This a.m., Goldman Sachs repored 2nd quarter earnings of $3.44 billion. Interesting discussion on MSNBC "Morning Meeting":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31906325#31906325

"The Cheney Deception" -- a plot that doesn't add up

There's been a sudden flood of information about secret programs linked to the CIA and to Busg administration, especially vice president Dick Cheney. Indeed, the stories overlapped in a way that seemed to confuse the 24/7 news cycle with too much information. Specifically, we learned at the same time that the Bush White House had circumvented the normal channels -- using John Yoo as its point man -- to get the OK for a spying program that became known as the President's Surveillance Program, the details of which are largely unknown. Then we learned that the CIA had also been hiding from Congress information about a reported assassination squad that would target al-Qaeda leaders around the globe.

Over the last day or two, it's been the hit squad that's been getting the headlines. But you have wonder...why all the fuss about a plan to kill al-Qaeda leaders? Why would the Bush administration have thought there'd be such negative reaction from Congress, which was rubber-stamping everything with the word "terror" attached to it after 9/11, that it felt the need to essentially break the law by keeping it secret. As the New York Times correctly points out, we already have such a program that is widely known and has been supported by the Bush and the Obama administrations, but it involved firing missiles from unmanned drones rather than teams of trained CIA killers. Although clearly there were massive logistical and political issues (can you imagine the uproar in Saudi Arabia, which would be a logical staging area?), which is why the program never got off the ground, the idea was not on its face illegal; the much-discussed mid-1970s assassination ban by then-President Gerald Ford only covers foreign leaders, not terror suspects.

David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo is thinking what others are thinking, that something still isn't adding up:

So regardless of how you might feel about targeted assassinations, it's not at all clear why this particular program would be so radioactive -- compared to what the U.S. was, and still is, doing more or less openly -- that (1) Cheney would demand the CIA not brief Congress about it for eight years; (2) Panetta would cancel it immediately upon learning of it; and (3) Democrats would howl quite so loudly when finally informed.

And here's an expert who agrees:

Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, told TPMmuckraker that because we've been in a state of war against al Qaeda since just after September 11, there would have been no need for a secret CIA program that received special legal authorization.

He later adds:

As for what the program did involve, Cannistraro suggested that it involved Americans as targets, and that it went beyond surveillance, but declined to elaborate. He added that, though Cheney may have directly ordered the CIA to keep Congress in the dark, the veep wasn't acting alone. "The approval was from the president," said Cannistraro.

Look, the CIA is supposed to be very good at misinformation campaigns -- that's why we pay them the big bucks. And I can't help but wonder if that's not what's happening here ("The Cheney Deception," sounds like a Ludlum novel, doesn't it?). The programs that would have caused the greatest uproar among Congress and the American people would have involved domestic operations (which the CIA is supposed to be banned from carrying out) that would have entailed spying on U.S. citizens, or worse. Perhaps it's related to this President's Surveillance Program, perhaps not. I do think that the idea of a hit squad reporting to Cheney is a shiny metal object that can easily distract our ADD-addled media.

I also still think most Americans want the truth of what happened during the Bush years, whether that comes by means of a Truth Commission or criminal prosecutions or both. Some say that truth would undermine ongoing national security efforts, other say that looking backward would hurt Obama politically. Those arguments ignore the reality on the ground, that something resembling the truth is dribbling out, but wrapped in misleading packages. Getting the actual truth out there in one fell swoop would actually be the best way for America to move forward.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/

Just one more thing. Last Friday Ron Reagan had a guest on his show named Chrissie Brodigan, who achieved her fifteen minutes of fame via a New York Post story, which alleged she deployed anti-Semitic comments at a police officer of the Hasidic persuasion who was trying to arrest her for allowing her dog to take-up floor space on a subway train, which is apparently illegal. This story embarrassed her employer, who fired her from her position. She is now demanding a retraction for this alleged slander, which, she says, was motivated by gender bias. She also claimed that the officer grabbed her breasts, and tied what she claimed was a forty-pound handbag to her wrists handcuffed behind her back, making it difficult for her to stand straight. What was in that bag?

