The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com
- John Marshall: Supreme Court Pulls Old Negotiating Tricks on Fiat
- Ethan Hastert, Denny Hastert's Son, Running For Father's Congressional Seat
- Lieberman-Graham Dropped From Supplemental
- Steve Rosenbaum: "Alley" No More! NY Internet Biz bursts out of the Tech Ghetto
- Buddhist Monk Faces Deportation: Phra Bunphithak Jomthong Denied Residency
- Cicero President Sued For Sexual Harassment: 'He Wanted To Have A Threesome With Me And My Mother'
- Nia Vardalos: "Women Don't Go to the Movies" -- Huh?
- Miles J. Zaremski: The Rally to Reform Health Care and Its Costs
- Aubrey Sarvis: Where the People Lead, the Leaders Will Follow
- Marissa Bronfman: An Eco Night in L.A. for the Star-Studded Stella McCartney Screening of Home
- Ronald Maxwell: On the Occasion of President Obama's Wreath for the Confederate Memorial
- Anis Shivani: "The Speech Obama Didn't Give to the Muslim World"
- Ted Poetsch, Minneapolis Man Facing Foreclosure, Boarded In Own Home
- Phil Bronstein: Love or Lust, Obama and the Fawning Press Need to Get a Room
- Marc Hershon: The Reverse Job Interview
- Jon Chattman: Tony's Ratings Up and Bret Michaels' Goes Boom
- Christine Hassler: Part 2: The Rite Of Passage For Today's Twenty-Something Woman
- Joshua Glazer: Pirates Gain Seat in EU Parliament
- Sharon Glassman: Why Can't Women Sleep? Part V - The Zzz-inducing Joy of Things Gone Wrongly Right
- Jen Groover: The Race Within
- Sarah Palin's Toenails: What's Painted On Them? (PHOTOS, POLL)
- Chris Weigant: A Question For Dick Cheney: Should We Now Waterboard Tiller's Murderer?
- Quinn Making Headway On Clemency Backlog
- AP: House Dems Favor Health Insurance Mandate
| John Marshall: Supreme Court Pulls Old Negotiating Tricks on Fiat | Top |
| The proposed solvent/insolvent hybrid WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court delayed the sale of most of Chrysler's assets to Fiat by telling the carmaker, "Wait a minute. I have to go in the back and talk to my boss," an old negotiating ploy that heretofore has not been used on the sale of a whole car company. Fiat responded by walking around the parking lot with its friend, saying, "If the Supreme Court doesn't meet my price, I'm getting out of here. I'm doing THEM the favor, not the other way around." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who handles emergency matters arising from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, refused to tell Fiat the invoice price of Chrysler, only the sticker price. Fiat responded by waving a copy of Consumer Reports in her face. Observers say that the Supreme Court might tell Fiat that it can buy Chrysler for "only $349 a month," without saying that at rate it will take 18,000 years to pay off. Or the Court might take Fiat aside and say, "Don't tell my boss I said this, but I'm going to give you a special rate" that isn't special at all. If Fiat walks away from the deal, it will mean near certain liquidation for Chrysler. However, it will mean nothing for the Supreme Court, which, in its new role as auto dealer, has many other companies on its lot to sell. In fact, some say it's just dicking around with Chrysler as preparation for really screwing over GM. Chrysler and GM said they hoped the Supreme Court would come out of the back office soon so negotiations could resume. Lawyers for both said that speed was of the essence if the companies are to survive, even though everybody knows they probably won't. More on Supreme Court | |
| Ethan Hastert, Denny Hastert's Son, Running For Father's Congressional Seat | Top |
| GENEVA, Ill. (AP) -- Former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert's son, Ethan Hastert, has announced he'll run for his father's Chicago-area seat in Congress. The 31-year-old Hastert said Monday he would begin campaigning and fundraising for the 14th District seat. Dennis Hastert held the seat for 20 years and was the longest-serving Republican House Speaker. He announced in August 2007 that he would not seek reelection. Democratic U.S. Rep. Bill Foster of Batavia won the seat in the November general election. The younger Hastert has never held elected office. The self-described economic and social conservative grew up in Yorkville and now is an attorney from Elburn. He says he hopes to be part of the district's "next generation of leadership." -ASSOCIATED PRESS | |
| Lieberman-Graham Dropped From Supplemental | Top |
| According to sources on the Hill, the Lieberman-Graham detainee photo suppression amendment is out of the conference report of the supplemental. | |
| Steve Rosenbaum: "Alley" No More! NY Internet Biz bursts out of the Tech Ghetto | Top |
| Back in the day - it was known as New York's Silicon Alley. But if Internet Week '09 taught us one thing - the "Alley" is a thing of the past. Starting Monday Night, when New York kicked off the 143+ events with a celebrity event and proclamation on Broadway, the week was a daily sprint from lower Manhattan to Columbia University - from the New York Times Center to Webster Hall. Uptown and down, east side and west, New York's digital domain is no longer limited to an "alley" or a district - it's spread its entrepreneurial wings across the island of Manhattan. While it wasn't physically possible to go to ALL the events that made their way on to the Internet Week schedule, a sampling of panels, presentations, and parties was enough to leave one winded and a bit giddy. At the Tech Meetup Digital Mosh-pit that was held in the Great Hall at FIT - the 900 members of the largest meet up in the nation filled the bar bones hall with the kind of start-up juice that had been the staple of the west coast Start-Up scene. Bug Labs was showing 'made in nyc' plug and play robots. Pond 5 was wowing visitors with a fast growing footage archive. And Angel Investor and Presentation Guru David Rose was roaming the halls looking for start ups that he'd had a hand in mentoring. The buzz was - this is a 'west coast' vibe, and whatever that means it was a good thing. The party scene was triple booked - giving TechSet revelers the tough choice of staying at the Bubble Lounge and watching the Ghost Buster firehouse race off lights and siren blazing while the YouTube/NY Observer party at the Puck Building was packed with New Yorks tech community. At every venue - there was seemingly an 'a' list gathering of CEO's and Entrepreneurs - and a hall full of attentive audience members twittering out quotes bits of wisdom. MediaBistro's 2 day long Circus brought newspaper, magazine, and media folks together under the roof of the New York Times. Meanwhile, up at Columbia University, the Business School gathered folks from internet, television, and academia to explore and investigate the fast moving future of Internet Video. And then - by Thursday night - if you thought three nights of parties would have tired out the revelers, the wall-to-wall crowd at Diggnation Live at Webster Hall would have proved you wrong. David-Michel Davies is the chairman of Internet Week which is a production of the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences and The Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting, Internet Week is a unique opportunity for people working in the industry and the public at large to share ideas, network, and enjoy New York's Internet culture," said Davies of the weeks events. This year Internet Week launched InternetWeek.TV - a site that aggregated coverage, twitter feeds, and photo's from across the sprawling event. Whenever the free beer and the free flowing schwag comes out - you know that things are on the move. My experience over the week was a jam-packed schedule that was hard to manage, let alone process. The energy was more of a SXSW vibe than a finance driven NY conference. Internet Week 2009 will be remembered as the start of the new boom - with a a city full of ideas and energy. Companies are hiring, teams are writing groundbreaking code, and even some of the slower moving media companies are starting to get with the program. The future of digital development is alive and well in the Big Apple. Laurel Touby and Shira Lazar at Media Circus at the New York Times Center: Steve Rosenbaum, CEO of Magnify.net (ME) and Katherine Oliver - Commissioner of Film and TV for the City of New York. Jim Louderback, CEO of Revision3, and Gary Vaynerchuk CEO of WineLibrary.TV | |
| Buddhist Monk Faces Deportation: Phra Bunphithak Jomthong Denied Residency | Top |
| Monk Phra Bunphithak Jomthong entered the U.S. four years ago on a religious visa and has since devoted himself to serving a burgeoning Buddhist community in Southern California. Barefoot and clad in a saffron robe, Mr. Jomthong recently gave what amounts to the most accurate job description he has: "to share Buddhist practices and to promote peace and harmony among people." | |
| Cicero President Sued For Sexual Harassment: 'He Wanted To Have A Threesome With Me And My Mother' | Top |
| Cicero Town President Larry Dominick is being sued by a number of former town employees who claim the self-appointed reformer made vulgar comments, groped them, requested one woman lie under oath and demoted an employee who spoke out, Fox News Chicago reports . Cicero police officer Janidet Lujano told Fox Dominick "wanted me to e-mail him pictures of my breasts, He said he wanted to have a threesome with me and my mother. Just disgusting." Fox says Dominick refused repeated interview requests. In a videotaped deposition, Dominick denied all of the allegations, dismissing the women's claims as "all a crock of shit." Watch the report: More on Video | |
| Nia Vardalos: "Women Don't Go to the Movies" -- Huh? | Top |
| A little-known fact: some studios recently decided to no longer make female-lead movies. Lately, I've been in meetings regarding a new script idea I have. A studio executive asked me to change the female lead to a male, because... "women don't go to movies." Really? When I pointed out the box office successes of Sex and The City, Mamma Mia, and Obsessed , he called them "flukes." He said "don't quote me on this." So, I'm telling everybody. I'm in a new movie, My Life In Ruins , out in theaters now. It's a small indie, that was picked up for distribution by a studio (thank you Fox Searchlight.) We're in one-third, maybe less, about one-quarter of the amount of screens of the big movies...yet we made it into the Top Ten. I'm not too cool to admit this -- on the weekend, I snuck into the back of the theaters to hear people laughing. It's a very good-mood-inspiring sound, better than the sound of potatoes being dipped into a fryer. (Almost.) The theaters were full of people laughing. Women were there. Sure, men were there, we are a date movie too, but the fact is women were there, some in big girls night groups. Our movie isn't "playing everywhere," yet these audience members found it. We had an advertising budget of about 6 bucks, Canadian. We don't have billboards, or giant newspaper ads, or skywriting. So I've been Twittering (NiaVardalos), loading homemade videos onto YouTube : "My Life In Ruins, Really!" and blabbing to anyone who makes eye contact with me. It's called show business for a reason. The theater owners want to make money, and understandably so. My Life In Ruins is the highest testing movie in Fox Searchlight history so we've been given a chance. And, the theater owners said they'll keep the movie in their theaters if people go. So, women: can we speak up with our wallets? | |
| Miles J. Zaremski: The Rally to Reform Health Care and Its Costs | Top |
