The Disparity Between Progressives on Health Care Reform

When Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) flipped his position and agreed to vote in favor of the current health care legislation earlier this week, many progressive activists from around the country felt as if they had been kicked in the gut.

Kucinich has long been a Democratic hold-out, voicing his staunch opposition to any health care legislation that did not include a public option. The fact that this legislation does not include a public option has caused a rift between those on the Left who feel that passing the current legislation is an important means to an end and those who feel that legislation without a public option is simply a giveaway to the insurance companies.

This disparity between progressive positions was on display during a very interesting and constructive conversation on today's Democracy Now!. The guests were none other than Rep. Kucinich and Ralph Nadar. While lengthy, the whole segment is worth watching and I have included it at the bottom, but here are a few highlights from the transcript that illustrate perfectly the difference in position.

AMY GOODMAN: Have you ever received as much pressure as you’re getting right now, as you have gotten right now, right down to your flight on Air Force One with President Obama?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: The pressure doesn’t really come so much from the outside. I mean, I had people who are for this and against it with equal intensity. What the pressure comes from, being told that you might be singularly responsible for the passage or failure of an initiative and having to live with the implications of that.

Amy, I did not want to be in the House on Sunday night with my voting card, you know, and a finger in the wind about what to do. And looking at the bigger picture here, I’m hopeful that in making this decision to switch in favor of voting for the bill, that we can use this opportunity to, down the road, push for the kind of health reform that I am for, that I stand for, that I’ve worked my life for. But it’s not going to happen in this bill. And there’s a point at which you just have to maturely look at the situation as it is and say, no matter what I do, it’s not going to change this bill. And I’ve tried harder than anyone, but, you know, it’s just not going to happen.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Ralph Nader, what about this issue of the seventy-seven other members of Congress who pledged not to support this bill? We’ve had quite a few of them on this show—Raul Grijalva, Anthony Weiner. What about the others who also have gradually agreed to support this bill?

RALPH NADER: They’ve all caved. They’ve all been put into line by the majority rulers in the House. So that’s not going to change, Juan.

What—I think Dennis Kucinich has been known as the great dissenter in the Democratic Party—against the criminal wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, for impeaching Bush and Cheney, for single payer, on and on. His subcommittee hearings, which are almost never covered by the press, provide a standard for what House subcommittees should be investigating all over the country. But I think he owes an explanation to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of progressive Americans, many of whom who watch this show, who have clinged to Dennis Kucinich as the great dissenter, as the principled person, as the person who will hold the banner high. “The Star-Spangled Banner” has this phrase, “And the flag was still there.” But for the progressives in this country, they want to keep saying, “And Dennis Kucinich was still there.” So I would like him to go all over the country, after this malicious vote by the Democrats in the House, and address audiences all over, starting a complete new wave for full Medicare for all before this bill kicks in in 2014, so all the members running for reelection in 2010 are going to have to face it.

And I hope people will visit the videos that are on singlepayeraciton.org to show how many of his colleagues react when they’re confronted with a reporter asking the question, “The majority of the American people, doctors and nurses want this system. They want free choice of doctor and hospital. They want the insurance companies displaced with full single payer. Why aren’t you for it?” You look at their faces as they try to squirm out of that. That’s the moral position. They know it. But they’re caving into the enormous lobbying power of the drug and insurance companies, which are deploying over 2,000 full-time lobbyists on Capitol Hill as we speak.

AMY GOODMAN: Dennis Kucinich, your response? And also to Jane Hamsher, founder of Firedoglake, who asked if you were going to be giving back the money to people who gave to you all over the country because you said you would not support healthcare reform without a public option?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: First of all, with respect to Jane Hamsher, I talked to her yesterday, and I also indicated through my campaign early yesterday that anybody who contributed, you know, with the hopes that I was going to vote against the legislation unless it had a public option, that of course they’re going to get their money back, because I changed my position.

Now, with respect to what Ralph Nader just said about the need to keep a strong public—a strong single-payer campaign going, absolutely. I mean, you know, I haven’t changed my position one bit on single payer. I’m not suddenly saying, “Oh, gee, this for-profit model is something we ought to consider.” I don’t like it. I just want to make sure that everyone understands that the minute this bill is done, reforms within the context of a for-profit system, we have to accelerate that, and at the same time, a parallel track of continuing to pursue single payer. I agree with Ralph Nader on that.

The Story (and Debate) Over Cap and Trade

Annie Leonard over at the "Story of Stuff" project has helped produce an interesting video on Cap and Trade:



This very issue and some of the ideas that are talked about in the video above, were debated on this morning's Democracy Now! newscast between Frank Ackerman and Larry Lohmann. You can read and watch the debate in full here, but here is a snippet:

FRANK ACKERMAN: I’m not exactly for it. I don’t think either Hansen or Krugman got it right. I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing. It’s certainly not the only thing that we need. There’s undoubtedly a role for having a price on carbon, which can be done either through a tax or through cap and trade.

The big mistake in this debate, I think, is to pretend that a price on carbon is all that we need. Any time a price incentive like this has worked, it has needed many, many other things to be working with it. The image of a level playing field that economists sometimes suggest is exactly wrong. We need to be doing everything we can to tilt the playing field in the direction we want it to go.

[...]

LARRY LOHMANN: What we need is massive reinvestment away from fossil fuels, putting subsidies—instead of putting subsidies into fossil fuels, putting them into renewable energy. We need to overcome our addiction to fossil fuels in industrialized societies.

And the problem with cap and trade is, is that it stands in the way of doing that, in many ways. It’s a way of providing pollution rights to some of the worst polluters, so that they can delay the kind of structural change that’s necessary.

Journalist Amy Goodman Detained and Questioned at Canadian Border Crossing

Amy Goodman, Independent Journalist, author and host of Democracy Now! was traveling to Vancouver, Canada on Thanksgiving when she was detained and questioned by Canadian officials while trying to cross the border. Goodman and two colleagues were held and questioned for approximately 90 minutes while their belongings, including their notes and computers, were searched.

Goodman was on her way to speak at the Vancouver Public Library at a benefit for local community radio stations and the border guards seemed quite concerned over whether Goodman was going to speak out against the 2010 Winter Olympics which are being held in Vancouver.

To address why these border authorities were so concerned over the possibility of Goodman speaking out against the Olympics as well as the implications that this incident has on free speech, Goodman hosted a couple of guests this morning on Democracy Now!

Christopher Shaw, professor of Ophthalmology at the University of British Columbia. He is also a leading spokesperson for the No Games 2010 Coalition and 2010 Watch. He is the author of “Five Ring Circus: Myths and Realities of the Olympic Games.” and David Eby, Executive Director of British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Here is the video from the broadcast:

Lou Dobbs Continues his Post-CNN Media Tour

Lou Dobbs, freshly departed from his gig at CNN, stopped by The Daily Show last night. Jon Stewart extended the segment into a three-part conversation that is posted at The Daily Show's website and also right here:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

I thought Stewart was pretty good in this conversation, but it wasn't his best. The conversation stayed very down to Earth and Stewart was able to challenge Dobbs on a few key points, but Stewart didn't touch on Dobbs' controversial stance on "illegal" immigration or on his recent birther comments. Stewart also allowed Dobbs to paint President Obama as a "far left" President which, in turn, framed Dobbs as being a centrist. Then again, Stewart is just the host of a satirical comedy show right?

