Best 2008 Political Satire

Political humor often exposes truth far more effectively than anything else. My favorite this year remains the video below produced by the Onion during the Republican Party presidential primaries. The video depicts the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney as in trouble following revelations that he had previously expressed "tolerance" of homosexuals and wasn't really homophobic. It skillfully illustrated just how barbaric and passe Republicans have become in 21st century America.


Mitt Romney Defends Himself Against Allegations Of Tolerance

Brain Mapping, Civil Liberties & Obama

Longtime readers of the Intrepid Liberal Journal may recall my April 2006 posting entitled, "Brain Fingerprinting and Civil Liberties." One mistake I made at the time was conflating the acronym FMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) with the term brain fingerprinting. Perhaps the most accurate generic term is brain mapping.

At the time I came across numerous references with respect to how brain mapping technology is implemented within India's criminal justice system. Specifically, I noted how an article in the March 17th, 2006 edition of New Kerela reported that Javed Shukat Khurshid, one of seven convicted murderers escaped police custody after sentencing. It read like any other newspaper might over such an event except for this:

“The court had earlier awarded life imprisonment to Javed and six others, including Ismail Barafwala, Amjad Khan Pathan, Mehboob Khan Pathan, Sajid Khan alias Anna, Usman Gani alias bhola and Younis Sheikh for rioting and murdering a man on November 11, 2003.

The judge awarded the sentence after considering the results of the brain finger printing tests performed on the accused, among other facts in this case.”

As I learned two years ago, the integration of brain mapping technology with India's criminal justice system is common practice. Since then I've been concerned with how America reconciles sophisticated technology such as brain mapping and civil liberties. With respect to the federal judiciary, our body politic typically obsesses over cultural issues and neglects to ask what predisposition or ideology any justice a president nominates will bring to cases involving high technology. Instead we wage culture wars over reproductive rights, gay marriage, affirmative action and so forth. I fear America could integrate brain mapping technology into our criminal justice system without any debate or even notice it happening.

Two years ago I wrote:

"We know that polygraphs, commonly known, as lie detectors are unreliable. Whether FMRIs are reliable requires more empirical data. Perhaps such a device may prove effective in solving crimes or preventing terrorism. The potential to save lives certainly exists and can’t be casually dismissed.

However, it’s use means encroaching upon the province of an individual’s thoughts and what government on Earth can be entrusted with such power? What is the legal framework for deploying this technology? Suppose employers coerce employees into signing waivers for FMRI scans to be administered? What if whistle blowers are intimidated into silence because of FMRI scans? Do the potential lives saved from crime prevention justify the potential abuse?"

These are the sort of questions future justices nominated by President-Elect Barack Obama for the Supreme Court as well as lower courts will have to answer. Now two years later I've come across a September 16th article of Finding Dulcinea that reports India's courts are being criticized for using brain scans.

Specifically, Finding Dulcinea reports how an Indian student named Aditi Sharma was convicted earlier this year of murdering her ex-boyfriend Udit Bharati by giving him a “Prasad” laced with arsenic. Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature (BEOS) profiling, a brain-scanning technique developed by Indian neuroscientist Champadi Raman Mukundan was a component of the government's case against Sharma.

As the article notes, Sharma underwent a BEOS test, which involves an electroencephalograph measuring the electrical activity in her brain:

"Wearing a cap with 32 electrodes connected to a computer, Sharma sat quietly as she was read a description of the crime in the first person. When she recognized an event, specific parts of her brain that contain 'experiential knowledge' lit up and were detected by the BEOS computer."

With respect to Sharma's case, a July 21st edition of The Times of India, also referenced by Finding Dulcinea, reported that,

"Aditi was found to have experiential knowledge for having a plan to murder Udit by giving him arsenic. Experiential knowledge was also found of her having gone to a temple to collect 'prasad', buying arsenic from a shop, calling up Udit and giving him the poison-laced 'prasad'.

Emotional experience of getting relieved and scared in connection with giving the arsenic laced 'prasad' to Udit was also found present on the BEOS test. Aditi also underwent a lie-detector test, which revealed deception on all relevant questions. The judgment copy dedicates about 10 pages on how the BEOS technique was conducted."

