The Blog

Bob Franken: Thanksgiving: When There Is Humane Treatment for All

2009-11-26T14:55:12Z

Those Humane Society commercials on behalf of neglected, abused and hungry dogs and cats are heart wrenching to me . No one loves animals more than me, dotes more on his own pets.

HOWEVER: Don't we need a similar campaign for human children? Given the new study that shows one fourth of young Americans face the possibility of going to bed hungry every night, could we show video of just some of them with someone to somehow touch our sadness and anger over their circumstance too?

How can we be blase about their plight? How could those of us more fortunate not rush out and share our bounty? This is not sharing wealth, this is about guaranteeing the right to basic sustenance. And Thanksgiving is the very day we should think about this.

This is when we some of us make a such a to-do about our conscience-salving holiday contributions to a food bank so the deprived are able to partake of a holiday meal. This is one of the two days a year where we might head to a soup kitchen and dole out food to the needy, preferably when the local TV cameras are there, before we go home and gorge ourselves on ridiculous feasts and then make jokes in the days ahead about using up the leftovers.

Tragically, for one fourth of our children there is nothing from which to be left over, or enough scraps for all those other days and nights besides Thanksgiving, and oh yeah, Christmas. Time after time we're told that the last-resort food banks in our nation of plenty, no longer are receiving what they need to feed those who have plenty of nothing. Blame the economy, we're told for reducing contributions just when more people are desperate for anything to eat.

It's not acceptable. True, times are tough, but frankly, most of us consume way more than we require while others simply don't get enough...far too many others What we don't overindulge, we throw away. If it is too much to get the wealthy to share their prosperity, maybe we can at least come up with a better system to collect what is discarded and set up a network that provides it in some non-demeaning way to the parents who simply want their children to be properly nourished. Would that be asking enough?

There is a special place in Hell for those who are cruel to animals. But what about those of us to neglect our own vulnerable young? Don't we have a moral obligation to them? Every day of the year? So they can share in the Thanksgiving.

Jon Soltz: Thanks... again and again and again

2009-11-26T13:22:36Z

This Thanksgiving, the thing that will stick the most with me is while watching football, we'll surely see the thanks to and from the troops videos just before commercial breaks. You know, the ones that have a young Army Sergeant in Iraq saying hi to his wife and kids, and another where a public figure thanks the troops for their service. This is the eighth year in a row we'll see these videos here at home.

At the same time, I can't help but think that some young grunt is watching these videos for maybe the fourth or fifth time from a TV that the USO set up in the warzone. And, while he'll strap on his rifle and go whenever called, part of him is thinking "How many more Thanksgivings am I going to have to watch these videos from over here? If you want to thank me, let me eat some turkey at home. Let me see my girlfriend and parents and friends for more than just short stints at home. Don't you have someone who can rotate in here for me so I can stop doing these tours for a while?"

Thanks to President Obama, some troops will see a bit of relief. By ending the Stop Loss policy, and supporting giving troops "dwell time" (as much time at home as deployed), our troops will get rest.

But, unfortunately, given the op-tempo of the wars we're in, added to rumors that we'll be sending an increase of troops to Afghanistan, there are no guarantees that troops might not see their sixth or even seventh Thanksgiving at war over the course of the next several years.

As Spencer Ackerman correctly notes, the reported decision to increase of troops to Afghanistan means our force will once again be at a breaking point. Now, we'll have to wait to see how President Obama addresses this point, but without a speedier withdrawal from Iraq, or a concerted efforts to grow the size of the Armed Forces at a more rapid pace than we've seen, we're going to be left with very few troops in the bank, so to speak. That means sending the same troops back out there again and again and again as soon as their dwell time is up.

Don't get me wrong, troops appreciate all the thank you messages, and getting a piece of home while watching football in the USO tent is maybe the absolute best feeling in the world when you're in Iraq or Afghanistan. But at a certain point, for those there for yet another holiday, the thanks start to ring a bit more hollow.

So this Thanksgiving, when you see those videos during the game, take a moment to think about that young grunt watching these videos from war yet again, and others like him. Put yourself in his boots. Carry that feeling with you through the rest of the year, and let it affect how you view all the news from the warzone, and decisions we make about the wars here at home.

Crossposted at VetVoice.com

Huff TV: Arianna Discusses Obama's Afghanistan Decision On The Charlie Rose Show (VIDEO)

2009-11-26T06:15:50Z

If you were traveling on Thanksgiving Eve, you might have missed Arianna on The Charlie Rose Show. She was there to discuss President Obama's forthcoming decision on US troop levels in Afghanistan. Joining Arianna were Yale English Professor David Bromwich, Council On Foreign Relations President Emeritus and Board Senior Fellow Leslie Gelb, Politico Editor-In-Chief John Harris, and New Yorker Senior Editor Hendrik Hertzberg.

It has been reported that the president will send 34,000 more US troops for duty in Afghanistan, just 6,000 shy of the full 40,000 requsted by U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Arianna argued that Obama's reported decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan calls into question his whole leadership. He stood before the country during the Democratic National Convention in 2008 and told voters that the greatest risk for the U.S. in Afghanistan would be to do the same old thing, play the same old politics, with the same old players and then expect different results. And yet here he is, Arianna explained, poised to do just that.

WATCH:

/video/2/video/rplayer.swf" flashvars="videoid=1761&services=&extension=%2Fvideo%2F2&frontcolor=&backcolor=&skin=vplayer.swf&autostart=true&plugins=postrollmenu%2Cbug%2Canalyticsv2" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="462" height="390" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">

Jacob Heilbrunn: Precious: Giving Thanks To Those Who Count

2009-11-26T03:33:19Z

It's time to spread some good holiday cheer and offer thanks to five precious, leading public figures who've really made a difference.

First, God bless Sen. John McCain for picking Sarah Palin to be his running mate in 2008. Her continued visibility testifies to his good sense in selecting her. It's good to see that Palin has even become a bookish individual, or at least an author, who managed to produce a best seller in her very first effort. It might not have initially seemed as though Palin had an IQ much above room temperature, but she's proven to be a canny and astute operator. The GOP establishment shouldn't be afraid of her. It should be quaking. Who knew that the crusty Senator had such a good eye for talent spotting?

