Thursday, September 10, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Blog Alert
Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

David Hoffman Officially Kicks Off Senate Campaign Top
Former Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman officially launched his campaign to replace Roland Burris as Illinois' junior Senator Thursday, stressing his independent credentials and promising to be the people's advocate. Speaking in front of supporters at Garfield Park Conservatory, Hoffman took shots at Wall Street, the health care industry and his rivals, whom he tarred as instruments of the political status quo. "I represent, I believe, a clear choice for voters in this primary," he said. "I'm not one of the insiders. I'm not. I have not been a player in this system. I have been challenging this system." Hoffman also took a shot at Democratic rivals Alexi Giannoulias and Cheryle Robinson Jackson by saying, "It's time to turn the page on the Blagojevich-Rezko era." Though he did not name either candidate, the implication was clear, as Progress Illinois' Josh Kalven noted : The Blagojevich reference is clearly directed at Jackson, who worked for the former governor from 2003 until 2006. The Rezko reference may mean that Hoffman plans to highlight a loan to the now-convicted Democratic fundraiser approved by Giannoulias before he was elected state treasurer. State Sen. Jeff Schoenberg, Ald. Joe Moore (49th), state Reps. Susan Garrett and Elaine Nekritz, and Illinois Reform Commission chair Patrick Collins joined Hoffman. Collins and Hoffman served together on the commission that submitted recommendations for combating corruption in the wake of Rod Blagojevich's impeachment. Hoffman, 42, now departs on an RV tour of the state to kick off his campaign and introduce himself to voters. Aside from some recent press attention over his report lambasting Chicago's parking meter deal , Hoffman is a political unknown. The former federal prosecutor and supreme court clerk faces an uphill battle for the Democratic nomination, the winner of which will likely face North Shore Republican Congressman Mark Kirk. Hoffman came out firing at Kirk, accusing him of complicity with the Bush administration's economic agenda. "Even as the financial mess was beginning to unfold," Hoffman said, "Congressman Mark Kirk voted against tougher regulation of the very sub-prime mortgages that were at the heart of this crisis. In fact, he marched lock-step with the Bush-Cheney economic program right over the cliff." Watch Hoffman's announcement speech: More on Senate Races
 
David Paine: The Politicization of 9/11 Top
I finally understand what it really means when people say "no good deed goes unpunished." About seven years ago, the 9/11 community came together to support the wonderful idea that the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks on America ought to become a federally-observed, national day of service and remembrance, rather than become just another day on the calendar. Most would say it was a no-brainer. I guess not. This past August, a few months after the 9/11 community finally secured passage of bipartisan legislation that established 9/11 as a National Day of Service and Remembrance, a writer for the American Spectator published an article entitled "Obama's Plan to Desecrate 9/11." The opening sentence read this way: The Obama White House is behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort to erase the meaning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the American psyche and convert Sept. 11 into a day of leftist celebration and statist idolatry. An awful lot of people who read that article concluded that the 9/11 Day of Service and Remembrance was hatched by President Obama, not the 9/11 families at all, and furthermore, that our group, MyGoodDeed, was a front for "pinko commies." In an instant, what we had spent years building from scratch with the help of conservatives and liberals alike, not to mention very senior members of the Bush Administration, was transformed into leftist political conspiracy to trick Americans into supporting President Obama's socialist agenda. Holy crap! Not being one that reads the political media all that much -- I prefer the sports pages -- I had no idea what was about to happen next. First, a bunch of other blogs picked it up. And then Fox News got a hold of it. I'm sitting at home with a pizza watching TV one night, and all of a sudden there's Laura Ingraham blasting us for cavorting with guys like Van Jones and some other "commie" guy I never met or talked to in my life. What the heck? Then our website, meant to be a peaceful place for well-meaning people to post their good deeds for the day and other service projects in tribute to the 9/11 victims, starts getting hammered with pretty scary comments from more than a few angry conservatives... things like: "You BASTARDS. How Dare You!" "This is so disrespectful to the thousands of people who died on September 11th. How dare you try to co-op 9/11 from a National Day of Mourning to some cheesy Obamabot service day." Up until that point, most of the posts were things like, "The Boys & Girls Clubs of Augusta will make cards of appreciation for the local veterans and distribute them on September 11th," and "I will be displaying two flags containing the names of the civilians that died on 911 along with the names of the firefighters and rescue workers..." Wow! Now everyone is entitled to their opinion -- this is a free country. And we don't mind it if some people think that establishing 9/11 as a day of service and remembrance is the worst idea in the world. Although our view is that the 9/11 families themselves ought to be able to decide what the observance should be, people certainly can disagree. That's what makes America great. But more was going on here than that. The real problem was that 9/11 Day of Service and Remembrance had become somebody's political ammo, in this case aimed at the Obama Administration. I felt a little like I'd walked into convenience store in the middle of a freakin' hold-up. Apparently, we were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I talked to the writer later and he explained what he was trying to do -- bring to light information that he said indicated that the president was orchestrating a plan to manipulate 9/11 for political gain. (We've been there before, BTW.) Later, in a subsequent post, he clarified his position and provided excellent and accurate information on our group and the 9/11 family origins of the observance, which thankfully stopped some of the more vociferous attacks. But I sure learned that it's not a good thing to get into anyone's political cross-hairs these days. Which is exactly why this observance is so important and right. The whole idea is to encourage all of America to remember the way we were immediately after the attacks -- we weren't red states or blue states. We were Americans, and we were powerful. Because we were unified. Today, we are anything but. Ordinary citizens who might find themselves sharing coleslaw at a weekend BBQ are throwing punches at one another in the middle of town hall meetings on health care reform. Geez! I'm not saying there aren't serious issues at hand. And people are going to disagree. But if 9/11 taught us anything, it was that we need to remember that we have so much more in common as human beings than we have differences. We have to find ways to debate our views, and solve our problems with the 9/11 spirit of unity in mind. For the record, the 9/11 Day of Service and Remembrance is widely backed by the Left, Middle and Right and is not, in any way, a government led or funded initiative created by President Obama or any government agency. It was started by the 9/11 community eager to leave a lasting and positive legacy honoring their lost loved ones, and is supported by respected nonprofits such as the Points of Light Institute, founded with the help of former President George Bush Sr., AARP, America's Promise Alliance, City Year, ServiceNation, and many other wonderful and nonpartisan groups listed on our Web site at 911dayofservice.org . Lest we all forget, almost eight years ago, 2,974 people were murdered. Forty percent of the families of these victims never recovered any remains. Nothing. They buried empty caskets. Since then, nearly 800 first responders who raced to the scene have died -- 27 percent from cancer. Thirty-one of the 800 committed suicide. Needless to say, 9/11 is not a day that should ever be politicized or used to flame the fires of partisanship. Not by The American Spectator or Fox News. Or by supporters of the Obama Administration or MSNBC. It must always be a day of unity, patriotism, and reflection, along with remembrance. And yes, if a person chooses to do so, voluntary service as well. Let's honor the 9/11 heroes by putting the boxing gloves away, at least for one day.
 
Marshall Auerback: Obama's Health Care Speech: Soaring Rhetoric, Scant Imagination Top
A history of failed attempts to introduce universal health insurance has left us with a system in which the government pays directly or indirectly for more than half of the nation's health care, but the actual delivery both of insurance and of care is undertaken by a crazy quilt of private insurers, for-profit hospitals, and other players who add cost without adding value. A Canadian-style single-payer system, in which the government directly provides insurance, would almost surely be both cheaper and more effective than what we now have. And we could do even better if we learned from "integrated" systems, like the Veterans Administration, that directly provide some health care as well as medical insurance. Yet Obama is not prepared to grasp the nettle. His speech was even weaker than the spin preceding the joint address to Congress suggested. I thought the Obama people were lowering expectations with a view toward a big positive surprise and they managed to go even lower than the bar they set. He took caricatured positions on single payer in order to create a false "centrist" option. The President has basically has reduced the public option to a marginal welfare style program for 5% of the population, rather than seeing it as a way to break the monopoly of the private health insurance companies, thereby helping to reduce costs. He's basically forcing everybody into a private health insurance run program. The bad news is that Washington currently seems incapable of accepting what the evidence on health care says. The Obama Admininstration remains under the influence of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists, and is captive to a free-market ideology that is wholly inappropriate to health care issues. As a result, it seems determined to pursue policies that will increase the fragmentation of our system and swell the ranks of the uninsured. We need affordable health care, not health insurance. Just look what is happening in MA. It's not solving the problem at all, because there was no mechanism introduced to REDUCE HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS. Physicians for a National Health Program's (PNHP) study of the Massachusetts model found that the state's 2006 reforms, instead of reducing costs, have been more expensive than expected. The budget overruns have forced the state to siphon about $150 million from safety-net providers such as public hospitals and community clinics: "We are facing a health-care crisis in this country because private insurers are driving up costs with unnecessary overhead, bloated executive salaries and an unquenchable quest for profits -- all at the expense of American consumers," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group . "Massachusetts' failed attempt at reform is little more than a repeat of experiments that haven't worked in other states. To repeat that model on a national scale would be nothing short of Einstein's definition of insanity." Yet Massachusetts seems to be the implicit model. Despite the obvious popularity of Medicare, there was no serious discussion of expanding it as a possible public health care option ( as we had suggested earlier ) and there was no attempt to use the public option as a means of expanding choice and competition if a worker was unhappy with the health care program offered by his employer. The Clinton health care version at least tried to deal with the issue of portability, so that health care did not get tied in directly to employment (a highly germane consideration in a time of double digit unemployment and mounting economic insecurity). There is no hint of that in the Obama plan. If anything, it represented a retrograde step from what was on offer in last year's campaign via the Clinton or Edwards health care proposals. Most advanced countries have dealt with the defects of private health insurance in a straightforward way, by making health insurance a government service. Through Medicare, the United States has in effect done the same thing for its seniors. We get the status quo. The paucity of imagination of the proposals themselves were completely at variance with the President's soaring rhetoric, something which is unfortunately becoming a recurrent theme of the entire Obama Presidency. Originally published at New Deal 2.0 . Roosevelt Institute Braintruster Marshall Auerback is a market analyst and commentator . More on Health Care
 
Michael Jackson's First Professional Recording Unearthed Top
When the world paused this summer to look back on Michael Jackson's extraordinary career, one chapter was missing from all the retrospectives, which skipped straight from the Jackson Five's formation in Gary, Indiana, to their explosive rise to stardom on Motown Records. More on Michael Jackson
 
Dr. Josh Dines and Dr. Rock Positano: Concussions Aren't Just for Football Players Top
When one talks about concussions during sports, football and hockey are the typical talking points. Unfortunately, baseball players aren't immune to suffering head injuries. Though baseball isn't traditionally thought of as a contact sport, David Wright of the Mets and Hideki Kuroda of the Dodgers can definitely attest to the fact that it can be. Both players were hit with baseballs in the head last week resulting in head injuries classified as concussions. Concussions are defined as an injury that results in a transient loss of normal brain function resulting from trauma. Any aspect of brain function can be affected including memory, reflexes, speech, balance, and proprioception. Several hundred thousand athletes suffer concussions each year, and in fact, this number may be higher as there are probably many more cases that are unreported. Clearly, the incidence is higher in contact sports such as football and hockey, but any sports participant can be affected. One study found that more than 50% of college soccer players had symptoms of a concussion during a season. When an athlete suffers a head injury, evaluation by a health care professional is imperative. Sometimes these injuries can cause damage to one's skull or blood vessels in the brain. Skull fractures can occur, as can strokes. Oftentimes a CT scan will be done on patients with head injuries to rule out these more severe complications. Like most sports injuries, there are degrees of concussions with several different classification systems used. One of the more commonly used set of guidelines classifies grade I concussions as a transient brain injury with no associated loss of consciousness and post-traumatic amnesia, if present, lasts for less than 30 minutes. Grade II injuries may lose consciousness for less than 5 minutes or have post-traumatic amnesia for anywhere from 30 minutes to 24 hours. Grade III concussions are the most severe. These players should be sidelined for at least one month. If no associated injuries are present, the preferred treatment is rest. Athletes should not return to play until they are asymptomatic for at least one week. Some concussions are associated with post-concussive syndrome (ie. According to reports in the news, Kuroda) in which symptoms can persist for months. These symptoms include memory deficits, problems with concentration, headaches and fatigue, amongst other things. One of the main problems with concussions is that if one suffers a head injury or concussion, they are more susceptible to a second brain injury if they return to play before making a complete recovery. The second concussion does not have to be very strong for it to have potentially deadly effects. Mets fans are all too familiar with concussions after reading about Ryan Church's struggles with recovery last year. Hopefully for David Wright, his injury isn't as serious. Given the increasing awareness of concussions in baseball players, it is possible that we will see some equipment modifications to make hats and helmets safer. More on Baseball
 
