About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Are We Too Into Complaining?

by: Jennifer Daler

Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 09:06:44 AM EST


One of my Facebook friends is upset about the new mammogram guidelines and wrote, "This is not the change I voted for". I commented: "Close your eyes and imagine President McCain and Vice President Palin. She replied, "I see what you mean."

There is a diary here asking whether to boycott the DNC, Organizing for America and Obama's reelection campaign. People have every right to do this, as well as to criticize the seemingly slow pace of change.

I feel as frustrated as the next person, but then I realize the mess we're in wasn't created during eight years of Bush, but during thirty years of an assault on everything progressive that came before, especially the New Deal. Also during that time there has been a severe backlash against women's rights. Stupak-Pits is only the outer manifestation, the boil, if you will, on a much deeper abscess.

There is a diary up at Daily Kos outlining some of what President Obama has managed to accomplish. It's not exhaustive in that there is so much left to be done.

After the fold is  a partial list:

Jennifer Daler :: Are We Too Into Complaining?
   
1.  Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending

  2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices

  3. Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women

  4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq

  5. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB

  6. Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information

  7. Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier's family

  8. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act

  9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible

 10. Limits on lobbyist's access to the White House

 11. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration

 12. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date

 13. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan

 14. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research

 15. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research

 16. New federal funding for science and research labs

 17. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards

 18. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect

 19. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools

 20. New funds for school construction

 21. The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out

 22. US Auto industry rescue plan

 23. Housing rescue plan

 24. $789 billion economic stimulus plan

 25. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying

 26. US financial and banking rescue plan

 27. The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed

 28. Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards

 29. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops

 30. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010

Now I believe in activism and people advocating for themselves and their rights. But one thing I learned being a state rep is that there is issues advocacy and there is the responsibility to govern, to make policy. We need both, but in my opinion, it is best left to different people to do these things.

That was one of my objections to HCR6, the nullification resolution brought to the floor of the State House last session. With all the practical problems faced by New Hampshire, is pushing an ideological bill forward the best use of time and resources?

The frustration about DOMA and DADT is real, and these things must be addressed. But over the summer I was in NYC visiting one of my closest friends who happens to be gay and is also an activist. When I asked him how he felt about marriage equality he said, "Yeah, that's nice and everything. But I'm more concerned with finding a job and getting health care." He's worked in publishing all his life and that industry is changing rapidly while displacing many workers. It left my  friend in his 50s with no health insurance. That's his priority.

So I'll end this diary with what I said at the beginning: Close your eyes and imagine. President McCain. Vice-President Palin.  

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The new mammogram guidelines have nothing to do with politics... (4.00 / 5)
...and everything to do with medicine.

Would they be releasing the guidelines now if this was guided by political considerations? Politically the timing couldn't be worse.

Guideline recommendations change constantly and some are met with controversy - the recent PSA guidelines being one example.

Different organizations have different guidelines.

Some on first glance seem self serving - urologists want more PSA tests; gynecologists more PAP smears; radiologists more mammograms.

I am not going to defend the new guidelines but there are problems with false positive guidelines where women undergo unneeded biopsies. As Kathleen Parker said in this morning's UL, the real focus should be on improving breast cancer screening tests. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...


Well said (4.00 / 1)
The cancer screening guidelines are completely self-serving!  The government task force that issued the new guidelines actually did research and then based their decisions on that (something the last administration can never be accused of doing).  Breast cancer and many other cancer screenings are mostly done for one reason - to keep doctor's schedules and their bank accounts full.  And I have no doubt that the doctors doing the screenings have the best of intentions.  Who doesn't want to find, treat, and then cure someone's cancer?  But we have to find out if doing those tests save lives, and this report shows that doing these yearly tests doesn't result in more lives saved.  Period.

What I think we do need is better, cost-efficient, genetic testing.  If we could do what the Scandanavian countries do and keep track of people's health record better (like, you know, on a computer), then we can start to document who's at higher risk for cancers (testing for BRCA1, BRCA2, etc).  This, in turn can lead to better, more advanced screening for those higher risk groups and encourage the general public who does not have a high risk of cancer to eat right, be healthy, and do monthly self-examinations.  

This common sense can lead to better health care for a reduced cost, which is exactly what President Obama and the Democrats will do with this health care bill.


