Saturday, September 12, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Designers Respond To Recession With Comfy Clothes Top
NEW YORK — Since the economic downturn began, fashion designers have brought us plenty of hard-edged looks: rock-star leather, gladiator shoes, '80s-style shoulder pads. The message was clear enough – fashion was preparing us for battle. But for spring 2010, designers seem to be asking instead: Who wants a hug? A softer, easier look dominated as New York Fashion Week entered its third day on Saturday. The look was, if not comfortable, at least less armor-like. At Adam, the soothing cream-and-beige palette was jazzed up just a bit with copper discs and seashells, and the heart of the Lacoste collection were easy, breezy apres-beach styles. There were also several vibrant and optimistic outfits, maybe signaling a broader change in attitude: Lacoste sent models out for a finale in bright, sunshine yellow, from the sunglasses over the eyes to the slip-on flats on their feet. Georges Chakra presented a series of candy-colored dresses. But such a sunny disposition seemed a little out of place at the Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week tents, where the audience was still in almost all black, shod in gladiator sandals or studded boots. Lay down your armor? The crowd says, not yet. LACOSTE Fashion Week is all about what's new, what's next, but that doesn't mean the basics should get bashed. Lacoste creative director Christophe Lemaire sent out a spring collection that was cheerful, youthful and wearable – nothing wrong with that. Starting off with tennis whites (with the distinctive sound of balls being hit on a court as the soundtrack), most styles were cut long and lean, including the polo shirts, but there was an adorable bouncy white skirt that easily could go from the court to cocktails. The heart of the collection was the easy, beachy clothes that were inspired by 1920s photos of Jacques-Henri Lartigue, who "captured a generation of leisure for whom life was simple, sporty and chic." A model wearing crisp white palazzo pants with a simple black racer-back top could have been strolling in the early evening along the French Riviera, with a date wearing the light gray safari jacket included in the Lacoste menswear line. CYNTHIA ROWLEY The "show" began at Cynthia Rowley's spring collection preview before the first model was seen. Just seconds before the "abandoned ballroom"-themed outfits began their parade on Friday, a giant drop-cloth was released from above and floated down to cover the runway that was placed in the middle of an old bank building. That set the stage for a series of chic outfits that carried out the theme: There was an ivory tank dress with a shredded canvas belt and a neckline dotted with "bleeding" black paint, a slashed-ribbon dress made of a similar ivory canvas, and a nubby double-breasted linen jacket with matte-sequin evening tap pants. Two duos of peplum tops that protrude from the hip, paired with too-pouffy evening shorts and silk trousers, were just too much fabric. That attention to the hip seems to be an emerging trend at New York Fashion Week, as is unconventional, tweaked floral prints, which Rowley also offered. Instead of cutesy, precious flowers, the prints here were blurred like they were caught in the rain. It made for a feminine but fashion-forward statement on a banded dress with a handful of fabric petals dotting the dress, as if the others had already been picked. GEORGES CHAKRA Georges Chakra's starlet fans don't want downer dresses, so he doesn't put them on the runway. The spring collection of his ready-to-wear Edition label has splash, flash and color. Gown after gown was embellished with jeweled necklines, elaborate pleating details and skinny silver belts. The silhouettes alternated between flowing, draped frocks that would glide down a red carpet, or fitted dresses that would show off a tiny waist. Chakra occasionally showed restraint, and that paid off with a sophisticated, body-hugging black dress with insets of satin and tulle, and a white chiffon dress with vertical waves of fabric creating an even longer, leaner shape. The candy-colored dresses, especially the pink ones, seemed a little out of place. So far the season has resisted anything too showy or flamboyant – until now. ERIN WASSON They say you should do what you know, and model-turned-fashion designer Erin Wasson knows what tall, slim young women wear. The catwalkers that dart in and out of the Bryant Park tents are often in jeans, micro shorts, tissuelike T-shirts and leather jackets, and that's just what Wasson, for the line Wasson X RVCA, put on the runway Friday night. Wasson, best known as a face of Maybelline, sent out a parade of shirts that alternately bared the midriff or the back, jeans with cutout sides, T-shirt dresses and studded minis. Almost everything seemed to hug the body and bare quite a bit of leg. Some of the pieces seemed inspired by Native Americans, complete with fringe, and others had an almost savage vibe – think a loose sweater with strategic holes or a mesh top-and-bottom ensemble with slashes in the fabric. More on Fashion Week
 
Dr. Peter Breggin: Michael Savage: Irrepressible Canary in Freedom's Mineshaft Top
