Saturday, November 13, 2010
Lugar sounds alarm on lax security of deadly bio agents seen on Africa tour
- 11/13/10 02:24 PM ET
The Ranking Member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee warned on a tour of East Africa that security in labs dealing with biological agents there was lax, increasing the risk that the pathogens could fall into the hands of terrorists.
Sen. Ricard Lugar (R-Ind.) was in Africa this week with a team of Pentagon arms control experts to study security efforts in containing deadly diseases such as ebola and anthrax.
On Friday, Lugar's team inspected three labs in Nairobi, Kenya, that harbored the dangerous viruses and bacteria for diagnostic and research purposes.
“These pathogens can be made into horrible weapons more simply than any dealing with chemical or nuclear devices," Lugar said. "Just one of the deadly viruses I witnessed today could, if in the wrong hands, cause death and economic chaos.”
The team noted virus samples stored in boxes stacked in hallways of the lab. Lugar also noted security lapses such as broken windows and a short wall with a couple of strings of barbed wire attached as all that separated a lab from a slum known as a recruiting ground for al-Qaeda affiliated groups. He posted this and other trip photos on Flickr.
“The threat is very geographically focused because in one instance the population of the slum is literally against the security wall of the laboratory," Lugar said in a statement.
“Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are active in Africa, and it is imperative that deadly pathogens stored in labs there are secure.”
Lugar's trip has also taken him to Uganda, where he also conducted lab visits, and Burundi, where he visited facilities that destroy conventional weapons.
Nairobi was the site of one of the coordinated 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies, a crime that resulted in Osama bin Laden landing on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list, where he remains today.
Kenya shares a porous border with Somalia, where al-Shabaab militants with ties to al-Qaeda constantly threaten the Kenyan government.
Sen. Ricard Lugar (R-Ind.) was in Africa this week with a team of Pentagon arms control experts to study security efforts in containing deadly diseases such as ebola and anthrax.
On Friday, Lugar's team inspected three labs in Nairobi, Kenya, that harbored the dangerous viruses and bacteria for diagnostic and research purposes.
“These pathogens can be made into horrible weapons more simply than any dealing with chemical or nuclear devices," Lugar said. "Just one of the deadly viruses I witnessed today could, if in the wrong hands, cause death and economic chaos.”
The team noted virus samples stored in boxes stacked in hallways of the lab. Lugar also noted security lapses such as broken windows and a short wall with a couple of strings of barbed wire attached as all that separated a lab from a slum known as a recruiting ground for al-Qaeda affiliated groups. He posted this and other trip photos on Flickr.
“The threat is very geographically focused because in one instance the population of the slum is literally against the security wall of the laboratory," Lugar said in a statement.
“Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are active in Africa, and it is imperative that deadly pathogens stored in labs there are secure.”
Lugar's trip has also taken him to Uganda, where he also conducted lab visits, and Burundi, where he visited facilities that destroy conventional weapons.
Nairobi was the site of one of the coordinated 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies, a crime that resulted in Osama bin Laden landing on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list, where he remains today.
Kenya shares a porous border with Somalia, where al-Shabaab militants with ties to al-Qaeda constantly threaten the Kenyan government.
Congress has 'the right and the duty' to end 'don't ask'
Hardball's Chris Matthews explains why he believes it's time to end the military policy.
Let me finish tonight with a matter the U.S. Congress should finish.It's called "don't ask, don't tell.” It's the law that tells the U.S. military to allow gay people to serve like everyone else – they can be gay, as long as they do not say they are gay.
You have to wonder about the constitutionality of a law that requires people to refrain from admitting something that is true about themselves.
Would it make sense to require that someone deny he or she is left-handed, refuse to allow anyone to know he or she is left-handed? Can we imagine such a stupid law? Could we justify such a law? Could we conceive of a federal court declaring it constitutional to force a person to publicly cover up the fact that he is left-handed?
It was, I've heard, at one time imaginable. Teachers would tell the left-handed pupil to write with their right hands, insist that they do it. Go back further in history and we referred to the left hand as "sinister." That's what the word "sinister" means.
What I don't understand is why an entire political party is against letting gay people serve openly in the U.S. military. Why can't a couple of Republican senators step forward and say it's time to do the right thing and let all able-bodied Americans who want to serve their country do so with pride and, yes, honesty.
Is there a problem? The secretary of defense says it's better for the Congress to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" than wait for the courts to declare it unconstitutional. It would make for a smoother transition.
Until Article One, Congress has the constitutional right to raise an army. It's Congress that has the right and the duty to end "don't ask, don't tell.”
The Turkey Standard
In case you don’t like the CPI:
Turkey and the trimmings won’t cost much more this year than last, according to the Virginia Farm Bureau, but some Virginians think the estimate is missing some important ingredients for a feast.Hyperinflation!
The bureau says it should cost $43.39 to serve a 16-pound turkey, stuffing, sweet potatoes, rolls, cranberries and peas for 10 adults. The price also includes a tray of carrots and celery, as well as pumpkin pie with whipped cream.
Virginia officials say its survey of grocery stores indicates all that food will cost on average 1 cent more this year than it did last year, when the cost of Thanksgiving dinner fell for the first time in three years.
In comparison, the American Farm Bureau said the average national cost of Thanksgiving dinner this year is $43.47, a 56-cent price increase from last year. [that's a 1.3 percent rise -- PK] The survey was first conducted in 1986 and is intended to be an informal gauge of price trends around the nation.
Va. Farm Bureau says Thanksgiving costs stable
RICHMOND, VA.
Turkey and the trimmings won't cost much more this year than last, according to the Virginia Farm Bureau, but some Virginians think the estimate is missing some important ingredients for a feast.
The bureau says it should cost $43.39 to serve a 16-pound turkey, stuffing, sweet potatoes, rolls, cranberries and peas for 10 adults. The price also includes a tray of carrots and celery, as well as pumpkin pie with whipped cream.
Virginia officials say its survey of grocery stores indicates all that food will cost on average 1 cent more this year than it did last year, when the cost of Thanksgiving dinner fell for the first time in three years.
In comparison, the American Farm Bureau said the average national cost of Thanksgiving dinner this year is $43.47, a 56-cent price increase from last year. The survey was first conducted in 1986 and is intended to be an informal gauge of price trends around the nation.
But 54-year-old Cynthia Schmidt, of Glen Allen, said the farm bureau is leaving out some important elements like drinks and appetizers, as well as the traditional casseroles that grace dinner tables every year.
"That's kind of the bare minimum, but nobody does that for Thanksgiving," said Cynthia Schmidt, who typically spends about $100 to cook Thanksgiving dinner for about eight people, much higher than the farm bureau's estimate. "Sure you could do it for that, but I think people sitting around the table would be pretty disappointed."
Still, the farm bureau said consumers who are willing to hunt for good deals can find bargain prices for their Thanksgiving dinner. More importantly, Virginians can have a traditional meal for their families at a relatively low cost.
Consumers are "still not comfortable with the habits that we had prior to 2008," said Jonah Bowles, a market analyst with the Virginia Farm Bureau. "When we as a consuming populous are not very comfortable with that, then the retailers have to keep their prices down."
Of course, where you get your food makes a difference. The bureau says the highest average cost was in Pound in Wise County, where dinner for 10 would cost $52.36. Bristol has the cheapest eats at $33.18.
When it comes to the bounty the bureau uses to figure the cost of a Thanksgiving meal, Bowles said the group uses the same meal every year to give meaningful cost comparisons.
"Everyone's got their idea of what a good Thanksgiving meal consists of," Bowles said.
Missouri Dem warns McCaskill against 'disloyalty' to Obama
- 11/13/10 01:41 PM ET
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) warned Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) of "disloyalty" to President Obama if she should seek to distance herself from the White House in her re-election campaign.
Cleaver, who's seen as the likely next leader of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), cautioned the centrist senator of distancing herself from Obama, the way many endangered incumbents had done in the closing weeks of the 2012 election.
“Any attempt to extricate herself from him will be an act of disloyalty,” Cleaver told McClatchy in a piece profiling McCaskill's re-election campaign. “She will not do that at all.”
McCaskill is one of the centrist Democrats who managed victory in the 2006 election thanks to the headwinds favoring her party in that cycle.
Since winning, though, there have been signs that the Show-Me State has trended Republican. Rep. Roy Blunt (R) easily secured victory in the state's Senate race this fall, for instance. And McCaskill might feel justified in running from Obama in 2012, since it was one of the few swing states Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) managed to hold onto the 2008 presidential election, while Obama was sweeping to victory elsewhere.
