Biden On ‘Big F—ing Deal’: Obama Loved It Republicans spent months griping about the size of the health care bill. Their talking points questioned how anybody could digest 2,700 pages. Vice President Joe…
Continuing their activism against health care reform, since the House passed its landmark legislation, Fox News and Fox Business Network have hosted at least nine interviews with Republican state attorneys general, giving them a platform to promote their efforts to overturn that legislation through the courts. Many legal scholars have disputed the primary claim of the attorneys general that the bill is unconstitutional because it requires people to have health insurance.
“Voice of the opposition” Fox gives platform to state AGs to declare health care reform unconstitutional
Doocy hosted Florida AG McCollum to say bill “violates the sovereignty of the Tenth Amendment.” On the March 23 edition of Fox & Friends, host Steve Doocy gave Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum to say that “mandating an individual to buy a health insurance policy and if they don’t they’re going to have to pay a fine or a tax, we believe that’s unconstitutional.” McCollum also claimed the mandate “violates the sovereignty in the Tenth Amendment.”
America’s Newsroom played clip of McCollum, hosted Texas AG Abbott to say if law is upheld, “there truly will be no limits to congressional power.” On the March 23 edition of America’s Newsroom, host Martha MacCallum played a clip of McCollum saying this law “manipulates the state in ways we can’t afford,” making the law a violation of the Tenth Amendment. MacCallum then hosted Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to say that “[n]ever before in American history has the Supreme Court upheld a situation where Congress forced Americans to buy a good or service.”
Van Susteren gave platform to Virginia AG to argue that state ban on individual mandates gives it standing to challenge law. On the March 22 edition of On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli was allowed a platform to argue that a new Virginia law that “blocks individual mandates for health care for Virginia citizens” should trump the new federal health care law because it “overreached the Commerce Clause.”
Van Susteren then gave South Carolina AG McMaster time to argue that “the Tenth Amendment expressly prohibits” an individual mandate for health insurance. After Cuccinelli’s interview, Van Susteren hosted South Carolina attorney General Henry McMaster to argue his point that the Tenth Amendment “expressly prohibits” an individual mandate for health insurance.
Fox Business’ Bulls & Bears hosts Cuccinelli to claim CRS said individual mandate “is clearly the most constitutionally questionable part of this legislation.” On the March 22 edition of Fox Business’ Bulls & Bears, Cuccinelli stated that the Senate Finance Committee had “sufficient doubts about the constitutionality of their own bill,” that they sought the opinion of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to determine if the individual mandate was constitutional, and that the CRS report said the individual mandate is “the most constitutionally questionable part of this legislation, and we agree.”
Fox Business has on Abbott who claims that next, Congress may “order all Americans” to buy electric cars from GM. On the March 22 edition of Fox Business’ First on Fox Business, Greg Abbott was allowed time to claim that if this law was “not challenged and overturned, there will be no limits to what Congress can do in forcing Americans to buy goods or services.” Abbott warned that next, “instead of Cash for Clunkers, Congress could order all Americans to go out and buy an electric motorized vehicle from General Motors”:
ABBOTT: This individual mandate aspect of this law is the first time that Congress has ordered all Americans to purchase a good or service as a mere fact of being a resident of the United States. That violates the United States Constitution. It assumes for Congress powers which they do not have. If this bill is not challenged and overturned in court, there will be no limits to what Congress can do in forcing Americans to buy goods or services. As just one more example, instead of Cash for Clunkers, Congress could order all Americans to go out and buy an electric motorized vehicle from General Motors to help stave off the financial troubles that General Motors may have.
Gallagher hosted McMaster to declare the law “off-the-scale unconstitutional.” Noting that McMaster was also running for governor in South Carolina, host Trace Gallagher allowed McMaster to assert that the individual mandate is “off-the-scale unconstitutional.”
Van Susteren hosted McCollum, who called mandate unconstitutional. On the March 23 edition of On the Record, Van Susteren allowed McCollum time to argue that “it is unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate or require somebody to buy health insurance. You do not have an elastic Commerce Clause.”
Van Susteren then hosted Nebraska AG, who claimed that the issue was “whether or not Congress has unlimited power.” Immediately following McCollum’s appearance, Van Susteren hosted Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, who said he expects the case to go to the Supreme Court, which will decide “whether or not Congress has this unlimited power under the Commerce Clause. We think the commerce Clause has limits. … This bill punishes inactivity.”