Second, God bless another Senator--Senator Joseph Lieberman. Where would the Senate be without Lieberman? His mournful insistence on stopping health care--or at least insisting that there shouldn't be a public option--has nothing to do with the insurance companies in his home state of Connecticut. No, no. Americans should be thanking him for stopping the creation of a predatory government-based bureaucracy that can only harm the health of those who don't have any health insurance. It's better to be without than to have a government program that might well injure your health as well as the economy's. Sen. Lieberman, please, keep it up! As you seek to keep the national debt from ballooning, we're all indebted to you.

Third, I want to single out Afghan leader Hamid Karzai for praise. No one has done more to shore up the war effort than Karzai. Sure, he can seem a little ungrateful at times. But he's displayed true family values in running his country--his entire clan seems to be contributing to economic activity in Afghanistan in whatever way it can. As President Obama prepares to announce further troop deployments to Afghanistan, it's reassuring to know that American can count on such good and valorous and forthright allies in the fight against terrorism.

Fourth, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell deserves some kudos for his stalwart attempts to maintain a healthy, physical lifestyle among professional football players. No doubt a few lily-livered naysayers want to crimp the style of the game. But in denying, at least until recently, that concussions can have a deleterious effect on the health of football players, leading to dementia and even suicide, Goodell has displayed real courage and stuck up for American manhood against the namby-pamby pacifists. Good on you, Goodell!

Finally, I would like to thank former press secretary Dana Perino for clearing up a matter that had been troubling me as well as presumably most Americans. It seems there never was a terrorist attack, according to Perino, during "President Bush's term." Good to know. So 9/11 never happened? Apparently, it wasn't until Fort Hood that America suffered a terrorist attack.

For that reminder of all the Bush administration did to keep America safe, she deserves our gratitude. And inadvertently provides a useful reminder of why all of us should now be truly grateful that the president celebrating Thanksgiving this year is named Obama.

Daniel Levy: Netanyahu's Stubbornness On Settlements Produces American Call For 1967 Borders

2009-11-26T02:31:55Z

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu announced today his cabinet's decision, "To suspend new construction in Judea and Samaria." (Yes, they still call it Judea and Samaria). The Obama Administration responded within hours with a statement released by Secretary Clinton followed by a press briefing from Special Envoy George Mitchell.

On the face of it, this was a step forward by the Israeli government, acknowledged and welcomed (though not blessed) by the US government, and a move that one hopes will facilitate Palestinian agreement to resume negotiations. But if one digs just a little bit deeper, it becomes very evident that it was nothing of the sort. Rather, today's events closed the first chapter in a game of dare being played out between the new leaderships in Washington and Jerusalem.

Today's statements appeared to be part of an elaborate and ongoing dance of suspicion between the two supposed allies. During his first term as prime minister in the late 90's, Benjamin Netanyahu made an enemy of then US President Clinton and played the Republican congress against the Democrat president. This directly led to the collapse of Netanyahu's government and his fall from office. Judging by today, Netanyahu is keen for a repeat performance albeit under circumstances even less propitious for him politically. The response of the Obama team might be an interesting pointer as to where things might be headed on the peace front.

The Obama administration has been calling on Israel to make good on a settlement freeze commitment dating to the 2003 Bush-era Road Map (and, questionably to the 1993 Oslo DoP). Netanyahu has been unwilling to do anything of the sort. He sought to codify a set of exemptions to a settlement freeze or in plainer English, guidelines for ongoing settlement expansion, and to have those blessed by Washington. The Obama team refused to become the first ever American government to formally authorize settlement expansion. That is the situation we have reached with today's announcement.

Netanyahu's cabinet clarified its so-called "settlement restraint" policy with today's decision (some have called it a "moratorium" or a "freeze" but as you will see shortly, it is nothing of the sort, and those words are an inappropriate description).

The only apparent restraint in the Israeli cabinet decision was to suspend issuing of new permits or beginning new construction in the West Bank for ten months. The less restrained side of the equation is this: 3000 units already under construction will continue; all public buildings and security infrastructure will continue to be built; no restrictions would apply to occupied East Jerusalem; and construction would resume after ten months.

Netanyahu also repeated the totally (meaningless)commitment of no new settlements or land confiscations (meaningless because since 1993, the official policy is no new settlements yet via expansion, new neighborhoods and outposts, the West Bank settler population has grown from 111,000 then to over 300,000 today, and because although the built-up area of settlements constitutes only 2% of West Bank land, double that amount is slated for growth, and a total of 40% comes under the Settlement Regional Councils, therefore land confiscation issue is a red herring).

While it is technically true that this "restraint" is a new Israeli commitment, its practical relevance is of very limited significance - building 3000 units in ten months neatly dovetails the regular annual settlement construction rates. Moreover, Netanyahu made sure to assertively mention all these caveats in today's announcement - in effect, poking the Obama administration, the international community, and the Palestinians in the eye.

While some claim this was a politically courageous act by Netanyahu, the real litmus test is easy to apply: Has this led to any shakiness, any crisis, any resignations in the most right wing coalition ever in Israel's history? The answer: absolutely not, and resignations in Israeli politics are about as rare as Turkeys on Thanksgiving. Netanyahu's so-called "restraint package" was so minimalist that it kept his coalition happy while doing nothing to advance a genuine peace effort (Yes, there is some criticism from the far-right, and Netanyahu's supporters will point to it as proof of his bravery, but as I say, the real test is in his coalition - and there: not so much as a wobble).

The interesting development today, indeed the unprecedented development, was in the US response. Yes, Senator Mitchell did pro-forma explain why this is new, why this was progress from the Israeli government. But the real American response came elsewhere, in Secretary Clinton and Envoy Mitchell's statements. They did not bless the Israeli non-freeze, explaining it fell short and that they expected more, and that "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements". (Admittedly they could have explicitly said that after ten months and the 3000 units, their expectation was for not a single new home to be built, they didn't).

But the new language came in Secretary Clinton's description of what American expects the outcome of negotiations to be - for an "independent and viable [Palestinian] state based on the 1967 lines". Senator Mitchell quoted Clinton in repeating the call for a Palestinian state "based on the 67 lines."

Every conflict and every situation has its own lingua franca. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, a state based on the 67 lines is the dog-whistle for what constitutes a real, no-B.S. two-state outcome. It is also language that the US has conspicuously avoided using - avoided that is until today.