McCaskill has sided with the president and majority Democrats on a series of key votes. She voted for healthcare reform, Wall Street reform and the stimulus bill.
But on other issues, she's sought to assemble a maverick record. She led the (successful) effort to do away with the Senate's longtime practice of allowing members to place anonymous holds on presidential nominees. She has joined with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to push for legislation capping discretionary spending. And she's also long favored earmark reform, an effort to which Obama lent his support in his weekly radio address on Saturday.
“Earmark reform has been a lonely fight for a long time, so it’s encouraging to have others taking this issue seriously, especially among Democrats since I will be the only senator from my party opposing earmarks after the new year,” McCaskill said Saturday in a statement. “The bottom line is that tax dollars shouldn’t be doled out based on politics or secret deals, and it’s time both Democrats and Republicans join together to stop them.”
Cleaver, who's seen as the likely next leader of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), cautioned the centrist senator of distancing herself from Obama, the way many endangered incumbents had done in the closing weeks of the 2012 election.
“Any attempt to extricate herself from him will be an act of disloyalty,” Cleaver told McClatchy in a piece profiling McCaskill's re-election campaign. “She will not do that at all.”
McCaskill is one of the centrist Democrats who managed victory in the 2006 election thanks to the headwinds favoring her party in that cycle.
Since winning, though, there have been signs that the Show-Me State has trended Republican. Rep. Roy Blunt (R) easily secured victory in the state's Senate race this fall, for instance. And McCaskill might feel justified in running from Obama in 2012, since it was one of the few swing states Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) managed to hold onto the 2008 presidential election, while Obama was sweeping to victory elsewhere.
McCaskill has sided with the president and majority Democrats on a series of key votes. She voted for healthcare reform, Wall Street reform and the stimulus bill.
But on other issues, she's sought to assemble a maverick record. She led the (successful) effort to do away with the Senate's longtime practice of allowing members to place anonymous holds on presidential nominees. She has joined with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to push for legislation capping discretionary spending. And she's also long favored earmark reform, an effort to which Obama lent his support in his weekly radio address on Saturday.
“Earmark reform has been a lonely fight for a long time, so it’s encouraging to have others taking this issue seriously, especially among Democrats since I will be the only senator from my party opposing earmarks after the new year,” McCaskill said Saturday in a statement. “The bottom line is that tax dollars shouldn’t be doled out based on politics or secret deals, and it’s time both Democrats and Republicans join together to stop them.”
Opposition to U.S. trial likely to keep mastermind of 9/11 attacks in detention
This March 1, 2003 file picture shows Khalid Sheik Mohammed, shortly after his capture during a raid in Pakistan. (AP)
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 13, 2010; 12:38 AM
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, will probably remain in military detention without trial for the foreseeable future, according to Obama administration officials.
The administration has concluded that it cannot put Mohammed on trial in federal court because of the opposition of lawmakers in Congress and in New York. There is also little internal support for resurrecting a military prosecution at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The latter option would alienate liberal supporters.
The administration asserts that it can hold Mohammed and other al-Qaeda operatives under the laws of war, a principle that has been upheld by the courts when Guantanamo Bay detainees have challenged their detention.
The White House has made it clear that President Obama will ultimately make the decision, and a federal prosecution of Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators has not been ruled out, senior officials said. Still, they acknowledge that a trial is unlikely to happen before the next presidential election and, even then, would require a different political environment.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said this week that a decision on a trial for Mohammed was close. Other administration officials said that his remark was simply a stock response to a frequently asked question and that it didn't signal that any announcement was imminent.
After Holder spoke, Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer and Republican Rep. Peter King, both of New York, reiterated their opposition to a Sept. 11-related trial anywhere in New York state, as did the state's governor-elect, Andrew Cuomo. Lawmakers and officials in the state have cited concerns about a trial's cost as well as security issues.
Administration officials think opposition would be as entrenched in Virginia and Pennsylvania, the other viable federal districts for a trial, given that deaths on Sept. 11 occurred at the Pentagon and on United Flight 93.
Holder "says soon. Schumer says never. It's somewhere between the two," said a senior administration official who, like other officials, would discuss internal deliberations only on the condition of anonymity.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.
Mohammed was captured in Pakistan in March 2003 and was held at secret CIA prisons overseas until he was transferred in September 2006 to Guantanamo Bay. He is held there with a group of high-value detainees at a small, highly secure facility.
The Bush administration first brought charges of capital murder and war crimes in February 2008 against the Pakistani national, who was raised in Kuwait. But the Obama administration suspended legal proceedings at Guantanamo Bay and in January 2010 withdrew military charges against Mohammed and four others in anticipation of a federal trial in Manhattan.
Obama came into office with a strong preference to prosecute Mohammed and other detainees in federal court as part of a larger plan to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. Almost from the start, however, he ran into fierce political opposition.
Some administration officials want to proceed with a number of military commission cases at Guantanamo Bay, including the prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged planner of the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. The administration has also considered trying a low-profile Guantanamo detainee in federal court to begin building up public confidence in such prosecutions.
But key administration officials fear that no federal case could proceed, given stiff congressional opposition. It is expected to grow more intense when the new Republican majority assumes power in the House of Representatives.
For now, administration officials are closely watching the outcome of the trial of Ahmed Ghailani, the only Guantanamo Bay detainee transferred to the United States for prosecution under Obama. A New York jury has been deliberating for two days in the case against Ghailani, accused of being a key operative in the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings.
Some administration officials think that a guilty verdict in the case might allow them to bring another Guantanamo case into the federal system. "A clean case against an unknown," another senior official said.
But if the jury comes back with a not-guilty verdict, officials said, it would be the death knell for any further federal prosecutions of Guantanamo detainees.
The debate over a trial for Mohammed has, in the view of many senior administration officials, unfairly become the symbol of Obama's national security policy.
"We have said he should be brought to justice, and brought to justice swiftly," one of the senior officials said. "The problem is these legacy cases have been very heavily bogged down in very strong feelings and very heavy politics, and therefore it has become very difficult to work this through to a successful conclusion."
Officials said Mohammed's uncertain future should not obscure what they see as significant and aggressive changes in national security policy, including banning interrogation methods that the administration deemed torture, establishing interrogation units, using unmanned drones to kill hundreds of enemy fighters in Pakistan, and articulating a legal basis for using those drones.
The Mohammed case is "a case that has to be addressed, and clearly it's complicated in ways that weren't originally foreseen, but as a symbol in some way of a thwarted policy, it is wholly misleading," the senior official said.
Administration officials also think that they will probably not secure the funding and legal authority from Congress to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and transfer any remaining detainees to the United States. There are 174 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, down from 241 when Obama took office. Diplomatic efforts continue to reduce that number through the resettlement or repatriation of detainees cleared for transfer by an interagency task force.
But, one official said, "Gitmo is going to remain open for the foreseeable future."
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Obama aides near reversal on 9/11 trial
Trying Sept. 11's mastermind
Gov.
Clyburn urges colleagues to back Pelosi's plan to create his No. 3 spot
- 11/13/10 06:49 PM ET
House Democratic "Assistant Leader"-to-be Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) asked his colleagues to support Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) proposal to add a seat at the leadership table for him in the next Congress.
The letter signified the end of what was shaping up to be a nasty fight between Clyburn and current Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) for the No. 2 ranked Democratic leadership position in the 112th Congress.
In a "Dear Colleague" letter to members of the Democratic Caucus, Clyburn enlisted support for the peace-offering plan to create a new No. 3 ranking position in the minority party leadership team.
"I respectfully solicit your support for the resolution of this matter that has been promulgated by Nancy Pelosi. It adds an elected Leadership position and maintains a Leadership structure that honors the diversity and fosters the unity of our Caucus," Clyburn stated in the letter.
He went on to explain that he listened to his colleagues who wanted to resolve the issue before the caucus was forced to choose between Hoyer and Clyburn.
"I also heard from a significant number of members who desire to avoid a contest between Steny Hoyer and me for Whip and between John Larson and me for Caucus Chairman. But if everyone were to take a step back as some had suggested, Xavier Becerra would have been forced away from the Leadership table, a consequence that I felt would be harmful to our Caucus and our purpose," Clyburn wrote.
With the loss of the Speaker’s gavel, at least one Democrat in the leadership team was to be squeezed out of a high-ranking position.
