The live audio of the memorial service yesterday at Fort Hood was impossible to listen to without feeling the pain of a terrible incident which, to that point, had been only a shocking news story.

I was thinking about that this morning in connection with the omnipresent abortion debate and the unconstitutional thumbs placed on the scale of the House vote by Catholic bishops, the evangelical "Family," and Bart Stupak -- our most recent Congressional limelight grabber.  (Move over, Joe Lieberman!) 

All of us were moved in the aftermath of the Fort Hood shootings, Republicans and Democrats alike.  Whether pro-war or anti-war, it was an event which stirred the same emotions.  In the same way, I understand the emotions felt by the anti-abortion folks even though they allow their exaggerations and emotions to get in the way of good sense and the law.  The threats and killings they've come to accept as part of their protest far outweigh any sleaze they attribute to pregnant women who seek an abortion.

The issue of the immorality of war in general-- but more particularly war which is entered into illegally -- provokes anguish on my side of the political divide.  We march, hold signs, yell, write letters, protest the use of billions of our tax dollars for something which is lethal and illegal. War and abortion are in the same moral league:  sometimes unavoidable but only entered into after deep consideration.  Unfortunately just the opposite is the case in America.  Here elective abortion is legal but its providers are subject to threats, at best, and lethal punishment at worst.  Meanwhile war without clear and legitimate casus belli is illegal but those who initiate it are seldom punished.

Our tax dollars continue to be spent on military build-ups and interventions whether we like it or not.  Compromise is demanded of pro-choicers and anti-war folks -- we don't play dirty with Catholic bishops. Withholding the portion of our federal income taxes that corresponds to our share of the defense budget lands us in jail. 

Our dismay over being made to pay for murderous, unnecessary wars through our taxes is no less than the dismay felt by honest and non-violent anti-abortion protesters over use of their taxes (or pooled insurance premiums) to subsidize medical procedures that result in abortion.  But Congress doesn't treat our two sides equally.  It continues to subsidize illegal wars while refusing to allow our insurance pool to pay for those medical procedures.

Time to point out that far too much of what anti-abortion protesters claims to be a moral stance  is all too often political posturing about "killing children."  More than a decade ago they decided to use "killing children" as a political weapon.  It's clearly political, not moral, when you're able to  justify killing women and children -- not to mention overworked American troops -- in say, Iraq or Afghanistan. 

What many on the anti-abortion team don't get is that we on the other side are more consistent pro-lifers.  We'd much prefer a sure-fire way to avoid unwanted pregnancy before it starts (and the same with war).   We much prefer readily accessible, safe, and inexpensive contraception for all girls and women of child-bearing age. We'd surely prefer to make the abortion option a rare if necessary choice for a woman who also deserves the dignity and safety of first-rate medical care.  And we'd like to make sure that the healthy children who are born to the next generations of women do not become cannon fodder for their generations of irresponsible politicians.

Congressman Jim Clyburn believes the Stupak abortion amendment in the House's health care reform bill will be taken out.

Clyburn said that many other House Democrats supported the having a vote on the amendment in the House, with the expectation that it would eventually be removed.

"I agree that the language approved by the House is unacceptable," Clyburn explained. "We were doing what was necessary to do to put the bill on the floor in about 12 hours." ... The Hill

It was also unconstitutional to give the Catholic hierarchy a vote, in spite of what the Republican hierarchy thinks.

As for Bart Stupak, we need constant reminders that he's only one member of a group that exists within the Democratic party and whose aims are (no kidding) to destroy democracy.  They're from the same "family" as right wing Republicans who have been taking over that party.  

If Stupak, a former state trooper from Michigan, provided the muscle, his partner, Joe Pitts -- a Pennsylvania Republican with decades in the trenches of the antiabortion battle -- may have brought the brains, and more, a new Christian right coalition custom tailored for the Democratic Party's growing religious conservatism. Stupak is Roman Catholic; Pitts is evangelical. Both are members of the predominantly evangelical organization called the Family; Stupak lives in its C Street house. Together, they're poster boys for the evangelical/conservative Catholic alliance known as "co-belligerency," a culture war strategy designed to take territory within the Democratic Party as well the GOP. ...Salon

We tend to talk about C Street and "The Family" as though they have been an exclusive Republican club -- and a very sinister one at that.  But they have reached into the Democratic party and found plenty of followers there, too, mostly among southern Democrats.

For more about C Street, take a look at Jeff Sharlet's book, The Family, and/or take a look at his Terry Gross interview in July of this year.

Looking through some online comments about the murders at Fort Hood, it becomes clear that some Americans want to "prove" that Nidal Hasan is a "terrorist."  That word is very important for those who need a big enemy -- an antihero -- to make them feel more heroic themselves.  "Muslim terrorist" is important too because these folks, who believe they're the only ones among us who really understand the situation.  They "know" that to be Muslim is to be a terrorist. 

Muhammad Ali is by definition a terrorist:  "When did Cassius Clay ever condemn 9/11?"

"Mentally ill" is sidelined as a cop-out.  After all, what kind of importance is there in a villain who's only sick?

