NY Times
At a recent town hall meeting, a man stood up and told Representative Bob Inglis to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” The congressman, a Republican from South Carolina, tried to explain that Medicare is already a government program — but the voter, Mr. Inglis said, “wasn’t having any of it.”
It’s a funny story — but it illustrates the extent to which health reform must climb a wall of misinformation. It’s not just that many Americans don’t understand what President Obama is proposing; many people don’t understand the way American health care works right now. They don’t understand, in particular, that getting the government involved in health care wouldn’t be a radical step: the government is already deeply involved, even in private insurance.
And that government involvement is the only reason our system works at all.
The key thing you need to know about health care is that it depends crucially on insurance. You don’t know when or whether you’ll need treatment — but if you do, treatment can be extremely expensive, well beyond what most people can pay out of pocket. Triple coronary bypasses, not routine doctor’s visits, are where the real money is, so insurance is essential.
Yet private markets for health insurance, left to their own devices, work very badly: insurers deny as many claims as possible, and they also try to avoid covering people who are likely to need care. Horror stories are legion: the insurance company that refused to pay for urgently needed cancer surgery because of questions about the patient’s acne treatment; the healthy young woman denied coverage because she briefly saw a psychologist after breaking up with her boyfriend.
And in their efforts to avoid “medical losses,” the industry term for paying medical bills, insurers spend much of the money taken in through premiums not on medical treatment, but on “underwriting” — screening out people likely to make insurance claims. In the individual insurance market, where people buy insurance directly rather than getting it through their employers, so much money goes into underwriting and other expenses that only around 70 cents of each premium dollar actually goes to care.
Still, most Americans do have health insurance, and are reasonably satisfied with it. How is that possible, when insurance markets work so badly? The answer is government intervention.
Most obviously, the government directly provides insurance via Medicare and other programs. Before Medicare was established, more than 40 percent of elderly Americans lacked any kind of health insurance. Today, Medicare — which is, by the way, one of those “single payer” systems conservatives love to demonize — covers everyone 65 and older. And surveys show that Medicare recipients are much more satisfied with their coverage than Americans with private insurance.
Still, most Americans under 65 do have some form of private insurance. The vast majority, however, don’t buy it directly: they get it through their employers. There’s a big tax advantage to doing it that way, since employer contributions to health care aren’t considered taxable income. But to get that tax advantage employers have to follow a number of rules; roughly speaking, they can’t discriminate based on pre-existing medical conditions or restrict benefits to highly paid employees.
And it’s thanks to these rules that employment-based insurance more or less works, at least in the sense that horror stories are a lot less common than they are in the individual insurance market.
So here’s the bottom line: if you currently have decent health insurance, thank the government. It’s true that if you’re young and healthy, with nothing in your medical history that could possibly have raised red flags with corporate accountants, you might have been able to get insurance without government intervention. But time and chance happen to us all, and the only reason you have a reasonable prospect of still having insurance coverage when you need it is the large role the government already plays.
Which brings us to the current debate over reform.
Right-wing opponents of reform would have you believe that President Obama is a wild-eyed socialist, attacking the free market. But unregulated markets don’t work for health care — never have, never will. To the extent we have a working health care system at all right now it’s only because the government covers the elderly, while a combination of regulation and tax subsidies makes it possible for many, but not all, nonelderly Americans to get decent private coverage.
Now Mr. Obama basically proposes using additional regulation and subsidies to make decent insurance available to all of us. That’s not radical; it’s as American as, well, Medicare.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Dems want to limit insurance increases
By DAVID ESPO AP Correspondent
House Democrats are taking steps to limit annual price increases for insurance policies sold under a sweeping bill to extend health care to nearly all the 50 million uninsured Americans, officials told The Associated Press on Friday.
The legislation taking shape in the Energy and Commerce Committee also would permit the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices on drugs under Medicare, the officials said.
These provisions are part of a series of trade-offs negotiated overnight as Democratic leaders struggled to push the health care bill through the committee, the third of three panels to debate the health care issue. The committee was the final obstacle on the way to the House floor and passage would give momentum to President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
These officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not permitted to discuss private discussions.
On Friday, Democrats on the committee moved methodically through the complex legislation.
"We have agreed we need to pull together," said Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
Liberals, moderates, and conservatives negotiated late into the night Thursday to reach a deal that would restore some subsidies to help low-to-middle income people pay their health insurance premiums, would preserve a strong public insurance option, and would cut drug costs more deeply, lawmakers said.
No details of the deal were immediately available, but Waxman said he intends to formally present it to the committee later in the day, and the panel should pass the bill Friday afternoon. Two other House committees, dominated by liberals, have already passed their versions of the bill. Energy and Commerce better represents the makeup of the House as a whole.
The full committee resumed its deliberations after the last-minute agreement mollified liberals outraged by another deal Waxman struck earlier in the week with conservatives known as the Blue Dog Democrats. "We felt it was paid for on the backs of some of the people who can't afford health insurance now," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo.
Lawmakers from both camps said Friday they were now in accord. "We need to get this done," said Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind., one of the Blue Dogs.
As recently as two weeks ago passage of the bill by Energy and Commerce might not have looked like much of a victory. But after a series of delays and some rancorous disputes, final House committee action on a health overhaul is sure to be hailed as a big step forward.
It would come on the House's final day in session before lawmakers leave Washington for their annual monthlong summer recess.
"The American people will have a chance to see what's in it for them, and our members will have a chance to discuss this with their constituents," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "And when they come back in September, we'll take up the legislation."
The progress in the House was not matched in the Senate, where bipartisan negotiators announced they needed additional time to produce any agreement for their committee to review.
The House bill, whose total costs are estimated at about $1.5 trillion over 10 years, would eventually cover nearly all the uninsured.
Low-income people would be helped through an expansion of Medicaid, while middle-class workers and their families would receive federal subsidies to pick a plan through a new insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. A government-sponsored plan would be available through the exchange, alongside private coverage. The main expansion of coverage would not come until 2013 — after the next presidential election.
To pay for the bill, Democrats are proposing a combination of cuts in government health care programs and a tax increase on the wealthy of more than $500 billion over 10 years. The higher taxes would take effect right away.
The bill would also add more than $200 billion to the federal deficit. That's because it doesn't offset the cost of a provision that raises projected Medicare payments to doctors.
There was late-night drama in Waxman's committee Thursday as an anti-abortion amendment passed when conservative Democrats joined Republicans to support it — then failed less than two hours later when Waxman used a procedural maneuver to bring it up for a second vote.
In the intervening time one conservative Democrat — Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee — changed his vote from "yes" to "no." And a second conservative Democrat who hadn't voted the first time — Rep. Zack Space of Ohio — voted "no." It was enough to take the amendment down on a vote of 29 to 30.
The measure would have specified that health care legislation moving through Congress may not impose requirements for coverage of abortion, except in limited cases.
The committee approved a Democratic-written measure specifying that abortions would not be required as part of government-approved insurance benefit packages. The measure, which passed 30-28, says health plans in a new purchasing exchange aren't required to cover abortion but that each region of the country should have at least one plan that does so.
The amendment also limits the use of federal funding for abortions. Democrats cast the measure as a compromise but Republicans mostly opposed it.
House Democrats are taking steps to limit annual price increases for insurance policies sold under a sweeping bill to extend health care to nearly all the 50 million uninsured Americans, officials told The Associated Press on Friday.
The legislation taking shape in the Energy and Commerce Committee also would permit the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices on drugs under Medicare, the officials said.
These provisions are part of a series of trade-offs negotiated overnight as Democratic leaders struggled to push the health care bill through the committee, the third of three panels to debate the health care issue. The committee was the final obstacle on the way to the House floor and passage would give momentum to President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
These officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not permitted to discuss private discussions.
On Friday, Democrats on the committee moved methodically through the complex legislation.
"We have agreed we need to pull together," said Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
Liberals, moderates, and conservatives negotiated late into the night Thursday to reach a deal that would restore some subsidies to help low-to-middle income people pay their health insurance premiums, would preserve a strong public insurance option, and would cut drug costs more deeply, lawmakers said.
No details of the deal were immediately available, but Waxman said he intends to formally present it to the committee later in the day, and the panel should pass the bill Friday afternoon. Two other House committees, dominated by liberals, have already passed their versions of the bill. Energy and Commerce better represents the makeup of the House as a whole.
The full committee resumed its deliberations after the last-minute agreement mollified liberals outraged by another deal Waxman struck earlier in the week with conservatives known as the Blue Dog Democrats. "We felt it was paid for on the backs of some of the people who can't afford health insurance now," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo.
Lawmakers from both camps said Friday they were now in accord. "We need to get this done," said Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind., one of the Blue Dogs.
As recently as two weeks ago passage of the bill by Energy and Commerce might not have looked like much of a victory. But after a series of delays and some rancorous disputes, final House committee action on a health overhaul is sure to be hailed as a big step forward.
It would come on the House's final day in session before lawmakers leave Washington for their annual monthlong summer recess.
"The American people will have a chance to see what's in it for them, and our members will have a chance to discuss this with their constituents," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "And when they come back in September, we'll take up the legislation."
The progress in the House was not matched in the Senate, where bipartisan negotiators announced they needed additional time to produce any agreement for their committee to review.
The House bill, whose total costs are estimated at about $1.5 trillion over 10 years, would eventually cover nearly all the uninsured.
Low-income people would be helped through an expansion of Medicaid, while middle-class workers and their families would receive federal subsidies to pick a plan through a new insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. A government-sponsored plan would be available through the exchange, alongside private coverage. The main expansion of coverage would not come until 2013 — after the next presidential election.
To pay for the bill, Democrats are proposing a combination of cuts in government health care programs and a tax increase on the wealthy of more than $500 billion over 10 years. The higher taxes would take effect right away.
The bill would also add more than $200 billion to the federal deficit. That's because it doesn't offset the cost of a provision that raises projected Medicare payments to doctors.
There was late-night drama in Waxman's committee Thursday as an anti-abortion amendment passed when conservative Democrats joined Republicans to support it — then failed less than two hours later when Waxman used a procedural maneuver to bring it up for a second vote.
In the intervening time one conservative Democrat — Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee — changed his vote from "yes" to "no." And a second conservative Democrat who hadn't voted the first time — Rep. Zack Space of Ohio — voted "no." It was enough to take the amendment down on a vote of 29 to 30.
The measure would have specified that health care legislation moving through Congress may not impose requirements for coverage of abortion, except in limited cases.
The committee approved a Democratic-written measure specifying that abortions would not be required as part of government-approved insurance benefit packages. The measure, which passed 30-28, says health plans in a new purchasing exchange aren't required to cover abortion but that each region of the country should have at least one plan that does so.
The amendment also limits the use of federal funding for abortions. Democrats cast the measure as a compromise but Republicans mostly opposed it.
Daily Up Date on Stuff
And they're headed for the exits.
House Democrats will flee town tonight for a month-long break from Washington having seen their conservative Blue Dog wing empowered like never before, their liberal wing enflamed and their leadership adrift and uncertain in how they will mend their party's ideological differences on health care.
House Republicans are all about 2010 – but they should worry whether they're peaking too early as they tee up a barrage of attacks on a wounded majority party.
And the Senate has another week in session, but it'll be mostly about Sonia Sotomayor's nomination since the Finance Committee has bailed on getting its bill done thanks to a last minute GOP revolt.
TGIF and welcome to The Huddle, where chaos reigns on health care, Mike Ross remains an insurance industry darling and optimists are latching on to the GDP numbers that show the recession has eased.
*** A message from NGV America: Why natural gas fuel for transportation? Economical. Low carbon. Efficient. Abundant domestic supply. Learn more at NGVAmerica.org. ***
PUBLIC OPTION RETAINED: For now, that public option remains in the House bill, as Robert Pear and David Herszenhorn write in The New York Times: 'The House Energy and Commerce Committee resumed work Thursday on major health care legislation, voting to establish a government-run health insurance plan, as top Republicans stepped up their criticism of the ambitious legislation. By a vote of 35 to 24, Democrats defeated a Republican effort to eliminate a section of the bill that would create the public health insurance option.'
