Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Jonathan Richards: Kill for Life Top
"You reap what you sow," apologists for the murderer of Dr. Tiller are saying. For their sakes, for all of our sakes, one hopes not.
 
George Mitrovich: California: Failed State Top
Do not let the sun go down on your anger. Ephesians 4:26 I do my best to follow the biblical injunctions of the Christian New Testament, but when it comes to the state of California and letting the sun go down on my anger, I am, in that and other regards, a failed disciple. How could any rational, thoughtful, informed person be anything other than angry at the condition of California government? How could it come to this? How could the most populous and wealthiest state in the union by every standard of comparison, from natural beauty to intellectual property, be reduced to such pathetic circumstances? (If we were a nation we would be the seventh wealthiest in the world.) How, in the name of whatever deity you invoke, or none, how could this happen? Let me in the order of culpability count the ways: 1) Citizens 2) Arnold Schwarzenegger 3) State Legislature 4) Business 5) Unions When Governor Gray Davis was recalled and Schwarzenegger was elected as his successor there was palpable relief that the dismal days of Davis were over and hope that the Golden State would enter a new age. Having once before entrusted the governance of California to an actor without great consequences (some people reasoned), why not try again? Schwarzenegger was overwhelmingly elected for one reason, and one alone: he was a movie star. His personal story, a uniquely American story (Austrian born or not), was compelling narrative. And we the citizens being the saps we are fell it for it. We actually thought an actor known as the "Terminator" could terminate our problems. What idiocy! In the beginning of Schwarzenegger's reign there was great excitement because he, unlike Ronald Reagan, was at the top of the movie fame game (when Reagan was elected he was known primarily as the TV host of "Death Valley Days"). Schwarzenegger was the center of adulation; everyone, whether state legislator or fawning Rotarian, seemingly wanted his or her picture taken with Arnold. Not least in the adulatory line was the media, many of whom promptly forgot Peter Finely Dunne's admonition on the calling of their profession, "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Looking back I find it amazing how many otherwise truly smart people, including not a few Democrats, signed on to the Schwarzenegger "mystique." Duped by his fame into thinking he could set straight the Golden State. In a 43-year run I've gotten a few things right about politics, but I was ingloriously wrong about Schwarzenegger. Before his election I told inquiring friends in other places he stood no chance. I was in error about that but right in believing he would fail as governor -- and fail he has! But, out of a sense of Christian charity and fidelity to truth telling, it would be wrong to blame Arnold and only Arnold for what's happened. This is a collective failure, and next in line for justifiable blame, after you and me and Arnold, is the State Legislature. Before the people of this state voted in term limits, another act of monumental stupidity, California actually had extraordinarily able legislative leaders -- Jesse Unruh, Bob Monagan, Leo McCarthy, and Willie Brown in the assembly (and San Diego's own Jim Mills in the state senate). From 1961 to 1995, a 34-year stretch, the state assembly had four speakers. In the past 14 years we've had six, not one of whom I would count as memorable. (Karen Bass, the current "speaker" attempted to raise Assembly staff salaries while the state's budget was being slashed. I mean, seriously, by what means of conjectural logic did she think that would slide go by unnoticed?) The only thing term limits gets you is bad government. You end up, as end up we have, with neither continuity of governance nor institutional memory. In the absence of strong legislative leadership, which term limits deny, you get government by permanent bureaucrats and lobbyists. As long as we permit term limits, do not think change will come to Sacramento. It won't -- and we will continue to unravel. But, since I'm a liberal Kennedy Democrat, you may not trust what I say about the evils of term limits. So maybe you will accept the wisdom of one of conservatism's patron saints, George Will, who wisely said, "We have term limits. It's called the ballot box." That's right, the ballot box! What is there about that you don't understand? Next, in the descending order of culpability, is the business "community." There are remarkable business leaders in this state. Men and women of vision and competence, from Silicon Valley to San Diego -- individuals who have created wealth and jobs, while demonstrating extraordinary philanthropy, but many of whom have evidence a marked distaste, if not a deep disdain, for government itself. Yes, they have legitimately sought to protect their interests by bankrolling candidates and hiring lobbyists, but they have done so out of a protective mindset rather than a deep commitment to good governance. It is this scorn for the process of governance that damns the business community. They have this seemingly fatal idea, that what works in business works in government. No, they are vastly different animals (as eBay founder and gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman may or may not discover). That notwithstanding, men and women of accomplishment in the business world have an obligation to involve themselves in helping California find a way out of our chaotic and perilous state. Business must embrace what it otherwise seeks to avoid -- the lending of expertise and involvement in the affairs of state. Lastly, in the blame game, are the unions. Oh, how some people love attacking unions, including Blue Dog Democrats (I will here spare them public indignity by the citation of their names). It's shameful, really, the idea it's acceptable to lay California's collective ills at the door of union shops. Puleez! For every union offense against the welfare of society there have been multitudes by business; for every rapacious act by union officials against the general welfare there have been acts beyond number by many in the business community. But unions are not blameless. They have in many instances overreached. It is immoral to be paid more in retirement than while working, and if this state cannot adjust the giveaways and stop early retirement, California's fiscal future is doomed. The law may not permit the state's bankruptcy, but it will in every other way be bankrupt! Well, that's the indictment. How do we fix our sorry state? There are four critical steps that must be taken: 1) The repeal of Proposition 13. 2) The repeal of term limits. 3) The repeal of the two/thirds vote requirement. 4) The repeal of the initiative system. Do I actually believe such sweeping changes can be accomplished? I do, but only when politicians, business and union leaders, start telling the truth about the dire circumstances of our state (it is infinitely worse than they admit). For it will take truth telling to awaken that element within our somnolent population, those who desperately need to be told they can no longer avoid the consequences of what's happening around them -- for they are about to enter a world of hurt. If that is done, if truth telling becomes the moral dedication of our leaders, and We The People begin to take seriously our sacred franchise as voters, and proceed to act, not in the expediency of the moment, but in the long term interest of California, then, and only then, can we rightfully reclaim our standing as the greatest American state.
 
Merkel Blasts "Powers" Of Central Banks Top
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a rare public rebuke of central banks, suggested the European Central Bank and its counterparts in the U.S. and Britain have gone too far in fighting the financial crisis and may be laying the groundwork for another financial blowup. More on The Fed
 
Stephen Colbert To Be Newsweek Guest Editor Top
In the two weeks since Newsweek has redesigned, the magazine's editors have sent out a statement that they intend to sever any and all connection to the turgid, dusty newsweekly of yore. And Jon Meacham, the magazine's editor, is trying to recapture that age-old magazine editor's trick for his newly conceived book: buzz. More on Stephen Colbert
 