Ultimately, how technology is developed elsewhere has repercussions everywhere. Whatever you want to call it - FMRI scans, BEOS tests, brain mapping or brain fingerprinting - is technology scientists are actively pursuing worldwide and monitoring the innovations of their peers. The BEOS system was created from technology and theories devised by several American scientists, including Lawrence Farwell, Emanuel Donchin and J. Peter Rosenfeld. Farwell is known as the pioneer of brain fingerprinting and even used the technology to help free innocent convict Terry Harrington after he had been falsely convicted of murder.

As I noted two years ago, the potential benefits of brain mapping technology should not be casually dismissed. Whether it's freeing an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit or preventing terrorism, the potential for good certainly exists. One could even argue that use of such technology completely obliterates the rationale for torture. How can the government justify water boarding when they have the ability to utilize a high-tech mind meld at their disposal?

But the technology remains unproven and right now the price for integrating it into our our justice system appears too high. India's experience with brain mapping technology is instructive and should give all of us pause.

As one of the aforementioned American scientists on the cutting edge of developing brain mapping technology, J. Peter Rosenfeld noted:

“Technologies which are neither seriously peer-reviewed nor independently replicated are not, in my opinion, credible. The fact that an advanced and sophisticated democratic society such as India would actually convict persons based on an unproven technology is even more incredible.”

Fallout from the Sharma case may result in India's criminal justice system no longer using brain mapping technology to administer justice. A six member committee led by India's director of the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences concluded that there is "sub-optimal scientific basis for them to be used as evidence in court of law.”

Yet the technology continues to go forward. Private security firms and scientists are actively soliciting America's federal government to utilize brain mapping technology in the "war on terror." What happens when the U.S. Supreme Court presides over cases in which brain mapping technology is a factor? How will the Supreme Court as well as lower courts rule if the technology is abused by the government or private corporations?

A decade ago President-Elect Obama taught constitutional law. Has he, I wonder pondered what the legal framework for brain mapping technology should be? Will President-Elect Obama or his Attorney General ask any prospective nominee to the federal judiciary their view of how to reconcile technology and civil liberties? He should. And it's our obligation in the progressive community to remind him.

I Want Receipts!

Earlier today the Associated Press reported that,

“After receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending it. Some won't even talk about it.”

The AP actually contacted twenty-one banks that received at least $1 billion and none could specify how they had spent it and for what! Yet a single mother who suffers a medical calamity and is forced to declare bankruptcy will have to endure an excruciating accounting process. Indeed, it is banks who lobbied Washington to make it damn near possible for such a person to satisfactorily itemize their assets and liabilities in order to qualify for bankruptcy.

Yet our political culture which is conditioned to excoriate that single mom for not pulling herself up by her boot straps will likely give the banks a pass. Meanwhile, small business owners are struggling to make their payrolls, as banks remain tight fisted with credit and jobs disappear.

I want receipts from these people! If the TARP funds are not properly allocated to minimize job losses Americans are entitled to know. And if it turns out the banks are stealing then the Obama Justice Department should make an example of them.

New York's New World

For my home state, Governor David Paterson's budget is a window into the future. Simply put, we are witnessing what happens when New York State ceases to be the financial capital of the world. At the moment the world doesn't really have one as the global economy sorts through massive wreckage. Truthfully, the era of financial centers concentrated in western port cities such as New York or London is a relic.

This had long been been predicted because information technology makes it possible to outsource back office functions remotely and utilize cheap labor. Why pay for New York City real estate and labor when a trader can just as easily play with other people's money from a computer in Dubai? However, until the recent economic catastrophe Wall Street stubbornly hung onto its symbolic trappings as the center of the universe.

As a result, Albany could count on revenues generated from Wall Street to finance union pensions, government services, medicaid spending, corporate welfare, our prison industrial complex and so forth. The financial services industry also generated millions of jobs in our region from stock brokers to janitors. Hence, Wall Street's titans were able to leverage their influence with power brokers such as New York State's senior Senator Charles Schumer.

As many of you know, the New York Times recently profiled the intimate relationship between Wall Street and Schumer. Liberals are justifiably outraged at Schumer's enthusiastic pandering to Wall Street's desire for excessive deregulation and lax oversight in exchange for campaign donations for himself and his party. Instead of a Democrat standing up for working people we elected an enabler of our economic meltdown.

In fairness to Schumer, any New York senator would have to some degree catered to this industry's interests just as Joe Biden championed the banks and credit card industry while representing Delaware. All politics is local as Tip O'Neill used to say and even Wall Street enemy Eliot Spitzer raked in contributions from the financial sector during his 2006 campaign for Governor. That's where the action was that created jobs for New Yorkers and filled the state's coffers.

