Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Ali Gharib: Are the Protestors Trying to Bring Down the Iranian Regime? Top
The regime is NOT going to collapse. And that's not the goal of the vast majority of those marching Tehran's streets. This is not about ending the Islamic Revolution, it's about getting back to it. For all his talk of returning it to its roots, Ahmadinejad's slow crawl from a de facto dictatorship to a de jure one is a shift away from the Revolution, which was, let's not forget, first and foremost about getting rid of the dictatorial and tyrannical Shah, not about Islam and that state. Moussavi has made clear that the people are behind him not for his sake, but for the sake of the Republic that they love. Likewise, the emerging ritual of standing at windows, balconies, and rooftops at around 10pm and shouting "Allah-o-akbar" is a call of hope for the idealism of 1979 -- hardly a time an anti-Islamic Republic of Iran movement would look to. I think it's the most moving thing to come out of the whole ordeal so far: Check out Trita Parsi's article on the same subject here on Time Magazine's website. This post originally appeared here on Mondoweiss . More on Ahmadinejad
 
Obama Creating White House Olympic Office Top
President Barack Obama is creating a permanent White House office devoted to the Olympics. The administration unveiled the White House Office of Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport the day before Chicago officials make a crucial pitch to host the 2016 Olympics to the International Olympic Committee in Switzerland. The White House's announcement is expected to buttress city's bid. The full White House announcement: WASHINGTON - Today, President Barack Obama announced the formation of the White House Office of Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport. This permanent White House office will promote the values of the Olympic Movement and encourage increased youth participation in athletics. The primary function of the Office will be to enhance awareness of the Olympic Movement through promotion of its fundamental principles at the federal level. President Obama said, "It is an important goal of my administration to give our nation's children every possible tool they need to grow, learn and succeed in life. A key part of this is increasing access to healthy, constructive activities like sports for our nation's children. Too many American kids - particularly those in urban areas - have no access to organized sporting activities. Sports are an important way to instill values, judgment and teamwork in our nation's kids, and this new office reflects our commitment to giving all our children a chance to thrive. As the International Olympic Committee moves forward with their selection process we hope that this new office can serve as a model for youth involvement worldwide." The White House Office of Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport will: * Recommend federal policies and programs to the President to enhance opportunities and access for youth participation in sport, with particular focus on youth in urban areas * Foster and encourage youth sporting, educational and cultural events involving Olympic values-based programs and the participation of U.S. Olympians and Paralympians The Office will also work in coordination with appropriate executive departments and agencies, including the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, to: * Engage in outreach to state and local government officials, nonprofit organizations and the private sector * Coordinate federal resources, and act as liaison to, any organizing committee for an Olympic and Paralympic Games hosted in the United States * And work closely with the United States Olympic Committee and national sport governing bodies to increase access and opportunities for youth to participate in sports. More on Olympics
 
White House Wins On War, IMF Funds Top
As the clock began to count down the minutes that members of the House had to cast their vote on a war-funding bill topping $100 billion, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Calif.) waded into enemy territory. The anti-war Democrat, who'd been whipping hard against the measure, stood behind a klatch of Republicans, watching the GOP computer and taking notes. It's not often that Kucinich and House Republicans find themselves on the same side. But the GOPers were determined to oppose what they call a bailout for foreign banks, and antiwar Democrats hoped to ally with them to block funding for wars they've long opposed in Iraq and Afghanistan. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), meanwhile, hovered by the front desk, beaming. As the 15-minute vote wound down to zero, she was still far from the 218 she needed for passage, but she showed no sign of concern. The vote was held open as enough Democrats stepped forward to vote for the war money. Fifty-one Democrats opposed the war funds the last time it came before the House. There was little pressure on them one way or the other. But when the Senate added the line of credit for the IMF and Republicans announced opposition, votes that had previously been worthless took on heightened value. The White House and Democratic leadership went into high gear, threatening and offering deals in exchange for a yes vote. This time around, 32 Democrats stayed as no votes. Democrats who switched tapped Pelosi on the shoulder before walking back to their seats, swapping smiles, as Pelosi studied the lit-up board on the wall that displays the votes. The tally hit 218, but Democrats seemed not to notice. When Pelosi looked up and saw it reading 220, she left the well of the floor and found Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wisc.), the Appropriations Committee Chairman, in his seat. The two shared a congratulatory handshake. The vote was gaveled to a close, with five Republicans joining 221 Democrats. Pelosi turned her gaze back to the board, studying her members' votes. She was no doubt pleased to see that these names sported a green box next to them this time, reversals from their previous no votes... Clarke Cohen Cooper Costello Frank Gutierrez Inslee Kagen Markey (Mass.) Matsui McDermott George Miller Napolitano Neal (Mass.) Oberstar Schakowsky Thompson (Calif.) Towns Velazquez Weiner And those who stuck with their no votes... Baldwin Capuano Conyers Doggett Edwards (Md.) Ellison Farr Filner Grayson Grijalva Honda Kaptur Kucinich Lee (Calif.) Lofgren Massa McGovern Michaud Payne Pingree Polis Serrano Shea-Porter Sherman Speier Stark Tierney Tsongas Waters Watson Welch Woolsey My book, This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America , is now out Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Rep. Jack Franks: More Reform Needed in Illinois Top
The last five months in Springfield have been exciting and difficult. My colleagues and I began this year with a goal to restore the citizens' faith in government and our first action was to impeach former Gov. Blagojevich. We hoped that government reform would follow after a change in administrations. We have passed laws to increase government transparency and ensure that state contracts are awarded honestly and in the best interest of the taxpayers. Illinois' notoriously weak Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has been strengthened to shine a bright light on all government activities. Stronger FOIA laws will lead to greater government accountability, and those in charge will no longer be able to hide behind confidentiality or their titles. New state procurement protocols are in place to ensure that future state contracts are awarded honestly, responsibly and not to large campaign contributors of the governor. We also passed legislation that will reform state boards and commissions by making the process of appointing members both stricter and more transparent. Under our most recent former governors, boards and commissions were a bastion of abuse and corruption. This legislation creates a public Web site that will contain each appointee's qualifications, duties and Statements of Economic Interest, as well as meeting minutes and audio/video recordings. I cannot say I am satisfied with the progress we have made in Illinois because we need to do so much more. I chaired the committee for a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) in 2008. A Con-Con would allow all reforms to come to the floor for discussion, not just those the leaders could stomach. A Con-Con would have allowed Illinois to re-evaluate its redistricting rules, which currently favor incumbents by allowing them to choose their constituents, rather than the people choosing their legislator. Importantly, it also would have allowed us to implement term limitations for General Assembly leadership. It is becoming clear that an extended leadership leads to a stagnant government. Changes need to be made not only in the executive branch, but also in the legislative branch of state government. We have taken some steps toward reform, but we've failed in many ways. I voted for campaign contribution limits. Those limits, though high, are better than no limits at all. I believe Illinois needed a starting point to rein in the huge influx of cash sent by donors. I filed legislation twice this year to bring a recall provision to Illinois. The current legislation has passed the House and is on third reading in the Senate. I will continue to push for reform and hope to change the culture of corruption that has permeated every level of state government.
 
