Home » Posts tagged with » house (Page 224)

On This Week with Christiane Amanpur, she interviews New York Times reporter David Rohde, who was abducted more than seven months ago into the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. In June, he managed to get away and now he’s written a book with his wife Kristen Mulvihill about the experience from his point of view and hers: AMANPOUR: I actually want to ask you why you decided to write it in the he-said/she-said narrative. DAVID ROHDE, CO-AUTHOR, “A ROPE AND A PRAYER”: We thought it was important to show both sides of the story. And, you know, we got this attention, but there are thousands of families in the military. There are diplomats, aid workers, all working overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan, in so many countries. And you don’t see the other side of it. And what Kristen went through is just as important, if not more important, to what I went through. AMANPOUR: Well, David obviously got all of the attention. KRISTEN MULVIHILL, CO-AUTHOR, “A ROPE AND A PRAYER”: Yes. AMANPOUR: What was it that you wanted to say about the spouse being at home? MULVIHILL: Yes. I mean, I hope the story resonates beyond kidnapping. You know, there are military families that are separated from their loved ones for months at a time. And so I hope it resonates with anyone dealing with separation or in a position to make life and death decisions for a spouse when they’re unable to do so for themselves. And we just hope it personalizes the war, puts a personal face on the issue. AMANPOUR: As for you, you are a professional. You are a photo editor. MULVIHILL: Yes. AMANPOUR: You are here working at Cosmopolitan magazine, while your husband was in captivity. MULVIHILL: Exactly. And we kept the case out of the news, which was something the family felt very strongly about. We did not want it publicized. So I went about my daily activities at work as a photo producer. AMANPOUR: Why did you decide to keep it out of the news? Did you — why did The New York Time want to do that, David? ROHDE: There was a general consensus among sort of security experts that when you’re dealing with militants who want to defy Western opinion that sort of publicly pressuring them won’t work, it will actually raise value. If it’s a government, if it’s Iran, North Korea, go public. If it’s a young militant, it doesn’t help, it just raises the hostage’s value. AMANPOUR: And yet you recount that you did tell the militants that they could get money and prisoners released from Guantanamo. ROHDE: I did. That was after… AMANPOUR: On whose authority did you tell them that? (LAUGHTER) ROHDE: I — it was an effort, frankly, to save our lives. I was very worried about the lives of my two Afghan colleagues. In past kidnappings, the first thing they did was kill an Afghan to create the pressure. And one of the problems we saw in writing this is that some governments do pay. There have been a past case, an Italian journalist, five prisoners released. There were some Korean hostages. There were rumors of millions being paid for them. But I was told an al Jazeera film crew was on the way. Some Arab militants are coming with them, and they’re going to decapitate you. I then said, you can get money and prisoners for us. AMANPOUR: What was going through your head? You had just been married. You hadn’t told Kristen… ROHDE: Correct. AMANPOUR: … that you were going off to do something this dangerous. And was the right thing to do? ROHDE: It was the wrong thing to do. You know, I regret the decision. It was completely unfair to her. I’ll always regret it. I let competition get the best of me. Dozens of journalists have safely interviewed the Taliban. And I wanted us to be the best foot possible. But I lost my way and I shouldn’t have gotten so competitive. AMANPOUR: Well, I ask you about that because your book is called “A Rope and a Prayer.” Prayer, faith sustained you. MULVIHILL: It did actually, and family. I had a practice — I was raised Catholic, and I really sort of fell back on prayer as the way to, you know, surrender without giving up. I ultimately knew the outcome was not going to be up to me. And it really helped me maintained positivity and find that intention. Written prayer, actually, when I couldn’t find that within myself. It kept me going. AMANPOUR: You were not religious. ROHDE: No. And even from our time reporting in Bosnia, you know, we’ve seen, you know, religion taken to extremes can be a very destructive force. And I was with these young militants who had been deluded into thinking was a religious war. They despised me because I was unclean. They said because I wasn’t Muslim, they didn’t want to eat food