Condemn.  Patriotism.  Terrorist.  Muslim.  There's a depressing crowd of people out there with a limited response to tragedy and a very limited vocabulary to describe the world around them.

Marc Ambinder, not one of Obama's loudest cheerers, thought yesterday's "remarks" at Fort Hood was "the best speech since... maybe ever."

Today, at Ft. Hood. I guarantee: they'll be teaching this one in rhetoric classes. It was that good. My gloss won't do it justice. Yes, I'm having a Chris Matthews-chill-running-up-my-leg moment, but sometimes, the man, the moment and the words come together and meet the challenge. Obama had to lead a nation's grieving; he had to try and address the thorny issues of Islam and terrorism; to be firm; to express the spirit of America, using familiar, comforting tropes in a way that didn't sound trite. 

He provides, helpfully, the entire speech.

Remember the attitude of moral superiority with which the FBI condemned the CIA's use of torture?  Well, FBI agents in Somalia (where?  what's the FBI doing in Somalia?) has been very naughty, if this report turns out to be true.

An American Muslim who was captured while fleeing Somalia in 2007 accused two FBI agents and two other U.S. officials Tuesday of illegally interrogating him and threatening torture while he was allegedly held at U.S. behest in Kenyan and Ethiopian jails.

In a lawsuit filed on behalf of Amir Meshal of Tinton Falls, N.J., the American Civil Liberties Union alleged that he'd been held in "stark and inhuman conditions" and had "suffered physical injuries, pain and suffering, severe mental anguish, as well as loss of income and livelihood."

U.S. officials "threatened Mr. Meshal with serious physical and mental abuse, told him he would be made to 'disappear,' and denied him access to counsel and other due process protections," said the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court. ...McClatchy

Apparently Al Qaeda has been superseded by the more powerful Taliban.

... The power balance between insurgent groups has shifted, with a weakened al-Qaeda relying increasingly on the emboldened Taliban for protection and the manpower to carry out deadly attacks, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials.

The ascendancy of the Taliban and the relative decline of al-Qaeda have broad implications for the Obama administration as it seeks to define its enemy in Afghanistan and debates deploying tens of thousands of additional troops. ...WaPo

Al Qaeda -- with an estimated 300-400 members -- is based in Pakistan with a small presence over the border in Afghanistan.  The Taliban have the big numbers and the geographical range.  The relationship between the two suggests that the Taliban may not be a very cohesive group. 

All of this must affect President Obama's decision about whether to add more US troops and, if so, how many.

... Officials and observers here differ over whether the inversion of the groups' traditional power dynamic has led to better or worse relations. Indeed, it may be bringing al-Qaeda closer to certain Taliban factions -- most notably, forces loyal to former Taliban cabinet minister Jalaluddin Haqqani -- and driving it apart from others, including leader Mohammad Omar's Pakistan-based group. The shifting alliances, analysts say, could have significant bearing on where the U.S. military chooses to focus its firepower.

Although President Obama has said the United States must remain in Afghanistan because a Taliban victory here would mean a rapid proliferation of al-Qaeda fighters as they return to their pre-2001 sanctuary, Omar's faction seems to have distanced itself from al-Qaeda in recent months. ...WaPo

As US military intelligence learns more about the political struggles within a somewhat fractious insurgency and the changes within Al Qaeda, Obama's decision becomes more complicated.  The reality of the changes within the insurgency must tend to erase any remaining loyalty to Bush administration strategies in Afghanistan -- ignorant and politicized as they were.  If the US has any role in Afghanistan, it should probably be a small, advisory military presence and support for a much larger and more diverse NGO presence helping to rebuild what has been destroyed by decades of war.

Ben Bernanke? 

Nope.  Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Ron Paul.  Ben Bernanke is figuring out how to deal with it.

With the Federal Reserve under more intense attack than at any time in decades, Ben S. Bernanke, the professorial chairman of the central bank, was schooled last month in how to handle the increased political demands of his job.

For months, he had warned — without anyone on Capitol Hill appearing to listen — that a seemingly innocuous bill to let Congress “audit” the Fed would gravely threaten the central bank’s independence.  ...NYT

That bill is the work of Ron Paul who would just as soon "end the fed."  As a result, Ben Bernanke is on the defensive.  He has been forced to become a politician working with seasoned politicians like Barney Frank.

Voters had become suspicious and unnerved by the Fed because of its trillion-dollar efforts to bail out the financial system, Mr. Frank warned. If the Fed really wanted to survive the disgruntlement in both parties, he continued, Mr. Bernanke would have to step back and let him devise a compromise.

Reluctantly, the Fed chairman agreed to reduce his own visibility on the issue and let Mr. Frank take the lead.It was just one example of how the Fed has been forced to scramble as its power comes under more fire than at any time in decades. ...NYT

Yesterday Senator Dodd -- chair of the Senate Banking Committee -- introduced a bill which raps the Fed's knuckles for failing to regulate financial institutions and removes its regulatory powers.  Democrats are taking the lead on this, but the political efforts reflect the fury not only in Congress but in Democratic and Republican "populists" across the country.