Previous administrations would speak of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 (but those are interpreted differently by the Israelis and Palestinians); the Clinton Parameters of December 2000 suggested percentages on territory, but never mentioned the 67 lines; in June 2002, President Bush used the phrase, ending the "occupation that began in 1967." That language was adopted in the 2003 Road Map and used verbatim by President Obama in his September United Nations General Assembly speech. It is language very much open to interpretation. The "1967 lines" language add a far greater degree of clarity - and, as such, is an anathema to the Greater Land of Israel, anti-peace forces (many of whom are represented in today's Israeli government).

Interestingly, Secretary Clinton had begun to play with this language during her recent Middle East trip but had never been so explicit - until today. It is true that this adoption of new language comes late (perhaps too late) in the process and will need to be backed up by more concrete steps. It is though progress.

So the subtext of what went on today - the Obama administration is beginning to up the ante, at least declaratively, in the signals it is sending in response to Netanyahu's stubbornness on settlements, and in setting the table for the next phase of its peace efforts.

The question of course is - what next? Senator Mitchell gave some hints about that also. He suggested that the US was still pursuing a comprehensive peace effort and notably discussed Syria at some length. He briefly mentioned the option of resuming regional multilateral talks with Israel and various Arab states on issues such as water and energy at an appropriate time. Most interesting perhaps, Senator Mitchell explained that negations, "will proceed on a variety of tracks," and while he continued to push for the resumption of direct Israeli-Palestinian talks, he also spoke of parallel talks that the US would conduct with each of the parties.

This combination of back-to-back negotiations - US-Israel and US-Palestinians - combined with the reference to the 1967 lines may signpost the way out of the peace impasse. The US will need to elaborate and put flesh on the bones of its "based on the 1967 lines" parameter and then pursue a conversation, mostly with the Israeli side, on how to implement that, and if necessary go public with a plan and tie incentives/disincentives to its acceptance/rejection.

Chris Weigant: On Whores

2009-11-26T01:15:03Z

I was kind of hoping I wouldn't have to address this subject, but an etymological battle in Washington seems to have just been stirred up further, meaning I just have to jump on top (so to speak) of the semantic debate.

I speak of whores. That's right, whores. Prostitutes. Hookers.

Because some in Washington have apparently latched onto these terms either as a favorite insult to hurl, or as a faux-controversy (while giving Oscar-worthy performances of having the Victorian vapors over hearing the words). Following close behind are charges of "sexism" and "insensitivity" and probably a few other "-isms" to boot.

To which I say: "Oh, Puh-LEEZE."

The beginning of this tempest in a teapot was when Alan Grayson called a woman who works as a lobbyist a "K Street whore," during an interview. He did not actually name the woman -- but only because he couldn't recall her name. Through describing her, he made it obvious who he was talking about, so he doesn't even get a pass for refraining from naming her.

More recently, Glenn Beck described Louisiana's Senator Mary Landrieu as a "prostitute" for what appeared (to him) to be selling her recent vote on healthcare reform for $100 million for her state (she even later got up on the Senate floor and made sure everyone knew it was actually $300 million, not the paltry $100 million others were referring to -- which brings to mind the old "we're just haggling over the price" joke, of course).

Keith Olbermann then jumped into this fray, and named Beck the "Worst Person In The World" for his comment -- while Olbermann did not say "boo" to Alan Grayson earlier on the same program for Grayson's recent use of the word "whore."

To which I say: "Can we all please just get over ourselves?" I mean, seriously.

The argument against using such a loaded term as "whore" or "prostitute" is that it demeans women. To which I say: "Balderdash!"

In the first place, there are whores and prostitutes of both sexes. The term is gender-neutral as far as I'm concerned. That's the way I've always used it, and will continue to use it.

Because, when appropriate, use it I do. Here is my entire catalog of such uses in my writings. See which ones you agree with, and see how the term can indeed be used regardless of gender.

[1/7/08 -- calling the primaries for New Hampshire (long before Edwards' own zipper problem came to light):]

So I'd really like to see [John] Edwards place second in the Granite State, because then the media would either have to pay attention to him or just flat-out admit that they're corporate whores, and that Edwards' message terrifies them.

[9/25/09 -- on Congress and healthcare reform:]

"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party."

Of course, this really should be (in today's inclusive society): "Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party." But what it really should say is something more like: "Now is the time for all good men and women to pick up the phone and give their party representative an earful about what it actually means to be a member of that party, and that we actually expect them to stand up and vote for what the party not only believes in at its core but also what we were promised in the last election, and (by the way) why we gave you such overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress to play around with -- but the time for playing is over, and it's time for you to now either stand tall with the people in your party, or admit you're just a corporate whore at heart." But that's a little hard to type, so maybe not.

[10/14/09 -- satirical coach-at-halftime pep talk on healthcare reform:]

Now, I know it's going to be tough to score your touchdown with the team you've got [Congressional Democrats]. There's all kinds of corporate whores wearing our jersey who would be happy to see the whole thing fail. Explain to them that failure means not getting re-elected. Maybe they'll come on board when they see it that way.

[11/04/09 -- one year after Obama's election:]

This reality is a lot more ugly, and a lot more concrete. Obama is not King. Obama really believes reaching out to the other side is a good and important thing to do, and not just a campaign promise. Congress still has a role under our Constitution, as inconvenient as it is to admit this fact. Lobbyists still exist. Washington is still situated on a former swamp, having only exchanged alligators for alligator wingtips on K Street. Congresscritters (far too many of them) are still absolute whores for big corporate campaign contributions. 'Twas ever thus in the District.

And that's not even counting the times I've used the word "prostitute," such as in my first-ever Thanksgiving column (lampooning the whole Washington culture), which is extremely dated but still rather amusing in parts. In it, I describe "ex-male prostitute Mike Jones," because, well, that's what he is. The other places I used "prostitute" were usually because it was an unavoidable fact (talking about Eliot Spitzer's downfall, for instance).

