Last week Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won re-election as Iran’s President. The election results were surprising because his rival, Mir Hossein Moussavi, had been far ahead in the polls.
Both Mr. Ahmadinejad and Diebold, who rented the voting machines to Ahmadinejad, expressed shock at any controversy regarding the election results...
Republicans have mischaracterized the public option as a “government takeover” of health care.
Karl Rove penned an editorial in the Wall Street Journal attacking the public health care option. Rove’s ‘myths’ echo the poll-tested talking points of Frank Luntz and other conservatives determined to protect the private insurer’s monopoly over coverage and deny Americans choice. Below is a fact-check of Rove’s assertions. [Download a PDF version.]
MYTH 1: A public option is unnecessary: “It’s unnecessary. Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That’s competition enough.” [WSJ, 6/11/2009]
TRUTH: Insurer and hospital markets are dominated by large insurers and provider systems. Private insurers rarely negotiate with dominant hospital systems and typically pass on the higher costs to beneficiaries in the form of higher premiums. Already, “1 in 6 metropolitan areas in a 2008 study of more than 300 U.S. markets is dominated by a single health insurer that controls at least 70% of consumers enrolled in health maintenance organizations or preferred provider organizations.” Such consolidation negates any real competition. Without it, insurers don’t negotiate prices and boost their profits. In fact, “there have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years,” and premiums have risen “nearly eight times faster than average U.S. incomes.” A public plan could, in an environment of head-to-head competition, push private insurance companies to negotiate more aggressively with providers and dramatically lower health care spending.” [Urban Institute, 10/03/2008; LA Times, 4/09/2009]
MYTH 2: Private competition in Medicare Part D has reduced costs: “The results of robust private competition to provide the Medicare drug benefit underscore [the ability of private competition to lower prices]. When it was approved, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $74 billion a year by 2008. Nearly 100 providers deliver the drug benefit, competing on better benefits, more choices, and lower prices. So the actual cost was $44 billion in 2008 — nearly 41% less than predicted. No government plan was needed to guarantee competition’s benefits.” [WSJ, 6/11/2009]
TRUTH: Medicare Part D beneficiaries have experienced significant cost increases. According to a recent analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows “significant increases in premiums, costsharing amounts, use of specialty tiers, and utilization management restrictions since 2008 that could have important implications for beneficiaries’ access to needed medications and out-of-pocket expenses.” [KFF, 6/2009]
MYTH 3: A public plan would shift costs to Americans with private insurance: “Second, a public option will undercut private insurers and pass the tab to taxpayers and health providers just as it does in existing government-run programs. For example, Medicare pays hospitals 71% and doctors 81% of what private insurers pay.” [WSJ, 6/11/2009]
TRUTH: Private insurer payments promote medical inefficiency. A new public option will change the way the health care reimbursement system so that we pay for value, not volume and reward efficient providers. According to MedPAC, Medicare rates are adequate and consistent with the efficient delivery of services. In fact, over-payments by private insurers to health-care providers drives up overall costs. “Hospitals which didn’t rely on high payment rates from private insurers ‘are able, in fact, to control their costs and reduce their costs when they need to’ and ‘combine low costs with quality.’” [WSJ, 3/17/2009]
TRUTH: Americans will choose a public health insurance plan from a menu of different options. The private insurance market isn’t going anywhere. Private insurers will play an important role in providing more integrated coverage options than the public plan and would retain a “brand advantage” (in the same way that a lot of people rather have the branded drug than the generic) for consumers. Private insurers who “offer a superior product through high levels of efficiency, satisfaction in consumer preferences and ease of access to quality medical services” will thrive in a reformed market. [Urban Institute, 10/03/2008]
MYTH 5: The public option is too expensive: “Fourth, the public option is far too expensive. The cost of Medicare — the purest form of a government-run “public choice” for seniors — will start exceeding its payroll-tax “trust fund” in 2017. The Obama administration estimates its health reforms will cost as much as $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. It is no coincidence the Obama budget nearly triples the national debt over that same period.” [WSJ, 6/11/2009]
TRUTH: A public option will lower family premiums. If a public plan is “far too expensive” and has higher premiums, then Americans will not enroll. But if a public plan offers lower premiums, it will motivate private insurers to lower their costs. As a result, health care costs would decrease across the board.
