Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Andy Plesser: Craig Newmark: I Didn't Kill Newspapers, it's an "urban legend" and David Carr Agrees Top
Caught up with Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist immediately after his panel organized by iWantMedia today in Manhattan. He told me that while his company has had "an effect on newspapers," the notion that it has killed newspapers is "urban legend." New York Times media columnist David Carr was on hand at the event. After I spoke with Newmark, I asked David if Craig killed newspapers. He said the list shot their "back-end off" but didn't blame Newmark. If you haven't watched one-hour the panel, check it out. Great to watch Nick Denton and Wall Street Journal Deputy Managing Editor Allan Murray go at. Newmark is a hoot. This was shot at the NYU TV studio and streamed via Livestream. It is running in a realtime loop here (scroll down the page to see the player.) Patrick-phillips Congratulations to Patrick Phillips, founder of iWantMedia for putting together such a superb program and doing such an ace job at moderating. You can find my blog post on Beet.TV More on Newspapers
 
Fall In GM Ad Spending Will Hurt Media, Sports Teams Top
The bankruptcy of General Motors Corp., one of America's biggest advertisers, deals yet another blow to TV stations, newspapers and magazines that already are reeling from the recession.
 
Penny Herscher: The Death of Venture Capital as we know it Top
A massive shakeout of venture capital firms has been predicted for years but it is finally going to happen over the next year because of a perfect storm of timing. There are countless books , a few movies and mountains of silicon valley gossip about the good times of venture capital. Huge returns from the internet bubble bred too many people who thought they were smart because they were rich and it seemed as if new funds were popping up all the time, staffed by VC wannabes from investment bankers to millionaires from companies like Netscape, eBay, and Cisco. As one of my investors said at the time "everyone wants to be a venture capitalist, even the landlord". But that era came to an end 9 years ago now, and 10 years is the critical period for the venture capital industry because funds are 10 years in length so I predict the decimation will start by the end of this year (although some like Venture Beat are already counting the corpses ). The perfect storm will create an inability for all but the best firms to raise money - and funds need to keep raising money to stay alive - but they face a tempest: - the 10 year look back will not look good for all but a very few by the end of this year. With the exception of a handful of funds, the great returns came off funds that started before the tech bubble burst. It burst in 2000 so by 2010 the lookback will not include liquidity events in 1998 and 1999. Even some of the best firms don't have great returns over the last 10 years. - major LPs (limited partners like pension funds and endowments) are having to balance their portfolios away from alternative investments. Imagine you manage an endowment or pension fund that has a restriction on what percentage can be invested in alternative investments (like venture capital) . But the equities portion of your portfolio has dropped by 40% so now your venture capital portion is over your limit. You can't invest more in venture capital even if you want to participate in a new fund. - for years now about $2B a year in new money was flowing into the venture capital world from new LPs. This was new family money diversifying, or countries bringing a portion of their sovereign wealth fund into venture - but now if you are a newly wealthy South American land owner and have a $100M that you are being advised to invest in higher risk/higher growth you'd look back at the 10 year returns of venture capital and say "no thank you". - the IPO market is broken so smart investors know that the rates of return for venture capital will continue to be depressed. Being acquired just doesn't carry the same multiples as an IPO - especially now when buyers are taking advantage of the difficulties small companies have raising money in a recession. Even the best funds are working harder than they have every worked before to raise their new funds. NEA has closed on over $2B of their $2.5B raise, Oak Investments will succeed in raising their $1B plus fund because the same small group of partners has been repeatedly successful over more than 20 years - as will the best of the best like Sequoia, Benchmark, Sutter Hill, Kleiner-Perkins et al when their time comes. But we're seeing a significant flight to quality as the funding so far in 2009 is down almost 40%. LPs will be ruthlessly selective and this will weed out the new, the small and the weak. The coming contraction will cause the startup industry to return to fundamentals. Good ideas into vibrant new markets that take 6-8 years to blossom not 2-3. Some in the valley think this will lead to less innovation but I disagree. I think we'll get a higher quality of company because great new companies don't come from the spray-and-pray approach - they come from creative, hard working entrepreneurs working hand in glove with nurturing investors and customers over a considerable period of time. There are about 700 venture capital firms in the US according to the National Venture Capital Association . I readily admit I'm opinionated and think that probably less than 10% of these are really valuable to entrepreneurs (my friends who are partners in the best firms listed above would say the quality list is less than that!). As I've posted before - all venture money is not equal - pick your investors very carefully. I predict decimation - but I realize as I conclude that I am not using the word correctly because it comes from the Latin for the destruction of one tenth - but I wonder if one in ten will be left standing? Will there be as many as 70 US venture capital firms two years from now? And you may ask who cares in these tough times? As long as critical breakthroughs in new technology - from clean energy to bio technology to the way we communicate - come from innovative small companies as they often do today we all care.
 
Chip Berlet: Abortion, Apocalypse, and "Killing for Life" Top
Those of us who have tracked clinic violence over the past two decades have long known of the militant anti-abortion subculture that ebbs and flows with the political moment. There are two factors that are central to this movement. One is that many of them believe in a vast conspiracy to destroy the country and defame God led by liberal secular humanists and other subversive swine like those of us who read Huffington Post. The other is the role of aggressive apocalyptic belief among certain Christians on the Political Right. These folks read the Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins "Left Behind" series of novels as if it were a roadmap to future history. More than 70 million sold. Christian bookstores, especially on the Internet, are well stocked with Christian conspiracist literature as well as Christian apocalyptic literature. Sometimes they are the same book. When you combine conspiracy theories that demonize a scapegoat with an aggressive form of apocalypticism, you have a volatile mix--one that throughout history has generated violence and murder. When you add in an intersection with the right-wing populist "Patriot" movement, more heat is added to the cauldron of rage. It appears that Scott Roeder came out of this Patriot movement, as did Eric Robert Rudolph and John C. Salvi, III, who killed and maimed clinic workers not that many years ago. Apocalypticism is a package of the following beliefs: There is an approaching confrontation between good and evil. During this struggle, hidden truths will be revealed. The outcome will change history in a significant way. Constructive apocalypticism can produce social movements that seek peace and equality, such as the U.S. Civil Rights Movement. Aggressive apocalypticism can produce violence, murder, and genocide. Scholar Carol Mason is the author of Killing for Life: The Apocalyptic Narrative of Pro-life Politics . She has written and essay that makes some important points: Sunday's murder of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas raises again the question of what it means to defend life through killing. When militant antiabortionists began bombing clinics and shooting doctors in the 1980s and 1990s, law enforcement officials looked for some conspiracy among the perpetrators. They did not find one. What they needed to look for was a cultural explanation for how members of a movement dedicated to defending life began to kill for life. Dr. Tiller's assassination signals the return of an apocalyptic zeal that has lately been directed elsewhere. So it is important to understand the power of apocalyptic thinking when it is grafted on top of anger, bigotry, and conspiracy theories that portray named scapegoats. The militant anti-abortion movement sees itself as defending God and country. While less militant anti-abortion activists express their horror at the assassination of Dr. Tiller, others express their delight and consider Tiller's death an act of justice and an offering to God. According to Mason: The late twentieth century rise of antiabortion violence grew out of a sense that America was severing its ties to God and all things good. To prolifers, abortion was a sign of national inhumanity and increasing antichristian barbarism. Racist prolifers argued that abortion was a bourgeoning Jewish-engineered industry geared toward a white Christian genocide and praised those who killed abortion providers. The right-wing media demagogues and pious national anti-abortion leaders can continue to claim they play no role in this deadly dynamic. We can pretend that these aggressive apocalyptic movements don't exist, or are so marginal as to be insignificant. We can continue to pretend anti-abortion violence is carried out by deranged people acting alone. And if that is how this story gets spun by the commercial media, there will be more phone calls reporting that a bullet has finally found its mark...and there is another funeral to plan by the family of another doctor, or nurse, or clinic worker. You can read the full essay by Carol Mason here
 