FINANCE STALLED: It's a no go in Senate Finance before the recess, as Carrie Budoff Brown and Chris Frates write: 'That didn't last long. A day after some unexpectedly positive signs for health care reform in Congress, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday that his committee would be unable to complete work on a bill before the August recess.
'Baucus's announcement came after a day in which Republican negotiators on the committee made clear they were not comfortable with the Democratic timetable - pushed by President Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders. The House bill was expected to clear the third, and final, committee standing in its way before lawmakers escape Washington on Friday, but only after another flare-up by House liberals who said Blue Dog conservative Democrats had hijacked the process.'
LATE NIGHT IN HOUSE: POLITICO's Patrick O'Connor sent The Huddle this dispatch at 1 a.m. from the mind-numbing marathon markup in the House Energy and Commerce Committee: 'House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) isn't quite out of the woods yet.
'Liberal members of his committee are trying work out a deal with four conservative Blue Dog Democrats on the panel to find billions in additional savings that would allow the progressives to restore $50 to $65 billion in subsidies that were earmarked to help middle-income households buy insurance through a new exchange program. This all sets up for more drama Friday, when the committee convenes for what is supposed to be its final day of considering the historic bill.
'Asked whether liberal and conservative Democrats will find enough common ground to push the bill through committee, New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, who chairs the health subcommittee on Energy and Commerce, laughed and said, 'We're all going to vote for the bill.'
BLUE DOG BLUE SHIELD: Mike Ross has become a darling of the insurance industry, as Dan Eggen writes in The Washington Post: 'On June 19, Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas made clear that he and a group of other conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs were increasingly unhappy with the direction that health-care legislation was taking in the House.
'The committees' draft falls short,' the former pharmacy owner said in a statement that day, citing, among other things, provisions that major health-care companies also strongly oppose. Five days later, Ross was the guest of honor at a special 'health-care industry reception,' one of at least seven fundraisers for the Arkansas lawmaker held by health-care companies or their lobbyists this year, according to publicly available invitations.'
RECESSION EASING: Here's some good news for Democrats to take home, from the AP: 'The recession likely eased in the spring, with the economy no longer in free-fall.
'Many analysts predict that when the Commerce Department releases its first estimate of second-quarter activity Friday, it will say the economy shrank at a 1.5 percent pace from April though June. If they are correct, it would mark a vast improvement from the 5.9 percent annualized drop recorded over the prior six months -- the weakest showing in 50 years. 'The recession kind of came in like a lion and is going out like a lamb,' said economist Ken Mayland of ClearView Economics.'
CASH FOR CLUNKERS: That was fast. The program is out of money after a week, leading to debate about whether it was a remarkable success or a boondoggle. From The Wall Street Journal: 'White House officials and lawmakers were studying late Thursday how to keep alive the government's cash-for-clunkers incentive program because of concerns the program's $1 billion budget may have been exhausted after just one week.
'Obama administration officials warned congressional leaders Thursday it planned to suspend the program at midnight. But the White House released a statement late Thursday saying that completed deals would be honored and the program is still under review.'
VOX POPULI? NOTSOMUCH: Those town halls the lawmakers like so much? Out of control. Alex Isenstadt taps into a disturbing trend: 'Screaming constituents, protesters dragged out by the cops, congressmen fearful for their safety - welcome to the new town-hall-style meeting, the once-staid forum that is rapidly turning into a house of horrors for members of Congress.
'On the eve of the August recess, members are reporting meetings that have gone terribly awry, marked by angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior. In at least one case, a congressman has stopped holding town hall events because the situation has spiraled so far out of control. 'I had felt they would be pointless,' Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) told POLITICO, referring to his recent decision to suspend the events in his Long Island district. 'There is no point in meeting with my constituents and [to] listen to them and have them listen to you if what is basically an unruly mob prevents you from having an intelligent conversation.'
GOP RECESS STRATEGY: From a memo obtained by The Huddle that went out to all GOP House candidates last night: 'Vulnerable Democrats are limping into the August recess in their most-weakened condition since the inception of their majority. This presents a prime opportunity for Republican candidates to spend the next five weeks on the offensive.
'The combination of a failed trillion-dollar stimulus bill and a job-killing National Energy Tax may have amounted to what some in the press have reported as potentially 'career-ending' votes for many Democrat incumbents. Now Democrats are attempting to jam a government takeover of the health care industry through the House.'
DEM RECESS STRATEGY: And the Democrats sent The Huddle their strategy memo as well, outlining a grassroots and advertising offensive against Republicans during August. From one of the ads targeting Pennsylvania GOP Rep. Charlie Dent: 'Blocked' – 60 second radio ad
Announcer: 'Health care bills. Every year, the cost goes higher.... Making it harder to make ends meet. But year after year, Congressman Charlie Dent opposed reforms to make health care more affordable. Congressman Dent's gotten nearly 75 thousand dollars from the insurance industry while we've gotten stuck with runaway healthcare costs. And what do the insurance companies get? Record profits. ...'
F-22 CUTS IN HOUSE: From the AP: 'The Democratic-controlled House went along with Defense Secretary Robert Gates' plans to kill the over-budget F-22 fighter jet, but has rejected his efforts to cut off several other big ticket items. Despite objections and veto threats from the White House, a $636 billion Pentagon spending bill passed by a 400-30 vote Thursday contains money for a much-criticized new presidential helicopter fleet, cargo jets that Gates says aren't needed, and an alternative engine for the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that the Pentagon says is a waste of money.
'It also contains $128 billion for Pentagon operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would bring the total appropriated by Congress for those wars and other efforts to combat terrorism above $1 trillion.'
SOTOMAYOR VOTE: Roll Call is reporting that the debate will begin on Sonia Sotomayor's nomination on Tuesday. And The Hill's J.T. Rushing finds another reason for Democrats to be upset with Max Baucus: 'Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday he hasn't made up his mind on whether he will vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
'Baucus this summer has infuriated liberals on and off Capitol Hill by working to strike a deal with Republicans on healthcare reform. A 'no' vote on Sotomayor would be adding fuel to the left's fire at the Finance Committee chairman. Baucus on Thursday twice told The Hill he is undecided on next week's floor vote on Sotomayor.'
The Huddle's over/under remains at 65 on yes votes for Sotomayor.
WJLA WASHINGTON WEATHER: Clouds will be on the increase today, limiting temperatures to just the middle 80's. Storms are expected to develop today as a low pressure system tracks through the area. Storms taper this evening and skies become partly cloudy with lows near 70.
*** Why natural gas fuel for transportation?
It's American. Our reserves are twice as plentiful as crude oil. It's affordable - on average, 1/3 less to fill a vehicle with natural gas than with gasoline. It has an existing distribution infrastructure with 1.5 million miles of gas pipe and distribution lines crisscrossing the country. It's a proven vehicle fuel with nearly 10 million natural gas vehicles in the world. It's clean. Natural gas vehicles produce 22 to 29 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than diesel- or gasoline-powered vehicles.
House Democrats will flee town tonight for a month-long break from Washington having seen their conservative Blue Dog wing empowered like never before, their liberal wing enflamed and their leadership adrift and uncertain in how they will mend their party's ideological differences on health care.
House Republicans are all about 2010 – but they should worry whether they're peaking too early as they tee up a barrage of attacks on a wounded majority party.
And the Senate has another week in session, but it'll be mostly about Sonia Sotomayor's nomination since the Finance Committee has bailed on getting its bill done thanks to a last minute GOP revolt.
TGIF and welcome to The Huddle, where chaos reigns on health care, Mike Ross remains an insurance industry darling and optimists are latching on to the GDP numbers that show the recession has eased.
*** A message from NGV America: Why natural gas fuel for transportation? Economical. Low carbon. Efficient. Abundant domestic supply. Learn more at NGVAmerica.org. ***
PUBLIC OPTION RETAINED: For now, that public option remains in the House bill, as Robert Pear and David Herszenhorn write in The New York Times: 'The House Energy and Commerce Committee resumed work Thursday on major health care legislation, voting to establish a government-run health insurance plan, as top Republicans stepped up their criticism of the ambitious legislation. By a vote of 35 to 24, Democrats defeated a Republican effort to eliminate a section of the bill that would create the public health insurance option.'
FINANCE STALLED: It's a no go in Senate Finance before the recess, as Carrie Budoff Brown and Chris Frates write: 'That didn't last long. A day after some unexpectedly positive signs for health care reform in Congress, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday that his committee would be unable to complete work on a bill before the August recess.
'Baucus's announcement came after a day in which Republican negotiators on the committee made clear they were not comfortable with the Democratic timetable - pushed by President Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders. The House bill was expected to clear the third, and final, committee standing in its way before lawmakers escape Washington on Friday, but only after another flare-up by House liberals who said Blue Dog conservative Democrats had hijacked the process.'
LATE NIGHT IN HOUSE: POLITICO's Patrick O'Connor sent The Huddle this dispatch at 1 a.m. from the mind-numbing marathon markup in the House Energy and Commerce Committee: 'House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) isn't quite out of the woods yet.
'Liberal members of his committee are trying work out a deal with four conservative Blue Dog Democrats on the panel to find billions in additional savings that would allow the progressives to restore $50 to $65 billion in subsidies that were earmarked to help middle-income households buy insurance through a new exchange program. This all sets up for more drama Friday, when the committee convenes for what is supposed to be its final day of considering the historic bill.
'Asked whether liberal and conservative Democrats will find enough common ground to push the bill through committee, New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, who chairs the health subcommittee on Energy and Commerce, laughed and said, 'We're all going to vote for the bill.'
BLUE DOG BLUE SHIELD: Mike Ross has become a darling of the insurance industry, as Dan Eggen writes in The Washington Post: 'On June 19, Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas made clear that he and a group of other conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs were increasingly unhappy with the direction that health-care legislation was taking in the House.
'The committees' draft falls short,' the former pharmacy owner said in a statement that day, citing, among other things, provisions that major health-care companies also strongly oppose. Five days later, Ross was the guest of honor at a special 'health-care industry reception,' one of at least seven fundraisers for the Arkansas lawmaker held by health-care companies or their lobbyists this year, according to publicly available invitations.'
RECESSION EASING: Here's some good news for Democrats to take home, from the AP: 'The recession likely eased in the spring, with the economy no longer in free-fall.
'Many analysts predict that when the Commerce Department releases its first estimate of second-quarter activity Friday, it will say the economy shrank at a 1.5 percent pace from April though June. If they are correct, it would mark a vast improvement from the 5.9 percent annualized drop recorded over the prior six months -- the weakest showing in 50 years. 'The recession kind of came in like a lion and is going out like a lamb,' said economist Ken Mayland of ClearView Economics.'
CASH FOR CLUNKERS: That was fast. The program is out of money after a week, leading to debate about whether it was a remarkable success or a boondoggle. From The Wall Street Journal: 'White House officials and lawmakers were studying late Thursday how to keep alive the government's cash-for-clunkers incentive program because of concerns the program's $1 billion budget may have been exhausted after just one week.
'Obama administration officials warned congressional leaders Thursday it planned to suspend the program at midnight. But the White House released a statement late Thursday saying that completed deals would be honored and the program is still under review.'
VOX POPULI? NOTSOMUCH: Those town halls the lawmakers like so much? Out of control. Alex Isenstadt taps into a disturbing trend: 'Screaming constituents, protesters dragged out by the cops, congressmen fearful for their safety - welcome to the new town-hall-style meeting, the once-staid forum that is rapidly turning into a house of horrors for members of Congress.
'On the eve of the August recess, members are reporting meetings that have gone terribly awry, marked by angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior. In at least one case, a congressman has stopped holding town hall events because the situation has spiraled so far out of control. 'I had felt they would be pointless,' Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) told POLITICO, referring to his recent decision to suspend the events in his Long Island district. 'There is no point in meeting with my constituents and [to] listen to them and have them listen to you if what is basically an unruly mob prevents you from having an intelligent conversation.'
GOP RECESS STRATEGY: From a memo obtained by The Huddle that went out to all GOP House candidates last night: 'Vulnerable Democrats are limping into the August recess in their most-weakened condition since the inception of their majority. This presents a prime opportunity for Republican candidates to spend the next five weeks on the offensive.
