Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Michelle Pilecki: Remembering a Fighter for Freedom Top
Larry Frankel 's passing doesn't seem to have made national news, or even a ripple beyond Pennsylvania, where he served the ACLU for some 16 years. He was still with the ACLU, in the Washington DC office, when he was found dead last Friday, apparently of natural causes while jogging in Rock Creek Park. Most people have never heard of Larry, who spent his professional life as a legislative lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union. That means that, in an age in which "bipartisanship" is as mythical a beast as a unicorn, Larry worked behind the scenes with both "left" and "right" legislators to protect the civil rights "for all, even those who disagreed with him," says a salute to his legacy in the Philly Daily News In Harrisburg, he was liberal in a notoriously conservative environment, but Frankel built unlikely coalitions to advance civil liberties. He was one of the first people to sound the alarm about the high cost of incarceration and worked to reform sentencing laws.....A master at reading and understanding legislation, he often sounded the alarm on negative implications of bills under consideration. The local obit quoted Vic Walczak, Pennsylvania's legal director and a long-time friend: Larry relished making common cause with usual ACLU foes more than anything, I think.... He took great joy in those situations. I can't claim to have been a close buddy, but I knew -- and liked and respected -- him for many years. He worked hard to protect the United Stated Constitution and the civil liberties it stands for. He will be greatly missed. More on Civil Rights
 
Esther J. Cepeda: Add This Health Care Solution to the Debate: Mexican and Latin American Folk Remedies for the Ultimate Do-It-Yourselfer Top
I am not a curandera -- healing woman -- nor do I play one on TV. Also, I am not an abuelita -- granny -- old world to me means fax machines. But seeing how the health care debate the country is having with itself has devolved into shouting matches at town halls -- and the CDC announced last week that any vaccine for H1N1 flu might not be available until maybe mid-October -- I present you with cheap, alternative health care solutions for these troubled times. They may not be as fancy-pantsy as an IV dripped dose of good old U.S. un-socialized health care but -- for reminiscing and entertainment purposes only -- here's a little something for what ails ya', straight from the legions of associates of the Esther J. Cepeda Rule of Thumb Public Policy Institute, a bipartisan think tank. Baby colic: When babies get fussy, take the dad's shirt that's been worn and has his "scent" and rub it all over the baby as you say a prayer. Alternatively, hover a raw egg in the sign of the cross over the baby while praying -- these get rid of the mal ojo or evil eye, according to 80 percent of abuelitas polled. Also, grains of salt administered orally. Not doing it? Boil one whole, intact chicken foot and let the kid suck on it for awhile. Burns: administer urine liberally - preferably your own, but in a pinch, I imagine anyone's will do - immediately. Reportedly also excellent for fever blisters and insect stings. According to the pop singer, Madonna, it also works for foot fungus. Common cold: Vicks Vapo Rub- "VeeVapoRoo" to the uninitiated - and lot's of it! Oh this was also cited as a remarkable salve for sore throat and headache. Alternatively, a shot of tequila with honey and lemon. Cough: "iron" the chest with a warm - not hot - iron. Lacking that hardware, boil garlic in milk and drink. Cuts/wounds: apply a fresh spider web, much like you would use gauze. Alternatively, apply the membrane from the inside of an eggshell. In a pinch, pack a wound with tobacco from a cigarette - preferably unlit. Constipation: mineral water - administer liberal doses both orally and, ummm, rectally. Diarrhea: Coca-Cola with lemon. Some swear by 7-Up, though all carbonated beverages are highly recommended for any stomach ailment. Ear ache: Roll up a newspaper into a cone-shape and light the end on fire to cure an inner ear-ache (not for ear infections). Also, a candle or lit cigarette held to the ear opening. "It definitely works!" - or so I hear. Eyes/ foreign object in eyes : rub (long) hair on eye until soothed. Also, avocado smeared on the eyes to promote long, beautiful lashes. Fever: take a gordita or other puffy tortilla-like foodstuff and affix to the pained belly area with rubbing alcohol. General malaise: Vick's Vapor Rub. Smear, sniff, or spread on face or afflicted area. Headache : two wet leaves of hierbabuena, AKA mint, placed on each temple. Leave on until headache goes away. Also suggested are slices of potatoes affixed to each side of the forehead. Hangover: a slice of pan Bimbo, a brand of sliced white bread, soaked in pure cane alcohol affixed to the stomach area. Insect Stings: tobacco leaves affixed to the sting. Of course, there's also urine...see "Burns" above. Insomnia/sleeplessness: For a kid that can't sleep, bathe in lettuce water, then put to sleep with a leaf of lettuce under pillow. Menstrual cramps: hierbabuena - mint - in tea form. (Do Mentos count?) Sore throat: Mash a roasted tomato and, while still warm, place on soles of feet and wrap in a sock. Alternately, roasted tomato slices laid directly on the throat. Also, a concoction of chopped garlic, lemon juice and honey is common. Less common: fresh-killed lagartijos - little lizards - for a verrrrry sore throat. Slice the lizard's underside to get the organs out and apply to throat. "It worked!" someone swore to me. One more, and this quote is just too precious to mar with my pen: "And let's not forget the pulling of the hair in just the right spots of each side of the head to reduce the swollen tonsils." Stomach ache: a hot cup of manzanilla, AKA chamomile, tea. A tablespoon of olive oil is also common. For the really bad pains, rub stomach with a pasty mix of lard and baking soda (not baking powder). Stiff neck: affix a pair of "worn" underwear - "yours or someone else's" - around neck to straighten out a sore neck. Alternately, get a few friends to roll you around on a taut blanket. Toothache: Pack the tooth in allspice. Re-apply as necessary. People please - do not report me to the self-medication police! This information proves only that...drumroll please...the Placebo Effect is real! Esther J. Cepeda dispenses all sorts of folksy wisdom on www.600words.com More on Health Care
 
Disgrasian: Hello My Concubine [SO-CALLED TRENDS] Top
British newspaper The Independent reported last week that concubines are making a comecuback in China due to the return of capitalism. This is particularly fascinating to me because my great-great-grandmother was a concubine. She was the only "wife" of my great-great-grandfather able to give him a son--my maternal grandmother's father--which was considered the socially-acceptable reason to take on a concubine in those days (as opposed to just keeping them around for sex). But as I read the Independent piece, "Chinese Concubines Return Thanks To Increasing Capitalism," which cited one corrupt government official after another keeping mistresses and sometimes offering those women kickbacks, I began to wonder what the difference was between a concubine and a mistress. Was it only semantics? Or was there some kind of legal difference? As it turns out, concubinage has always been differentiated from having a mistress because of its legal status. According to the Reference.com encyclopedia: Concubines have limited rights of support from the man, and their offspring are publicly acknowledged as the man's children, albeit of lower status than children born by the official wife or wives; these legal rights distinguish a concubine from a mistress. Since having concubines has been illegal in China since the founding of the Republic in 1912, why are these modern-day Chinese mistresses being called "concubines"? Why is The Independent insisting that China's bringing back this "feudal institution" ? Oh right. Because we're talking about China . Exotic, mysterious, fetish-y, weird, sexually perverse China. Land of half-a-billion sideways vaginas. Got it. [via HuffPo ] More on China
 
Marcel Pacatte: Wanted: Suitable Senate Candidate Top
If you think things are bad now in Illinois, with Blagojevich and Burris and Jesse Jackson Jr. and who knows what else, it could be worse. Here's a three-paragraph history lesson: In the 1920s, the U.S. Senate refused to seat the man appointed by the governor -- for two years! -- because of corruption allegations over his fundraising. And on top of that, the governor who appointed him to the vacant seat was indicted and tried -- while in office! -- over a (separate) massive embezzlement scheme. He was acquitted, and completed his term. And four of the jurors -- wink, wink -- got state jobs for their troubles. The senate appointee, Frank Smith, had defeated the incumbent in the Republican primary in 1926. When the incumbent died before his term expired, Gov. Len Small, a brazen charlatan who makes Rod Blagojevich seem comparatively timid, appointed the duly-elected Smith to the seat the same day. However, allegations over how Smith had raised the money to mount his campaign -- namely, have it bankrolled by a utilities magnate Smith regulated in his previous job as chairman of the state's commerce commission -- caused the senate to refuse to accept Smith's credentials. Smith eventually gave up -- o, for a simpler era, when some crooks had the humility to realize when to go away. But that was then and this is now and even with Burris not contending for the seat in next year's election, a survey of the scene does not inspire confidence. No one in the race or mentioned as a candidate has the resume or experience or heft required of a U.S. Senator. In fact, the 'bench' in Illinois is pretty weak right now, among both Democrats and Republicans. This is in part due to the decimation caused by the rampaging corruption of the Blagojevich-Ryan years, sparing no party from being tarred -- if it's not participation, it's complicity, tolerance or ignorance, none of them good foundations for an electoral platform. But we still need a Senator, so what's to be done? The first temptation is to call someone out of retirement -- Peter Fitzgerald, Abner Mikva, Dawn Clark Netsch, Adlai Stevenson -- and ask them to preside over a blue-ribbon restoration of confidence in the precincts of power. I doubt any of them, alas, would be interested. Then there's the temptation to draft Patrick Collins, who has demonstrated himself to be above reproach. He, alas, steadfastly disavows interest in running for office. His protege on the Illinois Reform Commission, David Hoffman, is in the race and certainly demonstrates one of the chief attributes a Senator should possess: courage. But Hoffman lacks the other necessary bona fides, such as registering in the public consciousness. Even Collins lacks on that count; he's not well-known in many of the state's 102 counties. So we need courage, statewide name recognition, passion and someone free from the taint of scandal. Maybe we do need a dream team of Fitzgerald, Mikva, Netsch and Stevenson and some others to swoop back in and give us a reprieve from ourselves. And during that time, let's cultivate a next-gen class of pols who don't write smarmy letters to get rules bent for staffers or donors or cronies, who don't cut deals that cause federal prosecutors to perk up, who aren't beholden to a Daley or a Madigan or a DuPage machine, who don't sit idly and mutely while corruption flourishes, and who are willing to fight for all of the people of Illinois. I'm sure those people are out there. We just need to give them a little sunlight and water to take root and flourish. The last great -- truly great -- Senator Illinois had was a guy who went to Washington with one prior elective office, that of Chicago alderman. Can you imagine any of the 50 sitting alderman advancing to the United States Senate? And he got there by defeating a popular incumbent. How'd he do it? He campaigned tirelessly for six months -- renting a sound truck and traveling more than 40,000 miles around the state. He let the people of Illinois know him, know what he stood for, see him in the flesh and be able to trust him. He wanted it, and he wanted to put his ideas into action. His name was Paul Douglas. There are other Paul Douglases out there today. We must encourage them to enter the arena. More on Senate Races
 
Mark Konkol and Todd Fooks: Keeping Score in Chicago Episode XX: Rick Bayless - it Tastes Better in Chicago Top
After Fook and Konkol chew on a Halal-approved lamb kabob appetizer, Rick Bayless of Frontera Grill talks about his big win on "Top Chef Masters," your chances of getting a table at Topolobampo, the opening of his new fast food joint and why he'll never open a restaurant in Los Angeles. The guys advise Cubs loafer Milton Bradley on how to be a better man. Plus, another round of Speed Score. Get your listen on, or Rick Bayless will force feed you a fresh Habanero. Seriously. Be sure to check out Keeping Score in Chicago for more information and previous episodes.
 