Pelosi appeared to avoid that scenario with the creation of this new No. 3 position, though the portfolio of the new Assistant Leader has yet to be determined, according to a Democratic source familiar with the situation.
Earlier Saturday, Pelosi sent a letter to her colleagues explaining the arrangement and requesting their support.
"Should I receive the privilege of serving as House Democratic Leader, I will be very honored to nominate our outstanding colleague, Congressman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, to serve in the number three House Democratic position. I will also ask the Caucus to designate that position as Assistant Leader," Pelosi stated in the letter.
It was unclear how the budgets and staff sizes for leadership in the minority party would be divvied up, though.
Hoyer, who was informed of the plan Friday night, according to a senior Democratic aide, issued a statement supporting the proposal as well.
“Since the election last week, I have made clear my belief that it was important for my friend Jim Clyburn to continue serving our Caucus as the third ranking Member of our Leadership. It is my hope that happens when elections are held on Wednesday. With the support of my colleagues from across the Caucus, I look forward to serving as the Democratic Whip, the number two position in Democratic Leadership in the 112th Congress," Hoyer said.
Under the new arrangement, Pelosi would remain the top-ranking House Democrat, Hoyer would move to Minority Whip, Clyburn would take on the new role and current Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) will likely remain in that role.
At this time, the races for the top four positions are uncontested.
Though Pelosi did not mention Hoyer's name in her late night release or in her letter to colleagues, aides confirmed to The Hill that the top-ranking Democrat supports Hoyer's bid to continue to serve as her deputy.
The letter signified the end of what was shaping up to be a nasty fight between Clyburn and current Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) for the No. 2 ranked Democratic leadership position in the 112th Congress.
In a "Dear Colleague" letter to members of the Democratic Caucus, Clyburn enlisted support for the peace-offering plan to create a new No. 3 ranking position in the minority party leadership team.
"I respectfully solicit your support for the resolution of this matter that has been promulgated by Nancy Pelosi. It adds an elected Leadership position and maintains a Leadership structure that honors the diversity and fosters the unity of our Caucus," Clyburn stated in the letter.
He went on to explain that he listened to his colleagues who wanted to resolve the issue before the caucus was forced to choose between Hoyer and Clyburn.
"I also heard from a significant number of members who desire to avoid a contest between Steny Hoyer and me for Whip and between John Larson and me for Caucus Chairman. But if everyone were to take a step back as some had suggested, Xavier Becerra would have been forced away from the Leadership table, a consequence that I felt would be harmful to our Caucus and our purpose," Clyburn wrote.
With the loss of the Speaker’s gavel, at least one Democrat in the leadership team was to be squeezed out of a high-ranking position.
Pelosi appeared to avoid that scenario with the creation of this new No. 3 position, though the portfolio of the new Assistant Leader has yet to be determined, according to a Democratic source familiar with the situation.
Earlier Saturday, Pelosi sent a letter to her colleagues explaining the arrangement and requesting their support.
"Should I receive the privilege of serving as House Democratic Leader, I will be very honored to nominate our outstanding colleague, Congressman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, to serve in the number three House Democratic position. I will also ask the Caucus to designate that position as Assistant Leader," Pelosi stated in the letter.
It was unclear how the budgets and staff sizes for leadership in the minority party would be divvied up, though.
Hoyer, who was informed of the plan Friday night, according to a senior Democratic aide, issued a statement supporting the proposal as well.
“Since the election last week, I have made clear my belief that it was important for my friend Jim Clyburn to continue serving our Caucus as the third ranking Member of our Leadership. It is my hope that happens when elections are held on Wednesday. With the support of my colleagues from across the Caucus, I look forward to serving as the Democratic Whip, the number two position in Democratic Leadership in the 112th Congress," Hoyer said.
Under the new arrangement, Pelosi would remain the top-ranking House Democrat, Hoyer would move to Minority Whip, Clyburn would take on the new role and current Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) will likely remain in that role.
At this time, the races for the top four positions are uncontested.
Though Pelosi did not mention Hoyer's name in her late night release or in her letter to colleagues, aides confirmed to The Hill that the top-ranking Democrat supports Hoyer's bid to continue to serve as her deputy.
Cory Booker: The Art of Slashing Government Waste
Newark's indefatigable mayor breaks down his formula for reducing crime and balancing the budget at the same time.
| Fri Nov. 12, 2010 6:08 PM PST
-Mark Madeo/Courtesy of the Redford CenterNewark Mayor Cory Booker pulls out a dazzling number of personal stories, quotes, and poems that make you feel like a selfish whiner who just hasn't pushed hard enough. "Social change is not about one big election, or one big speech," he said Thursday to an audience of about 300 Bay Area folks who came to "The Art of Activism [1]" event at San Francisco's Sundance Kabuki Cinema. America has to move from "sedentary agitation" to "small, daily acts of love and kindness that people do when no one is watching," Booker argued, clad in a black suit and tie, at times closing his eyes like a charismatic preacher at the height of a spiritual moment.How many times have you heard about the power of small acts of kindness? Yeah, one too many. But the cliche takes on new meaning when Booker makes the point through his almost-too-good-to-be-true autobiographical sketches. The media love Booker, so his story is well known: Shortly after going to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar—as well as Stanford and Yale—he started a stint as a Newark city council member at 29 and moved into a troubled public housing complex, where he lived—often without hot water and heat—from 1998 to 2006. "My parents told me I will always learn more form a woman on the fifth floor of a public housing complex than my fancy professors," he said.
In 2002, he won a bitter campaign against incumbent Sharpe James, another charismatic African American—but also an old-school machine politician (later indicted on 33 charges) who accused [2] Booker of not being black enough, as well as being Jewish, gay, and funded by the KKK. Booker, who was 37 at the time, argued he was a new civil rights leader, focusing his efforts as mayor on tough crime-reduction measures while also investing heavily in prevention programs.
Today, he is credited with reducing [3] murders in Newark by 60 percent since 2002, while slashing the city's chronic budget deficit at the same time. How did he do it? Prevention at the front end works, he argued last night. Booker talked to released prisoners and found that it was a sense of shame—from not paying child support, or not having a job—that drove them back into trouble. "So, we created DADS—Delta Alpha Delta Sigma—a male fraternity where single dads mentored other dads, who came out of prisons." He bolstered that with job training programs for ex-cons and recreational facilities for youth. Newark now has a 10 percent [4] recidivism rate, compared with about 65 percent [5] nationwide.
"There are thousands of young kids on the waiting list for a Big Brother [6] or a Big Sister [6]," he said. "We know it drives down criminal activity, increases academic success." If every kid in Oakland and Newark had a mentor in this program, Booker argued, we wouldn't spend billions on prisons that contribute to the growing deficit: "That's what I call government waste."
"What keeps Cory Booker going?" the event moderator Lee Bycel asked. Booker responded by discussing the youngest victims of crime. "My worst moments are when the kid is shot, seeing the gunshot wounds, watching the bloody foam coming out of his mouth," he said. At these moments he remembers the wisdom told to him by his parents—who were among the first black executives at IBM and filed a lawsuit to move into a white suburb. "You wouldn't be here if there weren't lots of people before you who faced worse moments and kept going," he recalled. "How dare I give into cynicism and hopelessness, when I think of this history?"
It also helps when people write $100 million checks to support your agenda. In September, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg did just that to support Booker's efforts to reform schools in Newark. Booker's ideas of school reforms are closely aligned with those of Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee, the (now) former school superintendents of New York and Washington: Open more charter schools, give bonuses to high-scoring teachers, fire teachers who don't improve.
But there are significant differences in their leadership styles. Rhee and Klein didn't prioritize community approvals and failed to sell their reform ideas to most parents and students. Booker said he always ran on the platforms of community engagement and inclusion. "You can search the world over two times, but you'll never find two people that agree on everything," he said last night. "Real love is going beyond tolerance. It's about knowing the other person, the other side."
So before drawing up a plan [7] of recommendations on how to spend his social media-funded school-reform gift, he is using social media himself (along with on-the-ground canvassers) to find out what Newark residents think about their public schools. He will publish these findings by January. Meanwhile, you can read some of the community input on Booker's Facebook page [8] and Twitter [9] account—where he has over 1 million followers, nearly four times the population of his city (and more than Dalai Lama). But don't tweet or text while you drive in Newark, or Booker will give you a traffic ticket [10].
