Thursday, September 10, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Karin Tanabe: In the Know: Scandalous Political Affairs Top
I know whose bare buttocks have landed on the mahogany desks of certain married congressmen; I've rubbed elbows with high-ranking Hill staffers with porn and prostitute addictions; I've clinked glasses with a girl who wore nothing but rain boots under the Capitol's cavernous dome. In short, I've seen political Washington at its worst. Political affairs. As the world knows, they happen all the time. JFK got biblical with Marilyn Monroe, FDR had Lucy Mercer engaging in more than just shorthand, Eisenhower played tickle the pickle with Kay Summersby, and Bill Clinton was happy to clarify the difference between sex and oral sex for the entire world. Of course, it took a little while for these steamy adulterous nights to make headlines. Yet staffers, friends, and the connected were aware of them for years. Mark Sanford's inner circle was queued in about his naked tango in Argentina, and John Ensign's coterie knew he was canoodling with Cynthia Hampton, but who would risk reputation and employment to enlighten the good people of America? Many Washingtonians on the Hill are au courant with their Rep's bedroom lambadas, but it's an ethical dilemma to be the confidant in a headline-worthy affair. I happen to know the kinds of things Jenna Jameson would high-five me for, but what should I do with this X-rated information? I can't pen a piece about the naked gal in rain boots reclining in the Capitol because we're very good friends. Yes, she drank the Kool-Aid of power, but I still respect her and have no desire to sully her good name. As for the cad she got biblical with, do I want to be the one who ruins his illustrious career, even if it is crafted on lies and deception? The nature of Washington, inside-the-Beltway connections, and a desire to stay out of the private lives of the elite, keeps me, and many others, mum about such scandals. The alarm could have sounded about the party going on in our political representation's pants many times during the 2008 presidential election, but only John Edwards fell and it was conveniently after he was out of the running. Richardson and McCain were cocooned in rumors of adultery, and amongst Washington insiders there was even talk of Cindy McCain having a lover in Florida, but nothing was ever confirmed. Washington is a small town and its pinstriped-loving people seldom forget a political affair...or the fink who leaked it. More on Mark Sanford
 
Reproductive Justice: Abstinence Education DisObeyed Top
By Lon Newman, President of the Wisconsin Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association and 2005 David R. Obey Person of Principle In the politics of abstinence-only education, we have a lot to learn. With the full Senate poised to vote this month on the $163 billion Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (FY10 Labor-HHS) appropriations bill, advocates of evidence-based comprehensive sexuality education programs don't have very much time for study. The Puzzle of David Obey and Abstinence Education from Stuart Productions on Vimeo . The House appropriations bill and the Senate Appropriation Labor-HHS Subcommittee bill have replaced abstinence-only funding with evidence-based teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted disease prevention funding. It looks like the end of the line for Abstinence-only. Before we can write our RFPs, we will have to maintain our position through the full Senate vote and then through the conference committee. Who will be our strongest player in these political poker games? It will be my Wisconsin Congressman, David R. Obey , House Appropriations Committee Chair. Here, then, are the lessons I think we need to learn: I. Dave Obey may be ill-tempered, stubborn, outspoken and egocentric, but in a tough game, those aren't the only things to like about him. He is fiercely devoted to quality education and access to health care. He is even more intensely focused on getting the most progressive appropriations bill he can get through his committee and signed into law. II. For the last ten years or so, opponents of comprehensive sex education have used abortion politics to make sex education and contraception bargaining chips in Washington. They often succeeded in the Appropriations Committee because they had the votes and they had the President. But that's no longer an excuse for us to be outmaneuvered or a reason to be defensive. Let the programs the religious zealots won under the last administration be the first-on-the-table bargaining chips for awhile. Instead of trying to block every negative effort by our opponents, now we can work with our majority congressional leadership to promote sound health policy and to fund effective sex education and prevention programs. III. Over those same ten years, feminists, family planning advocates, sex education supporters and others (me, for example) whispered and shouted in frustration about Dave Obey's willingness to cut deals with our opponents . The reality has changed. The Appropriations Bill that passed the House is Dave Obey's Bill. If he wanted to restore abstinence-only funding, he would have done it. He didn't. IV. Because the House appropriations bill has the language we want, Dave Obey will be playing our hand in the conference committee reconciliation process. We need to work as hard as we can to make sure he has the strongest cards possible because when it comes to bluffing, the proponents of abstinence-only education are world-class champions . V. Over his 40 years in Congress, Dave Obey has offended Catholic Bishops , NARAL , SIECUS , pharmaceutical companies , Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Carter, and Bush. He's offended Rush Limbaugh, Speaker Pelosi and he's probably irritated President Obama. I know he's made me furious many times, but I like him anyway because he is a principled equal-opportunity offender. The lesson is that his talent is not being agreeable, but getting an agreement . The summary of these lessons (this will be on the quiz) is that we must work hard right now to preserve President Obama's (and now Dave Obey's) evidence-based pregnancy prevention funding through the full Senate vote and continue the alliance with Congressman Obey to maintain the initiative through the conference committee reconciliation. We must work with Dave Obey now because when it comes to sex education, our opponents will stop at nothing. Originally published on rhrealitycheck.org
 
Rep. John Shimkus Walked Out On Obama Speech Out Of "Frustration" Top
Rep. Joe Wilson, the South Carolina Republican who yelled at President Barack Obama during his address to Congress this week, wasn't the only one unhappy with what he heard. Rep. John Shimkus, a Republican from Illinois, walked out. More on GOP
 
Patricia Yarberry Allen: Autumn's First Kiss: a Wake-up Call Or a Sweet Fragrance? Top
The change of seasons has brought a bounty of smart writing to Women's Voices for Change. Below are some thoughts from two of our top writers, who can't decide whether to grieve summer or savor the burst of fall energy. Diane Vacca taught medieval literature, Spanish and Italian at several universities before becoming a journalist with specialties in politics, the arts and New York City; Ainslie Jones Uhl, a freelance writer/editor and photographer, holds both B.A. in English from Sweet Briar College and a Master of International Business from the University of South Carolina. A native North Carolinian and former New Yorker, Ainslie relocated last year to San Diego, Calif. Diane Vacca : Labor Day is a bittersweet time: Janus-like, the end of summer and the start of the academic year have me looking forward and back at the same time. I don't want summer to end-- night falls sooner and cooler, a sure harbinger of cold, dark winter nights to come, when green turns dry and brown, its life drained into the earth. I know I'll miss the fecklessness of walking out lightly clad and unencumbered, my toes unfettered in open sandals. No matter how gorgeous and gaudy nature's last hurrah, the falling leaves spell the end of another year, a fluttering dissolution of summer's vigor, the inexorable mortality of all living things. But with the first crisp autumnal day, when the sky -- liberated at last from its hazy, humid prison ---forms a vast, azure bowl over my head, when the refreshing cool invites the embrace of soft wool and the fireplace beckons.... Ainslie Jones Uhl : The basil and I become survivalists about this time every year, struggling and striving to reach a common goal: making it past Labor Day. My whole being is on August autopilot, making sure that each of my offspring is well-equipped physically, emotionally and materially for a new school year.... To read the rest, click here. To see more of what Women's Voices for Change has to offer, please stop by and bookmark the best thing to happen to women's magazines since Helen Gurley Brown.
 
Chris Brassington: Text Heard 'Round the World: Marketers Embrace Mobile Messaging Top
Personalized mobile interaction, which includes text and picture messages, has become one of the most popular ways on the planet for people to communicate, and its growth is staggering. According to a report from Tomi Ahonen Consulting, the number of global mobile messaging users has climbed to more than three billion, and 76% of all mobile phone subscribers actively send and receive SMS text messages. Three billion messaging consumers translates to twice the number of television sets in homes, two and half times the number of people using email, and three times the number of computers on the Internet. This phenomenal growth represents an amazing opportunity for marketers, but what are some of the most important practices to keep in mind when developing mobile messaging campaigns? Gaining Access to a Consumer's Mobile Device is an Intimate Invitation Individuals store their contacts, check their email, and visit favorite mobile sites directly from their phones. Having a consumer opt in to receive updates or learn more about a brand via mobile messaging is only the beginning of the marketer/consumer relationship. Treat it like gold and understand that each opt in is a privilege and not a right. Be sure you understanding the Mobile Marketing Association's Mobile Advertising Guidelines . Follow these directions carefully or you will run the risk of being banned. Mobile Interaction is the Gateway to Your Brand Let's face it. There is very little that a brand can communicate in 160 characters, so marketers should utilize mobile messaging as a gateway that facilitates access to the brand and to more information. Include brief detail on the reason for the message (e.g. great offer, sports scores, the latest weather), then leave room for a direct link to your mobile site. This is the best way to further engage on-the-go consumers with your brand while providing instant analytics on response rates to plan future campaigns. Relevancy is Key and Fatigue is Ever-Present When consumers opt in to a brand's mobile messaging program, relevancy is absolutely critical. If they choose to receive messages about weather, be sure to send them local forecasts. If sports scores are what you're offering, make sure the consumer's favorite teams are included in the message. This does not mean a marketer cannot add on sponsor messages and other promotions, but relevant and timely content should always take the lead. The same thing goes for subscriber fatigue. Send too many messages, and your opt-in friend will soon be your opt-out enemy. Breaking news 15 times a day can be overwhelming, so consider one or two messages a day instead. Leverage Tie-Ins to Other Media Channels To further add value for the consumer and promote your other marketing channels, prompt the user to tune in to your television show or go online for more information. 2ergo recently launched a program with National Geographic Channel for its Dog Whisperer TV series that sent mobile messages with a dog training tip and reminder to watch the show two hours before each week's episode. The program received positive feedback from subscribers for delivering relevant information in a timely manner, and National Geographic continues to renew this program. Learn from Your Subscriber Base, Immediately O2, a leading UK mobile operator with 18.4 million customers, implemented a wide-reaching mobile messaging strategy with 2ergo that enabled the company to send regular SMS, MMS and email updates on special offers, new products and other relevant campaigns to its subscriber base. Thanks to the immediate responses typical with mobile and other detailed tracking metrics, O2 now understands that certain demographics respond best to SMS and MMS between 6pm and 9pm, after finishing their work day. By leveraging this deep insight into customer behavior, they have seen response rates between 30-65%. Executives with the company believe that mobile messaging has led to reduce costs and more informed customers, which ultimately is reducing churn. Mobile Marketing Offers Great Value The current economic climate is driving smarter business, fueling the growth in mobile marketing and mobile customer relationship management (CRM). Business is responding to market conditions by spending less on TV, outdoor and print in favor of the mobile as it's a less expensive, highly targeted and more measurable marketing channel. Smart marketers will keep these best practices in mind with each and every program they choose to deploy in this mobile world. Feel free to contact me directly to discuss further: Chris Brassington +44 (0)161 874 4222 2ergo
 
David Orr: Give School Janitors Paid Sick Days Top
Germs. Yet another thing wrong with privatizing public sector jobs: germs. In 1996, Chicago Public Schools privatized janitorial services. To trim costs, they cut janitors' jobs and contracted them out to a company that doesn't provide paid sick time. Back then, it was a short-sighted way to save money. Rather than resolving productivity disputes with more accountability, it pitted students against poorly paid employees. Today, in the era of the H1N1 virus , privatization's unforeseen consequences are even worse. It's hard to believe that the contractor who provides janitors to 600 Chicago schools does not allow any paid sick days. If this outrages you, it should. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Secretary of Health and Human Services implore sick people to stay home and recover. Employers anxious about sick-time cheats should provide limits and supervision, not eliminate benefits. "No paid sick time" is an immoral policy at best. And at worst, it is a policy that could endanger the health of children and their parents, ultimately costing families across Chicago in lost wages and their own sick time. Chicago Public Radio reported Tuesday that Service Employees International Union is calling attention to this wrong-headed policy. Sick janitors may mop, wipe, wash and sweep. But a janitor with the flu, especially one as contagious as H1N1, can still leave a trail of germs in bathrooms, locker rooms and cafeterias. If these germs are transmitted to students -- forcing a parent to stay home as a caregiver -- the consequences of an ill-conceived sick-time policy can infect our schools, our families and our own workplaces. Like a virus.
 
Yoani Sanchez: Growing Cuban Blogosphere Celebrates With First Blog Awards Top
I feel a mix of exhaustion and happiness because yesterday, finally, the award ceremony for the first Cuban blogger contest, A Virtual Island, took place. The last few days leading up to this magical 09.09.09 I barely had time to sleep, deep in the preparations and deliberations. The end result made up for the dark circles under my eyes, because all of us who gathered at the awards ceremony felt we were witnessing something special. Now the word "blogger" is no longer, for us, a rare combination of letters, rather on this Island its connotations are increasingly clear. It means to get the information, to break the monopoly of the official media over the news, to let out what we have been silent about for years, while we go through an accelerated course in citizenship in cyberspace. I am particularly pleased that among the winners of the most important prizes have been brave and talented women. The Cuban blogosphere definitely comes in a skirt and I find this better than if it were garbed in a military uniform. You can read the jury's decision here , and here are the prizes. * Award for Best Blog: Claudia Cadelo, Octavo Cerco * Prize awarded by Internet votes for most popular: Claudia Cadelo, Octavo Cerco * Prize for the best blog design: Boring Home Utopics , Orlando Luis Pardo Lazo * Prize for Best Journalistic Blog shared between Miriam Celaya, Sin Evasion , and the blog of the Association for Freedom of the Press , by a group of independent journalists. * Prize for Best Photo Blog: Boring Home Utopics , Orlando Luis Pardo Lazo * Special Mention for a blog done in difficult circumstances: Voice Through the Bars , Pablo Pacheco * Special mention for a blog's contribution to the debate: The Digital Controversy , Elaine Diaz * Special mention for a blog's contribution to the debate: Bridging , by Enrique Pineda Barnet I want to thank the many friends who made possible the difficult use of Tweets, that we managed to send from the awards ceremony. More on Cuba
 
Beth Weinstock: The Lessons From Yoga Keep Coming Top
On my 40th birthday I was at a retreat center participating in my first ever yoga weekend which happened to be taught by the renowned Amrit Desai, the original yogi at the Kripalu Center in Mass. I wasn't sure what I was getting myself into, but it was a way to play with a friend of mine and do something new. In our first session we were directed to stretch out one leg in a particular, non-stressful manner, and then to check out the different lengths of our legs. I was absolutely amazed that the stretched leg felt yards longer than the other. I know this is no surprise to others who do such exercise, but at that moment I felt like magic had happened; that I was in Alice's wonderland where body parts changed size. I was in awe. I became a yoga convert. And the lessons from yoga keep coming. Lesson # 1: Being Present and in the Moment. Yoga invites us to be present and in the moment. It raises awareness of when our mind is attentive to intention and our actions, and when our mind is roaming to a separate task. In our world of multitasking we are so often doing one task while thinking about another, and while this is sometimes necessary, it can cheat us out of satisfaction from what we are doing. Training in being present is important, because our presence is all we really have for being powerfully engaged in our lives. Lesson # 2: Concentration Yoga trains our concentration and is itself a meditation in mindfulness. We are invited to concentrate on breath and body sensation, and then notice how immediately we are thinking about the errands that we will do after....then we come back to attention to breath and sensation, training the mind to be singly focused. Lesson #3: The Power of Our Inner Critic In yoga we gain an opportunity to witness our Inner Critic and its influence on our behavior. A few weeks ago in yoga class we began to do balancing postures--standing on one leg while moving other parts of the body. I was feeling balanced until I looked around and saw class mates who were more supple and reaching further. All of a sudden my Inner Critic started talking to me. "You really are much too awkward" I heard myself say, and instantly I lost my balance. I left class thinking how often my critical inner voice has bullied me out my capabilities and diminished my stamina. Our Inner Critic can so easily throw us off balance by sending us critical messages that interfere with our confidence. In a workshops I lead on Calming Your Inner Critic at the Kripalu Center in Stockbridge Mass we spend time exploring this phenomenon, witnessing the Inner Critic, and learning how to hold steady and resist its judgment. Lesson #4: Self-Compassion Yoga also offers an antidote to the Inner Critic --compassion. On a different day I might show myself compassion, and remind myself that while others in my class are more skilled, I'm doing the best I can, and feel proud of my middle aged persistence for flexibility. Likewise, on those days when my concentration is not available, I might simply notice that the day's errands hold more prominence than the purity of my posture, and say "oh well", and let it go. Sometimes I find myself in yoga class looking around seeing the diverse family of man, similar to looking at people in the New York City subway, or the grocery line, noticing the wonderousness of the many ways us human beings show up--- how different we are, and how remarkable it is that we make it through the complexities of our lives. Lesson #5: Being Human Beings, Not Just Human Doings Yoga class ends with a period of laying flat on the floor in shevasina, the "dead man's pose." Originally when I started doing yoga I thought this was a sad waste of time. I wanted to use my time constructively and get the full benefit from challenging my body. Doing nothing seemed silly. But shevasina is integration time when the mind/body lets the benefits of the poses settle in. It is silence for the body and a meditation in sensate experience. This suspension of "doing" is a missing salve in our time. It seems we've lost the ability to just sit with silence, to be with non-stimulation, to let our bodies digest experience. The end of class ritual of lying on the yoga mat in the posture of shevasana reminds us of how important it is to stop and savor our experience. James Joyce opened Dubliners with the line, "Mr. Duffy lived a short distance from his body". I love that line. It speaks volumes to that experience of being disconnected from oneself physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Yoga helps us uncover how close or far we are from being with ourselves, and helps us to close the gap. As I can too often relate to Mr. Duffy, the line is a good reminder for me to tune into myself and what's around me. For more see Selfmatter.org More on Yoga
 