Lois Quam: Public Option Vital to Health Reform Top
I was fortunate to be invited to attend the President's speech last night as a guest of Representative Keith Ellison. Like many supporters of a new public option health plan sitting in the House gallery, I was gratified to hear the President reiterate his continued support for creating such a plan. As a former executive in the health insurance industry, I worked with Medicare and Medicaid and saw firsthand the vital role these public options play in our health care system. For health reform to be most effective, I believe a public option similar to Medicare should be available to all Americans. Despite the criticism the proposed public option has received from conservatives, existing public options like Medicare remain popular with beneficiaries. Before Medicare, about half of America's seniors lacked hospital insurance, 25% went without medical care due to cost, and one-third lived in poverty. Today, nearly all seniors have access to affordable care, and we've cut the number living in poverty by more than half. In these troubling economic times, Medicaid is needed more than ever as more people lose their jobs and fall below the poverty line. The Veterans Administration health budget will be significantly increased in next year's budget. These public options provide access to care. They are affordable. They give us peace of mind and security. A new public health insurance plan would offer a national safety net ensuring all Americans have access to a good quality insurance option. This would be particularly important in rural areas and inner cities, where private insurance options are not always available or affordable. Such a plan would also effectively sets a standard for the marketplace by keeping administrative costs low and encouraging companies to innovate by offering unique benefits above and beyond the basic benefit set. A public option also provides a way to respond to unique public health challenges in areas where private insurers may face shareholder concerns about the financial risk. For example, Medicare expanded coverage to Americans with end stage renal disease in the 1970s because those individuals were uninsurable in the private marketplace. One of the misconceptions in the current debate is that a public plan would limit choice and drive private health insurers out of business. Since the 1990s, Medicare beneficiaries have had a choice of staying with the traditional Medicare program or enrolling in a Medicare Advantage health plan run by private insurers. Many have opted for the opportunities that a health plan offers, but more have opted to stay with the traditional Medicare for the choice and easy access to doctors and hospitals. Government run health plans also have the ability to contract with private companies for health information technology, prevention programs, health education and other services. It's no coincidence the President is following up his speech with a visit to my home state of Minnesota. From 1989-1991, I chaired the Minnesota Health Care Access Commission which led to the bipartisan creation of our own state-based public option plan, MinnesotaCare. In creating MinnesotaCare, we were able to offer health coverage to tens of thousands of Minnesotans who would otherwise have been uninsured and as a result, over 90% of Minnesotans now have health insurance, one of the highest rates in the nation. The down economy has recently resulted in a record number of applications to MinnesotaCare, continuing to underscore the need for this vital program. A new public plan will also need to be designed in such a way to reward doctors and hospitals that are delivering the best care at the lowest cost. Centers of excellence such as the Mayo Clinic here in Minnesota are often penalized by Medicare even though they keep Medicare patients healthier and at a lower cost than the national average. If a new public plan is created, it will need to provide incentives for doctors to deliver high quality care in an affordable manner. When we enact universal coverage for a group of Americans, like we did with Medicare or the VA, it works. When we expand coverage, like we did at the state level with MinnesotaCare, it works. This year, we can complete the job and deliver more affordable care and coverage to all Americans. Given its historic success, a public option is the right option for health reform. The time to act is now. Lois Quam is the CEO of Tysvar, a strategic advisory firm focused on health care and the new green economy, and a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. From 1998 to 2007, she was the CEO of Ovations, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, which provided health coverage to older Americans and low income families. More on Health Care
 
Energy Projects Lag In Stimulus Spending Top
President Obama has pledged to transform the nation's energy policy and has made renewable energy a cornerstone of the $787 billion stimulus package, but so far the money for energy-related projects has been slow to leave Washington. In February, Obama made a point of signing the stimulus package at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, where he inspected its rooftop solar energy system and was introduced by the president of the company that installed the panels. Seven months later, the Energy Department is among the agencies with the slowest pace of stimulus spending. Although energy officials have approved billions of dollars worth of stimulus proposals, the department's records show that only a fraction of those funds have been disbursed -- less than two percent of the total $36.7 billion in funds authorized to the department. By contrast, the Agriculture Department has spent about 15 percent of its stimulus funds and the Commerce Department about seven percent. Matt Rogers, the senior advisor to Energy Secretary Steven Chu for the Recovery Act, said his agency has moved as quickly as possible while making sure the money is going to high-quality projects. "We are making very good progress," he said. "Every week we continue to move more money out the door." This week, however, the department's inspector general reported that it has continuing questions about the department's ability to manage and track the effect of its stimulus spending. "We are concerned that the Department's information systems supporting Recovery Act activities may be unable to handle significant increases in workload or provide appropriate mechanisms to ensure that funds are accurately tracked and reported," Inspector General Gregory H. Friedman wrote in the report. The internal report parallels the concern of some economists and energy analysts about the pace at the Energy Department. "They have announced some grandiose programs, but what have they actually done?" said Matthew Kahn, an economist at UCLA who specializes in energy and the environment. "A lot of money has been allocated but not very much has been spent," said Joel Kurtzman, a senior fellow at the Milken Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., and an expert on renewable energy. He said science and industry have "made tremendous strides" in the technology for solar and wind energy. "Let's get those up and running," Kurtzman said. The renewable energy industry also has suggested that the administration has not moved fast enough. In May, trade groups representing solar, wind, geothermal and other energy companies wrote to Obama complaining that crucial loan-guarantee programs were being stalled because of bureaucratic delays, at a crucial time when credit had dried up. Kenneth W. Hansen, a Washington attorney advising the trade groups, said this week that only a portion of those programs have since been set in motion. The stimulus package includes tax and spending provisions to weatherize low-income homes, modernize the nation's electric grid, train workers for green jobs, make federal buildings more energy efficient, and help build an industry that manufactures batteries for electric cars. It also includes 17 provisions designed to help boost the solar industry. Rogers said that the department's plan included three phases. The first was tax incentives to individuals, designed to help put a floor under the economy. The second was grants to the states. The third phase is a set of competitive awards that aim to provide long-term and enduring investments in the nation's energy future. "We are just now getting into that third block," Rogers said. As an example, he pointed to last month's announcement of $2.4 billion in grants to speed up the manufacturing and use of electric vehicles and batteries, the largest single investment in advanced battery technology for hybrid and electric-vehicles ever made. The announcement said that the money would go to 48 separate projects. "The intent is to build a battery and advanced technology infrastructure in the United States," Rogers said. "We are trying to build a set of industries that last for decades." On the day he signed the stimulus bill into law, Obama, surrounded by workers from the solar and wind industries, emphasized the importance of the alternative energy provisions. "Because we know we can't power America's future on energy that's controlled by foreign dictators, we are taking a big step down the road to energy independence and laying the groundwork for a new green economy that can create countless well-paying jobs," Obama said in his remarks. "It's an investment that will double the amount of renewable energy produced over the next three years." Obama was introduced at the ceremony by Blake Jones, president and chief executive of Namaste Solar of Boulder, Colo. In a recent interview, Jones said his company was one of the ones that saw a quick benefit from the stimulus package. The stimulus bill, he said, spurred sales of residential rooftop solar systems by allowing for an existing federal tax credit to be combined with a new Boulder County program that provides loans for residential projects that install solar systems or make energy efficiency improvements. "We were on the verge of laying people off when the Recovery Act passed," Jones said in an interview. "It let us know things were absolutely going to get better. We've hired a few more people and best of all we've got optimism for the future. It's no longer gloom and doom. We're planning for things to get better." Because of the recession, Jones said, all the company's commercial projects had been postponed. Last week, the company announced that one of those projects, to install a solar energy system at the Louisville, Colo., headquarters of Eldorado Artesian Springs, Inc. was back on schedule - because under the stimulus the company could receive a cash incentive rather than taking a tax credit. Though the stimulus package was signed in February, the rule permitting that change was not adopted until July. "There's no doubt it would have been better if it was faster," Jones said, speaking about both the rule change and the release of stimulus funds in general. But he added, "You need a balance between implementing provisions in a responsible way and making sure the stimulus hits the market quickly." Some economists and energy experts are asking not only if the pace of spending is fast enough but whether the administration is realistic in trying to use those funds for two purposes -- to get the economy moving as well as change the way Americans use energy. "The question is whether you can kill two birds with one stone - the two birds are ending the recession and de-carbonizing the economy," Kahn said. "Economists like the two Obama goals but some are skeptical whether both can be accomplished." Kurtzman, of the Milken Institute, added that the Obama administration has not moved quickly enough to begin the crucial task of upgrading the nation's electric grid. He said modernizing the grid could be the key to success or failure in energy policy because it is crucial to speed the use of alternative energy - to move electricity from remote locations of the country that produce wind or solar energy, for example, to more populated areas that need it. A so-called smart grid would also allow for greater energy efficiency by allowing customers to turn appliances on and off when energy is least expensive, and it would help to cut the threat of energy blackouts. Obama talked about the importance of modernizing the electric grid at the stimulus signing ceremony last February. "Today the electricity we use is carried along a grid of lines and wires that dates back to Thomas Edison, a grid that can't support the demands of clean energy," Obama said. "That means we're using 19th and 20th century technologies to battle 21st-century problems like climate change and energy security." Seven months later, Kurtzman said, not enough progress has been made. "When it comes to the grid, almost nothing has been spent," Kurtzman said. "What you need is to start building new parts of the grid - you need to get the plans done quickly and break down some of the regulatory hurdles so you can upgrade the grid." The stimulus package contains a total of $11 billion for the electric grid, including $4.5 billion in grants to modernize the grid being administered by the Energy Department. Kurtzman said that isn't nearly enough. Rogers, the Energy Department official responsible for the stimulus, said that the department has already received more applications for work on the smart grid than it can fund. "My boss the secretary is an impatient man. I'm an impatient man. We would always like to be able to do things slightly faster," Rogers said. "This is a lot of money. We should be able to have a meaningful impact on energy efficiency." More on Energy
 
Andrew Wetzler: That Glass is Pretty Full: Why Yesterday's Wolf Ruling is (Mostly) Good News Top
Big news in the ongoing fight over wolves in the Northern Rockies -- as you may know, a coalition of groups is trying to stop the wolf hunts that were set in Idaho and Montana after the animals were removed, we think illegally, from the Endangered Species list. Yesterday, Federal District Judge Donald Molloy ruled that he will let the hunts continue. But I think there's more good news in the decision than bad. Don't get me wrong, the idea of potentially hundreds of wolves in the region being shot is tragic. It's unsustainable. And it's wrong. But, ultimately, it is one battle in a larger war. A war that Judge Molloy just told us we had a very good chance of winning. More precisely, the judge ruled that NRDC, Earthjustice, and our coalition* was “likely to prevail” on the merits of our lawsuit challenging the end of federal wolf protections.  That's lawyer-speak for "I haven't made up my mind yet, but I think you're gonna' win."  If this analysis holds, it means that wolves in Montana and Idaho will soon be back on the endangered species list and enjoy the protection of the Endangered Species Act. Even more importantly, it’s a golden opportunity.  An opportunity for the Obama administration to rethink its whole approach to wolf conservation.  As a lot of us at NRDC have written about before , the basic problem (and, not coincidentally, the reason the federal government keeps losing legal cases) with the Bush and the Obama administrations' approach to wolf conservation is the obsessive focus on a single population in isolation from the whole. The Fish and Wildlife Service has spent the last several years trying to take Endangered Species Act protections away from Northern Rockies gray wolves by drawing arbitrary political boundaries and declaring wolves recovered within them.  As Judge Molloy put it: “the Service has distinguished a natural population of wolves based on a political line, not the best available science.  That, by definition, seems arbitrary and capricious.” All of these attempts have failed. What the Service has never done -- what it needs to do -- is to prepare a national recovery plan for wolves.  Only by first thinking through what would constitute a recovered population of gray wolves in the lower forty-eight, and by basing that decision on the latest science, can we begin to remove protections from particular areas in a rational and reasonable way.  NRDC has petitioned the Service to prepare such a plan.  Yesterday, Judge Molloy gave the Obama Administration a chance to start over. I hope they seize it. * The conservation groups are represented by Earthjustice. Joining NRDC in the coalition are Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, The Humane Society of the United States, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands, Western Watersheds Project, Wildlands Network, and Hells Canyon Preservation Council. This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog .
 
