Month: September 2008

The silliest moment in yesterday’s fiasco came after the vote failed and the Republican leadership emerged to blame Nancy Pelosi’s speech for hardening the hearts of a dozen ‘yes’ votes and turning them into ‘no’s’. That was some historically sorry rhetoric, as several GOP House members readily admit.

Republican Rep. John Shadegg said Tuesday that House Minority Leader John Boehner and other Republican leaders made a “stupid claim” by alleging that Nancy Pelosi’s speech changed any minds on the bailout.

“I do believe that we could have gotten there today had it not been for this partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House,” said Boehner after the failed vote on the bailout package. His leadership colleagues endorsed the opinion. Rep. Eric Cantor waved a copy of Pelosi’s speech and said the bailout went down because of Pelosi.

Shadegg said that he doesn’t know of a single GOP vote that shifted because of the speech.

On Monday evening, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a lead opponent of the bailout, told the Crypt that the notion was “nonsense” and mocked the possibility that a Republican would be shocked or offended by the partisan nature of a Democratic speech.

That’s some refreshing candor. Boehner’s failure to deliver the votes could well cost him his position as minority leader. It’s a mistake to look at today’s polls and think that the public will reward the people that prevent a rescue plan. In fact, the polls already show a mixed story. The public assigns responsibility for the failure to the Republicans by a 44-21 margin. You might think that would benefit the Republicans, but after seeing the markets tank yesterday, the bailout isn’t all that unpopular. Forty-seven percent oppose it, while 45% support it. Perhaps most significantly:

…nearly nine in 10 expressed concern that the failure of the bill could lead to a more severe economic decline, including a slim majority calling themselves “very worried.”

David Brooks made a good point on culpability:

And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.

Indeed. It takes more foresight than courage to vote for the rescue plan. In the end, people will want to know why nothing was done, and they won’t be looking to reward the do-nothings. As we assess the new package, I hope we can avoid hyperbole. It won’t be a hand-out to CEO’s, it won’t be a trillion dollar appropriation, it will not lack oversight, and it will have measures to slow the rate of foreclosures. Of course, that was all true of yesterday’s version of the bill, too, but it didn’t prevent a flood of commentary to the contrary. Can we do better?

Actually, “banks” in the title above is a term one can apply to any lender, including insurance companies, venture capital funds, etc. And yes, they are hoarding cash and refusing to lend money, leading to speculation that the central banks of the richest countries in the world will be coordinating a cut of their respective interest rates this week to spur banks and other lenders to come out of hiding because the money must flow:

TOKYO (Reuters) – Central banks and regulators scrambled on Tuesday to relieve the strain on financial markets frazzled by another hefty blow to confidence, this time from the rejection by U.S. lawmakers of a $700 billion rescue plan.

Global central banks more than doubled the amount of dollar funding to $620 billion, but the move showed no signs on Tuesday of thawing the freeze in money markets where banks are hoarding cash and bracing for more trouble ahead in the deepening year-long credit crisis.

Analysts said central banks may now be forced to cut interest rates in a coordinated move because their massive fund injections have done little to ease strains that are threatening to become a bigger systemic breakdown that could endanger the global economy.

Hey, I’m no economist, and I didn’t sleep in a Holiday Inn last night, but even I can see that what we have is the equivalent of the proverbial “stuffing cash under the mattress,” only this time it isn’t your nutty old Uncle Tim or Aunt Lucy burying jars of Benjamins in their backyard, it’s every lender on the planet, scared to death that by putting their money in the hands of other lenders they could lose their proverbial shirts, pants, belts and suspenders. And so we have the bizarre experience of foreign leaders and finance ministers publicly begging our Congress to pass a bailout bill, any bailout bill, ASAP, just to keep the world’s economy from running out of cash:

Australia, Britain and Europe are working to convince U.S. lawmakers to pass the $700 billion rescue package, which would allow the U.S. Treasury to buy up bad debt from banks, Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, said on Tuesday.

“What’s important is that all people of good will around the world act in concert with our friends in the United States to see the right measures taken through the U.S. political process to stabilize the global financial system,” he told a press conference.