These columns, I point out, caused no outrage at the time. Neither, for that matter, did P.J. O'Rourke's excellent book "Parliament Of Whores" -- which, while written from a conservative-to-libertarian slant, is quite possibly the best book written about (among other things) how lazy our elected officials in Congress truly are, and how they work less days a year than just about any other job you can get. The book, no matter what your politics, is downright hilarious. And yet, I don't believe that O'Rourke got any grief for his title at the time, which was in fact calling every member of Congress a whore.

Of course, back in those days, most of Congress was male. Perhaps the pearl-clutching swoons happening today about the word are because there is now a sizeable percentage of women in the political arena. And, while the word "whore" or "prostitute" has been hurled around Washington pretty much since they drained the swamp and built the place, now we have women on the receiving end of the epithet.

Or perhaps it is the personal nature of such attacks, rather than broad-based attacks which name "all lobbyists" or "all of Congress" or "all Blue Dogs" or whatever other group. Saying Congress is full of whores is not the same thing as saying Congresswoman X is a whore. Some would argue that the same goes for lobbyists who also happen to be women.

I have to draw the line at lobbyists, however. I don't care what genitalia you happen to be packing, if you screw some people over for some other people who are better organized and have more money, and your income is solely derived from such actions; then you, Sir or Madam (as the case may be), are a whore. Deal with it. Nobody forced you into that K Street office.

When Eliot Spitzer crashed and burned his political career, I wrote the column "In Defense Of Hookers" (somewhat tongue in cheek, I admit), suggesting that we should just go ahead and legalize prostitution in Washington, D.C., and set up a federal whorehouse for politicians to have clean and healthy sex with people for money, rather than getting all neo-Puritan each time one of these sex scandals rocked the political world (so to speak). In it, I said:

It is in defense of hookers that I speak today. Because America would be a whole lot better if we legalized prostitution in Washington, D.C. After all, what did we really get for that $40 million we gave Ken Starr? How does anybody really benefit if the public knows details of how Larry Craig or Eliot Spitzer has sex? Wouldn't it be better to facilitate such dalliances with clean and reputable brothels for our politicians?

. . .

Erect one of those pseudo-Greek marble buildings in the Federal Triangle district and name it the Fighting Joe Hooker Memorial Federal Brothel (they've already named the FBI building after J. Edgar Hoover, so this shouldn't be a problem). Stock it with healthy men and women who volunteer to earn their money this way (if you don't think they'd arrive in droves to have sex with the powerful and famous in our nation's capital, you are delusional). Cater to every taste and whim.

. . .

[M]aybe we can get beyond our Puritanical roots when it comes to sex scandals as well. Maybe the next time around, John McCain will be on the front page of the New York Times for a lobbyist scandal, without having to throw sex into it. Maybe we'll all realize that it is simply impossible to describe the relationship between Washington politicians, lobbyists, corporations, and campaign cash -- and still have it come out sounding somehow different than what a prostitute does for a living. Or somehow more moral.

So I say, in defense of hookers everywhere, let's legalize prostitution in the nation's capital. The kind that involves sex, I mean. Because the other kind is not only legal, it is actually how we create our laws. And if we as a nation are fine with that, I don't see why we should have a problem with bringing Hooker's Army back to the banks of the Potomac.

So please, spare me the fake sanctimoniousness, whether from Left or Right. Or from Keith Olbermann. Sometimes a whore needs to be called a whore, whether any sex was actually involved or not. And no matter what particular gender is involved, either. I do not intend to give up using the term, and I refuse to admonish any who are using the term themselves, as long as it is being used correctly (which, from the respective points of view of Grayson and Beck, it was).

The only people who have any standing to complain about the use of the term are actual whores, who may feel I am degrading their profession, by comparing it to what the denizens of K Street or Capitol Hill regularly do. If one actually complains to me about my use of the term, then I will consider banning it from my writing. But not before. Because by my definition, anyone who screws the public over for money is, indeed, a whore.

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Deepak Chopra: India Comes To The White House, All At Once

2009-11-26T01:04:53Z

I never expected to see so many faces of modern India as I saw Tuesday night. The White House's state dinner, its first of the new administration, honored Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. It was every sequin and silk cravat a glittering and sumptuous affair, as the media has made it out to be, Yet in the midst of it all I sensed the first sprouts of a new level of understanding and partnership between India and the United States, something not achieved in all the ceremony of the President's China visit. There, the smiles of the Chinese were backed by ruthless self-interest. Here one felt a basis of true warmth.

NPR phoned me this morning to ask why someone as strange as me was invited. Actually, my wife Rita and I dined at one of the Clintons' formal dinners. But the Obama's raised the level of care, sensitivity and detail paid to their guests. Few of us in the Indian diaspora have been very visible until recently. We amount to an insignificant voting bloc at 2.6 million, but looking around the room, I saw much more than the stereotype of doctors, motel owners, and dubious accents answering the phone across the world with "Hello, my name is Shirley. How can I help you today?"

The Obama administration showed a sure touch, offering assurance to India that this country made a good decision last November. Every detail of the menu (green shrimp curry instead of chicken breast) , decor and entertainment (a rambunctious Bollywood-style reprise of the anthem "Jai Ho" from Slumdog Millionaire) conveyed cultural respect and generosity.

As we entered, the receiving line was cordial and comfortably cross-cultural. The Obamas chatted, offered knowing remarks ("Keep that advice coming, Deepak"), posed for photos. I was more self-conscious, surprisingly, in the presence of the Indian Prime Minister and his wife, who are more ceremonial and, in his case, formally eloquent, as we discovered during the dinner speeches. Being about fifteen years the President's senior, I felt a paternal wave come over me and in response to his kind words found myself saying how proud I was of him and all he was doing.

Meeting a President throws you off balance, no matter how prepared you are. I blurted out a mild Sarah Palin joke. He gave a noncommittal smile. I walked away from the First Couple impressed not by the effortless ease of professional celebrities but by a genuine courtesy of the heart.

Once we were seated President Obama spoke movingly about the future of India and the United States as partners. The relationship between the two countries is not only beneficial for each other, but together we become a powerful force of prosperity and peace for the entire world. He invoked Jawaharlal Nehru's speech at the birth of India's nationhood, where Nehru called upon midnight's children -- as everyone saw themselves, not just newborns like me -- to leave the past behind in order to shape a future of freedom, opportunity and peace. Prime Minister Singh continued this theme of mutual prosperity and enrichment between our two nations in his distinctive Punjabi accent. It seemed an epoch away that India was a closed society, aligned with Soviet socialist programs, crippled by bureaucracy, sold out to corruption. Not that a good deal of that legacy isn't alive still.

