Archive for September, 2009

Robert Teitelman: The search for normalcy

The papers Tuesday seem to disagree about exactly where we are. The New York Times, led off by Andrew Ross Sorkin’s front-page column declaring M&A and optimism back, and buttressed by the business section’s pumping for Dow 10,000, jostles uneasily with the Financial Times, where John Authers worries in The Short View about money managers getting into the market just to join the crowd and Pimco’s CEO Mohamed El-Erian warns that we’ve hardly started the recovery and that there’s considerable pain ahead. “The signs,” murmurs El-Erian with Greenspanian opacity, “of inappropriate reversion are multiplying.” As for The Wall Street Journal, it plays it cool. For all the happy talk about M&A, the WSJ story’s key quote comes from Rob Kindler at Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS): “It’s still too early to call the bottom of the M&A market. I would not be surprised if we continue to have this low level of M&A for the next three to six months.”

In fact, the uplift camp finds itself in a trap. The more they talk up M&A, the higher stock prices go — almost the definition of a rally built on squishy ground.

The situation was pretty accurately summed up in the new BusinessWeek whose cover story, by Roben Farzad, described two camps battling for hearts and minds. On one hand, there’s the gang arguing that last year’s crisis created a deleveraged, rebalanced “new normal” that we haven’t yet begun to cope with. Who pops up as a proponent of this new normal, but El-Erian, which makes you wonder whether he and his similarly gloomy boss at Pimco, William Gross, are talking up their own book. On the other side, there are the “old normalists” who believe we’re about to bounce back to our former levels like tackling dummies. The crisis was an anomaly of sorts, temporarily knocking a robust economy off its stride. We’re not about to fundamentally change. We are who we are, and that’s pretty decent. (These attitudes have a real effect on political issues like regulatory reform and even Federal Reserve interest rate policy.)

Give BusinessWeek credit for more than just getting issues out in the midst of selling itself: The magazine has enough sense to note that the real question here is the squirrelly definition of “normal.” This is the same magazine, alas, that late last year was saying that given the crisis we had to retrospectively shrink all those inflated growth figures from the previous boom, suggesting, in other words, that it had a “new normal,” and it was late 2008. These two perspectives obviously sit uneasily with each other, but hey, it’s the magazine business. The idea of “normal” suggests that there is a kind of optimal capacity or efficiency in the economy that is then accurately mirrored (or not) in various metrics, from M&A to stock prices to unemployment. In other words, “normal” suggests a point of equilibrium, theoretical or real, that like a Platonic ideal exists at any given duration in time, from a day to a year to a century. For true believers, this “normal” can accrue political, moral, even religious meaning. We will always reach value, truth and beauty if we just wait long enough; this is comforting, but it’s a little like getting to determine when a football game ends.

Various observers take very different views of “normal.” Some believe that “normal” exists as a deep, inherent attribute of the economy, linked somehow to culture or demographics or God, which suggests that we can try to emulate “normals” that existed, say, in the 1960s — or at least ransack through history trying to find “normals” we like. Others view “normal” as more dynamic. In the FT, El-Erian predicts “it will take years for unemployment to return to its natural rate, even after the natural rate shifts upward.” That shifting natural rate is a rough approximation of normal.

But there’s another view of “normal” that has come out of the crisis stronger than ever: that “normal” doesn’t exist at all, that the belief in market equilibrium is part of the kit bag of ideas, including the efficient market and rational expectations, which have been effectively undermined. Authers in the FT goes into those arguments in a clear-minded survey Tuesday. The trouble, as Authers recognizes, is that there’s nothing to replace the solid base, the certainty that the efficient market, with its underlying belief in normal equilibriums, could provide. Investing is a human endeavor. And money management is both a social and a bureaucratic enterprise pursued by mortal, anxiety-prone, not-always-prescient folks. Investors, from Aunt Mary to CalPERS, need some method that makes sense (or that at least is socially validated, the more the better, which explains the power of crowds) and some metric that feels “normal.” Without it, the whole enterprise, from money management to M&A, feels like a total roll of the dice.

We live by fictions; and we seek refuge in crowds. The next best thing to being right is to be wrong with everyone else. And the crowd, as we should know very well by now, has immense power to resist whatever reality — whatever “normal” — lurks out there, sometimes for a very long time. Perhaps (this is an old Bush administration mantra) that underlying reality of “facts” can be reshaped entirely by whatever conventional wisdom is being peddled, and that if we can just achieve enough momentum, we can actually pull off Larry Summers’ takeoff. Put that way, the current tug of war is occurring between those who believe in “facts” and those who simply believe in the trend. Caution is probably in order. We may not have changed fundamentally since last year, but we’re not quite the same either. The one thing that’s certain here is that there’s no certainty at all. – Robert Teitelman

Robert Teitelman is the editor in chief of The Deal.

