even the Center of our party before, particularly on surveillance and civil liberties, but this issue is bread and butter and absolutely crucial to the lives of millions of your constituents, and your failure to support robust health care reform, if it comes to that, will be the final straw.

Random Thought

When is gmail gonna stop being "Beta"? Seems like it's been in beta since forever.

Health Care Cost Conundrum, New Yorker Must-Read

Here.

Will Admits 'Public Option' is cheaper and out-competes for-profit insurers

Nate Silver, who apparently doesn't favor so-called "Single Payer" health insurance (as I do), nonetheless has a very good piece entitled George F. Will Admits Public Option Will Cut Costs. Silver believes in profit motive and private enterprise, but he recognizes that there are exceptions, and this is one of them.

As an aside, George Lakoff, who has done important work in cognitive science and linguistics, and their interface with politics, is very critical of Democrats in their inability to marshal current thinking on communication to effectively frame their issues and craft language effectively to deliver the message. Such terms as "single payer" and "public option" are very poor at communicating the effective moral message. Single Payer should be Low Cost Doctor/Patient Health System, or something like that, and Public Option, which is already an unsatisfactory compromise, should be Guaranteed Low Cost Health Care Option. By using the terms currently in use, Democrats are buying into the false characterization by the right that universal health care is "creeping socialism" or "government making choices for you." In fact, the opposite is true, of course, government isn't in the business of denying people health care, private insurers are. We should characterize private insurance as an Illness Profiteering and Risky Patient Care Avoidance Scheme, since that's what it is.

My letter to the White House

I still count myself an Obama supporter, but I sent this to make it clear that we progressives among his supporters are RESTLESS.

I was very disappointed when the President failed to stand up to the banks on cramdown by bankruptcy judges on first home mortgages. Sen. Durbin was right, "the banks own the place."

Now, the socalled financial reform package is here, and it's clearly insufficient. There should have been more consolidation, more control of derivatives, more clear negative consequences for overleveraging.

But, in any case, the President must make absolutely clear to the Congress that this is absolutely the minimum that will be acceptable. The compromises have already been made. No more concessions to Wall Street: pass this and expect more reform later on, not less.

The President's numbers on handling the economy are slipping, and it's because he's been TOO accommodating. Messrs. Summers and Geithner clearly have the wrong mindset. We need a serious new Pecora style commission, a reinstatement of Glass Steagall and widening of its scope to include hedge funds and investment banks, and an overall scheme that really will prevent the kind of deemphasis on a production economy and overemphasis on speculation by the financial sector that very nearly caused the collapse of the entire World economy in the last year.

Mr. Obama must be MORE BOLD, more reform-minded, and more determined to use and even grow his political capital to live up to his promise of real change, because the way things are going, the perception is already dawning that there is to be little in the way of change at all, and that in fact Obama is just more of the same kowtowing to the money elite.

Ugly Double Standard on "War" funding

On news that only five Republicans voted for the "War Funding" bill in the House, one is aghast. Democrats have always run in sheer terror for the voting buttons and voted "YES" with alacrity on this kind of bill, for fear of being branded as "not supporting the troops," or "soft on defense" (or, more lately, "soft on national security"). Republicans get a free pass, and can vote or not vote and no one says peep. Why is it that if a Democrat, regardless of the validity or gravity of his concerns, is automatically a pinko pacifist if he doesn't vote for the most ill-considered military appropriations, but Republicans can cast a 'no' vote on the basic funding for a war their party started and for which it has crowed its support without surcease, for the most blatantly partisan reasons, and no one in the Mainstream Media says one single word of criticism.

Coleman effectively admits his legal strategy is purely political

Really quite remarkable that Norm Coleman would give a speech to fellow Republicans, effectively admitting (applying only inferences from what is directly implicit in what he said)....that his legal gambit has nothing to do with who won the election legitimately, but is entirely about the politics of abusing the legal system to deny the legitimate winner his seat in the Senate as long as possible for partisan ends.

Norm Coleman: admitted amoral asshole. What a surprise.

Juan Cole comments on Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and Iranian nuclear program

The respected scholar Juan Cole (Informed Comment blog) points out that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty gives any signatory country, including Iran, the right to enrich uranium for use in civilian nuclear power (which is their claimed use). So the attempt by the Bush administration to define enrichment of uranium as a proscribed activity was viewed elsewhere in the World as preposterous. Sen. Kerry, virtually alone among politicians, recently acknowledged this.

We live in dangerous times, but if we don't respect our treaty obligations, no one else will.

Another Example of Lunatic Right Wing Threat

Unfortunately, the hideous Von Brunn/Attack on the Washington DC Holocaust Museum today reinforces my view that we have more to worry in the near future from Lunatic Right Wing Terrorism than from Islamic Extremists.

Josh Marshall on Why Israel must give up West Bank occupation

Josh Marshall has very coherent, and I think correct, reasons why it is in Israel's best interests to negotiate for a two state solution, meaning withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza.

Israeli Admiral on Obama Cairo Speech; Two State Solution

Admiral Alayon: Two state solution is only viable option; plus comments on Obama speech and current American stance in region.

