Sunday, May 17, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Stanley Kutler: Obama's Coalition of the Unwilling Top
By Stanley Kutler President Barack Obama dramatically changed course twice on May 13 when he announced he would not release photos of American military personnel "abusing" detainees, reversing the Pentagon's statement on April 26 that it would comply with a court order--with the president's own prompt and emphatic support for release. And thus the second reversal: the president would "do business" in Washington in the "old way," and with the in-your-face exercise of presidential actions reminiscent of his predecessor. In returning to old ways, Obama has done business with the most unreliable of his "friends" and the worst of his enemies. The acts and photos are uncontested, as the president and an appellate court clearly acknowledged. Now, Obama has directed his in-house counselor, Gregory Craig--ever the lawyer for the situation--to prepare a legal opinion justifying a political decision, and to prepare for an appeal of the lower court order. The president's announcement was brief, but the always-present anonymous official offered in a statement: "The president would be the last to excuse the actions depicted in these photos. That is why the Department of Defense investigated these cases and why individuals have been punished through prison sentences, discharges, and a range of other punitive measures." But we know nothing of these investigations or the scope of the punishments. In previous similar cases of prisoner abuses, we know that military commanders reviewed--and moderated--such punishments. The president should release this information. Those opposing the release of the photos represent a sizable community. But the vocal opposition came largely from those seemingly repudiated last November. President Obama is in the White House in part because another, undoubtedly larger, community is outraged by torture and abuse of "detainees." Now the president has stopped the release of the photos and is preparing to appeal the lower court's ruling to the Bush-Cheney friendly confines of the Supreme Court. How ironic that the Obama administration must now appeal to this Supreme Court. In its decision, the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that "it is plainly insufficient to claim that releasing documents could reasonably be expected to endanger some unspecified member of a group so vast as to encompass all United States troops, coalition forces and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan." But domestic coalition forces opposing the release of the photos found it sufficient to merely assert such a claim. The president has followed the wishes of Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., former Vice President Dick Cheney and his military commanders. He has invoked the worst excesses of the Bush-Cheney "war on terror" metaphor, agreeing with those who contend that release of the photos will only encourage more terrorist attacks on American military personnel. Lieberman and Graham, John McCain's enthusiastic supporters in the 2008 campaign, wrote to the president on May 9, urging him not to release the damning photographs. "The release of these old photographs of past behavior that has now been clearly prohibited will serve no public good, but will empower al-Qaida propaganda operations, hurt our country's image, and endanger our men and women in uniform," the senators wrote. A few weeks earlier, Obama firmly--that is not an unfair characterization--promised to abide by the appellate court's ruling. Quick story: Lieberman and Graham won. Lieberman, Graham and Cheney like to use a World War II analogy to make their point. They worry that the enemy will make "propaganda" use of the photos to damage the U.S. "Propaganda" is a charged word, conjuring images of the Nazis' media blitzes to make their points. Lieberman and Graham probably had the ghost of Joseph Goebbels in mind, launching full-blown tirades about American "war crimes" and "brutality." Propaganda, according to Webster, is "the spreading of ideas or information deliberately to further one's cause or damage an opposing cause." Propaganda is no exclusive tool of hated regimes. What did Sens. Lieberman and Graham think they were voting for when Congress authorized untold billions of dollars to support the Voice of America, the U.S. Information Agency, Radio Free Europe and Radio Marti? For six decades, "soft power" propagandizing has taken place; we call it the Fulbright Program. For seven years, Lieberman and Graham enthusiastically and uncritically provided powerful support for George W. Bush's deceitful wars under that convenient umbrella of "the war on terror." Dick Cheney now is their de facto commander-in-chief, diligently fighting rear-guard actions, staving off criticisms of any means they deemed necessary to conduct their larger war. Cheney had reliable allies, as Gen. David Petraeus and his commanders pressured the defense secretary to lobby the president and Robert Gates dutifully complied. . Cheney is ever-anxious to have his "I-told-you-so" on the record in the event of another 9/11 attack. Just as we cannot disprove his contention that he and Bush had kept us safe from attack (ignoring 9/11, of course), so we cannot prove that there will not be another attack. For now, Cheney is content to offer the facile, doomsday language that release of the photos depicting abuse would "increase the risk of another attack." Cheney's coalition shamelessly played the "support the troops" card. Liz Cheney faithfully spoke for her father and flayed the Obama administration in a Fox TV interview. "And President Obama has a lot of sort of rhetoric about support for our military families and support for our men and women who are fighting overseas," she said. "But if he really cares about them, he wouldn't be making such an effort to release photos that show them in a negative light." Must we assume military families support prisoner abuse? The former vice president and his allies have readily played the "fear card," and play on fears and insecurities that the Democrats lack the unnecessary toughness on military and security matters. On this score, Obama acts as if he has one hand tied behind his back. The administration is under a court order to release the documents. On Cheney's watch, any prospect of judicial interference with his "war on terror" was not tolerated. David Addington, John Yoo and Jay Bybee readily invoked their absurd unitary theories of presidential power and ignored such a court order. And that would have been the end of the story, with the media meekly submitting, and Congress rendered impotent. Lieberman and Graham are classic servants of power, hardly capable of speaking any truth to power. Like most of their colleagues, they are opportunists or off-the-wall on some ideological mission. Do Lieberman and Graham think photos lie? Have they been fixed, tampered with, or cropped in any way? Can they be true? The senators assume "propaganda" to be a deliberate distortion of the truth, and that propels al-Qaida's "propaganda," as they contend. But truth is the issue here, not some enemy's "propaganda." Try as he might--note the Afghanistan measures--the president cannot appease his enemies. They have prevailed over the abuse photos, and he folded. Soon, they will contemptuously deride him as a "flip-flopper," with an intended portrayal of his weakness. What should the president's friends say? More on Barack Obama
 
