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

Joe Cirincione: Iran Uprising Changes Nuclear Calculus Top
The Iran Uprising is a game changer. The regime has been delegitimized for large portions of the Iranian population. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prevails--and that is by no means certain--he will be greatly weakened, handcuffed in his ability to play the nuclear card as a nationalist rallying cry. Pressed at home, the regime will need to show some gains internationally; the nuclear issue must be compromised to realize those gains. On Sunday, I was a realist, posting on my blog my agreement with leading Iran analysts. I said: Post election, the Obama administration faces the same diplomatic challenges with Iran as before - chief among them containing Iran's nuclear program. While Mir Hossein Mousavi, the reformist hope, might have been able to reverse the fierce nationalistic politics Mahmoud Ahmadinejad injected into the Iranian nuclear issue, the ultimate arbitrator of Iran's policy is neither man, but the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. As Carnegie Endowment scholar Karim Sadjadpour notes, "We should be clear about what we're dealing with. Just as we deal with Assad's Syria and Mubarak's Egypt, we now have to deal with Khamanei's Iran." By Tuesday, I had changed my view. I had painted my face green. Why? The massive outpouring on Monday that sent a 5.5 mile-long demonstration through Tehran. The stream of Twitter posts. The sheer resolve of the Iranian people not to accept the regime's rule. This is no longer Khamanei's Iran. The clerical regime has been delegitimized for millions of Iranians. Even under the best case for the regime - a recount that declares Ahmadinejad the winner by a majority--the president will be weakened. He will be the imposed leader, not the hero of the disfranchised against the corrupt elite. He will be unable to use the nuclear issue to stir nationalist passions, posing as the hero-president defending the nation against the oppressive West. He will be the oppressor. The nuclear program could lose its security appeal. Just as conservatives in the United States promote missile defense as a security placebo, presenting it as the answer to foes real and imagined, only to see it crash when real problems come to the fore and its empty promise is exposed, the Iranian government's fetishization of its uranium enrichment program could collapse. The program has nothing to do with Iran's real problems. It offers no solution to the economy, to equality, to security. It is a drain on the country, not its salvation. It will not be abandoned quickly, but its role and importance could be greatly reduced, its progress slowed, its threat contained. A weakened Ahmadinejad will be pressed to compromise. As Omid Memarian notes, "If the Iranian government engages with the U.S. in the coming months and years under Ahmadinejad's second term, it will surely be harder for the Iranian government to ignore their responsibility to the Iranian people." Iran will have an increased need for Western trade and investment to address at least one of the core issues generating the Uprising--the catastrophe that is its economy. Ahmadinejad will find his allies more distant, less willing to extend their protection against international sanctions. If President Obama's agenda with Russia works as intended, Russia will not only be pushed away from Iran, but pulled towards the US. Leslie Gelb concludes: [T]here isn't much Tehran can do to improve these conditions without reconnecting with the West and especially the United States. Western economic sanctions have not brought the clerical house down, but they have severely reduced investment, credit, and trade. Which means the bosses in Tehran will have to unclench their fists and make some face-saving gestures back toward President Obama. Also, there's no doubt that they understand that once they open the economic doors, the West will require that Iran's nuclear program be placed on the bargaining table as well. If Ahmadinejad is forced out, prospects also improve. Some analysts have somewhat mechanically assumed that because Mir Hossein Mousavi was involved in the revival of the Shah's nuclear weapons program by the Islamic Republic in the 1980's, he would champion the uranium enrichment program now. If he had barely won election, and while the issue remained a nationalist touchstone spanning political camps, there was some truth to this prediction. But that was before the Uprising. Nationalism now has new, more powerful and more meaningful expressions. Mousavi was always more open to dialogue with the West. As president, his discourse could now include the nuclear program with much less fear of attack. Finally, the Uprising also changes US perceptions of the inevitability of an Iranian nuclear bomb, the feeling that time is not on our side, and gives us a much more sophisticated and nuanced view of Iran that counters the crude "Iran as Nazi Germany" portrait that has dominated most of the debate. Obama has also handled the issue well, preventing the US from becoming an issue at all in the post-election conflict. He recognizes that the Uprising is not about us. It is about the self-determination of the Iranian people. The right wing strategy of regime change failed completely, for it never understood that only the people of a nation could change its regime. As Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) points out in support of Obama's approach, "For us to become heavily involved in the election at this point is to give the clergy an opportunity to have an enemy...and to use us, really, to retain their power." All this increases the leverage for the US and other nations in renewed negotiations with the next Iranian administration--whoever is president. More on Twitter
 
Hedge Fund Wives: How They Are Learning To Cope Top
On a recent sunny afternoon in New York City I was talking with a girlfriend who happens to be a hedge fund wife. She was complaining about her husband, once a highly compensated trader whose fund had closed down and who now, in her opinion, wasn't doing enough to find a job. The couple had been bickering non-stop about their cashflow problems. From behind a pair of oversized black lenses, she confided in me that she was at her wit's end and was considering pulling the plug on the relationship. "I didn't get married for this," she whimpered, adding ruefully, "Do you know I have to take the subway now?"
 