Conservative legal scholars, other experts says bill is constitutional
Conservative law professor Adler: Supreme Court precedent would support constitutionality of mandate as part of “overarching regulatory scheme.” In an August 22, 2009, blog post, Case Western Reserve Law professor Jonathan Adler stated that while he opposed Democratic health reform efforts, he could not support the argument that “neither the power to ‘regulate commerce among the several states’ nor the taxing and spending power could support” the health insurance mandate. He wrote:
As much as I oppose the various health care reforms promoted by the Obama Administration and current Congressional leadership (and as much as I would like to see a more restrictive commerce clause jurisprudence), I do not find this argument particularly convincing. While I agree that the recent commerce clause cases hold that Congress may not regulate noneconomic activity, as such, they also state that Congress may reach otherwise unregulable conduct as part of an overarching regulatory scheme, where the regulation of such conduct is necessary and proper to the success of such scheme. In this case, the overall scheme would involve the regulation of “commerce” as the Supreme Court has defined it for several decades, as it would involve the regulation of health care markets. And the success of such a regulatory scheme would depend upon requiring all to participate. (Among other things, if health care reform requires insurers to issue insurance to all comers, and prohibits refusals for pre-existing conditions, then a mandate is necessary to prevent opportunistic behavior by individuals who simply wait to purchase insurance until they get sick.)
Adler is a contributing editor at National Review Online, a member of and has been honored by the Federalist Society, has worked for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and is a member of the Cato Institute’s Supreme Court Review Academic Advisory Board.
Opponent of individual mandate Kerr: “I would expect a 9-0 (or possibly 8-1) vote to uphold the individual mandate.” In a blog post, George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, who served as a special counsel to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) during Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation proceedings, stated:
In my view, there is a less than 1% chance that courts will invalidate the individual mandate as exceeding Congress’s Article I power. I tend to doubt the issue will get to the Supreme Court: The circuits will be splitless, I expect, and the Supreme Court will decline to hear the case. In the unlikely event a split arises and the Court does take it, I would expect a 9-0 (or possibly 8-1) vote to uphold the individual mandate.
Blogging about such issues tends to bring out some unhappy responses, so let me be clear about a few things: (a) I don’t like the individual mandate, (b) if I were a legislator, I wouldn’t have voted for it, (c) I don’t like modern commerce clause doctrine, (d) if I were magically made a Supreme Court Justice in the mid 20th century, I wouldn’t have supported the expansion of the commerce clause so that it covers, well, pretty much everything, (e) I agree that the individual mandate exceeds an originalist understanding of the Commerce Clause, and (f) I agree that legislators and the public are free to interpret the Constitution differently than the courts and to vote against (or ask their legislator to vote against) the legislation on that basis.
But with all of these caveats, I’ll stand by my prediction.
CRS: “[I]t seems possible that Congress could enact an individual coverage requirement that would pass constitutional muster.” In a July 24, 2009, report that analyzed a hypothetical mandate, not any specific proposal, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service stated in the report’s summary: “While it seems possible that Congress could enact an individual coverage requirement that would pass constitutional muster, there are various constitutional considerations relevant to the enactment of such a proposal.” Later, the CRS report stated: “While there is no specific enumerated power to regulate health care or establish an individual coverage requirement, one can look to Congress’s other broad enumerated powers which have been used to justify social programs in the past. In the instant case, both Congress’s taxing and spending power, as well as its power to regulate interstate commerce, could be applicable.” The report further found that “if Congress chose to require individuals to have health insurance by levying a tax, then using the revenue for funding health benefits” — which the bill signed into law does — “this could be viewed as an appropriate use of Congress’s taxing and spending power.”
Cornell law professor Dorf rejects both “libertarian” and “federalism” objections to mandate. In a November 2 FindLaw.com article, Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorfwrote that he “rejected” what he described as the “libertarian” “objection that an individual mandate would be an unprecedented burden on liberty because it would affirmatively direct conduct, rather than either forbidding conduct or imposing affirmative obligations on only those who engage in conduct that the government has the power to forbid.” He added that “there are substantial precedents for such affirmative obligations and even if there were not, there is no reason in principle why an affirmative duty is a greater restriction on liberty than a prohibition or condition.” He also assessed the “federalism objection” to the mandate’s constitutionality. Dorf noted that there “is nothing in the text or history of the Constitution to support” the conclusion that the Constitution forbids Congress from mandating that individuals engage in market activity. Dorf then cited the landmark 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland case, which states: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” Dorf also wrote that “the individual mandate is ‘plainly adapted’ to the undoubtedly legitimate end of regulating the enormous and enormously important health-care sector of the national economy. It is therefore constitutional.”