Michael Savage, an independent syndicated radio commentator, has been severed from KNEW, the important San Francisco outlet for his Savage Nation. The station issued a terse statement: "Here's your no-spin direct answer; we have decided to go in a different philosophical and ideological direction, featuring more contemporary content and more local information. The Savage Nation does not fit into that vision." Notice that the decision was based on a combination of philosophy and ideology with the need for greater local community focus. As everyone should know, this is the latest incantation of the Fairness Doctrine. This station has voluntarily taken the kind of suppressive action that some would enforce through the federal government. Michael's popularity is not at issue. He's on 250 stations and his audience continues to grow larger as Conservative talk radio grows in strength and popularity. Not long ago, Michael was excluded from Great Britain as a terrorist threat. Michael is an independent man. He's a rugged individualist at a time when many people would like to turn such a person into an anachronism. He is independent and extremely outspoken, at times offending both the left and the right. He is being targeted because he, perhaps above all others, stands for independence in talk radio; and because neither Progressives nor Conservatives are likely to come to his defense. In 2007 Michael was named the recipient of the TALKERS Magazine Freedom of Speech Award for 2007 "For being the first major conservative radio talk show host to criticize President George W. Bush on his policies and encourage hosts of all political ideologies to remain independent of partisan loyalties." We need this kind of man on the air. Although their politics are very divergent, both Arianna Huffington and Michael Savage have given me a voice--Arianna as a founding blogger on Huffingtonpost and Michael as a regularly scheduled participant on his syndicated radio talk radio show. How is it that such politically contrasting individuals have invited me to join their media projects? Arianna and Michael share many of my views that are critical of the psychopharmaceutical complex, especially the widespread diagnosing and drugging of America's children. But many public figures express sympathy for my concerns without daring to invite me in their public activities. As a psychiatric reformer, I've made powerful enemies in the pharmaceutical industry, the government, and organized psychiatry. Arianna and Michael not only want to stop the psychiatric abuse of our children, they are among the most independent and fearless leaders in public discourse in America. Both believe in individualism and both refuse to cow tow to the kind of powerful interest groups that would like to silence me. The attack on Michael is the cutting edge assault on freedom of speech for independent and courageous political analysts. As a psychiatrist who has spoken truth to authority, I know firsthand the effects of intimidation and have seen the spread of effect resulting from attacks on me. When other individuals see a leader being attacked, it has a chilling effect on them. Even if the leader isn't knocked off, others nonetheless feel frightened into submission. They get wind of the attack and it sinks right into that place in the unconscious where so many folks feel frightened and helpless about their lives. Those who might otherwise speak up for the first time will remain silent. They will rationalize and they will make excuses for shutting up, and will not realize that they are responding to the sight of one of their fellow creature under assault. We must get this tactic of psychological intimidation out into the open and resist it whenever it surfaces. Michael is blowing the whistle on the obliteration of individualism in America. Michael is a very loud canary freedom's mineshaft. Michael is David against the Goliath state. Whatever metaphor we use, Michael Savage is the first big fish to be snagged in the fairness doctrine net that masquerades as expanding local coverage. In additional to political or ideological considerations, Michael was allegedly thrown off the station on the grounds of providing more local coverage. But the people have voted and continued to vote on their preferences by turning to nationally syndicated radio broadcasters for their entertainment and information. Especially at this time of conflict and crisis, Americans want much more than local information. The left and the right, as well as independents, are displaying renewed interest in the future of our nation. More and more, people identify their personal fate with the fate of the nation. People are no longer satisfied with the top of the hour news report. Everyone across the political spectrum should stand up for Michael and for freedom in the media. For some, he's a thorn in the side. Some will feel more comfortable without him. But if we let this happen to Michael savage, eventually it can happen to any one of us--they will come for you and me. If not now, then in the future, all of us will be at risk. Perhaps you think the world would be a better place without Michael Savage. You are entitled to your opinion. His ten million listeners on 250 stations indicate that many others have a different opinion. Perhaps you identify with current efforts to stifle the vigor of rightwing talk radio. But keep in mind what America is about--freedom. Remember the First Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech. And if these seemingly abstract principles don't move you to stand up for Michael Savage, consider this practical consequence. As demonstrated by today's rally in Washington, DC, we are already in the midst of a Conservative revival in response to President Obama's progressive policies. What if Conservatives take over the Congress and the Presidency, even for a short time in the future? Do you want to set a precedent for federal control over talk radio and eventually over television and the Internet as well? Do you want to establish a precedent and the apparatus whereby whoever holds political power also dominates the media? Let's not abandon freedom at this critical time. Support Michael Savage and freedom of speech!