TRUTH: The government would not force Americans to purchase coverage from the public plan, but Rove would force everyone under 65 to enroll with a private insurer. Rove is essentially arguing that the public plan would work too well. It would use its inherent efficiencies to lower family premiums and force private insurers to aggressively negotiate on behalf of their beneficiaries.
TRUTH: A public option improves the doctor-patient relationship. Existing reform legislation explicitly preserves the doctor-patient relationship. As a draft of the HELP bill notes, “a strong doctor-patient relationship is essential to the practice of medicine, and patents have a right to an effective doctor patient relationships…Doctors, nurses, and other health professional have the right to judge what is best for their patients.” Moreover, the public plan’s payment innovations would reward doctors for providing quality care and spending more time listening to their patients. [HELP Legislation, 6/09/2009]
But the devil is in the details. Health reform will fail unless we get serious cost control — and we won’t get that kind of control unless we fundamentally change the way the insurance industry, in particular, behaves. So let me offer Congress two pieces of advice:
1) Don’t trust the insurance industry.
2) Don’t trust the insurance industry.
But how can we have fundamental reform of what Mr. Obama calls a “broken system” if the current players stay in place? The answer is supposed to lie in a combination of regulation and competition.
What’s still not settled, however, is whether regulation will be supplemented by competition, in the form of a public plan that Americans can buy into as an alternative to private insurance.
Now nobody is proposing that Americans be forced to get their insurance from the government. The “public option,” if it materializes, will be just that — an option Americans can choose. And the reason for providing this option was clearly laid out in Mr. Obama’s letter: It will give Americans “a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep the insurance companies honest.”
Be warned, however. The insurance industry will do everything it can to avoid being held accountable.
At first the insurance lobby’s foot soldiers in Congress tried to shout down the public option with the old slogans: private enterprise good, government bad.
At this point, however, they’re trying to kill the public option in more subtle ways. The most recent ruse is the proposal for a “trigger” — the public option will only become available if private insurers fail to meet certain performance criteria. The idea, of course, is to choose those criteria to ensure that the trigger is never pulled.
And here’s the thing. Without an effective public option, the Obama health care reform will be simply a national version of the health care reform in Massachusetts: a system that is a lot better than nothing but has done little to address the fundamental problem of a fragmented system, and as a result has done little to control rising health care costs. Read more »
Battle over Public Option to Private Insurance Plans By Din McCanne, MD
The insurance industry contends that a public plan would provide “unfair” competition to the private plans, just as the private Medicare Advantage plans had to be granted large overpayments to counter the “unfair” advantage of the traditional public Medicare program. It is surprising how many others perpetuate this framing that the private insurers should be granted extra tax dollars in order to level the playing field with a more efficient government health financing system. The real unfairness is gifting taxpayer funds to the private insurers.
So what is being proposed as a compromise public insurance option? Let’s have the government set up a private insurance-style PPO, and require it to copy the private sector business model of taking away choice through restricted provider lists, expanding administrative functions including the necessity of marketing its product, competing on benefits and cost-sharing provisions, and engaging in all of the other non-beneficial excesses of the marketplace. Just to be absolutely certain that the public option has all of the flaws of the private health plans, Len Nichols would put up even stronger firewalls between the government administrators and the government’s own public option disguised as a private plan. And this ridiculous effort to “level” the playing field is all for the benefit of… not the patients… but the insurers! Read more »
Four Reasons Why the Public Health Care Option is Irrefutable By Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks
Politicians who talk about compromising on it have no policy ground to stand on. Without the public option, there is no health care reform.
