-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/11/wednesday-open-thread-67/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
This arrest-first policy has been disastrous for young people, who are significantly more likely to drop out and experience long-term problems once they become entangled in the juvenile justice system. It has led to egregious racial profiling, with black and Hispanic students being shipped off to court at a higher rate than white students. And it has been a waste of time for the police to haul off children to the courts when they should be protecting the public from real criminals.
School officials who want to back away from the failed zero tolerance policy are looking to a farsighted model developed in Clayton County, Ga., a fast-growing enclave south of Atlanta. Its juvenile courts were nearly overwhelmed by students referred from their schools — mainly for minor offenses like fistfights and disruptive conduct.
Juvenile court officials met with the schools and explained the dangers of criminalizing what are essentially normal childhood behaviors. They also helped to retrain school counselors and cooperated with the schools to create a three-strikes system for dealing with minor offenses.
Under this system, the student receives a warning after the first offense. After the second offense, students and parents are required to attend a mediation session or a school conflict workshop. The third offense leads to a court complaint.
The number of children referred to juvenile court dropped by about half after the new system went into effect. With fewer low-risk students being referred to the courts, probation officers were able to focus more closely on high-risk young people, driving down felony numbers as well. Graduation rates have risen steadily since 2004, the year the new protocol was introduced.
According to the juvenile court official who helps to oversee the program, police officers have a better and more effective relationship with the students, now that they have stopped dragging them off to court for every little spat.
Impressed by these results, the court and school officials in Birmingham, Ala., recently adopted a similar protocol. Clearly, more school systems need to follow suit.
The Trouble With ‘Zero Tolerance’
Zero tolerance = School to prison pipeline.
FOR MY BROTHER: REPORTED MISSING IN ACTION, 1943
Sweet brother, if I do not sleep
My eyes are flowers for your tomb;
And if I cannot eat my bread,
My fasts shall live like willows where you died.
If in the heat I find no water for my thirst,
My thirst shall turn to springs for you, poor traveller.
Where, in what desolate and smokey country,
Lies your poor body, lost and dead?
And in what landscape of disaster
Has your unhappy spirit lost its road?
Come, in my labor find a resting place
And in my sorrows lay your head,
Or rather take my life and blood
And buy yourself a better bed --
Or take my breath and take my death
And buy yourself a better rest.
When all the men of war are shot
And flags have fallen into dust,
Your cross and mine shall tell men still
Christ died on each, for both of us.
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/photo/2009/11/10...
Love you, Grandad.
Amputations, burns, brain injuries and shrapnel wounds proliferate in Afghanistan, due mostly to crude, increasingly potent improvised bombs targeting U.S. forces. Others are hit by snipers' bullets or mortar rounds.
With Veterans Day on Wednesday, wounded veterans from the recent conflicts consider the toll of these injuries, and the rough road ahead for the injured. Of particular concern are the so-called hidden wounds, traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder that can have side effects such as irritability and depression.
Since 2007, more than 70,000 service members have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury — more than 20,000 of them this year, according to the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center. Most of the injuries are mild but leave symptoms such as headaches and difficulty concentrating.
More than 70,000 service members have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury
In the land of make-believe, "we" pretend "we" care and honor the 1% who defend the "country".
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
But this has always been my favorite by Wilfred Owen:
So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went,
And took the fire with him, and a knife.
And as they sojourned both of them together,
Isaac the first-born spake and said, My Father,
Behold the preparations, fire and iron,
But where the lamb for this burnt-offering?
Then Abram bound the youth with belts and straps,
and builded parapets and trenches there,
And stretched forth the knife to slay his son.
When lo! an angel called him out of heaven,
Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad,
Neither do anything to him. Behold,
A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns;
Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him.
But the old man would not so, but slew his son,
And half the seed of Europe, one by one.
Tuesday, November 10th, 2009
*This Just In:* Shaunie Serves Shaq Separation Papers and Moves Back to LA with the Kids
Posted by Bossip Staff
On the brink of the whole cheating fiasco with Shaquille O’Neal and wife Shaunie, BOSSIP has just gotten wind that she just served him up with separation papers and packed up her things to move back to LA. Pop the top for more info on this breaking news. Shaunie recently filed for legal separation from Shaq WITH THE INTENT TO DIVORCE! We hear she has pulled her kids out of school in FL and moved them to LA; where she filed the papers. In response, Shaq’s team says she’s moving to CA for money because she’ll get more spousal support living in California versus living in Florida.
An inside source told us last week that Shaq has been chopping down Shaunie’s best friend and that’s what caused the abrupt filing of the papers. Damn, just two years ago, your boy was dropping her because she let her trainer get it, and now it’s his turn. SMH.
http://bossip.com/177739/this-just-in-shaunie-s...
by BooMan
Tue Nov 10th, 2009 at 11:56:10 PM EST
As politicians go, I have a relatively high opinion of both House Financial Services chairman Barney Frank and Senate Banking chair Chris Dodd. If I were to go looking for two people to oversee the regulation of Wall Street, I'd be hard-pressed to find too many people I trust more to do the job. To do an overhaul like that, you have to have experience. Frank and Dodd have worked on these issues for decades. That, of course, is also a source of concern. They've both become cozy with the big players in the industries. I don't really trust any politician to stand up to Wall Street.
