Monday, June 22, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Elizabeth Rigby: How "Harry and Louise" Could Still Take Down Health Care Reform Top
After more than a decade of academic, media, and popular analysis, the failure of the Clintons' 1993 health care proposal is still best captured by this old Harry and Louise ad in which a white middle-class couple sit down at their kitchen table "sometime in the future" and lament the good ol' days before the bureaucratic government took over their health care system and eliminated their ability to control their own care (my words). Paid for by the powerful Health Insurance Association of America, this ad galvanized public opposition to health care reform--confirming the widespread notion that interest groups and media experts can easily manipulate a susceptible public in order to benefit their own bottom line. Of course, this media strategy is found on both sides of the debate. In fact, during the Democratic and Republican conventions this summer, a set of pro-reform interest groups (American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Families USA, etc.) aired a new multi-million dollar ad campaign in which the same Harry and Louise return to lament out-of-control health care costs and urge the next President and Congress to put health care reform at the top of their political agenda. Now, we see a new "Bulldozer ad" from Conservatives for Patent's Rights. In it we watch a bulldozer labeled " Government Run Insurance Plan " rush forward while hearing that Congressional reform proposals "could crush all your other choices, driving them out of existence." Among others, Newsweek quickly posted a fact check memo pointing out holes in this ad's argument, most notably the fact that for most Americans choices are already incredibly constrained. But, despite the "truthiness" (a la Colbert) of this type of ad, it remains powerful by effectively evoking emotional, rather than rational, responses from viewers. In short, it does not matter if you're really being bulldozed; only if you feel like you are. It is easy to dismiss this ad effect as superficial smoke and mirrors generated by well-compensated media types manipulating an apathetic and ignorant American public. Instead, it represents something much more fundamental--and hence, much more powerful. The fact that we can be swayed, scared, and moved by a minute or two of well-staged political rhetoric illustrates the deeply-conflicted and emotional nature of American public opinion. Rather than simply adopting a liberal or conservative ideology, most Americans embrace a broad set of deeply-held moral beliefs about justice, fairness, freedom, and opportunity. Our problem is not apathy or ignorance, but the complexity of our social problems that requires making really hard trade-offs among values that we really do not want to trade-off. These tensions were illustrated in the recent June health tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation , in which respondents were provided with counter-arguments after expressing their initial position on aspects of health reform. Not surprising, like political ads, these counter-arguments had a big impact on public preferences. For example, although 71% of respondents favored requiring an individual mandate, the vast majority of these respondents changed their mind when asked, "What if you heard that this could mean that some people would be required to buy health insurance that they find too expensive or did not want?" Additionally, among those opposing the individual mandate, 78% changed their mind when asked, "What if you heard that without such a requirement, insurance companies would still be allowed to deny coverage to people who are sick?" Kaiser concludes that public support for reform is "somewhat fragile." And that much is clear. But, this fragility does not stem from indifference and confusion as many assume. It stems from the inherent conflict we all face in maximizing conflicting goals, such as broad coverage for the sick and disadvantaged and our desire to make our own choices for how we care for our health. These are not pedestrian concerns for most Americans; but represent deeply-emotional and powerful notions of what is right and wrong--for themselves, their families, and for others. Harry-&-Louise-Style ads are powerful, not because they tell ignorant Americans what to worry about, but because they remind well-meaning Americans of what could be lost in the name of progress. When considering the power short TV ads hold to shift public preference, reform proponents may be tempted to talk down to the American public, to focus-group-test even more sound bites, and to sweep complexities under the rug in an effort to hold together the "somewhat fragile" support for reform. But, real efforts to counter this style ad campaign require just the opposite: acknowledging the trade-offs that will occur and leveling with the American public about why they are so necessary. Elizabeth Rigby, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Houston and a Research Associate at the National Center for Children and Families at Columbia University. Her research examines the politics of health, education, and welfare policy making in the US. More on Barack Obama
 
Bernard-Henri Lévy: The Swan Song of the Islamic Republic Top
