Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
December 13, 2014
One of the major outcomes that has come from liberals standing together against the government funding bill is that the focus of Democratic Senate power has shifted away from moderates and towards liberals and progressives like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The Hill offered some insight into what Sen. Warren (D-MA) has gained from the clash over the government funding bill,
Between Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Sherrod Brown the liberals are displaying their strength in the Senate. One of the advantages of having a smaller Democratic Senate caucus is that the liberals will now play a larger role. The government funding bill passed the House, but this fact doesn’t mean that it was a loss for liberals. Bernie Sanders is considering a run for the Democratic nomination in 2016. Elizabeth Warren has been promoted to a leadership position in the Democratic caucus.
While some in the media are speculating about what this means for a potential Warren presidential candidacy, a more plausible scenario is emerging where Sen. Warren could some day replace Harry Reid as the Democratic leader/potential Senate Majority Leader. Reid is going to run for another Senate term, but his Senate career is winding down. It is easy to see Warren rising up through the Democratic leadership ranks to become Majority Leader.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12/12/elizabeth-warren-shifted-focus-democratic-senate-power-liberals.html
Elizabeth Warren Has SHIFTED Democratic Senate POWER TO THE LIBERALS
One of the major outcomes that has come from liberals standing together against the government funding bill is that the focus of Democratic Senate power has shifted away from moderates and towards liberals and progressives like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The Hill offered some insight into what Sen. Warren (D-MA) has gained from the clash over the government funding bill,
"....Peter Ubertaccio, a political science professor at Stonehill College in Massachusetts, who follows Warren’s career, said that this week, Warren demonstrated a better feel for the sentiments of her party than her leadership.
“If she’s able to succeed in the Senate at the expense of her own leadership team — the team that she’s on — it will have the practical impact of moving the center of power away from folks like Schumer and toward her,” he said. “That’s pretty significant for a freshman senator that’s been brought into the leadership....."
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/226933-warren-makes-her-mark
“If she’s able to succeed in the Senate at the expense of her own leadership team — the team that she’s on — it will have the practical impact of moving the center of power away from folks like Schumer and toward her,” he said. “That’s pretty significant for a freshman senator that’s been brought into the leadership....."
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/226933-warren-makes-her-mark
Between Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Sherrod Brown the liberals are displaying their strength in the Senate. One of the advantages of having a smaller Democratic Senate caucus is that the liberals will now play a larger role. The government funding bill passed the House, but this fact doesn’t mean that it was a loss for liberals. Bernie Sanders is considering a run for the Democratic nomination in 2016. Elizabeth Warren has been promoted to a leadership position in the Democratic caucus.
While some in the media are speculating about what this means for a potential Warren presidential candidacy, a more plausible scenario is emerging where Sen. Warren could some day replace Harry Reid as the Democratic leader/potential Senate Majority Leader. Reid is going to run for another Senate term, but his Senate career is winding down. It is easy to see Warren rising up through the Democratic leadership ranks to become Majority Leader.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12/12/elizabeth-warren-shifted-focus-democratic-senate-power-liberals.html
December 12, 2014
WASHINGTON -- The fight over a subsidy for risky Wall Street derivatives trading isn't over quite yet. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced an amendment Friday to strip out the controversial provision from the spending bill that would fund the government until next October. The amendment forces Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to choose between holding a vote to strip out controversial changes to Dodd-Frank in the House-passed omnibus, or anger the progressive wing of his caucus. Reid had already signed off on the funding bill in its current form, and the White House has also backed the measure and urged its passage. The House passed the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill Thursday, fending off a Democratic rebellion over riders that would roll back aspects of the Dodd-Frank reform and weaken campaign finance laws. Reid said he shared his colleagues' reservations but urged Democrats to support the bill's passage nonetheless.
A spokesman for Reid did not immediately return a request for comment when asked if he would allow a vote on the measure.
Reid is unlikely to allow a vote on the amendment during a crowded Senate schedule. The spending bill, including the Wall Street subsidy, is expected to pass by a wide margin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/12/elizabeth-warren-david-vitter-wall-street_n_6317098.html
Elizabeth Warren, David Vitter Make LAST-MINUTE PRESS Against Reid On 'WALL STREET GIVEAWAY'
WASHINGTON -- The fight over a subsidy for risky Wall Street derivatives trading isn't over quite yet. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced an amendment Friday to strip out the controversial provision from the spending bill that would fund the government until next October. The amendment forces Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to choose between holding a vote to strip out controversial changes to Dodd-Frank in the House-passed omnibus, or anger the progressive wing of his caucus. Reid had already signed off on the funding bill in its current form, and the White House has also backed the measure and urged its passage. The House passed the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill Thursday, fending off a Democratic rebellion over riders that would roll back aspects of the Dodd-Frank reform and weaken campaign finance laws. Reid said he shared his colleagues' reservations but urged Democrats to support the bill's passage nonetheless.