UC Irvine dean Chemerinsky: Constitutionality of reform proposal, including mandate, supported by “unbroken line of precedents stretching back 70 years.” In an October 23, 2009, Politicopiece, University of California-Irvine dean Erwin Chemerinsky stated, “Under an unbroken line of precedents stretching back 70 years, Congress has the power to regulate activities that, taken cumulatively, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” Chemerinsky further stated:
Those opposing health care reform are increasingly relying on an argument that has no legal merit: that the health care reform legislation would be unconstitutional. There is, of course, much to debate about how to best reform America’s health care system. But there is no doubt that bills passed by House and Senate committees are constitutional.
Some who object to the health care proposals claim that they are beyond the scope of congressional powers. Specifically, they argue that Congress lacks the authority to compel people to purchase health insurance or pay a tax or a fine.
Congress clearly could do this under its power pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate commerce among the states. The Supreme Court has held that this includes authority to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In the area of economic activities, “substantial effect” can be found based on the cumulative impact of the activity across the country. For example, a few years ago, the Supreme Court held that Congress could use its commerce clause authority to prohibit individuals from cultivating and possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal medicinal use because marijuana is bought and sold in interstate commerce.
Wake Forest law professor Hall says mandate falls within Congress’ regulatory and taxing powers. In an August 2009 blog post, Wake Forest law professor Mark Hall wrote that “Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy. Health insurance is quintessentially an economic good.” He further stated that “even if a simple mandate were not a valid “regulation,” it still could fall easily within Congress’s plenary power to tax or not tax income.”
Fordham law school dean Treanor: Mandate consistent “with well-established precedent that runs back more than 70 years.” NPR reported:
But William Treanor, the dean of Fordham University’s law school, said he’s confident an individual mandate would be held constitutional if it went to the Supreme Court. Treanor said the mandate to buy health insurance would be seen by the high court as part of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.
“The view that it’s not consistent with the enumerated powers is at odds with well-established precedent that runs back more than 70 years,” he said. “I think this is very clearly something that Congress can do under the commerce clause power.”
John Marshall Law professor Schwinn: Mandate “all too squarely falls within the recent and settled jurisprudence.” In a September 25 blog post, John Marshall Law School professor Steven Schwinn concluded that “the individual mandate all too squarely falls within the recent and settled jurisprudence,” writing that “an individual mandate is almost certainly the kind of economic activity that the Court would uphold under Congress’s Commerce Clause authority” based on recent claims that “allow Congress to regulate activities that have a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce.”
Yale law professor Amar reportedly says mandate enforces through taxation would be an exercise of “fundamental constitutional power.” NPR further reported: “Yale legal scholar Akhil Amar said the fact that a requirement to buy health insurance would be enforced through fines shows Congress is exercising an even more fundamental constitutional power: its power to impose taxes. Amar says courts should not be concerned that such a mandate has not been used before. ‘There’s a first time for everything. Before there was a federal bank, there was no federal bank; before there was a Social Security Administration, there was no Social Security Administration,’ Amar said. ‘Have we ever had a law just like this before? No. That’s why it’s being proposed. That’s true of many laws.’”
UC-Hastings law professor Massey: Mandate constitutional as part of regulation of health care market. In an August 23, 2009, blog post, University of California-Hastings law professor Calvin Massey cited Adler’s blog post, writing: “after Gonzales v. Raich the commerce power permits regulation of activities that, standing alone, might not be permissible but which are subject to regulation because their regulation is necessary and proper to the accomplishment of a valid larger regulatory scheme. No doubt Congress may regulate the market of health care insurance and requiring everybody to buy insurance is necessary and proper to the accomplishment of the scheme. As Adler notes, if insurers must insure all comers it is necessary and proper to require people to buy insurance before they are ill.”
Yale Law professor Balkin: Supreme Court “would have to reject decades of precedents” to find mandate unconstitutional. In a February 11 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Yale law professor Jack Balkin stated that passage of an individual mandate would be constitutional under both the General Welfare Clause relating to Congress’ taxing power and the Commerce Clause. He concluded: “Although opponents will challenge the individual mandate in court, constitutional challenges are unlikely to succeed. The Supreme Court will probably not even consider the issue unless a federal court of appeals strikes the tax down. In that unlikely event, the Supreme Court will almost certainly uphold the tax, at least if it follows existing law. To strike down the individual mandate, it would have to reject decades of precedents. It is very unlikely that there are five votes on the current Court for staging such a constitutional revolution.”
