Subscribe to RSS Subscribe to Comments

Fold/Spindle/Mutilate 2.1


An Online Dowser and Filter Of Important Information


John Lewis Reunites With Former Racist Who Attacked Him In 1961

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and the white man who attacked him during a civil rights protest in 1961 came together to accept an award Thursday night.

Lewis and Elwin Wilson received the Common Ground award Thursday at the Canadian Embassy in Washington. The award honors outstanding accomplishments in conflict resolution, negotiation, community building, and peacebuilding.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Wilson was part of a mob that attacked Lewis and another Freedom Rider for entering the “Whites Only” waiting area of a bus station in Rock Hill, South Carolina in May 1961. He said he had wanted to apologize for years and was moved to do so by comments he read from black civil rights leaders about President Obama’s inauguration.

The former segregationist contacted local civil rights activists and realized that Lewis was the young man he had beaten. Wilson went to Lewis’s Capitol Hill office to apologize in January.

Both said at the time that they hoped their story would help others who took part in violence at the time to make amends.

“I said if just one person comes forward and gets the hate out of their heart, it’s all worth it,” Wilson told the AP. “But I hope there will be a bunch of people. Life’s short and we all go to the same place when we die.”

House Health Care Bill: A Death Sentence For My Fellow Breast Cancer Survivors

Jane Hamsher
Founder, FireDogLake.com

There was much celebration on Capitol Hill today with the announcement of the new House health care bill. For myself, as a three time breast cancer survivor, there was tremendous sadness and disappointment in the Speaker.

Nancy Pelosi made a choice with regard to the lifesaving biologic drugs I took when I was in chemotherapy that will cost many of my fellow breast cancer survivors everything they own, and quite possibly their lives.

Jeanne Sather is another breast cancer survivor. In 2007, she wrote on her blog The Assertive Patient:

I love Herceptin, a drug I have been getting to treat my metastatic breast cancer for more than five years now….The main reason I love Herceptin is that it is a targeted antibody, without the side effects of traditional cancer drugs: hair loss, fatigue, nausea, vomiting — you know the list.

The cost of Jeanne’s miracle “biologic” cancer drugs, Herceptin and Avastin, was $300,000 a year in 2006. By the time she switched to another biologic drug, Tykerb, she was within a few months of hitting her lifetime cap of $1 million:

Even with the help of a special state health insurance plan, the 53-year-old freelance writer is struggling to afford the expensive new drugs that are helping her in her battle.
“I’ve been borrowing against my house to make ends meet, and that can’t go on,” Sather says. “I’m so afraid these drugs will cost me my home.”

Jeanne fought. She and others went to the state capital and lobbied to have the cap raised.”Now I am safe for another few years,” she said.

But breast cancer survivors aren’t the only ones. Biologic drugs also treat rheumatoid arthritis:

Access was the issue for Theresa Manville, 61, of Bay Village, Ohio, who simply could not afford the rheumatoid arthritis drugs she needed. She was laid off from her job as a senior account manager at a public relations firm in 1992, and though she started her own company, she could not get private insurance because her arthritis was considered a preexisting condition.
“Today,” Manville says, “I’m on Medicare disability because I didn’t have these drugs and my RA progressed. My joints deteriorated. My hands are deformed. I used to be a runner, a softball player and scuba diver. Now I need special orthotics in my shoes just to walk. And I’m going to need replacement surgery in my right knee.

“Think of the pressure on the health care system, just from me,” Manville says. “If I’d had the drugs 10 years ago, I could be independent today. I might not even be on disability.”

Medical student Laura Musselwhite tells the story of a patient who was hospitalized with Crohn’s disease:

This patient required hospitalization for a flare that she attributed to not being able to afford the month’s Humira, a biologic medicine used to treat severe, active Crohn’s disease.
The drug is priced by Abbott Laboratories at a staggering $22,000 a year. This patient would clearly have benefited from the availability of an affordable, generic version.

But thanks to Representatives Anna Eshoo and Joe Barton, there will be no generic versions of these drugs. At least not for 12 years, if the House health care bill announced today passes.

And because of an “evergreening” clause that grants drug companies a continued monopoly if they make slight changes to the drug (like creating a once-a-day dose where the original product was three times per day), they will never become generics. Instead of the Waxman-Deal amendment that granted much more reasonable terms to biologic patent holders, Speaker Pelosi chose to include the Eshoo-Barton amendment. And we could all be paying for that choice for the rest of our lives.