Linda Bergthold: What matters most in health care may surprise you Top
Too often the public gets a bad rap for failing to understand that you can't always get what you want -- in health care. But a study released this past week by the Center for Healthcare Decisions reveals a much savvier understanding that there is a big difference being paying for surgery for a knee problem so someone can play soccer better and paying for it so someone can walk again. The Center study was funded by the California HealthCare Foundation . They contracted with the Field Research Organization to survey 1000 people by telephone in California, asking them to rate the importance of insurance coverage for 55 different medical conditions in 87 different vignettes. In addition to the telephone survey, researchers held 15 focus groups in different regions of California,with different types of respondents, to dig more deeply into the tradeoffs. The public was asked about a variety of medical conditions,with different levels of effectiveness and different outcomes. Here is an example: A 50-year-old man has severe nerve pain in his shoulder following an accident. There is a medication that works well for this type of pain but it is very expensive. A 50-year-old man has severe nerve pain in his shoulder following an accident. The only medication for this type of pain is very expensive and often doesn't work very well. Then the interviewers asked: 1) On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being highest), what priority would you give to cover this if you were designing a health plan for a general population in California? 2) Given that the more that health insurance covers, the more the plan may cost you and others, would you want health insurance to cover this service or not? How would you predict people answered the two questions above? The first vignette received a higher priority rating than the second. And 90% of the respondents recommended coverage for the the first case, but only 75% for the second. The outcome of this survey demonstrates that the public absolutely can differentiate between what matters most and what matters least when it comes to spending our health care dollar. What Matters Most. For the purpose of healthcare coverage, these are characteristics of medical situations that matter the most to most people: • Problems that are likely to lead to illness, disease, disability or death if not prevented or treated. • Problems that interfere with functioning that is essential for the most important activities of daily living (work, self-care, family care). • Problems that may bring much higher societal costs if not treated early. Among these high-priority situations, people support coverage when: • Less expensive or non-medical ways of treating the problem have been tried first. • There is medical treatment available that is proven to be effective. What Matters Some . Medical situations that some people also regard as important for coverage: • Problems that cause physical discomfort but do not interfere with major activities of living. • Problems that bring personal distress to the individual. • Non-medical ervices that are designed to help individuals become or remain healthy and fit. What Matters Least . Medical situations that fewer people regard as important for coverage: • Problems that are unsightly but not physically harmful. • Problems that delay or prevent individuals from pursuing recreational activities. • Treatments that are requested by patients for convenience or to feel reassured. • Problems that are not medically significant or would resolve over time without treatment. As national policymakers like Senators Kennedy and Baucus think about how to construct a benefit package that is comprehensive but cost effective for all Americans, they would do well to read the results of this research.
 
Betty White: I Had Sex With The Marx Brothers, Lost All My Money Gambling (VIDEO) Top
Betty White appeared on the "Late Show" last night and told host Craig Ferguson that his was not a real show. She went on the say that she cherished her time at CBS and had, in fact, had sex with all three Marx brothers in the area that Craig now occupies. White is no stranger to the "Late Show." She has appeared while holding a briefcase full of cocaine, while calling Sarah Palin a crazy bitch, and while dressed as a Girl Scout. In short, Betty White is as freaky as she is awesome. WATCH: Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter! More on Late Night Shows
 
Dr. Irene S. Levine: Which friend was jilted? Top
QUESTION Hi Dr. Levine, I have a friend who was my closest friend for about seven years. Recently, my husband and I moved to town to be closer to her and her family, along with some of my family, too. At first, everything was perfect; we spent nearly every day with each other, had dinners together, went shopping together, and became closer than ever. A few months after the move, things became complicated. For the past seven years, she and I were basically one another's only friends; we didn't really spend time with any one else. I met another girl my age and really hit it off with her. When this new friend decided to move closer to us, my husband and I began to help her and her husband pack up their house and move. During this time, we all became sick with the same sinus infection. Since my friend was pregnant and I was sick, I let her know I was sick and didn't want to share my illness with her, but I also continued spending time with my new friend, since we both already had the same cold. As time passed, I started to see that my old friend wasn't calling as often, that she was avoiding my calls, and that we weren't invited over anymore. I called twice a week for several weeks to let her know I missed her and wanted to see her again, but received no response. Then, the day before moving day for my new friend and her family, I received an email message. The message informed me of how neglectful I had become and that she expected to never see me again once the other friend moved to town. She basically pinned large amounts of blame on me. Instantly, I contacted her and left a message, which she responded to by calling me back. We talked and I thought everything had been worked out. I still call her several times a week to try and make plans, but I keep getting responses about how her life is so busy and her husband has to work late, so we can't get together. I've even gone so far as to try and plan things weeks or months out into the future and even then I get the response, "We don't have anything planned, but something might come up." I feel like I'm being pushed away and I don't understand why. What am I doing wrong? Signed, Living on Rocky Road ANSWER Dear Living on Rocky Road, A seven-year friendship has to hold many memories so I can understand how painful and tense this situation must be for you both. It sounds like your friend had gotten used to being your one-and-only and is having a hard time sharing you with another friend. You've tried to be sensitive to her feelings and have made several efforts to open the lines of communication between you but she hasn't been able to get over feeling "jilted." You aren't doing anything wrong, in particular, but your friend is feeling very hurt. It sounds like you care about her and value the relationship. So approach her directly and ask he if she is backing away from you. Tell her you have no intention of replacing her; she is still very special to you. Offer to spend time together as a twosome or as a threesome with your new friend, whichever she would prefer. Ask her if she is fatigued or concerned about her pregnancy. If she doesn't respond, you may need to step back and give her time to work her problem through on her own. You may want to read another recent post on the blog: Does a 'best friendship' need to be monogamous? It points out the different ways women think about fidelity in their friendships with other women. Hope this is helpful. Best, Irene Have a question about female friendships? Send it to The Friendship Doctor . Irene S. Levine, PhD is a freelance journalist and author. She holds an appointment as a professor of psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine and is working on a book about female friendships, Best Friends Forever: Surviving A Break-up With Your Best Friend , that will be published by Overlook Press in September, 2009. She recently co-authored Schizophrenia for Dummies (Wiley, 2008). She also blogs about female friendships at The Friendship Blog . More on Relationships
 
Mom Accused Of Duct-Taping Daughter's Boyfriend Top
ADELANTO, Calif. — Authorities arrested a woman for allegedly trying to kidnap her daughter's boyfriend and haul him away to Northern California. A sheriff's spokeswoman said Tuesday that two women went to the young man's home on Saturday afternoon and tried to tie him up with duct tape. The victim told authorities the women said they were taking him to get him away from one of the women's 21-year-old daughter. Authorities said both women were arrested on suspicion of attempted kidnapping. Officials said the girlfriend was later arrested for investigation of dissuading a witness and extortion for allegedly trying to get her boyfriend to recant his statements on the kidnapping to authorities.
 
