Friday, May 29, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Martin Varsavsky: Spanish Supreme Court Forces Judge to marry Gay couples Top
If you still think about Spain as a conservative, Catholic country you can change your mind. Spain is one of the most liberal and secular countries on the planet now, up there with The Netherlands. Gambling, prostitution, are either legal or losely regulated. Even downloading movies and music is legal in Spain. And gay marriage is of course, legal as well. But today a controversy arose when a judge said that, as a Catholic, he objected to marry gay people. Newspaper El Pais reports Judge Pablo de la Rubia asked if he could possibly be excused from marrying gay couples. Surprisingly he was told by the Supreme Court that he had to marry gay couples whether he approved of their marriage or not. The argument went that because it´s legal for gay people to get married as a judge it´s part of his job to marry them. While I see the logic to the argument I think the Supreme Court´s position is too extreme. If Judge De la Rubia thinks it´s wrong for gay people to get married, he should be excused from marrying gay people. Why? For a simple reason that has nothing to do with the law. His demeanor may spoil what could be the happiest moment in the couple´s life. There are enough other judges who will be happy to do the job. The problem with gay marriage, whether in Spain or USA is that the debate many times centers around legal principles. And while doing this people in government forget that what gay marriage is, is the desire of two people to at least try, to live happily ever after.
 
Arthur Delaney: Obama's "American Stories": Families Profiled In Campaign Ad Still Struggling Top
Full Story As Election Day neared last fall, the Obama campaign went big with a 30-minute television ad that profiled four American families struggling to keep afloat in a worsening economy. Between each of the "American Stories," as Obama called them, the video showed the candidate on the hustings, promising "a rescue plan for the middle class." Four months into Obama's presidency, only one of those folks has seen anything resembling a rescue -- and it wasn't because of any government program. After the ad aired, a mysterious angel donor helped cover the costs of surgery and copayments for the Ohio retiree who suffered from crippling rheumatoid arthritis in her right hand. But not much has changed for the New Mexico educator. And the Ford employee in Kentucky has been anxiously watching the administration as it guides General Motors into bankruptcy, a process with ripple effects that could cost him his job. Things are bad enough for the fourth person featured, Rebecca Johnston, a 34-year-old mother of four in Missouri, that she has come up with a rescue plan of her own. Obama said in the ad, Johnston is "all about her family." That's why next week she'll be joining the Army Reserves. "My kids' ages range between 15 to 3. At this point I look at it like I can't contribute anything to their college, I can barely make their health care costs, we're just skimming by paycheck to paycheck," Johnston told the Huffington Post. "When you're as desperate as we feel at this age...you gotta do what you gotta do to make ends meet." In the ad, Johnston showed Obama's cameraman where she put her kids' snacks in the refrigerator door. Some of the shelves were bare. "If they know this is it for them for the whole week, then they will make it last longer." Johnston told the Huffington Post that she's enlisting for the family health benefits. "It will considerably cut our costs," she explained. Johnston added that the army will help pay off her student loans and allow her to return to school to earn a bachelor's degree. And Johnston's husband, Brian, will be able to get the knee surgery that Obama said the family had been putting off to pay for other things. But the benefits come with a price tag. After basic training, Johnston will have to serve one weekend a month and two weeks a year. And she will face the prospect of a war-zone deployment every few years in a six-year commitment. Sgt. Darron Howell, Johnston's recruiter, told the Huffington Post that she will be enlisting in the 325th Combat Support Hospital based in Independence, Mo., a unit that returned from Afghanistan a few months ago. Johnston will work as a patient administration specialist, a job similar to the one she currently holds at Liberty Hospital. But it isn't just the family health benefits and education funding that motivate her. "She's got some service-to-country feelings," Howell said. "She's been raised a very patriotic person." Johnston said she is prepared for deployment in a war zone. "It's a risk I'm willing to take. I'm not opposed to supporting my country," she said. After a year she said that she may switch to active duty. Despite that patriotic upbringing (her brother is headed to Afghanistan in July), Johnston said her parents don't approve of the plan, and neither do some of her friends. "We're just going to have to show them," she said. "What works for one family doesn't necessarily work for another, and just because it's not conventional doesn't make it wrong." She said that she created a "big giant black binder" that has all the "mom" info her husband will need if she goes to Afghanistan. "It has everything -- all the important phone numbers, medical authorizations, grocery lists, recipes," she said. Despite her personal sacrifice, Johnston said she still thinks President Obama is doing a decent job. "I believed in everything that he wanted to do for us," she said. "I'm not disappointed yet." The positive feelings of the participants in the Obama campaign ad reflect recent polls showing that the president continues to receive high approval ratings despite rising unemployment and economic uncertainties. Full Story... Related: Obama Addresses "Identity Politics" Accusations Obama Five Guys Visit: Orders Cheeseburger (VIDEO, SLIDESHOW) Michelle Obama At Bancroft Elementary School: FLOWER POWER (PHOTOS) Michelle Obama At Bancroft Elementary School: FLOWER POWER (PHOTOS) Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Barack Obama
 
