Jim Webb on The Huffington Post

Jim Kennedy: Webcam Of Shame

2009-11-26T12:50:37Z

The subject line on the email from the charity CARE was nothing if not eye-catching: "25,000 will die this Thanksgiving."

So I did what they wanted -- I clicked the message open and learned that the figure refers to how many men, women and children perish from malnutrition and hunger-related causes every single day. The statistic reminded me of the news from the World Food Program earlier this month that the number of people suffering from hunger now exceeds 1 billion (and to think at the beginning of the 19th century there weren't even that many humans in existence on the planet).

Close to home, the news is not much better, with the US Department of Agriculture disclosing that nearly 50 million Americans are "food insecure," and Feeding America saying food banks have experienced a 30 percent jump in demand this year alone.

The CARE solicitation, the World Food Program's "Billion4Billion" campaign, Feeding America's "Feast for 9 Million" program and The Hunger Project's "Epicenter Strategy" all do their part to match giving hearts with empty stomachs, but the demand for help seems to keep outpacing the supply of hope.

What's a supposedly caring civilization to do? Maybe it's time for a game-changer, something radical to shake things up and wag the long charitable tail of the 5,799,356,509 people who don't wake up or go to sleep hungry every day. After all, hunger is one of those crises, like preventable disease, that we have the capacity to solve virtually overnight; all that is lacking is sufficient will.

So that Thy will be done, here's one small but provocative idea: set up global webcams that transmit graphic, live images of people quite literally dying of hunger and related diseases to shame the world into action by confronting us with the sheer horror of our neglect.

In 1960, Edward R. Murrow's broadcast, "Harvest of Shame," shined a bright light on the hidden plight of migrant farm workers. It stirred many to action. However, in the Internet age, a single television documentary (not that they produce them anymore) isn't enough to move the masses to act against the ravages of poverty and preventable disease. But if confronted with real-time video of real people at death's door - people who don't need a miracle; just a helping hand -- many would be inspired to act.

This Webcam of Shame project would require charities, NGO's, technology companies and high traffic websites to join together and install and operate a sustainable network of webcams in hospitals, urgent care centers, villages and other places where people are suffering from a lack of food or water or preventable diseases like malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS.

With the cameras focusing directly on those who are in the process of dying, the streaming video feed would be made visible to millions of people via some of the world's most popular websites, positioned just like an advertisement for a car or a politician. A button on the webcam "ad" would allow viewers to quickly make contributions to charities that can bring relief directly to the people and communities depicted on the webcam streams. The more people who click-through, the more aid can flow to where it's needed most.

Other links on the chain of webcams could help unite people in a powerful, global movement to put pressure on governments to take more action against such "crimes of humanity," flooding the corridors of power with vast social networks of outrage about the devastation unfolding so disturbingly before everyone's eyes ("click here to send an email to your member of Congress to demand action NOW!").

The fact that 25,000 people a day die of hunger and related illnesses makes us all guilty of neglect. The Webcam of Shame (or "I Am My Brother's Keeper-Cam" or "The Eyes Of God-Cam") would bring the terrible reality of 21st century poverty and disease right into our homes and workplaces. If we turn to our laptop and are confronted by the sight of another human being dying right before our eyes, right this very second, fading away ... who among us would not act?

We know intellectually what's happening; but we're not feeling it emotionally enough to act strongly or consistently enough (I know how short I've fallen in my own response to this crisis). By shaming those of us who have so much we can give hope to those who have too little.

Sure, there would be lots of questions to answer to get a guilt-trip like this off the ground: who funds the operation of the webcam network; who installs and maintains the equipment; which charities should get the money; how do you channel citizen support for more governmental action; how do we deal with local and national government opposition; and how do we convince high traffic websites to carry the webcams (who wants their ad for a Cancun vacation running alongside an image of a dying child?). But I see these as hurdles to be crossed, not roadblocks to stop the implementation of this plan. Heck, let's just start with one webcam in one hospital focused on one dying person linked to one popular web page, and see what happens.

Of course, some will say that displaying such intrusive images violates the privacy of the suffering. But I believe that most of those who are, quite literally, dying from neglect won't neglect an opportunity to remind all of us of our own responsibility to act, and to act now.

Truly, the only real question about the Webcam of Shame is whether we are too ashamed to make it happen. In World War II, my father was in the U.S. Army's Rainbow Division, which helped liberate Dachau, and when I was young he told me the story of how they made the citizens of the town of Dachau come through the "Arbeit Macht Frei" gates and into the camp, and forced them to walk by all the emaciated bodies of the last victims of the Nazi Holocaust.

Surely those neighbors must have suspected what horrors were happening in their midst, year after year, just yards from their homes. Yet they failed to act, choosing to claim "we didn't know." Sometimes I imagine that Purgatory is a place where the angels of God, like the Rainbow Division soldiers, force-march our souls past the bodies of all the people who suffered and died in our midst throughout the course of our lives.

We suspect what is happening in the world around us, thanks to emails from groups like CARE and the good, hard work of so many charitable people and organizations. But we don't ever seem to bring ourselves to the level of action required to put a stop to the madness of hunger all around us.

At the least, a Webcam of Shame would ensure that none of us could get away with saying "we didn't know."

[p.s. if you think this idea sucks, but at least have been shamed into doing something, just click through to these or other hunger charities and give now: World Food Program (http://www.wfp.org/), Feeding America (http://feedingamerica.org/), CARE (http://www.care.org/) and The Hunger Project (http://www.thp.org/).

Jim Kennedy has worked in media relations in the government, non-profit and private sectors.

Independent Voters Shifting Away From Obama, Democrats

2009-10-25T18:11:10Z

A poll of opinion polls shows Americans' attitudes are changing rapidly.

They are less and less thrilled about the country's direction and Congress, according to Tom Bevan, executive editor of national polling aggregator RealClearPolitics. He says independent voters are shifting away from the polices of the Obama administration and Democrats.

Webb: I'll Vote For Cloture On Health Care Bill

2009-10-25T14:36:44Z

Democratic Sen. Jim Webb gave the Obama administration a mixed report card Sunday on CNN's State of the Union: questioning the administration's approach to health care reform but praising its approach to the war in Afghanistan. On health care reform, Webb suggested that President Obama had pursued the wrong strategy to gain passage of Obama's key domestic agenda item during the first year of his presidency. [...]

Notwithstanding his differences with the process the White House chose to pursue, Webb told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King that he has given his commitment to support Democratic efforts to break any filibuster of the health care reform bill.

Anthony Papa: Being Tough on Crime: Not a Winner in New York City DA's Race

2009-09-21T15:23:49Z

On Sep. 15, Cy Vance Jr. overwhelmingly beat Leslie Crocker Snyder in the race to be Manhattan's next district attorney. Since there is no Republican challenger, Vance will be voted into office in November.

Snyder, who built her career as a ruthless prosecutor and judge, was beaten so bad that the Village Voice quoted her on election night saying that she was retiring from politics and going to China. In my view, Snyder lost because of her over-reliance on a misguided tough-on-crime approach, and because of her inability to balance her decisions with common sense and compassion.

In the past Snyder portrayed herself as a John Wayne type of crusader of justice who kicked butt and took no names. Yes, I know she says she only aimed the barrels of her gun at the bad apples of society. But the main problem with that was she could not tell the difference between apples and oranges.

In her run for Manhattan District Attorney Snyder completely revamped her image and attempted to portray herself as a progressive thinker. She suddenly flipped her position on issues like the death penalty and the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Not long ago she was such a strong supporter of the death penalty that she said she would insert the needle herself to deliver the death sentence. She also suddenly claimed to be a leader in the epic struggle to reform the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Her record as a judge told a different story, sentencing low level offenders to tremendous amounts of time for drug convictions.

The office of District Attorney demands a competent leader that possesses a balanced view of justice predicated on the concept of being tough on crime, but also being smart on crime. Recently this approach broke into the national landscape thanks to a smart and tough politician named Jim Webb, a senator from Virginia. He called for an overhaul of the U.S. prison system -- stating that the American system for the prosecution and incarceration of criminals not only needs reform, but has become a "national disgrace".

Webb also sees the drug war as the primary cause for the overpopulation of our prison system, and recently told CNN that marijuana legalization is one of the policy changes that should be considered: "Well, I think what we need to do is to put all of the issues on the table ... If you go back to 1980 as a starting point, I think we had 40,000 people in prison on drug charges, and today, we have about 500,000 of them," the first-term Virginia lawmaker said. "And the great majority of those are nonviolent crimes -- possession crimes or minor sales."

Any discussion of being smart on crime in New York must broach the subject of marijuana arrests. New York City now leads the world in low-level marijuana arrests. Even though surveys show half of American adults have used marijuana and a similar amount want to see marijuana made legal, arrests are at all time high in New York City. Since 2002, there have been over 255,000 arrests for misdemeanor possession. As District Attorney, Cy Vance Jr. should find solutions to this costly and ineffective policing policy.