Rush Limbaugh Claims Obama Doing Better Job Of Demolishing America Than Al-Qaeda Would (VIDEO) Top
In an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh repeated his desire for President Obama to fail, continued to insist that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is a racist and went so far as to claim that Obama is doing a better job of demolishing America than al-Qaeda would. At the start of the interview, a slimmed-down Limbaugh described how he's lost 58 pounds since February, when he tipped the scales at 290. Asked about his infamous comments in a previous Hannity interview that he wanted "Obama to fail," Limbaugh stated: "I still want - I do want - Obama to fail." Later, Limbaugh claimed that Obama was doing such a good job of destroying the country that: "If al-Qaeda wants to demolish the America we know and love, they better hurry, because Obama is beating them to it." Limbaugh prefaced those remarks by saying that he had thought carefully about that statement in anticipation of his interview with Hannity. He also bashed Colin Powell, who bucked the GOP to endorse Obama and criticize Limbaugh, by asking rhetorically: "What has Colin Powell ever done for the Republican Party that makes him so valuable?" Limbaugh repeated his claim that Sotomayor is a racist over her 2001 comments about the unique perspective of a Latina woman - "It's a racist thing to say and it's bigoted," he said. Limbaugh added that if she comes down on the "right side" of the abortion issue, "he might look past this racism" and support her nomination. Watch the video:
 
EXCLUSIVE: Cairo Under Siege Ahead Of Obama's Speech Top
Right before he took off from DC, on what the media has been depicting as some "odyssey," to address the Muslim World from Cairo, President Obama had described the 81-year-old Egyptian President Mubarak as a " force for stability ." This week Cairo and its twin city Giza have been a showcase of what this "stability" cost. The capital is under occupation. Security troops are deployed in the main public squares and metro stations . Citizens were detained en masse and shops were told to close down in Bein el-Sarayat area, neighboring Cairo University, where Obama will be speaking. In Al-Azhar University, the co-host of the "historical speech," State Security police raided and detained at least 200 foreign students, held them without charges in unknown locations. Exams were postponed in the major universities fearing demonstrations, and students were told to stay at home. And in several areas in Cairo and Giza, there will be in effect a curfew, where shops won't be allowed to open, citizens instructed not to open their windows. Almost everyone I know will be staying home tomorrow watching Obama's speech, not necessarily because they are keen on knowing what the freshly-elected US leader has to say to the Muslim world, but because they know it will be virtually impossible to move anywhere in the city on Thursday thanks to Obama's force-for-stability host. Those few dozens, who dared in this atmosphere to call for a peaceful protest against the visit on Wednesday evening, were met by hundreds of plainclothes police informers in Tahrir Square, Cairo's biggest, together with thousands of riot police conscripts in their armored trucks. Police cracked down, rounding up several figures from the opposition, and chasing the rest of the protesters in the side streets of downtown Cairo. "Republicans screw the Arabs. Democrats screw the Arabs, but with a smile," is a popular saying among the dissidents' circles in Egypt. President Obama's choice of our country as his next destination from where to address the Muslim World only validates the saying. Even before his "historical speech" is delivered, Obama's "mini-historical speeches" have been nothing but one slap after the other on the faces of human rights campaigners in the region. After conversing with the Saudi monarch, "yes we can" changed to " I'm struck by his majesty's wisdom ." Will the next step be praising the public beheadings in the kingdom as an example of ideal justice ? Hosni Mubarak has ruled Egypt since 1981 with an iron fist, detention facilities, and a fearful security aparatus which is engaged in systematic torture of dissidents and ordinary Egyptian citizens , as documented by local and international rights watchdogs. He has always managed to get away with good coverage in the Western press, however, that tended to focus on his "moderate" (read: obedient to US foreign policy) role as "peacemaker" in the region, besides the archeological discoverings of the I-so-wanna-be-Indiana-Jones, also known as Mr. Zahi Hawas . Despite the repression of street politics in the 1980s and 1990s, dissidents got the courage to start mobilizing in the streets ever since the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada in 2000. From December 2006 , the country has been embracing the strongest wave of labor strike action since WWII. The Egyptian workers are striking and organizing under very difficult conditions, with draconian anti-strike laws and state-dominated unions. But what started as a struggle for bread and butter issues is increasing becoming political, with an expanding layer of new strike leaders raising demands for regime change. And in an unprecedented move, the first free trade union in the history of Egypt was declared last December, by the property tax collectors who already went on a three month strike in 2007 bringing down tax collection by 90%. By the domino effect, a wave of free unions is brewing. The formation of free unions have always been in the heart of democratization like we've seen in Poland and South Korea for example. The Egyptian striking workers will most probably not feature in Obama's speech Thursday, but they together with the pro-democracy movement are seeking allies in the West. Allies that could not be found in the White House or 10 Downing Street. They are non-governmental actors like human rights NGOs, labor and trade unions, which we urge to extend their solidarity to their Egyptian brothers and sisters, and to pressure the US administration into severing all ties and funding to the Mubarak's dictatorship, the second largest recipient of US foreign aid after Israel. Hossam el-Hamalawy is an Egyptian journalist, blogger and labor organizer. He posts on www.arabawy.org Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter! More on Obama Mideast Trip
 