Right Wingers push Boycott of G.M.

Sick and Twisted.

WTF? on public option

From the Times:

But critics argue that with low administrative costs and no need to produce profits, a public plan will start with an unfair pricing advantage. They say that if a public plan is allowed to pay doctors and hospitals at levels comparable to Medicare's, which are substantially below commercial insurance rates, it could set premiums so low it would quickly consume the market.

WTF!!?? When in hell did anyone ever mandate that health care should be on a profit basis? Or that private insurance should be protected by public policy from administrative inefficiency?? Unbelievable. If for profit health insurance can't compete with nonprofit, including public nonprofit, health insurance, it deserves to die. It's good old fashioned American competition. For crying out loud!

It's clear to everyone with any realism at all in this debate that we have to find ways to disincentivize the profit motive in medicine. The needs of patients must come first, last, and always, with profit not a consideration at all. (Profit, as opposed to financial viability; these are not the same thing). Patient first means appropriate care, not necessarily the most care or the most expensive care (usually not, in fact, see this in The New Yorker).

50 Maxims · A bit of American Folk Wisdom from Regina Brett

This is a version of a "Life's Lessons" chain mail that's been circulating the internet for several years (there are quite a few of these). This one originated from Columnist Regina Brett in the Plain Dealer. The last five were added in a 2006 reprint of an earlier column. Normally, these things strike me as pretty silly, but this list actually contains a good deal of wisdom, it seems to me.

Sunday May 28, 2006

To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me.

It is the most-requested column I've ever written. My odometer rolls over to 50 this week, so here's an update:

1. Life isn't fair, but it's still good.

2. When in doubt, just take the next small step.

3. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone.

4. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.

5. Pay off your credit cards every month.

6. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.

7. Cry with someone. It's more healing than crying alone.

8. It's OK to get angry with God. He can take it.

9. Save for retirement starting with your first paycheck.

10. When it comes to chocolate, resistance is futile.

11. Make peace with your past so it won't screw up the present.

12. It's OK to let your children see you cry.

13. Don't compare your life to others'. You have no idea what their journey is all about.

14. If a relationship has to be a secret, you shouldn't be in it.

15. Everything can change in the blink of an eye. But don't worry; God never blinks.

16. Life is too short for long pity parties. Get busy living, or get busy dying.

17. You can get through anything if you stay put in today.

18. A writer writes. If you want to be a writer, write.

19. It's never too late to have a happy childhood. But the second one is up to you and no one else.

20. When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no for an answer.

21. Burn the candles, use the nice sheets, wear the fancy lingerie. Don't save it for a special occasion. Today is special.

22. Overprepare, then go with the flow.

23. Be eccentric now. Don't wait for old age to wear purple.

24. The most important sex organ is the brain.

25. No one is in charge of your happiness except you.

26. Frame every so-called disaster with these words: "In five years, will this matter?"

27. Always choose life.

28. Forgive everyone everything.

29. What other people think of you is none of your business.

30. Time heals almost everything. Give time time.

31. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.

32. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends will. Stay in touch.

33. Believe in miracles.

34. God loves you because of who God is, not because of anything you did or didn't do.

35. Whatever doesn't kill you really does make you stronger.

36. Growing old beats the alternative - dying young.

37. Your children get only one childhood. Make it memorable.

38. Read the Psalms. They cover every human emotion.

39. Get outside every day. Miracles are waiting everywhere.

40. If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back.

41. Don't audit life. Show up and make the most of it now.

42. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.

43. All that truly matters in the end is that you loved.

44. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.

45. The best is yet to come.

46. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.

47. Take a deep breath. It calms the mind.

48. If you don't ask, you don't get.

49. Yield.

50. Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift.

Settlers and Settlements: not necessarily the thorniest issues for Two State Peace Deal?

This report on polling in Israel is a bit of a mixed bag, but it does show, insofar as it may be trusted (a ?), that the Israeli public is hardly monolithic in support of settlers and settlements, and that, in fact, they would even grudgingly accept evacuation, which no one other than the Palestinians is advocating.

This makes me think that the settlement issue, while thorny, is not necessarily completely intractable. Plus, I believe the right of return is a total nonstarter for the Palestinians, and that, although they won't admit it, they are prepared to ultimately (literally, maybe, as the last thing), concede this issue. So, both with Syria and with the Palestinians, that, it seems to me, leaves the resource allocation (esp. water) and status of East Jerusalem as the biggest problem issues before a two state solution can be formalized.

UPDATE [5 Jun]
Joe Klein pretty much eviscerates Krauthammer's Pro-Likud rant on the settlement issue. I'm not always a total fan of Klein, but I agree with him here.

UPDATE II [5 Jun]
This [from American Prospect] is a liberal Israeli correspondent's explanation of why the "natural growth" argument is a dodge, and in fact settlements have always been illegal. (Violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention on obligations of an occupying power). I think there will inevitably be some accommodation of some settlements, especially near Jerusalem, but definitely there is going to have to be a cessation of any new ones, and probably at least dismantling of "outposts," as part of any deal.

