The Agonist - USA: Domestic Issues

A Betrayal Is A Betrayal

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:27:50 -0800

By now you’ve probably heard about the Stupack amendment, which would make it illegal for any insurance offered on the exchanges set up by the health care reform bill to cover abortion services. It is being allowed to the floor by the leadership, and indications are that there may be enough votes for it to pass. If it were to remain in the final bill, it would strip practical access to insurance from millions of women, a number which would increase when the exchanges open to businesses.

This is such a huge betrayal of Democratic ideals and values I know not what to say. It's also, as Ian notes, a betrayal that will burden women of child-bearing age disproportionately. Is this what the Democrats in Congress have become?

It's regressive and backwards in every way.

UPDATE:
Healthcare passes 220 Yeas, 215 Nays

Stupak Amendment Passes; 64 Dems Ask for Primary Opponents

I Confess, I Read The Times

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:45:52 -0800

But, then, you-all suspected that, with my links to Times articles.
This week, Gail Collins has written two columns that lead me to believe that she has reached the "sometimes you just have to laugh" stage. I'll sample each one and give links.
after the break...

The first is "Hark! The Voters Speak!", published November 4, at
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opinion/05collins.html

In Ohio, citizens marched to the polls on Tuesday and voted to allow gambling casinos in the state. This was obviously a message to President Obama that independent voters are not happy with the way the health care bill is going.
Also, we have heard a lot about the fact that Corzine’s campaign made sport of his rather chunky opponent, Chris Christie. It was not until Wednesday morning that it became obvious that Christie’s victory was actually an outcry by average, pudgy Americans against a president who has to continuously battle against a tendency to lose weight.

The second is "Weekend Sports Lineup", published November 6, at
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/opinion/07collins.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1257602925-LPyNxS6WUtiMLGLdlqiODw

Here we are at the big Health Care Bill Weekend! ...
Meanwhile, there’s nothing but confidence and serenity among the right-wing tea-party types. They cannot get over the triumph in upstate New York, where thanks to their really extraordinary efforts, a completely safe Republican seat went to the Democrats. Think how far their movement has come! Only a few months ago, they barely had the power to disrupt a town meeting. And soon they will be able to destroy anything in their path, including their own party, like conservative locusts.

"All I know is just what I read in the newspapers." - Will Rogers

Foreign Contributions and the Supreme's Overdue Decision on Campaign Funding

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:05:16 -0800

The Supreme Court of the United States will soon announce a major decision on our lightly controlled system of campaign funding. Will it retain some limitations on corporate influence or will the court blow the lid off and cause a perpetual flood of unrestricted corporate contributions?

An additional outcome may surprise and shock the public.

If the Supreme Court overturns the lower court's decision, foreign nationals, corporations, and governments with partial ownership of U.S. corporations will, in effect, end up contributing to and influencing U.S. candidates in federal elections.

The Supreme Court surprised many when it agreed to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that enforced key sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold) -- Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

In January 2008, the Federal District Court, District of Columbia upheld an FEC action that barred Citizens United, a right wing nonprofit corporation, from airing an extended attack on Hillary Clinton called Hillary: The Movie. Citizens United is headed by David Bossie, a well known political enemy of the Clintons. Citizens' lead counsel, Ted Olsen, is an alumnus of the infamous 1990's Clinton bashing Arkansas Project.

The lower court found The Movie violated provisions of McCain-Feingold since some funding for the movie came from the general treasury of Citizens United, rather than a segregated account for political action, e.g., a Political Action Committee (PAC). The Movie had the sole purpose of convincing viewers that Clinton was unfit for office, making it an example of electioneering communications -- the overriding purpose of which are to advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate. And The Movie was planned for broadcast both 30 days prior to Democratic primaries and 60 days prior to the general election (had Clinton won the nomination), blackout periods for electioneering communications.

In its appeal, Citizens argued that broadcast restrictions in McCain-Feingold should be overturned to allow unrestricted electioneering communications funded directly from corporate treasuries.

But the appeal also served as a vehicle for lifting virtually any ban on corporate giving. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that corporate funding of campaigns from general funds could be restricted. The heart of the decision is found here:

"they (the Michigan laws) are justified by a compelling state interest: preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption in the political arena by reducing the threat that huge corporate treasuries, which are amassed with the aid of favorable state laws and have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas, will be used to influence unfairly election outcomes. Justice Marshall, Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Comm., 1990

Lead counsel for Citizens United, Ted Olsen, argued that "Austin was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He counters with another case that claimed,"First Amendment’s protection against governmental abridgment of free expression cannot properly be made to depend on a person’s financial ability to engage in public discussion.” Ted Olsen, Merits Brief, p. 30, Sept. 9

This challenge to the Austin decision is the true threat within the Trojan horse argument over broadcast restrictions on political hit pieces. The goal of this appeal is nothing less than the legal treatment of corporations as the equal of individual citizens and lesser groups in the political process resulting in an even greater advantage for corporations to control elections.

