Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Bob Cesca: Healthcare Reform Named After Ted Kennedy Must Not Suck Top
If they're going to name the final healthcare reform bill after Senator Kennedy, we ought to be demanding with voices as powerful and booming as the late senator's... The bill must not suck. But if it does, they should name it after Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley. The Blame Baucus and Grassley for This Sucky Act . Or maybe borrow the name of the House bill, the America's Affordable Health Choices Act , which, by the way, reminds me more of a frozen diet meal than a robust healthcare reform bill (the final House bill is actually pretty robust -- it's just a ridiculous name). On this day of national mourning, we're reminded that Senator Kennedy's political legacy has been inextricably bound to the cause of universal healthcare. Affordable, portable, reliable healthcare. It's difficult to know for sure, but I can't imagine, had he not be stricken with cancer, that the senator would be lending his unmistakable baritone to the awfulness, equivocation and bipartisan hackery that's on display within the ranks of Max Baucus's Gang of Six. It goes without saying that left to their own spineless and corrupt devices, these six senators will absolutely deliver a terrible healthcare reform bill, one that would only serve to besmirch the Kennedy legacy. So what exactly does a sucky healthcare bill look like? Naturally, a beefy public health insurance plan is essential. To call it a "sliver" of the bill, or to push for eliminating it altogether is almost as bad as having no reform at all. Journalists, writers and bloggers who I otherwise respect have been damning the public option with faint praise lately. Let's not sabotage healthcare reform with partisan ultimatums , they say. We can have a great bill without it , they say. No, sirs. No we can't. They're not seeing the big picture here. A sucky bill is absolutely a bill without a public option. I get it, though. There are many other meaningful aspects to healthcare reform. Banning exclusions for pre-existing conditions, setting caps on out of pocket expenses, bans on rescission. These are all excellent and historic. But tossed into the mix with these items is the necessity for individual and employer mandates which, like car insurance, would require everyone to buy health insurance. Simply put, mandates will spread out the risk and help to control costs by making sure everyone can pay for medical treatment. So if your 1040 shows that you can afford it (a minimum of around $88,000 per year for a family of four), you'd have to purchase insurance by law, though there are proposals on the table for allowing government subsidies to help families earning up to $110,000 annually. However, as I've been writing about on my daily blog for the last week or so, without the public option, such mandates would be nothing less than an ongoing financial endorsement of corporate crime. In other words, the public option is an option of good conscience. Without a public plan, mandates would transform what would otherwise be a landmark reform bill into a massive and perpetual handout to the healthcare industry. You and I would have no choice but to pay a monthly tribute to the worthless bastards at UnitedHealth, CIGNA, Aetna and Blue Cross every month until we died, went broke or reached the age of 65. Put another way: either we're forced to financially support an industry that has knowingly allowed thousands of Americans to die by denying them healthcare when they need it most , or we operate without a safety net while also paying a hefty annual penalty to the federal government. Nice. I'm not sure which is more punitive. A solid public option, on the other hand, solves this wicked catch-22. It will allow many of us to both purchase affordable, portable and reliable health insurance, while also serving as an expression of our disgust with the Mafioso-style business practices of the private insurers. The former scenario -- the mandates but no public option scenario -- is practically unthinkable (with or without Senator Kennedy's name). Wrapping my conscience around a being legally forced to buy private health insurance, regardless of new regulations and knowing everything I know about how the private insurance industry has operated all these years, would be almost impossible for me. I honestly don't know what I'd do. In a political sense, the president and the Democratic Party will have succeeded in authoring and passing a bill that would boil down to nothing less than a massive, almost unprecedented subsidy to the private health insurance oligarchy. And we'd have no way out. In fact, you and I would've spent years of our lives mobilizing and activating for healthcare reform only to wind up with a bill that sanctions us to subsidize the very enemy we've been fighting all this time. Senator Kennedy would've spent his career fighting for what will have devolved into an enormous corporate giveaway disguised as "universal healthcare." That's what a sucky bill looks like. Regardless of the name of the bill, I can think of no greater way to honor Senator Kennedy's legacy of activism for this cause than for us to stand up and, in his place, to vigorously fight for a bill that includes an option of good conscience -- a bill that provides a real public insurance option. Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go! More on Health Care
 
Alanna Kaivalya: When the Going gets Tough, the Yogi Knows Where to Go Top
At the end of a teacher training in Bali, Indonesia, a student approached me wanting to have a talk about her life moving forward. We sat in a hippie-influenced cafe in the yogic center of the island, and after sipping her chai latte, she leaned forward and revealed to me that as soon as she arrived home, she was planning on quitting her job and getting a divorce. I took a deep breath, and said, "Well, I'm not surprised." Over the past several years, at yoga teacher trainings all over the world, I have witnessed folks go through profound personal change as they study the philosophy and practices of yoga. It usually gets people to take a far more introspective look at their lives than they're typically used to and sometimes looking at our lives through a microscope reveals to us where the changes need to be made. Or do they? When we take a good hard look at how we're leading our lives, we often see how much time we spend being unhappy - in our relationships, our careers or our homes. We realize that there are other things in life that light a spark inside of us that make us want to pursue the good life indefinitely. These folks often find such a spark in yoga that they desire to make it their full-time endeavor. But, sometimes, that's not where the real yoga practice lies. Not everyone can be a yoga teacher. If the world was full of yoga teachers, who would practice medicine or law? Who would run for local, state, or national office? Who would teach our children or take care of our elderly? The most important role for those who find such passion through yoga may not be in front of a yoga class, but rather, in the front of a courtroom or in front of a class of sixth graders. When the spiritual practice begins to reflect to us where we are lacking joy in our lives, the response is often to run as far away from the unhappiness as possible. And, sometimes, this is undoubtedly the right choice. When 40 hours a week are spent working toward retirement and the feeling that life is passing us by, then it may indeed be time for a change. But, on the other hand, sometimes when the going gets tough, the yogi knows exactly where to go. Yoga practices give us the tools to ignite the spark where we've lost it, to look at things from a different perspective so that we can once again see the sparkle in the lackluster elements of our lives. Ideally, those of us who engage in spiritual practices (it doesn't have to be yoga), will take the joy and passion we find through the practice and reinsert it where the charm has been lost. Imagine my friend from the yoga training returning home to her husband and finding ways of seeing in him what it was that brought them together in the first place. In yoga, we're taught not to just be "pleasure seekers," but to be unafraid of the discomfort and find ways to be comfortable even amidst challenges. We understand that without the darkness (or challenges), we have no appreciation for the light (the good times). If we can infuse our life with a greater sense of joy and calm, then all the parts begin to look a little more bright, and the challenges give us an opportunity to rise up and find ways of getting better at remaining content in all situations. One of my first yoga teachers used to remind us often to "lean against the sharp edges." If we reluctantly move toward a sharp edge, we get poked and bleed. But, the more surface area you press to a sharpened edge, the less likely you are to actually get harmed. This is how those crazy yogis can walk across a bed of nails or hot coals. The more evenly you spread yourself over life's challenges, the easier they actually seem. For those of us who practice yoga, we can take solace in the fact that there are now millions of people across America who love the practice as much as we do. And, we can start spreading the word that our greatest yoga practice lies not necessarily on the yoga mat, but in the world. Imagine an enlightened doctor, the equanimous lawyer, and the benevolent mayor all taking their seat as yogis in the real world. For, if we can't function in the world around us, what good has our practice done? More on Wellness
 
Charles Warner: Beck Not Worthy of Sanction Top
Liberal readers were outraged and conservative readers were supportive of my blog advocating that advertisers not pull their advertising from Glenn Beck's program on the Fox News channel in response to a proposed boycott of their products. The comments and debate have been filled with intelligent and emotion-filled arguments that seem to boil down to two positions: 1) Those who want to shut up Beck, O'Reilly, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh and 2) those who don't want advertisers to kowtow to boycotts or try to stifle free speech and believe the hate mongers are not influencing public opinion but are merely pandering to the entrenched prejudices of an angry, hate-filled, mostly white uneducated fringe. So my question is this, if advertisers should cancel their advertising in the conservative Beck's controversial television program, should Mutual of America cancel its sponsorship of PBS's "Bill Moyer's Journal" which recently replayed a documentary titled "Critical Condition" that clearly and persuasively advocates in favor of health care reform? Health care reform is a major, divisive political issue, with liberals generally on one side of the line in the sand (the left side, of course) and conservatives on the other side. Right-wingers typically view Bill Moyers as a soft liberal, perhaps less strident than Beck, but idealistically and politically as much an anathema as Beck and O'Reilly are to the left. So why aren't right wingers calling for Mutual of America to withdraw its support from "Bill Moyer's Journal" and for other sponsors to pull their support from other PBS or NPR or MSNBC programming? Perhaps conservative organizations are advocating boycotting PBS, NPR, and MSNBC programming they don't like, but I have heard nothing about it. I suspect it is the tone of Beck's stupid racist remark as much as his right-wing rabble rousing and hate mongering against Obama that is upsetting liberals, many of whom want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in an attempt to muzzle conservative hate mongers such as Rush Limbaugh who are distributed on FCC-licensed radio stations. However, Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity are on Fox News on cable, which is not regulated by the FCC, so they would continue to bloviate even if the ineffective Fairness Doctrine were reinstated (something Obama is on record as being against, and rightly so). I think the solution to the Beck and right-wing ranters problem was provided by an insightful comment I received from a conservative friend of mine who was the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in the George H. W. Bush administration: "As Justice William O. Douglas once referred in a Supreme Court decision to the Communist Party of the US, the hysterical commentators are, '...the poor peddlers of unwanted wares; their goods remain unsold.' Why bother elevating the focus on these ranters by suggesting they're worthy of sanction?" Justice Douglas said it much more eloquently than I ever could. Glenn Beck's or Bill O'Reilly's or Lou Dobbs' rants are not worthy of sanction. More on Glenn Beck
 
Michael Wolff: Teddy Kennedy, We Hardly Knew Ye Top
Few living people have been as famous for as long as Teddy Kennedy. For most of my sentient life, Teddy has been striving, partying, running, and representing the long tail of the Kennedy legacy. I remember Chappaquiddick (when I was 16) better than the moon landing--two events that coincided 40 years ago. I remember thinking, in spite of Chappaquiddick, that Teddy Kennedy was the last best hope for...well, I suppose the 1960s. I covered Teddy's strangely chaotic and tongue-tied presidential run in 1980 for Life magazine. I enjoyed a decade of nearly non-stop insider sex gossip about Teddy in the 1980s (everybody in politics and media had a story--many stories). From the gallery of the Clinton impeachment, in 1998, I couldn't keep my eyes off of the riveting spectacle of a massive--I mean barely-able-to-walk massive--Teddy Kennedy wobbling on the floor of the Senate chamber. Still, after so long, I can't say I have much of a clear sense of the man. I couldn't tell you if he was stupid or smart. More a serious legislator or more an attention-deficit glamor boy. A man who shouldered heroic family burdens or one who added to the dysfunctions of a mythically dysfunctional family (he was in on, if not encouraging, the heavy drinking that proceeded his nephew William Kennedy Smith's famous rape charge in Palm Beach, in 1991). A humanitarian or a sexual harasser. Continue reading on newser.com More on Ted Kennedy
 
Bloomberg Talks Atlantic Yards, Public Drinking In New Interview Top
Mayor Bloomberg said on Monday that Atlantic Yards would be a better project if Bruce Ratner would bring back Frank Gehry's much-hyped designs for the stalled and increasingly costly arena and 16 skyscrapers. "If ther's any way Ratner can possibly do it, he should use the Gehry design, because he will get great events from around the world going directly to Brooklyn," the mayor told a team of reporters and editors from the Community Newspaper Group, the parent company of The Brooklyn Paper. "Simon and Garfunkel on their tour would go to Brooklyn in a second before they go to Madison Square Garden. They're New Yorkers."
 
Josh Ruxin: Public-Private Partnerships: Creating Infrastructure and the Expertise to Run It Top
I have written and talked a great deal about the importance of health care in raising the standard of living among sub-Saharan Africans. There's a very good reason for this. While we must create development opportunities and prosperity building programs for Africans, unless we collaborate with governments to help improve the people's health, any attempts to help them lift themselves out of poverty will ultimately fail. Public health is the lynchpin that holds all our efforts together. Public health, however, is not just drugs and equipment - it's the effective distribution of drugs to those who need them and effective use of that equipment to cure disease or keep people healthy. For both of these, we need health care infrastructure: bricks and mortar-yes, but more importantly, we need management systems and people with leadership skills. In Rwanda, where I live and work, the most effective programs I've seen are those that constitute a true partnership between donors with funds, equipment, and skills, and the communities who need them. Everyone talks a good deal about public-private partnerships, but truly effective partnerships are rare as hen's teeth. "You're not here to donate, you're here to teach," is what Rwanda's President Kagame told one potential partner. We have been lucky here to have had great experiences with great teachers from companies like Pfizer, GE and Ericson. The corporate social responsibility divisions of American corporations can learn a great deal from their examples. Pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer had been donating drugs to sub-Saharan African countries for years. In 2003, however, the corporation started donating an even more valuable asset: the time of their employees. More than five years later, Pfizer's Global Health Fellows program has deployed close to 200 highly skilled employees around the world to improve health for underserved communities by building capacity to expand healthcare services. The program matches skills of employees to needs of local partner organizations. Here in Rwanda, Pfizer Fellows have helped to improve financial practices, pharmacy stocking processes, and management capacity within rural health centers. In 2004, GE's CEO Jeffrey Immelt made a $20M, five-year commitment to improve healthcare delivery in Africa, based on his company's leadership in medical equipment and the shared belief that healthcare is key to improving overall quality of life. The resulting program, "Developing Health Globally" (DHG), is focused on something GE knows and does well - improving maternal care and decreasing child mortality, both also Millennium development goals. Their program in Rwanda began through a partnership at Mayange health center and Nyamata hospital with Millennium Villages and the Access Project: two organizations that had already been on the ground improving health care in Rwanda for several years. Unsurprisingly, GE's program includes the donation of equipment to hospitals and community health centers, but GE employees also serve as teachers and "volunteer ambassadors". GE engineers are initially on-site at hospitals and health centers to install equipment and systems, and volunteers stay in touch remotely and via periodic visits, maintaining relationships with doctors and medical staff, and offering coaching and mentoring to health care professionals. They facilitate the monthly collection of metrics and make subsequent recommendations for training and other improvements. They even enlist the aid of GE experts not officially in the ambassador program when problems overlap into their areas of focus. According to Krista Bauer, Director of Global Programs for GE, "Management processes and accountability are critical," as is hospital leadership. "You can put a lot of infrastructure in place, but if you don't have the leadership in place, it will all fall apart." I recognize the truth in that statement: the most up-to-date equipment and most skilled staff are only as good as the team managing them. Too often, supplying equipment, medicines, and staff is reckoned to be the alpha and omega of any contribution. Management training is just as often an afterthought, but the clever and experienced administration of limited resources can be exponentially more effective than the poor management of plenty. Any prospective corporate partner, foundation manager or donor needs to understand the challenges faced in the field. Health care is a key part of the basics for any future progress on the continent, and while infrastructure is desperately needed, we make a lot of assumptions about what that means. We just have to remember that infrastructure is not complete if it's just the material components of aid; to Africans, the knowledge that management training and mentorship programs provide is essential to successfully building capacity. Corporations considering making a difference in prosperity-building programs can learn from corporations, which - in terms of infrastructure - are most certainly bringing new things to light. More on Health Care
 
Susan Harrow: Hide Your Body, Hide Yourself Top
My mother was an expert in hiding. She taught me how to hide my body. I learned never to show off my good traits but to mask my unattractive ones. I began to wonder what effect a life of hiding has on a person. If you're always looking for ways to not be seen, how do you speak out? How do you move through the world if you have an invisible cloak that has no magical powers other than to keep you in your own shadow? How can one be exuberant and thrilled about living if this exuberance is housed in a body that is a constant shame. These are the questions I've lived with. These are the questions I'm answering for myself now at age 52 with a body that is seen, with ideas that are being heard, with a life being lived fully in the body, because of it, not in spite of it. Until age 50 I didn't want to have a body. I could have blamed it on Catholicism, but it's much more complicated than that: family history, a love-hate relationship with food, illness, accidents, sex and the ultimate enemy, the mirror, the self. Ever since I can remember I've had nightmares. That was probably the first rebellion of what I'd later call "The body." I've never called it "My body", that would be too close. To me, my physical self has always been "The Body" something outside myself and usually very far away. Like James Joyce's description "Mr. Dufy lived a short distance from his body," I lived a long distance away from mine. Early on in Catholic mass I learned to transcend this earthly ball and chain. During the long Latin ramblings by overweight and overindulgent priests, I'd stare into the tall blue flame candles on the altar and let myself travel far far away. Churches and temples were created with high round high ceilings so the spirit could soar unencumbered, and mine did. It was the only time I felt free. Later I learned different types of meditation that would bring temporary relief from the pain of living in uncooperative flesh. I had this secret escape valve that gave me some relief from my overactive mind and the critical thoughts that dominated my being. Author Mary Karr said something like, "My mind is a bad neighborhood. Don't walk down the alleys or streets." Mine too. At one point after working intensely with Israeli homoeopathist Vega Rozenberg, things came to a tipping point. My heart was beating hard and fast for hours at time, racing from 50 to 150, I thought it would burst from my chest. Nothing I did could stop it. Not meditation, not exercise, not a soothing warm drink. It beat and beat, using up my quota, for we all have only so many beats that make up a life. After days of this I called Vega in a bit of a panic. "Are you in or out?" He asked. "What?" "Are you in or out." I told him I didn't know the answer to that. He said I damn well better know. Before this I had never thought that accepting life was a decision that I had to make.
 
