Who we are

"Who we are is neither encoded at birth nor gradually assembled over the years, but is inscribed into our brains during the first two years of life in direct response to how we are loved and cared for." ~Sue Gerhardt

Margaret Ainsworth, a Canadian psychologist, was first to demonstrate a significant connection between early childhood experience and development of personality. For a large part of the1960s, Ainsworth sat behind a one-way mirror in Baltimore and watched one-year-olds playing with their mothers. She noted what happened when the mother left the room for a few minutes and how the child responded when she returned. She then studied what happened when, instead of the mother, a stranger entered the room and tried to engage with the child.

Ainsworth's study, together with John Bowlby's attachment theory, showed that how a child developed was not the result of general experiences, but the direct result of the way the child's main care-giver responded to and engaged with him or her. A neglectful, stressed, or inconsistent parent gave the kind of care which led to anxious, insecure or depressed children. Further studies showed that patterns of attachment behavior in one-year-olds could accurately predict how those children would behave at aged five, ten, and fifteen which can further predict the personality of a child when fully grown.

Although the attachment theory has been very influential, underpinning psychology and psychotherapy, the kind of "proof" provided by psychologists has never quite convinced a skeptical public that thinks: Sitting in a room and watching babies – what kind of proof is that? How can anyone know what a baby is thinking and feeling? Isn't it all just liberal conjecture? Added to this, an entire generation of feminists hated the attachment theory from the get go, accusing Bowlby and Ainsworth of being against working women and wanting to shackle women to the home. The whole issue of how babies develop suddenly became highly politicized – and still is. Confusion reigns about the connection between early experience and personality.

Later, when researchers studied the brains of Romanian orphans – children who had been left to cry in their cots from birth and denied any chance of forming close bonds with any adult – they found a "virtual black hole" where the orbitofrontal cortex should have been. This is the part of the brain that enables us to manage our emotions, to relate sensitively to other people, to experience pleasure and to appreciate beauty. The earliest experiences of these children had greatly diminished their capacity ever to be fully human. This gave strong evidence for the attachment theory.

In Why Love Matters, Sue Gerhardt, a psychotherapist, takes the language of neuroscience and uses it to prove the attachment theory. Gerhardt makes an impressive case that emotional experiences in infancy and early childhood have the greatest influence on how we develop as human beings. Drawing on the most recent findings from the field of neurochemistry, she explains how daily interactions between a baby and its main caregiver have a direct impact on the way the brain develops. Picking up a crying baby or ignoring it may be a matter of parental choice, but the effects will be etched on the child’s brain throughout life.

Gerhardt is not interested in cognitive skills – how quickly a child learns to read, write, etc. She is interested in the connection between the kind of loving we receive in infancy and how it influences the kind of people we turn into. According to Gerhardt, "There is nothing automatic about the development of one’s personality. The kind of brain that each baby develops is the brain that comes out of his or her earliest experiences with people." Our earliest experiences are not simply laid down as memories or as influences; they develop into precise physiological patterns of response in the brain that set the neurological rules for how we deal with our feelings for the remainder of our lives.

In other words, how we are treated as babies and toddlers determines exactly who and what we are.

Stress during infancy damages the amygdala, an almond-shaped cluster of nuclei located in the brain's emotional control center that enables us to respond quickly to danger – such as stepping out of the way of a swerving car. Repeated abuse or violence in the home of any type causes the amygdala to signal danger even when there is no apparent threat. Dr. Bruce Perry, a neuroscientist who heads the Child Trauma Academy, a nonprofit research center in Houston, says that a maladaptive amygdala makes a child or an adult survivor of child abuse recoil in fear at the drop of a hat. This negative impact on developing brain structures is associated with changes in brain chemistry.

Overwhelming stress early in life also alters the production of both the stress-regulating hormone cortisol and key neurotransmitters such as epinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin, the chemical messengers in the brain that affect mood and behavior. These biochemical imbalances can have profound implications. For example, constant abuse typically lowers serotonin levels, leading to depression or impulsive aggression.

When a baby is upset, the hypothalamus, situated in the subcortex at the center of the brain, produces cortisol. In normal amounts, cortisol is good, but if a baby is exposed for too long or too often to stressful situations its brain becomes flooded with cortisol and it will then either over- or under-produce cortisol for the remainder of its life when exposed to stress. Too much cortisol is linked to depression, anxiety, and fearfulness; too little cortisol is linked to emotional detachment and aggression. Children of alcoholics have a raised cortisol level. Baby girls of abusive parents tend to develop high cortisol levels while boys tend to do the opposite, and produce too little, becoming aggressive and/or detached.

If abuse or stress continued into the early childhood years, triggers and cues act as reminders of the trauma and can cause further anxiety and depression. Often the person can be completely unaware of the triggers. In many cases this may lead a person suffering from a traumatic disorder, engaging in disruptive or self-destructive coping mechanisms, without being fully aware of the nature or causes of their own actions. Panic attacks are an example of a response to such emotional triggers. Consequently, intense feelings of anger may surface frequently, sometimes in very inappropriate or unexpected situations, as danger may always seem to be present. Upsetting memories such as images, thoughts, flashbacks, and/or nightmares may haunt the person. Insomnia may occur as lurking fears and insecurity keep the person vigilant and on the lookout for danger, both day and night. Chronic depression and/or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) more likely than not plagues the person throughout their life.

The point is that babies cannot regulate their stress response on their own, but learn to do so only through repeated experiences of being shown consistent love, unconditionally, or not being shown love, by its parents. Through positive interactions, the baby learns that people can be relied upon to respond to its needs, and the baby's brain learns to produce only beneficial amounts of cortisol. Through a lack of love, or through physical or emotional abuse, babies become highly stressed causing cortisol production to run amok throughout its life, leading to a plethora of physical and psychological problems. Baseline levels of cortisol are pretty much set by six months of age. Too much cortisol, and the child is set up for a lifetime of struggle with depression and physical health problems such as fibromyalgia, IBS, asthma, weight gain, and high blood pressure.

Timely interventions – by 7 years of age – can help rewire the brain and put psychological development back on track up to a point. A loving, understanding adult can come along during the child’s early years and somewhat correct the problem; but if the child is removed from its rescuer any time before full adulthood and once again put in a situation where love and nurture is not provided (as with an unloving stepparent), then the “repair” is all but undone.

Sue Gerhardt's book, Why Love Matters: How Affection Shapes a Baby's Brain, is a much-needed corrective to those who have made too great a claim for the role of inherited genes. Instead, she shows that you can't slide a knife between the heart and the brain. Human babies, like all mammals, are born wired for survival, but uniquely, we are wired to do so through other people. By smiling cutely long before they can walk or talk, babies ensure that the adults in their lives forgive them the sleepless nights and want to keep them alive. Being smiled at in return teaches the baby the rewards of communication and primes the infant brain for more.

Good parenting during the early years leads to good development of the baby's prefrontal cortex, which in turn enables the growing child to develop self-control, empathy, and to feel connected to others. Bad parenting (neglect, abuse, violence in the home) during those early years leads to a damaged amygdala (the brain's emotional control center) setting the child up for a lifetime of sorrow.

Gerhardt is not the first person to say these things, but research findings in this area have been very slow to filter out to the general public because they are so politically sensitive. It is because of this that researchers in this field have been reticent over the years about broadcasting their results. It's hard to read this book and feel complacent about the conditions in which many children today are raised. Too many parents are not meeting their children's need for love in the vital first two years of their lives.

Who we are really goes back to those early years spent with loving or unloving parents. Those who say that the grown-up child should forget and forgive, that at some point she is completely responsible for her own emotions, is ignorant of brain development and the long-term consequences of abuse and/or neglect. Years of therapy and love from a good-hearted spouse can rewire the brain to an extent; but, even so, the personality that we developed as a young child is always there, ready to subconsciously respond to any trigger or reminder of those early years.

Who we are is neither encoded at birth nor gradually assembled over the years, but is inscribed into our brains during the first two years of life in direct response to how we are loved and cared for.


http://www.amazon.com/Why-Love-Matters-Affection-Shapes/dp/1583918175

Smarter than the average bear

When President Obama finished his speech Tuesday evening, my husband turned to me and asked, “What do you think?” My “teacher instincts” told me that the speech went over the heads of most viewers, including the media, because instead of focusing on just the oil spill, the President spoke of the big picture: our gluttonous need for oil and the nation’s long-term energy policy. My husband agreed with me when I said that the speech was too complicated for most people.

So, I was not surprised when CNN, MSNBC, as well as FOX, said that the speech left them wanting. There was not enough emotion, not enough profanity (none), and too broad a stroke. They complained that the President looked at the big picture – or as FOX put it, pushing his energy agenda, specifically cap-and-trade (although Obama did not mention cap-and-trade). They complained that the speech was dull. Almost all the pundits didn’t get it, except Ed (the Ed Show), who exactly understood the entire speech and said that this was why he likes the President – because “he is in the top 5% of the smartest people in this nation.” In other words, our President is smarter than the average bear.