UPDATE III [5 Jun]
M. J. Rosenberg is worth reading too.

Right Wing Terrorism -- An Idea in the Air

People who really understand what's going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan all say that it is important not to conflate the Taliban and Al Qaida. Furthermore, Al Qaida is reduced to about 200 people, who have no real organizational ability or ability to marshal resources for major terror attacks in the West. Islamic terrorists are likely to be self-organized and incapable of mass destruction attacks or well-coordinated attacks such as 9/11.

But what is in the air, perhaps signaled by the Tiller murder Sunday, is the prospect of a big uptick in domestic ultra right wing terrorism. If I were a better, I'd venture that another Oklahoma City in the next few years is considerably more likely than another 9/11.

I hope the FBI is ahead of the curve this time and takes this potential threat very, very seriously.

Liddy and Limbaugh on Sotomayor: just disgusting

Right wing commentators, Rush Limbaugh and convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy, have both descended to such disgusting and despicable characterizations of Appellate Justice Sotomayor as to be virtually unprintable. Both these dreadful men are so totally unprofessional that no reputable media organization would employ them, which speaks volumes about their employers.

Cal. Supremes uphold Regressive Prop. 8

I haven't read the opinion, but I'm disappointed that the Supreme Court of California today upheld the hideously regressive Proposition 8.

I will say that Same Sex Marriage has never been an issue that I'm particularly passionate about, as I think a better approach would be to remove from legal sanction all marriage, which should be thought of as an essentially ritual or religious matter not subject to government regulation. This is as opposed to civil union, both heterosexual and otherwise (including any kind of arrangements people care to make, in any numbers), which should be subject to legal strictures to assure equity and fairness, especially with regard to the custody and care for any children involved. Maybe it's the closet libertarian in me.

Or... maybe not, because it occurs to me that if you removed the legal sanction of marriage from the picture, that would open the door to requiring or deeming effective civil union (i.e. "common law"), if children are involved; or requiring that there be legal civil union and/or an explicit contract if anyone is to have legal rights to claim joint property or income (including so-called 'palimony.') A bit of enforced responsibility and accountability, anyone?

Meantime, we're stuck with the current awful and obviously inequitable situation, just made worse by our State Supreme Court.

Yoo attacks Sotomayor -- Just unbelievable!

I think it takes unbelievable chutzpah for John Yoo, writing on the American Enterprise Institute Blog, to attack Judge Sotomayor on the grounds of alleged lack of legal excellence. John Yoo, who tore the law to shreds in defense of an indefensible torture policy at the behest of the likes of Cheney and his evil minion, David Addington! Unbelievable. No wonder former Colin Powell aide Larry Wilkerson says it's common parlance in the military to refer to AEI as the "Gestapo."

To spell it out, Yoo is a disgrace to the legal profession for his improper justification of the illegal in his Torture Memos. Which is what I said to him an e-mail in response to this piece of dreck.

Beet and Cucmber salad

This is pretty good, I think, even if I do say so myself. (OK, not earth-shakingly original, but I happen to have a lot of beets in our kitchen garden, so this is one thing I came up with to do with them). You could make this with canned shredded or sliced beets, but these aren't nearly as good as fresh ones. I made this multiplied by about four for a fairly large group and it worked fine.

• 2 beets, cooked to just tender, cooled till you can handle them, then peeled, and diced coarsely into elongated pieces (beet skins just slide off; takes about 20 to 25 min. to cook them, or a little less if they're small. Cook them whole, with tops just torn off and root at bottom left on, so as not to loose too much of the juices to the water; discard the inedible parts, obviously).
  
• 1/4 sweet onion, sliced thin, and then the slices quartered to give "salad shreds"
• 1 cucumber, peeled, cut in half, seeded, and sliced thin but not too thin.
• A little olive oil
• About 1/4 cup wine or rice vinegar, in which a couple of cloves of minced garlic have been heated in a glass measuring cup (cover with paper towel), in a microwave to not quite boiling, then left to cool to just warm or room temp.
  
• A few teaspoons of sugar
• salt

Place cooled beets in a bowl, sprinkle fairly generously with olive oil and some of the garlic vinegar.
Put onions and sliced cucumbers in a wire colander over another bowl, salt well and mix gently, let stand 30 min., discard liquid that drips out. Put cucumbers in bowl, add sugar and a little more vinegar, stir gently.
Chill an hour or so, then put cucumbers in with beets and stir, just before serving (the beets will dye everything red pretty quickly)

Feinstein to Obama: Preventive Detention Unconstitutional

I have to admit to a certain cognitive dissonance at Dianne Feinstein lecturing Pres. Obama on Constitutional Excesses of Presidential Power (See this), but the reality is , she's right.