And that’s not all they are doing. They’re pumping money like crazy into the system. Japan’s central bank, to cite just one example, just made available in a record 28 billion dollars because its banks are refusing to lend money to “foreign” banks. South Korea has banned short selling in its markets, and Taiwan and Hong Kong are placing limits on short sellers in theirs. Despite these actions, many lenders are foundering, looking for any cash they can find.

In what some analysts have called Black September, the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the nationalization of insurance giant AIG and demise of big banks like Washington Mutual have shattered institutions’ confidence in dealing with each other.

The strains have had a ripple affect in the commercial paper markets used by companies for short-term cash needs that threatens to cause a broader hit to economic activity.

Banks have had a hard time coming up with the dollars they need to fund their positions and operations, leading to a rush for dollars wherever institutions can find them. […]

The Federal Reserve more than doubled reciprocal swap lines with the European Central Bank and eight other central banks on Monday to $620 billion from $290 billion previously.

The actions by the central banks have left banks with more than they need. But many are still clinging to the funds.

“No one wants to lend at the moment because there’s too much fear,” said a senior money market trader at a European investment bank in Singapore. “Most banks are keeping a nice cash buffer for themselves at the moment.”

This isn’t a phony crisis, it’s very real, and no one should be taking delight in seeing financial institutions fail, simply assuming that a few greedy speculators and gamblers are merely getting their just desserts, or that the free market is merely correcting itself. When financial collapses and panics occur, they might start with hurting lenders but they never stop there. One relevant historical period to consider is the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the so-called “Gilded Age” when lack of regulation of the markets led to speculative bubbles that periodically burst leading to a series of depressions that destroyed the livelihoods of millions of people in America.

(cont.)

The Great Depression of the 1930s was called “great” for a reason. It followed a long series of depressions which afflicted the American economy throughout the 19th century. […]

Panic of 1873

* The investment firm of Jay Cooke and Company went bankrupt in September 1873 as a result of rampant speculation in railroads. The stock market dropped sharply and caused numerous businesses to fail.

* The depression caused approximately three million Americans to lose their jobs.

* The collapse in food prices impacted America’s farm economy, causing great poverty in rural America.

* The depression lasted for five years, until 1878

.
* The Panic of 1873 led to a populist movement that saw the creation of the Greenback Party.

Panic of 1893

* The depression set off by the Panic of 1893 was the greatest depression America had known, and was only surpassed by the Great Depression of the 1930s.

* In early May 1893 the New York stock market dropped sharply, and in late June panic selling caused the stock market to crash.

* A severe credit crisis resulted, and more than 16,000 businesses had failed by the end of 1893. Included in the failed businesses were 156 railroads and nearly 500 banks.

* Unemployment spread until one in six American men lost their jobs.

* The depression inspired “Coxey’s Army,” a march on Washington of unemployed men. The protesters demanded that the government provide public works jobs. Their leader, Jacob Coxey, was imprisoned for 20 days.

* The depression caused by the Panic of 1893 lasted for about four years, ending in 1897.

Sound familiar? While the current crisis does not the result from the exact same conditions that triggered these earlier “depressions” there are enough parallels to give one pause. Lack of regulation of financial and securities markets. Speculative bubbles that burst, financial firms collapsing, stock markets plummeting, and banks failing. And the end result? Millions of jobs lost and severe poverty for the little people (i.e., you and I). The major difference is the potential scale of this crisis, and the increased complexity of the financial markets in the 21st Century, but the underlying causes are remarkably the same.

Financial panics are not misnamed, nor is the term an oxymoron. They are at heart, an emotional reaction to market conditions. Markets, whatever economists might say, are not rational, at least not in the short term. And these periodic emotional frenzies in the markets, the irrational exuberance which creates speculative bubbles followed by the equally irrational fear which follows the collapse of those bubbles, have been well known to anyone who studies the history of our economy. What is surprising is that so many economists and business people believed that under our current global economic “free trade” regime we had transcended history, and that markets would now act, as they had never acted before, to self-regulate and self-stabilize themselves without government oversight. This misguided vision by these arguably intelligent, but still not completely rational, economic ideologues of the right, these cult followers of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, are responsible for what we see happening to our “global economy” as I literally type these words.

