Monday, June 1, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Governor, Lawmakers Meet, Still No Budget Solution Top
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) -- Gov. Pat Quinn and top Illinois lawmakers promise they'll genuinely work together in a new push to solve the state's budget crisis. The five officials met for about 90 minutes Monday in the governor's Springfield office. Quinn says the tone of the meeting was that "we are a team." State officials were supposed to come up with a new budget by Sunday night. That meant figuring out how to fill an $11.6 billion budget deficit. But lawmakers couldn't agree on a mix of spending cuts and tax increases to close the gap. Republican leaders say Democrats have agreed to take a new look at reforms to government pension and health programs to cut costs. -ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
Carlos Bledsoe, Muslim Convert Opposed To US Military, Shot And Killed Army-Navy Recruiter Top
A Muslim convert who said he was opposed to the U.S. military shot two soldiers outside an Arkansas recruiting station, killing one of the soldiers, police said Monday.
 
Chastened Aldermen Want More Time To Review City Privatization Deals Top
Burned by the problem-plagued privatization of Chicago's 36,000 parking meters, aldermen moved Monday to slow down and shine the light on future asset sales.
 
The Ultimate Lock Picker Hacks Pentagon, Beats Corporate Security for Fun and Profit (VIDEO) Top
Tobias is laughing. And laughing. The effect is disconcerting. It's a bwa-ha-ha kind of evil mastermind laugh--appropriate if you've just sacked Constantinople, checkmated Deep Blue, or handed Superman a Dixie cup of kryptonite Kool-Aid, but downright scary in a midtown Manhattan restaurant during the early-bird special.
 
Michael J. Panzner: The Trouble with Markets Top
In recent months, the spread between short and long-term bond yields has increased significantly, hitting record extremes. Many market-watchers believe the widening differential reflects two concerns. The first centers on whether the market can absorb the tsunami of government bond sales needed to fund the various bailouts and stimulus measures Washington has agreed to, as well as the budget gaps that have opened up as the economy has weakened. There is also a growing fear that the recent jump in government borrowing and the Federal Reserve's efforts to boost liquidity through "quantitative easing" -- that is, by cranking up the monetary printing presses -- will trigger a bout of inflation that slashes the future value of the money that will be used to pay off these obligations. But not everybody agrees with this assessment. According to a recent Reuters report, Federal Reserve officials are "puzzled" by the steepening yield curve. While they accept that investor worries over inflation could be behind the recent moves, they also allow for other explanations. One possibility, Reuters writes, is that the steepening yield curve -- along with an overall increase in bond yields -- suggest "an economic recovery is more certain, meaning less need for safe haven government bonds and a healthy demand for credit." Alternatively, some central bankers believe it could be a technical development, reflecting a decision by China, "the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury debt,... to refocus its portfolio by leaning more heavily on shorter-term maturities." With all of that in mind, it's probably fair to say that the message of this particular market is somewhat muddled, and that the moves seen so far could point to any number of outcomes, leaving observers in the dark as to just what the future holds. But this is not the only example of markets sending a mixed -- or even a misleading -- signal. Recent trading in the shares of General Motors represents another case in point. Last Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported that GM's bondholders "soundly rejected a debt-swap offer critical to the auto maker's survival, pushing the company closer to a bankruptcy filing that could come in the next few days." The shares fell on the news, though, oddly, not by much. They closed at $1.12, down three cents. A story in Friday's Journal , "GM in Last Lap to Chapter 11," was even more specific about the company's ominous near-term prospects, noting that a bankruptcy filing was planned for Monday and that current GM shareholders would end up with nothing. Not suprisingly, the shares came under further pressure, dropping by a third to $0.75. Not quite zero, but bolstered, perhaps, by hopes of a weekend miracle. Today's trading, however, was something else, reflecting what appears to be a major disconnect between markets and reality. Before trading even began, news reports and remarks by lawyers, policymakers, and bankers made it clear that the 100-year-old car manufacturer was heading to bankruptcy court. Given that the company's liabilities are far in excess of its assets, that meant shareholders would almost certainly end up with nothing, nada, zilch once it was all over. And yet...when trading stopped at 4 o'clock, the shares ended unchanged on the day. Strange, indeed. The point, of course, is that what takes place in markets doesn't always make a whole lot of sense, nor does it necessarily serve as a firm guidepost to what may (or may not) happen in future. In fact, that notion was no more evident than when share prices were powering to all-time highs in October 2007 -- amid all sorts of evidence that the financial world was in serious trouble, and just two months before the start of one of the worst downturns this century. With that in mind, some might wonder what the recent near-40 percent rally in the S&P 500 index -- which the bulls blindly cheer as a leading indicator of good times to come -- is really telling us. More on Stimulus Package
 
Chicagoan Earns New Yorker Cartoon Caption Contest Win Record Top
We have a winner. Larry Wood, a lawyer with the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago, just found out this morning that he's won the New Yorker's Cartoon Caption Contest for a record third time.
 
CIA Reveals Fallen Officer Top
WASHINGTON -- When Gregg Wenzel died six years ago in Ethiopia, the obituaries said he was a U.S. Foreign Service officer killed by a drunken driver on the streets of Addis Ababa.
 