| If you care about letting our representatives know about reforming the health care system, then plan on coming to Washington, DC on June 25, 2009. This is the day when a national rally is scheduled on reforming our health care system -- once and for all. Check out one website, http://healthcare09.org , to know more. To be sure, the "perfect storm" is now gathering for serious reform, with President Obama giving his most recent public radio talk on health care reform, and several members of Congress speaking out on the subject as well. Last week, the media caught wind of studies suggesting that over 60% of those filing for bankruptcies had as a catalyst the inability to pay medical bills. There was also a major piece in the USA Today featuring the HHS Secretary and the head of the White House office heading health care reform, and CNN highlighting the subject too. And, to be sure, the roll-out for planned federal legislation is set for the end of this month. Even though the major political issue appears to be whether reform will include a public plan within options available to the public, the crux of any reform remains financing its cost. Revising the system is said to take an anticipated $1.3 trillion. Speaking of cost, one would be wise to read the just published article by noted Harvard physician and scholar, Atul Gawande. In the latest issue of the New Yorker, his article, " The Cost Conundrum ", appears. Read it! The focus of the Gawande piece is not on whether there should be public versus private plans, i.e., who pays for the care is irrelevant, or the millions who are uninsured and underinsured, but on the motivation for those rendering health care in various parts of the country. He focused his research on McAllen, Texas with analysis of what is being done at the Mayo Clinic facilities in Rochester, Minn., Arizona and Florida, as well as in Grand Junction, Colo. Surprisingly, his research suggests that cost and quality are inversely proportional --lowering the costs of health care does not mean lowering health care quality. In fact, quality remains when costs are lowered. Are we surprised? While we hear from those in Washington (like we also did in the last several days from Sens Baucus (D.-Mont.) and Grassley (R-La.)) that perhaps employees and consumers will have to be taxed in some way for health care coverage provided by employers, before that legislation comes out by month's end, maybe, just maybe, our elected officials should think twice about paying for health care reform by burdening the taxpayer even more than they (we) are forced to do now. Using Gawande's piece as a stepping stone, maybe its time for those in Congress to recognize that what is fueling the increasingly high cost of health care is the system presently in place --paying for quantity and not for quality rendered by those in the medical profession --besides the waste and inefficiencies that have already been spoken about in the media. While we are talking about costs, why not seriously consider paying for health care reform by levying a tax on those entities which produce substances that are inimical to a healthy lifestyle, like tobacco and liquor, or perhaps sweeteners that go into all sorts of food products. This tax not only could be used to finance the needed reform, but it would also have the effect of forcing consumers to think twice about spending lots of money to buy such products or ingredients. I am not saying to eliminate such ingredients or products; just that consumers should be made to pay more for them if they really still want them. If all of us cannot maintain healthy lifestyles on our own (look how obese on average we have become), then maybe we will think twice about shelling out precious cash for the amount of products that do us no good. See you at the rally. | |
| Aubrey Sarvis: Where the People Lead, the Leaders Will Follow | Top |
| Gallup brings good news. Across the political spectrum a growing majority of Americans favor allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military as who they are, not as who they have to pretend to be to keep their jobs. In other words, as Lymari Morales writes for Gallup, a majority of Americans "now favor what essentially equates to repealing the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy." The poll was conducted May 7-10 and released Friday. The results show that 69 percent now favor open service as opposed to 63 percent in an earlier poll conducted Nov. 19-24, 2004. The biggest increase in support came from conservatives (up twelve points to 58 percent), weekly churchgoers (up eleven points to 60 percent), and Republicans (up six points to 58 percent). So much for the conventional wisdom. One by one the stereotypes held by those on both sides of this issue are falling. Call it the domino effect. But whatever you call it, the "issue" is rapidly becoming a non-issue. Yes, I know the battle is not yet over. We have to fight harder than ever now that we're on the verge of slaying the dragon of gay discrimination in the military. Some dragons, like some cats, have nine lives. Elaine Donnelly and her noisy ideologues of the right will always be with us--like death and taxes. Among a few of our political and military leaders the prospect of lesbians and gays serving openly in the military still brings on what the Victorians would call "nerves" (and what Freud would call "hysteria"). Nonetheless, slowly and often tentatively our leaders are catching up with where the American people have been for some years now. In a bit of role reversal, where the people lead, the leaders will follow. A few of them are seriously lagging, and probably never will catch up. But some of them are ahead of the curve. That's where I put President Obama. True, he's not yet Moses ready to part the Red Sea and lead us to the Promised Land. He's moving in quiet increments toward his goal, which I firmly believe is to see "don't ask, don't tell" repealed. However. we're still anxious because we need specifics. We need to know how he intends to do it. We certainly welcome the latest and most encouraging example of the president's thinking: the strategic, well thought out, and politically astute appointment of the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, John M. McHugh (R-NY), as Secretary of the Army. He is steeped in the ways of the Pentagon. He has been a friend to the Pentagon, to privates as well as generals, and over the years has worked with a parade of Joint Chiefs. He understands how they think and what they need, and how they get it. He also understands why they don't always get what they want (or want what they get). Representative McHugh voted for "don't ask, don't tell" in 1993 but like a lot of other people reflected in the Gallup poll he has evolved over the years. When the Advocate 's Kerry Eleveld asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about it last week, Gibbs replied , "it's obvious from . . . statements that Congressman McHugh has made that he and the President are in agreement on changing a policy they both don't think is working for this country right now." Many other military and civilian leaders have come to the same conclusion. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs John Shalikashvili, retired Admirals Charles R. Larson, twice superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy, and Jamie Barnett; former Senators Bob Kerrey, Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, and Alan Simpson--all now oppose the law. They are only mirroring the thinking of most Americans on the subject. The urgency for Congress and the President to act on repealing "don't ask, don't tell" was underscored today when the Supreme Court refused to accept a petition from one of the plaintiffs in the Cook v. Gates case challenging the constitutionality of the DADT law. That case was originally brought by SLDN lawyers and pro bono attorneys at the law firm of WilmerHale on behalf of twelve service members who were discharged under DADT, and all of whom proudly stated they would be willing to be reinstated and serve again if the law were invalidated. The Cook plaintiffs lost in the trial court and in the First Circuit and today's action effectively means that these twelve plaintiffs have exhausted all of their legal remedies. They still want to serve, but only Congress and the President can make that possible. More on Supreme Court | |
| Marissa Bronfman: An Eco Night in L.A. for the Star-Studded Stella McCartney Screening of Home | Top |
| This past Friday night I was invited to watch the Stella McCartney private screening of Home in Los Angeles, a beautiful film about the myriad environmental and social challenges facing our world. Lexus Hybrid Living was one of the event's main sponsors and kindly provided my transportation for the day in one of their hybrid SUVs. After my arrival at LAX they brought me to the Sunset Marquis , a hotel steeped in rock-and-roll history that also prides themselves on a commitment to the environment . Despite being located in the heart of Hollywood, the Sunset Marquis boasts extensive lush gardens and fish ponds that are ecologically managed and cared for. Their spa has incorporated an extensive organic skin care line and even offers environmentally-friendly nail polish in the salon. This eco-introduction to L.A. was the perfect start to a night full of sustainable promise. Stella McCartney, a lifelong vegetarian, has shunned fur and leather in her designs and products, offering style denizens a variety of enviable goods that make a serious style impact without harming animals or the environment. Who better to host a screening of Home in L.A. than Stella? Regrettably, Stella herself was unable to attend the eco garden picnic held at her West Hollywood store on uber-trendy Beverly Boulevard. Scuttling past the pack of press and paparazzi camped out in front and through her boutique I entered the back garden which was beautifully decorated with twinkling white lights and eco garden furniture, complete with eco-friendly cocktails, organic iced tea and wine, and vegan ice cream. Stars started streaming in on the green carpet about an hour before the outdoor screening, including Rachel Zoe -- famed stylist to the stars and a star herself of The Rachel Zoe Project , green goddess and current Vogue cover girl Cameron Diaz, along with Angelica Huston, Rosario Dawson, Liv Tyler, Charlize Theron, Emily Deschanel, Daryl Hannah, Jessica Capshaw and others. At 9pm the DJ stopped spinning music from his perch on the second floor balcony and Stella appeared on the film screen to thank her guests for coming. She stressed the importance of "saving the planet today for the people of tomorrow" and encouraged us to not become "too overwhelmed" by the film. What happened next shocked me: we were told the film would be shown without sound, so as to not interrupt the lively party taking place. The DJ started up again with Fergie's hit song Glamorous , on which she sings about flying in private jets, going on shopping sprees and buying expensive things. What?! Immediately I went to speak with Nancy Ritter from Conservation International and told her I thought the decision (made by party organizers) was seriously distasteful -- weren't we all here for the movie to begin with? Frances Arnold , a professor from the California Institute of Technology echoed my sentiments. Yann Arthus-Betrand , one of the film's distributors, had personally asked her to attend the party so that she could tell him what kind of reaction guests had to the film. Five minutes later, Witter took to the mic and announced, "As we sometimes say in Hollywood, take two !" Enough people had expressed their interest in actually watching and listening to the film that they decided to play full sound -- guests clapped and cheered. Cameron Diaz, Daryl Hannah and their friends took to their front row seats as I cozied up to a picnic bench and stayed firmly planted there while Glen Close narrated over two hours of aerial images filmed in over fifty different countries. Home is a visual masterpiece, a compilation of incredible aerial shots that dramatize the staggering statistics of environmental degradation and peril that many of us are already fairly familiar with. They say a picture is worth a thousand words and that couldn't have been more true for those watching the film -- audible gasps and murmurs filled Stella's garden during scenes of massive deforestation in South America, sprawling high-rise developments in the middle east and severe drought in Africa. Guests actually watching the film however were few and far between, perhaps de rigueur at a young, hot Hollywood party. Despite the visually arresting cinematography the film was too long and haphazardly edited -- themes were revisited again and again in a cinematic trajectory that seemed lost on its way to making a point. Regardless of this I really was blown away by the images and even more impressed that such talented and successful people had come together to make and distribute the film. The aim of director Yann Arthus-Bertrand , distributor Luc Besson and Francois-Henri Pinault , Chairman and CEO of PPR , the film's official sponsor, was to "reach the widest possible audience and convince us all of our individual and collective responsibility towards the planet." Shunning the delirious drive for corporate gain, this film was shown all over the world mostly free of charge, with all profits going towards Conservation International and GoodPlanet.org . Stella McCartney 's star-studded eco garden picnic and screening of Home was ultimately a success; it signaled another step forward towards environmental awareness and sustainability in the fashion and entertainment industries. Stella has proven that high fashion need not use leather or fur, Lexus demonstrates that a hybrid vehicle can still be luxurious and Home assures us that it is possible to move "forward into a new century that is cleaner and fairer, more natural and at the same time more human". Yann Arthus-Betrand says, "We all have the power to change things. What are we waiting for?" He's right; after all, the grass is most certainly greener on the other side. To find out more and to watch Home , click here . More on Fashion | |