1. The government doesn't have to advertise. No marketing budget means less costs to pass down to the consumer.
2. The government will not take a profit. That is about 10-30% of costs wiped out immediately. Private companies by their nature will add a certain percentage to the product for their own profit. That comes directly out of our pocket. An option that doesn't take profit also doesn't take as much money from us.
3. The government will have enormous negotiating leverage with drug companies and health care providers, so they can drive down the costs to the consumer even more.
4. It is an option! If it turns out that the government option does not work as well or costs more, no problem, just use the private insurance you have now. This is only an option you have in a more competitive market. Who can argue with that?
There are legitimate concerns that progressives have with the public option. It is not single payer. The government does not pick up the tab. You still have to pay a premium and the current system is largely maintained. But I think this is better than single payer. It gives us a choice and allows the market to dictate which system works better in the healthcare industry - public or private.
New York officials want to know how a jail inmate threw a lavish bar mitzvah for his son inside a detention facility, complete with live music and catered kosher food.
The gala, attended by about 60 people, took place in the visiting room of the Manhattan Detention Complex, a facility known locally as "The Tombs," according to a spokeswoman for New York City's Department of Investigation. Officials have launched a probe of how Tuvia Stern pulled off the event without raising any red flags, she said.
Five correction employees, including a rabbi, an assistant commissioner, a warden and two assistant chiefs, are being disciplined as a result of the incident, said Stephen Morello from the city's Department of Corrections.
The New York Post, which first broke the story on Thursday, reported that guests were allowed to use cell phones -- which are normally prohibited at the jail.
Stern, 47, is serving at least 2 1/2 years for a first-degree grand larceny conviction, according to corrections officials.
In the Spring of 2008, Alaska governor Sarah Palin spoke at a Newsweek forum on Women in Leadership. She was asked if she thought Hillary Clinton was being treated unfairly in the press.
This interview took place before she was chosen as GOP Vice Presidential candidate. WATCH:
"Fair or unfair, [Hillary Clinton] does herself a disservice to even mention [the more concentrated criticism that she gets]. I mean, you've got to plow through that. You have to know what you're getting into.... When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism, or maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, 'Man, that doesn't do us any good, women in politics, or women in general, wanting to progress this country.' ... I mean, work harder! Prove yourself to an even greater degree, that you're capable, that you're going to be the best candidate.... So, it bothers me a little bit, hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level.
Sarah Palin has recently been in the news upset over a joke that David Letterman made regarding her daughter. Palin has been criticizing Letterman and called his remarks inappropriate regarding her 14 year old daughter, Willow.
Letterman claims that when he said in a recent joke — that Palin's "daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez," he was referring to her older 18 year old daughter, Bristol.
Letterman has responded to Palin's criticism by saying that he admits that he is guilty of "poor taste."
Lawrence O'Donnell on The Ed Schultz Show wanted to know why nobody is upset about Letterman's comment regarding Alex Rodriquez.
Palin said that her children should be off limits.
I agree.
But, it was Sarah & Todd Palin who thrust their then pregnant unwed daughter into the national limelight. Also Bristol has placed herself in the media with interviews on TV and magazines promoting teen abstinence. She has experience on this topic because at 17 she wasn't abstinent, ergo baby Tripp.
Now Palin is demanding that David Letterman apologize to her daughter.
Why isn't anybody demanding that Letterman apologize to Alex Rodriguez? Why shouldn't Palin apologize to Letterman for accusing Letterman of raping her 11 year old daughter and therefore being a pedophile.
There is a relevant issue of bias against women somewhere in this mess. But let's be real. Letterman is a comedian. He made a joke.
If Palin wanted to raise this issue honestly without making outrageaous , ridulous comments about David Letterman, then she would have a point.
"I say this with all due respect," Sarah Palin needs to drop the double standard whine.
Think about it! Since 9/11, hysteria over Muslims has escalated into a frenzy pitch. Steve Benen raises the following query..."If they Weren't White Guys"...