Today, he is credited with reducing [3] murders in Newark by 60 percent since 2002, while slashing the city's chronic budget deficit at the same time. How did he do it? Prevention at the front end works, he argued last night. Booker talked to released prisoners and found that it was a sense of shame—from not paying child support, or not having a job—that drove them back into trouble. "So, we created DADS—Delta Alpha Delta Sigma—a male fraternity where single dads mentored other dads, who came out of prisons." He bolstered that with job training programs for ex-cons and recreational facilities for youth. Newark now has a 10 percent [4] recidivism rate, compared with about 65 percent [5] nationwide.
"There are thousands of young kids on the waiting list for a Big Brother [6] or a Big Sister [6]," he said. "We know it drives down criminal activity, increases academic success." If every kid in Oakland and Newark had a mentor in this program, Booker argued, we wouldn't spend billions on prisons that contribute to the growing deficit: "That's what I call government waste."
"What keeps Cory Booker going?" the event moderator Lee Bycel asked. Booker responded by discussing the youngest victims of crime. "My worst moments are when the kid is shot, seeing the gunshot wounds, watching the bloody foam coming out of his mouth," he said. At these moments he remembers the wisdom told to him by his parents—who were among the first black executives at IBM and filed a lawsuit to move into a white suburb. "You wouldn't be here if there weren't lots of people before you who faced worse moments and kept going," he recalled. "How dare I give into cynicism and hopelessness, when I think of this history?"
It also helps when people write $100 million checks to support your agenda. In September, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg did just that to support Booker's efforts to reform schools in Newark. Booker's ideas of school reforms are closely aligned with those of Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee, the (now) former school superintendents of New York and Washington: Open more charter schools, give bonuses to high-scoring teachers, fire teachers who don't improve.
But there are significant differences in their leadership styles. Rhee and Klein didn't prioritize community approvals and failed to sell their reform ideas to most parents and students. Booker said he always ran on the platforms of community engagement and inclusion. "You can search the world over two times, but you'll never find two people that agree on everything," he said last night. "Real love is going beyond tolerance. It's about knowing the other person, the other side."
So before drawing up a plan [7] of recommendations on how to spend his social media-funded school-reform gift, he is using social media himself (along with on-the-ground canvassers) to find out what Newark residents think about their public schools. He will publish these findings by January. Meanwhile, you can read some of the community input on Booker's Facebook page [8] and Twitter [9] account—where he has over 1 million followers, nearly four times the population of his city (and more than Dalai Lama). But don't tweet or text while you drive in Newark, or Booker will give you a traffic ticket [10].
Baubles vs. Hard Truths
| Sat Nov. 13, 2010 12:12 PM PST
Derek Thompson is disappointed with liberal reaction to the deficit commission report. For example, liberals like me:
Their discretionary cuts are a combination of baubles and smoke and mirrors. The baubles are the trivia, like cutting printing costs and eliminating earmarks. The smoke and mirrors comes from vague non-choices like cutting the federal workforce 10% or pretending that a spending cap will actually accomplish anything. Discretionary spending isn't really a long-term problem in the first place, but if you're going to address it anyway, then address it by proposing actual program cuts. You think manned space exploration is a boondoggle and you want to cut NASA's budget in half? Fine. You think ethanol subsidies are outrageous and you want to eliminate them? Great. You think our nation would be safe with nine supercarrier groups instead of a dozen? Preach it. But that's what it takes to cut the discretionary budget: cuts to real programs, not handwaving about caps and generic rollbacks.
Next up are their tax reform proposals, which are almost entirely smoke and mirrors. You can make any deficit reduction plan easier by proposing a tax system that (you claim) will boost growth rates by 1% per year. Run that out over 50 years and economic growth will take care of half your problem. Hooray! But the evidence that this will actually happen is close to zero. Our current tax system just isn't that inefficient. Pretending that a better tax regime will supercharge economic growth isn't as bad as relying on the infamous troika of waste, fraud, and abuse, but it's close.
Their Social Security proposal is.....actually not bad. With one change I could probably accept it as is.1 Still, even though I favor taking action on Social Security now, this is basically a bauble. It's reponsible for only a small part of the long-term deficit, and it's not something that rises forever. It's a one-time increase associated with the retirement of the baby boomer generation.
And then you get to healthcare. This is the big one. This is 90% of our long-term deficit problem. I don't have any real problem with tackling inefficient discretionary programs or sprucing up the tax code or fixing Social Security. But burbling on at length about this stuff mainly serves to allow us to avoid talking about our real problem. Because, as Derek says, it's too hard. But that's like an alcoholic nattering on about putting a taxi service on speed dial or remembering to take his vitamins every day. Those are great ideas, but they're basically distractions that prevent you from facing up to the fact that you need to stop getting hammered every night.
The whole point of a deficit reduction commission is that they can address the hard truths that a bunch of politicians can't. If Simpson-Bowles were really dedicated to hard truths, their report would have said two things in no uncertain terms. First, we're not going to waste too much time on discretionary spending or Social Security. They're shiny baubles that distract us. So here are links to half a dozen good plans for reining in both of them. Go ahead and read them at your leisure.
Second, healthcare costs are going up. We're getting older, medical technology is advancing, and the spending curve on healthcare heads to infinity if we don't do something about it. So we've decided that essentially our entire report is going to be about healthcare because we want to rub your faces in the fact that you have to deal with it whether you like it or not. This means, at a minimum, two things: (1) distilling the best ideas around for reining in rising healthcare costs, and (2) acknowledging that costs are going to go up anyway and we're going to have to raise taxes to deal with it.
But as hard truths go, I guess that's a little too hard. Tax increases! Paying doctors less! Telling the American public that they can't have every procedure they want just because they want it! Besides, we just spent over a year passing healthcare reform, and we're all exhausted. PPACA made only modest progress on cost controls, and that was hard enough. Better to just do some handwaving about a cap on growth rates and call it a day.
I get it. No one wants to dive back into that briar patch right now. But that's too bad. So go ahead: take a whack at reducing discretionary spending by 2% if it makes you feel virtuous. Go ahead and reform the tax code. It needs it. And sure, fix Social Security just as a warmup to prove that you can hit AA pitching before you move on to the show.
But don't pretend that you've really done much of anything about the long-term deficit. For that, we're going to need a whole bunch of straight talk about tax hikes nobody likes and cost controls that everybody hates. But isn't straight talk like that exactly what Simpson and Bowles were supposed to give us?
1I would ditch the increase to the retirement age and pay for it by gradually increasing payroll tax contributions from 12.6% to 13%. The rest of their proposal strikes me as fairly reasonable.
The third most frustrating criticism comes from folks like Kevin Drum, who claims that any effort to reduce the deficit that isn't 98% health care reform isn't serious. The fact is, there are no feasible ways to definitively curb health care inflation starting today (if Kevin has some in mind we need to hear them!). We can shoot a thousand arrows at the medical inflation monster — health care reform, to its great credit, does. We can nudge providers and customers away from pay-for-service, which rewards over-treatment. We can increase cost-sharing to help patients react to prices, increaseThis is fair up to a point. But only up to a point. Here's the problem: most plans to reduce the long-term deficit consist of three things: shiny baubles, smoke and mirrors, and actual deficit reduction measures. You want to minimize the former and emphasize the latter, and on that score I don't think Simpson-Bowles does very well.transparency and quality through exchanges, and so on. But these are efforts, not answers. If we waited for the messianic Answer to health care inflation, we might never act on the budget. I can't imagine that's what Kevin would prefer. Instead, we should make the changes we can make today, slowly.
Their discretionary cuts are a combination of baubles and smoke and mirrors. The baubles are the trivia, like cutting printing costs and eliminating earmarks. The smoke and mirrors comes from vague non-choices like cutting the federal workforce 10% or pretending that a spending cap will actually accomplish anything. Discretionary spending isn't really a long-term problem in the first place, but if you're going to address it anyway, then address it by proposing actual program cuts. You think manned space exploration is a boondoggle and you want to cut NASA's budget in half? Fine. You think ethanol subsidies are outrageous and you want to eliminate them? Great. You think our nation would be safe with nine supercarrier groups instead of a dozen? Preach it. But that's what it takes to cut the discretionary budget: cuts to real programs, not handwaving about caps and generic rollbacks.
Next up are their tax reform proposals, which are almost entirely smoke and mirrors. You can make any deficit reduction plan easier by proposing a tax system that (you claim) will boost growth rates by 1% per year. Run that out over 50 years and economic growth will take care of half your problem. Hooray! But the evidence that this will actually happen is close to zero. Our current tax system just isn't that inefficient. Pretending that a better tax regime will supercharge economic growth isn't as bad as relying on the infamous troika of waste, fraud, and abuse, but it's close.