Now, people who are familiar with some of things I have posted here know I am no friend of the police. But I in no way feel any commonality with this woman. First, I have had many “run-ins” with police, not instigated by anything I had done, but because the officer thought that because of my “ethnic” appearance, I was a “prime” candidate for whatever stereotypical assumptions he might have. This white woman attracted attention only because she was breaking the law. Second, my “discussions” with police, though often heated on my part, involved issues of ethics and civil rights; after some gentle prodding, this woman—whose frenzied dialogue bespoke of self-involvement—confessed that her “discussion” with the officer included lobbing a few f-bombs and calling him an a-hole. The question then is did this occur before the handcuffing and the alleged breast-grabbing in a crowded subway car with lots of witnesses, or after. She claims he said that if she was going to act like a woman, he was going to treat her like a woman. I’d have to take the officer strongly to task for making this uncalled-for statement; I would have said if you act like a jerk, I’ll treat you like a jerk.

In response to the alleged anti-Semitic remarks, the woman claimed she did no such thing, although given the nature of the remarks she admitted to making, they certainly were subject to interpretation. She also claimed that she couldn’t be a bigot, because she was into sexual and gender rights issues. OK. So is Harriett Christian, Geraldine Ferraro and Gloria Steinem—along with a legion of “disgruntled” women on feminist blogs—all who used the race card against Barack Obama during the primaries and afterwards. So was Bonnie Erbe, who after Obama had won the primary “urged” him to step aside in favor of Hillary because “whites won’t vote for him.” And just to show how shockingly self-involved some of these people are, it still appalls me when I recall a statement “Ellie” Smeal made to an overly friendly USA Today reporter in 1991 that went entirely unchallenged and unremarked upon by the media: that covering crimes committed by white women—with the Pamela Smart murder case as an example—was evidence of “racism against white women.” I admit I’m a bit off track here, but this is liable to happen whenever I’m exposed to what seems to be patent hypocrisy—particularly in light of the present fact of the media’s fixation on attractive white female victims, a sure ratings hit with certain demographics.

If the New York Post did slander this woman, and she lost her job because of slander, then of course I think she has a legitimate grievance. If the officer did go beyond the typical pat-down (which no witness has come forward to say), then he should receive his own fifteen minutes of infamy, and more. But whenever I think of all these local all-white inquest juries which all found killings of unarmed minorities by police “justified,” and all-white juries who acquit police who commit heinous acts of lethal force such as in the case of Amadou Diallo, I find myself thinking “So what’s your point?”

I thought I'd mention that I sent an e-mail to Maria Cantwell's office detailing my feelings concerning the health care system and what should be done, to include a public option. I received an e-mail letter in return which basically stated the following: She supports tinkering with the system on the peripheries, a "public option" for Washington state residents but no public option on the federal level, which given the state of the State's finances, is voodo reform. She does point out some important issues, such as not enough medical providers, and wants to provide incentives for people to become doctors and nurses; she also points out that many doctors refuse to accept Medicare patients because of reimbursement issues. Since she supports reform of Medicare, why she opposes a public option that includes remedies for all her concerns about Medicare doesn't make much sense. Instead of a public option to keep costs down, she supports something called a "health insurance exchange" which is supposed to foster "competition" between insurance companies; how this will work is not entirely clear.

Thank you very much. I will make those changes!

To Loretta Long -

GREAT reply! If you are looking for suggested changes, I have two, both in the next-to-the-last paragraph -

1) ... because you are backed by insurance COMPANY money ...

AND

2) substitute PROFIT for capitalistic values, i. e., ... healing rather than profit ...

I find nothing at all rude in what you've written, and I feel you are right on track!

I'd be reading my morning paper on the beach if I were "Jake from Maui." LOL

You have to hand it to Thom, he is not afraid of pitting his views against the wackiest righ-wing bughouse loons in the country. Case in point, of course, is Bill Keller, whose most recent pronouncements from his personal insane asylum he calls a religious ministry included labeling Oprah as the most dangerous woman in the world (she isn't THAT dangerous), and that Michael Jackson, if one believes in a hell, is centainly on his way their this very moment. Although he was critical of the Yankee Mitt Romney, most of his ire is directed at non-whites. The fact is, if you have race on the brain, and you as a white person have this incomprehensible idea that you (or those who represent your majority power position) don't control all the levers of society (whites gave affirmative action, and whites took it away, just as an example), then maybe you really are just a little racist.

If anyone gets time, can you read Ron Wyden's response and my response to his response and let me know if I'm on the right track, here. The healthcare reform debate is very complicated and I'm feeling very confused.