If radical Muslims had carried out terrorist attacks in Kansas and Washington DC over the past five days, we might be trying to pass legislation giving the president the legal authority to place people in preventive detention, and Daniel Pipes would be implying that we need to round up Arab-Americans (correction: Muslims) and put them in relocation camps.
But it was only a couple of old white guys, so our civil liberties remain unthreatened.
Indeed, it's not just the Kansas and DC shootings. Richard Poplawski, a right-wing extremist and white guy, allegedly gunned down three police officers in Pittsburgh in April, in part because he feared the non-existent "Obama gun ban." Jim David Adkisson, a right-wing extremist and white guy, allegedly opened fire in a Unitarian church in Tennessee last year, in part because of his "hatred of the liberal movement."
Imagine if James Von Brunn, Scott Roeder, Poplawski, and Adkisson were all Muslims.
What would the rhetoric be like? What kind of legislation might congressional Republicans offer? How many special reports about the "epidemic" of domestic Muslim violence would Sean Hannity host?
How willing would the public be to give up civil liberties to respond to the attacks? How loud would the laughter be from conservative leaders when liberals warned against racial profiling?
Benen wonders way mainstream conservatives don't find actions of the Liberty Counsel, a right-wing group created by the late Jerry Falwell, "radioactive with mainstream Republicans."
In April, when conservatives first manufactured a controversy surrounding the Department of Homeland Security's reports on potentially violent radicals, a number of far-right groups tried to exploit the "story" for fundraising and activism. Among them was the Liberty Counsel, a right-wing group created by the late Jerry Falwell.
The group created a number of satirical ID cards, available for a modest donation to the group. This one allows the carrier to boast, "I'm proud to be a Right-Wing Extremist." The idea, obviously, was to suggest the federal government was persecuting conservative activists for supporting "the right to bear arms," "lower taxes," "interpreting the Bible literally," and opposing abortion rights.
Of course, in our reality, anyone who's half-way literate could read the DHS report and see that it had nothing to do with the conservative mainstream. But the truth didn't help fill the coffers of far-right activist groups, so ID cards like these were made.
As Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, and others have proven time and again, there's practically nothing a conservative can do to be "radioactive with mainstream Republicans."
Is there ever a time to boast about being a "right-wing extremist? " Are we afraid of extremist white guys yet?
In an order issued just a short while ago, the Minnesota election court has now commanded Norm Coleman to pay Al Franken $94,783.15 in itemized costs from the trial.
The Franken legal team had originally asked for $161,000, but the court rejected some of the claims as either not being sufficiently documented or not justified under the loser-pays provision of the election contest law. Bear in mind that even the $161,000 claim would only have made a small dent in the millions that have been spent in this process.
If you think 'hate'...if you speak 'hate'...if you instigate 'hate'...you will get hate, violence and death.
There's a wave of hate in this country. Don't fool yourself. It's nothing new. Yes, the right-wing pundits now feel at liberty to spew their hate filled rants. But it has always been here and it usually stems from ignorance and fear.
When hateful, radical, and despicable rhetoric is being sent out over the internet and broadcast by extreme cable and radio pundits then violence related to hate crimes will increase.
Digby at Firedoglake refers to a new book by Dave Neiwert called The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized The American Right.
The Eliminationists is an extremely timely book, not because we are on the verge of fascism, which Neiwert patiently explains is not the case. But with the Republican party shrinking to its most ardent true believers and the conservative movement floundering on the shoals of its massive failure at governance, this ugly tendency is both more prevalent and more obvious. Recent shootings in Tennessee and Pennsylvania were shown to have been motivated by the malignant misinformation that's being passed down through radical right wing groups to the mainstream media. The Tea Party movement features a febrile paranoia about the president, comparing him to Mao, Stalin and Hitler. People are stockpiling guns. On the edge and losing power and prestige, the conservative id is pulsating like a raw nerve.
Unfortunately there have been several hate filled events that are recently in the news...