Ensign Whacked Clinton For His Infidelities, Called Them "Embarrassing" For Country Top
Sen. John Ensign's admission late Tuesday that he had an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer over the course of nine months doesn't seem likely to cause the type of wall-to-wall coverage that similar marital slip-ups have in the past. But it should, at the very least, re-open the longstanding debate over how much attention should be paid to a politician's personal life. And when it comes to this topic, Ensign's own record of denouncing the affairs and misconducts of other pols could come back to haunt him. During the height of the scandal surrounding Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, the Nevada Republican denounced the president's conduct as "an embarrassing moment for the country." 'I think we have to feel very sad for the American people and Hillary and Chelsea,' he said. Weeks later, Ensign would call on Clinton to resign. "I came to that conclusion recently, and frankly it's because of what he put his whole Cabinet through and what he has put the country through," he was quoted saying at the time. "He has no credibility left," he added. At the time, Ensign was in a tight Senate race with incumbent Harry Reid, an election he would ultimately end up losing. And he didn't shy away from trying to exploit the moral trip-ups in Clinton's personal life to benefit himself and the GOP. "It could have a dramatic effect on Democrats like (President Nixon's resignation after the Watergate scandal) had on Republicans in 1974," he said, according to a local AP article from September 14, 1998. In fact, not only did Ensign envision the Lewinksy affair as a political boon for Republicans, he actively made it an issue in his campaign against Reid. At one point during the campaign, Ensign accused his opponent of having a double standard when it came to politicians and sexual dalliances. Reid, he argued, had been much tougher on former Sen. Robert Packwood -- who resigned from the Senate under allegations of sexual harassment -- than he was with Clinton. "Before there were hearings on Packwood, Reid said he would vote for his expulsion," Ensign declared, the day after calling for Clinton's resignation. "In 1998, he says we have to wait until all the facts come out on Clinton." To be fair, Ensign has taken a tough tone with regard to the sexual misconduct of members of his own party also. In 2007, he called fellow Republican Sen. Larry Craig a disgrace and urged the Idaho Republican to resign after Craig was arrested for disorderly conduct after allegedly soliciting sex in a men's airport. But that issue was framed as a matter of law, not morality. And Ensign was not as tough when it came to Sen. David Vitter's alleged solicitation of prostitutes. "That's one of the things that I'm proudest about our leadership is the swift action, not only calling for an immediate Senate investigation, ethics investigation, removing him from his committees but also sending the signal to him that it was probably best that he resign," Ensign said to ABC about the Craig matter at the time. As for Vitter, he added, "he has not admitted to anything. The Senate Ethics Committee would have no jurisdiction over him." In June 2006, Ensign voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have limited marriage in the United States to unions of one man and one woman. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Former Waterboarders Join The Ranks Of The Unemployed (And The Rest Of Your Scritti Politti) Top
Ahh, this recession. It's brought so many people so much misery, what with the rampant unemployment and the fact that we're all not eligible for TARP bailouts, for some reason. But I wonder who will spare a thought for the recently unemployed waterboarding experts? You've heard of James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, right? One day, they're straight up dunking terrorists, to find ticking time bombs. The next, they're just like everyone else, hunting for a job ! The CIA has reportedly cut its ties to the two psychologists credited for being the architects of the CIA's brutal interrogation program after 9/11, a news report said yesterday. Dr. James Mitchell and Dr. Bruce Jessen, who suggested and supervised waterboarding at secret prisons around the world have been told their services are no longer needed. Mitchell and Jessen, according to their associates, boasted of being paid $1,000 a day by the CIA to oversee the use of the technique on top al Qaeda suspects. Boasted! Hey, you would too! All that scrilla was "largely tax-free and did not include expenses, which the agency also paid for." Nice work if you can get it, though you shouldn't be able to, because it's completely deranged! MORE: Tax-free No-bid Cost-plus Government Contracts PREVIOUSLY, on the HUFFINGTON POST: CIA Renewed Contract With Psychologists Who Endorsed Waterboarding Weeks After Obama Took Office Before Firing Them More Free Speech : Here's an alternative take on Frank Gaffney, from Michael Roston, that asks, " Frank Gaffney's entire body composed of flesh-eating locusts? " I have often found myself wondering this! Guess What Media Organization Is Nearby! : At last, the secret Sarah Palin shrine at the New York Stock Exchange has been revealed! Only Full Voting Rights Shall Assuage Their Fury : Apparently, nobody is safe in Washington, DC, because all the drivers are rage-soaked fever demons with a lead foot and nothing to lose. According to a drivers' survey , "Four percent of drivers admitted to slamming into another driver." WTF? What happened to Hope and Change? (ANSWER: The Beltway.) Maybe That 4% Of Drivers Was Just Monica Conyers : No, she lives in Detroit, but it's sort of the same concept . [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Harsh Interrogations
 
