Tangelia Sinclair-Moore pointed me to the article How America And The Mainstream Media Got Breitbarted On NDAA to demonstrate to me that I got “Breitbarted On NDAA.”

The article shows the original video clip which we were shown to give us the impression that Carl Levin claimed the administration was pushing for permission to allow indefinite detention provisions be allowed to apply to U.S. Citizens.  Another video is shown of Carl Levin making his final pitch before the entire Senate in support of the bill.  It seems pretty clear from this much longer video that if Carl Levin ever believed what we thought he said in the other video, he does not believe it now.  It would have been more definitive to have showed us how that original video was manipulated to give us a false impression.  However, I am convinced until somebody can show me that the original video did not give a false impression.

As one who was able to compare the distorted video clips of what Rev. Wright said to the entire video that contained his remarks, I have no doubt that it is easy to turn somedody’s ideas completely up-side-down by diabolical editing.

The web site above even quotes a Mother Jones article to the effect that:

    It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US. A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won’t be based on the authority in this bill….

The language in the bill that relates to the detention authority as far as US citizens and permanent residents are concerned is, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

To me, this all means that I can give President Obama a pass on not vetoing the NDAA as he suggested he would.

The Real News network does it again. Is the Euro Crisis Over? is a conversation among William K. Black, Paolo Manasse, and John Weeks where they discuss the Euro and the danger of global recession. The interviewer is Paul Jay of The Real News.

There is one dissenter in the panel about the issue of Germany’s Beggar Thy Neighbor policy that has had much discussion in other interviews and posts on The Real News. For Paolo Manasse who emphasizes productivity gains in Germany versus a Beggar Thy Neighbor policy, I think that a discussion of his definition of these productivity gains would have shown that there is really no disagreement on what happened. They did not have time to go into it, but I bet that Manasse is talking about productivity as the amount produced per unit cost of labor, not per hour of labor.

If that were the case, then what Germany did to get that productivity is exactly a Beggar Thy Neighbor policy. They cut their wages so that they could produce more cheaply than their neighbors despite agreeing not to do that. They then transferred their unemployment and slow growth problems onto their neighbors in order to only solve their own problems. (We do have such competition among states in this country when it comes to state taxing policy, labor policy, and state subsidies to entice businesses to move from one state to another.)

For balance, you can watch the entire video.

However, for my purposes, I’ll just quote something that William Black said in the video. This is from the transcript provided by The Real News. Let me start off with the description of who William Black is:

William K. Black, associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, teaches White-Collar Crime, Public Finance, Antitrust, Law & Economics. A former financial regulator, he held several senior regulatory positions during the S&L debacle. Black is the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One (2005) which focuses on the role of control fraud in financial crises. Black developed the concept of “control fraud” – frauds in which the CEO or head of state uses the entity as a “weapon.” Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime combined.

Now, for what it is he said in one segment of the video.

BLACK: The new credit facility provides exceptionally low-cost funds to banks, well below supposed market rates. And it’s a way of transferring wealth to the banking sector. And I agree with both of my colleagues, there’s absolutely no reason to do it this way except ideology about the role of the ECB. Obama is correct that Europe has more than ample funds to deal with the crisis, but it has allowed it to twist slowly in the wind, and it has exposed the fact that the leading proponents of ever closer union, France and Germany, didn’t really mean it. In other words, once Greece got in trouble, well, it was the damn Greeks that got in trouble; it wasn’t my fellow countrymen analog in the United States, say, when New Orleans has a hurricane. You know, you bail out Louisiana, whether or not you particularly like Louisiana. But Europe is not a united nation. It’s not close to a united nation. And Germany is imposing policies that are exceptionally destructive to the rest of Europe. And so, ultimately, it is completely ideologically driven. You have insanity, after all, going on, where if you go to Ireland, the official policy mandated by the rest of Europe is to cut your wages so that you can out-export the Portuguese. But if you go to Portugal, the strategy is to slash working class wages so you can out-export the Irish. And this is the road to Bangladesh strategy. And it is quite clear that France, Germany, Netherlands are quite willing to saw off the periphery of Europe. They just can’t figure out a way to do it without hurting their own banks.

Remember, I am not saying this is the whole story. You have to spend the time to watch the video or read the whole transcript, if you want the whole story.

Watch Marisa DeFranco Wednesday evening when she will be interviewed by Emily Rooney on WGBH’s Greater Boston! The show airs on Ch.2 at 7pm and is repeated at midnight. That’s tomorrow night, January 4th, 7pm!

See her web site at Marisa DeFranco for U.S. Senate.

If I’d heard you  say, “Who is Marisa DeFranco?”,  I would have directed you to this previous post.

The New York Times blog has the piece When Romney’s Reach Exceeds His Grasp. In it, David Firestone discusses Mitt Romney’s love of the song America The Beautiful.

“O beautiful, for patriot’s dream, that sees beyond the years,” he said, discussing the fourth verse and asserting that this dream referred to political and especially economic freedom. “The freedom to choose one’s course in life, to be an opportunity nation, a merit-based society” – that, he suggested, conflicts directly with the president’s vision of America as an entitlement society, where everyone is equal and thus more impoverished.

If, over time, this turns out to be his rebuttal to the president’s new campaign theme of reducing economic inequality, he will have to do better than “America the Beautiful,” because that is not at all what the song was originally about. The lyrics were written in 1894 by the Massachusetts poet Katharine Lee Bates, an ardent feminist and lesbian who was deeply disillusioned by the greed and excess of the Gilded Age.