One of the more important points that Stewart did bring up, which I believe is both revealing and central to this conversation, is the past silence of those who are suddenly criticizing the so-called destruction of our freedoms by the government. I have stated this in the past, but it is quite clear that during the last eight years, the tea-partiers and 9/12'ers were totally silent on these issues. It is only now, when there is a black Democratic President in the White House, when there is sudden outrage from the right and being adopted as a viable business strategy by a major "news" corporation.

If you want to take a look at a really interesting interview of Dobbs and a subsequent discussion, I point you to this interview that was conducted by Democracy Now! hosts Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez in December of 2007. Dobbs is confronted and forced to try and explain apparent inaccuracies that he stated on his broadcast. I will post some of the transcript below, but I highly recommend you follow that link and watch the entire conversation.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Lou, you said a third of the prison population are illegal aliens.

LOU DOBBS: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: The fact is, it’s something like 6% of prisoners in this country are non-citizens, not even illegal, just non-citizens.

LOU DOBBS: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: And then a percentage of that would not be documented.

LOU DOBBS: Well, it’s actually—I think it’s 26% in federal prison.

AMY GOODMAN: But you said of all prisoners.

LOU DOBBS: I said about—yes, but I—and I misspoke, without question. I was referring to federal prisoners.

AMY GOODMAN: But you didn’t say that, and so it leaves people with the impression—

LOU DOBBS: Well, I didn’t, but then I just explained it to you.

AMY GOODMAN: But you have a very large audience on CNN.

LOU DOBBS: I have a very large audience and a very bright audience.

AMY GOODMAN: And you told them that a third of the population of this country are illegal immigrants. 6% , which is under the population of immigrants—

LOU DOBBS: 6% , right.

AMY GOODMAN: —in this country, of prisoners—

LOU DOBBS: In state prisons.

AMY GOODMAN: —are immigrants.

LOU DOBBS: In state prisons. In state prisons.

AMY GOODMAN: No, 6% overall are immigrants. You said 30% are illegal.

LOU DOBBS: Well, I think we’ve established—we could sit here and say this all day, Amy. The fact is, the number is 26% in federal prisons. That’s what I was referring to. I did not—I misspoke when I said “prisons.” I was referring to the federal prisons, because that’s the federal crime: immigration. And that—

AMY GOODMAN: Have you made a correction on your show to say that 30% of—?

LOU DOBBS: I’m sure we have. We’ve reported—absolutely.

AMY GOODMAN: We didn’t see it.

[...]

AMY GOODMAN: Another guest that you’ve had on the show—now, this is a very important point, and this is one that you would agree that you’ve covered, and that is Arizona—this is very important—the Protect Arizona Now referendum. In late 2004, it was revealed that the new head of the national advisory board to Protect Arizona Now, an anti-immigration organization, was a longtime white supremacist who was also an editorial advisor to the racist Council of Conservative Citizens. Although Virginia Abernethy’s controversial selection was reported prominently in virtually every Arizona paper, and despite the fact that Lou Dobbs heavily cover the anti-immigration referendum that Protect Arizona Now was advocating, you never mentioned the affair at all, her controversial selection as head of this group.

LOU DOBBS: And she was featured in how many reports?

AMY GOODMAN: The point is, you covered Protect Arizona Now extensively, and this is certainly significant, when it turns out that the head of the board of Protect Arizona Now is—

LOU DOBBS: And when was the last time she was on the show?

AMY GOODMAN: No, the important point is, you didn’t report the news of this very controversial—

LOU DOBBS: Is it possible—

AMY GOODMAN: —racist woman who headed Protect Arizona Now, which was virtually in every Arizona paper. The question is—

LOU DOBBS: Concurrent with our reporting?

AMY GOODMAN: —what you report and what you don’t.

LOU DOBBS: Concurrent with our reporting?

AMY GOODMAN: Of course. This is in 2004. The point is, what you report, Lou, and what you don’t report.

LOU DOBBS: Well, you know, Amy, I don’t know what to tell you, because, you know, based on your focus here today, you have focused on probably three or four reports, as best I can figure, out of more than five years of reporting on the issue. If that smacks at all to you of reasonable proportionate journalism on your part, I mean, God bless you. If that’s what you believe, God bless you. But I think you’re coming from an ideological position that has just absolutely skewed that perception and that perspective.

Roundtable Discussion on Health Care Reform

As the debate over health care reform continues to rage on, the news program Democracy Now! hosted a round-table discussion today on this very topic. As both Houses of Congress work to negotiate versions of health care reform, it is important to continue a healthy and vibrant dialogue on the public option, single payer and why there are those who are so adamantly opposed to reforming this system. This discussion is worthy of watching as it discusses many of these issues.

Locally here in Cincinnati, there was a talk that was held by Dr. Milton Fisk on health care reform. I covered the event and will be making the video footage available of the entire talk in the very near future so be sure to check back for that.

Until then, here is the roundtable discussion from Democracy Now! featuring:

Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president of Health Initiatives at Community Service Society of New York, Dr. Oliver Fein, president of Physicians for a National Health Program and professor of clinical public health at Cornell University and Lois Uttley, co-founder of Raising Women’s Voices for the Health Care We Need.

Being Forced to Act as if we are Free

I am currently battling some computer issues that I am going to try and get resolved over the next day or two, so blogging may be somewhat sporadic until then.

One of the items that will go up a little later than I would like is my coverage of a Health Care reform march that happened locally here in Cincinnati over the weekend. I have a recap of the event as well as some video that will be posted once I can get my computer fixed.

In the meantime, I came across an interesting exchange between Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (co-hosts of Democracy Now! ) and the Slovenian Philosopher Slajov Zizek during an interview last Thursday. The interview covered several topics and is well worth listening to in its entirety, but I would like to focus this segment on health care as it introduced a different line of thinking into this debate that had not occurred to me:

AMY GOODMAN: You write, “Is the bailout then really a ‘socialist’ measure? If it is, it takes a peculiar form: a ‘socialist’ measure whose primary aim is to help not the poor but the rich, not those who borrow but those who lend.”


SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK: Yeah. I mean, this is my whole thesis, that capitalism always was socialism for those who are on the top. This is the basic paradox of it, no?


AMY GOODMAN: What about healthcare?


SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK: Oh, now you touch my favorite topic. You know why? Because I think that here we see, when people—when I write on ideology, and people laugh at me—“Haha, didn’t you know this? We live in post-ideological era.” No, here you see ideology in its material force. We can—we should distinguish here two levels. On the one hand are those ridiculous right-wing paranoias, which, incidentally, I like to listen. They amuse me, you know, like that Sarah Palin idea of death panels. Some mysterious bureaucracy will decide, does your uncle live or not. That’s funny, I hope; at least for the time being, we can laugh at it. But then—


JUAN GONZALEZ: Not in a big part of America, unfortunately.


SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK: Yeah, yeah, yeah. But then the real problem, where the Republican critique of healthcare plan really works is by appealing to this basic gut notion of freedom of choice. And I think this is a problem; we have to confront it. The first we should make it clear is that in order to exercise the freedom of choice—one has to repeat this again and again—an extremely—to really exercise this, an extremely complex network of social, legal regulations, even, I would say, ethical rules, which are somehow accepted, and so on, has to be—have to be here. In other words, often less choice, at least less public choice, at a certain level means more choice at a different level.


Let me return precisely to healthcare. My idea is that healthcare should be at a certain level, like water and electricity. You can also say that you usually don’t choose your water supplier, no? OK, now we can play the Republican game and say, “What a horrible terror! They are depriving us of the fundamental choice to choose the water supply.” But we somehow accept that there are some things where it is much more practical that you are able to count on them. Sorry, but I gladly refuse the big freedom to choose my water supplier, the same as for electricity, although there things can get more tricky. Why not add to this series health? Europe demonstrates it can be done effectively, not to diminish our freedom, but to leave you much more space of much more greater actual freedom, and so on.


So, you see, this is the danger of this ideology of choice, because, you know, this is, in one sense, a central category today. There is an old Marxist card, which is played again and again, of we are only offered false choices, not real choices, like Pepsi or Coke, whatever, instead of the real choices. OK, there is a truth in it. But there is also another problem of ideology of choice, that often we are bombarded by choices—you really are free to choose—without being given the proper background to make a reasonable choice. John Gray, the British cynical skeptic, whom I otherwise admire, wrote very nicely that we are today more and more forced to act as if we are free. And this causes a lot of anxiety and so on. You know, one should be very specific apropos of choices. I’m all for the freedom of choice. I would just like to see the small—those, you know, in the footnote, the small print, what are the precise conditions of choice, and so on and so on.


And so, again, although I have no illusions about what Obama can do and so on, I am still proud that already before elections I supported him, although this had no great impact here, of course. But in contrast to my very more radical leftist friends whose motto was “he’s just a nice human face on the same imperialism,” “he will even serve better the interest of capitalism,” or whatever, no, I think we see now, apropos the healthcare reform, that we are fighting the central battle here.

The point that Zizek makes, that of less choice on one level resulting in more choice on another level, is a point that hadn't occurred to me in this health care debate. Are there times in society today that we, as Zizek mentions in his quote from John Gray, are being forced to act as if we are free? It is certainly worthy of consideration.

I also find Zizek's analogy to the water supply intriguing when we are speaking about the freedom of choice. There are some elements within a society that we don't choose and probably don't mind having chosen for us. Extending this way of thinking, that of knowing that something will be provided, to health care is an interesting way of thinking about this debate and the role that government should play in the lives of its citizens.

Putting the Debate Over ACORN into Context

As ACORN is once again making news, it seems as though many Conservative voices in the media and in the blogosphere are poised to claim victory in demonstrating the vast network of corruption. NiceDeb is one voice of many that has posts like this up today:

Yes, ACORN is a thoroughly corrupt organization, and even stalwart libs can no longer deny it.

In recent days we’ve seen Congress finally take action in defunding ACORN. Now, private organizations, which have donated to ACORN “to make them go away” are being asked to stop funding the criminal organization (which Obama has been closely associated with). So that’s another revenue stream going going….hopefully gone, thanks to our young heroes, (who aren’t even through, yet. Next video to be dropped 9:00pm Eastern).

While conclusions are easy to jump to when you have been salivating at the possibility of putting this organization out of business for years, Anonymous Liberal encourages us to take a step back:

But even if you take these film-makers at face value and assume the worst, the reality is that ACORN has thousands of employees and the vast majority of them spend their days trying to help poor people through perfectly legal means (and receive very little compensation for doing so). Even before yesterday's Senate vote, the amount of federal money that went to ACORN was very small. This is a relatively insignificant organization in the grand scheme of things, but it's an organization that has unquestionably fought over the years to improve the lives of the less fortunate in this country.

That the GOP and its conservative supporters would single out this particular organization for such intense demonization is telling. In September of last year, the entire world came perilously close to complete financial catastrophe. We're still not out of the woods and we're deep within one of the worst recessions in U.S. history. This situation was brought about by the recklessness and greed of our banks and financial institutions, most of which had to be bailed out at enormous cost to the American taxpayer (exponentially more than all of the tax dollars given to ACORN over the years). The people who brought about this near catastrophe, for the most, profited immensely from it. These very same institutions, propped up by the American taxpayer, are once again raking in large profits.

But rather than focus their anger on these folks, conservatives choose to go after an organization composed almost entirely of low-paid community organizers, an organization that could never hope to have even a small fraction of the clout or the ability to affect the overall direction of the country that Wall Street bankers have. ACORN's relative lack of political influence was on full display yesterday, when the U.S. Senate (in which Democrats have a supermajority) not only entertained a vote to defund ACORN, but approved it by a huge margin (with only seven Democrats opposing).

Glenn Greenwald also speaks to how this acts mainly as a distraction:

If one were to watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh -- as millions do -- one would believe that the burden of the ordinary American taxpayer, and the unfair plight of America's rich, is that their money is being stolen by the poorest and most powerless sectors of the society. An organization whose constituencies are often-unregistered inner-city minorities, the homeless and the dispossesed is depicted as though it's Goldman Sachs, Blackwater, Haillburton and combined, as though Washington officials are in thrall to those living in poverty rather than those who fund their campaigns. It's not the nice men in the suits doing the stealing but the very people, often minorities or illegal immigrants, with no political or financial power who nonetheless somehow dominate the government and get everything for themselves. The poorer and weaker one is, the more one is demonized in right-wing mythology as all-powerful receipients of ill-gotten gains; conversely, the stronger and more powerful one is, the more one is depicted as an oppressed and put-upon victim (that same dynamic applies to foreign affairs as well).

It's such an obvious falsehood -- so counter-intuitive and irrational -- yet it resonates due to powerful cultural manipulations. Most of all, what's so pernicious about all of this is that the same interests who are stealing, pillaging and wallowing in corruption are scapegoating the poorest and most vulnerable in order to ensure that the victims of their behavior are furious with everyone except for them.

I think this is right on point. While I am in no way defending the actions of the ACORN employees that are depicted in the video tapes, context and perspective are too often overlooked in situations like these. The CEO of ACORN, Bertha Lewis, was on Democracy Now! this morning and stated that these two Conservative undercover operatives went to almost two dozen ACORN offices. She stated that they were told to leave, had the police called on them, or were turned away in two-third of their visits. She also stated that the applications for these two were never processed in any of the offices, which is proof that their vetting process works. I think that these two points are important to look into further in order to paint a more clear picture of the organization as a whole. It will help to show whether ACORN has some rouge employees or if this problem is more systematic than they are leading on.

