Read the original here.
Fed Gave Banks Crisis Gains On $80 Billion Secretive Loans As Low As 0.01%
By Bob Ivry - May 26, 2011 12:01 AM ET
Credit Suisse Group AG (CS)[1], Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS)[2] and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc (RBS)[3] each borrowed at least $30 billion in 2008 from a Federal Reserve emergency lending program whose details weren’t revealed to shareholders, members of Congress or the public.
The $80 billion initiative, called single-tranche open- market operations, or ST OMO[4], made 28-day loans from March through December 2008, a period in which confidence in global credit markets collapsed after the Sept. 15 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Units of 20 banks were required to bid at auctions for the cash. They paid interest rates as low as 0.01 percent that December, when the Fed’s main lending facility charged 0.5 percent.
“This was a pure subsidy,” said Robert A. Eisenbeis, former head of research at theFederal Reserve[5] Bank of Atlanta and now chief monetary economist at Sarasota, Florida-based Cumberland Advisors Inc. “The Fed hasn’t been forthcoming with disclosures overall. Why should this be any different?”
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York[6], which oversaw ST OMO, posted aggregate data about the program on its website after each auction, said Jeffrey V. Smith, aNew York[7] Fed spokesman. By increasing the availability of short-term financing when private lenders were under pressure, “this program helped alleviate strains in financial markets and support the flow of credit to U.S. households and businesses,” he said.
Not in Dodd-Frank
Congress overlooked ST OMO when lawmakers required the central bank to publish its emergency lending data last year under the Dodd-Frank[8] law.
“I wasn’t aware of this program until now,” said U.S. Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chaired the House Financial Services Committee in 2008 and co- authored the legislation overhauling financial regulation. The law does require the Fed to release details of any open-market operations undertaken after July 2010, after a two-year lag.
Records of the 2008 lending, released in March under court orders, show how the central bank adapted[9] an existing tool for adjusting the U.S. money supply into an emergency source of cash. Zurich-based Credit Suisse borrowed as much as $45 billion, according to bar graphs that appear on 27 of 29,000 pages the central bank provided to media organizations that sued the Fed Board of Governors for public disclosure.
New York-based Goldman Sachs’s borrowing peaked at about $30 billion, the records show, as did the program’s loans to RBS, based in Edinburgh. Deutsche Bank AG (DBK)[10], Barclays Plc (BARC)[11] and UBS AG (UBSN)[12] each borrowed at least $15 billion, according to the graphs, which reflect deals made by 12 of the 20 eligible banks during the last four months of 2008.
No Exact Amounts
The records don’t provide exact loan amounts for each bank. Smith, the New York Fed spokesman, would not disclose those details. Amounts cited in this article are estimates based on the graphs.
One effect of the program was to spur trading in mortgage- backed securities, saidLou Crandall[13], chief U.S. economist at Jersey City, New Jersey-based Wrightson ICAP LLC, a research company specializing in Fed operations. The 20 banks -- previously designated as primary dealers to trade government securities directly with the New York Fed -- posted mortgage securities guaranteed by government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in exchange for the Fed’s cash.
ST OMO aimed to thaw a frozen short-term funding market and not necessarily to aid individual banks, Crandall said. Still, primary dealers earned spreads by using the program to help customers, such as hedge funds[14], finance their mortgage securities, he said.
‘Spreads Vary’
“Spreads vary from one transaction to another,” making any calculation of dealers’ profits on the Fed loans impossible, Crandall said.
The Fed opposed disclosing details of its open market operations because doing so would probably cause borrowers “substantial competitive harm,” according to a March 2009 declaration by Christopher R. Burke, vice president of the New York Fed’s markets group. The declaration is filed in federal court.
Revealing the borrowing “could lead market participants to inaccurately speculate that the primary dealer was having difficulty finding term funding against its collateral in the open market and that the dealer itself must therefore be in financial trouble,” Burke said in opposing a media request for records about the borrowing.
The New York Fed conducted 44 ST OMO auctions, from March through December 2008, according to its website. Banks bid the interest rate they were willing to pay for the loans, which had terms of 28 days. That was an expansion of longstanding open- market operations, which offered cash for up to two weeks.
Outstanding ST OMO loans from April 2008 to January 2009 stayed at $80 billion. The average loan amount during that time was $19.4 billion, more than three times the average for the 7 1/2 years prior, according to New York Fed data. By comparison, borrowing from the Fed’s discount window, its main lending program for banks since 1914, peaked at $113.7 billion in October 2008, Fed data show.
Goldman Sachs, led by Chief Executive Officer Lloyd C. Blankfein, tapped the program most in December 2008, when data on the New York Fed website show the loans were least expensive. The lowest winning bid at an ST OMO auction declined to 0.01 percent on Dec. 30, 2008, New York Fed data show. At the time, the rate charged at the discount window was 0.5 percent.
Stephen Cohen, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs, declined to comment.
December Peak
As its ST OMO loans peaked in December 2008, Goldman Sachs’s borrowing from other Fed facilities topped out at $43.5 billion, the 15th highest peak of all banks assisted by the Fed, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That month, the bank’s Fixed Income, Currencies and Commodities trading unit lost $320 million, according to a May 6, 2009, regulatory filing.
Under ST OMO, cash changed hands through repos, or repurchase agreements, which the central bank has used to move money in and out of the banking system for at least 60 years. In a repo, the dealer sells securities to the Fed and agrees to buy them back for a higher price after a set period of time.
Open-market operations traditionally use repos to influence the federal funds rate, which is banks’ cost of short-term borrowing, said Sherrill Shaffer, the officer in charge of the discount window at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia from 1994 to 1997. He’s now a banking professor at the University of Wyoming in Laramie.
When the central bank increases the money supply -- by paying cash for securities in repos -- interest rates tend to fall. When it drains cash from the system by selling securities in reverse repos, rates can climb.
Pedal to Metal
Using repos to provide emergency cash, a step the Fed announced on March 7, 2008, was a departure from that process, said John H. Cochrane, a finance professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
“The Fed was slamming the pedal to the metal in the lender-of-last-resort category,” Cochrane said. “What they did was so far from what we conventionally think of as monetary policy.”
Credit Suisse’s borrowing peaked at about $45 billion in September 2008, the Fed charts show. Steven Vames, a Credit Suisse spokesman in New York, declined to comment.
RBS’s use of ST OMO hit about $30 billion in October 2008. The U.K. government has had a stake in the bank since Oct. 13, 2008. “RBS no longer makes any use of these emergency Federal Reserve lending programs and all money borrowed from the Fed has been repaid in full with interest,” said Michael Geller[16], a spokesman for RBS Global Banking & Markets in Stamford, Connecticut[17].
Annual Report
Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank’s use peaked at about $20 billion in October 2008, its chart shows. The bank had 87 billion euros ($122 billion) in repurchase agreements with all central banks as of the end of 2008, according to its annual report. John Gallagher, a bank spokesman, declined to comment.
London-based Barclays’s peak reached about $20 billion in December 2008, the chart said. Mark Lane, a Barclays spokesman, declined to comment.
UBS, based in Zurich, borrowed as much as about $15 billion in late 2008, the chart shows.
“UBS’s usage of those facilities should be seen in the context of our overall desire to maintain flexibility and diversification in our funding sources, even during the crisis,” said Kelly Smith, a spokeswoman for UBS in New York. “Given UBS’s substantial presence and commitment to U.S. dollar-denominated markets, utilization of such facilities was relatively modest.”
Other Banks
Other banks listed in the Fed charts borrowed less than their peers. New York-basedMorgan Stanley (MS)[18] and Paris-based BNP Paribas (BNP)[19], France[20]’s biggest bank by assets, took no more than about $10 billion. Citigroup Inc. (C)[21], JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co., which is now part of Bank of America Corp. (BAC)[22], borrowed less than $5 billion each.
Mary Claire Delaney, a spokeswoman for Morgan Stanley, Jon Diat, a Citigroup spokesman in New York, Howard Opinsky, a spokesman for New York-based JPMorgan Chase, and Megan Stinson, a spokeswoman in New York for BNP Paribas, declined to comment on their banks’ borrowings.
“Look at it in hindsight and these programs did exactly what they were intended to do -- stabilize the financial system, provide liquidity and instill confidence,” said Jerry Dubrowski[23], a spokesman for Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America.
The bar charts were included in the Fed’s court-ordered March 31 disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The release was mandated after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an industry group’s attempt to block it. Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, and News Corp. (NWS)[24]’s Fox News Network LLC had sued the central bank after it refused to release lending records under the FOIA.
To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Ivry in New York atbivry@bloomberg.net[25].
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Gary Putka atgputka@bloomberg.net[26].
References
^ Get Quote (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Get Quote (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Get Quote (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Open Web Site (www.newyorkfed.org)
^ Federal Reserve (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Open Web Site (www.newyorkfed.org)
^ New York (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Open Web Site (frwebgate.access.gpo.gov)
^ Open Web Site (www.federalreserve.gov)
^ Get Quote (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Get Quote (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Get Quote (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Lou Crandall (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ hedge funds (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Interest Rates (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Michael Geller (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Connecticut (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Get Quote (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Get Quote (www.bloomberg.com)
^ France (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Get Quote (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Get Quote (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Jerry Dubrowski (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Get Quote (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Send E-mail (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Send E-mail (www.bloomberg.com)
Thursday, May 26, 2011
IMF might have another winner...oh wait, never mind.
Read the original here.
Christine Lagarde Tipped To Succeed Dominique Strauss-Kahn As Head Of IMF
By Peter Allen[1]
Last updated at 11:18 AM on 26th May 2011
The glamorous French minister hoping to succeed Dominique Strauss-Kahn as head of the International Monetary Fund was today facing prosecution for financial sleaze.
Christine Lagarde, a 55-year-old former lawyer and synchronised swimmer, is being investigated for abusing her position to help a controversial businessman.
She is said to have awarded some £270million to Bernard Tapie, a convicted football match fixer and tax dodger who supported her governing UMP party.
The allegation comes after Strauss-Kahn’s arrest for the attempted rape of a chambermaid and a range of other sex crimes in a New York hotel.
While former French presidential candidate Strauss-Kahn is on bail and facing up to 25 years in prison, Ms Lagarde has been campaigning to succeed him as IMF head.
But now it has emerged that Ms Lagarde could also be facing a trial of her own.
In a scandal which will pile further shame on France’s political class, Paris’s Court of Cassation started an enquiry into Ms Lagarde’s part in the Tapie case last month.
Tapie, former head of Adidas in France, claims he was cheated out of millions by Credit Lyonnais bank when the sports kit empire was sold in 1993.
In 2007, Ms Largarde ended the epic dispute by ordering a panel of judges to arbitrate and, in turn, they awarded Tapie the £270million in damages.
Opposition MPs were furious, with former presidential candidate Francois Bayrou accusing Ms Lagarde of ‘dipping into the the taxpayers’ pocket for a private beneficiary.’
Strauss-Kahn’s Socialist Party also accused Ms Lagarde of improper conduct, pointing to the fact that Tapie was a vocal supporter President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling UMP.
Judges will take a decision on whether to prosecute Ms Lagarde on June 10th – at a critical moment in her campaign to succeed Strauss-Kahn at the IMF.