Roberto Lovato: This is About CNN: Anti-Dobbs Movement Not Just Targeting Dobbs

As the movement calling for his ouster from CNN continues to surge, Lou Dobbs is fighting back–and fumbling. Instead of responding to legitimate concerns about his anti-Latino fear-mongering, Dobbs expressed himself in a manner resembling that of the extremists he promotes on his show: with lies, angry outbursts and juvenile name calling. He even went so far as to call yours truly a “flea” and a “bozo.”

I could respond to Dobbs invitation to ride the downward spiral of personal insults, but won’t. With hate crimes against Latinos on the rise, this fight is too serious for playground tactics. I won’t join Dobbs in an insult exchange for the simple fact that this cause isn’t about me, it’s about the thousands of Latinos and their allies saying ¡Basta!–enough negative portrayals in the media! And, in a deeper sense, our cause isn’t really even about Lou Dobbs–it’s about the network that has made him a household name: CNN.

We’re taking our fight to CNN because we know Dobbs won’t change. For years, Latinos and others throughout the United States have organized protests and press conferences denouncing Dobbs’ dangerous rhetoric. Think tanks and countless journalists have produced reports documenting the falsehoods and fakery that pass for “news” on Dobbs’ show. Yet, all we get from Dobbs are half-hearted apologies, lame excuses and more of the same. Our movement, housed at BastaDobbs.com, is exerting the same kind of pubic pressure that forced networks to drop disgraced radio jock Don Imus and other media personalities for their inappropriate behavior on the air. Lou Dobbs has a national, prime time platform because CNN and its President, Jon Klein give it to him. And throughout the Latino United States, people are demanding accountability for that decision.

I know this because, for the past two months, I have been talking to people and groups throughout the country. Just last week in D.C.- the same city where Dobbs recently attended a rally sponsored by the anti-immigrant hate group FAIR- a Salvadoran immigrant woman attending a forum on immigration walked up to me with eyes bubbling in anger. She said: “He [Dobbs] is helping those groups that hate and hurt us” and asked, “Why does CNN allow this? We must stop this.” I’m encountering this same question in cities across the country and throughout the internet.

Dobbs and CNN are also bringing unprecedented alignment and agreement among Latinos of all strata. For example, 70% of those participating in a survey of 100 major Latino leaders – a survey released last week and which includes members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies and other national leaders- believe that organizing a campaign targeting Dobbs is “a good idea.”

While our focus on CNN means we won’t join in Dobbs’ personal attacks, we have taken note of his recent comments on his radio show. Referring to Basta Dobbs.com he said last week, “they are no more Latino than anyone …” I think the members of our coalition would be surprised to hear that they and their members are “no more Latino than anyone.” Dobbs sudden interest in speaking not just against but for Latinos caught the attention of many of us–as does CNN’s sudden business interest in Latinos.

CNN’s moves to capture a segment of the “mission critical” Latino market are no secret. Latinos understand why we’re seeing more of Rick Sanchez and other Latinos on CNN. And we are cautiously optimistic about how CNN will treat us in its upcoming Latino in America series. But to watch sunny Soledad Obrien singing the praises of Latino contributors to American society, while just a time slot away the dark and ever- dour Lou Dobbs continues infecting the airwaves with deadly misinformation about “criminal illegal aliens” is just too much hypocrisy for us. Regardless of CNN’s big money efforts to target Latino viewers, the continuation of Dobbs’ program guarantees that, for Latinos, the name “CNN” is synonymous with “anti-Latino hatred.”

Viewed from this perspective, Rick Sanchez’s recent claim that Latinos working at the more openly biased Fox News were “sellouts” raises questions about what kind of house Sanchez thinks he lives in. At least Fox host Geraldo Rivera has had the cojones to say that “Lou Dobbs has done more to slander Latin people in this country than any other human being.” Will CNN Latin@s like Soledad O’Brien and Sanchez join their community in asking why their employer continues to prop up the Most Dangerous Man for Latinos in America?

These questions are incredibly important. But don’t just take it from me. In the coming days and weeks I will share the stories of people I meet as I travel from city to city, listening to Latinos in America who are deeply concerned about Lou Dobbs, and educating them about the importance of taking a collective stand through campaigns like BastaDobbs.com. You see, underlying CNN’s desire to capture Latino audiences–our large and growing numbers–is the same reason they must heed our call to dump Dobbs from their network.

Charles D. Ellison: Eulogy for Mom …

Legendary American writer James Baldwin once wrote a rather simple, yet complex maxim on the issue of life. “Trust life,” he said “and it will teach you, in joy and in sorrow, all you need to know.”

“Joy” and “sorrow” appear as two essential elements in Baldwin writings. Every Baldwin character has a special mix of his or her own issues, but the constant is joy and sorrow. I mention this because of Mom’s appreciation for great literature and great characters. She often observed that the more complicated the characters, the much deeper the storyline. It wasn’t that she felt sudden urges to probe into the lives and problems of other people. It was gratitude for the authors investing energy into the lives created, taking time to mold, shape, reshape, remix and guide them. She felt that showed care and a profound sense of empathy. And she appreciated that since she related to many of those characters in a very intense and intimate way.