Michael Gene Sullivan: Strange Bedfellows Abound as Conservatives Scramble to Delegitimize Un-American President. Top
Dateline - Washington D.C. In an unforeseen fulfillment of President Obama's pledge to bring Americans together, conservative groups across the country are reaching out to former political foes to fulfill their own pledge to free Americans from the oppression of being brought together. "And this is not about race!" says Wayne Cuttlefish, of Clokie, Texas. "This is just about a foreign citizen in the White House addressing unsuspecting American students with his foreign socialist message!" So, in that spirit, his group, Americans for an American America (A.F.A.A.A), has reached out to The Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement. "Hawaii is now, and always has was a independent nation, " Mr. Cuttlefish said in a phone interview from his Rec Room/Headquarters/Bowling Trophy repair nook. "illegally occupied by imperialist Americans! Not only should them there islands be free, everybody ever born there - ever -- should be proclaimed -- from birth -- free, proud subjects of King Kamehameha XIV!" Mr. Cuttlefish insists comments about racism are baseless and offensive, and that the A.F.A.A.A. is simply "raising the question of any unreasonably dark, non-American citizen of an independent kingdom talking our kids into studying." Mr. Cuttlefish then began singing a national anthem of Hawaii -- which he had composed -- only to be cut short by his mother, who informed him that his authentic, though aquatic, scale model of Krypton City (from the 1978 Christopher Reeves classic "Superman") was leaking, and that some of its sea monkey citizens were on the kitchen floor. None of the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement organizations have responded to the A.F.A.A.A.'s offer of solidarity. Coincidentally, from the other side of the continent another story is also grabbing headlines, as American Americans for an American America (A.A.F.A.A.A.) have taken on the President's "Cash for Clunkers" program. And in their fight against what the A.A.F.A.A.A. call "an anti-autoist attack on basic Americanism," have extended solidarity to New York City's favorite sidewalk welcome wagon, the Black Israelites. "What kind of black man doesn't like a big car?" asks Reichsfuhrer Cindy Hemplewhite, of Queens, NY. "This totalitarian green redness from a half-blood President is an affront to all real black men, like the Black Israelites, whose unrelenting message of returning to their homeland is something the A.A.F.A.A.A. can get behind 1,000%." As she warmed to her subject Miss Hemplewhite's voice rose, and she decisively muted the episode of Hannah Montana she'd been burning to DVD. "The best way to empower the downtrodden black man is not to take away his Cadillac, but to return him to Africa as quickly as possible." When told the Black Israelites consider Israel their homeland, and that Cash for Clunkers was over, the Reichsfuhrer added "What ev." "Not only, " she continued, "must we support them to go back to wherever they are from, driving those big cars they like so much, all black men -- even the half-black, and especially those born in Hawaii after 1960 -- should be legally declared retroactively "Backed to Africa... or where ever, and freed from the shackles of the White Man's citizenship!" As she spoke the Reichsfuhrer's cousin Brewster, president of the A.A.F.A.A. (America's American's for America's Americans), her aunt Bethtelda -- A.A.F.A.M.A.A. (America's American's for America's Most American Americans), and her boyfriend, D.J. Bizibody - A.N.S. (Americans 'N Shit) all loudly agreed with her passionate afrocentric auto exodus manifesto. "And this is not about race, she continued. "If it were would we be reaching out to these boys? No," she insists, " this is about the enforced involuntary retroactive self determination and car ownership all Americans hold dear." "Bizi-backed to the homeland, jack." added D.J. Bizibody. The Black Israelites had no comment. Some, however, feel that more dangerous possibilities loom in America's future. In a press release slipped under the door of the Rocky Mountain Times sports editor, a group simply known as the A.A.A.P.F.A.O.A.N.T.L.A. states its goal of reaching out the the Nestle Corporation as an ally to "Save America from the Oppressive Breast-fed Obama Healthcare Dictatorship!" "As all American's (A.) know," the note declares, "Both Adolph Hitler and Barack Obama (N.) started down the road to (T.) dictatorial tyranny with the same first sinister, diabolical step - mother's milk! That's what the A.A.A.P.F.A.O.A.N.T.L.A. is all (A.) about! And with Nestle - the leading manufacturer of artificial baby formula - we will awaken( A.) America to the impending struggle against Obama's Hitlerian Nippleist Healthcare Totalitarianism! Breast milk...Healthcare...invade Poland... then the murder of millions!" At this point the release becomes unintelligible, and is followed by some doodles, and a small drawing of Hitler and Obama playing laser tag (L.) The Nestle Corporation had no comment. Finally, in what some are calling the most surprising political turnaround since Jessie Helms' deathbed Kwanzaa birth, Orly Taitz, lawyer and "Birther" movement spokeswoman, announced that her organization, AMERICA (A.M.E.R.I.C.A.), will be reaching out to Planned Parenthood in her crusade against the idea of Hope for Change. "Change? Not until all women have a right to choose can any American truly hope for change!" Ms. Taitz said through an interpreter. "The change we really need is from the question of whether this President was born in the U.S., to whether his mother, an oppressed woman, should have been forced by an uncaring patriarchy to carry a clearly unwanted fetus to full term in the first place!" Though traditionally A.M.E.R.I.C.A. has regarded Planned Parenthood as cultural and moral enemies, "We call on our pro-choice brethren in our struggle to free America from the oppressive, woman negating presidency of an unwanted fetus." Ms. Taitz continued, at a press conference at her dacha outside of Minsk, " Think of it -- A woman, married to an unreliable foreigner, finds herself horribly pregnant! Did she have the right, the choice, the hope to end this tragic misconception? And this is not about race! We simply want to respect and fulfill the obvious wish of our departed sister, and restore her choice stolen all those years ago by having her adult negroid embryo declared legally unborn." "Change... Hope... these are just meaningless words from a man who should never have existed." she concluded. "And as a woman, I feel all Americans need to focus on the real issue of restoring the right of a brave, dead woman to have her accidental past pregnancy retroactively terminated. Only when the Obamination has been returned to the binding status of aborted fetus will this post mortemly empowered woman finally be able to get on with her death, A.M.E.R.I.C.A. able to get on with it's life!" Planned Parenthood had no comment. More on Health Care
 
John Hope Bryant: The Value of Suffering Top
Loss Creates Leaders. I made that the title of the first chapter in my new book because I believe it's the most important lesson for anyone who aspires to leadership in business or elsewhere in life. It is the foundation upon which all else is built. Loss made me the person and the leader I am today. You cannot have a rainbow without first having a storm. As my friend Fred Smith at Operation HOPE says, success in life is all about managing pain. To me, success is going from failure to failure without the loss of enthusiasm. There is enormous value in having experienced and worked through legitimate suffering. Of course, I am not suggesting that you should invite pain -- and certainly you should not create any -- but I am saying that you should not fear it. As leaders and parents, we need to stop trying to save our team or our children from having to face life's hardships. Instead, we need to help them embrace challenges as teachable moments and as opportunities to learn. Whenever something "bad" or unfortunate happens to me, I always ask myself, "What's the lesson here?" At the age of 18, I was homeless for six months. The result is that I can now walk into a meeting with the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, or with a head of state anywhere in the world, and not feel intimidation, insecurity, inferiority, or fear. What are they going to tell me in response to my new idea? No? Well, I had nothing when I walked in the door, so I am no worse off in leaving with nothing. What I don't have is a fear of failure. That is a life lesson you don't learn in business school. You learn it by facing your challenges head on. What keeps us all from embracing change? Fear. It was Franklin D. Roosevelt who famously said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Fear Is Death Fear is the ultimately prosperity killer. Look at this global crisis, and you will see a financial crisis that morphed into an economic crisis, and then a liquidity and a credit crisis, and now it is a basic crisis of confidence. That is fear, plain and simple. I am not saying that fear doesn't deserve its measure of respect, because it does. But if you live by fear, lead by fear, and manage by fear, ultimately whatever you are "managing" (because you are not leading anything) will die. I have failed countless times, and it is not so bad. Failure and pain steel you to life. What doesn't build your character, a friend once told me, reveals your character. On the topic of character, now seems to be as good a time as any to talk about a few, both good and bad. Think about the spoiled kid who received a new BMW for his 16th birthday, the kid for whom everything seems to come easy. This is the same kid who often wants to sleep late and leave work early; the one who assumed his parents would send him to an Ivy League school, clueless and carefree as to how it would be paid for. Today, that same kid doesn't understand financial literacy and thinks money flows easily and credit automatically comes cheap. Society has not helped much. My friend Quincy Jones argues that it takes 20 years to change a culture. Well, in the past 20 years we have made dumb sexy. Let's examine the formative hit television series, Friends: A bunch of middle-class kids, staying in a $10,000-per-month Manhattan apartment, and no one has a real job. Imagine an entire generation taking this message as guidance for who they are supposed to be when they grow up. These kids become ill-prepared for anything other than relative easy street. When the good times dry up -- and they always do -- they are unable to cope and become fear walking. I think a great deal about the kind of character you need to lead. There's Candy Lightner, who lost her child to a drunk driver, only to later found Mothers Against Drunk Driving. President Carter and President Clinton both had issues that affected their respective terms, but who today are creating more positive change in the world out of office than they did in. Or take the childhood struggles of a Sam Walton, who understood poverty firsthand and later was able to build and expand a global business built on a simple premise: quality products for the working man at an affordable price. Of course that company today is Wal-Mart, and Mr. Walton drove the same pickup truck until the day he died. For him and many others, struggles and challenges translated into strengths and triumphs. I grew up surrounded by a lack of hope in South Central Los Angeles, and later founding Operation HOPE to make free enterprise and capitalism actually work for the poor. There is a difference between being broke and being poor. Being broke is a temporary economic condition. But being poor is a disabling frame of mind and a depressed condition of your spirit. One must vow to never, ever be poor again. From the ghettos of inner-city communities to the gilded suites of some of America's most powerful boardrooms, there are people whose problem is that they are poor. Poor in spirit. Having a poor image of yourself creates an environment where fear is in control of your life and your decision-making. The real value in suffering is that you find the invaluable, unmistakable, purposeful, and maybe even the passionate you in the midst of all those business meetings, credit card receipts, and business cards. And in so doing, you figure out that the best way to get ahead in this world is to lead by love and not fear. You help those around you to navigate stormy waters instead of avoiding them. And you figure out what you have to give in a world which seems to know only one question: "What do I get?" By managing the storms of your own life, you help to create a rainbow for you and others. Now that is a life worth living. That's a legacy that lives on forever. Cross-posted from Business Week.
 
Nathan Gardels: Lost in Syndication: The Case of the Hatoyama Essay Top
I've been centrally embroiled in a fascinating controversy involving an essay published in a Japanese magazine by Yukio Hatoyama, the soon-to- be prime minister of Japan, that caused a big stir when excerpts were published abroad, especially in the United States, which in turn caused a bigger stir back in Japan. Hatoyama's essay extolled the virtues of "fraternity" within societies and among nations, criticized the excesses of US-led globalization and mused about the fate of the dollar and a possible future East Asian community. The old reflexes that set in motion this latest lost-in-translation episode suggest that neither the tendency toward insularity in Japan nor arrogance in America have quite adjusted to the new realities of the interconnected global age. First, the facts. When I learned of Hatoyama's essay, entitled "My Political Philosophy," which appears in the September issue of the Japanese magazine VOICE, I immediately asked my associate in Japan to obtain permission to translate and syndicate an excerpted reprint worldwide. The Global Viewpoint Network of Tribune Media Services (formerly the Los Angeles Times Syndicate), which I edit, has 35 million readers in 15 languages through scores of the world's top newspapers. My associate faxed over a letter to VOICE explaining that Global Viewpoint appears in as many as 100 papers worldwide. We received permission from the editor of VOICE, who in turn checked with Hatoyama's office, which agreed and provided the English translation. "VOICE and Hatoyama's office are happy for you to run an excerpt on Global Viewpoint," my associate e-mailed me. "Please mention VOICE." Our abridged version of the essay was published across the world, from El Pais in Madrid to O Estado de Sao Paulo in Brazil to the Gulf News in the Middle East to the Bangkok Post, among others. In the US it ran in the Christian Science Monitor and the Huffington Post. When the International Herald Tribune picked it up, it was posted on the New York Times website, which they share. In all cases it was clearly noted that it was excerpted from the essay in VOICE. If there was any confusion about "excerpt" and "syndication," it resulted from a good faith misunderstanding all around. (Despite some complaints in Japan that the abridged version gave short shrift to Hatoyama's idea of "fraternity," the fact is that El Pais, O Estado de Sao Paulo and the Bangkok Post -- you couldn't get a broader spread -- all used the word "fraternity" in their chosen headlines). As the contents of the essay wended its way into awareness in the US just as the Democratic Party routed the LDP with a landslide in the August 30 election, it elicited a strong reaction from some "Japan experts" (mostly unengaged former diplomats in think tanks), neo-conservative magazines such as The Weekly Standard and some Japan-watching blogs. Most critics seemed shocked at what they regarded as a surprise bout of insolence from a normally indolent ally. Used to obsequious mumbo-jumbo from the Japanese political class, these critics apparently found it hard to swallow the straight talk about America's shortcomings as an economic model or about the relative decline of American power noted in the essay. In effect, they seemed to consider it a slap in the face of all those Americans who had just bought Toyotas through the "clunkers for cash" program. As the ripples of this stir made their way back to Tokyo, meek diplomats scurried into apologia mode while others in the media hastened to blame Hatoyama's naivete for letting ideas meant for domestic consumption become splashed across the pages of the global press. Hatoyama and his staff expressed extremely agitated surprise that his words had shown up in the on-line edition of the New York Times, the very heart of the American establishment. By week's end, the "kerfufflle," as one analyst called it, was front-page headlines. Hatoyama felt compelled to put in a call to President Obama to affirm the centrality of the Japan-US alliance in the new government's foreign policy. All this in itself is indeed surprising. Doesn't everyone get that today we live in a global glass house? That in a world tied together by social networks, the Internet, You Tube, web journalism, innumerable blogs and even print syndication, anything you say in Japan is going to be heard everywhere else? (Kurt Campbell, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Asia and the Pacific said in a phone conference with the Pacific Council on September 10 that, from what he could tell, Hatoyama had prepared the essay for a "narrow audience" in Japan during the campaign and didn't imagine it would get such enormous circulation worldwide. In any case, he said, power now imposes a different discipline than campaigning). The reaction of US critics was surprising in a sillier way. Who hasn't criticized the excesses of American "market fundamentalism" or the damage done to "local economies" by globalization, as Hatoyama did in his essay? When Barack Obama was a community organizer on the south side of Chicago he sought to help those who lost their manufacturing jobs because of globalization. He won the presidency by campaigning against the unregulated fat cats on Wall Street whose greed and irresponsibility brought the US economy to ruin. In Europe, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy -- not to be speak of Brazilian President Lula --have all railed against American-style capitalism and sought to curb derivatives and hedge funds. As I write, the European Union, led by France and Germany, is preparing to put tight reins on compensation and bonuses for the big bankers when the G-20 meets in Pittsburgh. Indeed, is there a world leader today who doesn't criticize market fundamentalism? Some in the US scored Hatoyama as "nearly anti-American" because he said in his essay that, after the war in Iraq and the financial crisis, America was losing its preeminence, trying to hang on to its dominance while China was trying to assert its power, and Japan was caught in between. I remember no similar outcry, to take one of many examples, when French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner uttered this biting epitaph of America's once lustrous image: "The magic is gone." Within a decade, Hatoyama guessed, the dollar would no longer be the prime reserve currency -- something a UN commission has actually recommended and China's leaders, who are also America's bankers, have spoken about openly. While pointedly reaffirming the centrality of the US-Japan alliance to East Asian stability, Hatoyama also voiced the hope that, as in Europe, one day an East Asian community would replace suspicion and conflict among nations of the region. Everytime the ASEAN nations get together, for example, isn't that is all they talk about? Only Americans with an outdated sense of US supremacy could quarrel with the obvious. Hatoyama's great crime, I suppose, was merely to be the last to say what everybody knows. I suspect however, that President Obama himself pretty much shares Hatoyama's general worldview about the market and society, and about "fraternity" in an interdependent world. This is certainly the sense I got when the Global Viewpoint Network syndicated Obama's op-ed before the last G-20 summit, "A Time for Global Action." Also, having been photographed reading Fareed Zakaria's "Post-American World" during the campaign, Obama surely appreciates Hatoyama's description of the shifting balance of global power. Clearly, as this controversy exposes, both Japanese insularity, which in my view has deepened in the "lost decade" of stagnation, and the stubborn remnants of American arrogance need a reality check. In the information age, no country is an island anymore, not even Japan. Geography is no longer destiny. Though a far younger nation, America's adjustment won't be any easier. As Lee Kuan Yew, the godfather of Asian modernization once put it to me, "for America to be displaced, not in the world, but only in the Western Pacific, by Asian people long despised and dismissed with contempt, is emotionally very difficult to accept. Americans believe their ideas are universal. This sense of cultural supremacy will make the adjustment most difficult." Of course, as Kurt Campbell said in the Pacific Council call, and I agree, it is in the US (and global) interest that this be a "trans-Pacific, not a Pan-Asian" century. Both new leaders,Yukio Hatoyama and Barack Obama, have big visions. That is a hopeful place to start in unwinding the old reflexes.
 
