Pages

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Congress protests Obama on Bahrain arms sale

FRIDAY, FEB 3, 2012 12:07 PM EASTERN STANDARD TIME

18 representatives and three senators point to continued human rights abuses in letter to Hillary Clinton

 
U.S. Secretary of State Clinton
U.S. Secretary of State Clinton  (Credit: Reuters)
Here’s a quick update on the Obama administration’s recentdecision to sell arms to the regime in Bahrain, which has been accused of widespread human rights abuses in suppressing a protest movement in the Gulf nation.
Three senators and and 18 representatives — all Democrats — have signed a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemning the deal (and remember, the administration still isn’t saying what equipment, exactly, it’s sending to Bahrain). Here’s the key section of the letter:
We recognize the limited nature of the sales, and we acknowledge that the Bahraini government has taken some positive steps with respect to human rights in recent months. However, it has not done enough to justify the sale of any military items or services to Bahrain. Moreover, if the Administration wishes to reward the Bahraini government for any progress, there are other methods that do not involve strengthening the Bahraini military or security forces.
Tragically, even a brief survey of reports from reliable sources makes clear that the Bahraini government continues to perpetrate significant human rights violations.

Investigation finds SEC regularly exempting Wall Street banks from fraud penalties


 The Takeaway


image
A New York Times investigation found that the Securities and Exchange Commission regularly exempts Wall Street investment banks from the penalties called for by their action. (Photo by Fletcher6 via Wikimedia Commons, cc-by-sa.)
In an investigation by The New York Times, reporters discovered that the SEC is regularly declaring that the strictest penalties for fraud, penalties it regularly imposes on other businesses, often are not imposed on Wall Street investment banks.
(it will open and ask to play with windows player.)
Listen NowListen Now

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Commentary: Plenty of skepticism about Americans Elect

  • Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Americans Elect is nothing if not audacious.
A startup political organization seeded with $20 million from anonymous donors, Americans Elect promises to offer voters a centrist candidate who will challenge Barack Obama and whomever the Republicans nominate for leadership of the Free World in 2012.
Be skeptical, very, very skeptical. Odds are that Americans Elect will be a footnote in the coming presidential campaign. But before shrugging it off, take a look at some of the political brains working on the effort.
There's pollster Doug Schoen, who helped elect President Bill Clinton and is an expert on independent voters. There's Mark McKinnon, a Texan who helped elect and re-elect President George W. Bush.
McKinnon worked for Sen. John McCain in 2008 until Obama locked up the Democratic nomination, at which point he stepped off the Straight Talk Express and declared that Obama's election would send a "great message to the country and the world." Disappointed by a president he thought would be The One, McKinnon is volunteering for Americans Elect because the system is "utterly broken and incapable of reforming itself."
And there is Darry Sragow, who recently signed on as political director. I wrote about Americans Elect a few months ago and would not revisit it so soon, except that Sragow, at 65 and having run campaigns for four decades, is worth listening to.
"The political system is out of date and it is broken," said Sragow, whose role will be to recruit potential presidential candidates. "It is delivering nothing that voters expect."
Unlike most of the rest of us, Sragow has seen up close the warts of the denizens of the political system. He ran the late Sen. Alan Cranston's re-election campaign in 1986 and worked as the Assembly Democrats' main consultant in the 1990s and early last decade. He has had his losses, having worked for the failed gubernatorial campaigns of Sen. Dianne Feinstein and rich guy Al Checchi.
He quit campaign work a few years ago, becoming managing partner of the Los Angeles office of the international law firm SNR Denton. But junkies never truly change their ways, and he remained involved, studying focus groups and polling, and advising candidates, Jerry Brown among them.
For years, Sragow has worried about societal upheaval, that jobs once held by people with few skills have become automated, that the divide between rich and poor is widening, and that political leaders fail to address basic issues.
"People we elect get stuck fighting in the sandbox over the debt ceiling, whatever that is," he said. "Voters' needs are not being met. But I remain optimistic about the vibrancy of this country. It is time to bring something new to market."
Americans Elect could be just another gimmick. It certainly has elements of gimmickry. But it also could have an impact, especially given the level of discontent.
A Public Policy Institute of California poll shows that even in the Democratic stronghold of California, barely half the voters approve of Obama's performance, and almost two-thirds of the electorate disapprove of the Republican Party.
"President Obama promised hope and change. He has delivered neither," Sragow said. "But the fact is that Americans still want hope and change."
Americans Elect offers itself not as a third party but rather as a You-Generation political vehicle. Billionaire investor Peter Ackerman gave $2.5 million to seed the group, and signed a 47-page pitch last year soliciting other donors and describing the concept. It's not simple, which is one of its flaws. Tentative rules read a little like those for a rather complicated board game.
The key, the pitch says, will be to gain ballot access in all 50 states, no small feat. In California, the group gathered more than a million signatures and will learn in the next few weeks whether it has gained a spot on California's ballot. Other states have different rules. The group may need to sue to gain access in some states.
We don't yet know who that candidate is, except that organizers expect him or her to be a centrist. The candidate to be named later would be nominated in voting conducted on its website starting next May. Any registered voter can shape a platform or campaign to draft their ideal candidate.
Americans Elect's assumptions, described in the booklet, certainly are hopeful. Candidates will emerge once it is understood that 50-state ballot access is certain. A ticket representing the center-right and center-left can win. Delegates, on their own initiative, will fund the ticket.
It sounds more hopeful than realistic. But lots of ideas are weird. Imagine thinking that what people truly need is to post personal photos on a public website and invite "friends" to comment, or that revolutionaries could use 140-character messages to plot to overthrow dictators.
"It's either going to be iTunes or Friendster. ... They're either going to change the world, or not," said Dan Schnur, a former GOP political consultant who teaches government at USC.
Americans Elect's pitch invited donors to give $500,000 and join what it called the John Hancock Society, named for the first brave man who signed the Declaration of Independence. The booklet also said donors would be publicly disclosed. That hasn't happened. Americans Elect attorney Daniel Winslow of Boston said some donors fear retribution if they become known.
That's, of course, a canard. John Hancock risked being hanged. People able to shell out $500,000 on an upstart have nothing of significance to fear.
Winslow, long a supporter of Mitt Romney, says Americans Elect is not a project of any candidate. Sragow says candidates could include politicians, military officers, business or labor leaders. It could be a Republican, including one who fails to win the GOP nomination, or a Democrat. Al Gore? Michael Bloomberg? Without knowing the donors, it's impossible to know the organization's motives.
Americans Elect most likely will be little more than a blip in 2012. History is littered with failed third-party candidates. At most, its candidate might be a spoiler. Then again, smart guys are involved. Maybe, just maybe, 2012 could be different.

Foundation Auction 2012: Bought Health Care




Auction 2012 is a week long series in partnership with The Huffington Post and United Republic.  