The voters of Manhattan spoke out and elected Cy Vance Jr. as their district attorney. Vance said he will try new approaches to cut crime and I wish him luck. The message I give to Vance is that if he adopts a balanced approach to justice that incorporates compassion, he will go a long way. And as for Judge Snyder, I bid her farewell and I wish her ride on a slow boat to China is a good one.

Anthony Papa is the author of 15 To Life and a communications specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance Network.

Mark Olmsted: A Job Nobody Wants: In Defense of (Gasp!) Drug Dealers

2009-09-11T17:01:34Z

Twice in my life, in separate decades, I lived off the proceeds of dispensing the elements of temporary physical euphoria. Consenting adults came to me and I gave them a drug for which they handed me money. When I was a bartender, the drug was in legal, liquid form. I paid taxes on what I earned and could tell my mother what I did for a living. Even though most of my regulars were alcoholics, I earned none of society's contempt for getting them drunk, many on a daily basis.

When my own addictive choice changed from alcohol to crystal meth, I went from bartending to drug dealing. It started with getting a little extra for my using buddies, to responding to the requests of their friends. At first my only payoff was in my own drugs being free, then I was suddenly turning a profit. It was its own addictive rush.

I was fairly atypical as far as most drug dealers go. I answered the phone on the first ring, I was friendly and my apartment was clean. Word-of-mouth was all the marketing I needed. I never in a million years would have wanted or needed to "recruit" any new customers, and the ones I had were mostly weekend warriors. I was about as far as you could imagine from the stereotype of the unshaven sleazebag who lounges near grammar school playgrounds, trying to "turn" kids into addicts, yet what I did qualified me for membership in one of the most vilified minorities in America.

Let me be clear. This is not an apologia. Meth is a nasty and addictive drug. I do not advocate its use, have not touched it in 5 years, and the most important thing I do is help others stay clean off of it. But just as meth is a symptom of the disease of drug addiction, so are its purveyors. Every dealer I knew was an addict. And if any of you have ever obtained some mushrooms for Burning Man, done a few bumps of coke at a party, or procured Oxycontin from your maid, you have had a direct or indirect relationship of some kind with a drug dealer. There are even many of you who at some point of your life considered one a friend -- probably in direct proportion to his generosity.

As for the harm done by drugs, some interesting statistics. There are an estimated 443,000 deaths a year in this country due to lung cancer, and at least 100,000 alcohol-related deaths. But according to the CDC, there were just under 38,400 drug-related deaths in 2006, less than a tenth than can be attributed to the thoroughly legal drug of cigarettes. And yet the man at the gas station who hands over the 2 packs of Marlboro Lights is never called the scum of the earth, and the manager at Trader Joe's can recommend Grey Goose or a nice bottle of Chardonnay without being compared to a child molester. The makers of Oxycontin, Valium, and Vicodin -- the biggest drug dealers in the word -- spend no time in prison cells.

I promised an entry on preventing recidivism, but when I went through my list of suggestions, they were subsumed by much larger issues of income inequality, improving education, fixing the juvenile justice system and abolishing parole. In the midst of a political battle in which a liberal President with a Congressional majority has immense difficulty getting the extremely popular idea of health care reform passed, writing up proposals for prison reform seemed a quixotic and hopeless task, done far more competently in any case by Senator Jim Webb, or the heroes over at CURE.

What I'm proposing -- or asking, really -- is perhaps even more elusive than the abolition of poverty, but it has the merit of originality. It's a change in perception. I'm not suggesting we idealize drug dealers as some kind of victims, nor is any glamorization a la "Weeds" required. But we need to examine the wholesale dehumanization of drug dealers or those accused of it. (Are you a dealer because you get the 4 hits of X for yourself and 3 friends to go dancing? If you get caught, the law says you are.)

In Afghanistan and Iraq, a civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time can go from "bystander" to "insurgent" with the pointing of a bayonet. Once so labeled, the presumption is always of guilt, and the altered perception of human beings as "terrorists," i.e, not quite human, is directly linked to a willingness to torture them.

By the same token, once someone is labeled a "drug dealer," -- whether or not they are--they join the "homeless" and "terrorists" in the sense of being "other." The orange jumpsuit distances us further -- when we see the prisoner taken in handcuffs from the courtroom, we don't want to think his experience behind those closed doors is like ours would be. We tell ourselves they must be guilty, they're used to it, whatever we need to not empathize, to not imagine how grim and frightening and grey it is back there. We pass the exits to "State Correctional Facility" on the highway and if we think of it at all, it's mostly to shudder in thanks that we're not there.

I remember how many of my fellow inmates never even received one piece of mail. The sense that you've been forgotten is a soul-killing despair. This willingness to throw away and forget men behind walls is the end of a long process of dehumanization that starts with a series of labels. The adjectives may be perfectly accurate, but they also diminish our capacity to remember there's a human being involved, not just a "gang member," a "defendant," a "drug dealer."

So change your thinking. Take a moment to question the meanings you attach to certain words, how you allow them to create a sense that what makes us different in the eyes of the law is somehow more important than what makes us similar as human beings. And when you pass one of those busses going down to county jail full of handcuffed men, wave. The man who sees you may need to be reminded that he is still seen.

James Boyce: Now It's Our Turn To Stand Up For Clean Energy.

2009-09-10T14:46:31Z

Last night, President Obama stood up and laid it on the line when it comes to health care reform. He made his case clearly and eloquently and called out the distortions of the right, and of those business interests who oppose health care reform. He told the truth, and showed his determination to see reform through.

As I was reading the media coverage of his speech, I was especially focused on the President's calling out of the distortions and clear falsehoods that have become, somehow, involved in the debate. I fully expected Rep Joe Wilson to yell out something about "death panels" but it never happened.

I also thought as I watched President Obama speak, how many of the themes that he touched on also apply to the other big issue facing Congress between now and the end of the year, clear concrete action on clean energy, green jobs and global warming. In fact, when it comes to how the opposition to clean energy has played the game, it makes the health care reform debate look tame.

We are at a crucial and long-coming moment in time on clean energy; a bill passed the House before the summer recess and Harry Reid has promised a vote before the end of the year. The international community will gather at Copenhagen this December and it is critical that the United States lead the world into that conference, and not still be debating the bill here at home.

Like health care, the majority of Americans support clean energy. And no wonder.

In Pennsylvania, it was announced that the bill under consideration would save every household over $236 per year and add over 17,000 jobs.

Military leaders and veterans groups note that climate change is now a significant security issue and that it must be dealt with. A truly bipartisan group of leaders has called for action on this point alone.

One would think that with overwhelming scientific evidence and a broad coalition of supporters, clean energy would be headed for immediate and clear passage.

Sadly, it is not the case.

As with health care, there is opposition, the opposition of the well-funded minority willing to distort, lie, distract and do anything they can to delay action. It is a strategy that was taken directly from the playbook of the tobacco industry that discovered in the 1970s that when there is scientific consensus on an issue, in that case, that smoking causes cancer, there are always willing scientists who, for the right price, will deny the facts and create a distortion and delay in action.

Right now, today, major oil companies continue to fund the opposition, ensuring record profits for themselves in the process.

Right now, well-funded opposition groups are placing op-eds in papers all across the country. And paying companies to forge letters.

So, right now, we have to stand up, and we have to focus our attention on the US Senate.

Like all issues, it's not really the whole US Senate that we have to worry about, it's the handful of Senators who despite the facts, despite the widespread support from Americans, they are wavering, or at least looking like they are wavering.

Today, let's focus on two states and three Senators, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Senators Webb and Warner from Virginia. While certainly there are other targets worthy of consideration, these three are critical to the passage of the bill.

So what can you do?

Here's some contact information. Claire McCaskill's is here. Mark Warner's is here. and Jim Webb's is here.

You can also follow the battle for Clean Energy here.

As noted on NRDC's Action Fund site, the battle for Clean Energy has heroes and it has villains.

Heroes include every Representative who stood up and voted yes last summer. You too can be a hero by making your voice heard.

And, sadly, the story has plenty of villains. People who didn't stand up and vote for the future of our country, and our planet, people who are willing to pay others to lie about what is actually happening, putting profit before planet, money before our collective future.

Last night, President Obama stood up and was a hero for everyone who needs health care, and health care reform.

Now it's our turn. Now is the moment.

Cloture Passes On Cass Sunstein, 63-35

2009-09-09T17:41:13Z

On a 63-35 vote, the Senate has broken the filibuster against Cass Sunstein, President Obama's nominee for Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The Senate will hold an up-or-down vote on the nomination later this week. Republicans voting for cloture: Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). Democrats voting against: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Sen. James Webb (D-Va.).

George Allen Could Make Comeback In Virginia: Poll

2009-09-02T17:31:02Z

Public Policy Polling releases a fascinating survey of the Virginia electorate, one that gives former Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), defeated in a razor-thin 2006 re-election bid, a solid 50 percent approval rating, with 38 percent disapproving. Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) is at 47-40.