Celebrity chef Marcus Samuelson, brought in from New York and his sophisticated roost at Aquavit, offered a wonderful selection of vegetarian dishes like chick pea and okra dahl, another stroke of cultural empathy (perhaps the most powerful one of the evening, given the Indian nostalgia for the food we were raised on). There was room for regional American foods like collard greens and cornbread (found in India, too -- did they know?) It was all prepared in a way that Dr. Dean Ornish would approve of, and aligned to Michelle Obama's message of sustainability. The Obama administration actually understands that future prosperity must come through a green economy, not in spite of it.

Rita and I were seated with Steny Hoyer, Vernon Jordan and his wife Ann, Admiral Michael Mullen and his wife Deborah, Fareed Zakaria and his wife Paula. The table conversation rambled over many topics including Indian history, healthy lifestyles, politics, and stress management. One marveled at Deborah Mullen's in-depth knowledge of Gandhi, Lord Mountbatten and Pakistan's founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. On the topic of meditation, Paula Throckmorton Zakaria spoke at length of her personal experience and the journey through her meditation practice.

Has the White House ever witnessed folk dancing from Prime Minister Singh's native Punjab? Afterwards he remarked on the coming together of "ancient tradition and modernity." We stood up with everyone else after Jennifer Hudson's rendition of "Somewhere" from West Side Story.
When the President talked about Nehru's vision for the future, I looked around at the other Indians in attendance and realized that we are all the product of the dreams put in place those sixty years ago. The now-famous Indian Institutes of Technology and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences that I graduated from were begun all those years ago with a single intention to create a more progressive, prosperous and powerful future.

India and the United States have a shared opportunity now for a new level of growth and opportunity that can include everyone, not just the fortunate and privileged. I believe Pakistan has this opportunity available to it as well. With a primary dedication in each nation to economic progress over militarism, extending basic education and health services to all, and reaching a mediated solution to Kashmir, two enemies could create a peaceful coalition instead of the conflict-driven, fear-based, grab-it-while-you-can policies we see around us.
As Pakistan continues to divert massive military resources to Kashmir in fear of India, the Taliban is allowed to spread its violence and grow stronger. As Obama contemplates the hard decision over new troop levels in Afghanistan, I am convinced that the situation does not have a military solution. (Rita had a moment with Vice-President Joe Biden and impressed upon him her view that more troops are not the answer.)

On the other side of the Indo-American alliance, New Delhi needs to reorder its priorities. The country is facing an uncontrolled AIDS epidemic; 30% of its children go to sleep hungry every night; and 300 million live in radical poverty. All this while the government spends lavishly on defense and the rich get shockingly richer. There as here, a green, sustainable future is a historic imperative, and if this state dinner has moved us incrementally closer to that future, then it was a human success and not simply a splashy night on the town.

For more information go to deepakchopra.com

Antonio Villaraigosa: Giving Thanks By Giving Back

2009-11-26T01:01:01Z

Around this time of the year, many families will sit around the dinner table, give thanks and enjoy a nice warm meal together. However, others won't be so lucky.

Thanksgiving is just one reminder of how important it is, especially for those of us blessed with more, to give and to give generously. There are homeless shelters all over Los Angeles that provide food and shelter to people without a home for the holidays. More than anything, these homeless shelters provide people with a sense of community, a feeling that they belong somewhere and that they are valued and loved. Individually our contribution may be small, but together we can build something greater.

That's why I push my administration everyday to fight to provide opportunities for the less fortunate. Whether it's our commitment to build permanent supportive housing for our homeless or our work to put 100,000 hard working Angelenos into living wage jobs, everyday we are making an effort to give back.

If you want to find a place to volunteer please go to the city's volunteer directory. My prayer is that we give of ourselves, through service, not only during the holidays but year round.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Geoffrey Dunn: More Palin Lies: The Trooper in 'Troopergate' Breaks His Silence

2009-11-26T00:19:40Z

The Alaska State Trooper at the center of Sarah Palin's so-called "Troopergate Scandal"--which impeded her run for the vice-presidency and stained her record as Alaska governor--has broken his more than year-long silence since his embattled divorce with Palin's sister, Molly, became a cause celebre during last year's presidential campaign.

After reading passages from Palin's memoirs Going Rogue that deal with his marriage and subsequent divorce, a "fed up" Mike Wooten, 37, who still serves as an Alaska State Trooper in Anchorage, called the book "a pack of lies."

According to Wooten, Palin and her father, Chuck Heath Sr., have "interfered with my life--and my children's lives--for at least the last five years. And it is still going on. I'm done with it."

Characterizing his adversaries as "snakes," Wooten said he has kept quiet long enough. "From this point on I'm speaking my mind," he declared. "I'm speaking the truth. Let the chips fall where they may." He acknowledged that he is considering taking legal action against Palin on multiple fronts.

Although Palin would try to claim otherwise during the presidential campaign, an independent investigation ordered by the bipartisan Alaska Legislative Council (composed of ten Republicans and four Democrats) and conducted by former Republican prosecutor Steve Branchflower, resulted in the finding "that Governor Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."

The report issued by Branchflower documented more than thirty occasions in which then Governor Palin, her husband Todd or members of her staff tried to influence Alaska's highly regarded Commissioner of Public Safety, Walt Monegan, to fire Wooten. When Monegan refused, Palin fired him instead.

In addition to the finding that Palin "abused" her office, the Alaska Senate cited Todd Palin and nine other state employees for "contempt" for ignoring legislative subpoenas to testify in the Troopergate investigation.

A native of California whose father immigrated to the United States from Honduras, Wooten served 10 years in the Air Force and three more in the Air National Guard Reserves. He participated in a trio of U.S. military operations in the Persian Gulf War--Desert Storm, Desert Shield and Restore Hope--before returning stateside to Alaska at Elmendorf Air Force Base, about 45 minutes from Wasilla.

Partially disabled from his military service, Wooten pointed out that neither Todd nor Sarah Palin, or Chuck Heath for that metter, served in the armed forces. Wooten said he was particularly "disgusted and incensed" by Palin's "insincere" dedication in Going Rogue to "our men and women in uniform."

