Friday, September 4, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Eric Schurenberg: It Just Ain't Labor's Day Top
So the headline number on unemployment is 9.7%. That along might be enough to send people into the last weekend of summer with the sense that the economy has a long winter ahead of it. But ugly as that 0.3 percentage point jump in the closely watched number is, a look behind that number is uglier still. The decline in jobs wasn't as bad as the leap in the unemployment rate suggested-but that's not good news. Uncle Sam's payroll survey showed 216,000 jobs lost, which University of California, Berkeley's Brad DeLong thinks wasn't too terrible . There are two problems with this, however. The first is, the headline unemployment rate leaped because many people who had been too discouraged to look for work came back into the labor force in August--drawn, no doubt, by the happier economic news of the summer--and found there still wasn't any work for them. The second problem is, that 216,000 jobs lost per month is roughly the run rate of our two most recent recession s, as Arpitha Bykere, senior analyst of Nouriel Roubini's RGE Monitor , points out. The sole reason the phrase " only 216,000 jobs lost" doesn't sound deluded is that we were losing 600,000 jobs a month after Lehman collapsed a year ago. But judging just by these job-loss numbers, we're still in the middle of our labor recession. The broadest figure for unemployment took a big jump to from 16.3% to 16.8% . This is the one that includes discouraged workers and those working part time because they couldn't find full time work. Atlanta Fed president Dennis Lockhart thinks this is the real unemployment number . Hours worked went down Economist Clair Brown of U.C. Berkeley points out that today's unemployment numbers are artificially boosted by the number of people working reduced hours and sharing jobs-a recession-fighting tactic that American companies haven't used for decades. You can see the effect in the sharp drop in hours worked, particularly in the good producing sector, where they've gone from over 40 a week a year ago to just over 33 in August. When the recovery eventually comes, employers can just boost people's hours at first; they don't have to re-hire. This all adds up to a heightened possiblity of a double-dip recession, an idea recently embraced by Morgan Stanly Asia head Stephen Roach as well as the perennially downbeat Nouriel Roubini. It also suggests that the recoery will be weak when it comes. Bykere talks about not just a jobless recovery but a "jobless, wageless recovery," a phrase I hope never has cause to become widespread. Any silver lining? Well, Clair Brown says the "incredibly resilient" U.S. labor market will adapt. Eventually. But not for many Labor Days to come. Continue on CBS MoneyWatch:
 
Michaela Watkins & Casey Wilson FIRED From SNL?! Top
Sources outside the show, and backed up by anonymous sources from within 30 Rock, have informed me that Michaela Watkins and Casey Wilson appear to have been let go from Saturday Night Live and won't be returning this season (although they may have participated in some pre-taped ad parodies and digital shorts). They're no longer listed in specific office protocol. So it looks as though Lorne Michaels hired Jenny Slate and Nasim Pedrad not as additional females to the cast (as SNL follower Rachel Sklar over at Mediaite would have hoped), but rather to replace Watkins and Wilson.
 
Firefighters Gaining On Los Angeles-Area Wildfire, Homicide Investigation Launched In Death Of Firemen Top
LOS ANGELES — Fire bosses declared progress early Friday in taming the 226-square-mile arson fire north of Los Angeles that has led to a homicide investigation into the deaths of two firefighters. Flames had died down early Friday and the blaze, which was 42 percent surrounded, was "pretty quiet," fire spokesman John Huschke said. Firefighters were using bulldozers to clear a containment line around the fire, which destroyed 64 homes and burned three people. The fire has charred 148,258 acres of the Angeles National Forest, where many city residents escape to nature during the summer. Investigators determined on Thursday that the 11-day-old blaze was arson, and Los Angeles County sheriff's homicide detectives were investigating. Two firefighters were killed Sunday when their truck plunged 800 feet down a steep mountain road. Incendiary material was found along Angeles Crest Highway, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday, citing an unidentified source close to the investigation. The massive blaze is thought to have started in the area. Sheriff Lee Baca said details were being withheld to avoid jeopardizing the hunt for the arsonist. County Deputy Fire Chief Mike Bryant said he was glad investigators were making progress in the probe, but "it doesn't mend my broken heart." "Those were two great men that died," he said. "We've got to put this fire out so no one else gets hurt." "When you find out it is intentionally set, it's hard to take. A death is a death, but it's so senseless when it's deliberately set," Huschke said. A tribute for the two fallen firefighters was held before dawn Friday at the camp. Hundreds of firefighters took off their caps and helmets and bowed their heads as the men were remembered with speeches and a moment of silence. Elsewhere, a 25-acre wildfire broke out just after midnight about 60 miles southeast in Orange County in the Cleveland National Forest, county fire Capt. Greg McKeown said. No homes were threatened. On Thursday, a six-member firefighting crew mopping up in Angeles National Forest was overcome by fumes, apparently from the smoldering remains of a makeshift methamphetamine lab. Huschke said a hazardous materials squad was called in and one firefighter was hospitalized overnight. Hand crews and water-dropping helicopters had almost contained the fire's western flank in rugged canyons, but 65 miles of fire line have yet to be cut, U.S. Forest Service Incident Commander Mike Dietrich said. A historic observatory and TV, radio and other antennas on Mount Wilson, which at one point was dangerously close to the flames, were "looking pretty darn good," he said, but the fire was pushing east into the wilderness and down toward foothill cities of Monrovia, Sierra Madre and Pasadena. Even in a landscape blackened by wildfire, clues abound for investigators following the path of a blaze and trying to find out how it started. Investigators start where firefighters were first called and work backward. Jeff Tunnell, a wildfire investigator for the Bureau of Land Management, said even in charred terrain, investigators can detect important signs in the soot. "Fire creates evidence as well as destroys it," said Tunnell, a veteran of 50 wildfires who is based in Ukiah. "We can follow fire progression back to the point at which it started." Clues can come from burned trees and grasses, where the amount of burned foliage can show the direction and speed a fire was moving. Investigators search for the remains of whatever started the fire: a charred match or cigarette butt, a piece of metal from a car or part of a power cable. If no such object is found, they often conclude that a fire was "hot set," meaning it was started by a person holding a lighter to the brush. "That's what you are going to assume, because there's no other competent ignition source," he said. Most wildfires are caused by human activity. Even a fire caused by a singed squirrel tumbling from an electrical transformer is designated as human-caused, because humans put the electric box there, Tunnell said. Other wildfire causes are lightning and volcanoes. At the time the current fire broke out, Forest Service officials said there was no lightning and there were no power lines nearby. Three years ago, arson investigators probing the cause of a wildfire in the San Jacinto Mountains that killed five firefighters discovered evidence of different types of incendiary devices at several fires. They recovered everything from simple paper matches to more elaborate devices made up of wooden matches grouped around a cigarette and secured with duct tape or a rubber band. The evidence was enough to build a first-degree murder case against mechanic Raymond Lee Oyler. In March, the evidence was used to convict him and send him to death row. ___ Associated Press writers Greg Risling, Thomas Watkins and Jacob Adelman contributed to this report. More on Natural Disasters
 
Bryan Young: DC Vertigo Writer Joshua Dysart Talks Politics, Comics, and The Unknown Soldier Top
For those who don't know, The Unknown Soldier was a comic book based war hero from the late '60s. War comics were popular and through the '60s and '70s, and The Unknown Soldier, a bandaged and scarred master of disguises, bedeviled the Nazi's during World War II for close to a hundred issues. His run ended in 1982. Last October, DC's Vertigo imprint (known for its less mainstream, but generally more literary, comics) decided to turn to writer Joshua Dysart to revive the character and now, instead of a Guns of Navarone -style action book, we have a very mature look into a conflict under-reported by the media and a story that offers a complex look at the cognitive dissonance of a war. Changing the setting to the 2002 conflict in Uganda, Joshua Dysart and artist Alberto Ponticelli paint a vivid picture of a civilization coming undone by the indignities of war. Dr. Moses Lwanga stars as the modern version of the titular character. He's a pacifist and an African-born American doctor who goes back to Uganda in the middle of the conflict for humanitarian purposes. Haunted by dreams and visions, he's soon disfigured in an encounter with a pair of child soldiers, goes missing and crazy, and soon declares a bloody personal war with the local rebels. The Unknown Soldier is permeated by that ambiguous tug of war between getting results through conflict or non-violence and makes for a very engaging read. The book serves both as an entertainment, (it is a highly enjoyable read) and an historical document, shedding light on Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army and the under-reported travesties in that time and place. I was able to talk to Dysart recently about the book, comics and the politics of the Ugandan conflict. He brings an unparalleled level of realism to the conflict, and part of his ability to do that came from an extended stay in Africa. "Once I visited the place, and lived with the people, and ate at their table, and spent time at the [internally displaced person] camps, and I rode with the World Food Program trucks, and I interviewed child soldiers and UPDF soldiers, and you don't just walk away from that and think, 'Man, I'm going to write this totally exploitative, careless book.' You're suddenly obligated. You suddenly carry the weight of the conflict on your shoulders." The book is raw and violent and captures the essence of brutality inherent in African conflicts that utilize child soldiers, but Dysart was quick to point out that the book isn't exactly a social justice awareness piece (though some like myself might mistake it for that), "What we're going for is a more meta-education about the world in general, just getting people interested in pursuing the details of these conflicts that happen in the continent of Africa or in Southeast Asia. Since the details [of the conflict in the current Unknown Soldier comic] are no longer pertinent, I hope the reader takes a larger look at the issue of child soldiers, which I think will be the social justice issue of the future, a larger look at how we integrate with the world, and how we ignore conflicts that are happening all around us. So, if it does anything, other than entertain as a comic book, I hope it does those things." Though the war depicted in the book is over, Kony is still a threat in the region and there is still quite a bit to do to help prop the continent up. Since he's been there and is tapped into the pulse of the region more than most, I asked Dysart what he thinks people who read the book and are concerned can do to help. He explained that if you find a region that you're interested in, investigate it further and do your research, because each region is unique and has different solutions, "But one thing I would like to see," he went on, "is everyone invest in micro-loan companies that are operating in Northern Uganda right now. Micro-loans will get the Acholi economy on its feet. Also, I'd like to see people investigate the options there are in getting these [child soldiers] treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder." In order to help keep readers (and any passing members of the public) involved in the current situation, Dysart has created a blog ( http://joshuadysart.com/unknownsoldier/ ) where he updates periodically with information and essays about the region. At the end of the day, I felt this book was very, very good. The art was well rendered, the story well told, and reading it made me feel like I'd been somewhere I hadn't been before. The first trade paperback (collecting issues 1-6) is available now, and I would highly recommend reading it. During our interview, we talked much more in depth about the issues raised in the comic book and a little bit about other work he's done in the field (particularly his work on Mike Mignola's B.P.R.D. which is a spin-off of the immensely popular Hellboy franchise.) The Geek Show Podcast has been kind enough to host the audio of the full interview on their iTunes feed and you can download it in its entirety here. Bryan Young is the producer of Killer at Large and is writes about comic books and geek issues as the editor of Big Shiny Robot!
 
Kennedy's Death Behind Baucus "Bait And Switch"? Top
"[T]he main reason to be hopeful about the prospects for universal health care," writes Matt Yglesias, "wasn't so much the election of a new progressive president as the fact that Max Baucus, one of the most conservative members of the Democratic caucus and also Chairman of the Finance Committee, had essentially adopted the main outline of Hillary Clinton's universal health care plan." More on Ted Kennedy
 
Robert Naiman: Team Obama Divided, Public Strongly Opposed, to More Troops in Afghanistan Top
Top officials of the Obama Administration are divided on the expected request of the Pentagon for more troops in Afghanistan, the New York Times reports today . The military's anticipated request for more troops to combat the insurgency in Afghanistan has divided senior advisers to President Obama as they try to determine the proper size and mission of the American effort there, officials said Thursday. Leading the opposition is Vice-President Biden: Leading those with doubts is Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has expressed deep reservations about an expanded presence in Afghanistan on the grounds that it may distract from what he considers the more urgent goal of stabilizing Pakistan, officials said. No-one can plausibly argue that Vice-President Biden has no idea what he's talking about. Remember, this was the guy chosen to balance the ticket with "foreign policy experience," the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Nor is Biden a pacifist or shy about foreign intervention. He voted for the Iraq war in 2002 and promoted U.S. military intervention in the former Yugoslavia. Secretary of State Clinton has been "vocal" in favor of more troops and some officials said they expected her to be an advocate for a more robust force, the Times says. But Biden has the wind of public opinion at his back. A number of recent polls show that the majority of Americans - and the overwhelming majority of Democrats - now oppose the Afghan war. But on the question of sending more troops, public opinion is even more clear. They're against it. McClatchy News reports , citing a recent poll: 56 percent oppose sending any more combat troops to Afghanistan, while 35 percent support sending more troops. The McClatchy poll is particularly striking because it shows how widespread opposition to sending more troops is among different demographic groups: Opposition to sending more troops also cuts across almost all lines, with the deepest opposition coming from women, young people, those making less money, people with less than a high school education, Hispanics and independents, followed closely by Democrats. Only one group, Republicans, had a majority supporting the dispatch of more troops. Women oppose sending more troops by the lopsided margin of 60-30, men by 52-40. The biggest opposition to sending more combat troops comes from people who're 18-34 -- those most likely to fight -- and drops with age. Young adults oppose additional troops by a margin of 61-32; those who're 35-54 oppose it by 54-37; and those who're 55 and older were against it 53-36. Similarly, those who make the least money were the most opposed, with those making less than $25,000 opposed by a margin of 70-27; those making $25,000-$50,000 opposed by a margin of 58-35; and those making more than $50,000 split, 45-45. Since we're all about promoting democracy, let's have some democracy here. Since the American people are opposed to sending more troops to Afghanistan, let's not do it. With the public opposed, with many in Congress deeply skeptical, with the Administration divided, we should be able to stop this. Suppose that a bipartisan resolution were introduced in Congess against sending more troops. With the public clearly opposed, wouldn't such a resolution attract significant support? If such a resolution did attract significant support, wouldn't this affect the calculations of the Administration? The first step to ending this war is stopping its escalation. Let Members of Congress - Democratic and Republican - hear from their constituents that they are opposed to sending more troops to Afghanistan. More on Afghanistan
 
Controversial Billboard Mocking Notre Dame Coach Weis Taken Down Top
After three days of local unrest and national intrigue, Billboard-gate is over. Sort of. More on Sports
 
Stefan Sirucek: Youtube Shifts Policy, Starts Paying One-Hit-Wonders Top
Well more like 20-million-hit-wonders. On Sunday NPR reported that popular video-sharing site Youtube has begun paying those with hit videos, even if they only have one: "The online video Web site recently announced that users who create just one viral video are eligible for advertising partnerships with the company. Now, those behind the videos that become the next big thing on YouTube can cash in on their 15 minutes of fame." Full Story This is news because while the Youtube Partners program has existed for a while, it was previously mainly for people with lots of high-quality videos - filmmakers, comedians, how-to gurus - people who were regularly producing entertaining content that drove traffic and therefore advertising dollars to Youtube. Early stars and Youtube royalty like Lisa Donovan (Lisa Nova) and Michael Buckley have been members since early on, receiving shared revenue from the ads on their videos. According to an article that appeared in the New York Times last December the top Youtube Partners do quite well, making comfortable six figure incomes by regularly producing videos for the site. Yet the fact remains that fame in the internet age is usually accidental. It's impossible to predict what sort of video will strike a chord and be the next to sweep the world. Therefore, some of the biggest hits on Youtube are, and will continue to be, accidental one-hit-wonders. For the above piece NPR interviewed David Devore, whose simple home video of his son, befuddled after a dentist's appointment, has garnered about 28 million views. (WATCH: "David After Dentist" ) In the interview Davore states that his family has made about $25,000 dollars from the 2- minute video so far. At 28 million views currently, that's about 900 bucks for every million views. Since now a single video that goes viral can make a person eligible for the Partners program, essentially Youtube has just made it easier to randomly strike internet gold. In the future that video of a kid's wacky 5th birthday may help pay for his college tuition. Or his dental work. More on NPR
 