Iran Election Live-Blogging (Tuesday June 16) Top
This is the archive of my Iran election live-blogging from Sunday, June 14. For the latest updates, click here . 8:38 PM ET -- One of the day's most important developments -- that Iran's most senior cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri had denounced the election results -- wasn't given nearly enough attention. Here's some more coverage from McClatchy Newspapers: McClatchy Newspapers: "No one in their right mind can believe" the official results from Friday's contest, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri said of the landslide victory claimed by Ahmadinejad. Montazeri accused the regime of handling Mousavi's charges of fraud and the massive protests of his backers "in the worst way possible." "A government not respecting people's vote has no religious or political legitimacy," he declared in comments on his official Web site. "I ask the police and army personals (personnel) not to 'sell their religion,' and beware that receiving orders will not excuse them before God." 6:05 PM ET -- A break. For much of the last three days, I've been glued to my computer with all of you, trying to wrap my head around what's happening in Iran. I'm going to take a brief break tonight to catch up on sleep (I'll try to update a bit, and I'll also be spending a few minutes on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow if you're interested). But in the meantime, please keep sending emails and letting me know what you're seeing. 6:03 PM ET -- "What I have witnessed." A powerful note from a female medical student in Iran, translated from Farsi by a trusty reader. Hello, It's painful to watch what's happening. I don't want anything to do with what has been said this far, as I neither have the strength nor the resilience to face all these unfathomable events. I only want to speak about what I have witnessed. I am a medical student. There was chaos last night at the trauma section in one of our main hospitals. Although by decree, all riot-related injuries were supposed to be sent to military hospitals, all other hospitals were filled to the rim. Last night, nine people died at our hospital and another 28 had gunshot wounds. All hospital employees were crying till dawn. They (government) removed the dead bodies on back of trucks, before we were even able to get their names or other information. What can you even say to the people who don't even respect the dead. No one was allowed to speak to the wounded or get any information from them. This morning the faculty and the students protested by gathering at the lobby of the hospital where they were confronted by plain cloths anti-riot militia, who in turn closed off the hospital and imprisoned the staff. The extent of injuries are so grave, that despite being one of the most staffed emergency rooms, they've asked everyone to stay and help--I'm sure it will even be worst tonight. What can anyone say in face of all these atrocities? What can you say to the family of the 13 year old boy who died from gunshots and whose dead body then disappeared? This issue is not about cheating(election) anymore. This is not about stealing votes anymore. The issue is about a vast injustice inflected on the people. They've put a baton in the hand of every 13-14 year old to smash the faces of "the bunches who are less than dirt" (government is calling the people who are uprising dried-up torn and weeds) . This is what sickens me from dealing with these issues. And from those who shut their eyes and close their ears and claim the riots are in opposition of the government and presidency!! No! The people's complaint is against the egregious injustices committed against the people. 6:00 PM ET -- AP's revenge. They just put this out on their photo wire: In this Feb. 8, 1979 file photo, an Iranian soldier is carried by supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini at a massive demonstration for the religious leader. In the foreground are demonstrators attempting to prevent an AP photographer from showing the soldier. In background is the Freedom Tower. Iran's Islamic regime has survived a devastating war with Iraq, strong American sanctions and blanket international isolation in its 30 years of power. Iran's system does not appear in any immediate danger from the presidential election results unrest. But the clerics are clearly paying close attention to the street anger - the same street anger that they themselves used three decades ago in their revolution to bring down Iran's ruling Shah. 5:47 PM ET -- New Obama remarks. From an interview with CNBC's John Harwood, some new lines on Iran from Obama, including a comparison of Ahmadinejad and Mousavi on policy grounds. Well, I think first of all, it's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons. And so we've got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election. The second thing that I think's important to recognize is that the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it's the US that is encouraging those reformers. So what I've said is, `Look, it's up to the Iranian people to make a decision. We are not meddling.' And, you know, ultimately the question that the leadership in Iran has to answer is their own credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people. And when you've got 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting, and they're having to be scattered through violence and gunshots, what that tells me is the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election. And my hope is that the regime responds not with violence, but with a recognition that the universal principles of peaceful expression and democracy are ones that should be affirmed. Am I optimistic that that will happen? You know, I take a wait-and-see approach. Either way, it's important for the United States to engage in the tough diplomacy around those permanent security concerns that we have--nuclear weapons, funding of terrorism. That's not going to go away, and I think it's important for us to make sure that we've reached out. 5:41 PM ET -- What was Erin Burnett thinking? Excuse my disgust -- given the other events in the world, this is very minor. But when a news anchor makes such a galactically stupid and offensive comment , it really pisses me off. SEIU has a way to contact Burnett here . 5:38 PM ET -- You can't keep a good message down. Daniel Blackman, CEO of Howcast Media, explains how Iranians can get around Internet censorship. 5:30 PM ET -- Photos. Happily, AP and Getty have been able to publish several excellent photos of today's events despite the foreign media ban. We've placed some in the front page slideshow already, and are adding more now. Also, UPI -- a U.S. news service that has faced rough cutbacks in recent years, and doesn't have nearly the same distribution as AP or Reuters -- has some wonderful hi-res photos (some very bloody, fyi) that deserve a look . 5:24 PM ET -- 'Iran supreme leader under pressure.' Al Jazeera English covers the cracks in the regime . (Via reader David.) 5:12 PM ET -- Twitter goes dark. Lots of you are emailing, but I don't think it's anything sinister. Twitter said today they were going to begin their maintenance beginning at 5PM ET -- part of their agreement from yesterday was to time their work for late at night (in Iran) when many people there would be asleep. It's almost 1am in Iran now. 4:56 PM ET -- The big unanswered question -- a solicitation to readers. I have seen countless reports from people in Iran who believe that the plain clothes paramilitaries committing so much of the violence right now are Lebanese Arabs, possibly Hezbollah members, brought in by the Iranian government. The reasoning is that the country's police and military would not be so willing commit violence on their fellow Iranians. Many readers have sent this story that ran in Der Spiegel claiming that Iran had brought in 5,000 people from Lebanon. But the sourcing on that piece is light, and I have not seen good evidence anywhere else that firmly shows this to be the case. That said, as I've written earlier, Iran has brought in Lebanese fighters to suppress student revolts in the past (notably in 2004). And it seems very likely to me that they are doing it again now. So, readers: have any of you seen any additional information indicating that the paramilitaries are Lebanese? Have you seen video of them speaking Arabic? Or seen any international reporting that would back up Der Spiegel's account? If so, let me know. 4:36 PM ET -- Then they came for the human rights lawyers. Via reader Colin. Security officials posing as clients entered the Tehran offices of one of Iran's leading human rights lawyers today and arrested him, Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi just told NPR's Davar Iran Ardalan . That lawyer, Abdolfattah Soltani, spoke with Davar just yesterday -- telling her that the Iranian government should recount all the votes in last Friday's disputed presidential election, in which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner by a 2-1 margin. "Once they were inside they immediately confiscated his computer and other documents and they arrested Mr. Soltani," Ebadi said in today's interview. "As far as we know, they did not have an arrest warrant." Ebadi later called to tell NPR that several other human rights activists had been rounded up as well. Update: Via reader Golnaz, Ebadi also called for a new election in an interview with Radio Free Europe : I believe that a recount of the votes under the current conditions won't solve anything. A new election must be held and this time it should be under the monitoring of International organizations so that all participants would be contented that the votes that come out of the ballot boxes are the real votes of the people. 4:26 PM ET -- "Khaste Nabahsheen (Don't Be Tired)" Writing for HuffPost, filmmakers Davyde Wachell and Sara Zandieh, who just returned from working in Iran, send a message to the friends they made there. The piece begins beautifully: We are screaming down Islamic Republic Boulevard at three in the morning in Ismael's car. We have just come from Shabdul Azim Mosque and he is happy to be showing North Americans his beloved Tehran. His sullen friend Reza tells me how difficult the government is in Iran, but Ismael wants to give a different perspective. He asks if we like Persian music. "Hatman," we say, "of course." He cranks up the radio as we zip past towering murals of mullahs and martyrs. Suddenly, he stops the car at the intersection of Valiasr and Jomhuri. He gets out, and begins to dance around. Two weeks later Tehran's youth would jubilantly parade through the same interscection in support of the "Green Wave." Read the whole thing . 4:13 PM ET -- What a peaceful protest looks like. From reader Chas. 4:06 PM ET -- Spreading fear. The website of Akbar Aalami, a reformist member of Iran's parliament, says his house was attacked by paramilitaries last night. More images are posted there. According to a reader, Aalami writes that he lives in a condo with other tenants, and some of the others also work for government. He says all of the attackers were in plain clothes, but four of them were armed. 4:00 PM ET -- GOP Congressman Pence wants a congressional resolution on Iran. Adam Blickstein of the National Security Network calls it the resolution " Ahmadinejad has been waiting for ." 3:53 PM ET -- "Allah O Akbar!" Video from today's events starts to trickle out, this one sent by reader Toni. The description: "People gathering in front of IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting) to protest against its biased broadcast." Unfortunately, it wasn't so peaceful for everyone: 3:43 PM ET -- Stepping back. Some superb macro-analysis to help us better understand the moment we're in. First, by Abbas Amanat , professor of history at Yale: This election and the post-election protests is by far the greatest challenge the Islamic Republic of Iran has faced since its inception in 1979. Neither the downfall of President Banisadr in June 1981 nor the election of Mohammad Khatami to presidency in June 1997 matches in size and intensity the events of the past
 
