Don't Close Gitmo Don't Prosecute in U.S. Courts
Don't Hold in U.S. Prisons if Guilty

post from Docudharma - Front Page on 24 February 2010 01:29:46 PM. © Docudharma - Front Page

That's what we hear from many, most on a certain side of the political spectrum in this country as to those being held in the Guantanamo Prison. This is only one of the recruiting tools, there are now many, used by the criminal element known as[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Docudharma/~3/zv9_c3SgT6g/dont-close-gitmo-dont-pr
osecute-in-us-courts-dont-hold-in-us-prisons-if-guilty

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

A Dilemma Of Their Own Making

post from TalkLeft on 24 February 2010 01:25:00 PM. © TalkLeft

The Village Dems are now furiously trying to recast the use of reconciliation for the health bills as a normal process. See, e.g., Kevin Drum, Steve Benen and Ezra Klein. The problem for them is they spent a year pooh poohing reconciliation and the Schumer Plan when public option advocates argued for splitting the health care bills in a regular order bill and a reconciliation bill. (Notable exception - David Waldman.) There disdain for this has come back to bite them. Here's Drum:

There's nothing wrong with the media reporting that Republicans oppose the use of reconciliation to amend the healthcare bill. Of course they do. But they owe it to their audience to explain that reconciliation does nothing more than allow a simple majority vote to pass budgetary issues and that it's been used routinely by both parties for decades. That's just the simple truth.

Indeed, it was always a simple truth. But for a year, the Village Dems did not like that simple truth. Now they reap what they sowed.

Speaking for me only

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TalkleftThePoliticsOfCrime/~3/mCzzKqxn3SQ/642

Digg this

Bernanke Affirms Rates To Stay Low For Extended
Period

post from Jutia Group on 24 February 2010 01:24:41 PM. © Jutia Group

G10 Advancers and Decliners vs USDCHF0.57EUR0.47JPY0.25GBP0.06The USD has weakened today after Fed Chairman Bernanke?s address to congress repeated the rhetoric that labour market weakness and low inflation would allow the central bank to keep interest rates low for ?an extended period?. EURUSD has spiked up to highs of 1.3626 during the day, going at least some way to reversing the losses in yesterday?s session, and USDJPY has remained heavy around 90.00…

Sebelius Invites Insurance Company Leaders to
Discuss Health Insurance Premiums

post from The Politics of Jamie Sanderson on 24 February 2010 01:20:00 PM. © The Politics of Jamie Sanderson

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today invited insurance company chief executive officers to a March 3 meeting at HHS to discuss their companies? insurance premiums. The CEOs of UnitedHealth Group Inc., WellPoint Inc., Aetna Inc., Health Care Service Corporation and CIGNA HealthCare Inc. along with leaders from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners have been invited.

Text of the letter delivered to insurance company CEOs is below:

Dear ______,

Across the country, health insurance premium increases are impacting American families and business owners, and experts indicate that premiums will continue to rise. In recent weeks, we have learned of premium increases of nearly 40 percent in one state and we know significant premium increases are not isolated incidents. I am concerned about these increases, which make it harder for people to access the health care they need, and eager to hear the justification for these increases and steps we can take to create a more stable system that keeps premium costs down for all Americans.

To that end, I will be hosting a meeting with insurance company executives and hope you will accept this invitation to join us on Wednesday, March 3 at the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C at 11:30 AM. Our conversation will benefit from your experience and expertise.

I hope this meeting will provide an opportunity to discuss how health insurance reform can bring down health care costs and fix our broken health insurance system. President Obama has offered a health insurance reform proposal that begins to give middle class families and small business owners the health care security they have been losing over the past 16 years. This plan was informed by our discussions with a wide variety of stakeholders over the past year including representatives from NAIC. Now, as we move forward, we welcome your thoughts and ideas about how reform can ensure all Americans have the stable, secure, affordable health care coverage they need and deserve.

We all share a commitment to fighting fraud in our health care system, driving down health care costs and implementing reforms that will add value to our health care system. I look forward to a productive conversation on these and other issues. Should you have any questions regarding this meeting, please contact my office at (202) 690-7000.

