Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Rick Horowitz: The First One Hundred Days: There Are Milestones, and... Top
Cable news -- the really early years: "Welcome back, and good morning from Washington, where we're going to spend the next hour much like we've spent the past several hours -- the past several weeks, in fact: talking politics." "That's right, Matthew. It's all part of our wall-to-wall coverage marking 100 days since the swearing-in of America's ninth president, 'Old Tippecanoe' himself, William Henry Harrison. Our regular panel of pundits and spinmeisters is on hand to bounce things around, so let me get started with James. One hundred days in, James -- what say you?" "I'd say disappointing, Osgood. I mean, you look at what he's accomplished -- actual accomplishments, not just fancy promises -- and you have to say that Harrison's been a bust." "Not cutting him any slack, are you?" "Hey, you run for the top office, you've got a job to do. I don't want to hear any excuses. I -- " "Let me get in here." "Thaddeus?" "He doesn't want to hear any excuses -- fine. But we're dealing with some pretty extraordinary circumstances here, and I think anyone who expected a lot out of this president was setting himself -- not to mention Harrison -- up for failure." "You're talking about...?" "I'm talking about the pneumonia, first of all. You put a 68-year-old guy out in the rain and cold for two hours on his inauguration day -- " "That was his choice -- nobody said he had to be out there that long!" "And if he'd cut it short, you'd be the first one calling him a wimp! Anyway, you get a guy that age standing there in that kind of weather making a two-hour speech, you're just asking for trouble." "Let's hear from Hobart. So you think the pneumonia got him off on the wrong track?" "Absolutely I do. Just look at the Cabinet appointments -- how are you supposed to make your Cabinet appointments, let alone filling all the other jobs you've got to fill, when you're wheezing and coughing your guts out? And it only got worse from there." "You mean..." "I mean dying! Harrison's the first president to get to 100 days and be dead for most of them. You can't kick the bucket one month into your term and expect to make a positive impression on people -- that's just reality." "So you think he's underperformed." "Six- feet -underperformed, if you ask me!" "Hold on a minute, James. Hobart?" "Look, it is what it is -- he didn't get much done. But I don't think we have to be nasty about it." "Who's being nasty? I just said he -- " "Now, this vice president of his -- " "Tyler." "Right -- John Tyler. This Tyler is carrying himself like he's the president now, rather than just a placeholder -- " "Talk about padding your resume!" " -- and who knows? Maybe he can pull it off. But Harrison? The best I can give him is an 'Incomplete.'" "He tried, he died -- I give him an 'F.'" "Tough crowd!" "You gotta deliver. Politics ain't beanbag, you know." "No?" "It's hardball." "It's what?" "Hardball. Hardball! " "That'll never catch on." "Just you wait." # # # Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com. More on Barack Obama
 
Lieberman Welcomes Specter's Move Top
Sen. Joe Lieberman applauded Arlen Specter's move to the Democratic caucus, saying he was pleased to be joined by "yet another independent minded Democrat." More on Arlen Specter
 
Andrew Bacevich: Farewell, the American Century Top
Crossposted with TomDispatch.com Rewriting the Past by Adding In What's Been Left Out In a recent column, the Washington Post's Richard Cohen wrote, "What Henry Luce called 'the American Century' is over." Cohen is right. All that remains is to drive a stake through the heart of Luce's pernicious creation, lest it come back to life. This promises to take some doing. When the Time-Life publisher coined his famous phrase, his intent was to prod his fellow citizens into action. Appearing in the February 7, 1941 issue of Life , his essay, "The American Century," hit the newsstands at a moment when the world was in the throes of a vast crisis. A war in Europe had gone disastrously awry. A second almost equally dangerous conflict was unfolding in the Far East. Aggressors were on the march. With the fate of democracy hanging in the balance, Americans diddled. Luce urged them to get off the dime. More than that, he summoned them to "accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation in the world... to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit." Read today, Luce's essay, with its strange mix of chauvinism, religiosity, and bombast ("We must now undertake to be the Good Samaritan to the entire world..."), does not stand up well. Yet the phrase "American Century" stuck and has enjoyed a remarkable run. It stands in relation to the contemporary era much as "Victorian Age" does to the nineteenth century. In one pithy phrase, it captures (or at least seems to capture) the essence of some defining truth: America as alpha and omega, source of salvation and sustenance, vanguard of history, guiding spirit and inspiration for all humankind. In its classic formulation, the central theme of the American Century has been one of righteousness overcoming evil. The United States (above all the U.S. military) made that triumph possible. When, having been given a final nudge on December 7, 1941, Americans finally accepted their duty to lead, they saved the world from successive diabolical totalitarianisms. In doing so, the U.S. not only preserved the possibility of human freedom but modeled what freedom ought to look like. Thank You, Comrades So goes the preferred narrative of the American Century, as recounted by its celebrants. The problems with this account are two-fold. First, it claims for the United States excessive credit. Second, it excludes, ignores, or trivializes matters at odds with the triumphal story-line. The net effect is to perpetuate an array of illusions that, whatever their value in prior decades, have long since outlived their usefulness. In short, the persistence of this self-congratulatory account deprives Americans of self-awareness, hindering our efforts to navigate the treacherous waters in which the country finds itself at present. Bluntly, we are perpetuating a mythic version of the past that never even approximated reality and today has become downright malignant. Although Richard Cohen may be right in declaring the American Century over, the American people -- and especially the American political class -- still remain in its thrall. Constructing a past usable to the present requires a willingness to include much that the American Century leaves out. For example, to the extent that the demolition of totalitarianism deserves to be seen as a prominent theme of contemporary history (and it does), the primary credit for that achievement surely belongs to the Soviet Union. When it came to defeating the Third Reich, the Soviets bore by far the preponderant burden, sustaining 65% of all Allied deaths in World War II. By comparison, the United States suffered 2% of those losses, for which any American whose father or grandfather served in and survived that war should be saying: Thank you, Comrade Stalin. For the United States to claim credit for destroying the Wehrmacht is the equivalent of Toyota claiming credit for inventing the automobile. We entered the game late and then shrewdly scooped up more than our fair share of the winnings. The true "Greatest Generation" is the one that willingly expended millions of their fellow Russians while killing millions of German soldiers. Hard on the heels of World War II came the Cold War, during which erstwhile allies became rivals. Once again, after a decades-long struggle, the United States came out on top. Yet in determining that outcome, the brilliance of American statesmen was far less important than the ineptitude of those who presided over the Kremlin. Ham-handed Soviet leaders so mismanaged their empire that it eventually imploded, permanently discrediting Marxism-Leninism as a plausible alternative to liberal democratic capitalism. The Soviet dragon managed to slay itself. So thank you, Comrades Malenkov, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev. Screwing the Pooch What flag-wavers tend to leave out of their account of the American Century is not only the contributions of others, but the various missteps perpetrated by the United States -- missteps, it should be noted, that spawned many of the problems bedeviling us today. The instances of folly and criminality bearing the label "made-in-Washington" may not rank up there with the Armenian genocide, the Bolshevik Revolution, the appeasement of Adolf Hitler, or the Holocaust, but they sure don't qualify as small change. To give them their due is necessarily to render the standard account of the American Century untenable. Here are several examples, each one familiar, even if its implications for the problems we face today are studiously ignored: Cuba. In 1898, the United States went to war with Spain for the proclaimed purpose of liberating the so-called Pearl of the Antilles. When that brief war ended, Washington reneged on its promise. If there actually has been an American Century, it begins here, with the U.S. government breaking a solemn commitment, while baldly insisting otherwise. By converting Cuba into a protectorate, the United States set in motion a long train of events leading eventually to the rise of Fidel Castro, the Bay of Pigs, Operation Mongoose, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and even today's Guantanamo Bay prison camp. The line connecting these various developments may not be a straight one, given the many twists and turns along the way, but the dots do connect. The Bomb. Nuclear weapons imperil our existence. Used on a large scale, they could destroy civilization itself. Even now, the prospect of a lesser power like North Korea or Iran acquiring nukes sends jitters around the world. American presidents -- Barack Obama is only the latest in a long line -- declare the abolition of these weapons to be an imperative. What they are less inclined to acknowledge is the role the United States played in afflicting humankind with this scourge. The United States invented the bomb. The United States -- alone among members of the nuclear club -- actually employed it as a weapon of war. The U.S. led the way in defining nuclear-strike capacity as the benchmark of power in the postwar world, leaving other powers like the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China scrambling to catch up. Today, the U.S. still maintains an enormous nuclear arsenal at the ready and adamantly refuses to commit itself to a no-first-use policy, even as it professes its horror at the prospect of some other nation doing as the United States itself has done. Iran. Extending his hand to Tehran, President Obama has invited those who govern the Islamic republic to "unclench their fists." Yet to a considerable degree, those clenched fists are of our own making. For most Americans, the discovery of Iran dates from the time of the notorious hostage crisis of 1979-1981 when Iranian students occupied the U.S. embassy in Tehran, detained several dozen U.S. diplomats and military officers, and subjected the administration of Jimmy Carter to a 444-day-long lesson in abject humiliation. For most Iranians, the story of U.S.-Iranian relations begins somewhat earlier. It starts in 1953, when CIA agents collaborated with their British counterparts to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh and return the Shah of Iran to his throne. The plot succeeded. The Shah regained power. The Americans got oil, along with a lucrative market for exporting arms. The people of Iran pretty much got screwed. Freedom and democracy did not prosper. The antagonism that expressed itself in November 1979 with the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran was not entirely without cause. Afghanistan. President Obama has wasted little time in making the Afghanistan War his own. Like his predecessor he vows to defeat the Taliban. Also like his predecessor he has yet to confront the role played by the United States in creating the Taliban in the first place. Washington once took pride in the success it enjoyed funneling arms and assistance to fundamentalist Afghans waging jihad against foreign occupiers. During the administrations of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, this was considered to represent the very acme of clever statecraft. U.S. support for the Afghan mujahideen caused the Soviets fits. Yet it also fed a cancer that, in time, exacted a most grievous toll on Americans themselves -- and has U.S. forces today bogged down in a seemingly endless war. Act of Contrition Had the United States acted otherwise, would Cuba have evolved into a stable and prosperous democracy, a beacon of hope for the rest of Latin America? Would the world have avoided the blight of nuclear weapons? Would Iran today be an ally of the United States, a beacon of liberalism in the Islamic world, rather than a charter member of the "axis of evil?" Would Afghanistan be a quiet, pastoral land at peace with its neighbors? No one, of course, can say what might have been. All we know for sure is that policies concocted in Washington by reputedly savvy statesmen now look exceedingly ill-advised. What are we to make of these blunders? The temptation may be to avert our gaze, thereby preserving the reassuring tale of the American Century. We should avoid that temptation and take the opposite course, acknowledging openly, freely, and unabashedly where we have gone wrong. We should carve such acknowledgments into the face of a new monument smack in the middle of the Mall in Washington: We blew it. We screwed the pooch. We caught a case of the stupids. We got it ass-backwards. Only through the exercise of candor might we avoid replicating such mistakes. Indeed, we ought to apologize. When it comes to avoiding the repetition of sin, nothing works like abject contrition. We should, therefore, tell the people of Cuba that we are sorry for having made such a hash of U.S.-Cuban relations for so long. President Obama should speak on our behalf in asking the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for forgiveness. He should express our deep collective regret to Iranians and Afghans for what past U.S. interventionism has wrought. The United States should do these things without any expectations of reciprocity. Regardless of what U.S. officials may say or do, Castro won't fess up to having made his own share of mistakes. The Japanese won't liken Hiroshima to Pearl Harbor and call it a wash. Iran's mullahs and Afghanistan's jihadists won't be offering to a chastened Washington to let bygones be bygones. No, we apologize to them, but for our own good -- to free ourselves from the accumulated conceits of the American Century and to acknowledge that the United States participated fully in the barbarism, folly, and tragedy that defines our time. For those sins, we must hold ourselves accountable. To solve our problems requires that we see ourselves as we really are. And that requires shedding, once and for all, the illusions embodied in the American Century. Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His most recent book, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism , is just out in paperback.
 
John Feffer: 100 Days of a New Foreign Policy? Top
One hundred days isn't enough to judge a presidency, the cautious pundits say. "It takes time for a president to put his team in place, formulate policy, steer legislation through Congress, and conduct foreign negotiations," history professor Allan J. Lichtman writes in The Washington Post . Look instead, he says, to the next 100 days. But we live in TwitterWorld, where all judgments are snap and Susan Boyle can go from unknown to over-exposed in less than a week. In a world of constant tweets, 100 days are an eternity. Think of all that you can learn (and forget) about Ashton Kutcher in three months! Judged according to even the mayfly attention spans of TwitterWorld, the Obama administration moved quickly to implement its change agenda in the domestic sphere: pushing through an economic stimulus bill, painting the country Green, preparing the ground for long-awaited health care reform. Responding to the deep crisis we face on the home front, the new president implemented measurable change in record time. Indeed, in the Institute for Policy Studies' new report on Obama's first 100 days — Thirsting for Change — we give the new president pretty high marks for his domestic policies. The score for foreign policy isn't so clear-cut. In TwitterWorld, the temptation is to evaluate change on the basis of headlines and rhetorical flourishes. Accordingly, the new president would seem to have sharply broken with the international policies of the last administration. Obama issued executive orders to close the Guantánamo Bay prison in a year and end the U.S. use of torture. He stopped using the phrase "Global War on Terror" (GWOT). He promised to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. He embraced the agenda of nuclear abolition. He has shaken Hugo Chávez's hand. That's five tweets right there, each under 140 characters. But even these accomplishments are far from unalloyed. On torture, the administration has released damning Bush-era memos but has been cool to the idea of prosecuting those responsible or even holding an independent inquiry into these violations of international law. GWOT is dead, but "overseas contingency operations" are still claiming civilian lives in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's not yet clear, on Iraq, what will happen to U.S. military bases, U.S. contractors and foreign mercenaries, and the control of Iraqi oil. The commitment to nuclear abolition is undercut by Obama's continued support of missile defense, which has blocked progress in disarmament in the past. The U.S. relationship with Venezuela may be on the upswing, but no handshakes are yet in the offing for Iran and North Korea. Then there are the less appetizing continuities between the Obama and Bush foreign policies. These continuities even inspired a few tweets back in January that Obama is a closet neo-conservative. "In the area of foreign policy, where neo-cons in our own age have been most influential, Obama has echoed many of their concerns, and has adopted his own variant of a hawkish foreign policy," neocon Ron Radosh wrote after the inauguration. "He has emphasized the need to win in Afghanistan, not to allow Iran to go nuclear, and has supported Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas terrorists." While it's a stretch to make the new president into a neocon, his foreign policy has certainly emphasized certain continuities. Most disappointing has been the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan without any clear strategy and in the face of considerable evidence that a surge in troops won't make that country more stable. Also disappointing has been the decision to increase military spending by 4%. At a time when we so desperately need to shift resources from our military to international diplomacy and human needs at home, it makes no sense whatsoever to add to the Pentagon budget. Finally, although the Obama administration has wisely pushed other countries to pass economic stimulus packages in order to pull the global economy out of the recession, it has failed to implement "change we can believe in" in international financial architecture. It supported giving the International Monetary Fund practically a blank check, even though the IMF has been one of the institutions responsible for the mess that we're in. But just as the achievements come with qualifications, so too do the disappointments. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has courageously targeted some unnecessary Cold War weapons systems, like the F-22, and we might see a cut in Pentagon spending in the near future. U.S. military commitment to Afghanistan might drop off sharply after the August elections. Significant rapprochement with North Korea and Iran might be in the offing. There's more going on here than meets the tweet. In Thirsting for Change , which is an update of our comprehensive book Mandate for Change that outlines a progressive agenda for the Obama administration, we've represented our Change Meter as a glass of water. Obama started off in January with the water level halfway at 5 (whether it's half-full or half-empty depends on whether you're an optimist or not). In our report , we give him a 6 on his foreign policy. After 100 days, the glass is now definitely more than half full. But we're still a long way off from a fundamentally new relationship between America and the world. Crossposted from Foreign Policy In Focus . To subscribe to FPIF's World Beat, click here . More on Obama's First 100 Days
 
Carla Bruni "Highly Intimate" Photos Stolen Top
A Paris police official says a computer containing "highly intimate" photos of French first lady and former model Carla Bruni-Sarkozy have been stolen. The official says the computer, a camera and video materials were taken on Sunday when the Paris apartment of Julien Enthoven was burgled. Enthoven is the younger brother of Bruni-Sarkozy's former lover, philosophy professor Raphael Enthoven. Polce fear the photos could now be made public. Bruni-Sarkozy and Raphael Enthoven had a child, Aurelien, before separating. The Italian-born singer and former model married French President Nicolas Sarkozy last year, shortly after his divorce from his second wife. More on France
 