Andrew Cohen: My One and Only Kennedy Funeral Top
I was not born or raised during Camelot. I wasn't but a twinkle in my father's eye in November 1963. And I was not yet two years old when John F. Kennedy's younger brother, Robert, the torch bearer, was murdered in Los Angeles. So, like tens of millions of other Americans of a certain age, old enough to care but too young to have experienced in any sentient way the shocking events of that time, I have just lived through in real time my first, official, nearly-week-long mourning for a Kennedy. Having watched countless hours of videotape of the other two Kennedy assassinations and funerals, I felt this past week a longing and an emptiness beyond that which fairly measures the accomplishments of the life (and the death) of Edward M. Kennedy. It's as if his absence now from the world makes the absence of his fallen brothers even more pronounced. And that those of us who missed the assassinations of the 1960s, the sudden death and encompassing sorrow, missed a part of America that is gone forever. Like September 10, 2001. Watching the pomp and the passion of the week's poignant events, tinged with so many echoes of 1963 and 1968, reminded me of questions I had not asked myself in decades. What was it really like to live in this country on the day Robert Kennedy's funeral train passed by those Little Leaguers and thousands of others standing beside those railroad tracks between New York and Washington? What was it really like to live in Manhattan in on November 25 1963, a day during which legendary New York Times correspondent Johnny Apple described the city as "a vast church"? I spent an entire day in November 1988 --the 25th anniversary of the death of President Kennedy --holed up in a tiny apartment in Boston watching the six-hour NBC video of that network's coverage of the assassination. That year, I also devoured the book Robert Kennedy In His Own Words , a sad and eerie compilation of the speeches of the slain candidate. At the time, 21 years ago, Edward Kennedy was not the redeemed legend he has now become. Back then, in Massachusetts and elsewhere, he was often a joke. No one is laughing now. Until now, there was always one more Kennedy. President Kennedy wasn't even in the ground before America starting talking about Bobby in the White House. And Bobby was barely buried when we started talking about Teddy picking up the standard. But now, for the first time since 1953, there is no Kennedy in the United States Senate. And now, for the first time ever, the country buried a Kennedy brother who had grown old and sick and whose death was anticipated and prepared for in all respects. We remember the older Kennedy brothers not just for what they were but for what we hoped they would become. We will remember the younger Kennedy brother not for what he could have been but for what he was. It was enough. His back-breaking work for personal redemption alone, never mind the legislative accomplishments, may be his most lasting legacy. The lesson was a simple one: never, ever give up because if you last long enough things can come around. Things may eventually come around. But that doesn't mean you can go back in time. Looking for echoes and the empathy of a past I was too young to know, I felt sadness this week but the absence of shock; grief but the absence of anger; prayer but the absence of the Devil. Maybe that's the way it is supposed to be when old men, even famous old men, die. Maybe September 11, 2001, the seminal single day of my own age, changed forever how we are supposed to look at life and death and the end of familiar narratives and false securities. And I'll never again get another chance. There will be no more Kennedy funerals on this scale -- at least not in my lifetime. They are all gone now, the glamorous ones with that rare Trifecta -- fame, riches, and high office. And no one from the family's "younger" generation (those Kennedys roughly my own age), or the generation even younger than that, seems ready or particularly eager to seek to break through into national wonder. Of course I don't blame them. They owe nothing to anyone. They've done their part and now I've done my part, too, having been fated by timing to pick up the Kennedy family narrative only after its darkest days. I grieved for the only Kennedy brother I had ever known, mourned in a way I reckon matched his life's work, and endure in the humble knowledge that, in the end, the depth of what I felt wasn't remotely close to what my parents had known, in their own time, when they had grieved for their own fallen Kennedys. More on Ted Kennedy
 
ProPublica: Stimulus Lobbying Disclosure Promise Still Not Fulfilled Top
By Olga Pierce , ProPublica. To curb the lobbying feeding frenzy surrounding the nearly $800 billion stimulus package , in March the Obama administration imposed unprecedented restrictions on lobbyists: All lobbyist communications regarding specific projects were to be submitted in writing, and general conversations between government officials and lobbyists about stimulus policies had to be noted in disclosures posted online. We decided to track this promise with a clock --so far it's at 94 days and counting--and there is no sign it will be stopping any time soon. As we noted in May, though more than 800 lobbyists had registered to lobby on stimulus issues, only a handful actually appeared in lobbying disclosures on agency Web sites. Instead, lobbying firms were sending junior employees who were not registered lobbyists, or arranging direct meetings between government officials and clients. After pressure from lobbyists and First Amendment groups, the Obama Administration later revised the rules [6] so that all oral communications had to be disclosed, not just those with registered lobbyists. Under the revised rules, the disclosures are only required for lobbying around just $88 billion worth of stimulus funding to be distributed through competitive grants. Outside of the competitive grants, the old rules still apply: Government employees only have to disclose oral communications with registered lobbyists. But as the Associated Press recently reported, the rule change hasn't resulted in any spike of disclosures : In August there were a grand total of eight contacts disclosed. White House Office of Management and Budget Spokesman Tom Gavin told the AP the dearth of disclosures was due to the fact that agencies were still adjusting to the new process.
 
Zandile Blay: Where Is He Now? Nineties Hip-Hop Icon Is Selling Suits Top
Well, well, well so if you've ever wondered, "What is that crazy 'Kid' from the 1990s rap group 'Kid-n-Play' doing?" We've found him. The 'Kid' is a grown man now, and he's selling suits. But not just any suits, they are SW Suits. And what's so special about SW Suits? As Kid explains, the Carson, California chain allows you to "get clean" for special occasions. "Let's say you are trying to take your lady out, trying to take your momma out, or one of your homies got shot," he deadpans in the video. The artist, turned stand-up comedian's best line has got to be the question he delivers early on: "I know what you are thinking, what is Christopher "Kid" Reid doing in a suit and tie?" (No. I was wondering what he is doing selling suits and ties.) But I've got to respect it. In these tough economic times I love to see a man generate some income however he can. And honestly, being a spokesperson for a local chain store is a pretty savvy way to do it. But it does make me reflect on this fact: if you or I should ever get our big break to be top selling artists with movie deals, I can only hope that we invest our money just a little better. Read more from Zandile on her daily fashion news blog The Blay Report .
 
Rob Johnson: Jim Chanos Warned Brown, Geithner, and Others about Coming Financial Crash in 2007 Top
They say they didn't see it coming. They say there was no way they could have known. But they were warned. And here's the proof. On April 17, 2007, famed short-seller Jim Chanos and other hedge fund managers met under tight security at the World Bank in Washington for the G-8 meeting. Chanos and Paul Singer briefed prominent policy officials about the growing financial instability. They gave irrefutable evidence that a catastrophe was building. They told officials that banks that were about to sink the global economy. They called for decisive action. And they were ignored. Gordon Brown was there. His presence has sparked a recent uproar in the UK following a radio interview with Chanos. Timothy Geithner was also there. Gillian Tett's best-selling book Fool's Gold outlines the meeting and how Chanos's dire warnings left little impression on the powerful men in the room. Robert Johnson, Director the Economic Policy Initiative of the Roosevelt Institute, talks to Chanos about this meeting and its consequences. Complete transcript and audio available. Interview Highlights: Jim Chanos: ...If you recall, before April of '07 there were some very, very ominous cracks in the walls of finance that occurred. You remember that the Bear Stearns hedge fund blow up occurred in June. So that was still two months away. But we had had in the fall and winter of '06-'07 the first falterings of some U.S. non-bank financials in the subprime area, New Century and others, that had begun to stumble with large amounts of default in recent loans. If you recall the peak in loan issuance, I believe, was late-'05 and early-'06 for this area. And then you had in February, late-January and February of '07, HSBC, the big global banking giant, which had bought Household International, a U.S. subprime lender, began to - through experiencing severe deterioration in its U.S. subprime portfolio. So there was not just conjecture at this point. There was some sign posts along the road already. Finally, for anybody who was tracking it, the sort of artificial market indices that were set up to track these esoteric debt instruments like collateralized debt obligations, CDO's, and so on and so forth, had begun to crack pretty hard in February, March from par to somewhere, as I recall, par being 100, down to the high 70's or low 80's. So already a market indicator of subprime health had already become to deteriorate rather dramatically by the time this meeting occurred. Rob Johnson: And you also mentioned in other conversations we've had about this episode that SEC releases, the 10K reports, were indicating some very, very substantial vulnerability among the major financial institutions. Jim Chanos: Well, that's what got me very concerned. In the two week period between the end of March '07 and my presentation mid-April, my staff had begun to review the SEC 10K filings, which are the annual reports that companies file at the SEC. And for the very first time we were getting a glimpse under the hood like we never had. And which big banks and brokers were telling us how many of their financial assets that were securities were either Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3. Those numbers [for] Level 2 and Level 3 were off the charts when my staff looked at them in April of '07. And I think there was a growing sense on the street in that two week period among some reporters that were writing about it and other hedge fund managers that looked at the same things we looked at, that my God, these numbers were far worse than we thought, and the banks were far more leveraged to the most hard to value illiquid assets than we thought. Rob Johnson: We actually even saw, as the crisis unfolded, many of them used the mystery of Level 3 assets to mock up valuations to hide their losses elsewhere. I would say we really were in an area that was what you might call pregnant with the possibility of hiding things or misreporting things, but the overall context that you're describing is a system that's way overburdened and very, very vulnerable and potentially gonna drop a big, big bill on the taxpayers shoulders. Jim Chanos: ...The lessons that we thought we had learned in 2001 and 2002 from the Enron debacle, which led to Sarbanes-Oxley shortly thereafter, you know, less than three or four years later were being repeated in the banking sector. It's quite remarkable if you think about it. Rob Johnson: ...How did the G7 ministers at the time react to your presentation? Jim Chanos: Well, I'll preface it by saying that the other manager, Mr. Singer, went first, and I'm sort of glad he did because his firm was actively monitoring some of these esoteric instruments in his hedge fund. He traded in them. And his presentation involved the instruments themselves and what I - these structured finance products were sold as AAA safe securities to a large number of people because of their structure and because of the various natures of the accounting and the insurance behind them, which we now know in many cases was written by AIG, by the way. And that these were not AAA securities and that the toxic tranches were at this point almost worthless despite what banks might be carrying them on, and that if there's any more deterioration in the residential real estate market, which we now know, of course, there was, that large amounts of securities that people thought were going to be AAA were not going to be. And all the assumptions behind this giant structured finance system were suspect, and he gave some examples and then he referred to the HSBC, he referred to these indices cracking. So he sort of set the stage for my presentation which followed his. And mine simply was, "Well, if you believe Mr. Singer, and I do, the problem is not going to be with us, i.e. hedge funds. It's going to be with institutions that you already heavily regulate, the large banks and brokers. Because that's where this stuff resides." And I began to recount the numbers that we just talked about a few minutes ago in this call, the Level 2 and Level 3 assets to tangible equity, the stunning amounts of leverage involved in the system, the nature of the accounting of these pieces of paper that was highly subjective, the growth in those Level 2 and Level 3 assets in the past two years, and why this all could easily, if there was any distress in residential real estate or subprime spread to other areas, could cause a crack up in the world's largest financial institutions. And, you know, the numbers were what they were. They were irrefutable. So whether you agreed with the conclusion or not was a different matter, but they were what they were. And that's why I sounded the alarm on the banks and brokers. And, I, of course, indicated that as a result of our work we had gone short for our clients, the largest institutions, most of them anyway. So I made sure to obviously disclose that. But I felt that on the other hand, the public policy ramifications of pointing this out far dwarfed anything that was gonna happen to my fund or anybody else's for that matter. The fact we were looking at just a giant, giant canyon of capital losses. Rob Johnson: Let me, before we talk about the response of the officials, underscore what you just said. You would be viewed by a policymaker as someone who's earning their livelihood from your portfolio, and policymakers are skeptical of listing to market participants because they think the investor is trying to cajole them in a direction that enhances their returns. But in this case you're disclosing that you're short these institutions, and you're talking to them, warning them, in a way that could mitigate a crisis and diminish the returns that you would otherwise obtain. So in essence, you are talking about public policy here very distinctly from what would benefit you... Jim Chanos: I do have four children and I sometimes put other things beyond any financial return, and the size of this problem was so large that, you know, if I wasn't going to sound the alarm bells certainly I figured someone else would, and I was being asked by the U.S. government to come and give a presentation and give my thoughts freely and I took that seriously. I thought it was important if we had done this work that we pointed out at this point already some well respected members of the financial press. I'd already written columns about this Level 2, Level 3 assets relative to tangible equity. So it was, I felt, not the first, but it certainly I wasn't going to also abrogate my responsibility and not say anything. In fact, I thought it was that important. Rob Johnson: I'm just trying to underscore that they should not see your message as conflicted. Jim Chanos: Oh, if they had taken the right policy actions at that point I probably wouldn't have made near the amount of money that I made, nor would my clients. You're absolutely right about that. Rob Johnson: Let's talk about how people reacted to you then and then in the aftermath of the meeting. What - without picking on particular policymakers, what - how did they look at you? How did they react? Were they curious? Were they dismissive? How would you describe it? Jim Chanos: Well, there was a lot of sort of - you have to keep in mind this was Sunday afternoon. You're at the end of the conference. But I think we were seen probably as much as an annoyance as anything else from people who wanted to catch a plane or get home. But there was some uncomfortable paper shuffling. There was sort of, you know, that looking at the ceiling across the table. There was a bit of eye rolling. There's no doubt about that. And at the end of my talk the fellow running the meeting asked if there was any questions. There were literally no questions and at that point the Chair of the meeting said, "Well, that's all very interesting and now what do you think about insurance." And it was just that complete realization that we've got - it just didn't sink in, the import was not grasped, certainly by the Chair, that they were gonna move on to the next item on the agenda with nary a bit of discussion. And then shortly after the meeting ended, a few hours later, there were two central bankers, both EU central bankers who came up to me and with their assistants and we exchanged contact information, and both said they thought that my presentation was very interesting and if I had anything additional please send it to them, and to keep in touch and blah, blah, blah. And that was sort of it. I was thanked by the U.S. delegation and we went on our way. And both Paul Singer and I left the room sort of incredulous that the presentation...really elicited no official questions or comments. Rob Johnson: And let's take and now look at - we've had a crisis, we have many policy officials, including Gordon Brown, who will attest that there was no way they could have seen it coming, which I would say today's conversation contradicts rather violently. And now they've made a series of proposals. You have the G20 reports, the Financial Stability Forum, which is now called the Financial Stability Board, and others are going to meet more. You're going to appoint the Federal Reserve as the systemic regulator. It feels to me like we're kind of shuffling the deck chairs. It feels to me like the same people who ignored your presentation are the people who are trying to reassure the public that they have the expertise and if they just talk a little more on the phone or meet a little more frequently that somehow that's gonna solve the problem. Am I being too cynical? Jim Chanos: I don't... think you're being too cynical at all. The ability of these organizations to move quickly and consult each other is glacial. So in markets that move so quickly and deteriorate so rapidly, you know, the need to call a G20 staff meeting or, you know, convene boards and get everybody together and then, first of all, you know, agree on protocol, and then agree on the principals and then agree on steps. You know, by that time the target in question of their interest might be in smoking ruins. ...We're going to have this problem come up again and again, because, in fact, institutions like the large banks and brokers will do their best to both engage in regulatory capture and use whatever accounting rules are open to them legally to obfuscate any problem areas. We've seen this time and time again in the banking industry and the brokerage industry in the 20th Century. I see no reason why that won't continue. We've already seen a movement toward it in the move - the lobbying by the banks in the spring of '09, this year, to liberalize the mark-to-market rules and make more opaque balance sheets. You should think, if anything, we've learned to tighten up the accounting and to make things more transparent so that the Jim Chanos', the Paul Singer's, can make these warnings in the future and point these things out. Instead, they've made that job more difficult at the request of the banks. So you've already seen that this is not going to work. This piece was originally published on New Deal 2.0 More on Banks
 