Chairman Dodd has released his plan, and it's getting the correct kind of response.
Industry groups responded to the proposals with outrage.
"To some degree, it looks like they're just blowing up everything for the sake of change," said Ed Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association. "If this were to happen, the regulatory system would be in chaos for years. You have to look at the real-world impact of this."
Dodd responds:
"I could have tried to draft something that was, sort of, already a compromise of ideas here," Dodd said. "But I think you make a huge mistake by doing that. You're given very few moments in history to make this kind of a difference, and we're trying to do that."
From what I can tell, Barney Frank is crafting something more in line with what the administration is recommending. But that doesn't mean that Frank's bill is inferior. In some respects, it may be stronger. I've been focused on health care, so I can't give you an informed opinion on the relative merits of the House and Senate bills, yet. I'm encouraged that Dodd is thinking big and that his plan is causing outrage. Now I'll have to investigate the details.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/11/10/2...
* Nov 9th 2009, 15:45 by The Economist | WASHINGTON
THE New York Times has an excellent interactive graphic displaying unemployment rates and trends in America by age, race, and education level. Here's a question for you: what is the current unemployment rate among black men, aged 15 to 24, without a high school degree. The answer is below the fold.
Like Alex Tabarrok, I am a white male, between the age of 25 and 44, with a college degree, which means that I am part of a demographic group with one of the lowest unemployment rates (3.9%). The only groups with lower rates are white women between 25 and 44 with a college degree and white women 44 and older with a college degree. White male college graduates over 44 do a little worse, with an unemployment rate of 4.1%.
It is worth thinking about the fact that probably 90% or more of the people who make economic policy, write about economic policy, and produce journalism on economic policy fall into demographic groups in which the unemployment rate—during perhaps the worst recession since the Great Depression—is comfortably below 5%. Makes it a little easier to understand both the excitement that greeted the election of Barack Obama, and the intensity of the anger at some of the policies he has pursued.
By the way, a black man with the same age and education profile as me would be a part of a demographic group facing 8.3% unemployment—not much different than a white man with only a high school diploma.
It's 48.5%.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/200...
The Jobless Rate for People Like You
Not all groups have felt the recession equally.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/06/b...
By JAMES DAO and THOM SHANKER
Published: November 10, 2009
It was a sad homecoming of sorts. On Tuesday, Eric Shinseki, the secretary of veterans affairs, returned to Fort Hood, Tex., where he was a division commander in the mid-1990s, to pay tribute to two veterans affairs employees who died in the shootings there last week.
But the visit also underscored Mr. Shinseki’s current mission: to modernize his problem-plagued agency, which was struggling to care for aging veterans even before the flood of young ones from Iraq and Afghanistan began.
For months, Mr. Shinseki has been crisscrossing the country as President Obama’s pinstriped evangelist for veterans’ care, raising concerns about a coming tide of post-traumatic stress cases, traumatic brain injuries and other physical and psychological scars of battle.
Having led soldiers in Vietnam as a young West Point graduate, until a mine tore off part of his right foot and nearly ended his Army career, he can speak about the “baggage” of war with deep feeling.
“All of us who went through combat, we were carrying a little bit of baggage from the experience, the stress,” he said in an interview before the Fort Hood shootings.
Even before the shootings, Mr. Shinseki was in a rush, telling people he figured he would have three years — the average tenure of a cabinet secretary, he says — to revamp the Department of Veterans Affairs.
In nine months, he has pushed the department to make it easier for veterans to receive compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder. The agency has expanded the list of illnesses presumed to have been caused by Agent Orange, smoothing the way for an estimated 200,000 Vietnam-era veterans to receive benefits. And he has requested what would be the largest single-year increase in the department’s budget in three decades, $15 billion, or 16 percent.
Mr. Shinseki has also pledged to streamline the backlog-plagued disability compensation system and is pushing to revamp an archaic computer system so electronic records track a veteran from enlistment to death.
Perhaps most ambitious is his goal of getting 131,000 homeless veterans off the street in six years. “I don’t think you can do this sort of thing if you don’t put a big number on the table,” he said.
But as much as anything, Mr. Shinseki talks about bringing “a change of culture” to the department. Widely viewed as indifferent or obstructionist by veterans’ groups, it needs to become more of an advocate for the people it serves, Mr. Shinseki says.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/us/politics/1...
Paranoia Strikes Deep
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 9, 2009
Last Thursday there was a rally outside the U.S. Capitol to protest pending health care legislation, featuring the kinds of things we’ve grown accustomed to, including large signs showing piles of bodies at Dachau with the caption “National Socialist Healthcare.” It was grotesque — and it was also ominous. For what we may be seeing is America starting to be Californiafied.
The key thing to understand about that rally is that it wasn’t a fringe event. It was sponsored by the House Republican leadership — in fact, it was officially billed as a G.O.P. press conference. Senior lawmakers were in attendance, and apparently had no problem with the tone of the proceedings.
True, Eric Cantor, the second-ranking House Republican, offered some mild criticism after the fact. But the operative word is “mild.” The signs were “inappropriate,” said his spokesman, and the use of Hitler comparisons by such people as Rush Limbaugh, said Mr. Cantor, “conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful.”