Whenever I’ve thought about Baldwin’s take on life, I’ve always – for varied reasons – thought about my mother and the joy and sorrow that defined her life. That sentence is synonymous with the late Patricia J. Ellison, and in it we understand everything about her.

Her life was an enduring, ceaseless quest for solitude, peace and simplicity. Amid the complexities, the turmoil, the hustle, the fast pace and conflict that typically devour every routine, Mom managed to maintain a very refreshing and simple philosophy: distinction between good and evil; treating people well; submitting one’s self to the common good; finding joy and love in shared experience; the expression of sympathy and finding a conscience when much is needed.

By that measure, my mother was a GOOD person. Not just in words, but in practice. Sometimes, her extreme kindness actually over-extended itself and she would do this at great sacrifice. She spread love large – we witnessed it in the way she loved her children. The way she toiled over, spoiled and loved her grandchildren. The way she treated her friends like more than just friends.

Her passing is beyond an obligatory eulogy, a rain-soaked funeral or an obituary stuck in the corner of a city daily. It is the extension of her spiritual classroom. We draw significant, critical lessons from the life of “Omi” – in her joy and in her sorrow. Special lessons about humanity and amity. Important lessons during these times of uncertainty, anxiety, cynicism and anger. Mom showed us all that in the final analysis it’s not what you make, who you know, where you live, what you do or what you drive. It’s about who you are and the compassion shown for others. The size of your heart. That’s all that matters.

We will often remark that, in her passing, Mom is now resting in a better place. But, what I worry about is this world faring in her absence. Can we be the better world she fought all her life to realize? Can we, in joy and in sorrow, carry that torch she left for us and make it shine brighter than before?

Patricia Jane Ellison (a.k.a. “Omifunke”)
b. July 18, 1948
d. September 10, 2009

Mohsin Mohi-Ud Din: Dear America: Letter From a Muslim-American

I write to you, America, as a Muslim-American who is frustrated at seeing both sides of my identity spreading myths about each other. In part one of this two part article, I address America from a Muslim perspective. In part two, which will follow in the coming weeks, I shall write to the Muslim community, from an American perspective.

Dear America,

Our world today is assaulted with myriad headlines describing rising extremism and terrorism, and political instability in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Middle East. Despite the plethora of bad news, most recently we have seen a day of hope marked by the end of Ramadan, where Muslims from all nations, social classes, and sects openly united in the spirit of humility, brotherhood, thankfulness, and peace.

As human beings, you and me have a tendency to let the negative marginalize the good and the true. But in this Ramadan the unity and the message of peace and humility that nearly a billion Muslims have exhibited should not go unnoticed, nor should it be underestimated.

America, even though you are part of us (Muslims) and we are a part of you, you often fear and misunderstand the one thing that unites the billion of us around the world is peace, love, and spiritual strength. You fear our religion, Islam. I write the following to not accuse anyone or apologize on behalf of any group. In part one of this article, I speak to you America, as one Muslim who is part of the majority of Muslims standing against the Ahmedinijads, Bin Ladens, and Taliban and Al Qaeda. These men have stolen my voice… our voice. The actions of a violent minority have for too long trumped the selfless and righteous actions of the moderate majority who do good in the name of Islam.

Firstly, Muslims are not a violent people and Islam is not a violent religion. I fear you overlook the fact that the faith of Muslims has been monopolized by the corrupt despots of Muslim countries and Muslim extremists. And it is the extremists whose power is bolstered by a media that has paralyzed the voice of the Muslim majority, who in fact abhor violence and terrorism.

It can be confusing even to me because on one side we only see Muslim extremists on the TV preaching hate in the name of Islam and we barely hear the majority. As I will touch on in part two of this article, Muslims have even marginalized themselves. But America, Muslims are a community of over a billion people, most of whom live in poverty within developing countries governed by oppressive, abusive, authoritarian regimes. These very regimes remain bunkered against an alienated group of extremists who are taking to the gun instead of a potentially rigged ballot. It is our mothers and daughters and sons who are being killed on a daily basis by either violent extremists or botched missile attacks by NATO. We are against violence and terrorism America, be it from Muslim extremists or NATO bombs. We are against violence because it is we who are the primary target of most terrorist attacks today. And while we may disagree with your military actions and policies, we look up to the principles that make up America… I speak of the freedom to be critical of yourself as a society and government; the opportunities awarded by the most comprehensive education system in the world; and your effortless ability to adapt in an ever transforming world.

(Girl in Kashmir/photo by Mohsin Mohi-Ud-Din)

Secondly, we Muslims, especially the Muslim youth, are not limited to the identifications that many parts of you believe us Muslims to be. Many see us to be ignorant, introverted, backwards, fundamentalist people. This is far from the truth. We are artists, painters, poets, doctors, lawyers, musicians, intellectuals, gay, straight, punk or conservative, man and woman, and yes, we too are American.

