Thursday, May 14, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Arianna Huffington: Ending the War on Drugs: The Moment is Now Top
When it comes to addressing America's disastrous war on drugs, the Obama administration appears to be moving in the right direction -- albeit very, very cautiously. On the rhetorical front, all the president's men are saying the right things. In his first interview since being confirmed, Obama's new drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, said that we need to stop looking at our drug problem as a war. "Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs" or a 'war on product,'" he told the Wall Street Journal , "people see war as a war on them. We're not at war with people in this country." He also said that it was time to focus more on treatment and less on incarceration. Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government would no longer raid and prosecute distributors of medical marijuana who operate in accordance with state law in the 13 states where voters have made it legal. Holder has also said that his department intends to eliminate the outrageous and prejudicial sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. And while on the campaign trail, President Obama called for repealing the ban on federal funding for anti-AIDS programs that supply clean needles to drug users. All positive signs that we are ready to move beyond our failed war on drugs. But when it comes to putting its rhetoric into action, the Obama administration has faltered. Just a week after the Attorney General said there would be no more medical marijuana raids, the DEA raided a licensed medical marijuana dispensary in California. Obama's '09-'10 budget proposes to continue the longstanding ban on federal funding of needle exchange programs. The current budget is still overwhelmingly skewed in favor of the drug war approach -- indeed, it allocates more to drug enforcement and less to prevention than even George Bush did. Testifying today in front of the House Judiciary Committee, Holder, in his opening statement, called for a working group to examine federal cocaine sentencing policy: "Based on that review, we will determine what sentencing reforms are appropriate, including making recommendations to Congress on changes to crack and powder cocaine sentencing policy." A working group? Why? As a senator, Obama co-sponsored legislation (introduced by Joe Biden) to end the disparity. What further review is needed? (To be fair, during questioning, Holder said he and the president both favored doing away with the crack/powder disparity and said that Justice would even consider doing away with mandatory minimums altogether. But why the initial equivocation and the use of the very familiar needs-further-review dodge?) So the question becomes: is the Obama administration really committed to a fundamental shift in America's approach to drug policy or is this about serving up a kinder, gentler drug war? And this at a time when the tide is clearly turning. Inspired by the massive budget crises facing many states, and the increase in drug violence both at home and abroad -- leaders on all points across the political spectrum appear more willing to rethink our ruinous drug policies. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for "an open debate" and careful study of proposals to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox has also urged renewing the debate , saying that he isn't convinced taxing and regulating drugs is the answer but "why not discuss it?" Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, pointing to evidence that Mexican drug cartels draw 60 to 80 percent of their revenue from pot, suggested legalization might be an effective tool to combat Mexican drug traffickers and American gangs. And, in a major shift in the global drug policy debate, a Latin American commission, headed by the former presidents Fernando Cardoso of Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, and Cesar Gavaria of Colombia issued a devastating report condemning America's 40-year war on drugs. "Prohibitionist policies based on eradication, interdiction and criminalization of consumption simply haven't worked," the former presidents wrote in a joint op-ed . "The revision of U.S.-inspired drug policies is urgent in light of the rising levels of violence and corruption associated with narcotics. The alarming power of the drug cartels is leading to a criminalization of politics and a politicization of crime." They called for "a paradigm shift in drug policies" that begins with "changing the status of addicts from drug buyers in the illegal market to patients cared for by the public health system." And in Congress, Sen. Jim Webb has introduced legislation, with co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, to create a blue-ribbon commission to examine criminal justice and drug policies and how they have led to our nation's jam-packed jails -- now filled with tens of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders. "With so many of our citizens in prison compared with the rest of the world," Webb wrote in a recent Parade cover story , "there are only two possibilities: Either we are home to the most evil people on earth or we are doing something different--and vastly counterproductive. Obviously, the answer is the latter." I understand that drugs continue to be a political hot potato, fueled by what the Latin American presidents described as "prejudices and fears that sometimes bear little relation to reality." And I can easily picture some on the president's team advising him to keep the issue on the backburner lest it turn into his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." But the cost of the drug war -- both human and financial -- is far too high to allow politics to dictate the administration's actions. Indeed, with all the budget cutting going on, how can anyone justify spending tens of billions of dollars a year on an unwinnable war against our own people? Change won't be easy. The prison-industrial complex has a deeply vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Which is why we need to keep the pressure on the president and his team to follow through on their drug policy promises. As with the regulation of Wall Street, real reform of our nation's drugs policies won't happen without someone in the administration making it a top priority. The jury is still out on Kerlikowske. His law enforcement background could make him the drug war equivalent of Tim Geithner -- too enmeshed in the system he is tasked with overhauling. Holder shows more promise. But he'll have to avoid the let's-have-a-working-group-review-decisions-that-have-already-been-decided approach. As a reminder, I'm planning to send the Attorney General a few copies of This Is Your Country On Drugs , a book out next month on the history of drug use and drug policy in America by our HuffPost Congressional correspondent Ryan Grim . In it, he argues that the goal of U.S. policy should not be to eliminate drugs, but to prevent and treat the addiction and other problems that come with them: "As currently understood and implemented, drug policy attempts to isolate a phenomenon that can't be taken in isolation. Economic policy is drug policy. Healthcare policy is drug policy. Foreign policy, too, is drug policy. When approached in isolation, drug policy almost always leads to unfortunate and unintended consequences." With three-quarters of the drug offenders clogging our state prisons there for nonviolent offenses -- and a disproportionate number of those young men of color -- the time has come to wage a full-scale war on the war on drugs. More on Eric Holder
 