Nicholas Stephanopoulos: Resurrecting Bush v. Gore Top
To the extent Democrats think about Bush v. Gore these days, they remember it as the worst Supreme Court decision in decades - a nakedly partisan ruling by five conservative justices hell-bent on installing George W. Bush in the White House. Bush v. Gore was all this and more, but it also recognized, for the first time, a powerful progressive principle: that all voters in a state, and all ballots they cast, should be treated equally whenever elections are held. It was precisely because Florida's recount procedures varied dramatically by county, and thus did not treat all voters and ballots equally, that the Court ruled for Bush and ordered a halt to the vote-counting. In the eight-plus years since Bush v. Gore was decided, its equal-treatment principle has largely failed to take root, either in practice or as a legal precedent. Disparities in the number and operation of polling places, the types of voting machines used, and the treatment of provisional and absentee ballots have continued unabated . (These disparities are particularly pronounced between rich and poor communities and in swing states like Ohio.) Lower courts have shied away from directing states to adopt uniform election administration rules, even in a California case where it was undeniable that some voters would have to use inferior punch-card machines. And not a single Supreme Court opinion has even cited Bush v. Gore - let alone applied it in an effort to redress some electoral inequity. Enter Norm Coleman. In the ongoing litigation over the whisker-thin loss of his U.S. Senate seat to Al Franken, he has wagered everything on a Bush v. Gore -style claim of unequal treatment. Specifically, Coleman argues that Minnesota counties improperly used different standards in deciding whether to accept absentee ballots, and that the trial court then wrongly enforced a stricter standard than the "substantial compliance" approach used by most counties. Coleman now asks the Minnesota Supreme Court to apply a single, relatively lax standard to all previously rejected absentee ballots, which would result in many of those ballots being counted. As the trial court ruled (and as Franken argues ), there are several problems with Coleman's position. Unlike in Bush v. Gore , Minnesota law is actually quite clear as to when absentee ballots should be accepted. Election officials across the state were trained under the same comprehensive program. The variations from county to county were relatively minor and linked to differences in resources. There was no evidence of intentional discrimination against Coleman voters. And the relatively lax standard now advocated by Coleman is in tension with Minnesota law. But while Coleman's odds of prevailing may be low, progressives have good reason to cheer him on. First, if the Minnesota Supreme Court were to rule in his favor, it would mark the highest-profile victory of an unequal-treatment claim since Bush v. Gore itself. Such a victory would confirm that Bush v. Gore was not a one-ride-only ticket, good for George W. Bush and no one else. Concern that the decision was so limited - fueled by the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous declaration that its "consideration is limited to the present circumstances" - was one of the main reasons Bush v. Gore seemed partisan and arbitrary to many observers. For other courts to cite and apply the decision is the best way for it to become integrated into the rule of law. Second, a judicial victory for Coleman would be a short-term setback but a longer-term win for both Democrats and the country. American elections are radically decentralized , with each state making its own rules and typically devolving a great deal of authority to counties and even towns. This system gives rise to endless complexity and confusion , while also tending to disadvantage Democrats . After all, it is poor, minority, and elderly communities (all of which lean Democratic) that typically have the oldest and least reliable voting machines, the longest lines, and the worst-trained election officials. A ruling for Coleman would have no immediate impact on these pervasive disparities, given the relative narrowness of the legal issue being decided. But it would likely make other courts more receptive to Bush v. Gore -style challenges, and fearing judicial scrutiny, state legislatures might be motivated to enact fairer and more uniform election administration policies on their own. Third, the circumstances of the Coleman-Franken litigation make intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court very improbable. Franken would be unlikely to turn to the federal courts if the Minnesota Supreme Court rules against him, preferring to take his chances as previously rejected absentee ballots are counted. Even if he did eventually appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, it would almost certainly decline to hear the case. The Court has shown no interest in revisiting Bush v. Gore (let alone expanding its holding), and it would want neither to ratify Franken's election nor to expose itself to fresh charges of partisanship by ruling for Coleman. Best of all for Democrats, Franken's lead would probably go up, not down, if more absentee ballots were counted. Thanks to then-Senator Obama's unprecedented get-out-the-vote efforts, the absentee vote in 2008 heavily favored Democrats. When the trial court ordered 952 previously rejected absentee ballots to be counted, Franken won them by almost twenty points , adding 176 votes to his lead over Coleman. So if even more ballots were counted, pursuant to Coleman's laxer standard for determining validity, Franken's lead would likely swell even further. The Franken-Coleman litigation therefore gives Democrats an opportunity to have their cake and eat it too. A victory for Coleman would entrench the equal-treatment principle that the Supreme Court opportunistically adopted in Bush v. Gore , while striking a blow for fairer and more consistent election practices. The Court would also be unlikely to intervene, and, at the end of the day, it would still be Al Franken taking office as the Democratic Party's sixtieth Senator. (This column was originally published in Dissent Magazine .) More on Al Franken
 
Project Natal: New Xbox Technology Allows For Controller-Less Gaming Top
YAHOO FINANCE Derrik J. Lang, AP Entertainment Writer LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Gamers, get ready for your close-up. Microsoft introduced a prototype camera Monday that can be used as a controller for the Xbox 360. Codenamed "Project Natal," the camera eliminates the need for a handheld input device -- instead, the gizmo can track a player's full body movement, recognize their face and voice, scan images of real items and respond to both physical and vocal commands. Microsoft also debuted 10 exclusive new games and several additions to the Xbox Live online service at their flashy Electronic Entertainment Expo press conference at University of Southern California's Galen Center. But the biggest gee-whiz moment came when Microsoft senior vice president Don Mattrick and Steven Spielberg introduced "Project Natal." "Two months ago, Don shared with me the 'Natal' experience, and the gamer in me went out of my mind when I got to be really interactive with this," said Spielberg, a game developer as well as filmmaker. "More dramatically, I felt like I was present for a historic moment, a moment as significant as the transformation from the square-shaped movie screen to CinemaScope and then to IMAX." During the press conference, "Project Natal" was demonstrated with three prototype programs: "Ricochet," a soccer-like game which required the player to use their entire body to bounce balls at targets; "Paint Party," an art-making program that used the player's body as the brush; and "Milo," a virtual boy who communicated and interacted with the player. "This is all about breaking down barriers the only way Xbox 360 can," Microsoft corporate vice president Shane Kim said before the conference. "For far too long, the controller has kept people from playing games. 'Project Natal' totally eliminates the need for a controller, and we believe it's going to bring people together in a way we haven't seen before." The "Project Natal" prototype device showcased at the E3 press conference combines a camera, depth sensor, microphone and processor running proprietary software. Kim said game developers would receive "Project Natal" development kits Monday, and that there was no date set for when the device and accompanying software would be available to the public. The loud event wasn't all about "Project Natal." Several announcements were made about Xbox 360's video capabilities including increased functionality with the Netflix online service, streaming 1080p high-definition video, live TV in the United Kingdom via the Sky network and the ability to watch selected movies online with friends with Xbox Live Party. Among the 10 new games announced that will be released exclusively on the Xbox 360: the open-world action sequel "Crackdown 2," New Orleans-set zombie-killing sequel "Left 4 Dead 2," stealthy third-person shooter "Splinter Cell Conviction," sleek racer "Forza Motorsport 3," first-person shooter "Halo: ODST" and psychological thriller "Alan Wake." For the Xbox Live online service, Microsoft announced the ability to access streaming music service Last.fm as well as the social networking sites Facebook and Twitter beginning this fall. The social networking sites will be fully integrated into the Xbox Live interface, allowing users to send messages, upload photos and tweet with their Xbox 360. More on Technology
 