Thirdly, Muslims abroad and Muslims in America are often confused by your (America) political and military actions, which sometimes contradict the pro-freedom, pro-democratic pro-human rights rhetoric. Yes, the fault is ours (the Muslims) in numerous respects, but America, historical facts show that failed foreign policies have contributed to the political and economic landscape in which many Muslim led authoritarian regimes currently thrive. As an American myself, I know it is not the American agenda to kill civilians. The brave men and women in the armed forces are fighting for international peace and security. I truly believe this. So, why do many other Muslims in my community distrust American policies and actions?

(View From Inside Mecca/ photo by Mohsin Mohi-Ud-Din)

Every civilian death in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan leaves a cut in the collective Muslim conscious… be it for a Muslim in Iowa or a Muslim in Morocco. It is felt in every corner of the Muslim world. And the lasting effects of failed foreign polices cut just as deep. Take the example of Afghanistan, where the C.I.A armed, trained, and funded freedom fighters during the Cold War. These fighters later shed blood and defeated the Soviets. But after the smoke cleared, when Afghanis needed development and aid upon their victory for the West, the people were abandoned. Perhaps former U.S. Representative Charlie Wilson said it best, “These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world… and then we [America] f*&ked up the endgame.” The Muslim fighters trained by America, later regrouped as the Taliban whom we see resurfacing today.

In 1953, President Mossadeq, the once popular, pro-democratic leader of Iran, was driven out of office in a coup d’etat funded and supported by the CIA. He was replaced by a dictator whose ineptness spawned the Islamic Revolution that transformed a once democratic, secular society into a theocracy led by brutes such as Ahmedinijad. In the area of women’s rights and political transparency, America is an outspoken leader for reform, and yet, America is also an uncritical ally of Saudi Arabia, a country where women’s empowerment or political pluralism has remained stagnant for hundreds of years. You speak of human rights, and yet you are a staunch ally to India who commits mass atrocities in Kashmir, where 70,000 have been killed since 1989. But the main conflict on every Muslim’s psyche is Palestine and it is here where your rhetoric and your actions on human rights has most frustrated both Muslims and Arabs. I support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself and I support Palestine’s right to exist and defend itself. International law has been violated on both sides, but one side operates with impunity while the other remains in rubble. This affects the Muslim’s collective-psyche as it promotes the sentiment that the world sees Muslims as sub-human and that laws related to human rights don’t apply to Muslims. Yes, that is untrue, I know, but the ridiculousness of such a myth is not so obvious to the millions of Muslims who live in war-torn and oppressive countries lacking justice and accountability.

Despite all of these examples, if you simply talk to Muslim youth, you will still find that the overwhelming majority of young Muslims make a distinction between American politics and American innovation and culture. Listen to how many Muslim youth pray for greater democracy in Iran, for example. See how many Muslim youth watch MTV and Gossip Girl in Morocco, or, eat KFC in Saudi. See how many Kashmiris would beg to walk in one of your universities. Just look at the hundreds of millions of Muslims in Africa and Asia who watched the 2008 elections as if it were their own. Witness the joy that was felt when popular democracy prevailed with Obama’s victory. America, you are not just a country. You are an idea that is looked up to by the world.

The final myth I would like to challenge is the concept of Islam being THE threat. This sentiment is becoming far too entrenched in America and as a Muslim- ]American this deeply concerns me. For example, when President Obama was pictured wearing Kenyan garb, the press were in uproar over him dressing as a ‘Muslim’. Indeed, there are warlords, despots, and extremists who have hijacked my religion, and lead the world on. But to allow Islamophobia to be the status quo in you, America, is no different from the Muslim world allowing its own to think that America is THE evil.

(Inside the Dome of the Rock, mosque in Jerusalem/photo by Mohsin Mohi-Ud-Din)

Islam and the Quran are not the threat America. Instead, Islam is the source of inspiration for many to be better human beings. What inspiration has Islam given to the West? Under the Islamic Golden Age, for example, Islam inspired scientists, poets, activists, and philosophers. Many of their innovations have come to be adopted into the very fabric of Europe and America. Even most Muslims forget that as far back as the 8th Century, it was Islamic and Jewish philosophers who promoted freedom of speech, religious freedom, secularism, and peace. In the realm of agriculture it was Muslim farmers who introduced crop rotation. Doctors developed the world’s first public hospitals. Muslim academics opened the world’s first universities awarding diplomas in a diverse array of subjects. Arab musicians introduced the bass drum, the violin, and the guitar to Europe. Averroes, an Andalusian Muslim polymath and Islamic philosopher, developed and explored the concept of secularism and he is described as the father of secularism for Western Europe. (for an outline of Islam’s contributions to modern Western society visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age) If Islam is such a threat then how could such positive advancements, made hundreds upon hundreds of years ago, be inspired by Islam?