Rodney King To Fight Former Police Officer In "Celebrity Boxing Match" (VIDEO) Top
This is one of the stranger interviews we've seen in awhile: a Fox affiliate interviewing Rodney King, of Los Angeles riots fame, and former police officer Simon Aouad on the celebrity boxing match they are holding tomorrow. In a spectacularly unsubtle opening, King is introduced, in echoing fight-announcer style, as "no stranger to a nightstick. His opponent, Simon Aouad, is wearing a chain with a big lock around his neck, but it's unclear if there is some larger meaning behind that. For what it's worth, the anchor doing the interview doesn't bat an eye at discussing the upcoming boxing match between Rodney King and a former police officer . Let us know your reaction to this spectacle in the comments. WATCH: Send us tips! Write us at tv@huffingtonpost.com if you see any newsworthy or notable TV moments. Read more about our media monitoring project here and click here to join the Media Monitors team. More on Video
 
'Ellen' Sued For THOUSANDS Of Copyright Infringements Top
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Some of the world's largest recording companies are suing "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," claiming producers violated their copyrights by playing more than 1,000 songs without permission. Many of the songs were played during the "dance over" segment of the show, when DeGeneres dances from the stage to the interview area, often through the audience. According to the suit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Nashville, when representatives of the recording companies asked defendants why they hadn't obtained licenses to use the songs, defendants said they didn't "roll that way." "As sophisticated consumers of music, Defendants knew full well that, regardless of the way they rolled, under the Copyright Act, and under state law for the pre-1972 recordings, they needed a license to use the sound recordings lawfully," the suit states. Scott Rowe, spokesman for the show's Telepictures Productions, wrote in an e-mailed statement that the company has been working with the record labels for months to resolve the issue and remains willing to resolve it on "amicable and reasonable terms." Rowe said the issue does not involve DeGeneres, who on Wednesday was named as the fourth judge on TV's "American Idol," and whom Rowe calls "a tremendous music enthusiast and advocate." The suit claims the daytime talk show has used copyrighted music without permission since its inception, including "recordings by virtually every major current artist of popular music." It claims the show routinely used some of the most popular songs of the day, which the record labels don't license for daytime television at any price. Other songs cited in the lawsuit include Michael Jackson's "Thriller"; The Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations" and Will Smith's "Gettin' Jiggy Wit It." The suit calls the segment and the music played by the show's own disc jockey "signature elements of the show." Plaintiffs include Arista Music, Atlantic Recording Corp., Capitol Records, Motown Record Company, Sony Music Entertainment, Virgin Records America and Warner Bros. Records. The suit does not specify the dollar amount it seeks in damages. More on Ellen Degeneres
 
Pilfered Playboy Returned To Bar Top
It was a no-questions-asked affair. A man walked into The Fifty/50 bar in Ukranian Village Wednesday night with a 1970s Playboy and walked out with a more recent issue, this one signed by the cover girl, and a $100 gift certificate. Scott Weiner, 28, who co-owns the bar and the old Playboy , had offered the trade to anyone who would return the family heirloom after it was mysteriously stolen last week from a glass case in the men's room. The May 1970 issue featured Phyllis Babila partially covered in a red sheet. It was part of an extensive Playboy collection Weiner inherited from his uncle. In return for the classic, Weiner traded an autographed copy of the May 2009 issue featuring Miss May, Crystal McCahill, a Chicagoan and bar regular. More on Playboy
 
FBI Agents Missed Chance To Stop Atta, Informant Says Top
On the eve of the eight year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, an FBI informant who infiltrated alleged terrorist cells in the U.S. tells ABC News the FBI missed a chance to stop the al Qaeda plot because they focused more on undercover stings than on the man who would later become known as 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta.
 
Chris Rodda: Army Officer Who Said Blacks Were Better Off as Slaves Promoted with Obama's Blessing Top
"The President of the United States has reposed special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity, and abilities of the following officers," says the order promoting Army Lieutenant Colonel Robert G. Young to the rank of full colonel. Now, the president can't be expected to personally vet every military officer who is up for promotion, and, for all but those in the highest ranks, would obviously just rely on the recommendations of the superiors of officers on the promotions lists, but I have to wonder how the president would feel about having rubber stamped the promotion of an officer who said that blacks were better off as slaves. Before getting to Col. Young's slavery comment, I need to back up and explain how the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), the organization I work for, first became aware of this officer. Back in December, I wrote a piece about the Army allowing two Christian reality TV show missionaries, whose mission was to proselytize Afghan Muslims, to be embedded with the troops in Afghanistan as journalists. In that piece, I included a video clip from the program, Trinity Broadcasting Network's Travel the Road, showing these missionaries giving Dari language Bibles to Afghan locals near the base where they were embedded. Just what was in this video clip, found on YouTube, was enough to see that serious violations of the regulations governing embedded journalists and the military regulations prohibiting proselytizing had been committed. In February, I wrote a follow-up piece . By that time, ABC News Nightline had attempted to obtain the records of the embedding of the Travel the Road missionaries, only to be told that the Army had lost all records of this embedding. By the time I wrote my follow-up piece, I had also bought the DVD box set of the season of Travel the Road containing the three episodes covering the missionaries' time in Afghanistan. In the third of the three episodes, Tim Scott, one of the Travel the Road missionaries, was shown interviewing Col. Young. Here's what I wrote about Col. Young in February, followed by the video: The final clip in the video below is from the last of the three Travel the Road Afghanistan episodes, filmed in Kandahar. In this clip, Tim Scott interviews LTC Robert G. Young, the commander of the 325th Forward Support Battalion. LTC Young, a committed Christian who lists his interests in his Military.com profile as "Jesus, Wife, Kids, PT," and belongs to a group called "Rangers 4 Christ," told Scott that the biggest problem in Kandahar was drought, and that this drought coincidentally began as soon as the Taliban took over the country. He went on to say that we've got to "overcome evil with good," and, literally thumping a Bible, quoted two of its verses in one sentence, saying, "Our weapons aren't carnal" (Corinthians 10:4) "and no weapon formed against us shall prosper." (Isaiah 54:17) He said he told an Afghan general that he would ask the American people to pray that God would send rain to Kandahar, and ended by saying that when the people of Kandahar see the rain "they'll know that our god answers prayers." Shortly after I wrote this piece, MRFF began to receive emails telling us that the problems with Col. Young went beyond the typical disregard of regulations prohibiting the promotion of religion and proselytizing by evangelical military officers. We were informed that, among other things, the opinions espoused by Young included a comment to a subordinate officer that blacks were better off as slaves because at least then they knew Christ, and that complaints about his comments had led to him being relieved of his command. MRFF passed these allegations on to journalist Jeff Sharlet, who was in the process of writing his article " Jesus killed Mohammed: The crusade for a Christian military ," the cover story in the May 2009 issue of Harper's Magazine. Sharlet called Col. Young to get his side of the story. Young not only confirmed that what was emailed to MRFF was true, but, as the following excerpts from Sharlet's article clearly show, still doesn't see any problem with his slavery comment. I found Lieutenant Colonel Bob Young after MRFF reported on an evangelical reality program, shown on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, that included tape of Colonel Young telling two wandering missionaries about his plan to pray for rain in Afghanistan. I reached him at home in Georgia late one evening. He said he was going to sit on his porch and look at the moon. In the background, I heard dogs barking. He talked for three hours, much of it about what he'd seen in the combat hospital under his command at Kandahar Air Base. "Kids getting burned," he recalled. "Bad guys floating in on helicopters. You wouldn't know who they were." The base hospital treated 7,000 Afghans that year, and Young, commander of the Army's 325th Forward Support Battalion, lingered there, watching the bodies. "I want to tell you this. Triage area, guy strapped into gurney, Afghan guy. No shirt, skinny as a rail, sinewy muscle. Restraints on his ankles, his feet, dude is strapped into a wheelchair. He's got a plastic shield in front of his face because he's spitting." A doctor wants to sedate him. "I say, 'I'll tell you what's wrong with him. The guy has demons.'" Young decides to pray over him. "Couple minutes later the general's son-in-law -- the Afghan general's son-in-law, our translator -- comes in. I said, 'What's wrong with this guy?' He says, 'How do you say in English? He has spirits.' I say, 'Doc, there's your second opinion!'" On the phone, Young laughed, a harsh "Ha!" Then his voice broke. "I'm telling you, it's real. Evil is real." In the Christian reality show, Young extended that thought to the weather. "Interestingly," he says, "the drought has been in effect since the Taliban took over." Young has a high mouth and a low brow, his features concentrated between big ears. "People of America," he tells the camera, "pray that God sends the rain to Kandahar, and they'll know that our God answers prayers." I asked Young if he wanted to contextualize these remarks, since they seemed, on the surface, to radically transcend his mission as a soldier. "Okay!" he said. "Are you ready?" I said I was. He told me to Google Kandahar, rain, January 2005. The result he was looking for was an article in Stars and Stripes entitled "Rainfall May Signal Beginning of the End to Three-Year Drought in Afghanistan." Three and a quarter inches in just two days. "That's some real rain," I admitted. "That's what I'm saying, brother!" I asked him about an allegation made to MRFF by a captain who served under Young: that Young had made remarks that led him to be relieved of his command. It was true that he had been relieved of command, he admitted, but he had appealed and won. And the remarks? "All that was, I was speaking in reference to inner-city problems and whatnot. I said that the irony is that it would be better for a black to be a slave in America -- I'm thinking now historically -- and know Christ, than to be free now and not know Christ." With that cleared up, I then asked Young about another of the captain's allegations: that he had given a presentation on Christianity to some Afghan warlords. Absolutely not, he said. It was a PowerPoint about America. He emailed it to me as we spoke, and then asked me to open it so he could share with me the same presentation he had given "Gulalli" and "Shirzai." Since it had been President's Day, Young had begun with a picture of George Washington, who, he explained, had been protected by God; his evidence was that, following a battle in the French and Indian War, when thirty-two bullet holes were found in Washington's cloak, the general himself escaped unscathed. Young wanted to show the Afghans that nation-building was a long and difficult journey. "I did stress the fact that in America we believe our rights come from God, not from government. Truth is truth, and there's no benefit in lying about it." There were slides about the Wright brothers, the moon landing, and NASCAR -- Jeff Gordon, "a Christian, by the way," had just won the Daytona 500. And then, the culmination of American history: the twin towers, blooming orange the morning of September 11, 2001. Embedded in the slide show was a video Young titled "Forgiveness," a collage of stills, people running and bodies falling. Swelling behind the images was Celine Dion's hit ballad from Titanic, "My Heart Will Go On." Following the video was a slide of the Bush family, beneath the words: "I believe that God has inspired in every heart the desire for freedom." ... ... The tension between war and faith does not disturb him. "We are to live with anticipation and expectation of His imminent return," he told me. Look at the signs, said Young: nuclear Iran, economic collapse, President Obama's decision to "unleash science" upon helpless embryos. He seemed to feel that the military was now the only safe place to be. "In the military, homosexuality is illegal. I don't want to get into all the particulars of 'Don't ask,' but you can't act on homosexual feelings. And adultery is illegal. Really, arguably, the military is the last American institution that tries to uphold Christian values. It's the easiest place in America to be a Christian." Nobody reading the article about Col. Young's promotion on the official Army website would have any idea why his promotion to full colonel was delayed. According to the article, Young merely hit a "speed bump" due to an "adverse officer efficiency report," which he successfully appealed -- a demonstration of this fine officer's "determination and drive to succeed." According to the article, "Being promoted to colonel confirmed [Young's] sense that the Army is a good institution and that ultimately, the right things happen." Well, Col. Young is right about one thing. The military is "the easiest place in America to be a Christian." Unfortunately, as the thousands of service members who have contacted MRFF about officers like Col. Young have made abundantly clear, it's just not so easy a place to be for anyone else. More on Barack Obama
 