Which is why during the Great Depression FDR and a Democratic controlled Congress created so many government agencies, and strengthened the powers of existing ones, in order to regulate financial institutions and permit the Federal Government to intervene in our financial markets during times when panic in the markets reared its crazy, ugly head. Those agencies and the control they imposed were not always employed to create optimal results, but the fact is that under the regulatory framework established by Roosevelt’s “New Deal” we had an extended period of relative financial stability which lasted until Republicans began dismantling those controls during the Reagan years.

What we are seeing now is the inevitable result of that de-regulation agenda, one that has come to fruition under President Bush and the Republican Party, but for which many establishment Democrats, particularly President Clinton and other DLC Democrats who enabled the efforts of corporate lobbyists and the Republicans in Congress, bear responsibility as well. Over the long term we need to re-impose that regulatory framework that FDR created, and provide new oversight powers to the Federal agencies to meet the demands of the global financial marketplace. we also need to encourage a similar effort abroad in other major economic powers such as China, Russia, the Asian countries and the Economic Union.

Until that can be accomplished, however, we will remain at the mercy of the turbulent economic tides which these libertarian economists and their willing disciples, with their dreams of an unregulated “free” market have unleashed. Tides that are driven less by reason and logic and more by emotions such as greed and fear. To the extent we can take any responsible action in the short term to create a perception of stability and thus tamp down the fears that are raging through the brains of bankers and investors around the globe, we should do so. It might not be enough to prevent a lot of misery, but it might help limit the fallout until our political leaders can undertake the heavy lifting to right our economy which is so sorely needed, and which for so long they have actively shunned.

This morning the President will make another speech to the American Public. As I write this it is about 2 hours away. Whatever he says, it is doubtful that it will be listened to by the members of his own party in Congress and I’m not sure what he can say to get the public to push back for his solution to the problem. His speech yesterday didn’t do it. Why should today be different.

The reports this morning from the global markets are not pleasant. Prices are dropping world wide. The Russians actually had to close their market to prevent a disastrous stock price fall.
The Dow dropped yesterday more than the bailout package would have cost. That should make everyone wince.

While Congress doesn’t meet today as members get to go home for the Jewish New Year, hey will be back by Thursday and have to get on it again (the Senate is supposed to vote on the package tomorrow.) The key to getting this through, however, is the House. After all, only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election in 35 days… but ALL of the House is, and they are going to put their constituent’s views ahead of what would, painfully, save the economy. It has been said that calls to Congress from constituents yesterday were running 100 to 1 against the bill as it stood.

So what will happen this week? How much lower can we let the markets fall?

Steve Clemons thinks it will significantly change our country nd its influence in the world (he also thinks it will end the war in Iraq – for economic reasons!):

America will have no choice but to add to its cumulative debt — and to invest in itself, particularly national infrastructure — as a way to keep Americans working and to stimulate important parts of the near and long term real economy.

George W. Bush’s demands early in his administration for unprecedented powers and budgetary authority amidst unprecedented secrecy and non-transparent government was never effectively challenged by the Congress that should have fought for its own constitutional prerogatives nor knocked back in any real way by the full force of the Democratic Party.

But now the marketplace of power in the world and of the global financial order has brought this administration to a devastating conclusion to its influence — and Americans are going to pay a long-term price for the reckless stewardship of America’s economic and security portfolios by this administration.

Robert Reich is predicting a scaled-down bill by Friday:

It will provide the Treasury with a first installment of $150 billion. Treasury can use it to back Wall Street’s bad debts with lend no-interest loans of up to two years, until the housing market rebounds. Or to invest in Wall Street houses directly, in exchange for stocks and stock warrants. There will be strict oversight. Congressional leaders will promise further installments, but with conditions calling for limits on salaries and relief to distressed homeowners.

Paul Krugman probably looked at the situation pretty realistically:

I assume Pelosi calls a new vote; but if it fails, then what? I guess write a bill that is actually, you know, a good plan, and try to pass it — though politically it might not make sense to try until after the election.

Whatever does happen, it is not going to make everyone happy.