Christopher Brauchli: The Nominee and the Calumniators Top
For slander lives upon succession, Forever housed where it gets possession. Shakespeare , The Comedy of Errors The worst thing about disclosure of the name of the new Supreme Court nominee was not that the weeks of speculation had come to an end. It was that the public would no longer be treated to the fascinating biographies of every man, woman and child who MIGHT have been nominated by President Obama. These were biographies that, but for the vacancy on the Court, would never have seen the light of day, and the news consuming public would forever have been deprived of all the fascinating details about what in many cases were unfascinating lives that the vacancy permitted us to share. Those biographical sketches have now been replaced by bits of trivia about the actual nominee that are at least as fascinating as the biographies of the might-have-beens. For the first piece of trivia we are indebted to Nicholas Confessore of the New York Times. Mr. Confessore discovered that Judge Sonia Sotomayor "did not cast a ballot in the 2002 election . . . . Nor did she vote in the 2006 elections, which gave Democrats control of the United States Senate." Her disregard of her civic duty was also evident in the elections of 1999 and 2007. That news suggests (although not stated in the story nor picked up by Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich) that she is not a fan of our form of government. How else to explain her inaction? There is, however, a happy ending to this particular story. She voted in 2008. Since that is the most recent election to have occurred one can hope that this represents her determination to turn over a new leaf and participate in the democratic process. Her failure to vote in other elections should be explored in some depth at her confirmation hearings. Another observation that has received much attention is that if Judge Sotomayor is confirmed, she will join 5 other Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court thus giving Pope Benedict a significant voice in how the law develops. Although the Pope's influence is a very real threat, the reassuring news is that she is at most a Casual Catholic. The Washington Post reports that a White House spokesman said, in response to Catholic conscious bloggers' concerns, that: "Judge Sotomayor . . . attends church for family celebrations and other important events." That demonstrates a lack of zeal that should comfort critics. Yet another concern is Judge Sotomayor's involvement with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. After she got out of law school, Judge Sotomayor became a member of the Board of Directors of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. During her tenure, according to the New York Times , "she played an active role as the defense fund staked out aggressive stances on issues like police brutality, the death penalty and voting rights." Curt Levey, executive director of Committee for Justice wonders whether as a Justice the judge will know the difference between being a judge and serving on a board. That is probably the same thing he wondered when Sam Alito was nominated. Judge Alito was a member of the Federalist Society. The Society didn't go around suing people. It just tried to put its members into Federal judgeships. In an article in the Washington Monthly in March 2000, Jerry Landay, a former correspondent for ABC and CBS news observed that " The Society's mission is to advance a conservative agenda by moving the country's legal establishment to the right and they are succeeding. . . . [T]he Society is accomplishing in the courts what Republicans can't achieve politically." The Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund could probably not get Justice Antonin Scalia to skip the swearing in of a new Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court so that he could go on a junket with its members, as Justice Scalia did when he skipped Chief Justice Roberts' swearing-in in order to go to a Colorado resort with members of the Federalist Society. Whereas Judge Sotomayor discontinued her membership on the board of the Puerto Rican Defense fund upon becoming a judge, Judge Alito continued his membership in the Federalist Society the entire 15-year period during which he sat as a federal judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals . He has now resigned. Prior to his appointment to the Court, Chief Justice Roberts said he had no memory of belonging to that organization although he was listed as a member in the 1997-1998 leadership directory of the organization. It is too late to ask Justice Alito why he didn't resign sooner or Chief Justice Roberts why he didn't recall being a member or Justice Scalia why a junket with the Society displaced the common courtesy of being present for the swearing in of the Chief Justice of the court on which he serves. That should not stop the senators from in depth questioning of Judge Sotomayor on her membership in the Fund. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Martha Burk: Stronger White House Action Needed on Abortion Murder Top
As the President of the National Organization for Women in Wichita, Kansas in the 1980s, I went toe to toe with the anti-abortion extremists outside the clinic of Dr. George Tiller every Saturday morning while trying to get female patients safely through the doors. And as the main pro-choice spokesperson in the state's largest media market, I got plenty of threats - enough to watch my back every time I walked out of my house at night. But my situation was child's play compared to what Dr. Tiller endured in the service of women's rights. His clinic was bombed. His house was picketed. His family was harassed. He survived a shooting in both arms. Despite all of his, he endured and continued to serve women in dire need of help. He was often the last hope for desperate women carrying fetuses that were severely deformed with no chance of survival, but still having the potential to take the woman's life if carried to term. And as we all know, Dr. Tiller's luck ran out last Sunday when he was murdered in church. Women's rights advocates and persons of good will everywhere are shocked and outraged at this act of domestic terrorism. President Obama is also, according to his very brief statement denouncing "heinous acts of violence" such as that visited on Tiller. Good start - but where's the rest? Where is the action plan? Where is the mobilization? I would have liked to see the President surrounded by his law enforcement team--leaders of the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and their component agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and the FBI--making a very high profile public statement with coverage on all the major media outlets stating unequivocally that this kind of domestic terrorism will not be tolerated. I want the president to stand up and say that EVERY avenue of law enforcement, from financial investigations to violation of gun laws, will be used against the extremist groups, including extremist Christian groups, who foment and support this kind of terrorism. So far, we have only a statement from Attorney General Eric Holder that he has made the US Marshal Service available for greater security at clinics, but there is not so much as a press release on the DOJ website. We need more. The New York Times has called on Mr. Holder to consider taking the additional step of revitalizing the National Task Force on Violence against Health Care Providers that former Attorney General Janet Reno established during the Clinton years. If the President had directed that that be done in conjunction with making a strong visible statement about beefed up law enforcement instead of merely issuing a sound bite, maybe we would have seen that played over and over in the media instead of hate-filled journalists denouncing women who seek abortions and those that help them as criminals worthy of hunting down. Nothing like giving the next nut-case some more fuel to go after the next abortion rights doctor. Only a couple of months ago Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano had to apologize for a report from her department that pointed out the very real likelihood of just the type of act that occurred on Sunday. Perhaps that report was issued because the president was trying to find common ground with the anti-abortionists. I'm all for dialogue, but only after the president strongly states that forging common ground with them means they must act to stamp out this kind of terrorism in their own ranks. We say it all the time about Islamic extremists. Why not the Christian extremists? Mr. Obama knows the two ends will never meet on abortion itself, so he wants dialogue on reducing unwanted pregnancy. Having birth control freely available in all our schools would be a great first step, but - whoops -- we haven't yet zeroed out all the "abstinence only" funding in the President's budget for 2010. A LOT of that money goes to anti-abortion groups. Not a cent goes to groups advocating responsible birth control. The majority of women and men in this country are pro choice. Nobody is against the efforts to make abortion less prevalent-- we're all for that too. Abortion is not a pleasant procedure. I've never spoken with a woman who wouldn't have preferred not to have one. But to preserve women's lives, we simply must keep it safe, legal and available. The campaign of domestic terrorism -- against abortion providers, abortion clinics, women who have abortions, foundations that fund research and advocacy on reproductive rights, and those who write and speak favorably about the right to abortion -- is designed to make it increasingly un safe and un available. Having watched several hours of the 'liberal' media over the last three days, both MSNBC and CNN, I have not heard the role of Christian extremism in fomenting tragedies such as the Tiller murder condemned even once. Our media are so fond of decrying and condemning Islamic extremism--why not condemn Christian extremism? Many of those who purvey hate against abortion providers and encourage violence against them do so in the name of Jesus Christ, a man whose teachings are generally regarded as the core of the Christian religion. We cannot allow Christian extremists to drive our society toward a state of anarchy, in which civilians have no protection against the risk of bodily harm or even death at the hands of these religiously inspired terrorists. I say this as someone who has experienced these threats first hand. Those who work in the abortion rights movement feel increasingly isolated and vulnerable. We all have a moral obligation to stand with them against intimidation and terrorism. The great majority of Christians are not terrorists. They are people of good will. The president himself should call on his fellow Christians to root out extremism in their ranks - a strong beginning point for any dialogue on common ground. More on Women's Rights
 
Obama Picks Lakers To Win NBA Title Top
WASHINGTON — OK, Mr. President, let's see how you do picking the pro game. Barack Obama was on his way to the Marine One helicopter on the South Lawn on Tuesday when a reporter shouted a question. The topic: Who is going to win the NBA championship, the Los Angeles Lakers or the Orlando Magic? Said the smiling president: "Lakers in six, I think." In sports terms, that means the Lakers will win the best-of-seven series in six games. The series begins Thursday. So far so good this year for Obama. A huge basketball fan, he correctly predicted that that the University of North Carolina men's basketball team would win the NCAA championship. Obama was leaving Tuesday for an overnight trip to the Middle East. More on Barack Obama
 
Sheer Dresses: Is Celebrity Peek-A-Boo Clothing Hot Or Not? (NSFW PHOTOS, POLL) Top
From Sharon Stone's mesh Oscar dress to Eva Herzigova's lace panels at Cannes to "Gossip Girl" Leighton Meester's paneled minidress at the MTV Movie Awards, lace, open knits and mesh are everywhere. But is it a good look? You decide. PHOTOS: Follow HuffPo Entertainment On Twitter! More on Celebrity Skin
 
DOE Nuclear Clean-Up Program "High-Risk Area For Fraud, Waste, Abuse, And Mismanagement" Top
The Department of Energy is not adequately reporting the environmental impact of its billion-dollar program to clean up nuclear waste, according to a government audit . The Government Accountability Office released a report today noting that the DOE's nuclear clean-up program has been labeled as "a high-risk area for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement" since 1990, which the GOA says is the result of "inadequate management and oversight of its projects." As recently as March of 2009, the report stated, the GOA testified that cost increases at some major nuclear clean up projects were estimated to require an additional $25 to $42 billion to complete. Despite the consistent problems with the projects and ballooning budgets, the DOE did not adequately report its progress or the actual environmental impact of its work, the audit states. The rising costs on major projects are now being funded partially by the stimulus package, which, according to The Washington Post , has earmarked over $6 billion for cleaning up nuclear sites. The article goes on to report that some of the private contractors receiving stimulus money were previously cited by the GAO for serious flaws in their performance. The paper highlights Washington Closure Hanford, a firm which will receive $254 million for its work at the Hanford nuclear reservation. The same company ran afoul of the Environmental Protection Agency two years ago when a report showed that employees were "falsifying documents about their handling of nuclear waste." In the report released today, the GAO notes that at Hanford, contaminants passed from the site into groundwater that feeds the Columbia River, which is used for irrigation and drinking water downstream, in addition to being a major route for salmon. The Post article also mentions an incident at the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee, when a worker fell through a weakened floor three years ago. The accident caused a complete halt to the project for months and caused cost estimates to rise to $781 billion. The GAO report states that the DOE did not adequately report on this site, saying only that 1,000 acres of land had been cleaned without describing how dangerous the land was to begin with or the "potential environmental consequences" had the land not been cleaned. The report shows that despite huge government investment, the DOE is not adequately managing their private contractors, which are already prone to fraud. With over $6 billion now at stake, the nuclear clean-up projects could become a major source of embarrassment for the DOE.
 
