Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Shaun Casey: Forgetting Sonia Sotomayor Top
With her boyish good looks, J-Lo-esque back story (being born in Brooklyn, not having a ginourmous ass), and squeaky clean voting record, Sonia Sotomayor is America's new Hispanic sweetheart. Her triumph over obstacles ranging from the pedestrian to the inconvenient (growing up in the richest city in the world, attending law school, and having a disease the treatment of which was discovered more than 40 years ago), has created what will be a short lived coomb-bye-yaa with most of the major voting blocs in the country. White people, as usual, are taking credit for this momentous nomination, congratulating themselves on what a great a job they did finally considering having a lone Latino representative on a body that should by population alone have enough Hispanic representation to form a Mariachi band by now. Republicans are expressing their indignation in the most respectful and muted of tones, which for them is about as close as you get to shining admiration. And Hispanics are lionizing Sotomayor in a fashion reminiscent of the heady days of Alberto "El Dirte" Gonzalez. This lionization is not necessarily a good thing. Hispanamericans were smitten with their first serious political crush in Gonzalez as he flirted with the prospects of a long term relationship between all Hispanics and the public service. They were instead subjected to the political equivalent of a backseat quickie behind a 7-11, left with their panties around their ankles wondering what happened as Gonzalez mumbled something about calling them the next day while rushing out the door of the Justice Department. Now he won't even make eye contact when you run into him at the supermarket. Awkward! Sotomayor, who seems like a pretty saucy little minx who I personally probably wouldn't turn down a little backseat frivolity with, could be headed for a similar fate. Expectations are high, if not higher than with Gonzo, and she too is in in the crosshairs of being a "first". In the same way that we have forgotten Clarence Thomas's pubic hair filled career other than being the first black man to be seated on the bench, her legacy will be that she was born hispanic, whether she has a fair and unbiased view to serve or not. So, my little Latinos Americanos, try to forget Sonia Sotomayor for now, or at least temper your expectations so you are not disappointed again. Because when she inevitably throws down and is the deciding vote on a 5-4 split decision that you don't agree with, your ridiculously high expectations will be dropped like hot wax on a stripper's nipple, and it will be equally painful to watch. Instead, let your expectations flow like milk off a hooker's stomach, and wait till you get some representation that is not going to be judged on being "the first", but on their actual accomplishments. It will be well worth the wait. It should only take another 400 years. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Francesca Biller-Safran: Pharmaceutical Drug Pushers Lead to National Overdose Top
I only hope some woman is lucky enough to be with a man who becomes afflicted with one side effect Viagra claims, a condition called priapism, an erection that lasts more than four hours that requires immediate medical attention. It's difficult to remember when the slightly abnormal and even "normal" physical, emotional and mental characteristics began hysterically calling for immediate medications in order to stop, start, maintain or prevent anything from happening at all, with many side effects and warnings worse than the diagnoses itself. It is now the norm and social more that pharmaceutical companies and many unethical doctors have became our prime-time drug pushers, and here we are, from infant to infirmed, lusting to be doped up and numbed up, pushing drug company profits pop more than your grandmother's version of Coke in a bottle ever dreamt could effervesce. It's working too. Gone are the days of harmless advertisements that flaunted the latest detergent or face cream so we may avoid looking dirty or decrepit. Now we're convinced we are either impotent, sleep-deprived, manic or depressed-- even needing medication so that we won't pee as much or so that we can pee more. Ironically enough, a woman well into her nineties told me that trying to stop peeing was just about the only fun she has left, leaving her to tell her doctor a big "No" when attempting to prescribe yet another medication. There is even an ad that irresponsibly suggests that "anyone" may be bipolar with symptoms such as fatigue, irritability, sleeplessness, excitability, moodiness and lethargy. Where is my cell phone? I must page my doctor immediately and let him know that I know I am manic-depressive--thank god my pharmacy delivers. Rodney Dangerfield once said, "My psychiatrist told me I was crazy and I said that I want a second opinion. He said okay, you're ugly too." Imagine a world where we diagnose ourselves with major mental illnesses and disease, prescribed psychotropic medications by general Practioners after we view ads in Newsweek and during Larry King--drugs that change the characteristics of our brains and behaviors forever. No, this is not from a book by George Orwell, this is now. It's a good thing drug ads didn't exist during the early days of Woody Allen, Rodney Dangerfield and The Marx Brothers, or we would have all missed out on the many wonderful perils and profundity of the human condition. Woody Allen aptly said, "Life is full of misery, loneliness, and suffering - and it's all over much too soon." As human beings, it is only natural that we may feel down, low, foreboding, sleepless, weary and even unable to hold an erection, and I'm a woman. No letters please. But in moderate and even regular doses, these are normal and expected traits of the human condition. These emotions drive us to write great music, melancholy and thought-provoking novels, great legislature, ponder with exuberance over social inequalities and wrestle with new inventions and solutions. It is when we are at our lowest points that we often discover what can be done right in the world, where we can find the impossible answer and question, where we can see the value in the value-less, and when we can see light in the darkest of night, because we stay awake, and struggle through. Just imagine how Lincoln, Beethoven, Tolstoy, Hemingway, Monet, F. Scotts Fitzgerald and Keats must have suffered when struggling through the creative process. By the way, they all suffered from depression. Writer Victor Hugo wrote, "Emergencies have always been necessary to progress. It was darkness which produced the lamp. It was fog that produced the compass. It was hunger that drove us to exploration. And it took a depression to teach us the real value of a job." It is through deep suffering and frustration that leads to new ways of thinking and being, eventually solving what made us feel low and doomed in the first place, without masking tangible emotions before their inception. The pharmaceutical industry is now outspending companies like Budweiser, Nike and Campbell Soup for television and print ads. The Internet has also become a ghastly cohort with more than 800,000 web sites that sell prescription drugs to minors and households with no questions asked. The gruesome statistics includes preschoolers as now the fastest growing market for anti-depressants with at least 4% diagnosed with clinical depression. And over the past decade and a half, the number of teen and young adult (ages 12-25) abusers of painkillers has grown from 400,000 in the mid eighties to more than 2 million in 2000. Sadly, 17% of those ages 60 or older are most likely to become unwilling prescription drug addicts. And with millions of baby boomers hitting their 50's, one can only imagine the future spending on drugs such as Lipitor, Vioxx and Viagra, and new medications hitting pharmacy shelves each day. We all suffer from painful problems at one time or another, be they physical or emotional, with the latter making us wonderfully unique from any other species on the planet. But when we are pimped medications that are unnecessary, dangerous, no amount of therapy or antidote in the world will be able to soothe this modern tragedy we have allowed to infest our culture. Sometimes when coming across ads during a Law and Order episode or reading an article in The New York Times, I wonder if I suffer from the growing list of medical problems I had never heard of. Surely I must need Prozac along with millions of Americans because I get depressed whenever bad things happen and overwhelmed. I must also need sleeping pills like Ambien or Lunesta as well as the Suburban Mommy vitamins Zanax and Valium as I have been told I am hyper and too keyed-up. Perhaps I also suffer from adult ADHD or ADD as I have trouble focusing on more than three tasks at a time. And even though I have kept out of the sun, Botox isn't a bad idea for getting rid of any sort of facial expressions I might want to show. God forbid I should show an emotion and look angry. But I am angry and so should we all. In the year 2000, pharmaceutical companies spent about $1.7 billion in TV advertising, 50% more than was spent in 1999. According to data compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, an estimated 2.2 million Americans 12 and older start using prescription pain relievers each year for non-medical uses, with 15.1 million Americans abusing prescription drugs, exceeding the combined number who abuse cocaine, hallucinogens, inhalants and heroin, of those, 2.3 million are teenagers. And from 1992 to 2002, prescriptions for controlled drugs increased more than 150 percent. Only as recently as ten years ago, prescription drug ads were outlawed on television, but when the FDA greatly relaxed its rules for drug advertisements, the American culture as we knew it began to change drastically. Mother's little helper has taken on a whole different meaning. Prozac is one of the leading medications now given to moms and even moms to be, often to treat anxiety, feelings of hopelessness and even premenstrual symptoms. And I was naïve to think these were just part of the job description that comes with motherhood. Our own mothers felt blue at times, and most dealt with these feelings just fine. It's called life. This is not to preach any sort of Tom Cruise-esque gospel whatsoever as some women have true chemical imbalances and need medications to get them through the baby blues and bouts of clinical depression. For the most part, human beings are able to defy a lot of horrible circumstances that include feelings of anxiousness, guilt, shame and even depression through being courageous, stoic and fearless; and able to come out of darkness with no pretty little yellow or pink pills whatsoever. I imagine my grandmother during the "real" depression of the 1930s and World War II when she had two sons who were fighter pilots, a husband who was gone working, three children home to take care of, and single-handedly ran a small grocery store and farm by herself. She was not on any medications except natural and expected doses of integrity, brevity and strength. The hardest lesson will be that of facing ourselves as hypocrites of the worst kind if we continue to preach to our children to say no to drugs while our medicine cabinets overflow with quick fixes for every real or imagined malady-- and as studies show, home is often where our children get their first fix, leading us all to become unfixable, and for how long, we cannot begin to fathom. The only combative strategy to give modern drug pushers a strong, clear message is to prescribe to ourselves our own dose of character, reasonable judgment, intelligent consumerism and a strong shot of self-promotion unwilling to apologize for being ourselves, with all of the natural human traits that might imply, with self control, discipline and courage. Otherwise we will allow a gross misdiagnosis for generations to continue with an overdose of chemical dependency and fall of character beyond any perceived corrective remedy. Billie Holiday, that beautiful Jazz singer who died of a drug overdose said, "Dope never helped anybody sing better or play music better or do anything better. All dope can do for you is kill you, and kill you the long, slow, hard way."
 
