Jesse Junior’s Powerpoint Presentation

Here are the powerpoint notes for Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.’s August 18, 2009 town hall meeting (click to enlarge).

Further information provided by the representative’s office includes a link to the White House “reality check” page that addresses arguments against the bill and a link to the House Ways and Means Committee. The committee also has on its pages a more detailed description (that is more interesting, for me at least) of the three versions of the bill that were passed out of the three committees (Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, Ways and Means) that now have to be reconciled, as well as other more technical information about revenue provisions and summary documents.

Jesse Jackson Junior’s Town Hall Meeting on HR 3200 August 18, 2009

Congress is out of session, legislators have returned to their districts, and all over the country town hall meetings on health care bill HR 3200 have been disrupted by demonstrations.  Not here.  This is the  town hall meeting of Jesse Jackson Junior, held August 18, 2009 in Chicago at the Sheldon Heights Church of Christ at 11249 S. Halsted. The meeting was quite sedate, at least by Chicago standards, and the participants demonstrated huge support for what is being called The Public Option.

Notes:

For information on the canned presentation, the powerpoint is supposed to be on J3’s official website, but so far it hasn’t been posted. I have a hard copy; if anyone really want to see it, leave a comment and I will post it. (Note: I have now posted it here.)

Crappy terminology:

I have never seen an issue discussed in terms that are so hard to understand.  There’s “single payer”, “the public option”, and then there’s the poll (with no comments possible) on the representative’s website “Should health care reform legislation include a federal government-run insurance coverage option?”  Say, what?  Option??  Shouldn’t it be mandatory, with everyone included? Like the Rev. Jackson said, “Everybody in and nobody out.”

For information on “single payer” try Physicians for a National Health Care Program.  Warning: no two people who have looked at this website can agree on what “single payer” is.  What it isn’t is getting rid of all insurance companies and having the government pay all health insurance claims.  I think.  Or is it?

Some people had a sign “Medicare for All”. People do understand that slogan and respect that system (unlike Medicaid), but the slogan doesn’t seem to be getting much play.

The videos, with times:

Video 1 (0:40):  Outside the church, the two demonstrators with pictures of Obama with the Hitler mustache are LaRouchies.

Video 2 (1:57):  A short speech, sorry, I didn’t catch who is speaking, but I pan the crowd to give an idea of what it looked like.

Video 3 (0:20):  Rev. Jesse Jackson, the father of Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., is introduced and takes the stage.

Video 4 (2:00):  Rev. Jackson speaks,

“Nobody in, nobody out.”
Insurance and pharmaceutical companies: “They must not take up all our space at the table.”
“If you like what you got, keep it…expansion.”
“The working poor — don’t have, the very poor — don’t have, our children — don’t have.”
“We all should be in and none of us should be out.”
“Everybody in and nobody out.”
…as I cut off the camera, the son begins to walks across the stage and the camera starts it’s stopping sequence.  After the camera cuts, they embrace.

Video 5 (7:05):  The congressman answers 2 questions from the crowd (the questioner gets a mic at 1:35) about 1)whether preventative medicine is included 2) whether the plan is the same health care that members of congress receive.

Video 6 (3:53):  Answering a question about coops and about the Public Option.

Video 7 (1:24): Answering a question from someone representing a diabetes group about preexisting conditions. (Techie note: The focus is bad here.  It is the notorious problem some Canon cameras have with the lens that the manufacturer has been slow to recognize.  This camera is a Canon Powershot A560 that I paid about $125 for.  It did the same thing a year ago.  Here I just power cycle the camera, and it seems to be okay again.)

Video 8 (2:56): Answer to a question about whether the congressman would support the bill without the Public Option portion.  The congressman answers 1) “should health care be a commodity?” and the “right” to health care as opposed to the “right” to shoot and 2) the “Tenth Amendment Argument” that conservatives use against bills for the general welfare.

Video 9 (0:29): At this point the only remaining questions are about the Public Option, so the congressman asks for applause directed at the cameras to indicate support for the Public Option.

