Undernews For January 5, 2009

5 January 2009
SHOP TALK
Thanks to all our sainted readers for another great year at the Review . . .

Our articles were read a record six million times during 2008. . .

Keep the faith,

Sam
PAGE ONE MUST

OBAMA'S ADDRESSING KEY ISSUES IN 2001

OBAMA'S SECRET LIFE AS A FOOD CRITIC
HOW CITIES AFFECT YOUR BRAIN

Jonah Lehrer, Boston Globe - Scientists have begun to examine how the city affects the brain, and the results are chastening. Just being in an urban environment, they have found, impairs our basic mental processes. After spending a few minutes on a crowded city street, the brain is less able to hold things in memory, and suffers from reduced self-control. While it's long been recognized that city life is exhausting -- that's why Picasso left Paris -- this new research suggests that cities actually dull our thinking, sometimes dramatically so. .

One of the main forces at work is a stark lack of nature, which is surprisingly beneficial for the brain. Studies have demonstrated, for instance, that hospital patients recover more quickly when they can see trees from their windows, and that women living in public housing are better able to focus when their apartment overlooks a grassy courtyard. Even these fleeting glimpses of nature improve brain performance, it seems, because they provide a mental break from the urban roil. .

A city is so overstuffed with stimuli that we need to constantly redirect our attention so that we aren't distracted by irrelevant things, like a flashing neon sign or the cell phone conversation of a nearby passenger on the bus. This sort of controlled perception -- we are telling the mind what to pay attention to -- takes energy and effort. The mind is like a powerful supercomputer, but the act of paying attention consumes much of its processing . . .

Imagine a walk around Walden Pond, in Concord. The woods surrounding the pond are filled with pitch pine and hickory trees. Chickadees and red-tailed hawks nest in the branches; squirrels and rabbits skirmish in the berry bushes. Natural settings are full of objects that automatically capture our attention, yet without triggering a negative emotional response -- unlike, say, a backfiring car. The mental machinery that directs attention can relax deeply, replenishing itself. . .

The density of city life doesn't just make it harder to focus: It also interferes with our self-control. In that stroll down Newbury, the brain is also assaulted with temptations -- caramel lattes, iPods, discounted cashmere sweaters, and high-heeled shoes. Resisting these temptations requires us to flex the prefrontal cortex, a nub of brain just behind the eyes. Unfortunately, this is the same brain area that's responsible for directed attention, which means that it's already been depleted from walking around the city. As a result, it's less able to exert self-control, which means we're more likely to splurge on the latte and those shoes we don't really need. While the human brain possesses incredible computational powers, it's surprisingly easy to short-circuit: all it takes is a hectic city street. . .

Given the myriad mental problems that are exacerbated by city life, from an inability to pay attention to a lack of self-control, the question remains: Why do cities continue to grow? And why, even in the electronic age, do they endure as wellsprings of intellectual life?

Recent research by scientists at the Santa Fe Institute used a set of complex mathematical algorithms to demonstrate that the very same urban features that trigger lapses in attention and memory -- the crowded streets, the crushing density of people -- also correlate with measures of innovation, as strangers interact with one another in unpredictable ways. It is the "concentration of social interactions" that is largely responsible for urban creativity, according to the scientists. The density of 18th-century London may have triggered outbreaks of disease, but it also led to intellectual breakthroughs, just as the density of Cambridge -- one of the densest cities in America -- contributes to its success as a creative center. One corollary of this research is that less dense urban areas, like Phoenix, may, over time, generate less innovation.

The key, then, is to find ways to mitigate the psychological damage of the metropolis while still preserving its unique benefits. . .
ON THE OTHER HAND: THE MAN BEHIND CLAIBORNE PELL
Del Marbrook - When John E. Mulligan of The Providence Journal, William H. Honan of The New York Times and the late J.Y. Smith of The Washington Post wrote Senator Claiborne Pell's obituary they omitted an important facet of Rhode Island and national history, namely that an idealist of humble working class origins almost single-handedly made the aristocratic and often aloof Claiborne Pell palatable to the state's hoi poloi.

Very few savvy observers thought in 1961 when Senator Pell entered the political arena that he could defeat Dennis J. Roberts in the Democratic primary. Roberts was well known and firmly entrenched. Pell would need know-how and backroom information he simply didn't have. With considerable acumen he turned improbably to Raymond Nels Nelson, then the Warwick bureau manager of The Providence Journal's state staff. He could have turned to reporters with higher profiles, although they probably wouldn't have risked joining him. His choice of Ray Nelson was in many ways inspired, and it's not a stretch to say he probably owed his career to it.

There were a number of newsmen in the state who knew its politics as well as Ray, if not better, but none were as popular or gregarious. Ray's parents were Swedish immigrants. Ray himself never attended college. The towering, affable Nelson started at The Journal as a typist after his honorable discharge from the Navy. As a reporter he had a reputation for knowing more about Warwick and the state's Florentine politics than any man could reasonably be expected to know. He was ebullient, the sort of man to whom people from all walks of life clamored to confide things. It was hard to imagine this warmhearted giant without a telephone on his shoulder. Ray's canniness helped to make the patrician Pell understandable to Rhode Island's diverse and hectic electorate.

