Welcome home, Euna Lee and Laura Ling

I cannot begin to imagine what these last months have been like for these two reporters and their families.  And I hope I never understand.  They are home and I, a complete stranger, was overjoyed for them and proud of our government.

Let the pundits criticize.  Here is how I see it.  We are currently engaged in a zero sum chess game with North Korea about nuclear disarmament.  Two reporters became pawns in that game.  Over the course of these months, other than some pointed words by the Secretary of State, there was no swagger or threats from the White House (as would have been the case in the Bush Administration).  There was behind the scenes diplomacy to get these two women home and, more importantly for our national interests, keep them off the nuclear chessboard.  President Obama used his “arsenal” — an incredibly popular former president, the Swiss and the UN.

President Obama made comments only after the women landed safely on American soil and were re-united with their families.  And, he didn’t self-serving take credit for their safe return.  The President got two Americans home for the price of a photo-op with Bill Clinton and Kim Jong Il’s opportunity to say whatever he wants to his people about his visit with Mr. Clinton — something Kim Jong Il does anyway. 

Quietly and effectively, Obama got the job done and may have opened the door a crack to restart negotiations with North Korea.

Thank you, Mr. President and Team Obama.

Loudly, some Kansans reject Guantanamo detainees

Let the Guantanamo detainees come to Sing Sing prison in New York.  A few jihadist won’t survive a day in a New York State prison.

If all of these Law-and-Order GOPs don’t have faith in our maximum security prisons where we hold people who have committed heinous crimes involving grotesque torture, then let’s ship every domestic prisoner to Guantanamo Bay and clean out our prisons.  We can renovate them into luxury apartments with state of the art security and open views and make a mint (ok, not until the real estate boom boomerangs back).
That’s like being an anti-abortion political activist but, when push comes to shove, sending your pregnant 17 year-old to Europe to have the procedure done.
Do we have faith in our ability to control prisoners in our jails or no?  If our legislators think our prison system is too broken for these suspects, then we have bigger problems than we thought.
See the below article.

Sen. Brownback, what are you made of?

By Carey Gillam Carey Gillam Mon Aug 3, 4:16 pm ET

LEAVENWORTH, Kansas (Reuters) – Not in my backyard! Not in my state! Not in my country!

That was the response from politicians and business leaders in Kansas on Monday to moves by President Barack Obama to transfer terrorism suspects from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to facilities in the United States, perhaps including Kansas.

“This is a patently bad idea,” Republican Senator Sam Brownback told reporters in the northeast Kansas riverside community of Leavenworth near the Fort Leavenworth U.S. Army base, which was cited this weekend as a possible new home for the Guantanamo prisoners.

The Washington Post reported on Sunday that a government task force was considering as possible sites Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and a 604-bed maximum security prison in Standish, Michigan, that is scheduled to be closed.

An Obama administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity confirmed on Monday that those sites were being looked at but said there were “many, many options” under consideration.

“No final decisions of any sort have been made,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Administration officials reportedly have been considering building a court facility within a prison site to avoid the need to transfer defendants between sites within the United States.

Obama has pledged to close the prison at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo by the end of the year but faces strong opposition from fellow Democrats and Republicans in Congress to transferring the remaining 240 prisoners to U.S. soil for detention and trial.

Harsh interrogations that some see as torture and the detention of suspected Islamic militants without trial at Guantanamo, opened for prisoners in President George W. Bush’s war against terrorism, have seriously damaged the United States’ international reputation.

Brownback said the inmates should stay at Guantanamo and vowed to work with other members of Congress to prohibit any funds from being used to move the prisoners to American soil.

He and other opponents say moving to a U.S. site would make the community a target for terrorist attacks and note that Leavenworth is close to rail lines and the heavily trafficked Missouri River.

They say no move is needed at all as the detainees are already being held “appropriately and safely” at the prison in Cuba, where there are also court facilities.

“NO” TO DETAINEES

“This community has spoken loud and clear. They don’t want the detainees here,” Republican U.S. Representative Jerry Moran told Monday’s news conference.

But the Obama administration counters that the U.S. court and prison systems have handled terrorism cases in the past and could deal with Guantanamo detainees. A number of convicted militants are already being held in U.S. prisons.

