During today’s House proceedings, the female Democrats were completely in order as they made salient points about how health care reform will improve the lives of women around the country. Here’s how one male Republican responded:

What’s on your mind tonight?

A couple of weeks ago Dick Cheney made headlines for accusing the Obama administration of "dithering" on its policy goals for Afghanistan. At this point Cheney does not deserve to be thought of as anything other than a crazy and potentially senile old coot, so the substance of what he said is irrelevant. Its subtext may be revealing, though.

The decision on the war should be viewed in the context of the shadowy activities that are taking place in Afghanistan, far away from any battlefields. The prison at Bagram seems particularly important; in Amy Davidson’s jaded but apparently accurate view "closing Guantánamo increases the need for a new Guantánamo." Andy Worthington fleshed out her point by making the persuasive case that the Obama administration is keenly interested in having a place to stash inconvenient human beings that is completely outside judicial or congressional jurisdiction. It appears the CIA is handing suspects over to the military, and they exist completely within the military’s chain of command.

During the Bush years the administration favored use of the Gang of Eight briefing process, approved in 1980, in which "the executive branch is permitted by statute to limit notification to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the two congressional intelligence committees, the Speaker and minority leader of the House, and Senate majority and minority leaders, rather than to notify the full intelligence committees." Unfortunately, there appears to be confusion over what is permitted with the briefing process; Jane Harman complained she was not allowed to take notes during the ones she attended or even discuss it with her colleagues.

Harman’s dissatisfaction shows what makes the Gang of Eight process a charade: The president decides when to use it and can bring enormous pressure to bear on those being briefed. Human nature is to err on the side of caution and to give the benefit of the doubt to those we work with. If the president says, "I’m going to tell you this, but it’s extremely sensitive and a leak could have grave consequences," how defiant do you think any of those eight will be? Harman could have flatly said, I’m taking notes – try to stop me. She did not, though. Yes it was a failure of courage on her part, but no formula for effective oversight can have courage as a prerequisite. Interestingly, the FAS article points out there is officially no restriction to members of the Gang of Eight sharing details of the briefing with the full membership of the intelligence committees. It still seems designed to strongly discourage sharing and disclosure, though.

Presidents will not willingly give that up that power. Barack Obama has threatened to veto the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2010 over its repeal of the Gang of Eight provision. When it was initially revealed a number of bloggers, including Spencer Ackerman, Matt Yglesias and Marcy Wheeler, noted its significance. It did not make much of a splash in the larger outlets, though, and unfortunately has never become a topic for discussion among political or media elites.

Allowing the House and Senate Permanent Select Committees on Intelligence set their own briefing rules is a greatly needed reform. As long as the president can in effect keep Congress in the dark – and make no mistake that is exactly what the Gang of Eight process does – the CIA also has reason to lightly regard it. Silvestre Reyes can furrow his brow at the CIA all he wants, but he must understand that the Agency feels it can lie to Congress as needed because the oversight process is so anemic. (By the way, the SpacePolicyOnline.com article claims "no intelligence authorization bill has cleared Congress in four years." If true that strikes me as noteworthy; failure to pass one presumably does not de-fund intelligence agencies. What kind of institutional inertia or perverse incentives are in play that makes failure to properly authorize a budget so attractive?)

Which leads back to Dick Cheney and Bagram. So far Afghanistan has been an executive branch playground. It is home for not just military adventure but a lawless netherworld into which all the unpleasant consequences of our aggrandized, arrogant and short sighted foreign policies can be hidden away. The courts don’t get to have a say and Congress doesn’t even have to be told. But if we pull out all our soldiers that situation will have to end. No wonder the former vice president wants lots of extra troops sent there, and the current president is so eager to keep news from there bottled up. America has heavily invested in a very dark project in Afghanistan. Transparency can only bring trouble.

if television is the drug of the nation,

satellite is immaculate reception

beaming in they can look and they can listen

so you see don’t believe in the system

to legalize you or give you your freedom

you want rights ask em’, they’ll read em’
but every flower got a right to be bloomin’

stay human."