John Ridley: Note to Newt: How "New Racism" Isn't Like "Old Racism" Top
Old white guys can be a funny bunch, can't they? The same anti-same-sex marriage, anti-affirmative action cadre can flower into the biggest supporters of "equality" the minute they get a whiff of minority empowerment. To that end, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is accusing Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor of being a "new racist" because of a line she delivered in a speech back in 2001. Sotomayor is quoted as saying: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Reasonable. Unless you're, like, an aging geezer peaking out of your window at those scary dark-skinned people who just bought the house across the street. Then all your shriveled up little ears hear is a supposed corollary to Sotomayor's statement which is -- according to Newt -- "My experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman" to which he added, "New racism is no better than old racism." By the way, thanks for coming to the party late on that denouncement of "old racism." But here's the deal, Newt, your "new racism" isn't like "old racism" 'cause "old racism" tended to involve things like shackles, and whips and the Middle Passage. Attack dogs, Billy clubs and water hoses. Burning crosses and lynch mobs. Confederate flags, liquor and screams of "Kill the (fill in pejorative here)!" "Old racism" was red lining and segregating and "whites only" drinking fountains, schools and country clubs. It was The Dred Scott Decision, Executive Order 9066, and the Trail of Tears. "Old racism" was a blind eye and "all deliberate speed" that wasn't deliberate or particularly speedy and nonsense about the sanctity of marriage which was crap when it was applied to "race laws" and is crap when applied to "one man/one woman." "New Racism?" That's apparently a Latina openly talking about how "more often than not" she would like to avoid the "conclusions" that allowed "old racism" to thrive. That's a long way from getting your ass beat for trying to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge so maybe your kids might one day enjoy the right to vote. The fact that Newt would even attempt to compare "old racism" and "new racism" only proves Sotomayor correct in saying that experience based on fact is very different than that based on perception. Newt, seriously, anytime you want to swap racisms give me a call. For more perspective please visit www.thatminoritything.com More on GOP
 
Scott Mendelson: Huff Post Review: Up (2009) Top
Up 2009 102 minutes Rated G by Scott Mendelson Up is the best animated film since Meet The Robinsons . Both films are unabashedly sentimental fables about the broad strokes of life. While Meet The Robinsons dealt with a young orphan boy who learns to accept the hardships that early life can bring, so that he can 'keep moving forward', Up is about a man at the end of his life, with seemingly nothing to live for except to look backwards with fondness and regret. At the risk of scaring off would-be viewers, it is the most achingly sad romantic fable since Away From Her. And while I wouldn't recommend it as a casual date movie, and I'm not sure how it will play as a family film (since the kids might wonder why mommy and daddy are crying), it is a gloriously beautiful adventure film that will likely remain the finest film of 2009. A token amount of plot - Elderly Carl (Ed Asner) has just buried Elle: his wife, his childhood sweetheart and his best friend. Waking up without any purpose to his life, he simply sits on his couch, mourning both his loss and the one adventure that his wife and he never got around to taking (life kept getting in the way). After circumstances put both his house and his freedom in jeopardy, Carl decides to live out Elle's childhood dream (traveling to South America and living in a house on the mountaintop next to the theoretical Paradise Falls). Using leftover balloons from his days as a balloon peddler, Carl sets sail as his entire home floats into the sky. As he embarks on one final adventure to keep a promise, he soon discovers that a young 'wilderness explorer scout' has accidentally stowed himself away on the front porch. That's all you get. I wouldn't dream of revealing what Carl encounters on his journey. It offers up its visual pleasures without explanation and without apology, knowing that it has earned its right to its own imagination. The film is surprisingly simple, with a relatively straight-ahead narrative that takes only a few twists along the way. As he and the young boy bond through their mutual grief (young Russell is mourning the apparent divorce of his parents and the absence of his father), Carl desperately tries to get his house to the falls before the helium runs out. Despite the melancholy undertone, this is, similar to the last Indiana Jones picture, an often rousing story about a man nearing the end of his days discovering that he still has a life left to live. While the film is basically about death and the fragility of life, Up is every bit as funny and exciting as any other Pixar film. The 'talking dog' (via electronic collar) revealed in the previews is just the beginning of the glorious discoveries that are in store. The animation is, of course, astonishing, with rich bright colors and vivid details around every corner. The score by Michael Giacchino is every bit as rousing as his work on The Incredibles. And the vocal work (mostly filled with actual voice over artists, save for Delroy Lindo and Christopher Plummer) is splendidly low-key and naturalistic and always at the service of the story (Ed Asner is wonderful per usual, although most of Carl's best moments are silent ones). Even if kids don't get the heavy dramatics at play, there are plenty of laugh-out-loud gags and gee-whiz action scenes to keep them enthralled. Up is a wonderfully touching, openly dark, and surprisingly surreal adventure story. To call the picture 'sentimental' would be an understatement, as it is often an ode to sentimentality. It uses wordless montage and the power of silence every bit as effectively as Wall-E and it's often just as action-packed as The Incredibles. It is a beautiful story, gloriously told with rich and vivid characters, eye-popping visual splendor and acknowledges the complete despairs and utter joys of life in one fell swoop. It is the finest film of 2009 and one of the finest animated films I've seen in my lifetime. Up is just that good. Grade: A+
 
Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points [79] -- Judicial Activism And Bias Top
"Judicial activism" (or, alternatively, "legislating from the bench") is defined -- no matter what your political beliefs -- as "judges not ruling the way I want them to." It's an inherently partisan statement to make, even if it doesn't sound like it. If you are a Republican, using the term means courts ruling for things you don't like. Same for Democrats. The irony is that while the charge is leveled in order to prove some sort of bias or prejudice in a judicial candidate or judge, the only thing it usually winds up proving is the bias of the accuser -- and not the accused. Because it almost always boils down to the accuser wanting the judge or justice in question to rule in a certain partisan way -- before even hearing the facts of any particular case. Republicans have begun their campaign to derail President Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. And, as usual, the cries of "judicial activism" are loud and shrill. But what is missing in this entirely predictable debate is an admission of the basic facts involved. Because our government was set up by the Founding Fathers to include a constant power struggle between the three branches. From the very beginning, the courts have struggled with both various congresses and various presidents. And "legislating from the bench" is only part of the story. There is also "adjudicating from Congress and/or the White House." And "legislating from the Oval Office." As well as "executive-ing from Congress and/or the courts" (OK, maybe that last one needs work, sorry). Kidding aside, though, our three branches of government are in constant tension, because the Constitution is remarkably vague -- or outright silent -- about where the boundaries of power between the three branches lie. This omission sets up an ongoing battle over such power, which has been going on since the very beginning of our republic. To begin with, the term "judicial activism" can be seen as somewhat of an oxymoron. Judges (and the courts) are by definition passive in our government. Courts are not allowed to interject themselves into anything they wish, no matter how much they may wish to do so. They have to, instead, wait for a case to come along with an actual injured party who is suing for redress of grievance. The judges can either grant this redress or deny it, but they cannot initiate the process . So, technically speaking, there is no such thing as an "activist judge." But judges do interpret laws every day. The Supreme Court actually made one of the first moves in this power struggle, and carved out the power to interpret the Constitution out of thin air (see: Marbury v. Madison ). By doing so, they declared themselves free to step all over Congress' ability to make law. But just because they do so, doesn't mean the other two branches necessarily have to go along with them. When the Supreme Court rules and Congress doesn't like it, they have the option of quickly passing a law overturning the court's decision (see: Lilly Ledbetter law ). Sometimes Congress overreacts in "adjudicating from Congress," and such power plays become painfully obvious to the public (see: Terri Schiavo ). The White House, as well, is in a constant struggle with both branches over the "executive privilege" claim (which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution itself). Sometimes presidents comply with court decisions on this issue (see: Nixon turning over his tapes ), and sometimes they don't (see: Bush and Cheney stonewalling courts on many disclosure issues). Sometimes presidents just out-and-out defy the Supreme Court in blatant fashion (see: Andrew Jackson and the Cherokees , or Worcester v. Georgia ). Congress and the White House have their own lines of tension in this power struggle. Congress' ability to "perform oversight" over the executive branch waxes and wanes with strong Congresses and weak. Such a bedrock government power as the ability to declare war has shifted since World War II from Congress to the president, and has never fully been resolved by the courts (see: the War Powers Act ) -- because both sides are afraid they'll lose if the Supreme Court ever actually rules on it. So they prefer to keep it vague instead of settling the issue once and for all. Even if the Supreme Court had strong opinions about the War Powers Act, it cannot take an active role until a case lands before them, since they are by definition passive. In actual fact, the only truly clear lines in the Constitution's text are over how the branches can overrule each other -- the power to pardon, and the power to impeach, both of which are fairly absolute. But in the past half-century or so, Supreme Court justices have come under a lot of partisan scrutiny (see: "Impeach Earl Warren!" ) because they have ruled on some issues which Congress has been too craven (or too politically deadlocked) to do -- like segregation in schools, for instance, or abortion. Such tension between the co-equal branches of our government, however, should be seen as the natural state of our government as the Founders intended it . Because this is precisely what is meant by the phrase "checks and balances." The Republicans, currently in a minority-party snit, have recently been trying to redefine this term to mean "a healthy balance between two political parties so that one party doesn't rule across all branches of government." This is absolute nonsense. The concept of "checks and balances" has nothing whatsoever to