Trump Putting Hardworking Americans He Hired Out of Work

No one said being POTUS would be easy, but by his 365th day as president, 34% of Donald Trump’s "A" Team staff quit, changed roles or were fired, this according to the Brookings Institution’s Katie Dunn Tenpas. That statistic has now climbed upwards past 43 percent.  According to the National Journal,  this is "more than double every other administration since 1981."

As a comparison, Barack Obama lost 9% of senior staffers by the end of his first year, George W. Bush lost 6% and Ronald Reagan had the previous record of 17%.In 2018 alone, 58 officials have left, changed roles, or were fired from the White House and Executive branch departments like the State Department and the DOJ,

     Added to this, Trump has already accepted the resignation of or fired 5 cabinet officials, Scott Pruit just the latest in a line. According to the New York Times "analysis of 21 top White House and cabinet positions back to President Bill Clinton’s first term shows how unusual the upheaval is through the first 14 months of a presidency. Nine of these positions have turned over at least once during the Trump administration, compared with three at the same point of the Clinton administration, two under President Barack Obama and one under President George W. Bush."

   Perhaps in other segments of service industry jobs, this would not seem so out of the ordinary, but in terms of other presidencies, this is without parallel. Perhaps someday there will be an accounting of the reasons why these rats are leaving or being told to leave a seemingly sinking ship.

Improvable Objects: Politics Not Sensitive to Concerns and Circumstance of People

Many years ago when I started this Blog, I thought about what to call it. At the time, I remember thinking about Paul Wellstone as he described what he believed politics should be about. He said, "A politics that is not sensitive to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives, a politics that does not speak to and include people, is an intellectually arrogant politics that deserves to fail." A failure I recognized in pure progressive politics is that it does not always account for the differences that wealth and values create for people. Populism, it seemed to me was the missing piece. Giving the people what they agreed they needed seemed to be inherently important to the success of a progressive movement.

   As we know, the progressive left pushed a type of populism under Bernie Sander's leadership that came up a day late and many dollars short of capturing the Democratic Party's nomination. He spoke to the pain that poor and middle class Americans were experiencing, but was running against Hillary Clinton. Clinton, while not the most progressive Democrat was seen as the right woman for the job by many party faithful (particularly after Elizabeth Warren thought better of running against her). The "I'm with Her" bankrollers and supporters, with the success of Barack Obama breaking through the color barrier that served as the glass ceiling for African Americans, believed it was the time for women to do the same.
 
   What Democrats failed to see was the clapback that had been fomenting in the Age of Obama. Sure people were aware that angry people were saying and doing despicable things to showcase their bigotry, but conventional wisdom held that this was a relatively small group of disaffected people and that they were living life in the rear view window, living in America of their imagined past. Progressives and others dismissed these voices as they might anything they assessed as politically incorrect, as fodder for late night talk show monologues or assuring themselves that now that we had, in their estimation by electing Obama twice, accepted that "Black Lives Matter" as the new reality.

   What I and others did not count on was what would happen if populism came at us from the Conservative side of the yard. While we thought the Tea Party movement was "astroturf" as opposed to "grass roots" politics, it turns out that the righteous anger of unheard people could be turned into a type of populism/Nativism that found enough votes in the right places to elect Freedom Caucus members and eventually Donald Trump as our President.

   Paul Wellstone's voice reminds me that "intellectually arrogant politics that is not sensitive to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives...deserves to fail" is what generally what happens after the election. No matter which party wins. Before the election, people have been surveyed and focus-grouped to learn what will move them to vote this way or that.Then the communications are formed and framed around winning the vote--from the top of the ticket to the volunteer calling you at home. You, dear voter, are a fish to be caught in a net. In fact, if you vote early, that's even better, you are still in the net if the candidate says or does something stupid, like say what he or she really thinks.

But after the election, you are a form-letter recipient when the person who you elected does something that he or she told you they wouldn't. Because now, they don't work for you or even try that hard to represent you. Now, they work for special interest groups or self-interested groups. The most self-interested groups are the political parties that are trying to grab and maintain power and pulling the strings behind them are the business and issue groups who want to make sure their interests are properly looked after. There is a country club made up solely of elites and you and I are not invited.

   While those are politics Wellstone said "deserve to fail," the truth is that those politics fail us, not the practitioners of them. Hence a people-powered political base is the only possible solution to the poison in the well of politics. Not a small marginalized group of people, but a large, organized mob of people who realize they have been bamboozled by politics as usual and resort to politics that are unusual. They run for office independent of party bosses and win. Then they win some more. Until finally, the politics of the unusual become the usual politics when people see that their lives are improving by them.