Ami Horowitz: My Trip to Bizarro World Top
I have recently completed a movie called U.N. Me http://unmemovie.com , which chronicles my adventures in trying to figure out exactly where the United Nations went wrong in its pursuit of peace and a more prosperous world. Obviously it's a dark comedy. Although we already wrapped up principle shooting, we decided to attend the United Nation's marquee Human Rights Conference on racism in Geneva. U.N. Me uses heavy doses of humor and irony to get our point across, and we predicted that those elements would be in abundance at this conference. We were not disappointed. The conference began with an Orwellian bang, as the honor of first keynote speaker was given to none other than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran. While the incongruous nature of such an invitation is obvious to most people in the world, the ironic nuance of inviting a women-stoning, gay hanging, genocide advocate to speak at a human rights conference is lost on the United Nations. Unfortunately for the world, but fortunately for my movie, the U.N.'s bizarre and obsequious treatment towards tyrants and totalitarians knows no bounds. At the media tent I was immediately greeted and handed a welcome folder by a lovely looking lady, or at least I think she was lovely; it was hard to tell because she was in a buhrka. The folder had an image of a Star of David, an equal sign and a swastika. The text read: Zionism is Racism. This struck me as odd since the U.N is such an eternal and faithful friend to Israel. After all, the U.N only had that statement as an official resolution for sixteen years. When I realized that she was part of the Iranian delegation's welcome committee, I immediately tried to to flirt with her (in her case flirting entails discussing the destruction of the state of Israel) in order to secure an interview with Ahmadinejad. she agreed to arrange the interview. We were asked to meet them later that evening at the Iranian delegations' hotel, the Intercontinental. Since I was arranging a meeting with a long time benefactor of terrorists who has been assassinating opponents in Europe for years and I was quite frankly planning on engaging in some confrontational behavior, I decided to secure some muscle to accompany me and my team to the meeting. We contracted a very nice Frenchman to cover our security. We will call him Pierre. In order not to alarm our congenial Iranian hosts, I tried to hide Pierre in plain site by handing him a boom mike. It is not easy to mask a very hard looking man with a shaved head, frowning lips and constantly darting eyes, even with a boom mike. As we sat in the hotel lobby waiting for our Iranian hosts, a troubling question began to percolate in my mind. I asked Pierre if he was armed. Pierre casually replied that he was "only" carrying a gun and two knives. The second knife was there, presumably, in case of emergency. For instance, if the first knife failed by breaking off as it penetrated his opponent's larynx. The problem was that we would probably be searched and upon discovering this small arms cache I envisioned a very unfortunate situation would then unfold. I asked him if there was a way he could casually dump his weapons without arousing any suspicion. He shrugged and proceeded to the nearest bathroom. He very calmly took his weapons out, placed them in a plastic bag and checked them with the bellman, as if he was asking the kid to stow away his recent purchase of an I heart Switzerland t-shirt and snow globe. After a couple hours of cooling our heels in the lobby, one of the President's henchmen came downstairs with the disheartening news that the great leader was tired and decided to go to sleep instead of meeting with us. We asked for and received an alternative diplomat to answer our questions. Since Ahmadinejad just spoke at the U.N. Human Rights conference, our conversation with the Iranian diplomat naturally began with the state of Iranian human rights. Without a hint of irony in his voice, he decried the West's idea of a global human rights standard, as an antiquated colonial ideal. The view of his country and indeed much of the dictatorial world is that human rights are a value invented by the west in order to augment their global influence. Never mind the inconsequential fact that the idea of human rights as a normative value is imbedded in the fabric of the United Nations charter and in its Universal Declaration of Human Right. Iran and their cronies believe that human rights are in reality a fungible term that should be interpreted in vastly different and interesting ways. For instance, according to Iran, human rights in his country do not apply to homosexuals or women. Despite Ahmadinejad's declaration that there are no gays in Iran, the Iranian diplomat admitted that they indeed have a "gay problem" (being gay in Iran is illegal). Iran deals with their "gay problem" in a bizarre and terrible manner. If the person in question cannot straighten themselves out and was in the words of this diplomat "physically gay" there were certain options available. For instance, if they wanted a sex change, the magnanimous socialized Iranian health care system would pay for it. Alternatively, if he didn't want a sex change, the Iranian government would still pay for it. If for some reason or another all options failed, the Iranian government had a cure-all, the person in question would be hanged. My conversation with the Iranian diplomat then turned to women's rights. He said that we in liberal democratic societies, who fight for women's rights around the world, arrogantly do not take into account the fact that many women do not want those rights, silly things like freedom of movement. The Iranian diplomat mentioned that the right for a woman to leave her home when she chooses and to be able to go where ever she chooses is not a right that some Islamic cultures feel should be granted to their women-folk and we should in his words, "respect that". As a father of two daughters I was kind of leaning towards his position on that one. Whenever I spend a significant amount of time around the United Nations, I began to feel as if I have left the world that I know, which is beholden to Newtonian physics, and have entered an entirely different place with a new set of bizarre rules and laws. In fact the United Nations has more than a passing resemblance to Bizarro World, a fictional, comic book planet. In Bizarro world, society is ruled by the Bizarro Code which states that everything is the opposite of what it should be. In Bizarro world, Superman is bad, all ugliness is extolled and they even sell Bizarro bonds with this pithy pitch: "Guaranteed to lose money for you". The United Nations does not reside in New York, Vienna or Geneva, it resides in Bizarro world. Only in such an inverted and warped world does an institution dedicated to the security of man (an in Iran only the straight man) elevate Syria, one of the world's great sponsors of terrorism, to the presidency of the security council; elect Sudan, currently committing genocide, to the human rights commission; and invite Mahmud Ahmadinejad, the president of one of the great human rights violating countries in the world, to be the key note speaker at their biggest human rights conference of the year. Only in Bizarro world and only in the United Nations. (See our interview below) value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3vzlVvqKPp8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&ap=%2526fmt%3D22"> name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"> src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3vzlVvqKPp8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&ap=%2526fmt%3D22" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295">
 
Beau Friedlander: It's Time To Fire Glenn Beck Top
Tuesday Glenn Beck crossed the Rubicon of human decency. He equated Reverend Jeremiah Wright with Van Jones and wondered if the FBI knowingly turned a blind eye to a black militant communist. For a couple days now Beck has railed against the Obama administration for appointing Van Jones Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Van Jones is one of the brightest lights in activist circles. He is a Yale graduate whose pro-business, pro-green professionalism is planting the seeds for a new generation of entrepreneurs whose focus is to make the planet a better place through better stewardship of communities and the environment. Van Jones is American through and through, and about as communist as, well, Glenn Beck. So why is Beck attacking Van Jones? He is a racist, hatemongering mouthpiece for all that is vile on the right, and Fox News must take him off the air. There is no longer any justification for honoring his contract. He poses a danger to society. He is mouthpiece for the worst tendencies in right wing politics. Glenn Beck has now formed an argument based solely on the fear of a black planet. He has become a spokesperson for white nationalism. He has turned clownish political theater into perilous ideological cant that encourages the worst tendencies of knee-jerk reactionary politics and makes Rush Limbaugh look like Ralph Nader. To date, Beck has lost 46 advertisers from his program. That's great. Let's take it a step further: Anyone caught buying any product advertised on Fox News, any service touted there, or patronizing anything at all in any way associated with Fox News, or in anyway benefiting that company or any of its holdings, is as un-American as the hate spewed by this contemptuous man. It is time to remove this blight from the media landscape. More on Glenn Beck
 
Dana Sachs: Operation BabyLift: Ted Kennedy and the Orphans of Vietnam Top
This week, many people have recollected their interactions with Senator Edward Kennedy. I also met him -- in the pages of a 34-year-old transcript I discovered while researching a book about the war in Vietnam. My research involved Operation Babylift, the U.S.-sponsored evacuation, and subsequent overseas adoption, of several thousand children from Saigon at the end of the war. The transcript came from an April 8, 1975, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing titled, "Indochina Evacuation and Refugee Problems, Part I: Operation Babylift and Humanitarian Needs." The chair of the subcommittee was Ted Kennedy, 43 years old and 13 years into his Senate career. By early April 1975, the war in Vietnam was nearly over but the misery was intensifying every day. The North Vietnamese-backed final offensive had displaced hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom were dying of starvation and disease. "Tragedy is piled on tragedy," Senator Kennedy said in his opening remarks. He recognized a "deep and despairing sense of helplessness among the American people" over what was happening in Vietnam. At the hearing, he hoped to find answers to a simple question: Why, after so many millions of dollars in aid had been promised to Vietnam, were we still witnessing so much suffering? Operation Babylift was a case in point. By the time of Kennedy's hearing, these displaced children had begun to arrive in the United States and they were very, very sick. In an interview with The New York Times , Dr. Alex Stalcup, who had witnessed their arrival in San Francisco, described it as "the most incredible scene of deprivation and illness I've ever seen." These children, however, had come from orphanages in Vietnam, which were supposed to have benefited from millions of dollars in U.S. aid. Senator Kennedy called upon Daniel Parker, administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). On the question of the Operation Babylift children, the senator asked, "How do you explain their poor condition?" At first, Parker dodged the question. "I do not think the condition on arrival of orphans making the flight of some 10,000 or 12,000 miles is necessarily an indication of the condition in which they left. This is a rigorous flight," he reminded the senator. "It is a flight halfway around the world." Kennedy was unconvinced. "You do not get viral pneumonia, chicken pox, dehydration on an American plane in a period of 30 hours," he retorted. He noted that Congress had appropriated $10 million for childcare, but USAID had only spent $3.9 million of that money. Clearly, Vietnam's children had suffered the consequences. For comparison, the senator cited another fact. Out of $77.8 million appropriated for industrial development, $77.8 million had actually been spent. "What do you say about priorities?" Kennedy demanded. Parker hedged. For the next few minutes, the discussion centered on technical questions, like the use of Vietnamese piasters versus dollars, and the different meanings of the words "allotted" and "obligated" in aid budgets. Other senators might have zoned out. Kennedy, however, dominated the debate. By mastering the facts, Kennedy rendered the government's actions indefensible. Near the end of their exchange, Daniel Parker tried to assert that refugee relief expenditures had nearly doubled since the previous day. Kennedy seemed incredulous. "In the last 24 hours you have gone from $25.8 to $41.6 million; is that right?" Parker didn't like the senator's tone. "That implies that we made a capricious and arbitrary decision," he said. "Exactly," the senator shot back. "That is not only an implication. That is the conclusion I have made." As I read these words thirty years later, I realized that Kennedy was not only smart enough to use the facts to his advantage, but also brave enough to speak the truth. He displayed a wisdom and fortitude that Americans needed in that dismal moment. Speaking on NPR after Senator Kennedy's death, John Sununu, the prominent Republican, attributed the senator's effectiveness to his practicality and willingness to cross party lines. He mentioned, too, that the senator "always came prepared," which "made him a formidable opponent." Kennedy's quick-witted exchange with a hapless government bureaucrat three decades ago show both his capability and his moral clarity. Here were the talents that ultimately made him an intensely effective legislator. That's the Ted Kennedy I know.
 