Chris Weigant: Obama Poll Watch [May 2009] -- Obama v. Clinton (First Term) Top
As a new month dawns with Al Franken still not seated in the Senate... No, wait, that's not what I wanted to start with. Let me try again. As a new month dawns, it is time once again to take a look at President Barack Obama's poll numbers. We kicked off this column series last month , and will be returning at the beginning of every month throughout Obama's term as president to take a snapshot of his approval ratings in the polls. This month, as an added feature, we will also be looking at Obama's poll numbers as compared to Bill Clinton's poll numbers from his first term. Now, if you're one of those who just hates or distrusts polling in general, then I would advise you to stop reading right now, because the rest of this column is only going to annoy you. Fair warning. For everyone still reading, let's get right to the charts. Beginning with, of course, Barack Obama's approval graph. [ Click on the graph to see a larger version of it. ]   Overall, a pretty steady and strong approval rate. Let's look at what this month's numbers have to say about the public's approval for Obama's term so far. As always, the raw data comes from RealClearPolitics.com (specifically, their daily Obama approval rating numbers page ). For a discussion of why I chose these numbers over others, and other methodology explanations, see last month's column . Full numeric data can be found at the end of this article, for true wonks to peruse.   May 2009 Obama had his ups and downs in May, taking on contentious issues from the left and from the right. A high point for him (as with any president) was getting to name his first candidate for Supreme Court Associate Justice. While the economy wasn't exactly roaring along, it did seem to have halted the free fall it was in when Obama took office. And the public, with a much longer attention span than the mainstream media, took it all in stride. Or perhaps Obama is just enjoying an extended honeymoon period, where all incoming presidents are given the benefit of the doubt by the public. But what does stand out is how solid Obama's numbers are. There is very little movement in them all month, mostly what would be considered within the margin of error of the polls themselves. For the month, Obama wound up with an average of 61.4 percent approval and 31.6 percent disapproval. His approval rate inched up four-tenths of a point from last month, and his disapproval was up eight-tenths of a percent. This led to the lowest undecided number yet for Obama, at 7.0 percent -- a continuation of the trend of fence-sitters making up their minds about him, one assumes. Obama hit his daily high early in the month, at 62.5 percent on the fifth of May. His low point for the month was 60.7, from May 21 (and, later, May 28-29). His disapproval rate started low, at 30.4 percent, but climbed in the second half of the month to hit an all-time high of 32.8 just before month's end.   Overall Trends The stability of Obama's numbers (especially the approval rating) continued in May, which (as we're about to examine) is remarkable compared to other presidents during the same time period in their terms. The total spread of Obama's monthly approval averages for his term so far is only 2.5 percent -- impressively stable. His disapproval ratings have swung a full twelve points upward in the same time period, but as honeymoon periods go, this still isn't all that bad. The trend for the disapproval line on the graph shows that his disapproval numbers have ended their sharp upward slope, and are leveling off at slightly more than thirty percent. But this month, Obama slightly gained in both approval and disapproval, as more people made up their minds about him.   Obama v. Clinton To put this in some sort of historical context, let's take a look at Bill Clinton's first term for comparison. I'd like to thank the helpful people over at Pollster.com for aiding me in finding raw data to create these historical charts. It takes a lot of number crunching to create these charts, so we'll be rolling out presidents one by one, over the next few months. Next month we'll take a look at Clinton's second term (in which his polls were a lot better than his first), and after that we'll delve into George W. Bush's approval ratings. But to begin, here is the chart for Clinton's first term: [ Click on the graph to see a larger version of it. ] Bill Clinton, after a brief honeymoon period, struggled in the polls throughout the rest of his first term. Getting over the magic 50 percent level of approval was tough for Clinton, and he really didn't seem to enjoy smooth sailing until the last year of his first term, when he was running for re-election. At this point in his first term, Clinton had just had a sharp dive in the polls, resulting for the first time in his disapproval numbers being higher than his approval numbers. This is a serious warning sign for anyone who holds political office, and would return for Clinton at the end of 1994. To see the difference in Clinton's graph and Obama's current numbers, let's put them both on a single graph. [Editor's note: Please let us know if you have problems reading Clinton's lines on this graph -- this is the first time we've done this, so let us know if improvement is needed.] [ Click on the graph to see a larger version of it. ] Barack Obama, compared to Bill Clinton, is doing better at the beginning than Clinton managed his whole first term in office. Clinton never got above 60 percent in his first four years (he finished at 59.5 percent, the closest he managed). Obama has not been below 60 percent yet. Part of this is due to the election both men won, and how they won it. Clinton was in a three-way race, where H. Ross Perot won almost 20 percent of the popular vote. Obama won over half of the popular vote in an electoral landslide -- something Clinton didn't manage to do either time he won, which led to charges that he "didn't have a mandate," which weakened him politically. Obama does not have this problem, and is following one of the least-liked presidents in American history. So part of Obama's advantage is due to the nature of how he took office as opposed to how Clinton got there. But while this month was disastrous for Clinton, who ended up with only 43.0 percent approval, Obama shows more staying power. Now, this doesn't mean that Obama's honeymoon is never going to end -- I've said all along that Obama will eventually face worse poll numbers than he enjoys currently. And Obama's eventual dropoff could be just as severe as what Clinton saw at this point in his term. There still aren't a lot of data points on the graph for Obama, so I caution everyone not to make sweeping statements based on only a few months. Having said that, though, Obama should indeed take heart in how he's stacking up against the most recent Democrat to hold the White House. And at how rock-steady his approval rating has been throughout this time period. Obama has a lot of issues on his plate, and has made some decisions which have enraged both the hard right and the hard left in dealing with these issues. But the public at large quite obviously trusts Obama better than they trust his critics from either the left, the right, or the media. If he can keep holding this reservoir of public support, Obama will wind up getting a lot more done than anyone could have reasonably expected in Washington.   [ Note: This series is a work in progress. What do you think so far? Do the charts need improvement? Are they hard to read, or easy to understand? Let me know in the comments, or drop me an email . We aim to please. ]   [Obama Poll Watch Data:] Obama Poll Watch column archive: [ Apr 09 ]   Obama's All-Time Statistics Highest Monthly Approval -- 2/09 -- 63.4% Lowest Monthly Approval -- 3/09 -- 60.9% Highest Monthly Disapproval -- 5/09 -- 31.6% Lowest Monthly Disapproval -- 1/09 -- 19.6% Highest Daily Approval -- 2/15/09 -- 65.5% Lowest Daily Approval -- 3/4/09 -- 59.8% Highest Daily Disapproval -- 5/28/09 -- 32.8% Lowest Daily Disapproval -- 1/29/09 -- 19.3%   Obama's Raw Monthly Data [All-time high in bold , all-time low underlined .] Month -- (Approval / Disapproval / Undecided) 05/09 -- 61.4 / 31.6 / 7.0 04/09 -- 61.0 / 30.8 / 8.1 03/09 -- 60.9 / 29.9 / 9.1 02/09 -- 63.4 / 24.4 / 12.2 01/09 -- 63.1 / 19.6 / 17.3   Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com   More on Barack Obama
 
Conservatives Ask Republican Senators To Filibuster Sotomayor Top
Several years ago, when Senate Democrats were using filibusters to block confirmation votes on several of President George W. Bush's appeals court nominees, some conservatives decried the tactic as unconstitutional. But now, a coalition of conservative group leaders and opinion leaders has signed a letter calling on Senate Republicans to filibuster President Obama's Supreme Court choice, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. A draft the letter was obtained by The New York Times. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Jacob Heilbrunn: Mitt Romney's First Campaign Speech Against Obama Top
Will it ever end? Probably not. Once again a Republican presidential hopeful is accusing a Democrat of being soft on (what else?) national security. Today it was Mitt Romney's turn to sing from the old hymnal at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC, where he announced that President Obama is imperiling America's freedoms by speaking too... freely. His cynical speech in defense of idealism, which is designed to appeal to the base, showed the extent to which the GOP remains trapped in a Cold War narrative of America as the righteous redeemer, one that only needs to increase defense spending constantly in order to save the rest of the globe. Romney began his remarks by complaining that Obama recently went on an international "tour of apology." According to Romney, "with all that is transpiring in the world, in Iran, North Korea, Georgia, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, this is the time for strength and confidence, not for apologizing to America's critics." But Obama's obvious point was that America could only exercise its moral strength by facing up to its past shortcomings, which Romney is unwilling to acknowledge in the first place. There is a fascinating contradiction between the savior impulse that Romney espouses and the refusal to recognize that most of the globe turned its back on America because of the insalubrious and shameful conduct of the Bush administration. Instead, Romney concluded with a description of America as the "hope of the world." Yes, yes, yes. But what does it add up to? As Romney spelled it out, America should be spending lots more on defense -- isn't the $527 billion that Obama is devoting to the defense budget in 2009 enough? -- and most particularly on missile defense. Perhaps most troubling, however, was Romney's simplistic approach to dividing the world neatly into four kinds of powers. First comes America, which embodies freedom. Then comes China, which supports free enterprise and authoritarianism. Next is Russia, whose power derives not from industry but energy. According to Romney, "They seek to control the energy of the world..." But how would Russia successfully control Middle East oil? Romney finished, of course, with "the Jihadists" who are out to turn the clock back to the Middle Ages for everyone else. This is straight out of George W. Bush's rhetoric about taking the fight to "the terrorists," which camouflaged the fact that there is no one terrorist grouping; rather, America and other countries are threatened by a variety of groups and individuals. But as Romney's speech indicates, he doesn't seem any more interested. at least for now, in doing nuance than during the 2008 campaign. More on GOP
 