Cramdown Versus Credit Cards: What A Difference A President Makes Top
What a difference a president can make. In the lead-up to the recent vote on anti-foreclosure legislation in the Senate, the White House was nowhere to be found. As the bill marched to its death, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) lamented the administration's "ambivalence." With little standing against it, the banking lobby pillaged the Senate, persuading a dozen Democrats to vote against homeowners. The day after it was killed, the administration released a note saying it still wanted "appropriately tailored bankruptcy language." Contrast that with credit card reform. On Wednesday night, Dodd, the credit card bill's champion, took to the Senate floor to announce that it was Obama's push for the bill that opened the possibility for its passage. Obama brought the heads of the credit card companies to the White House. He publicly called for tough reforms. On Thursday, the day the vote was scheduled to take place, he gave it one of the heftiest pushes he could, holding one of his patented town hall meetings on credit cards. "These practices, they've only grown worse in the middle of this recession, when people can afford them least," he told the crowd. The Senate ran out of time Thursday, but the bill is headed for passage on Tuesday, when the chamber reconvenes. What explains the contrasting approaches? Most obviously, it's hard to find a more odious villain than credit card companies. Everybody hates them. And credit card reform is easier to explain than the bill aimed at reducing foreclosures. It would have allowed judges in bankruptcy court to renegotiate - or cramdown - a homeowners mortgage. That takes more time to explain than a bill whose purpose is to prevent credit card companies from punching you in the mouth - a habit every American knows credit card companies have no plan to kick. "Bankruptcy reform, important as it was, was sort of esoteric. If you went into O'Halloran's Pub, the fellas aren't saying to you, 'What's going on with bankruptcy reform?'" Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) told the Huffington Post. "But they might say, 'What are you doing about my credit cards?' The average person feels the second much more than the first, even though both are important." Opponents of bankruptcy reform were able to shape the terms of the debate effectively. Why should somebody who lied to get a mortgage get bailed out while I play by the rules? Democrats tried to make the case that foreclosures affect everybody and are at the heart of the financial crisis, but Santelli-ism prevailed. More importantly, the credit card bill is also not a fundamental threat to the structure of the financial industry. Rather than a knife to the gut, it's more a paper cut. Being required to warn consumers before jacking up interest rates may annoy financial institutions, but it won't radically alter the way they do business. The one piece of credit card reform that did go to the heart of the finance industry went nowhere. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats, introduced an amendment to cap interest rates at 15 percent. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) used a parliamentary maneuver to prevent it from coming up for a vote. In the motion to overrule Shelby, only 33 senators stuck with Sanders. The cramdown bill, on the other hand, went right at it. Allowing homeowners to renegotiate mortgages in bankruptcy would tilt power away from the banks. It would give them an incentive to work out mortgage modifications rather than go to foreclosure. It would threaten the securitized bond market and require investors to do more diligent research about the loans they purchased and bundled. Obama had company on the sidelines as he watched the banks run up the score on bankruptcy reform. There was little organized push from the left. MoveOn.org, which called its members to action to push the bankruptcy bill over the line in the House was silent during the Senate fight. Labor did some internal lobbying work but, a labor lobbyist told the Huffington Post, its membership was concentrating on grassroots activity on the Employee Free Choice Act. AARP, another public supporter of the bill and a powerful lobby, never activated its membership, an AARP spokeswoman said. The Center for Responsible Lending was arguably the most visible group involved in negotiations, but it has a limited budget and no mass membership. Progressive groups have been much more vocal in the push for credit card reform, support that Democratic aides say has made it dramatically easier to push the bill. MoveOn activated its members, as did a broad coalition of liberal and consumer organizations. "We applaud President Obama for his leadership in pushing for reforms of credit card industry practices that unfairly strip billions of dollars from America's families each year," a broad coalition of progressive organizations representing consumers, civil rights groups, small businesses and labor said in a joint statement today. "We're glad President Obama has reaffirmed his commitment to signing the bill by Memorial Day and urge the Senate to act quickly to meet that deadline." The president has a powerful bullhorn in his hands, but it only works when he speaks into it.
 
UN Watchdog Warns Of 20 New Nuclear States In Next Few Years Top
The number of potential nuclear weapons states could more than double in a few years unless the major powers take radical steps towards disarmament, the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog has warned.
 
SNL Season 34: By the Numbers Top
"New York Magazine" prepared for this week's impending finale of "Saturday Night Live" by breaking down season into statistical categories including "Total Sketch Appearances By Cast Member," "Most Frequently Impersonated Celebrity," and "Guest Appearances In Skits." Unsurprisingly, Kristin Wiig ruled the school, appearing in the most sketches per episodes and overall, besting the next most popular comedian (Jason "Floyd" Sudeikis) by 25 sketches over the year. Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers pulled up the rear only because "Weekend Update" takes almost all of their time. Also unsurprisingly Obama, McCain, Biden and Palin were the most impersonated people; Palin the least because she's the only character played by a guest rather than a full-time SNL-er. Which brings us to the most frequent guest star: Tina Fey. READ THE WHOLE PIECE HERE, INCLUDING FULL STATS. More on SNL
 
NYC Closing Schools Due To Swine Flu Outbreak Top
NEW YORK — New York City has closed three schools in response to a swine flu outbreak that has left one staff member in critical condition and sent hundreds of kids home with flu symptoms, in a flare-up of the deadly virus that sent shock waves through the world last month. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that four students and an assistant principal who is critically ill have documented cases of swine flu at a Queens middle school. More than 50 students have gone home sick with flulike symptoms there, he said. At another middle school in Queens, 241 students were absent Thursday. Dozens more were sick at an elementary school. Bloomberg said that three locations _ all special education schools with more than 4,000 students _ would be closed for at least a week because "there are an unusually high level of flulike illnesses at those schools." "There are documented cases of H1N1 flu at one of them," the mayor said, using the formal name for swine flu. The mayor said that the sick assistant principal may have had pre-existing health problems. In many other swine flu cases that turned critical, patients had pre-existing conditions. New York City's first known cases of swine flu appeared in late April, when hundreds of teenagers at a Roman Catholic high school in Queens began falling ill following the return of several students from vacations in Mexico, where the outbreak began. At first, the virus appeared to be moving at breakneck speed. An estimated 1,000 students, their relatives and staff at the St. Francis Preparatory School fell ill in a matter of days. City health officials became aware of the outbreak on April 24. The school closed and health officials began bracing for more illnesses throughout the city. But the outbreak then seemed to subside. Additional sporadic cases continued to be diagnosed, but the symptoms were nearly all mild. The sick children recovered in short order. St. Francis reopened after being closed for a week. The middle school with the confirmed cases is two miles from St. Francis. Health officials in New York and elsewhere said that the virus, at least in the U.S., appeared to pack no more serious a punch than the seasonal influenza viruses that arrive each winter. More on Swine Flu
 