"I don't support the weakening of Dodd-Frank and the restrictions on the District of Columbia and other things, but I didn't write this bill. The Senate Democrats didn't write this bill alone," Reid said on the Senate floor Friday. "It's a compromise. That is what legislation is all about."
A spokesman for Reid did not immediately return a request for comment when asked if he would allow a vote on the measure.
"Wall Street has been working behind the scenes to open another loophole so they could gamble with taxpayer money and get bailed out when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system," said Warren. "This giveaway that was drafted by Citigroup lobbyists has no place in a critical government funding bill."
"Before Congress starts handing out Christmas presents to the megabanks and Wall Street, we should vote on this bipartisan amendment," Vitter said. "We need to remove these risky derivatives that aren't even necessary for normal banking purposes and would only make future taxpayer funded bailouts more likely."
"Before Congress starts handing out Christmas presents to the megabanks and Wall Street, we should vote on this bipartisan amendment," Vitter said. "We need to remove these risky derivatives that aren't even necessary for normal banking purposes and would only make future taxpayer funded bailouts more likely."
Reid is unlikely to allow a vote on the amendment during a crowded Senate schedule. The spending bill, including the Wall Street subsidy, is expected to pass by a wide margin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/12/elizabeth-warren-david-vitter-wall-street_n_6317098.html
December 12, 2014
The defiant House Republicans (and Senate) have somehow framed the Debate that The Democratic party is not working with them.
As usual, the result is predictable.
Remember the Shutdown? Many on this site were doing a victory dance that it portrayed the Republicans in a bad light, that we won, and the fruits of that would be realized in the 2014 midterms? Seems like it was more effective than we thought. The Republicans successfully dragged both parties down but only they ascended. If the party wants to succeed (and at times this is questionable), maybe the Democratic members left should take a page from the Republicans. Politics is a nasty business, just our party did not get the memo. Going forward, the party must be cohesive and stand for something. And as the Republicans have taught us, doing nothing is sometimes better than doing anything or something. Compromise is weakness to the Republicans and our achilles heel.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/12/1351260/-Note-to-Dems-lesson-from-Republicans-the-shutdown-and-do-nothing-Congress-worked
Note To Dems: (Lesson From Republicans)- The SHUTDOWN & DO-NOTHING-CONGRESS WORKED
In light of the vote on the 2015 Spending Bill, in which the White House and some Congressional Dems caved, I reflected on Republican strategy. They may not win Presidential Elections, but they have game. While we don't agree with it, it has been effective. The cost is that our party is lacking young, future leaders going forward. We are fortunate to have Elizabeth Warren and even Bernie Sanders (granted he is not in the Democratic party) but do not have many 40 year olds that will stand out as tomorrow's leaders, on the National or State Level. (there are some but not as many as the Republicans).
A recent poll on Bloomberg cited that one of President Obama's greatest weakness
His lowest approval rating—32 percent—is on the question of negotiating with the Republican majority in the U.S. House.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-09/approval-ratings-hit-5year-high-for-gop?hootPostID=df087efa3308d748e18657dbdbe8bcfb
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-09/approval-ratings-hit-5year-high-for-gop?hootPostID=df087efa3308d748e18657dbdbe8bcfb
The defiant House Republicans (and Senate) have somehow framed the Debate that The Democratic party is not working with them.
As usual, the result is predictable.
- Mr. Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. were pressed to make a furious round of phone calls to try to persuade wavering Democrats, while House Speaker John A. Boehner worked to get more Republican votes.