Scott Roeder Held As "Person Of Interest" In Probe Of Dr. George Tiller's Killer Huffington Post
***UPDATE*** McClatchy Newspapers is reporting that Scott Roeder, the "person of interest" held by police in Kansas, belonged to the "Freemen" anti-government group in the 1990s and was once arrested for having bomb-making materials in his car:
"Freemen" was a term adopted by those who claimed sovereignty from government jurisdiction and operated under their own legal system, which they called common-law courts. Adherents declared themselves exempt from laws, regulations and taxes and often filed liens against judges, prosecutors and others, claiming that money was owed to them as compensation.
In April 1996, Roeder was arrested in Topeka after Shawnee County sheriff's deputies stopped him for not having a proper license plate. In his car, officers said they found ammunition, a blasting cap, a fuse cord, a one-pound can of gunpowder and two 9-volt batteries, with one connected to a switch that could have been used to trigger a bomb.
***UPDATE*** US Attorney General Eric Holder is dispatching US Marshals to protect abortion clinic and doctors around the country.
Guard Killed in Shooting at U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A rifle-wielding white supremacist entered Washington’s crowded but solemn Holocaust museum on Wednesday afternoon, fatally shooting a security guard before being wounded himself by return fire from other guards.
Stephen Tyrone Johns, a six-year veteran of the museum’s security staff, later “died heroically in the line of duty,” a museum statement said.
Law enforcement sources identified the suspect as James von Brunn, an 88-year-old white supremacist from Maryland.
He is a known Holocaust denier who created an anti-Semitic Web site called “The Holy Western Empire.” He has repeatedly claimed “The Diary of Anne Frank,” a widely-read book about a teenage girl’s experiences under Nazi rule, was a hoax. The museum shooting occurred on a day the m Von Brunn maintains a racist, anti-Semitic website and wrote a book titled Kill the Best Gentile, alleging a Jewish "conspiracy to destroy the white gene pool."
In light of the shootings at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in D.C. this afternoon, allegedly committed by white supremacist James Von Brunn, Matt Yglesias noted, "I hope that everyone who mau-maued the Department of Homeland Security for expressing concern about this kind of thing feel appropriately ashamed of themselves."
It's hardly an unreasonable point. Two months ago, Richard Poplawski, a right-wing extremist, allegedly gunned down three police officers in Pittsburgh, in part because he feared the non-existent "Obama gun ban." A few weeks ago, Scott Roeder, another right-wing extremist, allegedly assassinated Dr. George Tiller in Kansas. A few hours ago, Von Brunn, another right-wing extremist, allegedly opened fire at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
There are other recent examples that bear similar characteristics. This story out of Tennessee from last year continues to haunt:
Knoxville police Sunday evening searched the Levy Drive home of Jim David Adkisson after he allegedly entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and killed two people and wounded six others during the presentation of a children's musical. [...]
Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.
The shotgun-wielding suspect in Sunday's mass shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church was motivated by a hatred of "the liberal movement," and he planned to shoot until police shot him, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said this morning.
Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his "hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said. "Liberals in general, as well as gays."
Obviously, we're dealing with sick individuals here. There are key differences between violent right-wing radicals and mainstream Americans who happen to be conservative. Indeed, I'm not suggesting that conservative activists are necessarily dangerous, violent people.
I am suggesting that it makes sense of the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate and communicate with law enforcement agencies about potentially violent extremists -- of every ideological stripe -- to help prevent tragedies like the ones we've seen lately.
The DHS report specifically addressed the possibility of violence from anti-abortion radicals and anti-Semitic extremists. And in the last two weeks, Tiller was assassinated and a white supremacist opened fire at the Holocaust Memorial Museum.
The Republican hysteria over the DHS report -- which was, by the way, initiated by a Bush administration official -- was always based more on a partisan scheme than reality, but the incessant complaints look especially misguided today.
Changing the rhetoric won't change those who are filled with hate. But right-wing pundits, politicians and bloggers need be responsible. A change of tone will be a place to start. -------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: Crooks and Liars on point about "Glen Beck and his fellow wingnuts."
