From Frederick Douglass:

“The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro”

Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men, too Ñ great enough to give frame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory….

…Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold, that a nation’s sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish, that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation’s jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the “lame man leap as an hart.”

But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common.ÑThe rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrevocable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!

“By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! we wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land? If I forget thee, 0 Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.”

Fellow-citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, “may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!” To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world. My subject, then, fellow-citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave’s point of view. Standing there identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America.is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery Ñ the great sin and shame of America! “I will not equivocate; I will not excuse”; I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just.

But I fancy I hear some one of my audience say, “It is just in this circumstance that you and your brother abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more, an denounce less; would you persuade more, and rebuke less; your cause would be much more likely to succeed.” But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slaveholders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of the same crimes will subject a white man to the like punishment. What is this but the acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or to write. When you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then will I argue with you that the slave is a man!

For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are ploughing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver and gold; that, while we are reading, writing and ciphering, acting as clerks, merchants and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators and teachers; that, while we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men, digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hill-side, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives and children, and, above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian’s God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove that we are men!

Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for Republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood? How should I look to-day, in the presence of Amercans, dividing, and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom? speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively. To do so, would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.

What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their mastcrs? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.

What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman, cannot be divine! Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may; I cannot. The time for such argument is passed.

At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could reach the nation’s ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival….

…Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. “The arm of the Lord is not shortened,” and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from “the Declaration of Independence,” the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. — Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are distinctly heard on the other.

The far off and almost fabulous Pacific rolls in grandeur at our feet. The Celestial Empire, the mystery of ages, is being solved. The fiat of the Almighty, “Let there be Light,” has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light. The iron shoe, and crippled foot of China must be seen in contrast with nature. Africa must rise and put on her yet unwoven garment. ‘Ethiopia, shall, stretch. out her hand unto Ood.” In the fervent aspirations of William Lloyd Garrison, I say, and let every heart join in saying it:

God speed the year of jubilee
The wide world o’er!
When from their galling chains set free,
Th’ oppress’d shall vilely bend the knee,
And wear the yoke of tyranny
Like brutes no more.
That year will come, and freedom’s reign,
To man his plundered rights again
Restore.

God speed the day when human blood
Shall cease to flow!
In every clime be understood,
The claims of human brotherhood,
And each return for evil, good,
Not blow for blow;
That day will come all feuds to end,
And change into a faithful friend
Each foe.

God speed the hour, the glorious hour,
When none on earth
Shall exercise a lordly power,
Nor in a tyrant’s presence cower;
But to all manhood’s stature tower,
By equal birth!
That hour will come, to each, to all,
And from his Prison-house, to thrall
Go forth.

Until that year, day, hour, arrive,
With head, and heart, and hand I’ll strive,
To break the rod, and rend the gyve,
The spoiler of his prey deprive –
So witness Heaven!
And never from my chosen post,
Whate’er the peril or the cost,
Be driven.

The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass, Volume II
Pre-Civil War Decade 1850-1860
Philip S. Foner
International Publishers Co., Inc., New York, 1950

If President Obama is serious about is Administration being as transparent as it can without endanger National Security, then someone answer me this:  Why the hell is the Administration being reluctant to allow Congress to bring charges against former VP Dick Cheney for abusing the authority of his office to expose an undercover CIA Agent, to payback her husband for writing an op-ed in the New York Times that exposed the lies that was the Iraq War? Joe and Valerie Plame Wilson are already suing - but Cheney needs to be in an orange jumpsuit doing the perp walk.

But why the reluctance from the Obama Administration?

From Susie Madrak - (Hat Tip, Crooks and Liars, via the Pimp News Paper, WaPo):

A document filed in federal court this week by the Justice Department offers new evidence that former vice president Richard B. Cheney helped steer the Bush administration’s public response to the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA and that he was at the center of many related administration deliberations.

The administration’s discussion of Wilson’s link to the CIA was meant to undermine criticism by her husband of administration allegations that Iraq attempted to acquire uranium, a matter that her husband had probed for the CIA, according to testimony presented in a 2007 trial.

A list of at least seven related conversations involving Cheney appears in a new court filing approved by Obama appointees at the Justice Department. In the filing, the officials argue that the substance of what Cheney told special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald in 2004 must remain secret.

If  THAT doesn’t piss you off, maybe this will:

The Obama administration has since agreed that the material should not be disclosed. A Justice Department lawyer at one point last month argued that vice presidents and other White House officials will decline to be interviewed in the future if they know their remarks might “get on ‘The Daily Show’ ” or be used as fodder for political enemies. (emphasis mine)

I think worrying about whether or not Obama Administration officials becoming fodder for Jon Stewart is the least of this Administration’s worries.  While Black Folk might continue to celebrate the very existance of an African-American in the White House, the white supporters who helped get him there are starting to keep tabs on whether or not Mr. Obama’s keeping his campaign promises, whether we like it or NOT.  Why not have Cheney indicted for Constitutional violations and abuse of the authority of the office he once held?  Why shouldn’t his ass see a jail cell for the treasonous crimes he committed and got fat paid for?  Every day that people who want the Constitution to really MEAN SOMETHING, have their efforts continually thwarted by an Administration that once supported those efforts, they get shat on in royal fashion. 