McCain Adviser: Obama Burdened By Campaign Pledge On Health Care Top
An ongoing lobby effort to get the White House to fund health care reform by ending the tax breaks for employers who provide coverage to their workers is not making any progress within the Obama administration. The officials who have made the strongest case for this policy change say the reluctance is an unfortunate product of impossible-to-break campaign promises. At a health care forum at the Brookings Institute on Tuesday, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors Christina Romer said that Obama remains firmly opposed to ending the employer-based tax benefits despite pleas from Republicans and moderate Democrats. "What the president has said -- and Doug is infinitely familiar with this -- during the campaign was that he was not in favor of getting rid of the exclusion," said Romer. "So he has certainly had very strong feelings about that. Given where Senator (Max) Baucus is, we are working with him, but certainly there has been no change in our position." The "Doug," in this instance, was Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the chief economic adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign and a prominent proponent of ending the tax break for employer coverage. He too was at the Brookings forum, and when asked afterwards to assess the state of play on this contentious reform measure, he theorized that Obama's hands were politically tied. "Look," he said, "governing is harder than campaigning, let's just stipulate. It would have been for anyone. But until they see a bill that makes it worth it to cross that campaign pledge they won't do it." "When you talk about inefficiencies, part of the inefficiencies are at the consumer level where they have to choose how to spend their money," Holtz-Eakin said. "And if you subsidize something in an open-ended way to the richest Americans you get inefficiency. So it's a good policy to level the playing field. Our policy was not just taxing but also offering a tax credit. We thought of it as using a traditional subsidy to private insurance in a more efficient way. I still think it's a great idea." So too does Sen. Baucus who, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has great sway over the actual policy components of health care legislation. The Montana Democrat pressed Obama during a meeting on Tuesday to consider ending the tax break as a means of paying for the cost-heavy reform effort. But, as Romer noted, Baucus' pitch was met by opposition. "We certainly have other ideas that we have put into the budget, as to how we will raise revenue," Romer said. More on Barack Obama
 
Art Levine: As Chamber Lobbies, Its Paid Expert Says: No Unions, No Minimum Wage Law Needed Top
This week, the Chamber of Commerce launches its most forceful lobbying effort yet to kill the Employee Free Choice Act and to end talk of compromise on Capitol Hill. The Chamber is donning the masquerade of championing workers' rights by railing over the myth that the bill would take away the secret ballot -- it actually just gives workers the choice of whether to select a union through majority sign-up or "card check." The business coalition, also working through such front groups as the Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs , promotes bogus claims that it would cost the economy jobs . But now the real truth behind the hostility of the Chamber of Commerce and other major business groups to unions has been revealed by one its most admired experts, prolific University of Chicago libertarian law professor Richard Epstein, whose Big Business-funded research has been touted as the definitive critique of the Employee Free Choice Act. His arguments against the arbitration provision of the legislation that aims to end employer stalling in bargaining has also persuaded such iconoclastic liberal bloggers as Slate's Mickey Kaus ( full disclosure: he's a former editor of mine whom I admire although I don't always agree with him). Yet in a new In These Times article, "Shilling on the Corporate Dollar ," Epstein confirmed to me his earlier writings that the country would be better off without labor unions, labor protection laws or the minimum wage law. "I'm unrepenant," he says, while also conceding that his corporate funders asked him to omit some of his earlier arguments against labor laws as potentially political damaging. They had good reason to be worried that his radical views could discredit their claims that these corporate leaders somehow care about protecting workers' rights. One of his harshest critics , David Brody, a professor emeritus of labor history at Berkeley, observes, "I'm amazed the business side is using him. He thinks collective bargaining itself is a bad thing, while they claim to be defending the sanctity of the secret ballot." At the heart of much of Eptstein's current theoretical attacks on the bill is his longstanding libertarian view of employer and employee relations as achieving a perfect balance because of market forces. That makes him the labor market equivalent of Candide's Dr. Pangloss: if employers could just be left alone, all things work for the best in this best of all possible worlds. If there were no minimum wage laws, for instance, Epstein told me, "Wages would go up because productivity gains would offset any short-term losses [to workers]." And Epstein's ivory-tower "at will" world view is still on display in his new Hoover Institution paper: "To be sure, some firms do not have enlightened managers. But in a competitive market, the firm that does not do right by its employees will not attract or retain the most productive workers." But while this and other anti-union assertions may sound reasonable to a tenured professor like Epstein, it simply doesn't take into account the real world of employment -- and the justifiable fear of being fired. For instance, David Madland, a labor expert at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, notes, "What really discredits his arguments is his claim that employer intimidation isn't a significant cause of union decline." Most strikingly, he doesn't even think there ought to be workforce regulations or minimum wage laws, even for sweatshops here or abroad. As my article points out: In the past Epstein, an extreme libertarian, has attacked minimum wage and unemployment benefits, denouncing such New Deal legislation as unconstitutional "takings" that violate the Fifth Amendment. That is no surprise. Epstein has argued that, historically, sweatshop conditions can only be ameliorated by market forces, not by laws or unions. He told In These Times: "The level of wages will be determined by the intersection of supply and demand...the escape from that system is not driven by unions, which cannot increase productivity." The In These Times article further debunks the statistical sophistry of the business-funded economist Anne Layne-Farrar whose claim that the bill would cost at least 600,000 jobs in its first year has gained wide currency. No doubt Chamber of Commerce lobbyists and members are citing this week that statistic and her authoritative-seeming report. But by interviewing top economists, including John DiNardo of the University of Michigan, I was able to deconstructed her oft-touted use of "regression analysis" she uses to make the claim that rising unionization rates cause unemployment: Layne-Farrar massages the data using a complex "regression analysis" to connect the dots between card check, higher unionization rates and more unemployment, putting the loss at between 600,000 and 2.6 million new American jobs in the first year. "That's bullshit," says Canadian labor economist Charlotte Yates, now the Dean of Social Sciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. "I don't know of any credible economists who say [now] there is a direct correlation between unionization and the rise in unemployment." Even so, Layne-Farrar invokes her use of "regression analysis" as a sort of holy totem to ward off criticism of her work from other economists who cite what she says are "simplistic correlations." These include studies showing that countries such as England, Denmark and Norway have higher unionization and lower unemployment rates than the United States. She says, "This is empirical analysis, not an opinion piece, with results based on publicly available data and using well-accepted econometric tools. You can't rig these." John DiNardo, a labor economist at the University of Michigan and author of the textbook Econometrics retorts, "Just because she calls it 'econometrics' and 'regression analysis' doesn't mean that it makes any sense." While some earlier research had found a link between unionization and unemployment, more rigorous, recent research in Europe and the United States has found no connection between unionization and unemployment. In fact, Layne-Farrar's study concocts a negative jobs impact from unionization that is 200 to 300 percent higher than even the most critical anti-union research. No matter that her and Epstein's findings are built on flimsy data and extremist views. This week, they'll be no doubt marshalled to convince Senators to back away from the Employee Free Choice Act. As The Hill reported: According to a schedule obtained by The Hill, executives are visiting Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) [this] Wednesday as part of a lobbying push against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), legislation that would make union organizing much easier if passed. Business leaders from 12 different states, organized by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are flying into Washington next week to lobby against the bill. Feinstein has emerged as a key voice on the legislation. At first, her support for EFCA wavered since she is not a co-sponsor of the bill this Congress, unlike two years ago when she also voted for cloture on the bill. But now, Feinstein has floated a compromise for one of the bill's provisions to help garner support from Senate centrists who are worried about angering the business community by voting for the bill... Along with Feinstein, business leaders are also scheduled to meet with Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) -- centrists who could decide the fate of EFCA. They both co-sponsored the bill last Congress but Bayh is not doing so this year. Union officials have been somewhat open to changes in the bill but business groups have lobbied against any compromise, saying the legislation would hurt industry revenue by leading to more strikes and work stoppages. They have hammered Feinstein's proposal [to allow mail-in ballots instead of majority sign-up or "card check"] because they believe it would still lead to intimidation of workers by union organizers. Of course, the intimidation canard has been challenged by the most rigorous research on the issue, including a new study that found not a single incident of union intimidation in public sector jobs where majority sign-up is permitted. Yet despite what solid research says, it's not at all clear that conservative opponents of the legislation will let facts stand in their way. As I concluded in my piece on the two top anti-union scholars: While Epstein's more radical views are left off the table, his intellectual firepower adds to the impact of his arguments against EFCA. Both Epstein and Layne-Farrar see an idealized world waiting to be born where unions don't exist, and where workers and businesses thrive without them. The question remains, will Washington politicians still listen to business interests that use these researchers' dubious claims to argue, as Epstein does: "Unions are a bad deal for most workers."  More on Arlen Specter
 