Beck offered the following rationale on his Fox News show tonight:
Beck: What they're missing is: The pot in America is boiling. And this is just yet another warning to all Americans of things to come.
Actually, Beck has this exactly right. But frankly, it's boiling because of people like Glenn Beck, ranting hysterically every night about impending apocalypses of various forms -- looming "liberal fascism," the "economic meltdown," the "New World Order," violence spilling over the Mexican border, even FEMA concentration camps.
As I tried to explain in the case of the shooting of Dr. George Tiller, when you spread far-right conspiracy theories through mainstream channels the way Beck does with such abandon, it not only validates their beliefs, it rather hyper-validates them: It tells these people -- who see the Becks and O'Reillys as part of the "liberal media" -- that things are even worse than they thought, and it often spurs them into action.
I worked for the Obama Presidential campaign in Chicago. I believed that Barack had a new vision for this country. I supported his message of hope and inclusion. I valued his sincerity and down to earth style. I was thrilled and elated when he won the election.
Even though Barack Obama has only been President for a short time, some of his policies and decisions have been disappointing and disturbing to progressives. The following articles highlight several areas of concern.
Changing Obama's Mindset By Howard Zinn, The Progressive, May 2009
We are citizens, and Obama is a politician. You might not like that word. But the fact is he’s a politician. He’s other things, too—he’s a very sensitive and intelligent and thoughtful and promising person. But he’s a politician.
If you’re a citizen, you have to know the difference between them and you—the difference between what they have to do and what you have to do. And there are things they don’t have to do, if you make it clear to them they don’t have to do it.
Hold Your Applause By Chris Hedges, Truthdig, June 8
Did they play Barack Obama’s speech to the Muslim world in the prison corridors of Abu Ghraib, Bagram air base, Guantanamo or the dozens of secret sites where we hold thousands of Muslims around the world? Did it echo off the walls of the crowded morgues filled with the mutilated bodies of the Muslim dead in Baghdad or Kabul? Was it broadcast from the tops of minarets in the villages and towns decimated by U.S. iron fragmentation bombs? Was it heard in the squalid refugee camps of Gaza, where 1.5 million Palestinians live in the world’s largest ghetto?
...the Future of Progressive Activism By Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake, June 4
But Obama does bear some responsibility for the current state of affairs. The administration has consistently moved to distance itself from progressive leadership, refusing to even meet with the Progressive Caucus until recently. They have also consciously corralled progressive organizations and sought to strictly controlled their messaging. Media Matters and the Center for American Progress may have been important voices in the progressive movement at one time, but they're little more than arms of the White House now playing a zero sum game with Republicans who really don't matter. When Democrats control both Congress and the White House, nobody needs the GOP's help to pass legislation.
Progressive Divided? Not All Back Obama Policies By Jennifer Skalka, Common Dreams, June 2
They might have the WH and Congress, but progressives - gathered this week for a four-day conference billed as "America's Future Now!" - aren't universally pleased with the Obama administration.
As a coalition of liberal groups announced their union today behind an unprecedented $82M grassroots and advertising campaign to push for health care reform, some consternation remains in the Democratic base about if Pres. Obama is pursuing a sweeping enough package. Others expressed dismay with his decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan.
As Howard Zinn states in his article, Changing Obama's Mindset:
...we must not be swept away into an unthinking and unquestioning acceptance of what Obama does. Our job is not to give him a blank check or simply be cheerleaders...Some people might say, “Well, what do you expect?” And the answer is that we expect a lot.
The cost of war should not only be counted in monetarily expenditure but also in lives lost. Monetarily the cost is well over 189 trillion dollars and counting. The cost in lives lost is escalating.
The above footage will be incorporated in part four of Brave New Foundation's documentary, "Rethink Afghanistan."
Click here and send a message to your Representative in Congress that we need an 'Exit Strategy' in Afghanistan.
Celebrities Pose Naked to Save Bluefin Tuna From the Telegraph
Greta Scacchi, Emilia Fox and Terry Gilliam pose naked to save bluefin tuna.