| Ronald Maxwell: On the Occasion of President Obama's Wreath for the Confederate Memorial | Top |
| This speech was given by Ronald F. Maxwell, on Sunday, June 7, 2009, at the annual commemoration of the Confederate Monument in Arlington National Cemetery. Greetings. I am humbled when I see the list of former speakers for this event: the great Civil War historian James I. Robertson, former Secretary of the Navy and current Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Jim Webb, former National Park Service chief historian and revered doyen of Civil War battlefield guides, Ed Bearrs. Following in his footsteps, on a hot and humid day at Wilson's Creek in Missouri as I did a few years back, doesn't mean I can fill his shoes today. The history of America is a history of liberation. Liberation from the dark superstitions of the Salem witch hunts, from ignorance about the native peoples who inhabited this continent before the 17th century, liberation from a domineering and oppressive parent country an ocean away, liberation from the religious wars of Europe by codifying in law the separation of church and state, liberation from hereditary power, from aristocratic noblesse oblige, from arbitrary justice and unchecked political power. In the 19th century the work of liberation would continue, slowly, falteringly, but steadily. Before slavery could be ended by law a transformation of the hearts and minds of Americans had to take place. Mammon is a heavy shackle on the soul. When profits are fused with prejudice change is even harder to accomplish. It is argued that the liberation of America from the nightmare of slavery would have happened in time, as it did throughout the rest of the Western Hemisphere, without a savage Civil War. Alternate histories and speculations of paths not taken are of endless interest, but the facts of history cannot be undone. We did have a brutal Civil War. And the work of liberation continued. Even with a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution protecting the rights of the individual more securely than in any other society, by the last third of the 19th century half of the population, at least in the law, were viewed as 2nd class citizens. It took another liberation movement, led by the Suffragettes, to secure women their rightful place among a free people. The history of America is a history of liberation. Pre-dating the American Revolution, the Enlightenment had created a new and initially limited space for intellectual skepticism and inquiry that would lead in time to the great scientific discoveries of the 18th and 19th centuries. The Founders of the great American experiment in self-government were students of the social philosophers and natural scientists of their time. They designed a society that would enable innovation, invention and scientific inquiry. Dogma, the heavy blinders of ignorance, would yield, decade by decade, to the advance of knowledge - or, to put it another way, the liberation of the mind. No one was prescient enough to anticipate the extent of the horrors of the Twentieth Century. While Americans wrestled with the lingering, festering vestiges of racism, with the repeal of Jim Crow laws and the eventual implementation of integration and Civil Rights, Europe and Asia fell under the seductive spell of the totalitarian impulse - as Nazism and Communism both sought to dominate mankind, to usher in a new dark age of a thousand year Reich or a New Soviet man. Our work of liberation continued. It was hard fought and hard won. We stand in the middle of a cemetery where thousands of graves give mute testimony to the price of liberty - for ourselves and for others. These graves stand as monuments not just to the slain - but to remind us of a world that could have been, but for their sacrifice. A world of oppression, a world of ignorance, a world of conformity. One need only look at the images from Pyong Yang in North Korea - the regimented masses offering homage to their supreme leader - to catch a glimpse of the prison camp that could have been our destiny as well. The work of liberation is not done. Perhaps it is a work that can never end, because as long as there is unjustified prejudice in the human heart society must fashion laws to protect and to defend the vulnerable, the weak, the different or the unpopular. No person can be a second class citizen in America. The history of America is a history of liberation. Perhaps because we are, by world standards, a young country, we pride ourselves with firsts. Daniel Boone crossing the Alleghenies. Lewis and Clark venturing to the Pacific-Northwest - the first man on the moon. This year we are celebrating the first African-American president. Agree or disagree with his policies, one must be amazed and impressed, not just by Barack Obama's individual qualities and personal story, but by America's story. Nearly one hundred and fifty years ago this nation was torn apart in an apocalyptic orgy of violence that endured for more than four years, costing more than a half million lives, maiming and crippling many more and laying waste to half the country. Anyone who still thinks violence is a means to redress a grievance hasn't studied the American Civil War. There is no way that words alone can begin to convey the suffering of that generation. Perhaps that's one of the reasons I made my two movies, Gettysburg and Gods & Generals. To try to bring that time alive for us and for our children. Writing a screenplay on an historical subject requires months, yes even years of research before even a word of a screenplay can be written. How could I, or anyone, write dialogue for Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, for Robert E. Lee or Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson without spending hour upon hour listening to their own voices in their own time? But how can we know what Jackson said or thought, how he spoke or what was in his heart? As a filmmaker I have to get as close to these men and women as is humanly possible. I have to make the effort. There are no shortcuts. It must be total immersion. Not just in the record of their own words, written themselves or reported by others, but also of the journalistic accounts of the time, the letters and diaries of those in their immediate circle and the literature they read. It's from the literature of contemporary authors, whether it be Harriet Beecher Stowe, Walt Whitman, Herman Melville, Mary Johnston or Sidney Lanier that we catch a flavor of how people actually spoke, the vocabulary they used, the sense of metaphor, of colloquialism, accent or regional flavor. At some point, and every writer finds this place on his or her own, you gain the confidence to begin writing. It's as if Lee and Jackson, Chamberlain and Hancock are now, somehow, in the room with you. It's as if you are now listening to what they have to say and just recording their words as someone taking dictation. This is why there is no room for generational judgment or propaganda in filmmaking. I'm not interested in it. Audiences are not interested in it and our posterity will dismiss and discredit any filmmaker who does it. This is how I came to know, through the study of their own words, both written and reported by contemporaries and can say without any hesitation, that Robert E. Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson were in their own hearts and minds fighting in a war for liberty, or as they themselves called it, a second War of Independence. To fail to understand this or to refuse to understand this is to fundamentally fail to understand the American Civil War. I'm not saying this out of some misguided notion that we have to feel good about our ancestors or in keeping with 19th century imperatives for reconciliation or to indulge in the futile exercise of trying to justify the present by the past or the past by the present. We can be justifiably appalled at both crimes of commission as well as crimes of omission perpetrated by every generation before and including our own. As a citizen and as a filmmaker I have no interest in putting anyone on a pedestal or turning anyone into a saint. There simply ain't no such thing on earth. I am, however, very interested in getting at that elusive thing we call the truth. For two reasons, because it's important to try, or else why study history at all? And because the closer you get to the truth the more dramatic and exciting it is! Imagine for a moment the irony, the contradiction. Here you have two iconic figures of American History, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, risking their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to defend the independence of a new Southern nation called the Confederate States of America. In their eyes they see Federal armies, more than one, marching across the Mason-Dixon Line into their sovereign state of Virginia to suppress their independence, arrest their leaders and forcibly keep them in the polity of the United States. But here's the rub. Although both men are individually opposed to slavery and see in the institution a great moral wrong, they are fighting for a government that seeks to continue the institution into the future and possibly into other territories to the west. From our perspective almost a century and a half later, this contradiction makes the fierce intensity of their courage and the steadfast dedication to their cause all the more difficult to understand. In the spirit of the characters who populated my films I gave the question to Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, who in Gods & Generals has this conversation with his brother Tom. The scene is the Federal encampment at Stoneman's Switch, February 1863. Chamberlain motions across the empty vastness across the Rappahannock River to the south. "Somewhere out there is the Confederate Army. They claim they are fighting for their independence, for their freedom. I cannot question their integrity. I believe they are wrong, but I cannot question it. But I do question a system that defends its own freedom while it denies it to others - to an entire race of men. I will admit it Tom, war is a scourge. But so is slavery. It is the systematic coercion of one group of men over another. It is as old as the Book of Genesis and has existed in every corner of the globe. But that is no excuse for us to tolerate it here, when we find it before our very eyes, in our own country." We know that Southerners were torn over the issue of secession. We know from countless diaries, letters and other original documents that it was a personal struggle to determine where their deepest duty resided. Each story is unique, whether it be Robert E. Lee's or a foot soldier from the Shenandoah Valley. The war was already well into its second year when Moses Ezekiel entered his class at VMI, the first cadet of Jewish descent to do so. In May, 1863, one of VMI's most beloved teachers was brought back to lay in repose in his old classroom, before his burial in Lexington. Moses Ezekiel stood as a Corporal of the Guard by the casket of the slain Confederate hero. In the spring of 1864 the VMI Cadet Battalion was called on by Major General John C. Breckenridge to come to the aid