[ Parent ]
A good list (4.00 / 1)
I think last week's news about the 9/11 trials will someday be seen as the singular accomplishment of the first term. We will showcase American justice in all its imperfect but better than anywhere else glory, and, whatever the outcome (say, if one guy walks), America will feel American again.

Are we too into complaining? Probably. But cheerleading is no fun.

Most importantly, in my opinion, the appeal of Barack Obama the candidate was his central message: We can do better. That raises expectations, and now he has to deliver. Bill Clinton felt our pain, but Obama, deliberately, aimed higher.


I know it's not the President's domain, but... (0.00 / 0)
Eight years in Afghanistan, six in Iraq, and we still haven't rebuilt the World Trade Center?

[ Parent ]
I thought they decided not to (0.00 / 0)
They have the light memorial.

[ Parent ]
That is (was?) temporary. (4.00 / 1)
Read up



[ Parent ]
It was a white elephant to begin with. n/t (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Maybe it was when it was built, (4.00 / 1)
But now it's a monument.

[ Parent ]
Cheerleaders help the team win! n/t (4.00 / 1)


Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

[ Parent ]
I like the sig n/t (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Eichmann (4.00 / 4)
Adolf Eichmann could have been eliminated by Israeli State Security agents from the Mossad who located him in Argentina. Instaed, they brought him to trial in Israel, so justice could be done, in public, in a court of Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Otto Adolf Eichmann[1] (March 19, 1906 - May 31, 1962[2]), sometimes referred to as "the architect of the Holocaust", was a Nazi and SS-Obersturmbannführer (equivalent to Lieutenant Colonel). Because of his organizational talents and ideological reliability, he was charged by Obergruppenführer (General) Reinhard Heydrich with the task of facilitating and managing the logistics of mass deportation of Jews to ghettos and extermination camps in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe.

After the war, he traveled to Argentina using a fraudulently obtained laissez-passer issued by the International Red Cross[3][4] and lived there under a false identity working for Mercedes-Benz until 1960. He was captured by Israeli Mossad operatives in Argentina and tried in an Israeli court on 15 criminal charges, including crimes against humanity and war crimes. He was convicted and hanged in 1962.

We stand for Justice and the Rule of Law. President Obama and Attorney General Holder have just affirmed those beliefs after 8 years clearly and unequivocally after 8 years of murkiness. Having a fair trial near where the crimes took place is the right way to presecute waht they allegedly did. It is real fair and balanced action.

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg


[ Parent ]
Is it justice and rule of law (0.00 / 0)
to illegally extradite someone from a foreign country, put them on trial for crimes that predated the jurisdiction where they were tried, and where the outcome was known in advance?

What if a foreign government of a country you've never even been to swoops in to pick you up from where you're living to put you on trial according to their procedures for a crime they defined? Would that be just?


[ Parent ]
Don't follow (0.00 / 0)
put them on trial for crimes that predated the jurisdiction where they were tried

What does that mean?


[ Parent ]
Israel did not try (0.00 / 0)
Eichmann for crimes he committed after 1948, when Israel came into existence. He did not violate any pre-1948 Israeli law, because no such law existed. He did not commit any crime in Israel. Under these circumstances, he could not conceivably have faced a fair trial.

If you change the names and apply the same logic, you wouldn't be praising any other country for its rule of law efforts.


[ Parent ]
So in today's society at least - (0.00 / 0)
are you in favor of trying people like this at the ICC?  I realize this wasn't around in the 1960.  It seems to me that if someone like Eichmann were around today in a similar situation, it would be hard to try him in any one country.  

[ Parent ]
If Germany was a party (0.00 / 0)
to the ICC treaty before the crime took place, yes.

Then, as now, Eichmann could have been tried in Germany after being deported from Argentina if his immigration status truly wasn't in order as is suggested by "fraudulently obtained laissez-passer." Germany had legal mechanisms in place to deal with this sort of situation.


[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 2)
I'd argue that Eichmann's crimes were against humanity. Everybody had jurisdiction.

Ernie Boch III argued on Blue Mass Group that the attorneys for the 9/11 guys should seek a change of venue and get it. (He was serious, I think.) I said 9/11 was an attack on the entire country, and the trial might as well be in New York for maximum media coverage.



[ Parent ]
Maybe Malta (0.00 / 0)
would argue picking your nose is a crime against humanity and it has sufficient competence to take you from your home and try you according to Maltese law and Maltese procedural rules.  Even if you've never picked your nose in Malta.