Breast cancer boards are filled with women who have been turned down by their insurance companies for Herceptin because they only cover generic drugs, or because they only pay a portion of the $48,000 a year (or more) that the drug costs.

(Read the article)

Big Pharma Ready For “Hand To Hand Combat” To Defend White House Deal

Ryan Grim

The health care deal cut between the White House, the Senate Finance Committee and drug makers is destined for a showdown on the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been merging the two bills from the finance and health committees into one, in consultation with White House representatives and Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

Is the White House deal going to survive the merger process?

“The White House is in the room,” Baucus told HuffPost.

The White House, however, will not be on the Senate floor, and neither will PhRMA lobbyists. (They’ll be in the small room just off the floor.)

“I wasn’t a party to any deal,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), telling HuffPost that he is cobbling together support for amendments that would bust the Big Pharma deal by allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices and by limiting the amount of time biotech companies can have patent-protections.

The White House deal bars the government from negotiating drug prices, extends patent protections and blocks re-importing cheaper drugs from Canada.

Big Pharma’s ready for the fight to keep it. “At times, it’s going to be hand-to-hand combat,” said Ken Johnson, senior vice president for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). “We’re going to have some tough floor votes.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) is working with Brown to round up votes, but finds himself confused by the White House-PhRMA deal.

“It’s the deal that has no name,” Whitehouse told HuffPost Wednesday. “It’s been sort of a mystery to see how this is a sort-of-deal that no one acknowledges, yet everyone honors. So I’m hoping that we can get a more profound contribution [from PhRMA].”

The deal has indeed had an unusual history. It was announced in June, but details were withheld. When those details were reported over the summer, the parties to the deal said the deal that was outlined in a memo was not, in fact, the deal. Later, the deal was publicly debated and defended during the finance committee mark up. And the bill that Baucus unveiled contained the details of the deal that the parties had previously said had not been struck.

Drug makers, in their deal with Baucus and the White House, have offered to contribute $80 billion over ten years to the reform effort and $150 million to buy ads backing health care reform and Democratic candidates. Much of the contributions come in discounts to seniors for name-brand drugs. But drug makers set those prices to begin with. PhRMA argues that the drug industry is being squeezed dry and any more than $80 billion will cost jobs and potentially cost its support, PhRMA insists.

(Read the article)

Reid Punts On Insurance Industry Anti-Trust Exemption

Senate negotiators have decided not to include a provision revoking the insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption in the bill leadership sends to the floor, said two Democratic aides close to the merger talks. Instead, the measure will be offered as an amendment on the Senate floor.

The House health care bill, unveiled Thursday, includes a revocation of the exemption.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who makes the final decision on what goes into the bill, recently testified in favor of revoking the exemption.

Requiring insurers to follow anti-trust laws is broadly popular as a way to look tough battling the insurance industry. “I’m not here to defend the health insurance industry,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on Tuesday, while explaining why he opposed a public health insurance option. “I’m open to supporting the removal of the antitrust exemption for the insurance industry. I’m prepared to support it. I don’t want to be cute with my words. I will support it if it comes up.”

The 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act exempts the insurance industry from anti-trust laws.

The merged bill will, however, include a public option that will compete with private insurers.

Single Father Turned Away From Homeless Shelters

As part of its Bearing Witness 2.0 project, the Huffington Post is rounding up a few of the best local stories of the day.

Attila Streyar and his toddler daughter Layla are homeless reports Barbara Grijalva of Tucson’s KOLD News, and because he is a single father, Streyar had been turned away from several shelters. “I’m a single dad and I have this baby and we’ve fallen upon hard times,” he said through tears. “I needed some help, just to get shelter. There was no place in this town that I could find that takes care of men with children by themselves.”

Streyar found some assistance at the Primavera Foundation, which offers temporary housing, food and relief to struggling families. It operates the only local shelters that will accept single fathers, workers told KOLD. Primavera placed Streyar and his daughter in a motel it uses for temporary family housing.

*********

Police officers in Kingston, N.Y., are going door to door on their time off to fight impending layoffs, reports Adam Bosch of the Times Herald-Record. The city administration is looking to cut jobs because of budget deficit.