do with political parties or partisan politics. It has to do with the courts standing up to Congress and the White House occasionally (as well as the other ways such struggles in our power triangle manifest themselves). In other words, the Supreme Court from the beginning was supposed to be a "check" or "balance" to Congress' ability to make law. And if interpreting that law "makes" new law, then so be it. Which is another way to define "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench." Anyone who can't see that this is part of the "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution doesn't understand what "original intent" means. This power struggle has been going on for over two hundred years now, and is exactly what the Framers intended -- or else they would have explicitly laid down the boundaries when they wrote the Constitution. Judicial activism (whether it goes for your side or against your side) is as American as apple pie. It's part of who we are. Deal with it.   We have two Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out this week, I am happy to say. The first goes to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for announcing this week that the State Department would be extending spousal benefits to cover same sex partners. Gays serving in the State Department will now receive the same benefits for their partners as married couples now enjoy. WashingtonPost.com has the full list of what this covers. In the corporate world, this would not be seen as big news, since most international corporations granted spousal benefits to gay employees years ago. But it is indeed big news, because this is a department of the federal government, who, in the words of former ambassador Michael Guest (who resigned in 2007 after a 29-year diplomatic career) said treated diplomatic pets better than same sex partners. And it is big news because Clinton's effort may run afoul of the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) which bans the federal government from doing precisely this sort of thing. The inevitable lawsuit by those who care about such things has not yet been filed, but will undoubtedly be in the works once Clinton officially makes the rule change. And Clinton testing DOMA in the courts is ironic, since it was her husband who signed the law in the first place. For standing tall on gay rights, Hillary Clinton gets a MIDOTW award. This is why the award is known as "The Golden Backbone," and we applaud Hillary for showing the strength of hers. And the second (although we're not entirely sure she's officially a Democrat) goes to Sonia Sotomayor, for her life story and for being the first of Obama's nominees to the Supreme Court. Being the first Latina nominated to the highest court in the land is impressive enough, but the more you hear about her story, the more impressive she gets. I recently had the occasion to talk to a Princeton alumna who attended school with Sotomayor as an undergraduate. She said the most impressive thing about Sotomayor was not that she graduated summa cum laude , but that she won the Pyne Prize the same year. The Moses Taylor Pyne Honor Prize, given to the senior who has "manifested in outstanding fashion... excellent scholarship and effective support of the best interests of Princeton University," is Princeton's highest honor awarded to an undergraduate. And, according to my source, most Princeton grads remember who won the Pyne Prize over who their valedictorian was. It's that impressive. Sotomayor was the first Latina to win the prize, which is given not just for outstanding grades but also for community involvement and extracurricular activities. While the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award may not be as prestigious as the other awards on Sotomayor's shelf, for her nomination to the Supreme Court she has had a week which can only be called "impressive" by all. For that, she has earned her MIDOTW award. Well done, Judge Sotomayor! [ Congratulate Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the State Department contact page to let her know you appreciate her efforts. Congratulate Sonia Sotomayor via the White House's contact page , who will be shepherding her confirmation process. ]   Sadly, we also have two winners in the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week category as well. First up is Terry McAuliffe. You may remember him from the Clinton years. He is now running for governor of the commonwealth of Virginia. Since he knows oodles of deep-pocket donors, it's expected he will raise boatloads of cash for the primary race. But a rather ugly story surfaced this week, which McAuliffe did not deny. Ralph Nader publicly accused McAuliffe of a rather sneaky tactic in the 2004 presidential race. From the WashingtonPost.com blog which broke the story : "Nader said that McAuliffe offered him an unspecified amount of money to campaign in 31 states if Nader would agree to pull his campaign in 19 battleground states." Mark Nickolas at Huffington Post has a good overview of the whole mess as well. So, even though this occurred quite a while back, Terry McAuliffe is hereby awarded a retroactive MDDOTW award for trying to use cash to influence an election in a way that may not have been illegal, but certainly reeks of unfairness. But in the "cash changing hands for nefarious purposes" category, McAuliffe isn't this week's most brazen disappointment. For that, we had Roland Burris' other shoe dropping. To review our story so far: Burris entered the Senate under a gigantic cloud labeled "Rod Blagojevich." Blagojevich appointed Burris on Blaggy's way out the door of the Illinois governor's mansion (from which he was dragged kicking and screaming, in disgrace). Blaggy was taken down for his whole "pay to play" theory of government. Burris, when he was being seated, was asked whether he had offered any "pay to play" money to Blaggy, and Burris denied the charge. But one of those pesky tapped phone conversations came to light this week, in which Burris offered not only campaign donations to Blaggy, but also