Living in a Toxic World for the Sake of a Tax Cut

Seems that what was going on in the AG's office was not an isolated incident. Democratic Representative John Dingell of Michigan, chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has found that the EPA started getting rid of folks in jobs like criminal investigators and auditors. Apparently, they were alleging budget cuts that did not actually happen and Dingell noted, were unlikely to happen, as the cause for the cuts.

As we now know, the executive branch has become little more than a branch of the rNC. Apparently, some at the EPA were still prosecuting those pesky enforcement actions that prevent kids from being poisoned rather than strategizing for the next election. That certainly had to be stopped.

OSHA is in the hands of cronies too and let's not forget what they've done to our pet's food and to ours.

This is what I find inexplicable, that republicans are willing to blindly support guys like Bush and his crony at the EPA and watch our entire health and safety enforcement structure totally decimated just so they can keep their tax cuts. It's probably no fun living in a toxic world full of sick and injured people even if you are rich. Even more inexplicable is that lots of these republicans are not wealthy and support all this so they could keep their one time $200 tax cut from years ago. If they think they are voting for morality, they are barking up the escort service.

Kirk the big environmentalist was not among the signatories to Dingell's letter and says nothing about the cuts. Remember that in 2008.

The Queen, Tony Blair, Tradition and War

Last night was movie night and we rented The Queen which is basically about the relationship between Queen Elizabeth and Tony Blair during the week after Diana's death. Elizabeth tries to avoid dealing with the enormous public grief for both personal and traditional reasons while Blair watches the country negatively react to Elizabeth's reaction and trys to teach her how to play politics a bit better.

Blair looks like a political pro as he at first gently, then more firmly, but always respectfully, pushes the Queen to deal with the open national grieving in a non-traditional way, which she admited was hard for her because she was raised to keep her feelings inside. The message is that it is more modern to show emotion and that the public simply did not understand Elizabeth's traditional stiff upper lip mentality. I could not help but think about how Blair threw away much of the good will he built up in his early years as PM to go along with Bush in Iraq when he knew that the "intelligence was being fixed around the policy" way back in 2002.

Blair will be leaving office in May and now there is a lot of talk about his legacy in the British press. Had it not been for his joining Bush's coalition of the sort of willing, Blair probably would have gone down as a decent if not terrific PM. The UK economy expanded after 18 years of doldrums under the Tories. It was all the new labour party hoped for, "a vibrant market economy with a generous welfare state; economic freedom and social protection." Blair himself calls it "liberal interventionism" or Blairism, but some folks say Blairism doesn't exist because the social promises were not kept, faulting Blair for broken promises to labor and lower income folks. Under Blair, tensions with N. Ireland eased, but increased with Scotland, vigorously opposed to the Iraq war. Blair seems to have sunk his party, not under Blairism, but under Bushism, and now as UK elections approach, even though most people are better off under Blair's Labour party, 54% feel there should be a change in government.

The question in my mind is why did he do it? Why did he go along with Bush? I think one answer might have peeped through in the movie, The Queen. Blair was concerned with and skillful in detecting public mood and acting to handle the mass grief after Diana's death. I think with Iraq, Blair might have outmaneuvered himself by misreading the British public's attitude about terrorism and war with Iraq. Bush won over a large percentage of the American people with terrorism fear and fake tough guy language designed to make folks feel safer even if it wasn't actually making them safer. Terrorism fear, however, was never as strong in the UK because, sad to say, the Brits were sort of used to it well before September 11, 2001. They are also not as big on hyperbole and cowboy tough talk in the UK and their news tends to be more factual than the opinionated split screens of US news. Seems to me Blair was watching too much of the American press and not enough of his own. It also occurs to me that Blair was too concerned with politics and not concerned enough with smartness as he followed Bush's example of governing for politics rather than politicking so he could govern as is tradition.

Political reading of a situation and press maneuvering worked well for Blair in May 1997, but failed him by May 2007. Maybe Queen Elizabeth was wrong in insisting on tradition when Diana died, but Blair failed because he failed to learn that sometimes it is better to stick with tradition and one good tradition to stick with is that the policy should be fixed around the intelligence.

Oh, by the way. I give The Queen 3 cat treats for good performances and an two-sided treatment of recent history (although none of us could get used to the actor playing Prince Charles). Sadly, the big question was never answered: What does she keep in that handbag anyway?

State Officials Speak and One Guy Still Doesn't Know Why Mark Kirk Prevents Him From Eating a Toasted Bagel

This afternoon IL Senator Susan Garrett, IL Representative Karen May and State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias traveled around the area meeting with constituents. I caught up with them at the Deerfield Library this afternoon. It was mostly a listening session for them as constituents have a lot to say.

The proposed gross receipts tax was brought up in a question that came from the obvious republican shill in the room put there to complain about Blagojevich, and health care was brought up in many questions by many people. While health care seems to be a big concern of small business owners in the area, every idea to pay for reasonable, accessible health care is shot down by their neighbors. It seems to me that many people still don't understand what an insurance pool is, how important it is for large pools to be accessible to everyone, and for such large pools, like the one that could be created by the federal government, to be able to negotiate bulk rates with health care providers.

Also discussed were underfunded pensions. Giannoulias explained what he is trying to do with better investments and unclaimed property to alleviate the situation, but I'm not sure that alone will help given that pension underfunding was done for years under those Illinois republicans who still claim to be better at fiscal management. He was not in favor of selling off state revenue producing assets either. Giannoulias touted cashdash.net for Illinoisans to find out if the state is holding their money in unclaimed property and told a few stories of people finding hundreds or thousands, and one woman even found a million. I tried it while writing this article. No such luck.

I was glad to see that Giannoulias was not all that interested in using gambling to solve the state's money woes. Giannoulias said that he doesn't want to be funding anything in the state that ends up in an anonymous (ie Gamblers Anonymous). Rep May took a straw poll of the audience on the gambling issue and it was about 50/50. May feels that the one casino in Chicago might not be so bad, but does not want to see a further expansion of gambling.

Rep. May also discussed the AT&T cable bill pending in the house. She was at a telecom committee hearing and asked a lot of questions. The big issue is coverage and (if I'm remembering correctly) they offered 40%, but came up to 50%. May reported other parts of the country got promises of 80%. There is also a question of whether the public access for education, the library and local government will be preserved. She is open to listen, but didn't seem all that enthusiastic about the proposal to me. I really don't see our cable bills going down any more than our electricity bills did.

What I took away from the event is that people are concerned. They filled up the meeting room in the library and just about everyone had a question and concern. There is a lot of frustration over how our money is spent and how many more unfulfilled needs there are in our community, and this is a pretty wealthy community so most of the folks who attended the meeting don't see all the sick and homeless seen in the city and much of the rest of the country.

One man complained that he cannot eat a toasted bagel because he cannot get his teeth fixed because dental surgery is not covered by Medicare. He wanted to know what May and Garrett would do. That's federal. He needs to call Congressman Kirk.