We should be concerned that what little we have left in the way of Constitutional Rights, continue to be slowly eviscerated by an Administration that, just like Wild Bill Clinton, got us to like them, despite the way they shyt on us.  I mean, it’s like watching a frog boil to death - while he’s in cold water, he’s unaware that there’s a fire underneath his ass until that water starts boiling and he dies.  Is THAT what we want - because we like the POTUS so damned much - to the point when our asses start to boil and burn, it’s too late to hop out of the pot?

Mr. Obama seems to think if his Administration does NOTHING, this whole shyt goes away, but guess what?  At some point, he needs to shyt or get off the pot.  He will have to take a STAND on SOMETHING, or else we’re the ones FALLING FOR ANYTHING.  What better opportunity for this Administration to distinguish themselves from being considered a Democratic version of the Bush Administration, than to take down one of the key architects of the Iraq War, the Recession, and the Secrecy and Lies that allowed full-blown violations of the Constitution and the oath to uphold and defend?

The only reason I can think of is that the Obama Administration doesn’t want to set a precedent that theybelieve they can’t stand up to, because if any attempts at accountability are made from this Administration, those same precedent may be used to evaluate his performance.

To which I say if he’s not doing anything wrong, the Administration should have NOTHING TO FEAR, n’est pas?

President Obama to speak at A Capitol Fourth on the 4th of July
July 3, 11:10 AM

July 4, 2009 marks America’s 233rd birthday. Celebrating live from the nation’s capitol, the PBS program, A Capitol Fourth, will mark festivities culminating in a glorious fireworks display. President Obama will deliver a message that will air exclusively during the program. This marks the president’s first Fourth of July as the nation’s leader.

The PBS program, A Capitol Fourth will air live on July 4, 2009 between 8:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Check your local listings to view time schedules in your area. The program will feature celebrity entertainment, a concert from the National Symphony, and will end with the grand finale firework displays over the Washington Monument.

President Obama’s message is expected to include a request that Americans honor those who’ve created a new form of government and for citizens to recommit themselves to our country’s ideals. It is believed that he will also give special mention to the children’s television program ‘Sesame Street’, which is celebrating its 40th year. According to a press release by Robert Gibbs, President Obama is currently at Camp David, but will return in time for the Fourth of July festivities at the nation’s capitol. The fourth of July also marks the president’s daughter, Malia’s 11th birthday. They will have a party for Malia, including approximately 20 of her friends, and then host a military picnic at the West Lawn. Approximately 1200 military families will be in attendance. The president will then participate in the events planned for A Capitol Fourth. He and his family will enjoy the spectacular fireworks shows at the end of the event.

Good Evening.

Continue to have a peaceful day.

Gov. Sarah Palin will resign her office in a few weeks, she said during a news conference at her Wasilla home Friday morning. Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell will be inaugurated at the Governor’s Picnic at Pioneer Park in Fairbanks on Saturday, July 25, Palin said. There was no immediate word as to why she will resign, though speculation has been rampant that the former vice presidential candidate is gearing up for a run at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Muflats has crashed…so many people trying to get to the site..LOL

UPDATE:
Mudflats is up at her old site…. ‘back-up.’

Mudflats Old Site

From Andrew Sullivan, who was one of the best during the campaign in nailing the Horror from Wasilla:

03 Jul 2009 04:24 pm
The Miniseries Ends

I guessed right, which I suppose reflects just how much time I’ve spent trying to figure what goes on in her head. I think the simple truth is that, as even Alaskan Republicans told us last September, she was far from able to be governor of Alaska, let alone vice-president of the United States. Once the klieglights hit, it was only a matter of time before she imploded or exploded or some gruesome combination of the two. The librul media will be blamed for everything on her inexorable path to becoming a Fox News celebrity. Maybe a reality show? Someone hire her for The View!

In the end, I think, the one thing to say is that the Republican party is in such a total state of collapse and incoherence that it actually believed she could be a future president; and that John McCain was so reckless, so cynical and so cavalier that he was prepared to rest the national security of this country on her shoulders if he, in his seventies, were to become unable to fulfill his duties or die. In some ways, this is a moment to reflect on McCain, and his irresponsibility, not Palin and her drama.

I’m too stunned to say anything else, to tell you the truth. And yet not surprised at all.

Michelle Obama escorts her daughters Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, off the stage as President-elect Barack Obama begins his victory speech at his election night party at Grant Park in Chicago, Tuesday night, Nov. 4, 2008.
—AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

From Lynn Sweet:

Michelle Obama to Russia, Ghana, Italy, Will Meet Pope Benedict
Posted: 07/2/09
Filed Under:The Daily FLOTUS with Lynn Sweet

First Lady Michelle Obama and daughters Sasha and Malia, along with her mother, Marian Robinson, will join President Obama when he travels to Russia, Italy and Ghana next week. The First Couple will meet with Pope Benedict XVI on July 10 at the Vatican.
The White House announced in May that Mrs. Obama would visit Ghana — and only recently confirmed that she will be with the president for the entire swing. The president will deliver two major speeches during the trip — in Moscow, on U.S.-Russia relations, and in Accra, before the Ghanaian parliament.