Paul LeGendre: Will Matthew Shepard Rest In Peace? Top
In 1998, the murder of Matthew Shepard sent shock waves through the nation. A 21-year-old gay student at the University of Wyoming, Shepard was brutally beaten, tortured, tied to a fence, and left for dead. Eighteen hours later, a bicyclist found Matthew, initially thinking he was a scarecrow. He was rushed to the hospital and died five days later. Now, more than a decade later, the U.S. Senate is set to vote on a bill that would give the government additional tools to combat and prevent such heinous acts. This critical legislation, which has already passed in the House of Representatives in a bipartisan vote of 249-175, is aptly named the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909). If passed into law, it could prove to be one of the nation's strongest weapons to date to protect those who are most vulnerable to bias-motivated violence. Though it is widely believed and acknowledged that Matthew Shepard was targeted precisely because of his sexual orientation, his killers were not charged with a hate crime. There wasn't then and still isn't a state hate crime law in Wyoming, and the current federal civil rights law that the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act seeks to update extends to race, religion, or national origin, but not to sexual orientation. While all violent crimes are reprehensible, hate crimes cannot be measured solely by the harm caused to the individual victim. These acts are among the most pernicious forms of discrimination because they target all those who identify with the victim. This reality leaves many to live in fear and exclusion from the larger society. More broadly hate crimes threaten the core fabric of the diverse and pluralistic societies in which we live, undermining the shared values of equality and nondiscrimination among all individuals. Fighting hate crimes is nothing less than fighting to uphold human rights. While there has been progress on this front since 1998, there is still a long way to go. At the state level - where the vast majority of hate crimes are and will continue to be investigated and prosecuted - only 30 states and the District of Columbia punish hate crimes based on sexual orientation bias; 30 punish disability bias, 26 gender bias, and 12 gender identity bias. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act gives the Department of Justice (DOJ) the power in certain cases to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence by providing the DOJ with jurisdiction over crimes of violence where the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. Importantly, the bill would also makes grants available to state and local communities to train law enforcement officers or assist in state and local investigations and prosecutions of bias-motivated crimes. The family of Sean Kennedy may have appreciated this protection two years ago. A 20-year old gay man, Kennedy was leaving a bar in South Carolina when a man shouted homophobic epithets, while punching him hard enough to knock him onto the asphalt. One of Kennedy's friends later received a voicemail saying, "You tell your faggot friend when he wakes up, he owes me five hundred dollars for my broken hand." Kennedy never woke up. He died in a hospital later that evening from injuries suffered during the attack. Although local law enforcement wanted to prosecute the case as a hate crime, they couldn't, because South Carolina has no hate crime law, and the federal statute doesn't apply to violence based on sexual orientation bias. That critical change cannot come soon enough. According to data collected by the FBI, attacks motivated by sexual orientation bias are on the rise and are characterized by levels of physical violence that, in many cases, exceed the severity of other types of hate crime. We are calling on all Americans to join us in urging Senators to provide law enforcement officials with the tools they need to hold responsible those who commit these senseless acts of bias-motivated violence. To contact your Senator today and urge passage of S. 909, visit http://tr.im/oHok The protections this bill affords are long overdue. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act addresses hate violence against all Americans - not just some - and will allow the United States to lead by example in its efforts to ensure global leadership in combating all forms of discrimination and bias-motivated violence. Paul LeGendre is the Director of the Fighting Discrimination program at Human Rights First. Join them at facebook.com/humanrightsfirst and twitter.com/humanrights1st
 