Elizabeth Hemmerdinger: Sotomayor Buzz, Week 2: Sexist Media Times Ten Top
As the cable news continues to try to chew up Judge Sonia Sotomayor before she becomes Justice Sotomayor, at Women's Voices for Change we have Diane Vacca, formerly of Talking Points Memo, to make sense of it all. Read below to get truly grounded amid all the madness. I first learned about President Obama's choice of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the Supreme Court vacancy from my husband. "Everybody's saying she was chosen because she's both a woman and Hispanic," he said. "Nobody's mentioning that she went to Princeton, where she graduated Summa cum Laude, and that from there she went to Yale Law, where she made the Law Review." Indeed. Even before Obama announced his choice, some were circling the wagons, working out strategies of attack in order to defeat the nominee, whoever it might be. It's no surprise that Sotomayor is being assailed. What is surprising-- although at this point, I suppose it shouldn't be--is that criticism is levied without any regard for actual fact. How, for example, can a person who graduated first in her class in high school, then with highest honors from an ivy league college, and finally from an ivy league law school as an editor on the law review, also be "not the brainiest of people" or "maybe not the smartest ever," as dismissed by the anonymous sources in Jeffrey Rosen's indictment of Sotomayor in The New Republic? It has been noted that Sotomayor's history and that of Justice Alito are occasionally tangential. Both went to Princeton, but only Sotomayor graduated with (highest) honors. She also won the Pyne Prize, Princeton's highest undergraduate honor. Both went to Yale Law, and both were editors of the Law Journal. Yet Alito's intellectual prowess was never called into question before his confirmation hearing. When it became clear that Sotomayor's intellect couldn't be the basis for rejection, attention turned to her "temperament." The New York Times reported that "some lawyers describe her as 'difficult' and 'nasty,'" that she is "sharp-tongued" and "testy," a "terror on the bench" who "behaves in an out-of-control manner." (Interestingly, the original title of the article, "Sotomayor's Sharp Tongue Raises Issue of Temperament," has been revised. The "sharp tongue" is now a "blunt style.") In fairness, the Times also cited favorable opinions. Nevertheless, one can't help but notice how often a forceful woman who is outspoken and unafraid to speak her mind or advocate for a cause she believes in is characterized as "domineering" or "difficult," but a man with similar qualities is admired as "strong," "forthright," "commanding" and so forth. Take Justice Scalia, whose aggressive questioning--some would say bullying--from the bench is admired in some quarters. Last February a student asked him why the proceedings of the Supreme Court may not be photographed or televised, given that the court publishes transcripts of its sessions, which are open to the public. "Read the next question," Scalia replied. "That's a nasty, impolite question." Scalia's rudeness hasn't disqualified him from doling out justice in the highest court. Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, a City University of New York sociologist who specializes in gender, writes about an English study which showed that women were always seen as either "nice mice" or dragons. "That's exactly what I found in my study of women lawyers," Epstein told me, "that women who were assertive were seen as unduly aggressive, and women who were seen as quiet were seen as incompetent to be effective in a courtroom. It's a no-win situation. In a sense, that's what's happening to Sotomayor." Epstein thinks that since "she's not a flaming a liberal by any means, they can't go after her on that score. I think what they're trying to do is just diminish her, and they'll use whatever they can. There are some very handy things around in the culture which have to do with what's considered the proper demeanor of a woman. There are not too many norms for the proper demeanor of a woman on the court." G. Gordon Liddy, known to some of us as the Watergate Plumber, evidently believes in the head-on Neanderthal assault. On his radio show Liddy said, "Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then." That someone would say that today--never mind privately, but on the radio--is appalling. The gratuitous contempt is mind-boggling, and the ignorance of female sexuality (Sotomayor is 55) astounding. Other critics are focusing on substantive issues which they consider germane to her appointment. Wendy Long, of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, speaks of "her terrible record of reversals by the Supreme Court." Let's look at the record: The Supreme Court reviewed five of the 232 opinions Sotomayor wrote in the 11 years she served on the Second Circuit; of those five, it reversed three, a 60 percent rate. To put that in context, the Supreme Court overturns three-quarters of the decisions it decides to review. Yet by the time Samuel Alito was nominated by George Bush in 2005, the National Law Journal points out, every one of Alito's decisions on the 3rd Circuit had been reversed, which was "barely noted and did not count against [Alito]." Some attacks are just laughable. The Hill reports that Sotomayor's avowed enjoyment of typical Puerto Rican dishes "has prompted some Republicans to muse privately" that her ethnic culinary preferences "would somehow, in some small way influence her verdicts from the bench." But others are being taken much more seriously. Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative legal group Committee for Justice, has called Sotomayor a "wild-eyed judicial activist" because in 2005 at Duke University she said the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." Yet Justice Antonin Scalia, the "patron saint of non-activist judges," as Rachel Maddow calls him, "baked" the same view into an opinion he wrote in 2002 ( Republican Party of Minnesota v. White) : "Not only do state-court judges possess the power to 'make' common law, but they have the immense power to shape the state constitutions as well." And he added, in a footnote to the same ruling: ".... judges of inferior courts often 'make law,' since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation." Then there's the line that you may have heard echoed across the political spectrum, usually lifted from its context and cited as prima facie evidence of her bias and "reverse racism," notably by Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." While Sotomayor has apparently acknowledged to the President that she might have chosen her words more judiciously, the point she was making at Berkeley in 2001 was about the importance of diversity on the Supreme Court. [O]ur experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.... The people who argued [seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination] cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. Conversely, Sotomayer argued, "Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society." From that reasoned set of observations, we have talk radio, columnists and T-shirts, for all we know, calling Sotomayer a "racist." All this is only the beginning. Some groups are now demanding a filibuster, while Professor Adia Harvey notes that it may be time for a full-court women's muster along the lines of the 1990 campaign in support of Anita Hill --a campaign that sees the point where racism and sexism converge, and calls it out. It's going to be an interesting summer. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
GM Defends Decision To Retain In-House Lobbyists Top
General Motors is defending its decision to retain an in-house team of lobbyists despite being majority-owned by the U.S. government. Earlier today, the giant automaker announced that it would terminate all outside consulting contracts in light of the court-ordered restructuring of the company, reports Roll Call . Under the current bankruptcy plan, U.S. taxpayers would be 60% shareholders of GM, raising questions about the use of lobbyists paid to influence government decisions by companies largely owned by the government. GM insisted to Huffington Post that its in-house team is necessary because it provides expert information to the larger company and keeps the company engaged with a wide array of policy issues. "They're the experts here who explain to the rest of the company what these issues are," Kerry Christopher, says communications manager for the GM Washington office. "If the company didn't understand these issues it could be very detrimental to the company, and we could even break the law. So that's what the in house team works on day after day." Christopher said that the issues the in-house team works on include health care, environmental issues, taxation issues, foreign trade and safety, which he described as "a big one and very important to us." GM has suspended the activity of its PAC as of January, and will not make any political contributions until at least 2009, at which time it will review the policy. However, the use of taxpayer money to fund a lobbying team rankles some critics. Sheila Krumholz, the executive director for the Center For Responsive Politics , said that the shareholder capacity of the American public made what had previously been an "academic debate" about the value of lobbyists an urgent question. "I think they're hoping they can keep whatever means of influencing the legislative agenda they can and it will be interesting to see if they're allowed to," Krumholz said. "I think there's a real question if that should be allowed, because GM is gambling with taxpayer money." While the role of lobbyists has largely been accepted in political and corporate circles, it remains to be seen what role American taxpayers will tolerate for lobbyists employed by companies that receive federal funds. According to Krumholz, other companies receiving stimulus funds, including TARP recipients, were prohibited from lobbying. "There was a question of companies that didn't really need it getting stimulus money and going right back to the government to lobby for more," she said. "I think this issue should be discussed openly, so that Americans can scrutinize the decision and decide if GM is fundamentally different."
 
