The Middle Aisle

Did Torture Lead to Osama Bin Laden

2011-05-03T15:45:00.000-07:00

So while the world sings praises to the death of arguably the most evil man since Hitler, a silent yet crucial bit of information is being thrown around as gospel and as is custom in far to many American circles the “truth” as it’s been portrayed is not necessarily “The Truth”.

The question then is, did torture lead to the capture of Osama Bin Laden? The answer, No. No it did not.

Interrogation? Yes. Boots on the ground, nose to the grindstone information gathering? Yes.

What’s being reported:
“Enhanced interrogation techniques lead to Osama Bin Laden’s capture”
“Torture Lead us to Osama Bin Laden”
“Water boarding led us to Osama Bin Laden”

The Truth:
TORTURE DID NOT LEAD US TO OSAMA BIN LADEN.

Don’t take my word for it, ask Donald Rumsfeld. Donald, "The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding."

There you have it, contrary to what’s being spew about on the news and in certain circles.

So to be clear torture didn’t do it. A question worth asking though, “if it did, would you be ok with it?”

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/the-republican-spin.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/03/obama_adviser_brennan_waterboarding_did_not_lead_to_osamas_location.html

No Class Action For The People - AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion

2011-04-27T16:55:00.000-07:00

While the USA was busy determining Obamas citizenship...again, the Supreme Court was busy robbing the people in an effort to protect those poor defense massive corporations. The court ruled in the favor of AT&T in the case of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

In a nutshell Vincent and Liza Concepcion were bilked out of $30.22 when they were charged sales tax for free phones. The Concepcions essentially sued AT&T in a class action law suite.

Here’s where things get silly. For Vincent and Liza to sue AT&T for $30.22 is down right crazy talk. Court filing fees are generally triple that, not to mention the costs of hiring a lawyer. Imagine going into a lawyer’s office and telling him you want to sue someone for $30.22, even if they take 90% of the winnings it’s not all that hot of a deal for the lawyer. No lawyer in their right mind is going to pick that case up, as was the comment from dissenting judge Breyer, “What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim?”

Instead of taking on one of the largest telecom companies in the world for $30.22 a class action lawsuit was filed. Wait because the plot thickens right here.

When you sign one of those god forsaken phone contracts somewhere down in small letters you agree to handle all issues via arbitration, giving up your right to take matters to the courts. The idea is semi-sound in that it appears to have the best interests of all parties involved, what’s often left out is who is going to arbitrate, typically someone AT&T gets. When the Concepcions filed, AT&T responded by saying the Vincent and Liza had given up their right to class action lawsuit. The long and short of it all is that in the end the Supreme Court said AT&T could require people to give up their right to sue in a class action case.

Well what does this all mean then?

Well let’s take this $30.22 dollars for instance. Let’s assume for a second AT&T did this to 1 million people, basically stole $30.22 from them. That’s roughly 30 million dollars of stolen money. With this new ruling there is no real way for the people to go after that money from AT&T. Quit literally AT&T could completely ignore people complaining about the $30.22 and say, “so sue me.” Which again is NOT going to happen because no lawyer in their right mind is going to fight for $30.22. Even if you found 1 lawyer to do this, or 10 or 1000 or 10,000 the benefit for AT&T to rip off millions far outweighs the cost of paying 10000 court cases.

Well what about arbitration then? Sounds good still right? No actually, “In 34,000 California arbitration cases filed with the National Arbitration Forum between 2003 and 2007 and studied by Public Citizen, consumers prevailed only 4 percent of the time.” (http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/27/6544896-advocates-consumers-betrayed-by-high-court-ruling-on-class-action-suits)

Yeah 4% of the time in arbitration the consumer wins. See where big business really is winning now.

One only really needs to ask the following question, “When is it ever a good idea to give up your rights?” or even better yet, “When is it a good idea to be FORCED into giving up your rights”

I say forced because now that companies know they have a 96% chance of getting away if they screw you over you can bet your bottom that damn near EVERYTHING that doesn’t already have clauses like these in contracts soon will. Want to rent a car, gotta give up your rights. Get a Phone, wash with water, use electricity, loans, AC repair men how about getting a job, etc, etc, etc, be prepared to toss your rights in the trash in order to protect the pockets of the newest citizens—corporations.

Some argue that tort lawyers were making money off of this so it was bad. “Those sleezy lawyers” you know, the ones who help hold accountable corporations who dump poison into water supplies (A La Erin Brockovich), whether we like it or not, are the reason companies stay at least somewhat honest. To be fair someone spilling coffee on themselves and getting millions doesn’t help paint lawyers in a good light but neither does your kid getting cancer because some company wanted to cut corners. We have the choice then, Some lawyers bilking the system and companies having to pay a little while treating consumers as humans; or some corporations treating people like humans while many take advantage with no repercussions. I know which I’d prefer.

The big issue here is that once again our current supreme court has ruled in a massive way In favor of corporations, such as when they turned corporations into people by giving them the same rights as real flesh and blood humans. There’s hope on the horizon as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by the Dodd-Frank act, which was designed to regulate the financial industry, has recently been tasked with reviewing arbitration clauses and there’s a strong possibility the CFPB will ban such clauses. Hold the phones just a minute though. Now that corporations are PEOPLE and PEOPLE can donate to politicians and lobby politicians guess who is most likely going to be shoving crap loads of money down congresses throat to keep things in their favor. (Hint: It’s not the Concepcions with their $30.22)

Obama Officially an American – To Most

2011-04-27T14:09:00.000-07:00

What should hardly be considered news worthy is taking the spotlight today; Obama has released his long form birth certificate putting an end to the debate on his legitimacy as an American and his eligibility for the Presidency of the USA. Let’s for a moment disregard the fact that his eligibility was made clear before his first day as president, let’s disregard his short form birth certificate, let’s toss aside the assumption that someone in one of our many intelligence agencies already checked and verified where the leader of the free world was born, toss pragmatism to the wind and strap on your tin foil hat (or over priced hair piece in some cases *cough Trump*); is this really what the single super power in the world has denigrated into? Debating things already proven? Should we expect to see a new debate on the earth revolving around the sun next week?