Ariston Anderson: Shannen Doherty's recession solution: Reaganism! Top
Manhattan, L.A., Sydney, Bali ... Hoboken? Yup. The W Hotel luxury empire, with 29 properties around the globe, opened its first New Jersey outpost last week, right across the Hudson from the more glittering borough, a place that already boasts six of Starwood Hotels' luxurious W properties. Take that, Manhattan. Thursday night's grandiose opening was packed both with proud locals and curious, dolled-up New Yorkers who had ventured across the river. Recession, schmecession: dozens of paid models stood around looking hot, a lounge singer performed atop a piano, and a woman writhed and fawned within a giant martini glass. Guests spun a W "Wonder Wheel" to win W-branded swag, and fireworks filled the Hoboken sky. And when the celebs came out in force, you never know when you'll find yourself in an impromptu, impassioned economics lesson. Who else came out to love this unloved place? Designer Thom Filicia, who had recently shot an episode of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy here, expressed his love for Hoboken: "It's a great, charming, cool little extension of the city." (Meaning, needless to say, Manhattan.) "And I think W is going to be a great addition to this ever-growing little annex to New York." The night ended with an intimate performance by Jamie Foxx, decked out in oversized bling, and swarms of Sopranos actors and models (including Tyson Beckford) who swelled the stage to dance. Why Hoboken? Because, at long last, this place is hot. As former Masters of the Universe increasingly find themselves exiled from Wall Street (and their now-too-pricey Manhattan pads), the search for cheaper real estate increasingly leads to the birthplace of baseball and Sinatra. And the W was poised to provide the wounded financial profession a sumptuous safe haven, just 10 minutes by light rail from lower Manhattan. Given a hotel brand associated with early-morning champagne flowing at its Fashion Week tents and music sets played in intimate ballrooms, no wonder the W Hoboken's 40 condos have already sold out. Compared with Manhattan, Hoboken's got lower taxes, cheaper dining, and a far superior view: people who live here don't have to look at New Jersey. While the Hoboken hotel's yacht- and private-jet-booking concierge services betray a property conceived in a more freewheeling economic climate, Starwood's still optimistically planning 28 additions to its empire in hotspots like Milan, Barcelona, Paris, Santiago, Shanghai, and Dubai. The Hoboken property suggests a certainty that consumers and companies will soon pay for travel retreats -- and, with room rates starting at $189, what better way to publicize thrift than a retreat in New Jersey? Here's one way: Corner Shannen Doherty, turn on a video camera, and ask her about the recession. Doherty, once known as Brenda Walsh on Beverly Hills 90210, had never trekked to Hoboken but found it "quaint and clean and amazing." Long an outspoken Republican, Doherty told me that the recession has a simple solution in Reaganism . "This goes down to why I supported Ronald Reagan, with the trickle-down theory," she said. (Not that she was old enough to vote for him.) "It's a really simple process. The more money that people make, the more people they can employ, the more jobs that are out there, the less unemployment that you have." Reasonable minds can disagree; Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman has called the Reagan Era "a one-hit wonder" that enlarged the gulf between the rich and poor. (As far as we know, Krugman, a New Jersey resident, was not at the party.) When I asked Doherty how much her last great splurge cost, she said $40,000. And something happened that surprised me and seemed to surprise her as well: She got misty on the red carpet. The splurge, she explained, was spent on a last-ditch effort to save her dog, who had died the night before. I felt awful as she tearfully described her dog's costly dialysis treatment. A gaggle of gossip reporters issued a collective "Awww." To read more, and to watch the exclusive video of Shannen Doherty explaining Reaganomics, go to Walletpop.com . More on Paul Krugman
 
Michael Rowe: Good Morning, GOP. This Is Your Wake-Up Call. Top
The news today that Pennsylvania Senator Arelen Specter [R] has announced that he's switching parties should be a wake-up call for a Republican Party that has moved so far to the right that it is in danger of alienating the increasing majority of moderate Americans, especially those in the northeast where the Republican Party appears to be slipping into obsolescence. The GOP has long prided itself on tarring the Democrats with "being out of touch with mainstream American values." Today, that tag seems more applicable to them than it does to the Democratic Party. As it stands, Specter will be the 59th Democratic Senate seat. If, as he's widely expected to, Al Franken wins the disputed Senate race in Minnesota, the Democrats will have filibuster-proof majority. Among the many messages here for the die-hard conservative element of the Republican Party is that they are rapidly become dead weight as a new generation of Republicans take a long hard look at the outcome of hardened conservative stances towards social issues, in addition to economic and political ones. Among the assembled constituents outside Specter's office this morning were members of the self-identified "Christian middle," whose concerns include poverty and social justice. In sharp contrast to the crowds who applauded Sarah Palin at the Republican National Convention last summer as she jeered at Barack Obama's history as a community organizer, a growing number of moderate Republicans appear to be slowly realizing that they've become sharecroppers in their own party. In the years since the Religious Right staked its claim on the GOP and metastasized itself to the party with a mantra of harsh, social conservative rhetoric, the true tenets of the Republican Party ---small government, fiscal conservativism, personal freedom ---have been lost in a tidal wave of fundamentalist Christian-driven rhetoric focusing on rabidly anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-science, pro-war oratory and policy-making. This in turn appears to be alienating the next wave of Republicans in their early twenties (the Meghan McCain generation, for lack of a better term) who not only don't share their elders' prejudices, but also indeed take pains to distance themselves from them. In the coming days, expect a barrage of snide official commentary from the self-identified "leaders" of the Republican Party about how Specter was "on his last legs" and was going to lose his Senate seat in the next election. Expect nominally "off the record" comments about "traitors" and "false conservatives." Expect a public front of regret, and a private orgy of confusion, hand wringing, rhetoric, and blame. But at the same time, the GOP would do well to take a long hard look at what the next generation of Republicans sees when it turns on the television and sees Dick Cheney ogrishly defending the torture of accused "terrorists" in defiance of international laws to which the United States is signatory. Or what it saw during the "tea bagging" protests: red-faced, ranting right-wingers calling the president of the United States a "fascist" who wants bring "white slavery" to America, recalling the protesters who waved watermelon slices and stuffed monkeys at anti-Obama Sarah Palin rallies last summer. Or what it takes in when it sees the same group of old, white male also-rans (and of course, Sarah Palin who seems to have forgotten she's supposed to be running Alaska, not running for president of the United States) snapping at the actual president's heels every time he attempts to move America out of the selfish, brainless nationalism of the Bush years and back to the position of respect and prestige it enjoyed under the Clinton years and before, at the same time as he attempts to heal the egregious economic wounds inflicted on the country whose presidency he won. If the GOP has any real desire to survive as a significant political influence in America, it would do well to rethink its allegiances to the Religious Right and the rabid social conservatives who decided, eight years ago, that America was their personal feeding ground. It would do well to listen to moderate Republicans who remain steadfastly loyal to their party, like Olympia Snowe of Maine who have admitted that moderate voices in the Republican Party are so often drowned out and dismissed. It would do well to take a long hard look at not only itself, but what America sees when it think of "the Right," and ask itself why so many people are backing away from it---slowly, carefully, as from a rabid dog you don't want to provoke into an attack. More on Arlen Specter
 
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: The American Tax-Paying Sucker Top
David Brooks wrote in last week's New York Times that what he learned upon his most recent visit to Israel is that an Israeli's greatest fear is to be seen as a frier, a sucker. Perhaps it's a lesson that we Americans ought to learn as well. Over the past few months it is clear that Wall Street has made the American taxpayer its sucker. The New York Times reported on Sunday that Wall Street pay levels have now returned to 2007 levels, with Goldman Sachs now having "set aside $4.7 billion for worker pay in the quarter. If that level continues all year, it would add up to average pay of $569,220 per worker -- almost as much as the pay in 2007, a record year." The problem is that Goldman Sachs, along with most Wall Street banks, has taken billions of dollars in government bailout money and, as the Times argued, rather than continue to pay their employees astronomical salaries 'some of that revenue... could be used by bailed-out banks to pay back taxpayers." If you had told me that the day would come when the average American taxpayer, who makes on average $45,000 a year, would be asked to donate toward the income of those making at least ten times more (let alone those who are making tens of millions a year), I would scarcely have believed it. But welcome to the modern American rip-off. When I lived in England for eleven years I often pondered on the difference between the English get-in-the-cue mentality versus the sharper American elbow sensibility. We used to be a nation that just wouldn't take it. Two centuries ago we rebelled against the British for taxing our tea. But today we largely remain silent as we are taxed to help Wall Street bankers make the payments on their Hampton homes and convertible Ferraris. Look, if you're a wealthy American and you want to buy a Yacht, G-d bless you. There ought to be no class warfare in a country that prides itself on rewarding people for entrepreneurial effort. But you can't ask secretaries, flight attendants, and firefighters, who are struggling to pay their utility bills, to finance your butler. Where is the reform of Wall Street that we were all promised after the scandals that started with the collapse of Bear Stearns a year ago and continued with the million-dollar bonuses that were paid to the geniuses at AIG who left the American taxpayer with a $200 billion dollar bill? A few weeks ago my new Bear Stearns account manager attempted to hit me with triple commissions on a new investment strategy for my retirement account, after it had already shrunk by a third. Had I not asked questions, I would have been charged a percentage on the total amount invested, the mutual funds they were going to place my money into (which begs the question, why should I pay them just to hand over my money to be managed by someone else?), and finally a commission on every sale of stock that had to be liquidated in order to place the money in a managed account. After raising a ruckus the fees were refunded. But surely the publication of the new best-seller A House of Cards detailing the fall of Bear Stearns due to irresponsible greed would have been enough for the firm to want to reform their ways. Apparently not. And this just seems indicative of the general direction of America. We're all expected to tighten our belts and get serious about saving money as our government engages in reckless spending and taxes us up the wazoo. I live in New Jersey and if any of you are thinking of joining me you ought to first grow a third kidney to make sure you can pay the taxes. In my small town of Englewood we pay some of the highest taxes in the nation. Yet the street down the road from me has pot-holes that can you descend into and resurface only about a week later. There are arcane rules about what you can leave for the garbage, so you end up owning a large vehicle to make regular trips to the local dump. The public school system spends on average $23,000 per child per year, even as their test results are some of the lowest in the State. Still, Governor Corzine, a man I know personally to be kind, dedicated and brilliant, thinks the remedy to our state's problems is to raise taxes further. Many of us are thinking it might be time to find a new home. And what shocks me while all this goes on is how little protest anyone hears. In our city a brave man name Raphael Bachrach tried to establish a Hebrew language Charter school which might have allowed some of the religious Jewish parents to recoup a couple of bucks of their hard-earned tax money through the establishment of a school where Hebrew and Jewish history would be taught. It died a quick death through lack of support. Are Americans getting soft? If we would have lived under George the III, might we just have sipped our expensive and tax-laden tea with a few empty murmurs about the injustice of being taxed unfairly? About eighteen years ago I started writing essays about the dangers of Wall Street. At Oxford I watched as scores of my students who were studying law and medicine abandoned their intended professions to accept high paying jobs in finance. What would happen to a society, I pondered, in which the brightest minds were no longer building anything but were simply taking one hundred dollars and making it into two? Not that finance isn't important, but the industry became so dominant that it created a brain drain in nearly every other sector. Who would create the medical breakthroughs of tomorrow? Who would invent renewal sources of energy? But what I did not foresee is that even with all those brilliant people Wall Street itself would collapse. The reason, money without purpose creates a zero sum game in which accumulation alone becomes the objective. The system is gradually bankrupted by greed. The people I personally know on Wall Street who never succumbed to that greed were those who saw money as a means rather than an end. They made huge amounts in order to give away huge amounts to worthy causes. In other words, they placed justice at the center of their financial enterprises. But a lot of us are feeling that there is little that is just right now in American tax and bailout policies. And since the cornerstone of every society is justice, it's a problem that has to be remedied before people lose faith in the system. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is the founder of This World: The Values Network. His most recent best-seller is 'The Kosher Sutra.' www.shmuley.com. More on Financial Crisis
 
Mike Alvear: Survey: 19% of Men Would Do Brad Pitt if it Meant Sex with Angelina Top
Glamour Magazine released their "Extra-Steamy" Man sex survey recently. They asked 1,013 men to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Here are a few of the more interesting tidbits of their truthiness, and my take on the findings: Angelina Jolie has a proposition for you: First, she wants to watch you have sex with Brad Pitt, and then she'll have sex with you. Do you go for it? Yes: 19% No: 81% Badda Bing Bada Brad ! No word on what Mr. Pitt would do to exhaust any man from touching his wife, but the findings here support a phenomenon I've noticed for years -- Angelina Jolie has an incalculable sexual draw. Ask any straight woman what female she'd give it up for and it's amazing how often Jolie's name comes to the tip of her tongue. [Have you ever] Measured your penis? Yes: 67% No: 33% I'm always amazed at the obsession men have with the size of the prize. Kinsey did a study a while back asking women where penis size ranked in desirability. It came in fifth, behind firm muscle tone, well-groomed hair, clear complexion and white teeth. Click here for my funny but informative video (PG-rated) on the proper way of measuring your penis. Or here to see why condom makers say only 6% of men need extra-large condoms. Faked an orgasm during intercourse? Yes: 24% No: 76% Joan Rivers had a funny line about gay men faking orgasms ("spit on his back") but I'm not sure it applies here. The high number of fakers makes sense, though, given that at least 4% of men have what sexologists charmingly call "ejaculatory incompetence" (the inability to heave your ho in the presence of a partner). Add the most common effect of anti-depressants (delayed ejaculation) and you can see why so many men just say the hell with it, fall back and pretend to snore. Had sex with a woman you actively disliked? Yes: 27% No: 73% This is further evidence, as if we needed it, that a man's 21st digit will come down with Alzheimer's if it helps the cause. If you could make love in only one position for the rest of your life? Which one would you choose? Woman-on-top: 43% Doggy-style: 28% Missionary: 25% Spooning: 4% A lot of people were surprised at the top answer. They shouldn't be. Men are visual creatures. Though I still think if Lord Carret's favorite position had been an option, it would placed high: "Her knees over my shoulders, with my wallet hidden where she'll never think of looking for it." Glamour didn't reveal how they did the survey (sample size: 1,013 ) so it's hard to pass scientific judgment. Still, we shouldn't look for science as much as insight in these types of surveys. And, of course, the sheer entertainment value. Click here to see additional takes on Glamour Magazine 's other questions, including: • Would you rather marry a woman 20 years older than your or 20 pounds heavier than you? • Compared with other men, how good do you think you are in the sack? • Which of the following would make you the most uncomfortable? Dating a woman, who, compared with you, is: More sexually experienced, more successful in her career, wealthier, or funnier? More on Brad Pitt
 
WATCH LIVE: Sen. Arlen Specter Holds Press Conference About Switching Parties Top
Watch live coverage of Sen. Arlen Specter's press conference about his switch to the Democratic party. Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy
 
Steele: Arlen Specter Left GOP To "Further His Personal Political Interests" Top
Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele was speedy and harsh in his reaction to the news that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) would switch parties. "Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not," he said. "Let's be honest -- Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first." More on Arlen Specter
 
Snowe: GOP Has Abandoned Principles; Specter Switch "Devastating" Top
Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate, said Tuesday that Arlen Specter's abandonment of the GOP is "devastating," both "personally and I think for the party." "I've always been deeply concerned about the views of the Republican Party nationally in terms of their exclusionary policies and views towards moderate Republicans," said Snowe, who has been approached, she said, by Democrats in the past about switching parties. Specter's switch to the Democratic Party "underscores the blunt reality" that the GOP is not a welcome place for moderates, she said. So far, she said, she's staying put. "I believe in the traditional tenets of the Republican Party: strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, individual opportunity. I haven't abandoned those principles that have been the essence of the Republican Party. I think the Republican Party has abandoned those principles. She added that being a Republican is simply part of who she is. "It's my ethnic heritage, Spartan side, that continues to fight," she said. Get HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter . More on Arlen Specter
 
David Hunke, John Hillkirk Named To Top USA Today Spots Top
McLEAN, Va. — USA Today, the nation's largest newspaper, filled two top executive positions Tuesday by naming David Hunke as publisher and John Hillkirk as editor. Hunke had been publisher of Gannett Co.'s Detroit Free Press and chief executive of the partnership that oversees that newspaper and The Detroit News. Hillkirk had been USA Today's executive editor. Gannett, USA Today's owner, announced the changes at the company's shareholder meeting. The positions opened in recent months after USA Today Publisher Craig Moon announced his retirement and the newspaper's editor, Ken Paulson, left for a nonprofit group that promotes free speech. Hillkirk had been acting editor after Paulson left. More on Newspapers
 
Nan Aron: Fair Judges Needed to Win Fair Pay Top
The Lilly Ledbetter Act returned the law to what it had been for decades, before the Supreme Court intervened. Now we need to pass new legislation the Paycheck Fairness Act S. 182 - and stand up for judges who uphold the Constitution and the law to provide equal justice for all, not just a few. Today, April 28, 2009, is Equal Pay Day. Today marks the point when the average woman's wages finally catch up with what the average man earned last year. Women still earn only 78 cents for every dollar earned by a man, and for women of color, the numbers are even worse. Equal Pay Day is an important reminder of this persistent wage gap and the urgent need to take action to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work. We've made some progress in the fight for equal pay - the first bill President Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. That law reversed a damaging Supreme Court decision, which had severly limited the rights of women challenging discriminatory pay.. But the Ledbetter legislation just returned the law to what it had been for decades, before the Roberts Court interfered. We need to pass new legislation to win the fight for fair pay. The Senate must pass the Paycheck Fairness Act S. 182, a vital next step toward achieving equal pay for equal work by amending the Equal Pay Act. President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act 45 years ago, making it illegal for employers to pay women less than men for the same work. But loopholes in the law and weak enforcement from the courts allowed many discriminatory practices to continue. The Paycheck Fairness Act addresses these concerns and equips women with the necessary tools with which to fight unequal pay. This fight for justice has been a long one. We are all grateful for the courageous women who are willing to demand fairness. Lilly Ledbetter, who worked at Goodyear Tire in Gadsden, Alabama, never gave up the fight, despite enormous odds and personal sacrifice. She stood up for millions of working Americans, even though she will not personally benefit from the law that bears her name. Lilly Ledbetter and many others like her show that we can win if we are willing to fight back. My first major case as a young lawyer showed me the determination it takes for women to stand up for their rights. It was a class action lawsuit on behalf of dozens of women, who felt they had been passed over for managerial jobs at a major computer manufacturer just because they were women. They were right. The company knew that if they lost they would have hundreds of women bringing similar suits, so they fought hard, backed by a big and well-known law firm. The judge hearing my case was a Republican appointed by Richard Nixon. Though I knew this might make the case more difficult, I counted on his reputation for fairness. Weeks went by after we made our arguments in front of him. Then one day, his clerk called. He said, as if it was routine - "Judge Joiner's decided. He's entering the order certifying class action." Now, I would like to take credit for making a great argument, but really the case was open and shut. The credit goes to the judge who upheld the Constitution and the law to provide equal justice for everyone America, not just a few at the top. I knew that as long as we could make the case that this Republican appointee would at least give the women who faced discrimination a fair chance. But not any longer. The Supreme Court and Appeals Courts have been stacked in recent years with judges who rule based on their own political agenda that favors a few at the top instead of providing equal justice and protecting personal freedoms for all. That was the Court that denied justice to Lilly Ledbetter. When the facts about Ledbetter's case came to light, and people saw her courage and willingness to stand up for justice, it struck a nerve and moved us all to get Congress to pass the Fair Pay Act. Let's finish the job, and urge the Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. And while we're at it, ask them to confirm highly qualified judges who will uphold the Constitution and the law to provide equal justice and protect personal freedoms for everyone in America, not just a few. More on Supreme Court
 