Miller and Lerner Raise Consciousness in Deerfield

Dr. Ron Miller, Chair of the Religion Department at Lake Forest College and co-founder of Common Ground spoke in Deerfield on Tuesday night. His topic was a review of The Left Hand of God by Rabbi Michael Lerner and related topics. Miller is a favorite in the community and drew a good sized crowd. I was half expecting protesters at the mere mention of Lerner, but it never materialized, Lerner's detractors preferring anonymous internet banter.

Miller began with a description of different levels of consciousness using the analogy of a house. The basement level Miller described as tribal consciousness, a simplistic "us vs. them" outlook which Miller described as "survival mode". I'd describe it as Rudy Giuliani's campaign stump speech. The next level, first floor in the house is rational consciousness, the outlook of the age of reason, John Stuart Mill and John Locke, and later our founders Jefferson, Madison and others. This is a vision of tolerance for differences. The next level, I guess the second floor, is the psychic consciousness, based on intuition, synchronicity, where life becomes bigger than one's plans. The roof is mystical consciousness where the more fully evolved humans reside. Miller's examples included Buddha, the Dalai Lama, Abraham Joshua Heschel and Jesus. Miller claimed he'd prefer someone at the mystical level of consciousness be in charge, but now he'd "settle for someone sane", someone he could describe as an adult rather than the "12 year old playground bullies" that are in charge now.

The world, according to Miller, is seen by each and every one of us through our level of consciousness, the left being at the rational level and the right being at the tribal level. Miller reminds that we have to be careful to respect each other's level even if we disagree with it because great teachers invite and feel the other side. The goal for dialogue among people at various levels of consciousness is to have each person break out of their narrative and together get to a higher level narrative including the truths from each.

One problem that Miller sees with our current outlook on Iran is that we do not feel their side. For example, Miller points out that Iranians had a democratic government. We did not like when their elected leader nationalized the oil companies and aided in a coup in 1953 that resulted in the Shah taking power. With that history, Bush's talk of bringing democracy to the region falls flat with the Iranians.

Miller reminded us that just being more rational is not going to be enough to win support because many people still have tribal fear and loyalty and some still see republicans as the party of safety even though reality does not bear out the claim. Miller warns that perception is reality for most folks. I would argue that only lasts so long.

Miller brought up an interesting point that I think has bearing on this district, tax cuts. republicans run on and often win on tax fear. It's completely meaningless because "the money to invade countries has to come from somewhere," Miller quipped, but it wins because it "hits a tribal note." From blog comments of Kirk supporters, I think the tax line has been very effective for Kirk and wonder what his supporters are going to think as taxes rise to pay down the deficit Kirk helped create.

Miller concluded his speech by urging liberals to invite others to join them and pointed out that Lerner's idea for this invitation is his idea of a new spiritual covenant with America. The covenant is written to be acceptable to people of many religions or no religion at all. It rejects materialism and embraces the idea that "all families deserve a living wage, full employment, affordable, high-quality child care, affordable health care, access to an excellent education and flexible work schedules. Education is to be "values-based", not entirely focused on skills. The covenant also includes personal responsibility which is defined as a promise to "live with integrity, joy, honesty, kindness, openheartedness, compassion, forgiveness and generosity" and social responsibility which includes a requirement that corporations operate in a socially responsible manner. Rounding out the covenant are environmental stewardship and the creation of a safer world based on Lerner's Global Marshall Plan.

While all this sounds great and I have high regard for both Miller and Lerner, I don't know if I'm feeling all that optimistic. There are sects of right wing religion that claim monetary success comes from God's grace and the rest deserve what they get. Others seem to enjoy the sportsification of war, the rah rah rah, go team, we win of it all without much caring who gets hurt. The Bush administration and congressional republicans have been invoking 9/11 and the unpatriotic-ness of dissent since 2001. This week we've been assaulted by Guiliani accusing Democrats of jeopardizing the safety of Americans and Bush not too far behind in claiming the vote to get us on a path out of Iraq is not supporting the troops while he and his party have failed to support the troops in very real ways since the beginning of the war. Kirk just voted to continue the Iraq war indefinitely even though he has told his constituents “now I think we should look to winding up the mission.” I still think these folks need to be called on their lies and harmful and dangerous antics.

republicans are ratcheting up their noise machine to unprecedented levels and it's hard to imagine that inviting them to join rational consciousness is going to work. Miller does offer one comforting thought. We don't need all or most of them. We only need about 12%. I agree with Miller that we need to get beyond the current narratives on both sides and get to the larger narrative, something much closer to the truth than what we are being fed now. That's just another way of saying one of my favorite sayings "it is what it is" and eventually perception loses its grip and reality becomes reality.

Basic components of a simple fraud

The Enron movie was on Channel 11 last night. I only caught the end, but I've seen it before. It's still a remarkable story to watch, in the bad, train wreck sense of remarkable. I note that Enron changed its name to Enron Creditors Recovery Corp as of March 1, 2007, a far cry from what investors and lenders originally thought they were getting.

It was interesting to see once again the basic components of simple fraud that were involved in the scheme:

• Speed: all deals were closed in a big rush, with investors told to act quickly or lose out for reasons not all that apparent;
• Attack: anyone who questioned the plan was belittled, attacked, smeared, threatened (one respected analyst was even fired for a negative rating of Enron stock);
• Lack of clarity: No one could explain how it was supposed to work;
• Damage to traditional regulatory scheme: They shamelessly worked California energy deregulation..you simply have to hear the tapes of the traders as they happily put Californians in mysery and real danger to believe it;
• Strategic partners: alliances were made with accountants, attorneys and investors who ignored obvious issues and their own rules and standards with dollar signs in their eyes;
• Huge PR rollout: they started their own self-glorifying hype in the media...;
• Lack of watchdog: ...and the media simply followed without asking questions or doing much independent research.

I know I'm not the first to notice this, but doesn't it sound an awful lot like the Iraq War. Bush called for speed to get into the war, all the spending bills were emergency supplements and even now calls for speed in continued funding. None of the generals can explain in simple terms how we are going to win and the explanation of the original reasons for going to war were constantly changed. They damaged traditional separation of powers and federalism to keep the war politically viable. They've found a strategic partner in the religious right which for some strange reason seems to have no problem with "Thout shalt not kill" and other strategic partners in corporate war profiteers and congressmen who use the fear to win reelection and have no problem with shirking their Constitutional duty of oversight. They started out with spectacular reports of the "shock and awe" bombing, even naming it "shock and awe" knowing people were being killed seems movie-like. Then they used implanted reporters who willingly reported from the Bush administration talking points and planted soft questions and no one seemed to have any problem with creating false stories like the ones involving Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman until Lynch and the Tillman family objected.

