Ships careening out of control

Reflections on human systems failures: The Ship of State, a bunch of great big American Airlines airships, and a Carnival cruise ship have all been careening out of control.  It is always about peoples' handling of very complicated systems. The judgment of leaders is always key to what works and what does not work. 

. Contrast the potentially successful merger of US Airways and American Airlines with the two other utter failures we've seen this week.  Both events were ignominious failures of competency and systems: Senate Republicans successfully filibustered former Senator Chuck Hagel's Secretary of Defense nomination.  And the crippled Carnival ship was finally towed into port in Mobile, Alabama. I ended the day by watching the poor cruise ship dock. And I thought about the looming end of the month deadline for ending the sequester, while Congress just leaves town for over a week.

My feeling is disgust for the poor leadership exhibited by angry lawmakers and by two CEO’s in big travel corporations.  We see a bunch of small, nasty failures . . . very much akin to the red plastic bags and open buckets of human waste accumulating in the halls of the Carnival cruise ship

Is this the legacy we are leaving?

Think about the future we, our children and grandchildren, are facing.  Fairly recent news items chronicle a number of symptoms of our apparent decade-long decline:

• Stalled U.S. economic growth rate
• Higher rates of poverty in most states; children in LGBT families more likely to be poor
• Diminished health outlook due to obesity
• Decline in the earth observation sciences
• Increased government surveillance of citizens, including data captured by Google from Wi-Fi content, as well as increasingly unprotected electronic privacy of cloud Email
• U.S. use of predator drones is now officially reported, targeted for a significant infusion of government funds, and justified by authorities (including allowing targeting of U.S. citizens).

Never before has it been the case that we are leaving our descendants worse off than we were. . . economically and health-wise.  We have a diminished quality of life.  The gap between rich and poor has increased, as have the costs of health care.  The military-industrial complex, as President Eisenhower warned, is in the forefront of powerful influence in our nation.  The earth is on a dangerous path to increased warming.  And we as citizens enjoy less and less constitutional protection.  As a matter of fact, what on earth do we think we are doing?!

"Forward" is the new presidential campaign slogan of the Democrats. We are at the crossroads. If the November elections fail to reelect President Obama, fail to return Democratic control to the U.S. House of Representatives, and to switch various state legislatures, we will continue this sorry legacy.  We need to get back on track as soon as possible.

Do or die for Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania . . . newspaper believes

, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here is the LA Times summary:

Los Angeles Times

         Mon, 09 Apr 2012 02:13:11 GMT

It's do or die for Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania
Los Angeles Times
In a primary battle on his home turf against Mitt Romney, he hopes voters recall what they like about him and not why they booted him from the Senate in 2006. Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum campaigns in Mars, Pa.

I must say 
that it will be a big relief when this candidate is finally defeated as his party’s nominee for President.  He could not possibly defeat President Obama.  And the Republicans still need to nominate the man most able to give President Obama a run for his money.  Even then, however, President Barack Obama will win his second term race.

Related articles

• Sen. Bob Casey Wishes Rick Santorum The Best (pittsburgh.cbslocal.com)
• Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama get the battle for Pennsylvania rolling (pennlive.com)
• Rick Santorum says he'll 'absolutely' win Pennsylvania primary election: CNN (pennlive.com)
• Rick Santorum to resume campaign in home state of Pennsylvania after Easter respite (boston.com)

Texas local news makes it to TPM

My State Senator, Wendy Davis’s, office was the target of a number of firebombs within recent days.  It is a scary story that had a good ending.  A staff member put out the fire and a suspect was arrested within hours.  No one was injured, thank goodness.

See further details in this well written story from yesterday’s Talking Points Memo blog post by Nick R. Martin.

Reich knows my thoughts:

Since it is less than a year until the U.S. presidential election is held, we are getting more and more into campaign mode.  I do not have to think about for whom I will vote; it will be the incumbant.  But my trip to the polling place will be less enthusiastic than the first time I voted for Senator Barack Obama.  I was not sure why this is the case, but a blog post by Robert Reich gave me the reasons.  To quote (emphasis mine),
Robert Reich (Why We May Be In Store for a Passionless Presidential Race) [Nov. 11, 2011]  To quote:

President Obama will be supported by progressives and the Democratic base, but without enthusiasm. His notorious caves to Republicans and Wall Street — failing to put conditions on the Street’s bailout (such as demanding the Street help stranded home owners), or to resurrect Glass-Steagall, or include a public option in health care, or assert his constitutional responsibility to raise the debt limit, or protect Medicare and Social Security, or push for cap-and-trade, or close Guantanamo, or, in general, confront the regressive Republican nay-sayers and do-nothings with toughness rather than begin negotiations by giving them much of what they want — are not the stuff that stirs a passionate following.

In conclusion, I add a few other Presidential complaints not mentioned by Mr. Reich.  I am disappointed by his failure to roll back the assaults on the Fourth Amendment in the name of national security and by the President's remaining in Afghanistan far too long.   However, I still like the President enormously and think he is doing a great job with foreign policy.

Related articles, courtesy of Zemanta:

• Robert Reich: When Will Wall Street Call for More Federal Spending?
• Robert Reich: The Wall Street Occupiers and the Democratic Party
• Robert Reich: Obama should call for return of Glass-Steagall

Throwing the windows open to jarring reality -

Between the fall of 2008-2009 too many of us were mostly unaware of what was actually been happening to the world's economy. We got the mainstream media's headlines, their reports but almost no analysis. That is usually as it is with big events; the history has to wait until later. Currently it seems that enough time has passed to find out the main facts and to gain some perspective. Maybe that is why the "Occupy Wall Street" movement has been this long in coming. This morning I watched the best report I have ever seen of the worldwide financial crisis that occurred during the last years of the Bush administration and the beginning of President Obama's term of office. Unfortunately, it had to come from an outside source, a news service not much trusted by our own government over the years, Al Jazeera/English. Here is the link.

Al Jazeera has been broadcasting a great 4-part series the past few days titled, "Meltdown." The piece highlights the main players and events of the period. Skillfully and objectively the segments provided me with an awareness and understanding of what happened - and why - that I never before have had. Rebroadcasts of each memorable episode are available on the "Meltdown" page. The series includes these four episodes:

1) "The men who crashed the world" - who brought down the economy, the sequence of what happened, who intervened to try to stave off the disaster.