 
U.S. Envoy Arrives In Israel To Kick Start Mideast Peace Talks Top
JERUSALEM — U.S. Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell is in Israel to try and kick start Israeli-Palestinian talks before the two sides meet at the U.N. later this month. A spokesman for the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem said Mitchell arrived in Israel Saturday night. He is set to meet Israeli and Palestinian leaders next week. Peace talks broke down in December after Israel launched a military offensive in Gaza to stop militants firing rockets on southern Israeli towns. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he is willing to renew talks. The Palestinians insist Israeli construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem end before negotiations begin. The sides are expected to announce a renewal of talks at the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 23. More on Hezbollah
 
Linda Bergthold: Fired up and ready to go! A Tale of Two Cities Top
Today there were two crowds fired up and ready to go about health reform. One crowd was in Washington D.C. and the other was in Minneapolis at the Target Center . But although there were thousands of citizens at each place, the tone could not have been more different. In Washington, crowds were angry. They carried ugly signs of the President as the "joker" or Hitler . At least one 65 year old was demanding that the government stay out of his health care, even though he clearly had Medicare, a government, single-payer program. The message was anti-government, anti-Obama, anti-health reform, anti just about everything. The rally was organized by Glenn Beck ( the oft given to crying or confusing "cavalry" with "calvary", Fox News host) and his 912 project , along with Freedom Works , a right wing corporate lobbying organization headed up by former Rep. Dick Armey. In Minneapolis, the 15,000 or so Minnesotans were happy and cheered the President has he leaped onto the stage and, in campaign mode, began to explain his health reform plan. Obama was in rare form. He made jokes, teased the crowd for possibly watching "So you think you can dance" instead of his speech to a Joint Session of Congress Wednesday night, and then proceeded to give more or less the same speech with a few embellishments. At the end of Obama's speech, he re-told (at his staff's insistence he said) the original "Fired up and Ready to Go" story he told so often during the campaign. This time, though, the story had a lot more detail, from how he ended up in Greenwood, South Carolina in the first place (he promised he would go in exchange for support from the Congressional representative from that area), to how tired he was (exhausted from Iowa campaigning), to how bad the weather was (he got drenched on his way to the car) to the long ride to Greenwood (it's an hour and a half from anywhere), and to his arrival at the small field house in Greenwood where only 20 people awaited him. He confessed to feeling grumpy, tired, out of sorts -- that is, until he heard a loud voice behind him -- "Fired up!" It came from a small older woman, dressed in her Sunday best, who was grinning from ear to ear when he turned to look at her. "Fired up?" she said. The 20 person crowd shouted back, "Ready to go!" And she returned, "Fired up!" and they replied, "Ready to go." Obama said he was completely upstaged but as he listened to their chanting, he felt a renewed sense of energy and enthusiasm. it was a turning point for him, and as he told the story in Minnesota today, clearly a turning point in this "health reform campaign." There are about 75 days between now and Thanksgiving. By Thanksgiving, we will know if there will be health reform legislation or not.
 
Shimon Peres Faints In Tel Aviv Top
JERUSALEM — Israeli President Shimon Peres was rushed to the hospital Saturday night after he fainted on stage while speaking at an event in Tel Aviv. He regained consciousness shortly afterwards but is being held overnight for observation. Peres was answering questions from the crowd after a talk on young leadership when he passed out, paramedics told Israeli media. The 86-year-old regained consciousness on his own a few seconds later, they added. Initially Peres refused to be taken to hospital but eventually agreed to go to Tel Hashomer hospital in Tel Aviv for a check up. Dr. Ari Shamis of the hospital told Channel 10 TV that the president would be held overnight for observation, adding that Peres was not in danger and that he had "spontaneously regained consciousness." Peres' doctor, Professor Rafi Valden, told Israeli media the president was doing well and ascribed the episode to overwork. "It was very hot there and he was standing up for a long tome and felt weak. He feels fine now and is speaking to well-wishers from around the world on the phone." Peres is not known to suffer from any health problems. His spokeswoman, Ayelet Frisch blamed Peres' notoriously grueling schedule and predicted he would be home the next morning. "He feels great and we literally had to persuade him to go to the hospital," she told Channel 2 TV. "He had a little flu last week, but continued work as usual." Born in Poland on Aug. 2, 1923, Peres immigrated to Israel in 1934. Peres was elected to parliament on the Labor Party ticket in 1959 and held a succession of Israel's most senior posts, including the premiership and the defense and foreign affairs portfolios before being elected in 2007 for a seven-year term in the nonpartisan, largely ceremonial office of president. In 1994 he shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. More on Israel
 
Daley Blames Economy For His All-Time Low Approval Rating In New Poll Top
Mayor Richard Daley today said he's not surprised by his all-time low approval rating in a new Tribune poll, saying he believes it is a result of public anger over the poor economy.
