Politics Plus

Let me preface this article by saying that most police officers are dedicated individuals who serve their communities professionally.  However, especially in red states, that is not always the case.

When Lonnie Tinsley of El Reno, Oklahoma, called 911 to ask for medical assistance for his disabled, bed-ridden grandmother, he couldn’t have dreamed it would end with police tasering the 86-year-old woman twice, stepping on her oxygen hose until she couldn’t breathe, and sending her to a psychiatric hospital for six days.

Yet that’s what a lawsuit (PDF) filed in a federal court in Oklahoma this week alleges.

According to the lawsuit, in December, 2009, Tinsley came by his grandmother’s apartment to see if she was doing alright in the midst of a winter storm. When she wasn’t able to tell him if she had taken her medication, Tinsley called 911 and asked responders to send medical technicians over to evaluate her.

But instead of an ambulance, the lawsuit alleges, "as many as 10 El Reno police" arrived and "pushed their way through the door."

At that point, 86-year-old Lona Varner told police to "get out of her apartment." That’s when officer Thomas Duran, described in the lawsuit as the "leader" of the police unit, allegedly told another officer to "taser her."

When Tinsley responded "Don’t tase my granny!" the officers threatened to taser him instead, the lawsuit states.

In his police report, officer Durgan asserted that Varner "took a more aggressive posture in her bed," evidently causing him to fear for his and his officers’ lives.

Police then handcuffed Tinsley and took him to a waiting squad car. They released him without charge some time later. Meanwhile, the lawsuit alleges, officers "stepped on [Varner’s] oxygen hose until she began to suffer oxygen deprivation."

Officers then fired a taser at her, hitting her twice, causing her to pass out, the lawsuit states… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Raw Story>

According to comments from a complete imaginary source, I understand that Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) has requested the loan of these officers to help implement the GOP’s anti-latino law.

The conference committee is done.  Here’s an overview what the bill that will return to the House and Senate for possible ratification.

Instead of my usual format, I shall indent my own comments in blue within the article itself.

…Here is a brief look at the bill’s main provisions:

SWAPS PUSH-OUT: Wall Street firms that dominate the $615-trillion over-the-counter derivatives market would have to spin off dealing operations in some swaps, but could keep many swaps in-house, including derivatives to hedge their own risk.

Much OTC derivatives trading would be redirected through more accountable channels such as exchanges and clearinghouses. Many OTC contracts end-users could carry on as before.

This has a huge loophole, because it allows Banksters to continue top secretly manipulate the derivatives market, out of the public’s eye.  I understand Chris Dodd aided the GOP in inserting the loophole.

VOLCKER RULE: A new rule would bar proprietary trading by banks for their own accounts unrelated to customers; limit the growth of the biggest banks; and curb banks’ involvement in private equity and hedge funds, except for small investments allowed by a loophole added to the rule late in debate.

Some big banks’ profits would be pinched by both the Volcker rule and the Lincoln swaps plan, with a few Wall Street giants potentially facing structural changes.

Except for the loophole, this is excellent.

WALL ST ‘DEATH PANEL’: Aiming to prevent massive bailouts like AIG’s and disastrous bankruptcies like Lehman Brothers’, the bill calls for a new government "orderly liquidation" process for financial firms on the verge of collapse.

Authorities could seize and liquidate them, with costs covered by sales of assets and fees on other firms if needed.

I like this provision, but I’m concerned that, given another GOP meltdown, these TBTF banks will not have sufficient assets to cover the costs, burdening taxpayers again.  Furthermore, I consider it likely that before such a process can begin, Banksters will have gutted the banks and run, leaving oblt the right side of the balance sheet.  We should break up the TBTF banks now.

CONSUMER WATCHDOG: Protection of financial consumers would be enhanced by increased government regulation.

The bill would set up a new bureau in the Federal Reserve to regulate mortgages and credit cards. The watchdog has sharp teeth, but couldn’t bite car dealers, who won an exemption.

Before I can comment on this, I need to confirm that the bureau is an independent entity, despite its location within the Fed.  If so, I’m all for it.

THE BIG PICTURE: A new council of federal regulators would try to monitor the entire financial forest, not just the trees. High-risk firms could be singled out for stricter policing.

The devil is in the details here.  The quality of this provision will not be apparent until we see how it is implemented.

BEHIND THE HEDGE: Private equity and hedge funds would have to register with regulators and open their books to scrutiny. Not so for venture capital funds, which would be exempt.

This is mixed.  Overall it’s the right move, except that venture capital firms should not be exempted.  How much do you want to bet that private equity and hedge funds will restructure themselves as venture capital funds?

INSURANCE COPS: The first federal monitor for state-policed insurers would be formed. It’s not federal regulation — yet.

We’ll have to wait and see.

BANK CUSHIONS: Banks would have to set aside more capital to ride out tough times, but will get several years to comply.

How much more capital?  Several years is much too long.

FED SCRUTINY: The Fed’s emergency lending during the crisis would be reviewed, but not its decisions on interest rates.

This is mixed.  All Fed activity should be reviewed.

DEBIT CARDS: Fees charged on debit card transactions would be reduced — a victory for retailers over the banks.

I support this, but I wonder if banks will just start charging annual fees on debit cards, and I doubt that most retailers will pass the savings down to consumers.

Inserted from <Reuters>

I think that the Democrats gave far too much away to Republicans in conference, but the bill contains too many benefits not to support it as a first step toward financial form.  Like health care reform, we have a lot more work to do.

I have to admit, I did not not expect Obama to appoint David Petraeus to replace the Teabagger of the General set, Stanley “Bite me” McChrystal.  Although I disagree with the policy implications of his choice, I have to admire the way put the GOP in a position where they cannot challenge his decision. without making complete fools of themselves.

President Barack Obama has accomplished what many might have thought impossible just a few hours earlier. He has fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his combat commander in Afghanistan, in such a way that not only will the general go unmissed but his name will likely soon be forgotten.

Obama’s decision to replace McChrystal with Gen. David Petraeus is a stroke of brilliance, an unassailable move, politically and strategically.

On a political level, McChrystal has many fans inside Congress and the military, but Petraeus has orders of magnitude more. No one could accuse Obama of compromising the war effort, knowing that Petraeus is stepping in.

On a strategic level, while McChrystal designed the U.S. military policy in Afghanistan, Petraeus is its ur-architect. Petraeus literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency strategy while McChrystal was still running the black-bag hunter-killers of the special-ops command.

Petraeus has also spent the last year and a half as head of U.S. Central Command, supervising military operations throughout the Persian Gulf and central Asia, including Afghanistan. McChrystal has built relations with political and military leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Petraeus has been building the same relations, plus some.

Those who might have expected a scaling back in the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan will, and should, be disappointed. In his Rose Garden speech this afternoon, Obama made the point explicitly: "This is a change in personnel," he said, "but it is not a change in policy."

One of those who might be disappointed in this remark—and in the naming of Petraeus as McChrystal’s replacement—is Michael Hastings, the author of the Rolling Stone article that triggered this chain of events.

The last, and less-noticed, part of the article, which was called "The Runaway General," not only amounted to a critique of the whole idea of counterinsurgency but also suggested that President Obama bought into the concept, ensnared by the wily Gen. McChrystal, without grasping its full implications… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Slate>

I have to admit that when the Betrayus ad, came out, I was one of the ones who jumped on the bandwagon.  I was wrong.  Every six months for three years,  GW ChickenHawk had slithered in front of the cameras to announce a brand new strategy, each with its flashy new name.  Without exception, the only thing new had been the name.  So when he trotted out David Petraeus, I had no reason so suspect anything different.  In fact, Petraeus did stabilize the situation.  US casualties are still down.  US troops have been withdrawn from combat, and most will be pulling out soon.

I continue to oppose this war.  I expect counter insurgency to fail for the same reasons I gave yesterday.  As long as Petraeus is saddled with Karzai, he’s doomed.  But if anyone can get us enough breathing space to get out, he can.

In Iraq, he bribed terrorists to stop being terrorists and join us instead.  Ironically, to do the same thing in Afghanistan may be problematic, because the GOP activists on SCOTUS just ruled that strategy to be a crime.