2) "A global financial tsunami" - how it happened that the financial crisis was truly and quickly world wide, the present inter-connectedness of current economies.

3) "Paying the price" - The people and groups who lost out, as well as those who won without any negative consequences.

4) "After the fall" [Part 4 will be broadcast tomorrow afternoon, October 11].

Ezra Klein is one of my very favorite pundits. He recently offered his own very thorough and insightful analysis of the Obama administration's decisions regarding the financial crisis in the fall of 2008 and the spring and summer of 2009. It is entitled: "Financial Crisis and Stimulus: Could This Time Be Different?" by Ezra Klein, columnist at The Washington Post (10/04/11). It is headed by a great photo essay by Bill O'Leary called, "Obama’s economic inner circle and other key voices in the debate." I highly recommend taking the time to read this, and the following piece, in order to flesh out the basics so brilliantly laid out by Al Jazeera.

Jared Bernstein, who was Vice-President Biden's economic adviser, is out of government. And happily, he is now another of my favorite pundits. He wrote a very fine piece in response to Ezra Klein's analysis called: "The Self-Imposed Limits of Reaction to a Crisis," by Jared Bernstein at his blog On the Economy (10/11/11). He and Klein had a conversation about these matters when Klein recently filled in at the Rachel Maddow show. There is also a link on Bernstein's blog.

Today has been immersion day for me. I had to do something. I was feeling anxiety disappointment as things things got worse politically; I was becoming more discouraged for the future. Throwing the windows open to the reality of our economic meltdown means I now know a lot more than I did yesterday. Consequently my perspective changed. I am now much more clear about who is responsible and why. And I have a very positive reaction to the Occupy Wall Street events that began a few weeks ago. I am so proud of all those folks! They may not all know exactly why they are in such trouble, but they surely know who caused it. And they know that they are not the people who should be bearing all the burdens of years of Wall Street, greed, irresponsibility and profligacy. And they know that our government's leaders have not done well enough to make things right again.

Related articles

• Writer Naomi Klein On Occupy Wall Street: 'The Sky's The Limit' (huffingtonpost.com)
• What Occupy Wall Street Wants: Parsing the Unofficial List of Demands (curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com)
• "Financial Crisis and Stimulus" (economistsview.typepad.com)

Why civil liberties should still matter -

President Obama's Inauguration.  Image via Wikipedia

South by Southwest is an old political blog I began in 2005.  For whatever reason, I focused on the subject of constitutional civil liberties almost from the beginning.*  Perhaps it was my belief that the Republican Bush administration began riding roughshod over the Bill of Rights' First and Fourth Amendments almost immediately after the 9/11/01 attacks on the United States.

Fast forward to January 2009 when the current Democratic Barack Obama administration began.
It became apparent to me over time that not that much changed under our Constitutional Law professor president. 

The U.S. recently confirmed that Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a military drone strike.  And almost from when this news became known, there was a debate between civil libertarians and the rest of the country over the justification of the U.S. military action in northern Yemen.  In its news article today's New York Times points to the President's dilemma.  To quote,

The strike was the culmination of a desperate manhunt marked not only by near misses and dead ends, but also by a wrenching legal debate in Washington about the legality — and morality — of putting an American citizen on a list of top militants marked for death. It also represented the latest killing of a senior terrorist figure in an escalated campaign by the Obama administration.

. . . There had been an intense debate among lawyers in the months before the Obama administration decided to put Mr. Awlaki on a target list in early 2010, and officials said that Mr. Khan was never on the list. The decision to make Mr. Awlaki a priority to be sought and killed was controversial, given his American citizenship. The American Civil Liberties Union, which fought unsuccessfully in the American court system to challenge the decision to target Mr. Awlaki, condemned the killing. 

Commentators on television, the blogosphere and social media soon raised questions about the legality and morality of the "assassainations" or war combatant targeting of two United States citizens.  So I am not alone with my discomfort.  That view is not widely held beyond the members of the left. But it does give many of us pause. Michael J.W. Stickings, my longtime blog friend at The Reaction, wonders whether President Obama is "a disaster for civil liberties."  He mirrors my own ambivalence, saying:

Though I remain, for the most part, a supporter of the president, I cannot disagree 

[with legal scholar Jonathan Turley, whom Stickings quotes extensively].

While I would argue that he has done a lot of good thus far in office, this remains the major blot on his record.

Related current opinion articles:

• American Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki Assassinated in Yemen (news.firedoglake.com)
• Glenn Greenwald, Ron Paul and Jeremy Scahill on Obama authorizing the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki (dandelionsalad.wordpress.com)
• Anwar al-Awlaki's extrajudicial murder | Michael Ratner (guardian.co.uk)

*Just a  few of my previous posts related to civil liberties over the years:

• 9/7/11: A look at freedom and liberty in the US ten years after 9/11/01
• 9/2/09: Intelligence Bytes
• 12/18/05: NSA Surveillance of Americans: NYT
• 12/09/05: Patriot Act May Be Extended
• 10/20/05: Spy World

Civil liberties should still matter.  Even if I can understand or even argue for the killing-of-a-terrorist view, the next questions are the real ones.  What happens when another president (not so competent and trustworthy) is in charge?  Where is the line for him/her?  Does it make a difference where the killing happens?  Could it be legally done in the United States as well as Yemen?  How strong was the evidence?  Was there due process?  What does the law of war demand?  What qualifies as the "imminent threat" posed by the citizen/combatant?  What if innocent people are also killed?

Posted on 10/1/11 - from Texas:

My Other Blogs: Check out my Amplify blog for synopses of current news stories. My creative website is Making Good Mondays. Follow me at Twitter. And Carol Gee - Online Universe is the home page for all my websites.

A family of nations gathers in Washington D.C.

Barack Obama had a long-standing interest in controlling the building and deployment of nuclear weapons.  Now he has the opportunity to actually do something about the problem of nuclear proliferation.  Terrorists who are willing to commit suicide for their own nihilistic causes would have no problem pushing the bomb's button, nor any worry about how many lives they take.  The more, the better.
 