from the same plate as me. They believed that the U.S. Army was, you know, forcibly converting Afghan Muslims to Christianity. But I, in my time in captivity did end up saying prayers myself. I don’t know, I’m still skeptical about organized religion. AMANPOUR: Let me ask you, because given that it was secret, the fact that he had been kidnapped, a lot of us knew, none of us published. It was a little James Bond-y the way you went after his release. MULVIHILL: Yes, it was. It was. And we did a bunch of things. You know, the FBI swooped in very early on to tell the family how the case might progress. But they can’t negotiate. They can’t exchange funds for prisoners. So we hired a private security team to try to negotiate on the phone with the Taliban. I also had a friend by the name of Michael Simple who was based in the region who advised me. I tried to send in notes to David through Taliban elders. I don’t know if they ever got to him or to the elders. I even, in fact, made a video at the request of a mullah close to the kidnappers that were holding him. He suggested, you know, the kidnappers have sent you several videos, why don’t you send one back, it might be a nice gesture. AMANPOUR: And you spoke to some of them on the phone. MULVIHILL: I did. I was called at home twice. It was very surreal. They would always call with a stipulation that I look at the phone number and call them back. They didn’t want to pay for the calls. So it was adding insult to injury. But it always gave me pause. It gave me a moment to catch my breath and sort of figure out what to say. Our conversations were highly scripted. Between demanding millions of dollars and prisoners, they would say, you know, we’re going to go off and pray and, Inshallah, we’ll get back to you. So it was a very strange thing. AMANPOUR: And how long did it take for them to ever get back to you? MULVIHILL: You know, it would be weeks at a time. And it wouldn’t necessarily be by telephone. It may be through an emissary. AMANPOUR: What did learn from these Taliban who had you? Are they more radical than you thought, less? What did you learn from them? ROHDE: They’re very radical. It’s very dangerous. I was held in the same place where Faisal Shahzad, the young man who tried to set off a truck bomb in Times Square, where he was trained. Nothing has changed since I escaped from captivity 17 months ago. The Obama administration has repeatedly asked the Pakistani military to remove this. It’s a mini-state. They train suicide bombers. They do whatever they want . And the problem continues today. And they’re carrying out cross-border attacks and killing American servicemen from this place. AMANPOUR: And, indeed, the Afghan review — the war review suggested that even the fragile progress that is being made in Afghanistan is threatened precisely from North Waziristan. Do you see any willingness, in your continued reporting, by the Pakistanis to really crack down on that? ROHDE: It’s all about India. And as long there’s this India-Pakistan rivalry, the Pakistanis, they continue to see the Taliban as proxies they can use to stop India from coming in and making inroads in Afghanistan. You know, Richard Holbrooke was trying to do this. He was trying to sort of reduce tensions between India and Pakistan. There are assurances that we can, you know, make to the Pakistanis, maybe ask the Indians to back off in Afghanistan. The Pakistani military is a rational actor. They don’t agree with the Taliban. They’re not secretly Islamists. So I think there is a solution. You know, I think we have to keep trying. And it’s this regional dynamic that will stabilize Afghanistan. AMANPOUR: So while he’s thinking geopolitics in his particular area of reporting, captive there… MULVIHILL: Yes, exactly. AMANPOUR: … and still, you having to go about your daily work as a photo editor at Cosmopolitan, chatting with your colleagues. How did that — I mean, how? MULVIHILL: It was very tough. I mean, actually, two weeks into the captivity… AMANPOUR: Without telling them? MULVIHILL: Yes, two weeks into the captivity I told the editor-in-chief. And she kept that secret throughout. She was tremendous. As the time dragged on, I had to tell more people. But it was very strange the first few months. You know, I would be planning shoots and in the office, and I would get a call from the FBI, you know, we have a video communication of David, can you duck out and meet us, you know, in front of Starbucks on 52nd Street? So it really was kind of like leading a double life. AMANPOUR: And you were able to call Kristen a couple of times. ROHDE: Yes. They were very technologically adept. They had throughout a satellite phone. They called