I look at the Muslim world today and I see a community in disarray, affected by poverty, war, political oppression, extremism. (I speak to this in part two, following this article). But in this past month of fasting, (Ramadan), I felt my community coming closer to its core. During Ramadan I witnessed families together, praying for peace, fasting in solidarity with non-Muslims and Muslims. On Eid this past Sunday, hundreds of millions of Muslim families from Africa, America, Europe, Asia, were not standing against the world, but were spreading the message of charity, peace, and patience. Men, women and children were hugging the stranger sitting next to them. For the first time in my spiritual life, I heard the leader of Friday prayers at a mosque in Maryland ask us to be more active in social service and community development. In fact, the cleric promoted the American value of “citizenship.” I see these things and I do not see Islam as a threat. I see a solution…I see hope. I write this to you America, not to accuse you of the rift that exists today with the Muslim world, because America is not solely responsible. Muslims carry the prime responsibility of political-economic problems affecting them. I write this letter to you America so that you may in some way be more aware of the Muslim majority and have hope in it as well.

You will find contradictions in us, America, and Muslims will find contradictions in you. Like all values and great ideals, it is we humans who taint them and pervert them. Islam is not an exception. In fact, it is time for us in the Muslim community to look in the mirror and reform, as I will talk about in more detail in part two. Muslims and external players continue to taint the ideal of Islam. But America, the longer you hold on to the status-quo of Islam as the threat, the larger the rift will grow between you and the Muslim world; thus leaving a world divided. Muslims and non-Muslims in the West and in the East: faith must triumph over fear.

More on Afghanistan

DJ Jaffe: Health Care Reform Keeps Mentally Ill Uninsured

In answer to a question in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, President
Obama publicly unequivocally asserted
his desire to include treatment for mental illness as part of healthcare
reform. And he has mobilized public opinion against the discriminatory
practices of private insurers. 
But when it comes to discrimination against the mentally ill, the
federal government’s own program puts private insurers to shame. And Obama has
yet to support the one bill, H.R. 619,
that could fix it.

 Hello, Mr. President,…(M)y question is if
every American who needed it has access to good mental health care, what do you
think the impact would be on our society?

A: THE PRESIDENT: Well, (applause), mental
health has always been undervalued in the health insurance market. And what we
now know is, is that somebody who has severe depression has a more debilitating
and dangerous illness than somebody who’s got a broken leg. But a broken leg,
nobody argues that’s covered. Severe depression, unfortunately, oftentimes
isn’t even under existing insurance policies.

So I think — I’ve been a strong believer in
mental health parity, recognizing that those are serious illnesses. (Applause.)
And I would like to see a mental health component as part of a package that
people are covered under, under our plan. Okay? (Applause.)

I wish it were “Okay”.  Private insurers have largely ended discrimination against
the mentally ill due to the passage of the Mental Health
Parity Act of 2007. It forbids large group health plans from imposing
treatment or financial limitations on mental health benefits that are different
from those applied to medical or surgical services. That’s parity.

But for individuals with serious and persistent mental illnesses
like schizophrenia, employer based insurance is largely irrelevant because employment
is often impossible due to the severity of their illness.  

For the severely mentally ill, unable to get employment–and the
insurance that comes with it; or afford private insurance that would
discriminate against them anyway, Medicaid remains their only safety net. And it’s a shameful failure.

Medicaid, with some technical exceptions, refuses to cover
long-term treatment for the mentally ill ages 18 to 64. If you have a disease
or illness in any organ other than the brain, and need long-term care, Medicaid
pays. But if the illness is in your brain, Medicaid does not. It’s an obscure provision
called the “Institutes for Mental Disease (IMD) Exclusion.”

This is government-sanctioned discrimination against the mentally
ill. The effects of refusing to reimburse for long term care have been horrendous and Obama should eliminate the IMD
Exclusion now.

According to  “The
Shortage of Hospital Beds for Mentally Ill Persons,” in 1955 (ten
years before Medicaid) there were 340 public psychiatric beds available per
100,000 U.S. citizens. By 2005, the number plummeted to a staggering 17 beds
per 100,000 persons. Some of that is due to improved treatments, but much of it
is due to states kicking patients out of long-term care—where they were
Medicaid ineligible—and forcing them into communities, where states could get
federal reimbursement for half the cost of their care. (Disclosure: I am on the
board of Directors of the Treatment
Advocacy Center, which underwrote the report, and I assisted Dr.
E. Fuller Torrey, the report’s author and the world’s leading voice on mental illness research and reform.)

Where did the mentally ill who were kicked out of hospitals go?
Today, over 150,000 live on the streets, 231,000 individuals with severe
psychiatric disorders live in jail or prison.  5,000 take their own lives every year.  Think of the money that could be saved
if they were given treatment rather than the boot.

To write this wrong, and force the federal government to do what
they forced private insurers to do–cover the mentally ill–Congresswoman Eddie Johnson and
Representative Raj Grijalva introduced H.R. 619,
which would eliminate the IMD exclusion and thereby let the government provide
long-term care for those with mental illness the same way they provide
long-term care for those with other illnesses. Elimination is supported by the National
Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, and almost all who know
the issue.

