Policy Diary

Election 2012: A Letter to All "Undecided" Liberals and Left-Wingers [Op-Ed]

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 06:21:00 +0000

Everyone (and I mean everybody) is sick of Undecided Voters. I mean, seriously, give the rock you guys collectively live under a rest and let somebody else who needs it give it a whirl, like Rush Limbaugh. Boy, does that guy need a sabbatical from, well, life. His permanent hiatus from political discourse would alone launch us forward 50 years. However, as you may have surmised from the headline, I will neither rant about pigheaded buffoons who were trained with the other exceptional chimpanzees at the local zoo on how to use human technology nor on the general population of Undecideds, but just the lefties, because they are, by far, the worst of the bunch.

Apparently, I am acquainted with some really smart liberal folks who have really smart liberal friends who are somehow still "undecided" about how to vote today because they are so smart they are dumb enough to think that the privilege of voting in this and any presidential election also allows the luxury of overthinking it. Honestly, I think it's rather naive and moronically idealistic to be so torn in your consideration of voting for one man in one presidential election, particularly Barack Obama, when your alternative is quite clear. You already know what you want and don't want, so what exactly is your reservation?

As a staunch liberal, can you not see yourself voting for Barack Obama because he indeed was unable to heal the sick and lower the rising oceans (not that he promised to, as Governor Romney routinely likes to incorrectly state)? Of course not. Perhaps then it may be cause he can neither prevent unmanned aerial drones from bombing innocent civilians abroad as a routine practice in the War on Terror nor suspend the practice of terrorists and suspected terrorists from being detained for life without trial or getting their fingernails pulled out in dark undisclosed corners of the Earth? Will you not rush to support the President because he can't personally concoct a foolproof method to give everyone with a decent résumé and/or a college degree a good job that pays well all while uniting Black, White, Red and Yellow men underneath the same banner of freedom whether they were born here or not?

Maybe you're a more conservative-minded liberal, like myself, and feel that your lack of enthusiasm stems from his downright refusal to prevent hundreds of developing humans from being burned out of wombs daily as the highest court in the land says, 'that's okay!'? Perhaps you also disagree with the President's desire for all people to be treated equally based on universally applicable, mutually inclusive moral principles despite others wanting the different to remain marginalized based on individual religious beliefs?

For every single aforementioned issue, either an institutional reform is required that transcends the limited presidency of one man and the institution of the Executive Branch of the United States, in general, or you just need to grow up and accept the fact that the President makes decisions for everyone and not just you and yours. To feel so entitled to your anger over one particular, or a host of issues, that the President was unable to address in 3.4 years that you can't even make a choice is just as bad as voting for the other guy.

So, since we are at this impasse, I could list all the reasons why you should vote for your most liberal major party candidate this year, but instead, I want you to ask yourself, "Who taught you that it was alright to inject such idealism into politics, a machine of just the opposite?" When everything is on the line, is it okay for you to be that selfish? Did you honestly expect the "change" that the President promised in 2008 actually meant that all your solutions would be born right then and there? Simpleton, wake up. We both know there's more to it than a glass-half-full-half-empty analogy, but at the core, that's what it boils down to.

Look, I'm sorry he let you down. I'm sure he's sorry too. But the truth is, the world isn't black and white; there are at least 50 shades of gray from what I've heard (pun intended). There is such a thing as a "lesser evil" and choosing the lesser evil in this case does not necessarily meaning you are permanently accepting or compromising a fundamental ideal, but choosing a means least destructive to your end.

We all know change takes more than the hard work of one man, one presidency, one generation. If you really want things to work, prepare to sacrifice your life, dying daily if you truly believe and want your ideals can be manifested. Until then, that sacrifice includes being responsible and sane enough to vote with conviction for the candidate who does the best he can to carry out the will of the People through the lenses of a deeply flawed, evermore complex and perilous system.

You got to take what you can get. Not anybody who matters will judge you for voting for an imperfect candidate in an imperfect time for the right reasons, so neither should you (not that you should seek validation from others as it is an unhealthy practice). Besides, there will come a time when the choice is less clear, and even then your voice will be necessary. When that time comes, you may recall this moment, when you had to muster the conviction to vote for Barack Hussein Obama, even though you didn't like what he did or didn't do sometimes. Just imagine how much easier this decision will seem, in retrospect, compared to the options of the future.

So, go out there and vote, Libs! And work towards the future that will one day tolerate your idealism on election day.

C.J. Louis is a contributing writer to PolicyDiary. Follow him on Twitter @TheCeeJayLouis

The Big 'R': Why Trayvon Martin's Death Is So Important [OPINION]

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 03:48:00 +0000

“If you are silent about your pain, they’ll kill you and say you enjoyed it.” ― Zora Neale Hurston

It is a crying shame how many people are truly showing their hypocrisy and illogical nonsense these past few weeks regarding what may be one of the most important events of our time. The people who vocally claim to advocate for fairness and justice seem to be the same folks whom are the most ignorant about what those principles really are. Will Cain, Geraldo Riviera and Everyone Else Who Doesn't Get It: This isn't about HOODIES. It isn't about SKITTLES or ARIZONA ICED TEA. It isn't about an empty bag of WEED and the school suspension that followed or a fake photo of some kid flipping the bird that isn't Trayvon. It isn’t even about a quite STUPID law. Believe it or not, quite aligned with popular belief and, unfortunately yet unequivocally, it’s only about RACE.

Race, a long standing issue in our community. Race, the invisible, pink elephant in the room that never seems to go away. Race, the institutional causeway for nearly every single thing which occurs in this nation. As AMERICAN as the Stars and Stripes, baseball and apple pie; from sea to shining sea, we cannot escape race: but my question is, “Why should we?” Why are we running from that which we cannot escape? Ignoring our history truly hinders us, it does not help. We all, White, Hispanic, Black and Etcetera, need to be able to accept the irony which lies within American History, and the inherent cynicism of it all, to address it. Otherwise, we are living in a MATRIX: a simulation of a false reality that drains the very core of our souls. WE are dying because of the perpetuation of illegitimate and very present fear by and among certain members of our community, bolstered by a government that has not done enough to ameliorate the issue.

To be CLEAR, the notion that we and our children currently live in a “post-racial” society kills us: it is a LIE and a false hope. For most of us, what's crazy is that we've only heard and read about these sort of racial killings from our elders and on the silent pages of text in history books: but its not the past, it is our lives today, still. Yes, indeed, this is a TRAGEDY, for it resulted in a beautiful life gone vis-a-vis gun violence, mired with the poison of racism. It is also a TRAVESTY that his death, like many others, after THIRTY DAYS, still hasn't been honored with the slight solace that comes with knowing JUSTICE is being dealt...a justice that has been stoppered by that which yet remains to be seen. So...to all those who question the legitimacy of our OUTRAGE…for those who still are ignorant as to who this young man is, why he was "suspicious," why he is dead and why do we care…I tell you: we wear hoodies, because if the notion that Black skin begets criminality is what killed this young man, then the truth that we’re just like everyone else, that we just want to live a life free of persecution and full of prosperity and equality, is what we'll show in our solidarity. We FAIL all children if we fail to act, to teach the history, to STAND OUR GROUND when INJUSTICE stares us in the nose with bloodshot red eyes and dares us to bust a move. We fail ourselves if we ignore the real BLACKNESS that plagues our society and we will all be consumed by it, whether we acknowledge it or not.