Mike Malloy: Nukes and Missiles and Bombs, oh my! Top
You may have missed this when it was first made public, so here it is again: Former Bush Crime Family capo and U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sat on the board of a company which sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country which is now (still) causing many heart palpitations and much hand fluttering in official Washington. Rumsfeld was a director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200 million contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. He sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration, and shortly after taking over the planning and eventual execution of two attacks against countries that had done nothing to warrant U.S. carpet bombing, joined with President Chucklenutz in declaring North Korea part of the phantasmagoric in Bush's pretend "axis of eeeeeeevil." A Newsweek article (by Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas) written in 2002, reported on a visit by Rumsfeld to Baghdad on Dec. 20, 1983, that launched U.S. support for Saddam Hussein in his war of attrition against Iran. The Iran/Iraq war claimed the lives of millions and was notable for its savagery, including Iraq's use of poison gas against Iranian troops as well as against Kurds in northern Iraq who were seen by Saddam as being a "fifth column." Rumsfeld claimed he made the visit in an effort to "curb terrorism" in Lebanon. During this time, Rumsfeld was President Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East (1983-1984). A Senate report from 1994 confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the first attack against Iraq in 1991. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the official U.S. position) initiated the war with Iran. Rumsfeld has always denied he had any connection whatsoever to the sale of "disease-producing" or "poisonous materials" being sold to Iraq or any other country. In 1985 (five years after the Iraq-Iran war started) and in succeeding years, said the report, "pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous") and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." The Senate report added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction." The report then details 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding, "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program." According to Wikipedia , from 1977 to 1985 Rumsfeld served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G. D. Searle & Company, a worldwide pharmaceutical company based in Skokie, Illinois. During his tenure at Searle, Rumsfeld led the company's financial turnaround, thereby earning awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). It was during Rumsfeld's tenure with Searle that he was Reagan's Middle East Special Envoy.In 1985, Searle was sold to Monsanto. Rumsfeld is believed to have earned around $12 million from this sale. Okay. So what? Just this: No matter the man-made global horror - war, torture prisons, nuclear weapons proliferation, mega-death - the ruling elite will make trillions of dollars. The soldiers' lives ended, the blood spilled, the civilians blown into red mist, the psychological destruction carried home by combat-weary men and women, none of it matters to the business and government elite who are the benefactors of all this fear and death and destruction, who are made wealthy by this chaos and horror. So . . . give all this a thought the next time you see a television news report regarding the current spook show which is, at least for today, North Korea's sudden nuclear "threat." - MDM Mike Malloy can be heard daily on his radio show 9pm - 12pm ET. Visit www.mikemalloy.com to stream live or find a station near you.
 
Obama Launches Review Of Secrecy Policy Top
President Obama this afternoon directed his national security adviser and senior Cabinet officials to examine whether the government keeps too much information secret. More on Barack Obama
 
Donnie Fowler: What the Heck is a Green Job? Top
Listen up all you free marketeers, billions of dollars of private investment dollars have been pouring into the economy here at home and around the world to build a new clean energy economy. After eight years of losing competitive economic ground to Europe and China, Congress is close to passing historic legislation to reduce carbon pollution while sparking economic growth. President Obama has already radically changed the last eight years of our nation's energy policy by encouraging the creation of new jobs & preservation of old ones in a new clean economy that could bring trillions of dollars in growth over the next decade. But, you might wonder, what the heck is a green job anyway? We all know blue-collar and white-collar jobs, but now jobs of a new collar are popping up all over the nation -- and not just in your hippie uncle's backyard or at Greenpeace meetings. Green jobs encompass a wide range of high-quality jobs at every skill level. The emerging green economy provides the obvious work -- installing solar panels on rooftops, building wind turbines, and retrofitting homes for energy efficiency. As importantly, though, the green market will spur demand for jobs that people already have today -- roofers, insulators, auto workers, machinists, electricians, and much more. Even those workers who mine iron ore to make steel that is used to build wind turbines - steel that was, ten years ago, used for low-efficiency automobiles - have become green-collar workers . Green jobs are bringing jobs back into the country and keeping them here at home , not taking them out. They can reduce unemployment and poverty, increase job long-term security, provide new sources of income and investment for our economy, and, at the same time, combat climate change. A classic example of doing well by doing good. These aren't jobs that might exist some day in the distant future. They exist today, and represent bright opportunities for growth in the American economy. According to a report commissioned by the American Solar Energy Society, renewable energy and energy efficiency industries generated 8.5 million jobs and nearly $1 trillion in revenue in the U.S. in 2006. And with increasing investment in green technology, and more smart government policies mandating that more energy come from alternative sources, these numbers will increase greatly in the next few decades. So, get involved with this opportunity if you have not already done so. Call your senator or congressman . Contact the White House . Start a company . Make an investment . Or just change a few little things about the way you live your daily life. And go get a job, man! --- Donnie Fowler Palo Alto, CA www.FowlerCrumley.com More on Climate Change
 