The largest and neediest group of uninsured Americans could very
well be those with mental illness. If President Obama really believes in equal
health care for all, he should eliminate the IMD exclusion in Medicaid law now
by incorporating HR 619 in health care reform. That’s reform I can believe in.

More on Health Care

Peter Scheer: Woodward’s Afghanistan story ran with a declassified version of General McChrystal’s report. How could that happen without Obama’s OK?

By Peter Scheer

On Monday, Washington Post investigative reporter nonpareil Bob Woodward caused a tremor inside the Beltway with an exclusive account of  Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s 66-page report to President Barack Obama, warning that without the deployment of more US troops, the administration’s Afghanistan policy will fail.

There has followed the usual Washington parlor game of pundits and journalists speculating about who leaked the report to Woodward, and why.  By Tuesday the ascendant theory was that the report was leaked by Pentagon insiders who support McChrystal’s call for additional troops and are annoyed at the White House for seeming to delay action on the General’s recommendation.

Could be. But what caught my eye was the copy of the redacted report that ran with the Post’s story. Download the file and you won’t see excerpts of a classified document intended for the President’s consumption. Rather, you will see what appears to be an officially declassified version of that report, with multiple deletions of presumably classified material indicated by the term “REDACTION” in caps.

Woodward, in his story, says this about the provenance of the document:

“Senior administration officials asked The Post over the weekend to withhold brief portions of the assessment that they said could compromise future operations. A declassified version of the document, with some deletions made at the government’s request, appears at washingtonpost.com. “

Now, it’s not unheard-of for government officials to be given an advance look at a Woodward blockbuster so they can have a chance to alert him and Post editors to information, not necessarily essential to the news story, whose revelation could compromise intelligence “sources and methods” or otherwise harm bona fide national security interests. And maybe that’s all that happened in this case.

But it is odd, and I think highly unusual, for the government, as a result of such an exchange, to provide a reporter with an officially declassified edition of the report, “with some deletions made at the government’s request,” to use Woodward’s words, for publication in a newspaper or on a newspaper’s website.

Classified documents are not declassified by leakers acting anonymously, they are declassified by identifiable government officials acting with authorization. That means the document was given to Woodward either by the White House or by a Defense Department official acting at the direction of the White House and almost certainly with Obama’s approval.

So, why would President Obama want to “leak” this report to Woodward?

—–

Peter Scheer, a lawyer and journalist, is Executive Editor of the First Amendment Coalition. www.firstamendmentcoalition.org

More on Afghanistan

Bruce Judson: A Question of Trust

This is the first article in a three-part series on the FCIC by Roosevelt Institute Braintruster Bruce Judson.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), which started work last week, will have a significant impact on the health of our democracy. When the FCIC completes its efforts, we will either be stronger or weaker as a nation. There is no middle ground. We must fervently hope that the Commission rises to this challenge with a comprehensive investigation. The work of the Commission is important for two reasons. First, by openly educating the public about the causes of the financial crisis, it will pave the way for reform. Existing interests will inevitably resist change. Reform becomes far easier when its advocates can point to a roadmap of specific problems that must be addressed. This is one of the central lessons of the Pecora Commission’s work. By clearly demonstrating why the Great Crash occurred, the Pecora Commission created the rationale, and the necessary public support, for legislative initiatives such as the Glass-Steagall Act, and the establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Second, America is becoming an angry nation, with diminished faith in its institutions. There is a growing sense among all but the wealthiest Americans that “the game is rigged” against them. The public perception of the work of the FCIC will inevitably affect, for better or worse, our basic level of trust in the nation’s democratic system.

In Trust, Francis Fukuyama demonstrated that societies with high trust are vibrant and productive, because individuals trust their interests will be protected. In the absence of trust, rigid work rules, contracts, litigation, and a range of other costs are created as everyone in the economy attempts to protect him or herself. In 1972, Kenneth Arrow, the Nobel laureate wrote, “Virtually every commercial transaction has within itself an element of trust.”

Trust is a central element of a healthy democracy as well as a healthy economy. When trust disappears, people become increasingly cynical. As this cynicism grows, citizens become disengaged from the political process: There’s no point in voting or working toward any civic-related goal if you cynically believe nothing will ever change. At the same time, government becomes increasing ineffective as people no longer believe elected officials will fulfill their responsibilities or promises. As a result, a cynical society can quickly become a paralyzed society.

Ultimately, cynicism can also play a role in shifting a paralyzed society toward actual political instability. One of the causes of the collapse of the Soviet Union was the extraordinarily high degree of cynicism toward the government. Two centuries earlier, the government of Louis XVI was almost universally mistrusted before the French Revolution. In part, because cynicism has never been a central aspect of the American character, we have always regarded our nation as immune to such extreme circumstances.

I fear that one result of the development of our trader nation culture–which encourages us to see our participation in the economy with a “heads I win tales you lose attitude”- is unhealthy, growing cynicism. Last week, I wrote an article that appeared on New Deal 2.0, in The Huffington Post and elsewhere. The article critiqued the data and conclusions of a front page Wall Street Journal article that inaccurately down-played the extent of economic inequality. The article attracted hundreds of comments across the Web. The vast majority of these comments effectively said: What else did you expect? I discovered that cynicism is the reigning sentiment.