   To be sure, the elite will not go quietly, they will use their resources and knowledge seeking to drive wedges into such a movement. But history tells us that if we have resolve and trust that we will win, even the most corrupting of forces will fail to hold sway against such an army of every day women and men.

    So, I hope you are finally getting a view of what I am seeing so clearly; politics where the "radicals" win is probably a better brand of politics for people when the only other options are supplication or bloody revolution. The radicals on the left and right share something very basic, these are people who want the power in the hands of the people versus the elite. Right or left, it is the same battle. Defeat the political elites and then a politics that is sensitive to the people is truly possible, both before and after the elections.

Semi-Popular Progressive

Happy Belated New Year. After 4 years and a month of commenting on politics, progressive and otherwise, I am continuing my last year trend of tapering off posts in 2011. Although over 10,000 people from around the world checked in on my blog last year, a fact that astounds this guy from Iowa, I feel that if I am to offer commentary at all, it should be with the same fervor that got me started in the first place.

With that in mind, 2011 will be a year with many stories emanating from Iowa. After all, the Iowa Caucuses are around the corner and the usual media blitz will follow as surely as birds fell out of the sky in Arkansas. However, as fellow bloggers like John Deeth are much better at the day to day coverage of such events and I encourage political trainspotters to follow John's blog. He is a great blogger and I tip my virtual hat to his raspberry beret.

As for me, I am writing a novel and will likely spend limited time commenting on the here and now, mostly because my novel is political fiction and I want to use the "good stuff" in that context. I will continue to post columns as events and issues strike my fancy.

A couple of 2010 notes:

The Democratic Party got an electoral whipping (yes, even in Iowa), but it should not have been a surprise. The Obama brand rose quickly and short of him genetically being fused with Annie Sullivan, ther was no way he could continue in the media-driven role of "the miracle worker." However, the party did themselves no favors by letting the narrative of 2010 to be "you're with us or against us." Clearly most voters didn't like what they were seeing and took it out on the party in power. Um, that's politics.

That being said, the repeal of DADT and the approval of the New START treaty were good exclamation points to end the year on. The Republicans take over the House with the majority of voters thinking that it doesn't matter who runs it, but will be flying up their agenda to make the case that if only there was a Republican in the White House again, they could get things done. The national agenda will be parlayed into the electioneering game as the circus comes to Iowa in the months to come. If President does not have any competition, expect Iowa to be the place where Republican candidates try to make the case for why they will be better for the country than him.

However, the thing to watch this year are the redistricting efforts across the country. In Iowa, Republicans who have the state house and governor's mansion are trying to make sure they have the state supreme court covered too by using the recent victory to not retain three justices that ruled on the side of marriage equality as a launching pad to impeach the remaining justices. What is really at stake is the tie-breaker if the plans for redistricting are not to the clear benefit of the Republican party. In Iowa, if a redistricting plan can not be agreed upon, the state supreme court is the final word. Politics, can't live with 'em, can't rule without 'em.

Shirley Sherrod and Us

Shirley Sherrod, the USDA employee who was summarily fired last week, as it turns out, is everything that America should embrace. She has overcome her own personal barriers and prejudices to help small farmers be protected by those that would take their land, regardless of color. Yet, this week, as Keith Olbermann nicely summarized was "thrown under the bus" by the Obama administration, the NAACP, and other groups before examining the evidence to the contrary.

As Iowans, we should be particularly outraged at our former Governor and attorney, Tom Vilsack who said, when the story from Fox and other news agencies first came out, "We have been working to turn the page on the sordid civil rights record at USDA. This controversy could make it more difficult to move forward on correcting injustices." After his rush to judgment and learning that there was more to the story, he made the correct decision to rehire Sherrod. At the moment, it is unknown what the outcome will be, but Mr. Vilsack may find himself under the wheels of the bus, if that is what is called for justice to be served.

The failure of the press in reporting this story is almost unforgivable. Clearly we are in an age of propaganda, the likes we have never seen before, where a foreign owned news company is acting as a mouthpiece to drive a rightest agenda (and doing so with great success). However, where was the fact-checking by CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc.? How embarrassing must it be for seasoned news professionals to look at each other and say "I thought you checked the facts."

Also, how simple are we as people to jump with the press to the conclusion that a person was guilty without so much as a chance to be heard? What a disservice to our shared humanity?

I hope that Shirley Sherrod is rehired. I hope that she is considered for the Secretary of Agriculture position. It is clear that through her actions, the citizens of the United States were better serviced than by her bosses or others that sip from the teat of the USDA.

Corporate Capitalism Is Against the Greater Good

Everyone should know by now that Barack Obama is not a Socialist, not even close--c'mon look at the definition of the word.