Sabria Jawhar: Political Hooliganism is Now Part of the Democratic Process Top
In case anybody hasn't noticed, hooliganism is now part of the fabric of democracy. An incident occurred last week in Birmingham, England, that gained little notice outside the UK but sent shockwaves through some British communities. Dozens of people were arrested last weekend following a protest by followers of the English Defence League against the implementation against Sharia in the United Kingdom. The reality is the protest against Sharia was nothing more than an anti-Islamic grievance beer party that started at a neighborhood pub and ended violently when a group of Muslims confronted the protesters. Rocks, sticks and punches were thrown with the police blaming both the EDL and Muslims youths for the ruckus. Lost in all the haze is the fact that most Muslims, British-born or not, have given little thought about whether Sharia belongs in the UK. The tiff in Birmingham was a result of the young Muslims recognizing the protest for what it was: a movement against the Muslim community, and not because Sharia was supplanting British law. How is this political hooliganism? While British MPs are dithering over expense accounts, the fringe elements outside the political process have become mainstream. Last June, the British National Party garnered more than 6 percent of the vote in European elections, including two seats in the Brussels parliament. Not only does the BNP have a voice in government, but it has its militia in the streets. While the Liberal Democrats and Tories think it's fine to engage the BNP in debate, they are making the mistake in believing that logic and common sense will prevail in the political arena. They are faced with such organizations as the Stop Islamification of Europe (SIOE) that argues that "Islamophobia is the height of common sense." Just how do the Liberal Democrats and Tories think they are going to win the war of words with that kind of rationale? I must admit, though, the Labour Party's policy of ignoring the BNP is probably more ridiculous. Doing nothing in the face of seething unrest among some British citizens who see merit in the BNP and EDL is a recipe for disaster. The problem lies in the unchecked behavior of the BNP, EDL, SIOE and their followers. Political debate legitimizes fringe groups. It allows these groups to obscure racism and xenophobia with phony arguments of UK border security while the real work is performed in the street. Few people are going to pay attention to Liberal Democrats arguing border security with the BNP when hooligans know the best arguments are made with BBC footage of Britons "defending" the streets of Birmingham with their fists. This Friday, the anniversary of 9/11, anti-Islamic protests are scheduled to be held by the SIOE at the new Harrow central mosque in London. Muslim supporters, calling themselves Unite Against Fascism, also plan to be there. The mosque is not finished, but Friday prayers will be conducted next door in the middle of Ramadan, Islam's holiest month. Imagine, if you will, the specter of a massive demonstration with the threat of violence outside a London church during Christmas Day services. Same thing. In this case, Muslims are faced with the threat of violence during a period of fasting and prayer. Ghulam Rabbani, the general secretary of the Harrow mosque, told The Times of London last week that he doesn't know why protesters picked his mosque. "We don't know why they are singling us out. They say we are planning a Sharia court but we have never had such a plan. This community is mixed with Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Jews. We have had very good relations for 25 years." Members of the BNP, SIOE and EDL have the right to freely express their views in a peaceful manner. But let's not forget that by embracing their legitimacy in the political process, we are also legitimizing their followers in the street. It's not about Sharia because its implementation in the UK doesn't exist. The Sharia argument is a smokescreen for the true anti-immigrant agenda. The irony is that this Friday's scheduled protest is planned by extremists: SIOE and the Unite Against Fascism group. In the middle are the Harrow Muslims who just want everybody to go away.
 
Chris Campbell: Dreams From My Grandfather Top
This morning, before putting on the coffee or getting started with the day, I found myself furiously searching for my grandfather's watch. About five years ago, my aunt, knowing how much I looked up to and respected my grandfather, sent me the watch that he wore for many years, leading up to his passing. It's one of those watches that starts up when it wraps around your wrist. Take it off and it stops. My grandfather was a hilarious, hard-working and gentle man. I have pictures of him all over my apartment, many taken throughout the Brooklyn neighborhood where he raised my mother and two aunts. Given my adoration for him, it's probably a surprise that he passed away when I was only four, in 1977. I only vaguely even remember meeting him, but it's everything I've learned since that has had such an impact on my life. Despite growing up in a broken home, there was an enormous amount of love for him from both sides. He was my mother's father, but my father still wells up when his name enters the conversation. They used to go to the track in New York together, an event that was an incredible thrill for my grandfather, notwithstanding the fact that he'd never wager more than two bucks. My father considers him the funniest man he's ever met. He worked for the same company for most of his life, made a decent wage and was by my grandmother's side until the day he died. He was a simple man, but a man of immense character, humor and civility. It didn't take long for me to understand what prompted me to tear my apartment apart in search of this memory of him. I wanted to somehow remember what it was like to be him, during the time that he lived. He was an avid reader of Faulkner and had a keen interest in politics, once recording a Richard Nixon skit that, to this day, may be the funniest impersonation I've ever heard. As I reflected on him, I began to consider where we are today. I thought of Obama's speech last night and the embarrassing displays of disrespect throughout that room. And then I thought of how we conduct ourselves today. I thought of Twitter, Facebook and texting and the quick erosion of patience, consideration and decency. Board a bus and it's nearly impossible to go three blocks without a fellow passenger yelling in your ear over his or her cell phone. Hold a door open for a fellow citizen and they're likely to swiftly plow past you while pummeling their blackberry keyboard. The last few minutes of our president's speech last night hit me. When he said, "I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history's test. Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our character." For me, those words were about much more than health care reform; they were about a nation and people who desperately need to remember the essence of who we are and what our time allows. Those words reminded me of my grandfather, Gerry Lane, and everything his legacy has instilled in me. More on Health Care
 
The Best Political Brawls From Around The World (VIDEO) Top
Republican Congressman Joe WIlson (S.C.) grabbed the spotlight last night with his widely-criticized yell of "you lie" to President Obama during the latter's speech to a joint session of Congress. However, as tacky as Wilson's outburst was, he can't hold a candle to the brawls that politicians from other countries have gotten into. Our friends at Washington Unplugged have gathered together a highlight reel of some of the most outrageous brawls amongst politicians from around the globe. While the riot going in India seems the most dangerous, we're particularly fans the first clip, from the Czech Republic, because the vicious slap just comes out of nowhere. Enjoy. WATCH: Watch CBS Videos Online Send us tips! Write us at tv@huffingtonpost.com if you see any newsworthy or notable TV moments. Read more about our media monitoring project here and click here to join the Media Monitors team. More on Video
 
Christopher Brauchli: Classroom Guards Top
Thou hast most traitorously corrupted the youth of the realm in erecting a grammar school . . . . --Wm. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Act IV Vigilance. Without it who knows what sorts of insidious messages would slip into the curriculum of public schools throughout the country. The prospect of President Obama encouraging students to study and stay in school terrified many on the right who believed that if their children learn to think for themselves they may eschew the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk and even, in some cases, their parents. They feared that the president, being both articulate and intelligent would, in the brief time allotted, emulate the Pied Piper and lead children from the classroom into the muddy waters of socialism or fascism, depending on which commentator was believed. Florida's Republican Party chairman, Jim Greer , gave voice to the terrified parents. "As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power. . . .
The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President's agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President's initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates. . . .The Democrats have clearly lost the battle to maintain control of the message this summer, so now that school is back in session, President Obama has turned to American's children to spread his liberal lies, indoctrinating American's youngest children before they have a chance to decide for themselves." (In fairness to Mr. Greer it must be pointed out that he made his comments when he didn't know what he was talking about. When he got around to reading the speech he said he planned to watch it.) Mark Steyn of Canada, a political commentator and classroom defender told Rush Limbaugh that in wanting to speak to children in school Mr. Obama was like North Korean leader Kim Jong-il or Saddam Hussein in that he was creating a cult of personality albeit on a smaller scale than those two men had done. In case the Greer and Steyn messages failed to resonate with those concerned with protecting the classroom from the President, Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota joined the defenders. According to Politico the governor told the Minneapolis Star Tribune the speech could be disruptive. He worried not only about content, which was adequately addressed by Mr. Greer, but motive. The lesson plan sent to schools encouraged the students to write to the president. It first suggested that students write letters saying how they could help the president but reacting to criticism, the plan was amended to suggest the students write letters about what the President's goals should be. Either is a subtle form of indoctrination and, as Mr. Steyn told Mr. Limbaugh, "slightly unhealthy." The Governor told a radio show that: "There are going to be questions about-well, what are they going to do with those names and is that for the purpose of a mailing list?" The governor has put his finger on a very significant point. Although it was possible that in 18 minutes Mr. Obama would not cover all the topics anticipated by Mr. Greer, if the students write the President, Mr. Pawlenty believes the government will compile a list of names of students that it can later contact to further propagandize them. The president's speech was not the only perceived threat to the classroom to rear its head in September. In California Governor Schwarzenegger has been given a piece of legislation to sign that would create a "day of recognition" for former San Francisco Board of Supervisors member, Harvey Milk, who was assassinated in 1977. Under California law a "day of recognition" means that schools "conduct suitable commemorative exercises." Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, described all the problems inherent in allowing such a bill to become law saying that: "The bill is so broad it could encompass all kinds of things. Remembering the life of Harvey Milk could allow for gay pride parades on campus or mock gay weddings or cross-dressing. There is no prohibition of what the bill calls 'suitable commemorative exercises.' The sky's the limit." Public education has been seriously threatened with the start of the new school year. We can only be grateful for the likes of Messrs. Greer, Pawlenty and Thomasson who are attempting to ensure that ideas won't find their ways into our classrooms. Christopher Brauchli can be e-mailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com
 