Peter Daou: Anything Less Than Absolute Moral Clarity from Democrats Will Enshrine Bush's Abuses Top
Over the past four months there have been a series of flare-ups between the Obama administration and the progressive activist community, centered mainly around the new administration's willingness (or lack thereof) to reverse Bush-Cheney's radical excesses in the realm of civil liberties, secrecy, detainee treatment, interrogation, and counter-terrorism. Ever astute and incisive, Digby raises what I think is the critical point in this entire debate: The argument against torture is slipping away from us. In fact, I'm getting the sinking feeling that it's over. What was once taboo is now publicly acknowledged as completely acceptable by many people. Indeed, disapproval of torture is now being characterized as a strictly partisan issue, like welfare reform or taxes. Ari Melber, my former Kerry campaign colleague, takes a parallel tack, arguing that there should be no debate here; torture is illegal. Even Bush acknowledged that. Glenn Greenwald, an indispensible voice on this topic, says bluntly : Ever since he was inaugurated, Obama has taken one extreme step after the next to keep concealed both the details and the evidence of Bush's crimes, including rendition, torture and warrantless eavesdropping. As has been the case for years, Democratic leaders, operating within the Washington bubble, misconstrue the concerns of the netroots and often privately dismiss them as the rantings of immature outsiders and political neophytes. But as always, the progressive community, a far more efficient thinking machine than a handful of strategists and advisers, is looking ahead and raising a unified alarm. The message is this: anything less than absolute moral clarity from Democrats, who now control the levers of power, will enshrine Bush's abuses and undermine the rule of law for generations to come. Setting aside all the campaign slogans about hope and change, what Obama really signifies is a razor sharp break from Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Rice, Rumsfeld, Addington, Libby, Bybee et al. After eight years of damage to the fabric of our Constitution and our nation, the entire point of a new face, a smart, youthful, inspiring Democratic president is to completely and totally reject the Bush years, to reject the lawless behavior, the Orwellian rationales, the blatant disregard of the Constitution. Neglecting to do so, and leaving any doubt about where Democrats stand on these issues, is profoundly detrimental to the country. Back to Digby: We are in big trouble when torture becomes just another political football. It's the kind of thing that turns powerful empires into pariah nations. Exactly. The underlying issue here is not these intermittent battles between the new administration and the progressive community (which provides fodder to the media and conservatives) but whether the White House and Democratic leaders comprehend the repercussions of allowing DC's complex internal pressures and maneuverings -- which are largely invisible to outsiders -- to obfuscate the Bush administration's excesses. Failing to make a clean break from the Bush years will deprive America of the one thing it needs most: an affirmation of the rule of law and the consequent reclaiming of moral authority.
 
Derrick K. Baker: One Man's Vote, One Man's Elected Pain Top
With the obvious exception of history-making President Barack Obama -- my fellow Leo with the camouflaged, ginormous ego -- the list of elected officials who receive my unconditional gratitude and moderated deference for their commitment to public service is as long as a bolt of lightning is short. To say this registered voter is sick and tired of being sick and tired of news reports of one corrupted, compromised public official after another being caught with his hand in the public's cookie jar or caught with his pants down is the understatement of the year. Whether it's the so-called "pay to play" politics in my home state of Illinois that led to the conviction of the last Republican governor and the impeachment and indictment of our latest Democratic governor, who often looked as uncomfortable in public as the current president looks comfortable, the number of reasons that would prompt me to freely make a campaign donation to a candidate or knock on doors on his or her behalf can be counted on one hand -- and you'd still have enough fingers left to snap to your favorite song. I didn't come to this now-settled conclusion alone and without any justification. I didn't dig the ditch of diminished credibility that fits municipal officials, state representatives and federal officials. They blindly -- and sometimes defiantly -- dug their own grave and pushed me into it. As the famous saying goes, when a person shows you who they are, believe them. And voters have seen over and over again in stark examples the caliber of far too many so-called selfless people who desire to work on behalf of the public, to represent the little guy, to fight government rules and regulations that are counterproductive and counterintuitive in order to make their small town or big city or industrious state a better place for their constituents to live, work and play. Bullcrap. Nonsense. Psychobabble. The unmitigated cynicism and skepticism that defines my hardened attitude toward this lot -- and I readily acknowledge that it's highly unfortunate that elected officials as a whole are being stereotyped and branded with this same wide brush of contempt -- is deserved. The list of missteps, lies, deceive, graft, collusion, sexual hijinks and outright theft from the public till is too long to spell out. Moreover, as a voter and writer, a large part of my psyche almost refuses to devote any more keystrokes and column inches to detailing tales of elected officials who are now incarcerated or voted out of office for violating the public's trust and breaking laws. I've come to conclude that akin to the God complex that suits many law enforcement types from the CIA and FBI down to the gun-less rent-a-cop who "guards" kiosks in the mall, there also is a certain gene that is part and parcel of how people who aspire to public office are wired. As a group (and of course there are exceptions, lest our political system would've long ago devolved into a cesspool that resembles, well, our current political system), elected officials are fueled in parts by adulation, power and influence, respect, being in the know and on the move. They get high from the fact that they can get people to gravitate to them to the point that Jane Homemaker will write a check to an account with the official's name on it, and encourage her family, friends, colleagues and strangers to do the same. And the list goes on. But I'm too exasperated to continue. I've never run for public office and never will because I couldn't stand the background check. Period. And although there have been candidates whose backgrounds make mine look like saint-like, convictions for other crimes hasn't stopped more than a few from jockeying to have their name placed on a ballot in hopes that they win their shot at the throne. In closing, I want to apologize to all elected officials, starting with those in my home State of Corruption, I mean Illinois, I've disrespected and who may feel minimized and belittled by my outburst of anger. For those of you doing a fine job and who are so validated year after year by the voters, I say congratulations. Keep your constituents first and diminish your need to travel to a Caribbean island on the public's dime for a fact-finding mission. To the Illinois legislators whom the Chicago Tribune is reporting "now are laboring under increased scrutiny" and who "are starting to at least talk about pulling back on their perks," keep laboring and keep talking. It's a good thing for you the one-man, one-vote principle doesn't actually mean I'm the only guy who gets to vote. More on Rod Blagojevich
 