Bob Cesca: A Brief for Pat Buchanan: The Invincible Race-Baiter Top
At some point in the last decade or so, the general perception of Pat Buchanan has evolved from that of a screeching bigot to a lovable old codger on MSNBC. A rogue Republican who opposed the invasion of Iraq, Buchanan has duped some liberal cable news junkies into warming up to him as the Friendly Wingnut -- the squinty, high-pitched Spitting Image puppet who somehow managed to win over Rachel Maddow, so much so that he was invited to participate in a reoccurring feature titled "It's Pat" during the early weeks of Maddow's MSNBC show. Being an occasional observer of Buchanan's Gump-like career for the last 20 or so years, I've sometimes hypothesized that maybe he compensates for his crazier opinions by being extraordinarily charming off the air. How else could he possibly worm his way onto television so often otherwise? Or maybe he's simply a little Tourette's-ish and can't quite wean himself from his more dastardly views -- sometimes accidentally blurting out controversial white supremacist screeds, but then snapping back to a place where his MSNBC colleagues could take him seriously and ask him back next time. Case in point. During the primary campaign when then-Senator Obama delivered his historic Philadelphia Address, even some conservatives embraced the boldness and profundity of the speech. Not Buchanan, of course, who fired off a column titled, A Brief for Whitey . In it, he referred to the speech as "the same old shakedown" and a "con" from "black hustlers." He continued by lording food stamps and welfare over the heads of African Americans as kindly gifts from the benevolent white man. "Where's the gratitude?" Buchanan asked -- ostensibly taking credit for programs that he doesn't even support. Food stamps and welfare, in Buchanan's view, should more than compensate for centuries of slavery followed by another 100 years of Jim Crow, lynchings, terrorism, neo-slavery and segregation. Ingrates. But then, as if the Whitey column never happened, he was back to being the jolly, candy-like geezer who called President Obama's Democratic convention acceptance speech "magnificent" -- and earlier the same day was seen on television grinning from ear-to-ear in his hipster "Blues Brothers" shades while his fellow MSNBC panelists boogied to Stevie Wonder's performance at Invesco Field. Nevertheless, in the last 10 days or so as Judge Sotomayor moves closer to becoming the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court, White Supremacist Pat is back in full voice, and I'm convinced now more than ever that the real Buchanan is definitely not the Friendly Wingnut he's tricked some viewers into believing. "What is happening now to white men right now," Buchanan said recently on MSNBC about Judge Sotomayor, "is exactly what was done to black folks for years." This is classic default Buchanan. This is the same Buchanan who supported a white supremacist for the Supreme Court ( Harold Carswell in 1970 ). This is the same Buchanan who incited the anti-black, anti-gay modern culture war during his 1992 Republican convention speech. This is a man whose worldview is so twisted that he honestly believes that white men, a demographic group that's controlled most corridors of global power for centuries on end and thusly enjoyed untold riches, privileges and worship, are somehow being treated like subhuman chattel today. White men, Buchanan believes, are the new second class race/gender. But that's not exactly the crazy part. It's the implication of this analysis that so completely disqualifies him from enjoying the respect of any reasonable person on television or off. Buchanan's philosophy appears to be that any minority, ethnic or racial, is only advanced due to the oppression of white men. In other words, it's Buchanan's opinion that minorities aren't generally capable of success based upon their own quality. He seems to be suggesting (and not for the first time) that either minorities conspire to promote other minorities, or a minority is promoted via "Jim Crow Liberalism," as he's called it, on the oppressed shoulders of white men. Backdoor white supremacy, in the latter case -- whites are the dominant race, his theory goes, even when they're being dominated. While furthering this agenda, and perfectly in line with his favorite anti-Obama word "exotic", Buchanan has been allowed to freely repeat a variety of racial or sexist dog whistles like "anti-white", "quota queen", "tribal" and "that woman" -- even referring to Judge Sotomayor by her first name in his syndicated column (a not-so-subtle trick to diminish her reputation). How is any of this more acceptable or more serious than "nappy headed hos"? If I were Don Imus right now I'd be changing my adult diaper and shouting, "WTF!" For an oppressed white man, Buchanan is strangely invincible, no? Which leads us to MSNBC. Inviting Pat Buchanan or Tom Tancredo (who both share a racist employee , by the way) on the air to discuss racial issues while fully aware of their positions in this regard isn't a tip of the hat to both sides, nor does it fulfill any requirement for ideological balance. It's a deliberately incendiary television gimmick, and they're paying Pat Buchanan to do it, even though he and Tancredo hold entirely ludicrous views on race that only really deserve airing in the context of a segment about race-baiting crackpottery. Maybe. Put another way, it'd be like watching Neil Armstrong walking on the moon in 1969, then Cronkite cutting to an in-studio guest who has a wild theory about how the astronauts are really on a movie set. It'd be like discussing the Ground Zero memorial and inviting Alex Jones into the discussion to rant about controlled demolitions and other truther nonsense. I can't accept that Pat Buchanan is the only conservative with media training available in Washington and New York on an hourly basis. I mean, thawing him out of his green room cryochamber is every day can't be easy or cheap. But it's not really shocking from the network that's increasingly favoring staged he-said-she-said "smackdowns" over serious journalism and commentary. Ultimately, though, Buchanan's presence on television is less of a deliberate nod to race-baiting, and more of an acceptance of inside-Washington masturbation. He's familiar and available and he's an emeritus type, so he qualifies for very serious cable news debates. And besides, it's all just a game anyway, right? It's all about the horse race and which player did a better job "closing the deal." The actual substance and systemic harm that's done to the country is irrelevant to the drama of the coverage itself. So when they need an alluring gesturing conservative granddad to augment the drama, thaw out Buchanan and wheel him onto the set. And when they need a shockingly racist monster to amplify the drama, thaw him out and wheel him onto the set. Repeat. And finally, the next time Buchanan feels like an oppressed minority, perhaps he should take it up with Gene Robinson and Tamron Hall -- the only two African Americans on an otherwise all-white network. Where's their gratitude to whitey? Ingrates. Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go! More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Mike Farrell: Tone Deaf Governor Top
Arnold says the people spoke at the polls. They did, but he wasn't listening. Of course, English isn't his first language; celebrity is. We didn't say our rich, healthy, girly-man dissing, celebrity governor should terminate welfare. Unlike some, we don't hate the poor. We didn't say turn California into Mississippi. We didn't say throw the poor under the bus and dump their kids on the street. We said go back to Sacramento and do your damned job ! We said go to the legislature and create a budget; don't hand the problem to us. We said we want our elected leaders to lead. Leading means having the guts to deal with the tough problems. Ignore your handlers for a minute and do something for the people. You want to cut costs? Cut the $135,000,000.00 you waste every year on a death penalty Chief Justice George says is "dysfunctional." You haven't been able to kill anyone for three years because a federal judge said your killing system is unconstitutional. So stop it. You want to cut costs? Cut the $400,000,000.00 you plan to spend on a new death row. You want to cut costs? Grant parole to the guys locked up in Tracy, California, stuck away with indeterminate sentences because no politician has the guts to notice that their records are clean and they deserve a life. How about releasing the thousands locked up in your bulging prisons for non-violent drug crimes instead of stripping away their future, Leadership, Governor, means doing the right thing: serving people, not victimizing them. It means raising taxes on those with plenty, not taking food out of poor kid's mouths. It means fixing the system so a simple majority can pass a budget rather than letting an anti-tax minority strangle the process. Those who can will pay the taxes; we don't mind. What we mind is those who crave the title but won't do the job. Mike Farrell, president of Death Penalty Focus, is the author of "Just Call Me Mike: A Journey to Actor and Activist," and "Of Mule and Man." More on Celebs Talk Politics
 