West Nile Found In Suburban Mosquitoes Top
CHICAGO (AP) -- llinois public health officials say two samples from mosquitoes in Cook County are the first in the state to test positive for West Nile virus this year. Public Health Director Damon Arnold says the positive samples were collected May 11 in the north suburbs of Evanston and Wilmette. Last year, the first positive samples were found on May 23. Humans contract West Nile through mosquito bites. The virus caused 44 U.S. deaths in 2008, including one in Illinois. The state saw a total of 20 cases. Illinois has set aside nearly $3 million this year for West Nile prevention. Officials are asking residents to drain any standing water so mosquitoes don't have places to breed. -ASSOCIATED PRESS More on Health
 
How Much Of Coporate America Does The U.S. Own? Top
As you've probably heard by now, Obama is sending General Motors to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. And, as you've also probably heard, the United States will become the majority shareholder of the restructured company, with 60% of the stock. Nationalizing a large car manufacturer is interesting and controversial for all kinds of reasons (is Ford, the "last American car company," now competing with America?), and I think Jon Cohn is making some good points here.
 
Paul Helmke: Random Observations On The Sotomayor Nomination Top
Un-"wise" analysis Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor has drawn criticism for saying in an October 2001 speech , "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." I wonder why so little of the analysis of that statement has been on the crucial word "wise"? For example, during Sunday morning's talk shows, Bob Scheiffer didn't include the word "wise" when delivering this quote to his guests on Face the Nation . David Gregory's summary of the quote when discussing it with Brian Williams late in the broadcast of Meet the Press dropped the word, too. Yet it is hard to disagree with a statement that a "wise person" would "more often than not" reach "better" conclusions than just a regular person would. If this is true, isn't it logical that a "wise" person of one sex or ethnicity would decide better than just a regular person of the opposite sex or another ethnic group? It would thus follow that "a wise Latina woman" would be likely to reach a "better" conclusion than just a regular "white male." Maybe the logic of being "wise" leading "more often than not" to "better" choices is so obvious that it's been ignored in this debate. Yet perhaps Judge Sotomayor is pointing out what many have believed, in the past, if not still, that just a regular white male would reach "better" decisions than a "wise" person of a different race or gender. Yale Law School in the '70s While there have been stories on how Judge Sotomayor, if approved, would be the sixth Roman Catholic currently on the Supreme Court, I haven't seen anyone note that she would be the third Yale Law School grad (Class of 1979) from the same decade, joining Clarence Thomas (1974) and Samuel Alito (1975). Furthermore, when you factor in my classmates from Yale Law 1973, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, as well as White House Counsel Greg Craig (Yale Law 1972), it's clear that there were a lot of bright, ideologically diverse people at Yale Law School as students during that decade. Second Amendment Some have been attacking Judge Sotomayor for her decisions on gun rights, but as I point out in my statement released today , she has just followed precedent. Until last year, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with the Second Amendment as something tied to a " well regulated militia " and not as an individual right. Given that long-standing interpretation, it's not surprising that the Supreme Court had not "incorporated" the yet-to-be-discovered individual right to have a gun in the home for self-defense to the states prior to the June 26, 2008 Heller decision. Furthermore, since Heller dealt with the District of Columbia (a federal enclave), that decision did not have to deal with the issue of state incorporation . In coming months and years, the Supreme Court will have to deal with that issue, as well as the application to specific laws of Justice Scalia's long list of gun restrictions, which he indicated were " presumptively lawful ." These restrictions include limits on who can get guns, where they can be taken, how they are sold, how they are stored, and what kinds of guns they are. Judge Sotomayor's respect for precedent, as well as her real world experiences as a prosecutor, give me hope that she will understand the need for responsibilities as well as rights when it comes to evaluating gun laws. *** There will be a robust debate over Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court in the weeks and months to come. While discussion will range from the profound to the trivial, I hope that the process will proceed with the level of respect and decorum toward Judge Sotomayor that she has clearly earned. (Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post .) More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
GM's "Death Star" Jeopardizes Illinois Town Top
Ralph Nader said a General Motors bankruptcy would launch "a conclusive Death Star to tens of thousands of jobs, thousands of small businesses and adverse effects to hundreds of communities around the country." The Death Star, a moon-sized superweapon from the Star Wars movies, could destroy an entire planet in a single attack. The Death Star created by GM's bankruptcy filing on Monday probably can't blow up an entire planet, but it might be able to do some damage to a small town in Illinois. In May, GM notified Rust Chevrolet in Cissna Park, Ill. that the dealership's contract with GM would not be renewed at the end of 2010. Rust Chevrolet was one of 1,100 dealerships axed by GM in May -- a number that nearly doubled with Monday's bankruptcy filing. The delayed closings are GM's attempt to give its dealerships a soft landing. Cissna Park's mayor says that if Rust Chevrolet goes bust, it could have a devastating impact on the area. "If we keep our school, our grocery store, and our car dealership, we'll be OK," said Mayor Rick Baier, in an interview with the Huffington Post. "And we're losing one of those things." Baier said car sales account for about half of the town's approximately $100,000 in sales tax revenue, and a fifth of its roughly $250,000 in total annual revenue. If the dealership closes and is unable to reopen as a used car dealership or body shop, the town would have to raise rates, fees and income taxes just to keep the necessary services -- like its schools -- up and running. And it would have to delay less urgent projects, like repairs to streets and wastewater treatment systems. "It's just gonna be a major hit for Cissna Park," he said. "Apparently GM doesn't account for any type of loyalty." Rust Chevrolet has been operated continuously by the same family, in the same location for almost a century. "We've been affiliated with Chevrolet for over 94 years. My grandfather started right here," said the dealership's co-owner, Karen Rust Walder. In a good year, the dealership sells 100 units. And 2008 was a very good year, causing Rust Walder to wonder, why her dealership? "Maybe we didn't have the numbers that GM wanted to see, but I've paid all my bills with them and I owe them nothing," she said. "It's not like we were a financial drain for them. I don't know why this would be a good business decision at all." Bill Visnic, a senior editor for Edmunds AutoObserver, told the Huffington Post that GM supports dealers through its marketing programs, parts, and inventories, and that those costs factor into a calculation to close a dealership. The broad formula, Visnic said, "is 'How much do we as a car maker think it costs to support you versus how many car sales do you make every year?'" Visnic said that even after GM sheds 2,100 dealers, which will leave it with 4,100, it may still have too many. But he says that in its rush to go into and out of bankruptcy as quickly as possible, GM may be cutting carelessly. "I can almost guarantee you there are some dealers by sheer dollars and cents who've been wronged," he said. "Some dealers that have been cut are reasonably viable and making a contribution to overall profitability of the company ... but they don't have the time to pick through them." GM has not published a list of closing dealerships. The Huffington Post, with readers' help, has been working to compile an inventory . John McEleney, chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association, said that GM has too many dealers for its market share. While McEleney praised GM for giving dealerships until late 2010 to wind down -- providing a much softer landing than the three weeks Chrysler gave some 800 of its dealerships -- he said GM's "Death Star" blast is too large. "They're taking advantage of an opportunity that they can reject these (dealership) contracts out of hand," McEleney said. "We think they went too deep." Rust Chevrolet is the only car dealership in Cissna Park, which Baier (who also works as a fireman and editor of the local paper) describes as a quiet town with little crime, excellent schools, and one grocery store. "It's just a nice quiet place to raise your family. And there are a lot of older retired people, they've lived here all their lives. They don't want to leave Cissna Park. They want to die here," he said. "The community, they want to rally around Rust Chevrolet. They want to fight GM but we don't know how do it." Cissna Park may not have Luke Skywalker and an army of Ewoks, but it does have a congressman. On Monday, Illinois Rep. Tim Johnson (R), who represents the area, wrote a letter on the town's behalf asking GM to reconsider its decision to abandon Rust Chevrolet. In the letter, provided by Johnson's office to the Huffington Post, Johnson noted that Cissna Park relies on the dealership for half of its sales tax revenue. And he wrote that he didn't see what GM stood to gain from closing it. "In the larger picture of General Motors, I cannot imagine that closing a dealership of this size makes a significant difference in the sustainability of the corporation," Johnson wrote. "The effect on Cissna Park of such a decision, however, would be devastating. Please consider the scale of these decisions and the century of loyalty of Rust Chevrolet and Cissna Park as you work through these difficult times." HuffPost Readers: Got a tip on GM? How is the bankruptcy affecting your town? Let us know at submissions+GM@huffingtonpost.com . Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Bankruptcy
 