Jonathan Spalter: A Welcome Look at the Wireless "Big Picture" Top
At its meeting tomorrow, the FCC is expected to vote to commence a broad review of America's wireless sector. This is a terrific opportunity for the new Commission to take a fresh, comprehensive and clear-eyed look at a wide range of issues with high-stakes implications for our nation's economy, innovation community, and consumers. The discussion is off to a good start with Chairman Julius Genachowski's recent comments that wireless is "an extraordinary opportunity for the country in terms of unleashing a new wave of innovation, a new wave of investment, jobs created here in the U.S. and bringing competition to the full communications marketplace." As the FCC convenes to determine the range of issues they will explore, here are a few suggestions that go deeper than the headlines of the moment: If you build it, will they come? Maybe. Here's a timely warning for anyone who wants to increase federal regulatory involvement in wireless: For all the talk about how Americans are desperate for more bandwidth, the realities of how we deliver it in a robust and sustainable way are pretty complex. Sure, 4G wireless will blossom next year and go national by 2011. But is there a sure path for mobile innovators, companies, and entrepreneurs to recoup their investment and make money? Not necessarily. There's a lot of excitement around Clearwire as it rolls out WiMax nationwide. But a recent Merrill Lynch report , noting credit market constraints and the sour economy, gave this company a target stock price of just $3 a share, less than half its current price. The dilemma: With billions of dollars at stake, competition rampant, and consumer habits changing faster than technology, there's hardly a guarantee of success. Will future policies help or hurt? Apps, apps everywhere. "There are going to be more smartphone launches in the next couple of months than we've ever seen before," according to Gartner analyst Ken Dulaney, quoted in the current Fortune cover story on wireless . But the real impact isn't only in the hardware, it's also with wireless applications. As Fortune's Jessi Hempel correctly reports, "consumer's expectations about what smartphones should provide are also evolving rapidly. Mobile phone users increasingly want to access the web more than they want to make calls. They're gravitating toward Tweeting rather than long e-mails. And they want applications, those programs that let you check the weather, play games, and even balance your checkbook." Yes, Apple has the apps lead now, but watch for this competition to get a lot tougher, as developers quickly embrace new smartphone software. Phones of the future. This summer, we saw a non-stop parade of new PDAs , each with their own "wow" factors. But here's why even these breakthroughs will be significantly outdated in the coming years: Nokia has developed a concept phone that is able to morph between a traditional phone and a bracelet with the help of flexible materials and nanotechnology. The Morph will even be able to measure environmental hazards such as carbon dioxide levels or sense the blood sugar imbalance of a diabetic using microscopic sensors. Ever run out of power during a call? The Atlas Kinetic concept phone uses weights and springs to draw energy from everyday motion, like a self-winding watch. So you'll never again have to plug in your phone each night. Earlier this year, LG unveiled a prototype touch screen Watch Phone that also texts, emails and shoots photos. Finally, Motorola deserves kudos for already creating the world's first carbon-neutral mobile phone. Called the Renew, it's made from recycled plastic and delivered in a box made from recycled paper. Former Vice President Gore, who spoke earlier this year at CTIA about the positive impact of wireless technology on energy efficiency, certainly would approve of such "green" innovations. We'll also see the utility and power of spectrum-based services move beyond the communications realm and into sectors like healthcare, energy, education and other fields as a way to leverage the energy and power of the more than 3.3 billion people on the planet with mobile devices. Choice will continue to expand. Current market trends continue to belie the claim that consumer choice is lacking in wireless. Metro PCS booked its best quarter ever this year, adding nearly 700,000 subscribers in the first quarter. Cricket subscribers rose about 40 percent year-to-year. What this means is that choices in calling and data plans are nearly certain to continue their expansion, probably in ways we can't project. That's another sign of vibrant competition, which is the foundation for greater innovation. The FCC's examination will see the true success story of today's wireless industry - a sector that's continually evolving to include more powerful devices, robust networks and competitive pricing. But there's still a lot of uncertainty. The Commission is right to look at wireless. We hope they look beyond current headlines and take a deep dive into the range of factors that make the wireless sector a vibrant and competitive engine of American innovation and economic growth. Jonathan Spalter, chairman of Mobile Future, served as chief information officer at the United States Information Agency and as an advisor to and spokesperson for Vice President Al Gore during the Clinton administration. www.mobilefuture.org
 
Hart Bochner: It's About Time Top
With the passing last night of perhaps the greatest senator this country has ever known, it marks a legacy in dire need of reward. Teddy Kennedy spent the better part of his five decades in public service fighting for the less fortunate. Up front and center was universal health care. Following in the footsteps of his brothers, Teddy recognized that by being born into privilege he was able focus his power into making a better society, lifting those who didn't have the opportunities he had. That was the central objective in his quest for health care, and asked for nothing more than affording the same coverage for all that he and his constituents received in government. I have never seen such an hideous display of demagoguery than during these past months over this debate in Congress. We live in extremely uncertain times, the masses being more vulnerable and, sadly, more easily manipulated than ever before. It's an outrage for the right to make up the garbage they're feeding the public, merely to win an argument like schoolyard bullies, regardless of impact. Never mind we could actually move our culture forward in the 21st Century. Lie, distort, cheat. None of it matters. Just don't let the other side win. Perhaps if The Right had a valid argument, it might be a debate worth entertaining. But, of course, it isn't, because health care should be a God-given right. Any sane minded person can't argue that. Therein lies the problem. As a tribute to Teddy, Congress should once and for all unite in what they know is doing the right thing.
 
Jill Sobule: Ted Kennedy on My Cell Phone Top
A few years ago, Ted Kennedy called and left a message on my cell phone. At first, I thought it was my friend Mark who thought he was good at celebrity impressions, but it really was Ted -- accent and all. He personally wanted to thank me for playing an upcoming fundraiser. Although, I was probably one of a hundred phone calls he made that hour, I was so taken aback and excited. I only wish he could have seen some kind of decent health care bill pass before he died. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Carlos A. Ball: Why the Florida Gay Adoption Ban Is Immoral Top
Today, my oldest son turns eight. Also today, the ACLU is back in court in Florida challenging the constitutionality of that state's thirty-year old law which prohibits lesbians and gay men from adopting. If I lived in Florida, I would not have been permitted to adopt my son because I am gay. Despite the arguments that the state will make in court today, the adoption ban has never been about the well-being of children. In fact, the law was enacted in 1977, two years before the first reported case of an adoption by an openly gay person anywhere in the country. In other words, when the Florida legislature passed the gay adoption ban, there had not been a single reported case of an adoption by an LGBT person in that state. This tells us that the Florida adoption ban, from the very beginning, has been more about politics and sending a message of disapproval of homosexuality than about the well-being of children. Indeed, one of the state senators who sponsored the ban explained at the time that "the problem in Florida is that homosexuals are surfacing to such an extent that they're beginning to aggravate the ordinary folks, who have rights of their own." The law, he added, was aimed at telling gay people to stay in the closet. The ban was part of the backlash stoked by social conservatives like Anita Bryant after Dade County, in the mid-1970s, became the first southern municipality to enact a gay rights ordinance. Although the ordinance had nothing to do with children--it simply prohibited sexual orientation discrimination in employment and housing--Bryant and other conservative activists formed an antigay organization called "Save The Children." The group's literature claimed that "the recruitment of our children is absolutely necessary for the survival and growth of homosexuality--for since homosexuals cannot reproduce, they must recruit, they must freshen their ranks." These outrageous claims led not only to the passage of a referendum repealing the gay rights ordinance, but also to the enactment by the Florida legislature of the adoption ban that is still on the books. Florida's gay adoption ban is immoral because it harms children. The ban leaves scores of children, who would otherwise be adopted, subjected to a troubled foster-care system that has historically failed to protect many children from harm. Florida contends that the adoption ban is necessary because it is better for children to be adopted by married heterosexual couples than by lesbians and gay men. It is undisputed, however, that there are many more children who are eligible for adoption in Florida than there are married heterosexuals who are willing to adopt them. The issue for these children is not, as the state will contend in court today, whether they will be better off with straight or gay parents. The issue is instead whether the children will have parents at all. To leave these children without parents under the care of a foster-care system with a poor track record in promoting the welfare of children is immoral because it places the well-being of children at risk. But as the history of the law shows, the ban has never really been about the welfare of children. Indeed, if Florida truly believed that lesbians and gay men constituted a threat to children, it would not allow them to serve as foster parents or as legal guardians. But for many years now, Florida child welfare officials have regularly asked lesbians and gay men to serve in those capacities, especially when it comes to children who are difficult to place because of disabilities or behavioral problems. Lesbians and gay men, then, are apparently good enough to provide care for children when no one else will, but not good enough to be deemed the full legal parents of those very same children, with the kind of stability and continuity in the children's lives that would come with such a recognition. There have been other efforts to challenge the ban before, including one in the federal courts a few years ago that failed. The ACLU is trying again, this time in the state courts. Sooner or later, the ban will be struck down or repealed. In fact, I expect that when my eight-year old son is an adult, he and others of his generation will look back at these types of laws with dismay and wonder how laws that were ostensibly aimed at protecting children actually ended up harming them.
 
Jim Fannin: Free Life Coach Advice for Jon and Kate Gosselin Top
How do teams become champions? How do family teams endure life's trials and tribulations and ultimately thrive? Since 1974 I have taught a simple formula for success called the S.C.O.R.E.® System. It is a thought-management process for improving Self-discipline, Concentration, Optimism, Relaxation and Enjoyment. This thought-management system is used to create winning teams that include sports, business and families. As a coach to famous people in sports, business and life for over three decades, I have recognized that the price of fame is very steep. The bright light of it reveals blemishes and beauty marks equally. Once the flaws are revealed, they are magnified for all to see and judge. And no two people have been more judged by millions of people, gossip columns and tabloids than Jon and Kate Gosselin of the TV reality show, Jon & Kate + 8 . As a "change your life" coach to the best athletes and corporate CEOs in the world, I witnessed 75% of my clients' job performances were greatly impacted by the toughest arena of the world -- marriage. Jon and Kate, however have the cameras squarely on this dynamic arena. As my father used to tell me in our home in Kentucky, "If momma ain't happy, nobody's happy." My Mother used to say the same thing about Dad. So, how do Jon and Kate get a 50 year marriage that begins and ends with two people equaling more together than apart? This question has not been answered by more than 50% of all married couples, while the majority of the other 50% ponder this question regularly. Great expectations and achievements require even greater sacrifice and the willingness to compromise. As one of the most visibly married couples in America, Jon & Kate Gosselin showcase their marital acumen and parenting skills to their eight children (six of whom are sextuplets) in view of millions of Americans through television and print media. How do Jon & Kate equal more together than apart? What are the solutions to these questions? There are five keys to repairing Jon and Kate's marriage: 1. Self-discipline is paramount. Jon and Kate must be willing to attempt to individually repair their marriage. Each must take back as much control as possible of their limited private life. No past experiences need to be addressed initially. A moratorium on finger pointing, judgment or being a victim needs to be in force. 2. Concentration is required. Jon & Kate need to focus on what they want and NOT what they don't want! Each need to write down a reasonable list , independent of each other, of what they want and expect in a significant other. This list includes: sex & romance, social interaction, parenting, finances, careers, regular communication, etc. What characteristics do they want their significant other to have regarding these issues? This "wish list" should be all encompassing. 3. Optimism will be the glue that bonds their relationship. What part of their list will they compromise or sacrifice in order to make "1 + 1 = Jon & Kate + 8?" This will take great thought on each of their parts. This will be the true litmus test to their success or failure as husband, wife and family. They must see the relationship as it will be. They must see it as if it's so. Optimism is their belief and expectancy that the marriage will not only survive, but thrive. Each needs to see in their daydreams a life with each other. Shared vision brought them together and it will bring them back. The relationship is only as good as what each thinks about the other when they are apart. 4. Relaxation is being comfortable with each other, free from worry and anxiety. Find the common denominators that showcase a peaceful and tranquil "Jon & Kate + 8" under one roof. Will this be easy? Not with the cameras flashing and ratings at stake. Turmoil sends ratings through the roof. Do they want more viewers or more constants in a world of variables. Routines that both agree on will create the constants for this to happen. 5. Enjoyment is the bottom line and the end result. Enjoying one another's company when there is chaos around you is the challenge. Both Jon and Kate need to laugh together and rekindle their friendship. Intimacy will follow. Finally, both parties together need to discuss where change and compromise can take place. They need to enjoy this union of husband and wife. Can Jon and Kate survive their turmoil? Can they rekindle their marriage? Stay tuned. More on Jon & Kate Plus 8
 
The Day In Funny & Fabulous Photos: Choose Your Favorite! (SLIDESHOW, POLL) Top
More on Photo Galleries
 
Sarah Schmelling: Back to the Classics, for Grown-ups Top
When I signed the contract for Ophelia Joined the Group Maidens Who Don't Float , my literary-social-networking "lark" of a book that came out this week, I didn't just promise to write it. I was also signing up for two strange and wonderful tasks: to spend an insane amount of time on Facebook, and to immerse myself in dozens of pieces of classic literature. The former, of course, is something I'd probably do anyway . But to also be forced to read the classics? So many books that the people behind me in line at the used bookstore groaned in unison when the cashier pulled out two cardboard boxes for me to carry them? It was crazy-making and challenging, the biggest English Lit assignment I'd ever received. And it's something I'd absolutely recommend. Not just to teenagers, who have that giant table of "required reading" especially for them in the bookstores right now, mocking them like some big "SUMMER IS OVER" beacon. I mean you, over there, with the copies of Moby-Dick and Brave New World on display on your shelves, probably to impress people, even if you've never cracked the covers. You, who read Fitzgerald and Hawthorne, Twain and Dickens back in school only when you had to and always meant to give them another chance. Now is the time to go back to the classics. Or as good as a time as any. Yes, I had the bonus of looking at all of these books and trying to find what could be funny about them, especially if they were in a social media world. (What would Ralph from Lord of the Flies do if Jack tried to "friend" him after all these years? How would Hemingway react if he did worse than Conrad or Dostoyevsky on the "Are you a Real Man" quiz?). But I can't even count how many times I went to a book for a reference and ended up getting sucked into a story. Imagine: Reading The Scarlet Letter , and not only actually understanding what "adultery" is (something I'm pretty sure I thought was a form of shoplifting when it was assigned), but also kind of admiring Hester and her flagrant embroidery in the face of Puritanism. Or getting into The Great Gatsby and not having to plan for essays on what that green light or the fading billboard represent, but to just appreciate the language and its amazing description of an American moment. Or, how about a translation of The Canterbury Tales --which is actually quite raunchy, any Apatow lover would revel in the fart jokes--without having to memorize the Whan that Aprille ? Or any Shakespeare play. The Brontës: yes, Heathcliff and Rochester still hold up. Read Edgar Allan Poe as an adult: oh is he creepier than ever, but also the forerunner to every Twilight Zone episode and so many mysteries. And what about the kids? Try seeing Holden Caulfield or Huckleberry Finn from an adult perspective and not as guys your age. (Though read To Kill a Mockingbird and you will still, to this day, want Atticus to be your dad.) Jane Austen has had her own out-of-school cult following for years, why shouldn't some of these others? Of course, what the "classics" or "required reading" should be is an entirely different discussion. In my book, I just tried to stick to the things I was assigned in school, the books that show up on every "Greatest Works of All Time" list, and the works that just seemed meant to be translated into Facebook-eze ( Dracula , with those letters back and forth, those "links" to newspaper clippings and journal entries, and well, all the vampires? Come on .) Though I like how "Shakespeare" described what a "classic" is in my book's introduction: "I believe it means as an author you must have suffered, toiled in obscurity, drank, battered yourself with heavy household items, contracted something on the English moors, done something embarrassing in public, had daddy issues, run off with a friend's wife or your own underage cousin, failed at writing Hollywood screenplays, or gone to your grave believing you were talentless and completely unloved." Whatever they are, the classics deserve a second (or first) look, well beyond school and free of any kind of assignment. And even though summer is, yes, okay, over. Moby-Dick was never meant to be a beach read, anyway. More on Books
 
Suicidal Planet Seems On Death Spiral Into Star Top
WASHINGTON — Astronomers have found what appears to be a gigantic suicidal planet. The odd, fiery planet is so close to its star and so large that it is triggering tremendous plasma tides on the star. Those powerful tides are in turn warping the planet's zippy less-than-a-day orbit around its star. The result: an ever-closer tango of death, with the planet eventually spiraling into the star. It's a slow death. The planet WASP-18b has maybe a million years to live, said planet discoverer Coel Hellier, a professor of astrophysics at the Keele University in England. Hellier's report on the suicidal planet is in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. "It's causing its own destruction by creating these tides," Hellier said. The star is called WASP-18 and the planet is WASP-18b because of the Wide Angle Search for Planets team that found them. The planet circles a star that is in the constellation Phoenix and is about 325 light-years away from Earth, which means it is in our galactic neighborhood. A light-year is about 5.8 trillion miles. The planet is 1.9 million miles from its star, 1/50th of the distance between Earth and the sun, our star. And because of that the temperature is about 3,800 degrees. Its size – 10 times bigger than Jupiter – and its proximity to its star make it likely to die, Hellier said. Think of how the distant moon pulls Earth's oceans to form twice-daily tides. The effect the odd planet has on its star is thousands of times stronger, Hellier said. The star's tidal bulge of plasma may extend hundreds of miles, he said. Like most planets outside our solar system, this planet was not seen directly by a telescope. Astronomers found it by seeing dips in light from the star every time the planet came between the star and Earth. So far astronomers have found more than 370 planets outside the solar system. This one is "yet another weird one in the exoplanet menagerie," said planet specialist Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. It's so unusual to find a suicidal planet that University of Maryland astronomer Douglas Hamilton questioned whether there was another explanation. While it is likely that this is a suicidal planet, Hamilton said it is also possible that some basic physics calculations that all astronomers rely on could be dead wrong. The answer will become apparent in less than a decade if the planet seems to be further in a death spiral, he said. ___ On the Net Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature WASP group: http://www.superwasp.org/
 