FAA Inspector Predicted Problems With Airline Year Before Buffalo Crash Top
WASHINGTON — A federal safety inspector assigned to the airline involved in an air crash that killed 50 people in upstate New York in February warned of safety problems at the airline a year before the accident. An attorney for Federal Aviation Administration inspector Christopher Monteleon said he reported problems with the flight testing program at Colgan Air of Manassas, Va., for its newly acquired Bombardier Dash 8-Q400s in January 2008. That's the same type of plane that crashed Feb. 12 near Buffalo Niagara International Airport. Among the problems Monteleon reported was that the Colgan test pilot exceeded the permissible speed limit for the Dash 8 and had difficulty properly landing the plane. Test pilots typically are an airline's most skillful pilots and are expected to train other pilots on how to fly new aircraft. After Colgan, a regional air carrier, complained to the FAA about Monteleon, his FAA supervisor reassigned him to desk work and ordered him to have no further contact with the airline, his attorney, Debra Katz, said. When Monteleon continued to press for action on safety concerns at Colgan and what he alleged was a cozy relationship between the agency and the airline, he was transferred or reassigned three more times, Katz said. In March, Monteleon had a confrontation with an FAA attorney and was placed on administrative leave by the agency, Katz said. Monteleon told The New York Times, which first reported on his complaints Wednesday, that agency officials accused him of menacing the attorney. Katz said in a draft letter to FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt that it was Monteleon, 64, a former pilot and 40-year veteran of the aviation industry, who felt threatened. Monteleon has filed a complaint with the federal Office of Special Counsel, which investigates whistleblower complaints, Katz said. He has also been interviewed by the Transportation Department's Office of Inspector General, the agency's internal watchdog, Katz said. Brian A. Dettelbach, a spokesman for the inspector general, declined to comment. FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown declined to discuss personnel actions taken involving Monteleon. She said his complaints about safety violations at Colgan were investigated by a special FAA team, which found some record-keeping and other problems but no violations of safety regulations. "The bottom line was they didn't find any major regulatory issues," Brown said. A spokesman for Colgan didn't return a phone call from The Associated Press late Wednesday. Monteleon has been barred from entering any Transportation Department building or property and has been unable to retrieve documents in his office computer at the FAA that support his allegations, Katz said. Monteleon first raised safety concerns about record-keeping and other problems at Colgan in 2004 when he was the principal inspector assigned to the airline, Katz' letter said. He was later reassigned to a runway safety office, where he also complained about the way the agency was recording safety incidents. He subsequently was demoted and reassigned to Colgan to keep tabs on their new aircraft program, the letter said. It was after that that Monteleon accompanied Colgan pilots testing the Dash 8. "This is years of raising concerns about Colgan, from the training program to a failure to document maintenance problems," Katz said. "I think this a classic case of shoot the messenger." Aviation safety consultant Jack Casey said that if Monteleon's complaints about the testing of the Dash 8 are correct _ especially if a pilot significantly exceeded the aircraft manufacturer's specified speed for the plane _ they are very serious. "It's not unusual that you have a few little teething problems (when testing a new plane), but what he's describing goes way beyond that," Casey said. The National Transportation Safety Board held a three-day hearing last month into safety issues raised by crash of Continental Express Flight 3407, including pilot training and fatigue. Testimony at the hearing showed Colgan, which operated the flight for Continental, didn't provide pilots hands-on training on a key cockpit safety system. Testimony also indicated the flight's captain and co-pilot made a series of critical errors as they neared the Buffalo airport. The Dash 8 experienced an aerodynamic stall that sent it plunging into a house below. All 49 people aboard and one man in the house were killed. The board hasn't reached a conclusion on the cause of the crash.
 
UPDATE: Blackwater Denies Destroying Evidence In Case Of Three Iraqis Killed By Guards Top
UPDATED: Xe spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell emailed The Huffington Post to respond: "Xe has strong internal and external document preservation controls and comprehensive policies to ensure we fulfill them. When the company was first accused of document destruction by these attorneys, outside counsel independently conducted a thorough investigation and found no support for any of those allegations. When pressed for provide specific information to support their allegations, plaintiffs' counsel was unable to do so." ************************************************** The families of three men killed in Iraq sued Blackwater yesterday, alleging that company employees wrongfully killed the men and then destroyed documents to hide the evidence. The private military company, now known as Xe, faces civil action in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District in Virginia. The case was originally filed in a California federal court in April. The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, alleges that on Feb. 7, 2007, heavily armed Xe-Blackwater employees shot the three men, who worked as security guards for the Iraqi Media Network. Sabah Salman Hassoon, Azhar Abdullah Ali, and Nibrass Mohammed Dawood were killed in front of approximately 20 other Xe-Blackwater employees and although company supervisors were alerted, the shootings were not reported, according to the complaint. Not only did the company fail to report the shootings, claim the plaintiffs, but also actively covered up the incident by "refusing to identify the shooters to Iraqi authorities and destroying documents and other evidence relating to this and other Xe-Blackwater shootings." This is the latest in a string of lawsuits filed against the company since the start of the Iraq War, including suits by both Iraqi and U.S. families accusing the company of fraud and negligence, among other charges. The plaintiffs in the recent case claim that Xe-Blackwater continues to operate a company in Iraq called Falcon though company officials have denied any connection to Falcon in the past. Xe spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell told Huffington Post that she was unfamiliar with the case. According to the lawsuit, Hassoon, Ali and Dawood were manning their posts at the Iraqi Media Network across from the Iraqi Justice Ministry. After escorting a U.S. diplomat to a meeting at the ministry, Xe-Blackwater "shooters" took up positions on the roof and fired at Dawood for "no reason," according to the lawsuit. When Ali and Hassoon ran to the guard's assistance, they also came under fire. The document goes on to say that the Iraqi Army commander at the site, Captain Ahmed Thamir Abood, questioned the Xe-Blackwater employees at the time of the shootings, but the employees "joked amongst themselves, giving contradictory statements regarding to whom the captain should speak." The lawsuit alleges that "Xe-Blackwater management refused to fire or discipline mercenaries who murdered innocent Iraqis," and accuses the company of war crimes. Read the complaint here: Blackwater-1 - More on Blackwater
 