Here's his response to my first letter:

Dear Ms. Long:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the issue of including a public option in health reform. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

I have clearly stated, and want you to know, that I am very open to a national public option if accompanied by real, comprehensive health reform, and if the underlying legislation is responsibly and sustainably financed.

You may also be interested to know that my bill, the Healthy Americans Act, S.391, not only allows a public option in states that want one, but also requires a public option if a state doesn't have at least two health plans offering everyone benefits just like members of Congress have today. This will ensure that all Americans have high quality and affordable coverage.

In addition, the Healthy Americans Act provides universal, affordable, guaranteed coverage that can never be taken away. Individuals would get a choice of health plans with benefits just like Members of Congress have now. Insurance companies would be prohibited from charging you more if you are sick or older, nor could they refuse to provide you health coverage if you have a pre-existing condition. Health insurance would no longer need to be tied to where you work. Individuals can keep the coverage they have or can purchase coverage through statewide or regional agencies called Health Help Agencies. Individuals and families who aren’t able to pay the full cost of health insurance would be subsidized on a sliding scale to help assure that their health care coverage will be affordable and every bit the equal of those more financially-fortunate. If you would like more information about my bill, it is available on my website at http://wyden.senate.gov.

Again, thank you for keeping me apprised of issues that are important to you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of assistance in the future.

Sincerely,

Ron Wyden
United States Senator

Here's my response to his response.

Am I being too rude, and am I on track?

Dear Senator Wyden,

I very much appreciate your response to my letter. I am very concerned with your approach to health care reform because it does not seem realistic to me. The insurance industry has systematically, over the last decade, developed a business model where executives and employees are rewarded for NOT providing the care they promised to provide. You would have to basically turn robber barons into compassionate, ethical human beings overnight to make your plan work and I do not think this is possible.

In Germany, where private insurance companies provide coverage with" sickness plans", those insurance companies are NON-PROFIT insurance companies. The behavior of our US insurance industry leaders would have landed them in jail in most civilized countries. Your plan continues to put the fox in charge of the chicken coop and I cannot support such a plan.

This is a simplistic analogy, but one that fits. When you are doing the dishes and have a pan full of dirty dishwater, if you only pour out 1/2 of the dirty dish water and pour clean water on top of the dirty dish water, would you still wash your dishes in that water? No. It would be extremely unhealthy.

The only solution for health care reform is not-for-profit health care rather than a model based on capitalistic values. If we are mailing our letters or picking up our dry-cleaning, we need efficient, fast service. If we are discussing our health, we need doctors and caregivers with the ethics of healers whose compassionate, spiritual ethics are nurtured by those who pay them. The ethics of capitalism and profit-mongering obviously do not work when it comes to health care. Our vulnerable hard-working citizens and our economy has witnessed just how destructive a for-profit health care model can be.

You are leading us in the wrong direction with your health care plan and because you are backed by insurance money, I question your inner guidance on the plan you have designed. Please meditate on exactly what it means to have a health care system focused on healing rather than capitalistic values and incorporate the answers you receive from your meditation into your plan. We will stand up for you, if you do the right thing. You do not need the money from the insurance companies because you have us, your constituents, who very badly need you to make the right decision in this incredibly important time in history.

I have a somewhat sad health care story:. I have received exploitative, unconscionable care over the years. Having to cobble together my own coverage without consistent care has created many many avoidable sadnesses in my life.

Thank you for your time,

Loretta M Long

This a.m., Pres. Obama announced his nominee for surgeon general: LA doctor Regina Benjamin. She sounds like a compassionate healer who has put her own economic safety aside to help poor people in her community and who really cares about helping people. Obama also said that we shouldn't give up on real healthcare reform:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31892047#31892047

The ideal court would contain nine folk committed to justice and the Constitution; no matter what their personal ideology leads them to in their personal lives. There is little historical evidence that any individual that holds at their core a recessivist mindset can adequately perform the grave duty of interpreting the vibrant revolutionary document, our Constitution.

I who prefer that the Court be made up of nine distinctly motivated, even divergent, mindsets with a love of freedom.

Yes, I know fair trade and free trade are two divergent concepts. Those of us who worked on the campaign know that Obama prefers fair trade. so this is why I think he is being over powered by the blue dogs and still the republicans. I imagine Obama is stirring up quite a pot, but he is wanting to present a unified front, you know, to make it look like he has it all under control while at the same time, saying to us, his HELP!!!!!