Ronald Reagan: The Original "Reverse-Sexist" (VIDEO) Top
Conservative pundits have railed seemingly endessly about Judge Sonia Sotomayor's supposed "reverse racism." But it appears conservative hero Ronald Reagan would disagree. Jed Lewison has unearthed footage that suggests Ronald Reagan was "the original reverse sexist." In the 1981 footage, then-President Reagan says, "It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists." He goes on to say that his nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor for the Supreme Court fulfills his pledge to nominate "the most qualified woman I could possibly find." "As I said during the campaign, I've long believed that the time has come for the highest court in our land to include not only distinguished men, but distinguished women as well. ... I had the pleasure of meeting with Mrs. O'Connor last week and I can report to you that she not only has a long and brilliant record as a legislator and jurist, but she also impressed me as a thoughtful, capable woman whose judicial temperament is highly appropriate for the court." Reagan also says: "Needless to say, most of the speculation has centered on the question of whether I would consider a woman to fill this first vacancy. As the press has accurately pointed out, during my campaign for the Presidency I made a commitment that one of my first appointments to a Supreme Court vacancy would be the most qualified woman I could possibly find." WATCH: Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Rory O'Connor: Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz -- How MSNBC Became a Liberal Mecca Top
"I'm a liberal -- and I'm not running from that word!" exclaims Ed Schultz, the latest lefty star in the cable television news-and-opinion firmament. Schultz, America's top-rated progressive radio talk show host, has just finished his first month as host of the eponymous Ed Show on MSNBC, which is attempting to duplicate its earlier success in crossing over progressive radio talk show host Rachel Maddow. Despite the startling success of Maddow and the recent addition of Schultz to an increasingly liberal lineup that also includes MSNBC's first breakout star Keith Olbermann, getting anyone other than on-air talent like Schultz and Maddow to admit the obvious -- that the rising cable net is in the process of re-branding itself as the left-winged equivalent of right-leaning industry leader Fox News -- can be difficult. For example, when asked if the decision to hire Schultz was part of a conscious strategy to "move left, MSNBC President Phil Griffin chooses his words carefully. "The answer is complicated...but simple at same time," Griffin responds. "The network has evolved a lot in the past few years. We went from doing a little bit of everything to doing lots of politics under Keith from 2003-05. We first began to get traction after the Iraq war started, after 'Mission Accomplished.' Then, more and more, politics led the way. When we did well with it in the 2006 elections, we made a decision to become 'the place for politics,' as the late Tim Russert dubbed us - and all of a sudden began to take off a little." Griffin says that both Olbermann and fellow MSNBC stalwart Chris Mathews "both had a strong point of view about the war -- but our strategy then was simply to hire smart people, allow them to have a point of view, and to be authentic. At the same time, we moved even further toward politics and away from trying to be 'all things to all people.'" Yes but ... Fox News covers politics as well, albeit with a clearly conservative slant. Doesn't the hiring of Schultz -- and Maddow before him -- signal that MSNBC is positioning itself as the progressive alternative? "Well, Rachel did so well as a guest analyst -- and was so smart, like Keith -- that we asked her to fill in when he went on vacation," Griffin recalls. "And she held his numbers, which is something that other talent we had on-air at the time, like Dan Abrams, didn't do. So that made the decision to give Rachel her own show after the conventions really easy ... September 8, 2008, was her first day, and almost immediately it was obvious to us that Keith's audience loved Rachel ... so we had flow. But it was more organic than a conscious strategy to go left," Griffin concludes. "A vision of smart progressives just began to emerge ... " Whether it's the result of an organic vision or a conscious strategy, however, adding a proudly progressive "populist figure" like Schultz to its lineup means that MSNBC is now providing the largest toehold progressives have ever had on television. Even Griffin admits the cable net now has a "progressive flow," although he quickly adds, "That's a little different than saying we consciously chose such a strategy." Taking a swipe at Fox, he points out, "We have no daily talking points; we also have [the more conservative-oriented] 'Morning Joe' program -- so it's clear we have no political 'line,' if you will -- but sure, we now have a progressive flow." "Hey, I'm encouraged to have and state my opinions," says Ed Schultz. "I think what we're doing here is best described as 'independent/progressive.' I'm very proud to state that I'm a liberal -- but the independent part means we don't run from the facts, either." Schultz also believes that his sizeable radio audience will, over time, follow him to television. "The cross-promotion is terrific, we're expanding the brand, my website traffic has already doubled," he notes. "But let's face it -- not everyone in the country knows Ed Schultz, so it will take some time to develop this. We look at this as a marathon, not a sprint." Still, both Schultz and Maddow have already driven MSNBC's all-important ratings numbers up in the highly competitive cable news environment. In its first full month "The Ed Show" -- although trailing both Fox and CNN in the time period -- increased MSNBC's rating by 9% in total viewers from the prior month and a full 15% from a year ago. And although much was made of the fact that Maddow's show recently drew its smallest audience since she joined MSNBC -- some 763,000 total viewers -- she still regularly beats longtime CNN star Larry King. True, Maddow's ratings have cooled since her meteoric rise during last fall's political frenzy, but her overall ratings last month were still doubling those MSNBC saw a year earlier, when Dan Abrams averaged just 527,000 total viewers in the same time slot. Does that mean the network's strategy... er, "vision" to move left is succeeding? "How do you measure if we're succeeding?" Griffin asks rhetorically. "Well, ratings are a good start! We're beating CNN; and we're also doing great with the high end demographic groups, such as young people aged 18-34." Griffin perceives a "media revolution that's now happening, and we fit right into it. Our audience is web-centric, involved, highly informed, and looking for opinion and analysis." As a result of serving this new audience, he says, "our ratings are up from a year ago -- as well as from 3 months ago -- and we did well quite recently with the dueling Obama and Cheney speeches ... Meanwhile, CNN has no vision or strategy to speak of. It's a new world media order here -- and we embrace it, we fit right into it." Still, the Fox News Channel recently ranked fourth overall in primetime cable ratings, averaging 1.89 million total viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research. Fox News, which had regularly been placing second behind USA, has now ranked in the top five cable networks for 20 straight weeks, and its cable news competitors still trail by a wide margin -- MSNBC placed 24th in primetime with an average of 747,000 total viewers, while CNN placed 28th with an average of 651,000 total viewers Facing such figures, even Griffin acknowledges that FNC still looms as the 800 pound gorilla in the cable news and opinion space. "Look, Fox created something unique," he allows. "It's an Outsider's Club for people who felt voiceless. And I tip my hat to Glenn Beck for coming in and just killing right away, as did Rachel. But Ed will need more time and more traditional development than Rachel. It will be a slower build, and we're still trying to figure it out. "What happened with Rachel was very unusual," recalls Griffin. "She was golden, an unbelievable success, in part because there clearly was another audience that felt underserved -- left, webcentric, young -- and instantly committed to her. They were voiceless, and now there is a voice. She really embodies our strategy of 'personality, smarts, and politics,' and that's a combination will win for us." Schultz agrees. "I'm proud to be on this network," he says. "And sure, there has to be a synergy in your programming, whether you're on television or radio. If you're a rock station, don't play country! If you do talk, don't play music... That's just common sense. So we'll be progressive by remaining true to the issues, and independent by not running from the facts. That means we won't be in lockstep with liberals, and we'll certainly criticize Obama where it's warranted. Viewers don't want you to walk the fence -- they do want a point of view -- and that's what we bring. So be true to the facts -- but take a stand!" Despite the gains going left has won for MSNBC, however, Schultz' boss maintains he still won't rush into anything wont rush the transition. "The biggest mistake this network made in past was rushing in, and thinking any good idea would work," says Griffin. " We had lots of good talent in the past -- but what we needed was a sensibility." Now that Schultz has been added to the lineup at 6 pm, Griffin's most immediate concern is what else to do in primetime, where the valuable ten o'clock slot following Maddow's program is now devoted to re-runs of Olbermann's earlier 8 pm cablecast. Can the MSNBC honcho offer any "vision" of what will "flow" out of Maddow? "Is it necessary that the flow out of Rachel be progressive?" Griffin ponders. "I have a little different perspective. Honestly, don't know if it will be a progressive -- Rachel really came out of nowhere, and I don't necessarily think her follow-up host has to be limited to that pure sensibility. Clearly it should be someone who is both smart and funny like she is... But I will make one promise: we're not done yet! This is such a vibrant time in media, and I want to say to Rachel's audience -- and everywhere I go I get stopped, there's such a connection between her and her audience, she's helped open a new world of approaches for us -- that people who like Rachel will like our new 10 o'clock show host and what we are going to do there. No, I take that back," he concludes. "Rachel's audience will love it ! I promise." More on NBC
 