 
Cheryle Jackson: Change We Need Top
President Obama brilliantly laid out the case for sweeping health care reform and the stakes for the American people in his recent health care speech to the nation. His passion and resolve for change reminded Americans of why they sent him to Washington. He offered renewed hope that we can fix our broken health care insurance system to make it more just and cost effective. The list of reforms where progress has been toward hammering out a final bill are impressive, especially measures to stop insurance companies from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, canceling coverage for consumers when they get sick, and putting caps on coverage. But I fear that we will not be able to meet President Obama's pledge to be the "last President" to tackle health care reform unless allowing people to choose a publicly sponsored health insurance program is part of the final bill. The level of misinformation and outright lying that has surrounded the "public option" issue exemplifies what the President went to Washington to change. A public insurance option is not a "government takeover" of health care, but one more choice for consumers -- much like Medicare for seniors and the disabled -- that need health insurance. The public plan as proposed would give everyone access to quality care while allowing anyone to remain with a private insurance plan if they choose. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 4.3 percent of Americans under age 65 would be in a public plan by 2019. But having a public plan as an option for the millions of uninsured Americans -- many of them young and healthy -- that would be required to have insurance under the proposed plan will inject new competition to drive better outcomes and lower costs as consumer shop for the best deal. Private insurers have for too long focused on a business plan based on shifting costs and avoiding the risk of covering the sickest people who are most in need. A public plan option could help force private insurers to change their approach to one based on consumer value. Without a public option, insurers will benefit from new customers but consumers will not have sufficient choice in the marketplace. The President's health care plan dramatically expands -- not limits -- choices for consumers. Some of these alternatives, such as health care cooperatives, have been presented as a reason we don't need a public plan. But health care cooperatives are not a viable substitute for giving people the opportunity to choose a national public plan that competes with the private insurance industry because cooperatives would not have sufficient power in the market to effectively drive down costs. Market giants like WellPoint, with 30 million members nationwide, would quickly drive the smaller cooperatives out of business. Health care cooperatives are untested on the scale being proposed, unlike Medicare -- a public insurance program -- which has proven effective and wildly popular with voters. The public insurance option for consumers is essential to meet the dual goals of containing costs and expanding coverage. And the idea of a compromise that would "trigger" a public option years down the road if there is insufficient competition in the market almost guarantees that the President won't be "the last" to tackle health care reform. President Obama is one of the greatest agents for change to appear in my lifetime. He is fighting powerful forces for the status quo. But the public health insurance option is the change we need. As Senator Kennedy said in the article referenced by the President during his address on health care, "Incremental measures won't suffice anymore." More on Health Care
 
Honest-Services Fraud: Law Used To Indict Blagojevich Challenged As Vague Top
CHICAGO — Among the corruption charges faced by former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is a statute of just 28 words with enough pop to send big names to prison for corruption, but it's under attack by those who consider it vague and unfair. Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, ex-newspaper mogul Conrad Black and one-time Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling have all been convicted of what's known as honest-services fraud. The law makes it illegal for officials, executives and others to scheme to deprive those they serve and possibly others of "the intangible right to honest services." "It causes fear. It causes confusion," said Chicago attorney and former federal prosecutor Zachary T. Fardon. "And that's the heart of the problem." There are two separate cases challenging the law pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia recently described the 21-year-old measure as so poorly defined it could be used to prosecute "a mayor for using the prestige of his office to get a table at a restaurant without a reservation." Congress adopted the statute in 1988 after the Supreme Court held that prosecutors could not merely assume wire fraud and mail fraud statutes – the workhorse laws in corruption prosecutions – covered lost honest services. The mail and wire fraud laws require a defendant to obtain money or property from the wrongdoing; merely depriving a victim of honest services wasn't enough to win a guilty verdict. In the years since, prosecutors have used the honest services law to bolster the more conventional charges of mail and wire fraud. But experts say aggressive federal prosecutors, such as Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney in northern Illinois, appear to be using it both more often and as a lead charge in an indictment. In Blagojevich's case, honest-services fraud holds a prominent place in a 19-count indictment that accuses the impeached governor of depriving Illinois residents of his honest services through a wide-ranging scheme involving kickbacks, campaign money and a host of other misdeeds. "The statute is very vague, and because it is vague, it is a pet statute of prosecutors," said Chicago attorney and former federal prosecutor Julian Solotorovsky. "They're stretching it to the fullest extent possible." Among those challenging the law is former Alaska state Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch, who prosecutors say illegally failed to disclose that he was in job negotiations with an oil-field operations company at the same time