Patrick Farrow, Mia Farrow's Brother, Found Dead In Vermont Art Gallery Top
CASTLETON, Vt. — The brother of actress Mia Farrow has been found dead in his art gallery, and police said Tuesday his death is suspicious. Sculptor Patrick Farrow, 66, was found late Monday by police responding to an emergency call from the Farrow Gallery in Castleton, a small town near the New York border. A woman there had called asking for help. An autopsy was planned to determine the cause of Farrow's death. Police said they wouldn't release additional information until it was complete. State police Lt. Timothy Oliver called Farrow's death suspicious in a written statement Tuesday. Oliver, who didn't respond to telephone calls on the case, told WPTZ-TV that police don't suspect foul play, but he said there were some things out of the ordinary at the scene; he didn't elaborate. Farrow, a professional sculptor for more than 35 years, operated out of a converted church building. The Farrow Gallery sells jewelry and mixed-media works of art, according to its Web site. The gallery is owned and operated by Farrow and his wife, artist Susan Farrow. Mia Farrow, whose movies include "Rosemary's Baby," "Hannah and Her Sisters" and "Crimes and Misdemeanors," is the former longtime companion of director Woody Allen. Their relationship ended in scandal and New York tabloid headlines in 1992, when she found out he was having an affair with her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, then 22. Farrow is the daughter of director John Farrow and actress Maureen O'Sullivan. David Schilling, an assistant to Mia Farrow's manager, Laura Berwick, said late Tuesday he had just heard of Patrick Farrow's death. He had no immediate comment on it. Last year, a nephew of Mia Farrow and Patrick Farrow who had spent nearly 20 years in the Army was killed in Iraq. Sgt. 1st Class Jason F. Dene, 37, died of injuries suffered in an incident in Baghdad, according to the Department of Defense, which gave no other details about his death except to say it was under investigation. Patrick Farrow told The Associated Press after his nephew's May 25, 2008, death he felt as though he had been "kicked in the stomach." "I've been opposed to this war since the beginning," Farrow said then. "This lying Bush administration has gotten into this thing that has now killed my nephew. It's up close and personal, and I am deeply angry."
 
Howard A. Rodman: Pardon Me, Sir, But is My Eye Hurting Your Elbow? Top
Find my nest of salt/ Everything is my fault/ I'll take all the blame/ I'll proceed from shame... --Kurt Cobain, "All Apologies." "My family and I are deeply sorry for everything Vice President Cheney and his family have had to deal with. We hope that he will continue to come to Texas and seek the relaxation that he deserves." --Harry Whittington, February 17, 2006. Sorry to say, the world can be divided into two kinds of people--those who apologize, and those who don't. Among the former are David Letterman, a man so sorry he apologized to Sarah Palin twice ; and Harry Whittington, above, who made a public mea culpa for placing his face in the path of Dick Cheney's buckshot and thus detracting from his relaxation. In the meanwhile, for real men, love means never having to say you're sorry. As Donald Rumsfeld once said , "Stuff happens." This is the crowd that delights in referring to other people as apologizers. Confessers. Admitters. Every name in the sorry black book. Hence Obama's mid-East trip became "an apology tour." WSJ says so . American Spectator says so . Mitt Romney says so . So pervasive is this meme, so viral, that even the good gray New York Times has gotten into the act . Today David Sanger frontpaged, "[1953] was the same year that the C.I.A. organized a coup that deposed Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq and installed the Shah -- a cold war operation for which Mr. Obama just publicly apologized during his speech at Cairo University last month." I apologize in advance for having to disagree with Mr. Sanger--but Obama didn't apologize for the 1953 coup. Instead, the President simply stated a fact: "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government." Now "played a role" is in this context a wild understatement. Still: Obama's not apologizing for it. He's acknowledging it. The outlines are beginning to form: to speak the truth about the past is an inherently apologetic act. To speak the truth about the past in a speech is to publicly apologize. And the sin of apologizing is not expiated until the apologizer apologizes for the apology. The whole idea is to make your victim apologize to you--it's the Whittington Syndrome writ large. Case in point: a website devoted to the proposition that Letterman won't really make things right until he apologizes a third time. Will Obama apologize for publicly apologizing in Cairo? Will the wise Latina Sonia Sotomayor apologize for using the phrase "wise Latina"? Only apologists never apologize. (title h/t to the fine 1968 anthology of short screenplays) More on David Letterman
 
House Votes To Fund Wars In Iraq And Afghanistan Top
WASHINGTON — War-funding legislation survived a fierce partisan battle in the House on Tuesday, a major step in providing commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan the money they would need for military operations in the coming months. The $106 billion measure, in addition to about $80 billion for military operations, provides for an array of other spending priorities, including $7.7 billion to respond to the flu pandemic and more than $10 billion in development and security aid for Pakistan and Iraq as well as countries such as Mexico and the nation of Georgia. Democratic leaders pushing the bill on behalf of the Obama administration had to overcome an unusual alliance. Anti-war Democrats opposed continued war spending and Republicans condemned $5 billion in the measure to secure a $108 billion U.S. line of credit to the International Monetary Fund for loans to poor countries. Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, contended that Democrats were endangering troops by shifting money to create room for a "global bailout loan program." The vote was 226-202, with only five Republicans voting for the bill and 32 Democrats opposing it. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., unsuccessfully appealed to Republicans for support, saying 80 percent of the package still went to the troops. "Stand up for them," he said. The Senate could move as early as this week on the legislation, which includes $1 billion to fund government rebates for consumers who trade in their old vehicles for more fuel-efficient models. The Pentagon has said that without the bill the Army could start running out of war funds as early as July. President Barack Obama has pushed for the package, arguing that it is crucial to his efforts to wind down operations in Iraq while boosting personnel and fighting power in Afghanistan. Republicans also objected to a decision by House-Senate negotiators to remove a provision prohibiting the release of photos depicting U.S. troops abusing detainees. It was taken out, "at the demands of the fringe left," said House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. Obama, in negotiating the removal of the provision, guaranteed that he would stop the release of photos showing detainee abuse. Unable to count on Republicans, Democrats had to appeal to some of the 51 anti-war colleagues who opposed the legislation when it was first offered in May. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, indicated that he wouldn't change his "no" vote. "America has to start taking care of things here at home and we can't do it by continuing to support wars based on lies," he said. Hoyer said, "One of the problems is we have some very deep-seated philosophical views that pursuing Afghanistan and Iraq with additional funding is not appropriate." Votes were swayed by other factors, such as the money to fight the flu pandemic and initiate the "cash for clunkers" auto program. Also in the measure is $534 million for 185,000 service members who have had their enlistments involuntarily extended since Sept. 11, 2001. They will receive $500 a month for every month they were held under stop-loss orders. The measure also had nearly $7 billion in "add-ons," funds not sought by the Pentagon. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation said those additions include controversial programs that the Pentagon did not want, such as $2.17 billion for eight C-17 transport planes. Passage of the bill, which provides funds through the end of this fiscal year on Sept. 30, would bring to nearly $1 trillion the amount spent on the wars and other security matters since the Sept. 11 attacks. More than 70 percent of that has gone to Iraq, the Congressional Research Service said in an analysis. Congress has passed similar war supplementals _ meaning the money is not part of the regular Pentagon budget and adds to the federal deficit _ every year since 2001. The White House has said that this will be the last war supplemental and that future spending will go through the regular appropriations process. The administration is seeking $130 billion for war funds in the fiscal year 2010 starting in October, down from about $143 billion this year and $183 billion in fiscal 2008, the CRS said. Obama's original request last April was for about $83 billion, including $75.5 billion for defense purposes. But as is customary, Congress used the must-pass bill as a vehicle for adding new programs, such as the "cash for clunkers" measure, and for increasing funds. Money for pandemic flu, for example, went up by about $4 billion. The measure includes $10.4 billion in foreign aid, with $2.4 billion for Pakistan, $1.4 billion for economic development in Afghanistan and $700 million in international food aid. House-Senate negotiators also reached compromises on several policy controversies: They denied the White House $80 million to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but agreed that detainees could be transferred to the United States to face trial. The issue of imprisoning convicted terrorists in the United States was put off for another day. ___ The bill is H.R. 2346 On the Net: Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov (This version CORRECTS the month of the Obama request to April, not October.)
 