Socialism: An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. In practice, such a distribution of wealth is achieved by social ownership of the means of production, exchange and diffusion." [Rius, Marx for Beginners (New York: Pantheon Books, 1976), 152.]

No matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, does this look like the country you live in? Does this even approximate the things that either Obama or the Democrats have legislated with or without bipartisanship? Not hardly.

Does it seem like the rich are being forced to sacrifice unfairly for for the collective good? Not according to uber-Capitalist Warren Buffett. Buffett told lawmakers that because of the cuts to the capital gains tax passed under former President George W. Bush, he pays taxes at a lower rate than some of his company’s employees and he doesn't think that is fair.

But let's say you think Warren Buffett, hallowed-be-thy-name, is on cuckoo pills. Just ask people earning $30,000 to $80,000 if they enjoy making tax payments; I doubt you would have a parade forming to beat the Buffett drum. Most of us see taxes as the cost of doing "business" for having the quality of life the average citizen of the US does.

If the Tea Party and other flat taxers want to get mad at anybody, why not get mad at corporate capitalists? The problem, as I see it, is it is citizens like you and I who pay most of the taxes and corporations who are supported by our welfare.

That's right, I'm saying that we the People are the "Nanny state" that is taking care of Exxon/Mobil and other firms who pay little if any US tax dollars. Corporations are the welfare "cheats" that we should be going after. The problem is that they lawyer up much more effectively than those among us who live in real poverty.

So while some folks bemoan welfare frauds and tax cheats and say "Not in My Backyard," it might pain them to know that they may be working for one. And, as much as some find it easy to blame the poor for being poor, how is it that we don't bemoan the fact that our tax dollars often go to encourage companies who don't pay their taxes to move into our neighborhoods?

In Iowa City, there are some who want those people who aren't carrying their weight to go back where they came from--well, isn't it time we say the same to those companies that aren't carrying their weight?

Corporations are like the "friends" that invite the group to have drinks with them and then walk the check. Corporate Capitalists hear us roar--No free drinks--tea or otherwise!

Dear Mr. President: Learning from the Past

Image via Wikipedia

Dear President Obama,

You promised change and you have begun to deliver on that promise. By signing the Health Care bill, you have given people who have gone without health insurance the opportunity to be healthier and those who have been ill, the ability to once again have access to care without the onus of becoming bankrupt. And these are good steps.

Harry Truman believed that all Americans should have access to health care as a right and Lyndon Johnson signed legislation that allowed the elderly and the poor to have access. With uncertainties in the economy, it is impossible to know when any of us will be without work for extended periods of time. So thank you and Congress for making this first step.

Having said this, can a for-profit health insurance industry ever really sustain affordable health care for all? Chances are there will be future trade-offs to improve what has been signed into law. More important, will the need for health care providers be met and incentivized? Access to health care is great, but it also requires enough doctors, nurses and other allied health practitioners to be trained.

Beyond health, there is a general unease in the country. A general belief that we are in over our heads financially and, perhaps, politically. From the local school board to D.C., the message is one of "live within our means." The problem is, we as Americans have made bad investments--in the stock market, in banking, and in wars.

If ever there was a need for the type of leadership that people thought they would get by electing you is crucial, now is that time. FDR had it right with his fireside chats. He understood that people were distrustful of their government, but desired a personal connection to their elected Commander-In-Chief. In the age of the 24 hour news cycle, I do not know how it is possible to command the national stage like FDR did, but I do know that you can and must make every effort.

And you need support. I don't know why it is impossible for political adversaries to put party aside in doing the people's business at this very difficult period of our history, but it is clear that there can be no good that comes out of selfish, petty party politics. The same is true of grassroots movements that are short on solutions and long on vitriol.

The one thing that is certain is we only have one President at a time and that person deserves our respect regardless of whether we agree with all of his or her decisions. Conversely, the person in office must convey to the American people where he or she feels we are going and their roadmap to help us get there. You are a particularly gifted communicator. Communicate.

Musician Pete Seeger has a saying on his banjo that says "This machine surrounds hate and forces it to surrender." Those of us who value moving forward with hope need to be rallied to oppose those who are living in fear of what our country will become. The late Paul Wellstone said, "The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power. Government must remain the domain of the general citizenry, not a narrow elite." I think people on all ends of the political spectrum question whether this is the government we have.

I truly believe that those who question what has been happening in government mean well and are genuinely concerned for their and their children's future, but are allowing their uncertainty to cloud their thinking about what is best for the country. Ronald Reagan, for all of his faults, did one thing exceptionally well. He had the ability and gravitas to convince folks that the sun hadn't set on the USA--it is now your responsibility to remind all citizens that this is still true.