William Bradley: Obama's California: Angst and Irony for Winning Democrats Top
President Barack Obama, appearing with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, discussed budget crises and other matters in this California town hall last month. It's a great time in many ways for California Democrats, who just had their annual convention in Sacramento. Barack Obama carried the state with 61% of the vote and the party has a big registration edge over Republicans, as well as a much better handle on the large and growing number of independent voters. But it's also a time of angst and irony. I talked with former Governor Gray Davis, the only Democratic governor since World War II not named Brown, who told me: "California may be at a tipping point." And Democratic delegates were in disarray on what to do about it, even as they enjoyed speeches from their two most likely gubernatorial contenders. The state's chronic budget crisis got a lot worse with the national economic meltdown, and the state Legislature barely managed to pass a budget. With its unusual two-thirds requirement on legislative votes for the budget and and revenues -- only two other, much smaller states, have the same set-up -- the big Democratic majorities are held back by a diehard Republican minority. Former Governor Gray Davis tried to deal with California's chronic budget crisis. It's a problem Davis tried to deal with, which helped lead to his recall in 2003 and replacement by Arnold Schwarzenegger, with whom he's now friendly. Without actually liking it, Davis favors the state budget compromise Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders negotiated and barely got through the Legislature -- a combination of cuts, temporary tax hikes, "securitization" of future lottery proceeds, and a new state spending limit and rainy day fund -- as well as the initiatives on a May 19th special election ballot needed to keep the deal intact. In 1999, not long after he was elected, Davis told me that, even though he was the first Democratic governor in 16 years, he would hold the line on using a gusher of revenue from the dot-com boom for a lot of new program spending. But he ultimately did go along with much of it. As Democratic interest groups pushed for spending, Republican interest groups pushed for tax cuts. And the dot-com boom went bust. Democrats pushed for tax hikes to make up the shortfall, but couldn't get the handful of Republican votes needed to expand their big legislative majorities to the required two-thirds. When Schwarzenegger came in, he cut the car tax, a highly popular move that also cost billions in revenue. When I asked him the other day during a live video webcast if that was a mistake, he told me he thought then that he would be able to change the budget process. Which didn't happen. California's Republican Party, dominated by the far right, voted to oppose all the state budget compromise-related initiatives on the May 19th special election ballot. The Democrats were more mixed, with most regretfully agreeing that -- with the two-thirds vote requirement in place in the Legislature -- this was the best deal they could get, and that state spending limits were necessary. And that if the initiatives fail in a few weeks, big cuts are likely. Although all five of the key state budget compromise-related initiatives on the May 19th special election ballot received majority votes to sustain the recommendation of the party's resolutions committee during a floor fight at the California Democratic Party convention, only two were endorsed. That's because the floor vote required a super-majority for endorsement, 60% of those delegates voting. Ironically, the opponents to the initiatives all oppose the super-majority requirement in the Legislature on budget and revenue votes. Prop 1A, the state spending limits and rainy day fund measure which also extends temporary tax hikes, looked at first like it won in a show of delegate cards on the convention floor. But it fell just short, with 58% in favor. Props 1D, shift of tobacco tax revenues from special purpose early childhood development, and 1E, shift of high-income taxpayer revenues from special mental health programs, both redirected for general fund uses, received smaller majority votes, also falling short of the party endorsement. The delegates, in their wisdom, voted by big supermajority margins to endorse Prop 1B, which carves out big bucks for the education budget, and Prop 1C, which would "securitize" future lottery earnings to provide billions more in revenue. But Prop 1B doesn't work without Prop 1A. So angst, understandable or not, trumped logic. The party also endorsed Prop 1F, a totally symbolic measure which would block legislative pay increases during budget deficit years. The Democratic legislative leaders, both pushing for the initiatives, Darrell Steinberg in the Senate and Karen Bass (first African American female speaker in the country) are prominent Obama backers. Former state Controller Steve Westly, who headed Obama's California contingent at the Democratic National Convention, is co-chairing the campaign for the initiatives. Obama himself spoke supportively of the hard-fought state budget deal during his two-day trip last month to California, without formally endorsing it. The most likely gubernatorial contenders, favored former Governor-turned-Attorney General Jerry Brown, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom all back the key initiative causing Democratic angst, Prop 1A, which couples a new state spending limit with an extension of temporary tax hikes. But labor is split, with the biggest teachers union and the building trades in favor and some of the public employee unions, which oppose any spending limit, opposed. And that was enough, with a core of liberal activists at a convention comprised almost entirely of liberal activists, to keep the party neutral on half the initiatives. Democrats did have more fun with their gubernatorial contenders. Villaraigosa, who is not certain to run, stayed back in LA, ostensibly to work on his city's budget crisis. Newsom, whose San Francisco budget deficit is proportionately larger than Villaraigosa's, took the opposite tack, going all out to make a big splash and breakthrough against frontrunner Jerry Brown. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, best known for his advocacy of same sex marriage, is running for governor. Newsom, a national co-chair of the Hillary Clinton campaign, sought nonetheless to cast himself as a California version of Obama in a campaign of the future vs. the past, change vs. status quo. Against the famously iconoclastic Brown. Newsom's aides have also been spinning, with a constant string of gibes, that Brown, who is 71 to Newsom's 41, is too old to be governor again. Most delegates don't seem to agree with that. Ironically, Newsom says he won't run if Dianne Feinstein does -- she won't -- and she's five years older than Brown. While Newsom made a splash, he didn't make a breakthrough, as Brown fended him off with a minimal effort. Newsom, who formally announced his candidacy last week via Twitter, rolled with a large entourage of aides, and Brown strolled around the convention mostly on his own. Newsom and his team worked for months to organize a strong convention presence. And some would have it that this kept Villaraigosa home for the weekend. Ostensibly to work on his city's big budget crisis. But, while Newsom's operation impressed in the context of a start-up operation, if Villaraigosa stayed away because of that it was probably a mistake. Newsom had a loud cheering claque, brought onto the floor for the purpose, at the very front. But I roamed across the convention hall filming while he spoke, and the reaction in most of the crowd was tepid at best. Newsom, perhaps coincident with his name, emphasized the "new." Looking over his prepared text here, I recall that Newsom called for "a new direction for California," which happens to be the title of the speech. A new direction in ... health care, education, government (extolling his city's fiscal health, though actually San Francisco has a larger budget deficit for its size than LA has for its size), and economy. Newsom is running on his record in San Francisco, brandishing the City by the Bay as a sort of paradise. He's also running as NEWsom, in contrast to the old ways of doing business. Taking some shots at, presumably, Brown, Newsom closed by asking if Democrats will "take a stroll down memory lane, or a sprint into the future? ... Will we choose the past, or will we embrace the future? ... We're not a state of memories, we're a state of dreams. We're not content to re-live history, we're going to keep making it." On Earth Day, President Barack Obama presented California as a national model on energy, for policies put in place by former Governor-turned-Attorney General Jerry Brown. When that famed avatar of the past and champion of the status quo, the aforementioned Brown, got around to taking the stage some time later, he ignored Newsom. Speaking off-the-cuff, he talked about the new day under Barack Obama without torture as national policy. He noted that Obama, in his Earth Day address, praised California as the model for the rest of America on energy, for policies that Brown put into place and that other governors have since followed. He talked about his work as attorney general on greenhouse gas reduction around the state and in suing the Bush/Cheney Administration. He talked about the corruption of the economy, and moves he is making as attorney general to bring corporate wrongdoers to heel. And he spoke philosophically about education, decrying the one-size-fits-all mentality. He also said some other stuff the delegates liked. Later on, Brown and Newsom hosted very different parties. Newsom got a small stretch of road blocked off for a late night concert by Grammy-winning hip hop star Wyclef Jean. Perhaps a thousand enthusiastic fans crowded into a cramped space to enjoy the high-energy performance. Gavin and his guys held court in a bar next to the stage during the concert, greeting various well-wishers and party-goers. It was a nice show, with Wyclef Jean having moved beyond rap per se, thankfully, as I got my fill circa Bulworth . Jerry Brown on Saturday at the old Governor's Mansion, last used by his father, the late Governor Pat Brown. Brown's scene earlier at the historic Governor's Mansion was rather different. An operation magically appeared, as always happens with the Browns even when they're not officially running, to move the crowd lined up on the sidewalk onto the historic grounds and keep the delegates adequately lubricated with beer and white wine. There were about 800 people there, with many repeatedly enjoying the Brown trademark chips and salsa. Brown, who wasn't sure if he'd give another speech, having just given a mostly off-the-cuff address to the same people earlier at the convention, did end up giving one of his typically ironic, teasing impromptu talks. Anne Gust Brown, the attorney general's wife and top advisor, who managed his 2006 landslide win, showed off the infamous "blue Plymouth," the cheapskate official gubernatorial car during Brown's first two terms as governor, which was towed over for the occasion from the California Automotive Museum. For his part, Brown, who hadn't known his old state car would be there, seemed more engaged by a typewriter upstairs, which he said served him in good stead studying for the bar exam, which the Yale Law grad took glee in reminding that he'd flunked the first time out. But what about the car? Brown told me he is going to get it tuned up. "So it'll be fired up and ready to go!" Brown has a good lead over the likely Republican candidates. Villaraigosa and Newsom also show well, though Newsom has some problematic internals in his polling. Which means that California Democrats are a lot happier about the elections next year than the one in a few weeks. You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com. More on Barack Obama
 
CalPERS To Vote Against BofA's Ken Lewis Top
The huge California Public Employees' Retirement System, or CalPERS , will vote against the re-election of Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis tomorrow at the bank's annual shareholder meeting. The news, announced in a press release on CalPERS' web site, is a major blow to the already-beleaguered Lewis. CalPERS, with more than 1.6 million benefit recipients, is the country's largest public pension fund. The fund, which has $176 billion in assets and owns 22.7 million shares in BofA, says it will also vote against the other 17 board members seeking re-election. This is the first major shareholder to say it will vote against all 18 of the board members. Other firms, including ratings agency Egan-Jones, has called for the ouster of Lewis and some of the other board members. "The entire board failed in its duties to shareowners and should be removed," CalPERS president Rob Feckner said in a statement. He cited the deteriorating condition of the bank; its failure to disclose the extent of Merrill Lynch's losses before it acquired the bank last year, and its seeming inaction when Merrill proceeded to hand out $3.6 billion in bonuses before the deal closed. More on Bank Of America
 
Decks Cleared For Specter For 2010 Democratic Primary Top
Sources with knowledge of Sen. Specter's decision to switch political parties say that efforts will be made to ensure that he will not face a primary challenger from a Democratic candidate in the 2010 Senate election. The overtures were likely a necessary precondition to get the long-term Pennsylvania Republican to cross party lines. But they do not mean that Specter will have the full backing of the party apparatus or some of the major constituencies that traditionally back Democratic candidates. Sources in Pennsylvania and Washington say Specter's party switch was aided by two major factors: his precarious electoral position as a Republican with Club for Growth header Pat Toomey challenging him in the primary, and the relatively thin Democratic field in the state -- despite the strength of the state party. "There was no real big Dem that has committed to running in the primary against Republican Arlen Specter," said one Pennsylvania Democrat on the Hill. "There never really was a Democratic opponent." Abe Amoros, the Deputy Executive Director at the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, declined to comment, saying he would let Gov. Ed Rendell go first. Officials at the DSCC, similarly, were quiet in the hours after Specter's announcement. But longtime observers of Pennsylvania politics and Democratic strategist both conceded that Specter was likely promised the nomination for 2010. "He is too smart to do this without some overtures and feelers and so forth," said Michael Smerconish, the longtime conservative radio talk show host. "It seems crazy that he wouldn't have the race cleared for him ahead of time," said one well-connected Democratic strategist. That said, the strategist pointed out, Specter did put one line in the speech announcing his party switch that suggested he was still prepping for a primary push back. "I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary," he said, "and there is much to be done in preparation for that election." Moreover, the labor community is not certain to offer their support for Specter if he does not change his position on the Employee Free Choice Act along with his party title. And in his announcement on Tuesday, Specter stressed that on the unions' legislative priority he still stood in opposition. "Workers and unions base their support on issues, not on candidates, or deals," said one union official in D.C. "Thousands of PA workers have been holding grassroots events all across PA calling on Specter to support the Employee Free Choice Act. They will continue to do so. Who they will support in the election will be based on these issues." And yet, without a Democratic candidate to challenge Specter in a primary (or a legitimate third-party ticket) it is hard to see where labor might throw its support. Get HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter . More on Arlen Specter
 
Swine Flu US Cases Jumps To 51 Top
EL PASO, Texas — Federal health officials reported Tuesday that the number of confirmed U.S. swine flu cases had jumped to 64, while state officials reported at least four more. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported "a number of hospitalizations" among the confirmed cases, which include 17 new cases in New York City, four more in Texas and three more in California. That brings the CDC count to 45 in New York City, 10 in California, six in Texas, two in Kansas and one in Ohio. However, state health officials in California have confirmed three other cases, and Indiana authorities have confirmed one. The increase is not surprising. For days, CDC officials have said they expected to see more confirmed cases _ and more severe illnesses. Health officials across the country have stepped up efforts to look for cases, especially among people with flu-like illness who had traveled to Mexico. CDC officials also had warned that updates in the number of confirmed cases would at time be disjointed, as different states announce new information before the CDC's national count is updated. A handful of schools around the country have closed over swine flu fears and some people are wearing masks, but it's mostly business as usual in the U.S., even at border crossings into Mexico. While Asian countries deployed thermal sensors at airports to screen passengers from North America for signs of fever, there have been no extra screenings at the U.S. border with the country considered ground zero for the outbreak. Swine flu has killed over 150 people in Mexico, where schools have been canceled nationwide. At the main pedestrian border crossing between El Paso and Mexico's Ciudad Juarez, people entering the country who said they felt unwell were questioned about their symptoms, but there were no reports of anyone refused entry. Jorge Juarez and Miranda Carnero, both 18, crossed the border wearing bright blue masks. "It's just a precaution," said Juarez, who lives in El Paso and drew a smiley face on his mask. Passengers from a Mexico City flight that arrived at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey said they were surprised customs officials did nothing more than hand them an informational flier. "Nobody cared when we got off the plane. We were surprised," said Lourdes Pizano, 51, of Montgomery Township, N.J., who was returning from a visit to relatives in Mexico City. "We thought they were going to bring us into a different gate, or segregate us." President Barack Obama on Monday characterized the U.S. cases as a cause for concern but not "a cause for alarm." The federal government said travel warnings for trips to Mexico would remain in place as long as swine flu is detected. The Obama administration on Tuesday defended its "passive surveillance" policy to deal with the threat, saying that it's measured, cautious border monitoring makes sense. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Tuesday that more draconian enforcement steps are not yet necessary, even as she acknowledged that officials "anticipate confirmed cases in more states." She reiterated President Barack Obama's stance that people are justifiably concerned but need not be alarmed by it. "We anticipate that there will be confirmed cases in more states as we go through the coming days," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on NBC's "Today" show Tuesday. ___ McClam reported from New York. Associated Press writers Alicia Chang in Los Angeles; Samantha Henry in Newark, N.J.; Sue Major Holmes in Albuquerque, N.M.; Sara Kugler in New York; Lauran Neergaard in Washington; Michelle Roberts in San Antonio; Lindsey Tanner in Chicago; and AP Medical Writer Mike Stobbe in Atlanta contributed to this report. __ On the Net: CDC swine flu Web page: http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/ More on Swine Flu
 
Specter's Switch: Why It Matters Top
With newly minted Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania in their ranks, Obama's party now controls 59 seats in the upper chamber. When Al Franken of Minnesota is finally seated, Democrats will have 60, the number needed to squash a filibuster and move to a final vote. Sixty is the magic number in the Senate -- but only if the party can muster 60 votes. Sixty members alone doesn't do it, a point emphasized by conservative Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska when asked by the Huffington Post what Specter's move does to his own position as a power broker in the Senate. "Nothing. Sixty members doesn't translate to 60 votes, so it doesn't really change anything for me," he said. "The automatic assumption that people will take from this is, 'Ah, things are changing.' And maybe they will, but it's not automatic." There is, however, one automatic change that comes with having 60 votes. The greatest power that the minority has in the Senate is the power to grind things to a halt. By filibustering, the GOP not only blocks the piece of legislation it's opposing, but also any other action that is bottle-necked behind it. The threat to grind things to a halt is one that the majority takes seriously. It gives the minority veto power over small (but important) pieces of legislation that the majority wants but can't afford to lose several weeks pushing. With 60 votes, the majority can push through those smaller measures over the objections of the GOP. It's a point Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, the third-ranking Democrat, underscored. "The bottom line is, it's still not going to be easy. This is a bold, comprehensive agenda. But the sort-of-just-doing-a-filibuster-at-every-whim to block us is not there and that makes legislating a lot easier," he said. Nelson said that Specter's voting pattern going forward will determine how significant his switch is. "I'm sure his voting patterns will be comparable as a Democrat as they were when he was a Republican," he said. "I think only time will tell when you see whether there's a voting pattern that develops." Get HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter . More on Arlen Specter
 