Michael Jones: Gormless Top
As we watch the slow, sad decline to irrelevance of newspapers someone would actually want to read, we find "The Guantanamo Labyrinth" in Sunday's thinner-than-a-menu-at-IHOP Chicago Tribune Magazine. The reporter, Tom Hundley, lately returned from decades of "reporting around the world," delivers more fuel to the view that newspapers have become propagandists for a particular point of view, substituting ideology for reporting. Once, we had a muscular free press that took on the mighty, skewered the pompous, tweaked the udders of sacred cows, asked tough questions and kept generations of Americans reading both morning and evening editions to find out what the "news" was. Sunday's Trib Magazine is Ground Zero for all that has gone wrong with reporters and editors. Or maybe it's the final wooden stake hammered into the heart of actual reporting of the kind of news newspapers used to report. We are offered a hagiography of one Candace Gorman, a performance artist disguised as a lawyer, emotionally framed in terms of "risking her career" and "taking on the Goliath" for volunteering to represent two detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Tom has, thankfully, made all of the tough choices for us in writing his piece by stipulating, a priori , that we are dealing with "torture," that basic provisions of the Constitution that protect individual rights were "overridden" and that the Geneva Conventions were disregarded. He uses au courant straw-man arguments to ensure that there are no other possible interpretations based on logic, history, law or reality that could detract from his embrace of a cause through deifying a lawyer. A hard enough task given the general reputations of lawyers, especially for one that the article itself discloses has a head if not feet of particularly cynical clay. She establishes her feminist bona fides, and gormanlessness, by agreeing to wear a scarf over her hair and avoid eye contact with her harmless sheepherder clients when meeting them. Which, I suppose, is more acceptable than Tom's unquestioning transcription of detainees' accounts of how, innocents all, they were tortured in excruciating ways on their way to Guantanamo. Some accounts are stomach-churning; most are hard to accept without some degree of skepticism lacking in the article. Candace Gorman: born to a radical family, enriched through a form of plaintiff attorneying, capturing her percentage from the poor in a class-action suit, seeking more dragons to slay, attracted to the dragon of the moment, Guantanamo. I can almost hear her whisper it in her mind's ear...Camelot...no, I mean...Guantanamo. She abandons her current practice to catch a terrorist client or two and to strike a blow against the Great Satan. No, not the Great Satan of those who whip women for being out in public or behead journalists or murder middle aged couples who have the temerity to hold hands, the greatest of Satans: the Bush Administration. Finding herself in the belly of the Guantanamo beast (marooned it would seem on the leeward side of the bay...who knew!) she is disgusted by the food that our own troops eat and doesn't like the cramped airless interview rooms. She and Tom swallow unquestioningly the story line of trained apparatchiks, goat herders all, caught up in the flotsam and jetsam of war, sold to the Americans who are imprisoning them indefinitely because...well because...because because...oh, well, for some obviously dastardly un-Constitutional, un habeas corpal tortured reason. The question of why is never asked nor answered by Tom. Why does Guantanamo exist? Why has even the Obama administration embraced Guantanamo and military commissions? Why have innocent detainees released from GB been found back on the battlefield, killing unbelievers? Might there be another point of view? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Not in this article. This is a political hatchet job. Badly done: "tulips dapple Rotterdam" in the beginning of "Guantanamo Labyrinth," tulips haven't appeared yet, by the end. Do tulips actually dapple at all? St. Candace, abandoning all and winding up with a cushy foreign job, uprooting her high school age daughter for her mom's ambition, cutting her professional teeth by representing plaintiffs in a discrimination suit, ultimately defined for all of us by a quote at the end: she only takes good cases, i.e. cases she can win against deep-pocketed defendants. In her circle it's always best to follow the money not the rhetoric. But, there is more. Tom, doing the sort of in depth reporting we can expect from a reporter home from the hills of foreign lands where he has been "reporting" for years, goes far to provide a context and personal background for Ms. Gorman. How far does a crack Trib reporter go to uncover the real Candace Gorman? As far as interviewing Candace's office mate. Yep, that's it for background. Guess what? The office mate provides this cutting insight and critical thinking about his best pal: she's smart and tenacious, an exemplar, tough as nails except, of course, when faced with Guantanamo cuisine. Feeling the need to get more background, Tom summons all of his years of reportorial experience and skill to interview, yes, you guessed it, a law school classmate. Maybe I am completely mistaken and the entire piece is a satire, Swiftian, not Michael Moore-ian. Perhaps, the inclusion of a picture of the legal paragon in her office, dressed in media savvy prison orange, is Tom and his editor's subtle hint to us all to read and smile, rather than read and wince. But, I doubt it. By the way, Candace, Tom writes that the prisoners wore tan uniforms in tulip-dappled Cuba, not orange. More on Guantánamo Bay
 
Road Funding Formula Shafts Chicago: Legislative Report Top
Politics, not population or need, often determine how surface transportation projects get funded in Illinois. This point was made quite clear yesterday when the General Assembly's Legislative Research Unit unveiled a new report -- requested by state Sen. Martin Sandoval (D-Chicago) -- proving the state's funding structure disproportionately benefits downstate residents.
 
Soren Gordhamer: The Power of Slipping Top
Kids teach us a lot, though the biggest lesson may be how often our ideas of what they need and who they are turn out to be inaccurate. I learned this some time back when I took my son, Navarre, swimming at an indoor pool that had a large yellow slide about five stories high. A new swimmer, he had been eyeing the slide for a number of weeks, waiting for the day he was ready to tackle it. This day, he was pretty sure, was the day. "Dad, I am ready to go down the slide," he told me. "OK, Navarre," I said, "I will wait at the bottom of the slide to help you when you land in the water." Up the stairs to the top of the slide he went while I waited patiently for him at the bottom. Two minutes later, however, back down the steps he walked. "I am not quite ready yet," he said when he reached the bottom. "Maybe just give me a minute." He took a few deep breaths. "OK, I think I can do it now." Up the stairs again he went. Two minutes later, down the steps he came. This went on for a good twenty minutes, going about 6 times up and down the steps. Then the seventh time as I waited at the bottom of the slide, ready for him to walk down the stairs, I looked up to see a wave of blonde hair swishing down the slide, and then Navarre's face appeared, beaming. Once he landed in the pool and made it to the side, I was eager to know what in the end pushed him through his fear of the slide. I wanted to know what helped him break through his resistance. I was looking for some deep insight that revealed a new approach to life, and all the better if it was something that he had learned from me. "Awesome, Navarre," I said. "So, what was it that helped you break through that fear? How did you decide in the end to come down the slide?" "Well, dad," he said, taking a breath, preparing to give his answer. "You see, I was standing up near the slide looking down, and then . . . then I slipped." "You mean you never quite decided to come down?" I followed, wanting to make sure that I understood correctly. "No, I slipped and just started going down." "You slipped?" "Yeah, it was so cool. I'm going to go down the slide again!" And he spent the next two hours going down the slide. I then realized what a teaching this was: It is easy to think that "we" do acts, that "we" broke through our fears, that "we" accomplished some great feat, that "we" made something happen, but maybe the process, both personally and as parents, is less about trying to force change and more about showing up, being present, and knowing that when the time is ready, the universe will help make it happen. Our job, then, is to show up, be patient, and be willing to go with instead of fight the slip when it happens. As they saying goes, "Enlightenment is an accident. Our job is to become accident-prone." *** Soren Gordhamer is the author of Wisdom 2.0: Ancient Secrets for the Creative and Constantly Connected (HarperOne, 2009). Website: http://www.sorengordhamer.com .
 