David A. Harris: Look Who's Coming To Dinner Top
Wait - Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, is coming to the Ramadan dinner hosted tonight by President Barack Obama? After reading this in Talking Points Memo, I paused to make sure I read it right. There's nothing surprising about the now-annual tradition of a White House Ramadan dinner; started by President Bill Clinton and continued in George W. Bush's White House, this practice has become a thoughtful but regular part of the calendar in Washington. But Israel's ambassador joining representatives from numerous Arab and Muslim countries to break the Ramadan fast? I believe that such a powerful gesture breathes new life into the words Obama gave voice to in Cairo, but more on that in a bit. It actually makes great sense for Israel's representative to have a seat around the Ramadan dinner table. Israel is home to well over a million Muslims, and it's a country - unlike those around it - that provides real religious freedom. While many of the world's Muslims may not know it, the Jewish State actually funds many mosques and the printing of Korans. So when viewed in this light, Ambassador Oren's presence is completely kosher. The president and this administration of course know this, and extending this invitation is a public recognition of these facts. More importantly, Israel's unprecedented inclusion in such an event reflects Obama's ultimate vision of inclusiveness - and it presses representatives of Arab states to sit and break bread with Israel's ambassador. Let's face it; ambassadors from some Arab states were probably not too thrilled to learn that Israel was joining in on a big night with the president. The White House is clearly demonstrating its commitment to stand by first principles, including advancing the cause of peace. So how does a simple dinner invitation help bring the president's Cairo address to life? Let's take a look back. In Obama's landmark Cairo speech, he proposed pressing the proverbial "reset button" on the relationship between the United States and the world's Muslims. The president suggested that by focusing on mutual respect and through listening to one another, we could begin our relationship anew. And elsewhere in that same speech, the president spoke eloquently about the need to pursue peace between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. He also talked clearly about the U.S.-Israel relationship, asserting again - for all the world to hear - that "America's strong bonds with Israel are well known," adding that "this bond is unbreakable." Inviting Oren gives further life to these words. The White House is reminding the Arab and Muslim world that Oren represents a country that is home to many Muslims, and which provides religious freedom to many more. And as the president said in Cairo, there is both a hope and an expectation that all sides can break bread together in an atmosphere of mutual respect. And most importantly, the administration will use each opportunity to bring the parties together. To the vocal minority of American Jews who have concerns about Obama when it comes to Israel, I say the same thing I would say to American Muslims who have their own concerns that this president is too close to Israel: re-read the Cairo address, as it will continue to serve as a roadmap for this administration. And that's good for America, good for Israel, and good for the Muslim world as well. More on Barack Obama
 
Lita Smith-Mines: Empty Is as Empty Does Top
I recently attended the funeral of a friend's father. The gathering was sad but I was not so overcome with grief that I was unable to observe and absorb all the surrounding sights on the long drive to and from the cemetery. Towards the mid-way point of the 45 minute drive begins a formerly rural part of Long Island where many bountiful farm stands used to flourish. Now I spotted very few, as the land that had produced the harvests was sold during past abundant years to home builders and commercial developers. What currently sprouted acre after acre on fairly fallow plots was a crop without need for pest control or plowing, a crop sown by the hands of real estate agents and management companies: signs proclaiming FOR SALE!, FOR RENT!, and FOR LEASE! Street after street, the scenery changed but the play remained the same. Here a shopping center, there an office building, and across the way a planned condo community. I drove by completely undeveloped plots with faded or broken billboards still pledging WILL BUILD TO SUIT! Various free standing buildings, devoid of activity, had fraying posters proclaiming what was COMING SOON! Countless other structures had submitted to reality, revealing boarded up windows or missing panes. Most plentiful were the strip shopping centers whose storefronts were alternately adorned with signs begging for bargain-hunting customers or pleading for incentive-seeking tenants. Foot traffic in formerly popular malls has become sparse, area foreclosures are proliferating, and the ranks of the local unemployed are swelling, so I, ever concerned about our local economy, started to brood over how many more businesses will close before the real bottom is reached. I considered how long barren buildings might stand free of paying occupants, and mulled over whether the spending habits of those who survive this depressing recession will unalterably change. If saving up for the next rainy day eventually becomes de rigueur , will a nail salon, dry cleaner, pizzeria, bagel store and coffee cafe be essential in each and every suburban shopping center? If those with discretionary funds flash back to infertile days, will they forsake free spending in years to come and instead engage only in thoughtful expenditures? If so, we may never see a time when fully filled shops, dependent on dollars being forked over without deliberation, again line our thoroughfares. After the funeral concluded, I mused about who will be moving into the numerous houses I passed that were partially built or semi-trashed. As local developers default and distant mortgage holders recover land that once yielded copious crops, will whatever construction is cultivated in the future nurture those now denied affordable homes? Without occupied dwellings, there'll be no customers, and without thriving businesses, there'll be no need for additional lodgings. My deliberations ended as my driveway was reached, but there was no escape from the empty ache in my heart. Sure, I was sorry for the hole in my friend's life left after her father passed, but mostly I felt genuine grief after glimpsing once thriving environs expanding into emptiness. More on Small Business
 
Jody Wagner: I Am a Woman for Deeds Top
Single mothers. Child care providers. Working mothers. Feminists. Four types of women that Bob McDonnell called in his thesis "materialistic," "detrimental to family," and the cause of a "breakdown of society." Bob wrote his thesis the same year I was working full-time, raising two children with a third on the way. It's truly terrifying. The Associated Press wrote that the discovery of these statements by Bob McDonnell has the potential to "shake up [this] race." Together, we can make sure that it does. Bob McDonnell is asking Virginians to elect him Governor. But in Bob McDonnell's Virginia, I, my friends, my colleagues, and my own mother aren't viewed as equals. That is why I am a woman for Creigh Deeds. http://www.deedsforvirginia.com/Action/WomenforDeeds?sc=x.huffpo For more than two decades, I've been a working mother. While raising four wonderful children, I've had the good fortune to have success as an attorney, start my own small business with my husband, and serve the Commonwealth under the past two Governors. I have known Creigh for many years, and have seen firsthand how hard he has worked for the women of Virginia throughout his time in the state legislature, to stand up for our rights. He stood up for rights like equal pay and protection from domestic abuse that, in an ideal world, we shouldn't have to think twice about granting to anyone. He worked to push legislation to ensure that women in need can get access to the necessary medication and medical services, receive fair treatment in the workplace and under the law, and more. Stand with me and join Creigh as a Woman for Deeds. Bob McDonnell?... Not so much. When the Washington Post discovered Bob McDonnell's blueprint for governing, they didn't just find an academic paper. They found "a vision that he started to put into action soon after he was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates." Bob McDonnell legislated on these ideas for 14 years in the General Assembly. He opposed efforts to improve our childcare centers in 2001 and 2003, and even voted against eliminating gender-based wage discrimination. That's right -- he even voted against a woman's right to equal pay. He sponsored not one, not two, but 35 bills restricting a woman's right to choose even in the cases of rape and incest. On many of these issues, he worked hand-in-hand with his running mate, current Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling. Creigh and I are both running because we believe in a Commonwealth that offers equal opportunity and support for women and families. We have a choice in this election and we must make our voices heard. There is just too much at stake. A Washington Post editorial called McDonnell's thesis an "ode to a bygone 1950s America." But this is not 1950. We have made so much progress in recent years and we can't afford to go backwards with McDonnell's extreme social agenda. I invite everyone to join me as a Woman for Deeds.
 
Victoria Namkung: Jeggings: Hot or Not? Top
Sure it sounds silly, but it's true: jeggings are here and you'll be seeing a lot more of them come fall. Last year, it was all about skinny jeans and leggings, which continue to be popular. America's love affair with denim is undeniable, but are painted on versions going too far? Buyers and industry executives tout them as the perfect transition from summer to fall and more than a few women seem to love the comfort factor. But would you wear them? Topshop , the influential British retailer has been given credit for adding the term to our fashion lexicon, and they sell a jean-legging hybrid knit from cotton, polyester and spandex. There are also bleached biker versions with knee and leg paneling and indigo pull-ons that have a grungier look. Other jeggings feature rivets, pockets and denim-like seams down the side. According to Women's Wear Daily , designers from Seven for All Mankind, BCBG, Levi's, Genetic Denim and Vintage Laundry all attended the Kingpins textile show in Los Angeles and were searching for "the newest stretch materials and durable fabrics." It seems legging jeans topped the list of fall trends for premium denim designers, who are constantly reinventing the humble pair of jeans. And at the recent ENK and Project tradeshows in Las Vegas, designers such as J Brand and AG, showed off stretchy styles for spring 2010 that promise to be super comfy. Beyonce paired hers this summer with a chic, white blazer, singer Ciara has worn bleached jeggings to a red carpet event, Whitney Port has donned a faded pair, while Angela Simmons has gone for a distressed vintage look. New York magazine calls jeggings a "don't," but retailers and countless fashion watchers are disagreeing. If you want to try this trend out for fall just be sure to wear them with a longer top or dress over them as these painted on styles tend to show every lump and bump imaginable.
 
Louise Marie Roth: ACOG Up to Dirty Tricks Top
A recent press release details some of the lengths that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is willing to go to preserve its near-monopoly over maternity care in the United States. In an effort to deter growing numbers of women from seeking out-of-hospital maternity care, ACOG urged its members to submit anecdotal, anonymous "data" (i.e. horror stories) about women who planned out-of-hospital births. This represents an effort to develop an unscientific case against out-of-hospital birth. ACOG is not a protector of maternal or fetal life -- it is primarily concerned with avoiding competition from midwives that could negatively affect the incomes of its members. A campaign to expose ACOG's efforts to collect unscientific evidence used social networking tools like Facebook, Twitter, and email to encourage thousands of women to submit their own stories about healthy births in private homes and freestanding birth centers on ACOG's website. How did ACOG respond? It "quickly moved to scrub its website and placed its request for unsourced data from members behind a password-protected firewall" (http://www.thebigpushformidwives.org/_ccLib/downloads/8-31-2009_PushNews_RELEASE_Viral_Internet_Campaign_Exposes_Bogus_Research.pdf). The survey is still there, in the members-only section, where it is "protected" from the public. What is likely to happen is that ACOG will then use the unscientific anecdotal data that it can collect from members to support lobbying campaigns directed at denying access to out-of-hospital birth and the midwives who are trained to provide it. Will this work? Unfortunately it might, because ACOG has professional legitimacy and receives a lot of respect from members of the media and the general public. That's why advocates of reproductive rights -- which includes the choice of where and with whom to give birth - must increase awareness of what ACOG is doing. Otherwise ACOG will bring out their "data" to support opposition to out-of-hospital birth whenever the press offers them some attention. More people need to recognize that ACOG is a trade association (i.e. a cartel) that tries to protect its members from competition. Its primary goals do not include promoting science or evidence-based maternity care -- obstetrics is one of the least evidence-based specialties in all of medicine. In fact, the cherry-picked horror stories are designed to discourage women from examining the evidence and making rational decisions about where, and with whom, to give birth. Meanwhile, two recent well-designed, scientific studies of homebirth in the Netherlands and Canada, both published this year, provide solid evidence that planned out-of-hospital births have comparable perinatal mortality rates, lower rates of serious maternal and neonatal morbidity, and fewer interventions than hospital births among women who meet eligibility requirements for homebirth. These studies were well-designed scientifically because they compared women with the same level of "risk." (See Amy Romano's excellent summary of the results here, or a press release on the Canadian results here.) Given an opportunity to examine real evidence, like that in these recent studies, many women may rationally choose to give birth outside a hospital setting, and that's exactly what ACOG is going to desperate measures to prevent. Obviously birth activists who want pregnant women to have the option of midwifery are interested in this, but really everyone should care about ACOG's self-serving behavior, which violates principles of anti-trust and is also relevant for the health reform debate. Maternity care in the U.S. is much more expensive than any other developed nation and has far worse results -- higher infant and maternal mortality, more premature and low birth-weight babies, and more infants in the NICU. Having a baby is the most common cause of hospitalization, and cesarean sections are the most common surgery in the United States. Out-of-control cesarean rates (around 1 in 3 births) and high-intervention obstetric care for low-risk women represent huge cost burdens on the system as a whole. The health reform debate has said little about maternity care, and that is a major omission. One of the best ways to reduce health care costs while improving results is to better integrate midwifery care and out-of-hospital birth into the health care system. But ACOG clearly doesn't want that to happen, since it would reduce its members' bottom lines. It's time for this cartel to be broken up.
 