What all this shows is that the G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.
The state of mind visible at recent right-wing demonstrations is nothing new. Back in 1964 the historian Richard Hofstadter published an essay titled, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” which reads as if it were based on today’s headlines: Americans on the far right, he wrote, feel that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.” Sound familiar?
But while the paranoid style isn’t new, its role within the G.O.P. is.
When Hofstadter wrote, the right wing felt dispossessed because it was rejected by both major parties. That changed with the rise of Ronald Reagan: Republican politicians began to win elections in part by catering to the passions of the angry right.
Until recently, however, that catering mostly took the form of empty symbolism. Once elections were won, the issues that fired up the base almost always took a back seat to the economic concerns of the elite. Thus in 2004 George W. Bush ran on antiterrorism and “values,” only to announce, as soon as the election was behind him, that his first priority was changing Social Security.
But something snapped last year. Conservatives had long believed that history was on their side, so the G.O.P. establishment could, in effect, urge hard-right activists to wait just a little longer: once the party consolidated its hold on power, they’d get what they wanted. After the Democratic sweep, however, extremists could no longer be fobbed off with promises of future glory.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/opinion/09kru...
TRANSLATION: They never thought the black guy would actually win and they would "stay" in power.
Did you attend Public school? Do you utilize roads? Do you utilize public utilities in any fashion? Do use city parks? When you are 65, you should opt out of medicare.
Most the crap you spew on here is completely nonsensical.
Apparently, you don't know what socialism means. Not shocking though. Carry on with the nonsensical rants.
Harvard researchers say 1.46 million working-age vets lacked health coverage last year, increasing their death rate
Immediate Release
Nov. 10, 2009
Contacts:
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H.
David Himmelstein, M.D.
Mark Almberg, Physicians for a National Health Program, (312) 782-6006, mark@pnhp.org
A research team at Harvard Medical School estimates 2,266 U.S. military veterans under the age of 65 died last year because they lacked health insurance and thus had reduced access to care. That figure is more than 14 times the number of deaths (155) suffered by U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2008, and more than twice as many as have died (911 as of Oct. 31) since the war began in 2001.
The researchers, who released their analysis today [Tuesday], pointedly say the health reform legislation pending in the House and Senate will not significantly affect this grim picture.
The Harvard group analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s March 2009 Current Population Survey, which surveyed Americans about their insurance coverage and veteran status, and found that 1,461,615 veterans between the ages of 18 and 64 were uninsured in 2008. Veterans were only classified as uninsured if they neither had health insurance nor received ongoing care at Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals or clinics.
Using their recently published findings in the American Journal of Public Health that show being uninsured raises an individual’s odds of dying by 40 percent (causing 44,798 deaths in the United States annually among those aged 17 to 64), they arrived at their estimate of 2,266 preventable deaths of non-elderly veterans in 2008. (See table.)
“Like other uninsured Americans, most uninsured vets are working people - too poor to afford private coverage but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid or means-tested VA care,” said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a professor at Harvard Medical School who testified before Congress about uninsured veterans in 2007 and carried out the analysis released today [Tuesday]. “As a result, veterans go without the care they need every day in the U.S., and thousands die each year. It’s a disgrace.”
Dr. David Himmelstein, the co-author of the analysis and associate professor of medicine at Harvard, commented, “On this Veterans Day we should not only honor the nearly 500 soldiers who have died this year in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the more than 2,200 veterans who were killed by our broken health insurance system. That’s six preventable deaths a day.”
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/november/over_220...
Picture 1Alexios Marakis, a Greek Orthodox priest visiting the U.S., got lost in Tampa and tried to stop and ask directions from Marine reservist Jasen D. Bruce. But instead of offering help, “Bruce struck the priest on the head with a tire iron.” The reservist believed Marakis, who spoke limited English, was an Arab terrorist. Bruce chased the priest for three blocks, “and even called 911 to say that an Arabic man tried to rob him.” According to a news release:
“During the chase, the suspect called 911 and claimed an Arabic male attempted to rob him and he was going to take him into custody,” a Tampa Police Department news release states. “When officers arrived, the suspect claimed the man was a terrorist.”
Police arrested Bruce for “aggravated battery with a deadly weapon” and are investigating whether he committed a hate crime.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/10/reservist-a...
Posted by Michael Scherer Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 6:14 pm
38 Comments • Trackback (1)
Politico's Ben Smith has, alas, confessed, more or less, that the Obama Campaign was his source of the John Edwards $400 haircut scoop. Back in March of 2007, I wrote a story for Salon.com about the role of opposition research in shaping the primary news cycle, which I termed the "Matt Drudge Primary." At the time, Smith, a fine reporter loyal to his sources, declined to admit what was then fairly obvious--the news of Edwards' silly haircut had been fed to him from a rival campaign.
But Smith's source eventually outed himself. As Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe writes in his book,
We did much less of this [opposition research] than other campaigns did, but there were times we indulged — it was our researchers who found John Edwards's infamous $400 hair cut expenditures.
As Ice T put it, "Don't hate the player. Hate the game."
Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/10/when...
