“Put the polluters on trial, not the planet!”

Why is the Obama Administration choosing to prosecute Tim DeChristopher for false bids he placed on oil and gas parcels on public land near Utah's national parks. This resulted in auction prices being driven up to a price he later couldn't pay.

A protest of this trial is being led by several notable individuals.

Tim DeChristopher is facing 10 years in jail for a profound gesture made on behalf of all of us and our future. It's time to show our solidarity with him.

Tim's action drew national attention to the fact that the Bush Administration spent its dying days in office handing out a last round of favors to the oil and gas industry. After investigating irregularities in the auction, the Obama Administration took many of the leases off the table, with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar criticizing the process as "a headlong rush." And yet that same Administration is choosing to prosecute the young man who blew the whistle on this corrupt process.

We cannot let this stand. When Tim disrupted the auction, he did so in the fine tradition of non-violent civil disobedience that changed so many unjust laws in this country's past. Tim's upcoming trial is an occasion to raise the alarm once more about the peril our planet faces. The situation is still fluid--the trial date has just been set, and local supporters are making plans for how to mark the three-day proceedings. But they are asking people around the country to flood into Salt Lake City in mid-March. If you come, there will be ample opportunity for both legal protest and civil disobedience. For example:

• Outside the courthouse, there will be a mock trial, with experts like NASA's Jim Hansen providing the facts that should be heard inside the chambers. We don't want Tim on trial--we want global warming on the stand.
• Demonstrators will be using the time-honored tactics of civil disobedience to make their voices heard outside the courthouse in an effort to prevent "business as usual"--it's business as usual that's wrecking the earth.
• There will be evening concerts and gatherings, including a "mini-summit" to share ideas on how the climate movement should proceed in the years ahead. This is a people's movement that draws power from around the globe; for a few days its headquarters will be Salt Lake City.

You can get the most up-to-date news at climatetrial.com, including schedules for non-violence training, and information about legal representation. If you're coming, bring not only your passion but also your creativity--we need lots of art and music to help make the point that we won't sit idly by while the government tries to scare the environmental movement into meek cooperation. This kind of trial is nothing but intimidation--and the best answers to intimidation are joy and resolve. That's what we'll need in Utah.

We know it's short notice. Some of us won't be able to make it to Utah because we have other commitments or are limiting travel, and if you're in the same situation, climatetrial.com will also have details of solidarity actions in other parts of the country. If you can contribute money to help make the week's events possible, click here. But more than your money we need your body, your brains, and your heart. In a landscape of little water, where redrock canyons rise upward like praying hands, we can offer our solidarity to the wild: wild lands and wild hearts. Tim DeChristopher deserves and needs our physical and spiritual support in the name of a just and vibrant community.

Thank you for standing with us,

Naomi Klein,

Bill McKibben

Terry Tempest Williams

Dr. James Hansen

Naomi Klein is author of the #1 international bestseller The Shock Doctrine; Terry Tempest Williams is a world renowned wildlife author; Bill McKibben is founder of 350.org and author of The End Of Nature; and Dr. James Hansen is author of Storms of my Grandchildren, and is regarded as the world's leading climatologist.

Action Call: Join the Climate Trial

When Life is Sacred and When It's Not!

The right-wing, Sarah Palin, Rep. Michelle Bachman, Limbaugh and Glenn were claiming that Obama's health care plan would bring on 'death panels.' They were trying to scare the public into believing that any changes to the present health care system, by the Democrats, would be a threat to their lives. Of course, their claims were bogus.

But in reality, there are real 'death panels.'They are the insurance companies whose decisions override the treating doctor's decision on whether a drug or procedure is medically necessary. These death panels/insurance companies are already working to deprive needed care to patients.

Via Think Progress

The United States is the only industrialized nation without cradle-to-the-grave, universal health care. In no other developed country would a child with cancer have to go without care because an insurance company decided it was not profitable enough to cover him.

Kyler Van Nocker has neuroblastoma, which is a very rare form of childhood cancer that targets the nervous system and creates tumors throughout the body.

Unfortunately, his health insurer, HealthAmerica, refused to pay for one form of treatment doctors believe could save his life (MIBG treatment) because they consider it “investigational/experimental” since it has yet to be approved by the FDA.

Yet in April 2008, the insurer approved cheaper treatment for Van Nocker that was also “experimental,” prompting Philadelphia Daily News columnist Ronnie Polaneczky to ask, “So why, pray tell, is HealthAmerica playing the ‘experimental therapy’ card in the case of the MIBG treatment Kyler now needs? Gee, money couldn’t have anything to do with the decision, could it?”