The challenge of accounting for loose nuclear fissile material and what it could mean in a world with violent extremists is something that demands concerted efforts by the entire family of nations.  Dozens of countries will be represented at President Obama's nuclear summit.  But not all nations will be there.  In fact several key players are not coming.


But this unfortunate reality does not mean that the President should be deterred in his quest to make the world safer.  And I do not mean safer from "weapons of mass destruction."  The overuse of that phrase in the recent past has so cheapened its core meaning that the words no longer have any usefulness for me.  No, it means safer from people who would dearly love to get their hands on a nuclear weapon, or the materials to make one.

Whatever comes out of the nuclear summit will be dismissed by many of the President's adversaries as weak, not enough, without teeth, etc.  Others will define his efforts as dangerous, misguided or irrational.  But President Obama has made a start. In the wake of the signing of the START treaty, it builds momentum.  And it constructs credibility for this crazy idea that the world will survive more certainly if nuclear weapons are beginning to be seen, even if faintly, as things of the past.

We must believe that the family of nations has the will and the ingenuity to prevent extremists from getting nuclear capability.  Just because some feel that it is impossible does not mean we should not try our best to prevail despite the odds.  We have a consummate despite-the-odds leader in Barack Obama.  He appears willing to tackle the hardest issues. . . getting elected and reforming health care, for example.  His pragmatism, his ability to find common ground among disparate contenders, his energy and intellect all bode well for this project.  We all need to stand in his corner and to wish him well.

Posted via email from Southwest Postings

National Security Issues Spotlighted

The Obama administration continues to make national security decisions with which I might not agree.  For example, Obama attorneys incorrectly argued for warrantless cell phone tracking, according to a Raw Story - 2/14 post.  Glenn Greenwald from Salon.com (1/8/10) put his own disagreement even more strongly: "The backfiring of the surveillance state" is how he characterized the failure. To quote:

Every debate over expanded government surveillance power is invariably framed as one of "security v. privacy and civil liberties" -- as though it's a given that increasing the Government's surveillance authorities will "make us safer." But it has long been clear that the opposite is true. As numerous experts (such as Rep. Rush Holt) have attempted, with futility, to explain, expanding the scope of raw intelligence data collected by our national security agencies invariably impedes rather than bolsters efforts to detect terrorist plots. This is true for two reasons:(1) eliminating strict content limits on what can be surveilled (along with enforcement safeguards, such as judicial warrants) means that government agents spend substantial time scrutinizing and sorting through communications and other information that have nothing to do with terrorism; and (2) increasing the quantity of what is collected makes it more difficult to find information relevant to actual terrorism plots. As Rep. Holt put it when arguing against the obliteration of FISA safeguards and massive expansion of warrantless eavesdropping power which a bipartisan Congress effectuated last year:

It has been demonstrated that when officials must establish before a court that they have reason to intercept communications -- that is, that they know what they are doing -- we get better intelligence than through indiscriminate collection and fishing expeditions.

Intelligence gathering is a very hard business in any administration, including that of President Obama.  Explaining the failure of the Intel community to detect the Christmas Eve attempt to blow up an airplane over Detroit, a new study financed by Congress,  according to the New York Times (2/22/10), has found that hurdles stymie the National Counterterrorism Center. To quote:

. . . the study concludes, is a lack of coordination and communication among the agencies that are supposed to take the lead in planning the fight against terrorism, . . The findings come just weeks after the National Counterterrorism Center was criticized for missing clear warning signs that a 23-year-old Nigerian man was said to be plotting to blow up a Detroit-bound commercial airliner on Dec. 25.

. . . The report found that the center’s planning arm struggled with “systemic impediments” like overlapping statutes, culture clashes with different agencies and tensions with two formidable players: the State Department’s counterterrorism office and the C.I.A.

. . . The study called on Mr. Obama to issue an executive order to define the nation’s counterterrorism architecture in order to address some of the problems and improve coordination. It also recommended giving the center’s director, currently Michael E. Leiter, a say in the choice of counterterrorism officials at other federal agencies, a step the 9/11 Commission had recommended but was not adopted.

With all that, the current intelligence community is willing to try such completely unconventional methods as MCClatchy's (3/29/10) headline revealed: "Feds are thinking outside the box to plug intelligence gaps."  Congress will be asked to appropriate funds for this project, as well as oversee it on behalf of the citizens they represent.

We all should be very grateful that intelligence oversight in Congress is no longer in the hands of former House Intelligence Committee chairman, Peter Hoekstra.  Read the following little gem by David C. Morrison from CQ Behind the Lines (3/30/10).  To quote:

Yemen, brother:  “ ‘I’ll lead a preemptive strike on Yemen,’ Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., vows, publicly stating his plans for the Michigan National Guard if he wins election as governor this fall,” Glossy News notes. ‘I’ve been leading on national security for the last nine years in Congress, trying to drive this administration in a policy direction that keeps America safe,’ Hoekstra said on ABC’s This Week. ‘Obama hasn’t shown interest in my concerns here, so I intend to strike with the reconstituted Michigan National Guard in Yemen. As the leading national expert, it’s certainly appropriate for me to promote this strike in Yemen. The leaders of that little speck of earth need to see what a ball buster a Michigan strike can be. They won’t know what hit them. I think the unemployed people of the fine state of Michigan can be of help to the safety of the citizens of the United States of America . . . Unemployed Michigan folks can come to the rescue of our dire situation here. And so say all of us.’”

Representative Hoekstra appears to have been completely serious in his above statement.  I note that Michigan is where the FBI recently arrested and charged with sedition a group of militant militia members who were allegedly plotting to kill police.  This gubernatorial candidate needs to be much more careful with his proposal to take up arms in his own "war on terror."  His is a long history of ignoring the rule of law.  For example, torture did not seem to bother him when he learned of it from the CIA.  But we'll never know for sure because the CIA failed to keep accurate records of Congressional briefings.

The CIA has no idea what it briefed Congress on torture reported "emptywheel" at Firedoglake (3/16/10). The CIA did not keep adequate records of what was briefed to members of Congress in 2003 and 2004 regarding torture.  To quote:

The CIA documents released in the latest FOIA batch prove that all the claims that CIA (and Crazy Pete Hoekstra) have made about briefings Congress received on torture are, at best, reconstructions based on years old memors, if not outright fabrications.