Phil Bronstein: I feel your pain, see your "empathy," and raise you a little EST Top
Empathy is our newest cultural celebrity, now that Susan Boyle has collapsed in the face of the unrelenting beast of huge and instant fame. (But we really feel for her and understand her let-down and nervous exhaustion as if it were our own. Honest.) Like "networking" years ago or "creating community" more recently -- or Diversity, Synergy, Empowerment, Wellness, and Green -- empathy is the current buzzword bait dropped into our civilization's fighting cage. Lionized by the president and blackjacked by conservatives, the empathy scrap is furious. The pro side was luxuriously argued on truthout by George Lakeoff; Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, in his own uniquely articulate style , dissed it as "empathy right on your behind." But the historical trajectory of this empathy thing has some roots and I know where they lie because it was right here in San Francisco and I was around then. These warm and fuzzy feelings we're debating now are a direct backlash to a '70s movement/hustle that was the antithesis of empathy. It was about being guilt-free and basking in the wonderfulness and perfection of yourself. This deal was a conscious-numbing plague of narcissism that crept into the upper reaches of the Jimmy Carter White House, and had hundreds of thousands of adherents who came to believe they were fine just the way they were. No feeling other people's icky pain and suffering necessary. They called it EST. Right. That thing. Erhard Seminar Training , the brainchild of former encyclopedia salesman and new age wizard Werner Erhard (actually Jack Rosenberg; apparently not everything was perfect "the way it is" -- as his EST slogan had it. To be fair, Mr. Erhard got a lot of people on board his feel-good wagon, including celebrities (John Denver, Diana Ross), political wives and a lot of young adults who felt the flames of '60s social activism licking the edges of their BMWs and just didn't want to have to feel guilty about their own creature comforts. As I saw it, EST boiled down to this: don't feel bad. Don't worry about anything but yourself. And you're pretty damn perfect the way you are. Who doesn't want to hear that, even if you're Woody Allen? Brilliant! As James Lipton would say. Werner Erhard even started an offshoot called The Hunger Project where, so far as I could tell, no one actually got fed, directly. But the message seemed to be that you don't have to actually do anything about world hunger. Just acknowledging its existence is enough. How freeing is that!? You could do that and play a game of squash at the same time. While he brilliantly synthesized useful tips from Zen Buddhism, Dale Carnegie, and mass hypnosis, his jewel of conscription was a full weekend of large room, haranguing lectures from Jack himself where no one could leave to pee the entire time. Suspicious by nature, I went to an EST orientation briefing around 1971 after hearing about this "life-changing experience" from friends whose eyes seemed a little opaque from their own seminars. I took a lot of notes and was immediately surrounded by several EST coordinators demanding to know what I was doing. Always a good sign that something's up other than what people are telling you. What I recognized in the EST shtick there were some basics I'd heard when I briefly got trained and sold Great Books of the Western World door-to-door to support my journalism habit in my late teens. Sure enough, when I looked it up, Mr. Erhard had the same job years before, though I'm sure he was much, much better at it than I was. ("And if you sign tonight, I can throw in a bookcase for free!") Today, President Obama and many others are leading a rebellion against the self-comforting bath of EST, and in a big way. Caught up in his own empathy epidemic, Mr. Obama is now inviting evil Iran to US embassy Fourth of July celebrations overseas. Just check the firecracker load carefully. Even Dick Cheney feels someone else's urges and has signed up for the same sex marriage camp. (Did Gavin Newsom reach out to him personally?) It's unclear where all this will end, but let's remember where it started: with Werner Erhard's "revelation" on highway 101, driving across the Golden Gate Bridge, when the me-generation was conceived. Vestiges of what became EST are still around and their lawyers can be pretty assertive. So let me hasten to add, watching out for my own behind, that this is all my opinion. I'm sure an empathetic judge like Sonia Sotomayor would defend my right to have one of those. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Zac Efron Cameoing On HBO's Entourage Top
High School Musical hottie Zac Efron is the latest big celeb to make a cameo on HBO's Hollywood-centric comedy, Entourage.
 
Jack Nicholson In Talks To Sub For MIA Bill Murray In Brooks Pic Top
Nicholson is the last piece of casting to come together on the ensemble project, which also stars Paul Rudd, Reese Witherspoon and Owen Wilson. For months, Bill Murray had been in talks to portray the blueblood father of Rudd's character, but a deal never closed. In recent weeks, Murray's interest in the project waned, and he fell out of touch.
 