So, if you still don't know why to attend your local rally for the slain Florida teenager, Trayvon Martin, I'll tell you why right now. We all have a reason to stand our ground on this. We are all just as implicated. We need to show these killers out there and the perpetuators of this cycle of hate that we care about our community and we will rally every single time injustice is dealt to any member of our community. If it was you, we'd do it for you. And That's Real, damn it. Doesn't Matter If You're Not Black, What Matters Is That You're Human And Should Be Treated As Such. Don't be a Mainstream Activist. Don't be a Drive-by Supporter. Be ACTIVE not reactive. Let us lay down the marker by which we have cried, "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" for the umpteenth time and finally have gathered the collective resolve to do something about it and maintain that something for the generations to follow and have a torch to carry further and beyond anything we have imagined. If we cannot do this, then Dr. King will ALWAYS remain the greatest dreamer of us all. Lastly, know this: the WAR is cultural and the battle is principled; the fights are sequential, yet the VICTORY shall be universal. PEACE.

C.J. Louis is a contributing writer to PolicyDiary. Follow him on Twitter @TheCeeJayLouis

Want to Learn about Texas Tech University School of Law?

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:00:00 +0000

A special thanks to Dean Stephen Perez, Assistant Dean for Admissions & Recruitment at Texas Tech University School of Law, for participating in our Admissions Spotlight Interview. Joseph Fernandez from Parliament Tutors conducted this interview.

As the Assistant Dean for Admissions & Recruitment, what are your day-to-day responsibilities?
I’m responsible for all aspects of admissions and recruitment. Recruitment is mainly in the fall, where I handle the strategic decisions like where to recruit, what kinds of non-travel recruitment we will do, coordinating the creation of print marketing materials, and website content. Around mid-November, that shifts to admissions, which involves managing the applicant review process, (LOTS of) reviewing files & making decisions, managing our student recruiters, and closely monitoring our application cycle to ensure we admit the quality and quantity of students we’re looking for. There is also a great deal of recruitment that happens in the spring, only it is targeted at admitted students. We have an admitted students day in the spring that my office plans, as well.

What do you consider the most significant parts of an application, the parts which applicants should prepare the most carefully?
The most important aspect of an application are the academic credentials – the LSAT and the GPA. A student “prepares” for those far earlier than a year in advance (especially the GPA), whether they realize it or not. The next most important piece is the personal statement and any addenda that a student might submit. No matter how much I and my colleagues stress that this must be error free, the majority of essays still have errors ranging from minor typos to major writing problems. Things like the resume and letters of recommendation are also important.

Is there anything you frequently see on an application that you hope to never see again?
Typos. Spelling errors. Semi-colons (they are RARELY used correctly). Headshots of the applicant! (there’s always a few every year.) Unexplained bad grades. Countless students have horrible semesters or wild fluctuations in grades and provide no explanation, leaving me to assume they are simply poor students or unreliable. High school accomplishments.

What common pitfalls should applicants be careful to avoid?
Leaving off experiences/jobs from the resume because they don’t think they are “relevant”. Law schools are looking for well-rounded people with experiences and interests beyond law. Plus, you don’t know what a reviewer might consider relevant. Put as much as you can fit on 2 pages (max).

Are there any myths about the application process which you would like to dispel?
I don’t know that I know of any widely held “myths” about the process.

What advice would you give to an applicant with below-average test scores but significant work experience?
The two things are kind of unrelated. Test scores are a measure of your ability to think critically and analytically under time pressure. No amount of work experience is going to overcome significantly below par LSAT scores. Someone with a 130 will never “work” their way into law school. However, if test scores are low but in the range for a school, work and life experience can give the extra edge to a student and be the thing that makes the difference.

Do you frequently have to turn away applicants whom you wish you could admit? If so, what could those applicants do to be admitted?
Yes. We’re lucky enough to be a selective law school. We have many applicants who will be admitted to other law schools, graduate, pass the bar, and become fine lawyers. There are just too many for us to admit them all so we can only take the best of the group. We always have hard-working, dedicated students that simply don’t have high enough grades and test scores to allow us to admit them over other people who are just as hard-working and accomplished that have better numbers.

How much faith do you have in the ability of the LSAT to predict success in law school?
I don’t have to have “faith” in it. There’s lots of statistical data behind the LSAT. It isn’t perfect in that it doesn’t predict first-year performance (the ONLY thing the LSAT tries to predict, not bar passage or how good of a lawyer the student will be), but nothing is 100%. The LSAT is by far the best predictor of first-year success. Adding LSAT and GPA together is even better. (GPA by itself is fairly week given the wide disparity between quality of schools, majors, etc.). We have very few students with 90th percentile LSATs that don’t end up near the top of the class and our history has shown that students with LSATs below a certain level have a very hard time making it through. Now that’s a pretty wide range, of course, which is why we have to look at all the other aspects of the file.

What do you look for in a recommendation letter?
I look for how the recommender knows the student and how well they know each other in an academic or professional context. Letters from family friends, relatives, or politicians are barely read.

Suppose an applicant has little or no experience relevant to your program, but has significant experience in other fields. What can that applicant do to distinguish himself or herself in your eyes as a good candidate for your program?
I don’t put much weight on the idea of “relevant’ experience. The law is so varied and there are so many different things people do with their law degrees that virtually everything a human being can experience is relevant. I tell students not to worry if they don’t have any law-related internships or work experiences. I care that students have experiences, period. Law-related experiences are beneficial to students because they can help focus their interest in (or away from ) a particular practice area, but that is a personal benefit not one that will improve a student’s chances of admission. A law firm job isn’t any better than a job at a bank, doing Teach for America, studying abroad, volunteering at your local church, or any of the other million things people do. I tell students to go be interesting. All the things I listed are things students should do anyway for personal growth, regardless of whether or not they help them get into law school.

Joseph Fernandez offers home tutoring with Parliament Tutor. He is an LSAT Tutoring specialist.

Are Advertisers Making The Right Choice By Leaving Rush Limbaugh?

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:45:00 +0000

My latest on Mediaite: Are Advertisers Making The Right Choice By Leaving Rush Limbaugh?

Yes, I’m fully aware that Rush Limbaugh’s vitriolic and misogynistic comments have sparked a firestorm that has morphed into a full-on boycott. As of this writing, 15 advertisers have called it quits, and those who remain have few options — all of which are uncomfortable, and have the potential to affect the bottom line in one way or another. So which option should a company choose?

Should Advertisers Stay or Go?