- Mr. Boehner built a coalition of 162 Republicans and 57 Democrats, a rare achievement for a Congress that has often operated along strict party lines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/us/congress-spending-bill.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
- Mr. Boehner built a coalition of 162 Republicans and 57 Democrats, a rare achievement for a Congress that has often operated along strict party lines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/us/congress-spending-bill.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
Remember the Shutdown? Many on this site were doing a victory dance that it portrayed the Republicans in a bad light, that we won, and the fruits of that would be realized in the 2014 midterms? Seems like it was more effective than we thought. The Republicans successfully dragged both parties down but only they ascended. If the party wants to succeed (and at times this is questionable), maybe the Democratic members left should take a page from the Republicans. Politics is a nasty business, just our party did not get the memo. Going forward, the party must be cohesive and stand for something. And as the Republicans have taught us, doing nothing is sometimes better than doing anything or something. Compromise is weakness to the Republicans and our achilles heel.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/12/1351260/-Note-to-Dems-lesson-from-Republicans-the-shutdown-and-do-nothing-Congress-worked
December 12, 2014
Phone both your Senators to vote "No" because an e-mail is took weak in this situation. The FY-2015 Consolidated Appropriations Package must be defeated in the Senate.
Thank You for holding firm in your opposition, Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Ellison, Ms. Schakowsky, Mrs. Slaughter, Mr. Hastings (FL-20), Mr. McGovern, Mr. Polis, and every member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), including Senator Sanders.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/11/1351200/-Here-s-link-to-tonight-s-Roll-Call-Vote-H-R-83-by-Yea-And-Nay-11-Dec-2014-9-37-PM
57 Democrats At The WHIPPING By POTUS Obama SOLD OUT.
Phone both your Senators to vote "No" because an e-mail is took weak in this situation. The FY-2015 Consolidated Appropriations Package must be defeated in the Senate.
Simply say:
I am ___ a constituent of Senator ___ and I live in ZIP Code __. Will Senator ____ pledge to vote "NO" on the CRomnibus Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 bill that the House passed Thursday night?
I am ___ a constituent of Senator ___ and I live in ZIP Code __. Will Senator ____ pledge to vote "NO" on the CRomnibus Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 bill that the House passed Thursday night?
Thank You for holding firm in your opposition, Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Ellison, Ms. Schakowsky, Mrs. Slaughter, Mr. Hastings (FL-20), Mr. McGovern, Mr. Polis, and every member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), including Senator Sanders.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/11/1351200/-Here-s-link-to-tonight-s-Roll-Call-Vote-H-R-83-by-Yea-And-Nay-11-Dec-2014-9-37-PM
December 11, 2014
Over the last several months, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush has been giving speeches, campaigning for candidates, appearing at public forums, and meeting with wealthy donors, which has led many people to believe that he may soon enter the race to become the next Republican presidential nominee. On Dec. 1, Bush told a gathering of business leaders at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington that he would make a decision about his political future “in short order.” But Bush’s recent business ventures reveal that he shares a number of liabilities with the last nominee, Mitt Romney, whose career in private equity proved so politically damaging that it sunk his candidacy. Documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 27 list Bush as chairman and manager of a new offshore private equity fund, BH Global Aviation, which raised $61 million in September, largely from foreign investors. In November the fund incorporated in the United Kingdom and Wales—a structure, several independent finance lawyers say, that operates like a tax haven by allowing overseas investors to avoid U.S. taxes and regulations.
BH Global Aviation is one of at least three such funds Bush has launched in less than two years through his Coral Gables, Fla., company, Britton Hill Holdings. He’s also chairman of a $26 million fund, BH Logistics, established in April with backing from a Chinese conglomerate, and a $40 million fund involved in shale oil exploration, according to documents filed in June and first reported on by Bloomberg News. His flurry of ventures doesn’t suggest someone preparing to run for president, according to a dozen fund managers, lawyers, and private-placement agents who were apprised of his recent activities by Bloomberg Businessweek. Most private equity funds have a life span of 10 years. While it isn’t impossible that Bush could bail on his investors so soon after taking their money, “that would be unusual,” says Steven Kaplan, a private equity expert at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. One fundraiser for private equity adds that normally you’d be winding down such businesses, rather than expanding them, if you were going to run.
Until now, many people have assumed that Bush’s greatest challenge would be dispelling the perception among Republican primary voters that he’s a moderate in a party dominated by right-wing conservatives. In the wake of Romney’s bruising 2012 loss, however, Bush’s overseas funds, mysterious investors, and foreign entanglements could prove harder to overcome. As a budding private equity mogul, he’s begun to resemble a Mini-Mitt. Bush declined to be interviewed for this article. “Running as the second coming of Mitt Romney is not a credential that’s going to play anywhere, with Republicans or Democrats,” says John Brabender, a Republican consultant and veteran of presidential campaigns. “Not only would this be problematic on the campaign trail, I think it also signals someone who isn’t seriously looking at the presidency or he wouldn’t have gone down this path.”