of their Southern Comrades. Of the 257 cadets who marched out of Lexington, the average age was 18, but several had just celebrated their 15th birthday. Their commander was Lieutenant Colonel Scott Shipp, a 24 year old graduate of the Institute. Ezekiel, at age 20, was a private in Company C. The first battle of the 1864 Shenandoah Campaign occurred on May 15, 1864 at the village of New Market, some eighty miles north of Lexington. Union Major General Franz Sigel was attempting to control the terminus of the Manassas Gap Railroad and capture New Market to control the only road across Massanutten Mountain to the east. Breckenridge's Confederate force numbered about 5,500 troops while the Union force was close to 8,500, spread throughout the region. On that Sunday morning, as rain began to fall, the armies engaged. At one point, as combined Union artillery and musket fire forced a break in the Confederate line, General Breckenridge gave the command, "Put the boys in and may God forgive me for the order." The cadets spearheaded the Confederate charge across a rain-drenched wheat field into the Union line. Almost sixty years later, writing about another war, Wilfred Owen could have been describing the Cadets of VMI in this very moment. "So, soon they topped the hill, and raced together Over an open stretch of herb and heather Exposed. And instantly the whole sky burned With fury against them: and soft sudden cups Opened in thousands for their blood; and the green slopes Chasmed and steepened sheer to infinite space" Charging directly into one of the Union artillery positions, the cadets captured a Federal cannon. Soon after, the men in Blue were forced to retreat. Ten VMI cadets were killed and forty seven wounded. It remains until today the only time in American history that a college student body engaged in pitched battle as a single unit. After the battle, Ezekiel was detailed to recovering his classmates, the dead and wounded. It wasn't long before he found his roommate, Thomas Garland Jefferson, a descendant of President Thomas Jefferson. He had a serious wound to his chest. Taking him to a nearby home, Ezekiel tended to his suffering friend. On the evening of May 17th, fully two days after the battle, this young Jewish soldier read to his dying Christian brother-in-arms, his requested passages from the New Testament. "In my Father's house there are many mansions..." Moments later, Jefferson died in Ezekiel's arms. A month after the battle, Union General David Hunter's 18,000 troops marched into Lexington. In retaliation for the VMI Cadets' role at New Market, Hunter ordered the Institute burned to the ground. When the war was over VMI reopened in makeshift circumstances and Ezekiel returned to finish his education. Robert E Lee, appointed president of nearby Washington College, encouraged Ezekiel's burgeoning artistic talents. Although he had thoughts of becoming a painter, his interest soon turned to sculpture. His studies and subsequent work led him to Cincinatti, to New York City and eventually to Berlin. In Berlin he met Rudolf Steimering, a well known sculptor, who offered Ezekiel a place in his studio. While there, he produced his first statue, Virginia Mouring Her Dead, which, some 30 years later, he cast in bronze and presented to his alma-mater, VMI. She keeps vigil over ten inscribed stone tablets, one for each of the cadets who died at Newmarket. In 1873, at age 29, Ezekiel won the coveted Prix de Rome with his bas relief, Israel. Previous recipients included Delacroix and Ingres. This award allowed him to study in Rome where commissions and fame soon followed. Ezekiel's regard for his native South and the Confederate cause never wavered. On a trip to the United States in 1910 he was present at the unveiling of his Stonewall Jackson monument at Charleston, West Virginia and his Thomas Jefferson monument at the University of Virginia. President Taft invited Ezekiel to make a social call to the White House. While waiting for the President, Ezekiel sat in an outer office sketching his thoughts for a new commission he had received from the Congress the day before -- a Confederate monument for Arlington Cemetery. The cornerstone was laid on Nov 12, 1912, at a ceremony featuring well known orator and presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan and James A. Tanner. A former Union corporal who lost both his legs at the Second Battle of Bull Run, Tanner was the national commander of The Grand Army of the Republic, the largest organization of Union veterans in the country. Two years later, now Sir Moses Ezekiel, having been knighted by the King of Italy, the aging sculptor participated in the fiftieth anniversary of the Battle of New Market with veterans of both sides. Then, on June 14, 1914 this monument was unveiled before a large crowd. President Woodrow Wilson delivered an address and veterans from North and South placed wreaths on the graves. | |
| Anis Shivani: "The Speech Obama Didn't Give to the Muslim World" | Top |
| The Speech Obama Didn't Give to the Muslim World By Anis Shivani The very idea of a speech addressed to more than a billion diverse people, with different grievances against America, seems ludicrous. My advisers have been after me to do this, from before I was elected president, but I have finally decided that no speech can fail to be patronizing, condescending, beside the point. A speech billed as a major one suggests a gap in reality. Rhetoric is used to paper over that which cannot be accomplished within political constraints. I am not interested in cover-ups and further hypocrisy, but in changing the real dynamics between Muslims and America. This must be self-driven. So these are more in the way of notes to self than some grand production investing great hopes in the power of speech to alter reality. A speech addressing the conflict between the Muslim world and America would have the wrong premise. There is no conflict between the two sides. There are only bad policies, bad internal politics, bad compulsions of empire, and these have nothing to do with the Muslim world. It is our internal predicament, demanding little input from the Muslim world, and little need to convey our plans prospectively. My advisers want me to harp on the common need to root out violent extremists. To focus on terrorists--even if I don't use the word itself--is like focusing on drug-dealers. It is not a real political problem, it is a made-up problem. If there is violent extremism, it only means that the political system is not flexible enough to address legitimate demands (just as drug-dealers exist to supply real needs, as do prostitutes). Some might say, what about Muslim terrorists who breed in places like Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, and then wish to strike the American heartland? Is it not my duty as Commander-in-Chief to secure the American people's safety? My answer is that there is no such thing as violence without cause. Instead of lecturing Muslims about the evils of violent extremism, let me instruct myself on the causes. And there are plenty. They want me to go to Egypt. In the 1950s, Egypt, like much of the Muslim world, was into socialism. Secularism was the coin of the day. That didn't work for America during the cold war. We brought in tyrannous regimes, like Egypt's and Pakistan's, to act as bulwarks against communism. Now we lament the rise of religious extremism. Who has propped up Egypt's dictator for thirty years? Isn't this exactly the period when modern Islamic terrorism, directed outward to Western countries, has been on the rise? Why should I go and speak as a humble supplicant before Hosni Mobarak, when he is the very reason (with America's continued financial support) that legitimate political desires get sidetracked into grotesque forms? Why should I scrape and bow before the King of Saudi Arabia, whose very existence, with our full support, is the reason why Saudi Arabia is a breeding ground for extremism? What would be the point of lecturing the Muslim world on the need for democracy and human rights, when American power keeps in place the dictators who make freedom impossible? The only answer is to disengage from these monstrous entanglements. They want me to soften my approach by speaking of a common cultural legacy, emphasizing the shared bonds of monotheistic religion. I may be a Christian, but it is not my role as President to go around other countries advertising that fact. Would Jefferson have done so? Ours is a secular republic, and we do not speak patronizingly to other cultures about ancient beliefs. Ours is a nation founded on modernity. I have no desire to speak down to Muslims by praising them for their medieval accomplishments in algebra, calligraphy, architecture, and whatever other past glories make them feel good about themselves. Let's move boldly into the future, without recourse to religious mumbo-jumbo. Wouldn't it be odd for me to speak against pernicious forms of religion, while organizing my speech around the forms of religion I personally prefer? Whether or not Muslim women wear hijab, what concern is that of an American president? Whether Muslims have a Shi'ite-Sunni schism--which, incidentally, we have done our best to inflame in Iraq, Pakistan, and other places--is none of our concern. The Muslim world must solve its own problems, which can only happen once they reach certain thresholds of economic development. I shouldn't be talking about humanitarian aid. Muslims are not begging for such help. They only seek dignity. And it would be a slap in the face to give a patronizing speech about how they ought to go about seeking dignity. On other issues my advisors want me to talk about, I take a similar skeptic's approach. I cannot speak credibly of Iran giving up its nuclear ambitions, while hoarding the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. If I say my aim is to dismantle our own nuclear weaponry, who would take me seriously? On Guantanamo, torture, and Abu Ghraib, I do not need to repeat the Bush administration canard that "we do not torture." I am not some monarch with the power to forbid torture. What we must do is follow the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties, which means prosecuting the violators to the full extent of the law. Anything less than that gives the lie to the claim that we do not torture. I don't need to come up with newfangled innovations, such as revived military commissions, to work around the rule of law. As for Iraq, we need to leave immediately--not 2012 or some indeterminate date, when the military feels it's advantageous to do so. I also don't believe Afghanistan was a war of necessity. Mullah Omar offered to extradite Osama bin Laden, an offer we refused to entertain. We do not invade and occupy a country because a terrorist happens to live there. I don't need to make a speech about the suffering people of Afghanistan. I need to make sure we leave Afghanistan. In Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke's crowd would want me to instigate division in that country, by embarking on a campaign of bombing against the so-called Taliban in the frontier province. This will only breed more extremism. During our decade-long support for Pervez Musharraf, religious violence became a serious issue for Pakistan for the first time in its history. We do not need to do more of the same. And finally, about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Muslim world has heard it all from us. If I tried hard, I could hardly sound better than Carter. The United States should not give Israel special treatment over any other country in the world. We leave Israel and Palestine to sort out their problem for themselves. This would be the hardest nut to crack, since Israel is America's military arm in the Middle East. Yet if I accept that Americans are ready to abide by international law, and scale back the ambitions of empire, then disengagement from Israel falls into place. In short, a speech, on any of the above points, cannot fail to be patronizing and hypocritical, not to mention irrelevant. Again, there is no conflict between the Muslim world and America. If I had shuttered Guantanamo immediately, subjected officials within my country to domestic and international law on torture, I wouldn't need to give a speech about how great America is on human rights. If I had left Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, if I had told Israel that we would mind our own business henceforth, I wouldn't need to give a speech further confusing the issues. My advisers waste my time. I am not a charismatic speech-maker. I am a public servant grievously concerned about the forms of illegality that have crept into every level of American government. I see no other way but to accept the United States as one among many nations equally subject to the rule of law--and make no speeches about it. More on Barack Obama | |