Video 10 (0:58): outside the church after the meeting.  The Larouchies picture of Obama-with-Hitler-mustache is no longer visible as a large handwritten banner supporting the Public Option is unfurled in front of it. In the parking lot, Rev. Jackson gives an interview.  In the sanctuary, the congressman is now on the Larry King show being broadcast live from another city.

Video 11 (0:20): A demonstrator with a “Jesus hearts public option” sign.

Obama Cairo speech link

Here is the link to the Obama speech delivered at Cairo University June 4, 2009 (official White House transcript). Here is a link to the YouTube version (55 minutes).

≈║≈║≈║≈║≈║≈║≈║≈║≈║≈

«◊»«◊»«◊»«◊»«◊»

Complete text:

Gay protest gets ugly

For anyone who was thinking of joining the November 15 demonstrations for gay marriage, here’s a troubling report from Lansing, Michigan. Last weekend a church was attacked on Sunday morning during a service by a group claiming to be gay. In the photo you can see they have pink scarves over their faces and are carrying bats and sticks.

This is not the type of political blog I usually read, but this piece at least seems to be a straightforward narrative account.  Some of the comments are interesting too:

“The only civil rights being violated were those of the church members. They have the first amendment right to practice their religion. The queer activists from Michigan were not harmed by Proposition 8 in California. They were simply engaging in a conspiracy to deny civil rights to Christians in Michigan. RICO anyone? Besides which, Proposition 8 was a clear case of “petitioning the government for redress of grievances” while the queer activist harassment did not engage the government at all, only innocent Christians.”

“When will they attack mosques that call for the death of gays? tick tock tick tock….”

If anyone is interested in following this story further, Daily Kos printed some excerpts from local blogs. Even more interesting, and not in a good way, is a poll attached to the piece, 37% of their readership supports the protests. I am reminded of how the Weather Underground discredited and delegitimized the peace movement back in the 60’s and set back the end of the Vietnam war by who knows how much.

A sensible comment by BlueJeanDem is encouraging:

This is disgusting (6+ / 0-)

As a gay man I condemn this sort of action.

It is counter-productive and only makes things worse for the cause of gay equality. How many more gay-haters will be created by this incident? Probably quite a few.

That church is the private property of the congregants. It is also their spiritual home. Regardless of what you think about their politics or doctrines, this was morally and ethically wrong and just plain stupid.

Besides, something tells me those protesters were probably not even gay. Anarchists and hoodlums doing NO GOOD.

Our fight for equality is through law and the courts, not by increasing physical conflict between the two factions.

Some of those people at the Church were no doubt friends and family of gays who are on our side on the gay issue. They were there to worship in peace. And now they might be having second thoughts.

Good going, creeps.

Nobody’s coming into my home to protest my being gay.

That’s how it should be. These jerks violated that rule of social behavior.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair via Al Gore

I had thought about writing more about the gay protests coming up this weekend and maybe evening reading up on the history a little.  Who were Mattachine, Stonewall, ACT UP, and Queer Nation?

But now I’m really not that interested anymore.  Sure, I belong to a church that openly invites people of every persuasion, even if the question of gay marriage is still being debated within the denomination. And I still support civil rights for everyone. But who are these people? They don’t seem to respect the civil rights of others, even as they demand it for themselves.  And what DO they want?  Some say they don’t really want marriage or are undecided, or they only want civil unions that will give them inheritance and medical insurance benefits.  They are just marching because they’re upset about Prop 8 and not because they are sure they want marriage instead of civil unions.

Then there was the matter last week of the gay couple in California who put an effigy of Sarah Palin with a noose outside their home as a sort of cutesy Halloween decoration. It was the mayor, not the gay community, who convinced them to take it down.

Throughout history, women have supported everyone else’s freedom, from opposing slavery to gay rights. But when it comes down to supporting women’s civil rights, where are the people whose rights the women marched for?

My time and energy are limited.  I won’t be writing about this issue again.  It is not my issue.  For anyone else who plans to demonstrate, I can only say “know who you are with,” and recommend PumaPAC’s  Proposition Hate forum for the latest information.  The Pumas I don’t agree with 100%, but they do support gay rights issues.  Join the Impact has moved their site around and the old links don’t work but they have comprehensive of the protests; here is their home page. You might also want to read this apparently unmoderated list of demonstrations, if only for the freaky “we need to get angry” comments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Update: photo–the same group at a Milwaukee demonstration. Unpixilized image here (NSFW). Yup, “kill”.

