Blue Commonwealth - Front Page

Long Live Blue Virginia!

Dave — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:58:46 GMT

UPDATE, 4/18: All commenting, posting, and new user registration has been disabled.

As many of you may have noticed in the last few weeks, the editors of Blue Commonwealth have been double-posting between BC and Blue Virginia. That's because... we're moving!

Now that Blue Virginia is back to a community format (in the spirit of the old Raising Kaine), we all figure that both communities are best served by merging. It will mean more opinions, more commentary, more ideas, and in general a more vibrant and active community.

So what does this means practically?
1) Blue Commonwealth will be turning off comments and new posts on April 18th.
2) Everyone reading this, if they haven't already should head over to Blue Virginia, http://www.bluevirginia.us and register for an account.
3) Readers, posters, and commentors at BC should start "transferring" their participation over to Blue Virginia.

Lest you be worried about editorial input, policies, etc, fear not! The entire board of BC is now on the board of BV where their talent can be combined with the likes of Lowell and Miles. Everyone here is happy about the move, and we hope you will be too.

So say goodbye to Blue Commonwealth, and say hello to Blue Virginia. Long live Blue Virginia!

Why Didn't They Think of That?

KathyinBlacksburg — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 18:25:37 GMT

Cross-posted at Blue Virginia.

It has been nearly three years since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and the related malfeasance of Lehman and other Wall Street firms. Hank Paulson has admitted Lehman's balance sheet was bogus. According to Robert Reich, Goldman Sacks helped Greece hide its public debt and then bet against it with credit default swaps, those risky derivatives, in the news so much in 2007-2009, to avoid risking its own capital. If you think the scenario is familiar, think AIG. By any stretch of the imagination, these overpaid and overfed hacks and flacks should have been left to suffer the consequences, stripped of their wealth and in prison. Why hasn't this happened? We have waited and waited for economic reform we can believe in, which Wall Streeters are fighting tooth and nail. We've been told that we can't have the meaningful reform we crave, that we must accept "bipartisan" compromise. The GOP slings its empty "free market" bull (bull, because they never actually mean a free market, but rather a rigged market, in practice). Then they blame an administration inheriting the effects of their party's utter lack of fiscal stewardship. Now they fight reform to fix it and assure proposed re-regulation is toothless. And of course, it's everyone's fault but their own. The faux-helpless foxes at the SEC guarded the hen house then. Even our own side has acted fairly helpless in the face of so many misdeeds. Should the administration not use the tools and methods available to it, it will deserve later scrutiny and judgment. I reserve judgment for the time being. However, as Reich observes, it turns out that we do not need "reform" to do something about it.
The oft-forgotten Sarbanes-Oxley (2002) bill was designed just for such an occasion, says Robert Reich. In his article entitled "Fraud on the Street," Robert Reich points out what many inside (and outside) of government won't admit to you. To wit:

Sarbox, as it's come to be known, was designed to stop this. It requires CEOs and other senior executives to take personal responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of their companies' financial reports and to set up internal controls to assure the accuracy and completeness of the reports. If they don't, they're subject to fines and criminal penalties.
Sarbox is directly relevant to the off-the-balance-sheet derivative games Wall Street has been playing. No bank CEO can faithfully attest to the accuracy and completeness of its financial reports when derivatives guarantee that the reports are incomplete and deceptive.

This statement appears in the newest issue of The American Prospect. For those who do not have the magazine, here is the link. Why didn't they ( our administration and our Congressional leaders) think of that? Sarbanes-Oxley can bring fraudulent Wall Streeters to justice. In an adaptation of his original article, Reich also makes his case for current law's power to bring economic justice to those whose "apologies are cheap" (and very, very late). You can read the adaption at Huffington Post.

I do not suggest that Sarbanes-Oxley is all the reform we need. But it is a start. Reich raises a legitimate point, which we in the progressive media should drive home. Why shouldn't the administration bring economic justice by holding the culprits accountable? But more to the point, why didn't they think of that?

Interview with Dr. Peter Wilk on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty

SumofChange — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:52:47 GMT

cross-posted from Sum of Change

I stopped in at the office of Physicians for Social Responsibility this morning to meet Dr. Peter Wilk, the Executive Director.

Dr. Wilk is a recognized expert on nuclear disarmament and has been active for the past 27 years in public health advocacy organizations and medical organizations concerned with preventing nuclear war and addressing other threats to global survival.