U Pyinya Zawta: Jim Webb Woefully Unaware Of Burma's Problems

2009-08-31T15:26:20Z

US Sen Jim Webb recently traveled to Burma to lean not on Burma's military regime, but to pressure my country's democracy movement into giving up economic sanctions--the most important tool in our struggle for freedom.

Although he emphasized the necessity of the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, this falls far short of the demands of the US, the United Nations and the European Union for the immediate and unconditional release of all my country's 2,100 political prisoners.

Webb's ignorance of the situation in my country was revealed his book "A Time to Fight" in which he came down squarely on the side of the oppressors in Burma. He wrote about the demonstrations which took place in Burma in 2007, led by Buddhist monks such as myself.

"If Westerners had remained in the country this moment might never have occurred, because it is entirely possible that conditions may have improved rather than deteriorated."

Webb's statement is either shockingly naïve or willfully misleading. We Buddhist monks, who Webb discounts as a "throng," marched for an end to military dictatorship in Burma not because we wanted marginal improvements in our economy. We marched because we believe in freedom and democracy and are willing to make sacrifices to reach those goals.

Webb claims that the Burmese people would benefit from interaction with the outside world, as if we need to be condescendingly "taught" by Americans about our rights and responsibilities. Had Webb spent some time with real Burmese people apart from the military regime and others who share his views, he would better understand the sacrifice we made for democracy, and he would know that we Burmese value the longstanding support we have had from the US Congress.

Webb, an author, has proven extremely manipulative in his use of language, calling for "engagement" and "interaction" instead of sanctions. His implication is that the Burmese people are solely set on sanctions and confrontation--the exact same language used by Burma's military regime, which couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is that the world is not as black and white as Webb would have it. We want the United States to talk to and negotiate with Burma's military regime, but this shouldn't preclude increasing international pressure. The US appears to be able to carry out this policy with other countries such as in North Korea where it is willing to talk to the North Koreans while at the same time increasing sanctions if Pyongyang doesn't respond. Webb is intent on driving a wedge into this process in the case of Burma. We must choose, he explains, between sanctions and engagement--there can be no sophisticated strategy, only complete involvement or none at all.

What Webb proposes--lifting sanctions on Burma--translates to basically handing over the Burmese peoples' natural resources to rapacious multinational corporations, particularly Big Oil. If the US lifts sanctions on Burma, there will be a rush of companies into Burma intent on looting my country's natural heritage and the benefits of such "engagement" will flow directly to the military regime.

In terms of human rights, Webb has remained focused only on Suu Kyi's freedom and ability to participate in scheduled elections in Burma, never mind the fact that the Burmese regime has already rigged the elections so that no matter who participates there will be many more decades of complete military rule.

The new constitution is an air-tight document that gives no room whatsoever for reform from within. At the same time, Webb has completely ignored the purposeful, massive human rights violations carried out by Burma's military regime. The human rights nightmare in Burma includes the recruitment of tens of thousands of child soldiers, pressing hundreds of thousands of Burmese into forced labor and the widespread rape of ethnic minority women.

Luckily for the Burmese people, Webb is not the only US senator. Recently, the US Senate voted unanimously to extend sanctions on Burma. President Obama signed the bill into law.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a student of politics and more likely to examine the facts on the ground instead of falling for blanket ideological generalizations. While Webb may seek to sell out Aung San Suu Kyi, our courageous Buddhist monks, and all the people of Burma, we hold out hope that Secretary Clinton and President Obama will take a more nuanced view in formulating policy toward Burma.

In particular, the US should seek to negotiate with Burma's military regime--but, at the same time, carry forward along the lines of the advice offered by South Africa's Nobel Peace Prize recipient Desmond Tutu: seek a global arms embargo on Burma's military regime, start a UN Security Council investigation into crimes against humanity committed by the regime, and begin the process to full implementation of financial sanctions against the regime and its cronies.

Webb is now despised by the people of Burma. If he succeeds in achieving a shift in US policy to abandon sanctions, he will have secured his place in history as one of the most important supporters of Than Swe's military dictatorship.

Article first published on Irrawaddy

John Yettaw: Burmese Security Officials Let Me Visit Suu Kyi

2009-08-24T13:41:35Z

How was a retired bus driver from Missouri able to make a flipper-clad, two-kilometer swim to the heavily guarded house of Burmese pro-democracy leader Aung Sang Suu Kyi, one of the world's most famous dissidents? While John Yettaw languished in Burmese jail during his trial for "illegal swimming," all we could do is speculate. But now, in an exclusive interview with NEWSWEEK, Yettaw has offered an explanation: Burmese security officials let him. "I don't know why they didn't stop me," he says. "The man with the AK-47 shook my hand and let me in."

US senator arrives Myanmar for talks with leaders

2009-08-15T10:51:18Z

YANGON, Myanmar — Days after the world slammed Myanmar for sentencing Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi to more house arrest, U.S. Senator Jim Webb arrived in the military-ruled country's capital Friday.

The visit – the first in more than a decade by a senior U.S. official – has drawn criticism from activists who say it confers legitimacy on a brutal regime, but the Obama administration gave the Virginia Democrat its blessing.

Senator Jim Webb In Burma To Meet Leader On Rare Visit

2009-08-14T08:57:16Z

An American senator arrived in Myanmar on Friday to meet with the leader of the junta there, just days after the country's pro-democracy leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, was convicted and returned to house arrest in a case that drew international condemnation.

Anis Shivani: Is Now the Right Time for Immigration Reform? Chuck Schumer, the Sensenbrenner in Liberal's Clothes

2009-08-11T18:53:00Z

"All illegal aliens present in the United States on the date of enactment of our bill must quickly register their presence with the United States Government -- and submit to a rigorous process of converting to legal status and earning a path to citizenship -- or face imminent deportation."

Has the dreaded Wisconsin Republican congressman James Sensenbrenner come alive again? Are we back to 2005, when Sensenbrenner pushed for undocumented aliens to be declared felons, ineligible to ever normalize their status in the U.S.?

No, this is one of the major principles advocated by New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, who is leading the charge toward "comprehensive immigration reform" this year, in what couldn't possibly be a worse climate to enact such policy changes. Already, before the debate has started in Congress, Schumer has conceded much of what the extreme right wing wants, and negotiations are likely to make the outcome considerably worse than the failed 2006 and 2007 legislation, which fizzled due to pressure from the Republicans' own nativist wing.

Schumer has decided that the way to get "bipartisan" (i.e., bare minimum) support is to take a harder line than the doomed 2006 and 2007 legislation, which was brutally harsh to begin with. Schumer wants to up the ante, to try the please the anti-immigrant crowd. His declaration that the term "undocumented workers" should be abandoned in favor of "illegal aliens" reflects more than a shift in semantics. It gets us back to the Sensenbrenner strategy of dealing with immigration by enacting a draconian paper edict, to disappear the unwanted. It always seemed, with the onset of the Bush years, that a paper solution -- making nonpersons of persons -- would be the preferred approach, instead of dealing with the reality of human lives, each of which is different, depending on connections with the community, and records that have little to do with abstract law-and-order reasoning. The Schumer/Sensenbrenner mandate for the undocumented, even if they don't think they will qualify, to register within a short period of time or else be permanently barred from becoming U.S. residents, is a prime example of the law run amok.

Under the 2006 and 2007 proposals, despite loud denunciations of "amnesty" from opponents, few undocumented immigrants would actually have qualified for residency. The requirements were too tough. The punitive approach would have left out many longtime residents, who didn't have regular employment in the preceding several years, or were disabled or unable to work, or were dependent on the workers in their families, or had any kind of a history of document abuse (something which, by definition, affects the undocumented, and which the 1986 Reagan reform was careful to address in humane terms). As the proposal is shaping up now in Congress, the idea would be to exclude as many residents and their dependents as possible, rather than to include as many as possible. The mean spirit of the Bush years toward immigrants fundamentally lives on whenever Schumer speaks of the issue these days.

Immigration is "broken" in the same way that Social Security is broken; neither system is in imminent danger of collapse, but right-wing extremists have made it sound as though the borders have fallen, just as they claim that Social Security is on the verge of going bankrupt. Neither claim is remotely true. What is needed in both cases is to preserve the best of our tradition, and adopt minor fixes to smooth the transition to the demographic future that beckons.

Violation creeps into the immigration system when too few visas are available to too few people. The fact that a large number of people have chosen to live out of status in this country means that the system is too slow, inefficient, hampered by old edicts, and constrained by bureaucratic lapses to allow genuine labor, family, and political needs to be met. The fix needed is to speed up the process of qualifying and approving new immigrants. In certain cases -- such as granting residency to immigrants who complete higher education in the U.S. -- the immigration system needs to be become vastly more accommodative and expansive, rather than restrictive.