Romanoff Files Campaign Paperwork, Set To Announce Intentions Next Week Top
Former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff announced today he has filed the paperwork with the Federal Election Commission required for him to challenge U.S. Senator Michael Bennet in a Democratic primary.
 
Zondra Hughes: Dating While Married Top
Sex sells and infidelity is a booming business according to Noel Biderman, president and CEO of The Ashley Madison Agency -- a discreet online dating service for married folks. Yes, their slogan really is, "Life is short, have an affair." Yes, he really did launch a Cash for Chunkers (that is, an overweight spouse) campaign last month, offering "a cash incentive for those looking to temporarily trade in their Chunker for something a little sleeker." And yes, Mr. Biderman's business card really is fashioned like an upscale hotel key. All outrageousness aside, one would assume that Biderman is an instant hero to sneaky married men and Public Enemy No. 1 to suspicious married women -- but not so fast . The bold broker of lust and I sat down for a chat recently and Biderman disclosed that his entire business strategy has been to lure married women to the other side of fidelity. You can insert your shock and awe face right here, folks. Zondra: Briefly, what is the origin of the name, Ashley Madison? Noel: Everything we did from inception was to make women feel comfortable; the two most popular names that were out in 2001, when we developed the concept, were Ashley and Madison. The women named their children that, so they must have some kind of affinity for those names. So that became the fake persona behind the service. Why target married women? It's easier to convince men that extramarital affairs are OK than it is to convince women. From our research, women that do have affairs tend to have them in the workplace. When they go online and try to meet someone from that universe it has been the major challenge. Who is the ideal Ashley Madison client? Ashley Madison is for people who are disenfranchised in their relationships; women, men, it crosses every socio-economic group, every ethnic group and both genders so that there is no one who cannot use the service. Your critics call you a home-wrecker ... and other things that shouldn't be printed here on this fine blog. It sounds ironic, but Ashley Madison in a sense gave married people the opportunity to tell the truth. Not to their spouse per se , but to the community they were trying to engage with. As you can imagine, there are tons of people that are unsuspecting singles who engage with someone wonderful [online] but that person turns out to be married. And that's a really challenging situation, because when they've been misled like that, the rules have changed. And if you're a married guy, [that online date] could call your spouse. But if you come to another married person and, on the outset say, 'I'm attached and this is what I'm looking for,' there is that expectation of a mutual destruction concept, that is, 'I am going to keep this to myself but the golden rule is that our partners should never find out about this.' That is why Ashley Madison is so attractive to people. You're engaged in a community where you know that you're all attached. A new cheater registers to your site every 15 seconds -- over 4 million to date. What if someone leaves his or her spouse for the Ashley Madison date? Are you a home-wrecker in this scenario? If you stood back and said, OK, affairs have happened. They have happened with our politicians, with athletes and celebrities, they have happened since time immemorial. Isn't it better off when they happen in a community when they're all together, or do we want this happening in the workplace where the work productivity declines? Or on the singles dating web sites, or breaking the law with escorts? I think we have to look at it objectively. Make no mistake; it's part of your DNA to desire to be sexually active with the opposite sex, it's not in your DNA to be monogamous. Drawing from your typical membership profiles, who are the "married and dating" set, and why do they cheat? One primary reason men visit the site is that they are in a sexless marriage, or they are getting very vanilla sex in their lives. This is my hypothesis, there is so much access to adult material on the web that these men see the others' user-generated adult content and they start thinking, "Oh my goodness my neighbor is a swinger, my neighbor is having threesomes." And they're thinking, not only have they not had sex for three weeks, it's the same old missionary position and with the same person every night. They're going to stray because they don't have the courage or the wherewithal to have the conversation with their partner to make that fantasy a reality, or they don't want to deal with the repercussion of asking for that fantasy, and that's why they come to our services. It's not because they are feeling disenfranchised or emasculated -- it's about sex. Why would married women use your services? On the female side, it's a totally different psychographic. Married women come to our service because for the last 10 years they haven't been paid attention to. They haven't been told that they're beautiful, or been brought flowers, and when they change their hair or their appearance their husband doesn't even notice anymore. And for a woman who used to be the object of someone's desire or fantasy, to have lost that is very painful. They are lonely within their own relationships. And loneliness is a true driver -- it equates to pain. So if you're lonely you're going to change that. You sign up to the service and you have these men tell you, 'I want to meet you.' These men are interested in her as an object of desire, and that's a revalidation for her. What about the other group that visit your site -- the good time guys and gals? Who are they? Mistresses, and their view of the world is that a good man is hard to find, and if you've got one, and for whatever reason, you're not taking care of him, that's your tough, and I will. There is no notion of sisterhood with them -- that they are going to somehow keep married men off-limits. Their view is this: 'I am not interested in stress and picket fences and kids right now, I'm interested in fun. And to me, fun is being with a great guy that treats me well and takes me places. And if he's married, so be it.' OK, Noel, you are married with two children; how would you feel if your wife used your service? If she used my service, I wouldn't say the service is at fault. I wouldn't blame the man she was with. And ultimately, I wouldn't even blame her. I would take a long look in the mirror and ultimately, I would ask, 'How did I fail my wife?' That's accountability. If she strayed, I don't know what would become of our marriage, but there's one person to blame and that would be myself. You can insert my shock and awe face right here, folks.
 
Toan Lam: Loved Twice: Mother Gives 20,000lbs Of Clothes To Underprivileged Newborns (VIDEO) Top
Once a month, Lisa Klein and her two little children neatly pack baby booties, bibs and books in boutique style boxes labeled "Baby Boy" and "Baby Girl". Her 6-year-old daughter and 3-year-old son understand the boxes aren't for them. For the past two years, Lisa has packed more than 20,000 pounds of kids clothes for underprivileged newborns living in and around Oakland, California -- Kids that would otherwise leave the hospital without the baby basics. There's enough clothes in the 10 pound boxes for the baby's first year, gently used onesies, socks, a book, plus every box has 'something extra' such as diapers or a baby Bjorn. "It's all about the babies," says the Oakland mother of two, "It's to keep them warm, clean and cozy no matter what's going on in their mothers' lives." The boxes are delivered to 11 county hospitals, shelters and prenatal clinics in and around Lisa's Oakland neighborhood. Lisa says she heard a story from a nurse that still can bring her to tears, "This 15-year-old girl was getting ready to leave the hospital and she asked the nurse if she could bring home the blanket, she didn't have anything to keep her baby warm." The nurse said, "I can do better than that." She gave the new mother a box, and the young girl wept. Lisa's non-profit LovedTwice.org was born out of one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history, Hurricane Katrina. Stories about tens of thousands of people losing everything, from their storm swept homes to losing loved ones from mother nature's powerful blow moved Lisa to action. "We saw that people lost everything and were camping out in front of a church. My daughter and I wanted to help. We didn't know how. We went on the internet and on Craigslist. What struck me, was that they needed baby clothes. I had so much baby clothes that my kids have outgrown, sitting in storage." She started what was supposed to be a one-time clothing drive. "I asked my family, friends and people in my community to drop off baby items on my porch so I can send a couple of small boxes to Katrina victims. I didn't expect them to tell friends of friends and for so many people to post the call to action on Craigslist." She says with big doe eyes and wide smile. "It felt great! Then one thing led to another and donations kept coming in." Hundreds of pounds of baby clothes would pile up on my porch. She pauses. "I had baby clothes." That's when Lisa put two and two together and came up with LovedTwice.org. She started in her attic, pulling out dusty boxes and bags full of baby items. Unplanned and unanticipated, the one-shot clothing drive turned into an amazing non-profit. More than two thousand boxes later, the busy mother of two says sometimes it's hard to keep her head above the mounds of baby items. "Last month, I had to take a step back," she says. "I came back from an extended vacation and there was 800 pounds of clothes waiting for me. I was like, I can't do this anymore. I've never thought that before... and within an hour of thinking that, I received a call from you, THANK YOU! " She says with a smile." That kept me going... thousands of kids will continue getting the baby boxes." Her eyes lit up as she explained, "Within an hour, a woman from a local company called me and said she and said her coworkers wanted to volunteer and help pack." Just at the moment she thought she was going to be overwhelmed, people reached out and LovedTwice got a second wind, and this time a good one. When I heard how my phone call - just that phone call - had come at just the right time, a chill tingled through my body and goosebumps made the hair on my arms stand straight up. I told Lisa, lately, I've been feeling overwhelmed too, orchestrating my non-profit, www.GoInspireGo.com , which makes these videos possible. I teach full time at the Academy of Art in San Francisco and I teach one class at my alma mater, the University of San Francisco. I also produce online videos for San Francisco stores and companies and I'm writing a children's book... And of course, I blog for the HuffPo. Recently I've felt like I really need a break -- I began to wonder: how long I could continue my irratic schedule of staying up till 3am and waking up at 5am to get all my work done. I began feeling like a college student who stays up late and gets up early to cram for a test. This test, however, was a real test in life. A test of balancing life, work and play. Balance. Juggle. Balance. I was spending more time with my MacBook than with my family and friends. I'm still learning. I realized that sharing Lisa's story and the inspirational stories and story ideas that my viewers are sending in continue to inspire me and my amazing team of GIG'sters to continue building upon our global platform to for people to see and share inspirational stories. It's also humbling to see folks reaching out to help the featured people in the stories. In all of the 31 years of my life, I've never felt such joy, pure joy through this project. I've made life-long friends and learned so much about the spirit of service and how the real gifts in life aren't always tangible and counted in dollars and monetized. It's amazing how timing and the world works. I inspired Lisa and she inadvertently uplifted my spirits in return and now, the underprivileged kids will continue receiving help through LovedTwice.org and I too have caught my second wind to keep doing what I'm doing. What you give to the world, you get back 10-fold. When you see it happen and you see it keep happening, well, there it is. So what I ask you, is -- What have you done to improve someone else's life? If the answer is "I don't know," then get crackin'! I wish I could bottle up all the life lessons and joy created from www.GoInspireGo.com -- When I was laid off from my TV reporting job last December, I frantically started looking for jobs in industries that I wasn't even interested in. After lots of meditation and countless conversations, I decided to stop looking for a job and wanted to dedicate this year to service. That was what that little voice inside me was telling me. I'm glad I listened. One conversation led to another, which led to a YouTube site, which led to a blog, which turned into the website itself: www.GoInspireGo.com Some people thought I was crazy, many blank stares ensued. I always dreamed of being a TV reporter in a major market. Check. Then I wanted to report for PBS. Check. After ten years reporting the local news and for some magazine shows, I still felt empty. But after creating Go Inspire Go and seeing how many people we've inspired, I feel like I'm just where my life's path is supposted to be, in service and volunteerism. I invite you to check out my inspirational website that uses social media to create social change. And as Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." I'm not telling you to give to the world. But if you dare to, it just might give you back more than you could have ever dreamed. At least that's what I've learned through my experiences! CALL TO ACTION--GO INSPIRE GO NEEDS YOUR HELP: In the spirit of inspiration and children around the world, Go Inspire Go is collecting inspiring and compassionate kids stories. Please e-mail them to us below! *** Please comment here on the blog and you can find out more about Toan Lam at http://www.goinspirego.com. Click on the YouTube link and check out the stories his team created, and videos created by viewers. Contact Toan at: toanlam@goinspirego.com
 
Allison Kilkenny: Veteran Healthcare Journalist Grades Obama's Speech Top
"My job is to point out where the holes are," Trudy Lieberman explains to me during our phone interview. I called Lieberman to get her opinion of President Obama's health reform speech, and I also asked her to grade the media's performance in explaining the issue of reform to the American people. A veteran journalist, who has reported on health care and consumer issues for over thirty years, Lieberman is a contributing editor to the Columbia Journalism Review, has taught in the Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program at New York University and the journalism program at Columbia University, received numerous honors and awards, and is the author of five books, including the Consumer Reports Guide to Health Services For Seniors , which was named one of the best consumer health books for 2000 by Library Journal. With over three decades experience covering health care, Lieberman has amassed a wealth of knowledge with which she hopes to arm average citizens. Her job is to "point out where the holes are" when politicians talk about health reform, and Lieberman spotted several holes in Obama's speech last night. For months, CJR and Lieberman has been "hammering away at [Obama] to be a little more articulate about what this whole reform effort is about," says Lieberman. Last night, in her opinion, Obama came closer to defining his message when he said his plan would meet three basic goals: provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance, provide insurance to those who don't have it, and slow the growth of health care costs. Public option (for less than 5 percent of Americans) As usual, Lieberman has clearly defined the "what's in it for me?" question many Americans may be asking themselves. An area of confusion involves Obama's declaration that he would sign into law a bill that said no insurance company could deny people for preexisting conditions. "He seemed to be saying that in relation to people who already have coverage, and he made it very clear to them that they won't be forced to change coverage, change doctors, or any of those sorts of things. What he didn't say was that employers often change coverage to get cheaper premiums, or to get a different carrier, and when they do that, people often have to find new doctors, so I don't know how meaningful that promise was. He seemed to be talking to the individual market people," says Lieberman. Obama promised the American people that insurance companies would no longer be allowed to deny coverage if you're sick. "But that is not an issue in the employer market," Lieberman says. "It's a big issue in the individual market. So my take is that he was sort of mixing up apples and oranges here. It was not clear to people exactly what he was saying to them and what it would mean to them." According to Lieberman, the really big "take away" from the whole speech, and for people who have insurance, is that they're not going to be able to use any kind of public option, no matter what form it takes. In the speech, Obama clearly stated that the public option would only be for those citizens who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those without insurance, and then he went on to say that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up for it. "What they're doing there is limiting its usefulness to only people who do not have insurance...which raises the question: what's all the hullaballoo about the public plan in the first place [if] most Americans wouldn't even be able to access it?" asks Lieberman. Insurance Exchanges While the concept of "triggers" has entered our lexicon, "insurance exchanges" may be a foreign term to anyone living outside of Massachusetts, a state that currently utilizes a healthcare system similar to an exchange. Lieberman has been blogging extensively about Massachusetts's health care system (the entire archive can be read here ). "[Insurance exchanges] would work very much like the Connector up there," says Lieberman. Massachusetts's system of health care is called the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority , also known as the Health Connector ("Connector" for short). "It would be sort of a brokerage operation - a big, glorified brokerage operation where insurance companies - if they wanted to sell in this market - would make their policies available probably subject to some minimal standards of coverage." All the insurance companies that want to participate in this market would design a policy that they could sell. "They would be free - pretty much - to sell what they want, again subject to whatever minimum standards Congress comes up with. So people could go into the market and buy one of these so-called approved policies," Lieberman explains. The part that Lieberman says she finds "baffling" is the issue of leverage. Obama has proposed a system where people, who are going to be able to buy in this exchange, will somehow be able to exert leverage on providers and insurance companies in the same way big employers and the government do when they select insurance for their employees. "I don't see how that is possible. I just don't understand how these small people buying in this market are going to exert any kind of leverage over Aetna and WellPoint." Risk Selection If the agreement is that every American must be covered, and they must buy insurance, Lieberman believes insurers won't be able to give up "risk selection," the process where an insurer tries to attract people with a lower-than-average expected risk of ill health and deter those with a higher-than-average expected risk in order to increase profits. "Even though it sounds good, the rhetoric sounds great, they can't give [risk selection] up if they want to stay in business, so they're going to find a way around that...It's the whole question of age-rating." Age-rating is when insurance companies use the age of someone as a proxy for medical underwriting. Insurers may agree to cover everyone, but they could also charge a lot of money to older people, who are more likely to get sick. "A 55-year-old woman, or a 58-year-old man -- likely starting to have some kind of health problems show up -- may get charged a lot more, and in the Baucus plan, which is being circulated, they could be charged as much as five times more than a younger person," says Lieberman. There may be increased coverage, but Lieberman is concerned about the quality of the expansion. "I think that everyone has to ask themselves, yes, they can get coverage, but at what cost? And is that the reform people want?" Grading the Media The horse race coverage of the healthcare reform debate does not impress Lieberman. The " Who 's up; who's down? Who's winning today? Does Pelosi have the votes? What's going to be the game-changer? What should Baucus do because he can't get the votes out of his committee? That chatter doesn't inform citizens, she says. "That kind of coverage certainly wouldn't rate very high -- probably C-, but I tend to be a very tough grader." Lieberman is concerned that people are being miseducated about healthcare reform. That's part of the reason she's been doing town hall meetings for CJR where she goes to different places and interviews people (the CJR town hall archives are here ). Her experience at these meetings reveal how little the media teaches citizens. "People have no idea what any of this is, and what it means to them." For example, Lieberman asked shoppers in a Pennsylvania Wal-Mart about the issue of healthcare reform. In one particularly colorful interaction, she interviewed an eighty-one-year old man named Russell Fullem. Lieberman barely got the words "health care" out of her mouth before Fullem boomed: "I believe we should have the same insurance as Senator Kennedy had, and I will broadcast that everywhere." Lieberman wrote that Fullem seemed to be saying he was in favor of health care equity when he added, "I want the same insurance to go to the biggest and best hospital in the world to take care of my cancer [if he gets it]." Of course, Fullem doesn't want socialism. Fullem said that Vladimir Putin had told Obama that his country had had enough socialism, so why should the U.S be getting it now? He believed that Obama himself had the best health care in the world, but "he's trying to shove something down us that's unrecognizable. It's socialism," he concluded. Lieberman pressed him a little further and asked him what he thought was in Obama's plan. His answer: it was going to cost too much. She pressed for a few specifics, and Fullem, who considers himself a "political independent leaning toward a constitutionalist," brought up the death panels. "If people are going to die, he [Obama] is going to put them to sleep. It's like Soylent Green . That's his health plan." Death panels with a pinch of Socialism. Either the President has failed to get his message to average citizens, or the media has distorted the message. Lieberman seems to bestow a hefty share of the blame on the media. "When you take a look at the coverage in that sense, I would give them an F," she says. But she's quick to add that there have been bright spots here and there. Sometimes, Lieberman says she finds a piece that begins to fill in the details. "The Kansas City Star and Kaiser News came out with a couple of really good pieces that began to explain the individual mandate." The Kaiser piece shows the holes in the whole subsidy question, and how people are still going to have huge out-of-pocket expenses even with these subsidies. And yet subsidies were not "explicitly discussed by Obama last night," says Lieberman . "He talked about the aggregate cost -- $900 billion over 10 years - but he didn't say the taxpayers will be paying this, and more importantly, he didn't say who's going to get these [subsidies,] and under what circumstances. So that's another big missing piece." Lieberman is worried that Joe Wilson's tantrum (and his cry of "You lie!") will distract from the real issues in the same way Joe the Plumber hogged the spotlight. She writes at her CJR blog, "This time, we hope leveler heads will prevail, and assignment editors will be more interested in having their reporters explain and answer for their audiences the 'what's in it for me' question, using some of our observations as a guide." We shall see. Cross-posted from Allison Kilkenny's blog . Also available on Facebook and Twitter . More on Health Care
 