We are not becoming a nation of whiners. Far worse, we are becoming a nation of cynics.

To read the rest of Bruce Judson’s argument, and to follow his three-part series on the FCIC, visit NewDeal2.0.

More on New "Pecora Commission"

Chip Berlet: Fox & MSNBC Reporters at Values Voters: Rude, Disruptive, Lazy

A lot of mileage has been made about the confrontations between two TV reporters at the 2009 Christian Right Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC this weekend.

I was there. Let me offer a different version of events. The two reporters were rude and lazy and disruptive. Other video standups by other reporters were done in a large lobby a few steps away from the camera risers in the auditorium.

This was not about conference attendees or organizers not wanting coverage, or failing to provide media facilities, or being whackos. This was about two loud, arrogant male oafs disrupting an event. I was 40 feet away from the Fox reporter when he began shouting into his microphone like he was covering a football game.

I could not hear the conference speaker, and the audio into my video camera was being blotted out by his pompous performance. At least ten rows of attendees sat up and turned around when he started his stand up routine. The same thing happened with the MSNBC reporter.

We could not hear the speaker at the podium. It was obnoxious, and not necessary. As I said before, other reporters had their crews lug a camera into the hallway. Other reporters used unidirectional noise cancelling microphones when in the auditorium.

Clearly I am a critic of the views of most people at the Values Voter Summit. But I feel an obligation to set the record straight. These two reporters were jerks. The attendees just wanted to listen to the speakers. I spoke with other reporters who agree with me. They are not in a position to be publicly critical. I am.

Liberals and leftists tend to sneer at these Values Voter folks in the Christian Right. Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Markos Moulitsas, and other commentators and pundits get a lot of laugh lines when mocking and trivializing these folks.

Of course these are the same people that elected Ronald Reagan, and the Bushies I & II. These are the people that stopped the Equal Rights Amendment. These are the people that immobilized the Clinton Administration. These are the people trying to take down the Obama Administration.

Will they succeed? Perhaps. Maybe not. But while liberals and leftists keep laughing at them, the Christian Right will be busy trying to craft a last laugh–and their track record is nothing to sneer at.

More on Rachel Maddow

AKMuckraker: Palin Foe Frozen Out of Auction When Identity Revealed

I have a confession to make. I’ve been watching the Sarah Palin Ebay charity dinner auction with somewhat of an obsession. Who would be willing to bid $25,000 or more for dinner with Sarah Palin? Newsworthy? Probably not. More important things to think about? You betcha. But I’ve been doing it anyway. It’s cheap entertainment when you’re sitting around sick with the flu. Blame it on the Nyquil.

The best part about my frivolous obsession, is that shortly after I started watching the auction, I became privvy thanks to a couple of the bidders, to the strange and mysterious back story of the bidding wars. There were seven bidders total. And we know for a fact that at least two of them were not of the “Palinbot” persuasion. And we know that both successfully passed the “pre-approval” process.

First, there’s Ken Morris – Wall Street whiz, trader-turned-financial-thriller-novelist, whose top bid exceeded $50,000. What was he hoping if he won “the experience?” He explained it this way.

There exists an emotional divide in this country that I’ve not experienced since I attended the University of California near the end of the Vietnam War. As a protester who took to the streets post the bombings of Cambodia and being tear-gassed on three occasions and nearly arrested twice, I was part of the schism that ripped apart our generation. While leaving scars that thickened the hearts of many from that era, the ending of the war allowed for a healing to begin. Painful, but now mostly a distant memory.

Today’s rancor, however, troubles me more profoundly. Why? Maybe it’s because I don’t see a catalyst–like the end to a tragic war–that will magically lead us to end this political divide. Politically biased “news” channels, over-heated rhetoric by bloggers, and (in my view at least) the demise of investigative mainstream journalism and the role of Watergate-like Fourth Estate, are here to stay. This period has more the odor of the Civil Rights debate that ripped apart the South during the administrations of President Kennedy and Johnson. A rift that has never been bridged.

How, I’ll ask Ms. Palin, can we work together (“we” meaning not just her and me, but all people on both sides of the political fence) to begin to fix this? I’ll ask her a few questions that might seem harsh, but aren’t intended to offend–after all, we must be honest, no? Do your regret saying several hundred times that our president “…palled around with terrorists…”? Do you really believe that providing health insurance to all Americans is socialism or fascism or Nazism or that there are truly ‘death squads’ in these proposals?

Wow. So, that pretty much would have ruled him out, even if he had been the top bidder. Why? The auction rules clearly state that:

Governor Palin reserves the right to refuse dinner with a winning bidder if, in her sole discretion, the winning bidder is not a suitable bidder based on her subjective standards of suitability, professionalism, background and other factors. In the event the high bidder is rejected for this reason, the high bidder’s bid will be refunded, if paid, and the next highest bidder shall be notified, and thereafter, until a suitable match is determined.