Swine Flu's Potential Economic Effects: Mexico's Tourism, Retail Sure To Suffer Top
Wachovia has issued a report that gives a cursory overview of how the swine flu crisis will effect Mexico as well as international economies, based primarily off of the 2003 SARS epidemic model. The report notes that Mexico's tourism industry will surely suffer, as the Christian Science Monitor reported Monday in the aftermath of the European Union's travel advisory that trips to Mexico should be canceled or delayed, unless it was absolutely "urgent." The Wall Street Journal also reports that , though "the potential impact from the influenza on industry is less than clear, retail and tourism businesses are likely to bear the brunt of the losses." The blow to domestic tourism and retail industries is also compounded with a large drop in the Mexican Peso, which according to Bloomberg dropped by 5.1 percent on Monday, more than any other currency that Bloomberg tracks. The Bloomberg report notes that the currency devaluation and economic swine flu woes will increase the likelihood that Mexico will tap into a new $47 billion International Monetary Fund loan facility. Here are Wachovia's projections: Economic Effects Of Swine Flu - Free Legal Forms More on Mexico
 
Heather Hurlburt: 100 Days of the Obama Doctrine Top
At the 100-day mark, the Obama administration has many things on its plate and even more challenges ahead. With policy reviews and staffing incomplete and some choices not yet made, evaluations at this date are at best artificial -- yet the Obama administration has produced a remarkable body of early actions. The National Security Network offers five themes that define and give shape to the Administration's broad range of action - and point the way toward the future. The Administration has moved aggressively to regain US prestige, reject failed ideas, put in place comprehensive strategies, bring 21st century approaches to bear on 21st century problems and signal continued US strength. These five approaches have laid a solid foundation for the heavy lifting that now begins to reshape America's place in the world and ultimately sculpt an "Obama Doctrine." Regaining U.S. prestige. After eight years during which global respect for the United States fell to an all-time low, Obama has made it clear that his vision of American power rests on American prestige and the ability to lead by example. Conservatives have tried to depict this style of leadership as weakness, but as the President recently explained, it is nothing of the sort: "[W]e had this debate throughout the campaign, and the whole notion was, is that somehow if we showed courtesy or opened up dialogue with governments that had previously been hostile to us, that that somehow would be a sign of weakness. The American people didn't buy it. And there's a good reason the American people didn't buy it -- because it doesn't make sense." On the second day of his administration the President sent a clear message that America would seek to regain the high ground when he banned torture and announced his plan to close the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay. He and his Cabinet have reached out repeatedly to improve perceptions among Muslim nations, calling during his inaugural address for a relationship based on "mutual interests and mutual respect," granting his first interview as President to Al-Arabiya, and making it explicit that "America is not at war with Islam." He has reversed Bush administration policies that blocked cooperation with the UN on issues from family planning to peacekeeping to the International Criminal Court -- blockages that had negative repercussions in global public opinion and on the ground in some of the world's most desperate places. Using comprehensive strategies. For the past eight years, the US focused too much on military-centric approaches while ignoring other key tools of national power, and looked at challenges country-by-country instead of seeing the connections between issues and regions. The Obama Administration has sought to return a comprehensive vision to issues such as the Middle East -- addressing many of the festering problems instead of looking for a silver bullet through the invasion of Iraq -- and Pakistan, whose problems are thoroughly integrated with Afghanistan but lacked any strategy beyond military aid. The Obama Administration's strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan focuses not just on military operations, but also on governmental capacity building, economic development and regional diplomatic strategies. At home, diplomacy and development have received short shrift - and the result has been that we do not have the civilian capabilities we need to deal with the complex and irregular wars of the 21st century. The Obama Administration has begun to make long-term changes to address these problems: crafting a budget that raises the State Department's profile, increasing civilian international affairs spending by 10 percent and resourcing the Pentagon for the next century's engagements while cutting ineffective, unnecessary and outdated weapons programs such as the F-22, the DDG-1000 destroyer and Future Combat Systems. Rejecting failed ideas. Obama has shown a refreshing willingness to discard foreign policy dogmas that no longer apply or have proven false. In this way, he is opening up potential new opportunities for the United States to achieve its interests in the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere. After thirty years of mutual distrust, the President has reached out aggressively to Iran: directly addressing Iran's people and leaders, inviting Iran to participate in an Afghanistan donors conference at The Hague and having Special Representative Richard Holbrooke meet with the Iranian representative at the conference. Obama began the process of altering fifty years of failed policies toward Cuba: removing barriers preventing Cuban Americans from sending remittances to the island, lifting the travel ban to Cuba for Cuban Americans and permitting American telecommunication companies to sell services to Cuba. Both the Cuban and Iranian regimes have responded with willingness to dialogue - though the central challenges lie ahead. Understanding 21st century problems. Obama has begun rebuilding the institutions and partnerships necessary to deal with the transnational problems of an integrated world. In response to the global economic crisis, the Obama administration successfully built consensus among the world's major economies at the G20 conference in London on a coordinated response that included $1.1 trillion in commitments to the IMF to prevent the collapse of national economies, a new system of greater global financial regulation, and a commitment to free trade. The President has also set out to reinvigorate the global non-proliferation regime, laying out his vision for a nuclear free world during a major address in Prague. He also came to an agreement with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev to start negotiations on a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) to be completed by the end of this year and has made ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty an important legislative priority. The administration has started work on a national climate change policy and signaled to our allies that we will look to work with them to address this transnational threat through UN negotiations, the creation of an Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas, and renewed energy/environment talks with China. Signaling U.S. strength. While abandoning the counterproductive, over-the-top rhetoric of the Bush administration, the President has projected an image of American strength abroad. His "no drama" handling of the pirate hostage crisis off the coast of Somalia successfully passed an early test. The President also enunciated a firm approach to counter the Al Qaeda threat, stating in his inaugural address: "for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, 'Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.'" He also signaled an appetite for hard-nosed security bargaining by linking the missile defense system in Europe to greater Russian cooperation on Iran. And his defense budget grows the Army and Marines and fully funds the needs of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. More on Barack Obama
 
7 Mexican Police Officers Killed In Tijuana Clash Top
TIJUANA, Mexico — Near-simultaneous attacks have killed seven police officers in the Mexican border city of Tijuana. Police say four officers were killed when gunmen opened fire on their patrol cars in front of an auto parts store. Some of the officers got out of their cars to fight back. Minutes earlier, gunmen attacked a police station in another neighborhood, killing two officers. Two other attacks left one officer dead and another injured. Threats against police were heard on radio frequencies soon after Monday night's attacks. The Tijuana city government says federal police and soldiers will step up patrols Tuesday in response to the attacks. More on Mexico
 
Gordon Davies: Higher Education Can't Be a Discretionary Expenditure Top
The fiscal crisis changes things for everyone in the U.S. - including higher education, which is my area of work. I've seen it firsthand. For the past few months, I've been working with education leaders in 11 states on a project called, Making Opportunity Affordable, funded by the Lumina Foundation . Few if any of us foresaw the incredible economic collapse that has imperiled millions of workers and families here and abroad, and that indeed threatens the very foundations of nations whose failure was unthinkable. "It can't happen here." But it did. As we consider the effects of the economic crisis on state governments, a key question has emerged: Where does this leave higher education? There was a time when that question would have been answered in what has become a perfunctory way: reduce enrollment or limit growth, and raise tuition without increasing financial aid. Unfortunately, for too long, higher education has been viewed by state leaders as a discretionary expenditure. That mindset is no longer viable and has to change if we're going to meet the challenges of the 21st century. President Obama has identified higher education as critical for our country's economic well-being in the 21st century. In both the stimulus package and the 2010 budget, he pledged significant assistance to make postsecondary education available to everyone. The president has asked all adults to participate in at least one year's education beyond high school and asserted that dropping out of high school is a dis-service to the nation. He continues to push his vision for higher education. Even in his "Tax Day" speech , the president addressed his agenda for college: [W]e are helping Americans get the education they need to succeed in a global economy. For years, we have seen the price of tuition skyrocket at the same time that it became more and more important to earn a college degree. That is why we are making college more affordable for every American that needs a hand. That is why we are committed to simplifying the student loan process so more families can get the help they need. And that is why our $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college will help us reach a goal that will help our country lead in the 21st century: by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. The president's goals are our goals. But, the states have a large role in determining exactly how stimulus money will be spent. More important, they determine whether support of higher education is a budget priority. At the very time we want to make higher education affordable, extend opportunities to greater numbers of women and men (including many who are already in the workplace but lack 21st century skills and knowledge), and increase the productivity of colleges and universities (through re-allocation of spending and new approaches to teaching and learning), higher education is threatened by lower appropriations at the state level. Policymakers tend to tolerate institutional responses to revenue cuts on the margin, instead of asking that inefficiencies and opportunities for greater cost-effectiveness be addressed across the postsecondary enterprise. This pattern of behavior is both historical and current, despite the growing imperative for the nation to act urgently and more boldly in its development of human talent. Even if there were no financial crisis, efforts to reform higher education would still be important because of the nation's changing population and accumulated layers of social inequity that have developed over the past half century. But there is a financial crisis -- not just another downturn in the endless economic cycle of good times and bad -- and this makes our work even more important. Here are three critical higher education issues that can help states achieve the goals we have to meet. These issues have become critical for our nation's long-term economic well-being and, as such, should become part of a broad policy discussion. 1. Increased attainment: more people with college degrees and other credentials. We need to give people opportunities to acquire more sophisticated work skills so this nation can reclaim intellectual -- and especially scientific and technological -- leadership in the world. We cannot flourish as a large consumer-driven economy that buys more than it sells. We need to act quickly so people will have jobs that are collectively and individually productive, so they can care for their children and families, and participate in the civic activities of a democratic nation. We need to expand our language and our agendas to focus on all postsecondary credentials, particularly those at the sub-baccalaureate level. A fixation on bachelor's degrees does not respond to the reality that "middle skills" jobs are the nation's fastest-growing path to greater opportunity and mobility. 2. Reduced unit costs: more of the right credentials -- the ones that result in personal and collective economic well-being -- at a lower average cost per credential. We need to increase attainment with little or no new money, while spending less money on average for each degree or other credential. Our nation will not recover quickly from its financial crisis and, when it does recover, we will be part of a different global economy. Except for stimulus funding, higher education will not see large appropriations increases in the foreseeable future, and should not expect to be funded at the same level per credential for the results it is called to produce. But if we do not act quickly to re-allocate money and introduce new approaches to teaching and learning, our economic recovery will be slower and more difficult. 3. Outcomes assessment: measuring whether we are meeting the needs of students, states, and the nation. We need to ensure that students are learning what they need to know. There will be a temptation to dilute quality in order to reduce unit cost. No one wants to do it but someone will. States should adopt assessment procedures that are based upon the good work that has been done over the past decade (for example, the National Survey of Student Experience, the Collegiate Learning Assessment, and WorkKeys ). They should enter into discussions with the European nations about their efforts to establish a multi-national assessment process ( the Bologna Process ). Higher education is a national priority and increasing completion rates is an absolute necessity for our economy. The President has issued a challenge to increase graduation rates to unprecedented levels. He's doing his part. Now, the states and higher education have to do their part. It is not an understatement to say that our country's future depends on it.
 
Monday's Late Night Round-Up: Swine Flu, The Ground Zero Fly-Over, And More! (VIDEO) Top
Swine flu was the big topic of conversation last night with Jon Stewart devoting two segments to it , and Stephen Colbert saying that the bird-pig-human combo inherent in this flu was stolen from his paella recipe. Craig Ferguson focused more on the media coverage of the flu by saying: "If you flip over to the cable news channels they'd be all 'swine flu, swine flu swine flu, ahhhhh, it's hamageddon, it's the pigpocalypse, it's snout of control.' They just want to scare the crap out of you: 'Is swine flu deadlier than the grim reaper? Stay tuned!'" More from David Letterman on Bush, and Jon Stewart on flying a giant plane near Ground Zero below. For more round-ups go here . WATCH: Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter! More on Late Night Shows
 
Quinn: Reform Commission Doesn't Go Far Enoguh Top
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) -- Gov. Pat Quinn is praising the recommendations from his Illinois Reform Commission but says the panel left out some good ideas. Quinn said Tuesday he wants voters to have the power to recall corrupt officials. That's something the reform commission did not support. The commission suggests public financing of judicial elections. Quinn says Illinois should consider using public money to pay for other races, too. The Chicago Democrat also says voters should be able to hold referendums on key ethics issues, so that lawmakers aren't the only ones making decisions. Quinn says that after the impeachment of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Illinois faces a "moment of truth" on cleaning up state government. -ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
Broadcasting Good News: Volunteers Open Young Eyes To Reading (VIDEO) Top
Need some good news? NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams now does a segment called "Making A Difference" that shares stories from viewers of "random or regular acts of kindness" that offer you just that. Watch this episode, titled "Volunteers Open Young Eyes to Reading": Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy *** Difficult times have been known to bring communities together as people lean on one another for support. In this recession, there's no shortage of communities around the country that have rallied around a struggling neighbor, reached out a helping hand to those around them, or donated free dry cleaning to the job-seeking and unemployed . We know there are more stories like these and HuffPost wants to highlight them. If you read or hear about an act of kindness in your community, email us the story at goodnews@huffingtonpost.com. These vignettes are a much needed counterpoint to the doom and gloom surrounding the economy; let's help change the conversation -- we can't do it without you. *Follow HuffPostLiving on Twitter and become a fan of Huffington Post Living on Facebook * More on NBC
 
Dylan Loewe: The Specter of Arlen Specter Top
In what will certainly be the biggest political story to cap off the first 100 days of the Obama administration, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) has announced he will be switching parties. Once Al Franken is seated in Minnesota, an inevitability expected to happen shortly, the Democratic party will have a 60 seat, filibuster-proof majority. Specter was one of three Republicans in Congress to vote for President Obama's stimulus package, an issue that caused a split with his party that Specter described in a statement as "irreconcilable." In the wake of his vote, RNC Chairman Michael Steele suggested that Republicans who didn't tow the party line might not be supported in their re-election. Not long after, Pat Toomey, former president of the Club for Growth, announced his intention to challenge Specter in the 2010 Republican primary. Most polls showed Specter trailing by double-digits. As a moderate Republican who had sided with Obama, Specter's re-election appeared incredibly unlikely. Specter's decisions to switch parties was based, above all else, on survival. Specter will almost assuredly claim the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat in 2010, and should defeat Toomey easily in a general election matchup in a state where Obama won by ten points. But whatever the personal politics, the most significant consequence of his decision will be the events it sets in motion. Sure, it's true that Specter's decision will have a much smaller impact on the political agenda than Jim Jeffords' decision in 2001. When Jeffords left the Republican party, the GOP lost control of the Senate. That isn't the case here. It is also true that Specter has voted with the Democrats often, and that as a Democrat, he will often break ranks to vote with the GOP. Some will consequently argue that the actual change that's occurred here is relatively minor. Yes, there are now 60 Democratic senators, but if you can't guarantee that all those Democrats will break the filibuster, is it really better than having 59? It is. It very much is. Arlen Specter will be catered to by the Democratic caucus, behind closed doors. Where he has concerns, the party will work closely with him to resolve them. It is far more likely that a negotiation that begins and ends among friends will yield a more productive result than a negotiation that, prior to today, had to be hammered out among adversaries. By virtue of having Specter as part of the caucus, Democrats will be better capable of earning his vote. Specter's voting record will start to change, as well. Though his record suggests a political philosophy not entirely aligned with either party, in his long career, he has no doubt had to cast votes to appease the Republican base, even when he disagreed. Without a doubt, not having the increasingly fringe-prone Republican base to worry about will liberalize Specter on a number of issues. There is a broader value as well. Specter's story will dominate the news cycle for days, if not weeks; during that time, he will no doubt have opportunities to explain himself publicly. When he does, he will say that the Republican party of which he was a lifetime member is no longer. That a conservatism based on reason and rationality can no longer exist under the conspiracy-driven, anti-intellectual senselessness that has come to define the circus tent of the Republican party. A recent Washington Post/ABC poll found that only 21% of the country self-identifies as Republican. That's almost half as many as call themselves Independents. The reality is striking - all over the country, people are walking away from a GOP that is collapsing in on itself. Arlen Specter is now the highest profile among them.
 