But why did no one get it?

CNN talked to Paul J.J. Payack, a language analyst who said the President’s prose was too complex. He said the President’s comments on Tuesday night, written to a 9.8 grade level, went way over the head of most viewers. According to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, the average American reads at around an 8th grade level – with average listening comprehension hovering somewhere between 8th and 9th grade.

The speech was not dumbed down enough. It needed to be on the level of my middle schoolers – most of whom did not pay attention unless I constantly moved around the room, stopped to ask questions, and used a good bit of wit. The speech needed average words and only one punch line – the same way I taught my students – one concept at a time, then reiterate many times until you see their light bulbs go on. Anything more than that and… our nation of ADD, like, you know, plugged-in scatter-brains don’t get it.

Payack revealed his results on Wednesday, the same day that BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg said his company cared “about the small people” – and a day before BP CEO Tony Hayward was preparing his own written remarks to be presented to Congress. Many analysts mocked the BP chairman for talking “down” to the American public. Yet, according to Payack, Obama apparently should have dumbed down his speech a bit more.

Payack specifically criticized Obama’s 20-word average per sentence, as well as the speech’s average word length of 5 letters. The language expert said in doing so the President “added some comprehension difficulty for his target audience.” Since the speech went over the heads of most, it obscured his messages because most listeners just didn’t get it.

This particular analysis of Tuesday’s speech contrasted sharply with other Obama speeches. The “Yes, We Can” victory speech, for example, was written for grade 7.

Is it possible that Tuesday’s explanation of the Gulf oil spill may have simultaneously been Obama’s smartest as an orator – and at the same time, his poorest, because he did not dumb it down enough for the average bear?

The pundits thought it was poor. What does that say about the average pundit?

And what does that say about the average American?

Ahhh…so that’s why so many Americans loved Bush – he spoke on their level – below it, actually.

A hole in my heart

Sorry... but I feel compelled to write about this subject again. I just had another visit with my parents this past weekend. It has taken me about five days to pull out of the ensuing depression. They always find a way to throw subtle barbs at me. Others who are in the room may see it as “joking”, but it isn’t. Some people who are astutely observant will notice the undercurrent of contempt toward me.

My husband saw it from day one when he met them. It almost caused him to not marry me – because when you marry someone, you marry their family. Now he tries to protect me by deflecting the barbs – but he misses many of them. He will only realize what happened when I point it out to him later on, at home, when I am crumpled and in tears.

I cannot say anything right around them. I can't even breathe right to suit them.

You can divorce an abusive spouse. You can call it quits if your lover mistreats you. But what can you do if the source of your misery is your own parent(s)? You either cut down on the visits (I’ve cut mine down to about 4 per year) or completely cut things off. I have not had the courage to completely cut things off because if I do so, I will lose my sisters.

Granted, no parent is perfect. And whining about parental failure, real or not, is practically an American pastime that keeps the therapeutic community dutifully employed. But just as there are ordinary parents who mysteriously produce a difficult child, there are decent people who have the misfortune of having a truly toxic parent.

The assumption that all parents are programmed to love their children unconditionally and protect them from harm is not universally true. I know of a really nice person who has been treated for depression throughout her life due to difficulty dealing with her aging mother. The mother has always been extremely abusive of her. She said, “Once, on my birthday, she left me a message wishing that I would get a disease and die. Can you believe it?”

Over the years, she has tried to have a relationship with her mother, but the encounters were always painful and upsetting; her mother remained harshly critical and demeaning. Whether her mother was mentally ill, just plain mean, or both, was unclear. But there was no question that my friend had decided long ago that the only way to deal with her mother was to avoid her at all costs. Yet, when her mother was approaching death, she was torn about whether there should be another effort at reconciliation. Should she visit and perhaps forgive her mother even though her mother will probably once again be extremely abusive toward her and cause her great emotional pain? Or should she protect herself and live with a sense of guilt from “abandoning” her mother, however unjustified?

I have had to deal with the same problem with my parents. Through the years several of my therapists have had a bias to salvage the relationship, even if harmful to me. Most have not been open-minded as to whether maintaining the relationship is really healthy and desirable. And I have found that this is probably due to very little, if any, training in this area. The topic gets little attention in standard textbooks or in the psychiatric literature, perhaps reflecting the common and mistaken notion that adults, unlike children and the elderly, are not vulnerable to emotional abuse.

But we are vulnerable – because with every visit, the healing wound is once again opened until, one day, it can no longer heal at all. My wound does not scab over anymore. I have become extremely sensitive to their words.

My last counselor was stunned by my parents’ implacable hostility toward me – their constant berating – the history of physical and emotional abuse – and became convinced that they were a psychological menace to me. He suggested that for my well-being I might consider, at least for now, forgoing a relationship with them. I have tried to do so, but my conscience or my feelings of obligation (not love) has kept me from being successful at cutting things off. Maybe I have been brainwashed by them, but I felt this was a drastic measure. Yet, in not doing so, I cannot escape the truckload of negative feelings and thoughts that I have internalized due to their abuse.

Of course, relationships are rarely all good or bad; even the most abusive parents can sometimes show love, which is why severing a bond can be a tough decision. Research on early attachment, both in humans and in nonhuman primates, shows that we are hard-wired for bonding – even to those who are not very nice to us. It is similar to an abused pet still being loyal to its master. Though terribly hurt and angry, many survivors of child abuse try to get their abusive parents to change their ways and love them.

Parental abuse of their children, whether physical or mental, can cause lifetime depression at the very least, chronic PTSD at its worst, and an extremely low self esteem. It is no stretch to say that having a toxic parent is harmful to a child’s brain, let alone his feelings. Brains can mend by removing or reducing stress. Prolonged stress can kill cells in the hippocampus, a brain area critical for memory. We know that although prolonged childhood trauma can be toxic to the brain, young adults retain the ability to rewire their brains through new positive experiences, therapy, and psychotropic medication. But the only way to truly mend the brain of a survivor of child abuse is to cut the ties with the abuser(s).

Dr. Judith Lewis Herman, a trauma expert who is a clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, wrote, “Sometimes we consider a paradoxical intervention and say to a patient, ‘I really admire your loyalty to your parents — even at the expense of failing to protect yourself in any way from harm.’ ” She tries to empower her patients to take action to protect themselves without giving direct advice to cut ties. The hope is that her patients will come to see the psychological cost of a harmful relationship and act to change it. As drastic as it sounds, an adult survivor of child abuse is much better off letting go of a toxic parent.

That’s just it: we survivors do see the harm. We just have trouble letting go because it means we will never be loved by Mom or Dad.

I have greatly reduced my visits with my parents, but their absence in my life is never far from my thoughts. At first I thought I missed them. Now I realize that it is the loving childhood I never had that I miss. It left a hole in my heart that can never be filled.

No magic wand

According to the pundits, Gulf Coast residents are supposedly mad at President Obama for not keeping the oil from threatening their beaches and marshes. We hear this from political opposition on the right and liberal pundits on the left bored by the president's cerebral approach to problem-solving. But when you actually talk to the people down there, many believe that Obama gave the problem his attention from the beginning and is doing all he can to help. The majority of the coastal people blame BP for the problem. (I know this because I know some people who live there.)

Obama's campaign for president cultivated a myth of godlike powers for the immature – and some still want to buy into the magic narrative, showing disdain toward Obama for not showing some emotion and fixing the problem right now – pundits Savannah Guthrie on MSNBC and James Carville on CNN come to mind. Another, columnist Maureen Dowd, wrote that "Barack Obama is a guy who is accustomed to having stuff go right for him." (Huh? Ms. Dowd is obviously bored and cannot find anything else to write about.) Sunday talk show panelists parroted her idea, followed by "and now look what's happening to him": A vast oil spill brings disaster in the Gulf; Israel complicates Mideast diplomacy by killing would-be blockade breakers; and the new job numbers are lousy.

Also on the left, Atlantic writer Joshua Green criticizes Obama for "his abiding faith in the judgment of experts." Columnist Frank Rich agrees: Whether the subject is the oil spill or the troubled campaign in Afghanistan or even predicting future unemployment rates, Obama has erred by relying on experts. Solving these problems "may be beyond the reach of marathon brainstorming by brainiacs," Rich writes, "even if the energy secretary is a Nobel laureate."

If not brainiac experts, just who should Obama be listening to? Should he check his horoscope like the Reagans did or just 'follow his gut' like Bush did or 'feel our pain' like Clinton did? The worst Obama decisions – going passive during the health care ruckus and pushing for new offshore drilling – were because he did not listen to science, economic and military experts, but from listening to his political advisers. For the oil spill, he is listening to the best science and military advisors available – just as he should.