| Ted Poetsch, Minneapolis Man Facing Foreclosure, Boarded In Own Home | Top |
| On May 12, the day the city inspector came to board up his house, Ted Poetsch was eating lunch. After living all of his 53 years at 823 Penn Av. N., Poetsch had an hour left to pack his stuff and get out. | |
| Phil Bronstein: Love or Lust, Obama and the Fawning Press Need to Get a Room | Top |
| When Barack Obama decided that questions from the German press about his trip agenda in that country were too pesky, he told the reporters , "So, stop it all of you!" He just wanted them to ask things he wanted to talk about. Well, what politico wouldn't want that? OK, dad. We'll behave. And according to a new Pew Research Center poll , we are behaving...like fans. On domestic press, it showed that "President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House" with "roughly twice as much" Obama coverage about his "personal or leadership qualities" than was the case for either previous president. Back in the US, NBC's Brian Williams' two-part "Living Large With the Top Dog" feature on Mr. Obama's life included a plug for Conan O'Brien's new show and mention of cable talkies where Mr. Obama only cited MSNBC personalities. Accident? I don't think so. There were a few probing moments in there, but they were overshadowed by the flash of hanging out in the back of the Auto One limo and having burgers. A little navel-gazing among journalism standards hall monitors about whether the thing had been too soft came and went. Then, this Sunday in the NY Times , there was full-on chick-flick swooning over Barack and Michelle Obama's heavily scented "date night" in NY City and its high bar standard effect on our relationship culture, with just a hint of controversy over the taxpayer costs to add some spice. I swear I've seen this movie, only Michael Douglas was the president. Or Harrison Ford. Or one of those cool and languid characters you'd want to like you. George Bush needed to be beer-bar likable to get elected. His successor has managed to get a lot of people to want to be liked by him. And in Paris, Mr. Obama talked about how he'd love to take his wife for a romantic tour of the City of Lovers, but couldn't. Then he did . I'm guessing some regular-Joe freedom fries weren't on the menu. This guy is good. Really good. And, frankly, so far, we're not. You can't blame powerful people for wanting to play the press to peddle self-perpetuating mythology. But you can blame the press, already suffocating under a massive pile of blame, guilt, heavy debt and sinking fortunes, for being played. Some of the time, it seems we're even enthusiastically jumping into the pond without even being pushed. Is there an actual limit to the number of instances you can be the cover of Newsweek ? If I wanted to see highly manicured image management I'd just take some No-Doz and read Gavin Newsom's tweets . But the Obama-press dance is a more consensual seduction where, in the old-fashioned sense, we're the girl. (In California, there's no other option.) I thought that the Maxfield Parrish , heroic days of the Kennedy Administration PR, where the press and the president were pretty much all in on the same screenplay and the same jokes, couldn't happen in our modern era, what with paparazzi and tabloids and talk shows, citizen sound-bite scavengers and voracious 24/7 news cycles. But now that the stumbling Bushes and smirking Clintons are out of the White House, time has compressed back on itself like the machine in the Denzel Washington movie, " Deja Vu ." It's the early 1960s and Camelot all over again: Very attractive wife, cute, precocious kids and the hopes and dreams of at least 63 percent of the population sitting on the athletic shoulders of a young, charismatic, mold-breaking leader, Blah, blah. (Oh, and a Chicago Mayor Richard Daley helped make it possible. We can play the Lincoln-Kennedy parallels game here.) Only there's a puppy now instead of a pony and it seems like Barack Obama may be less socially, self-destructively libertine than Mr. Kennedy. In fact, he's downright conservative on things like same-sex marriage . (It's smart to have a wholesome life -- though very clearly, in the sinuous world of the Obamas, not to the point of abstinence -- when you're pushing programs that get labeled as socialist.) So we're in love, lust, or just a whole lot of like. Clearly we get something in exchange, whether it's a little reflected exuberance, a sense of history or just some very minor role in a fun movie. If you want to appear in a movie with John Travolta, you go willingly with him to the LA Scientology Center and are happy about it. "I'm clear, man. Hand me the cans." I'm not sure Mr. Obama is necessarily getting away with anything here. In Cairo, when he spoke of the "principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings," more than a few writers pointed out that this meant unless you're the Egyptian government or two gay people wanting to get married. What the president was saying overseas, to mostly purplish commentators' delight over the symbolic significance of the event, Dick Cheney was actually meaning in his own " freedom means freedom for everyone " speech about same-sex weddings. The style-over-substance hit followed him from continent to continent. "While the president is popular among Europeans," the Wall Street Journal wrote , "he returned from his second trip to Europe with little more progress on key issues" than he got on his first visit. That's the Journal . But the Washington Post , where the John Kennedy myth was nurtured like a golden statue, managed a cautionary op-ed column from Robert Samuelson warning that "our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power." He meant checks from the press. Samuelson was one of the few in the media to give some room to the Pew Research Center poll. So far, this is all about image and character and press "opportunities." But with what CNN financial reporter Elizabeth Cohen called this morning "gazillions of dollars" of our money at stake and crazy people with nukes bristling from around the edges of the world, we can't afford not to keep a closer eye on the substance thing. More on Barack Obama | |
| Marc Hershon: The Reverse Job Interview | Top |
| As the global workforce scrambles in the wake of the current economic turmoil, more and more candidates are vying for a shrinking number of jobs. Competition is even fiercer in the corporate arena where employees have been laid off by the thousands. So it seems crazy to worry about what you're getting yourself into when you're applying for work. What do you care if your immediate supervisor is a raving madman or the guy in the next cube can hardly wait to glom onto your best ideas and present them as his own? After all, your main concern is to simply land a steady gig. The last thing in the world you want is to call attention to yourself by being too nosy about your prospective employer. Right? Wrong. One classic mistake made by job candidates is to not ask many questions when they're being grilled. A majority of HR professionals and senior management actually welcome the curious and concerned applicant. It shows initiative. Interest. And guts. That's not to say you shouldn't be concerned about timing. Don't start blurting out questions from the get-go. There's a protocol for the way interviews work. We've all been there, and we know what the score is when it comes to being engaging, looking the interviewer in the eye and having thoughtful answers at the ready. What you're waiting for is that moment after the person with your resume in front of them has finished their inquisition, looks up and says, "Do you have any questions?" Make them count. "Where's the lunchroom at?" isn't the critical first impression for which you want to be remembered. Remember the examples up above? The raving madman boss? The conniving cubemate? Time to find out what you're getting into. In I Hate People! , the book I co-wrote with Jonathan Littman, that boss is what we call a Bulldozer, ready to run right over anyone. And Switchblade is the name we give to associates happy to call your ideas their own and grab all the credit. They're all part of the Ten Least Wanted and the door's just been opened for you, the hard-working, self-motivated Soloist, to find out how deeply they've infested your potential new employer. Tact counts. It not only can get you more information than a clumsy question, but you're likely to be valued for your discretion. So instead of asking, "Is the boss a jerk?", try "I'd like to know what kind of person I'll be working for -- how would you sum up his personality?" "Oh, Mr. Jekyll is very outgoing," replies the interviewer. "He's gregarious, high-energy and always wants to make sure people understand their assignments." Uh, oh. In reality Jekyll is likely to often morph into Hyde, a Bulldozer. Time to get out your Soloist decoder ring. "Outgoing" means "In your face." "Gregarious" translates to "loud and obnoxious." "High energy" usually means the guy refuses to stay in his office and may pop into your cube at any moment, while the last bit of information tells you that Jekyll is also a Minute Man who thinks people are boobs and need constant hand-holding to get the job done. You're beginning to see how probing the Ten Least Wanted can help you preview the people at your prospective company. Ask to see the company rules and your interviewer will likely hand you a three-ring binder crammed full with the company's employee policies. Is it filled with pages and really heavy? Then it's likely going to be weighing you down from the minute you get the job. And then there's always at least one stickler for the rules -- we call them Spreadsheets, who will be enforcing these rules like a referee. Try asking, "Who's the most cautious in the office -- the one who makes sure we stick to the plan?" If your interviewer says, "Ms. Nickerson is up to speed on corporate policy. In fact, she helped us compile them," then BAM -- there's your Spreadsheet. If you get this job, Ms. N is going to be watching you like a hawk. The reverse interview isn't just about the people. Scope out the environment. If you ask, "What's the workspace set-up?" the words you want to hear have "office" and "privacy" mixed in. What you're likely to hear is "cubicle" or "team spaces" or "open office plan." These may be accompanied by the deceptive adjective, "friendly." None of this is unexpected, but keep in mind that your neighbors' ongoing daily interruptions (around 73 a day, according to recent research figures) are likely to become your interruptions as well. Make sure you tag this bit of information with the follow-up query: "Is it cool to wear headphones at your desk to help increase productivity?" If you can't shut out the yammering, sound effects and ring-tones of your cubies' worlds, this may not be the gig you want. Finally, float a few questions to find out if there's the potential to shave off a little time for yourself. The Soloist flourishes when there's the opportunity for a little alone time, or a chance to scoot out of the office once in a while -- either to leave early or for a chunk of time in the middle of the day. "Will the company support me getting a little outside education or activities to broaden my skill set?" is a safe way to break the ice. You may be pleasantly surprised to find that your new prospective employer not only supports, but encourages such initiative. They may help to pay your way to conferences and symposiums. If you're given a cold "anything you do on your own time is fine," then you can bet just the opposite is true. Spreadsheets will probably be combing through your Facebook profile round the clock to make sure you don't have any naked party pictures that might embarrass the company. Weigh how involved and engaged the interviewer has been by the questions you got to ask. If he or she seems like they have more they'd like to say, give them the chance: "Is there anything else about the company you'd like to tell me before we finish?" You'll find out a little more that will tell you if this is the right place for you. Even better, you'll handily close out the interview on your terms. | |
