Today was a good day

Dear Friends,

I read about two good things that President Obama did today.

First, President Obama is going to require hospitals to permit same-sex couples and other non-married people visitation rights as well as decision making rights.  Here is The Christian Science Monitor article about it and their summary of the action that President Obama took:

The president’s memorandum, released Thursday night, directs the Department of Health and Human Services to draft rules requiring hospitals that accept Medicaid and Medicare funding to “respect the rights of patients to designate visitors” and representatives authorized to take part in medical decisionmaking. The directive’s central focus is same-sex couples, though other categories of people would also be covered, including widows and widowers who choose to designate friends.

The article does a really nice job describing the difficult job that President Obama has in pleasing all of the constituencies that helped to get him elected at a time when the country and the world face so many significant issues.  Here are a few paragraphs of their analysis:

The president's tensions with the gay community are similar to those between him and other constituencies – including blacks, Hispanics, women, and labor – that supported his campaign and expected big things after eight years of the Bush administration. Analysts see two factors at play: one, Obama’s deliberative style, and two, the immense issue agenda he has taken on, a combination of his own goals and inherited problems, including two wars and an economic crisis.
“Look at how he prepared for his decision on Afghanistan; he took months,” says Bruce Buchanan, a presidential scholar at the University of Texas, Austin. “Also, he’s got to be careful over how he times things, and how he portrays them, given the huge [number of] balls that he has in the air at any given time.”
Healthcare reform dominated Obama's first year-plus in office, and he is now tackling financial reform. In addition, if he is seen as putting any of his constituencies ahead of the others, he could alienate important supporters.
Obama seems aware of the juggling act he faces, and of the frustrations it creates. Last June, at an event in the East Room of the White House honoring the gay rights movement, the president acknowledged that “many in this room don’t believe that progress has come fast enough,” drawing parallels with civil rights leaders petitioning for equality a half century ago. But, he added, “I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."

 The second thing that I read about today that President Obama did that I think is great was to threaten to veto any financial reform bill that does not heavily regulate derivatives.  Here is an Associated Press article on the subject and the critical paragraphs of the story.

President Barack Obama vowed Friday to veto a financial overhaul bill that doesn't regulate the eclectic derivatives market, even as Senate Republicans lined up en masse against it.Legislation pending in Congress would for the first time regulate derivatives, complex financial instruments like the mortgage-backed securities that contributed to a near economic meltdown in 2008 when their value plummeted during the housing crisis.
Obama said he wants derivatives to be strongly regulated, and he added that he's ready to veto any financial reform bill that comes to his desk without it.
But there's some dispute among Democrats about how far such regulation should go.
Further complicating matters Friday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell obtained signatures from 40 fellow GOP senators voicing opposition to the Senate bill and demanding further negotiations.

President Obama's threatened veto is great for several reasons.  First, derivatives should be heavily regulated.  I have a rather extreme view that things like derivatives that serve no purpose other than to transfer money from one entity to another should be banned, but that will never happen, so heavy regulation is the only viable answer.

Second, by threatening a veto, President Obama is making it clear that he has a backbone and will not buckle under to pressure from Wall Street and their Republican and Democratic lackeys.

Third, I hope that by doing this President Obama is making it clear that he will take this issue to the people and get the debate framed in the correct way.  He needs to be clear that he is regulating Wall Street over the reckless activities that they undertook that lead to this awful recession and that the Republicans are using their just say no techniques to protect Wall Street.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Update on Caving

Dear Friends,

There are two items related to yesterday's post that I want to be sure that you saw.

First, I forgot to provide a link to The New York Times editorial that discussed the withdrawal of Dawn Johnsen's nomination to head the Office of Legal Counsel.  It is here.  In this case, The New York Times beat me to the punch.

Second, this morning The New York Times has an editorial consistent with my post yesterday.  So in this case I beat The New York Times to the punch.  Here is their take on Attorney General Holder, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, etc.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Caving on Principles

Dear Friends,

I am afraid to report that President Obama is continuing to cave into Republicans and overly conservative Democrats when he should stand up for what he believes in.  Here are two examples from recent days.