Chicago Olympics Activists Take Protest To IOC In Switzerland Top
LAUSANNE, Switzerland — A group opposing Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Summer Games took its case to International Olympic Committee headquarters Tuesday. Three activists from the No Games Chicago organization sought a meeting with IOC president Jacques Rogge and a chance to address more than 90 IOC members at a key meeting Wednesday for Chicago's bid campaign. "Our major request was to have 10 minutes for the full IOC body to hear us," group spokesman Tom Tresser said. "I know it is unprecedented but we wanted to ask." IOC spokesman Mark Adams met with Tresser and said Rogge would be told of the protesters' proposal. However, Adams rejected their further demand to sit in on a 90-minute session at the Olympic Museum on Wednesday when Chicago bid leaders will present their case to IOC members and answer questions. The meeting is a crucial test of Chicago's campaign and its first formal gathering with the majority of 107 IOC members whose votes will decide the 2016 host in October. Chicago is followed into the sessions by bid teams from Tokyo, Rio de Janeiro and Madrid _ and will be met outside by hometown opponents. The protesters have brought copies of a document detailing their arguments for each IOC member. They claim Chicago's bid lacks the finance, competence, infrastructure and public support to sustain it. "It is not about the Olympics. We love the Olympics but Chicago can't handle it," said activist Rhoda Whitehorse, a retired public school teacher. No Games Chicago also staged protests when the IOC's evaluation team visited in April to grade the city's ability to stage the games. Protesters rallied at Federal Plaza and marched to the Aon Building, where bid leaders were meeting. IOC members will choose the 2016 host on Oct. 2 in Copenhagen. More on Olympics
 
McCaskill Says Obama Didn't Follow The Law In Inspector General Firing Top
WASHINGTON — A Democratic senator on Tuesday joined several Republicans in questioning President Barack Obama's firing of the internal watchdog for the federal AmeriCorps program. Gerald Walpin, the national service agency's inspector general, was dismissed over his handling of an investigation of the mayor of Sacramento, Calif., Kevin Johnson. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said the president failed to follow a law she sponsored, which requires that he give Congress 30 days advance notice of an inspector general's dismissal, along with the cause for the firing. Obama merely said he lost confidence in Walpin. "Loss of confidence is not a sufficient reason," McCaskill said. "I'm hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible." Last week, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, asked for information on any role first lady Michelle Obama's office may have played in the decision. Grassley requested "any and all records, e-mail, memoranda, documents, communications or other information" related to contacts with officials in the first lady's office. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Mrs. Obama played no role in the president's decision to remove Walpin. Michelle Obama's former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, is expected to join the Corporation for National and Community Service as senior adviser on June 22. White House counsel Gregory Craig, in a letter to Grassley, cited criticism of Walpin's investigation of Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns professional basketball team and a supporter of Obama's presidential campaign. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also asked the White House for documents on the firing. "Despite the requirement to notify Congress in advance of firing ... the White House moved swiftly to sack an investigator who uncovered wrongdoing and abuse by a political ally of the president," said Issa, senior Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In September 2008, Walpin's office found misuse of federal grants by Johnson and the St. HOPE Academy, a nonprofit education program he founded. Johnson and St. HOPE ultimately agreed to repay half of $847,000 in grants they had received from AmeriCorps between 2004 and 2007. More on Barack Obama
 