The documents appear to have been a summary of torture briefings CIA Office of Congressional Affairs put together on July 11, 2004 in anticipation of CIA’s Congressional briefing in July 2004.

The summary shows that:

CIA OCA didn’t even write up the briefings it gave Porter Goss and Jane Harman in February 2003 or the Gang of Four in September 2003 by July 2004. . . any claims they make about the content of those briefings cannot be said to be accurate. . .

The only MFR that OCA seemed to have completed in July 2004 is the February 4, 2003 briefing, at which Pat Roberts apparently unequivocally approved of destroying the torture tapes (and at which he also agreed to end nascent Congressional attempts at oversight).

In other words, the claims that CIA had detailed records about what Nancy Pelosi or Jane Harman or Jay Rockefeller said about destroying the torture tapes? They appear to be completely fabricated.

There is a related story regarding additional lawmakers'involvement coming out of this month's release of the CIA  records, "Ex-Intel Committee Chair Blasts GOP Successor for Killing Torture Probe" is by David Corn from Mother Jones (3/3/10). Former Democratic Senator Bob Graham of Florida was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee until January of 2003, when he was replaced by Republican Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas.  To quote:

. . at the start of the US government's campaign against Al Qaeda [Graham] tells Mother Jones he cannot fathom why his Republican replacement squashed his request for an independent review of the interrogation techniques then being used by the CIA. . .  he believes Sen. Roberts  neglected his obligations as head of the intel panel by smothering Graham's proposal for a committee assessment of so-called enhanced interrogation practices.

On February 4, 2003, according to a CIA memo released last week, . . . a classified briefing [was presented] . . . to Roberts and an aide to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the senior Democrat on the committee. Over the course of nearly two hours, the briefers covered the CIA's brutal interrogation (or torture)—including waterboarding—of two detained terrorist suspects, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and told Roberts of the agency's plan to destroy videotapes of the Zubaydah sessions. The memo noted that Roberts "posed no objection to what he had heard" and "supported the interrogation effort."

. . . [CIA briefer] Moskowitz told Roberts and the others that the CIA would not allow any additional committee staffers to be briefed on the interrogation program. Nor would the spy service permit any committee staffer to review the interrogations in real time or visit the secret site where these sessions were occurring. Roberts didn't protest. In fact, at that point, according to the CIA memo, Roberts "interjected that he saw no reason for the committee to pursue [Graham's] request and could think of 'ten reasons right off why it is a terrible idea' for the committee to do any such thing as had been proposed." No committee investigation ensued.

That is not the case in 2010.  Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) held a  Judiciary Committee hearing in late February regarding the Justice Department's recently released Office of Professional Responsibility report, which he has condemned.  The Hill - 2/22/10 - had the story on the disappointing report that Senator Leahy investigated. To quote:

. . . a report that allowed two Bush administration officials to escape any formal punishment regarding their role in drafting the legal justification for the harsh interrogations of detainees.

Jay Bybee and John Yoo, two former high-level Bush administration officials who drafted the legal basis for the Bush administration’s treatment of overseas terror suspects, escaped any formal punishment . . .

The new report, written by Deputy Associate Attorney General David Margolis, reversed the recommendations of ethics officials within the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which earlier had concluded the state bar committees should decide whether Bybee’s and Yoo’s law licenses should be revoked.

As the previous year has shown, the current administration has not worked to restore privacy and civil liberties, trampled by the Bush administration.  The Intel community still has too many elements that cannot analyze and communicate effectively.  Few in the previous administration have been held accountable for transgressions of the rule of law.  Congress failed to exercise adequate national security oversight, and remains weak in their responsibilities.  And many Democrats and Republicans have completely different views of what constitutes adequate national security that operates well within the rule of law.

Additional references from CQ Behind the Lines by David C. Morrison (3/30/10). To quote:

Ways and means: The 2002 death of a suspected Afghan militant in the so-called Salt Pit — the only fatality known to have occurred inside the secret post-9/11 CIA prison network — is a cautionary tale, The Associated Press’s Adam Goldman investigates. “I believe that there is a discrepancy between what most Americans believe is legal and what the government is actually doing under the Patriot Act,” Secrecy News’s Steven Aftergood quotes Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. “How does being watched affect the quality of our lives? You can argue that only terrorists and criminals would protest, but the reality is that none of us has the same privacy we had before,” Jay Fidell argues in The Honolulu Advertiser. “If, God forbid, Americans are ever rounded up in large numbers during a natural or man made disaster, where could they be detained?” Mark Anderson asks in The American Free Press, answering that FEMA surely has it figured out.

Trend analysis: is from a current news roundup by David C. Morrison at CQ Behind the Lines (3/30/10):

“The latest wave of jihadists traveling to Pakistan and elsewhere for training may have been motivated by a sense of jihadi cool*,” NPR’s Dina Temple-Raston leads. “A researcher has found that many terrorist organizations, including Hamas, are using their children’s Web sites in order to recruit girls for terrorist activities,” ANI leads.

*Jihadi Cool is from Newsweek Magazine (4/15/2008).  Here is the link to the PDF version: newsweek_jihadi_cool_150408.pdf (application/pdf Object

It is hard to put into words

Because it feels like a very important day, I must try to express it, however feebly.  The health care bill signing ceremony at the White House is the occasion for my full heart.

Almost 5 years ago I started writing my blog, South by Southwest.  I had a lot to say then, not so much now.  And much of what I had to say about politics and the circumstances of my country was pretty negative.  I came to learn the meaning of the blogosphere term "rant."

In recent years I haven't had nearly as much reason to rant, because my party captured the leadership roles in Congress and the White House.  For whatever reason, I developed an internal calm about the potential well-being of our country with Democrats in power.

Today marks one of the reasons I had confidence.  It is the day that health care for all Americans becomes a right and no longer a privilege for the "haves."  It will need to wait on Senate reconciliation action this week to be in its more proper form.  But, even if it has to go back to the House for another vote, it will happen, because it was supposed to happen.  It is now high time.