D. Brad Wright: The Trigger Option: An Ultimatum To Insurers Top
For what is beginning to feel like forever, government's role in health reform has been hotly contested. So much so, in fact, that at times people seem to have forgotten that the public option is merely one piece of a much larger reform bill. Forgive me, but I'm going to perpetuate that way of thinking for some, by writing more about the public option. I think most everyone can agree that the public option is an ideological lightning rod. Conservatives tend to hate it, viewing it as unnecessary government involvement and a slippery slope to "socialized medicine." Progressives tend to love it, claiming that without a public option, health reform will be meaningless. Then there are moderates, a group with which I occasionally like to side, who seem willing to compromise some of the policy specifics in order to increase the political feasibility of actually passing reform. The problem with that has been that so far, Republicans have made it clear that they are not willing to reach a bipartisan consensus, making it appear as if the Democrats are needlessly diluting reform. After all, if you're not gaining votes by dropping parts of the bill, why drop them? The more steadfast liberals are actually growing angry towards certain Democrats who they perceive--perhaps rightly--as "selling out" their base. As evidence of the anger being generated on the left: Not long ago, I was the target of some less than kind comments when I posted an article suggesting that perhaps the public option could be limited to enrolling only certain groups of individuals. Suffice it to say people were not persuaded by my argument. In the interim, there has been talk of deep-sixing the public option entirely or replacing it with a series of health insurance co-operatives. Now, however, there's something I like even better than my own idea of a restricted public option: The Trigger Option . What is the trigger option ? Well, it's hard to be specific about it, because it exists only as an idea among some White House staff right now, but essentially it would work like this: Congress passes reform without an immediate public option, which includes increased regulatory controls over private insurers. As long as the insurers comply with the regulations as required, there will be no public option. If, however, the insurers fail to comply with the regulations, it would trigger the creation of the public option. Again, specifically what these "regulations" would be is hard to say, but I assume they would include consumer protections that require insurers to offer some standard benefits at a reasonable price. I also suspect that insurers would not be able to cut benefits or raise prices significantly within a short period of time. Here's why I think this approach is so fantastic. It takes the public option off the table for the moment, but holds it over the heads of the insurers as a looming threat if they don't get their act together. In some ways, it creates not a mechanism of competition, but an enforcement mechanism, which I believe private insurers are likely to respond to. But the great thing is, if they don't respond to it, then we get a public option we can opt into. It's really a fantastic ultimatum. With the trigger option, the government is essentially saying, "Okay, private insurers. Here's your chance to prove us wrong." This should appease folks who are anti-government, without alienating the folks on the left. After all, the primary goal is fixing the system, and the trigger option has that goal firmly in its sights. Either private insurers step up and start acting like they ought, or government will intervene to do the job private insurers failed to do. Personally, I don't care whether the public or private sector gets credit for solving the problem as long as the problem is solved, and I think reform with a trigger option stands a fantastic chance of doing just that. ____________________________________________ Read or Subscribe to Wright on Health to find out Why We Lie and How Obama's Facing Third-and-Long on Health Reform . And, hey, while you're at it, why don't you become my fan on HuffPo? More on Health Care
 
Bil Browning: The Cleve Jones Interviews (with transcripts) Top
Last week I had the opportunity to interview veteran LGBT activist Cleve Jones about the upcoming National Equality March and his role inside the community. Instead of doing a standard interview, I asked our readers to submit questions and I simply asked the questions they provided. We've ran the videos of the Q&A this week on Bilerico Project . For Huff Po I've put three videos into one post. You can click next to the video to jump directly to the transcript. You can also catch any of the interviews you might have missed and see them all flow into each other. Bilerico Project's interview with Cleve Jones: National Equality March questions Transcript Cleve Jones interview: The non-March questions Transcript Cleve Jones on the origins of the National Equality March Transcript Bilerico Project's interview with Cleve Jones: National Equality March questions BB: So all these questions came from the Bilerico Project's Twitter and Facebook account. We decided we were going to allow them to ask their own questions, instead of just me asking them. CJ: Great. BB: So your main justification for the march is that people will be able to network and organize. When are they supposed to do this? Are they supposed to do it in the street in the couple of hours they have after the march or before they have to leave to go home? CJ: Well, that's not really a true representation of what I'm trying to do. We're trying to change the strategy of the movement. We believe that the strategy that we have followed thus far - which was what made sense at the time and a strategy that was advanced by good, dedicated, hard-working people - is nonetheless a failed strategy. I am tired of fighting state by state, county by county, city by city, for fractions of equality. I am tired of compromises and I am tired of the strategy that divides us from each other. It is time for us to unite across state boundaries in a truly nationwide movement to win full, actual equality, which can only come from the federal government. That's not my opinion. That's a fact. If we want to be equal under the law, we must now - as the great heroes of the Civil Rights movement of 1963 and 1964 showed us - turn our attention to the federal government. BB: At the march, will you commit to making an effort to raise money for the fight in Maine? CJ: We have already made that commitment and are going to do everything we can, but I want to emphasize again that the fight in Maine, the new attempt in Iowa by the religious conservatives to overturn the decision, the upcoming likely fight in Washington, the incredibly expensive battle that we're about to go through again in California, these fights will continue indefinitely until we achieve equality under the law recognized by the federal government. I am tired of this ping-pong game. Every time we go around and around with this it costs millions of dollars that could be spent on HIV education, on senior programs, on programs for queer youth. We have to stop this. And win. BB: What is the plan to train the grassroots? We hear about the march, but not about the core value of the event. CJ: You know, it's so important that we unite across our state boundaries. And I think what we hear from people like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank and the LGBT folk that are working within the Obama administration, when they tell us things like we're not being realistic, or now is not the time, I think what they're telling us is that we don't have the votes. So everything we're doing is about encouraging people to work in all 435 congressional districts. During the weekend, we are going to be working with a whole bunch of organizations on practical political trainings. Obviously there's not a whole lot one can do in a weekend. What I hope very much to do, and believe that we will succeed in doing, is encouraging people, inspiring people, and getting them to think about the reality of how our government works. That we will not have equality until we get those votes in Congress. Clearly we want Obama to do more, and we want Obama to keep his promises, but Obama alone cannot rewrite the laws. We need those votes. You know, I believe we can do this, and the march alone obviously will not accomplish that. Writing letters alone will not accomplish that. Making contributions to friendly candidates alone will not accomplish that. But if we do all of these things, we can change some of those votes in Congress, and we can win. BB: What can those of us do if it's impossible for us to travel to Washington? How can we be included? CJ: You know, I just got emails from people in Amsterdam and Copenhagen and Vancouver and Toronto who are going to organize solidarity rallies at US embassies in those countries on October, 11. I want to encourage everybody to come to Washington, DC if at all possible, but of course we know that even during times of prosperity it's not possible for everybody to go, and we are not in a time of prosperity. So I think October, 11 is National Coming Out Day, and it would be my hope that everyone who cannot attend the march would organize support rallies in their own local communities, preferably at federal buildings or at the offices of their members of Congress or perhaps even the residences of their members of Congress. But there's all sorts of actions that could be taken on that day that would support the overall call for full equality under the law. BB: The National Equality March has issued a list of priorities and goals around which it expects people to go back to various districts and organize. Why is HIV not on that list of priorities? Cleve and the National March are in a perfect position to prevent a repeat of the deaths, disease, and destruction of the LGBT community as a result of HIV. Is Cleve okay with abdicating the ability to harness this event's power to reconnect HIV as a gay community priority? CJ: I understand there are people who are saying that I don't care about AIDS, which I find ironic considering I have AIDS and have been living with HIV for longer than some of these people have been alive. I put a good twenty years of my life into fighting the pandemic. I was a co-founder of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation. I was the originator of the NAMES Project/ AIDS Memorial Quilt. I got arrested at ACT UP demonstrations in Washington, DC. I care deeply about this issue. This is a march for LGBT equality. And it is my belief that when we win the legislative equality, that when we win this battle in Congress, and the President signs these bills or the Supreme Court rules in our favor, that it will free up resources that we can put into this fight. I also believe that the stronger we become politically, that the more we unite across state boundaries to focus on Congress, that we will be in a much better position to fight for funding. As I think most people know, we're organizing this in a very short window of time, but we reached out two months ago to the HIV/AIDS activists, we reserved the Ellipse for Saturday night so that there could be a HIV/AIDS specifically focused event. Most of the people that are on our team felt that they didn't have the, that their level of knowledge of current issues facing the HIV community was not adequate to take leadership on that. So we reached out to ACT UP Philadelphia, to a whole host of HIV/AIDS activist organizations around the country, this was coordinated by a group called CHAMP. As of today, they have not been able to pull something together. We haven't given up. But we wanted to come up with one demand, one demand that we hope will unify all of our people and focus on the issue of equality under the law. When we achieve equality under the law it will open the door for us to do a great many more things, and show the power that we have to make that happen. I think the decision to stick with one demand was a wise one, and I do not regret it. BB: Would you ask about the expected outcome? The impact of this year's march? Reaction to the supposedly recent post-AIDS era of media attention? And expected progression of same-sex marriage initiatives? CJ: Well, I just have to come back to what I hope. I mean, if the question is, as I understand it, what do we hope to get out of this, and where things will move afterwards, I hope to galvanize and reenergize the movement and link us across state borders to create a truly national movement for true, actual equality. I want our people to stop accepting second-class citizenship, to reject incrementalism, to reject compromise, and to reject delay. If people feel that they're equal, I think it's time that they act that way. And a free and equal people would not accept the kind of crap that we're hearing from our own leaders and from our elected representatives. We are tax-payers, we serve in the military, we build strong neighborhoods and healthy communities, we are equal in our ability to parent, we are equal in every respect, and we need to act that way and build a movement that reflects that. That's what I hope will be the outcome of this. Cleve Jones interview: The non-March questions Bil Browning: Cleve, why do you care? I mean seriously, the people that have nothing better to do but complain are attacking you for taking action because, they think, I don't know for sure, let's say they say think you should be doing something else. Now I don't think the carping second guessing devil's advocate types will agree on anything that should be done but that won't stop them from piling on, so honestly Cleve, why do you bother? Cleve Jones: (laugh) I love this work, I mean our community can be really difficult from time to time, you know, but you know I love this work and I think it's very exciting, I'm 54 years old, I've seen enormous change and great progress and I want to see more. I love connecting with all the different segments of our community, all the different kinds of people who are doing this work. There are days that are frustrating, days when I go to bed very tired and angry, but most of the time I enjoy it, I really do and I think it matters and I think that we can win. Bil Browning: Do you think that any of our LGBT rights leaders/organizations will ever organize a massive act of civil disobedience that will force our government and fellow citizens to take us seriously? So far the protests we've done for the past few decades have barely registered on most straight peoples radar and we seem afraid to appear too angry or too entitled. Cleve Jones: I think it's unlikely that any of our national organizations or leaders will push for that but I do believe that non-violent civil disobedience is a very important and useful tactic. I grew up during the days of the anti-war movement and civil rights movement and I believe that there is a place for civil disobedience in this movement and I have over the past year or two been working with people to try to come up with strategies to remind people of that history and how those tactics work but I grew up with that tradition and believe that it is very useful and I want to encourage that, yes. Bil Browning: How important is the support of the straight community and what are some ways to let them know that? Cleve Jones: I think support of the straight community is very important and I think there has been a profound shift in public opinion seen reflected in many ways. We do not need straight people to speak for us but we do want straight people to stand with us. Again I go back to the parallels with 1963, 1964 when white America really became aware of the brutality of segregation, the cruelty of the apartheid system which existed in the south. Then white people began to get on the freedom buses and travel to the south and be part of the voter registration drives and they... some of them were beaten and some of them were murdered but they stood with the African-American community and the civil rights movement. It's time for straight people to do that today and it is time for us to insist that they do that today and I think we are going to see a great deal of straight people participating in the march and in the actions that will follow. Bil Browning: What advice would Cleve have for a young activist like myself who finds it very challenging to motivate myself or let alone others in hard times. Cleve Jones: I hear a lot from young people who want to be activists and you know the first thing I always say is that I hope you do it, we need you, we urgently need new leadership. I think to be effective it's really important to love the work and If it you get to the point where you're feeling like you're making a sacrifice to do this work you probably should re-consider. To be effective requires a commitment of many years of work and it can be grueling it's often thankless. Our community can be really mean sometimes you know and you've to to have a thick skin. If you can do that I think there's a role for everyone. I love this work, despite all the crap I love this work, I find it exhilarating and exciting and it connects me with so many wonderful people. Beyond that I would also say, you know to, you know, to tell your own story, to to to to speak to people from where you're really and what your own experience is. All of us, I think have examples of how homophobia has hurt us, hurt our families, hurt people that we love. Keep it real, keep it personal and be fearless and know that what we're doing is... and maybe this is the most important thing, to see our work in this movement as part of something bigger. It's not just about us. Any social movement that seeks to benefit only it's own members I think is a shallow movement and probably doomed to failure. So, during those days when you're exhausted and during those days when you're frustrated, during those days when you're being attacked by your own people for doing what you think is right, remember you're part of a progression that goes back a long time of ordinary people who are doing their best to make it a better world. This is a part of a broader movement for peace and for social justice and we are taking our rightful place among the ranks of all these ordinary men and women today and generations before us who've committed to do this work. Bil Browning: For those of us in flyover country why would we - everything is east coast, west coast in LGBT life the way it is. The east coast is getting their gay marriage the west coast is got it taken away, now there's a tantrum let's go have a march. What speaks to us in the middle to help to help bring those of us that are not in driving distance to D.C. Cleve Jones: Well as you know now Bill, my family comes from
 
Jill Schlesinger: Labor Day Employment Report: If It's So Good, Why Do I Feel Bad? Top
Another Friday, another employment report . The results are in - and the Labor Department said that 216,000 were given the heave-ho last in August, bringing the total number of Americans out of work since the beginning of the recession to 6.9 million. Yes, that was good news. When I discussed the jobs report with my pals at WOOD radio in Grand Rapids, MI earlier this morning, Gary and Steve asked what most Americans want to know: when is it going to get better? OK, so you try telling folks in Michigan of all places, that during a recession, we call data that is "less bad," good. You know Michigan, where the local unemployment rate leads the rest of the nation. In most recessions, the last thing to recover is jobs. They may be truer than ever in this whopper of a downturn. Earlier this week, the Labor Department reported that productivity grew at a 6.6% annual rate in the second quarter, the fastest pace in over five years. Investors cheered the news, because it meant that employees are working harder for the same amount of money, producing more stuff for the company. Conversely, from the point of view of the worker, she knows all-too-well that companies are pushing/demanding an increase in output in order to attempt to remain profitable during the recession. The worker needs the company to survive to keep the job, so she can't complain too much, but at the end of last month, she knew that she worked harder for the same salary. All of this is expected in a recession, but as data is released, we need to boil down the facts to their logical conclusion: the improvement is important, but every economic report has a human being behind it. As we enter Labor Day weekend, the holiday that honors the social and economic achievements of American workers, try to take a minute to consider how others are affected during this recession and eventual recovery. Image by Flickr User bobster855 , CC 2.0
 
Glenn Beck Praises DDT, Bashes Van Jones, Joni Mitchell And Environmentalists (VIDEO) Top
Somehow Glenn Beck's wacky proclamations never ceases to amaze in both their inaccuracy and outrageousness. In case you missed this, here's a video of Beck taking potshots at Special Advisor on Green Jobs Van Jones ( he's Beck's new favorite target ) and praising DDT's effectiveness in saving 500 million lives. Beck appears to infer that environmentalists like Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, have no concern or interest in all the human lives that were saved by DDT or the people who continue to die from malaria. He also manages to mock "hippie" Joni Mitchell's song, "Big Yellow Taxi." Ryan Witt has a full article debunking the claims Beck makes about DDT's safety, and even theorizes that maybe Beck is hoping for Monsanto sponsorship since his advertisers are fleeing in droves. WATCH: Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter! More on Glenn Beck
 