Congress has set strict limits on moving detainees until certain conditions are met, including informing lawmakers first and spelling out any threats prisoners could pose or how they were mitigated.

The 134-year-old military penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth is already a hardened high-security facility that could be further protected by the surrounding military base.

Business leaders in Leavenworth, about 40 miles from the Kansas City metropolitan area, say locating detainees near their community will depress property values, discourage new business development and put the residents at risk.

“We are not afraid of the prisoners breaking out,” said Leavenworth-Lansin Chamber of Commerce executive vice president Tim Holverson. “We are more concerned with their friends trying to break them out. We don’t want to be a target.”

(Reporting by Carey Gillam, additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky in Washington; Editing by David Storey)

Helping Youth-in-Asia

That’s what the GOP must mean.  The GOP doesn’t want our health care bill to allocate money to help the youth in Asia.  Why should we?  Asia can take care of its own youth.

Uh oh.  The GOP is talking about euthanasia.  The health care bill doesn’t promote euthanasia.  That’s wrong and stupid and a scare tactic.  If only the GOP were only against helping the youth in Asia, I would feel bad for them.  Now, I hate them.

(My sister guest-blogged with me on this entry.  Thanks, sis.)

FACT CHECK: Distortions rife in health care debate – Yahoo! News

SO, scare tactics abound.  I have lots of questions:

Why? Why is it in the GOP’s best interests to use scare tactics to defeat this health care reform?  Is it big business interests? Is it that the millions of uninsured don’t vote in their districts? Is it because they need to get the upper hand in the political wars?

I wish the answers to these questions were NOI WISH THAT THE GOP COULD PUT FORTH A PRINCIPLED ALTERNATIVE. IF YOU TEAR SOMETHING DOWN, YOU BETTER BE PREPARED TO RE-BUILD IT.

Ok, ok, ok.

The legislation will not legalize killing older people. People can keep their doctors. There will be no more rationing than already exists. No more “pre-existing conditions” exclusions.

IT WILL COST A LOT.  BUT DOING NOTHING WILL COST MORE.

See excerpts of article from the Associated Press — August 2, 2009

WASHINGTON – Confusing claims and outright distortions have animated the national debate over changes in the health care system. Opponents of proposals by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats falsely claim that government agents will force elderly people to discuss end-of-life wishes. Obama has played down the possibility that a health care overhaul would cause large numbers of people to change doctors and insurers.

A look at some claims being made about health care proposals:

CLAIM: The House bill “may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia,” House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said July 23.

Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey said in a July 17 article: “One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years … about alternatives for end-of-life care.”

THE FACTS: The bill would require Medicare to pay for advance directive consultations with health care professionals. But it would not require anyone to use the benefit.

Advance directives lay out a patient’s wishes for life-extending measures under various scenarios involving terminal illness, severe brain damage and situations. Patients and their families would consult with health professionals, not government agents, if they used the proposed benefit.

CLAIM: Health care revisions would lead to government-funded abortions.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says in a video, “Unless Congress states otherwise, under a government takeover of health care, taxpayers will be forced to fund abortions for the first time in over three decades.”

THE FACTS: The proposed bills would not undo the Hyde Amendment, which bars paying for abortions through Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor. But a health care overhaul could create a government-run insurance program, or insurance “exchanges,” that would not involve Medicaid and whose abortion guidelines are not yet clear.

Obama recently told CBS that the nation should continue a tradition of “not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care.”

The House Energy and Commerce Committee amended the House bill Thursday to state that health insurance plans have the option of covering abortion, but no public money can be used to fund abortions. The bill says health plans in a new purchasing exchange would not be required to cover abortion but that each region of the country should have at least one plan that does.

Congressional action this fall will determine whether such language is in the final bill.

CLAIM: Americans won’t have to change doctors or insurance companies.

“If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won’t have to do a thing,” Obama said on June 23. “You keep your plan; you keep your doctor.”

THE FACTS: The proposed legislation would not require people to drop their doctor or insurer. But some tax provisions, depending on how they are written, might make it cheaper for some employers to pay a fee to end their health coverage. Their workers presumably would move to a public insurance plan that might not include their current doctors.