David Ormsby: Julie Hamos Aims to Boost Pat Quinn's Reform Agenda and Gets Undercut by Pat Quinn Top
Last Thursday State Representative Julie Hamos (D-Evanston) hosted a bloggers-only conference call on Gov. Pat Quinn's "political reform" agenda, zeroing in on the need to cap campaign contributions at $2,400 per election cycle. Hamos, one of Springfield's leading progressive lawmakers, expressed concern that House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) and Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) have agreed to cap contributions at levels higher than the $2,400 proposed by Quinn's Illinois Reform Commission, chaired by former prosecutor Patrick Collins. "I think they have cut a deal," said Hamos, who has launched a statewide petition drive in favor of the $2,400 caps. The Evanston lawmaker, who is considering a run for Attorney General and has hired political consultant Mike Fourcher, also considers the Republican House and Senate leaders -- Tom Cross and Christine Radogno -- obstacles to campaign finance limits. "I think all four leaders like the status quo," said Hamos. "We want to see real ethics reform." That was Thursday. What Hamos saw on Saturday was this Chicago Tribune print edition headline: "Donate $15,000 and meet the governor." Gulp. During the last days of the legislative session, a Quinn campaign aide, Holly Copeland, had been dialing for dollars to special interest groups -- the very groups whose influence the Collins Commission is trying to crush like an unwelcome insect -- and had been putting the squeeze on the willing and unwilling for $15,000 a pop to meet-and-greet the governor. Brazen. Quinn said it was a "mistake." I believe him. Sincerely. But it's still like discovering Mother Teresa in a brothel. For 30 years Quinn has earnestly cultivated -- and rightly earned -- a reputation as a political reformer, and then he allowed some clueless campaign mope to flush that reputation and send it swirling down the porcelain memory hole in a single day. Mystifying. The Quinn episode exposed the inevitable collision between even a reformer's principles and the practical politics of an election system that relies on private versus public dough to finance the campaign beast. It's messy. It looks unseemly even when it is not. And it stains saint and sinner alike with nasty headlines. And an arbitrary $2,400 campaign contribution cap will not change that. Not a bit. Ask Tom DeLay. And -- to her credit -- Hamos recognizes that fact. Referring to the Collins-endorsed $2,400 caps, she said, "It's not perfect. And I'm not sure where defeating a [Madigan-Cullerton] caps bill gets us." But at this point she must recognize that Madigan and Cullerton suddenly are not her biggest obstacle. That nasty headline is.
 
Carol Felsenthal: Would Burris Have Sent Blago a Check? Probably, but Then Blago Got Arrested Top
The release of the transcript of Roland W. Burris's typically weaselly recorded-by-the-FBI conversation with indicted Blagojevich brother Rob-- the "W" in Burris's name should stand for "weasel"-- does not prove what Burris' lawyer, Timothy Wright, says it proves. In logic worthy of the spookiest pages of George Orwell, Wright argues that the transcript actually clears his client, now, to our state's colossal embarrassment, the junior senator from Illinois. Burris never sent the check, Wright tells reporters: "He never did it, and that's what counts." It shows nothing of the sort. Burris promised in the seven-minute wiretapped call on November 13, 2008, to send a check by December 15, 2008. Blagojevich was arrested at his home on December 9, 2008. Does anyone believe that Burris, who was panting after the appointment as the capstone to his headstone, would not have delivered the check had Blago not been arrested in his PJs early that December 9 morning (before Burris could drop in the mailbox the check he had promised by the 15th)? Burris' self-imposed deadline was still six days away. As New York Times reporters sum up the conversation : "In the call, [Burris] seemed almost in a crass negotiation with Mr. Blagojevich's brother -- also his chief fund-raiser -- over how he could help the governor, win the appointment and not run into trouble over negative connotations that he might be trying to buy an appointment by fund-raising for him." One thing is certain: the 10-page transcript shows Burris' description last February of his chat with the governor's brother was a lie. "I made it very clear to him that I would not contribute, that it would be inappropriate and a major conflict, because I had expressed an interest in the Senate seat," Burris said then . And so, by the way, was his sworn testimony last January before the House Committee considering Rod Blagojevich's impeachment. Burris swore that he did not promise then Gov. Blagojevich contributions in exchange for Barack Obama's vacated senate seat. Burris' own voice on an audio tape soon to be broadcast to the world will give the lie to that assertion. More on Rod Blagojevich
 