Here's a recap:

The insurance company, HealthAmerica, is denying treatment to Kyler, a 5 year old boy with cancer. Kyler's doctors say this treatment is medically necessary to save his life. Otherwise, he will die! HealthAmerica says this treatment is "experimental" but had previously approved a cheaper experimental treatment that put Kyler's cancer in remission for 1 year.

The death panel fury was over doctors being paid for the time they spent to discuss end-of-life issues with patients. The doctors weren't denying any care to their patients. The doctors weren't denying any treatment to their patients.

The denial of treatment by an insurance company to a 5 year old boy with cancer will most probably result in the death of the child.

Where is the rage of Palin, Bachman, the Tea Baggers and the right-wing over the denial of treatment for a child...for that matter for anyone. Why wouldn't they want to change a system that is completely broken and ineffective. Don't they believe that every life is sacred?

UPDATE: The MIBG is working.

Children's Hospital, where Kyler receives much of his care, proceeded with two rounds of MIBG therapy for Kyler - at a cost of $110,000 - despite the VanNockers' inability to pay for it. (CHOP hopes that HealthAmerica will reconsider or that Medicaid will cover the MIBG cost; the VanNockers are Medicaid-eligible because they are bankrupt by medical costs).

That doesn't mean Kyler is out of the woods. His serious diagnosis ensures that his prognosis will always be uncertain.

But for now, because his internationally renowned neuroblastoma doctors, not his insurance company, is making the medical decisions, Kyler might make it to his sixth birthday in November.

Truth in Satire

If You Want Change, Change Congress

Professor Lawrence Lessig has known Barack Obama for 20 years, and supported all his campaigns. In this video produced for The Nation and FixCongressFirst.org, Lessig describes his concern over President Obama's limited approach to truly "changing Washington," and his view that Congress is a deeply broken institution that needs reform.

Find out Professor Lessig's solutions and ideas in this video companion to his cover story for the February 4, 2010 issue of The Nation magazine, "How To Get Our Democracy Back."

Read the story at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100222/lessig

What's the Difference

Between Reading a Teleprompter or Your Hand? Ask Sarah Palin...

Via Huffington Post:

Closer inspection of a photo of Sarah Palin, during a speech in which she mocked President Obama for his use of a teleprompter, reveals several notes written on her left hand. The words "Energy", "Tax" and "Lift American Spirits" are clearly visible. There's also what appears to read as "Budget cuts" with the word Budget crossed out.

The takeaway is that this presidential contender apparently can't remember her supposed core principles and needs a cheat-sheet when simply asked about her beliefs.

Crib Notes? This potential presidential candidate and "movement" leader was using crib notes to answer basic questions?

This would mean:

A) That she knew the questions beforehand and the whole thing was a farce. (Likely.)

and

B) That she still couldn't answer the previously agreed-upon questions without a little extra help.

If true, this is supremely rich coming immediately after a speech in which Palin took a shot at President Obama for using a teleprompter to read his prepared speeches.

Let the 'Hypocritical Games' begin....

Different Plans, Different Results

Jonathan Cohn in his article, The Fairness Doctrine, looks at the differences between the Democratic plan for health care and what the Republicans have proposed. Even though the Republicans have been complaining that they have been excluded from the process, Cohn show us the reality of the situation.

The idea that Republicans haven’t had a chance to present their ideas on health care reform is a bit mind-boggling. Five separate congressional committees had hearings; each chamber had floor debates. That’s hundreds of hours the GOP had to talk about health care, all of it in public view and televised on C-SPAN. And that’s not even including all of the unofficial channels at the Republicans’ disposal. Generally speaking, the party of Rush Limbaugh and Fox Television doesn’t struggle to get across its message.

For most of last year, Republicans spent their time attacking Democratic plans for reform, rather than describing their own. But now they’ve put a plan on the table. Showcasing that plan--and comparing it to what the Democrats have proposed--might help clarify a few things.

What is the Republican proposal?

The Republican health care plan is part of the "Roadmap for America's Future." Its chief architect is Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee and a rising star in the party. Republicans boast that the Roadmap is serious plan to get the federal budget under control, which turns out to be a fairly large exaggeration. As Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center has observed, the Roadmap doesn't account for trillions of dollars in lost revenue from its tax cuts. Yes, that's trillions with a "t" at the front and "s" at the back.

The health care portions of the plan, though, really would reduce what the government spends on health care. And they would do so, primarily, by extracting money from Medicare. Instead of continuing to provide coverage directly, the government would issue vouchers that seniors could use to buy private insurance. The value of the vouchers would rise far more slowly than Medicare spending is expected to grow if nothing changes.

How is the Republican proposal different from the Democratic reform plans?

But wait a minute--don’t the Democratic reform plans also take money out of Medicare? They sure do. But there are several key differences. For starters, the Democrats’ reductions don't appear to be as large as what’s envisioned in the Roadmap. Also, under the Democratic plan, most seniors would still be getting their coverage directly from the government, which has lower overhead than private sector insurers. So every dollar the Democrats spend on seniors would actually go a little further.