Ms Lagarde's bid for the IMF's top job had been endorsed by the UK's coalition government, which indicated she was preferred to former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown.
The Washington DC-based IMF - which provides loans to countries suffering financial problems - has traditionally been run by a European, while the World Bank has been run by an American.
But shortly before Ms Lagarde indicated her candidacy, major developing nations on the IMF's board issued a joint statement urging an end to that practice.
In a letter to the Financial Times today, influential business academic, Jean-Pierre Lehmann, writes: ‘Christine Lagarde must be presumed innocent until proved otherwise.
'However, the risk that she might have to resign as head of the IMF, were she appointed, pending an official investigation seems an unnecessary one to take.
‘This would be another major blow not only to the IMF but to the whole edifice of global economic governance, which is already suffering from acute problems of legitimacy and credibility.’
Ms Lagarde, who will play a major role in the G8 summit which opens in the French seaside town of Deauville today, denies any wrong-doing.
Ms Lagarde said: ‘If it’s decided to continue with this enquiry it won’t be particularly surprising. Personally, it doesn’t worry me at all.’
She added: ‘I didn’t benefit personally’.
References
^ Peter Allen (www.dailymail.co.uk)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391073/Christine-Lagarde-tipped-succeed-Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-head-IMF.html#ixzz1NSqy1SZ4
Christine Lagarde Tipped To Succeed Dominique Strauss-Kahn As Head Of IMF
By Peter Allen[1]
Last updated at 11:18 AM on 26th May 2011
The glamorous French minister hoping to succeed Dominique Strauss-Kahn as head of the International Monetary Fund was today facing prosecution for financial sleaze.
Christine Lagarde, a 55-year-old former lawyer and synchronised swimmer, is being investigated for abusing her position to help a controversial businessman.
She is said to have awarded some £270million to Bernard Tapie, a convicted football match fixer and tax dodger who supported her governing UMP party.
The allegation comes after Strauss-Kahn’s arrest for the attempted rape of a chambermaid and a range of other sex crimes in a New York hotel.
While former French presidential candidate Strauss-Kahn is on bail and facing up to 25 years in prison, Ms Lagarde has been campaigning to succeed him as IMF head.
But now it has emerged that Ms Lagarde could also be facing a trial of her own.
In a scandal which will pile further shame on France’s political class, Paris’s Court of Cassation started an enquiry into Ms Lagarde’s part in the Tapie case last month.
Tapie, former head of Adidas in France, claims he was cheated out of millions by Credit Lyonnais bank when the sports kit empire was sold in 1993.
In 2007, Ms Largarde ended the epic dispute by ordering a panel of judges to arbitrate and, in turn, they awarded Tapie the £270million in damages.
Opposition MPs were furious, with former presidential candidate Francois Bayrou accusing Ms Lagarde of ‘dipping into the the taxpayers’ pocket for a private beneficiary.’
Strauss-Kahn’s Socialist Party also accused Ms Lagarde of improper conduct, pointing to the fact that Tapie was a vocal supporter President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling UMP.
Judges will take a decision on whether to prosecute Ms Lagarde on June 10th – at a critical moment in her campaign to succeed Strauss-Kahn at the IMF.
Ms Lagarde's bid for the IMF's top job had been endorsed by the UK's coalition government, which indicated she was preferred to former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown.
The Washington DC-based IMF - which provides loans to countries suffering financial problems - has traditionally been run by a European, while the World Bank has been run by an American.
But shortly before Ms Lagarde indicated her candidacy, major developing nations on the IMF's board issued a joint statement urging an end to that practice.
In a letter to the Financial Times today, influential business academic, Jean-Pierre Lehmann, writes: ‘Christine Lagarde must be presumed innocent until proved otherwise.
'However, the risk that she might have to resign as head of the IMF, were she appointed, pending an official investigation seems an unnecessary one to take.
‘This would be another major blow not only to the IMF but to the whole edifice of global economic governance, which is already suffering from acute problems of legitimacy and credibility.’
Ms Lagarde, who will play a major role in the G8 summit which opens in the French seaside town of Deauville today, denies any wrong-doing.
Ms Lagarde said: ‘If it’s decided to continue with this enquiry it won’t be particularly surprising. Personally, it doesn’t worry me at all.’
She added: ‘I didn’t benefit personally’.
References
^ Peter Allen (www.dailymail.co.uk)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391073/Christine-Lagarde-tipped-succeed-Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-head-IMF.html#ixzz1NSqy1SZ4
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Gun Control, the 'under the radar' issue
Read the original here.
We’re Working On Gun Control “Under The Radar” « Hot Air
I missed this last week, and so may many who didn’t notice Instapundit’s link [1]to theGreeley Gazette’s post[2] on the White House’s efforts to impose gun control through executive-branch regulatory adventurism. Jack Minor caught this anecdote buried below the jump on a Washington Post Lifestyle profile[3] of Steve Croley, first published six weeks ago. Described as “the White House’s point man on gun regulation policy,” the Post includes this rather telling quote from President Obama on the issue of gun control from March:
On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney[4]. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.
“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
Minor noted that this under-the-radar anecdote matches up with other reporting:
The statement reinforces an article in the Huffington Post[5] describing how the administration is exploring ways to bypass Congress and enact gun control through executive action.
The Department of Justice reportedly is holding meetings discussing the White House’s options for enacting regulations on its own or through adjoining agencies and departments. “Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. “
That also matches up with Obama’s approach on … nearly everything, it seems. Regulatory adventurism has been a hallmark of every other Obama priority, whether it be health care, financial-services reform, labor policy, and now on gun control. When his agenda is too radical for Congress, Obama simply plans to bypass Congress and rule by decree.
Glenn Reynolds headlined this under the banner “TRANSPARENCY.” That’s fitting, but “RADICAL” and “DISHONEST” work well, too. Here’s the problem for Democrats: Ever since the Clinton years, they have avoided gun control like the plague, and the courts have taken a libertarian view of the Second Amendment. How many of the incumbent Democrats in the Senate want to defend Obama on his power play to impose gun control by legislative fiat in the dark? How will that fly in places like Missouri, Nebraska, and West Virginia? How about in open seats like Virginia’s, which Democrats hope to hold?
References
^ Instapundit’s link (pajamasmedia.com)
^ Greeley Gazette’s post (www.greeleygazette.com)
^ Washington Post Lifestyle profile (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ Jay Carney (www.whorunsgov.com)
^ Huffington Post (www.huffingtonpost.com)
We’re Working On Gun Control “Under The Radar” « Hot Air
I missed this last week, and so may many who didn’t notice Instapundit’s link [1]to theGreeley Gazette’s post[2] on the White House’s efforts to impose gun control through executive-branch regulatory adventurism. Jack Minor caught this anecdote buried below the jump on a Washington Post Lifestyle profile[3] of Steve Croley, first published six weeks ago. Described as “the White House’s point man on gun regulation policy,” the Post includes this rather telling quote from President Obama on the issue of gun control from March:
On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney[4]. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.
“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
Minor noted that this under-the-radar anecdote matches up with other reporting:
The statement reinforces an article in the Huffington Post[5] describing how the administration is exploring ways to bypass Congress and enact gun control through executive action.
The Department of Justice reportedly is holding meetings discussing the White House’s options for enacting regulations on its own or through adjoining agencies and departments. “Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. “
That also matches up with Obama’s approach on … nearly everything, it seems. Regulatory adventurism has been a hallmark of every other Obama priority, whether it be health care, financial-services reform, labor policy, and now on gun control. When his agenda is too radical for Congress, Obama simply plans to bypass Congress and rule by decree.
Glenn Reynolds headlined this under the banner “TRANSPARENCY.” That’s fitting, but “RADICAL” and “DISHONEST” work well, too. Here’s the problem for Democrats: Ever since the Clinton years, they have avoided gun control like the plague, and the courts have taken a libertarian view of the Second Amendment. How many of the incumbent Democrats in the Senate want to defend Obama on his power play to impose gun control by legislative fiat in the dark? How will that fly in places like Missouri, Nebraska, and West Virginia? How about in open seats like Virginia’s, which Democrats hope to hold?
References
^ Instapundit’s link (pajamasmedia.com)
^ Greeley Gazette’s post (www.greeleygazette.com)
^ Washington Post Lifestyle profile (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ Jay Carney (www.whorunsgov.com)
^ Huffington Post (www.huffingtonpost.com)
When agency directors are too busy...
Read the original here.
Obama Adviser Tells Congress She Has More Important Things To Do « Hot Air
Remember when Democrats screeched about an “imperial presidency” when George W. Bush asked Congress for authorization for military action, and when he fired executive appointees in the Department of Justice? Good times, good times. In the past few weeks, we’ve been treated to a new war without the President bothering to check with Congress at all, and now one of his key appointees telling Congress thatshe has better things to do than answer their questions[1]:
White House adviser Elizabeth Warren, in a heated House hearing Tuesday, touted the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as a vital new financial-markets cop while Republican lawmakers slammed the agency as a powerful financial regulator with too few checks and balances.
The Harvard professor also rejected one House Republican’s accusation that she gave misleading testimony to Congress in March and was lying about her schedule.
Her schedule? Actually, it was Warren who accused the committee of reneging on an agreement that they would end the hearing in one hour. Warren claimed that they had agreed to work around her schedule, and that she had important meetings to attend:
Mr. McHenry and Ms. Warren also got into a spat over how long the hearing should run. Ms. Warren said the committee had agreed to end the 1:15 p.m. hearing at 2:15 p.m. so she could make it to a meeting.
The lawmaker accused her of making up the agreement.
“You might want to have a conversation with your staff,” Ms. Warren replied.
Really? What meeting might Warren have that would be more important than a Congressional hearing into the activities of her agency? Maybe she needed to take a call from her stockbroker.
I’m sorry Ms. Warren feels inconvenienced, but perhaps she might want to take a civics course to understand the separation of powers and checks and balances in the federal system. Congress gets to hold hearings on operations in the executive branch, and they’re not required to put a time limit on their inquiries, especially a one-hour limit that barely gets by the opening remarks in most committee hearings. If Warren doesn’t like being held accountable to the legislature and to the people, well … she’s in the right administration, apparently.
References
^ she has better things to do than answer their questions (online.wsj.com)
^ she has better things to do than answer their questions (online.wsj.com)
Obama Adviser Tells Congress She Has More Important Things To Do « Hot Air
Remember when Democrats screeched about an “imperial presidency” when George W. Bush asked Congress for authorization for military action, and when he fired executive appointees in the Department of Justice? Good times, good times. In the past few weeks, we’ve been treated to a new war without the President bothering to check with Congress at all, and now one of his key appointees telling Congress thatshe has better things to do than answer their questions[1]:
White House adviser Elizabeth Warren, in a heated House hearing Tuesday, touted the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as a vital new financial-markets cop while Republican lawmakers slammed the agency as a powerful financial regulator with too few checks and balances.
The Harvard professor also rejected one House Republican’s accusation that she gave misleading testimony to Congress in March and was lying about her schedule.
Her schedule? Actually, it was Warren who accused the committee of reneging on an agreement that they would end the hearing in one hour. Warren claimed that they had agreed to work around her schedule, and that she had important meetings to attend:
Mr. McHenry and Ms. Warren also got into a spat over how long the hearing should run. Ms. Warren said the committee had agreed to end the 1:15 p.m. hearing at 2:15 p.m. so she could make it to a meeting.