We talked about the upcoming Strategic Arms Reduction Treay (START) that President Obama and President Medvedev will sign in Prague on April 8th. While the full text of the treaty has yet to be released, the White House has released some "key facts" of the NPT:

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release March 26, 2010
Key Facts about the New START Treaty
Treaty Structure: The New START Treaty is organized in three tiers of increasing level of detail. The first tier is the Treaty text itself. The second tier consists of a Protocol to the Treaty, which contains additional rights and obligations associated with Treaty provisions. The basic rights and obligations are contained in these two documents. The third tier consists of Technical Annexes to the Protocol. All three tiers will be legally binding. The Protocol and Annexes will be integral parts of the Treaty and thus submitted to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.
Strategic Offensive Reductions: Under the Treaty, the U.S. and Russia will be limited to significantly fewer strategic arms within seven years from the date the Treaty enters into force. Each Party has the flexibility to determine for itself the structure of its strategic forces within the aggregate limits of the Treaty. These limits are based on a rigorous analysis conducted by Department of Defense planners in support of the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.
Aggregate limits:
? 1,550 warheads. Warheads on deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs count toward this limit and each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments counts as one warhead toward this limit. This limit is 74% lower than the limit of the 1991 START Treaty and 30% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty.
? A combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.
? A separate limit of 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments. This limit is less than half the corresponding strategic nuclear delivery vehicle limit of the START Treaty.
Verification and Transparency: The Treaty has a verification regime that combines the appropriate elements of the 1991 START Treaty with new elements tailored to the limitations of the Treaty. Measures under the Treaty include on-site inspections and exhibitions, data exchanges and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by the Treaty, and provisions to facilitate the use of national technical means for treaty monitoring. To increase confidence and transparency, the Treaty also provides for the exchange of telemetry.
Treaty Terms: The Treaty's duration will be ten years, unless superseded by a subsequent agreement. The Parties may agree to extend the Treaty for a period of no more than five years. The Treaty includes a withdrawal clause that is standard in arms control agreements. The 2002 Moscow Treaty terminates upon entry into force of the New START Treaty. The U.S. Senate and the Russian legislature must approve the Treaty before it can enter into force.
No Constraints on Missile Defense and Conventional Strike: The Treaty does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs or current or planned United States long-range conventional strike capabilities.

"Kookinelli" - Virginia's Embarrassment

Elaine in Roanoke — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:55:42 GMT

(Also posted at Blue Virginia)

Here he goes again. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli vows once more to sue the federal government. Now, he is challenging the Obama administration and Environmental Protection Agency's new fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

Cuccinelli has already filed suit against the EPA's determination that it can regulate greenhouse gases because they cause global warming and are harmful to human health. A Cuccinelli spokesman said the EPA's announcement of fuel efficiency standards amounts to a "tacit denial" of Cooch's insistence that the EPA reconsider its greenhouse gases determination.

Well, duh...Of course it does.
"The attorney general's office asked the EPA to reopen its proceedings in light of the recent evidence that the reports the EPA was relying on for its decision contained erroneous and/or unverifiable global temperature and other data," said spokesman Brian Gottstein. "We will file a notice of appeal with respect to today's ruling [regarding mileage standards]."

This man elected as attorney general is becoming an ever-growing embarrassment for the Commonwealth. Cuccinelli needs to realize he is living in the 21st century, not in antebellum Virginia. Listen up, Cooch: The Confederacy lost the Civil War...Nullification and interposition are dead concepts, buried once and for all at Appomattox.

(Interposition is the act of a state opposing any federal action it believes encroaches on "states' rights.")

For anyone who thinks that this latest far-right outbreak of "states' rights" absurd, sometimes dangerous, hatred for our 44th President has nothing to do with racism would do well to remember the last time "nullification and interposition" became a rallying cry of the far right in Virginia: the attempts in the 1950's and 1960's to integrate Southern schools.

At that time, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia adopted resolutions of "interposition and nullification," saying that they had a legal right to oppose Brown v Board of Education and could, therefore, not desegregate public schools. Virginia even used "massive resistance" to close schools where desegregation was scheduled, thus disrupting public education in several school districts. White students attended racist "academies" that were set up, while Black students were without any recourse for education.