Dialog on Health Care Reform

This may possibly be of interest to some in the vast throng of Gyromantic followers. A friend has an unusual philosophy, one I can't quite make out, which seems to have some elements you might term environmental minimalism and some elements that are almost libertarian. Just goes to show that you can't always categorize human thinking. Anyway, on the subject of health care reform, in response to my plea for support for the President's efforts to get something done this year, he wrote back to me:

There should be a significant incentive / reward for people who take care of their bodies and eat well. There should be a significant consequence for those who fail to care for their bodies and who eat all the wrong stuff. There should be pretty tight limits on what kinds of health care are supplied for free. (Broken bones, lacerations, infections, hearing aids, eyeglasses, day to to day stuff should all be covered. No transplants. No joint replacements.) There should be an excellent hospice care program.

To which I replied that we'd have to agree, in significant measure, to disagree:

I certainly agree, as do most thoughtful people, that our health system should be reoriented to emphasize prevention. But you can't punish people for bad habits by denying them health care; and saying they'll have to pay for it is denying it, because the poor we always have with us, and it's often they who are the least healthy. Punitive policy doesn't work, and isn't even a worthy goal. And health care should not be unduly restrictive by proscription. Medical artisans should be free to practice their art, without too much undue restriction, and within reasonable limits. Health care is simply something the burden for which must be shared if we are going to be a decent and humane society. I think Elizabeth Edwards's comments in this area are a model of clarity and wisdom.

Unneeded testing is an area where significant reductions can be made, and I agree people shouldn't receive purely elective things like cosmetic surgery (mostly they already don't), but otherwise, I think the Canadian, French, German, Japanese models should be the norms we strive for. What you describe, it seems to me, is puritanical and extreme. Transplants and joint replacements have become part of normal first world medicine everywhere in the world, even in countries like Thailand and India. To pretend otherwise is unrealistic, in my opinion. Ask yourself, if you were down and out, and needed a kidney transplant, and the hospital said, no, National Health Insurance doesn't pay for that, would you think that fair? Maybe so, but I wouldn't and don't.

Interesting you mention eyeglasses and hearing aids, which are virtually never covered by today's forms of health insurance. I agree they should be, (again, perhaps, subject to a necessity and "reasonable basic" limit), but your priorities seem a little odd to me. Long term and hospice care, too, are virtually never covered, but need to be. All of these things, (incluidng long term care), incidentally, are covered, and have been for over a quarter century, by the health care system of Taiwan. We like to pretend we're the richest country on Earth, but in many key and meaningful respects, it just ain't so.

Perhaps fancy rich people medicine could be taxed to help pay for ordinary peoples' necessary care.

Who in Congress Knew What When about Torture adds up to a mere Distraction

All this nonsense about who in Congress was told what when about torture is a distraction to the far more critical questions of who is responsible for leading our country into a criminal conspiracy to commit torture. I mean this quite literally: it is obvious that it's an intentional distraction, designed to create a false equivalency between policymakers in the former administration who actually created and promulgated an illegal policy of torture, and those in Congress who may have misinterpreted their duty to keep intelligence secret to mean they couldn't, or shouldn't, go public when some facts, to what extent remaining unclear, became known to them. Even if it were entirely true (which is dubious) that some in Congress knew, for example, that waterboarding was being conducted, but said nothing, focusing on that while doing nothing about the actual torture policymakers is like prosecuting a murderer's girlfriend because she knew about the crime while letting the murderer go free. I can see no conceptual difference.

When some are saying we shouldn't even investigate this issue because of so many pressing matters facing our country, it is doubly ludicrous for these same people to be focusing instead on this side-issue. I'm not justifying looking the other way in the face of information that should have led the likes of Jane Harmon, Jay Rockefeller, and Nancy Pelosi to cry foul (if in fact that's true, which is very doubtful). But such conduct, even if true, pales in comparison to the actual foul. That's just common sense, a commodity in very short supply these days in Washington.

In any case, it is now clear that the CIA's memos supposedly documenting what these Congressional leaders were briefed, are fogeries. One tell-tale: the use of the acronym "EIT" for enhanced interrogation techniques, a term not used in 2002-2003 when these records supposedly originated.

This nonsense must stop. We need to investigate the existing credible evidence of the widespread practice of torture by U.S. State actors in the period 2001-2004, because it damaged our country, is a very, very serious crime under our law, is an International War Crime and treaty violation, and because it clearly made our country less safe, not moreso. I have already argued at length for why this is a very grave matter that simply cannot be swept under the rug. The truth will out, if not now, then later. The longer we wait the more damage this terrible crime will have done to our nation. Those actually responsible for this must be identified, and what happened revealed, so that this monstrous criminal conspiracy is never repeated. That some in Congress knew some things and didn't tell, while a part of the story, is a small distraction compared to the bigger picture. Which must be kept in focus.

Credit Card Bottom Lines

The NYT:

Credit cards have long been a very good deal for people who pay their bills on time and in full. Even as card companies imposed punitive fees and penalties on those late with their payments, the best customers racked up cash-back rewards, frequent-flier miles and other perks in recent years.

Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers, who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit.

Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups.

I'm one of those people. And here's my message to the banks. If you cut back on cash back rewards and such, it'll only mean there will be no particular reason to choose your card over someone else's. If you charge annual fees or interest from Day 1, I tear up your card. Period. So better rethink that, because I'm not alone.