Their Social Security proposal is.....actually not bad. With one change I could probably accept it as is.1 Still, even though I favor taking action on Social Security now, this is basically a bauble. It's reponsible for only a small part of the long-term deficit, and it's not something that rises forever. It's a one-time increase associated with the retirement of the baby boomer generation.
And then you get to healthcare. This is the big one. This is 90% of our long-term deficit problem. I don't have any real problem with tackling inefficient discretionary programs or sprucing up the tax code or fixing Social Security. But burbling on at length about this stuff mainly serves to allow us to avoid talking about our real problem. Because, as Derek says, it's too hard. But that's like an alcoholic nattering on about putting a taxi service on speed dial or remembering to take his vitamins every day. Those are great ideas, but they're basically distractions that prevent you from facing up to the fact that you need to stop getting hammered every night.
The whole point of a deficit reduction commission is that they can address the hard truths that a bunch of politicians can't. If Simpson-Bowles were really dedicated to hard truths, their report would have said two things in no uncertain terms. First, we're not going to waste too much time on discretionary spending or Social Security. They're shiny baubles that distract us. So here are links to half a dozen good plans for reining in both of them. Go ahead and read them at your leisure.
Second, healthcare costs are going up. We're getting older, medical technology is advancing, and the spending curve on healthcare heads to infinity if we don't do something about it. So we've decided that essentially our entire report is going to be about healthcare because we want to rub your faces in the fact that you have to deal with it whether you like it or not. This means, at a minimum, two things: (1) distilling the best ideas around for reining in rising healthcare costs, and (2) acknowledging that costs are going to go up anyway and we're going to have to raise taxes to deal with it.
But as hard truths go, I guess that's a little too hard. Tax increases! Paying doctors less! Telling the American public that they can't have every procedure they want just because they want it! Besides, we just spent over a year passing healthcare reform, and we're all exhausted. PPACA made only modest progress on cost controls, and that was hard enough. Better to just do some handwaving about a cap on growth rates and call it a day.
I get it. No one wants to dive back into that briar patch right now. But that's too bad. So go ahead: take a whack at reducing discretionary spending by 2% if it makes you feel virtuous. Go ahead and reform the tax code. It needs it. And sure, fix Social Security just as a warmup to prove that you can hit AA pitching before you move on to the show.
But don't pretend that you've really done much of anything about the long-term deficit. For that, we're going to need a whole bunch of straight talk about tax hikes nobody likes and cost controls that everybody hates. But isn't straight talk like that exactly what Simpson and Bowles were supposed to give us?
1I would ditch the increase to the retirement age and pay for it by gradually increasing payroll tax contributions from 12.6% to 13%. The rest of their proposal strikes me as fairly reasonable.
The New Republic: Franken Sense
The very serious senator from Minnesota.
To lighten the mood, Hatch broke out a country music number called “Are You Lonely Here With Me?” The song made Franken laugh, and he confessed to Hatch that he had written a humorous country song of his own, “We Stayed Together for the Kids.” He proceeded to sing it for me in an exaggerated Nashville twang:
I asked Franken the obvious question: Was the song a metaphor? Was he going out of his way to work with Republicans for the good of the kids—that is, the American people? Franken cackled. “I don’t know if I’d go that far—I actually really enjoy a lot of my Republican colleagues,” he said. “And I try to get along with everyone. The Senate is like a small town with a hundred people in it. And each one can put a hold on you.” Warming to his metaphor, Franken grinned mischievously. “It’s a somewhat contentious small town ... and some members are sometimes trying to slow down what the town is doing when the town really needs to be moving. But what are you going to do? It’s obviously been a difficult time in certain respects, sometimes it is frustrating ... but you don’t take it out” on your colleagues.
When Franken launched his campaign for the Senate, it wasn’t obvious that the former comedian and Air America pundit would become a devotee of the rituals of senatorial comity. As an entertainer, Franken had mastered a combative political persona in which he tackled his ideological opponents head-on. Given the opportunity to interview George W. Bush, then a presidential candidate, he asked Bush whether he’d ever manufactured crystal meth. He famously got into a shouting match with Bill O’Reilly at a C-SPAN panel discussion, and, in another of his books, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, he recounted that he’d once called up National Review editor Rich Lowry and challenged him to a fight in a parking garage. When Franken arrived in Washington, many expected him to be a bombastic, no-holds-barred partisan.
But Franken has self-consciously chosen a different model: the institutionalist who can achieve bipartisan consensus but also successfully champion liberal legislation. During his brief time in office, Franken has emerged as a throwback to the successful progressives of a distant era when senators knew what they were talking about and spent long hours working on worthy policy proposals to make the lives of their constituents better. As unlikely as it may appear, at a time when it seems as if every politician wants to be a celebrity, Franken has used his celebrity to become a serious senator.
- November 10, 2010 | 2:11 pm
To lighten the mood, Hatch broke out a country music number called “Are You Lonely Here With Me?” The song made Franken laugh, and he confessed to Hatch that he had written a humorous country song of his own, “We Stayed Together for the Kids.” He proceeded to sing it for me in an exaggerated Nashville twang:
We stayed together for the kidsFranken explained to Hatch that he wanted the song to conclude with the couple deciding to stay together, despite their many years of bickering. But he needed a bridge to reach this happy ending, and Hatch suggested they write one together. A few weeks later, the pair spent more than an hour brainstorming lyrics and discarding lines they thought weren’t sufficiently funny. Finally, they came up with this: “I’m amazed the kids turned out ok/I’m amazed with you today.” Franken explained, “The verses are all about how they couldn’t stand each other, basically, and all the stuff that went on between them, and then the last verse is sort of like, ‘You got better with age, you grew up a little too/I’ll share my empty nest with you.’ It turns out they’re glad they stayed together.”
And this is what we thought we had to do
But now the kids are up and gone
And there’s just me and there’s just you
I asked Franken the obvious question: Was the song a metaphor? Was he going out of his way to work with Republicans for the good of the kids—that is, the American people? Franken cackled. “I don’t know if I’d go that far—I actually really enjoy a lot of my Republican colleagues,” he said. “And I try to get along with everyone. The Senate is like a small town with a hundred people in it. And each one can put a hold on you.” Warming to his metaphor, Franken grinned mischievously. “It’s a somewhat contentious small town ... and some members are sometimes trying to slow down what the town is doing when the town really needs to be moving. But what are you going to do? It’s obviously been a difficult time in certain respects, sometimes it is frustrating ... but you don’t take it out” on your colleagues.
When Franken launched his campaign for the Senate, it wasn’t obvious that the former comedian and Air America pundit would become a devotee of the rituals of senatorial comity. As an entertainer, Franken had mastered a combative political persona in which he tackled his ideological opponents head-on. Given the opportunity to interview George W. Bush, then a presidential candidate, he asked Bush whether he’d ever manufactured crystal meth. He famously got into a shouting match with Bill O’Reilly at a C-SPAN panel discussion, and, in another of his books, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, he recounted that he’d once called up National Review editor Rich Lowry and challenged him to a fight in a parking garage. When Franken arrived in Washington, many expected him to be a bombastic, no-holds-barred partisan.
But Franken has self-consciously chosen a different model: the institutionalist who can achieve bipartisan consensus but also successfully champion liberal legislation. During his brief time in office, Franken has emerged as a throwback to the successful progressives of a distant era when senators knew what they were talking about and spent long hours working on worthy policy proposals to make the lives of their constituents better. As unlikely as it may appear, at a time when it seems as if every politician wants to be a celebrity, Franken has used his celebrity to become a serious senator.
The Soft Bigotry of Low Deficit Commission Expectations
I’m not the first person to make this point, but those who are defending the deficit commission on the grounds that there are some potentially good ideas in there are missing what the purpose of the commission was supposed to be.
After all, anyone can come up with some good deficit-reduction ideas; I can come up with a dozen even before I’ve had my morning coffee. Brainstorming is easy.
What the commission was supposed to do was something much harder: it was supposed to produce a package that Congress would give an up and down vote. To do this, it would have to produce something much better than a package with some good stuff buried in among the bad stuff; it would have to produce a package good enough to accept as is.