Haylie Hocking Cancels Wedding After Finding Out Fiance Was Porn Star Top
Haylie Hocking, 27, only found out that strapping 30-year-old fitness fanatic Jason Brake made adult films just weeks before the big day.
 
Sean Penn Pulls Out Of Stooges Flick Top
If there's anyone who might just want to focus on his family for awhile, it's Sean Penn. The Oscar-winning star has pulled out of his next two scheduled film projects, including the Farrelly brothers' Three Stooges update, E! News confirmed Tuesday. More on Sean Penn
 
Josh Dorfman, Lazy Environmentalist, Says Don't Feel Bad Top
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Self-described lazy environmentalist Josh Dorfman has a plan to save the planet that is a little unorthodox -- he tells people to stop feeling bad about taking long showers and driving fast cars.
 
Roubini Sees Weeds Amid Green Shoots Top
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. economy will not recover until the end of this year, and even then growth will remain meek and vulnerable to higher interest rates and commodity prices, economist Nouriel Roubini said on Tuesday.
 
CIA Urges White House To Keep Parts Of Detainee Report Secret Top
The CIA is pushing the Obama administration to maintain the secrecy of significant portions of a comprehensive internal account of the agency's interrogation program, according to two intelligence officials.
 
Obama Hits Fox News: They're "Entirely Devoted To Attacking My Administration" (VIDEO) Top
President Obama, in a wide-ranging interview with CNBC's John Harwood that covered the economy and the turbulent Iranian election, took a shot at Fox News when asked about media coverage of his young administration ( H/t Politico for the video clip ): "I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration...That's a pretty big megaphone. You'd be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front," Obama said. You can read CNBC's report on the interview here . Watch the full interview below. And watch Obama show off his quick reflexes by crushing a pesky fly during the interview here . Get HuffPost Media On Facebook and Twitter! More on Barack Obama
 
Peter Reiling: The Courage to Make a Difference Top
Each year, people from all over the world emigrate from their countries -- fleeing unstable or dangerous situations or in search of greater opportunity. Dele Olojede's story is just one example of this collective experience. What renders him strikingly different is his decision to return to his home country to change it for the better. Born in Nigeria, Dele came of age as a journalist in the early 80s. Determined to create a space where journalistic integrity would not be compromised, Dele cofounded Newswatch, a Nigerian news magazine committed to journalistic integrity and speaking truth to power. In 1986, Dele was cruelly reminded of the hazards of Nigerian journalism when his friend and editor of Newswatch was killed by a mail bomb, apparently sent as a message by the ruling regime. It was clear that his work in Nigeria was becoming increasingly dangerous, and Dele was "encouraged to leave." Dele arrived in the US in 1987 with the intention of staying only a short time; but Nigeria's dictatorship kept him away for years. Dele earned a master's degree from Columbia University and launched a successful career at Newsday. Indeed, his 2004 coverage of the Rwandan genocide earned him the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. The happily married father of two could have easily stayed on enjoying the America dream and the benefits of his acclaimed journalism career. But, although he had left his roots far behind, he had certainly not forgotten them. The turning point came when Dele became a Fellow of the Africa Leadership Initiative (ALI)/South Africa. Over two years, and with twenty other successful African leaders from all walks of life, Dele explored his own leadership, his responsibility to his community and society, and the causes that inspire him. As an ALI/South Africa Fellow, Dele joined some 950 other Fellows from 43 countries in the Aspen Global Leadership Network (AGLN) - created to prompt a new generation of leaders from around the world to embark on a journey "from success to significance." He attributes his experience as an AGLN Fellow to his decision to return to Nigeria, and, no matter the cost, to finish the work he started there years before. As the founder of Timbuktu Media, he is now right back in the thick of it -- using this media platform to promote unbiased journalism free of political or financial motivation. He is courageously tackling corruption and the many other ills that inhibit Nigeria's growth and democracy. The risks of his venture are no smaller; just see the story of Nigeria Leadership Initiative Fellow Nuhu Ribadu who was threatened, shot at and then fired for doing his job of fighting corruption http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2009/tc20090612_591279.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_technology ).">(see Africa's Anti-Corruption Hero - BusinessWeek ) The 160 AGLN Fellows who gathered this weekend in Aspen, Colorado for "ACT II" - the official launch of the AGLN -- to share their personal journeys and challenges got what they bargained for, and more. Many of these successful, dynamic men and women from 23 countries left the Rockies inspired to do more... to stretch themselves even further in their leadership: Two Fellows decided to expand their community leadership projects - a requirement of the Fellowship intended to move them "from thought to action" - geographically with the help of Fellows from the Central America Leadership Initiative. Another has committed to mobilize a team of US public education reformers to share their experiences building out a charter school movement with Fellows in southern Africa. These are just a few of the actions coming out of this gathering and that prove what we already know: when Aspen Global Leadership Fellows get together, they become inspired and reinvigorated, and new commitments are made to "make a dent in the universe" For more on Dele Olojede's story see a blog in the words of Henry Crown Fellow Crystal Hayling. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/hayling/index For Dele's story in his own words, and other videos of keynote speakers at ACT II. http://www.aspeninstitute.org/leadership-programs/ACTII More on Africa
 