Residents have been eager to sign petitions; already over 1,600 have pledged their support, and the police expect to get 2,500 total signatures by the Nov. 5 budget hearing. “The idea of cutting police here is asinine,” said Corteckia Lightfoot, whose 16-year-old son was shot and killed in 2007. “You’ve got our backs; we’ve got your backs,” she told the cops.

*********

The state legislature in South Carolina acted Wednesday to send millions of dollars in benefits to the unemployed, reports Yvonne Wenger of the Post and Courier. The state legislature acted to correct an “oversight” that prevented the use of stimulus funds, Wenger reports, extending benefits for five months. About 113,000 residents have exhausted their benefits so far this year.

(Read the article)

America’s Drug Crisis, Brought to You by the CIA

By Dave Lindorff

Next time you see a junkie sprawled at the curb in the downtown of your nearest city, or read about someone who died of a heroin overdose, just imagine a big yellow sign posted next to him or her saying: “Your Federal Tax Dollars at Work.”

Kudos to The New York Times and to reporters Dexter Filkins, Mark Mazzetti, and James Risen for their lead article today [1] reporting that Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of Afghanistan’s stunningly corrupt President Hamid Karzai, a leading drug lord in the world’s major opium-producing nation, has for eight years been on the CIA payroll.

Okay, the article was lacking much historical perspective (more on that later), and the dead hand of top editors was evident in the overly cautious tone (I loved the third paragraph, which stated that “The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raises significant questions about America’s war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House.” Well, duh! It should be raising questions about why we are even in Afghanistan, about who should be going to jail at the CIA, and about how can the government explain this to the over 1,000 soldiers and Marines who have died supposedly helping to build a new Afghanistan). But that said, the newspaper that helped cheerlead us into the pointless and criminal Iraq invasion in 2003, and that prevented journalist Risen from running his exposé of the Bush/Cheney administration’s massive warrantless National Security Agency electronic spying operation until after the 2004 presidential election, this time gave a critically important story full play, and even, appropriately, included a teaser in the same front-page story about October being the most deadly month yet for the U.S. in Afghanistan.

What the article didn’t mention at all is that there is a clear historical pattern here. During the Vietnam War, the CIA, and its Air America airline front-company, were neck deep in the Southeast Asian heroin trade. At the time, it was Southeast Asia, not Afghanistan, that was the leading producer and exporter of opium, mostly to the U.S., where there was a heroin epidemic.

A decade later, in the 1980s, during the Reagan Administration, as the late investigative journalist Gary Webb so brilliantly documented first in a series titled “Dark Alliance” in the San Jose Mercury News, and later in a book by that same name, the CIA was deeply involved in the development of and smuggling of cocaine into the U.S., which was soon engulfed in a crack cocaine epidemic — one that continues to destroy African American and other poor communities across the country. (The Times role here was sordid — it and other leading papers, including The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times — did despicable hit pieces on Webb shamelessly trashing his work and his career, and ultimately driving him to suicide, though his facts have held up.) In this case, Webb showed that the Agency was actually using the drugs as a way to fund arms, which it could use its own planes to ferry down to the Contra forces it was backing to subvert the Sandinista government in Nicaragua at a time Congress had barred the U.S. from supporting the Contras.

And now we have Afghanistan, once a sleepy backwater of the world with little connection to drugs (the Taliban, before their overthrow by U.S. forces in 2001, had, according to the UN, virtually eliminated opium production there), but now responsible for as much as 80 percent of the world’s opium production — this at a time that the U.S. effectively finances and runs the place, with an occupying army that, together with Afghan government forces that it controls, outnumbers the Taliban 12-1, according to a recent AP story [2].

The real story here is that where the U.S. goes, the drug trade soon follows, and the leading role in developing and nurturing that trade appears to be played by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Your tax dollars at work.

(Read the article)

Electric-Car Companies Grab U.S. Cash to Blunt Risks

By Jeff Green and Alan Ohnsman

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) — Electric-car makers ranging from Ford Motor Co. to California startups are using $11 billion in taxpayer funds to supply a market that doesn’t yet exist.

Fisker Automotive Inc., backed by a $528.7 million U.S. loan, said today it will join the rush to the assembly line by buying a closed Delaware plant from the former General Motors Corp. for $18 million. It will spend $175 million to refurbish and retool the factory to build plug-in hybrid cars.