And it didn’t do that. Instead, it produced a package that may have had some good things in it, but also, remarkably, introduced a whole slew of new bad ideas that weren’t even in the debate before. A 21 percent of GDP limit on revenues? Cutting the top marginal rate to 23 percent? Sharp reductions in the government work force without, as far as anyone can tell, a commensurate reduction in the work to be done? Instead of cutting through the fog, the commission brought out an extra smoke machine.
Or put it another way: what on earth are people who say things like, “This proposal can be a starting point for discussion” thinking? We’ve been discussing and discussing, ad nauseam; the commission was supposed to provide a finishing point for discussion. Instead, it produced a PowerPoint that is one part stuff that has long been on the table, one part conservative wish-list, and one part just weirdly ill-considered.
The kindest thing we can do now is pretend the whole thing never happened.
What the commission was supposed to do was something much harder: it was supposed to produce a package that Congress would give an up and down vote. To do this, it would have to produce something much better than a package with some good stuff buried in among the bad stuff; it would have to produce a package good enough to accept as is.
And it didn’t do that. Instead, it produced a package that may have had some good things in it, but also, remarkably, introduced a whole slew of new bad ideas that weren’t even in the debate before. A 21 percent of GDP limit on revenues? Cutting the top marginal rate to 23 percent? Sharp reductions in the government work force without, as far as anyone can tell, a commensurate reduction in the work to be done? Instead of cutting through the fog, the commission brought out an extra smoke machine.
Or put it another way: what on earth are people who say things like, “This proposal can be a starting point for discussion” thinking? We’ve been discussing and discussing, ad nauseam; the commission was supposed to provide a finishing point for discussion. Instead, it produced a PowerPoint that is one part stuff that has long been on the table, one part conservative wish-list, and one part just weirdly ill-considered.
The kindest thing we can do now is pretend the whole thing never happened.
Obama hails release of 'hero' Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar
- 11/13/10 08:45 AM ET
President Obama hailed on Saturday the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, a political leader in Myanmar who'd been confined to house arrest until her release today.
The president released a statement after the government of Myanmar, formerly Burma, released Suu Kyi, the leader of the political opposition in the country, from almost seven and a half years of house arrest, according to the AP.
"While the Burmese regime has gone to extraordinary lengths to isolate and silence Aung San Suu Kyi, she has continued her brave fight for democracy, peace, and change in Burma," Obama said. "She is a hero of mine and a source of inspiration for all who work to advance basic human rights in Burma and around the world. The United States welcomes her long overdue release."
Suu Kyi is a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and her release has been championed not only by the president, but other leaders in Congress and across the world.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a critic of the military junta in control of Myanmar, praised Suu Kyi's release.
"Aung San Suu Kyi’s apparently unconditional release from confinement is the first positive news to come out of Burma in some time. That said, she has been released in the past only to be later detained on trumped-up charges," he said in a statement. "Whether the regime will tolerate her active participation in public discourse in Burma is the key question. Even if it turns out she is given freedom of movement and speech, her release should be viewed as a first step in Burmese reform and not the last.”
The president released a statement after the government of Myanmar, formerly Burma, released Suu Kyi, the leader of the political opposition in the country, from almost seven and a half years of house arrest, according to the AP.
"While the Burmese regime has gone to extraordinary lengths to isolate and silence Aung San Suu Kyi, she has continued her brave fight for democracy, peace, and change in Burma," Obama said. "She is a hero of mine and a source of inspiration for all who work to advance basic human rights in Burma and around the world. The United States welcomes her long overdue release."
Suu Kyi is a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and her release has been championed not only by the president, but other leaders in Congress and across the world.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a critic of the military junta in control of Myanmar, praised Suu Kyi's release.
"Aung San Suu Kyi’s apparently unconditional release from confinement is the first positive news to come out of Burma in some time. That said, she has been released in the past only to be later detained on trumped-up charges," he said in a statement. "Whether the regime will tolerate her active participation in public discourse in Burma is the key question. Even if it turns out she is given freedom of movement and speech, her release should be viewed as a first step in Burmese reform and not the last.”
YANGON — Myanmar's military government freed its arch-rival — democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi — on Saturday after her latest term of detention expired. Several thousand jubilant supporters streamed to her residence.
A smiling Suu Kyi, wearing a traditional jacket and a flower in her hair, appeared at the gate of her compound as the crowd chanted, cheered and sang the national anthem. Speaking briefly in Burmese, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate thanked the well-wishers, who quickly swelled to as many as 5,000, and said they would see each other again Sunday at the headquarters of her political party.
"If we work in unity, we will achieve our goal. We have a lot of things to do," she said.
"There is a time for quiet and a time for speaking," she also said, the U.K.'s Sky News reported.
Sky's reporter was working in secret like other correspondents because of restrictions on journalists imposed by the government, the broadcaster said. The unidentified reporter said she ran with supporters through the streets of Yangon to reach Suu Kyi's house after news of her release came through.
Suu Kyi, 65, whose latest period of detention spanned 7 1/2 years, has come to symbolize the struggle for democracy in the Southeast Asian nation ruled by the military since 1962.
Suu Kyi, 65, whose latest period of detention spanned 7 1/2 years, has come to symbolize the struggle for democracy in the Southeast Asian nation ruled by the military since 1962.
However it was still unclear whether the rulers of Myanmar, also known as Burma, had imposed any conditions on her release and whether she would accept them, NBC News said.
The release from house arrest of one of the world's most prominent political prisoners came a week after an election that was swept by the military's proxy political party and decried by Western nations as a sham designed to perpetuate authoritarian control.
Supporters had been waiting most of the day near her residence and the headquarters of her political party. Suu Kyi has been jailed or under house arrest for more than 15 of the last 21 years.
Timeline: Myanmar and Aung San Suu Kyi (on this page)
Police leave, barbed wire removed As her release was under way, riot police stationed in the area left the scene and a barbed-wire barricade near her residence was removed, allowing the waiting supporters to surge forward.
The release from house arrest of one of the world's most prominent political prisoners came a week after an election that was swept by the military's proxy political party and decried by Western nations as a sham designed to perpetuate authoritarian control.
Supporters had been waiting most of the day near her residence and the headquarters of her political party. Suu Kyi has been jailed or under house arrest for more than 15 of the last 21 years.
Timeline: Myanmar and Aung San Suu Kyi (on this page)
Police leave, barbed wire removed As her release was under way, riot police stationed in the area left the scene and a barbed-wire barricade near her residence was removed, allowing the waiting supporters to surge forward.
The news was immediately welcomed by leading politicians around the world.
In a statement, Barack Obama said Suu Kyi was "a hero of mine" and added that those who had oppressed Myanmar's people should be held accountable.
"While the Burmese regime has gone to extraordinary lengths to isolate and silence Aung San Suu Kyi, she has continued her brave fight for democracy, peace, and change in Burma," he said. "She is a hero of mine and a source of inspiration for all who work to advance basic human rights in Burma and around the world. The United States welcomes her long overdue release."
Behind The Wall blog: Progress, but not much has changed in Myanmar
"Whether Aung San Suu Kyi is living in the prison of her house, or the prison of her country, does not change the fact that she, and the political opposition she represents, has been systematically silenced, incarcerated, and deprived of any opportunity to engage in political processes that could change Burma," he added.
Obama said that the U.S. was looking forward to the day "when all of Burma's people are free from fear and persecution."
"It is time for the Burmese regime to release all political prisoners, not just one," he said. "Following Aung San Suu Kyi's powerful example, we recommit ourselves to remaining steadfast advocates of freedom and human rights for the Burmese people, and accountability for those who continue to oppress them," he said.
Story: Fellow Nobel laureates celebrate Suu Kyi's release
In a statement, Barack Obama said Suu Kyi was "a hero of mine" and added that those who had oppressed Myanmar's people should be held accountable.
"While the Burmese regime has gone to extraordinary lengths to isolate and silence Aung San Suu Kyi, she has continued her brave fight for democracy, peace, and change in Burma," he said. "She is a hero of mine and a source of inspiration for all who work to advance basic human rights in Burma and around the world. The United States welcomes her long overdue release."
Behind The Wall blog: Progress, but not much has changed in Myanmar
"Whether Aung San Suu Kyi is living in the prison of her house, or the prison of her country, does not change the fact that she, and the political opposition she represents, has been systematically silenced, incarcerated, and deprived of any opportunity to engage in political processes that could change Burma," he added.
Obama said that the U.S. was looking forward to the day "when all of Burma's people are free from fear and persecution."