Graham Heckled, Jeered For Supporting Open-Tent GOP (VIDEO) Top
Sen. Lindsey Graham on Saturday took his case for a more diverse, open-tent Republican Party to a tough venue -- the South Carolina Republican Party convention. And the reaction to his message wasn't entirely unsurprising. In a "fiery speech that drew jeers from the crowd," The State newspaper reported , "Graham told the crowd there was nothing wrong with any conservative, and he wanted to build an open party that could win in Pennsylvania and Connecticut, as well as South Carolina." "You're a hypocrite!" one man yelled. "I'm a winner, pal," Graham shot back. "Winning matters to me. If it doesn't matter to you, there's the exit sign." "Ron Paul is not the leader of this party," Graham said, prompting a few jeers. Some people yelled, "Yes, he is!" "I'm not going to give this party over to people who can't win," Graham finished, drawing most of the crowd to its feet. According to The State, fellow South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint (who is far more beloved by conservatives in the state than Graham) claimed that he'd "rather have 30 senators who stand on principle than 60 who have none." Here's a short video of one particularly heated exchange involving Graham. A longer video of Graham's speech is below. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Huff TV: HuffPost's Katharine Zaleski Talks About The Controversy Surrounding Obama's Notre Dame Speech Top
Senior News Editor Katharine Zaleski discuss the controversy surrounding President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame. Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Barack Obama
 
Jonathan Singer: The Right's Elitism on Judges Top
Listening to conservatives and Republicans argue in recent days that only current appellate court judges are qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court, it struck me just how elitist the right had become on the issue of the judiciary. No doubt, being in law school, reading dozens if not hundreds of Supreme Court decisions over the past two years, this notion had already begun to become clear to me. The extent to which judicial conservatives have isolated themselves in ivory towers in recent decades, disregarding the actual effects of their ideologically driven decisions (or, in the parlance of Barack Obama, lacking "empathy"), has been hard to swallow for someone like me who fashions himself a pragmatist. But the latest debate stands out nevertheless. Is there really such a thing as one, uniquely qualified Supreme Court nominee, no others in the legal community around the country could match? And does such a nominee necessarily have to have the exact same profile as Antonin Scalia? Because that seems to be what this is all about. Indeed, ever since Scalia was approved by the Senate in 1986, every single successful nominee to the Supreme Court has had Scalia's profile as a former federal appellate judge, and five of ten overall nominees (including three nominees either rejected by the Senate or withdrawn by the President) were, like Scalia, sitting on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals when nominated. Prior to Scalia, fewer than half of all successful nominees during the post-war era had served on a federal appellate court, and just two of nineteen successful nominees during the period served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This isn't to say that I am trying to occupy the space once held by the late Roman Hruska, who famously said in defense of Richard Nixon's failed nomination of G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court, "Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos." I am not defending mediocrity. What's more, I do not think for a minute that federal appellate judges, whether on the D.C. Circuit or elsewhere, should be removed from consideration as potential successors to Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. But there are plenty of members of the legal community in this country who do not currently serve on a federal appellate court who would make very strong Supreme Court Justices, just as plenty of Justices in the past have been devoid of federal appellate experience before joining the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Earl Warren, late of my alma mater and a Governor and state Attorney General before joining the Supreme Court, immediately comes to mind as the exemplar of a Justice who succeeded despite not having previously served on a federal appellate court. Others, from Sandra Day O'Connor to William Brennan to Thurgood Marshall all had exceedingly distinguished careers on the Supreme Court without fitting Scalia's profile. So while conservatives and Republicans hew to their elitist view that President Obama must appoint someone just like Justice Scalia to the Supreme Court, a fierce ideologue who seems to care little about the impact his decisions will have on actual people around the country, I am glad to hear that the President prizes empathy as an attribute necessary for the next Supreme Court Justice and hope he tunes out those on the right arguing that he must limit his choices to current federal appellate judges. More on Barack Obama
 