Obama's "magic" was in campaign politics – now he has to work to solve problems with which any president would have a tough time. There has never been a time in history when a president did not have to deal with bad, scary problems. For example, the economy is a long-term and structural challenge, made tougher by the recent recession. No one is going to cheer a 9.7 percent jobless rate, even if it was a tad below April's. But it would probably have gone a lot higher without the stimulus. The stimulus did not end the scourge of high unemployment – it just kept us from going into a depression. It kept us from going over the cliff.

I do agree with Obama's critics who complain that plans to expand offshore drilling before cleaning up Minerals Management Service – which is supposed to regulate the industry – was hasty. The administration is now reversing plans on deepwater offshore drilling pending an investigation of what went wrong. But those on the right are complaining Obama has not stopped the crisis a mile underwater. Apparently, these detractors would only accept his actions if he were to put on a cape, dive to the bottom of the Gulf, and suck up every last bit of oil in one huge breath, expelling it directly into an oil refinery which BP would refine and deliver to the American population for free as penance. Then they want him is to use god-like strength to plug the hole.

Some on the left are asking why the administration put faith in BP's early reports about the blowout. Who else is supposed to stop the flow? The military does not have the technology to stop oil flows a mile or more beneath the surface of the water. BP was supposed to have the technology to do that.

What is the proper government response? Do what it can to keep as much oil as possible from shore, and to clean up the oil on the shore and in the water, as BP tries to fix the well. The administration is doing that with all resources presently available. For those who say that we need ships from the military out there – navy tankers are already out there. For those who say other nations should send vessels – not many other nations have the capability to drill or capture oil from the ocean.

What went wrong? I think we will find that BP cut corners to hurry up the drilling and start the profit-making oil flowing. I think we will find that BP pushed the envelope beyond its own expertise in drilling the world’s first deepwater oil well. I think we will find that BP lied to MMS about its capability to clean up a spill. And we will find that MMS was negligent in its oversight of the oil industry. BP’s arrogance would be similar to NASA sending a man to the moon before the technology to bring him back had been developed.

To those who want Obama to “lose it” just once: I prefer a calm leader who works with the most respectable expert opinions he can find. If you stop to think about it, this is what America really wants. In dealing with a crisis, Obama may not make the grade as a god, but as an intelligent man playing a tough hand, he is really doing as well as any human could do – better than Reagan or Bush did with their crises. Listen up, you immature whiners (yes, I am speaking to you, James Carville): stopping the waves from bringing the oil to shore is a job for Neptune, or BP, not the president. Obama cannot raise a magic wand and force the oil back into the hole. There are things he can do, but they are not exciting enough for the punditry.

The pundits are stirring the pot, as they always do, because they are bored. They are bored with the war in Afghanistan. They are bored with Iran. They are bored with the recession. They are bored with the Middle East. They must have something, anything, to hyperventilate over 24-7 to get their ratings up. So they are now hyperventilating over President Obama not cleaning the oil up ‘fast enough.’ They are hyperventilating over Obama not emoting enough – not showing enough anger to suit them.

It is easy to sit back and criticize without having to give real solutions. I would like to see these critics do a better job than Obama in cleaning up the oil and stopping the spill – which they cannot do because no one has a magic wand to make it all go away.

They speak with forked tongues

It is always interesting to watch the small-government politicians and their small-government-no-taxes constituents scream for “guvmint” to provide money and clean up whatever catastrophe has recently happened. Many are now screaming for the Obama administration, including the military, to push BP aside and put a stop to the oil spill themselves (as if government has the expertise and the equipment to do so). Just a few months ago they were protesting “guvmint’s” interference in their lives as in “cut my taxes”, or “no taxes”, or “you shouldn’t make me buy health insurance” or “get off my back.”

Now they want mother government to take care of them – and for President Obama to go down there the moment the catastrophe happened to hold their hands and soothe their pain. It is interesting how the gulf-state conservatives' suddenly found respect for the powers and money of the federal government due to a catastrophe in their own backyard.

Case in point: Senator David Vitter (R-LA), a hardened foe of big government, posted an item on his campaign Web site about the huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. "I strongly believe BP is spread too thin," he wrote. He thinks it would be a better arrangement if federal and state officials would do the dirty work of protecting and cleaning up the coast instead of BP.

Then came word from the Pentagon that Alabama, Florida and Mississippi – governed by conservatives who believe in low taxes and limited government even to the point of not providing for good schools, roads, bridges, etc – want the federal government to mobilize more National Guard troops to aid in the cleanup (at taxpayer expense, of course). That followed an earlier request by the Republican governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, another limited government believer, who issued a statement saying he had called the Obama administration "to outline the state's needs" and to ask "for additional resources. These resources are critical."

“BP is the responsible party, but we need the federal government to make sure they are held accountable and that they are indeed responsible. Our way of life depends on it,” said Governor Jindal, a constant critic of big government. He is blasting the White House for not doing enough to stem the oil flow in the Gulf! This is the same guy who decried the government doing volcano monitoring. It seems obvious that what is really going on here is political calculation. Jindal’s ambitions have always extended beyond the bayou: He was not shy about blasting Obama’s stimulus package as “irresponsible” while accepting a large amount of the money. He also positioned himself as a responsible Republican voice on healthcare — dismissing the House plan as “radical,” but urging Republicans not to abandon the process.

Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi also have asked for more federal help. Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions of Alabama and George LeMieux of Florida, flew over the gulf with small-government Republican Rep. Jeff Miller (FL). Sessions, probably the Senate's most ardent supporter of tort reform, extolled the virtues of litigation against BP.

"They're not limited in liability on damage, so if you have suffered damages, they are the responsible party," said Sessions, sounding very much like the trial lawyers he usually maligns. "We're here to send the message that we're going to do everything we can from a federal level to mitigate this to protect the people and make sure when people are damaged that they are made whole."

"They're not too big to fail," Sessions said. "If they can't pay and they've given it everything they've got, then they should cease to exist." If you believe that the federal government will not be on the hook for a major part of the costs, perhaps you would like to buy a leaky oil well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Congressman Thad Cochran of Mississippi, a far-right leaning Republican, says he is making sure “the federal government is doing all it can.” Another limited-government conservative, Senator Roger Wicker, also of Mississippi, says he will “make sure the federal government is poised to assist in every way necessary.” All these limited-government guys expressed their belief that British Petroleum (BP) would cover all the costs of the cleanup – apparently unaware that the Congress put a limit on oil company liability years ago.

"We're going to have the oil industry folks, the BP folks, in front of us on the Commerce Committee," Florida's LeMieux vowed in the news conference. "We're going to talk about these drilling issues." Oh, but not before the taxpayer sends some more big-government money down to the small-government believers of the Gulf coast area.

These conservatives speak with forked tongues. They tell their constituents how government should only exist for defense and should not provide for the welfare of the people and then turn around and ask the federal government to spend taxpayer’s money to clean op the oil mess. Yet, their regions already get about 30% more money from Washington than they send to Washington – receiving much more than their counterparts in Democratic states.

An analysis of data from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation by Washington Post database specialist Dan Keating found that people in states that voted Republican were by far the biggest beneficiaries of federal spending. In states that voted strongly Republican, people received an average of $1.50 back from the federal government for every dollar they paid in federal taxes. In moderately Republican states, the amount was $1.19. In moderately Democratic states, people received on average of 99 cents in federal funds for each dollar they paid in taxes. In strongly Democratic states, people got back just 86 cents on the tax dollar.

Personally, I think we need big government, not just for defense, but to provide a safety net for all the people – and to be there when disasters happen. Although it is likely a temporary attitude, this ecological catastrophe has Gulf coast conservatives’ crying out for the aid and purse of the federal government – a timely reminder for all that government is necessary. As conservatives in Washington complain about excessive federal spending, the ones who would suffer the most from spending cuts are their own constituents.

Oh yes, they have forked tongues, indeed.

Rand Paul’s immature libertarianism

Rand Paul is already crashing and burning. Did you notice? Here's how it went down: first, he unmistakably suggested that he opposed Title II of the Civil Rights Act. Then he tried unsuccessfully to weasel his way out, under near-implacable questioning. This was when people got really worked up. So Paul put out a press release, the strategy of which was more or less to deny that the previous 24 hours had happened.

But there are people, including FOX news commentators, who are lined up to defend him. The basic claim is that, while Paul was of course wrong to oppose civil rights legislation, it was an honest and “respectable” mistake. As Dave Weigel said, "Rand doesn't mean harm; he is suffering as the libertarian debate moves into prime time." Various Republicans have made arguments similar to Weigel's. It was a mere “theoretical” idea, they say, and nothing should be made of it. A staffer for Senator Jim DeMint, R-SC, calls the whole thing "a non-issue." Only old white guys would declare the whole civil rights thing as not important – Republican old white guys!