What’s funny about a bailout?

Finding something to smile about during the financial crisis:

This one via

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/i-am-voting-dem.html

With all the turmoil in the market today and the collapse of Lehman Bros and acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, this might be some good advice.  For all of you with any money left, be aware of the next expected mergers so that you can get in on the ground floor and make some BIG bucks.

Watch for these consolidations later this year:

1. Hale Business Systems, Mary Kay Cosmetics, Fuller Brush, and W. R. Grace Co. will merge and become:  Hale, Mary, Fuller, Grace.

2. Polygram Records, Warner Bros., and Zesta Crackers join forces and become: Poly, Warner Cracker.

3. 3M will merge with Goodyear and become:  MMMGood.

4. Zippo Manufacturing, Audi Motors, Dofasco, and Dakota Mining will merge and become: ZipAudiDoDa.

5. FedEx is expected to join its competitor, UPS, and become: FedUP.

6. Fairchild Electronics and Honeywell Computers will become: Fairwell Honeychild.

7. Grey Poupon and Docker Pants are expected to become: PouponPants.

8. Knotts Berry Farm and the National Organization of Women will become: Knott NOW!

And finally, …

9. Victoria’s Secret and Smith & Wesson will merge under the new name:  TittyTittyBangBang.

UPDATE: With the passage of the bailout a few minutes ago, and an immediate 200 point drop in the stock market, here is Red State Update’s humourous take.

Drill baby drill?—what is wrong with this picture

Did enyone else get a queasy feeling when everyone at the Republican convention started chanting “drill, baby, drill”?  It was a little bit like seeing some one yell “Let’s party” with car keys in hand.

Tonight the other shoe dropped when I heard Terry Gross interview Tom Friedman.  Usually I don’t have time to listen to stuff, but if you have not yet heard this interview, go over to NPR and listen to it.
Sure, Friedman is selling his new book and yes, he’s vastly overrated, and yes, I cringe whenever Charlie Rose, who I otherwise admire, starts acting like he’s the Messiah. But Tom Friedman does give a good interview, he is energized by what ever he talks about, and this interview was about oil prices.

Some of Friedman’s points:

• Oil prices in the 80’s dropped from $80 a barrel to $10 a barrel as a result of car mileage legislation, which worked so well it was dropped.
• The Soviet Union, a big oil producer, collapsed as a result of the change in oil price.
• Iran is in the same position today as the Soviet Union was then, and would collapse if the price of oil collapsed.
• Legislation giving tax advantages for developing wind and solar applications is expiring.  Companies that made use of those tax breaks to make advances in alternative energy sources are now taking their discoveries to Europe where there are still tax breaks and a market for the products.

Is our food safe yet?

This is just WRONG.

First they thought it was the tomatoes.

Then after months and months of seeing letters about Salmonella in tomatoes posted in supermarkets and fast food chains, they decided it wasn’t the tomatoes after all.  But not before the tomato industry was destroyed for the season.  Now they say it was the jalapeno peppers.  Really?  No matter, I have both tomatoes and jalapenos in the garden.

It used to be that America had safe food and safe water.  That’s what made us different from other countries.  Anyone who has ever gotten a dose of Montezuma’s revenge while enjoying Mexico’s beaches, or a touch of fever after eating the wild boar in Kathmandu can appreciate America’s tradition of eating food without having to take antibiotics afterwards. But all that has changed now.

Where is the government that used to protect our food?

Oh, yeah, that’s right. The Department of Health and Human Services’ Secretary Mike Leavitt is busy these days trying to get contraception redefined as abortion.

Is your neighborhood walkable? Ratings for 40 cities

Walkscore.com has a tool that rates neighborhoods in 40 different cities and tells you how walkable the neighborhood is.

Back in the 60’s, population was shifting to the suburbs. Everyone wanted a slice of the American dream. A piece of land. A yard. Safe streets and good schools. The result was acres and acres of urban sprawl. I myself grew up in one of these new areas and I can’t even begin to describe how safe and how good and how utterly boring they were.