Vicky Ward: President Obama, Gordon Brown, Deaths in Afghanistan and More British Deception Over Lockerbie Top
Earlier today the White House put out a press release noting that President Obama spoke with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and expressed his "disappointment" over the Lockerbie affair. (In case anyone has been under a rock these past few weeks, Brown has been at the center of a controversy over allegations that the Scottish government's decision to release convicted Lockerbie bomber, the Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, 57, on compassionate grounds, was linked to Britain's fears that not releasing him would block oil deals with Libya worth hundreds of billions of dollars). Brown has consistently denied the charges - only to have members of his own government - and Libya - contradict him. As I blogged last week, the British media then reported that the Americans professed outrage on the affair was "disingenuous". Well, speaking of disingenuous, Brown did not actually mention the fact that the American President had expressed his disapproval to him to the British press, who first learned of the conversation, thanks to a White House briefing. Further, the London press - both left and right - are reporting of great anger in the British army about Brown's personal order to send in British commandos for a pre-dawn raid to rescue the British New York Times journalist, Stephen Farrell who had been captured in Afghanistan. Unfortunately for Brown, as we know, the rescue did not go smoothly. Both a British paratrooper and Farrell's interpreter, Sultan Munadi, were killed. Top hostage negotiators have told the London Times they are furious - that they were days away from securing Farrell's release. Even the Queen, it's been reported has recently read Brown the riot act over lack of equipment in Afghanistan. The Guardian 's Robert Fox writes: Was the daring rescue of the New York Times (NYT) journalist Stephen Farrell a risk too far, for all concerned? Today we are hearing that the brass in the British Army are angry that valuable special forces troops had to be tasked to rescue the reporter from the Taliban in Kunduz, and that one of their own troopers died in the operation as well as the reporter's colleague and two Afghans. Questions are now being raised whether Farrell should have heeded warnings not to go to northern Kunduz. Since he dared to do so, shouldn't he have been left to reap the consequences? Furthermore, wasn't Gordon Brown, who took the ultimate decision to send the special forces in, too trigger-happy - in the clear hope that by daring to order such a bold move, he would win much-needed public applause? Well, if applause is what Gordon Brown wants, he's not getting it. What he's got, instead, is blood on his hands and the stink of corruption all around him. One hopes there will be investigative reporting of what happened and why in Afghanistan - and if necessary accountability for several tragic deaths. The attempted cover-up over Brown's less than cordial conversation with Obama is just yet one more signal that the truth is considered an inconvenience for this British premier. When, for the sake of his country, is he going to do the decent thing - and resign?
 
Allison Kilkenny: Veteran Healthcare Journalist Grades Obama's Speech Top
"My job is to point out where the holes are," Trudy Lieberman explains to me during our phone interview. I called Lieberman to get her opinion of President Obama's health reform speech, and I also asked her to grade the media's performance in explaining the issue of reform to the American people. A veteran journalist, who has reported on health care and consumer issues for over thirty years, Lieberman is a contributing editor to the Columbia Journalism Review, has taught in the Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program at New York University and the journalism program at Columbia University, received numerous honors and awards, and is the author of five books, including the Consumer Reports Guide to Health Services For Seniors , which was named one of the best consumer health books for 2000 by Library Journal. With over three decades experience covering health care, Lieberman has amassed a wealth of knowledge with which she hopes to arm average citizens. Her job is to "point out where the holes are" when politicians talk about health reform, and Lieberman spotted several holes in Obama's speech last night. For months, CJR and Lieberman has been "hammering away at [Obama] to be a little more articulate about what this whole reform effort is about," says Lieberman. Last night, in her opinion, Obama came closer to defining his message when he said his plan would meet three basic goals: provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance, provide insurance to those who don't have it, and slow the growth of health care costs. Public option (for less than 5 percent of Americans) As usual, Lieberman has clearly defined the "what's in it for me?" question many Americans may be asking themselves. An area of confusion involves Obama's declaration that he would sign into law a bill that said no insurance company could deny people for preexisting conditions. "He seemed to be saying that in relation to people who already have coverage, and he made it very clear to them that they won't be forced to change coverage, change doctors, or any of those sorts of things. What he didn't say was that employers often change coverage to get cheaper premiums, or to get a different carrier, and when they do that, people often have to find new doctors, so I don't know how meaningful that promise was. He seemed to be talking to the individual market people," says Lieberman. Obama promised the American people that insurance companies would no longer be allowed to deny coverage if you're sick. "But that is not an issue in the employer market," Lieberman says. "It's a big issue in the individual market. So my take is that he was sort of mixing up apples and oranges here. It was not clear to people exactly what he was saying to them and what it would mean to them." According to Lieberman, the really big "take away" from the whole speech, and for people who have insurance, is that they're not going to be able to use any kind of public option, no matter what form it takes. In the speech, Obama clearly stated that the public option would only be for those citizens who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those without insurance, and then he went on to say that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up for it. "What they're doing there is limiting its usefulness to only people who do not have insurance...which raises the question: what's all the hullaballoo about the public plan in the first place [if] most Americans wouldn't even be able to access it?" asks Lieberman. Insurance Exchanges While the concept of "triggers" has entered our lexicon, "insurance exchanges" may be a foreign term to anyone living outside of Massachusetts, a state that currently utilizes a healthcare system similar to an exchange. Lieberman has been blogging extensively about Massachusetts's health care system (the entire archive can be read here ). "[Insurance exchanges] would work very much like the Connector up there," says Lieberman. Massachusetts's system of health care is called the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority , also known as the Health Connector ("Connector" for short). "It would be sort of a brokerage operation - a big, glorified brokerage operation where insurance companies - if they wanted to sell in this market - would make their policies available probably subject to some minimal standards of coverage." All the insurance companies that want to participate in this market would design a policy that they could sell. "They would be free - pretty much - to sell what they want, again subject to whatever minimum standards Congress comes up with. So people could go into the market and buy one of these so-called approved policies," Lieberman explains. The part that Lieberman says she finds "baffling" is the issue of leverage. Obama has proposed a system where people, who are going to be able to buy in this exchange, will somehow be able to exert leverage on providers and insurance companies in the same way big employers and the government do when they select insurance for their employees. "I don't see how that is possible. I just don't understand how these small people buying in this market are going to exert any kind of leverage over Aetna and WellPoint." Risk Selection If the agreement is that every American must be covered, and they must buy insurance, Lieberman believes insurers won't be able to give up "risk selection," the process where an insurer tries to attract people with a lower-than-average expected risk of ill health and deter those with a higher-than-average expected risk in order to increase profits. "Even though it sounds good, the rhetoric sounds great, they can't give [risk selection] up if they want to stay in business, so they're going to find a way around that...It's the whole question of age-rating." Age-rating is when insurance companies use the age of someone as a proxy for medical underwriting. Insurers may agree to cover everyone, but they could also charge a lot of money to older people, who are more likely to get sick. "A 55-year-old woman, or a 58-year-old man -- likely starting to have some kind of health problems show up -- may get charged a lot more, and in the Baucus plan, which is being circulated, they could be charged as much as five times more than a younger person," says Lieberman. There may be increased coverage, but Lieberman is concerned about the quality of the expansion. "I think that everyone has to ask themselves, yes, they can get coverage, but at what cost? And is that the reform people want?" Grading the Media The horse race coverage of the healthcare reform debate does not impress Lieberman. The " Who 's up; who's down? Who's winning today? Does Pelosi have the votes? What's going to be the game-changer? What should Baucus do because he can't get the votes out of his committee? That chatter doesn't inform citizens, she says. "That kind of coverage certainly wouldn't rate very high -- probably C-, but I tend to be a very tough grader." Lieberman is concerned that people are being miseducated about healthcare reform. That's part of the reason she's been doing town hall meetings for CJR where she goes to different places and interviews people (the CJR town hall archives are here ). Her experience at these meetings reveal how little the media teaches citizens. "People have no idea what any of this is, and what it means to them." For example, Lieberman asked shoppers in a Pennsylvania Wal-Mart about the issue of healthcare reform. In one particularly colorful interaction, she interviewed an eighty-one-year old man named Russell Fullem. Lieberman barely got the words "health care" out of her mouth before Fullem boomed: "I believe we should have the same insurance as Senator Kennedy had, and I will broadcast that everywhere." Lieberman wrote that Fullem seemed to be saying he was in favor of health care equity when he added, "I want the same insurance to go to the biggest and best hospital in the world to take care of my cancer [if he gets it]." Of course, Fullem doesn't want socialism. Fullem said that Vladimir Putin had told Obama that his country had had enough socialism, so why should the U.S be getting it now? He believed that Obama himself had the best health care in the world, but "he's trying to shove something down us that's unrecognizable. It's socialism," he concluded. Lieberman pressed him a little further: "what exactly is Obama's plan?" she asked. His answer: it was going to cost too much. She pressed for a few specifics, and Fullem, who considers himself a "political independent leaning toward a constitutionalist," brought up the death panels. "If people are going to die, he [Obama] is going to put them to sleep. It's like Soylent Green . That's his health plan." Death panels with a pinch of Socialism. Either the President has failed to get his message to average citizens, or the media has distorted the message. Lieberman seems to bestow a hefty share of the blame on the media. "When you take a look at the coverage in that sense, I would give them an F," she says. But she's quick to add that there have been bright spots here and there. Sometimes, Lieberman says she finds a piece that begins to fill in the details. "The Kansas City Star and Kaiser News came out with a couple of really good pieces that began to explain the individual mandate." The Kaiser piece shows the holes in the whole subsidy question, and how people are still going to have huge out-of-pocket expenses even with these subsidies. And yet subsidies were not "explicitly discussed by Obama last night," says Lieberman . "He talked about the aggregate cost -- $900 billion over 10 years - but he didn't say the taxpayers will be paying this, and more importantly, he didn't say who's going to get these [subsidies,] and under what circumstances. So that's another big missing piece." Lieberman is worried that Joe Wilson's tantrum (and his cry of "You lie!") will distract from the real issues in the same way Joe the Plumber hogged the spotlight. She writes at her CJR blog, "This time, we hope leveler heads will prevail, and assignment editors will be more interested in having their reporters explain and answer for their audiences the 'what's in it for me' question, using some of our observations as a guide." We shall see. Cross-posted from Allison Kilkenny's blog . Also available on Facebook and Twitter .
 
Stimulus Scams Have Reached 270k People, FTC Chief Says Top
Sept. 10 (Bloomberg) -- "Opportunistic fraudsters" are exploiting the recession and pitching deals they link to the U.S. stimulus package, cheating consumers of millions of dollars, the head of the Federal Trade Commission said.
 
Lindsay Lohan Attacks Sam Ronson As A Cheater On Twitter Top
Lovers quarrel? Lindsay Lohan has slammed Samantha Ronson's "cheats" and claimed the DJ called her "gross." At some point between 1:30 Wednesday afternoon and 7:30 am on Thursday Lohan went from tweeting well wishes to her on-again girlfriend Samantha Ronson to attacking her "cheats, errors" and claiming that "you JUST told me that your friends are worth more than i am 2 your family & that i'm gross" The stream of tweets, some sensible and some not, is seen below. As of Wednesday evening, when she was photographed outside the Waverly Inn, Lohan is in New York. THE TWITTER : Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter! More on Lindsay Lohan
 
Elizabeth Rigby: My Hopes and Fears for Representative Democracy OR Similarities between Obama's Address to Congress and the Season Opener of Glee Top
Last night, as I watched President Obama address a joint-session of Congress , I couldn't help but think back twenty years ago to another joint-session that I was lucky enough to attend--standing against the back wall with my fellow U.S. Congressional pages. That night, union leader Lech Walesa addressed Congress, as only the second foreign, non-head-of-state ever to do so, in order to speak about the transformative changes occurring in Eastern Europe at the time. As the leader of Poland's solidarity movement, Walesa fought on the front lines--and as Time's 100 profiled him-- "dealt the Eastern bloc a fatal blow." From this vantage point, he shared with our country his hope for what democracy would bring to his. As our first lady might say, that night I was never more proud of my country, never more hopeful for Democracy, and never more in awe of what people could do to transform their countrymen's lives through collective action and political change. To say the least, it was a formative experience for me--at age 16--one I used as the "catchy opener" for my college application essays, as well as to guide my career path over the next two decades. Now, I still think about democracy all the time. I am a political scientist who studies representation of the poor across health, education, and welfare debates and teaches classes examining the role of government in our lives. But, my relationship with democracy has become more complex in the intervening years. Alongside the diverse group of students I teach, I struggle with how to balance the inherent risk of tyranny of a democratic majority with the also-inherent risk of factions and elite rule. I cringed while participating last year in our state's presidential caucus, as my dear neighbors took three hours to figure out how to best divide Obama and Clinton supporters into two rooms. And I contemplated the positive and negative consequence of citizen participation while watching endless youtube footage of the last month of town hall meetings. And late at night, I tend to stay up wondering whether Democracy is really the right goal for us to be pursuing in so much of the Middle East. Last night's joint-session did little to calm my fears about representative democracy. Yes, Obama gave a good speech. He struck a nice balance between bi-partisan deal-making and principled threats to call out those who try to deceive and manipulate the American public into fearing his plan. I was happy to hear our president talk about the character of our country and our responsibility to our fellow citizens, rather than how best to "bend the cost curve." It wasn't what Obama said that made me cynical about our political system's ability to honestly debate and reconcile preferred visions of health reform, it was the reception he received--both positive and negative--from those in the audience. And by "those in the audience," I mean our elected Members of Congress. It might be because I followed up my joint session viewing with a quick channel change to catch the season opener of Glee , that I noticed the similarities between last night's joint session of Congress and the high school assembly depicted in Glee. In both TV broadcasts, the "good guy, underdog"--whether a President with dropping approval ratings reflecting some people's concern that he wishes to kill member of their family or a nerdy, socially-outcast, group of Glee club performers--needs to present his/their case to the broader public in order to win over supporters, or at least neutralize some of their very vocal and threatening critics. In both cases, they are not being judged on the quality of their performance, but through a lens of previous conflict, power dynamics, and pre-conceptions that each audience member brought into the room. And, for both, success is judged much more by the presence or absence of a standing ovation, than on actual appreciation for what is presented. Obama's first standing ovation was a partisan one--in response to his statement that American has been pulled back from the brink of financial ruin. I noticed that Republicans didn't stand up, likely due to the inferred reference to Obama's stimulus package as the reason for this good news. But, what I really noticed was Nancy Pelosi leaning over to Joe Biden and pointing out that none of the Republican were standing up. It was at that point that I stopped listening so closely to Obama and started watching the room. It was there that the real politics of health care reform were playing out. Eventually there were bi-partisan ovations--but many Members of Congress were, like the students in the assembly watching the Glee club, looking to each other and waiting for someone else to applaud or stand before they would. Even more similar to a high school assembly, there was continuous whispering and snide side-conversations that suggested quiet--but potentially-deadly--opposition to what Obama was saying. Most obvious, was the outburst: "lies," from Rep. Wilson, as well as the much-too-long-and much-too-ironic laughter when Obama said, "Of course there are details still to work out." But, I also noticed the equivalent of teenagers' eye-rolls when Obama assured that reform would be budget-neutral or clarified that no one would be required to change their health insurance. And I worried that he has lost this skeptical audience when the President went so far as to say, "My door is always open." [That can't actually be true, can it?]. As someone who has participated in ironic, eye-rolling and quiet undermining of authority-figures during a not-cool-enough high school assembly, or possibly (not to incriminate myself) later in life during bureaucratic meetings, organizational strategic planning sessions, and team-building exercises, I recognize the techniques employed by those quietly-resisting change and progress. Whether this resistance comes from true disagreement, from a lack of faith in the person in charge, or the reality that many are just in too deep to reverse their naysayer image, this subtle opposition can foil organizational change, drive out good leaders, and block the ability our democratic process to adequately respond to our needs. Cynical resistance is powerful, as we have seen during the town hall meetings; it is persistent as we have seen among those committed to the "birther" conspiracy; and it has clearly not gone away, as evidenced last night--even if both parties on Capitol Hill tell us they are ready to begin again, ready to draft a reform package that can actually be enacted. Mr. President, I do not mean disrespect to you or our other elected-officials. But, I think that more progress can be made if you acknowledge that the partisan dynamics currently at play on Capitol Hill resemble a high school full of cliques, power differentials, and image-conscious participants more than they reflect the representative, deliberative, and democratic problem-solving body I heard Lech Walesa admire twenty years ago. In the meantime, I will re-read Federalist 10 to remind myself that American politics was always meant to be incremental, fragmented, conflict-ridden and slow. I hope this re-reading can remind me how enchanted I once was with the ideal of representative democracy--and how, despite the current political circus surrounding health care reform, America does continue its important and valuable tradition as a nation governed "of the people, by the people, and for the people" - even if those people sometimes act like teenagers. Note: No offense to teenagers More on Health Care
 