Art Brodsky: Time for Beck's Bad-Asses to Back Off of Mark Lloyd Top
We interrupt our normal discussions of broadband policy, mapping, copyright law, intellectual property and our other topics of interest for a special public service announcement: Are you Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, one of the Facebookers who joined the Demand the TERMINATION of Communist Czars in our White House: Mark Lloyd campaign. Are you one of the #firemarklloyd Twitter brigade? If so, this message is for you. Your attacks on Mark Lloyd are groundless, i.e. at variance with actual facts. They are stupid. They are embarrassing. Knock it off. Thank you. We understand the language may be a bit crude and direct, but in order to communicate properly, one must use the language the targets of the message understand and are familiar with. Think of any number of cowboy movies ( The Magnificent Seven ) or even motorcycle gang movies, ( The Wild One with Marlon Brando but without Brando's attempt at redemption) in which the ignorant, low-rent, know-nothing thugs bad guys ride into town and randomly wreak havoc on a generally peaceful populace for no good reason other than that they can. That's what's happening here. Who are the leaders of this bad-ass pack? Beck and Savage are riding the lead bikes, with a horde of Twits behind them who are carrying out Beck's instructions to "FIND EVERYTHING YOU CAN" (his capitals) on, among others, Lloyd, Cass Sunstein, the professor nominated to be the new head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Policy at the Office of Management and Budget, and Carol Browner, the former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency now working at the White House on climate change. Some background is in order. Mark Lloyd is a distinguished member of the telecommunications community. He is a former journalist who turned to law and scholarly pursuits, casting a particularly skeptical eye on media concentration and its effects. He has been affiliated with any number of worthy organizations, most recently with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Center for American Progress. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced on July 29 that Lloyd had been named associate general counsel and chief diversity officer. As a rule, it's not that big a deal to become an associate general counsel in an independent regulatory agency. It's a nice job with some potentially interesting work, but all things being equal, hardly the equivalent of, say, a presidential chief-of-staff, or even of an FCC commissioner. The FCC release said Lloyd, and others, "will collaborate on the policies and legal framework necessary to expand opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses to participate in the communications marketplace." In other words, Lloyd and others will make sure that broadband policy, for example, leads to improvements for everyone - from rural areas and urban areas alike. Under Beck's attack, however, Lloyd joined the elite ranks as a government "czar" who will lead the attack against the radio industry generally, and conservative radio specifically. My goodness. Lloyd would be the most powerful associate general counsel of the FCC in history if Beck were right. Alas, he is not, but that didn't stop Beck from claiming, "Radio is under attack" on his Aug. 14 program. One of Lloyd's chief weapons, Beck said, was that Lloyd has advocated that private broadcasters would have to "pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs." Conservative radio, in particular, would have to pay a "crippling $250 million fine." That money would be used to fund "public broadcasters who are competitors of private broadcasters," Beck said, elaborating Lloyd would "force broadcasters to fund public broadcasters dollar for dollar" equal to the stations' "gross operating budget" each year in order to get a license. His guest for that segment, Sean Motley of the Media Research Center, agreed with Beck that radio couldn't survive under such circumstances, calling Lloyd "the enforcer" of evil concepts like "localism." Not to put too fine a point on it, but none of this is in any way connected to reality. Lloyd is an advisory attorney who holds no decision-making authority. He is no czar, any more than any of the other "czars" targeted by Beck's Bad Boys are "czars." He has no enforcement responsibilities. His job is to look over policies to make sure that all parts of the country, urban, rural, or wherever, benefit from all FCC policies. If that's evil, make the most of it. The canard about emptying out the treasuries of radio stations was spread by an Aug. 13 story from the Cybercast News Service (CNS), an affiliate of the Media Research Center, which employed Beck's "expert" guest, Sean Motley. The headline for the story in question story read: "FCC's Chief Diversity Officer Wants Private Broadcasters to Pay a Sum Equal to Their Total Operating Costs to Fund Public Broadcasting." The story, by reporter Matt Cover, started with this: Mark Lloyd, newly appointed Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission, has called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do. Lloyd presented the idea in his 2006 book, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, published by the University of Illinois Press. How can we say this politely? No, Messrs. Cover and Beck and the rest. Lloyd never proposed any such thing. Ever. Anywhere. At any time, and certainly not in that book. Was that simple enough for you? Here's what Lloyd proposed. In a 2007 paper , "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," Lloyd and six co-authors (none of whom has ascended to czar-ness) brought out the decades-old concept of having commercial radio support public radio if commercial radio didn't want to uphold its public interest responsibilities. The $250 million figure Beck mentioned came from that report, which estimated that such a fee would produce between $100 million and $250 million, of what would happen if commercial stations had to pay between 1 percent and 5 percent of their revenues into a fund to support public radio, which would then "support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner." Is $250 million a large number? Not small, but let's look at what it would buy. For one thing, Glenn Beck is on target to make $18 million a year, which includes a piece of his $50 million, five-year deal for his radio show alone. According to SNL Kagan, local TV and radio stations are expected to bill about $34 billion in sales this year. Note the emphasis on local programming. Beck and his other radio cohorts are syndicated by big companies, like Beck's Premiere Networks, a Clear Channel subsidiary. They aren't local, so they might not like the idea that they could be replaced by home-grown talent. Beck was only one of those piling on. Michael Savage called Lloyd "a piece of garbage," and said diversity was "a key word for KGB," the former Soviet Union's secret police, in a show broadcast the same day as Beck's. A few days before Beck's show, Fox News put up a story about Lloyd's supposed campaign against conservative radio stations. Even though Lloyd himself wrote an article titled "Forget the Fairness Doctrine," the same Motley who came on Beck's show said that Lloyd had a secret plan to bring back the Fairness Doctrine anyway. Fox complained, "While he said he was not interested in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, he called for 'equal opportunity employment practices,' 'local engagement' and 'license challenges' to rectify the that perceived imbalance" in talk radio. The report Lloyd and others wrote found that 91 percent of talk radio was conservative. Granted, concepts such as "fairness" and "equality" and "localism" are anathema to conservatives. (On the other hand, if radio were 91% progressive, it's hard to believe Beck wouldn't be screaming about the lack of "fairness.") But they aren't anathema to progressives (or, as Savage called progressives, "communists"), who believe in the bedrock of local broadcasting, equality in opportunity and fairness. Note: "play fair" was the second item on the list, "All I Really Wanted To Know I Learned in Kindergarten," by Robert Fulghum. I guess Savage, Beck and the rest missed class that day. As much as we want to defend Mark Lloyd, the larger picture is that he's simply a larger pawn in a bigger, mismatched game. Beck and his posse are pros at attack politics. This Administration, sadly, is not. Here's the account of the FCC's response to Fox's inquiry (and we give them credit for asking for it): "In a statement, the commission said: 'The FCC agenda does not include reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine or in any way censoring speech based on political views and opinions. ... The FCC's interest in promoting diversity goes back to core principles underlying the First Amendment. Our nation benefits from a vibrant marketplace of ideas representing different points of view. [Lloyd] will help ensure that the communications field is competitive and generates widespread opportunities." Considering the ferocity of the attacks, that's not much. But at least, so far, Lloyd still has his job. That's more than can be said for Van Jones, the green-jobs adviser who was Beck's first victim, and Yosi Sargant , a communications officer for the National Endowment for the Arts who got tossed overboard when the right wing came after him. The Administration can't solely depend on outsiders like Think Progress and documentarian Sue Wilson to defend Lloyd. They have to learn that human sacrifice is a no-no. When they defend someone, they should do it with vigor and intensity and in person, while realizing that the attacker calling for scalps is someone who famously called President Obama "a racist" who has "a deep-seated hatred of white people" and as a result has now lost close to 60 advertisers for his show on Fox (even if those companies still advertise elsewhere on Fox.) Mark Lloyd is a target and a pawn in a larger game. We can only hope he doesn't become a victim as well. More on Glenn Beck
 
The Future Of Car Buying: Small Cars Are Now American Favorites Top
ANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP) -- Big cars and trucks are out. Smaller ones that offer more for your dollar are in. And many drivers will hang onto the new cars they buy longer. We've seen some of this before -- in the 1970s. But there's reason to believe that this time, American car-buying habits have changed forever. Scarred by the worst financial crisis since the 1930s and still leery of high gas prices, people are walking into showrooms intent on spending less. The trend is strongest among baby boomers, who are 44 to 63 years old and make up a quarter of the population, dealers and industry analysts say. A generation ago, boomers drove the economy out of the second-worst recession since World War II. After the downturn ended in 1982, they went on a buying spree throughout the '80s; for many, free-spending became a way of life that didn't end until last year. But their investments and home values have taken a hit. And with time running out until retirement, economizing on the second-biggest purchase most people make has become common. "Up until now it's 'I want bigger and more than I had last year,'" says Jerry Seiner, who owns several GM franchises in the Salt Lake City area. "This has been the biggest awakening of the United States population since the Great Depression." Ford's top sales analyst, George Pipas, describes the shift as one from "conspicuous consumption" to "careful consumption." To a degree, the shift has been forced on consumers. The Great Recession ended the days of easy credit, which propelled car and truck sales most of this decade. During the boom years, almost anyone qualified to buy a new vehicle. Zero percent financing on purchases and cut-rate deals on leases kept monthly payments low and encouraged people to trade every three or four years. Sales ballooned to record numbers of about 17 million vehicles a year in the first half of the decade. Today, loans are harder to get and come with higher payments. About 60 percent of buyers finance a new car, and many no longer qualify for luxury models -- or want big monthly payments. So many drivers will keep running up their odometers and scale back when they do buy, continuing to push down sales of large cars, sport utility vehicles and luxury brands. A poll taken in April by research firm AutoPacific found that 59 percent of recent buyers will keep their cars four years or more, up from 46 percent in 2008. It's easy to keep a vehicle longer because of improved quality. On a recent evening, Haiying Sun of Ann Arbor, Mich., drove his family's 1998 Ford Windstar minivan to Howard Cooper Honda to look at new cars. And look is all he did. Although the van has 80,000 miles on it, Sun says he can wait for the deal he wants. "I don't think this car is too bad," he said. "I still can drive it for maybe two years." The trends suggest annual vehicle sales will stay close to this year's 10 million level instead of rebounding to mid-decade levels. It was the collapse of the sales rate to as low as 9.57 million in January 2009 that pushed GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy reorganizations financed by the federal government, leaving Uncle Sam with a controlling stake in GM and as broker for Fiat's takeover of Chrysler. Even mighty Toyota, which has done relatively better than most, posted the biggest loss in its history in its last fiscal year. "I think caution will be with us for a while," says Martin Zimmerman, a former Ford Motor Co. chief economist who now teaches at the University of Michigan. "That will color people's willingness to go out and buy houses or buy cars." Even before the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggered the financial industry meltdown a year ago, buyers' habits were starting to change. Fresh off a summer that featured $4 per gallon gas, people entered showrooms thinking smaller and armed with dealer invoice prices and rebate offers gleaned from Internet sites. Small cars made up just 12.6 percent of the market in 1998, but that has grown to 21.1 percent, according to Ward's AutoInfoBank. The popularity of the federal government's Cash for Clunkers program this summer showed that Americans will embrace small if they're being budget-conscious or if they get a good deal. In August, the last month of the program, sales of the smallest domestic cars tripled from a year earlier. Automakers are banking on the shift being permanent, unlike the last big swing to small cars, which followed the Arab oil embargo in 1973 and another oil shock at the end of the decade. People went back to larger cars as soon as oil supplies increased and gas prices went down. From the '80s until last year, gas stayed relatively cheap. Besides big passenger cars, the "light truck" market -- minivans, SUVs and pickups -- exploded and U.S. automakers made billions. This time, though, higher gas prices are more likely to stick. Even though gas has dropped to around $2.50 a gallon, few expect it to stay there. The end of the global recession and burgeoning auto markets in China and India are expected to increase the demand for oil. Higher government fuel economy standards also will drive sales of small cars. The shift will leave Detroit automakers no choice but to figure a way to make money on compact cars. In the past, these were money losers for U.S. car makers and were subsidized by big cars and light trucks. GM and Ford say contract concessions from the United Auto Workers make it possible to turn a profit on U.S.-built compacts. GM even says it can make money on subcompacts built in Michigan, but Ford and Chrysler will build them in lower-cost Mexico. Those who buy smaller vehicles or non-luxury brands will still want the amenities they've become used to, such as voice-activated phones, navigation systems, heated leather seats and premium sound systems. That's what Art Shand, 48, a building industry consultant from Palm Harbor, Fla., was looking for when he decided to lease a third car to keep from racking up miles on his family's other two vehicles, an Acura MDX luxury sport utility and a BMW 5-series sedan. Although he could afford another premium brand, he shopped for value and leased a Hyundai Genesis, the Korean company's new entry in the luxury market. It has all the amenities sought by Shand, yet costs nearly $20,000 less than a BMW 535i. Get HuffPost Business On Facebook and Twitter !
 
The Best Political Brawls From Around The World (VIDEO) Top
Republican Congressman Joe WIlson (S.C.) grabbed the spotlight last night with his widely-criticized yell of "you lie" to President Obama during the latter's speech to a joint session of Congress. However, as tacky as Wilson's outburst was, he can't hold a candle to the brawls that politicians from other countries have gotten into. Our friends at Washington Unplugged have gathered together a highlight reel of some of the most outrageous brawls amongst politicians from around the globe. While the riot going in India seems the most dangerous, we're particularly fans the first clip, from the Czech Republic, because the vicious slap just comes out of nowhere. Enjoy. WATCH: Watch CBS Videos Online Send us tips! Write us at tv@huffingtonpost.com if you see any newsworthy or notable TV moments. Read more about our media monitoring project here and click here to join the Media Monitors team. More on Video
 
Shannyn Moore: Mrs. Palin, Quit Makin' Things Up! Top
After I read Sarah Palin's Facebook page response to the president's speech on health care reform, I had to walk away and count to ten -- in Russian. You may say, why bother? She's not relevant. She's the pin-up girl for crazies. Last night, a man with a gun attempted entry into the Capitol. Rep. Joe Wilson yells, "You Lie", and teabaggers think it's porn. The radical right, which celebrates the assassination of Dr. Tiller and protests their children hearing the encouraging words of a black president, love Palin. She does nothing to denounce their idiocy; she revels in it. I write about her now because of who she represents -- very dangerous people. Here is her statement with my response. SP: After all the rhetoric is put aside, one principle ran through President Obama's speech tonight: that increased government involvement in health care can solve its problems. SM: Nope, not what he said. So, to borrow a line from one of your fans, "You Lie!" Many suspect you did not write your Facebook response, but for argument's sake, I will assume you did. SP: Many Americans fundamentally disagree with this idea. We know from long experience that the creation of a massive new bureaucracy will not provide us with "more stability and security," but just the opposite. It's hard to believe the President when he says that this time he and his team of bureaucrats have finally figured out how to do things right if only we'll take them at their word. SM: Hmmm, reminds me of Homeland Security and cavity searches to get on a plane. Or illegally wiretapping Americans. Or, yellow cake uranium and WMD. Or, maybe you're just projecting. SP: Our objections to the Democrats' health care proposals are not mere "bickering" or "games." They are not an attempt to "score short term political points." And it's hard to listen to the president lecture us not to use "scare tactics" when in the next breath he says that "more will die" if his proposals do not pass. SM: It is a sad fact that 14,000 people lose their health insurance every day in this country. Less coverage means less treatment means more people die. It's simple math. In fact, an estimated 18,000 Americans die every year because they are uninsured. Scare tactics? That's rich. I am a survivor of the Alaska Pageant circuit and if "scaring the be-Jesus out of old people" were a talent, you would've worn the crown. The president (remember, he won the election) basically called you a liar last night. SP: In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I've raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns "bogus," "irresponsible," and "a lie" -- so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we've made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit. SM: First off, who's "we"? Do you have a monkey in your pocket or are you referring to your ghostwriter? I'm quite sure President Obama didn't respond simply because of you. Name calling? Like when you said, Obama was "Pallin' around with terrorists"? Or, "he's not like us"? You are an irresponsible liar and fear monger-President Obama was right. If you're going to take credit for changing the conversation, then own the labels that you so richly deserve. SP: In fact, after promising to "make sure that no government bureaucrat ... gets between you and the health care you need," the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council -- an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost ... the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives...." He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I've made, I'm going to call him out too. SM: "Unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats" - like your ethics board? You, Madam, came between adequate care to Alaskans and their doctors with your negligence to those citizens who needed medical care. On your watch, Alaskans died . If you want to call the President out on his policies, expect you will be called out as well. Why the hell should he "respond to the arguments" you've made? You've become a simple shill for the wealth-care industry. SP: It was heartening to hear the president finally recognize that tort reform is an important part of any solution. But this concession shouldn't lead us to take our eye off the ball: the Democrats' proposals will not reduce costs, and they will not deliver better health care. It's this kind of "healthy skepticism of government" that truly reflects a "concern and regard for the plight of others." We can't wait to hear the details on that; we look forward to working with you on tort reform. SM: You haven't come up with one idea on how to help people. As governor, you signed a bill that allowed the state to monitor and record every pharmaceutical taken by Alaskans. You, Madam, grew big government and invaded the public's privacy. On my radio show, I begged you to veto that bill. Your party is paid well to grease the wheels for industry. There's a word for that-the merging of government and corporate interests -- it's called fascism. I know your supporters won't understand the word, hell, at least one of them misspelled it on a t-shirt. Google it. SP: Finally, President Obama delivered an offhand applause line tonight about the cost of the War on Terror. As we approach the anniversary of the September 11th attacks and honor those who died that day and those who have died since in the War on Terror, in order to secure our freedoms, we need to remember their sacrifices and not demonize them as having had too high a price tag. SM: You have embarrassed Alaskans long enough. Stop it. My pop was moose hunting on 9/11. He didn't even know it had happened for several weeks -- but he knows Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Even G.W. Bush admitted as much. Where were all the teabaggers on the Iraq War? Shame on you. How dare you. I don't know what the daily worry of another terrorist attack is for Americans, but there is another terror that keeps at least 40 million minds busy. The terror that they, or one of their loved ones will become sick and they won't have the money or insurance to have adequate treatment. You, Madam, don't live in this state of fear, but it is real. Health care reform is another war; a war against the corporations who make a profit from denying services. SP: Remember, Mr. President, elected officials work for the people. Forcing a conclusion in order to claim a "victory" is not healthy for our country. We hear you say government isn't always the answer; now hear us -- that's what we've been saying all along. SM: Remember, Mrs . Palin, you were an elected official. You quit ! You've been saying the government isn't always the answer. Well, you certainly weren't the answer. You proved that the wrong person at the helm is dangerous for the American people as well as the planet. "Forcing a conclusion in order to claim a 'victory' is not healthy for our country." No kidding - does the banner "mission accomplished" ring any bells? SP: Sarah Palin SM: Thank you for not signing Governor. Really, I mean it, thanks. More on Facebook
 