Obama Notre Dame Speech: LIVE VIDEO Top
President Obama will give the commencement speech at Notre Dame University . Watch his speech live below. Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Barack Obama
 
Obama Notre Dame Speech: FULL TEXT Top
Below is the text of President Obama's Notre Dame commencement speech, as prepared for delivery. Thank you, Father Jenkins for that generous introduction. You are doing an outstanding job as president of this fine institution, and your continued and courageous commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all. Good afternoon Father Hesburgh, Notre Dame trustees, faculty, family, friends, and the class of 2009. I am honored to be here today, and grateful to all of you for allowing me to be part of your graduation. I want to thank you for this honorary degree. I know it has not been without controversy. I don't know if you're aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I'm only 1 for 2 as President. Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. I guess that's better. Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers on how to boost my average. I also want to congratulate the class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame, I mean both in the classroom and in the competitive arena. We all know about this university's proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world - Bookstore Basketball. Now this excites me. I want to congratulate the winners of this year's tournament, a team by the name of "Hallelujah Holla Back." Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the "Barack O'Ballers" didn't pull it out. Next year, if you need a 6'2" forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live. Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you are today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare - periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle. You, however, are not getting off that easy. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and the world - a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It is a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations - and a task that you are now called to fulfill. This is the generation that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before this crisis hit - an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day's work. We must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. We must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity - diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief. In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family. It is this last challenge that I'd like to talk about today. For the major threats we face in the 21st century - whether it's global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease - do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups. Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history. Unfortunately, finding that common ground - recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" - is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man - our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times. We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education you have received is that you have had time to consider these wrongs in the world, and grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult. The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved. The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side? Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion. As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him from voting for me. What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words." Fair-minded words. After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground. That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women." Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It's a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. The lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where "...differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love." And I want to join him and Father Jenkins in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today's ceremony. This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago - also with the help of the Catholic Church. I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. A group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed. It was quite an eclectic crew. Catholic and Protestant churches. Jewish and African-American organizers. Working-class black and white and Hispanic residents. All of us with different experiences. All of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help - to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others. And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ. At the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads - unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty, AIDS, and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, "You can't really get on with preaching the Gospel until you've touched minds and hearts." My heart and mind were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside with in Chicago. And I'd like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling. You are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You will be called upon to help restore a free market that is also fair to all who are willing to work; to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or someone who simply insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communications than have ever existed before. You will hear talking heads scream on cable, read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and watch politicians pretend to know what they're talking about. Occasionally, you may also have the great fortune of seeing important issues debated by well-intentioned, brilliant minds. In fact, I suspect that many of you will be among those bright stars. In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse. But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own. This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds. For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth. So many of you at Notre Dame - by the last count, upwards of 80% -- have lived this law of love through the service you've performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. That is incredibly impressive, and a powerful testament to this institution. Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn't just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens - when people set aside their differences to work in common effort toward a common good; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another - all things are possible. After
 
Israeli Economy Sinks Into Recession For First Time In Eight Years Top
Israel's economy contracted for a second consecutive quarter, plunging the economy into a recession for the first time in eight years, as exports plummeted and investment in fixed assets slumped. More on Israel
 