Whatever happens from this point on, nothing will ever be the same in Tehran. Whatever happens, if the protest gains momentum or loses steam, if it ends up prevailing or if the regime succeeds in terrorizing it, he who should now only be called president-non-elect Ahmadinejad will only be an ersatz, illegitimate, weakened president. Whatever happens, whatever the result of this crisis provoked two weeks ago by the enormity of a fraud that serious-minded people can no longer doubt, no Iranian leader can appear on the global scene, or in any negotiation with Obama, Sarkozy, or Merkel, without being haloed, not by the nimbus of light dreamed of by Ahmadinejad in his 2005 speech to the United Nations, but by the cloud of sulphur that crowns cheaters and butchers. Whatever happens, the Ayatollah Khamenei, Khomeini's successor and Supreme Leader of the regime, tutelary authority of the President, father of the people, will have lost his role as arbiter, will have shamelessly sided with one faction over the others, and will have therefore lost what remained of his authority: "Only God knows my vote," he carefully replied four years ago to those who were already calling upon him to denounce the fraud--"in the name of merciful God, I armor, I hammer, and I dissolve the people," he has responded this time to the naïve who believed he was there to uphold the Constitution. Whatever happens, the block of ayatollahs who had always succeeded in maintaining a united front, whatever their differences and divergent interests, will have put their ferocious divisions on display: the ones behind Khamenei, approving of the decision to crush the movement with blood; the others, like the ex-President Rafsanjani, leader of the very powerful Assembly of Experts, warning that if the wave of protests were not taken seriously, veritable "volcanoes" of anger would erupt. Others still like the Grand Ayatollah Montazeri who, since his house arrest in Qom, has been calling for a recount and for national mourning for the victims of the repression; and without mentioning the leading religious experts of the "Office of Theological Seminaries" who no longer fear proposing the possibility--what passed for heresy not long ago--of Khamenei's resignation and of his replacement by a "Guidance Council." Whatever happens, and beyond these internal conflicts, the people will be dissociated from an anemic and fatally wounded regime. Whatever happens, young people, who were believed to be enthralled by the principles of political Islam and who a month ago, upon Ahmadinejad's return from Geneva, had supposedly planned a triumphal reception for the president-non-elect, will have said, loud and proud, with an audacity matched only by their political intelligence, that this president shamed them. Whatever happens, there will be in Tehran, Tabriz, Ispahan, Zahedan, and Ardebil, millions of young people who in a matter of a few days will have become, like the timid Mousavi, in a sense larger than themselves--and will have understood that they could, with their bare hands, without provocation or violence, keep a power at bay. Whatever happens, this extraordinary event--which is a miracle, as a popular uprising always is, and which was endowed under this circumstance with the blind mimetism and un-self-consciousness that is peculiar to the Angel of History when it thinks it is going forward, but is actually looking backward--will seem to have reproduced topsy-turvy the very scene in the same streets, surrounding the same barracks and the same shops, that was described thirty years ago by Michel Foucault, who never imagined that the real revolution was still to come, and that it would be the exact opposite of what he described. Whatever happens, the people know, from this point on, that they are the people and that there is not a regime on earth that can remain in power against the people. Whatever happens, a body politic has been formed in the heat of peaceful protests--and even if it gets winded and loses steam, even if the murderers think they can declare victory, there is a new actor onstage, without whom the rest of this country's story will not be written. Whatever happens, the beautiful face of Neda Soltan, killed at point-blank range last Saturday by a Bassidj henchman, the images of kids beaten to death by the attack squadron and motorcycle infantry of the guardians of the revolution, the videos of the enormous protests, impressively calm and dignified, will have, via Twitter, circled both the cyberplanet and the planet. Whatever happens, the emperor has no clothes. Whatever happens, the regime of the ayatollahs is, in the greater or lesser long term, condemned to compromise or disappear. We always forget that the other revolution--the first, which, 30 years ago, put this Iranian-style National Socialism into power--lasted almost a year: why would it be any different for this revolution, a democratic one concerned with what's right, which has also just taken the stage? The earth quakes in Tehran, and it is only, I'm willing to bet, the beginning. Translated from French by Sara Phenix. More on Iranian Election
 
Jon, Kate Gosselin OFICIALLY SPLIT: Couple Confirms Legal Separation Papers Filed (VIDEO) Top
Jon and Kate Gosselin, the reality TV star couple whose recent marriage troubles have exploded across the headlines, confirmed that they are splitting up after 10 years of marriage. Both reiterated that they did not hate each other, but that it was time to move to a new chapter in their lives, although they will always be connected by their eight children. The two also said that they participated in the reality show in order to help provide the best lives for their children, and reminisced about all the happy memories they'd created over the past 10 years. Towards the end of the show, this statement was shown against a black screen: On Monday June 22, 2009, legal proceedings were initiated in Pennsylvania to dissolve the ten-year marriage of Jon and Kate Gosselin. Watch Jon and Kate on their breakup below.