\"Stay Human\" Michael Franti

I opened a bank account with the local Austin Telco credit union last week, and will close my Wells Fargo accounts in 10 days to allow for a smooth financial transition.  This report appears to be one of those trite twitter “who gives a damn” text intrusions.  I discovered however that this minute move has triggered magnificent meaning.  As Michael Franti’s lyrical prelude foreshadows it is about keepin’ it human.

My first major banking transaction was in Fort Stockton, Texas.  I looked the Ex High School basketball coach, turned loan officer in the eye and with a firm handshake got a sizable loan on my new 1984 blue Audi 4000.  He then introduced me as the new Church of Christ Youth Minister to the 1st National Bank President.

Not long after that 1st national went big city introducing an ATM card and machine.  I never got one.  It was crucial for me to go inside the bank, look into the face of the teller, exchange a joke or two and feel that human connection.

One awful morning my loan officer’s daughter died suddenly when her gas heater malfunctioned.  I was privileged to offer ongoing pastoral ministry to my devastated friend.  Plastic card banking wouldn’t have afforded this movement from officer to soul friend.

When I moved to Austin in late 1991 I banked with a local concern, Franklin Federal.  Once more I established names and faces that transcended my meager money balances.  Franklin got bought by Norwest.  Then Norwest and Wells Fargo merged.  There is one person at my branch who I still know as a person.  They move personnel more often than a Methodist Bishop moves pastors!

After Wells Fargo made a mistake that overdrew one of my accounts I went into the branch.  The one person I know was on lunch break.  The new “officer”/cog in the machine couldn’t help me.  She said I would have to call the 800 number.  A visit with the  branch manager lackey yielded, “that’s the way it is.”  It took me five hours and six or seven toll free numbers to get the mess cleared up.

After you and I became federal bailout shareholders of Wells Fargo, I got a notice announcing a 3% raise in my credit card interest rate.  I had just heard Wells had reported record profits and were awarding healthy bonuses to their big wigs.

That was it for me.  A visit to the only person I know yielded a fatalistic apology.  “I don’t agree with it.  They are raising our employee rates too.”

I googled all the major national banks in my area coupled with the term "bailout."  The headlines were nauseatingly the same – big quarterly profits, large executive bonuses.  I closed my laptop and declared.  "I’m not doing business with any of these fu*ker’s."  My resolve was seated in defiance.

Walking out of the credit union last week after dealing with a fresh faced college grad to open my account, I not only popped the balloon of my anger.  There was a much more fundamental transaction.  The light of my humanity was rekindled.

A central promise of health care reform is that if you like the health care coverage you have, you can keep it. Today in America, millions of women who buy health care on their own or who get it through the small business employer have abortion care coverage. Congressman Stupak’s amendment would strip them of that coverage, breaking that central promise.

Stupak wants to outlaw abortion coverage in the new health insurance Exchange, where individuals and small businesses will purchase their coverage. Instead, women would only be able to purchase abortion coverage in a "abortion rider" plan – a single-service plan that covers abortion only. Such an "abortion rider" is discriminatory and illogical. Women do not plan to have unintended pregnancies (or pregnancies in which a complication will arise that will require ending the pregnancy). In fact, about half of all pregnancies are unintended. Abortion is simply not something that women plan to insure against.

Put simply, the Stupak amendment is a dramatic departure from current law which would restrict a women’s right to choose. What’s more, it would put an unprecedented restriction on people who pay for their own health insurance.

There is already a compromise in the House health care bill that reflects current law on the subject. The current bill prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion but still allows women to use their own money to buy the coverage they need.

This isn’t good enough from Stupak, or, apparently, for the Members of Congress considering voting for this amendment. Below is a list of Representatives that need to hear from you today about this issue. If you live in their district, pick up the phone now and give them a call. This amendment will be voted on today, so time is of the essence.