It’s clear that if a company stays with Limbaugh, the negative press will continue and could lead to lower sales. No company can ever afford to embrace bad PR — especially if it’s due to something unrelated to their practices or products — particularly when the negative reaction is due to where they have chosen to advertise, a decision that is intended to create a positive consumer impression. On the other hand — and this is less spoken of — companies that quit advertising on Limbaugh’s show are almost certainly losing an opportunity to connect with Limbaugh’s estimated 15-20 million weekly listeners. (Admittedly, there are other shows and methods in which to reach this consumer segment.)

How Much Can I Improve My LSAT Score?

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:36:00 +0000

By Ryan R.

LSAT test-takers often ask how much they can improve their LSAT score? The answer is unequivocal: with the right preparation you can significantly improve your LSAT score.

What is the LSAT testing?

The LSAT tests a set of skills such as critical reading ability, deductive logic and inferential reasoning in addition to fluency with techniques such as formal logic and assumption recognition. While these skills are to a large extent critical for any successful law student or attorney to have, they are not innate and can be developed through practice.

How many point can your score increase?

It is not uncommon to become intimidated by the LSAT after your initial practice test. If you were a successful student in college then the idea of having just scored 60% on a test can be humbling. However, it should be noted that this score that would normally translate to failure on a college exam actually corresponds to the national average.

With a dedicated regimen of taking practice tests, studying specific question types and remaining devoted to your prep course, tutor and/or self studying, one can improve your starting LSAT score by more than 20 points.

Remember that you cannot assess your max potential strictly based on your starting score alone, but rather on how quickly this score improves.

Many people who start off by scoring in the 150s do wind up scoring in the 160s, and in some cases, even the 170s as these individuals have strong enough reading, writing and analytical skills when they first begin their prep, and once they develop the logic skills they never needed before prepping for this exam are able to achieve scores at the very top of the US population.

What about those starting with particularly low scores?

On the reverse end of the spectrum, individuals who start in the 130s and 140s do often improve their scores into the mid-150s. However, their ability to achieve a truly elite score may be hampered by their reading ability. Most people taking the LSAT believe that they have great reading skills, but when one is expected to have elite reading skills, scanning through the Sunday paper may not be enough practice.

If you’re starting with a low score approach, it is most prudent to consider investing a significant amount of time into studying, and not rushing into taking the test. It is also best to consider doing a lot of reading, as your score potential may be limited by your reading comprehension abilities.

Final Thought

In my experience as an LSAT tutor, I have found that those starting with particularly low scores are also the most likely to start their LSAT preparation particularly late as well and/or study less than their competitors. In this, they commonly create an additional disadvantage for themselves.

Like other standardized tests, the LSAT not only examines your aptitude, but also your work ethic. The amount you improve will be directly correlated with the amount of time you put into preparing for the LSAT.

Ryan R. offers LSAT Tutoring with Parliament Tutors, a New York Tutoring and Test Preparation service. He was raised in Long Island and graduated from New York University's Tisch School of the Arts in 2009. After scoring in the 99th percentile on his LSAT, he joined Parliament Tutors over 2 years ago. Ryan will be attending University of Virginia School of Law in Spring 2012.

Think GOP Infighting Is Ugly? Check Out The Democrats…Of 2008

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:32:00 +0000

I'll no longer be contributing to NewsOne on a weekly basis. I may however write there for special projects on occasion. Good news is I'll be contributing to Mediaite weekly. Today I had a piece regarding the GOP infighting and how overblown it is.

People forget how contentious the Dem primaries were because it was 4 years ago, plus Hillary is working for obama now. So it's very easy to forget. But the minute you pull those old debates on YouTube or start reading the mudslinging back and forth, it all comes back.

I mean, it's hilarious folks are suggesting GOP primary should end first week of Feb. when Hillary didn't suspend her campaign until June! On top of that, she still was suggesting that her delegates be seated at the convention in Aug. So it almost came down to the wire.

Read it here: Think GOP Infighting Is Ugly? Check Out The Democrats…Of 2008

The Only Two Arguments Democrats Need On Mitt Romney’s Taxes

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:31:00 +0000

My latest in Mediaite looks at Romney's taxes from a different perspective. How should Democrats go after him? What's really the most effective strategy?

Mitt Romney has bank accounts flung across the globe; The Washington Post noted a few countrieswhere he has them, including Luxembourg, Ireland, Cayman Islands, and, until 2010, Switzerland, which is a notorious tax haven.

I’m not suggesting that Romney has done anything untoward when it comes to his taxes. On the contrary, it looks as though he has toed the legal line extremely well. But therein lies his problem:

(1) If the system as is benefits people like Romney so much, what is the motivation for him to change the tax code? Clearly he’s doing just fine.

(2) How exactly will Romney make the argument that the average American is overtaxed? He’s not one of them. And most wealthy people in his position are paying a similarly low effective tax rate. How can he help the middle class with tax woes?

Am I Playing the Race Card?

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:33:00 +0000

Since my article "Red Tails Could Set Black Film Back" came out all kinds of discussion has taken place. I'm glad. I think the film as well as George Lucas's comments on it are worthy of a candid conversation. That that conversation appears to be happening (not just do to this particular piece but in general) is a very good thing.

What I find peculiar though is this: Some readers have asserted that I'm playing the race card. How so? It wasn't me who broadcast to the nation that Hollywood wouldn't support this movie due to its all-black cast. It also wasn't me who said that the movie "was made for black teenagers." So while it may be easier to assert that the writers sparking commentary about the film are "pulling the race card", it's really just lazy and flat wrong.

Lastly, if I was wrong and the typical audience for black films wasn't predominantly black, then why would Hollywood have such strong misgivings about their ability to market an all-black film? Wouldn't they jump at the opportunity if they felt everyone would want to see it, especially considering George Lucas was behind it?

See the problem here isn't just Hollywood, it's also the fact it's still hard for society to have candid conversations about these kinds of subjects.

“Red Tails” Could Set Black Film Back

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:14:00 +0000

Over at NewsOne, my newest outlet for writing opinions of all kinds, I've sparked a discussion about the movie "Red Tails," the all-black film produced and marketed by George Lucas. Below is an excerpt. Check out the full story here.

Red Tails, an all-black film, is opening January 20 at a theater near you. If you happen to see it, do me a small favor: take a gander at the rest of the audience and see if they resemble the thespians on film. Chances are, they will. Supporting black films, and black art in general, should be a tenet of the African-American community. And frankly, it’s usually the African-American community that Black films are accustomed to relying on. What makes Red Tails unique in this regard is that it was produced, financed, and marketed by George Lucas, the billionaire creator of the “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones” franchises, who is white.

SEE ALSO: Brandy, Monica Reunite For Record
Red Tails tells the story of a crew of African-American pilots who are called to service while in the Tuskegee Airmen training program during World War II. Lucas is to be commended for truly believing in this story — he started working on it in 1988 — to bring it to the big screen and to do so with his own money. Sure, he has plenty, but Red Tails cost $58 million to produce and another $40 million to market — that’s not chump change. And Lucas also gave us a candid bird’s-eye view into how Hollywood thinks.