the state legislature was also considering an oil bill. The case hasn't gone to trial as the high court considers whether the charges should be dropped because Weyhrauch wasn't required by Alaska state law to disclose those job talks. Black and two of his three co-defendants were convicted of depriving the Hollinger International media empire of their faithful services as corporate officers. The offense includes pocketing $5.5 million the government said belonged to the company's shareholders. The executives initially said the money represented fees from companies that bought community newspapers from Hollinger. But Black and his co-defendants now say the money was really management fees the company owed them and which were "recharacterized" to avoid Canadian income tax. They say that since they were trying to avoid Canadian taxes and not harm Hollinger, they didn't deprive the shareholders of their honest services and the charges should be thrown out. The high court has yet to decide whether to take up Skilling's appeal, which argued the honest services law is so vague that it is simply unconstitutional. "The Supreme Court's decisions to hear two appeals challenging the law in the same term could mean the justices have concerns about prosecutors extending the statute's reach," Lisa Casey, a Notre Dame University law professor who has written about the law and its recent expanded use against corporate executives. Just prior to accepting Black's case, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley's patronage chief, Robert Sorich, who was convicted in 2006 in a City Hall hiring fraud scandal. But it was that case that prompted Scalia to say the time has come to clarify confusion over just what the law means. "Indeed, it seems to me quite irresponsible to let the current chaos prevail," he said. More on Rod Blagojevich
 
James Heffernan: WHY OBAMA SHOULD HAVE BEEN LYING Top
What is it with guys named Joe Wilson? The last time anyone publically called the president of the United States a liar, it was a guy named Joe Wilson. But that Joe Wilson--a career diplomat with extensive experience in both Iraq and Africa-- didn't literally say the president lied. In an op-ed for the Sunday New York Times on July 6, 2003, he simply presented evidence that undermined President Bush's claim -- in his January State of the Union Address--that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium from Africa. Whether or not Bush believed this at the time, or had reason to believe a report that he attributed to "the British Government," his claim was never substantiated and his White House long ago conceded that he never should have made it. (For more on this, see http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html). Consequently, in spite of Dick Cheney's efforts to discredit Wilson personally and in spite of Cheney's highly probable involvement in the "outing" of Wilson's wife Valerie Plame as an agent of the CIA, it is Wilson's argument--not the president's claim--that has plainly stood the test of time. Fast forward to the evening of Wednesday, September 9, when President Barack Obama addressed a joint session of Congress. In response to the president's statement that his new plan for health care insurance would not "insure illegal immigrants," Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted "You lie!" Unlike the other Joe Wilson, this one presented not one shred of evidence to support his claim, and as many people quickly noted, the bill itself explicitly forbids any federal payments "on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully in the United States." In other words, this Joe Wilson was himself lying about the bill. But in spite of that, and even though he has been made to apologize for the incivility of his outburst, he and other Republicans remain unhappy that the bill does not do more to stigmatize illegal aliens. Furthermore, Wilson is using the whole episode to dramatize his credentials as a Congressman who dares to challenge the president--and thus to raise money for his re-election. Evidently he'll need it. His opponent for the next election--Democrat Rob Miller--is already profiting from Wilson's gaffe. Since Wilson's outburst, Miller's campaign has reaped more than $750,000 from 20, 000 contributors. But handicappers who rate this whole episode a big win for Obama and his party overlook one simple fact. While Obama wasn't lying about his bill, what he said should have been false. Consider again what he truthfully said about the bill: it offers nothing to illegal immigrants, which means of course nothing for their children either. To get this bill passed, the President of the Democratic Party--the party that cares about ordinary people, regardless of race, religion, or ethnic background--has to assure everyone that the bill provides not one penny to treat any child who has the bad luck to have been born from illegal immigrants. If your parents are illegal, says the bill, we don't care how sick you get, or even if you die. The federal government won't spend one cent on you. And this is a Democratic bill championed by a Democratic president? Nothing else in the bill more clearly shows what a hammerlock the Republican right has placed on the neck of our compassion. If Justice Sonia Sotomayor can be scolded for judging her cases in a spirit of "empathy," compassion--one degree beyond empathy--has become for the right an object of withering scorn. And of course the right has also raised its ideology to a new level of self-contradiction. While the foetus--aka the unborn child--deserves all the rights of a person because innocent life must be protected at all costs, the fully born and living child of an illegal immigrant has no rights at all in this nation of immigrants because it is not innocent at all. It's guilty of having been born to the wrong people. Yes, yes, I know all the arguments for Obama's position. I know that politics is the art of the possible, and that passage of this bill without a ban on benefits for illegals is quite simply impossible. But I cannot let this episode pass without asking that all of us who consider ourselves progressive recognize what we are doing when we score one for the president on this issue. The real winner here is not the president. It's the heartlessness of the xenophobic, hypocritically family-valuing Republican right.