Michael Henry Adams: Celebrating Homo-Harlem Top
Young, black, gay: in Akron, Ohio, what a lifeline learning from books, by Faith Berry, David Levering Lewis, and Jervis Anderson, that Langston Hughes had also been gay. If the most important aspect of history is being able to go back in time to discover oneself, for the marginalized---for blacks, Latinos, gays, women and others---heretofore, such searching has usually been a relative challenge. Speedily, the world changes. For the first time the United States selected a black man to become President. Yet in the same election, in California, disproportionately, African Americans helped pass a ballot initiative meant to curtail the civil rights of fellow citizens. They were not motivated solely out of mean-spiritedness or hate, any more than the Dutch capitalists of long ago who sold Africans into slavery. Neither were English pioneers displacing "Indians," nor those Germans who facilitated the persecution of Jews always, inherently evil. Provided the proper circumstances, indulging a widespread ignorance of each other or our irrational fear of difference, any and all of us might willingly act just as prejudicially. Fashionable Harlem Entertainer Gladys Bentley and artist Prentiss Taylor, ca 1935 . "Gays", Colin Powell has insisted, for instance, "wrongly try to compare themselves to blacks. Their mistake is that we don't choose the color of our skin...", he said. Harlem's popular YW and YMCA's, ca 1937 With arguments often eerily reminiscent of old rationales for black oppression, gays and lesbians remain openly, legally and even, 'righteously', discriminated against. For gay or lesbian African Americans then, knowing ourselves, making ourselves and our extraordinary history known to others, as much as with blacks in general, becomes a key component to liberation. The film festival, Homo-Harlem: A Cinematic Retrospective Friday, June 19th-Saturday, June 27th, sponsored by the Maysles Institute Cinema at 343 Malcolm X Boulevard in the Harlem section of New York City, 212-582-6050, is overdue recognition of this distinguished accomplishment. Who today remembers Ebony Magazine's elegant and passionately heterosexual Society editor, Gerri Major? A formidable Chicagoan, she first blazed onto the New York scene in the early 1920's, as Geraldyn Dismond. Through breezy columns documenting Harlem high-life in the Inter-State Tattler and as a radio personality, she captivated a large segment of the nation's hardworking black masses. With great flair Mrs. Dismond reliably revealed to her audience both high-jinks and heartbreak in a black world they might otherwise have hardly suspected of existing. Never was this truer than February 22, 1929. That was only the second occasion on which she reported the all-black Hamilton Lodge Odd Fellows' benefit fancy dress ball. This was an outré annual spectacle which Geraldyn Dismond maintained had been going on for over 50 years! "The greatest joy in life is to be able to express one's inner self. The second greatest joy is to be able to mingle with one's kind. The third greatest joy is to receive the plaudits of one's fellows. And thereby hangs the success of the Hamilton Lodge dances which for sixty-one years have thrilled and entertained the most blasé of New York... gowns of all descriptions, jewels, feathers and beauty beyond words. But above and over all, a spirit of abandon, hilarity and camaraderie that fired the imagination and made for a true fiesta. Of course, a costume ball can be a very tame thing, but when all the exquisitely gowned women on the floor are men and a number of the smartest men are women, ah then, we have something over which to thrill and grow round-eyed...Never no wells of loneliness in Harlem..." Unbeknownst to most Dismond fans, many of the celebrated "spectators," whether black or white, at this spirited frolic -semi-public figures like Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney or Harold Jackman, called the 'handsomest man in Harlem', who appeared to the world to be mere amused bystanders, of unimpeachable "respectability" -- were themselves "in the life." So, if it's true that lesbians and gay men have always played a prominent role in the advancement of Harlem's cultural life, apart from occasionally dressing up, or mildly ridiculing those who did, just what was the nature of their involvement and what was its extent or impact? It all started just before the "Jazz Age," the exuberant and decadent "Roaring Twenties". This was a period like none before. As disillusioned by the "Great War's" racial bias and useless carnage as by the Volstead Act's hypocrisy, young Americans, ripe for rebellion, ready for a good time, headed to Harlem. Those like them have come ever since. Blacks came here to live in our own distinct city within a city, "as big as Rome," the "largest Colored settlement in the world." Using local slang for the policy that even in Black Harlem restricted "Negros" to theatre balconies; novelist Carl Van Vechten dubbed the community "Nigger Heaven". Carl Van Vechten, with Glenn Carrington at Yale in the 1950's For Gay, but twice married Van Vechten, Harlem became a neatly compartmentalized home away from home. Most whites, however, at first were only "slumming," venturing uptown in hot pursuit of "a marvelous dark continent a dangerous jungle" of drink, drugs, sex and music. Or as critics often said of them, tourists "come to Harlem in order to give their morals a vacation." Nonetheless, between drinks and dances, some Blacks and Whites, artists or intellectuals, students and socialites, started a fashion for non-clandestine interaction, a nascent form of racial equality and integration. Determining that there was nothing more subversive, self-satisfying, or fun, they defiantly became friends and lovers. Boasting an attitude of tolerance, progressive politics, and an appreciation for novelty, amongst this coterie of high achievers Homo-Harlem evolved and flourished. Making Harlem into a kind of hub of the universe, or as dance impresario Lincoln Kirstein said, "an arrondissement of Paris," a long list of eminent downtowners sought and often found, over the decades, in uptown's shadows "the only authentic elegance in America." How fortunate it's been to have Homo-Harlem's past related to me by some of the very people who lived it. At first even I asked, why would 85 or 90-year-olds fear revealing who they are? What trauma makes someone still reticent regarding the story of friends and companions long dead? Until one realizes how by being themselves, many were entrapped and arrested; how others, unknowing, frequently contracted STDs, largely because of their era's bigotry, such caution is hard to understand. But, knowing is everything. So it's knowledge that provides patience when an informant says of yesterday's intelligence, "I never said that." Only sure awareness of mortality, not just of themselves, but of any possible memory of an all-important aspect of who they were, causes some to relent. Laying bare their life "in the life, photographer Marvin P. Smith, Singer David Wilson, organist David Fontaine, concert pianist Jonathan Brice , singer Freddie Hamilton, dancers Walter Nicks and Joe Nash, postal administrator Warren Stevens, architect Philip Johnson, social worker Sophie Johnson Charles, and many, many others presented me with a wonderful gift to help inform future generations. Their message is that it's OK to be yourself -- put another way is, that it's all right and possibly even beneficial -- for non-Gay people to know, admire, or love gays and lesbians too. The accomplished lives and often intriguing exploits of Homo-Harlem's denizens remain highly amorphous to most. If Jules Bledsoe, Harlem's great operatic star is all-but forgotten, then imagine the even more obscure fate his youthful conquest, Robert Lee Grey, a lowly Pullman porter who thanks to exposure to this sophisticate aspired to a Columbia University education. No movie exists to explain a threatening letter from an irate Bledsoe to the Amsterdam News's mischief-making gay columnist Bill Chase. None illuminates the importance of bon vivant Glenn Carrington's role in New York's intellectual life, or that of philosopher-educator Alain LeRoy Locke, poet Countee Cullen, novelists Wallace Thurman or Dorothy West , performers Georgette Harvey , Jimmie Daniels , Caroll Boyd and Bobby Short , businesswoman Rose Morgan, sculptor Richmond Barthe, clergymen like Willard W. Munroe or Preston Washington, or tennis champion Althea Gibson , and their friends and sometimes lovers, including Joe Louis , Billie D. Williams or Sammy Davis, Jr. The far-reaching impact of documenting lives like theirs, however, is abundantly illustrated by the varied film tributes in the series. They feature poets Audre Lorde and Langston Hughes, writer James Baldwin, social justice activist Bayard Rustin, composer Billy Strayhorn , and living legend Storme DeLarverie , whose courageous stand at the Stonewall Bar, 40 years ago, literally helped set in motion the entire Gay Pride Movement. Brother to Brother, a feature film that distorts the life of Renaissance man, Richard Bruce Nugent, by novice movie maker Rodney Evans, is also included. "Because this unflattering portrayal is all many young people will ever learn about Nugent, Evan's effort is unfortunate, though still important," explains the festivals curator. Extraordinary, but more ordinary Gays and Lesbians play a part as well in the festival. The tremendous value of highlighting the cultural contributions of our history in its entirety is best demonstrated by my meeting Marvin Smith in 1996. "There were twin photographers in Harlem, from the 30's on," I was told, "One was "Straight", the other Gay, but the Gay one died." Just hearing Marvin once, in his documentary M&M SMITH: For Posterity's Sake , made by Heather Lyons and aired by PBS, I had known. "Thank you, my dear," was all he'd said, before it was certain that the Gay twin, a true voice of Homo-Harlem, was very much alive.
 