Tom Engelhardt: Missing Word, Missing World Top
Crossposted with TomDispatch.com Graduating the Rest of Us, '09 Graduates of the Bush years, initiates of the Obama era, if you think of a commencement address as a kind of sermon, then every sermon needs its text. Here's the one I've chosen for today, suitably obscure and yet somehow ringing: "The idea that somehow counterterrorism is a homeland security issue doesn't make sense when you recognize the fact that terror around the world doesn't recognize borders. There is no right-hand, left-hand anymore." That's taken directly from the new national security bible of Obama National Security Advisor (and ex-Marine General) James Jones. He said it last week at a press briefing. The occasion was the integration of a Bush-era creation, the Homeland Security Council -- which, if you're like me, you had never heard of until it lost its independence -- into the National Security Council, which Jones runs, a move that probably represents yet another consolidation of power inside a historically ever more imperial White House. After four years in this college, I assume you are students of the word and like all biblical texts, this one must be interpreted. It must be read . So let's start by thinking of it this way: If we are, in some sense, defined by our enemies, then consider this description of terrorism -- even though most acts of terror are undoubtedly committed by locally-minded individuals -- as something like a shadow thrown on a wall. The looming figure to which the shadow belongs is not, however, al-Qaeda, but us. We are, after all, in the war-on-terror business. It's how we've defined ourselves these last years. If you accept Jones's definition, then you only have to go a modest distance to conclude that we are the other great force on the planet that "doesn't recognize borders." Keep in mind that, right now, we're fighting at least two-and-a-half wars thousands of miles from this sylvan campus, and in your name no less. When it comes to our "national security," as we define it, borders turn out to matter remarkably little in a pinch, as long, of course, as they're other people's borders. After all, we have established an extensive network of military bases, some gigantic , in Iraq and Afghanistan, and secured the right to treat them essentially as U.S. territory; we have hundreds of such bases, large and small, scattered across the Earth, most not in war zones, a startling number of them built up into impressive "little Americas." It's through them that we garrison much of the planet (something you will almost never see commented upon in the mainstream media, obvious though it may be). Our drone aircraft , flown by remote control from bases in the United States, now regularly patrol distant skies, as if borders did not exist, to smite our foes, whatever any locals might think. Typically, as far as we know, our secret warriors continue to fund , to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, a Bush-era project, which also knows no borders, aimed at destabilizing the Iranian government. The Architecture of Meaning Instead of simply continuing down this superhighway of borderlessness, let's just consider two sentences buried deep in a recent piece on the inside pages of the New York Times about a roadside explosive device in Iraq that killed three Americans in a vehicle. It's the sort of thing that Americans tend not to find strange in the least. So as an experiment, try, as I read it aloud, to take in the deep strangeness it represents: "The Americans were driving along a road used exclusively by the American military and reconstruction teams when a bomb, which local Iraqi security officials described as an improvised explosive device, went off. No Iraqi vehicles, even those of the army and the police, are allowed to use the road where the attack occurred, according to residents." Keep in mind that this isn't a restricted road in Langley, Virginia. It's a road outside the Iraqi city of Falluja, where we conducted two massive, city-destroying assaults back in 2004; in other words, the road which "no Iraqi vehicles... are allowed to use" is thousands of miles and many borders away from Washington. And that's nothing really. If you want to know something about American "impunity" -- a fine nineteenth century word that should be more widely used today -- when it comes to Iraq's borders, get your hands on the text of Order 17. That order was issued by our viceroy in Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer III, back in the salad days of the Bush administration, when that era's neocons thought the world was their oyster (or perhaps their oil well). Promulgated on the eve of the supposed "return of sovereignty" to Iraq in 2004, Order 17 gave new meaning to the term "Free World." In intent, it was a perpetual American get-out-of-jail-free card. If I were the president of this college, I would assign Order 17 to be read as part of a campus-wide course on magical imperial realism. Here's but one passage I've summarized from that document: All foreigners (read: Americans) involved in the occupation project were to be granted "freedom of movement without delay throughout Iraq," and neither their vessels, vehicles, nor aircraft were to be "subject to registration, licensing or inspection by the [Iraqi] Government." Nor in traveling would foreign diplomats, soldiers, consultants, or security guards, or any of their vehicles, vessels, or planes be subject to "dues, tolls, or charges, including landing and parking fees," and so on. And don't forget that on imports, including "controlled substances," there were to be no customs fees (or inspections), taxes, or much of anything else; nor was there to be the slightest charge for the use of occupied Iraqi "headquarters, camps, and other premises," nor for the use of electricity, water, or other utilities. Or, since actual architecture, like the architecture of language, is revealing, consider our most recent embassy-building practices. An embassy is, almost by definition, the face of our country, of us, abroad. For our embassy in embattled Iraq, the Bush administration ponied up almost three-quarters of a billion dollars (including cost overruns). The result, now opened , is the largest embassy compound on the planet. It's about the size of Vatican City, a self-enclosed world with its own elaborate defenses and amenities inside the citadel of Baghdad's Green Zone. Staffed by approximately 1,000 "diplomats," it's the sort of place Cold War Washington might once have dreamed of building in Moscow (not that the Russians would have let them). Do the Iraqis want such an establishment in their capital? Would you, if it was a foreign "embassy" in your land? Once again, that old-fashioned word "impunity," which once went so well with words like "freebooter" and "extraterritoriality," seems apt. We still practice a version of freebooting, we still have our own version of extraterritoriality, and we do it all with impunity. In our era, the imperial mother ship landed in a country the size of California, but with a fraction of its population, that just happens to have a lot of untapped reserves of hydrocarbons. But that, I'm sure you're thinking, was the Bush era. You know, the years of over-the-top unilateralism that crashed and burned along with those dreams of a global Pax Americana and a domestic Pax Republicana . You might think so, but the news -- what's left of it anyway -- tells a different story. When it comes to "change you can believe in," a recent piece by Saeed Shah and Warren P. Stroebel of the McClatchy newspapers caught my eye. They wrote: "The White House has asked Congress for -- and seems likely to receive -- $736 million to build a new U.S. embassy in Islamabad, along with permanent housing for U.S. government civilians and new office space in the Pakistani capital." In other words, the Obama administration is asking Congress to fork over almost the exact price of our monster embassy in Baghdad (after staggering cost overruns). Figure those always predictable overruns into this project, and you may indeed have the first billion-dollar embassy. To use a term the U.S. military once loved, this will result in a large "footprint" on Pakistani soil. It is, to say the least, not normal practice to build and staff such mega-embassies. So if you have a taste for symbolism, this sort of embassy says a lot about how Washington imagines power relations on this planet. Think of these as our ziggurats, our temples (as well as command centers) in foreign climes. Far stranger than any of these strange specifics is this: none of them seem particularly strange to us. They are news, yes, but not the sort of news that opens eyes, starts discussion, sets Americans -- sets you -- wondering. Two Lost Syllables Now maybe we shouldn't be surprised by any of this. After all, isn't this just how imperial powers like to operate: as if they owned the planet, or at least had special rights that overruled the locals when it comes to significant hunks of prime real estate? Which brings us to a word I haven't said yet, the real subject of my speech today: Empire. It's the word no one in Washington can say. Its absence from our political discussion is perhaps what makes the United States imperially unique, and yet without it, some crucial part of the real world is missing in action too, some part of what might help us understand ourselves and others. Words denied mean analyses not offered, things not grasped, surprise not registered, strangeness not taken in, all of which means that terrible mistakes are repeated, wounding ways of acting in the world never seriously reconsidered. Think of a crucial missing word as a kind of invisible straightjacket. Its absence, oddly enough, chains you to the present, to what's accepted and acceptable. Just two missing syllables, em-pire , making up a word that's proved so serviceable for so many centuries. And yet, without it, our American world is a little like the one in the sci-fi movie The Matrix . You remember, it's the one where human beings imagine themselves moving and acting in a perfectly real land, while their actual bodies are stored somewhere far more grim. One question to ask yourself as you form your processional to leave these grounds that have sheltered you these last years might be: Do you have any idea what world you're walking into? If essential terms for describing it are missing, can you even know? And no less important, do you want to know? You'll notice -- and here's the good news -- that I haven't offered you a shred of career advice, or a hint of optimism so far. And on this suitably gloomy day in this gloomy world of ours, I hope not to. I also know that, whatever your minds may be on as you prepare to head through your school's vast gates into a none-too-welcoming world, they aren't on what I have to say today. That, quite honestly, gives me the freedom to talk about a word you may not have heard in your four years here, not applied to our country anyway. Think about it. In these last moments of your campus life, don't you find it a little strange that the United States, your country, has military bases, more than 700 of them, scattered across every continent and that your school offers not a single course on the way we garrison this planet? Don't you find it just a tad odd that this seemingly salient fact of our national existence hasn't seemed worth teaching, debating, or discussing? Let me tell you a little story of mine. In what still passes for my real life, despite my work at TomDispatch, I'm a book editor . A few years back, I edited one by Chalmers Johnson, an experience a little like passing through those great gates at the end of this pathway, but in the other direction, and going back to school. The book was called The Sorrows of Empire . It was quite well reviewed in our major papers (in the long-gone days of 2004 when they still had book review sections), and became a bestseller. Oh, I should add that the book focuses, in great detail, chapter after chapter, region after region, on what Johnson called our global "baseworld." And yet not until three years later, when Jonathan Freedland, a British journalist, took up Johnson's work in the New York Review of Books , did a major reviewer, praising it, focus on its central topic, the way we garrison the world. This was, as you might imagine, no small trick and it taught me something about what Americans find it easier not to see, even when it's staring them in the face. Graduation 1966 Fortunately, as I say, I can talk about this today without fear that any of you will be affected by it. I'm the proof of that, or rather my younger self, graduating in what seemed a sunnier moment 43 years ago. Whoever spoke to the gathered graduates of the class of 1966 at Yale College is long gone from my memory banks, just as I'll surely be from yours. A few days ago, preparing for this moment, I clambered to the top of my closet -- no small thing now that I'm almost 65 -- and amid the piles of junk and memorabilia I've squirreled away extracted a letter-sized envelope of photos marked "college" from a larger folder that, long ago, before I knew the half of it, I labeled "my life." So here's what I can tell you about my own graduation. Unlike you, I commenced, if that's what it was, on a sunny day, so the photos tell me, and with flags flying. They were part of the processional, the Stars and Stripes and what must be college pennants as well, as we marched enrobed to our ceremony, which I no longer remember. I can't tell you who spoke or what he -- it was surely a he then -- spoke about, or what wisdom he offered us, only that he was probably an Authority, with a capital A, and that, although the sixties were just starting for me (the earlier years of that decade, in lived
 