Ben Rosen: The Big Mistake of the First 100 Days Top
Here's your assignment: You've just been elected President of the United States. Your most urgent Cabinet appointment is Treasury Secretary, the person who will lead us out of the worst financial abyss since the Depression. Obviously, this person must have not only the leadership skills and charisma to inspire and mobilize the country's efforts, but must understand what got us into this mess in the first place and what will get us out. The Secretary has to have demonstrated in the last two years a record of comprehending the financial system's (1) high risk, (2) deteriorating capital base, (3) innovation dangers, (4)soaring leverage and (5) increasing instability. Unfortunately, you failed the assignment. You selected a person who, judging by his own words, comprehended none of these. But before getting to his words, consider the crescendo of disparaging commentaries from others. Timothy Geithner hasn't had a lot of good press since taking over as Treasury Secretary. Now, if possible, it's getting worse. In my last blog post , I lamented the appointments of both the Treasury Secretary and the head of the National Economic Council, Larry Summers. Portfolio magazine just chimed in with a les-than-flattering cover story on Geithner. And now, the New York Times weighs in with a 5,330-word front-page piece that can only be described as a public servant's worst nightmare -- but a must read. It takes him to task for his past actions (erratic), associations (Wall Street) and record (unimpressive). For me, the most valuable part of the article was pointing me to the speeches that Geithner delivered during 2007 when he was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, by far the most important and influential of the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks. He was delivering about a speech a month. They varied little in their optimism. In essence, this was the message: Despite some serious shocks to the financial system so far, don't worry. The system has handled it before, and can handle it again. You're in good hands. Let's look at one of these speeches , delivered just before all hell broke loose. He spoke on May 15, 2007, at the Financial Markets Conference of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Remember, the subprime mortgage mess was getting into full swing and it was just four months before the September 15 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the forced merger of Merrill Lynch into Bank of America, and the beginning of the world economic system's falling off a cliff. Read these remarks, and then ask yourself these questions: What in the world was Obama thinking when he nominated Geithner to be Treasury Secretary, and what was the Senate thinking when it ratified him? "...There has been a marked improvement in global economic performance, with strong growth, relatively low inflation, and less volatility in both growth and inflation. This seems to have reduced concern about future fundamental risk , in terms of the potential damage of future shocks and in the ability of governments and central banks to both avoid the policy errors of the past and to competently manage some daunting longer-term policy challenges... "Changes in financial markets, including those that are the subject of your conference, have improved the efficiency of financial intermediation and improved our confidence in the ability of markets to absorb stress. In financial systems around the world, the capital positions of banks have improved and capital markets are becoming deeper and playing a larger role in financial intermediation. Financial innovation has improved the capacity to measure and manage risk. Risk is spread more broadly across countries and institutions... "These changes in economic conditions reinforce each other. The long period of relative economic and financial stability has reinforced expectations of future stability , reducing implied volatility and risk premia, increasing comfort with higher leverage, and encouraging flows of capital into riskier assets... "The dramatic changes we've seen in the structure of financial markets over the past decade and more seem likely to have reduced this vulnerability. The larger global financial institutions are generally stronger in terms of capital relative to risk ..." Timothy Geithner, May 15, 2007 [emphasis added] How could one person in such a responsible position be so wrong? He was wrong not on a few things, not on a lot of things, but on everything. He had no clue as to the banking system's increasing risks, vanishing capital, innovation consequences, dangerously high leverage, and impending collapse. Given his record for perspicacity, how can we now put credence into anything Geithner says? Is there any reason to believe he understands the unintended consequences of subsidizing and supporting too-big-to-fail banks, insurance companies and automobile manufacturers; of throwing trillions dollars of taxpayer money at the economic problem; and of buying banks' toxic assets with highly leveraged public-private purchases. The answer is we can't put any credence into them. But fortunately for us, throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars pell-mell at the problems will help solve them; maybe not efficiently, maybe not fairly, and maybe not rapidly; but eventually. Meanwhile, most of the other Cabinet appointments, in my opinion, range from pretty good to superb (e.g., Steve Chu at Energy). And almost all the bold new initiatives in infrastructure, science, energy, health, defense, international relations, et al., are laudatory and long overdue. Kudos, indeed. But in dealing with the economy, by far our most critical problem, why, oh why, couldn't we have done better? More on Timothy Geithner
 
Tavis Smiley: Taking a "Stand" on the Black Male Experience Top
We've just finished cutting the trailer for STAND , my new film exploring the Black male experience through history, politics, music and culture. STAND features Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson, Dick Gregory, Bebe Winans, the late Isaac Hayes and some of my other dear friends as we travel to the birthplace of the blues to talk about and reflect on Black men who "stood" for something in the past and what it means as Black men continue to "stand" for something now. Check out the trailer: For more information on the film, go to standthemovie.com .
 
Michael B. Laskoff: Matt Morgan, You're My Hero - What One Wrestler Taught Me About ADHD Top
Live long enough and you will get to experience many unexpected things, some unpleasant and others positively mind expanding - in a good way. An example of the former was living almost four decades with ADHD before it was diagnosed. As a result, I received about ten lifetimes of lessons in humility. But hey, I'm one of the lucky ones; I did find out. And in the course of writing a book about business leaders with ADHD, I've gotten to study learn at the feet of many people that I admire. What I never expected was that one of the most powerful insights would come from Matt Morgan: professional wrestler, American Gladiator and - in my opinion - a master of the human psyche. Before I wax rhapsodic about Matt, let me set the stage. Almost two years ago, my good friend and co-author Stephen Josephson diagnosed my condition for the first time; the diagnosis was re-confirmed by Dr. Roy Boorady who was introduced me to the brave new world of stimulants. For at least some of us with ADHD, this class of medication is like water in the desert: it simply changes everything. And for a while, it did. I was able to concentrate for the first time on a daily basis. If you've never struggled with inattention and inconsistency, it's hard to describe how profound the change can be. I got more done at work, felt like a more attentive husband and went to bed without the awful feeling that I hadn't gotten anything done that day, again. Unfortunately, I also committed the classic mistake of confusing better with cured. For those of us 'lucky' enough to retain ADHD into adulthood, it never goes away. I knew this intellectually, but I was still caught off guard when that many of the problems that I had experienced prior to my diagnosis persisted. Though they were often less pronounced, they were still there. They were often less pronounced, but they were no doubt there. This made me, for lack of a better word, profoundly sad for a time. (I hesitate to use the word depressed, but I was probably in the neighborhood.) What arrested my downward spiral is what I learned from Matt Morgan, fellow ADHD traveler. He has known about his condition since he was six years old, and his parents deserve ridiculous credit for making certain that he dealt with it head on. Over the years this has made him successful in many walks of life, including NCAA athlete, businessman and professional wrestler. It his also made him wise. It was Matt who told me that no matter how much better my life is now, a late diagnosis requires reassessing the vast majority of life in a new context. Two years is 1/20th of the time that I've been alive and not a lot of time to digest the 95% of my life lived with an unrecognized monkey on my back. Put into that context, a little sadness seems justified. I bring this up because there must be many other people just coming to grips with what 'ails' them. Most, like me, were likely relieved to learn that there was some rhyme and reason to what seemed incomprehensible. And some of them must have made the mistake, in the midst of early acceptance and life improvements, of feeling 'cured', as I did. If so, please know that you're not alone in feeling the blues: it must happen to most adults coming to grips with ADHD. Just remember: it takes time to digest and make sense of what's come before; and wisdom comes from many places, some of which are seven feet tall and weigh 300 pounds.
 
Roy Spence and Haley Rushing: How To Find The Thrill In Your Business Top
Ask the question "How's business?" these days and you're likely to be met with a long sigh and a series of sorrows about how tough it is doing business today. But, then again, it depends on who you're asking. If you ask Justin, a college student who is also working for the Gallup Organization, you'll hear unbridled enthusiasm for the possibilities of reinventing the way citizens engage in their communities to solve problems. If you ask Chad, a recent graduate from Northwestern about his job prospects, he's downright giddy over the possibilities that the current crisis represents. "It's too bad for my parents, but all I see is opportunity to reinvent the way we work and make money." The next generation is a generation that looks at the mess that is before us and wholeheartedly embraces James Baldwin's challenge: "The world is before you, and you need not take it or leave it as it was when you came in." Some people can look directly in the face of seemingly insoluble problems--the ones that have so many of us reeling--and see nothing but a sea of thrilling opportunities. And that's the very approach that legendary leaders and entrepreneurs have taken over the years that has resulted in building some of the highest performing organizations that ever existed. They're driven by a mighty Purpose that creates the 'thrill' of doing business. Companies with a purpose have a way of seeing a need in the marketplace and conceiving of a never-before-thought-of solution to meet that need. Sam Walton looked at people in rural America and envisioned a day when they could afford to buy the same merchandise that was readily available to more affluent people living in metropolitan areas. Herb Kelleher, founder of Southwest Airlines, looked at the highways and envisioned a low-cost airline that would get people out of their cars and into the air. John Mackey of Whole Foods Market looked at the grocery industry and envisioned a way to provide choices for nourishing not only the body but also the community and the planet. There's a new breed of entrepreneurs like Blake Mycoskie, Chief Shoe Giver of TOMS Shoes, who created a way to provide a pair of shoes to a child in need for every pair of shoes that are purchased (one for one) and has more energy and charisma than just about anyone we've ever met. Or Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappo's who believed deeply in delivering WOW-worthy customer service in every interaction and has built a billion dollar company in less than eight years in the process. All of these individuals and the companies they created are passionate about making a difference. They've found "the thrill." Whether they were born" that way, stumbled into it or had an awakening somewhere along the way, the drive to make a difference is what fuels the company. And it's what everyone who is in business today needs to find in order to get out of the slump and get on with it. Ask yourself: WHAT DO PEOPLE NEED THAT MY ORGANIZATION COULD FULFILL? Great purpose based organizations put the customer first. Start with the customer in mind and find a deep seated, unmet need that you're passionate about fulfilling. Ask yourself: WHAT TURNS MY ORGANIZATION ON? What do the people in your organization seem genuinely fanatical about? Look at behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs that exist within your organization in order to discover where the real thrill resides. Some of the organization we covered found the thrill by: serving underserved populations, creating new paradigms, fighting for noble causes, or enlightening and empowering people. Ask yourself: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES MY ORGANIZATION WANT TO MAKE? Ultimately, the answer to this question will be the source of the passion that fuels your way out of the current malaise that is hanging over the business community. We will not whine our way out of the current mess we're in. Finding the thrill of doing business by figuring out exactly what problem you're driven to solve will be the first step towards revitalizing your culture and moving your organization (and our society) forward. More on Walmart
 
Philip Radford: The Whole World in His Hands Top
When 17 heads of government descend on Washington Monday for President Obama's Major Emitters Forum, he will hear the same demand from each of them: that the United States must take big action, immediately, to slash global warming pollution -- or risk putting a real global solution to the global warming crisis at risk. Even though President Obama was elected on a platform of delivering action on global warming, and has passionately reiterated those pledges since becoming president, he will have to overcome enormous skepticism from his international negotiating partners. At this summit, it is they who will be repeating Ronald Reagan's maxim about Soviet overtures at the beginning of the glasnost era: Trust, but verify. The presidents and prime ministers have good reason to doubt: for all Obama's talk (and President Clinton's before him) about the urgency of the climate crisis, the United States has done little to nothing to address global warming pollution, even as almost every other developed country has at least started down the road to a green economy. Of course, there is some reason for hope: the House Energy and Commerce committee is currently debating a bill that could constitute a good first step in the transition to a prosperous clean energy economy if the giveaways for coal and loopholes for polluters are eliminated. And even without the giveaways and loopholes, that bill currently falls short of the 40 percent short-term cuts in U.S. pollution that scientists say is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming: massive droughts, floods, extreme weather, and extinction of endangered species like the polar bear, not to mention a $3.8 trillion drag on the economy. That bill, however, faces huge challenges: Republicans and even some Democrats with close ties to the coal industry are likely to try to water it down even further. And even if it makes it out of the House intact, it will take all of us standing up together to pull together the 60 votes necessary to pass major legislation in the Senate. If the United States doesn't take action that matches its responsibility, it's unlikely other countries will meet theirs: China will continue to build new, very dirty coal fired power plants, and tropical countries like Indonesia, Brazil, and the Congo will continue to allow giant agricultural interests to burn down their forests. And the climate will careen out of control. But President Obama can single-handedly avert that fate with a little political hardball. His Environmental Protection Agency recently declared the climate change does indeed represent a threat to human health and welfare -- giving the Obama administration the authority to unilaterally limit climate pollution through the Clean Air Act. No negotiation with ornery senators necessary. No bargaining with committee chairmen seeking to protect some home-state polluter that makes big campaign contributions. Just an honest look at the science -- and what it's going to take to deliver future generations a living planet. But so far, the Obama administration has danced around this authority and implied they're only using it as a back-up in case Congress doesn't act. If Obama is serious about getting other countries to act in concert with the United States to meet this global challenge, that's got to change. A firm declaration that he will regulate carbon dioxide to the maximum extent possible will bring developing countries to the table in a serious way. It will also ensure that Congress passes a reasonably strong bill: if they don't pass something commensurate with what Obama does through the Clean Air Act, he can just veto it. It's hardball, sure, but it's what it will take to solve this great crisis. More on Obama Transition
 
Specter: "Lee Harvey Oswald Did Not Have This Big An Entourage" Top
Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Democrat (!), was mobbed Tuesday afternoon by reporters in the Capitol, shortly after releasing a statement that he was leaving the party he'd joined in 1966. He repeatedly declined to answer questions, saying that he'll speak to reporters later this afternoon. His promise did nothing to hold back the mob. "Lee Harvey Oswald did not have this big an entourage," Specter noted. Specter, when he was a Democrat pre-1966, authored the Warren Report, a study on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy that concluded Oswald acted alone. Specter's announcement comes on a Tuesday, the same day that both parties gather for extended lunch meetings. Specter, however, will lunch with neither today. "I've got my wife -- I had my wife," he said, looking around, "the good looking blonde over there and the handsome fellow's her son. And we're about to go down to the dining room, that's where I'm having lunch." "I'll answer all your questions this afternoon," he promised. Ryan Grim is the author of the forthcoming book This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America Get HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter .
 
Jim Lichtman: A Different Kind of 'First 100 Days' Top
President Obama has called for "a new era of responsibility... Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency." Last week he pointed to "a confidence gap, when it comes to the American people... [and said] we've got to earn their trust." So, when it comes to responsibility and openness, how is Mr. Obama doing? Is he working to restore the trust and confidence of the American people? Has he delivered on his promise of more transparency? This week I, along with Professor Clark Roof, Director of the Walter H. Capps Center for the Study of Ethics, Religion and Public Life at UC Santa Barbara, will be putting a different kind of 100 Days poll into the field. Entitled, "The First 100 Days - Integrity, Leadership, Trust," its purpose is to gather and report the grades Americans give Mr. Obama in those qualities they consider most vital. Last November, in a nationwide, post-election poll, Clark and I asked Americans "What one or two qualities do you think the country needs most from the new president?" More than 3,300 Americans said that the country needs Honesty, Integrity and Leadership most. On the occasion of his first 100 days in office, Clark and I will not only be asking Americans to rate President Obama's overall performance, but grade both him and Congress in terms of honesty, integrity and leadership, as well as transparency. Among the additional questions the poll will examine is the level of confidence the public has in Obama's leadership in fixing the economy, working with Congress and restoring the public's trust in government. In a 2006 study, "Honesty and Trust in America," Congress was given the lowest numbers of trustworthiness at 76%, with President Bush and corporate leaders tied at 67% of "low" numbers. The Capps "First 100 Days" poll, conducted by Zogby International, will ask Americans to grade both Republicans and Democrats in Congress with respect to honesty, transparency, and restoring the public's trust in government. Unlike other "100 Days" surveys, the Capps poll is a longitudinal study in that we have responses at two points in time: post-election and 100 days out. The poll also seeks to learn how Americans view the president's handling of issues, such as the war in Iraq, health care and taxes. Last November's post-election study found that Americans want from the president "[a] clear vision to unify the country... [a] sense of personal responsibility ...complete honesty [and] unquestionable integrity." "The First 100 Days - Integrity, Leadership, Trust" seeks to determine if Mr. Obama has succeeded in raising the level of confidence in leadership and whether both he and Congress have begun to restore the public's trust in government. Results to be released soon. Jim Lichtman has been writing and speaking on ethics to corporations, associations and schools since 1995. His commentaries can be found at www.ethicsStupid.com. More on Taxes
 
Illinois Reform Commission: Term Limits For Powerful Politicians, Open Meetings, Cap Campaign Contributions (READ THE PROPOSALS) Top
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) -- A reform commission appointed by Gov. Pat Quinn says cleaning up Illinois government requires major changes in the operations of the General Assembly. The commission called Tuesday for term limits on legislative leaders, such as House speaker and Senate president. They say the current system allows too much concentration of power in the hands of a few. The panel also wants the state Open Meetings law to apply to the Legislature. That means lawmakers would no longer be allowed to hold meetings closed to the public. The reform commission also says lawmakers should no longer be in charge of drawing new legislative districts every 10 years. The commission will present its report to Quinn later in the day. It has already called for campaign donation limits and other changes. --- On the Net: Illinois Reform Commission: http://reformillinoisnow.org/ -ASSOCIATED PRESS The outline of the Commission's final proposals for reforming Illinois government: I. Campaign Finance To bring greater transparency to the campaign finance process and to reduce the skyrocketing costs of election campaigns in Illinois, the Commission recommends: A. expanding disclosure requirements for campaign contributions to include: o Year-round "real time" reporting of contributions, o Mandatory disclosure of "bundlers" who collect contributions from others, and o Mandatory disclosure of large "independent" expenditures made by individuals to promote a candidate; B. limiting campaign contributions to: o $2,400 for individuals, and o $5,000 for political committees; C. banning outright contributions from lobbyists and trusts; D. extending the "Pay to Play" ban by forbidding vendors with large state contracts from contributing to members of the legislature; E. establishing a pilot project for public financing of judicial elections in 2010; F. strengthening ISBE enforcement of campaign laws and greater transparency of ISBE sanctions and proceedings; and G. moving primary elections closer to general elections to reduce length of campaign and resulting costs. II. Procurement To help cure state procurement abuse in Illinois, the Commission recommends: A. insulating the state procurement officials from political pressure and making them independent; B. cutting back loopholes and exemptions in Procurement Code; C. applying the Procurement Code to legislative, judicial branches and quasi-governmental agencies; D. subjecting no-bid and "emergency" contracts to much tighter scrutiny and limitations; E. establishing an Independent Contract Monitor to oversee and review contracts; and F. creating greater transparency in the procurement process including: o Disclosure of subcontractors, o Disclosure of all lobbyists and agents representing vendors, o Documenting any contact between vendors/agents and procurement staff, and o Providing public access to all procurement information on one website. III. Enforcement The Commission recommends that the ability of state law enforcement to investigate and prosecute corruption be enhanced by: A. amending and enhancing state laws to provide prosecutors and investigators with many of the same tools available to federal authorities; B. adding significant corruption offenses to the existing list of offenses that are non-probationable; C. granting the Illinois Attorney General the authority to independently conduct grand jury investigations of public corruption offenses; D. directing additional resources to the investigation of public corruption crimes, by creating an independent public corruption division within the Illinois State Police; and E. modifying the laws applicable to Inspectors General's Offices to improve the ability of Inspectors General to independently conduct investigations. IV. Government Structure To address structural problems that enable and produce corruption and inefficiency in state government, the Commission recommends: A. adopting legislation to restore fairness to the process by which state legislative and congressional districts are drawn; B. supporting pending legislation regarding term limits for legislative leadership positions; C. amending House and Senate Rules applicable to the budget approval process to restore an effective system of checks and balances; and D. amending the House and Senate Rules to ensure that each piece of proposed legislation that has a minimum number of sponsors receives a full committee vote. V. Transparency To improve and enhance the transparency of State government, the Commission recommends: A. applying Open Meetings Act to General Assembly; B. adopting presumption in favor of disclosure in FOIA requests; C. reducing exemptions to FOIA and Open Meetings Act so that citizens have greater access and knowledge of government records and decision-making; D. enhancing the penalties for violation of FOIA and Open Meetings Act requirements; E. establishing an Independent Office of Transparency to provide training and ensure compliance with FOIA and OMA requirements; and F. greatly expanding and enhancing the use of modern technology to improve disclosure, reporting and collaboration in state government. VI. Inspiring Better Government The Commission proposes the following reforms to inspire all state government workers and restore citizens' confidence in the integrity of State government: A. combating patronage by reforming the personnel system to better protect a-political positions and the employees who hold them; B. reforming the State's hiring process; C. establishing a code to guide everyday decision-making and holding state employees accountable for abiding by the code; D. revising the ethics training system to improve state employees' understanding of relevant ethical standards; E. more clearly defining whistleblower protections to ensure and expand coverage for state employees; and F. creating additional safeguards to protect against ethical violations by those exiting state employment.
 
