Friday, February 27, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Brian Williams On The Daily Show: America In "Titanic Struggle," Not So Bad He Needs To Twitter About It Top
NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, speaking to Jon Stewart of the Daily Show last night, characterized the nation as being gripped in a "titanic struggle" the likes of which we haven't seen since "the big man," Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "We don't know what's going to happen tomorrow," Williams said, "We don't know how bad this is." He did not rise to Stewart's baited suggestion that everyone withdraw their money from the banks "at midnight," however, saying: "John, I'm suggesting nothing of the sort." That's too bad, because it would have been an excellent way to create synergy with last night's "Tracy Jordan freaks out America" episode of 30 Rock . Oh, and gird yourself: Brian Williams does not Twitter. And that's okay. He's got a "teevee show." Things will be okay. They really, really will. I promise you. [WATCH] The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M - Th 11p / 10c Brian Williams Daily Show Full Episodes Important Things With Demetri Martin Political Humor Joke of the Day [MISSED CHANCE AT SYNERGY] More on Video On HuffPost
 
Isabel Macdonald: Challenging George Will's Reign of Climate Error Top
After eight years of George W. Bush's rule, popular disapproval of policies that had come to be regarded as grave mistakes -- from the invasion of Iraq to the response to the economic crisis -- drove the Republicans from power. Unfortunately, the media system has no such built-in check on powerful pundits, as the unchallenged reign of another George W. with a long record of mistakes can attest. The ongoing controversy over a recent error-plagued climate change column penned by George Will -- a Washington Post syndicated columnist whose record of error spans decades -- offers a good case study in the impunity of the punditocracy. As bloggers, media activists and environmentalists were quick to point out, Will made three significant errors in his climate change column, which was published in the Post ( 2/15/09 ) and scores of daily newspapers nationwide last week. First, he misrepresented scientific research from the 1970s, claiming that global cooling was then the prevailing concern. Second, he claimed the University of Illinois had found global sea ice was increasing, when in fact the school's researchers found the opposite. Finally, he claimed that U.N. climate researchers have found "no recorded global warming for more than a decade." In the wake of widespread refutations on blogs, and action alerts by FAIR and Media Matters , the Washington Post received floods of emails complaining about the inaccuracies in Will's column, and the Post 's ombud Andy Alexander soon issued a response to a blogger at Think Progress. Claiming that Will's column had been subject to multiple fact-checks, Alexander addressed only critics' concern about Will's misrepresentation of the University of Illinois's sea ice research, defending Will by citing a University of Illinois statement that, in fact, actually refuted Will's claim. Given that the position of ombud (a person responsible for responding to reader complaints and upholding accuracy at a media outlet) is the closest thing to a system of accountability that exists at newspapers, the Post ombud's response aptly illustrated the bankruptcy of what passes for accountability at a leading newspaper. Unfortunately, the erroneous climate change column is not a blip on Will's record. On the issue of climate change alone, FAIR's magazine Extra! documents that Will's history of misquoting data to distort the debate goes back nearly two decades. As FAIR's senior analyst Steve Rendall recently noted on the FAIR Blog, in 1992, Will so grossly misrepresented a Gallup poll on scientists' views on climate change that Gallup took the rare step of issuing a written correction to Will's column. A decade before that, Will made such a glaring factual error in a column published in Newsweek that the magazine took the unusual step of agreeing to publish a letter by Noam Chomsky (Will managed to block the letter's publication by throwing a temper tantrum.) And yet this serial distorter of the facts continues to published by more newspapers than any other columnist. In addition to the Post , 367 newspapers publish his column. Why? This is a question newspaper editors should have to answer. As blogger Jonathan Schwarz recently pointed out , the internet has profoundly changed the landscape of pundit impunity since Will's 1982 temper tantrum. The Washington Post ombud's role in protecting Will's work from the facts may be highly reminiscent of Newsweek 's decision to spike Chomsky's letter. However, with the proliferation of blogs devoted to correcting the media record, and the advent of online media activism campaigns that can in a matter of hours generate thousands of reader complaints to editors, concerned members of the public have more tools than ever before to publicly debunk media errors and to push for greater accountability. In this context, the Post ombud's inadequate response simply added fuel to the campaigns challenging the Post on Will's climate distortions. Yesterday, the presidents of leading environmental groups joined Media Matters in issuing a letter to the newspaper, and FAIR issued a new call for its supporters to contact the Post 's ombud ( ombudsman@washpost.com ) And given that it is not just the Post but some 368 newspapers nationwide that carry Will's column, the challenge of holding Will accountable is one in which people across the nation have to play a vital role in writing to any newspapers in their own local communities that published Will's error-plagued climate change column. Given the abundance of online media activism resources, it is not hard to take action to push for greater accountability in one's local newspaper. (Media Matters has a useful application on its website that allows users to easily find out if George Will's column is carried in their local newspaper, and tips on writing letters to the editor can be found in the FAIR's media activism kit .) Given that the corporate media have granted Will impunity for decades now, this accountability is long overdue. More on Environment
 
Citigroup CFO Crittenden: "Appreciative" Of 36% Gov Stake, Will Keep Naming Deal With Yankees Top
CNBC nabbed an exclusive interview with Citigroup CFO Gary Crittenden this morning. Among the highlights: Crittenden tells CNBC anchor Erin Burnett that the bank has completed a stress test that "is more difficult or more conservative than what the government stress test appears to be on first blush." The result of the Citigroup stress test is that the bank has "a very strong capital base," Crittenden said. He could not categorically deny that the bank won't need additional capital down the road, like other major bank CEOs, such as Bank of America honcho Kenneth Lewis, who said the bank wouldn't need any additional government funds. "It would be difficult for someone to say there's no need for additional capital," he said. As for the relationship between the bank and the government: "I think there's pretty strong consistency between the objectives of the regulator, the objectives of the government and those of our shareholders." In other pertinent news, Crittenden said the bank would move forward with its $400 million, 20-year naming deal with the Yankees for its new baseball stadium. "We have a contractual obligation... We're going to continue to honor our obligations," he said. WATCH: More on CNBC
 
Presented By: Top
 
Gov. Martin O'Malley: State Government 2.0: How technology will help Maryland make the most of the stimulus Top
"Here in Washington," President Obama told Congress Tuesday night, "we've all seen how quickly good intentions can turn into broken promises and wasteful spending." Here in Annapolis - just 40 miles away, in the halls of Maryland's state building - we've had a front-row seat to those failures, and they've inspired us to seek ways we can ensure our own state government doesn't replicate them. That's why my administration has recruited some powerful online technology to make sure we're responsive to citizen concerns as possible, spend taxpayer dollars as efficiently as we can, and give our citizens the tools they need to hold us accountable. The technology is called StateStat , and it's based on a simple, proven premise: better government use of data leads to better results for citizens. Launched by my team this week, StateStat is a performance-measurement and management tool that allows us to collect and analyze reams of raw government-agency data to improve government responsiveness and efficiency. Instead of relying on guesswork or ideological arguments to consider which programs work better than others, or where government can do better by our citizens, StateStat provides tangible, quantifiable figures that tell us where we can improve services and give Marylanders more bang for each taxpayer dollar. By integrating data across government agencies and systems, StateStat will also give we in Maryland a holistic way to look at problems - and potential solutions - that simply weren't available to us before. StateStat's predecessors are CitiStat and BayStat, which I implemented, respectively, as mayor of Baltimore and soon after taking office as governor. To give a concrete example of how these systems work, consider a problem every driver can relate to: potholes. When I was mayor of Baltimore, my team used CitiStat to track the time it took city departments to respond to public complaints. Thanks to their careful monitoring and relentless follow-up, we were able to guarantee that potholes would be fixed within 48 hours of notification. StateStat is the same idea, but on a larger scale. To take stimulus funding as an example, StateStat will allow us to monitor the costs and results of stimulus spending in real time. According to the Pew Center on the States, government use of performance data saves taxpayer dollars ; StateStat will allow us to do just that by employing carefully analyzed performance trends to make sure funding is being allocated efficiently. Importantly, these technologies are online - available for public viewing. It's a leap forward for government transparency, because we're giving our citizens the tools they need to hold us accountable. Any Marylander with an internet connection will be able to log onto the StateStat website and track - through in-depth reports and interactive maps - where our state government is spending the $360 million Maryland receives for transportation projects through the stimulus package. As exciting as this is, StateStat is just the beginning - and only one example of how we can use technology to make government better. For far too long, the federal and state governments have placed a low priority on using the latest technology to improve how we serve our citizens - when it's among the best tools we possess to make government work better. I'm encouraged by the example President Obama and Congress set this month by making it a requirement - not just a suggestion - that government agencies publish their reports on how they disperse stimulus funds as RSS feeds. Any citizen can subscribe to get weekly reports and grant allocations delivered to them - to scrutinize, mash up, and re-publish however they like. RSS, XML, GIS, API: this is what smart, transparent governance will look like in the years ahead. I'm proud that Maryland is stepping into that future with StateStat, particularly in the midst of the current economic crisis. Lean times make government waste more inexcusable than ever before - and inefficiency potentially disastrous for citizens relying on government services to feed, clothe, and shelter their families during their time of need. There is no silver bullet for the economic challenges we face. But I'm convinced and confident that technology - and the progressive leaders who wield it - will be our best allies in making government work better for our citizens now and in the years to come. In Maryland, StateStat will help us create thousands of jobs, protect the No. 1 ranking of our public schools, and give families the support they need during the recession. We're facing some big challenges. I'm glad that, thanks to technology, we'll have the numbers on our side. More on Stimulus Package
 