Wooten further noted with irony that many of those who have been victimized by Palin during her political career--including former Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh; Monegan and himself--were all veterans. "Sarah is only about Sarah," Wooten said. "She doesn't care about the 'men and women in uniform.' It's all about advancing Sarah's career."

Public records from Alaska--some of which have been revealed for the first time--chronicle a half-decade long obsession with Wooten by Palin, her father and, later, by Palin's husband Todd.

"They're like poisonous snakes in the grass who spew nothing but venom," Wooten said. "They just lay in wait and they attack you until you're dead."

In Going Rogue, Palin mentions none of Wooten's military record, but cites many charges that were brought against Wooten that were subsequently dismissed. She contends that there were "ten different" citizen complaints field against Wooten--without acknowledging that all of them were filed by members of her family or close friends. "They filed every stinking one of the charges," Wooten contends. "But it's been more like two dozen."

In an interview conducted in Alaska this past summer, John Cyr, the former Alaska Public Safety Employees Association Executive Director, confirmed Wooten's charges:

Not one complaint has ever been made about Mike Wooten's professional performance from any member of the public other than the Palin/Heath family and their closest friends. The troopers that I've talked to that have worked with Mike tell me Mike is the kind of guy they'd go through a door with. That he does his work. He's a professional. You know, just no complaints out there about Mike's work.

"It's the product of an ugly divorce and custody battle," Cyr [pictured below, at left, with Wooten] said of the complaints against the State Trooper. "It's nothing more than that."

Wooten has acknowledged several mistakes he made while "I was younger" and admitted there were several things he "would have done differently," but he chose to remain silent as the McCain-Palin campaign portrayed him as a "rogue" Trooper (note the irony here) who Tased his step-son and went off on violent, drunken binges, to the point of threatening to kill Palin's father.

Wooten calls the version of events rendered in Going Rogue an "outright lie." Either it "didn't happen [the way she alleges]," he says, "or she exaggerated it all beyond recognition. I look forward to telling my side of this story."

Wooten now joins an ever-growing array of figures from John McCain on down who have challenged the veracity of Palin's memoirs. The list also includes McCain senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace, Palin's former legislative director John Bitney, her former political ally Andree McLeod, and former Alaska gubernatorial candidate Andrew Halcro. All Republicans. Wooten identifies himself as a "conservative" as well.

Palin contends "the chapter for our family was closed" with the divorce but fails to acknowledge any of the sustained harassment of Wooten, which, he says, continues to this day.

The father of three (two of whom are with Palin's sister), Wooten, still living in Wasilla, is described by his friends as a "very involved father," active as a coach in all of his three children's extracurricular sports activities--hockey, football and soccer. "I've committed my life to these children and being a good dad," he says. "I'm simply not going to allow the Palins or Chuck Heath to interfere in our lives any longer."

Palin recounts a story in Going Rogue that Wooten "asked me to write him a recommendation for the Alaska State Trooper Academy." What she doesn't acknowledge is that she wrote more than one on his behalf. In a letter dated January 1, 2000, written on official City of Wasilla stationery, Palin praises Wooten profusely, though she fails to declare her then-pending familial relationship with him.

It is my pleasure to provide character reference examples for Mr. Mike Wooten. Since I have become acquainted with Mike I continue to be impressed with his integrity, worthwhile community spirit and trustworthiness...

On a personal note, I have witnessed Mike's gift of calm and kindness towards many young kids here in Wasilla. I have never seen him raise his voice, nor lose patience, nor become agitated, in the presence of any child. Instead, Mike consistently remains a fine role model for my own children and other young people in Wasilla.

I wish America had more people with the grace and sincerity that mirrors the character of Mike Wooten. We would have a much kinder calmer trustworthy nation as a result.

I believe the United States Air Force has been fortunate to have the services of Mike the past 10 years. His work ethic, his American patriotism, his obvious dedication to traditional values, and his strong faith in God and truth is witnessed in Mike's everyday living.

--Sarah Palin, Mayor

None of which, of course, is mentioned in Going Rogue.

For his part, Wooten recalls a telling conversation with an associate of Palin's campaign team when she was running for Governor in 2006. "You could probably bring the whole campaign down," the aide said. "You probably know things about her that she doesn't want other people to know."

Award-winning writer and filmmaker Geoffrey Dunn's book The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power will be released by St. Martin's Press in spring 2010.

Huff TV: HuffPost Editor Roy Sekoff Discusses Shameless Tea Party Heckling Of Hough Family On 'The Ed Show' (VIDEO)

2009-11-25T23:59:57Z

Earlier this month, members of the Chicago Tea Party Patriots heckled a pair of town hall speakers who lost their daughter-in-law and unborn grandchild due to a medical emergency. Dan and Midge Hough wanted to explain how a lack of health care may have contributed to the two deaths.

The Houghs were on MSNBC's "The Ed Show" on Wednesday to discuss their experience. Afterward, Huffington Post Editor Roy Sekoff spoke with Ed Schultz about about the tone of public discourse in America and some of the shocking defenses being used to condone the behavior.

WATCH ROY:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

WATCH DAN AND MIDGE:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

John McQuaid: Let Us Now Give Thanks for Joe Lieberman

2009-11-25T23:45:56Z

Thanksgiving is a time for taking a deep breath and appreciating the under-appreciated. So I thought I would challenge myself this year. Let's take a moment, reflect, and give thanks that Joe Lieberman is in the Senate.

Bear with me here. In the 1990s, I liked Lieberman. Most of his policy positions were reasonable. He was sometimes sanctimonious, but he also pushed Democrats to speak on moral issues important to Americans that many in his party reflexively considered out-of-bounds. (Today, President Obama can freely, eloquently address religion and morality in politics, in part because Lieberman paved the way.)

Lately, though, like many others I puzzle over what brought Lieberman to his current pass: standing alone, outside a party structure, antagonizing Democrats seemingly just because that's what he does - and, of course, now threatening to bring down the whole health care reform effort.