On this bright morning President Obama dedicated the occasion to his late mother.  He also recognized many others from the past and present who had helped to make the long awaited new health care law possible. It came too late, however,  to help his mom and others in attendance who had lost loved ones before this momentous signing day. Let us hope that it has not come too late for "Natoma," who came to symbolize the plight of thousands of very ill people who do have not the benefit of health care insurance.

At last change has come however.  The promised change will happen incrementally, and with fits and starts.  It will be accompanied with hand wringing "No!"s by those motivated by loss of power, anger at "others" and fear of change.  Narrow visioned pundits will spend countless hours examining the miniscule bits of so-called "news," casting everything in the light of politics.  And members of my party will make many more mistakes as they try to do the right things and hold on to power at the same time.

In time, in other words, everyone will be exposed as merely human.  God bless us all.


[Post date - March 23, 2010.  Image credit: Wordle.net]


See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Blogs: My general purpose/southwest focus blog is at Southwest Progressive. My creative website is at Making Good Mondays. And Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: health care reform congress obama

March: Womens History Month -- Honors to Women of Courage

International Women of Courage Awards were presented on International Womens Day, Wednesday, March 10.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and First Lady Michelle Obama honored a number of outstanding women for their courage in standing for women's rights around the world.  To quote from Secretary Clinton's remarks at the event:

I am particularly delighted to welcome back to the State Department our First Lady, Michelle Obama. (Applause.) This is the second time that Michelle Obama and I have celebrated the International Women of Courage Awards together. It’s a tradition I really like because she is doing so much for women and girls not only in our own country, but around the world. She inspires them. She challenges them. She exemplifies for them the kind of strength, warmth, and grace that so many of us see in her and aspire to for our own daughters. She has made the health and empowerment of young people, particularly young women, a centerpiece of her leadership. And she and I agree on many things, but one that we particularly agree on is that every child should have the chance to fulfill his or her God-given potential. And I just have to thank her for the mentoring programs that she created at the White House, for the special project that she is doing now to tackle childhood obesity, and to really setting the standard for what we want to see in our own country and around the world as well.

And I want to thank and recognize – I want to also recognize Melanne Verveer. (Applause.) Melanne is our country’s first Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, and it’s no accident that that would happen in the Obama Administration, where we would have someone of her experience and expertise promoting the political, economic, and social empowerment of women. As Melanne often reminds us, the world is full of remarkable women whose work goes unnoticed or undervalued. And today, we celebrate some particular women, but they really stand in for millions of other women who are serving their communities and making our world a better and safer place for all.

********** [Each honoree was presented with her award between the following segments]

What we’re going to do now is actually present the honorees. I will read the awards citations and then Mrs. Obama and I will present them with their International Women of Courage Award. I’d like to note that we’re going to start with two women from Afghanistan, so let me start with Shukria Asil – (applause) – as one of four female members of the Baghlan Provincial Council. Ms. Asil has been instrumental in promoting government responsiveness to the needs of Afghan women. She is being honored for pioneering efforts to promote opportunity, justice, and education for women and girls; serving as a voice for diverse members of Afghan society; and at great personal risk, increasing the accountability and responsiveness of the government to the needs of women and girls in Afghanistan. Thank you so much, Ms. Asil. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: I woke up to the voice of this next honoree because she was interviewed on public radio, NPR, this morning. And Colonel Shafiqa Quraishi of Afghanistan is the Director of Gender, Human, and Child rights within the Ministry of the Interior. She began her career in the Afghan National Police. She has been at the forefront of integrating women into the government and police force. And she is being honored for her visionary leadership in breaking down barriers to the professional advancement of Afghan women, promoting unity and gender equality, humanitarian activism, and initiating programs to strengthen the Afghan National Police. Congratulations, Colonel. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: You heard Mrs. Obama speaking of this next honoree, Sonia Pierre of the Dominican Republic. She was born on Dominican soil to Haitian parents. She is the founder and leader of the Movement for Dominican Women of Haitian Descent, an NGO dedicated to fighting for the rights of vulnerable communities in her country. She is being honored for advancing the cause of social justice, confronting exploitation and discrimination, defending the dignity of persons of Haitian descent in the Dominican Republic, and helping marginalized communities develop their own voices for their own future. Congratulations, Sonia. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Ann Njogu of Kenya is the co-convener of the Civil Society Congress – (cheers and applause) – a leader in constitutional reform and head of the Center for Rights, Education, and Awareness. She has been an activist seeking social transformation and working for reform in her native country. She is being honored for progressive leadership in the fight against corruption, the push for gender equality in Kenya, the battle for constitutional reform, and for bravely mobilizing Kenyan civil society to secure the passage of landmark legislation against sexual offenses. (Applause and cheers.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Dr. Lee Ae-ran of South Korea was born in North Korea. She was a witness to tyranny at a very early age. She defected to South Korea and transformed her life, where she has been a force for promoting human rights of the North Korean refugee community. She is being honored for spearheading initiatives to improve the lives and education of the North Korean refugee community in South Korea, elevating the empowerment of women, and raising awareness of the dire human rights situation in North Korea. Congratulations, Dr. Lee. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Jansila Majeed of Sri Lanka is a women who lived as an internally displaced person for almost 20 years. She became one of the few women activists working on behalf of the displaced Muslim and Tamil civilians and is the managing trustee of the Community Trust Fund in Puttalam Province. She’s being honored for her dedicated grassroots activism and minority community leadership on behalf of women and girls, their empowerment, peace building, relief work, the resettlement of internally displaced persons, and a commitment to bringing society together. Congratulations.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Sister Marie Claude Naddaf is the Mother Superior of the Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd. She has been a beacon of hope for women and girls who have nowhere else to turn. She is a pioneer in working for social services for women in Syria. She is being honored for her steadfast dedication to ending the suffering of women and girls who are victims of domestic violence, sexual exploitation, and human trafficking. She launched Syria’s first shelter and emergency hotline for women. Thank you so much, Sister. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: And the final honoree who could be with us today is Jestina Mukoko of Zimbabwe. Jestina is the Executive Director of the Zimbabwe Peace Project and a longtime leader in the human rights and activist community in her country. She is being honored for her relentless activism for justice and defense of human rights, for bringing attention to widespread violence against women in Zimbabwe, and for pursuing her case to the supreme court, resulting in a victory that has offered hope to her fellow citizens. Congratulations. (Applause and cheers.)