Sincerely,
Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary of Health and Human Services

Read The Full Article:
http://thepoliticsofjamiesanderson.blogspot.com/2010/02/sebelius-invites-insuranc
e-company.html

Digg this

Vermont's Leahy urges for Senate action on Health
Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act

post from The Politics of Jamie Sanderson on 24 February 2010 01:13:00 PM. © The Politics of Jamie Sanderson

Here's an e-mail sent from U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, urging people to contact their senators to further action on the recent House vote on the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act.

The House just passed its version of the The Health Insurance Antitrust Enforcement Act.

It's time for the Senate to act, too.

E-mail Your Senators Today!

Last fall I wrote you about the sweetheart deal insurance companies have had since they were exempted from federal antitrust laws in 1945. Shielded from this scrutiny, the exemption has helped the insurance industry to put profits before people, cherry-pick customers, and deny coverage to patients when they fall ill.

They've had a great setup. Last year alone, the top five U.S. health care insurance companies made $12 billion in profits while dropping 2.7 million Americans from their insurance rolls.

More than 43,000 LeahyforVermont.com community activists responded to my message by urging their representatives to eliminate the antitrust exemption and force insurance companies to play by the same, good-competition rules as virtually every other business in America.

Our voices broke through the health insurance lobbyists who seem to be everywhere you look around Washington these days, and TODAY the House of Representatives voted 406-19 to pass its version of the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act.

Now it's up to the Senate to take up this bill and send it to President Obama's desk to be signed into law.

Please click here to urge your Senators to pass the House version of the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act -- so President Obama can sign it into law.

The health insurance industry should compete on a level playing field just like every other business in America, large and small, so that consumers know that the price they're being quoted is the product of a free and fair marketplace.

Like most Americans I'm frustrated with the slow pace of progress towards comprehensive health care reform, though I remain hopeful we'll get the sweeping reform we need soon.

But it is unclear whether or not the final health care reform bill Congress sends to the President's desk will include a provision to end the health insurance industry antitrust exemption. Even if it does, it could be severely weakened during the final round of negotiations in Congress.

That's why we must act now to pass the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act as a standalone bill.

Please click here to urge your Senators to pass the House version of the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act -- so President Obama can sign it into law.

Ending the health insurance industry antitrust exemption will promote competition and consumer choice, though it is not the only reform we need. But it's a critical component of reform, and one I believe is best achieved by passing the House version of the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act into law as soon as possible.

Thank you for taking action.

Sincerely,

Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator

P.S. After you e-mail your Senators, please forward this message to your friends & family -- and urge them to speak out in favor of the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act too.

Read The Full Article:
http://thepoliticsofjamiesanderson.blogspot.com/2010/02/vermonts-leahy-urges-for-
senate-action.html

Digg this

ENGELS ON "EQUALITY"

post from Thomas Riggins' Blog on 24 February 2010 01:07:00 PM. © Thomas Riggins' Blog

Thomas Riggins
(Engels and Philosophy V)

Engels discusses this topic in Chapter X, Part I of Anti-Dühring (Morality and Law. Equality). Engels discusses Dühring's method of analysis. Dühring thinks you break a subject down to its most simple components and then, using mathematical axioms, you can logically deduce what its true nature is. Engels calls this the A PRIORI method. In this method you logically deduce the nature of the object from its concept not from from the object itself. Then you reverse the process. You take your refurbished concept of the object and then judge the nature of the object by means of it instead of just studying the object itself. This is the garbage in, garbage out method.

In discussing "equality", Herr Dühring deduces the nature of society by logic "instead of from the real social relations of the people around him." He says the simplest form of society consists of just two people. Here you have two human wills and at this stage the two are ENTIRELY EQUAL to one another. From this Dühring says we can deduce "the development of the fundamental concepts of right." These two persons, by the way, are men.

Engels calls these two equal men "phantoms" because to be entirely equal they have to be free from any real life distinctions, including sexual distinctions and experiences, and thus become just abstract creations of Dühring's brain not real people at all.