David Swanson: Bush's Third Term? You're Living It Top
Cross-posted with Tomdispatch.com It sounds like the plot for the latest summer horror movie. Imagine, for a moment, that George W. Bush had been allowed a third term as president, had run and had won or stolen it, and that we were all now living (and dying) through it. With the Democrats in control of Congress but Bush still in the Oval Office, the media would certainly be talking endlessly about a mandate for bipartisanship and the importance of taking into account the concerns of Republicans. Can't you just picture it? There's Dubya now, still rewriting laws via signing statements. Still creating and destroying laws with executive orders. And still violating laws at his whim. Imagine Bush continuing his policy of extraordinary rendition, sending prisoners off to other countries with grim interrogation reputations to be held and tortured. I can even picture him formalizing his policy of preventive detention, sprucing it up with some "due process" even as he permanently removes habeas corpus from our culture. I picture this demonic president still swearing he doesn't torture, still insisting that he wants to close Guantanamo, but assuring his subordinates that the commander-in-chief has the power to torture "if needed," and maintaining a prison at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan that makes Guantanamo look like summer camp. I can imagine him continuing to keep secret his warrantless spying programs while protecting the corporations and government officials involved. If Bush were in his third term, we would already have seen him propose , yet again, the largest military budget in the history of the world. We might well have seen him pretend he was including war funding in the standard budget, and then claim that one final supplemental war budget was still needed, immediately after which he would surely announce that yet another war supplemental bill would be needed down the road. And of course, he would have held onto his Secretary of Defense from his second term, Robert Gates, to run the Pentagon, keep our ongoing wars rolling along, and oversee the better part of our public budget. Bush would undoubtedly be following through on the agreement he signed with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011 (except where he chose not to follow through). His generals would, in the meantime, be leaking word that the United States never intended to actually leave. He'd surely be maintaining current levels of troops in Iraq, while sending thousands more troops to Afghanistan and talking about a new "surge" there. He'd probably also be escalating the campaign he launched late in his second term to use drone aircraft to illegally and repeatedly strike into Pakistan's tribal borderlands with Afghanistan. If Bush were still "the decider" he'd be employing mercenaries like Blackwater and propagandists like the Rendon Group and he might even be expanding the number of private security contractors in Afghanistan. In fact, the whole executive branch would be packed with disreputable corporate executive types. You'd have somebody like John ("May I torture this one some more, please?") Rizzo still serving , at least for a while, as general counsel at the CIA. The White House and Justice Department would be crawling with corporate cronies, people like John Brennan , Greg Craig , James Jones , and Eric Holder . Most of the top prosecutors hired at the Department of Justice for political purposes would still be on the job. And political prisoners, like former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former top Democratic donor Paul Minor would still be abandoned to their fate. In addition, the bank bailouts Bush and his economic team initiated in his second term would still be rolling along -- with a similar crowd of people running the show. Ben Bernanke, for instance, would certainly have been reappointed to run the Fed. And Bush's third term would have guaranteed that there would be none of the monkeying around with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that the Democrats proposed or promised in their losing presidential campaign. At this point in Bush's third term, no significant new effort would have begun to restore Katrina-decimated New Orleans either. If the Democrats in Congress attempted to pass any set of needed reforms like, to take an example, new healthcare legislation, Bush, the third termer, would have held secret meetings in the White House with insurance and drug company executives to devise a means to turn such proposals to their advantage. And he would have refused to release the visitor logs so that the American public would have no way of knowing just whom he'd been talking to. During Bush's second term, some of the lowest ranking torturers from Abu Ghraib were prosecuted as bad apples, while those officials responsible for the policies that led to Abu Ghraib remained untouched. If the public continued to push for justice for torturers during the early months of Bush's third term, he would certainly have gone with another bad apple approach, perhaps targeting only low-ranking CIA interrogators and CIA contractors for prosecution. Bush would undoubtedly have decreed that any higher-ups would not be touched, that we should now be looking forward, not backward. And he would thereby have cemented in place the power of presidents to grant immunity for crimes they themselves authorized. If Bush were in his third term, some of his first and second term secrets might, by now, have been forced out into the open by lawsuits, but what Americans actually read wouldn't be significantly worse than what we'd already known. What documents saw the light of day would surely have had large portions of their pages redacted, and the vast bulk of documentation that might prove threatening would remain hidden from the public eye. Bush's lawyers would be fighting in court , with ever grander claims of executive power, to keep his wrongdoing out of sight. Now, here's the funny part. This dark fantasy of a third Bush term is also an accurate portrait of Obama's first term to date. In following Bush, Obama was given the opportunity either to restore the rule of law and the balance of powers or to firmly establish in place what were otherwise aberrant abuses of power. Thus far, President Obama has, in all the areas mentioned above, chosen the latter course. Everything described, from the continuation of crimes to the efforts to hide them away, from the corruption of corporate power to the assertion of the executive power to legislate, is Obama's presidency in its first seven months. Which doesn't mean there aren't differences in the two moments. For one thing, Democrats have now joined Republicans in approving expanded presidential powers and even -- in the case of wars, military strikes, lawless detention and rendition, warrantless spying, and the obstruction of justice -- presidential crimes. In addition, in the new Democratic era of goodwill, peace and justice movements have been strikingly defunded and, in some cases, even shut down. Many progressive groups now, in fact, take their signals from the president and his team, rather than bringing the public's demands to his doorstep. If we really were in Bush's third term, people would be far more active and outraged. There would already be a major push to really end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan. Undoubtedly, the Democrats still wouldn't impeach Bush, especially since they'd be able to vote him out before his fourth term, and surely four more years of him wouldn't make all that much difference. David Swanson is the author of the new book Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union (Seven Stories Press, 2009). He holds a master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia and served as press secretary for Kucinich for President in 2004. Swanson is just beginning a book tour of 48 cities and hopes to see you on the road. Check out his tour schedule by clicking here . Copyright 2009 David Swanson More on Barack Obama
 
Mark Olmsted: The Devil They Know: Biography of an American Inmate Top
I think my saddest moment in prison came near the end of my term, when I threw out a question to the group gathered around my bunk. I asked them if they'd been hit growing up. Unsurprisingly, they all said yes, but the sad part was what they were hasty to add. "Oh but I deserved it. I was a bad kid." When I told them that as far as I was concerned, there was never any excuse to hit a child, they looked at me as if I was from Mars. An educated person in prison might as well be from another planet. The way you talk sounds suspicious, condescending, reminding them of the judge who put them away or the teacher who sighed at them in class. So I learned to listen more than talk, and grew to understand the psychology of men who can't seem to stay out of jail. I was as curious as the next guy. If prisons are so unpleasant (and they are), why do so many keep going back? To answer this question required a willingness to imagine a life with none of the advantages I took for granted growing up. This "biography," in its basic outlines, could serve to describe a huge cross section of the men I came to know in prison. Our archetype is mostly raised by a single, poor woman. If it's his mother, she had him young, drinks or does drugs, smokes and has poor parenting skills -- at least until she becomes a devoted Christian or dies young. Very often, a grandmother or foster mother does the parenting. If he has siblings, they raise each other -- badly. His father is largely absent, often in and out of prison himself. Stepfathers or boyfriends of his mother supply his few male role models, and they are more often than not, abusive. No one in his milieu even questions corporal punishment as the natural form of discipline, often with hairbrushes, belts and power cords. He is often sexually abused by an older man. He hates himself for being a victim, which perversely makes him less empathetic to those he will victimize, as his inner conclusion from these experiences is to abhor weakness, not violence. And he almost never sees a healthy and loving relationship between a man and a woman on which to model his own as an adult. He experiences a great deal of loss early. Apart from parental abandonment, the toll in impoverished neighborhoods is high from lung cancer, diabetes, alcoholism, drug addiction and violence. Grief shows vulnerability, so it is internalized and bottled up. This invariably leads to acting out in school, which creates a vicious cycle of punishment and being tracked into undemanding or remedial classes. Even if he has a natural academic potential, it is undeveloped by teachers overwhelmed by large classes. Pressure is high to join gangs, where he at least doesn't feel stupid. He finds relief in fantasy. Video games and TV are his first escape and they teach him simplistic, violent narratives and instant gratification. Already surging with testosterone, he tries alcohol and drugs. The stage is set. With almost no countervailing influences, obtaining fast cash through any means necessary is a completely logical choice for him. When he gets away with it, he feels powerful. For the first time he feels he has an impact on his world. Consequences are an abstract notion at best, older brothers and cousins and guys in the neighborhood seem to treat jail like a rite of passage, never revealing what a scary experience it is. The possibility of violent death is glamorized, or at least viewed fatalistically. He believes drugs and alcohol are a non-negotiable necessity. Ninety-five percent of inmates can tell you exactly how, where and on what they will get loaded upon their release, even though it will often constitute a parole violation, sending them right back to jail. Sobriety, to most inmates, means sticking to beer instead of scotch, marijuana instead of heroin. Social conservatives will point to men from disadvantaged social backgrounds who rise above their circumstances by studying hard, getting scholarships to college and moving into the professional class. But we take note of these individuals because they are the exception. A system which punishes the poor for reacting unexceptionally to their poverty has created a criminal class which views prison as a sort of career. Like a boring factory job, they don't like it much, but they've concluded it's their lot in life. Periods of freedom are like rare vacations during which partying hard and spending as much money as possible seem like a completely rational response to a temporary break from incarceration. What makes sense to an outsider is that a parolee stays off drugs and gets a job. But he is returned to the same neighborhood where his friends are, who instantly get him high and welcome him back to the fold -- whether selling drugs, credit card scams, stealing cars, etc. If he resists returning to that lifestyle, he usually gets a low-skill, low-paying job that barely allows him to survive, much less support any family. His alcohol or drug use inevitably causes him to lose the job and creates domestic friction. Parole feels like a series of booby-traps, designed to trip the parolee up instead of support him staying free. He begins to accept returning to prison as inevitable, even a relief from the incredible stress of surviving on the outside. At least in prison his basic needs are met, and the traits he has the most trouble with, like aggression, are assets more than liabilities. It's not that he likes it, but he has the skills to deal with it. Human nature is a funny thing. We are afraid of what we don't recognize. Crime, poverty and prison constitute a grim life, but it has the pull of the familiar. If these men don't get a sense of a different way to live early enough in life, they will continually choose the devil they know. (Next: How to Break the Cycle of Recidivism)
 
Rob Kall: Glenn Beck's Book Bumped From Amazon #1 by Progressive's First Book Top
Today, after weeks at the number one spot on Amazon's non-fiction politics book list, Glenn Beck's Common Sense has been bumped by a new arrival, Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union , by first time author and progressive activist David Swanson . Beck, one of contemporary comedy's most extreme right wing targets is host of nationally syndicated radio show, has a hugely successful, multi-million viewer evening show on Fox News, and has had several other best-sellers out previously. Swanson is a progressive activist, co-founder of downingstreetpapers.com and a regular writer on www.opednews.com. As an activist, he's been arrested several times, for protests calling for ending the war or pursuing justices through impeachment. His book bumped Glen Beck's book to second and Michelle Malkin's Culture of Corruption to 3rd place in non-fiction politics and was last seen as #6 for all of amazon.com. Swanson's book, Daybreak , discusses how between George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the power of the White House has become too great, why it is too much and what to do about it. Swanson explores how the voluntarily impotent congress has allowed this uber-powerful presidency to develop and retain its powers. More on Books
 