First, Dawn Johnsen who was nominated by President Obama to head the Office of Legal Council has withdrawn her nomination.  She was a great nominee, and President Obama failed to support her nomination, failed to include her in his recess appointments and ultimately either forced or encouraged her to withdraw.  Here is The New York Times article about her withdrawal.  The article quotes Ms. Johnsen about her reasons for withdrawal as follows:

“Restoring O.L.C. to its best nonpartisan traditions was my primary objective for my anticipated service in this administration,” Ms. Johnsen said. “Unfortunately, my nomination has met with lengthy delays and political opposition that threaten that objective and prevent O.L.C. from functioning at full strength. I hope that the withdrawal of my nomination will allow this important office to be filled promptly.”

There will be no nominee that would be reasonably acceptable to President Obama who will receive support from any Republicans.  President Obama refuses to accept the obvious that the Republicans will almost unanimously object to anything that he proposes.  He needs to stand up for what he believes in.

The second example of President Obama caving in to the Republicans and fear mongers is the increasing likelihood that he will overrule Attorney General Holder with respect to the civilian trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.  The White House acknowledges that it is reviewing Attorney General Holder's decision, and there have been reports circulating that a decision to overrule the decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in civilian courts will be announced soon.  In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, he said that a civilian trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is still a possibility and went on to defend his decision for a civilian trial.  Here is a Los Angeles Times report.  Attorney General Holder's decision was the right one and his argument for it is logical and compelling.  The only reasons for objecting are fear mongering and politicizing.  Those are not reasons to move away from the principled and correct decision.  There is still time for President Obama to do the right thing on this issue, but I am not hopeful.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

President Obama's Foreign Policy

Dear Friends,

This post is devoted to congratulating President Obama on being able to put together the 47-nation summit on the threat of nuclear terrorism.

Just by way of comparison, it is beyond comprehension that President George W. Bush would have been able to get virtually any of these nations to agree to attend the summit, much less be able to speak articulately and passionately about the substance of the issue, or get the countries to agree that there is a problem, pledge to do something about it and then meet again in a couple of years to assess how well they have done.

While I do not agree with all of President Obama's positions with respect to nuclear weapons and power, there can be no doubt that he is willing to work hard and smartly toward the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons.  There also can be no doubt that President Obama has earned the trust and respect of other world leaders.  He does not preach to them that the United States is perfect and that they better do what we say or else as his predecessor did.  President Obama speaks of a threat to all countries and the world and seeks through discussions and cooperation to find solutions to reduce or eliminate the threat of nuclear terrorism.  He is entitled to a lot of credit for what he has been able to accomplish.

The Rachel Maddow Show had a segment on the summit and its meaning on tonight's program.  After Rachael's lead-in she spoke with Joe Cirincione, the President of the Ploughshares Fund about the summit.  If you do not know of the Ploughshares Fund, go here.  They describe themselves as:

Ploughshares Fund is engaged in an aggressive strategy to seize the unprecedented opportunities before us to achieve a safe, secure, nuclear weapon-free world.  Combining high-level advocacy, an enhanced grantmaking capacity and our own expertise, we are helping to fundamentally change nuclear weapons policy.

I have included the entire clip below.  While it is well worth the 8 minutes to watch to whole thing, if you just want to see the discussion with Mr. Cirincione, it starts about 4:50 of the clip.  You really should watch what he has to say because he makes a great case for why what President Obama was able to accomplish was so historic.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Also here are a couple of articles that you might want to read on the summit if you have not already read about the summit and its results.  The first is a report from the Associated Press by Robert Burns entitled "Summit endorses Obama goal on nuclear security" (here) and the second is a news analysis piece by Peter Baker entitled "Obama Puts His Own Mark on Foreign Policy Issues" from The New York Times (here).