BWA HA HA HA HA
By ELISABETH BUMILLER and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: November 10, 2009
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are coalescing around a proposal to send 30,000 or more additional American troops to Afghanistan, but President Obama remains unsatisfied with answers he has gotten about how vigorously the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan would help execute a new strategy, administration officials said Tuesday.
Mr. Obama is to consider four final options in a meeting with his national security team on Wednesday, his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, told reporters. The options outline different troop levels, other officials said, but they also assume different goals — including how much of Afghanistan the troops would seek to control — and different time frames and expectations for the training of Afghan security forces.
Three of the options call for specific levels of additional troops. The low-end option would add 20,000 to 25,000 troops, a middle option calls for about 30,000, and another embraces Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s request for roughly 40,000 more troops. Administration officials said that a fourth option was added only in the past few days. They declined to identify any troop level attached to it.
Mr. Gates, a Republican who served as President George W. Bush’s last defense secretary, and who commands considerable respect from the president, is expected to be pivotal in Mr. Obama’s decision. But administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not yet made up his mind, and that other top advisers, among them Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, remained skeptical of the value of a buildup.
In the Situation Room meetings and other sessions, some officials have expressed deep reservations about President Hamid Karzai, who emerged the victor of a disputed Afghan election. They said there was no evidence that Mr. Karzai would carry through on promises to crack down on corruption or the drug trade or that his government was capable of training enough reliable Afghan troops and police officers for Mr. Obama to describe a credible exit strategy.
Officials said that although the president had no doubt about what large numbers of United States troops could achieve on their own in Afghanistan, he repeatedly asked questions during recent meetings on Afghanistan about whether a sizable American force might undercut the urgency of the preparations of the Afghan forces who are learning to stand up on their own.
“He’s simply not convinced yet that you can do a lasting counterinsurgency strategy if there is no one to hand it off to,” one participant said.
Mr. Obama, officials said, has expressed similar concerns about Pakistan’s willingness to attack Taliban leaders who are operating out of the Pakistani city of Quetta and commanding forces that are mounting attacks across the border in Afghanistan. While Pakistan has mounted military operations against some Taliban groups in recent weeks, one official noted, “it’s been focused on the Taliban who are targeting the Pakistani government, but not those who are running operations in Afghanistan.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/world/asia/11...
Fort Lewis Chapel
Fort Lewis, Washington
THE VICE PRESIDENT: My name is Joe Biden. And on behalf of the President of the United States, I'm here to express my condolences to all those we honor today, and others who are here -- Gold Star families, who I had the opportunity to meet; and to this base, which has suffered an extraordinary loss.
"Of courage undaunted, possessing a firmness and a perseverance of purpose which nothing but impossibilities could divert from its direction."
Thus spoke Thomas Jefferson, describing Meriwether Lewis -- the namesake of this fort. Lewis's undaunted courage, his firmness and perseverance of purpose -- it lives in every corner of this base, and I suspect in the character and heart of all of you who serve in this base. And now it will be eternally embodied by the service and sacrifice of Sergeant First Class Gonzalez, Sergeant Fernando Delarosa, Sergeant Dale Griffin, Sergeant Issac Jackson, Sergeant Patrick Williamson, and Specialist Jared Stanker, and Private First Class Christopher Walz.
Just before walking into this chapel, I had the honor to meet, as I said, some Gold Star families, in addition to the families represented here of those we honor today. And they're all -- they're all incredible people. It amazes me, getting the chance to talk to each of them, their courage in being able to deal with what is the most tragic of losses. They all suffer from the loss of someone who meant the world to them: Captain John Hallett; Captain Cory Jenkins; Sergeant Andrew McConnell; Specialist Aaron Aamat; Specialist Kevin Graham; Specialist Joseph White.
Like every Blue Star family member, as my wife and I are, you realize that but for the grace of God we could be a member of that organization -- Gold Star parents. In a sense, those of us who've had children, husbands and wives who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, I guess we all share a sense of relief and a sense of guilt that we're here, having our loved ones back.
I've unfortunately had the occasion to be at more than one memorial service as both Vice President and as a grieving father and husband. As Vice President, I'm here to praise and honor your sons, your husbands, your fathers, your brothers, and let you know that the President and all the United States of America honors the sacrifice they've made and that you made. But as a father and a husband, I'm here to share with you the pain and to grieve with you, for I know there is nothing that any of us can say, clearly nothing I can say, that is likely to heal you today -- no solace I can offer to numb the grief consuming the wives and children and parents of those who are left behind -- that void you feel in your chest, that deep black hole that feels like it's sucking you in. I wish I could. I wish I knew the words to say. But from my experience, no one could say them to me, and I doubt whether I can say them to you. The poet William Cowper said -- and I quote -- "Grief is itself a medicine." It's a bitter medicine, but perhaps the only medicine for a time like this, the only method of the human heart to heal itself from wounds of such incredible depth. Not today but someday, God willing, there will be some consolation you'll find in the knowledge that your son, your husband, your brother, your father gave his life in the pursuit of the noblest of all earthly goals: defending his family, defending his country, defending and fighting for what he believed in. That pursuit defined each of the warriors we honor today; each of the fallen angels that we brought home. And it will define them, and has defined them, until the very end. Although I had not had the occasion to meet these fallen heroes on my trips to Afghanistan, I know them. I know them because I've read about them, I've seen where they fight and fought and died, and I've had a chance to meet some of their family members. And I'm struck by the fact that, to a man, being a soldier wasn't just something each of them did -- it was who they were. They were heroes. They were warriors. They knew the risk, yet day after day they'd saddle up and go out into no man's land and do the job.