'The combination of a failed trillion-dollar stimulus bill and a job-killing National Energy Tax may have amounted to what some in the press have reported as potentially 'career-ending' votes for many Democrat incumbents. Now Democrats are attempting to jam a government takeover of the health care industry through the House.'
DEM RECESS STRATEGY: And the Democrats sent The Huddle their strategy memo as well, outlining a grassroots and advertising offensive against Republicans during August. From one of the ads targeting Pennsylvania GOP Rep. Charlie Dent: 'Blocked' – 60 second radio ad
Announcer: 'Health care bills. Every year, the cost goes higher.... Making it harder to make ends meet. But year after year, Congressman Charlie Dent opposed reforms to make health care more affordable. Congressman Dent's gotten nearly 75 thousand dollars from the insurance industry while we've gotten stuck with runaway healthcare costs. And what do the insurance companies get? Record profits. ...'
F-22 CUTS IN HOUSE: From the AP: 'The Democratic-controlled House went along with Defense Secretary Robert Gates' plans to kill the over-budget F-22 fighter jet, but has rejected his efforts to cut off several other big ticket items. Despite objections and veto threats from the White House, a $636 billion Pentagon spending bill passed by a 400-30 vote Thursday contains money for a much-criticized new presidential helicopter fleet, cargo jets that Gates says aren't needed, and an alternative engine for the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that the Pentagon says is a waste of money.
'It also contains $128 billion for Pentagon operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would bring the total appropriated by Congress for those wars and other efforts to combat terrorism above $1 trillion.'
SOTOMAYOR VOTE: Roll Call is reporting that the debate will begin on Sonia Sotomayor's nomination on Tuesday. And The Hill's J.T. Rushing finds another reason for Democrats to be upset with Max Baucus: 'Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday he hasn't made up his mind on whether he will vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
'Baucus this summer has infuriated liberals on and off Capitol Hill by working to strike a deal with Republicans on healthcare reform. A 'no' vote on Sotomayor would be adding fuel to the left's fire at the Finance Committee chairman. Baucus on Thursday twice told The Hill he is undecided on next week's floor vote on Sotomayor.'
The Huddle's over/under remains at 65 on yes votes for Sotomayor.
WJLA WASHINGTON WEATHER: Clouds will be on the increase today, limiting temperatures to just the middle 80's. Storms are expected to develop today as a low pressure system tracks through the area. Storms taper this evening and skies become partly cloudy with lows near 70.
*** Why natural gas fuel for transportation?
It's American. Our reserves are twice as plentiful as crude oil. It's affordable - on average, 1/3 less to fill a vehicle with natural gas than with gasoline. It has an existing distribution infrastructure with 1.5 million miles of gas pipe and distribution lines crisscrossing the country. It's a proven vehicle fuel with nearly 10 million natural gas vehicles in the world. It's clean. Natural gas vehicles produce 22 to 29 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than diesel- or gasoline-powered vehicles.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The Morning Huddle News ' Notes
Did we ever think a 'deal' on health care would please everyone?
Of course not. But the latest breakthrough in the House has made bedfellows of liberals who think it's a sellout with Republicans who think it's still a government takeover of health care. The Senate bill, with its co-op idea substituting for the public option -- and it's lower price tag – is already getting picked at by Democrats not in the negotiating room.
And then there's the polls – they're awful right now for President Obama and Democrats on health care.
Still, there's no mistaking a new sense of momentum on the big picture, and Democrats will head into recess feeling like they just might finish this behemoth task before the World Series ends this autumn.
Good Thursday morning and welcome to The Huddle, where the Blue Dogs have heeled for Nancy Pelosi, the liberals are barking, and the freshmen are worried about the attacks that await them on the home front.
*** A message from NGV America: Why natural gas fuel for transportation? Economical. Low carbon. Efficient. Abundant domestic supply. Learn more at NGVAmerica.org. ***
DRIVING THE RECESS: Bad poll numbers will be the theme of this recess for Democrats. From The New York Times' Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee Brenan: 'President Obama's ability to shape the debate on health care appears to be eroding as opponents aggressively portray his overhaul plan as a government takeover that could limit Americans' ability to choose their doctors and course of treatment, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
'Americans are concerned that revamping the health care system would reduce the quality of their care, increase their out-of-pocket health costs and tax bills, and limit their options in choosing doctors, treatments and tests, the poll found.'
And from the Wall Street Journal: 'Support for President Barack Obama's health-care effort has declined over the past five weeks, particularly among those who already have insurance, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found, amid prolonged debate over costs and quality of care. In mid-June, respondents were evenly divided when asked whether they thought Mr. Obama's health plan was a good or bad idea. In the new poll, conducted July 24-27, 42 percent called it a bad idea while 36 percent said it was a good idea.'
HOUSE DEAL: Uncle Mo may finally be on the side of the Dems, as Patrick O'Connor and Carrie Budoff Brown report: 'After weeks of infighting and negative headlines, Democrats finally found a little momentum on health care as negotiators broke a critical logjam in the House and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office delivered a rare piece of good news in the Senate.
'The big breakthrough came in the House, where a quartet of moderate Blue Dog Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee finally agreed to a deal offered by Chairman Henry Waxman that would cut the cost of the bill and relieve more small businesses from a requirement to provide their employees with health care. Under the terms of their agreement, party leaders will postpone a full House vote on the still-contentious health care measure until the fall, giving their rank and file another month - at least - to consider the sweeping legislation. That will also give opponents plenty of time to browbeat them. House liberals remain unhappy with Waxman's negotiations with the Blue Dogs, but the committee seemed back on track as of Thursday night.'
LIBERAL REVOLT: We saw this coming – liberals hate the compromise that Pelosi and Waxman made with moderate Blue Dogs. Glenn Thrush of POLITICO taps into some serious lefty angst: 'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spent half of Wednesday finalizing a deal with the Blue Dogs - and the other half quelling a brewing rebellion among progressives who think conservatives have hijacked health care reform.
'Liberals, Hispanics and African-American members - Pelosi's most loyal base of support - are feeling betrayed after House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) reached an agreement with four of seven Blue Dogs on his committee who had been bottling up the bill over concerns about cost. The compromise, which still must be reconciled with competing House and Senate versions, would significantly weaken the public option favored by liberals by delinking reimbursement rates to Medicare.'
FRESHMEN ANGST: Get ready for the attacks. From Jennifer Bendery in Roll Call: 'Freshman Democrats came to Congress this year ready to take tough votes, but some are worried that the breakneck pace and their party leaders' failure to match GOP messaging could translate into losses in the 2010 elections.
'A month after forcing a vote on contentious climate change legislation, House Democratic leaders announced Wednesday that they will punt on health care reform until September, a move that drew mixed responses from vulnerable Democrats bracing for Republican attacks over the August recess. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), president of the freshman class, said House Democratic leaders 'absolutely' need to counterpunch over the August recess because freshman Democrats will be the first to suffer from GOP blows.'
QUESTIONABLE EARMARK: POLITICO's John Bresnahan investigates NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions and a curious earmark: 'Rep. Pete Sessions - the chief of the Republicans' campaign arm in the House - says on his website that earmarks have become 'a symbol of a broken Washington to the American people.'
'Yet in 2008, Sessions himself steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government contracting, let alone in building blimps. What the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former Sessions aide with a criminal record who has made more than $446,000 lobbying on its behalf.'
SPEAKER'S LAND DEAL? Roxana Tiron of The Hill looks deeper at Pelosi's unusual involvement in a land deal between the Navy and the city of San Francisco: 'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is eyeing treasure in a massive Pentagon bill that could benefit her district greatly.
'Pelosi is among dozens of House lawmakers pressing for a little-known provision in the defense policy bill that would speed up the transfer of military bases to private developers. One of those shuttered bases has been the subject of years of failed negotiations between San Francisco, the city Pelosi represents, and the Navy.
'The two parties have been at a stalemate over Treasure Island, a Navy base that closed in 1993 and sits atop a man-made island in the San Francisco Bay that has city planners seeing dollar signs. They have squabbled over the price. The Navy estimates it is worth $240 million; the city offered a tenth of that value.'
THIS SHOULD BE BIGGER NEWS: Flash back to summer 2006 and imagine how fr we've come in Iraq. From the AP: 'U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday he sees 'some chance of a modest acceleration' in the pace of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. Mr. Gates, returning from a trip to Iraq, told reporters aboard his plane that perhaps one combat brigade would leave Iraq ahead of schedule. He didn't give a precise timetable. U.S. officials had been worried that last month's formal handover of control of Iraqi cities to the country's security forces might erode gains that had been made. But Mr. Gates said Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. general in Iraq, told him the security situation is better than expected.'
SPECTER ABSTAINS: CQ's David Clarke notices what's not in the massive Labor HHS appropriations bill: 'As a Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter routinely secured funding for sexual abstinence education in Pennsylvania, making it a standard feature in spending bills for education, labor and health programs.
'Not this year. Specter did not request money for his state's programs in the fiscal 2010 Labor-HHS-Education bill the Senate Appropriations Committee will consider Thursday.'
BLACKBERRY ADDICTS LISTEN UP: This one should get your attention. From The New York Times Matt Richtel: 'States that do not ban texting by drivers could forfeit hundreds of millions of dollars in federal highway funds under legislation introduced Wednesday in the Senate. Under the measure, states would have two years to outlaw the sending of text and e-mail messages by drivers or lose 25 percent of their highway money each year until the money was depleted.'
SOTOMAYOR UPDATE: The Huddle has moved the over/under on yes votes for Sotomayor back down to 65, as fewer Republicans followed Lindsey Graham than expected. Assuming Kennedy and Byrd don't vote, that's seven Republicans saying yes.
ON TAP TONIGHT: The choices at the 'beer summit' at the White House: Red Stripe (Prof. Gates) Blue Moon (Sgt. Crowley) Bud Light (President Obama).
*** Why natural gas fuel for transportation?
It's American. Our reserves are twice as plentiful as crude oil. It's affordable - on average, 1/3 less to fill a vehicle with natural gas than with gasoline. It has an existing distribution infrastructure with 1.5 million miles of gas pipe and distribution lines crisscrossing the country. It's a proven vehicle fuel with nearly 10 million natural gas vehicles in the world. It's clean. Natural gas vehicles produce 22 to 29 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than diesel- or gasoline-powered vehicles.
Of course not. But the latest breakthrough in the House has made bedfellows of liberals who think it's a sellout with Republicans who think it's still a government takeover of health care. The Senate bill, with its co-op idea substituting for the public option -- and it's lower price tag – is already getting picked at by Democrats not in the negotiating room.
And then there's the polls – they're awful right now for President Obama and Democrats on health care.
Still, there's no mistaking a new sense of momentum on the big picture, and Democrats will head into recess feeling like they just might finish this behemoth task before the World Series ends this autumn.
Good Thursday morning and welcome to The Huddle, where the Blue Dogs have heeled for Nancy Pelosi, the liberals are barking, and the freshmen are worried about the attacks that await them on the home front.
*** A message from NGV America: Why natural gas fuel for transportation? Economical. Low carbon. Efficient. Abundant domestic supply. Learn more at NGVAmerica.org. ***
DRIVING THE RECESS: Bad poll numbers will be the theme of this recess for Democrats. From The New York Times' Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee Brenan: 'President Obama's ability to shape the debate on health care appears to be eroding as opponents aggressively portray his overhaul plan as a government takeover that could limit Americans' ability to choose their doctors and course of treatment, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
'Americans are concerned that revamping the health care system would reduce the quality of their care, increase their out-of-pocket health costs and tax bills, and limit their options in choosing doctors, treatments and tests, the poll found.'
And from the Wall Street Journal: 'Support for President Barack Obama's health-care effort has declined over the past five weeks, particularly among those who already have insurance, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found, amid prolonged debate over costs and quality of care. In mid-June, respondents were evenly divided when asked whether they thought Mr. Obama's health plan was a good or bad idea. In the new poll, conducted July 24-27, 42 percent called it a bad idea while 36 percent said it was a good idea.'