Steele: Specter Voter Himself Out GOP Top
RNC Chairman Michael Steele insisted on Sunday that newly-minted Democrat Arlen Specter was an opportunist who had "voted himself out of the [Republican] party," before demanding to know what "sweetheart deal" had been given to the Senator in order to entice his political switch. Appearing on Meet the Press, Steele sought to recast the GOP as a big tent, with membership open to Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and even his partisan sparring partner, DNC Chair Tim Kaine. But when it came to discussing Specter, he argued that the party wasn't big enough to contain the Senator's policy record. "First off, Arlen Specter voted himself out of the party," said Steele. "He pushed himself away. In 1966, when he couldn't get himself elected as a Democrat, he became a Republican. And in 2009, when he couldn't get reelected as a Republican he became a Democrat. So that takes care of that." Steele's rebuke of Specter was taken up during the panel session, when The Atlantic 's Ron Brownstein pointed out that the Senator's voting record was decidedly within the GOP mainstream. "Arlen Specter votes with Republicans two-thirds of the time," said Brownstein. "If that is voting himself out of the party, you can see the cycle that [Republicans] are in, which is kind of a cycle of contraction and compression." Steele spent much of the remainder of his MTP appearance doing his best to present the party as inclusive to different viewpoints. When pressed whether he was open to cutting off funds for Republican candidates who supported the stimulus package -- a position he expressed openness to in the past -- Steele replied that he "would follow the lead of the state party leadership in making their determinations with respect to the primaries." Later, he was pressed about a proposal within the RNC to re-brand the Democratic Party the "Democrat Socialist Party." Steele maligned the move as petty. "If they do that, they do that," he said. "My job as chairman is to have a conversation with the American people without the name calling and without the noise making... My responsibility as the chosen leader of the party is that we do so in a way that the American people see we are moving things forward." Send us tips! Write us at tv@huffingtonpost.com if you see any newsworthy or notable TV moments. Read more about our media monitoring project here and click here to join the Media Monitors team. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Arlen Specter
 
Steele Open To Torture Investigations: "Let's Put It All On The Table" Top
In the midst of arguing that Speaker Nancy Pelosi "stepped in it big time" by insisting she was kept in the dark about the use of waterboarding, RNC Chairman Michael Steele made what could be an important declaration of support for an investigation into the past administration. "I think you have heard a lot of Republicans call for that," said Steele during an appearance on Meet the Press. "If this is a door that the Democrats and their leaderships, they have the House and Senate and the presidency, and if they want to expose all this, then let's put it all on the table and take a closer look at it." The RNC Chairman also refused to say whether he thought the interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration constituted torture. "I have a personal opinion that's not appropriate to share here," he said. Steele's position on investigations is slowly becoming more of a mainstream one within the GOP. The performance this past week by Pelosi, in which she accused the CIA of misleading her about the use of waterboarding in the fall of 2002, has become a temptation of sorts for Republicans to call for a full accounting of who knew what and when. Steele himself took a particular bit of joy in ribbing Pelosi, saying that she had "put the Democratic Party in a position where the question for me is, does the President support Nancy Pelosi's version of what happened or the CIA Director's version of what happened?" He added that "Nancy Pelosi has stepped in it big time... You have the Speaker of the House saying that she wasn't told, that she doesn't have a clue, and the evidence contradicts that." For many Democrats and Bush critics, of course, the questions surrounding Pelosi remain a sideshow, obscuring the broader debate over how and why torture was authorized and employed. As such, they too would welcome an investigation -- though the outlines and purpose would be different from those which Steele prefers. Send us tips! Write us at tv@huffingtonpost.com if you see any newsworthy or notable TV moments. Read more about our media monitoring project here and click here to join the Media Monitors team. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Michael Steele
 
Cheryl Saban: Building Emotional Muscle Top
I've been talking about a woman's self-worth for weeks, and have been gearing up for the release of my book for months. I re-read my own words constantly, and am determined to follow my own advice - to practice what I so robustly encourage others to do. An important part of my message is that despite the difficulties life pitches us, and perhaps in spite of the mixed messages we get from societal 'reflections,' self-worth actually emanates from within. Ultimately, it is up to each one of us to decide to dig into ourselves to expose and express our worth. Ah Ha. True that. But I never said it was easy. I recently had the opportunity to tape a piece on the Larry King show. Though his shows are predominately live, he does tape some segments - like mine, that are not time-sensitive. At any rate, Larry is a masterful interviewer, an iconic news personality, and hey - just plain famous. I was thrilled, fully prepared, and ready to rock the interview. But I choked. His first query startled me and like a stunned deer caught in the headlights, I lost my way, and fell off my track. My body reacted immediately, and fear and self-doubt took over. I started deep breathing, and tried to pull myself back to the place inside me that had instant access to the knowledge I had worked so hard to attain - to the message I want so desperately to share -- to the succinct sentences I have used before that run smoothly and effortlessly into one another to make my case for women. But it took me half the interview to get my mojo back. Thank God I had some fabulous panelists alongside me who carried the ball -- Lisa Ling, Lisa Nichols, Della Reese, and Deepak Chopra. A stellar group. I'm not writing this piece to throw myself a pity party. I've been really lucky as a relatively unknown individual, to have been interviewed on several notable, highly acclaimed shows. For the most part, I held my own, and fulfilled my end of the interviewer-guest bargain with intention and personal empowerment. I'm sharing this humbling episode - you'll see what I mean when it airs - to demonstrate the fact that even when we think we have all our ducks in a row - even after we've established a positive sense of self-esteem, and have discovered, or recovered our sense of self-worth, life continually pitches us challenges. This is what life is all about, isn't it? These hurdles and stumbling blocks can come from out of nowhere, and catch us off-guard. In my case, the obstacle was relatively innocuous; it had to do with my ability to speak in public - to share my opinion, my values, and my voice, without fear. Okay - it was a pebble in my path - a molehill. Not so very important as difficulties go. But still, it was something I needed to face - a lesson that I, presumably, needed to learn at the time. And it made me think of the whole gamut of life-experiences that require us to build our emotional muscles. What of the challenges that threaten our lives, our children, our security, and our livelihood? I call them Mount Everest challenges, those that can seem insurmountable, like cancer, poverty, and abuse? How do we muster up the courage to bounce back from those? In the end, though the mountains we all climb vary in intensity and difficulty, the method for the ascent is the same; we take them step-by-step. We breathe, we seek help, we practice, we go inside to bolster up our personal sense of purpose, and ultimately we face it or we don't. Hopefully, we get wiser from each experience, and figure out that when one avenue is blocked or seemingly impassable, we find new pathways to get us to our goal, and we build stronger emotional muscles along the way. I have learned from this episode. Thanks, Larry. The next time I feel like a deer stunned by the headlights in an interview, I'll whip out my mental sunglasses to diffuse the glare. And then again, perhaps I'll simply memorize an opening response that'll work no matter what question I'm asked.
 