Mark McKinnon Declares: Twitter Jumped the Shark This Week Top
Twitter is not a business. I know its founders would like to think it is. It is, for the most part, a diversion. It's part of the web 2.0 nonsense that believes if you build anything, venture capitalists will throw money at it and then some old media dinosaur will buy you for a gazillion dollars. But, I suspect those days are over. Now, I get why people might be interested in what Lance Armstrong is doing. And I get why Lance Armstrong Twitters. He's building an army of cancer cure advocates and has legions of bicycle fans and it is, therefore, a great way to inform and mobilize the troops. But this week in Washington D.C., Twitter jumped the shark when to great fanfare members of the mainstream media elite announced they had been baptized and would from now on be holding forth from Twitterdom, and then members of Congress Twittered President Obama's speech. More on Twitter
 
Obama's Iraq Speech: Video, Full Text Top
Video of President Obama's speech will be added soon. Remarks of President Barack Obama - As Prepared for Delivery Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq Camp Lejeune, North Carolina Friday, February 27, 2009 Good morning Marines. Good morning Camp Lejeune. Good morning Jacksonville. Thank you for that outstanding welcome. I want to thank Lieutenant General Hejlik for hosting me here today. I also want to acknowledge all of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That includes the Camp Lejeune Marines now serving with - or soon joining - the Second Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq; those with Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force in Afghanistan; and those among the 8,000 Marines who are preparing to deploy to Afghanistan. We have you in our prayers. We pay tribute to your service. We thank you and your families for all that you do for America. And I want all of you to know that there is no higher honor or greater responsibility than serving as your Commander-in-Chief. I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge Ryan Crocker, who recently completed his service as our Ambassador to Iraq. Throughout his career, Ryan always took on the toughest assignments. He is an example of the very best that this nation has to offer, and we owe him a great debt of gratitude. He carried on his work with an extraordinary degree of cooperation with two of our finest Generals - General David Petraeus, and General Ray Odierno - who will be critical in carrying forward the strategy that I will outline today. Next month will mark the sixth anniversary of the war in Iraq. By any measure, this has already been a long war. For the men and women of America's armed forces - and for your families - this war has been one of the most extraordinary chapters of service in the history of our nation. You have endured tour after tour after tour of duty. You have known the dangers of combat and the lonely distance of loved ones. You have fought against tyranny and disorder. You have bled for your best friends and for unknown Iraqis. And you have borne an enormous burden for your fellow citizens, while extending a precious opportunity to the people of Iraq. Under tough circumstances, the men and women of the United States military have served with honor, and succeeded beyond any expectation. Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end. To understand where we need to go in Iraq, it is important for the American people to understand where we now stand. Thanks in great measure to your service, the situation in Iraq has improved. Violence has been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt a serious blow by our troops and Iraq's Security Forces, and through our partnership with Sunni Arabs. The capacity of Iraq's Security Forces has improved, and Iraq's leaders have taken steps toward political accommodation. The relative peace and strong participation in January's provincial elections sent a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing their aspirations through a peaceful political process. But let there be no doubt: Iraq is not yet secure, and there will be difficult days ahead. Violence will continue to be a part of life in Iraq. Too many fundamental political questions about Iraq's future remain unresolved. Too many Iraqis are still displaced or destitute. Declining oil revenues will put an added strain on a government that has had difficulty delivering basic services. Not all of Iraq's neighbors are contributing to its security. Some are working at times to undermine it. And even as Iraq's government is on a surer footing, it is not yet a full partner - politically and economically - in the region, or with the international community In short, today there is a renewed cause for hope in Iraq, but that hope rests upon an emerging foundation. On my first full day in office, I directed my national security team to undertake a comprehensive review of our strategy in Iraq to determine the best way to strengthen that foundation, while strengthening American national security. I have listened to my Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and commanders on the ground. We have acted with careful consideration of events on the ground; with respect for the security agreements between the United States and Iraq; and with a critical recognition that the long-term solution in Iraq must be political - not military. Because the most important decisions that have to be made about Iraq's future must now be made by Iraqis. We have also taken into account the simple reality that America can no longer afford to see Iraq in isolation from other priorities: we face the challenge of refocusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan; of relieving the burden on our military; and of rebuilding our struggling economy - and these are challenges that we will meet. Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists. We will help Iraq build new ties of trade and commerce with the world. And we will forge a partnership with the people and government of Iraq that contributes to the peace and security of the region. What we will not do is let the pursuit of the perfect stand in the way of achievable goals. We cannot rid Iraq of all who oppose America or sympathize with our adversaries. We cannot police Iraq's streets until they are completely safe, nor stay until Iraq's union is perfected. We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars. America's men and women in uniform have fought block by block, province by province, year after year, to give the Iraqis this chance to choose a better future. Now, we must ask the Iraqi people to seize it. The first part of this strategy is therefore the responsible removal of our combat brigades from Iraq. As a candidate for President, I made clear my support for a timeline of 16 months to carry out this drawdown, while pledging to consult closely with our military commanders upon taking office to ensure that we preserve the gains we've made and protect our troops. Those consultations are now complete, and I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months. Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end. As we carry out this drawdown, my highest priority will be the safety and security of our troops and civilians in Iraq. We will proceed carefully, and I will consult closely with my military commanders on the ground and with the Iraqi government. There will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments. But our enemies should be left with no doubt: this plan gives our military the forces and the flexibility they need to support our Iraqi partners, and to succeed. After we remove our combat brigades, our mission will change from combat to supporting the Iraqi government and its Security Forces as they take the absolute lead in securing their country. As I have long said, we will retain a transitional force to carry out three distinct functions: training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. Initially, this force will likely be made up of 35-50,000 U.S. troops. Through this period of transition, we will carry out further redeployments. And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned. As we responsibly remove our combat brigades, we will pursue the second part of our strategy: sustained diplomacy on behalf of a more peaceful and prosperous Iraq. The drawdown of our military should send a clear signal that Iraq's future is now its own responsibility. The long-term success of the Iraqi nation will depend upon decisions made by Iraq's leaders and the fortitude of the Iraqi people. Iraq is a sovereign country with legitimate institutions; America cannot - and should not - take their place. However, a strong political, diplomatic, and civilian effort on our part can advance progress and help lay a foundation for lasting peace and security. This effort will be led by our new Ambassador to Iraq - Chris Hill. From his time in the Peace Corps, to his work in Kosovo and Korea, Ambassador Hill has been tested, and he has shown the pragmatism and skill that we need right now. He will be supported by the courageous and capable work of so many American diplomats and aid workers who are serving in Iraq. Going forward, we can make a difference on several fronts. We will work with the United Nations to support national elections, while helping Iraqis improve local government. We can serve as an honest broker in pursuit of fair and durable agreements on issues that have divided Iraq's leaders. And just as we will support Iraq's Security Forces, we will help Iraqi institutions strengthen their capacity to protect the rule of law, confront corruption, and deliver basic services. Diplomacy and assistance is also required to help the millions of displaced Iraqis. These men, women and children are a living consequence of this war and a challenge to stability in the region, and they must become a part of Iraq's reconciliation and recovery. America has a strategic interest - and a moral responsibility - to act. In the coming months, my administration will provide more assistance and take steps to increase international support for countries already hosting refugees; we'll cooperate with others to resettle Iraqis facing great personal risk; and we will work with the Iraqi government over time to resettle refugees and displaced Iraqis within Iraq - because there are few more powerful indicators of lasting peace than displaced citizens returning home. Now, before I go any further, I want to take a moment to speak directly to the people of Iraq. You are a great nation, rooted in the cradle of civilization. You are joined together by enduring accomplishments, and a history that connects you as surely as the two rivers carved into your land. In years past, you have persevered through tyranny and terror; through personal insecurity and sectarian violence. And instead of giving in to the forces of disunion, you stepped back from a descent into civil war, and showed a proud resilience that deserves respect. Our nations have known difficult times together. But ours is a bond forged by shared bloodshed, and countless friendships among our people. We Americans have offered our most precious resource - our young men and women - to work with you to rebuild what was destroyed by despotism; to root out our common enemies; and to seek peace and prosperity for our children and grandchildren, and for yours. There are those who will try to prevent that future for Iraq - who will insist that Iraq's differences cannot be reconciled without more killing. They represent the forces that destroy nations and lead only to despair, and they will test our will in the months and years to come. America, too, has known these forces. We endured the pain of Civil War, and bitter divisions of region and race. But hostility and hatred are no match for justice; they offer no pathway to peace; and they must not stand between the people of Iraq and a future of reconciliation and hope. So to the Iraqi people, let me be clear about America's intentions. The United States pursues no claim on your territory or your resources. We respect your sovereignty and the tremendous sacrifices you have made for your country. We seek a full transition to Iraqi responsibility for the security of your country. And going forward, we can build a lasting relationship founded upon mutual interests and mutual respect as Iraq takes its rightful place in the community of nations. That leads me to the third part of our strategy -comprehensive American engagement across the region. The future of Iraq is inseparable from the future of the broader Middle East, so we must work with our friends and partners to establish a new framework that advances Iraq's security and the region's. It is time for Iraq to be a full partner in a regional dialogue, and for Iraq's neighbors to establish productive and normalized relations with Iraq. And going forward, the United States will pursue principled and sustained engagement with all of the nations in the region, and that will include Iran and Syria. This reflects a fundamental truth: we can no longer deal with regional challenges in isolation - we need a smarter, more sustainable and comprehensive approach. That is why we are renewing our diplomacy, while relieving the burden on our military. That is why we are refocusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world. And that is why we have named three of America's most accomplished diplomats - George Mitchell, Dennis Ross and Richard Holbrooke - to support Secretary Clinton and me as we carry forward this agenda. Every nation and every group must know - whether you wish America good or ill - that the end of the war in Iraq will enable a new era of American leadership and engagement in the Middle East. And that era has just begun. Finally, I want to be very clear that my strategy for ending the war in Iraq does not end with military plans or diplomatic agendas - it endures through our commitment to uphold our sacred trust with every man and woman who has served in Iraq. You make up a fraction of the American population, but in an age when so many people and institutions have acted irresponsibly, you did the opposite - you volunteered to bear the heaviest burden. And for you and for your families, the war does not end when you come home. It lives on in memories of your fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who gave their lives. It endures in the wound that is slow to heal, the disability that isn't going away, the dream that wakes you at night, or the stiffening in your spine when a car backfires down the street. You and your families have done your duty - now a grateful nation must do ours. That is why I am increasing the number of soldiers and Marines, so that we lessen the burden on those who are serving. And that is why I have committed to expanding our system of veterans health care to serve more patients, and to provide better care in more places. We will continue building new wounded warrior facilities across America, and invest in new ways of identifying and treating the signature wounds of this war: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury, as well as other combat injuries. We also know that service does not end with the person wearing the uniform. In her visits with military families across the country, my wife Michelle has learned firsthand about the unique burden that your families endure every day. I want you to know this: military families are a top priority for Michelle and me, and they will be a top priority for my administration. We'll raise military pay, and continue providing quality child-care, job-training for spouses, and expanded counseling and outreach to
 