Now, here we are in 2010 with Cooch echoing that dismal part of Virginia history by using "interposition and nullification" to try to refuse individual participation mandates in the new health care reform law, insisting that the passage of a bill by the General Assembly is sufficient grounds to do so, i.e., interposition.

As for his silly "interposition" of himself into EPA greenhouse gas emission regulations, Cooch is ignoring the impact of a ruling by the Supreme Court on that very issue.

In 2007 the court ruled that the EPA did have the right to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. Cooch is tilting at the tiny windmill the court threw into that decision, when it said that it was not blocking states from suing the EPA to challenge such regulation.

To me, the most interesting part of that ruling is that the court was rejecting the Bush administration's refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Court said the EPA under Bush had simply provided a "laundry list" of reasons not to regulate such emissions. It had not tied its rationale to the Clean Air Act. The Court said that the "EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change."

Cooch needs to realize that the Supreme Court in 2007 had the same basic composition of "liberal" v "conservative" justices as the present court. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, which Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer joined. While Justice Sotomayor has replaced Justice Souter, she surely would rule the way he did.

Even the radical conservative wing of the court did not take a position on global warming. Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, said in his dissent that his conclusion "involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem."

Cooch also might want to consider the fact that a British House of Commons investigation into some emails that are at the heart of climate change deniers insistence that data was being rigged has exonerated anyone from such an action. The investigative report also said that nothing in the more than 1,000 e-mails of scientists that were stolen and released challenges scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."

Those emails are at the heart of Cooch's whole argument. Oh, I know nothing will change the Cooch's mind. After all, it's obvious that he thinks that he - like Gov. McDonnell's mentor Pat Robertson - has the ear of the Almighty, thus making him immune to mistakes.

It's going to be a very long four years, folks.

Bolling: Latest Blip on Hypocrite Radar

Elaine in Roanoke — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:41:22 GMT

(Also posted at Blue Virginia)

We all have had chuckles - plus a large dose of disgust - watching all the Republicans who railed against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and voted en masse against it, proceed to tout the benefits in their own districts. Now, Bob McDonnell's hand-picked "jobs czar," Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, is joining their ranks.

Bolling spent last year attacking the federal "stimulus bill," saying that all the efforts to combat the Wall-Street-greed-driven Great Recession, were "massive federal spending bills that would result in the largest expansion of government in 40 years" and "will balloon the size of the federal government and increase the federal debt dramatically, and...do little to stimulate economic growth."

Now, Bolling has gotten stimulus religion, Last week, according to the Washington Post, the lieutenant governor, speaking on behalf of his boss Bob McDonnell, praised almost 40 energy conservation projects proposed by local governments in Virginia. The cost - funds from the Recovery Act - totals $13.2 million.

"Jobs will be the first dividend from these innovative programs and projects, but they also have the potential to save tax dollars and reduce energy costs for Virginians for years to come," Bolling said.

I have just one comment: Welcome to the "GOP Hypocrisy Hall of Shame," Mr. Bolling.
This year, the Democratic National Committee has kept a count of the hypocritical GOP office holders who accused the Obama Administration and the Democratic majority in Congress of horrible crimes because of the Recovery Act. So far, more than 100 governors, members of Congress and other office holders have made the "Hypocrisy Hall of Fame." (I prefer calling it the Hypocrisy Hall of Shame.)

Bill Bolling joins Bob McDonnell, who revealed his hypocrisy earlier. McDonnell has praised a $24 million stimulus grant that allows Virginia to establish an Office of Health Information Technology. During the gubernatorial campaign McDonnell argued that the stimulus would be a bad policy for the country.

Then, there is Rep.Eric Cantor (R-7th), who repeatedly has called the stimulus bill a failure, while simultaneously seeking high-speed rail stimulus money for his district. Cantor also held a job fair in his district recently, one that featured employers who had accepted stimulus funds. In fact, over half of the employers who participated had received stimulus money.

Perhaps the strangest hypocrite is Rep. Frank Wolf (R-10th). Wolf voted against the Recovery Act and then proceeded to criticize former Gov. Tim Kaine for not spending the stimulus money fast enough!

"We could use that money desperately. We're in a critical situation. The economic growth and the opportunities here depend on improving transportation. There are a lot of things up here that that money could be used for," Wolf told reporters in October. (I have a suggestion for Wolf. The next time you think your district has a "critical situation," don't vote against a remedy.)