Researchers have just begun to document the negative effects of this type of housing development. Bedroom communities require cars to get back and forth, adding to a larger carbon footprint and increased gasoline expenses. Social cohesion is lost. People stop walking and are measurably heavier, as health risks associated with obesity increase.

While many urban planning students would rather sell their soul to the devil than listen to a developer, this tool is fairly interesting. Maybe there are a few real estate marketers who do have a soul, or at least know how to talk about the values that come into play when people choose a neighborhood.

They came pretty close with my neighborhood, rating it 45 out of 100, and my old campus neighborhood just west of the Loop an 86. Of course I didn’t choose to live here because it was walkable, I chose it for being cheap place for student digs and for having an interesting main street with a Polish bakery, now sold, and a colorful local corner coffeeshop, now burned down. Also there was an absence of gang signs in the neighborhood. That has changed too. Within a one block radius of where I live, there are probably more than a dozen gang signs on the garages and stop signs, including one on the back of the carriage house on the property where I live.

My move to this neighborhood was part of a 3 year plan, now going on seven years. Maybe it’s time to take this website and figure out where I want to live next.

What the latest FISA amendment would do

With the senate scheduled to consider the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 tomorrow, here is an overview of what the bill would do.

• First of all, the bill is not a replacement for the FISA courts. The first part of the bill covers surveillance of those who are NOT U.S. Citizens, whether they are in the U.S. or abroad. American citizens, wherever they are, are not supposed to be targeted under the fist part of this law, but later parts cover targeting Americans abroad.
• The bill contains a lot of weasel language about accidentally wiretapping U.S. citizens, with much use of words like “intentionally target” and “reasonably believe”.
• The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence have to submit a certification saying they did or will try to apply to the FISA court for approval for the surveillance within 7 days of the date of the certificate. They can move the date of the certificate around later, depending on when the surveillance begins. They are supposed to pay the telecoms for their services. They are supposed to make their requests to the telecoms in writing. They don’t have to say where the wiretapping will take place. They are supposed to keep a copy of the certification notice to the FISA court. The FISA court has 30 days to review the certification and determine whether it is proper and legal.
• Telecoms cannot be sued in court for going along with this.
• The government can require security measures from telecoms.

• If a telecom does NOT want to go along with this, they will be in very deep doo doo and spend a lot of money on lawyers. The “electronic communication service provider”–the telecom asked to wiretap–can request of the FISA court not to do the wiretapping. The FISA court has to assign to petition to a judge within 24 hours–24 hours!–and review the petition within 5 days. If the judge finds the government request to be improper or illegal they can tell the telecom they don’t have to do it. Otherwise they can order the telecom to comply. They have to do this in writing. Then if the telecom still doesn’t want to carry out the wiretapping, they can be sued for contempt of court. If the telecom does not agree they can take it to the Supreme Court “under seal”, whatever that is, probably some sort of secrecy.
• If the court does not agree with the government that a wiretap is proper, the government can either alter their surveillance to comply with the court, stop the surveillance, or appeal to the FISA court of review. The FISA review court has 60 days to make a decision; in the meantime the government can continue to wiretap. It is not clear what happens if the government “corrects the deficiency”–does the new government procedure then go back to FISA for another review and reset the 60-day clock?
• Time limits for court decisions can be extended if it’s in the interest of security.
• FISA will keep their proceedings secure.
• Reauthorizations should be renewed at least 30 days before they expire. (current projects are said to be expiring in August– is this the rush to pass FISA amendments bill now?)
• Every six months the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence will submit a report to the FISA court and to congressional intelligence and judiciary committees. The report will consist of a review of how well they have managed not to wiretap Americans and how many citizens ( a U.S. citizen in this bill is referred to as “a United States-person identity”) have actually been wiretapped, also something called “minimization procedures”.

‘(e) Minimization Procedures-

‘(1) REQUIREMENT TO ADOPT- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt minimization procedures that meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) or 301(4), as appropriate, for acquisitions authorized under subsection (a).