Click here to call, or use the phone numbers below:

Leans pro-choice but needs shoring up

Arcuri (D, NY-24) – 202-225-3665
Bean (D, IL-08) – (202) 225-3711
Bishop, S. (D, GA-02) – (202) 225-2203
Boswell (D, IA-03) – (202) 225-3806
Butterfield (D, NC-01) – (202) 225-3101
Cardoza (D, CA-18) – (202) 225-6131
Chandler (D, KY-06) – (202) 225-4706
Cooper (D, TN-05) – 202-225-4311
Costa (D, CA-20) – 202-225-3341
Doyle (D, PA-14) – 202-225-2135
Edwards, C. (D, TX-17) – 202-225-6105
Etheridge (D, NC-02) – (202) 225-4531
Gordon (D, TN-06) – (202) 225-4231
Kratovil (D, MD-01) – (202) 225-5311
Langevin (D, RI-02) – (202) 225-2735
McMahon (D, NY-13) – (202) 225-3371
Michaud (D, ME-02) – 202-225-6306
Minnick (D, ID-01) – (202) 225-6611
Neal (D, MA-02) – (202) 225-5601
Nye (D, VA-02) – (202) 225-4215
Obey (D, WI-07) – (202) 225-3365
Owens (D, NY-23) – (202) 225-4611
Ruppersberger (D, MD-02) – 202-225-3061
Ryan, T. (D, OH-17) – 202-225-5261
Salazar (D, CO-03) – 202-225-4761
Space (D, OH-18) – (202) 225-6265

Unknown

Biggert (R, IL-13) – 202-225-3515
Carney (D, PA-10) – (202) 225-3731
Castle (R, DE-AL) – 202.225.4165
Cuellar (D, TX-28) – 202-225-1640
Davis, A. (D, AL-07) – (202) 225-2665
Dent (R, PA-15) – 202-225-6411
Ellsworth (D, IN-08) – (202) 225-4636
Frelinghuysen (R, NJ-11) – (202) 225-5034
Kirk (R, IL-10) – 202-225-4835
Lynch (D, MA-09) – 202-225-8273
Pomeroy (D, ND-AL) – (202) 225-2611
Snyder (D, AR-02) – (202) 225-2506
Tanner (D, TN-08) – (202) 225-4714
Visclosky (D, IN-01) – (202) 225-2461

Leaning anti-choice

Altmire (D, PA-04) – 202-225-2565
Barrow (D, GA-12) – (202) 225-2823
Berry (D, AR-01) – (202) 225-4076
Boccieri (D, OH-16) – (202) 225-3876
Bright (D, AL-02) – (202) 225-2901
Capito (R, WV-02) – 202.225.2711
Donnelly (D, IN-02) – (202) 225-3915
Hill (D, IN-09) – (202) 225-5315
Jenkins (R, KS-02) – (202) 225-6601
Kildee (D, MI-05) – 202-225-3611
Lance (R, NJ-07) – (202) 225-5361
Lee, C. (R, NY-26) – (202) 225-5265
Matheson (D, UT-02) – (202) 225-3011
Mollohan (D, WV-01) – (202) 225-4172
Ortiz (D, TX-27) – (202) 225-7742
Paulsen (R, MN-03) – (202) 225-2871
Perriello (D, VA-05) – (202) 225-4711
Rahall (D, WV-03) – (202) 225-3452
Ross (D, AR-04) – (202) 225-3772
Spratt (D, SC-05) – (202) 225-5501
Wilson, C. (D, OH-06) – (202) 225-5705

(also posted at the NOW! blog)

I’m proud to work for Health Care for America Now

The purpose of the barker, just in case you don’t know it, is that of advertising agent, to convince you of the product’s desirability so you will come into the tent. The big tent, no – their individual, tiny tent. Bearded ladies, fattest man in the world, genuine aliens in a jar, the car that Jayne Mansfield was riding in when she was decapitated, Balloon man – you aren’t going to be cool if you haven’t seen this 2010th wonder of the world.