"We are the World"

During oral arguments before the court, Olson argued that McCain-Feingold unlawfully restricts the First Amendment rights of U.S. corporations. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had this exchange with Olson:

MR. OLSON: What the Court has said in the First Amendment context, New York Times v. Sullivan, Rose Jean v. Associated Press, and over and over again, is that corporations are persons entitled to protection under the First Amendment.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Would that include --

MR. OLSON: Now, Justice --

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Would that include today's mega-corporations, where many of the investors may be foreign individuals or entities?

MR. OLSON: The Court in the past has made no distinction based upon the nature of the entity that might own a share of a corporation.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Own many shares?

MR. OLSON: Pardon?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Nowadays there are foreign interests, even foreign governments that own not one share but a goodly number of shares.

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, Oral Arguments, pp. 4, 5, Sept. 9, 2009

Justice Ginsburg created a poison pill by putting on notice any Supreme Court majority that overturns the lower court decision: your actions will allow foreign funding for U.S. campaigns. Any foreign entity could simply exercise an existing or newly acquired ownership position in a U.S. corporation to demand services from that corporation's latest wholly owned candidate.

The current bans on direct corporate contributions and contributions from foreign entities would become meaningless. The influence of the "corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth" obtained through the control of puppet politicians would submit all of us to the vicissitudes of balance sheets and the salary and bonus demands of board chairmen all over the world (to an even greater degree than we now experience).

Supremes Green Light Foreign Money in U.S. Elections! How well will that fly with citizens in the current political climate? Does the Supreme Court even care?

Class of 2000 Reunion

Two alumni of the Bush effort to stop the Florida 2000 recount, freeze in place various voting rights violations, and prevent any real judicial review of a flawed election are reunited in this case. Chief Justice Roberts was recognized for his contributions to election chaos as then Florida Governor Jeb Bush's legal advisor. His contributions were less than helpful. Ted Olson represented George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case that stopped the recount. He also served as a key strategist for George W. Bush's Florida 2000 recount efforts.

How coincidental that Chief Justice Roberts reached out to his Bush campaign 2000 alumnus Olson by agreeing to hear a case that surprised many when it was selected for the Supreme Court docket.

How ironic that the case presents the opportunity to bring corporate funding into U.S. politics in a way that would end any pretences of democracy as we know it. History waited just nine years to repeat itself.

END

N.B. Wouldn't a reasonable person conclude that Fox News violates the McCain-Feingold Act on a regular basis? Link

This article may be reproduced in part or in whole with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Senate rejects effort to block civilian trials for 9/11 suspects

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:43:32 -0800

James Rosen | Washington | Nov 5

McClatchy - After an emotional debate over how to keep Americans safe, the Senate Thursday narrowly defeated an effort to prevent civilian trials in U.S. courts for the accused planners of the 9/11 attacks.

The Senate's 54-45 vote to reject the measure by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., opens the door for President Barack Obama to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-professed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to trial in federal court, rather than the military commissions Graham helped create.

Obama has pledged to shutter the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by January and transfer some of its 220 detainees to the U.S. for trials in civilian courts.

Three Democrats — Jim Webb of Virginia and Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor — and independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut joined all 40 Senate Republicans in voting for the measure.

Sausage Factory

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:26:31 -0800

Speaking of irony, this is a classic.

American's Just Think They Are Conservative

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:04:13 -0800

It's a conversation I have all to frequently. And one I had just the other day.

"How much do you make a year?"

"About $35-40k."

"You work hard for your money?"

"Hell yeah, I'm in the landscaping business. But my taxes are too high. The government takes too much of my money to pay for welfare and gives it to immigrants."

"Who are your best customers?"

"Mostly people who live in Westlake and Tarrytown. (The wealthy areas of Austin.~spk)

"Do you have a retirement plan?"

"Social Security but that needs to be privatized so I can get better returns. Just look at the markets! I had a 401(k) but it got creamed after I got laid off."

"And you're business has a good health care plan?"