Jeff Chang: The New Shape Of The Culture War :: Glenn Beck, Yosi Sergant, Van Jones, and Hip-Hop Top
Are you mad yet? You should be. Glenn Beck has now taken down Yosi Sergant , the second hip-hop activist to be forced to leave the Obama administration in a week. Last night the 34-year old communications director at the National Endowment For The Arts was asked to resign. Why? Because he was trying to organize artists to support President Obama's national service program, United We Serve . If your next question is: so what? That was ours too. But Glenn Beck compared the effort to "Nazi propaganda". (Just sick--especially since Sergant, a Jewish American, has worked as an activist for peace in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.) This was the same logic paleocons used to batter Obama's school speech. If he does it, it's indoctrination. If they do it, it's "journalism". But there's much more to this story... Coming For Hip-Hop Heads Sergant was the key organizer in the historic arts effort to back the Obama campaign. In January 2008, Sergant teamed with Shepard Fairey to produce the now iconic HOPE posters. He began handing out the first 3,000 copies at a rally at UCLA and they stumbled into history. He then went on to commission literally dozens of artists--and inspire hundreds more--to create Obama images--making the candidate the face of hope, progress, and change. By the end of the summer, Obama was riding the biggest creative surge for any presidential candidate ever. Earlier this year, Sergant organized a White House meeting between grassroots artists and arts advocates--I was there--and has helped open the doors to artists like Saul Williams, Mayda Del Valle, and graffiti artists like Kofie to the White House. He was appointed to one of the country's most influential positions in culture as the director of communications for the National Endowment for the Arts, the nation's largest funding agency and policy-setting body. In an interview I did earlier this year with him, he told me he started out growing up in Los Angeles, as the self-described "goofy kid trying to get down" in the cipher with the freestyle dancers and trying to get up in the train yards with the graffiti writers. "It's who I am, " he said. "Spray-paint brought me to the NEA and I won't forget that." He added, "I think we can revolutionize the way that Americans think about art." He wanted to do that in part by continuing to engage artists more directly in working in their communities. He was working to enlist high-profile artists for the United We Serve national service initiative when Beck started attacking him a couple of weeks ago. Beck said, "Your government is trying to trick you, use your tax dollars to change your mind. It's called propaganda." You can see all of Beck's stupidity and hypocrisy compiled here . Why Culture Always Matters Why was Beck going after a communications director at an arts agency? Beck's agenda is unveiling itself--he means to go hard after the progrssives in the Obama administration whose work engages grassroots movements and reaches people and communities directly through media and the arts. This is why he has also been attacking Mark Lloyd , Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer at the FCC, and others like him. Real diversity means that voices like Beck's are in danger of being drowned by the roar of the masses. Beck is not just trying to make progressives who are young and/or of color absolutely dispensable to the establishment. He is trying to take away their platform as well. To Beck, this is a fight not just over the individuals, but to block the ways change is actually made. Van Jones did not just have great ideas, he used culture to make them viable. He brought inner-city youths to anti-prisons and environmental justice agendas using hip-hop. He also found a way to speak to wealthy environmentalists through speeches and books. Culture created new openings to forge new alliances between inner-city youths and wealthy environmentalists. Yosi Sergant worked at what the Obama campaign thought were the margins: to use the creative power of artists to ignite the imagination of the people. When he got started, all of the money was raised through creative communities. And when the artists got rolling by the end of the summer, they didn't need the campaign to do their thing. But they were arguably as important to shifting the public tide towards Obama's victory as all the pollsters and precinct organizers on the campaign payroll. Glenn Beck, like other conservatives, is deathly afraid of the colorized world we now live in. In the continuing battle between the ideas--monoculturalism vs. polyculturalism, domination vs. justice, repression vs. change, fear vs. hope--there is no doubt what side he is on. But better than any other conservative, Beck understands that the new role culture is playing in how change is made. When all avenues for change are blocked, organizers and artists find the holes to slip through and connect with their communities. This is why he is using his own media perch to attack those who are young, idealistic, progressive, and have a strong understanding of the ways culture builds diversity, and diversity builds strength and longevity. Put bluntly, this is the shape of the new culture war. It can't work. Not just because we have worked too long, too hard, and built too strong a foundation to be broken, but because culture can always find a way. But we will need to steel ourselves for the kind of attacks we have never seen before. That's going to be our work now. Originally published at the Zentronix blog More on Glenn Beck
 
Liberals Crank Up Heat, Send Obama Another Letter Demanding Meeting Top
Speech or no speech, it looks like House liberals have no intention whatsoever of easing their pressure on Obama to keep a meaningful public option in the health care bill. House progressive leaders just sent another letter to the President -- which was sent over by a source -- reiterating their demand for inclusion of the public option and insisting on a face to face meeting to discuss it.
 
Paul Armentano: Marijuana Use By The Numbers Top
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has once again released their annual survey on "drug use and health" -- you know, the one where representatives of the federal government go door-to-door and ask Americans if they are presently breaking state and federal law by using illicit drugs. The same survey where respondents have historically under reported their usage of alcohol and tobacco -- these two legal substances -- by as much as 30 to 50 percent , and arguably under report their use of illicit substances by an even greater margin. The same survey that -- despite these inherent limitations -- "is the primary source of statistical information on the use of illegal drugs by the U.S. population." Yeah, that one . So what does the government's latest round of 'statistical (though highly questionable) information' tell us? Nothing we didn't already know. Despite 70+ years of criminal prohibition, marijuana still remains widely popular among Americans, with over 102 million Americans (41 percent of the U.S. population) having used it during their lifetimes, 26 million (10 percent) having used it in the past year, and over 15 million (6 percent) admitting that they use it regularly. (By contrast, fewer than 15 percent of adults have ever tried cocaine , the second most 'popular' illicit drug, and fewer than 2 percent have ever tried heroin -- so much for that supposed 'gateway effect.') Predictably, all of the 2008 marijuana use figures are higher than those that were reported for the previous year -- great work John Walters ! Equally predictably, the government's long-standing prohibition and anti-pot 'scare' campaigns have done little, if anything, to dissuade young people from trying it. According to the survey, 15 percent of those age 14 to 15 have tried pot (including 12 percent in the past year), as have 31 percent of those age 16 to 17 (a quarter of which have done so in the past year) -- percentages that make marijuana virtually as popular as alcohol among these age groups. By age 20, 45 percent of adolescents have tried pot, and nearly a third of those age 18 to 20 have done so in the past year. And by age 25, 54 percent of the population has admittedly used marijuana . Question: Does anyone still believe that marijuana prohibition is working -- or that all of these people deserve to be behind bars? For too long, advocates of prohibition have framed their arguments on the false assumption that the continued enforcement of said laws "protects our children." As the numbers above illustrate, this premise is nonsense. In fact, just the opposite is true. The government's war on cannabis and cannabis consumers endangers the health and safety of our children. It enables young people to have unregulated access to marijuana -- easier access than they presently have to alcohol . It enables young people to interact and befriend pushers of other illegal, more dangerous drugs. It compels young people to dismiss the educational messages they receive pertaining to the potential health risks posed by the use of "hard drugs" and prescription pharmaceuticals, because kids say, "If they lied to me about pot, why wouldn't they be lying to me about everything else, too?" Most importantly, the criminal laws are far more likely to result in having our children arrested , placed behind bars, and stigmatized with a lifelong criminal record than they are likely to in any way discourage them to try pot. In short, what the results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health is simple and consistent; in fact, we say it all the time: "Remember prohibition? It still doesn't work!"
 
Rhythmic Gymnastics: Which Girl Is The Bendiest? (PHOTOS, POLL) Top
There are a lot of really flexible girls at the rhythmic gymnastic world championships in Mie, Japan. Who's the best contortionist? You decide. PHOTOS: Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter! More on Celebrity Skin
 
Nancy Stoner: Feds to Release Plan to Clean Up Chesapeake Bay Top
Today, officials from EPA, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture will be releasing reports with a series of recommendations to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. The reports are called for under an Executive Order, signed by the President in May, that recognized the Chesapeake Bay as a national treasure and called for federal leadership in protecting our nation's largest estuary. Pollution in the Bay comes from a variety of sources. Runoff from lawns and parking lots, agricultural crop production and large-scale animal feedlots, and sewage all add dangerous levels of nutrient and pathogen pollution to our waters. These anticipated Executive Order reports will include recommendations that touch on all of the sources of Bay pollution.  NRDC has been particularly focused on recommendations to improve agricultural practices and reduce urban and stormwater runoff.  When these recommendations come out later today, we'll especially be looking for a few big things:  With 22 percent of the watershed in agricultural production, improved agricultural crop practices have a tremendous impact on the health of streams throughout the Bay.  There are a number of steps that farmers can take to reduce the fertilizer runoff that feed algal blooms that rob streams and the Bay of oxygen that fish and shellfish need to survive.  There is also funding available to assist farmers to take those steps.  Some farms have taken advantage of this opportunity to reduce fertilizer use or put in stream buffers, but those who haven't continue to foul downstream water resources.  The federal plan needs to put effective controls on the fertilizer that contaminates the Bay and its tributaries. Animal waste is also filled with bacteria and other pathogens can run off into streams and rivers if not treated properly. In 2008, the EPA finalized a rule that requires all large, animal factory farms (typically those with 1,000 animals or more) to include a manure management plan as part of their Clean Water Act permit applications. However, due to strong opposition from corporate agricultural interests, the rule continues to exempt many large factory farms. Data supplied in March to NRDC by U.S. EPA confirms that large feedlots in Maryland and Virginia may not be obtaining Clean Water Act permits under the new EPA rule - indicating they have not addressed their contribution to manure pollution that contaminates the Bay.  Although the compliance deadline had passed, not a single large operator had obtained a permit in Virginia, and only 14% of Maryland's had permits. Expanded definition and scope of pollution controls for factory farms are critical to the Bay's long-term health.   Similarly, as the fastest growing source of water pollution in the watershed, policies to curb urban stormwater runoff - such as green roofs, rain gardens, permeable pavement and other great solutions highlighted in NRDC's Rooftops to Rivers report - are also sorely needed.  Environmental site design approaches are now in use in many communities throughout the Bay watershed.  These approaches are visually appealing, very effective at reducing pollution into the Bay and the streams that feed into it, and usually more cost-effective than other approaches as well.  These approaches must be expanded to protect all the rivers and streams that flow to the Chesapeake Bay. The recommendations for the Bay restoration reports will outline critical steps needed to control pollution in the streams, rivers, and water that millions of people depend on. These reports, coupled with strong legislation announced by Senator Cardin, the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Restoration Act, outline a bold new approach to cleaning up our nation's largest estuary.  They move beyond a series of previously ineffective efforts to control all the major sources of water pollution to achieve real results in restoring the health of the Bay.  They also create new partnerships that encourage expanded use of proven, cost-efficient practices and policies to reduce pollution and restore fisheries. The Chesapeake Bay watershed spans portions of six states and more than 60,000 square miles.  The only way to clean up the Bay is to get all of those states and the pollution sources in them to work at home to clean up the streams that supply drinking water, recreational opportunities, and economic heft to communities large and small throughout the watershed.  Federal leadership is critical to making this happen, so we are delighted to see that the Obama Administration is choosing clean water as one of its earliest priorities.  This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog .
 
Mike McCready: Get It Off Your Chest -- Create A Layer Over Joe Wilson's Webpage Top
After last night's occurrence when Congressman Joe Wilson heckled President Obama by yelling "You lie!" during Obama's address to a joint session of Congress, Wilson's official website was overrun with traffic. The site has been taken down to prevent those of us who would have liked to send him a message from doing so. Well, you still can! And here's how you do it. I've created a layer over his website. Check it out here: http://www.layers.com/mike/1619 You can create one too and then you can see the layers created by everyone else. Don't be prevented from exercising your free speech! This is Joe Wilson's website: - http://www.joewilson.house.gov Layers.com is where you go to create the layer. It's simple. Enjoy!
 
Robert Rose: Testing for Education, Not Politics! Top
A definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over even when it's not working. An example is standardized testing used when experts have proven it is not an accurate measure of student progress or teacher skills. It is a powerful and effective political tool; its real purpose. I am in favor of any valid and reliable accountability for student progress and teacher success or failure. However, the question should be who and how much responsibility should be taken for the above and what to do about it. What should be the main basis is a student computer-generated portfolio. This would include an entering baseline of each student each year of any testable skills. The portfolio would contain whatever actually was taught the class with teacher-generated tests of that material. Any publisher-made or district mandated tests could also be included. At the end of the year other tests (each a valid and reliable equal version of the original tests) on the skills would be given to show the degree of progress. These would be the main indicators of how well the teacher taught and how well each child learned. Testing would be used for education, not politics. Computers would be able to compare students, classes teachers, schools, and districts. Although this is an imperfect system it is a much more accurate, fair, and doable than present testing. It eliminates the waste of time in test preparation. It gives time back to the schools so they could teach all that has been almost eliminated that makes learning useful and results in a well rounded, educated person. I found that many students who were from families where education was not seen as valuable or were in situations where they lived hungry or fearful, were not motivated to learn in an overly controlled classroom. When they knew that they would have physical education, art, and music daily, and could ask questions as well as only give answers, they were eager to learn the basics too. Instead of a management system based only on fear (coercion) or rewards (persuasion), I negotiated classroom rules and the consequences. Students knew they'd receive due process, reasonable consequences, and found I didn't expect academic or behavior perfection, but only effort and improvement. I didn't lecture all day, but explained a lesson and then they worked alone, in pairs, or small groups. I moved around the room or sat with one student or a group and allowed the rest to talk with, help, or to be helped. The classroom wasn't quiet, but they were usually productively engaged. (No system works perfectly all the time.) Because they had real personal control (negotiation meant I shared power), they had less need to act in antisocial ways towards others, the educational process -- or me. Because of my daily inclusion of arts and social science, each had areas where he could excel or at least express what interested him. Because they were physically and emotionally safe and had increased freedom to grow in many ways, their natural curiosity was awakened and they wanted to learn new things. They became more flexible in thinking and action. I call this the self-sustaining classroom, because I could leave the room and they could run it without me. The focus wasn't me, but what they were learning in cooperation with others -- or alone. It meant I could discuss very controversial topics and they began to realize they could challenge what is and find new solutions. This is what should be happening (and does in many classrooms) and develops the kind of students who are independent, self-motivating, and can accept responsibility for their actions. The portfolio is then an accurate measure of their growth for that year. The ongoing testing done by the teacher gives the daily or weekly data to modify his teaching to fit the real needs of the individual or class. He shares this with the student and class so they work together for improvement. This is the educational use of tests and it would be open to the student, teacher, parent, and principal in an ongoing evaluation of student and teacher progress. Importantly to all those who are concerned about excessive federal and state control, this takes a giant step towards local control! This is a fair, reasonable, and nonpolitical use of tests that assesses what should be taught and evaluated in any class. I've done variations of this in four large districts since 1962. Others are doing their conceptions of it throughout the country. This is the method and paradigm that will produce the kind of students that will keep us from losing our place as the most creative and productive country.
 