David Sirota: Specter Switch: Great News, But He Now Needs a Dem Primary Top
Just off the wires -- Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter is switching to the Democratic Party and running for reelection in the Democratic primary in 2010. Obviously, this is good news for Democrats nationally, and on two fronts: In the short term, it gives them one more Senate vote (more on that in a second) for major priorities. In the long term, it makes the Pennsylvania senate seat more likely to stay in Democratic hands after 2010 because fringe conservative Pat Toomey will be the likely Republican nominee, and he's a potentially unelectable nominee. There's just one thing to note: Specter is making clear he's not going to be a reliable Democratic vote on some of the key issues. Here's an excerpt of his statement : My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change. So, this is great news, but there are still going to be real obstacles to a progressive agenda. Let me just conclude on a personal note: I think I speak for myself and anyone who ever lived/grew up in Pennsylvania that it's really hard to believe this. Arlen Specter has been an awful Republican senator for as long as I can remember. Since I was a kid growing up outside of Philadelphia, he was a guy who always seemed to be on the political stage at all times, and most often seemed to be doing bad things. The best you could say about him was that he wasn't as bad as his heinously awful Republican colleagues - but that's not saying much. The idea of Specter running in a Democratic primary is really crazy - and I'm hopeful it will be a contested primary. State/local Democrats shouldn't simply defer to this guy, who Pennsylvania's rank-and-file Democratic voters/activists have been trying to dislodge for years (and rightly so). Even as we applaud Specter for switching parties, we shouldn't simply concede the primary. Indeed, there needs to be a contested and vigorous primary, especially since Specter's EFCA announcement means he will need pressure on his left, and especially since the primary winner in the increasingly blue state of Pennsylvania has a great shot of defeating someone like Toomey.
 
Ed Martin: Jay Leno at 8 p.m.? Why Not? Top
As NBC prepares to announce next week the remaining details of its 2009-10 schedule, I can't help but wonder, What if the beleaguered network were to strip Jay Leno's new primetime program at 8 p.m. ET, rather than 10 o'clock? The more I think about it, the more I ask myself, Why not? Looking over NBC's current primetime lineup it seems to me that the network faces greater challenges at 8 than at 10 p.m. The lightweight action comedy Chuck, on Mondays, has failed to find a significant audience after two seasons despite massive promotion by the network and the unwavering support of television critics. The formerly energetic but now exhausted single camera comedy My Name is Earl, on Thursdays, is in even worse shape. The comedy program Howie Do It, on Fridays, has generated no audience interest whatsoever. Law & Order reruns fill the opening hour of the network's Wednesday night. The only bright light in any 8 o'clock slot on NBC's schedule is the first half of The Biggest Loser on Tuesdays (and, of course, football on Sundays during the fall season). NBC at 10, on the other hand, isn't a total disaster. If the network were stronger, the Monday night procedural chiller Medium might be a likely candidate for cancellation, but right now NBC could (and does) do worse. Law & Order: SVU is still in the game on Tuesday, as is the Law & Order mother-ship on Wednesday. Tellingly, NBC recently unveiled the best new 10 o'clock series of the 2008-09 broadcast season when it added the cop drama Southland to its Thursday schedule. Dateline NBC, on Fridays, is certainly competitive opposite Numb3rs on CBS and 20/20 on ABC. So why shouldn't NBC surprise the stuffing out of everyone and make the last-minute decision to drop Jay Leno into the Monday-Friday 8 p.m. time period and continue to play to its relative strengths from 9-11 p.m.? Think about this for a minute. Certainly there is a larger audience of all ages available at 8 rather than 10 p.m., as people settle in for their nightly television viewing rather than begin drifting away from it. Leno's audience could actually grow through the hour from 8-9, rather than suffer from guaranteed shrinkage during the 10-11 p.m. hour. Much of Leno's comic material on The Tonight Show, including the recurring bits Jaywalking, Does This Impress Ed Asner, Headlines, Can You Make Betty White Flinch, Things We Found on eBay and ZooTube, would actually make for fine family viewing and would probably appeal to kids who haven't been able to watch him in late night and likely aren't allowed to stay up past 10 p.m. As we all know, contemporary kids command (or is the right word dictate?) much of their parents' spending, and Leno's finely honed goof humor could be just the ticket to lure them away from cable. (If nothing else, they can handily multi-task while watching Jay, the way they do during American Idol and Dancing with the Stars.) Similarly, much of his comedy is already custom made for teens, another demographic that is not aggressively targeted by the Big Three at 8 p.m. As for those lucrative adults in the 18-34, 18-49 and 25-54 demographic groups, they might welcome an early evening broadcast alternative featuring topical comedy, hot celebrities and current musical acts. (Think of how a primetime performance by Kenny Chesney, Jonas Brothers or Beyonce would energize NBC's entire night!) To take this further, Leno could be the ideal house organ at 8. He could feature stars from NBC series and NBCU cable programs that will be telecast on the same night right after his show. Or, even if they aren't guests, the stars of NBC's shows on those nights could appear in original interstitial bits (rather than regular old network promos) during commercial pods on Leno's show. Or they could just stop by during Leno's monologues to promote their programs. When Leno has big-ticket guests on his show, which will surely be most nights, I think many more people would make a point to watch at 8:30 than at 10:30, especially if those guests are the stars of movies targeted to kids and teens. Robert Pattinson and Zac Efron would certainly attract some attention at 10:30, but their impact would be seismic two hours earlier. The best part of this plan is, if Leno should flat-line at 8, it will be much easier for NBC to rebuild the hour, if only with quick-fix reality programs. But good luck with that if Leno tanks at 10. The hour will be lost. Meanwhile, working with series it already has, NBC could easily cobble together a sturdy, adult-oriented Monday-Friday schedule from 9-11 p.m. Assuming Heroes and Medium will return next fall, they can remain right where they are on Monday. Or, if NBC renews Chuck, it could run at 9, followed by Heroes. The Biggest Loser can shift from 8-10 to 9-11 on Tuesdays. (Two-hour editions of Celebrity Apprentice do just fine on Sundays from 9-11.) NBC can schedule two sitcoms with strong female appeal on Wednesday at 9 (perhaps the new Debra Messing vehicle and 30 Rock, or Parks and Recreation if the network sticks with it - not that I'm saying it should) leading into Law & Order: SVU (which could share the time period with Law & Order, keeping it rerun free). The Office and another comedy can play between Leno and Southland on Thursday. NBC has nothing to lose on Friday, so it could go with Deal or No Deal (or another decent game show) at 9 and Dateline NBC at 10. When Friday Night Lights rejoins NBC's lineup in February 2010, it could run on Monday or Friday at 10. (It's already a sublime show, but I think FNL could really catch on if NBC and DirecTV encourage its creative team to make the show a bit more provocative. Think of the content in dramas on Fox or The CW or any number of basic cable networks.) These are just a few suggestions, working with shows that are currently on NBC's schedule and still have a pulse. I have no idea how strong the network's 2009 development slate will be in the long run, though I am encouraged by Southland. And I continue to believe that NBC could move its summer hit America's Got Talent to the fall (in any number of 9 p.m. time periods) and grow its audience. To communicate with or to be contacted by the executives and/or companies mentioned in this column, link to the JackMyers Connection Hotline . This post originally appeared at JackMyers.com. More on NBC
 
Andrea Learned: De-Genderfying Leadership Top
Men "just don't understand," and women and men will "never be able to communicate in a productive manner." I'm not the only one who doesn't buy this line of thinking. That's why I was a bit frustrated to read Maria Shriver's announcement of what sounds like a very interesting, possibly culture-changing project, with the unnecessarily polarizing label: "A Woman's Nation." The message and positioning of this project seems to reflect a generation gap. In my own women's market research, I've often noticed a subtle disconnect between women 55 years of age or more and their younger "sisters" in the understanding of gender roles, feminism and leadership. Younger women grew up in a time when they didn't have to do a lot of fighting for rights, and while they should definitely be aware of the hard work of those who came before them, the reality is that the continuing "battle" is not something they find currently relevant. In addition to the generation gap, there is, of course, a gender gap. The problem, with which those in the field of "leadership" have long struggled, is that men could perhaps always use a bit more education on why they should engage in and integrate some of the feminine sensibilities of decision-making and organizational management. But, how do we get that interest from men? For years and years there seems to have been a negative assumption that men will forever dominate women's lives. And yet, when pressed, most women today will admit to having a few male friends of their own who they consider uniquely evolved and open/interested in broader gender discussions. So, should we all join together with these forward-thinking men to tackle the issue, or form another women-specific organization? Let's take responsibility for our approach. These sorts of disconnects can be ignored, or, they can be laid out on the table and explored together (older and younger, female and male). In my mind, the gender and generational differences must be bridged in order for the amazing work that has been done by those same wise women before us to truly take hold and serve humanity -- men and women together -- for centuries to come. Ironically, the presentation of "A Woman's Nation," even though men are mentioned as being included, reflects that which can so often be characterized as "typical" male communication style: the essence of "us vs them." If it is a woman's nation, where do the men go? And, frankly, vice versa: If someone were to create a powerful men's leadership movement and call it "A Man's Nation," wouldn't there be a lot of backlash as well? The powerful leadership styles represented by so many talented women should be a universal pursuit, so let's make it accessible to all. To me the idea behind "A Woman's Nation" seems to be a productive one. Those involved in the effort surely intend to use their collective wisdom to develop much more of the good that comes from leading via feminine sensibilities. That being the case, the Woman's Nation team may want to present their project as one seeking common ground. After all, the goal really must be to work in "webs of inclusion," as Sally Helgesen -- wise woman herself and author of The Female Advantage -- would put it. Since it sounds like "A Woman's Nation" is in its beta stage, there should still be plenty of time to fine-tune the core message and communication style in order to do just that: reach all who would benefit from a leadership web of inclusion. If "women's ways" of communication are known to be open-minded and connection-seeking (as per Deborah Tannen's insightful, now classic, You Just Don't Understand ), why shouldn't we use those open communication ways to band together, and be a bit more intentional about inviting men into the conversation? Rather than spend energy touting or striving toward a woman's nation, specifically, let's focus on bringing genders together in this new Leadership Nation (or some other more catchy label). As authors Kira Gould and Lance Hosey wrote in their powerful book, Women In Green , it is "less about the 'ascendancy of women' than it is about the growing value of those sensibilities commonly associated with women." To me, there is no gender about the good in that. More on Women's Rights
 
Jacob Heilbrunn: Obama's Big 100 Days Accomplishment: Arlen Specter's Defection Top
Pundits have been feverishly speculating about what Barack Obama's most important accomplishment is in the past 100 days. I say it came today. Senator Arlen Specter is switching from the Republican to the Democratic party. The specter of Specter as a Democrat will enrage Republicans and should come as big relief to Democrats. With 60 votes in the Senate, Obama won't be stymied by a rump Republican minority. Give credit to Specter, who behaved ignobly during the Clarence Thomas hearings, for facing reality. His move isn't opportunism but a concession to reality. Just as Democrats used to say that they hadn't left the party but it had left them, so reasonable Republicans can no longer remain a part of an ossified party that continues to lurch toward the right. Specter faced a primary challenge from the reactionary right in Pennsylvania. As a Democrat, he should win reelection handily. Specter's move was prefigured by his opposition to the Bush administration's aggrandizement of power. In the latest issue of the New York Review of Books, Specter has a lengthy and perspicuous essay titled "The Need to Roll Back Presidential Power Grabs." In it, Specter notes that he worries that Obama will rely on signing statements and on a "state secrets" privilege to stymie lawsuits "challenging controversial policies like warrantless wiretapping." But as a Democrat, he will likely have more influence in pushing legislation that would, in his words, allow "Congress and the courts to reassert themselves in the system of checks and balances." For now, Obama has won a major battle without firing a shot. The blunt fact is that President Obama isn't simply rebuilding America. Along the way, he's destroying the Republican party that has existed for the past several decades. Perhaps the GOP will eventually recover in some new, more moderate incarnation. But this will be remembered as a turning point in the historic Obama presidency. Who will defect in the next 100 days?
 
Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins: Green-collar Jobs: Equal Pay for Equal Work Top
Today is Equal Pay Day, a national day of awareness to draw attention to the lingering gap between women's and men's wages. Why today? Because it is not until today, April 28, 2009, that the average woman's earnings have caught up to the average man's earnings -- from 2008. Women who work full time earn just 78 cents for every dollar their male counterparts make. The gap is even more acute for women of color: African American women earn only 69 cents and Latinas just 59 cents to every man's dollar. But we have a chance now to make pay equity real for women across the country. We can invest in a new, green economy that asserts the principles of pay equity from its very inception. The old, pollution-based economy continues to fail on this score. The pay gap has narrowed only by about one percent since 2002. Women's median pay was less than men's in each and every one of the 20 industries and 25 occupations that the Census Bureau surveyed. Even men working in female-dominated occupations tend to earn more than women working in the same field. Despite some legislative strides, women are still not receiving equal pay for equal work. But we hope that will begin to change with green-collar jobs. Green-collar jobs represent a new job sector, not yet caught in the history and inertia of pay inequity. We can make sure that pay parity is part of the foundation of these new green jobs. More, we can ensure these jobs provide family-supporting wages, or are an entry point to move low-income workers into higher-skilled occupations. Right now, women make up 47 percent of the workforce. That number is expected to climb to 50 percent by 2010. With the number of female-headed households on the rise, wage inequities have serious repercussions on families' financial stability. This is magnified during economic crisis. The recently passed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a bold and historic investment designed to kick-start the United States economy and lay the foundation for long-term economic growth and stability. This landmark legislation could be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to move the nation along an arc that bends towards justice, full inclusion, and pay equity. The challenge, however, is the political and economic urgency to spend Recovery Act funds quickly in order to put large numbers of people back to work. This rush poses three separate and serious dangers: that money will be spent poorly; that most of the funding will go to projects that only reinforce the pollution-based economy's status quo (with wage disparities, and low-income people and communities of color at the smokestack end); and that jobs will only go to workers with the skills and connections necessary to get those jobs quickly, thereby reinforcing racial and economic inequity. While swift action is critical to get the economy back on track, the need for deliberate speed shouldn't undermine the opportunity to utilize these dollars to transform the economy into one that is more just, is more green, and provides equal pay for equal work for all Americans. Together, we must work to insert equity into the recovery implementation plans that states and localities are developing now. We must demand a transparent and accountable public process to shape how resources are spent. And, we must work in our communities, supporting grassroots leaders and organizations as they work to make the green recovery real for everyday people. Above all, this means demanding jobs with equal pay for equal work and family-supporting wages with benefits.
 