offered to mow his lawn every week, wash his car, and let him win at golf. Actually, I made most of that up -- I don't even know if the two play golf. Ahem. Seriously, though, Burris is quoted in the transcript assuring Blaggy's brother that he would write a check for Blaggy's campaign, and (by the way) that Burris really, really, really wanted to be a senator. So, both for the act of offering such "pay to play" money, and for lying about it later (to Congress, no less, some of whom are now seriously annoyed at Burris), Roland Burris has earned his Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. For shame, both of you! [ Contact Terry McAuliffe on his campaign contact page , and Senator Roland Burris on his Senate contact page , to let them know what you think of their actions. ]   Volume 79 (5/29/09) For the most part, the voices being raised against Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court are doing their own job of discrediting themselves. So a light touch is recommended this week in pushback. Her detractors have already got enough rope to hang themselves, so to speak, with racial overtones on full display. Leading the pack is none other than Newt Gingrich, who shows once again (see: Newt serving divorce papers to his wife's hospital bed) that he has a spectacularly bad sense of timing. For all Democrats, and especially those who happen to hold office and are being interviewed by the media this weekend, we present our weekly roundup of talking points.      You just can't make this stuff up Seriously, you can't. "I notice that Newt Gingrich called Sonia Sotomayor a racist recently on Twitter. The most disturbing part of this story, though, is that he posted this less than 24 hours after he visited Auschwitz . You just can't make this stuff up, folks."      Some good advice... from a Republican Other (and wiser) Republicans are urging some caution in the attacks on Sotomayor. Will the red-meat base (and those who play to them or raise money
 
James Boyce: Why Are Boeing, Citigroup And The U.S. Navy Calling Sonia Sotomayor "Latino KKK?" Top
Tom Tancredo is a disgusting racist bigot. And the people who enable him to remain in power, by donating money to his political career, are equally guilty of what he says. Without them, he is nothing. So Boeing Airlines, or anyone who works for Boeing, does this make you proud? Are there any Latino employees at Citigroup who are proud they called Sonia Sotomayor a racist? Or The US Navy, is this smart to advocate the bombing of Mecca? Now, what about the individuals who have given over $8 million to this guy in his career? I think you bought him, you paid for him, you own him. Every single donor of a politician is responsible for his or her actions, just as every employer who pays an employee is responsible for them. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Beth Arnold: Letter From Paris: Christian Lacroix, We Love You Top
It was with great sadness we read that the fashion house of Christian Lacroix filed for court protection from creditors--bankruptcy--yesterday. I had actually been tipped of the dismal news last week, so I wasn't surprised--but sorry that this extraordinary man whose fashions we lusted after for so many years was facing this ending. But only for now, I'll say. Didn't we all want to be Patsy or Eddie on Absolutely Fabulous in some sense?! And we all loved Lacroix even more because they adored him so! From Suzy Menkes : The loss of Christian Lacroix to Paris haute couture is immeasurable. Although the designer hopes to hold a small presentation during the July couture season, this was the last house established under the formal couture rules. Christian Lacroix also designed the boutique Hotel du Petit Moulin in Paris. It was the jewel hotel where I most wanted to spend the night in my hometown. Lacroix, of course ! Christian Lacroix is the name behind the interior design of this new 4* hotel lying in the heart of Le Marais, the historic area of Paris....This 17th century building was the site of an ancient bakery. I'd just like to say, Monsieur Lacroix, we wish you well. We know this is not the end--and we look forward to the next Lacroix incarnation--whatever it may be! We send our love. Readers, I would love to hear your thoughts, ideas, or appreciation of Christian Lacroix in the comments below. Beth Arnold lives and writes in Paris. You can see more of Letter From Paris at www.betharnold.com . This piece is crossposted there with photos.
 
Margaret Carlson: Real Housewives of D.C. Can't Beat C-SPAN Top
Bravo announced this week that it is expanding its Real Housewives franchise to the nation's capital, with its "influential players, cultural connoisseurs, fashion sophisticates and philanthropic leaders." Have they been here lately? The best-dressed aide on Capitol Hill would horrify the lowest grip at Universal Studios. There are no cultural connoisseurs. Congressional leaders can be dragged to the Kennedy Center once a year for a televised gala, and they leave early. For women, fashion is low heels and the Hillary Clinton pantsuit; for men, any tie that doesn't have a soup stain. As for philanthropy, there is no Bill Gates or Ford Foundation. The Rockefeller we have is in the Senate, lives quietly and leaves handing out the family fortune to relatives. But we do have influential players, and the most influential of all sells everything from magazines to bobblehead dolls. Barack Obama has made Washington interesting again -- young, smart, out and about. He has a beautiful wife, who he appears to be in love with, and two photogenic daughters, who appear amazingly well-behaved. But that doesn't translate into fodder for Bravo. Let's face it: Michelle Obama isn't one of the 25 housewives on Bravo's short list. And none of the mini-Michelles in the White House -- like Sarah Feinberg, the blond and beautiful aide to Rahm Emanuel -- would think of taking a call from a reality TV producer. A potential assistant deputy undersecretary of something someday, she's not taking any risks. To be wild and crazy in the West Wing