James Rucker: A Line in the Sand Against Beck Top
Watching the Glenn Beck show this past month, one might have assumed that Van Jones had assaulted Beck, insulted his wife, and stolen his kids' lunch money. Beck devoted time on a whopping 16 shows to crafting a distorted, despicable portrait of Van that few who know him would recognize. As political smears go, it was as serious as it gets. But make no mistake: this attack was not about Van Jones. Beck, in league with big business groups, is seeking to derail the President's progressive agenda, and taking out Van became the vehicle for undermining clean energy and green jobs. There was another, more personal motivation too. Beck was trying to change the subject from the previous week, when headlines were dominated by dozens of major advertisers dropping his show. Beck had no choice but to up the ante, and at the same time indirectly take on the group responsible for his shrinking ad roster. His distortions not surprisingly found purchase on other Fox News shows, spread to the mainstream media, and rather than let this circus distract from the relaunch of health care and the rest of the President's agenda, Van chose to fall on his sword. In the fallout, one thing is certain: wherever Van decides to go from here he will be a force. But now that he has left the White House, it's time to change the subject back to Beck. Why the boycott matters There is no doubt that Glenn Beck has a big platform. But what supports his platform is advertising dollars, and that support is crumbling. To date, 62 companies have pulled their ads from Beck's show, including six new companies announced yesterday -- Aegon, Ashley Furniture, Humana, Luxottica Retail (parent of LensCrafters and Pearle Vision), United States Postal Service and Wyeth Consumer Healthcare. These aren't liberal activists wringing their hands over Beck's distortions. These are the bastions of American capitalism saying they don't want their brands associated with Glenn Beck's extremism. The only companies left are direct marketers (think Egg Genie and gold coins) and a handful of private companies headed by right-wingers. The exodus of major advertisers makes a powerful statement about how far Beck lies from the mainstream. Which is why it's so important to keep the heat on. Advertisers walking away for a week or two is one thing. But as weeks turn to months, and Beck becomes increasingly isolated, it renders his rants permanently fringe. Why would anyone (the White House or otherwise) respond to someone whose views are too toxic for any respectable corporation? A word on the boycott's origins After ColorOfChange launched our campaign , some bloggers and reporters tried to discredit the effort by claiming that we launched the campaign to protect Van. It's an absurd accusation. Van hasn't worked with ColorOfChange in years, and our concern about Beck was far bigger than sleights against a former colleague. We began our campaign for the same reason 180,000 people have joined us : Glenn Beck called the president of the United States a "racist" who "has a deep seated hatred for White people," which was just the latest example of his virulent race-baiting and fear-mongering. A line in the sand In the wake of Van's resignation, some have wondered whether kicking the Beck hornet's nest makes sense. I've got two thoughts in response. First, Beck and Fox trying to change the topic and counter-attacking with such force is probably a good indicator that we're getting to them; if anything, now would be the time to go harder. Second, I believe we have no choice. Beck has promised to take his witch-hunt to others in the administration, and has set his sights on Cass Sunstein as his next target. He has no plans to stop, and neither should we. But it's not just "czar"-hunting that's at stake here. The right wing media machine, of which Beck is now one of the leading members, is the single greatest force standing in the way of change. They have already helped derail the conversation on health care, elevating accusations of Obama's alliance with the Third Reich to some semblance of credibility. And they will do the same to the upcoming debates over clean energy, immigration, and every progressive policy priority. We simply don't have the luxury of ignoring them. We must challenge them head on, expose their distortions, take away their advertisers, and position their views where they belong: far outside the bounds of any rational political discourse. That is why ColorOfChange is redoubling our efforts to starve Beck of advertising dollars, and why we hope you will join us . The time has come to draw a line in the sand, not because of what Glenn Beck did to Van Jones, but because of what he could do to our democracy if left unchecked. More on Glenn Beck
 
Lesley Stern: How To Live On $0 A Day: Rich Corporate Executives Have Problems Too, You Know Top
During these difficult financial times, most of us have been focused on things like paying the bills, keeping a roof over our heads and feeding the children. Being an empathetic person, I thought it only fair to devote a little attention to the 1% of the population who helped create this situation, yet are still employed and living like pashas. Let's not forget that this is a time of fear and uncertainty for them too. Sure, their concerns are different than yours or mine. But I'm sure to them, the worry that their excessive wealth and lavish lifestyles will inspire envy, larceny and angry hordes is just as excruciating as the worry of becoming homeless is to the rest of us. So, Hank, Larry, Lloyd, Bob, Ben, Ken, Vikram, and the rest of you guys, here's my advice to you on how to get through the recession. I know this is going to be difficult to hear, but you're going to have to pretend to make some major sacrifices. Planes, Yachts and Automobiles Nothing enrages the people whose money bailed you out more than to see you in a shiny new corporate jet. Especially when they're trading down to shopping carts. Instead of giving up your luxurious jet or putting it in storage, antique it. You'd be amazed how a few dings on the nose, some dice hanging from the rear view mirror and some old "Free Huey" bumper stickers can take your jet from "rich corporate bad guy" to "just another jet from the hood." Consider hiring someone to paint some camouflage on your jet, yacht, limo or hummer so it doesn't attract the wrong kind of attention. With a pentagon quality paint job, you might even be mistaken for a military vehicle and garner love and respect rather than simmering resentment. Another plus, you'll actually stimulate the economy by hiring a painter. Make sure you hire American for a change. It's a wonderful opportunity to appear to contribute something meaningful to America's no longer working class. Better Homes and Gardens A few well-placed props can make a 85 million dollar estate a place you can feel safe showing to the impoverished masses (from the other side of the gates, of course). Park a rusty, dilapidated pick-up truck on the front lawn and let the garden go. A burning trash can or tires are always a nice touch. The neighbors might object, but it'll keep the robbers and lynch mobs away. Or just put a foreclosure sign out front (FYI, I have one you can buy for $19,843.02 or $536.12 a month at 33% compounded daily for the rest of your life). Perfecting The "Waif" Look Fortunately, your trophy wife can still spend a fortune keeping up with the latest designer trends and look like she dug her wardrobe out of the dumpster. Several designers are coming out with "recession chic" lines for the winter (check the latest WWD or Vogue in the plastic surgeons waiting room). Stay away from anything with a prominent designer logo (I know it kind of defeats the purpose of buying a designer label, but be strong). For those ubiquitous Ralph Lauren and Izod logos, have your seamstress whip up some St. Vincent de Paul or Salvation Army labels for a cover up. Finding Inner Beauty Speaking of plastic surgeons, now's a good time to get those implants (chin, butt, boob, pec, whatever) you and your family members have had your eyes on. In a time where the chasm between the haves and have nots has never been wider, putting all your money in your body instead of on it is the healthiest thing you can do. Another plus; If a revolution should occur and your fortune is pillaged, you'll still be able to hold on to hundreds of thousands of dollars of your assets -- nobody has figured out how to repossess a pound of flesh (or silicone gel). Yet. More on Satire
 
Evan Handler: Have You No Decency, Sir? At Long Last, Have You No Sense of Decency? Top
I'm pretty invested in this health care bill battle. First, twenty-four years ago, when I was 24 years old, I was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. My medical treatments lasted over four years, cost close to half a million dollars, and were largely paid for by insurance coverage from my two acting unions, Actors Equity Association and Screen Actors Guild. Still, my family was forced to empty my bank account to meet official poverty levels (there wasn't very much to spend, at the time) in order to qualify for Social Security disability payments, and my years of illness nearly bankrupted my parents - in spite of all the insurance coverage and assistance. I can tell you first hand: even the most privileged among us are within a millimeter of losing everything to an unexpected illness. I was lucky enough to escape the clutches of what was then considered to be an incurable disease. I had my life. But I was left with nothing else. So, I'm puzzled, and amazed, and dismayed, by those who want health care reform legislation to be anything other than the most comprehensive and powerful it can possibly be. Then there's my new family. My wife is from Italy. She, her parents, her grandparents, all her relatives, and all their friends have received prompt, capable, and comprehensive health care their entire lives, and it hasn't cost them a thing. They've had their teeth cleaned regularly, their cavities filled, gum tissue transplants, fused spinal discs, abdominal surgeries, you name it. They didn't wait any longer than anyone would here. Nothing was rationed or withheld. They were, and are, every age, from zero to 94. Their government makes sure that its citizens can visit the doctor, have surgeries, and take care of their health, period. It's a right of existence, and - to judge by my wife's circle - it's working well (and Italy ain't exactly known for things working well). For that matter, my wife also attended the high school of her choice free of charge, and a world renowned Italian University for $200 per year. Why wouldn't Americans want the same? If they do want it, why are these things being kept from them? Maybe a more pertinent question today is, why are they being encouraged and instructed to fear this kind of progress on the part of their government, which every other advanced nation's government in the world has already long embraced? Last night's eruption during President Obama's speech was a good example of that last tendency. It reminded me of the famous quotation from Joseph Welch, spoken to Senator Joseph McCarthy, who'd already spent years ruining careers and lives with less than sincere (and far less than accurate) accusations of anti-Americanism. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency? , is what Mr. Welch said in 1954. And it precipitated the downfall of a legendary bully (who is now largely regarded as a blowhard). It would have been interesting if President Obama had responded to Republican Congressman Joseph Wilson's outburst of "You lie!" with those same iconic words. First, it would have been interesting to see whether the Congressman, or others, might have responded; whether the president would have responded once again; and whether this would have resulted in spirited and unscripted debate, thus giving us all a glimpse of what an American version of British Parliament might look like. But our House of Representatives isn't British Parliament. There have been plenty of times I've wished it was. It would be great to have a forum where questions and criticisms could be shouted out at our elected leaders, thereby compelling them to respond. But we don't have that forum. And, since we don't, Joseph Wilson should have followed some simple rules. You do not shout "You lie!" at the president while he's addressing Congress, and the nation. More crucially, you don't shout "You lie!" at the president when he's stating the irrefutable fact that his health care proposals do not offer coverage to illegal residents of the United States. Since facts such as the one I just mentioned don't seem to hold as much influence as facts used to, let me quote from the health care proposal being prepared for submission to congress: H.R. 3200: Sec 246 NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. I do not know what makes the language of Sec. 246 so hard to understand, or accept. Since it's right there, visible for anyone to read, I have to suspect that Joseph Wilson either doesn't know it's there, or doesn't care. That he, and the many (many, many) others who are furious about aspects of the proposed health care legislation, simply want to use any emotion, misinformation, slander, or lie to prevent its passage. That's a shame, because a) there are plenty of areas in which to find legitimate fault in the bill, as with many bills, and b) because giving healthcare insurance to the most people possible is a very good thing to do. That's why every other advanced nation on planet Earth does it - and most of them have far greater health than we enjoy, and spend much less on keeping it that way. So why are so many still vehemently opposed? To me, all the arguments against fall apart when inspected with any sense of logic. There's the slander, intimated last night, that the bill covers illegal immigrants. It doesn't. I sometimes wonder whether this misguided argument stems from the fact that the bill would presumably cover the offspring of illegal immigrants, should they be born on United States soil. But, those new human beings, if born in the United States, are United States citizens . That's the law. If the complaint is with that law, then the bill's opponents should confront that issue, not the health care bill. (Of course, that would require altering the Constitution of the United States, which grants citizenship rights to anyone born here. The same constitution that conservatives consider perfect, and worthy of protection from "revisionist" judges. I guess that's an inconsistency they still need to work out.) For the life of me, and not for lack of effort, I can't wrap my mind around the logic of those against aggressive reform - including a "public option." I posted some thoughts on Facebook late last night and got response after response from people wishing a bill would bring "liability/tort reform," "oversight," or "create incentives," and "level the playing field," all followed by the demand that this not include "big government involvement." I'm sorry, but that doesn't track. All those things require government involvement. At least some opponents seem to want government to provide, without being "involved." To take it a step further, all those expressed cravings above would be best accomplished by the government offering an optional, only-if-you-want-it, government sponsored insurance option. That's the way to keep insurance companies honest! By offering a competent, comprehensive, affordable, and compassionate alternative they will be forced to match, or else lose customers. Honestly, I think many of those who are opposed have been sold an ideological bill of goods. "Governmentt bad. Oppose it. Even if it's offering something you need." One concern I can at least understand is that offering lower cost, government sponsored insurance might put insurance companies at an unfair competitive disadvantage, thereby forcing some out of business, and costing people jobs. I can understand the concerns, but the argument doesn't hold up. First, insurance company profits are enormous. There's room for diminishment. Second, we're talking about legislation that would insure forty-five million more people! Insurance companies could easily make up for lowered rates and maintain, or surpass, profits through increased revenue. And, even if the government program "stole" customers away and forced some, or (gasp) all, insurance companies out of business, that would mean the government's insurance entity would have to hire enough workers to accommodate the forty-five million new customers. Workers are going to be needed. Forty-five million new policy holders will create jobs, not eliminate them. I've heard the impassioned cry that any "public option" will act as a "foot in the door," after which citizens will be forced to use government subsidized insurance, or government provided healthcare (the latter being an option that's never been proposed). Complaining about having subsidized insurance provided to you sounds to me a bit like complaining about having social security or unemployment benefits imposed upon you. But, putting that aside, I really can't see it happening, unless an overwhelming majority of people really like the way things are going. I mean, a military draft couldn't stand up to public opposition. Do you really think government health insurance, if attempted, that wasn't pleasing the people, could survive where a military draft couldn't? That still leaves those who just think government screws everything up, and don't want it given any more responsibility or influence over their lives. I can sure understand the sentiment. But is the solution to forever prohibit government from attempting to get better? I'd like to know how many who oppose more "governmentt involvement" home school their children, take their own garbage to the dump, keep their own reservoirs functioning and safe, repair their own streets, build and operate their own public transportation (or refuse to use it, wherever they go), VOLUNTARILY OPT OUT OF MEDICARE WHEN THEY REACH 65!!, and send their unemployment and social security checks back out of principled opposition? And I'm not talking about foregoing one or two, folks. You're either on the grid, or you're off. There's no in between. The reactionary in me wants to say, "Fess up. You suck at the government's tit, then complain when chocolate milk ain't flowing." My emotional side is tired of it. But, having cleared my spleen of my own frustration, I just encourage you all to look at it another way. Not how the government has failed you to this point, but at what the government might be offering now to improve upon the past . If you don't allow for that opportunity, if you only exist in defensive mode, you could very well be blocking the improvement you're aching for. More on Health Care
 
James Boyce: Now It's Our Turn To Stand Up For Clean Energy. Top
Last night, President Obama stood up and laid it on the line when it comes to healthcare reform. He made his case clearly and eloquently and called out the distortions of the right, and of those business interests who oppose healthcare reform. He told the truth, and showed his determination to see reform through. As I was reading the media coverage of his speech, I was especially focused on the President's calling out of the distortions and clear falsehoods that have become, somehow, involved in the debate? I fully expected Rep Joe Wilson to yell out something about 'death panels' but it never happened. I also thought as I watched President Obama speak, how many of the themes that he touched on also apply to the other big issue facing Congress between now and the end of the year, clear concrete action on clean energy, green jobs and global warming. In fact, when it comes to how the opposition to clean energy has played the game, it makes the healthcare reform debate look tame. We are at a crucial and long-coming moment in time on clean energy; a bill passed the House before the summer recess and Harry Reid has promised a vote before the end of the year. The international community will gather at Copenhagen this December and it is critical that the United States lead the world into that conference, and not still be debating the bill here at home. Like health care, the majority of Americans support clean energy. And no wonder. In Pennsylvania, it was announced the bill under consideration would save every household over $236 per year and add over 17,000 jobs. Military leaders and veterans groups note that climate change is now a significant security issue and that it must be dealt with. A truly bipartisan group of leaders has called for action on this point alone. One would think that with overwhelming scientific evidence and a broad coalition of supporters, clean energy would be headed for immediate and clear passage. Sadly, it is not the case. As with healthcare, there is opposition, the opposition of the well-funded minority who are willing to distort, lie, distract and do anything they can to delay action. It is a strategy that was taken directly from the playbook of the tobacco industry that discovered in the 1970s that when there is scientific consensus on an issue, in that case, that smoking causes cancer, there are always willing scientists who, for the right price, will deny the facts and create a distortion and delay in action. Right now, today, major oil companies continue to fund the opposition, ensuring record profits for themselves in the process. Right now, well-funded opposition groups are placing op-eds in papers all across the country. And paying companies to forge letters. So, right now, we have to stand up, and we have to focus our attention on the US Senate. Like all issues, it's not really the whole US Senate that we have to worry about, it's the handful of Senators who despite the facts, despite the widespread support from Americans , they are wavering, or at least looking like they are wavering. Today, let's focus on two states and three Senators, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Senators Webb and Warner from Virginia. While certainly there are other targets worthy of consideration, these three are critical to the passage of the bill. So what can you do? Here's some contact information. Claire McCaskill's is here. Mark Warner's is here. and Jim Webb's is here. You can also follow the battle for Clean Energy here. As noted on NRDC's site, the battle for Clean Energy has heroes and it has villains. Heroes include every Representative who stood up and voted yes last summer. You too can be a hero by making your voice heard. And, sadly, the story has plenty of villains. People who didn't stand up and vote for the future of our country, and our planet, people who are willing to pay others to lie about what is actually happening, putting profit before planet, money before our collective future. Last night, President Obama stood up and was a hero for everyone who needs health care, and health care reform. Now it's our turn. Now is the moment.
 