“The cars built here are truly going to be the cars of the future,” Vice President Joe Biden said at the announcement in Wilmington, Delaware. “It’s important that we take the lead in this new technology,” Biden added.

Obama administration aid to spur demand for more fuel- efficient autos is luring companies including General Motors Co. and Nissan Motor Co. into the electric-car push. The result may be a supply of new vehicles that outstrips demand, said Michael Omotoso, a senior manager for J.D. Power & Associates in Troy, Michigan.

“The U.S. government is saying we’ll have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015; we’re saying it will take three to five years longer,” Omotoso said. “Realistically, manufacturers could be selling 80,000 to 100,000 by 2015.”

Investors betting on acceptance of electric autos include Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the venture-capital firm that employs former Vice President Al Gore and is backing Fisker.

Government Capital

“A huge amount of private capital is on the sideline, so a new locus for funding right now is the U.S. government,” said Ray Lane, a managing partner at Kleiner Perkins who works on the firm’s alternative energy investments. “The Department of Energy has stepped into the role of private capital, at least temporarily.”

(Read the article)

Supermodels Take It Off

Who knew a data point about carbon emissions could be so sexy? More creative videos keep pouring in related to 350’s International Day of Climate Action including this fun and racy video of supermodels stripping (because the planet is too hot!) and to encourage people to contact their representatives about climate legislation. The goal of 350.org is to show the world’s leaders that there is a global movement for them to come to an agreement on a carbon emissions treaty at the UN Climate talks in Copenhagen in December. 350.org is named after the number that scientists think is upper level of parts per million of safe carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — we have already passed this number, making action all the more critical.

Watch the supermodels and other great videos from around the world of people taking action — 20,000 students chanting in Ethiopia, choreographed dance in Malaysia, and deep sea diving in New Zealand.

AHIP Pollster Interrupted By Singing Troupe Of Protesters

Sam Stein
stein@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting

Republican pollster Bill McInturff was the keynote speaker on the final day of the America’s Health Insurance Plans’s state issues conference on Friday morning.

But his speech on how the health care reform debate was playing among the public was interrupted before it even began. A group of protesters began aggressively cheering McInturff for the work he has done for AHIP (he’s a hired pollster for the private insurance lobby and, most infamously, was the force behind the ‘Harry and Louise’ ads in 1994)

McInturff, initially thinking that the cheering was legitimate, thanked the “AHIP officials” in the back of the room for giving him mental encouragement for his speech. He was not being paid for his appearance, he noted.

And then, the protesters — dressed in business attire to fit into the crowd — began singing. A relatively lengthy and harmonious rendition of “Tomorrow” from the musical Annie ensued, only with the chorus focused on government-run insurance. “The option, the option, we must have, the option… ” went the rendition, in reference to the public plan.

WATCH THE VIDEO:

The whole episode lasted a few minutes before the troupe (around 5 or 6 protesters) was escorted out by security.

McInturff, who remarked earlier that he didn’t have a joke to lead off with, pointed to the exiting protesters and said “there’s my joke.” But while his speech had been interrupted, the pollster actually admitted to being mildly impressed.

“If you are going to have protesters at least you can hire people who sing,” he said. “That was very good singing.”
(Read the article)

Elizabeth Warren for President

Elizabeth Warren prepares to testify before the House Budget Committee in June 2009 (Jonathan Ernst/Getty)

Elizabeth Warren prepares to testify before the House Budget Committee in June 2009

Beyond monitoring how the government is mopping up after the financial crisis, Warren is pushing a proposal that could help prevent the next one: creating a Financial Product Safety Commission to protect consumers from abusive lenders. Mortgages and credit cards, she wrote in a 2007 journal article about the proposal, “should be subject to the same routine safety screening that now governs the sale of every toaster, washing machine, and child’s car seat.”Straightforward as that sounds, it would represent a fundamental shift. “Regulating financial products based on fairness, simplicity, and appropriate risk is an entirely new paradigm,” notes Reid Cramer, director of the New America Foundation’s asset building program. In the wake of the financial meltdown, the idea has gained traction in Washington, thanks in part to Warren’s plainspoken advocacy. “Almost unique among people with deep financial insight, Professor Warren speaks a language that ordinary people can easily comprehend,” says Laurence Tribe, a colleague at Harvard Law. For example, when testifying before a congressional committee in June, Warren summed up the shift in banking this way: “Today’s business model is about making money through tricks and traps.”

via Bank Buster: Elizabeth Warren is Wall Street’s Worst Nightmare, Mother Jones (via CommonDreams.org)

Matt Taibbi

We’re coming up on the one- year anniversary of Barack Obama’s election. I think it’s maybe time that we asked ourselves how he’s doing.