is to tape a segment for PBS's News Hour . As for ratings, must-watch TV in D.C. is Timothy Geithner testifying before the House Banking Committee and making the market arrow in the corner of the screen go up -- or down -- 100 points. See the cameras click as Nancy Pelosi in her sensible suit accuses a CIA briefer of lying. Tune in as Dick Cheney expels former Secretary of State Colin Powell, one of the most admired people in America, from the Republican party on Face the Nation , Washington's version of American Idol . What's won the Real Housewives high ratings is in short supply here: obvious wealth, shopping as sport, conspicuous beauty and indulgent husbands. It's not North Korea's nuclear bomb and TARP. Squabbles over Sarbanes-Oxley rock our world. In the real Washington, housewives don't have the discretionary income to be interesting. They are widowed by husbands working on -- or living off of -- Capitol Hill or the White House, virtually raising the children alone. They try to snatch a few minutes listening to National Public Radio while driving the carpool in a futile effort not to be ignored at the rare cocktail party where someone might deign to talk to them. If they have money, they can't hire help because their husbands don't want a nanny problem should they be face vetting as a nominee to run Treasury. Which brings us to another deficit Real Housewives needs to consider: Job lust is the only kind of lust here. We're too busy for sex, burning the midnight oil reading up on new rules to curb credit default swaps or watching Jon Stewart to see if a colleague is being lampooned. And the morning. Forget it. We're speed-clicking the remote dropping in on Morning Joe and Today while reading three papers to make sure we can say yes when asked if we saw that piece on land-use planning while at the gym, where we're working off the slabs of rare roast beef served at not-to-be-missed fundraisers. The only sign of sex is the kind over which politicians lose their jobs. Which brings us to the city's escort business which as the Emperor's VIP Club patronized by Client #9 shows is thriving. It's so vibrant you would think Congress was subsidizing it, like soybeans. To duplicate the drama of the other real wives, Bravo would have to go outside the Beltway where McMansions, day spas, manipulated husbands, spoiled children, frozen smiles and country clubs abound. As a final cautionary note, let me refer Bravo executives to the experience of the most famous Washington housewife, often called the most beautiful movie star in the world, Elizabeth Taylor. In 1976 she made John Warner, a former Navy secretary who would go on to the U.S. Senate, her sixth husband. Even she couldn't cut through the singular focus of politicians on the make. At parties, she would stand alone as guests proved power is the ultimate aphrodisiac by making a beeline for Henry Kissinger. She knew she was in the wrong town when a photographer aiming his camera at a four-star admiral talking with Warner asked Taylor to step out of the picture. The two divorced in 1982, but not before Taylor complained that she gained 50 pounds watching old movies and eating hot fudge sundaes alone, waiting for Warner to get home. I wish Bravo the best of luck. And I'll be sure to tune in, as long as it doesn't conflict with C-SPAN's Journalist Roundtable. Originally published on Bloomberg News .
 
Kamala D. Harris: Why It Is Critical That the African American Community Unite Behind Sonia Sotomayor Top
As I watched the announcement of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the United States Supreme Court, I, like many Americans, was struck by the historic picture on my television screen. The nation's first African American president nominating the first Latina as a potential Supreme Court Justice. Few things have made me prouder as an American than seeing our country put aside age-old prejudices and in choosing hope over fear, elect the first African American President. We elected Barack Obama not because of his race, but because he was the best person to lead our country. Today we face a similar choice as the Senate considers President Obama's nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. Opponents of Judge Sotomayor, such as Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter, are calling her a "racist" for expressing view that we need judges with a diversity of life experiences. There is something tragic in the transparent cynicism of this charge. Do they also intend to condemn Abraham Lincoln for the pride he took in his hardscrabble roots on the western frontier? This is America, where people of all races are rightly proud of accomplishments in the face of adversity. As Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall said while celebrating the bicentennial of our constitution in 1987: "The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787...could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman and the descendant of an African slave." Yet today a Latina Judge has been nominated by an African American president for the job of construing our constitution. As the president noted during his announcement of her appointment, there are few presidential decisions as important as the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. Over the coming years the Supreme Court will likely rule on such critical issues as voting rights, gun control and the regulation of Wall Street. I intend to make it my mission to galvanize my community in support of Judge Sotomayor's confirmation. And I will make the same case for Judge Sotomayor that I made for then-Senator Barack Obama. It is very simple: Judge Sotomayor is the best qualified American for this job. Judge Sotomayor has all of the legal and life experience to be an excellent Supreme Court Justice. She grew up in a public housing project in the South Bronx and was raised by a single mom who also found time to attend community college, work full-time and train to become a registered nurse. Judge Sotomayor worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan, where