No less important, the Democratic plans wouldn't simply slash spending and let the market sort itself out. Instead, the Medicare cuts are part of a broader package of reforms designed to change the way Medicare pays for services. These reforms are designed to reward efficiency (by, for example, paying more to doctors that join integrated group practices) while penalizing inefficiency (by, for example, paying less to hospitals with high rates of infection or, eventually, paying less money for drugs that don’t work that well). They are also designed, quite frankly, to push down the prices that providers charge.

So what's the difference?

This is a critical difference. If you simply reduce the money flowing into Medicare, relying only on the wits of beneficiaries to figure out how best to spend what’s left, seniors are bound to end up with less care. That's the Republican method. But if you also introduce system-wide changes that reward more efficient care and force down provider prices, the dollars in the program really might go farther--so that spending less doesn't always mean getting less. That's the Democratic approach.

"The slowdown in the Reid [Senate] bill is predicated on specific policies which, according to MedPAC and others, shouldn't reduce beneficiaries' access to care," says Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget. "The Ryan bill just gives every beneficiary a voucher and makes them fend for themselves in a poorly regulated private market."

How does a debate between the parties help?

The irony is that, for much of the last year, Republicans have been scaring the bejeezus out of seniors by telling them that Democrats were out to destroy Medicare. But the Roadmap makes clear that it’s not Democrats who seek massive, disruptive changes to the program. It’s the Republicans. If the coming engagement between the Republicans and President Obama help the public to understand that reality, extending the debate might actually be worth it.

Obama's meeting with GOP leaders on Feb. 25 will give the Republicans a public forum to present their health care agenda. This appears to be a good idea if this forum allows people to hear the proposals of both parties and it spurs conversation regarding the differences between the positions.

A Fake 'Reality' Show

It takes a bit of time to wrap your head around this new show. A new web show called "BUMP+ follows three fictional women who are pregnant. The twist is that viewers who are following the lives of these women, get to decide whether they should have an abortion or not.

A new web show called "BUMP+" is stirring up controversy and conversation about abortion. It's a "fake" reality show in which three actresses portray women facing unintended pregnancies. These characters, entirely fictional, have agreed to appear on a reality TV show and let the public weigh in on what they should do about their pregnancies: keep it, terminate it, adoption? The creators of the web series say they will pick what happens to "contestants'" pregnancies based on viewer response.

It's not exactly what we pro-choicers have always dreamed about: a decision left up to a woman, her doctor, and a vast and anonymous internet audience. When feminists say we want more realistic portrayals of abortion in the movies and on TV, we don't mean reality-show realistic. My body, everybody's choice?

Sarah Selzter at AlterNet asks, "Is it a smart way to spark discussion about abortion, or tone deaf and callous?"

Admiral Mike Mullen Speaks His Mind

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.”

Frank Rich made an excellent point in his article about the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." Rich says we should "Smoke the Bigots Out of the Closet."

A funny thing happened after Adm. Mike Mullen called for gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military: A curious silence befell much of the right. If this were a Sherlock Holmes story, it would be the case of the attack dogs that did not bark. [...]

Indeed, anti-gay animus is far more likely to repel voters than attract them. This equation was visibly eating at Orrin Hatch, the Republican senator from Utah, as he vamped nervously with Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC last week, trying to duck any discernible stand on Mullen’s testimony. On only one point was he crystal clear: “I just plain do not believe in prejudice of any kind.”

Now that explicit anti-gay animus is an albatross, those who oppose gay civil rights are driven to invent ever loopier rationales for denying those rights, whether in the military or in marriage. Hatch, for instance, limply suggested to Mitchell that a repeal of “don’t ask” would lead to gay demands for “special rights.” Such arguments, both preposterous and disingenuous, are mere fig leaves to disguise the phobia that can no longer dare speak its name. If gay Americans are to be granted full equality, the flimsy rhetorical camouflage must be stripped away to expose the prejudice that lies beneath. [...]

Recalcitrant Congressional Republicans will have to explain why their perennial knee-jerk deference to “whatever the commanders want” extends to Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Stanley McChrystal on troop surges but not to Mullen, who outranks them, on civil rights.

The more bigotry pushed out of the closet for all voters to see, the more likely it is that Americans will be moved to grant overdue full citizenship to gay Americans. It won’t happen overnight, any more than full civil rights for African-Americans immediately followed Truman’s desegregation of the armed forces. But there can be no doubt that Mike Mullen’s powerful act of conscience last week, just as we marked the 50th anniversary of the Greensboro, N.C., lunch counter sit-in, pushed history forward. The revealing silence that followed from so many of the usual suspects was pretty golden too.