He didn’t close Guantanamo Bay, and not only didn’t reject the idea of pre-emptive detention but added spice to his own new version of pre-crime prosecution, “prolonged detention.”  He promised health care reform and campaigned on a public option, and we all know how that is going to turn out.

But most importantly, he came into office amidst sweeping crises in the financial sector and did not do what needed to be done, and what had been done the last time the U.S. was sent careening into a depression because of Wall Street: he failed to push for tough financial reforms. Barack Obama needed to be the FDR figure who remade the American capital markets and made them fair again, and he barely laid a finger on the whole scene.

Instead, he put the people who created the problem in charge of fixing the mess, and ended up bailing them out instead of the rest of the country, at huge current and (presumably) future cost.The total bill for the Bush-Obama bailout is certainly above ten trillion at this point — Inspector General Neil Barofsky thinks it might hit nearly $24 trillion ultimately — and this went through without much fanfare. Meanwhile, the congress is stuck in the mud, panicked at the thought of paying three or four trillion over a decade or so for a health care program.

None of this is new news. What is new is the question of what to do about it. I’m personally of the opinion that our main problem lay with the fact that the Democratic Party as currently constituted is more afraid of losing the financial support of Wall Street and the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry than it is of losing progressive voters. In fact, I think I’ve put that wrong, because it implies that the Democratic Party pushes the agenda of industry insiders out of fear. That is a misread of the situation, I think.

(Read the article)

Singing flashmob hijacks health insurance conference

By Stephen C. Webster

billionairesforwealthcare Singing flashmob hijacks health insurance conferenceTheatrical protest group “Billionaires for Wealthcare” has done it again.

During the American Health Insurance Plans’ (AHIP) annual State issues conference in Washington, D.C. on Friday, Wealthcare members infiltrated the group and interrupted health industry pollster Bill McInturff’s speech with cheers of thanks for his “good work.”

However, kind words floating from the back of the room at the Capitol Hilton Hotel quickly turned into a full-blown musical number thanking the insurers for blocking a public health insurance option, set to the tune of “Tomorrow, Tomorrow.”

The group called its performance “Public Option Annie,” a guerrilla musical.

“The groups Health Care for America Now and MoveOn.org also bombarded the health insurance conference, hosted by America’s Health Insurance Plans, with hundreds of protesters and families with stories of being denied care by the insurance companies,” CBS News reported.

Health Care for America Now recently blasted AHIP with a television ad decrying its report that claimed insurance premiums would skyrocket over 100 percent for working families if the Senate Finance Committee’s health reform bill were to pass.

The report was characterized by President Barack Obama as “bogus” and became the target of ire among congressional Democrats, who suggested that it actually provided a major reason to support the public option as a way of injecting market competition and keeping rates on private plans down.

AHIP did not respond to a request for comment by CBS News.

This video was published to YouTube by BillsForWealthcare on Oct. 23, 2009.

Rich Germans demand higher taxes

Euro banknotes (file image)

Germany could raise 100bn euros with the wealth tax, say the petitioners

A group of rich Germans has launched a petition calling for the government to make wealthy people pay higher taxes.

The group say they have more money than they need, and the extra revenue could fund economic and social programmes to aid Germany’s economic recovery.

Germany could raise 100bn euros (£91bn) if the richest people paid a 5% wealth tax for two years, they say.

The petition has 44 signatories so far, and will be presented to newly re-elected Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The group say the financial crisis is leading to an increase in unemployment, poverty and social inequality.

Simply donating money to deal with the problems is not enough, they want a change in the whole approach.

“The path out of the crisis must be paved with massive investment in ecology, education and social justice,” they say in the petition.

Those who had “made a fortune through inheritance, hard work, hard-working, successful entrepreneurship, or investment” should contribute by paying more to alleviate the crisis.

The man behind the petition, Dieter Lehmkuhl, told Berlin’s Tagesspiegel that there were 2.2 million people in Germany with a fortune of more than 500,000 euros.