Her original third verse was an expression of that anger:

America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!

Of course, what do poets know of visions of America?  It does seem to show that Mitt Romney’s vision of America is different from the author’s.  If Obama’s vision of America is anything like mine, the describing it as an entitlement based society shows that Romney doesn’t understand what this vision of society is all about.  If the word entitlement belongs in my vision at all, it is that I do not believe that wealth and power entitle you to steal what I am entitled to by way of me being  a human resident of this country.

Maybe this election campaign really will get down to the nitty, gritty differences between the two visions.  One favors the accumulation of wealth whereas the other side favors justice wherever that may lead.

When a mortgagee loses a home to the bank in a foreclosure because the bank had a clever salesperson that knew the trap that was being set for the mortgagee, but the unsophisticated mortgagee could not foresee the trap, would Romney consider this to be an outcome based on merit?  The salesperson had a better grasp of the rules of real-estate transactions and was able to use that to his advantage to dupe the unsuspecting buyer into signing a disadvantageous contract.  You see it is all a game that is won by the person who can play the rules to his or her best advantage.  Of course, the homeowner who is now homeless and the family’s children that will go hungry and might lose there chance for a good education, consider it more than just a game.  Economics and business is not only about playing the game of who gets more points measured in dollars, but it also affects the noncommercial aspects of human life.  Perhaps the true capitalist doesn’t believe that there are any noncommercial aspects of human life.

The Occupy Movement and I consider the mortgage transaction to be a con job that ought to land the con artist and the con artist’s knowing employer before a judge and a jury for adjudication as to where justice lies.

There is one game that has rules about special knowledge.  In the game of contract bridge, one side is not allowed to have bidding systems where certain bids mean something to the partners that the opposition does not know about.  If the team is going to use a bidding system with out of the ordinary meanings, then they are duty bound to disclose these meanings to the opposition before play begins.

In commercial transactions the creditor has protection from the debtor via laws against fraudulent conveyance.

“Actual fraud” typically involves a debtor who as part of an asset protection scheme donates his assets, usually to an “insider”, and leaves himself nothing to pay his creditors. “Constructive fraud” does not relate to fraudulent intent, but rather to the underlying economics of the transaction, if it took place for less than reasonably equivalent value at a time when the debtor was in a distressed financial condition.

How come the rich and powerful never think of protecting the weak from fraudulent conveyance on their part, but they are keen on making laws that protect them from the poor and weak?  That is part of the merit based society from which Mitt Romney made his fortune.  No wonder he wants to be President to protect those  rules that promote the merit of the con artist over the naivete of the pigeon.

See my subsequent post How America And The Mainstream Media Got Breitbarted On NDAA in which I explain that I now realize that Obama does deserve a pass.

In answer to my remark on a facebook posting from Tangelia Sinclair-Moore, Ken Knight posted the following words from President Obama that were issued when the President signed the NDAA.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

In my response, I said I was still troubled:

Tangelia, I am afraid you are right about the President’s words being inconsequential. Democratic Senator Carl Levin made the charge that it was the administration that wanted the removal of exclusion of US citizens from the reach of these provisions. To my knowledge, the administration never refuted Carl Levin’s remarks. If the provisions in this bill do not change any existing law nor hamper the President’s ability to do as he likes, why would he insist on removing the exclusion of US citizens from the provisions of this bill? If someone can answer that question, then I will reconsider my stance.

I am recording this all here, so that I can remember to keep considering all of this.  Do you think Obama should or should not receive a pass even though he failed to veto this bill?

I found this video on the Occupy Boston web site, Occupy Boston Women’s Caucus Members on Guerilla Messaging & the Future of the Occupy Movement.

The article Commentary: Getting America back to work is challenge for 2012 on the McClatchy news is very well done.

We can begin by rejecting incumbents and candidates who don’t seem to understand what things are like for the common man and woman. A typical case is Newt Gingrich, who opined that the poor don’t know how to work. Apparently, he’s never seen a single working mother multi-task.

Much of the national debate about our dismal economy amounts to thoughtless moralizing. The unemployed are lazy. The poor don’t want to improve themselves. Those who complain about inequality are envious. This kind of rhetoric appeals to many voters, but there are signs that more are seeing through it.

More insidious are the discredited economic doctrines that live on, zombie-like, in Congress and in polite circles in Washington, which obstruct useful government action. A prime example: the notion that raising taxes on the rich, even moderately to shrink deficits, will stifle the economy. Republicans take care to refer to the rich as “job creators.”

Yet the greatest job creators are not the rich but the American consumer. We create jobs by demanding goods and services — and we can’t do it without income.

The economic policy we need now can be summed up in three words: Get Americans working.

Of late, I have been pondering the value of fiscal stimulus in the face of highly unbalanced international trade. Perhaps my previous posts, The Euro Crisis in 7 Simple Charts: They’re telling you a real pack of lies and Eurocrisis: “Democracy is Not a Given”,  have finally awakened me to some additional economic forces for which we need to take account.

It is not that Keynesian fiscal stimulus is no longer a good idea, because it still is.  The problem is that there may be economic forces of sufficient strength now that there are additional steps that need to be taken beyond fiscal stimulus. My previous post Stop Arguing About Economic Theory And Politics is a graphic depiction of a better way to think about competing economic theories.

I’ll try to put these thoughts together in a future post.