"It is time for the Burmese regime to release all political prisoners, not just one," he said. "Following Aung San Suu Kyi's powerful example, we recommit ourselves to remaining steadfast advocates of freedom and human rights for the Burmese people, and accountability for those who continue to oppress them," he said.
Story: Fellow Nobel laureates celebrate Suu Kyi's release
British Prime Minister David Cameron said Suu Kyi's release was long overdue. "Aung San Suu Kyi is an inspiration for all of us who believe in freedom of speech, democracy and human rights," he said in a statement.
"It is now crucial that Aung San Suu Kyi has unrestricted freedom of movement and speech and can participate fully in her country's political process," European Commissioner Jose Manuel Barroso said.
But Justin Wintle, Suu Kyi's biographer, told BBC News that her freedom could be short-lived.
"If she resumes where she left off in 2003 — campaigning against the regime — I'm afraid the likelihood is that she will return to house arrest fairly soon," he told the U.K. broadcaster. "However ... we are allowed to hope."
Critics allege the Nov. 7 elections were manipulated to give the pro-military party a sweeping victory.
Results have been released piecemeal and already have given the junta-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party a majority in both houses of Parliament.
The previous elections in 1990 were won overwhelmingly by Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy party, but the military refused to hand over power and instead clamped down on opponents.
Suu Kyi was convicted last year of violating the terms of her previous detention by briefly sheltering an American man who swam uninvited to her lakeside home, extending a period of continuous detention that began in 2003 after her motorcade was ambushed in northern Myanmar by a government-backed mob.
But Justin Wintle, Suu Kyi's biographer, told BBC News that her freedom could be short-lived.
"If she resumes where she left off in 2003 — campaigning against the regime — I'm afraid the likelihood is that she will return to house arrest fairly soon," he told the U.K. broadcaster. "However ... we are allowed to hope."
Critics allege the Nov. 7 elections were manipulated to give the pro-military party a sweeping victory.
Results have been released piecemeal and already have given the junta-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party a majority in both houses of Parliament.
The previous elections in 1990 were won overwhelmingly by Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy party, but the military refused to hand over power and instead clamped down on opponents.
Suu Kyi was convicted last year of violating the terms of her previous detention by briefly sheltering an American man who swam uninvited to her lakeside home, extending a period of continuous detention that began in 2003 after her motorcade was ambushed in northern Myanmar by a government-backed mob.
Suu Kyi has shown her mettle time and again since taking up the democracy struggle in 1988.
Leadership thrust upon her
Having spent much of her life abroad, she returned home to take care of her ailing mother just as mass demonstrations were breaking out against 25 years of military rule.
She was quickly thrust into a leadership role, mainly because she was the daughter of Aung San, who led Myanmar to independence from Britain before his assassination by political rivals.
She rode out the military's bloody suppression of street demonstrations to help found the NLD. Her defiance gained her fame and honor, most notably the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize.
Charismatic, tireless and outspoken, her popularity threatened the country's new military rulers.
In 1989, she was detained on trumped-up national security charges and put under house arrest. She was not released until 1995 and has spent various periods in detention since then.
Suu Kyi's freedom had been a key demand of Western nations and groups critical of the military regime's poor human rights record.
The military government, seeking to burnish its international image, had responded previously by offering to talk with her, only to later shy away from serious negotiations.
Suu Kyi — who was barred from running in this month's elections — plans to help probe allegations of voting fraud, according to Nyan Win, who is a spokesman for her party, which was officially disbanded for refusing to reregister for this year's polls.
Such action, which could embarrass the junta, poses the sort of challenge the military has reacted to in the past by detaining Suu Kyi.
Son hopes to visit Awaiting her release in neighboring Thailand was the younger of her two sons, Kim Aris, who is seeking the chance to see his mother for the first time in 10 years. Aris lives in Britain and has been repeatedly denied visas.
Her late husband, British scholar Michael Aris, raised their sons in England. Their eldest son, Alexander Aris, accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on his mother's behalf in 1991 and reportedly lives in the United States.
Michael Aris died of cancer in 1999 at age 53 after having been denied visas to see his wife for the three years before his death. Suu Kyi could have left Myanmar to see her family but decided not to, fearing the junta would not allow her back in.
Her release could be the first step towards a review of Western sanctions on the resource-rich country, the largest in mainland Southeast Asia and labeled by rights groups as one of the world's most corrupt and oppressive.
It might also divert some attention from an election widely dismissed as a sham to cement military power under a facade of democracy.
"The regime needs to create some breathing space urgently," said a retired Burmese academic, who asked not to be identified. "They may do that by releasing her and might think it will help improve an image tarnished by electoral fraud."
Many experts say the sanctions also benefit the junta, allowing generals and their cronies to dominate industry in the country of 50 million, rich in natural gas, timber and minerals with a strategic port in the Bay of Bengal.
Trade with the West has been replaced by strengthening ties with China, Thailand and Singapore, whose objections to the regime's human rights record are relatively muted.
"There are a lot of people with a lot at stake in maintaining the status quo," said Sean Turnell, an expert on Myanmar's economy at Sydney's Macquarie University.
NBC News, Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Leadership thrust upon her
Having spent much of her life abroad, she returned home to take care of her ailing mother just as mass demonstrations were breaking out against 25 years of military rule.
She was quickly thrust into a leadership role, mainly because she was the daughter of Aung San, who led Myanmar to independence from Britain before his assassination by political rivals.
She rode out the military's bloody suppression of street demonstrations to help found the NLD. Her defiance gained her fame and honor, most notably the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize.
Charismatic, tireless and outspoken, her popularity threatened the country's new military rulers.
In 1989, she was detained on trumped-up national security charges and put under house arrest. She was not released until 1995 and has spent various periods in detention since then.
Suu Kyi's freedom had been a key demand of Western nations and groups critical of the military regime's poor human rights record.
The military government, seeking to burnish its international image, had responded previously by offering to talk with her, only to later shy away from serious negotiations.
Suu Kyi — who was barred from running in this month's elections — plans to help probe allegations of voting fraud, according to Nyan Win, who is a spokesman for her party, which was officially disbanded for refusing to reregister for this year's polls.
Such action, which could embarrass the junta, poses the sort of challenge the military has reacted to in the past by detaining Suu Kyi.
Son hopes to visit Awaiting her release in neighboring Thailand was the younger of her two sons, Kim Aris, who is seeking the chance to see his mother for the first time in 10 years. Aris lives in Britain and has been repeatedly denied visas.
Her late husband, British scholar Michael Aris, raised their sons in England. Their eldest son, Alexander Aris, accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on his mother's behalf in 1991 and reportedly lives in the United States.
Michael Aris died of cancer in 1999 at age 53 after having been denied visas to see his wife for the three years before his death. Suu Kyi could have left Myanmar to see her family but decided not to, fearing the junta would not allow her back in.
Her release could be the first step towards a review of Western sanctions on the resource-rich country, the largest in mainland Southeast Asia and labeled by rights groups as one of the world's most corrupt and oppressive.
It might also divert some attention from an election widely dismissed as a sham to cement military power under a facade of democracy.
"The regime needs to create some breathing space urgently," said a retired Burmese academic, who asked not to be identified. "They may do that by releasing her and might think it will help improve an image tarnished by electoral fraud."
Many experts say the sanctions also benefit the junta, allowing generals and their cronies to dominate industry in the country of 50 million, rich in natural gas, timber and minerals with a strategic port in the Bay of Bengal.
Trade with the West has been replaced by strengthening ties with China, Thailand and Singapore, whose objections to the regime's human rights record are relatively muted.
"There are a lot of people with a lot at stake in maintaining the status quo," said Sean Turnell, an expert on Myanmar's economy at Sydney's Macquarie University.
NBC News, Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Bill Wolff will not shave beard until Alaskan Senate Race is called
I will be up dating this blogg in a week and we will see where Bill Wolff is on his growth and where the Alaskan Senate race is.......
11/3/2010
Here's Bill Wolff with a preview of tonight's show:
11/05/2010
Here's Bill Wolff with a preview of tonight's show:
11/08/2010
Here's Bill Wolff with a look at tonight's show:
11/09/2010
Here's Bill Wolff with a look at tonight's show:
11/10/2010
Here's Bill Wolff with a look at tonight's show:
11/11/2010
Here's Bill Wolff with a look at tonight's show:
11/12/2010
Here's Bill Wolff with a look at tonight's show:
The Rachel Maddow Show Forensic Analysis Department has rendered the above approximation of TRMS executive producer Bill Wolff's visage after the time it is estimated to take for Tea Party Republican Joe Miller to run out of objections in the Alaska Senate election and finally concede to write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski. Since travelling with Rachel to Alaska during the 2010 campaign, Wolff has been growing out his beard in tribute to Rachel's hard-fought interview with Miller, with the intention of shaving it when the winner of Alaska's Senate seat is declared.