If they all paid the tax for two years, Germany could raise 100bn euros to fund ecological programmes, education and social projects, said the retired doctor and heir to a brewery.

(Read the article)

Playing Monopoly With America’s Health

By Joe Conason

Popular disgust over the fat premiums that financial executives bestow upon themselves is burgeoning, and rightly so. Those Wall Street piggy banks are filling up with billions upon billions of government-subsidized dollars.

But anyone infuriated by the grossly inflated compensation of the masters of finance should check out the incredible earnings of the top executives in the health insurance business. They’re among the most highly paid suits in the country—not owing to any skill in providing health care, which they don’t do, but because they have succeeded in denying care, quashing competition, driving up costs and winning federal subsidies for their companies.

Last year, WellPoint, the country’s largest health insurer, paid chief executive Angela Braly just under $10 million in salary, options and bonuses, along with the use of a private jet for herself and her family. That included a raise of about $750,000 over her 2007 salary.

UnitedHealth Group, the second largest, paid CEO Stephen J. Hemsley only $3.2 million last year, but in 2007 he took home $13.2 million. His biggest bonanza got away when he was forced by the Securities and Exchange Commission to surrender $190 million in falsely backdated stock options, but that was nothing compared with the nearly $1 billion in options that his predecessor was required to disgorge. The SEC declined to prosecute anyone for those frauds.

Meanwhile, the CEO of Aetna, Ronald Williams, earned $23 million in 2008, and the CEO of CIGNA, Edward Hanway, brought home a total of $120 million over the past five years, plus nearly $29 million in stock options.

Why are these insurance executives paid such obscene amounts? They might explain that they have improved the processing of claims and managing of risk—happy euphemisms for the notorious corporate practices of denying care wherever possible—or they might insist that their huge salaries reflect their challenging roles in a highly competitive marketplace.

But these companies actually exercise near monopolistic control of local insurance markets, which allows them to drive up costs and reduce access. That is the assessment of the American Medical Association, which has sponsored a series of large-scale studies of insurance markets across the country to determine whether excessive market power affects doctors and hospitals. The very notion of a competitive market and consumer choice is a sick joke in most American cities and towns, where a single health insurer predominates.

Those AMA findings amplified earlier studies dating back to 1995, which even then showed a clear trend toward concentration that has only grown worse. Over the past five years, the largest insurers have followed an imperial strategy of growth through merger and acquisition.

The buying binge has led to bloat, with WellPoint and UnitedHealth Group now covering more than 67 million individuals, or 36 percent of the total American insurance market. That is more than double the market share controlled by the two largest insurers in 2000, Aetna and United.

If the insurance executives get their way, this damaging consolidation will continue unchecked. When Braly isn’t complaining about potential competition from a public option provided by government, she tells shareholders that acquisition of smaller firms will continue to serve as “one of the key drivers of WellPoint’s future growth.”

(Read the article)

What If, Instead of Fox, Team Obama Tackled Insurance Profiteers

by John Nichols

Suppose President Obama and his aides had decided to take on the worst offender among the big insurance companies this fall.

Suppose the White House had highlighted the failure of the company to provide quality care, the abuses in which it has engaged and the behind-the-scenes campaigning by a self-interested corporation to influence the health-care debate in a manner that helps it while harming Americans.

Suppose presidential aides highlighted the initiative in broadcast and cable interviews and reinforced the message with carefully crafted talking points that said the insurance company’s top officers were not helping Americans to get medical care but rather engaging in self-interested profiteering.

Suppose activist groups such as MoveOn.org leapt in to help advance the cause by urging Democratic members of Congress to denounce and boycott the insurance company and its products.

There would, undoubtedly, be complaints from those who make it their business to defend the indefensible.

But there would, as well, be cheering from Americans who would finally have a sense that the Obama administration was ready to fight as hard as was necessary to change a system that leaves tens of millions of Americans without the insurance they need and tens of millions more with inadequate insurance.

And the administration would not have to peddle a scheme that allows states to opt out of reform — by rejecting the option — as some kind of victory for what was supposed to be national health care.

By any measure, time spent assaulting the worst of the insurance companies would be well spent.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has not chosen to wage a fight that might matter.