Eric Schurenberg: Obama's Retirement Plan Needs More Nerve Top
This weekend, the President announced a handful of new initiatives designed to make it easier for American workers to save more for retirement. The initiatives make use of research from behavioral economics , the arm of the dismal science that incorporates the way people really act into the design of retirement plans. That's has proven extremely effective in the past..except this time the Administration loses its nerve. The new initiative does four things:: Let employers more easily enroll workers automatically in the company's 401(k) or SIMPLE-IRA . This is mainly a boon to younger employees, who have a disturbing tendency not to sign up for plans voluntarily. The Administration's idea is to use the most powerful force in personal finance-inertia-to help those younger employees do the right thing in spite of themselves. With automatic enrollment, the company signs you up and starts putting money from your paycheck into your 401(k) without asking your permission. You can always opt out, but as behavioral economics predicts, few do. Inertia, you know. Make it easier to save tax refunds . The new rule will allow you to use your income tax refund to purchase U.S. Savings Bonds. Nice impulse, but savings bonds are not the right investment for a long-term goal. You're better off shipping the money to an IRA, if you're not already over 2009's $5,000 contribution limit. Make it possible to save unused leave and vacation pay in your 401(k) . This is the money you get for the vacation days you didn't have a chance to take before your employer canned you. Since no one counts on earning vacation pay-you never see it in cash until the company is showing you the door-it's psychologically easier to set aside. In theory. Problems is, when you lose your job in this economy, you're probably going to want the cash now rather than an opportunity to stash it away for decades. Create "plain English" explanations of your options when you leave a 401(k) plan. The Administration promises to create easy-to-understand explanations of why you shouldn't make one of the dumbest of all financail moves: taking money out of a 401(k) you are leaving, rather than rolling it over into an IRA or a new 401(k). If you make that mistake, not only do you lose your savings, but you pay a huge tax bill for the privilege. Unfortunately, behavioral economics doesn't offer much support to the idea that investor education--however plain its English--can change human tendencies. Maybe a few people don't already know it's bad to gut their 401(k) between jobs, but I think their main motivation is that they simply find it too tempting to lay their hands on so much money at one time. In other words, it's not that people don't understand that they shouldn't cash out their 401(k)s; it's that they lack the self-control not to. If the Administration really wanted to stop the leakage from 401(k) plans, it should have the courage of its behavioral economic convictions and simply make it impossible to get at the money except in real emergencies. You don't get smokers to quit by showing them plain-English graphs proving that smoking eventually has a suboptimal influence on your health. You just lock up the cigarettes. Continue on CBSMoneyWatch.com More on Barack Obama
 
Eric Margolis: Time To Face The Truth About World War II Top
Last week's 70th anniversary of World War II has reopened old wounds and ignited an ugly battle of words between Russia and its neighbors, Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states. Poland and the Balts accuse Stalin's Soviet Union of having stabbed them in the back in 1939 by becoming a partner in aggression with National Socialist Germany. Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCEPA) recently held the USSR and Germany `equally responsible for World War II.' After 70 years of disinformation, it's about time we face the facts. "A flat-out lie," angrily retorted Russia's president, Dimitry Medvedev. The Soviet Union lost some 25 million dead in World War II. Russians are quite right in believing that they, not the US and British Empire, defeated Hitler's Germany. Russians fought with incredible heroism, suffered unthinkably casualties and damage, and ground Nazi Germany into dust. The Allies played an important but comparatively far less important role in Europe against an already defeated and exhausted Germany. Underlining Moscow's worrying rehabilitation of Stalin memory and the gradual erasure of his crimes, Medvedev claimed the Soviet dictator saved Europe from Hitler and rejected all attempts to equate him with Hitler. But the facts tell us a different story. Stalin was an even worse mass murderer than Hitler by a factor of three or four. He alone ordered the deaths of 6-7 million Ukrainians in the mid-1930's. Stalin was also a much cleverer strategist, war leader and diplomat than Hitler, who stumbled into a war that Germany could not possibly win and for which it was woefully unprepared. Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin admitted the 1939 Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact that partitioned Poland between Germany and the USSR, handed the Baltic states and Romania's Bessarabia to the Soviets, was `immoral.' Putin failed to add the Soviet invasion of Finland in November, 1939. Or another arrant act of aggression that has gone down the memory hole: the 1941 joint Soviet-British invasion of Iran to grab its oil, an act every bit as illegal and reprehensible as the Soviet-German joint invasion of Poland. But Putin insisted the 1938 Munich Pact signed by Britain and France with Hitler that returned Czechoslovakia's ethnic German Sudaten region to German-Austrian ownership was also deeply immoral. He reminded Poland of its unsavory role in carving up bleeding Czechoslovakia. He blasted East European critics of Russia as `collaborators with Fascism.' Interestingly, we know that Hitler was determined to undue the pernicious effects of the post-World War I `peace' treaties (Versailles, Locarno, et) that cruelly dismembered the German Reich, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, causing grave problems to our very day. Hitler set out to restore his nation's 1914 borders and make Germany food independent by annexing fertile Ukraine. But it is little understood that Stalin was also bent on historic and geographic rectification. He sought to erase the effects of the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, imposed on defeated, revolution-torn Russia by the German-led Central Powers. The draconian treaty tore away a quarter of Russia's population and industry, and vast swathes of Russian-ruled territory: Poland, the Baltic States, Belarus, Ukraine, Crimea, Bessarabia and Finland. Like Hitler, Stalin was determined to regain lost territories. This he largely did in a series of clever steps from 1920-1939. The 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Winter War against Finland were the final acts in the restoration of the borders of the old Russian Tsarist Empire. A fascinating book, `The Chief Culprit' by Viktor Suvorov (US Naval Institute Press), the pseudonym of a defector from Soviet military intelligence GRU, makes explosive new revelations about Stalin's role in igniting World War II. My old friends at KGB say the GRU boys are amateurs. But it was GRU that got 2-3 high level agents into Franklin Roosevelt's White House and shaped America's wartime foreign policy. Suvorov's argument is simple. Stalin cleverly lured Hitler into war by offering to divide Poland. Stalin outsmarted Hitler by first agreeing to jointly invade Poland, then delaying the Soviet intervention for two weeks, thus focusing the world's outrage against `Nazi aggression.' The Soviet occupation of half of Poland went almost unnoticed. Stalin knew that Germany's invasion of Poland would cause Britain and France to declare war on Germany. Stalin expected to pick up the pieces after Germany, Britain and France had exhausted themselves and were ripe for invasion and Communist revolution. Stalin also knew Germany was no match for the USSR. Hitler had only 3,332 tanks, most of them light vehicles armed with machine guns or 20mm cannon. Contrary to our images of a fast-moving motorized blitzkrieg, 75% of German military transport was horse-drawn(think how much hay and how many hay wagons are needed to feed 750,000 horses.) The Wehrmacht had no winter uniforms. The German High Command foolishly expected to win the war against Russia in only three months - before winter set in. Most important, Germany had no raw materials save coal. Its only sources of oil were Romania and Russia. Germany had only enough oil for a two-month campaign against the Soviet Union. It had no motor lubricants suitable for Russia's -20 to -30 F winter weather. From digging in GRU files, Suvarov asserts that in the spring of 1941, Stalin was poised to launch 170 divisions, 24,000 tanks and thousands of warplanes in a surprise blitzkrieg against Western Europe, supported by mountains of munitions and more reserve armies from Asia and the Far East. One of the first targets was Ploesti, Romania, Germany's sole source of oil (except for ersatz fuel from coal). Germany was also Italy's sole source of oil. Losing Ploesti would have knocked both industrially weak Axis powers out of the war. The Red Army and Air Force were deployed in vulnerable offensive formations hard on the new German-Soviet border. Stalin ordered all 1,000 plus defensive casemates of the formidable Stalin Line defending the USSR's western border destroyed to emphasize the offensive mission of the Red Army. But Hitler struck first. Learning of the Soviet threat, Hitler secretly massed his armies and attacked on 22 June, 1941. Operation Barbarossa caught the Russians flat-footed: warplanes on the ground, tanks on rail cars, munitions in the open. The US Navy accomplished the same feat against the Japanese carrier force at Midway. Soviet ground forces were quickly enveloped, cut off and destroyed in vast numbers. Had they been positioned in defensive deployments behind the casemates and artillery positions of the Stalin Line - which ran unbroken from the Baltic to the Black Sea - this rout would not have happened. Soviet propaganda later tried to cover up Stalin's plan to attack Europe, claiming his forces were outmoded and unprepared, and generals incompetent. According to the party line, Stalin only signed the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact to buy time to prepare for war. This view still prevails today. Not so, claims Suvarov. His view will infuriate mainstream historians. I poured through Suvarov's meticulous military analysis. To me, as a veteran military analyst, teacher of strategic studies, and war correspondent, his figures appear to confirm that Stalin was just about to attack Western Europe when Hitler pre-empted him. Four years later, in 1945, Stalin's Red Army had taken half of Europe. But, contends Suvarov, had Hitler not attacked first in 1941, Stalin's thirty-million man army, backed by mammoth industrial production, would have overwhelmed all of Europe in a 1941 surprise blitz. Suvarov's unstated conclusion: Hitler saved Western Europe from Stalin. He argues, less convincingly, that Hitler's offensive into Russia led to the inevitably downfall of the Soviet Union in 1991 - and the real end of WWII. In the author's view, if Poland had given back German-populated Danzig to Germany, war might have been avoided. He also contends that the British Empire collapsed because of its fatal decision to go to war with Germany in 1939 over Poland, a nation it could not possibly defend. Hitler made a fatal error by not invading Britain - though the Germans had done absolutely nothing to prepare for an amphibious invasion. Suvarov's contentions are heretical and will be assailed by mainstream historians wedded to the historical party line. We need to clear away these lingering clouds of wartime propaganda and begin understanding what really happened. Hitler, in his own warped thinking, believed he was actually doing good for mankind. Stalin had no such illusions. His only interest was raw power. Both were wild beasts who were ready to devour Europe.
 
Robert Naiman: Showdown in Brighton on British Troops in Afghanistan Top
From September 27 to October 1, the British Labour Party is holding its annual conference in Brighton. The Campaign for Labour Party Democracy is putting forward a resolution calling for the British government to bring British troops home from Afghanistan. If this resolution passes, it will add significantly to the pressure on the British government to move further towards withdrawing its troops. Already, the Independent reports , Britain has told the U.S. it wants to cut UK troop numbers from more than 9,000 to fewer than 5,000 in "three to five years, maximum." As the CLPD notes in its resolution, the majority of Britons want British troops withdrawn. Two-thirds of Britons want British troops to come home, the Independent recently reported. The British Labour Party has been "Americanized" somewhat in recent years - power over policy has been moved away from rank-and-file activists. But it's still the case that the passage of a resolution by the Labour Party conference calling for British troops to be withdrawn will be hard for the British government to ignore as it moves into a general election campaign. The expectation that the government should follow the wishes of the people who vote for it is still stronger in Britain than it is in the United States. If the British go, the pretense of an "international military coalition" likely will have to be largely abandoned, as Britain is the greatest non-U.S. contributor of troops, and other major contributors like Canada and Germany , already under significant domestic pressure, are sure to follow suit. And if the pretense of an international military coalition is abandoned, that's going to add significantly to pressure in Washington against an indefinite continuation of the war. Already, Senator Levin and Speaker Pelosi are telling the Obama Administration not to assume support from Congress for sending more troops. So Americans who want the war to end have a big stake in what happens in Brighton at the end of the month. We don't get to vote, of course. But we can show our support . More on Afghanistan
 
Franny Armstrong: The Age of Stupid Gives a Coin-Flip Chance of Avoiding Climate Catastrophe Top
If you put yeast into a jar with some sugar, they will gobble up the energy as quickly as possible, reproduce wildly out of control and then wipe themselves out in their own waste products. So far, our collective response to climate change has been of the yeast variety. All the talking, all the documentaries, all the international negotiations have resulted in a net achievement of less than nothing: global emissions just keep going up and up. As Pete Postlethwaite's character says in our, er, documentary, The Age of Stupid , "We wouldn't be the first life form to wipe itself out. But what would be unique about us is that we did it knowingly." And there's the crux of it. We are the most intelligent creature ever to evolve and yet we are about to make the stupidest mistake in all of geological time. Hence the film's name. So, what to do? Clearly we should have started tackling the problem as soon as the seriousness was understood, back in the '80s. But given that we didn't and we are where we are, we must now come together to agree a binding international treaty which quickly and massively cuts total global emissions. Our last chance to agree this treaty within the timescale of the physics of the planet is at the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen in December this year. It is being called "the most important meeting in human history" for good reason. Obviously the treaty isn't just made up on the spot, they've been working on it for years. The best deal currently on the table is that from the EU, but even this would only give us about a 50/50 chance of not hitting the dreaded two degrees. Two degrees is where we trigger runaway climate change: two leads to three, three to four, four to five, five to six ... by which time it's about over for most of life on Earth. In other words, our elected leaders are giving us -- at best -- a coin-flip chance of avoiding catastrophe. It is hard to think of a more total failing of our political system. Imagine if they were standing at a plane door ... "Come on citizens, please take your seats, 50/50 chance of landing safely... " And this is the EU's position. If America wins the argument at Copenhagen we will have pretty much no chance of avoiding two degrees. All of which means that we non-politician human beings who depend on the climate remaining habitable had best jump into action. We are launching The Age of Stupid on September 21st from a solar-powered cinema tent in New York, linked by satellite to 444 cinemas across America - plus 300 cinemas in 45 countries from France and Finland to Argentina and Indonesia. (Full list of participating cinemas here ). The date is not coincidental: about a hundred Heads of State will be in New York for the UN General Assembly and we have joined forces with groups such as Greenpeace, tcktcktck and Avaaz, who are calling for 21st September to be the Global Wake Up call. The day the world finally wakes up to the desperate urgency of the climate crisis. The solar-powered green-carpet event will feature contributions from Kofi Annan, Gillian Anderson, Moby, James Hansen, Mary Robinson and the star of the film, Oscar-nominated Pete Postlethwaite. Plus there will be live music from Radiohead's Thom Yorke and satellite link-ups to scientists at a melting glacier in the Himalayas and a rainforest in Indonesia. The evening will conclude with the international launch of Stupid's solution to the climate crisis: 10:10. I was born in the '70s as part of the MTV generation who were told by a squillion adverts that the point of our existence was to shop more. Daunting though the task ahead may be, I feel enormously inspired and quite relieved that it turns out that we have something important to do. The people who came before us didn't know about climate change and the ones who come after will be powerless to stop it. So it's down to us. Other generations came together to overturn slavery or end apartheid or win the vote for women. There is nothing intrinsically more useless about our generation and there is no doubt about what we have to do. The only question which remains is whether or not we give it a go. More on Climate Change
 
Jane Hamsher: Obama's Speech: Trapped In the Gap Between Action and Rhetoric Top
The President did a great job last night making the case to the nation of the need for health care reform.  He made the moral case, and every metric indicates that people were overwhelmingly moved to support his plan. That's the good news for the White House. The not so good news:  the White House has been trying to get out from under the burden of supporting the public option for weeks .  The trouble is, every time they try to do it, the President's poll numbers take a huge hit .  And so last night he came out and indicated that a public plan would be a part of his reform package. Today on the White House website, under "The Obama Plan," it says : If You Don't Have Insurance Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can't find affordable coverage with a real choice.    The website is not so quick to commemorate the qualifiers regarding this public plan from last night's speech :   "The public option is only a means to that end - and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal." (expendable) "For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies." (triggers) "Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring."  ( co-ops ) The administration's inability to close the gap between expectations and reality is a boon for progressives members of Congress trying to maintain the 40 vote firewall necessary to keep any health care bill from passing that does not have a public public option. So far they are holding steady at 66 votes with no support from the party, the White House, Congressional leadership or the liberal "veal pen" institutions . Earlier this week, the co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus -- Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey -- wrote a letter urging the President to mention the public option in his speech.  I spoke with Rep. Grijalva yesterday, and he reiterated how important it was to their efforts that the President do so. As long as the President keeps expressing his support for a public option, they -- and we -- can quite rightly say that we're only insisting on something Obama himself endorses, something he campaigned on. Of course, the actions of the White House betray quite a different intent.  The deals they have negotiated with health care industry stakeholders do not include a public plan, and they don't believe they can back out of them without triggering a rush of lobbyist money to GOP coffers. At some point there will be a day of reckoning when the public understands that the public option is gone.  But getting there will be tricky, and in the mean time White House wants to stop their opponents -- and let's face it, progressives who are insisting on the inclusion of a public plan are at this point their opponents -- from being able to exploit that gap.  Because with every day that goes by, the base gets more and more wedded to the promise of a public plan, encouraged by the positive rhetoric of the President himself.  It becomes that much harder for the White House to extract itself from the enthusiasm they assist in fostering without paying a huge political price. One day the 11 dimensional chess set is going to have to come to terms with the fact that Rahm Emanuel worked with Max Baucus to cut deals that they force into the House through the Blue Dogs , and that the goals of the White House are not at odds with those of the Blue Dogs.  Which is why Emanuel protects them so fiercely .  And why we keep hearing things like this : Remember back on Friday, President Obama discussed the public option on a conference call with House liberals?... Well that meeting never happened.  [I]t doesn't seem to suggest that House liberals are being roped in to the health care negotiations between the House and the Senate. Meanwhile, the President meets with the Blue Dogs this morning .  NBC's First Read indicates that the President's speech "will be a failure if progressives...are still obsessing over the public option a week from now." But recent Rasmussen polling found that 44% of Democrats "strongly support" health care reform if it includes a public option. "Without the public option, just 12% of Democrats Strongly support it," they note. It's going to take more than just one speech to move those numbers significantly. It's hard to believe the administration thought they could ditch the public plan without completely demoralizing the base and potentially suppressing 2010 turnout to 1994 levels, just as the passage of NAFTA did in 1993. Let's not forget, that was also Rahm Emanuel's handiwork and it resulted in a 54 seat swing that gave the GOP control of the House. Those Democrats who feel the need to "pass anything" and sacrifice the heart of health care reform just to build Republican support should also consider the potential nationwide downticket disaster that dropping a public plan could portend. In the mean time, as long as the White House is consumed with the task of gaming out how they're going to break the bad news to the public and hoping they can somehow pass off the blame to the GOP, House progressives will exploit the double the administration has created to consolidate their block. Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake More on Barack Obama
 