Under The LobsterScope

A coalition of 21 prominent aid agencies, including the likes of Oxfam International, Save the Children UK, CAFOD, CARE International UK and Christian Aid, published a report (.pdf) this week condemning the failure of the ‘Quartet’ ( the EU, Russia and the UN, led by the U.S.) to achieve significant humanitarian or political progress in the occupied territories. They conclude that in five of the ten areas targeted for improvement by the Quartet, including the “three areas where progress is now most urgent” (settlements, restrictions on movement and access and ending the blockade of Gaza), “there has been either no progress or an actual deterioration in the situation.”
Statements condemning Israeli settlements have not been accompanied by “concrete measures” to ensure Israel’s compliance. This “marked failure to hold the Israeli authorities to their obligations” has resulted in a significant “acceleration in construction” of settlements and “no serious attempts by the Israeli authorities to dismantle outposts”. According to Peace Now (.pdf), in the first half of 2008 the pace of construction “almost doubled in all of the settlements and outposts on both sides of the Separation Barrier”. This is part of an “intensive” effort “intended to create a territorial connection between the blocks of settlements and isolated settlements in the heart of the West Bank”, thereby “[e]liminating the Green Line” and with it any chance of a two-state settlement. The number of tenders issued for building projects in the settlements in the first half of this year was up 550%, while tenders issued for East Jerusalem increased by a factor of 38.

The settlements and their associated infrastructure – the annexation wall, the outposts, the thousands of miles of restricted roads “connecting illegal Israeli settlements and usurping Palestinian land” and the closure policy, discussed below – combine to make nearly 40% of the West Bank inaccessible to Palestinians, with “devastat[ing]” consequences for Palestinian social and economic life.

Israel’s contempt for international denunciations of its settlement policies was dramatically illustrated when, the day after the Quartet issued its June 24 statement expressing “deep concern” at continuing Israeli construction in the West Bank and calling for a complete settlement freeze, it “announced new settlement building or tendering in Neve Yaacov, Beitar Illit, Har Homa, Pisgat Ze’ev, Ariel, and Maskiot.” Similarly, almost immediately after agreeing to halt settlement activity at the Annapolis conference last November the Israeli government published tenders for the construction of 747 housing units in East Jerusalem. These acts are timed to send a very clear message to Palestinians and others that Israel has no intention of withdrawing to its legal borders, irrespective of any “peace process”.

Rejecting claims of a ‘new reality’ in the West Bank (also dismissed by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the World Bank), the report warns that the Palestinian “economy continues to stagnate”. Aside from occasional “isolated successes”, there has been “little demonstrable progress in … invigorating the Palestinian economy”. Despite Israel’s repeated promises to remove restrictions on movement in the West Bank, the number of roadblocks actually increased over the past six months, while the average weekly number of ‘flying’ checkpoints has increased by approximately 10% in recent months. This in the context of a 62% increase in roadblocks and checkpoints since the Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA) was signed in 2005. The relationship between these restrictions and “the expansion and protection of illegal Israeli settlement activity” has, the report notes, been “well documented”, by the UN, human rights organisations and many others. As the World Bank reported last week, the evidence that “the current restrictions correlate to settlement locations and expansions” is “[o]verwhelming”. Indeed, Israeli military experts have repeatedly proposed alternative locations for the checkpoints and other restrictions that would inflict less humanitarian and economic hardship on the Palestinians without conceding anything in terms of Israel’s security. Their proposals have not, needless to say, been implemented.

Construction of the wall, ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice four years ago, has continued apace. When complete the wall will annexe nearly 10% of the most fertile West Bank land, severing over 400,000 Palestinians from their land, their jobs, basic services and each other and isolating East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. The British government has acknowledged that the wall constitutes an attempt by Israel to “create facts on the grounds” to “prejudice future final-status negotiations”, a situation it evidently finds perfectly acceptable, judging by its decision to unconditionally upgrade Israel’s bilateral ties with the EU earlier this year. Israel’s closure policy has resulted in “the annexation of land and water supplies, and the forced displacement of Palestinians”, and has generally had a “profound effect on the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank”. It has, for example, “significantly contributed to the fact that over half the population (57.2 per cent) is living in poverty … with one of the highest unemployment rates in the world.” As the UN OCHA concludes, Israel has constructed in the West Bank,

“an entrenched multi-layered system of obstacles and restrictions, fragmenting the West Bank territory and affecting the freedom of movement of the entire Palestinian population and its economy. This system is transforming the geographical reality of the West Bank and Jerusalem towards a more permanent territorial fragmentation”.