Josh Ruxin: The World's Best Investment: The Global Fund Top
You may not have heard the siren over the earsplitting clatter of the economic crash in America and the ominous emergence of swine flu, but there's an urgent crisis involving Africa and other parts of the developing world that rely on our donor dollars for public health. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria , a multi-national organization that's been channeling financial assistance to 136 of the world's poorest countries since 2002, is facing a funding shortfall totaling about $2 billion. It's a shortfall that must be made up. Like many of the pressing hardships Americans now face, this is really about money: a paltry sum in view of US financial bailouts, but resources that, if made available, will save millions of lives. Here's why: years of dramatic results and sustained due diligence demonstrate the effectiveness of the Global Fund. 2 million people living with HIV have received life-saving, antiretroviral treatment; 4.6 million people stricken by tuberculosis, the leading cause of death among HIV sufferers, have so far been put on effective TB drugs; and in the fight against malaria, 70 million insecticide-treated bed nets have been delivered to families at risk of contracting the disease. I dare you to name a hedge fund, start-up, or mutual fund that has delivered better results in the past 7 years. Where the Global Fund differs from traditional mechanisms is in its mission to provide financing to organizations and governments to conduct the programs they wish to implement. There are no outsiders foisting their ideologies on resource-needy nations -- just Ministries of Health and active non-governmental organizations working to get the job done. The metrics are clear and funding disappears when corruption or bad management appears. Presently, the United States contributes nearly half of the Global Fund's budget - for fiscal 2009, that came to more than $900 million - and from my ringside seat in Rwanda, I see the tremendously positive effect this has had. I also see the opportunities that could be realized if America builds upon its commitment to fighting crippling global disease. But the fact is, FY 2010's commitment is no greater than this year's, and need has grown, leaving a shortfall of $2 billion. The Obama administration must now step in and fill the Global Fund's fiscal gap, not only to save lives, but also for the financial leverage such a step would have. In the past, whenever America has raised its level of support to the Global Fund, the rest of the world has followed suit. This support could be an investment that would yield great returns. Tax dollars spent on global health today will pay dividends for decades to come in more productive populations, increased political and health security, and burgeoning new markets for US goods and services. Conversely, failure to invest would be a disaster. Poor health drags poor people even further down the economic ladder and wreaks havoc on their nations' output. By contrast, healthy people are naturally more productive and capable, and that can go a long way in lessening the impact of the economic crisis all around the world. The recession may have altered the order of things concerning spending in Washington. Banks, car manufactures and investment firms have jumped to the head of the line, while poor people - even those in America - have been pushed even further to the margins. This arrangement clearly needs to change. Unlike the emergencies of most Federal bailout recipients, the Global Fund's wasn't created from mismanagement, nor is it linked to the worldwide market meltdown. In fact, this deficit is the result of the fund's proven success. Years ago, Global Fund directors pledged that they would provide the financing recipient countries needed to scale up efforts to combat disease if the demand was there. The programs put into place have worked very well, and, ultimately, beneficiary nations outperformed expectations. That success needs to be supported and followed up. Now, however, the fund doesn't have enough dollars in the bank to meet the demand. Bringing Global Fund reserves up to the needed level must be part of a larger effort. Recent Obama-appointed Global AIDS Coordinator Eric Goosby should help lead a careful evaluation of how the US can bolster the Global Fund. The Fund, after all, has outperformed the global markets since giving its first grant. It has delivered its intended results, avoided corruption, and saved lives. That's ample and clear evidence that while critiques of development aid abound, there's plenty of good aid worth financing. When you look at the money being thrown around Washington right now for various projects and bailouts, $2 billion to save millions of lives should be an easy choice. Investing that amount in the Global Fund makes a lot more sense - and brings a higher return - than using taxpayer dollars to fund bonus checks. More on Barack Obama
 
Matthews Rages At "Pissant" GOP For Criticizing Obamas' Date Night (VIDEO) Top
MSNBC's Chris Matthews went off on the GOP Tuesday night, whacking the Republican National Committee for trying to stir up outrage over the Obamas' recent date in New York. The RNC seized on the excursion, which included dinner and a Broadway show, as a wasteful indulgence. "As President Obama prepares to wing into Manhattan's theater district on Air Force One to take in a Broadway show, GM is preparing to file bankruptcy and families across America continue to struggle to pay their bills," read their "Research Piece," titled "Putting On A Show." "If President Obama wants to go to the theater, isn't the Presidential box at the Kennedy Center good enough?" added RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho. Matthews called the attack a "cheap shot" and the trip as a sign that the president, unlike his predecessor, appreciates culture. He pointed out that the Republicans never complained about President Bush's frequent trips to Texas. "This is the kind of pissant criticism that makes you wonder why Michael Steele still has his job," Matthews exclaimed. "Is this jealousy, or just nincompoop anti-intellectualism?" Watch: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Chris Matthews
 