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, unfortunately my congressman, also ranted and raved about how awful the Recovery Act was. He voted against it twice, then endorsed a project by NTELOS Holding Corp., which got a $16 million federal broadband stimulus award. Goodlatte even let the company give him credit because of letters he wrote in support.

I am quite pleased to see the Democratic Party of Virginia has begun to awaken from its post-November come. A DPV spokesman was quick to comment on Bill Bolling's political hypocrisy.

"Apparently, being chief job creation officer means taking credit for jobs that other people have created. Bill Bolling should drop the double-talk and admit that the Recovery Act is creating jobs in Virginia. Just one year ago, Bolling said the Recovery Act 'was not a stimulus plan at all.' Virginians have to wonder, has he changed his mind? Or did he just think he could get away with hypocrisy?" said DPV spokesman Jared Leopold.

Evidently, Republicans think that they can get away with voting against every proposal of the Obama administration, while simultaneously reaping benefits. After all, the Hypocrisy Hall of Shame now has over 100 GOP members.

. . . for the sake of the institution . . .

teacherken — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:03:28 GMT

It takes many forms:

The Blue Wall of Silence

We must protect the church

We clean up our own messes

You will weaken the Presidency/administration in a time of war/crisis/national emergency

An outsider cannot understand

You will take away the motivation to take risks

... and you can offer your own version . . .

It is the excuse not to public identify wrongdoers or to be subject to outside oversight or to allow criminal investigation and prosecution

The claim is that to do so will weaken the Police Force / Church / Military / Business / Organization

The claim is wrong. And failure to fully investigate and expose weakens the institution, because it inevitably leads to an arrogance and the same or similar behavior continues, or happens again. . . and again . . . and again. . .
I write in the context of the recent explosion of stories of the Roman Catholic Church's repeated cover-ups of abuse by priest and the covering up by bishops, archbishops and cardinals, one of the last of whom now serves as Pope.

I was thinking about this when I happened to glance at a rerun of Law and Order SVU perhaps inspired by the brutalization of Abner Louima in a New York City Precinct. In the episode, the Police Department brass wanted to shut down the investigation with one officer who was going to plead to a lesser included charge and not investigate further - in the episode one other policeman, the partner, was responsible for 6 homicides for hire. I remember too many other cases in big city Police departments, in New York and elsewhere, where any attempt to investigate was confronted by the Blue Wall of silence, and what happened to officers like Frank Serpico, who attempted to breach that wall.

I lived through the Vietnam period. I cannot forget My Lai. We cannot claim we did not know. Contemporaneously, helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson reported the massacre, himself and his crew having intervened to save lives, originally receiving medals up to the Distinguished Flying Cross, decorations 30 years later lessened to the Soldier's Medal. An "investigation" by the Brigade Lt. Colonel under orders from the Division Executive Officer reported relatively few casualties blamed on inadvertent killing, and the Army continued to view the incident as a great military achievement. Only a few soldiers were interviewed. Six months later a letter by a participant to the Commander in Vietnam, Creighton Abrams, provided extensive detail and was supported by other letters of complaint, which led to the most infamous investigation, that led by then 31 year old Colin Powell which essentially whitewashed the events and described the relations between the US Army and Vietnamese civilians as excellent.

It was only a full year after the incident that a soldier who had not participated in the events, joining the company later, wrote multiple letters - to President Nixon, to the Pentagon, to the Join Chiefs, to multiple members of Congress. Almost all ignored his letter. Congressman Morris Udall of Arizona did not.

It was not until Seymour Hersch broke the story, after having talked with Calley, that the press finally bore in. In a follow-up investigation by a General blame was affixed more broadly, but still mainly on four already dead officers.

Eventually there were multiple courts martial. The only one ever convicted was Lt. William Calley, and the sentence he actually served was 4 and half months in a stockade - for the deaths of something over 347 (conceivably up to 504). Captain Ernest Medina, Calley's immediate superior, was acquitted, then later admitted he had lied. That admission let to no punishment.