Rep. Maxine Waters: Moving Forward with Meaningful Health Care Reform Top
The President hit a home run last night. President Obama said exactly what proponents of meaningful health care reform -- including myself -- needed, expected, and wanted him to say. The time for bickering, myths, and flat out lies by those who want to block reform is over. We will move forward with health care reform and get it done this year. What most impressed me about the President was his demeanor. He came there as Barack Obama the educator, explaining clearly both the need for health care reform and the specifics of our proposal. He presented a strong case for reform, and he spoke directly to the American people, outlining the benefits of health care reform both for those who are currently covered and those who are uninsured. He stood there -- amid cheers from most of us and unfortunately also unprecedented jeering and outright disrespect from some on the opposite side of the aisle -- to reaffirm core principles, to debunk rumors, to reclaim the debate, and to spur us to act once and for all to fix America's broken health care system. I have been outspoken about the need for credible health care reform that covers all Americans, maintains quality, lowers costs, and holds insurance companies accountable. And I believe the best way to accomplish those goals is through a government run public option that will compete with the private insurance companies, the operative word here being option. My vision for meaningful health care reform is also shared by the President and many of my colleagues in Congress. Though the President stopped short of saying that the public option was essential to achieve health care reform last night, he did reiterate his support for it and his belief that it is a means to an end. The public option will help us achieve the kind of health care reform that will cover the uninsured, lower costs for the insured, and bring more security and stability to American families and businesses. Republicans have rejected the President's repeated offers to come to the table and negotiate in good faith. They have continued to say "No" throughout this process, just like they said "No" to the economic recovery package, to energy and climate change legislation, and to providing health care to uninsured children. The President, despite his best efforts, is not going to get the support of the Republicans on health care reform. They are determined to play politics instead of helping the people they serve and prefer to defeat reform in order to wound the President. I am going to do everything in my power to make sure that politics does not trump public policy. We cannot allow health care reform that will benefit all Americans to be derailed. Reform will make us healthier and our economy stronger. As I have said before, if we fight for what we believe in, if we fight for our principles, we can win. Most importantly, it will be a win for the American people.
 
Democratic Senators Summoned To White House Top
ABC News has learned that President Obama will be meeting with 16 Democratic senators (and one "Independent Democrat") this afternoon at the White House. More on Arlen Specter
 
New Amsterdam Market Reviving History In South Street Seaport Top
Unlike a farmer's market (where farmers sell directly to consumers), New Amsterdam will include a bunch of regional producers: butchers, bakers, cheese shops, wine-, popsicle-, pickle-, and chocolate-makers, and a tiny company that harvests four kinds of seaweed from off the coast of Maine. To name a few. It won't be the city's first market of this kind, which is part of the point.
 
Alan Gilbert: New York Philharmonic's Incoming Music Director Top
"I'm feeling like a kid in a candy shop," says conductor Alan Gilbert to his wife, cellist Kajsa -William-Olsson. "A very privileged kid." We are walking, through the soothingly empty halls of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, en route upstairs to one of Mr. Gilbert's favorite galleries, containing works by Jan Vermeer and other 17th-century Dutch painters. The museum is so quiet because it's a Monday, when the Met is closed except to special visitors. Mr. Gilbert is distinctly special: On Sept. 16 he opens his first season as music director of the New York Philharmonic, inheriting a mantle previously worn by such immortals as Arturo Toscanini, Bruno Walter and Leonard Bernstein, not to mention his immediate predecessors, Lorin Maazel, Kurt Masur and Zubin Mehta.
 
Josh Bowman: Man With Gun Arrested Near Capitol During Obama Speech Top
WASHINGTON — U.S. Capitol Police have arrested a Virginia man they say tried to get into a secure area near the Capitol with a gun in his car as the president gave his health care address to Congress. Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said Thursday that 28-year-old Joshua Bowman of Falls Church, Va., was arrested around 8 p.m. Wednesday. Bowman's intentions were unclear, police said. Schneider says Bowman approached a security checkpoint near the Cannon House Office Building in a 4-door Honda Civic and told officers he wanted to park. People who want to get into the area must have a permit and have their vehicles searched. The timing of the request raised an officer's suspicion, Schneider said, and Bowman consented to a vehicle search. Schneider said a shotgun and ammunition were found in Bowman's trunk. Bowman was charged with having an unregistered firearm and ammunition, she said. A telephone directory lists a Joshua Bowman in Falls Church, but the telephone rang unanswered Thursday afternoon.
 
Hatch: I Sincerely Doubt Snowe Or Collins Will Support Health Care Reform Top
What did conservative Republicans think of President Obama's health care speech last night? Not very much, apparently. Sen Orrin Hatch (R-UT)--who, you'll recall was a part of the "gang of six" back when it was the "gang of seven"--even went so far as to predict that the proposal Obama outlined would get zero Republican votes. No Collins. No Snowe.
 
Lebanon's Prime Minister-Designate Saad Hariri Steps Down Top
Lebanon entered a new chapter of political uncertainty today as prime minister-designate Sa'ad Hariri stepped down after the Hezbollah-led opposition rejected his proposed cabinet. More on Lebanon
 
Sea Turtles Under Increasing Threat In Miami Beach Top
Conservationists do their best to protect turtle nests by roping them off and posting signs warning that it is a felony to disturb the eggs of these creatures threatened with extinction, but it is sometimes not enough. Egg poachers and vandals have destroyed a number of nests in recent years along Miami Beach, the authorities say. More on Animals
 
Jim Wallis: Obama's Health-Care Speech: Hope Over Fear Top
In his speech last evening , President Barack Obama made the commitments that a broad coalition in the faith community had asked for -- reform as a moral issue, affordable coverage for all, and no federal funding of abortion. First, the faith community has asked the president to make "the moral case" for health-care reform, not just the policy arguments -- and he couldn't have been more clear about the moral imperative for fixing a broken system. He quoted a letter from Ted Kennedy , written last spring but delivered to the president after Kennedy's death, stating that health care "is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country." Second, we have told the White House that the faith community will accept nothing less than accessible, affordable, and secure coverage for everyone. The president said that "if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices." And while there may be various means of achieving that goal, "I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice." He rejected the incremental approaches that will again postpone bringing everyone into America's health-care system and making sure it is working for all of us -- and so will we. Third, we have told the president that we needed to hear a clear commitment on prohibiting federal funding of abortion as well as maintaining a strong conscience protection. He gave that public commitment: "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place." As the president said, "there remain some significant details to be ironed out," but his commitment to these principles means we can now work together to make sure that they are consistently and diligently applied to any final health-care legislation. The practical application of that principle should mean that no person should be forced to pay for someone else's abortion, and that public funds cannot be used to pay for elective abortions. Now it is the job of the faith community and every concerned American to make sure the final bill reflects these moral principles. And the faith community will continue to be vigilant to ensure that each one is followed throughout the process of achieving health-care legislation. The president has set the stage for finally achieving real solutions to health-care reform by defining the deeper moral issues at stake and clarifying the policy debate. We will now be calling on our members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans , many of them members of our congregations, to support these moral commitments and to make sure, as they "iron out the details," that each one is firmly upheld. At the beginning of the speech, after noting the continuing economic crisis, President Obama said, "[W]e did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future." That future indeed involves a significant social transformation, and like most such change, it invokes strong reactions . We in the faith community have a special role in that process of change -- to help the nation make the spiritual choice of hope rather than fear, and to believe that the way for all of us to move forward as a society is to make that choice. Jim Wallis is the author of The Great Awakening , Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com . Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis More on Health Care
 
Len Berman: Top 5 Sports Stories Top
Happy Thursday everyone, here's my Top 5 for September 10, 2009 from www.LenBermanSports.com 1. Quick Hits Derek Jeter got three hits last night to tie Lou Gehrig for the all time Yankee hit mark. Midnight for Cinderella. 17-year old American Melanie Oudin loses in the quarterfinals of the U.S. Open to Denmark's Caroline Wozniacki. Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic reach the men's semi-finals. The NFL season begins tonight. Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh hosts Tennessee. Allen Iverson is signing with the Memphis Grizzlies. 2. Yankee Panky God I miss the good old days. George Steinbrenner calling out players. Hank Steinbrenner saying something dopey. (He has now all but disappeared as brother Hal runs the team.) A-Rod making ridiculous headlines. These days it's just win win win. They're both good and boring. How disappointing. 3. Hit Parade What do Tim Wallach, Carl Crawford, and Ed Kranepool all have in common? Time's up. They are the all-time hit leaders for their respective franchises. Montreal/Washington, Tampa Bay, New York Mets. It's difficult for other teams to have the sex appeal of Jeter chasing Gehrig. Then again, none of those franchises existed before 1962. 4. Fat Chance The British tabloid The Star reports if you're fat and you want to attend the 2012 Olympics in London, you have 3 years to start trimming down. They say that the British are the fattest Europeans and thought was given to making the 80,000 seats at the Olympic Stadium larger to accommodate them. But in the end they decided that you can cram more people in with "regular" size seats. So in typical tabloid fashion The Star trumpets "no leeway for lardies." And I guess no crumpets either. 5. Hail Mary A Kentucky high school football coach is catching flak for taking 20 players on a field trip to a church where half of them got baptized. One mother claimed "nobody should push their faith on anyone else." Actually, what really pissed her off were those free circumcisions. Happy Birthday: The King. The great Arnold Palmer. 80. Bonus Birthday: Roger Maris would have been 75 today. Today in Sports: Giants catcher Ray Katt has a little trouble with Hoyt Wilhelm's knuckleball. He sets a record with 4 passed balls in the same inning. 1954. Bonus Event: I yam what I yam. Popeye airs for the first time on radio. (He was sponsored by a breakfast cereal, so that's what he ate, not spinach.) 1935.
 
Dave Lindorff: Censorship American-Style: Hide the US Dead Top
The Obama administration's freak-out, as expressed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, over the Associated Press Agency's belated circulation of a photograph of a dying US soldier in Afghanistan, Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard, is the latest of example of the hypocrisy of US authorities who claim to be concerned about the feelings of American military families, while really simply desiring to censor the war's horrors from the eyes of the American people. The truth: Americans until only the last 18 years, have been able to see the carnage of war as it has been felt by our own troops from as long ago as there were cameras. Pioneering photographer and war chronicler Matthew Brady brought home the horrors of the US Civil War with photos like this one of dead Union and Confederate soldiers after the Battle of Antietam. In World War II, while the military tried to prevent publication of the photos of dead American troops at first, by 1944, President Roosevelt lifted the ban, hoping that the images would fire up American resolve on the home front. Although it was a much less popular war, photos of American dead were plentiful from the Korean War. Vietnam was awash in press photographers, and the Pentagon never banned them from depicting American casualties. In fact, when American policy-makers talk about the "lesson of Vietnam," they generally aren't talking about the real lesson of not sending American troops to fight unpopular wars, or of not intervening on the side of corrupt regimes in wars of national liberation, or of not fighting in wars where there is no chance of the US winning. They're talking about the "lesson" of not letting the American people learn the real nature and cost of the war in question. That's why journalists -- and particularly American journalists -- since Vietnam have been kept on short leashes, and why they are vetted by Pentagon officials and hired media "experts" before they are allowed to be "embedded" with units in the field. It's why the Reagan administration had a navy destroyer turn its guns on, and threaten to sink a small boat carrying reporters trying to make its way to Grenada to cover the US invasion of that island. And it's why since the Gulf War in 1990-91, photographs of American battlefield dead have been banned. AP deserves credit for finally breaking the ban and offering its photo of a dying soldier, shot in a firefight with Taliban fighters in Afghanistan--even if the news agency did wait three weeks to offer the photo to subscribers. The real shame is that so few American newspapers and electronic media organizations chose to run that photo. Gates claims that AP was "insensitive" to the dead soldier's relatives, but it's hard to see how that can be. The real insensitive thing would be to try to hide his death from the public, as the Pentagon wanted to do. Hell, if the Afghan War is worth fighting, it should be worth dying for, and if it's worth dying for, and if young soldier Bernard gave his life for his country, his death and the manner of his death should not be hidden from his countrypeople. We should all see the terrible price he paid acting in our name. Were the photographers and news organizations who showed American soldiers dead on the beach in the Pacific in World War II being insensitive? Were the photographers and news organizations who showed America's dead in Vietnam being insensitive? Were the photographers and news organizations who showed America's dead in Korea being insensitive? Was the photographer and news organization which dared to break the ban and publish a photo of America's dead in the Battle of Fallujah in Iraq being insensitive? I don't think so. Moreover, there is a terrible double standard at work here, if news organizations accept the censorship or deem it inappropriate to show dead American bodies, but go ahead and show dead bodies of the enemy -- photographs that the media seem to have no problem publishing (though surely it must be painful for their families). After all, if all we see are dead enemy fighters, it might give the false impression that the war in question -- in this case the Afghanistan War, or what might now be called Obama's War -- is a one-sided affair where the only terrible casualties are those suffered by the "enemy," not by "our boys." Enough with the censorship! If we are going to be a warlike nation, if we are going to have a public that cheers everytime the government ships off men and women to fight and kill overseas in countries that most Americans cannot even locate on a globe, then let's make sure that everyone at least gets to see the blood and gore in full, including our own, and of course, also the civilian casualties of our military. Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-area journalist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net More on Barack Obama
 
Ohio Cheetah Clocks In At 36 MPH: Faster Than Usain Bolt Top
CINCINNATI — The Cincinnati Zoo says one of its cheetahs has become the fastest land mammal on record – twice. Zoo officials say an 8-year-old female named Sarah ran 100 meters in just over 6 seconds Wednesday. That breaks the old record set in 2001 by a cheetah in South Africa by a few hundredths of a second. Later, Sarah ran a slightly faster time. The speed translates to more than 36 miles per hour. The cat was clocked at a breeding center on a certified course. Cheetah records are maintained by conservation groups and zoos. The human 100-meters record holder is Usain (yoo-SAYN') Bolt of Jamaica. He's a relative slowpoke at over 9 seconds. ___ Information from: The Cincinnati Enquirer, http://www.enquirer.com More on Animals
 
McCain Calls Out Chief Justice Roberts Over Campaign Finance Case Top
Yesterday marked the first case in front of newly-minted Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and the Court spared no controversy. The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, gives the Court a stab at overturning two decisions (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC) which have upheld the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law of 2003. More on Sonia Sotomayor
 
Jamie Frevele: Red Is the New Pink Top
Full disclosure: I didn't watch President Obama's speech last night. For one thing, I know where I stand on healthcare reform (in favor). For another, I forgot. This is rather irresponsible for someone who regularly follows and occasionally writes about politics, especially since healthcare reform is one of the most important issues that directly affects our lives. But then I heard about the behavior of the Republican Party during a presidential speech to a joint session of Congress and I felt a lot better about myself. Seriously - shouting "You lie" and then futzing around with your Blackberry? A member of Congress doing this while the President speaks? And not just that, but handmade signs, giggling, snorting and hissing? Hissing? Really? Dana Milbank pointed out that such guttural, primitive outbursts take place in Britain's House of Commons. So, have the GOP just gone old school, like really, really conservative as in "Screw the revolution - too changey"? Which, I guess, means that they wouldn't throw the Boston Tea Party and just let Britain tax them? No, that can't be it. No. They're turning into Code Pink. Code Pink was supposed to be an anti-war movement, but instead it turned into a coven of ineffective clowns. The birthers (remember them?) were on par, and so were the ill-informed squeaky wheels at the town hall meetings. They all filed into these rallies wanting to protest and voice their opinions, but then they became shrieking ignoramuses, spreading falsehoods and outrageously incorrect claims with bulging veins in their faces and unhinged vitriol. And guns. Guns! But none of those people are elected officials on the federal level. They don't represent the government of the United States, they only spoke for themselves. Code Pink showed up looking like a bunch of Muppets when Bush spoke and made spectacles of themselves, and they were quickly dismissed by officials and the media. What the hell makes the GOP, a political party, think they can get away with the same shenanigans when Obama speaks? The double standard is astounding and disturbing. Few people take Code Pink seriously outside of Code Pink. It's time to stop trying to appease this immature, attention-starved nursery school class and let the grown-ups pass healthcare reform without them. So, now that my rant is over, Milbank also reported that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel confronted two GOP congressmen, saying "You know my number." I would like to think that those discussions went a little something like this: More on Health Care
 

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)