Fran Drescher In Talks With Fox News, MSNBC For Talk Show Top
In giving up her ambition to run for office in New York, she's opened negotiations with Fox for a talk show. ... "A lot of my fans watch Fox News," says Drescher, who is also talking to MSNBC. More on MSNBC
 
Leslie Crocker Snyder's Unsavory Campaign Donors Top
Judging people by the company they keep may not always be fair game, but it is fitting, on the eve of next week's primary, to take the measure of Leslie Crocker Snyder by examining the dubious donors bankrolling her campaign for Manhattan District Attorney. News stories about bad-boy contributors have lost some of their sting over time ("they all do it" is the common public shrug). But voters may be less tolerant of dirty dollars when the candidate collecting them could become head of the premier district attorney's office in the country, where Law and Order is not only supposed to reign but was developed for television.
 
Robocalls Banned By Government? Not So Much Top
It's dinnertime, the phone rings and it might be someone important. Instead, you hear a recorded voice: "Congratulations! You've been pre-approved for a new mortgage!" The good news is that after years of complaints from consumers, the Federal Trade Commission has now banned telemarketing pitches known as robocalls unless consumers pre-approve of them in writing. The bad news: You might still be badgered by mortgage lenders and some other telemarketers. Although the FTC put its ban into effect on Sept. 1, the commission has limited jurisdiction. While non-bank lenders, auto warranty companies, sweepstakes businesses and other telemarketers now face up to $16,000 in fines for each illegal robocall, plenty of other types of companies are exempt. Among the unaffected mortgage lenders are banks and other financial institutions. The ban also does not apply to insurance companies, telephone carriers, politicians, most charitable organizations and purely informational calls such as notice of a flight cancellation. Debt collectors, so long as they contact consumers about actual bills without making a sales pitch, also do not face the restrictions. The mortgage lenders that are immune from the rule also are the ones most responsible for offering and servicing home loans. Last year, the five largest mortgage lenders were banks or savings and loan companies. Under the law , the FTC cannot regulate advertising by certain financial institutions, including banks, savings and loans and federal credit unions. The Federal Communications Commission, which also has jurisdiction over deceptive telemarketing, has no such restraints but has not yet banned robocalls altogether. Some consumer advocates worry that the exempt lenders might bombard borrowers with misleading phone advertisements, especially now that beleaguered homeowners are looking to refinance or modify their mortgages. Having banks exempt from the rule is "a big gap and it's one of the problems of the limited jurisdiction that the FTC has," said Susan Grant, director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America. "For consumers, there's no distinction" between banks and independent lenders, she said. "It's the same annoying problem." A spokeswoman for the Better Business Bureau said that most of the robocall complaints it receives concern offers to modify credit card payments and home loans. Even in the few places where robocalls have been illegal under state law, consumers can't escape them. Although North Carolina largely outlawed robocalls in the mid-1980s, the state attorney general's office received 629 consumer complaints about the calls so far this year. The FTC first proposed its robocall regulation in 2006, which also happened to be the height of the housing bubble. The year before, the commission had received more than 13,000 e-mails and letters from consumers opposing an earlier plan to loosen the existing, weaker restrictions on telemarketing.  "We were all getting these calls," FTC staff attorney Craig Tregillus said in an interview. "People were mad as hell." Tregillus said the FTC didn't create its rule specifically to combat mortgage lending calls. Yet lending groups were among those who pushed the FTC to adopt looser restrictions, records show.  In a joint comment to the agency, several professional groups whose members use robocalls, including the Mortgage Bankers Association, pushed the FTC to allow prerecorded messages so long as a consumer previously did business with the company. Prerecorded messages, the groups argued, actually enable businesses to "provide a higher level of service to their customers." If the calls were allowed, businesses would have the "option of using a cost-effective, proven technology to improve their services to customers," according to the comment, which was filed by a telemarketing industry lobbyist. Other groups that signed the comment included the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Newspaper Association of America and the Consumer Bankers Association. After the FTC finalized stricter regulations than these groups had hoped for, one mortgage industry blog, Lenderama, warned its readers of the implications . "The pendulum is swinging towards the consumer - requiring them to actively engage you for services," said a Lenderama blog post in May. "Do yourself a favor," it added, "stay in the FTC 'good guys' group. The post recommended alternative "marketing strategies that attract and engage consumers," including traditional direct mail marketing, Internet solicitations and social media. The FTC's new rule does not cover these communications. Still, the FTC is paying special attention to the mortgage industry. In addition to suing several lenders that falsely claimed to offer government-sponsored mortgage modifications, the commission is considering another rule that would restrict advance fees for loan modifications. "Scammers are taking advantage of people in a difficult situation - people who are trying to modify their home mortgages or those who are trying to avoid foreclosure," FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said at a press conference in April. "We're enforcing the law against these scam artists; we're putting others on notice that unless they change their ways, they're next." --- If you receive a robocall, and you haven't given written permission for the company to contact you, the FTC recommends you file a complaint, either on the donotcall.gov site or at 888-382-1222. Do you have information about this story? Send us a tip or submit a correction . More on Regulation
 
Matt Osborne: Tort Reform is a Red Herring, Not a Silver Bullet Top
Attempting bipartisan outreach, the president said last night he would consider tort reform as part of a general health care overhaul. Pledging to initiate pilot programs aimed at reducing "defensive medicine," Obama added the caveat: "I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet." I would go further: tort reform is a giant red herring. There is simply no way that damage caps could ever produce the billions of dollars in savings that proponents claim. In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office determined that, at most, tort liability accounted for less than 0.5% of health care costs , and probably far less than that. Indeed, once you add up the cost of all the lawsuits in America, the percentage of GDP swallowed up by torts actually dropped nearly 10% between 1986 and 2004. It's nonsense to think that lawsuits explain the double-digit rise of health care costs over the last ten years. Consider the now-famous example of McAllen, Texas. Highlighted in a New Yorker article this June, McAllen physicians enjoy the toughest tort reform laws in the country, yet the area remains one of the most expensive places in America to be sick. Writer Dr. Atul Gawande relates the following exchange: "It's malpractice," a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said. "McAllen is legal hell," the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere. That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn't lawsuits go down? "Practically to zero," the cardiologist admitted. "Come on," the general surgeon finally said. "We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple." Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures. Writing at Salon.com three years ago, Ezra Klein examined a RAND study on the growth of malpractice awards from 1960 to 1999: "Our results are striking," the research team concluded. "Not only do we show that real average awards have grown by less than real income over the 40 years in our sample, we also find that essentially all of this growth can be explained by changes in observable case characteristics and claimed economic losses. " (Emphasis mine) Nor is it correct to say that torts alone are responsible for the rising cost of malpractice insurance. In state after state after state , there is simply no correlation: as the number of cases goes down, premiums continue to rise. Indeed, the only proven correlation with tort reform is increased profitability for insurers . Mind you, doctors are required by law to carry malpractice insurance; because they are wealthy, and the insurance companies are profit-driven, a far more likely explanation for the high premium increases over the last decade is that doctors are just getting screwed. Given the way health insurance premiums have skyrocketed in the same time frame, it's a logical explanation. Nor are malpractice suits as common as we're led to believe: very few malpractice victims actually sue their doctors. Frivolous suits are far more rare than advertised, as judges throw most of them out of court . It's incorrect to say that juries are the problem , either, since malpractice suits are much more likely to go against the plaintiff. Nevertheless, when the jury does find for the plaintiff, the awards tend to be much higher. That fact tells you the real culprits in malpractice cases are bad doctors. In fact, studies have found more than 100,000 Americans die every year from bad medicine. The Journal of the American Medical Association lists it as the third-leading cause of death in the United States (warning: registration required). Yet a very small number of physicians is responsible for an outsized number of these cases. This really is a "bad apples" problem, one that could be greatly improved by use of best-practices and better physician access to information . Ezra Klein offers an example : Anesthesiologists used to get hit with the most malpractice lawsuits and some of the highest insurance premiums. Then in the late 1980s, the American Society of Anesthesiologists launched a project to analyze every claim ever brought against its members and develop new ways to reduce medical error. By 2002, the specialty had one of the highest safety ratings in the profession, and its average insurance premium plummeted to its 1985 level, bucking nationwide trends. (Emphasis mine) I doubt Obama's outreach will garner any reciprocal attention from Republicans; they've been calling it " lip service " all day. They shouldn't act like this is a late turn, however, as Obama first broached the idea back in mid-June . It's likely to be a popular idea as well. Trial lawyers are a widely-despised lobby. Yet courts remain the only way individual Americans can redress grievances against the rich and powerful; they are a great leveler, and limits have had perverse effects. In Texas, for example , draconian "reforms" require minimum income and proof of future income to qualify for economic damage awards. The poor, stay-at-home mothers, children and the elderly rarely qualify. The state cap on non-economic damages makes these cases too expensive for lawyers to pursue. In effect, tort reform there has taken away one of the most important rights of American citizens. Another instructive example is the military, where federal law removes all liability from medical doctors -- and the incentive to avoid mistakes. Tort reform could actually increase the rate of malpractice deaths. Lastly, any federal tort reform act would undermine the role of state courts in deciding medical malpractice cases, rejecting two centuries of legal tradition in a dubious attempt to attract a few Republican votes. Tort reform is a red herring better left at sea. Follow me on Twitter Follow me at Osborne Ink
 