 
Dan Manatt: Fun With Teabaggers: If They Can Protest, Tell Them to Thank Big Government Top
A college buddy of mine -- let's call him KS -- told me he was coming to D.C. this weekend, and asked if he could stay with my wife and me, to which I said of course. He didn't tell me he was coming to D.C. for the 9/12 Teabaggers protest. Despite my urge to refuse the hospitality, I decided instead to make it conditional. You can stay with us, I told KS, if: - when he drives on the Interstate to get here, every 10th mile he says "big government built this highway for me with my tax dollars - and I like it." - when he takes the DC Metro to the protest, he says "big government built this subway for me with my tax dollars - and I like it." KS, more from the sane-David-Brooks mold than the insane Beck-Palin-Taitz-Kostric mold, agreed with a laugh. The exchange made me realize the 9/12 protest might be fun after all! I had to go to the office today in downtown DC, (ugh!) where there are pockets of teabaggers gathering hither and yon (double ugh!). So everytime I see a Teabagger on the sidewalk with a "No Big Government" sign (and they tend to go hand in hand), I've been walking up to them and saying: "Get off the sidewalk -- it was paid for big government and taxpayer money!" The protesters seem as startled by my sidewalk civic lesson as Speaker Pelosi rightly was by Joe Wilson's infamous You Lie moment. Except they seem more speechless in reply. Guess they realize when they've seen schooled by a sidewalk. So if you see a Teabagger today -- tell them to thank all the big government programs and taxpayer spending that made their protests possible - mass transit, interstate highways, the National Park Service, FCC & national broadcasting, etc. More on Glenn Beck
 
Paula Duffy: Michael Jordan can't let go of old hurts during HOF speech Top
It's hard to listen to a filthy rich man complain about the price of tickets for his enshrinement in his sport's hall of fame. But that, among other cringe-worthy moments is exactly what Michael Jordan did. Friday's ceremony in Springfield, Massachusetts, inducting not just MJ but also C. Vivian Stringer, Jerry Sloan, John Stockton and David Robinson, was reportedly moved to a larger venue to accommodate the number of people who wanted to watch it all. And Jordan duly noted that the price seemed four times higher than he remembered, just in time for him to have to purchase a whole host of them for his family and friends. Uncomfortable as much of the speech made me, I was riveted to the screen. Jordan doesn't often put himself in positions to be candid when the greater public is listening. What we see is mostly golf course video, shots of him attending Bobcats games and some red carpet appearances. This was a whole heck of a lot more entertaining. As I noted on my Twitter page, he seemed to be settling old scores despite the fact that all former foes have been vanquished. If he didn't think they had submitted, then he made sure that happened. If he knew it then this was mere gloating or a gift to those of us who have never heard the unapologetic and competitive Jordan. Either way you look at it the video of the speech is must-see entertainment. If you want to see video of the other inductees' remarks I suggest you pick either Stockton's or David Robinson's to watch and compare with MJ's. NBA.com video segments can be found, here The contrast is stark because the personalities are vastly different but also due to the tone they each struck in their remarks. Whether The Admiral or Stockton are truly at this seemingly peaceful place I can't be certain. But what I do know is that they used their spotlight moment to reflect, give thanks, enlighten us about the journey and bask in the glow. I think Jordan thought he was doing just that, but in his own way.