While appearing on the John Stewart Show, he said he was shocked not only at the fact Hollywood wasn’t willing to get behind the film but also by the reason he was given: they didn’t “know” how to market a film with an all-black cast, Hollywood said.

Red Tails is a universal story of integrity, leadership, perseverance, and values. There’s little doubt that everyone should watch it. I wish for it to be successful and spawn more faith in the creation, promotion, and patronage of black film, but chances are it won’t achieve any of that.

And George Lucas is to blame.

Dr. King vs. President Obama: No Comparison Necessary

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:03:00 +0000

A bright colleague of mine, on this year's anniversary of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birth, wrote an article positing the question of whether Dr. King would publicly endorse President Obama for re-election. My colleague then proceeded to answer the question by contrasting the late Dr. King’s track record with President Obama’s. Initially, this may seem like a practical means of discovering the answer to this strange inquiry; however, there are some serious problems with the rationale used in his commentary and generally with people that are quick to criticize the president.

In his piece, Wilson expressed severe discontent with the President's efforts to deal with the housing crisis in comparison to Dr. King's leadership in the civil rights movement to challenge racial discrimination in the housing market.

Wilson posited,

"Whether Congress goes after fraudulent lenders are certainly not within Obama’s discretion. However, the range of enforcement the Justice Department pursues utilizing existing laws is directly under Obama’s discretion, and that of his Attorney General Eric Holder."

Clearly, this is a case of having spoken too soon as, less than two weeks following his article’s publishing, President Obama directed AG Eric Schneiderman to head up a new mortgage fraud unit which would essentially serve as a Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group further extending on the already established Federal Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. Moreover,

Secondly, the article and situation Mr. Wilson refers to below for his point:

"President Obama has sought to enshrine “prolonged detention” of terrorism suspects into the legal system. Such detention would prevent suspects from gaining access to courts to address charges brought against them, even though that is guaranteed in the constitution’s sixth amendment. Obama finally got his wish. Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes language that will allow for exactly the sort of detention envisioned in 2009, months after Obama took office. A constitutional scholar not only neutering constitutional protections but codifying such denigration (with the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act), is as incongruous as seeing Tim Tebow in a brothel…with a Super Bowl ring on," unreasonably implicates the President in an imaginary conspiracy.

For one, the President didn't seek to enshrine; the system was already in place and after failing to topple Gitmo several times during his presidency, he chose the best option available: to make it the fairest indefinite detention system he could. Having noted the apparent failed critique of the initial portion of the commentary, it would do well for Obama critics to allow the president to do his job before judging: he still has a lot of time left.

Lastly, I see no real basis to attempt to contrast Dr. King and President Obama. These two men, both led in different circumstances and times; however, despite the seemingly discrepancies between the men’s political records, according to Dr. King’s dream , I can only imagine that he would be proud of our president for what he has done so far. Yes, it is true that perhaps the President is neither doing anything immediate nor specifically beneficial to African-Americans, but he is not just a Black president; he is the President of the United States. This country has issues that are affecting everyone and so that continues to be the theme of his Administration: to help everyone. The president has proven himself to be worthy of a second term, which without, nobody wins.

NDAA's Critics are Wrong

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:22:00 +0000

By CJ Louis

Many people have somehow gotten the idea that certain sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) stifle our civil rights by allowing for the indefinite detention of American citizens on the mere suspicion that they are loosely affiliated with Al-Qaeda or if citizens simply decide to openly oppose the government. This is not true.

The NDAA for people who don’t know anything at all, is a law passed annually for the past 50 years. At its core, it’s a piece of defense legislation that simply details the spending budgets and authority of our Defense Agencies. Sometimes, things are added in to detail specific projects or initiatives that the Federal Government is taking on at the time. This year is the first time it has received such widespread international attention from the masses. Why? I won’t make any unfounded assertions, but it’s no mystery that the President has been on thin ice ever since he was sworn into the White House because of this and every move he makes is under intense scrutiny, and with good reason, because our nation is in a very delicate state.

The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012 is controversial among the general public mainly for the following two portions of the legislation:

Subtitle D – Counterterrorism: Section 1021: Affirmation of the Authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Subtitle D – Counterterrorism: Section 1022: Military Custody For Foreign Al-Qaeda Terrorists.

A little context: three days after the attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was signed into law by then-President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001. The AUMF granted the use of our military against those found to be responsible for the September 11th attacks on the United States and granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The 2012 NDAA narrows and explicitly defines the scope of those people responsible and refer to them as “covered persons” in the following text:

A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Section 1021 restates authority already granted to the President through the passage of AUMF 10 years ago in “affirm[ing] that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force…includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons…pending disposition under the law of war.”

The 2012 NDAA grants no authority regarding detention of terrorists and terrorist suspects not already in play several years before President Obama was elected. Critics have argued that theoretically a portion of this expands detention authority because it allows for people to be held on the basis, not of membership in an enemy group, but mere support for one; they are rightfully concerned about this language. Yet, as stated earlier, this was already possible under AUMF and subsequent broader interpretations of it by district courts since then.

So, at this point, I’m sure you have comprehended this well thus far and have been wondering, “If these powers were already in place 10 years ago, why would Congress include this seemingly repetitive language in the 2012 NDAA now?” The answer to that is this: the most important thing to note about Section 1022 is the Congressional approval of indefinite detention of “covered persons” without charge. When the AUMF was passed, Congress’s stance on indefinite detention was ambiguous at best. The power of indefinite detention was solely the President’s decision.

Yet, in placing this legalese in a congressional defense bill, Congress has given the practice of indefinite detention more meaning than just discretion granted to the Executive Branch, but also an extremely solid and explicit statutory basis by their endorsement which makes them as fully accountable in this area as the President. In essence, Congressional legal backing made indefinite detention less vulnerable to legal scrutiny and possibly a more permanent practice going forward.

As for Section 1022 of the 2012 NDAA, it requires mandatory detention of foreign al-Qaeda terrorists.

The part in question is Part B (Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident
Aliens), Points 1 & 2 which state:

UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

It is good that critics are keeping a watchful eye on legislation and their concern is somewhat warranted due to the justified lack of trust in government and the tricky wording in Point 2; however, Section 1022, Part B, Points 1 & 2 do not apply to any American citizen or legal resident of the United States. There are skeptics who say that outside of the US, citizens are more vulnerable to the scope of this law; they are not totally incorrect. Nevertheless, the focus of Section 1022 is clearly terrorism, as defined in the bill, and not conflict, armed or otherwise, with American citizens. Section 1022’s use of the word “requirement” has been interpreted by some critics as allowing U.S. citizens to be detained, but this provision does not in any way create this authority. Both sections explicitly cover Al-Qaeda members and members of groups that act in coordination with or under the direction of Al-Qaeda and cannot in any way be misconstrued to include innocent American citizens.