Shannyn Moore: Palin: Prejean a "Victim of Malicious Attacks"; Dr. Tiller...Well..."I'm Pro-Life." Top
Priorities. Palin's outrage against the treatment of a pageant girl and the meanie media is impressive. A few phone calls placed in support of Carrie Prejean, Miss California, and a press release from SarahPac. Today, the governor's facebook memo read: June 1, 2009 "I feel sorrow for the Tiller family. I respect the sanctity of life and the tragedy that took place today in Kansas clearly violates respect for life. This murder also damages the positive message of life, for the unborn, and for those living. Ask yourself, 'What will those who have not yet decided personally where they stand on this issue take away from today's event in Kansas?' Regardless of my strong objection to Dr. Tiller's abortion practices, violence is never an answer in advancing the pro-life message." Governor Sarah Palin May 13, 2009 "The liberal onslaught of malicious attacks against Carrie Prejean for expressing her opinion is despicable. Carrie and I spoke soon after the attacks started; I can relate as a liberal target myself. What I find so remarkable is that these politically-motivated attacks fail to show that what Carrie and I believe is also what President Obama and Secretary Clinton believe - marriage is between a man and a woman. I applaud Donald Trump for standing with Carrie during this time. And I respect Carrie for standing strong and staying true to herself, and for not letting those who disagree with her deny her protection under the nation's First Amendment Rights. Our Constitution protects us all - not just those who agree with the far left." Governor Sarah Palin More on Miss California
 
Pam Spaulding: Workshop: How to Engage on the Topic of Race and LGBT Civil Rights Top
A reader of my blog named Kevin wrote me the other day to say that he is interested in building bridges with people of color (POC) about race and equality but doesn't know how to engage when the conversation turns tense. I asked if I could post his letter to generate discussion because I know he's not the only one out there who had this reaction to my recent blog posts about the topic. I am a twenty-one-year-old white, gay male living in California. I campaigned for ridiculous amounts of time (seriously, I had a huge void in my life when President Obama was safely elected -- a sign that I was addicted! Or something.) for Obama and against Proposition 8. I was part of the effort in San Diego, California and frequently rubbed arms with POC (as you call them in your HuffPo) people while campaigning for both things. I wanted to say I just read your post on " Black, Gay and Reclaiming 'Civil Rights' " and I found it to be very inspiring. It also reignited my interest in working toward some form of outreach toward the local black community. I found that while I spoke about Obama and why he was the right choice for America, etc, I had the focus of the people I was talking to 100% (assuming they weren't McCainites) but when I tried to segue into Proposition 8 a lot of people would slip into an interesting... defensive stance? Their demeanor completely shifted to what I liked to call " I am not listening to anything you said while trying to think of a way to escape from this conversation ". Anyway, I noticed that certain members of the black community were quick to dismiss me as some kind of white, gay racist. I am not sure when this became such a widespread stereotype, nor am I sure why I of all people was labeled a racist for bringing up a collection of quotes from MLK and Coretta Scott King. My boyfriend is bi-racial (he doesn't like being called 'black or white' and dislikes people being labeled and sorted into groups) and I had to do a lot of convincing to get him to march with me, and to go out and talk to people about Prop 8. On two separate occasions, while trying to use him to display that I am not at all racist, he was told by the black people we were talking to that he 'gave up' being black when he decided to be gay. I've also tried explaining that my two best friends growing up were both black, though I imagine that probably worked more against me than for me. This isn't just an issue within minorities and several of the white people outwardly called me a faggot on multiple occasions (I live in an oddly socially conservative part of California). So I guess what I am asking is... how do I establish the dialogue? How do I get through to members of the black community that seem to think if I sneeze on them they will catch some gay disease? I am going to work my ass off again in 2010 and beyond, but I am not able to do it all by myself and you seem to be very educated on the subject. Well, I'm not exactly well-educated about such things, so much as I have had to deal with inhabiting two worlds that frequently have problems with my very existence because it challenges assumptions they would like to remain intact. That out of the way, I want to thank you and your boyfriend for being willing to step outside of your comfort zone and take the predictable abuse in order to challenge these black residents on their bigotry. Most people are so scared of being labeled racist by perfect strangers that they avoid the outreach. Honestly, those in the black community who are homophobic don't get challenged enough -- the charges they lob is a defense for not wanting to engage. They know they can play the dreaded race card -- even at black gays , denying their blackness, something I've personally experienced (and it occurred yet again, in the comments of that HuffPost piece). You see, they have no sense of their own hypocrisy -- that not all white gay men are racist, just as not all blacks are homophobic. Both groups tend to cling to the generalizations because there is always a factual basis for any bias or stereotype . The fact is the faces of the LGBT community are largely white gay men. There are no insurmountable reasons for this in this day and time, yet the lack of diversity (including class) in the visible leadership in our organizations continues. It should be no surprise to hear this charge. However, one should always use a face-to-face interaction as a mutual learning opportunity by actively listening and testing assumptions. When you come up against that wall of resistance -- when the "white, gay racist" retort comes up -- it's going to sting. You can't help feeling slighted but you have to move past it and acknowledge the truth in the statement . You could have said something on the order of: "I understand why you may feel that way; there are too many in the LGBT community who have not visibly engaged in struggles affecting the black community, but I can't change the past. What I am offering, with my presence here today, is to work for change across the board -- and why this election is important. I want to address all instances of discrimination that have gone long unaddressed. As part of that I would like you to consider voting against Prop 8 because it represents instituting government-based discrimination." You are: 1) acknowledging a truth; 2) representing that you are both taking personal responsibility as a white gay man to counter racism in the LGBT community; and 3) asking her for support in stopping all discrimination. By the way, it's doubly difficult sometimes if you bring up MLK or other black civil rights leaders since the people you're meeting with may object out of the box to the "appropriation" of that movement's figures. In fact, some try to explain away or ignore black leaders still with us who support LGBT civil rights, such as John Lewis, Ben Jealous of NAACP national and Julian Bond. That's my two cents; I'm sure others will be glad to contribute in the comments. My suggested answer, of course, doesn't even address religious objections to homosexuality ; if it hasn't been brought up as a defense shield yet, would likely come up next. One way to respectfully approach scripture being tossed out or that religious freedom is under attack is to discuss the church state separation issue, but the conflation of state/civil marriage with anti-gay people makes this a tough nut to crack. A better approach is to say that this kind of discrimination: 1) Opens the door for government to allow religious discrimination -- ask them about why they would vote for a measure that discriminates against other faiths, including other Christian ones, that DO want to marry gay and lesbian couples. 2) That placing civil rights at the whim of a majority vote at the ballot box endangers all civil rights. I'm sure other readers have other ideas for you. There is no answer that can cover every encounter you may have when engaging on this challenging topic, but just know that by doing something, rather than sitting back and doing nothing out of fear and the desire to avoid discomfort, that you are making a difference. Over at my pad, someone suggested that the writer's partnering with his boyfriend on these outreach efforts was in itself racist. My reply: I don't see partnering with his boyfriend on these outreach efforts as racist; it's a reality that the people they are encountering often refuse to acknowledge that there are POC LGBTs and start right into the attack mode. Obviously his boyfriend went willingly (if apprehensively, knowing what was coming), and the fact is his presence allows the conversation to turn away from invisibility to their ownership of the fact they consider he's turned in his black card. That's their public admission of bigotry. That's why I have advocated that when canvassing POC neighborhoods that may be hostile to LGBT rights, whites should pair up with someone of color to take that "weapon" out of the hands of those you talk to. These are people who are rarely challenged about their own prejudices. The major problem with this is we have to tackle the racism in the LGBT community that makes it difficult for POC to feel they will be accepted if the come out. So that leaves a movement with precious few POC to rise to the challenge of taking the almost-certain abuse by members of their own communities of color for the goal of full civil equality. A tall order. If you read through the HuffPost column, POC who were anti-gay tried repeatedly to turn the argument around to "what about racism in the white LGBT community?". That's not an answer to the question being asked (and I've covered that before anyway), nor does it explain away the problem at hand. No one is denying the racism exists in that sphere, it's about pointing out that it's not one way either. You can't address the problem if it's not acknowledged or if it is deflected by tossing out a different question. The bottom line is a good number homophobic POC want to change the subject rather than own up to the problem that is costing those community lives -- exploding HIV/AIDS rates -- because of their silence and promotion of homophobia in the pews. NOTE: These discussions are essential and The Dallas Principles are something to keep in mind when you are facing this uphill battle, particularly 3-6 in this context. Kevin and his boyfriend are participating in the kind of activism that does change hearts and minds. Even for those who disagree, they have been in engaged in a way that forces them to confront their biases. 1. Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals must be enacted now. Delay and excuses are no longer acceptable. 2. We will not leave any part of our community behind. 3. Separate is never equal. 4. Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights. 5. The establishment and guardianship of full civil rights is a non-partisan issue. 6. Individual involvement and grassroots action are paramount to success and must be encouraged. 7. Success is measured by the civil rights we all achieve, not by words, access or money raised. 8. Those who seek our support are expected to commit to these principles. Related: Black, Gay and Reclaiming 'Civil Rights' More on Gay Marriage
 