NSCLC’s Lazarus: Arguments that individual mandate is unconstitutional “have no basis in law.” In a December 2009 paper for the American Constitution Society, National Senior Citizen Law Center public policy counsel Simon Lazarus stated that arguments that the individual mandate is unconstitutional “have no basis in law, neither in the grants of authority to Congress in Article I nor in limitations on that authority in the Bill of Rights, nor in the case law interpreting these provisions. Opponents’ real grievance is with the law in its current state. Their hope is that a majority of the Supreme Court will seize on a challenge to mandatory health insurance as an occasion to make major changes in current law.” Lazarus argued that an individual mandate constituted a regulation of interstate commerce. But he noted that, even if the courts were to disagree, in a concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.”
Fox News conducted open activism against reform throughout legislative process
During the debate over health care reform, Fox News openly advocated against the Democrats’ efforts. In addition to routinely misinforming viewers, Fox News hosts, reporters, and contributors announced their opposition to reform; urged viewers to tell congressmembers to “vote no”; pushed anti-reform protests; and solicited donations for ads opposing reform and for Republicans opposing pro-reform Democrats.
GOP’s Split-Personality is Going to Tear Them Apart “Federal Govt. Involved in Raids on [RNC] Protestors” – Glenn Greenwald, Aug. 31, 2008, Salon.com “Framing the RNC 8″ – Sam Stoker, In These Times, Oct. 8, 2008 “Meet the RNC Eight: Are They Terrorists?” – Sharon Schmickle, MinnPost.com, April 6, 2009
House Will Have to Vote Again Senate Democrats “defeated 29 straight Republican amendments to the Democratic healthcare reconciliation bill before losing a key parliamentary ruling in Thursday’s early hours that will force the legislation back to the House of Representatives,” The Hill reports.
“The Senate adjourned at 3 a.m., and is scheduled to reconvene at 9:45 a.m. Thursday and continue debating amendments until a final vote at 2 p.m.; attention would be turned to points-of-order objections, with Republicans eyeing up to three possible parliamentary violations in the bill. If final passage is approved, the bill would then go to the House; final passage there would send the bill to President Barack Obama for his signature.”
New York Times: “The successful parliamentary challenge did not appear to endanger the eventual adoption of the changes to the health care legislation.”
Fiorina leads Campbell, 24% to 23%, with Chuck DeVore way back at 8%.
However, the poll also brings more bad news for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA). “Much like last week’s Field Poll, Boxer continues to bleed voters, particularly independents, as she’s in a dead heat with her GOP rivals, counting for the margin of error.”
Cambell edges Boxer, 44% to 43%, while Boxer inches ahead of Fiorina, 44% to 43%.
Will Democrats Now Try to Include Public Option? Now that a parliamentary ruling forces House Democrats to vote again on fixes to the health care bill, the Senate could possibly add additional fixes to the bill — including a public option.
Huffington Post: “Democratic leadership no longer has to worry that additional amendments would send it back to the House, since it must return to the lower chamber regardless. The Senate is now free to put to the test that much-debated question of whether 50 votes exist for a public option. Democrats could also elect to expand Medicare or Medicaid, now that they only need 50 votes in the Senate and the approval of the House.”
The survey found that 49% of American voters disapprove of the health care reform, down from 54% before the vote. In addition, 51% say that the proposed action by several state attorneys general to block the health care overhaul is a “bad idea.”
Said pollster Peter Brown: “It may be that passage of health care eventually helps President Barack Obama’s approval ratings, but at this point there’s no sign of that. The White House believes that now that the legislation has been signed into law they can sell it to the American people. Approval of health care reform is growing – or disapproval is shrinking – but the President still has his work cut out for him.”
Will Americans Reject the Party of "Hell No?" Most Americans are only beginning to sense just how unified the Republican minority has been in obstruction. It’s dubious that this is a winning political strategy.
Most Americans are only beginning to sense just how unified the Republican minority has been in obstruction. It's dubious that this is a winning political strategy.
The winner of the second annual Izzy Award, named after muckraking journalist I.F. Stone, discusses independent media and this critical moment in journalism.
Party of No Class Here are a bunch of Republican Congressmen yesterday egging on their Teabagger supporters from the House Balcony. These guys have as much class as a convention of Used Car salesmen. The day’s debate on the House floor was in its…
On Monday, Lynchburg Tea Party member Mike Troxel posted what he believed to be the home address of Rep. Tom Periello (D-VA), encouraging people to drop by for a “good face-to-face chat”:
Just in case any of his friends and neighbors want to drop by and say hi and express their thanks regarding his vote for healthcare. I personally believe it’s so important for representatives to remain fully grounded and to remember exactly what it is their constituents are saying and how they are telling them to vote. Nothing quite does that like a good face-to-face chat. It has a much more personal touch to it.
As Politico explained, the address Troxel posted was actually the address of Periello’s brother, who lives with his wife and four children under the age of eight. “If they [Periello’s staff] would like to provide me with the address of Tom, then I’d be more than happy to take it down,” he said. “I have no reason to believe it’s not his house.”