[ Parent ]
Indeed (0.00 / 0)
Though it might be hard to make that stick.

Besides, Io sono un cittadino romano.


[ Parent ]
Malta, Argentina, Israel, and the USA (4.00 / 1)
have all ratified the Geneva Conventions, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the United Nations Charter.  Human rights are not as ambiguous as you're implying.

[ Parent ]
Of those, only the Geneva conventions (0.00 / 0)
predate the war.

A case could be made for violations of Eichmann's human rights. This was a case of extraordinary rendition.


[ Parent ]
It's impossible (4.00 / 1)
to feel any sort of sympathy for Eichmann, but the fact remains that he was kidnapped in a covert, government-sanctioned operation by Israel.  That doesn't mean that he wasn't guilty of the most heinous crime in human history, but it does mean that a democratic country stooped very, very low in bringing about justice.  It doesn't sound too dissimilar to our CIA black sites and so forth, and hopefully the trial in NYC will represent a sort of restoration to American and democratic ideals.  Don't forget that after Eichmann's capture, radicals targeted Jews in response: this type of extralegal activity doesn't endear you to anyone.  

[ Parent ]
So what if they don't predate the war? (0.00 / 0)
Did Nuremberg have more legal ground to stand on because of anything that predated the war?

They had been established by the time this took place and the slippery slope of Malta hating nose pickers is rendered irrelevant.


[ Parent ]
Hey guys, (4.00 / 3)
maybe you could take this to the Open Thread. It's kind of way off the topic.

[ Parent ]
that's why it is so named n/t (0.00 / 0)


"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

[ Parent ]
Yes it is. (4.00 / 2)
Genocide is subject to universal jurisdiction.  If Nuremberg was just, the Eichmann trial was just.

As for the abduction, Israel convinced Argentina to drop their objections even before the trial began.

If it was ever just for America to invade and occupy Afghanistan in response to 9/11, the justice of Israel taking Eichmann from Argentina in response to the Holocaust is indisputable.


[ Parent ]
Universal jurisdiction (0.00 / 0)
is a relatively new concept, and I think a very dangerous one. There is no situation where a foreign state you've never stepped foot in should be able to try you for something that did not happen under their jurisdiction. But, the world is not a just place, and states will do as they please.

Whether it was right to kill Eichmann is a different question than whether his unlawful abduction to a country he had never visited is an example of the rule of law to be heralded and whether it is ever just to apply laws extraterritorially.

I do not think invading and occupying Afghanistan is a remotely good analogue, and if it's just wanton revenge, it probably never was a just response to 9/11. Again, it's an example of states doing as they please because they can. That is a very rough notion of justice.

As far as Nuremberg, it is very important to remember that those trials did not take place in London, or New York, or Moscow. Their siting was particularly important, even if they were otherwise an example of victors' justice. There were no war crimes trials for those who prevailed in battle.  


[ Parent ]
he existed outside any law for years (4.00 / 2)
For crimes against humanity he was brought to justice. Its splitting hairs to argue how a heinous monster is captured, if in the end evidence was heard in open court, the accused had capable representation, and a jury found them guilty. I sleep better knowing that there are some crimes so horrible, that justice will be pursued to the ends of the earth. There is no border to morality or immorality.No country has proven moral superiority, so size matters.

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

[ Parent ]
Much of the problem lies with our press which much prefers (0.00 / 0)
predictions to following current events and achievements.  Partly, that's because reporting on events can be fact-checked.  Predictions are easy and the audience actually prefers them to be in error.

Republicans, on the other hand, prefer a PR administration which issues ukases and registers achievements as soon as they are mentioned (I remind you of "Mission Accomplished").  Now that they're not even nominally in charge, there's no reason to let up on the PR.  It keeps a lot of people employed and provides gossip to trade over cocktails and at the country club.


we still haven't rebuilt New Orleans (4.00 / 2)
we're still in a permanent state of undeclared war.
The Pentagon still doesn't have to pass an audit.
We still have DADT and DOMA
Obama passed an INCREASE to the already bloated Pentagon budget.
Single payer advocates were not invited to health care discussions.
Big Insurance lobbyists helped write the "reform" bill.
Big Religion has too much influence.
Timothy Geithner.
Obama campaigned on eliminating the infamous Medicare Part D donut hole. Now he's going to make it smaller. We can spend a billion dollars a day, but not provide cheaper medicines for old people?
Oh, and the health INSURANCE giveaway to Big Insurance Bill sucks.