Admittedly, this bill does indeed trek a slippery slope; however, the government does not have to use military detention for anyone and when considering the provisions within, it provides enough legroom for the Administration to come up with a thorough, streamlined, legitimate and somewhat transparent process to accurately determine whether or not a person qualifies as a “covered person.” In case you couldn’t tell, that is good news.

In summary, I’m sure that after reading this some of you may still feel that President Obama should’ve just vetoed the bill in its entirety. I mean, who wants to walk on the mile high, quite lean tightrope between civil rights and human rights? Well, frankly, vetoing it would not have made any good political sense. The 2012 NDAA contains a lot of other measures besides these two sections; as I stated earlier, it is first and foremost a defense spending law. Vetoing the bill would’ve delayed government stipends to veterans, widowed military families, and etcetera as well as crippled our military operations domestically and in areas all over the world. And for what: political backlash? Because the bill would’ve certainly gone back to Congress and undoubtedly receive the two-thirds vote it needed to override the President’s veto. Except, things would be much different the second time around, in that the President would not be able to attach a signing statement. Without the statement, President Obama wouldn’t have any control of 2012 NDAA’s execution as a signing statement can be used as an executive directive of sorts. Having signed it into law and attaching his signing statement, the President can direct the controversial parts of the law to a standard according to his interpretation of the law. The signing statement is quite relevant in that it helps to create a format for the execution of the law during his Administration which without the entire world would be subject as is without any sort of discretion whatsoever. To make a long story short, the fact that it was signed is good news.

About the Author

CJ Louis

What's going on with AIDS Activism?

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:56:00 +0000

With all the Occupations taking place around the country, it is disappointing to see that the best the HIV/AIDS activists can come up with is to latch on to a “treatment as prevention” campaign. This is in response to a highly-publicized study showing that getting people with HIV on treatment decreases HIV-transmission in heterosexuals by 96%. This study has been seized on as the opportunity to really envision an “AIDS-free generation” (as promoted by people such as Hilary Clinton, despite the fact that they really mean an “HIV-free generation”, a sign of the need for education).

While this study is good news , the idea that we are going to simply treat our way to the end of the pandemic has serious flaws. First, treatment is not prevention. Treatment – in this case, taking pills – neglects to address the individual and societal transformations necessary if we are to truly have an HIV-free generation. We need education that overcomes stigma and fear. Consider this simple fact: currently, many of the highest-risk people do not get tested for HIV because of stigma, fear, and denial. Merely replacing a test with treatment is not going to get people in the door. In addition, there are these considerations:

While treatments decrease transmission risk, there is a false sense of security that we need to be on alert for.
There is an upward trend in the prosecution of people with HIV not telling their partners of their HIV-status; will this trend continue, or will a person on treatment be less responsible for communicating his/her status.
There are growing waiting lists for treatment already. Merely demanding more money seems to be in denial of what is going on in the fiscal world, especially when the commitment to treatment needs to be open-ended.
Ignored in all of this are studies that indicate self-testing for HIV can reach those higher-risk folks, can be done more cost-effectively, and when done in conjunction with digital education, can be very effective in both educating and encouraging testing, but activists and HIV/AIDS organizations stay silent on this while demanding more funding for treatment.

So what’s going on here? As usual, it seems one need only follow the money trail and its influence. Gilead Sciences is the maker of Truvada, one of the highly-touted treatments. Investment firms are saying that Gilead will be a profitable stock because of, according to this LA Times columnist, its HIV-therapies and “shrewd partnerships”. Gilead is one of the biggest sponsors of HIV/AIDS conferences such as the recently-held US Conference on AIDS. Gilead also has a long reach (both directly and through lobbying arms) of making contributions to politicians such as both Bill and Hilary Clintons, GW Bush, and Rep. Barbara Lee, all of whom are very vocal about supporting “treatment as prevention”.

I am not suggesting any sort of broad conspiracy here, so much as the fact that “AIDS, Inc” (a conglomeration of politicians, pharma, HIV/AIDS organizations and activists) are participating in a sort of “group-think” that only looks at the system in place as the vehicle for ending the pandemic, and promoting campaigns that feed the system. Left out are new ideas and creative brainstorming that integrate such things as social networking and self-testing – both of which research shows are very effective as well.

UPDATE: Just after this was posted, UNAIDS released its annual World AIDS Day Report. In it, on page 21, the case is made for home self-testing for HIV. It will be interesting to see if perhaps an organization like this can help open eyes and minds. See more here.

How Siri could revolutionize the 911 system

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:09:00 +0000

It's been awhile since my last post, for that I apologize. However I've been writing a lot in various places and will update the blog this week.

This piece appears in GigaOM and is focused on how Siri can completely change emergency care, especially how we interact with first responders. Here's an excerpt.

In health care we face numerous challenges. One that is being tackled by the FCC, Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation is the limited nature of our emergency 911 system. Currently, if one is dialing from a cellphone, chances are that 911 cannot automatically find their location. And the only way to contact 911 is the traditional way — by telephone.

All of that is about to change. Next Generation 911 will allow for communications to be made by voice, video or text. Location will automatically be appended to voice calls, saving time and confusion when the caller doesn’t know where they’re location is — or isn’t able to verbally communicate it.

As someone who analyzes health policy (with a focus on long-term services and supports), I believe that Siri, Apple’s recently introduced natural language voice technology, has the potential to change not just our 911 system, but also to be one of the biggest consumer-facing technologies in health care that we’ve seen in decades.

Emergency health care today

Imagine this scenario: an elderly person is having a cardiac event. She is having trouble breathing and is unable to complete a sentence. Dialing 911 is possible, but if the caller is unable to narrate the condition, first responders would still be in the dark until they arrive.

Even after they do arrive, information still eludes them: some critical — including prior medical history, current medications and allergic reactions to medicines — and some logistical, such as health insurance and next of kin...

Medicaid's Patients Need Better Access to Care

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 17:05:00 +0000

By Elaine Hirsch

Recently New York Times reporter Robert Pear highlighted one of Medicaid's greatest problems: access to health care providers. Pear interviewed residents of Louisiana enrolled in Medicaid, several of whom expressed frustration at the fact their Medicaid cards didn't automatically ensure access to the care they needed. One patient had three herniated discs in her neck, but couldn't find a surgeon who would accept patients on Medicaid. She angrily referred to her Medicaid card as a "useless piece of plastic."

Some physicians are unwilling to take Medicaid patients because they view them as unreliable. Even if they attended school online, most health care professionals are aware that Medicaid patients are less likely to show up for appointments and take responsibility for personal health, and more likely to have complicated health issues. As such, many patients will struggle to find doctors willing to treat them.

Since its inception in 1965, Medicaid has provided essential healthcare to millions of low-income families. The program can be credited for keeping people off the streets and serving as a safety net for society's most vulnerable citizens. However, although Medicaid has proven successful in many ways, it is far from perfect.