Pushing the "bigotry out of the closet" also shows voters the hypocrisy of the GOP's position.

Jon Stewart Says It Like it Is

Here's what was edited out of Bill O'Reilly's interview of Jon Stewart.

Lilly White and Far Right

John Byrne of AlterNet reports on the opening night speaker at the Tea Party convention. Former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo [R-CO] in his opening remarks suggested that this country needs a return to a "literacy test" to be a precondition to vote. He was in fact suggesting a return to Jim Crow voting laws.

In his speech Thursday to attendees, former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo invoked the loaded pre-civil rights era buzzword, saying that President Barack Obama was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country."

Southern states used literacy tests as part of an effort to deny suffrage to African American voters prior to Johnson-era civil rights laws.

"Prior to passage of the federal Voting Rights Act in 1965, Southern (and some Western) states maintained elaborate voter registration procedures whose primary purpose was to deny the vote to those who were not white," a website for civil rights veterans explains. "In the South, this process was often called the 'literacy test.' In fact, it was much more than a simple test, it was an entire complex system devoted to denying African-Americans (and in some regions, Latinos) the right to vote."

"At the time of the Selma Voting Rights campaign there were actually 100 different tests in use across the state. In theory, each applicant was supposed to be given one at random from a big loose-leaf binder. In real life, some individual tests were easier than others and the registrar made sure that Black applicants got the hardest ones."

White applicants could be approved even if they didn't pass the test.

Tancredo, who is known for his sharp anti-immigrant rhetoric, also attacked what he called the United States' "cult of multiculturalism," and tore into 2008 Republican Presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

"Thank God John McCain lost the election," Tancredo told the Tea Party crowd, citing his positions on government spending and immigration.

"This is our country," he added. "Let's take it back."

Tancredo called Obama a "committed socialist ideologue," and referred to him by his full name, Barack Hussein Obama.

In his analysis, Rich Benjamin via AtterNet has an interesting article about the whiteness of the Tea Party movement and racial undertones. Benjamin notes this might be a party of Flour Power, not flower power.

The Tea Party movement, holding its first convention this weekend, is angling to be the most revolutionary force in American politics in name and in deed, since at least the 1960s counterculture. Only this time, the political insurgents command a party of Flour Power, not flower power.

Deciphering the racial codes on the movement's ubiquitous placards does not require a doctorate in semiotics. One popular sign shows the president's face and a caption: "Undocumented worker." Another combines Obama's image with this caption: "The Zoo Has an African Lion and the White House Has a Lyin' African!"

Aside from the festive, ad hominem attacks against President Obama, the Tea Party's leaders and its rank-and-file rarely mention race in debate, instead tucking it just under the surface of "nonracial" issues like health care reform, public spending, immigration, and pointedly, taxes. [...]

The bar-stool version of the Tea Party canard goes like this: Why should we, self-sufficient small-town whites, pay taxes to support all those welfare queens, food stamp cheats and Medicaid layabouts in the big cities and coastal states? The media's version, parroted by Palin and other Fox talking heads, commiserates with Americans in the heartland, christened "the average taxpayer," for unjustly having to subsidize ethnic enclaves that mooch off the national treasury.

What is the reality in this scenario?

A disproportionately high share of our federal government's tax income comes from racially diverse, immigrant-rich, urbanized states, including California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts; not from extremely homogeneous, conservative, anti-tax strongholds like Idaho, Montana, Utah, the Dakotas and Wyoming.

Simmering racism and Deja Vu?

The Tea Party ethos is a direct descendant of the anti-tax segregationist politics that swept the South in the 1950s and '60s.

Before the Tea Party's debut, a whole generation of powerful southern Republicans propelled their careers through a conservative tax-cutting, privatizing, "free-enterprise" politics that remains wildly popular in America's white outer suburbs and exurbs: Lee Atwater (GA), Newt Gingrich (GA), Dick Armey (GA), Tom DeLay (TX), Karl Rove (AL, TX), and George W. Bush. These suburban and exurban Republicans intimately understood their constituents' disdain for court-ordered desegregation. They fueled the rising mania for "individual freedom," "privatization," "states' rights" and social homogeneity that once defined their Southern home turf and now defines the Tea Party.

Race is the subtext of now-potent populist appeals to whites, who feel battered from a tsunami of economic and cultural change. The Tea Party counterculture is waging a proxy war over race during America's rapidly shifting economy and demographic makeup.

Racism is glaringly evident. Is that the platform that the Teabaggers are running on?

God Business is a Big Business

AlterNet's Anneli Rufus has the scoop on The Newest Diet Trend; What Would Jesus Eat?