I always marvel back to the days when I was with you, General Chiarelli, in Iraq -- to watch true heroism as a man or a woman gets up every morning, goes out and does the same thing they did the day before, knowing the risk that they're taking. I marvel at all of you. I marvel at, the 17 times I've been into those two theaters, how we trained -- you have trained. It seems like it's in the DNA of the women and men of this country to go out, day after day, and do that job.
William Shakespeare said, "Cowards die many times before their death. The valiant never taste death but once." There is no greater valiance than to serve your country, to sacrifice your precious time here on Earth for the ideals that will, because of your heroism, eventually light the darkest corners of the globe. And I might add, for all of you who stayed behind, the famous quote, "Those also serve who stand and wait." So many of you, so many of you have given so much, so much to this country, at a time when there are so few people making the sacrifice.
The country honors what has been done and what continues to be done, and honors your husbands and your wives and your daughters and your sons. But their life goes on after they honor. But you, every single day, continue. You understand the loneliness of being separated, the danger that your spouse or son or daughter is undertaking, and you go on every day, like every day is normal. You're an amazing, an amazing group of people.
General Shalikashvili, you told me a long, long time ago about the spirit of these kids -- they're not kids, they're grown men and women -- but it's amazing to me, it's amazing how so few do so much for so many. It's that valiance that animates our memories of the 833 men and women who have sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan, and of the 4,360 who we've lost in Iraq.
It's that valiance that we remember here today at Fort Lewis. It's that valiance that we honor today at Fort Hood. And it's that valiance that we'll celebrate tomorrow, our nation's 91st Veterans Day.
Today, these seven men take their place on the rolls of the greatest American heroes. And the rest of us -- all the rest of America -- should once again be reminded and rededicate ourselves to a simple proposition: The only sacred responsibility we have as a nation -- the only sacred responsibility we have as a nation -- is to give all those we send all they need, and care for them and their families when they come home. That's the only truly sacred obligation our government has.
Meriwether Lewis -- soldier, explorer, a leader of men -- when speaking of his historic expedition, said of those under his command, “With such men I have everything to hope, but little to fear.”
Well, I say to all Americans today: Knowing these seven men are watching over us now, and that our military is filled with thousands upon thousands of women and men like them -- I think we can believe that, even as we struggle with tragedy, even as we grapple with the profound loss and devastating grief, we can look up at the heavens, think of those heroes, and know with certainty that we have everything to hope, but little to fear, thanks to them.
And I say again to the families that I've had the chance to meet and those that I will not have a chance to meet: I know these men were a great deal more than soldiers and warriors to you. They were the father who tucked you in at night; they're the husband who knew your fears before you expressed them; they're the brother who lifted you up; they're the son that made you laugh, and made you proud.
They loved their classic cars, their snowboarding, their country music, rap, video games, motorcycles. They played spades, dominoes. They were decent, ordinary -- but yet extraordinary -- young men. They were so much more to their country as well: They are our warriors; they are our heroes. They are all of our sons; and they are all of our brothers.
And, as a nation, as hollow as it sounds to say, we grieve with you. We don't have the sense of the profound grief you're experiencing today, but we grieve with you. And we owe you -- we owe you more than you can ever be repaid.
Let me close on a personal note, if I may, to the family members I met today. Although there's no way to fathom this now -- I promise you, from my own experience, that the day will come that the memory of your son, your brother, your husband will immediately bring a smile to your lips, and not a tear to your eye. That day will come, I promise you. But my prayer for all of you is it comes sooner than later.
May God bless you all, and may God protect our troops.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/military/sto...
http://www.racewire.org/archives/2009/11/the_gr...
In Bobby v. Van Hook, the justices found that, among the 6th Circuit panel's errors, was its reliance on ABA guidelines announced 18 years after Robert Van Hook went to trial.
The per curiam opinion said the Sixth Amendment entitled defendants to representation that does not fall below an "objective standard of reasonableness." Restatements of professional standards, the Court added, can be useful guides as to what reasonableness entails, "but only to the extent they describe the professional norms prevailing when the representation took place."
The Court said the 6th Circuit made "matters worse," by treating the 2003 guidelines not merely as evidence of what reasonably diligent attorneys would do, "but as inexorable commands with which all capital defense counsel 'must fully comply.'"
In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito said that the ABA is a "venerable" organization with a history of service to the bar, "but it is, after all, a private group with limited membership." Its views, he added, do not necessarily reflect the views of the bar as a whole.
Courts must decide whether a defense lawyer's work meets the constitutional standard, he said, adding, "I see no reason why the ABA Guidelines should be given a privileged position in making that determination."
A Justice's Curious Comment About ABA Guidelines for Death Penalty Lawyers
Wonder what the SC is trying to define as "what reasonably diligent attorneys would do" today. Its already determined that in DP cases a defendant's attorney was "reasonably diligent" although attorney slept through the trial.