The legislation reflects the wide disdain for the Fed held by many on Capitol Hill and in the public. Often faulted by critics as too powerful and largely unaccountable to lawmakers, the central bank's standing deteriorated in recent years as it failed to foresee, much less prevent, the financial crisis. Its massive bailout of American International Group and other financial firms has also been unpopular with many in Congress, who see these actions as proof that the Fed is beholden to big banks.

"When it comes to systemic risk and things like that, the Fed knows these markets better than anyone else," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), another member of the Banking Committee. But he added, "Whether rightfully or wrongly, [the Fed] is highly unpopular with the left and the right."...WaPo

Where's the White House in this effort to leash the Fed?

With few champions among lawmakers, the Fed may now have to depend on its allies in the administration, which finds itself in an awkward position, congressional sources said. Obama's top economic officials, who argued for months that the system for regulating financial markets needed a major overhaul, now see an effort in the Senate that is more ambitious.

"Dodd is basically starting out by out-reforming the administration," said a senior congressional staff member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment. ...WaPo

Where are the Republicans, many of whose constituents would like to see the Fed disappear altogether?  Not out in the open.  The Financial Times reports that "the move ushered into the open a behind-the-scenes struggle between banks, policymakers and regulators."

Democrats lined up behind Mr Dodd as he presented the bill. But senior Republicans were missing from a press conference in spite of attempts by President Barack Obama to secure their support for one of his most important legislative goals. The Senate draft legislation also creates an agency to oversee systemic risk, which could call for banks to be broken up if they threatened the entire financial system and impose tougher capital requirements.

The draft legislation, although more radical than other versions, stops short of forcing the break-up of healthy banks, which has been advocated by some economists.

Republicans declined to support the proposed legislation, with a proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency – which Mr Dodd said was vital to crack down on abusive selling of mortgages and credit cards – proving an insurmountable obstacle.

Mr Dodd said he was still “optimistic” that the Republicans could be brought back on board as the bill starts its formal mark-up in the first week of December. But even with a change of heart from Republican senators there is now little chance of Mr Obama signing financial reform into law this year. ...FT

Who are the winners and losers if Dodd's bill is passed?

The Federal Reserve is the biggest loser in the Dodd bill compared with earlier versions in the House and the administration’s initial ideas. Bank regulation power would migrate to the new bank regulator (although the Fed chairman would sit on the regulator’s board) and the Fed would have a smaller role in systemic risk regulation, which would be led by another new agency.

As with other visions of the future, the Fed would lose its consumer protection powers to a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

It would also be prevented from lending to a specific institution under the broad emergency authority used during last year’s crisis.

The Securities and Exchange Commission could be the biggest winner as it would gain the right to keep the fees it levies on the financial sector. ...FT

Top executives at Blackwater Worldwide authorized secret payments of about $1 million to Iraqi officials that were intended to silence their criticism and buy their support after a September 2007 episode in which Blackwater security guards fatally shot 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad, according to former company officials.

So they're back in the headlines.  Investigations have shown that "rogues" didn't do this on their own.  The company's president approved the bribery as well as the more famous (infamous) founder and chairman, Eric Prince.

Blackwater’s strategy of buying off the government officials, which would have been illegal under American law, created a deep rift inside the company, according to the former executives. They said that Cofer Black, who was then the company’s vice chairman and a former top C.I.A. and State Department official, learned of the plan from another Blackwater manager while he was in Baghdad discussing compensation for families of the shooting victims with United States Embassy officials.

Alarmed about the secret payments, Mr. Black cut short his talks and left Iraq. Soon after returning to the United States, he confronted Erik Prince, the company’s chairman and founder, who did not dispute that there was a bribery plan, according to a former Blackwater executive familiar with the meeting. Mr. Black resigned the following year.

It's not surprising that the markets are running out of wind today.  NPR has just reported that the unemployment projections are getting worse.  The rate of unemployment may be decreasing but the return to a healthy employment rate will now take at least two years.

Couple that with this report and we've got a recipe for anger and disillusion in election year 2010.  Banks are rushing to bleed credit card holders before the new rules kick in.

On Monday, the Federal Reserve provided new evidence of the banks’ actions. About 50 percent of the banks responding to the Fed’s survey said they were increasing interest rates and reducing credit lines on borrowers with good credit scores. About 40 percent said they were imposing higher fees. The banks also said they were demanding higher minimum credit scores and tightening other requirements.

A study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, released late last month, concluded that the 12 largest banks, issuing more than 80 percent of the credit cards, were continuing to use practices that the Fed concluded were “unfair or deceptive” and that in many instances had been outlawed by Congress.

In response to voter complaints, the House of Representatives voted last week to make the law effective immediately. The bill now goes to the Senate, where a vote has not been scheduled. The Senate Banking Committee chairman, Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, meanwhile, is pushing legislation that would freeze interest rates on existing credit card balances until the law takes effect. ...NYT

It seems the Nidal Hasan story is much more complicated and thought-provoking many believe -- so far.  Major Hasan raised many of the questions about PTSD and ethical problems for Muslims serving in the US military that are now being raised about him. 

Good discussion here.