Now what would justify one person becoming subordinate to another if they are entirely equal? Well if one of the two wills was, Engels explains, "afflicted with inadequate self-determination" then Dühring allows for its subordination. In other words the entirely equal wills are not entirely equal after all. Engels gives two more examples from Dühring in which "equality" will be replaced by inequality and subordination: they are "when two persons are 'morally unequal'" and when they are unequal mentally. Of course it is Herr Dühring and his followers who decide the moral and mental qualifications.

All this goes to show, Engels concludes, that Dühring has a shallow and botched outlook regarding the notion of equality. But this does not mean the idea of equality does not play "an important agitational role in the socialist movement of almost every country." The issue of Human Rights is the contemporary version of this debate. Following Engels, I will say that the "scientific content" of Human Rights will "determine its value for proletarian agitation."

The scientific content will be established by studying the history of the idea of Human Rights (AKA "equality.") It took thousands of years to get from the ideas about equality in the ancient world to those that the socialist movement holds, or should hold today. In the classical world of Greece and Rome inequality was as important as equality (slaves versus Roman citizenship for example).

Christianity recognized a form of equality-- all were equally subject to original sin. There was also, early on, the equality of the ELECT. But these were really bogus forms of equality as far as THIS world was concerned. Then, when the Germans overran the Roman Empire the ideals of human equality were set back for a thousand years due to the entrenchment of the FEUDAL ORDER.

Nevertheless, within that order a class was growing that would "become the standard- bearer of the modern demand for equality: the bourgeoisie." As a result of the maritime discoveries of the fifteenth century (da Gama, Columbus, etc.,) markets began to grow and the handicraft industries of the middle ages expanded into manufacturing concerns. This economic revolution took place within the political structure of feudalism. The bourgeoisie began to champion the notion of human rights and equality because human labor qua labor was seen as of equal value, a fact recognized in bourgeoisie political economy as the law of value "according to which," Engels writes, "the value of a commodity is measured by the socially necessary labour embodied in it." This connection was first brought to light by Marx in Das Kapital, Engels says.

The social contradiction between the new economic order of capitalism and the feudal political order brought about the great revolutions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Engels explains that "where economic relations required freedom and equality of rights, the political system opposed them at every step." It is interesting to note that the bourgeoisie was able to wrest power from the feudalists and is to day's dominant ruling class. The same contradiction on a higher level, this time between the working classes and the bourgeoisie, has not been resolved. But only a revolutionary transfer of political power to the workers can overcome the economic problems, as well as the social questions of war and imperialism, that mark the present period of bourgeoisie decline.

Engels points out that with the decline of the Roman Empire and the development of independent states each claiming the same rights to nationhood as the others, and being, in the bourgeois world at least, on similar levels of development, the notion of equality gave way to to that of universal human rights. That "universal human rights" are basically bourgeois rights is illustrated by the fact that "the American constitution, the first to recognize the rights of man, in the same breath confirms the slavery of the coloured races existing in America: class privileges are proscribed, race privileges sanctioned."

The logical extension of the call for the abolition of class privileges by the bourgeoisie is the working class' call for the abolition of classes themselves. There are two aspects to the demand for equally made by the working people. The first is a protest against the poverty and oppression of the workers as compared to the wealth and power of the rich. This first aspect is spontaneous and "is simply an expression of the revolutionary instinct" of oppressed people. The second aspect is derived from the bourgeoisie's own ideals and demand for equality in face of the feudal order and is put forth "in order to stir up the workers against the capitalists with the aid of the capitalists' own assertions." In both cases, according to Engels, the real demand of the workers is not class equality but the ABOLITION OF CLASSES. Any demand beyond [i.e., other than] that, he says, "passes into absurdity."

What Engels has tried to show is that our modern notions of human rights and of human equality are not eternal verities good for every time and clime. Both the bourgeois and proletarian versions are historical products. So are the views of the Taliban, for example, on the treatment of women and the rights of non Islamic people or those of some South Africans on the number of wives a man can have. These views as well as those we call "modern", by which we mean 'Western" in their capitalist or working class incarnations developed as a result of "definite historical conditions that in turn themselves presuppose a long previous history."