However, Schumer's excessive pandering to Wall Street has facilitated a calamity for the working people in New York he claims to represent and helped wreck the global economy with it. Figures such as Clinton Treasury Secretary and Wall Street powerhouse Robert Rubin were never Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Today New York is confronted with a $1.7 billion 2008 shortfall and a projected 2009-10 deficit of $13.7 billion while Governor Paterson promotes an "obesity tax." Important government services such as healthcare, education and emergency first responders will take a hit. And New York's Mass Transit Authority ("MTA") with its chronic incompetence in good and bad times will impose painful rate hikes and service cuts in 2009 to make up for its own steep revenue shortfall. As always the working stiffs are hit the hardest.

The pain is no fun and hardships abound for New Yorkers as our manufacturing industry was sucking wind well before Lehman Brothers collapsed, AIG was bailed out and Bernard L. Madoff became a household name. Like all New Yorkers I'm feeling the pain too but thankfully still have a job.

Yet even during this challenging period an opportunity exists. Necessity is a mother to invention and New York needs to reinvent itself. Just as oil is a dangerous narcotic that has arrested the development of petro states the financial services sector and manufacturing industry have undermined New York's ability to retool for the 21st century. Such innovation requires leadership and vision.

Whatever critique one may have with the specifics of Paterson's hardship budget he is at least showing leadership by not ducking the tough choices. Personally though I am dismayed by Paterson's unwillingness to more fairly distribute the pain. He should worry less about taxing millionaires and instead embrace New York's Working Families Party approach of shared sacrifice.

My question though is what sort of people does Paterson listen to as the corporate private sector vies for his favor in New York's new world? Alas, Paterson's consideration of Caroline Kennedy to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate because of her ability to raise millions from friends such as billionaire Mayor Mike Bloomberg is not encouraging.

Can Obama Be A Transformative President?

Listening to conservatives whine that America is a "center-right" country in spite of the recent election has me reflecting about Ronald Reagan as well as pondering what makes a transformative presidency. During the Reagan era, liberals like me frequently complained that America really wasn't that conservative. We cited polls that illustrated the American people really preferred the Democrat's policies on issues ranging from healthcare to nuclear weapons and only supported Reagan because of his "personality."

Yet Reagan got his way, America moved to the right and his presidency is regarded as transformative. Reagan was a transformative president because he laid the foundation in which America's center of political gravity remained to the right for a quarter century with respect to economic, social and foreign policy. Even two terms of a Democratic Bill Clinton presidency did not alter America's conservative course regarding de-regulation and raging privatization.

Transformative presidencies with broad popular support like Reagan's are rare. The Reagan model was to nurture an above partisanship veneer while aggressively waging partisan warfare and exploiting racial cultural subtexts. Presidents that successfully thread the needle between partisanship and statesmanship achieve an exceptional leadership nexus and transform the center of political gravity as Reagan did. In achieving this leadership nexus, Reagan was able to prosecute class warfare from the top and still enjoy popular support from America's middle class.

A more positive example of this transformative leadership model is liberal Franklin Roosevelt. Both Roosevelt and Reagan enjoyed the support of key core constituencies that strongly identified each with their respective parties. Yet both Roosevelt and Reagan were also perceived as being far above the body politic while their administrations ruthlessly engaged in partisan combat. As we liberals note with fondness and gratitude, Roosevelt shifted the center of political gravity in a manner that grew and nutured the middle class. Even two terms of a Republican Dwight Eisenhower presidency did not alter the body politic's support for Roosevelt's New Deal. Remarkably, both Roosevelt and Reagan retained the support of white working class blue collar voters.

From the earliest days of his presidential campaign, Barack Obama has assidiously laid the foundation to become a transformative figure. One who retains the enthusiasm of his core supporters while simultaenously appearing inclusive and respectful to the entire body politic. I must admit that following Bill Clinton's triangulation and George W. Bush's partisan reign of indecency, I saw little benefit to this approach.

Hence, my initial preference for John Edwards who adopted the Theodore Roosevelt model: progressive change by aggressively taking on the entrenched forces of America's kleptocracy. Before the Iowa caucuses (remember that?!?) the Edwards approach made far more sense to me than Obama's fight fire with water persona or rewarding Hillary Clinton's efforts to be the custodian of her husband's pro-corporatist/pro-war political machine. Ultimately, Edwards was unable to compete against the celebrity power of Clinton or Obama and as it turned out his personal failings would have doomed his candidacy anyway.