It is also important to take the points of Anonymous Liberal and Glenn Greenwald into account as well. ACORN has received $53 million dollars since 1994 which is considerably less than other corrupt Wall Street institutions who have a much closer connection to the government and who have not had any funding cut off. Couple this with the recent treatment that conservatives have reaped upon Van Jones and other Administration officials and the full context of what is happening becomes a little clearer.

This is a more complicated situation than it initially appears and it is important to open up the discussion to put all elements of this ACORN issue on the table.

A Few Items on the Issue of Health Care Reform

President Obama is slated to give a televised press conference tonight on the topic of health care reform. The debate over this issue has been heating up over the last few weeks and I feel that it is necessary to address a few items prior to Obama's press conference.

First it important to remind everyone that the House did pass the America's Affordable Health Choices Act last week. While this bill did not include any aspect of single-payer coverage (this option has been said to be "off the table" for some time now) it did include a strong public option. This essentially means that if this bill were to pass as is, Americans would be afforded a choice in their health care. Citizens could either keep the coverage that they currently have or decide to go with a kind of plan that is more government based. Jonathan Cohn also pointed out some of elements within this bill:

Once fully implemented, this reform plan will accomplish most of the goals on my mental checklist:

- Generous subsidies, available to people making up to 400 percent of the poverty line
- Expansion of Medicaid to cover people making less than 133 percent of the poverty line
- Guarantees of solid benefits for everybody, with limits on out-of-pocket spending
- Strong regulation of insurers, including requirements that insurers provide insurance to people with pre-existing conditions without higher rates
- An individual mandate, so that everybody (or what passes for everybody in these discussions) gets into the system and assumes some financial responsibility
- A public plan, one that appears to be strong, although I'll reserve judgment on that until I hear from the experts
- Choice of public and private plan, at first just for individuals and small businesses, but later for larger businesses and--possibly--eventually for everybody
Efforts at payment reform, if not necessarily as strong as they could be
- Investment in primary care and prevention, which is not sexy but potentially important for general health .

The cost of this bill is estimated at around $1 trillion dollars which Paul Krugman calls a "bargain" in contrasting it with leaving the system alone. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also concluded that this bill would be "deficit neutral" over the 10 year budget window and would even produce a $6 billion surplus. It was also released today in a report by the Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System that a bill which includes a choice in public and private care could save the nation $265 billion dollars in administrative costs over the next ten years.

The Senate is currently working on their own version of a health care reform bill which will likely look vastly different than the House version. The bills will then be debated on in committee and some type of compromise will likely emerge for Congressional vote.

It is important to note that despite very vocal opposition of the Republicans and some of the Blue Dog Democrats, the Republicans have not put forth their own version of a health care reform bill or offered much constructive suggestions to the existing legislative process. Republicans have repeatedly gone on television and utilized many of the same arguments against reform that they used to quash the health care legislation in 1994. Republicans also continue to claim that Obama is simply trying to "ram through" health care reform without giving them ample time to consider the proposals.

In recent days however it has become clear that the basis for these scare tactics and for the strategy of delaying passage of reform is rooted in the Republican quest to bring down President Obama by any means necessary. Republican talking points on the issue of health care reform, were leaked the other day and confirmed that they view this as a political opportunity. Here were the talking points:

* President Obama and Democrats are conducting a grand experiment with our economy, our country, and now our health care.

* President Obama's massive spending experiments have created more debt than at any other time in our nation's history.

* The President experimented with a $780 billion dollar budget-busting stimulus plan and unemployment is still rising. The President experimented with banks and auto companies, and now we're on the hook for tens of billions of dollars with no exit plan.

* Now the President is proposing more debt and more risk through a trillion dollar experiment with our health care.

* Democrats are proposing a government controlled health insurance system, which will control care, treatments, medicines and even what doctors a patient may see.

* This health care experiment will have consequences for generations, but President Obama and Democrats want to ram this legislation through Congress in two months.

* President Obama's health care experiment is too much, too fast, too soon. Our country cannot afford to fix health care through a rushed experiment.

* Americans want health care reform that addresses, not increases, cost or debt.

* Government takeover is the wrong way to go -- health care decisions should remain between the doctor and the patient.

digby does a good job of taking on these talking points one by one, but the goal here is clear. Republicans are not contributing any constructive ideas to this debate and their primary goal is to defeat Obama which they feel they can do in this debate on health care reform.

Separate from the official Republican Party opposition to the proposed reforms, I have heard from a few different conservatives a reference to the health care reform that Massachusetts passed in 2006 under the leadership of then Gov. Mitt Romney (R). The argument that is being advanced is the claim that the Massachusetts model of "government run health care" does not work. I find this argument odd because the Massachusetts Health Reform Law of 2006 did not implement a single-payer "government run" system. According to a study done by three Harvard Medical School Professors entitled "Massachusetts' Plan: A Failed Model for Health Care Reform":

Under the reform, the state committed to providing subsidized medical coverage to an expanded set of eligible individuals through the Medicaid program (called MassHealth in Massachusetts)and through a new insurance program, Commonwealth Care. A unique feature of the reform is the statutory “individual mandate” that requires most non-poor adults to purchase private(unsubsidized) health insurance policies or pay a fine.

Massachusetts simply made it a requirement that individuals (whose income exceeded 300% of the poverty rate) buy private health insurance coverage and fined people if they didn't. Massachusetts gave exemptions to individuals who did not meet this 300% threshold (about 79,000 according to the report), but all that meant is that not only did these individuals not get fined, but it also left them uninsured. The Massachusetts plan did very little to bring down costs and actually made it harder for the poor to receive medical care by forcing them to pay previously non-existent premiums and co-pays. In addition the report sites the following shortcomings of this reform:

- The reform did not achieve universal coverage
- The reform was more expensive than anticipated and because of this money is now being drained from public hospitals and community clinics.
- While access to health insurance increased under this reform, access to affordable care actually decreased.
- The reform reinforced the power of insurance companies due to the mandate on individuals buying private insurance plans.

The report concludes:

The nation must not look to Massachusetts’ health reform as a model. If we truly want to provide comprehensive health care for all of us at a price we can afford, we must adopt a single-payer plan.

So why on Earth am I hearing the argument from some conservatives that the system in Massachusetts is evidence that single-payer, government health-care doesn't work? It doesn't make one bit of sense and completely misrepresents why the reforms in Massachusetts did fail.

Lastly, since we are on the topic of single-payer, it needs to be noted that this option was been labeled as "off the table" by the Obama Administration and most members of Congress from the very beginning of this debate. The public option that is contained in the House bill is not the same thing as a single-payer option, so when you hear people running around yelling about the "government taking over health care", it is simply inaccurate.