HOUSE DEAL: Uncle Mo may finally be on the side of the Dems, as Patrick O'Connor and Carrie Budoff Brown report: 'After weeks of infighting and negative headlines, Democrats finally found a little momentum on health care as negotiators broke a critical logjam in the House and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office delivered a rare piece of good news in the Senate.
'The big breakthrough came in the House, where a quartet of moderate Blue Dog Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee finally agreed to a deal offered by Chairman Henry Waxman that would cut the cost of the bill and relieve more small businesses from a requirement to provide their employees with health care. Under the terms of their agreement, party leaders will postpone a full House vote on the still-contentious health care measure until the fall, giving their rank and file another month - at least - to consider the sweeping legislation. That will also give opponents plenty of time to browbeat them. House liberals remain unhappy with Waxman's negotiations with the Blue Dogs, but the committee seemed back on track as of Thursday night.'
LIBERAL REVOLT: We saw this coming – liberals hate the compromise that Pelosi and Waxman made with moderate Blue Dogs. Glenn Thrush of POLITICO taps into some serious lefty angst: 'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spent half of Wednesday finalizing a deal with the Blue Dogs - and the other half quelling a brewing rebellion among progressives who think conservatives have hijacked health care reform.
'Liberals, Hispanics and African-American members - Pelosi's most loyal base of support - are feeling betrayed after House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) reached an agreement with four of seven Blue Dogs on his committee who had been bottling up the bill over concerns about cost. The compromise, which still must be reconciled with competing House and Senate versions, would significantly weaken the public option favored by liberals by delinking reimbursement rates to Medicare.'
FRESHMEN ANGST: Get ready for the attacks. From Jennifer Bendery in Roll Call: 'Freshman Democrats came to Congress this year ready to take tough votes, but some are worried that the breakneck pace and their party leaders' failure to match GOP messaging could translate into losses in the 2010 elections.
'A month after forcing a vote on contentious climate change legislation, House Democratic leaders announced Wednesday that they will punt on health care reform until September, a move that drew mixed responses from vulnerable Democrats bracing for Republican attacks over the August recess. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), president of the freshman class, said House Democratic leaders 'absolutely' need to counterpunch over the August recess because freshman Democrats will be the first to suffer from GOP blows.'
QUESTIONABLE EARMARK: POLITICO's John Bresnahan investigates NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions and a curious earmark: 'Rep. Pete Sessions - the chief of the Republicans' campaign arm in the House - says on his website that earmarks have become 'a symbol of a broken Washington to the American people.'
'Yet in 2008, Sessions himself steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government contracting, let alone in building blimps. What the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former Sessions aide with a criminal record who has made more than $446,000 lobbying on its behalf.'
SPEAKER'S LAND DEAL? Roxana Tiron of The Hill looks deeper at Pelosi's unusual involvement in a land deal between the Navy and the city of San Francisco: 'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is eyeing treasure in a massive Pentagon bill that could benefit her district greatly.
'Pelosi is among dozens of House lawmakers pressing for a little-known provision in the defense policy bill that would speed up the transfer of military bases to private developers. One of those shuttered bases has been the subject of years of failed negotiations between San Francisco, the city Pelosi represents, and the Navy.
'The two parties have been at a stalemate over Treasure Island, a Navy base that closed in 1993 and sits atop a man-made island in the San Francisco Bay that has city planners seeing dollar signs. They have squabbled over the price. The Navy estimates it is worth $240 million; the city offered a tenth of that value.'
THIS SHOULD BE BIGGER NEWS: Flash back to summer 2006 and imagine how fr we've come in Iraq. From the AP: 'U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday he sees 'some chance of a modest acceleration' in the pace of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. Mr. Gates, returning from a trip to Iraq, told reporters aboard his plane that perhaps one combat brigade would leave Iraq ahead of schedule. He didn't give a precise timetable. U.S. officials had been worried that last month's formal handover of control of Iraqi cities to the country's security forces might erode gains that had been made. But Mr. Gates said Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. general in Iraq, told him the security situation is better than expected.'
SPECTER ABSTAINS: CQ's David Clarke notices what's not in the massive Labor HHS appropriations bill: 'As a Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter routinely secured funding for sexual abstinence education in Pennsylvania, making it a standard feature in spending bills for education, labor and health programs.
'Not this year. Specter did not request money for his state's programs in the fiscal 2010 Labor-HHS-Education bill the Senate Appropriations Committee will consider Thursday.'
BLACKBERRY ADDICTS LISTEN UP: This one should get your attention. From The New York Times Matt Richtel: 'States that do not ban texting by drivers could forfeit hundreds of millions of dollars in federal highway funds under legislation introduced Wednesday in the Senate. Under the measure, states would have two years to outlaw the sending of text and e-mail messages by drivers or lose 25 percent of their highway money each year until the money was depleted.'
SOTOMAYOR UPDATE: The Huddle has moved the over/under on yes votes for Sotomayor back down to 65, as fewer Republicans followed Lindsey Graham than expected. Assuming Kennedy and Byrd don't vote, that's seven Republicans saying yes.
ON TAP TONIGHT: The choices at the 'beer summit' at the White House: Red Stripe (Prof. Gates) Blue Moon (Sgt. Crowley) Bud Light (President Obama).
*** Why natural gas fuel for transportation?
It's American. Our reserves are twice as plentiful as crude oil. It's affordable - on average, 1/3 less to fill a vehicle with natural gas than with gasoline. It has an existing distribution infrastructure with 1.5 million miles of gas pipe and distribution lines crisscrossing the country. It's a proven vehicle fuel with nearly 10 million natural gas vehicles in the world. It's clean. Natural gas vehicles produce 22 to 29 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than diesel- or gasoline-powered vehicles.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tanning beds definitely cause skin cancer
Study: Tanning beds definitely cause skin cancer
A new scientific analysis has upgraded tanning beds' cancer risk from a likely cause to a definite cause of the disease.
The report, by experts at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization, changes the category for tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation. It concludes skin cancer risk increases 75 percent for those who used tanning beds before the age of 30.
The experts also found mutations in mice when exposed to either UVA or UVB light. Previously, only one type of ultraviolet radiation was thought to be lethal.
Their report, published in the August edition of Lancet Oncology, analyzed 20 separate studies.
"Claims are that tanning beds are UVA light, and that doesn't cause a problem, but the report puts that theory to rest," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, who read the findings. "It says it doesn't matter if it's UVA or UVB [light]."
Tanning beds have long been controversial, especially for use by young people. Many teens use tanning beds to get a base tan or before a big event. This study should give them pause, Lichtenfeld said.
Advocates for tanning salons said in a statement Tuesday the information is not new.
"The fact that the IARC has put tanning bed use in the same category as sunlight is hardly newsworthy," said Dan Humiston, president of the Indoor Tanning Association.
"The UV light from a tanning bed is equivalent to UV light from the sun, which has had a Group One classification since 1992. Some other items in this category are red wine, beer and salted fish," he said, adding the ITA had always emphasized the importance of moderation when it comes to UV light from either the sun or a tanning bed.
In Britain, where the Lancet report originates, melanoma is now the leading cause of cancer in women in their 20s.
Shannon McGeever, manager of Perfect Color Tanning Salon in Farmingdale, said overexposure and burning the skin is what causes the damage.
"We teach how to tan properly, and we are familiar with all the different skin cancers and how to recognize and how to prevent them, and we do take the right precautions to make sure we tan people as safely as possible," she said.
Lichtenfeld emphasized that the study says there is no safe use of tanning beds. "This study says UVA causes skin cancer," Lichtenfeld said. "It's a Class One carcinogen. This causes cancer. Period. End of statement," he said.
Dr. Colette Pameijer, a cancer surgeon at Stony Brook University Medical Center, said the report was comprehensive. "They basically summarized all known data on UV radiation and risk for skin cancer in both humans and animals, and their conclusion should be taken very, very seriously," she said.
A new scientific analysis has upgraded tanning beds' cancer risk from a likely cause to a definite cause of the disease.
The report, by experts at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization, changes the category for tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation. It concludes skin cancer risk increases 75 percent for those who used tanning beds before the age of 30.
The experts also found mutations in mice when exposed to either UVA or UVB light. Previously, only one type of ultraviolet radiation was thought to be lethal.
Their report, published in the August edition of Lancet Oncology, analyzed 20 separate studies.
"Claims are that tanning beds are UVA light, and that doesn't cause a problem, but the report puts that theory to rest," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, who read the findings. "It says it doesn't matter if it's UVA or UVB [light]."
Tanning beds have long been controversial, especially for use by young people. Many teens use tanning beds to get a base tan or before a big event. This study should give them pause, Lichtenfeld said.
Advocates for tanning salons said in a statement Tuesday the information is not new.
"The fact that the IARC has put tanning bed use in the same category as sunlight is hardly newsworthy," said Dan Humiston, president of the Indoor Tanning Association.
"The UV light from a tanning bed is equivalent to UV light from the sun, which has had a Group One classification since 1992. Some other items in this category are red wine, beer and salted fish," he said, adding the ITA had always emphasized the importance of moderation when it comes to UV light from either the sun or a tanning bed.
In Britain, where the Lancet report originates, melanoma is now the leading cause of cancer in women in their 20s.
Shannon McGeever, manager of Perfect Color Tanning Salon in Farmingdale, said overexposure and burning the skin is what causes the damage.
"We teach how to tan properly, and we are familiar with all the different skin cancers and how to recognize and how to prevent them, and we do take the right precautions to make sure we tan people as safely as possible," she said.
Lichtenfeld emphasized that the study says there is no safe use of tanning beds. "This study says UVA causes skin cancer," Lichtenfeld said. "It's a Class One carcinogen. This causes cancer. Period. End of statement," he said.
Dr. Colette Pameijer, a cancer surgeon at Stony Brook University Medical Center, said the report was comprehensive. "They basically summarized all known data on UV radiation and risk for skin cancer in both humans and animals, and their conclusion should be taken very, very seriously," she said.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Pique And the Professor Eugene Robinson
If race were the only issue, there would be much less hyperventilation about Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s unpleasant run-in with the criminal justice system. After all, it would hardly be the first time a black man had unjustly been hauled to jail by a white police officer. The debate -- really more of a shouting match -- is also about power and entitlement.
This is a new twist. Since the triumph of the civil rights movement, minorities have been moving up the ladder in politics, business, academia, just about every field. Only in the past decade, however, has a sizable cohort of African Americans and Latinos broken through to the tiny upper echelons where real power is exercised.
I'm talking about President Obama, obviously, but also Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons, entertainment mogul Oprah Winfrey, former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and many others -- a growing number of minorities with the kind of serious power that used to be reserved for whites only. In academia, the list begins with "Skip" Gates.
He's a superstar, one of the best-known and most highly acclaimed faculty members at the nation's most prestigious university. A few years ago, when he made noises about leaving, Harvard moved heaven and earth to keep him. The incident that led to his arrest occurred as he was coming home from the airport after a trip to China for his latest PBS documentary. Following the traumatic encounter, he repaired to Martha's Vineyard to recuperate. This is how the man rolls.
Obama's choice of words might not have been politic, but he was merely stating the obvious when he said the police behaved "stupidly." Gates is 58, stands maybe 5-feet-7 and weighs about 150 pounds. He has a disability and walks with a cane. By the time Sgt. James Crowley made the arrest, he had already assured himself that Gates was in his own home. Crowley could see that the professor posed no threat to anybody.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume that Crowley's version of the incident is true -- that Gates, from the outset, was accusatory, aggressive and even obnoxious, addressing the officer with an air of highhanded superiority. Let's assume he really recited the Big Cheese mantra: "You have no idea who you're messing with."
I lived in Cambridge for a year, and I can attest that meeting a famous Harvard professor who happens to be arrogant is like meeting a famous basketball player who happens to be tall. It's not exactly a surprise. Crowley wouldn't have lasted a week on the force, much less made sergeant, if he had tried to arrest every member of the Harvard community who treated him as if he belonged to an inferior species. Yet instead of walking away, Crowley arrested Gates as he stepped onto the front porch of his own house.
Apparently, there was something about the power relationship involved -- uppity, jet-setting black professor vs. regular-guy, working-class white cop -- that Crowley couldn't abide. Judging by the overheated commentary that followed, that same something, whatever it might be, also makes conservatives forget that they believe in individual rights and oppose intrusive state power.
