I prohibited the use of torture -- (applause) -- because America is stronger than any enemy -- and we always have been -- precisely because we do what's right not just when it's easy, but when it's hard. That's what sets us apart.
Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?
OBAMA: What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.
I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy.
And it makes us -- it puts us in a much stronger position to work with our allies in the kind of international, coordinated intelligence activity that can shut down these networks.
it is better for us to stick to who we are, even when we're taking on an unscrupulous enemy.
OBAMA: I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that the -- whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake.
when I made the decision to bar these practices, this was based on consultation with my entire national security team,
I am absolutely convinced that the best way I can do that is to make sure that we are not taking short cuts that undermine who we are.
And there have been no circumstances during the course of this first 100 days in which I have seen information that would make me second guess the decision that I have made. OK?
+++
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release April 29, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN ARNOLD, MISSOURI TOWN HALL
Fox Senior High School
Arnold, Missouri
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Arnold-Missouri-Town-Hall/
[Excerpt]
You believed that after an era of selfishness and greed, that we could reclaim a sense of responsibility on Wall Street and in Washington, as well as on Main Street. You believed that instead of huge inequalities and an economy that's built on a bubble, we could restore a sense of fairness to our economy and build a new foundation for lasting growth and prosperity. You believed that at a time of war, we could stand strong against our enemies and stand firmly for our ideals, and show a new face of American leadership to the world.
That's the change that you believed in. That's the trust you placed in me. It's something I will never forget, the fact that you made this possible.
...
And finally, we can't rest until America is secure and our leadership is restored.
...
That's why we've renewed our diplomacy to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons, to speak directly to our adversaries, and strengthen relations in the hemisphere.
And that's why we have rejected the false choice between our security and our ideals. That's why I ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo; that's why I prohibited the use of torture -- (applause) -- because America is stronger than any enemy -- and we always have been -- precisely because we do what's right not just when it's easy, but when it's hard. That's what sets us apart.
...
RAW DATA: Transcript of Obama's News Conference
President expresses confidence in accomplishments, but suggests he's only begun to implement agenda.
FOXNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/29/raw-data-presidential-news-conference/
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
OBAMA: Please, be seated. Before we begin tonight, I just want to provide everyone with a few brief updates on some of the challenges we're dealing with right now.
First, we are continuing to closely monitor the emergency cases of the H1N1 flu virus throughout the United States. As I said this morning, this is obviously a very serious situation, and every American should know that their entire government is taking the utmost precautions and preparations.
Our public health officials have recommended that schools with confirmed or suspected cases of this flu strongly consider temporarily closing. And if more schools are forced to close, we've recommended that both parents and businesses think about contingency plans if their children do have to stay home.
I've requested an immediate $1.5 billion in emergency funding from Congress to support our ability to monitor and track this virus and to build our supply of antiviral drugs and other equipment. And we will also ensure that those materials get to where they need to be as quickly as possible.
And, finally, I've asked every American to take the same steps you would take to prevent any other flu: keep your hands washed; cover your mouth when you cough; stay home from work if you're sick; and keep your children home from school if they're sick.
We'll continue to provide regular updates to the American people as we receive more information. And everyone should rest assured that this government is prepared to do whatever it takes to control the impact of this virus.
The second thing I'd like to mention is how gratified I am that the House and the Senate passed a budget resolution today that will serve as an economic blueprint for this nation's future.
I especially want to thank Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi, all of the members of Congress who worked so quickly and effectively to make this blueprint a reality.
This budget builds on the steps we've taken over the last 100 days to move this economy from recession to recovery and ultimately to prosperity.
We began by passing a recovery act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs and provided a tax cut to 95 percent of all working families. We passed a law to provide and protect health insurance for 11 million American children whose parents work full time. And we launched a housing plan that has already contributed to a spike in the number of homeowners who are refinancing their mortgages, which is the equivalent of another tax cut.
But, even as we clear away the wreckage of this recession, I've also said that we can't go back to an economy that's built on a pile of sand, on inflated home prices and maxed-out credit cards, on overleveraged banks and outdated regulations that allow recklessness of a few to threaten the prosperity of all.
We have to lay a new foundation for growth, a foundation that will strengthen our economy and help us compete in the 21st century. And that's exactly what this budget begins to do.
It contains new investments in education that will equip our workers with the right skills and training, new investments in renewable energy that will create millions of jobs and new industries, new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses, and new savings that will bring down our deficit.
I also campaigned on the promise that I would change the direction of our nation's foreign policy. And we've begun to do that, as well. We've begun to end the war in Iraq, and we forged with our NATO allies a new strategy to target Al Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
OBAMA: We have rejected the false choice between our security and our ideals by closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and banning torture without exception.
And we've renewed our diplomatic efforts to deal with challenges ranging from the global economic crisis to the spread of nuclear weapons.
So I think we're off to a good start, but it's just a start. I'm proud of what we've achieved, but I'm not content. I'm pleased with our progress, but I'm not satisfied.
Millions of Americans are still without jobs and homes, and more will be lost before this recession is over. Credit is still not flowing nearly as freely as it should. Countless families and communities touched by our auto industry still face tough times ahead. Our projected long-term deficits are still too high, and government is still not as efficient as it needs to be.
We still confront threats ranging from terrorism to nuclear proliferation, as well as pandemic flu. And all this means you can expect an unrelenting, unyielding effort from this administration to strengthen our prosperity and our security in the second hundred days, in the third hundred days, and all of the days after that.
You can expect us to work on health care reform that will bring down costs while maintaining quality, as well as energy legislation that will spark a clean-energy revolution. I expect to sign legislation by the end of this year that sets new rules of the road for Wall Street, rules that reward drive and innovation, as opposed to short-cuts and abuse.
And we will also work to pass legislation that protects credit card users from unfair rate hikes and abusive fees and penalties. We'll continue scouring the federal budget for savings and target more programs for elimination. And we will continue to pursue procurement reform that will greatly reduce the no-bid contracts that have wasted so many taxpayer dollars.
So we have a lot of work left to do. It's work that will take time, and it will take effort. But the United States of America, I believe, will see a better day.
We will rebuild a stronger nation, and we will endure as a beacon for all of those weary travelers beyond our shores who still dream that there's a place where all of this is possible.
I want to thank the American people for their support and their patience during these trying times, and I look forward to working with you in the next hundred days, in the hundred days after that, all of the hundreds of days to follow to make sure that this country is what it can be.
And with that, I will start taking some questions.