Chrysler Dealerships Closing: Over 40 In Illinois To Shut Top
CHICAGO (AP) -- Chrysler intends to close around 40 Illinois dealerships as part of a plan to cut 789 nationwide. In a motion filed Thursday with a bankruptcy court, Chrysler says it'll eliminate the dealerships by June 9. It cited low sales at many dealerships, as well as too many competing with each other. Chrysler will keep more than 120 dealerships in Illinois. But word that its Chrysler dealership would close came as a jolt to the community of Barry, in western Illinois. It's been an important economic engine there for years. A bank president in the community of 1,400 people, John Shover, says the closure could affect everything to tax revenues to baseball team sponsorships since Chrysler has long been a major financial contributor. -ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
Robert Gates Says It Will Take At Least 2-4 Years For Afghan Army To Take The Lead (VIDEO) Top
The job of wartime defense secretary is not a job anybody should like says the man holding it right now, Robert M. Gates, in a candid and wide-ranging interview with Katie Couric.
 
Jamie Court: Rarely Used Closed Doors In Senate On Health Care Reform Top
Rules of the United States Senate reserve closed door committee sessions for unusual circumstances, like national security issues and trade secrets. So why did the Senate Finance Committee hold closed door deliberations today on the first discussion of the key committee's policy choices paper ? Chairman Senator Max Baucus has tried to closely control the health care debate by only inviting witnesses with similar points of view, but now he has shielded real talk in the committee about key policy options from public scrutiny. The starting point of his debate is that every American show proof of an insurance policy on their tax returns in 2013 without any requirements that the premiums be affordable. Baucus probably feels that's reason enough for the extraordinary step of closing committee doors, absent the state or trade secret, but the step seems to violate Senate standing rules. My Consumer Watchdog colleague Jerry Flanagan did some research with the Senate parlimentarian and rules experts, who noted the extraordinary nature of the deliberations. He found out it will take another member of the committee complaining about the rule violation to let the public in. Jerry wrote Baucus, the third largest taker of HMO and drug company money on the Hill , with these 10 questions about the policy options paper to be answered when the committee's doors open. 1. Senate rules appear to only allow committees to meet in closed session under very limited circumstances, including discussions concerning national defense and protection of trade secrets, none of which appear to apply to today's meeting. What Senate rule justifies today's closed-door committee meeting? 2. Why have you offered such deference to the top lobbyists of the insurance industry, which bears a large share of the responsibility for the current health care crisis, while locking consumers and consumer advocates out of the debate? 3. The only guaranteed provision in the "policy options" report is that every American would have to file proof of an insurance policy with their tax returns on April 15, 2013 or face tax penalties. How does threatening Americans with tax penalties lead to affordable health care? 4. If there are no limits on how much an insurance company can charge for the coverage that Americans will be required to buy, how can you promise that it will be affordable? 5. Your policy options do not adequately protect Americans against low-benefit, junk insurance that fails to provide access to necessary benefits and does not limit out-of-pocket expenses (co-pays and deductibles) when patients get sick. How does "owning" an insurance policy under these circumstances equal being able to get health care? 6. There are documented cases of insured people facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid medical bills. Without a cap on out-of-pocket expenses, how can you prevent this? 7. Your report says that, with few exceptions, hefty tax penalties will be levied against Americans that don't either purchase coverage or get it through their job. Is it true that only Christian Scientists would avoid tax penalties without having to prove their income? 8. One of the options that the committee is considering is to not require any employers to chip in for health insurance. Why isn't the committee considering an option where Americans would not be forced to buy coverage? 9. Your plan focuses on "wellness" services. But if patients face a $5000 deductible how will they pay for treatment for severe obesity, diabetes prevention, or even effective smoking cessation? 10. Your plan does not clearly protect state laws providing access to necessary health care services like a California woman's right to visit an OB-GYN, a New Jersey child's access to a Hepatitis B inoculation, a Tennessee patient's coverage for diabetes treatment, and other benefits including screenings for cervical and prostate cancers. Will states be allowed to require additional health benefits beyond those required under federal rules, or will federal rules pre-empt more expansive state benefits? Yesterday, presidential adviser David Axelrod went to Capitol Hill with Democratic messaging on health care reform to counter GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who recently gave the Republicans advice on knocking down Democratic efforts. Mark my words. Democrats will lose power in Washington by 2012 if the only thing they deliver on health care reform is extra pages on our tax returns requiring every American to show proof of having a private HMO policy or face tax penalties. Honestly answering Jerry Flanagan's 10 questions in open session is the only way to avoid a fatal mistake for the party and the American people.
 