There was a similar case of collective amnesia at the Sotomayor hearings. Republican senators, faced with a judge who follows precedent and eschews making new law from the bench, forgot that this is the judicial philosophy they advocate. The odd and inappropriate line of questioning by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) about Sotomayor's temperament was widely seen as sexist, and indeed it was. But I suspect the racial or ethnic power equation was also a factor -- the idea of a sharp-tongued "wise Latina" making nervous attorneys, some of them white male attorneys, fumble and squirm.
Is a man of Gates's station entitled to puff himself up and remind a police officer that he's dealing with someone who has juice? Is a woman of Sotomayor's accomplishment entitled to humiliate a lawyer who came to court unprepared? No more and no less entitled, surely, than all the Big Cheeses who came before them.
Yet Gates's fit of pique somehow became cause for arrest. I can't prove that if the Big Cheese in question had been a famous, brilliant Harvard professor who happened to be white -- say, presidential adviser Larry Summers, who's on leave from the university -- the outcome would have been different. I'd put money on it, though. Anybody wanna bet?
eugenerobinson@washpost.com
This is a new twist. Since the triumph of the civil rights movement, minorities have been moving up the ladder in politics, business, academia, just about every field. Only in the past decade, however, has a sizable cohort of African Americans and Latinos broken through to the tiny upper echelons where real power is exercised.
I'm talking about President Obama, obviously, but also Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons, entertainment mogul Oprah Winfrey, former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and many others -- a growing number of minorities with the kind of serious power that used to be reserved for whites only. In academia, the list begins with "Skip" Gates.
He's a superstar, one of the best-known and most highly acclaimed faculty members at the nation's most prestigious university. A few years ago, when he made noises about leaving, Harvard moved heaven and earth to keep him. The incident that led to his arrest occurred as he was coming home from the airport after a trip to China for his latest PBS documentary. Following the traumatic encounter, he repaired to Martha's Vineyard to recuperate. This is how the man rolls.
Obama's choice of words might not have been politic, but he was merely stating the obvious when he said the police behaved "stupidly." Gates is 58, stands maybe 5-feet-7 and weighs about 150 pounds. He has a disability and walks with a cane. By the time Sgt. James Crowley made the arrest, he had already assured himself that Gates was in his own home. Crowley could see that the professor posed no threat to anybody.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume that Crowley's version of the incident is true -- that Gates, from the outset, was accusatory, aggressive and even obnoxious, addressing the officer with an air of highhanded superiority. Let's assume he really recited the Big Cheese mantra: "You have no idea who you're messing with."
I lived in Cambridge for a year, and I can attest that meeting a famous Harvard professor who happens to be arrogant is like meeting a famous basketball player who happens to be tall. It's not exactly a surprise. Crowley wouldn't have lasted a week on the force, much less made sergeant, if he had tried to arrest every member of the Harvard community who treated him as if he belonged to an inferior species. Yet instead of walking away, Crowley arrested Gates as he stepped onto the front porch of his own house.
Apparently, there was something about the power relationship involved -- uppity, jet-setting black professor vs. regular-guy, working-class white cop -- that Crowley couldn't abide. Judging by the overheated commentary that followed, that same something, whatever it might be, also makes conservatives forget that they believe in individual rights and oppose intrusive state power.
There was a similar case of collective amnesia at the Sotomayor hearings. Republican senators, faced with a judge who follows precedent and eschews making new law from the bench, forgot that this is the judicial philosophy they advocate. The odd and inappropriate line of questioning by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) about Sotomayor's temperament was widely seen as sexist, and indeed it was. But I suspect the racial or ethnic power equation was also a factor -- the idea of a sharp-tongued "wise Latina" making nervous attorneys, some of them white male attorneys, fumble and squirm.
Is a man of Gates's station entitled to puff himself up and remind a police officer that he's dealing with someone who has juice? Is a woman of Sotomayor's accomplishment entitled to humiliate a lawyer who came to court unprepared? No more and no less entitled, surely, than all the Big Cheeses who came before them.
Yet Gates's fit of pique somehow became cause for arrest. I can't prove that if the Big Cheese in question had been a famous, brilliant Harvard professor who happened to be white -- say, presidential adviser Larry Summers, who's on leave from the university -- the outcome would have been different. I'd put money on it, though. Anybody wanna bet?
eugenerobinson@washpost.com
Lou Dobbs Destroys CNN's Credibility Bill Press
When I worked there, as co-host of “Crossfire,” CNN was known as “America's most trusted news network.”
And rightfully so. Alone among the cables, you could count on CNN to deliver the news right down the middle. Yes, there were commentators on the right and the left, but the anchors played it straight and stories with no legitimacy never made it to air.
Sadly, that's no longer the case. Lou Dobbs has changed all that. And Jon Klein, CNN's president, is letting him get away with it.
When he came back to the network, after a failed Internet business venture, Dobbs was something new for CNN: an anchor who freely gave his own opinions. That made a lot of people, including me, uncomfortable — but at least Dobbs was pontificating on legitimate issues, like immigration and the economic crisis.
For the last couple of weeks, however, Dobbs has gone off the deep end. He's become a big “birther,” raising questions about whether President Obama was really born in Hawaii and might therefore be an illegal president.
That whole issue, whipped up by crazies like Alan Keyes, is utter nonsense. The Hawaii Department of Health has produced his genuine birth certificate. Two Honolulu newspapers reported his birth the day after he was delivered. CNN's Kitty Pilgrim, filling in for Dobbs on his own show, categorically debunked the whole birther movement. But as soon as Dobbs returned, he stirred it up again — no doubt encouraged by Jon Klein's telling the Los Angeles Times that questions about the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship were a “legitimate” issue.
Now, that's the kind of mindless partisan crap you expect from Fox News. But not, until now, CNN.
What I want to know is: Dobbs or no Dobbs, CNN will never be trusted by the lunatic fringe that watches Fox News. So why is CNN letting Lou Dobbs destroy the network's reputation for honest reporting?
And rightfully so. Alone among the cables, you could count on CNN to deliver the news right down the middle. Yes, there were commentators on the right and the left, but the anchors played it straight and stories with no legitimacy never made it to air.
Sadly, that's no longer the case. Lou Dobbs has changed all that. And Jon Klein, CNN's president, is letting him get away with it.
When he came back to the network, after a failed Internet business venture, Dobbs was something new for CNN: an anchor who freely gave his own opinions. That made a lot of people, including me, uncomfortable — but at least Dobbs was pontificating on legitimate issues, like immigration and the economic crisis.
For the last couple of weeks, however, Dobbs has gone off the deep end. He's become a big “birther,” raising questions about whether President Obama was really born in Hawaii and might therefore be an illegal president.
That whole issue, whipped up by crazies like Alan Keyes, is utter nonsense. The Hawaii Department of Health has produced his genuine birth certificate. Two Honolulu newspapers reported his birth the day after he was delivered. CNN's Kitty Pilgrim, filling in for Dobbs on his own show, categorically debunked the whole birther movement. But as soon as Dobbs returned, he stirred it up again — no doubt encouraged by Jon Klein's telling the Los Angeles Times that questions about the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship were a “legitimate” issue.
Now, that's the kind of mindless partisan crap you expect from Fox News. But not, until now, CNN.
What I want to know is: Dobbs or no Dobbs, CNN will never be trusted by the lunatic fringe that watches Fox News. So why is CNN letting Lou Dobbs destroy the network's reputation for honest reporting?
Friday, July 24, 2009
MEDIA MATTERS weekly update on the NUTS amoung us!
Media Matters: Captain Lou and the Birther Brigade
Leave it to Lou Dobbs: If there's a right-wing conspiracy theory out there floating around on the Internets, he'll latch onto it like a pit bull. He may be past his prime, but he just won't let go. It must be tough for CNN to look on while Dobbs discredits "the most trusted name in news," one wild claim at a time. If there's a hook to the conspiracy even tacitly involving the immigration issue, well, you've just made Dobbs' day.
How can we forget his preoccupation with conspiracy theories about purported government plans for a "North American Union" between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada? Or his promotion of the nutty conspiracy that Mexicans plan to reconquer the American Southwest?
Over the past two weeks, however, Dobbs took things even further, pushing one of the most ludicrous conspiracy theories of the right-wing fringe: the notion that the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate is in doubt.
Kicking things off on the July 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Dobbs aligned himself with the far-right birther movement, devoting substantial airtime to the issue of Obama's birth certificate, asserting repeatedly that Obama needs to "produce" it. Dobbs said that the birth certificate posted online by FactCheck.org "purporting to validate the president" has "some issues. ... I mean, it's peculiar." He also stated that he wants to see a "long form" birth certificate, which he called "the real deal." That same day on his CNN program, Dobbs brought up the issue again. Referring to the document that FactCheck.org posted, he said, "It is, in fact, the so-called short form, not the original document. It is really a document saying that the state of Hawaii has the real document in its possession."
By contrast, Dobbs' CNN colleagues have repeatedly debunked claims that Obama has yet to produce a valid birth certificate, calling them "total bull" and "a whack-job project," and have characterized those who make these claims as "conspiracy theorists" who wear "tin foil hat[s]."
Two days after his initial rant on the subject, Kitty Pilgrim was filling in for the immigration-obsessed-crusader as guest host of his CNN show. During the broadcast, Pilgrim, a regular correspondent for Lou Dobbs Tonight, debunked claims that Obama does not have a valid birth certificate and is therefore ineligible to be president, noting that CNN "found no basis" for such claims and cited "overwhelming evidence that proves that his birth certificate is real, and that he was born in Honolulu."
You'd think that would put an end to the nonsense. Yet, days after Pilgrim answered it on his very own show, Dobbs was back on the air claiming that the birth certificate "questions won't go away." A day later, still on the birther bandwagon, Dobbs said on his CNN program that "no one" knows "the reality" of Obama's birth certificate.
Dobbs' obsession with this fringe conspiracy did not go unnoticed by his colleagues at CNN or competing networks for that matter. With Dobbs digging in his heels, other outlets began picking up -- and debunking -- various strands of the story.
On the July 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews hosted Rep. John Campbell (R-CA), one of nine Republican co-sponsors of what has become known as the "birther bill" -- legislation that would require future presidential candidates to provide their birth certificates. During the nearly 10-minute segment, Matthews grilled the conservative congressman on the "crazy proposal," repeatedly asking, "Do you believe that Barack Obama is a legitimate, native-born American or not?"
The following day, Los Angeles Times media writer James Rainey quoted FactCheck.org director and former CNN employee Brooks Jackson as stating, "CNN should be ashamed of itself for putting some that stuff on the air." In the same report, Rainey noted the assertion of "one CNN employee" who, in an apparent attempt to distance Dobbs from the network, "reminded [him] several times that Dobbs' most pointed assertions were made on his radio program, which is unconnected to CNN."
Perhaps sensing a tidal wave of opposition to his fringe commentary mounting, Dobbs took to his radio show on July 21 to rant about the "national liberal media" debunking birther theories, telling his audience "they are not applying critical judgment."
At least we now know what Dobbs thinks of his CNN colleagues and other members of the media, who have taken to the airwaves since Dobbs' initial rant to debunk the Obama birth certificate theories, often while ridiculing their adherents as "nut jobs" who advance "ludicrous" claims that are "more conspiratorial than factual."
Dobbs doesn't want you to think he isn't fair. You see, according to him, Obama could "make the whole...controversy disappear ... by simply releasing his original birth certificate." Yep, if the president placates a bunch of right-wing lunatics, they'll be sure to leave him alone.
It's not Dobbs who is on the attack; he is the victim of the "liberal media," which is afraid to "upset the Obama White House." It's those "limp-minded, lily-livered lefties ... attacking" Dobbs because he "actually had the temerity to inquire as to where the birth certificate was." Dobbs' words, not mine. You can't make this stuff up.