‘(2) JUDICIAL REVIEW- The minimization procedures adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i).

Apparently is has something to do with how the “acquisitions” or recordings are handled. Wouldn’t it be really funny if this was just Newspeak for a zip file on a thumb drive?

• The Inspectors General of the Justice Department, and any intelligence agencies authorized to conduct wiretapping, are authorized to review how many American citizens were actually wiretapped and also the mysterious “minimization procedures”. The review can be presented to the heads of the intelligence agencies, the head of the Justice department and congressional intelligence and justice oversight committees. The heads of the intelligence entities (aren’t they agencies anymore?) will write an annual review, which goes to the AG, FISA, the head of Justice, and the congressional justice and intelligence oversight committees.
• But, wait a minute, this isn’t just about wiretapping. In section 703 c 4 we find out that an order approving “ACQUISITIONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES TARGETING UNITED STATES PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES” has to specify “the nature of the information sought to be acquired and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to acquisition”. What is an “activity” and how do you acquire it? The FISA court approval document also has to specify “a summary of the means by which the acquisition will be conducted and whether physical entry is required to effect the acquisition”. Physical entry? We’re not talking about planting bugs in telephones here, are we. And they have to specify the “means”? So this isn’t just about wiretapping. It could cover just about any object that could be searched for–emails, computers, papers, even what’s in someone’s medicine cabinet–and inside anything–homes, cars, offices.
• Domestic spying (not just wiretapping it seems) approvals are good for 90 days and can have more 90 day extensions after a FISA judge reviews the circumstances of what has already been done.
• Up until this point, this bill does not authorize targeting American citizens, but now Section 704 specifically details the requirements for spying on a U. S. citizen abroad. An American citizen can be spied on if there is a certification filed with FISA or the Attorney General authorizes the spying as an emergency. The identity of the American citizedn does not have to be known. The spying is supposed to stop if the person is known to enter the U.S., but can resume again after they leave. In this type of spying, the FISA judge who reviews the case may review how the information was used, but not how it was collected.
• The Attorney General can authorize an emergency spying on an American abroad, but has to notify the FISA judge at that time, and file a certification within 7 days. The authorization is good until the certification is obtained or the desired information is obtained.
• Information obtained without a certification cannot be used in court, or disclosed, unless there is a threat of harm to someone.
• Civil lawsuits against telecoms are prohibited as long as they have a written authorization–and there is quite a lengthy description here of what documentation is okay to prove authorization–after 9/11 for the wiretap.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments and ruminations:

The bill starts out benign and slowly gets scary. After all, who would disagree with a wiretap targeting someone in another country who was not American, especially if they were planning another 9/11? Then we get to wiretapping non-citizens who are in the U.S.–still sort of a gray area, but not that objectionable. Do foreigners have rights? Well, we stuck a toe in the water and didn’t get frostbite, so maybe it’s a reasonable bill after all.

Then we read about all the reporting required everytime there is a wiretap. Reports in triplicate to Justice, FISA, and bipartisan intelligence committees in both houses of congress. Good idea, oversight, accountability. That’s what an Inspector General is for. Prevent waste, fraud, abuse. In some agencies they’re even independent of the agency’s director, which is handy if you want to scrutinize the agency and keep your job at the same time. The Republicans and Democrats will be tripping over each other to make sure it isn’t used as a political tool that can be used against them .

Much has been made of the Attorney General’s ability to make emergency declarations in order to spy without a certification, but it looks like the AG can only do that with Americans abroad and has to make a declaration to the FISA first and follow it up by applying for a certification.

The fourth amendment says no search and seizure without a warrant, but here warrants have been replaced by certifications. What ’s the difference? Not having to specify the person searched for or the specific place to be searched. I suppose that’s necessary when dealing with the internet and all those anonymous hackers on steroids. It’s been mentioned elsewhere that warrants can be subpoenaed. Can certifications? But a certification has to be listed in all kinds of reports to the executive and legislative branches.