How to avoid fraud? If it sounds too good to be true ("fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here"), it is. If a strategy plan cannot be at least basically explained in a short paragraph, it's probably bad (I tell folks that different permutations of form does not alter substance--a bad deal is still bad--if you put a silk dress on a pig, it's still a pig). Lack of independent oversight is bad. If someone questions your basic, simple questions, they are probably up to something. Americans are getting squeezed in the mortgage fraud crunch. Many lost everything in the corporate scandals of Enron, World Com etc. (I know two people who lost their jobs and life savings). Now, we're getting it again with Kirk's vote to continue the war indefinitely and Bush's pending veto of the timeline to get our troops out of Iraq.

Time to wise up America, take the silk dress off the pig and put it back into the barn.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom". I wonder what they will name the withdrawal and whether it be pretty far from what Americans originally thought they were getting.

Obama and Leadership at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs

I think that the worst thing that has come out of the Bush administration is our abandonment of real moral leadership in the world for a fake, macho, meaningless substitute that is long on action movie-esq sound bytes and short on results. Barack Obama talked about that Monday before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Obama observed that the world still waits for our leadership:

In an old building in Ukraine, I saw test tubes filled with anthrax and the plague lying virtually unlocked and unguarded – dangers we were told could only be secured with America’s help.

On a trip to the Middle East, I met Israelis and Palestinians who told me that peace remains a distant hope without the promise of American leadership.

At a camp along the border of Chad and Darfur, refugees begged for America to step in and help stop the genocide that has taken their mothers and fathers, sons and daughters.

And along the crowded streets of Kenya, I met throngs of children who asked if they’d ever get the chance to visit that magical place called America.

What are we doing instead? The Bush administration spends it's time and our money presiding over an executive branch that does nothing but insure large takes for the few who profit from war and other corporate greed. The mission in Iraq is to stay in Iraq. The purpose of government is to maintain one party rule. What were once regulatory bodies have become rubber stamps for profit hungry corporations abandoning consumers and workers for corporate profits and K street favors. Hence, we cannot keep our food (and our pets food) pure, our prescriptions safe and effective and our environment clean and beautiful.

Sometimes I feel like in these short few years, all is lost to big money and sheer meanness, but Obama is still optimistic. He sees us under better leadership that will strenghten our alliances and reach out to the disenfranchised of the world. He said, "This will require a new spirit – not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence," and set forth five ways in which America will lead again:

1. responsibly end the Iraq and refocusing on the broader region;

2. creating a real, more modern military and deploying it wisely;

3. leading a global effort to secure, destroy, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction (I think he means real WMD, not Powell's fake anthrax or Bush, Cheney and Kirk's imaginery WMD);

4. rebuild and create new alliances and partnerships by streghtening the UN, the World Bank (probably would not hurt for the WB to cut Wolfowitz and girlfriend loose), and NATO, rather than merely complaining about them and watching them crumble;

5. "to invest in our common humanity – to ensure that those who live in fear and want today can live with dignity and opportunity tomorrow."

I think he hits it right on in no. 5 because, while there is certainly badness in the world, most people just want to live their lives and have decent levels of possibility for a secure future and there's the rub. By pushing all wealth to a very small bunch at the top, Bush and gang leave the rest of the world in insecurity and want and then ask why there is unrest and provide answers that do nothing but keep them in power. I think they know the real answers and intend their outcomes. Insecurity, unrest, hatred and fear is the stuff on which they thrive.

Obama continued on:

Finally, while America can help others build more secure societies, we must never forget that only the citizens of these nations can sustain them. The corruption I heard about while visiting parts of Africa has been around for decades, but the hunger to eliminate such corruption is a growing and powerful force among people there. And so in these places where fear and want still thrive, we must couple our aid with an insistent call for reform.

We must do so not in the spirit of a patron, but the spirit of a partner – a partner that is mindful of its own imperfections. Extending an outstretched hand to these states must ultimately be more than just a matter of expedience or even charity. It must be about recognizing the inherent equality and worth of all people. And it’s about showing the world that America stands for something – that we can still lead.

That reminds me of the Global Marshall plan discussed a few days ago. We need to lead the world and help where help is needed without acting or seeming like we want to dominate it. I don't think most Americans want to dominate the world and they certainly don't want to be dominated by a ruling class of haves to their have-nots. They just get scared, selfish and lose hope and interest so it's easy for people like Reagan and Bush to play on those emotions and get into power playing big macho country so the powerless and disenfranchised can feel vicarious power and wealth through them while not noticing their loss of real power and real wealth.

That is why Obama is right. Americans need to regain hope and genuine moral clarity and use it to reclaim our leadership position in the world and it's not just because the world needs us to do it. We need to do it to regain our security, our prosperity, our identity and, I think, our happiness. If we abandon leadership, along goes our success, prosperity and self respect and we will be stuck with whoever eventually picks up the mantle.

How Quickly They Forget..The Sad History of republicans Treatment of the Mentally Ill

republican Newt Gingrich got on television Sunday morning and blamed all the nations violent tragedies on liberals. Not to mention the complete lie about the elite news media being liberal, Gingrich fails to mention the severe budget cuts, including cuts to mental health services championed by republicans for years.

Back in 2005, the Mental Health Liaison Group was pretty unhappy with the republican budget:

For Fiscal 2006 Bush proposed a 7 percent ($64 million) cut from the Fiscal 2005 level for the Center for Mental Health Services. . That decrease included about $30 million cut in CMHS jail-diversion and youth-violence prevention programs.

S. 1932 which Congressional republicans passed and the President gleefully signed increased co-pays even for people living below the poverty level, cut three-quarters of a billion dollars out of targeted case management (TCM) services, which provided out-patient services and support to the mentally ill and caused states to increase cost sharing for non-preferred (i.e. non-formulary) medications, not recognizing that medications are not interchangeable. These cuts were made in 2005 despite a 2003 presidential commission report revealing severe problems with treatment coordination and access to mental health care. republicans have also been against legislation to end discriminatory health insurance coverage for mental health services. See here too. Even now, the Bush administration is proposing cuts to the Medicaid which will adversely impact the availability of services for people with mental illness and veterans needing mental health services.

Who started the war on people suffering from mental illness... Ronald Reagan. He spent $2.5 billion on Star Wars systems that never worked to defeat an already self-defeated Soviet Union and took the money out of social services, especially services for the mentally ill, killing Ted Kennedy's proposal to fund community based mental health centers and dumped mentally ill out of institutions without a safety net leaving many of them to end up in prison.

Psychologist Dr. Kathy Seifert recently said:

America's mental health care system is broken and broke. If we keep under-funding and not revamping it, we will loose more lives. And while only a very small portion of mentally ill people are violent, mental health services help those who are.

Now, republicans and their buddies at the NRA are jumping all over each other to argue that, rather than keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill, it would be far better to arm all students. Ever wonder why you bought all those cabinet latches, outlet covers, safety sissors and biking helmuts for your kids only so they can live long enough to see the business end of an automatic weapon wielded by someone who no one should argue has a right to a gun?