Jason Notte: How to Live Vicariously Through Britain's Blacklist Top
After watching California's Carrie Prejean get all choked up after Donald Trump said that she and the bags of silicone she shares skin with will get to keep her state's Miss USA honors, it's difficult not to envy the British. It's not that seeing a second-tier beauty queen's career torpedoed by Perez Hilton, her stance on "opposite marriage," her dealbreaking work for the National Organization for Marriage and her penchant for putting her prized investments on display hasn't been incredibly entertaining. Nor was Trump's acquittal of her much of a surprise just days after a Celebrity Apprentice series finale that featured the dessicated corpse of Joan Rivers claiming victory over a gambling addict (yes, Annie Duke, that does insult every poker player in Vegas -- you're about as much of an athlete or a celebrity as a bookie is a certified public accountant). However, it must be somewhat comforting to live in a nation where homophobes and other bigots are placed on a blacklist and banned from that nation's shores . Does Carrie Prejean rank up there with Westboro Baptist pastor and "God Hates Fags" sloganeer Fred Phelps and his family of funeral protesters? Does she represent the immediate danger of skinheads, KKK members, Hamas lawmakers or Jewish extremists? Perhaps not, but these days, she's commanding the same demographic as Michael Alan Weiner (the somewhat more nebbishy name of radio firebrand Michael Savage , who's threatening to sue his way back to the U.K.) and displaying roughly the same intellect and threshold for tolerance. One could argue that the Brits were kicked out of this country (twice) so that people here would be able to express any belief they chose and that their opposition's freedom of speech was far more effective than any ban could ever be. After all, Phelps and Savage have been marginalized to a nearly laughable presence by public reaction to their views . Yet, if the U.S. had the chance to live vicariously through the Brits' draconian rules of behavior, perhaps there would be some room on the blacklist for these folks: 1. Carrie Prejean: It's not even her original statement that's so troubling: It did cost her the crown and teach her that free speech's true cost comes in defending it amid the consequences that follow. It's hypocrisy with which she approaches her career that's galling. You're willing to fake your breasts, but completely unwilling to fake the answer that will win you the title? Are you kidding? In 2007, Miss Teen South Carolina had no idea why kids couldn't locate the U.S. on a map, but that didn't stop her from making up complete nonsense on the spot to keep her hopes alive . How do you not know your judges or know pageants well enough to diplomatically sidestep questions they're going to roast you for? Then, because you lost the brakes and just decided not to steer anymore, you go sulking off to an anti-gay-marriage group and basically hand the one title you have left to a runner-up who seems to be her polar opposite . Good luck facing Tara Conner in Trump's 2009 Miss Nobody Gives A Damn pageant, Carrie. Just don't ask Shanna Moakler to officiate. 2. Jay Severin: When the guy who got suspended for calling a women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" thinks you're a hack , you're already in big trouble. As with Prejean's offense, the Boston radio blatherer's labeling of Mexican immigrants as "primitives" and "criminaliens" and his subsequent suspension aren't the most egregious items on his resume -- which is already flush with falsehoods about winning a Pulitzer Prize and obtaining a master's degree in journalism from Boston University . No, much like Michael "Savage," the only victim of Severin's worst offense is himself. For a man who seemed to have no problems befriending Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, he was never comfortable enough in his Republican skin to use his real, more ethnically specific name -- Jimmy Severino. For someone so willing to dish out the prejudice to today's immigrant class, Mr. Severino has gone to great lengths to avoid similar prejudices himself. You may have sold your soul, but you could at least buy your vowel back, Jimmy. 3. William Donohue: The Catholic League leader who's never met a communion wafer he didn't eat has been especially jowly and ruddy lately. First, he went after Angels & Demons director and noted blasphemer Ron Howard for making a film in which the Vatican hunts down the Illuminati, based on a book that can be found on the fiction shelves of your local library. Donohue accuses Howard of being anti-Catholic, but it's not like the director is part of some shadow branch of the Vatican whose leader committed acts detrimental to the church that even the Pope apparently had no influence over . That's simply too far fetched. Meanwhile, Donohue and several other hoarse-voiced members of Mother Church have staged apoplectic protests of Notre Dame, as that university prepares to give President Obama an honorary law degree and let him take the lectern for that university's commencement speech. Never mind that protests of pro-choice Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's commencement speech in 1992 were equally futile, Obama carried the Catholic vote in November or that American Catholics are skewing more mainstream and moderate on abortion and stem-cell research than their oppressed, zealot mouthpiece. Donohue would be getting off light if the Brits only banned him, considering England formed its own church (now with gay bishops at U.S. locations ) and put Thomas More's head on a pike the last time Catholics abroad got mouthy with the crown. The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M - Th 11p / 10c We Don't Torture thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor 4. Dick Cheney, John Yoo, Jay Bybee: Speaking of enhanced interrogation techniques, England can ill afford to lose the Tower of London as a tourist destination. If these three ever showed up on the U.K.'s shores though, the Scavenger's Daughter and The Rack would have a longer waiting list that the Manchester United ticket office. That Bybee is still a judge , Yoo has a columnist gig with the only entity in worse shape than the people in the torture memos he authored and Cheney is still making enough noise to encourage this site to dedicate bandwith to him is unfortunate. That their techniques don't work and weren't used effectively or safely to begin with may be the first step toward forcing this trio to seek the more comfortable environs. Considering the Brits have torture issues of their own , perhaps this isn't the best time to allow a trio of potential war criminals to tour Picadilly Circus. More on Political Humor
 
Quinn Taps Ohio Prison Official To Run Illinois Department Of Corrections Top
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) -- Gov. Pat Quinn turned Thursday to the assistant director of Ohio's prison system to run the Illinois Department of Corrections, an agency struggling to manage overcrowded prisons with a shrinking staff. Michael Randle offered few hints about he will handle that challenge if confirmed by the state Senate. But he did suggest the department must do all it can to help inmates prepare for life on the outside instead of simply warehousing people. "It is important that we also give offenders opportunities to change their lives through providing effective rehabilitation programs," Randle said, praising drug treatment programs at two Illinois prisons. Randle, who turns 43 next week, is currently assistant director at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. A Chicago native, he served as a warden at Ohio prisons, oversaw the department's industrial program and worked with mental health services. "Michael Randle is the best of the best," Quinn said at a news conference to announce his nominee. Randle would replace Roger Walker, a former sheriff who ran the Corrections Department throughout the tenure of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Illinois prison systems were designed to hold about 34,000 people. They now house one-third more than that, or 45,000 people, according to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. At the same time, the number of employees has plummeted by 25 percent since 2001 as the state has encouraged staff to retire but hasn't filled vacancies. The state forces employees to work 60-80 hours a week to fill the gaps, AFSCME says. "There simply isn't enough staff to run them safely," said union spokesman Anders Lindall. Staffing and forced overtime is a concern, Randle said. "Anytime you ask staff to work 16 hours a day over and over and over and over and over again, it does become a challenge," he said. "It becomes a lot more difficult to be as alert as you should be. Let's face it, in this business it is about being alert." Quinn said he wants Randle to conduct a complete review of the department's prisons and the best way to run a corrections system in the 21st century. That review, he said, includes the "supermax" prison at Tamms, where the most dangerous prisoners are housed in isolation under the strictest security. Critics say the conditions are unfair. The Senate Committee on Executive Appointments will review Randle's nomination. At least one member likes what he sees so far. Sen. William Delgado, D-Chicago, said the Illinois department has plenty of high-quality administrators of its own, but Randle has wide experience at the top levels of a major state's prison system. "I always welcome a breath of fresh air, someone who may have a different perspective for Illinois," Delgado said. --- Associated Press Writer John O'Connor contributed to this report. -ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
Lee Camp: WATCH: Slumdog Millionaire and the Hollywood Fairy Tale Top
More on Slumdog Millionaire
 
SEC Attorneys Accused Of Insider Trading Top
CBS News has learned that two attorneys at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are under "active" criminal investigation by the FBI for trading stocks based on inside information.
 