My answer to a request for comment on Soka Gakkai

A friend who had been introduced to Soka Gakkai here in L.A. asked me to comment on it, as someone with some familiarity with Buddhism in general. I thought my answer might be of interest to others. Comments and critique welcome.

I will give you a response, and if you want to ask about anything further, feel free. I don't pretend to be an expert in any of this, but this is what I know.

Japanese Buddhism (other than Zen) is primarily of the Pure Land variety, which holds that enlightenment is virtually impossible for human beings to achieve, even with Buddha's help, in this world, and so the only useful practice is to make devotions and requests of the Supreme Buddha, whom they call Amida (in Sanskrit, Amitabha, and in another aspect, Amitayus). Sokagakkai aka Nichiren Shoshu is a school of this Pure Land Buddhism, founded in 1222 by Nichiren Daishonin. The other main branch is Shinran, which is similar, but perhaps a little less aggressive in its recruitment and less single minded in its insistence on a particular form of mantra recitation. Shinran seems to be mostly practiced by the Nissei and Sansei communities, with relatively few Western adherents in the U.S. Nichiren Shoshu (SGI) [http://www.sgi-usa.org/ ] promotes the mantra meditation (recitation) of repeating the Amida mantra nam myoho renge kyo.

Fo Guang Shan, and similar schools in Taiwan, are also Pure Land, they have a beautiful temple in Hacienda Heights, Hsi Lai, which I recommend you visit just for the beauty and blessing of seeing thousands of Buddhas. http://www.hsilai.org/en/index.htm . It's the largest Buddhist Temple in the Western Hemisphere, built in the traditional Chinese style.

To my mind, Pure Land is like Buddhist Lutheranism, salvation through faith alone. By trusting in Amida's promise that if you make sincere requests of him, he will use the all but (not quite) unlimited power of his compassion and wisdom to carry you to a Pure Land at death, where enlightenment is not only possible but certain (although it may take a long time of living in a blissful paradise to achieve).

Having said that, I have no criticism of this practice. Buddhists all promote the four immeasurable qualities of compassion, lovingkindness, sympathetic joy and equanimity, and all believe in the pillars of our founder Shakyamuni's doctrine, the Four Noble Truths: (1) the cycle of birth and death is has the essential nature of suffering; (2) The origin of suffering is delusion, all deriving from the root delusion, self-grasping ignorance; (3) The complete cessation of suffering (and of the cycle of birth and death), enlightenment, is possible; (4) the means of attaining the cessation of suffering is the path, which leads to direct realization of the truth, comprised of following the teachings of the Buddha. Anyone who sincerely tries to practice almost any form of this system will work for world peace, compassion, kindness, and respect for others. What can be said against any of that?

My personal orientation is towards a more activist form of Buddhism, deriving from the Tibetan Kadampa (also called Gelug) tradition founded by "the second Buddha" Atisha and consolidated and promulgated as a complete quick path by Losang Dragpa (usually referred to as Je Tsongkhapa) (1357-1419). I hang around the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT), founded by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, who will soon be retiring as its spiritual director. Tibetan Buddhism uses not only the so-called Sutra teachings, which are the basis of all Buddhist schools, but also secret mantra, also called tantra, which involves using the power of imagination to become like Buddha, and eventually to become enlightened yourself.

Like all religions, there are unfortunately many controversies and factionalisms in Buddhism, not excepting our school, which has a regrettable and rather bitter schism with the Gelug followers of the Dalai Lama. I refuse to get exercised about that, only praying that everyone will come to see the virtue and necessity of mutual respect and tolerance in time.

NKT is sometimes characterized as a cult by people who don't know a lot about it or who have an axe to grind, as is SGI for more or less the same reasons. Personally, I think you keep your eyes open, and you practice what seems right to you, and you make your own decisions. If you feel pressured, you say so and back off if that's what you want to do; if you disagree with something, you try to understand the other person's point of view or why the teachings maybe have more wisdom than you do (which usually turns out to be the case), or you follow your heart, not what someone else is telling you. But any serious and activist faith will seem like a bit much to those who are doing nothing about improving their spiritual life, so don't be surprised if people think it's a cult.

I don't know if this helps. If you want so see some of the differences between Tibetan style Buddhism and Pure Land, you could check out meditateinla.org (local) and kadampa.org (global). The Dalai Lama's followers have a similar organization called FPMT < fpmt.org >. You might also want to look at Insight Meditation, which is less focused on the religious aspects, less focused on becoming enlightened for the eventual ability to help all others achieve the same state, and more focused on the day to day practice of training the mind through meditation. (Try this, http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/A/Amaravati/introInsightMeditation.html ... I'm not intimately familiar with them... they have a major center near San Rafael, CA and in Barre, MA.--They are Theravada, not Mahayana, if you want to look up the difference in Wikipedia... all the others I mention are Mahayana). Then there's always Zen. I never could understand why Zen was the main form of Buddhism in the West until recently. To me it's the most difficult, the most uncompromising, and the least user-friendly. But some people find it to be just exactly what they're looking for.