Democrats don't have to eat out of the garbage to deserve to win

I heard someone was complaining about Obama raising money from wealthy people. I for one am glad he is because I want him to win, not go down with the idealistic ship. You cannot win without money under our current campaign financing system and you cannot change the system without winning. It's not "win at all costs." Obama is still giving back PAC money. It's using common sense to win by legal, ethical and reasonable means.

Another reason I want Obama to win: I saw yet another homeless person sign yesterday morning walking from the Metra station to work. If you haven't been downtown in a while know that there are homeless on many street corners, many of them veterans, and now they write out signs--I think because they are warned by the police not to physically approach people. The particular sign I saw yesterday morning said: "Tired of getting sick from eating out of the garbage."

McCain, Guiliani, Romney... will raise money from the wealthy and don't care about that guy eating out of the garbage and never will.

Read this about Obama's record in helping the poor, hungry, homeless, injured, sick, working poor, and uninsured. No, Obama doesn't have to eat garbage, wear sack cloth and render himself incapable of winning to prove he deserves to win. He deserves to win because he cares about those who need help, has ideas of how to help them, has shown that he will act to help them and has shown that he can win.

Global Marshall Plan and Re-deploying Out of Iraq or Shooting At Each Other

Dick Cheney sees the Iraq war as a cash cow for himself and his buddies. To them the world is to be plundered, not enriched.

Mark Kirk has invoked the idea of a Marshall Plan in Iraq to justify the war, but so far his version is only funding more war and refusing to set a time line for re-deployment.

Rabbi Michael Lerner is talking about a real Marshall Plan, a Global Marshall Plan changing trade arangements to benefit all people not just a few, and dedicate part of our GDP to ending poverty, hunger, homelessness, inadequate education and to repair the environment. The idea is to halt the cycle of global animosity.

See the website here. It's still a work in progress and you can not only read about it, but they are interested in our ideas too.

Lerner is careful to explain that this is not just throwing more money around the world , It's a change in spirit and leadership, culturally sensitive and intelligently allocating funds for valuable projects within the US and around the world without relying on the political will of national leaders who consistently fail such projects.

Lerner teaches that the new thinking paradigm of the GMP could help us end our military involvment in Iraq. It allows us to approach the world in a new way that is not only more moral and more positive, but more realistic, and with that approach, fall away the arguments that we are somehow doing a good thing in Iraq by placing our young soldiers between the waring factions when many argue that it is actually our presence there that is fuels the factioning and waring.

I think the idea of the GMP is best described by Lerner in this passage:

We wish to foster an ethos of caring and love for others because it is ethically and spiritually right to do so, not only because it is instrumentally the only sane policy for saving the planet and saving the lives of our children and grandchildren...

Ironically, what turns out to be the most ethical path is also the most practical and self-interested from the standpoint of saving the human race and protecting the planet that sustains our lives.

Not much was in the mainstream media about the GMP or Generosity Sunday that was to be it's kickoff last Sunday, April 15th. They seem happier to air hours of the rantings of the mentally ill man who shot up VT. It was a good cover for the Gonzales hearings and gave a bunch of loony NRA types, and apparently John McCain, the chance to argue that since they spend so much money to prevent enough gun control to keep weapons out of the hands of the recently diagnosed and adjudicated mentally ill, the only solution is to arm all students. I'd like to know from parents of college age kids if they'd rather their kids work on a project like the GMP to help heal the world or on how to shoot at each other.

Government Secrecy Allows Bush Administration To Turn Executive Branch Into Branch of republican Party

This isn't new, but it is interesting. It's the 2005 Secrecy Report Card of OpenTheGovernment.org. It's important this week because Sen. Leahy's Open Government Act of 2007 is set to hit the Senate Floor this week. A House version already passed.

A look at the Secrecy Report Card shows the sheer magnatude of the Bush administration's secrecy initiative and the cost of it. Yup, you are paying so Bush can preside over the most political and secret administration the US has ever seen. Here are just a few examples:

• $148 Spent Creating New Secrets for Every $1 Spent Releasing Old Secrets
• $15.6 Million Classification Decisions Costing $7.2 Billion
• 64% of Advisory Committee Meetings Closed to the Public

The report highlights problems with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the mechanism by which regular citizens can obtain information collected by the government. Government agencies have been overwhelmed with FOIA requests and underfunded for FOIA compliance. FOIA has become important as organizations trying to defend our privacy have sought documentation to evidence government spying on Americans.

Earlier this year, EFF made a FOIA request to the Justice Department seeking information on changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court program made by the Justice Department as the administration had to back off its original claim that it could freely collect information on Americans without warrants or any judicial authorization at all. The Justice Department never responded to the FOIA request. EFF filed it's complaint on February 27, 2007.

The Senate bill coming up for vote sets some times limits from the date of first receipt of the request, with limited ability to toll and limited use of exemptions for delayed fulfillment of requests (the house version limits fees in the event of delay). It also requires tracking numbers and a system of status disclosure. Press fee status is also expanded to internet publications and non-institutional press with a showing of prior publication history or stated intent of publication.

As we have seen, the Bush administration uses secrecy to forward it's political agenda, turning our executive branch into a branch of one political party over the other rather than actually governing the country. That's what this, the US Attorney firing scandal, Rove's powerpoint on helping republican candidates used in government agencies on government property and government time in violation of the Hatch Act, and the lies told to start and maintain the Iraq War have been all about. They can only get away with it while the American people have no idea what they are doing. That is why we need to support more open government and compliance with FOIA.

An Evening With Jan Schakowsky

Sunday night, Ninth District Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky spoke to the Tenth District to let us know what is happening in Congress. We all know our congressman is too busy figuring out how to file electronically.

The event was sponsored by Tenth Dems, Vernon Township Democrats and the Political Action Club of Stevenson High School. Lots of students attended along with their government teachers.

Seems to me from hearing Jan speak that it all comes down to what she called "the probably illegal and certainly unconscionable war in Iraq." It's preventing the real business of the United States from happening. However, the new Democratic Congress is making strides.

Jan first addressed the students. She told us that when she is campaigning around her district, she inevitably runs into the non-political person, the person who gives her a wide berth, not wanting to get involved. It's usually a younger person. Sometimes this person will even tell her he or she is not interested. She said she is always tempted to ask this person in what part of their life they are not interested because politics touches every aspect of life. I had a political science professor at the University of Illinois start a class similarly and after wracking my brain trying to come up with something non-political and being corrected by him, I can assure you there is nothing that is not touched by politics. Jan said it better though. About politics, she said "It's the stuff of life."

A big topic of the discussion was education. One student described that his family was told to take out a second mortgage on their house to pay for his $51,000 education. Jan told the student that while Congress has already cut the interest rate on loans, there is a long way to go because loans still have to be repaid. She said that education has become a crisis in our country. We need to do more to keep the country competative, stop shrinking diversity in our colleges and universities and end the burden of higher education costs on families.