Kerry Kennedy: On Losing a Human Rights Icon and a Beloved Uncle Top
I think continually of those who were truly great. Who, from the womb, remembered the soul's history... The names of those who in their lives fought for life Who wore at their hearts the fire's center. Born of the sun they traveled a short while towards the sun, And left the vivid air signed with their honor. -Stephen Spender Senator Edward Kennedy served on the Board of Directors of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights from 1968 until his passing last week. Witnessing the outpouring of love for him over the past week has been deeply moving and a source of strength and inspiration. It was heartrending seeing those crowds lining the streets from Hyannis Port to Boston, from the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help to Hanscom Field, and from Andrews Air Force Base to Arlington Cemetery -- often ten deep. People held placards, waved American flags, and saluted. I shook hands with several thousand of the 50,000 mourners who came to the viewing at the JFK Library, each with her or his own story of being touched by Teddy's vision, spirit, and love. People came because they appreciated his courageous stances on civil rights, health care, minimum wage, his support in multiple forms for the oppressed and dispossessed, and more. But most didn't know his record on these issues. They came because they knew he loved people -- not the people, but actual, living, human beings. Teddy called every one of my cousins, each of their spouses, and their kids, 119 of us in all, on every birthday and anniversary. He regularly rented a bus and took us on trips to visit battlefields with the greatest historians in the country. He took us skiing, rafting, and sailing. Every time he won a race and received a trophy, he had a replica of the trophy made and sent to every member of his crew. He made politics come alive, not with esoteric policy discussions, but by telling wonderfully engaging stories about the senators with whom he worked -- their bravery, their foibles, and, to our great delight, always, their accents. Sailing on the Mya last summer, he talked about his first days as a senator. He watched in awe as an impassioned colleague from Virginia railed against the evils of a particular bill and then saw that very same senator vote yea at roll call. When Teddy expressed his bewilderment, the senator explained "Well son, it's like this, to those who are for the bill, I send my vote, and to those against, I send my speech." Teddy roared with laughter and shook his head. One of the most memorable trips I took with Teddy was a family visit to Poland in 1986. Lech Walesa had been organizing strikes in the Gdansk shipyards, martial law had been declared, and tension was high. We had gone to Poland to present the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award to Adam Michnik -- known as the intellectual force behind Solidarity -- and Zbigniew Bujak, the leader of the Warsaw underground. The night we arrived, Teddy hosted a dinner, and it was the first time the Solidarity activists were able to communicate openly and in person. That, in and of itself, was a major victory. Formal greetings led to intense discussions, and those in turn gave way to stories, laughter, and a rousing exchange of Polish and Irish folk songs. The next morning came far too early, and I sat in awe at a conference table as Teddy dueled with General Jaruzelski, pressing him on basic rights -- to form a union, free expression, and democratic elections. Watching Teddy assert moral authority with such a depth of emotion and intellectual might was a breathtaking experience. I learned a lot from him on that trip about advancing the cause of human rights and loving democracy. My work means spending time urging lawmakers to do the right thing on human rights issues. But Teddy is the person I always called not to seek support but to help formulate our political strategy and to find out what he was already doing. He was my "go to" guy. I'm not alone, and it wasn't just about being family. For 30 years, Senator Kennedy was the human rights movement's strongest ally and its soul on Capitol Hill. When Haitian refugees were being detained and deported, Ted Kennedy stood with us and with Haitian activists like Ray Joseph to demand an end to arbitrary detentions and sham legal proceedings. Ray, whose life was literally saved by Teddy, is now Haiti's Ambassador to the United States. When asylum seekers were denied legal standing, Ted Kennedy authored and engineered the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, helping to create a legal right to asylum. When the U.S. government turned a blind eye to South Africa's State of Emergency and torture of young children, Ted Kennedy led the fight to pass the Anti-Apartheid Act of 1985, bringing U.S. policy into alignment with our values. Wherever freedom's sons and daughters have been on the march for liberty -- from the Soviet Gulag to the streets of Central America, from Marcos' Philippines to the killing fields of Cambodia, Uganda, and now Darfur, Senator Ted Kennedy was their drum major for justice. Here in the United States, he inspired, guided, and most importantly helped us provide protection and relief to some of the most vulnerable people on this planet. There is simply no one else like him. Throughout my life, strangers have told me how Teddy was there when a child was diagnosed with cancer, when a father lost a job or had a blow to his reputation, when a wedding was to be celebrated. Over the last year, particularly these past few days, everywhere I have gone, people told stories about how Teddy changed their lives. Heraldo Munoz told me how, as a young dissident in Chile under Pinochet, one night visiting his mother's house he heard sirens. He looked out the window and saw a military battalion blocking the street. There was no escape. He saw his two best friends having already been captured, in the back of a pick up, blind folded and manacled. He turned to his wife and said, "They are coming to take me. Just be sure to call Ted Kennedy in Washington. He will save my life." Today, Heraldo Munoz is the Chilean Ambassador to the United Nations. Last June, I was at a fundraiser at Hickory Hill for major supporters of the Obama campaign. There was a couple with a distinctive accent, and I was not expecting such a dramatic response when I asked what brought them to the event that evening. They said they'd met in Washington, D.C. as college students at American University. At the time, militants went on a rampage in Ethiopia and slaughtered every member of both of their families. The I.N.S. denied their asylum claims, saying there was no evidence that this young couple was at risk should they attempt to return home. Desperate, they went to the Senate, found Teddy's office, told him their story, and he went to work. They received asylum, started a business, and raised a son. Their son became the field organizer for Obama in northern Virginia, and they came that night to Hickory Hill, to express their gratitude to Ted Kennedy. When Teddy saw an injustice happening in Guantanamo, he demanded an investigation. In the fall of 2003, James Yee was known as the Muslim chaplain who had betrayed America. Accused of espionage, Army Captain James Yee saw his notoriety bloom overnight. According to USA Today , "He was vilified on the airwaves and on the Internet as an operative in a supposed spy ring that aimed to pass secrets to al-Qaeda from suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where Yee ministered to them. After his arrest, Yee was blindfolded, placed in manacles and taken to a Navy brig, where he spent 76 days in solitary confinement." Meanwhile, his name was released to the press and became synonymous with traitor. Eight months later, thanks to Teddy's demands for justice, the criminal charges against the 36-year-old West Point graduate melted away. A subsequent reprimand was removed from his record, and he left the military with an honorable discharge in January 2005. I love Teddy, and I will miss him with all my heart. He was truly great. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Greg Tarpinian: There is Only One Durable Solution to the Economic Crisis Top
Most economists agree that until the consumer begins to "spend again," the economy is unlikely to grow at meaningful rates in the next several years. But when and how will that happen? Consumer demand makes up more than two-thirds of the economy. Without significant increases in personal consumption, economic growth sufficient to simultaneously absorb a growing labor force and reduce unemployment is unlikely. But we are now confronted with a perfect storm that will foreclose the possibility of a consumption based upturn without a radical change in the way that work is rewarded or a return to the debt driven growth that led us into the current quagmire. The perfect storm is the combination of a wholesale deterioration in the labor market -- massive job and hour reductions combined with a long-term decline in real wages -- and the end of the household debt explosion. When real wages were rising in the post-WWII period through the early 1970s, consumption growth was driven by increased reward for each hour worked. When real wages began to fall in the mid-1970s, consumption growth was driven by a combination of growth of household credit and an increase in the number of hours worked by the average household. Now, with the simultaneous stagnation of real wages and the reduction in household credit driven both by household deleveraging and more restrictive lending requirements a durable consumption led recovery is not in the cards. There is no doubt that the psychology of the American consumer (worker) has been profoundly impacted by the current economic crisis. For those who still have jobs, we are seeing a dramatic increase in the savings rate and an unprecedented paying down of debt. It is unclear how long this new psychology will prevail, but it is safe to say that it will not end until there is a positive material change in people's real economic situation (incomes) and their view of the future. The truth is the financial crisis that was spawned by the collapse in the housing market was at its core a wage crisis. With real wages at least 15% below their 1973 levels (Department of Labor, real average weekly earnings series), and households maxed out on the number of hours they could work to maintain their living standards as measured by median family income, the only way to keep the economy growing in the new century was to increase access to credit by lowering interest rates. That chicken had to come home to roost and it did. At the peak of the last upturn in 2000, real wages were where they still are today -- significantly below the 1973 level. American workers saw no increase in their real earnings this decade, despite a dramatic increase in productivity. In order to maintain living standards, household hours worked increased dramatically from the 1970s through the 1990s, primarily by an increase in the hours worked by women. That increase finally hit a wall in the late 1990s, and found expression in a decline in real median family income in the ensuing decade, the first decline in the post-WWII period. (Source: Census Bureau) Adjusting by income quintiles, in the period from 2000 to 2007, real family income fell for the first time in the post-WWII period for the bottom 60% of the population. Even in the period from 1973 to 2000, as real wages were falling, families in all income brackets experienced an increase in real family incomes. (Source: Economic Policy Institute) With the decline in family income for the broad mass of families, and a simultaneous large-scale reduction in interest rates came an explosion in household debt of all kinds - from credit card to mortgage debt as families sought to maintain their living standards. While the Fed's "financial obligations ratio" - a measure of household indebtedness relative to disposable income -- remained in a range of 14.5 to 15.5 percent from the mid 1980s through the 1990s, from the first quarter of 2000 to the 4th quarter of 2007 it went from 15.25% to 18.20%, the largest sustained increase in history. A major driver of this increase was the increase in mortgage related debt payments from 9.1% to 11.8%. As we now know, much of the increase in mortgage related indebtedness was not the result of people taking on new mortgages, but rather by people refinancing to maintain their consumption. In 2004, the peak of the housing bubble, of the $1 trillion in new mortgage debt, 60%, or $600 billion, was the result of refinancing. That $600 billion represented 7% of disposable personal income. (Source: Kevin Phillips based on FRB data) While American workers sought to maintain their consumption by incurring greater amounts of debt, American financial institutions were awash in capital as corporate profits exploded and made their way through the financial system. And although the gap between compensation and productivity growth had been growing since the mid-1970s, it experienced its greatest expansion in the period from 2000 to the current crisis. The ultimate source of the explosion in corporate profits was the widening gap between compensation and productivity. As finance capital sought profitable outlets dozens of new fangled derivative and other products were created. While the initial shock of the housing bubble hit mortgage backed securities, the entire derivative pyramid came apart. So while the economic crisis broke out in the financial sphere, it was the result of the wage crisis. While fiscal, monetary, and other government policies can ameliorate the effects of the crisis now, we are still in for a difficult and long economic period until the essence of the consumption base -- the American wage structure -- is restored. As we know from history, corporations do not hand over wage increases that they do not have to without pressure. We have seen that the "pressure" of a "free labor market," is an insufficient impetus. Rather, workers need to be able to bargain from a position of relative equality. The only way for that to happen is for workers to organize and bargain collectively -- i.e. to unionize. This is why labor law reform that gives workers the real right to organize, the Employee Free Choice Act, is not a sop to unions, but a necessary component of the restoration of meaningful economic growth and the foundation of the realization of the true debt-free American Dream. Only if wages rise commensurate with productivity will we be back on the path of broad economic prosperity. For charts and data please email the author at greg@tarpgroup.com More on Economy
 