In Gaza meanwhile, the blockade continues despite the ceasefire, which has been highly successful in reducing the violence despite occasional “violations on both sides”. While there have been slight increases in imports of humanitarian and commercial goods, these remain very “limited” and are “failing to meet the basic needs of Gaza’s population.” The blockade has led to the closure of a full 98% of Gaza’s factories, and there has been “no relaxation of the total ban on exports, without which there can be no regeneration of the Gazan economy.” As such the humanitarian situation (.pdf) in Gaza remains “dire”, with no sign of imminent improvement (quite the opposite – current trends point only to “deepening poverty”). The World Bank and the IMF recently concluded, once again, that while Israel’s network of settlements and restrictions remain in West Bank, and while the siege of Gaza continues, no amount of aid or reform will revive the Palestinian economy, which looks set to slide further into de-development and aid dependency.

In short, under the cover of the hand-shakes and photo-ops of the Annapolis “peace process”, the systematic destruction of Palestinian society and annexation of Palestinian land has been sharply accelerated. The aid agencies’ report twice suggests that, given its failure to achieve anything positive of note either politically or economically in the occupied territories, it will soon become “necessary to question what the future is for the Middle East Quartet.” In fact, the U.S. and the EU, at least, are guilty of far more than a failure to act – they have both actively supported and facilitated many of the policies described above. Indeed, while the report emphasises that “[t]he only sustainable solution to the crisis is a comprehensive peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians based on international law”, the Quartet has failed to even mention the authoritative ICJ judgement outlining Israel’s legal obligations, due largely to the rejectionist influence of the United States. Instead it remains formally committed to the “road map” – a framework almost universally recognised to be, in the words of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, “an irrelevance” – and refuses to pursue any concrete measures against Israel’s flagrant violations of international law. At the very least, the UN should contemplate John Dugard’s advice (.pdf) and consider removing itself from the charade, thus depriving it of whatever false legitimacy it currently enjoys. This fraud has continued long enough.

Cross-posted at The Heathlander

While Jeffrey Goldberg is admittedly correct to call Palin out for essentially endorsing Hamas, I think his analysis is a bit too smug. Palin was asked “What happens if the goal of democracy doesn’t produce the desired outcome? In Gaza, the U.S. pushed hard for elections and Hamas won.”

It’s a fair question that gets to the heart of our commitment to democracy over specific outcomes, which is questionable, at best. It’s a good question…a tough question…and it could be extended to the elections in Lebanon, in Syria, and (to a degree) in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iraq. What do we do when there are elections and people that hate us and hate Israel wind up winning those elections?

Palin’s answer was partially non-responsive.

“Yeah, well especially in that region, though, we have to protect those who do seek democracy and support those who seek protections for the people who live there. What we’re seeing in the last couple of days here in New York is a President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends, Israel … and we’re hearing the evil that he speaks and if hearing him doesn’t allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, especially there in the Mideast, then nothing will.”

Of course, President Ahmadinejad is an elected official. He was voted in in an imperfect election because certain candidates were determined by the Council of Guardians to be ineligible to run against him. But Iran does a pretty good job of counting votes. They have real elections. So, Palin’s answer is a little off-key here, but American politicians play fast and loose with the facts about Iran’s political structure all the time. What bothers Goldberg is that Palin seems to be saying that we should protect those that seek democracy like the Palestinians, who elected Hamas. Hamas is an admittedly tricky case…a true test of our commitment to the principles of self-determination. Palin sidesteps the central focus of the question, perhaps because she is so unfamiliar with the dilemma that she didn’t understand the thrust of the question.

Where Goldberg is too smug is in failing to answer the question himself. Goldberg, rather, suggests that it was a mistake to push for democracy in Palestine. And I might agree with Goldberg if only he would explain why self-determination is okay when we get the desired result and not okay when we don’t.