Another topic on folks minds is health care. One audience member asked if the issue of health care is going to be seriously and specifically discussed. Jan pointed out that one place to start would be to fix Medicare D (maybe she read Mom' post below) and pointed out that allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription prices as the veteran's administration now does would save $30 bil a year. She also mentioned that a working group of members of congress are building a base of support for a healthcare plan looking at some sort of mixture of expanding Medicare and employer based coverage and pointed out that eventhe employer community regards health care a major issue because they cannot compete internationally under our current system.

Several people asked different permutations of the Iraq question. Jan talked about the election and the clear message of the American people to end the war. Her timetable is tomorrow, but was glad to see that the House voted for August 2008. It is not abandoning Iraq, it's that every day we are there contributes to the violence. We need to "stop sending our men and women into the cross hairs of a civil war." The re-deployment plan includes "robust diplomacy"... "if we have any capacity for that left." One audience member asked about Kirk's support for McCain and how that reflects on Kirk's support for the war despite his one vote against the surge. She pointed out that McCain is the only one besides Bush who wants to give it another chance and it's just more of the same and Kirk's choice is troubling.

One student brought up the disappearance of industry from this country. She said it was no only an economic issue but an issue of national morale. Jan pointed out the tax breaks given to corporations moving jobs and headquarters out of the country. She supports legislation creating patriot corporation who keep good paying jobs and research and development in this country and added that education is a part of this because without it we are losing our competative and innovative edge and that investment in renewable green alternative energy would create jobs and encourage innovation. Jan is working with Speaker Pelosi on a select committee on global warming and energy independence.

Jan supports Pelosi in her trip to Syria as it showed that we intend to be aggressive about diplomacy and not just engaging in name calling as Bush did with his Axis of Evil.

We closed on the topic of Human Rights Mike Simkin of Moraine Township Dems having brought up that it was Holocaust Remembrance Day. Jan brought up the situation in Darfur and how the US has been good about correctly naming it a genocide, it was having trouble dealing with it because it wants to push the Sudan on the issue while keeping it as an ally in the war on terror. She closed with the real tragedy of the Bush administration, causing the US to lose its moral authority and consequently its capacity to deal with issues of human rights.

Why Don’t You Die Already!

My mom says her piece about Medicare D:

Why Don’t You Die Already!

by Corinne Gill

One day, someone told me a story. There was an elderly man sitting on a bench outside of what was then Marshall Field’s in Hawthorne Mall. Two teenage boys walked by and they looked at him and said to him “Why don’t you die already.”

I am a 71-year-old woman who is strictly middle-class. My husband and I are not rich and we are not poor. We pay all our bills on time and have no credit debt, which is very important to us.

Unfortunately, our health is not too good. I take 8 different medications, but only two are generic. Medicare D (which is not free) is supposed to help with the cost of my prescriptions, but my program does not cover many. If I chose another program, I would simply switch which ones were not covered. My Blue Cross supplement (which is far from free) does not help with the cost of medications at all because Medicare D was supposed to take care of that.

This past week my doctor told me I should take Humira. I have been on the phone with AARP (my prescription insurer), Abbott Laboratories (maker of Humira) and Walgreen’s. Walgreen’s told me the price is $1,630.00 each month. AARP informed me I would have to pay 33% of this price every month ($537.90) until I reached $2400, including both their portion and my portion, which would take one month with the Humira and my other medicines. I would be back on the program once my total out of pocket, not including their payments, totals $3850. I asked Abbott Laboratories if they could do something for me. They refused saying that they only help people who have no insurance at all.

If I were on conventional insurance, not the senior supplement, the Humira would cost $39.00 each month.

It is a shame that in this great country, the cost of a prescription medication that would help would make my life a lot easier, is needlessly high while Messrs. Bush and Kirk pay for a useless war, which is killing and injuring our young people. Sometimes it seems like Bush and Kirk are no better than the two teenage boys that taunted the elderly gentleman in my friend’s story above telling seniors to "die already."

It's Us!

I don't know if this is good news or bad news, but Chicago represents the USA for the Olympic bid.

I think Chicago won because of the cute logo.

My concern is Metra.

What do you think?

As Reliable As Death And Taxes

It is said that you can always rely on death, taxes...and Mark Kirk using his platform as a congressman to campaign for republicans.

A couple of years ago, it was Medicare D. Kirk went around to seniors trying to convince them that the republicans were giving them the greatest thing since canned catfood in a prescription drug program that actually increased the cost of prescription drugs and made them less accessible to seniors. That great program turned out to be about as good as canned catfood--the recalled kind. My mom can tell you a story about trying to get a prescription she really needs.

Now, Kirk, under the guise of helping people with their taxes, is holding a meeting to convince constitutents that all their tax problems are the fault of Illinois Democrats. He neglects to mention the expensive war that he helped Bush sell to the American people and basically still defends or the tax shift from the wealthy to the middle class and from programs that should be federal to state run programs...small wonder they have to tax. It's all mis-labeled as a tax cut for political reasons. The meeting is Saturday, April 14th from 2 - 4 p.m. at the Libertyville Village Hall, 118 West Cook Street in Libertyville.

I think this will backfire on Kirk because, at some point, folks get sick of the tired old scare tactic that fair taxation and needed government programs drive out business. Fact is, in the auto industry, the lack of a national health care plan is hurting US business far more than reasonable taxes to fund a real plan would. Also, folks who may not pay particular attention to anything else tend to know where their money is going. A good chunk of it recently went to protect Kirk's buddy John McCain in Baghdad as he romped around with scads of security to prove you don't need scads of security to romp around in Baghdad. I am concerned that the recent attack in the green zone may have been done in response to McCains' frivolous and foolhardy excursion.

Anyway, if you need help with your taxes, you are probably better off skipping that meeting and going straight to H&R Block. I never heard that Kirk had a CPA. Hey Mark, I think you need a license to practice public accounting!

The Decider Decided And What He Decided Is That He Doesn't Want To Decide

Between Imus and Anna Nichole, you may have heard that Bush no longer wants to do the job of Commander in Chief, you remember, the job given to him in the Constitution that makes him think he gets to trumph Congress in all decisions of war. He doesn't want to do the work any more. He just wants the title and to keep Congress out of it. Someone else, some not elected by the people someone else, is going to be chosen to do the actual work--the Czar.

According to Fred Kaplan of Slate:

The punch line is that at least three prominent retired four-star generals have been asked if they'd be interested in the job—and all of them said no.

The linked Kaplan article also gives an interesting list of why the idea of yet another policy czar is a bad idea and talks about the history of failed initiatives led by czars of this and that.

Retired Marine General Jack Sheehan was quoted:

The very fundamental issue is, they don’t know where the hell they’re going.

However, we must remember that the real mission in Iraq is to stay in Iraq. The secondary mission now seems to be to make it look like progress is being made, hence the czar.