Heba Morayef: Lockerbie And Libya's Other Internal Wars: The Families' Pain Top
For months, Libya has been preparing the celebration for the 40th anniversary of Col. Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi's coup, on September 1. Scotland's release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted in connection with the Lockerbie bombing of 1988, was supposed to be Gaddafi's ultimate international relations coup in a year when, at times, Libya held the chairmanship of the African Union and the presidency of both the UN Security Council and of the General Assembly. But Megrahi's homecoming did not go as smoothly as planned. Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the ruler's son and potential successor, needed to show that he could "deliver" Megrahi after years of Libyan diplomatic efforts. He had been scheduled to give an annual speech "to Libyan youth" on August 20. While many Libyans may have mixed feelings about him, they eagerly await his speeches because they are the only occasions in which human rights and reform are publicly discussed. When the speech was canceled, some wondered whether his influence was declining. Apparently not. Instead of his speech, on August 20, Saif al-Islam appeared at Tripoli airport at the door of the plane bringing Megrahi home. Saif al-Islam subsequently explained that the homecoming was meant to be low-key, but it did not read well abroad. Families of Lockerbie victims voiced outrage, and the United States and United Kingdom said they found the welcome distasteful. But Washington and London also signaled that the homecoming would not jeopardize growing relations with Libya. The response of the Lockerbie families reminded me of a demonstration in Benghazi, Libya's second-largest city, just two months earlier, on June 29. On a video posted online, I watched as women and men chanted, "We don't want money; we want our children's killers." These were families of the estimated 1,200 prisoners killed 13 years earlier, on June 29, 1996, in Libya's Abu Salim prison, which is controlled by the country's Internal Security Agency. They risked arrest and imprisonment by taking to the streets of Benghazi to call for justice. The Libyan authorities have not revealed any information about what happened on that day. For years, these families sought in vain to find out the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones. The last many had seen of their husbands, sons, or brothers was when they were arrested, most between 1989 and 1995, and then "disappeared." As other prisoners were released, or through informal contacts with officials, some families had learned that their relatives were in Abu Salim. Slowly, information started to filter out about the massacre. When I and other Human Rights Watch staff visited Libya in April, I met with some family members, who were taking a great personal risk to meet with me. Later on, I spoke to a Libyan man in the U.S. whose two brothers had been in Abu Salim in 1996. He told me how every three months, from the time of their arrest in 1995 until 2000, when prison visits were first allowed, his family would load up the car with clothes, food and bed linen and drive 12 hours from Benghazi to the prison, in Tripoli. Families would leave what they brought in sacks at the gates with the prisoner's name on them, counting on the guards to take them in. "All this time we were leaving them things, in the hope that they were OK, all this time they were dead and the security guards were taking the clothes for themselves," he told me. Only recently, after years of silence, have Libyan authorities started tentative attempts to resolve the Abu Salim issue. Their approach, however, has been typical: to offer compensation but avoid prosecuting those responsible. Last December, the authorities started issuing death certificates to the families and offering financial compensation if the families would renounce any intention to make legal claims, domestically or internationally. That indicates official awareness of the potential reach of international criminal justice today, a lesson Libya has learned through Lockerbie. Most of the Benghazi families refused compensation on those terms, though, and took to the streets, calling on the authorities to investigate and try the perpetrators, to return the remains of their relatives for proper burial, and to make public a full accounting of how those 1,200 prisoners died. How does a former pariah state deal with gross human rights abuses of the past? And to what extent are countries with ever-closer relations with Libya, such as the UK, U.S, and Italy, willing to support it in sweeping away the crimes of the past as well as the violations of today? Part of the answer needs to include compassion and justice for the victims of Abu Salim and their families. These nations should encourage Libya to address the past, rather than allow all to be forgiven in the name of petrodollars. To the family of the disappeared, "every celebration, every holiday becomes a funeral because they are not with us," as one Libyan man put it to me. For families who spent all these years seeking news of their loved ones, compensation cannot substitute for the right to know and the right to a remedy that includes justice. More on Africa
 
George Mitrovich: Health Care & Town Halls Top
At the tribute to Senator Ted Kennedy Friday night at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Mr. Kennedy's closest friend in the Senate, told a story of how he recently underwent prostate cancer surgery and when he came out of recovery his first phone call was from Mr. Kennedy, who said, "Given the choice between prostate cancer surgery and going to town hall meetings, you made the right choice." I thought of that story Saturday when I was driving to a middle school in the Spring Valley area of San Diego to moderate a "town hall" meeting on health care. Congresswoman Susan Davis, a Democrat from California's 53rd District, had asked me to do that, and since my regard for Ms. Davis is very high, I readily accepted her invitation. I knew from reports that more than a 1,000 people were expected, and, given the demographics, it would most likely be an unfriendly crowd. In fact at breakfast that morning some friends told me to either "bag the meeting" or wear a "bulletproof vest." But, wisely or otherwise, I went, confident of my ability to handle even the most hostile of audiences. On a boiling hot day the audience in the school's gym easily topped 1,000, an amazing turnout compared to the 40 or 50 who normally attend such meetings. In addition, the 40 San Diego County Sheriff deputies assigned to the event turned several hundred more away. Congresswoman Davis welcomed the crowd and invited the veterans present to come forward and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. More than 20 did. So far so good, I thought. I was introduced and began by reading the rules that would govern our "dialogue" From memory I quoted Saint Thomas Aquinas and Alan Simpson, the great Republican senator from Wyoming (who would be a Saint if he were a Catholic). Aquinas said, "We must love them both. Those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject, for both have labored in the search for truth, and helped us in the finding of it." Senator Simpson said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no is entitled to their own facts." One might think by quoting Aquinas and Simpson at the outset of a meeting the crowd, being appreciative of the obviously high standards being set, would act correspondingly. Fat chance. The congresswoman proceeded then to outline her views on the health care legislation pending before Congress. As she did so the two-inch high, 1,000-page House bill was visible on the table beside her. Almost certainly, she was the only person present who had read the bill -- page by daunting page. Shouldn't that have given her an advantage, having actually read the bill? Yes. Did it? No. Davis then proceeded to take questions (by lottery) for 90 minutes from a crowd that was 100 percent Caucasian -- and overwhelmingly hostile. Repeatedly they shouted, "We don't want Communism!" "We don't want Socialism!" "We don't want socialized medicine!" "We want our own private health plans!" They said, "Our country is being taken from us." Some wore T-shirts that read, "Obey." Meaning, we are to "obey" Obama (that's hardly what they had in mind). The crowd was often on its feet yelling and shouting. Some seemed in danger of losing it. One lady, decked out in red, white and blue, with a star spangled hat and dark glasses, who sat right in front of the congresswoman, when she wasn't jumping up and down, was as vocal as anyone in the gym, and kept raising a hand lettered sign that read, "Liar, Liar, Lair!" (Her graphics left something to be desired.) Her husband, wearing a cowboy hat and the requisite dark glasses, often yelled, and at one point jumped up and approached Davis in a menacing fashion. In the middle of all this a big guy, at least 6 feet 8 in height and all muscles, wearing a black T-shirt, knee length pants, and military style black boots, walked ominously across the front of the gym. I looked for a gun, but didn't see one. Whew! (I hadn't worn my bulletproof vest.) Finally, after 90-minutes, the last question went to a young man in his 30s. He had driven down from Carlsbad with his wife (an attractive couple). He said he wasn't from Ms. Davis' district, and he appreciated her holding the forum. He said they had two children and he was worried about what the government was going to do, the kind of America his children would inherit? Justifiable concerns. But surprisingly at that point he became greatly agitated and began shouting at the congresswoman. I had not expected that - or his obvious ignorance of the pending legislation. But in that he was hardly alone. Indeed, while I greatly admired the willingness of so many to come to a town hall meeting, to give up a good part of their Saturday, it saddened me their seeming knowledge of the health care issue appeared so Russ Limbaugh, Glenn Beck driven. There was fear in the middle school gym Saturday, palpable fear; fear of what the government might do to impose by fiat health care on the nation - but it was driven by lies and distortions. To Susan Davis' credit she did not back down to the rants and shouts, which I'm afraid too many Democrats have done - and because of their cowardice the president may have lost the health care debate. When the last question was asked and Congresswoman Davis had responded, people began filing out of the gym. It was over. Ninety minutes of high energy. Ninety minutes of loud and angry accusations. But no one died. There was no riot. No one had been assaulted. No one was injured. All good. Except for this: The angry white people who attended, who came believing "their" America was being taken from them, that a government "of The People, by The People, for The People", was being lost, left with their minds unchanged, neither moved nor persuaded by "their" representative, Congresswoman Susan Davis. They came, these 1,000 souls, to the Town Hall meeting, with their minds made up, with their right wing, Limbaugh/Beck paranoid agenda in place - and they left in a similar state. No minds had been changed; whatever persuasion they came with, they left with. So what was accomplished? Well, all things considered, it wasn't a bad day for democracy; if, that is, you accept Mr. Churchill famous definition of democracy, "the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." George Mitrovich is president of The City Club of San Diego. He can be reached at gmitro35@gmail.com
 
Out Of Prison, Betty Loren-Maltese Plans Book On Chicago Corruption, Mob Top
After nearly seven years behind bars, the first thing former Cicero town president Betty Loren-Maltese wanted when she got out was a cigarette.
 
Rihanna Topless And Muzzled In Italian Vogue: Which Is Your Favorite Picture? (PHOTOS, POLL) Top
Rihanna graces the cover of Italian Vogue, and inside the pop star poses in bondage gear, a lip-shaped muzzle, thigh high boots and even goes topless, nipples demurely taped in sparkly tape. The shoot was snapped by Steven Klein. Love the pictures or hate them? You decide! More on Celebrity Skin
 
Scallops And Lobster Flourishing As A Result Of Climate Change Top
PORTLAND, Maine — The basic makeup of the ocean waters off the Northeast and the mid-Atlantic region has fundamentally changed in the past 40 years because of climate change, commercial fishing pressures and growing coastal populations, according to a new report. The 2009 Ecosystem Status Report says fish populations in U.S. waters from North Carolina to Maine have moved from their traditional home grounds because of a changing environment and human activities. The report is the broadest study that researchers have undertaken for U.S. waters in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, Michael Fogarty, who headed the study, said Tuesday. The findings show how interconnected the ecosystem is, he said. "We need to consider these interrelationships and connections. In some cases they aren't obvious on the surface," said Fogarty, head of the ecosystem assessment program at the NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Falmouth, Mass. "If we ignore them or don't understand them, then we could come away with the wrong picture of what's driving things." Fogarty's research team looked at variables such as water temperatures, circulation patterns, fishing pressure, pollution and habitat loss in a 100,000-square-mile area off the Northeast and mid-Atlantic coast. The area is one of 64 regions in the world's oceans designated as a large marine ecosystem. A recurring theme of the report is that the ecosystem is changing. Commercial fishing practices have contributed to changes in the composition of the region's fishery population, which is now dominated by species such as mackerel, herring, skates and small sharks, the report says. The change in the fish population mix is being felt by other species. For example, spiny dogfish sharks feed on silver hake, putting that type of bottom-dwelling fish under additional pressure. The region's water temperatures are also on the rise, which affects where fish live. Fish that prefer warmer waters – such as croaker in the Mid-Atlantic – are increasing in abundance in the region, Fogarty said. At the same time, fish such as cod are moving north in search of colder waters, causing a shift in their population range. If the waters continue to get warmer, traditional fishing grounds could be hurt. "If the projections for climate change hold, places like Georges Bank could potentially get marginal," he said, referring to fishing grounds off the Massachusetts coast. There are some bright spots in the report. Scallop populations and lobster stocks in the Gulf of Maine are strong, and haddock and redfish populations have staged comebacks in recent years. Still, the pressures on the ecosystem are likely to increase with climate change, coastal development and fishing activities. A better understanding of those pressures and will lead to better management and mitigation strategies, Fogarty said. More on Climate Change
 
Whitney Houston's Voice Cracks At Comeback Show, She Blames Oprah (VIDEO) Top
Whitney Houston missed the high notes in her first public performance in years today in Central Park. The singer blamed her cracked voice on a taping she did Monday for 'Oprah.' "When I'm talking, I should be singing," she told the audience. Her four-song set will air Wednesday in the 8 a.m. hour on 'Good Morning America.' Whitney kept the gig short because of a strained voice, her rep told TMZ . "She was only ever committed to two songs, so she actually extended the show to the third and fourth songs." WATCH: Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter!
 