There’s no way to say this nicely so I’m just going to come out and say it. Birthers...are bat shyt crazy; conspiracy theorists at their finest; basically the political polar opposite of the 9/11 inside job group. So if you find you agreed with the Birthers, just know where you stand.

The Birthers wanted proof, in spite of already provided proof and now they have it... so we can finally put this to rest right.

If only... :(

Now a typical human, when faced with facts, specifically the facts they specifically requested, is capable of coming to terms with the truth and moving on. It takes a special breed of moron to take “the facts” and dig a hole deeper and deeper into dumbassedness and that’s just what the Birthers are doing. Rather than saying something like, “well there it is I guess we can move on now” many a Birther are now throwing up the “it’s a fake” walls as a last ditch effort to keep the shield they’ve been using to mask their hatred and in many cases racism. (Yeah, I pulled the card but you know it’s true as much as I do.) Clearly there are just some people who, regardless of what they see, will NOT believe the truth. Short of Marty and Doc swinging by the trailer to whisk some of these people back to Obama’s day of birth NOTHING can be provided as proof.

We need to all come to terms with the harsh reality that some people are just idiots.

A quick welcome back

2011-04-27T13:07:00.000-07:00

Frequent updates of the site will now pick up. Time constraints left The Middle Aisle short of content for a little over a year. With a little more time and a lot to say on the current state of the nation you can expect a near DAILY update.

Reconciliation: The Not So Nuclear Option & The Reconciliation Record

2010-02-25T14:20:00.000-08:00

Reconciliation, the nuclear option, to understand it better let’s get a view of what the procedure of reconciliation actually means. For a loose definition we’ll turn to wiki - Reconcilation

“Reconciliation is a legislative process in the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Introduced in 1974, reconciliation limits debate and amendment, and therefore favors the majority party.

A reconciliation instruction (Budget Reconciliation) is a provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to submit legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution. The instructions specify the committees to which they apply, indicate the appropriate dollar changes to be achieved, and usually provide a deadline by which the legislation is to be reported or submitted."

In other words reconciliation is a means to take a budget issue that is already largely agreed upon and work out the differences without fear of a filibuster making a call to vote require 2/3 of a majority. In a few small words it’s a way to pass a budget item without fear of filibuster and with only 51 votes.

Now that we know what reconciliation is let’s examine why the Republican Party has begun grandstanding with terms like “the nuclear option” when referencing reconciliation and the healthcare bill and why their actions are, at best, extremely confusing, and ,at worst, down right hypocritical.

Let’s look at a few quotes from prominent republicans on reconciliation.

Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) – “In this post-partisan time of Barack Obama, we’re seeing a little Chicago politics. They steamroller those who disagree with them, then, I guess in Chicago, they coat them in cement and drop them in the river?

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) – Gregg said use of reconciliation to pass the healthcare bill would be “regarded as an act of violence”

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) – Called reconciliation, “a purely partisan exercise”

Sen. Mitch McConnel (R-KY) – “"it appears as if the administration has already made up their mind to go forward with a beefed up Senate version and to try to jam it through under a seldom-used process that we commonly refer to around here as reconciliation."

In the past (3/26/2009) Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) once said:
“I fully recognize that Republicans have in the past engaged in using reconciliation to further the party’s agenda. I wish it had not been done then, and I hope it will not be done now that the groundwork has been laid.”

Unfortunately when asked his opinion on an “obscure senate rule” (reconciliation) he had the following to say, “I am unalterably opposed to that. It would be a drastic change in the way that the United States Senate does business, and I hope that if you see something like that coming, you would not allow that to happen.”

So which is it; Obscure, nuclear, business changing, drastic, seldom used, violent?

So what is the record on reconciliation usage?

Again simply put out of the 21 times it’s been used since 1981, 16 have been when republicans have held the majority, only 5 being done under democratic majorities.

So there you have it, reconciliation of the healthcare bill with a little perspective and insight into how it’s been used and who’s been using it.

Obama's Healthcare Plan

2010-02-25T13:05:00.000-08:00

If you haven’t had a chance to take a look at the Obama’s health care plan then you can find it here

In a nut shell his plan is a small step towards a much better healthcare plan for the United States of America. Contrary to popular myth this bill is will not be communism, it will not be fascism either.

Obama’s healthcare plan will...set up a competitive new healthcare insurance market. This new market will grant people the same insurance choices as Congress
Obama’s healthcare plan will...put an end to pre-existing conditions prohibiting people from getting insurance
Obama’s healthcare plan will...reduce the deficit by $100 billon over the next ten years.
Obama’s healthcare plan will...Get rid of the Nebraska deal (which was very wrong of Obama to do in the first place)
Obama’s healthcare plan will...create the Health Insurance Rate Authority, which will have the power to prevent insurance companies from unfairly increasing insurance rates.
Obama’s healthcare plan will...crack down on fraud and abuse.

In a nut shell as a middle class American there is NOTHING in this bill, in Obama’s healthcare plan that should be cause for concern.