Michael Pento: A Jobless Recovery Part Three Top
It looks like this will be the third jobless recovery in a row. Coming out of the last two recessions we had what has become to be known as a jobless recovery. Job growth usually surges coming out of a recession as companies rush to bring on new employees to rebuild inventories that were depleted in the downturn. However, what has occurred since the early 1990's is that we have had to wait until the economy was able to build an asset bubble before significant job growth was able to be realized. The truth is that a substantial percentage of GDP growth and job creation has surrounded the financial services industry and real estate-bubbles that were wrought upon the consumer, thanks to the Federal Reserve and financial institutions. This is the direct result of imbalances that have occurred from the false signals caused through inflation. We have to allow the economy to retool itself into a more balanced condition where manufacturing levels increase. Or, we will have to wait until another asset bubble is created before job growth, income growth and the consumer can start to be healed. To further illustrate the condition of a jobless recovery, we were treated to last Friday's Non-Farm Payroll report. In it we found that August shed another 216 thousand jobs, as the unemployment rate jumped to 9.7%-the highest since June of '83. And last Thursday we learned that continuing claims spiked by 92k to reach 6.23mm. The stubbornly high continuing claims number shows how difficult it is to find gainful employment after being laid off. But perhaps the most disturbing number from either report on employment trends came from the NFP account. The report indicated that the goods producing sector shed another 136,000 jobs for the month. And the economy has lost an unbelievable 3.47 million goods producing jobs since the recession began in December 2007. Even with all of the government's interference with the free market (cash for clunkers and an $8,000 tax credit to those who have not owned a home in the last three years), the country continued to lose employment. So why aren't employers stepping up their hiring? As my friend Larry Kudlow puts it: The threat of higher payroll taxes and energy costs is more than enough to deter new hiring. Taxes on upper-end investors are going to rise, too, and there may be health-care surtax on top of that. And don't forget that small businesses pay the top personal tax rate, which is going up. Oh, and how about the recent minimum-wage hike? Yet another business cost. Unless the U.S. rediscovers its manufacturing base and rebuilds the goods producing sector of the economy we will not create the necessary amount of viable job growth. Unfortunately, the likelihood of rejuvenating our productive capacity remains low, precisely because we believe a lower dollar is the way to boost exports. The correct way to boost exports is to lower the corporate tax rate and reduce regulations. The way I see it is this: until the legislative ambiguity abates and/or the government has successfully inflated another asset bubble, we will suffer with the condition of a jobless recovery. And even if accomplished, that job growth will be of the non-viable and unsustainable variety once again. Michael Pento is the Chief Economist for Delta Global Advisors and a contributor to greenfaucet.com
 
Chez Pazienza: John Stossel: Across the Great Divide Top
Well, here's the least surprising media-centric news item ever: John Stossel is leaving ABC for Fox News Channel. For the uninitiated few, Stossel is a multi-Emmy-winning investigative reporter with an amusing Harry Reems moustache. He calls himself a libertarian -- a designation which these days, unfortunately, is almost exclusively the property of the right -- and has spent the past several years doing his best to debunk man-made global climate change, bolster the notion of the wonders of unfettered greed and the ultimate good of the free market, and assail anyone who complains about the current health care model. His slot on 20/20 has been little more than his own personal Hyde Park-style soapbox ever since his conversion from serious journalist to silly dogmatic populist. Stossel's been a regular guest on Fox for some time now; he generally appears as an analyst (which at Fox is code for someone who has even less obligation to the truth than the correspondents in the general assignment pool). Given his tendency to egomaniacally showboat, his departure probably isn't much of a loss to ABC. But it does underscore in no uncertain terms just where the business of journalism is heading: Hume, Beck, now Stossel -- they all skew hard to the right and they've all wound up at Fox. At this point, Fox is the bright light on the porch that attracts all the insects. The problem is that what we're witnessing is the homogenization of the news media. It was admittedly inevitable. With so many choices out there, narrowcasting was always the future. But the fewer dissenting opinions at each outlet -- with Fox essentially saying, "If you're a conservative, this is where you belong" -- the viewers, readers, and people simply looking for a well-balanced vision of the world will suffer. Then again, the battle lines are so clearly drawn these days, with people believing only what they want to believe and refusing to hear any evidence to the contrary, that it probably doesn't make any difference anyway. For God's sake, last night on national television a congressman shouted that the president is a liar (a lie itself, at least insofar as what that congressman was protesting at the time). The damage is done, and we may never reach a point again where this country's various political factions listen to each other without prejudice, let alone treat each other with respect. The people who like what Stossel has to say are already waiting for him at Fox. Welcome home, John. More on Glenn Beck
 
Mark Konkol and Todd Fooks: Keeping Score in Chicago Episode 21: Skin to Win, Chicago Top
The poster mom for Chicago's public breast feeding movement, Lauren Trost, basks in the afterglow of her newfound "celebreasty." Speaking of bare naughty bits, the guys chat it up with Red Hot Annie, star of the underground hit, "Rolling Outta Here Naked, A Lebowski Burlesque" at Gorilla Tango Theater. In short, The Boob Abides. Keep listening for another round of Speed Score and check us out on Twitter . Tweet tweet, people. Be sure to check out Keeping Score in Chicago for more information and previous episodes.
 
Irene Monroe: Black Episcopal Congregation Celebrates Lesbian Marriage Top
Since the liberal arm of the U.S. Episcopal Church passed a resolution in July to bless same-sex unions, particularly in states like Massachusetts that legalize such marriages, so too has, at least, one black congregation within the Massachusetts diocese. On August 30, St. Bartholomew Episcopal Church in Cambridge hosted the marriage and blessed the union of its mayor, E. Denise Simmons, and her lifetime partner, Mattie Hayes. The historic event happened because of the fierce determination of a straight ally to Cambridge's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community -- the church's new Priest-in-Charge, The Reverend Leslie K. Sterling, who is also the first African-American female priest at St. Bart's. Having just arrived at St. Bart's in February, Sterling brings a new vision to a church that has served both the African-American and African-Caribbean community for over 100 years. When I went to meet Sterling to discuss our roles as officiates in the mayor's nuptials, I asked her if she were ready to jump into in this conflagration that has the Episcopal Church at the brink of schism. "Some will leave, I know, but those who oppose and stay, at least, we can talk about it in a spirited conversation," Sterling said. Cambridge, like many of its residents, revels in its image as a bastion of liberalism. It's also a city of many firsts, like both E. Denise Simmons and Kenneth Reeves being the first African American openly queer mayors of a major U.S. city. But underneath Cambridge's liberal facade is a rampant racism that came to light globally in the racial profiling of Harvard professor Henry "Skip" Louis Gates during his arrest by a white cop this past July. Evident, too, is a toxic homophobia in black congregations of both liberal white denominations and historical black ones, which put several communities under both spiritual and sexual siege. For example, Reeves, who was once a longtime worshipper at the historic African-American St. Paul's A.M.E in Cambridge, left that church after May 2004, when Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, because the church made it clear it would neither bless same-sex unions nor marry its queer parishioners. Mayor Simmons, a native Cantabridgian -- who presides over a diverse demographic consisting of people from various racial, cultural, economic, and sexual orientations -- had only one church she could go to with the hopes of not being turned down. "I am cognizant of the deeper societal implications of this marriage...[St. Bartholomew] might be the very first mainstream African American church to hold a same-gender wedding," Simmons told the Cambridge Chronicle. In preparing her parishioners for their leap of faith, Sterling wrote in a letter to them stating the following: I am aware of all the Bible verses conservatives cite in opposition to homosexuality, and I am also aware that there is more than one way to look at each one of those verses. If we believe that the Spirit continues to guide the church in the interpretation of scripture, as was done with respect to slavery and the status of women, then we have to consider the possibility that the Spirit is speaking today, as the hearts and minds of so many people at so many levels of Bible scholarship no longer read those verses as a blanket condemnation of same-sex relationships, or as a reason to deny committed, faithful couples a blessing on their marriage. To be in full compliance with the canons of the Episcopal Church, which would avoid Sterling confronting ecclesiastical probation or being defrocked, the wedding liturgy was divided among three officiates: The Rev. Sterling; Jada D. Simmons, the mayor's oldest daughter and Justice of the Peace; and me. I was elated to be a part of this liturgical assembly line helping to make a historic event happened within the church's ecclesial strictures. Sterling did the invocation, declaration of consent to marry, and blessing of the marriage; Simmons pronounced the marriage; and I did the homily, blessing of rings, and vows. As the wedding service ended, with Simmons and Hayes walking down the aisle as a married couple, the church clapping, and the choir singing the gospel tune "Oh Happy Day," I turned to Sterling and asked what she thought about the service. "I'm feeling the history of the moment and what it must have been when black folks were able to marry." Historically, as African Americans, we have always focused on spiritual content of family and not its physical composition. Hayes spoke to me about the spiritual content of her family when she said, "Of course, to have my marriage and my wedding to be in an historic event is phenomenal. But the bottom line is as wonderful as all that is, I have married the woman I love, Denise Simmons." These multiple family structures, which we have had to devise as models of resistance and liberation, have always shown the rest of society what really constitutes family. A grandmother raising her grandchild or a lesbian couple raising their children as in the Simmons-Hayes household that is now legal according to the state and blessed by the church -- families both. More on Gay Marriage
 
Senate Panel OKs $128 Billion For Afghanistan, Iraq Wars Top
WASHINGTON — With hardly any debate, a powerful Senate committee Thursday approved President Barack Obama's $128 billion request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the budget year beginning in October. The move came as anxiety is increasing on Capitol Hill over the chances for success in Afghanistan and as Obama weighs whether to send more forces to the country. The war funding was approved as the Appropriations Committee voted unanimously for a $636 billion spending measure funding next year's Pentagon budget. The war funding would implement Obama's order earlier this year to add 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan, which would bring the total number of U.S. forces there to 68,000 by the end of 2009. There's ample skepticism in Congress that Obama's Iraq and Afghanistan funding request will be sufficient. A key lawmaker, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., predicts that an additional war funding will be needed next spring. Senate panel chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, would not say whether he believes $128 billion would be enough for military operations in the two countries. "Well, we're taking the word of the administration," Inouye said after the panel session. The panel also generally followed Obama's recommendations to kill or cut several weapons systems, including the F-22 air-to-air combat fighter and the VH-71 replacement helicopter for an aging presidential transport fleet. Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have staked their prestige on killing several over-budget weapons systems, especially the F-22, which has its origins in the Cold War era and is poorly suited for anti-insurgent battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in twin victories for the Boeing Co., the Senate measure includes $2.5 billion to fund 10 C-17 cargo planes assembled in Long Beach, Calif., which were not requested, and $512 million for nine more F-18 Navy fighters than Obama requested. They would be assembled in St. Louis, Mo. The additional funding for Iraq and Afghanistan brings to $1 trillion-plus the amount of money set aside by Congress for those wars and other terrorism-fighting efforts since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The bill would cut $900 million from Obama's request for Afghan security forces, though the $6.6 billion provided still represents a 17 percent increase over current spending. Inouye says the Pentagon acknowledges the full budget request wouldn't be spent in the coming year and instead devoted the $900 million to bomb- and mine-resistant vehicles. The bill also strongly rejects Obama's $100 million request for the Pentagon to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba. It also contains stiff language that blocks any transfer, release or incarceration in the United States of any detainees held at the prison in Cuba. That's stronger than current restrictions, which allow transfer into the United States to stand trial. Inouye also went along – for now – with administration's effort to kill a program to develop an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Air Force's major new weapons system. The second engine is funded by a companion House bill and would be built by the General Electric Co. and Rolls-Royce in Ohio, Indiana and elsewhere. The main F-35 engine is built in Connecticut by Pratt & Whitney. Inouye has been a strong supporter of the second engine, and proponents are confident he will work to revive its funding during House-Senate talks. The measure also contains $20 million for the development of the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate on the campus of the University of Massachusetts-Boston; the funding was inserted by Inouye at the request of John Kerry, D-Mass. More on Afghanistan
 