"Clunkers" Boosts Ford, Toyota sales; GM, Chrysler's Sales fall Top
DETROIT (AP) -- The Cash for Clunkers program boosted sales at Ford, Toyota and Honda in August as consumers snapped up their fuel-efficient offerings, but rivals Chrysler Group LLC and General Motors Co. withstood another month of falling sales. The program, which ended on Aug. 24, drew hordes of buyers into quiet showrooms by offering up to $4,500 toward new, more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. The hefty rebates gave automakers and dealers a much-needed lift, spurring 690,114 new sales, many of them during August, at a taxpayer cost of $2.88 billion. Other automakers are expected to release U.S. sales figures later Tuesday. Combined, the results are likely to mark the first year-over-year monthly sales gain since October 2007. Ford Motor Co. sold 181,826 cars and light trucks compared with 155,117 in August 2008, when high gas prices and growing economic uncertainty kept people away from showrooms. Two of Ford's vehicles -- the Focus and Escape -- were among the top selling cars under the clunkers program. Sales of the Focus rose 56 percent while those of the Escape crossover vehicle climbed 49 percent. Japanese automakers Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. also posted gains year-over-year gains in August. Toyota sales rose 6.4 percent to 225,088, lifted by small cars like the Corolla, the best-selling clunkers vehicle. Honda sales rose 9.9 percent to 161,439, also largely on the strength of its fuel-efficient offerings. Meanwhile, low supplies of fuel-efficient vehicles at Chrysler kept the automaker from benefiting more from the clunkers program, whose rebates encouraged customers to buy gas sippers in exchange for guzzlers with gas mileage of 18 mpg or less. Chrysler sales fell 15 percent to 93,222 units. That was less than the combined sales of Hyundai Motor America and affiliate Kia Motors America, whose smaller sedans helped boost sales to a combined 100,665 for August. Going into August, five of Chrysler's most efficient vehicles were already at low inventory levels. Those vehicles -- the Dodge Caliber, the Chrysler Sebring, the Jeep Patriot, the Jeep Compass and the Dodge Avenger -- all qualified as Cash for Clunkers purchases. To make up for the shortfalls, Chrysler is boosting production by 50,000 vehicles of most of its vehicles through the end of the year. At General Motors Co., sales fell 20 percent to 245,550. GM said its inventory levels hit an all-time low of 379,000 during August. GM vehicles like the Chevrolet Aveo subcompact, the Cobalt sedan and Equinox crossover got a lift from the clunkers program. No GM vehicles made the closely watched list of top-10 Cash for Clunkers sales, but they had the largest market share behind Japan's Toyota Motor Corp. GM also said it was extending through the end of September its test program selling vehicles on eBay. Consumers are expected to steer clear of dealers this autumn now that the clunker rebates are no longer available. Get HuffPost Business On Facebook and Twitter !
 
Prevention Battles For Survival In Health Reform Legislation Top
One of the easiest ways to lower health care costs, as President Barack Obama frequently points out, is to take steps so that people don't get sick in the first place. But now, as the debate over health care legislation hits new levels of intensity, questions are being raised about how the government can best go about preventing illness, how much political will exists for such an investment, and how much money it will really save in the long run. Preventive health care falls into two wide categories: Wellness, which encourages lifestyle changes that can prevent or even reverse common illnesses; and early screening. They each have their own advocates, their own value propositions, and their own accompanying political dynamics. The biggest bang for the buck may come from changes that can be made to personal habits and choices. A 2008 report from Trust for America's Health , for instance, found that investing $10 per person per year in proven programs promoting physical activity, better nutrition, and smoking cessation could save more than $16 billion annually within five years -- for a return of $5.60 for every $1 spent. Multiple studies have shown that more than half the cases of type 2 diabetes could be avoided with simple lifestyle changes. Indeed, for some in the medical community, an intensive lifestyle intervention often is regarded as an effective form of treatment. The capacity to exercise and eat well, for example, can go a long way to reversing chronic diseases - a relatively low investment for a big cost-saving outcome. Politically, pushing for wellness and fitness is even more palatable, having bridged the widest of partisan divides. A staple of the Obama health care stump speech, the topic has also found its way into Sen. John McCain's, (R-Ariz.) pitch as well. "I mentioned long-term cost reductions," the Arizona Republican declared at a town hall event this week. "What are those? Wellness and fitness. There's a guy who's gotten pretty famous lately and he's the CEO of Safeway. You know what they have done at Safeway? They have programs and policies that incentivize their employees to practice wellness and fitness. Not to smoke, to work out, to do exercise, to get regular physical checkups. And they give them cash rebates and they give them policies that fit their particular needs. And guess what? Safeway's health care costs have gone down. Why can't we adopt that on the national scale? Why went we reward people for practicing wellness and fitness?" Two weeks ago, meanwhile, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced the "Take Back Your Health Act," which would create a new program within Medicare to promote "comprehensive lifestyle programs" designed to lower the likelihood of chronic disease. And yet, even with the most obvious of reforms, politics has a way of complicating matters. While House and Senate aides say billions of dollars will be devoted to wellness and fitness programs and promotion in a final health care reform bill (no exact figure currently exists), others think a much larger investment is needed. "I'm most interested in paying for intensive lifestyle interventions to reverse heart disease, diabetes, prostate cancer/breast cancer, and obesity, as these account for 75% of the $2.1 trillion in 'health' care costs last year," said Dr. Dean Ornish, the Medical Editor of The Huffington Post. "Now, only 5 percent of the $2.1 trillion are spent for anything related to prevention; clearly, there is a lot of room for doing more." * * * * * The funding of early testing, screening and treatment -- for illnesses like cancer and heart disease - has been framed by the President and his allies as a major cost saver in the health care system. "For most people, it is just common sense that if we can use cost-effective screenings and other up-front interventions to prevent tens of millions of occurrences of cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, then we are going to slash health care costs significantly," Sen. Tom Harkin, (D-Iowa), told the Huffington Post in early August. "We are going to create a reformed health system that - in a systematic and sustained way - bends the cost curve and restrains health care spending in the years ahead." In recent weeks, however, Harkin's position has become a subject of contention. A Congressional Budget Office analysis released last month warned that some of these preventive techniques could actually cost taxpayers more money than they save. "Although different types of preventive services have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall," CBO's Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, (R-GA). And a study published on Tuesday by Health Affairs journal called into question the money that could be saved by providing aggressive and prolonged medical services to Type 2 diabetes patients. Respected members of the medical and academic community have also raised concerns that if expensive tests, screening and medical consultations were made free or cheap, they would become overused. "I'm afraid most of the research supports the CBO point of view," Linda Bergthold, a health policy consultant and researcher who served on Hillary Clinton's Health Care Reform Task Force in 1993, told the Huffington Post. "I think one of the more interesting arguments against covering prevention in a broad way is the one the CBO makes -- that if you pay for [these services, people] will come, and they will come again and again." Aides on Capitol Hill and in the White House, as well as a several other health care analysts interviewed for this piece, scoffed at the notion that prevention is overrated. For starters, they noted, legislation passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee differentiates between preventive services that are proven to work and those that don't. Funding would go to the former and not the latter. In addition, while Tuesday's study called into question the cost-benefit equation of treating Type 2 Diabetics, it also noted that money spent on care and preventive services would be recovered over 25 years (after which there would be net savings.) Moreover, there are a host of studies conducted by reputable members of the medical community that hail prevention as a solid investment. "Because the benefits of prevention often accrue decades later -- long after someone has switched employers or health plans -- private plans will skimp on prevention coverage," wrote Dana P. Goldman , the chairman and director of health economics, finance and organization at the RAND Corporation. "The government needs to step in to fill this void." * * * * * Perhaps the biggest obstacle advocates of both wellness and screening face is that the debate over health care reform has been complicated by pledges from the president and Democrats in Congress that the final legislation will be deficit neutral. That means that initiatives live and die based on whether the Congressional Budget Office scores them as costing - or saving - money. And the CBO won't score preventive treatment as creating savings under the rationale that there is no template to determine an accurate accounting. "The CBO only scores things if they have happened before. So if we had done prevention earlier they would have scored it," said one slightly irritated White House aide. "But because we haven't, they won't. It's like if basketball fans refused to project how many more wins the Lakers would have when Shaq and Kobe first teamed up. Everyone knew the team would be better. They were going to win a championship. But because they hadn't played together before people for some reason refused to say how many more wins that would translate into." In its current incarnation, the HELP Committee bill includes a prevention and public health investment fund that ramps up over 5-years to $10 billion a year, a portion of which would go to promoting wellness and fitness. The bill would require private insurers to cover preventive care deemed most effective by an advisory committee of the Department of Health and Human Services. The Senate Finance Committee is expected to include money for Medicare and Medicaid to cover preventive services. The House's health care package - even after negotiations with Blue Dog Democrats - is estimated to put $8 billion behind preventive services in Medicaid and another $2.8 billion in eliminating preventive care co-pays in Medicare over the next decade. But if prevention is scored solely as a cost, rather than a savings, then some on the Hill worry that the final dollar figure for these services will be pared down. "It is frustrating to say the least," one Senior Democratic aide said of the rigidity of the CBO's policy. "My words aren't conveying how frustrating it is. At least now, compared to the past, we have at least some data [so that] members of the press, Senators and Representatives say this makes sense." This, in the end, may be prevention's saving grace. While Elmendorf's letter will likely force a round of questions about the utility of paying for specific procedures, the political juice is still there to see at least a decent amount of funding in the final legislative package. After all, even the President's Republicans critics are on record offering their philosophical support. A focus on prevention, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee wrote in an August 2007 oped, "would save countless lives, pain and suffering by the victims of chronic conditions, and billions of dollars." Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
 
Stu Kreisman: Wow.....Just Wow. Top
If you ever thought there was a cultural difference between Republicans and Democrats, check out this survey by MediaCurves Just click the play button and watch this one minute video . Now try to make the case for bi-partisanship. Wow. More on Gay Marriage
 
GOP Health Care Road Show: McConnell, McCain Top
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — An odd couple of Republican senators have hit the road, arguing for a go-slow approach to President Barack Obama's push to revamp health care. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and 2008 presidential nominee John McCain are headlining the GOP's answer to the raucous town hall meetings of August in which congressional Democrats had to shout over angry constituents about health care, growing deficits and the increasing role of the federal government. Not known for working closely or particularly liking each other – the two waged a fierce fight for years over campaign finance – McConnell and McCain nonetheless have been united at three events in two days in which they've urged a more modest approach on Obama's top domestic priority. In North Carolina on Tuesday, they interacted with something close to deference, unity and self-deprecation. McConnell introduced McCain as the "famous GOP senator." McCain answered, "You mean our most famous loser." Hardly an upbeat outlook, but on health care they have reasons to work together and try to frame Republican opposition to a comprehensive health care overhaul in thoughtful and credible terms. Start with the GOP's drive to recover in next year's midterm elections after the drubbing Republicans took from Obama and the Democrats in 2008. To do that, they must bring the Democrats down a notch from an effective hold on 60 Senate votes, potentially enough to kill GOP filibusters and control policy. Political recovery is an issue for McCain, too. The decorated war veteran and recognized expert on national security and campaign finance reform has largely deferred to other Republicans on health care although the Arizona lawmaker is a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. But in recent weeks, McCain has been outspoken on health care overhaul and its pricetag of $1 trillion-plus over 10 years and basing his argument on his reputation as a deficit hawk. Health care also offers McCain a chance to revise his image with millions of Americans and fill the elder statesman role embodied by his friend and former colleague, the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. Together, McConnell and McCain – joined by other Republican senators – held campaign-style events at tightly controlled events in Missouri, North Carolina and Florida on Monday and Tuesday with Congress set to return next week. Missouri Sen. Kit Bond, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Mel Martinez of Florida hosted the discussions. The National Republican Senatorial Committee paid for travel-related expenses. On Monday, at a Kansas City, Mo., hospital, McCain and McConnell appeared before a group of about 100 health care professionals – half invited by the retiring Republican senator and half by the hospital. "We wanted to hear about it with people who are on the front lines," said Bond. "They are all concerned about who is going to pay for this grandiose expansion" of government services. In Charlotte on Tuesday, McCain cited his credentials as a deficit hawk and faulted Obama for not offering his own health care plan – echoing a complaint from former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan. "The president has not come forward with a proposal," McCain said, sounding like he was still on the campaign trail. "He's supposed to lead. Where is his proposal?" Democratic leaders have said that health care must be revamped to make it more affordable and accessible. McConnell called for Congress "to step back, start over and think about incremental changes" to the health care system and warned against Democrats using procedural maneuvers to ram through their version without Republican support. That, McConnell said, "will make it even hard to sell to the Americans people." The Republican road show reached Palmetto General Hospital in Hialeah, Fla., northwest of Miami, where an invitation-only crowd – many of them doctors and hospital administrators – greeted the senators with a standing ovation. Joined by Martinez, the senators cautioned against an overhaul so sweeping it would affect one-sixth of the economy. Many of those who addressed the senators had little in the way of questions. Some used the event to tell McCain they voted for him in the presidential election. "Everybody's saying, 'I voted for you.' I'm going to demand a recount," McCain joked. ___ Kellman reported from Washington. Associated Press Writer Matt Sedensky in Hialeah, Fla., contributed to this report. More on Mitch McConnell
 

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)