 
Nick Jefferson: The Kennedy and Leadership: A Reappraisal Top
Much has been written over the years about the Kennedy family and leadership. But the focus has tended to be on JFK and RFK, rather than their younger brother. So in the wake of Senator Edward Kennedy's death, let us revisit this. I have never been so naïve as to set out what I believe to be the inalienable, definitive characteristics of effective leadership: because I do not believe that is possible. But I do know, however, that leadership is -- in part - about vision and that it is -- in part - about single-mindedness. In which case, one is hard-pressed to find better examples than Jack and Bobby respectively. President Kennedy was nothing if not a great orator, capable of creating and communicating a vision of America's future. I have blogged before about the sheer power of his 1961 "man on the moon" speech (quite possibly the best ever example of a well-deployed smart objective) but that is merely one part of a vast anthology of epochal speeches which includes such gems as "Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You", as well as the iconic "Ich Bin Ein Berliner". Vision by the bucket-load from Jack, then. His brother Robert's relentless, often unfashionable, championing of minority interests, particularly those of black America, was doubtless instrumental in the development and furtherance of equality in the United States. As Attorney-General, Bobby was asked in May 1962, "What do you see as the big problem ahead for you, is it crime or internal security?" The reply? "Civil rights". Single-mindedness was never a problem for this Kennedy. Inspirational stuff, all right, as countless leadership books and courses will tell you. But are these (admittedly fascinating) examinations of Jack's stirring rhetoric and Bobby's unremitting pursuit of justice genuinely helpful to today's leaders? Or do they -- in fact -- miss the mark by appearing remote from the leadership challenges experienced by most leaders today? Because unlike the former President and Attorney-General, most of us do not occupy a world where great speeches and noble thoughts suffice. And most of us do not, moreoever, die so young and so rich that our legacies are forever preserved and polished. Instead, as leaders we find ourselves locked into lives which are necessarily stacked with painful obstacles, hard nitty-gritty and a huge amount of compromise. This doesn't, of course, mean that we shouldn't aspire to the lofty heights to which Jack and Bobby so effortlessly ascended, just that - very often - our immediate leadership concerns are a good deal more prosaic. So step forward Ted. Because -- having been denied the Presidency -- the Kennedy family's baby brother had no chance but to carve out a different type of leadership: and a much more realistic one. Like us, Ted Kennedy didn't have the "benefit" of dying young and being frozen in time, as his brothers have been. Rather, this leader was unmistakably human. And a flawed human at that. But that is what makes his brand of leadership so much more accessible than those of his brothers. Over forty years of public life, this Kennedy, like us, encountered those painful obstacles, that hard nitty-gritty and the concomitant, necessary compromise. And he achieved so much in spite of that. Perhaps even because of it. Forced by history into becoming the deal-doer's deal-doer, with his sleeves rolled up and an understanding that political enemies could also become legislative friends, Senator Edward Kennedy was arguably significantly more influential during his lifetime than either of his brothers were during theirs. A man who eschewed the glamour bestowed upon, and perhaps even sought by, both Bobby and Jack. A man who chose to envelop himself in the dry, hard, bureaucratic process that is law-making. A man who was prepared to let others take the credit for work that was largely his own, even if the 'other' in question happened to be a certain Republican President that had 'history' with the Kennedy family. Too many leaders, in government and outside it, believe that leadership is about ideas and speeches. These are, of course, important. Necessary, in fact. But ideas and speeches do not bring about change. Only action brings about change. And Ted Kennedy knew that. The rhetoric and mythology that had served his brothers so well was never -- post Chappaquidick -- going to be sufficient to sustain for him a serious, long-term career in the Senate. And so was formed perhaps the greatest of all the Kennedy leaders: the ultra-liberal who co-authored laws with Orrin Hatch, the anti-Iraq war voter who partnered with President Bush on No Child Left Behind, the scion of an establishment dynasty who refused to create another and endorsed a risky candidate called Barack Obama instead. Above all else, the Kennedy who learned, perhaps the hard way, of the overwhelming importance of doing. Richard Lacayo put it eloquently in Newsweek recently: "He took the mythology and shaped it into something real and enduring." Indeed. A life defined not by one singular choice but instead by a clear, deliberate direction. Whether TMK chose that direction or whether it chose him, his life's journey now stands as one of the finest examples of American leadership that we have yet encountered. At his wake, Senator Dodd said, "John Fitzgerald Kennedy inspired America. Robert F. Kennedy challenged America. Our Teddy changed America" He sure did. That's real leadership. With special thanks to both Tom Fletcher of 10 Downing Street, London and Marc Adelman of Adelmania Consulting, Washington, D.C. More on Ted Kennedy
 