Not all details about Mrs. Obama’s activities on this trip are out yet, but a Wednesday briefing at the White House revealed some of her plans.

This is Mrs. Obama’s second overseas trip in less than a month; she, her mom and daughters flew to Paris and London in June, marking Sasha’s eighth birthday in London. Malia turns 11 on July 4. The next day, the Obama family flies to Russia aboard Air Force One, landing in Moscow on Monday.

Unlike the Paris and London trip — basically a vacation for Mrs. Obama, with the exception of a side visit to Normandy to mark the anniversary of D-Day — this travel is official business.

Once in Moscow, the president will meet with Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev, said Denis McDonough, deputy national security advisor for strategic communications.

“He will hold a press conference that afternoon in Moscow. After the meeting with President Medvedev, then he and the first lady will have dinner Monday evening with President and Mrs. Medvedev.

“They’ll overnight in Moscow and the next morning will have breakfast with Prime Minister [Vladimir] Putin; will have a meeting with former President [Mikhail] Gorbachev. The president will give a major speech at the New Economic School that afternoon on U.S.-Russia relations. And then the president will hold meetings with a variety of Russian political, business leaders during the course of that afternoon.”

On Wednesday morning, it’s on to Rome and then to L’Aquila, Italy, for G8 meetings. It’s not known yet what schedule, if any, Mrs. Obama will have in connection with the G8 spouses before returning to Rome on Friday for the meeting with the pope. The president will also meet with the Vatican secretary of state.

Next up, McDonough said, is Accra, Ghana, where the presidential party will arrive late Friday evening. On Saturday, the president will attend a series of meetings as well as make a major address in the Ghanaian parliament on development and democracy. After the speech, he and the first lady will tour the Cape Coast Castle, and then leave for Washington.

Michelle Gavin, the White House senior director for African Affairs, said the Ghana stop is an acknowledgement of the nation’s stability and that Obama “certainly looks forward to traveling more widely in Africa in the future.”

She noted that said the president wanted to emphasize “the importance of governance for stability. And Ghana is a truly admirable example of a place where governance is getting stronger, a thriving democracy. They just had an extraordinarily close election at the end of last year, decided ultimately by about 40,000 votes, that remained peaceful, power was transferred peacefully, and they continue to pursue a development agenda and bolster the rule of law.

“And this is worth pointing out, because far too often discussions of Africa are focused on crisis. Ghana is not in crisis, and it’s an example for the region and more broadly.”

Mrs. Obama was last in Africa in 2006 when, with her daughters and some of her friends, she flew to Nairobi to join then-Sen. Obama in Kenya, the homeland of his father.

All Williams Final at Wimbledon on Saturday, July 4th, NBC, Beginning at 9 am EST.

Good Morning.

TGIF and spend some of it at JJP.

Drop those links. Engage in debate. Give us trivia and gossip too.

And always, have a peaceful day.

The Official New Logo of the Washington Post - P.I.M.P

Yes, you read the title correctly.  Because of the dearth in profits in journalism these days (could it be that people want REAL NEWS, and not ENTERTAINMENT?) that has lead to the paucity that used to be known as the 4th Estate?

From Nicole Belle of Crooks and Liars:

Apparently the Very Serious People™ in the Village have a very different idea of journalism than they led us to believe. After their own columnist Dana Milbank lost his marbles and dignity over a DFH blogger asking a question, the Washington Post hits an all new low:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to “those powerful few”: Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

Dang.  I’ve called the Washington Post a Rag, good enough for toilet paper or lining your pet parrot’s birdcage, but I never thought I would have to add the description of PIMP to this repetoire.

No wonder blogs like JJP are blowin up Big Willie-style.  Like lobbyists don’t already have access to government officials; hell, they’re what holds them hostage while they talk a good game about reforming and creating responsive, effective government of the people, by the people and for the people.

I don’t think James Madison had Big Pimping in mind when he helped to draft the Constitution, y’all.  And I guess because there’s a brotha in the White House, WaPo thought Big Pimping would be in STYLE.

George Bush was a PIMP - but you never had any of the media paying for access to his ass.  He merely threatened to cut off that access if you didn’t print what he or Dick Cheney told your ass to print.  Now that there’s a more media-friendly POTUS in the White House, the Washington Post decided it was okay to outright admit they’re pimping for  profit.

A National Newspaper that is a Real-Live Pimp.  And just when I thought I’d seen it all….

Good Evening.

Drop those links. Engage in debate. Give us trivia and gossip too.

And continue to have a peaceful day.

Here’s the deets with Cynthia’s phone call from detention above:

Cynthia McKinney calls WBAIX from Israeli prison. She and 20 others where detained after being seized by Israeli Navy while in international waters. They were attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. To watch live updates, interviews, protests go to http://www.livestream.com/wbaix

McKinney, former U.S. Congresswoman and presidential candidate, says that she had a suitcase full of crayons for Palestinian children in Gaza. Apparently these were confiscated too. The media coverage of this incident, if it’s possible to get any news that isn’t about Michael Jackson, will be very interesting indeed. Also, this is a real diplomatic challenge fo sho for the Obama Administration. Hillary Clinton — good luck with that! Wow.