And I'll start with you, Jennifer.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. With the flu outbreak spreading and worsening, can you talk about whether you think it's time to close the border with Mexico and whether -- under what conditions you might consider quarantining, when that might be appropriate?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, as I said, this is a cause for deep concern, but not panic. And I think that we have to make sure that we recognize that how we respond intelligently, systematically, based on science and what public health officials have to say, will determine in large part what happens.
I've consulted with our public health officials extensively on a day-to-day basis, in some cases an hour-to-hour basis. At this point, they have not recommended a border closing. From their perspective, it would be akin to closing the barn door after the horses are out, because we already have cases here in the United States.
We have ramped up screening efforts, as well as made sure that additional supplies are there on the border so that we can prepare in the eventuality that we have to do more than we're doing currently.
But the most important thing right now that public health officials have indicated is that we treat this the same way that we would treat other flu outbreaks, just understanding that, because this is a new strain, we don't yet know how it will respond.
So we have to take additional precautions, essentially, take out some additional insurance. Now, that's why I asked for an additional $1.5 billion, so that we can make sure that everything is in place should a worst-case scenario play out.
I do want to compliment Democrats and Republicans who worked diligently back in 2005 when the bird flu came up. I was part of a group of legislators who worked with the Bush administration to make sure that we had beefed up our infrastructure and our stockpiles of antiviral drugs, like Tamiflu.
And I think the Bush administration did a good job of creating the infrastructure so that we can respond. For example, we've got 50 million courses of anti-viral drugs in the event that they're needed.
So, the government is going to be doing everything that we can. We're coordinating closely with state and local officials. Secretary Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security, newly installed Secretary Sebelius of Health and Human Services, our acting CDC director, they are all on the phone on a daily basis with all public health officials across the states to coordinate and make sure that there's timely reporting, that if -- as new cases come up, that we're able to track them effectively, that we're allocating resources so that they're in place.
The key now I think is to make sure that we're maintaining great vigilance, that everybody responds appropriately when cases do come up, and individual families start taking very sensible precautions that -- can make a huge difference.
So wash your hands when you shake hands. Cover your mouth when you cough. I know it sounds trivial, but it makes a huge difference. If you are sick, stay home. If your child is sick, keep them out of school.
To -- if you are feeling certain flu symptoms, don't get on an airplane, don't get on a -- any system of public transportation where you're confined and you could potentially spread the virus.
So those are the steps that I think we need to take right now. But understand that because this is a new strain, we have to be cautious. If this was a strain that we were familiar with, then we might have to -- then I think we wouldn't see the kind of alert levels that we're seeing, for example, with the World Health Organization. OK?
Deb Price of Detroit News. Where's Deb?
Good to see you.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
On the domestic auto industry, have you determined that bankruptcy is the only option to restructure Chrysler? And do you believe that the deep cuts in plant closings that were outlined this week by General Motors are sufficient?
OBAMA: Let me speak to Chrysler first because the clock is ticking on Chrysler coming up with a plan. I am actually very hopeful, more hopeful than I was 30 days ago, that we can see a resolution that maintains a viable Chrysler auto company out there.
What we've seen is the unions have made enormous sacrifices on top of sacrifices that they had previously made. You've now seen the major debt holders come up with a set of potential concessions that they can live with.
All of that promises the possibility that you can get a Fiat- Chrysler merger and that you have an ongoing concern. The details have not yet been finalized, so I don't know to jump the gun. But I am feeling more optimistic than I was about the possibilities of that getting done.
With respect to GM, we're going to have another 30 days. They're still in the process of presenting us with their plans. But I've always said that GM has a lot of good product there and if they can get through these difficult times, and engage in some of the very difficult choices that they've already made, that they can emerge a strong, competitive, viable company.
And that's my goal in this whole process. I would love to get the U.S. government out of the auto business as quickly as possible. We have a circumstance in which a bad recession compounded some great weaknesses already in the auto industry.
And it was my obligation and continues to be my obligation to make sure that any taxpayer dollars that are in place to support the auto industry are aimed not at short-term fixes that continue these companies as wards of the state, but rather institutes the kind of restructuring that allows them to be strongly competitive in the future. I think we're moving in that direction.
Last point, you asked about Chrysler bankruptcy. It was the prudent and appropriate thing for Chrysler to do to engage in the filings that they -- that received some notice a while back because they had to prepare for possible contingencies.
It's not clear that they're going to have to use it. The fact that the major debt-holders appear ready to make concessions means that, even if they ended up having to go through some sort of bankruptcy, it would be a very quick type of bankruptcy and they could continue operating and emerge on the other side in a much stronger position.
So my goal is to make sure that we've got a strong, viable, competitive auto industry. I think some tough choices are being made. There's no denying that there's significant hardship involved, particularly for the workers and the families in these communities.
And we're going to be coming behind whatever plan is in place to make sure that the federal government is providing as much assistance as we have to ensure that people are landing back on their feet, even as we strengthen these core businesses.
Jake? Where's Jake? There he is.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You've said in the past that waterboarding, in your opinion, is torture. Torture is a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?
OBAMA: What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.
I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.
I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "We don't torture," when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.
And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.
And -- and so I strongly believed that the steps that we've taken to prevent these kinds of enhanced interrogation techniques will make us stronger over the long term and make us safer over the long term because it will put us in a -- in a position where we can still get information.
In some cases, it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy.
At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians.
And it makes us -- it puts us in a much stronger position to work with our allies in the kind of international, coordinated intelligence activity that can shut down these networks.
So this is a decision that I'm very comfortable with. And I think the American people over time will recognize that it is better for us to stick to who we are, even when we're taking on an unscrupulous enemy.
OK?
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
OBAMA: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) sanctioned torture?
OBAMA: I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that the -- whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake.
OBAMA: Mark Knoller?
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Let me follow up, if I may, on Jake's question. Did you read the documents recently referred to by former Vice President Cheney and others saying that the use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" not only protected the nation but saved lives?
And if part of the United States were under imminent threat, could you envision yourself ever authorizing the use of those enhanced interrogation techniques?
OBAMA: I have read the documents. Now they have not been officially declassified and released. And so I don't want to go to the details of them. But here's what I can tell you, that the public reports and the public justifications for these techniques, which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques, doesn't answer the core question.
Which is, could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn't answer the broader question, are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?
So when I made the decision to release these memos and when I made the decision to bar these practices, this was based on consultation with my entire national security team, and based on my understanding that ultimately I will be judged as commander-in-chief on how safe I'm keeping the American people.
That's the responsibility I wake up with and it's the responsibility I go to sleep with. And so I will do whatever is required to keep the American people safe. But I am absolutely convinced that the best way I can do that is to make sure that we are not taking short cuts that undermine who we are.