Mitch McConnell: Republicans Are More 'Fun' And 'Interesting' People Top
At last! A bold, new suggestion out of CPAC, courtesy of Mitch McConnell, who suggests that more than anything else, the GOP is the party of "interesting," and "fun" people. As Sarah Posner reports : In his CPAC speech, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell insisted that conservatives are more "interesting" and "fun" than liberals. Here's his proof: "who wants to hang out with guys like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich when you can be with Rush Limbaugh?" And you can taste the difference, too! After all, Paul Krugman is an economist who worries that Obama might fail to restore the economy. Whereas Limbaugh is a radio talk show host who hopes Obama might fail to restore the economy. Which one sounds more "fun" to you? Meanwhile, elsewhere, things just continued to skid off the rails, right into the Fun Zone, courtesy of stapler hurling angerclown John Bolton. Via 1115.org : Here's a prime example from the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.: This morning, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton spoke to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He tried to up the fear quotient in the room by raising the prospect of an Iranian-sent nuclear attack on an American city. "It's [a] tiny [threat] compared to the Soviet Union," Bolton said, "but is the loss of one American city -- pick one at random: Chicago -- is that a tiny threat?" The audience erupted in cheers and laughter at the idea of Obama's home city being obliterated. That's truly hilarious, isn't it--the nearly three million Americans who live in the third largest city in the U.S. wiped out in a nuclear holocaust? Definitely worth laughing at and, yes, cheering for . Meanwhile, the GOP still faces the strategic fun gap, as Americans still naggingly prefer weed, like they always have . More on mitch mcconnell
 
The Progress Report: Right-Wing Tax And Budget Myths Top
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, Ryan Powers, and Pat Garofalo To receive The Progress Report in your email inbox everyday, click here . Yesterday, the Obama administration released its fiscal year 2010 budget, which lays out an ambitious course of action on health care reform, energy policy, and education while estimating a deficit of $1.75 trillion for the current fiscal year. The budget also includes "significant tax increases" for corporations and wealthy Americans that will increase revenue by nearly $2 trillion over the next 10 years. The proposal allows the Bush tax cuts on the top two income brackets to expire on time in 2011, reduces itemized deductions for those making more than $250,000 a year, raises the top rate on capital gains and dividends to 20 percent (from 15), and closes the capital-gains loophole so that hedge fund and other private-equity managers have their profits taxed as ordinary income instead of capital gains. The budget also proposes a cap-and trade program that would auction permits to companies that emit greenhouse gases, with the revenue directed toward President Obama's Making Work Pay tax credit. As the Center for American Progress's Michael Ettlinger noted, these changes are "going to provoke outrage." But "were this budget to be enacted, it would be by far the most significant progressive step in over forty years," noted CAPAF Fellow Matt Yglesias. Conservatives are already propagating various myths about the budget; The Progress Report offers these debunks: MYTH 1: OBAMA'S RAISING TAXES DURING A RECESSION: "If there's anything that economists on the left and the right agree on, that supply-siders, classic economists and Keynesians agree on, you don't raise taxes in a recession," said Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). "This budget is raising taxes in a recession." The plan drew a similar rebuke from the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's most powerful trade group. However, as Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said, "[F]olks need to actually look at the budget document." To avoid raising taxes during the recession, the increases will not take effect until 2011. Furthermore, the economic stimulus package signed into law by Obama last week enacted one of the largest tax cuts ever, which made good on Obama's campaign promise to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. The first benefits from these cuts should be seen no later than April 1, 2009. MYTH 2: TAX INCREASES WILL RUIN ECONOMIC GROWTH: The Heritage Foundation claimed that Obama's tax proposals "sacrifice future economic growth at the altars of redistributionism," while House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) called the budget a "job killer." But as Orszag said, "[W]e're returning to the tax rates that applied during the 1990's. I think all Americans -- including high income Americans -- did quite well during that decade." The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out that "what the data do show clearly is that, despite major tax cuts in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006, the economy's performance between 2001 and 2007 was far from stellar." As CAP's Joshua Picker found, the Bush economy "registered the weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period. Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967." Women reversed employment gains of previous cycles, and for African-Americans, the worst job growth on record was matched by an unprecedented increase in poverty. Businesses didn't fare any better, as the Bush tax cuts "were actually followed by a pronounced decrease in the fraction of G.D.P. devoted to business investment." Business investment fell after both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, but rose after the Clinton tax increase, according to work by Princeton professor Uwe Reinhardt. MYTH 3: TAX INCREASES WILL HARM SMALL BUSINESSES: Republicans, "knowing they will get little mileage from defending the rich, instead are casting the plan as a tax hit on people who run industrious little companies driving job growth," noted the AP. "A majority of those penalized by the proposed tax increase in this budget are small businesses," said Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA). Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said the proposal "shows a lack of understanding of the private sector." But as the Associated Press pointed out, Republicans are "adrift" on this one, as "many truly small operations simply don't make enough to qualify for the tax hit." Indeed, only 1.9 percent of small businesses file in the top two federal income tax brackets, which leaves 98.1 percent unaffected by the rate change. And because of the Treasury Department's broad definition of small business, "many of the roughly 650,000 filers with small-business income who face one of the top two tax rates are merely passive investors who have nothing to do with running the business." So "the $84 of income President Bush received in 2001 from a passive investment in an oil and gas company made him a 'small-business owner.'" Overall, only 0.7 percent of households file in the top two income brackets. As Yglesias wrote, "[A]ny small businessman who's earning a middle class income isn't paying in the top two brackets, just as any salaried employee who's earning a middle class income isn't paying in the top two brackets." More on Small Business
 