Nearly a year after Iowa, as I observe Obama during the transition I can envision the potential for a transformative presidency. Reagan appointed political figures that were reassuring to the establishment and upset his core supporters such as his Chief of Staff James Baker. Similarly, Obama has picked some figures for his inner circle that don't thrill me such as Rahm Emanuel, Timothy Geitner and ironically, Hillary Clinton.

Yet as we analyze the policy direction we're likely to see in the coming years, dramatic progressive domestic change will take place. Obama has signaled his committment to invest heavily in infrastructure and tackle global warming with his "green team." His nomination of Tom Daschle as Secretary of Health and Human Services also suggests a committment to healtchare reform as a component of a comprehensive economic recovery plan.

With respect to foreign policy, Obama's national security team of Hillary Clinton at the State Department, National Security Advisor James Jones and the retention of Robert Gates at the Pentagon concerns me greatly. Hopefully, this team will give Obama the political cover he needs to leverage Israel to the bargaining table and nuture a foreign policy that transitions America from its imperial ambitions of empire and instead forms sensible coalitions. If it turns out Clinton, Gates and Jones enable Obama to preside over a shift in our geopolitical paradigm then a liberal transformative presidency is not out of reach.

Sadly, the cascading global economic crisis, the ticking time bomb of global warming and weak national governments such as Israel, India and Pakistan that preside in powder keg regions means anything less than a transformative presidency will result in more calamity, destitution and turmoil. Of course greatness does not stem from times of tranquility.

A Waste of Skin

The body politic was rocked by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's arrest yesterday. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald described Blagojevich's activities as a "public crime spree." The wiretap transcripts are damning indeed. They reveal not only corruption but delusions of grandeur. By now you all know that the most serious allegation is Blagojevich's willful attempt to profit from appointing Barack Obama's successor to the U.S. Senate.

You will be hearing and reading all kinds of speculation with respect to Blagojevich in the coming days. This speculation will include which Illinois political figures engaged Blagojevich and his staff in a "pay to play" scheme for power. Although President-Elect Obama was not accussed of any wrong doing, his rise in the sesspool of Illinois corruption will certainly receive reknewed scrutiny.

My immediate reaction to the scandal is that it validates the cynicism of people who don't vote. As an activist the one sentiment that perturbs me the most is cynical apathy. This irks me far more than encountering citizens with a different or more conservative world view than my own. Even during this political season of heightened interest I encountered many people who regard voting as waste of time "because they're all crooks." Rod Blagojevich epitomizes that classic stereotype of politicians.

At least Blagojevich's corrupt predecessor, George Ryan, did something positive for human rights by putting a moratorium on the death penalty in his state. Alas, Blagojevich has proven to be a waste of skin. Hopefully, he will be compelled to resign forthwith. Most likely though Blagojevich will pitifully hang onto power and paralyze Illinois state government during the most perilous economic crisis since the 1930s.

Change I Can Believe In: Economist Jared Bernstein

Many liberal activists are disillusioned by President-Elect Obama's transition. Managing the American government is complicated business and Obama has opted for experience. Experience translates into insiders from the Clinton Administration. Conceptually, this has not surprised me and I expected it.

It's only natural Obama would staff his nascent administration with people from the Clinton era. The Carter Administration was over thirty years ago. And Obama certainly can't staff his White House with people who worked in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations during the 1960s. That said, I've found certain appointments jarring. Specifically, I disapprove of Hillary Clinton's nomination to be Secretary of State. Also, even though we both went to Sarah Lawrence College, I have mixed feelings about Obama tapping Rahm Emanuel to be his Chief of Staff.

My disenchantment with certain appointments aside, I ultimately believe that Obama's administration will move America in a more sensible direction while retaining broad popular support over time. Obama has spoken repeatedly about the necessity of nurturing a "working majority" and compromise with some appointments are part of that process.

Yeserday however liberals claimed an important victory with Jared Bernstein's appointment as the chief economic adviser to Vice-President Elect Joe Biden. Bernstein has worked as a longtime economist with the liberal think tank the Economic Policy Institue. I find it especially ironic that Bernstein will advise Joe Biden who as the Senator from Delaware was an advocate for the banking and financial services industry with respect to bankruptcy legislation.