The video above is Tammy Johnson from RaceWire on Jackson’s death. Here’s the text that accompanies the vid:

He tipped his hat and moonwalked across the stage like no one had ever before. Even Fred Astaire had to give Michael his props. But today, Thursday, June 25, the King of Pop is dead. Michael Jackson’s made his mark on the world, body and soul. But what we must not forget is that world marked Jackson as well. In his last days, assimilation and denial were sadly written all over his face. In death, we pray that peace finally finds the music man.

I was in NYC and riding the subway when I saw a dad and his 3 young kids who were on their way home after the Apollo Theater memorial to Michael Jackson. It was moving to see a caring black dad celebrating history and culture with some bright-looking kids. Yet those kids and that dad were all as brown as Michael had been once upon a time.

How do you explain to young African-Americans the level of self-hatred and amount of money required to turn yourself from a handsome black man into an attractive white woman? Has anyone seen Anne Hathaway lately, btw? Were she and MJ ever seen together? …I’m just askin’…

He was socially conscious, culturally curious and international, philanthropic, activist, compassionate, charismatic, business-savvy, and one of the greatest artists the world has ever know. He was also probably a pretty active (prescription) drug abuser, possibly afraid to tell the world he was actually gay (try and name an out-of-the-closet black gay celebrity - historically ours is not the most tolerant of cultures there), worshiped the god of bling, surrounded himself with an entourage of enabling, greedy yes men and sycophants — and danced with black women in his videos while marrying and publicly dating only white women. The fact is that Michael Jackson represents in one man all the best and the worst of African-American culture. And thus his relationship with his root culture and our reaction to him must  necessarily be complex.

It’s not just me. Here’s Quincy Jones who knew Michael very well, speaking to Men.Style.Com in the wake of Michael’s death:

Q: But it must’ve been so disturbing to see Michael’s face turn into what it turned into.
A: It’s ridiculous, man! Chemical peels and all of it. And I don’t understand it. But he obviously didn’t want to be black.

Q: Is that what it was?
A: Well, what do you think? You see his kids?

Q: Did you ever discuss it? Did you ever ask, “Michael, don’t you want to be a black man?”
A: No, no, no, please. That’s not the way you do it.

Q: But he was beautiful before?
A: Man, he was the most gorgeous guy.

I loved Michael Jackson. I was a huge fan. Yet, Voltaire famously said:

“We owe respect to the living. To the dead we owe only truth.”

Some folks got it the other way around and don’t want to look at the truth of Michael Jackson’s life and death now that he’s gone. Michael was right — it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white. Except maybe when you try to change yourself from black to white. There’s so much to learn from his triumphant yet tragic story. And it’s critical that we show the world that while we loved him, that we aren’t blind to his flaws — that we celebrate his contributions while recognizing the cautionary tale he ultimately represents for all of us.

The Reverend Al Sharpton and a fan dance on stage during a public memorial for pop star Michael Jackson on June 30, 2009 at the Apollo Theater in the Harlem section of New York.
AFP PHOTO/Stan Honda

Good Afternoon.

Drop those links. Engage in debate. Give us trivia and gossip too.

And continue to have a peaceful day.

It’s Still About the Filibuster
by BooMan
Wed Jul 1st, 2009 at 01:48:39 PM EST

One of the things I think politicians are least inclined to do is to create problems for themselves on bills that will never become law. So, for example, so long as ‘centrist’ Democrats knew that the Employee Free Choice Act would never become law, they were all willing to vote for it. But, once it became clear that a united Democratic caucus and a Democratic president could pass the EFCA into law, several Democrats flipped and decided to oppose it. They didn’t want to alienate labor unions and Democratic activists by voting against the bill when they knew it would fail, but they were more concerned about alienating Big Business when they knew it might pass.

The same thing is going on now with the debate over a public option in the health care bill. I don’t recall a single Democrat who was running for president who didn’t run on at least a public option. And I don’t remember when senators like Max Baucus, Jon Tester, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, and Tim Johnson were endorsing candidate Obama that any of them complained about his health care proposals. Well, Obama won and the Democrats have sixty votes in the Senate, and they can pass single-payer health care if they want to. If they thought that the health care bill would fail, they’d probably support the public option. But they know that they have to pass a health care bill. So…now a bunch of them oppose it.

While the public’s support for a public option varies by state and region, it is overwhelmingly popular on a national level. Obama wants a public option and because he campaigned on providing one and won the election by a wide margin, he has a mandate for one. Yet, nearly a dozen Democrats have expressed some degree of reservations or even outright opposition to a public option. This is true in spite of the fact that none of them said a peep about opposing one during the primaries or the general election.

Prior to reaching the magic threshold of sixty senators, the Democrats had the excuse that they needed at least one Republican vote to achieve cloture and bring a health care bill to a vote. But, now, their only excuses are either that due to the illness of one or two senators they are not at full strength or that one or more of their own members won’t support the public option.

Assuming the Democrats can count on Sens. Byrd and Kennedy to show up for a cloture vote, the only way the Senate can fail to pass Obama’s signature program is if they harpoon it themselves. And that appears to be exactly what they are intent on doing. And they are going to do it on an issue that has the support of approxinately three-quarters of the electorate.