In faith,

Garry Klein
Popular Progressive

Obama's Resurgance in Afghanistan

In an elegant show of reasoning and logic, President Barack Obama, with his security team in tow, spoke in front of 3400 West Point cadets and explained why he was committing 30,000 more American troops to the War in Afghanistan beginning in January 2010. Despite his reassurance that the war will be limited to:
• Denying al Qaeda a safe haven
• Reversing the Taliban's momentum to overthrow Afghanistan's government
• Strengthening Afghanistan's security forces and government,
what is being repeated is a surge policy. With the idea being to have enough boots on the ground to finish what has been, to this point, a largely unwinnable war, his hope lies in repeating the relative success that his predecessor's policy had in Iraq.

To his credit his plan has a timeline, but like all war plans, there is an escape clause depending on what is happening in the country when the withdrawal of troops is scheduled to start in July 2011. The plan also includes commitments from 43 countries to step up and support the effort, which is commendable if it works. Lastly, Obama pointed out that the extra $30 additional billion price tag per year will have to be paid for and that he would work with Congress to do that. With the current plans to overhaul health care and to invest in job creation, one has to wonder what will be cut to accommodate two wars that have already cost taxpayers over a trillion dollars.

As the President travels to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize in nine days, one has to wonder if he should decline the honor. To accept such a prize under the shroud of escalating this war is tragic, regardless of his reasoning for doing so.

Honoring All Our Troops

CNN reports that soldiers who die by suicide will not receive a letter of condolence from the President Obama. The reason for not honoring military personnel? It is an inherited policy. The unwritten policy has been in place "at least since Bill Clinton was president," according to a New York Times article. With 184 military personnel reported dead by suicide in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 and at least 128 active-duty soldiers confirmed to have killed themselves in 2008, compared with 115 in 2007, 102 in 2006 and 87 in 2005, it makes no sense to dishonor their memories to their families.

Regardless of the reason for death, every military personnel deserves the recognition of the Commander-in-Chief for their service to their country. Contact the President and your Congressional Representatives to call on them to change this disrespectful policy. While you are at it, you might also ask them to stop putting our soldiers in harm's way without a good reason.

President Barack Obama

Representative Bruce Braley
Representative Leonard Boswell
Representative Steve King
Representative Tom Latham
Representative Dave Loebsack

Senator Charles Grassley
Senator Tom Harkin

Obama Expands Federal Hate Crimes Act

Attached to the $680 billion defense authorization bill, President Obama on Wednesday signed a law that makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. The expanded federal hate crimes law now, which also covers crimes motivated by disability, is hailed by supporters as the first major federal gay rights legislation.

The hate crimes measure was named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year.

"No one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love. No one in America should be forced to look over their shoulder because of who they are or because they live with a disability," Obama said, referring to Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr.

"Lion of the Senate" Ted Kennedy Passes Away

Massachusetts' senior Senator Ted Kennedy has lost his battle with brain cancer last night. Regardless of party stripe or perceived or real imperfections as a man, the country has lost one of its all-time best legislators. A very short list of his accomplishments:

* Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
* National Cancer Act of 1971
* Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974
* COBRA Act of 1985
* Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986
* Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
* Ryan White AIDS Care Act (1990)
* Civil Rights Act of 1991
* Health Insurance Portability and Accountabiity Act of 1996
* Mental Health Parity Act (1996, 2008)
* State Children’s Health Insurance Program (1997)
* No Child Left Behind Act (2002)
* Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act (2009)

In July, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee passed The Affordable Health Choices Act, “landmark legislation that will reduce health costs, protect individuals’ choice in doctors and plans, and assure quality and affordable health care for all Americans.” Party leaders and the opposition spoke of his abilities to work across the aisle with honesty and without retribution. John McCain spoke about the state of health care reform, stating that Ted Kennedy's absence has made a huge difference. McCain said "Ted Kennedy comes as close to being indispensable as any individual I've ever known in the Senate because he had a unique way of sitting down with the parties at the table and making the right concessions, which really are the essence of successful negotiations."

Last month, when President Obama bestowed him the Congressional Medal of Honor, the award his brother John Kennedy created, Ted Kennedy said, “I am profoundly grateful to President Obama for this extraordinary honor. My life has been committed to the ideal of public service which President Kennedy wanted the Medal of Freedom to represent. To receive it from another President who prizes that same ideal of service and inspires so many to serve is a great privilege that moves me deeply.”

The Lion of the Senate has left the building.