Will Durst: Happy Labor Day: an Oxymoron Top
Labor Day. The Rodney Dangerfield of holidays. Nobody knows why it's treated like the runt of the celebration litter. Maybe it has to something to do with our biological clocks being stuck on elementary school time. Deep down in our bones, we're anticipating the first Monday of September pounding the final nail into the coffin of our vacation signaling a return to whatever scholastic institution we've been consigned to that semester. Making it as endearing as thunderheads on a picnic morning. Labor Day. The last plastic souvenir sports bottle of lemonade on the dying coals of summer. The beginning of the end of the bright light and harbinger of the darkness. Swimming pools close. Ice cream trucks tie up their bells and convoy back into hibernation, And Dad suffers his last second-degree hissing bubble burn from the BBQ grill for at least nine months. The dividing line between baseball's endgame and football's chrysalis from two- a- day drills into hardcore Bowl envy. The solstice is dead. Long live the autumnal equinox. Labor Day. As a kid, I was too busy recoiling from the looming specter of the end of my freedom to pay much attention to the meaning or even the name of the holiday. One 24 hour period carved into the almanac to honor the American worker. Seems a bit of an archaic sentiment these days. A gesture almost as empty as the candy counter at a Cineplex after a Labor Day weekend Harry Potter festival, especially what with lean and mean being all the rage. And trust me, there is a lot of rage out there. Labor Day. Now might be the perfect time to trot out that old chestnut that if it weren't for the blue collars there wouldn't be any white collars much less $4,500 Brioni grey pinstripe merino wool suit collars. Without labor and the labor movement, we might still be nomads, camping on a frontier, boiling river water to wash down our nightly meal of beans and mush and roots and moss. Getting way too friendly with the livestock. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Labor Day Admittedly, not the sexiest holiday: There are no fireworks to watch or ugly birds to cook or chocolate covered bunnies to steal marshmallows from. Just one Monday off for all those ordinary guys and gals trying to make ends meet; raising 2.3 kids, juggling a mortgage while trying to cover the monthly cable bill with at least one premium channel thrown in. The lifeblood of America's body politic has always been its workforce, the people. (claimants before Judge Judy disincluded) I'm talking about real folks who don't think "work ethic" is a dirty word. Or a dirty two words. Or whatever. Labor Day. A calendaric conundrum. A day we celebrate what it is we do for a living by taking the day off from work. Paying tribute not to fancy movie stars or stodgy founding fathers or rich and bloated athletes, but us. The real American heroes. You and me. OK, mostly you. But allow a guy who memorized his social security number at the age of twelve, wish you a happy Labor Day. Go out and buy a new notebook and a couple of pens. And a ruler. Nobody buys rulers anymore. Will Durst is a San Francisco based political comic who writes sometimes. This is one of them. Please catch his new one man show "The Lieutenant Governor from the State of Confusion," appearing at a theater near you. More on Baseball
 
CPS To Spend $30M On Students Most Likely To Shoot Or Get Shot Top
Chicago Public Schools officials say they'll spend $30 million in federal stimulus dollars on approximately 1,200 high school students who are at risk of committing violence or falling victim to it.
 
Lance Simmens: It Is an Issue of Trust Top
Trust is defined as "assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something; one in which confidence is placed." Unfortunately, it appears to me as though the root cause of conservative opposition to virtually any progressive policy proposal is distrust. It is reflected not only on the individuals involved but also in the systems and institutions that are ostensibly designed to advance and protect society. In my lifetime, one which has now spanned five and a half decades, there has been a discernible shift in conservative and liberal applications of the term trust. Indeed, liberal distrust of governmental institutions in the 1960s and 1970s has given way to conservative distrust in the '80s, '90s, and nearly a decade into the new millennium. But what is so disconcerting is the fact that so much attention is given to harboring distrust in our governmental institutions and so little attention is paid to restoring the social contract that is the basis for the orderly functioning of society. Indeed, political points for casting doubts on the wisdom and ability of certain political ideologies and positions and the politicians who ascribe to them is most likely as old as the Republic itself. However, as our living, breathing democratic experiment has evolved and matured over the past two plus centuries the importance of fostering trust in our governmental apparatus should have grown and matured as well. It hasn't. In fact, today I would argue trust in our government's ability to rectify market inefficiencies or societal inequities is being sorely tested. Mistrust and distrust are borne out of frustration with the inability of our political system to effectively deal with the pressures inherent in a system beholden to special interests. And this is exacerbated by the growing frustration with the inability to temper historical economic fluctuations in a timely and effective manner. While a certain degree of distrust has been rightly earned, for instance the ineptitude of our leaders during the Vietnam era, and the revelation of corruption at the highest levels during Watergate, these specialized instances have been overtaken by a generic form of distrust that has found currency with conservative ideology. Over the past two decades, the fires of distrust have been stoked by political expediency. Hence, the Reagan Revolution saw the genesis of "government as the problem not the solution" give rise to a whole generation of conservatives bent on starving the beast of government spending by promoting reactionary fiscal policies that in every sense of the word are un-conservative. The precipitous explosion of debt fostered by Reaganomics, a fiscal policy that defied gravity by insisting that higher spending and lower revenues would in fact balance the budget, worshiping at the altar of unfettered free-market deregulation, a policy that has bankrupted the financial engines that drive our economy, and the effective abdication of responsibility for protection of basic human rights have rendered us morally and economically suspect not only to the international community but to our people at home. The insidious destruction of trust in our government now finds comfort in the hands and hearts of those dedicated to resist change, even when it is in their best interests. And it is not limited to distrust of our national institutions. Suspicion of the goals and mission of the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the World Trade Organization, even the Nobel Commission have gained currency among ultra-right wing nuts that have come to inordinately represent and influence one of our two major political parties. My fear is that it is not only limited to the reactionary right wing, but is becoming more generally accepted in conservative dogma among those who might be inclined to be somewhat more moderate in their social views. For instance, just this past week I brought to the attention of a friend of mine who normally possesses a more moderate political stance on social issues, despite her Republican party affiliation, an issue I felt to be sure to inspire genuine bipartisan concern: namely, cautions being issued by the scientific and medical community of the expectation that swine flu will spike this Fall as the new school year commences. As a concerned mother of three children I just assumed that these cautions would be welcomed and heeded. Instead, I was confronted with a most unexpected reaction; essentially it was "Oh I don't put much stock in precautions from the World Health Organization". It was as if that is just one more example of a corrupt organization with an obviously corrupt agenda. What made this reaction so astonishing, to my mind, was not the assumption that this was something worth watching but rather that it was not even worthy of consideration merely because it had to be one of those leftist alarmist organizations bent on disturbing the tranquility of free-market capitalism, sort of like Obama threatening to lead a government take-over of our sacred health care system. How is it that a certain segment of the population is perfectly content to resist even the notion of questioning whether or not we can make things better? How is it that prevention connotes disruption? How is it that large governmental and non-governmental organizations have nefarious agendas while large for-profit corporations must inherently have not profits but our best interests at heart? How is it that compromise and negotiation, the fundamental building blocks of our democratically representative political system have become so elusive and even scorned? How is it that the politics of secession is rearing its ugly head 144 years after that issue was so painfully laid to rest? Where are the voices of moderation in the conservative movement? I would argue that true conservatism is becoming a relic of the past, cast aside by a reactionary tsunami that very well might destroy any semblance of a two-party political system. Now, I have little problem with this outcome, as long as it does not stand in the way of immediate correction of the dramatic and traumatic social inequities currently operative in our society, and the most immediate correction must be guaranteeing health care to all as a right not a privilege. The problem, of course, is that there are individuals in both parties seemingly affected by this infectious disease. It is a disease that is spread as rapidly as the special interest dollars that fuel the political system. And it must be stopped. The common ground to start the discussion has always been that we have a broken health care system that needs fixing. How is it that this can actually be in dispute? Yet, it is not apparent that we have crossed the threshold of even agreeing that 45 million uninsured is unacceptable. This is the message that needs to be forcefully delivered by the President next week. As self-evident as it may seem, that message has not been forcefully characterized and portrayed to the American public. It needs to be. And for those who cannot agree upon this simple assertion, one backed by facts, statistics, and common sense, I say too bad we shall move forward without you. On the larger issue of restoring trust in the system, nothing succeeds like success, let this be our attempt to prove that "we are from the government, and we are here to help" is no longer a punch line but a lifeline.
 
Nancy Talbot, Talbots Creator, Dead At 89 (PHOTOS) Top
BOULDER, Colo. — The co-founder of the upscale Talbots women's clothing company has died from complications of Alzheimer's disease. Nancy Talbot was 89. The Talbots Inc. said that Talbot died Sunday in Boulder, where she lived near one of her daughters. Talbot and her husband Rudolf opened their first store in Hingham, Mass., in 1947 and launched their mail-order business in 1948. July 31 She once described their clothing as timeless, ladylike, smart, chic and understated. The couple sold the business in 1973 to General Mills. Rudolf Talbot retired but Nancy Talbot stayed on as a vice president until retiring in 1983. Rudolf Talbot died in 1987. July 5 The company now has 586 stores in the U.S. and Canada. More on Michelle Obama
 
Thomas Kochan: Making Workers the Catalyst for Economic Recovery Top
On this Labor Day Weekend, President Obama and Congress have a chance to do much more than issue proclamations and march in solidarity parades. They have a real opportunity to advance policies that will help assure that the economic recovery reaches beyond financial institutions and major corporations to those who need it most: American workers and their families. Workers have good reasons to feel left out of stimulus efforts to date. Nearly 20 percent of the workforce is unemployed, unable to find a full time job, or has given up on looking for one. Half have seen wages frozen or cut, even after enduring more than two decades of stagnant wages, shrinking retirement accounts, and rising income inequality. Nearly 90 percent of American workers lack a formal voice at work and those who want one are blocked by labor laws that are outdated and broken. President Obama gave average Americans hope that they would finally have in the White House someone who would put the needs of working families at the top of the agenda. The President had little choice but to first stabilize the nation's financial system and economy, and those actions have helped reduce the rate of job loss. But if his economic policies are to really pay off, workers and workplace issues must be at the center, not the margins, of Washington policy making. Actions are needed to allow workers and their workplaces to serve as catalysts for an economic recovery that is broadly shared and sustainable. We have the tools to do so. Two decades of research, for instance, indicates that major investments such as those being made to repair the nation's infrastructure and rebuild and transform the auto industry can reap maximum benefits only if they fully engage workers' knowledge and skills to achieve high productivity and service quality, and by doing so, trigger wage growth. But because such goals require modern, innovative, and cooperative labor management relations, Congress and the administration must take specific steps that clearly link worker issues to the economic agenda. Beneath all the heated debate about health care reform, for example, lies the well-documented reality that health care quality improvement and cost reduction require a high level of coordination, engagement, and teamwork in health care delivery, from doctors and nurses to technicians and service workers. Proven examples, such as Kaiser Permanente and its union coalition and the League of Voluntary Hospitals in New York and Service Employees Local 1199, demonstrate the health care quality and economic benefits that flow from such cooperative, partnership-based, labor management relationships. Such practices should be required of all health care providers, unions, and professional associations. Other economic sectors receiving public money must be similarly guided by labor management compacts that guarantee labor peace and training and job opportunities for all as well as assurances for taxpayers that modern management and labor practices will be in place to complete these projects on time, on budget, and safely. Rebuilding of the middle class also requires that labor law reform finally be enacted in a way that restores workers rights to join a union and gain collective bargaining agreements. The evidence is clear that laws that fail to protect workers' rights are also a serious drag on wage and productivity growth and make true labor-management cooperation impossible. The Obama Administration should actively engage in talks now taking place on Capitol Hill to shape the Employee Free Choice Act into an acceptable bill by insisting on provisions that foster the kinds of partnership-based labor management relationships that workers want and that are essential if wages are to again move in tandem with productivity and economic growth. Though it should hardly be necessary, the administration needs to clearly remind the Department of Labor of its historic and fundamental responsibility to vigorously enforce the nation's employment laws. But the department must also modernize its approach by engaging workers, unions, community organizations, and employers in coordinated, meaningful efforts to upgrade safety and health, wage and hour, and equal employment opportunity practices. Such actions will enable workers to contribute to and share in the economic recovery and receive the dignity and respect they deserve. And not just on Labor Day.
 
Christina Bellantoni: Cantor: GOP will be 'attentive' during Obama speech Top
First published at WashingtonTimes.com Sept. 3 This afternoon I interviewed GOP Whip Eric Cantor, who disputed the stimulus projections Vice President Biden laid out in a speech earlier. At the end of the interview we talked a bit about President Obama's upcoming health care address Wednesday before a joint session of Congress. There's only been one other non-war time address from a president - and that was in September 1993 when President Clinton began his own health care reform battle in earnest. Cantor and I talked about how Republicans would behave, and I asked if it would be like a State of the Union when they sit on their hands or hiss for parts they don't agree with. I also asked Cantor if there were going to be any "no Tweeting" rules for Republicans, since  some of them  had busy thumbs during Obama's winter  quasi-State of the Union address . "I don’t think we’re going to be guiding the caucus to boo or applaud or whatever. We’re all going to be very attentive," he said. Culberson is a frequent user of the Twitter machine,  as I noted in a story  examining the GOP's social media strategy. Will the caucus tell Culberson to cool it? I asked Cantor. "No comment. I don’t think the American people are interested in that or not," he said, adding: "It is time for some adult behavior here." —  Christina Bellantoni , White House correspondent, The Washington Times Please track  my blog's  RSS feed  here . Find my latest stories  here , follow me on  Twitter  and visit my  YouTube page . More on GOP
 
Tom Matlack: Alec: I'll Show You Mine If You Show Me Yours? Top
I wrote a blog recently about a "Manhood Quiz." I got a lot of email, tweet, and Facebook traffic as a result of that post. Everybody wanted to know two things. First, why didn't I actually do the quiz? And second, would our leader on Huffington and in manliness at-large (particularly for us divorced dads) Alec Baldwin do the quiz and post for us all to see? I can only control the first part. So here it is. The rest is up to you Alec.... 1) Who taught you about manhood? My college rowing coach, Will Scoggins, made a huge impact on me by asking me to set aside my childhood fears and become a man. His piercing blue eyes, beard, and chew all convinced me that maybe I should listen. He said that acorns don't become big seeds. An acorn has to transform itself completely to become an oak tree. 2) Has romantic love shaped you as a man? I've had a hard time believing that I am worthy of that kind of love but the place I always come back to now is my wife's arms. 3) What two words describe your dad? Brilliant and idealistic. 4) How are you most unlike him? I have a mathematical mind that served me well in business. 5) What mistake did you learn the most from? Drinking too much and thinking that making a ton of money might make me less of a a-hole. 6) What word would the women in your life use to describe you? Is it accurate? My wife just told me "narcissistic." She is always right. 7) Who is the best dad you know and what does he do to make him so? A guy named Tony who, like me, found himself a divorced dad. I was trying to figure out how to possible manage a one-year-old son and three year old daughter on my own. He had four-year-old twins and an eight-year-old daughter who was severely disabled. He taught me that being a dad is a ground war. No one part of it is hard if you just let your kids be themselves, attend to their basic needs, and find joy in their innocence. But you have to stay engaged. 8) Have you been more successful in public or private? Early in my life I was hugely successful in public and a complete failure in private. I'd like to believe that as a father and husband I have made my way over the last years. 9) When was the last time you cried? At my 99 year-old grandmother's memorial service. At my lowest point she took me by the shoulders and said, "Tom, there's good stuff in you I have seen it. Remember that's it's not how you fall in life, it's how you pick yourself up that counts!" 10) What advice would you give teenage boys trying to figure what it means to be a good man? Always tell the truth about yourself. For Bonus Points: What is the your most cherished ritual as a guy? Walking our yellow lab Penny. Telling my best friends that I have and will continue to dominate them at running, swimming, biking and kickboxing. (If you would like to participate in the Manhood Quiz feel free to post as a comment here or email your responses to me at thomasmatlack@gmail.com )
 