Scott Roeder Charged In Killing Of George Tiller Top
WICHITA, Kan. — An activist abortion opponent was charged Tuesday with first-degree murder in the death of late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, and the prosecutor said the evidence in the case ruled out the death penalty. Scott Roeder, 51, was shown via a video link from the Sedgwick County Jail. He fiddled with the charging documents on a podium in front of him, and said "OK" three times as Judge Ben Burgess read the charges and explained the court process. Burgess ordered Roeder to be held without bond and said he was not allowed to communicate with Tiller's family or two witnesses he allegedly assaulted. The judge told Roeder that he would be assigned a public defender. "And I'll obviously be hearing from one of those lawyers between now _ or do you know how long it will be before I hear from one of those lawyers?" Roeder said. Within two days, the judge answered to Roeder's only question in the brief appearance. A preliminary hearing is set for June 16. Attorney Mark Orr with the Sedgwick County public defender's office said it had just been the assigned the case and had not had a chance to talk to Roeder yet. If convicted on the murder charge, Roeder would face a mandatory life sentence and would not be eligible for parole for at least 25 years. Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston would not release any details of the crime at a news conference after the hearing, but said evidence against Roeder ruled out the death penalty. Kansas law requires that special circumstances exist for a defendant to be eligible for the death penalty. Such circumstances include the killing of a law officer, more than one person or a victim kidnapped for ransom or rape, or killed in murder for hire. Roeder is accused of shooting Tiller to death Sunday at the doctor's Lutheran church in Wichita as he was serving as an usher. Roeder also was charged with aggravated assault for allegedly threatening two people who tried to stop him. Roeder was arrested about three hours after the shooting near Gardner, about 170 miles northeast of Wichita. His last known address is in Kansas City, Mo. Roeder's family life began unraveling more than a decade ago when he got involved with anti-government groups, and then became "very religious in an Old Testament, eye-for-an-eye way," his former wife, Lindsey Roeder, told The Associated Press. "The anti-tax stuff came first, and then it grew and grew. He became very anti-abortion," said Lindsey Roeder, who was married to Scott Roeder for 10 years but "strongly disagrees with his beliefs." They divorced in 1996 and have one son, now 22. Roeder's brother, David, also said he suffered from mental illness at various times in his life. Someone using the name Scott Roeder posted comments about Tiller on anti-abortion Web sites, including one that referred to the doctor as the "concentration camp Mengele of our day" _ a reference to the Nazi doctor who performed ghastly medical experiments on Jews and others at Auschwitz. The posting said Tiller "needs to be stopped before he and those who protect him bring judgment upon our nation." Tiller's death has focused attention on the availability of third-trimester abortions, as the few remaining providers age with little interest from new doctors to offer such services. Tiller's family says there were no plans yet to reopen his Wichita clinic, despite earlier comments from Dr. LeRoy Carhart, one of four physicians who worked at the clinic. Funeral services for Tiller are planned for 10 a.m. Saturday at College Hill United Methodist Church.
 
Tom Patterson: Cyber Crimes, Small Businesses and Obama's Cyber Security Announcement Top
Cybercrime by organized criminals and foreign Governments is fast becoming a national security issue, and America's businesses are on the front line. Don't leave the critical million small businesses out of the new cyber-security plan. In President Obama's first 100 days, there have been high-profile break-in's of the companies that operate our national electric power grid, suppliers to our defense industrial base, and even the oil rigs just off the California coast. The common denominator with these examples and many more is the lack of security preparedness among America's 'critical million' small and mid-sized businesses. In addition to the common criminal, determined attacks are now coming from well organized and well funded groups, including foreign governments, global organized crime, and terror organizations, and are stealing (or worse) from smaller companies that haven't the resources nor inclination to shore up their defenses to the level of a Fortune 500 company. The full force of this global criminal infrastructure can now be aimed at anyone, anywhere, at anytime, with devastating effect. Were this only a cybercrime issue, this new shift toward attacking America's heartland companies would be bad enough. But it's not, it's worse. With our economy in recession, and our national security now inseparably linked to our economic well being, key targets now include our business supply chains, critical infrastructure, and the labs and universities which feed American ingenuity and secure our prosperity. The president needs to extend our national security umbrella beyond the Pentagon and Fortune 500 companies, and find a way to help the 'critical million' companies across America that are the life blood of our economy. Between the FBI and other Government agencies, America does a good job helping the larger companies protect themselves from these threats. It's that next layer of a million critical companies that represent the softest targets, and therefore the biggest risk to America. The president now has several influential recommendations ranging from the long awaited Melissa Hathaway cybersecurity report to leading intelligence and security associations, all calling for inclusion of these critical million companies. But traditional methods employed by the FBI, NSA, DoD and others will not scale to a million -- and thus new approaches must be utilized. With the advent of mobile computing and social media on the Internet, it's now possible to reach the leaders of these million companies, build long-term trusted relationships, and provide meaningful assistance -- all within current budgets. The vast majority of these critical million companies do not have a full time security officer, nor is security a top five business issue for them, so talking to them in security terms, without respect for their pressing business issues, is a non-starter. We need to take our national intelligence and law enforcement information, and transform it into something they can and will use in their real world. Hollywood is the best in the world at communicating, and with the right public/private partnerships, could be a huge asset in the defense of America. Our national security infrastructure needs to meet these companies on LinkedIn, Twitter, MySpace and Facebook, educate them with specifically targeted advice, train them with educational gaming and video vignettes on YouTube, and inform them with iPhone and Blackberry apps that work in real time. Between the Internet, entertainment, and media industries, we have the technology and creativity to reach every one of these companies in a way that helps them help themselves. While this type of new thinking is difficult for a Government bureaucracy entrenched in its old ways, outreach like this is being done successfully in the business world today, and fits within this high-tech President's mandate of change. President Obama has just chosen a very tech-savvy CIO and CTO, both of whom understand the reach and efficiencies of the Internet. As he prepares to select his first cyber-czar, and his national intelligence teams begin to pull together the disparate forces in defense of the companies that make up our economic lifeblood, it's critical to fully leverage public/private partnerships, the latest Internet technologies, and most creative new media strategies, when looking to reach, educate, and defend America. Tom Patterson is the founder of the National Security Grid and author of "Mapping Security." Dave Szady is the former FBI deputy director and America's first National Counter-Intelligence Executive
 
Faisal Ghori: In the Middle East, Actions Speak Louder Than Words Top
This coming Thursday President Obama will give a much-anticipated speech in Cairo ostensibly addressed to the Muslim world. Publications throughout America and the West have spilt a great deal of ink in analyzing and assessing the implications of this speech, all of which have come more or less to the some conclusion: the speech will challenge President Obama in being able to address the key issues that drive the Muslim world. Yet, one thing that they have all ignored is who exactly is anticipating this speech? The answer, in the Middle East anyway, is no one, with the notable exception of government controlled media. In various conversations and meetings throughout the Middle East, whether in Cairo, Amman, Riyadh, Manama, Dubai or Doha, no one here is putting any weight behind what is being billed in the American media as nothing short of a watershed event. This is not to say that the region as a whole is cynical. On the contrary, with its history of colonial occupation, and dictatorial rule stretching from Morocco to Iraq everyone here clings to hope or rather the promise of hope. The Muslim world was overwhelmingly supportive of Obama's candidacy and is still enthusiastically supportive. In some respects, President Obama does represent change, even if that change has been a more moderated tone towards the Muslim world. Ameliorative rhetoric is necessary from the United States, but more needed are the actions and policies that foster and cement real change. To Khalid, my Cairene taxi driver who as a medical doctor can't find work as a physician, what value will Obama's words have? Or to the men and women of Iraq and Afghanistan who have had their nations dismantled? The short answer is not much, if at all. The simple fact is that the socio-economic and political woes of the Middle East and the Muslim world are very real. Within Saudi Arabia alone, the world's largest oil exporter and of the wealthiest nations in the Middle East, unemployment is believed to be around 25% including women, according to HSBC. In Cairo alone in 2008 there were riots in the streets when the price of bread skyrocketed due to inflation and everyday Cairenes could no longer afford to eat. What of the poorest nations like Yemen? The Brookings Institute estimates that throughout the Middle East and North Africa the aggregate population is roughly 300 million, with 50-65% of the population being under 24 years of age. There is no infrastructural support providing this generation with education or jobs with which to support themselves. The question for the Obama administration is not what happens in the next four years of his term, but rather what happens in the next decade such that this is not a lost generation which resents American support of their governments when they cannot feed themselves. While the hydrocarbon rich nations of the Muslim world, like Qatar and the UAE, have now begun deploying their wealth at home to address some of these issues they still have a long way to go. Saudi Arabia, for example, has embarked upon a vast multi-billion education agenda, building with it what is billed to be the region's best technical university with talent poached from the likes of UC Berkeley, MIT and Caltech, King Abdulla University of Science and Technology (KAUST). But where will graduates of KAUST find employment? And what of the poorest nations in the region like Yemen? The problem is that we often only either see the mega-structures of Dubai and items purchased with oil-wealth, or the images of war and its effects in the Muslim world. This ignores the larger and ever growing problems that individuals in the region face on a daily basis, that of surviving -- which is not to ignore the very real problems of war and occupation. The simple fact is that the Muslim world wants what everyone else wants: to provide for their children, to educate, feed and clothe them, and offer them a chance at a better life. Unfortunately, for the overwhelming majority of the region this is simply not possible under current conditions. And this must soon change or America in a generation will be forced to confront a much more serious problem than IEDs in Iraq or effigy burnings. President Obama is perhaps the orator of his generation, yet what the Muslim world needs now are not the hollow promises of "hope" and "change" but meaningful, actionable change that positively changes their lives. Until then, Obama's words, however articulate and precisely delivered, will continue to be ignored through the din. More on Egypt
 