Han Shan: CRUDE: The Film Chevron Doesn't Want You to See Top
American oil giant Chevron is now the 5th largest company on the planet. But I doubt Chevron executives have had much time to savor their 'Masters of the Universe' status lately. Instead, I imagine them working overtime with their internal public relations team and mercenary army of PR spinmasters, lobbyists, and sponsored bloggers they've brought on to fight what looks more and more like a losing battle. What's got them burning the midnight oil? Two weeks from today, a powerful new documentary film is opening in New York, and then playing in select theaters across the country. Called CRUDE , the film tells a shocking story that Chevron does not want the world to know. Three years in the making by acclaimed filmmaker Joe Berlinger ( Brother's Keeper, Paradise Lost, and Metallica: Some Kind of Monster ), CRUDE chronicles the epic legal battle to hold Chevron accountable for its systematic contamination of the Ecuadorian Amazon -- an environmental tragedy experts call the "Amazon Chernobyl," and believe is the worst case of oil-related contamination on Earth. While drilling in the Ecuadorian Amazon from 1964 to 1990, Texaco, now Chevron, deliberately dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater, spilled roughly 17 million gallons of crude oil, and left hazardous waste in hundreds of open pits dug out of the forest floor. The company operated using substandard practices that were obsolete in order to increase its profit margin by $3 per barrel of crude. Of course, the local people and ecosystems paid the price instead, but they're fighting back. Centering on a landmark lawsuit filed by the indigenous people and campesinos who continue to suffer a severe public health crisis caused by Chevron's contamination, CRUDE is a high-stakes David vs. Goliath legal drama with 30,000 Amazon rainforest dwellers facing down the San Ramon, California-based oil behemoth. Amazon Watch's Clean Up Ecuador Campaign - featured in the film - is leading grassroots efforts to promote the theatrical release, enlisting human rights and environmental allies across the U.S. in an outreach and word-of-mouth marketing campaign. Numerous organizations have pledged support and committed to concrete efforts to build the profile of this must-see film, including Rainforest Action Network, Oxfam USA, WITNESS, EarthRights International, Human Rights Watch, and Global Green, to name just a few. CRUDE is not a simplistic piece of agit-prop. Filmmaker Joe Berlinger shows all sides of this monumental case and the stories and people behind it. Chevron is given plenty of opportunity to share its perspective. Unfortunately for them, in the end, truth does appear to pick a side and it's not Chevron's. Watch the trailer below: Ultimately, the film gives us a glimpse of the beauty and mystery of the Amazon and its indigenous cultures, and puts a human face on the devastation left there by three decades of oil operations. But it does a lot more. Among other things, it also tells the story of what it takes to go up against one of the most powerful companies on the planet. Especially inspiring is the story of Pablo Fajardo , the young former oil field worker who completed his law degree by correspondence course and is now the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. Pablo argues passionately and courageously for the impacted communities, and you won't be able to help cheering him on. Advising Pablo is another lawyer named Steven Donziger, who helped file the original lawsuit in New York back in 1993. Coming across as somehow simultaneously cynical and idealistic, Donziger is brash and and big and loud and manipulative. And if you're rooting for the plaintiffs, you'll find yourself thinking "I'm glad he's on our side." And there are a slew of other fascinating real-life characters, from a Cofán indigenous leader who travels from the jungle by foot, canoe, bus, train, and plane to speak about the plight of his people at a Chevron shareholder meeting in Houston, to a Chevron attorney who comes across like the Tilda Swinton character from Michael Clayton ( how does she sleep at night? ). We meet Trudie Styler - wife of Sting and founder with him of the Rainforest Foundation - who visits the affected communities and quickly becomes passionately, earnestly involved. It's easy to get behind CRUDE because it not only tells an important story. It tells it in an inspiring, powerful, engaging, and dare I say it, entertaining way. Joe Berlinger had a hit with his last film about Metallica going through group therapy . He brings the same storytelling acumen to this story that already had dramatic elements galore. The theatrical release of CRUDE comes at a moment of unprecedented importance in the campaign to hold Chevron accountable and achieve justice for the people of the Ecuadorian Amazon. What's more, a victory for this grassroots campaign will send shockwaves through the oil industry and corporate boardrooms around the world, forever changing the way companies do business. With CRUDE coming out in theaters, we have an unprecedented opportunity to massively increase public awareness of this issue and massively increase public pressure for Chevron to be held accountable. But it begins with getting people out to the movies! The film opens in New York on 09/09/09 , followed by runs in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and thirty more smaller cities across the country [ full list ]. This sounds great but think of it compared to G.I. Joe, which was playing in 4,000 theaters at the same time a couple weeks ago! Theaters nationwide will be watching to see how the film performs in the first few weeks to decide whether to screen it themselves so please, help us spread the word. Blog about CRUDE , post the trailer and poster and web banners on your social networks, follow and retweet @crudethemovie & @amazonwatch , become a fan of the film on Facebook , and join our mailing list for news, updates, and action alerts. Visit www.ChevronToxico.com/crude for resources to help you promote CRUDE and get involved with the Clean Up Ecuador Campaign . Join us now so you can join us for the campaign's victory party in the near future! You can also visit the official film website at: www.crudethemovie.com . to read more about the making of the film, to sign up for updates from the filmmaker, and to see the latest play-dates.
 
Dr. Michael J. Breus: Something New in Melatonin? Top
You don't have to be a shift worker or jet setter to have awkward or non-existent sleeping habits, but both groups suffer quite a bit . Melatonin, one of the more popular over-the-counter supplements, may be headed toward a new delivery system, a patch placed on the body with small pulses of the hormone administered throughout the evening (or day), through your skin! I've written about this sleep aid frequently because I get so many questions on it.  Many supplement companies and health food stores will claim that melatonin is a natural sleeping aid or nightcap because it "naturally" helps regulate sleep-wake cycles. Given its wide spread availability today, you'd presume it's safe and effective. Is it? Well, that depends. Melatonin has been shown to help regulate sleep cycles in certain populations and really help out quite a few people, but like anything there are pros and cons : The precise mechanism of melatonin secretion in the body is not well understood. We do know, however, that melatonin isn't just about sleep-wake cycles. It's been shown to help regulate the female reproductive cycle and may also affect   the onset of puberty. Children who take melatonin can suffer a delay in sexual development . (So never ever give a child a melatonin supplement.) This new patch study showed that men and women had different levels of melatonin in their system with the same dosage patch! So a gender difference may apply. Studies have pointed to melatonin's role in regulating blood flow, specifically in constricting coronary arteries . And it's been suggested that melatonin can increase depression in people prone to the illness. For the record, melatonin is a hormone , and it's not a regulated drug under the FDA . No other hormone is available in the United States without a prescription. In some parts of Europe, melatonin is available by prescription only. If this experimental patch version of melatonin reaches the market, it could have a much bigger effect on the body than just popping a pill. The half-life of a melatonin pill is short and it doesn't last long; a patch, on the other hand, can deliver small doses throughout its use to keep the levels in the body consistent for a longer, stronger effect. This might be great for shift workers who sleep during the day, when the body does not like to produce melatonin. The patch has been tested on people who sleep during daylight hours and work at night.. For this reason, I can see why a melatonin patch could be helpful to those who maintain schedules opposite to the usual solar day (where the body prefers to be functional). And I have great respect for those who manage to live this life for the sake of their careers and my safety (e.g., emergency care, pilots, etc.).   But, even though the patch would be sold as a prescription, it wouldn't surprise me to see people getting their hands on it without trying other sleep hygiene tactics first, which can be far more effective and healthier overall for the body, particularly for those of us that can really get our shut-eye at night. Sweet Dreams, Michael J. Breus, PhD The Sleep Doctor™ This article on sleep and melatonin is also available at Dr. Breus's official blog, The Insomnia Blog . More on Sleep
 
David Roberts: Chuck Grassley Does Not Believe in the Threat of Anthropogenic Climate Change Top
grist.org In a Tuesday conference call with Iowa agricultural reporters , Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) offered some state-of-the-art Republican doubletalk on climate change (maybe he read it in Glenn Beck's book ). This is worth reading in full, in part to admire the blithely inconsistent muddle of it all, but also in part to marvel at just how second-nature this line of dissembling has become. These talking points are echoed almost verbatim up and down the conservative food chain, all the way from bottom-feeders like Marc Morano to U.S. Senators. No conservative has to think on his feet about it, or craft his own careful line on it. Senator ... are you convinced greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change and are a threat to human health? GRASSLEY: Well, I'd be foolish if I didn't give -- I'd be foolish if I didn't give it some consideration because there's a massive amount of scientists that feel that it does. But there's also an increasing number of scientists that have doubt about it. And so, not being a scientist, I don't know exactly where to say only those things that are really quantifiable, and temperature has risen. But the scientific aspect that I still reserving judgment on is the extent to which it's manmade or natural. And it's reasonable, considering that there's at least a natural factor in it, because historically, and you can go to the core drillings in the glaciers to get proof of this, that we've had decades and decades, and maybe even centuries of periods of time when there's been a tremendous rise in temperature, and then a tremendous fall in temperature. And all you've got to do is look at the little ice age of the mid-last millennia as an example. And so we've got to single out what's natural and what's manmade before you can make policy. Now, a lot of members of Congress and most environmentalists are -- are absolutely convinced manmade is the -- is the factor -- chief factor here. But I -- I want to, before I vote on it, be more conclusive in my judgment, and I haven't reached that conclusion at this point. But it's enough to know that I think that even if it is manmade entirely, and so there's justification for the legislation, you still have to deal with the reality factors that domestically there's a very unlevel playing field between California and New York that benefit financially from it, and the Midwest and the Southeast United States that's going to be hurt; and then the unlevel playing field if you don't include India and China, an unlevel playing field with the United States versus those countries. And so -- so we don't want to lose all of our manufacturing to China. We've already lost a lot. We -- it's better to have an international agreement and include China and India in it. It's a greatest hits parade! I'm a reasonable guy, just not yet convinced. The science is mixed and confusing and we need more time to get it nailed down. It's liberals and environmentalists, not scientists, who argue the climate is changing. Climate legislation is a scheme by coastal liberals to take your money. China India China India China India boogabooga! Individually each point is utterly bankrupt, but note how if you're not paying attention, the answer just kind of slides in a haze of aw-shucks blather and faux-erudition. What the average Iowan hears is "blah blah blah don't let 'em take yer money!!! blah blah." This is why, as I've written before , I really think conservative legislators and pundits should be nailed down on this question. Do you believe there's a threat or don't you? And if you don't, why don't you trust the National Academy of Sciences or the multi-agency climate science review begun under Bush? This "golly I just ain't convinced!" shtick was intellectually tired a decade ago. It's hard to believe they're still getting away with it. More on Climate Change
 
Jarrett Murphy: Mayor's Housing Plan: A Failure? Top
A couple weeks ago, New York City comptroller and Democratic mayoral frontrunner Bill Thompson called the Bloomberg administration's housing policies "a failure." Yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg's Department of Housing Preservation and Development was trumpeting its success at meeting this year's affordable housing targets. Could they both be right? Better yet, might they both be overselling it a bit? In a video response to a voter's question on August 5, Thompson said: "I think that New York City has failed over the last eight years to create enough affordable housing units and, as we look at affordability, we have to talk about it and think about it as low, moderate and middle-income housing, and they just have failed to do that. We need to approach housing and look at it as a crisis." At the end of his first year in City Hall, Bloomberg unveiled a plan to spend $5 billion over five years producing 65,000 units of affordable housing. Housing activists wanted more. In the 2005 mayoral campaign, Democrat Freddy Ferrer unveiled a plan to create 167,000 units over 10 years. Team Bloomberg pooh-poohed Ferrer's idea at first, but a few weeks later put out its own, bulked-up initiative : $7.5 billion to create or preserve 165,000 units over a decade. While the claim that it is "the largest municipal housing program in the nation" is not strictly true (Mayor Koch's housing plan devoted more money, in today's terms, and appears to have built more units than Bloomberg set out to), the Bloomberg initiative has launched about three times as many affordable units per year as under the Giuliani administration. It also gets kudos for using creative financing to open housing to households that are too poor to afford a decent place to live but too rich to qualify for standard housing programs. Bloomberg, of course, touts the plan in his campaign literature. Yesterday, HPD announced that "amid a nationwide economic downturn and an uncertain housing market, the city has financed more than 12,500 units of affordable housing for middle-class and low-income New Yorkers over the last fiscal year," meeting its target. "In the midst of this economic downturn and the precipitous drop in housing starts nationally, New York City continues to forge ahead to create quality, safe and affordable housing for all New Yorkers," the housing commissioner, Raphael Cestero, said in a statement. "While many people thought we would miss the ambitious target that we set for ourselves, but we were able to reach this milestone because we saw opportunities where others only saw roadblocks." But in meeting that number, HPD may have reinforced concerns about the overall viability of the rest of the plan. In the first place, the goal for the recent fiscal year was itself revised downward by 23 percent when the city earlier this year decided, in the face of budget constraints, to stretch its original decade-length plan to 11 years. More importantly, the mayor's affordable housing plan calls for preserving 73,000 units of existing housing (through rehab funding or new financing) and building 92,000 units of new housing. Building new housing is the more expensive part. But the city has focused on the cheaper stuff first: It is 80 percent done with the preservation units, but has achieved only 38 percent of its new construction goal. The numbers HPD touted yesterday reflect this skew. Of units financed last year, there were twice as many preservation units as new construction. The city missed its target for new construction in 2009 by 13 percent. That mix matters because the cost of new construction, and the glut of that work that remains undone, has been identified as the biggest risk to the overall success of the mayor's plan. A report by the Independent Budget Office in late 2007 found that while the city appeared to have the money to meet its preservation target, "Funding the remaining units to meet the plan's new construction goals, however, may pose more of a challenge ." The report continued: "In contrast, IBO projects that HPD's capital budget is sufficient to fund slightly less than half—49 percent—of the units needed to meet new construction targets." HPD disputed the numbers in that IBO report, saying that it exaggerated the budget crunch. The city did not push to add more money to the housing effort, despite rising construction costs around the city. The decision to stretch the plan out over another year suggests that cost pressures were fairly serious. The tightest constraints on the city's housing ambitions might come from Washington, where the federal government controls how many tax credits each state gets to build affordable housing. Sure, the mayor's plan has critics who think it is too small, is offset by other policy decisions he has made or directs too much of its housing to moderate- and middle-income people rather than the poor . But has it really been a "failure" as Thompson says? It's unclear how Thompson defines failure, but it seems a harsh diagnosis. Rather than calling the completion of 65,000 units so far a "failure," it's much fairer to say that the plan could fail—meaning, fall far short of its goals—between now and the end date in 2014, leaving thousands of people without the housing that the mayor promised in his (first) re-election campaign. In his August 5 remarks, Thompson said the city needed a "21st century Mitchell-Lama program" and to "work with labor" to get more housing built, but did not detail either approach. Tonight, Thompson debates his primary opponent, Councilman Tony Avella, who has his own ideas on housing, including a plan to raise taxes on vacant lots and buildings in a bid to push them onto the housing market. After the primary, there'll be two debates for Bloomberg and his Democratic opponent—plenty of time to learn if either has a plan to get from here to 165,000 units.
 
Robert L. Borosage: Wall Street Rules: The Bernanke Reappointment Top
The reappointment of Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve -- cleverly timed to defuse the news of burgeoning federal deficits --was preordained. The "markets" demanded it, and as James Carville noted, when the markets speak, presidents listen. (Carville, shocked at how Bob Rubin's arguments about the markets trumped all Clinton campaign pledges, exclaimed: "I used to think if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or a .400 baseball hitter. But now I want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.") The conventional wisdom holds that Bernanke's reappointment is well-deserved. Officially, we are told the recovery is beginning. Bernanke is credited for the bold, inventive and unprecedented wielding of the power of the Federal Reserve to stave off a depression. And now as the Fed faces the next perilous months, it is hard to imagine anyone else entrusted with the job. Or as the more cynical suggest, Bernanke helped create the mess, it is only right that he be charged with cleaning it up. But before the Senate bestows upon Bernanke the reverence once reserved for Alan Greenspan, some basic questions should be posed. Senator Chris Dodd, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, has a particular stake in challenging Bernanke about what he has learned from the past desperate months as well as what he intends for the next years. Consider. 1. What do you know now that you didn't know then? Before the crisis, Bernanke served as Sancho Panza to Alan Greenspan's Don Quixote, extolling the virtues of deregulation, lauding the ability of markets to self-regulate, celebrating the strength of our banking system, seconding Greenspan as he jousted with imagined inflation while oblivious to the housing bubble, orgiastic greed and gambling, and predatory lending that constituted real and present dangers. Greenspan has now admitted that he was blinded by a "mistaken" set of beliefs. How has the crisis disabused Bernanke of his ideological predilections? How, in concrete ways, has it changed his views about how the economy works, and about the role of regulation and regulators in curbing Wall Street's excesses? 2. Why shovel trillions into the banks and finance houses and ask nothing of them for the American people? Once the Federal Reserve belatedly awoke to the severity of the crisis, Bernanke joined with Treasury Secretary Paulson, and former New York Federal Reserve Bank president (now Treasury Secretary) Tim Geithner in cobbling together a series of ad hoc emergency measures to stave off financial collapse. Mistakes - like letting Lehman go belly up - were made, but that was to be expected since they had to make it up as they went along. For this, Bernanke deserves the thanks of a grateful nation and world. But the Senate should press the Chairman on how he defends the terms of the deals, and what he would do now to change them. Essentially, Bernanke, Geithner and Paulson flooded the financial system with dollars, about two trillion and still counting. They chose to resuscitate essentially bankrupt banks, not take them over and reorganize them. They asked little or nothing from the banks in return - no requirements on lending, no marking of toxic paper to market, no change in business models or compensation schemes, no changes in management. So now, the banks are officially said to be "healing." But they still are burdened with toxic paper; they still aren't doing much lending. People are still losing their jobs and their homes, credit card and commercial defaults remain at high levels. And the most aggressive of the investment houses seem to be headed back to the old ways. Goldman Sachs shamelessly announces that it is putting aside several billion for bonuses, based on profits largely from computerized gambling essentially with taxpayers' money. Why not "resolve" the banks rather than just try to resuscitate them? Why not require changes in compensation schemes, limits on exotic trading and securities, mandates to return to the essential business of lending money to Main Street? Why not force changes in management to hold people accountable for their catastrophic actions? 3. If you are going to spend our money, why can't we see the books? In the emergency, the Federal Reserve has revealed its power to put literally trillions into the economy without a vote of Congress. This untrammeled power was vital in the crisis, and is utterly corrosive in a democracy, particularly in an insulated institution that sees itself as Wall Street's protector. Bernanke has opposed a bi-partisan effort by the Congress to get an audit of the Fed's books, so that Congress could learn where the money went. Senator Dodd should make himself the tribune of the American people here. Why should the Fed have this power? How can it be made more accountable to Main Street than Wall Street? Why should its books not be audited? Would Bernanke support the creation of a Congressional Finance Office to give Congress independent advice on the Fed and the financial community, as the Congressional Budget Office provides on the budget? 4. If you don't know where you are going, you are likely to end up in the wrong place. (from the existential philosopher, Yogi Berra) Going forward, President Obama has stated that we can't go back to the old economy where finance captured 40% of the nation's profits. To achieve that, the banking sector should be smaller and strictly regulated. The casino should be shut down. Banking should return to the boring profession of taking deposits and distributing loans. Yet thus far the emergency policies have consolidated the banking sector, subsidized the big guys, increased concentration, and done little to reform practices, protect consumers, curb dangerous compensation schemes, or outlaw exotic securities. The bankers have responded to even the meekest of reform proposals with full court lobbying, arguably using some of the money taxpayers provided to lobby against the protections that taxpayers desperately need. How does Bernanke propose we get finance under control? Does he agree with Obama that the financial system must be smaller and more constrained? How would he propose to do that? 5. Why should we reward failure with more authority? The Federal Reserve had significant powers to regulate the housing market, to crack down on predatory lending, to curb the speculative excesses of the banking sector. Yet under Greenspan and Bernanke, those powers went unused Bernanke argued forcefully that the Fed should not act to counter asset bubbles, echoing Greenspan that it was easier to clean up the messes after they burst. Clearly the last months have punctured that illusion. But Bernanke continues to argue that the Federal Reserve play the lead role in regulating the banks, assessing systemic risk, overseeing those institutions deemed "too big to fail." Why? Why should the Fed, Wall Street's instrument from its inception, pretend to an effective cop on the financial beat? Why not leave it to do monetary policy, and assign regulation to independent agencies more accountable to the Congress? Why would we reward failure by increasing the Fed's powers? Shouldn't Congress enforce anti-trust policies to insure that no institution is ever too big to fail, rather than trying to regulate such institutions? Why not have an independent agency tasked with protecting consumers from predatory financial practices? 6. What has the Fed learned from Japan's mistakes? As Bill Greider and Paul Krugman have argued, the US looks more and more like Japan in its lost decade. Here, as in Japan, the major insolvent banks were subsidized, not reorganized. They remain weak, reluctant to lend, a heavy weight on the economy. As in Japan, the "green shoots" of recovery have been watered by heavy deficit spending, but political opposition is growing to taking on more debt. In Japan, when the economy would show signs of growth, worried politicians would cut spending, and the economy would sink again. The result was a decade of stagnation, until finally the Japanese garnered the gumption to restructure the banks - and were able to export into America's bubble. Bernanke should be pressed: Aren't the major banks in their present condition likely to remain a drag on any recovery? How will we avoid a decade of stagnation? What will provide the source of growth, since we can't relay on exports to the US? Ben Bernanke has performed valiantly in an unprecedented crisis. But save the laurels for later; the Senate should grill him, not deify him. He was wrong about deregulation of financial markets, blind to the dangers of the housing bubble, wrong about its impact on the real economy once it burst, slow in seeing the recession coming. We need to know how his core beliefs have changed given that reality. And his bold steps to stave off the crisis have reflected the many of the same ideological predispositions - reluctance to take over and reorganize the major banks, unwillingness to force heads to roll, opposition to mandates on the banks that were bailed out, insistence on preserving the powers and the prerogatives of the "Temple." A crisis, it is said, changes everything. We now know that the Fed has powers far beyond the mysteries of monetary policy. The Chairman can no longer hide behind opaque language, or argue that the mysteries of the Temple must be preserved. The Chairman has been revealed as the second most, if not the most powerful figure in Washington. So, before the Senate gives its consent to his reappointment, Senator Dodd, Chair of the Finance Committee, should insist that we learn learn how Mr. Bernanke's beliefs have changed, and how he would change his policies going forward. More on The Fed
 