Reference:
Here are some very interesting facts, pulled from the U.S. Census Bureau about the state of womanhood… It comes from Women's History Month, a blog post by Lijit.com (3/5/10).

[Post date: 3/11/10]


Blogs: My general purpose/southwest focus blog is at Southwest Progressive. My creative website is at Making Good Mondays. And Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: women State Department International Women of Courage Awards Women's History Month

Harry Reid's apology

Image by erjkprunczyk via Flickr

If the U. S. had just 15 member states and we went back in time, many liberals would have agreed with Senator Reid's 2008 assessment of Barack Obama's electibility situation. 

United States Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid Apologized To [President] Obama for a very unfortunate remark he made during the President's election campaign.  President Obama, not surprisingly accepted the Senator's apology and said that the book is closed on it.  But I am not so sure it is.

Democrats would probably be willing to join the President's view, but the "loyal" opposition will exploit this revelation for all it is worth. This is 2010, an election year, and Republicans are intent on making as much mischief as possible for the Democrats.
 
That Reid's remarks were revealed by Mark Halperin and his co-author is the reality.  Thus the Majority Leader did the right thing in saying he was sorry for his thoughtlessness.  But that is not going to be enough for a lot of people.  Similar headlines caused Senator Trent Lott to lose his seat as Majority Leader a few years ago.  I predict that this is far from over for Senator Reid.


Posted using ShareThis

Related articles by Zemanta

• Reid Calls Obama (politics.theatlantic.com)
• Three Questions for the Congressional Leadership (gloucestercitynews.net)
• Michael Tomasky: Harry Reid's "Negro" problem (guardian.co.uk)
• Clean, Articulate, Light-Skinned, and No Negro Dialect! (gloucestercitynews.net)
• Steele: My racial slur isn't the same as Harry Reid's (videocafe.crooksandliars.com)

Reaction to the upcoming 9/11 trials, announced by AG Eric Holder

There was strong reaction to the announcement of the 9/11 trial to be held in a New York court. Liberals and civil libertarians were approving and Republican Right-Wingers were deeply disapproving.

What are we to call the widespread upset among Republicans? Today's post is a digest of opinion from writers whom I regularly follow as well as my own conclusions.

Fear Mongering -- Tom Andrews, writing late Friday night for The Huffington Post, said that, ". . . we all know that Right Wing critics will be out, en masse, using their favorite tactic of fear-mongering while relying on ignorance to manipulate the public." Read the whole thing: Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, others to finally face justice in NYC.

Surrender -- Other nations have trials of high level terrorists within their systems of normal justice. But since 9/11/01 we in the U.S. have not. I think Glenn Greenwald put his finger on the problem in his Saturday post. He minced no words, calling it "The Right's textbook 'surrender to the terrorists'." His intro line said, " 'We're too scared to have real trials in our country' is a level of cowardice unmatched in the world." And Greenwald closed with this straight up opinion:

. . . it's hardly surprising that they exude a level of fear of Terrorists that is unmatched virtually anywhere in the world. It is, however, noteworthy that the position they advocate -- it's too scary to have normal trials in our country of Terrorists -- is as pure a surrender to the Terrorists as it gets.

Cowardice -- At emptywheel Marcy Wheeler wrote a pungent little piece that asked, "Why is it that Republicans are such scardey-cats?" I love what Gregg Levine said in "Elephants on Parade" on Friday at Firedoglake, about the difference between Democratic and Republican reaction to the announcement of upcoming 9/11 trials. To quote Levine:

Cowards. Cowards. And again, cowards.

I can’t say that word enough because no one else seems to say it at all.

Contrast what a sampling of Republicans (and Republican wannabe) have to say about today’s decision . . .

Guilt -- Guilt and anxiety/fear are first cousins in the world of emotional motivation. Daily Kos' "thereisnospoon," thinks he has figured out why Republicans are having such a fear mongering fit. The author concluded:

There's a reason Republicans are pissing in their pants. . . they're afraid that their own policies of torture and indefinite detention will get the terrorists acquitted. So, like a stupid criminal, they're upping the ante by doubling down on their original criminal idiocy.

Un-American Demagoguery -- Leaders who make use of popular prejudices or false claims in order to gain power does not deserve followers. Representative Jim Moran used even stronger words than fearfulness in a post by Evan McMorris-Santoro at TPMDC. To quote from the story Friday:

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) has strong words for the Republicans opposing Attorney General Eric Holder's plan to bring five 9/11 suspects to New York City to face trial.

"They see this as an opportunity to demagogue," he said. "They will seize on any opportunity to do that, and that means they'll even take a stand that's un-American."

"It's un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial," Moran added. "It's against our principles as a nation."

Medieval Romanticism -- These are probably the kindest words I found in my little news survey. Professor Juan Cole at Informed Comment defined the Republican reaction to AG Eric Holder's decision to prosecute as "medieval romanticism." To quote:

Predictably, Republican critics vowed to fight the decision, since they much prefer to hold people forever without trial while torturing them, sort of the way some English kings did in North America before there was that pesky American constitution. . . . its fascination with arbitrary arrest and imprisonment and with torture more recalls the star chambers of yore than the deliberations at Philadelphia over 200 years ago.

Fear is a natural and normal reaction to accurately perceived danger. But the key is using one's whole brain to ascertain just what constitutes a real danger. The terrorists acts in 2001 were very dangerous. Over three thousand people lost their lives as a result. This is 2009, however, and it is important to make distinctions that today's realities warrant. Wiser people than knee-jerk reactionaries are now in charge, thank goodness. The United States government must continue to act out of calculation toward confidence-building, out of justice and healing, out of intelligence and courage, and out of genuine patriotism. It is time.

Related articles by Zemanta:

• 9/11 Suspects Could Be Moved to New York for Trial
• New York's 9/11 trial justice | Ken Gude
• "New York is not afraid of terrorists"
• Do Conservatives Trust Our Criminal Justice System?