Poll: Southerners want federal help, fear for jobs
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/AP/stor...
that they need a better class of pol.
that maybe they need to tell them to get a glass of STFU
Rick' Secessionist' Perry, until the natural disaster happens and suddenly, WHERE'S MY FEDERAL MONEY
or Bobby ' I took my name from the Brady Bunch' Jindal, talking smack about the stimulus, but put his hand out too.
or Mark ' I left my heart in Argentina', talking smack about the stimulus, and a GOP Legislature had to bitchslap him by saying, hell yeah, we're taking the money.
or his comrad, Joe ' YOU LIE' Wilson, who had smack to talk about our national health policy, until his OWN DAMN WIFE GOT H1N1.
By J. Taylor Rushing - 11/10/09 09:49 PM ET
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) late Tuesday laid the groundwork for the Senate's healthcare reform debate to start next Tuesday.
Reid filed a motion to introduce the bill on Monday, Nov. 16. Anticipating a Republican objection, the bill would be pushed onto the Senate calendar.
"A motion to proceed to the bill would be in order the next legislative day," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley.
In doing so, Reid heeded the advice of former President Bill Clinton, who visited Senate Democrats Tuesday at their weekly caucus lunch and urged them to move quickly to pass health reform. Clinton imparted lessons from his own attempt during his presidency, in 1993, and said Democrats should be prepared to compromise but should act with speed.
Currently, the Senate's healthcare bill is awaiting a cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, which senior Democratic aides expect by the end of this week.
Reid's action late Tuesday sets up a critical vote next week on a motion to proceed to the bill. Such a motion would require 60 votes to succeed — an important, early test of the Democratic caucus's unity on procedural votes. Several senators who caucus as Democrats have expressed skepticism about the bill, while others have expressed a willingness to support procedural votes. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) have both warned Democrats that they will target any senators who support procedural votes on the bill.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/new...
A GOP blizzard of untrue statements
By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
I'm hoping, for your sake, that you didn't spend your Saturday night as I did: watching the House debate health-care reform on C-SPAN.
Pathetic, I know. The outcome wasn't in doubt, and the arguments were as familiar as an old pair of slippers. Moral imperative! Government takeover! Long-overdue protections! Crippling mandates!
I'm not a huge fan of the House measure, but I was glad to see it straggle across the finish line, if only to keep the process going. And, by the end of the long debate, I was cheering for it even more because of the appalling amount of misinformation being peddled by its opponents.
I don't mean the usual hyperbole about "a children-bankrupting, health-care-rationing, freedom-crushing, $1 trillion government takeover of our health-care system," as Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling put it. Or the tired canards about taxpayer-funded abortion or insurance subsidies for illegal immigrants.
Or the extraneous claims about alleged Democratic excesses, as in this from Georgia Republican Jack Kingston: "Let's remember the Pelosi plan for jobs: an $800 billion stimulus plan that caused unemployment to go from 8.5 percent to over 10 percent."
Caused? We can debate whether the stimulus was effective, although the best evidence is that it prevented things from being even worse. No rational person believes the stimulus "caused" unemployment to rise.
ad_icon
I mean the flood of sheer factual misstatements about the health-care bill.
The falsehood-peddling began at the top, with Minority Leader John Boehner:
"If you're a Medicare Advantage enrollee . . . the Congressional Budget Office says that 80 percent of them are going to lose their Medicare Advantage."
Not true. The CBO hasn't said anything of the sort. Boehner's office acknowledges that he misspoke: He meant to cite a study from the Medicare actuary estimating that projected enrollment would be down by 64 percent -- if the cuts took effect. Choosing not to enroll in Medicare Advantage is different from "losing" it.
But Boehner wasn't alone.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/prof_busted_...
Although she might have been runnin' her mouth, brotha will soon find out what White privilege really means, once the courts get involved.
The white guy who hit the black woman got a $320,000 bond, house arrest, and he was fitted with an ankle monitor, surrender his passport, have no contact with the black female victim, faces one count of aggravated assault, two counts of battery, two counts of disorderly conduct, false imprisonment and cruelty to children. They charged the white *sshole with everything they could think of.
Was he out of his fricking mind? MEN DON'T HIT WOMEN!!
-------------------------------
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
GOP's Coburn "is denying veterans many benefits and services”
by Joe Sudbay (DC) on 11/11/2009 10:11:00 AM
We'll hear a lot of speeches about veterans and their service to our nation today. But, any Republican Senator who speaks today should be ashamed. Their colleague, Tom Coburn (OK) is still blocking a bill to aid vets. At the end of last week, Senator Akaka laid down the gauntlet:
Speaking Friday on the Senate floor about a procedural hold that is blocking passage of S. 1963, the Veterans’ Caregiver and Omnibus Health Benefits Act, Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, said “it would be truly disgraceful” if the bill didn’t clear the Senate by Veterans’ Day.
Akaka said the bill represents a bipartisan collection of veterans’ committee proposals packaged into one bill so it could quickly pass. Consideration of the measure is being blocked by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who doesn’t want the measure brought up unless he is given an opportunity to offer amendments.
“This single senator is denying veterans many benefits and services,” Akaka said, including a new caregiver assistant program at families of the “most seriously wounded veterans.”
Well, it's Veterans Day and Coburn is still blocking the bill. His GOP colleagues are enabling him.