RJ Eskow: Freedom, Speech, and Consequences: O'Reilly and Accountability Top
Let's start with a thought experiment: Let's say you denounced someone in your neighborhood as a a corrupt and terrible person - a killer, even. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you believe your words to be true. Then let's say that somebody who might have heard your words shot that person down in cold blood. Wouldn't it give you pause? Wouldn't you want to know if that person heard your harsh words before firing those shots? Wouldn't you spend a sleepless night wondering if you might - just might - bear some portion of the blame for the death of another human being? Assuming the answer is "yes," you have now learned the difference between you and Bill O'Reilly. Or Sean Hannity. Or Bernard Goldberg. Or any of a number of other commentators who use violent and hateful speech to characterize those with whom they disagree. I've used thought experiments like this one before, and the result is always the same: I and those around me would express regret, then attempt to turn down the rhetorical heat. These guys just keep cranking it up. I criticized Dick Cheney quite a bit back in the day. But if someone had shot him (instead of vice versa) and my writings were on the shooter's shelf, I would express a great deal of remorse. Then I'd search my writings (and my soul) to see whether I might have crossed a moral line. It's possible that Dr. Tiller's murderer never heard anything Bill O'Reilly said about the Kansas obstetrician/gynecologist. It's possible that he was completely unaffected by O'Reilly's description of Dr. Tiller as a "baby killer," as someone guilty of "Nazi stuff" who ""destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." It's possible that he has never even heard of Bill O'Reilly. It's not likely. But it's possible. James Lee Adkisson had heard of O'Reilly, however. He's the man who shot down a roomful of peaceful Unitarians in Knoxville. He had an O'Reilly book on his bookshelf . This is the same Bill O'Reilly who encouraged Al Qaeda to attack San Francisco because of its liberal views, the same Bill O'Reilly who routinely characterizes those with whom he disagrees as "Nazis" and "traitors." What do movie heroes do to Nazis and traitors? They kill them. So what do you do if you're mentally unbalanced and want to be a hero and all you read is Hannity and O'Reilly and Goldberg? Adkisson was specific about his goals after his capture. "Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media." Those sentences openly cite one of Goldberg's misleading and overheated books, The 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken's #37)." But they could also have been inspired by two others: "Bias" and "Arrogance," which refer to the mainstream media. "But those people were inaccessible to me," Adkisson added, "... so I went after the foot soldiers." He also said: "Know this if nothing else: This was a hate crime. I hate the damn left-wing liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state. Shame on them.... " The rhetoric about a vast left-wing conspiracy is straight out of Fox News, or Ann Coulter's book that says "the only way to talk to a liberal is with a baseball bat" or Dick Morris' books about liberals entitled "Traitor" and "Off With Their Heads." (Wait -- cutting people's heads off ... isn't that what we condemn Middle Eastern terrorists for doing?) Adkisson's manifesto fits right in with this crowd: "Liberals are a pest like termites. Millions of them Each little bite contributes to the downfall of this great nation." He only parts company with his highly-paid leadership when he addresses the solution: "The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is to kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather. I'd like to encourage other like minded people to do what I've done. If life aint worth living anymore don't just kill yourself. do something for your Country before you go. Go Kill Liberals." How explicit a link do we need before it becomes reasonable to at least suspect that there might be a connection between violent rhetoric (traitors, Nazis, baseball bats, decapitation) and violent deeds? Why are media critics like Howard Kurtz so ready to exonerate O'Reilly and his cohort from even the possibility that their angry words might be a contributing factor? ******************** Which is not to say that I, or anyone I know, would consider abridging or limiting Bill O'Reilly's freedom of speech. The way to fight the hateful aspects of their speech, and the ugly atmosphere it creates, is with our speech. That form of engagement isn't just a right. It's a duty. That's a point that seemed lost on Air America radio host Ron Kuby when I appeared on his show after the Knoxville shooting . He insisted that I was arguing for suppression of speech, even though I hadn't said or implied any such thing. It seems reasonable to hold the following set of positions simultaneously: 1) that freedom of speech is an inviolable right; 2) that some speech can encourage harmful actions; 3) that we should point that out and criticize such speech where appropriate. Some people are concerned that certain types of speech will be suppressed if we suggest that they foster or encourage acts of violence. But if a causal link seems apparent, why should we be reluctant to point that out? Remember, the Left appeared to be growing its own violent wing in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But mainstream liberals were quick to condemn acts by groups like the Weather Underground. Those movements died out. Yet Rachel Maddow provided a litany of right-wing violence last night, with no corresponding violence from the left. Is that a coincidence? Or does part of the difference stem from the lack of violent and angry imagery from the mainstream left? I would never suppress the anti-abortion magazine that suggested killing doctors like Dr. Tiller was "justifiable homicide." But I won't hesitate to say that talk like that could get somebody killed. Scott Roeder subscribed to that magazine. Who can say that couldn't have inspired him to kill? The same is true of other violent rhetoric - rhetoric beamed night after night from every cable-ready television in the country. Once - just once - I'd like to see Bill O'Reilly or Bernard Goldberg express regret for the possibility, however remote, that they contributed to an act of violence. But apparently O'Reilly would rather blame his critics than search his soul. RJ Eskow blogs when he can at: A Night Light The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog More on Bill O'Reilly
 