However, yesterday, after receiving evidence from a commenter that the address did indeed belong to Periello’s brother, Troxel erased it, even though he didn’t yet have the congressman’s address. (The site is currently down because the “bandwidth limit” has been exceeded.)
ThinkProgress spoke to Troxel yesterday, who said he would “probably” still post Periello’s address if he found it. “The bottom line is that his offices wouldn’t answer phone calls, they wouldn’t return e-mails to his constituents, and as an elected official, he’s responsible to the people he represents,” said Troxel, pointing out that people also picketed President Bush’s ranch in Texas.
We also contacted Nigel Coleman, leader of the nearby Danville Tea Party in Virginia. In the past, Coleman gained attention for his group’s plan to burn Periello and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in effigy, although the stunt was eventually canceled. Coleman said that he knew Troxel and had no problem with the posting of Periello’s home address. “There’s an assumption that we’re a violent group of people and we’d do something bad to the man,” he said. “We’re just trying to get heard.” The Danville News reported that Coleman also posted the address to his Facebook page, and when told it was actually the brother’s address, he replied, “Oh well, collateral damage.” (He later removed the post and said his comments were “in poor taste.”)
Another Tea Party member who approves of what Troxel is doing is Kurt Feigel, who “who frequently works and communicates with Troxel and runs a companion blog.” He told ThinkProgress yesterday that he had no problem with posting lawmaker’s home addresses. Feigel has posted YouTube videos advocating people to send “traitor” lawmakers ropes and stock up on guns and ammunition in case the political situation in this country gets too bad. Watch a compilation:
The FBI is now investigating an “incident” that occurred at the home of Periello’s brother. “This is very preliminary at this point, so we’re not making any comment at this time,” a local FBI spokesman told Politico.
ThinkProgress contacted the offices of several GOP Republican and conservative officials, as well as state Sen. Robert Hurt, who is running against Periello. None of them responded to our requests for comment.
United States and Russia reach nuclear-arms deal The United States and Russia have reached a deal on their most extensive nuclear arms-control agreement in nearly two decades, the Kremlin announced Wednesday. The pact appeared to represent President Obama’s first victory in his ambitious agenda to move toward a nuclear-free world.
Obama urges Democrats to make hard push on financial regulation President Obama and Democratic lawmakers moved Wednesday to accelerate their efforts at overhauling the nation’s financial regulation, seeking to exploit divisions among Republicans over how much to compromise on a landmark bill now awaiting Senate action.
Visa denial was reversed for terrorism suspect in 2004 A U.S. consular official originally denied terrorism suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab a visa to enter the United States in 2004 after finding false information on his application, but that official was overruled by a supervisor, according to senior government sources.
Last Supper Has Grown Over 1,000 Years “We took the 52 most famous paintings of the Last Supper (from the book Last Supper) and analyzed the size of the entrees, bread and plates, relative to the average size of the average head in the painting,” said food researcher Brian Wansink of Cornell. The size of the entrees in paintings of the Last Supper, which according to the New Testament occurred during a Passover evening, has progressively grown 69 percent; plate size has increased 66 percent and bread size by about 23 percent, over the past 1,000 years.
Noam Chomsky Edition The water disaster that could destroy California, how much NATO pays for dead Afghan children and answers to frequently asked questions about health care reform. On a regular basis, Truthdig brings you the news items and odds and ends that found their way to Larry Gross, director of the USC Annenberg School for Communication. A specialist in media and culture, art and communication, visual communication and media portrayals of minorities, Gross helped found the field of gay and lesbian studies. The links below open in a new window. Newer ones are on top. Militarizing Latin America The United States was founded as an “infant empire,” in George Washington’s words. Health Care Reform FAQ Can Republicans really repeal it? Does it violate the 10th Amendment? How, exactly, does it reduce the deficit? NATO’s Fire Sale – One Dead Afghan Child, $2,000 The family were offered “American compensation” – $2,000 for each of the victims. “There’s no value on human life,” said Bibi Sabsparie, mother of two of the dead. “They killed our family, then they came and brought us money. Money won’t bring our family back.” SALVADORE ALLENDE’S INTERNET Cybersyn(or Synco, in Spanish) was computer network constructed in 1970 by an English/Chilean team headed by cyberneticist Stafford Beer (his papers). The Museum of Bad Art The pieces in the MOBA collection range from the work of talented artists that have gone awry to works of exuberant, although crude, execution by artists barely in control of the brush. What they all have in common is a special quality that sets them apart in one way or another from the merely incompetent. The GOP’s newfound love of public opinion One Republican leader after the next stood up yesterday to depict the health care bill as a grave threat to democracy because it was enacted in the face of disapproval from a majority of Americans. The creepy tyranny of Canada’s hate speech laws The far-right hatemonger Ann Coulter was invited by a campus conservative group to speak at the University of Ottawa, and the Vice Provost of that college sent Coulter a letter warning her that she may be subject to criminal prosecution if the views she expresses fall into the realm of prohibited viewpoints. … Old-school architect creates an iOpener A taxi pulled up to Apple’s Fifth Avenue store one recent morning, and while the meter was running a pair of tourists dashed out to have their photos taken near the entrance, a glass cube of such incorporeal lightness that it seems in danger of floating away. Uri Avnery: The Doomsday Weapon IT IS already a commonplace to say that people who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat their mistakes. The Looming Water Disaster That Could Destroy California, and Enrich Its Billionaire Farmers There’s a disaster waiting to happen in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and a handful of wealthy farmers seem to like it that way.