Whether you call it the Hallelujah Diet, the Maker's Diet or the Lord's Diet, the holy spirit is driving one of America's biggest weight-loss fads.

Christians are fatter than other Americans. One of several studies revealing this, published by a Purdue University team in 2006, found that 30 percent of Baptists are obese, followed by 22 percent of Pentecostals and 17 percent of Catholics, compared to only 1 percent of Jews and 0.7 percent of Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. According to the Journal of the Southern Baptist Convention, health screenings were given at the SBC's 2005 annual meeting: Over 75 percent of its 1,472 participants were found to be significantly overweight.

It makes sense that some within the movement would want to restore health to the flock. Gluttony, after all, is a sin. But how do you persuade religious Christians to adopt a dietary regimen that has been beloved by hippies for 30-plus years and by polytheists for thousands? The very fact that "health food" is an alt-culture staple is enough to taint it in the eyes of some. How do you convince them to switch their Sunday hams for lettuce-lentil roll-ups? By telling them the Bible says they must.

Because God has the answer!

"Your Heavenly Father, in His infinite wisdom, knows which foods are not fit for you to eat," we read at Hem-of-His-Garment-Bible-Study.org, which offers a "Jesus Saves" lesson in its "What's Hot!" box. "And, in His infinite love for you, He shared that wisdom. ... God really does care what you put in your mouth." Urging readers to follow the clean animals/dirty animals rules of kashrut, as outlined in Leviticus, the site's author also endorses Jordan S. Rubin, a Christian motivational speaker and self-described "Biblical Health Coach" whose book The Maker's DietNew York Times bestseller. (Siloam, 2005) was a

Jordan S. Rubin knows that through God he can make lots of money!

He sells the oil -- for $15.95 per 16-ounce jar -- along with honey and supplements, through his Garden of Life brand. A $50 million company "with the goal of becoming a $100 million company," as Rubin puts it, Garden of Life offers dozens of products including the alleged fat-burner fücoThin® and Goatein®, a goat-milk powder that sells for $49.95 per 440-ounce jar.

Advising people on what to eat is all well and good, especially if you're advising them to go organic, shun processed foods, and increase their intake of fiber, protein, vitamins and minerals. But implying that God wants us to finish the job with a bunch of spendy, and to some extent untested, add-ons is entirely another.

Of Rubin's critics, Moss Greene calls the Maker's Diet the "Faker's Diet." Dr. Stephen Barrett states that Rubin's claims appear to be illegal.

Another vocal critic is Stephen Barrett, a doctor who has spent 20-plus years detailing health fraud through his nonprofit, Quackwatch. Barrett cites the Federal Trade Commission's 2006 complaint against Rubin and Garden of Life for what the FTC called "engaging in unfair acts or practices" in its claims about Primal Defense and other products. In 2004, the FDA made a similar complaint.

"He was making illegal claims," Barrett tells me. "I don't think his degree is worth the paper it's printed on."

Barrett notes that Rubin's naturopathic medical doctor degree (NMD) "is from the People's University of the Americas School of Natural Medicine, a non-accredited school with no campus. His Ph.D is from the Academy of Natural Therapies, a non-accredited correspondence school that the State of Hawaii ordered to close in 2003."

Jordan Rubin isn't the only businessman in the business of God's diet.

But another Christ-diet promoter is Don Colbert, a board-certified family-practice physician with a degree from Oral Roberts University Medical School. Colbert heads the Divine Wellness Center in Longwood, Florida (Rubin's Garden of Life is also Florida-based), and sparked a media storm with his book What Would Jesus Eat? The Ultimate Program for Eating Well, Feeling Great, and Living Longer (Thomas Nelson, 2002).

"We can follow His example by adding more fish to our diet," writes this author of The Bible Cure for Weight Loss and Muscle Gain, The Bible Cure for High Blood Pressure, The Bible Cure for Prostate Disorders, The Bible Cure for Depression and Anxiety, The Bible Cure for Irritable Bowel Syndrome, The Bible Cure for Allergies and The Bible Cure for Candida and Yeast Infections, "and by taking fish oil supplements."

And hark: He sells those supplements. Colbert's Divine Health brand offers 270 fish-oil capsules for $49.99. Other Divine Health products include a 300-capsule, $184.99 bottle of the soy extract polyenylphosphatidylcholine, which Quackwatch's Stephen Barrett declares has "no proven value." Examining the label of Divine Health's 60-capsule, $29.99 bottle of the hormone 7-Keto DHEA, Barrett remarks that the product is "said to enhance the immune system and memory. I don't believe that."

There are others who are also hearing the call of Jesus and diets.

And the Lord saith "Sell" as well at Hallelujah Acres, a North Carolina-based farm, ministry, supplement company, seminar center, office complex, restaurant, health-food emporium, "healthy-living housing development" and online empire founded in 1992 by the Rev. George Malkmus, who opened another center in Canada in 1998 and whose many programs include "60 Days to a Hallelujah Waistline."