Now, fresh off his 24-hour news cycle disaster in which he questioned the basis for the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, Paul is taking his fringe libertarianism even further. Paul rejects the notion that the President of the United States should hold private corporations accountable for the havoc they wreck on our country, such as BP Oil and Massey Energy!

In Paul’s libertarian world, private companies and private property owners should be able to do as they please without federal interference. Apparently the concept of civil and criminal negligence is beyond Paul, because his response to the Gulf oil spill and the Massey Energy mining disaster was “sometimes accidents happen.”

Rand Paul is not ready for prime time. The far right-wing libertarian, tea party candidate for the U.S. Senate from Kentucky has immature, not-very-well-thought-out views. It's not just that he is saying stupid things because he is so committed to a purist stance. No, it's worse. Libertarianism itself is what is naïve here, not just Rand Paul. We should stop tip-toeing around this belief system as if its adherents are ancient revered nobles clinging to their proud ways. These are immature people hankering for the old Wild West where there were no rules.

It's time to stop taking libertarianism seriously. Ironically, the best way into this point comes from another brilliant libertarian, legal scholar Richard Epstein: "To be against Title II in 1964 would be to be brain-dead to the underlying realities of how this world works."

That’s the key: "the underlying realities of how the world works." Rand Paul’s views are not based in reality.

Most capitalist enterprise in this country has been ultimately underwritten by the government. This is true at an obvious level that even most libertarians would concede: for the system to work, you need some kind of bare bones apparatus for enforcing contracts and protecting property. Businesses are also often given tax breaks, city-built infrastructure, and other sweetheart deals just to locate in certain places. We could fill a library with the details of the underwriting from the states and the federal government enjoyed by American business.

Libertarians like Paul are walking around with the fanciful idea in their heads that the world could just snap back to a “natural” benign order if the government stopped interfering. For example, Paul thinks that we do not need Title II of the Civil Rights Acts because “good” people wouldn't shop at the racist stores, therefore there wouldn't be any racist stores. Yeah, right. He is living in never-never land with Peter Pan.

This is the belief system of people who have been the recipients of massive government backing for their entire lives. Although libertarians will never admit it, without the New Deal reforms of the 1930s, there might not be private property or private businesses left for them to complain about the government infringing on. Not many capitalist democracies could survive 20 to 25 percent unemployment like the United States did during the Great Depression without government help. It doesn't just happen by good luck. We have seen whole countries crumble when their government cannot or will not help.

Take a couple more recent examples:

Savvy health insurance executives were quite aware that if reform had failed, skyrocketing prices were likely to doom the whole system of private insurance and bring on single-payer.

Imagine the moment in, say, twenty years, when the evidence of climate change has become undeniable, and there’s an urgent crackdown on carbon-intensive industries. Then coal companies and agribusiness will be wishing they’d gotten on board with the mild, slow-moving reform that is cap-and-trade.

Do you get it? The government helped to make the "free market." It's also constantly trimming around the edges to keep it healthy. The state can think ahead and balance competing interests in a way that no single company can or cares to.

The libertarian who insists that the state has no place beyond basic night-watchman duties is like a teenager who, having been given a car, promptly thinks no rules should apply to him and starts demanding the right to stay out all night. Sometimes, someone else really is looking out for your best interests by saying no. (This isn't to say the state is looking out for the best interests of everybody, or even most people.)

The point is just that however much Glenn Beck might hyperventilate, the government does NOT want to destroy the free market. It wants to preserve it – and government does this job better than the market can on its own. That is why the best complaint about libertarians isn't that they are racist or selfish, although a good many of them are those things and their beliefs encourage both of these bad behaviors. It is that they are completely out of touch with reality.

Libertarianism is a worldview that prospers only as long as nobody actually tries it in government. But the adherents to libertarianism are too unreflective, self-absorbed, and immature to realize this. Maybe that is why so many of Ron and Rand Paul’s followers are the very right-leaning college students who don’t like it when their parents give advice or set rules.

Taken from: The lesson of Rand Paul: libertarianism is juvenile
By Gabriel Winant

The consequences of our thirst for oil

BP had told the US Government before they drilled the well that a spill of 165,000 barrels per day would not even reach land. They said they could handle it. The fact that the spill has reached land clearly shows that the size of the spill is probably well above 200,000 barrels per day. Yes, that's BARRELS, not gallons. There are 42 gallons per barrel, which means that over 8 million gallons of crude oil is pouring into the Gulf per day. Worse, most of it is not on the surface of the water, it is sinking to the floor – destroying the waters and seabed of the Gulf of Mexico. If that oil keeps flowing, if BP cannot stop the oil flow, it could eventually get caught in the Gulf Stream and carried to all oceans. This would destroy ocean life as we know it. The oceans are a critical factor in maintaining the proper oxygen level in the atmosphere for human life.

BP stepped over the edge

The BP platform was drilling for what they call “deep oil”. They went out beyond the shelf where the ocean is about 5,000 feet deep and then drilled another 30,000 feet into the crust of the earth. How deep is that? The US Navy Seawolf class of nuclear submarines can take no more than 2,300 feet of water before they’re crushed like a tin can. They hit a pocket of oil at such high pressure that it burst all of their safety valves (which we now know were defective) all the way up to the drilling rig and then caused the rig to explode and sink. Too deep for human intervention, the Deepwater Horizon well must be serviced by remote control robots.

The BP deep water oil well was right on the edge of what human technology can do – maybe over the edge. The deposit is so large that it is either the largest or the second largest oil deposit ever found. It is mostly natural gas. The central pressure in the deposit is 165 to 170 thousand PSI. Natural gas and oil is leaking out of the deposit as far inland as Central Alabama and way over into Florida and even over to Louisiana almost as far as Texas. This is a really massive deposit. Punching holes in the deposit is a really scary event as we are now seeing. In published reports, BP estimated a blow out could reach near 165,000 barrels per day but the current blow out has already surpassed this. It now covers a 25,000 square mile area.

In too big of a hurry

60 Minutes' Scott Pelley speaks to BP's Chief Electronics Technician Mike Williams, one of the survivors of the deadly Deepwater Horizon oil rig blast who was in a position to know what caused the disaster. Williams was in charge of the rig's computers and electrical systems. He said that the huge explosions before last month's sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig - leading to a massive oil slick threatening the Gulf of Mexico - came after BP ordered faster drilling.

When the rig was first drilling down in to the ocean floor for oil and gas, the bottom of the well split open and that well had to be abandoned. That move cost BP millions of dollars. With its drilling operations costing BP about $1 million a day and the extracting of oil behind schedule, a BP manager ordered a faster pace from the crew, meaning the drill would be going down in to the potentially explosive oil and gas faster. Then, according to Mr. Williams, four weeks before the explosion an accident on the rig damaged the most vital piece of safety equipment. It is a rubber gasket called an annular at the top of a blowout preventer that is meant to seal off the drill pipe in case of an emergency. However, when the crew did seal the pipe, a crew member accidentally applied hundreds of thousands of pounds of force, meaning chunks of rubber were discovered in the drilling fluid.

A volcano of oil erupting

Paul Noel*, an engineer with the U.S. Army, writes in Pure Energy Systems News:

“When the rig sank it flipped over and landed on top of the drill hole some 5,000 feet under the ocean. Now they have a hole in the ocean floor spewing 200,000 barrels of oil a day into the ocean. Take a moment and consider that!

“Here is what happens when oil hits the salt water. If it is poured on top of the sea, oil begins to do several things. First some of it dissolves in the salt water. This dissolving is a bit limited but amounts to several percent per day of the spill exposure to the ocean. As the oil dissolves, light components evaporate pretty quickly. Once these are gone the remaining oil is heavy fraction crude. This begins to sink into the water very slowly, eventually falling to the ocean bottom over about 6 weeks. Typically this floats into an area where the shoreline is and embeds about 18 inches deep in the sand. This buried oil is not harmless. Just because the beach might appear on the surface to be clear, the sub-surface oil continues its toxic work. It floats below the surface precisely where the little sea creatures live and goes on killing them for about 10 years.

“The reason a slick would carry farther than predicted is that the salt water is saturated with oil and the air around it is saturated, so the slick cannot dissipate. …In fact the chemicals added at the well head to disburse the oil, speed this process up. This oil is mixed into the water for the top 250 feet or so. Salinity and temperature issues probably keep this oil from ever reaching the very top of the water. The exact behavior here will not be known until studies are published some years from now. This is the first time humans have encountered a deep ocean leak of this magnitude. We're in uncharted territory here. Volume per volume, it is highly probable that due to this fractioning, this oil blowing into the ocean from a mile down is causing far more ecological trouble than a surface spill of similar size.”

It only takes one quart of motor oil to make 250,000 gallons of ocean water toxic to wildlife. If we cannot cap the hole, that oil is going to destroy much more than the Gulf of Mexico – with the Atlantic Ocean being the second body of water to be affected.