The water disaster that could destroy California, how much NATO pays for dead Afghan children and answers to frequently asked questions about health care reform.
On a regular basis, Truthdig brings you the news items and odds and ends that found their way to Larry Gross, director of the USC Annenberg School for Communication. A specialist in media and culture, art and communication, visual communication and media portrayals of minorities, Gross helped found the field of gay and lesbian studies.
The links below open in a new window. Newer ones are on top.
Militarizing Latin America The United States was founded as an “infant empire,” in George Washington’s words.
Health Care Reform FAQ Can Republicans really repeal it? Does it violate the 10th Amendment? How, exactly, does it reduce the deficit?
NATO’s Fire Sale – One Dead Afghan Child, $2,000 The family were offered “American compensation” – $2,000 for each of the victims. “There’s no value on human life,” said Bibi Sabsparie, mother of two of the dead. “They killed our family, then they came and brought us money. Money won’t bring our family back.”
SALVADORE ALLENDE’S INTERNET Cybersyn(or Synco, in Spanish) was computer network constructed in 1970 by an English/Chilean team headed by cyberneticist Stafford Beer (his papers).
The Museum of Bad Art The pieces in the MOBA collection range from the work of talented artists that have gone awry to works of exuberant, although crude, execution by artists barely in control of the brush. What they all have in common is a special quality that sets them apart in one way or another from the merely incompetent.
The GOP’s newfound love of public opinion One Republican leader after the next stood up yesterday to depict the health care bill as a grave threat to democracy because it was enacted in the face of disapproval from a majority of Americans.
The creepy tyranny of Canada’s hate speech laws The far-right hatemonger Ann Coulter was invited by a campus conservative group to speak at the University of Ottawa, and the Vice Provost of that college sent Coulter a letter warning her that she may be subject to criminal prosecution if the views she expresses fall into the realm of prohibited viewpoints. …
Old-school architect creates an iOpener A taxi pulled up to Apple’s Fifth Avenue store one recent morning, and while the meter was running a pair of tourists dashed out to have their photos taken near the entrance, a glass cube of such incorporeal lightness that it seems in danger of floating away.
Uri Avnery: The Doomsday Weapon IT IS already a commonplace to say that people who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat their mistakes.
Obama’s Bad Prescription for Indonesia The White House is engaged in fierce behind-the-scenes negotiations with Congress on whether to restore aid to the Indonesian military, which has a habit of committing atrocities. By Amy Goodman
The White House is engaged in fierce behind-the-scenes negotiations with Congress on whether to restore aid to the Indonesian military, which has a habit of committing atrocities.
Glenn Beck distorted comments made by Rev. Jim Wallis to claim they were proof he is a “Marxist” who “claims the gospel of Jesus Christ is about a central government taking money from individuals and then distributing it.” However, in the interview Beck selectively clipped, Wallis actually discussed individuals who “transformed” their lives to focus on charity, highlighting how Bill and Melinda Gates have been “doing a redistribution of wealth” through their philanthropy.