The point of seeing a doctor -- or being one -- should be to improve health.  After all, besides your mother or spouse, who do you count on to care about your well-being more than your doctor does?  That is literally his or her job.  But what I've found, and I've written about in my new book Greedy Bastards, is that the same incentives distorting banking, energy, education, and government are distorting our very bodies.
The American health care system has incentives so out of alignment for everyone involved that it's a Greedy Bastard paradise.  For American health care providers, the goal isn't to get you healthy, but to get you paying.  And similar to banking where the costs of a low interest loan might be a hidden balloon payment, the costs of our health care system are hidden from the end consumer.
One basic problem with the system is how doctors are paid, the fee for service model.  In fee for service models, doctors are paid based on the treatments they deliver rather than the health outcomes they generate.  So for instance, if you need an expensive surgery, your doctor gets paid to operate.  If you don't need surgery, your doctor doesn't get paid.  This creates an obvious incentive to recommend surgery, even when you don't need it.  And it also discourages looking at the evidence of what works and what doesn't, because expensive but ineffective procedures create more profit for the doctors and hospitals that host and perform them.
This prioritizing of money over health outcomes shows up in the political influence the American Medical Association uses to stifle competition.  Shikha Dalmia, a senior policy analyst for the nonprofit think tank Reason Foundation, described in Forbes how the AMA used its political influence to insist that only doctors could deliver babies, even though midwives have performed this service for years.  "In 1995 thirty-six states restricted or outright banned midwifery, even though studies have found that it delivers equally safe care at far lower prices than standard hospital births."
Then there's the prescription drug problem, where pharmaceutical companies leverage their political influence to protect and expand drug monopolies.  In one case, a company called KV Pharmaceuticals got the FDA to give it an exclusive franchise over a hormonal agent used for years by obstetricians.  The price jumped from $300 a treatment to $25,000.  Pharmaceutical companies advertise to convince you that you are sick, and spend $61,000 per doctor on promotional costs to get doctors to prescribe you their drugs.
This wouldn't be affordable for most of us if we had to pay the sticker price.  But we don't, because most of us are covered by increasingly expensive third party health insurance (through our employers, which is yet another problem).  This insurance is protected by a law granting health insurance companies the right to monopolize state coverage, a monopoly retained by the enormous sums spent by the health insurance industry in Washington ($263 million from 2009-2010 alone).
None of this improves health outcomes, or is necessary for good health.  Sometimes it is counterproductive, because it discourages collaboration and the adoption of best practices.  In my book, I spent time learning about the Mayo Clinic, where doctors are paid on a flat salary, and where they operate in teams.  This promotes the sharing of information, and leads to far better health outcomes.  I also spoke with Jeff Brenner, a specialist in Camden, New Jersey, one of the poorest areas in the country.  He assembled a team to specifically target the most expensive cases, and using this technique of hotspotting, was able to save millions of dollars.  For instance, he found out that one diabetic was continually relapsing because he wasn't wearing his glasses when he injected himself with insulin, and so was taking the wrong dose.  This alone saved thousands of dollars in hospital bills, but in our fragmented health system, it wouldn't be anyone's job to tell you that you aren't taking your medicine correctly.  In fact, the hospital would make money on every return visit.
As with banking, energy, and education, we have the skills and tools we need to improve outcomes and cut costs.  We know how to stop Greedy Bastards from ruining the system and bankrupting us.  They are after all operating according to certain incentives, and those incentives are malleable.

The Venn of Ron Paul and Other Mysteries of Libertarianism Explained

| Fri Jan. 6, 2012 11:26 AM PST
Congressman Ron Paul's third-place finish in Tuesday's Iowa Republican Caucus was a remarkably strong showing for a candidate who has so little in common with mainstream Republicans. Perhaps the nation's most politically unique congressman, Paul shares policy stances with conservatives, liberals, and libertarians, while differing markedly from all of them.
So where does Paul fit in the Libertarian universe?

Susan G. Komen’s priceless gift

FRIDAY, FEB 3, 2012 7:00 PM EASTERN STANDARD TIME

A radical decision woke the country up to an alarming rightward drift, and gave new life to women’s health advocacy

Members of Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and more than 20 other organizations hold a "Stand Up for Women's Health" rally in Washington
Members of Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and more than 20 other organizations hold a "Stand Up for Women's Health" rally in Washington  (Credit: Joshua Roberts / Reuters)
The starling intensity that we saw this week in response to Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s decision to pull its grants from Planned Parenthood — an intensity that prompted the Komen foundation to reverse its decision today — may be the best thing that’s happened to the conversation about reproductive rights in this country for decades. It certainly should be.
Practically since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, reproductive rights activists have been left to play stilted defense against ideological opponents who grabbed the language of morality, life, love and family as their own, always deploying it with reference to the fetus. The rhetoric around reproductive rights, which has more recently begun to creep into arguments over contraception, has become suffocating in its emotional self-righteousness, but too muscular, too ubiquitous to effectively combat.
But the overreach by the Komen foundation, while surely intended to strike yet another blow on the side of antiabortion activism, succeeded instead in waking a powerful constituency — armed with precisely the language and emotional heft they’ve been lacking for too long.

Friday, February 3, 2012

'Gasland' Journalists Arrested At Hearing By Order Of House Republicans (UPDATES)

Posted: 2/1/12 11:45 AM ET  |  Updated: 2/1/12 05:56 PM ET
Zach Carter

Josh Fox Arrest
This image, taken by a Democratic source, shows Josh Fox being arrested by Capitol Hill police. 