Chris Weigant: Republicans' Other Latino Problem Top
It seems these days, Republicans just can't attempt to do anything right without landing themselves in hot water as a result. As a result, they now face a no-win situation politically and racially. The forces of moderation (drastically diminished in the party though they may be) are up against the hardline conservatives. Add racial politics to this mix, and it's easy to see how Republicans have wound up between a rock and a hard place. And although it may sound like it, I'm not talking about Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court. I wrote yesterday about the political conundrum Republicans (especially those in the Senate who actually get to vote on her confirmation) find themselves in over Sotomayor. But there's another struggle within the party over a Latino candidate with more profound overtones for the party as a whole, down in the race for a Senate seat in Florida. Senator Mel Martinez is retiring from the Senate. Martinez, in a long Florida tradition, is both Latino and Republican. Unlike much of the rest of the country, up until very recently a large part of Florida's Latino population (who are Cuban-American) reliably voted with the Republican Party, since Republicans were seen as staunch supporters of their fight against Castro. This may now be changing, as the younger Latino population isn't as obsessed with Castro and Cuba as their older relatives (which has no bearing on this story, but is worth mentioning). Martinez is the first Cuban-American ever to serve in the Senate. He also led the Republican National Committee for a year. But his seat is not a "traditional" Republican seat, since he has only served one term after winning the seat held by Democrat Bob Graham, who had retired. It was a close election, and Martinez won it 49.5 percent to the Democratic Betty Castor's 48.4 percent. With Martinez retiring after a single term, the seat is up for grabs in 2010. And with no incumbent, this means primary battles as well as a general election. Two Republican candidates of note have thrown their hats into the ring, and have thus set up a lose-lose situation for the Republican Party. Former governor Charlie Crist is on one side of this ring, and former state House Speaker Marco Rubin is in the other corner. This pits a moderate white male Republican with an excellent chance to win (and hold the seat for Republicans), against a very conservative Cuban-American male Republican with (his supporters will tell you) a much better chance of winning than ultra-conservatives in places like Pennsylvania. In fact, Pennsylvania has its own lose-lose sort of situation shaping up for Democrats, with a very similar dynamic -- a moderate (who just jumped the aisle due to a very conservative challenger in a very closed Republican primary) versus a "real Democrat" type of candidate. Call it the "What to do about Arlen Specter" problem. But getting back to Florida, the choice is a tough one for the adults in the Republican Party who value winning a lot higher than they value absolute party purity. And one of the leading figures in this intra-party struggle is already feeling the heat over his decision. Because almost immediately after Crist announced his candidacy, Senator John Cornyn announced his support for Crist in the race. This came after Cornyn had said previously that he wouldn't get involved in a primary fight, and would wait for the outcome before endorsing anyone. Cornyn's endorsement was pretty ringing: "While I believe Marco Rubio has a very bright future within the Republican Party, Charlie Crist is the best candidate in 2010 to ensure that we maintain the checks and balances that Floridians deserve in the United States Senate." In other words, Cornyn wants to win this one. John Cornyn is important because he is not just a Republican senator, he is also the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), which is specifically in charge of getting more Republicans elected to the Senate. Cornyn's endorsement of Crist has set off a firestorm of protest within party ranks, including an effort charmingly called "Not One Red Cent" which is calling for a boycott by Republican donors of the NRSC in the 2010 election. Which was not exactly the outcome desired by Cornyn. Cornyn's reasons for endorsing Crist are two -- one practical, and one philosophical. On practical grounds, Cornyn (and others who have endorsed Crist) argue that Crist's poll numbers are fantastic in Florida, and he can ride his popularity right into the Senate, and easily defeat any Democratic contender because Floridians love him already. Crist would be a shoo-in, in other words. Rubin's supporters argue that there's plenty of time before the election, and as Rubin gains in name-recognition, his poll numbers will rise and he will prove to be competitive. But philosophically the battle is a lot larger in scale, because it deals with the future direction of the Republican Party as a whole. There is an enormous ongoing battle which pits the Cheney/Limbaugh position of party purity (motto: "We can expand by shrinking! ") against the "big tent" idea of the Republican Party (motto: "Remember winning elections? We do!") which is inclusive of different flavors of Republicanism. Party insiders who can read demographics are telling anyone who will listen that the party is doomed to being a regional party with no power (call them "Dixiecans") unless it starts fielding some candidates with a chance of winning -- even if they aren't the purest of the pure when it comes to acceptible Republican orthodoxy. The Dixiecans argue, however, that absolutely nothing is wrong with their message, instead what is wrong is the "RINOs" in the party ("Republicans In Name Only") who deviate from the core Republican mantra, and thus destroy the party from within. Enter Marco Rubin. He has impeccable conservative credentials, and is the favorite of many Republicans. Charlie Crist, they feel, should be drummed out of the Republican Party for his centrism in general, and in particular for supporting President Obama's stimulus package. Crist even -- gasp! -- appeared onstage with Obama to push for the stimulus package's passage, a bit of video that is already being aired in Rubin's campaign ads (yes, there are already 2010 campaign ads, I am sorry to report). Rubin has a chance of winning as a staunch conservative, his supporters will tell you, and that would be much better than Crist winning and then not voting they way they would like. As I said, there are parallels to the Arlen Specter problem for Democrats here. Plus, Rubin is Latino. So he could also be seen as carrying the banner for "big tent" Republicans in his own way. This could be very important, at a time when Republican Latino support is disappearing fast. This will only be exacerbated by the confirmation battle later this summer over Sotomayor. Republican attacks on Obama's first Supreme Court nominee could drive Latino voters away from their party (even faster than they're already leaving, that is). The Washington insiders in the Republican Party who are pressuring Rubin to stand aside and let Crist have the nomination are also risking being seen as detrimental to Republican Latinos. Republicans are already choosing sides in this power struggle. Jeb Bush, Jr. (the son of the former Florida governor) just announced his endorsement of Rubin. Cornyn has reportedly been facing some rather pointed questions from party insiders and righty bloggers . Political parties always go through this sort of soul-searching when they've been soundly defeated in a few elections. Democrats have been through this cycle themselves. But the fight over the Republican primary in Florida is shaping up to be the main-ring event in the GOP's version of this intraparty struggle next year. Because Cornyn endorsed Crist so early on, and because of his position as chairman of the NRSC, this one fight could have national implications for Republicans. If Republican donors -- those deep pockets who fund the party's election efforts -- decide to give their money to independent conservative organizations rather than the Senate Republican committee, then it could mean less money for Republican senatorial candidates nationwide. Cornyn could solve this problem by resigning his chairmanship of the NRSC, who could then replace him with someone studiously neutral in the Florida race. But, short of that happening, this could shape up to be one of the most intense Republican skirmishes over the direction of their party, and could indeed have implications far beyond 2010. Marco Rubio is seen as a rising star in the Republican Party, and (like Bobby Jindal and Michael Steele) one of the few who is a minority. He would seem to be a perfect person to carry the banner of "inclusiveness" to some in the party -- even more so because he is seen as a true-blue conservative. So it's going to be a battle of which idea of the "big tent" will prevail -- one that allows for less orthodox politicians who can win elections, or one that celebrates minorities who have passed the ideological purity test. No matter what the outcome, it's going to be a race to watch next year.   Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com   More on Arlen Specter
 
Medical Marijuana Legislation Narrowly Passes Illinois Senate Top
A bill to legalize medical marijuana narrowly passed the Illinois Senate Wednesday by a vote of 30 to 28, with 1 'present' vote. The vote on SB 1381, The Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act , was postponed repeatedly as its sponsor, Sen. William R. Haine (D-Alton), waited until all his 'yes' votes were present to call the vote. That opportunity came late Wednesday afternoon, and passage of the controversial legislation was met with clapping in the Senate gallery. "I'm very satisfied," Haine told the Huffington Post after the Senate adjourned. "It's a good bill, and it's on its way to the House. Realistically, I don't think they'll get to it this week, but it will be ready for them in the fall." As the vote neared this week, Haine said he approached every senator and asked simply that each vote his or her conscience. "I didn't do any arm-twisting," Haine said. "Nothing. I didn't put pressure on anyone." The bill, which allows patients with diseases like cancer, multiple sclerosis and HIV/AIDS to use marijuana on their doctors' advice without the threat of arrest and incarceration, grew steadily more restrictive over the course of the legislative session in order to allay concerns of law enforcement officials. The process for getting and filling a prescription for medical marijuana became more carefully controlled, the amount of cannabis plants that patients can have in their home declined and the State Police were given a more prominent role on an a state panel charged with monitoring the entire medical marijuana system. During the nearly 45 minutes of deliberation, several senators rose to speak in favor of and in opposition to the controversial bill, with each side trying to characterize the bill as either an issue of compassion and common sense or as dangerous and reckless. Sen. Dale Righter (R-Mattoon) called the bill a monstrosity and urged his colleagues not to start down the road to legalization. Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago) teared up as he spoke about his father's painful death, for which he said pharmaceuticals offered little relief. "You can pick over any bill that any legislator authors to divert attention away from the heart of the matter," Raoul said. "We can make this a political issue, but this is about compassion." "Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, John Adams, one of our founding fathers once said facts are stubborn things," Haine said right before the vote. "And the facts surrounding medical marijuana are that it does offer a benefit to those who suffer." Sen. J. Bradley Burzynski (R-Sycamore) asked that the narrow vote be confirmed by a roll call, which it was. After the recount, the gallery again erupted in applause. Reflecting on the vote, Haine said he considered the bill's passage a milestone. "We did something in the teeth of a preconceived notion of marijuana that there's nothing good to say about it, when the medical evidence is to the contrary," Haine said. "That's a sign of a mature society." More on Health
 