I offer these alternatives more as a way for you to get an idea what's out there... NOT to suggest that you stay away from SGI. SGI teaches meditation, peace, compassion, and wisdom, and it's true Dharma as far as I'm concerned.

Good luck.

I tried in this comment to avoid promoting my own preferred school, which I do believe is the most effective and clear instruction in developing the wonderful qualities and techniques of both sutra and tantra; but I realize that others may have the karma to practice Dharma in other forms, and that's not for me to criticize.

UPDATE: Please see comments for a correction to what's written above. The commenter says that I'm mistaken in lumping Shinran and Soka Gakkai + Nichiren Shoshu together as Amida Buddhism. I do believe, however, that it is correct to refer to all as forms of "Pure Land" Buddhism. This person also notes that there is no longer a direct connection between Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu.

No more Abu Ghraib photos; Evidence of Torture Interrogations

I am in favor of transparency and truth finding, obviously. But I acknowledge that there is a danger of fomenting retaliation in revealing still more pictures of abuse that happened years ago, and also that nothing really is gained: the facts can and largely have been ascertained without more incendiary images. So, I think Obama called it correctly to order the additional photos from Abu Ghraib withheld.

I say this without consideration of the legal position of the government: it could be that they are obligated to produce them. I just don't know.

Related: I believe that the destruction of the 92 tapes of interrogations, deliberately committed by the CIA as intentional destruction of evidence, is a serious crime for which the perpetrators should be tried, and if convicted, jailed for a good long time. But that doesn't mean I think those tapes should've been made public. A judge could and I think probably would have ruled that they were a national security risk, and had to be held under seal. But there is no justification imaginable for deliberately destroying them. That simply isn't how a free and open republic operates, at all, no exceptions.

Under well-established evidence rules, if anyone is tried who was complicit in the tapes' destruction, and of whose alleged crimes the tapes themselves would have been material evidence (an unlikely combination of events, in truth), the evidence must be conclusively presumed to have been against him. No doubt they thought of that, and kept the actual interrogators out of the loop, so that it would only be the institution itself, and the destroyers of evidence, who would be criminally liable for the destruction of evidence; it will likely have no negative evidentiary consequences for anyone accused of actually carrying out torture, if that ever happens. At this point it seems it may not.

This is why the knowing destruction of evidence of a crime is so insidious. It really does sometimes make it so difficult to prosecute the crime that wrongdoers are not made to face the charge. I've already expressed, and explained, my view that those who carried out torture, orders or no orders, were criminals. Torture is a very serious crime. In some cases, it even carries the death penalty. How people can just say, "oh well, no big deal," is truly beyond me, and very, very disturbing.

Lindsey Graham, nearly as depraved as Cheney

Lindsey Graham, a few cards short of a deck, has shown himself to be almost as depraved as Cheney. First, he cites in his browbeating questioning a debunked news report in which John Kyriakou claimed that Abu Zubaydah was "broken" in "minutes" by waterboarding (Kyriakou has recanted this statement); then he defends torture as "tried and true" because it's been used since the Middle Ages.

Unbelievable that people re-elect such despicable idiots as this, over and over.

Dick Cheney: depraved, proves it again

No mincing of words. Dick Cheney proved once again on Sunday that he is, without a doubt, the most depraved public official of our time.

Earth to Dick. No one outside the self-justifying clique of the Right in America any longer believes that what Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury described in the Torture Memos was anything other than torture. No one.

Ironically, Cheney is such a true believer, and believes so completely his own twisted view of reality, that he is now the primary promoter of Congressional or other investigation of what actually happened. He thinks the documentary evidence will prove that (what-he-refuses-to-call) torture was effective, and therefore justified (a depraved view even if it were true). So he wants the relevant documentation declassified and promises to "certainly" speak before Congress. Great, bring it on, and under oath, if you please. And when he incriminates himself without taking the 5th, he'll find out that his view of what transpired has no relationship to reality, or the law.

If Dick would keep his yap shut, the whole thing might even eventually wind down, without any real resolution other than an especially dismal chapter in our history. But if he keeps this up, he may testify himself right into a jail cell.

McKiernan out/ WaPo

Check out Washington Post's report, just in. General McKiernan, the Commander in Afghanistan, is being forced out. The recent disastrous civilian casualties must be the impetus, if not the entire reason.

Quid pro quo to get American journalist released in Iran?

I would be willing to bet there was some kind of quid pro quo for this. Which is not a criticism. I see way more upside than downside to trying to improve relations with Iran.

Star Trek

OK. I admit it. I am an unreconstructed Trekkie, although this is a concept I resist. I have never attended a Star Trek convention and never will, but I have seen all the films and a fair number of the TV shows over the years. I almost never buy movie tickets in advance, and rarely go to films on their opening weekends. Nonetheless, I found myself clicking on "Buy" to order advance tickets to a Saturday showing of Star Trek the IMAX Experience. To boldly go, and all that.