Mike McCready: The High Line -- New York's Latest Public Park Where Apparently Nudity Abounds Top
All last year and early this year there was a lot of anticipation in the neighborhood about the High Line, a new elevated park in the Meatpacking District of Manhattan's West Village. Personally, I didn't realize what a big deal this was for everyone but since it opened we've probably been to it twenty times and I've come around. I was especially surprised to hear my mother ask me about it. She lives in Arizona and had read about it in the newspaper so I guess it's a big deal across the country too. It offers great views of the neighborhood and of the Hudson River -- and apparently of the people staying in The Standard Hotel in all their nudity and lewd behavior, according to a report by Mike Taibbi on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. First though, this from Wikipedia: The High Line is a 1.45-mile (2.33 km) section of the former elevated freight railroad of the West Side Line, along the lower west side of Manhattan, which has been redesigned and planted as a greenway. The High Line runs from the former 34th Street freightyard, near the Javits Convention Center, through the neighborhood of Chelsea to Gansevoort Street in the Meat Packing District of the West Village. The High Line was built in the early 1930s by the New York Central Railroad to eliminate the fatal accidents that occurred along the street-level right-of-way and to offer direct warehouse-to-freight car service that reduced pilferage for the Bell Laboratories Building (now the Westbeth Artists Community) and the Nabisco plant (now Chelsea Market), which were served from protected sidings within the structures. It was in active use until 1980. In the 1990s, it became known to a few urban explorers and local residents for the tough, drought-tolerant wild grasses, forbs and trees that had sprung up in the gravel along the abandoned railway. By 1999 broadened community support of public redevelopment for the High Line for pedestrian use grew, and funding was allocated in 2004. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was an important supporter. The southernmost section reopened as a city park on June 8, 2009.[1] The middle section is still being refurbished, while the northernmost section's future remains uncertain, access disputed between the City of New York and the MTA. Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy
 
Chris Brassington: Why Turn to Mobile Marketing in a Down Economy? Top
With the economy still struggling, marketers, brand managers and their agencies are looking for ways to cut budgets for the remainder of 2009. Some industry pundits have brought into light the fact that technologies such as mobile, virtual worlds and widgets will be hit hard by the downturn. Often referred to as "emerging advertising technologies", spending figures in this space are small compared with the overall online ad market, which reached $23.4 billion in 2008 according to the IAB. Looking at mobile in particular, eMarketer reports that U.S. advertisers spent $648 million dollars in 2008 on mobile advertising. Although this number is small compared to other initiatives, it still represents a great opportunity for companies that clearly understand the market and best practices associated with this medium. What eMarketer and many others fail to recognize, however, is that there are some clear differences between mobile advertising and mobile marketing. Mobile advertising is typically text messages and banners that are delivered via the mobile Web. This is a component of mobile marketing, but is not -- and should not -- be an advertiser's complete mobile strategy. Mobile marketing, on the other hand, offers an interactive experience for consumers and allows them to interact with a brand or advertiser at their convenience, with urgency and spontaneity. Think of times when you've seen an ad on the street or TV, thinking "I need to remember to go to that Web site or make that phone call," but then you forget once you're back in front of your computer. Because the mobile phone is almost always nearby, it gives customers the ability to instantly react to an ad. As an example, The National Guard launched a nationwide theater advertising campaign last fall featuring "Warrior," a two-and-a-half minute video spot with music by Kid Rock and an appearance by NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt Jr. As part of the campaign, a mobile Internet site was created using 2ergo's mobile marketing platform that allows movie watchers to access and interact with the "Warrior" site on their mobile phones while sitting in the theater. Warrior appeared for a two-month period before PG-13 and R rated movies in thousands of theaters nationwide. In the first month of the campaign, the mobile campaign generated thousands of unique visitors and more than 9,000 MP3s, 2,600 video views and 600 wallpaper images were downloaded. Some of the key elements that make mobile marketing campaigns so successful are: 1.) Programs can be easily tied into an overall media plan and integrated alongside traditional media 2.) Customer responses are often instantaneous since many people carry mobile phones 3.) The direct response element of these campaigns is trackable As many marketers will need to defend their advertising spend, trackable campaigns are becoming even more important. Mobile campaigns that have a direct response element tied to them are easier to measure in terms of ROI and the total number of individuals that respond via SMS or visit a mobile Web site for more information. One example is a reality TV campaign from Scripps Networks that utilized SMS to allow viewers to vote on the winner while allowing an advertiser to include a message within each vote reply. Seven percent of voters that received the sponsored text message requested more information from the sponsor of the program. In another example, Chevrolet launched a recent mobile campaign in Mexico that used a mobile Web site to capture numerous consumers interested in more information and a test drive. With more than 80% of mobile phone penetration in the U.S. alone, brand marketers are beginning to recognize the true value that this tested and proven medium delivers. Feel free to contact me directly if you would like to discuss or learn more. Chris Brassington +44 (0)161 874 4222 2ergo
 
Phil Bronstein: McCain's Care Restores Health to Sickly Town Halls... Top
Civility in public discussion these days is as rare as a bald-headed Kennedy -- the last of that mane now lionized by Ted's passing . But damn if John McCain didn't have a bunch of citizens at his Arizona health care reform town hall meeting yesterday behaving like the Mormon Tabernacle choir : polite, orderly and in key. No Barney Frank verbal bitch-slapping or Arlen Specter constituency spittle here. Everyone in their seats; no signs, no riots. This is a guy who's not only on ( his ) message, unlike the eloquent and seemingly unprepared-for-this-battle Obama administration, but keeps his audience there with him. "We don't shout at my Town Hall meetings," Senator McCain said to the crowd . Whether that was an order or an observation, we should salute in any case after the orgy of squabble and protesting dust devils the last couple of weeks. Yes, sir! Booyah! No cable news conflict fodder here, highlighting the drama and not the substance. His visual was a small and simple chart , not the high pyrotechnics or pig Latin knots of health care explication from President Obama on down where you need a slide rule and Stephen Hawking to figure out if you're still breathing. Must we have a public option or not? This has been policy straddling a teeter-totter. No wonder people are infuriated and frustrated. But here's John McCain : "It's not a public option, (it's) really the government option. Because it's the government-run health care system." Simple, right? Agree or disagree, that's as clear as the Arizona desert sky. And it's not as though McCain, dismissed last election as old and unelectable, can't stir it up. "We have committed an act of generational theft!" he roared to the audience. Not bad. And he wasn't addressing health care in that moment but the financial system bailout, which a lot of people at all these meetings remain ticked off about because no one from Washington even pretended to ask their opinions on that one, though it also affected everyone. True or not -- as a journalist once ironically began a story -- this is a little straight-talking. What a break. In fact, after the campaign potholes of the Palin controversies, the age insults and the injection of consultants that the long-time maverick senator wore on the stump about as uncomfortably as a bad 50s Soviet suit, we've forgotten how much we used to like this guy and what a status quo-disturber he was. True, it was an older crowd that was actually in a church. And it's always easier to say "I told you so" than run the show. But maybe Mr. McCain is doing it right and these other pols, wading uncharacteristically and awkwardly into the melee, are doing it wrong. He didn't even need to use a teleprompter. More on Health Care
 
Betty Fussell: Tsunami Julia Top
Hurricane Bill was nothing to Tsunami Julia. Julia washed over America this summer like a perfect media storm, the kind usually caused by a Sci-Fi Blockbuster. How soon will we have little action dolls in aprons and cleavers, or interactive TV games for kiddies played out with skillets and ice picks? Actually, we already do and it's called Iron Chef. But who could have predicted that real life Julia Child, that big-jawed giant of 6'2", would morph into one of Hollywood's most beautiful actresses and become an instant Hollywood star? We all know the power of imagery but hold on--- we've been warned by the late Michael Jackson that we ought to ask, What do we see when we look in the mirror? We also ought to ask, Who hung the mirror? Julie & Julia set up a fun house mirror. Now every little blogger in the country, who like real life Julie Powell dreams by night of fame and fortune, will drown by day in oceans of butter while images of Meryl dance in her head. As she whips up one more Sabayon Mousseline and lets out her jeans, she'll fantasize not just her big-screen career but her big-book career as a best-selling author. The unlikely fact that Julia's Mastering the Art of French Cooking hit the #1 spot on The New York Times' Bestseller List this week, after a delay of a mere 50 years, gives the fantasy some teeth. So what's wrong with this picture and why shouldn't we cheer on a Julia resurgence? Because a nation deserves the fantasies it lives by and ours have become as dangerous as Jackson's Neverland Ranch. The bookend to the escapist fantasy of Julie & Julia is the documentary Food, Inc., which made a few ripples but not a tsunami. How could it be otherwise? It's not a fluffy romance about making it. It's a monster movie about making everything Big. Who wants to see the ugliness of an industrial food chain that thrives by making people fat? Who wants to look at fat people at all? Or at billions of beheaded chickens or at characters named Diabetes and E.col. 0157? Puhleeze, give me James Bond 007. For millions of people, the realities of the recession are depressing enough without a bunch of talking heads undermining our faith in the American belief that cheap is good. In a culture queasy with fear, we don't want to know where something as basic as food comes from. One of Food, Inc.'s stars, Michael Pollan, got famous by doing just that when his book In Defense of Food became a best seller last year. He made clear that what we're eating everyday as food---fast, cheap, synthetic---is not real. But to get really famous, Pollan would have to become a big-screen action hero played by Bruce Willis in rimless glasses. The message of today's multiplex media is not information but escape. Neither the tsunami about Julia nor the little wave about industrial food is really about food. Both movies are about what we see in the mirror and what we want to see, and how we confuse those two images all the time. Holding a mirror up to the nature of the American food scene is just too much for millions of us to stomach. We'd so much rather feed our hunger with images of Julia/Meryl's joy. And while we're watching, how about sharing that bag of Jumbo Popcorn---don't hold the ersatz butter.
 
New Yorker Unlocks Kennedy Archives Top
The New Yorker has unlocked its Kennedy archives and given free access to a number of revealing profiles. One of the fines is also one of the most recent, a 1997 portrait by Elsa Walsh that highlights Kennedy's little known role in President Clinton's 1996 reelection. Kennedy shaped Clinton's reelection theme after the bloodbath of 1994, when the GOP took over both the House and the Senate and Mitt Romney had threatened to knock off Kennedy himself. "Unions, minorities, women, gays, education groups, and the health community all worked like hell for me and helped the campaign enormously. Hard to head into 1996 without enthusiastic support of our base," Kennedy wrote to Clinton. The Republican Revolution, Kennedy predicted, would not stand the test of the American voter. "Their harshness will not wear well over time," he predicted accurately. Kennedy was adept at mixing his preferred policy with his politics. He urged Clinton to make the next budget he submitted a "a political document, not a policy document." The centrist Clinton was inclined to cut spending, but Kennedy urged him not to -- because when the Republicans did it on their own, Democrats would be in a better position to challenge them. Medicare, he said, was the most important program to protect. "'No cuts to Medicare except for health-care reform' will be a great 'wedge' issue if we can keep the distinction clear," Kennedy argued. The piece also includes Kennedy's famous minimum-wage speech that he gave his wavering colleagues after the '94 wipeout. Kennedy was pushing for an increase in the bottom wage despite the loss and was getting push back behind closed doors. "What are we?" he thundered. "We're Democrats...How can we possibly say this? This is core Democratic material. This is our people. These are working people. These are the people we've got to fight for." Somehow, buried in the minority, he won: Kennedy pushed through a hike in the minimum wage. The rest of the piece is here and more of the magazine's profiles are here. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Dodd: "Maybe Teddy's Passing" Will Spur GOP To Act On Health Care Top
Senator Ted Kennedy's closest friend and ally in the Senate urged Republican lawmakers on Wednesday to take a renewed and sincere interest in passing health care legislation in light of Kennedy's death. A sorrowful Senator Chris Dodd, (D-Conn.) who is recovering from cancer himself, said that Kennedy's loss would have "tremendous" reverberations throughout the Senate. He said he hoped that one consequence would be to remind lawmakers that work needs to be done to fulfill Kennedy's lifelong goal of passing comprehensive health care reform. "If you had a Republican president and a Republican-dominated House and Senate, they would have to deal with this issue. Their solutions might vary a little bit, but you cannot avoid this issue. And I think our Republican friends recognize and understand that. So I'm still optimistic that if temperatures can cool and maybe Teddy's passing will remind people once again that we are there to get a job done as he would do," Dodd said. "Bring your passions to the debate. But then also remind people that you got elected in order to get a job done. And this is a job that needs to get done." Speaking on a conference call with reporters, Dodd said that Kennedy had remained actively engaged in the current heath care debate even as he was physically failing. "It was hard at some points for him to talk," Dodd said. "But he always knew what was going on. Every time you were with him, if he had a hard time communicating -- and he did the last month or two -- nevertheless the lights were on. He knew exactly what was going on. Two weeks ago, when he called, it was like he had never been sick. It was the darndest conversation. It was down to the details on quality and how to deal with costs. It was one of the best conversations in the past six to eight months." Dodd said that while Kennedy "would have loved to have seen the bill enacted," he "felt confident that we are on track." "Even though there is a lot of ranting and raving going on right now, I think things will calm down," Dodd said. "And [Kennedy's] spirit will be very much a part of it. it certainly has been over the last couple of months." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Gerard Butler Accused Of Smacking A Dog In The Head Top
Jennifer Aniston's new leading man, Gerard Butler, is locked in a nasty pug-of-war with an elderly Queens couple. The hunky actor claims that he got into a verbal tussle with Fred and Maria Varecka after their "huge, menacing" greyhound, Mayfly, took two chomps out of the neck of his little pug, Lolita, near the set of his and Aniston's flick, "The Bounty," in Long Island City.
 
Andy Roddick: The New King Of Queens Top
At some point in the not-so-distant past, Andy Roddick was our great American hope. It was early in the decade, and Pete Sampras was calling it quits. Andre Agassi was slowing down, and New York-area tennis fans turned to a cute, plucky native of Texas. He was going to be the new king of Queens. He delivered early--winning the Open in 2003--and then never again. Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal became a wall that Andy Roddick kept running into, at full speed. He lost and lost. He stayed in the top 10, but once a Grand Slam tournament headed into the second week, we all knew that the American with the best shot of winning a major--and an American hasn't won one since Roddick's Open triumph--would come up short.
 
Counterfeiter Albert Talton Prints $7 Million In Fake Money Using Inkjet Top
Behind an anonymous-looking door on the fifth floor of the United States Secret Service headquarters, on H Street in Washington, D.C., is a small, windowless room known by the agents who work there as the Specimen Vault. Lining the walls are dozens of filing cabinets filled with narrow steel drawers containing scores of transparent plastic sleeves. In each sleeve is an individual note of U.S. currency--a single, five, ten, twenty, fifty, or hundred.
 