Trying to reform immigration now, less than a year after the xenophobes in charge of Washington have been booted out, and while the racist rhetoric of Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh hasn't yet cooled down, is like trying to find a permanent fix to the "marriage crisis" by adopting some sort of comprehensive marriage legislation at the height of the gay marriage scare. Both are false wedge issues, designed to heat up the electorate. Prior to the 2006 and 2007 proposals, granting residency to those with established roots in this country used to be the reigning philosophy, but it is not something Schumer wants anything to do with. Rahm Emanuel's instinct was always to shelve this issue until later, perhaps until a possible second Obama administration (Joe Biden agrees). Schumer, unfortunately, won the argument on timing.

Earlier in the decade, in 2004 Senator Tom Daschle, along with Senator Chuck Hagel, proposed a sensible bill legalizing those who had earned it by having lived in the U.S. for five years. During the fiery 2006-2007 immigration debates, Senator Jim Webb offered a rational proposal to establish four years as the period of time presumed sufficient for an immigrant to have laid down roots in the community (http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=275586).

These proposals presumed that the immigrant, by having been present a substantial period of time in the U.S. (about four to five years) and having demonstrated his moral character, had already "earned" legalization. But now the idea of "earned" has been turned on its head; the new punitive approach would make even residents of 10, 20, or 30 years' standing begin all over again, as if they had just arrived and had no roots worth speaking of. They would be treated, in every respect, far worse than anyone without a day of presence on U.S. soil. Such an approach has never been part of our traditional approach to immigration. Presence in the U.S. -- even if for technical reasons one might be out of status -- should bring undoubted advantages in the eyes of the law. This seems to mean nothing for Schumer, as it didn't in the 2006 and 2007 proposals.

The immigrant present in the U.S. for a significant time is supposed to jump through ropes not designed for new arrivals; he is to be put through a series of Catch-22 situations, which can only mean exclusion, if the principles are executed to the last detail. Republican Senators Sessions, Cornyn, Kyl, and other hard-liners will ensure that when the final product emerges, enough restrictions will be added that very few will actually qualify. Paradoxically, in fact, the trend in all the proposals since 2005 is to establish bias against longtime presence, since by definition someone who has been here long enough has had more opportunity to violate technicalities than someone who has freshly arrived.

The best recent philosophical argument for taking time elapsed into primary consideration when deciding the fate of undocumented immigrants is Joseph H. Carens's "The Case for Amnesty: Time Erodes the State's Right to Deport," published in The Boston Review. But the Sensenbrenner/Schumer reasoning utterly ignores this dimension in favor of abstract principles that have little to do with the realities of immigrants' lives. Spouses, children, roots in the community, ability to contribute to the U.S.'s welfare in small or large ways, record of accomplishment, moral character, inability to live elsewhere than the U.S., none of these are part of the Sensenbrenner/Schumer criminalization calculus (Either register within x amount of time, or you are automatically deportable). The only imperative is to bend over backwards to satisfy the xenophobes that the state has not somehow granted "amnesty to illegal aliens." The way the immigration legislation is shaping up, it would be a prime instance of the law causing more harm than good, as it goes out in search of policy monsters to destroy that don't exist in the first place (see here).

In all the major dimensions of policy, the Obama administration has failed to follow up on its greatest publicized strength: the capacity to formulate consensus based on rational consideration of the facts. In practice, it has always preferred the labyrinthine, secretive, top-down, arcane, overly complex, lobbyist-favored solution over the straightforward, sensible, elegant, apparent one. This applied to the administration's early response to the financial crisis and the torture regime, has carried forward into health care and energy, and now threatens immigration. As Kevin Baker points out in his current Harper's article, "Barack Hoover Obama: The Best and the Brightest Blow It Again," this penchant to go for the abstruse fix, in place of the plain one that stares in the face, has a good chance of dooming the Obama presidency, despite the president's undoubtedly sharp awareness of the issues at stake.

Far be it from me to accuse Schumer of being part of "the best and the brightest" (even in the pejorative sense the term is generally used), but these are the Machiavellians who bring blight on liberal administrations' declared ambitions to be more compassionate than their heartless predecessors. In every major respect, the Obama administration has chosen to retain and carry forward as much as possible of the repressive apparatus established by the Bush administration, tinkering at the edges, making minor adjustments, and leaving the basic architecture of surveillance, punishment, injustice, and exclusion in place. The solution to the economic crisis was to redress inequality, to the health care crisis a single-payer system (or as close to it as manageable), to energy a carbon tax, and to immigration inclusion (call it amnesty). The torture/detention regime is another instance of the failure to go for the obvious. Instead of unequivocally shutting it down, the Obama administration's instinct has been to try to accommodate both sides of the question, claiming greater complexity than actually exists (declaring that things are more complicated than anyone thought possible makes the bureaucrat/politician sound reflective, but it may be no more than cover for cowardice). The administration's favored solution seems to be a new national security court, which would bypass established criminal procedure, under cover of a "thoughtful" new system.

What the Obama administration should have done -- besides letting immigration reform wait until a possible second term -- was to shift the grounds of the debate away from the xenophobic rants of Lou Dobbs and the terrorist phobias of John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez. This would have been Obama's greatest favor to the immigrant community. Instead, such an attempt was never really made. Vague assurances went out at the very early stages, and the establishment of the immigration policy group was an early hopeful sign, but slowly the punitive regime is returning. Overwhelming majorities of Americans have always favored -- even during the darkest days of immigrant-phobia in the Bush years -- legalization of those with roots in the community. The Obama administration has not done anything to build on the favorable public judgment, in order to bypass the obstructionists in Congress.

In the case of immigration, a bipartisan commission (of experts, not politicians), which would have helpfully pushed things down the road until a calmer moment, would have been a good start. More importantly, leading members of the administration ought to have taken as much time as possible to point out that immigration cannot be reduced to sick, perverted, rapacious Mexicans in tattered clothes jumping over our walls, but that for the last 40 years, the one thing that has elevated the United States over its European and other competitors is its relative openness to immigrants, resulting in an enormous boost in innovation and productivity. This is already under severe erosion, as fewer and fewer of the real "best and brightest" choose to study in the U.S., or return home once they finish studying, leading to a reverse brain drain. Undocumented immigrants were often building homes during the housing boom, for which established immigrants were some of the most enthusiastic buyers. In our passion to control and exclude, we have already caused great, perhaps irreversible, damage to the US. economy.

Of course, Schumer would respond by saying that to put it off would be to abdicate legislative responsibility, and that the proliferating patchwork of laws at the state and local levels points to the imperative need to enact legislation now. He would further point to his proposals as being in the best compassionate spirit, alleviating tragedy at the border, the breakup of families, and the unmet needs of American business. But anything that moves away from the already earned right of longtime residents to make a prior claim on legalization is bound to make things worse, by sowing the seeds of chaos, and leading to more disturbance, breakup, and labor instability than is the case now, even with the flawed, inefficient, slow system. Anything that reduces immigration to sheer economic calculus, not allowing for the complexity of lives, is a step backward even from the existing difficulties.

If Schumer were offering the older Daschle-Hagel reform, things might have had a chance of getting better, but as it stands now, and as it is likely to develop, all signs point in the direction of greater ruthlessness and unfairness being allowed into the system. Paltry tokens like the Dream Act -- again, this shouldn't be presented as a huge favor to immigrants who have only known the U.S. as a home, and whose only crime was to have been brought over by their parents at a young age -- will not compensate for building ruthless exclusion into the system.

Consider all of Schumer's statements (in light of the fact that he is Obama's lead person on immigration now), and ask yourself: Does he sound like he thinks immigration is a great thing for the U.S.? Does he take issue with the ghastly rhetoric of the Bush years, which held that those with the greatest moral right on immigration benefits had the least right to it? Does he emphasize innovation, creativity, and productivity, building on the best of our traditions, or does he beat to death the law-and-order aspect of Lou Dobbs's "broken borders"? Does he sound like someone the Ted Kennedy of 1965, or even 2005, would appreciate as having stepped into his large shoes, or someone Kennedy would be embarrassed by? Does he make an attempt to fundamentally shift the debate from the punitive and racist tone it has taken, or does he accept the premises of the last eight years as given? Does he try to be too smart by half, as he threads impossible needles, pleasing Sessions as much as labor, NumbersUSA as much as LULAC? Does he grandstand (always the case with backroom bargains) or does he come across as someone with sympathy for individual immigrant lives--not necessarily the abstract propositions of corporate needs? (See Schumer's Principle 7 in his June 24 statement.) Is he enamored of Rumsfeldian principles of total information awareness, and the fantasy of demographic control through biometric identification that seems to have taken permanent hold of the Washington bureaucrat's imagination? (The problem of false matches with E-Verify, the latest incarnation of the magic card solution to human problems of desire, mobility, and integration, is not trivial, and it necessarily suffers from mission creep, extending into more and more realms of data mining, though Schumer has made it a centrepoint of his hard-line self-presentation.)

This is what an approach to humane immigration reform looks like. Measure Schumer's actions in the coming months with reference to his distance from this document, written by Peter Schey of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law.