"No, I'm self-employed. But I'm going to get a health care plan soon. I don't want socialized medicine. I don't want to wait in line to see a doctor."

More after the jump.

There's more, lots more. But this snippet of the conversation is a good jumping off point. I often wonder why the irony of this guy's life is lost on him. Here is a guy who slaves away for the richest people in town and thinks he pays too much in taxes. Never mind the folks he works for get tax breaks that equal or exceed his annual income. Never mind that they probably have excellent health care plans, visit the best doctors. Never mind that the stock in his 401(k) got creamed after the people he works for took all their money out of the market, right? And never mind that the one program he is relying on now is in essence socialism. They guy is living off the scraps the wealthy toss him. He has a college education, but doesn't use it.

So, where does his conservatism come from? Here in Texas I'm pretty convinced that the lower middle classes are so conservative due to patriot porn. We've had at least 40 years of it. And it shows. Guys like this are going to root for the party that cater to the prevailing myths of the day. And those myths can be boiled down into one simple line, really: "America is the greatest country in the world."

That hoary chestnut leaves zero room for improvement. Hence, the prevalence of conservatism in these parts. It's also the reason why Ian is right:

More to the point, if Obama does not do effective policy, which is to say liberal policy, because reality is much closer to how liberals describe it than how “conservatives” describe it, his policies will be ineffective. No one is going to care whether he followed moderate, conservative or liberal policies if they’re unemployed or poorer than they were when he took office.

Conversely, if he followed actual liberal policies, and they worked, and everyone was prosperous, he’d get reelected.

If you enact policies that improve people's lives, as opposed to those that just cater to their innate prejudices, you show them, prove to them that liberal policies will make their life better.

But that requires leadership, not golden-throated rhetoric. Something I don't expect to see anytime soon.

Democrats lose ground in US polls

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:07:46 -0800

November 3

BBC - US Democrats have lost ground in two key elections for governor, according to unofficial results.

Republican candidate Bob McDonnell has won in Virginia, while the race in the Democrat heartland of New Jersey is said to be too close to call.

The results are being seen as a test of the two parties' standings one year after President Obama was elected.

Two Congressional seats are also up for grabs in New York and California. New York is among cities choosing a mayor.

USC prof's new book: 'Americans like lonesome'

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:39:11 -0800

USC religious studies professor Kevin Lewis has been thinking about the meaning of being lonesome in American culture. He’s written a new book that explores the theme of loneliness and lonesomeness that is pervasive in American art, from Emily Dickinson’s poems to country music lyrics, and analyzes why solitude is sometimes good.

The State/SC - To be an American is to have buried, deep within our collective DNA, a profound sense of the lonesome.

At least that is what USC religious studies professor Kevin Lewis has speculated during a long - and perhaps lonesome - intellectual trek through the landscape of American music, fiction, art and religion.

For all the cultural reflection on the meaning of e pluribus unum, he believes Americans are a people who understand the solitary ache in the heart, the twist in the gut. After all, he noted, who among us has not walked through "that lonesome valley" or traveled down an open highway with the wail of Hank Williams in our ears?

"That word lonesome seems to do so much more work in our vocabulary than in any other anglophone culture," he said. "Americans like lonesome."

His ruminations have borne fruit in a newly published book titled, simply, "Lonesome: The Spiritual Meanings of American Solitude." In this scholarly work, he explains how we are a people hard-wired to perceive and experience lonesomeness in a way that is far different from that of our counterparts on other continents.

Rooted in our spiritual and religious life, lonesomeness is a vessel in which we pour parts of ourselves.

He writes: "... Lonesomeness offers to those given it a nontraditional, informal encounter with an unnamed 'otherness,' always inviting, always receding. If only we could peer deeply enough into it that we could 'see' through the feeling of it the 'otherness' plain!"

Lewis argues that this transcendent expression of lonesomeness exists alongside organized religion.

"This is part of the American cultural matrix for me, and as a religionist, as a practicing, believing, confessing, Calvinist, Protestant humanist Christian, I want to make sure that no one is offended by this on the traditional religious side," he said. Conversely, he is also determined that the book isn't taken as "an airhead spirituality guide for the perplexed."

Lewis has been captivated by the concept of lonesomeness for nearly two decades, sparked in part by a re-reading of "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn."

Mark Twain's tale of Huck and the runaway slave Jim rafting down the Mississippi River is the consummate American story, rife with the contradictions of a people struggling with the idea of freedom and what it means.