| Jon Chattman: Tony's Ratings Up and Bret Michaels' Goes Boom | Top |
| It's not surprising that this year's Tony Awards telecast scored the largest ratings in three years. The show was the most enjoyable telecast in years -- packed with fine musical performances ("Hair" stole the show), a snarky-yet-charming host in Neil Patrick Harris (sushi reference=zing!), and an eclectic mix of presenters and performers who you'd never expect to see on Broadway. Tell me honestly if you thought you'd ever see Poison warming up for Liza...or at the very least frontman Bret Michaels' forehead smashing into a Broadway set. I kid. Before the awards went on, I hit the red carpet and the pre-show Lipton Gift Lounge (Frankie's Fruit & Chocolate and Anoname Jeans were just two perks for the celeb guests), and got some insight. Here's a random scrapbook of comments from the very long night... Stephen Daldry was extremely nervous. Not for himself of course. The "Billy Elliot" director was concerned his three "Billy's" wouldn't take home the Best Actor in a Musical prize. "I'm so excited for them. I love them," he said like a father would of his kids. As everyone knows, the kids didn't go home empty and neither did the British director. --- Kristin Hanggi, director of the superkickass cool "Rock of Ages," disclosed that while it was a bummer to cut them out, some of the "most fun" she's ever had was narrowing down all those great cheesy songs of the '80s to be included in the show. "We had to cut 'Cherry Pie' from Warrant, and 'Round and Round' from Ratt," she said. Axl Rose blocked the show's creators from using "Welcome to the Jungle." "That would've been amazing," she said. --- "Billy Elliot's" best bud David Bologna didn't seem to be nervous at all -- wearing a painted-on-smile along with matching orange sneaks and a bowtie. "I wanted to stand out today," he said. --- Audra MacDonald on the bizarrely-thrilling cliffhanger of Private Practice : "Did it freak me out? No, because I know Amy [Brenneman] is signed for next season." --- Marc Kudisch, a nominee for "9 to 5: The Musical," is loving Dolly Parton's tunes. "She's written good music," the Broadway vet said with a smile. As to whether or not Dabney Coleman is aware of the fact that he's walking around with his mustache, he said, "Dabney Coleman knows I'm walking around with his mustache. What I do is nothing like he did in the film because to try to copy him would be stupid. I'll be honest with you, this [mustache] is more of an ode to Burt Reynolds." --- Lucy Arnez tried out for "Billy Elliot," but didn't get it. She's up for doing another show on Broadway but it has to be a good fit. --- Chandra Wilson lit up the red carpet. The "Grey's Anatomy" star was at the Tony's on the eve of stepping into the role of Mama Morton in "Chicago." Her hope? "To blend right in [with the cast]." Good luck doing that. She's much too good an actress for that to happen. | |
| Christine Hassler: Part 2: The Rite Of Passage For Today's Twenty-Something Woman | Top |
| In my column last week , I discussed the rite of passage that a woman goes through in her twenties which brought forward great comments and questions so I'm continuing the conversation. Next week I'll summarize the two columns by featuring specific tips for twenty-something transformation. But if you want concrete action steps for how to figure out who you are and what you want, they don't really exist because nobody can tell you how to figure out yourself better than you! While it's true that life is an on-going process of evolution and discovery, the twenty-something decade of a woman's life presents a critical time to answer a call from within. Yet often this call is drown out by immense internal and external pressure to answer questions regarding career, relationships, money, body, family, and everything else on the "having it all" checklist. Today's young woman is rarely in the present moment because she spends so much time thinking about the future. The here and now can be uncomfortable when feelings of confusion, sadness, anxiety, fear, anger, frustration and so on surface. The present moment is where all her answers lie; however, voices from her past and the call of expectations of the future drown out her inner voice. Last week, I asked the question: Do you want to crawl through life or do you want to spread your wings and FLY? From my perspective, crawling through life is living according to the expectations of others or societal standards that we internalize. Doing overpowers being. When we are crawling through life, we are lead by the mind/ego and buy into a false illusion of control. Although it may feel safe to live belly to the ground, fear of failure or the unknown actually become roadblocks to an uplifting and fulfilling life. Flying involves taking leaps of faith and jumping into the unknown. It is coming from place of inspiration rather than expectation. Inspiration is an inside job though and today's young women are too busy searching for someone or something else to light them up. We've got inspiration backwards as we've been conditioned to decide what we want to be and who we want to be with before we figure out ourselves. To truly fly, a woman must risk giving up all her preconceived notions about who she "should" be and what life is "supposed" to be like. She has to be willing to give up the job, relationship or any other circumstance or expectation that is distracting her from living an authentic life. What is so tricky is that often things can look really fantastic from the outside which makes them challenging to transition out of. But just as a caterpillar knows it is time to stop being a caterpillar, that there is something even more beautiful it is destined to become; every woman intuitively knows when something is not in alignment with who she truly is. Like the caterpillar, she must journey through the Chrysalis process that involves entering a self-made cocoon. During the time spent in this cocoon she may encounter struggle, doubt, isolation, and darkness; however, she emerges a beautiful, vibrantly colored butterfly that can now fly. Every woman wants to fly, but she is often too scared to step into the cocoon of self-discovery which involves an unraveling of all her expectations, limiting beliefs, and insecurities. Often a woman will step into the cocoon and as soon as it gets too hard or too dark, she will look for something or someone to pull her out. And when she does, she interrupts her own transformation process and emerges before she is fully formed. Consequently, she makes decisions and enters into situations that she may someday outgrow. Women come to me with questions about what and how to add to their life, but true transformation is about letting go. If a woman is willing to consciously make the choice to let go of her old stories of doubt, unworthiness and insecurity, she has the opportunity to move into a level of self-acceptance that is so profound she no longer seeks anything or anyone to complete her. This is true empowerment. As we lighten up, we discover that taking flight is much sweeter than squirming around on the ground. If you are feeling some kind of internal angst, don't worry! It may be the call of transformation. Answer it. Be willing to let go of everything you think you need to be and do. Take leaps of faith -- now is the time to learn how to fly. Take inventory of your life and determine what isn't serving or supporting you. If nothing feels terribly wrong, yet nothing feels terribly right either, don't settle! Why play it safe and settle for something you know is not really YOU? Give up the career path that looks good on paper but has your stomach tied in knots. Give up the relationship that you are in for its potential that keeps you up at night. Give up the dreams mom and dad had for you and create your own. Give up the need to be more, better or different. Give up wanting to be like or liked by someone else. Be willing to step into the cocoon and do the work. Sometimes all you have to do is be willing to change and the change begins -- it's resistance that keeps us where we are. Yes you may make what you think are mistakes and yes you may be uncomfortable but wouldn't that all be worth it if you could fly? More on The Balanced Life | |
| Joshua Glazer: Pirates Gain Seat in EU Parliament | Top |
| They're not the "yo-ho-ho" kind of pirates, nor the much scarier "taking-ships-hostage-with-rocket-launchers" pirates. But Sweden's Pirate Party won a seat in the European Parliament in yesterday's election, winning 7% of their country's vote. This could mean the start of a meanful debate regarding copyright and it's application to modern web technology. There is little doubt that the current system of copyright protection is broken. It has criminalized an entire generation in the similar way to the War on Drugs (although the resource expenditures and incarceration rates are incomparable). In this country, it has been most prominently seen in the RIAA's lawsuits against the downloaders of illegal music--from college students to mothers and grandfathers. In Sweden, a case against bittorrent site The Pirate Bay found its four co-founders convicted of copyright infringement with potential punishment up to a year in prison and $3.8 million in fines. The case, which was Twittered from the courtroom by one of the defendants, is actually being credited as a catalyst in yesterday's victory. As a music media professional, I am torn by the debate on illegal downloading. On the one hand, I have watched the magazine industry decimated by the effects of downloading, aggregating and other online practices that the most conservative would deem 'infringement." At the same time, the record labels which once supported my particular strand of coverage have had it even worse, with sales plummeting and, along with it, ad dollars to support music media. I have little doubt that my professional career would have been on much stronger footing in the '90s, before the web's widespread usage. At the same time, I am a long time music downloader who has used pirated media for both my personal pleasure as well as achieving some professional tasks, i.e. -- sending MP3s to reviewers rather going through the time consuming process of requesting promotional CDs (technically breaking the letter of copyright law in the process.) I am also a DJ who must actively use online music blogs to stay competitive by acquiring the newest songs long before they are available for commercial release. I've not yet graduated to film downloading, but my DVD player just died and the pricing on cables to connect my computer to my HDTV are very cheap indeed. I don't have the solution to striking a balance between content consumers and producers. But I pray someone figures it out before I lose my job and I can't pay my broadband bill. Having proponents of open access such as the Pirate Party in seats of power might at least change the tone of the current discussion. Here's hoping that change turns out for the better. More on Pirates | |
| Sharon Glassman: Why Can't Women Sleep? Part V - The Zzz-inducing Joy of Things Gone Wrongly Right | Top |