Posted via email from Southwest Postings

SPACE.com -- White House Panel's Human Spaceflight Report Due Soon

"What's really at stake in the short-term is Ares I, and all of this push for commercial crew I would think is viewed as an alternative to a government-run program like Ares I," said John Logsdon, a space policy expert professor emeritus at the George Washington University here. "Long-term, it's whether in fact there is going to be a meaningful space exploration program beyond the International Space Station."

The Ares I is based on the space shuttle's giant solid rocket motors built by Alliant Techsystems of Edina, Minn. Alliant Techsystems is the lead contractor on Ares I.

Sources in the administration and on Capitol Hill say it remains to be seen when or how the White House responds to the report. But sources both within the administration and close to it say an increase along the lines suggested by the Augustine panel is being weighed. Such an increase would add almost $1 billion to the space exploration budget in 2011, ramping up to about $3 billion annually by 2014.

"I think the $3 billion figure has been widely misunderstood," Logsdon said. "The actual proposal from the Augustine committee is a gradual increase to that level over four years through 2014, with only a little less than $1 billion proposed for next year."

Congressional sources say lawmakers are anxiously awaiting the administration's response to the Augustine panel's final report, though some question whether Congress would support the flexible path exploration option.

Augustine was pressed during a September congressional hearing to offer a compelling reason to abandon NASA's current exploration program rather than fund it at a higher level, for example.

However, the Augustine panel indicated during public meetings held over the summer that in order to keep Constellation on track for a first flight of Ares 1-Orion by 2015 and a return to the moon by 2020, NASA would need a total of $50 billion above current projections over the next decade.

"If you really want to do Constellation and keep it on the current schedule, or close to it, that's what you're looking at," one administration official said.

via space.com

The excerpt above republishes the conclusion of the story. The introduction lays out the panel's recommendations around several options for next steps for Congress and the Obama administration, based on its finding that NASA is currently underfunded to carry out its stated mission. . . by about a billion dollars a year in the coming years. Among the options the panel seems to lean toward "the flexible path" idea. It posits that, rather than a return to the moon or Mars in the immediate future, the US space program should start to explore the nearby areas of space as a way on gaining the learning and technology to eventually get to Mars. The panel did not recommend any one option, but a series of plans that could be carried out with about $3 billion in additional funding. Without adequate monies, the panel concluded that the US space program will not be able to leave low earth orbit any time soon.

Finally, here is the Augustine Committee/NASA press release on the subject.

Posted via web from Southwest Postings

Nobel's recognition of Obama will drive the Far Right even crazier.

My sentiments exactly -- The first thought of many of us was that this will drive the Republicans crazy. Matt Yglesias tweeted: "They should institute a Nobel Prize for driving conservatives crazy." As a matter of fact it is making the Right Wing even crazier than they were before. With a HT to Matt Cooper for this link, showing typical arrogance, The Weekly Standard invites you to "meet the people who were passed over for Obama." Politico quoted several very critical conservatives including RNC Chairman Michael Steele and strategist Craig Shirley. The publication also quotes Rush Limbaugh's reaction: "'greater embarrassment' than losing Olympics." To quote further,

"This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama," Limbaugh told POLITICO in an e-mail. "And with this 'award' the elites of the world are urging Obama, THE MAN OF PEACE, to not do the surge in Afghanistan, not take action against Iran and its nuclear program and to basically continue his intentions to emasculate the United States."

Limbaugh continued: "They love a weakened, neutered U.S, and this is their way of promoting that concept. I think God has a great sense of humor, too."

Later more sane reactions -- The Huffington Post linked to President Obama's Nobel speech, and provides more analysis of the selection of Obama, headlining that "Twitter explodes in response to the Obama Nobel win." New York Times "The Lede" gathered world reaction "to a Nobel surprise." McClatchy gives out "more updates." Matt Cooper spoke of President Obama's "elegant remarks" from the White House rose garden.

Earlier items -- The White House was surprised by the announcement, according to NPR. Taegan Goddard at the Political Wire reported on Twitter that "Obama will make a statement on the Nobel prize in the Rose Garden at 10:30." (It was just been delayed until after 11:00). Goddard also provided a round up of reactions to the Oslo announcement. Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic rounds up some fascinating opinions on why Obama should turn down the prize.

In conclusion -- Those who would disparage the Committee's award as merely honoring the President's "aspirational" sentiments dismiss it too lightly. One cannot be a peacemaker without engendering hope for peace in those who are in conflict. Those who dismiss the award as "not George W. Bush -- thank God he's in Dallas," diminish the strength of Obama's influence over people who do not live in the United States. Those who dismiss the award because we are still fighting in Afghanistan should take note of how much trouble the President is taking to figure out how to narrow the conflict and find ways to build bridges to the people of Afghanistan, including reconcilable members of the Taliban. Those who feel the President does not deserve the Peace Prize because of his civil liberties shortcomings should take note of his long commitment to denuclearizing the world. Those who dismiss the award because the President has yet to fulfill his campaign promises should take note of the unusually long list of serious problems he inherited from the previous administration. Sometimes it is enough to be hopeful, respectful of others, inspirational and willing to tackle anything. That is the elemental stuff of which real peace can be made.

Reference: The Nobel Committee announced that President Barack Obama is their selection for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. To quote in full:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

Oslo, October 9, 2009

Posted via email from Southwest Postings

What the polls are saying these days is of passing interest to some --

Polls appear to be the only reality to others, particularly the mainstream media. For me they are an interesting snapshot of what people are feeling these days. They should not be taken as "the gospel truth," however. Popularity polls and approval ratings can vary widely from week to week, for example, while polls about deeply held beliefs will be more stable over time. The leaders depicted at Mount Rushmore achieved their popularity only after the lessons of history were learned and their achievements came into more realistic perspective.

People think President Obama is doing a bit better these days as the leader of the USA. The president's job approval rating increase is associated with his handling of a number of issues. Among them are the economy, unemployment, health care, terrorism, the budget deficit, taxes and the war in Afghanistan. The only decline was shown to be the war in Afghanistan. The headline, "Poll: Obama's approval rating jumps 6 percent," is from The Huffington Post (10/6/09). It regards a new AP poll. To quote:

President Barack Obama's approval ratings are starting to rise after declining ever since his inauguration, new poll figures show as the country's mood begins to brighten. But concerns about the economy, health care and war persist, and support for the war in Afghanistan is falling. . . The economy was the biggest concern, with 88 percent saying they consider it extremely or very important. . .