Beck claims clip of 2006 interview proves Wallis is a “Marxist”
Beck says Wallis “claims the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about a central government taking money from individuals and then distributing it.” On his Fox News show, Beck stated that Wallis, a spiritual adviser to President Obama, “is a blatant redistribution-of-wealth advocate, a Marxist.” After stating, “Let’s take his words for it,” Beck played an audio clip of comments Wallis made on the January 13, 2006, radio show Interfaith Voices. After host Maureen Fiedler asked Wallis, “Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in society?” Wallis replied, “Absolutely. Without any hesitation. That’s what the Gospel is all about.” Beck then stated:
BECK: The redistribution of wealth is what the Gospel’s all about. He claims that the gospel of Jesus Christ is about a central government taking money from individuals and then distributing it the way they see fit. Christians, you know better than that. You know better than that. Reverend Wallis, we know who’s distorting the Gospel here. We know that Jesus’ message was about choice. And if you’re going to a church that has social justice, which means “I choose, with my church, to go out and make a difference,” that’s a different thing than what you’re preaching. You have a responsibility — if you have extra, the Lord does say you have a responsibility to choose to help the poor. You remember what he said about the rich people? They’ll have a harder time getting into heaven than a camel going through the needle of — or the eye of a needle. You see, he is the arbiter of justice. [Fox News’ Glenn Beck, 3/23/10]
Wallis actually discussed how individuals have “transformed” their lives to focus on charity
Wallis highlights people “changing their lifestyle and their priorities” and a “redistribution of wealth” through Bill and Melinda Gates’ philanthropy. In the portion of the interview selectively clipped by Beck, Wallis did not say that “the gospel of Jesus Christ is about central government taking money from individuals and then distributing it.” Responding to Fielder’s question, “Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth?” Wallis stated, “Absolutely. Without any hesitation. That’s what the Gospel is all about,” and explained, “It’s about the rich moving into solidarity and a relationship with people who have been left out and left behind.” Wallis added, “I see it all the time where people from middle-class backgrounds are having their lives transformed by their encounter with the poor in their neighborhoods or across the world and changing their lifestyle and their priorities because of that.”
From Wallis’ interview on Interfaith Voices with Fiedler (around the 6:10 mark):
WALLIS: I think an affluent church in a world where half of God’s children live on less than $2 a day is an affront to the Gospel. The Bible doesn’t mind prosperity as long as it is shared. But what the Bible doesn’t like is these tremendous gaps and chasms between the top and the bottom.
FIEDLER: Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in society?
WALLIS: Absolutely. Without any hesitation. That’s what the Gospel is all about. It’s about the rich moving into solidarity and a relationship with people who have been left out and left behind. The whole early church was those who were wealthy and those who were poor finding a new community. So, I see it all the time where people from middle-class backgrounds are having their lives transformed by their encounter with the poor in their neighborhoods or across the world and changing their lifestyle and their priorities because of that.
Wallis later used the philanthropy of Bill and Melinda Gates as an example of “a redistribution of wealth”:
WALLIS: I have a family, I have kids. I want them to be secure. I want them to have enough. And I want them to have all the good things of life. One of the things is a generous spirit. One of the things is to be in a relationship to people who have been left out. It changes us in all kinds of ways. On that cover of Time magazine also were Bill and Melinda Gates, who have made all this money and now are giving it away in very smart, strategic ways about world health and global poverty. So, Bill Gates has decided that he doesn’t just want to give all his money to his children. For him, the good life now, for he and his wife, means being a part of a process of changing things in the world. So they’re doing a redistribution of wealth.
Credit Card Firm: We Were Subpoenaed By Feds In Ensign Case eCommLink, the Nevada credit card company that reportedly contributed to the NRSC in exchange for help from Sen. John Ensign, has acknowledged that it was subpoenaed in the federal investigation.
ACLU Denies Lawbreaking In Case Of Photographed CIA Officers In a case that has all the ingredients to explode into a national controversy, Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed star prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate whether laws were broken after “paparazzi style” photographs of CIA officers were found in the cell of a Guantanamo inmate accused of financing the 9/11 attacks.
The real vulture that is Eric Massa Excerpt: Rep. Eric Massa’s resignation created a week-long media buzz earlier this month amid allegations of a homosexual harassment scandal. ABC news asked on their web site, “should we be digging deeper?” Yes, you should, U.S. corporate media. Instead of covering tabloid-like sex scandals 24/7, or trying to frame Massa’s resignation in the context of the health […]
Tea Party Could Hurt Republicans A new Quinnipiac poll finds Republicans leading the generic congressional ballot, 44% to 39%, but if there is a Tea Party candidate on the ballot, the Democrat would get 36% to the Republican’s 25%, with 15% for the Tea Party candidate.
Overall, the survey found that 13% of American voters consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement.
Said pollster Peter Brown: “The Tea Party could be a Republican dream — or a GOP nightmare. Members could be a boon to the GOP if they are energized to support Republican candidates. But if the Tea Party were to run its own candidates for office, any votes its candidate received would to a very great extent be coming from the GOP column.”
The complete poll will be released at a 10 a.m. press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C .
Scientists have begun speculating that the root cause of disease conditions such as migraines and irritable bowel syndrome may be endocannabinoid deficiency.