Flustered Burris Maintains Innocence On "Hardball" (WATCH) Top
Roland Burris began Wednesday by explaining to reporters how a recording of a telephone call of him promising the brother of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich that he would "personally do something" for Blagojevich's campaign fund-- while they were discussing his interest in being appointed to the Senate-- actually proved his innocence of pay-to-play . Burris' rough day got even worse Wednesday afternoon during a phone interview on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews." Burris began the interview by reiterating his innocence, saying that "there was no money ever given, nor was there any money ever raised" for Blagojevich. Then Matthews played a portion of the taped call that appears to reveal Burris' awareness of the murky waters he was navigating while campaigning for the Senate appointment: BURRIS: I mean, I'm trying to figure out how to deal with this and still be in the consideration for the appointment. ROB BLAGOJEVICH: I hear you. No, I hear you. BURRIS: And if I do that, I guarantee you that that will get out and people will say, Oh, Burris is doing a fund-raiser, and then Rod and I are both going to catch hell. And if I do get appointed, that means I bought it. If I don't get appointed, then my people who I'm trying to raise money from are going to look at me and say, yes, what was that all about, Roland? I mean, so Rob, I'm in a -- I'm in a -- a dilemma right now, wanting to help the governor. Burris denied that that implied he was engaged in a quid pro quo and said the "dilemma" he was referring to was "the fact that I wanted to try to help the governor and I couldn't because I wanted to get appointed to the seat. That's clear. If I helped him, then I would be involved in some quid pro quo." Matthews saw it in a less flattering light: In other words if you don't get the job that you raised the money for, your people are going to be mad at you because they didn't get the Senate seat you were supposed to get out of this deal. How is that not incriminating? Watch Burris' response and the rest of the interview: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Rod Blagojevich
 
Towns Ponder Bankruptcy During Recession Top
As the recession batters city budgets around the U.S., some municipalities are considering the once-unthinkable option of dissolving themselves through "disincorporation." More on Bankruptcy
 
Sybil Adelman Sage: Open Letter to American Girl Dolls Top
Mazel tov on the newest of your historical dolls, 9-year-old Rebecca Rubin being introduced on May 31, who lived in a lower East Side tenement with her Russian-Jewish immigrant parents, siblings and "Bubbie!" You took great care to veer away from stereotypes, paying particular attention to hair color, settling on brown with russet highlights, tasteful enough to have been executed by Frederic Fekkai. I commend you for not having her be ultra-orthodox, which would have afforded the opportunity of selling a wardrobe of wigs? Or were you concerned that a $20 hair styling at your salon might be too steep during this recession? Rebecca garnered the approval of Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, who deemed her kosher. We're eager to see what she'll be wearing at next year's White House seder. Thanks to American Girl, for only $100, a girl can own a doll that will expose her to poverty and hardships, designed to straighten out her priorities so she'll value friends and family above possessions. What little girl wouldn't light up at a chance to have Addy Walker, a slave doll, that's all hers? Addy's bio tells us that she lived on a plantation in 1864 before escaping to Philadelphia with her mother. Those of our daughters whose parents' portfolios and 401 K's have recently shrunk or disappeared are lucky if, during better times, they'd gotten Kit Kittredge, a doll who struggled with the hardships of the Great Depression. How comforting to be able to clutch Kit closely when a "For Sale" sign appears next to the family's country house. Kit emerged from the dismal period with a complete wardrobe, a $58 bed and $159 trunk. One has to hope the next generation will fare as well. Your new Rebecca took me by surprise. Given the popularity of Molly and Emily, patriotic girls who grew up during World War II, I was sure those attending birthday parties at American Girl Place must have been desperate for another doll from that time period. I could almost hear them whining, "I want a survivor doll!" That's why I was expecting Miriam, who'd come on the scene with a splashy party at the Holocaust Museum., her bio revealing that she'd been hidden from the Nazis by a family in the Ukraine, now honored in Yad Vashem's Garden of the Righteous. Filling out the story would be that Miriam's entire family, including her younger sister, Rivkeh, had been wiped out in one of the camps. Our girls would order the striped pajamas to match Rivkeh's from your catalog, making them the envy of their bunkmates at Maine sleep-away camps. The other doll I'd been anticipating is Ming Lee. We'd learn that she'd been adopted from a Chinese orphanage and flown to America to join her celebrity family and meet her Ethiopian and Cambodian siblings. Ming Lee would show girls that in the bleakest of moments, life can turn around in a nanosecond with one nod from Angelina Jolie. Interestingly, China tightened its laws, refusing to allow adoption by anyone whose net worth is under $80,000. Ming Lee would be the gentle reminder that you need big bucks to get a Chinese child or doll. I've no doubt that your birthday parties -- $450 for eight children (not including gratuities, wardrobe and shopping) - are the place to see and be seen. You've gotten favorable press by donating to charity, but, even so, parents may be considering more modest ways of celebrating, perhaps at home, in a park or at Chuck E. Cheese. My hope is Rebecca Rubin, when she marries and becomes Rebecca Rubin Rabinowitz, will make that choice for her daughter. You report having made considerable effort to avoid offensive stereotypes in the development of Rebecca Rubin. Am I the only one questioning your selling a triple bunk bed priced at $215 and a doll storage chest for $349 to accompany dolls purporting to impart values? And how are poor girls to learn about struggling? Oh, right, they have real life for that. Last year you took in an impressive $463 million, but given the current economy, profits are likely to slack off. Girls may have to drag out an old Barbie and redress her in today's fashion statement. Maybe Pink Slip Barbie?
 