Harvey Karp: Why We Must Ban BPA From Products Made For Children Top
In case you missed the flurry of recent news, scientists have serious doubts about the safety of BPA (bisphenol A). And that's alarming because this hormonally active chemical contaminates the body of virtually every single American. BPA was first created as a synthetic estrogen, and only later was it discovered to make hard clear plastic (polycarbonate and epoxy resins). Today, billions of pounds of BPA are used in thousands of every day products: from restaurant receipts to toilet paper to the slippery lining of canned food and soda...and infant formula. It's also the plastic in shatterproof drinking tumblers and baby bottles. The problem is, BPA leaches off the wall of the cans and containers and into our mouths - and our babies' mouths - and into our bodies with every gulp. In 2007, the CDC reported that over 93 percent of Americans have BPA floating through our bodies. That's a concern because BPA is an endocrine disruptor chemical. That means that even miniscule concentrations of this compound can pervert the normal development of hormonally sensitive tissues, like breast, testicles and brain. Hundreds of studies on laboratory animals reveal that BPA promotes obesity, diabetes, testicular cancer, breast cancer-like changes (and resistance to life saving chemotherapy) and even reduce sperm counts. This is very worrisome because, over the past 20 years, scientists have noticed rising rates of these problems in people all around the world. In the recently launched National Children's Study, America's monumental evaluation of the adverse health effects of common chemicals, BPA is one of the suspect compounds being evaluated for possible association with autism, cancer, learning disorders, etc. Newborn and infant exposure to BPA poses an especially disturbing threat during windows of vulnerability. These periods, as short as hours and days, are times when a baby's developing body is exquisitely sensitive to chemical damage. Even minute exposures, during those periods, have the potential of creating lifetime problems. The National Toxicology Program voiced concern about the "effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A." The Endocrine Society, a group of our nation's top scientists dedicated to hormone research, recently warned that BPA and other hormone-twisting chemicals "have effects on male and female reproduction, breast development and cancer, prostate cancer, neuroendocrinology, thyroid, metabolism and obesity, and cardiovascular endocrinology." The Society went on to say that it intends to lobby "for regulation seeking to decrease human exposure" to BPA--an unprecedented move by this 93-year-old institution. The scientific evidence is broad, growing and convincing. We need to act to protect our citizens from this harmful chemical. That is why California State Senator Fran Pavley crafted SB 797 offering a protective shield for California's most at risk-citizens, its babies. This modest bill has passed the Senate and will soon be voted on by the Assembly. And passage is far from certain. A phalanx of corporate lobbyists from chemical companies has swooped down on Sacramento to misinform and pressure legislators. They are crying their same tired, old song: "It will ruin the economy, it will ruin jobs." That they used to try to fool the public when it came to removing DDT, asbestos, PCBs and many other toxic chemicals. Of course, their claims are ridiculous. Of all the billions of pounds of BPA in common use, Senator Pavley's bill only phases out only a very tiny fraction: that used in food and drink containers designed for children ages three and younger. Furthermore, removing BPA from these products will likely create jobs and boost the economy by building the market for the safe alternatives to BPA that are already on the market. Voting for this bill is common sense. In fact, Minnesota, Connecticut and Canada have already enacted similar BPA reductions. Even Chicago has stood up to protect its children. Now it's time for California to act. Working hard, cooking good dinners, coaching soccer games are the jobs of parents. But, it's not the job of parents to have to inspect every single item they buy in the store for toxic contamination. Keeping unsafe chemicals out of baby formula is the government's job. California will set a great example to the rest of the nation by passing SB 797. *** Dr. Harvey Karp is a nationally renowned pediatrician, fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics and spokesman on children's environmental issues for over 20 years. He is the author of the popular parenting guides, The Happiest Baby on the Block and The Happiest Toddler on the Block. More on Canada
 
Harry Moroz: Overstimulated: Governors Got The Goods Top
"But it also had a direct -- direct -- you do not -- you get out of jail, you do not have to, you know, do anything other than you pass Go, you go right and you apply for the -- at a local level, you apply for the grant. That's what we wanted to do for an awful lot of what was done in this legislation."- Vice President Joe Biden, September 3, 2009 Yesterday, Vice President Joe Biden addressed a gathering at the Brookings Institution to describe the stimulus package's successes thus far. He cited independent reports showing that between 500,000 and 750,000 jobs have been created or saved as a result of the recovery package and that the stimulus boosted GDP by 2.2% in the second quarter and will likely increase third-quarter GDP by 3.3%. He applauded significant investments in infrastructure, education, and health and called the diversity of programs included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "silver buckshot" - rather than a silver bullet - that has changed the "trajectory of our economy." What the Vice President struggled to explain, however, is how the stimulus is helping the nation's cities and metropolitan areas. Obviously, cities would be worse off without the recovery act. Biden mentioned that the State Fiscal Stabilization funds prevented 14,000 teacher layoffs in New York City; funds have gone to Kansas City's innovative Green Impact Zone ; and some spending on infrastructure and transit projects has reached cities. However, as several recent reports have indicated, stimulus spending in metropolitan areas is proportional neither to the population nor to the economic production concentrated in these regions. But the situation is worse than disproportionate spending. Recent unemployment statistics for metropolitan areas are dismal: 139 metros have unemployment rates greater than 10 percent, 19 have rates of at least 15 percent, and the unemployment rate in 38 increased between five and six percent between July and August. Construction employment is down in 319 metropolitan regions , according to the Associated General Contractors of America, and up in only 11. Further, the fiscal crisis that has already dealt a serious blow to state services has barely reached city governments. A new survey released by the National League of Cities shows that city budget officers are increasingly worried about worsening fiscal conditions in their cities. 88 percent report worse fiscal conditions in 2009 than in 2008, compared to only 64% who said the same when asked last year. The lag in property tax assessments - properties in many cities are assessed only periodically - means that city property tax revenues have not yet been affected by the housing crash. When such assessments occur, revenue will drop significantly. Combined with the likelihood of prolonged unemployment and depressed consumer spending (which mean lower income and sales tax revenue, respectively), the fiscal condition of cities in the coming years appears grim. Worse, many cities have already run through the "playbook" for tight fiscal times: hiring freezes, selected layoffs, delayed or canceled infrastructure projects, and sin taxes on products like soft drinks and cigarettes. With these options no longer available - and with 50% of city budget officers already reporting reductions in state aid - cities will be forced to consider significant budget cuts and tax increases in order to balance their budgets. As the NLC reports states, "the nation's cities will most likely still be realizing the effects of the current downturn in 2010, 2011, and beyond." Oh, and those 14,000 layoffs the stimulus prevented? New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg has scheduled them for 2013 when the stimulus has run out. The Vice President is, in fact, aware of the problem. In yesterday's speech, Biden emphasized that the Obama administration wanted funds to flow directly to cities, as is the case with his signature COPS program. This is what Biden is attempting to say in the garbled epigraph above. But, the Vice President lamented, "Congress, in its wisdom, decided that the governors should have a bigger input." Biden even complained that he himself - the Vice President - is mediating disputes between governors who want to spend money on highways in rural areas and mayors who wanted to spend money on off ramps in cities. He called the difficulty of coordination "the biggest frustration" of the stimulus package. It is certainly heartening to hear that the highest levels of government are concerned that cities are not receiving sufficient stimulus funds. But what is worrisome is that Congress has tied the administration's hands: the stimulus is designed to deal primarily with state problems, not urban problems. Thus, when Biden promises a stimulus that is a "platform for growth" as part of an administration that calls cities the engines of growth, one cannot help but detect a disconnect. Stated simply, Congress and the administration will need to focus serious attention - and money - on cities in the near-to-medium term. This could be accomplished through categorical formula grants like the Community Development Block Grant or the Neighborhood Stabilization Program that target aid directly to cities or through General Revenue Sharing, essentially a no-strings-attached infusion of cash to local governments. States are easy for Congress to work with - there are just 50 compared to the approximately 80,000 different local governments in the United States. But if the federal government does not turn its attention to urban areas soon, not only will city residents suffer disproportionately from the downturn but the economic recovery of the entire will be slowed.
 
LEGARRETTE BLOUNT: Oregon Football Player Punches Out Byron Hout After Game (VIDEO) Top
LeGarrette Blount, Oregon's troubled running back , shocked the football world last night with a blindside attack on an opposing player after the Ducks' upset loss to Boise State. Blount, who was suspended earlier in the year, went ballistic, sucker-punching Byron Hout after he knocked his pads and seemingly talked some trash. Hout momentarily fell to the ground as Blount continued his rampage, taking a swing at a teammate and going after fans in the crowd. Coaches and players on both teams tried to restrain Blount, and were only finally able to get him off the field with the help of security and police. While some are calling for Blount's suspension, if not banishment, from the team and sport, others are asking what exactly Hout said that caused such a scene. Blount apologized for his actions today, saying: I just apologize to everyone that was watching this. I just apologize to all of our fans, all of Boise's fans. I lost my head. ... A few guys wished me a good game, a few guys pushed me and I just kind of lost my temper. Any disciplinary action has yet to be decided, but you can believe that it will be severe.
 
The Media Consortium: Weekly Mulch: Solar Power Flares Up Top
By Raquel Brown, TMC Mediawire Blogger For a long time, only the economic elite could afford the hefty cost of solar energy. But in recent years, creative and affordable solar power technologies have been developed, creating a truly viable fossil fuel alternative. Arla Shephard of High Country News reports that timber companies in Washington's Kittitas County are looking to renewable energy to keep their companies out of debt. American Forest Land Company is planning to create the largest solar power plant in the Northwest . The Teanaway Solar Reserve would use 400,000 photovoltaic panels and produce 76 megawatts. That's enough energy to power 45,000 homes. There are economic benefits as well. "In economically depressed Kittitas County (where the unemployment rate hovers at 8.1 percent), Teanaway's project will mean a couple hundred temporary construction jobs and around 35 permanent jobs at the power plant, and potentially hundreds more long-term jobs at the manufacturing plant," says Shephard. Similar plans are also underway in New Mexico. Matthew Reichbach of the New Mexico Independent notes that a solar plant will be built in the Elephant Butte area and will hopefully bring clean energy and jobs to the community, while also saving water. What if we replaced paved asphalt surfaces with solar panels? Solar Road Panels are an avant-garde clean-energy idea that could provide three times the electricity the U.S. consumes without emitting any carbon. Grist's David Roberts explains that the Solar Road Panels would also contain LED lighting to help communicate with drivers, heating units to prevent icing and other weather conditions, electric vehicle recharging stations and high-voltage power transmission lines. The Department of Transportation has warmed up to the idea, and given Solar Roadways a $100,000 contract to build a prototype. According to the Solar Roadways website, The Solar Road Panels will contain embedded LEDs which "paint" the road lines from beneath to provide safer nighttime driving, as well as to give up to the minute instructions (via the road) to drivers (i.e.) 'detour ahead'). The road will be able to sense wildlife on the road and can warn drivers to 'slow down.' There will also be embedded heating elements in the surface to prevent snow and ice buildup, providing for safer winter driving. This feature packed system will become an intelligent highway that will double as a secure, intelligent, decentralized, self-healing power grid which will enable a gradual weaning from fossil fuels." While there are many costs to solarizing the roads, Roberts points out that the cost of manufacturing Solar Road Panels matches our current costs to maintain power plants, asphalt roads and grid infrastructure. Going solar is becoming less expensive and more convenient. Forget the traditional, bulky, hard-to-install panels made out of crystalline silicon. Instead, solar energy companies have developed thin-film technology to create photovoltaic (PV) cells . The process, which uses non-silicon alternatives like copper, selenium, indium and gallium, has been compared to how the Federal Reserve prints money. Scott Thill of Alternet notes that this new solar technology will revolutionize the clean energy market and can be used on everything from a house to a car. Finally, this past Sunday, Grind for the Green hosted the second annual solar-powered hip-hop show in San Francisco. Kristia Castrillo of WireTap Magazine explains that while the event is highly innovative, "We cannot meekly nod our heads to the folks who are already doing this work." Solar power is just one part of the equation. We must continue to develop a relevant dialogue, explore new ideas and work to engage the public in creating a sustainable environment. "In truth, the task of sustaining human life on this planet does not rely on our physical strength or the numbers in our bank balance, rather it depends on our ability to step out of our comfort zone," says Castrillo. This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment and is free to reprint. Visit Sustain.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on the environment and sustainability, or follow us on Twitter . And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health, and immigration issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net , Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.newsladder.net . This is a project of The Media Consortium , a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder
 
Mike Lux: The News Big Media Won't Report Top
Every morning I still read my old fashioned paper copy of the morning Washington Post on the subway on my way to the office, and then I sit down to review all the information I am getting from field events and town halls around the country, lobbyists' reports from those meeting with Senate and House members and staff, updates from organizations working in the field. I have to say that the two sets of information could not be further apart, and it makes me wonder again what the disconnect is. This morning is a classic example. On the front page is a remarkable puff piece that I had to do a double take on because it was so strange: an article on Senator Bob Corker with the headline, "A GOP Senator Looking To Meet Halfway." I had to do a double-take because Bob Corker is one of the farthest right-wing Senators in the chamber, a Senator who has never voted in the middle or been serious about anything approaching a compromise on any major issue that I am aware of. He is not on either of the two Senate committees dealing with health care, is a freshman not in the leadership, and has not offered a single significant piece of health care legislation. What he says about health care is identical to the same talking points Mitch McConnell speaks from, which incidentally were the same talking points Newt Gingrich was speaking from when he killed the last effort at health reform. These talking points include the usual problem that every politician uses when they are trying to kill a bill, about how of course they want to meet in the middle and reach a compromise, if only the other side would just drop everything that really matters. Apparently, the folks at the WP take such silliness at face value. I turned to page A2, and there was a classically cynical Dana Milbank column , trashing a Democratic member's press conference on health care and talking about Democrats trying, "to pick up the pieces of the shattered health care bill." Then on page A4, a column about a town hall meeting in rural Colorado that had more anti-reform than pro-reform people showing up in attendance. On the other hand, in my office, I am reading reports that look like this: A report from field activists analyzing town hall meetings that showed more than 15,000 people turned out clearly in favor of health reform, compared to 1,200 clearly opposed. (Along with quite a few someplace in the middle, with thoughtful questions.) A second report analyzing town hall turnout trends from local news accounts suggesting that in most of the town halls reported on, supporters outnumbered opponents. Reports from pro-reform rallies over last weekend in at least 30 places around the country, including: over 1,000 in Denver ; 1,000 in Columbus, Ohio ; 1,500 in St. Louis ; 2,800 in Somerville, MA ; 1,000 in Vancouver, WA . And hundreds in small towns as well: 400 in Clinton, Iowa ; 200 in Jefferson City, MO ; 150 people in Columbus, GA ; 700 in Salinas ; 300 in Grand Rapids, MI ; 300 in Green Bay, WI. The OFA program being run out of the DNC, after being derided for months by the traditional media for its slow start, reported some stunning numbers at the start of the Obama/OFA town hall on August 24th : Over 1.5 million have taken action since they launched the health insurance reform campaign on June 6th; 11,906 local events have happened, and average of 171 events per day; 231,572 personal stories have been submitted; OFA members made 64,912 local visits in one week . In a matter of 96 hours, a group of bloggers raised over $400,000 from 6,800 people to support strong supporters of a public option. As I've written before, between some combination of their own pre-conceived conventional wisdom talking points and their love of covering a train wreck, traditional media does not want to report the good news about health care reform. I can't remember ever seeing in any traditional media story, for example, the fact that (as Chris Bowers reported ) there is now a majority in both the House and the Senate that are on the public record in support of a public option. The future of health care reform hangs in the balance. We are in the fight of our lives- but if you listen to the traditional media, you would think it is all over.
 