 
Nate Silver: Health Care Industry Lobbying, Contributions Could Doom Public Option Top
As I lamented yesterday, health care is one of those areas where both popular opinion and sound public policy seem to take a backseat to protecting those stakeholders who benefit from the status quo. But can we actually see -- statistically -- the impact of lobbying by the insurance industry on the prospects for health care reform? I believe that the answer is yes.
 
Art Levine: Chamber of Commerce, Unionbuster vs. Pope, Catholic Bishops on Union Rights Top
While the Chamber of Commerce continues its smear campaign against the Employee Free Choice Act, the union movement enlisted a powerful ally today in its drive for workers' rights: the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, following the guidance of, yes, the Pope. As the AFL-CIO blog noted: The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has announced a new step forward for workers at Catholic health facilities: a set of principles to ensure that workers have a fair process to bargain for a better life. In "Respecting the Just Rights of Workers: Guidance and Options for Catholic Health Care and Unions," the USCCB, in cooperation with Catholic health care providers and the union movement, has laid out guidelines for Catholic health care ministries across the country. These guidelines, and the process that produced them, are an encouraging model of cooperation and collaboration in protecting workers' freedom to form unions and bargain. The new guidelines cover seven principles for employers when workers seek a union: * Respect; * Access to information; * Truthful communication; * Pressure-free environment; * Expeditious process; * Honoring employee decisions; and * Meaningful enforcement of these principles. As the SEIU blog reported, " The new report...renews the Bishops' call to Catholic health care employers to support the rights of workers to choose to join a union free from intimidation or harassment." "At a moment when some in the business community are focused on diminishing the voice of workers, the Bishops are standing up for what is fair and what is just: that it is up to workers--not bishops, hospital managers, or union leaders--to choose to join a union," said SEIU Healthcare Chair Dennis Rivera in a statement today. Indeed, those seven principles allowing for a level playing field and organizing without intimidation are, of course, exactly what advocates say the Employee Free Choice Act aims to ensure, although this agreement wasn't an explicit endorsement of the legislation. In contrast, as I found when I went undercover to a unionbusting seminar hosted by Jackson Lewis, corporate America is horrified by the moral authority represented by religious leaders. That's why anti-union leaders are alarmed by the rising support for the legislation among the clergy, as reflected by such groups as the new coalition, Faith Leaders for Workplace Fairness. Here's what an attorney for Jackson Lewis said about the PR challenge posed by religious support for unions, as I previously reported : When I attended undercover a unionbusting seminar by the law firm Jackson Lewis for In These Times, the attorney for the firm recounted the outsized influence of the clergy in an SEIU battle to organize janitors in Houston (although his comments weren't in the final published article). He reported in horrified tones: "The Justice for Janitors talked about raising the average wage. They went to the archbishop, the local politicians. The archbishop even held a mass for the Justice for Janitors. How can anybody fight that? I'm good at fighting Jimmy Hoffa, but a bishop? We have to deal with the pope's encyclical [Pope John Paul II's "On Human Work"] and people's faith." The appearance of the clergy in an organizing drive appears to have the same impact on a unionbuster as waving a golden cross in the face of Dracula. Now, it turns out, the Chamber of Commerce is promoting a "study" by this same controversial Jackson Lewis firm about the Employee Free Choice Act. (Note: even though Jackson Lewis has advised countless corporations in tough fights against unions, the law firm itself has, despite assorted accusations it has faced, has not been found by any court decision or administrative ruling to have engaged in illegal actions.) The Chamber of Commerce ballyhooed the law firm's findings earlier this month: U.S. Chamber Study Exposes What Unions Don't Want You to Know About Card Check Comprehensive Analysis Reveals EFCA is a Radical Threat to Balanced Labor Laws WASHINGTON, D.C.