Desmond Hatchett: 29 Year Old With 21 Kids (PHOTOS) (VIDEO) Top
Desmond Hatchett, a 29 year old who lives in Knoxville, Tennessee, has fathered 20 (maybe 21) children with at least 11 different mothers. The kids, who are between 11 months and 11 years old, require food, clothing, etc. which doesn't come cheap. That's a problem for their minimum-wage earning father. "I had four kids in the same year. Twice." Hatchett says. He was called to court last week where he appeared on the docket eleven times to answer for 15 of his 21 children who haven't received child support recently. The mothers of Hatchett's children are supposed to get anywhere from $25 to $309 a month, but the government is only allowed to take up to 50% of his pay check, and when that's split so many times some women only get a $1.98 a month. WATCH:
 
Mike Alvear: Sex With One Hand Over Your Mouth Top
If your breath is so bad you have sex with one hand over your mouth, take my advice... My paint-peeling breath once seriously affected my sex life. I'd brush, floss, use mouthwashes, and pop Altoids but nothing worked. My chances with partners went from Game On to Game Over in one exhalation. I swear at one point, my breath was so bad my dentist would only treat me over the phone. Fortunately, I found out what to do about it. Unfortunately, I have to keep doing it. If you're one of those people who learned to have sex with one hand over your mouth, here's my advice: Know you're making your partner gag on the wrong thing because of odor-causing Volatile Sulfur Compounds (VSC). There's a whole range of new products that neutralize the VSC but they're hard to find so check with your dentist or sites like dentist.net . Make sure they contain chlorine dioxide, zinc ion or sodium chlorite. Gargle with the mouthwash and make that "aaaaahh" sound -- it extends your tongue, letting the rinse cover hard-to-reach places where VSC like to hide. Next, scrape your tongue like there's a hottie's phone number under it. Tongues trap millions of microscopic food particles that eventually become VSC. Also, lose the Altoids. They don't stimulate the body's most effective weapon against bad breath: Saliva. Try hard candy, instead. Better yet, sugarless gum. Epic may be your best bet since it has the heaviest concentration of xylitol, a sugar substitute known for saliva production. Or Big Red. Recent studies show cinnamon has an ingredient that decreases bacteria in the mouth. By the way, there's a reason your morning breath makes your partners lose their short-term memory: Sleep dramatically slows down saliva production. One more suggestion: Water. You remember water? It's a mixer for whiskey. It flushes out bacteria so drink lots of it (the water, not the whiskey). Finally, don't forget to brush, floss, scrape, rinse and drink daily or you'll go back to starting forest fires every time you sigh. The 10 Best Celebrity Kisses on the Internet (assuming their breath's ok) The 10 Worst Celebrity Kisses on the Internet (assuming it's not)
 
Sotomayor's Reversals No Different Than Souter Or Alito Top
One of the major critiques being launched at judge Sonia Sotomayor involves the Supreme Court's reversal of three of her appellate court decisions. The Washington Times trumpeted the charge with an ambitious headline : "Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court." And Fox News' Major Garrett asked pointed questions about the matter to spokesman Robert Gibbs during Tuesday's briefing. The charge is one of several being held up by conservatives as evidence that Sotomayor stands far outside the judicial mainstream. But a little bit of context greatly dilutes its effectiveness. Indeed, if anything, it makes Sotomayor a picture of mainstream jurisprudence. Of the three opinions Sotomayor had overturned by the Supreme Court, two found the man she is being nominated to replace -- Justice David Souter -- on her side. In Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko , Sotomayor and the Court of Appeals held that an inmate could sue a halfway house operated by a private corporation on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons for injuries he suffered in that halfway house. Issued in 2000, the decision was reversed by the Supreme Court a year later by a five-to-four decision. Then-Chief Justice Rehnquist held that the law Sotomayor cited in making her opinion only concerned individual officers and not private entities. Among those who dissented were Justice Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter, who held that the private corporation was, in fact, a federal agent tasked to perform functions "that would otherwise be performed by individual employees of the Federal Government." In Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper , Sotomayor's opinion held that the Environmental Protection Agency was not authorized to conduct a cost-benefit analysis for a rule it issued on protecting fish and other aquatic life near large power plants. Sotomayor then remanded the case to the EPA to clarify the basis behind the rule it issued. The Supreme Court reversed that decision, with the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia. Justice Breyer concurred in part and dissented in part. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg all dissented. In between those two cases, Sotomayor issued an opinion in Merrill Lynch v. Dabit , declaring, in part, that a suit against Merrill Lynch for breaching its fiduciary duties fell under state law and not the Securities Litigation Uniformity Standards Act (SLUSA). The Supreme Court ended up vacating Sotomayor's decision, reasoning that SLUSA covered both the "purchase or sale" of securities and the retention and delay of selling them. Taken as a whole, the decisions suggest that, if anything, Sotomayor is of a similar judicial philosophy to the justice she is poised to replace. The numbers, moreover, make her appear decidedly non-controversial. In an eleven-year career, she issued 380 opinions. Five were appealed to the Supreme Court and only three were reversed. According to SCOTUSblog , a 60 percent reversal rate is actually lower than the overall Supreme Court reversal rate for the past five years. In 2008, for example, the Court reversed 75.3 percent of the cases it considered. Indeed, one of the darlings of judicial conservatives, Justice Samuel Alito, also had a share of his opinions dismissed or overruled by the Court before he himself was appointed to that bench. In Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw , the Supreme Court rejected Alito's argument that the right to sue to enforce the Clean Water Act was strictly the purview of private citizens and not Congress. In Rompilla v. Beard , the court reversed a majority opinion that Alito had issued in which he insisted that the demands of legal representation by a death row inmate exceeded constitutional requirements. And in Planned Parenthood v. Casey , the Supreme Court disagreed with Alito's reasoning that it was within the constitution to require those seeking an abortion to notify their spouses. "The proper focus of constitutional inquiry," the Court noted , "is the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom the law is irrelevant." And then there was this Associated Press article from the days of Alito's confirmation battle: As a judge on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito has written hundreds of opinions or dissents in his 15 years on the federal bench. A few of those cases have gained a spot on the selective Supreme Court docket; even more have been affirmed or reversed through the prism of high court rulings on other appellate cases. Alito has lost some close cases in the Supreme Court; two years ago he was soundly rejected in the case of a former elevator operator who was seeking Social Security disability payments. Some observers contend it would be inaccurate to focus solely on Alito's won-loss record before the high court. The Supreme Court's motivation for choosing a case and its history with certain appellate courts must be factored in. Judge Edward R. Becker, a Reagan appointee who has served with Alito on the 3rd Circuit, said of the reversals: "We've all had our share." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Des Plaines River Remains Not Stacy Peterson Or Lisa Stebic Top
JOLIET, Ill. (AP) -- Authorities say DNA tests show a headless, armless skeleton found along the Des Plaines River last week was from an unidentified male. Speculation had swirled about whether the badly decomposed body was one of two women whose disappearances have drawn national media attention. Illinois State Police said in a statement Wednesday that an investigation to identify the remains is under way. The Will County coroner has said the person was dead for several months or more. Results of an autopsy last week were inconclusive, and DNA tests were conducted. The location of the remains in Will County prompted speculation they were related to the high-profile missing persons cases of Stacy Peterson or Lisa Stebic. -ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
Andrea Chalupa: Levi's sports white knots in support of gay marriage Top
Should businesses take a side in the gay marriage equality debate? Only if they want to be on the right side of history or else it's just bad marketing, and karma. Levi Strauss has taken a stance, outfitting its mannequins in white. Bruce Watson of Walletpop explains: The White Knot program encourages people to demonstrate their solidarity with marriage equality by wearing a small piece of knotted white ribbon. A subtle symbol, white knots have appeared on the clothing of celebrities ranging from New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg to comedienne Kathy Griffin. And now, of course, they are appearing on hundreds of Levi's mannequins. San Francisco-based, family owned Levi Strauss was the first Fortune 500 company to extend health benefits to "domestic partners of unmarried employees." Now the jean giant is spreading a symbol of one of the most important issues of our time--love (versus fear). Now that's good business--forward thinking and engaging. While it seems likely that Levi's might lose a little bit of market share in some of the country's more conservative areas, its move to embrace gay rights suggests that this issue has become more about civil rights than about religion. In this context, it seems like the move for universal marriage rights may have turned a corner. As a Christian, I don't see this as a religious issue at all. It's a basic rights issue. (Whoever thinks otherwise is using fear-based thinking and preaching separation, which is the opposite of what God wants for us.) The fact that there are businesses, like Levi's, that take a stand of support for gay civil rights, in this harsh economic climate, proves as much. To read more of Watson's break-down of Levi's support of gay marriage equality, go to Walletpop.com. More on Gay Marriage
 