The hardship Medicaid patients face in finding primary care physicians leads to a smaller percentage of patients receiving preventative care. In fact, according to Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, Medicaid patients don't fare much better than the uninsured. They are less likely to receive mammograms and pap smears than those with private coverage. As such, Medicaid patients are more likely to have cancer and other fatal conditions that could be treatable if caught in the early stages. Instead, they only receive care in the emergency room when it may already be too late.

Often the gaps in coverage are caused by insufficient numbers of specialists in the managed care system. With managed care, the government selects a private plan to provide coverage for those enrolled in Medicaid. Patients are required to visit professionals within the network of the plan they're assigned to. This differs from traditional pay-for-service Medicaid coverage, in which patients are allowed to visit any doctor willing to accept Medicaid.

Managed care has proven a boon for many private companies, but it often complicates things for patients, who may end up having to drive over two hours to reach an in-network specialist. Nevertheless, managed care remains far less expensive than the fee-for-service system. With state budgets shrinking, managed care is becoming a reality for more and more Medicaid patients.

One of the greatest problems surrounding Medicaid is lack of funding. As health care continues to grow more expensive, so does the cost of providing Medicaid. The financial problem is worsened by the economic recession and high levels of unemployment. Fewer patients are covered by employers, and many are unable to pay for private insurance. Over 58 million patients are on Medicaid, and the number is rising. In a time of economic uncertainty, paying for more and more patients to be put on Medicaid puts a strain on the entire tax base. However, many politicians fear the consequences of cutting back on coverage would be severe.

Although Medicaid has been an important program for the last several decades, it is not without problems. Medicaid is very expensive, and attempts at reducing the cost through managed care plans often lead to compromised care for patients. Still, the program's benefits outweigh its problems, and it would be worthwhile for politicians to think outside the box for ways to fix the current issues.

Why Can't the Congressional Black Caucus Be More Like the Tea Party?

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:00:00 +0000

(Excerpt from The Loop)

The Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference began this week in Washington, D.C. celebrating its 41st year. President Obama is scheduled to speak, as he did last year, at the closing dinner. One thing is for certain, and that's Obama’s audience at this dinner will be one of the most approving, and least challenging, crowds he’s faced all year. And that probably shouldn’t be the case.

It’s a sincere question to wonder why the Black Caucus isn’t the Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party. Few other Congressional caucuses can lay claim to having a singular voice that represents Democrat strongholds throughout the country and puts the disenfranchised -- including minorities -- at the forefront of their agenda.

Like the CBC, the Tea Party's power isn't really in numbers. Poll after poll has shown that the Tea Party’s popularity ebbed a long time ago and mainstream America doesn’t support them. Instead, the Tea Party has focused on something far more effective: intimating to legislators the power they have at the primary ballot.

The Tea Party's power can be attributed to three things: simple messaging, unwavering leadership, and being a disruptive force in political landscape. And here’s three reasons why the Black Caucus isn’t measuring up in the same way...

Please read the rest here: http://loop21.com/content/why-cant-congressional-black-caucus-be-more-tea-party

GOP Voter ID Tricks Nothing New

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:50:00 +0000

(Excerpt of my weekly column at The Loop 21)

For a Party that is concerned about winning the next presidential election, the GOP is sure making it hard for all people to vote at the polls. In Wisconsin, the latest state to enforce voter photo identification, the move is being criticized by The League of Women Voters who are working on a lawsuit against the state. According to the League, the new requirement doesn’t pass muster with the state constitution, nor the federal constitution. GOP politicians who drafted and helped pass the state bill claim they are in line with constitutional law.

Don't be alarmed. The Republicans claim of so called fraudulent voting has been going on for years. However, their push to do something about this "problem" has strengthened due to Obama's possible re-election in 2012.

So, it is without surprise that the fate of our democracy ultimately rests on Republicans pushing laws in Wisconsin, Kansas, Texas, Ohio, Missouri, and South Carolina -- just a few of the growing list of states attempting to mandate citizens to present photo ID in order to vote. Such a premise is belied by both facts and common sense.

First the facts: There is little to no evidence that voter fraud is being perpetuated on a wide scale.

Please read more here: http://theloop21.com/content/gop-voter-id-tricks-nothing-new

John S. Wilson

Founder and Editor-in-Chief

Connect with me:
john [at] policydiary [dot] com

A proud graduate of Virginia Commonwealth University, John is currently a Master's of Public Health candidate at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University where he is studying health policy & management. He is also a weekly contributor to The Loop 21, frequent contributor to theGrio, and founder of Policy Diary, a leading blog on health policy, management and reform.

Areas of interest include health care reform and education reform, particularly: access to health care, health care exchanges, and Medicare and Medicaid; in addition, charter schools, K-12 funding, and educational equality.

John is wholeheartedly determined to contribute to the rapidly changing dialogue in the health care and education communities. He has made continuous contributions by conducting research, publishing articles, interviewing practitioners and professors, and engaging students through on-campus organizations.

John's publishings have also appeared in fora such as: The Orlando Sentinel, The Daily Voice, Wiretap magazine, Black Web 2.0, The Daily Californian, NewMajority.com, Club Relaford, HipHopRepublican.com and Policy Net.

Previously, he served as a legislative fellow in the offices of the Honorable David Englin (D) and David Bulova (D) of the Virginia House of Delegates, in the 2009 and 2010 legislative sessions, respectively. John also interned in the office of the State Attorney General of Virginia, and completed a Governor's Fellowship in the Office of Gov. Bob McDonnell where he worked with the deputy secretary of health on projects regarding aging, HIT and disability.

GOP Lacks Education

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:03:00 +0000

As Michelle Bachmann wins the Ames Straw Poll and Governor Rick Perry enters the Presidential race, there remains one bit of policy unaccounted for: educational. Sure, it’s early in the race, and candidates care more about talking points than policy points, yet I remain concerned about the lack of discussion around educational policy. Could it be that education has gone the way of the tape cassette?

This could, in fact, be a positive issue. Let the Department of Education continue to do “its thing.” They don’t need to be politicized more than they already have. Then again, the fact that potential candidates, like Perry, promise to make Washington the least of one’s worries, my educational sensitivities wince a little.

If anything, Washington ought make us be concerned about education, of all things. They are needed to focus the future, which improves through education. Illiteracy runs rampant, and mathematics declines, yet potential Presidential nominees say nothing of education. Should we be surprised?

With a Texas Governor, who might as well be the textbook publisher of the year, and Michelle Bachmann, who cannot seem to understand history, education will surely suffer. In the whole lot of confused GOP candidates, it’s Romney who understands education best (read: better than the other two). Yet Romney has also been quite silent on the educational front.

I suspect, however, that the larger populace bears some brunt of the blame. We have directed our focus away from children and onto our childish, politicking ways. We are more concerned about speaking rhetorically than teaching rhetoric. We are more concerned about counting campaign contributions than teaching children how to count. We are more concerned about exposing misquoted material than teaching children how to use quotation marks.