In the days that followed, Dobbs faced a torrent of criticism spanning the media gambit: NBC Nightly News debunked the Dobbs-driven birther theory; MSNBC's Chris Matthews wondered if the hubbub is about "not documentation, but pigmentation"; Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, noting that Pilgrim had debunked Dobbs on his own show, asked, "Do you even watch CNN?"; MSNBC's Ed Schultz said, "For Lou Dobbs to wonder if President Obama is quote, 'undocumented' ... that's fringe psycho talk"; playing a clip of Dobbs on MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Willie Geist said birthers are flogging an "imaginary controversy."
The sparks really flew after CNN's Roland Martin took on Dobbs' obsession with the birther conspiracy. Interviewed by Rick Sanchez, Martin made his opinion abundantly clear, describing those who promote the conspiracy as "a small group of nutty people." Referring to the words of a birther yelling at Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) at a recent town hall meeting, "I want my country back," Martin said the birther really meant, "How is this black guy all of the sudden running the country?" Dobbs was none too pleased. On his radio show, he called Martin's rebuttal "a hoot," saying, "I can't believe Roland would say something that stupid -- that it's racist." The next day on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Martin told Dobbs, "[Obama's] not here to satisfy Lou Dobbs."
So, who are the birthers whose claims Dobbs is advancing? The figures include Andy Martin, who has made anti-Semitic and racially charged comments; 9-11 "Truther" Philip Berg; perennial candidate for public office Alan Keyes, who has reportedly accused Obama of taking the "slaveholder's position" on abortion; a pastor who has prayed for Obama's death; and the discredited right-wing website WorldNetDaily. Remember, in Dobbs' world, it is the "liberal media" who have failed to apply "critical judgment" to this issue.
Late this week, word leaked that CNN President Jon Klein had reportedly emailed information on Thursday to the staff of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight that Klein said shows the "story" about President Obama's birth certificate "is dead." Dobbs noted that evidence -- which was a statement by the Hawaii Health Department that in 2001, paper records were replaced by electronic records -- on air as Klein instructed, but then asked CNN contributor Roland Martin: "When this could be dispelled so quickly, and -- and simply by producing [the birth certificate], why not do it?" We already know that Dobbs apparently doesn't follow the reporting of his own network. I suppose, then, that it isn't surprising to see Dobbs having issues following his own logic.
Less than 24 hours after declaring Dobbs' pet "birther" story "dead" -- and saying anyone who "is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef" -- Klein caved in to Dobbs, reversing himself completely. In a statement to Washington Post Co. blogger Greg Sargent, Klein defended Dobbs and stated, "I think no good journalist would ever say that a particular story will never be covered again. Every day brings new facts, new pegs." Additionally, according to Sargent, "Klein ... took a shot at Dobbs' critics, saying they're politically motivated: 'I understand that people with a partisan point of view from one extreme or anther might get annoyed that certain subjects are aired.' "
This raises the troubling question of who is really calling the shots at CNN. It's hard to see how anyone can believe CNN is the "most trusted name in news" when its own president can't stand by his less-than-day-old word. CNN's "Lou Dobbs problem" just got a whole lot worse.
Other major stories this week:
A banner week for Murdoch's media empire
It was a banner week for Rupert Murdoch, whose media outlets reminded the nation again of their redeeming social and journalistic value. Sigh.
On Monday's edition of The O'Reilly Factor, retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a Fox News military analyst, taught America what it means to support the troops. Three weeks ago, 23-year-old Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl of Hailey, Idaho, was taken hostage by Taliban forces in Afghanistan. The circumstances of his abduction remain unclear, with some reports indicating that he was taken by force, while others indicate that he voluntarily abandoned his post. Either way, the people of Hailey are hoping for his safe return.
But not Peters, who stunningly remarked that if Bergdahl had in fact deserted his unit, then "the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills." No admonishment came from Bill O'Reilly. His words ignited a firestorm of criticism. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reported that Pentagon officials felt Peters' commentary "could endanger" the life of Bergdahl, while on CNN, columnist John Avalon said that the "wingnut" comment had "crossed the line." Before long, a bipartisan group of 23 veterans serving in Congress had demanded an official apology from Roger Ailes, and Rep. Eric Massa, himself a 24-year veteran of the Navy, had called for both O'Reilly and Peters to be fired from Fox. But neither O'Reilly nor Peters apologized. Instead, two days later, they said that they did wish for the soldier's safe return, but also speculated that he might be "crazy." The following day, Peters attacked Bergdahl again, this time on Steve Malzberg's radio show, where he referred to him as a "deserter" and said a reported story about Bergdahl's girlfriend was a "tissue of lies."
At the same time that the Murdoch-led right-wing media machine was savaging the reputation of a U.S. soldier being held captive overseas, it was disseminating surreptitiously taken near-pornographic images of popular ESPN reporter Erin Andrews. The nude pictures had been culled from a video taken of Andrews through a peephole while she was staying at a hotel. O'Reilly chose to air the images in a segment titled "Did You See That?" His goal, he said during a moment of particularly robust logic, was to prove the "criminal intent" of those involved. The Murdoch-owned (or more aptly, Murdoch-destroyed) New York Post also ran with the pictures, a decision that ESPN called "beyond the pale" before it banished Post reporters from its TV and radio networks.
Leave it to Lou Dobbs: If there's a right-wing conspiracy theory out there floating around on the Internets, he'll latch onto it like a pit bull. He may be past his prime, but he just won't let go. It must be tough for CNN to look on while Dobbs discredits "the most trusted name in news," one wild claim at a time. If there's a hook to the conspiracy even tacitly involving the immigration issue, well, you've just made Dobbs' day.
How can we forget his preoccupation with conspiracy theories about purported government plans for a "North American Union" between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada? Or his promotion of the nutty conspiracy that Mexicans plan to reconquer the American Southwest?
Over the past two weeks, however, Dobbs took things even further, pushing one of the most ludicrous conspiracy theories of the right-wing fringe: the notion that the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate is in doubt.
Kicking things off on the July 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Dobbs aligned himself with the far-right birther movement, devoting substantial airtime to the issue of Obama's birth certificate, asserting repeatedly that Obama needs to "produce" it. Dobbs said that the birth certificate posted online by FactCheck.org "purporting to validate the president" has "some issues. ... I mean, it's peculiar." He also stated that he wants to see a "long form" birth certificate, which he called "the real deal." That same day on his CNN program, Dobbs brought up the issue again. Referring to the document that FactCheck.org posted, he said, "It is, in fact, the so-called short form, not the original document. It is really a document saying that the state of Hawaii has the real document in its possession."
By contrast, Dobbs' CNN colleagues have repeatedly debunked claims that Obama has yet to produce a valid birth certificate, calling them "total bull" and "a whack-job project," and have characterized those who make these claims as "conspiracy theorists" who wear "tin foil hat[s]."
Two days after his initial rant on the subject, Kitty Pilgrim was filling in for the immigration-obsessed-crusader as guest host of his CNN show. During the broadcast, Pilgrim, a regular correspondent for Lou Dobbs Tonight, debunked claims that Obama does not have a valid birth certificate and is therefore ineligible to be president, noting that CNN "found no basis" for such claims and cited "overwhelming evidence that proves that his birth certificate is real, and that he was born in Honolulu."
You'd think that would put an end to the nonsense. Yet, days after Pilgrim answered it on his very own show, Dobbs was back on the air claiming that the birth certificate "questions won't go away." A day later, still on the birther bandwagon, Dobbs said on his CNN program that "no one" knows "the reality" of Obama's birth certificate.
Dobbs' obsession with this fringe conspiracy did not go unnoticed by his colleagues at CNN or competing networks for that matter. With Dobbs digging in his heels, other outlets began picking up -- and debunking -- various strands of the story.
On the July 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews hosted Rep. John Campbell (R-CA), one of nine Republican co-sponsors of what has become known as the "birther bill" -- legislation that would require future presidential candidates to provide their birth certificates. During the nearly 10-minute segment, Matthews grilled the conservative congressman on the "crazy proposal," repeatedly asking, "Do you believe that Barack Obama is a legitimate, native-born American or not?"
The following day, Los Angeles Times media writer James Rainey quoted FactCheck.org director and former CNN employee Brooks Jackson as stating, "CNN should be ashamed of itself for putting some that stuff on the air." In the same report, Rainey noted the assertion of "one CNN employee" who, in an apparent attempt to distance Dobbs from the network, "reminded [him] several times that Dobbs' most pointed assertions were made on his radio program, which is unconnected to CNN."
Perhaps sensing a tidal wave of opposition to his fringe commentary mounting, Dobbs took to his radio show on July 21 to rant about the "national liberal media" debunking birther theories, telling his audience "they are not applying critical judgment."
At least we now know what Dobbs thinks of his CNN colleagues and other members of the media, who have taken to the airwaves since Dobbs' initial rant to debunk the Obama birth certificate theories, often while ridiculing their adherents as "nut jobs" who advance "ludicrous" claims that are "more conspiratorial than factual."
Dobbs doesn't want you to think he isn't fair. You see, according to him, Obama could "make the whole...controversy disappear ... by simply releasing his original birth certificate." Yep, if the president placates a bunch of right-wing lunatics, they'll be sure to leave him alone.
It's not Dobbs who is on the attack; he is the victim of the "liberal media," which is afraid to "upset the Obama White House." It's those "limp-minded, lily-livered lefties ... attacking" Dobbs because he "actually had the temerity to inquire as to where the birth certificate was." Dobbs' words, not mine. You can't make this stuff up.
In the days that followed, Dobbs faced a torrent of criticism spanning the media gambit: NBC Nightly News debunked the Dobbs-driven birther theory; MSNBC's Chris Matthews wondered if the hubbub is about "not documentation, but pigmentation"; Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, noting that Pilgrim had debunked Dobbs on his own show, asked, "Do you even watch CNN?"; MSNBC's Ed Schultz said, "For Lou Dobbs to wonder if President Obama is quote, 'undocumented' ... that's fringe psycho talk"; playing a clip of Dobbs on MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Willie Geist said birthers are flogging an "imaginary controversy."
The sparks really flew after CNN's Roland Martin took on Dobbs' obsession with the birther conspiracy. Interviewed by Rick Sanchez, Martin made his opinion abundantly clear, describing those who promote the conspiracy as "a small group of nutty people." Referring to the words of a birther yelling at Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) at a recent town hall meeting, "I want my country back," Martin said the birther really meant, "How is this black guy all of the sudden running the country?" Dobbs was none too pleased. On his radio show, he called Martin's rebuttal "a hoot," saying, "I can't believe Roland would say something that stupid -- that it's racist." The next day on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Martin told Dobbs, "[Obama's] not here to satisfy Lou Dobbs."
So, who are the birthers whose claims Dobbs is advancing? The figures include Andy Martin, who has made anti-Semitic and racially charged comments; 9-11 "Truther" Philip Berg; perennial candidate for public office Alan Keyes, who has reportedly accused Obama of taking the "slaveholder's position" on abortion; a pastor who has prayed for Obama's death; and the discredited right-wing website WorldNetDaily. Remember, in Dobbs' world, it is the "liberal media" who have failed to apply "critical judgment" to this issue.
Late this week, word leaked that CNN President Jon Klein had reportedly emailed information on Thursday to the staff of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight that Klein said shows the "story" about President Obama's birth certificate "is dead." Dobbs noted that evidence -- which was a statement by the Hawaii Health Department that in 2001, paper records were replaced by electronic records -- on air as Klein instructed, but then asked CNN contributor Roland Martin: "When this could be dispelled so quickly, and -- and simply by producing [the birth certificate], why not do it?" We already know that Dobbs apparently doesn't follow the reporting of his own network. I suppose, then, that it isn't surprising to see Dobbs having issues following his own logic.
Less than 24 hours after declaring Dobbs' pet "birther" story "dead" -- and saying anyone who "is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef" -- Klein caved in to Dobbs, reversing himself completely. In a statement to Washington Post Co. blogger Greg Sargent, Klein defended Dobbs and stated, "I think no good journalist would ever say that a particular story will never be covered again. Every day brings new facts, new pegs." Additionally, according to Sargent, "Klein ... took a shot at Dobbs' critics, saying they're politically motivated: 'I understand that people with a partisan point of view from one extreme or anther might get annoyed that certain subjects are aired.' "
This raises the troubling question of who is really calling the shots at CNN. It's hard to see how anyone can believe CNN is the "most trusted name in news" when its own president can't stand by his less-than-day-old word. CNN's "Lou Dobbs problem" just got a whole lot worse.