--As the Senate's leading supporters of the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) push for a vote on the bill, a comprehensive analysis of how its three major components would dramatically change existing labor laws without justification was released today by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "The leading arguments in favor of EFCA are based on shrill rhetoric castigating employers," said Randel Johnson, vice president of Labor, Immigration and Employee Benefits at the U.S. Chamber. "However, facts do matter. The more people learn about EFCA, the less they like it. This analysis will provide an important contribution to the debate over EFCA by taking a measured and analytical approach to demonstrate that this bill is not justified and is not in the best interest of employees or employers." The Employee Free Choice Act: Piercing the Rhetoric provides a comprehensive analysis of EFCA and how it would change existing labor laws. This review, prepared with the help of Martin F. Payson, Michael J. Lotito, and Harold R. Weinrich with the law firm Jackson Lewis LLP, critiques each of EFCA's three provisions: Card check certification for union organizing, compulsory interest arbitration of first contracts, and increased penalties on employers. "Supporters of EFCA have been quick to demonize employers and mischaracterize existing law," Johnson said. "But you won't find the union leadership discussing the details of the bill, if they can help it. This is because changes to its major three components represent the most radical threat to balanced labor law in decades." The facts about these myths about the legislation are perhaps best addressed in this comprehensive briefing paper about the bill from The Center for American Progress Action Fund, "The Employee Free Choice Act 101." In addition, as American Rights at Work observes, Jackson Lewis isn't necessarily the most unbiased reviewer of these issues: "Jackson Lewis presents itself as a reputable "national workplace law firm," yet under its polished veneer lies a for-profit unionbuster. In fact, Jackson Lewis is one of the oldest and largest union avoidance law firms in the nation. Jackson Lewis counsels businesses on labor relations strategies that prevent unions from entering the workplace. By operating in the shadows of corporate unionbusting campaigns, the firm remains virtually unknown to the general public. "Jackson Lewis capitalizes on ineffective labor laws, the desperation of some employers to remain union free, and the use of scare tactics to portray unions as an enemy to businesses. One of the firm's lawyers iterates the modus operandi of Jackson Lewis best: "Jackson Lewis was founded on the concept of preventive labor relations, and we want to help our clients before there's full-blown organizing. We are a full-service law firm. We just don't do the legal stuff-we handle the campaign." As with other unionbusting firms Jackson Lewis profits off manipulation of a weak labor law system to help its clients avoid unions, at all costs. American Rights at Work sums up: "Preventive" Labor Relations Practices Jackson Lewis sells a variety of services to employers to prevent workers from ever considering a union. Here are a few examples of the firm's activities, as reported by American Rights at Work: * Vulnerability Assessments: The firm provides audits as the first step for employers looking to avoid a union organizing campaign. By assessing an employer's vulnerability through measures such as weaknesses in management-employee communication and levels of workplace satisfaction among employees. The assessment aims to create an "issue-free" workplace where management makes clear that their business desires to remain union-free. * "How To Stay Union Free" Seminars: These two-day intensive workshops are for a "bona-fide management representative" only. Seminars with provocative titles such as "Union Avoidance War Games" take place throughout the country and run an employer anywhere from $595 to $1,595. Jackson Lewis promises a "frightening, valuable, and enjoyable" seminar that completely prepares "supervisors to exercise their union-free rights under the law." A 2007 exposé by a journalist who went undercover at one of these union-free workshops revealed how Jackson Lewis encourages employers to skirt the law when it comes to unions. A Jackson Lewis lawyer reasoned that it is acceptable to fire union organizers, as long as one creates a legitimate reason: "Union sympathizers aren't entitled to any more protection than other workers." * Union-Free