Geffen Still 'Seriously Interested' In Sizable Stake Of New York Times Top
Despite falling short in two recent attempts to become a major player in The New York Times Company, David Geffen continues to be seriously interested in buying a sizable piece of the company or taking it over completely, according to people who are very familiar with his thinking, though he is wary of doing anything to antagonize the controlling Sulzberger family.
 
David Weinberger: Michael Steele comes out against marriage Top
From the AP : SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) -- Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday. Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage. "Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for," Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. "So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money." This argument counters the "No one's hurt by it" defense of same sex marriage. The only problem is that Steele's argument is also exactly an argument against " opposite marriage ." Yeah, there's a winning platform for the Republicans: End the nuptial welfare state! Ban marriage! More on Michael Steele
 
Paulson's Lament: Lehman Brothers Stole My Reputation Top
Hank Paulson, former master of the universe, sits in a nondescript office in northwest Washington, D.C. He is trying to work on his memoirs, but he is struggling. He doesn't seem like the onetime All-Ivy tackle at Dartmouth, the Harvard M.B.A. who ran Goldman Sachs, the prince of Wall Street who went on to be come secretary of the Treasury. He comes across more like an athlete who has lost a game and can't stop talking about the dropped pass, the missed shot. He is trying to explain the weekend last September when Lehman Brothers went down--and the financial world collapsed. More on Lehman Brothers
 
Obama's Newsweek Interview: Addresses Dick Cheney's Criticism, Not Dumbing Down Things For The Public Top
President Obama gave a wide-ranging and fascinating interview to Newsweek editor Jon Meacham. Below are a couple highlights, but be sure to read the whole thing here . As Think Progress notes , one characteristic that has set Obama apart from recent politicians is his ability to communicate with the American public on a highly intellectual level. Obama explained : But one of the things I've actually been encouraged by--and I learned during the campaign--was the American people, I think, not only have a toleration but also a hunger for explanation and complexity, and a willingness to acknowledge hard problems. I think one of the biggest mistakes that is made in Washington is this notion you have to dumb things down for the public. Obama also addressed the Dick Cheney's media blitz in which the former vice president has criticized Obama's national security policies and defended his own: You know, Dick Cheney had a strong perspective about national security. It was tested in the early years of the Bush administration, and I think it resulted in a series of very bad decisions. I think what's interesting is that, in some ways, Dick Cheney actually lost these arguments inside the Bush administration... ...And so it's interesting to me to see the vice president spending so much time trying to vindicate himself and relitigate the last eight years when, as I said, I think, actually, a lot of these arguments were settled even before we took over the White House. Check out the full interview here . More on Barack Obama
 
Stephanie Cutter To White House For Court Fight Top
Stephanie Cutter, counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, is leaving that post to join the White House team as it prepares to shepherd President Barack Obama's pick for the Supreme Court to confirmation, according to sources familiar with the move. More on Timothy Geithner
 