Schumer's first principle reads: "Illegal immigration is wrong, and a primary goal of comprehensive immigration reform must be to dramatically curtail future illegal immigration." One can imagine a different first principle. "Immigration has always been behind the great success story of the U.S. as the world's leading economic and cultural innovator, and we must bring our bureaucracy in line to minimize the friction faced by new Americans as they become wholehearted contributors to the greatness of our open system."

Pro-immigrant advocacy groups also bear a huge share of the blame for the unfortunate timing. LULAC, La Raza, etc., instead of lowering the rhetoric after the election, chose to continue putting pressure on the administration to enact comprehensive legislation now. This was a great mistake. The prevailing climate needed to shift before the timing could be right. The emphasis should have been more on putting an end to sensationalist Bush-era raids that often swept in the innocent. Behind the scenes, more pressure could have been applied on Homeland Security to move away from some of its blatant examples of immigrant abuse. Steps could have been taken to forge a lasting agreement with organized labor toward a return to the 35 years of openness which ended in 2001. Instead, the rallying cry of "comprehensive immigration reform," familiar from 2006 and 2007, went up, as though immigrants needed to confront new legal complexities at this particular time, instead of being allowed to get on with their lives, fix problems in a low-profile manner, and wait for a more opportune climate for humane legislation.

Meanwhile Schumer, cutting insider deals with the likes of Jeff (Ku Klux Klan) Sessions, barrels forward to gift the nation with a "comprehensive immigration reform" package by Labor Day. A colossal, uncontainable crisis of immigration is at hand, and there couldn't be a more opportune time to tackle the issue than right now. A grateful nation will realize that the underlying economic rot was only a distraction, and that it is the flood of illegal wall-jumpers and suitcase-bomb terrorists and diseased aliens we need to worry about and catch and imprison and deport in order for us to regain our lost sense of security. Even while getting all he wants -- whether or not the legislation finally passes -- Sessions will decry yet another ham-fisted attempt of the "masters of the universe" to cram their social engineering brilliance down our throats. And he will be right, because though Schumer might not be one of the best and brightest, he is almost certainly a bona fide "master of the universe."

One can only imagine what Rahm Emanuel has had to stuff in his mouth to restrain himself against the imminent folly.

GI Bill Favors Some States Over Others

2009-08-10T15:30:14Z

Sen. Jim Webb's Post-9/11 GI Bill, which went into effect August 1, calls for the federal government to subsidize a veteran's tuition up to the amount it would cost to attend the most expensive public university in the veteran's home state.

The idea was to achieve fairness for those veterans who happen to live in states with higher tuition.

But it turns out that tuition at one tiny program at a Texas university is so high that veterans from that state can get subsidies big enough to cover the cost of many of the private institutions in that state, including Texas Christian, Baylor and Southern Methodist University.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, Wyoming and South Dakota offer the lowest in tuition coverage -- at less than $100 per credit hour, in contrast to the $1,500 per credit hour available in Texas.

Practically speaking, the difference won't be so great, as many private institutions are signing up for the Yellow Ribbon program: the government, by way of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, will match the amount (up to 50 percent) laid out by any private institution to subsidize veterans' tuition.

John Hermansen, a representative from the Student Veterans of America, said that inequalities in the system were more likely to be determined by which private institutions chose to opt in to the Yellow Ribbon program than the different amounts available in each state.

While the GI Bill radically expands the options available to veterans, not everyone is satisfied. In an article on the site Military.com last August, a commentator noted that the different types of benefits afforded, depending on length of service, only takes into account time spent in the military after September 11th, 2001.

A spokesperson for Senator Webb's office explained:

"This bill was designed to recognize the service of those who've served since 9/11, this bill was designed as a wartime bill, the Montgomery bill was designed as a peacetime incentive to recruit service members but not for a time of war...the last 7 years in a wartime environment should be properly rewarded."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Chris Weigant: I'm Sick of Hearing About the Poor, Poor Millionaires

2009-07-20T19:51:51Z

Conservatives and corporate-owned Democrats are in a tizzy. The House is moving its version of healthcare reform forward, and it (gasp!) raises money by (double-gasp!) taxing rich folks. Not by very much, as these things go -- but you certainly wouldn't know that from hearing Republican politicians and their enablers in the news media. As far as they're concerned, Democrats are going to raise everyone's tax rates (yes, even YOURS!) until they rival Denmark's (complete with Fox News graphics, in case you missed the point). While the tactic is new, the strategy is an old one, and can be summed up as: "Who will stand up for the poor, poor millionaires and billionaires?"

You know what? I'm sick of this nonsense. I really am. Starting, first and foremost, with the term "class warfare." I keep waiting for some Democrat (Jim Webb would be a good choice, in my opinion) to stand up and say something like the following -- to either some clueless, overpaid, inside-the-Beltway media type, or some clueless, bought-and-paid-for Republican officeholder:

"I'm sorry, did you just say 'class warfare'? Your use of this term is highly offensive to me. In case you have forgotten, we are at war. We are currently waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vice president's son is currently serving in a war zone, as are thousands of other brave American men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America. And you have the gall to sit there and call a discussion of marginal tax rates 'warfare'? Please show me the video highlights of this war, if you would. Where are the clips of armed guerrillas laying siege to the Hamptons? Where are the battlelines where people are dying in the hills of Bel Air? Where are the armed insurrectionists? How many casualties has this class warfare cost? Where are the pitchforks and torches and mobs in the streets? If you don't have video of such battles raging right now to show me, then I would insist you not refer to a debate in Congress over making the ultra-wealthy pay the same tax rate they did under Bill Clinton -- a tax rate much lower than they paid under Ronald Reagan, I might add -- as any type of 'warfare,' because it insults me and it insults the men and women who are putting their lives on the line on foreign soil right this very minute to preserve your ability to say such repugnant things."

As I said, Senator Jim Webb would be my first choice for delivering this message, for obvious reasons. Sometimes, as Robert A. Heinlein said, you have to step on people's toes until they apologize.

A few facts are in order here. What is causing apoplexy in Republicans is a plan to raise the income tax rate for people making over $280,000 a year by one to five percentage points. Right now, the wealthiest of the wealthy in America pay 35 percent income tax. What is being proposed is raising this back to where it was before Bush lowered it -- to a high point of 39.6 percent. Not, as Republicans will tell you, "almost as high as Denmark's." Denmark's highest income tax rate is 60 percent. Plus (a fact they conveniently ignore), in Denmark you pay a "Value Added Tax" (or national sales tax) of 25 percent on everything you buy. So don't worry, nobody in America is going to be paying anything like what the Danish pay.

Nancy Pelosi has even already walked these numbers back. She's now proposing taxing only single people who make more than $500,000 and couples who make more than one million dollars every year. In other words, Joe The Plumber should relax, because his taxes aren't going up a dime. He would be part of the ninety-nine-percent-plus of the American workforce who would not have their taxes changed one tiny little bit under this plan.

This stuff seems obvious to me, but then I turn on the television, and listen to "journalists" who have apparently beamed in from Mars. Or Pluto, since they seem to be speaking Plutocrat as their first language. Ahem. Seriously, when is some Democrat (Al Franken springs to mind for this one) going to ask one of these blow-dried talking heads "Excuse me, but in the interests of full disclosure, you really should tell the viewers how much money you make per year. You seem to be championing low taxes for the ultra-wealthy, but I detect more than a hint of protecting your own self-interest in this discussion." I'd pay good money, so to speak, to hear someone (anyone!) say that to one of these "journalists" on television. It would put things in some sorely needed perspective. "Did you make more than a million bucks last year? How many millions did you make? Why didn't you share that with your viewers at the beginning of your comments?"

But perhaps that's a tad too confrontative, eh? OK, how about laying it on the line in a calm and rational manner, then. Democrats have been terrified -- absolutely terrified -- to raise any taxes at any time, because the Republicans have used it so effectively as an iron club, for so many years now. But healthcare reform has to be paid for somehow. Now that the House has thrown down the gauntlet, we need to hear a few Democrats defending this action, instead of eternally shying away from it. Democrats, so far, have seemed to think that if they don't talk about it, nobody will notice that they're raising taxes on the rich. This is wrong -- Republicans have been waiting to pounce on this particular issue ever since Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker of the House, and they are now gleefully doing so. The only way this is going advance politically is if a few Democrats defend the policy to the public, and calm everyone down a bit. Here's an example of what I'm suggesting:

"President Obama promised during his campaign not to raise taxes on people making less than a quarter of a million dollars per year. We are going to help him keep that promise. Others have been suggesting that we tax everyone's health care benefits to pay for health care reform. We're not going to do that, because it would affect union members and other hardworking Americans -- lots of policemen and firemen, and others who make up the backbone of the middle class in America. We think they've been taxed enough. We think that the millionaires and billionaires who have made out like bandits under Republican tax cuts for the past eight years can afford to go back to paying what they paid under Bill Clinton. We want to repeal the Bush tax cuts on the extremely wealthy, because we think it is more important to provide access to healthcare to all Americans than it is to help people like John McCain buy another house or airplane. Everyone is having to sacrifice in this economy. Millions have already sacrificed by losing their jobs. Millions have lost their health care. Millions of sick people are sacrificing their health, because they cannot pay for treatment. Millions more have had to take pay cuts, and are relieved just to still have a job. The American people have sacrificed, and continue to make tough decisions daily -- because some can't afford both medicine and food. And we simply do not think that asking millionaires to pay an extra few percent of their million-dollar incomes is asking too great a sacrifice from them. We think it's about time they sacrificed a little bit, for the good of the country, and gave back the Bush tax cuts."

Until and unless Democrats start saying things like this, this tax increase is simply not going to happen. Democrats have to get over their knee-jerk reaction to being labeled "tax and spenders" by their opposition. Democrats have to stop scurrying away from the issue like cockroaches when the light hits them, and get out there and defend it. If higher taxes for millionaires are the way to pay for healthcare reform, then let everyone know it, and know why.

The poor, poor millionaires already have plenty of people beating their chests and rending their garments in public. Republicans and mainstream media "journalists" are already doing a dandy job of this. Democrats have to stand up and say, in response, "I'm for the little guy. I don't want to tax the average worker any more than they already are taxed, so I do not support taxing the middle class' healthcare benefits. Instead, I think the ultra-wealthy can pay a few percent more each year to fix the healthcare system in America. I don't think that's too much to ask of them, and I will fight any attempt to move this tax burden away from the wealthy down to the little guys. That may have worked in the past, but it's not going to work this time!"

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Webb Crime Bill Moving In House

2009-06-24T17:30:03Z

The House of Representatives will be taking up a companion version of a popular Senate bill intended to overhaul the American criminal justice system, Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) told the Huffington Post on Wednesday.

The Senate bill was introduced by Sen. Jim Webb and would create a commission to make recommendations on the reform of everything from sentencing to drug policy. Everything, Webb has said, would be on the table.

Delahunt, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said that reform of the American justice system should begin with a broad look at drug policy.

"I think it's really time to do an absolute overview of the issue of drugs and come at it with an open mind," he said.

The bill, he said, "would create a commission of respected individuals in the field with a time frame for review. This deals with gang violence and everything else, but clearly, as you continue to peel back the problems, dealing with crime in this country, and particularly violent crime, the one common nexus is drugs. So you've gotta take a hard look at that."

Delahunt is a former prosecutor from Massachusetts. Asked how his experience as a prosecutor shapes his thinking on drug legalization, he turned the question around.

"I mean, how long have we been waging the war on drugs?" he said.

Forty years?

"Is it working?" he asked.

Webb's bill was heard on June 11th in Sen. Arlen Specter's (D-Penn.) Crime and Drugs Subcommittee and is moving quickly. It now boasts 30 cosponsors, including Specter and the Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), also a former prosecutor.

The top four Democratic leaders -- Sens. Harry Reid (Nev.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Chuck Schumer and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) -- have signed on. It has Republican backing from conservative Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both influential voices on the Judiciary Committee, as well as moderate Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine.

"We've got a good chance to get this done this year," said Webb when he introduced the bill. "I'm very concerned about the issue of gangs and transnational gangs and I think a big piece of that -- not all of it -- a big piece of that is the movement of drugs."

Ryan Grim's book, This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America, is now on sale

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Pamela Gerloff: What If Released Inmates Stopped Committing Crimes?: Prison Reform That's Already Working -- Like Nothing You've Seen Before

2009-06-17T19:52:57Z

Last week, Senator Jim Webb posted a column discussing the need to reform our criminal justice system.

To help Senator Webb find a bipartisan solution to fixing our broken system, I'd like to suggest a relatively simple, practical, and actually cost-saving way to begin: Start by changing our lock-up facilities into places that actually cause inmates to change their behavior -- so that when they leave them they never go back. Instead, they become positively-functioning members of their local communities.

Sound impossible? Well, what if I told you it's already happening? And it's been happening in some communities for the past decade. What if you knew that there is a tried, researched, and proven solution to inmate recidivism? (the rate at which inmates return to incarceration facilities once they've been released) What if you knew that this solution is easily replicated in any jail or prison, while also customized for each facility? What if you knew that it dramatically reduces costs; improves public safety; makes life easier, safer, and far less stressful for correctional officers and staff; and has been shown to reduce inmate recidivism rates from above 50% to around 5%. (Yes, you read that correctly. That's about 5 out of a hundred released inmates repeating crimes and returning to jail vs. the more than 50 out of a hundred that usually repeat the cycle.) What if you knew that this correctional solution, when implemented, has reduced inmate violence in jail to zero incidents? (Yes, zero.) What if you knew that this solution makes sense to conservatives and liberals alike -- because it positively affects everyone, including police and other law enforcement agencies, corrections staff, inmates and their families, local communities, society at large, and government and administrative budgets?

What if you knew all that? Would you take a few minutes out of your life to check it out on the Internet, and then pass on the info to others for possible implementation in their community? Or to legislators who have the power to make a difference for the public safety and well being of the nation?

Here's what the solution is:

It's called the Community Model in Corrections and it's based on the concept of dignity -- dignity for all, including correctional officers, administrators, other staff, and inmates. The Community Model is the brainchild of Morgan Moss and Penny Patton of the Center for Therapeutic Justice. It aims to help inmates change themselves by changing the culture of incarceration to one of respect and dignity for everyone. The model's remarkable success is due, in large part, to the fact that it works entirely within the existing structure of correctional institutions. It supports existing institutional rules and regulations, so it actually makes corrections officials' jobs easier, not harder. It is not only a first-rate inmate rehabilitation program but also an effective facility management system. In the Community Model, inmates volunteer to participate, which means they choose to live as a community with other inmate volunteers in a designated section of the jail.

Together, they take responsibility for managing their unit, maintaining high security standards, developing themselves emotionally and psychologically, changing inappropriate behavior, and becoming able to function responsibly and appropriately within a community. Eighty-five percent of inmates are eligible for the program. In facilities where the program is currently operative, there is a waiting list to participate.

Dr. Philip Zimbardo, professor emeritus at Stanford University, creator of the now-classic Stanford Prison Experiment, and author of The Lucifer Effect, in 1971 made a horrifying discovery. He conducted a psychological experiment in which college students were placed in the roles of prison guards and inmates. The experiment, planned to last two weeks, was halted after only six days because participant behavior quickly grew dysfunctional and abusive. The research revealed that the culture of prison exerts an effect so powerful that it can dramatically alter the behavior of otherwise normally functioning individuals. We can conclude that a primary reason the Community Model works so well is that it changes the culture of incarceration, through its model of self-governance within a context of mutual respect and dignity, into a culture that exerts a positive influence on all involved. Dr. Zimbardo observes:

Of all the programs designed to enable prisoners to gain dignity and a sense of purpose while incarcerated, and prepare them to become effectively functioning citizens when released so that they are not recidivists, I know of none that do these jobs better than the Community Model in Corrections developed by the Center for Therapeutic Justice. It should be a central part of every correctional institution.

So...if you knew about a cost-saving, easy-to-implement program that could provide practical, fast, and powerful prison reform, the likes of which we've never even dared to imagine, what do you suppose you would do?

Would you ask your senators and congressional representatives to watch a 5- or 20-minute video about it? How about your local sheriff, county jail administrator, or newspaper? Would you post a link to the videos on your Facebook page? Would you twitter a bit to your friends?

Let's do it, folks--because we have nothing to lose; and by reducing repeat crime, we have a whole lot to gain.

Watch the 5-minute video here.

Watch the 20-minute version here.

Watch both! www.communitymodel.org

Pamela Gerloff is co-author, with Robert W. Fuller, of Dignity for All: How to Create a World without Rankism (Berrett-Koehler Publishing, 2008). She can be reached at gerloff@dignityforall.org.

Jon Soltz: Why Army Suicides Continued to Rise in May, and What We Can Do

2009-06-12T11:58:56Z

The news gets more and more troubling when it comes to Army suicides, which continue on a record pace, according to the latest report. March and April saw 13 suicides each. May saw 17 suicides.

The Army is taking the issue much more seriously, trying to stop the trend. Most notably, Fort Campbell ordered a three-day stand-down for suicide prevention training. And, the Pentagon is trying to offer better counseling for those soldiers who feel like they're going to break down. But, obviously, the military alone can't do everything.

While a lot of attention has been paid to increasing counseling even more, and removing the stigma that troops attach to depression as a weak trait, that's just treating the problem after the fact. The root causes of combat stress leading to suicide are three-fold, mostly out of the hands of our generals, and therefore must be addressed by the Federal government.

First, it isn't just the stress in the field, it's the stress of having to do multiple tours, with very little time at home.

Imagine that you're in the Army and you do a year in Iraq, come home for under a year, are redeployed for another year, come home for a short period, and are sent out again. It's like being in a revolving door moving at supersonic speed, and just when you think you're out and can relax, they throw you back in. Eventually, you don't know which way you're going, or how to make it all stop. For some, sadly, taking their own life becomes the answer.