On 9/11, Day Of Mourning Becomes Day Of Service Top
NEW YORK — Americans planned beach cleanups, packages for soldiers and save-the-tree fundraisers along with familiar remembrances in three cities to mark eight years since the attacks of Sept. 11, the first time the anniversary was named a national day of service. "Instead of us simply remembering the horrible events and more importantly the heroes who lost their lives on 9/11, we are all going to turn into local heroes," said Ted Tenenbaum, a Los Angeles repair shop owner who offered free handyman services Thursday and planned to do so again Friday. Similar donations of time and labor were planned across the country after President Barack Obama and Congress declared the day would be dedicated to service this year for the first time. Some Americans are suspicious about the new commemoration, though, fearing it could overshadow a somber day of remembrance for nearly 3,000 people killed aboard four jetliners and at the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon, and a field in western Pennsylvania. "When I first heard about it, I was concerned," said Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the American Airlines pilot of the hijacked jet that crashed into the Pentagon. "I fear, I greatly fear, at some point we'll transition to turning it into Earth Day where we go and plant trees and the remembrance part will become smaller, and smaller, and smaller." In a column in American Spectator magazine last month, conservative commentator Matthew Vadum wrote that the push for volunteerism was an attempt "to try to change 9/11 from a day of reflection and remembrance to a day of activism, food banks and community gardens." The criticism didn't dampen spirits of those who planned to participate, though. Sue Katz, a tour bus guide in New York City, planned a walking tour in Central Park to raise money to repair damage after hundreds of century-old trees were toppled by a recent storm. Katz called the park "New York City's lungs" and said of the fundraiser, "This is my way to give back." A Boston group founded by victims' family members – two of the four planes left from Boston – planned to write letters to U.S. soldiers overseas and pack CARE packages. In San Diego, Dave Matthews Band bassist Stefan Lessard is sponsoring a cleanup of Ocean Beach. Volunteers who made firefighters' meals or helped remove tons of debris from the World Trade Center site planned to join family members to read names of more than 2,700 victims killed when hijacked jetliners crashed into the towers on Sept. 11, 2001. Vice President Joe Biden was scheduled to attend the ceremony in New York, while President Barack Obama was to meet with family members for a ceremony at the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C. In New York, thousands planned moments of silence four times – twice for when jetliners crashed into a Trade Center tower, and for the moments the towers collapsed. A wreath was to be laid at a memorial to the Pentagon, where 184 people died when a hijacked jet slammed into the building. Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were to meet with victims' family members. The president will "speak about what the day means and the sacrifices of thousands, not just at the Pentagon, but in Pennsylvania and certainly and most obviously in New York," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. Near Shanksville, Pa., where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed, former Secretary of State Colin Powell will deliver the keynote speech. At 10:03 a.m., the time the plane crashed, the names of the 40 passengers and crew will be read and bells will be tolled. Among the hundreds of people expected to attend is Jose Melendez-Perez, a Customs agent credited with refusing entry to the country a man officials believe was supposed to be the fifth hijacker aboard the flight. The official 9/11 Commission report said hijackers deliberately crashed the plane in Pennsylvania as passengers were trying to wrest control of the cockpit. ___ Associated Press writers Nancy Benac in Washington and Dan Nephin in Pittsburgh contributed to this report. More on Barack Obama
 
Top Rank, Yankees Suggest Yankee Stadium May Host Boxing Matches Top
NEW YORK — Manny Pacquiao stood face-to-face with Miguel Cotto on a makeshift stage set up along the first base line, the wind whipping off the facade of the new Yankee Stadium and sending a chill through thousands of partisan fans. If only two of the best fighters in the world had gloves strapped on. Pacquiao, considered the pound-for-pound best, and welterweight champion Cotto were there merely to announce their Nov. 14 fight at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. It's a hotly anticipated ticket, and certain to lure a sellout crowd to the desert destination known in the boxing world as "Fight Town." Yet their presence Thursday was reminiscent of the days when New York City held that mantle, when major boxing events were common at Madison Square Garden and the old Yankee Stadium. While there are still sporadic attractions at the Garden, most of the punches thrown in the Bronx the last three decades came from irascible former Yankees manager Billy Martin. All could be changing, promoters and team officials said, alluding to the possibility of major fights at the new, $1.5 billion stadium next year. "We have a history of bringing big fights to the Yankee Stadium," said promoter Bob Arum, who put on Muhammad Ali's bout against Ken Norton on Sept. 28, 1976, a fight remembered more for the chaos caused by a police strike than anything else. "It's something we'd like to do again." Arum had approached the Yankees several times over the past 30 years about staging another event at the stadium, but George Steinbrenner and club brass were tepid about erecting a ring and seating on the immaculate infield grass. With the new leadership of Hal and Hank Steinbrenner, and better means of protecting the field, Arum is hopeful that a fight will come off at the ballpark next year. "I think one of the reasons we had the press conference here is a precursor for a big, big event," Arum told The Associated Press. "Certainly a big fight is going to happen next year, and it's going to happen at Yankee Stadium." The obvious megafight would pit the winner of Pacquiao-Cotto against the winner of next weekend's showdown between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Juan Manuel Marquez – an idea that even appealed to Yankees chief operating officer Lonn Trost. "There'll be a winner of this fight and a winner of the Mayweather fight," Trost said. "Where better to hold that fight than Yankee Stadium?" Trost declined to say whether there have been negotiations about holding a fight in the "House that Jeter Built," but the Yankees are eager to bring revenue-producing events beyond baseball to the stadium. Already, several college football games are scheduled for the next few years, including Notre Dame vs. Army in November 2010. Arum said it's unlikely that the Mayweather-Marquez and Pacquiao-Cotto winners would face each other, but it's possible that Cotto could cede his traditional spot at Madison Square Garden on the even of the Puerto Rican Day parade to up-and-coming star Juan Manuel Lopez. That would free Cotto, who has a huge following in the Bronx, to headline in the ballpark. "We're going to get one here at Yankee Stadium," said Melvina Lathan, the head of the New York State Athletic Commission. "We've got to come back and revisit Yankee Stadium." Great fights have been held in ballparks for decades, including some of the seminal moments for a sport that treasures its history. Yankee Stadium, of course, is where Ray Robinson collapsed in the heat against Joey Maxim, and where Carmen Basilio shocked the world by beating Sugar himself. Joe Louis not only knocked out Max Schmeling under the twinkling lights, but struck a blow against Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany when he dropped the Black Uhlan of the Rhine in the first round. Other ballparks have showcased big fights, from Louis winning the heavyweight title against James Braddock at Chicago's Comisky Park, to epic battles at the Polo Grounds, Griffth Stadium, Ebbets Field and Fenway Park. Some see those days as a bygone era, a moment in time that can never be replicated. Arum sees an opportunity to return boxing to the forefront of the American psyche, in one of its most hallowed sporting grounds. "Yankee Stadium had a great tradition of boxing," he said, "and hopefully with the new Yankee Stadium, we'll start a new tradition."
 
Peter Henne: A Changing Threat: Al-Qaeda Eight Years Later Top
The morning of September 11th, 2001 still weighs heavily on my mind. It was my second week of college, and I -- two hours outside of New York City -- was slowly adjusting to leaving my family in Pennsylvania when news of the attack reached my college. As the days passed, my classmates and I regained a sense of normalcy, but two sensations persisted past that tragic morning: imminent danger and anxious uncertainty. Eight years later, the imminence has faded but the uncertainty remains. Our greatest challenge now is to prevent this uncertainty from masking the seriousness of the threat al-Qaida (AQ) poses to America. The American perception of AQ has developed greatly since 2001. President Bush's "global war on terror" -- sustained in part through GOP threat inflation -- has largely been discredited, with President Obama and Congressional Democrats reformulating US counterterrorism policy. Yet, the public appears uncertain of the threat AQ currently poses, and wary of Obama's approach. Confusing this uncertainty with an actual decline in AQ's significance, however, is misguided. A brief survey of recent news stories on AQ illustrates why: • US citizens in both Long Island, NY and North Carolina have been accused of supporting terrorist activities, some linked directly to AQ. • AQ affiliates in both Algeria and Yemen continue to conduct serious attacks, such as the attempted assassination of a Saudi Prince by the latter. The affiliates are sustained by aid from AQ and political safe-havens created by regional instability. • Individuals tied to AQ have emerged recently in several countries, including Russia and the Philippines . These incidents present an image of AQ that is neither innocuous nor the existential bogeyman of right-wing imagination. AQ is a shadowy network ranging from the United States to Southeast Asia, intent on spreading a radical form of Islam and attacking US interests. Yet, this does not mean it is a monolithic threat waiting to pounce as soon as Americans question the Bush-era use of torture. Instead, AQ operates through four distinct but related methods. First, AQ takes advantage of safe-havens like the Afghan-Pakistan border to train recruits and launch attacks. Second, it forms alliances with indigenous Muslim groups who are often motivated by local concerns rather than religion; AQ provides material support to these groups, leading some of them to adopt its cause. Third, AQ recruits fighters to travel to conflict areas and conduct savage attacks, as occurred in Iraq. Finally, AQ uses its impressive propaganda machine to spread its message through satellite television and the internet. The result is a terrorist network whose exact workings are shrouded in uncertainty but still poses a threat to US interests. Three conclusions emerge from the current state of AQ. First, AQ can greatly influence local conflicts but does not control them; the United States must work to disrupt AQ operatives while engaging local actors to resolve disputes. Second, AQ will exploit the lack of stable, democratic governments, so US policy must focus on reforming and developing weak and failed states to prevent this exploitation. Finally, AQ's greatest weapon is not its bombs but its voice, and the threat it will hijack discourse in the Muslim world, which requires a concerted US outreach campaign to counteract. Fortunately, Obama is pursuing all these policies. In Afghanistan, Obama has attempted to differentiate between hard-core AQ supporters and local fighters to undermine broad support for AQ and its Taliban allies, an approach that should be applied elsewhere. He also emphasizes economic and social development in Afghanistan to dissolve terrorist safe-havens. Finally, beginning with his excellent speech on US-Muslim relations in Turkey this Spring, Obama has launched a public diplomacy campaign that will help to restore a positive American image among Muslim societies. These efforts will be tough. Obama has to make up for years of GOP mistakes. Also, his nuanced approach is not as simple as either Bush-style militarism or isolationism, but is most appropriate to deal with the nebulous network AQ has become. Our struggle against AQ -- from Afghanistan to Algeria -- will be difficult, with progress clouded in uncertainty. But we can succeed. If the American people realize the nature of AQ and the potential value of Obama's counterterrorism strategy, we can ensure that the terror of 9/11 remains a memory. More on Afghanistan
 
World Net Daily Targets Valerie Jarrett Top
In this past Sunday's liveblog, I made note of the fact that Fox News contributor Bill Kristol " set up Valerie Jarrett as the right's next target of insane hounding ." And lo, as predicted, here are your friends at World Net Daily leading the way: Was Valerie Jarrett, one of President Obama's closest advisers, introduced to the president's political circles by her father-in-law, a communist sympathizer who worked with the radical Obama mentor Frank Marshall Davis? Was she? WAS SHE? World Net Daily sure thinks so! There's no real attempt to divine crypto-Communism from Valerie Jarrett's own words, actions, or opinions, other than the fact that she supported the appointment of Van Jones. Instead, they assert that Jarrett's "family background and her initial introduction to Obama may tie her to [Van] Jones' radical ideology." And then, what follows is a laundry list of people associated with Jarrett's father-in-law and places where he might have encountered liberal people. The best part of the article is the way it seamlessly shifts from alarmist concern that Valerie Jarrett might be connected in some way to known Communists to alarmist concern that Valerie Jarrett might be connected in some way to known black people! In 1948, Jarrett started a radio show, "Negro Newsfront," and went on to become the Chicago Tribune's first black syndicated columnist. A Washington Post obituary of Jarrett notes he "stoked the political embers in Chicago that led to the 1983 election of the city's first African-American mayor, Harold Washington." "Vernon Jarrett was a key influence in Washington's decision to run for the Chicago mayoralty and remained a key supporter through his four-year tenure," the newspaper reported. In other words: BETTER DEAD THAN RED, ER...BLACK...UHM...RED, no...uhm... CHECKERBOARD COLOR ! In other news, there's mounting suspicion that Glenn Beck's next target will be FCC "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd . Conservatives are driven by the fear that Lloyd, having co-authored an article titled " The Structural Imbalance Of Political Talk Radio " may want to reinstate the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." Over the past year, I've labored hard to explain just how totally , totally , totally , unfounded and bogus these fears are. But make no mistake! Mark Lloyd may not want to reimpose a failed piece of legislation that nobody wants to see reinstated, but, like Jarrett, he is very connected to black people ! [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] More on Glenn Beck
 
Ford Chairman: Clunkers Program Was Great For Our Industry (VIDEO) Top
Is Ford the lone bright spot in the American auto industry? Ford Executive Chairman William Ford, Jr. Spoke with CNBC today from a new plant in Michigan, which will be one of the largest renewable energy manufacturing facilities in the United States. The factory should add up to 4,000 jobs, Ford said. Ford Motors has fared much better in the last year than its Detroit counterparts. In fact, buoyed by the oh-so-popular Cash For Clunkers program, Ford's August sales for were up 17 percent over last year. Ford said that the program "worked great for our industry." There may be a bit of a Cash For Clunkers hangover in the auto market, however. "Right now there are really no cars on the dealers lots, they're really all sold out," Ford told CNBC. But when asked whether consumers will turn to buying new cars without government incentives, Ford added, "Obviously, we go as the general economy goes." Of Ford's investment in plug-in cars, hybrids and other green technology innovations, Ford said: "For many years people thought I was either crazy or irrelevant...during the lean years, we kept investing in [green technology]." WATCH: Get HuffPost Business On Facebook and Twitter ! More on CNBC
 

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)