Karl Frisch: Fox Nation: The Seedy Underbelly of Rupert Murdoch's Evil Empire? Top
Follow Karl on Twitter and Facebook or sign up to receive his columns by email . He's called former Vice President Al Gore an "evil enabler" for speaking at Netroots Nation -- an annual conference that draws thousands of progressive blog enthusiasts. He's likened Markos Moulitsas, founder of the progressive blog powerhouse Daily Kos , to white supremacist David Duke. He's even accused The Huffington Post of using the "same exact tactics that the Nazis used." To say that Fox News golden boy Bill O'Reilly is no fan of progressive blogs is an understatement akin to claiming the Hatfields and McCoys were mildly displeased with each other. In fact, just last week, O'Reilly hosted a panel of lawyers who attempted , in vain, to explain that the conservative host's "rights" aren't violated by private criticism. Back in March, while promoting its newly launched website TheFoxNation.com , Fox News ran advertisements telling viewers that it was "time to say 'no' to biased media and 'yes' to fair play and free speech." In short, Fox News was jumping headfirst into the blogging world with just the snake oil necessary to cure what ailed O'Reilly -- a fair, honest, bias-free version of what he sees the left serving up. It didn't take long for The Fox Nation to prove those fancy Fox News promos demonstrably inaccurate -- instead, it seems to have said "yes" to biased media and "no" to "fair play" from Day One. In its first 24 hours, the website labeled Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) a "[d]angerous duo," linking to an Agence France-Presse article that simply reported that Dodd and Frank "promised President Barack Obama on Monday they would work with the White House to enact a sweeping overhaul of US financial regulatory structures by year's end." Visitors to The Fox Nation were no doubt confused when they clicked on the link provided by the website to the AFP article in question only to find that it in no way characterized Dodd or Frank as "[d]angerous." That was Day One. In the two months that followed the website's launch, The Fox Nation has displayed an uncanny ability to mislead readers, twist the truth, spread wild conspiracy theories, and misrepresent the reporting of legitimate journalists and media outlets. At times, the website has been downright frightening. In early May, it ran a photo of a rifle pointed in the direction of a photo of Obama's head. The headline associated with the rifle image asked: "Why Are Gun Sales Surging?" One can only imagine what O'Reilly and his ilk would have said if a progressive blog -- or a legitimate news outlet, as Fox purports to be, for that matter -- had done the same thing to President Bush. Debunked conspiracy theories are also finding new life on the website. A headline in late May asked: " Should Obama Release Birth Certificate? Or Is This Old News? " But contrary to the question, the Obama campaign released a copy of Obama's birth certificate , posting it on the campaign's website last year. It also reportedly provided the original document to FactCheck.org, whose staff concluded in an August 2008 post that it "meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." About the use of questions like the one just highlighted: In what appears to be an attempt to ward off criticism, The Fox Nation, like the on-screen text on Fox News, often employs the use of questions for its headlines rather than straightforward assertions. It's as if they are pre-emptively saying, "We made no such statement. We simply asked a question." What has the website asked its readers? Of same-sex marriage, it wondered, " Are 'Triad' Marriages Next? " Following the reported suicide of a Freddie Mac executive, one headline asked, " Was It Suicide? " After the Department of Homeland Security declassified an April report detailing potential increases in right-wing extremism, the website queried, " Is Homeland Security Targeting Tea Parties? " Of course, these are the very same tea parties that Fox News and The Fox Nation went to great lengths promoting . The Fox Nation has had loads of questions, especially when it comes to Obama's Supreme Court deliberations and his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The website asked, " Why Aren't White Males Being Considered for Supreme Court? " and " Is it Empathy? Or Is Obama Shredding the Constitution? " Of Obama's nominee, the website inquired, " Sotomayor Argued Death Penalty Is Racist... Is She? " So, is TheFoxNation.com simply the seedy underbelly of Fox News parent company chairman Rupert Murdoch's evil, right-wing media empire? Boy, that was easy, wasn't it? Karl Frisch is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America , a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair , a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. More on Tax Day Tea Parties
 
Robert L. Borosage: Making Change: Progressives in the Obama Moment Top
President Obama has deep and strong support from progressives. But in Washington, the media is increasingly focused on areas where Obama's base is disappointed or restive. In recent weeks, we seen the uproar over his retreat on preventive detention and military tribunals, dismay over the dallying on "don't ask, don't tell," growing opposition to the bailout of Wall Street, increasing doubts about the escalation in Afghanistan, and fears that compromises with conservative Democrats could cut the heart out of the progressive reform agenda that the president has proposed - as illustrated by the ability of the banking lobby to enlist enough Democrats to block any lid on interest rates out of credit card reform. Now, as progressives gather in Washington at the America's Future Now! Conference (the annual event formerly known as Take Back America) sponsored by the Campaign for America's Future (which I co-direct, program and sessions available here ), the mainstream media wants to know: Are progressives still supporting Obama or are they pushing him? Surely the answer to that choice is "yes." Progressives are both supporting him and challenging the limits of the current debate. We're on the verge of the greatest era of progressive reform since the 1960s. The crises we face - the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and the unprecedented and accelerating deterioration of the environment - leave no choice. We can't simply recover and go back to the old economy. We have to build a new economy from the ruins of the old. (for a longer version of this argument, co-authored with Katrina van den Heuvel of the Nation Magazine , go here) Obama gets this. He has eloquently called upon us to rebuild our economy on the rock of a new foundation, not the shifting sands of the old. And the pillars of that foundation are the structural reforms that progressives have championed: new energy for good jobs, comprehensive health care, investing in education from pre-K to affordable college, empowering workers to organize, and immigration reform. We've got Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, but not progressive majorities. With Republicans largely committed to pure obstruction, focus immediately fixes on conservative Democrats, particularly in the Senate, and the endangered species known as moderate Republicans, who have the votes needed to pass the reforms. For all the talk of cooperation, these reforms face entrenched opposition from corporate and special interest lobbies. They understand the threat they face, so the more sophisticated play a double game. They hire largely Democratic lobbyists to help delay, defer, dilute the reforms on the inside, while painting themselves as embracing reform. They then fund swift boat operations on the outside, to run Astroturf and air war campaigns to frighten Americans about reform. And of course, they spread their political contributions around, with more money going to Democrats now that they control the action. So the hospitals and insurance lobbies meet publicly with Obama to issue a vague promise to make significant cuts in the rising costs of health care. At the same time, former hospital CEO Rick Scott, whose company was fined a princely $1.7 million for overbilling state and federal medical plans, is spending over 30 million on ads designed to scare Americans about the takeover of their health care system, ads coordinated by the very firm that did the "swift boat" attacks on John Kerry in 2004. On each of these signature battles, active progressive coalitions have been built to help define the reform, drive the debate, expose the lobbies, and mobilize support in key districts and states. Here progressives and the Obama administration are largely together. While there may be differences in tone and tactic - these are independent coalitions after all - the goal is the same. Difficulties arise, of course, when deals are cut and compromises made. Progressive groups, often part of the negotiations, have to decide if the product is worth supporting. Environmentalists, for example, split over the compromises in the Waxman-Markey climate bill, with some - Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace - questioning whether it would weaken rather than strengthen existing laws. Many activists see Obama as one of us, with his background of community organizing. The young believe, correctly, that they helped elect him president and are ardent enthusiasts. That provides him with an enormous benefit of the doubt, even in areas like the banking bailout, Afghanistan, and more where there is growing consternation at the course the administration is following. In these major areas, progressives need to be building and independent argument and movement to challenge the limits of the current debate. These issues go to the larger questions of remaking America. The bailout goes to Wall Street's hold on our economy and politics. Obama has forcefully stated that finance needs to get smaller, and be more regulated, but thusfar his policies have been to subsidize the big banks, not to reorganize them. The contrast between the treatment of Citibank and Chrysler, or Bank of America and General Motors, and between the bankers and the autoworkers and dealers and suppliers is stark. A populist movement challenging Wall Street is essential to create the space for reform. Afghanistan reflects the military dominated global strategy that remains in place. Obama has taken on some Cold War weapons systems, but still projects military budgets that are as large as the rest of the world's combined. He has not questioned the commitment to policing the world that Americans have never supported and can no longer afford. Obama has already faced conservative pushback on the modest changes he's made in the war on terror. It will require an independent movement to have any hope of changing our priorities and challenging a terror strategy that serves to elevate rather than isolate our enemies. America can't go back to borrowing $2 billion a day from abroad, largely from the Chinese and Japanese central bankers. Obama's energy policy and the aggressive efforts to salvage GM and Chrysler suggest the beginnings of a new industrial policy, fitting his pledge that we have to consume less and export more. The dialogue begun with China on moving from export led growth to more internal demand is central to a new policy. But at the same time, the administration is promoting the old trade accords, and is unclear at best about its global economic strategy. This is understandable given the firm, but outmoded establishment consensus on trade. Again, an independent movement, grounded in labor but far broader, will be vital to help drive this debate. No one should forget the lessons of the 1930s and the 1960s. The Second New Deal - the New Deal we remember with Social Security, the Wagner Act, Fair Labor Standards that gave us the weekend - came in reaction to growing labor unrest, the rise of Huey Long and the Townsend Movement, all of which gave FDR incentive and excuse to move. The Voting Rights Act came after Selma, when the sacrifices of the civil rights movement transformed public opinion and enabled LBJ to deliver the Senate. Progressives want Obama to succeed, to be a transformative president. He has put big reforms on the table which citizens are organizing to support. And at the same time, we need to expand the agenda, challenge the limits of the debate, and move excluded alternatives into discussion. More on Barack Obama
 

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)