| Not sleeping can dent a person's sense of humor. So I was doubly-delighted to hear from women on the forefront of our collective search for a good night's rest that things-gone-wrong can can lead to a good night's zzzs. Their stories made me smile. And I hope you'll get a little uplift from them, too. This post begins at the NYC's Kimpton Hotel on Park Avenue . There, General Manager Ericka Nelson, in addition to her professional role, is the loving wife of a snoring husband. For the first two years of her marriage, she told me during a phone chat, she woke up "about 15 times a night" to ask her log-sawing beloved to roll over. The result, as you could imagine, was that Ericka, like so many of us, had become a woman with a taxing professional career and a less than perfect night-life. A snoring bed partner is the stuff of countless sitcom scenes. But in real life, it's the sleep-deprived person's version of secondhand smoke. And Ericka Nelso was getting it fifteen times per night. So far, so bad. But here is where the smile factor comes in. Through a bit of research, Ericka in her role as snore-disturbed sleeper, found a pillow that allowed her husband to breathe better at night. "How did it work for him?" I asked. She laughed. "The question is, how did it work for me?" Her husband had slept through the night in both cases. But now, thanks to the pillow, she was getting a full night's rest. A woman who's had a full eight hours of restful sleep isn't just good-humored. She's creative. The travelers who came to the Kimpton, like so many business travelers, were flying in from different times zones. Their bodies were frazzled. Their minds were full of To-Dos. They were practically auditioning for the role of people suffering from impaired rest in a non-existent musical. "Hotel: Up All Night." And this is where the bad things inspiring good zzzs part of this story starts. Because Ericka Nelson had a husband who snored, she had discovered an anti-snore pillow. And because she is the kind of person whose passion for her job comes across a phone at 2,000 miles, she started to stock these pillows in her hotel. That offering grew into a room-service menu of sleep products that - please excused the mixed-metaphor - just might be an insomniac's dream. Dial room service at The Kimpton (if one is lucky enough to be able to foot a hotel bill in these fraught-with-so-mega-many-why's-n-whatsy economic times - which is the kind of subject that can keep me up worrying all night - and which I shall move on from now, whistling optimistically as if passing a ghost in the dark; tra-la-om...-la?) and you can order up footy pajamas ($80 for adults; $25 for kids), fuzzy slipper-socks ($15) a turkey sandwich ($12) or a Teddy Bear ($25). You can also borrow an anti-snore pillow, a body pillow, aromatherapy pillow. Not to mention a magnetic pillow said to undo "swelling and discomfort...insomnia and fatigue," an iPod assortment of lullabies and ambient sounds to promote sleep, a nightlight, chocolate-flavored melatonin-and-GABA infused sleep supplements, fans an and eye-mask. I was going to frame the Kimpton's sleep take-out menu and hang it above my bed like a somnia-inducing talisman. The offerings were so great-sounding. And the little take-out menu was so cute! But it seemed wiser - or at least more scientific - to test-drive a pillow. The US mail did the work of room-service. And within a few days, I had a snore pillow and several melatonin-sleep supplements to test-drive at the place I decided to call Hotel H.O.M.E. for the duration of my test. There was just one problem with my experiment: I had forgotten to tell the folks at Kimpton that my current sleep partner - my dog, bb - didn't snore. Luckily, I had my testers. My friends, the husband-and-wife life and business team of Dana and Andrea , agreed to give the anti-snore pillow a try. Dana snored, Andrea told me. And the snoring did keep her up at night. A few days later, they dropped by to deliver their verdict. The anti-snoring pillow was a failure - and a huge success! The pillow didn't stop Dana from snoring. But when Andrea borrowed it, she slept like a baby. As it turned out, Dana admitted, while it doesn't keep him at night, the fact is: his beloved wife snores a bit, too. The pillow she'd borrowed "for her husband" had eased her breathing. So far, so fabulous. Now, for the melatonin-GABA-choco bits. I didn't feel comfortable asking anyone to ingest anything. So I decided to test the sleep supplements myself. Or at least to try to test them. The truth was, I couldn't get past my assumption that chocolate was something that would keep me up at night. Ericka at Kimpton had reassured me that the chocolate flavor was minimal and wouldn't up my energies. I took a half of one the first night and slept fine. On night two, I took a whole one and woke up halfway through the night. The experiment was a bust, I decided. The truth is, melatonin can be helpful in getting folks to sleep. But falling asleep has never been my problem. But even this "failure" had its upside. The remaining supplements, in their lovely brown wrappings make me smile each night as I'm preparing for bed. I may not be able to order room service - the dog hasn't learned to deliver - but I can tuck the little chocolates under my pillow if I choose, and pretend... Two more test drives - of a sleep tracking watch and a new take on Brahmari breath - coming up next. | |
| Jen Groover: The Race Within | Top |
| There are a myriad of powerful, practical, and universal lessons to be gleaned from the science and art of racing. For me, two of these became apparent in elementary school when I was competing in the Junior Olympic's 200 Meter race. After assuming a strong lead, and despite the fact that my coach at the time had repeatedly warned me that losing focus of the finish line would cost me the race, I allowed the sound of impending footsteps from behind to distract me to the point that I turned my head, stumbled slightly, lost the lead, and worst of all, got completely taken out of my game. I vowed that day to grow from my mistake and forever carry these nuggets of wisdom with me (which have since become cornerstones of my success): Avoid Looking in Your Peripheral View Don't confuse this as meaning that you should be unaware. I was very aware of what was happening in my race as the footsteps and heavy breath of the girl behind me made her presence and position abundantly clear. What I didn't need to do was look back at her and give-in to my curiosity of who this person was who dare try and pass me. Too often I see people, personally and professionally, consumed with what other people around them are doing, rather than focusing on themselves; their goals, personal bests and action steps to achieve them. When you concentrate your energy (mental, physical, or emotional) on anything other than "your race" you are in essence hindering your chances to win. If you constantly see others around you as nothing but your competition and become more consumed with what they are doing than with what you need to do, chances are you will not only lose but be miserable too. Stay Focused on the Positive and Productive This plays hand-in-hand with lesson #1. It's much easier to block out the noise of "the competition" and stay within yourself when you keep your eye on the prize and your thoughts centered on positive outcomes. In the case of my story, counter-productive emotions won out. I let my fear of being passed up on the track overtake my desire to experience the thrill of winning/running a great race. Unfortunately, in entrepreneurs eager to launch an idea, I often see this tendency to succumb to fear when it's time to share their idea with others; worrying that it will be stolen if they talk about it. When it comes to these concerns I like to challenge myself and other entrepreneurs to adopt a defiantly positive mindset and think more along the lines of "Go ahead, steal my idea if you want. I'll just come up with another and another and another -- and each one will be better than the last!" Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that you actually say that or that it's not imperative to protect your intellectual property, but you can see how an attitude that's centered on inner-strength and belief creates a confident, resilient aura and keeps unproductive emotions from paralyzing your efforts. It takes an incredible amount of energy to see a concept through to market and positivity is an entrepreneur's lightning rod. Be sure to treat it as the invaluable currency that it is. There's a very poignant, and now famous, quote from a faux college commencement speech by Mary Schmich that goes, "Sometimes you're ahead, sometimes you're behind. The race is long, and in the end, it's only with yourself." So true. So stay focused on the prize of your own race. And don't worry about who's in front, behind, or beside you -- there will be more than enough drama in your own journey to keep the story interesting. | |
| Sarah Palin's Toenails: What's Painted On Them? (PHOTOS, POLL) | Top |
| At the Autism Speaks walk in Purchase, New York on Sunday, something about Sarah Palin's toenails stood out. Take a closer look below and let us know what you think it is. More on Sarah Palin | |
| Chris Weigant: A Question For Dick Cheney: Should We Now Waterboard Tiller's Murderer? | Top |
| I have a question for former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has been staunchly defending the Bush administration's use of waterboarding and other torture against prisoners in our care. My question: Should Scott Roeder, accused murderer of abortion doctor George Tiller, now be waterboarded? Roeder has just gone on the record stating that further violence is coming, in "many similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal." In other words, Roeder is claiming the now-infamous "ticking time bomb" scenario of what can only be termed domestic terrorism. So, Mr. Cheney, doesn't this mean (following your own "logic") that Roeder should immediately be waterboarded to tell us what he knows? Anything less, by your standards, would be hypocritically picking and choosing which terrorists get a pass, and which don't. Following Roeder's provacative statements to the Associated Press, this seems like a textbook case of a ticking-time-bomb scenario. Anti-abortion terrorism has a long and sordid history in America, meaning that the threat must be taken seriously. But, so far, it has not been. News organizations have mysteriously shied away from calling Roeder what he is -- a domestic terrorist. Or, to assuage journalistic (and legalistic) sensibilities -- an alleged domestic terrorist (by this rule, he's "alleged" or "accused" until he has been convicted in a court of law). To date, I haven't seen this term used once in any of the news reports about Tiller's murderer. But it certainly fits the description of terrorism, as far as I can tell. Yet there has been no talk of charging him with any terrorism crimes (although by now, the law certainly allows this to happen). Arsonists committing crimes as part of the "Earth Liberation Front" have had terrorism enhancements added to their sentences, even though they didn't kill anyone, because they were trying to effect a change in government policy by violence and criminal actions. Meaning the legal precedent is clear for domestic terrorism cases. And Roeder has already killed someone (OK, "allegedly" killed someone), and has now made dark threats of "more actions" to come by people across the country. This, again, is a textbook description of domestic terrorism. And anyone who thinks domestic terrorism isn't a real concern should go to Oklahoma City and stare at the space where the federal building used to be for a few hours. Of course, Roeder could be merely drawing attention to his case. The AP article points this out: "It wasn't clear whether Roeder knew of any impending violence or whether he was simply seeking publicity for his cause." But how can we be sure? Are we (to use Cheneyian logic) supposed to sit around and wait and see what happens, or are we to aggressively interrogate Roeder to foil such plots as may exist before they kill other Americans? And, still using Cheney's legal theories, the constitutionality of doing so shouldn't even be a question. Dick Cheney is still convinced that everything he ordered done to prisoners was legal, constitutional, and necessary to protect the American public. So I am aware that as far as Cheney's concerned, it doesn't even enter the conversation. So, Mr. Cheney, I ask again: Should Roeder be immediately waterboarded in an effort to make him tell us what he knows? Now, even using Cheney's reasoning, there might seem to be a way to back out of this question. After all, Roeder (allegedly) only killed one person. And even if there were a wave of copycat killings, it would all be rather small in the grand scheme of things. So, technically, it could be argued that since it doesn't rise to the level of "mass" killing, even if it is terrorism, it's such low-grade terrorism that it doesn't rise to