And there have been no circumstances during the course of this first 100 days in which I have seen information that would make me second guess the decision that I have made. OK?
Chuck Todd.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to move to Pakistan. Pakistan appears to be at war with the Taliban inside their own country. Can you reassure the American people that if necessary America could secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and keep it from getting into the Taliban's hands or, worst case scenario, even al Qaeda's hands?
OBAMA: I'm confident that we can make sure that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is secure. Primarily, initially, because the Pakistani army, I think, recognizes the hazards of those weapons falling into the wrong hands. We've got strong military-to-military consultation and cooperation.
I am gravely concerned about the situation in Pakistan, not because I think that they're immediately going to be overrun and the Taliban would take over in Pakistan. I'm more concerned that the civilian government there right now is very fragile and don't seem to have the capacity to deliver basic services: schools, health care, rule of law, a judicial system that works for the majority of the people.
And so as a consequence, it is very difficult for them to gain the support and the loyalty of their people. So we need to help Pakistan help Pakistanis. And I think that there's a recognition increasingly on the part of both the civilian government there and the army that that is their biggest weakness.
On the military side, you're starting to see some recognition just in the last few days that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided, and that their biggest threat right now comes internally. And you're starting to see the Pakistani military take much more seriously the armed threat from militant extremists.
We want to continue to encourage Pakistan to move in that direction. And we will provide them all of the cooperation that we can. We want to respect their sovereignty, but we also recognize that we have huge strategic interests, huge national security interests in making sure that Pakistan is stable and that you don't end up having a nuclear-armed militant state.
QUESTION: But in a worst-case scenario...
OBAMA: I'm not going to engage in...
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) military could secure this nuclear...
OBAMA: I'm not going to engage in -- in hypotheticals of that sort. I feel confident that that nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands.
OK, Jeff Mason?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. One of the biggest changes you've made in the first 100 days regarding foreign policy has had to do with Iraq. But do the large-scale -- there's large-scale violence there right now. Does that affect the U.S.'s strategy at all for withdrawal? And could it affect the timetable that you've set out for troops?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it's important to note that, although you've seen some spectacular bombings in Iraq that are a -- a legitimate cause of concern, civilian deaths, incidents of bombings, et cetera, remain very low relative to what was going on last year, for example.
And so you haven't seen the kinds of huge spikes that you were seeing for a time. The political system is holding and functioning in Iraq.
Part of the reason why I called for a gradual withdrawal as opposed to a precipitous one was precisely because more work needs to be done on the political side to further isolate whatever remnants of Al Qaida in Iraq still exists.
And I'm very confident that, with our commander on the ground, General Odierno, with Chris Hill, our new ambassador, having been approved and already getting his team in place, that they are going to be able to work effectively with the Maliki government to create the conditions for an ultimate transfer after the national elections.
But there's some -- some serious work to do on making sure that how they divvy up oil revenues is ultimately settled, what the provincial powers are and boundaries, the relationship between the Kurds and the central government, the relationship between the Shia and the Kurds. Are they incorporating effectively Sunnis, Sons of Iraq, into the structure of the armed forces in a way that's equitable and just?
Those are all issues that have not been settled the way they need to be settled. And what we've done is, we've provided sufficient time for them to get that work done, but we've got to keep the pressure up, not just on the military side, but on the diplomatic and development sides, as well.
Chip Reid?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. On Senator Specter's switch to the Democratic Party, you said you were thrilled; I guess nobody should be surprised about that.
But how big a deal is this, really? Some Republicans say it is huge. They believe it's a game-changer. They say that, if you get the 60 votes in the Senate, that you will be able to ride roughshod over any opposition and that we're on the verge of, as one Republican put it, "one-party rule."
Do you see it that way? And, also, what do you think his switch says about the state of the Republican Party?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think very highly of Arlen Specter. I think he's got a record of legislative accomplishment that is as good as any member of the Senate.
And I think he's always had a strong independent streak. I think that was true when he was a Republican; I think that will be true when he's a Democrat.
He was very blunt in saying I couldn't count on him to march lockstep on every single issue. And so he's going to still have strong opinions, as many Democrats in the Senate do.
I've been there. It turns out, all the senators have very strong opinions. And I don't think that's going to change.
I do think that having Arlen Specter in the Democratic caucus will liberate him to cooperate on critical issues, like health care, like infrastructure and job creation, areas where his inclinations were to work with us, but he was feeling pressure not to.
And I think the vote on the recovery act was a classic example. Ultimately, he thought that was the right thing to do. And he was fiercely berated within his own party at the time for having taken what I consider to be a very sensible step. So -- so I think it's, overall, positive.
OBAMA: Now, I am under no illusions that suddenly I'm going to have a rubber-stamp Senate. I've got Democrats who don't agree with me on everything, and that's how it should be.
Congress is a co-equal branch of government. Every senator who's there, whether I agree with them or disagree with them, I think truly believes that they are doing their absolute best to represent their constituencies.
And we've got regional differences, and we've got some parts of the country that are affected differently by certain policies. And those have to be respected, and there's going to have to be compromise and give-and-take on all of these issues.
I do think that, to my Republican friends, I want them to realize that me reaching out to them has been genuine. I can't sort of define bipartisanship as simply being willing to accept certain theories of theirs that we tried for eight years and didn't work and the American people voted to change.
But there are a whole host of areas where we can work together. And I've said this to people like Mitch McConnell. I said, look, on health care reform, you may not agree with me that I -- we should have a public plan. That may be philosophically just too much for you to swallow.
On the other hand, there are some areas like reducing the costs of medical malpractice insurance where you do agree with me. If I'm taking some of your ideas and giving you credit for good ideas, the fact that you didn't get 100 percent can't be a reason every single time to oppose my position.
And if that is how bipartisanship is defined, a situation in which basically, wherever there are philosophical differences, I have to simply go along with ideas that have been rejected by the American people in a historic election, you know, we're probably not going to make progress.
If, on the other hand, the definition is that we're open to each other's ideas, there are going to be differences, the majority will probably be determinative when it comes to resolving just hard, core differences that we can't resolve, but there is a whole host of other areas where we can work together, then I think we can make progress.
QUESTION: Is the Republican Party in the desperate straits that Arlen Specter seems to think it is?
OBAMA: You know, politics in America changes very quick. And I'm a big believer that things are never as good as they seem and never as bad as they seem.
You're talking to a guy who was 30 points down in the polls during a -- a primary in Iowa. So -- so I never -- I don't believe in crystal balls.
I do think that our administration has taken some steps that have restored confidence in the American people that we're moving in the right direction and that simply opposing our approach on every front is probably not a good political strategy.
Ed Henry?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you're going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.