That's why VoteVets.org long supported the Dwell-Time legislation in the Senate, originally introduced by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and former Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE). That bill simply says that a servicemember gets as much time at home as he or she gets in the field. That has traditionally been how we rotate troops, but because we were faced with two wars and a smaller, all-volunteer force, we put an unreasonable deployment burden on our troops.

President Obama phasing out Stop Loss is a huge move, and will help, so troops aren't kept active, involuntarily, after their commitment. But the Dwell Time bill is crucial and it needs to be passed and signed, ASAP.

Secondly, we need to much better transition troops from war-life to civilian life, especially when they're in a position to have to redeploy.

More or less, you're on your own when you come home, but still in the military, specifically when you're in the National Guard or Reserves, when you essentially have six months off from any duty when you return from a mobilization. Yes, there is some counseling available, but there isn't any comprehensive program out there to help you with your transition back. And, while most Americans are extremely gracious to our troops, most don't know a person who served, personally. Therefore, they can't relate to what our troops go through as they come and go to and from war. They cannot help troops bridge that gap, mentally, from the field to the homefront (and the disorientation associated with it) no matter how much they care for our troops.

This isn't an area for a charity to handle -- full, comprehensive transitioning must have the full power of the Federal government behind it.

We especially need to focus on ensuring that military doctors and the VA properly diagnose and treat PTSD. VoteVets.org and the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) uncovered an extremely disturbing case of the VA Center in Temple, TX last year. In that case, there was talk of not giving veterans a proper PTSD diagnosis, because of the cost of having to pay disability to those veterans. Then, Mark Benjamin at Salon.com uncovered an extremely similar case involving doctors at Fort Carson, under pressure to deny soldiers PTSD. That needs to end.

Third, the band-aid of drugs is not an answer.

Last year, VoteVets.org worked with TIME magazine to break the story about our Medicated Army. One of our own members, Chris LeJeune, talked in frank detail about being given anti-depressants in the field, and how they're essentially given out like candy, so we can simply have as many bodies in the field as we need.

Anyone who knows anything about anti-depressants knows that they're supposed to be used for those with a legitimate chemical imbalance, or those in therapy who need a temporary bridge. They're not supposed to be used as happy pills for those dealing with PTSD who are constantly forced to reengage what sets off that PTSD. That may mask some symptoms, but inside the mind, it allows PTSD, stress, and depression to continue to grow, exponentially.

Again, the military is getting better at offering real counseling to those in the field. However, as we tragically saw just a short time ago with the killings at Camp Liberty, we have to do a better job at prevention. And, at the very least, if there is someone for which combat stress is a problem, we should not hesitate to send those troops home. Keeping them armed with a weapon, dealing with a 360 degree battlefield does not do our military well, or the civilians in the lands we're fighting well.

None of this is to say that the military is ignoring the issue, or that the blood of suicide victims lies on their hands. But, we have to do more. And, it cannot focus on only treating problems when they happen. Nor can we pretend that civilians in Washington don't bear some of the burden here, who still need to do more to lessen the burden we've placed on our men and women in uniform. We have to focus on giving the military and VA every tool we possibly can to help face the root causes of PTSD, combat stress, and depression, to prevent those things from fomenting.

I hope we do, and I hope that the string of bad news on this issue soon comes to an end.

Union Targets Democrats With Significant Online EFCA Campaign

2009-06-09T11:57:32Z

One of the nation's largest unions is making a significant ad purchase targeting four Democrats and one Republican Senator on the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Service Employees International Union is, according to an aide, putting "well more than $100,000" behind online ads and similar promotional activities designed to turn up the heat on members of Congress whose support for EFCA is tepid or non-existent.

Targeting Democratic Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Jim Webb of Virginia, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, as well as Republican David Vitter of Louisiana, the message is at once effective and sharp: To oppose the labor-backed legislation would be to side with the institutions that create the current economic malaise.

"Big banks and greedy corporations got our country into this mess," reads the script, which is tailored to each individual Senator and state. "Now they want to fire or harass employees who want to join a union."

In addition to putting out the four web videos, the SEIU is also launching email campaigns targeting the five senators, with much the same message and aim.

"The goal," the union aide said, "is to frame the debate on the Employee Free Choice Act going forward as a choice: Standing with working people, or standing with greedy CEOs who wrecked our economy in the first place."

What is remarkable is the willingness of the SEIU to publicly target this quartet of Democrats on EFCA. It is an indication of just where the debate currently lies. Indeed, in private, union officials say they are confidant that they can get EFCA passed. But the details of the legislation will be largely determined by the willingness these recalcitrant Democrats to compromise.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Webb Criticizes Obama's Guantanamo Strategy As Unreasonable

2009-05-17T12:04:51Z

Sen. Jim Webb no longer believes President Obama's schedule for closing down the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay is reasonable, claiming on Sunday that the decision was dictated by "artificial timelines" and that some terrorism suspects should be tried at the facility.

"Guantanamo has become the issue rather than how we process these people who were detained there. Let's process them with the right rules of law, the right due process within the constraints of how we have to handle these cases," said Webb on ABC's This Week. "But the facility is there at Guantanamo to do it, and then close it down."

As for the date to actually shut down the facility, the Virginia Democrat said he would "defer to the judgment of the administration who is looking at this." Reminded that the administration wanted Gitmo closed by January, Webb responded: "They have said a lot of things, taken a look and said some other things."

The remarks were a departure from the Senator's earlier position, which he forthrightly acknowledged. Asked if he still believed the deadline for closing Gitmo within the year was reasonable, Webb responded: "I don't actually," adding that his change of heart came after "having sat down with my staff and gone through the numbers in detail and looking at the facilities that have been built there."

The Senator also emphatically declared that he opposes having some detainees, including the Chinese Uighurs, transferred to his home state of Virginia. A federal judge ruled last October that the Uighurs detained at Guantanamo were not terrorist threats and should be released.

While Webb did demand that this group and others be granted "due process in the right kind of environment" -- he said he supports the administration's decision to use an updated form of the special military tribunals -- he argued that some Uighurs had been trained by al Qaeda and should not be allowed into the United States.

The remarks are a blow to the White House and Democratic Party as they seek to frame the closing Guantamano as an issue of sound law rather than national security politics. Despite having served only briefly in the Senate, Webb is an influential foreign policy voice in the party. His position on the closure of Gitmo, however, is likely influenced by the chance that some detainees would be transferred to his home state.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Jane Hamsher: Feinstein, Specter Compromises Pave the Way for Passage of Employee Free Choice Act

2009-05-08T16:57:17Z

New compromise measures supported by Diane Feinstein and Arlen Specter may pave the way for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

With 900,000 union members in the state of Pennsylvania, the Arlen Specter firewall appears to be crumbling. He knows he can't win a Democratic primary in Pennsylvania without labor, and they have made it clear that their support is contingent on his vote on Employee Free Choice.

Which is why Penny Pritzker and fellow billionaires are getting nervous, publicly breaking with the White House and President Obama over his support for the bill.

The "centrist" Dems of the Senate, led by Tom Harkin, know they won't be able to shrug and say "what can we do, we only have 59 votes" much longer. They have thus been trying to write an acceptable compromise so the party's progressives (including the unions) don't decide to stay home when Specter and others need their help in the 2010 elections.

According to the National Journal:

[Diane Feinstein's] proposal would replace the card-check provision, which would allow workers to unionize if a majority signed authorization cards and strip a company's ability to demand a secret ballot election. "It's a secret ballot that would be mailed in ... just like an absentee ballot. The individual could take it home and mail it in," Feinstein said. If a majority mailed the ballots to the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB would recognize the union.

As Harkin says, the Feinstein compromise has the advantage of "protecting the secret ballot, so people can do it in private," which neutralizes that particular right-wing criticism of the bill.

The other bone of contention has been arbitration clause of the Employee Free Choice Act. Specter himself supports "last best offer" arbitration. It's also called "baseball arbitration," and has incentives to get both parties to quickly make their best, most reasonable offer. Bill Samuel of the AFL-CIO says "we're open to that."

Labor will no doubt be disappointed with such sacrifices to the bill, but if it means getting something passed, they will probably be happy to make these concesssions which satisfy the demands of critics like Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Jim Webb, Michael Bennet, Mark Udall and Ben Nelson.

George McGovern was recently dis-invited from the Progressive Magazine's 100th anniversary event because of his outspoken opposition to the bill on behalf of his good friend Rick Berman. If McGovern is interested in reclaiming his reputation among progressives as something more than the pawn of a right wing astroturfing scumbag, he now has the opportunity to acknowledge that these compromises would satisfy his concerns.

Follow Jane Hamsher at firedoglake.com and on Twitter

Russ Wellen: Do Sanctions Just Add Insult to Injury for the Burmese People?

2009-05-05T12:19:35Z

If you look up the word sanction, the definition that occupies pride of place in most dictionaries is: permission or approval for a specific course of action. But, one of those words that gives English a bad rap, sanction has two other meanings that are the exact opposite. To wit: a penalty to ensure compliance and coercion to stop a nation from violating international law.

Even then, perhaps because it's too close to sanctuary, the worst sanctions seems to bode is a slap on the wrist. In fact, all too often, that is its effect on its intended targets, the government of a state, while the public suffers instead.

As if to confirm this, while visiting Japan and Indonesia in February, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted that 14 years of U.S. sanctions on Burma have made little impact on its ruling junta. Not only has there been no improvement in its human rights record, but the Burmese people have made little economic progress. Meanwhile, companies from South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, China, and India have rushed into the vacuum left by U.S. economic abstention.

First, the United States passed the Free Burma Act in 1995 to impose economic and trade sanctions on Burma for its wretched human-rights record. Next, in 1997, Bill Clinton issued a ban on most new investment in Myanmar. Then, in 2003, George W. Bush signed the Burma Freedom and Democracy Act, which ended the importation of all Burmese products. Incorporated in this bill were smart sanctions -- like smart bombs, meant to zero in on a target -- which barred Burmese government officials from access to their funds in U.S. banks and investment houses, as well as denied them or their families visas.

More targeted sanctions followed in 2006 and, in 2008, the late California congressman who co-chaired the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, Holocaust survivor Tom Lantos, shepherded into law the JADE Act, which blocked the import of jade and other gems from Burma. Also, the European Union just extended its sanctions, which mirror those of the United States, for one more year.

If none of this has yet proven effective, the question arises: Do sanctions ever work?

Sanctions' biggest success story thus far has been South Africa, where they were credited with helping to end apartheid. Also, freezing 25 million dollars of North Korean funds brought Pyongyang back to the nuclear negotiating table, at least for a while.

On the other hand, a series of sanctions on Iran have failed to persuade it to abandon its uranium enrichment program. Nor have they weakened Fidel Castro's grip on power. Then, of course, there's their most appalling failure: Hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq died for lack of access to antibiotics and other drugs due to sanctions.

As for the net effect of sanctions on the Burmese, the case can be made that they're not hurting them economically -- because the people couldn't have been much worse off than they already were. In fact, unless the regime surrenders control of oil, gas, gems, and agriculture, the development of a middle class is likely impossible.

In light of that, the head of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Asia, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), has called for a more "constructive" policy on Burma. To accomplish the twin tasks of improving conditions for the Burmese people and opening up Burma to U.S. corporations, he favors confidence-building measures to expedite the repeal of sanctions.

Others, such as Chevron, one of the few American companies allowed to do business in Burma, call for rescinding the ban on new investments, while retaining the other smart sanctions. Interviewed for a 2008 Voice of America article, Gary Hufbauer, a sanctions expert, explains this line of thinking: ". . . if you can somehow deprive the elite of their bank accounts, of their schools in Switzerland [and] their travel. . . at least you don't penalize ordinary people [with] widespread ill-health or malnourishment."

Whoever came up with the term "smart sanctions" might have thought it was clever. But he or she forgot that, however designed to minimize civilian casualties, smart bombs gang can injure innocents. Smart sanctions, too, court unintended fallout, such as junta members with suddenly depleted bank accounts rooting around for new and exciting ways to loot the Burmese people.

What about them? How do the people feel about sanctions imposed by other nations?

In 2001, before smart sanctions were instituted, a survey by Burmese exile publication Irrawaddy found that, concerned with economic development though they were, almost 80 percent of 200 Burmese workers, editors, journalists and lawyers polled favored keeping the sanctions in place. But in 2007, the BBC reported:

"Sanctions don't work -- they're not the solution," one elderly man said. ... "We would like to have democracy, but the most important thing for us is to have peace, and enough food on our plates," one woman said.

Then Anand Gopal of the Christian Science Monitor recently told us: "When I was in Burma last year I asked a lot of people what they thought of the sanctions and they mostly were against it." He also reminds us of an inescapable truth about sanctions in general -- that they're basically a "way to punish the Burmese people for having such an awful leadership."

Many Burma watchers don't expect a change soon. For example, Vice President Joe Biden, they note, was a key player in the JADE Act's passage. Also, just last week, Agence France Presse reported, an assistant secretary for legislative affairs, Richard Verma, wrote a letter to Rep. Peter King (R-NY) asserting that sanctions would remain in place. But the first definite indicator of the Obama administration's intentions towards Burma comes May 15, when it decides whether to extend Clinton's New Investment Ban.

We'll allow Irrawaddy the final word on sanctions:

"The most significant 'sanctioner' on Burma is none other than the country's ruling regime itself, which has created an environment in which genuine transformative economic activity is scarcely possible, let alone similarly efficacious foreign investment or trade."

Party Switches Made By Famous Political Figures (SLIDESHOW)

2009-04-28T15:31:40Z

Senator Arlen Specter's announcement Tuesday that he would switch from the Republican to the Democratic party came as a surprise to many.

But party changes are nothing new in our democracy. Even Arlen Specter began his career as a registered Democrat while running on the Republican ticket for Pennsylvania District Attorney in 1965. Politicians have played musical chairs with party registration since the formation of the U.S. government. One of the biggest switches happened in the early nineteenth century, when United States Federalist Party members joined the United States Democratic-Republican Party. The Democratic-Republican Party clearly doesn't exist any more, and many other re-affiliations occurred after its dissolution.

As you'll see in the slideshow below, many well-known politicians have switched parties while serving in the public arena. And there are some famous public servants, like Hillary Clinton and CIA Director Leon Panetta, who changed their affiliations early in life. (Both Clinton and Panetta were Republicans. Clinton even worked for conservative Barry Goldwater during his 1964 presidential campaign.) Scroll through to learn more:

Michael Fauntroy: Toward Real Criminal Justice Reform

2009-04-28T08:22:04Z

The recent guilty pleas of two corrupt Luzerne County, Pennsylvania juvenile court judges is further evidence that the U.S. criminal justice system is shot through with corruption and has a penchant for punishment over rehabilitation that only serves the interests of politicians who want to give the appearance of making the public safer. And too often, public opinion is satiated by reactionary public policy such as "three strikes" that fails to address the root causes of crime and violence. Studies from The Sentencing Project, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, the National Urban League, and the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation show that America's rush to incarcerate has exploded state and federal corrections budgets, forced early parole for some inmates for lack of prison space, made millionaires of private prison operators, and made more difficult the reentry of people who can become productive citizens if given the opportunity.

The current system also maintains the race-based disparities that have devastated some African American communities. According to the Sentencing Project, one in eight African American males in their twenties are in prison or jail on any given day. Bureau of Justice Statistics data show that African Americans represent 46 percent of the 2.4 million people currently incarcerated, despite being 12 percent of the general U.S. population. African Americans comprise at least 50 percent of the prison populations in 12 of the 51 states (including the District of Columbia). The disproportionate warehousing of Black men in the name of public safety has helped to destabilize African American families around the nation by removing potential fathers and husbands when alternatives could make more sense.

However, there may be reasons for optimism. In March of this year, Senators James Webb and Arlen Specter introduced the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009. According to Mr. Webb's release, this bill will "create a blue-ribbon commission [that will conduct] an 18-month, top-to-bottom review of the nation's entire criminal justice system and offering concrete recommendations for reform." Webb noted in a March speech on the Senate floor introducing the bill that "to look at all of the elements in this system, how they are interrelated in terms of the difficulties that we have in remedying issues of criminal justice in this country and to deliver us from a situation that has evolved over time where we are putting far too many of the wrong people into prison and we are still not feeling safer in our neighborhoods, we're still not putting in prison or bringing to justice those people who are perpetrating violence and criminality as a way of life." This is particularly notable in the Washington, D.C.-area, where criminal justice reform is desperately needed.

According to Webb, the United States, with just five percent of the world's population, now incarcerates 25 percent of the world's reported prisoners. Incarcerated drug offenders have soared 1200 percent in the last 30 years. Four times as many mentally ill people are in prisons than in mental health hospitals.

My analysis indicates that the near eradication of serious rehabilitation opportunities in prison, coupled with ineffective re-entry programs, almost guarantees high recidivism rates and only perpetuates an unfortunate, wasteful cycle. In some states, the training one receives while incarcerated cannot help them once paroled. California, for example, provides barber training for inmates but, in ridiculous decision, the state legislature bars parolees from obtaining barbering licences.

Mr. Webb's task is difficult. Advocating radical reform of America 's criminal justice system is not a popular position to take. It's a issue that easily falls prey to demagoguery; I can almost hear the "soft on crime" charges already. However, there is a possibility that the nation will move away from the incarceration-only view of criminal justice and public safety. the difficult economic times the country faces may lead people to more carefully consider what government is doing with its tax revenue in this costly government service. With the Webb-Specter bill as a guide, stakeholders and citizens may work together to pass this bill and provides the unassailable evidence necessary to undo the intractable problems in the nation's criminal justice system.

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University, a former analyst in American national government at the Congressional Research Service, and a research analyst at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. He blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com.