Now this is not to say that a single-payer option should not be seriously considered. There have been a couple of very good conversations on this topic on recent editions of the independent news program Democracy Now!. Host Amy Goodman and co-host Juan Gonzalez recently sat down for a conversation with Howard Dean on the topic of health care and they asked him about the single-payer option:

HOWARD DEAN: Yeah, look, I don’t position myself against single payer, but I position myself for giving the American people a choice. I think what the President understands is the country is a conservative country with a small “c.” That is, they want change, but like most human beings, they don’t want so much that they’re uncomfortable. And so, the genius of the Obama healthcare plan is it’s not the healthcare plan that an academic would write in the ivory tower, but it starts from where we are, not where we would have been.

The Europeans all have single payer, because essential their healthcare systems were destroyed during World War II. And they went to a single payer during the war as a necessity, and then it turned out they loved it and didn’t want to get away from it afterwards. Winston Churchill was the person who put in single payer, essentially, in Britain, who was a conservative prime minister.

In this country, we didn’t have—we had exactly the opposite. Not only was our healthcare system not destroyed, but it was driven towards a private sector system, because it was the only way that you could give your employees wage increase in the price control and anti-inflation atmosphere around World War II. So here we are.

and then today Amy Goodman spoke with President Obama's longtime personal doctor for the last 22 years who has come out in support for a single-payer option:

AMY GOODMAN: So, can you look—tell us about the plan that is presented by the House and whether or not you support it?


DR. DAVID SCHEINER: The problem, overwhelmingly, is the issue, in my mind, of the private insurance companies being a part of the program. Their record has been so abominable that to have them in the program just doesn’t make sense. The cost—Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm’s brother, made a comment in the Journal of the AMA that just the administration costs of employers’ health is over $300 billion a year. And that money will still be wasted. There will probably be even more advertising. The huge CEO salaries will continue to be made. I think the head of Aetna makes $23 million a year.

Insurance companies repeatedly interfere with the care of patients. The opponents of health reform keep saying that if the government gets into medicine, you won’t have a choice of your doctor, you won’t have a choice of your hospital, your care will be restricted. I don’t know where they got that. Medicare, if anything, is too permissive. Medicare never gets in my way. But insurance companies—I have to use special labs. I have to—I can use certain hospitals for one person; I can’t use them for another. I’m repeatedly getting responses from the insurance company disallowing certain procedures, disallowing certain medications. The insurance company is in the room every time I see a patient. And somehow, the patients think they have free choice. Medicare gives them free choice. They will have their choice of doctor. They will have their choice of treatment. With private insurance, that will not be the case. It’s an extraordinary waste of money.

And the public—if I had a single point to make about what is going wrong with this health reform is that the public is so uniformed. They think somehow that they get the best care in the world. We know by health statistics we’re thirty-seventh. Even people with good health insurance don’t realize that the healthcare they get is often not appropriate. Sometimes they get unnecessary treatment. The whole issue, for example, of prostate cancer, which is an extraordinary industry today, and there’s no proof that doing anything is of any value. But, you know, if I have a patient with prostate cancer, there’s no way I would sit back, because I know the trial lawyer is also in the room watching me. That’s another issue, which—there’s no way you’re going to control costs, if you don’t get that under control also.

As President Obama prepares to give his press conference this evening and as the debates and discussions continue, it is going to be necessary to recognize all the different layers that are involved when speaking about health care reform. Criticisms of the public option as a "government takeover" or as an abolition of private coverage are just accurate. No one in Congress is arguing for this even though there are many (like Dr. Scheiner and even myself) who feel that this option deserves to be considered and discussed.

The Role of Psychologists in Overseeing Torture

I recently interviewed Roy Eidelson, a psychologist who studies the role of psychological issues in political, organizational, and group conflict settings. In the interview, I asked him to speak to the significance of the role that psychologists (and the American Psychological Association) have played in overseeing interrogations (and the torture) of prisoners in U.S. custody. Here was the exchange:

CJ: The group Physicians for Human Rights has recently called for an investigation into the role that the American Psychological Association played in the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody. Physicians for Human Rights claims that newly released documents indicate that the APA's ethics task force altered their policy to adhere to governmental interrogation policies. Can you speak to the significance of psychologists playing a role in overseeing these interrogations?

RE: The role of psychologists in detainee settings is an issue of great importance to me. I support the call for investigations by Physicians for Human Rights. Indeed, as president-elect of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, I have contributed to PsySR’s issuing a similar call. The details surrounding the American Psychological Association’s involvement in the Bush administration’s detainee practices are complex and much of this story is yet to be told (six key questions that PsySR has posed to the APA are available at http://www.psysr.org/questions). But at a very basic level, the ethical code of psychologists is built upon the principle of “do no harm”--and there is troubling evidence that this principle was ignored by individual psychologists working at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. As one instance, psychologists played a lead role in reverse-engineering the military’s SERE training program (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) so that it could be used instead for the harsh interrogation (and torture) of detainees. In the eyes of many psychologists, the APA has been too slow to take forceful action to curtail or prevent such abuses of psychology. Fortunately, a membership referendum last fall has recently led to a new APA policy prohibiting psychologists from working “in settings where persons are held outside of, or in violation of, either International Law…or the US Constitution…unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights.” I believe this is an important step in the right direction.

Just last week, the APA published an open letter in which they advocate the Association's opposition to policies that are cruel and inhumane and expressed regret that psychologists participated in the oversight of torture:

Information has emerged in the public record confirming that, as committed as some psychologists were to ensuring that interrogations were conducted in a safe and ethical manner, other psychologists were not. Although there are countless psychologists in the military and intelligence community who acted ethically and responsibly during the post-9/11 era, it is now clear that some psychologists did not abide by their ethical obligations to never engage in torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The involvement of psychologists, no matter how small the number, in the torture of detainees is reprehensible and casts a shadow over our entire profession. APA expresses its profound regret that any psychologist has been involved in the abuse of detainees.

This has been a painful time for the association and one that offers an opportunity to reflect and learn from our experiences over the last five years. APA will continue to speak forcefully in further communicating our policies against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment to our members, the Obama administration, Congress, and the general public. In so doing, we will continue to highlight our 2008 petition resolution policy, Psychologists and Unlawful Detention Settings with a Focus on National Security. APA will ensure that association communications convey clearly that the petition resolution is official association policy and must be central to psychologists’ assessment of the appropriateness of their roles in specific work settings related to national security. Our association’s governing body, the Council of Representatives, will soon be receiving guidance from various governance groups regarding further steps to implement this resolution.

While the condemnation of such practices seems like a no-brainer for an organization of the APA's stature, it has not always been so clear-cut. Democracy Now! was one of the few news outlets that has been covering the APA's role in supervising torture throughout the years and one only needs to look back to an interview that host Amy Goodman conducted with Dr. Stephen Miles, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School, on September 28, 2007 to remember how slow the APA has been to condemn the role of psychologists in supervising torture:

AMY GOODMAN: We have been doing extensive coverage of the debate in the American Psychological Association. They, this year, ultimately did not pass a moratorium on psychologist involvement in coercive interrogations. Can you talk more about what is going on there and the contrast with the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association?