There are a couple of obvious steps the Obama administration can take, but they are similar enough that only one of them makes sense. The administration can ask Democratic senators who oppose the public option to vote for cloture to break the filibuster and then vote their conscience on final passage. After all, it is unseemly for Democrats to filibuster their own majority leader’s agenda. Or, the administration can let the Ben Nelsons of the world kill the bill, and then attempt to pass it in October using the Reconciliation Process which only requires fifty votes.

However, there is no point in doing the latter if they can accomplish the former. In both cases, final passage requires fifty votes. In both cases, the bill passes over the objections of a few ‘centrist’ Democrats. But, in Reconciliation, only the elements of the bill that have an impact on the budget deficit are germane, and all kinds of mischief can be created by Republicans who are willing to raise points of order to strip the bill of budget-neutral but regulatorily critical elements.

Moreover, bills that pass through the budget reconciliation process have sunset provisions that make them vulnerable in future Congresses that might be unwilling to reauthorize them (see Bush tax cuts).

It is much preferable to pass the whole bill in the regular order. That means, the administration must attempt to get all the Democrats who oppose the public option to agree to support an up-or-down vote. And that is where activist pressure can be brought to bear to push health care with a public option over the finish line.

——————————————-

I WANT THEM ON THE RECORD.
Every last one of them mofos.

ON THE RECORD.

Clear as day. No wiggle room. No room for weaseling.

Force them to vote up or down on THE PUBLIC OPTION.

Make them be MEN (or women).

But, this bullshyt that they’re doing now?

HELL NO.

On.the.record.

———————————————

From HuffingtonPost.com:

Bernie Sanders Demands Democrats Commit To Stopping Health Care Filibuster
First Posted: 07- 1-09 09:44 AM | Updated: 07- 1-09 11:06 AM

One of the Senate’s most vocal progressives is demanding that the Democratic Party commit to voting against filibustering health care legislation now that, with the impending arrival of Al Franken, the party has 60 caucusing members.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), called on the White House and Democratic leadership in Congress to ensure that party members agree unanimously to support cloture on legislation that would revamp the nation’s health care system. Democratic senators on the fence, he added, could still oppose the bill. But at the very least they should be required to let the legislation come to an up-or-down vote.

“I think that with Al Franken coming on board, you have effectively 60 Democrats in the caucus, 58 and two Independents,” Sanders said in an interview with the Huffington Post. “I think the strategy should be to say, it doesn’t take 60 votes to pass a piece of legislation. It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster. I think the strategy should be that every Democrat, no matter whether or not they ultimately end up voting for the final bill, is to say we are going to vote together to stop a Republican filibuster. And if somebody who votes for that ends up saying, ‘I’m not gonna vote for this bill, it’s too radical, blah, blah, blah, that’s fine.’”

“I think the idea of going to conservative Republicans, who are essentially representing the insurance companies and the drug companies, and watering down this bill substantially, rather than demanding we get 60 votes to stop the filibuster, I think that is a very wrong political strategy,” Sanders added.

Coming hours after the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Franken the winner in a nearly eight-month recount process, Sanders’ remarks reflect what will likely be a more aggressive political ethos from within the Democratic Party. Having a sixtieth caucusing member in the Senate gives the party the margin it needs to stave off a Republican filibuster, which seems all but certain should health care reform include a public option for insurance coverage. But the reality remains that the Democratic caucus is far from united. Corralling all of its members behind one piece of health care legislation — especially the public option — remains elusive.

Sanders’ advice, which he hinted at in a separate interview with the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, is to simply take the parliamentary hurdles out of the process. The Party wouldn’t have to worry about whip counts and could, in the end, get a more favorable final product, he believes.

“I think that politically that is something everybody can handle. You say, ‘Look, I think there should be a vote. I’m gonna vote against it for A, B and C reasons. But I think the process has to move forward and it’s unacceptable that Republicans keep trying to stop everything,” said the Vermont Independent, who added that “The White House could play a very important part in this process”

“I think it would be great if we could have 100 senators voting for this, but what is important is the product that you get, not bipartisanship,” Sanders went on. “So we should ask Republicans to support it. If they choose not to they do so at their own political risk. The focus should be on a strong bill trying to get Republican support rather than a weak bipartisan bill.”

To this point, Senator Ben Nelson has hinted that he may oppose a public option for insurance coverage but has told constituents in Nebraska that he could very well support cloture despite opposing the bill itself. Other Democrats on the fence include Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Kay Hagan, of North Carolina, and Diane Feinstein of California.

As for the actual legislation itself, Sanders said he expected a strong public option to come out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions final product, But he worried that it would be “watered down” in order to bring Republican lawmakers on board. The concern, as Sanders expressed it, was that key Democrats in the process — namely Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. — were structuring their efforts to recruit Republican support rather than the best policy. He ridiculed the so-called “Coalition of the Willing,” a group of four Republicans and three Democrats, organized by Baucus to help craft his reform proposal.

“The people who are sitting around who may determine health reform in the Senate are a majority of Republicans,” Sanders said, incredulously.

In its place, Sanders proposed a Coalition of Unwilling — as in a group of lawmakers unwilling to sacrifice a progressive bill for the sake of bipartisanship.