Even folks who call themselves conservatives don't like the idea. Even they no longer find Bush "a competent, credible president."

A lot of people on both sides of the aisle are saying that the Iraq War Czar is the person who's going to be set up to take the blame for Iraq. I think the focus should be on the bleak history of policy czars, the drug czar, the energy czar, mentioned in the above-linked Kaplan article. The war on drugs went back burner and remains a quiet failure. The energy czar was just supposed to make sure that energy policy did not veer away from oil and autos until Al Gore failed to shy away from issue of global warming under the pressure of typical Bush/republican smear. I wonder if the plan is to put Iraq on the back burner and under the radar leaving the notion that something is being done. That would fit with the mission of staying in Iraq and leave Bush free to clear brush on the ranch in Texas and start another war.

Racism On The Airwaves Is Predictable When You Look At Our History and Leadership

I think the media has once again missed the point, this time on its wall to wall coverage of Imus being taken off of MSNBC. They are busy arguing where an "aging white man" got the phrase he used. Was it from hip hop music? Is he just a racist and sexist? They are also arguing about whether it is worse when whites use those phrases than when blacks use the same? Is the music industry equally to blame?

At first, I also wondered how anyone could come up with what he said, but when you think about the history of our country and leadership, its not at all surprising. Intolerance, divisiveness and plain old meanspiritedness has a long corporate and political history in this country.

I've written about this before.

W.E.B. DuBois observed that racism in early 20th century factories served to chill the labor movement to the benefit of employers. Ronald Reagan used racism to get elected president to cut needed programs for the poor and children to the tax cut benefit of the wealthy people and corporations he represented. Bush refused to meet with the NAACP for years and was satisfied allowing the poor of New Orleans to suffer in the aftermath of Katrina, many of them African-American. His mom actually told Katrina victims that they were probably better off in the Houston refugee shelters than they were at home.

Many congressional republicans ran on and continue to run on anti-same-sex-marriage platforms and, to a great extent, Bush and his coattails in 2004 owe their win to the same sex marriage bans that were put on ballots in battleground states championed by republicans. See here and here too. It is generally agreed that the marriage bans were a large part of the 2004 republican strategy.

republican attacks on Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are far more personal and go way beyond what we usually see against men showing us how gender bias is just their new style of divide and conquer.

Even if many or most individual republicans are not racist, sexist or anti-gay per se, they seem happy enough to benefit from it always failing to call anyone out on it and thinking nothing of sending campaign dollars to the campaigns of fellow republicans who clearly are racist, sexist and/or anti-gay.

The issue that seems tough for the divide and conquer republicans now is immigration because of their shaky coalition. The racists want immigrants punished and deported and the corporationists want to create an underclass of laborers out of them. These are nothing more than different arguments for the same hateful attitude toward human beings.

This is not a defense of Imus, and frankly, I have always had a negative impression of him and his show and am happy to see it off MSNBC, but we also have to realize that this incident is just one more example of how hate-ism permeates our society. When there is a societal ill, I always ask myself who benefits. Then, I think we must realize that those who benefit from hatred will never stop using it because, well, it benefits them. So, its up to the rest of us. The American people need to stop being so susceptible to racism, sexism, sexual orientation bias. They don't have to buy hate-filled music, hate and mistrust people for their race, gender or sexual orientation. They don't have to follow dubious leaders, buy their their twisted arguments and give them viability and acceptance. They can and should vote them out of power at the cash register, the media ratings and the ballot box.

Competent Government

I didn't get a chance to go to the Voter Slam, but Dan Seals did. Here is what the Reader said about him:

Dan Seals, who ran a strong 2006 race against North Shore Republican congressman Mark Kirk, said Americans long for “competent government.”

That brings to mind something I just don't get about republicans now. Even if one agrees with Bush on Iraq, how can that same person be happy with how it has been handled, how the generals in the field were ignored, how resources were wasted and how the injured troops were treated at Walter Reed? With all the bad handling of just about everything from Iraq to Katrina to the Justice Department, when are republicans going to give up the party line for the sake of the country and demand something be done, not right, but correctly for a change?

Rice's Diplomacy

Small wonder Nancy Pelosi saw fit to go to Syria. Bush administration policies have been ineffectual in the region. Here's some information on Rice's attempt at handling the Israel-Palestine issue from guest blogger, Mark Paul:

Rice's Diplomacy

by Mark Paul

Anyone still clinging to the delusion that the Bush administration has been in any way “good for Israel” might want to take a look at an essay on Rice’s vague approximation of diplomacy by Tony Karon, a senior editor at Time.com [http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=180357]

Rather than a patient plan crafted by the U.S. Secretary of State as some miraculous alchemist of grand strategy, the latest flurry of activity reflects the maturing of a range of crises in the Middle East that have festered dangerously, while Condi fiddled. These include:

• The fact that the Bush administration has only exerted itself -- and then just symbolically -- on the Israeli-Palestinian front when it was desperate for favors from allied Arab regimes on other fronts, notably the roiling crises in Iraq and Iran. With the U.S. struggling unsuccessfully on both fronts, its vaunted ability to influence events in the region is in precipitous decline.
• The fact that the Arab regimes most closely allied to the U.S. face mounting crises of legitimacy at home, damned not only by their authoritarianism, but also by their paralysis in the face of U.S. and Israeli violence against Arab populations. Delivering the Palestinians to statehood is now seen by those regimes as essential to their own domestic political survival.
• The fact that an Israeli government, which came to power promising peace through unilateral "disengagement" from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, having fought a disastrous war in Lebanon and facing a never-ending struggle in Gaza, is seemingly disengaged from itself, its policies in tatters. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is drowning in a sea of corruption, scandals, and recriminations over the strategic and tactical incompetence he demonstrated in last summer's Lebanon war. With his own approval ratings at an astonishing 3%, he desperately needs a new idea to persuade Israeli voters that there's any reason to keep him in office.
• The fact that the Palestinians are experiencing an unprecedented humanitarian and political breakdown. All factions of the Palestinian government share an overwhelming incentive to get the financial siege lifted from battered, strife-torn Gaza. President Abbas' political future and legacy rest solely on completing the Oslo peace process; while for Hamas -- at least for its more pragmatic political leadership -- allowing President Abbas to pursue that course (particularly when it carries pan-Arab blessing) makes a certain sense. Hamas's political choices have always reflected a keen sense of Palestinian popular sentiment. By maintaining a distant and ambiguous stance towards Abbas's diplomatic efforts, it can plausibly deny complicity if the outcome proves unpopular on the Palestinian street.

One fact buried in the third bulleted paragraph needs to be highlighted: Bush’s support for the Israeli government has been so effective that the prime minister has an approval rating of 3%. That’s not a typo. Three per cent. And this is in a parliamentary government where a no-confidence vote should force new elections.