Ray understood the working class's attitude towards The Journal, which was key to getting Pell elected. He understood that The Journal was trusted and disliked at the same time. He steered the Newport and Westchester aristo through the Legion and VFW and union halls. He saw that the French-speaking Pell would have an advantage over opponents in the Blackstone Valley where many voters spoke French. His good humor and myriad contacts broke the ice for Pell. But few of Ray's colleagues advised him to quit his secure job and risk his future and his family's on a political unknown who seemed uncomfortable in the rough-and-tumble environment of Rhode Island's often corrupt politics.

There was about Claiborne Pell an innocence, an honesty and idealism that powerfully appealed to Ray Nelson, and against most advice he threw his lot in with the remote unknown. When Pell was elected Ray went to Washington as his administrative assistant. He knew Claiborne Pell would be a one-termer if he didn't quickly grasp how to tend his political fences back home, how to serve his constituents, how to steer clear of the usual imbroglios in a state known for its political infighting and Machiavellian politicians. He conceived of his job as keeping the senator electable and popular, but Claiborne Pell was soon pursuing his scholarly inclinations in Washington and the more secure Ray Nelson made his political base the greater the distance intellectually between the two men became.

When Ray openly declared himself a gay man, Pell, an active supporter of gay rights, relegated him to a lesser job in a windowless basement office of the Senate Rules Committee. It was a crushing blow to Ray Nelson, but he bore it with dignity and humor, as was his wont. He told me that the senator had indicated that his invaluable aide did not have the breadth of knowledge, particularly in foreign affairs, required of an AA serving a senator who was so vitally interested in world affairs and education. My response was that none of those lofty interests would do the senator much good without someone watching the home fires. Ray nodded ruefully. But by that time the senator's seat had become a sinecure.

Rhode Islanders had come to love and admire his eccentricities and integrity. The senator's death, the death of an inarguably noble man in most respects, should not be observed without mentioning that a working class idealist risked everything to get him elected and to keep him in office. It's a quintessentially American story, rich in human interest and somehow reassuring. And yet the press has succeeded in writing Ray Nelson out of the senator's history for no apparent reason other than that it was an inconvenient truth, a source of a bit of discomfort among all the encomiums.

That The Providence Journal should have omitted mention of Ray Nelson is passing strange. The cause could not have been a loss of institutional memory, however reduced in estate The Journal, like so many other papers, now finds itself, because its own library is undoubtedly full of stories mentioning Ray Nelson in connection with Claiborne Pell. This is revisionism by omission, and it's deplorable that readers should not be told of a humble man's idealism simply because the events in his life made some people a bit squeamish.

Raymond Nels Nelson, a former typist renowned for his speed on the teletypes newspapers used to use, was bludgeoned to death on June 1, 1981, by a typewriter in his apartment at 701 Quincy Street, NE, in Washington. The case is still open and there is a $25,000 reward for information. Ray was 59-years-old. I was one of his friends and colleagues who spoke at his funeral. After the service Senator Pell and I embraced and he asked me what he should have done. It was characteristic of him. He too was a humble man, however high his origins. I told him the simple truth, I didn't know.

Ray Nelson is remembered by a handful of remaining Journal colleagues as the man to call when you needed help, the man who was there when you were down, the man who always had time to listen to you, even if he did have two other people on the line.
HARRY REID DECLARES SENATE A PRIVATE CLUB

Reuters - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that "legal authority" exists under the Constitution to bar embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's pick to fill President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat, but added there is also room to negotiate.Under the Constitution, Reid said, "We determine who sits in the Senate. And the House (of Representatives) determines who sits in the House. So there's clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to do. This goes back for generations.". . .
DEMOCRATS READY TO PLAY GAMES WITH THE CAPITAL COLONY
The Democrats are preparing to gain some easy points by giving the capital colony, DC, a vote in the House - carefully balanced by a new one for GOP Utah. Most of what you will read about this issue will be wrong, so here's a guide to the reality of the matter we did a few years back,, outlining the difference between true democracy for DC and the token House seat.

What is the basic difference?

Representation in Congress would increase DC's political power somewhat but would not affect any of the basic colonial precepts under which the city is governed. For example, the federal government would still:

-- have plenary power over all aspects of local governance

-- control the budget

-- control the prosecution and adjudication of, as well the imprisonment for, crimes.

-- have the power to deny the city a commuter tax

-- be able to pass laws in contravention of the will of DC citizens

In other words, even with representation, DC would remain a full colony of the US, just as Algeria was before it gained independence even though it had representation in the French National Assembly.

Short of a highly improbable constitutional amendment, the only ways to gain full democracy by making DC residents equal to other Americans are statehood, retrocession to Maryland, or joining it to some other state.

Isn't representation a stepping stone to democracy?

Theoretically yes, but in practice not. The granting of a vote in the House would essentially bury the DC colony issues for years to come

Isn't this really a technical argument?

Not at all. It reflects a century-long political struggle within the city. Here is some of the history of this issue:

1888: Conservative newspaperman Theodore Noyes of the Washington Star launches campaign for congressional representation; strongly opposes real democracy. Noyes writes, "National representation for the capital community is not in the slightest degree inconsistent with control of the capital by the nation through Congress."