Webb Criticizes Obama's Guantanamo Strategy As Unreasonable Top
Sen. Jim Webb no longer believes President Obama's schedule for closing down the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay is reasonable, claiming on Sunday that the decision was dictated by "artificial timelines" and that some terrorism suspects should be tried at the facility. "Guantanamo has become the issue rather than how we process these people who were detained there. Let's process them with the right rules of law, the right due process within the constraints of how we have to handle these cases," said Webb on ABC's This Week. "But the facility is there at Guantanamo to do it, and then close it down." As for the date to actually shut down the facility, the Virginia Democrat said he would "defer to the judgment of the administration who is looking at this." Reminded that the administration wanted Gitmo closed by January, Webb responded: "They have said a lot of things, taken a look and said some other things." The remarks were a departure from the Senator's earlier position, which he forthrightly acknowledged. Asked if he still believed the deadline for closing Gitmo within the year was reasonable, Webb responded: "I don't actually," adding that his change of heart came after "having sat down with my staff and gone through the numbers in detail and looking at the facilities that have been built there." The Senator also emphatically declared that he opposes having some detainees, including the Chinese Uighurs, transferred to his home state of Virginia. A federal judge ruled last October that the Uighurs detained at Guantanamo were not terrorist threats and should be released. While Webb did demand that this group and others be granted "due process in the right kind of environment" -- he said he supports the administration's decision to use an updated form of the special military tribunals -- he argued that some Uighurs had been trained by al Qaeda and should not be allowed into the United States. The remarks are a blow to the White House and Democratic Party as they seek to frame the closing Guantamano as an issue of sound law rather than national security politics. Despite having served only briefly in the Senate, Webb is an influential foreign policy voice in the party. His position on the closure of Gitmo, however, is likely influenced by the chance that some detainees would be transferred to his home state. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Jim Webb
 
Bloomberg Reflects On Obama: The First 1,000 Days Top
Most analyses of Obama's first 100 days take stock of the legislation he has passed, executive orders he has signed and policy changes he has adopted. Have they been bold enough (the banks and the stimulus plan)? Tough enough (foreign policy)? Wise enough (Guantánamo detainees)? Responsible enough (trillion-dollar deficits)? Only time will tell, and undoubtedly adjustments will have to be made. But the questions are all wrong. To get a real sense of whether the president's first 100 days were successful, we need to consider how they have positioned him for the next 1,300 days. And to do that, we have to ask different questions. More on Barack Obama
 
Supreme Court Filibuster: McConnell Leaves Door Wide Open Top
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Sunday that he would not rule out employing a filibuster to block Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee despite having vehemently opposed the use of the parliamentary procedure over judicial appointments four years ago. Appearing on Fox News Sunday, the Kentucky Republican said that, per the rules of the Senate, "all things are possible" when it came to the vote on Obama's choice for the Court. When reminded that he threatened to resort to the "nuclear option" when Democrats were threatening to filibuster George W. Bush's Court appointments, McConnell largely embraced his 180 degree turn in position. "The Senate rejected my advice," he reminded host Chris Wallace. "And the Senate is a place that frequently operates on precedent. So I think the Senate deliberately decided not to take a position one way or the other. And as you know we did have a cloture vote on Justice Alito, which the President, by the way, opposed... So the President himself has indicated that all options are open, but I think it is way premature, Chris, to be predicting what kind of procedural moves will be taken. We haven't even seen the nomination yet." As for the type of nominee he could support, McConnell said he expects someone of a liberal judicial bent to get the nod, but that Senate Republicans could back such a person provided they can "apply the law without partiality. Each federal judge takes an oath to apply the law to both the rich and the poor. Their personal views ought to be irrelevant." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Mitch McConnell
 
Daisy Whitney: YouTube's Sells Exclusive "Click to Buy" Sponsorship to VISA Top
As it continues to mine new advertising models, YouTube said VISA has currently bought out the new "click to buy" ad option on YouTube. The ad format is an overlay ad that pops up on music videos and gives viewers a chance to buy the track that's playing. The VISA/YouTube promotion was first reported on Monday by Greg Sandoval at CNET News.com. (The VISA ad provides branding and a dynamic link, but users are not required to use VISA to purchase downloads.) Since launch in the fall, YouTube has sold million of tracks through the ad, the company's spokesperson Chris Dale told Beet.TV. The company has high hopes the ad format can drive sales for artists and creators. A recent Ipsos survey reported that half of all adults who watched a YouTube music video went on to buy music by that artist. Also, when Monty Python became a YouTube partner in the fall, the comedy troupe said it saw a 23,000 percent increase in sales of DVDs on Amazon. "We are an ad-based revenue model," Dale said. "We share the revenue generated from the advertisements with our content partners and they get the lion's share." In addition, YouTube also offers granular data to advertisers on who's watching and how audiences are interacting with the content, relying on integration with Google Analytics and Double Click, Dale said. Other ad formats on the site include banner ads, sponsored and ads sold through Google TV Ads, especially for YouTube's new "Shows" section. Google TV Ads is the company's auction-based system for buying and selling TV time used by Echostar and others, now being tested on the video site. Daisy Whitney, Senor Producer You can find the original post on Beet.TV Editor's Note: The scope of the VISA sponsorship was communicated with Daisy. The statement is not mentioned in the video interview. A.P. More on YouTube
 