Kaity Tong: Sunday in the Park Top
Haven't stepped foot in Central Park in almost a decade. Used to go there almost daily when I lived on the Upper West Side, and my boy was small. We both loved the Park. But once I moved downtown, it seemed like such a trek. To be honest, as any Manhattanite will tell you, if you live below 23rd Street, you think twice about going 'uptown', unless you absolutely have to. And if you live on the West side, and your friends live on the East side, you have to think twice. Oh, do we have to go all the way over THERE?! I know they're our BEST friends, and Ron did give you his kidney, but still......whine, whine, whine. You know what I'm talking about! Anyway, went to the Park the other day, and it all came back to me. Sheep Meadow , on a blanket, with my son when he was just an infant, lying on my back and holding him up in the air, watching him smile down at me. Trying to teach him to ride a bike on the beautiful wide concourse that ends in that big space in front of the bandshell. Yesterday, the space was jammed with kids and quite a few fully grown people, showing off mad skills on skateboards. Tossing Frisbees and softballs, eating ice cream, climbing the flat rocks, dabbling our fingers in Belvedere Fountain, maybe tossing in a penny and making a wish, renting a canoe for a row on the lake, going down the slides with him or pushing him in a swing at one of the myriad playgrounds.....those are just a fraction of the memories I hold of Sundays in the Park with my boy. I was a single mother for several years. And nearly all my free time, on weekends, was for him. If we weren't in the Park, we were at the Intrepid, or the Museum of Natural History. My son was crazy about those three places, and it was tough getting him to change it up a bit. But I didn't mind. He could visit the aircraft carrier a thousand times, and I think he did, and never get tired of it. Okay, I'm rambling again. Back to Central Park. Sheep Meadow, on this recent afternoon, dense with bodies! Except for a small area where young men in great shape, shirtless and tanned (okay, a couple of them were pasty), were throwing a Frisbee around, you could hardly see a patch of grass, it was THAT crowded. Over by Belvedere Fountain, a huge, delighted crowd gathered to watch three young men, who call themselves The Afrobats, put on a jaw-dropping performance. They had a show that was choreographed, slick and entertaining. It was only when they started passing around giant bags, for donations, that a few in the crowd wandered away. I have a soft spot for performers like these. They were doing spectacular flips and tumbles, telling jokes in unison, ribbing the crowd...they deserved to get some money! And many people gave, some generously. For their final act, they picked 4 people from the audience, had them bend over side by side, and did a heart-in-your -mouth jump over them, with a flip thrown in. And all of this on CONCRETE. One false move....! Now that I think about it, one of the three was wearing a cast on his arm. Strolling from the west side of the Park, past the fountain, the Boathouse restaurant (again, jammed), to the place where people race sailboats by remote control. One of my favorite scenes from Stuart Little, my son's also. A light drizzle began as I sat near Alice in Wonderland, just taking it all in, people-watching, reminiscing. I didn't want to leave, even though I was getting progressively wetter. Finally, reluctantly, walked out of the park at 72nd and Fifth, and tried to hail a cab. Seemed like everyone else had the same idea. (If you want to read more of my blogs, go to wpix.com./ kaity tong)
 
Meltdown 101: Reform plan's impact on consumers Top
American consumers have fallen victim to one financial scandal after another in the past decade, from accounting fraud at Enron to illegal late trading by mutual funds to the subprime mortgage meltdown. President Barack Obama hopes to put the brakes on that trend with a series of regulatory reforms that his administration says will guard the nation's financial system against its own excess. The formal announcement comes Wednesday, but much of the substance was disclosed by the administration on Tuesday. The centerpiece of the package is the creation of a new agency, and there also are proposals to protect people who have mortgages or use credit cards. Here are some questions and answers about the proposed reforms and their likely impact on consumers. Q: What's being created and why? A: The Consumer Financial Protection Agency, if approved by Congress, will have broad authority to protect consumers of credit, savings, payment and other consumer financial products and services. It would be independent of agencies that now share those oversight duties and take away some power from some, most notably the Federal Reserve. It's being proposed in response to widespread criticism that banks, lenders and credit card companies have used unfair and deceptive practices to dupe consumers and saddle them with debt. Q: What exactly would the new agency be able to do? A: It could write rules, reform mortgage laws, examine financial institutions' practices, enforce compliance through penalties, ban unfair practices and require that companies be "clear and conspicuous" in informing consumers of costs, penalties and risks. It also would allow states to pass laws that are stricter than the federal standards. One signal that administration officials are determined not to let this be just another layer of bureaucracy and complexity: their use of the term "plain vanilla." The agency would require banks and other financial institutions to offer a basic, "plain vanilla" mortgage product with straightforward terms _ such as a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage loan. Consumers could still opt for more complicated products, though they would be subject to more stringent rules and disclosures than they are now. Q: Will these reforms help people stay out of trouble with their mortgages? A: They should help avoid future troubles. It would set guidelines for mortgages, and certain subprime mortgages clearly would be banned. Mortgage companies and banks would not be able to issue mortgages "or other credit products" that they knew consumers would not be able to pay back. The reforms also would ban unfair practices such as "yield spread premiums" _ side payments from lenders that encourage mortgage brokers to push consumers into higher-priced loans than they should qualify for. And they would require that brokers be paid over time based on people's continued loan performance, rather than in a lump sum at closing. Prepayment penalties, which can lock borrowers into bad loans, also would be banned. Q: What if I'm already facing foreclosure? Is this going to help me? A: Perhaps not immediately. But the summary being circulated by administration officials makes it sound as if the new agency would have the authority to order institutions to negotiate fairly with consumers facing foreclosure. Q: Could the new agency have prevented the subprime mortgage mess? A: It's conceivable. Data surfaced as early as 2001 about subprime mortgage loans, yet despite all the warning bells going off it wasn't until fairly recently that firm action was taken to try to halt aggressive lending practices and improper underwriting. Consumer advocates in particular say a lot of trouble could have been prevented if reforms had been put in place earlier. "The Fed slept for 10 years after Congress gave it authority over predatory mortgage lending and did not issue rules till after the crisis had peaked two years ago," said Ed Mierzwinski, senior fellow on consumer issues at the Washington-based Public Interest Research Group. Q: Will this stop credit card companies from raising rates and fees? A: It won't automatically ban all rate increases, but the new agency could have the power to set a maximum interest rate and maximum fees. It could also limit the amount interest could be increased at any one time and penalize companies that don't do what it says. Q: What about all the fine print in credit card statements _ is that going to go away? A: It won't go away entirely. But the insistence on transparency and understandable communications _ with the threat of penalties for companies that don't comply _ should improve things. Q: What obstacles does the Obama administration face in trying to get the reforms approved? A: The package of proposals is certain to face stiff opposition on Capitol Hill. Big banks and industry groups oppose the consumer protection plan. They argue that empowering a new agency with sweeping authority could actually lessen consumer access to loans and other products. And Republicans and some others have questioned the proposal to give the Fed expanded powers to supervise "too big to fail" institutions, as well as the additional spending the reforms entail.
 