Are you starting to understand the magnitude of this problem?

Ocean scientists in the Gulf of Mexico have found giant plumes of oil coagulating at up to 4300 feet below the surface, raising fears that the BP oil spill may be larger than had been thought and that it might create huge "dead zones" in the Gulf. Experts from the National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology have been traversing the area around the scene of the Deepwater Horizon, the oil rig that exploded and sank on 20 April. Using the latest sampling techniques, they have identified plumes of an oil/dispersant/plankton mixture about 1 mile below the surface (a gooey mess) miles away from the Deepwater Horizon well that continues to spew oil into the water at a rate of around 200,000 barrels a day. The largest plume found so far was 300 feet deep, three miles wide, and 10 miles long.

BP succeeded on Sunday in its second attempt at inserting a new tube (basically a “straw”) into its damaged oil pipe that has been gushing oil from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico for three and a half weeks, according to BP and federal officials. The four-inch wide pipe was inserted into the leaking riser, from which the majority of the flow of oil is coming. Some of the leaking oil from the damaged well is being siphoned into barges and tankers floating on the surface of the sea. But nothing real has been done about the well itself. The oil pouring out of the opening in the crust of the earth remains completely out of control. It is like a volcano with a grave danger of a more massive eruption. Until the well is completely shut down and pressure fully relieved, the danger remains high.

There is another danger that has not been reported by BP, the government, or the news media. The removal of 2 cubic miles of oil from this huge deposit could be setting us up for a sea floor collapse – which in turn could cause earthquakes, tsunamis, and worse. The risk grows each passing day. One can only pray for the success of the teams dealing with the oil well catastrophe. Failure for BP is failure for our planet.

They better fix it fast because hurricane season is coming…. This could become a catastrophe of Biblical proportions, unless God steps in and fixes it. I don’t think He will. I think we will have to suffer the consequences of our actions – come what may.

If these consequences do not disturb you, then think about this: We are funding terrorism with every gallon of oil we buy from the Middle East. Yes, we need their oil to run our cars, to warm our homes, to make cosmetics, plastics, and medicines. But if we could run our cars and warm our homes on natural gas, then we could use our own oil for the cosmetics, plastics, and medicines. The problem is Big Oil has Congress and the government regulators in its pockets.

*Paul Noel, 52, works is an engineer for the US Army at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. He has a vast experience base including education across a wide area of technical skills and sciences. He supplies technical expertise in all areas required for new products development associated with the US Army. He supplies the army with extensive expertise in the oil and gas industry.

There is a better way

We all know that the illegal immigrants come to the United States because there are many business owners willing to hire them (for much less than minimum wage). We all know these farmers, poultry businesses, and building contractors hire illegal immigrants in order to get around paying an American worker minimum wage. These business owners deserve jail time for undermining our economy by not hiring Americans. If the illegal immigrants cannot get work in this country, many would go back home on their own volition.

Arizona’s new immigration law requires the police to demand proof of legal residency from any person with whom they have made “any lawful contact” and if they have “reasonable suspicion” that the person “is unlawfully present in the United States.” The phrase “lawful contact” seems to authorize the police to act only if they observe an undocumented-looking person actually committing a crime. But, no, this is not the case. Another section says, “A person is guilty of trespassing” by being “present on any public or private land in this state” while lacking authorization to be in the United States. So, if a person looks Hispanic, they had better have papers on them to prove citizenship. The intent, according to the State Legislature, is “attrition through enforcement.”

Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, a legislator from Tucson, has already called on the nation to protest the law by withholding its convention business. Such boycotts can be effective, as demonstrated in the late 1980s when the loss not only of convention business but of the Super Bowl prompted Arizona voters to change their mind and reinstate a Martin Luther King holiday in the state. This could happen again as the businesses of the state begin to lose money. The state’s population is already under water with their home mortgages. They can ill afford for the people of the United States to boycott their businesses.

Arizona is now being depicted as the official state of "racial profiling," with anti-Hispanic and anti-immigration labels swirling around it. But, to me, the passage of its bill to prevent the continued influx and presence of illegal immigrants in the State appears more like an act of desperation than racially motivated legislation. They are just tackling the problem from the wrong angle.

Supreme Court precedents make clear that immigration is a federal matter and that the Constitution does not authorize the states to conduct their own foreign policies. For example, in 1975, Texas passed a law to deprive undocumented immigrant children of a free public education. Many thousands of children – many of whom were on the road to eventual citizenship under immigration laws that were notably less harsh back then – faced being thrown out of school and deprived of a future. The law was challenged in federal court, with the Carter administration supporting the plaintiffs. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, Ronald Reagan was president, and there was a major push within his administration to change sides. Rex E. Lee, the solicitor general, refused to do so. By a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas law. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote for the majority that the constitutional guarantee of equal protection prohibited the state from imposing “a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status.” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., a Nixon appointee and the swing justice of his day, provided the fifth vote. He wrote that the law “threatens the creation of an underclass of future citizens and residents.”

Another example: Not too long ago the city of Hazleton, PA, passed a law that made it a crime for a landlord to rent an apartment to an undocumented immigrant. A federal judge struck down the law on the ground that immigration is the business of the federal government.

During a news conference, Attorney General Eric Holder gave the strongest indication yet that the administration will try to block Arizona's immigration law from taking effect. Holder said "the law is an unfortunate one that will be subject to potential abuse" and that the Justice Department is "considering a court challenge." Federal preemption would appear to be the most promising route for attacking the Arizona law. But I do not have confidence that the current Supreme Court will follow the constitution because the right-leaning majority often translates the constitution in support of businesses and state governments – against the rights of individuals.

Some Republicans are coming out against the law, too. Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) said he thinks Arizona's new immigration law is unconstitutional and that "it doesn't represent the best way forward" when it comes to addressing illegal immigration.

Wasn’t the system of checking a person’s papers to see if they are ‘legal’ one of the features of life in communist Soviet Union and apartheid South Africa?

There is a better way to handle the issue of illegal immigrants than to spend millions of dollars searching for them ‘by checking papers’: set up a nation-wide computerized system for documented immigrants and require business owners to check an immigrant’s legal status before hiring. It is time to upgrade out antiquated immigration service – bring it into the 21^st century with a computerized database. If the worker is not in the federal immigrant database, they do not get hired. And we should issue temporary work visas for migrant farmhands to pick crops – then they go back home. If the business owner or homeowner (who hires maids, gardeners, etc) knew they could pay steep fines and do jail time for hiring illegal immigrants, I bet they would be very reluctant to do so. In fact, I bet you would see currently unemployed American citizens get some of those jobs. We all know some unemployed Americans who would be happy to mow some yards, trim some landscaping, or clean someone's house to put food on the table.

Yes, there is a better way to solve the illegal immigrant problem. Enforce the law and put the employers in jail.

Spill, Baby, Spill

In the last presidential election, the idea of expanded domestic offshore oil and gas exploration seemed like a slam dunk to Republicans. And a few weeks ago, in order to hold out a carrot to Republicans to get them to sign on to his domestic energy agenda, Obama said that he would open up offshore drilling. Since the offer came from a Democratic president, we heard a deafening silence from the left. Outspoken opponents were a minority.

The horrific Gulf of Mexico oil spill has changed everything. Eleven lives were lost, and the environmental consequences are already dire. The potential for worse is frightening.

At a hearing yesterday in the House Energy & Commerce Committee about dependence on foreign oil, there was a lot of talk about reducing American dependence on oil imports. But where you might have expected lawmakers to make reference to offshore oil production, it was almost like the option never existed. A few members were focusing on containing the spill and preventing a coastal disaster – but most did not say a word.

The widening oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico will complicate the politics of offshore drilling. It looks like proposals to expand oil and natural gas production on the outer continental shelf will be shelved.

The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig and the estimated 210,000 gallons of oil gushing daily from an underwater well into Gulf of Mexico waters are providing fresh meat for congressional foes of offshore drilling. They have seized on the disaster as evidence that offshore drilling threatens the environment, human life, fishing industries and coastal states' tourism dollars. On the Senate floor, Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) hauled out photos of the Gulf oil spill, warning that a similar accident along the Atlantic Seaboard could be just as catastrophic:

"This is all happening as a result of a spill and a fire from the most technologically advanced rig in the world," Cardin said, challenging his party's President on the idea of new offshore drilling. "I urge my colleagues to take a look at what happened off the Gulf of Mexico."

Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) said, "The potential disaster looming in the Gulf of Mexico could devastate....economically crucial species such as snapper, grouper, red fish, mackerel, oysters, shrimp, crab, and wildlife populations and their habitats, as well as the tourism and recreational businesses that rely on the Gulf." Senator Shelby was one of those who believed in “Drill, baby, drill.” Now he is singing a different tune.