on cell phones. And they even Googled me. So there was — what was so interesting was that they were kind of globalization is happening in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan. But they pick and choose whatever information sort of fits their conspiracy theories. AMANPOUR: So what information about you fit their conspiracy theories as they Googled you? ROHDE: They, you know, basically saw the West as sort of hedonistic. They said that they hated The New York Times because it supported secularism, therefore they were their enemies. They were so deluded that they thought that the — if you remember the kidnapping of the Somali pirates — I’m sorry, the American sea captain by Somali pirates, they said, oh, no, no, those three pirates weren’t shot. The United States government secretly paid a $25 million ransom. I mean, that’s completely false. But that was the expectation they had. AMANPOUR: After being there for seven months, how did you make the decision finally to decide to escape? ROHDE: Our captors’ initial demands were $25 million and 15 prisoners being released from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. After seven months they had reduced their demands to $8 million and the release of four prisoners. They told me every day they had me they were delivering massive political blows to the American government. I mean, I said my case isn’t even public, people don’t care, I came to interview the Taliban, people are angry at me. And they were just delusional, and we just decided the only way, you know, we could end this would be to try to escape. And they moved us to this house that was very close to that Pakistani base. And we didn’t think it would work, and it did. We were so lucky. AMANPOUR: And you snuck out while they were asleep? ROHDE: We had a ceiling fan in the room where we slept with the guards and there was an old air conditioner called a “cooler,” and it made a tremendous amount of noise. And that was what made us — you know, with the power back on, we decided that that kind of covered up the sound we made. And I found the rope — it was a car tow rope, and we made it to the roof, lowered ourselves down that wall and, you know, it was just a miracle. AMANPOUR: And by the time — how did you hear he was released? MULVIHILL: David called home and my mother picked up. And she took notes on Post-It pads so when I ran home there were all of these little stickies strewn across the living room. And very quickly we got on the phone. We called The New York Times and they sent the editor over to the house. And between the three of us, you know, we contacted Hillary Clinton, we contacted Richard Holbrooke who had been fantastic throughout. And they in turn contacted the Pakistanis. They said, we know where David is, please make sure he is exited safely from the region. AMANPOUR: Meantime, as Kristen was doing that, you had barely escaped with your life. Well, the Pakistanis thought that they might need to shoot you. ROHDE: There was — we got to the edge, we went over that wall. She talked about we get to this base. We’re nearly shot because, you know, I have beard down to here, I’m in local clothes. They take us on this base — and I really to emphasize this, this very brave young Pakistani captain, he was a moderate. And he apologized to me for the kidnapping, allowed us on the base, let me make that crucial call home, because I thought other Pakistani officers might hand us back to the Taliban. There are moderates in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Most of the population opposes the Taliban. And I’m here today because a moderate Afghan and a moderate Pakistani helped me. And I think it’s vital that people know that. And we want this book to be more about moderates in a sense than about my kidnappers. AMANPOUR: And do you allow your husband to go back to Afghanistan? MULVIHILL: Well, I actually didn’t have to tell him not to go back again. He came to that conclusion on his own. AMANPOUR: And do you want to go back? ROHDE: No, I don’t. My days as a war correspondent. And I’m, you know, just so lucky to be home. And, again, we wrote this because we’re just one small story. This is kind of this hidden war that most Americans — it doesn’t really affect their daily lives. Such a small percentage of Americans serve in the military or overseas. So, you know, this is just one small story of what’s happening. There’s tens of thousands of Americans as well as, you know, average Afghans and Pakistanis. AMANPOUR: Well, thank you both very much, indeed. David, Kristen, thanks very much, indeed. And I hope people read it and get that message from you both. Thanks. MULVIHILL: Thank you. ROHDE: Thank you.