As Rachel reports in the video below, such a declaration has not been quick in coming. Election officials are still meticulously sorting and evaluating write-in ballots, which increasingly point to a Murkowski victory. At the same time, Joe Miller is challenging every Lisa's loop and Murkowski's cant he can, filing lawsuits and looking for loopholes to forestall an inglorious loss. Meanwhile, Bill Wolff itches his face and dreams of a smooth chin.
11/3/2010
Here's Bill Wolff with a preview of tonight's show:
11/05/2010
Here's Bill Wolff with a preview of tonight's show:
11/08/2010
Here's Bill Wolff with a look at tonight's show:
11/09/2010
Here's Bill Wolff with a look at tonight's show:
11/10/2010
Here's Bill Wolff with a look at tonight's show:
11/11/2010
Here's Bill Wolff with a look at tonight's show:
11/12/2010
Here's Bill Wolff with a look at tonight's show:
Long days for Alaska election
-
Sat Nov 13, 2010 10:27 AM EST
The Rachel Maddow Show Forensic Analysis Department has rendered the above approximation of TRMS executive producer Bill Wolff's visage after the time it is estimated to take for Tea Party Republican Joe Miller to run out of objections in the Alaska Senate election and finally concede to write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski. Since travelling with Rachel to Alaska during the 2010 campaign, Wolff has been growing out his beard in tribute to Rachel's hard-fought interview with Miller, with the intention of shaving it when the winner of Alaska's Senate seat is declared.
As Rachel reports in the video below, such a declaration has not been quick in coming. Election officials are still meticulously sorting and evaluating write-in ballots, which increasingly point to a Murkowski victory. At the same time, Joe Miller is challenging every Lisa's loop and Murkowski's cant he can, filing lawsuits and looking for loopholes to forestall an inglorious loss. Meanwhile, Bill Wolff itches his face and dreams of a smooth chin.
Study Finds That 100,000 Latinos Have Left Arizona Since The Implementation Of Its Radical Immigration Law
Latinos appear to be making a quick exit from Arizona. A new study by BBVA Bancomer Research, drawing on Census data, finds 100,000 fewer Latinos living in the state now than before the debate over S.B. 1070 -- the "Papers, please" law -- this summer. From the Denver Post:
The study says the decline could be due to a new law that would allow police to question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, which partly took effect in July. It may also be due to Arizona's difficult economic situation.Those two ideas aren't necessarily separate. The outward flow of Latinos has had at least short-term economic consequences, as they stop renting houses and as tourists worried about phony news of beheadings stop showing up.
Meanwhile, the key players behind S.B. 1070 are doing just great. Gov. Jan Brewer got re-elected, despite her best efforts to sink her own campaign. State Sen. Russell Pearce, who sponsored the bill, gets to be president of his chamber now. And Kris Kobach, the attorney who helped craft the "Papers, please" law, gets to be the new secretary of state for Kansas
This past summer, Arizona began the implementation of its draconian new immigration law, SB-1070. Now, a new study from BBVA Bancomer Research, using data collected by the U.S. Current Population Survey, finds that as many as 100,000 Latinos may have left the state in the time period between when the law was enacted and October of this year:
A new study suggests there may be 100,000 fewer Latinos in Arizona than there were before the debate over the state’s tough new immigration law earlier this year.The study is careful to note that it is not claiming that the exodus was a result of Arizona’s new immigration law; another possible factor is a worsening economy. Mexican government figures show that “23,380 Mexicans returned from Arizona to Mexico between June and September” of this year.
BBVA Bancomer Research, which did the study, worked with figures from the U.S. Current Population Survey.
Comparing Democratic and Republican tax plans
The Republicans' plan to extend the Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthy would cost $36.6 billion more than the Democrats' plan, which extends cuts only for families making less than $250,000 a year and individuals making less than $200,000.
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 12, 2010; A10
A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday.
New data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation show that households earning more than $1 million a year would reap nearly $31 billion in tax breaks under the GOP plan in 2011, for an average tax cut per household of about $100,000.
The analysis, requested by Democrats on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, comes as debate heats up over tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, most of which are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Republicans want to extend all the cuts, which would cost the Treasury Department $238 billion in 2011, according to the taxation committee. President Obama and congressional Democrats have vowed to extend the cuts only for families making less than $250,000 a year and individuals making less than $200,000 -- 98 percent of American taxpayers -- in a plan that would add about $202 billion to next year's deficit.
Given the soaring national debt, many economists deem both proposals unaffordable. Even some Republicans, including Reagan administration budget chief David Stockman and former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, have urged lawmakers to let them expire and allow income tax rates to pop back up to their levels during the Clinton administration.
Obama campaigned on a pledge not to raise taxes for the middle class, however. And with midterm congressional elections in November, few politicians in either party are calling for full repeal. Instead, lawmakers are gearing up for a battle when they return to Washington in September over the small fraction of the tax breaks that benefit the nation's richest families.
Both sides are eager to engage that fight on the eve of the election. Democrats see a political advantage in accusing Republicans of holding tax breaks for the middle class "hostage" in order to get tax cuts for the wealthy, though it's not clear that GOP lawmakers would in fact block extension of the middle-class cuts if they were offered alone.
Republicans accuse Democrats of plotting one of the biggest tax hikes in American history, arguing that raising taxes on wealthy households would punish the very people capable of creating jobs, spurring economic growth and reducing the 9.5 percent unemployment rate. About half of all small-business income is reported on the individual returns of people making over $250,000 a year, according to the taxation committee's data, though those taxpayers represent only about 3 percent of small businesses.
"We cannot forget that a lot of those people are small businesses," said Sage Eastman, a spokesman for Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.), the senior Republican on Ways and Means. "The American people don't want them paying higher taxes -- they want them hiring more people."
Democrats counter that wealthy households would receive a tax benefit under their plan. The joint committee analysis shows that million-dollar households would continue to receive an average tax break of about $6,300 next year compared with full repeal -- significantly more than the average break of about $1,100 that would go to families making less than $200,000 a year, according to the taxation committee.
Despite that bit of news, the nation's 315,000 millionaires are unlikely to feel grateful; the joint committee said their overall federal tax rate would jump to about 29.9 percent under the Democratic plan, compared with 24.6 percent if all the tax cuts were extended.
President Obama calls for earmark reform as GOP issues challenge
- 11/13/10 06:00 AM ET
President Obama called for earmark reform in his weekly radio address to the nation on Saturday.The commander-in-chief said that Congress needs to curb its use of earmarking funds for pet projects in their districts during a time of economic hardship.
The president encouraged reforming the process, but stopped short of calling for an all-out ban on earmarks.
On Friday evening, top-ranking House Republicans appeared to preempt the president's weekly address when they called on Obama to veto any bill that contains earmarks.
"If the President is committed to real earmark reform, he could demonstrate that immediately by agreeing to veto any spending measure this year or next that includes earmarks. Washington has failed to prioritize the way that taxpayer dollars are spent, and shutting down the earmark process is a good first step to begin righting the ship," the Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) wrote in a joint statement.
Obama, however, noted that “some of these earmarks support worthy projects in our local communities."
He highlighted his administration’s efforts to make congressional earmarks more transparent but was not explicit in how to reform the earmark process, only saying that Republicans and Democrats should work together to make change.
“We have a chance to advance the interests not of Republicans or Democrats, but of the American people; to put our country on the path of fiscal discipline and responsibility that will lead to a brighter economic future for all. And that’s a future I hope we can reach across party lines to build together,” Obama said.
Speaker-to-be Boehner and House Majority-Leader-to-be Cantor, however, announced that they would hold a vote within the GOP conference to ban all earmarks in the 112th Congress, and called on Obama to urge House Democrats to follow suit.
"Next week the House Republican Conference, including all of our newly elected Members, will vote on a measure that would impose an immediate ban on earmarks at the start of the 112th Congress," they stated, adding that Obama should encourage House Democrats to take a similar vote among their caucus.
Boehner and Cantor called earmarks "a symbol of a dysfunctional Congress" that "serve as a fuel line for the culture of spending that has dominated Washington for too long."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)