Jeffrey Feldman: Tea Party Republicans Top
Everywhere I look, these days, Republicans are revolting.   Here are a few snapshots of what prominent Republicans are doing: Ann Coulter:  In weekly column told a racist joke about Bobby Jindal, called the Speaker of the House "mentally retarded," call public schools a "union incinerator" that eat children Michele Bachmann (R-MN):  In remarks to the Conservative Political Action Conference, used racist black-face slang to praise RNC Chair Shelby Steele,"You be da man! You be da man!" Rush Limbaugh:  On national radio show, called President Obama a "castrati", in response to Secretary of Defense Policy shift to allow press to photograph flag-draped caskets returning from Iraq Michelle Malkin: Maligned American victims of subprime mortgage scams as "predatory borrowers"  Dean Grose (Republican Mayor, Los Alamitos, CA): Circulated racist email containing photo of watermelons growing on White House lawn with title "No Easter egg hunt this year" Incredibly, in addition to all this revolting behavior from leading Republican pundits and elected officials, there is also a full scale revolt led by Republicans against the American government, today. That's right:  a revolt. The Republican revolt is called Tea Party U.S.A. and the idea is that Republicans will stage protests against government spending, today, to send the message to Washington that the American people are tired of taxation without representation -- or something like that.  Curiously, the Facebook page for one of the Washington, DC, Tea Party says that this is not actually a Republican event: This isn't a conservative or liberal thing. This is about government forking over billions of dollars to businesses that should have failed. This is about taking money from responsible people and handing it over to CEOs who squandered their own. ( link ) That seems reasonable, until we look at the list of organizations sponsoring the Washington, DC, Tea Party: Americans for Prosperity Americans for Tax Reform Young Conservatives Coalition The Heartland Institute National Taxpayers Union FreedomWorks Institute for Liberty Not exactly a "Who's Who" of progressive or liberal non-profit groups.  And if we head on over to the Tea Party website, we see the following "talking points": This is a non-partisan event -- in fact, it's critical of both parties -- large-scale government interventions into the free market were kicked off under Bush, and Obama's doing no better. The American taxpayer is better at spending his money than the government. If you ask your average taxpayer if he wanted to spend millions of dollars on golf course renovations, you could be sure he'd say no. Small business owners are the backbone of the economy, not large failing corporations. Amping up regulations only hurts these businesses. It is our *optimism* that guides our frustration. We believe so strongly in the ingenuity and hard work of the American people, that we feel big government measures will only get in the way of their success. Critical of both parties?  Those talking points read like they were clipped out of a Gov. Jindal's response speech with a pair of safety scissors.  Yep.  It has been a week of revolting Republicans, alright.  And things are getting revoltinger and revoltinger with each passing day. This leads me to wonder: Why would anyone support Republicans who revolt against government spending on tax relief for the middle class, but not against bid contracts for Iraq? Why would anyone support Republicans who revolt against deficit spending the moment the country elects a Democratic President, but not during the last 8 years when a Republican was in the White House? Why would anyone support Republicans who cannot break the habit of telling racist jokes whenever a black, brown or otherwise non-white person takes the national political stage? Why would anyone support Republicans who use their huge media platforms to hurl 2nd-grade schoolyard insults at non-Republicans, instead of offering pragmatic solutions to America's economic problems? As I watch the coverage of the CPAC conference, the dilemma facing revolting Republicans comes into focus.  The Republican Party does not seem to have anybody in a position of leadership who feels compelled to speak about solving the problems Americans face in their everyday lives, today.  Instead, the collective Republican leadership is stuck in revolt mode.  They revolt against gun laws, against taxes, against any domestic program proposed by Democrats--all in the name of a vague idea of 'freedom,' but never with an eye towards what actual people are going through in this country right now. And the more the Republican leadership revolts, the more revolting they seem to the vast majority of the public. There is a groundswell of ideas trying to be heard in the Republican Party, but the din of the tea party Republican being thrown by the current leadership is blocking their voices.  They are old ideas mixed with new:  Goldwater conservatism blended together with the participatory civics of on-line media.  It is a seed of a new Republican Party that has the potential to draw in new membership and garner national support.   But we will not see or hear those ideas so long as they are drowned out by the revolting. Meanwhile, as the Republicans leadership reverts to the same childish antics that turned off so many voters in the 2006 and 2008 elections, Americans worry about finding the money to put tea on their own tables--about making their mortgage payments, paying for treatment when they sick, and covering the cost of their child's college tuition.  Symbolic tea parties, in other words, are not the collective action that an America in need actually needs right now.  We need pragmatic, steady, and relentless actions--solutions after solution after solution until we finally stop the free fall of our economy and our optimism, allowing us to begin the long, arduous climb back to the surface.    While revolting Republicans sit down for their tea parties, today, the White House, the Congress, and state governments across the country are working to give Americans those solutions.  Something tells me, however, that the Republican leadership has a lot more tea parties to throw--and long way down the rabbit hole to fall--before they see what really concerns Americans nowadays. Cream and sugar, anyone? Crossposted from Frameshop More on President Obama
 