I’m not above exercising some double standards now and then, and realpolitik is not a wholly dirty word in my book. I do believe that our national interests come first. But let’s not pretend that there isn’t a huge cost to our double standards on self-determination, on nuclear weapons, and on what constitutes a rogue state. Palin failed to answer the question, probably because she is a numbskull. Goldberg provides a perfectly acceptable alternative answer.

“Yes, Katie, it’s true that if you push for democracy, sometimes you get an outcome that you don’t want. This happened in Gaza with Hamas, and I think the Bush Administration was as surprised as everyone else. So the lesson here is that you have be careful when you try to export democracy. But I still believe that, over the long-term, democracy is the best antidote to terrorism that we have. What we have to do, though, is know when to push, and know when not to push. And every day, we have to do the hard work of advocating for press freedom, and the rule of law, and for all those things that build a civil society.”

What Goldberg doesn’t do is answer the root of the question. Why was it a mistake for the Palestinians to have a vote on their leadership? How is it even possible for a free and fair election to be a bad thing? Those may be more philosophical than political questions, but unless you can answer them, you shouldn’t be too condescending to those that have no good answer.

I’ve never had much tolerance for complaints from our elites about how the mean bloggers undermine public confidence in our institutions. I still think that that is a total cop-out for the failings of our elite institutions. But, I gotta say, the lack of trust in our elite institutions has now become epidemic. It’s still not the bloggers’ fault. But that critique is truer today than in any time in the past. Bloggers did a worse job in this crisis of telling the truth than the press, the party leaders, or even the administration. You could oppose this bill on the merits. But few people argued the merits. They argued strawmen. They used phony numbers. They ignored parts of the bill, or simply said that they didn’t exist. They quoted economists out of context. They grabbed the most alarmist language they could find without regard for the source.

Even if it was a good thing to defeat this bill, this episode was a low moment for standards in the blogosphere.

A mosque in Dayton Ohio was the subject of a chemical attack on the Muslims praying there to celebrate the end of Ramadan, including small children (toddlers and babies) last Friday. This follows the delivery to millions of Ohioans of the anti-Muslim propaganda DVD Obsession by two right wing neoconservative front groups last week.

Funny, but I don’t remember any national news stories on this outrageous assault over the weekend, but I guess it isn’t terrorism when Muslims are the victims. Here’s the local report in the Dayton Daily News

DAYTON — Baboucarr Njie was preparing for his prayer session Friday night, Sept. 26, when he heard children in the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton coughing. Soon, Njie himself was overcome with fits of coughing and, like the rest of those in the building, headed for the doors. […]

Njie was one of several affected when a suspected chemical irritant was sprayed into the mosque at 26 Josie St., bringing Dayton police, fire and hazardous material personnel to the building at 9:48 p.m.

Someone “sprayed an irritant into the mosque,” Dayton fire District Chief Vince Wiley said, noting that fire investigators believe it was a hand-held spray can. […]

The 300 or so inside were celebrating the last 10 days of Ramadan with dinner and a prayer session, but the prayer session was interrupted so those suffering from tearing, coughing and shortness of breath could receive treatment.

Wiley said an adult and juvenile were taken to area hospitals and others had their eyes or faces washed on the scene. He did not know how many people were treated at the scene.

Here’s how one of the people who was there, a mother of two, described the incident in an email delivered to Chris Rodda who wrote about this story for The Huffington Post:

(cont.)

“She told me that the gas was sprayed into the room where the babies and children were being kept while their mothers prayed together their Ramadan prayers. Panicked mothers ran for their babies, crying for their children so they could flee from the gas that was burning their eyes and throats and lungs. She grabbed her youngest in her arms and grabbed the hand of her other daughter, moving with the others to exit the building and the irritating substance there.

“The paramedic said the young one was in shock, and gave her oxygen to help her breathe. The child couldn’t stop sobbing.

“This didn’t happen in some far away place — but right here in Dayton, and to my friends. Many of the Iraqi refugees were praying together at the Mosque Friday evening. People that I know and love.

“I am hurt and angry. I tell her this is not America. She tells me this is not Heaven or Hell — there are good and bad people everywhere.

“She tells me that her daughters slept with her last night, the little one in her arms and sobbing throughout the night. She tells me she is afraid, and will never return to the mosque, and I wonder what kind of country is this where people have to fear attending their place of worship?”