President Obama has already indicated that he views this spill as a warning about offshore drilling – that it is not as safe as he had been told it was. He is saying that this disaster will cause him to rethink offshore lease proposals and plans for expanded drilling.

The success of the massive recovery and containment mission now under way will influence the future of offshore drilling. It will depend on how bad this gets. If this drags out for months and oil starts affecting local businesses that rely on marine life, it is not just an issue of environmental costs. It also becomes an issue of economic costs.

If the spill stays offshore, the well gets plugged, and everything is fine, then it all goes away because Americans have a short memory. “Drill, baby, drill’ will once again become a slogan in 2012. If this spill turns into an environmental and economic disaster for Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, then new action in Congress on offshore drilling will be put on the back burner for a long time to come. And we will not hear “Drill, baby, drill” again.

Oh, and for those who insist that nuclear energy is safe because we now have “improved” automatic safeguards, here’s your proof that safeguards fail. The fail-safe system and back-up system on this rig both failed. There was no acoustic shutoff valve installed. The WSJ reports that the Minerals section of the Department of Interior recommended that the acoustic shutoff valves not be required on deep-water rigs because they’re too expensive. What? This nightmare is cheaper?

Now the new slogan is “Spill, baby, spill.”

Words do hurt

Retrieve personal memories of growing up and you will know without a doubt, words did hurt and still do. As children, many of us were emotionally injured when another kid poked fun at us. If an adult, particularly a parent, made fun or criticized us when we tried to do something, it was even worse – we were devastated.

As sharp words continued to be aimed our way during childhood, what did we do to survive the injuries? In order to save ourselves from being severely and emotionally wounded, we abandoned the things we liked, ignored the desire to try new things, and did only what we imagined other people, especially our parents, would approve in order to avoid risking the humiliation and embarrassment triggered by the nasty words of others.

In trying to act as if their harsh words did not faze us, we became adept at denying or ignoring our hurt feelings. Yet, if the criticism was constant, we became more than hurt – we became emotionally crippled on the inside in a way that affects our decision-making and relationships throughout life. According to Oprah Winfrey, an old-fashioned phrase we are all familiar with should be rewritten to read, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will diminish my self-esteem and infect me with the disease to please."

Whether you are on the sending end or receiving end of hurtful words, it is time, as an adult, to focus on improving your personal standards. First, strengthen your psychological boundaries (how you let other people treat you). Second, consider the way you treat other people. You should not do one without the other.

This is something that I am trying to internalize: When setting personal boundaries, speak up before you become angry with the sender over their verbal message and what they are saying. You might respond to the sender by saying: "Wow! That sounded like an insult. How about rephrasing it so we can continue this conversation?" Remember to give no argument, no challenge, and no charge in your voice when you speak. You must stand your ground and insist that that digs and cracks, no matter how subtle, are just not okay with you. If the person lets the hurtful statement stand, then stop the conversation and walk away – even if the person is your parent!

In order to set standards for your own behavior, it will be crucial for you to become aware of your impact on others. Pay attention to how your words and actions affect others. Empathize, by giving some thought to what you are going to say; listen to and watch other people as they respond to you. When an individual feels insulted by a statement you make, do not react in anger. Stop, count to 10, calm down, reflect, and respond. Your response may include a statement denying your intention to insult: "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult you – what I really wanted to say is...." Stay focused on your ultimate intent – to communicate without hurting.

Statements that imply the listener is wrong, such as "I'm sorry you feel that way." or "Stop being so sensitive!" or even, "Get over it," lack responsibility and maturity. These types of people are not being responsible for their own behavior, often trying to place the blame for their foul statements on you, their victim. Their statements will only serve to intensify the problem or conflict – and cause you further pain.

And absolutely do not allow anyone to say hurtful things to you. Let them know that their statement sounded like an insult, and if the person does not stop being negative, walk away. Leave the premises if necessary.

Words do hurt, often permanently, so protect yourself.

The “No You Can't” scream by John Boehner

I'm a politically moderate (slightly left-leaning) Christian who believes that government should provide some socialist programs such as Medicare and Social Security for the elderly. I also believe that government should make sure that all citizens receive healthcare. It is a God-given right – not just a privilege.

If you are truly a follower of Christ, you know he taught nothing like the ideas that the rightwing believes in: like not providing services to the poor, increasing the income inequality gap by giving the most tax cuts to the top 2%, lessening banking regulations and allowing banks to run rampant on the average fiscally undereducated citizens, not giving healthcare for people who can't afford it, hating undocumented workers, exploiting children in foreign countries economically and socially for their goods and services, supporting child slavery through money sent across the globe to get things done your way, strapping guns on to intimidate, or torturing anyone.

Jesus taught just the opposite.

If you are truly Christian, be still and listen to the voice of Jesus preaching love for God and love for all your neighbors – including those whom you dislike. Read and soak in the Sermon on the Mount with the Beatitudes. Stop listening to rightwing politicians tell you that God is on their side. They are lying.

A viral video, based on Will.i.am's "Yes We Can" from the 2008 primaries, was inevitable. It was edited to include Minority Leader Boehner screaming, “Hell, no you can’t!”

I'm not sure anyone needs to write or create anything further about American politics in 2010. This pretty much says it all.

New Will.i.am video: http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=5158255

And here is the wonderful 2008 Will.i.am video for your pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

YES, WE CAN!

It's a done deal

Barack Obama scored a big victory, both in terms of policy and politics. Wanting to get some Republicans on board, Democrats spent the last year crafting a bill that Republicans – or at least large numbers of them – should love. It is built on a series of principles that Republicans espoused for years. Republicans have said that they do not want to destroy the private insurance market. The new healthcare reform law not only preserves that market but strengthens it by bringing in millions of new customers.

Regardless of what they say on the talk shows, Republicans know that the plan does not call for a government "takeover" of health care. It provides subsidies so more people can buy private insurance. Republicans always say they are against "socialized medicine". Well, this bill is far from socialized medicine. It is nothing like a "single-payer" health system along Canadian or British lines. It does not even include the "public option" that would have allowed people voluntarily to buy their insurance from the government which, in turn, would have given insurance companies competition and force them to keep their costs down. (I predict that Congress will have to revisit the issue relatively soon to address the rising increase of health insurance premiums.)

Republican leaders, who have only thought of getting back power ever since the Democrats won their majority, think that they have just been handed a heavy political poll-studded cudgel with which to hammer Democrats in the fall, but they better think again. Moderate Republican David Frum's “GOP Waterloo” theory is getting a lot of buzz. He says that the healthcare bill is Republicans’ and conservative Democrats’ most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s – not only for reasons of politics, but because healthcare reform will be an enduring policy. The bill will not get repealed, but when Republicans take power again, they will likely tweak it – tinker around the corners of it. Maybe they will add tort reform, or purchasing across state lines, or change how it's funded. But now that healthcare reform has been signed, the future holds healthcare reform, not repeal.

Frum wrote:

“At the beginning of this process we [Republicans] made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. [Republicans believed] this would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s Waterloo in 1994. Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure. This time, when we [Republicans] went for all the marbles, we ended with none.”

There is little question that the new Affordable Care Act, the lawsuits against it (both credible and talking points-based), and the Republican "repeal" movement will keep the Tea Party activists energized and engaged. Off-year elections are about mobilizing the party base. Independents remain the key voting group in politics.

Frum also wrote:

“When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to Limbaugh’s show much less – then he gets less money.

“So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them ‘It’s mission accomplished’. For the cause they purport to represent: ‘It’s Waterloo all right: ours [meaning Republicans].’ ”

It didn't take long – and the GOP knew it, which is why they fought so hard against HCR passing – new poll numbers show a positive shift in opinions toward the Democrats. These numbers suggest that running on a promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act or shift healthcare policy to the right is not much of a winning strategy. Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday. A poll by USA Today/Gallup finds a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it. By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry." The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care. An additional 4% also have a favorable view, saying the bill makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system. Bonus stat: President's approval rating on health care 46%; GOP approval rating on health care 26%.

In a CNN poll, a question shows that 51 percent of the public trust Obama versus 39 percent who trust Congressional Republicans. Similarly, another question shows that 45 percent trust the Democrats versus only 39 percent who trust the Republicans.

All these numbers suggests that running on a promise to repeal the Healthcare Act will not work in favor of the Republicans. (I hope they do not realize this until it is too late.) The Party of No is losing. As it is, however, the lock-step march of the Republicans in radical resistance to even the most modest proposals to heal a deeply ailing nation leaves the Democrats as the only party that matters. The Republicans are a party of incoherent rage, and while they might temporarily succeed as demagogues, they are now acknowledged strangers to fact and logic – not to mention compassion.