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: 100 Day Silliness Top
Then Democratic Presidential contender Barack Obama did a prescient thing last October. He told an interviewer on a Colorado radio station that he thought the first 1000 days not the first 100 days would make the crucial difference for his presidency. Candidate Obama directly parodied the line from JFK's inauguration address in 1961. Kennedy proclaimed the first 1000 days as the better time frame to measure how effective or bumbling an administration is. Obama and JFK were wise to cite the much longer time frame. They sought to damp down the wild public expectations that they can work quick magic and miracles in no time flat. Obama is well aware that the 100 days burden weighs heavier on him than any other president in modern times. He's young, liberal, untested, and black. There are still deep doubts, suspicions and loud grumbles from some about his competency and political savvy. The Mt. Everest stack of op-eds, news articles, pictorials, websites, chatrooms, national viewer polls and surveys, and CNN and MSNBC specials will dissect, peck apart his words and initiatives for the first 100 days, and nag everyone else to do the same. This put even more pressure on to show he's a tough, resolute, effective leader. Obama in his quip to the Colorado radio interviewer knew the silliness of fixating on the drop in the bucket 100 day time span to brand a president and his presidency as a stunning success or a miserable flop. A quick look at the presidency of his two immediate predecessors is enough to prove that. Clinton bombed badly in pushing Congress for a $16 billion stimulus package; he bungled the don't ask, don't tell policy regarding gays in the military, and got the first flack on his health care reform plan. Yet, the Clinton presidency is regarded as one of the most successful, popular and enduring in modern times. Then there's the Bush presidency. He got off to a fast start. At the 100 day mark in April 2001, his approval ratings matched Obama's. He was widely applauded for his trillion dollar tax cutting program, his "Faith-Based" and disabled Americans Initiatives, and for talking up education, health care reform and slashing the national debt. But aside from the momentary adulation he got after the 9/11 terror attack his presidency is rated as one of the worst in modern times. The 1000 day mark that Obama, Kennedy and other presidents have cited as the more realistic time frame is not an arbitrary number. That marks the near end of a president's first White House term. The honeymoon is over, and the president has fought major battles over his policies, initiatives, executive orders, court appointments and programs with Congress, the courts, interest groups and the media. Battles that by then have been won or lost, or fought to a draw, and there's enough time to gauge their impact and the president's effectiveness. The other big problem with the whimsical 100 day fixation is that it can force a president, in this case Obama, to feel that he must move sprint out the gate to fulfill campaign promises, pass legislation, and burnish up his media and public credentials as a top leader. This carries risks; risks of acting too hastily and making missteps that invite intense criticism. Obama's dash to padlock Guantanamo, announce big sweeping plans for health care, financial and banking regulation reform, his much ado about nothing handshake with Hugo Chavez, his outstretch to Iran, and Cuba, and hint at dumping nuclear weapons from the world's arsenals has drawn heat fire from the right that he's a reckless tax and spend, debt burdening, free market wrecker, and enemy conciliator. His mixed signals on prosecuting CIA torture cases and retaining virtually intact the faith based initiative, and ladling out billions to the banks have drawn heat from the left that he's a backslider and Beltway politician. Obama, though, is no different than other every other president modern era. He is pulled and tugged at by corporate and defense industry lobbyists, the oil and nuclear power industry, government regulators, environmental watchdog groups, conservative family values groups, moderate and conservative GOP senators and house members, foreign diplomats and leaders. They all have their priorities and agendas and all vie for White House support for their pet legislation, or to kill or cripple legislation that threatens their interests. They'll applaud him when they get their way and bash him when they don't. Obama did another smart thing in his first presidential interview with 60 Minutes in November. He told the interviewer that he took a close look at FDR's first 100 days and he was struck not by the avalanche of legislation and programs that FDR rammed through Congress his first 100 days but his willingness to do things that were different and that made lasting change. This will take far more than 100 days for that to happen and for it to be remembered. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard on weekly on Fridays 9:30 to 10:00 AM in Los Angeles on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and nationally on ktym.com and blogtalkradio.com
 
Obama To Specter: We Are Thrilled To Have You Top
White House aides said on Tuesday that they had no advanced knowledge that Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter would be switching party affiliation from Republican to Democrat. Once told, however, the president reached Specter to express his thrill at having him in the party and to offer his full support. According to a White House aide, the president found out about the switch at 10:25 AM while in the Oval Office receiving his Economic Daily Briefing. The president was handed a note, the aide said, that read: "Specter is announcing he is changing parties." Seven minutes later, President Obama reached Specter to tell him, according to the aide, "You have my full support" and that we are "thrilled to have you." Become a fan of HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter .
 
Eric Margolis: Make the Torturers Face Justice Top
I have learned the following truths covering dirty `pacification' wars in Algeria, Indochina, Central and South America, southern Africa, the Mideast, Afghanistan, and Kashmir in which torture was widely used: Nations that use torture disgrace themselves. Armed forces and police that torture inevitably become brutalized and corrupted. `Limited' use of torture quickly becomes generalized. `Information' obtained by torture is mostly unreliable. In spite of all the historical evidence that torture is counter-productive, the Bush administration encouraged torture of anti-American militants (aka `terrorists') and suspects after the 9/11 attacks. The full story has not yet been revealed, but what we know so far is revolting and shameful. Britain and Canada were also complicit as they used information derived from torture and handed suspects over to other nations to be tortured. Many Americans and human rights groups are now demanding that the Bush administration officials who employed and sanctioned torture face justice. President Barack Obama hinted his new attorney general, Eric Holder, might investigate this whole ugly business. But the Obama White House clearly wants to dodge this issue or, better yet, forget it. Republicans, who have become America's champion of war and torture, are fiercely resisting any investigation, and loudly lauding torture's benefits. Just when it seemed impossible for the dumbed-down Republican Party to sink any lower, it has by endorsing torture as the American way. Some senior intelligence and Pentagon officials also are openly defending the use of torture, including, dismayingly, Obama's new CIA chief, Leon Panetta. He should know better. I thought Panetta had been brought in to clean up CIA, just the way it was purged of cowboys and would-be murderers under President Jimmy Carter. Many senior Congressional Democrats who sanctioned torture, or did nothing to stop it, are equally reluctant that the torture scandal be further investigated. They are complicit. Torture is a crime under US law. It is a crime under the Third Geneva Convention, and the UN's Anti-Torture Convention, both of which the US signed. Kidnapping and moving suspects to be tortured in third countries is a crime. Torture violates core American values. In 1945, the US hanged Japanese officers for inflicting `water-boarding' ( near-drowning) on US prisoners, which were deemed war crimes. Yet this is exactly what the CIA inflicted on its Muslim captives. After 9/11, FBI agents rightly refused to participate in the torture of al-Qaida suspects, warning that it violated US law and could make them subject to future prosecution. Republicans and even Obama's intelligence chief, Adm. Dennis Blair, claim some useful information was obtained by torture. That depends on what you call useful. Al-Qaida is still in business. Osama bin Laden remains at large. Iraq and Afghanistan became monstrous fiascos costing $1 trillion. US military and intelligence personnel who fall into hostile hands may now face similar tortures. In 2004, CIA's inspector general reported there was no proof that use of torture had thwarted `specific imminent attacks.' This comes from a recently declassified Justice Department memo. The director of the FBI, Robert Muller, one of Washington's most upright, respected officials, also declared that torture had not prevented any attacks against the United States. Both findings directly contradict claims by America's own Torquemada, Dick Cheney, that torture prevented major attacks. Torture did not protect America from a second major attack, as Republicans claim. In fact, it appears 9/11 was a one-off event, and, as I have been reporting since 9/11, al-Qaida numbered only a handful of extremists to begin with, not the worldwide conspiracy claimed by the White House after it was caught sleeping on guard duty. Bush administration claims about imminent threats from dirty bombs and germ weapons such as anthrax were untrue. CIA `useful' torture information came from two suspects: Khalid Sheik Mohammed was tortured by near drowning 183 times - six times daily for a month; and Abu Zubaydah, 83 times in August, 2003. Use a power drill (a favorite `investigative' tool of America's Iraqi Shia allies) on Dick Cheney, and it would take only minutes to get him to admit he's Osama bin Laden. A shocking US Senate report just revealed that after the Bush administration could not find the links it claimed existed between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, it tried, in best Soviet style, to torture its captives to admit that such links did, in fact, exist. That, of course, would have been a much better excuse for invading Iraq than the lies about weapons of mass destruction pointed at America. The Senate also reported CIA and Pentagon torture techniques were adopted from torture methods North Korea used in the 1950's to compel American prisoners to confess to lies about germ warfare. In fact, North Korea learned its torture techniques from Soviet KGB instructors. The favorite tortures of the Soviet Cheka, or secret police (then called NKVD) in the 1930's and 40's were merciless beatings, confinement in refrigerated cells, week-long sleep deprivation, and endless interrogations. I have seen the torture cells at KGB's dreaded Lubyanka Prison in Moscow. The CIA and US military copied these North Korean/Soviet torture methods, but also added contorted positions, and nakedness and humiliation, techniques learned from Israeli interrogators who used them to blackmail Palestinian prisoners into becoming informers. Hence all the naked photos from Abu Ghraib prison. American doctors and medical personnel supervised torture and devised and supervised techniques to mentally incapacitate prisoners through isolation, terrifying sensory deprivation, and injections of potent psychotropic drugs. Torture was authorized by President George W. Bush, VP Dick Cheney, Secretaries Don Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice, and carried out by CIA chief George Tenet and the Pentagon's secretive Special Operations Command. Four lickspittle lawyers and two bootlicking attorney generals provided sophistic legal briefs sanctioning torture. All should be disbarred and face an independent judicial commission. Not a whitewash, like the 9/11 Commission, but a real, independent legal body. Better, send the case to the UN International Court in the Hague. If the law of the land was applicable to President Richard Nixon and those who committed the Watergate burglary - a relatively minor crime - then why not for those high officials who broke American and international law, and lied the US into a trumped up war in Iraq? President Obama actually told CIA personnel that he does not want to prosecute the torturers because they were only following proper legal advice and orders. So did Nazi officials who killed millions. The president said we should let bygones be bygones. Then why not Osama bin Laden, as well? Nazi lawyers legally dismembered Germany's Weimar democracy and imposed Nazi dictatorship in only two months after the `terrorist attack' on the Reichstag in Feb. 1933. Imposition of Hitler's dictatorship followed proper legal channels. When I served in the US Army, I was taught that any illegal order, even from the president, must be refused and that mistreating prisoners was a crime. President Obama must show the world that America upholds the law, rejects torture of all kinds, and that no officials are above the law. There is no other way to prevent the recurrence of torture in the future.
 
Jeff Schweitzer: Moral Relativism: A Little Torture is Just Fine? Top
Defense of the Bush Administration's decision to sanction "enhanced interrogation techniques" all boils down to a single argument: torture works. The ends justify the means. Former Vice President Cheney has made this exact argument in several recent interviews. Cheney's line of reasoning is deeply flawed for three critical reasons: 1) abundant evidence, which we will examine, suggests that torture is not an effective means of gathering actionable intelligence, 2) defining if something "works" is arbitrary and therefore subject to abuse and manipulation as a metric to measure viability, and 3) torture is immoral, even if the technique were proven to be effective. Any one of the three points would undermine the argument supporting torture, but all three are true and, combined, provide overwhelming support for those opposed to the practice. Torture is ineffective Experts close to the issue largely agree that torture is ineffective. These opponents cannot be painted as liberal sympathizers. • Former FBI Director Robert Meuller said in a December 2008 Vanity Fair interview that he knew of not one single planned attack that was prevented by information obtained through torture. • FBI Agent Ali Soufan has written that: "There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah [the first al-Qaeda suspect subjected to waterboarding and other harsh tactics] that wasn't, or couldn't have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions -- all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process." • Major Matthew Alexander, who personally conducted 300 interrogations of prisoners in Iraq, has concluded that torture does not work, particularly in the "ticking time bomb" scenario so often quoted by those who support torture. • The current U.S. Army Field Manual recognizes that "torture and inhumane treatment is ineffective." • Brigadier General David R. Irvine wrote an article in 2005 providing a series of reasons "why torture doesn't work." What are his qualifications to draw that conclusion? He is a retired strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation techniques and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School. • Former CIA Operative Robert Baer has said, in support of Obama's release of memos that detail the agency's interrogation techniques, that "nobody...has presented evidence that torture works and I just don't see it." Or you can believe Dick Cheney that torture works. He took multiple deferrals to avoid military service, and has no field experience. Efficacy is no argument for legitimacy Cheney's logic used to support torture means by extension that any illegal or immoral action, no matter how heinous, can be justified if such actions "work." Even ignoring the obvious ethical dilemma inherent to such views, consider how internally inconsistent his argument is at the most basic level. If torture can be justified on the basis of national security, and is a necessity to prevent an imminent attack, why stop at waterboarding? Why not apply electrodes to testicles, cut off fingers and ears, burn skin, poke out eyes, pull out fingernails, or do anything that must be done to prevent harm to the country? If Cheney believes that enhanced interrogation is justified to protect the United States, then why stop at techniques that do not leave permanent scars? That arbitrary limit makes no sense if the goal is to protect America at any cost. Stopping just before the point of permanent harm undermines Cheney's primary argument that he condoned waterboarding as a necessary means of gathering critical intelligence that would save us from another attack. If that was the goal, and enhanced interrogation works, then he would have to support chopping off fingers or hands if that would yield the intelligence necessary to prevent an attack. Cheney's only refuge from this inconsistency is to claim that waterboarding is in fact not torture. If simulated drowning is not torture, then Cheney avoids stepping on the slippery slope to fingernail pulling and eye gouging. But waterboarding is torture. Even the internal memos now being declassified show that the technique was known within the Administration to be torture. And as others have pointed out, we executed Japanese soldiers responsible for waterboarding American prisoners of war. The technique dates back to the Spanish Inquisition, and is universally recognized to be torture. So where does that leave Cheney and those who support torture? On a bed of moral quicksand and a pile of inconsistencies. Cheney needs to come clean with what he really believes. If waterboarding works, and if that effectiveness is sufficient justification for its use, then surely the threat of permanent physical harm or death would be even more effective, and even more justified. The only honest position Cheney can take is that he would support those more aggressive forms of torture if such actions protected the United States. If he claims otherwise, he would have to admit that there are limits to how far he would go to protect the country from attack . But if he has limits to how far he is willing to go, he would agree in principle with those who oppose torture. The only remaining argument is whether waterboarding is torture, and we answered that when we executed the Japanese for the practice. Cheney's position is untenable. Torture undermines our national security With torture we get the worst of both worlds: we gather no useful intelligence and we undermine our reputation as a democratic government of principles. Our claim to world leadership, and the export of democracy, rests solely on the idea that the United States is inarguably qualified to champion universal ideas of freedom. That claim becomes hollow if we sanction torture. We lead most effectively by example, but our ability to do so becomes limited if we abandon our most cherished values. Our policies and practices become the most effective recruiting tool our enemies could ever hope for, and we do not gain a commensurate advantage to offset that advance on the other side. Torture is immoral Newt Gingrich condemned torture in 1997 when he said, "...there is no place for abuse in what must be considered the family of man. There is no place for torture or arbitrary detention." Assume for the moment that torture is effective. Assume that torture has saved American lives. Even taking those falsehoods for truth for the sake of argument, we are still left with the inevitable conclusion that torture is inherently immoral, and therefore unacceptable. By sanctioning torture, we adopt the moral code of the very enemies we seek to destroy. We become them. That we are even discussing torture as U.S. policy is proof that we lost our way. Our only salvation is to openly confess to the criminal acts of the preceding Administration, condemn them, and vow never again. There exists no ethics of torture; certain acts are wrong with no further explanation needed, just as certain rights are inalienable. Our founders did not feel obligated to define those rights other than in the broadest of terms because they are self-evident. So is the immorality of torture. Only appeal to moral relativism can be used to justify waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques. Torture is said to be acceptable as the lesser of two evils - making morality a relative measure. But moral relativism fails completely in every significant way. To a relativist, no moral code can be criticized because whatever a society deems morally right is so by definition, and cannot be condemned by another society. But that raises some questions that, when answered, prove the fallacy of relativism. Does morality within a society get determined by majority rule? What if torture is approved by 51% of the population one year, and 49% the next? That would mean torture is moral one year and immoral the next, clearly an untenable position. And what constitutes the unit called "society" that approves of a given moral code? Is a society defined by nationality or ethnicity? Is the United States one society, or is it made up of multiple societies of Hispanics, gays, Wall Street bankers and bikers? If so, does each of those societies have a unique moral code? Could each independently determine if torture was moral? How would conflict between them be resolved? Any reasonable answer to any of these questions dictates that ethical relativism must be false as a theory. Torturing children for fun would be universally condemned, regardless of how right a particular society found that practice. Relativism fails completely, which means that some elements of morality must be basic to humanity across time and across cultures. Torture can never be explained away. More on Iraq
 
Horrifying Animal Slaughter At Children's Zoo Top
Vandals slaughtered up to 50 animals at a children's zoo leaving a trail of devastation. About 30 rabbits and 20 chickens were found dead following the rampage. Cockatiels, guinea pigs, lemurs and chinchillas were released from their enclosures and several are still missing. More on Animals
 