The world's most expensive fish, already recognised as being as endangered as the giant panda, is still being served in celebrity restaurants around the world.
However a study of the bluefin tuna on the Japanese market by fisherman-turned whistle blower Robert Mielgo found the majority of fish for sale were immature, meaning the current population has little chance of recovery because of a shortage of breeding adults.
The issue is highlighted in a new film the End of the Line released at cinemas nationwide on World Ocean Day (8th June). The documentary, that has been compared to Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, warns that overfishing could result in the end of seafood by 2048 because all fishing stocks will collapse as a result of overfishing.
Celebrities who have already seen the film were so shocked that many have posed naked for the acclaimed photographer Ian Rankin to raise awareness.
Greta Scacchi, who took part alongside Emilia Fox and Terry Gilliam, urged consumers to only buy sustainable fish to help stocks of all fish recover as well as the bluefin tuna.
For 7½ years, Lakhdar Boumediene was known simply by a number: "10005."
These were the digits assigned to him when he arrived at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, swept up in a post-Sept. 11 dragnet and accused of plotting to blow up the U.S. and British Embassies in Sarajevo.
In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Boumediene said the interrogators at Gitmo never once asked him about this alleged plot, which he denied playing any part it.
"I'm a normal man," said Boumediene, who at the time of his arrest worked for the Red Crescent, providing help to orphans and others in need. "I'm not a terrorist."
The 43-year-old Algerian is now back with his wife and two daughters, a free man in France after a Republican judge found the evidence against Boumediene lacking. He is best known from the landmark Supreme Court case last year, Boumediene v. Bush, which said detainees have the right to challenge their detention in court.
That decision was a stunning rebuke of the Bush administration's policies on terror suspects. It set up a ruling by District Court Judge Richard Leon, a former counsel to Republicans in Congress appointed to the bench by Bush, that there was no credible evidence to keep Boumediene detained. [...]
Asked if he thought he was tortured, Boumediene was unequivocal.
"I don't think. I'm sure," he said.[...]
Boumediene stressed that he has no problem with the American people but could not hide his anger against Bush and other senior administration officials who he called "stupid."
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, her right leg in a cast, with Sen. Chuck Grassley [R-IA]
This morning Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor fractured her right ankle while getting ready to board a plane at LaGuardia, to Washington. After a couple of hours of treatment she caught a later flight, and met with several members of Congress. Conservative Republicans now believe Appellate Justice Sotomayor to be not just acceptable, but a superb choice for the highest court of the land. This sudden change of heart is based on their perception that she is truly a “Strict Constructionist.” This perception is, of course, based on the fact that this morning, as Sotomayor was leaving for the airport, a friend told her to break a leg….
Please read the following two interesting and very important articles on the status of healthcare in this country.
How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option, And What Obama and the Rest of Us Must Do... By Robert Reich
I'ved poked around Washington today, talking with friends on the Hill who confirm the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their campaign to kill the public option in the emerging health care bill.
You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete with private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates with drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give more people better health care at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance, "unfair" is anything that undermines their profits.
So they're pulling out all the stops -- pushing Democrats and a handful of so-called "moderate" Republicans who say they're in favor of a public option to support legislation that would include it in name only. One of their proposals is to break up the public option into small pieces under multiple regional third-party administrators that would have little or no bargaining leverage. A second is to give the public option to the states where Big Pharma and Big Insurance can easily buy off legislators and officials, as they've been doing for years. A third is bind the public plan to the same rules private insurers have already wangled, thereby making it impossible for the public plan to put competitive pressure on the insurers.
Max Baucus, Chair of Senate Finance (now exactly why does the Senate Finance Committee have so much say over health care?) hasn't shown his cards but staffers tell me he's more than happy to sign on to any one of these.
Everyone hates corporate healthcare-- now, public demand could really change it...By Jim Hightower
Now is the time for boldness! Instead, we're getting Baucusness. Sen. Max Baucus, that is--Montana Democrat, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and frequent spear-carrier for the corporate agenda. He has now been tapped to handle Obama's promised rewrite of America's warped, ineffective, and exorbitantly expensive health-care system.