Now that the bill has actually passed, independents will begin to forget the ugly process and start focusing more on the substance – the goodies they get from the bill. Talk of death panels, deem and pass, and reconciliation will fade away. Every news outlet in the country already has stories and charts showing people what they get under the new law. Once the public realizes the goodies they get, Republican candidates – and conservative Democrats – will not want to insist on repealing the bill – which would be the same thing as insisting that children be kept off of health insurance once again because they have a pre-existing condition, or that a sick person can be kicked out of their insurance plan, or that small businesses should not get the 35% tax credits to help pay for their employees' health insurance. Even if Republicans scored a 1994-style landslide in November, how many votes could they muster to re-open the 'doughnut hole' and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes would it take to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes could they get to banish 25-year-olds from their parents' insurance coverage? Who really wants to repeal the ban on annual and lifetime insurance payment limits?

The seniors will be really happy that the donut hole for their drug coverage is closing, although they do lose the overpriced upper-end Advantage C Medicare plans for which Medicare, through taxpayers, pay private insurance companies more than if the seniors stayed with regular Medicare. This will extend Medicare's solvency for 10 more years beyond the previously predicted date.

By November, David Frum argues, "the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs" – and they are going to love what they have. Even if the Affordable Care Act moves from unpopular to merely neutral, Tea Party-driven mania for repeal will be out of sync with the majority of the public, especially if Democrats are focusing their public conversation on jobs.

Word is already getting out about how the deficit will be REDUCED by 1.3 trillion dollars during the first 20 years the reform plan is in effect. Can you guess what happens to the GOP when the public begins to understand and enjoy the goodies in the bill? Soon the public will be shouting: “Keep your hands off my Obamacare!” This could actually turn into a Republican Waterloo, especially if the economy begins to turn around for Main Street.

Healthcare reform is a done deal.

Is Congress Sick?

Is Congress Sick?
Needed: A Transfusion of Democracy

The institution of Congress must undergo changes if it is to resume its role of leadership envisioned by the founding fathers.

Let's take a look at the machinery of Congress and see why it is faltering.
Ideally, Congress should meet, organize promptly, debate all major matters fairly and efficiently and adjourn in June or July. Why doesn't this happen? There is no easy diagnosis and there are no easy answers because the machinery of Congress is extremely complicated. Congressional junkets and outrageous personal conduct deserve and get publicity and should be condemned. But these are relatively rare. They occur in industry and in state and local governments too. As wrong and outrageous as these actions are the fact is that these things have little to do with the failure of Congress as an institution. The trouble is the machinery which gives every advantage to those who say "no" over those who say "yes"; to those who want deadlock over those who want issues resolved; to those who want delay over those who want action now. Here are a few of the more paralyzing factors

SENORITY SYSTEM
Every aspect of Congress's work is affected by a rigid, unbending, all-pervasive seniority system which (a) gives a few men great national power with no national responsibility, and (b) selects key congressional leaders on a basis which excludes any consideration of ability. The committee member who (regardless of ability) has served 20 years is not just 5 per cent more powerful than the member who has served 19 years. If the former is chairman of a committee he is 1000 per cent more powerful. New members are told that there is no alternative to this practice, that a change would cause chaos, that "to get along, you must go along." Yet there is no other democratic body in the free world (and I include 50 state legislatures) which operate thusly.

The seniority system was not devised in Independence Hall for it was unheard of until about 50 years ago. Henry Clay, for example, was elected Speaker and Committee Chairman the day he took his oath as a member. While the founding fathers intended government power to be dispersed and divided, I think they would be shocked at the way Congress has re-fragmented that block of power it was intended to have. The Speaker of the House, with heavy responsibility, has relatively little power. The major committee chairmen between them have much more--and the power they exercise affects the entire country--not just their small congressional districts. Yet, so long as 400,000 people in a particular congressional district re-elect a chairman to Congress, he holds his position of national power. The people of Southern Arizona who can speak in the House only through me have no say in who shall exercise this power. To get the 20 years of seniority it takes to become a major chairman, a congressman--whether a Democrat or Republican--must represent a "safe" one-party district. Many, but far from all, of the present chairmen are of exceptional ability and would be leaders under any system. But, able or not, each one exercises immense power on crucial national matters without any direct or indirect responsibility to a national constituency.

No city council, no school board, no great corporation, no bank would canvass its personnel roster for the very oldest man in point of service and arbitrarily without exception make him city manager, school superintendent or company president. In the worlds of local government, education, industry and finance we seek out and promote the brilliant leaders, either young or old. In Congress we discourage able younger men and create a system in which consecutive years of tenure are everything and ability, diligence, leadership potential, responsibility count for nothing.

Let us pose an example which will make clear the ignominy of the present system: If ex-President Eisenhower were to seek election to the House (as did ex-President John Quincy Adams), and if he were assigned to the Armed Services Committee--this great general would irrevocably go to the bottom of the list. He would ask his question of witnesses, give his advice, or serve as chairman, only after every present member was through.

REPETITIOUS COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Congressional committees in their own field of jurisdiction are almost all-powerful separate legislatures. They are jealous of their prerogatives and share power reluctantly. Thus we often have four or more separate and complete hearings on the same piece of legislation, instead of one combined, complete investigation. Thus a bill to build a dam must go its long and tortuous course through House Public Works Committee, Senate Public Works, and then through Senate and House Appropriations Committees with the same witnesses giving the same testimony each of the four times. Many key administrators and cabinet members spend the majority of their time answering questions they have already been asked by three other committees of the Congress.

THE HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE AND THE SENATE'S UNLIMITED DEBATE
The House and Senate are separate bodies with separate traditions and rules of procedure. The main paralysis in the House is the House Rules Committee; the Senate's special cross is unlimited debate.

House members are unable to vote on any major bill until and unless eight senior Members of this group, in their unrestricted wisdom, see fit to grant us this right. We are told that chaos would result if the Speaker could simply call up important bills for debate. Yet the Senate Rules Committee has no such power. What the House Rules Committee does to stagnate the operations of the House is done for the Senate by the filibuster. Restless junior senators are told that the Republic would fall if any time limit were fixed for debate. Yet the House debated the tax cut bill last September for just eight hours and all was said that needed saying.

Thus what is assertedly vital to the Republic in the Senate (unlimited debate) is unimportant to the House; what supposedly saves the country in the House (Rules Committee control) is unheard of in the Senate.

MUCH TIME IS WASTED
The House rarely legislates on Monday or Friday because of the tradition of the "Tuesday to Thursday Club." This phrase describes the practice of some Eastern and Southern congressmen, many of whom retain active law practices and business interests at home. Many of them arrive for the week's business on the early plane Tuesday. By Thursday night they are ready to depart. Important votes can be scheduled only for the three middle days of the week. This not only drags the sessions into late fall, but throws an unduly heavy load of committee work on western, midwestern and more distant southern members who cannot afford to commute.

THE BURDEN OF NON-LEGISLATIVE DUTIES
A congressman's primary job is to legislate. Yet our society and government are so complex that we spend less than a third of our time on legislative matters. A congressman is not only a legislator: he is an employment agent, passport finder, constituent greeter, tourist agent, getter-out-of-the-armed-services, veterans affairs adjuster, public buildings dedicator, industrial development specialist, postmaster appointer, party leader, bill finder, newsletter writer, etc. etc. etc. His typical day will be far more concerned with these problems than with national defense, foreign aid or appropriations for public works.
Given the nature of our political and governmental system, and the sincere and genuine problems which constituents have with a big and sprawling government, much of this is inevitable. An adequate congressional staff, and proper organization of his office, will enable the conscientious member to give enough time to legislation, but controversies over who is to be postmaster at Apache Junction and increasing demands for other non-legislative work are a big part of our problem.

A DETERMINED PUBLIC CAN BRING REFORM
Perhaps all of this may only reflect the frustrations of a junior Member of Congress for, in spite of Congress the Republic seems to prosper and continue. Old timers always comfort us with the crack that, "The seniority system is bad, but the longer you're here the better you'll like it!" But I am not convinced. I strongly feel that the Congress is in trouble. It worships old procedures and uses worn out machinery in an unsuccessful attempt to attend the business of a huge, jet-age nation.

The hard fact is that the engine is badly worn out and must be overhauled into something suitable to our complicated and fast-moving civilization.
Even those congressmen who agree that Congress needs improvement throw up their hands in doubt that significant changes can really be brought about. I don't agree. Arizona judges and lawyers undertook a largely successful effort to modernize the judicial procedures which had clogged the machinery of our courts. I played a part in that movement and know how difficult such efforts are. But something similar is needed in Congress.

Congress will never reform itself through internal pressures alone. Such a movement must come from and be supported by influential citizen groups and ordinary citizens. All Americans who believe in a healthy, functioning democracy should get interested in and aroused by the vital issue of congressional reform.

A noted Republican, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, writing in 1889, made a comment which is still appropriate today:

"The people of this country are, as it seems to me, thoroughly tired of the stagnation of business and the general inaction of Congress. They are disgusted to see year after year go by and great measures affecting the business and political interests of the country accumulate at the doors of Congress and never reach the stage of action.