Other major stories this week:
A banner week for Murdoch's media empire
It was a banner week for Rupert Murdoch, whose media outlets reminded the nation again of their redeeming social and journalistic value. Sigh.
On Monday's edition of The O'Reilly Factor, retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a Fox News military analyst, taught America what it means to support the troops. Three weeks ago, 23-year-old Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl of Hailey, Idaho, was taken hostage by Taliban forces in Afghanistan. The circumstances of his abduction remain unclear, with some reports indicating that he was taken by force, while others indicate that he voluntarily abandoned his post. Either way, the people of Hailey are hoping for his safe return.
But not Peters, who stunningly remarked that if Bergdahl had in fact deserted his unit, then "the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills." No admonishment came from Bill O'Reilly. His words ignited a firestorm of criticism. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reported that Pentagon officials felt Peters' commentary "could endanger" the life of Bergdahl, while on CNN, columnist John Avalon said that the "wingnut" comment had "crossed the line." Before long, a bipartisan group of 23 veterans serving in Congress had demanded an official apology from Roger Ailes, and Rep. Eric Massa, himself a 24-year veteran of the Navy, had called for both O'Reilly and Peters to be fired from Fox. But neither O'Reilly nor Peters apologized. Instead, two days later, they said that they did wish for the soldier's safe return, but also speculated that he might be "crazy." The following day, Peters attacked Bergdahl again, this time on Steve Malzberg's radio show, where he referred to him as a "deserter" and said a reported story about Bergdahl's girlfriend was a "tissue of lies."
At the same time that the Murdoch-led right-wing media machine was savaging the reputation of a U.S. soldier being held captive overseas, it was disseminating surreptitiously taken near-pornographic images of popular ESPN reporter Erin Andrews. The nude pictures had been culled from a video taken of Andrews through a peephole while she was staying at a hotel. O'Reilly chose to air the images in a segment titled "Did You See That?" His goal, he said during a moment of particularly robust logic, was to prove the "criminal intent" of those involved. The Murdoch-owned (or more aptly, Murdoch-destroyed) New York Post also ran with the pictures, a decision that ESPN called "beyond the pale" before it banished Post reporters from its TV and radio networks.
SONIA SOTOMAYOR comment: "I would hope..."
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
HK comment: Why does media not include the first part of her statment?
Because if you do it changes the meaning. "I WOULD HOPE..."
Here's the entire speach:
A Latina judge's voice
Judge Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 address to the 'Raising the Bar' symposium at the UC Berkeley School of Law
Note: Federal Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated by President Obama on May 26, 2009, to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, delivered this talk on Oct. 26, 2001, as the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture. She spoke at a UC Berkeley School of Law symposium titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation." The symposium was co-hosted by the La Raza Law Journal, the Berkeley La Raza Law Students Association, the Boalt Hall Center for Social Justice, and the Center for Latino Policy Research. The text below is from the archives of the La Raza Law Journal.
Judge Sotomayor grew up in a South Bronx housing project and graduated from Princeton University and Yale Law School. She was a former prosecutor in the office of the District Attorney in Manhattan and an associate and then partner in the New York law firm of Pavia & Harcourt. She was also a member of the Puerto Rico Legal Defense and Education Fund. Nominated to the Second Circuit in 1997, she became the first Latina nominated to sit on a federal appellate court.Judge Reynoso, thank you for that lovely introduction. I am humbled to be speaking behind a man who has contributed so much to the Hispanic community. I am also grateful to have such kind words said about me.
I am delighted to be here. It is nice to escape my hometown for just a little bit. It is also nice to say hello to old friends who are in the audience, to rekindle contact with old acquaintances and to make new friends among those of you in the audience. It is particularly heart warming to me to be attending a conference to which I was invited by a Latina law school friend, Rachel Moran, who is now an accomplished and widely respected legal scholar. I warn Latinos in this room: Latinas are making a lot of progress in the old-boy network.
I am also deeply honored to have been asked to deliver the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos lecture. I am joining a remarkable group of prior speakers who have given this lecture. I hope what I speak about today continues to promote the legacy of that man whose commitment to public service and abiding dedication to promoting equality and justice for all people inspired this memorial lecture and the conference that will follow. I thank Judge Olmos' widow Mary Louise's family, her son and the judge's many friends for hosting me. And for the privilege you have bestowed on me in honoring the memory of a very special person. If I and the many people of this conference can accomplish a fraction of what Judge Olmos did in his short but extraordinary life we and our respective communities will be infinitely better.
I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.
Who am I? I am a "Newyorkrican." For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II.
Like many other immigrants to this great land, my parents came because of poverty and to attempt to find and secure a better life for themselves and the family that they hoped to have. They largely succeeded. For that, my brother and I are very grateful. The story of that success is what made me and what makes me the Latina that I am. The Latina side of my identity was forged and closely nurtured by my family through our shared experiences and traditions.
For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir - rice, beans and pork - that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events. My Latina identity also includes, because of my particularly adventurous taste buds, morcilla, -- pig intestines, patitas de cerdo con garbanzo -- pigs' feet with beans, and la lengua y orejas de cuchifrito, pigs' tongue and ears. I bet the Mexican-Americans in this room are thinking that Puerto Ricans have unusual food tastes. Some of us, like me, do. Part of my Latina identity is the sound of merengue at all our family parties and the heart wrenching Spanish love songs that we enjoy. It is the memory of Saturday afternoon at the movies with my aunt and cousins watching Cantinflas, who is not Puerto Rican, but who was an icon Spanish comedian on par with Abbot and Costello of my generation. My Latina soul was nourished as I visited and played at my grandmother's house with my cousins and extended family. They were my friends as I grew up. Being a Latina child was watching the adults playing dominos on Saturday night and us kids playing loterÃa, bingo, with my grandmother calling out the numbers which we marked on our cards with chick peas.
Now, does any one of these things make me a Latina? Obviously not because each of our Caribbean and Latin American communities has their own unique food and different traditions at the holidays. I only learned about tacos in college from my Mexican-American roommate. Being a Latina in America also does not mean speaking Spanish. I happen to speak it fairly well. But my brother, only three years younger, like too many of us educated here, barely speaks it. Most of us born and bred here, speak it very poorly.
If I had pursued my career in my undergraduate history major, I would likely provide you with a very academic description of what being a Latino or Latina means. For example, I could define Latinos as those peoples and cultures populated or colonized by Spain who maintained or adopted Spanish or Spanish Creole as their language of communication. You can tell that I have been very well educated. That antiseptic description however, does not really explain the appeal of morcilla - pig's intestine - to an American born child. It does not provide an adequate explanation of why individuals like us, many of whom are born in this completely different American culture, still identify so strongly with those communities in which our parents were born and raised.
America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between "the melting pot and the salad bowl" -- a recently popular metaphor used to described New York's diversity - is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences. In this time of great debate we must remember that it is not political struggles that create a Latino or Latina identity. I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul. They taught me to love being a Puerto Riqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for Latinos or Latinas, and although that struggle did not and does not create a Latina identity, it does inspire how I live my life.
I was born in the year 1954. That year was the fateful year in which Brown v. Board of Education was decided. When I was eight, in 1961, the first Latino, the wonderful Judge Reynaldo Garza, was appointed to the federal bench, an event we are celebrating at this conference. When I finished law school in 1979, there were no women judges on the Supreme Court or on the highest court of my home state, New York. There was then only one Afro-American Supreme Court Justice and then and now no Latino or Latina justices on our highest court. Now in the last twenty plus years of my professional life, I have seen a quantum leap in the representation of women and Latinos in the legal profession and particularly in the judiciary. In addition to the appointment of the first female United States Attorney General, Janet Reno, we have seen the appointment of two female justices to the Supreme Court and two female justices to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of my home state. One of those judges is the Chief Judge and the other is a Puerto Riqueña, like I am. As of today, women sit on the highest courts of almost all of the states and of the territories, including Puerto Rico. One Supreme Court, that of Minnesota, had a majority of women justices for a period of time.
As of September 1, 2001, the federal judiciary consisting of Supreme, Circuit and District Court Judges was about 22% women. In 1992, nearly ten years ago, when I was first appointed a District Court Judge, the percentage of women in the total federal judiciary was only 13%. Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population. As recently as 1965, however, the federal bench had only three women serving and only one Latino judge. So changes are happening, although in some areas, very slowly. These figures and appointments are heartwarming. Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.
Let us not forget that between the appointments of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 and Justice Ginsburg in 1992, eleven years passed. Similarly, between Justice Kaye's initial appointment as an Associate Judge to the New York Court of Appeals in 1983, and Justice Ciparick's appointment in 1993, ten years elapsed. Almost nine years later, we are waiting for a third appointment of a woman to both the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals and of a second minority, male or female, preferably Hispanic, to the Supreme Court. In 1992 when I joined the bench, there were still two out of 13 circuit courts and about 53 out of 92 district courts in which no women sat. At the beginning of September of 2001, there are women sitting in all 13 circuit courts. The First, Fifth, Eighth and Federal Circuits each have only one female judge, however, out of a combined total number of 48 judges. There are still nearly 37 district courts with no women judges at all. For women of color the statistics are more sobering. As of September 20, 1998, of the then 195 circuit court judges only two were African-American women and two Hispanic women. Of the 641 district court judges only twelve were African-American women and eleven Hispanic women. African-American women comprise only 1.56% of the federal judiciary and Hispanic-American women comprise only 1%. No African-American, male or female, sits today on the Fourth or Federal circuits. And no Hispanics, male or female, sit on the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, District of Columbia or Federal Circuits.
Sort of shocking, isn't it? This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go. Unfortunately, there are some very deep storm warnings we must keep in mind. In at least the last five years the majority of nominated judges the Senate delayed more than one year before confirming or never confirming were women or minorities. I need not remind this audience that Judge Paez of your home Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, has had the dubious distinction of having had his confirmation delayed the longest in Senate history. These figures demonstrate that there is a real and continuing need for Latino and Latina organizations and community groups throughout the country to exist and to continue their efforts of promoting women and men of all colors in their pursuit for equality in the judicial system.
This weekend's conference, illustrated by its name, is bound to examine issues that I hope will identify the efforts and solutions that will assist our communities. The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench. The statistics I have been talking about provide a base from which to discuss a question which one of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum, raised when speaking about women on the federal bench. Her question was: What do the history and statistics mean? In her speech, Judge Cederbaum expressed her belief that the number of women and by direct inference people of color on the bench, was still statistically insignificant and that therefore we could not draw valid scientific conclusions from the acts of so few people over such a short period of time. Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law. Now, I cannot and do not claim this issue as personally my own. In recent years there has been an explosion of research and writing in this area. On one of the panels tomorrow, you will hear the Latino perspective in this debate.
For those of you interested in the gender perspective on this issue, I commend to you a wonderful compilation of articles published on the subject in Vol. 77 of the Judicature, the Journal of the American Judicature Society of November-December 1993. It is on Westlaw/Lexis and I assume the students and academics in this room can find it.
Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively." I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes' movement.
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor -- I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area -- Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.
That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives -- no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?
Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.
I am delighted to have been here tonight and extend once again my deepest gratitude to all of you for listening and letting me share my reflections on being a Latina voice on the bench. Thank you.
HK comment: Why does media not include the first part of her statment?
Because if you do it changes the meaning. "I WOULD HOPE..."
Here's the entire speach:
A Latina judge's voice
Judge Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 address to the 'Raising the Bar' symposium at the UC Berkeley School of Law
Note: Federal Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated by President Obama on May 26, 2009, to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, delivered this talk on Oct. 26, 2001, as the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture. She spoke at a UC Berkeley School of Law symposium titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation." The symposium was co-hosted by the La Raza Law Journal, the Berkeley La Raza Law Students Association, the Boalt Hall Center for Social Justice, and the Center for Latino Policy Research. The text below is from the archives of the La Raza Law Journal.