The skills needed to sell the Republican party – that party that is still insisting its ideology will cure the ills that it has created – will rival those of the best barker. They are on display now. Listening to winger Chairman Michael Steele at his presser Wednesday express concern that the Democrats, with 60 members of the Senate, couldn’t pass a health care reform bill did bring to mind the backroom scene that had to have preceded it. That back room had to have filled with intaken breath where, gasping with astonished laughter, the assembled 2010 campaign planning committee barked with wonder at the calm grasp of spectacle their Chairman gave to this piece of phantasmagoria. I wonder what question prompted the Chair could plan to actually pass blame for his party’s obstruction tactics on to the Democrats.

The sense of responsibility that right wingers have shown in the administration of the country is epitomized to me by the Katrina tragedy, an immense disaster that a quarterhorse dilettante was given to solve as a reward for party loyalty. With an ability for administration that seemed to amount to picking out an appropriate shirt to wear for the cameras, a showman had in his flapping hands the city of New Orleans, with its hundreds of thousands of desperate people.

The concept of shilling as substitute for policy has been a recent one. I see it on the floor of the House and Senate now, where a debate on credit card regulations is turning ghastly. The Chairman of the Committee, Barney Frank, with deep logic, calls for an end to suffering on the part of constituents. Pitting this against Rep. Hensarling – who repeatedly expresses the surety that by passing consumer protections, Congress will prevent credit availability to his constituents for paying for the “trillion dollar government takeover of health care bill” – is an exercise in absurdity.

Yes, we all know that the government administers excellent health care plans for Hensarling as a member of Congress, and me under Medicare. The swill about government takeover has been thrown about since FDR, and has been disproven time after time. A carnival barker uses emotional language, not logic, though, to bring in the gullible passing by with a huge cup of whatever the mark was sold at the drink tents before reaching the freak show.

Sorry, but I remember when both parties approached running the government with an attitude of responsibility. The worst administration ever (Bush’s) was the first time I saw the spirit of product sales take over from commitment to a country. When the product they were selling was so devalued that its own qualities had to be ignored, the right wing turned into the freak show that we are seeing now.

Two unjustifiable wars that involved a descent into torture and bombardment of innocent civilians; a military strained with tasks never intended to be endured repeatedly by the same personnel to the point that suicides are at record numbers; deregulation that displayed its own inherent self-destructive results over eight years; administration by party faithful whose enthusiasm for ideology was their entire resume; substituting the pretense of ‘reverence for life’ for real measures that could save those tens of thousands of lives lost because of unattainable health care; educational meltdown leaving this country far down in our students’ ratings compared to industrial nations; tax incentives to executives to strip jobs and manufacturing facilities away from the real economy and to grab the short term gain; turning the prospering consumer economy into a wage and job starved depression: That’s the right wing product challenge. There’s a challenge that takes some real diversionary tactics. Selling it has turned the leadership of the party from one of solemn responsibility into the desperate barking we are hearing now.

What is required to sell the right wing product is dissociation from pride, dedication to overlook criteria about actual value, and the personal need to make it in a bewilderingly complex world where you are responsible for untold distress but have to pretend that repeating your mistakes will solve the immense damage you have done. The wonder is that even the most craven hypocrite can want to pass this crew off as capable of governing anything.

For myself, I wish them no luck at all.

With the House set to vote on the health care bill tomorrow, it will be helpful to know exactly who our representatives will be representing. Here’s how much money some of the key players in the debate have received from health industries in the current election cycle.

(Includes donations from health professionals, insurance companies, HMO’s, hospitals, nursing homes, and pharmaceuticals. Click here for a complete listing of all members of Congress.)

House:                                                                                                         Senate:

Steny Hoyer – $259,810 (3rd highest in body)                        Harry Reid – $611,075 (most in body)

Nancy Pelosi – $223,700 (5th)                                                       Blanche Lincoln – $427,950 (2nd)

Charlie Rangel – $ 201,800 (6th)                                                  Chuck Shumer – $366,650 (3rd)

Eric Cantor – $191,150 (7th)                                                           Chuck Grassley – $248,560 (8th)

Henry Waxman – $190,250 (8th)                                                Kent Conrad – $117,850

Roy Blunt – $170,700 (12th)                                                          Ben Nelson – $113,100

John Boehner – $137,725 (20th)                                                 Max Baucus – $70,500

Joe Wilson – $77,900                                                                        Tom Carper – $58,490

Alan Grayson – $38,800                                                                  Olympia Snowe – $12,000

Dennis Kucinich – $2,000                                                               Jay Rockefeller – $2,000

What ’s on your mind tonight?