Mark Adams: The Obamanomics Diet Top
Now that he's rolled out his own Depression-busting budget, President Obama's place in history as the second coming of FDR seems all but assured. But the president's ambition to convince Americans to swallow "An Era of New Responsibility" (the White House's title for the budget) via raising taxes by a trillion dollars over the next decade is certain to undergo a painful peristalsis in Congress -- especially once the HMO and pharmaceutical lobbies launch their wine-and-dine counterattack against his proposed health-care reforms. If Mr. Obama really wants to improve wellness for all Americans while slimming the deficit by half before the 2012 elections, he might consider adopting another role model from the New Deal pantheon of heroes. I speak, of course, of the muscular millionaire that Time Magazine dubbed "Body Love" (and the subject of my new book): Bernarr Macfadden. Much has been made of the political and financial parallels between 1933 and 2009, but another similarity links the two eras: a general disgust with and mistrust of organized medicine and the food industry. Just as organic foods, detox regimens and stress-relief yoga classes have mushroomed in recent years, the 30s were a golden age of preventive medicine through exercise and healthy diet, as well as a willingness to dabble in unorthodox therapies. FDR was no exception; he chose his retreat at Warm Springs, Ga. largely so that he could receive hydropathic treatments on his withered legs. As publisher of magazines like Physical Culture , Macfadden was the Pied Piper of this early alt-health movement. He even played a key role in helping to dispel rumors that FDR's polio had left him "unfit" for the presidency, as Time put it, by printing stories about the then-candidate's manly vigor. (Macfadden's unconventional ties to the White House were many: During FDR's famous first 100 days, Eleanor Roosevelt was Macfadden's employee, editing his parenting magazine, Babies, Just Babies .) By 1933, Macfadden had spent four decades trying to convince Americans that virtually all of their physical ailments stemmed from eating too many processed foods, too few fresh vegetables, and too much, period. At the dawn of the New Deal, more people than ever were listening. Though 25 percent of workers were unemployed, Physical Culture's circulation soared to historic highs, Macfadden led morning exercises each weekday over WOR radio, and his eight penny health food restaurants served such fare as nut burgers and carrot juice to 10,000 people each day. Macfadden lobbied FDR hard -- unsuccessfully -- to be named the country's first Secretary of Health. His influence came as a self-help wellness guru, convincing his followers to take control of their health by regulating what they ate. He cast overeating as an unpatriotic act, and a Spartan diet as the cure for every malady from tuberculosis to cancer. Countless Americans who heeded his call to switch to a twice-daily eating schedule, essentially a brunch and an early-bird dinner, wrote in to Physical Culture to boast of their soaring energy levels and shrinking doctor bills. Macfadden's reign as America's unofficial minister of alternative health ended with World War II and the discovery of penicillin. Only in recent years have his most fringe ideas begun to trickle back into the mainstream -- Gwyneth Paltrow's raw-food regimen, the Blueprint cleanse and the rise of the never-say-die calorie-restriction movement can all be traced directly to Physical Culture. Little by little the medical community seems to be warming to Macfadden's theories on diet as preventive medicine. Rodent studies by the National Institute on Aging have shown that fasting and calorie restriction can inhibit Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and Huntington's diseases; relieve otherwise untreatable arthritis pain; and help oncologists zero in on cancerous tumors. Just a few weeks ago a new study indicated that a 30 percent reduction in calories might greatly improve memory. Considering how well bipartisanship has been working in Washington lately, it may be years before President Obama's health care reforms can make an impact. Even FDR, with his own gargantuan budget and Democratic majority, surrendered in his attempt to initiate subsidized national medicine. But the president's timing in calling for "A New Era of Responsibility" is -- as FDR's usually was -- excellent. America is temporarily parked at one of those rare moments when people are eager to tackle big problems by making big changes in their lives, even in the way they eat, which is why serious people can discuss planting an organic garden on the White House lawn or naming a Secretary of Food to reform the agricultural sector without anyone laughing in their faces. An easier idea might be for our slim, young president to appoint himself Secretary of No Food, and lead by example: skipping one meal a day until he gets the health care plan he wants, or even skipping food entirely one day a week and donating the money saved to charity. He's even got religious cover: Lent, the Christian season of self-sacrifice, commenced on Wednesday and runs through Easter. I suspect that our Commander in Chief isn't much of an eater anyway, and when a certain overfed conservative talk radio host inevitably starts buzzing about the negative effects on agribusiness, Mr. Obama could quietly remind everyone that Jesus once fasted for forty days. As Macfadden -- who never ate on Mondays and often gave up food for a week or more -- noted during the last great economic downturn, such sacrifices aren't just good for the waistline and the bottom line; they improve lives and don't require a single cent from Congress. In other words, they might be good for America, too. More on Eating Matters
 
GOP Govs Raising Money Off Jindal's Speech Top
The Republican Governors Association liked Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R) Tuesday night speech enough to feature it in a new fundraising campaign -- despite the criticism it received from both sides of the aisle. More on Bobby Jindal
 
Daley Still Withholding Stimulus Projects List Top
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says he is holding back his list of projects that could be funded by federal stimulus money because he's afraid of raising political expectations. Daley said Thursday an announcement by him of 20 or 40 projects that could be financed by money from the stimulus package would garner headlines. But if only two of those projects go forward, then the public would be disappointed. Daley says it is only prudent to be cautious because he isn't certain how much money the city would get from the stimulus package. Although mayors across the country have released a detailed list of projects, Daley has talked in generalities. His only specific request was $50 million to maintain a 2014 completion date for the massive runway expansion project at O'Hare Airport. More on Stimulus Package
 
Presented By: Top
 
HIV-Infected Blood Sent To Obama, Saad Hussein Arrested Top
Sky News reports that a man has been arrested for allegedly sending President Obama and his staff envelopes containing HIV-infected blood . Saad Hussein, an Ethiopian refugee in his late 20s, sent a number of items to the offices of the Illinois government in the weeks before the US President's inauguration, according to court documents. One envelope contained a letter with reddish stains and an admission ticket for Mr Obama's election night celebration in Grant Park, Chicago. Court documents claim Hussein told FBI agents he is "very sick with HIV" and cut his fingers with a razor so he could bleed on the letter. More details from the Cleveland Leader : A spokesman for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service said that this is only the second time that HIV-infected blood has been sent with malicious intent through the U.S. mail system. [...] After the envelope was opened, Hazmat teams were called in. The offices of the Illinois Department on Aging, as well as the Dept. of Revenue were locked down for about two hours. 300 staff members were thus stuck in their offices. Using his brother as an interpreter, Hussein told the FBI that he was an "admirer" of Obama. He also said that he was "seeking help from the government", and that he was hoping to obtain tickets to the inauguration in Washington D.C. More on HIV/AIDS
 
Legislator Seeks To Limit CTA's Free Rides For Seniors Top
CHICAGO (AP) -- The Illinois Legislature is considering putting restrictions on the free rides on public transportation now being offered seniors. A bill sponsored by Rep. Suzanne Bassi, a Republican from Palatine, would limit free rides to seniors who qualify under the state's low-income guidelines. Other seniors would still get reduced or half-fare rides. Advocacy groups such as AARP Illinois and Metro Seniors in Action say they have no position yet on the rollback. Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich added the free ride program to a mass transit tax increase bill in January 2008. Afterward, the House overwhelmingly approved a bill that would have offered the rides only to the needy. That measure died in the Senate. The freebies for those 65 and older is expected to cost Chicago area transit agencies an estimated $58 million this year.
 