Rather, the president’s aides continue to wrangle with Fox News, griping about the network’s Republican-friendly reporting and commentary. MoveOn is urging members of Congress to join in the charade. And Obama himself is getting dragged into the discussion, telling NBC that: “I think what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes. And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format then that’s one thing, and if it’s operating as a news outlet that’s another but it’s not something I’m losing sleep over.”

Obama should be “losing sleep” over the fact that he is engaged in this absurd diversion of resources and attention from the real fights his administration ought to be engaged in.

There’s no question that Fox commentators can and will continue to be ridiculous in their Republicanism.

But not all Fox personalities are cut from the same cloth as Glenn Beck.

(Read the article)

Auto dealers carve out exemption in consumer-protection legislation

David Schepp

Consumer advocates had hoped that auto dealers would be included in pending legislation to create a new consumer watchdog agency. But a grassroots effort pushed by dealers and their leading trading group, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), resulted in members of the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday voting 47 to 21 in favor of an amendment to exclude auto dealers.

The successful effort was led Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), who argued that auto dealers aren’t financial organizations and shouldn’t be regulated by a bill that would create a “financial” protection agency for consumers. But the group of some three dozen consumer and civil rights organizations doesn’t see it that way, arguing that arranging on-site financing for vehicle purchases are a big source of profits for car dealers.

Further, the group argued that current auto dealer practices are rife with abuse and lead the list of complaints filed with local and state consumer agencies by disgruntled customers. Among the shady practices the group highlighted are those such as bait-and-switch financing, falsification of credit applications, “loan packing” — deceptive sales of overpriced add-on items, which may include features as frivolous as paint stripes — and charging excessive interest rates or dealer markup.

Many of the scams closely parallel the abuses and predatory practices that led to the mortgage meltdown, the group said.

Though the auto-dealer exemption was approved and the larger bill was voted out of House committee, the NADA is continuing lobbying efforts to ensure that dealers remain exempt, saying the “bill still has a number of hurdles to overcome before reaching the White House for final approval.” (Read the article)

350

Seymour Hersh: Military Is Waging War Against The White House

In addition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States military is also fighting a war against the Obama administration at the White House, Seymour Hersh said in a little-noted speech at Duke University on October 13. The military is “in a war against the White House — and they feel they have Obama boxed in,” he said.

Hersh, a Pulitzer-prize winning investigative journalist who exposed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq, sees an undercurrent of racism in the Pentagon’s dealings with the White House. “They think he’s weak and the wrong color. Yes, there’s racism in the Pentagon. We may not like to think that, but it’s true and we all know it.”

As Neil Offen writes in the Durham Herald Sun:

“A lot of people in the Pentagon would like to see him get into trouble,” he said. By leaking information that the commanding officer in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says the war would be lost without an additional 40,000 American troops, top brass have put Obama in a no-win situation, Hersh contended.
“If he gives them the extra troops they’re asking for, he loses politically,” Hersh said. “And if he doesn’t give them the troops, he also loses politically.”

Hersh considers the worsening situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan as the principal test of the Obama presidency, which will require the cooperation of the top military brass. Obama must face up to the military, Hersh said. “He’s either going to let the Pentagon run him or he has to run the Pentagon.” If he doesn’t, according to Hersh, “this stuff is going to be the ruin of his presidency.”

A Crisis is a Terrible Thing to Waste

Public Media and Journalism

Mark MacCarthy,

I want to develop the idea that substantially increased federal funding for public service media that provide local news and information would be an effective public policy response to the crisis in journalism. I start from several propositions:

  • The subscription and advertising base for print journalism can no longer sustain the production of local news and information;
  • Private sector efforts to replace the economic base for print journalism will not be enough; and,
  • The goal is not to preserve print journalism or its institutions, but to support the production and distribution of news and public affairs coverage that is essential in a democracy.

These are debatable propositions, but I think that others have argued persuasively for them. It is time to move from problem statement to solution.

The core idea is this: Congress should adopt legislation that would provide substantial additional resources to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for the purpose of supporting local newsgathering by public service media. These resources would be directed toward public broadcasting stations and other nonprofit or low-profit local news organizations. Saving journalism will require substantial public support, which should go to public media institutions by way of multi-year news and public affairs grants to develop and distribute local, regional and national news..

The system of public service media already exists, with a mandate to provide public interest programming, including news and public affairs reporting. What the system needs is the funding to hire journalists to cover local and regional news: school boards, zoning meetings, city councils, and state legislatures.