Books, Articles, and Pamphlets: Among the anti-union manuals the firm produces are suggestively titled newsletters such as "Union KNOw -a publication devoted to enhancing the union-free status of clients and friends of Jackson Lewis," and books including "Leveling the Playing Field-What New York Charter Schools' Leaders Need to Know About Union Organizing." Unionbusting Behind the Scenes Jackson Lewis' clients include employers of varying sizes and from a range of industries who call upon the firm to assist them in unionbusting. Since federal law does not require union-avoidance firms to disclose specific activities and costs associated with the practice of unionbusting, client lists and price tags are shielded and rarely disclosed. Below are just a few examples of companies where Jackson Lewis' involvement has surfaced: * EnerSys (1995-2004): During an arduous organizing campaign, EnerSys, an industrial battery maker in South Carolina, hired Jackson Lewis to prevent workers from voting in a union. As The New York Times revealed, Jackson Lewis' participation in this aggressive anti-union campaign led EnerSys to file a malpractice lawsuit against the firm, for its legal 'advice' to EnerSys to break the law, which resulted in EnerSys amassing large legal bills and multi-million dollar settlements. Federal labor officials charged EnerSys with obstructing the organizing campaign, harassing and intimidating workers, and failing to bargain in good faith with workers-resulting in 120 violations of federal law. EnerSys' total bill for Jackson Lewis' services: $2.7 million. [Note to Huffington Post readers: The lawsuit was ultimately settled or withdrawn on undisclosed terms with no court finding of wrongdoing against Jackson Lewis.] * Borders (1995-2000): Borders is a regular client of Jackson Lewis. The firm helped Borders crush union support by firing union activists and threatening to close stores if workers voted for union representation. Borders even banned Michael Moore from speaking at an event at all stores because he is a known union supporter. * New York Daily News (1989-1991): The publisher of the New York Daily News hired Jackson Lewis six months before union contracts expired in 1989, in preparation for a "war" with the unions.8 The workers eventually went on strike in response to the employer's refusal to bargain contracts with the workers in good faith. * Honda (1986-2007): Jackson Lewis is an ongoing representative of Honda suppliers. The firm boasts of preventing unions from taking over at a Honda plant in 1986 as one of its illustrious unionbusting accomplishments. Jackson Lewis is expected to play a pivotal role in an anti-union campaign in Alabama, where the United Auto Workers are launching an organizing drive at Alabama Honda plants in 2007. * Massachusetts Hospitals Association (2006): Jackson Lewis negotiated contracts in 2006 as a representative of Massachusetts state hospitals whose employees are represented by the Service Employees International Union Local 1199. The contentious negotiations nearly resulted in 23,000 employees striking. * New York City Charter Schools (2006): The firm guided a charter school in the Bronx in preventing workers from even holding a vote for union representation. Jackson Lewis also prepared booklets advising charter schools how to stay union free for distribution in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. So, who should the public trust on the Employee Free Choice Act and workers' rights: The Chamber of Commerce and Jackson Lewis or the Pope? As the AFL-CIO Blog noted: Pope Benedict XVI recently noted that Catholic social teachings are strongly supportive of workers' freedom to form unions and recognized the importance of workers' rights in a modern economy. Unfortunately, recent studies show the freedom to form a union is at risk from a legal climate that allows management harassment and intimidation. The principles put forward by the Catholic bishops are an important response to these trends in the workplace. More on The Pope
 
Berlusconi Sex Scandal: Prosecutors To Question Up To 30 Women Top
Up to 30 young women will be questioned by Italian prosecutors as part of an investigation into the alleged procuring of prostitutes for parties held by the prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, it has been reported. More on Silvio Berlusconi
 
Polls Show Intense Voter Anger At Albany Top
ALBANY -- Two new polls show that voters are highly angry about the deadlock in the State Senate and deeply pessimistic about the direction New York is taking.