The Progress Report: 100 Days Of Opposition Top
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, Ryan Powers, and Lee Fang To receive The Progress Report in your email inbox everyday, click here . Tomorrow marks the first 100 days of the Obama administration. Tomorrow's Progress Report item will highlight the past 100 days of progress. But today, we're focusing on how the conservatives have chosen to spend their first 100 days. In the first 100 days of the Obama presidency, the country has been confronted by a myriad of challenges. President Obama has faced an inherited economic recession -- including widespread foreclosures, a banking system plagued by toxic assets, and mounting unemployment -- as well as two wars, international terrorism, global climate change, millions of Americans still without health care, piracy and now, the threat of a flu pandemic. But instead of engaging in a substantive policy debate with the President, conservatives have spent the past three months immersed in a radical transformation, lurching further to the right. Indeed, the brand of conservatism now in ascendancy embraces apocalyptic rhetoric, cheers on reflexive attacks on Obama, and fuels a steady drumbeat of conspiracy theories. With control of neither the White House nor Congress, conservatives have looked to hate radio talkers like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh for leadership. The new Republican Party chairman, Michael Steele, has also championed the fringe voices of the right wing while threatening to punish members of his party who make any attempts at bipartisanship. The single greatest achievement of the conservative movement thus far has been the staging of anti-Obama, anti-tax "tea party" protests, which were attended by over 100,000 people country-wide and quickly embraced by GOP leaders as the future of the party. The tea party protests, along with the near universal party-line votes opposing Obama's agenda items show how conservatives acting on Limbaugh's pre-Inauguration Day proclamation that he hopes Obama fails. EMBRACING RADICALIZATION: While the mainstream of America is more and more progressive in its policy solutions, the Republican party appears intent on tapping into a darker undercurrent of right-wing rage that has proliferated since Obama's election. Public servants for the "loyal opposition" started using the rhetoric of armed opposition to Obama, such as Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-MN) call for people to be "armed and dangerous" over Democratic energy proposals. But as the conservative lobbyist-orchestrated "tea parties" gained momentum, GOP lawmakers issued more brazen calls for violence. Appearing before throngs of anti-Obama protesters, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) called for "revolution," as he declared that the attendees were the patriots who would, quoting Thomas Jefferson, refresh the tree of liberty with the "blood of tyrants." During the tea party fervor, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) called for assassinating Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) over taxes. Speaking to reporters after a tea party, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) suggested that his state may have to secede from the Union, a call then defended by former Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX). A Department of Homeland Security report on growing threats of right-wing domestic terrorism has become a rallying cry for conservatives, as members like Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) remarked to an audience, "Welcome, right-wing activists, is that what we are? Extremists, yeah, well I'm gonna get me a button." Going forward, House Republican leaders are now routinely stating that Obama's green economy proposals equate to a "declaration of war" on the country. REFLEXIVE ATTACKS: Although conservatives and Republicans have made a point to tell the press they are focused on simply "putting forward positive alternatives," they have spent most of the first 100 days incessantly searching for ways to smear the president. Whether they are complaining about Obama's suit jacket policy, jabbing him about his use of a teleprompter, or ridiculing his wife for serving soup to the poor, conservatives have found no alleged fault too trivial. Exhibiting a certain form of creativity, they scoured Obama's trips abroad for evidence that he somehow hates America. To conservatives, Obama's brief bow to the Saudi King was proof that he is a "hillbillie," and the fact he shook hands with the Venezuelan President an example of his "shallowness." Obama's personalized gifts to the Queen of England were a sign of his apparent narcissism, according to conservatives, and when Obama spoke to the Turkish people on America's religious tolerance, he was -- in the eyes of Fox News pundits -- betraying the "Judeo-Christian ethic." The compulsive assaults on Obama have not only generated a cottage industry of newly-manufactured insults, but they have policy implications as well. Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) thought he could score political points by mocking spending on volcano monitoring programs, but a federally-funded monitoring system detected an eruption in Alaska a month later. As Republicans reflexively decried almost all spending programs in the Recovery Act as useless "pork," Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) employed the same political rationale to cut pandemic flu preparedness funds from the bill -- just months before the current swine flu pandemic threat. NOT GROUNDED IN REALITY: In their quest to discredit Obama, conservatives have increasingly left the facts far behind. Playing upon myths forged during the presidential campaign, Republicans like Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and a chorus of talk radio hosts have spread the lie that Obama will "take away your gun." However, in the age of Obama, conspiracy theories have not been bound to only fringe members of Congress and right-wing radio. A bill aimed a preventing the creation of a "global currency" to replace the dollar -- a non-existent threat hyped by the right-wing echo chamber -- gained at least 30 GOP co-sponsors. The pattern has persisted on every major agenda item Obama has put forward. Republicans have falsely claimed that an MIT study showed that a cap on carbon pollution is a $3,100 light-switch tax. When the author explained the study actually found a $65 cost in 2015, conservatives declared the cost was then $3900. GOP talking points opposing Obama's Recovery Act were laden with accusations similarly made of whole cloth. For instance, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) joined other Republican lawmakers in decrying a made-up high-speed train supposedly designed to run "straight from Disney[land] ... to the doorstep of the Moonlight Bunnyranch in Nevada." And during the first public debates over health reform, the conservative establishment converged to support a "report" by Hudson Fellow Betsy McCaughey that erroneously suggested that investments in comparativeness effectiveness investments would create a "new bureaucracy" to "monitor doctors." More on GOP
 
Jeremy Scahill: What if Instead of the Nuremberg Trials There Was Only a Truth Commission? Top
As some liberals make the case against a Special Prosecutor, the lawyers who fought for the release of the torture memos push back and explain why prosecutions are the only response. Representatives John Conyers and Jerrold Nadler are officially asking Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint an independent Special Prosecutor to investigate the Bush-era US torture system. But, as Politico reports , "Holder is likely to reject that request - his boss, the president, has indicated he doesn't see the need for such a prosecutor." The Democratic Leadership, particularly Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Diane Feinstein have pushed for secret, closed-door hearings in the Senate Intelligence Committee. Other Democrats, like Patrick Leahy, advocate establishing a Truth Commission, though that is not gaining any momentum. The fact remains that some powerful Democrats knew that the torture was happening and didn't make a public peep in opposition. This week, Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell came out in favor of prosecutions of "the decision-makers and their closest advisors (particularly the ones among the latter who may, on their own, have twisted the dagger a little deeper in Caesar's prostrate body -- Rumsfeld and Feith for instance). Appoint a special prosecutor such as Fitzgerald, armed to the teeth, and give him or her carte blanche. Play the treatment of any intermediaries -- that is, between the grunts on the ground and the Oval -- as the law allows and the results demand." Wilkerson, though, understands Washington. "Is there the political will to carry either of these recommendations to meaningful consequences?" he wrote to the Huffington Post. "No, and there won't be." As of now, Conyers and Nadler aren't exactly looking for over-flow space for their meetings on how to get criminal prosecutions going. Officially joining the anti-accountability camp this week was The Washington Post 's David Broder who wrote this gem in defense of the Bush administration: "The memos on torture represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places -- the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department -- by the proper officials." (For a great response to this, check out Scott Horton ). Broder is urging Obama to "stick to his guns" in standing up to pressure "to change his mind about closing the books on the 'torture' policies of the past." Don't you love how Broder puts torture in quotes? I really wonder how Broder would describe it if he was waterboarded (and survived). Can't you just imagine him making the little quote motion with his hands? Broder's Washington Post column was titled "Stop Scapegoating: Obama Should Stand Against Prosecutions:" [Obama was] right to declare that there should be no prosecution of those who carried out what had been the policy of the United States government. And he was right when he sent out his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, to declare that the same amnesty should apply to the lawyers and bureaucrats who devised and justified the Bush administration practices. But now Obama is being lobbied by politicians and voters who want something more -- the humiliation and/or punishment of those responsible for the policies of the past. They are looking for individual scalps -- or, at least, careers and reputations. Their argument is that without identifying and punishing the perpetrators, there can be no accountability -- and therefore no deterrent lesson for future administrations. It is a plausible-sounding rationale, but it cloaks an unworthy desire for vengeance. Obama has opposed even the blandest form of investigation, a so-called truth commission, and has shown himself willing to confront this kind of populist anger. Thank goodness we have a president who opposes "even the blandest form of investigation"--how uncouth such savagery would prove to be. While the elite Washington press corp works hard to make sure things don't get too uncomfortable at the wine and cheese cocktail parties, some liberal journalists are also making the case against a special prosecutor (or at least the immediate appointment of one). Last week it was Elizabeth de la Vega , who made an interesting case for waiting to prosecute while evidence is gathered: We must have a prosecution eventually, but we are not legally required to publicly initiate it now and we should not, as justifiable as it is. I'm not concerned about political fallout. What's good or bad for either party has no legitimate place in this calculus. My sole consideration is litigation strategy: I want us to succeed. This week it is Mother Jones Washington editor David Corn, who comes out in favor of a congressional investigation "that placed a premium on public disclosure" or "an independent commission." Corn describes how he recently warned a Congressmember who supports the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, "That's not necessarily a good idea." Corn talks about how a coalition of groups from the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU to Democrats.com and MoveOn.org have all petitioned for a prosecutor: These liberals all want to see alleged Bush administration wrongdoing exposed. But there's one problem with a special prosecutor: it's not his job to expose wrongdoing. A special prosecutor does dig up facts--but only in order to prosecute a possible crime. His mission is not to shine light on misdeeds, unless it is part of a prosecution. In many cases, a prosecutor's investigation does not produce any prosecutions. Sometimes, it leads only to a limited prosecution. That's what happened with Patrick Fitzgerald. He could not share with the public all that he had discovered about the involvement of Bush, Cheney, Karl Rove, and other officials in the CIA leak case... A special prosecutor, it turns out, is a rather imperfect vehicle for revealing the full truth. [...] Prosecuting government officials for providing legal opinions that greenlighted waterboarding and the like would pose its own legal challenges. Could a government prosecutor indict the government lawyers who composed and signed the torture memos for aiding and abetting torture without indicting the government employees who actually committed the torture? (President Barack Obama has pledged that the interrogators will not be pursued.) And could a prosecutor win cases in which his targets would obviously argue that they were providing what they believed was good-faith legal advice, even if it turned out that their advice was wrong?... Several lawyers I've consulted have said that a criminal case against the authors of these memos would be no slam dunk. One possible scenario is that a special prosecutor would investigate, find out that sordid maneuvering occurred at the highest levels of the Bush-Cheney administration, and then conclude that he or she did not have a strong enough legal case to warrant criminal indictments and trials. The bottom line: Anyone who wants the full truth to come out about the Bush-Cheney administration's use of these interrogation practices cannot count on a special prosecutor. Corn's advice to that unnamed Democratic Congressmember wasn't exactly well received by lawyers who have been pushing for prosecutions. Perhaps the most passionate advocate for the appointment of an independent Special Prosecutor right now is Michael Ratner , the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights . "To argue that we should not have prosecutions because it won't bring out all the facts when taken to its logical conclusion would mean never prosecuting any official no matter the seriousness of the crimes," Ratner told me. "Right now is not the time to be backing off on prosecutions. Why are prosecutions of torturers ok for other non-western countries but not for the US? Prosecution is necessary to deter torture in the future and send a message to ourselves and the rest of the world that the seven or eight year torture program was unlawful and must not happen again. The purpose of prosecutions is to investigate and get convictions so that officials in the future will not again dispense with the prohibition on torture." Constitutional Law expert Scott Horton says that the problems with a Special Prosecutor Corn lays out are "correct, but he makes the latent assumption that it's either/or. That's absurd. Obviously it should be both a commission and one or more prosecutors as crimes are identified." Jameel Jaffer, one of the leading ACLU attorneys responsible for getting the torture memos released by the Obama administration agrees with Horton. "I don't think we should have to choose between a criminal investigation and a congressional inquiry," Jaffer told me. "A congressional committee could examine the roots of the torture program and recommend legislative reform to prevent gross human rights abuses by future administrations. At the same time, a Justice Department investigation could investigate issues of criminal responsibility. One shouldn't foreclose the other." Jaffer adds, "It might be a different story if we thought that Congress would need to offer immunity in exchange for testimony. But many of the key players - including John Yoo, George Tenet, and Dick Cheney - have made clear that they have no qualms about talking publicly about their actions (Yoo and Tenet have both written books, and Cheney is writing one now)." The bottom line, Ratner argues, is that "prosecutions will bring out facts." He cites the example of the Nuremberg Tribunals: What if we had had a truth commission and no prosecutions? Right now we have many means of getting the facts: FOIA, congressional investigations such as the Senate Armed Services Report, former interrogators, document releases by the Executive. There are plenty of ways to get information even if it does not all come out in prosecutions. Many of the calls to not prosecute are by those, particularly inside the beltway, who cannot imagine Bush, Cheney et al. in the dock or by those who accept the argument that the torture conspirators were trying their best. This is not a time to hold back on the demand that is required by law and fact: appoint a special prosecutor. David Swanson , who for years has pushed for prosecutions of Bush administration officials, was one of the organizers of the petitions calling for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. "My top priority is not 'truth,'" he said. "My top priority is changing the current truth, which is that we don't have the nerve and decency to enforce our laws against powerful people." Read more of Jeremy Scahill's work at RebelReports.com More on Barack Obama
 
Swine Flu Case In Indiana, Chicago Flooded With Reports Top
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- A young adult from northern Indiana has the state's first confirmed case of swine flu, but the state health commissioner says the person is "doing well." Health Commissioner Judy Monroe said Tuesday the person was a young adult from northern Indiana, but released no other details. She said the case had been confirmed in testing by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and that the state agency was investigating how the person might have acquired the illness. "This young adult is doing well," Monroe said. "No serious illness." She said that the ill person had not recently traveled to Mexico, where more than 150 people are believed to have died from the flu strain, and that the state agency was investigating how the person might have acquired the illness. The state health department said Sunday that it had sent two flu specimens for tests by the CDC. The agency said the flu specimens did not match other strains that Indiana has seen this year. Some 50 swine flu infections have been identified so far in the United States, including one in neighboring Ohio. The flu has killed more than 150 people in Mexico, but none have been reported yet in the United States. In Chicago, the city's Public Health Department is being deluged with reports of possible swine flu cases. Chief Medical Officer Dr. Susan Gerber is calling it "an outbreak of awareness." Gerber said Tuesday that reports come in every 15 minutes, and staffers there are working overtime to check them out. Most likely aren't swine flu and some aren't even ordinary flu. Gerber says there isn't a surge in people with flu-like symptoms, but that her department is getting more reports because of swine flu fears. Local health agencies are working with Illinois health officials to evaluate possible cases. The Illinois Department of Public Health is testing suspect cases, but none has tested positive. A spokeswoman says any that do would be considered probable swine flu but would be sent to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for confirmation. -ASSOCIATED PRESS More on Swine Flu
 
Marc R. Stanley: Obama's First 100 Days: A Jewish Perspective Top
During his first 100 days in office, the American Jewish community has already taken great pleasure with the performance of President Barack Obama. He has begun to develop a deep and substantive relationship with the Jewish community by, among other things, hosting the first presidential Seder, creating strong outreach with our community, and working on key domestic and international issues of interest to American Jews. Impressively, in less than three and a half months, the Obama administration has already made marked progress with progressive policies that are important to our community: the economy, Israel, the Middle East, reproductive rights, renewable energy , and stem cell research. The aforementioned Seder caused quite a buzz in our community. Not only was it the first presidential Seder in our nation's history, but it has become symbolic of the intimate and deep relationship our president has with our community (I must have received 50 photos of the Seder from friends and family). Not only has the President embraced one of our most important rituals, he has comforted us as a community by including in his administration individuals with whom we have long-standing, close relationships. Obama has put together a dream team of excellent advisors and appointments, several of whom are members of our faith. As a community, we are grateful that the President has spoken out loudly against hate and intolerance. Last week, President Obama spoke at the Holocaust Days of Remembrance ceremony at the U.S. Capitol and called on Americans to "contemplate the obligations of the living" and fight against "those who insist the Holocaust never happened, who perpetrate every form of intolerance." Earlier this month, under his direction, the U.S. boycotted a vehemently anti-Israel United Nation's conference on racism (Durban II). Being a leader in the Jewish community during the Obama administration means more than just being invited to Hanukkah parties and events at the White House. Thus far, the Obama administration has made a concerted effort to communicate with and involve our community in major policy decisions. For example, the administration briefed Jewish community leaders on regular high-level conference calls during the formulation of policy toward Durban II. Before then, the administration invited community leaders to participate in a hour-long conference call with George Mitchell, U.S. special envoy to the Middle East. The conversation was substantive, candid and meaningful. Those on the call were impressed by both Mitchell's grasp of the issues and his attentiveness to the participants' questions. In these first 100 days, the most senior members of this administration not only reached out to the Jewish community, they listened. Although Obama's critics continue to search for ways to prove that he is anti-Israel, their message lacks substance and has very little resonance within the wider Jewish community. Of critical importance to us, Obama's foreign policy has immeasurably improved America's image abroad. Both his foreign and his domestic policy objectives make Israel and the U.S. more secure. The President's policies moving America toward renewable energy and off Middle East oil have already begun to be implemented. These priorities, as well as those whom Obama has appointed to serve in his administration, subscribe to strategies that give the utmost importance to Israel's peace and security. On the domestic front, Obama has acted swiftly on critical issues and has revised some of President George W. Bush's damaged policies. On the economy, the President has shown bold leadership to lead America's economy out of this crisis and will create or save millions of American jobs, provide tax relief, and invest in our long-term economic security. Obama also ensured that we will not fall behind other leading countries in important areas of research and development by lifting the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Exploring this burgeoning field will ensure that the U.S. is expanding its scientific frontier and provide Americans with the most advanced medical treatments. As with stem cells, the President chose good policy over partisan politics when he struck down the infamous Global Gag rule, which prohibited U.S. money from funding international family-planning clinics. This provided life saving health services to women and also provided counseling or referrals about abortion services. And finally, after many years of politicization at the FDA, Obama is putting science over blind ideology, including allowing Plan B, the morning after pill, to be available without a prescription to women 17 and older. We should not overstate the importance of Obama's first 100 days. There are, after all, over 1,300 days left in the President's first term. However, we are happy to say that the first 15 weeks of his presidency have made us proud and have fulfilled his promise of much needed change for our country. More on Barack Obama
 
Michael Wolff: Don't Shake Hands With a Mexican Top
The main subject at yesterday's White House press briefing , which I dropped in on, was swine flu . It seems safe to say that, prior to the moment the story broke last Friday, none of the reporters who were asking about swine flu knew anything about it. Still, they were determined to make it not just big news, but practically Watergate. Somebody actually said to Robert Gibbs, the president's press secretary, "What did you know and when did you know it..." Who the president might have seen on his recent trip to Mexico and his personal odds of infection were of crisis-level concern. Dr. William Schaffner, chairman of Vanderbilt University's Department of Preventative Medicine, appeared on CNBC shortly after the story broke and was asked (by a skeptical me) to give the outbreak a 1-10 rating of risk. He gave it a 2 for the public, and a 4 for healthcare professionals. I'd certainly put the media storm at a 7 or 8. We are now at a SARS (remember SARS?) level of coverage, and have well-surpassed Avian flu --quite likely because swine flu sounds much worse. Both are public heath scares that failed to live up to their catastrophic billings. Continue reading on newser.com More on Swine Flu
 

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)