Israel eventually will somehow find a way to form a new government. Here, we have an election scheduled in 19 months. No doubt, some who claim to be “pro-Israel” will still advocate we continue the Bush-Kirk policies. By then, however, it will be clear to an overwhelming majority of Jews and Gentiles that no American administration has been worse for Israel since the state was founded nearly 60 years ago.

Which Some People Attempt to Justify in the Name of Religion

Here's what the Pope said today during his Easter sermon:

How many wounds, how much suffering there is in the world! Natural calamities and human tragedies that cause innumerable victims and enormous material destruction are not lacking....

I am thinking of the scourge of hunger, of incurable diseases, of terrorism and kidnapping of people, of the thousand faces of violence which some people attempt to justify in the name of religion ....

It's no coincidence that Bush, his allies and enemies all turn to religion to justify their bad ideas and policies. How else could you talk people into doing the dumbest and worst things than by suggesting God wants it so and claiming to have the direct pipeline? Christianity, Judiasm and Islam have all been deluged by theses folks who don't really believe in or practice the most important teachings of any of the three, but are willing to use religion to justify their agenda of stealing and controlling people and wealth through hate, suspicion and war. Religion is also a powerful tool for riling people up and getting them to act in ways they wouldn't ordinarily on issues they would not ordinarily focus on. Politicians disgused as religious leaders love to use religion to get people working for them, but remember, Jesus said "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her." not "let's go after her to get reelected".

The religious of the world need to reveal those politicians for what they are and reclaim their religions.

50,000th Hit!

Time to party!

Mi Casa es The Bank's Casa

I was talking to a friend the other day. His kid is thinking about buying a house in another state. That led to a conversation about housing in our own district. I cannot imagine where a twenty-something with a new job is going to live in our district.

Most people are not lucky enough to be able to pay cash for their home. It's pretty normal to have house debt and, generally, a home is a good investment. When I was in Jr. High, I took a personal finance class and the teacher told us that the rule was that your house payments should not exceed 1/4 of your gross monthly income. Those were also the days when you had to have at least 20% of the purchase price in cash. Those were all good ideas then, and they are still good ideas, but somewhere along the way, the rules changed. I taught Junior Achievement Personal Finance a few years ago and the 1/4 rule was not mentioned. Lenders started to approve more debt and offered both second mortgages and low interest teaser rates. Builders built bigger and people wanted those larger and more feature laden homes, average homes were no longer being built and older homes became more expensive as demand and competition in the housing market grew, mortgage money became more available, and in some cases, home values were fraudulently inflated with fraudulently high appraisals, no-improvement flips, and mortgage fraud investment deals. Even some honest investment in residential real estate had the effect of at least falsely inflating prices as investors bought up new condominium units and subdivision homes from the developers and resold at higher prices to the ultimate users.

That led me to think about my own situation looking for a new car. Little Flash is starting to need work and is making strange noises, and since her make is no longer being made, parts are getting hard to come by, so I thought I'd take a look at what was out there. I looked at a Prius, but the tax credit is over and the gas savings is pretty minimal in terms of dollars with today's gas prices despite what is being advertised (though that could change). The Prius I wanted would be about $28,000 and gas savings would be about $300-$400 per year as figured out my one of my co-workers. So, I started looking at non-hybrid Honda Accords, Toyota Camrys and Pontiac G6s and even some certified used versions...just to see. After an internet look see and a couple of dealer quotes, it seems it will be about $25,000 for a pretty average, boxy-looking car after paying all the taxes and extended warranties. If you finance, the car actually costs more even though the dealer makes money on the financing. Lightly used cars are not all that much cheaper and don't seem worth the potential for aggravation. So, I whined to my mom a bit about all the fancy cars in the train station parking lot, far fancier than the Honda Accord I was looking for, and wondered how folks can reasonably afford them. Mom reminded me that they don't reasonably afford them. Many folks are paying $500 or much more each month in rents on leases with large end of lease penalties. Most, probably all, personal finance advisors warn folks off these car leases (Suzie Orman calls them "financial stupidity"). Sure, I could clean out an investment and buy a car, but that would eat into my retirement, and because of Bush and Kirk, there probably will not be any social security for me. I don't think it's a good idea to sell off assets for something that is just going to get dented in a parking lot. So, I decided to take a pass and think of Flash with her roll up windows and tape player as "vintage" rather than old.

Take a look at this article about a new film, "In Debt We Trust," directed by Danny Schechter. Schechter calls the housing cruch a new Katrina and the debtors, its victims. Schechter believes that current credit and lending practices are criminal and that all of us are complicit in participating. He recently told Amy Goodman:

This is a new Katrina -- let's think of it that way -- a disaster affecting low-income people, but also increasingly middle-income people as the income divide in America grows. The housing crunch is now spilling over into other parts of our lives. $25,000 on average is what students leave college with with loans and debts. People are paying, in the last year, some $65 billion just in late fees and interest payments on credit cards. This is a kind of a vacuum cleaner into your pocket and taking your money and swinging it over into Wall Street so that Goldman Sachs can give out, you know, $16 billion Christmas gifts to its employees. It's blatant, it's obscene, and it's dramatic, and it's institutional. And this is what we have to realize.

Kirk's Stealth Introduction of a Bill to Kill Investor Confidence

Its, oh, so quiet
Its, oh, so still
You're all alone
And so peaceful until...

A constituent sees you introduced a bill, part of a plan to kill Sarbanes-Oxley.

Yup, Mark Kirk thought no one was paying attention when he introduced his Let's Improve...er...Relax... er...Eventually Kill Sarbanes-Oxley bill.

The SEC chairman disagrees and asked Congress not to amend Sarbanes-Oxley. He thinks a quality product gives American markets the edge. Ah, quality...something that some American corporations don't seem all that interested in lately.

Here is some of what Cox said:

That said, it is wrong to conflate the implementation problems of 404 with the entirety of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. While it's a handy whipping boy, overall the law has had important positive effects. It may fairly be credited with correcting the most serious problems that beset our markets just a few years ago. It has played a significant and valuable role in restoring integrity to our markets. Remember where we were, and what happened. We needed decisive action. Sarbanes-Oxley delivered.

We have come a long way since 2002. Investor confidence has recovered. There is greater corporate accountability. Financial reporting is more reliable and transparent. Auditor oversight is significantly improved. And despite the fact that the global capital markets, consisting of over 50 exchanges worldwide with a total market capitalization of more than $46 trillion, are more competitive today than ever before, the United States continues to be the market leader with the largest global share.

Having effectively addressed the crisis in our markets, we can now look ahead at how best to continue to insure that our system of regulations maintains the highest standards of integrity while honing our competitive edge for the benefit of investors.

Your report this week points out that the U.S. market share for worldwide listings has been declining steadily since 1997, at the rate of about 2% a year. That steady trend significantly pre-dates Sarbanes-Oxley, and even includes the tech boom of the late 1990's. So it's hard to blame Sarbanes-Oxley for the decline. Obviously, other factors were at work — including increasingly competitive opportunities for global listings.