On Monday, Democratic Senators held a press conference to focus attention on this issue. And, Coburn showed up for what he called the "festivities." The Democrats blasted him anyway:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/11/gops-coburn-...
Josh Marshall | November 11, 2009, 10:51AM
Yesterday we brought you this story about how a feud/succession struggle within the Moon family seems to be the underlying reason for the staff shake-up that happened over the weekend -- and the possible departure of Executive Editor John Solomon. We're going to have new reports for you on this story shortly. But one key is that the future operation of the Washington Times -- either as a print newspaper or in any form at all -- seems to be in real question, whether that's because the Moon family decides for its own ideological or familial reasons to pull the plug or because the fighting within the family creates a cash shortfall that prevents the paper from staying open.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/...
Jonathan Cohn
Critics have complained that a drug industry got a sweetheart deal when it struck a bargain with the White House and Senate Finance Committee over health care reform.
There’s new reason to think those critics were right.
It comes from an October forecast by IMS Health, a respected global research and consulting firm. The report, which IMS distributed to clients and which a source provided, projects that the drug industry will see average annual growth of 3.5 percent between 2008 and 2013.
Back in March, IMS had projected no growth at all during that same five-year stretch. In fact, it projected the drug business would actually contract slightly--with negative annual growth of 0.01 percent.
What changed? A major factor, according to IMS, was the emerging details of health care reform.
Health reform, as currently envisioned, wouldn’t merely bring coverage to the uninsured. It would also fill in the “donut hole” in Medicare Part D--the gap in coverage that leaves beneficiaries with serious health problems paying for hundred if not thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket prescription costs.
In addition, because it will take several years to close the donut hole, reform relies on voluntary discounts from the pharmaceutical industry to make drugs more affordable in the intervening years. But those discounts would apply only to name-brand drugs, not generics.
Put it all together, and you have more demand for name-brand drugs. As a result, IMS believes, pharmaceutical companies would be able to raise their prices--enough to boost revenue significantly: "If this bill is implemented," the report concludes on page 138, "an increase in prices on new drugs can be expected."
Exactly what this would mean in actual dollar terms isn't clear. But from some back-of-the-envelope calculations, it appears that IMS thinks revenues for the makers of name-brand drugs could grow by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next ten years. (To be clear, this is a very rough guess, based on extrapolations from the report's tables--and I have not run it by experts.)
That brings us back to the deal that the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, which represents those companies, made with the White House and Senate Finance Committee.
The deal--details of which came to light in reports by the New York Times and Huffington Post--was pretty straightforward. The industry agreed to embrace health care reform and, later on, launched a massive advertising campaign to promote the cause. In exchange, the White House and Senate Finance--which had been asking various industries to pledge concessions that would help pay for the cost of coverage expansions--promised not to seek more than $80 in reduced payments to drug makers.
To an industry as big and profitable as the drug makers, giving up $80 billion over ten years wouldn’t seem like much of a sacrifice--a point critics started making right away. But if IMS is right, the drug industry wouldn't even be giving up $80 billion, in any meaningful sense of the term. If anything, it'd be making more money. Maybe quite a lot of it.
Of course, the projections from IMS--like any such projections--are full of uncertainty. That's why there are so many "coulds" and "mights' in the explanation above.
And even if the drug industry is getting a sweetheart deal, the political reality remains what it was all along. As I noted in my recent article on the drug deal, the drug industry has enormous leverage in Congress: When relatively liberal congressional committees tried limit the exclusivity period for biological drugs, industry lobbyists beat back the effort easily.
Given the tight squeeze in Congress--remember, even the House passed reform with only a tiny, five-vote margin--it’s entirely possible that declaring war on the drug lobby would have undermined the whole reform effort.
Then again, the House version of reform does seek greater concessions from the drug industry than the Senate Finance bill does. And the two chambers’ bills must eventually be reconciled in conference committee.
The drug industry will complain about any efforts to alter their deal. But the IMS projection suggests they'll be just fine.
Note: Calls and emails to IMS were not returned.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/new-evide...
Well, it wasn't exactly "massive", and I used the past tense because I haven't seen any of the ads for a little while, now.
Ben Frumin | November 11, 2009, 8:26AM
Bill O'Reilly declared last night that the United States "can't kill all the Muslims" -- so will have to settle simply for winning hearts and minds.
Talking to Fox News contributor Col. Ralph Peters, O'Reilly called the deadly shootings at Fort Hood last week by suspected shooter Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan "an act of terror."
He then turned to President Obama's supposed avoidance of labeling the attack as such.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/1...
RIP, and prayers to her and her family.
Influence of Egypt and Saudi Arabia Fades
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: November 10, 2009
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Even before Mahmoud Abbas announced that he would not seek re-election as the Palestinian president, throwing the Palestinian Authority into chaos, America’s closest Arab allies, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, had begun to despair over Washington’s Middle East missteps, government officials and political experts said.
With Israel having rebuffed American calls to freeze settlement-building, and with the prospects for substantive peace talks fading, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are increasingly viewed in the region as diminished actors whose influence is on the wane, political experts say.