WASHINGTON -- In a stunning break with First Amendment policy, House Republicans directed Capitol Hill police to detain a highly regarded documentary crew that was attempting to film a Wednesday hearing on a controversial natural gas procurement practice. Initial reports from sources suggested that an ABC News camera was also prevented from taping the hearing; ABC has since denied that they sent a crew to the hearing.

Josh Fox, director of the Academy Award-nominated documentary "Gasland" was taken into custody by Capitol Hill police this morning, along with his crew, after Republicans objected to their presence, according to Democratic sources present at the hearing. The meeting of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment had been taking place in room 2318 of the Rayburn building.

HuffPost has obtained exclusive video of the arrest of Josh Fox. Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, can be heard at the end of the clip asking Republican Chairman Andy Harris (R-Md.) to halt the arrest and permit Fox to film the public hearing. Harris denies Miller's request as Fox is escorted out of the hearing in handcuffs.

WATCH Capitol Hill Police Arrest a Journalist for Filming a Public Hearing: (story continues below)


"Gasland" received strong critical acclaim and takes a critical eye toward the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," a process in which several tons of highly pressurized water and chemicals are injected into the ground, allowing valuable natural gas to escape. The practice is decried by ecological experts for destroying ecosystems and polluting groundwater. The energy industry keeps the actual content of fracking chemicals secret.

Fox had hoped to film Wednesday's hearing for a follow-up to "Gasland." Fox told HuffPost later Wednesday evening, "We did get his staff on the phone, they never returned the phone call," referring to staffers for Chairman Harris. "This is not transparency. This is a lockout and it's bad. It's the people's House, after all. We went through the proper channels to arrange to tape this hearing. We have taped congressional hearings before and we've been turned down before, but I disagree with the policy. Anyone who says they're a journalist is a journalist. It's called the First Amendment. It's the freedom of the press, and that is fundamental to our core identity as the United States of America."

Hearings are open to the public, and any citizen can attend. Regulations only govern the use of cameras. Even under an extreme adherence to the rules, Fox's camera could have been confiscated or disabled without subjecting him to arrest. And while Fox did not have formal Capitol Hill credentials, such formalities are rarely enforced against high-profile journalists. Temporary passes are easy to obtain, and if Republicans had objected on procedural grounds, they could have simply sent the crew to the front desk, rather than ordering police to arrest journalists. The right to a free press is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Documentary crews are almost never denied access to public meetings of elected government officials.

UPDATE: 12:09 p.m. -- Capitol Police public information officer Sergeant Kimberly Schneider provided the following statement to HuffPost on the morning's events:

"At approximately 10:30 a.m. today, United States Capitol Police arrested Joshua Fox of Milanville, Pa. in room 2318 of the Rayburn House office building. He is charged with unlawful entry, and he is currently being processed at United States Capitol Police headquarters."

UPDATE: 2:27 p.m. -- Fox apparently had applied for credentialing the day before the hearing but had been unable to obtain official permission to film. He had asked a credentialed film crew to tape the proceedings on his behalf but was informed that this was not permitted.

Nevertheless, turning away journalists is extremely rare on Capitol Hill. The rules requiring pre-approval for film crews are designed to prevent hearings from being disrupted by hordes of camera operators. That was not the case for this hearing. Only two cameras requested entrance to the event, which was not crowded.
Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris (R-Md.) was unavailable for comment, but several Democrats on the committee voiced outrage with the GOP's press blackout.

"I was chair of the Subcommittee for four years, and we frequently had people show up the day of a hearing to film," Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told HuffPost. "We asked for their name, but they were told if they would not disrupt the hearing, they were free to record. A couple of times staff said, 'You're getting in the way, don't stand there,' but other than that, I do not ever recall anything like this. We certainly never turned anyone away for not providing 24 hours' notice."

"It's an outrageous violation of the First Amendment," Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) told HuffPost. "Here we've got an Academy Award-nominated filmmaker, and it's an important subject and the subject that he did his prior film on for HBO. And they put him in handcuffs and hauled him out of there. This is stunning."

"I found it ironic that there was not a flood of cameras there," noted Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.). "There was the one camera and then before that, the ABC camera ... if you have a camera there to bring the issue home to the public, that's a good thing."