Malkmus, who used to host the "America Needs Christ" radio show and claims that well over a million people have adopted the diet, "is a very eloquent speaker who is capable of inspiring people who trust what he says. ... I do not believe he is trustworthy," asserts Quackwatch's Barrett.

"You can find lots of words in religious writings that suggest a lot of things," Barrett tells me, "and I don't think any one of them is necessarily more determinant than others." Barrett has nothing against veganism, but companies such as Hallelujah Acres "are selling dietary supplements that may or may not be rational to use, and they encourage people to waste a lot of money on supplements they don't need."

The question is, what would God say to all of this happening in his name?

But what would God say about supplements? On a mountaintop yesterday, I think I heard Him proclaim: Save money!

A One Man Filibuster

 

The Senate rules on political nominees is antiquated. Sen. Richard Shelby has placed a "hold" on every single pending Obama nominee. That's 70 nominees that are waiting to be confirmed by the Senate. This  means that none can proceed on a vote for nomination without securing 60 votes to break a filibuster. 

 

And he can do that. One Senator can hold up the entire process for whatever reason...or for that matter for no reason.  So why is Sen. Shelby doing this?

According to Paul Waldman at The American Prospect this is extortion.  Sen. Shelby is doing this "until the Democrats give in to his blackmail and fork over a few billion dollars in defense pork for Alabama."

Republicans' audacity about these kinds of things has changed the standards of what we consider audacious. You might remember how, back when George W. Bush was president and Democrats were filibustering a few truly abominable judicial nominees, Republicans considered eliminating the filibuster on judicial nominations but keeping it on everything else. This idea was considered so radical it was termed the "nuclear option," in that it would incinerate the Senate and vaporize any hope of cross-partisan comity for all time. But now this kind of stuff barely raises an eyebrow, particularly among a press corps that has gotten used to the idea that Republicans play hardball, Democrats don't do anything about it because they're wimps, and therefore the latest outrage is barely worth taking note of.

 Politico sees it as a political concern regarding Shelby's state of Alabama.

Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby has placed a unilateral hold on all of President Barack Obama’s executive branch nominees in an apparent protest over home state concerns.

Shelby is frustrated over the Pentagon’s bidding process for air-to-air refueling tankers, which could lead to the creation of jobs in Mobile, Ala. And spokesman Jonathan Graffeo said in a statement the senator is also “deeply concerned” that the administration “will not release” funds already appropriated for a Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center to be built in Alabama.

Emptywheel at Firedoglake states that this is about whether "federal money that may benefit Alabama gets released."

The key issue is that Shelby wants the Air Force to tweak an RFP for refueling tankers so that Airbus (partnered with Northrup Grumman) would win the bid again over Boeing. The contract had been awarded in 2008, but the GAO found that the Air Force had erred in calculating the award. After the Air Force wrote a new RFP in preparation to rebid the contract, Airbus calculated that it would not win the new bid, and started complaining. Now, Airbus is threatening to withdraw from the competition unless the specs in the RFP are revised.

Essentially, then, Shelby’s threat is primarily about gaming this bidding process to make sure Airbus–and not Boeing–wins the contract (there’s a smaller program he’s complaining about, too, but this is the truly huge potential bounty for his state).

Dave Johnson at Campaign  for America's Future thinks Shelby's action emphasizes the need for jobs.

$100 billion contract to build air to air tankers -- that's a lot of jobs and lots of them in Alabama.

This shows why we need a national industrial policy. The country has no policy to promote jobs and manufacturing so members of Congress are forced to do things like this to try to keep manufacturing in their district or state - competing with every other district or state. And in this case, even fighting to lose the contract for an American company!

Senator Shelby is fighting for jobs in his state, because the country is not.

Jonathon Chait at the New Republic writes about the Senate dysfunction and the decay of the process because this is basically about demanding pork for his state.

The “hold” is a now similar tool to what the filibuster was forty years ago. It’s a sparingly-used weapon meant to signal an unusually intense preference. A Congressional scholar reports that putting a blanket hold on all the president’s nominees has never been done before. But there’s no rule that says you can’t. It’s just not done, until it is.

Shelby is using his blanket hold to demand pork for his state. It’s a telling sign of the decay of the process, another indication of the power parochial interests have to block rational policymaking. But what’s to keep the minority party form simply blocking all the president’s nominees, from day one? Sure, they might catch some heat. But the president would eventually catch even more heat as his undermanned administration slid into dysfunction. And politics is a zero-sum game.

The problem is that no matter what the reason Sen. Shelby has for placing  a unilateral hold Obama's executive branch nominees, the rules that exist in the Senate allow for this kind of uncompromising behavior.  It is time to change the rules.