We’ll have Chilaquiles, a traditional Mexican dish made with tortilla strips, eggs, sauce, and cheese. We’ll have lemon rice pudding, a bright lift for gray winter days. And some french cuisine, crepes three ways.

Stop back here Sunday for the posts, and be sure to bring your comments and your own recipes to share.

Should the Supreme Court make decisions based on what’s written in the Constitution and legal precedents or should it be guided mostly by a sense of fairness and justice?

The problem with this question, of course, is its false assumption that a judicial decision based on a proper interpretation of the Constitution would, by definition, not be fair or just. I can only assume that in order to come up with a question like this, the folks at Rasmussen must not have read much constitutional text, or history, which in fact make clear that the Constitution – including its 200 years of amendments – is itself largely based on a sense of fairness and justice.

Not surprisingly, a whopping 70% of respondents chose “what’s written in the Constitution,” while a mere 25% selected “a sense of fairness and justice.” (We’re declaring the 6% who went with “Not sure” the winners here.) Also unsurprisingly, our friends at NRO’s Bench Memos seized these figures as evidence of widespread rejection of President Obama’s call for judges with empathy.

Setting aside, however, the problem with how this poll was constructed, I have a different take on what these figures could mean. Interestingly, the difference between responses on this issue is becoming more pronounced. Back in January, when Rasmussen conducted the same poll, only 64% of respondents chose “what’s written in the Constitution” (27% chose “a sense of fairness and justice”), and when it conducted the poll in June 2008, only 54% of respondents chose “what’s written in the Constitution.” (37% selected “a judge’s concept of fairness and justice.”) I think this steady increase in the percentage of respondents selecting “what’s written in the Constitution” is due not to a stealthy success of conservative talking points about “activist” or “empathetic” liberal judges, but to a growing recognition by voters everywhere that the text and history of the Constitution uphold the progressive legal outcomes they prefer. Perhaps a high-profile Supreme Court confirmation this past summer – featuring a judge who pledged allegiance to the “immutable” words of the Constitution – helped contribute to the latest results. Or perhaps Americans across the political spectrum are discovering that the text and the history of the Constitution embody a sense of fairness and justice, illustrated, for example, in the document’s guarantees of due process, equal protection, and fundamental individual liberties for “We the People.”

If Rasmussen had elected to word its poll more carefully – and had not given respondents choices that presume, erroneously, that following the Constitution and following a sense of fairness and justice are somehow mutually exclusive – then it might have found stronger evidence of this trend. Instead, we are left once again with a lousy poll; one with little substantive meaning and that is based on a profound lack of understanding of the text, history, and principles of our Constitution.

Originally posted at Text & History. Hannah McCrea is proud to work for the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC), a law firm and think tank dedicated to demonstrating how the text and history of the Constitution uphold progressive outcomes.

To refresh your memory, the bill being considered in the House:

• Creates an Exchange where individuals and small businesses can purchase health care
• Gives tax credits to those in the Exchange to help them afford coverage
• Includes a national public health insurance option in the Exchange to keep the insurance industry honest and lower prices
• Strengthens employer-based coverage and asks employers to provide good coverage for their employees
• Regulates all insurance plans to outlaw denials for pre-existing conditions, charging more if you’re a woman, and a host of other bad practices
• Strengthens Medicare and fully closes the Medicare Part D donut hole over time
• Provides access to coverage for those uninsured in the interim before the entire program is up and running

For more information, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has an interactive map that will show you how this bill will affect you.

Actors Martin Sheen and Stockard Channing, who have a bit of "experience" with politics, have a message for health reform supporters today:

Click here to call your Representative and urge them to vote YES on this historic occasion.