Chip Ward: After the Green Economy, Green Security Top
Now that we've decided to "green" the economy, why not green homeland security, too? I'm not talking about interrogators questioning suspects under the glow of compact fluorescent light bulbs, or cops wearing recycled Kevlar recharging their Tasers via solar panels. What I mean is: Shouldn't we finally start rethinking the very notion of homeland security on a sinking planet? Now that Dennis Blair, the new Director of National Intelligence, claims that global insecurity is more of a danger to us than terrorism, isn't it time to release the idea of "security" from its top-down, business-as-usual, terrorism-oriented shackles? Isn't it, in fact, time for the Obama administration to begin building security we can believe in; that is, a bottom-up movement that will start us down the road to the kind of resilient American communities that could effectively recover from the disasters -- manmade or natural (if there's still a difference) -- that will surely characterize this emerging age of financial and climate chaos? In the long run, if we don't start pursuing security that actually focuses on the foremost challenges of our moment, that emphasizes recovery rather than what passes for "defense," that builds communities rather than just more SWAT teams, we're in trouble. Today, "homeland security" and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), that unwieldy amalgam of 13 agencies created by the Bush administration in 2002, continue to express the potent, all-encompassing fears and assumptions of our last president's Global War on Terror. Foreign enemies may indeed be plotting to attack us, but, believe it or not (and increasing numbers of people, watching their homes, money, and jobs melt away are coming to believe it), that's probably neither the worst, nor the most dangerous thing in store for us. Outsized fear of terrorism and what it can accomplish, stoked by the apocalyptic look of the attacks of 9/11, masked the agenda of officials who were all too ready to suppress challenges by shredding our civil liberties. That agenda has been driven by a legion of privateers, selling everything from gas masks to biometric ID systems, who would loot the public treasury in the name of patriotism. Like so many bad trips of the Bush years, homeland security was run down the wrong tracks from the beginning -- as the arrival of that distinctly un-American word "homeland" so clearly signaled -- and it has, not surprisingly, carried us in the wrong direction ever since. In that context, it's worth remembering that after 9/11 came Hurricane Katrina, epic droughts and wildfires, Biblical-level floods, and then, of course, economic meltdown. Despite widespread fears here, the likelihood that most of us will experience a terrorist attack is slim indeed; on the other hand, it's a sure bet that disruptions to our far-flung supply lines for food, water, and energy will affect us all in the decades ahead. Nature, after all, is loaded with disturbances like droughts (growing ever more intense thanks to global climate change) that resonate through the human realm as famines, migrations, civil wars, failed states, and eventually warlords and pirates. Even if these seem to you like nature's version of terrorism, you can't prevent a monster storm or a killer drought by arresting it at the border or caging it before it strikes. That's why a new green version of security should concentrate our energies and resources on recovery from disasters at least as much as defense against them -- and not recovery as delivered by distant, fumbling Federal Emergency Management Agency officials either. The fact is that pre-organized, homegrown (rather than homeland) networks of citizens who have planned and prepared together to meet basic needs and to aid one another in times of trouble will be better able to bounce back from the sorts of disasters that might actually hit us than a nation of helpless individuals waiting to be rescued or protected. Imagine redubbing the DHS the Department of Homegrown Security and at least you have a place to begin. Homegrown Security for a Cantankerous Future Homeland security, post-9/11, has been highly militarized and focused primarily on single-event disasters like attacks or accidents, not on, say, the infection of critical grain crops by some newly evolved disease or, as is actually happening, the serial collapse of ocean fisheries. Unlike a terrorist attack, such disasters could strike everywhere at once, rendering single-point plans useless. If Miami goes down in a hurricane, FEMA can (we hope) feed people via trucks and airlifts. If some part of the global food trade were to shut down, hundreds of thousands of community gardens and networks of backyard farmers ready to share their harvests, not warehouses full of emergency provisions, could prove the difference between crisis and catastrophe. Systemic challenges, after all, require systemic responses. Food and security may not be a twosome that comes quickly to mind, but experts know that our food supply is particularly vulnerable. We're familiar with the hardships that follow spikes in the price of gas or the freezing of credit lines, but few of us in the U.S. have experienced the panic and privation of a broken food chain -- so far. That's going to change in the decades ahead. Count on it, even if it seems as unlikely today as, for most of us, an economic meltdown did just one short year ago. Our industrialized and globalized food production and distribution system is a wonder, bringing us exotic eats from distant places at mostly affordable prices. Those mangos from Mexico and kiwis from New Zealand are certainly a treat, but the understandable pleasure we take in them hides a great risk. If you're thinking about what the greening of homeland security might actually mean, look no further than our food supply. The typical American meal travels, on average, 1,000 miles to get to your plate. The wheat in your burger bun may be from Canada, the beef from Argentina, and the tomato from Chile. Food shipped from that far away is vulnerable to all sorts of disruptions -- a calamitous storm that hits a food-growing center; spikes in the price of fuel for fertilizer, farm machinery, and trucking; internecine strife or regional wars that shut down harvests or block trade routes; national policies to hoard food as prices spike or scarcities set in; not to speak of the usual droughts, floods, and crop failures that have always plagued humankind and are intensifying in a globally warming world. An interruption of food supplies from afar is only tolerable if we've planned ahead and so can fill in with locally grown food. Sadly, for those of us who live outside of California and Florida, local food remains seasonal, limited, and anything but diverse. And don't forget, local food has been weakened in this country by the reasonably thorough job we've done of wiping out all those less-than-superprofitable family farms. U.S. agriculture is now strikingly consolidated into massive, industrial-style operations. So chickens come from vast chicken farms in Arkansas, hogs from humongous hog outfits in Georgia, corn from the mono-crop Midwestern "cornbelt," and so on. Such monolithic enterprises may be profitable for Big Ag, but they're not going to do us much good, given the cantankerous future already inching its way toward us. When a severe drought in Australia led to plummeting rice production in the Murray River Basin last year, the price of rice across the planet suddenly doubled. The spike in rice prices, like the sudden leap in the cost of wheat, soy, and other staples, was primarily due to the then-soaring price of oil for farm machinery, fertilizer, and transport, though rampant market speculation contributed as well. At that moment, the collapse of Australian rice farming pushed a worsening situation across a threshold into crisis territory. Because the world agricultural trade system is so thoroughly interconnected and interdependent, a shock on one part of the planet can resonate far and wide -- just as (we've learned to our dismay) can happen in financial markets. Think of the shortages and ensuing food riots in 30 countries across the planet in 2008 as grim coming attractions for life on a planet with unpredictable extreme weather, booming populations, overloaded ecosystems, and distorted food economies. The spike in prices that put food staples out of reach of rioting masses of people was soon enough mitigated by the collapse of energy prices when the global economy tanked. Make no mistake, though: food shortages and the social unrest that goes with them will eventually return. And here's something else to take into consideration: Nations that suffer food shortages may, when their hungry citizens demand food sovereignty , protect their agricultural sectors by erecting trade barriers -- just as is beginning to happen in other areas of production under the pressure of the global economic meltdown. The era of globalized food production, whose fruits (and vegetables) we Americans have come to consider little short of our supermarket birthright, may contract significantly in the relatively near future. We should be prepared. And that's where a Department of Homegrown Security could make some real sense. Most American cities, after all, have less than a week's worth of food in their pipeline and most of us don't stockpile, which makes city dwellers especially vulnerable to disruptions of the food supply. Skip your next three meals and you'll grasp the panic likely to arise if the American food chain is ever broken in a significant way. The question is: How can we address rather than ignore this vital, if underappreciated, aspect of homeland security? Vertical Farms and Victory Gardens Because cities are so dependent on daily food shipments, local food security in urban areas might well mean storing more food for emergencies; this would certainly be the old-school approach to disaster planning, and it has worked well enough over the short run. Over the long run, however, what makes real sense is to encourage urban and suburban community gardens and farmers' markets, and not just on a scale that ensures a summer supply of arugula and fresh tomatoes, but on one that might actually help mitigate prolonged food disruptions. There are enough vacant lots, backyards, and rooftops to host many thousands of gardens, either created by voluntary groups or by small-scale entrepreneurs. Urban farming could even go big. Columbia University professor Dickson Despommier recently unveiled his vision of a "vertical farm," a 30-story tower right in the middle of an urban landscape, that could grow enough food to feed 50,000 people in the surrounding neighborhood. Cultural historian and visionary critic Mike Davis has already wondered why our approach to homeland security doesn't draw from the example of "victory gardens" during World War II. In 1943, just two years into the war, 20 million victory gardens were producing a staggering 30-40% of the nation's vegetables. Thousands of abandoned urban lots were being cleared and planted by tenement neighbors working together. The Office of Civilian Defense encouraged and empowered such projects, but the phenomenon was also self-organizing because citizens on the home front wanted to participate, and home gardening was, after all, a delicious way to be patriotic. Rebecca Solnit, author of Hope in the Dark , reports that, within the de-industrialized ruins of Detroit, a landscape she describes as "not quite post-apocalyptic but... post-American," people are homesteading abandoned lots, growing their own produce, raising farm animals, and planting orchards. In that depopulated city, some have been clawing (or perhaps hoeing) their way back to a semblance of food security. They have done so because they had to, and their reward has been harvests that would be the envy of any organic farmer. The catastrophe that is Detroit didn't happen with a Hurricane Katrina-style bang, but as a slow, grinding bust -- and a possibly haunting preview of what many American municipalities may experience , post-crash. Solnit claims, however, that the greening of Detroit under the pressure of economic adversity is not just a strategy for survival, but a possible path to renewal. It's also a living guidebook to possibilities for our new Department of Homegrown Security when it considers where it might most advantageously put some of its financial muscle while creating a more secure -- and resilient -- America. As chef and author Alice Waters has demonstrated so practically , schools can start "edible schoolyard" gardens that cut lunch-program costs, provide healthy foods for students, and teach the principles of ecology. The food-growing skills and knowledge that many of our great-grandparents took for granted growing up in a more rural America have long since been lost in our migration into cities and suburbs. Relearning those lost arts could be a key to survival if the trucks stop arriving at the Big Box down the street. The present Department of Homeland Security has produced reams of literature on detecting and handling chemical weapons and managing casualties after terrorist attacks. Fine, we needed to know that. Now, how about some instructive materials on composting soil, rotating crops to control pests and restore soil nutrients, and canning and drying all that seasonal bounty so it can be eaten next winter? It's not just about increasing the local food supply, of course. Community gardens provide a safe place for neighbors to cooperate, socialize, bond, share, celebrate, and learn from one another. The self-reliant networks that are created when citizens engage in such projects can be activated in an emergency. The capacity of a community to self-organize can be critically important when a crisis is confronted. Such collective efforts have been called "community greening" or "civic ecology," but the traditional name "grassroots democracy" fits no less well. Ideally, the greening of homeland security would mean more than pamphlets on planting, but would provide actual seed money -- and not just for seeds either, but for building greenhouses, distributing tools, and starting farmers' markets where growers and consumers can connect. How about raiding the Department of Homeland Security's gluttonous budget for "homegrown" grants to communities that want to get started? Here's the interesting thing: Without federal aid or direction, the first glimmer of a green approach to homeland security is already appearing. It goes by the moniker "relocalization," and if that's a bit of an awkward mouthful for you, it really means that your most basic security is in the hands not of distant officials in
 
Food Critic James Ward Dies Top
Longtime Chicago food critic James Ward has died. Ward's wife says he died Thursday afternoon after a long illness. He was 76. Ward was known for his flamboyant delivery and quirky glasses while working as the restaurant critic at Chicago's WLS-TV for 20 years before retiring at the end of 2005. Before that, he worked as a restaurant critic and food columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, starting in 1978. He also was the restaurant critic for the Chicago Daily News. The Chicago native graduated from Loyola University and earned a Master's degree in political history from the University of Chicago. ---- Watch an ABC 7 tribute video to Ward here.
 