As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at one point in the campaign when asked about abortion and life, you said that it was above -- quote, "above my pay grade."
Now that you've been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator.
(LAUGHTER)
Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?
OBAMA: You know, the -- my view on -- on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.
I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest -- and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.
OBAMA: The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that -- that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their doctors, with their clergy.
So -- so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.
And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.
Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's -- that's where I'm going to focus.
Jeff Zeleny.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?
OBAMA: Now let me write this down.
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: I've got...
QUESTION: Surprised, troubled...
OBAMA: I've got -- what was the first one?
QUESTION: Surprised.
OBAMA: Surprised.
QUESTION: Troubled.
OBAMA: Troubled.
QUESTION: Enchanted.
OBAMA: Enchanted, nice.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: And humbled.
OBAMA: And what was the last one, humbled?
QUESTION: Humbled. Thank you, sir.
OBAMA: All right. OK. Surprised. I am surprised compared to where I started, when we first announced for this race, by the number of critical issues that appear to be coming to a head all at the same time.
You know, when I first started this race, Iraq was a central issue, but the economy appeared on the surface to still be relatively strong. There were underlying problems that I was seeing with health care for families and our education system and college affordability and so forth, but obviously, I didn't anticipate the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
And so, you know, the typical president, I think, has two or three big problems. We've got seven or eight big problems. And so we've had to move very quickly and I'm very proud of my team for the fact that we've been able to keep our commitments to the American people, to bring about change, while at the same time managing a whole host of issues that had come up that weren't necessarily envisioned a year-and-a-half ago.
Troubled? I'd say less troubled, but, you know, sobered by the fact that change in Washington comes slow. That there is still a certain quotient of political posturing and bickering that takes place even when we're in the middle of really big crises.
I would like to think that everybody would say, you know what, let's take a time-out on some of the political games, focus our attention for at least this year, and then we can start running for something next year. And that hasn't happened as much as I would have liked.
Enchanted? Enchanted. I will tell you that when I -- when I meet our servicemen and -women, enchanted is probably not the word I would use.
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: But I am so profoundly impressed and grateful to them for what they do. They're really good at their job. They are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices on our behalf. They do so without complaint. They are fiercely loyal to this country.
And, you know, the more I interact with our servicemen and women, from the top brass down to the lowliest private, I'm just -- I'm grateful to them.
Humbled by the -- humbled by the fact that the presidency is extraordinarily powerful, but we are just part of a much broader tapestry of American life, and there are a lot of different power centers. And so I can't just press a button and suddenly have the bankers do exactly what I want or, you know, turn on a switch and suddenly, you know, Congress falls in line.
And so, you know, what you do is to -- is to make your best arguments, listen hard to what other people have to say, and coax folks in the right direction.
This metaphor has been used before, but the ship of state is an ocean liner. It's not a speedboat. And so the way we are constantly thinking about this issue, of how to bring about the changes that the American people need, is to -- is to say, if we can move this big battleship a few degrees in a different direction, you may not see all the consequences of that change a week from now or three months from now, but 10 years from now or 20 years from now, our kids will be able to look back and say, "That was when we started getting serious about clean energy. That's when health care started to become more efficient and affordable. That's when we became serious about raising our standards in education."
And -- and so I -- I have a much longer time horizon than I think you do when you're a candidate or if you're listening, I think, to the media reportage on a day-to-day basis.
And I'm humbled, last, by the American people who have shown extraordinary patience and I think a recognition that we're not going to solve all of these problems overnight.
OK. Lori Montenegro?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, when you met with the Hispanic Caucus a few weeks ago, reports came out that the White House was planning to have a forum to talk about immigration and bring it to the forefront.
Going forward, my question is, what is your strategy to try to have immigration reform? And are you still on the same timetable to have it accomplished in the first year of your presidency?
And, also, I'd like to know if you're going to reach out to Senator John McCain, who is Republican and in the past has favored immigration reform?
OBAMA: Well, we reach out to -- to Senator McCain on a whole host of issues. He has been a leader on immigration reform. I think he has had the right position on immigration reform. And I would love to partner with him and others on what is going to be a critical issue.
We've also worked with Senator McCain on what I think is a terrific piece of legislation that he and Carl Levin have put together around procurement reform. We want that moved, and we're going to be working hard with them to get that accomplished.
What I told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is exactly what I said the very next day in a town hall meeting and what I will continue to say publicly, and that is we want to move this process.
We can't continue with a broken immigration system. It's not good for anybody. It's not good for American workers. It's dangerous for Mexican would-be workers who are trying to cross a dangerous border.
OBAMA: It is -- it is putting a strain on border communities, who oftentimes have to deal with a host of undocumented workers. And it keeps those undocumented workers in the shadows, which means they can be exploited at the same time as they're depressing U.S. wages.
So, what I hope to happen is that we're able to convene a working group, working with key legislators like Luis Gutierrez and Nydia Velazquez and others to start looking at a framework of how this legislation might be shaped.
In the meantime, what we're trying to do is take some core -- some key administrative steps to move the process along to lay the groundwork for legislation. Because the American people need some confidence that if we actually put a package together, we can execute.
So Janet Napolitano, who has great knowledge of this because of having been a border governor, she's already in the process of reviewing and figuring out how can we strengthen our border security in a much more significant way than we're doing.
If the American people don't feel like you can secure the borders, then it's hard to strike a deal that would get people out of the shadows and on a pathway to citizenship who are already here, because the attitude of the average American is going to be, well, you're just going to have hundreds of thousands of more coming in each year.
On the other hand, showing that there is a more thoughtful approach than just raids of a handful of workers as opposed to, for example, taking seriously the violation of companies that sometimes are actively recruiting these workers to come in. That's again something we can start doing administratively.
So what we want to do is to show that we are competent and getting results around immigration, even on the structures that we already have in place, the laws that we already have in place, so that we're building confidence among the American people that we can actually follow through on whatever legislative approach emerges. OK?
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
OBAMA: I see the process moving this first year. And I'm going to be moving it as quickly as I can. I've been accused of doing too much. We are moving full steam ahead on all fronts.
Ultimately, I don't have control of the legislative calendar, and so we're going to work with legislative leaders to see what we can do.
Andre Showell? There you go.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
As the entire nation tries to climb out of this deep recession, in communities of color, the circumstances are far worse. The black unemployment rate, as you know, is in the double digits. And in New York City, for example, the black unemployment rate for men is near 50 percent.
My question to you tonight is given this unique and desperate circumstance, what specific policies can you point to that will target these communities and what's the timetable for us to see tangible results?