Yes, we investigated Richard Nixon. Many of his associates went to prison. But once he resigned the furor lessened, and even though there were outcries when he was pardoned by Ford, it seemed as if the political class - in Congress and in the DC Press - was relieved that the story was over. Then with Iran-Contra under Reagan, one could almost hear palpable sighs of relief when Admiral John Poindexter said he never informed the President, refusing to take the role of John Dean, and the investigation came to a grinding halt. The pardons by George H. W. Bush seemed to erase for many even the opprobrium or shame that should have remained affixed to those like Cap Weinberger and Eliot Abrams for the rest of their lives, and yet instead we still have Oliver North on the scene, Poindexter kept reappearing like a bad penny, and Abrams wound up in the G. W. Bush administration.

Bill Clinton's arrogance put this nation through an unnecessary crisis, and burned political capital that might have been better used on behalf of the nation. However much one may admire his achievements in his final two years of office, I cannot help but wonder if he had not had the arrogance of office to continue his reckless personal behavior how different this country might be today.

I will leave to you, dear readers, to consider the arrogance and lack of accountability of the most recently past administration.

What we saw in the Army, in several, among police forces, is unfortunately all too common in our society, in much of the world.

Perhaps I am sensitive on this because as a teacher and a member of a teachers' union, I constantly hear refrains of accountability, including for things over which I may have little control - and that often includes how students perform on the external tests that are destroying public education. I find people willing to deny due process by claiming that our unions protect bad teachers.

Then I open a newspaper or read online about abuse of deaf children in schools run by the Church. I read about those in the Roman Catholic Church who have tried to raise the issue who have suffered attacks on their reputations for trying to get the Church to live up to what should be its standards, a standard that one can find in the Gospel of John, 15:13: Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Instead we see those in authority not even lose their careers. Bernard Cardinal Law clearly broke US statutes in how he covered up abuse in Boston, yet he was rewarded with an important sinecure in Rome, outside the jurisdiction of US Authorities.

Investigations of abuse of legal position and authority by people in the Bush administration are cut short by a career functionary in the Justice department, thereby cutting short even a cursory investigation by a professional association as to whether the standards of the legal profession were violated. No criminal charges were brought in the politicization of the Justice Department. No criminal charges, no war crimes charges, not even a serious Congressional investigation, for the serious crime of lying this nation into a war of choice.

Lack of outside oversight allows cover-ups to continue. And people become arrogant. There are no consequences for improper, immoral, illegal actions, even actions to the points of crimes against humanity.

And the rationalization can always easily be reduced to a simple justification - we cannot proceed further, fix the blame, call for appropriate accountability, because it would harm something important. We do not proceed to the appropriate investigation and punishment, we do not demand the necessary accountabilityfor the sake of the institution: the Police Department, the Church, the Corporation, the Presidency, the Administration, the political party, the union, the nation. . .

I try to teach my students to accept when they have made errors, whether deliberately or by lack of knowledge or by failing to take appropriate steps. At the time of Clinton's impeachment we heard those from the other political party claim that the president had to be held to account for the poor example he set for young people. I would agree, although I am not sure his actions rose to the level of impeachment. I would have been satisfied had the President gone on television and apologized to all he had hurt, starting with his wife and daughter, then his staff, then those who had voted for him, and then to the children of the nation for whom he had set a horrible example. I only wish Republicans would apply the same standard to Larry Craig, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, Henry Hyde (of his "youthful indiscretion" affair) as they do to Democrats.

Except it is not that I want a tit for tat. That has poisoned the atmosphere to the point of a stalemate, a lack of willingness by Congressional ethics committees to fully investigate most wrong-doing by the members of the respective bodies: it is the equivalent of the Cold War nuclear stalemate with the USSR of Mutually Assured Destruction.

And the abuses continue. And there is no meaningful accountability. Not for those in power, not for those fortunate enough to be protected by a mindset that their wrongdoings are less important than protecting something larger for the sake of the institution. . .

I am not a vindictive person. I have multiple times written of my admiration for what Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu achieved in moving South Africa beyond what could have become a bloodbath by using the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I no longer believe in the death penalty, in part because of the years I spent as a serious Christian, and accepting that no person can put herself beyond the mercy of God - that would make her equal or superior to God, and for Christianity that would be a blasphemy. But mercy requires acknowledging one's wrongs. That is only the first step. It should also require one to try to make amends. And some level of punishment may well be required - loss of position might be only the first step. Elevation to a position of higher prestige and power is therefore an abomination. It leads to the likes of Gen. Miller being given the task of "Gitmoizing" Abu Ghraib.