Continue reading …

There was so much garbage being spewed on our airwaves and in print as well as online in 2010 that there are literally a million things I could have picked, but this phrase coming from Republicans about deficit reduction and entitlement programs, which is code for cutting or privatizing Social Security and Medicare. Digby: Chris Matthews: Let me talk down the road the big stuff because we all know, gentlemen that the country has a 13 trillion dollar debt and we can talk about economic growth and we can all talk about economic growth the economy, we all know that sometimes it just doesn’t grow, some years it just doesn’t grow. There’s always going to be a business cycle, there’s always going to be downturns. So my question to you is, Todd, here’s the question. We saw what came out of that bipartisan commission just a few weeks ago. We saw the immediate knee jerk reaction of Nancy Pelosi, we saw the immediate reaction of some of the Republican members of the House. The president did get 14 of the 18 members, of that commission. Is there a potential that he could cut deals with Coburn who is much respected on issues like fiscal policy and bringing in other leading Democrats as well, recognizing that that the appropriators won’t like it, that Pelosi won’t like it, that the unions won’t like it, that he has to get past those people or he will get nothing done on the fiscal area? If the president waits for the unions, if he waits for the usual interest groups to say yes, it will never get done. He has to form a coalition around them. Todd Harris (GOP strategist): You’re absolutely right and I think the best way to do that will be to include some significant entitlement reform as part of that package Matthews: Yeah Todd Harris: .. because there’s no way to talk about deficit reduction without doing it. Until people in Washington are ready to have an adult conversation about entitlement all this talk about spending and the deficit is all a bunch of noise, because as we all know that’s where the money’s going . Yes, let’s have an adult conversation. Go f*&k yourself. Adult conversations are something Republicans hacks do not want to have. Anytime you hear Republicans say it, you know what they really mean is “us rich folks are sick and tired of all you poor people that should only be concerned about bowing down to your Masters and knowing your place in our world.”

Continue reading …

When municipalities refuse to raise taxes to meet their obligations, this is what happens. Alabama prides itself on low taxes — but when you’re giving tax cuts against future earnings, you’ve essentially robbed the pension funds. We live in a society where Wall St. brokers must have their million dollar bonuses, but it’s somehow okay to stiff working people on their pensions. Maybe we should have a robust national pension instead of cutting Social Security! PRICHARD, Ala. — This struggling small city on the outskirts of Mobile was warned for years that if it did nothing, its pension fund would run out of money by 2009. Right on schedule, its fund ran dry. Then Prichard did something that pension experts say they have never seen before: it stopped sending monthly pension checks to its 150 retired workers, breaking a state law requiring it to pay its promised retirement benefits in full. Since then, Nettie Banks, 68, a retired Prichard police and fire dispatcher, has filed for bankruptcy. Alfred Arnold, a 66-year-old retired fire captain, has gone back to work as a shopping mall security guard to try to keep his house. Eddie Ragland, 59, a retired police captain, accepted help from colleagues, bake sales and collection jars after he was shot by a robber, leaving him badly wounded and unable to get to his new job as a police officer at the regional airport. Far worse was the retired fire marshal who died in June. Like many of the others, he was too young to collect Social Security. “When they found him, he had no electricity and no running water in his house,” said David Anders, 58, a retired district fire chief. “He was a proud enough man that he wouldn’t accept help.” The situation in Prichard is extremely unusual — the city has sought bankruptcy protection twice — but it proves that the unthinkable can, in fact, sometimes happen. And it stands as a warning to cities like Philadelphia and states like Illinois, whose pension funds are under great strain: if nothing changes, the money eventually does run out, and when that happens, misery and turmoil follow. It is not just the pensioners who suffer when a pension fund runs dry. If a city tried to follow the law and pay its pensioners with money from its annual operating budget, it would probably have to adopt large tax increases, or make huge service cuts, to come up with the money. Current city workers could find themselves paying into a pension plan that will not be there for their own retirements. In Prichard, some older workers have delayed retiring, since they cannot afford to give up their paychecks if no pension checks will follow.