“Something is very wrong,” he said. “What Sen. Baucus said is that the strategy should be to reach out to Republicans. All of them, without exception oppose a public plan. So what you’ll end up having is a very weak piece of legislation probably regressively funded. My strategy is different.”

Rest of article at link above.

I’m with Senator Sanders. There is NO REASON why ANY Democrat shouldn’t vote for cloture. NO REASON AT ALL.

Like I said…

I WANT ALL OF THEM ON THE RECORD.

After days of taking video questions online, and with massive online discussions unfolding during the event, the President took questions on health reform directly from the public in an online town hall.

Look, getting people better health care in America is going to be a real fight. Not unlike the fight to get Obama elected. I give the Prez a lot of credit for rolling his sleeves up and getting hands on e.g. yesterday’s townhall. (The video is above and here’s the transcript.)

It’s the only way — only extraordinary effort on behalf of our leadership is going to insure that what most Americans see as a basic right and necessity is given back to Americans — the right to affordable healthcare for all.

Here’s the statement that the White House sent us this am. I’m publishing it cuz you know the mainstream media probably won’t and I know you want to know whassup:

Statement by the President on Health Care Reform Bill Released by Senate HELP Committee Today

For decades, Washington has failed to act as health care costs continued to rise, crushing businesses, families and placing an unsustainable burden on governments.  Today the Senate HELP committee has produced legislation that lowers costs, protects choice of doctors and plans and assures quality and affordable health care for Americans. The Congressional Budget Office has now issued a more complete review of this bill, concluding that it will cost less and cover more Americans than originally estimated.  It also contains provisions that will protect the coverage Americans get at work. When merged with the Senate Finance Committee’s companion pieces, the Senate will be prepared to vote for health reform legislation that does not add to the deficit,  reduces health care costs and covers 97% of Americans.

The HELP Committee legislation reflects many of the principles I’ve laid out, such as reforms that will prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and the concept of  insurance exchanges where individuals can find affordable coverage if they lose their jobs, move or get sick. Such a marketplace would allow families and some small businesses the benefit of one-stop-shopping for their health care coverage and enable them to compare price and quality and pick the plan that best suits their needs.

Among the choices that would be available in the exchange would be a public health insurance option. The public option would make health care affordable by increasing competition, providing more choices and keeping the insurance companies honest.

The legislation also improves the quality of patient care, improves safety for patients and strengthens the commitment to preventive health care – preventing people from getting sick in the first place.

I thank chairman Kennedy, Senator Dodd, and all the members of the HELP Committee for their hard work on health reform.

###

Good Morning.

As you go through your day, don’t forget JJP.

Drop those links. Engage in debate. Give us trivia and gossip too.

And always, have a peaceful day.

Elon does it again. Spread this joint!

Posted via web from baratunde’s posterous

Health-Care Market Characterized By Consolidation, Not Competition
By Zachary Roth - June 29, 2009, 12:50PM

As Congress gets set to take up health-care reform, there’s a crucial piece of data that hasn’t received nearly the prominence in the debate that it deserves.

Defenders of the status quo on health care like to point out that a public option will destroy the system of robust free-market competition that currently exists.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), speaking earlier this month on Fox News, called President Obama’s plan the “first step in destroying the best health care system the world has ever known.” A public option, Shelby added, would “destroy the marketplace for health care.”

But the notion that most American consumers enjoy anything like a competitive marketplace for health care is flatly false. And a study issued last month by a pro-reform group makes that strikingly clear.

The report, released by Health Care for America Now (HCAN), uses data compiled by the American Medical Association to show that 94 percent of the country’s insurance markets are defined as “highly concentrated,” according to Justice Department guidelines. Predictably, that’s led to skyrocketing costs for patients, and monster profits for the big health insurers. Premiums have gone up over the past six years by more than 87 percent, on average, while profits at ten of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007.

Far from healthy market competition, HCAN describes the situation as “a market failure where a small number of large companies use their concentrated power to control premium levels, benefit packages, and provider payments in the markets they dominate.”

So extreme is the level of consolidation, in fact, that one former top Federal Trade Commission official working with HCAN has sent a letter to the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, asking for an investigation into the health insurance marketplace.

The problem is most acute in small rural states, according to the report. In Shelby’s own state of Alabama, the biggest insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, controls 83 percent of the statewide market. There, and in nine other states — Hawaii, Rhode Island, Alaska, Vermont, Maine, Montana, Wyoming, Arkansas and Iowa — the two largest health insurers control at least 80 percent of the market. So much for Shelby’s “marketplace for health care.”

The report doesn’t consider how this reality stands to affect the forthcoming congressional battle for reform. But extreme consolidation may actually be making it harder, not easier, to win support from lawmakers for a public option.

That’s because insurers who control large swathes of a given market stand to see their bottom lines particularly threatened by the introduction of a lower-cost public option. So, in turn, they’ll be particularly aggressive in pulling out all the stops to pressure lawmakers to oppose the plan. Given the healthy amount of campaign dollars that some wavering members take in from the major insurers, that’s hardly encouraging.