Bush, 61, was a popular governor from 1999 to 2007, earning a reputation in Florida as a serious-minded politician who stressed economic development and education standards. A real estate developer before going into politics, he surprised no one by returning to the private sector at the end of his last term. “His whole approach as governor was strongly pro-business,” says Matthew Corrigan, a political science professor at the University of North Florida and author of a new book, Conservative Hurricane: How Jeb Bush Remade Florida. “He essentially turned himself into the state’s chief economic development officer.” Being governor didn’t do much to help Bush’s own bottom line. When he took office in 1999, public disclosure filings showed that his personal net worth was about $2 million. By the time he left in 2007, that dropped to $1.3 million. Upon leaving office, Bush made no secret of his desire to make money and embarked on a whirlwind of deals, partnerships, and advisory positions in aggressive pursuit of that goal. A New York Times report in April found that he has earned at least $3.2 million in board fees and stock grants from public companies and given more than 100 speeches for which he is typically paid $50,000 each. At one time, he sat on six corporate boards.
full article
cont'
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-12-11/jeb-bush-has-a-mitt-romney-problem
.
Jeb 'MINI-MITT' Bush Has A MITT ROMNEY PROBLEM
“I think it signals someone who isn’t seriously looking at the presidency or he wouldn’t have gone down this path.” ........Republican consultant John Brabender
Over the last several months, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush has been giving speeches, campaigning for candidates, appearing at public forums, and meeting with wealthy donors, which has led many people to believe that he may soon enter the race to become the next Republican presidential nominee. On Dec. 1, Bush told a gathering of business leaders at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington that he would make a decision about his political future “in short order.” But Bush’s recent business ventures reveal that he shares a number of liabilities with the last nominee, Mitt Romney, whose career in private equity proved so politically damaging that it sunk his candidacy. Documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 27 list Bush as chairman and manager of a new offshore private equity fund, BH Global Aviation, which raised $61 million in September, largely from foreign investors. In November the fund incorporated in the United Kingdom and Wales—a structure, several independent finance lawyers say, that operates like a tax haven by allowing overseas investors to avoid U.S. taxes and regulations.
BH Global Aviation is one of at least three such funds Bush has launched in less than two years through his Coral Gables, Fla., company, Britton Hill Holdings. He’s also chairman of a $26 million fund, BH Logistics, established in April with backing from a Chinese conglomerate, and a $40 million fund involved in shale oil exploration, according to documents filed in June and first reported on by Bloomberg News. His flurry of ventures doesn’t suggest someone preparing to run for president, according to a dozen fund managers, lawyers, and private-placement agents who were apprised of his recent activities by Bloomberg Businessweek. Most private equity funds have a life span of 10 years. While it isn’t impossible that Bush could bail on his investors so soon after taking their money, “that would be unusual,” says Steven Kaplan, a private equity expert at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. One fundraiser for private equity adds that normally you’d be winding down such businesses, rather than expanding them, if you were going to run.
Until now, many people have assumed that Bush’s greatest challenge would be dispelling the perception among Republican primary voters that he’s a moderate in a party dominated by right-wing conservatives. In the wake of Romney’s bruising 2012 loss, however, Bush’s overseas funds, mysterious investors, and foreign entanglements could prove harder to overcome. As a budding private equity mogul, he’s begun to resemble a Mini-Mitt. Bush declined to be interviewed for this article. “Running as the second coming of Mitt Romney is not a credential that’s going to play anywhere, with Republicans or Democrats,” says John Brabender, a Republican consultant and veteran of presidential campaigns. “Not only would this be problematic on the campaign trail, I think it also signals someone who isn’t seriously looking at the presidency or he wouldn’t have gone down this path.”
Bush, 61, was a popular governor from 1999 to 2007, earning a reputation in Florida as a serious-minded politician who stressed economic development and education standards. A real estate developer before going into politics, he surprised no one by returning to the private sector at the end of his last term. “His whole approach as governor was strongly pro-business,” says Matthew Corrigan, a political science professor at the University of North Florida and author of a new book, Conservative Hurricane: How Jeb Bush Remade Florida. “He essentially turned himself into the state’s chief economic development officer.” Being governor didn’t do much to help Bush’s own bottom line. When he took office in 1999, public disclosure filings showed that his personal net worth was about $2 million. By the time he left in 2007, that dropped to $1.3 million. Upon leaving office, Bush made no secret of his desire to make money and embarked on a whirlwind of deals, partnerships, and advisory positions in aggressive pursuit of that goal. A New York Times report in April found that he has earned at least $3.2 million in board fees and stock grants from public companies and given more than 100 speeches for which he is typically paid $50,000 each. At one time, he sat on six corporate boards.
full article
cont'
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-12-11/jeb-bush-has-a-mitt-romney-problem
.
December 11, 2014
MoveOn.org will launch a campaign to draft Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 presidential contest, after members of the progressive group voted in favor of the effort. On Tuesday, MoveOn announced that it was prepared to spend at least $1 million on the draft Warren campaign, which will involve setting up offices in Iowa and New Hampshire, the states that kick off the presidential primaries; recruiting grassroots volunteers; cultivating small donors; and running ads in support of Warren, whose progressive populism has galvanized much of the Democratic Party’s activist base. But MoveOn waited for its members to vote on a Warren endorsement before proceeding with the plans.
This morning, the group unveiled the results of its member poll, which showed strong support for the plan. Of the MoveOn members who voted, 81 percent backed the draft Warren campaign. In conjunction with the poll’s release, MoveOn unveiled a new website, RunWarrenRun.org, where visitors can sign a petition calling on Warren to run. The site also features a nearly four-minute long video touting Warren’s biography and populist track record. “MoveOn members have spoken clearly, and we are today throwing our full weight behind this Run Warren Run campaign to show Sen. Warren she has the support of millions of Americans across the country,” MoveOn executive director Ilya Sheyman said in a statement Wednesday. “We are at a crucial time in our nation’s history, with income inequality higher than it’s been since the 1920s and with a playing field increasingly skewed in favor of Wall Street banks and corporate lobbyists. Sen. Warren’s fearlessness in standing up to corporate interests and fighting for the middle class and working families is exactly what we need in the presidential race.”
The vote comes as some progressive voice unease with the centrist, pro-Wall Street views of Hillary Clinton, who is widely expected to mount a second White House bid and currently dominates the Democratic field in early polling for the 2016 contest. While Warren has insisted she isn’t running for president, she and her aides have spoken only in the present tense, and Warren boosters seized on the senator’s cryptic comment in October that “there are amazing doors that could open.”
cont'
http://www.salon.com/2014/12/10/its_official_moveon_will_seek_to_draft_elizabeth_warren_into_2016_race/
IT'S OFFICIAL: MoveOn Will SEEK TO DRAFT ELIZABETH WARREN Into 2016 Race
Member vote kicks off campaign to convince senator to run for president
MoveOn.org will launch a campaign to draft Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 presidential contest, after members of the progressive group voted in favor of the effort. On Tuesday, MoveOn announced that it was prepared to spend at least $1 million on the draft Warren campaign, which will involve setting up offices in Iowa and New Hampshire, the states that kick off the presidential primaries; recruiting grassroots volunteers; cultivating small donors; and running ads in support of Warren, whose progressive populism has galvanized much of the Democratic Party’s activist base. But MoveOn waited for its members to vote on a Warren endorsement before proceeding with the plans.
This morning, the group unveiled the results of its member poll, which showed strong support for the plan. Of the MoveOn members who voted, 81 percent backed the draft Warren campaign. In conjunction with the poll’s release, MoveOn unveiled a new website, RunWarrenRun.org, where visitors can sign a petition calling on Warren to run. The site also features a nearly four-minute long video touting Warren’s biography and populist track record. “MoveOn members have spoken clearly, and we are today throwing our full weight behind this Run Warren Run campaign to show Sen. Warren she has the support of millions of Americans across the country,” MoveOn executive director Ilya Sheyman said in a statement Wednesday. “We are at a crucial time in our nation’s history, with income inequality higher than it’s been since the 1920s and with a playing field increasingly skewed in favor of Wall Street banks and corporate lobbyists. Sen. Warren’s fearlessness in standing up to corporate interests and fighting for the middle class and working families is exactly what we need in the presidential race.”
The vote comes as some progressive voice unease with the centrist, pro-Wall Street views of Hillary Clinton, who is widely expected to mount a second White House bid and currently dominates the Democratic field in early polling for the 2016 contest. While Warren has insisted she isn’t running for president, she and her aides have spoken only in the present tense, and Warren boosters seized on the senator’s cryptic comment in October that “there are amazing doors that could open.”
cont'
http://www.salon.com/2014/12/10/its_official_moveon_will_seek_to_draft_elizabeth_warren_into_2016_race/
December 11, 2014
There is enough contained in the newly-released Senate report on CIA torture practices to shock anyone’s conscience. News that CIA interrogators threatened violence against the children or parents of detainees, made them stand in stress positions on broken feet, and deprived them of sleep for up to a week at a time is appalling on its face. One needs no medical expertise to parse the horrors described. But what of “rectal feeding”? At first blush, this practice may have the appearance of legitimacy in cases where detainees refused to eat or drink. One man was put in a head-down position and Ensure was instilled into his rectum. In another case, a whole plate of uneaten food (including nuts, hummus and raisins) was pureed and inserted rectally. While these incidents may sound unpleasant, one might plausibly conclude that this was an acceptable means of hydrating and nourishing recalcitrant prisoners. This conclusion would be false. There is no legitimate medical use of “rectal feeding.” And the medical professionals involved in these cases surely knew it.
The gastrointestinal (GI) tract performs different digestive functions are various different locations. Even the brief time spent chewing exposes foods to enzymes that begin to break it down. The acidic environment of the stomach, as well as enzymes produced there and by other organs, break down the proteins, fats and sugars further. As digesting food passes through the small intestine, it mixes with chemicals from the liver, and nutrients are absorbed. None of this happens in the large intestine, of which the rectum is the final segment. While water, electrolytes and sugars can be absorbed before fully-digested food is expelled, the actual digestion occurs meters away. Even following legitimate medical procedures such as gastric bypass, if improperly digested food enters a part of the GI tract not equipped to handle it, it can cause diarrhea and pain (a condition bluntly termed “dumping syndrome”).
Any undigested food inserted into the rectum would simply sit there, only to be expelled back out again. No trained medical provider could possibly expect to nourish a patient this way. In the two decades since I first entered medical school, I have never seen anyone even suggest such a thing. (I checked with a pediatric gastroenterologist of my acquaintance to be sure there were no obscure medical application for this kind of “feeding.” He confirmed that there is not.) Medical personnel involved in these procedures participated in them knowing they were more consistent with a particularly crass episode of South Park rather than any legitimate medical application.
cont'
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/10/rectal-feeding-has-nothing-to-do-with-nutrition-everything-to-do-with-torture.html
RECTAL FEEDING Is Nothing But TORTURE
The CIA torture report lists ‘rectal feeding’ as a legitimate means of nourishing detainees. But the practice has no scientific backing, and is nothing but a torture method.
There is enough contained in the newly-released Senate report on CIA torture practices to shock anyone’s conscience. News that CIA interrogators threatened violence against the children or parents of detainees, made them stand in stress positions on broken feet, and deprived them of sleep for up to a week at a time is appalling on its face. One needs no medical expertise to parse the horrors described. But what of “rectal feeding”? At first blush, this practice may have the appearance of legitimacy in cases where detainees refused to eat or drink. One man was put in a head-down position and Ensure was instilled into his rectum. In another case, a whole plate of uneaten food (including nuts, hummus and raisins) was pureed and inserted rectally. While these incidents may sound unpleasant, one might plausibly conclude that this was an acceptable means of hydrating and nourishing recalcitrant prisoners. This conclusion would be false. There is no legitimate medical use of “rectal feeding.” And the medical professionals involved in these cases surely knew it.
The gastrointestinal (GI) tract performs different digestive functions are various different locations. Even the brief time spent chewing exposes foods to enzymes that begin to break it down. The acidic environment of the stomach, as well as enzymes produced there and by other organs, break down the proteins, fats and sugars further. As digesting food passes through the small intestine, it mixes with chemicals from the liver, and nutrients are absorbed. None of this happens in the large intestine, of which the rectum is the final segment. While water, electrolytes and sugars can be absorbed before fully-digested food is expelled, the actual digestion occurs meters away. Even following legitimate medical procedures such as gastric bypass, if improperly digested food enters a part of the GI tract not equipped to handle it, it can cause diarrhea and pain (a condition bluntly termed “dumping syndrome”).
Any undigested food inserted into the rectum would simply sit there, only to be expelled back out again. No trained medical provider could possibly expect to nourish a patient this way. In the two decades since I first entered medical school, I have never seen anyone even suggest such a thing. (I checked with a pediatric gastroenterologist of my acquaintance to be sure there were no obscure medical application for this kind of “feeding.” He confirmed that there is not.) Medical personnel involved in these procedures participated in them knowing they were more consistent with a particularly crass episode of South Park rather than any legitimate medical application.
cont'
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/10/rectal-feeding-has-nothing-to-do-with-nutrition-everything-to-do-with-torture.html
December 11, 2014
Here's a lesson in how to have zero impact as an advocate for the environment. When a journalist asks you why Hillary Clinton hasn't yet taken a stand on one of your top issues—the Keystone XL pipeline—don't answer with this:
That's Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior VP of government affairs for the League of Conservation Voters, and those were truly the first words out of her mouth last week during an MSNBC interview with Ed Schultz. For a little background, Hillary Clinton has attracted some negative headlines of late for failing to take a position on the Keystone XL pipeline and whether it should be approved or scrapped. MSNBC's Schultz was giving LCV a chance to weigh in on that silence. In fact, Schultz asked Sittenfeld three different times why Hillary's been so dodgy on the topic. All three times, Sittenfeld failed to pressure Clinton. At one point, Schultz, sensing Tiernan's hesitation, nearly apologized, saying, "Well, I'm not trying to get your organization to pick a fight with Hillary Clinton, but I think it needs to be profoundly pointed out that if you're concerned about the environment, how can you be for Keystone?"
This is a lesson in inside-the-Beltway groups and what I call access advocacy—when access comes first and advocacy comes second. All Beltway groups do it: the Human Rights Campaign for LGBTs, the National Council of La Raza for immigration, LCV for the environment. All of them are prone to sacrificing advocacy in pursuit of access. Because having the president of the United States (or perhaps the next president) come speak at your fundraiser pays off big. Literally. It's great for an organization's bottom line. HRC, for instance, welcomed Obama to their annual gala in both 2009 and 2011. NCLR did the same in 2011. LCV did it earlier this year.
And so it starts all over again with Hillary. This is a real problem because it's not at all clear that Clinton will have formidable primary opponents to mitigate her centrist tendencies. So getting Clinton to make progressive policy pronouncements for which she could be held accountable if elected president will be up to the progressive groups. The DREAMers are currently doing this better than just about any other activists right now. They confronted Clinton on the 2014 campaign trail several times, pressuring her on her commitment to taking executive action on immigration. She never answered. But she's been put on notice and that is certainly generating conversation among her and her aides.
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/10/1350613/-League-of-Conservation-Voters-silent-on-Hillary-s-silence-on-Keystone-XL
League of Conservation Voters SILENT On HILLARY'S SILENCE On KEYSTONE XL
Here's a lesson in how to have zero impact as an advocate for the environment. When a journalist asks you why Hillary Clinton hasn't yet taken a stand on one of your top issues—the Keystone XL pipeline—don't answer with this:
"We were thrilled to have Sec. Clinton speak at our dinner in New York City on Monday night."
http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/clinton-gives-climate-policy-the-silent-treatment-367918147851
http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/clinton-gives-climate-policy-the-silent-treatment-367918147851
That's Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior VP of government affairs for the League of Conservation Voters, and those were truly the first words out of her mouth last week during an MSNBC interview with Ed Schultz. For a little background, Hillary Clinton has attracted some negative headlines of late for failing to take a position on the Keystone XL pipeline and whether it should be approved or scrapped. MSNBC's Schultz was giving LCV a chance to weigh in on that silence. In fact, Schultz asked Sittenfeld three different times why Hillary's been so dodgy on the topic. All three times, Sittenfeld failed to pressure Clinton. At one point, Schultz, sensing Tiernan's hesitation, nearly apologized, saying, "Well, I'm not trying to get your organization to pick a fight with Hillary Clinton, but I think it needs to be profoundly pointed out that if you're concerned about the environment, how can you be for Keystone?"
This is a lesson in inside-the-Beltway groups and what I call access advocacy—when access comes first and advocacy comes second. All Beltway groups do it: the Human Rights Campaign for LGBTs, the National Council of La Raza for immigration, LCV for the environment. All of them are prone to sacrificing advocacy in pursuit of access. Because having the president of the United States (or perhaps the next president) come speak at your fundraiser pays off big. Literally. It's great for an organization's bottom line. HRC, for instance, welcomed Obama to their annual gala in both 2009 and 2011. NCLR did the same in 2011. LCV did it earlier this year.
And so it starts all over again with Hillary. This is a real problem because it's not at all clear that Clinton will have formidable primary opponents to mitigate her centrist tendencies. So getting Clinton to make progressive policy pronouncements for which she could be held accountable if elected president will be up to the progressive groups. The DREAMers are currently doing this better than just about any other activists right now. They confronted Clinton on the 2014 campaign trail several times, pressuring her on her commitment to taking executive action on immigration. She never answered. But she's been put on notice and that is certainly generating conversation among her and her aides.
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/10/1350613/-League-of-Conservation-Voters-silent-on-Hillary-s-silence-on-Keystone-XL
December 11, 2014
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) added his name to the list of senators agreeing with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in opposition to Lazard banker Antonio Weiss for undersecretary of the Treasury for domestic policy. Manchin announced his opposition in a speech on Wednesday afternoon.
Manchin's announcement follows Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) earlier in the day also announcing her opposition to Weiss.
Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) also oppose Weiss.
Arguably, Warren has been the loudest opponent of Weiss, who was nominated by the Obama administration. Warren argues that Weiss's background at Lazard and his involvement in the corporate tax inversion merger between Tim Horton's and Burger King proves that he would just be the latest banker to benefit from the revolving door between Washington D.C. and Wall Street.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/joe-manchin-elizabeth-warren-oppose-antonio-weiss
NOT JUST Liberal Dems Back Warren: Sen. Manchin Opposes Treasury Nom
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) added his name to the list of senators agreeing with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in opposition to Lazard banker Antonio Weiss for undersecretary of the Treasury for domestic policy. Manchin announced his opposition in a speech on Wednesday afternoon.
"I rise today to explain why I must oppose the nomination of Wall Street investment banker, Antonio Weiss, for Under Secretary for Domestic Finance at the Department of Treasury," Manchin said. "I cannot and will not support his nomination because I do not believe he possesses the characteristics and the background we need in an Under Secretary to push for strong Wall Street oversight and to protect our small businesses and financial institutions on Main Streets across America."
Manchin's announcement follows Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) earlier in the day also announcing her opposition to Weiss.
"I’m troubled by Mr. Weiss’s work on corporate inversions that place a tax burden on small businesses and middle class families and his lack of domestic regulatory experience and, as a result, I’m not convinced that he is the right person for the job," Shaheen said in a statement.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeanne-shaheen-oppose-antonio-weiss-elizabeth-warren
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeanne-shaheen-oppose-antonio-weiss-elizabeth-warren
Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) also oppose Weiss.
Arguably, Warren has been the loudest opponent of Weiss, who was nominated by the Obama administration. Warren argues that Weiss's background at Lazard and his involvement in the corporate tax inversion merger between Tim Horton's and Burger King proves that he would just be the latest banker to benefit from the revolving door between Washington D.C. and Wall Street.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/joe-manchin-elizabeth-warren-oppose-antonio-weiss
December 10, 2014
Republicans planning another future looting................
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is not happy about the plan to weaken regulation of big banks that Republicans managed to insert in the spending bill. She's so not happy, in fact, that she's calling on Democrats to oppose the overall bill unless that provision is removed:
We've seen that one before, and it led to a giant economic crash. You might remember it. Shoot, you might still be unemployed after losing your job as a result of it. Congressional Democrats are right to want to pass a bill to keep the government open. But that doesn't mean Republicans should be able to get any old terrible thing they ask for and set our economy up for further domination by Wall Street.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/10/1350800/-Elizabeth-Warren-blasts-Wall-Street-sweetheart-deal-in-spending-bill
Elizabeth Warren BLASTS Wall Street SWEETHEART DEAL In Spending Bill
THIS IS A MUST WATCH!!
Republicans planning another future looting................
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is not happy about the plan to weaken regulation of big banks that Republicans managed to insert in the spending bill. She's so not happy, in fact, that she's calling on Democrats to oppose the overall bill unless that provision is removed:
“Who does Congress work for?” Warren said in a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon. “Does it work for the millionaires, the billionaires, the giant companies with their armies of lobbyists and lawyers, or does it work for all the people?” [...]
“Now, the House of Representatives is about to show us the worst of government for the rich and powerful,” she continued. “The House is about to vote on a budget deal, a deal negotiated behind closed doors that slips in a provision that would let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money and get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/elizabeth-warren-budget-bill-opposition-113470.html
“Now, the House of Representatives is about to show us the worst of government for the rich and powerful,” she continued. “The House is about to vote on a budget deal, a deal negotiated behind closed doors that slips in a provision that would let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money and get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/elizabeth-warren-budget-bill-opposition-113470.html
We've seen that one before, and it led to a giant economic crash. You might remember it. Shoot, you might still be unemployed after losing your job as a result of it. Congressional Democrats are right to want to pass a bill to keep the government open. But that doesn't mean Republicans should be able to get any old terrible thing they ask for and set our economy up for further domination by Wall Street.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/10/1350800/-Elizabeth-Warren-blasts-Wall-Street-sweetheart-deal-in-spending-bill
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