Continue reading …
Raising the debt ceiling will be one of many battles facing President Obama in 2011

Click here to view this media Stuart Varney, a FOX News pro-business a-hole, was on during Megyn Kelly’s show yesterday and was all giddy because Republicans in the House passed a new rule which will make it tougher to pass legislation to raise the debt ceiling, House Republicans set to release their recommended rules changes Wednesday will change the names of several committees and repeal a rule making it more difficult to raise the debt ceiling. They will also require that all bills be posted online three days before a vote. {} The draft rules would repeal the “Gephardt Rule” that allows the House to raise the debt limit automatically when a conference report on the budget is approved. If the rule is repealed, a separate vote on raising the debt ceiling must be held. The Republicans will play chicken with Obama over the debt ceiling and of course the budget, which will come up, I believe, in March. How will the President handle these fights? Dan Pfeiffer says Obama will fight. Pfeiffer described 2011 as a “year with compromise and confrontation,” and on spending issues, he at least talked the language of confrontation. “The President is willing to draw tough lines in the sand… we’re not going to let the Republicans take the country in the wrong direction. You can’t make the car go faster by taking out the engine,” he concluded, referring to spending cuts. The President echoed some of these sentiments in his press conference yesterday , saying “I expect we’ll have a robust debate about this when we return from the holidays — a debate that will have to answer an increasingly urgent question — and that is how do we cut spending that we don’t need while making investments that we do need — investments in education, research and development, innovation, and the things that are essential to grow our economy over the long run, create jobs, and compete with every other nation in the world.” He’s made a distinction between “programs we don’t need” and programs that deserve investment, so the question becomes what programs does the President have in mind that are no longer necessary. As I said, Varney was very pleased that Republicans passed the new rule so they can hold hostage the government, which they hope will allow them to cut as much spending as they inhumanly can from the federal government. Varney makes the case that if Republicans don’t get what they want, they will at least threaten to shut down the government, which includes Medicare, Social Security and those screwed-up wars. Varney: There’s a new sheriff in town, it’s called the Republican Party that now runs the House of Representatives and they’re going to introduce new rules which will make it much more difficult-time consuming to raise that debt ceiling. You know it used to be automatic. That’s gone. Kelly: And if Republicans do freeze the debt ceiling it would mean the immediate succession of more than 40% of all federal government activities including Social Security, military operations in Afghan and Iraq, Homeland security, medicare, unemployment insurance. This would threaten the safety and economic security of all Americans. Why is he wrong? Varney: (Gleefuly) Oh, he’s not wrong. What we’ve done here is to raise the possibility of that happening if the Republicans don’t get their way on spending. It’s a political contest with the Republicans and the Democrats and President Obama. Who is going to win? What’s the price the Republicans will extract from raising the debt ceiling, what’s the price? They want to cut spending…The economist is right, You shut the government down and that’s a very serious thing. They will try to ram down spending cuts of all kinds to justify anything that the President will need when it comes to the purse strings. And Mitch McConnell already said ” just wait till next year ” which means that the GOP must rule or else. Doesn’t sound like Republicans want to be too bipartisan to me. Don’t look for the media to be offended if the government is shut down with some extra crispy obstructionism. They’ll salivate for it and hope it happens. Will the Obama administration finally call their bluff? The debt ceiling is now just a move on the game board for Republicans. The President should make them either shut down the government if they do indeed try to get him to cut spending on anything. Protecting Social Security will be one of my main goals in 2011.

Continue reading …

The CBPP has a disturbing report out today on the new rules expected to be adopted by the Tea Party House of Representatives. It’s going to be a long two years. The new rules announced December 22 would replace pay-as-you-go with a much weaker, one-sided “cut-as-you-go” rule, under which increases in mandatory spending would still have to be paid for but tax cuts would not. In addition, increases in mandatory spending could be offset only by reductions in other mandatory spending, not by any measure to raise revenues such as by closing unproductive special-interest tax loopholes. For example, the House would be barred from paying for continuation of a provision enacted in 2009 (and extended in the just-enacted tax compromise) that enables many minimum-wage families to receive a full, rather than a partial, Child Tax Credit by closing wasteful tax breaks for multinational corporations that shelter profits overseas. Use of such an offset would violate the new House rules because the provision expanding the Child Tax Credit for working-poor families counts as spending and hence could not be paid for by closing a tax loophole. Yet the same new rules would enable the House to expand tax loopholes for multinational corporations and wealthy investors without paying for those tax breaks at all, because any tax cut, no matter how costly or ill-advised, could now be deficit financed. The new rules would stand the reconciliation process on its head , by allowing the House to use reconciliation to push through bills that greatly increase deficits as long as the deficit increases result from tax cuts, while barring the use of reconciliation in the House for legislation that reduces the deficit if that legislation contains a net increase in spending (no matter how small) that is more than offset by revenue-raising provisions. Under the Democratic-led House, reconciliation could only be used if it was deficit-neutral. The health care bill, for example, had effective dates pushed way out in order to spread out the cost in a way that would be offset by revenues coming in against it. Otherwise they couldn’t have gotten it through. Under this new House of Representatives, it won’t matter whether the deficit increases as the result of tax cuts provided they slash spending elsewhere. Basically, they’re rolling back everything to the Bush years when it comes to the budget and spending. I predict an ugly 2 years ahead, with battles over everything but defense spending.