the level of "enhanced interrogation." Once again, though, how are we to be sure? The specter of Oklahoma City looms once again. Timothy McVeigh can't be called anything less than a "mass murderer," or (more accurately) a "domestic terrorist." This would also raise the bar for defending waterboarding that has already happened. If your position (as is Cheney's) is that waterboarding foiled plots and saved American lives, then each one would have to hit the standard of "saved Americans from a mass killing." Which, one assumes, would be a harder bridge to cross. The media, since it has been delighted with Cheney's defense of waterboarding for months now, really need to ask him this question. After all, Cheney's been interviewed by the media so many times recently you'd think they'd have run out of their standard questions and enthusiastically embrace new things to ask him by now. Cheney's daughter Liz has been all over the news as well (with a reported 22 appearances in the past month alone), defending her father's actions and policies. So this is a timely question for an honest journalist to now ask either Cheney or his daughter, due to the breaking news of Roeder's brash statement to the AP: "Given the fact that Dr. Tiller's accused murderer has now warned from prison to expect further 'events' as long as abortion is legal, and given the fact that we simply don't know what accomplices he may have had, and given your strong defense of 'enhanced interrogation' in what has been called the 'ticking time bomb scenario'; would you now support waterboarding Scott Roeder to find out exactly what he knows and to thwart further domestic terrorism? Why or why not?" But, seeing as how the media has so far been too timid to even call Roeder a domestic terrorist, I am not exactly filled with confidence that any "journalist" will ask him this seemingly-obvious question any time soon. Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com More on Harsh Interrogations | |
| Quinn Making Headway On Clemency Backlog | Top |
| CHICAGO (AP) -- Gordon "Randy" Steidl left Danville Correctional Center in 2004 after spending more than 17 years in prison, including 12 on death row, for a double murder he didn't commit. But the fact he was exonerated of the crime doesn't help him much in the real world. Without a pardon from the governor to wipe his record clean, Steidl must mark "yes" on job applications that ask only if he's been convicted of a crime, not whether he actually committed one. His request for clemency was one of about 2,500 gathering dust on former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's desk when he was ousted from office in January, leaving the state with a backlog of neglected petitions second only to the federal government's, experts say. "The huge backlog ... has been a source of great shame for the state of Illinois for the last five or six years," said Jorge Montes, chairman of the state's Prisoner Review Board. "Illinois stood out as a bad example of a governor who was not taking this responsibility seriously." New Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn says he hopes to review all petitions - from people asking that their criminal records be erased or their prison sentences shortened - by the end of the year. Since he took office in January, he's approved 46 and turned down another 50. A chunk of those petitions dates to January 2003, the month Blagojevich took office. "The governor's made a commitment to get the state back on its feet and running again, and this is part of doing that," said Quinn spokeswoman Marlena Jentz. Clemency is an umbrella term that includes everything from pardons and expunging a criminal record to commutation of a prison sentence. The federal system had 2,172 petitions for pardon or commutation pending when President Barack Obama took office, and another 676 have come in this fiscal year, according to the Department of Justice. Margaret Love, who tracks state pardon boards and governors, said she doesn't know of another state with a backlog bigger than that in Illinois. All states have a pardon process, but as of 2005 just 13 of them, including Illinois, have granted a substantial number of pardons each year, according to Love's book, "Relief from the Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Conviction: State by State Resource Guide." In Pennsylvania, the pardon board has a backlog of 1,400 to 1,500 applications awaiting action, and so far this year has sent more than 90 recommendations to Gov. Edward Rendell that he has yet to address, according to board secretary John Heaton. Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry faces a backlog of between 400 and 500 cases. In 2008, he granted 1,664 paroles and 54 pardons, and denied 89 paroles and 19 commutations, said J.D. Daniels, deputy director of the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board. People seek clemency to pursue better jobs or more education, to seek compensation from the state or clear their names before they die. And in some cases, a conviction can affect applicants' immigration status. For Steidl, 57, clemency would mean he'd never again have to explain to a potential employer why it took him so long to get out of prison. He first filed for clemency under former Republican Gov. George Ryan in late 2002 and submitted an amended petition in 2005, after he'd been freed. "The cards are pretty much stacked against you, and it's pretty frustrating," said Steidl, who has had difficulty finding a job. "That piece of paper would clear my name once and for all, and I wouldn't have to constantly explain those 17-plus years." When Blagojevich became governor, there were 10 clemency petitions awaiting review. He granted 134 during his six years in office and denied 2,200, but left even more unanswered. Illinois' backlog under Blagojevich was so frustrating that the General Assembly last fall passed a law allowing exonerees to petition the county court of their conviction for "certificates of innocence," which would allow them to seek compensation even without a gubernatorial pardon. Lawyers with the Governors Office of the General Counsel have been going through the backlog one case at a time since Quinn took office, making sure petitioners have had a recent background check, Jentz said. The governor's office declined to discuss the details of Quinn's process for going over the petitions. All awaiting his decision have been reviewed by the state's Prisoner Review Board, which provided a confidential recommendation about whether they should be approved. The 13-member board continued to hold quarterly public hearings and forward recommendations, despite the former governor's inaction. "There was a great sense of angst, if you will, and we were frankly disheartened at all the work the board had done that was ignored," Montes said of Blagojevich's tenure. The prisoner review board considers 150-200 cases each quarter, down from a high of 400 cases per quarter in 2003, Montes said, adding that the number plateaued as petitioners got discouraged that the governor wasn't ruling on them. Defense attorneys and advocates for the accused have long resented Blagojevich's inaction, and they felt stung in the days after his Dec. 9 arrest on corruption charges when aides said he was avoiding the public eye because he was hard at work reviewing clemency petitions. That month, Blagojevich pardoned 22 people. He also pardoned two on his last day in office, just hours before legislators voted to oust him. Steidl said he looks forward to having the peace of mind a pardon would bring. "When you've served all that time and had over a third of your life stolen from you, there needs to be a system in place in Illinois that can expedite your name being cleared once and for all to try to make yourself whole again," he said. "If that's ever possible." -ASSOCIATED PRESS | |
| AP: House Dems Favor Health Insurance Mandate | Top |
| WASHINGTON — House Democrats drafting health care legislation are considering slapping an unspecified financial penalty on anyone who refuses to purchase affordable health insurance, officials said Monday. These officials, who include both Democrats and lobbyists briefed on the emerging proposal, also said top lawmakers may call for a new tax on certain health insurance benefits as one of numerous options to help pay for expanding coverage to the uninsured. No details were immediately available, and no final decisions are expected until next week at the earliest. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt a presentation set for Tuesday for members of the House Democratic rank and file. The officials said the emerging legislation will include a government-run insurance option as well as plans offered by private companies. The government option draws near-unanimous opposition from Republicans and provokes concerns among many Democrats, as well, although President Barack Obama has spoken out in favor of it. Under the emerging House Democratic plan, individuals and small businesses would be able to purchase coverage from a "health exchange" and the government would require all plans to contain a minimum benefit, these officials added. No applicant could be rejected for pre-existing conditions, nor could they be charged a higher premium, they said. House Democrats also are considering a wide-ranging change for Medicaid that would provide a uniform benefit across all 50 states and increase payments to providers, according to several officials. Medicaid is a state-federal program of health coverage for the poor. The disclosures came as the pace of activity quickened in both the House and Senate on health insurance legislation, a top priority for the administration. Obama is scheduled to meet on Wednesday at the White House with key House Democrats, according to one official. Democratic leaders hope to pass legislation in both houses by the first few days of August, and complete work on a compromise measure in the fall for Obama's signature. Obama has stepped up his own involvement in the issue in recent days, and there has been a flurry of negotiations involving outside interest groups who have pledged to take steps to achieve savings within the private insurance market. Alongside those efforts, financing Obama's plan to spread coverage more widely carries a price tag estimated at higher than $1 trillion over a decade. House Democrats are considering cutting projected Medicare payments to home health care, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, hospitals and others to cover costs. The option for taxing insurance benefits is also under consideration as part of legislation taking shape across the Capitol in the Senate Finance Committee. Obama attacked the idea aggressively during his campaign for the White House after his rival candidate John McCain proposed it. In recent weeks, the president and his aides have sought to straddle the issue, neither accepting it nor ruling it out. Equally troublesome politically is the issue of a government insurance option. Critics argue it would render private companies unable to compete, and it has emerged as a key sticking point in the Democratic search for a bipartisan plan in the Senate. All the Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee except one wrote Obama recently telling him he was making a mistake if he insisted on a government option. The exception was Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who has been trying to find a compromise that would make a government plan available as a last resort if health insurance remains unaffordable for many families even after Congress overhauls the system. Even before last fall's general election, health care was a key issue in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination. Obama proposed requiring parents to buy health insurance for children, with a possible fine if parents refused. But he would not insist that all adults buy insurance. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was a New York senator at the time as well as a presidential candidate, said a mandate was essential. At one point, she said she was open to garnisheeing the wages of anyone who refused to comply. ___ Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report. | |
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. |
No comments:
Post a Comment