OBAMA: Well, keep in mind that every step we're taking is designed to help all people. But, folks who are most vulnerable are most likely to be helped because they need the most help.
So when we passed the Recovery Act, for example, and we put in place provisions that would extend unemployment insurance or allow you to keep your health insurance even if you've lost your job, that probably disproportionately impacted those communities that had lost their jobs. And unfortunately, the African-American community and the Latino community are probably overrepresented in those ranks.
When we put in place additional dollars for community health centers to ensure that people are still getting the help that they need, or we expand health insurance to millions more children through the Children's Health Insurance Program, again, those probably disproportionately impact African-American and Latino families simply because they're the ones who are most vulnerable. They have got higher rates of uninsured in their communities.
So my general approach is that if the economy is strong, that will lift all boats as long as it is also supported by, for example, strategies around college affordability and job training, tax cuts for working families as opposed to the wealthiest that level the playing field and ensure bottom-up economic growth.
And I'm confident that that will help the African-American community live out the American dream at the same time that it's helping communities all across the country.
Michael Scherer of TIME?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. During the campaign, you criticized President Bush's use of the state secrets privilege, but U.S. attorneys have continued to argue the Bush position in three cases in court. How exactly does your view of state secrets differ from President Bush's? And do you believe presidents should be able to derail entire lawsuits about warrantless wiretapping or rendition if classified information is involved?
OBAMA: I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right now it's overbroad.
But keep in mind what happens, is we come in to office. We're in for a week, and suddenly we've got a court filing that's coming up. And so we don't have the time to effectively think through, what exactly should an overarching reform of that doctrine take? We've got to respond to the immediate case in front of us.
There -- I think it is appropriate to say that there are going to be cases in which national security interests are genuinely at stake and that you can't litigate without revealing covert activities or classified information that would genuinely compromise our safety.
But searching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court, you know, there should be some additional tools so that it's not such a blunt instrument.
And we're interested in pursuing that. I know that Eric Holder and Greg Craig, my White House counsel, and others are working on that as we speak.
STAFF: Last question.
OBAMA: Jonathan Weisman, you get -- you get the last word. Where are you? There you are.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. You are currently the chief shareholder of a couple of very large mortgage giants. You're about to become the chief shareholder of a car company, probably two.
And I'm wondering, what kind of shareholder are you going to be? What is the government's role as the keeper of public -- public trust and bonds in -- in soon-to-be public companies again? Thank you.
OBAMA: Well, I think our -- our first role should be shareholders that are looking to get out. You know, I don't want to run auto companies. I don't want to run banks. I've got two wars I've got to run already. I've got more than enough to do. So the sooner we can get out of that business, the better off we're going to be.
We are in unique circumstances. You had the potential collapse of the financial system, which would have decimated our economy, and so we had to step in.
As I've said before, I don't agree with every decision that was made by the previous administration when it came to TARP, but the need for significant intervention was there, and it was appropriate that we moved in.
With respect to the auto companies, I believe that America should have a functioning, competitive auto industry. I don't think that taxpayers should simply put -- attach an umbilical cord between the U.S. Treasury and the auto companies so that they are constantly getting subsidies, but I do think that helping them restructure at this unique period when sales -- you know, the market has essentially gone from 14 million down to 9 million, I don't think that there's anything inappropriate about that.
My goal on all this is to help these companies make some tough decisions based on realistic assumptions about economic growth, about their market share, about what that market is going to look like, to prevent systemic risk that would affect everybody, and, as soon as their situations are stabilized and the economy is less fragile so that those systemic risks are diminished, to get out, find some private buyers, and...
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) products or services (OFF-MIKE)
OBAMA: I don't think that we should micromanage, but I think that, like any investor, the American taxpayer has the right to scrutinize what's being proposed and make sure that their money is not just being thrown down the drain.
And so, you know, we've got to strike a balance. I don't want to be -- I'm not an auto engineer. I don't know how to create an affordable, well-designed plug-in hybrid. But I know that, if the Japanese can design an affordable, well-designed hybrid, then, doggone it, the American people should be able to do the same.
So my job is to ask the auto industry: Why is it you guys can't do this? And, in some cases, they're starting to do it, but they've got these legacy costs. You know, there are some terrific U.S. cars being made, both by Chrysler and G.M.
The question is, you know, give me a plan so that you're building off your strengths and you're projecting out to where that market is going to be. I actually think, if you look at the trends, that those auto companies that emerge from this crisis, when you start seeing the pent-up demand for autos coming back, they're going to be in a position to really do well, globally, not just here in the United States.
So I just want to help them get there. But I want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy, you know, meddling in the private sector, if -- if you could tell me right now that, when I walked into this office that the banks were humming, that autos were selling, and that all you had to worry about was Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, getting health care passed, figuring out how to deal with energy independence, deal with Iran, and a pandemic flu, I would take that deal.
(LAUGHTER)
And -- and that's why I'm always amused when I hear these, you know, criticisms of, "Oh, you know, Obama wants to grow government." No. I would love a nice, lean portfolio to deal with, but that's not the hand that's been dealt us.
And, you know, every generation has to rise up to the specific challenges that confront them. We happen to have gotten a big set of challenges, but we're not the first generation that that's happened to. And I'm confident that we are going to meet these challenges just like our grandparents and forbearers met them before.
All right? Thank you, everybody.
Labels:
--
Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.
View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon Opens Probe into Guantanamo Torture
Judge Baltasar Garzon will probe the "perpetrators, the instigators, the necessary collaborators and accomplices" to crimes of torture at the prison at the US naval base in southern Cuba
the existence of an authorised and systematic programme of torture and mistreatment of persons deprived of their freedom" that flouts international conventions.
"the possible existence of concerted actions by the US administration for the execution of a multitude of crimes of torture
universal jurisdiction in alleged cases of crimes against humanity, genocide, and terrorism.
+++
Spanish Judge Opens Probe into Guantanamo Torture
Published on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 by Agence France Presse
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/29-6
MADRID - A Spanish judge on Wednesday opened an investigation into an alleged "systematic programme" of torture at the US Guantanamo Bay detention camp, following accusations by four former prisoners.
Judge Baltasar Garzon will probe the "perpetrators, the instigators, the necessary collaborators and accomplices" to crimes of torture at the prison at the US naval base in southern Cuba, he said in his ruling, a copy of which was seen by AFP.
The judge based his decision on statements by Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed, known as the "Spanish Taliban" and three other former Guantanamo detainees -- a Moroccan, a Palestinian and a Libyan.
Garzon said that documents declassified by the US administration and carried by US media "have revealed what was previously a suspicion: the existence of an authorised and systematic programme of torture and mistreatment of persons deprived of their freedom" that flouts international conventions.