Senator Ted Kennedy Public Memorial: Share Your Memories Here Top
Submit your memories of Senator Kennedy in the form below: Loading... Get HuffPost Eyes&Ears on Facebook and Twitter! More on Ted Kennedy
 
Sarah Palin Tells Friends: Watch Glenn Beck! Top
Sarah Palin is rallying her Facebook community behind Glenn Beck. In a post on Facebook Wednesday morning titled, "An Invitation," Palin urged her 800,000-plus Facebook fans to watch the Fox News host (via Politico ): FOX News' Glenn Beck is doing an extraordinary job this week walking America behind the scenes of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and outlining who is actually running the White House. Monday night he asked us to invite one friend to watch; tonight I invite all my friends to watch. -Sarah Palin Beck is hardly having trouble in the ratings, and many of Palin's supporters fall squarely in the Beck target audience, but it will be interesting to see if he experiences a "Palin Bump." Beck has come under fire for his remarks that President Obama is a racist, which has led dozens of advertisers to pull their sponsorship from his show. More on Glenn Beck
 
George McGovern, Kennedy Colleague, Remembers Him As 20th Century's Greatest Top
Forty-seven years ago, Ted Kennedy was elected to the Senate to take the seat that had once been held by his brother, then-president John Kennedy. At the time, he was largely regarded as an undeserved novice -- the benefactor of a family name, a Harvard failure who had coasted on privilege. Among the nine members of the freshmen Senate class in 1962, the youngest Kennedy brother -- just 30 years old at the time -- was not pegged to leave an indelible legacy. But, over time, he stood out among his peers. Nearly five decades later, another member of that class declared definitively that Kennedy had become "the greatest Senator of the 20th Century." In an interview with the Huffington Post, former senator and Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern expressed his deep sorrow with the news of Kennedy's passing from brain cancer on Tuesday evening. But the South Dakota Democrat also celebrated Kennedy for how he remembers him: Congress' most diligent worker, a master of the policy minutia, and a source of personal and political strength for his party and family. "He and I both came to the Senate the same year as part of the class of '62. And I sat side-by-side with him for several years in the Senate and we remained close friends over the years," McGovern recalled. "He was probably as hard a working person as I knew at the Senate. He got to the office early and worked late. He definitely was a senator's senator. I never thought that either John or Robert Kennedy's first love was the Senate. They were thinking first about the executive branch. But Ted, throughout his long career, was wedded to the Senate. And I think, over time, he became the greatest Senator of the 20th Century." Below is a transcript of the brief phone interview with McGovern conducted on Wednesday morning, hours after news broke of Kennedy's death. What was Kennedy like as a Senator, both when you worked with him and after you left public office? Ted was always polite and respectful towards other members of the Senate, whether they were Democrats or Republicans. He always had a certain reverence to other members of the Senate. I never heard him throw cheap shots at an opposing Senator, even one quite critical of him. And that quality gained him other friends in the Senate. One trait that I remember about Ted, when he had a loss in his family, he was the first one who called. He was faithful to that practice. When he initially ran for Senate he was dogged by criticism that he was being elected solely because of his name. How did that affect him once he took office? There was no question that his name helped gain him a seat in the Senate. That Kennedy name is political magic. Here he was with a brother in the White House and a Senator in New York. So obviously his name had an effect. But, in fact, I think Ted earned that seat. He ran a strenuous campaign. He conducted himself well. And once he got to the Senate he equipped himself with one of the strongest staff in the body. He always had superb people working for him. I was told once that his father had urged all of his sons when they hired somebody to look for somebody who was smarter than they were. And I think Ted took that advice. He always had superb people working for him and he rather quickly became a respected Senator. His career was marked by political triumphs as well as personal tragedies, none more so than the loss of his two brothers. Did he become a different person and political because of these trials? It was a sobering experience for Ted. He was always an enthusiastic person but definitely he showed the sorrow of the loss of his two brothers. I think in effect it was a maturing experience for him. He became involved seriously in important pieces in legislation. I can't think of another senator who had a critical hand in so much important legislation as was the case with Ted. Talk a bit, if you could, about his efforts to achieve comprehensive health care reform, including the near miss that happened during negotiations with Richard Nixon in the early 1970s. Ted's passion about everything else in the Senate was to get a comprehensive national health care bill. He became an expert on the subject. He had his staff doing research on it around the clock. Nobody in the Senate could match the commitment that Ted gave to finding a way for comprehensive health care. I think if the Senate wanted to enact a genuine tribute to his career they would pass a good health care bill. When Kennedy ran for the Democratic nomination for president against Jimmy Carter in 1980, what were your thoughts as a fellow Democrat and former presidential candidate? I knew it was an uphill effort. It is very difficult to dislodge an incumbent president of your own party. And he learned that. But I think he came out of that effort with his prestige enhanced. How has Congress changed since both you and Kennedy took office in 1962? Do you see the same willingness for Democrats and Republicans to work together in a mode that came to personify Kennedy's career. There is still some bipartisanship in the Senate. Senator Kennedy always worked very closely, for example, with Senator [Orrin] Hatch, the Republican senator of Utah. But I'd like to see more of that... I think there needs to be of that kind of reaching across the aisle. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Ted Kennedy
 
Danny Miller: Remembering Ted Kennedy's Early Career Top
I can't believe it's been 15 months since Ted Kennedy announced that he had inoperable brain cancer. Like so many Americans, I feel that my life has been inextricably linked to the Kennedys since childhood. My very first memory is of JFK's assassination when I was only four years old. For almost three decades, my mother was the receptionist at the Kennedy-owned Merchandise Mart in Chicago. She often took calls from crazed Kennedy fans on the anniversary of the assassinations, and she turned over to the authorities gifts that arrived in her office intended for various Kennedy family members. When my mother got sick with lung cancer in 1999, it was a Kennedy who pulled some strings to get her moved to a better hospital and I will always be grateful for that. Two months after my mother's death I sat glued to the television watching the frantic search for John Kennedy, Jr. and his wife and sister-in-law in the waters off Cape Cod. I kept reaching for the phone to call my mother who would have been blown away by that unexpected tragedy. Uncle Teddy was again called into service to deliver a moving eulogy at John's memorial service a few days later, just as he had done at the funerals of his two older brothers. About his nephew he said, "We dared to think that this John Kennedy would live to comb gray hair, with his beloved Carolyn by his side. But, like his father, he had every gift but length of years." When he first announced his diagnosis last year, I found it very touching to hear the reactions of his colleagues in Washington. I was especially moved to hear the heartfelt comments by some of the Republican senators. Though ideological opponents to Kennedy's liberal views and programs, it was easy to sniff through the layers of politics and see the true respect and admiration that lay at the foundation of some of these relationships. How rare that is these days. Orrin Hatch just issued a statement claiming that "today America lost a great elder statesman, a committed public servant, and leader of the Senate. And today I lost a treasured friend. Ted Kennedy was an iconic, larger than life United States senator whose influence cannot be overstated. Many have come before, and many will come after, but Ted Kennedy's name will always be remembered as someone who lived and breathed the United States Senate and the work completed within its chamber. Nancy Reagan said the following: "Given our political differences, people are sometimes surprised how close Ronnie and I have been to the Kennedy family. In recent years, Ted and I found our common ground in stem cell research, and I considered him an ally and a dear friend. I will miss him." Kennedy has been serving in the U.S. Senate since 1962. He's been there longer than anyone in history except for Robert Byrd who wept openly when he first heard the news about Kennedy's illness. "I hope and pray that an all-caring, omnipotent God will watch over Ted and keep Ted here for us and for America," Byrd said at the time. "Ted, my dear friend, I love you, and I miss you." Ted Kennedy was clearly one of the most formidable senators who ever served this country, whether or not you agree with his policies. It's hard to imagine a U.S. Congress without Kennedy in a leadership role. But it wasn't always that way. I was wondering how Ted Kennedy's first Senate campaign, which occurred when I was two years old, was greeted by the politicians of the day and the rest of the country. Looking at the newspaper archives from the early 1960s, I soon learned that his first candidacy was not met with universal excitement. Ted Kennedy threw his hat in the ring for the U.S. Senate the minute he was old enough to do so, when he turned 30 in 1962. His rival in the contentious Democratic primary was Edward J. McCormack, Jr., the popular Attorney General of Massachusetts. At the beginning, McCormack seemed like such a shoo-in that Kennedy's campaign was considered a joke. Rumors circulated that young Teddy would drop out of the race. An article on May 7, 1962, stated: The ambition of Edward (Ted) Kennedy, 30-year-old brother of the President, to be a U.S. Senator is fizzling out fast. With approximately three-fourths of the 1,763 delegates to the June 7-9 Massachusetts Democratic endorsement convention already selected, young Ted is running far behind Atty. Gen. Edward (Eddie) McCormack--858 to 42. All signs point to McCormack, 39-year-old nephew of Speaker John McCormack, not only maintaining this 8 to 5 margin but probably even bettering it. If young Kennedy doesn't pull out of the race by the time the convention meets, he will do so immediately afterward. But there were already signs that the Kennedy family was pulling out all the stops to get their boy the votes he needed. Kennedy henchmen are striving mightily behind the scenes to swing delegates to young Kennedy. Delegates are daily reporting heavy pressure from White House sources. McCormack's slogan during the campaign became "I Back Jack, But Teddy Ain't Ready." During one debate, McCormack confronted Kennedy with the charge, "Teddy, if your name was Edward Moore instead of Edward Moore Kennedy, your candidacy would be a farce." Other prominent politicians agreed: Former President Harry Truman is making no secret he does not approve of Ted's candidacy. The Missourian is keeping hands off this fight. But although assiduously courted by the Kennedys, Mr. Truman, with characteristic candor, is frankly critical of Ted's aspiring to the Senate on what amounts to no other ground than that he is the President's brother. An Independence visitor asked the one-time President what he thought of the McCormack-Kennedy race. "I hope Eddie wins," was the instant and emphatic reply. "He is entitled to the nomination. He has earned it by conscientious hard work, and by twice being elected attorney general by big majorities. Ted has never run for anything or done very much of anything. His family ought to call him in and pull him out of that race. He doesn't belong in it. He ought to earn his political spurs first before running for the U.S. Senate." Yep, the odds were stacked against poor Ted but he had one thing in his pocket that Eddie McCormack could only dream of--the Kennedy charisma, power, mystique, and millions. There was nothing McCormack could do but watch his numbers plunge in fast order. Ted Kennedy won the party's nomination by a landslide. Still, he had a lot of vocal critics leading up to the general election including many public figures and even a prominent Roman Catholic priest who stated in no uncertain terms: "The candidacy of this boy is both preposterous and insulting." The statement refers particularly to Ted's singular lack of qualifications for the U.S. Senate and to the pressure tactics being used to get him elected. "When the 1960 Presidential race ended and Ted returned to Massachusetts, he appeared to be a young, clean and active prospect for some political office," Father McEwan says. "But when it comes to running for the Senate, that's going too far. He simply hasn't the qualifications for the office. " "Many people apparently are saying: "I voted for President Kennedy and I support his policies, but I won't take that kid (Ted)." But the Kennedy machine prevailed, and Ted Kennedy was victorious in November. Both Jack and Bobby often said that Teddy was the smartest politician in the family and they were right. Ted Kennedy may not have had the qualifications for the U.S. Senate, according to many, he may have gotten there because of his last name, but he sure played his cards right in building a solid reputation for himself, beginning with his decision not to capitalize on his connections to the White House. An article from February 19, 1963, reiterated Kennedy's low profile in Washington: Sen. Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy's struggle for national anonymity is puzzling colleagues who would be delighted to embrace some of the opportunities he rejects. The Massachusetts senator, who is the President's youngest brother, is so cautious in his approach to the publicity spotlight he hasn't even joined middle brother Bobby for a hike. For Sen. Kennedy, Washington is a place to be seen and not heard--and not too much of the former, either. He has gone a long way toward making good on his promise in his only speech here to the Women's National Press Club, that he intends to "stay out of the limelight, out of the headlines and out of the swimming pools." In five weeks, Kennedy has introduced only two general bills. One would make Columbus Day a legal holiday and the other would provide mass transportation aid to metropolitan areas. When Kennedy did speak up, he often disagreed with the White House and he was bolder than either of his brothers in promoting civil rights. In an article he wrote about the space program on July 15, 1963, Sen. Kennedy lobbied for a more diverse team of astronauts. We should also try to train and orbit an astronaut who is a Negro. Most of the people of the world are non-white. This trip would serve to establish a personal identification between them and our space program. Ironically, it was President Kennedy's assassination less than a year into Ted's first term that really allowed the younger Kennedy to find his place on the national stage. The President's death has altered Sen. Kennedy's position in the sense that he now has greater freedom of action and of expression. When his brother was in the White House, the senator knew that every word he uttered might have been taken as a reflection of the President's views. Every move he had might have been interpreted as being in line with the President's wishes. "He used to walk on tiptoes up here," a Boston reporter observed this week. "Now he moves right in and gets involved. He's become a stand-up guy. He's all muscle now. He can speak out. The difference between Ted Kennedy now and a year ago is the difference between night and day." He seems to have lived down much of the public resentment over his plunging into a Senate race at the age of 30. By general consent he has conducted himself well in the Senate. He has not set the place on fire--freshmen senators rarely do--but he has won the respect of many older senators, which is important to him at this stage of the game. By a curious turn of fate, Robert Kennedy does not now have the firm political base that Ted Kennedy has. If the attorney general's political future is uncertain, Sen. Kennedy is on a course that seems destined to carry him over the years to growing power in the Senate and growing influence in the Democratic Party. Browsing through articles about Ted Kennedy in the later part of the 1960s, I am impressed by his chutzpah. His trip to Vietnam, his fight for civil rights and for the rights of veterans, his attempts to protect immigrants, his efforts regarding gun control, there is so much Kennedy has done for which the American public should be grateful. Senator Kennedy voted against giving President Bush the authority to use force against Iraq in 2003 and he was the first Senator to propose legislation opposing the troop surge two years ago. Kennedy has certainly had his fair share of questionable judgment (No Child Left Behind, anyone?) and who knows what led him as a young man to wait a day before reporting that awful accident on Chappaquiddick. In 1964, Kennedy was in a plane crash in which the pilot and one of Kennedy's aides were killed. The "Kennedy Curse" yet again? He was pulled out of the wreckage with a broken back and punctured lung by fellow senator Birch Bayh who was also on the plane. There were fears that Kennedy might die from his injuries or be incapacitated for life but it didn't keep him down for too long. Less than a year later he was at the center of another hotly contested national debate. Sen. Edward (Ted) Kennedy has surprised a lot of people by becoming the strong man in the Senate liberal bloc's battle for a tough Negro voting rights bill. "I never thought Teddy would have the guts to buck Lyndon," a senior senator said. "We felt he was
 
Eric Lurio: Malice, Blowback, and the "Yeah, So?" Gambit Top
The year was 1947. Senator Robert Taft, the son of a President, was in a surly mood. The Republicans had gotten Congress back for the first time in a decade and a half and he wanted revenge. He couldn't get it against the man he hated above all others, Franklin Roosevelt, because FDR was dead, So he did what he thought was the next best thing. he would bar all Roosevelt's successors from doing what that president did. He would bar future presidents from serving a third term. In lobbying his colleagues in the senate and the members of the House to pass what would become the 22nd Amendment, Taft would say "You must vote for this ANTI-ROOSEVELT bill!!!!" He wanted to punish FDR posthumously. But instead he punished the Republicans. Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan could have been elected to third terms, the former quite handily. Taft screwed his own party. That's an old lesson: don't try to screw one person by hurting an office or you're going to screw yourselves in the long run. In 2004, the Massachusetts state Legislature forgot that lesson. Five years ago, the Democrats in the Massachusetts state legislature decided to screw Mitt Romney by taking away his power to appoint a successor to "President-elect" John Kerry's seat. The legislature passed a bill (over Romney's veto), taking away his power to do so, mandating a 140-160 day vacancy prior to a special election. It was a stupid, vindictive act, and like Taft's constitutional amendment, it's come to bite the Massachusetts Democrats in the ass. GOOD . Ted Kennedy's last public act before he died was to write the MA Democratic leadership and plead the law be changed. The Republicans had a really good laugh with that one. Governor Patrick and his party look like a bunch of assholes, and rightly so. But now they have a real problem: The Democrats need the seat, so what to do? The answer is the "yeah, so?" gambit. What's that? The Democrats give the governor back his right to appoint a senator (until the special election, not the rest of the term), and when the GOP and the media accuse them of blatant hypocrisy, they answer "yeah, so?" and get on with their business. It'll work. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Paul Helmke: Edward Kennedy: A Lion In The Fight Against Gun Violence Top
As President Obama said this morning, America has lost a great leader . In addition to his many other causes, Senator Edward Kennedy also understood the pain of gun violence, a tragedy that, sadly, he could share with hundreds of thousands of his fellow Americans. He lost one brother, President John F. Kennedy, to an assassin's gunfire in November 1963. Then he lost a second brother, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, to the gunfire of yet another armed assassin in June of 1968. What few recall, however, is that Edward Kennedy was also a potential target of the man who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981 - a shooting that wounded Reagan, a Secret Service officer, a Washington, DC police officer, and President Reagan's Press Secretary, Jim Brady. About a month before the assassination attempt in March, Reagan's would-be killer visited Senator Kennedy's Capitol Hill Office for the second time. "With his gun in his pocket he waited for him, but he never saw Kennedy," reads the chilling account in Jim Brady's biography . Having been confronted with the horrific effects of gun violence in his own life, Senator Kennedy became a champion for gun violence prevention in his political career. He was one of the first senators Sarah Brady visited on Capitol Hill as she launched the fight to pass the Brady Bill. "At first, I was absolutely awestruck," Sarah recalled in 2002. "But even though he seems bigger than life, he is incredibly humble. Through every fight we waged over the years, Senator Kennedy was always working behind the scenes, lobbying his colleagues on our behalf... yet he never wanted any credit for his efforts." The Brady Campaign, and all survivors of gun violence and the families who support them, will miss Senator Kennedy's giant presence on the national stage, his good humor, and his tireless advocacy to prevent another family from having to endure the excruciating pain of gun violence that he had to endure. Our thoughts and prayers are with Senator Kennedy's wife Vicki today, and the entire Kennedy family. (Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post .) More on Barack Obama
 