Obama Praises Economic Stimulus Bill At 100-Day Mark Top
LAS VEGAS — President Barack Obama on Wednesday hailed solar energy as a cost saver for a major Air Force base, one stop on a Western trip devoted to raising political money and promoting his economic policies. Obama's aides had mocked reporters for making a fuss over his first 100 days in office, but the president was eager to assess the first 100 days of his $787 billion economic stimulus package. It has "saved or created nearly 150,000 jobs," he said, including "jobs building solar panels and wind turbines; making homes and buildings more energy-efficient." The White House job claims are difficult to verify because they are based on estimates of how bad the economy might have been without the stimulus rather than actual employment data. The country has lost 1.3 million jobs since February, a figure the Obama administration says would have been far higher if not for the recovery effort. Obama also announced more spending for renewable energy after touring a large field of solar panels at Nellis Air Force Base, near Las Vegas. The sun-powered cells provide a quarter of the base's power needs, Obama said, speaking in a large hangar warmed by the desert heat. "That's the equivalent of powering about 13,200 homes during the day," he said, and it will save the Air Force nearly $1 million a year. Obama said more than $467 million in stimulus money will be used "to expand and accelerate the development, deployment and use of geothermal and solar energy throughout the United States." The president sandwiched the midday event between two political fundraisers: one on Tuesday night in Las Vegas for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and one set for Wednesday night in Los Angeles for the Democratic National Committee. At Nellis, Obama addressed 400 people, including Air Force personnel, civilian workers and families living on the base. The base's $100 million public-private solar power system covers 140 acres and generates more than 14 megawatts of electricity. As he departed the hangar, Obama bypassed his limousine and walked a quarter-mile along the tarmac to examine fighter jets, chatting with Air Force personnel as he went. ___ Associated Press Writer Matt Apuzzo in Washington contributed to this report. More on Barack Obama
 
Bennet Kelley: After Prop 8: Are You Next? Top
Q. When is a fundamental right not a fundamental right? A. When it is protected by the California Supreme Court. Only a year ago the California Supreme Court held that marriage was a fundamental right and quoted the U.S. Supreme Court to stress that: One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. That was then; in yesterday's ruling on Proposition 8 the court held that a fundamental right can be stripped by a mere thirty percent of the electorate. As Justice Moreno pointed out in his dissent, "under the majority's view, it is not clear what sorts of state constitutional constraints limit the power of a majority of the electorate to discriminate against minorities" Thus, the operative question today is not about the outcome of same sex marriage in California, but rather "who's next?" It is fitting that the decision comes amidst the state budget crisis since the two events demonstrate how California's system of government is broken. Today's Supreme Court decision opens the door to a macabre resolution of both issues whereby voters could approve a constitutional amendment establishing a lottery system similar to the Hawthorne short story except that people would pay to select which disfavored group to discriminate against during the next year. If Proposition 8 supporters could generate $40 million, surely there are people who would pay $5 to permit discrimination against whatever group they dislike. In addition, targeted groups would need to participate to make sure that they are not chosen. Such a lottery in California's polyglot culture could not only raise billions, but by putting people's rights at risk and forcing them to pay to protect them, Californians would value the fleeting rights afforded by the state constitution. There are those who would say this could never happen in America. Let them come to Sacramento . Yesterday's decision, in essence, made this a reality in California. Any one of us potentially could have our rights stripped while the California Supreme Court simply sat and watched. The only difference between reality and my outrageous lottery proposal is that in the former a free ballot replaces the lottery ticket, we still have a $22 billion deficit and 36 million Californians do not realize that they could be next. More on Gay Marriage
 
Tom Dolby: Even After Proposition 8, the Fight -- and the Party -- Must Go On Top
Last month, my fiancé and I got married in the state of Connecticut. Even though we are a same-sex couple, the day was mostly extraordinary in its ordinariness: my fiancé, Andrew Frist, and I met up with our families in the town of Salisbury, Connecticut, having filed our marriage license at the town hall the day before. After taking the requisite pictures on the porch of the inn where we were staying, the nine of us drove to the next town, to the campus of the boarding school I had attended. After the reading of a few poems by our siblings and reciting our vows with the school's lake in the background, we were pronounced married by a justice of the peace, and that was that. What was unusual about the situation was that because I am from California, Drew is from Indiana, and we both live in New York -- all states that do not permit same-sex marriage -- we were forced, like refugees, to go to Connecticut to file our marriage license. We had gotten engaged nearly a year earlier, on May 1, 2008, in Paris. Two weeks later, the ruling on same-sex marriage was announced in California. We set about planning a celebration in northern California for fall 2009, a location that was predicated on my family living there and that gay marriage would be legal. Or so we hoped. On November 4, those hopes were crushed by Proposition 8, and we had to make other plans. We still wanted to have a ceremonial wedding, a larger event, so that we could celebrate with family and friends. We thought that by the fall of 2009, our union might be legal again in California. But we were prepared for the worst, and so, as a backup, we planned our simple Connecticut wedding. What was also unusual about our union was the week leading up to it. Earlier in the year, we had connected with the Courage Campaign, a Los Angeles-based group that, among its many activities, hosts training camps to help grassroots activists educate the public about marriage equality. The Courage Campaign, modeling itself on the Obama Campaign, had been enormously successful with its camps in Los Angeles and Fresno, and it needed funding for a camp in the San Francisco Bay Area. Because my family lives in San Francisco and believes firmly in equal rights, I was able to organize a $25,000 matching grant. When the Campaign announced the challenge, it had ambitions of making the match, perhaps exceeding it by a little bit. Within three hours of the initial email blast, they had already surpassed the match, reaching nearly $75,000. On the following Tuesday, a follow-up email went out from Drew and me, asking Courage Campaign members to step up to the challenge of raising $100,000, enough to fund two training camps. What was unique about the appeal was that it featured our own story, complete with a picture of the two of us. When contrasted with the absurd advertisements that had run recently from groups like the "National Organization for Marriage," featuring actors spouting off lies about the non-existent relationships between gay marriage and the civil rights of doctors, educators, and the clergy, our appeal was simple and direct. Most importantly, it was personal. What I realized during the whole process was how much we all needed to tell our own stories and not resort to abstract rhetoric. We told our story, and the money is still coming in -- to date, the appeal has raised more than $150,000. All that happened last month. Now, this week, on Tuesday, our rights were taken away again in California, this time by the California Supreme Court, which voted to uphold Proposition 8. Until 2010, at the very earliest. Until a ballot measure brings back same-sex marriage to my home state. As I heard the news on the radio, I wanted to cancel the celebration we are planning for the fall in Sonoma, California. Sure, we already have our marriage license, but why celebrate that in a state that won't grant us one of its own? I was embarrassed for California -- particularly considering the recent developments in other states -- and I wondered, why should its economy receive our dollars when it can't make our union legal? I wanted to call off the caterer, the invitations, the flowers, the band, the tent rental. What would any of it mean, after all? I realized, though, that no battle was ever won by cowering in a corner, by dismissing the idea that we deserved a wedding celebration as jubilant as that of any heterosexual couple. As an older and wiser friend said to me recently: "Don't feel guilty that you're having a big wedding. You guys have to do it bigger and better. You have to show all those people that a gay wedding is just as important as a straight one -- maybe even more so." We're not having a big wedding in California to show anyone anything. We're doing it for ourselves, for our families, and for our friends. We're doing it so that someday, we will have beautiful pictures to show and memories to share with our kids. But we are also doing it because we are saying, California, we trust you'll make this right. I believe, if we keep working at it, that it will happen in the fall of 2010. Just one year after our own not-legal California wedding. I also know from our experience in Connecticut that same-sex marriage may simply take some getting used to. On that Friday morning, before we went to the town hall to file our marriage license, we were served breakfast at the inn by an older waitress, a woman with hardened features who fit a classic New England archetype. When she asked us what we were doing in town, I motioned to Drew, explaining that we would be getting married the following day. Her face went blank, and she nodded slightly, as if the mere notion of this was something she would need to think about further. The next morning, the day of our ceremony, she served us again. By then, we had struck up a rapport, though we hadn't spoken any more about our impending nuptials. She didn't seem like the kind of person who knew any gay people or who believed in same-sex marriage -- or at the very least, she hadn't given it much thought. What she did have, however, was common sense and decency. When we signed our check, she said goodbye to us with a simple farewell, a note of grace that I believe the rest of America would do well to follow the next time they are at the polls: "Have a beautiful day today," she said. "I wish you both all the happiness in the world." More on Gay Marriage
 