1899: A political scientist describes the Board of Trade - which supports a congressional vote only -- as providing DC with the ideal form of local government through a "representative aristocracy."

1919: Board of Trade and Chamber of Commerce advocate congressional representation and oppose home rule. Labor unions urge elected officials.

1934: A special committee recommends a nonvoting delegate but no home rule.

1943: Board of Trade appears before Senate Committee to support representation in Congress but opposes local self-government.

1960s: Segregationist Rep. John McMillan favors a DC vote for president and vice president, says a struggle for home rule will cripple the national vote. McMillan thinks the national vote should "satisfy" DC residents "at least for a while."

1971: DC gets a nonvoting congressional delegate. In first delegate race, the statehood arguments of Julius Hobson are strongly opposed by Walter Fauntroy who will become the leader of a lengthy and futile drive for a constitutional amendment granting congressional representation.

1972: Walter Fauntroy and John Hechinger, later major players in the voting rights drive, sabotage George McGovern's planned announcement of support for DC statehood.

1981: The League of Women Voters, Walter Fauntroy, and the Washington Post - all strong advocates of congressional voting representation - are the leading voices again DC statehood.

1985: The voting rights amendment is defeated with less than half the required states voting for it. Meanwhile years of potential work for full democracy are dissipated and diluted.

2004: Delegate Norton convinces the Democratic Party to drop DC statehood from its platform, to be replaced by a call for voting rights. According to The Washington Times, "Pat Elwood, vice chairman of the [Democratic] state committee, said she agreed with Mrs. Norton's view that statehood 'dilutes' the message of congressional voting representation.

What is behind the representation drive?

Two things:

-- Genuine and understandable confusion about the issue by well-intentioned citizens who have been propagandized into thinking that democracy and representation are the same.

-- The interests of big business and lawyer-lobbyists in having a representative on the Hill whom they can buy through campaign contributions and later control. While this problem would exist in any form of status change, it is preeminent when representation is sought and democracy isn't.

What about the saying, "no taxation without representation?"

This is one of these slogans that sounds far better than it is. The slogan actually stemmed from a major complaint of the business and upper classes against the British crown and, much like corporate mantras of today, such as "free markets", it gained a currency far broader than its applicability.

While New England businessmen were speaking of representation in the English parliament, perhaps the most famous speech on behalf of the principle was by Patrick Henry in a fiery address in 1765 against the Stamp Act in which he declared, "If this be treason, make the most of it."

What's significant is that Henry was not speaking of representation in the Parliament, but rather of the right of the Virginia legislature to approve any taxes on the people. In other words, Henry was taking the side of full democracy rather than insignificant representation in a national legislature that still held plenary powers over the colonies. It is this critical and similar distinction that current use of the phrase "taxation without representation" obscures.

By the time the Declaration of Independence was written, America had come cleanly down on the side of full democracy as opposed to mere representation. The only mention of taxes in the Declaration of Independence attacks the crown for "imposing taxes on us without our consent," something Congress can still do even if it grants DC representation.

A far better slogan would be "no taxation without democracy" or, better still, "statehood now"

How would statehood be achieved?

The mechanics of statehood are relatively simple. They have been invoked 37 times since the first 13 colonies formed their union. A territory must petition the Congress, draft a constitution with a republican form of government, Congress must approve by a simple majority, and the President must sign the bill.

A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote of Congress as well the support of three-quarters of the state legislatures. In other words, 13 states can veto a constitutional amendment. The last time a voting rights amendment was circulated, less than half the required states approved it within the seven year time limit.

A constitutional amendment may be repealed. Statehood cannot be repealed.

What about Congress' power over the District?

The Constitution states the upper size limit of the district over which it has power; it does not state the lower limit. The size of the District has been changed in the past, most significantly when the Virginia portion was retroceded to that state. DC statehood would require a simple reduction of the size of the federal district to an unpopulated area running, say, from the Capitol along the Mall to the Lincoln Memorial.

Isn't statehood impractical?

Far from it. We've created a new state 85% as frequently as we have elected a new president. In fact, it will become increasingly impractical for the Senate to remain our most segregated and unrepresentative legislature, one which would be subject to court-ordered bussing if it were a school system; sued under civil rights laws if it were a corporation; and from which, if it were a private club, one would want to resign before running for public office.

The Senate also discriminates against cities and the largest states. For example, there are eight states with 16 senators that have in aggregate less population than New York City. There are 18 states with 36 senators with less population than all of New York state. There are 21 states with 42 senators that together have less population than California with its two senators.

In fact, the malapportionment of the Senate is perhaps the most important, undiscussed issue in the country today for there is hardly a matter of political importance that would not be affected if that body were to reflect 21st century, rather than 19th century, demographics.

Further, in not too many years, white Americans will cease to be in the majority. Even leaving moral questions aside, how much longer will it be politically practical to tell blacks and latinos that the rules can't be changed to let them into the Senate in some reasonable number? DC is a great place to start correcting this grievous vacuum.
NEW POLICE REVELATIONS ILLUSTRATE MADNESS OF WAR ON TERROR

Lisa Rein and Josh White, Washington Post - The Maryland State Police surveillance of advocacy groups was far more extensive than previously acknowledged, with records showing that troopers monitored -- and labeled as terrorists -- activists devoted to such wide-ranging causes as promoting human rights and establishing bike lanes.

Intelligence officers created a voluminous file on Norfolk-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, calling the group a "security threat" because of concerns that members would disrupt the circus. Angry consumers fighting a 72 percent electricity rate increase in 2006 were targeted. The DC Anti-War Network, which opposes the Iraq war, was designated a white supremacist group, without explanation.

One of the possible "crimes" in the file police opened on Amnesty International, a world-renowned human rights group: "civil rights.". . .

Police have acknowledged that the monitoring, which took place during the administration of then-Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R), spiraled out of control, with an undercover trooper spending 14 months infiltrating peaceful protest groups. Troopers have said they inappropriately labeled 53 individuals as terrorists in their database, information that was shared with federal authorities. But the new documents reveal a far more expansive set of police targets and indicate that police did not close some files until late 2007.

The surveillance ended with no arrests and no evidence of violent sedition. Instead, troopers are preparing to purge files and say they are expecting lawsuits.
WHY REPUBLICANS WORRY ABOUT FDR

Dean Baker, Truthout - Franklin Delano Roosevelt with members of his cabinet. As President- At least some Republicans are starting to muster an anti-stimulus drive, claiming that President-elect Obama's package will not help the economy. Their drive is centered on what they claim is a careful rereading of the history of the New Deal. According to their account, President Roosevelt's policies actually lengthened the Great Depression. . .

In reality, any careful reading showed that the New Deal policies substantially ameliorated the effects of the Great Depression for tens of millions of people. The major economic failing of the New Deal was that President Roosevelt was not prepared to push the policies as far as necessary to fully lift the economy out of the Great Depression.

Roosevelt was too worried about the whining of the anti-stimulus crowd that he confronted. He remained concerned about balancing the budget when the proper goal of fiscal policy should have been large deficits to stimulate the economy. Roosevelt's policies substantially reduced the unemployment rate from the 25 percent peak when he first took office, but they did not get the unemployment rate back into single digits.

It took the enormous public spending associated with World War II to fully lift the economy out of the depression. The lesson that economists take away from this experience is that we should be prepared to run very large deficits in order to give the economy a sufficient boost to generate self-sustaining growth.

However, from the standpoint of Republicans, the more ominous lesson of the New Deal policies is that it left the Democrats firmly in power for more than 20 years. The Republicans did not regain the White House until 1952, 20 years after President Roosevelt was first elected

In 2028, Newt Gingrich will be 85 years old; Mitt Romney will be 81; Mike Huckabee will be 73 and Senator McCain will be 98. Even Sarah Palin will be a less than youthful 64. In short, if President-elect Obama is allowed to carry through with his stimulus package and the rest of his ambitious domestic agenda, most of current leadership of the Republican Party can expect to spend the rest of their political career in the political wilderness, far removed from the centers of power.
SAVING THE GLOBE VS. GROWING THE ECONOMY

James Gustave Speth, Nation - It is no accident that environmental crisis is gathering as social injustice is deepening and growing inequality is impairing democratic institutions. Each is the result of a system of political economy--today's capitalism--that is profoundly committed to profits and growth and profoundly indifferent to nature and society. Left uncorrected, it is an inherently ruthless, rapacious system, and it is up to citizens, acting mainly through government, to inject human and natural values into that system. But this effort fails because progressive politics are too feeble and Washington is more and more in the hands of powerful corporations and great wealth. The best hope for change in America is a fusion of those concerned about the environment, social justice and strong democracy into one powerful progressive force. This fusion must occur before it is too late.

Sadly, while environmentalists have been winning many battles, we are losing the planet. . . All we have to do to destroy the planet's climate and biota and leave a ruined world to our children and grandchildren is to keep doing exactly what we are doing, with no growth in the human population or the world economy. Just continue to release greenhouse gases at current rates, impoverish ecosystems and release toxic chemicals at current rates, and the world in the latter part of this century won't be fit to live in. But human activities are not holding at current levels--they are accelerating dramatically.

The world economy has more than quadrupled since 1960 and is projected to quadruple again by mid century. At recent rates of growth, it will double in fifteen to seventeen years. It took all of human history to grow the $7 trillion world economy of 1950. We now grow by that amount in a decade. Societies face the prospect of enormous environmental deterioration just when they need to be moving strongly in the opposite direction. . .

Mainstream environmentalism has proved largely incapable of coping with these forces. It works within the system--raising public awareness, offering responsive policies, lobbying and litigating. America has run a forty-year experiment on whether this environmentalism can succeed, and the results are in. The full burden of managing accumulating environmental threats has fallen to the environmental community, both in and outside government. But that burden is too great. The system of modern capitalism will grow in size and complexity and will generate ever larger environmental consequences, outstripping efforts to cope with them. . .

The never-ending drive to grow the economy undermines families, jobs, communities, the environment, a sense of place and continuity, even national security--but we are told that, in the end, we will somehow be better off. . . In affluent countries we have what might be called uneconomic growth, to borrow Herman Daly's phrase, where, if one could total up all the costs of growth, they would outweigh the benefits.
THE DANGERS OF SCHOOL TESTING ADDICTION

From a report by the British Assessment Reform Group based on a survey of scores of studies.

The results of tests that are 'high stakes' for individual pupils have been found to have a particularly strong impact on those who receive low grades. However, tests that are high stakes for schools rather than for pupils (such as the national tests in England and state-mandated tests in the US) can have just as much impact. Pupils are aware of repeated practice tests and the narrowing of the curriculum.

Only those confident of success enjoy the tests. In taking tests, high achievers are more persistent, use appropriate test taking strategies and have more positive self-perceptions than low achievers. Low achievers become overwhelmed by assessments and demotivated by constant evidence of their low achievement. The effect is to increase the gap between low and high achieving pupils.

The use of repeated practice tests impresses on pupils the importance of the tests. It encourages them to adopt test-taking strategies designed to avoid effort and responsibility. Repeated practice tests are, therefore, detrimental to higher order thinking.

What is the overall impact on pupils' motivation?

An impact on self-esteem was reported in all studies dealing with this aspect of motivation. For example, two studies showed that, after the introduction of the National Curriculum tests in England, low-achieving pupils had lower self-esteem than higher achieving pupils. Before the tests were introduced there was no correlation between self esteem and achievement. . . Put simply, one impact of the tests was the reduction in self esteem of those pupils who did not achieve well.

Pupils at primary school are also aware that tests give only a narrow view of their learning. When tests pervade the ethos of the classroom, test performance is more highly valued than what is being learned.

Girls are reported as expressing more test anxiety than boys. Girls are also more likely to think that the source of success or failure lies within themselves rather than being influenced by external circumstances. This has consequences for their self-esteem, especially when they view their potential as fixed.

How does the impact vary with the conditions of testing?

The conditions found to affect the impact of testing relate to . . . the extent to which their effort is motivated by the prospect of reward or punishment that follows from the test performance (extrinsic motivation). This may have little to do with the learning or the value and satisfaction derived from what is learned (intrinsic motivation).

How does the impact vary with the characteristics of pupils?

Lower achieving pupils are doubly disadvantaged by tests. Being labeled as failures has an impact on how they feel about their ability to learn. It also lowers further their already low self-esteem and reduces the chance of future effort and success.

Only when low achievers have a high level of support (from school or home), which shows them how to improve, do some escape from this vicious circle. . .

Feedback from the teacher that focuses on how to improve or build on what has been done is associated with greater interest and effort. Feedback that emphasizes relative performance - for example, marks or grades formally or informally compared with those of others - encourages pupils to concentrate on getting better grades rather than on deeper understanding. . .

Collegiality-meaning constructive discussion of testing and the development of desirable assessment practice in the school-has a positive effect, whilst an exclusive focus on performance goals has a negative effect.

The degree to which learners are able to regulate their own learning also appears to foster pupils' interest and to promote focus on the intrinsic features of their work. Pupils who have some control over their work by being given choice and by being encouraged to evaluate their own work are more likely to value the learning itself rather than to focus only on whether or not it is correct.

When test scores are a source of pride to parents and the community, pressure is brought to bear on the school for high scores. Similarly, parents bring pressure on their children when the result has consequences for attendance at high social status schools. For many pupils this increases their anxiety even though they recognize their parents as being supportive.

Where impact on pupils has been found, what is the impact on teachers and teaching?

The evidence suggests that teachers can be very effective in training pupils to pass tests even when the pupils do not have the understanding or higher order thinking skills that the tests are intended to measure. When test results are used for making decisions that affect the status or future of pupils, teachers or schools, teachers adopt a teaching style that emphasizes transmission of knowledge. This favors those pupils who prefer to learn by mastering information presented sequentially.

Those who prefer more active and creative learning experiences are disadvantaged and their self-esteem is lowered. External tests have a constricting effect on the curriculum, resulting in emphasis on the subjects tested at the expense of creativity and personal and social development.

Successful actions include:

- adopting approaches that encourage self-regulated learning, including collaboration among pupils

- catering for a range of learning styles

- cultivating intrinsic interest in the subject

- putting less emphasis on grades

- promoting learning goal orientation rather than performance orientation

- developing pupils' self-assessment skills and their use of criteria relating to learning, rather than test performance

- making learning goals explicit and helping pupils to direct effort in learning
BUSINESSES SEEKING SETTLEMENTS WITH BUSH BEFORE OBAMA COMES IN

Carrie Johnson, Washington Post - The Justice Department has reached more than a dozen business-related settlements since the presidential election, with more in the pipeline for January, prompting lawyers and interest groups to assert that companies are seeking more favorable terms before the new administration arrives. . .

A review of 15 agreements involving corporations since early November suggests that much of the alleged misconduct dates back five years or more, provoking questions about why the cases took so long to mature and why resolutions are coming with only weeks left in President Bush's term.

"What they obviously are trying to do is take advantage of an administration that's deemed to be more friendly to business," said Cono R. Namorato, a Washington defense lawyer who ran the Internal Revenue Service's office of professional responsibility earlier in the Bush administration. "I know of no tax reason for doing it now."
OBAMA'S SILENCE HURTING HIM WITH MUSLIMS

Simon Tisdall, Guardian UK - Obama has remained wholly silent during the Gaza crisis. His aides say he is following established protocol that the US has only one president at a time. Hillary Clinton, his designated secretary of state, and Joe Biden, the vice-president-elect and foreign policy expert, have also been uncharacteristically taciturn on the subject.

But evidence is mounting that Obama is already losing ground among key Arab and Muslim audiences that cannot understand why, given his promise of change, he has not spoken out. Arab commentators and editorialists say there is growing disappointment at Obama's detachment - and that his failure to distance himself from George Bush's strongly pro-Israeli stance is encouraging the belief that he either shares Bush's bias or simply does not care.

The Al-Jazeera satellite television station recently broadcast footage of Obama on holiday in Hawaii, wearing shorts and playing golf, juxtaposed with scenes of bloodshed and mayhem in Gaza. Its report criticizing "the deafening silence from the Obama team" suggested Obama is losing a battle of perceptions among Muslims that he may not realize has even begun. . .

Obama's absence from the fray is also allowing hostile voices to exploit the vacuum. "It would appear that the president-elect has no intention of getting involved in the Gaza crisis," Iran's Resalat newspaper commented sourly. "His stances and viewpoints suggest he will follow the path taken by previous American presidents. . . Obama, too, will pursue policies that support the Zionist aggressions."

Whether Obama, when he does eventually engage, can successfully elucidate an Israel-Palestine policy that is substantively different from that of Bush-Cheney is wholly uncertain at present.

To maintain the hard line US posture of placing the blame for all current troubles squarely on Hamas, to the extent of repeatedly blocking limited UN security council ceasefire moves, would be to end all realistic hopes of winning back Arab opinion - and could have negative, knock-on consequences for US interests in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf.

Yet if Obama were to take a tougher (some would say more balanced) line with Israel, for example by demanding a permanent end to its blockade of Gaza, or by opening a path to talks with Hamas, he risks provoking a rightwing backlash in Israel, giving encouragement to Israel's enemies, and losing support at home for little political advantage. . .

On the campaign trail, Obama (like Clinton) was broadly supportive of Israel and specifically condemnatory of Hamas. But at the same time, he held out the prospect of radical change in western relations with Muslims everywhere, promising to make a definitive policy speech in a "major Islamic forum" within 100 days of taking office.

"I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat the prophets of hate and violence," he said.

As the Gaza casualty headcount goes up and Obama keeps his head down, those sentiments are beginning to sound a little hollow. The danger is that when he finally peers over the parapet on January 21, the battle of perceptions may already be half-lost.
LOCAL HEROES: SOUTH DAKOTA COURT RULES CURSING AT COP PROTECTED SPEECH

David L. Hudson Jr. First Amendment Center - A man who cursed at police officers in Brookings, S.D., engaged in protected free speech, the state high court has ruled.

The court voted 4-1 to reverse a lower court decision that had found Marcus Suhn used unprotected fighting words - defined by the U.S. Supreme Court more than 60 years ago as words "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Marcus J. Suhn yelled a stream of profanities beginning with "Fucking cop" on the sidewalk at 2 a.m. after the bars closed on Sept. 2, 2007, as two police officers were riding down the street in their patrol car. One officer heard Suhn, got out of his patrol car, arrested him and charged him with disorderly conduct.

After a trial court convicted Suhn, he appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court, which reversed the ruling in its Dec. 30, 2008, opinion in State v. Suhn. The majority, in an opinion written by Justice Judith Meierhenry, examined the origins and development of the "fighting words" doctrine articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1942 decision Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. The Court affirmed the conviction of Walter Chaplinsky after he allegedly called a local marshal a "fascist" and a "racketeer," which the Court held were fighting words unprotected by the First Amendment.

In subsequent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the fighting-words doctrine. In Cohen v. California (1971), the Court declined to apply the fighting-words exception to First Amendment protection in the case of a man who wore a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft" in a California courthouse, holding the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions - Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974) - the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

Analyzing this development, Meierhenry wrote that "the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that in order for speech to fall within the "fighting words" exception, the words by their very utterance have "to tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" under the circumstances of the case."

According to Meierhenry, Suhn's profanity about the police did not "tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,"as the other people standing on Main Street did not react with any type of violence.

"The crowd merely responded with facial expressions of disbelief," he wrote. "Just because someone may have been offended, annoyed, or even angered by Suhn's words does not make them fighting words."

In dissent, Justice Richard W. Sabers characterized the context of the case differently, referring to "the crowd in this mob-like setting." He reasoned that "the facts of this case are such that defendant's speech tended to incite a breach of the peace."
CRASH TALK
Dean Baker, Prospect - The lead article in the New Year's Day edition of the Washington Post bemoaned the loss of $6.9 trillion in value in U.S. stock market last year. While those who own large amounts of stock have reason to shed tears, this may end being good news for the rest of us.

The loss of stock wealth means that stockholders have less claim to value of the country's output. The U.S. economy can produce just as much in 2009 as it did in 2008 (in fact somewhat more, because of labor force and productivity growth). If stockholders can demand less because of the reduced value of their stock, then this leaves more for the rest of us.

The most visible evidence of how the loss of stockholder wealth can benefit the rest of us was the sharp decline in consumer prices over the last three months. As a result, real wages rose at almost a 15 percent annual rate in the three months from September through November.

Of course, insofar as the demand generated by stockholders (and homeowners, who have also seen their wealth plummet) is not replaced by other sources, then workers are losing jobs. Eventually weakness in the labor market will put more downward pressure on real wages. However, if the loss of demand from stockholders is effectively replaced by demand from the government or foreign sector, then the vast majority of the country will be made better off by this plunge in stock prices.

Mark Hulbert - Does the stock market tend to bounce back after losses as big as 2008's? Unfortunately not. That, at least, is the conclusion I reached after feeding the Dow's yearly returns into my PC's statistical package. Try as I might to find year-to-year patterns in the data, I came up empty: Whether or not the Dow gains or loses in a given year has little to do with whether it gained or lost in the previous year. In other words, the stock market sometimes does bounce back after having a bad year. But on other occasions it continues to go down. Consider 1908 -- the year after the Dow lost 37.7% -- when it gained 46.6%. Not bad. But before you get too excited, consider how the Dow did in 1932, the year following its 53.7% loss in 1931. In 1932, the Dow lost an additional 23.1%. Two data points aren't conclusive, to be sure. But upon analyzing all 112 yearly returns, I failed to find any correlations in the year-to-year returns that were statistically significant. The bottom line? We can draw very few inferences about 2009 from the stock market's terrible performance in 2008.

News, Australia - The US steel industry is reportedly in collapse and looking for a massive government investment program of up to $US1 trillion ($1.42 trillion) to stimulate demand. Output of steel has plunged 50 per cent since September as construction and car production have fallen sharply amid a US recession and the global credit crunch, The New York Times reports. Industry executives are pleading for a huge public infrastructure investment program - of up to $US1 trillion over two years - under president-elect Barack Obama's proposed stimulus plan, the newspaper says.
ISRAEL'S WAR AGAINST PALESTINE
Greg Mitchell, Editor & Publisher - After more than eight days of Israeli bombing and Hamas rocket launching in Gaza, most notably, The New York Times had produced exactly one editorial, not a single commentary by any of its columnists, and only one op-ed (twice the normal length and favoring Israel's bombing). The editorial, several days ago, did argue against the wisdom of a ground invasion - - but even though that invasion had become ever more likely all week the paper did not return to this subject. Amazingly, the paper has kept that silence going in Sunday's paper, with no editorial or columnist comment on the Israeli invasion. . .

On Friday, Amnesty International condemned the U.S. response to the "disproportionate" Israeli bombing of Gaza -- with largely U.S. weapons. Some of it amounts to U.S.-backed "human rights abuses," it charged.

The group recalled that the U.S. supplied most of the millions of cluster bombs dropped by Israel in the Lebanon war in 2006. . .

Meanwhile, a columnist for the Spectator in London argued for the arrest of Western journalists who have criticized Israel's actions. . . And Amir Oren, in a column at Haaretz, concluded with a call to get done with Gaza:

"The IDF must move quickly to disengage, in order to free its attention for the paramount task of preparing a military blow to Iran, if diplomacy and deterrence fail. As long as the great threat of Iranian power is hovering, the smaller threats of Hezbollah and Hamas that derive from it will not be dispelled."

Israel, meanwhile, maintained its ban on foreign journalists entering the Gaza Strip despite a recent Supreme Court order to allow a limited number of reporters to enter the territory.

And Gideon Levy writes in a column at Haaretz:

"Everything is permitted, legitimate and just. The moral voice of restraint, if it ever existed, has been left behind. . . Nobody is coming to the rescue -- of Gaza or even of the remnants of humanity and Israeli democracy. The statesmen, the jurists, the poets, the authors, academe, and the news media -- pitch black over the abyss."

Eric S. Margolis, Al Jazeera - The Israeli offensive into Gaza now looks likely to short-circuit any plans Obama might have had to press Israel into withdrawing to its pre-1967 borders and sharing Jerusalem.

This has pleased Israel's supporters in North America who have been cheering the war in Gaza and have been backing away from their earlier tentative support for a land-for-peace deal.

Israel's successes in having Western media portray the Gaza offensive as an 'anti-terrorist operation' will also diminish hopes of peace talks any time soon.

During the elections, Obama bowed to the Israel lobby, offering a new US carte blanche to Israel and even accepting Israel's permanent monopoly of all of Jerusalem. As he concludes forming his cabinet, his Middle East team looks like it may be top-heavy with friends of Israel's Labor party.

Obama keeps saying he must remain silent on policy issues until George Bush, the outgoing US president, leaves office, but his staff appear happy to avoid having to make statements about Gaza that would antagonize Israel's American supporters.

Obama will take office facing a Middle East up in arms over Gaza and the entire Muslim world blaming the US for the carnage in Gaza. Unless he moves swiftly to distance himself from the policies of the Bush administration, he will soon find himself facing the same problems and anger as the Bush White House.

Israel's Gaza offensive is also likely to torpedo the current Saudi-sponsored peace plan, which had been backed by all members of the Arab League.

The plan, now likely defunct, had called for Israel to withdraw to its 1967 borders and share Jerusalem in exchange for full recognition and normalized relations with the Muslim world.

Arab governments will now be unable to sell the deal as they face a storm of criticism from their own people over their powerlessness to help the Palestinians of Gaza.

Egypt, in particular, is being widely accused of collaborating with Israel in further sealing off and isolating Gaza. It seems highly unlikely they will be able to advance a peace plan with Israel for now. .

This is a bonus for right-wing Israelis, who have always been dead set against any withdrawal and strongly supported the attack on Gaza. Israel is confident that its mighty information machine will allow it to weather the storm of worldwide outrage over its Biblical punishment of Gaza. Who remembers Israel's flattening of parts of the Palestinian city of Jenin, or the US destruction in Falluja, Iraq, or the Sabra and Shatilla massacres in Beirut?

Though the torment of Gaza is seen across the horrified Muslim world as a modern version of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising by Jews against the Nazis during World War Two, Western governments still appear bent on taking no action.

Though Israel's use of American weapons against Gaza violates the US Arms Export Control and Foreign Assistance Acts, the docile US Congress will remain mute.

Israel's assault on Gaza was clearly timed for America's interregnum between administrations and the year-end holidays, a well-used Israeli tactic. . .

The Muslim world is in a rage. But so what? Stalin liked to say "the dogs bark, and the caravan moves on," and as long as the US gives Israel carte blanche, it can do just about anything it wants.

The tragedy of Palestine will thus continue to poison US relations with the Muslim world.

Those Americans who still do not understand why their nation was attacked on 9/11 need only look to Gaza, for which the US is now being blamed as much as Israel.

Mondo Weiss - The Israeli invasion of Gaza is turning into a rerun of a show that was horrible the first time. Comparisons to the 2006 Israeli war in Lebanon abound. One of the current story lines is whether the U.S. is working for a cease fire or trying to prevent one. Ha'aretz reports "U.S. quashes Arab-backed Gaza cease-fire resolution in UN Security Council meet": The United States thwarted an effort by Libya on Sunday to persuade the UN Security Council to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza after Israel launched a ground invasion, diplomats said.

Several council diplomats told reporters that the U.S. refusal to back a Libyan-drafted demand for an immediate truce at a closed-door emergency session had killed the initiative, since council statements must be passed unanimously.

The last time the U.S. derailed a ceasefire agreement to end Israeli aggression was the 2006 Lebanon War when Secretary Rice said, "What we're seeing here, in a sense, is the growing -- the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East not going back to the old one." In that case the U.S. argued that Israel needed more time to accomplish its goals against Hizbollah. Those "birth pangs" led to southern Lebanon being decimated and Hizbollah emerging stronger than ever.

Interestingly, Ha'aretz is also reporting: "Sources: U.S. truce efforts have yet to address Israel's needs." So maybe the U.S. is trying to broker a cease fire although the article doesn't make it clear what exactly the U.S. truce offer is lacking, or what exactly Israel needs, other than more time to destroy Gaza. The article ends, "The ground operation will help Israel improve its ability to realize the regional objectives it has set for itself in launching Operation Cast Lead," a senior official in Jerusalem told Haaretz on Saturday.

Also similar to Lebanon: the goals for the attack seem to be changing midstream. Originally the goals of the Israeli attacks on Gaza were to end the missiles being fired on southern Israel. Now the "regional objectives" are increasingly being articulated as removing Hamas from power. A goal, the New York Times adds, "almost no one familiar with Gaza and Palestinian politics considers . . . realistic."
WHAT'S A DEPRESSION?

Economist - The word "depression" is popping up more often than at any time in the past 60 years, but what exactly does it mean? The popular rule of thumb for a recession is two consecutive quarters of falling GDP. America's National Bureau of Economic Research has officially declared a recession based on a more rigorous analysis of a range of economic indicators. But there is no widely accepted definition of depression. So how severe does this current slump have to get before it warrants the "D" word?

A search on the internet suggests two principal criteria for distinguishing a depression from a recession: a decline in real GDP that exceeds 10%, or one that lasts more than three years. America's Great Depression qualifies on both counts, with GDP falling by around 30% between 1929 and 1933. Output also fell by 13% during 1937 and 1938. The Great Depression was America's deepest economic slump (excluding those related to wars), but at 43 months it was not the longest: that dubious honour goes to the one in 1873-79, which lasted 65 months.

THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW
Washington's Most Unofficial Source
611 Pennsylvania Ave SE #381
Washington DC 20003
202-423-7884
Editor: Sam Smith

TO DONATE TO THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW

DONATE THROUGH PAYPAL

BOOKS
WHY BOTHER?
GREAT AMERICAN POLITICAL REPAIR MANUAL

MUSIC
SAM SMITH'S DECOLAND BAND & OTHER GIGS

© Scoop Media