People think Congress is doing worse. And it is no wonder. August saw a Republican push for "tea party" demonstrations against health care reform, disrupted town hall meetings, and slow progress by the Senate Finance Committee. And both Democrats and Republicans are upset with Congress. The approval rating has fallen from 39% in March, to 31% last month, to 21% currently. "Approval of U.S. Congress falls to 21%, driven by Democrats," is the Gallup headline (10/6/09). To quote:

Congressional approval rose sharply in the months after President Obama's inauguration, from 19% in January to 31% in February and 39% in March. Approval then began to slip gradually, dipping to 31% by the end of the summer, before falling precipitously in October. Given the current 21% reading, it appears that any "honeymoon" period for the 111th Congress has eroded.

Poll results can vary by race. In this case it has to do with how well people feel the economic stimulus package worked to help the economy. The headline, "Poll:Stimulus views vary by race," is from Politico (10/6/09). To quote:

The poll, sponsored by New America Media, a corroboration of 2,500 ethnic media outlets, reported that less than 40 percent of whites, Hispanics and Native Americans said the stimulus has made the economy better, compared to 59 percent of African-Americans and 47 percent of Asian-Americans.

Among the overall sample of 1,000 respondents, 40 percent said the stimulus has made the national economy better.

“The American public currently believes that the stimulus package has not had a major impact on the national economy,” wrote pollster Sergio Bendixen in his analysis of the survey. “Only African-Americans believe that President Obama’s stimulus package ‘has made the economy better.’”

People are not optimistic about the war in Afghanistan. Many feel that the U.S. is bogged down in the region. The Presidential election results also may have fed the feelings of pessimism. "Americans expecting no resolution in Afghanistan," is the headline from CQ Politics (10/5/09). To quote:

Majorities of American adults think the war in Afghanistan cannot be won and that its most likely conclusion would be no conclusion at all, according to a poll by Clarus Research Group conducted Oct. 1-4.

To summarize, at the moment the President is up, and so are feelings about the economy (except for unemployment). Congress is down and so are feelings about the war in Afghanistan. It all could change next week, so stay tuned and remember polls are not reality.

Posted via email from Southwest Postings

South Asia plans keep members of the media breathless with curiosity

Planning for next steps in Afghanistan continues -- National Security Adviser former Gen. Jim Jones will brief the full House on the Afghanistan situation in a closed meeting later this week in the Capitol Visitor Center, according to The Hill. White House advisers appear to be split on what to do in Afghanistan. Administration spokesman, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, has ruled out the option of leaving Afghanistan and also refused to rebuke Commanding General Stanley McChrystal's very public stance. Congressional leaders head to the White House on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the worsening situation , adding their input to help the President make his decision. "President summons congressional leaders on Afghanistan strategy," is the headline from The Hill (10/5/09). To quote:

The meeting comes amid mounting casualties in the eight-year war and as President Barack Obama weighs a pending request for 40,000 more troops from the leading commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

It is the first time in six months that House Republican leaders have been invited to the White House to discuss official business; Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) are both scheduled to attend. If Obama decides to send all the troops McChrystal wants, he will probably need Republican votes to sustain the escalation.

Pakistan pushes back -- Congress passed an aid package for Pakistan of $1.5 billion a year for the next five years last week. President Asif Ali Zardari acceded to the demands of Congress contained in the law. Pakistan agreed to end support of terrorist groups in its country. It will also make sure that its military does not interfere with civilian politics. The headline, "U.S. Push to Expand in Pakistan Meets Resistance^," is from The New York Times (10/6/09). To quote:

Steps by the United States to vastly expand its aid to Pakistan, as well as the footprint of its embassy and private security contractors here, are aggravating an already volatile anti-American mood as Washington pushes for greater action by the government against the Taliban.

Short takes from others --

Chuck Todd^ tweets (10/5/09), "Ponder this: Obama admin sees al Qaeda has an org U.S. needs to DESTROY while the Taliban is a group that needs to be DEFEATED. Thots?"

"Gates to Army: We'll follow Obama's orders on Afghanistan," is from McClatchy News (10/5/09). I favor McClatchy for providing the most helpful coverage of the situation in the war zones.

"Voice of Bush's favored general is now harder to hear," is by Elizabeth Bumiller at the New York Times (10/4/09). Her report refers to General David Petraeus.

"Obama Meets Advisers on Afghanistan; Ismail Khan Warns against US Troop Surge," is by Professor Juan Cole at Informed Comment (10/1/09). Good analysis from my favorite Middle East expert.

"Containing a Nuclear Iran#," is by Fareed Zakaria from Newsweek Magazine (10/3/09). HT to my regular contributor of links, Jon for this good piece.

Posted via email from Southwest Postings

Speaking of Twitter: a round-up

Tweets from my current collection of favorites:

ReTweeted by several people whom I follow -- This is a wonderfully fine piece written by Rececca Solnit.

"How 9/11 Should Be Remembered," is from the Utne Reader (9/11/09).

**********

Obama speeches -- Last week was a very big one for President Obama at the podium. He spoke to school children at the beginning of their year and he spoke to a joint session of Congress. And on 9/11/09 he and the First Lady helped paint a Habitat house.

"Presidential Speech Week Self-Control Report Card. Nation's Schoolchildren: A. Joe Wilson: F.," is by pourmecoffee (9/10/09).

"Read Obama’s closing remarks, full transcript, the letter from Ted, and the plan he laid out - plus photos," is from The White House (9/9/09).

"The sleeper agents brainwashed by George W. Bush's speech to students in 1991 should be coming out in force any minute now," is by reporter John Dickerson (9/7/09).

**********

Healthcare, this and that -- These days it is all about healthcare. Here are a couple of great little pieces of writing.

"RT @chrislhayes: RT @Atrios early stages of potential flu epidemic prbly excllnt time to make sre illegal immigrants dn't hve #healthcare," is from The Nation (9/10/09).

"Annoying: Lunatic shouters get a seat at the table on #hcr but single payer advocates are treated like lunatics and denied one," is by libbyspencer (9/90/9).

*********