This points to "the possible existence of concerted actions by the US administration for the execution of a multitude of crimes of torture against persons deprived of their freedom in Guantanamo and other prisons including that of Bagram" in Afghanistan.
The four former Guantanamo detainees alleged they were held in cramped cells and suffered beatings and other physical and mental mistreatment.
The Palestinian, Jamiel Abdelatif al Banna, said he suffered "blows to the head that caused him to lose consciousness, was detained in an underground place without light for three weeks and deprived of food and sleep."
The decision by Garzon, known around the world for ordering the arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London in 1998, was unrelated to another investigation by the judge into six officials of the former US administration of George W. Bush over alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay.
Prosecutors this month issued an official request to the judge to drop that probe, arguing that the complaint targets officials who did not have the power to make decisions but who simply "drafted non-binding judicial reports."
Spain since 2005 has assumed the principle of universal jurisdiction in alleged cases of crimes against humanity, genocide, and terrorism. But it can only proceed when any such cases of the alleged crimes are not already subject to a legal procedure in the country involved.
Several human rights groups have asked judges in different countries to indict Bush administration officials over the camp, which US President Barack Obama has vowed to close by January 2010.
More than 800 detainees have been held at the US military prison since 2002.
Some 240 people are still there. About 60 of them have been deemed eligible for release, but the Obama administration is struggling to arrange their transfer to a third country.
The Bush administration had charged about 20 of the detainees on terror-related charges, including two prisoners arrested when they were still teenagers.
Labels:
--
Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.
View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World
Ralph Nader: No More Excuses - Democrats - Pass Single Payer Health Care Now
Good morning.
There are no more excuses for the Democrats.
The Democrats now admit that they control the procedure in Congress and can pass whatever health care reform they want.
Withou
t one Republican vote.
And President Obama can sign it.
What should they do?
They should pass single payer.
Everybody in. Nobody out.
For prevention and treatment.
For free choice of doctors and hospitals.
No more premiums, deductibles, exclusions, co-pays, in-network, out-of-network rigamarole.
No more family medical bankruptcies.
No more pay or die.
No more pay or become sicker.
Single payer is the only system that will work.
It's the most efficient.
Single payer will cut out literally hundreds of billions in administrative fat, billing fraud and unconscionable profits.
These savings will be used instead to insure the 50 million uninsured and the millions more underinsured.
This will save lives.
Starting with the more than 21,000 Americans who die every year from lack of health insurance.
According to recent polls, the majority of the American people want single payer.
So do the majority of doctors, nurses, and health economists.
So, what will the Democrat leadership do?
They will keep single payer off the table.
Because they fear the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry - and want their campaign money - more than they fear the American people.
Or as Speaker of the House Pelosi told reporters last week:
"Over and over again, we hear single payer, single payer, single payer. Well, it's not going to be a single payer."
Who is Nancy Pelosi speaking for?
Not for the American people.
Not for those who will die or get sicker month after month.
How are we to respond?
Focus our collective creative energy on Congressional offices around the country -- offices of all 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate.
That's why we have set up Single Payer Action.
Less than two months old - and already Single Payer Action is making waves.
In front of Congressional offices from Martinsburg, West Virginia to Seattle, Washington.
On Capitol Hill, standing up to the corporate lobbyists and their lackeys in Congress.
And on the web, challenging the corporate controlled media to put single payer back on the table of public debate.
There is support in Congress for single payer.
Already, 76 House members support HR 676 - the single payer bill in the House.
But the Democratic leadership in Washington has taken single payer off the table.
They meet regularly behind closed doors with insurance and drug industry lobbyists - to thwart single payer.
Time to turn up the heat - and get the word out to the American people.
(Just last week, I was at the University of Colorado in Boulder where I spoke to an enthusiastic audience. Topic: Single payer, full Medicare health insurance for all.)
We need your help now.
To send speakers to all four corners of this country.
To fund organizing drives at Congressional offices around the country.
To shake up the system for single payer.
Last week, many of you responded enthusiastically to a note from my colleague Jason Kafoury by donating $10,000 to Single Payer Action.
Thanks to you, we are a third of the way to our goal of $30,000 by May 14.
This week, we need to expand the base again.
If you have not donated yet to Single Payer Action, please donate now whatever you can -- $10, $25, $50, $100.
And notice - if you donate $100 or more by May 14, 2009, we will send you two galvanizing books that concisely detail the case for single payer in America.
- Health Care Meltdown by Robert LeBow, MD, revised and updated by Dr. C. Rocky White - a Republican doctor so fed up with the needless suffering caused by the insurance industry that he has become a leading advocate for single payer..
and
- Ten Excellent Reasons for National Health Care, Edited by Mary O'Brien and Martha Livingston.
The goal: raise $30,000 by May 14th for Single Payer Action.
To make single payer a reality in America.
Together, we can break the logjam in Congress - and deliver health care to all.
Let's get it done.
Onward to single payer.
Ralph Nader
PS: This two book offer ends 11:59 p.m. May 14, 2009.
So don't miss out. Donate now.
We're building toward one million Americans strong for single payer.
Please share this e-mail with friends and family.
Urge them to sign up and donate at singlepayeraction.org.
Labels:
--
Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.
View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Reward Based Eating - How Food Industry Causes Excessive Eating Habits & How To Stop Being Fooled
The Science and Psychology Behind Overeating
Former FDA commissioner David Kessler, who lead tobacco reform, examines the causes of excessive eating in his new book, "The End of Overeating"
[The book includes a chapter on - Warning Signs In Children]---
A preview of the book is here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=AWVq7juJ8rEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+end+of+overeating&ei=vXj3SfymL5eSkASQzMjtBA#PPA234,M1
Check out the last chapter of the preview: ... coming to view these foods as enemies, not friends. ...
The moment you're thinking, "I deserve this," or "I'll only eat a little," no one can remind you that you'll feel differently after the meal. ... you see that food has kept you trapped in a cue-urge-reward-habit cycle. Only then can you accept that food rewards are short-lived and that their more enduring effect is to sustain your desire to keep eating. That's when you realize that if you stay trapped, you'll never eat enough to feel satisfied, and that's when you'll stop expecting food to make you feel better. That's when awareness of the long-term consequences of conditioned hypereating hits with full force.
When this happens, you begin to assign different value to foods. Your attitude shifts and you begin to see foods in a new light. You have made that critical perceptual shift.]
---
to understand why it was so hard to control what we eat.
inside the brain and inside the food industry.
eating when ... didn't want to eat.
highly palatable foods had hijacked ... brain.
food companies
design foods to be hot stimuli.
excessively activates the rewards circuits of the brain.
stimulates the rewards-circuitry of the brain. It's all about selling product.