Continue reading …

It’s all about jobs, jobs, jobs, as Obama likes to say. Only they’re going overseas: Amid all the goodies for ethanol producers, NASCAR racetracks and the like, the tax-cut compromise legislation approved by Congress this month also includes a little-noticed sop for Wall Street banks and major multinationals. And it only costs U.S. taxpayers $9 billion. Under the provision, financial services firms and manufacturers can defer U.S. taxes on overseas income from a type of financial transaction known as “active financing.” Boosters say the two-year exemption helps level the playing field with foreign competitors by ensuring that U.S. corporations aren’t taxed twice. Major business groups and financial companies consider the exemption a key lobbying priority in Congress, which has regularly extended it on a temporary basis for more than a decade. Those lobbying in favor of the policy include dozens of the largest U.S. companies, from General Electric to J.P. Morgan Chase to Caterpillar, records show. The Active Financing Working Group, a coalition of companies and trade associations focused on the issue, has paid $540,000 in lobbying fees to Elmendorf Strategies since last year, according to Senate disclosure forms. The exemption ensures “that U.S.-based financial services [businesses] are able to continue to operate competitively and provide the funds needed for investment and economic growth,” the working group wrote in a letter to the Treasury Department. But the provision has long been opposed by watchdog groups and labor unions as a needless tax break that encourages companies to create jobs overseas instead of within the United States.

Continue reading …
Maddow: ‘Newt Gingrich is a direct mail scam artist’

Click here to view this media Speaking to a live audience at the 92nd Street Y Wednesday, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow blasted former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for his opposition to federal unemployment benefits. “I’m opposed to giving people money for doing nothing,” Gingrich insisted during a recent speech to GOP activists in South Carolina. “Let is review for just a second how Newt Gingrich makes his money,” Maddow began. “For starters, he hands out fake awards in exchange for cash.” “Newt Gingrich makes money right now running a fake awards for small businesses scam,” she continued. “Last year he tried to give one of his fake awards to a small business called The Lodge in Dallas, Texas.” In exchange for a $5,000 donation, Gingrich offered The Lodge, a strip club, a certificate, a novelty gavel and a dinner with him. “When Mr. Gingrich realized he was giving one of his fake awards — for a $5,000 donation — to a strip club he decided to rescind the award and the dinner invitation,” Maddow noted. In mid-December, Gingrich sent another letter to The Lodge and asked them for a $2,000 donation to his American Solutions organization. “This is how Newt Gingrich makes his money but he doesn’t think that you earned yours,” Maddow observed. “Newt Gingrich is a direct mail scam artist. He hires the analog equivalent of spammers to troll the Yellow Pages, looking for businesses he can fool into thinking they are winning a ‘Newt award,’ and then he cons money out of them for accepting it,” she said.

Continue reading …
John McCain Objected to Military Suicide Prevention Bill – Proves He’s Not Done Yelling at Clouds Yet