"There is a passage where Jim and Huck, these archetypal black and white Americans, are rafting down the river," Lewis recalled. "In early dawn they pull up on the shore, and they tether the raft and put their fishing lines in, catch a couple fish, build a fire, and there is this wonderful moment of calm for them. Huck hears the sound of an axe chopping wood across the wide Mississippi. He sees the flash so far away, and the sound, there was this little delay, and he says it was solemn lonesome."

To be lonely is not the same as lonesome, Lewis said. Perhaps, he suggested, there is a whiff of self-pity about the lonely, an isolating, bitter phenomenon, but "there is nothing really good about lonely."

While the two words have been used interchangeably, lonesome is employed "to express this something extra," Lewis said. "I call this feeling-perception. It is not only an emotion, but to me it is something that relates to something you perceive."

The lonesome in American culture is "transfigured," he said, through an expansion of the spirit and in the unspeakable yearning for this "feeling-perception."

He quotes Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman, two of the greatest 19th-century American poets who worshiped at the altar of solitude. Whitman speaks of the "joys of the free and lonesome heart," while Dickinson writes of the "lonesome Glee" that "sanctifies the mind."

Lawsuit Probes Role of Psychologists in Terror War

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:21:30 -0800

William Fisher | New york | Nov 2

IPS - The state board responsible for licensing - and disciplining - psychologists in Louisiana is accused of turning a blind eye to serious allegations of abuse against one of its members, including complicity in beatings, religious and sexual humiliation, rape threats and painful body positions during his service as a senior advisor on interrogations for the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

Little miss big shot: Fifties America exposed – by a French nanny

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:33:55 -0800

Nov 3

The Independent - In 2007, a Chicago estate agent stumbled across an astonishing visual archive of mid-century America. So began one man's mission to rediscover Vivian Maier: nanny, eccentric and 'photographer extraordinaire'

The timing, composition and realisation grab you. But it's the anonymous drama of the subjects that keeps you looking: who are the two men talking in earnest on the pier? What is running through the mind of the young black man caught in the mirror on a street corner? Yet in the case of the photos presented here, that mystery extends to the photographer herself. We know she was called Vivian Maier, that she took at least 30,000 shots in Chicago and New York in the 1950s and 1960s. For these few facts, we can thank a young Chicago estate agent called John Maloof, whose chance discovery of the Maier archive has brought publishing offers, invitations to exhibit Maier's work all over the world, and the hope, from some, that a new star of mid-century American photography may have been unearthed.

A couple of years ago, Maloof wasn't even that interested in photography. With real-estate business slow due to the credit crunch, he began to investigate a box of negatives he'd bought for a few hundred dollars at an auction as a possible source of archive photography for a neighbourhood history book. Maloof scanned a few of the negatives, liked what he saw, and bought himself a beginner's SLR camera. "Throughout that time, I'd compare my work to Vivian's and think, 'Wow, this isn't good for me.' She was teaching me photography. I bought some books by street photographers such as Harry Callahan, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Lee Friedlander. I thought, she's special – doesn't anybody know?"

Amazing photographs

Wish Your Troubles Away

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:53:25 -0800

There is a great deal of truth in Barbara Ehrenreich's new book. Of course village media-folk don't see it that way. After all, it's much easier to compare her to Michael Moore than take her criticism seriously. But no one, in my opinion, is better at shattering dearly held American myths better than she is.

The gist of her criticism is pretty indisputable if you ask me. She writes that we live in a society where we are taught that unemployment is your fault--actually, pretty much every economic ill that befalls you--is your fault. It's not the fault of rogue bankers and criminal executives. It's not the fault of spineless politicians and failing institutions. It's your fault--you, the individual because you didn't pray, wish, or 'visualize' well enough to find a better job, or grow thinner or find a new and improved spouse, soulmate or whatever.

Look, the world is a rough place. And America is certainly a much easier place to live in than say Cambodia or sub-Saharan Africa. But that doesn't mean that economic life here is not cutthroat and brutal. That doesn't mean there isn't an elite in this country that's pillaging the place. Both are very real. And American's passion for the power of positive thinking, as she notes, "has become a potentially deadly weight – obscuring judgment and shielding us from vital information."

It also shields us from making rational decisions, decisions based on our economic self-interest as opposed to some phantom based self-esteem issues. Did you lose your house? Well, it's your fault. Work on your self-esteem and you'll be content with less.

Did your husband leave you because you are too fat? Never mind that an individual may have a genetic predisposition to obesity, or the simple reality that most people in the world don't grow old so gracefully? Well, it's your fault that you don't look like Brad Pitt or Uma Thurman. There's something wrong with you! Think positive and buy this new weight loss pill advertised on TV!