CLAIM: The Democrats’ plans will lead to rationing, or the government determining which medical procedures a patient can have.

“Expanding government health programs will hasten the day that government rations medical care to seniors,” conservative writer Michael Cannon said in the Washington Times.

THE FACTS: Millions of Americans already face rationing, as insurance companies rule on procedures they will cover.

Denying coverage for certain procedures might increase under proposals to have a government-appointed agency identify medicines and procedures best suited for various conditions.

Obama says the goal is to identify the most effective and efficient medical practices, and to steer patients and providers to them. He recently told a forum: “We don’t want to ration by dictating to somebody, ‘OK, you know what? We don’t think that this senior should get a hip replacement.’ What we do want to be able to do is to provide information to that senior and to her doctor about, you know, this is the thing that is going to be most helpful to you in dealing with your condition.”

CLAIM: Overhauling health care will not expand the federal deficit over the long term.

Obama has pledged that “health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it.”

THE FACTS: Obama’s pledge does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase Medicare fees for doctors. The White House says the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration’s policy.

Beyond that, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the House bill lacks mechanisms to bring health care costs under control. In response, the White House and Democratic lawmakers are talking about creating a powerful new board to root out waste in government health programs. But it’s unclear how that would work.

Budget experts also warn of accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says they include back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.

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

GOP, your move.

When there is no “news”

Michael Jackson is still dead and his children are in his mother’s custody. Congress is in recess.  So far, no more GOP family values scandals. The beer summit concluded.  What is there to report about?

Hmmmmmmm.

The economy, health care reform, Iran elections, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel’s settlements, industrial poisoning of villagers in China, North Korea, Myanmar, Nigeria, etc., etc.

Nah, not those.  Too heavy.  Berlusconi’s love and sex scandal!!  Ahaa.   G-d bless Italy.

First, Crowley and Gates, then O’Donnell and Trump?

USREPORT-US-OBAMA-RACEObama hit the BIG KUMBAYA with Officer Crowley and Professor Gates.

Even those commentators who rail against Obama actually complimented him.  I don’t really know how I feel about it because the president cannot settle every dispute and he is not the Referee-In-Chief.  So, maybe it was a teachable moment in do-it-yourself mediation, preferably with some form of social lubricant or liquid confidence.

So, here is the lesson.  IT WASN’T ABOUT OBAMA.  It is about two people who need and WANT a forum to work things out.  And that makes Officer Crowley and Professor Gates the true stars of this summit.  This was a racially/socially/politically charged event and the two in the middle reached across the divide and set an example for a nation.

So, in that vein, Rosie O’Donnell made an overture to the Donald, which he turned down in a way in his typical fashion.  He was offensive.  Rosie, nice gesture, but don’t wait for Donald. He doesn’t have the right stuff.

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter, please go back under the rock where you’ve been hiding.  On Larry King just now, your claim that racial profiling is a hoax is based on two unfortunate episodes of two black kids trying to avoid punishment by saying they were assaulted by whites.   Ok, setting aside the history of whites falsely accusing non-whites of assault, etc., what you’ve said has nothing to do with racial profiling.  What irks me the most about you is that you make no sense.  I am guessing that you can’t the argument on the merits, on facts and on logic.  So, instead you deflect and divert attention from these shortcomings.

But, this is America, Ann, so talk.  I just turned off the TV.  But you caused me to rant and so you’ve won — for now.  I am the ultimate winner, because I will never have to wake up and be Ann Coulter.  That is your punishment.

A beer with the Prez

I don’t drink beer.  After four years of smelling mung beer in fraternity basements in college, the mere suggestion of beer makes my nose hair curl.

Have a beer with the President? You bet.  What, my strong aversion to beer?  Nah, dude.  If that is my ticket to have a sit down with the most powerful man in the nation (who happens to have the cutest ears in the nation), then, what me, an anti-beerist?  I’d even drink a rusty can of Rheingold circa 1969 if it gets me on the patio in the Rose Garden.