DR. STEVEN MILES: Essentially, what the American Psychological Association has said is that psychologists may work with interrogators to break persons down. And it turns out that that was the specific agenda all the way from the beginning, including when military people were stacked on their interrogation policy committee.

The directive from then-President Koocher, as expressed in his emails, said as follows: the goal of such psychologists’ works will ultimately be the protection of others, innocents, by contributing to the incarceration, debilitation or even death of the potential perpetrator, who will often remain unaware of the psychologists’ involvement.

And then, a month later he said to that same American Psychological Association policy committee, “I have zero interest in entangling the American Psychological Association with nebulous, toothless, contradictory and obfuscatory treaties that comprise ‘international law.’ Rather, I prefer to see the American Psychological Association take principled stand on policy issues where psychology has some scientific basis for doing so.” Well, the irony of this is that the scientific evidence weighs against course of interrogation, and the psychologists should have put the brake on the CIA, but in fact they worked with the CIA to develop these techniques, which then spread through the Army, and it resulted in enormous damage.

Dr. Stephen Soldz also reacts to this delayed response by the APA on his blog last week:

Unfortnately, the styatement, while an improvement on recent communications from APA, is still deeply flawed. Notice that they fail to mention that among the “some psychologists[that] did not abide by their ethical obligations to never engage in torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” were likely several members of their PENS [Psychological Ethics and National Security] task force that formed ethics policy for the association. Any claim that the APA leadership acted in good faith as they confronted this isssue is belied by that leadership’s actions in creating and long standing behind this deeply flawed unethical task force with multiple conflicts of interest at its core.

Also relevant to this discussion, and turning back to Roy Eidelson, is a video that he recently produced that does a good job at summarizing the role of psychologists in supervising the torture of detainees. I think the video does a good job in giving an overview of the evolution of this story and will allow for a clearer picture to be painted surrounding this issue. You can view the video below or on Roy Eidelson's blog:




This piece is crossposted here

Onward Christian Soldiers

The news organization Al Jazeera recently aired a report on U.S. soldiers discussing how they could "hunt people for Jesus" in other words, how to spread Christian beliefs to the population in Afghanistan. Here is the original video:



Not surprisingly, this raised numerous eyebrows since it appears that this violates the US Central Command's General Order Number One which forbids active-duty troops from attempting to convert people to any religion. Quickly after this video aired, the Pentagon fired back claiming that the footage had been taken out of context and chiding Al Jazeera for "irresponsible journalism".

To combat the Pentagon's claim that the footage had been taken out of context and therefore distorted the truth, Al Jazeera and film maker Brian Hughes released an extended and unedited version of the video in question which can be viewed here:



Hughes stands by the report on Al Jazeera and released a statement in which he said:

Any contention by the military that his words are purposefully taken out of context to alter the tone or meaning of his sermon is absolutely false. To this end, I am exploring my options to release Hensley's sermon in its entirety so that everyone can make his or her own conclusions about context and intent. Stay tuned to this blog.

In recent press statements, the military also contends that - in the footage depicting the Afghan-language (Dari and Pashto) bibles - a cut was made before "it would have shown that the chaplain instructed that the Bibles not be distributed." This is a false statement. The chaplain - as seen in the footage before the cut - instructs the group to be careful and reiterates the definition of General Order #1. After this cut he begins to organize the group for the evening's bible study lessons.

Finally, and in my opinion most important, is the fact that EVERY FRAME of the rough cut from Bagram was provided to the U.S. Army Public Affairs Office in advance of this release. On Thursday, April 30 at approximately 1 pm EST, the Army took possession of a DVD with this footage by accepting a FedEx from me. Since Al Jazeera English first aired the piece Sunday, May 3 at 10pm EST, the Army had every frame of this rough cut for more than 80 hours.

This video footage coincides with a recent piece in Harper's Magazine by Jeff Sharlet entitled Jesus Killed Mohammed: The Crusade for a Christian Military. Sharlet described the meaning behind the title of his piece in an interview that aired yesterday on Democracy Now!:

Well, after about a year of interviewing military personnel, this was, in some ways, the most frightening story that I encountered. A man named Staff Sergeant Jeffery Humphrey, one of the very few soldiers who, in this military climate, had the courage to come forward and speak out about what he had seen, he had been stationed in Samarra. It was Easter. The day began calmly. A chaplain brought around a copy of Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic film Passion of the Christ, which they then put on constant play throughout the day.


When they came under attack, the Special Forces, Army Special Forces to whom he was assigned, had their Iraqi translator, an Iraqi American Christian, paint in giant red Arabic letters on the side of a Bradley fighting vehicle the words “Jesus killed Mohammed.” Then, while they put the translator on the roof with a bullhorn, shouting in Arabic, “Jesus killed Mohammed,” and then training their guns, training American guns on anybody who responded, the Bradley fighting vehicle rolled out into the city of Samarra and drawing fire everywhere it went, leading the Special Forces to conclude that every single Iraqi who took offense at these words, “Jesus killed Mohammed,” was part of the enemy and therefore needed to be destroyed.


And I spoke to the man who drove that Bradley, Lieutenant John DeGiulio, now Captain John DeGiulio, promoted since. And he describes wreaking almost biblical destruction on one whole block, blowing up every single thing he saw. And he said he was able to do this, because God was on his side and because he had been spiritually armored by watching Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. And then he thanked his chaplain for preparing him for that kind of spiritual battle on the streets of Iraq.

and Sharlet is reporting that the practice of hunting people for Jesus is not an isolated incident:

You know, I would have thought that was—this guy was just a kind of a rogue, a maverick, if I didn’t speak to so many other officers with just the same attitude. In the story, I talk about Lieutenant-Colonel Bob Young, who is also in Afghanistan at Kandahar Air Base, and he was quite plain in boasting about a PowerPoint presentation he had given to Afghan warlords explaining that American government was based on Christianity, that our Christian god was what made it great, and Afghanistan had a choice if it wanted to achieve democracy. And of course that choice was going to be for Jesus. These people don’t even know that they’re crossing the line between church and state.

I think the question that should be on everyone's mind is the same question that was on my mind following the revelations at Abu Ghraib. Are these isolated incidents or is this a systemic problem?

Prosecutors Announce That All Charges Against Journalists in St. Paul Will Be Dropped

In follow up to a story that was reported and discussed here at the Beacon, it has just been announced that all charges against journalists arrested in St. Paul during the RNC will be dropped.

The decision was announced by local authorities in St. Paul following widespread public outrage at the detention and the filing of charges against journalists arrested while covering the events outside the RNC. Mayor Chris Coleman of St. Paul released the following statement:

“This decision reflects the values we have in Saint Paul to protect and promote our First Amendment rights to freedom of the press. A journalist plays a special role in our democracy and that role is just too important to ignore. At the scene, the police did their duty in protecting public safety. In this decision, we are serving the public’s interest to maintain the integrity of our democracy, system of justice and freedom of the press.”