"They have also waked up to the fact that this impotence and stagnation are due to the preposterous fabric known as the rules of the House, and they are prepared to support heartily that party and those leaders who will break down these rules and allow the current of legislation to flow in its natural channel and at its proper rate."

The parliament of the world's greatest democracy is not a democratic institution.

Written by Morris K. Udall
1964

Mo Udall served as a U.S. Representative from Arizona from May 2, 1961 to May 4, 1991.

Taken from: http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/udall/congrept/88th/640221.html

Bunning’s blockade

On Tuesday night, senators finally approved a bill extending unemployment benefits, highway funding, and other federal programs after Senator Jim Bunning dropped his days-long “hold” on the bill. The Senate approved the measure 78 to 19 (that means it was bipartisan).

During the Bunning “hold” on a bill that would have provided a short-term extension for federal funding programs that expired March 1, the federal government was forced to furlough workers (without pay), while hundreds of thousands of jobless Americans braced for an end to their unemployment checks and health insurance benefits, and doctors saw fees for treating Medicare patients decline by 21%.

Senator Jim Bunning's "unilateral decision to block an extension of federally funded unemployment benefits and other popular provisions…united Democrats and sent Republicans hiding from the political backlash," Politico reports. "Making matters worse for the GOP: Bunning is opposing the $10 billion aid package on the grounds that it isn't paid for – effectively forcing his Republican colleagues to join him or risk undercutting their own efforts to make Democrats' deficit spending a centerpiece of their 2010 campaign."

Bunning did not have much support, even in his own party. Most of the Republicans ran for the hills. Republican Senator Susan Collins asked Bunning to stop what he was doing. One Republican, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, showed support for Bunning by arguing that unemployment benefits dissuade people from job hunting "because people are being paid even though they're not working." (Yeah, we know that you people who have lost your jobs are just taking a vacation on the government dole. Get off your fat, lazy b*tts and find a job!) Kyl makes this statement while the nation faces chronic unemployment levels unlike anything we have seen since The Great Depression.

This issue could not show the contrast between Democrats and Republicans any clearer. Democrats are working to put money in the pocket of the unemployed to help them feed their families while they are looking for jobs, while Republicans are trying to block that money and calling those who are relying on benefits lazy. The idea that those who have lost their jobs in this Wall Street/mortgage-scam recession are simply deadbeats, choosing to stay on unemployment rather than look for work, seems more appropriate to Scrooge's attitude.

The results of Kentucky Republican Senator Bunning’s action spread far beyond unemployment benefits.Kentucky could have been deeply affected by Congress' failure to extend the current transportation bill, which will halt nearly $1 billion in federal reimbursements to states each week, according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. To be considered at a March 26 bid letting, five construction projects in Henry, Fleming and Lincoln counties must be advertised on the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet's Web site by Friday, said Chuck Wolfe, a cabinet spokesman. The projects include two bridge replacements. Without federal authorization by the end of the week, “they would have to be withdrawn from the March letting,” Wolfe said.

How many other states would have had the exact same problem due to Bunning’s blockade?

There’s more:

Bunning's objection also resulted in the expiration Sunday of a provision that would have stopped a 21 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements to doctors. That drew fire from American Medical Association J. James Rohack, who said seniors are “collateral damage” to Bunning’s procedural games in the Senate. Physicians are outraged because the cut, combined with the continued instability in the system, will force them to make difficult practice changes including limiting the number of Medicare patients they can treat. AMA suggested that doctors sit on their bills for a couple of weeks until the issue is cleared up.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood: “In addition to the dismay of these American workers, we must add the disruption of key safety programs. Programs like “Drunk Driving: over the limit, under arrest” campaign, our current work against distracted driving, and our work promoting child passenger safety and motorcycle safety. These are programs that work to change driving practices that kill 37,000 Americans every year.”

Yet another provision that expired Sunday because Congress did not act in a timely manner allowed satellite television transmissions to certain rural areas.

Also the loan program for small businesses (small businesses are vital to the U.S. economy – employing half of all American workers) were put on hold, an extension to the COBRA health insurance subsidy for people who have lost their jobs expired, and an extension to the National Flood Insurance Program authorization expired.

If Congress had not acted, the U.S. Department of Labor estimates that 4,300 Kentuckians and 8,000 New Yorkers would lose unemployment benefits in the coming days. By June, about 60,000 Kentuckians would lose on benefits prematurely, according to an analysis by the National Employment Law Project, which advocates a broad extension of benefits. Multiply that by 50 states. According to research from the National Employment Law Project, nearly 1.2 million unemployed workers were poised to lose jobless benefits, and with highway projects stopped, as many as 90,000 jobs could have been lost.

Sen. Bunning claims held up this emergency legislation because of the bill’s cost and the fact that it is not being paid for up front (an estimated $10 billion over the next 10 years), yet he voted YES on:

· the 2001 Bush Tax Cuts – Increases Deficit by $1.35 Trillion over 10 years
· the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts – Increases Deficit by $349.7 Billion over 10 years
· the GOP’s 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Bill – Increases Deficit by $395 Billion over 10 years

These three Republican bills alone added nearly $2 trillion to the deficit!

In this particular case, I have a tendency to agree with Cheney when he said, “Deficits don’t matter.” Actually, deficits do matter very much, but in a time of deep recession with very high unemployment, the government has to spend to keep the economy from going straight down the tubes. When the economy, including unemployment, improves, then you begin to bring down the deficit.

Why is all this so important since Bunning finally relented and the problem was solved?

Bunning is the perfect example on problems with Senate procedures, specifically overuse of the "hold" and the filibuster. With Bunning as their poster child, is this the moment when Senate Democrats finally start to move forward on reforming Senate procedures and perhaps start moving Congress forward again?

An enormous gift has been handed to Democrats on a silver platter. This one is so easy to paint as Democrats being on the side of the angels, fighting off Republican demons. The talking points just write themselves. Democrats should compare Bunning to the Clinton/Gingrich showdown every chance they get. They could say how indignant they were over the plight of the unemployed whose checks could have permanently stop because one Republican senator did not get his way. They should publicly ask Republicans if this is what they mean by "deficit reduction" and "fiscal responsibility" – holding over a million families' immediate financial future hostage in a senatorial snit. Democrats should decry "parliamentary tricks" that let one single senator anonymously hold up any legislation they feel like.

There is a very basic lesson here, one that Democrats just never seem to learn. The lesson is: Republicans have no shame about pushing Congressional rules to the limit and beyond. They also have no fear of any political consequences whatsoever, because Democrats never call them on it in any meaningful way. Republicans do not even think twice about doing this stuff, because Democrats seem fundamentally incapable of playing hardball – even when Republicans taunt Democrats and dare them to do so.

If handled correctly, this could be a watershed moment for Democrats – a way to show who really cares about the American public and who does not. Remember, Newt Gingrich went so far as to shut the entire federal government down, because he thought he would emerge from the fray with a political victory. He did not, and Clinton did. But the only reason that happened is because of public opinion. And public opinion is a pump that needs priming. The next few days will show whether Democrats are even capable of doing so, because the Republicans have just served up a golden opportunity on a silver platter. Opportunity is not just knocking; it has in fact broken down the Democrats' front door with a sledgehammer, and is now bashing them about the ears in a whirling frenzy of opportunity.

Here's the "kicker" which should prove irresistible: while speaking on the floor of the Senate, Bunning's response to Democrats upset with his actions was, "Tough sh*t!" If the Dems cannot make political hay out of that one, they simply should not be in the field of politics in the first place. "Bunning says tough 'sh*t' to the unemployed!" How hard is that? Get out there in front of the cameras and say so!

Okay, Dems, repeat after me: Republican obstructionism; Party of No.

Here are your talking points: Republicans do not care about you. Republicans do not care about the unemployed. Republicans do not care about families going bankrupt due to losing jobs or due to illness. Republicans are more interested in playing politics than doing what is right for this country. People's lives are at stake, but Republicans do not care.

Every chance they get over the next few days Democrats should be loudly denouncing Bunning's move. Bring it up no matter what the subject – you can always tie it into "Congressional gridlock" or "Republican obstructionism" or "this is why nothing gets done in Washington."

To put it an even more colorful way, the Republicans are collectively bent over in front of the Democrats with a giant "KICK ME!" sign painted on the metaphorical GOP backside, all the while screaming: "I dare you to do it!" at the tops of their lungs. All that is required is for Democrats to summon the energy to lift their collective foot a few feet off the floor and do so. Come on Dems, if you blow this one, you deserve to lose Congress next fall! Show some spunk!

On, no, please, don’t blow it…

SIGH…


See McClatchy news article, “Who really gets hurt when GOP's Bunning blocks this bill?” http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/01/89610/gops-bunning-told-off-senators.html