Dining Room Tables, Democracy, and Health Care Reform

Unless you have been comatose, no doubt you have heard about Massachusett's Congressman Barney Frank's retorts to a woman at one of his townhall meetings about health care reform. The woman, who was holding a sign that was doctored to depict President Obama as Hitler, asked "Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy as Obama has expressly supported this policy? Why are you supporting it?" He said, "When you ask me that question? I am going to revert to my ethnic heritage and answer your question with a question. On what planet do you spend most of your time?" After being momentarily stopped, the woman continued her line of questioning and the Congressman, in sincerity said, "Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it."

And it is a shame when two people, whether it is a Congressman or a constituent, resort to belittling. It is more so a shame when there is no real dialogue going on.

The town hall meeting in Iowa City this Saturday was not nearly vitriolic, but there were a number of people who were clearly not there to listen, but to engage in political theater. Two rows in front of me were two men, one sporting an American flag ball cap and the other wearing a union t-shirt, who engaged each other. The fellow in the ball was booing 2nd District Congressman Dave Loebsack's response to a question asked by an audience member and the fellow in the union t-shirt asked him to keep it down. The other fellow glared red-faced at the union fellow and asked him if he was going to make him. Fortunately a Loebsack staffer walked toward them and they settled into an uneasy truce.

For those who were there to listen and learn, it was no doubt troubling to them to watch normally civil people get bent out of shape over health care reform that may or may not happen and certainly will change as the kinks are worked out. How can anyone know what the plan is unless they actually have read it (and at the size of a phone book, that's not an easy read) or if they come to the townhall meeting to get the synopsis and have the chance to have their questions answered? Congressman Loebsack was quite willing to address questions, but also was encouraging of people to preface their questions with their feelings--an invitation that would be taken advantage of throughout the hour plus meeting.

While Congressmen and Senators are trying to do their jobs to help their constituents to understand what the bill actually is, it does not help that some on both sides resort to out and out lies about what the House bill is about. The Senate will have to forward its own bill (which will likely have its own problems for those who are fighting for or against a public option) and the two houses will have to recouncil the two bills before it goes to the President. If anybody should be pounding the pavement to try to hear what concerns their constituents, it is the Senators and they should not be making pronouncements about "Grandma" and her state of being. They should be genuinely having dining room table conversations about what it is that is scaring their constituents about their health care and then take this back to Washington to write legislation around.

Perhaps if the theater could be scaled back and real people's concerns could be addressed, we could end up with health care reform that is healthy.

Key Democrat Throwing the Towel on Public Option for Health Care Reform

According to CNN, Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota there are not enough votes in the Senate to put the public option on the table and "it was futile to continue to "chase that rabbit" due to the lack of 60 Senate votes needed to overcome a filibuster."

"The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for a public option. There never have been," Conrad said on "Fox News Sunday."

His comment signaled a shift in the health care debate, with Obama and senior advisers softening their support for a public option by saying final form of the legislation is less important than the principle of affordable coverage available to all.

The question everybody should have when they attend a town hall meeting from now on is: if everybody is required to have insurance, who will insure that it is affordable?

The normal free market model tends to low ball costs to lure people to join a program hoping to drive other competitors out of the market and then up costs when there is no reasonable viable option to the consumer. I would like any Senator or President Obama to explain how they will prevent that from happening, if there is no public option or watchdog/oversight.

What if private insurers, like they have been alleged and known to do, collude with each other. The government hasn't enacted Taft-Hartley Act in a bazillion years. What tough measures will be in place and who will guard the guard, since many times agencies are stocked with veterans and lobbyists from the industries they are supposed to watchdog.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Time For REASONABLE Voices (deepbraindiary.com)
• Ralph Nader's comments on Obama's strategy conducted behind closed doors and to the exclusion of discussions with those who want a single payer are correct. (iflizwerequeen.com)
• Emboldened Liberals v the Health Care Industry (democracyforvancouver.org)

Universal Health Care Now!

I've been taking some time away from blogging because, let's face it, problems never really go away and everyone needs a chance to chill out. In my absence, the national health care debate rages on. Many people actually thought there was a national health care bill ready to go when President Obama was elected. Certainly his plan was shopped publicly when he was running for the office. But apparently there is not a "shovel-ready" health care bill or enough money to pay for the bill, depending on who you ask.

This is my solution. No holidays for Congress until a bill is forwarded for the President's signature that makes sure that 100% of Americans have access to affordable health care. At this point I don't care if it is a single-payer or gazillion-payer model, just that it is universal and affordable to all.

As for those Congressional leaders who line up he pieces on the chess board who need to get this done, lock down Capitol Hill and take your fellow public servants off the grid. This means no lobbyists, cell phones, or computers (except in the capable hands of the recorders who will write up the final bill). No tweeting, crackberry texting, facebooking, etc. Clearly this bunch is overly distracted and needs time to focus. If necessary, cut off the air conditioning (think of it as reliving the Continental Congress).