 
GOP Senators Ready Series Of Speeches To Critique Sotomayor Top
Senate Republicans started focusing their critique of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, readying a series of speeches to illustrate conservative discomfort with President Barack Obama's choice to succeed Justice David Souter. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
DHS To End Domestic Satellite Spying Program, Reports AP Top
WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano plans to kill a program begun by the Bush administration that would use U.S. spy satellites for domestic security and law enforcement, a government official said Monday. Napolitano recently reached her decision after the program was discussed with law enforcement officials, and she was told it was not an urgent issue, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about it. The program was announced in 2007 and was to have the Homeland Security Department use overhead and mapping imagery from existing satellites for homeland security and law enforcement purposes. The program, called the National Applications Office, has been delayed because of privacy and civil liberty concerns. The program was included in the Obama administration's 2010 budget request, according to Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat and House homeland security committee member who was briefed on the department's classified intelligence budget. Harman said Monday she had not been given final word that the program would be killed. She said she would talk to Napolitano on Tuesday. Harman has been outspoken about her concerns that the program is unnecessary, far reaching and open-ended. "I thought this was just an invitation to huge mischief," Harman said. Of killing the program, she said, "It shows real leadership on the part of Janet Napolitano." Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said Napolitano began looking at the program shortly after she became secretary. Kudwa said the department expects to announce the results of that review soon. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said he hoped the department wasn't canceling the program. "If it is true, it's a very big mistake," said King, who is the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee. "This is definitely a step back in the war on terror." For years, domestic agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Interior Department have had access to this satellite imagery for scientific research, to assist in response to natural disasters like hurricanes and fires, and to map out vulnerabilities during a major public event like the Super Bowl. Since 1974 the agency's requests satellite imagery have been made through the federal interagency group, the Civil Applications Committee. The Bush administration, however, decided to funnel the requests through the Homeland Security Department and expand their use for homeland security and law enforcement purposes. After receiving a letter from Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton, Napolitano decided the program should be canceled. Bratton, in his role as head of the Major City Chiefs Association, wrote on June 21 that the program, as envisioned by the Bush administration, is not an urgent need for local law enforcement. Instead, Bratton said, Homeland Security should focus on the fusion centers across the country and improving information-sharing with state and local officials to improve the domestic intelligence picture. Bratton said he was unaware whether police chiefs has been consulted by Bush administration officials about the satellite program. "To my knowledge, this is the first opportunity major law enforcement organizations have had to participate in this significant and complex initiative," he said in the letter.
 
Keith Olbermann, John Hodgman Interview: Hodgman Discusses His Speech And Obama As 'Nerd-In-Chief' (VIDEO) Top
John Hodgman, who gave the keynote address at the White House Radio and Television Correspondents' Dinner Friday night praising President Obama as the first Nerd-in-Chief, appeared on Countdown tonight to discuss his speech and if Obama can heal end the age-old conflict between nerds and jocks. Olbermann asked the question on everyone's mind: is Obama a nerdy-jock or a jockey-nerd? Hodgman thinks "he crosses the streams, to drop a Ghostbusters reference." Watch the interview below. Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Barack Obama
 
Dr. James Hansen: A Plea To President Obama: End Mountaintop Coal Mining Top
The issue of mountaintop removal is so important that I and others concerned about this problem will engage in an act of civil disobedience on Tuesday, June 23rd at a mountaintop removal site in Coal River Valley, West Virginia...We must make clear to Congress, to the EPA, and to the Obama administration that we the people want mountaintop removal abolished and we want a move toward a rapid phase-out of coal emissions now. The time for half measures and caving in to polluting industries is over. It is time for citizens to demand -- yes, we can. Tighter restrictions on mountaintop removal mining are simply not enough. Instead, a leading climate scientist argues, the Obama administration must prohibit this destructive practice, which is devastating vast stretches of Appalachia. by Dr. James Hansen, Yale Environment 360 President Obama speaks of "a planet in peril." The president and the brilliant people he appointed in energy and science know that we must move rapidly to carbon-free energy to avoid handing our children a planet that has passed climate tipping points. The science is clear. Burning all fossil fuels will destroy the future of young people and the unborn. And the fossil fuel that we must stop burning is coal. Coal is the critical issue. Coal is the main cause of climate change. It is also the dirtiest fossil fuel -- air pollution, arsenic, and mercury from coal have devastating effects on human health and cause birth defects. Recently, the administration unveiled its new position on mountaintop coal mining and set out a number of new restrictions on