Bank of Ireland Employee Steals Millions To Pay Ransom Top
DUBLIN — Police say a Bank of Ireland employee has stolen millions of euros from his own branch after a gang took his family hostage and threatened to kill them unless he cooperated. Kidnappings of bank officials' families are common in Ireland but usually involve much smaller cash losses. Police say the banker's family was freed uninjured Friday after he delivered the money. Police have refused to confirm the precise sum stolen. Irish media are putting it at euro7 million ($9 million). If confirmed, this would be the second-biggest kidnapping of its kind in Ireland. In 2004, two Northern Bank employees were forced to help a gang take more than 26 million pounds ($50 million) from the bank's central Belfast vault. More on Ireland
 
Lawrence Lessig: Special Interests Prepare to Derail Obama Agenda Top
Thursday morning's Wall Street Journal reported : Industries from health care to agribusiness to mining that stand to lose under President Barack Obama's policy agenda are ramping up lobbying campaigns to derail or modify his plans. ... Opinion polls indicate that Mr. Obama's broad goals enjoy popular support. But crucial details of the president's agenda will be decided in coming months by close-in legislative fighting, where big industries and the members of Congress that support them have plenty of clout. While lobbying alone is not evil, the combination of special interest lobbyists plus their ability to legally funnel millions into political campaigns is toxic. Members of Congress become dependent upon the lobbyists, and lobbyists sell the clout this dependency creates. Joe Trippi recently explained more: Right now, millions in campaign contributions coupled with millions spent on lobbying can result in billions worth of payback for special interests. It's all legal. ...But there are some big losers in that equation: The public. The American people have lost faith in a system dominated by money. We don't have lobbyists looking out for the public good. And when non-profit groups do send liaisons to congressional offices, they don't have the same clout as a lobbyist who can put together a $50,000 fundraiser later that evening. The public faces a choice: do we continue playing a rigged game where the voices of special interests outweigh the voices of regular people or do we fundamentally change the game? I know my answer to that question. Change Congress, the anti-corruption group I formed with Joe Trippi, has already mobilized thousands of people across the nation in support of a political "donor strike" where we pledge not to give politicians a penny more unless they support bipartisan legislation that would fundamentally reform the way congressional campaigns are funded. If you're ready to change the system, please join the donor strike today. Specifically, we're advocating for the Durbin-Specter plan, which combines public financing with Obama-style small dollar contributions. It would liberate politicians from spending huge portions of their day courting $2,400 special-interest checks and instead allow them to court support from regular people. This model has already worked on the state level, and it garners nearly 70% in national polls. It's also the essence of fiscal responsibility - according to the conservative Cato Institute , the money saved by politicians being free to slash corporate welfare would fund over half-a-century of public funding and save taxpayers billions per year. We all have our favorite issues. Mine is global warming. Yours may be health care. But progress will be blocked on all of these issues until we change the game. Unfortunately, politicians won't make reform a priority unless we demand it in stark terms. So far, over $850,000 has been withheld in the donor strike by about 7,000 people (based on last cycle's contributions). Dianne Feinstein alone has lost over $200,000 . When a politician puts their name on the Durbin-Specter bill, they're in the clear. If ever there were a moment in history to push for fundamental reform, this is it. Will you join the donor strike today? Together, we can Change Congress. More on Wall Street Journal
 
Emmanuel Rukundo Convicted Of Genocide Top
ARUSHA, Tanzania — A U.N. tribunal convicted a former Rwandan military chaplain Friday of attempted rape and genocide for crimes that included killing people who had sought refuge in a seminary. The three-judge panel sentenced Emmanuel Rukundo to 25 years in prison. There was clear evidence that Rukundo, who is 50, was directed the killings of Tutsi civilians in the central Rwanda area of Gitarama during the 1994 genocide, said Judge Joseph Asoka Nihal de Silva. The judges also considered Rukundo's education and stature as a priest in making their judgment, de Silva said. Rukundo was found to have played an integral role n at least four occasions in the abduction and killing of Tutsi refugees from the St. Leon Minor Seminary in Gitarama, the judges said. They said that, at the same seminary, Rukundo attempted to rape a Tutsi woman. The victim testified against Rukundo during the trial. A Hutu extremist militia known as the Interahamwe, along with army soldiers, killed more than 500,000 members of the Tutsi minority and politically moderate Hutus between April and July 1994. De Silva said Rukundo will only serve 17 and half years because the judges gave him credit for the seven and a half years he has already spent in detention. The prosecutor, Hassan Jallow, said he will wait to see the full judgment to decide whether to appeal the sentence. Defense lawyer Aicha Conde said he wanted to study the judgment before making any comment. Rukundo was arrested in Switzerland July 2001 and transferred to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda detention center two months later. His trial began in November 2006. The tribunal was set up in 1994 to try the masterminds of the genocide. More on Genocide
 
A Completely Unscientific Pie Chart Of Who Uses Twitter And Why Top
The people over at Brainz.org made pie charts describing the users of all the major social networking sites , and one I've never heard of called "Propeller." I am partial to the Twitter diagram that explains the circuitous (and slightly ridiculous) usership (is that a thing?) of the latest in a long series of sites designed to help you share your mundane lives with the world. Enjoy! More on Twitter
 
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II" Release Date Announced: July 15, 2011 Top
Mark your calendar: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II will be released July 15, 2011, Warner Bros. has announced. Part I of the film will open Nov. 19, 2010, the studio said last August. Both films are based on the 608-page seventh book in author J.K. Rowling's series.
 
James Floyd, M.D.: Behind Closed Doors, Repeating Mistakes from the Past on Health Care Reform Top
Last week, The New York Times reported that Senator Ted Kennedy has been holding secret meetings with lobbyists to reach "consensus" on a proposal for national health care reform. Included in the list of participants were America's Health Insurance Plans, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America -- some of the same players who defeated the Clinton health care reform effort 15 years ago. Notably absent was Physicians for a National Health Program, the California Nurses Association, Healthcare-Now, and other advocacy groups that oppose the private insurance industry and support the creation of a national single-payer program. According to the Times , lobbyists have discussed increasing health care coverage by subsidizing the purchase of private insurance and expanding public programs. This was the approach taken in Massachusetts following the passage of the Massachusetts Health Reform Law in 2006. Touted as providing universal health care, it expanded and modified Medicaid, subsidized skimpy coverage for those not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, and imposed financial penalties against those who didn't purchase insurance. This reform has been hailed as a bipartisan success and appears to be favored by both President Obama and Senator Kennedy. But what has been the result of the Massachusetts reform? A report released last week by Physicians for a National Health Program and Public Citizen documents that as much as 5 percent of the state remains uninsured -- a decrease of only half from the baseline rate of 10 percent and a far cry from universality. New financial barriers, such as co-payments for medications and office visits, have led some of the poorest patients to interrupt care for life-threatening illnesses. The additional cost of the reform has topped $1 billion annually, forcing the state to cut funding to the public hospitals and community clinics that provide a crucial safety net for those who cannot afford health care. Over the past 20 years, similar reform efforts have been attempted in other states -- Oregon, Minnesota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and Maine. Because these incremental reforms did not address the problems and waste created by private insurers, they all failed to significantly reduce the number of uninsured while costs continued to outpace inflation. The Times reported that a key feature of the Massachusetts reform that has been embraced in the Kennedy meetings is the requirement that every American have insurance, with financial penalties for those who don't. This mandate is a backwards formula for universality, one that can be arrived at only by starting with the premise that the financial interests of the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations are to be protected. According to James Gelfand of the United States Chamber of Commerce, "Forcing individuals to purchase insurance in the current market would be a disaster. Before we even have that discussion, we need to make health care more affordable and improve its quality." In other words, we shouldn't force people to buy a flawed and unaffordable product. The only fair way to mandate universal coverage is to automatically enroll everyone in a program that provides a single, high standard of care and allows them to pay based on what they can afford, through progressive taxation. Even Nobel laureate and former Clinton economic advisor Joseph Stiglitz "has reluctantly come to the view that it's the only alternative." There are troubling parallels between Kennedy's secret meetings and the meetings of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform chaired by Hillary Clinton in 1993. Although special interests were officially excluded from the Clinton task force, documents obtained through a lawsuit filed by the National Legal and Policy Center revealed that more than 300 individuals who participated in task force working groups came from the private sector, and included representatives of the insurance industry and small business groups. In addition, a report from the Center for Public Integrity revealed that around the time of the task force, 80 former government officials -- including 12 former members of Congress -- had gone through the "revolving door" to work for health care interests, many of whom actively lobbied on health care reform. Fast-forward to 2009 and former-Senator Tom Daschle's failed appointment as Secretary of Health and Human Services. The official story focused on his failure to pay his taxes, but what angered most health care reform activists most was his previously undisclosed work as a health insurance lobbyist . In post-mortems on the Clinton health care reform effort, pundits concluded that it was overly ambitious and too complicated to garner the necessary public support. They also recognized the impact of the highly successful lobbying effort by the health insurance industry -- the "Harry and Louise" television ads -- and the anemic response from the White House. Perhaps what doomed the Clinton effort to failure at an early stage was the inclusion of the very interests that must be fought to guarantee comprehensive and universal coverage to every American. Yesterday, President Obama released a budget proposal that includes $634 billion to fund health care reform, days before a White House summit on health care reform begins. Like the Kennedy meetings, this summit currently does not include advocates for single-payer but is well-represented by lobbyists for the insurance industry and other groups who oppose fundamental reform. President Obama, we urge you not to make the same mistake that the Clintons made. Please don't exclude from the discussion the people who are your grassroots support for real change. Although people in your meetings may be telling you otherwise, there is tremendous support throughout the country for a single-payer system. Give us a seat at the table if you truly want to build consensus around health care reform. More on Barack Obama
 