While this is certainly recognized as encouraging news by advocates of independent media and freedom of the press, there are many questions that still remain. Nancy Doyle Brown of Twin Cities Media Alliance states:

"This is an important first step, but many questions remain. We still need answers about why and how journalists got swept up in these arrests in the first place. And more than anything else, we need to ensure that this never happens again. We’ll never know how many important stories never got told because their authors were behind bars, not in the streets."

After the arrest of Amy Goodman and two of her producers from the independent media program Democracy Now!, thousands of people from across the country signed letters and statements calling for their release. The media reform organization FreePress delivered over 60,000 of these letters and statements to St. Paul City Hall demanding that they drop all charges against journalists. Josh Silver of FreePress reacted this news today:

"We’re pleased that the St. Paul authorities ultimately acted to uphold the rights of all journalists -- including those citizens using blogs, cheap cameras and cell phones to report news as it happens. Our task now is to ensure that our press remains free to report on the events, issues and stories that matter to our country, our communities, and our democracy."

Part of ensuring the future freedom of the press and of reporters to report on dissent is to critically examine why these actions were taken and how they can be prevented in the future. The statement from the Mayor's office implies that this is how the system should work; police should detain and arrest indiscriminately and then the courts will end up sorting it all out. Instead of assuming that this is an overall success there needs to be an examination into how these incidents happened, how they can be prevented in the future, and the impact this model of law enforcement has on a free society. The fact that so many people rose up and demanded that these charges be dropped is a victory for the people in standing up for basic rights. While this should certainly be viewed as a victory, it should be viewed through a bittersweet lens. Arresting journalists interrupts the important work that they are doing on the ground during the event being covered and this is valuable time that has been squandard can not be given back. Examination also needs to be done over the strategy of preemptively raiding journalists houses and rented space as was done in the case of I-Witness Video. This practice led police to copy documents and photograph items within the property, detain the individuals inside, and interrupt the journalistic work that was done. The following questions need to be asked in this case:

1. What did police do with the information collected from these locations?
2. Is any of this information being stored in a database that can be used against activists that have not broken any law, in future high publicity events?

There is no telling the amount of information compiled about journalists who have not been charged or convicted with a crime during the DNC and RNC. This is relevant and needs to be addressed.

This article can also be viewed at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

The Crackdown of Dissent in St. Paul: Preemptive Raids, Journalist Arrests, and Police Intimidation

At the end of my last article in which I summarized the police reaction to dissent during the DNC, I mentioned how there were already indications that we would see more of the same in St. Paul during the Republican National Convention. This observation unfortunately turned out to be accurate and now that the RNC has concluded, there is an opportunity to look back and examine how police dealt with dissent and with the independent media.

The first incident, which I discussed briefly in my past article, involved three members of the group Glass Bead Collective who were in town to document incidents of police misconduct. As reported in the Minnesota Star Tribune, members of this group were detained for over an hour after they were questioned about a rash of car burglaries in the area. Police searched the belongings of all three members without their consent and confiscated video cameras, cell phones, a laptop, and other items that belonged to the group. This incident set the stage for an array of police action that targeted peaceful protesters and journalists.

On the Saturday prior to the start of the convention members of I-Witness Video were gathered for a meeting in a house that they were renting while they were in town for the RNC. I-Witness video is a New York based organization that uses video to document police interaction with protesters in order to protect civil liberties. I-Witness video was largely successful during the 2004 RNC in New York City in providing video to clear many peaceful protesters of allegations by police. On Saturday August 30, members of I-Witness Video were gathered in their host house in St. Paul when they received two visitors at the front door. An FBI Agent and a Wisconsin Deputy Sheriff were at the door and inquired about the location of a gentleman that supposedly lived at that location. The Sheriff and FBI Agent specifically stated: "we're not here about the convention" and asked when the gentleman of interest may be returning home. The people inside the house said that they did not know and the agents then left. Two hours later upward of 20 officers arrived back at the house and surrounded the location. Those inside the house were told that if they left, they would be detained. The officers did not have a search warrant at that time, but stayed surrounding the house until one arrived over two hours later. The only problem was, that the warrant was for the address next door. Police moved into the location next door, detaining the owner of the building, and then moved into the I-Witness Video apartment by busting through the attic with guns drawn. 7 members were detained in the backyard while police took photos, made copies of documents, and searched through the entire house. When the police concluded their search, they released all of those detained and left the property. Video of this incident can be found here for Part 1 and here for Part 2. This video was shot by former Democracy Now! producer Elizabeth Press while she was inside the house working with I-Witness Video. You can also view comments by the landlord of the property here.

While this incident was one of many that occurred on the Saturday before the beginning of the Convention, it was not the last for I-Witness Video. Police returned to the same location that was raided on Saturday on Wednesday, September 3rd. Members inside the house noticed that police had pulled up to the house and started to unload equipment from their vehicles. An attorney with the National Lawyers Guild, Geneva Finn, went out and spoke with police. The officers said that they had received information that anarchists were holding people hostage inside the home and that they were responding to a kidnapping. Finn escorted the officers in to the location and showed them that no one was being held hostage at the location and then asked the officers to leave. The officers refused to leave until their Sergent arrived on the scene. After the officers left the members of I-Witness video were informed that their landlord wanted them to immediately leave the house due to all of the commotion over the past week. I-Witness video packed up, left, and set up shop at Free Speech TV's studios in St. Paul. I-Witness Video admits that all of this harassment by police has greatly interfered with their ability to do the job that they had set out to do.

In addition to preemptive raids on locations prior to the Convention, journalists found themselves targeted as they went about trying to do their job during the Convention. As was posted earlier in the week on this site , two producers of Democracy Now!, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, along with host Amy Goodman, were arrested on Monday, September 1. Kouddous and Salazar were arrested as they were reporting on a protest that police converged upon and Goodman was arrested when she asked to speak with a commanding officer about the arrest of her producers. Salazar videotaped her own arrest and you can view the video here and you can view Goodman's arrest here. At the time of this article felony charges have not yet been filed against Kouddous and Salazar and Amy Goodman has been charged with a misdemeanor of obstructing a legal process and interfering with a peace officer. Along with the three Democracy Now! members, Associated Press photographer Matt Rourke was also arrested and later released.

On Wednesday, September 3, about two dozen journalists were arrested as they attempted to cover the protests on Marion Street Bridge. Protesters and journalists (including AP reporters Amy Forliti and John Krawczynski) were trapped by riot police on the bridge over an interstate highway. Police blocked both ends of the bridge, ordered approximately 200 people to sit down and keep their hands over their heads as police then arrested and led away protesters and journalists two at a time. You can view videos of this incident from WCCO here, The Uptake here, and Pioneer Press here. Police have been criticized in this incident and in other incidents from the week, for utilizing force against otherwise peaceful protests.

The New York based Committee to Protect Journalists has condemned these arrests and the organization FreePress has stated that the arrests were "an orchestrated round up of independent [media] covering the Republican National Convention." FreePress collected 60,000 letters by concerned citizens and delivered them to Mayor Chris Coleman's office on Friday demanding that all charges be dropped against journalists arrested during the Convention.