I care for institutions. I care deeply for this nation, for what it can and should be. Which is why I hold it to the highest possible standards of behavior, and demand that those in positions of authority and responsibility, however small, be held to the highest level of behavior. No one should ever investigate themselves. No matter how serious we are about examining our consciences, we have a tendency to find justification for what we have done, for what we might want to do. That almost inevitably leads to abuse, to harm to others. And insofar as we justify shutting down outside investigations, in protecting our wrongdoers for the sake of the institution we weaken that institution, we allow it to be corrupted from within, to lose sight of its true purpose.

Unless that purpose is simply aggrandizement through the accumulation of wealth and power and therefore immunity from any accountability. Those who are not accountable are unrestrained in their actions and are a threat, at least potentially, to the rest of us. To me that is unacceptable, intolerable.

For the sake of the institution of public safety our police must be held to the highest standard - we empower them to use force on our behalf, and they must not abuse that power

or the sake of the institution of the Church its leaders must remember that they cannot preach what they do not practice, that they just model what Jesus taught as seen in those words from the Gospel of John that I have already quoted, that they cannot claim they are caring for souls when they are besmirching their own

For the sake of the institution of the military whose role is supposed to be to defend us from harm we cannot allow unnecessary harm to others, within the ranks of the military or by imposition of superior force upon those of other nations - the idea of dismissing death and destruction simply as 'collateral damage" is take the first step towards abandoning humanity and morality

For the sake of the institution of a government that is supposed to be of the people, by the people for the people must be answerable TO THE PEOPLE which cannot happen if its actions remain hidden from the people, not accountable to the people

And perhaps most difficult, it must start at a smaller level - at the family. We cannot argue for the sake of family to cover up the wrongdoings of those nearest and dearest to us. If we are going to demand accountability from our institutions and those who lead them, then we must begin by demanding it of ourselves.

. . . for the sake of the institution... to do less than required full accountability is to admit by our acquiescence and silence that we accept the abuses and the wrongdoing and the cover-ups - we diminish the value of that institution, be it police, or army, or company, or religious body, or union, or even family.

. . . for the sake of the institution. . .

Peace.

Friedman's Health Care Zingers

Teddy Goodson — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:39:25 GMT

What would the patriarch of capitalism, economist Milton Friedman himself, have to say about the new Health Care Reform bill?

Milton Friedman, as I am sure you recall, was the chief founder and promoter of the Free Market theory of capitalism, which was, of course, the political-economic theory that has utterly dominated everything from Wall Street to MBA schools to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (not to mention both our political parties), that brought us globalization and eventually defeated Soviet Communism in the world market of ideas, or so say Reagan Republicans.

Almost every speech (and rant) against the Health Care bill is replete with references to Friedman's doctrine, despite the fact that the bill itself is extraordinarily careful to preserve "market-based" solutions---- remember, President Obama himself took off the table any government (i.e., socialist) competition in the form of even a diddly little public option, which makes it all the more puzzling when we hear major blowouts about "socialism" and the end of America, that the government is taking over one-sixth (or more) of our economy.
Friedman made a speech in the 1970's about health care in America and it is now circulating among the fanatical acolytes of the Free Market, providing them with more fodder in their war against anything (and I do mean anything) which might frustrate establishment of their idea of Free Market Nirvana. That naturally includes almost everything Obama and the Democrats are doing, and most especially reforming health care.

In analyzing who "won" and who "lost" in the Health Care bill, Forbes magazine decided that doctors lost, mainly because they did not get tort reform, and their reimbursements for Medicare might go down, leading Forbes to conclude that doctors are naive. Listen to what Friedman had to say about doctors: he wanted to abolish licensing of doctors entirely, along with every other government licensing of every other profession. That is his idea of a free market.... and it is all of a piece, indivisible from the rest of his economic jungle-theory: no government regulation of anything. Quacks would kill so many paatients that ill folks would avoid them, and thus the market would force them out of business. Too bad about the collateral damage.

Myths about the State Budget

Elaine in Roanoke — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:03:03 GMT

(Cross-posted at Blue Virginia)

Here we go again. Gov. Bob McDonnell wants to walk in the footsteps of George Allen and shrink the big, bad, state government. When Allen tried that, it was simply a smokescreen for his radical conservative agenda. He was more interested in vouchers for private schools and privatizing mental health and child support services than in ending unnecessary state spending.

Conservatives in the GOP always throw around this budget figure: "State spending over the past decade has grown 73 percent in the past 10 years." NOT TRUE.