Jennifer Grayson: Eco Etiquette: Where Has All The Biodiesel Gone? Top
I live in Los Angeles, and have a friend who runs his cars on biodiesel. He told me last week that LA County has ruled it a threat to the water table to store biodiesel in underground tanks, thereby effectively eliminating its sale. Is this true? How can biodiesel (99 percent plant oil) be more of a threat than gas or regular diesel? Could you research this? If it is as big of a scam as it sounds, what do I do next? -George I first started looking into this issue when my husband and I rolled up to our friendly neighborhood biodiesel station in West LA to refuel our 1985 Mercedes 300D (a beast of a car, I might add - those things run forever), only to discover that alas! -- a pump for dirty diesel fuel now stood in the place of our former veggie oil vendor. How could this be? Would we be forced to revert to collecting fast food French fry oil? As it turns out, yes -- unless we felt like driving 25 miles round-trip to one of the last remaining bio stations or could drum up $250 to join the LA Biodiesel Coop (a worthy investment, but still pricey). Your friend is correct about the decision regarding the underground storage of biodiesel, but the ruling is not exclusive to LA County; that green fuels are now near impossible to find is the result of a recent verdict by the State Water Resources Control Board . The answer to how this could have happened is as murky as a bucket of crude oil. Here's the play-by-play: In May of this year, the water board expanded the approval of underground biodiesel storage from B5 to B20 blends; previously, only B5 had been tested for safety, and California law requires that underground storage tanks containing any chemical must be certified as leak-proof. (The "B" designation, by the way, stands for the percentage of eco-friendly oil that the blend contains, so B5 means that a blend is 5 percent biofuel, while B100 is made of 100 percent plant-based materials.) This ruling permits up to a 20 percent bio blend to now be stored underground. Sounds good, right? Well unfortunately, because the board did not include a provision for higher blend fuels, such as the B99 sold at my local station, it effectively shut down the sale of high-grade biodiesels on a technicality. Most service stations do not have the capacity to store fuel above ground. I understand that California policymakers are being cautious in the wake of past environmental disasters involving underground storage tanks releasing hazardous chemicals into the land and water. Blends lower than B100 do contain petroleum and the EPA has found biodiesel to have a significant solvent effect -- so theoretically, biodiesel not secured in leak-proof tanks could leach petroleum and other chemical additives into the water table. But why not make an exemption for pure (B100) biodiesel, which is completely biodegradable and nontoxic ? To add insult to injury, testing to approve underground storage of a new fuel can take up to three years. Granted, I don't know much about this process, but it seems preposterous that Gov. Schwarzenegger, if he's really serious about California's green energy future, can't speed this up - especially since this ban is responsible for shutting down small businesses in the midst of a deep recession and is thwarting the growth of jobs connected to the expansion of the green fuels market. I don't know if I smell Big Oil, but there's something suspect about the whole thing. Now I know, dear readers, that I'm going to receive a barrage of comments to the following effect: We're better off without biodiesel anyway; the farming of biodiesel is clearing the rainforests and raising our food prices; biofuels are contributing to world hunger, etc., etc... But the fact remains that the market and technology for sustainable and non-food based biofuels (biofuels, the next generation) are rapidly progressing, and this recent move by the water board is a major backslide from our clean energy, independent-from-foreign-oil future. As for what to do in the meantime: The Southern California Biodiesel Users Group has an extensive list of policymakers you can contact to help keep biodiesel stations open in the state, as well as sample letters to send. And don't forget, there's always the leftover fry grease from your local fast food joint (probably the only time I'll ever advise you to pay one a visit). Send all your eco-inquiries to Jennifer Grayson at eco.etiquette@gmail.com . Questions may be edited for length and clarity. More on Green Living
 
Morgan Jindrich: Two Ways To Be A Part Of The Health Reform Debate Top
It's pretty amazing what people are saying the health reform bill will do. We need to start spreading the truth before health reform disappears in a cloud of misconception and fear. You can make a real difference right now by attending a town hall meeting (there are hundreds across the country) or by writing a letter to your local paper and setting the record straight. While members of Congress are home in their districts for the August recess they are meeting up with constituents. They want to hear from you! We built a map with all the opportunities to meet up with a member over the next few weeks. We also have tips to help you have the best possible experience. And we have a fact sheet to help you bust all the myths ! If you can't make it out to a town hall, you can still be heard -- loud and clear, by writing a letter to the editor in your local paper. One of my first experiences with activism and public opinion was when I wrote a letter to the community paper in my hometown. I was in high school and I was standing up to the court of public opinion for my government teacher, my mentor. The interesting thing I learned was not just about how to use the media to forward a goal; it was just how many people read the local paper. I got calls, the neighbors cut out my opinion piece and brought it over to the house and people I only knew in passing came up to me in the grocery. Not only were the folks congratulating me, people had actually read what I had wrote! It was a completely exhilarating experience. I had never truly understood the statement about pens and swords, but in that moment I got it. Now it is your turn , Consumers Union is looking for volunteers to write letters to papers across the country in support of real health care reform. Lawmakers need to know that the majority of Americans want Congress to fix our broken health care system and not squander this opportunity on politics and infighting. Sign up today to go to a town hall or write a letter and join thousands of people across the country in getting the message out for reform.
 
Remembering Ted Kennedy's Prescient 2002 Speech Against The Iraq War Top
As the press labors today to capture the life and legacy of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, it will be interesting to see if anyone makes mention of Kennedy's response to one of the singular events of recent years -- the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. On September 27, 2002, Kennedy gave a speech at Johns Hopkins' Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. concerning the war. In the speech, Kennedy evinced many of the same qualities for which he is being lionized today. His oration combined the powerful idealism that powered his opposition to the invasion with the same generosity of spirit that fueled so many across-the-aisle gestures, and, in the speech, revealed itself in a refusal to demonize his political opponents. One other aspect of the speech that might be worth mentioning today? The fact that Kennedy got it right. Kennedy's speech is astoundingly prescient, to put it mildly. Key sections include: In the months that followed September 11, the Bush Administration marshaled an international coalition. Today, 90 countries are enlisted in the effort, from providing troops to providing law enforcement, intelligence, and other critical support. But I am concerned that using force against Iraq before other means are tried will sorely test both the integrity and effectiveness of the coalition. Just one year into the campaign against Al Qaeda, the Administration is shifting focus, resources, and energy to Iraq. The change in priority is coming before we have fully eliminated the threat from Al Qaeda, before we know whether Osama Bin Laden is dead or alive, and before we can be assured that the fragile post-Taliban government in Afghanistan will consolidate its authority. With all the talk of war, the Administration has not explicitly acknowledged, let alone explained to the American people, the immense post-war commitment that will be required to create a stable Iraq. The Bush Administration says America can fight a war in Iraq without undermining our most pressing national security priority -- the war against Al Qaeda. But I believe it is inevitable that a war in Iraq without serious international support will weaken our effort to ensure that Al Qaeda terrorists can never, never, never threaten American lives again. Even with the Taliban out of power, Afghanistan remains fragile. Security remains tenuous. Warlords still dominate many regions. Our reconstruction effort, which is vital to long-term stability and security, is halting and inadequate. Some Al Qaeda operatives - no one knows how many - have faded into the general population. Terrorist attacks are on the rise. President Karzai, who has already survived one assassination attempt, is still struggling to solidify his hold on power. And although neighboring Pakistan has been our ally, its stability is far from certain. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. War with Iraq before a genuine attempt at inspection and disarmament, or without genuine international support -- could swell the ranks of Al Qaeda sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts. That last point, by the way, is an almost universally underappreciated one. Yet it's very, tragically true . In May of 2008, Eric Boehlert, reflecting on the news of Kennedy's brain cancer diagnosis, wrote a piece for Media Matters , quantifying the inattention the media gave to Kennedy's speech. By his count, the network news dedicated a few brief sentences (32 words on NBC, 31 on ABC, CBS Evening news led all comers with a whopping 40 words) the night of the speech. By Sunday Morning, the speech was forgotten, with no mention of any sort on Meet The Press , Face The Nation , or This Week . And what of the major newspapers? Of them, Boehlert writes: The Kennedy coverage in the major newspapers wasn't much better. At The Washington Post, Kennedy's newsworthy speech, a clarion call against Bush's pre-emptive war, garnered exactly one sentence -- 36 words total in coverage. Keep in mind, during 2002, the Post published more than 1,000 articles and columns about Iraq, nearly 1 million words. But the Post set aside just 36 words for Kennedy's farsighted war speech. What was so remarkable was that Kennedy delivered his address at the time when there was already a media narrative unfolding about how Democrats, anxious about the political ramifications of not supporting a then-popular president, were not voicing stiff opposition to the planned invasion. Two days before Kennedy gave his speech, the Post detailed in an A1 article how "[d]ozens of congressional Democrats are frustrated with their leadership for rushing to embrace President Bush's Iraqi war resolution and fostering an impression the party overwhelmingly backs a unilateral strike against Saddam Hussein." When Kennedy stepped forward and answered the specific issue raised by the Post, what did the newspaper do? It devoted 36 words to Kennedy's address. Kennedy's speech, sadly, came at a time when the press largely considered opposition to the war and seriousness as two mutually exclusive concepts. As a result, very few media organs will be able to pull this moment from their institutional memories today, largely because they couldn't be bothered to report on it when it happened. RELATED: Eliminating the Threat: The Right Course of Action for Disarming Iraq, Combating Terrorism, Protecting the Homeland, and Stabilizing the Middle East [Ted Kennedy @ Johns Hopkins SAIS] Why did the press ignore Ted Kennedy in 2002? [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] More on Ted Kennedy
 
The Media Consortium: Weekly Pulse: Healthcare Reform After Kennedy Top
By Lindsay Beyerstein, TPM MediaWire Blogger One of healthcare reform's greatest champions died last night. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) succumbed to brain cancer at the age of 77. During his 46-year career in the senate, Kennedy's name appeared on virtually every major piece of progressive legislation from civil rights to economic justice, to healthcare. Kennedy called healthcare reform "the cause of my life." Jack Newfield of The Nation remembers Kennedy as the senate's fighting liberal , the "best and most effective senator of the past hundred years." James Ridgeway of Mother Jones laments : We are left with weak, squabbling, visionless Democratic puppets and a President whose domestic reform policies are adrift--sliding towards the horizon with each passing day. The loss is a blow to healthcare reform. Alex Koppelman of Salon notes that with Kennedy's passing, the Democrats have lost one of their most effective bipartisan deal-makers. Democrats will also be down a vote in the senate for the foreseeable future because Massachusetts state law doesn't allow for the appointment of an immediate replacement. Naturally, with congress on vacation, wackos are rushing in to fill the media vacuum. Eric Boehlert asks in AlterNet why Republicans are the only ones allowed to get angry about healthcare reform, or anything else. He notes that in 2003, the media decided that Howard Dean was too angry for prime time. During the Republican National Convention in 2008, SWAT teams were sent to raid the homes of suspected anarchist protesters. And yet, conservative demonstrators in Arizona are allowed to tote rifles just outside the security perimeter of a presidential event. RNC Chair Michael Steele raised eyebrows by championing single-payer healthcare in an op/ed in the Washington Post framing the GOP as defenders of Medicare. Odd that Steele has so much love for Medicare, but none for the nation's other leading source of government-run healthcare, the Veterans Administration (VA). This week, Steele accused America's other leading public insurance provider of encouraging veterans to commit suicide , based on a booklet published by the VA which explains living wills, advanced directives and other key concepts in end-of-life care, Rachel Slajda reports for TPM DC. Progressives have been doing a great job debunking the death panel and death book myths, like this creative photo essay from TPM. But we're scarcely addressing the misconception that underlies them: The idea that government-administered health insurance is inherently more prone to rationing than private health insurance. Newt Gingrich and other prominent opponents of reform claim that a public option will restrict choices and deny care. What they don't say is that for-profit insurance is rationing. When your insurance company covers an old drug for your condition, but not a new one with fewer side effects, that's rationing. The company is restricting your treatment choices to improve its bottom line. When an employer or an insurer decides not to cover mental health care, that's rationing. The entire business model is predicated on charging people more and giving them less care so there's more money left over for the stockholders. No health insurance can cover every treatment, no matter who runs it. But public insurance has two major advantages: 1) Public insurance tends to be cheaper to administer; 2) The tough choices about what to cover are ultimately in the hands of the voters, not health insurance bureaucrats with an eye on the bottom line. The whole town hall concept is turning out to be a strategic blunder for the White House. The format makes legislators and the media sitting ducks for extremists and astroturfers who want to paint themselves as typical citizens. As Sandy Heierbacher of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation writes in YES Magazine : [T]he town hall design sets the stage for activist groups and special interest groups to try to 'game' the system and sideline other concerned citizens in the process. As Martin Carcasson, director of Colorado State University's Center for Public Deliberation, recently pointed out, "the loudest voices are the ones that get heard, and typically the majority voices in the middle don't even show up because it becomes a shouting match." How much more clear can the Republicans be? They are not interested in bipartisanship. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), supposedly the Senate's leading reasonable Republican on healthcare, couldn't even be bothered to rebuke a town hall participant who hinted about assassinating the president, as Raw Story reports. If the Democrats want healthcare reform, they are going to have to go it alone. Let's hope they pass a bill that would make Sen. Kennedy proud. This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about healthcare and is free to reprint. Visit Healthcare.newsladder.net for a complete list of articles on healthcare affordability, healthcare laws, and healthcare controversy. For the best progressive reporting on the Economy, and Immigration, check out Economy.Newsladder.net and Immigration.Newsladder.net . This is a project of The Media Consortium , a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and created by NewsLadder . More on Health
 
Mike Enzi, Gang Of Six Republican, Admits He's Simply Blocking Health Care Reform Top
Mike Enzi, one of three Republicans ostensibly negotiating health care reform as part of the Senate's "Gang of Six," told a Wyoming town hall crowd that he had no plans to compromise with Democrats and was merely trying to extract concessions. "It's not where I get them to compromise, it's what I get them to leave out," Enzi said Monday, according to the Billings Gazette. Enzi found himself under attack at the town hall simply for sitting in the same room as the three Finance Committee Democrats. Republicans in the crowd called for him to exit the talks. He assured conservatives that his presence was delaying health care reform. "If I hadn't been involved in this process as long as I have and to the depth as I have, you would already have national health care," he said. "Someone has to be at the table asking questions," Enzi said. "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu." Enzi was also hit from the other side, as constituents criticized him for taking significant campaign cash from the health insurance industry while opposing a public insurance option that would compete with private plans and take a bit out of their bottom line. Enzi's blunt portrayal of his real role in the negotiations makes bipartisan compromise that much less likely to emerge from the Finance Committee. Democrats around the table have already conceded the public option, yet appear to be no closer to winning any Republican support. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), another of the three Republicans continuing to negotiate -- or at least to meet -- has said that even if he agrees to a deal, he won't vote for it unless he can persuade a good many of his fellow Republicans to go along as well -- a prospect that would only be possible in the face of a dramatic Democratic capitulation. The Republican negotiators are under intense pressure from GOP leadership to walk away from the discussions. Earlier this week, one of the three Democrats in the talks, Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, said that he would support passing health care with a simple majority if it became clear the GOP wasn't serious. Ryan Grim is the author of This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Health Care
 
Roseanne Colletti: College Credit Card Crunch Top
What do you remember the most about your college orientation? Was it stopping by one of those folding tables and signing up for your first credit card with a free tee shirt thrown in? This yearly ritual at many campuses is about to become a thing of the past to be filed away with other bits of nostalgia from college experiences of a bygone era. Beginning in February, credit card issuers will be prohibited by law from giving away freebies on campus to attract students to sign up. Yes, that means no more tee shirts, pizza and the like.Beginning in February, college students who apply for credit cards will need proof of income, the ability to repay the loan, and if under the age of 21, must get a co-signer, meaning a parent or other responsible party. "I really expect issuers to ramp it up, "says Ismat Sarah Mangla of Money Magazine. The financial writer is talking about efforts to sign up college students before the new rules take effect. "There are options parents really need to discuss with their kids before they drop them off at school," she adds. What are those options? If your college student is already an authorized user on your card you may just want to keep it that way. Sure if they hit you with a big blast of spending you're on the hook. On the other hand, you're in a position to monitor, counsel, control or cut them off. If you want to initiate them in the handling of a credit card, try a debit card first. It looks and feels the same. Transactions are similar in that they're swiped and authorized, but they won't be able to spend money that's not in their account. If they already have a debit card you may want them to add a credit card, but one that's secured. You pay the limit up front and then charge against it. These cards don't always report to the three credit services so your student may not be able to build a credit history with one. On the other hand, he or she will use them the same as they would an unsecured card and hopefully develop good habits. Of course, if you feel your college age young adult is really ready for the leap and manage a real credit card responsibly, then it may be time to apply for plastic in his or her name. They will need to do this before the rules change goes into effect February 22. If you choose to go this route, know that there are some new protections and resulting pitfalls for cardholders. Consumers must now be given 45 days warning of changes to their credit card accounts. Issuers must allow 21 days for payment before assessing any late fees. If fees and interest rates are going up, the user has the right to cancel the account and pay off the balance under the old, lower rates. However, they will no longer be able to use the card to make purchases. As good as these consumer protections sound, don't expect the banks to take this lying down. You may see lower spending limits and higher annual fees. After all, the credit card industry is expecting an 82-million dollar loss because of the recession-based decline in spending. Talk about all of these things with your college student and let them know a credit card, like a driver's license, is a privilege and one easily lost. (if you want to read more of my stories or watch my GossipGram with Bonnie Fuller go to nbcnewyork.com )
 
Who Will Fill Ted's Shoes In Kennedy Family? (SLIDESHOW POLL) Top
With the passing of Sen. Ted Kennedy, the famous family lost its most prominent and powerful member as well as the last surviving brother in an enduring political dynasty. With the patriarch gone, which Kennedy will step up to carry the family banner? Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Caroline Kennedy
 
12 Hip Green Hostels Around The Globe Top
Fancy spending some time on an organic farm, practicing yoga and taking long walks through the hills? Or would you rather stay in an art-filled old downtown warehouse, and maybe hire a bike to hit the city's nightlife? Whether your traveling tastes run rural or urban, green hostels offer an inexpensive and character-filled -- not to mention sustainable -- alternative to bland hotels.
 