Boehner, McConnell Cheer Cheney's Public Role Top
On Sunday, the top Republicans in both the House and the Senate affirmed that they were pleased with former Vice President Dick Cheney for taking an active and combative public role just months after stepping down from office. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, the House and Senate minority leaders, both expressed support for Cheney's attacks on President Obama during their respective Sunday show appearances. Boehner went so far as to say that the former VP's broadsides against the current White House "helps" the Republican Party. "Dick Cheney is a private citizen and is entitled to his views," Boehner told CNN's State of the Union. As for the possibility that Cheney was drowning out the younger and/or more moderate Republicans, Boehner replied that "having a chorus of voices out there" was better than none. "It doesn't hurt us," he said, "it helps us." On Fox News Sunday, Mitch McConnell did not offer a similarly specific endorsement of Cheney's recent rhetoric. He did, however, say the former VP had been vindicated in his remarks, as evidenced by Obama's change in policy on matters from releasing torture photos to military tribunals. "These are serious issues and I think it's noteworthy that in the last week the President himself has been adjusting his positions," he said. "He's no longer decided to release additional photos from Abu Ghraib. He has revisited the issue of whether or not the military commissions that we passed a couple of years ago are an appropriate way to try terrorists. We know he changed his mind in Iraq and decided to follow the advice of the military generals, and we also know that he's now ordered a surge in Afghanistan just like the one that was successful in Iraq. So I think the administration has responded to the critique of the vice president and others that it might... be drifting off in the wrong direction on national security issues." A recent survey of GOP strategists and advisers found that 57 percent believe Cheney has hurt the Republican Party since the election, versus 33 percent who think he is helping. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Mitch McConnell
 
Tim Giago: Small Successes Come Hard in Battle Against Mascots Top
By Tim Giago (Nanwica Kciji) © 2009 Native Sun News May 18, 2009 Twenty nine years ago I wrote my first column about high school, college and professional sports teams using Native Americans as mascots for their fun and games. I wrongfully assumed at the time that if Native Americans opposed to this kind of treatment spoke out about it, the bright minds at the institutions of higher learning would surely see this as a human rights issue and voluntarily bring this racist practice to an end. Over the years some boards of education in different parts of America have taken seriously the efforts of various Native American groups and have made every effort to remove offending nicknames from sports teams within their jurisdiction, but usually without success. Like me, they were taken aback at the angry reaction from the alumni and student body of the schools in question. To these reactionaries, it was as if the mascot was sacrosanct and to even suggest changing the name was an act of heresy. A few years after my first column about mascots appeared, a young Native American woman of the Spokane Tribe in Washington, a student at the University of Illinois, was bothered and angered by the antics of that school's mascot, Chief Illiniwek. The chief was a white boy dressed in Indian attire. In an effort to emulate the traditional Indian dances, he would prance out on the football field, jump into the air and touch his toes, and otherwise perform a dance that was at best comical to some but insulting to her. That young lady, Charlene Teters, discovered that her efforts to get supposedly educated faculty and students to understand the racial significance of this issue would take many years, and she would face threats, insults and physical assaults in the process. Like me and others, she would soon discover that the word "fan" is the shortened version of "fanatic," and this revelation would stay true to form over the years. A maelstrom of opposition from "fanatics" across America rained down on those Indians protesting one of America's last bastions of racism. Teters continued her protests after she graduated from the University of Illinois and each year returned to the school at the start of the football season to express her displeasure and disappointment in the alumni, faculty and student body. In the beginning she was a lone figure standing at the entrance to the stadium dodging cups of water and soft drinks and even the butts of burning cigarettes flipped in her direction. But soon she was joined by Native Americans from across this great land. In the end her efforts paid off and Chief Illiniwek was put to rest, but he still pops up now and then almost as a figure of reverse protest on the part of diehards who refuse to let go. At the University of North Dakota, the same battle took place over its mascot known as the "Fighting Sioux." Last week the North Dakota Board of Higher Education took the high road and agreed to drop the nickname and Indian head logo, a move they hope will bring to an end the decades-long dispute. Supporters of the mascot still have high hopes that the mascot can be saved if the Standing Rock and Spirit Lake tribes agree by October 1, 2009, to give the university permission to use the name for 30 more years. Chances of this happening are slim to none. The board voted 8-0 to retire the logo and nickname. But a discussion on ESPN radio on Saturday featured a white man, a black man and a white woman assuring each other that using Indians as mascots didn't bother them, lacked only one defining ingredient, the opinion of a red man or woman. It is no great victory for me, Charlene Teters, Suzanne Harjo, Michael Haney, Bill Means, Vernon Bellecourt and others to witness these small successes because there is still a long road ahead of us. Haney and Bellecourt have since traveled to the Spirit World, but they still remain as a source of inspiration for those of us still left in the battle. We will take these small successes in stride because it proves to us something we have been preaching for nearly 30 years: educating Americans about using Native Americans as mascots that are demeaning, hurtful and racially motivated is still an ongoing process, and if schools like Dartmouth, Stanford, Marquette, and now North Dakota and Illinois can finally see how Indians as a people find this practice objectionable and can actually change, Americans are finally joining Indians as a part of the 21st Century. Our motto has always been and will continue to be, "We are human beings and not mascots for America's fun and games." (Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota, is the publisher of Native Sun News. He can be reached at editor@nsweekly.com)
 