I'm not a fan of psychoanalyzing politicians, but Lieberman is a special case. He appears to be motivated in part by pure self-regard, uncontaminated even by loyalty to constituents, interest groups or (of course) party. His drift from hawkishness into full-on neoconservatism, for example, clearly has a strong personal dimension: Lieberman views himself as the one man who sees the truth on national security in a party of cautious temporizers. This has some political advantages (except the most important one, getting re-elected) that also play to his ego: In the Republican Party, he'd be unexceptional. As an Independent caucusing with Democrats, Lieberman stands out.

On health care as well, Lieberman's self-regard looks to be a strong motivating factor. Yes, he's protecting the Connecticut insurance industry by threatening to filibuster any bill containing a public option. But there are probably more effective ways to get what he wants, and he clearly relishes being a holdout. The fact that his stance probably hurts his reelection prospects (unlike other Democratic holdouts with more conservative constituencies) only seems to encourage him. As Peter Beinart notes in The Daily Beast, Lieberman is bitter about a series of losses and slights by Democrats - his disastrous showing in the 2004 presidential campaign, the lack of robust party support two years later when he ran for reelection as an independent:

Gradually, this personal alienation has eaten away at his liberal domestic views. His staff has grown markedly more conservative in recent years, and his closest friends in Congress are now Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham. For Lieberman, the personal has become political, and it has pushed him further to the right.

So here's why we should offer a smidgen of thanks he's around. Lieberman offers a window into how the Senate really works, and in some sense only Lieberman allows us to see the true capriciousness of those crazy, arbitrary rules on holds and filibusters. Other Senators routinely block and delay legislation on on behalf of party or special interests. That's just politics. Lieberman shows us how one man's quirks can hijack an entire national agenda.

Andy Ostroy: Is Obama About to Make a Huge Mistake Over Afghanistan Troop Surge?

2009-11-25T23:38:54Z

President Obama announced this week that he'll be unveiling his war strategy for Afghanistan next Tuesday and in particular his decision on the September request made by Gen. Stanley McChrystal for an additional 40,000 troops. White House sources report that Obama will authorize just 30,000 which, if true, may be a huge political miscalculation.

Any additional troop authorization under the requested 40,000 is going to create a feeding-frenzy of Republicans rhetoric accusing the president of failing to listen to the generals; for being weak militarily; and for placating liberals. At a time when Obama's popularity is waning and he's facing uphill battles domestically on health care and the economy, the last thing he and Democrats need is to have the GOP attacking the administration on the war. So the obvious question is, if Obama's gonna up the ante to 30,000 troops, why not just give the general the 40,000 he asked for, albeit it with stringent progress demands, measurable benchmarks and realistic timetables for "mission accomplished" and a successful exit? In this explosively charged political climate, why feed right into the duplicitous hands of the "Obama doesn't support the troops" crowd?

Also, sending additionally troops--any additional amount--poses a huge political risk for the president among his supporters as well. A Nobel Peace Prize-winning Obama sounding the anti-war alarm while escalating the operation sends a very mixed, confusing message to those who voted for him and expected a troop draw-down rather than a build-up.

To be sure, the 'correct amount' of additional troops needed for the Afghanistan "surge" is an absolutely arbitrary number, with Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gen. McChrystal and countless others in disagreement over how many should be sent to complete the mission, whatever that is. So, why not defer to the leading commander in the region and give him what he sees in his McChrystal-ball rather than over-analyze the situation (as Obama's perhaps done for the past two months...only to come up with essentially the same conclusion), picking another number out of thin air which may or may not be the right one, and which allows your enemies to bash the crap out of you? Wouldn't it be more pragmatic and politically expedient to give the general the benefit of the doubt and shut down the engine of the right-wing attack-machine in the process? It just seems like Obama's regrettably setting the propaganda table for his ravenous GOP dinner guests.

Now on the other hand, instead of trying to play the "let's try to make everybody happy and ultimately make no one happy" game again, Obama could do what many believe he truly wants to, and what voters elected him to do: end the war, period. But this would mean acting on his true convictions. Now that would be novel, wouldn't it?

Paul Rieckhoff: This Thanksgiving, Hear What New Veterans Are Grateful For

2009-11-25T23:38:14Z

It's time once again for that seasonal blend of gratitude and that deep longing for the familiar --family, health, pumpkin pie, turkey, and the Detroit Lions getting blown-out on National TV.

Eight years of war have brought tremendous challenges for our military, our veterans and their families. And just a few weeks ago, the military community was tested yet again by the terrible tragedy at Fort Hood.

Despite these obstacles, our men and women in uniform continue to soldier on. And this year, they have more than a few things to give thanks for. In 2009, we've seen some big victories for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Just last month, advanced funding for VA health care was signed into law. A top priority for leading veterans groups for decades, this reform will transform veterans' health care forever.

In 2009, we also saw the implementation of the new GI Bill, a historic measure which will send thousands of young men and women in uniform to college. And, we saw the new veterans movement grow and take hold across the country. From the largest Veterans Week celebrations ever to a thriving Community of Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are coming together and showing one another that they have each other's backs.

I know I am thankful for all of the above, but also for the support I've seen from people around the country for our veterans. I also think back to my Thanksgiving in Germany at CMCT, and I am grateful that I am not in the mud freezing my butt off. And I think back to my Thanksgiving in Baghdad, and I am grateful that all the men in my platoon came home alive. I am also grateful for those like Milo Ventimiglia who are taking USO trips overseas to see our troops. And, I am grateful for the inspiration of a true American hero, J.R Martinez, and the 60 kids from P.S. 22 who taught us that Rihanna can be a very powerful anthem.

