Landmarks Preservation Commission Clears Way for Ground Zero Mosque, New York's Elected Officials Uncharacteristically Silent

In atypical fashion, many of New York's national elected officials have kept mum on the decision by New York City's Landmarks Preservation Commission to not grant 45-47 Park Place landmark status, clearing the way for what has been dubbed the "Ground Zero Mosque." In reality, the Cordoba House will be a multi-functional building with a mosque in it. Additionally, Muslim prayer groups have been meeting at the current building since last year with no trouble at all. Nate and I have already talked about our feelings on the mosque.

Reactionary Response to WikiLeaks Afghan Papers

The fall out from the WikiLeaks disclosure of numerous classified military documents continues today, with one Congressman legitimately calling for Pfc. Bradley Manning's execution and Congress as a whole alienating bloggers and new media from a pending "media shield" bill. In other words, just a bunch of folks not getting it.

TSA Embarrasses Self Yet Again with Newark Security Breach

For all of the shortcomings of the terrorist watch lists and the inability to communicate interdepartmentally that led, via a confluence of incompetency, to the failed Christmas Day bombing by newly nut-less Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab there was one thing that you could say about it: he was not screened by the TSA. Given that his flight originated in Nigeria and transferred in Amsterdam before heading to Detroit, the TSA's fingerprints were not directly on this mishap (a little more on that later). It seemed that the TSA would avoid the majority of the scrutiny. Until yesterday.

Last night around 5:20 p.m. some mysterious character somehow managed to enter the "sterile" side of Terminal C from the public side by going through an exit lane at the security area. Details are sketchy, as no one seems to know who this mystery man is. Even more embarrassing, the TSA did not notice the breach, but had to be alerted by a bystander that someone had improperly entered the terminal. Screening was temporarily halted, then the terminal was cleared out and passengers on planes at the gate were forced to deplane and be re-screened. Naturally, disorganization ensued.

Flights were grounded for six hours after the incident, and Newark is just about done shaking off delays and cancellations due to the incident (flights in and out of Newark as of noon today were not experiencing delays according to the FAA). However, given the interconnectedness of the airline system both nationally and internationally, the incident caused some major problems for Continental, who is Newark Airport's largest tenant and uses the majority of Terminal C's gates.

Meanwhile, the TSA has identified the screener whose responsibility was manning the exit lane to make sure no one did exactly what this mystery individual did. The TSA declined to publicly name the screener or what disciplinary action would be taken. Anything less than termination, however, would be insulting.

Needless to say, this incident just throws an ever-increasing spotlight on the dysfunction of the TSA as a whole. Between embarrassing test failures, an insecure website which leaves passenger's personal information available to those who know how to get it, and publishing TSA screening guidelines online, the TSA has not really proven itself to be a competent agency worthy of the public's trust. Now this, a little over a week after an attempted bombing of an airliner in Detroit put the agency on high alert.

So where's the problem with the agency? To begin with, they lack leadership. The nominee to head the troubled agency, Erroll Southers, is stuck because Senator Jim DeMint (R- SC) is worried that Southers might allow the TSA members to unionize. I'm still waiting to hear from Senator DeMint's office for clarification of his stance on Southers' appointment.

Another issue with the TSA comes from the lackluster requirements to become a TSO (Transport Security Officer). All you need is the following: a GED or one year of work as either an X-ray tech, security work, or aviation screening. In other words, if you have dropped out of high school but have found work as a security guard or an X-ray tech, you are qualified to screen passengers, in the hopes of weeding out terrorists, boarding commercial airliners in the United States. These "requirements" set the bar lower than numerous municipal police departments, yet TSA officers are supposed to be able to detect tools of terrorism and prevent attacks onboard airliners?

On top of all of this, Chuck Schumer (of "the public option getting voted down is a victory for it" fame) stated only hours before the security breach at Newark that security at some airports abroad is "appallingly lax," while calling for a boycott by commercial airlines of those foreign airports not up to snuff. But Schumer's not the only clueless entity in this story. Less than a month before Abdulmutallab got explosives through Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos, Nigeria and tried to blow up a Delta airplane in Detroit, the TSA confirmed that the airport was in compliance with all 25 ICAO security procedures that were examined (though Representative Peter King (R-NY) stated that "Nigeria [has] inadequate security to begin with." An e-mail to his office asking if Rep. King had done anything about the TSA certification of Lagos' airport prior to the Christmas Day incident or plans to do anything about the TSA certification process has not yet been answered.). So it looks like our leaders are either misinformed/ignorant or, if they think they know something, don't do anything about it except to grandstand after the fact.

In summation, the TSA is a highly disorganized and woefully underqualified authority to be running something as important as airport and port security. They've proven it time and again and, if nothing is done to rectify the shortcomings of the organization, they'll prove it in the future. While our elected officials want to whine about overseas airport security, we really need to be looking at our own nation's security framework to see where we can improve. I said last post that a problem has been identified, now it's time to fix it. So will we just get lip service or will things actually be fixed?

Photos - TSA logo (TSA), Passengers stranded in Newark on Sunday night (ABC News)

What was that Lincoln Quote?

When Barack Obama was elected president we heard about his seeming obsession with our 16th president. He read books on Honest Abe, used his bible at his inauguration and even themed the January festivities after the top hat enthusiast's famous Gettysburg Address. Given all of this Obama must have come across one of Lincoln's most famous quotes, uttered in his famous speech named for the quote, that "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Now Lincoln was alluding to the dispicable practice of slavery in the States, but if we twist the quote a little bit and make it "A party divided against itself cannot stand," we see trouble looming for Democrats.

Yes, I'm going back into the realm of the public option. That elusive Ross and Rachel portion of the health care bill (on-again, off-again: lame Friends reference, forgive me). President Obama said back in August it wasn't essential to the bill. In September House Speaker Pelosi said it was essential while at the same time House Majority Leader Hoyer said it wasn't. In other words, there was no Democratic leadership on the issue, and that lack of leadership continues today over the public option.

It was bad enough that Schumer said a few weeks ago that an embarrassing loss in the Senate Finance Committee was really a win for the public option, but now he is saying that he and other key Democratic senators convinced the White House that the public option was the way to go.

But if Schumer and company have convinced the Obama administration to really get behind a decent public option, why are reports coming out that Obama essentially told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he is on his own for getting votes. If the Obama administration were really behind the public option, if they were "convinced" of its validity, why would they make it clear that they would turn their back on Reid in a crucial vote-getting campaign to prevent a filibuster?

Here is why, if we get a public option, it will be watered down: the Democrats are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Are they really unable to sit down, say this is our plan, and just stick to it? It's funny that Obama will take a risk on the 2016 Olympics for Chicago (read: going to Copenhagen without knowing for sure that Chicago would win the bid) but when it comes to insuring millions of Americans he doesn't want in unless he is guaranteed a victory. Schumer is saying one thing, and reports come out indicating the opposite. Reid could emerge as a leader on this, and Obama undermines that.

I would love to be proven wrong. I would love to get a robust public option that really shakes up the insurance industry and gives a decent level of care to millions of uninsured Americans. The problem is that no clear leader is emerging in this fight and the very backroom politics that is supposed to be used to get votes and get things done is creating miscommunications within the party and leaves the public scratching their heads and opponents on the offensive. Like Lincoln (kind of) said: "A [party] divided against itself cannot stand [for anything]." The problem is they're falling on us.

Photo - Obama and Reid (Politico)

Public Option: Fail

Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA),
ranking members of the Senate Finance Committee (Washington Independent)

Now that the Democrats have pulled a classic Democratic move by losing when they had all odds in their favor (for previous Democratic performances, see the 2000 presidential election), it is time to mourn to public option. That's right folks, the insurance system as it stands today has won the war on health reform, as their pockets will soon be lined by tax subsidies that the government will be giving out to Americans to shop around for their own insurance coverage. It's all right, though, because the insurance companies will play fair and follow the rules without strict government regulation, right Wall Street?

But we had to see this coming. It happened to Clinton in the 90s, and the powers that be (read: special interests and their lobbying arms) are just too entrenched to get anything done. Look at the massive amounts of money that they have donated to the folks responsible for the death of the public option. Chuck "Death Panel" Grassley has received $227,000 in the first half of 2009 alone from these interests. Max Baucus, the Democrat whose bill was supposed to garner wide bipartisan support but in reality was a bigger flop than a Vlade Divac offensive foul, has received $3.9 million since 1989 and is currently ranked fifth in terms of donations from the healthcare sector. It should be no surprise, then, that Baucus' plan had no public option.

But why do we need a public option so bad? Think about it: do you really think that the healthcare industry will police itself? No. Since that is a given, do you really think that the government will effectively ensure fairness in the insurance industry while making sure that those with horrible insurance or no insurance at all receive adequate coverage? If you do, then you're either a moron or have good enough insurance that you just don't care (this latter group, as indicated by the effort put forth by them, includes senators and congressmen).

A robust public option would have created what those in love with capitalism have wet dreams about: competition. How unfair would it be? The public option probably would not be that great to begin with, it would be a basic form of care. Those opposed to it on the principles (that great mass of people who refuse Medicare coverage because it is government-run) do not have to partake in it. To say that a public option would take down companies with a net income of more than $1.3 billion in 2008, or more than $1.2 billion sounds a little crazy.

But that's not even the point, as the popularity of a public option seems split according to public opinion polls. The point is that the Democrats have what has been deemed a "supermajority," a mandate if you will, that the country was sick of the way things were going and wanted to change things. Instead of ramming this legislation through Congress or making deals with their peers or doing whatever it took to fix this inherently flawed system, they held town halls, pandered to rumor mongers, and proved to the American people why bipartisanship simply does not work when you elect morons.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Democratic Super Majority
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

The death of the public option began (and in my opinion, ended) with the Senate Finance Committee. The committee shot down both public option amendments, and then in a twisted turn of events voted to restore $50 million for abstinence-only education. So how did Senate Finance Committee member Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a staunch public advocate for th public option, feel about the day's activities? "We're feeling good," and "We're pleasantly surprised." In an utterly embarrassing day for Finance Committee Democrats (who outnumber Committee Republicans 13-10), Chuck Schumer says that he feels good about what took place? Two public options proposals were shot down and $50 million was allocated to a horrible educational curriculum that simply does not work. That's like Omar Minaya saying that the Mets have had a good couple of years.


So who's to blame for all of this? Democrats? Republicans? Tea bag nutjobs who don't understand nearly anything? That's a good start, but as we continue to vote in incumbents who really do not have our best interests at heart (if this bill affected their healthcare it would have been done decades ago and we would be pitying Canada for having such backwards, universal healthcare) and continue to allow special interest groups to dictate what we talk about in the media and in the legislative halls, we're only screwing ourselves. Because while the Chucks live in their own worlds - Grassley saying the government will pull the plug on grandma, Schumer saying two vote-downs of the public option and an increase in failed abstinence-only education is, essentially, a victory - we live in ours, and right now our healthcare system sucks and will continue to suck with no public option.