Judge Sotomayor grew up in a South Bronx housing project and graduated from Princeton University and Yale Law School. She was a former prosecutor in the office of the District Attorney in Manhattan and an associate and then partner in the New York law firm of Pavia & Harcourt. She was also a member of the Puerto Rico Legal Defense and Education Fund. Nominated to the Second Circuit in 1997, she became the first Latina nominated to sit on a federal appellate court.Judge Reynoso, thank you for that lovely introduction. I am humbled to be speaking behind a man who has contributed so much to the Hispanic community. I am also grateful to have such kind words said about me.
I am delighted to be here. It is nice to escape my hometown for just a little bit. It is also nice to say hello to old friends who are in the audience, to rekindle contact with old acquaintances and to make new friends among those of you in the audience. It is particularly heart warming to me to be attending a conference to which I was invited by a Latina law school friend, Rachel Moran, who is now an accomplished and widely respected legal scholar. I warn Latinos in this room: Latinas are making a lot of progress in the old-boy network.
I am also deeply honored to have been asked to deliver the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos lecture. I am joining a remarkable group of prior speakers who have given this lecture. I hope what I speak about today continues to promote the legacy of that man whose commitment to public service and abiding dedication to promoting equality and justice for all people inspired this memorial lecture and the conference that will follow. I thank Judge Olmos' widow Mary Louise's family, her son and the judge's many friends for hosting me. And for the privilege you have bestowed on me in honoring the memory of a very special person. If I and the many people of this conference can accomplish a fraction of what Judge Olmos did in his short but extraordinary life we and our respective communities will be infinitely better.
I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.
Who am I? I am a "Newyorkrican." For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II.
Like many other immigrants to this great land, my parents came because of poverty and to attempt to find and secure a better life for themselves and the family that they hoped to have. They largely succeeded. For that, my brother and I are very grateful. The story of that success is what made me and what makes me the Latina that I am. The Latina side of my identity was forged and closely nurtured by my family through our shared experiences and traditions.
For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir - rice, beans and pork - that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events. My Latina identity also includes, because of my particularly adventurous taste buds, morcilla, -- pig intestines, patitas de cerdo con garbanzo -- pigs' feet with beans, and la lengua y orejas de cuchifrito, pigs' tongue and ears. I bet the Mexican-Americans in this room are thinking that Puerto Ricans have unusual food tastes. Some of us, like me, do. Part of my Latina identity is the sound of merengue at all our family parties and the heart wrenching Spanish love songs that we enjoy. It is the memory of Saturday afternoon at the movies with my aunt and cousins watching Cantinflas, who is not Puerto Rican, but who was an icon Spanish comedian on par with Abbot and Costello of my generation. My Latina soul was nourished as I visited and played at my grandmother's house with my cousins and extended family. They were my friends as I grew up. Being a Latina child was watching the adults playing dominos on Saturday night and us kids playing loterÃa, bingo, with my grandmother calling out the numbers which we marked on our cards with chick peas.
Now, does any one of these things make me a Latina? Obviously not because each of our Caribbean and Latin American communities has their own unique food and different traditions at the holidays. I only learned about tacos in college from my Mexican-American roommate. Being a Latina in America also does not mean speaking Spanish. I happen to speak it fairly well. But my brother, only three years younger, like too many of us educated here, barely speaks it. Most of us born and bred here, speak it very poorly.
If I had pursued my career in my undergraduate history major, I would likely provide you with a very academic description of what being a Latino or Latina means. For example, I could define Latinos as those peoples and cultures populated or colonized by Spain who maintained or adopted Spanish or Spanish Creole as their language of communication. You can tell that I have been very well educated. That antiseptic description however, does not really explain the appeal of morcilla - pig's intestine - to an American born child. It does not provide an adequate explanation of why individuals like us, many of whom are born in this completely different American culture, still identify so strongly with those communities in which our parents were born and raised.
America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between "the melting pot and the salad bowl" -- a recently popular metaphor used to described New York's diversity - is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences. In this time of great debate we must remember that it is not political struggles that create a Latino or Latina identity. I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul. They taught me to love being a Puerto Riqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for Latinos or Latinas, and although that struggle did not and does not create a Latina identity, it does inspire how I live my life.
I was born in the year 1954. That year was the fateful year in which Brown v. Board of Education was decided. When I was eight, in 1961, the first Latino, the wonderful Judge Reynaldo Garza, was appointed to the federal bench, an event we are celebrating at this conference. When I finished law school in 1979, there were no women judges on the Supreme Court or on the highest court of my home state, New York. There was then only one Afro-American Supreme Court Justice and then and now no Latino or Latina justices on our highest court. Now in the last twenty plus years of my professional life, I have seen a quantum leap in the representation of women and Latinos in the legal profession and particularly in the judiciary. In addition to the appointment of the first female United States Attorney General, Janet Reno, we have seen the appointment of two female justices to the Supreme Court and two female justices to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of my home state. One of those judges is the Chief Judge and the other is a Puerto Riqueña, like I am. As of today, women sit on the highest courts of almost all of the states and of the territories, including Puerto Rico. One Supreme Court, that of Minnesota, had a majority of women justices for a period of time.
As of September 1, 2001, the federal judiciary consisting of Supreme, Circuit and District Court Judges was about 22% women. In 1992, nearly ten years ago, when I was first appointed a District Court Judge, the percentage of women in the total federal judiciary was only 13%. Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population. As recently as 1965, however, the federal bench had only three women serving and only one Latino judge. So changes are happening, although in some areas, very slowly. These figures and appointments are heartwarming. Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.
Let us not forget that between the appointments of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 and Justice Ginsburg in 1992, eleven years passed. Similarly, between Justice Kaye's initial appointment as an Associate Judge to the New York Court of Appeals in 1983, and Justice Ciparick's appointment in 1993, ten years elapsed. Almost nine years later, we are waiting for a third appointment of a woman to both the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals and of a second minority, male or female, preferably Hispanic, to the Supreme Court. In 1992 when I joined the bench, there were still two out of 13 circuit courts and about 53 out of 92 district courts in which no women sat. At the beginning of September of 2001, there are women sitting in all 13 circuit courts. The First, Fifth, Eighth and Federal Circuits each have only one female judge, however, out of a combined total number of 48 judges. There are still nearly 37 district courts with no women judges at all. For women of color the statistics are more sobering. As of September 20, 1998, of the then 195 circuit court judges only two were African-American women and two Hispanic women. Of the 641 district court judges only twelve were African-American women and eleven Hispanic women. African-American women comprise only 1.56% of the federal judiciary and Hispanic-American women comprise only 1%. No African-American, male or female, sits today on the Fourth or Federal circuits. And no Hispanics, male or female, sit on the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, District of Columbia or Federal Circuits.
Sort of shocking, isn't it? This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go. Unfortunately, there are some very deep storm warnings we must keep in mind. In at least the last five years the majority of nominated judges the Senate delayed more than one year before confirming or never confirming were women or minorities. I need not remind this audience that Judge Paez of your home Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, has had the dubious distinction of having had his confirmation delayed the longest in Senate history. These figures demonstrate that there is a real and continuing need for Latino and Latina organizations and community groups throughout the country to exist and to continue their efforts of promoting women and men of all colors in their pursuit for equality in the judicial system.
This weekend's conference, illustrated by its name, is bound to examine issues that I hope will identify the efforts and solutions that will assist our communities. The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench. The statistics I have been talking about provide a base from which to discuss a question which one of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum, raised when speaking about women on the federal bench. Her question was: What do the history and statistics mean? In her speech, Judge Cederbaum expressed her belief that the number of women and by direct inference people of color on the bench, was still statistically insignificant and that therefore we could not draw valid scientific conclusions from the acts of so few people over such a short period of time. Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law. Now, I cannot and do not claim this issue as personally my own. In recent years there has been an explosion of research and writing in this area. On one of the panels tomorrow, you will hear the Latino perspective in this debate.
For those of you interested in the gender perspective on this issue, I commend to you a wonderful compilation of articles published on the subject in Vol. 77 of the Judicature, the Journal of the American Judicature Society of November-December 1993. It is on Westlaw/Lexis and I assume the students and academics in this room can find it.
Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively." I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes' movement.
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor -- I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area -- Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.
That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives -- no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?
Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.
I am delighted to have been here tonight and extend once again my deepest gratitude to all of you for listening and letting me share my reflections on being a Latina voice on the bench. Thank you.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
OBAMA on Health Care last night.
KEY QUOTES:
--'I understand how easy it is for this town to become consumed in the game of politics, to turn every issue into a running tally of who's up and who's down. I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that, even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to go for the kill, another Republican senator, that defeating health reform is about breaking me.
'So let me be clear: This isn't about me. I have great health insurance, and so does every member of Congress. This debate is about the letters I read when I sit in the Oval Office every day and the stories I hear at town hall meetings. This is about the woman in Colorado who paid $700 a month to her insurance company only to find out that they wouldn't pay a dime for her cancer treatment, who had to use up her retirement funds to save her own life.'
--'This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they can't afford to wait any longer for reform. They're counting on us to get this done. They're looking to us for leadership. And we can't let them down. We will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice and provides coverage that every American can count on, and we will do it this year.'
--'I'm rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health care costs. And they ask me, Can you help? So I've got a middle-aged couple that will write me and they say, 'Our daughter just found out she's got leukemia and, if I don't do something soon, we just either are going to go bankrupt or we're not going to be able to provide our daughter with the care that she needs.' And in a country like ours, that's not right.'
--'[I]f you don't set deadlines in this town, things don't happen. The default position is inertia, because doing something always creates some people who are unhappy. There's always going to be some interest out there that decides; you know what, the status quo is working for me a little bit better.'
--[T]he fact that we have made so much progress, where we've got doctors, nurses, hospitals, even the pharmaceutical industry, AARP saying that this makes sense to do, I think, means that the stars are aligned and we need to take advantage of that. Now, I do think it's important to get this right. And if, at the end of the day, I do not yet see that we have it right, then I'm not going to sign a bill that, for example, adds to our deficit. I won't sign a bill that doesn't reduce health care inflation so that families as well as government are saving money. I'm not going to sign a bill that I don't think will work.'
--'[T]o raise a broader issue that I think has colored how we look at health care reform, let me just talk about deficit and debt, because part of what's been happening in this debate is the American people are understandably queasy about the huge deficits and debt that we're facing right now.'
--'I understand how easy it is for this town to become consumed in the game of politics, to turn every issue into a running tally of who's up and who's down. I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that, even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to go for the kill, another Republican senator, that defeating health reform is about breaking me.
'So let me be clear: This isn't about me. I have great health insurance, and so does every member of Congress. This debate is about the letters I read when I sit in the Oval Office every day and the stories I hear at town hall meetings. This is about the woman in Colorado who paid $700 a month to her insurance company only to find out that they wouldn't pay a dime for her cancer treatment, who had to use up her retirement funds to save her own life.'
--'This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they can't afford to wait any longer for reform. They're counting on us to get this done. They're looking to us for leadership. And we can't let them down. We will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice and provides coverage that every American can count on, and we will do it this year.'
--'I'm rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health care costs. And they ask me, Can you help? So I've got a middle-aged couple that will write me and they say, 'Our daughter just found out she's got leukemia and, if I don't do something soon, we just either are going to go bankrupt or we're not going to be able to provide our daughter with the care that she needs.' And in a country like ours, that's not right.'
--'[I]f you don't set deadlines in this town, things don't happen. The default position is inertia, because doing something always creates some people who are unhappy. There's always going to be some interest out there that decides; you know what, the status quo is working for me a little bit better.'
--[T]he fact that we have made so much progress, where we've got doctors, nurses, hospitals, even the pharmaceutical industry, AARP saying that this makes sense to do, I think, means that the stars are aligned and we need to take advantage of that. Now, I do think it's important to get this right. And if, at the end of the day, I do not yet see that we have it right, then I'm not going to sign a bill that, for example, adds to our deficit. I won't sign a bill that doesn't reduce health care inflation so that families as well as government are saving money. I'm not going to sign a bill that I don't think will work.'
--'[T]o raise a broader issue that I think has colored how we look at health care reform, let me just talk about deficit and debt, because part of what's been happening in this debate is the American people are understandably queasy about the huge deficits and debt that we're facing right now.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)