What’s in the Bill? The envelopes have been opened but the winners’ names have yet to be read. The big political stories are evident: Barack Obama corrected course. (Ceci Connolly in the WP today has interesting details.) Nancy Pelosi pulled out the stops. The…
AIPAC Leaves Town, But Who Are These People? (Revised) Yeah, yeah, I know I’m a “self-hating Jew.” Of course, by AIPAC’s standards the assimilated Theodor Herzl, who founded Zionism, was another SHJ. But, I’m not going to focus on the implications of being a SHJ, one who has been…
Lesbian Constance McMillen excluded from alternative prom organized by students? parents. Yesterday, Constance McMillen appeared in federal court and asked a judge to reinstate her school’s prom after administrators called it off when she challenged the ban on same-sex couples at the dance. “I feel like I had the right to go to the prom just like someone straight,” McMillen said. School officials have repeatedly […]
The school board’s response states parents have organized a private prom at a furniture mart in nearby Tupleo. […]
“Constance has not been invited, so it is clear to me that what is happening is that the school has encouraged a private prom that is not open to all the students,” she [ACLU attorney Christine Sun] said. “That’s what Constance is fighting for — a prom where everyone can go.”
McMillen said that when she returned to school after administrators had canceled the prom, she received some “some unfriendly looks from classmates,” and one student told her, “Thanks for ruining my senior year.” U.S. District Court Judge Glen Davidson “did not say when he would rule on the request for an injunction, but he acknowledged ‘time is of the essence.’”
Why George Washington would disagree with the right wing about health care?s constitutionality. Yesterday, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced that he would join a growing list of right-wing attorneys general who are suing to have health reform declared unconstitutional. According to Cuccinelli, the new law’s provisions that require individuals to carry health insurance violate the Constitution because “at no time in our history has the government mandated its […]
Yesterday, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced that he would join a growing list of right-wing attorneys general who are suing to have health reform declared unconstitutional. According to Cuccinelli, the new law’s provisions that require individuals to carry health insurance violate the Constitution because “at no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service.” The truth, however, is that the Second Militia Act of 1792, required a significant percentage of the U.S. civilian population to purchase a long list of military equipment:
[E]very citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
This Act became law only a few years after the Constitution was ratified, in President George Washington’s first term. Many of the Members of Congress who voted for the Act also were members of the Philadelphia Convention that wrote the Constitution. In other words, they probably knew a little bit more about the Constitution than Ken Cuccinelli.
Dispute with Israel underscores limits of U.S. power, a shifting alliance The two-week-old dispute between Israel and the United States over housing construction in East Jerusalem has exposed the limits of American power to pressure Israeli leaders to make decisions they consider politically untenable. But the blowup also shows that the relationship between the two allies is changing, in ways that are unsettling for Israel’s supporters.
Treasury secretary backs Fannie, Freddie reshaping Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner on Tuesday told a congressional panel considering the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that the Obama administration would seek to keep in place aspects of the housing-finance system that have worked well during the past few decades as it overhauls the parts that did not.
With Senate ‘fixes’ bill, GOP sees last chance to change health-care reform Hours after President Obama signed sweeping health-care legislation into law Tuesday, the Senate began a debate on another piece of the package, giving Republicans one last chance to alter the bill before it begins to transform insurance coverage for millions of Americans.
Clinton to AIPAC: ‘Status Quo Is Unsustainable’ in Middle East In a speech before members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that the Netanyahu government’s plan to construct new settlements in East Jerusalem “undermines mutual trust” between Israel and the U.S. This strain of admonition apparently hasn’t hit its intended audience with enough force to compel it to change its plans, however. —KA BBC: In her speech to a convention in Washington of the influential Aipac (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), Mrs Clinton underscored the Obama administration’s “rock solid” commitment to Israel. “Guaranteeing Israel’s security is more than a policy position for me. It is a personal commitment that will never waver,” she said. But, she added, it is Washington’s “responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it is needed”. Read more
In a speech before members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that the Netanyahu government’s plan to construct new settlements in East Jerusalem “undermines mutual trust” between Israel and the U.S. This strain of admonition apparently hasn’t hit its intended audience with enough force to compel it to change its plans, however. —KA
BBC:
In her speech to a convention in Washington of the influential Aipac (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), Mrs Clinton underscored the Obama administration’s “rock solid” commitment to Israel.
“Guaranteeing Israel’s security is more than a policy position for me. It is a personal commitment that will never waver,” she said.
But, she added, it is Washington’s “responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it is needed”.
Yesterday, Constance McMillen 
[E]very citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.