The figure bandied about by those who begrudge any state revenue going to anyone except themselves includes directed funds, such as money that gives tuition help to state colleges. According to the latest JLARC report, the actual increase in state spending for the General Fund in the last 10 years is 46 percent.

If one is honest and corrects that figure for inflation and state population growth (10 percent), the state budget has grown only 8 percent over 10 years, or less than 1 percent per year. That is hardly profligate state spending.

However, here we go again...
Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw (D-Fairfax) told the Washington Post, "I've heard it all before. If it makes sense, we'll do it. If it doesn't make sense, we won't."

One "plan" of McDonnell's is a sub-committee of his new Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring that will look into selling off the state ABC stores. The people on the sub-committee represent liquor retailers, wholesalers and distributors.

Well, isn't that coincidental? The very people who would benefit the most from the General Fund losing $100 million per year in revenue by the sell-off of state liquor stores will make the recommendation to the governor about whether to sell the stores or not....

The Washington Post has looked back at some of the recommendations made by the group George Allen set up when he was governor from 1994-1998. Back then, they wanted to eliminate 16,000 state jobs. Allen actually eliminated about 10,000 jobs. At least it was fairly easy for the state employees who found themselves out of a job to find a new one since the Clinton economic boom was in full force.

This time, the people who lose state jobs will simply join the ranks of those unemployed during the "Wall Street Greed Great Recession." Besides, it will be mighty hard for McDonnell to find other jobs to slash after the adoption of a budget that will result in anywhere from 25,000 to 35,000 fewer state and local jobs.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that periodic looks at how tax money is spent isn't laudable. It actually would make good business sense for such a review to be done regularly, as long as it is done by some group that doesn't come to their mission with a preconceived viewpoint driven by ideology. (Actually, we already have JLARC that does a fine job analyzing the budget.)

That is my main objection to McDonnell's commission. Like the earlier one set up by George Allen, it will approach its job with biases firmly in place: no new taxes and lower tax rates for those already in place, with most cuts occurring in services to the poorest and the weakest members of our society.

That's not how effective businesses seek greater efficiency. That's simply a recipe for making Virginia a meaner, crueler place.

Ex-Gov. Doug Wilder, who has always been a budget hawk himself, has suggested a couple of ways to cut the state budget. He suggests McDonnell engage in video conferencing when possible instead of traveling and that the state budget cycle be changed to an annual one.

I might add to that list a look at whether Virginia should remain the only state in the U.S. that retains independent cities, which means that cities duplicate the governance of counties. The practical result is separate police departments, fire departments, court systems, etc. There should be savings possible if that situation is somehow modified.

I will give McDonnell credit for one thing, if he actually means it. He says that any savings identified by his commission will be put back into the General Fund to mitigate some of the draconian cuts to state services in the upcoming biennial budget.

April 9th, Stand on the Side of Love (Again, and Always)

KathyinBlacksburg — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:26:00 GMT

(I will cross-post at Blue Virginia.)

April inches ever closer to the dreaded anniversary. The regional paper for our area began its opine this way: "As if Blacksburg and Virginia Tech have not endured enough in recent years..." Yes, as if... We relive that day every time the emergency alert system is tested. We relive it nearly every day our loved ones go to work or class. They relive it every time they walk past Norris Hall, or the Drill Field Memorial. They relive it when nut-cases send them hate mail, or when, recently, an internet psychopath threatened the campus once again. (It turned out to be sourced in a distant land, but not without stirring up much anxiety.)

They relived it when right-wing pols tried to use these events for political opportunism to turn their sites on the academy, teachers who work long hours year after year so that their students may learn. Some (such as Phylis Schlafly and Lynn Cheney's anti-faculty organization) did that following the original April 16th horror. They blamed the victims. So did talk show hosts and television "evangelists," whom I will not name here. Their names get far too much play already.

No, we need no annual reminder because it never goes completely away. For the families of the victims, life is forever changed. In such matters it would be appropriate to extend sympathy and support toward the victims. That's what most people do. But not the psychopathic fringe minority. Each year, for all the wealth of positive support and good will, comes a reminder of the kind of hate that brought us to this point, the kind of hate that caused all of this in the first place. Now we have learned that one of the primary national architects of hate will be here this April: The infamous, so-called Rev. Fred Phelps and his shrieking Westboro "Baptist Church" accomplices.
(It is bad enough he threatened to disrupt all the funerals of victims back then.) This is how they choose to spend their lives: Harassing, taunting, psychologically torturing those who have suffered enough.