As longtime readers of the Intrepid Liberal Journal may recall, I had the good fortune of interviewing Bernstein twice. The first time was in 2006 by email after the publication of his book, All Together Now: Common Sense For A Fair Economy. In April I conducted a podcast interview with Bernstein following the publication of his acclaimed book, Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed? (And Other Economic Mysteries).

Bernstein was ahead of the curve in diagnosing what ails the economy while conservative chuckle heads chortled that the Bush-Cheney Administration were not getting sufficient credit for our "prosperity." While other economists take pride in their intellectual detachment, Bernstein is a man who understands that the lives of every day people are impacted by those in power. Indeed, when reading Bernstein's books or reviewing the two interviews I had with him, one constant theme comes across: the super wealthy in America have benefitted at the expense of the middle class because of superior access to the levers of power. Hence, in Jared Bernstein, wage earners and small business entrepreneurs finally have an advocate with a seat at the table.

By itself Bernstein's appointment is not an elixir or cureall. Bernstein is but one voice in a Washington cultural nexis that has celebrated hyper-individualism and corporatist values as being "mainstream" and "centrist." As our job losses mount and the cost of economic recovery escalates, Bernstein will have to struggle against the forces of the status quo and corporate elites who will mount a vigorous defense against any encroachment.

Yet even people like Robert Rubin and Larry Summer's have moved closer to the policy positions of liberals such as Bernstein and former Clinton Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich. Joe Biden would have never agreed to serve as Barack Obama's running mate if he wasn't guaranteed an opportunity for heavy input in Obama's decision making process. And Bernstein will be in a position to influence how Joe Biden shapes the economic debate in the new administration. That is fantastic news.

The upshot is that Bernstein's appointment represents a real victory during these perilous times as job losses continue to mount. It's why I and others liked me worked so hard over the years to achieve a majority in congress and take the White House. Jared Bernstein represents change I can believe in.

Please refer to the flash media player below to listen to the podcast interview I had with Bernstein on April 6th. Our conversation lasted approximately forty-eight minutes and among the topics we discussed at the time were the housing and credit crisis, needed regulatory reform, health-care, globalization, Social Security, America’s investment deficit and free trade.



This interview can also be accessed for free by searching for “Intrepid Liberal Journal” at the Itunes store.

Memo To David Paterson: Liz Krueger For U.S. Senate

The jostling among New York State's political heavy weights is underway to replace Hillary Clinton. New York State governor David Paterson has opted not to select himself. Instead names ranging from Brooklyn Congresswoman Nydia Vasquez (my district) to Suffolk County Executive Thomas Suozzi are mentioned. There is also Westchester Congresswoman Nita Lowrey who stepped aside eight years ago to allow Hillary Clinton a clear path to the Senate.

Many understandably want Clinton replaced with another woman. Naturally, Patterson hopes to select someone who can prevail in a statewide race. However, one criteria I'm not reading or hearing enough about is that Hillary Clinton's replacement should be an unapologetic champion of working people, the poor, high quality education to all segments of society as well as universal healthcare. In other words I would like Hillary Clinton's replacement to be a genuine liberal. Hence, I'm hoping Governor Paterson will consider appointing New York State Senator Liz Krueger.

Krueger represents New York State's 26th district covering Manahattan. Many will object that Krueger is not electable beyond her Manhattan constituency. However, Krueger's tenure as Chair of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC) helped Democrats erode and finally overtake the Republican decades long majority. Indeed, to become a State Senator she defeated an icon of Albany's entrenched power in Roy Goodman.

Longtime readers of the Intrepid Liberal Journal may recall a podcast interview I had with Krueger early last year. Prior to her election Krueger was a longtime advocate for affordable housing. Upon her election Krueger has been a steadfast champion of reform and transparency inside Albany's corrupt culture. Given the challenging times we live in Krueger is the right person to replace Hillary Clinton. Liberal, feminist, intelligent and compassionate. Once in the U.S. Senate I have no doubt Krueger would reassure all New Yorkers that she is an effective advocate for working people in our state.

If you're a New York resident, please click here to email Governor Paterson's office and request that he consider appointing Liz Krueger to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate.

Update: As an anonymous commenter corrently pointed out, Krueger lost to Roy Goodman in her first race in 2000. There was a recount and Goodman prevailed. Which I actually noted in the introductory text to my podcast with Krueger early last year. But this time was not careful and I regret the error. Goodman was stunned by the defeat and joined the Bloomberg administration. After scaring an entrenched icon of the Albany establishment into retirement from the state senate, Krueger was able to prevail in a special election.