The point is that health care is the one thing that is needed by every worker and the thing that American industry claims keeps it from being competitive globally. If we really want to rev up the economic recovery machine, make sure everyone has the opportunity to be healthy--even corporate personages.

Trial lawyers, unions, big biz, doctors, and insurers beware, you can not dictate the discourse on this issue any more. You had your chance. If you are found within 100 miles of the halls of Congress, you should expect to be deported to Palau (we should at least get our money's worth out of that deal). We know you have been assailing us with your ideas of what is best for us, but really, it is always about what is best for you.

We the people are sick of being sick because the pursuit of profits are involved. We want health care as a fundamental right--after all what is the pursuit of happiness if you can't get out of bed to pursue it?

So listen up Congress--drop everything else you are doing and get this legislation done. If it isn't perfect coming out of the gate, don't worry about it--we'll make you keep working on it until it is or elect people who can. Congressmen Braley, Loebsack, Boswell, Latham, and King and Senators Grassley and Harkin, this means you.

How Much Does It Cost To Ease a Nation's Conscience?

Apparently $11,764,705.88 per prisoner is the going rate for not allowing trials for Guantanamo prisoners to occur. Since the US Senate said "no" to housing detainees in the United States, the US plans to banish 17 Chinese Muslim captives from the Guantanamo Bay prison to the remote North Pacific archipelago of Palau (Palau comprises of a number of scattered islands over 500 miles east of the Philippines with a population less than 20,000 people).

The US decided to transfer the Uighur detainees to the small pacific island nation after inking an accord with the president of Palau, Johnson Toribiong, on Tuesday in exchange for a $200 million long-term aid package.

Toribiong said he “agreed to accommodate the United States of America's request” to “temporarily resettle” the Guantanamo prisoners and called his country's bid a “humanitarian gesture,” adding that he was “honored and proud” to close the deal.

Sandra Pierantozzi, Palau's minister of state, in an interview with VOA, says her nation is glad to have the Uighurs.

"If they want to settle in Palau we would welcome them," Pierantozzi said. "This is very much in line with the culture of Palau, where people who drift in and who needs settlement and place are welcome to our shores and our tradition will take care of them and insert them into our society."

The Uighurs are from China's western Xinjiang province. Beijing has accused the Uighurs, who dominate the province, as separatists who want to create an independent "East Turkestan." Washington is refusing to send the Uighurs back to China, fearing they would be persecuted.

sources: http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-10-voa7.cfm
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=97655§ionid=3510203

Obama Hits A Home Run

It is hard not to praise Barack Obama for his press conference last night, particularly when you compare him to his immediate predecessor. The difference in the level of candor he showed in addressing his presidency's first 100 days were markedly different than President Bush. In discussing the state of the economy, his views on abortion, whether "enhanced interrogation techniques" qualified as torture, concerns about the Taliban in Pakistan and on and on, Obama spoke openly and directly.

When a NY Times' journalist asked him to address the things that surprised him, troubled him, enchanted him, and humbled him, President Obama carefully wrote the request down and thoughtfully addressed each point.

Surprised: Obama professed surprise, and not a little dismay, by "the number of critical issues that appear to be coming to a head all at the same time." Most presidents he said deal with 2 or 3 things and his administration was dealing with 7 or 8 things.

Troubled: Obama said he was "sobered by,"The fact that change in Washington comes slow. That there is still a certain quotient of political posturing and bickering that takes place even when we're in the middle of really big crises." He added, "I would like to think that everybody would say, you know what, let's take a timeout on some of the political games, focus our attention for at least this year, and then we can start running for something next year. And that hasn't happened as much as I would have liked."

Enchanted: He and the press corp laughed at the word choice, but said he was "profoundly impressed and grateful" when he thought of his interactions with the men and women wearing the military uniform of this country from the "top brass to the lowliest private."

Humbled: He said his sense of imposed humility comes from the fact that the presidency, in all its glory, is only "part of a much broader tapestry" in a nation with many different centers of power. "And so I can't just press a button and suddenly have the bankers do exactly what I want, or, you know, turn on a switch and suddenly, you know, Congress falls in line."

For his critics who say that he wants the government to interfere with business he made the point around the government's current role with the automakers that he hoped to help them be competitive and said he really didn't want to be in that position for long because "I've got two wars I've got to run already." He went on to say that the government shouldn't micro-manage these companies it essentially owned, pointing out that he himself is not an auto engineer.

Finally, in summarizing he said "the ship of state is an ocean liner; it's not a speedboat." That he would work as hard in the next hundred days and all the hundreds of days to follow to put the country back on course.

Meet the New Boss, Similar to the Old Boss?