A preliminary tally has placed the number of those arrested during the RNC at 818 people, this number does not include those who were detained, like those of I-Witness Video prior to the Convention. As journalists and videographers were rounded up with other protesters a new precident for police action has been set. In future situations where large amount of citizens will protest I fear that the actions taken by the police in St. Paul will be viewed not only as a success, but as a new model of cracking down on dissent. The kind of preemptive raids on locations were seen on the Saturday prior to the Convention are of particular concern. In these scenarios, no crime had been committed and police detained and searched the locations preemptively. This type of action blurs the line between the protection of important rights and the action that police feel they can take against those who they feel have the potential to commit a crime. At the time of this article, 8 members of the RNC Welcoming Committee, an organization that provided logistics and coordination for many of the protests, have been charged with "conspiracy to riot in furtherance of terrorism", a felony punishable by up to 7 1/2 years in prison. Those charged with this crime were arrested in the house raids before the Convention started and police have admitted to infiltrating this group in order to build a year long case against these individuals. Attorney Bruce Nestor is the Minnesota Chapter's President of the National Lawyer's Guild and states:

These charges are very significant for any political activist or anybody that cares about the right to organize politically or for freedom of speech. By equating plans or stated plans to blockade traffic and to try to disrupt the convention with acts of terrorism, the conspiracy nature of the charge, where you punish people for what they say or advocate, but not for what they do, really creates a possibility that anybody organizing a large-scale demonstration, at which civil disobedience may be a part of it or where other individuals may then engage in some type of property damage, creates the potential that all those organizers can be charged with these conspiracy charges and face significant penalties.

We will continue to follow these incidents and those individuals who have had charges filed against them and report back on the outcome. Regardless of whether many of the filed charges result in convictions, it is clear that St. Paul will be looked upon as a great success in the cities ability to contain and suppress dissent.

This article is also available at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Dissent in Denver: A Snapshot of the Voices Kept Out of the Convention Center

One convention down, one convention to go. Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night concluded four days of speeches, parties, and Democratic celebration over their nominee for President of the United States. Beginning on September 1, the Republicans will roll into St. Paul, Minnesota for four days of the same to try to convince Americans that John McCain and Sarah Palin are the duo to lead this country for the next four years. While there has been much media focus on what has happened inside the Pepsi Center in Denver this past week, it is also important to focus on what happened outside the Pepsi Center, in the streets of Denver, in order to give the public a full view of everything that transpired during the DNC.

Before the convention began, I wrote about the plans of protesters and the actions that were taken by the City of Denver in preparation for dealing with the voices of the people that may not mesh with the Democratic party-line. With the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention, I would like to look back at some of the events that transpired in the streets.

The corporate media did take a little notice of the protesters on the Sunday before the convention began. Fox News sent a reporter to mingle with the protesters and to "cover the story". As you might imagine, the protesters did not take too kindly to the presence of Fox News:




The Fox News reporter decides to go into the protest march and asks numerous protesters: "what is your message?". When some of the protesters do not give him a response, the reporter says, "I guess they don't believe in freedom of speech." This of course, is ridiculous considering that freedom of speech is what was allowing the march to exist in the first place. The purpose of this "report" by Fox News, was to paint the protesters as violent and radical and to avoid any real substantive discussion on the issues. This is a trademark of the corporate media when they cover protests. The major media networks acknowledge that their is a protest, but cover the protesters from a glance, misrepresent their views, and fail to give any voices of dissent airtime for a civil discussion of the issues. Compare that display of so-called journalism with the report filed by the independent news program Democracy Now!:




As the protests grew in number and the Convention got under way, the presence of law enforcement officials also grew. Consider this incident of police surrounding protesters, escorting media out of the area, then pepper spraying and arresting 91 people inside. Again, from Democracy Now:




Video also surfaced of police physically assaulting a protester from the organization CODEPink and then arresting her when she attempted to explain her story to the media:




As we move into the Republican National Convention and more protest is expected, it is important to watch the corporate media with a critical eye when they present opposing views as Fox News did in the report I posted above. It is also important to make sure that the police do not abuse their power and use un-necessary force against voices of dissent. Protesters largely rejected the so-called "free speech zone" in Denver and while it remains to be seen how protests will transpire in St. Paul, there is some indication that the situation may be more of the same. The Minnesota Star Tribune reported this past week that three journalists who arrived in St. Paul to cover the protests, had all their equipment illegally searched and confiscated:

"The incident comes on the heels of a recently adopted city resolution stating police may confiscate video cameras only during events such as protests if needed for evidence or if the person with the camera has been arrested. 'I'm surprised and certainly concerned by this,' said Council Member Cam Gordon, who pushed for the resolution. 'While I still want to get all of the details, this certainly sets the wrong tone for the convention.' "


You can also view this article at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Casey Porter: Undercover Soldier

Meet Casey Porter. He is one of thousands of US soldiers who have been subjected to the program of stop-loss. This program involuntarily extends the duty of enlisted servicemen and women in order to retain their services beyond their original end of service date. Casey was slated to return home after his tour in Iraq this past January, but was stop-lossed and redeployed just three months later. He is currently stationed in Iraq. Below is a video from his hometown news station about being stop-lossed:




Casey has returned to Iraq as an "undercover solider", a term which he uses to describe himself and also as a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Armed with an interest in making films after he gets out of the service, Casey has started a YouTube channel that is devoted to covering his time in Iraq and showing all of us some of the realities of the war as well as the effects of the stop-loss program on fellow servicemen and women. Casey mentioned in a recent interview on Democracy Now! that he doesn't believe his superiors know what he is doing. Below I have posted just a few of the videos that are present on his YouTube channel:

Temporary Permanent Bases Part II

There are a few key points that relate to my previous entry regarding the attempts of the United States to negotiate permanent bases in Iraq.

Patrick Cockburn appeared on Democracy Now! last week and also was responsible for breaking the story of Iraq's attempted resistance to the United States demands. You can read his article here.

As Cockburn has stated, the United States originally wanted 58 bases to be constructed in Iraq, but when the Iraqi government objected they lowered the number to the "low dozens". Another key issue is the issue of immunity for foreign contractors. As some of you may know, private contractors from firms such as Blackwater, have come under fire for reported indiscriminate killing of civilians with little movement by the United States to hold them accountable under any set of laws. The realization that the United States continues to push for future immunity for foreign contractors, when they are already aware of numerous incident reports regarding said contractors, is quite alarming.

Cockburn also stated on Democracy Now! that Iraq's money (which is held in the Federal Reserve Bank in New York) is being leveraged to push the Iraqis into accepting U.S. demands. In other words, once the presidential immunity on this money runs out, the U.S. is threatening that the Iraqi government and people would not see any of the approx. 50 billion dollars, unless Iraq accepted some of the U.S. demands.

This is the so called "freedom" that is being exported by the United States. Not a freedom for Iraqis to live in peace or receive basic humanitarian needs, but a freedom for the United States to establish a stronghold in the Middle East and benefit off of Iraq's resources for years to come.