Presented By: Top
 
Obama Live Video: Announces Iraq Troop Withdrawal Plan Top
President Barack Obama visits the Marine Corps base at Camp Lejeune, N.C., to announce his plan to end the U.S. combat mission in Iraq. The event is scheduled to begin at 11:45 AM ET: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy
 
David Beckham Appears In Chinese Sex-Drug Advertisement Top
David Beckham has unknowingly appeared in a Chinese advertisement for anti-impotence medicine. More on China
 
"Slumdog" Child Actor Beaten By Dad Top
THESE shocking images show Oscar winning Slumdog actor Azharuddin Mohammed receiving a vicious beating at the hands of his father. Only days after walking down the red carpet in Hollywood the ten-year-old film star was slapped and kicked by dad, Ismail, after refusing to be put on display like a trophy. More on Slumdog Millionaire
 
Jimmy Kimmel's NSFW Gaffe (VIDEO) Top
Ok, I know this is only funny if you have the sense of humor of a 13-year-old, but I do, so I'm posting it. Jimmy Kimmel was setting a clip up from "Brothers and Sisters" for Calista Flockhart when he stumbled of the word "clip" with interesting results. WATCH: More on LOL
 
Tollway Bans Names, Faces On Signs After Blago Scandal Top
After the Illinois Toll Highway Authority spent $480,000 to erect signs touting former Gov. Rod Blagojevich -- and still smarting from the controversy -- tollway directors on Thursday made sure it won't happen again. The directors banned signs with the names or images of public officials or candidates for public office. More on Rod Blagojevich
 
Marshall Fine: Rock Band, Guitar Hero: Murdering Musical Taste Top
I climbed into the car the other night, thankful that my 17-year-old son finally had his driver's license so he could pick me up at the train station. I could hear the music thumping before I got in. As soon as I opened the door, it hit me. That song. It was Foreigner, playing Jukebox Hero . It wasn't on the radio or even on a CD. It was coming from his iPod, which was jacked into the car's sound system. Foreigner? My God, I thought, haven't I taught him any better than this? "Why are you listening to this?" I asked, trying to hide my horror. "It's on Rock Band ," he said. And then he flashed through some of the other video-game-inspired selections that he'd downloaded from iTunes: Journey, Rush, Boston. Aargh. What's next -- Bad Company? Asia? Kansas, for pity's sake? It's bad enough that so-called classic-rock stations clog the airwaves with the worst of the 1970s and 1980s -- but to have the videogame industry spoon-feeding it to a generation that doesn't know better is too much. OK, so I'm a snob. I admit it. I spent 20 years writing about popular music and had strong likes and dislikes, as any critic should. Hooray for the Allman Brothers -- and fie on the Outlaws, Molly Hatchet and the rest of the mindless Allman wannabes. Yes to David Bowie and Lou Reed; no to Yes and ELP and the Alan Parsons Project. Since I stopped writing about music in the mid-1980s, I've still maintained my interest, even as I shifted my professional focus to film, theater and TV. I pay enough attention to know who's who and what they sound like; my ears are always open, as they say. And I tried to school my sons in the classics: Beatles. Rolling Stones. Chuck Berry. Bruce Springsteen. And that's why I hate the games Rock Band and Guitar Hero . For the rest of this post, click here to go to my website, www.hollywoodandfine.com. More on Asia
 
Paul Rieckhoff: Obama Says Troops are Coming Home: Are we ready to welcome them? Top
President Obama traveled to Camp Lejeune today to announce the eventual drawdown of combat troops in Iraq. There's sure to be a lot of discussion about the details of the timeline, and a lot of politics getting in the way of any coherent military analysis. But whether it is 16 months or 19 months or 23 months, whether the residual force is 10,000 or 50,000 troops, the President's new plan will create a surge of new veterans coming home in 2009 and 2010. We need to be ready. Our duty to these brave men and women doesn't end when they leave the battlefield. Military families have borne a tremendous strain through more than eight years of conflict, and our troops are returning to the worst economy we've seen in decades . No veteran's 'welcome home' should come in the form of an unemployment check. There are some concrete steps that must be taken. The new GI Bill must be properly implemented, so veterans can go back to school and train for civilian careers . Mental health resources must be expanded, so veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder can get the care they need. And we must ensure that the network of veterans' hospitals and clinics nationwide have all the funding they need to cope with the influx of wounded troops. This week, the President released his budget for veterans , which represents a strong step towards supporting our returning troops. The budget increases spending on health care and other vital veterans' programs by about 11%, and an increase in VA funding of $25 billion over five years. These numbers are profoundly encouraging, but the devil is in the details. When the complete plan comes out in April, we'll be going over it with a fine-tooth comb to ensure that these budget numbers aren't reliant on increasing veterans' health care fees and copays. And I'm disappointed to see that the President has not included one of his campaign promises to veterans - advance funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Advance funding wouldn't cost any money, but it would help veterans' hospitals plan their budgets earlier, and bring an end to the care-rationing that hospitals are forced into when the budget is passed late. Every veterans' organization in the country was hoping to see this common sense solution in the budget this year. Still, it's good to see the government beginning to do its part. But it will take more than just the politicians to support our veterans; every American has a responsibility to support those who've served. IAVA has done its part by launching a historic outreach campaign anchored by the groundbreaking website CommunityofVeterans.org . At this site, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans can connect with one another and find critical mental health, education and employment resources to help with the transition home. No matter how you feel about the war, you can help support our veterans. If you want to help your community welcome home our troops, join us at www.iava.org . Crossposted on IAVA.org . More on Afghanistan
 
Ty'Sheoma Bethea Criticized By Washington Times Top
I thought it would come from Michelle Malkin or Rush Limbaugh, but Malkin is too busy planning her anti-tax tea parties while Rush gets ready for his close-up at the Conservative Political Action Committee this weekend (which is a collection of nuts so nutty even Sarah Palin stayed away). No, it was the conservative Washington Times that cast the first stone at Ty'Sheoma Bethea, the Dillon, S.C., teenager who wrote to Congress seeking stimulus funds for her shamefully dilapidated school. Obama used her statement, "We are not quitters," as the coda of his speech Tuesday night, but now the Moon-owned paper tells us what's wrong with Bethea, in an editorial with the condescending headline, 'Yes, Ty'Sheoma, there is a Santa Claus." More on President Obama
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)