Of course, the Senate is where the major legislative showdown will likely occur. So in some forthcoming posts, we’ll be taking a close look at just which senators have taken money from insurers who control major percentages of the state-wide market — and where those senators stand on the public option. Stay tuned…

From HuffingtonPost.com:

Along the way, the Health Care Investigative Unit will work with reporters and editors from the Huffington Post and our Investigative Fund who will vet their work according to professional journalistic standards. Certain scoops will be picked up and managed by the Huffington Post Investigative Fund and could turn into deeper investigations.

Those up for special scrutiny include (and their receipts from the health care industry):

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): $7,504,867
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): $7,341,399
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): $2,149,503
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT): $1,795,949
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): $1,743,835
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT): $1,685,890
Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC): $1,350,454
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): $1,346,574
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ): $1,321,457
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA): $1,160,826
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH): $1,081,378
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): $ 999,611
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): $ 994,699
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): $ 980,417
Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-IA): $ 935,711
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA): $ 919,793
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): $ 896,067
Sen. Debbie Ann Stabenow (D-MI): $ 827,294
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD): $ 797,185
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT): $ 788,650
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA, 6th): $2,090,127
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ, 6th): $1,627,024
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX, 6th): $1,518,285
Rep. John Gingrey (R-GA, 11th): $1,392,343
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY, 15th): $1,304,569
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI, 15th): $1,148,060
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA, 7th): $1,136,519
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO, 7th): $1,102,468
Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA, 7th): $1,058,786
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA, 9th): $1,046,519

Just trying to provide information to you, about the fight on our hands.

Found this DailyKos Diary:

This Is Why Insurance Companies Fear The Public Option(Updated)
by Something the Dog Said
Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 10:07:29 AM PDT

Folks have been asking, with good reason, just why it is the big insurance companies are so weak in the knees about a public option health care plan. After all, these are generally the same folks who say they the Government can not run any thing well, that always complain Government costs more than the private sector (all evidence from the Iraq war to the contrary aside) so what should they fear? Well, Health Care For America Now (HCAN) has compiled a new report which sheds some serious light on this.

In a nut shell, the Health Care Insurance companies are concerned about protecting their near monopolies. The way these companies are going at this is by controlling major portions of a local market, at the State level. The Department of Justice considers a market “highly concentrated” if one company holds 42% of market share. Highly concentrated is just a step or so below a monopoly. This would still not be too bad if the remaining 58% of the market were made up of many other companies competing for business, but in health care this is not the case. In 30 States there is this highly concentrated market. In 12 States (nearly a quarter of the United States) 80% or more of the market is controlled by only the top two health care insurers.

The problem in large metropolitan areas is actually worse in some cases then the State level data would suggest. In fact according to the AMA 94% of all insurance markets in the United States are highly concentrated. This means there is no real competition for insurance. Yes, there is a choice for consumers and businesses, but there is no competitive pressure which the free market worshiping Republicans will tell you controls prices and assures service will remain high. The Dog is a moderate believer in the capitalist system of economics, but there must be real competition if this system is to work. This is not what is happening here.

48,000,000 uninsured people in this country is the soaring cost of the insurance. When there is a choice between putting food on the table tonight and covering some unknown future health issue, there is no choice. We have been told all these companies are holding down costs as much as they can, well friends and neighbors, the Dog is here to tell you that is flat bullshit. Over the last 13 years there have been 400 mergers of health insurance companies. This means there are now at least 200 less companies offering insurance than there were in 1996. Less competition means less pressure to keep costs down.

This is why the big companies are so freaked out by the idea of the public option. They can not buy out a government competitor. Since a public option will not be for profit with shareholders who will take a very sweet deal to leave a market, they will not be able to use their deep pockets to buy market share. Worse from their point of view, they will not be able to collude with a public plan to keep rates artificially high, under the premise everyone wins, well everyone except the consumer who only needs health care to stay alive and healthy and happy.

The argument has been pitched the Insurance companies are afraid for their existence if there is a public option, and long term the Dog thinks that is true, but it is really all about short term returns the Insurance companies are worried about. The profits they have been able to reap through consolidation have been enourmous. Between 2000 and 2007 the top ten publically traded insurance companies saw profits increase 428%! Let that sink in, in a little over seven years they saw a 428% increase in profit, all the while passing on double digit increases in premiums to their customers!

This is unacceptable. The Dog does not find mean Republicans to be great, at least not modern Republicans, but there was a great one at the beginning of the 20th Century, Theodore Roosevelt. One of TR’s greatest deeds was the Trust Busting campaign. He went after the monopolies of the early 20th Century and dismantled them. This was critical to the growth of the economy of the United States, and the Dog thinks the time has come for some more Trust Busting.

It is clear health care is needed by every citizen, for many reasons. Those reasons range from the humanitarian desire for everyone to have a healthy long life, to the utilitarian need for our nation to have a healthy productive workforce if we are to be successful. No matter what the reason, it has come to the public awareness we must have this service and it must be for all. This means we can not leave it to the greed of corporatists to deliver. The Dog’s father said “Greed knows no boundaries”, this is a true observation of the human condition. It is for this reason we must have the public option. Without it we are at the mercy of the least greedy of a group of businessmen and women who have proven their greed beyond a shadow of a doubt.