she prosecuted dozens of serious criminal cases. As a former prosecutor, Judge Sotomayor has the courtroom experience necessary to make rulings based on a working knowledge of our courts. Judge Sotomayor has a history of bipartisanship and a wealth of experience on the bench. She has been appointed to judicial positions by both President George H. W. Bush and President Clinton. Serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one of the most demanding in the nation, she has participated in more than 3000 panel decisions and authored 400 opinions on a multitude of complex issues. As the President noted, Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years. I strongly believe that all Americans benefit when we have leaders who represent the broad diversity of the American experience. Too often, people have tried to create false divisions between the African-American and Latino communities. Regardless of our differences, the truth is that we all share the same hopes and dreams. We should stand together against bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and fight for the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Shira Tarrant: Sonia Sotomayor: The Answer Rhymes with "Fender" Top
The question: Why is the media talking about Sonia Sotomayor's tongue or temperament? In a recent New York Times article, " Sotomayor's Blunt Style Raises Issue of Temperament ," journalists Jo Becker and Adam Liptak write that President Obama's Supreme Court nominee "has a blunt and even testy side." Evidence includes the following: •She's interrupted lawyers arguing before her bench •She's been known to "pepper" attorneys with "skeptical questions" •She's grilled lawyers •She's been called "difficult" and is known for running a "hot bench" So what? This gets media play -- in the formidable New York Times , at that -- because Sonia Sotomayor is female. And so easily sex becomes gender. By attaching human qualities to male and female biological bodies we end up with a gender formula that goes like this: Gentle, nurturing, emotional = feminine. Bold, fearless, rational = masculine. That's gender. And beware to those who dare cross the line. The stakes are high. In this instance at stake is a seat on the highest court in the land. The thing is, emotion and reason are both qualities we want in a Supreme Court justice. When honed by education, intelligence, and broad experience, these are among the qualities that point to an engaged, thoughtful legal expert capable of performing their duties at the utmost level of competence. Look at it this way: If Sotomayor were a highly trained surgeon would she be called "too exacting," "picky," or "a clean freak"? We want surgeons who are focused, precise, and hygienic. We want Supreme Court justices who are forceful, assertive, and lucid. We also want surgeons and judges who care. These are not mutually exclusive qualities. In any case, as Becker and Liptak report , complaints that Sotomayor has been unduly caustic are unfounded. For a time, Judge and former Yale Law School Dean, Guido Calabresi tracked the questions posed by Sotomayor and the 11 other judges of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. "Her behavior was identical," he said. "Some lawyers just don't like to be questioned by a woman," Judge Calabresi added. "It was sexist, plain and simple." But here's the trick. The failed sleight of hand, if you will. Some detractors oppose Sotomayor's nomination because of her overly direct style, while others like Karl Rove object to her empathy. That Catch-22 has the hallmarks of an ideological battle that can't be won -- because it makes no sense. They might think they have all their bases covered, but conservatives who argue that Sotomayor is too quick, too rational, too emotional, and too empathetic need to check it. This flailing about is logically bizarre and politically undignified. Critics like Heritage Foundation fellow Robert Alt who freak out that Sotomayor brings her personal experience to the bench are exposing their own selective prejudice. Which part of Sotomayor's history bothers them the most -- her time at Princeton or at Yale? Judge Sotomayor is a graduate of both. Sotomayor also grew up in the South Bronx, the daughter of a single mother. She was the youngest Manhattan federal judge and she is the first Latina nominee to the Supreme Court. What a rich and variegated life. Like many of us, Sonia Sotomayor has walked in many worlds. Like all of us, Sotomayor is a complex blend of reason and emotion, empathy and detachment. None of us are automatons, detached from our inner landscape and external impacts. We bring these qualities to the table regardless our pursuits. It's just that some of us cop to it, while others take a stance of pretend neutrality. In a 2001 lecture at Berkeley, Judge Sotomayor now famously said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Sotomayor will be accountable to this statement, with its own brand of ethnic hierarchy. Nobody is above scrutiny. Yet it is crucial that we can both critically question statements such as this and also understand the politics of empathy and individual insight. Life experience and personal attributes come into question only when they challenge rigid assumptions about gender -- and race, or class, or ethnicity. That's how stereotypes work. It's a tired old story. In 2009, it's surprising to see politicians still promoting it and the mainstream media still falling for it. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Feds Scrutinizing Deal Between City And Mayor Daley's Nephew Top
City pension officials have been hit with subpoenas from a federal grand jury trying to determine how they decided to invest $68 million with a start-up company co-owned by Mayor Daley's nephew.
 
Attorney General Lisa Madigan Opens Investigation Into Chicago Parking Meter Deal Top
Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan has opened an investigation into the "transaction and implementation" of Chicago's parking meter privatization deal, according to a Madigan spokesperson.