Click here to view this media John McCain showed us yet again this week that he’s happy for his legacy to be the angry old man that goes down shaking his fist at the clouds when it comes down to looking out for our soldiers suffering from PTSD — or any other measure that the Democrats would like to get passed that might make President Obama look good. MSNBC’s The Last Word’s Lawrence O’Donnell talked to Rep. Rush Holt about this exchange he had with Sen. John McCain over getting his legislation named after the late soldier Coleman S. Bean, meant to provide more resources for suicide prevention to Reserve members passed. Rep. Holt: Sen. McCain Objected To My Military Suicide Prevention Bill : In 2008, a young sergeant named Coleman S. Bean took his life. After completing his first tour of duty in Iraq, he had come home and been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Nevertheless, he was deployed to Iraq a second time . Bean had sought treatment for PTSD but as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), he found fewer resources available to him than to veterans and active-duty members. In April, Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) introduced legislation named after the late soldier meant to provide more resources for suicide prevention to Reserve members. The House in May incorporated it into the National Defense Authorization Act for 2011, but it was stripped from the final version, and Holt is pointing the finger at the lead Republican negotiator on the Senate legislation, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). “Twice now, the Senate has stripped this legislation from our defense bill,” Holt told The Huffington Post Tuesday. “It’s hard to understand why. I know for a fact, because he told me, that Sen. McCain doesn’t support it. Whether he’s the only one, I don’t know. But there was no effort to try to improve the language or negotiate changes; it was just rejected, and I think that is not only bad policy, but it’s cruel. It’s cruel to the families that are struggling with catastrophic mental health problems.” “He [McCain] said having these counselors check in with the Reservists every few months this way overreaching,” continued Holt, relaying a phone conversation he had had with the senator. “I asked him in what sense it was overreaching. Surely he didn’t think there wasn’t a problem, did he? I must say I don’t understand it.” The major piece of Holt’s amendment would require the Defense Department to ensure that every member of the Reserves who completes at least one tour of duty in either Iraq or Afghanistan receives ” a counseling call from properly trained personnel not less than once every 90 days so long as the servicemember remains a member of the IRR.” If they were determined to be at risk, they would receive counseling or mental health treatment. Go read the rest, but the good news is that Holt plans to continue to resubmit the legislation as a stand-alone measure. The bad news is that McCain, who looks like he’s gone off the rails with his anger, might continue to oppose it.

Continue reading …
Righties are mad that so much got done during the lame-duck session. Cue the whining

Click here to view this media As Ezra Klein observes, the lame-duck session of Congress was unusually productive. And one of the keys was that, for a change, there actually were a few Republicans who decided to be, you know, sane: The incumbent — and the outgoing — Republicans know that the fact that Republicans will have more power in 2011 doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ll use that power to pass sensible legislation. So those of them who wanted to pass sensible legislation decided to get it all done now, even if that meant handing Reid and Obama a slew of apparent victories in the lame-duck session. Ooooooh! That wascawwy Obama! Laura Ingraham and Dick Morris were all worked up about it last night on The O’Reilly Factor, turning blue in the face Morris: But what is crucial to focus on, is they didn’t get any spending cuts in return! Had the Republicans simply said, ‘No dice. This is an illegitimate, lame-duck session of people who are not entitled to vote because they were defeated. And we’re not going to pass anything, and we’re going to do it on January 2, and then we’re going to demand spending cuts!’ Which now will have to be fought for in the debt limit ceiling or the new budget. And in the meantime the deficit keeps clicking. Morris then went on to list all the Republican Senators who were going to be facing primaries — from Tea Party challengers, no doubt — in the near future because of their various sins in the lame-duck session. Considering this is the guy who predicted a 100-seat gain for Republicans in the House, I’m sure they’re quaking. But I’m also struck by Morris’s proposal: Evidently he doesn’t care that the Constitution pretty explicitly lays out how this election stuff works. Congress keeps meeting after elections, and new members do not take office till they take their oaths. It’s all there in the 20th Amendment. Don’t these guys have great reverence for the Constitution? Except, as always, the parts they find inconvenient. Like every other Republican right now, Morris also seems to have conveniently forgotten about the 1998 lame-duck session when Republicans impeached President Clinton . Which is quite a remarkable case of amnesia.

Continue reading …

Today's starter topic: Outgoing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is trying to get some help on becoming more likeable : “Lawmakers say she is consulting marketing experts about building a stronger brand. The most prominent of her new whisperers is Steven Spielberg, the Hollywood director whose films have been works of branding genius. Lawmakers said Spielberg has not reported toPelosi with a recommendation.” read more

Continue reading …