ZP Heller: Starbucks' Health Care Policy Is Sickening Top
Since Brave New Films launched Stop Starbucks last week, over 50,000 people watched the video, " What do Starbucks and Wal-Mart have in common? " and 15,000 signed the petition insisting CEO Howard Schultz support his workers' unionization efforts. The latest video, "Starbucks' Health Care Policy Is Sickening," takes the Wal-Mart comparison even further, considering Starbucks insures less than 42 percent of its employees in the US -- a rate lower than Wal-Mart . Watch as a former Starbucks worker explains how Starbucks routinely precludes employees from working the 20 hours a week (or 240 hours per quarter) necessary to qualify for the company's health insurance. The shocking truth about Starbucks' health care policy and anti-labor practices belie the company's "progressive" veneer. Give Schultz a call and tell him to quit his anti-union ways: (206) 318-1575. You can also enter the Stop Starbucks contest , which caught fire last week when Boing Boing , Bloggasm , and others credited Stop Starbucks with undercutting the company's recent multi-million dollar ad campaign. And today, this campaign's viral spiral caught the attention of the LA Times : The Starbucks chief executive, who actively cultivates a socially progressive image, is in the cross-hairs of a new-media campaign designed to bolster union representation at the retail giant and beyond. For five years, Starbucks has been the target of a limited but sometimes nasty unionization drive that has tarnished its reputation for high-minded benevolence. But last week, Brave New Films in Culver City launched an ambitious "Stop Starbucks" offensive, including a website ( StopStarbucks.com ) featuring a four-minute video that was also posted on YouTube assailing Starbucks' treatment of workers, along with a petition demanding that Schultz "quit following Wal-Mart's anti-union example." By week's end, almost 12,000 had signed the petition, and nearly 40,000 had viewed the video, organizers said. The anti-Starbucks onslaught also featured a Twitter "hijacking" designed to undermine a Starbucks promotion in which contestants vied for prizes by submitting photos of themselves at Starbucks cafes. The virtual saboteurs forwarded the required "Twitpics" but hoisted signs blaring seditious mottos such as, "I want a union with my latte" or "Shultz makes millions, workers make beans." So far, however, Starbucks has stuck to what I'm calling "Starbucks Speak," in which words mean the opposite of what the company pretends they mean. More from the LA Times : The new-media assault, say Starbucks officials, presents a distorted portrait of management's collaborative relationship with its "partners," a reference to the company's 135,000 U.S. workers. "Calling Starbucks a bad employer simply doesn't ring true with the overwhelming majority of our partners," said Jim Koster, Starbucks senior vice president. Doesn't the word "partner" connote equitable treatment? A company should not fire, harass, or discriminate against its partners simply for partaking in union activities, nor should they go out of their way to deny partners enough hours to qualify for benefits like health care. Koster and Starbucks officials obviously have another definition of "partners," but what else would you expect from a company that offers workers an "Optimal Scheduling" policy with no set hours, a company that joined the "Committee for Level Playing Field" to lobby for a "compromise" on Employee Free Choice that would benefit employers at the expense of workers? Give Schultz a call and tell him to support his workers' right to unionize: (206) 318-1575.
 
What Kind Of Hammer Is Twitter? Top
In the ongoing debate about social networking tools, sites such as Facebook and Twitter are coming under increasing scrutiny for the potential of harm to users and those in their networks. As we have noted in earlier posts, social networking appeals to a wide range of users and uses, from the simple and personal to corporate marketing and audience acquisition. Now, Google's Nicole Wong raises the specter of Twitter as a tool that can be used for evil purposes, perhaps even as a tool for terrorism. At a recent conference on The Soul of the New Machine sponsored by the Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley, a panel of internet and legal luminaries discussed the implications of a rapidly growing internet on human and social communications. The panel included such luminaries as Chuck Cosson (Microsoft Corporation), Bennett Freeman (Senior Vice President of the Calvert Group), Michael Samway (Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Yahoo), and Nicole Wong (Associate General Counsel for Products and Intellectual Property, Google). Watch the following clip to see Nicole discussing the unintended downside of Twitter enabled communication and coordination. This story represents a perfect example of the old cliché about how you use a tool. A hammer can drive a nail, smash your thumb, or club someone over the head. Of course, the hammer can't do any of these things - it takes a person to swing it. How will the Twitter tool be used? Stay tuned! More on Twitter
 
U.S. Job Market May Take 5 Years To Recover Top
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. housing bust and auto sector upheaval have left hundreds of thousands of workers looking for jobs in the same sectors, in the same places, and at the same time. More on Housing Crisis
 

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

1 comment:

  1. Firoz KhanOctober 26, 2012 at 3:27 AM

    www.castorsandwheelsmanufactures.blog.com
    Super Auto Parts
    BIL Castors and Wheels manufactures and supplies castors, casters and pneumatic wheels. Great deals on casters, big savings on pneumatic wheels. Huge selection of castors for all applications

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)