The State of the Republican Party

 

If you want to know where the Republican Party stands on Issues today, just look at a recent Daily Kos Republican Poll.  This poll was conducted from January 20 through January 31, 2010, and shows what a majority of Republicans believe.

Barack Obama is a socialist.

Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama to be President.

Congress should make it harder for workers to join labor unions.

Opposes giving illegal immigrants now living in the US legal status if they pay a fine and learn English.

Openly gay men and women should not be allowed to serve in the military.

Same sex couples should not be able to marry.

Openly gay men and women should not be allowed to teach in public schools.

Sex education should not be taught in public schools.

Public school students should be taught that the Book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world.

Marriages are not equal partnerships, men are the leaders of their households.

Contraceptive use should be outlawed.

Abortion is murder.

Supports the death penalty.

The only way an individual can go to heaven is through Jesus Christ and cannot make it to heaven through another faith.

Kevin Drum from Mother Jones has a good point.

I used to talk about the Texification of the Republican Party, but that's now obsolete.  We're officially seeing the Foxification of the Republican Party.  It's Roger Ailes' world now, we just live in it. 

Question	Yes	No	Not Sure
Should Barack Obama be impeached?	39	32	29
Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States?	42	36	22
Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?	63	21	16
Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?	24	43	33
Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?	21	24	55
Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Barack Obama?	53	14	33
Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates white people?	31	36	33
Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?	23	58	19
Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?	8	73	19
Should contraceptive use be outlawed?	31	56	13
Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?	34	48	18

Bruce Bartlett concludes from this poll that he is not a Republican because "between 20% and 50% of the party is either insane or mind-numbingly stupid."

It is a close-minded sad state indeed!

Prayer and Politics

Prayer is part of the politics of Washington. The famous National Prayer Breakfast has been taking place since 1953. President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama attended the breakfast this morning.

Although the National Prayer Breakfast is hosted by members of the U.S. Congress, some groups had asked President Obama not to attend the breakfast this year. The prayer breakfast is organized by the Fellowship Foundation which is a secretive, Washington, D.C.-based, conservative Christian organization known as The Family. "The Fellowship" or "The Family" has been linked to the introduction of legislation in Uganda that would sentence homosexuals and people who are HIV-positive to death.

Apparently the Ugandan President Museveni is a member of The Family. Jeff Sharlet, author of the bestseller "The Family," has been investigating this link for years. Sharlet spoke of the connection in an interview with Terry Gross from NPR.

GROSS: This legislation has just been proposed. It hasn't been signed into law. So it's not in effect yet and it might never be in effect. But it's on the table. It's before parliament. So is there a direct connection between The Family and this proposed anti-homosexual legislation in Uganda?

Mr. SHARLET: Well, the legislator that introduced the bill, a guy named David Bahati, is a member of The Family. He appears to be a core member of The Family. He works, he organizes their Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast and oversees a African sort of student leadership program designed to create future leaders for Africa, into which The Family has poured millions of dollars working through a very convoluted chain of linkages passing the money over to Uganda.

GROSS: So you're reporting the story for the first time today, and you found this story - this direct connection between The Family and the proposed legislation by following the money?

Mr. SHARLET: Yes, it's - I always say that The Family is secretive, but not secret. You can go and look at 990s, tax forms and follow the money through these organizations that The Family describe as invisible. But you go and you look. You follow that money. You look at their archives. You do interviews where you can. It's not so invisible anymore. So that's how working with some research colleagues we discovered that David Bahati, the man behind this legislation, is really deeply, deeply involved in The Family's work in Uganda, that the ethics minister of Uganda, Museveni's kind of right-hand man, a guy named Nsaba Buturo, is also helping to organize The Family's National Prayer Breakfast. And here's a guy who has been the main force for this Anti-Homosexuality Act in Uganda's executive office and has been very vocal about what he's doing, in a rather extreme and hateful way. But these guys are not so much under the influence of The Family. They are, in Uganda, The Family.

According to Center for Media and Democracy, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) had asked President Obama not to attend this year's National Prayer Breakfast.

The Fellowship has also designed the prayer breakfast to have the appearance of a government-sanctioned event; Sharlet says the event "appears to the world to be an official function of the federal government," and reports that when he attended the National Prayer Breakfast in 2003, he obtained his press credentials through the White House.

The Fellowship also operates the C Street House, a Congressional residence for which The Family illegally escaped paying taxes on the building by claiming it was church instead of a rooming house.

The Huffington Post notes that CREW believes The Fellowship is cult-like:

The group, Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, lashed out at the fundamentalist Fellowship Foundation, which has organized the breakfast with presidents and prominent Washington and world leaders since 1953.