And here are what other veterans across the country are grateful for this year:

I am grateful that every single service member returning from combat will now have a face-to-face mental health assessment and that over 100,000 veterans are already going to school under the new GI Bill. --Patrick Campbell, Iraq Veteran, Washington, DC

I am thankful for a job that understands the terms TBI and PTSD. --Artemis O., Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran, Victoria, TX

I'm thankful for people that work on the OIF/OEF Teams at VA Hospitals. They dedicate a large portion of their time to making a genuine positive impact in a lot of vet's lives, and with great humility. I don't know where I would be without them. --Adam Bryant, Afghanistan Veteran, Buffalo, NY

I am as thankful for those holiday meals I shared with my fellow soldiers while deployed in Iraq as I am for the family dinners I celebrate today. --Joshua M. Patton, Iraq Veteran, Pittsburgh, PA

I am thankful for my daughter and my family on Community of Veterans. I am not so thankful to be the only cook in my house this Thanksgiving. --Daphne Dustin, Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran, Mojave, CA

I am thankful that my enemy is a poor marksman. --Tim Embree, Iraq Veteran, Washington, DC

I am grateful that my experiences in, and after, Iraq helped me be a source of comfort to people who volunteer to go to the darkest corners of the earth, that very few Americans understand or are willing to do. --Carolyn Schapper, Iraq Veteran, Washington, DC

This Thanksgiving, as you sit down to dinner with your mashed potatoes and stuffing, I hope you take a moment to reflect on the words and thoughts of these veterans. Remind your friends and family to take a minute to offer thanks to those who serve, to those that have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country. We all have so much to be thankful for -- and those who have bravely served our country in uniform certainly deserve a place at the head of every Thanksgiving table.

Crossposted at www.IAVA.org.

Shawn Amos: Top 10 Reasons I'm Grateful for Being a Democrat

2009-11-25T22:24:48Z

As Obama pardons his turkey and we all prepare to sit down and eat ours, I offer my list of thanks. May the holiday find you all grateful - red and blue states alike.

10. I don't have to explain that vote for Bush in 2000.

9. I don't have to explain that vote for Bush in 2004.

8. I get invited to all of the good Hollywood parties.

8. I get that Democrat discount on my Prius.

6. I'm not bothered that Obama is a secret Muslim.

5. Democrats get better weed.

4. Who else will save the polar bears?

3. All of this hope and change keeps the weight off.

2. I get to attend gay pride parades -- a lot more fun than Tea Party rallies.

1. I don't have to feel guilty when I tax my daughter and spend her allowance.

Mark Dorlester: Coalition Launches National Campaign: President Obama, Get FISA Right!

2009-11-25T22:14:24Z

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 -- A large group of Obama supporters and civil libertarians yesterday posted a national open letter to the President and companion petition asking for presidential action to press Congress to revise the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Anguish in the group grew palpably as the final draft went live on the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) website and Change.org. By the end of the day, thousands of tweets, blogs and emails were, as we now say, going viral.

The open letter and petition, in preparation for months by Obama activists, civil libertarians, and privacy advocates of all political persuasions, call on President Obama to join many Democratic leaders in Congress to:
•Reign-in the government's secret powers to spy on innocent Americans,
•Stop spying without court warrants,
•Protect and then destroy the massive amounts of data being collected on innocent Americans, and
•Restore judicial and congressional oversight befitting at least minimal Constitutional guarantees.

The Patriot Act, enacted in the dark days after 9/11, and certain FISA amendments, do provide vital improvements in the nation's ability to detect, track, and apprehend terrorists. But they also contain provisions that violate the most basic Constitutional protections of liberty, such as the 4th Amendment's requirement that search warrants be presented to a judge and authorized before the search is conducted. In fact, many such Constitutional guarantees effectively no longer exist. Security seems to have replaced freedom in America as a founding principal.

The current outrage isn't new. In July 2008, Congress deliberated Bush-era revisions of the FISA law that give retroactive immunity to telecomunication companies that enabled collection of telephone and internet data on millions of Americans. Obama - unlike nearly all progressive senators - voted in favor of the Bush-pushed law.

Within days, over 24,000 of his most energetic supporters formed the largest group on the Obama campaign website. They called it Get FISA Right. They issued an open letter in protest. Obama responded with campaign smooth-talk and promises of transparent review of the problems once elected, and the campaign tumult passed.

People in the Obama campaign's Get FISA Right group contributed over $730,000 to Obama's campaign, a few dollars at a time.

"We're Obama supporters," said strategist Jon Pincus, leading organizer of the Get FISA Right movement and CTO of Seattle area Qworky, a technology startup developing online tools for effective meetings. "We truly believed the Bush era of secrecy and an imperial presidency was over. Instead, as concerns the Patriot Act and FISA, we find little difference between Bush and Obama in both their positions and their tactics. It's gut wrenching. This is not the change I thought I was voting for."

Even a light brush-up on history shows that running a secret government is easy, and does indeed provide enhanced security. The question is: at what cost? Overbearing governments always raise fears and then cry that their measures are necessary for security. Apparently, three Bush Attorneys General and the current Obama Attorney General do not believe that even the special judges in the secret FISA court can be trusted to see the facts needed for warrants in domestic terrorist investigations. Apparently, none of our federal judges are trustworthy enough to try cases involving ultra-secret programs - and our government sees no need to create special secure courts for the purpose. Hence, it is the investigating agents, not any judge, who authorize searches. Even the no-judge authorizations, called National Security Letters (NSLs), are themselves so secret that if you discover that you've been searched, and you tell anyone - even your spouse - you can go to prison.

The Patriot Act allows FBI agents to issue NSLs without a judge. Between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued more than 143,000 NSLs, only one of which led to a conviction in a terrorism case. Furthermore, an innocent person whose life has been ruined by unconstitutional government action is powerless to be heard in court.

In her speech to Georgetown Law Center on March 9, 2006, retired supreme court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, as reported by Nina Totenberg of NPR, warned that "we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."

Recently, Justice Department negotiators pressed Congress to preserve Bush-era violations of the Constitution. Afterward, Senator Russ Feingold, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, said, "what was most upsetting was the apparent willingness of too many members to defer completely to behind the scenes complaints from the FBI and the Justice Department."

"We're frankly deeply saddened that our President, the Constitutional scholar, would secretly advocate for renewal of the most invasive civil liberties violations," said Amy Ringenbach, a coordinator for MoveOn in Philadelphia. "Further, if he has some explanation, he's refusing to say what it is."

Now the Get FISA Right movement has spread far beyond Obama's campaign supporters. In Congress, the rush is on ... the most draconian parts of both the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments automatically expire December 31, 2009. Even with health care looming, something will be done first with these laws.

Get FISA Right has gone public now, to help assure that what gets done gets done ... right.

At the top of the Get FISA Right page on the petition site at Change.org, Obama is quoted as having said, "We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed." The authors of the Open Letter and Petition, in considerable distress, still hope he honors his own words.

Get HuffPost Eyes&Ears on Facebook and Twitter!