Allison Kilkenny: Rumsfeld was Bush's Rasputin Top
If you want to read a really crazy article, hop over to Robert Draper's article in GQ . It's all about how former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld acted as a modern day Rasputin by manipulating the adolescent emotions and exploiting the evangelical beliefs of George W. Bush. Rasputin was a Russian mystic who curried favor with Russian Tsar, Nicholas II, by exploiting the superstitious beliefs of the royals. No one really thought a single, crazy religious nut could bring down an entire empire, and Rasputin's critics even derisively called him the "mad monk." But Rasputin was highly influential in the decisions of the royals, and when he wasn't raping nuns, he was an official court official. Elements of Rasputin foreshadowed modern evangelicalism. He used to preach about sin, and repentance, though he was simultaneously a sex fiend and a drunk. Religious and a hypocrite? Shock! Horror! Flash-forward to our own Donald Rumsfeld. In GQ 's highly insightful article, Draper describes how Rumsfeld utilized some Rasputin-like techniques to manipulate Bush's more mystic beliefs. That includes delivering highly classified intelligence briefings to Bush that featured, "triumphant, color images from the previous days' war efforts" and "a quote...from the Bible, from the book of Psalms: "Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him...To deliver their soul from death." Rumsfeld is a smart man, who is familiar with American history, so it wouldn't be fair to accuse him of a senior moment where that whole separation of church and state thing flew out of his head. This kind of play is more sinister, and something a master manipulator like Rasputin would find most appealing. This kind of tribal, religious exploitation started with Rumsputin, and extended through the military where senior military officers preached to soldiers about the benefits of Christianity. While Rumsfeld certainly approved of the covers, which is why he never put the breaks on the project, they were not his creation. That credit goes to Major General Glen Shaffer, a director for intelligence serving both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense. He says he created the biblical quotes/War Kicks Ass combo package to boost moral when the war entered quagmire territory. Some military officers may believe their proselytizing, but other officials surely used religious quotes and imagery to evoke tribal instincts in less sophisticated minds. Talking about an omnipotent stalker, who can send you to hell if you eat shellfish, is a powerful fear tactic, and a man like Rumsfeld, who has never been known to be a diehard Christian, was using a specific set of tools to appease his simple, God-fearing boss. Perhaps this isn't groundbreaking news, but it's yet again a reminder of the importance of that thing called "separation of church and state." Keep your mystics to yourselves. Cross-posted from Allison Kilkenny's blog . Also available on Facebook and Twitter . More on Religion
 
Ground Zero Emergency Drill Staged By 800 Responders Top
NEW YORK — More than 800 first responders have staged a disaster drill at the World Trade Center PATH station. The mock explosion happened Sunday morning in the PATH tunnel linking lower Manhattan to New Jersey. Hundreds of firefighters, police officers and members of other New York City agencies took part in the drill. They secured the scene and then brought the pretend victims out of the tunnel. The 150 volunteers playing victims wore makeup simulating blood and grime. Officials bought TV ads and plastered train stations with posters to warn downtown residents of the drill. There haven't been as many responders at ground zero since the Sept. 11 attacks. PATH rail service was suspended Sunday morning during the drill.
 

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)