Robert L. Borosage: Private Muscle and the Public Option in Health Care Top
We're headed into the end game for health care reform. The president has put himself in the arena. The insurance lobby is unleashing the scare campaign. A strong bill will pass the House. But at this point, too many Senators are still standing in the way. The reform includes a broad range of measures to extend and improve care and help curb rising costs, but the epicenter of the debate is over what is called the "public option." Health care reform will mandate businesses provide insurance or pay into a general fund. Individuals will be responsible to get health insurance, with subsidies for those that can't afford it. We'll able to retain the insurance we have, or have the choice of a range of plans, including a public option, modeled after Medicare. A strong public option, competing with private insurance, is key to helping to get costs under control. And costs must be brought under control. We now spend nearly 50% more on health care per capita than any other country, with mediocre results. We ration care by price, with some 47 million Americans uninsured. It costs the rest of us about $1000 a year to pay for the price of their care when they are forced finally to check themselves into emergency rooms. Tell stories, not statistics, the pollsters tell us. But after adjusting for inflation, health care costs have soared by 58% since 2000; while wages for most Americans were stagnant or lost ground. As the auto companies showed, businesses increasingly can't afford health care. Families find it unaffordable. Virtually the entire long term debt challenge facing the US government is from the projected rise of health care costs. Get health care costs under control, the US has no long term fiscal problem. Fail to get them under control, the costs will bankrupt the federal government, state governments, businesses that offer health care (and increasing numbers won't) and families. Reform that gets costs under control is imperative. There is no choice. A key to getting costs under control is the public plan. It can take advantage of its purchasing power to gain cost reductions. It can model best care practices. Private insurance - which in most localities translates into a couple of dominant providers that don't compete on price -- will be forced to measure up with greater efficiency, innovation, and cost savings techniques. Yet the debate in the Senate has been fixated on how to weaken or abandon the public plan rather than strengthen it. Republicans, for the most part, have taken themselves out of the adult conversation. Like first generation robots, they endlessly repeat the exact same words crafted by Frank Luntz - "government takeover," "no choice of doctor," "bureaucrats not doctors prescribing medicine." It's frankly pathetic. We have no choice as a society but to figure out how to fix this - and Republican leaders have chosen simply to peddle lies and scare stories and absent themselves from any serious discussion. A gaggle of Democratic Senators - led by Senator Baucus and the so-called "moderate" Senators - have publicly thrashed around for ways to weaken or gut the public option. Outside groups like the Third Way have provided guidelines for disemboweling it. Some have suggested putting it off until private insurance competition proves it can't get costs under control -- as if that hasn't been proven over the last decades. Baucus suggested decentralized local "co-ops" would serve as the public option - an idea notable for being both unmanageable and ineffective. Even if a network of coops somehow arose to insure that people had an option, they wouldn't have the clout to hold costs down and force private insurance to compete. Others, remarkably, have detailed ways to deprive the public option of the power to lower costs. They call for a "level playing field" with private insurance. The public plan can't be subsidized, can't use its buying power to lower costs, can't take advantage of lower administrative overhead. This sounds silly. We face soaring health care costs that will literally cripple our future. Surely, no Senator concerned about the country would work to undermine the key idea that would help get a lid on costs. They wouldn't, as Barack Obama warned, just "create a system where the insurance companies have more customers on Uncle Sam's dime, but still fail to meet their responsibilities." If you assume that, you would be wrong. They've done it repeatedly in the past. For example, early in Bush's first term, Republicans decided that passing a prescription drug benefit for seniors would help cement Karl Rove's permanent majority. The benefit would help 41 million Americans with a soaring cost of care not yet covered by Medicare. It would also create massive new market for the drug companies. And, of course, Medicare could do what governments across the world do - use its buying power to lower the cost of the drugs. Only, when Republicans passed the law - in the dead of night, twisting arms to get it done - it actually prohibited Medicare from negotiating a lower price for drugs. Don't worry, they argued, competition would lower drug costs (even as they banned the import of cheaper drugs from Canada or Mexico). Why? Well, using government muscle violated "free market" sensibilities. More importantly, the drug companies have one of the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill. Billy Tauzin, the chair of the key House committee ushering the bill through, left soon after to get a two million dollar a year job as a head of Big PhRMA, the drug company lobby. Tom Scully, the administration's point person who helped secret the actual cost of the bill, was already negotiating his million dollar job as the debate was going on. In all, 15 congressional representatives, aides and administration officials involved in the debate left shortly thereafter to take jobs with the drug lobby. With a $9 billion increase in annual profits at stake, the drug industry got an amazing return on its investment. Today, seniors pay 60% more for the same drugs than the price charged veterans becuse the Veteran's Administration does negotiate lower prices. Extreme? Not really. The health insurance companies decided they should be allowed to compete with Medicare in providing health insurance options to seniors. Seniors would get more choice; Medicare, the bureaucratic behemoth, would get agile competition. Win, win, they argued, calling the program "Medicare Advantage." Only the insurance companies couldn't compete with Medicare straight up. So they demanded subsidies from the government to enable them to vie with the Medicare program they described as horrendously inefficient, unpopular and bureaucratic. And they stand to pocket an estimated $177 billion in excess payments over 10 years to compete with Medicare - subsidies that Obama would sensibly cut to help pay for health care reform. Money talks. Nine Republican Senators on the key Senate Finance Committee wrote President Obama to say they would oppose any reform with a public plan. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that the nine had had pocketed $17.7 million in contributions from insurance and health care interests over the course of their careers.. http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/Senators-Who-Signed-Letter-Opposing-Public-Health-Plan-Took--2417-7-Million-in-Campaign-Donations-from-Health-Care-and-Insurance-Industries-48233-1/ Not surprisingly, the 20 largest insurance and drug companies and their trade associations have pumped up their lobbying by 41% over last year - with reported spending over $75 million in the first quarter alone. This is the corruption of crony capitalism; a compromised congress using taxpayer's money to enrich entrenched interests. Only now, the cost of this in health care is not sustainable. Dramatic reform is vital or we all follow the auto companies and go belly up. So if your Senator says he or she is opposed to a public option, or wants a weaker public option, or a non-profit co-op that isn't big government, or prates about the "government takeover of health care," about losing your choice of doctor, about bureaucrats not doctors prescribing medicine, don't fall for it. Either he or she is either utterly clueless or more likely is representing the interests of the industry, not the voters. This business as usual is no longer affordable or acceptable. We shouldn't let cynicism lower our expectations. Soaring health care costs and the human tragedy of those without insurance can no longer be ignored. Reform can't be postponed. It is a stunning disservice that Republicans have taken themselves out of serious discussion. And it is an open scandal that Senators are catering to the private insurance industry that has profited from the problem rather than helping to solve it. We must expect more and demand more from those given the privilege to represent us. More on Insurance Companies
 