Much of what we eat in restaurants is fat on fat on sugar on fat with salt.
explain ... what is going on
give ... tools to cool stimuli.
things we can do.
once we understand what is going on, we can change.
The fundamental question, when you look at food, is this: Is it real food, or is it food that is layered and loaded?
decide what we find rewarding, and then decide how we control it.
what stimulates you. Everybody is different.
At the core, it's fat, sugar and salt.
We are wired to focus on the most salient stimuli in our environment.
You have to condition yourself to take the power out of the stimulus.
the loss of control in the face of highly palatable foods, lack of feeling full -- is reward-based eating.
learning and motivational circuits of the brain being captured.
Once you lay down that neuro-circuitry, it's there for life.
The actual act of consumption isn't as strong as anticipation.
It's the conditioning associated with a cue.
Once you are cued and you're activated, it amplifies the reward value. It torments you. You want it more.
obesity and children.
They are getting huge portions of very stimulating foods, hyper-palatable foods.
Once these cues are laid down, and the information is in your brain, it stays there and drives behavior.
This isn't a disease.
we've been captured by these stimuli.
[plus] the emotional gloss of advertising.
changed how we view
a critical perceptual shift. That's the key.
+++
The Science and Psychology Behind Overeating
Former FDA commissioner David Kessler, who lead tobacco reform, examines the causes of excessive eating in his new book, "The End of Overeating"
By JEFFREY A. TRACHTENBERG
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124084009832659309.html
[The video is very insightful and all too short.]
[Here an excerpt well worth listening to:
http://books.simonandschuster.com/End-of-Overeating/David-A-Kessler-MD/9780743596794
A preview of the book is here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=AWVq7juJ8rEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+end+of+overeating&ei=vXj3SfymL5eSkASQzMjtBA#PPA234,M1
Check out the last chapter of the preview. ... coming to view these foods as enemies, not friends. ...
The moment you're thinking, "I deserve this," or "I'll only eat a little," no one can remind you that you'll feel differently after the meal. ... you see that food has kept you trapped in a cue-urge-reward-habit cycle. Only then can you accept that food rewards are short-lived and that thier more enduring effect is to sustain your desire to keep eating. That's when you realize that if you stay trapped, you'll never eat enough to feel satisfied, and that's when you'll stop expecting food to make you feel better. That's when awareness of the long-term consequences of conditioned hypereating hits with full force.
When this happens, you begin to assign different value to foods. Your attitude shifts and you begin to see foods in a new light. You have made that critical perceptual shift.]
In a wide-ranging look at eating habits, David Kessler, the former head of the Food and Drug Administration, addresses America's ever-increasing waistlines in his new book, "The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite."
He interviews the overweight, who say that just the sight of a favorite snack food is enough to make them feel hungry, as well anonymous food executives who admit that fat, salt and sugar are often the building blocks of successful food products. The book was prompted by a question that had long nagged Dr. Kessler: Why is it that Americans continue to crave such foods as potato chips and candy bars long after they feel full? "No one has ever explained what's happening to them and how they can control their eating," he writes. "That's my goal in this book."
Dr. Kessler, a 57-year-old pediatrician, was commissioner of the FDA from 1990 to 1997. He is probably best known for his opposition to tobacco interests and efforts to better label food products. He is currently a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco.
The Wall Street Journal: What most surprised you while researching this book?
![[end of overeating]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-DO540_kessle_CV_20090428120723.jpg)
David Kessler: I wanted to understand why it was so hard to control what we eat. I thought I was going to end up in the world of nutrition and endocrinology. I ended up inside the brain and inside the food industry. The metaphor for the book was: Why did the chocolate chip cookie have such power over me? I saw a woman on Oprah who said she ate when she was happy, when she was sad, before her husband left for work and then after he left. I wanted to understand what was driving her behavior. It was not just that she was eating too much -- she was eating when she didn't want to eat. And nobody could explain why. I wanted to know, how could we help her? What was driving her? The greatest surprise was understanding how highly palatable foods had hijacked her brain.
WSJ: Early on in the book, you suggest that that major food companies know what motivates shoppers.
Dr. Kessler: They know what drives demand, and they were able to design foods to be hot stimuli. The food industry says they only give consumers what they want. But what they want excessively activates the rewards circuits of the brain. They aren't selling just any commodity. They've designed highly stimulating products, and consumers come back for more. Nothing sells as much as something that stimulates the rewards-circuitry of the brain. It's all about selling product.
WSJ: What about restaurant eating?
Dr. Kessler: Much of what we eat in restaurants is fat on fat on sugar on fat with salt. Pick any dish in any mid-American restaurant. What is spinach dip? Fat on salt with green stuff. Look at the average salad we're eating. If you look at the bacon, the croutons, the cheese…it's fats, salts and a little lettuce.
WSJ: At times I couldn't decide whether you felt that the overweight were victims or undisciplined. Which is it?
Dr. Kessler: The answer is probably neither. Nobody has explained to people what is going on with them, or given them the tools to cool stimuli. Yes, you are bombarded throughout the day. You respond. And that creates torment for people. But just because we are activated and stimulated doesn't mean that that there aren't things we can do. Yes, their brains are being hijacked. But once we understand what is going on, we can change.
WSJ: What are the most important signs that people can recognize before they eat something they actually may not want?
Dr. Kessler: The fundamental question, when you look at food, is this: Is it real food, or is it food that is layered and loaded? It's easy to look at food and see what else is being layered on top of protein. I don't have a problem with a plain hamburger -- it's adding cheese and bacon. Also, you want a reasonable amount of food that you can control. Today if you put large amounts of food in front of me, I don't want it. But I used to go through big portions in an instant. We each have to decide what we find rewarding, and then decide how we control it.
WSJ: Regarding visual food cues, are you suggesting that the sight of a bowl of innocent M&Ms is enough to make us want to eat them?
Dr. Kessler: It depends on your past experience and what stimulates you. Everybody is different. For me it may be chocolate-covered pretzels. The one thing I can assure you: At the core, it's fat, sugar and salt. Not everything activates each of us the same. Here's the fundamental point: We are wired to focus on the most salient stimuli in our environment. If your kid is sick today, that's what you think about. For some people it's sex, gambling, alcohol. For many of us it's food. And within that category, different types of food are salient. You have to condition yourself to take the power out of the stimulus.
![[david kessler]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-DO541_kessle_CV_20090428120946.jpg)
Dr. David Kessler
WSJ: Are we then all victims of subtle cravings whose genesis we're doomed never to understand?