Giles Slade: Nothin' From Nothin' Leaves Nothin': Levi Johnston at 19 Top
Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears have been behaving themselves recently, so Vanity Fair, a magazine named for the foremost representation of social ambition in the English language, has just published excerpts of Levi Johnston's forthcoming book-length account of what? Himself, I suppose; how he became marginally involved, albeit briefly, in national level politics after impregnating and then deserting the impressionable daughter of Alaska's former governor and the GOP's current looby*-in-chief. Despite whatever large amount Vanity Fair paid him, Mr. Johnston's short-lived delay en route to his unavoidable obscurity has already cost him big time. Mother Sheryl L. Johnston was busted in Wasilla last December for selling a prescription painkiller (oxycontin-sometimes called 'hillbilly heroin') to an undercover Alaska State Trooper. "Sherry" Johnston was then sentenced to a fiver in the state pen. Without any prompting the Troopers assured everyone that their investigation, which resulted in only one conviction, had nothing to do with Levi's disastrous relationship to the gubernatorial family. -- OK. Mrs. Johnston was also very forthcoming. She told the court that she had become addicted to oxycontin during a series of unsuccessful operations that began with a hysterectomy. There's a missing step, of course, in her transition from addict to dealer, but no doubt this will be the topic of a future Vanity Fair piece entitled 'Painkillers and the Change of Life: Levi's Mom Tells All.' Like Sarah Palin, Levi has a forthcoming book entirely about his peripheral (and somewhat sordid or depressing) relationship with the Palin family. If I was Sarah Palin, I would be rejoicing today in the knowledge that the current Vanity Fair piece will no doubt kill any further interest in Mr. Johnston's book. Mr. Johnston wants to begin a career as a male model and/or actor. I'm not sure he'll be successful, but I think he avoid any further effort involving the written word. It's pretty dull crud. If my 19 year old had written it, I'd imagine I'd failed him somewhere. But I'd be very unhappy if he impregnated and then deserted a young woman. However, then turning on her parents -- yes, even the Palins -- seems to worsen the creepiness of this narcissistic child. I wonder if he was brought up by wolves, but -- of course -- this would give beautiful Alaskan gray wolves a bad name. They're extremely loyal animals. Obviously, Sheryl L. Johnston is not the person to imbue her offspring with literary or moral standards (creating this impression may actually be the very reason she was arrested), but where's Levi's dad? This again, is the topic for a future Vanity Fair piece entitled: "Wasilla Deadbeat: Levi's Dad's Secret Pain.' Well, this is a very short phlegm-ball, and I apologize. I've already wasted too much time on Sarah Palin in other posts. When next she and I meet in print, it will be to give serious attention to her memoir, which, I'm sure, ghostwriters and editors in New York are laboring over even as you read these final words: What the hell has happened to Vanity Fair ? They used to have standards. Gail Collins writes about "Levi's Revenge" in the New York Times here . Marcus of the Washington Post has a nice take on "Levi's Johnston's Smarmy Tale" here . and Levi's VF piece "Me And Mrs. Palin" in can be retrieved here . Enough already! * gloss for "looby": a clumsy lout, a foolish person. Palinesque. More on Sarah Palin
 
Jim Gibbons: On Labor Day, Goodwill Sees Reason for Hope, Time to Build Skills Top
Happy Labor Day! If you're one of the millions of Americans who are currently unemployed or underemployed, Labor Day may not seem like much of a happy holiday. But there's reason to be hopeful. That's because after months and months of negative economic news there are indications that things might be turning around for the better. And trust me; you'll want to be ready when it happens. Hopeful Signs When I say there's reason for hope, I'm referring to, in part, the government's monthly report on the employment situation. This report shows that we're still seeing job losses, but at only half the rate that we had seen in the early months of this year. I won't kid you; the jobless rate is still high and many people remain out of work. But according to most economists, fewer Americans are now finding themselves among the newly unemployed. This is a clear sign that the economy has already hit bottom and is on the path to recovery. Given that likelihood, this Labor Day is the time to rededicate yourself to getting a job so that you can be part of any economic expansion. There are many ways to do this, and I'd like to tell you about one of these. Skill Up Earlier this summer Goodwill® launched a new online tool for Americans impacted by the economic downturn. The Recovery site - http://Recovery.Goodwill.org - features important information in the areas of career, family, finance and health for people from all backgrounds and skill sets. If you're like most Americans going through job losses, you're left with the following questions: • Wondering what job sectors are hiring, and what types of jobs promise career growth. • How to manage healthcare for your family during these economically challenging times. The site answers these questions and also provides ways to manage your budget, maintain a frugal lifestyle, and even provides inexpensive ways to travel with your family. The career resources section of Recovery.Goodwill.org includes tips to improve your job hunting skills including resume writing and networking as well as how to take advantage of potential job opportunities in your community. If that weren't enough, there's also a Job of the Week listing. No matter what your skills, Goodwill has the tools to help; many local Goodwills around the country are placing people in employment opportunities in diverse industries such as technology, healthcare, food services, banking, computer programming and manufacturing. Here is my point: you can view this Labor Day as a difficult time, or you can seize upon the economic signs of hope, take advantage of an opportunity to build your job skills, and use Labor Day as a way to celebrate a new path in your career. Stay Hopeful. Build your Skills. Goodwill is there for you. And as I said before: Happy Labor Day. More on Health Care
 
John F. Wasik: Get Ready for 'Son' of Stimulus Plan Top
So, where are the jobs? Even as the fog seems to be lifting over housing, manufacturing and the financial sector, the unemployment rate continues to float ever higher. Despite the largest economic bailout in America history, the jobless rate soared to 9.7 percent in August. All told, nearly 7 million jobs have been lost since December 2007. Wasn't that $787 billion stimulus package supposed to make this awful number go down? The stimulus plan is like trying to weld a plate onto the hull gash in the Titanic after it hit an iceberg. Once you set aside the money spent on economic triage - more than a half a trillion dollars - you have a long-term investment in social and physical capital. As I discovered in researching my new book The Audacity of Help: Obama's Economic Plan and the Remaking of the America (www.audacityofhelp.net), much of the legislation was a combination economic band-aid and long-term therapy. While it may not be reflected in the unemployment numbers, there is visible progress from the stimulus spending. About $60 billion of the $288 billion in promised tax cuts has flowed into the pockets of most middle- and lower-class Americans. Another $84 billion of a nearly half-trillion dollars in capital improvements spending has been doled out. Roads are being repaved, bridges are being rebuilt and thousands of public works projects are underway, resulting in about 2 million jobs, reports IHS Global Insight, a consulting firm. Where Money Was Spent Let's start with the largest chunk of the stimulus program: Tax relief, which accounted for $288 billion of the spending. Those on fixed-income received a one-time payment of $250. That's not much help when Social Security payments, indexed to the consumer price index (CPI), were expected to remain flat. It would be ideal if the CPI reflected the true cost of living that incorporates higher medical costs, all taxes and transportation, but it doesn't. Sorry, you can't turn in your clunker for a bigger check to cover higher out-of-pocket medical or insurance bills. Most everyone else saw a slight increase in their take-home pay as withholding taxes were dropped a bit, although it only added up to a few dollars a week. A more salient way of boosting incomes would be to grant a holiday on payroll taxes for a few days or weeks, but that's not what Congress and the Obama Administration decided to do. The next-biggest portion of the stimulus spending -- $144 billion -- was for "state and local fiscal relief." Faced with the loss of state and local tax revenue, government agencies were facing massive teacher layoffs and shutting down public services without this band-aid measure. This move saved more jobs than would have otherwise been lost, although it doesn't address a more pernicious long-term problem. Property valuations, which are the basis for local real estate taxes, are continuing to fall. That means less money for schools, libraries, fire and police departments. How can public agencies replace this money? It's an ongoing crisis that will translate into more program, service and job cuts (or tax hikes) later this year and into 2010. Get ready for "Son of Stimulus" when this reality gobsmacks Congress as it heads into mid-term elections next year. Long-Term Investments The saving grace of the Obama-designed stimulus is that it's earnest about investing in infrastructure, research, energy and education. $111 billion will be spent on infrastructure and science. This is everything from medical research, fixing roads and high-speed rail planning. Some $53 billion will be spent on education and training and is broadly distributed to everything from Headstart for poor families to higher education (see http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/index.htm l). $43 billion will be spent on energy research for sorely needed technologies like efficient batteries. What's not clear about the stimulus spending is if the money allocated to specific projects is being spent efficiently or that it will match the number of jobs lost during the recession. Early indications are that it isn't, although it will take time for nearly a trillion dollars to make it from the Treasury to a project in your community. The Obama Administration definitely needs to provide more information on its www.recovery.gov site to tell taxpayers how that money is being spent. There are maps that tell you which projects are funded and where, but more detail is needed. For now, a much better source is the nonprofit journalism group www.propublica.org . The stimulus program will either be a downpayment on a productive new shift in job creation - what I call social capitalism -- or a bandage on a hemorrhage. In any case, such a transformation will take time and the waiting period will be increasingly painful for those losing their jobs. For more information please visit: www.audacityofhelp.net More on Stimulus Package
 
Paul Szep: The Daily Szep- Drug Company Pays $2.3 Billion Fine Top
 
Joe Cirincione: Rachel Maddow: Her Intelligence is Right Top
Rachel Maddow will not let former officials dodge responsibility for launching an unnecessary war in Iraq. Why do other journalists? In her interview with former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on August 31 , Maddow demonstrated why she is one of the top journalists in the country. Ridge gave what is now the standard dodge when she asked if he regretted pushing for war with Iraq. "The intelligence was wrong," he said. But Maddow wasn't buying it. She drills him for over 5 minutes, saying in part: Maddow : You don't think that the administration - Vice President Cheney, your long-time friend President Bush, the intelligence system set up under Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon - you don't think that they had any role in skewing the intelligence to a foregone conclusion. You think that it was an intelligence community error and not a politicized decision. Really? Ridge : Yes. I know some of these men better than I know others, but I don't think any one of these men would have contrived in their own mind a scenario without - in their own mind and heart - substantive belief based on information they received that the threat was real...The intelligence may have been proven to be false, but there is no doubt in my mind that they were motivated to keep America safe.... Maddow : I think that is an eloquent argument and I have to tell you, I think you making that argument right now is why Republicans after the Bush and Cheney administration are not going to get back the country's trust on national security. To look back at that decision and say, "We got it wrong, but it was in good faith" and not acknowledge the foregone conclusion that we are going to invade Iraq that pervaded every decision that was made about intelligence....It sounds like you're making the argument you would have made that same decision again....The intelligence that proved the opposite point was all discounted, the intelligence was combed through for any bit that would support the foregone conclusion of the policymakers...[It]was a wrong decision made by policymakers; it wasn't the spies fault. ... Ridge : You're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you, but I do appreciate the civil way that we've had the discussion. Frankly, I think we would advance our interests as a country a lot further and a lot faster if we could have the discussions such as this and I thank you. Rachel Maddow interviews Tom Ridge on MSNBC, August 30, 2009. This answer--"The intelligence was wrong"--is used by every former Bush official, and for good reason: it works. It shuts down most journalists. Why does it work? As every former Hill staffer can tell you, if a witness can dodge a question twice, they are usually home free. Members, like journalists, have a long list of prepared questions to ask. If they are deflected, they are easily convinced to move along, nothing to see here. More importantly, journalists have allowed the former Bush officials to define what the intelligence was. They have allowed them to freeze the intelligence into one specific moment in time: the deeply flawed 2002 National Intelligence Assessment on Iraq . But intelligence before and after that NIE was correct in concluding that there was little evidence of any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in Iraq. Only the NIE was so definitively wrong. Why? Because it was intentionally manipulated and distorted by senior officials to give them the findings they needed to start a war. They manufactured the intelligence they now insist was wrong. Do we know this for certain? Yes. In one of the best pieces of research I have ever done (in large part because of the exacting standards of my co-author, Carnegie President Jessica Mathews), we demonstrated in our report, WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications , that the intelligence agencies before the Bush administration took control more accurately assessed the risks. All though there was cause for concern, but nothing like the definitive statements the NIE made, or that officials then exaggerated to claim that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons, as Dick Cheney said before the war. We further know, as I documented in another article , that there was substantial dissent inside our intelligence agencies. This dissent was suppressed, Maddows argues and Ridge denies. But Senate Intelligence Committee reports support Maddows. As several members of the committee concluded: The Committee's report deconstructs the October 2002 Estimate and demonstrates how many of its key judgments were not substantiated by the underlying intelligence. The Estimate contains numerous instances where intelligence was stretched and manipulated to serve an analytical bias that Iraq's mass destruction programs were stockpiled and weaponized. [Full disclosure: I have been a guest on The Rachel Maddow Show ; and while a staff member of the House Armed Services Committee, I worked with Congressman Tom Ridge for over 5 years on military reform legislation and cuts to the Star Wars program.] We also know that the most important intelligence before the war, the on-site inspections of the UN to every suspect facility, turned up no sign of weapons or programs. Inspectors pleaded for more time to complete their job. But Cheney and other officials derived them as bumbling Inspector Clouseau's and rushed to war. The UN intelligence was right. The US inspection teams two years after the war concluded that there were no chemical, biological weapons, programs or intentions to restart any programs. There was no reason to invade. Rachel Maddow, to her credit, refuses to let these officials off the hook. She says on her show September 2 , that we cannot "look back at the rational for the Iraq war now and say, "well, none of those reasons for the war turned out to be true but what does that matter?" She is right. Policy matters. Bad policy leads to seriously bad consequences. Why are we still threatened by Al Qaeda? Because we diverted troops from capturing Osama bin Ladin to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Why are we trapped in a losing war in Afghanistan? Because we decided invading Iraq was more important than stabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why do we have a skyrocketing deficit? In part, because we will spend $1 trillion on the war in Iraq. Why are we threatened by nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea? Because we shunned effective means to shut down those programs when they were a fraction of their current size in the vain hope that we could overthrow those regimes as we had Iraq's. We need more journalists like Maddow. And, as she and Ridge agreed, more serious discussion about a war Senator Ted Kennedy called "one of the most serious blunders in the entire history of American foreign policy." More on Rachel Maddow
 
Henry Nicholas' Divorce: Drug Allegations Revealed In New Documents Top
Newly released documents in the divorce of Broadcom Corp. co-founder Henry T. Nicholas III reveal harsh battles with his former wife, Stacey, over how to divide the couple's $1 billion in community property, alleged drug use and her relationship with the family's security chief.
 