“The children come into the room, and tell me they want to leave America and return to Syria, where they had fled to from Iraq. They say they like me, … , and other American friends — but they are too afraid and want to leave. Should a 6 and 7 year old even have to contemplate the safety of their living situation?

“Did the anti-Muslim video circulating in the area have something to do with this incident, or is that just a bizarre coincidence? Who attacks women and children?

“What am I supposed to say to them? My words can’t keep them safe from what is nothing less than terrorism, American style. Isn’t losing loved ones, their homes, jobs, possessions and homeland enough? Is there no place where they can be safe?

“She didn’t want me to leave her tonight, but it was after midnight, and I needed to get home and write this to my friends. Tell me — tell me — what am I supposed to say to them?”

I wonder how this story would have played in the national media if an antisemetic DVD was sent to millions of Americans by a Fundamentalist Islamic group and then a Jewish synagogue was subjected to a similar attack. Actually, you and I know how that story would have played out: 24/7 coverage on the cable news shows over the weekend. McCain probably would have used it as an opportunity to attack Obama at the debate.

But this is Bush’s America. Home of Republican Jesus. A nation founded upon Christian principles. So, if a few Muslims and their children are the victims of a chemical attack, so be it. They probably had it coming to them for believing in the wrong God. Right?

Well, not in the America I was led to believe in as a kid. That America believed in religious freedom for all faiths and protected the rights of all people. Then again, maybe I was lied to about my country, and it’s many failures to put the ideals it preaches to others in action here in the US of A. It wouldn’t be the first time.

I guess we are all about 7% poorer than we were this morning. That’s no big deal, right?

It’s been a big week for equality, as Congress has passed two major pieces of legislation that move the country in the direction of equal access for all Americans regardless of disability.

The major headline which you have probably heard about is the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments. These amendments restore the spirit of the original Americans with Disabilities Act, which had come under fire from Supreme Court rulings that put people with disabilities in a Catch-22 situation. As explained by Cristóbal Joshua Alex of the National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights:

In one case after another, the Supreme Court whittled away at the landmark Americans with Disabilities Actby ignoring Congressional intent and narrowly interpreting the definition of disability. [. . .] This created a Catch-22 situation: if a person is able to limit the effect of having a disability, say by taking medication or using a medical device, that person would no longer be covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act and employers were free to discriminate at will. The result has been devastating. Plaintiffs lose 97% of employment-related cases under the ADA.

The absurdity played out in courtrooms across the country where judges, following the Supreme Court precedent, ruled that people with epilepsy, cancer, muscular dystrophy, mental retardation and even
blindness were not “disabled” under the ADA. But, as the bill’s sponsor, Congressman Steny Hoyer points out, the ADA is not about disability, it’s about the prevention of wrongful and unlawful discrimination.

The Amendments passed by an almost unheard of unanimous voice vote in both the House and the Senate. The impressive victory was a result of all stakeholders in the process, business, labor, and advocates for people with disabilities, recognizing that they were all part of the same community and could find common ground to restore the anti-discrimination protections of the law. When we unite around common American Values such as fairness and dignity, we can find commonalities with those who we might usually think of as our adversaries.

More good news came yesterday with the news that the Congress has also passed a long sought-after mental health parity bill that requires health insurers to treat mental health coverage on equal terms with physical health coverage.  The legislation passed in the Senate as part of a larger renewable energy bill by a vote of 93-2, and in the House by a vote of 376-47.  In the words of some of the Senators key to the passage of the legislation:

“This bill provides mental health parity for about 113 million Americans who work for employers with 50 employees or more,” said Mr. Domenici, who has a daughter with schizophrenia.
“No longer will people with mental illness have their mental health coverage treated differently than their coverage for other illnesses like cancer, heart disease and diabetes.”

With this bill, said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, “we are eliminating the stigma and affirming the dignity” of people with mental illness.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, said, “Mental illness will no longer take a back seat to physical illness.”

Mental health parity was one of the signature issues of the late progressive champion, Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, who died tragically in a small plane crash while campaigning for re-election in 2002. His work, and those who have continued it, demonstrate that equality, opportunity, and dignity are American, not partisan, goals.