Cynthia Boaz: Framing the Green Revolution in Red Top
Reposted from Truthout.org: If the international consensus about last week's election results in Iran is that they were a) indeed fraudulent, or b) a coup attempt, and the pro-democracy elements in that country emerge victorious, it will mostly be in spite - not because - of mainstream media coverage of the events. Since 2002, there have emerged a series of democracy movements in Iran, spearheaded primarily - though not exclusively - by university students and women. These people are for the most part technologically and strategically savvy, especially when compared to the hardliners and mullahs that make up the ancient regime in Iran. They have studied the nonviolent struggles in Chile, South Africa and Serbia. They understand the dynamics of civil resistance and the power of simply withdrawing individual complicity in oppression. These are the people whose "tweets" and Facebook "status updates" the world is getting live via digital media from inside the country (despite the regime's attempts to shut down all electronic communications). They are citizen journalists in the most genuine sense of the term. And yet, for most reporters and producers in American mainstream media, they might as well not exist. The gap between the mainstream media's frames on the story emerging from Iran and the news being instantaneously communicated in bits and pieces from inside the country is surreal. And here's why we should care. A media "frame" helps form the cognitive structure around our perceptions of reality. It determines what parts of a news story we find most significant, and it helps us draw subconscious - but often deeply embedded - conclusions about the meaning behind the events in a story. Because media tend to be so obsessed with violence, the context and significance underlying the series of events like the ones unfolding in Iran often are misinterpreted. Because the wrong (or less interesting) but often more sensational elements of the story are emphasized while others are downplayed, erroneous or incomplete conclusions emerge. And often these conclusions have the consequence of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. When Iranian pro-democracy activists, say, catch a glimpse of a CNN streaming headline that says something to the effect of "Ahmadinejad Victorious in Iranian Elections" or that refer to Mousavi as "the defeated challenger," they may conclude that the regime's attempt at (what is appearing more and more obviously to be) a coup has succeeded. This will in turn dampen their enthusiasm and morale, which may cause some in the movement to give up their resistance, and worse, may cause others to turn to violent means - a last, desperate resort - to fight back. Although occasionally media frames are consciously manufactured (witness virtually anything on the Fox News channel), conventional wisdom suggests that the major culprit is the inability or unwillingness of reporters to engage in serious investigative or assiduous on-the-ground reporting. For example, when in doubt - where information is sparse or of questionable veracity, and official (government) forces are being challenged by nongovernmental forces, media tend to default to the perspective of the officials, regardless of regime type or ideology (W. Lance Bennett calls this the "authority-disorder" bias). This can be extraordinarily frustrating for members of a nonviolent pro-democracy struggle, who, in addition to everything else, find themselves in the midst of an uprising having to try to unspin erroneous media coverage coming from all directions. Other types of media bias that help shape public perceptions of civil resistance - and all of which are being used to report the story from Iran - are fragmentation, dramatization and euphemism. The fragmentation bias involves covering the story in isolated, seemingly unrelated pieces. At its worst, a story is completely removed of its larger historical or political context. As they are being reported now by most mainstream media, stories from Iran are fragmented. They suggest pandemonium, isolated acts of extremist political violence and a regime struggling to "normalize" the situation. When taken together (and especially with the corresponding photographs), these smaller stories paint a picture of a country in chaos, prone to violent theocratic extremism and awash in repression. While each of these taken out of context may have some veracity, the reality is much richer and more potentially encouraging. The Green Revolution is not just a series of ad hoc protests against a political theft, it is a story of widespread resistance to ongoing oppression. It is not the repression and violence that is most interesting about the news coming from Iran, it is that people continue to resist despite the repression. Stories coming from Iran in the last few days are also characterized by what Bennett calls the dramatization bias. Dramatization of a story occurs when the news is encapsulated in short, sensationalistic bits intended to provoke an emotional response on the part of the news consumer, but in the absence of serious analysis of the policy issues, institutional interplay or larger social setting. Dramatization, which thrives on confusion and skepticism, tends to produce conclusions that bend toward the cynical. For example, a dramatization bias might cover a massive protest against rigged votes as a "spontaneous mass uprising," suggesting that it is not part of a larger, systematic strategy and leading the media audience to conclude it's a one-off - just a temporary and reflexive response to immediate political events. This kind of conclusion could create the global perception that there is nothing - no movement or struggle - with which to demonstrate solidarity. Finally, the use of euphemism plays a dangerous role in the way civil resistance is covered, especially when the resistance takes place in a non-Western country. The terminology used to describe the images of thousands of people on the streets often (erroneously) connotes improvised and anarchic action, when in fact, most of the movement itself (though not necessarily the regime opponent) may be strategic, organized and disciplined. For example, a headline next to a photo of a massive demonstration in Tehran on the MSNBC web site as of this writing simply says "Huge crowds in Iran," a statement which, while technically correct, is incomplete. A "crowd" connotes any large group of people congregated together for no specific reason. What is happening on the streets of Iran is much more sophisticated than a convergence of "crowds." It is a massive, nonviolent, civilian uprising that everyone (including Ahmadinejad and his supporters in the Guardian Council) - save most of the American mainstream media - seems to take seriously as a potential force for real change in Iran. The Iran news story is not yet a story about successful repression, much less the apparent clear-cut preference of Iranians for theocratic autocracy. It's about courageous, massive resistance to an attempted coup, and responsible democratic media would do well to recognize - and report - it that way, both on behalf of those who are resisting and those who are observing. http://www.truthout.org/061609R More on Iran
 
"Fire David Letterman" Protest Becomes Hatefest, Draws More Media Than Protesters Top
Tuesday afternoon's "Fire David Letterman" rally proved to be a failure, as it drew more press than activists, CNN reports : A crowd of 15 protesters upset with the late night comic held signs and occasionally shouted as they stood across the street from Letterman's studio. But they were often hidden from view by the more than 35 members of the media there to cover the protest, and out-shouted by a few very vocal counter-protesters. New York Magazine videographer Jonah Green was one of those press members, and he captured a disturbing video of several of those protesters in hate-filled rants against the CBS "Late Show" host. Among the more alarming lines of attack -- particularly given that the rally was held because Letterman supposedly made a joke about Sarah Palin's teenage daughter Willow -- was that Letterman's son Harry was born out of wedlock (he recently wed Regina Lasko after dating for over a decade). "Should we talk about his son?" one protester asked Green. "I believe his son was born out of wedlock. I believe there's a term for that." "Is someone making jokes about his child?" asked another. "Especially, you know, when he had a daughter out of wedlock himself" (he doesn't; 5-year-old Harry is his only child). "How dare he?" asked yet a third, the most offensive of all. "When he has a bastard son, and a slut for a wife" (Letterman's wife Lasko has kept a notoriously low profile). Other conservative talking points thrown around at the rally included, "Close the borders!" and "I only watch Fox News," as well as the general sentiment that Jay Leno is a better host than Letterman. Watch: Get HuffPost Media On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Bill Clinton's Spokesman Denies Report Of 'Baile Hot' In Argentina Top
Back when President Obama was considering Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of state, there were questions raised as to how to handle potential conflicts that might arise with former president Bill Clinton's dealings overseas for the nonprofit Clinton Global Initiative. More on Bill Clinton
 