Information obtained by spying on Americans abroad before a certification is obtained cannot be used in court–this is nasty. The American Way is to sue. We don’t war on each other because it’s so much more fun to throw our lawyers at each other. The right of Americans to sue and be sued cannot be impinged upon. Also it would be really nice to try some terrorists and put them in jail instead of having all these foreign covert actions. It’s killing our reputation abroad. I bet if the world found out how much nasty fun lawyers can be, war would disappear forever. Plus if there was some legally admissible evidence, we could think about how to lock up some terrorists legally.

Who is restricted from bringing lawsuits? Not the telecoms. The telecoms can take the FISA appeal court ruling to the Supreme Court. Not the government. The government can take any objections of the telecoms to the Supreme Court. What about any citizens who get spied on? Looks like they might be able to sue the government but not the telecoms. If they find out.

~~~~~~~~~

More ruminations

In some ways this a very pragmatic bill, similar to legalizing prostitution or buying and selling pollution credits. Try this analogy. Little Gerogie has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar before dinner time and now has no appetite for the bill of rights. He doesn’t eat the cookies himself, he just gives them to his friends because he doesn’t have a clue what to do about 9/11 and he thinks if they have the cookies they will be distracted and will think he’ s doing something.

Mommy and Daddy are quite busy working double shifts to pay for everything. For instance they’re ten million short for the Denver convention, and they just don’t have the time and energy to do FISA, er cookies right. Besides, once Georgie is off to boarding school, he and his playmates won’t have the opportunity for cookies anymore. And the twins. Little Barack and Hillary both want to go to college, but they can only send one, so Mommy and Daddy are busy with that mess too. So instead of sending Georgie off to cookie boot camp, they want to stop little Georgie from putting his hand in the cookie jar in the first place until they can get him out of the house and have time to deal with it.

So here’s what they come up with. They exchange the cookies for muffins. Harder to get out of the jar without being noticed. Then they say it’s okay to eat as many muffins as possible before mealtime as long as you put a little check mark on the little chart next to the muffin jar. Of course you will have to explain later what you did with all those muffins and count them and so forth, but for now just take the muffins and let someone know you took them.

And if you’re out of the house and need a muffin really quick, here’s a dime for mad money, just have the attorney general call an emergency and you get more muffins as long as you keep putting a check in the box next to the jar.

Of course, now that it’s okay to eat before meals, we don’t want to know about all the friends you gave those cookies to before–I mean, that’s all legal now, so why get upset over something that was not okay before but is okay now.

Hope you don’t mind all the cholesterol–don’t get any arterial plaque or stroke out or anything, now, y’hear?

Obama backpeddles on abortion

What about all those times Obama voted “present” on abortion legislation when he was a state legislator? Although the local NOW chapter has called him to task for the votes, his supporters would have you believe he was in favor of a woman’s right to choose. Always the mantra to former Hillary supporters who talked about breaking away from the democratic party was “McCain will overturn Roe v Wade, but Obama won’t”.

Those who had hoped Obama would be a genuine alternative to either Bush or McCain have already been disappointed several times this week. First there was Obama’s reversal on FISA and retroactive immunity for telecom companies. Then Obama appeared to be running for Bush’s third term when he announced new faith-based initiatives–tax money to support churches’ social programs.

Now Obama is reversing himself on abortion, taking the position of the most conservative justices on the court, Scalia and Thomas, that a woman’s emotional wellbeing cannot be considered in allowing abortions after 22 weeks.

Speaking to reporters on his campaign plane, Obama said mental health exceptions—which are a real battleground issue in the abortion debate–can be “rigorously” limited to only those women with “serious clinical mental health diseases.” He said mental health exceptions are not intended permit abortions when a woman simply “doesn’t feel good.”

“It is not just a matter of feeling blue,” Obama said.

Here’s the problem with that, and why Obama’s remarks are so startling. Obama is trying to restrict abortions after 22 weeks to those women who have a serious disease or illness. But the law today also covers some women who are in “mental distress,” those women who would suffer emotional and psychological harm without an abortion.

This standard has long been understood to require less than “serious clinical mental health disease.” Women today don’t have to show they are suffering from a “serious clinical mental health disease” or “mental illness” before getting an abortion post-viability, as Obama now says is appropriate.

And for 35 years—since Roe v. Wade—they’ve never had to show that.