Tamra Davis: Malibu Sandwich Top
It was summer time in Malibu and we were planning on having a picnic lunch at the beach. My son's Davis and Skyler were toddlers at the time and I was trying to come up with a lunch to pack for them that would be yummy and easy to eat at the beach knowing there is sand everywhere! For my husband and I, I made one of my favorite sandwiches, a good piece of artisanal cheese on a fresh baguette with tomato, basil and olive oil or I call it a "Malibu Sandwich". This sandwich is super easy to make and travels really well. It's also just as tasty a few hours after you've made it which makes it a great choice for a picnic sandwich. I'm using goat cheese but this sandwich would also be delicious with a brie or any good piece of cheese that you fancy. When packing a lunch be sure to pack ice packs to keep your food cool. Food left in warm temperatures can spoil very quickly. I hope you enjoy a day at the beach, park or backyard this summer with a delicious home made picnic lunch. Please visit me at www.TamraDavisCookingShow.com for more recipes and shows. Malibu Sandwich (Makes 2) 1 baguette 4 ounces of goat cheese 1 tomato sliced 1 handful of basil Olive oil Toast the baguette lightly. Drizzle olive oil on both sides, place or smear soft cheese on one side, add tomato, a pinch of salt and pepper, and basil. Press the two pieces of bread together. Voila. More on Travel
 
John Norris: Sudan Now Top
Yesterday, a coalition of anti-genocide advocacy organizations announced the launch of a bold new campaign called Sudan Now: Keep the Promise. The campaign challenges President Barack Obama and top U.S. administration officials to live up to their campaign and political promises by taking strong and immediate action to help end the international crisis in Sudan and bring a lasting peace to the people of that country. Members of the coalition include Humanity United, the Enough Project, Stop Genocide Now, and Investors Against Genocide. The situation in Sudan is urgent: Nearly 3 million Darfuris living in camps face the threat of rape and aid cut-offs. The country's president is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder, torture and attacks against civilian populations. And a return to full-scale North-South civil war looms as the nation prepares for a vote on bifurcation of the country in 2011. As part of the campaign's launch, a series of print and online advertisements are appearing in national publications. The advertisements feature statements made by President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Clinton, which focused on applying "real pressure" to the government of Sudan. (Check out all the ads here , here , here , and here .) In sharp contrast, the U.S. administration's current approach seems to favor incentives and concessions over strong, comprehensive action. In addition to the ads, the coalition will launch a new website, SudanActionNow.com , as well as a strong social media presence to complement, amplify and reinvigorate efforts already under way by the advocacy community, which has for years been working to help bring lasting peace to Sudan. Randy Newcomb, president and CEO of Humanity United, a Silicon Valley-based philanthropic organization and founding member of the coalition, said: There has never been a more critical time in Sudan's history, nor a more acute opportunity for the U.S. to lead a bolder path forward, than right now. The advocacy community can help keep pressure on President Obama to ensure that he and his administration officials are pursuing the best possible path to peace--one that is comprehensive in approach, long-term in vantage point, and one that is mindful of the lessons of history and does not repeat the errors of past efforts which have tried to help create peace for the people of Sudan. With the U.S. administration planning to release its major policy review on Sudan soon, we call on President Obama to: Lead a more effective and urgent peace process for Darfur Build an international coalition for strict implementation of the North-South peace deal Implement a policy that creates real consequences for those in Sudan who continue to attack civilians, block life-saving aid, undermine peace, and obstruct justice Sudan Now members believe that the best chance for peace lies in crafting a policy that carefully balances incentives for Sudan's political leaders with unequivocal consequences for non-compliance. John Prendergast, co-founder of the Enough Project, said: Sustained pressure backed by meaningful and focused consequences is the only tool that has moved Sudanese President al-Bashir and his National Congress Party during the 20 years of its authoritarian rule in Sudan. This was the approach President Obama advocated as a candidate and this is the course he should return to with a comprehensive policy focused on nationwide peace. Join the movement to press U.S. leaders to make peace in Sudan a priority. Make a statement at SudanActionNow.com and join the conversation on Twitter @SudanActionNow and by tweeting to #SudanNow. More on Barack Obama
 
China Concubines Return Thanks To Increasing Capitalism Top
Mao Tse-tung tried to stamp the custom out as a relic of feudalism, but the return of capitalism to China has also meant a major comeback for the concubine. And for the long-suffering Chinese public, the compulsion of rich businessmen and jumped-up party officials to prove their wealth and power by the number and gorgeousness of their mistresses is a major factor in the growth of corruption. The angry gossip online is that behind every corrupt official there is a scheming mistress. "China's future will be undermined in those corrupt officials' hands," wrote one outraged citizen. Another described the corrupt cadres who keep concubines as "absolutely superfluous, vampires, corrupt scum. They deserve to be killed". Last month, a former chairman of the oil giant Sinopec, Chen Tonghai, was convicted of pocketing 196 million yuan (GBP17m) in bribes. But what angered Chinese the most was the way he had helped his mistress, Li Wei, to build up her property firm using his business connections. He was given a suspended death sentence. Concubines are no longer kept hidden away behind closed doors. In modern China's far more open society, concubines can be seen in the shopping malls and cafes of the cities, especially in the south, where there are thousands of what are known as "er nai" or "second breast". By some estimates, more than 90 per cent of the country's most senior officials punished on serious graft charges in the past five years have kept mistresses. There are lessons from history on the dangers that concubines represent. Concubine Yang was China's most famous mistress, one of the Four Beauties, and Emperor Xuanzong was so besotted with her that he lost his reason. He was forced to execute her to prove that he still had the will to rule. The emperor ultimately lost his grip on power and the glorious Tang dynasty (618-907) went into a decline. Concubinage has a long history in China and was common right up to the early 20th century. Emperors and warlords kept many concubines as well as wives, and the wives sometimes even presented their husbands with fresh concubines, a practice known as "drinking vinegar". Young women become concubines today for reasons of money and lifestyle, but also as a way out of poverty. "My son is already two years old, and my son's father is the same age as my father," wrote one anonymous 20-year-old concubine. "I call him 'old man'. He treats me well. Since I gave birth to a son, he bought a 180 square metre house under my name and two shops under my son's name. My days are very comfortable. I never ask him about his business and family, nor press him to divorce. A woman's life is hard and her youth goes quickly, so I cherish the present." While many successful businessmen also have young lovers, it is the philandering government officials who really infuriate the average Chinese, and when they are found out they often pay a high price. At the very least they can expect the sack, like ex-Shanghai party chief Chen Liangyu, dismissed in 2006 for corruption, and ex-Beijing vice-mayor, Liu Zhihua, fired for taking bribes and helping his mistress "seek profit" while he was in charge of the construction of Olympic venues. Pang Jiayu, a senior cadre in Shaanxi province, gained the nickname "Zipper Mayor" because of his weakness for the pretty young wives of his subordinates when he was mayor of Baoji. Duan Yihe, former party chief of Jinan, capital of Shandong in the northeast, was given a suspended death sentence in 2007 for killing his mistress with a car bomb after he became tired of her constant demands for money. Some powerful officials in China have tried to bring the feudal institution up to date. Yang Feng, a senior cadre in Anhui province, was found during his corruption trial to have kept eight mistresses whom he managed using corporate management skills learnt during his MBA programme. He appointed one of them top mistress, to supervise the others, but the arrangement collapsed when a younger member of the team applied for the leadership position and his "manager" turned him in. The current record-holder for the largest number of mistresses is Xu Qiyao, ex-head of construction in Jiangsu province, who amassed 140. Taking a leaf out of the book of bed-hopping British Tory Alan Clark, they included a mother and daughter. Nor are the sort of exotic obsessions redolent of the remote Chinese past unheard of: an official in the state textile industry in Hainan kept four steel closets which were found to contain 95 diaries in which he recorded all of his sexual relationships, as well as hair samples from 236 different women. Read more at the Independent . Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter! More on China
 
Iraq Summons Syrian Diplomat In Baghdad Amid Diplomatic Row Top
BAGHDAD — Iraq's foreign ministry summoned a senior Syrian diplomat in Baghdad Wednesday amid a diplomatic row over Iraqi demands for the extradition of two suspected bomb plotters. The Iraqi government – under heavy criticism for security lapses that allowed suicide truck bombers to get close to key government institutions – has blamed a Syria-based alliance of Saddam Hussein loyalists known as Baathists and al-Qaida in Iraq for the Aug. 19 attacks. Deputy Foreign Minister Labid Abbawi met with the No. 2 Syrian diplomat in Baghdad, Bassam Haj Hassan, to discuss Iraqi demands that Damascus turn over two purported Baathist operatives allegedly linked to the bombings, which struck the foreign and finance ministries and killed about 100 people. During the meeting, Abbawi explained the reasons for Iraq's demands and the measures to be taken by the Iraqi government following a preliminary investigation the deadly attacks, according to a statement. In turn, Hassan asked the Iraqi government to send a delegation to Damascus to present evidence to support the claims. The meeting occurred a day after the two countries announced they were recalling their respective ambassadors over the issue, raising tensions just a week after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki met with Syrian President Bashar Assad and called on Damascus to hand over people suspected of Sunni insurgent links and to stop fighters from crossing the border into northern Iraq. An al-Qaida in Iraq front group claimed responsibility for the bombings in an Internet statement on Tuesday, but the Iraqi government says Baathist operatives planned and financed the attacks and aired a televised confession from a man who identified the Iraqis in Syria. Such links are politically explosive, particularly before January elections in Iraq. The question of what to do with Saddam-era officials in the civil service, army and police has been at the heart of the Sunni-Shiite divide since the overthrow of Saddam's Sunni-dominated regime in 2003 and has been a major hurdle to national reconciliation efforts. In a separate development, Iraqis mourned the death of a revered Shiite leader, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, who died Wednesday after being hospitalized in critical condition in Tehran where he was being treated for lung cancer. More on Syria
 
Rabbi Irwin Kula: Inglorious Basterds, Vengeance and Redemption Top
Inglorious Basterds is a powerful, entertaining cinematic experience, but this is not what you want to hear from me, an eighth-generation rabbi whose father escaped the Nazis and immigrated to America from Poland in 1938 with his parents and brother, leaving most of his family behind to be murdered by the Nazis "y'mach shemam" - may their names be erased - the traditional Jewish appellation, added every time one refers to Nazis, to which Mr. Tarantino has given new meaning. We now have a new genre of Holocaust films, a fun, action-packed Jewish revenge fantasy ! After nearly 600 films to date on the Holocaust, the vast majority of which focused on Nazi evil, the persecution, and suffering of Jews, the paradigm has shifted. We now have the first primary process Holocaust film. There may be six million stories in the Holocaust but Inglorious Basterds tells the one we have been afraid to tell about ourselves: the story of what we would really like to do to those Nazis. The film unambiguously begins, "Once upon a time...," reminding us that we are about to watch a fable, a tale, a dream, a fantasy that alas did not happen or our world would be so different. Inglorious Basterds is a flight of the imagination, a meditation on vengeance, and the cost of not owning and recognizing the feeling that lies deep beneath the surface of many of us: Kill every last one of them. Or as Aldo the Apache (Brad Pitt), leader of the Basterds, says: "We will be cruel to the Germans, and through our cruelty they will know who we are. They will find the evidence of our cruelty in the disemboweled, dismembered, and disfigured bodies of their brothers we leave behind us." Oh how we wish we could! Removing the Talmudic moral complexity and parsing, the Woody Allen angst, the liberal genteelness and conservative embarrassment from the equation, what we really want is to scalp Nazis, burn Nazis, torture Nazis, murder Nazis, brand Nazis like cattlemen brand cows (or God brands Cain) with their very own swastikas, and brutally bash their heads in with baseball bats. Actually, the last act brings together two Jewish male fantasies - bashing Nazis and being Hank Greenberg. I digress. As Elie Wiesel, Nobel Laureate and most important witness of the Kingdom of Night, teaches: "Some stories are true that never happened." Lawrence Bender and Harvey and Bob Weinstein deserve great credit for having the courage to back this extraordinary film. Yet, it takes a gentile to go where no Holocaust story has gone before. Personally, I would give Tarantino an honorary membership in the Jewish people (no circumcision required, as he's been hacking, slicing and ruminating about this Jewish vengeance orgy for over a decade) for bringing consciousness of feelings and desires that many Jews could never bring up in mixed company to the screen. Ahhh, to simply terrorize Nazis and after killing them, to scalp them! I have no idea what gentiles will experience while seeing this movie (and I really am sorry to cluster all gentiles together, especially since Aldo Raine, part Apache Tennessee hillbilly with twang, is not a Jew), but if I'm really honest, this Jew felt twinges of excitement, thrills, chills he's never felt before seeing violence. I don't even go to action films, yet alone violent movies, as they've always turned my stomach. But this one turned me on (though when I awoke the morning after, I had this strange sense of embarrassment over having gotten so into it). Unfortunately, I really enjoyed it! As similar as Inglorious Basterds is to other Tarantino films, the determinative difference is Inglorious Basterds makes reference to real historical events. People already either love or hate Tarantino films, so this added level of complexity will surely cause great debate. The movie surfaces a fantasy locked in the inner recesses of every Jew's consciousness: getting to riddle Hitler's body with bullets. No more passive Jews, no more persecution, no more victims led to slaughter, no need for righteous gentiles like Schindler to save us, no more overdeveloped superego and pretense of moral superiority. Finally Jews can be just as brutal as the Nazis! If the reactions I heard the night I saw the film are any indication, most Jews will love this fantasy with great gusto or as a guilty great pleasure, which will make the difference between seeing this film as kosher porn or as a necessary stage in healing an unbearable trauma. Of course a vocal minority will offer some culturally sophisticated politically correct critique that the movie is sacrilege and minimizes and trivializes the Holocaust. And those critics may be right for those who need to see this film ten times or whose only reaction is whooping in up for scalped Nazis but seeing this film once is a must. Simply loving or hating Inglorious Basterds misses the realization that has gnawed at me since the morning after. Is it possible that all the necessary (and noble) civilizing attempts to respond/make sense/set things right regarding the Holocaust - museums and memorials, theologies and books, curricula, conferences and anti-racist laws and have also been deflections from giving voice to and even feeling the most primal and honest response to the beating, and shooting, and hanging, and burning, and gassing of six million Jews and millions of others? Does the very fact that Tarantino gives us license to enjoy and even relish the violence against Nazis reveal a mustard seed of repression? Inglorious Basterds gives us the most satisfying and gratifying response of all: brutal, unmitigated by any civilizing norms or ideals, cold-blooded, pleasure inducing, murderous rage and vengeance. Given that the Holocaust, understandably and justifiably, has been central in Jewish and American identity -the U.S. Holocaust Museum visited by millions each year does stand on the Washington Mall - what happens when the most primal response of all is repressed out of a mixture of shame, fear, humiliation, and taboo. What happens when this response is repressed into the third generation - the aftermath of the aftermath - who still hear the clarion call of their elders to Never Forget? Can the repressed desire of wanting to murder those basterds - morph into seeing every enemy as a marked Nazi and into paroxysms of power that indeed turn us into basterds if not bastards? Twice in the film, Aldo Raine asks Nazis if post-war they intended to burn their uniforms and return to normal life. After each Nazi tells him yes, Aldo viciously (but with great Tarantino artistry) carves out deep bloody swastika in the Nazi's forehead and offers one of the most haunting lines in the film: "I cannot abide that (Nazis are forgotten)." Can we not abide a world in which there are no more Nazis? Do we need a Nazi mark forever etched into our consciousness to know who we are? What will it take to stop seeing the world through the prism of the Holocaust? A band of Inglorious Basterds? If the film proves anything, it is that we have barely begun to clean up the toxic waste of the Holocaust. There is still plenty of rage and anger that has not risen to the surface. Presently, liberals and conservatives, hawks and doves have a nice happy arrangement. One side makes believe they feel no anger or fear and see evil simply as a social construction to be dealt with by understanding and diplomacy. The other side makes believe it is not nightmares from the past that have made it appropriate to see the Nazi specter in every enemy, to confuse real politic with metaphysical evil. So we become each other's containers for all our repressed and disassociated rage and humiliation and fear - with everyone seeing each other as Nazis - a cornucopia of Nazis. Jews see Palestinians, Palestinians see Jews, Americans see Arabs, Arabs see Americans, even opponents of health care reform see Barack Obama, and supporters of health care reform see noisy town-hall opponents as Nazis. That which seems so unique has become common. No wonder Inglorious Basterds feels so good to watch. Tarantino, as he always does, has given voice to our unacceptable and dangerous urges - kill those mf's - thereby defusing much tension and anxiety. It sure feels good to finally burn them alive, but when the lights come up, we have to wake up. Perhaps the insight of waking up the morning after experiencing this film and having to admit, "Unfortunately, I really really enjoyed it," is that we are entitled and need to admit the furious desire for pure vengeance . If we do so, we may even begin to see that healthy people do not want their grandchildren and great grandchildren to Remember the trauma they suffered rather they hope the trauma will be Remembered to be Forgotten. Invited to stare into the Face of Vengeance and admit and own we even enjoyed the killing, maybe we can begin to heal and realize the innocence of suffering can never be redeemed by the exercise of power. For if we could do anything we wanted to anyone to make things right what would we do that could make things right? The suffering of the Nazis' millions of victims can never be fully set right - that is the difference between reality and fantasy - and to think anything to the contrary leaves a world in which the only people standing are a branded Nazi and a couple of Basterds. Thank you, Quentin Tarantino. You have reminded us, whether you intended to or not, that we are never as powerful as our greatest fantasies and never as powerless as our worst nightmares.
 