Mike Lux: Political Violence in America Top
I have been meaning to write about this topic for several days now, in part because of Cheney and the right-wing movement's proud defense of torture, and in part because of having finally finished (after much delay because of my book tour) Rick Perlstein's masterful book Nixonland . I got started yesterday morning, and then got the terrible news about Dr. Tiller, and had to stop for awhile. I hesitated to keep writing because I want to be careful with tying this terrible event to the conservative movement, and indeed I want to start with some caveats. But there are some things that just have to be said on this dark day. My first caveat is a big one, and an obvious one: most conservatives do not in any way support this kind of political terrorism, and are in fact saddened by it. There is no question about that, and I think when discussing the issue of political violence and American fascism, we should be very clear about that important point. In addition, I think it is extremely important that progressives be very slow and very careful in calling conservatives fascist or supporters of political violence unless they actually show themselves to be that. A person may passionately believe, for example, that abortion is murder, and still strongly oppose any kind of domestic terrorism. One final caveat: if you look back at the history of political violence in America, as I do in my book The Progressive Revolution: How The Best In America Came To Be, there is no question that progressive-minded folks have also engaged in political violence. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War and World War II were all led by progressives and you don't get much more violent than a war (not that I would have opposed those wars, I would have supported them). John Brown in the 1850s believed and fought for a violent slave rebellion, and occasionally leftist leaders in the 1960s went over the line and committed acts of violence. And anarchists assassinated William McKinley in 1901. Having said all of that, though, it is also undeniably true that there is a dangerous and virulent streak of violence and fascism in American conservatism, now and throughout our country's history. Conservatives in the South who vehemently and violently defended and fought for slavery and Jim Crow are the most obvious example: From the vicious caning of political opponents on the floor of the Senate, to the fighting of the bloody Civil War, to the gunning down of hundreds of freed slaves in the reconstruction era, to the lynching of thousand of African-Americans in the 90 years after the Civil War, to all of the horrible violence of the civil rights struggles in the 1950s and 60s, the story of race relations in the South has been long and incredibly bloody. The North wasn't exactly pure on race issues either, from the mass murder of blacks in Tulsa in 1921 to the rock throwing mobs of Chicago greeting Martin Luther King. Racial violence hasn't been the only from of political violence by those opposed to progressive change in this country either. Labor leaders have been assassinated; women suffragists and other progressive reformers have been tarred and feathered, and violently harassed. Tim McVeigh, the perpetrator of the country's biggest single act of domestic terrorism was a far right-wing, militia activist. Sadly, the Tiller killing is only the latest in a long string of anti-abortion activists bombing clinics and murdering people. Even more serious, though, is the kind of domestic political violence we have seen by certain politicians. Everyone should read Nixonland , which shows the depth of depravity of the kind of political movement Richard Nixon was leading - blatantly breaking the law right and left, seriously considering the firebombing of a think tank they didn't like, gloating over gunning down the four students at Kent State. This is the administration Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Pat Buchanan, George H.W. Bush, G. Gordon Liddy, and many other modern day conservatives happily and proudly worked for. It is no wonder that we see them today so blithely defending the violation of the Geneva Convention and our own Bill of Rights. These are political leaders who have no qualms about torturing people, either, which is perhaps the ultimate example of political violence. Just as political conservatives of an earlier generation had no problems aligning themselves with segregationists of the South while mobs were beating freedom riders almost to death, Bill Connor was sicking German Shepherds on children, and terrorists were firebombing churches with little girls inside them, there is a virulent strain of political conservatism today that is not troubled by political violence. Let us hope that progressives win the day over this kind of conservatism. If we don't, I think it is safe to say we should fear for our country. More on Dick Cheney
 
Cameron Sinclair: What if GM or AIG were a not-for-profit? Top
Two big bailout stories came out today and all day I've been thinking about how both are interlocked. Most of us heard about the declared bankruptcy of GM but it was the tale of AIG* trying to recapture their charitable endowment for executive salaries and bonuses that peaked my interest the most. Fortunately my organization does not receive support of AIG and is not affected but there are dozens who are including Citymeals on Wheels . I think we can all agree that, if true, it is a despicable act of desperation . I am hoping the news reports and blogs are wrong but it got me thinking. Putting that story to one side, what if GM or AIG were treated like a charitable organization, non profit or not-for-profit company? Would we bail them out? Would we prop up bad management for the sake of the mission? I don't think so. At the start of this economic downturn many non profits saw the warning signs, we began to tightening our belts and look at ways to retool and streamline project management systems. The word from many corporate boardrooms was that 'all bets are off' and to set clear guidelines for impact and expenditures. Yet as individual donations began to dry up and CSR departments began to downsize, we heard nothing either candidate to prop up these shortfalls. Knowing there would be no bailout, we became more nimble ( we are 9% admin), more open to collaborate and more willing to partner with charities and social entrepreneurs with similar and/or complimentary missions. How much would have we saved if the big three had become the big one in September 2008? Instead of installing 'a private board' of automobile executives perhaps Obama would be wiser to install successful not for profit leaders. Another alternate plan that was relayed to me by multiple folks via Twitter is to go the whole hog and well beyond the Michael Moore plan . Buy GM completely, turn it into a not-just-for-profit company that builds and delivers an integrated and energy efficient public transportation system ( say with streetcars and hybrids vehicles). Call it Government Motors and the first cost saving act would be to keep the existing logo and letterhead. --- * I should note that there are a number of shiny apples in AIGs executive cart. A few months back Jake deSantis resigned from AIG and donated all of his post tax bonus to charity, almost $750K. Here is his letter to Mr. Liddy . Kudos Jake. More on The Bailouts
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)