Huff TV: Nico Pitney Discusses Covering The Iranian Election With Rachel Maddow (VIDEO) Top
Nico Pitney, the National editor of HuffPost, has been covering the Iranian presidential election and the subsequent turmoil on his live-blog. He was a guest on "The Rachel Maddow Show" tonight to discuss his coverage. From MSNBC's website: "MSNBC's Rachel Maddow talks with Nico Pitney, national editor for the Huffington Post who has been tirelessly liveblogging the protests in Iran. Pitney shares insights on where he gets information and how he assesses what he finds." You can follow Nico's ongoing coverage here . Watch his appearance with Maddow below. Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Rachel Maddow
 
Dems, GOP Centrists Hold Secret Meetings To Work Together On Health Care Reform Top
Centrist House lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are working together privately on healthcare reform. The talks have been so secretive and politically sensitive that some members interviewed by The Hill refused to name other legislators involved in the bipartisan effort. More on GOP
 
Charles Warner: Star Trek: J.J. Abrams Is a Neuroscientist Top
"Start Trek: The Future Begins" conceived and stunningly directed by J.J. Abrams and written by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman is an appropriate, much-needed myth for a new 21st century generation that brilliantly weaves the latest discoveries of neuroscience, psychology, and behavioral economics into the story. For centuries Grimm's fairy tales hid moral messages in simple stories that told children how to make decisions about life. Twentieth century children needed the more engaging medium of film to hold their ever more diverted attention, but the same messages were still being transmitted about how to make decisions - be kind to little people, don't kill animals, don't lie, don't be mean to your step-siblings, don't fall for a wolf's sweet talking, etc. Ever since Plato, the Greeks, the Romans, and Middle Age religious institutions, the prevailing wisdom was that the mind was divided in two - the rational mind and the emotional mind - and that children had to be taught to use their reason to overcome their baser emotional instincts. Stop and think before you act was the message. And, oh, by the way, we'll tell you how to think. Rational man was the ideal. Descartes articulated it best with, "I think, therefore I am." The notion was that what made man superior to animals was his ability to reason. The poet William Blake romanticized this concept by writing that man was the only animal who had the ability to laugh because God gave man laughter as a consolation prize because man was the only animal with reason, and could thus figure out he was eventually going to die. The theory of rational man gave birth to the theory of economic man - a person who makes considered, rational, and self-interested decisions. The theory also gave birth to the notion of rational markets. If people were rational, then their economic decisions must be rational and self-interested and, therefore, the markets they create must be rational. However, over the last 30 years, the extensive and ground-breaking research of neuroscientists, psychologists, and behavioral economists have shown that people do not make purely rational decisions, that the theory of economic man is hogwash , and that the free-market system is totally irrational - influenced by randomness , not rationality. What the body of neuroscientific, psychological, and behavioral economic research indicates is that people make decisions based on a highly complex interaction between the rational and emotional parts of the brain, as superbly chronicled by Jonah Lehrer in How We Decide" - a must read for anyone who liked Taleb's The Black Swan or Fooled by Randomness. -- and Lehrer's dazzling Proust Was a Neuroscientist. The message of J.J. Abrams, Robert Orci, and Alex Kurtzman's "Star Trek" is in perfect harmony with Lehrer's How We Decide . Near the beginning of the movie, a young 9-year-old James Kirk speeds down an Iowa dirt road in a vintage Mustang that he's taken from his uncle and makes a miraculous recovery based on intuition before the car plummets into a deep canyon - he's obviously a rash young risk taker who makes intuitive decisions. We know who Kirk is. We next see him as a handsome, angry, emotional, fearless, risk-taking teenager who rashly gets into a fight. We really know who Kirk is. We see Spock being trained as a child in pure reason - no emotion, no risk taking - all math, science, and logic. He has a touch of emotion because his mother is human, not a Vulcan, but he is taught to repress unwanted emotion and depend on reason and logic. Spock becomes the captain of the Enterprise and has to make a crucial decision. Kirk's intuition tells him Spock's decision is wrong and they fight, after which Kirk is banished. However, in a dramatic, whiz-bang, climatic rescue scene Kirk and Spock work and fight together, win the day, and win the battle against the evil, revenge-driven Nero. The moral of the story? The risk-taking, emotional, intuitive Kirk and the logical, rational, conservative Spock need each other. They are two integral parts of a complex, effective decision-making system. In the end, the intuitive Kirk takes command of the Enterprise, with Spock his rational second in command at his side to advise him. The Enterprise and its crew boldly go off to fulfill man's ultimate purpose - to explore. What is the engine for our evolution? Curiosity (exploration), for without it we'd still be amoebas. But to explore, we need to take risks, use our intuition, and, when appropriate, think things out - use both sides of our brains. J.J. Abrams along with Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman are neuroscientists, psychologists, and behavioral economists masquerading as filmmakers who make their point by telling a whopper of a story, or visa versa. But we learn an important lesson for the 21st century through their incredible magic box, as defined in this J.J. Abrams TED video .
 