The hearing was already being filmed by C-SPAN. Josh Fox had only sought to obtain higher-quality video by bringing their own cameras to the event. Democrats attempted to suspend the rules governing camerawork to allow Fox and ABC to film the hearing, but Republicans, who hold a majority on all House committees and subcommittees, voted down the motion. Democrats then sought to postpone the hearing to allow for filming at a later date, a motion which Republicans also overruled.

UPDATE: 3:45 p.m. -- Republican staffers told Democrats that a crew for ABC News had also been denied access to the event, but ABC News told HuffPost that their organization did not have any journalists assigned to cover the hearing. It is not clear what caused the confusion.

"We definitely did not have a crew on the Hill this morning to cover this hearing," an ABC News spokeswoman told HuffPost. "The individual who was turned away absolutely did not have ABC news credentials."

UPDATE: 4:45 p.m. -- Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) told HuffPost, “I have served in the House of Representatives since 1992, and I had the privilege of chairing the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. In all that time, I cannot recall a chair of any committee or subcommittee having ever ordered the removal of a person who was filming a committee proceeding and not being disruptive, whether or not that person was accredited. It is a matter of routine that all sorts of people photograph and record our proceedings. Most of them are not accredited. I cannot recall anyone questioning their right to be there."

Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the ACLU in Washington, explained that "congressional committees routinely allow professional journalists to record hearings even when they don't have official press credentials, and excluding a journalist because he doesn't share the political views of the committee chair is outrageous. The Supreme Court has explained many times that censorship based on viewpoint is the clearest kind of First Amendment violation, and that seems to be what happened here."
Josh Fox, meanwhile, has issued the following statement to the press:
I was arrested today for exercising my First Amendment rights to freedom of the press on Capitol Hill. I was not expecting to be arrested for practicing journalism. Today's hearing in the House Energy and Environment subcommittee was called to examine EPAs findings that hydraulic fracturing fluids had contaminated groundwater in the town of Pavillion, Wyoming. I have a long history with the town of Pavillion and its residents who have maintained since 2008 that fracking has contaminated their water supply. I featured the stories of residents John Fenton, Louis Meeks and Jeff Locker in GASLAND and I have continued to document the catastrophic water contamination in Pavillion for the upcoming sequel GASLAND 2. It would seem that the Republican leadership was using this hearing to attack the three year Region 8 EPA investigation involving hundreds of samples and extensive water testing which ruled that Pavillion's groundwater was a health hazard, contaminated by benzene at 50x the safe level and numerous other contaminants associated with gas drilling. Most importantly, EPA stated in this case that fracking was the likely cause.
As a filmmaker and journalist I have covered hundreds of public hearings, including Congressional hearings. It is my understanding that public speech is allowed to be filmed. Congress should be no exception. No one on Capitol Hill should regard themselves exempt from the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states explicitly "Congress shall make no law...that infringes on the Freedom of the Press". Which means that no subcommittee rule or regulation should prohibit a respectful journalist or citizen from recording a public hearing.
This was an act of civil disobedience, yes done in an impromptu fashion, but at the moment when they told me to turn off the cameras, I could not. I know my rights and I felt it was imperative to exercise them.
When I was led out of the hearing room in handcuffs, John Boehner's pledge of transparency in congress was taken out with me.
The people of Pavillion deserve better. The thousands across the US who have documented cases of water contamination in fracking areas deserve their own hearing on Capitol hill. They deserve the chance to testify in before Congress. The truth that fracking contaminates groundwater is out, and no amount of intimidation tactics --either outright challenges to science or the arrest of journalists --will put the genie back in the bottle. Such a brazen attempt to discredit and silence the EPA, the citizens of Pavillion and documentary filmmaking will ultimately fail and it is an affront to the health and integrity of Americans.

Lastly, in defense of my profession, I will state that many many Americans get their news from independent documentaries. The hill should immediately move to make hearings and meetings accessible to independent journalists and not further obstruct the truth from being reported in the vivid and in depth manner that is only achievable through long form documentary filmmaking.
I will be thinking on this event further and will post further thoughts and developments.
I have been charged with "unlawful entry" and my court date is February 15.
Josh Fox
Washington D.C.
2/1/12
This is a developing story. Check back with HuffPost for more.