Malou Innocent: Myth v. Fact: Afghanistan Top
While "Change" has been Barack Obama's mantra, as of late he has been channeling his predecessor. "Afghanistan," according to Obama , "is a war of necessity... [And] If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans." President George W. Bush was adept at keeping the American public in an elevated state of panic. That tactic may be useful for advancing controversial policies. But if policymakers continue to downplay the drawbacks of our current course of action, America risks intensifying the region's powerful jihadist insurgency and entangling itself deeper into a tribal-based society it barely understands. Americans must be told the truth about the war in Afghanistan. To understand the disadvantages of pursuing present policies, we must unpack the myths that war proponents use to justify staying the course. Myth #1: Both al Qaeda and the Taliban Are Our Mortal Enemies Given the magnitude of the atrocities unleashed on September 11th, removing both al Qaeda and the Taliban regime that sheltered the terrorist organization was appropriate. But eight years later, is waging a war against the Taliban a pressing national security interest? Not really. The Taliban, the Haqqani network, and other guerilla-jihadi movements indigenous to this region have no shadowy global mission. In fact, what we are witnessing is a local and regional ethnic Pasthun population -- divided arbitrarily by a porous 1,500-mile border -- fighting against what they perceive to be a hostile occupation of their region. Prolonging our mission risks uniting these groups and making U.S. troops the primary target of their wrath. As I mentioned in an earlier post, even if the Taliban were to reassert themselves amid a scaled down U.S. presence, it is not clear that the Taliban would again host al Qaeda. In The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 , Lawrence Wright, staff writer for New Yorker magazine, found that before 9/11 the Taliban was divided over whether to shelter Osama bin Laden. The terrorist financier wanted to attack Saudi Arabia's royal family, which, according to Wright, would have defied a pledge Taliban leader Mullah Omar made to Prince Turki al-Faisal, chief of Saudi intelligence (1977-2001), to keep bin Laden under control. The Taliban's reluctance to host al Qaeda's leader means it is not a foregone conclusion that the same group would provide shelter to the same organization whose protection led to their overthrow. As the war in Afghanistan rages on, President Obama should be skeptical of suggestions that the defeat of al Qaeda depends upon a massive troop presence. Globally, the United States has degraded al Qaeda's ability to pull off another 9/11 by employing operations that look a lot like police work. Most of the greatest successes scored against al Qaeda, such as the snatch-and-grab operations that netted Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi bin al Shibh, have not relied on large numbers of U.S. troops. Intelligence sharing and close cooperation with foreign law enforcement and intelligence agencies have done more to round up suspected terrorists than blunt military force. Myth # 2: We Must Remain in the Region to Protect Pakistan The "Pakistan-is-imploding" meme that coursed through the Beltway like wildfire last spring was excessively alarmist. First, the danger of militants seizing Pakistan's nuclear weapons remains highly unlikely. Pakistan has an elaborate command and control system in place that complies with strict Western standards , and the country's warheads, detonators, and missiles are not stored fully-assembled, but are scattered and physically separated throughout the country. Second, average militants have no viable means of taking over a country of 172 million people. The dominant political force within Pakistan is not radical fundamentalist Islam, but a desire for a sound economy and basic security. In fact, if the country were to be taken over by al Qaeda sympathizers, it would likely be because U.S. policies in both Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan are being exploited by militants to undermine public support for the government in Islamabad. Third, policymakers have underestimated how greatly leaders in Islamabad fear the rise of pro-India government in Kabul. India inspires a sense of profound insecurity in Pakistan. For all of Washington's talk of the "Af-Pak" border, eighty percent of Pakistan's military still sits on the border with India , not Afghanistan. Pakistan's fear of India has existed for decades, and Pakistani military leaders are committed to securing "strategic depth" in Afghanistan, their regional backyard, and they do so to prevent India from establishing influence there and encircling Pakistan. Finally, and most importantly, while America has a vital interest in ensuring Pakistan does not become weakened, its America's own policies that are pushing the conflict over the border and destabilizing the nuclear-armed country. Airstrikes from unmanned drones are strengthening the very jihadist forces America seeks to defeat by allowing militants to exploit the popular resentment felt from the accidental killing of innocents. On August 12, the U.S. special envoy for the region, Richard Holbrooke, told an audience at the Center for American Progress that the porous border and its surrounding areas serve as a fertile recruiting ground for al Qaeda. One US military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, called airstrikes from U.S. unmanned drones " a recruiting windfall for the Pakistani Taliban ." Citizens living outside the ungoverned tribal areas also detest drones. A recent poll conducted by Gallup Pakistan for Al-Jazeera found that a whopping 59 percent believed the U.S. was the greatest threat to Pakistan . If America's interests lie in ensuring the virus of anti-American radicalism does not infect the rest of the region, discontinuing policies that add more fuel to violent religious radicalism should be the first order of business. Myth #3: Terrorists Dwell in Ungoverned Parts of the World According to the president, our strategy is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda. Yet in order to accomplish that goal, the Obama administration believes we must create a functioning national state there. Why? Beltway orthodoxy tells us that because extremists will emerge in ungoverned parts of the world and attack the United States, America must forcibly stabilize, liberalize, and democratize Afghanistan. This thinking is flawed for several reasons. First, the argument that America's security depends on rebuilding failed states ignores that terrorists can move to governed spaces. Rather than setting up in weak, ungoverned states, enemies can flourish in strong states because these countries have formally recognized governments with the sovereignty to reject foreign interference in their domestic affairs. This is one reason why terrorists find sanctuary across the border in Pakistan. [Note: 9/11 was planned in many other countries, Germany included]. Second, as my Cato colleagues Chris Preble and Justin Logan point out , there's reason to doubt whether state failure or poor governance in itself poses a threat. Third, such an extraordinarily costly, open-ended military occupation gives Osama bin Laden and his ilk exactly what they want: America's all-volunteer military force is pressed to cope with two protracted irregular wars, we are inadvertently killing innocent civilians and our policies are recruiting militants to their cause. Myth # 4: We Can Have a Successful Nation-Building Mission in Afghanistan The U.S. Army and Marine Corps' Counterinsurgency Field Manual states, "Soldiers and Marines are expected to be nation builders as well as warriors rebuilding infrastructure and basic services ." That sentiment is shared by many of the people informing administration policy. Stephen Biddle, civilian advisor to General Stanley McChrystal, America's top commander in Afghanistan, said a critical requirement for the success in Afghanistan "is providing enough of an improvement in Afghan governance to enable the country to function without us." But like many within the Obama administration, Biddle's advice is more goal than strategy. First, Afghanistan has yet to demonstrate the capability to function as a cohesive, modern, nation state, with or without us -- and perhaps never will. Many tribes living in rural, isolated, and sparsely populated provinces have little interest cooperating with "foreigners," a relative term considering the limited contact many have with their country's own central government. Second, arguments supporting a multi-decade commitment of "armed nation building" -- the words of another civilian advisor to the mission, Anthony Cordesman -- overlook whether such an ambitious project can be done within costs acceptable to the American public. Our attempt to transform what is a deeply divided, poverty stricken, tribal-based society -- while our own country faces economic peril -- is nothing short of ludicrous, especially since even the limited goal of creating a self-sufficient, non-corrupt, stable electoral democracy would require a multi-decade commitment--and even then there'd be no assurance of success. Myth #5: It's Altruistic to Help Afghans This video at "Rethink Afghanistan" upends this myth, particularly on the issue of women's rights. In addition, while it's understandable for the President and other elected leaders to empathize with the plight and suffering of others, why Afghanistan? What about Haiti? Or Congo? Or the dozens of other poverty-stricken countries around the world, and at that point does America stop nation-building? As Boston University Professor Andrew Bacevich argues : For those who, despite all this, still hanker to have a go at nation building, why start with Afghanistan? Why not first fix, say, Mexico? In terms of its importance to the United States, our southern neighbor...outranks Afghanistan by several orders of magnitude...Yet any politician calling for the commitment of sixty thousand U.S. troops to Mexico to secure those interests or acquit those moral obligations would be laughed out of Washington--and rightly so. Any pundit proposing that the United States assume responsibility for eliminating the corruption that is endemic in Mexican politics while establishing in Mexico City effective mechanisms of governance would have his license to pontificate revoked. -- Over the past year, the mission in Afghanistan has shifted from the limited goal of taking down al Qaeda to a much broader counterinsurgency approach. Americans are now being told their troops must protect the villages of Afghanistan. Planning will always falls short of our expectations because we can't reliably predict the course of future events. As the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations stated in an August 2009 report, "Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is not a reconstruction project--it is a construction project, starting almost from scratch in a country that will probably remain poverty-stricken no matter how much the U.S. and the international community accomplish in the coming years." Denying a sanctuary to terrorists who seek to attack the United States does not require Washington to pacify the entire country or sustain a long-term, large-scale military presence. Afghanistan does not have to be Obama's Vietnam, but whether it will be or not is entirely his decision. [The Cato Institute will be hosting a forum "Should the United States Withdraw from Afghanistan?" on September 14th. If you would like to register or watch the forum live online, go to Cato's events page at www.cato.org/events] More on Afghanistan
 
Holly Cara Price: Project Runway and Models of the Runway, Episode 3 Recap Top
This week's challenge is delivered by the seaside by a smiling Tim Gunn wearing...yes...flip-flops. The assignment is to create a "fun and fashionable surfwear look" and pair it with the perfect beachy hairstyle working with our friends at Garnier. It's also the first team challenge and the team leaders (Shirin, Logan, Johnny, Mitchell, Nicolas, Althea, and Qristyl) get to pick their co-workers. Shirin picks Carol Hannah, Logan takes Christopher, Johnny goes with Irina, Althea picks Louise, Nicolas picks Gordana, Qristyl picks Epperson, and Mitchell picks Ra'mon. Mitchell frankly tells the cameras that he picked Ra'mon because he wants to work with someone who can carry him. How is it Mitchell is even still around? Please remind me. After a 20 minute caucus with some beach babes for inspiration, the groups are off to Mood for a 15 minute shopping trip. Ramon is now feeling like he has "a giant bullseye painted directly in the middle of my face." Qristyl and Epperson clash on every single thing starting with their entire design aesthetic. "Bright bright green, a color would have never used but I'm the assistant," sighs Epperson, "I need some Tylenol." Between Q&E and R&M, this episode is chockablock with high drama. Mitchell tells Ra'mon "in our relationship I can't always tell you that you're perfect" which makes them sound like old lovers bickering instead of reality show contestants that came together merely through serendipity and Bunim/Murray. Tim comes in to the workroom three hours before day's end to deliver a curveball from Heidi and the judges. They want each design team to also come up with a second, avant-garde look that corresponds to the original surfwear inspired design. One designer from each team will take a trip to Mood tomorrow to buy fabric for the second look. As Ramon goes off to shop for fabrics the next morning, Mitchell sulks, "I have wonderful designs in my head but technically I'm in trouble." He seems to expect he's going to be trounced this week and even jokes, " Auf Weidersehen , bitches." Tim comes to see Carol Hannah to deliver some bad news; her model Erika has been cast in an TV commercial and can't be there for the fitting. Poof! She's gone and is replaced by Valerie, who had been sent home last week. When Tim comes in to check on how things are going later that day he seems pleased with most of what's happening until he gets to Ra'mon and Mitchell. "I feel like I'm in a cartoon with a superhero and a Greek goddess. I fundamentally don't get it," he states. "Pull this together somehow." The third and final day, just prior to sending the models out for the runway, Ra'mon scraps the second look entirely and fashions an entirely new garment from neoprene, hand dying parts of the fabric in the bathroom and drying them with a hair dryer mere minutes before they have to dress the models. This week's judges are Max Azria of BCBG, Rachel Bilson, and our beloved Nina Garcia. Johnny and Irina score big with their beautiful macramé look. The other team that make it into the top two are, incredibly, Mitchell and Ra'mon. Turns out the last minute neoprene garment is a big hit with the judges. The lowest scores are for Qristyl and Epperson and Nicolas and Gordana. The organza and lace streetwalker look that Nicolas came up with was a bit much for the panel. The bottom two designers are Qristyl and Mitchell. Qristyl grouses that she was the team captain but Epperson took the lead on everything. The judges aren't having it. "If you are not a team player you cannot be a designer," Max Azria scolds. But Mitchell is the one to go (can I get a what what) back home to Georgia. "Mitchell, we're disappointed and confused. Never before in Project Runway history has a team member for a winning designer been eliminated," Heidi tells him. The real question is how did this guy get on the show in the first place, since he seems to have an extremely limited skillset. The winner is Ra'mon. That neoprene thing was cool especially since he did it last minute, but I would have chosen Johnny and Irina's outfits as the winning look. Especially since that flowing thing Mitchell did was a big snore. What do you think? So let's recap the 15 minutes too-long and should-be-a-webisode spin off show Models of the Runway . As you'll no doubt recall, Fatma (Logan's stalker) said last week that she wanted to punch Vanessa and then demurred that it was just an expression. So they're not talking. And they were both in the same team this week, which makes things a tad difficile , n'est-ce pas ? Vanessa, meanwhile, wasn't too pleased with Ra'mon's original wet suit look but was happy - naturally - to end up wearing the winning design. Meanwhile Fatma was all over Ra'mon kissing his ass so when Mitchell was sent home (as we all knew he would be) Ra'mon might keep her around. Are you confused yet? Being a half hour, the format of this program seems even more transparently formulaic. The models watch the designers on the runway getting the winning and losing verdict, then some model drama, then some LA beauty shots, then more drama, then elimination. In the drama department, Fatma tries to apologize to Vanessa, who declares her apology to be phony and fake. The other girls are over it: "I had like Jerry Springer in my bedroom last night." Fatma plans to get Logan back but doesn't realize that he thinks her too overbearing and is put off by her uncontrolled gushing over him. At elimination, he picks Kojii again for the second week in a row. Surprisingly, Louise picks Fatma ensuring that I will be watching the spin off again next week. Hmm... coincidence? Louise, I'm your girl! What the F? What do you think of the show, who's winning and who's losing? Where's Michael Kors? Is he just too New York to continue on this season? Will Mitchell fail miserably back in Savannah? Will Fatma claw someone's eyes out? Will Louise Black win the next challenge (fingers crossed)? Will Qristyl be sent home? How cute is Ra'mon? Does Logan look like he should be an actor instead of a designer? Let's discuss. Project Runway airs on Lifetime Television Thursday nights at 10pm, followed by Models of the Runway at 11pm.
 
Rick Horowitz: Keeping Obama on Message Top
[Deep inside a large white house...] "...and that's when we'll need your final edits, so we can get it loaded on the prompter." "Final edits. Got it." "No changes after that." "Got it. Now all I have to do is write it." "That's why you get the big desk, Mr. President." "I knew there had to be a reason. Now, you guys tell me what you're hearing from -- " "Actually, Mr. President..." "David?" "One more thing before we move off the logistics." "More logistics? We've already -- " "This is pretty important, sir." "Sure." "Say you're right in the middle of the speech, and you look over to the Republican side, and somebody's got his hand up." "His hand up?" "You know, like he's got something he wants to ask you." "It's a speech! He's supposed to listen -- he's not supposed to be asking questions." "Exactly! So what do you do?" "I tell him to put his hand down. Then I go right back to -- " "Wrong. Absolutely, totally wrong." "But I -- " "You ignore him. You don't say a word to him. You don't even say a word about him. You stay on message." "On message. Got it." "Slightly different hypothetical: You're not in the middle of your speech when that hand goes up -- you're right at the end of your speech." "Still a Republican hand?" "It doesn't matter whose hand it is -- Republican, Democrat, Lieberman. You're right at the end of your speech, and somebody wants to ask you a question." "I ignore him." "Even if he's asking about something that really interests you?" "I ignore him." "Even if he's asking about something that makes your blood boil?" "You really think I'd go off on someone and step on my own message?" "Mr. President, does the name 'Henry Louis Gates' ring a bell?" "You guys'll never let me forget that, will you?" "Actually, sir, it's the only reason you're doing this speech in the first place. That whole press conference was supposed to nail down the case for health care, remember? Except that you -- " "Except that I took that last question about Gates being arrested, and I said the police acted stupidly -- because they did act stupidly -- and that's all anybody heard." "Like the rest of the press conference never even happened." "So we -- " "So we lost momentum, and we lost support among independents and working-class whites, and we lost a month on our schedule, which meant we spilled over into the recess -- " " -- which meant the town halls." "Which meant the town halls. Which nearly lost us the bill." "Which is why I have to do the speech." "Exactly." "And nothing but the speech." "Exactly." "Totally on message." "Now you're talking." "One hundred percent digression-free." "You got it." "'No Drama Obama.'" "Perfect." "Even if it's a really good question?" "NO!!!" "Can't you guys take a joke?" # # # Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com. More on Barack Obama
 