Financial Regulatory Overhaul Is Detailed Top
The Obama administration last night detailed a series of proposals that would involve the government much more deeply in the private markets, from helping to steer consumers into affordable mortgage loans to imposing new limits on the largest financial companies, in a sweeping effort to prevent the kinds of risk-taking that sparked the economic crisis. More on The Fed
 
Michael Henry Adams: Meeting the Maysles: Grey Gardens comes to Harlem Top
New to Earth, or new in town, looking around we are bound to hungrily seek others who look or seem like us. Newcomers and immigrants, bright and driven, are perennially the city's lifeblood. But during the Bloomberg regime serious efforts to attract ever more residents of means have seen measures undertaken to relocate and isolate the poor in outer ghettos, out-of-sight. In a way, that's precisely what' happened to 'Little Edie' and 'Big Edie,' the 'stars' of Grey Gardens. Bred to be lovely and pleasant, to take for granted an ample supply of ready cash, they were essentially abandoned, left without sufficient funds, to languish in a mansion whose maintenance alone required enormous sums. Without their accustomed means, with their garden overgrown, their home overrun by cats, raccoons and possums, a cherished refuge became increasingly susceptible to collapsing around them in utter decay. But defiant to the end, they somehow had the effrontery to sustain each other, and refused to give in, neither to unrelenting nature nor to indifferent humankind. Viewing a group photograph one is in, it's instinctive: to always first check to locate oneself. How smart and special it felt, how exhilarating it was, 26 years-ago, to leave the Oak Bar at the imposing Plaza, and to join in my first New York Gay Pride Parade. In two weeks time, yet again, I will join myriad disparate marchers, with a basket of 20 dozen roses to throw to the cheering crowd. Celebrating the 40th anniversary of the revolt at the Stonewall Bar, we honor and commemorate exceptional people from our past whose courage then enables us to enjoy the freedom to be ourselves, largely without fear, today! As a marginalized American, representations that validate one's existence are still a relative rarity. Though things have improved a great deal, there's gross inequality in this respect, President Obama, Tiger Woods, Hilary Clinton and Judge Sotomayor notwithstanding. Whether in books or among features in the Times Home Section, if you're black, Latino, a woman or gay, it remains harder to find images or characters which fully reveal the 'true you'. In my youth and before, positive reinforcement from such sources, in movies or scholarly histories, often seemed nonexistent, thus indicating a productive path for an historian who might choose to write about neglected topics like women and the decorative arts or aspects of African American culture. A couple of years ago, in the June 19, 2007 Observer , John Koblin reporting on the Pride Parade presented an extraordinary and awful idea, one that, unfortunately, is probably true. Koblin's "Goodbye Mr. Chaps" contends that for most lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people, those who are white and/or well to do, our parade--- a moment challenging intolerance, emblematic of liberation, has evolved into a big non-event, one to be avoided by respectable gays as embarrassing. "Anyone who's got money; anyone who's likely to get money one day soon; anyone who wants to act like they have money..." Koblin and others reported "... say it's unattractive to them...because there are all these faces of people of color from all over the world...as the parade gets blacker and blacker...fewer white people feel drawn to it. The result is, to be seen at the parade is a little déclassé." Last Friday night, June 12,th at a screening of the camp classic of all time, Grey Gardens, I was thinking about both John Koblin's gloomy pronouncement and this haunting movie's enduring popularity. The Beales, mother and daughter, lived secluded in East Hampton at idyllic Grey Gardens. A shingled, rose-bowered and privet-hedge-enclosed Arts-and-Crafts style house by the sea, it was designed by local architect and aesthete Joseph Greenleaf Thorp and completed in 1897. Via a privileged birthright, the Beales were aristocrats. But like blacks or gays, they became outcast too. Unable for a host of conflicted reasons to maintain the glossy façade of apparent perfection demanded by high society, the two women gradually, politely, withdrew. The more destitute they grew, the more sordid their elegant surroundings became, the more they were viewed contemptuously as the worst kind of eccentric non-conformists. Their transgression was not so much a mere rejection of their caste, as a defiant public spectacle rebuking every convention there was. Making the best of a bad situation, they not only maintained great poise amidst what might have been crippling indignity, they also became in the process almost as renowned, and by many, as well beloved, as any of the better known members of their prominent family LOL, there I was the other night at Harlem's innovative but diminutive Maysles' Cinema, an aspiring young man from Akron, Ohio turned more guarded and middle-aged. Like a figure invented by Langston Hughes, I was experiencing one of those fantastic, hard to believe, 'only in New York' moments. Seated in a director's chair, with genial master-moviemaker Albert Maysles on my right, Jerry Torre, Grey Gardens ' enigmatic 'Marble Fawn' was nearby. So were the brilliant " Grey Gardens " musical director-composer Scott Frankel, Paper Magazine's cleverly witty Mr. Mickey, and enthusiastic sisters, garlanded in smiles, Sara and Rebekah Maysles. The Maysles sister's new book, Grey Gardens , prompting a Grey Gardens retrospective weekend, was the reason for the panel, entitled aptly enough, "Unpacking Grey Gardens". It was an invigorating interchange in which Al Maysles related the improbable origins of his modestly made but epic film. It had been proposed as an elegy on the charmed East Hampton upbringing of Jackie and Lee Bouvier, the Beales' famously glamorous relatives. According to Al, then-Princess Lee Radziwell conceived this venture in 1972, as a tame exercise of nostalgia. Through the movie he and his brother David agreed to make, Lee would finally command the spotlight usually focused on her sister Jacqueline, President Kennedy's widow, who had married billionaire Aristotle Onassis. Called one day from Grey Gardens where her first cousin and flamboyant aunt were in distress due to repeated threats from the Suffolk County Health, Building, and Safety departments, Lee Radziwell had casually asked if the young documentary directing brothers would like to come along. "Bring your camera!" she'd said with provocative calm. Given Lee's ulterior motive, to outshine her sister, it's hardly surprising that she soon backed out of the project. Seeing completed footage featuring her, juxtaposed with new shots of the Beales, she had had little alternative. For even in all their disarray, reclusive Edith Bouvier Beale at 78 and her balding 56 year-old daughter, 'little Eddie', were absolutely riveting to behold. The time for their long awaited close-up had finally arrived and each was well prepared to give a performance of a lifetime. So that asked on her death bed by Little Edie, "Mother darling, is there anything more you'd like to say? No," Big Edie had responded, "It's all in the movie." Like Judaism, though to a lesser degree, to be Roman Catholic once almost disqualified one from belonging to the highest echelons of polite New York society, which viewed the Episcopal Church as the optimal faith. If the Bouvier's moderate fortune never entirely overcame the stigma attached to their religion, much as was the case with Jackie and Lee's ambitious mother, Janet Lee, the Beales' charm and beauty had helped mightily to advance their basically unfettered social success. Phelan Beale, a southerner who studied law at Columbia, was a partner in his father-in-law's Wall Street law office. A proper Episcopal churchman himself, just as his two Yale educated sons would be, out of deference to his fiancé, he had wed Miss Edith Ewing Bouvier at St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1917, before a congregation of 2,000. Five hundred guests attended the breakfast which followed at the Hotel St. Regis. Educated at Miss Spence's and Miss Porter's Schools, between nights at the Stork Club, dances, and her debutante supper-dance at the Pierre, little Edie had attempted to initiate a career modeling for Macy's and several specialty shops. A member of the Downtown, Union, Church, Columbia, Devon and Maidstone Clubs, clubable Phelan Beale was not amused. Hit by a taxicab in 1932 in an accident that fractured his skull, he violently opposed his daughter's being on public display in this way. As talented and sensitive as her mother, who'd dreamed of a vocation as a concert singer, Little Edie was discouraged from artistic fulfillment. Instead she was steered toward successive unsuitable, if immensely rich, suitors, including Howard Hughes and Joseph Kennedy, Jr. Her parents' diminished riches and advancing estrangement, leading to divorce, only intensified her mother's growing dependence.
 