Dr. Kessler: This syndrome of conditioned hyper-eating, which is what this is -- the loss of control in the face of highly palatable foods, lack of feeling full -- is reward-based eating. Not all are equally susceptible. Those obese and overweight have a greater incidence. But even 20% of the healthy report occasional loss of control. You will find people for whom food doesn't capture their interest, but it's probably a small percentage of the population. For the rest of us, it's a continuum. It's not only conditioned behavior. It's the learning and motivational circuits of the brain being captured. Is it nurture or nature? You expose children who are eating fat, sugar and salt all day. They've never been hungry a day in their lives. Once you lay down that neuro-circuitry, it's there for life. The actual act of consumption isn't as strong as anticipation. It's the conditioning associated with a cue. Once you are cued and you're activated, it amplifies the reward value. It torments you. You want it more.
WSJ: There is a lot of concern about obesity and children. What is the biggest cause? It is portions that are too large, or the wrong types of food?
Dr. Kessler: They are getting huge portions of very stimulating foods, hyper-palatable foods. You have huge portions of sugar, fat and salt. Every time they eat those foods it strengthens their neuro-circuitry to eat that food again. It activates them. Once these cues are laid down, and the information is in your brain, it stays there and drives behavior. This isn't a disease. But we've been captured by these stimuli. In the past, it allowed us to survive. Now we have health consequences because it's available 24/7 and we've added the emotional gloss of advertising.
WSJ: Is nutrition too difficult a concept to regulate?
Dr. Kessler: In the end it's not about regulation. Government can play a role. It's about how we as a country view the product. What was the real success of tobacco? We changed how we viewed the product. It was a critical perceptual shift. That's the key.
Write to Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg at jeffrey.trachtenberg@wsj.com
===The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite (Hardcover)
by David Kessler MD
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1605297852/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
# Hardcover: 336 pages
# Publisher: Rodale Books; 1 edition (April 28, 2009)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 1605297852
# ISBN-13: 978-1605297859
"David A. Kessler, who led the battle against the tobacco industry, now joins the fight against obesity. His message is important: The problem is not only the behavior of profit-driven food companies, but also the daily choices that each one of us makes." —Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation
"David Kessler’s fascinating book is essential for anyone interested in learning more about how corporate greed and human psychology have created a national health crisis." —Alice Waters, chef and owner of Chez Panisse
The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite (Hardcover)
by David Kessler MD
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent Book Provides Information That Will Help You Lose Weight, March 14, 2009
By J. White - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?)
This book is written in a clear manner that is just plain enjoyable to read and keep reading. This book discusses the how and why of why people overeat. The author a former Surgeon General is an excellent writer. After reading this book readers will gain understanding of why they overeat. Using knowledge gained I have already lost 10 pounds without working very hard at it. No need to describe in detail the contents here since others have already done it. If you are overweight this book is a MUST read.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Very interesting guide into food industry goals, March 14, 2009
By ichor (PacNW, USA) - See all my reviews
Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?)
As a person who tries to eat only wholesome foods - which excludes the vast majority of anything prepared outside of my own kitchen, this book was still an impressive eye opener in many aspects.
Dissecting the various foods, and employing the help of an industry insider about the truth about the goal of food companies (money, only money, and nothing but money), the reasons some people overeat are explored scientifically - along with how the food industry exploits that scientific knowledge.
From a basic course in biology, most people are aware of the 3 basic food types that humans seek and will readily eat - fat, sugar, and salt. For thousands of years, finding these meant calories, safe eating, and health. But the three key ingredients were never combined, mixed, and layered as they are today - which this book delves into.
If you're not a person that overeats or is drawn into certain types of food (like myself - I just whatever is available whenever I'm hungry, and stop when I'm not) - most of this book is still quite compelling. The last couple dozen pages, however, are dedicated to those who want to "un-learn" their conditioned response to certain stimulus, which is eating.
While this book was an incredible journey of the processing of food, I would also recommend The End of Food: How the Food Industry is Destroying Our Food Supply--And What We Can Do About It for an equally interesting insight into the "food" before it is processed. In addition, The Hundred-Year Lie: How to Protect Yourself from the Chemicals That Are Destroying Your Health which will keep you shaking your head about what major food companies are putting into our food for the sake of profit. While these 2 books are not directly related to The End Of Overeating, in the grand scheme of our food production, from the raw products to the final, over-processed food many people eat and may consider healthy, they compliment each other well.
A highly recommended book; you may end up wanting to plant a garden, outfit your kitchen, and start making healthy, wholesome (and cheaper) foods after reading. We're all used as profit making machines for companies that mix various textures and flavors (via chemicals, salt, sugar, and fat) that they've invented and have no place in nature - and shouldn't have a place on our tables.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No
Labels:
--
Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.
View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World
Monday, April 27, 2009
Identifying With Evolution - On Good And Evil
On Good and Evil
by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
http://www.ijourney.org/audio.php?op=play&tid=620
Contemporary understanding of matter and energy also suggests a new way of thinking about good and evil. Evil in human affairs is analogous to the process of entropy in the material universe. We call evil that which causes pain, suffering, disorder in the psyche or the community. It usually involves taking the course of least resistance, or operating according to the principles of a lower order of organization. For instance, when a person endowed with consciousness acts in terms of instincts alone, or when a social being acts selfishly even when a situation calls for cooperation. When scientists work on perfecting means of destruction they are succumbing to entropy even if they use the latest and most sophisticated knowledge. Entropy or evil is the default state, the condition to which systems return unless work is done to prevent it.
What prevents it is what we call “good” -- actions that preserve order while preventing rigidity, that are informed by the needs of the most evolved systems. Acts that take into account the future, the common good, the emotional well-being of others. Good is the creative overcoming of inertia, the energy that leads to the evolution of human consciousness. To act in terms of new principles of organization is always more difficult, and requires more effort and energy. The ability to do so is what has been known as virtue.
But why should one be virtuous when it is so much easier to let entropy prevail? Why should one want to support evolution without the promise of eternal life as a reward? If what we have said so far is true, eternal life is actually part of the package of existence -- not in the way cartoons represent the afterlife, with haloed characters in nightgowns standing around in clouds, but in the fact that our actions in this life are going to reverberate through time and shape the evolving future. Whether our present consciousness of individuality is preserved in some dimension of existence after death or disappears completely, the inalterable fact is that our being will forever remain part of the warp and woof of what is. The more psychic energy we invest in the future of life, the more we become a part of it. Those who identify with evolution blend their consciousness with it, like a tiny creek joining an immense river, whose currents become as one.
--Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, from "Finding Flow"
Labels:
--
Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.
View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)