"The National Prayer Breakfast uses the suggested imprimatur of the elected leaders who attend to give the Fellowship greater credibility and facilitate its networking and fundraising," CREW director Melanie Sloan said in a statement. "The president and members of Congress should not legitimatize this cult-like group -- the head of which has praised the organizing abilities of Hitler and Bin Laden -- by attending the breakfast."

The White House confirmed to the Huffington Post that Obama plans to attend the breakfast, scheduled for Thursday, but had no response to CREW's letter. The Fellowship is closely connected to the now-notorious C Street House near the Capitol -- essentially a dorm for ethically-troubled Republicans.

"For those who have been housed in or sought refuge at C Street House," says Sloan's letter, "a shocking pattern of unethical behavior has emerged, sparking public outrage. For example Senator John Ensign (R-NV), who lived in the house, is being investigated by the FBI and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics for events surrounding an affair he had with a former campaign staffer and his efforts to cover up that affair by helping her husband, his former chief-of-staff, become a lobbyist in violation of federal law."

The letter also mentions ethical troubles for C Street House guests Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Gov. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), and Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.).

Today President Obama did attend the prayer breakfast and among his comments he mentioned the intolerable attitude against gays in the US as well as in Uganda.

We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are -- whether it's here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.

President Obama also spoke about the need for civility.

But there is a sense that something is different now; that something is broken; that those of us in Washington are not serving the people as well as we should. At times, it seems like we're unable to listen to one another; to have at once a serious and civil debate. And this erosion of civility in the public square sows division and distrust among our citizens. It poisons the well of public opinion. It leaves each side little room to negotiate with the other. It makes politics an all-or-nothing sport, where one side is either always right or always wrong when, in reality, neither side has a monopoly on truth. And then we lose sight of the children without food and the men without shelter and the families without health care. Empowered by faith, consistently, prayerfully, we need to find our way back to civility.

Now, I am the first to confess I am not always right. Michelle will testify to that. But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship.

It is this spirit of civility that we are called to take up when we leave here today. That's what I'm praying for. I know in difficult times like these -- when people are frustrated, when pundits start shouting and politicians start calling each other names -- it can seem like a return to civility is not possible, like the very idea is a relic of some bygone era. The word itself seems quaint -- civility.

Because of the political divide and the divisive tone of Congress, President Obama really couldn't protest this prayer breakfast. For if he did, the GOP, the Christian Right, the Whollier-Than-Thous would have screamed and yelled that Obama is not a 'Christian'. That is how far we have deviated from the doctrine of Separation of Church and State.

The issue isn't that he attended the prayer breakfast. The issue is what he felt he needed to say at the prayer breakfast.

I come here to speak about the ways my faith informs who I am -- as a President, and as a person. But I'm also here for the same reason that all of you are, for we all share a recognition -- one as old as time -- that a willingness to believe, an openness to grace, a commitment to prayer can bring sustenance to our lives.

His statement speaks volumes about how far to the right President Obama feels he needs to go to appease the religious fervor of this country.

"Party of No" is Really "Party of Do As You're Told"!

What are the Republicans opposed to? It seems as if they are opposed to anything proposed by Barack Obama or the Democrats.

One would think there would be some limit to the Republican strategy of "no." If Obama decided to endorse a bipartisan proposed plan that does the one thing every single American could agree we should do, it would be reducing the deficit, right?

Wrong.

Republicans are opposing a plan to put together a commission of 18 Democrats and Republicans to evaluate different ways to reduce the deficit. The panel would have until December 1 - after the midterm elections - to produce a plan that would then be voted on by Congress.

The Republicans are even opposing this knowing that Nancy Pelosi and Max Baucus are strongly opposing this because it strips some of their influence.

How can the Republicans be opposed to reducing government spending? Isnt that what they want?

You've got a plan to find a way to reduce government spending, a plan to see that it's passed through Congress, a way to oppose the enemy of all those on the right - Nancy Pelosi - and they're still against it. A plan offered by Kent Conrad (D) and Judd Gregg (R) as a way to get both Republicans and Democrats to work together in good faith to reduce the deficit. Why do they oppose this? Obama is for it, of course. (It's also quite obvious "good faith" isn't in any of their character, either).

They'll say that it's because this is just an underhanded Democrat scheme to raise taxes, even though they'll have representatives on the panel. As of now, however, they're threatening that they won't even talk about deficit reduction with the President. They will refuse to sit on the panel.

The GOP, the "Go-Along-Party", because they follow the leader, no matter what!

It's proof that, yet again, the Republicans don't stand for smaller government. They don't stand for less spending. They stand for nothing other than pandering to a constituency who follows in lock-step with their party, despite it's many internal contradictions. Those folks will hate the deficit reduction plan, too, because they always do as they're told.