Emma Ruby-Sachs: Obama Offers Gays a Consolation Prize of Extended Benefits Top
Obama didn't have to defend DOMA . Howard Dean protested on The Rachel Maddow Show that he doubts Obama himself was aware of the recently filed brief in defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. But weeks ago, many new outlets, including my column on this site , covered the fact that the President has the legal right to refuse to defend clearly unconstitutional laws. I have no doubt that President Obama was well aware of the brief filed in defense of DOMA. He also has indicated that his office intends to defend DOMA in subsequent legal challenges. Despite this outrageous decision, in the great game of politics, Obama is attempting to silence the gay outcry by announcing the extension of benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. Dean went so far to suggest that repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell would appease the LGBT community. Well, I hate to be the one to explain a rights struggle to the first Black President, but the equality movement is not a grab bag of rights. You don't get to reach in and see which prize you've won. Each of the rights discussed above - the right to benefits for your partner, the right to serve openly in the military and the right to access the same tax breaks and immigration privileges given to heterosexual couples - should be granted. Immediately. Granting one does not absolve trespass over the other rights. Obama has made it clear that he will do only the minimum necessary to avoid a gay revolution. Gay rights are consistently moved to the bottom of the political barrel. He thinks extending benefits to a few federal employees is sufficient. It's our job to let him know that is not enough. Now is the time to pull the funding you have given to the DNC (like some of the most high profile gay leaders in this country). Now is the time to send a letter explaining why you won't be directing any future donations to the Obama administration no matter how many nice emails they send you. Now is the time to blog, argue and get angry. If it takes national outrage to explain to Obama that rights aren't optional consolation prizes to be granted when his administration does something wrong, then we must deliver national outrage. The signing of the presidential memo granting benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees will be at 5:45 pm today. The President is expected to make a few remarks. More on Barack Obama
 
AP source: Same-sex partners to get fed benefits Top
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, under growing criticism for not seeking to end the ban on openly gay men and women in the military, is extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. Obama plans to announce his decision on Wednesday in the Oval Office, a White House official said Tuesday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president hadn't yet signed the presidential memorandum. The official said Obama would release more details on Wednesday. The decision is a political nod to a reliably Democratic voting bloc that in recent weeks has grown frustrated with the White House's slow movement on their priorities. Several powerful gay fundraisers withdrew their support from a June 25 Democratic National Committee event where Vice President Joe Biden is expected to speak. Their exit came in response to a June 12 Justice Department brief that defended the Defense of Marriage Act, a prime target for gay and lesbian criticism. Justice lawyers argued that the law allowed states to reject marriages performed in other states or countries that defy their own standards. The legal arguments _ including citing incest and sex with minors _ sparked rebellion among gay and lesbian activists who had been largely biting their tongues since Obama won election. They had objected to the Rev. Rick Warren's invitation to participate in the inauguration despite his support for repealing gay marriage in California. Their January protest won the invitation of Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson, whose consecration as the first openly gay bishop divided and almost split his denomination. Gays and lesbians later fretted as the White House declined to intervene in the cases of enlisted military members facing courts martial for defying the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" policies. White House officials say they want Congress to repeal the policy as part of a "lasting and durable" solution, instead of intervening on individual cases. "The president agreed that ... the policy wasn't working for our national interests, that he committed to change that policy, that he's working with the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs on making that happen," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said last month. In the meantime, the administration has tried to make small, quiet moves to extend benefits to gays and lesbians. The State Department has promised to give partners of gay and lesbian diplomats many benefits, such as diplomatic passports and language training. But without a specific change in the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Program, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's promises left out financial benefits such as pensions. Obama's move could make that shift. Gay and lesbian activists had expected Obama to take action some time in June, which is gay pride month. Richard Socarides, a New York attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights issues to President Bill Clinton, was taking a wait-and-see attitude on Obama's announcement. "If it doesn't include health insurance, if he doesn't talk about the military and about the (Justice Department) brief, I think it will fall short," Socarides said in an e-mail late Tuesday. "Right now, people are looking for real action." John Berry, the highest-ranking gay official in the administration and the de facto human resources chief for the administration, told a gay rally last weekend that Obama planned to take action on benefits soon. Berry, who heads the Office of Personnel and Management, has repeatedly told reporters that he expected the White House to turn to legislation to give domestic partners access to federal health and retirement plans. But Obama so far has sent only one piece of legislation to Congress _ a pay-as-you-go measure that is part of his wooing of fiscally conservative Democrats. Instead, Obama will use his signature instead of legislation to achieve the benefits parity sought by same-sex couples.
 
Bill Maher Discusses Obama, Letterman And Palin On CNN (VIDEO) Top
Bill Maher, who aired his displeasure with the pace at which President Obama is accomplishing his policy objectives on his HBO show Friday night, made an appearance on CNN's "Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer tonight to reiterate his concerns. Maher argues that Obama needs to be more like former President George W. Bush when it comes to taking decisive action. The former president, with a much smaller majority than Obama has, was able to push through several very contentious policies - a massive tax cut for the wealthy, for example - and Maher is looking for a little more of that 'audacity' from Obama. Maher also lamented the lack of a real progressive party in America: We have the Democrats, who are what the Republicans used to be when I was a kid. They are a pro-business party; a corporate friendly, pro-business party. And then we have the Republicans, which are just just a club for angry white people and Jesus freaks. I don't know what they are. Maher also combated the idea that Obama is taking the nation in a "socialist" direction, calling the charge "so ridiculous because Barack Obama is not a socialist, he's not even a liberal. That's the point I'm trying to make. This country needs a left-wing. It doesn't have it." The "Real Time" host attributed part of the blame for the lack of a true left-wing in America to the media because they elevate personalities such as Newt Gingrich without doing the same for a corresponding voice on the other side of the political spectrum. Although Maher believes Obama's not doing enough on domestic policy, he said the president is doing a "terrific" job on foreign policy. Maher weighed in on the David Letterman-Sarah Palin controversy, stating that Letterman is a "fundamentally decent Midwesterner" and that his remarks were twisted into a "lie that [got] into the media and then [became] the truth." Maher said it was a "shame" that Letterman had to apologize. Watch Maher's interview with CNN below: 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)