the practice in six Appalachian states. These new rules will require tougher environmental review before blowing up mountains. But it's a minimal step. The Obama administration is being forced into a political compromise. It has sacrificed a strong position on mountaintop removal in order to ensure the support of coal-state legislators for a climate bill. The political pressures are very real. But this is an approach to coal that defeats the purpose of the administration's larger efforts to fight climate change, a sad political bargain that will never get us the change we need on mountaintop removal, coal or the climate. Coal is the linchpin in mitigating global warming, and it's senseless to allow cheap mountaintop-removal coal while the administration is simultaneously seeking policies to boost renewable energy. Mountaintop removal, which provides a mere 7 percent of the nation's coal, is done by clear-cutting forests, blowing the tops off of mountains, and then dumping the debris into streambeds -- an undeniably catastrophic way of mining. This technique has buried more than 800 miles of Appalachian streams in mining debris and by 2012 will have serious damaged or destroyed an area larger than Delaware. Mountaintop removal also poisons water supplies and pollutes the air with coal and rock dust. Coal ash piles are so toxic and unstable that the Department of Homeland Security has declared that the location of the nation's 44 most hazardous coal ash sites must be kept secret. They fear terrorists will find ways to spill the toxic substances. But storms and heavy rain can do the same. A recent collapse in Tennessee released 100 times more hazardous material than the Exxon-Valdez oil spill. If the Obama administration is unwilling or unable to stop the massive environmental destruction of historic mountain ranges and essential drinking water for a relatively tiny amount of coal, can we honestly believe they will be able to phase out coal emissions at the level necessary to stop climate change? The issue of mountaintop removal is so important that I and others concerned about this problem will engage in an act of civil disobedience on June 23rd at a mountaintop removal site in Coal River Valley, West Virginia. Experts agree that energy efficiency and carbon-free energies can satisfy our energy needs. Coal left in the ground is useful. It holds up the mountains, which, left intact, are an ideal site for wind energy. In contrast, mountaintop removal and strip mining of coal is a shameful abomination. Mining jobs have shrunk to a small fraction of past levels. With clean energy, there could be far more, green-energy jobs, and the government could support the retraining of miners, to a brighter, cleaner future. Politicians may have to make concessions on what is right for what is winnable. But as a scientist and a citizen, I believe the right course is very clear: The climate crisis demands a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants that do not capture and safely dispose of all emissions. And mountaintop removal, providing only a small fraction of our energy, should be permanently prohibited. President Obama remains the best hope, perhaps the only hope, for real change. If the president uses his influence, his eloquence, and his bully pulpit, he could be the agent of real change. But he does need our help to overcome the political realities of compromise. We must make clear to Congress, to the EPA, and to the Obama administration that we the people want mountaintop removal abolished and we want a move toward a rapid phase-out of coal emissions now. The time for half measures and caving in to polluting industries is over. It is time for citizens to demand -- yes, we can.
 
Patt Cottingham: Goodbye/Hello 10 "Iran's Fine Green Line Between A People's Right To Protest And Violence" Top
Just coming off Father's Day in the US it is hard to witness an Iranian father kneeling over his mortally wounded daughter laid out bleeding and dying on a street in Tehran. In a video uploaded to news organizations a young woman, and student of Philosophy, named Neda Agha Soltan was shot to death for protesting. As she lay just minutes before her death her father called out to her in great anguish "Neda, Neda, Open your eyes!" In this desperate expression, are the people of Iran who, in great numbers, are opening their eyes and calling for change, more freedom, and connection to the world around them. With 60% of Iran's population under 30 years of age its youth are very internet savvy. Their cell phones capture images and video that citizen reporters upload to social networking sites and then find their way to news organizations around the world. This means the world community now also bears witness to the events in Tehran. The curtain that governments have tried to keep drawn to inhibit their people from seeing the outside world, as well as the outside world looking in, is becoming more and more transparent, letting more light in with each passing day because of the internet. President Obama stated, "Martin Luther King once said, 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.' I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian people's belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness." Iranian authorities have now acknowledged that voting discrepancies in 50 cities did, in fact, take place. The Revolutionary Guard however has threatened to crush any dissenters. Mir Hussein Moussavi posted on his website Sunday night a call to supporters to demonstrate peacefully. Saying " Protesting to lies and fraud is your right." It is not clear if Moussavi supporters will continue to take their protests to the streets of Tehran in a silent vigil as most powerfully seen last week. Or, whether the crack down of the Revolutionary Guard will cause more bloodshed to be spilled in this on going fight for change. The right to freedom of speech was recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly December 10, 1948 but the arc of the moral universe may take a bit longer for the theocracy government of Iran to afford its