The lawmaker accused her of making up the agreement.
“You might want to have a conversation with your staff,” Ms. Warren replied.
Really? What meeting might Warren have that would be more important than a Congressional hearing into the activities of her agency? Maybe she needed to take a call from her stockbroker.
I’m sorry Ms. Warren feels inconvenienced, but perhaps she might want to take a civics course to understand the separation of powers and checks and balances in the federal system. Congress gets to hold hearings on operations in the executive branch, and they’re not required to put a time limit on their inquiries, especially a one-hour limit that barely gets by the opening remarks in most committee hearings. If Warren doesn’t like being held accountable to the legislature and to the people, well … she’s in the right administration, apparently.
References
^ she has better things to do than answer their questions (online.wsj.com)
^ she has better things to do than answer their questions (online.wsj.com)
House members side with Bibi
Read the original here.
House Members Side With Netanyahu
House lawmakers from both parties are siding with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over President Obama in their differing approaches to the Israel-Palestine border dispute.
Obama last week called for Israel's 1967 borders to mark the "foundation" for renewing stalled peace talks between the two sides – a concession to Palestine that Netanyahu has bluntly rejected, including in remarks to a joint meeting of Congress Tuesday.
"The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and greater Tel Aviv," Netanyahu told lawmakers in his 45-minute address. "And under any realistic peace agreement these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance, will be incorporated into the final borders of Israel."
Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) said Tuesday that Obama is "tilting toward Hamas" – a reference to the Palestinian group the United States and Israel consider a terrorist organization. He emphasized that Congress would never base its approach to Israeli aid on such a position.
"A majority of the Congress disagrees with him,” Andrews said of Obama.
Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.), for one, said the president "absolutely … made a mistake" with his 1967-borders proposal, and suggested it would harm — rather than bolster — the chances of renewed peace talks.
"With all of the political turmoil and unrest in the Middle East, I don’t understand why the president injected himself into that issue right now," he said.
Both Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), the House Democratic whip, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have also rejected Obama's proposal in recent days, telling the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that preconditions have no place in the negotiations.
"No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building or about anything else," Reid said Monday night to roaring applause.
Israel has expanded its borders considerably since 1967, most notably during that year's Six Day War, when Israel conquered parts of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Thousands of Israelis have settled in the border regions.
While it is not unlike other plans promoted by past administrations, Obama’s call has provoked an outcry from Israeli leaders, Republican presidential hopefuls and a slew of Capitol Hill lawmakers, including some Democrats.
Addressing AIPAC Sunday, Obama sought to temper those concerns. The president clarified that he's not calling for those boundaries to be the final lines and emphasized that "mutually agreed [land] swaps" would ensure that they wouldn't be.
"By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967," he said. "That is what mutually accepted swaps means."
After Netanyahu's speech Tuesday, Hoyer downplayed the division between Obama and Israel's allies in Congress, saying both sides have moved beyond the rift.
"I don’t think the president had any intention of changing policy," he said. "He said it was subject to swaps, in order words, adjustments. That’s essentially what President Bush said. I think we’re beyond that."
— Russell Berman contributed to this report.
House Members Side With Netanyahu
House lawmakers from both parties are siding with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over President Obama in their differing approaches to the Israel-Palestine border dispute.
Obama last week called for Israel's 1967 borders to mark the "foundation" for renewing stalled peace talks between the two sides – a concession to Palestine that Netanyahu has bluntly rejected, including in remarks to a joint meeting of Congress Tuesday.
"The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and greater Tel Aviv," Netanyahu told lawmakers in his 45-minute address. "And under any realistic peace agreement these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance, will be incorporated into the final borders of Israel."
Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) said Tuesday that Obama is "tilting toward Hamas" – a reference to the Palestinian group the United States and Israel consider a terrorist organization. He emphasized that Congress would never base its approach to Israeli aid on such a position.
"A majority of the Congress disagrees with him,” Andrews said of Obama.
Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.), for one, said the president "absolutely … made a mistake" with his 1967-borders proposal, and suggested it would harm — rather than bolster — the chances of renewed peace talks.
"With all of the political turmoil and unrest in the Middle East, I don’t understand why the president injected himself into that issue right now," he said.
Both Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), the House Democratic whip, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have also rejected Obama's proposal in recent days, telling the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that preconditions have no place in the negotiations.
"No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building or about anything else," Reid said Monday night to roaring applause.
Israel has expanded its borders considerably since 1967, most notably during that year's Six Day War, when Israel conquered parts of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Thousands of Israelis have settled in the border regions.
While it is not unlike other plans promoted by past administrations, Obama’s call has provoked an outcry from Israeli leaders, Republican presidential hopefuls and a slew of Capitol Hill lawmakers, including some Democrats.
Addressing AIPAC Sunday, Obama sought to temper those concerns. The president clarified that he's not calling for those boundaries to be the final lines and emphasized that "mutually agreed [land] swaps" would ensure that they wouldn't be.
"By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967," he said. "That is what mutually accepted swaps means."
After Netanyahu's speech Tuesday, Hoyer downplayed the division between Obama and Israel's allies in Congress, saying both sides have moved beyond the rift.
"I don’t think the president had any intention of changing policy," he said. "He said it was subject to swaps, in order words, adjustments. That’s essentially what President Bush said. I think we’re beyond that."
— Russell Berman contributed to this report.
How the President treats the law?
Read the original here.
Obama Skirts Rule Of Law To Reward Pals, Punish Foes | Michael Barone | Politics
Obama Skirts Rule Of Law To Reward Pals, Punish Foes | Michael Barone | Politics
Question: What do the following have in common? Eckert Cold Storage Co., Kerly Homes of Yuma, Classic Party Rentals, West Coast Turf Inc., Ellenbecker Investment Group Inc., Only in San Francisco, Hotel Nikko, International Pacific Halibut Commission, City of Puyallup, Local 485 Health and Welfare Fund, Chicago Plastering Institute Health & Welfare Fund, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, Teamsters Local 522 Fund Welfare Fund Roofers Division, StayWell Saipan Basic Plan, CIGNA, Caribbean Workers' Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Health and Welfare Plan.
Answer: They are all among the 1,372 businesses, state and local governments, labor unions and insurers, covering 3,095,593 individuals or families, that have been granted a waiver from Obamacare by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.
All of which raises another question: If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people want to get out from under it?
More specifically, why are more than half of those 3,095,593 in plans run by labor unions, which were among Obamacare's biggest political supporters? Union members are only 12 percent of all employees but have gotten 50.3 percent of Obamacare waivers.
Just in April, Sebelius granted 38 waivers to restaurants, nightclubs, spas and hotels in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco congressional district. Pelosi's office said she had nothing to do with it.
On its website HHS pledges that the waiver process will be transparent. But it doesn't list those whose requests for waivers have been denied.
It does say that requests are "reviewed on a case by case basis by Department officials who look at a series of factors including" -- and then lists two factors. And it refers you to another website that says that "several factors . . . may be considered" -- and then lists six factors.
What other factors may be considered? Political contributions or connections? (Unions contributed $400 million to Democrats in the 2008 campaign cycle.) The websites don't say.
In his new book "The Origins of Political Order," Francis Fukuyama identifies the chief building blocks of liberal democracy as a strong central state, a society strong enough to hold the state accountable and -- equally crucial -- the rule of law.
One basic principle of the rule of law is that laws apply to everybody. If the sign says "No Parking," you're not supposed to park there even if you're a pal of the alderman.
Another principle of the rule of law is that government can't make up new rules to help its cronies and hurt its adversaries except through due process, such as getting a legislature to pass a new law.
The Obamacare waiver process appears to violate that first rule. Two other recent Obama administration actions appear to violate the second.
One example is the National Labor Relations Board general counsel's action to prevent Boeing from building a $2 billion assembly plant for the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, which has a right-to-work law barring compulsory union membership. The NLRB says Boeing has to assemble the planes in non-right-to-work Washington state.
"I don't agree," says William Gould IV, NLRB chairman during the Clinton years. "The Boeing case is unprecedented."
The other example is the Internal Revenue Service's attempt to levy a gift tax on donors to certain 501(c)(4) organizations that just happen to have spent money to elect Republicans.
A gift tax is normally assessed on transfers to children and other heirs that are designed to avoid estate taxes. It has been applied to political donations "rarely, if ever," according to New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom.
"The timing of the agency's moves, as the 2012 election cycle gets under way," continues Strom, "is prompting some tax law and campaign finance experts to question whether the IRS could be sending a signal in an effort to curtail big donations."
In a Univision radio interview during the 2010 election cycle, Barack Obama urged Latinos not "to sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.' "
Punishing enemies and rewarding friends -- politics Chicago style -- seems to be the unifying principle that helps explain the Obamacare waivers, the NLRB action against Boeing and the IRS' gift-tax assault on 501(c)(4) donors.
They look like examples of crony capitalism, bailout favoritism and gangster government.
One thing they don't look like is the rule of law.
Michael Barone, The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com[1]. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.
References
^ mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com (washingtonexaminer.com)
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/05/obama-skirts-rule-law-reward-pals-punish-foes#ixzz1NN0XEHCQ
Answer: They are all among the 1,372 businesses, state and local governments, labor unions and insurers, covering 3,095,593 individuals or families, that have been granted a waiver from Obamacare by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.
All of which raises another question: If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people want to get out from under it?
More specifically, why are more than half of those 3,095,593 in plans run by labor unions, which were among Obamacare's biggest political supporters? Union members are only 12 percent of all employees but have gotten 50.3 percent of Obamacare waivers.
Just in April, Sebelius granted 38 waivers to restaurants, nightclubs, spas and hotels in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco congressional district. Pelosi's office said she had nothing to do with it.
On its website HHS pledges that the waiver process will be transparent. But it doesn't list those whose requests for waivers have been denied.
It does say that requests are "reviewed on a case by case basis by Department officials who look at a series of factors including" -- and then lists two factors. And it refers you to another website that says that "several factors . . . may be considered" -- and then lists six factors.
What other factors may be considered? Political contributions or connections? (Unions contributed $400 million to Democrats in the 2008 campaign cycle.) The websites don't say.
In his new book "The Origins of Political Order," Francis Fukuyama identifies the chief building blocks of liberal democracy as a strong central state, a society strong enough to hold the state accountable and -- equally crucial -- the rule of law.
One basic principle of the rule of law is that laws apply to everybody. If the sign says "No Parking," you're not supposed to park there even if you're a pal of the alderman.
Another principle of the rule of law is that government can't make up new rules to help its cronies and hurt its adversaries except through due process, such as getting a legislature to pass a new law.
The Obamacare waiver process appears to violate that first rule. Two other recent Obama administration actions appear to violate the second.
One example is the National Labor Relations Board general counsel's action to prevent Boeing from building a $2 billion assembly plant for the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, which has a right-to-work law barring compulsory union membership. The NLRB says Boeing has to assemble the planes in non-right-to-work Washington state.
"I don't agree," says William Gould IV, NLRB chairman during the Clinton years. "The Boeing case is unprecedented."
The other example is the Internal Revenue Service's attempt to levy a gift tax on donors to certain 501(c)(4) organizations that just happen to have spent money to elect Republicans.