Greg Mitchell: Rare AP Photo Captures U.S. Death in Afghanistan Top
Going back to 2002, I have been writing about the shameful reluctance, even refusal, of U.S. media outlets to carry truly graphic images of the true cost of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- dead or even, in many cases, gravely wounded U.S. soldiers and Marines. Earlier today, the Associated Press -- bucking the wishes of the Pentagon and the victim's family -- decided to go ahead and transmit such a photo. It was not a one-off bit of "sensationalism" but part of a tasteful and remarkable tribute package profiling the dead Marine and the experience of the photog, Julie Jacobson, who was there to capture his final moments before he was gravely injured. He later died, three weeks ago. Yet Secretary of Defense Gates today blasted the AP for carrying the image, calling it "appalling" and lacking in "common decency" -- and many news outlets (at E&P we are now surveying this) are refusing to run it. Just one example: this paper carried the package but in an editor's note explains that it refused to run the picture finding it in "poor taste." Others have followed this path, while papers such as the St. Petersburg Times did carry it online. "AP journalists document world events every day. Afghanistan is no exception. We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is," said Santiago Lyon, the director of photography for AP. We have published the image at our blog, here. Updates to come. Greg Mitchell's latest book is "Why Obama Won." His previous book, "So Wrong for So Long," chronicled media coverups in Iraq. He is editor of Editor & Publisher. More on Afghanistan
 
David Sirota: Heckuva Job, Brownie Top
Yesterday morning on my AM760 radio show here in Colorado, something very weird - and interesting - happened. As I was introducing author Tom Frank to discuss his latest Wall Street Journal column on health care, in walked Mike "Heckuva Job, Brownie" Brown - President Bush's FEMA director during the Katrina disaster. He's a conservative fill-in host at AM760's sister station and saw a tweet I had posted saying I couldn't believe I worked in the same building as Brownie . What ensued was a discussion that was shockingly, well, productive - a particularly encouraging surprise for me, as it came just after I wrote a piece on the increasing toxicity of the national political debate. You can listen here . I invited Brownie to sit down for an on-air discussion with Tom and I, and he agreed. Take a listen to the conversation - I think you will find it pretty compelling stuff. As you'll hear, I asked Brownie how conservatives can forward their anti-government when conservatives like him had played such a pivotal role in making government not work. As Tom added, conservatives have an incentive to wreck the government when they get into positions of power, because such destruction reinforces their claims that government cannot work. Brownie responded first by insisting that government had become too big and bureaucratic, and then I countered that people love some of the biggest and most bureaucratic pieces of government like Medicare. And he acknowledged - unlike so many conservatives - that that was actually true. We then got onto a discussion of privatization - Tom noted that conservatives had use private contractors and outsourcing to turn the government into a private profit machine. And Brownie agreed. He told us a stunningly honest story about how he found the privatization of FEMA to be severely problematic and how he learned that certain governmental functions have to be kept in the government. Remember, Brownie is still a self-described conservative. Indeed, he regularly guest hosts on a very conservative radio station. But at least he was able to be honest and have an intellectually forthright discussion - which was something extremely refreshing in an era where it often feels like political discussions are competitions between competing partisan blowtorches. I'm not absolving this guy for his involvement in one of the worst instances of governmental negligence in American history, nor am I presenting him as some born-again progressive - not at all. But I'm guessing his experience was extremely humbling and humiliating - and I think our on-air discussion shows he clearly came out of that experience a more honest conservative voice than a lot out there. Again, listen into the discussion here - I think you will find it entertaining, at times hilarious, and at times downright fascinating.
 
6 Ways Video Games Are Saving Mankind Top
So yet another study came out a few weeks ago, saying gamers are lonely, overweight and depressed. We're not surprised, this marks about 30 straight years of hearing people claim that games will transform us all into uncivilized, halfwit lard-asses. But gamers have science on their side, too, and studies that show that games may be turning us into a race of compassionate, keenly analytical lard-asses. According to studies, games...
 
Margarita Alarcon: The Importance of Being... Cuban? Top
On the afternoon of September 3, 2009, OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) finally published the final rule amending the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, which allows for the implementation of the Presidents; initiative of April 13th to "reach out to the Cuban people." Basically what this means is that the rules and regulations that have been valid since the year 2004 are no longer going to be enforced . Past history During the Clinton Administration, and after signing the Helms Burton Bill into law, President Clinton had the initiative to start what some might like to call a trend. This is to say, he established a "people to people" policy which enabled citizens from the United States whether they were of Cuban decent or not to travel to Cuba under all sorts of licensed permits. These ranged from the arts and culture to academia, almost every single field of science, and of course family-related and humanitarian trips. For the most part the idea was to "help" the Cuban people better understand how a real democracy works by giving them the opportunity to hold exchanges with citizens from the United States. All in all, and if we go beyond any narrow minded ideas of paternalism, it wasn't a bad idea. Not to say that Cuba or its people really necessarily would learn a whole lot from the United States or anywhere else about democracy, but yes, and I am sure that many would agree with me on this: exchange amongst all peoples is always a step in the correct (swap of word intended) direction. This whole plan was working rather well until one fine group of legislators from the Cuban American community in South Florida and New Jersey along with other lesser Cuban legislators urged President WH Bush to eliminate these exchanges entirely. But the then President went one step further, he also took it upon himself -- granted, he probably didn't do it all on his own -- to redefine the meaning of the word "family". And so it was that from the year 2004 up until today, a Cuban family was defined as parents, children, husbands, wives and sibling's, everything else was off limits. But it got worse, not only was the definition restricted there were also limits on time travel, controls on money spent and of course a whole lot of Catch 22 in the process. You could only travel down once every three years, spend a maximum of 15 days and not exceed around more than 100 to 150 US dollars -- depending on the area in the country -- per night which of course included all foods, transport and lodgings. This economic and schedule "punishment" was two fold: don't give any money to the Castro Regime, make people down in revolt. The first part makes some sense, the second not so much. The Bush administration was "kinda sorta" expecting Cubans on the island to revolt against the Castro government because a specific US administration hates that government so much that it was willing to punish Cuban citizens? That doesn't quite make sense, but I may be wrong. So, now, today, the Treasury Department has finally gotten its OFAC to put in print the deregulations of the previous constraints, or at least the better version or a lesser evil. Still, there is something failing in all of this. Now Cuban families will be broader in concept, now trips will be more frequent, and the influx of whatever cash anyone happens to have left over in a pretty messed up world wide economy will be able to reach the Cuban shores, but what about that other family concept? What about the fact that Cubans and Americans have been "related" in one way or another dating back to the 19th century? What about friendships established In the meantime between then and now? What about the new relations that could flourish? What about getting all of the peoples from both sides of the shores and from all of the states and province limits and having one huge town hall meeting to discuss and exchange ideas about all sorts of issues important to the entirety of the 350 million over there and the 11 million over here? Wouldn't that be an effort worth taking into account and talking about, albeit, crowded? The governments of Cuba and the United States have a long history of conflict, both physical and verbal. That is the one most people hear about, but the peoples of two nations also have an entire history together that unites them. In the fields of science, the arts, agriculture, architecture, academia, medicine the list is so long it's almost scary. Collaborations between both countries would be formidable in this day and age and especially now, when Cuba is open and the United States seems to be willing. Contact between both and all peoples from both nations is equally if not more important; whether they are Cuban or not. More on Cuba
 
Hundreds Of States Shut Offices Down To Save Money Top
California drivers can't line up to renew their licenses Friday. Wisconsin natives can't order copies of their birth certificates. Georgia consumers will have to postpone registering complaints with state watchdogs. And stranded motorists in Maryland may have to wait a little longer for highway-department help. Across the country, cash-strapped state governments are shutting down business for a day at a time to save money. More on Georgia
 
Paul Szep: The Daily Szep: GOP Strategy Top
 
Charlotte Hilton Andersen: Attention Wal-Mart Shoppers: Public Mockery on Aisle 9 Top
An elderly man with huge breast implants spilling out of his open shirt. A black woman in knee high I-skinned-Elmo red fringed boots and a matching red crop top and Elmo hair extensions. A white woman dressed in stripper heels in a micromini dress bending awkwardly over her grocery cart. The people - or "Wal-creatures" as the site names them - are all real Wal-Mart shoppers and are all featured on a new website called People of Walmart . Admit it: if you saw any of these people at your neighborhood Wally World, you'd chuckle. You might even text a friend. I did exactly that the other day, actually, when I was waiting to try on a sports bra and the person waiting directly behind me was a man. Also holding a sports bra. It was weird and hilarious and the friend I texted was amused for hours. But what if I had snapped a pic on my cellphone? And sent it out as a text blast? And posted it to my Facebook? And then sent it in to People of Walmart? Where do you draw the line between getting a harmless chuckle out of the strangeness of everyday life and cruelly poking fun of people who are, after all, just trying to buy some groceries? The Case for Funny - Life would be boring if everyone were the same, right? I love me a good character. Heck, sometimes I am that character. - Why was the Internet invented if not to pass around funny pictures? Hello, remember Awkward Family Photos ?? - The site also features harmless pics like a bike with training wheels chained to a sign or this one of a car with a homemade plywood spoiler on the back: - Wal-Mart is a magnet for strange. It's about time someone capitalized on that. - Everyone should get their 15 minutes of fame, right? Why else would anyone leave the house dressed like that if they didn't want the attention? - We laugh at celebrities all the time for looking like morons - isn't it only fair that we're the targets sometimes too? - The captions are usually pretty benign. Actually, they're usually hilarious. - They are equal opportunity mockers. Sure there are quite a few fat-people-in-bad-clothes shots. But there are an equal amount of weird mullets. And lots of bizarre cars. Not to mention all the crazy stuff that Wal-Mart actually sells. - Anyone wearing a swastika sweatshirt deserves to be publicly shamed. The Case for Cruel - While the captions may be mostly nice, the commenters sure don't hold anything back. They are mean. Of course, the Internet in general is plagued by mean commenters. - If you can't go to Wal-Mart looking schlubby then where can you go at 2 a.m. in your pjs for cough syrup? Must we always look perfect before stepping out in public? - Most of the featured people look disadvantaged in someway - either elderly or handicapped or poor or not of our culture or just not "all there." Isn't making fun of people who don't know better and/or can't help themselves the definition of cruel? - The pictures generally appear to be taken covertly as most of the subjects don't seem to know they've been snapped. I don't know if I'd be okay with that. - The site calls them "Wal-Creatures", as if they're not even human. A Grand Social Commentary Gawker.com went so far as to declare the site neither funny nor cruel but rather a compelling portrait of 2000-era Americana in all it's unairbrushed, quirky glory. I can see their point - in a world where we are bombarded with carefully crafted media messages that only show perfect people, it does seem important to remember that most of us are just normal people living lives that are only remarkable in small ways. Or maybe that's just a justification for laughing at others so we can feel better about ourselves? I did a little poll on Facebook and of my 8 friends who answered me, all came down on the side of funny (albeit some a little guiltily). What say you: funny or cruel? Or something else entirely?
 
Nancy Pelosi Not Good With Her Own Hair: Stylist Top
The New York Daily News reports that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi might be a powerhouse on the Hill, but she's definitely not in control of her coif. One of her stylists let word slip that Nancy needs a helping hand in the 'do department: Nancy said that in her next life, she would like to be able to style her own hair," laughs Salon Mario Russo stylist Gary Croteau, who primped Pelosi for Sen. Ted Kennedy's memorial service. She must keep D.C. salons busy: check out the different hairstyles she's had over the years: Follow HuffPost Style on Twitter and become a fan of HuffPost Style on Facebook ! More on Photo Galleries
 
Michael Wolff: The President Can't Talk to School Children Because...? Top
Shit, it probably is about race. Let's take the blandest, most inconsequential, boilerplate thing a president can do--talk to school kids--and then try to figure out how doing this could become the subject of fevered controversy. The president's proposed speech, to be delivered next week in a Virginia school and then broadcast on the White House website, is, according to the New York Times , making conservative parents apoplectic and "igniting a revolt." "School officials in Texas and across the nation said they continued to receive hundreds of calls and emails from parents who demanded that the speech not be mandatory for students to watch. Critics have accused the president of injecting politics into the classroom," said the Dallas Morning News . The Dallas school district has decided not to show the speech. Let's parse this. No school district is compelled to make students watch the speech. So the act of objecting to it involves a calculated point--a specific refusal. A public act of resistance. We're shunning the president. We're shunning him because...well...why exactly? Continue reading on newser.com More on Barack Obama
 
Alderman: Closing Public Streets For Oprah 'Smacks Of Elitism' Top
Mayor Daley's unilateral decision to shut down Michigan Avenue for Oprah Winfrey's 24th season premiere "smacks of elitism" and is "kind of reckless," an influential alderman said Thursday. More on Oprah
 
Demi And Rumer In Belted Black: Who Wore It Best? Top
Demi Moore came to daughter Rumer's 'Sorority Row' premiere in LA Thursday night. Mother and daughter both donned black ensembles with a wide black belt, Demi in sleeveless dress and Rumer in a peekaboo lace jacket and pants. Get HuffPost Entertainment On Facebook and Twitter!
 
James Hoggan: Is ExxonMobil Really the "Green Company of the Year"? Top
We Really, Really Hope So It was hard, at first, to know whether the Forbes headline was tongue-in-cheek: ExxonMobil: Green Company of the Year. But the story seemed sincere. Exxon is finally beginning to invest in renewable alternatives, putting $600 million into algae farms that would turn sunlight into automotive fuel. And the company is putting more effort than ever into developing and distributing natural gas. Gas (methane) is unquestionably "greener" than Exxon's conventional oil products. As Forbes says: "Per unit of energy delivered, methane releases 40% to 50% less carbon dioxide than coal and a quarter less than petroleum. Coal fuels half of U.S. power generation. Replacing all of it with methane would cut CO 2 emissions by 1 billion tons a year." Of course, Exxon isn't actually "replacing" anything. It's adding significantly to the global capacity to generate more greenhouse gases, even if some of the increase will come at a slower marginal pace. Even the $600-million algae investment begins to pale when you put it into context. Exxon's five-year capital expenditure plan runs to $125 billion, almost all of it on conventional oil and gas infrastructure. The algae farm amounts to a commitment of less than half of one per cent. Forbes is right that Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson has nudged his company away from the course of unrestrained climate destruction that was championed by his predecessor, Lee Raymond. And as the most profitable company in the history of companies, Exxon is in a position to do a huge amount of good (or to continue doing a huge, huge amount of damage). "Green company of the year"? Not quite. Not yet. But we'll keep hoping.   More on Climate Change
 
James Orr: Defendant Begins Eating Out Of His Colostomy Bag In Court Top
James Orr put an immediate halt to his criminal trial Wednesday when he squeezed the contents of his colostomy bag onto the table in front of him and ate it. "There was what appeared to be feces on the table and on the floor," assistant Hamilton County prosecutor David Prem said.
 