I take some issue with the news analysis piece since part of its analysis is that President Obama has relegated human rights and democracy building to second tier issues.  I do not think that one should lump human rights issues and democracy building together.  As far as I can tell, the desire to build democracies around the world is a recent rationale by the Bush Administration for its preemptive and unjustified war in Iraq.

Human rights issues can and I believe should be addressed without requiring a democratic form of government.  I think it is unfair to say that President Obama has relegated human rights issues to the second tier.  His foreign policy has been one of pragmatism, but just because he talks with nations that are terrible about human rights does not mean that he does not care about human rights abuses.  As with our own nuclear problems, he is addressing human rights issues knowing that the United States is not perfect.  We need to give him more time to see if he can make progress on human rights issues both at home and abroad.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Orlando's Madness

Dear Friends,

This post has nothing directly to do with politics or the Obama Administration.  Indirectly it does in that it reflects the problem with fearing or not liking that which you don't know or with which you are not familiar.

I am almost entirely ignorant about opera.  I have always said that I do not like opera.  I am quite sure that I have never been to more than two or three operas until last night so my dislike had more to do with not knowing than with actual experience.

Last night I went to "Orlando's Madness" an opera by George Frideric Handel first performed in London in 1733.   It was presented by the Philharmonia Baroque Orchestra, a wonderful San Francisco based orchestra that is led by Nic McGegan, who has been very closely associated with the Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra.  It was a slightly staged production in a wonderful church in Berkeley before a very enthusiastic and except for me and perhaps a few others a very sophisticated audience. The opera was sung in Italian, but the full libretto was included in the program including an English translation. 

The music and libretto are fantastic.  The plot is very straight forward with just five characters that you see on stage:
Orlando - a warrior conflicted between love and war
Zoroastro - a magician
Dorinda - a shepherdess and the most sympathetic and likable character
Angelica - a princess
Medoro - a young hot soldier

Orlando falls madly in love with Angelica but Angelica falls madly in love with Medoro who returns her love and Dorinda falls madly in love with Medoro.  Orlando goes crazy when he discovers that Angelica and Medoro are lovers.  He destroys Dorinda's house with Medoro in it killing him.  He then kills Angelica.  Fortunately, Zoroastro saves the day with a magic potion that returns Orlando to sanity and somehow is also able to bring Angelica and Medoro back from the dead.  It appears that he may also restore Dorinda's house because at the end after Orlando blesses the relationship between Angelica and Medoro, Dorinda invites everybody back to her house to celebrate.

I was completely enthralled and hung on every word, even though they were in Italian.  The music and singing as written, interpreted and performed told the story in an emotional and exciting way.  I was transported into the story and for over 3 and a half hours, I was in Orlando's completely unreal world.  I now love opera, at least "Orlando's Madness" performed the way it was last night.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Net Neutrality

Dear Friends,

Net neutrality is essentially the requirement that all internet service providers give all legal websites the same access.  Under net neutrality an ISP cannot make access to one site slower than to another site.  The FCC has been a supporter of net neutrality, but a recent Federal circuit court case jeopardizes the ability of the FCC to require net neutrality.  Here is the link to The New York Times article on the court decision.

Net neutrality is essential because the most obvious alternative would give the big ISP's the ability to sell speedy access to those that could afford it and to push people to related sites.  Given the huge concentration in media today, net neutrality would be a final nail in the coffin for an internet where ideas are easily and quickly exchanged and unbridled innovation can take place.

The Los Angeles Times in an editorial has suggested the best response to the court decision is for Congress to affirmatively grant the authority to the FCC that the court decision says it doesn't currently have.  (here) It argues correctly that because of the limited alternatives that any person has to get on the internet, market forces are not appropriate to solve the problem.  Government intervention is the right approach.

So President Obama has yet another important issue that he must address and work to get a dysfunctional Senate to deal with.  I hope that he takes up the cause because it is essential to have the communication and openness provided by the internet be available to all and not be a playing field slanted in favor of the already rich and powerful.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal