THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                          May 21, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON NATIONAL SECURITY

National Archives
Washington, D.C.
 

10:28 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning, everybody.  Please be seated.  Thank you all for being here.  Let me just acknowledge the presence of some of my outstanding Cabinet members and advisors.  We’ve got our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.  We have our CIA Director Leon Panetta.  We have our Secretary of Defense William Gates; Secretary Napolitano of Department of Homeland Security; Attorney General Eric Holder; my National Security Advisor Jim Jones.  And I want to especially thank our Acting Archivist of the United States, Adrienne Thomas.

I also want to acknowledge several members of the House who have great interest in intelligence matters.  I want to thank Congressman Reyes, Congressman Hoekstra, Congressman King, as well as Congressman Thompson, for being here today.  Thank you so much.

These are extraordinary times for our country.  We’re confronting a historic economic crisis.  We’re fighting two wars.  We face a range of challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st century.  So there’s no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear.

And we’ve begun to make progress.  Just this week, we’ve taken steps to protect American consumers and homeowners, and to reform our system of government contracting so that we better protect our people while spending our money more wisely.  (Applause.)  The — it’s a good bill.  (Laughter.)  The engines of our economy are slowly beginning to turn, and we’re working towards historic reform on health care and on energy.  I want to say to the members of Congress, I welcome all the extraordinary work that has been done over these last four months on these and other issues.

In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe.  It’s the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning.  It’s the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.

And this responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our people, and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do us great harm.  We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history.  We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again.  We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.

Already, we’ve taken several steps to achieve that goal.  For the first time since 2002, we’re providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  We’re investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy.  We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world’s most dangerous people access to the world’s deadliest weapons.  And we’ve launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years.  We’re better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster.  We’re building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates.  And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.  Continue reading here.

Things are not looking good for former embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and after all the trouble he’s having trying to find a job.  According to documents obtained by the ACLU, Gonzales approved use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” against Abu Zubaydah as White House Counsel four months prior to a request to the Justice department for its opinion.  Zubaydah was captured at the end of March in 2002 but the first memo from DOJ is dated August 1, 2002.  Gonzales has cockily said that he does not believe that Attorney General Eric Holder will prosecute him.  Take a look at his justification.

“I don’t think that there’s going to be a prosecution, quite frankly.” Gonzales said. “Because again, these activities … They were authorized, they were supported by legal opinions at the Department of Justice.”

Holder “will have to make a decision as to whether or not move forward with an investigation or a prosecution,” Gonzales said. “But under those circumstances, I find it hard to believe.”

Well there goes his defense that he was just following DOJ’s advice.  One would guess that when Gonzales made the above statement back in January he was not counting on public discovery that he authorized the use of torture techniques months before the DOJ opinions were rendered.  Very interesting.

So instead of following legal opinion Gonzales was relying on his political bosses and his own warped beyond recognition interpretation of the Convention Against Torture.  Considering the fact that disbarment is on the table for attorneys involved in the authorization of torture, Gonzalez’s employment prospects just dropped significantly.  See more of the story regarding the secret authorizations from the Bush White House below.

One source with knowledge of Zubaydah’s interrogations agreed to describe the legal guidance process, on the condition of anonymity.

The source says nearly every day, Mitchell would sit at his computer and write a top-secret cable to the CIA’s counterterrorism center. Each day, Mitchell would request permission to use enhanced interrogation techniques on Zubaydah. The source says the CIA would then forward the request to the White House, where White House counsel Alberto Gonzales would sign off on the technique. That would provide the administration’s legal blessing for Mitchell to increase the pressure on Zubaydah in the next interrogation.

A new document is consistent with the source’s account.

The CIA sent the ACLU a spreadsheet late Tuesday as part of a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. The log shows the number of top-secret cables that went from Zubaydah’s black site prison to CIA headquarters each day. Through the spring and summer of 2002, the log shows, someone sent headquarters several cables a day.

See full article at NPR here

The credit card companies are already retaliating against the Credit Card Bill of Rights that passed through the Senate yesterday.  The industry has decided to go after their best customers in two ways.  First, by charging an annual fee to consumers and second by charging interest on purchases as soon as the purchase is made rather than giving the industry standard grace period.  Well the Obama administration and Congress is firing back.  The White House is actively discussing adding a new regulatory commission that regulates the credit card industry.  This would be part of the major overhaul of the financial industry that the administration has in the works.  The new commission would have broad authority to protect consumers who use mortgages, credit cards, and mutual funds.  In addition, the proposed commission’s authority would be concentrated in one place with consumer protection as one of its main priorities.  This no doubt will result in tougher rules for the financial industry generally and the credit card industry specifically.

Some of the new requirements are:

• Payment summary must show length of time it will take you to pay off your credit card bill if only the minimum payment is paid each month.  The payment summary must also include how much interest you will pay over time if only the minimum payment is made.
• Credit card bill must be sent out 21 days before payment due date
• Credit card companies cannot retroactively change the rate on existing balances unless the card is 60 days delinquent
• Consumer payments above the minimum payment applies first to balance with highest rate
• Teaser rates cannot be changed for the first year that the account is opened and promotional rates must last at least six months
• Over limit fees cannot be charged unless consumer has expressly authorized such transactions beforehand
• Minors under the age of 21 must provide consent of a parent that they will be liable for the debt or prove to the credit card company that the under 21 consumer has the means to repay the debt. 

The Obama administration and Congress hopes that this regulation will help to deter consumers from over leveraging themselves in addition to protecting consumers from predatory practices.

This is the way to debate Sean Hannity. Simply arm yourself with real facts instead of faux noise.

The Credit Card Bill of Rights bill is up for vote today by the Senate.  This bill will, among many other things, prevent credit card companies from increasing interest rates four-fold without notice or justification.  Here are a few things to think about while you’re calling your Senator.

- People who have ALWAYS paid their credit card debt 100% on-time are now seeing
 their standard interest rates raised from 7.5% (avg) to 27% or more.

- Even debit cards, which have always been billed as “same as cash”, are seeing new fees added on by banks and card companies. 

- The average credit card debt for American households is $10,000.00.

- 80,000 new credit cards were solicited last year, many to students and people  
 without ongoing employment security.

Call your Senator and tell him to vote for this bill.

UPDATE:  The bill is on its way back to the House and should be signed into law by the end of the week depending on the President’s schedule.  Woohoo!  The bill gives credit card companies nine months to comply with the new rules.  Such companies will be required to post all agreements online and allow consumers to make payments via phone or Internet free of charge.  In addition, lenders must provide consumers with a 45-day notice and an explanation before increasing interest rates.  Good job everyone for reaching out to your Senators……90-5 WOW!!!!

This is a good thing.  The White House will propose national fuel standards today for all vehicles sold in the United States and its territories.  The proposal orders automakers to increase fuel economy by 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.  The original plan was 10 years but the Obama administration has pushed the date up by four years.  Automakers have been against toughening fuel efficiency standards forever but the the Obama administration has brought them on board thus increases the chance of success significantly.  This is a a non political issue and affects all Americans in their pocketbook especially after the exorbitant gas prices last summer.  This proposal will also save 1.8 billion gallons of oil and may serve to implement a compromise on cap and trade legislation which will limit greenhouse emissions.  So by 2016 all cars sold in the United States will have to get an average of 39.5 miles per gallon and all trucks 30 miles per gallon.  The President made fuel efficiency standards and clean energy a key component of his domestic policy agenda during his campaign and though there still is a long tough road to passage all this writer can say is……another campaign promise to be fulfilled.

Arizona State University 05/13/2009

President Barack Obama

Thank you, President Crow, for that generous introduction, and for your inspired leadership here at ASU. And I want to thank the entire ASU community for the honor of attaching my name to a scholarship program that will help open the doors of higher education to students from every background. That is the core mission of this school; it is a core mission of my presidency; and I hope this program will serve as a model for universities across this country.

Now, before I begin, I’d like to clear the air about that little controversy everyone was talking about a few weeks back. I have to tell you, I really thought it was much ado about nothing, although I think we all learned an important lesson. I learned to never again pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA bracket. And your university President and Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS.

In all seriousness, I come here not to dispute the suggestion that I haven’t yet achieved enough in my life. I come to embrace it; to heartily concur; to affirm that one’s title, even a title like President, says very little about how well one’s life has been led – and that no matter how much you’ve done, or how successful you’ve been, there’s always more to do, more to learn, more to achieve.

And I want to say to you today, graduates, that despite having achieved a remarkable milestone, one that you and your families are rightfully proud of, you too cannot rest on your laurels. Your body of work is yet to come.

Now, some graduating classes have marched into this stadium in easy times – times of peace and stability when we call on our graduates to simply keep things going, and not screw it up. Other classes have received their diplomas in times of trial and upheaval, when the very foundations of our lives have been shaken, the old ideas and institutions have crumbled, and a new generation is called on to remake the world.

It should be clear by now the category into which all of you fall. For we gather here tonight in times of extraordinary difficulty, for the nation and the world. The economy remains in the midst of a historic recession, the result, in part, of greed and irresponsibility that rippled out from Wall Street and Washington, as we spent beyond our means and failed to make hard choices. We are engaged in two wars and a struggle against terrorism. The threats of climate change, nuclear proliferation, and pandemic defy national boundaries and easy solutions.

For many of you, these challenges are felt in more personal terms. Perhaps you’re still looking for a job – or struggling to figure out what career path makes sense in this economy. Maybe you’ve got student loans, or credit card debts, and are wondering how you’ll ever pay them off. Maybe you’ve got a family to raise, and are wondering how you’ll ensure that your kids have the same opportunities you’ve had to get an education and pursue their dreams.

In the face of these challenges, it may be tempting to fall back on the formulas for success that have dominated these recent years. Many of you have been taught to chase after the usual brass rings: being on this “who’s who” list or that top 100 list; how much money you make and how big your corner office is; whether you have a fancy enough title or a nice enough car.

You can take that road – and it may work for some of you. But at this difficult time, let me suggest that such an approach won’t get you where you want to go; that in fact, the elevation of appearance over substance, celebrity over character, short-term gain over lasting achievement is precisely what your generation needs to help end.

I want to highlight two main problems with that old approach. First, it distracts you from what is truly important, and may lead you to compromise your values, principles and commitments. Think about it. It’s in chasing titles and status – in worrying about the next election rather than the national interest and the interests of those they represent – that politicians so often lose their way in Washington. It was in pursuit of gaudy short-term profits, and the bonuses that come with them, that so many folks lost their way on Wall Street.

The leaders we revere, the businesses that last – they are not the result of narrow pursuit of popularity or personal advancement, but of devotion to some bigger purpose – the preservation of the Union or the determination to lift a country out of depression; the creation of a quality product or a commitment to your customers, your workers, your shareholders and your community.

The trappings of success may be a by-product of this larger mission, but they can’t be the central thing. Just ask Bernie Madoff.

The second problem with the old approach is that a relentless focus on the outward markers of success all too often leads to complacency. We too often let them serve as indications that we’re doing well, even though something inside us tells us that we’re not doing our best; that we are shrinking from, rather than rising to, the challenges of the age. And the thing is, in this new, hyper-competitive age, you cannot afford to be complacent.

That is true in whatever profession you choose. Professors might earn the distinction of tenure, but that doesn’t guarantee that they’ll keep putting in the long hours and late nights – and have the passion and drive – to be great educators. It’s true in your personal life as well. Being a parent isn’t just a matter of paying the bills and doing the bare minimum – it’s not bringing a child into the world that matters, but the acts of love and sacrifice it takes to raise that child. It can happen to presidents too: Abraham Lincoln and Millard Fillmore had the very same title, but their tenure in office – and their legacy – could not be more different.

And that’s not just true for individuals – it is also true for this nation. In recent years, in many ways, we’ve become enamored with our own success – lulled into complacency by our own achievements.

We’ve become accustomed to the title of “military super-power,” forgetting the qualities that earned us that title – not just a build-up of arms, or accumulation of victories, but the Marshall Plan, the Peace Corps, our commitment to working with other nations to pursue the ideals of opportunity, equality and freedom that have made us who we are.

We’ve become accustomed to our economic dominance in the world, forgetting that it wasn’t reckless deals and get-rich-quick schemes that got us there; but hard work and smart ideas -quality products and wise investments. So we started taking shortcuts. We started living on credit, instead of building up savings. We saw businesses focus more on rebranding and repackaging than innovating and developing new ideas and products that improve our lives.

All the while, the rest of the world has grown hungrier and more restless – in constant motion to build and discover – not content with where they are right now, determined to strive for more.

So graduates, it is now abundantly clear that we need to start doing things a little differently. In your own lives, you’ll need to continuously adapt to a continuously changing economy: to have more than one job or career over the course of your life; to keep gaining new skills – possibly even new degrees; and to keep taking risks as new opportunities arise.

And as a nation, we’ll need a fundamental change of perspective and attitude. It is clear that we need to build a new foundation – a stronger foundation – for our economy and our prosperity, rethinking how we educate our children, and care for our sick, and treat our environment.

Many of our current challenges are unprecedented. There are no standard remedies, or go-to fixes this time around.

That is why we are going to need your help. We’ll need young people like you to step up. We need your daring and your enthusiasm and your energy.

And let me be clear, when I say “young,” I’m not just referring to the date on your birth certificate. I’m talking about an approach to life – a quality of mind and heart.

A willingness to follow your passions, regardless of whether they lead to fortune and fame. A willingness to question conventional wisdom and rethink the old dogmas. A lack of regard for all the traditional markers of status and prestige – and a commitment instead to doing what is meaningful to you, what helps others, what makes a difference in this world.

That’s the spirit that led a band of patriots not much older than you to take on an empire. It’s what drove young pioneers west, and young women to reach for the ballot; what inspired a 30 year-old escaped slave to run an underground railroad to freedom, and a 26 year-old preacher to lead a bus boycott for justice. It’s what led firefighters and police officers in the prime of their lives up the stairs of those burning towers; and young people across this country to drop what they were doing and come to the aid of a flooded New Orleans. It’s what led two guys in a garage – named Hewlett and Packard – to form a company that would change the way we live and work; and what led scientists in laboratories, and novelists in coffee shops to labor in obscurity until they finally succeeded in changing the way we see the world.

That is the great American story: young people just like you, following their passions, determined to meet the times on their own terms. They weren’t doing it for the money. Their titles weren’t fancy – ex-slave, minister, student, citizen. But they changed the course of history – and so can you.

With a degree from this university, you have everything you need to get started. Did you study business? Why not help our struggling non-profits find better, more effective ways to serve folks in need. Nursing? Understaffed clinics and hospitals across this country are desperate for your help. Education? Teach in a high-need school; give a chance to kids we can’t afford to give up on – prepare them to compete for any job anywhere in the world. Engineering? Help us lead a green revolution, developing new sources of clean energy that will power our economy and preserve our planet.

Or you can make your mark in smaller, more individual ways. That’s what so many of you have already done during your time here at ASU – tutoring children; registering voters; doing your own small part to fight hunger and homelessness, AIDS and cancer. I think one student said it best when she spoke about her senior engineering project building medical devices for people with disabilities in a village in Africa. Her professor showed a video of the folks they’d be helping, and she said, “When we saw the people on the videos, we began to feel a connection to them. It made us want to be successful for them.”

That’s a good motto for all of us – find someone to be successful for. Rise to their hopes and their needs. As you think about life after graduation, as you look in the mirror tonight, you may see somebody with no idea what to do with their life. But a troubled child might look at you and see a mentor. A homebound senior citizen might see a lifeline. The folks at your local homeless shelter might see a friend. None of them care how much money is in your bank account, or whether you’re important at work, or famous around town – they just know that you’re someone who cares, someone who makes a difference in their lives.

That is what building a body of work is all about – it’s about the daily labor, the many individual acts, the choices large and small that add up to a lasting legacy. It’s about not being satisfied with the latest achievement, the latest gold star – because one thing I know about a body of work is that it’s never finished. It’s cumulative; it deepens and expands with each day that you give your best, and give back, and contribute to the life of this nation. You may have set-backs, and you may have failures, but you’re not done – not by a longshot.

Just look to history. Thomas Paine was a failed corset maker, a failed teacher, and a failed tax collector before he made his mark on history with a little book called Common Sense that helped ignite a revolution. Julia Child didn’t publish her first cookbook until she was almost fifty, and Colonel Sanders didn’t open up his first Kentucky Fried Chicken until he was in his sixties. Winston Churchill was dismissed as little more than a has-been, who enjoyed scotch just a bit too much, before he took over as Prime Minister and saw Great Britain through its finest hour. And no one thought a former football player stocking shelves at the local supermarket would return to the game he loved, become a Super Bowl MVP, and then come here to Arizona and lead your Cardinals to their first Super Bowl.

Each of them, at one point in their life, didn’t have any title or much status to speak of. But they had a passion, a commitment to following that passion wherever it would lead, and to working hard every step along the way.

And that’s not just how you’ll ensure that your own life is well-lived. It’s how you’ll make a difference in the life of this nation. I talked earlier about the selfishness and irresponsibility on Wall Street and Washington that rippled out and led to the problems we face today. I talked about the focus on outward markers of success that can lead us astray.

But here’s the thing, graduates: it works the other way around too. Acts of sacrifice and decency without regard to what’s in it for you – those also create ripple effects – ones that lift up families and communities; that spread opportunity and boost our economy; that reach folks in the forgotten corners of the world who, in committed young people like you, see the true face of America: our strength, our goodness, the enduring power of our ideals.

I know starting your careers in troubled times is a challenge. But it is also a privilege.

Because it is moments like these that force us to try harder, to dig deeper, to discover gifts we never knew we had – to find the greatness that lies within each of us. So don’t ever shy away from that endeavor. Don’t ever stop adding to your body of work. I can promise that you will be the better for that continued effort, as will this nation that we all love.

Congratulations on your graduation, and Godspeed on the road ahead.

The Senate version of the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights hits the Senate floor today and now is time to call your Senator to make sure that he/she knows that you support this bill.    If you care about the fact that Credit Card companies are taking taxpayer funded TARP money and then arbitrarily hiking up your interest rates regardless of your payment history but just because they can then today is the day to call your Senator and tell him/her to vote for this bill.   Credit card companies are gouging consumers in the name of the bad economy and its up to the consumers to do something about it.  Contact Your Senator .   See the details of the Senate version of the bill below.

Contact Your Senator

THE CREDIT CARD ACCOUNTABILITY RESPONSIBILITY AND DISCLOSURE ACT

Prevents Unfair Increases in Interest Rates and Changes in Terms
• Prohibits arbitrary interest rate increases and universal default on existing balances;
• Requires a credit card issuer who increases a cardholder’s interest rate to periodically review and decrease the rate if indicated by the review;
• Prohibits credit card issuers from increasing rates on a cardholder in the first year after a credit card account is opened;
• Requires promotional rates to last at least 6 months.

Prohibits Exorbitant and Unnecessary Fees
• Prohibits issuers from charging a fee to pay a credit card debt, whether by mail, telephone, or electronic transfer, except for live services to make expedited payments;
• Prohibits issuers from charging over-limit fees unless the cardholder elects to allow the issuer to complete over-limit transactions;
• Requires penalty fees to be reasonable and proportional to the omission or violation;
• Enhances protections against excessive fees on low-credit, high-fee credit cards.

Requires Fairness in Application and Timing of Card Payments
• Requires payments in excess of the minimum to be applied first to the credit card balance with the highest rate of interest;
• Prohibits issuers from setting early morning deadlines for credit card payments;
• Requires credit card statements to be mailed 21 days before the bill is due rather than the current 14.

Protects the Rights of Financially Responsible Credit Card Users
• Prohibits interest charges on debt paid on time (double-cycle billing ban);
• Prohibits late fees if the card issuer delayed crediting the payment;
• Requires that payment at local branches be credited same-day.

Provides Enhanced Disclosures of Card Terms and Conditions
• Requires cardholders to be given 45 days notice of interest rate, fee and finance charge increases;
• Requires issuers to provide disclosures to consumers upon card renewal when the card terms have changed;
• Requires issuers to provide individual consumer account information and to disclose the period of time and total interest it will take to pay off the card balance if only minimum monthly payments are made;
• Requires full disclosure in billing statements of payment due dates and applicable late payment penalties.

Strengthens Oversight of Credit Card Industry Practices
• Requires each credit card issuer to post its credit card agreements on the Internet, and provide those agreements to the Federal Reserve Board to post on its website;
• Requires the Federal Reserve Board to review the consumer credit card market, including the terms of credit card agreements and the practices of credit card issuers and the cost and availability of credit to consumers.

Ensures Adequate Safeguards for Young People
• Requires issuers extending credit to young consumers under the age of 21 to obtain an application that contains: the signature of a parent, guardian, or other individual 21 years or older who will take responsibility for the debt; or proof that the applicant has an independent means of repaying any credit extended;
• Limits prescreened offers of credit to young consumers;
• Prohibits increases in the credit limit on accounts where a parent, legal guardian, spouse or other individual is jointly liable unless the individual who is jointly liable approves the increase in writing.Enhanced Penalties
• Increases existing penalties for companies that violate the Truth in Lending Act for credit card customers.

Gift Card Protections
• Protects recipients of gift cards by requiring all gift cards to have at least a five-year life span, and eliminates the practice of declining values and hidden fees for those cards not used within a reasonable period of time.

Encourages Transparency in Credit Card Pricing
• Requires the GAO to study the impact of interchange fees on consumers and merchants, specifically their disclosure, pricing, fee and cost structure.

Contact Your Senator

The President announced yesterday that he will reduce federal spending by $17 billion next year.  Below are some of the programs subject to the cut.  Efficiency is the order of the day.

•  LORAN-C ($35 million).  This long-range, radio-navigation system has been made obsolete by GPS.
• Abandoned Mine Lands Payments ($142 million).  This program now pays to clean up mines that have already been cleaned up
•  Educational attaché, Paris, France ($632,000).  The Department of Education can use e-mail, video conferencing, and modest travel to replace a full-time representative to UNESCO in Paris, France.
• Los Alamos Neutron Science Center refurbishment ($19 million).  The linear accelerator housed here was built 30 years ago and no longer plays a critical role in weapons research.
• Even Start ($66 million).  The most recent evaluation found no difference between families in the program and those not in it across 38 of 41 outcomes. Strengthening early childhood education is accomplished through significant investments in proven, more effective programs such as Head Start, Early Head Start, and the Early Learning Challenge Fund.
• Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation ($1 million).  Due to high overhead, the Foundation would spend only 20 percent of its 2010 appropriation on the fellowships it awards.
• Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit ($125 million).  This program benefits very few taxpayers, and has an extremely high error rate:  GAO found that 80 percent of recipients did not meet at least one of its requirements.
• Javits Gifted and Talented Education Program ($7 million).  Grants from this program go to only 15 school districts nationwide, and there are no empirical measures to judge their efficacy.
• Public Broadcasting Grants ($5 million).  USDA made these grants to support rural public broadcasting stations in their conversions to digital broadcasting.  That transition is now almost complete.
• Rail Line Relocation Grants ($25 million).  This program, duplicative of a merit-based program, is loaded with earmarks.

For those of you who missed it, Chris Matthews had Joan Walsh on his show discussing Supreme Court Justice potential nominee Sonia Sotomayor and a 7-6 decision out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that Sotomayor and six other justices ruled not to hear.  The case involves reverse discrimination and was brought by seventeen white candidates and one Hispanic who work for the New Haven Fire department.  The named plaintiff is Frank Ricci.   The case stems from two promotional exams for fire lieutenant and fire captain where the results of the test revealed that the top scorers were virtually all white.  This also was the first time this particular exam had been administered.  The city asserted that the test had a disparate impact on minority firefighters and refused to certify the test.  For the Captain exam, out of the twenty five white candidates who took the exam,  seven white firefighters scored high enough to qualify for promotion in addition to two Hispanics.  No blacks scored high enough to be considered for promotion to Captain even though a total of eight blacks and eight Hispanics took the exam.  For the Lieutenant exam, 75 candidates tested, out of which 43 were white, 19 were black, and 15 were Hispanic.  Thirty-four candidates passed, 10 of which were white, 6 Black and 3 Hispanic.  The top ten scorers were white thereby being the only ones who would be considered for promotion to the eight Lieutenant vacancies.  Therefore, no blacks or Hispanics would be promoted to Lieutenant.  Now that you have the background, this is the exchange that took place between Chris Matthews and Joan Walsh. (I didn’t include Buchannan’s comments simply because they are to ridiculous to warrant comment)

Joan Walsh: Here we are three Irish Catholics talking about one of the toughest, I think, affirmative action cases in the country.  There is a reason why we have some of these ugly cases and that is a failure of our politics to really resolve some of these ugly conflicts.  We have fire departments all over this country, God bless them, that are still disproportionately, not just white, but Irish Catholic.  My home of San Francisco is that way.  I’m in New York today and it’s…..a majority of New Yorkers are black or latino and only ten percent are firefighters and so what’s happened in a lot of these cases Chris is that Irish Catholic dominated unions have really fought against efforts to make the test more fair…

Chris Mathews: Yea…well I’m suspicious of your argument Joan because I think we’ve had in the past a lot of Italian barbers and don’t see any problem with that…we had a lot of Mexicans running Mexican restaurants I don’t see the problem…but if you can prove discrimination then I’m with ya..Pat..its about proving discrimination, you have to prove it you can’t assume it.

Walsh: Do you really not see a problem, do you really think there…..

Matthews: It’s about proving discrimination….you have to prove it, you just can’t assume it…

Walsh: So we think there is something uniquely Irish Catholic about being able to fight fires?

Matthews: It’s called tradition, it’s called tradition…its been going on since the nineteenth century

Walsh:  And it discriminates against black people

Pat Buchannan:  ……what is happening now to white men right now is exactly what was done to black folks

Matthews:  I…I. don’t buy a…..Joan my problem is results based fairness..if fifteen guys go out for a basketball team or any sports team and ten of them who win happen to be one ethnic group I’m not gonna say that there is something wrong with the try out.  I would say the top ten won and that’s why there on the team.  I wouldn’t say redo the try out so that you have racial balance on the team or any other kind of sports…I thinks its about…its about fairness not about results.

Walsh: Public sector jobs are a very different animal from a  sports team.

Matthews: How so?

Walsh:there are plenty of black and Latino and female firefighters who can do the job, who can meet requirements for the job, but these tests have often historically been rigged and the entire promotion system has been rigged, we are unrigging it……

Matthews: Well…one of the arguments I accept from Clarence Thomas, who I normally disagree with was..he says that the problem with this a…so called affirmative action, I’m for some affirmative..I’m certainly for reaching out to people that don’t normally make the list and I’m certainly for aggressive recruitment, but when it comes down to rigging test so you get a certain result that’s what Clarence Thomas says his presence at Yale law bothered him.  He said there are some people that see a fellow like him at Yale law and say oh you got in because they had some quota that got you in..he doesn’t like that…that that notion out there and this kind of court ruling if they go in that direction is gonna sell that idea..that the only way a minority gets a break in this country is cause somebody gave him a break ….(undetectable)…and that’s not healthy.  (Did he really just raise Clarence Thomas as support for his argument?  Does Thomas make the same complaint about his position on the Supreme Court?  If so, and Clarence felt so strongly about being perceived as a quota recipient why not turn down the Supreme Court appointment?  It always astounds me when folks bring up Thomas as the token black person that validates their anti affirmative action position when he is the most infamous and hypocritical affirmative action recipient of all time.  Give me a freakin break)

………………………. 

Matthews reiterates that the named plaintiff in the case is Italian and one of the complainants is Hispanic.  He then goes off on some irrelevant tangent about the majority of firefighters killed in 911 being Irish Catholic and the Irish Catholic proud family tradition of firefighting that goes back to the nineteenth century.  (Uhhh what exactly does that have to do with the price of cheese)

Walsh:  Don’t race bait me please Chris…I have firefighters in my family..God Bless them, they’re brave but the fact…

Matthews:  Right..then why are you accusing them of bigotry?

Walsh:  Because the fact of the matter is they have protected those jobs for their brothers, for their sons, and they’re public sector jobs, this isn’t the family business Chris.  Bravery comes in all colors

Matthews:  We’ll see if that…we’ll see if that….we’ll see if that was a fair test or not but you can’t judge a test by the results

Walsh: Bravery comes in all colors 

Matthews:  You got to judge a test by its basic fairness and we’ll see when the final court rules on this.

Let me start out by saying that this is a difficult case with no easy answers.  Now lets talk about the law.  According to the Supreme Court, if a test for merit disproportionately eliminates one racial or gender group and another equally valid test does not, the employer must use the merit test that does not.  Many have successfully argued that merit can be measured in different ways.  For example, someone who scores high on a “multiple choice” test may be “book smart” but not “street smart” both of which are equally valuable in firefighting.  The fact is that some written tests produce racial disparities in certain job categories that are unacceptable to a majority of specialist in the employee testing field.

To Mr. Matthews and others, a test does not need to be proved unfair to have a disparate impact on certain minorities thereby making it a violation of antidiscrimination laws.  A bias can exist based on those drafting the test who in so doing, subconciously or conciously, give an unfair advantage to certain groups.   Another way racial or gender bias can be determined is in the way the test is graded or weighted which can make it unfair to a specific ethnic group or gender.  There are many considerations that are used to determine whether a test does not disproportionately negatively impact certain ethnic groups all of which are legitimate.

Further, diversity is a legitimate and “compelling” goal of the department and its promotion process and though you may not agree with the weight the department gave such a goal you are not running the New Haven Fire Department.  Believe it or not diversity is a legitimate business objective for many corporations not because of some benevolent motive to reach out to minorities and women but because they want to better serve there customers and increase profits.  The way to do this is to hire folks who look like your customers so they can better market their products.  To sum it up, a racial motive is not synonymous with unconstitutionality.  Think about it, every anti-discrimination statute used to combat racial discrimination and all enforcement measures taken reflect a racial motive. Isn’t this employer doing the same thing as the anti-discrimination statutes by throwing out the test before a disparate impact claim can be brought?   It was proved that based on the calculation of the scores there was a disparate impact on African-Americans thereby subjecting the department to future lawsuits by minority firefighters in the department.  Trying to prevent discrimination and lawsuits by evaluating the exam and taking action preemptively is exactly what the anti-discrimination statutes are there for.  In addition, the law dictates that employers can use race-neutral means to improve diversity in their corporations or organizations without violating the Constitution and doing so does not equate to discrimination against non-minority employees.  This case was not a quota or set aside program, the same exam was given to all the applicants and none of the results were certified.  The employer believed that the results yielded a disparate impact on minority employees and chose to remedy the situation by not certifying the results.  The decision not to certify the exam affected all applicants equally. 

Finally, the plaintiffs do not have a legal property interest in the results.  Plaintiffs scores would have merely given plaintiffs an opportunity for promotion not a guarantee. In this case no minorities would have been given the opportunity to be promoted to lieutenant and at most two Hispanics and no blacks would have the opportunity to be promoted to Captain.  One final word on this point, if a profession or field where the salaries of the employees are paid by tax payers is overwhelmingly dominated by a single ethnic group shouldn’t the employer start asking questions as to why?

I was going to rip Matthews apart but Walsh did it for me.  The firefighting profession does not belong to Irish Catholics simply because they have been doing it since the beginning of the nineteenth century.  Further, the fact that Irish Catholics have dominated the profession lends support to the argument that the test could be rigged, intentionally or unintentionally, to ensure that they continue to hold the majority of the high ranking positions because they are drafting the exams.  I am not saying that this is the case in the Ricci instance because I do not know all of the facts but it is a legitimate question that should be addressed.  Also, Justice Sotomayor is one of seven justices who followed established law and decided not to hear this appeal and thus should not be singled out and falsely accused of selling a particular idea.

Michael Steele has officially become the “token” figurehead of the Republican National Committee.  Steele has signed a secret pact with members of the RNC agreeing to checks and balances on all expenditures or agreements binding the RNC monetarily.  The former lieutenant governor does have a checkered history when it comes to campaign fund management but the GOP knew this before they voted him up to the chairmanship.  In addition and in recognition of Steele’s history, one wonders if this would have happened to a horse of a different color with similar past campaign coffer issues.  Did we mention that this is the first time in history that such restraints have ever been placed on an RNC Chairman?  Wow…Steele made history in a second way…he must be so proud!

Here is a kicker, RNC veteran Jay Banning will be an advisor to the new RNC treasurer.  Did we also mention that Steele fired Banning last month?  The RNC forced Steele to reinstate Banning a month after he fired him.  So Steele does not even have control over employment decisions of the RNC. Wooow.

As most people have guessed by now, Steele was elected on President Obama’s coattails.  However, what the GOP still fails to realize is that black folks do not support President Obama simply because he is black but because he is a smart, qualified, articulate, gifted and capable leader.  In other words, President Obama and his family makes most black folks proud to be a member of the African-American community.  They do so by consistently projecting a positive image of high intelligence and high competence and ability.  Steele does the opposite.  As a matter of fact, many of us are wondering, under normal circumstances, whether Steele would have been elected using statements like “bling-bling,” “off-the-hook,” referring to everyone as “baby,” “wearing his hat backwards is how he roll” and agreeing with and laughing at a reference to the President as the “magic negro.” Instead of taking a high profile opportunity and using it to make a valuable contribution to political discourse, Steele has used his increased visibility to project utter buffoonery and may have set African-Americans back twenty or thirty years.  Two messages for Steele.  First, your constituents are not 16-year-old hip hop enthusiasts and if you are not smart enough to realize that then you are not smart or QUALIFIED enough to run a national party nor are the people who elevated you smart or attuned enough to the current political climate to dictate the policy and agenda for the decreasing number of Americans identifying themselves as Republican.  Second, laughing at a racist joke period but a racist joke about a member of your own community……..well there are no words.  Think about it, President Obama is a highly qualified, highly intelligent, highly accomplished, and highly revered figure in politics and in the world for that matter, if they are making such unimaginative, imbecilic remarks about him what exactly do you think they are saying about you behind your back? 

I guess all the trash talking Sen. Arnel Specter has been doing, “I will not be a loyal Democrat,” “I will not back the Employee Free Choice Act,”  “I will not be an automatic 60th vote” “still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner,”  has had an effect on Senate Democrats. Last night in a modified resolution approved on the Senate floor it was resolved that Sen. Specter would enter the Democrat caucus as the most junior member of all committees but one.  Yes, Specter will be second in seniority only on the Special Committee on Aging despite promises from Sen. Harry Reid that the former Republican senator would retain the same seniority he would have earned had he entered the Senate as a Democrat 29 years ago.  As a Republican, Specter was the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee and a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, as well as ranking member of the panel’s Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.  In fact, Specter lost seniority on five committees in all which will severly limit his influence.  So even though Specter retains seniority in the Senate generally he has lost it where it counts. 

Perhaps now the Pennsylvania Senator will realize that he has switched parties and there are consequences for Senators who switch parties in name only.  Specter’s comment that he is “entitled” to seniority this past weekend baffles this writer.  My question to Specter is have you been fighting for democratic causes for the 29 years that you have been in the Senate?  Voting with Democrats a mere 35 percent of the time does not “entitle” you to leap frog over those Senate Democrats who vote Democrat 80 to 90 percent of the time.  You’re not that valuable.  Not to mention the fact that you have benefited greatly throughout the past 29 years as a Republican member of the Senate primarly because the GOP has controlled the body for the majority of that time.  Senate Democrats have been in the minority for a long time, it seems unfair that all you need to do to usurp their earned power and influence is to cross to the other side of the isle.  Especially because you switched, by your own admission,  simply because you are unelectable as a member of the Republican party and not for any real ideological shift. 

It is unclear whether Sen. Specter will recoup his seniority IF he is reelected.

“[B]y definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”  Yes, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice pulled the Nixonian defense when asked whether waterboarding is torture.  Rice was caught up again when a fourth grader from Bethesda asked the following question during the former Secretary’s first public appearance since leaving office. 

What did Rice think about the things President Obama’s administration was saying about the methods the Bush administration had used to get information from detainees?  

This time however Rice had honed her story a bit.  She first expressed how terrified the administration was that America would be attacked again and then went on to say that she did not pull the Nixonian defense in her prior statement on this topic but had misspoke.  What she had meant to say was the president would never authorize an action that was in violation of the Convention Against Torture….yea right!  We’ll take the first honest, unprepared answer thank you.  Rice also claimed as her defense in the prior statement that she merely “conveyed the information” to the appropriate actors but played no part in the actual decision to waterboard detainees.  What we did find out is that Rice is clearly not an attorney nor is she informed as to what is considered a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture and the lack of defenses thereof.  We have included the relevant sections and non-defenses for her to study before her next press outing.

United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 

PART 1 -Article 1:    Definition of Torture

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

PART 1 – Article II:   No Defenses

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

President Barack Obama has confirmed that he just received a call from Justice David Souter conveying that he (Souter) will retire at the end of this term (June).  The President interrupted the White House press briefing being given by Robert Gibbs to make the announcement directly to the White House press corp.  The President hopes to have the new Supreme Court Justice confirmed by October in time for the start of the new term.   He also made the following statement regarding the upcoming selection process:

President Obama said that he will seek someone:

…with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity.  I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or foot note in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their own homes and welcomed in their own nation. I view that the quality of empathy of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role.  I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

Justice Souter’s letter to the President:

May 1, 2009

Dear Mr. President:

When the Supreme Court rises for the summer recess this year, I intend to retire from active service as a Justice, under provisions of 28 US.C section 371 (b) (1), having attained the age and met the service requirements of subsection (c) of that section. I mean to continue to render substantial judicial service as an Associate Justice.

Yours respectfully 
  s/ David Souter

The President 
The White House 
Washington, DC 20500

This process will be an all out brawl with many of the conservative members of the GOP regardless of who the President selects as a potential Souter replacement.  However, Sen. Hatch of Utah(R) did say, on tape, that his main requirement is that the candidates are qualified.  Apparently, he forgot who was making the selection.

It’s time for the President to choose what will be a significant part of his legacy.  Supreme Court Justice David Souter is expected to announce his retirement by the end of the Court’s term in June.  There have been rumors circulating for a few weeks about Souter’s retirement because he has yet to begin interviewing law clerks for the next term let alone choosing a law clerk.  Justice Souter is also not a fan of Washington, DC and never has been.  The Justice is very much looking forward to returning to his home state of New Hampshire as soon as a replacement is confirmed.   We assume that the election of Barack Obama played a huge part in the timing of Souter’s decision who is expected to appoint a replacement in keeping with Souter’s constitutional and ideological leanings.  Now the New Hampshire native can leave the Court with a clear conscience.  Oh and for those lambs who say that the Supreme Court isn’t political I have four words for you…..Bush v. Gore  2000.

The President will hopefully choose a woman so that the court is more representative of  the nation.  After all, there are SOOOOO many qualified female candidates out there to choose from.  There are too many men on the Court who are deciding the fate of an equally gendered population.  The highest court in the land should reflect the voices of both genders equally especially when we have such a large qualified pool of women to choose from.   There really is absolutely NO reason not to fill all of the upcoming vacancies on the Court during President Obama’s tenure in the White House with women.   Women bring a valuable and significant perspective to the Court that cannot be duplicated by its male members.  For example, the decision-making process.  Women have a plethora of tools inside their tool boxes that they utilize when making decisions and such tools are vastly different from the tools used by men.  Tools can mean whatever you want it to mean, the point is that men and women think differently and as a result can come to VERY different conclusions.  In addition, women of different backgrounds bring even more perspectives.  Therefore, by only appointing one or two females to SCOTUS deprives the Court of the wealth of stellar and available knowledge and experience that various types of women contribute to the bench everyday.  The more diverse the tools utilized at the table the better and more representative the dish.  In other words, the more the decisions reflect the best interest of the population as a whole.  No more than three vacancies are expected during a consecutive two terms of an Obama administration.