Angelina Jolie Named World's Most Powerful Celebrity By Forbes Top
She's rich. She's talented. She's beautiful. And now Angelina Jolie is the most powerful celebrity in the world. More on Angelina Jolie
 
Timothy Cooper: Mojo Morgan: Rock Out, With Your Locks Out Top
If Bob Marley and U2 ever had a chance to record a song together, I'm pretty sure that rasta-rock is the direction their respective guitar strings would have roamed. But thankfully for Mojo Morgan, the creation of this genre lies in his gifted hands. Born in Brooklyn, New York, and raised primarily in Springfield, Massachusetts, Morgan was born into a reggae music monarchy. His father, Denroy Morgan, ascended to fame in 1981 with his hit song, "I'll Do Anything For You." Although the elder Morgan had several hits throughout his illustrious career, "I'll Do Anything...." reached Gold status, thus establishing his name as a reggae brand and paving the way for his talented offspring to show and prove their skills on the national stage. And they did just that, as Mojo and his four siblings would form the quintet, Morgan Heritage. After being signed to MCA Records after their legendary performance at the Reggae Sunsplash Festival in Jamaica, the group released their debut album, "Miracles," in 1994 to much acclaim. Morgan Heritage has continued to be recognized for their world touring and successful recording career over the last 15 years, with their unique vision of music enabling their status as international icons. Backed with the sustained success of his family name and an innovative task at hand, Mojo Morgan has recently released his debut solo album, "got Mojo?," on Gedion Soldiers/Keynote Records. As Morgan prepares for a fall tour, the album continues to gain recognition independently and abroad, with his single, "Tonight," being used as the underscore for a Nike Women promo campaign. With his album serving as the palette from which he mixes his harmonious colors, Morgan's rasta-rock takes its infusion from the likes of Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Tupac Shakur and the Notorious B.I.G., as he bleeds all of those plentiful shades into one. What was your first introduction to music? Growing up, it was my dad, Biggie Smalls, Tupac, Tracy Chapman, Hootie and the Blowfish, Alanis Morissette, Nirvana, and Jimi Hendrix. Eric Clapton had the biggest influence on me, musically. My first intro to music was watching my dad with his band, the Black Eagles. I remember dancing in his rehearsal one day and the next thing I know, I was at the Beacon Theatre and on the cover of Jet Magazine with him doing the same dance from that rehearsal. When many people hear your name, they consider you a part of music royalty. How was it coming up under you father's tutelage? It makes it easier for me to be looked at as music royalty, but it makes it harder [for me] if I fail. So, the pressure is on and I'm up for the challenge. Our father prepared us for this moment and we won't let him down. It was cool just to have a father like Denroy Morgan; now being in a group that had more international success than our already successful father, it's truly a blessing that I am grateful for everyday. As a young man who has been in the business since you were a child, talk a little on how the music business has changed over the years. Are artists suffering or benefiting from the current state of the business? Growing up in the industry, I noticed the major record companies started following the lead of independent labels since the early 90's. Now with the internet, fans have access to all the music they want for free. So, that hurts record sales; but if you have a kick-ass show, it also gives a boost to live concert tickets. So, technology has become a double edged sword. You were born in and spent a significant amount of time in Brooklyn -- a place that exposed you to a healthy mix of reggae music and hip-hop. How are the two genres different and how are they alike? Reggae is a slower beat than hip-hop, [to me] that's how they differ. Hip-hop today mostly speaks about the material side of life, and reggae speaks about the more spiritual things in life. At the end of the day, they are both speaking about life; so that makes them very compatible. You've just released your debut album, "got Mojo?" Talk a little about the album and your experience recording as a solo artist for the first time. The solo debut is an EP that chronicles my journey in which I make the transition from roots reggae music to alternative rock. Doing this as a solo artist was enlightening, empowering, and a learning experience all at the same time. You are creating a genre called rasta-rock. How did your mesh of rock and reggae come about? Rasta-Rock is conscious fun; Rasta represents the consciousness and rock represents the fun element in my music. It came about because of my multi-cultural musical upbringing. I grew up on Top 40 radio in New England, urban radio in New York and Jamaican music from my parents. What do you think about the current state of reggae music? In recent years, we've seen names like Elephant Man and Sean Paul top the charts, but the genre seems to be in a quiet mode. Is this a perfect time for you to make your mark as a solo artist? I think it is perfect timing for something new out of the Jamaican music scene. There hasn't been an artist with a conscious statement to submerge onto the mainstream in quite some time now. It's long overdue. Your lead single, "Tonight," was used in a promotional ad for Nike. How did that come about? When Nike received my record from their marketing company, they thought the record would fit well with their program. I was happy to be a part of uplifting and motivating young women to live a healthier lifestyle. After creating rasta-rock, what's on tap creatively for you in the future? Creatively, I would like to collaborate with other alternative rock artists. Live on tour and in the studio. For more on Mojo Morgan and his rasta-rock, visit www.myspace.com/mrmojomorgan and www.giantstep.net/artists.
 
Senate Guru: MN-Sen: I Don't Trust Tim Pawlenty Top
Originally posted at my blog Senate Guru . Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has been making the rounds on cable news today, no doubt working to raise in his profile for 2012 in the wake of his decision not to run for re-election in 2010. During these interviews, he has suggested that he would not delay the seating of Minnesota's next Senator. Election law experts appear unanimous that the Minnesota Supreme Court will affirm the victory of Senator-elect Al Franken . The reason I don't trust Pawlenty is that he is leaving himself too much wiggle room. Watch the exchange in the video below, from Pawlenty's appearance today on Fox News: You know, Neil, if the Minnesota Supreme Court says, 'You sign the certificate' -- and there's not an appeal or some other contrary direction from a federal court -- you know, that's my duty. Now take into account this report from MinnPost.com's Eric Black back in April: In a series of email exchanges with Pawlenty's spokester, Brian McClung, I sought to clarify what level of discretion the guv was claiming over the issuance of the certificate. At first, McClung pointed out that there is no deadline in the law for the issuance of the certificate after the conclusion of the Contest Court process and state Supreme Court appeal . It sounded as if Pawlenty was claiming the right to indefinitely postpone the certificate. Superficially, Pawlenty is telling us not to worry, that he's happy to sign on the dotted line. But he also throws in the caveat "and there's not an appeal or some other contrary direction from a federal court" which makes me wonder. Having watched the state Supreme Court's proceedings on June 1 when they heard oral arguments from both campaigns, I have a very positive impression of the Court and of the Justices' attention to detail. Expecting that they affirm Senator-elect Franken's victory, it would be proper of them to include an order for Pawlenty, in his role as Governor, to prepare and sign an election certificate. But, given that his staff has noted that there's no time requirement attached, Pawlenty could very easily slow walk the certificate while Republican Norm Coleman seeks a stay or an injunction on the certificate from a federal court in advance of a federal appeal. University of Minnesota's Professor Larry Jacobs explains : But Jacobs still sees wiggle room here. "Signing it -- and how quickly you sign it -- those are two different things," Jacobs explained. "If Norm indicates that he's going to be filing in federal court, the Governor may just say, 'you know, I am gonna sign it, I'm just waiting to hear from my legal counsel that this is appropriate.'" Further, if the state Supreme Court affirms Senator-elect Franken's victory but doesn't add in the explicit order to Pawlenty to prepare and sign the election certificate, then who knows!? At the very least, Pawlenty's reassuring words are not all that reassuring, nor should they be given the wiggle room those words leave for Pawlenty. Of course, if Pawlenty deliberately obstructs and delays after the state Supreme Court rules in Senator-elect Franken's favor, the U.S. Senate is still empowered to seat Senator-elect Franken (and Pawlenty's delay would likely give Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the political impetus to move forward with Senator-elect Franken's seating), but that move still faces the threat of filibuster from Republicans. If that were to happen, Democrats would likely need a couple of Republicans to buck their Party in the name of supporting the democratic process. Hopefully this issue will be moot, but it's never too early for Democrats to reach out to more responsible Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Dick Lugar about their willingness to support Senator-elect Franken's seating should the eventuality arise. More on Al Franken
 

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)