Bridging divides? Pallin’ around with terrorists? Serious discussion about policy? Death panels? We can almost imagine Palin’s handlers smacking down a big red rubber stamp on Ken Morris’ application: “REJECTED.”

That brings us to our second candidate, dubbed c***i by the Ebay alias assignment team, and known to those in the outside world as Joe McGinnis. McGinnis, also an author by trade is best known for his books The Making of the President about Richard Nixon, and Going to Extremes, about Alaska, oil and the 1970s pipeline boom. McGinnis is an outspoken critic of Palin, evidenced most recently by his article for Conde Nast’s Portfolio entitled Pipe Dreams, which cast a critical eye on Palin’s handling of the ever-elusive Alaska gasline. McGinniss is currently working on a book whose focus will be the ex-governor herself.

McGinniss, hoping to win the auction had the high bid at one point close to the end. The amount was a whopping $60,101.01, and he was willing to go higher. And then something interesting happened. The Alaska Dispatch came out with a story identifying McGinniss as one of the bidders. When the unsuspecting c***i went to place his next bid in the amount of $60,301.01, he was met with this message:

Despite his previous pre=approval, his dreams of sniping the auction were dashed. McGinniss was unapproved, with only an hour to go, and the brief and glorious career of c***i was cut off at the knees. Presumably this untimely freeze-out allowed the Palin camp to avoid future embarrassment.

So, who did win? Cathy Maples, the owner of a defense contracting company in Alabama. She thinks Sarah Palin is pretty swell, and hopes she gets to be president some day. McGinniss passed on the following note to the lucky winner:

Ms. Maples,

As one of the underbidders, I salute you and congratulate you on winning the dinner with Sarah Palin.

I’m pleased that my bids helped increase the total proceeds that will go to our wounded veterans through Ride2Recovery. I wish you the best for your forthcoming trip to Alaska.

Although I would have enjoyed the opportunity for a frank exchange of views with Gov. Palin, I’m pleased that someone with your record of accomplishment will grace her table.

Sincerely,
Joe McGinniss

Ken Morris, says he’ll make a donation to Ride2Recovery anyway, despite the fact that his bid was not high enough to win “the experience” with Ms. Palin.

And as for Ms. Maples, she’ll be planning a long trip to Alaska soon to collect on that dinner. Or maybe she won’t have to. A few hours after the auction was posted on September 8, there was a revision made to the listing.

Alabama? Why would the “experience” happen in Alabama? That would be pretty inconvenient, unless you, like our lucky winner, perchance happen to live in…. wait for it … Hunstville, Alabama.

Perhaps they thought AL was Alaska? That mistake’s been known to happen, but it says “Alabama” all spelled out like that. Pretty weird.

Well, one great thing that came out of all this reality auction drama is that Ride2Recovery made a whopping pile of cash for a really good cause. I think if I ever cross paths with Joe McGinnis or Ken Morris, I’m going to take them out to dinner. They’ve got to be cheaper dates than Sarah Palin, and a whole lot more fun.

More on Sarah Palin

Greg Saunders: I Have A Nightmare

We really live in a golden age for race-baiting. Back in the day, there was a spectrum of racism of sorts. You knew something racist fell somewhere between Al Jolson in blackface, zip-a-de-doo-dah racism and the move your wallet to your front pocket because you see a black guy walking down the street racism. It was a simpler time.

In the last two years, however, Republicans have been so angry they’ve had to invent new ways to be racist. No longer can we judge racist sentiment simply by its degree of offensiveness. Now there are multiple varieties of racism which have become almost like an ingredient the cupboard of conservative hate speech that’s used to flavor every utterance the way a great Italian chef might finish off a dish with a drizzle of their finest extra virgin olive oil.

You’ve got the birther crowd with their “faked the moon landing” racism. The Fox News calling Michelle Barack’s “baby mamma” which is more of an “oh my god, you’ve never really met a black person before have you?” racism. The “fiscal conservative” / Tea Party “complain about high taxes while comparing the President to a monkey” racism. The Matt Drudge “ominously link to a story that incidentally involves people of different races as if to imply there’s racial backlash against caucasians” racism. And the religious extremist “don’t blame me if the Bible says Obama is the anti-Christ” racism.

Then there’s Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck, who are like the Thomas Edison and Nicola Tesla of racist bullshit. These guys aren’t just content to be the “telling a racist joke, but it’s cool because everyone knows I’m not racist” guys. Oh no. They’re innovators. They went out there, saw that America elected a black guy, and said “the old ways being a racist asshole aren’t good enough”. They took the “aggrieved white guy cries reverse-racism” trope and built it multimedia empires the way Henry Ford did for auto manufacturing (or, not to change the subject, anti-semitism).

Now if the right wing’s artisans of racial hatred could only devote this uniquely American spirit of ingenuity into endeavors that don’t…well…threaten to destroy the social and political fabric of our nation, then we might get somewhere.