E. Howard Hunt's FBI File Released Top
MIAMI — Watergate break-in planner E. Howard Hunt sought a presidential pardon by saying he thought the infamous burglary had "executive authorization," according to FBI documents released two years after his death. He died without getting a pardon. The FBI released 167 pages of Hunt's files following a Freedom of Information Act request by The Associated Press. Wednesday marks 37 years since police caught the burglars in the Washington break-in. The case ultimately made Hunt a household name and led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. Despite working as a CIA agent for more than two decades and his role in Watergate, Hunt's file is remarkably thin. As a CIA agent Hunt was involved in a U.S.-backed coup in Guatemala in 1954 and the botched Bay of Pigs attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro. He worked in China, Mexico, Japan and Spain, among other places. But he became best known after he retired from the CIA. He became a consultant for the White House and one of the so-called White House "plumbers," a group that was set up to help stop government information leaks. Working for the White House he helped plan the break-in at the office of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate. It was Hunt who orchestrated the burglary: scouting the building with conspirator and former CIA agent James McCord, recruiting the burglars and strategizing how the men would enter the complex. Hunt pleaded guilty to his involvement in the break-in _ the burglars had Hunt's telephone number in address books _ and served 33 months in prison. He later moved to Miami, where he lived and wrote spy novels until his death in 2007 at the age of 88. The FBI said it could not release approximately 100 pages of Hunt's file because they are property of the National Archives. What was released, however, details three points in Hunt's life. The earliest files are approximately 30 pages of FBI background checks from 1948 and 1949, before Hunt joined the CIA. Also included are another approximately 30 pages of background checks from 1971 when the White House hired him as a consultant _ the position that led to his involvement in Watergate. Many of the interviews the FBI conducted in 1971 end similarly: that the person recommends Hunt "for a position of trust and confidence" in the government. The FBI file notes his only police record at the time was a $15 traffic violation in 1969. In his White House role, however, Hunt would help plan not just Watergate but a burglary at the office of the psychiatrist treating Daniel Ellsberg, the defense analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers, a secret Pentagon study of the Vietnam War. The vast majority of the FBI file, however, relates to Hunt's request for a presidential pardon from President Ronald Reagan in 1981. That request came seven years after President Gerald Ford's controversial 1974 pardon of Nixon just a month after Nixon resigned. The 100 pages of documents include a set of fingerprints, character references, FBI interviews with acquaintances and Hunt's 5-page, 11-question pardon application. Responding to the form's question No. 5, which asks for a description of the crime he had committed, Hunt wrote, "My involvement in the June 17, 1972 episode was this: Acting on what I believed to be executive authorization delegated to the then Attorney General, I helped organize an entry team of four men to enter the office of the Democratic National Committee and photograph its financial ledgers. Purpose: search for illegal foreign contributions." Responding to question No. 8, asking if he had ever been arrested or charged with any other crime, he wrote "Nothing other than Watergate." As for why he should be pardoned, Hunt cited his age, 63, service to the country and testimony against former Attorney General John Mitchell and Nixon adviser John Ehrlichman. He told an FBI interviewer that he wanted the pardon in part "to clear his name for his children." That sentiment was repeated by many of the approximately 20 people who knew Hunt and were interviewed by the FBI. They ranged from his neighbors to CIA colleagues like National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. and even his high school music teacher, who called him a musically talented trumpet player and singer. Hunt's pardon request was one of approximately 2,000 Reagan got during his eight years in office. He pardoned 393 people and denied 969. Another 612 pardon files were closed because the applicant died, withdrew the request, or for other reasons, according to statistics compiled by the Department of Justice. As for Hunt's file, a Department of Justice catalog card on the case is stamped in 1983 with uppercase letters announcing only the decision: "Denied."
 