This should be a dream job for the Democratic leadership. Consumers despise today's corporatized medical structure. So do doctors, nurses, and other health-care workers. So do businesses that provide health-care coverage for their employees. The insurance-company-dominated system is so unpopular that swine flu enjoys a higher public-approval rating! A Pew Research Center poll taken in March 2009 shows that the American people don't merely want the current system fixed, they want it overhauled--76% say it must either be "fundamentally changed" or "completely rebuilt."
What an opportune moment this is for Obama to do something BIG for America--a rare, Rooseveltian moment in which the president and Congress have the chance (and duty) to rise above business as usual, to respond for once to the people's interest, to create a universal public service that would actually move our society a couple of strides closer to America's egalitarian ideals of fairness, justice, and opportunity for all.
Luckily, the "something big" is readily at hand. It's called a "single-payer" health-care system--a structural reform that has been successfully implemented in several countries, as well as in our own Medicare and veterans health programs. By expanding this system nationally, every person in our land would be assured good-quality care. No longer would profiteering insurance corporations control entry, dictating which doctors we can use (and what treatments they can provide), gouging us with ever-rising premiums and co-pays, and ripping off a third of our nation's health-care dollars for things that have nothing to do with either health or care--including ridiculous CEO pay packages, excess profits, massive billing bureaucracies, useless advertising hustles, posh headquarters, lobbying expenses, etc.
With the single-payer plan, we'd regain the right to go to the doctors and hospitals of our choosing, and doctors would regain authority over patient care. As the plan's name suggests, the difference is not in who delivers the care, but in how our health-care professionals get paid. Rather than the wasteful, autocratic middleman structure that now separates us patients from our providers (generating paperwork costs of some $350 billion a year), a no-frills, government-administered public fund would pay everyone's health-care bills directly--eliminating the interferences and overcharges of arrogant and avaricious insurance behemoths. Full coverage for all, less cost. Makes sense.
So, just prior to last month's opening Senate hearing, which was billed as a "round-table discussion" to air all viewpoints about how to reform the system, what was the one caveat laid down by Baucus? "Everything is on the table with the exception of single-payer," spake the chairman. "This country is not going to adopt single-payer, at least not at this time," he ruled with a royal wave of his hand.
Sheesh. Just when we need political boldness worthy of the ages, Baucus starts us off with his own Profile in Pusillanimity.
Then, on the first day of public testimony, the chairman backed up his weak-kneed approach to reform with, of all things, a show of force. As insurance giants and other representatives of corporatized health care were seated to testify, eight uninvited doctors, nurses, and other advocates of single-payer arose from the audience to protest their exclusion from the forum. "We want a seat at the table," shouted one protester. Rather than engaging these banned citizens on the merits, Baucus retorted, "We want police," summoning the capitol cops to arrest those who had so rudely interrupted his show. With the threat of unscripted democratic dialogue safely restrained, Chairman Baucus then turned to those who remained and said, "I want you to know I care deeply about your views."
So it is up you to let your Representatives know what to do. As Robert Reich suggests, "Let your representative and senators know you want a public option without conditions or triggers -- one that gives the public insurer bargaining leverage over drug companies, and pushes insurers to do what they've promised to do."
North Korea’s Central Court convicted the two Americans, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, of “committing hostilities against the Korean nation and illegal entry,” the North’s official news agency, KCNA, said in a report monitored in Seoul.
Ms. Ling, 32, and Ms. Lee, 36, were detained by North Korean soldiers patrolling the border between China and North Korea on March 17.
President Obama was “deeply concerned” by reports of the journalists’ sentencing, the White House said in a statement Monday. The United States is “engaged through all possible channels to secure their release,” the statement said.
The ruling, which cannot be appealed, quashed hopes that the regime might release the journalists as a gesture to ease a standoff with Washington.