I dunno - I'm not optimistic, but I was never on the Obama bandwagon to begin with. I understand it's a slow process - but I'm not happy with much of it.  


Nice list...Here's another. (4.00 / 1)
I do realize we are so much better off with Obama as President than with the other choice we were faced with...That was just plain SCARY!

As I said in the comment section, of my original diary, we won't hold these majorities in Congress forever. Especially if the Admin. and Congress toss the base under the bus.

Here are 1/2 of the reasons Americablog (and Dailykos) started the boycott:


1. Asking a religious right activist who claims to have been "cured" of his homosexuality to headline campaign events in South Carolina. Then letting the anti-gay bigot spend half an hour, on stage, haranguing gays at the Obama event.

2. Refusing for months to interview with LGBT newspapers during the campaign, while his opponent did repeatedly.

3. Flubbing question on whether gays are immoral.

4. Inviting anti-gay activist Rick Warren, who helped pass Prop 8 in California, to give the invocation at the inaugural.

5. Inviting a gay bishop to the inaugural festivities, then not beginning the TV broadcast until the gay bishop has finished and left.

6. Refusing to appoint an openly gay Cabinet member.

7. Abolishing the LGBT outreach position at the DNC and never reinstating it.

8. Refusing to re-establish the White House Office of LGBT Outreach and the White House LGBT Liaison (which was a Special Assistant to the President at one point).

9. Continuing to discharge two gay servicemembers a day, even though he could stop it immediately by issuing a stop-loss order immediately.

10. Asking for a study on "whether" repealing DADT would hurt national security, rather than a study on how to repeal it, as promised.

11. Deleting his gay civil rights promise from the White House Web site.

12. Changing his commitment to "repeal" Don't Ask Don't Tell, to "changing DADT it in a sensible manner."

13. Repeatedly defending DOMA in court, including just a few weeks ago, even though he didn't have to.

14. Making jokes about marriage equality, which President Obama claims he doesn't support, even though he once did.

15. Comparing gay relationships to incest and pedophilia in a Justice Department brief.

16. Joking about gay protesters upset about the DOMA brief.

17. Refusing to provide health care benefits to the partners of gay employees, and then claiming that DOMA precludes it, when it does not.

18. Refusing to meet with gay legal groups to discuss how to provide such health benefits within the confines of DOMA.

19. Claiming that health benefits for partners of federal employees were new, then being caught in a lie.

20. Showing visible discomfort when asked about gay civil rights.

The full list (it's really quite astounding) along with the links to each item can be found here:
http://gay.americablog.com/200...

Daniel


(aka: dubious109)

http://www.live365.com/station...


http://www.dubiousmindbomb.com


Pretty damning n/t (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Admittedly I really didn't study candidate Obama too intently (4.00 / 4)
...well, on this issue at least I didn't look too hard.

I did make a point of looking up his his voting record on choice and a few other civil right issues (both in Illinois and in the US Senate) after  the first time I saw him speak. Truth be told, what I found didn't exactly set me on fire with love for the candidate.

Obviously once he garnered the nomination I was 100% behind him. Wishy-washy moderate with a milk-toast voting record wearing a progressive's clothes or no, I sure as heck preferred him to the other side.

He hasn't changed. He is exactly the same careful, middle of the road straddling moderate we all helped to elect.

Am I glad he won? Heck yeah. Do I think he's doing a good job considering all of the problems he inherited? Damn straight.

Is the President where I'd like him to be on issues like don't-ask-don't-tell, judicial reform, choice, civil rights, marriage equality, rebuilding New Orleans, right to privacy, or expanded military opportunities for women and minorities? Not by a freaking long shot. Then again I didn't expect him to be.

I have immense respect for the President's ability to engage people, to stake out the middle and try and get things done in spite of the noise from the extreme left and extreme right. Will it work? Hopefully. Will he display more support for the progressive agenda as time goes on? Hopefully.

I think we on the left need to strike a balance between supporting the President and holding his feet to the fire. Honestly actions like the above boycott don't really sit well with me this early in the man's term but that is the risk he takes by not being more representative of the progressive base who put him in office.

 

Bresler for Emperor


[ Parent ]
We don't "complain" on Blue Hampshire (4.00 / 3)
We rant.  Big f****** difference.

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox