Minnesota Starvation StudyII

Yesterday I talked about the Minnesota Starvation Study done in the 1940s by Ancel Benjamin Keys, Ph.D., which examined the results of starvation on a group of 40 healthy young men, as discussed by Sandy Szwarc, of Junkfood Science in her post, How we've come to believe that obesity is caused by overeating. In that post, I looked at some of the physical effects of starvation/dieting and examined my own dieting experience with what Dr. Keys discovered. Today I want to look at the psychological effects.

But the psychological changes that were brought on by dieting, even among these robust men with only moderate calorie restrictions, were the most profound and unexpected. So much so that Dr. Keys called it “semistarvation neurosis.” The men became nervous, anxious, apathetic, withdrawn, impatient, self-critical with distorted body images and even feeling overweight, moody, emotional and depressed. A few even mutilated themselves, one chopping off three fingers in stress. They lost their ambition and feelings of adequacy, and their cultural and academic interests narrowed. They neglected their appearance, became loners and their social and family relationships suffered. They lost their senses of humor, love and compassion. Instead, they became obsessed with food, thinking, talking and reading about it constantly; developed weird eating rituals; began hoarding things; consumed vast amounts of coffee and tea; and chewed gum incessantly (as many as 40 packages a day). Binge eating episodes also became a problem as some of the men were unable to continue to restrict their eating in their hunger.

The act of restricting food and the constant hunger “made food the most important thing in one’s life,” said one of the participants. “Food became the one central and only thing really in one’s life. And life is pretty dull if that’s the only thing. I mean, if you went to a movie, you weren’t particularly interested in the love scenes, but you noticed every time they ate and what they ate.”

These experiences are familiar to those who’ve spent their lives dieting. In fact, many of the symptoms once thought to be primary features of anorexia nervosa are actually normal biological responses of undernutrition and restrictive eating, said David M. Garner, PhD., director of River Centre Clinic in Sylvania, Ohio, in Psychoeducational principles in the treatment of eating disorders (NY: Guilford Press, 1997). It was actually Dr. Keys’ research that first evidenced the role of dieting in increasing risks for eating disorders.

The extreme physical and mental effects Dr. Keys observed led to his famous quote: “Starved people cannot be taught democracy. To talk about the will of the people when you aren’t feeding them is perfect hogwash.” This was also what led early feminist activists to see dieting and weight concerns as a way to keep women preoccupied with food, filled with guilt and self-hatred, more easily influenced by others, and too mentally and physically exhausted to succeed professionally and politically.

Think about these results for a moment. And then think about them again. And then think about the degree to which the government is involved in promoting the idea that we are in the midst of an "obesity epidemic." And the concern of governments all over the world with childhood obesity.

Today's political landscape requires that we be informed and capable of critical thinking. Remembering that the subjects Dr. Keys worked with were on 1,600 calories a day and that most reducing diets are 1,200 calories or less a day. That once the calorie restriction part of the study was complete, the subjects naturally ate 4,000 calories a day and that when dieters find themselves eating over 2,000 calories a day they panic about the "binge" eating they are doing and try to put themselves back on their diets. That the Minnesota study subjects wanted to regain the weight they had lost and dieters do NOT. How many dieters ever get back to a state of psychological health? How many are ever really capable of their best critical thinking and deepest thought? How many are in a state to pay close attention to what the government is doing?

At the very least, this national obsession with weight is reducing not our waistlines but our vigilance. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I don't think that anyone is purposely seeing if they can get us to starve ourselves into a state of apathy about the direction our government is going. But isn't it convenient for them?

And I do believe that the diet industry, which brings in over $66 billion a year, lobbies strongly for obesity measures from the government to increase their profits. And I also believe that if anyone is aware of the rest of this, if they know just how uncritical dieting makes the populace, it doesn't bother them in the least.

Recruitment poster courtesy Sandy Szwarc, Junkfood Science

A Spine!

The House Dems have done it! Today they showed they have spines in two actions: first they approved contemt citations for Bolton and Miers.for refusing to produce documents and testify in the US Attorney firing case. Then, as The Washington Post posted Bush, GOP Rebuke House Democrats on Surveillance Bill on its on-line edition 6:30 p.m., ET,. they recessed for the week, allowing the Protect Americans Act, the current FISA bill to expire, resisting the pressure from the GOP and President Bush to add telecom immunity to their version of the new bill.

House Democrats left Washington today for a week-long recess without taking action on a terrorist surveillance bill set to expire Friday night, drawing theatrical protests from congressional Republicans and a sharp rebuke from President Bush***

Democrats are refusing to budge, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that while key committee chairmen would stay in Washington to keep working on the issue, the rest of the House would be going home today.***

"the chamber will go into symbolic "pro forma" sessions rather than adjourn for the week. Senate Democrats have used similar sessions to prevent Bush from making controversial executive branch nominations during that chamber's recesses.

Since the Senate passed its own version of the surveillance law Tuesday, House Democrats have engaged in a fierce internal debate over how to proceed. They have become stuck on the question of whether to provide immunity to telecommunications companies that provided help to the government in surveillance operations.

Hill Republicans and Bush want the House to simply pass the Senate bill, but House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday his chamber is "not a lap dog of the president or the United States Senate any more than they are of us."

And Pelosi reiterated that point today and accused Bush of "fearmongering" on the issue.

"President Bush tells the American people he has nothing to offer but fear," she said.

***

House Democrats are getting support for their decision from across the Capitol. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sent Bush a letter today saying that Democrats "stand ready to negotiate a final bill,"

***"I regret your reckless attempt to manufacture a crisis over the reauthorization of foreign surveillance laws," Reid wrote. "Instead of needlessly frightening the country, you should work with Congress in a calm, constructive way to provide our intelligence professionals with all needed tools while respecting the privacy of law-abiding Americans."

The President has said that if this bill wasn't passed by Friday, the country would be defenseless against terrorists. And yet, he is the one who has stated that he will veto it if it is sent to him without retroactive immunity for the telecoms. That sounds, in my opinion, like either he is, once again, playing the fear card and trying to bully Congress into doing what he wants them to do or it is Bush who is willing to leave the American people unprotected. Either he knows very well that all current surveillance can go on for one year even without a new law and that the original 1978 FISA bill gives him all of the power he needs for lawful surveillance or he is more interested in protecting the telecom companies that helped him break the law and ignore the Fourth Amendment than in protecting the citizens of this country.

Once again, the eternal conundrum I face about Bush. Is he stupid or evil? And which is the more frightening prospect?

Image courtesy of Quadlings.com

FISA - One More Chance

There still is time to do something about the FISA bill in its House version. I received an action alert from Credo Mobile requesting that I sign their petition to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer to hold on the immunity issue in Conference with the Senate. Here is the link.

The Senate has rolled over and given Bush, Cheney and the big telecom companies exactly what they wanted -- immunity from prosecution for their wiretapping crimes. Now it's up to the House of Representatives to strip those provisions out of the bill.

Please take action on this issue using the link below:

http://act.credomobile.com/campaign/fisa_house?rk=hpwNfU7193HLW

Image courtesy The Beatles

FISA, Again

Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast has posted The Bill And Capitol Hill Mine Disaster about the Senate's passage of the FISA bill, including telecom immunity. I had started a post myself, but after reading hers, there is nothing I could say that would be better than what she said.

Here are your 19 traitors (18, if you automatically expected Lieberman to side with his Butt Buddy George, 20 if you expected Hillary to miss another vote). Pay careful attention if any of these clowns represent your state and remember them the next time they're up for re-election.

Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD) Perhaps Tim never completely recovered from his brain hemorrhage.
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA) After Hurricane Katrina 2½ years ago, I can perfectly understand why Proud Mary would want to discharge her debt of gratitude to Lame Duck George.
Lieberman (ID-CT) There’s a fucking shock to my system.
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO) This one really hurts. The progressives of Missouri just voted her in and she pulls this shit.
Mikulski (D-MD) Another newcomer Democrat who stabbed us in the spine they don’t have.
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE) The Nelson Brothers strike again.
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Webb (D-VA) This one really hurts perhaps most of all. I was really beginning to think this former Republican piece of shit was for real.

Take those 19 Nays to strip immunity, turn them into Yeas, throw in a Yea from No Show Hillary and you have a 51-48 vote to complement the current House version that also does not grant immunity. Lindsey Graham, it ought to be noted, also did not vote. Why aren't we capable of hard-line party votes when it counts like the GOP?

And there you see why I find both parties repugnant. In addition to these Democrats who voted for telecom immunity, all of the Republicans did as well.

However, the following Democrats voted for the people and the Constitution.

YEAs ---31
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Casey (D-PA) Dodd (D-CT)	Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ)	Murray (D-WA) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Tester (D-MT) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

If any of these Senators are yours, be sure to let them know that you appreciate their courage in standing for the Constitution they have sworn to protect. I've called each of the Democrats today and to thank or express my disappointment. I also called Stevens and Murkowski, the Senators from Alaska, not that their votes surprised me in the least.

E-mails are also good. Go to Senate.gov to find your own* Senators' phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

* As well as any others you might want to contact.

Graphic courtesy Tolles, Washington Post, 2006.

KenjuNo, The Cold Didn't Interfere With The Turnout

Brian Wallace / Juneau Empire

Big turnout: A portion of the standing-room-only crowd awaits the start of the Democratic caucus Tuesday at Centennial Hall.

Signposts to Sanity

Wherein your ever lovin' Granny points out other people's stuff to you.

Let's use the signpost with the crooked trail today, since we are dealing with politics.

Think Progress has posted Fact Check the State of the Union should you like to compare statements to facts.

We can cheer for another step taken in the right direction concerning the FISA bill on Monday at Fiery FISA Debate Dominating Senate: GOP Bill Fails Cloture by Steve Benen. It seems that the public spoke. I made my calls on Sunday, because I wasn't certain of when it was coming to a vote and the four hour time difference between D.C. and Alaska and the further down the list I got, the more I was running into voice mailboxes that were already full.

And there needs to be concern for the polar bears when we read Joe Connolly's Bush Moves On Alaska about how the declaration of the polar bear as endangered is being delayed until after their habitat is opened for oil drilling while our eyes are on the economy.

Update Life in Juneau. So, everyone in the building left the cold water dripping and when we got up on Monday discovered that the water pipe leading into the hot water heater had frozen. Luckily nothing broke, but it took 24 hours to thaw it and get hot water back. Luckily I once lived on a homestead, so I know how to boil water on the stove to do dishes with.

Drop A DimeA Call to Action

The FISA bill has started moving in the Senate. Senators Obama, Clinton, McCain, and Graham have not gone to Washington to vote on this bill, which would strip American citizens of their First and Fourth Amendment rights and grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications corporations who have been spying on us at the request of President Bush since before 9/11. In all likelihood, this bill will be voted on tomorrow. In order to support Senator Dodd in his filibuster, in addition to the Senators who are currently standing with him, three of the Democrats who voted against the Senate Judiciary Committee proposal, which would strip immunity from the bill and protect American citizens and the Constitution, would have to change their vote and Clinton and Obama would have to return and stand with Dodd in reality, as they have said they do in principle. Here are their numbers, so that you can call them again: Obama (202) 224-2854, Clinton (202) 224-4451. These two senators have a unique opportunity to show us just how important they believe the Constitution is. They have the opportunity to stand and protect it and us. If they can not do this, what kind of president would they make?

Here are the Democrats who voted against the SJC proposal:

Bayh (202) 224-5623

Carper (202) 224-2441

Inouye (202) 224-3934

Johnson (202) 224-5842

Landrieu (202)224-5824

McCaskill (202) 224-6154

Mikulski (202) 224-4654

Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274

Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551

Pryor (202) 224-2353

Salazar (202) 224-5852

If any of these Senators represents you, call them. Indeed, I am calling all of them, although none of them represent me. Their offices are not open over the weekend, but you can leave a message on their voice mail. They need to know that we expect them to fulfil their oaths of office and protect the Constitution. They need to know that we do not buy the idea that we must trade freedom for security. They need to know that we are aware that this has been going on since before 9/11 and that it didn't prevent that attack. They need to know that we are watching them.

And they need to know that no one is above the law.

Non Sequitur

Sometimes the truth of something is so incredibly obvious that it just jumps out at me and yells, "Share this!"

And so, I do.

Click to enlarge.

Your Constitution Needs You

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com has posted about the upcoming Senate vote on the FISA/Protect America Act. The last time this came up, Senator Dodd led a "silent filibuster" which delayed it. Now it is time, once again. Harry Reid, no surprise to me any longer, is not fighting for our constitutional rights here. He is making threatening noises to Dodd, Feingold, et al about forcing them to actually filibuster, rather than the "silent filibuster" (if we don't have 60 votes, we just won't vote on it and the GOP doesn't have to really talk about it) that he has granted the GOP since 2006. There is no need to pass this bill this week, or ever. If it is not passed, the FISA law that has held previously, the one that honored the Fourth Amendment and your privacy rights, will continue to allow the government to protect us from terrorists in a lawful manner. However, Reid seems to be bent on giving Bush whatever he wants, despite his 28% popularity and the wishes of the people. This is not what we elected a Democratic majority for.

So, please read the following excerpt from Glenn Greenwald and call your Senators, Harry Reid, and the senators who worked with Dodd last time. Tell them how you feel about this. Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of freedom.

When the FISA/Protect America Act legislative debate resumes, the bill (S.2248) will already be pending on the floor. The cloture vote on the motion to proceed on 12/17/07 was a vote of 76-10. (See here for specifics on votes.) The pending matter, as I read the procedural ins and outs from the close of debate, will be the SJC substitute bill, but I have a call in to the Senate Parliamentarian to clarify on this, and I'll certainly let you know what I hear if different.

For the record, "Not Voting" is just not good enough.

And neither is sitting this one out for any of us. So, let's get to work. Congress is about to take yet another recess -- but I'm hearing there may be a procedural maneuver in the works for tomorrow, whether a 30 day extension of the Protect America Act or something else. It is critical that we let members of Congress know that we are paying attention and that this issue matters to all of us.

The Constitution needs your voice today -- so please, call your Senators and let them know that retroactive immunity and a breach of the 4th Amendment are not acceptable. Tell them to stand up for the rule of law -- because THAT is their job and you expect leaders not rubber stamps. The time for leadership is now.

Senate phone numbers are here; and Sen. Harry Reid's phone number is: (202) 224-3542. And Sen. Mitch McConnell's phone number is: (202) 224-2541 -- tell him national security and the rule of law should never be used as a political football, and that taking political marching orders from Rove is so 2002.

We should focus first on the 14 Senators who promised to help Sens. Dodd and Feingold. Here are their fax and phone numbers:

Name	Fax	Phone
Feingold	(202) 224-2725	(202) 224-5323
Dodd	(202) 224-1083	(202) 224-2823
Obama	(202) 228-4260	(202) 224-2854
Sanders	(202) 228-0776	(202) 224-5141
Menendez	(202) 228-2197	(202) 224-4744
Biden	(202) 224-0139	(202) 224-5042
Brown	(202) 228-6321	(202) 224-2315
Harkin	(202) 224-9369	(202) 224-3254
Cardin	(202) 224-1651	(202) 224-4524
Clinton	(202) 228-0282	(202) 224-4451
Akaka	(202) 224-2126	(202) 224-6361
Webb	(202) 228-6363	(202) 224-4024
Kennedy	(202) 224-2417	(202) 224-4543
Boxer	(415) 956-6701	(202) 224-3553

Even if you have never called a Senator before, take the time to call these. This is a vitally important issue.

Blog For Choice

As I started this post, I decided to review what I had written last year. And what I discovered was that last year I said exactly what I wanted to say and exactly what I still want to say. I can't say it better, and I have nothing to add or subtract,.so here it is again.

I have already told you about when my grandmother in California had given birth to five children in six years and wrote to her brother in Ohio, the doctor, asking how to prevent any more pregnancies. He wrote and gave her the information, but the first sentence in his letter was, "Memorize this information and then burn this letter because I could go to prison for telling you this."

Until my grandmother had that information, she had no choice, no control over her body and life at all. My grandfather was fated to work harder and harder and provide less for more children. Not being able to decide these very personal issues is less than freedom.

I worked for 12 years teaching parenting skills to parents who either had their children in foster care or were in danger of the state placing them there. I saw all sorts of horrible things and heard of even worse than I saw. The abuse that is heaped on children when their parents resent them is unbelievable. The unintended neglect that occurs when a girl has a child when she is too young can put the child's life at risk.

It is not good for children to be born when their parents resent them or are unable to care for them properly. Choice has to be available. For those of us who would like to see as few abortions as possible, the need is great to give people full information on how to prevent pregnancy, and abortion needs to be available for when birth control fails.

I came of age before Roe v. Wade and I remember friends seeking out the name of a doctor in Mexico. That assumed the girl could get her hands on the money to go to Mexico. Many couldn't. Just because abortion was illegal, that didn't mean that poor girls didn't have them. It just meant that they sought them out in dark alleys and often died because the procedure had been botched.

The current direction of this administration is to work to outlaw abortion and birth control both. Plan B was kept off the market for much too long, although it does not cause abortions. The people who kept it off the market knew the truth about it. They teach abstinence only sex education and post the lie that abortions cause breast cancer on government websites. This is not a desire to protect women, it is a desire to control them.

And it isn't belief in the sanctity of life. People who refuse to teach teens how to avoid AIDS and other diseases don't consider the life of those teens as sacred. People who send other people's children to die don't consider the lives of those children sacred. People who drop bombs on other countries don't consider the lives of those people sacred. People who refuse to fund stem cell research, who value the "life" of an embryo which is going to be thrown away if it isn't used over the life of someone who has already been born, don't consider the lives of the born sacred. People who would rush to Washington to sign a bill to prevent a husband from being able to allow his brain dead wife to die in peace but don't bother to cut a vacation short while New Orleans is drowning don't value life.

God alone knows what these people value, but it isn't life. The sanctity of life doesn't end at birth. A few cells are not more valuable than a living woman or her husband or her other children.

The Right

What will you do to protect the rights of all Americans to worship -- or not?

Particularly, what will you do to protect the rights of people who are not like you? People who do not believe what you believe? People who you think are wrong?

Will you protect the rights of all Americans to believe and think what they will? Or do you think that the people who agree with you are somehow more American? More right? More worthy?

Heroes

Yesterday I posted on why I'm not a Clinton supporter. And today I'm posting Kucinich's platform, so that you will understand why I'm solidly in his camp.

Meanwhile, Viggo Mortensen, angered by Dennis Kucinich's exclusion from the last New Hampshire debate, has flown out to New Hampshire to campaign for and with him. When he appeared on Hannity & Colmes, Hannity had the bad fortune to tell him, "I'm going to forgive your politics."
Answered our hero, "You don't have to. I'm not going to forgive you yours."



Kucinich’s platform:

* Creating a single-payer system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans by passage of the United States National Health Insurance Act.
* The immediate, phased withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq; replacing them with an international security force.
* Guaranteed quality education for all; including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.
* Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
* Repealing the USA PATRIOT Act.
* Fostering a world of international cooperation.
* Abolishing the death penalty.
* Environmental renewal and clean energy.
* Preventing the privatization of social security.
* Providing full social security benefits at age 65.
* Creating a cabinet-level “Department of Peace”
* Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
* Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.
* Protecting a woman’s right to choose while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.
* Ending the War on Drugs.
* Legalizing same-sex marriage.
* Creating a balance between workers and corporations.
* Ending the H-1B and L-1 visa Programs
* Restoring rural communities and family farms.
* Strengthening gun control.

Photos: Aragorn courtesy of Lovelylivtyler.com
Dennis Kucinich by Vatosplace.com

GOP Lite

David Morris, in his article We Forget What It Was Really Like Under The Clintons, on Alternet.com, has done an important review of what "Clintonism" was like. Before we vote in a return to it, we need to look at this and decide whether this is what we want.

Twelve days before the Iowa caucuses, the New York Times Magazine cover, in large white letters on a deep black background, carried the single word title of its lead article: Clintonism. In the article Matt Bai, the MTimes reporter on all things Democratic, with a big D, made one undeniable assertion and two highly debatable ones.

Bai's contention that Bill Clinton's "wife's fortunes are bound up with his, and vice versa" is incontestable. The primaries and even more so the general election, if Hillary is the nominee, will be a referendum less on Hillary than on Clintonism, the philosophy and strategy that guided the White House for eight years. Hillary clearly welcomes such a prospect, as demonstrated by her constantly reminding voters that she was "deeply involved in being part of the Clinton team."***The historical fact is that when Clinton took office, the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress and a majority of state governorships. By the time he left office, the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and two-thirds of the governorships. By the numbers, it was Clintonism that relegated the Democratic Party to the shadows.***Clinton himself summed up the principle guiding his initiatives in his famous declaration, "The era of big government is over."

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major overhaul of United States telecommunications law in nearly 62 years. The broadcasting industry couldn't get the legislation through under Reagan or George H.W. Bush, but it succeeded under Clinton. ***In 1996 there were eight major U.S. companies providing local telephone service and five significant long-distance companies. By 1999, these 13 companies had merged into five telecommunications giants, in a series of record-breaking merger deals.

Prior to this law, tightly regulated broadcasters could own just 40 stations nationally, and only two in a given market. Suddenly, without the FCC's input or any public hearings, ownership limits on radio stations was eliminated and a feeding frenzy took place.

By 2001, there were 10,000 radio station transactions worth approximately $100 billion. As a result, 1,100 fewer station owners were in the business, down nearly 30 percent since 1996. Two companies -- Clear Channel and Viacom's Infinity Broadcasting -- controlled one-third of all radio advertising revenue; in some individual markets their stations commanded nearly 90 percent of the ad dollars. Clear Channel alone owned nearly 1,200 stations, the result of buying up 70 separate broadcast companies.

In 1999, the Financial Services Modernization Act overturned the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. The Act effectively barred banks, brokerages and insurance companies from entering each others' industries, and separated investment banking and commercial banking. The law was enacted in response to revelations of gross corruption and manipulation of the market by giant banking houses that organized huge corporate mergers for their own profit, leading to the collapse of the stock market in 1929.***The unleashed and deregulated financial services sector boomed, bringing us the speculative boom that in turn gave us the temporary budget surplus of the late 1990s and the finance-led booms and busts since then.***Clintonism never saw a sector it didn't want to deregulate. Wholesale electricity deregulation began under George H.W. Bush, but Clinton worked relentlessly to extend it and bring it to the retail level. We forget that Ken Lay, the founder of Enron and the driving force behind electricity deregulation was a friend of and mentor to Clinton as well as George W. Bush. Enron gave $420,000 to Clinton's party over three years and donated $100,000 to his inauguration festivities. Ken Lay stayed at the White House 11 times.

Clinton's appointees on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) aggressively deregulated the electric grid system, even refusing to step in when Enron and other electricity traders' manipulation of prices drove California to the edge of bankruptcy.

And then there was welfare reform.***There is no question that welfare reform has succeeded in reducing welfare rolls in the states. But 10 years into welfare reform, "the number of people living in poverty had not," noted Robert Wharton, president and CEO of the Community Economic Development Administration. "At the same time, the safety net of services and support that once protected the poor lies in tatters."***NAFTA was enacted despite the opposition of Clinton's own party. Two-thirds of House Republicans voted in favor while 60 percent of House Democrats voted against. In the Senate, Republicans voted 4-1 in favor while a slim majority of Democrats voted against.

I discussed the impact of NAFTA 10 years after in an earlier AlterNet piece. The slogan of those who championed a North American Free Trade Agreement was, "Trade, not aid." NAFTA would solve our problems, the White House insisted, with little or no transfer of funds from richer Canadians and Americans to poorer Mexicans. By raising Mexican living standards and wage levels, Attorney General Janet Reno predicted NAFTA would reduce illegal immigration by up to two-thirds in six years. "NAFTA is our best hope for reducing illegal migration in the long haul," Reno declared in 1994.*** In the real world, opening up the borders between two exceedingly disparate economies leads to disaster.

Which is what happened here. Real wages for most Mexicans are lower than when NAFTA took effect. And Mexican wages are diverging from, rather than converging with U.S. wages, despite the fact that Mexican worker productivity has increased dramatically. From 1993 to 2003, worker productivity rose by 60 percent. In the same period, real wages declined by 5 percent.***The only thing that saved Mexico from collapsing into economic and social chaos was the massive emigration of Mexicans across their northern border.

Illegal migration has camouflaged Mexico's economic weakness. Between 1994 and 2004, Mexico's working-age population increased by a little over 1 million per year, but the number of jobs expanded by only half as much. The annual exodus of 500,000 to 1 million Mexicans kept unemployment at least to manageable levels.

Migration has served another even more important salutary function: national financial safety net. In 2005, Mexicans in the United States remitted some $20 billion home, about 3 percent of Mexico's national income. Remittances now exceed tourism, and the maquiladoras, and until the recent runup in oil prices, even oil as the country's top single source of foreign exchange. It turns out that it is aid, not trade, that is keeping the Mexican economy afloat.

NAFTA's designers promised it would keep Mexicans at home. Yet its very objectives undermined that possibility and spawned the waves of illegal migrants that have become one of the most divisive issues in the 2008 campaign.***History has been rewritten in regard to the Clintons' health initiative. Today it is viewed as a bold but failed effort. Even Michael Moore's movie, Sicko, paints this picture. Nonsense. It was Hillary who concluded that it was politically impossible even to argue for a single-payer system. Whether a single payer initiative would have won is unclear, although the national educational effort around it would have been of unparalleled value. But as it was, Hillary's political miscalculation led not only to the idea of universal health care coverage being taken off the table for the next 13 years, but the loss of the House of Representatives and the coming to power of Newt Gingrich and the Republican right.

Matt Bai views Bill Clinton as a profile in courage for taking on the Democratic Party. But if we review his behavior in office, there is one characteristic that stands out above any other: cowardice. Whenever the powerful objected, he beat a hasty retreat. His first year set the pattern. Gays in the military. The btu tax. The jettisoning of Lani Guinier as nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights, refusing even to allow her to confront her critics.

Photo courtesy of Brightcove.tv

Iowa

Edwards is sounding good. These primaries have a very interesting feature. Which is, the Dems have a full field of candidates who are interesting for various reasons and all of whom have growing appeal to a portion of the voters. While the GOP has a full field of candidates who are interesting in a whole different way and none of whom seems to appeal to voters for long.

The GOP seems to be flailing around for a candidate that they like, with favor shifting from one to another wildly, with the favorite of the moment likely to be the most recent to be noticed. The more people learn about the candidates, the less they want them. "America's Mayor" was the favorite until people began to hear about how he had actually functioned before and after 9/11. Romney held it until people began to get worried about the combination of too liberal and religion. Thompson was great until he actually declared. Huckabee frightens the mainline GOP, who may well be wondering if courting the religious right was such a good idea after all. Ron Paul has his following, but many people are noticing his affiliations with racist organizations. McCain may come up from behind, and take the nomination, and he's certainly the most experienced candidate. It will be interesting to watch.

Meanwhile, before you get to the front runners in the Democratic party, you have my man Kucinich, who doesn't have the backing but would certainly do a good job. Dodd, who has proven his quality by standing up for what he believes with the FISA bill. Richardson, who has experience and stands for getting the troops home. And all three of them talk about making the Constitution a priority. The top three offer a woman with an actual chance of winning, a black man with an actual chance of winning, and Edwards, who the polls show as able to defeat any GOP candidate.

Personally, I could easily back Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson, or Edwards. I see Clinton as too much in the pocket of the corporations and too hawkish. I also dislike the idea of dynasties, and Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton frightens me. And, let's face it. Every other candidate up there is up there on their own merit. Clinton wouldn't be considered after one term in the Senate if she hadn't been married to Bill; she might not even be a senator if she hadn't been married to Bill. Obama is being rushed. He may well have the potential, but not necessarily yet.

Anyway, that's how I feel about it. And tomorrow we can see how Iowa feels about it.

UpdateAnd Joe Biden, Mike Gravel, Duncan Hunter, and Alan Keyes have made so little impression on me, that I totally forgot them when I originally wrote this post.

I Think He Passed My Test

Chris Dodd was on Countdown last night, talking about his action on the FISA bill on Monday. He said that after they passed the Military Commissions Act, he realized that he should have filibustered it. And he promised himself that he would not allow such a bill to be passed again without standing to support the Constitution. He also said that if he becomes president, his first order of business will be to restore the Constitution. To return this country to a lawful standing. To honor the Geneva Convention.

And his action on Monday proved what so many of us have been saying all along -- one brave man can make a difference. One brave man who doesn't assume that the fight is lost and so he might as well give up. One brave man who not only votes against bad laws but filibusters and whatever else it takes to drive back the forces of darkness.

Some Days They Sing

Do go over to Huffingtonpost.com and read Sam Stein's Dodd's Filibuster Threat Stalls Wiretap Bill to know why I am in a singularly happy mood.

Senator Chris Dodd won a temporary victory today after his threats of a filibuster forced Democratic leadership to push back consideration of a measure that would grant immunity to telecom companies that were complicit in warrantless surveillance.

The measure was part of a greater bill to reorganize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Earlier on Monday, the Senate, agreed to address a bill that would have overhauled FISA, authorized the monitoring of people outside the United States, given secret courts the power to approve aspects of surveillance, and granted telecom companies retroactive immunity for past cooperation.

But the threat of Dodd's filibuster, aimed primarily at the latter measure, persuaded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, to table the act until January. ***Dodd flew back from Iowa last night to personally rally against the amendment to the Protect America Act. After the Senate agreed, by a vote of 79 to 10, to move to debate, Dodd took to the floor. Over the course of the day, the Connecticut Democrat criticized the idea of granting immunity. Expanding on similar remarks made by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, he noted that that the original FISA bill already included an immunity clause and that the courts, not Congress, should decide whether telecom companies deserve legal protections.

While he never technically conducted a filibuster, according to aides, Dodd left the floor only once, to address a press gathering. He did, on occasion cede time to his Democratic colleagues. But even then, they say, he remained engaged in the debate.

"Everyone who spoke on the floor said they were grateful for Dodd taking a stand," said a staffer to the Senator who asked not to be named. "They said if it weren't for him they wouldn't be having this much-needed debate."

Dodd was the one Senator currently running for the White House who left the campaign trail to debate the Protect America Act, an absence he hinted at while on the Senate floor.

Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joseph Biden did offer their rhetorical support for the filibuster. Dodd, according to aides, will rejoin the three on the campaign trail tomorrow.

I can't literally throw confetti down on Dodd and his colleagues, but I can and have e-mailed them and thanked them for their service to the country.

And I wonder about Clinton, Obama, and Biden who were too busy campaigning to return to Washington and fight for the Constitution.

One of the things that no one is asking so far in the debates or in interviews, is how the candidates feel about restoring constitutional guarantees and what they would do about it if elected. Kucinich has spoken to it, and we know that if by some miracle he should win he would stand firm for this issue. Edwards and Richardson are not senators and so could not do anything today. But Obama, Clinton, and Biden are all in the Senate. All three of them could have gone to support Dodd, all three of them should have gone to support Dodd. But, only Dodd cared enough to leave the campaign trail for a day and do what he believes is right. Only Dodd, of the four senators running for the Democratic nomination, has shown us that he will stand up and be counted for the Constitution that they all have sworn to uphold.

So, set off the fireworks. Throw the confetti. Release the balloons. There are some heroes out there. And today ten of them stood up and were counted.

The ten Democratic, of course, senators who stood and were counted today:
Barbara Boxer of California, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Maria Cantwell of Washington State, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Tom Harkin of Iowa, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, and Ron Wyden of Oregon. We may not have won this one, that remains to be seen. But, these ten Senators gave us reason to celebrate the human spirit. Thank you.

And, it looks like Senator Reid is going to keep the Senate partially in session over much of the Christmas recess to prevent recess appointments. Maybe the Democrats will notice those of their number who do have guts and realize that a spine is a wonderful thing.

Fireworks by Grucci.com
Confetti by ImageEngineering.com
Balloons by Instalight.com
Do click on any of the photos to enlarge.

Bound & Gagged

Don't some days just seem to be like this? Actually, this was how I was feeling the other day when I hadn't the heart to write anything.

Luckily, these moods seldom last long, and this last one didn't. It is hard, though, to look at all of the things that keep coming to light concerning the mismanagement of the current administration. And, the sign on the back of the island, the thing that makes it worse, is that the Dems don't do anything about it now that they have a majority in both houses. Maybe their majority in the Senate is too small for veto proof legislation, but they should make Bush veto it, damn it. Perhaps the Senate GOPs can stop bills from coming to a vote, but if that is so, then I think that Reid should make them actually filibuster to stop them. Not just pull a bill because of a threatened filibuster.

Prior to 2004, I had never voted either Republican or Democrat, and I may have to go back to that again. The Dems should be exercising oversight in a responsible manner. They should be standing up for what they supposedly believe in. They should not be caving and passing legislation that they claim they don't believe in. And so, I have to wonder, will a Democratic president and Congress work to restore the Constitution? Will they appoint directors to regulatory agencies who believe in regulation? Will they stand for the things we want them to any time soon? Do we have any hope?

The one thing that they have done recently that has pleased me is keep the Senate open over Thanksgiving so that Bush couldn't make any more recess appointments. If they can do that over Christmas as well, that would be good.

Click to enlarge and read

The Story of Stuff

Julie and I often talk to each other about how you protect your child from becoming a member of the consumer society, how you help her to learn values that are more human. So, tonight I discovered this short film that I want to share with all of you. Go and visit The Story of Stuff. The video you will watch will take about 20 minutes, so you want to do this when you have some time.

This is a very intelligent and witty discussion of how we go from resource extraction, through manufacturing, to big box stores, to the consumer's home, and finally to the landfill. Annie Leonard tells this very serious story in a light hearted way that anyone can understand.

Without becoming preachy, she gives us this vitally important information. It will make you look at the stuff in your life in a different way. And, right before Christmas, the time of institutionalized consumption of unnecessary stuff, is a good time to review just how the throw-away economy hurts us and the earth. Show it to the young people in your life and e-mail it to everyone you know. There is no need to live a life circumscribed by planned obsolescence, where we can be attacked by terrorists and our president tells us that the way to combat that is to go out shopping.

These Are Our Kids

Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast has posted War May Be The Least of Our Problems, about the suicide problem among the military (averaging 17 a day) that you would do well to read. This is a problem that is not going away and we are not prepared for it. The families of the soldiers are not prepared. The military is not prepared. The VA is not prepared. Our communities are not prepared. The nation as a whole is not prepared. Not prepared to deal with it, to help the soldiers, to provide the kinds of care that would make a difference, to deal with the aftermath among families. Hell, mostly this administration is ignoring it and sweeping it under the rug.

These are our kids. They volunteered for the military because they wanted to protect America. They go to Iraq, the vast majority of them at least initially believing the reasons they were given for going. My local paper had a letter to the editor this weekend by a soldier who is a soldier for these reasons, who is willing to give his life to protect our lives and freedom. And we damn well owe it to these brave young people to make sure that their trust is not betrayed; that they are not sent into wars that are unnecessary or that may be making things worse for us in the future; that when we do send them, we send enough of them; that we equip them with the best body armor and vehicles; that we provide enough of the best care for them when they are wounded; that we don't send them again and again into battle with no end in sight; that we don't keep them in battle beyond their terms of service by stop-loss measures. We ask that they kill and die for us. We need to never do that unless there is a reason worthy of that sacrifice.

And when they are so wounded in spirit that 17 of them commit suicide every day, we need to figure out what to do about that and do it. And that doing needs to include what do we do about their survivors. About the parents and children and spouses and siblings and friends that go bereaved of their loved ones forever more.

Birth Mothers

Bitch, Ph.D has posted Adoption: Birth Mothers Are People, Too concerning the book The Girls Who Went Away, about birth mothers who gave their children up for adoption in the days before Roe v. Wade. It's a perspective that most of us don't think about very deeply. The argument is there for women who are considering an abortion, that they can choose to give birth and adopt the baby out. But what we don't really think about is what it is like to have adopted a baby out.

For two years one of my parenting clients was a young woman who had given her younger child up for adoption because she was afraid of his father. The police were unable to offer her help. She believed that the only thing she could do to get this man completely out of her life and keep her children safe was to hide the existence of the baby from him. To give him up for adoption.

She first came to me after she had given the child up and returned to town. She came to see me once a week for two years, and she never came once that she didn't cry. She ached for her child. It was supposed to be an open adoption, but Alaska doesn't enforce the open adoption agreement if the adoptive parents decide they don't want the birth mother involved.* She gave her child to this couple. She was supposed to get pictures and letters and be able to see him at least once a year. She never got a single picture or letter. All of her letters and the letters of her lawyer were returned unopened.

I have never worked with a parent I was less able to help. I have never known a young woman who I wanted to fight for more. I will never know if she could have trusted her baby's father. But I do know that I have never known a woman to regret an abortion the way that young woman regretted that adoption. It left her wounded to the soul.

Adoption is not a choice normally made by the Tlingits in this area. The tribes do not give up children, and if the mother or parents can't raise the child, extended family members will take it in until circumstances change. I worked with many grandmothers who were raising their grandkids, and even two great-grandmothers.

In those cases where there is no extended family to step in, pregnant teens and their children may end up in the foster care system. There is a woman who fosters young, pregnant, Tlingit girls and their babies. She continues to foster both mother and child while the mother finishes school. The foster mom wants the young mother to have a good start as a mother and as near a normal life as a teen as possible. The young mother goes to the prom and football games as well as learning about child development. She grows as a maturing teen and as a mother. If she "ages out**" of the foster system, the foster mom keeps her without money from the state for her care and works with her until she is ready to take her child and go out on her own. And the foster mom is there to support her in many ways for years. Many of the young mothers she has helped still drop in and visit on a weekly basis. Like any daughter would.

I know that the circumstances between my young client and these young mothers are different, and this superb foster mother would not have been there for my client in any case. But I also know that if there were more women like this foster mom, there would be fewer young women who would have to make either choice about a baby. More intact families. And what a blessing that would be.

* To the best of my knowledge, no state does.
** Becomes 18, when the state stops paying for her care and expects her to go out on her own.

Photo: Ashes to Blessing