Sri Lanka Video Shows Executions, Alleges Report Top
The Sri Lankan High Commission has denied its forces carried out atrocities against ethnic Tamils after a video apparently showing a man being executed by Sri Lankan soldiers was aired on British television. The footage, appearing to show a man dressed in Sri Lankan military uniform shooting a naked, bound and blindfolded male, was broadcast by Channel 4 News. A second man was also shown being shot dead later in the footage, said to have been taken by a soldier using a mobile phone. Corpses could also be seen in the background. Continue reading at Al Jazeera . Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter! More on Sri Lanka
 
Shahid Buttar: Losing Wars We Already Won (Part I): Torture vs. WWII Top
Over the past century, our nation has triumphed over two sets of aspiring global tyrants: the axis powers in WWII, and the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Our victories over these foes were, in each case, world-historical in scale and importance. Yet within less than a century, we now flirt with losing the principles those successes established. First, our recent record on torture, and more recent failure to prosecute all officials involved in enabling it, undermines the legacy of international human rights we established after the Second World War. Second, after vindicating freedom, liberty, and individual privacy in the Cold War, we now dutifully submit to a surveillance state more intrusive than any that has ever existed in human history. In other words, Bush and Cheney succeeded in doing what neither Nazi Germany nor the Soviet Union could: eviscerate American values and undermine our grandest foreign policy accomplishments since the turn of the 20th century. And while President Obama's aim to "look forward, not backward," may resemble a thoughtful political compromise, it is an illegal capitulation to illegitimate political interests carrying profound consequences for human rights and freedom both in the U.S. and around the world. WWII and Human Rights... The allied powers fought the Second World War largely in the name of human rights, which we enshrined in its wake with a series of international institutions. The United Nations was perhaps the most ambitious example; others include various treaties setting baseline standards for (among many other things) the treatment of detainees during wartime. International institutions to ensure collective security represented a major leap forward for humankind, akin to the Apollo moon landing 20 years later. Not since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 had international relations undergone so fundamental a transformation. A core tenet of the post-WWII era, established by the Nuremberg Trials of former Nazi officials, held that individuals bear criminal liability for violating international human rights regardless of what domestic laws my authorize their conduct. The "following orders" defense was soundly rejected and officials up and down the chain of command faced justice for war crimes. We Americans have been called upon to apply these principles to our own leaders only 60 years later. But our willingness to preserve our earlier achievements has proven lacking. ...vs. Torture with Impunity Despite public pressure from voices across the political spectrum , the Obama administration continues to sweep torture under the rug . And while the Holder Justice Department has demonstrated welcome independence by recently announcing a limited investigation led by a special prosecutor, it could be worse than none at all if senior officials enjoy effective immunity. First, investigating only junior level scapegoats would set a legal precedent that decisionmakers can violate human rights with impunity. Second, overlooking senior officials who set torture policies would confer artificial legitimacy on the range of offenses that were officially approved, despite their international illegality. While the current cover-up threatens the rule of law and real accountability is necessary, scapegoating could be even worse than doing nothing . Failing to follow the key Nuremberg precedents--that "following orders" cannot justify war crimes and that liability transcends the chain of command--weakens them in the future. Mere omission vindicates lawlessness: sitting on our hands or prosecuting only some individuals involved will undermine the international legal framework we erected after defeating the Axis powers. Immunity for any officials involved in torture will lead to an unfortunately predictable result: a global race to the bottom in human rights standards. Every two-bit despot the world over will claim a license to torture, maim and perhaps even kill at will. Rather than stand accountable to the international community, any accused torturer need merely cite the Holder precedents (allowing perceived necessity to justify war crimes and resurrecting the lame "following orders" defense) to escape justice for whatever manner of abuse they might concoct. Even today, torture by U.S. officials reportedly continues at Guantanamo Bay, where Immediate Reaction Forces have killed at least one detainee while administering brutal force feedings lacking even sanitation, let alone anesthesia. Moreover, by eroding a principle so fundamental as the prohibition on torture, underinclusive prosecution renders more palatable the full range of other international law violations. If even torture doesn't justify prosecuting everyone involved, why would, for instance, poaching endangered species or violating the ban on ozone-producing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)? When attempting to justify their desire to sweep torture under the rug, apologists argue from both sides of their mouths. Accepting the "following orders" defense , they suggest that investigators ignore wrongdoing by interrogators who committed torture, yet conversely demand that senior officials who issued those orders should also escape investigation (despite their even greater culpability). Apologists wish to avoid "chilling current intelligence operations ," but given the dismal performance of our intelligence agencies, a little transparency and accountability is long overdue. Examining other examples of prosecution offers even more reasons to pursue a robust and thorough--rather than artificially limited--investigation. Unless expanded from its initial contours, prosecutor John Durham's investigation will allow the architects of torture policy to remain free, while only other country's torturers face justice (or for that matter, while non-violent offenders in America receive prison sentences for less severe crimes). The resulting contrast and lack of proportionality could erode the legitimacy of both the international legal regime generally, and our own criminal justice system, in one fell swoop. Few discrete decisions--and even fewer omissions--could do so much damage so quickly to such vital institutions. Our failure to apply the Nuremberg precedents threatens to sacrifice a civilizational advance as major as the printing press. Perhaps we should be less surprised, however, given that U.S. torture policy boasts a long, unapologetic history across a disappointing number of contexts. The result will ultimately turn on how much (and how sincerely) we honor the sacrifice of veterans who died in WWII--and whether everyday Americans committed to the legacy of human rights they established see fit to raise our voices . More on Barack Obama
 
Kennedy To Be Buried At Arlington Top
WASHINGTON — Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who died Tuesday of brain cancer, will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery near his slain brothers, former President John F. Kennedy and former Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. An official knowledgeable about the arrangements told The Associated Press Wednesday that Kennedy, the liberal lion of the Senate for nearly half a century, would be laid to rest near his brothers on the famous Virginia hillside that serves as the burial sites of others from the storied clan, including former first lady Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because arrangements were still under way. At the site of the eternal flame rest four Kennedy family members: the former president and his wife; their baby son, Patrick, who died after two days; and a stillborn child. Former Robert F. Kennedy is buried a short distance away. Kennedy died after a yearlong struggle with brain cancer. He was 77. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Ed Martin: TheWB.com and Johnson & Johnson Have a Winner in "The Lake" Top
TheWB.com's latest original series, a teen drama titled The Lake , is hardly groundbreaking as scripted entertainment, but it is a very effective centerpiece in a grand platform for advertisers. At a time when traditional and experimental media are colliding and business models are in perilous play that makes it a win for all involved. The basic story foundation here -- a group of pretty white kids suffering through their own teeny-something dramas -- is vintage WB, recalling more than one series from that late and much-lamented broadcast network. The young and beautiful are the children of four families that spend their summers in a glorious lakeside community, the perfect place to wallow in the kind of problems other folk only dream of dwelling on, especially during this economy. For the kids it's all about lust, longing, coping with change and finding new friends. Oh, and skin care. The Lake has a single sponsor: Johnson & Johnson's Clean & Clear skin-care line for tweens and teens. These products could not be promoted in a better environment. Eye-catching banner and box ads for Clean & Clear appear above and below TheWB's player, each inviting the viewer to click on it and download a coupon. A breezy fifteen-second spot for the product line appears at the start of and midway through each episode. The spot isn't at all annoying except when viewed over and over again, as is the digital way. Yes, a couple of the female characters are actually shown using Clean & Clear products during a couple of scenes, but the integration interruptus is extremely brief. It in fact feels organic, to use a tired phrase. The real impetus that should drive girls (and maybe a few boys) from player to banner to coupon to store isn't the content of the ads or the placement of the products. It's the cumulative effect of watching several teenagers with perfect skin over and over and over again. (There isn't a zit to be seen.) Want to look as good as one of them? Click on the banner above. This is not to imply that The Lake is just some kind of extended advertisement or high-grade infomercial. It can stand alone as a solid if lightweight show. But, as presented on this platform, it is one-half of a perfect marriage of program and product presented in a way that viewers may very well respond to. As for the production itself, the tale of The Lake is told in twelve segments custom made for the YouTube generation and ranging in length from approximately 7-12 minutes. Even without the recaps and brief credits that open each episode that adds up to approximately 90 minutes, the length of a typical made-for-broadcast or basic cable movie (which The Lake could be, in that it spans an entire summer and leaves only one significant plot thread unresolved at the end). Overall it is a remarkable achievement: It looks just as good as many broadcast movies and better than many basic cable flicks, yet was produced for a fraction of the cost. (Credit for that goes to the entire production team, especially director Jason Priestley.) At a press conference for this show during the recent Television Critics Association tour, executive producer Jordan Levin (the former Chief Executive Officer of the WB network and now the co-founder and CEO of the multi-media studio Generate) indicated that the budget for The Lake was way below half the cost of a single episode of an hour long broadcast drama series. Interestingly, even though it is largely about teens that are hot for each other, The Lake is pretty tame when compared to broadcast or basic cable programming. In fact, there is more skin, sex and sex talk in the dramas on ABC Family than there is here. Throughout all twelve episodes there is very little "naughty" language, no sex to speak of and a one-time nudity tease that reveals nothing at all. (Early in the series the teens swim naked. The girls toss their tops and the boys bare their bottoms but it all happens off screen or underwater.) Tellingly, there are several scenes in which underage kids are shown drinking. How strange that alcohol consumption is okay but full moons are off limits. "We discussed [content issues] pretty openly with [TheWB.com] and we tried to maintain fairly traditional broadcast standards because we recognize that we are catering to, in large cases, a younger audience and we have a sponsor attached and we want to be responsible to that sponsor," Levin told the TCA. "So we may have erred in some cases, being more conservative than many networks that cater to generally younger audiences." Indeed, that conservative approach might keep The Lake from building buzz and becoming a breakout hit, however that may be defined online. Given what the target audience for this program is already watching on basic cable and the Internet it would seem that, going forward, producers and advertisers alike are going to have to step up and add some adult elements to programs and platforms alike. Still, if The Lake works for Johnson & Johnson that will be a good thing. I'd like to see a second batch of episodes. (Would we call it a sophomore season or a sequel? Since it will run forever online, does it matter?) Meantime, I'd like to see what kinds of Internet programming other big-name producers and directors can deliver with the support of appropriate advertisers. TheWB.com has fashioned a terrific digital template on which others can build exciting models of their own.
 
Carolita Johnson: RIP Teddy Top
All my life, in spite of all the good things he's done, when I think of Ted Kennedy I think of that vehicular homicide and how he got away with it due to his privileged position in life. However, he's done a lot to atone for it, probably more than any man in (or not in) his position of privilege could. Ted Kennedy: the greatest, most accomplished reformed vehicular homicide perpetrator ever. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Dr. John Neustadt: Reformulate Health Care Reform -- STAT! Top
Weeks ago I started writing a series of posts dedicated to health care reform. I argued that medical education needs to change from a primarily drugs- and surgery-based model to a more holistic one that focuses on getting to the root of illness. My next post was going to discuss how health care reform should require insurance companies to cover all licensed healthcare providers. Unfortunately, in the weeks that have passed, the health reform debate and efforts have gone from optimistic and bipartisan to vitriolic, divisive and, in some circumstances, downright scary. I find it ironic that one of the changes I planned to argue for -- more emphasis on preventive medicine -- is now a moot point. The patient (health care reform) is already so sick that triage is required. It's painfully evident that wholesale reform of our healthcare system isn't going to happen. I fear the legislation that ends up on the President's desk for his historical signature will neither decrease healthcare costs, nor improve patient outcomes. President Obama has squandered political capital and misused his bully pulpit. The effort was doomed to fail from the beginning because it was trying to do too much. The President was too aggressive in trying to take on all the special interests simultaneously at the federal level--insurance companies, hospitals, doctors groups, healthcare informatics and pharmaceutical companies. The plan included reaching across the aisle to form consensus of sweeping reform, promoting universal coverage, eliminating pre-existing conditions as a reason for denying healthcare coverage, decreasing reimbursements to doctors and hospitals and mandating that healthcare organizations implement electronic medical records technology. His "let's-fix-all-now" approach appears to have backfired as the public's opinion of Obama's handling of the healthcare reform effort has dwindled. The Administration and its supporters in Congress have lost the momentum for reform they had earlier this year and are now discussing whether or not to push a bill through Congress without bipartisan support. The polling numbers don't paint a positive picture. On July 21 Time Magazine reported that more than 60 percent of respondents believed healthcare reform will make the system more costly and more complicated. On August 7 the Wall Street Journal reported that 63 percent of adults agree with the President's assertion that "We must make it a priority to give every single American quality affordable health care," but just five days later, on August 12, the Gallup Poll reported that 49 percent disapprove of how the President is handling health care versus 43 percent who approve. While it once held the high ground, the Administration is now fighting back from a position of vulnerability. Part of the problem appears to be that President Obama's efforts have been too broad. Instead of trying to fix the entire system at once, he should have narrowed the efforts to three objectives that would likely enjoy undeniable public support. These efforts do not dictate the type of care administered and avoid the new third-rail of the reform debate -- universal coverage. They are: (1) deny insurance companies the right to refuse coverage for preexisting conditions; (2) require insurance companies to provide coverage for all children; and (3) pressure governors to come up with solutions that will solve the problems on a state-by-state level. Insuring all children is a no-brainer. This population is one of the most vulnerable in our society. Countless studies show that long-term health is established in childhood, and that problems caught at an early age may be dealt with before they develop into serious and expensive diseases. That 8.1 million children don't have access even to well-child exams that chart a child's growth and provide a forum to vaccinate and discuss proper nutrition and lifestyle issues with parents, represents a missed opportunity to promote a lifetime of good habits and health. Denying insurance companies the right to refuse people for preexisting conditions puts the emphasis squarely in these companies' laps to deal with a burgeoning problem of their own making. Some would argue that this would cause the insurance companies to raise premiums so high that health insurance becomes even less affordable for many. This is where my third suggestion comes into play. The insurance industry is currently regulated on a state-by-state basis, as are health care providers. Governors could be pressured by the Administration to come up with novel solutions that can serve as models for the rest of the country. Instead of one large federal government solution, we would have fifty states acting as entrepreneurial incubators for reform. As the states come up with viable solutions, other will adopt them. There are already successful examples of states and local governments improving health care coverage for their residents. Last Sunday's New York Times op-ed discussed San Francisco's Healthy San Francisco program. Under this program, which went into effect last year, nearly all city residents now have health care coverage. Massachusetts now has only other near-universal health care program in the country. In 1996 Washington state legislators enacted the "Every category of health care providers" law, which requires "health plans provide coverage for treatments and services by every category of provider" and that "health carriers shall not exclude any category of providers licensed by the state of Washington who provide health care services or care within the scope of their practice for conditions covered by basic health plan (BHP) services." Regulated health care professionals in Washington covered by this law include medical doctors, osteopathic doctors, naturopathic doctors, nurses, physician assistants, chiropractors, massage therapists and acupuncturists. This law has given Washingtonians greater access to choosing the health care they want and need. And in West Virginia, West Virginia Rx (WVRx) is a partnership among state government, private philanthropy and pharmaceutical companies to provide prescription drugs and high-quality pharmaceutical care while reducing health disparities. WVRx is improving health outcomes and reducing the cost of health care for uninsured West Virginia residents. The majority of Americans want to eliminate the preexisting conditions loophole and want kids to have access to quality healthcare. Simultaneously, states are pioneering health care solutions that may serve as models for other states to adopt, which might be more appropriate for the needs of their residents than overarching federally mandated programs. In focusing on these three areas, I believe President Obama would have the majority of public opinion strongly behind him. It also would make it nearly impossible for legislators to oppose the reform unless they wanted to commit political suicide. John Neustadt, ND is medical director of Montana Integrative Medicine and the co-founder, with Steve Pieczenik, MD, PhD, of Nutritional Biochemistry, Incorporated (NBI) and NBI Testing and Consulting Corp (NBITC). The doctors created Osteo-K, a calcium supplement formulated by physicians from Harvard, Cornell, MIT and Bastyr that contains nutrients shown to decrease osteoporotic fractures by more than 80 percent. For more information on osteoporosis supplements and decreasing your risk for osteoporosis and fractures, visit www.bonehealthproduct.com .Their latest book, Foundations and Applications of Medical Biochemistry in Clinical Practice , is available on Amazon. More on Health Care
 
Dean Baker: Kennedy's Quick Win for Social Security Top
I first met Ted Kennedy in the fall of 1995. The context was truly bizarre. Alan Greenspan had testified to the Senate Finance Committee in the fall of 1994 that the consumer price index (CPI) overstated the true rate of inflation. He told the committee that if it lowered the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) for Social Security to correspond to the true rate of inflation, rather than the CPI, it could largely eliminate the budget deficit. Greenspan told the committee that the gap was between 1-2 percentage points annually, so that after a decade, his plan would cut annual Social Security payments by more than 10 percent. And, the great thing was that Congress could do this cut by claiming it was just a technical adjustment. Over the next half year, the idea of changing the COLA for Social Security gained considerable support in Congress from both parties. (Daniel Moynihan was the strongest proponent.) There was also support for the idea in the Clinton White House. In this context, I was invited to talk to Senator Kennedy and his staff about the CPI, since I was one of the few economists who disputed the claim that the CPI overstated inflation. I was very happy when I got to his office to see 5 senior looking staffers. I assumed that these were the people that I really had to convince and I focused my attention on them, only occasionally looking back at Kennedy to avoid appearing rude. After about 10 minutes of boring econ jargon (price indices are even boring to economists), Senator Kennedy started asking me probing questions. It was clear that he had listened carefully and understood everything I said. I then began to focus my attention directly on Kennedy and we had a very good discussion of the issues. I walked away with a very valuable ally in this fight. I saw exactly how valuable about a month later. The scene was a meeting of an ad hoc House-Senate Democratic committee that had been established to help hammer out a balanced budget proposal that Congressional Democrats could sign onto. This was the period when the government was shut down, as President Clinton and the Republican controlled Congress could not agree on a budget. The congressional Democrats felt that it was important that they have their own budget to establish themselves as an independent force in the debate. The ad hoc committee was supposed to focus on the issues of the CPI adjustment and corporate welfare. The CPI adjustment was being debated because there were many Democratic members of Congress who found it an attractive way to achieve deficit reduction. Senator Kennedy invited me to this committee meeting so that I could speak about the accuracy of the CPI. I met with him and his staff before the committee meeting. He explained that his goal was to keep corporate welfare on the agenda and the CPI adjustment off the agenda. He said that he wasn't sure that he could succeed, but that was his plan. The corporate welfare discussion came first. Senator Kennedy framed the issue. He noted hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies that could be identified as corporate welfare. He said that the Democrats should set a target of reducing corporate welfare by some substantial amount as a major part of their program for a balanced budget. Kennedy then shut up. He let the rest of the group spout off about all sorts of related and unrelated topics, only briefly intervening at a couple of points to keep the conversation moving forward. At the end of the discussion, corporate welfare was on the agenda. Then we got to the CPI. He briefly, but accurately, laid out the case that the claims for an overstated CPI were weak. He then introduced me as an expert on the CPI and invited me to say a few words to the committee. The ensuing discussion again went all over the place with Kennedy largely remaining silent. However, at the end of the debate, the CPI adjustment was off the table. I was tremendously impressed. Kennedy had gotten exactly what he wanted on both issues and he never broke a sweat. He framed the debate and just let things run their course. It was truly masterful. From the standpoint of the policy involved, although the details are incredibly obscure, the impact would have been very visible and quite large. If the CPI adjustment had taken effect, someone who had been receiving Social Security in 1996 would be getting about 13 percent less in their monthly check today (a cut of roughly 1 percent a year for 13 years). That would be a very painful cut for a segment of the population that doesn't have much money to spare. If the Democrats in the Congress had joined the chorus of those pushing for a CPI adjustment, it is very likely that it would have gone through. So, even though almost no one knows the details of this particular incident, Senator Kennedy played an enormously important role in protecting the financial security of tens of millions of current and future retirees. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Don Imus Leaving RFD-TV Top
Clearing the way for the Fox Business Network to simulcast his radio show, Don Imus said Wednesday that he was leaving RFD-TV, the rural television network that has shown "Imus in the Morning" for almost two years. More on Don Imus
 

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)