So, as I see it, here is how I need to orchestrate my 45 minutes with the Big Guy.  I have to do something outrageous that actually sparks outrage.  (I do outrageous stuff all the time, but no one seems to care.)  It has to threaten the kumbaya veneer of society in a menacing, yet ultimately not physically harmful, way.  Then it has to be on the 24-hour news RE-cycle, just in time for a Presidential press conference where the President is tired and talking about really important things critical to the nation’s future. Then, with seconds to go before he gets to leave the press room, have his make-up washed off and kick back with Michelle, a friend with press credentials has to ask about my incident.  Hopefully, he will be annoyed and the incident will touch a chord in him and he will have an authentic, I-am-human-and-I-have-unscripted-opinions moment.  POUNCE!!  I got my beer.

So, here is my checklist to close this deal:

  1. outrageous behavior: easy
  2. outrageous behavior that is offensive but does not involve weapons: hmmmmm.  Watch celebrity TV shows for ideas.
  3. get attention for outrageous behavior: Get a walk-on spot on “I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!!”
  4. get on 24 hour news RE-cycle: [Do I have to say nice things about CNN?] Start by being an iReporter.
  5. time it with an important press conference:  after August recess when Congress is fighting over the health care bill.
  6. have a friend with a press pass to the White House:  We need to break this agenda item into 3 subparts:  (a) Find a friend, (b) find a friend with press pass and (c) find a friend with press pass to White House.
  7. have friend ask a question on my outrageous behavior (which I learned from the celebrity TV shows or the coverage on the Michael Jackson family circus):  do you think tickets to the US Open Tennis men’s and women’s finals will do it?
  8. Get Obama ticked off:  easy, just ask my partner.
  9. BEER TIME!!!!

Leg Lengthening Surgery??

Ok, there was a report about about a disgusting procedure during which, among other things, the patient’s legs are broken in order for the legs to grow longer.   The young woman was perfectly healthy and nothing was wrong with her legs.  Is THIS medical advancement?

The medical community is justifiably concerned about what Michael Jackson’s celebrity doctor prescribed for him.  Why did Michael Jackson have Diprivan in his house? Because he asked for it? Wasn’t the physician supposed to exercise independent, medical judgment and SAY NO?  The slope gets slippery . . . . . why didn’t the doctors say no to this young woman who wanted her legs lengthened to achieve some random estimation of “beauty”?

Nothing is going to stop rogue doctors from doing crazy things.  But we need a health care system that (i) gives doctors financial rewards for being good doctors who say “no” when necessary and (ii) takes away any incentives to go down that slippery slope.

An unknown young woman

I had a chance encounter with a young woman on a train to Harrisburg, PA, in 2007 and it continues to be a transformative experience for me.

She was 22 or 23-ish then. She was wearing size 22 clothes that were still too tight. She has all the low-class trappings (bling, crazy nails, tattoos, talking unintelligible slang on a pink cellphone).  I immediately thought about moving my seat because she was so loud on the phone.  Then, she turned to me with the sweetest and most earnest look on her face (that made me feel bad for my snarky thoughts) and asked, “do you know anything about Harrisburg? Me and my mom are moving there now.” As in right now, as in on this train, they are relocating because someone told them there were jobs in Harrisburg. Her mom is wiry thin and worn beyond her years — looks like a hard life and hard drugs had their effect.  The mother who is my age or younger was scared and shy and sad. Her daughter shared her DVD player and headphones so they could watch I Love Lucy together. I Love Lucy is the diversion of choice for these two women in the year 2007. You can’t make this up.

The economic, social, political and nuclear world has changed in that time. If the world hadn’t changed, I probably wouldn’t think of this young woman, but  the world did change and this chance encounter stays with me.

This young woman was braver than I will ever be. More optimistic than I can ever fathom. She is the under-educated try-anything counterpoint to my over-educated disillusionment. I am a lot ashamed that I felt decidedly superior to her when I walked on the train and then incredulous that she would go somewhere on the mere possibility of the chance to get a job and a better job.  She had it right.  I hope she is successful without conforming.  I hope she is happy.  I hope her mother is not so sad or scared anymore.  

I need to learn a few things from this woman, starting with humility.