Leah Anthony Libresco: Iran's Revolution Will Be Twittered (and Blogged and YouTubed and...) Top
Twit: (1) twerp: someone who is regarded as contemptible (2) tease: harass with persistent criticism or carping; aggravation by deriding or mocking or criticizing I'm guessing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is currently mostly concerned with the second definition. Since the preliminary results for the Iranian election were announced, a steady stream of updates has been accumulating on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and other social networking sites. (For Andrew Sullivan's report on feeds to follow, click here ). The tweets are becoming so important to ongoing coverage of Iran, that Twitter has delayed previously scheduled maintenance so that the outage will occur in the early morning of Iran's time zone and will therefore be minimally disruptive. In addition to providing first hand reports on the violence (especially important now that most foreign journalists have been asked to leave), Iranian bloggers are using Twitter and Facebook to organize giant rallies in the streets of Tehran. One protester has even used Google Maps to track the location of government tanks. Social media hasn't only given Iranians a way to evade censorship and speak out; it has given them a way to mobilize attacks on Ahmadinejad's coalition, attacks that go beyond rallies. Some Iranian twitterers have called for foreign supporters to attack Ahmadinejad's websites using a distributed denial of service attack. A distributed denial of service attack (DDoS) is an effort to take down a website's servers by querying them repeatedly. Cyberwarriors used webservices like PageReboot which can automatically refresh a website every second. If enough people launch simultaneous cyberattacks, the surge in traffic can take down the website. (As of this writing, many official Iranian government and state-controlled media sites were unavailable). But I'm not convinced DDoS's are the right way to help. DDoS attacks are not necessarily an expression of popular will, or a check on the powerful, for all that this battle seems to have risen from the netroots. For a DDoS to be effective, many computers need to be accessing the targeted websites simultaneously. Today's offensive in Iran was carried out by hundreds of Internet users (there are over 800 members of one facebook group planning attacks as of this writing). But there's another way to get the number of users you need to run a DDoS: rent them. You can pay by the hour to access and command a large number of computers by renting time on a botnet. A botnet is a large number of virus-infected computers that are networked together and are commanded by a remote operator (a botherder). Today, large botnets are available to rent by the hour, for spamming, phishing, and, yes, launching DDoS's. It is logical to expect that cyberattacks, by governments or non-state actors, may become routine in the future. It is important to remember that this is a weapon that can be used by the powerful to enforce a brutal heckler's veto just as easily as large groups of protestors can use it to strike back. We should hesitate to legitimize DDoS attacks just because we agree with the side that is using them, especially when there are better ways to help. DDoS attacks are focused on closing down sources of information, but, right now, the most important thing is helping Iranian writers publicize what is happening in Iran. Blogger Austin Heap has posted a list of step-by-step instructions on how to set up a proxy server for Iranians to access. A proxy server allows Iranians to slip past government censorship. Instead of connecting to a blocked or downed website, they connect to a proxy, or substitute, network outside of Iran, which is not subject to restrictions. Any computer user can set up a proxy, to let Iranian users piggyback on your unrestricted access to the internet. Another suggestion from Wired is for all bloggers outside Iran to change the settings on their own blogs to make it appear that the blogger appears to be blogging from Tehran in GMT+3.30 time zone. This makes it harder for Iranian security forces to identify and shut down real Iranian bloggers just by filtering by location. It's too early to know how this protest will end, but it is clear that the Internet enables Iranian bloggers and twitterers to put pressure on their government and keep a record of human rights abuses, opening the possibility that justice may one day be served. This uprising is a potent reminder of the power of speech and of the press. Nearly one hundred years ago, H. L. Mencken said, "Freedom of the press belongs to those that own one." Today's fluid, resilient Internet has given the power of the press, of written, public records, to anyone with a connection. Perhaps, today, our rallying cry should be that of John Gilmore, computer scientist, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." We must commit to preserving this free flow of information, which is the greatest defense against tyranny for the Iranians' (and all of us). More on Twitter
 
Obama FCC Nominee Comes Out Against Fairness Doctrine (VIDEO) Top
So, for the better part of the past year, right-wing radio talkers have been sore afraid that President Barack Obama was going to reimpose this piece of legislation called the "Fairness Doctrine." And right along, I've been trying -- vainly! -- to chill people out, and let them know that no such thing was going to happen. What is the "Fairness Doctrine?" Imposed in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine mandated that the scarcity of media resources made it necessary that FCC license holders allow competing points of view to have equal time and access. In practice, the Fairness Doctrine was always tricky to enforce, and so in 1987 is was done away with. In the immediate offing, right wing radio flourished. Of course, since then, the media has expanded to include satellite radio and cable television and the internet, eliminating the original "scarcity of resources" argument that underpinned the Fairness Doctrine in the first place, while greatly complicating a media sphere that the law couldn't handle well when it was implemented nearly sixty years ago. Since I took up my position on the Fairness Doctrine watchtower, I've written about it a bunch of times. I called it a "fake right wing firestorm," and pointed out that many liberals were against it . I called it a "phantom menace" that was maybe being caused by "brain worms." I went looking for something that looked like a fervent supporter of the Fairness Doctrine, finding only an obscure backbencher from California . I also wrote some stuff about something Ann Coulter said in an email, which somehow applied to this discussion . Yet the paranoia that Obama would be getting all up in the radio tubes and force talk radio to start presenting an equal array of opposing viewpoints, thus destroying America, has persisted. So, will today's news, via Broadcasting & Cable settle the issue, once and for all? Julius Genachowski, President Obama's nominee for chairman of the FCC, said Tuesday that he did not support reimposing the fairness doctrine. He was asked at his nomination hearing by ranking Senate Commerce Committee Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) to publicly state the opinion he had expressed to her in a meeting--that he did not support the doctrine, even if it were arrived at by ancillary routes like localism mandates. Genachowski said he strongly believes in the First Amendment and doesn't think the FCC should be involved in censorship based on political speech and opinion. It should! But it probably won't! [WATCH] [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] More on Video
 

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)