Jamie Woolf: Female Bullying or Just Another Attack Against Successful Women Top
The media loves a fresh angle that undermines women's hard earned success. The New York Times Business section (1/11/09) ran an article, "A Sisterhood Of Workplace Infighting" by Peggy Klaus. Ms. Klaus, a leadership consultant, writes about how women mistreat women in the workplace: "...limiting access to important meetings, withholding information, assignments, promotions; or blocking the way to mentors and higher ups." Then The New York Times ran another similar article, "Backlash: Women Bullying Women" (5/10/09) on Mother's Day no less, with more anecdotal evidence that women are their own worst enemy. Both articles fall prey to the seduction of pop-psychology rhetoric portraying women as overemotional, backstabbing and bitchy. How many times do we hear similar stories that point accusatory fingers at women, deflecting attention from the true problems -- unequal pay, entrenched promotional practices that block women from the highest echelons in the political and corporate arenas, feeble sick leave and maternity leave policies, a lack of childcare subsidies for working mothers, and last but not least, the media's biased coverage? The article quotes Michelle Cirocco, the director of sales operations for Televerde, a marketing company. "The time has come for us to really deal with this relationship that women have to women, because it truly is preventing us from being as successful in the workplace as we want to be and should be." Hidden behind this mask of concern is a brilliant, if dangerous message: women are their own obstacle. If women are to be blamed for their lack of progress, the load of responsibility shifts from the people who truly hold the power to change workplace policies and foster more positive images of ambitious women like you and me, the millions of women working hard to earn a living and move fairly through the ranks to assume increasingly challenging and responsible jobs. What's galling is that both articles completely ignore facts and present only sparse anecdotal evidence that transforms women from collaborative and powerful to conniving and power hungry. In my 25 years as a leadership consultant, the vast majority of successful business women point to a female mentor or network that helped her break through the myriad obstacles and get ahead. Sally Helgeson, author of The Female Advantage , conducted comprehensive research demonstrating that women managers, in contrast to men, spend more time helping people and their authority comes from connection to people rather than distance from those below. Dee Dee Myers, in her book Why Women Should Rule the World , writes about how women give away credit to their detriment because they place such a high value on teamwork and building relationships. Carol Evans, CEO of Working Mother Media has built a thriving conference business that fosters women networking and mentoring other women. We've come a long way baby but we still have a way to go before our country's "truths" about women tell the real story. Jamie Woolf, veteran leadership consultant, is the author of Mom-in-Chief: How Wisdom From the Workplace Can Save Your Family From Chaos; www.mominchief.com
 
Rachel Sklar: GPICT: Fighting Epilepsy (So Kids Don't Have To) Top
Today's GPICT comes to us from a girlcrush, because I sort of fell hard for Susan Axelrod this weekend at the WHCD (see here ). I didn't meet her, but I saw her a few times in the cocktail crush before the dinner and not only was she stunning and glamorous but amazingly gracious. (You can get a lot out of standing and quietly watching how people interact with underlings.) Later when I took this photo I told David Axelrod that his wife looked beautiful, and his face got all gushy and he said, "I know. She's amazing." And I agreed! So when I saw this morning that she was coming up on Morning Joe , I got geekily excited. (Am I revealing too much here? Oh well.) Turns out the Axelrods were in town last night to host a benefit for CURE (Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy) which is the nonprofit organization Susan Axelrod co-founded in 1998 to raise funds and awareness to improve the lives of those living with epilepsy, including hopefully finding a cure. This wasn't a random act of philanthropy -- the Axelrods' daughter, Lauren, has been battling epilepsy since she was 7 months old. Susan Axelrod wrote pretty movingly about it in Parade magazine earlier this year, and was on Morning Joe talking about it as well (Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski hosted last night's CURE benefit honoring Special Olympics chariman Tim Shriver. Wow, I just realized that there must have been a whole other layer of awkwardness to Obama's Special Olympics gaffe on Jay Leno. Imagine having to face David Axelrod after that. Actually, two other layers: Shriver is the brother of Maria Shriver, who endorsed Obama early in the primaries along with their uncle Ted Kennedy. All that only just occurred to me). Anyway! That's why CURE is today's GPICT. Donate here , watch Susan Axelrod and Tim Shriver on MSNBC this morning here , read Newsweek 's cover story on epilepsy here (atypically written by editor-in-chief Jon Meacham , whose friends had lost their son to it) and read Susan's essay for the Newsweek issue here . And, because there's still that girlcrush after all, look at how gorgeous she looked at the White House Correspondents Dinner here . I Must Save My Child [Parade] Susan Axelrod: Agony, Hope & Resolve [Newsweek] Susan Axelrod & Tim Shriver on Morning Joe [MSNBC] Donate: CURE [Cure] GPICT! Gratuitous Public Interest Campaign Thursday! [HuffPo] More on Health
 