UDDATE 11 MAY. The movie is terrific; fast paced, exciting, engaging. If you hate sci-fi adventure, this movie will not change your mind, but if you're open to it, even a little, this is about as good as it gets. My only mild criticism is that there's too much hand to hand combat. I never find that believable in space opera, and it gets too much screen time. Just a bias, I suppose. I don't enjoy watching men fighting each other. Never have.

Feynman's optimism

I do believe this is the most optimistic statement I've come across in a good long while:

We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.

--Richard Feynman

My letter to Bybee: resign for the good of the country

Hon. Judge Jay Bybee
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
333 Las Vegas Blvd S.
Las Vegas, NV 89101

Dear Judge Bybee:

I am writing to you to urge you to resign. I will not even attempt to present arguments to you to support my conviction that your actions, in justifying what history will surely judge to have been torture, were reprehensible, at minimum, and legally so questionable as to call your qualification to remain a circuit judge into serious question. History, indeed, will judge.

What I do ask you to do is consider the harm that this controversy is doing to our country. Please, sir, as an American who I do not doubt loves his country, put your own interests second, for once, and resign.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
David Studhalter

UPDATE: Apparently (per TPM) Judge Bybee told the New York Times that he "believed at the time, and continues to believe" that the conclusions of his Torture Memo were correct. The memo speaks for itself. His current defense of it, alone, should get him (1) impeached; (2) convicted by the Senate; (3) disbarred. I doubt more than (1) and just possibly (3) are at all likely, but for the sake of the country, and to save the taxpayers a tidy sum, this sorry excuse for a lawyer should resign immediately. Both from the Ninth Circuit, and from the practice of law.

Amazon to release large screen Kindle

This damn thing is almost $500, which is way, way too much, but I think something that descends from it (possibly a collateral relative) will indeed mostly replace paper for periodicals in the not too distant future. (Not entirely for books, because paper books have advantages no electronic display can match, at least not yet).

For one thing, the experiment newspapers and magazines have tried of putting their content on the web for free and hoping to get enough advertising to support themselves has totally failed. Newspapers and magazines in America are floundering, looking for a new way to pay for the content they provide. Print advertising and subscriptions just aren't keeping up. This could be it, especially if it eventually becomes full color with at least some video capability. The wireless download is a big plus. But they gotta make this thing cheap enough that people will just buy it without giving it a lot of thought, and for most people $500 isn't even close to that. Eventually, there will be no paper versions of transient media at all, so all that cost of production will be gone (along with it the jobs, but that's the way it is). But you still have to pay people to go where stuff is happening and find out what's going on, and report it. And for books, obviously, authors gotta eat. So content will not be free forever.

Brooks right, in part, and dreaming the impossible dream in part

David Brooks is right about the Republican Party having completely misconstrued the concerns of the Middle Class, especially in the more densely settled parts of America, which anymore is most of it. And he's right that they learned the wrong lessons from watching the wrong Westerns. But if he thinks they're going to find their way back to power by appealing to people with platitudes about community and not "intervening in sector after sector," as he accuses President Obama of doing, he's dreaming a pipe dream.

The Democrats could become very unpopular in the relatively near future, if the economy and foreign entanglements both deteriorate further under this administration -- because people always blame the guy in office. If that happens, there's a real danger of the rise of a right wing demagogue; then we'll really see what a mess right wing policies can make of our country, if it even survives in recognizable form. But if the economy recovers, even anemically, and the Obama policies manage to avoid disaster overseas, including avoiding any more major domestic terror attacks, I'd say the Republican party is going to be in the back woods for a good long time. And deservedly so. I believe history will affirm that Tom DeLay was the most extreme right wing congressional leader in modern history, and the administration of George W. Bush was the most destructive right wing government our country ever had... and those will take a long time to live down.

Cokie's just typical of anemic NPR, which needs a major makeover

I admit I used to be fond of Cokie Roberts' radio persona (I have nothing against her, personally). She had a reassuring manner, and mostly knew what she was talking about. This [>Slate], however, is mean, but I have to say, pretty much spot-on, about how shallow and uninteresting her commentary has become. It's really bugged me in recent years how she was mostly an apologist for whoever had power in Washington, and wasted a lot of precious airtime on what's supposed to be a public affairs program on lightweight chitchat. Her appearances on ABC have been even worse. She's regularly engaged in the inexcusable journalistic habit (I've seen it called Broderism after its foremost practitioner), of pontificating about what "the American people" think and how they will likely vote, with no data at all, just her own blowhard opinionated speculations. (Which have mostly been wrong, anyway).

It really is time for her to retire, and, frankly, she's symptomatic of what's wrong with NPR. The network needs a major makeover, clearing the decks of formats and sharpening content considerably. I would have to include in that that it's time for some new personnel, too. There are lots and lots of serious radio people who could do way, way better than what Steve Inskeep and Renee Montagne dish out. Maybe it's not all their fault... the editorial policy seems to be extremely timid in recent years. But in any case, it's high time for them to become something much more incisive, original, and, indeed, controversial, than they've dared to be in a long, long time.