Are you unhappy? Has the stress of having $50,000 in unpayable medical bills got you down? Just lard yourself up with anti-depressants until you're too numb to give a shit.

It's the perfect prescription for elite control of a post-Modern society and the best way to curtail the growth of angry populism.

The Romans called it bread and circuses.

B.A.R.F.F. Reminds You - Vote No On Issue 2!

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:10:27 -0800

That just about sums up the Agricultural Industrial Complex's effort to take over the Ohio Constitution on Tuesday, so they can self-regulate, because, you know, it worked out so well on Wall Street and with Enron (to name 2 of, oh, a trillion examples)...

In any case, Facebook group here. Video below. Happy Monday all!

Full Disclosure: I am consulting on this effort to beat back a naked power grab to corrupt the Ohio Constitution, Ohio government and put all power to regulate livestock in the hands of 13 political appointees and corporate Agri-Cronies...

CIT’s Bankruptcy May Help Bondholders and Erase Taxpayer Stake

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:21:54 -0800

Linda Shen | Nov 2

Bloomberg - CIT Group Inc.’s decision to seek court protection probably will keep money flowing to bondholders and 1 million customers of the 101-year-old commercial lender. Shareholders and taxpayers won’t be as fortunate.

CIT’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy may give bondholders new notes at 70 cents on the dollar plus new common stock, and Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Peek said clients will be able to get funds. Common stock owners could be mostly wiped out, and the U.S. Treasury Department said it won’t recoup much, if any, of the $2.33 billion of taxpayer money that went into CIT, the largest firm to go bankrupt after getting a federal bailout.

“It doesn’t look too good for the government preferred or any preferred holders,” Brian Charles, a debt analyst at New York-based brokerage RW Pressprich & Co., said yesterday. “It’s unlikely common shareholders realize any value.”

Failure by Design - The "Public" Option

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:37:06 -0800

Triumph of the Money Party

Michael Collins

Do you know what the "public option" does or who it covers? If you've had trouble finding out, it's not your fault. Reading corporate media coverage provides little or no clue. It's hardly ever defined. There's a very good reason for the lack of clarity and definition. But first, a brief summary of the public debate that characterizes just about every public debate we have on critical issues.

If you think that the current version of the public option will provide a choice for a government administered health program, you're right. If you think that this option was designed for the general public, then you're wrong. It will apply to only some of the uninsured, possibly as few as six million citizens. It's a kind of public option.

But, if you support true choice by the public, then you probably expect this as an option: a single payer system for health care -- one source of payment for doctors and others funded and administered by the government for the public. Medicare is such a program. But we don't get to hear about single payer proposals except from proponents like Representatives John Conyers (D-MI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who define single payer universal health care very clearly.

President Obama's outline of the public option in his September 9 speech to Congress is essentially unchanged in the current legislation. The Democratic plan offers "a new insurance exchange" for "Americans who don't currently have health insurance." This sounds good so far, but wait. This exchange will be "a new insurance exchange --a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop." The option will be "available in the insurance exchange" and "it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance." (See What Obama Actually Said About Health Reform)

It's not really public, it's for a small segment of the population, and it is any where from four to ten years out in full availability. This reflects the Oct. 29 House proposal, H.R. 3962, and some aspects of the latest Senate claims for a public option.. The entire effort, limited as it is, will be compromised from the very start since Congress linked public option provider reimbursement rates to those of the health insurance companies.

When citizens see "Open to the public," they don't take that to mean only some of the public. When land is set aside for "public use," does that mean only 5% or 6 % of the public? All of this makes no sense unless you accept the deliberately confusing definitions and assumptions of The Money Party.

Why would any member of the public think that they were excluded from a public option?

Why would those controlling the debate want us to think that?

Here's why. The findings in this poll strikes terror into the heart of The Money Party.

Link

The poll shows a clear majority in favor of a single payer, universal health care program as an option for all citizens. This poll is consistent with other polls despite the confusion from Washington. In a fair debate, the health insurance companies would get their clock cleaned and be out of business within a year or two. But we're not allowed an open and fair debate because the risk of vanishing corporations is never in The Money Party's game plan. Their political bouncers just tossed us under the bus.