They have been challenged by Iran, opposed by much smaller Arab neighbors, mocked by Syria and defied by influential nonstate groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Even while Iran has been focused on its domestic political crisis, and Syria has struggled with an economic and water crisis, their continued support for Hamas and Hezbollah has preserved for them a strong hand in matters like the formation of a new government in Lebanon and efforts to reconcile Palestinian factions, officials and analysts said.
Officials in Saudi Arabia and Egypt acknowledge all this; they admit that they are no longer masters of their universe. What they do not agree upon is how to respond.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has decided that Arab unity is the only way to re-establish the kingdom’s role and to blunt Iran’s growing influence. The king has begun a diplomatic drive to smooth relations with two Arab leaders who have insulted and admonished him in the past, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya and, more recently, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
Egyptian officials say they wish the king well but have declined to participate in his reconciliation initiative because they think it will fail as long as Syria determines that the advantages of playing the spoiler outweigh the gains of pushing for peace.
“If there is no peace, then all those who bet against peace are winning,” said an Egyptian official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid increasing tensions with the United States or Saudi Arabia. “And all those who act and bet there will be peace are losing, like us. We are losing because we are putting this bet.”
The great promise of President Obama’s June speech in Cairo, officials and political commentators said, was severely damaged when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, on her recent trip to the Middle East, praised as “unprecedented” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to slow the building of settlements. That left the leadership of Saudi Arabia and Egypt — the two regional American allies most committed to negotiating with Israel — exposed, embarrassed and weakened, political analysts and government officials said.
“Egypt’s role is receding regionally, and its cards are limited,” said Emad Gad, an expert in international relations at the government-financed Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. “Their main card, which is reconciliation and peace, is receding.”
Egypt says these efforts will come to nothing until there is progress in the peace process, an approach the Saudis have not accepted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/world/middlee...
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) said administration officials delayed briefing members of Congress about the alleged gunman, raising "red flags" about what the White House was hiding.
"When they withhold information, you always start asking questions," Hoekstra told Fox News. "That's what raises red flags. What do they know that they don't want us to know?"
Hoekstra linked President Barack Obama's handling of Fort Hood to a chain of other GOP criticisms of the president, including the administration's treatment of detainees and an investigation into possible CIA abuse.
"It is a political correctness that is making it unable for us to identify the real threat of homegrown terrorism," he alleged.
Hoekstra warned that "we have similar Hasans" in the country. The Michigan Republican has called for his committee to investigate the incident. Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) has so far declined, preferring to wait for the conclusion of the joint FBI-Army investigation.
Top Republican says White House hiding info on Fort Hood
Theme for next years' rethug campaign ads?
If that is the case Bush caused 911 by not following the memo period.
Its ridiculousness to the 9th degree, these people have just lost their mind. Politics is now a game nobody gives a shit about people anymore.
Lost in the cross-dressing controversy was an underlying issue: Why have a dress code in the first place? While most campuses long ago surrendered to T-shirts and sweats, a number of historically black colleges have been mounting a new offensive in the war on slovenly attire. Call it Operation Pull Up Your Pants.
Paul Quinn College was among the first. When Michael J. Sorrell took over as president in 2007, he didn't like what he saw. "It was pretty apparent that our students were dressing in a manner that was unsatisfactory," says Mr. Sorrell, noting the popularity of flip-flops and T-shirts. "It was frankly embarrassing when we brought prospective students and donors to campus."
Now if students don't meet the college's "business casual" standard, they have a choice: Pay a $100 fine or go jogging with Mr. Sorrell early on Saturday morning. At the beginning of the semester, most students choose the fine; later on, when they start worrying about the tuition bill, Mr. Sorrell has no shortage of running companions.
In order to help students who can't afford more formal duds, the college set up a free-clothes closet. Donations from alumni and others have included lots of polo shirts and even some Armani suits. "We have the best-dressed students in the country," says Mr. Sorrell. "Nice and clean is an everyday occurrence at Paul Quinn."
Savannah State University's dress code went into effect last year. The university bans "any shirt that exposes bare midriff or bare back" along with "undershirts customarily worn as undergarments."
But the biggest problem, according to Irvin Clark, vice president for student affairs, is from the waist down. "I have seen students with pants down almost to their knees," he says, "and what they have under it is less than desirable."
Attempts to enforce the policy have met with mixed results. Those efforts mostly consist of Mr. Clark and other administrators instructing students to hoist their trousers. "I'll roll down the window and say, 'Hey, young man, pull up your pants!'" Mr. Clark explains. "But if I turn the corner and come back, the pants will be sagging again."
Proper dress is discussed at Savannah State's undergraduate etiquette classes, which are held twice a month. For Mr. Clark, it's about more than creating a better campus image—it's also about preparing students for their postcollege careers. "If I went to my dentist and he was sagging, I think I'd go find another dentist," he says.
Black Colleges React to Low Point in Fashion
The Economy Is Down, but College Football Coaches' Salaries Are Up
Keep telling that history; read some great military history.
The 7th Cavalry got their butts in a sling again after the Little Big Horn Massacre, fourteen years later, the day after the Wounded Knee Massacre. If it wasn't for the 9th Cavalry Buffalo Soldiers, there would of been a second massacre of the 7th Cavalry. Read the book, ‘Rescue at Pine Ridge”, and visit website/great military history, http://www.rescueatpineridge.com