The so-called minister pretends to speak for God, this man,who would harangue us about the supposed reasons for the events reaching their anniversary. We deserved it, he says, because God's children, including all LGBT people, were born the way they were. Of course, he doesn't understand that being LGBT is not a "lifestyle choice." Ignorance abounds...

It is this man, who will lecture us on how to be. His April 9th planned harassment of our town illustrates better than anyone else could just what this man's "legacy" is. He plans (has notified, and apparently applied for permits) to harass with anti-Semitic invective outside a synagogue, and with anti-gay vitriol in downtown Blacksburg, and even at the collapsed Blacksburg High School gym and now-vacant school.

Some suggest everyone should stay away. Others argue that because of the seriousness of the climate of hate, we should make clear where we stand--on the side of love.

Efforts are underway for such positive, peaceful events.

Here is what I urge:
? Do not give him more attention where he goes.
? Do not let him try to manipulate confrontation.
? If you wish to speak out, organize or attend another rally somewhere else in town away from this hateful man and his hateful followers.
? Build your own media event, which does not cross paths with his.
? Do it on FB (where Hokies Against Hate has already formed and are organizing.)
? Do it on Twitter.
? Build peace. Support each other.

Meanwhile, we can support the groups whom this hateful man will try to injure. We can donate to Equality Virginia, PFLAG, or the Human Rights Campaign. We can donate to groups such as the NAACP. We can donate to groups such as Planned Parenthood, Population Connection, and NARAL. We can assure that there is an outpouring of support for all the groups which this man rails against.

There are plenty of good people on this earth. Given all the hate-filled rhetoric it is hard to believe that sometimes. But they are there. They are everywhere, except, it seems at Westboro "Baptist Church," and among the haters at the top echelons of the Republican Party and their media accomplices, who whip up hatred of their hysterical fringe. For them, it's time to take a step back, to try to undo what they have unleashed. For the rest, we must counter the message. Let there be no mistake, most Americans stand on the side of love. It's time to make that clear once and for all.

Early Saturday morning - just a few not so random thoughts

teacherken — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:13:37 GMT

apologies - somehow forgot to crosspost this here on time, as you can tell by the title, but it is an appropriate followup to my last diary here

It is 4:30 in the morning. I am packing, dressing, and about to leave for my 2nd and final day of the Mission of Mercy project in Roanoke, where I will spend from 6 to 3 or so in dental triage. As I was going to sleep last night I came to several realizations which I wish to share.

You may agree.

You may disagree.

Hell, you may chose not to keep reading.

It is what is on my mind.

So here goes
We must stop treating nutrition separately from health

We must stop treating mental health separately from bodily health

We must stop treating dental health separately from bodily health, mental health, and nutrition.

Dental health connects with nutrition because what we eat and drink has a huge impact on our teeth and our gums.

Dental health connects with mental health because people under mental stress or who are depressed often grind their teeth and/or develop TMJ, which can really wreck the teeth.

Dental health connects with bodily health in too many ways to enumerate - mouth bacteria can cause heart disease is just one example.

Dental health connects with poverty - those who are poor often lack access to regular dental care before their mouths become war zones.

Dental health declines in the inner city and in rural areas. In both case access to health care professionals is far less than in the suburbs and in the "better" neighborhoods of our urban areas.

Health, especially dental health, seems to indicate a lack of concern for the poor and those of color who tend to be more heavily poor.

Many in the dental field care deeply about those not receiving care. Dentists and their assistants volunteer. Dental students clamor to be allowed to participate. Medical students at Virginia Commonwealth, which is also the site of the Commonwealth's only dental school, also seek to be allowed to participate in these events.

IF we do not honestly address the dental crisis in this country, we can far too easily undermine the work we are doing to ensure quality medical care for all in our nation - well, at least all who are not undocumented aliens.

If you have your teeth, take care of them.

If you care about others, help enable them to take care of their teeth as well.

Now I have to go shower, get dressed, and go volunteer. Oh yeah, and before I go, I will brush my teeth.

Remember, brush yours as well. AND FLOSS.

And then please, do something to help the millions in this country who lack full access to dental care.

Peace.