Rebuilding America, whatever that means, requires more than job creation and economy boosting. While they are necessary aspects of the future, there is no future more precious than our children. If we want to demonstrate how much we care for the future, let us act like it and rebuild education in America. Rampant re-segregation of schools and slashed funding for lack of performance will not equate a better America.

For those of us on the Left, and those on the Right, let’s get our priorities straight. If we want to have a future, let’s improve education today. Education is not a political point, but a point of reality that will, undoubtedly, determine the future of our country. Perry and Bachmann don’t get it, I’m sure, but that doesn’t mean we can’t educate them on the finer points of the future.

About the Author

Connect:
Zac's articles on Policy Diary

Zac Bailes is an ordained Baptist minister with native Kentucky roots. A second-year student at the Wake Forest University School of Divinity, he earned his bachelor's in Philosophy at Georgetown College in Georgetown, KY.

Passionate about social justice, Zac is intimately involved with the Institute for Dismantling Racism, an organization which seeks to create an anti-racist identity and culture that affects individuals and institutions. As a white, straight male, he constantly seeks to engage and question his privilege. It is a journey that is continually traveled on his blog Libs and Cons, and in life.

The Debt Ceiling: Obama's Game to Lose

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:30:00 +0000

When it comes to the debt debate, Obama is both on the sidelines and overbearing. Huh? That's what the GOP, and funny enough, The NY Times want you to believe. But that just doesn't pass muster. In an article this morning, journalist Jackie Calmes says:

Having already deployed the heavy weapons from the presidential arsenal, including a national address on Monday night and a veto threat, Mr. Obama is in danger of seeming a spectator at one of the most critical moments of his presidency. Having been unable to get the grand bargain he wanted — a debt limit increase and up to $4 trillion in debt-reduction through spending cuts and taxes — Mr. Obama’s challenge now is to reassert himself in a way that produces the next-best outcome, or at least one that does no harm to his re-election hopes.

Meanwhile on Morning Joe Wednesday morning Carl Bernstein implicated that Obama was being overbearing and falling for the D.C. mindset of 'I'm the president and people will follow my lead.' What Ms. Calmes and Bernstein are misunderstanding is that: 1) the president's best leverage is time, and as the time winds down the GOP has no choice but to deal. 2) The longer the debt limit has dominated the discussion, the more voters have grown to trust Obama and Democrats to deal with it. Think that's a coincidence? The GOP have proven themselves to be feckless and have added nothing but drama to the debate.

Take a look at this Gallup poll done back in May:

Contrast those results with a Washington Post poll taken on July 26, just two months later, where "34 percent of those asked said they "strongly" trust Obama (14 percent say "somewhat") while 28 percent say the same about Republicans, with 11 percent saying "somewhat" for the GOP." So basically voters' trust in the GOP on the deficit ceiling dropped by 40%...in two months.

So what has Obama done right since May that turned around voters? In any negotiation it's important to know which side has time on their side. Obama knew from the beginning that time rested with him. After all, would the GOP really be prepared to let the nation fall into default and allow their party be seen as political and petty minded? Probably not. But then again, what if they were? What would that mean? If the GOP were that diabolical and beholden to the Tea Party (who represent the majority of those pushing there shouldn't be a deal) then Obama would have increased leverage with voters and with Congress.

Clearly, Obama doesn't want default. Interest rates will rise, U.S. treasuries will decrease, the U.S will lose its triple A rating for the first time in its history, and a host of other unintended consequences will come down the pike, the full extent will have yet to know.

However, the president knows two things: 1) He literally tried his all to avoid it, even going so far as to give the GOP everything they wanted -- a deal composed of no revenue increases (read: tax hikes or closing of tax loopholes - you know, the kind that allow GE to reap $14 billion in profit and receive a $19 million refund last year) and cuts to social programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Word also got out that the president was willing to raise the minimum age to receive Medicare from 65 to 67. That's something Democrats wouldn't even consider during the health care debate. Think about that.

2) The president knew the GOP, if they rejected such a sweet deal, would have gone overboard. By striving to get the perfect bill (one Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, and other conservative Gods legislators pray to would bless) the American people, you know, the folks legislators are actually beholden to, would see the debacle for what it was -- political suicide by the GOP.

When you have Republicans like Tom Coburn (OK), one of the most conservative members of Congress who has held up bills by himself over a few million dollars, calling for a deal - the jig is up. Veteran GOP members see the writing on the wall, and it ain't pretty.

Don't Have a Job? Need Not Apply

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:32:00 +0000

What's that old saying about banks - 'They're only willing to lend money to those that don't need it.' Companies seem to be doing something similar. The NY Times found that more often than not companies specifically asked for the employed or recently employed to apply. So where does that leave the rest of us?

That is the message being broadcast by many of the nation’s employers, making it even more difficult for 14 million jobless Americans to get back to work.

A recent review of job vacancy postings on popular sites like Monster.com, CareerBuilder and Craigslist revealed hundreds that said employers would consider (or at least “strongly prefer”) only people currently employed or just recently laid off.

Worse than that is the fact there is little Congress can actually do about it. The article notes that being jobless isn't a protected class that affords standing for a discrimination suit, and discrimination is hard to prove regardless.

So why do companies ask for such a particular applicant? Mostly to winnow down the hiring pool. With so many Americans out of work recruiters are being inundated with applications.

Hispanics Reeling From Effects of the Recession

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:39:00 +0000

Hispanics hurt hardest during recession? According to the Pew Center, that's the unfortunate reality. The NY Times digs deep into the numbers, but as you can see they are far from pretty. While the recession officially ended in 2009, it would have been nice to see numbers that included 2010 considering black unemployment is still rising and as of now eclipses 20 percent.

These numbers should also give the GOP pause considering all 5 presidential candidates invited to speak at the National Council of La Raza's annual conference didn't show. Not one. Never mind that La Raza is the largest Hispanic organization in the country, or that the GOP recently started an initiative to increase the amount of Hispanics running for office.

That isn't to say that La Raza speaks for all Hispanics. Clearly, they do not. However if a GOP candidate were willing to speak at the conference and clarify their views on how their policies can strengthen Hispanic communities across the country, it couldn't hurt.

Government Is Working, Ask South Bronx

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:27:00 +0000

Good op-ed in the NY Times about what government can do to help revitalize urban neighborhoods.

The Bronx (and many neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan) stands as arguably the greatest public rebuilding achievement since World War II, a resurrection begun by Mayor Edward I. Koch and continued with great vigor by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg today.

The Bloomberg administration will, in the end, have poured more than $8 billion into building and preserved 165,000 apartments — more than enough to house the population of Miami.

Will Higher Taxes Kill Small Businesses?

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:13:00 +0000

House Speaker John Boehner surely thinks so. It's a fear he repeated last night in his speech following Pres. Obama's. Obama, as part of the debt ceiling negotiations, would like to end the Bush tax cuts in 2012 and raise tax rates for those making over $250,000 back to Clinton-era levels.