Those values, therefore, WE take for granted are the product of a specific historical trajectory in which they functioned to bring about and stabilize the world capitalist system. Engels says, quoting Marx, if the modern notion of human rights "already possesses the fixity of a popular prejudice" this is due to the continuing influence of the Enlightenment on our times.
The task of socialists today is to agitate for truly effective universal human rights-- and these include the right to a living income, to health, to food, housing, education, and to live in a world at peace-- attainable once and for all through the abolition of classes.
[A-D VII]

Read The Full Article:
http://leninlives.blogspot.com/2010/02/engels-on-equality.html

Digg this

The Gang That Cant Think Straight: 6 GOP Senators
Vote For Jobs Bill After Joining Filibuster Two Days Earlier

post from Think Progress on 24 February 2010 01:05:00 PM. © Think Progress

Sens. Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

This morning, the Senate passed a $15 billion jobs bill that includes four provisions: a payroll tax break for hiring unemployed workers, an extension of highway construction funding, Build America bonds to help states fund infrastructure projects, and an extension of tax breaks for equipment purchase. The final vote for passage was 70-28, with 13 Republicans joining all but one Democrat.

Today’s vote only occurred because, on Monday night, 5 Republicans joined the same group of Democrats in order to invoke cloture and overcome a filibuster by a 62-30 vote. Below are the Republicans who either voted against or did not vote at all on the cloture motion, but flipped and voted for the bill today:

NAY TO YEAABSENT TO YEASen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL)Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS)

In addition to this flip-flop, all the above senators except Inhofe voted to sustain a Republican objection on a point of order before proceeding to the final vote. Plus, the Wonk Room noted two days ago that both Inhofe and Hatch were planning to vote against cloture despite the fact that the bill included provisions which they had previously supported. Inhofe followed through with his nay vote on cloture, while Hatch skipped the vote entirely, but both came around to support the bill today.

After the vote, Alexander said that he voted for the final bill “because it is modest.” “There are plenty of opportunities for bipartisan cooperation,” he said, which of course begs the question regarding why he couldn’t engage in bipartisan cooperation just two days ago if he supported the bill.

The bill now moves to the House of Representatives, which last year passed a far more ambitious $154 billion jobs creation package. Earlier today, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) predicted that the House will pass the Senate bill as is.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/24/sens-flip-jobs-bill/

Digg this

"And Then . . "

post from TalkLeft on 24 February 2010 01:03:00 PM. © TalkLeft

The "pragmatic" Kevin Drum writes:

If Democrats want to pass a healthcare bill, there's only one way to do it: the House needs to pass the existing Senate bill and then the two sides need to agree to a few limited changes. These changes would be passed through both House and Senate via "reconciliation," which allows budget-related measures to be passed with a simple majority.

(Emphasis supplied.) Kevin apparently has not been listening - the House Dems will not play the "and then" game. They do not trust the Senate, and with good reason. Exhibit A is Kent Conrad. here is the political reality Village Dems - the House will not pass the Stand Alone Senate Bill "and then" wait for the Senate to agree to a reconciliation fix. They must happen at the same time. That's just the way it is. Deal with it.

Speaking for me only

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TalkleftThePoliticsOfCrime/~3/Qs7xv_xF3L8/8872

Digg this

Sec. of Transportation: Toyotas on recall list '
are not safe'

The Chairman of Toyota is on Capitol Hill today. So, is the Secretary of Transportation, Roy LaHood:

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) confronted Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who had earlier skirted a direct question from Oversight and Government Reform committee chairman Ed Towns (D-N.Y.), who asked: Are Toyotas safe to drive?

Cummings said, "I don't think you really answered the question, 'Are Toyotas safe to drive?' "

LaHood came right back and answered directly this time: "For those cars that are listed on our Web site...those are not safe. We've determined they're not safe. We believe we need to look at electronics in these cars because people have told us that's an issue."

He continued: "For now, any car that's on the Web site needs to go back to the dealer because they're not safe."

The DOT's recall list is here.

It's just stunning that this problem got to this point without anyone, either at Toyota or in the government, addressing it. This didn't just endanger Toyota drivers, which would be bad enough, it put every driver at risk.