The "Long Con" - How Things Work

"A ’short con’ is an opportunistic scam designed to instantly fleece the victim of all the money they have with them at that time. On the other hand, a long con takes much longer to execute and requires meticulous planning in order to scam the victim out of much larger amounts of money." Scam Types dot Com

The Money Party runs both short and long cons. When they weren't able to sell the Iraq invasion, the short con was: Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. He's ready to use them … on you! Get on board now or else! That short con operated within the long con of perpetual threats and endless war.

The current health reform debate is a classic long con. The debate is limited to only those positions that will work for the status quo. If reform fails, there's no change from the extortion perpetrated against citizens in need of affordable health care. If reform is adopted, the insurance companies are enshrined at the center of the program. The fight is then over the size of the rake off. That's called bending the curve of health care costs. Bend, don't break. It's a win-win proposition for The Money Party.

What do legislators do when their patrons demand that an irrational and deadly system remains in place? Confuse the dialog with weasel words and highly deceptive terms. Keep the public thinking that they're really going to benefit from a program and, better yet, that the opposition is trying to prevent that benefit. Get party loyalists whipped up to fight for your program even though it's a sham.

The current kind of public option is essential to The Money Party's long con on health reform. It allows people to think that there's a real debate going on. Someone is fighting for our option to choose decent and affordable health care.

It's all part of the long con that limits critical debate to unacceptable options advanced by allegedly differing parties. These debates always end the same way -- the perpetuation of the major corporate interests, the retention of those in power, and oligarchy; the triumph of The Money Party:

"The Money Party is a small group of enterprises and individuals who have most of the money in this country. They use that money to make more money. Controlling who gets elected to public office is the key to more money for them and less for us.

"In every campaign for major office, the party passes out money and buys candidates from both parties. Thanks to the candidates who get elected, this pay to play system remains perfectly legal … even though it looks like bribery.

'In return for contributions, the election winners come through by fixing the laws so that The Money Party cleans up. … Cost is no object, because in the end it’s all paid for with our tax dollars." Michael Collins: The Money Party, Sept. 30, 2007.

END

See: Special Health Reform Series: The Money Party and the sickness unto death

This article may be reproduced in whole or in part with attribution of authorship and a link to this web site.

Prosecutors Turn Tables on Student Journalists

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:00:25 -0800

Monica Davey | Evanston, IL | October 24

NYT - For more than a decade, classes of students at Northwestern University’s journalism school have been scrutinizing the work of prosecutors and the police. The investigations into old crimes, as part of the Medill Innocence Project, have helped lead to the release of 11 inmates, the project’s director says, and an Illinois governor once cited those wrongful convictions as he announced he was commuting the sentences of everyone on death row.

But as the Medill Innocence Project is raising concerns about another case, that of a man convicted in a murder 31 years ago, a hearing has been scheduled next month in Cook County Circuit Court on an unusual request: Local prosecutors have subpoenaed the grades, grading criteria, class syllabus, expense reports and e-mail messages of the journalism students themselves.

The prosecutors, it seems, wish to scrutinize the methods of the students this time. The university is fighting the subpoenas.

Lawyers in the Cook County state’s attorney’s office say that in their quest for justice in the old case, they need every pertinent piece of information about the students’ three-year investigation into Anthony McKinney, who was convicted of fatally shooting a security guard in 1978. Mr. McKinney’s conviction is being reviewed by a judge.

Among the issues the prosecutors need to understand better, a spokeswoman said, is whether students believed they would receive better grades if witnesses they interviewed provided evidence to exonerate Mr. McKinney.

Northwestern University and David Protess, the professor who leads the students and directs the Medill Innocence Project, say the demands are ridiculously overreaching, irrelevant to Mr. McKinney’s case, in violation of the state’s protections for journalists and a breach of federal privacy statutes — not to mention insulting.

John Lavine, the dean of the Medill School of Journalism, said the suggestion that students might have thought their grades were linked to what witnesses said was “astonishing.” He said he believed that federal law barred him from providing the students grades, but that he had no intention of doing so in any case..

[...]

In their quest, prosecutors have raised a central question about the role of the students — suggesting that they should be viewed as an “investigative agency,” not journalists, whose unpublished materials could, under certain circumstances, be protected under a state statute.

“The school believes it should be exempt from the scrutiny of this honorable court and the justice system, yet it should be deemed a purveyor of its inadequacies to the public,” a legal brief from prosecutors said.

Professional journalism groups have said the students are clearly journalists, and offered support for their wish not to reveal their notes. Beth Konrad, president of the Chicago Headline Club, said the club was seeking a discussion with Ms. Alvarez, the state’s attorney.

h/t On The Media: Investigating the Investigators