Boehner's claim, along with the GOP's, is that increasing tax rates during an economic downturn is foolhardy. First, because it'll recede economic growth. And second, it'll hurt the engine of recovery -- small business owners.

Notice Boehner's sleight of hand? No one is talking about raising taxes during an economic recovery. Obama is proposing to end the Bush tax cuts next year. Granted we do not know what the economy will look like in the future, but for Boehner to imply it'll take place now is disingenuous at best. So what about small business owners? Will they be crippled by this tax increase?

After all, Boehner's reasoning comes from the conservative theology that most new hires come from small businesses, and they in turn drive us back to recovery. There's little doubt small businesses contribute immensely to our country's economic growth. But I think Boehner has his facts mixed up.

So how much does the typical small business earn? Far less than $250,000. Back in 2008, McCain claimed the same thing Boehner is saying now: increasing taxes will kill small businesses. Obama said (then) that only 2% of small businesses would be affected (a claim he repeated last night). Politifact had the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center verify Obama's statement and found it to be true. Remember we're talking profits here (what small businesses make after paying employees, expenses, and debt), not revenues (total gross receipts).

Also, numerous studies have concluded that small business, while accounting for half of U.S. jobs, do not create more jobs than large firms (those with 500 or more workers). So it looks like Boehner is 0 for 2. Voters didn't buy when McCain said it, so why does the GOP believe the American people will fall for it now?

About the Author

John S. Wilson

Founder and Editor-in-Chief

Connect with me:
john [at] soeducated [dot] com
John's Articles on So Educated

Beyond the Debt Ceiling

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:33:00 +0000

The debt ceiling discussions have taken all our focus, and demand much of our legislative energy. Not only have we stopped focusing on each other, we’re rapidly losing sight of the other difficulties plaguing our country.

There’s Afganistan. Sure, the draw down is supposed to begin, but the reality is that our forces are deployed across the globe. The War Machine marches on, but our morality is left standing still.

There’s Healthcare. While we discuss the debt ceiling we discuss cutting healthcare for seniors. Simple fact is that millions of Americans could care less – they don’t have any healthcare to worry about losing.

There’s Immigration. The DREAM Act, secret detention facilities, and families torn apart still remain up for discussion.

I could continue, but I’m sure my point is made. These are issues, no doubt, but they are about people. There’s no such thing as an “asocial” issue. Every issue focuses upon people throughout government. We’ve lost sight of the humans that constitute our countries, and until we are willing to reclaim our humanity progress will seem a distant dream.

The debt ceiling must be raised, that’s an absolute fact. How we do that varies, and is, quite obviously, a source of great contention. Beyond the raising of the debt ceiling human lives await change, await hope. Our identity will not be judged based on whether or not we raise the debt ceiling, but what we do after that.

Will we bring all our troops home? Will we make peace during times of peace?
Will we bring healthcare to the least of these?
Will we remain faithful to immigrants? Will we make good on our promise of opportunity?

I hope, but I will not rest on my laurels. Let’s make change a reality. Let’s get to work.

About the Author

Connect:
Zac's articles on Policy Diary

HIV Treatment, Testing and the Debt Ceiling

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:29:00 +0000

By Brad Ogilve

The on-going saga about the budget, deficit and debt-ceiling seems to have everyone clamoring for their piece of the pie either in terms of programs, money or power. HIV/AIDS organizations are no exception. The big noise now coming out of “AIDS, Inc.” is that, on the first anniversary of the release of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, President Obama is proposing some changes and cuts to Medicaid as part of the negotiations, and that these negotiations could “halt progress against HIV/AIDS”.

It’s hard for me to get too worked up about this, and to jump on any AIDS Advocacy/Activist bandwagon. The reason is simple: “AIDS, Inc” has become way too reliant on government funding and playing where the money is that it seems to have no vision of how to engage new ideas that may actually call for less funding, or to see other emerging trends that are problematic. When any politician says that, as a part of these negotiations, we need to look at wasteful spending and wasteful practices, a lot of HIV/AIDS bureaucracy comes to mind. Basically, anything that calls for treatment and counseling gets the activists attention; anything related to testing or questions the system gets neglected.

Some examples:

A recent training/lobbying event held in DC to support funding for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program received a lot of underwriting from the very same pharmaceutical companies that would get the money. “AIDS, Inc.’s” activist wing was silent on the funding.
HIV-testing programs are being cut in different parts of the country. Recommendations for testing are to go to an MD, or to the ER. Both of these are extremely expensive and even unreasonable options, but the option of a $10 test that someone can take at home remains mired in bureaucracy. Again, the activists are silent, but when the thought of going to the ER for treatment comes up, the shrieking begins.
A recent study found that teen girls with HIV were 7 times more likely to get pregnant after knowing their status. Did this really need to be studied using public funds? And, more problematic, this should call into question the effectiveness of all this counseling for people with HIV that people say is needed, but again the activists are silent.
A study found that putting HIV-negative people on HIV-medication decreases HIV-transmission rates. The fact that US universities ran this study with public funds but in Uganda and Kenya reinforces a global message that the world can be our guinea pig. But here in the US, we can’t even give people the more affordable option of self-testing because we can’t handle it.

The big players in the HIV/AIDS arena have become so entrenched that simple connections cannot be made. Instead, like the little chick in the nest, they only seem to be able to scream for more. And, sadly, these are also the only one’s that the Obama White House on AIDS is listening to. So, Obama is right to say we need to all learn to do more with less, but unfortunately he is surrounded by people who don’t speak that language. Until there is some serious talk about some of the fundamental flaws of 3 decades of "spend it or lose it", and chasing the virus with treatment and the stigma that is "identity-driven" policy, I maintain that too much money has been a part of the problem and fostered a co-dependent relationship that is unhealthy and downright deadly. Or to put it another way, as long as the only thing that "AIDS Inc." seems to scream about is treatment while committed to maintaining their turf on testing, I say what we are seeing now has been in the works for years.

Your Health Info is Going Online

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:49:00 +0000

At least if you live in the UK it is. A pilot National Health Service (NHS) project will start storing patient records 'in the cloud,' meaning medical personnel and patients will have full access to it over the Internet. According to The Daily Telegraph:

Flexiant said that the project “could be used to integrate all phases of health-care treatment, from assisted living to primary and secondary healthcare, so that the same data can be used throughout”. The company said that it would allow services to be accessed from a range of devices, including computers linked to the web and mobile phones, but that “multiple identification methods” could be used.

Clearly security will be a primary criticism and ongoing concern of such a system. To confirm identities the system will use a range of protocols, including "mobile phone identity checking, as well checks through Facebook or the Paypal secure online payment system." Hmm...not sure about the Paypal or Facebook defense. Too often both are about as helpful as a comatose arthritic German Shepherd. But mobile phone two factor authentication is pretty nice. Pretty much works like this: enter password info to log into a site, and before you can gain access you are sent an additional password by text message or phone call to a predetermined number. So the scammer would need both your initial password and your phone at the same exact time.

I'm intrigued to see the development of this.