A gift tax is normally assessed on transfers to children and other heirs that are designed to avoid estate taxes. It has been applied to political donations "rarely, if ever," according to New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom.
"The timing of the agency's moves, as the 2012 election cycle gets under way," continues Strom, "is prompting some tax law and campaign finance experts to question whether the IRS could be sending a signal in an effort to curtail big donations."
In a Univision radio interview during the 2010 election cycle, Barack Obama urged Latinos not "to sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.' "
Punishing enemies and rewarding friends -- politics Chicago style -- seems to be the unifying principle that helps explain the Obamacare waivers, the NLRB action against Boeing and the IRS' gift-tax assault on 501(c)(4) donors.
They look like examples of crony capitalism, bailout favoritism and gangster government.
One thing they don't look like is the rule of law.
Michael Barone, The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com[1]. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.
References
^ mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com (washingtonexaminer.com)
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/05/obama-skirts-rule-law-reward-pals-punish-foes#ixzz1NN0XEHCQ
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
White House wants to manage media
Read the original here.
White House Creates Liberal Damage Control Position
Any press is good press, right? The Obama administration apparently doesn't think so.
The White House[1] has created a new position dedicated to damage control in the media, but it appears the role will focus on spinning negative stories published on left-of-center websites -- or "progressive" blogs as the new job defines them -- not right-wing news outlets.
In an internal personnel memo first obtained by the Huffington Post, itself a liberal-slanted blog, White House[2] communications director Dan Pfeiffer writes that staffer Jesse Lee will head up the new initiative.
"This week, Jesse Lee will move from the new media department into a role in the communications department as Director of Progressive Media & Online Response," Pfeiffer writes.
"For the last two years, Jesse has often worn two hats working in new media and serving as the White House's liaison with the progressive media and online community. Starting this week, Jesse will take on the second role full time working on outreach, strategy and response."
The administration has had to walk a delicate line with its Democratic base since coming to power in 2009. President Obama has faced increasing criticism from the left over issues like its failure to close Guantanamo Bay, sluggish efforts to promote gay rights, and continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Then press secretary Robert Gibbs famously angered what he termed the "professional left," telling The Hill newspaper in August that the group goes too far in its criticism of the president.
"I hear these people saying he's like George Bush[3]. Those people ought to be drug tested ... I mean, it's crazy," Gibbs said.
With the new position, the White House will be directly reaching out to the media and pushing back on negative reports, a politicking role traditionally left to the Democratic National Committee[4]. Lee's background in new media will likely come to bear with quick responses to bad press and direct communication with the online liberal community.
References
^ White House (www.foxnews.com)
^ White House (www.foxnews.com)
^ George Bush (www.foxnews.com)
^ Democratic National Committee (www.foxnews.com)
Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/24/white-house-creates-liberal-damage-control-position#ixzz1NICLSPOv
White House Creates Liberal Damage Control Position
Any press is good press, right? The Obama administration apparently doesn't think so.
The White House[1] has created a new position dedicated to damage control in the media, but it appears the role will focus on spinning negative stories published on left-of-center websites -- or "progressive" blogs as the new job defines them -- not right-wing news outlets.
In an internal personnel memo first obtained by the Huffington Post, itself a liberal-slanted blog, White House[2] communications director Dan Pfeiffer writes that staffer Jesse Lee will head up the new initiative.
"This week, Jesse Lee will move from the new media department into a role in the communications department as Director of Progressive Media & Online Response," Pfeiffer writes.
"For the last two years, Jesse has often worn two hats working in new media and serving as the White House's liaison with the progressive media and online community. Starting this week, Jesse will take on the second role full time working on outreach, strategy and response."
The administration has had to walk a delicate line with its Democratic base since coming to power in 2009. President Obama has faced increasing criticism from the left over issues like its failure to close Guantanamo Bay, sluggish efforts to promote gay rights, and continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Then press secretary Robert Gibbs famously angered what he termed the "professional left," telling The Hill newspaper in August that the group goes too far in its criticism of the president.
"I hear these people saying he's like George Bush[3]. Those people ought to be drug tested ... I mean, it's crazy," Gibbs said.
With the new position, the White House will be directly reaching out to the media and pushing back on negative reports, a politicking role traditionally left to the Democratic National Committee[4]. Lee's background in new media will likely come to bear with quick responses to bad press and direct communication with the online liberal community.
References
^ White House (www.foxnews.com)
^ White House (www.foxnews.com)
^ George Bush (www.foxnews.com)
^ Democratic National Committee (www.foxnews.com)
Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/24/white-house-creates-liberal-damage-control-position#ixzz1NICLSPOv
Should he finish the tour or cut it short?
On the one hand, touring the devastated areas does not add any practical value, but as an emotional uplift, it could be priceless to the people trying to dig out. On the other hand, the tour of Europe could be diplomatically important, but it just seems a bit tacky to me that he's giving a speech in Ireland to a screaming crowd about drinking pints to be more Irish, as his actual countrymen are trying to dig out from the wreckage of some of the worst tornado damage in 50 years. What do you think? Should the President continue his tour of Europe, or come home and visit the disaster area sooner? Read the original here.
Obama To View Tornado Zone In Missouri On Sunday
JOPLIN, Mo (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he will visit a devastated section of Missouri where 116 people were killed by a monster tornado, as rescue efforts resumed in the small city of Joplin.
Obama, making a statement from the U.S. ambassador's residence in London as he begins a state visit to Britain, said his message to those affected by storms in the U.S. Midwest is that the federal government stands by them. He was to visit Joplin on Sunday.
"All we can do is let them know that all of America cares deeply about them and that we are going to do absolutely everything we can to make sure that they recover," he said.
Obama is on a weeklong, four-nation tour in Europe and is to return to Washington on Saturday.
"Like all Americans, we have been monitoring what's been taking place very closely and have been ... heartbroken by the images we've seen," Obama told reporters. The tornado that raked Joplin on Sunday was the deadliest single twister in the United States since 1953.
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon said on Tuesday the official death toll remained at 116, but he expected that to rise.
Violent storms that continued through Monday "dramatically hurt" efforts to find survivors, with rain hampering sniffer dogs. Two law enforcement officials were struck by lightning, one very seriously, Nixon told CBS News.
But conditions early on Tuesday had improved and if that held, he said, by afternoon "we'll have been through every foot of this town."
"Pretty much everybody in town knows somebody they've lost," Nixon told CBS. Authorities said there were also 400 people hurt, with many suffering severe internal injuries.
He said there were 17 rescues on Monday and authorities hoped there would be more as they searched apartment complexes housing many people.
Obama spoke to Nixon on Monday and again on Tuesday.
"We've offered him not only our condolences, but we've told him that we will give him every ounce of resources the federal government may have that we can bring to bear on this situation," Obama told reporters.
'ASSURANCE AND COMFORT'
Obama said he will talk to families affected by the storm when he visits the region and hopefully "pray with folks and give them whatever assurance and comfort I can that the entire country is going to be behind them."
He urged Americans in storm zones to heed warnings to seek safety during a deadly spring in which storms across Southern states last month killed more than 300 people and caused more than $2 billion in property damage.
Survivors in Joplin told harrowing stories of seeking shelter from winds of nearly 200 miles per hour in walk-in coolers in restaurants and convenience stores, hiding in bathtubs and closets, and of running for their lives as the tornado neared.
"We were getting hit by rocks, and I don't even know what hit me," said Leslie Swatosh, 22, who huddled on the floor of a liquor store with several others clutching one another as they prayed. When the tornado passed, the store was destroyed but those inside were all alive.
"Everyone in that store was blessed. There was nothing of that store left," she said.
More severe storms were predicted for the region, in a year that has brought tornadoes of record intensity across several states. Further complicating the rescue effort, power lines were downed, broken gas lines ignited fires, and cell phone communications were spotty due to 17 toppled phone towers.
A number of bodies were found along the city's "restaurant row," on the main commercial street, and a local nursing home took a direct hit, said Newton County Coroner Mark Bridges.
Roaring along a path nearly six miles long and about 1/2 mile to 3/4 mile wide, the tornado flattened whole neighborhoods, splintered trees and flipped over cars and trucks. Some 2,000 homes and many other businesses, schools and other buildings were destroyed.
At St. John's hospital 180 patients cowered as the fierce winds blew out windows and pulled off the roof. According to AccuWeather.com Senior Meteorologist Alan Reppert, X-ray films from the hospital were found 70 miles away.
Six of the confirmed fatalities occurred at the hospital said spokeswoman Joanne Cox. Five were intensive-care patients who were on ventilators that lost power when the tornado struck, Cox said. The sixth was a visitor, but the circumstances of that death were unclear.
The city's residents were given about 20 minutes' notice when 25 warning sirens sounded Sunday evening, said Jasper County Emergency Management Director Keith Stammers.
An estimated 20,000 homes and businesses were without power in Joplin.
The Joplin tornado was the latest in a string of powerful twisters that has wreaked death and devastation across numerous states, and it comes as much of the Mississippi River Valley is under water from massive flooding.
The death toll of at least 116 topped the 115 people who perished in a 1953 tornado in Flint, Michigan. A 1947 tornado in Woodland, Oklahoma, killed 181 people.
(Additional reporting by Jeff Mason, Steve Holland and Carey Gillam; Editing by Vicki Allen)
Obama To View Tornado Zone In Missouri On Sunday
JOPLIN, Mo (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he will visit a devastated section of Missouri where 116 people were killed by a monster tornado, as rescue efforts resumed in the small city of Joplin.
Obama, making a statement from the U.S. ambassador's residence in London as he begins a state visit to Britain, said his message to those affected by storms in the U.S. Midwest is that the federal government stands by them. He was to visit Joplin on Sunday.
"All we can do is let them know that all of America cares deeply about them and that we are going to do absolutely everything we can to make sure that they recover," he said.
Obama is on a weeklong, four-nation tour in Europe and is to return to Washington on Saturday.
"Like all Americans, we have been monitoring what's been taking place very closely and have been ... heartbroken by the images we've seen," Obama told reporters. The tornado that raked Joplin on Sunday was the deadliest single twister in the United States since 1953.
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon said on Tuesday the official death toll remained at 116, but he expected that to rise.
Violent storms that continued through Monday "dramatically hurt" efforts to find survivors, with rain hampering sniffer dogs. Two law enforcement officials were struck by lightning, one very seriously, Nixon told CBS News.
But conditions early on Tuesday had improved and if that held, he said, by afternoon "we'll have been through every foot of this town."
"Pretty much everybody in town knows somebody they've lost," Nixon told CBS. Authorities said there were also 400 people hurt, with many suffering severe internal injuries.
He said there were 17 rescues on Monday and authorities hoped there would be more as they searched apartment complexes housing many people.
Obama spoke to Nixon on Monday and again on Tuesday.
"We've offered him not only our condolences, but we've told him that we will give him every ounce of resources the federal government may have that we can bring to bear on this situation," Obama told reporters.
'ASSURANCE AND COMFORT'
Obama said he will talk to families affected by the storm when he visits the region and hopefully "pray with folks and give them whatever assurance and comfort I can that the entire country is going to be behind them."
He urged Americans in storm zones to heed warnings to seek safety during a deadly spring in which storms across Southern states last month killed more than 300 people and caused more than $2 billion in property damage.
Survivors in Joplin told harrowing stories of seeking shelter from winds of nearly 200 miles per hour in walk-in coolers in restaurants and convenience stores, hiding in bathtubs and closets, and of running for their lives as the tornado neared.
"We were getting hit by rocks, and I don't even know what hit me," said Leslie Swatosh, 22, who huddled on the floor of a liquor store with several others clutching one another as they prayed. When the tornado passed, the store was destroyed but those inside were all alive.
"Everyone in that store was blessed. There was nothing of that store left," she said.
More severe storms were predicted for the region, in a year that has brought tornadoes of record intensity across several states. Further complicating the rescue effort, power lines were downed, broken gas lines ignited fires, and cell phone communications were spotty due to 17 toppled phone towers.
A number of bodies were found along the city's "restaurant row," on the main commercial street, and a local nursing home took a direct hit, said Newton County Coroner Mark Bridges.
Roaring along a path nearly six miles long and about 1/2 mile to 3/4 mile wide, the tornado flattened whole neighborhoods, splintered trees and flipped over cars and trucks. Some 2,000 homes and many other businesses, schools and other buildings were destroyed.
At St. John's hospital 180 patients cowered as the fierce winds blew out windows and pulled off the roof. According to AccuWeather.com Senior Meteorologist Alan Reppert, X-ray films from the hospital were found 70 miles away.
Six of the confirmed fatalities occurred at the hospital said spokeswoman Joanne Cox. Five were intensive-care patients who were on ventilators that lost power when the tornado struck, Cox said. The sixth was a visitor, but the circumstances of that death were unclear.
The city's residents were given about 20 minutes' notice when 25 warning sirens sounded Sunday evening, said Jasper County Emergency Management Director Keith Stammers.
An estimated 20,000 homes and businesses were without power in Joplin.
The Joplin tornado was the latest in a string of powerful twisters that has wreaked death and devastation across numerous states, and it comes as much of the Mississippi River Valley is under water from massive flooding.
The death toll of at least 116 topped the 115 people who perished in a 1953 tornado in Flint, Michigan. A 1947 tornado in Woodland, Oklahoma, killed 181 people.
(Additional reporting by Jeff Mason, Steve Holland and Carey Gillam; Editing by Vicki Allen)
Monday, May 23, 2011
I have no words....
Read the original here....because I can't make this up.
Parents Keep Child's Gender Secret
JAYME POISSON/TORONTO STAR
STAFF REPORTER
“So it’s a boy, right?” a neighbour calls out as Kathy Witterick walks by, her four month old baby, Storm, strapped to her chest in a carrier.
See more family photos. [2]
Each week the woman asks the same question about the baby with the squishy cheeks and feathery blond hair.
Witterick smiles, opens her arms wide, comments on the sunny spring day, and keeps walking.
She’s used to it. The neighbours know Witterick and her husband, David Stocker, are raising a genderless baby. But they don’t pretend to understand it.
While there’s nothing ambiguous about Storm’s genitalia, they aren’t telling anyone whether their third child is a boy or a girl.
The only people who know are Storm’s brothers, Jazz, 5, and Kio, 2, a close family friend and the two midwives who helped deliver the baby in a birthing pool at their Toronto home on New Year’s Day.
“When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” says Witterick, bouncing Storm, dressed in a red-fleece jumper, on her lap at the kitchen table.
“If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs,” says Stocker.
When Storm was born, the couple sent an email to friends and family: “We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...).”
Their announcement was met with stony silence. Then the deluge of criticisms began. Not just about Storm, but about how they were parenting their other two children.
The grandparents were supportive, but resented explaining the gender-free baby to friends and co-workers. They worried the children would be ridiculed. Friends said they were imposing their political and ideological values on a newborn. Most of all, people said they were setting their kids up for a life of bullying in a world that can be cruel to outsiders.
Witterick and Stocker believe they are giving their children the freedom to choose who they want to be, unconstrained by social norms about males and females. Some say their choice is alienating.
In an age where helicopter parents hover nervously over their kids micromanaging their lives, and tiger moms ferociously push their progeny to get into Harvard, Stocker, 39, and Witterick, 38, believe kids can make meaningful decisions for themselves from a very early age.
“What we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children. It’s obnoxious,” says Stocker.
Jazz and Kio have picked out their own clothes in the boys and girls sections of stores since they were 18 months old. Just this week, Jazz unearthed a pink dress at Value Village, which he loves because it “really poofs out at the bottom. It feels so nice.” The boys decide whether to cut their hair or let it grow.
Like all mothers and fathers, Witterick and Stocker struggle with parenting decisions. The boys are encouraged to challenge how they’re expected to look and act based on their sex.
“We thought that if we delayed sharing that information, in this case hopefully, we might knock off a couple million of those messages by the time that Storm decides Storm would like to share,” says Witterick.
They don’t want to isolate their kids from the world, but, when it’s meaningful, talk about gender.
This past winter, the family took a vacation to Cuba with Witterick’s parents. Since they weren’t fluent in Spanish, they flipped a coin at the airport to decide what to tell people. It landed on heads, so for the next week, everyone who asked was told Storm was a boy. The language changed immediately. “What a big, strong boy,” people said.
The moment a child’s sex is announced, so begins the parade of pink and barrage of blue. Tutus and toy trucks aren’t far behind. The couple says it only intensifies with age.
“In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, ‘Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what s (he) wants to be?!.” Witterick writes in an email.
Stocker teaches at City View Alternative, a tiny school west of Dufferin Grove Park, with four teachers and about 60 Grade 7 and 8 students whose lessons are framed by social-justice issues around class, race and gender.
When Kio was a baby, the family travelled through the mountains of Mexico, speaking with the Zapatistas, a revolutionary group who shun mainstream politics as corrupt and demand greater indigenous rights. In 1994, about 150 people died in violent clashes with the Mexican military, but the leftist movement has been largely peaceful since.
Last year, they spent two weeks in Cuba, living with local families and learning about the revolution. Witterick has worked in violence prevention, giving workshops to teachers. These days, she volunteers, offering breastfeeding support. At the moment, she is a full-time mom.
Both come from liberal families. Stocker grew up listening to Free to Be ... You and Me, a 1972 record with a central message of gender neutrality. Witterick remembers her brother mucking around with gender as a teen in the ’80s, wearing lipstick and carrying handbags like David Bowie and Mick Jagger.
The family lives in a cream-coloured two-storey brick home in the city’s Junction Triangle neighbourhood. Their front porch is crammed with bicycles, including Kio’s pink and purple tricycle. Inside, it’s organized clutter. The children's arts and crafts projects are stacked in the bookcases, maps hang on the walls and furniture is well-used and of a certain vintage.
Upstairs they co-sleep curled up on two mattresses pushed together on the floor of the master bedroom, under a heap of mismatched pillows and blankets. During the day, the kids build forts with the pillows and pretend to walk a tightrope between the mattresses.
On a recent Tuesday, the boys finish making paper animal puppets and a handmade sign to celebrate their dad’s birthday. “I love to do laundry with dad,” reads one message. They nuzzle Storm, splayed out on the floor. The baby squeals with delight.
Witterick practices unschooling, an offshoot of home-schooling centred on the belief that learning should be driven by a child’s curiosity. There are no report cards, no textbooks and no tests. For unschoolers, learning is about exploring and asking questions, “not something that happens by rote from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. weekdays in a building with a group of same-age people, planned, implemented and assessed by someone else,” says Witterick. The fringe movement is growing. An unschooling conference in Toronto drew dozens of families last fall.
The kids have a lot of say in how their day unfolds. They decide if they want to squish through the mud, chase garter snakes in the park or bake cupcakes.
Jazz — soft-spoken, with a slight frame and curious brown eyes — keeps his hair long, preferring to wear it in three braids, two in the front and one in the back, even though both his parents have close-cropped hair. His favourite colour is pink, although his parents don’t own a piece of pink clothing between them. He loves to paint his fingernails and wears a sparkly pink stud in one ear, despite the fact his parents wear no nail polish or jewelry.
Kio keeps his curly blond hair just below his chin. The 2-year-old loves purple, although he’s happiest in any kind of pyjama pants.
“As a result, Jazz and now Kio are almost exclusively assumed to be girls,” says Stocker, adding he and Witterick don’t out them. It’s the boys’ choice whether they want to offer a correction.
On a recent trip to High Park, Jazz, wearing pink shorts, patterned pink socks and brightly coloured elastics on his braids, runs and skips across the street.
“That’s a princess!” says a smiling crossing guard, ushering the little boy along. “And that’s a princess, too,” she says again, pointing at Kio with her big red sign.
Jazz doesn’t mind. One of his favourite books is 10,000 Dresses, the story of a boy who loves to dress up. But he doesn’t like being called a girl. Recently, he asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he’s a boy.
Jazz was old enough for school last September, but chose to stay home. “When we would go and visit programs, people — children and adults — would immediately react with Jazz over his gender,” says Witterick, adding the conversation would gravitate to his choice of pink or his hairstyle.
That’s mostly why he doesn’t want to go to school. When asked if it upsets him, he nods, but doesn’t say more.
Instead he grabs a handmade portfolio filled with his drawings and poems. In its pages is a booklet written under his pseudonym, the “Gender Explorer.” In purple and pink lettering, adorned with butterflies, it reads: “Help girls do boy things. Help boys do girl things. Let your kid be whoever they are!”
Storm was named after whipped winds and dark rain clouds, because they are beautiful and transformative.
“When I was pregnant, it was really this intense time around Jazz having experiences with gender and I was feeling like I needed some good parenting skills to support him through that,” says Witterick.
It began as a offhand remark. “Hey, what if we just didn’t tell?” And then Stocker found a book in his school library called X: A Fabulous Child’s Story by Lois Gould. The book, published in 1978, is about raising not a boy or a girl, but X. There’s a happy ending here. Little X — who loved to play football and weave baskets — faces the taunting head on, proving that X is the most well-adjusted child ever examined by “an impartial team of Xperts.”
“It became so compelling it was almost like, How could we not?” says Witterick.
There are days when their decisions are tiring, shackling even. “We spend more time than we should providing explanations for why we do things this way,” says Witterick. “I regret that (Jazz) has to discuss his gender before people ask him meaningful questions about what he does and sees in this world, but I don't think I am responsible for that — the culture that narrowly defines what he should do, wear and look like is.”
Longtime friend Ayal Dinner, 35, a father two young boys, was surprised to hear the couple’s announcement when Storm was born, but is supportive.
“I think it’s amazing that they’re willing to take on challenging people in this way,” says Dinner. “While they are political and ideological about these things, they’re also really thinking about what it means and struggling with it as they go along.”
Dinner understands why people may find it extreme. “Although I can see the criticism of ‘This is going to be hard on my kid,’ it’s great to say, ‘I love my kid for whoever they are.’”
On a recent trip to Hamilton, Jazz was out of earshot when family friend Denise Hansen overheard two little girls at the park say they didn’t want to play with a “girl-boy.” Then, there was the time a saleswoman at a second-hand shop refused to sell him a pink feather boa. “Surely you won't buy it for him — he's a boy!” said the woman. Shocked, and not wanting to upset Jazz, Witterick left the store.
Parents talk about the moment they realize they would throw themselves in front of a speeding truck to save their child from harm, yet battle the instinct to overprotect. They want to encourage independence. They hope people won’t be mean. They pray they aren’t bullied. No parent would ever wish that for their child.
On a night after she watched her husband of 11 years and the boys play with sparklers after dark, Witterick, in a reflective mood, writes to say we are all mocked at some point for the way we look, the way we dress and the way we think.
“When faced with inevitable judgment by others, which child stands tall (and sticks up for others) — the one facing teasing despite desperately trying to fit in, or the one with a strong sense of self and at least two 'go-to' adults who love them unconditionally? Well, I guess you know which one we choose.”
Diane Ehrensaft is a California-based psychologist and mother of Jesse, a “girlyboy” who turned his trucks into cradles and preferred porcelain dolls over soldiers when he was a child. Her newly published book, Gender Born, Gender Made, is a guide for parents of nonconforming kids.
She believes parents should support gender-creative children, which includes the transgendered, who feel born in the wrong bodies, and gender hybrids, who feel they are part girl and part boy. Then there are gender “smoothies,” who have a blended sense of gender that is purely “them.”
Ehrensaft believes there is something innate about gender, and points to the ’70s, when parents experimented by giving dolls to boys and trucks to girls.
“It only worked up to a certain extent. Some girls never played with the trucks, some boys weren’t interested in ballet ... It was a humbling experiment for us because we learned we don’t have the control that we thought we did.”
But she worries by not divulging Storm’s sex, the parents are denying the child a way to position himself or herself in a world where you are either male, female or in between. In effect they have created another category: Other than other. And that could marginalize the child.
“I believe that it puts restrictions on this particular baby so that in this culture this baby will be a singular person who is not being given an opportunity to find their true gender self, based on also what’s inside them.”
Ehrensaft gets the “What the heck?!” reaction people may have when they hear about Storm. “I think it probably makes people feel played with to have that information withheld from them.”
While she accepts and supports Jazz’s freedom “to be who he is,” she’s concerned about asking two small boys to keep a secret about the baby of the family. “For very young children, just in their brains, they’re not ready to do the kind of sophisticated discernment we do about when a secret is necessary.”
Jazz says it’s not difficult. He usually just calls the baby Storm.
Dr. Ken Zucker, considered a world expert on gender identity and head of the gender identity service for children at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, calls this a “social experiment of nurture.” The broader question, he says, is how much influence parents have on their kids. If Ehrensaft leans toward nature, Zucker puts more emphasis on nurture. Even when parents don’t make a choice, that’s still a choice, and one that can impact the children.
When asked what psychological harm, if any, could come from keeping the sex of a child secret, Zucker said: “One will find out.”
The couple plan to keep Storm’s sex a secret as long as Storm, Kio and Jazz are comfortable with it. In the meantime, philosophy and reality continue to collide.
Out with the kids all day, Witterick doesn’t have the time or the will to hide in a closet every time she changes Storm’s diaper. “If (people) want to peek, that’s their journey,” she says.
There are questions about which bathroom Storm will use, but that is a couple of years off. Then there is the “tyranny of pronouns,” as they call it. They considered referring to Storm as “Z”. Witterick now calls the baby she, imagining the “s” in brackets.
For the moment, it feels right.
“Everyone keeps asking us, ‘When will this end?’” says Witterick. “And we always turn the question back. Yeah, when will this end? When will we live in a world where people can make choices to be whoever they are?”
jpoisson@thestar.ca[3]
References
^ Comments on this story (www.parentcentral.ca)
^ See more family photos. (photogallery.thestar.com)
^ jpoisson@thestar.ca (www.parentcentral.ca)
Parents Keep Child's Gender Secret
JAYME POISSON/TORONTO STAR
STAFF REPORTER
“So it’s a boy, right?” a neighbour calls out as Kathy Witterick walks by, her four month old baby, Storm, strapped to her chest in a carrier.
See more family photos. [2]
Each week the woman asks the same question about the baby with the squishy cheeks and feathery blond hair.
Witterick smiles, opens her arms wide, comments on the sunny spring day, and keeps walking.
She’s used to it. The neighbours know Witterick and her husband, David Stocker, are raising a genderless baby. But they don’t pretend to understand it.
While there’s nothing ambiguous about Storm’s genitalia, they aren’t telling anyone whether their third child is a boy or a girl.
The only people who know are Storm’s brothers, Jazz, 5, and Kio, 2, a close family friend and the two midwives who helped deliver the baby in a birthing pool at their Toronto home on New Year’s Day.
“When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” says Witterick, bouncing Storm, dressed in a red-fleece jumper, on her lap at the kitchen table.
“If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs,” says Stocker.
When Storm was born, the couple sent an email to friends and family: “We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...).”
Their announcement was met with stony silence. Then the deluge of criticisms began. Not just about Storm, but about how they were parenting their other two children.
The grandparents were supportive, but resented explaining the gender-free baby to friends and co-workers. They worried the children would be ridiculed. Friends said they were imposing their political and ideological values on a newborn. Most of all, people said they were setting their kids up for a life of bullying in a world that can be cruel to outsiders.
Witterick and Stocker believe they are giving their children the freedom to choose who they want to be, unconstrained by social norms about males and females. Some say their choice is alienating.
In an age where helicopter parents hover nervously over their kids micromanaging their lives, and tiger moms ferociously push their progeny to get into Harvard, Stocker, 39, and Witterick, 38, believe kids can make meaningful decisions for themselves from a very early age.
“What we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children. It’s obnoxious,” says Stocker.
Jazz and Kio have picked out their own clothes in the boys and girls sections of stores since they were 18 months old. Just this week, Jazz unearthed a pink dress at Value Village, which he loves because it “really poofs out at the bottom. It feels so nice.” The boys decide whether to cut their hair or let it grow.
Like all mothers and fathers, Witterick and Stocker struggle with parenting decisions. The boys are encouraged to challenge how they’re expected to look and act based on their sex.
“We thought that if we delayed sharing that information, in this case hopefully, we might knock off a couple million of those messages by the time that Storm decides Storm would like to share,” says Witterick.
They don’t want to isolate their kids from the world, but, when it’s meaningful, talk about gender.
This past winter, the family took a vacation to Cuba with Witterick’s parents. Since they weren’t fluent in Spanish, they flipped a coin at the airport to decide what to tell people. It landed on heads, so for the next week, everyone who asked was told Storm was a boy. The language changed immediately. “What a big, strong boy,” people said.
The moment a child’s sex is announced, so begins the parade of pink and barrage of blue. Tutus and toy trucks aren’t far behind. The couple says it only intensifies with age.
“In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, ‘Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what s (he) wants to be?!.” Witterick writes in an email.
Stocker teaches at City View Alternative, a tiny school west of Dufferin Grove Park, with four teachers and about 60 Grade 7 and 8 students whose lessons are framed by social-justice issues around class, race and gender.
When Kio was a baby, the family travelled through the mountains of Mexico, speaking with the Zapatistas, a revolutionary group who shun mainstream politics as corrupt and demand greater indigenous rights. In 1994, about 150 people died in violent clashes with the Mexican military, but the leftist movement has been largely peaceful since.
Last year, they spent two weeks in Cuba, living with local families and learning about the revolution. Witterick has worked in violence prevention, giving workshops to teachers. These days, she volunteers, offering breastfeeding support. At the moment, she is a full-time mom.
Both come from liberal families. Stocker grew up listening to Free to Be ... You and Me, a 1972 record with a central message of gender neutrality. Witterick remembers her brother mucking around with gender as a teen in the ’80s, wearing lipstick and carrying handbags like David Bowie and Mick Jagger.
The family lives in a cream-coloured two-storey brick home in the city’s Junction Triangle neighbourhood. Their front porch is crammed with bicycles, including Kio’s pink and purple tricycle. Inside, it’s organized clutter. The children's arts and crafts projects are stacked in the bookcases, maps hang on the walls and furniture is well-used and of a certain vintage.
Upstairs they co-sleep curled up on two mattresses pushed together on the floor of the master bedroom, under a heap of mismatched pillows and blankets. During the day, the kids build forts with the pillows and pretend to walk a tightrope between the mattresses.
On a recent Tuesday, the boys finish making paper animal puppets and a handmade sign to celebrate their dad’s birthday. “I love to do laundry with dad,” reads one message. They nuzzle Storm, splayed out on the floor. The baby squeals with delight.
Witterick practices unschooling, an offshoot of home-schooling centred on the belief that learning should be driven by a child’s curiosity. There are no report cards, no textbooks and no tests. For unschoolers, learning is about exploring and asking questions, “not something that happens by rote from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. weekdays in a building with a group of same-age people, planned, implemented and assessed by someone else,” says Witterick. The fringe movement is growing. An unschooling conference in Toronto drew dozens of families last fall.
The kids have a lot of say in how their day unfolds. They decide if they want to squish through the mud, chase garter snakes in the park or bake cupcakes.
Jazz — soft-spoken, with a slight frame and curious brown eyes — keeps his hair long, preferring to wear it in three braids, two in the front and one in the back, even though both his parents have close-cropped hair. His favourite colour is pink, although his parents don’t own a piece of pink clothing between them. He loves to paint his fingernails and wears a sparkly pink stud in one ear, despite the fact his parents wear no nail polish or jewelry.
Kio keeps his curly blond hair just below his chin. The 2-year-old loves purple, although he’s happiest in any kind of pyjama pants.
“As a result, Jazz and now Kio are almost exclusively assumed to be girls,” says Stocker, adding he and Witterick don’t out them. It’s the boys’ choice whether they want to offer a correction.
On a recent trip to High Park, Jazz, wearing pink shorts, patterned pink socks and brightly coloured elastics on his braids, runs and skips across the street.
“That’s a princess!” says a smiling crossing guard, ushering the little boy along. “And that’s a princess, too,” she says again, pointing at Kio with her big red sign.
Jazz doesn’t mind. One of his favourite books is 10,000 Dresses, the story of a boy who loves to dress up. But he doesn’t like being called a girl. Recently, he asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he’s a boy.
Jazz was old enough for school last September, but chose to stay home. “When we would go and visit programs, people — children and adults — would immediately react with Jazz over his gender,” says Witterick, adding the conversation would gravitate to his choice of pink or his hairstyle.
That’s mostly why he doesn’t want to go to school. When asked if it upsets him, he nods, but doesn’t say more.
Instead he grabs a handmade portfolio filled with his drawings and poems. In its pages is a booklet written under his pseudonym, the “Gender Explorer.” In purple and pink lettering, adorned with butterflies, it reads: “Help girls do boy things. Help boys do girl things. Let your kid be whoever they are!”
Storm was named after whipped winds and dark rain clouds, because they are beautiful and transformative.
“When I was pregnant, it was really this intense time around Jazz having experiences with gender and I was feeling like I needed some good parenting skills to support him through that,” says Witterick.
It began as a offhand remark. “Hey, what if we just didn’t tell?” And then Stocker found a book in his school library called X: A Fabulous Child’s Story by Lois Gould. The book, published in 1978, is about raising not a boy or a girl, but X. There’s a happy ending here. Little X — who loved to play football and weave baskets — faces the taunting head on, proving that X is the most well-adjusted child ever examined by “an impartial team of Xperts.”
“It became so compelling it was almost like, How could we not?” says Witterick.
There are days when their decisions are tiring, shackling even. “We spend more time than we should providing explanations for why we do things this way,” says Witterick. “I regret that (Jazz) has to discuss his gender before people ask him meaningful questions about what he does and sees in this world, but I don't think I am responsible for that — the culture that narrowly defines what he should do, wear and look like is.”
Longtime friend Ayal Dinner, 35, a father two young boys, was surprised to hear the couple’s announcement when Storm was born, but is supportive.
“I think it’s amazing that they’re willing to take on challenging people in this way,” says Dinner. “While they are political and ideological about these things, they’re also really thinking about what it means and struggling with it as they go along.”
Dinner understands why people may find it extreme. “Although I can see the criticism of ‘This is going to be hard on my kid,’ it’s great to say, ‘I love my kid for whoever they are.’”
On a recent trip to Hamilton, Jazz was out of earshot when family friend Denise Hansen overheard two little girls at the park say they didn’t want to play with a “girl-boy.” Then, there was the time a saleswoman at a second-hand shop refused to sell him a pink feather boa. “Surely you won't buy it for him — he's a boy!” said the woman. Shocked, and not wanting to upset Jazz, Witterick left the store.
Parents talk about the moment they realize they would throw themselves in front of a speeding truck to save their child from harm, yet battle the instinct to overprotect. They want to encourage independence. They hope people won’t be mean. They pray they aren’t bullied. No parent would ever wish that for their child.
On a night after she watched her husband of 11 years and the boys play with sparklers after dark, Witterick, in a reflective mood, writes to say we are all mocked at some point for the way we look, the way we dress and the way we think.
“When faced with inevitable judgment by others, which child stands tall (and sticks up for others) — the one facing teasing despite desperately trying to fit in, or the one with a strong sense of self and at least two 'go-to' adults who love them unconditionally? Well, I guess you know which one we choose.”
Diane Ehrensaft is a California-based psychologist and mother of Jesse, a “girlyboy” who turned his trucks into cradles and preferred porcelain dolls over soldiers when he was a child. Her newly published book, Gender Born, Gender Made, is a guide for parents of nonconforming kids.
She believes parents should support gender-creative children, which includes the transgendered, who feel born in the wrong bodies, and gender hybrids, who feel they are part girl and part boy. Then there are gender “smoothies,” who have a blended sense of gender that is purely “them.”
Ehrensaft believes there is something innate about gender, and points to the ’70s, when parents experimented by giving dolls to boys and trucks to girls.
“It only worked up to a certain extent. Some girls never played with the trucks, some boys weren’t interested in ballet ... It was a humbling experiment for us because we learned we don’t have the control that we thought we did.”
But she worries by not divulging Storm’s sex, the parents are denying the child a way to position himself or herself in a world where you are either male, female or in between. In effect they have created another category: Other than other. And that could marginalize the child.
“I believe that it puts restrictions on this particular baby so that in this culture this baby will be a singular person who is not being given an opportunity to find their true gender self, based on also what’s inside them.”
Ehrensaft gets the “What the heck?!” reaction people may have when they hear about Storm. “I think it probably makes people feel played with to have that information withheld from them.”
While she accepts and supports Jazz’s freedom “to be who he is,” she’s concerned about asking two small boys to keep a secret about the baby of the family. “For very young children, just in their brains, they’re not ready to do the kind of sophisticated discernment we do about when a secret is necessary.”
Jazz says it’s not difficult. He usually just calls the baby Storm.
Dr. Ken Zucker, considered a world expert on gender identity and head of the gender identity service for children at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, calls this a “social experiment of nurture.” The broader question, he says, is how much influence parents have on their kids. If Ehrensaft leans toward nature, Zucker puts more emphasis on nurture. Even when parents don’t make a choice, that’s still a choice, and one that can impact the children.
When asked what psychological harm, if any, could come from keeping the sex of a child secret, Zucker said: “One will find out.”
The couple plan to keep Storm’s sex a secret as long as Storm, Kio and Jazz are comfortable with it. In the meantime, philosophy and reality continue to collide.
Out with the kids all day, Witterick doesn’t have the time or the will to hide in a closet every time she changes Storm’s diaper. “If (people) want to peek, that’s their journey,” she says.
There are questions about which bathroom Storm will use, but that is a couple of years off. Then there is the “tyranny of pronouns,” as they call it. They considered referring to Storm as “Z”. Witterick now calls the baby she, imagining the “s” in brackets.
For the moment, it feels right.
“Everyone keeps asking us, ‘When will this end?’” says Witterick. “And we always turn the question back. Yeah, when will this end? When will we live in a world where people can make choices to be whoever they are?”
jpoisson@thestar.ca[3]
References
^ Comments on this story (www.parentcentral.ca)
^ See more family photos. (photogallery.thestar.com)
^ jpoisson@thestar.ca (www.parentcentral.ca)
Is Obama wrong that he says he doesn't need Congressional approval in Libya?
Read the original here.
Congress Returns To Town With Demand Obama Get OK On Libya
President Obama[1] could be impeached for violating U.S. Constitution and law by going into Libya[2] without congressional[3] consent, but Rep. Dennis Kucinich[4] says he doesn't want to cause that kind of havoc on the Republic, he just wants the United States[5] to get out of Libya's civil war[6].
While many lawmakers in general support the U.S. role in Libya, even if they want the final say on approving military action, Kucinich, D-Ohio, will introduce a joint resolution when Congress returns this week that he says "hopefully will lead us out of this mess that we've waded into in Libya."
The eight-term congressman and former presidential candidate said Obama "moved to attack Libya without constitutional authority" and violated U.S. law[7] by not complying with the War Powers Act, which requires a president to get authorization from Congress within 60 days of launching a military action.
He told Fox News on Sunday that absent an imminent threat, the president is not allowed to usurp the role of Congress in determining whether or not to declare war. Kucinich added that the president is aware of that separation of powers authority because he used the argument in 2007 to protest President George W. Bush's troop surge.
"He knows better and we have to call him on that," Kucinich said.
Like other presidents before him, Obama contends he does not need to comply with the War Powers Act for a limited operation[8] and therefore did not have to get congressional approval within 60 days of sending the U.S. military into Libya.
However, on Saturday -- 61 days after the start of U.S. operations in Libya -- Obama sent a letter to congressional leadership saying that he supports a measure being drafted by a bipartisan group of senators[9] approving of the military effort in Libya.
"Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort. Such a resolution is also important in the context of our constitutional framework, as it would demonstrate a unity of purpose among the political branches on this important national security matter. It has always been my view that it is better to take military action, even in limited actions such as this, with congressional engagement, consultation, and support," he wrote.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he doesn't know if the president violated the War Powers Act, and finds the administration's actions "a bit confusing now."
"The administration is going to have to decide whether it thinks it was triggered and we'll have to respond to that," McConnell told "Fox News Sunday." Senator (John) McCain has been to Benghazi as I think everyone knows. He is keeping us posted on what he thinks ought to be done."
Kucinich said the U.S. has no business[10] intervening in Libya because it's a civil war. He added that the rebel forces the U.S. and NATO appear to be backing are demonstrating some disturbing behaviors, including "committing some of the same practices that they accused Colonel Qaddafi[11] of."
Beyond that, he added, the whole operation stinks of a bid for the oil fields of Benghazi, where the rebels have set up their stronghold.
"Right after the rebels solidified their control of the Benghazi areas they cut a deal with Qatar[12], $100 million oil market deal. And they've been in Washington intimating that if we find find a way to support them, then they're willing to be good to us on oil deals," Kucinich alleged.
He added that the U.S. can't afford to fight another war while the bills rack up at home.
"We have problems here at home, we have budget problems, we have deficit problems and yet we're ready for another war," he said. "Are you kidding me? This president has to be called to accounting on this, and this is not an academic matter. This is about the Constitution, and if we stand by the Constitution we'll be safe, but if we don't, we're looking at America going deeper into a war here."
Kucinich said that he doesn't want to impeach Obama because it's a "destabilizing factor" for the country, but he points out that the Constitution is on his side in an impeachment process because he wants to point out how "grave" the matter is.
"You know, we don't need an impeachment but we need and must require our president to follow the Constitution and established U.S. law. We have to demand it," he said.
References
^ President Obama (www.foxnews.com)
^ Libya (www.foxnews.com)
^ congressional (www.foxnews.com)
^ Dennis Kucinich (www.foxnews.com)
^ United States (www.foxnews.com)
^ civil war (www.foxnews.com)
^ law (www.foxnews.com)
^ operation (www.foxnews.com)
^ senators (www.foxnews.com)
^ business (www.foxnews.com)
^ Qaddafi (www.foxnews.com)
^ Qatar (www.foxnews.com)
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/22/congress-returns-town-demand-obama-ok-libya/#ixzz1NBo05Wq1
Congress Returns To Town With Demand Obama Get OK On Libya
President Obama[1] could be impeached for violating U.S. Constitution and law by going into Libya[2] without congressional[3] consent, but Rep. Dennis Kucinich[4] says he doesn't want to cause that kind of havoc on the Republic, he just wants the United States[5] to get out of Libya's civil war[6].
While many lawmakers in general support the U.S. role in Libya, even if they want the final say on approving military action, Kucinich, D-Ohio, will introduce a joint resolution when Congress returns this week that he says "hopefully will lead us out of this mess that we've waded into in Libya."
The eight-term congressman and former presidential candidate said Obama "moved to attack Libya without constitutional authority" and violated U.S. law[7] by not complying with the War Powers Act, which requires a president to get authorization from Congress within 60 days of launching a military action.
He told Fox News on Sunday that absent an imminent threat, the president is not allowed to usurp the role of Congress in determining whether or not to declare war. Kucinich added that the president is aware of that separation of powers authority because he used the argument in 2007 to protest President George W. Bush's troop surge.
"He knows better and we have to call him on that," Kucinich said.
Like other presidents before him, Obama contends he does not need to comply with the War Powers Act for a limited operation[8] and therefore did not have to get congressional approval within 60 days of sending the U.S. military into Libya.
However, on Saturday -- 61 days after the start of U.S. operations in Libya -- Obama sent a letter to congressional leadership saying that he supports a measure being drafted by a bipartisan group of senators[9] approving of the military effort in Libya.
"Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort. Such a resolution is also important in the context of our constitutional framework, as it would demonstrate a unity of purpose among the political branches on this important national security matter. It has always been my view that it is better to take military action, even in limited actions such as this, with congressional engagement, consultation, and support," he wrote.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he doesn't know if the president violated the War Powers Act, and finds the administration's actions "a bit confusing now."
"The administration is going to have to decide whether it thinks it was triggered and we'll have to respond to that," McConnell told "Fox News Sunday." Senator (John) McCain has been to Benghazi as I think everyone knows. He is keeping us posted on what he thinks ought to be done."
Kucinich said the U.S. has no business[10] intervening in Libya because it's a civil war. He added that the rebel forces the U.S. and NATO appear to be backing are demonstrating some disturbing behaviors, including "committing some of the same practices that they accused Colonel Qaddafi[11] of."
Beyond that, he added, the whole operation stinks of a bid for the oil fields of Benghazi, where the rebels have set up their stronghold.
"Right after the rebels solidified their control of the Benghazi areas they cut a deal with Qatar[12], $100 million oil market deal. And they've been in Washington intimating that if we find find a way to support them, then they're willing to be good to us on oil deals," Kucinich alleged.
He added that the U.S. can't afford to fight another war while the bills rack up at home.
"We have problems here at home, we have budget problems, we have deficit problems and yet we're ready for another war," he said. "Are you kidding me? This president has to be called to accounting on this, and this is not an academic matter. This is about the Constitution, and if we stand by the Constitution we'll be safe, but if we don't, we're looking at America going deeper into a war here."
Kucinich said that he doesn't want to impeach Obama because it's a "destabilizing factor" for the country, but he points out that the Constitution is on his side in an impeachment process because he wants to point out how "grave" the matter is.
"You know, we don't need an impeachment but we need and must require our president to follow the Constitution and established U.S. law. We have to demand it," he said.
References
^ President Obama (www.foxnews.com)
^ Libya (www.foxnews.com)
^ congressional (www.foxnews.com)
^ Dennis Kucinich (www.foxnews.com)
^ United States (www.foxnews.com)
^ civil war (www.foxnews.com)
^ law (www.foxnews.com)
^ operation (www.foxnews.com)
^ senators (www.foxnews.com)
^ business (www.foxnews.com)
^ Qaddafi (www.foxnews.com)
^ Qatar (www.foxnews.com)
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/22/congress-returns-town-demand-obama-ok-libya/#ixzz1NBo05Wq1
The President on Israel
Read the original here.
Power Line - Obama On Israel, Continued
May 22, 2011Posted by John at 8:01 PM
This is a supplement to Scott's very perceptive post[1] earlier today, on President Obama's speech to AIPAC. I want to make one basic point about that speech, as well as the one Obama gave last week at the State Department.
It seems to me that the key passage in Obama's AIPAC speech was this:
There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations. Since questions have been raised, let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday -- not what I was reported to have said.
Classic Obama. Did someone quote him inaccurately? Not that I am aware of. The uproar over this part of Obama's speech arose precisely from what he did say.
I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps -- (applause) -- so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
There are at least two key points here. One is that "Palestine" must be a contiguous state. As anyone with a map can tell you, this means that Israel will not be a contiguous state. The second, even more fundamental, is that is that the ultimate peace treaty will be "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps."
The 1967 lines are obviously unacceptable to Israel. That would mean a country that is only nine miles wide at its narrowest point, and that does not include, among other things, the Western Wall. Obama purports to think that this is of little significance, since adjustments will be made via "swaps." But Israel starts way behind before it begins "swapping," whereas the Palestinians start by holding all the cards. What, exactly, is Israel supposed to give up in order to regain some of its most historic sites, not to mention the defensible borders which it already holds?
One of the most basic questions in any negotiation is, Where do you begin? If you are a lawyer who has settled hundreds if not thousands of cases (like me, for example) it is blindingly obvious that the starting positions of the parties are of great importance. As happens so often with President Obama, one asks: can he possibly be such a simpleton? I am not sure. Obama was never a real lawyer, nor does he have much experience in politics, so maybe he really doesn't understand how negotiations work. But that probably gives him too much credit: he can hardly be that dumb.
So what President Obama has proposed is antithetical to Israel's interests, and therefore to the United States' interests, because he wants Israel to begin negotiations from a deep hole that does not in any way reflect conditions on the ground. If this isn't selling our ally down the river--and, thereby, selling out our own interests--what is?
References
^ very perceptive post (www.powerlineblog.com)
Power Line - Obama On Israel, Continued
May 22, 2011Posted by John at 8:01 PM
This is a supplement to Scott's very perceptive post[1] earlier today, on President Obama's speech to AIPAC. I want to make one basic point about that speech, as well as the one Obama gave last week at the State Department.
It seems to me that the key passage in Obama's AIPAC speech was this:
There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations. Since questions have been raised, let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday -- not what I was reported to have said.
Classic Obama. Did someone quote him inaccurately? Not that I am aware of. The uproar over this part of Obama's speech arose precisely from what he did say.
I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps -- (applause) -- so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
There are at least two key points here. One is that "Palestine" must be a contiguous state. As anyone with a map can tell you, this means that Israel will not be a contiguous state. The second, even more fundamental, is that is that the ultimate peace treaty will be "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps."
The 1967 lines are obviously unacceptable to Israel. That would mean a country that is only nine miles wide at its narrowest point, and that does not include, among other things, the Western Wall. Obama purports to think that this is of little significance, since adjustments will be made via "swaps." But Israel starts way behind before it begins "swapping," whereas the Palestinians start by holding all the cards. What, exactly, is Israel supposed to give up in order to regain some of its most historic sites, not to mention the defensible borders which it already holds?
One of the most basic questions in any negotiation is, Where do you begin? If you are a lawyer who has settled hundreds if not thousands of cases (like me, for example) it is blindingly obvious that the starting positions of the parties are of great importance. As happens so often with President Obama, one asks: can he possibly be such a simpleton? I am not sure. Obama was never a real lawyer, nor does he have much experience in politics, so maybe he really doesn't understand how negotiations work. But that probably gives him too much credit: he can hardly be that dumb.
So what President Obama has proposed is antithetical to Israel's interests, and therefore to the United States' interests, because he wants Israel to begin negotiations from a deep hole that does not in any way reflect conditions on the ground. If this isn't selling our ally down the river--and, thereby, selling out our own interests--what is?
References
^ very perceptive post (www.powerlineblog.com)
Friday, May 20, 2011
Where's my waiver?!
So, the lesson I'm taking from this is, if I publicly promote and cajole others into supporting policies' like Obamacare, I'll get a favoritism exemption...but if I let the opposition say anything, I'll get blacklisted like the Boston Herald. Yep, that sounds American to me. Oh wait.....read the original here.
Latest Beneficiary Of ObamaCare Waiver: AARP « Hot Air
No one seems to know what criteria HHS uses to grant or deny waivers to insurers from provisions in ObamaCare. The White House won’t release the names of those insurers and employers refused waivers or discuss denials at all. But maybe, just maybe, we could all agree that organizations that publicly pushed ObamaCare to approval should be ineligible to escape its consequences[1]?
The Daily Caller has learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rate review[2] rules, which it finalized on Thursday, exempt “Medigap” policy providers, like the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), from oversight when such providers increase payment rates for their supplemental insurance plans.
Insurance providers who aren’t exempt from Obamacare’s rate review rules are required to publicly release and explain some health care payment rate increases.
Let’s not forget that AARP had a distinct interest in seeing ObamaCare pass, because it helped eliminate competition for AARP’s supplemental insurance program:
The AARP is the nation’s biggest seller of Medigap policies, or supplemental healthcare[3]plans that add onto what Medicare won’t cover for seniors. The senior citizens interest group advocated for Obamacare to include an attack on Medigap policies’ biggest competitor, Medicare Advantage.
Though the White House and HHS dismiss allegations of political favoritism when it comes to who’s getting exceptions from the new health care regulations – such as in the recent uproar over the disproportionate number of Obamacare waivers[4] that went to companies[5]in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district — Obamacare critics say the mere appearance[6] of the administration helping friends is disturbing.
The attack on Medicare Advantage plans was a crucial part of ObamaCare. Democrats insisted that the public-private partnership was driving the cost curve upward and needed to be drastically curtailed, and the bill sliced $500 billion out of Medicare, largely at the expense of Medicare Advantage. Fortunately for the AARP, which was conducting a public-relations campaign to drum up support for ObamaCare, those changes didn’t impact their own Medigap plans.
Thanks to the passage of ObamaCare, Medicare Advantage plans began disappearing, and the choices are much fewer for seniors and the disabled who want supplemental insurance. That puts AARP in perfect position to take advantage (pun intended) of the lack of choice. And now they don’t even have to deal with the few consequences that their favorite bill created for them.
How coincidentally fortunate for them!
We’re way beyond “mere appearance” here. If the AARP and the labor unions that backed ObamaCare need waivers from its consequences, then we all do.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/20/latest-beneficiary-of-obamacare-waiver-aarp/References
^ should be ineligible to escape its consequences (dailycaller.com)
^ rate review (dailycaller.com)
^ healthcare (dailycaller.com)
^ number of Obamacare waivers (dailycaller.com)
^ companies (dailycaller.com)
^ critics say the mere appearance (dailycaller.com)
^ should be ineligible to escape its consequences (dailycaller.com)
^ rate review (dailycaller.com)
^ healthcare (dailycaller.com)
^ number of Obamacare waivers (dailycaller.com)
^ companies (dailycaller.com)
^ critics say the mere appearance (dailycaller.com)
Latest Beneficiary Of ObamaCare Waiver: AARP « Hot Air
No one seems to know what criteria HHS uses to grant or deny waivers to insurers from provisions in ObamaCare. The White House won’t release the names of those insurers and employers refused waivers or discuss denials at all. But maybe, just maybe, we could all agree that organizations that publicly pushed ObamaCare to approval should be ineligible to escape its consequences[1]?
The Daily Caller has learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rate review[2] rules, which it finalized on Thursday, exempt “Medigap” policy providers, like the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), from oversight when such providers increase payment rates for their supplemental insurance plans.
Insurance providers who aren’t exempt from Obamacare’s rate review rules are required to publicly release and explain some health care payment rate increases.
Let’s not forget that AARP had a distinct interest in seeing ObamaCare pass, because it helped eliminate competition for AARP’s supplemental insurance program:
The AARP is the nation’s biggest seller of Medigap policies, or supplemental healthcare[3]plans that add onto what Medicare won’t cover for seniors. The senior citizens interest group advocated for Obamacare to include an attack on Medigap policies’ biggest competitor, Medicare Advantage.
Though the White House and HHS dismiss allegations of political favoritism when it comes to who’s getting exceptions from the new health care regulations – such as in the recent uproar over the disproportionate number of Obamacare waivers[4] that went to companies[5]in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district — Obamacare critics say the mere appearance[6] of the administration helping friends is disturbing.
The attack on Medicare Advantage plans was a crucial part of ObamaCare. Democrats insisted that the public-private partnership was driving the cost curve upward and needed to be drastically curtailed, and the bill sliced $500 billion out of Medicare, largely at the expense of Medicare Advantage. Fortunately for the AARP, which was conducting a public-relations campaign to drum up support for ObamaCare, those changes didn’t impact their own Medigap plans.
Thanks to the passage of ObamaCare, Medicare Advantage plans began disappearing, and the choices are much fewer for seniors and the disabled who want supplemental insurance. That puts AARP in perfect position to take advantage (pun intended) of the lack of choice. And now they don’t even have to deal with the few consequences that their favorite bill created for them.
How coincidentally fortunate for them!
We’re way beyond “mere appearance” here. If the AARP and the labor unions that backed ObamaCare need waivers from its consequences, then we all do.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/20/latest-beneficiary-of-obamacare-waiver-aarp/References
^ should be ineligible to escape its consequences (dailycaller.com)
^ rate review (dailycaller.com)
^ healthcare (dailycaller.com)
^ number of Obamacare waivers (dailycaller.com)
^ companies (dailycaller.com)
^ critics say the mere appearance (dailycaller.com)
^ should be ineligible to escape its consequences (dailycaller.com)
^ rate review (dailycaller.com)
^ healthcare (dailycaller.com)
^ number of Obamacare waivers (dailycaller.com)
^ companies (dailycaller.com)
^ critics say the mere appearance (dailycaller.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