A major bone of contention between Democrats and Republicans during the last Bush Administration was what to do about NSA wire surveillance. Turns out that Barack Obama's Administration isn't doing better on this score. From Care2.com.

When he was just one of a hundred in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama repeatedly stated that he would support a filibuster against any bill which would grant retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies for their involvement with Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) activities.

Once he won the Democratic primaries to become that party's nominee, however, Mr. Obama changed his tune, voting for an intelligence surveillance bill he had opposed just months earlier.

Of course, the bill he had opposed was a slightly different version, but those lawmakers he stood with before had not altered their position, despite any alterations to the bill itself.

Last week, the Obama Administration sought to dismiss the suit brought in Jewel v. NSA, wherein the plaintiff organization sought to discontinue government surveillance of the records and communications of AT&T customers.

In its motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, the Administration argues, in part, that the plaintiffs cannot establish standing requisite to go forward with the suit because they cannot access necessary information to prove such standing. This is so because the state claims that the information the plaintiffs would need is subject to executive privilege as "state secrets", pertinent to national security, and are excluded from
review.

That Was Paul Harvey

It may puzzle some progressives that I have genuine sweet spot for Paul Harvey who passed away today at the age of 90. But I have good reason--he was a populist embodied in a newscaster. Born an Okie in Tulsa, he literally grew up in radio landing his first job while still in high school. From 1951 until today, he was news radio.

As a kid growing up in Dayton, Ohio and listening to the static of AM radio, there was was something special about the halting, upbeat patter that was "the voice" of Paul Harvey. Sure he could be schmaltzy and quaint, but he was never less than reassuring--professorial even. Everybody listened to PH. He had more awards and acclaim than most people will ever see. In 2005 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Honor by George W. Bush for lifetime achievement. For my money much more appropriate than George Tenant's.

Sure he was probably more politically aligned to Mike Huckabee than Barack Obama, but he was accessible. He was more someone's slightly cranky grandfather than Rush Limbaugh's's crazy uncle. You could learn from Paul Harvey. You could learn how to be decent, caring, and present.

Even at the very end, Paul Harvey was the most listened to news personality on radio with 25 million people tuning in to hear his corn fed "News and Commentary" reports, personal anecdotes, and shameless shilling. Farmers, pimply teenagers, soccer moms waiting for the time when he'd say "Hello Americans, I'm Paul Harvey. You know what the news is, in a minute, you're going to hear ... the rest of the story." To this day, I enjoy imitating him when he would say "page two" and the most memorable tagline in the history of radio, "This is Paul Harvey. Good day."

I know we will have plenty of good days to come and yet there was something comforting in that warm cackle of a voice that so clearly enjoyed being with us as much as we looked forward to hearing it pour over us. That was Paul Harvey. Good night.

Sebelius a Good Second Choice

As much as I personally wanted Gov. Howard Dean to be appointed to the Secretary of health and Human Services post, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is a solid choice for two very good reasons. President Obama needs a nominee that won't embarass him by having some dark cloud hanging over his/her head and by all accounts Gov. Sebelius is as baggage free as they come. Secondly, she is well-liked by President Obama and has valuable experience to push his important health care agenda.

She is best known to the party faithful for the Democratic response to former President George W. Bush's last State of the Union address--which went marginally better than Gov. Bobby Jindal's and likely caused her name to fall off the list for VP candidates--nonetheless, she has been a popular Democratic governor in a state that Republican-dominated. She also brings a breadth of experience as she served as Kansas' Insurance Commissioner before she ran for Governor.

In that capacity, according to CQ Politics:

Sebelius walked the line between government regulation and a free market. “Competitive markets and solvent businesses and having people feel good about doing business in the state is not only good for industry, but for consumers, since it leads to better rates and services.”

And she also pushed to eliminate duplicate or cumbersome regulations. “What we’re trying to pull off is a balancing act between being effective protectors for the consumers of this country and not having lots of regulations and laws in place that impede the market,” she said in 2001.

In 2005, she won an $85 million increase in Medicaid dollars for the state, boosting doctors’ pay for the first time in a decade. “The payments are still low, but it certainly helped shore up the safety net system,” said Barnett.

She has called for universal health care, a major theme for Democrats during the 2008 presidential campaign. “We must commit ourselves to universal coverage, improved quality of care, and increased affordability,” she said in her Jan. 10, 2007 state of the state address. It was not enacted.

There is praise in Kansas for her bipartisan approach, a theme Obama has emphasized.

“When you’re a Democrat in Kansas, you get nothing done if you’re not bipartisan—it’s the nature of the beast,” said Neufeld.

Any Obama health overhaul plan likely will demand sacrifices from the health insurance industry, which Sebelius knows well from her time as state insurance commissioner from 1994 to 2002.