There is also a need for new legislation limiting the size of health care companies. If they believe in the market, then they must live in a market! With a service as critical as health care there must be limits on the size in any metropolitan area and any State of the market any company can control. There should be no more than a thirty percent market share and no two companies should be allowed to control a total of more than 50% of the market in any given area. There is honest money to be made from health care, and those who will make it honestly should be happy with these restrictions. Those who find it too big a burden, are allowed to exit this market. The public option will be more than sufficient to cover those who they will not.

Please take action today! Call the Senators Snowe and Schumer and tell them not to add a trigger to the public option.

Contact info below:

Senator Olympia Snowe
Phone: (202) 224-5344
Toll Free: (800) 432-1599

Senator Charles Schumer
Phone: (202) 224-6542

The floor is yours.

Just trying to keep folks informed about Universal Healtcare and the obstacles. This is the most important issue facing The President, IMO.

Found this over at DailyKos:

US Supremes clobber Big Banks
by Night Owl [Subscribe]
Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 02:03:58 PM PDT

For all of us who are (ahem) less than satisfied with the vigor of the US Federal Government’s prosecution and enforcement of banking laws against large financial institutions, the US Supreme Court on Monday bucked 145 years of tradition to deliver an important and far reaching opinion that falls squarely on the side of greater accountability.

In Cuomo v. Clearing House Association (PDF), the court struck down a regulation by the US Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) that prohibited enforcement of state banking laws against national banks.

The case involved an attempt by former New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer in 2005 to investigate bank lending practices, such as whether a disproportionately large percentage of high-interest mortgages were made to minorities.

After Spitzer sent letters of inquiry to national banks, including Wells Fargo & Co., Citibank and JP Morgan Chase & Co., a bank consortium called the Clearing House Assn. filed suit to stop the investigation.

The Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates national banks, also filed suit, arguing that Spitzer was improperly encroaching on its rule under an 1864 law that it was the only entity with the “visitorial power” to examine such banks. The suits were combined and upheld by lower courts.

But Spitzer’s successor, Andrew Cuomo, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing in part that the federal agency’s interpretation in effect shielded national banks from states’ enforcing their own laws to protect consumers and prohibit discrimination.

 

The court found that while a state’s ‘visitorial’ powers of investigation into financial practices remain preempted by the 1864 Federal statute, these visitorial powers do not include the power of a state to enforce its own laws, so a state’s Attorney General can still bring suit against national financial institutions to enforce the state’s consumer protection laws.

The decision, in Cuomo v. Clearing House Association, was a surprise victory for consumer groups and state officials because their repeated attempts to challenge the National Bank Act of 1864 have nearly always been rejected in court. The ruling will allow state attorneys general in certain cases to sue any of the country’s 1,500 national banks, including major divisions of Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co.

“With this decision, the court has recognized that fair lending and consumer protection — the cornerstones of a sound economy — require the cooperative efforts of both the states and the federal government,” New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo said in a statement.

The Supreme Court ruling will likely free state prosecutors to bring cases against national banks for alleged violations of fair-lending laws, such as charging minorities more money for loans or refusing to offer loans in certain neighborhoods, a practice known as “red-lining.” The ruling could also allow courts to issue search warrants that allow state attorneys general to search for records at national banks.

 

Not only is Monday’s decision an important victory in the ongoing battle to prevent large financial institutions from flouting state consumer protection and civil rights laws, but the opinion also has the effect of significantly limiting the ability of the Federal Government to shield the big banks from the consequences of their unlawful actions.

“This puts more consumer cops on the consumer crime beat,” said Edmund Mierzwinski, consumer program director at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. “The federal regulators have demonstrated they’re just having doughnuts in the coffee shop.”

 

No longer can the big banks hide behind the security of lax of Federal oversight, but must now contend with 50 separate state Attorneys General all vying for their pounds of flesh. If the lawsuits in the 90’s against Big Tobacco are any indication, Big Banking could now be in for a very rough ride.

The Clearing House decision also has positive implications for new financial oversight legislation planned by the Obama Administration.

The case’s importance also could be amplified by President Obama’s recent proposal to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would allow states to enact and enforce tougher consumer protection laws than the federal government.

“If Obama’s plan goes forward, it will broaden and strengthen this decision dramatically,” Mierzwinski said.

 

It remains to be seen, of course, just how serious the Obama Administration is about putting its money where its mouth is on financial oversight, but Monday’s ruling is an important signal that the Court will not stand in the way of greater participation by state based watchdogs.

Finally, while the court’s bucking of a 145 year tradition to find in favor of consumers and against the banks is certainly notable, perhaps the most surprising part of the 5-4 decision is which Justices made up the majority.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined.

 

In this case at least, it appears Justice Scalia’s longstanding interest in the promotion of states’ rights has trumped his natural corporatist inclinations.

Strange days indeed.

 

Of course, Unca Clarence can’t be bothered to vote on anything that would actually HELP people.

And, The President, Fredo, The Attorney General et al, have no excuses now…they now have clear Supreme Court precedent to patrol Wall Street in order to Main Street.

Good Afternoon.

Drop those links. Engage in debate. Give us trivia and gossip too.

And continue to have a peaceful day.