people. Here in the US we have long enjoyed the right to freedom of speech, which is protected by our Constitution. We have the right to criticize the government and advocate unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism. Women's rights and equality has largely been part of American culture since 1920. Although we are a nation of immigrants that came here to escape repressive regimes or governments as a society we have largely forgotten what it is like to put our lives on the line to call forth change. We have forgotten what its like for our bones to be broken by batons, teargas to sear our eyes and lungs, have a bullet snuff out our life, or a crushing regime extinguish our hope for change. The people of Iran are part of the long march of humanity, on its way to the right for free and open expression for all human beings. Green, the symbolic color of the supporters of Moussavi stands for life, renewal, and growth. May Neda, and all the Moussavi supporters who have given, and may still give their lives in the name of Iran's freedom, make the fertile ground that this new freedom will spring from. The following simple lines are dedicated to Neda Agha Soltan from the people who witnessed her death. Neda, you're the "Face of Freedom" in Iran. You will not be forgotten. May God Rest you in Peace. Goodbye to wielding bullets, batons, and teargas to squash human rights Hello to dialogue, fairness, justice, and conciliation to encourage human rights Goodbye to suppression and stomping the free expression of people Hello to the right for all people to express themselves freely and openly Goodbye to governments and regimes that close their eyes to change Hello to governments and regimes that open their eyes to change More on Women's Rights
 
"Ed Show" Panel Discusses How Democrats Are Blocking Democrats On Health Care Reform (VIDEO) Top
Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker , A.B. Stoddard of The Hill , and Christina Ballantani of The Washington Times , appeared as panelists on MSNBC's "The Ed Show" tonight. One of the issues they addressed was the difficulty in passing health care reform, particularly one that includes a public option. While Republicans are pretty much uniformly against a public option, despite a recent poll showing that a solid majority of Americans favor some kind of government-run plan, the panel honed in on two key problems for proponents of a public option. The first is that the uninsured, who would benefit the most from a government-run plan, are not a very powerful and vocal constituency, and despite a majority of Americans favoring a public plan, they are also afraid of losing their coverage. The second, and more important, problem is that the Democrats themselves are divided on the issue. If, Ballantani notes, they decided to really play hardball (and could keep all their members in line), they have the votes to do what the Republicans did during the Bush administration and push a plan through Congress without Republican support. Watch the panel debate on health care reform below. Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Video
 
Stu Kreisman: Trying to Make Obama as Stupid as Bush Top
The recent spate of talking points centering on calling President Obama out on his supposedly wimpy backing of the protesters in Iran are obviously trying to pressure the President to act as recklessly and impulsively as their own albatross-in-chief, George W. Bush. By pulling a Bush and inflaming the country even more, turning the Muslim world against us once again and probably going into another pointless war would conveniently divert attention from their disaster in Iraq. Republicans like Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham suddenly care more about the protesters cause in Iran than they did the Americans who protested during the run up to the war in Iraq. In case you forgot, Republicans, conservatives and neo-cons laughed at the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who took to the streets to correctly protest the reckless bloodlust that killed over 4,000 troops, untold hundred of thousands of innocent Iraqis and destroyed the American economy. Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we could force Obama to make the same stupid mistakes? You betcha! The talking points also mention that Ronald Reagan never ran from a fight when he dared Mikhail Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall" in Berlin. What fight? Unfortunately the simplistic Republicans conveniently forget that glasnost was already taking place, other countries, most notably Germany itself were already doing the heavy lifting in regard to uniting the east and west and Berlin wasn't the war zone that Tehran is right now. It was a good speech but it was just stating the obvious. Of course looking through the gauze of Republican revisionist history, the media seems to believe that the speech was the sole reason the cold war came to a close and Reagan was the Abraham Lincoln of Western Europe. President Obama's carefully worded statements and levelheaded handling of the situation obviously is not enough for the right. They want impulsiveness! They want fighting words! They want misinformation. They want another Christian Crusade! No wimps here! Rattle those sabers! Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran! More war! More terrorism! More Bush-like only without Bush! More blame to throw on the Democrats! Yeah, that's the ticket! Apparently the Republican playbook is to make sure that Obama is pushed into repeating all the mistakes George W. made, no matter what the cost. Then they will be free to voice their righteous indignation at the ineptitude of the Commander-In-Chief. However Frank Luntz, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Steele and the other poobahs in charge of the message have overlooked one important difference. Barack Obama is no George W. Bush. Thankfully. Stu Kreisman is the author of Dick Cheney's Diary available here , Amazon , and Barnes and Noble . More on Iranian Election
 

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)