She already has fought one major battle with the health insurance industry, at the state level, conducted during her gubernatorial election campaign. In 2001, Indiana-based health insurer Anthem announced it would buy Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas. Unlike private, for-profit health insurers, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas is owned by its state policy holders.

Though Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas’ members approved the sale to Anthem, Sebelius used her power as insurance commissioner to block the move, taking the fight all the way to the state supreme court, where she eventually prevailed.

As recently as last Tuesday, Sebelius signed into law a bill that reduced the Kansas budget by about $300 million to address a $6.4 billion deficit, but the legislation in large part avoided reductions in spending for health care programs, such as Medicaid. With the need for health care coverage for all increasing, Sebelius will be a position to push Obama's agenda with credibility.

Lefties for Obama!

Okay, this is a cheap way to have people take a look at this video, but as a right-handed person growing up in a left-handed household, this resonates.

Obama Press Conference: Refreshing Differences

After the Bush years of obfuscation, a unusually somber President Obama should receive high marks for relative candor and a high degree of control in his first televised national press conference. Faced with a financial crisis with a second bailout and stimulus package up in the air, Obama made his case to the American public while deftly addressing questions put to him by the press.

For example:

Chip Reid: You have often said that bipartisanship is extraordinarily important, overall and in this stimulus package, but now, when we ask your advisers about the lack of bipartisanship so far -- zero votes in the House, three in the Senate -- they say, "Well, it's not the number of votes that matters; it's the number of jobs that will be created."

Is that a sign that you are moving away -- your White House is moving away from this emphasis on bipartisanship?

And what went wrong? Did you underestimate how hard it would be to change the way Washington works?

Obama: Well, I don't think -- I don't think I underestimated it. I don't think the -- the American people underestimated it. They understand that there have been a lot of bad habits built up here in Washington, and it's going to take time to break down some of those bad habits.

You know, when I made a series of overtures to the Republicans, going over to meet with both Republican caucuses, you know, putting three Republicans in my cabinet -- something that is unprecedented -- making sure that they were invited here to the White House to talk about the economic recovery plan, all those were not designed simply to get some short-term votes. They were designed to try to build up some trust over time.

And I think that, as I continue to make these overtures, over time, hopefully that will be reciprocated.

But understand the bottom line that I've got right now, which is what's happening to the people of Elkhart and what's happening across the country. I can't afford to see Congress play the usual political games. What we have to do right now is deliver for the American people.

So my bottom line when it comes to the recovery package is: Send me a bill that creates or saves 4 million jobs. Because everybody has to be possessed with a sense of urgency about putting people back to work, making sure that folks are staying in their homes, that they can send their kids to college.

That doesn't negate the continuing efforts that I'm going to make to listen and engage with my Republican colleagues. And hopefully the tone that I've taken, which has been consistently civil and respectful, will pay some dividends over the long term. There are going to be areas where we disagree, and there are going to be areas where we agree.

As I said, the one concern I've got on the stimulus package, in terms of the debate and listening to some of what's been said in Congress, is that there seems to be a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing.

Now, if that's their opening position or their closing position in negotiations, then we're probably not going to make much progress, because I don't think that's economically sound and I don't think what -- that's what the American people expect, is for us to stand by and do nothing.

While not always answering questions head on, like in the case of whether he would reverse the policy about allowing the photographing of the draped coffins of soldiers returning to Dover AFB, he did say what criteria he would use to make his decision.

Perhaps one of his best and worst moments was in addressing the grand lady of the press, Helen Thomas, for the first time as President when he smiled and said "All right. Helen? This is my inaugural moment here. I'm really excited." Thomas, who was relegated to the bullpen during the Bush administration, didn't give him a pass in asking him "Mr. President, do you think that Pakistan and -- are maintaining the safe havens in Afghanistan for these so-called terrorists? And, also, do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?"

His response was somewhat evasive when it came to the second part of her question as he said " With respect to nuclear weapons, you know, I don't want to speculate. What I know is this: that if we see a nuclear arms race in a region as volatile as the Middle East, everybody will be in danger.

And one of my goals is to prevent nuclear proliferation generally. I think that it's important for the United States, in concert with Russia, to lead the way on this.

And, you know, I've mentioned this in conversations with the Russian president, Mr. [Dmitry] Medvedev, to let him know that it is important for us to restart the -- the conversations about how we can start reducing our nuclear arsenals in an effective way so that we then have the standing to go to other countries and start stitching back together the nonproliferation treaties that, frankly, have been weakened over the last several years. OK." Then he cut her off on her follow-up.

On the whole, the President did what he set out to do, to discuss the stimulus package and reassure Americans that he was working for them.