Your report this week also notes that non-technology IPOs in the United States — which had experienced a steady decline beginning in 1996 — have actually experienced an increased since 2003, after Sarbanes-Oxley became effective.

And our exchanges have experienced significant overall growth as well. For the 10 year period from 1995 to 2005, starting from a base year when equity values were riding high and ending in the current post-tech bubble, post-Sarbanes-Oxley era, the value of shares listed on the NYSE grew almost 135%, while the value of the Nasdaq grew almost 210%. The value of the shares listed on the London Stock Exchange, by way of comparison, increased by 127% in the same period.

In addition to our U.S. markets experiencing significant growth, America's exchanges continue to claim the dominant share of global market capitalization. The NYSE and Nasdaq by themselves represent 38% of the total global market capitalization. Of the 50 global exchanges, the NYSE remains the single largest exchange, representing 30% of the world's total market capitalization. This compares to 28% for the entire Asia-Pacific region and 27% for Europe.

A good deal of the current focus on capital markets competitiveness is premised on the notion that foreign jurisdictions have looser regulations. And it's certainly true that Sarbanes-Oxley is being used in marketing campaigns abroad as a reason for foreign companies to list elsewhere. But the truth is that many countries, including the United Kingdom, offer stockholders a very broad set of rights. And many of those same countries are adopting provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as part of their own regulatory regimes.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The fact is, America's markets continue to set the standard for the rest of the world.

So as we consider the effect of Sarbanes-Oxley on U.S. competitiveness, it is important to keep in mind how much of it has been emulated overseas. And with good reason. Competitiveness is driven by far more than ease of doing business — it's driven by the integrity of the market and investor confidence. That's America's sterling competitive edge.

In the short time since the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley, governments in the major markets around the world have followed America's lead in establishing independent auditor oversight bodies like PCAOB. For example, the European Union recently adopted a directive requiring all EU members to create an auditor oversight body. There is now widespread agreement that to improve audit quality, auditor oversight bodies should be independent of the industry they oversee.

Kirk's Knowledge of History Wouldn't Fill An Episode of Liberty's Kids

A commenter on the previous post led us to this comment by Kirk on Bush's insistence that Congress has no power in war:

On the WBEZ Public Radio website (chicagopublicradio.org), Kirk says (predictably) that the spending bill undercuts the military:

Kirk: Early on in the Revolutionary War, George Washington told the Continental Congress: "You need to give me complete authority, or you need to get another general." He knew that you cannot run a military operation via congressional votes.

Mark Kirk again gives a bad history lesson, but sadly most folks do not know much history either, so he can basically say anything he wants and get away with it. I may not be an expert, but I was always interested in Revolutionary War history. This is what I make of it:

I have not seen that quote attributed to Washington other than by Kirk (I checked Library of Congress and could not find it.), but do know that Washington was frustrated early on in the war with a litany of other generals, Gates and Arnold (yup, Benedict) among them, making their own decisions and doing their own thing splitting loyalites among the soldiers. There was a lot of subtextual if not overt in-fighting among the generals and Gates and Arnold both had some early victories where Washington did not, so he might have had some ego issues at some point.

Gates lost credibility always being on the defensive and then lost the Battle of Camden along with his son in 1780 and sort of went away. I assume you all know what happened with Arnold who was acting out over jealousy over Washingtons rise and his decline. So, Washington ultimately got command.

Washington was clearly not talking about Congress if he even made that comment at all, and in fact, Congress as we now know it did not exist as there was no Constitution at the time of the Revolutionary War. Of our present day constitutionally created Congress' authority in war, Washington said this:

"The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure."

and I do have authority for that.

Washington also said:

"How soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.

Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company.

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.

My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth.

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.

Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.

When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen."

Washington clearly never said or meant to say that the President or some general has authority over Congress in times of war.

Mark Kirk either doesn't know enough history for an episode of Liberty's Kids or knows and is intentionally distorting history to help his president keep us in perpetural war so he, Kirk, can use it for his reelection campaign.

It is what it is

UPDATE: Local Baghdad merchants answer McCains comments here. Sample:

This area here is very dangerous,” continued Mr. Youssef, who lost his shop in the February attack. “They cannot secure it.

******************

Again the Bush administration and republican congressmen inspire me to quote John Adams when he said "facts are stubborn things" and none of their nonsense makes anything any different.

McCain can walk around Baghdad with a huge security contingency, say that things are just peachy and blame reporters for their reporting of the violence rather than keeping it quiet like good reporters (from the Soviet Union perhaps) should, but that doesn't make the situation in Iraq any better.

right wing bloggers can smear the CNN reporter who disputed McCain's nutty claim that you can take a leisurely stroll down Baghdad streets by lying about what happened at a news conference, but the tape shows what really happened at that news conference, and none if it makes the situation in Iraq any better any more than smearing the Wilsons made the Niger nuclear material sale a reality or smearing Max Cleland caught Osama bin Laden.

Bush aids can smear former chief campaign strategist Matthew Dowd for "losing faith in the president" over Iraq by questioning Dowd's stability, but that doesn't make Dowd wrong or unstable. It only means the attack machine is still working.

Bush can duck out (again) on making the first pitch in Washington's home opener and claim he's not declining for fear of being booed, but that's a little hard to believe given his baseball past and it also doesn't mean he wouldn't be booed. Cheney was.

I saw Orrin Hatch on Meet the Press this past Sunday morning going on and on about poor Alberto and what a great guy he is and how he is telling the truth and how none of it matters anyway, but that doesn't make what Gonzales did, both in the firings and the lying about them, particularly the lying about the, go away or become OK. Don't these guys ever get sick of apologizing for and having to use up their own credibility for the protection of this corrupt and veracity challenged administration?

Bush and Cheney can whine all they want about supporting the troops and finishing the mission, but their words are ringing hollow to most Americans because everyone knows, because they have demonstrated it over and over, that they will say anything to get what they want and don't really support the troops or care about supporting the troops, and that their only mission in Iraq is to stay at war in Iraq.

It is what it is and those pesky old facts just don't go away.

Russ Feingold has always been one to study the facts and come up with good ideas to respond to them. Now, he's going to be offering a bill to handle Bush's inability to deal with the facts of the situation in Iraq. He'll formally introduce it on Tuesday April 10th. The bill uses congress' spending powers to redeploy the troops by March 31, 2008. Harry Reid supports it and you should too because Iraq is what it is and facts are stubborn things.

Pet and Person Food Safety

If you don't think the recent pet food recall has anything to do with you because you don' t have a pet, guess again. If you think that it was ok for Mark Kirk's U.S. China working group to tell China that their only concern in doing business with Chinese businesses is compliance with US Intellectual Property laws, then you must not eat much.

Only Dennis Kucinich seems to be awake on this one. That may be enough to get Democat's support.