 
Art Brodsky: Obama's CyberSecurity Speech Shows He Gets the Open Web Top
It is truly remarkable that we have a president of the United States who used the word, "phishing," and didn't mean going out to the creek on the ranch and throwing a line in the water. He used it in the proper way for that spelling, referring to online scammers soliciting information from unwary Internet users. Even beyond the news value of President Obama's speech today (May 29) on cybersecurity speech the change in zeitgeist is stunning. We haven't seen such a tech-savvy group of public officials since the Clinton years, and even then it was largely Vice President Al Gore and his staff who were driving the tech policy for (still) tech illiterate Bill Clinton in the early days of the development of the online world -- that virtual stimulus project then known as the Information Superhighway. And beyond even the phishing and the worms and the botnets and malware references, Obama's speech encapsulated the duality of the Internet. Like any technology, it can be harnessed for good, or for evil. As Obama put it: "It's the great irony of our Information Age -- the very technologies that empower us to create and to build also empower those who would disrupt and destroy. And this paradox -- seen and unseen -- is something that we experience every day." In order to fulfill the promise of economic development and combat the threat to that development, Obama outlined a comprehensive cybersecurity approach. Despite the gravity of the situation, Obama defended and made clear his position on keeping the Internet free: "Let me also be clear about what we will not do. Our pursuit of cybersecurity will not -- I repeat, will not include -- monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic. We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans. Indeed, I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the Internet as it should be -- open and free." The White House's 60-day review of cybersecurity recognizes the complexity of issues, by including not only a commitment to Net Neutrality, but also to civil liberties and privacy. This speech was the second time in recent days that a top Administration official (and really, you can't top the president), came out for an open Internet. In his report to Congress, Bringing Broadband to Rural America: Report on a Rural Broadband Strategy," Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps made the same point: "The value of open networks is not a novel concept, but the Commission must act to ensure that the genius of the open Internet is not lost." Copps, too, cited the importance of an open Internet to economic development. While it's great to see the Administration out front on protections of a free and nondiscriminatory Internet, it's also not clear at this time if anyone is listening, or preparing to follow the Administration's lead. Some Democratic legislators are sympathetic to an open and neutral Internet, but aren't particularly eager to take on the political fight necessary to get it done. Perhaps if the issue were viewed not only in the non-discrimination sense, but also in terms of increasing competition to benefit consumers, a little more will might be found. Some in the Media Mogul camp as well appear to be a tad oblivious of the Administration's goals. Or, if not oblivious, they don't particularly care. Zillion TV, the mystery company of Silicon Valley is one candidate. The company claims to provide a better TV watching service, having made deals with Sony, Warner Brothers, NBC/Universal and Disney. On its web site , the company claims: "Without getting too technical, we work with your Internet service provider to make sure you can get the richest, creamiest programs playing right on your TV." It won't disclose which Internet Service Providers are part of this arrangement, or where it's available but the Web site says the service is "rolling out across the U.S." Also on the attention-deficit list is Time Warner. The company tried, unsuccessfully, to push through the North Carolina legislature a bill to hamper municipalities which were fed up with the service they were getting from commercial companies and wanted to offer their own. Instead, the company resorted to that old hack, the Terms of Service. (Hat Tip to Stop the Cap! for catching this one.) Under the new TOS , the non-guaranteed throughput rate "may be affected by Network Management Tools, the prioritization of TWC commercial subscriber traffic and network control information, and necessary bandwidth overhead used for protocol and network information." Part of that commercial traffic is Time Warner's own digital phone service, which is separate from the normal Internet service that would carry, say, a competitor like Vonage of Skype. In the TOS: " HSD (High Speed Data) Service does not include other services managed by TWC and delivered over TWC's shared infrastructure, including Video Service and Digital Phone Service." Comcast got into trouble by throttling the service of selected protocols, like BitTorrent. In its new TOS, Time Warner Cable (TWC) claims the same privileges: "TWC may use Network Management Tools as it determines appropriate and/or that it may use technical means, including but not limited to suspending or reducing the Throughput Rate of my HSD Service, to ensure compliance with its Terms of Use and to ensure that its service operates efficiently." Even though the company said publicly it was abandoning its attempt to meter and to cap usage, its small, small print lays the foundation for the return of the caps: "If the level or tier of HSD Service to which I subscribe has a specified limit on the amount of bytes that I can use in a given billing cycle, I also agree that TWC may use technical means, including but not limited to suspending or reducing the speed of my HSD Service, to ensure compliance with these limits, and that TWC or ISP may move me to a higher tier of HSD Service (which may result in higher monthly charges) or impose other charges and fees if my use exceeds these limits." Administration support for an open, non-discriminatory and competitive Internet is wonderful. It will be even more wonderful when the Administration goes phishing for some Congressional support for that Internet. More on Barack Obama
 
White House: Sotomayor Used Poor Choice Of Words Top
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Friday personally sought to deflect criticism about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who finds herself under intensifying scrutiny for saying in 2001 that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge. "I'm sure she would have restated it," Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that. The quote in question from Sotomayor has emerged as a rallying call for conservative critics who fear she will offer opinions from the bench based less on the rule of law and more on her life experience, ethnicity and gender. That debate is likely to play a central role in her Senate confirmation process. Said Sotomayor in 2001: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." After three days of suggesting that reporters and critics should not dwell on one sentence from a speech, the White House had a different message Friday. "I think if she had the speech to do all over again, I think she'd change that word," presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters. Gibbs said he did not hear that from Sotomayor directly, but rather from people who had talked to her, and he did not identify who those people were. Sotomayor herself has made no public comments about the matter and was not available for comment. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 

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)