Here's a radical suggestion, and a serious one: NPR should see if they can lure Amy Goodman and Ian Masters away from Pacifica. Pacifica would survive, and eventually produce some new people, and NPR would get a much needed infusion. Amy Goodman is the foremost public radio journalist in America; the tireless and spectacularly talented anchor of Democracy Now! She has turned that program (produced as both a TV and radio show), on a shoestring, into the best news and public affairs daily radio program in the country, period. (It's also broadcast via high bandwidth internet feed in several foreign countries). Imagine if Democracy Now! were broadcast in drivetime on every NPR station (it already is on some of the smaller ones, especially those that are College-affiliated). And how about a tie-in with PBS-TV? Democracy Now! instead of endless juvenile drivel for one hour in the morning on hundreds of PBS stations. To offset the increasingly soporific evening News Hour (snore).

Ian Masters has the best public affairs interview program in the country (Background Briefing/Live from the Left Coast, Sundays on KPFK, 90.7FM, Los Angeles, 11-1). I've tried a lot of them, mostly via podcasts, and believe me, there is none better; download from kpfk.org or podcast from iTunes, delayed a week or so. His show isn't even broadcast on the whole (tiny) Pacifica network, but only here in L.A. This show deserves to be heard on a national network.

But it'll never happen. NPR's masters are afraid of being branded "left wing." So, with CBS, NBC, CNBC, ABC, the odious Fox, and CNN all afraid to put on anything left of Center, and even MSNBC drawing the line at a fairly mild level of criticism from Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, what exactly would be wrong with having a few shows with a distinctly progressive slant? They could easily provide a couple of others as counterbalances.

But it ain't gonna happen. They're too scared that even the Democrats in Congress see no upside to continued funding for Public Broadcasting, and would use the usual orchestrated rant-in from the Right Wing as an excuse to kill NPR altogether if they tried anything like that.

Gourevitch in The New Yorker: "Interrogating Torture"

An absolute must-read. We simply cannot leave our heads in the sand.

My Google Profile

My Google Profile.

My last word on torture (maybe)

I will never understand how almost three-quarters of Americans, as a reported survey said today, can say that torture is ever justified. Never, never, never. I don't want to think that people I know and care about believe this, but I guess I have to accept it as true. I don't generally ask people this question, because it's painful to think that people I'm fond of believe torture is OK. Ever. I can't argue with people about this, any more than I could argue with someone who thought it was OK to execute people without due process or murder people on suspicion they did something wrong. Conduct like that is depraved; inherently immoral. So is torture. Always. (Not to mention illegal, always, under all circumstances, under in-force U.S. and International Law). The contrary view, to me, is just beyond the pale.

This is the same survey that found that a majority of those who attend religious services at least once a week think torture of "terror suspects" is "often" or "sometimes" justified. (As opposed to "seldom" or "never.") One third of mainline protestants (Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist, etc.) said "never." Only one third. Amazing. Have we truly become so callow? This isn't an intellectual thing. It's hard to see how people can have misunderstood the question.

Well, I say, 'never,' and it appalls me that it's even debatable. I happen to attend religious services once a week, too, but that's immaterial. The thing is, I just can't accept this. It's like a blight on our national soul. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't want to be convinced I'm overreacting. The hell with it. If that's someone's view, I just can't talk to them about it. I really want to believe we're better than this, and that we'll wake up as a nation and come to our senses soon. I hope and pray that this will happen.

If this offends you, good. You should be offended. Yes, I do indeed feel that strongly about this.

§§
Concurring, if somewhat less emotional, views: Froomkin (WaPo) and Greenwald.

Greenwald: Krauthammer, for shame; and the peril to our civilization

The despicable Charles Krauthammer, in today's Washington Post:

Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. . . . The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. . . .

Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting them from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.

I say despicable, because these opinions are despicable, in my view. This is just not an acceptable position for a person claiming to be a moral human being to take. Until the past few years, it would quite simply never have occurred to me that anyone could take such a position in a major American newspaper's opinion page.

Glenn Greenwald (salon.com) quotes this passage (the emphases are his), and then quotes the "left-wing ideologue" Ronald Reagan:

Ronald Reagan, May 20, 1988, transmitting the Convention Against Torture to the Senate for ratification:

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.

(Greenwald's emphases, again).

I do believe that pretty much says it all. I repeat my mantra, this time directed to Charles Krauthammer: For shame. For awful, terrible shame.

What Glenn then quotes says something really terrible about what our country has become:

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, April 29, 2009:

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified.

I truly hope that we can overcome this blight on our national soul, because if we can't, we are doomed as a civilization. I don't think this is paranoia, or exaggeration. A nation that condones this conduct, at this stage of history, will decline and fall into an abyss of tyranny, sooner or later. I feel this as a certainty, with no doubt at all.

Obama's pick to succeed Justice Souter

I would of course have preferred the retirement of one of the Gang of Four (Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito), none of whom is likely to leave the court during Obama's term, but I feel pretty confident that President Obama will pick someone who will be a credit to the court to replace Mr. Justice Souter (who, amazingly enough, we should remember, is a Republican... or was, when nominated to the court).