The Hudson River At 400 (PHOTOS) Top
Four hundred years ago this month, the English explorer Henry Hudson and his crew sailed into New York Bay, forever changing their lives, and the world. In celebration of Hudson's voyage, LIFE.com has put together a collection of their greatest shots of the river named after him. Check out the slideshow below for a trip through time, and a whole new appreciation for the river:
 
Jason Bateman On His New Movie, Life After 'Arrested' Top
NEW YORK — As usual, Jason Bateman is calm in the midst of chaos. Sitting down for lunch at Robert De Niro's Greenwich Hotel in Tribeca, Bateman's 2-year-old daughter, Francesca, wants to play with dad. His wife, Amanda Anka (the daughter of singer Paul Anka) stops by. Publicists want to discuss his appearance later in the evening on Letterman. But Bateman is composed and serene – just as he was in "Arrested Development" and again is in his new film, "Extract." Both plop him in the middle of a small universe of eccentric characters. The director of "Extract," Mike Judge, marveled that there's not a hint of nervousness about Batemen on set, "not even close." A life in TV and film has made him unusually at ease amid the bustle of film sets; it's been a kind of home for him ever since his child acting days began at the age of 10. Asked what he remembers of those days, Bateman says: "The only thing that really sticks with me is an innate sense, an intangible sense that this is all very normal. And that gives me relaxation and comfort and ease which just simply allows me to let my instincts come out." Decades after Bateman was a child star on "Little House on the Prairie," "Silver Spoons" and "The Hogan Family," it's clear that another chapter has unfolded in his career. It was spawned by "Arrested Development," the acclaimed but ratings-deprived series that ran for three seasons from 2003-2006. Since then, Bateman has chosen his roles carefully, charting a revival as an in-demand character actor with impeccable comedic timing. He's played a husband fearful of adulthood in "Juno," a super hero's PR aid in "Hancock" and a sleazy D.C. insider in "State of Play." In "Extract," he's playing the lead role (as a factory owner undergoing a crisis of conscience) in a film for the first time in 20 years. More big parts are on the way, too, starting with "Up in the Air," an Oscar-hyped film starring George Clooney and due out this fall. He has a small part in Ricky Gervais' upcoming "The Invention of Lying." Next year, he'll star alongside Jennifer Aniston (an old friend of Bateman's) in the romantic comedy "The Baster," and with Vince Vaughn in "Couples Retreat." Laying out his career plan, Bateman says he's trying "to figure out a responsible, a respectable way to box-office relevance." "I feel like I'm now gaining the courage to take a bigger piece of business and see where that takes me," he says. Bateman speaks thoughtfully and ambitiously about his future; earning respect, he says, is the "fuel for longevity." But he knows it all started with "Arrested Development." "It put me here, literally," he says. "Without that show, I don't really know what I'd be doing. You couldn't ask for a better resuscitation of one's career than what that show did for me." Following his youth stardom, Bateman's spent much of his `20s living out his teenage years – drinking too much, having too much fun. His acting career stalled and he became known in the industry for one unsuccessful pilot after another. Mitchell Hurwitz, the creator of "Arrested Development," didn't think he wanted to make "another Jason Bateman pilot," but he was blown away by the actor's audition. "He's just a very honest, real actor," says Hurwitz. "I think he'd been – as he often says – performing in some sitcoms instead of acting – which happens to everyone in front of an audience." Added Hurwitz: "He has the benefit of 30 years experience even though he's 40." Playing Michael Bluth on "Arrested," Bateman was a marvel of a straight man. Surrounded by an absurd family of characters, he gave the most unadorned performance on the show as a suit-clad, do-gooder and single father. But as the show went on, Bateman revealed Bluth to be nearly as flawed and delusional as the rest. "There's nothing funny about someone who's completely secure," says Bateman. "Vulnerabilities and cracks in the armor are what's funny. And what's really funny is someone who's attempting to hold a shield up to those things and thinking that they're pulling it off." "Arrested" was hugely acclaimed and Bateman won a Golden Globe in 2005. The show's cult status is firmly lodged now, perfectly illustrated by a photo that recently circulated online of a young man among health care protesters holding up the sign: "Obama, bring back `Arrested Development.'" (The president may not have seen the sign, but Hurwitz and Bateman did after fellow "Arrested" actor Jeffrey Tambor forwarded it to them. Hurwitz is currently writing an "Arrested Development" film, which the cast has reportedly all signed on for.) Among Bateman's fans on "Arrested" was Judge ("Beavis and Butthead," "Office Space"). "It's just funny to watch him react to things," says the writer-director. "He's able to have this crazy stuff going around him but make it all believable. That's harder than it looks and he makes it look easy." More on Arrested Development
 
Craig Aaron: Want to Change the Media? Be a Lobbyist Top
Last week, I was invited to speak at the National Alliance of Media Arts and Culture conference in Boston. This organization of media and arts leaders represents hundreds of thousands of community media centers, arts educators, artists and filmmakers. Here's some of what I told NAMAC about the importance of artists and media makers getting involved in politics and policymaking: I'm here to report on what's happening in Washington. Washington is changing. It has been a different place. Even that swampy, muggy August weather hasn't seemed so disgusting this year. There's still optimism in the air. I'm here to tell you that if you care about media and the arts, it matters who is in the White House. It matters who controls Congress. Maybe most of all, it matters who gets appointed to those sometimes invisible but oh-so-important places like the NEA , the Corporation for Public Broadcasting , and the Federal Communications Commission . That's because decisions being made right now -- and in the next few years -- at the White House, in Congress, and at these agencies are going to shape the future of all media for a generation. They will decide ... ... If the Internet will remain open and free ; ... If everyone will share in the benefits of broadband ; ... If we're going to have a world-class public media system ; and, ... If we'll have any hard-hitting public service journalism . The good news is we now have friends in some of these key jobs. You know them. They will read your e-mails and return your calls. They want your ideas. They want to do the right thing. Yes, Washington is changing. But there is a whole lot of Washington that still needs to change. At Free Press, we often find ourselves going up against big phone and cable companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon and AT&T. We recently looked at just the first six months of the Obama administration. And we found that those four companies and their trade associations alone had hired more than 500 lobbyists -- that's one for almost every member of Congress -- and spent more than $45 million. And that's just what they report. Not too long ago, I heard that when AT&T tried to have a meeting of all of its lobbyists in Washington, nobody's office was big enough. They had to rent out a movie theater. If you took all the public interest lobbyists working in Washington full time on media and arts issues ... they could still share a cab. The only way we'll defeat organized money is with organized people. That's what Saul Alinsky said. But I think there's another secret ingredient. It's a resource that we have in abundance here today: It's creativity. And that creativity can change policy. The Series of Tubes Let's talk about Network Neutrality. For those who don't know, Net Neutrality is the fundamental principle -- which has been part of the Internet since its inception -- that allows you to do whatever you want, go wherever you want, download whatever you want when you go online. Net Neutrality means no discrimination or interference by phone or cable companies with any content, applications or services. I call Net Neutrality the First Amendment of the Internet -- and if you're an artist or media maker, it's going to be as important to you as the Bill of Rights. Without Net Neutrality, the big phone and cable companies could decide which Web sites load fast and which don't load at all; they could block access to independent video or art they don't like; they could make it hard to find certain content simply because it competes with their own movies and music and Web sites. You might remember that we came very close to losing Net Neutrality forever back in 2006. There was a dangerous bill in Congress. It had passed the House. It didn't look good. One day, I was sent a link to this video in my e-mail. It was of this guy dressed up in a ninja suit talking about Net Neutrality -- sort of. There was something about "bacon juice" and "Robin Williams' cousin," and he defined the Internet "as people in funny hats making things that people like" -- which, come to think of it, is a pretty good definition. But it was the kind of message that never would have gotten past the consultants and policy wonks. At least a million people watched that video. And before long, there were dozens of new videos going up about Net Neutrality every day. Millions of people contacted Congress. Fast forward a few months, and there was a big vote in the Senate Commerce Committee on whether to protect Net Neutrality. And it ended in a tie -- which actually meant that we had lost, again. But Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, then the chairman of the committee, who was against Net Neutrality, was so mad about the tie vote that he went to the floor and started ranting. He started yelling about how his staff had "sent him an Internet" on Friday, but he didn't get it until Monday. And about how the Internet was "not a truck," it was a "series of tubes." Remember, this guy was writing the laws to shape the future of the Internet. None of the reporters in the room wrote about it. But a blogger who was in the room recorded the rant and put it on the Internet. It went viral. People started passing it around, and making T-shirts that said "series of tubes" on it, and re-mixing Stevens' rant as a techno dance tune that 2 million people downloaded on YouTube. And then the Daily Show got hold of the clip and started mocking him. It got so embarrassing that the Republicans abandoned the bill. The Internet's Future The lesson here is that artists and media makers -- working with activists and bloggers and policy wonks -- took this obscure issue and helped put it on the national agenda. Obama even talked about Net Neutrality on the campaign trail . Now in 2009, that's not enough. We have to move from defense to offense. And we've got to remember that it's a lot easier to stop a bad thing from happening -- to throw a wrench into the system -- than it is to pass the bills and create good policy. Net Neutrality still isn't safe. But there's a new bill in Congress -- HR 3458, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act -- that will protect the open Internet once and for all. It needs co-sponsors. It needs your creativity. It needs to pass this year. That's not the only Internet issue, of course: 40 percent of Americans still don't have high-speed Internet access. They are stranded on the wrong side of the digital divide. The economic recovery package did include $7 billion to expand broadband -- and that's a big start. But we're still 22nd in the world in broadband adoption. Other countries have Internet that's 50 times as fast, and they pay half as much. Crisis and Opportunity We also need to talk about traditional media, where most people still get their news and entertainment. Years of mega-mergers and concentration have consolidated distribution channels and destroyed local art and music scenes. Runaway media consolidation has left media companies deeply in debt and journalism in crisis. Tens of thousands of journalists have lost their jobs in the past two years; newspapers are shutting down; and local coverage is being replaced by the same cookie-cutter content coast-to-coast. But that crisis gives us an opportunity, a chance to re-imagine our current public broadcasting system and rebuild it as new public media that are committed to newsgathering and community service. We need to start by expanding our definition of public media. Yes, it's PBS and NPR. But it's also community radio and Low Power FM stations, public access cable channels, noncommercial satellite networks, and independent producers, publications and Web sites. Did you know that we now spend just a little more than $400 million per year in public money on public media? That works out to just $1.37 per person. Throw in the budgets for the NEA and NEH, and you're still looking at pocket change. By comparison, Canada spends $22 per capita, and England spends $80 . Or think of it this way: Each of us in this room spent $565 to bail out AIG. Imagine what our new public media system could be with even just $5 per person. ... The Creativity Stimulus Unfortunately, when the stimulus bill was being debated earlier this year, media and the arts were mostly shut out. The NEA did get $50 million. But public broadcasting missed the boat. And yet, when Obama released his budget, the leaders of public broadcasting sent out statements thanking him just because he didn't cut their funding. We can't settle for spare change any longer. There's going to be a second stimulus package at some point. And when it comes, we need to make sure it's not just an economic stimulus. It should be a creativity stimulus, too. We need to put people to work building roads and repairing bridges and laying those high-speed Internet fiber lines. But we also need to put people to work running community organizations, and writing plays, and making art. The artist's paycheck is every bit as important as the banker's paycheck or the auto worker's paycheck. What we need now is real change, not more spare change. If you want real change, not spare change, you can't beg for it. If you want real change, not spare change, you have to stand up. If you want real change, not spare change, you have to get involved. If you want real change, not spare change, you have to be at the table when decisions are made. If you want real change, not spare change, you're going to have to fight for it. If you want real change, all of us are going to have to become lobbyists. If we can harness just some of the creativity and energy in this room and channel it toward making policy change, we will win. And when we start winning on these media issues, we will start winning on all of the other ones that matter, too. Let's get to work. Let's work together. Thank you. More on Stimulus Package
 
Poverty Rate For Elderly At 18.6 Percent: Study Top
WASHINGTON — The poverty rate among older Americans could be nearly twice as high as the traditional 10 percent level, according to a revision of a half-century-old formula for calculating medical costs and geographic variations in the cost of living. The National Academy of Science's formula, which is gaining credibility with public officials including some in the Obama administration, would put the poverty rate for Americans 65 and over at 18.6 percent, or 6.8 million people, compared with 9.7 percent, or 3.6 million people, under the existing measure. The original government formula, created in 1955, doesn't take account of rising costs of medical care and other factors. "It's a hidden problem," said Robin Talbert, president of the AARP Foundation, which provides job training and support to low-income seniors and is backing legislation that would adopt the NAS formula. "There are still many millions of older people on the edge, who don't have what they need to get by." If the academy's formula is adopted, a more refined picture of American poverty could emerge that would capture everyday costs of necessities besides just food. The result could upend long-standing notions of those in greatest need and lead eventually to shifts in how billions of federal dollars for the poor are distributed for health, housing, nutrition and child-care benefits. The overall official poverty rate would increase, from 12.5 percent to 15.3 percent, for a total of 45.7 million people, according to rough calculations by the Census Bureau. Data on all segments, not only the elderly, would be affected: _ The rate for children under 18 in poverty would decline slightly, to 17.9 percent. _ Single mothers and their children, who disproportionately receive food stamps, would see declines in the rates of poverty because noncash aid would be taken into account. Low-income people who are working could see increases in poverty rates, a reflection of transportation and child-care costs. _ Cities with higher costs of living, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco, would see higher poverty rates, while more rural areas in the Midwest and South might see declines. _ The rate for extreme poverty, defined as income falling below 50 percent of the poverty line, would decrease due to housing and other noncash benefits. _ Immigrant poverty rates would go up, due to transportation costs and lower participation in government aid programs. The changes have been discussed quietly for years in academic circles, and both Democrats and Republicans agree that the decades-old White House formula, which is based on a 1955 cost of an emergency food diet, is outdated. The current calculation sets the poverty level at three times the annual cost of groceries. For a family of four that is $21,203. That calculation does not factor in rising medical, transportation, child care and housing expenses or geographical variations in living costs. Nor does the current formula consider noncash aid when calculating income, despite the recent expansion of food stamps and tax credits in the federal economic stimulus and other government programs. The result: The poverty rate has varied little from its current 12.5 percent. Next week, the Census Bureau will publish official poverty figures for 2008 with a cautionary note about the shortcomings. The agency says it will expedite release of alternative numbers in the following weeks, because of the interest expressed by lawmakers and the Obama administration in seeing a fuller range of numbers. "The current poverty measure does a very bad job of measuring the impact of quite a few of our anti-poverty policies," Rebecca Blank, the Commerce Department's undersecretary of economic affairs, said in an interview. "It isn't meaningless, but it isn't complete." Although the White House Office of Management and Budget dictates how federal poverty is measured, legislation pending in Congress would require use of the National Academy approach. Advocates are hoping the White House may act on its own. Cities are already showing interest. In New York City, roughly one in three senior citizens fell below the poverty line after Mayor Michael Bloomberg adopted the new formula last year; state officials in Albany, N.Y., plan to publish their revised numbers next month. Los Angeles, Miami, Washington, San Francisco and Chicago also have been considering a switch. When New York City changed to the new formula, a smaller percentage of children fell below the poverty line, particularly those living in single-parent homes. Residents 65 and over in poverty nearly doubled, from 18.1 percent to 32 percent. Bloomberg, who previously pushed for cuts in programs for the elderly, now is advocating pilot programs for older residents that would reduce taxi costs, provide free bus service to get to grocery stores and offer legal aid to those at risk of eviction from their homes. "Under this up-to-date measure, you understand that government programs have had a beneficial impact on households with single parents and children," said Linda Gibbs, New York's deputy mayor for health and human services. She expressed concern that as the official measure becomes increasingly outdated, it is redirecting social programs and funding away from the people who may need it the most. "We wanted to look at poverty with a finer view in New York City and have an impact," Gibbs said. Nationally, official poverty rates for older Americans have improved significantly over the past 30 years due to expansions of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income. But many older people with modest cash incomes would fall below the poverty line under the NAS formula due to out-of-pocket expenses from rising Medicare premiums, deductibles and a coverage gap in the prescription drug benefit that is known as the "doughnut hole." The NAS figures could take on added significance at a time when the government is touting an overhaul of Medicare and Social Security as its best hope for reducing the ballooning federal debt. With the potential to add more older Americans to the ranks of the poor, the numbers may underscore a need for continued – if not expanded – old-age benefits as a government safety net. Advocates for updating the formula note that Barack Obama indicated during the presidential campaign that he supported an improved measure as part of a broader strategy to reduce poverty. Simon Norwood of Little Rock, Ark., 56, says he's still keeping faith in that promise. A lifelong construction worker who receives food stamps, Norwood hasn't had regular work for months once jobs dried up in the housing meltdown. He doesn't dare to think about getting sick or injured because he doesn't know whether he could cover the expenses. Now working a part-time, minimum-wage job, Norwood said it doesn't matter to him how the poverty numbers are sliced so long as people get a fair shake at getting assistance. "I often tell my son, 'You've got to save your money. Live within your means,'" he said. "Because you never know when things might take a turn." ___ On the Net: AARP: http://www.aarp.org Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov Commerce Department: http://www.commerce.gov/ More on Poverty
 

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)