Sarah Burd-Sharps: We Can Pay for Education Today - Or Prisons Tomorrow Top
High school dropout rates have been in the news a lot lately. Last month saw the release of two major reports that drew renewed attention to the issue. One from the America's Promise Alliance found that in the fifty largest cities in the U.S., nearly half of all high school students fail to graduate on time. Another from McKinsey & Co. argued that the huge academic achievement gaps separating different groups of Americans take a huge economic toll on the country -- they likened the effect of leaving so many kids behind to a permanent economic recession. A new tool that our organization, the American Human Development Project, developed with United Way illustrates in very concrete terms the nature and extent of the costs we all pay for the terrible inequities that characterize our educational system -- the Common Good ForecasterTM. This online web tool uses the most recent official data available on U.S. states and counties to put a human face on the effects of decisions we make as a society. It offers a snapshot of educational outcomes in our communities today and paints a picture of a different tomorrow. Let's take a look at the situation today in the cities America's Promise Alliance found to have the country's worst graduation rates -- Indianapolis, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Atlanta, and Los Angeles -- and see how things might change if more adults in those areas had completed high school or college. We all know that more education leads to better jobs and bigger paychecks, on average. But it's startling to see just how much improving rates of high school graduation and college-going would boost a community's median personal earnings and reduce the unemployment and poverty rates. If in Marion County, Indiana, home of Indianapolis , all adults without a high school degree had completed high school, 12,000 fewer people there would live in poverty, and median personal earnings would increase by1,400 year -- a significant sum for a family living in poverty. If all adults in Wayne County, Michigan, home of Detroit , had at least a high school degree, 17,500 fewer people there would be unemployed. If all adults in Fulton County, Georgia, home of Atlanta , moved up one educational category -- for example, if all high school dropouts had completed high school and all who graduated high school went on to attend at least some college -- median person earnings would shoot up7,800. If all adults in Los Angeles County without high school degrees had them, median personal earnings would go up by about2,000 -- a sum about equal to the average Earned Income Tax Credit that low-income workers received in 2006. But the impacts beyond the dollar are in some ways even more dramatic. If all adults in Cuyahoga Country, Ohio ( Cleveland ) were to move up one educational category, the average life span there would increase by nearly two years; in Baltimore County, the average life span would grow by more than a year. If all adults in Los Angeles County were to move up one educational category, there would be an astonishing 566 fewer murders , on average, every year. Doubling the college graduation rate in Wayne County, MI ( Detroit ) would likely result in some 100 fewer murders . Completing high school has a big impact on voting. If all adults were at least high school graduates, voting rates in all the cities would rise significantly -- up by 16,000 in the Baltimore area, 37,000 in the Cleveland area, 29,000 in the Milwaukee area, and some 300,000 in Los Angeles . Not all of our indicators are available at the country level, but looking at state-level data shows education's marked impact on incarceration, obesity, low birthweight, and children's reading proficiency. If all adults in California had graduated high school, there would be more than 50,000 fewer people behind bars; in Michigan , nearly 22,000 fewer; in Indiana , nearly 11,000 fewer. This represents a tremendous diversion of scarce resources; keeping a single person behind bars costs the government around $25,000 per year. If all adults in Michigan were at least high school graduates, 75,000 fewer people would be obese; in Ohio , 47,000 fewer; in Georgia , 33,000 fewer. Low birthweight is a risk factor for developmental delays, impairments and infant death. If all adults were to move up one educational category in Wisconsin , 552 fewer babies would face the wide-ranging and persistent risks associated with low birthweight. Nearly 30,000 eighth graders in California would be categorized "proficient readers" were all adults to move up one educational category. Have we convinced you yet? Education does not, of course, inoculate us against all misfortune. But education increases people's resilience and decreases their vulnerability. Unemployment, for instance, is on the rise everywhere today. But Labor Department figures show that last year the unemployment rate grew three times faster for people without high school degrees than it did for college grads. When it comes to health, people of every educational level get cancer. But better educated people are less likely to die from it -- not just because they are more likely to have health insurance but also because they can better navigate the healthcare system and understand treatment options, and are more likely to adhere to treatment regimens and use newer and more effective drugs. Research shows that more educated people have a greater ability to adjust to change, better mental and physical health, and stronger social bonds -- critical ingredients for weathering crises of all sorts. With the economy in a free fall and state and local revenues plunging as a result, officials and policy-makers are feeling the pinch. It's tempting to say education can wait. But that would be shortsighted in ways both foolish and tragic. Education has been the engine of upward mobility for generations of Americans -- and it's more important than ever in today's globalized, knowledge-based economy. We can pay for education today -- or prisons tomorrow. Kristen Lewis and Sarah Burd-Sharps are the co-directors of the American Human Development Project , an initiative of the Social Science Research Council that is funded by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. The project works to introduce to Americans a well-honed framework used around the world to assess human well-being and access to opportunity: the human development approach. Its hallmark is the American Human Development Index, a composite measure that paints a portrait of how Americans are doing today and empowers communities with tools to track progress and to hold elected officials accountable for improvements in areas we all care about: health, education, and standard of living. More on Poverty
 
James Dobson Gives Up: "We Can't Stop Them" Top
Politically, James Dobson has surrendered. At least for the time being. Today, the Focus on the Family founder devotes his typically family-focused radio show to what he calls "the utter evil that's coming out of the United States Congress." He's referring to the hate crimes bill that recently passed the House. That's not so unusual. What's surprising is that Dobson tells his listeners that they're politically helpless.
 
Johann Hari: So John Edwards Had An Affair -- Grow Up, Adultery Is Not a Political Issue. Top
And so America has finally stumbled on a political issue of real significance. No, not the trifling matters of economic collapse, global warming, or two wars. No -- the issue of the day is John Edwards' dick. Since Elizabeth Edwards published a book about the supremely trivial fact that her husband had an affair, the cable shows have been endlessly debating the "issue" once again. Memo to America: Grow. Up. Have you forgotten the lesson of Lewinsky so soon? While al-Qa'ida plotted a murderous attack on the US, the twice-elected president was busy being impeached over a few bouts of consensual oral sex. It meant nothing. It was nothing. But it skewed your politics for years. A politician's willingness to commit adultery is irrelevant. Does Franklin Roosevelt's adultery undermine the New Deal? Does Martin Luther King's extra-marital shagging puncture the cause of civil rights? Does Adolf Hitler's fidelity to Eva Braun tell you what an honourable man he really was? Does Dick Cheney's ability to keep his cock in his pants reveal that he is secretly decent? In the long term, a fixation on politicians' penises reinforces existing power structures, because the implicit message of sex stories is simple and reactionary. Politics in the scandal-hungry world isn't about ideas or redistributing wealth and power. It's about who can control their sexual urges best while running a political show which just happens to be rigged in favour of the rich. Does anyone remember now that John Edwards was the most eloquent campaigner against poverty and corruption in mainstream politics for a generation? You might remember him as the plastic vice-presidential candidate standing at John Kerry's wooden side in 2004. Back then, he offered anodyne Clintonian soundbites and centrist platitudes but losing to Bush yet again did something strange to him. It turned him into an angry whistle-blower, exposing the corruption consuming both of Washington's parties. He explained: "I have seen the seamy underbelly of what happens in Washington every day. If you're Exxon Mobil and you want to influence what's happening with the government, you go and hire one of these big lobbying firms. This is what you find. About half the lobbyists are Republicans, and about half the lobbyists are Democrats. If the Republicans are in power, the Republican lobbyists take the lead, passing the money around. If the Democrats are in power, the Democratic lobbyists take the lead. They're pushing the same agenda for the same companies. There's no difference." He announced that "the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken" - and proposed hard ways to change. A smattering have been picked up by President Obama, and many more need to be. Is all that wiped out by a brief and meaningless ejaculation? But even if Edwards had a foul agenda - even if he was Rush Limbaugh - adultery would be lousy grounds to drum him out of public life. It. Means. Nothing It doesn't have to be this way. Continental Europe has a mature model where politicians' affairs are considered irrelevant. The idea a French President would be debarred from office for sleeping with somebody other than his wife is preposterous. Talking about "a right to know" about affairs is silly. We no more have a right to know about Edward's sex life than we have a right to know what he looks like naked. This isn't about whether you like John Edwards or not. It's about a choice we all have to make: do we want our political debate to be conducted at the level of the National Enquirer, or does a serious democracy deserve better? Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper. To read more of his articles, click here . More on John Edwards
 

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)