Public service media clearly recognize both their obligation and their opportunity to fill the local newsgathering role that newspapers have traditionally carried out. For instance, Joyce Herring, PBS station services vice president, said recently that the work being done by stations with former newspaper journalists “is an innovative way in which public service media can meet local needs.” Vivian Schiller, head of NPR, recently noted her organization’s responsibility to “fill the gap left by dying newspapers, particularly in areas such as investigative and explanatory journalism.” Schiller said, “It is our special responsibility, as other media organizations die, that we hold public institutions and individuals to account.”

A step in the right direction was taken with the announcement in October 2009 that NPR will launch a new journalism project to develop in-depth, local coverage on topics critical to communities and the nation. The project is being funded with $2 million from CPB and $1 million from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. With substantial additional federal funding, this initiative could be expanded.

As Len Downie and Michael Schudson point out in their just released report for the Columbia School of Journalism, this effort to provide support through public media might require reforming public media’s mandate to provide some local news coverage as a condition of receiving federal aid.

(Read the article)

Why You Should Care About Net Neutrality

The Federal Communications Commission Mulls New Internet Neutrality Regulations

By LESLIE HARRIS

You’ve probably heard the term or read it online and simply skipped past it without a second thought. Maybe it seemed abstract, arcane or a bit geeky, not something you as an Internet user needed to worry about.

But now it’s time to pay attention, because this week the Federal Communications Commission turned up the heat on a long-simmering debate known as “Internet neutrality.”

Thursday, in a bold move, the FCC proposed regulations to ensure that broadband providers — the companies providing high-speed Internet connections to our homes — deliver Internet traffic to subscribers in a nondiscriminatory manner.

So why should you care? If you use the Web or instant messaging — or Google or Facebook or Twitter or use VoIP to make a call, to take just several popular examples — you are enjoying the fruits of the Internet’s history as an open and “neutral” network. Individuals or small start-ups launched each of these applications and services on a level playing field.

The Internet Works Because It’s Open

Each succeeded because Internet users found their services valuable. Many other innovative ideas had an equal chance to succeed on the Internet, but failed to attract users. That’s how the Internet works, and it’s important to keep it that way — open and available for new applications to rise or fall on their own merits, without interference.

That’s what makes the Internet different from other media. Broadband companies provide consumers with “on ramps” to the Internet. But unlike other media, they do not try to control what gets carried across their networks. They are, for the most part, agnostic as to which online applications or service their subscribers’ access.

No online service gets preferential treatment, and an online service that competes with the broadband provider’s own offerings is delivered without discrimination.

As a result, innovators are free to develop new technologies and services — taking advantage of the Internet’s open set of common technical standards — and share them with the entire world. There is no need to negotiate or seek permission from anyone on the network.

(Read the article)

McCain introduces bill to block Net neutrality

johnmccain20080102b McCain introduces bill to block Net neutrality Republican strategy is to paint Net neutrality as government ‘control’ of Internet

By Daniel Tencer

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced a bill in the Senate on Thursday that would effectively allow Internet service providers to slow down or block Internet content or applications of their choosing. The move came the same day as the federal government decided to move forward on an official Net neutrality policy that would prevent ISPs from making those types of decisions. The FCC’s new rules would prevent ISPs, for example, from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks or from charging different rates to users. McCain’s bill, the Internet Freedom Act, would block the Federal Communications Commission from making Net neutrality the law of the land. The rule preventing ISPs from slowing down certain types of content would create “onerous federal regulation,” McCain argued in a written statement.

According to a report at NetworkWorld, McCain “called the proposed Net neutrality rules a ‘government takeover’ of the Internet that will stifle innovation and depress an ‘already anemic’ job market in the US.”

But supporters of Net neutrality argue that the rule is needed to ensure that Internet providers don’t censor content, or slow down traffic to Web sites that are in competition with their business allies.

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski argued that “reasonable and enforceable rules of the road” were needed “to preserve a free and open Internet.”

“The Internet’s openness has allowed entrepreneurs and innovators, small and large, to create countless applications and services without having to seek permission from anyone,” he said.

But, the FCC chairman said, there have been “some significant situations where broadband providers have degraded the data streams of popular lawful services and blocked consumer access to lawful applications.”

(Read the article)

Next Page »