Adriana Dunn: Question Everything: Shepard Fairey on His Influences, His Legal Battle with AP, and Being a Sellout Top
(Originally posted on TakePart .) The cover of Rolling Stone No. 1085 (Aug. 20, 2009) depicts a somber looking President Barack Obama, his face the center of the presidential seal that reads "Will he take bold action or compromise too easily?" The cover image, created by artist Shepard Fairey, was a departure from Fairey's previous work featuring Obama; his ubiquitous Hope graphic became one of the most well-known yet unofficial images of the historic 2008 campaign. "I think for a lot of people optimism is what will make them act," he said in a conversation at the Brave New Films studio in late August. "I'm trying to maintain this balance of not letting Obama get away with not fulfilling his promises, but also not just rushing to condemn him and having any unity fall into chaos." Fairey characterizes his work as reactionary, and defends the Hope image as the right move at the time. "Having McCain as president would have been horrible," he said. In the interview, conducted by Christopher Sprinkle, a producer at Brave New Films, Fairey discussed his progression from struggling to survive by screenprinting pizza restaurant T-shirts and Karate uniforms to being a much sought after gallery artist designing bikes for Lance Armstrong and creating commercial advertising campaigns for Dewar's, Motorola and Saks Fifth Avenue. "The term 'Shepard Fairey style' has now entered the lexicon much in the same way that a slow pan on a photograph in a documentary film is now referred to as 'Ken Burns move,' " said Sprinkle, who interviewed Fairey as part of the Brave New Films conversations series. On Humble Beginnings and Selling Out Fairey described his first widely disseminated image, Andre the Giant has a Posse, as an "Orwellian icon" spontaneously created by making a stencil of a newspaper photo of the professional wrestler Andre the Giant. It became known as the Obey Giant sticker campaign. (You can read about it in his 1990 manifesto on the Obey Web site.) "The Andre the Giant Has a Posse sticker created a Rorschach-test-like response that was very fascinating," he said. "I took something silly and wanted to look at the profound psychology behind it. I looked into the theory of phenomenology, Heidegger's theory of reawakening the sense of wonder about one's environment. And I also, being a big fan of the Sex Pistols, knew a little bit about situationism--that people get into such a routine that they need a spectacle to snap them out of that and once again reawaken a sense of wonder." Fairey draws inspiration for his work from an array of disciplines, including the art world (Russian Constructivists, Rene Mederos and other Cuban poster artists, Propagandist Don Hartfeld, Robbie Conal, Henry Douglas, Barbara Kruger) music (the aforementioned Sex Pistols, Joe Strummer of The Clash, Chuck D of Public Enemy, Jello Biafra of Dead Kennedys, Henry Rollins of Black Flag), and politics, often portraying political revolutionaries in the same manner as musicians. (See: Noam Chomsky and Ozzy Osbourne ). Andre the Giant Obey sticker. (Creative Commons /joo0ey Flickr Photostream) "A lot of political work references things that it intends to criticize or satire. That requires preexisting material," he said. "It's been usually reinterpreted in a way that's very valuable for not only the communication but artistically. [...] It would be very unfortunate if the corporate influence over copyright law was to basically make that form of expression more or less illegal. It would be terrible. " Therein lies much of the controversy that threatens the legitimacy of his work. Fairey himself is a polarizing character; those familiar with his art typically either love him--his community of dedicated followers voluntarily maintain a wiki to "encompass all things Shepard Fairey and Obey Giant"--or love to hate him. He has been heavily criticized for his appropriation of works by a myriad of other artists, as well as for his corporate advertising campaigns executed through his design agency, Studio Number One . "The crazy thing is that earlier in my career when I was forced to take almost anything that came my way just to survive, no one called me a sell out. But now if I do something, because it's high profile, it means I've sold out." Fairey's commercial work continues to fuel accusations of being a sell-out. Earlier this year, there was a negative reaction following the launch of his Constructivist-inspired advertising campaign for Saks Fifth Avenue--a retailer that is the epitome of consumerism and materialism. "A lot of the reaction [to the Saks campaign] was not based on a sophisticated assessment of my practice," he says. "[...] I've always had a Robin Hood strategy, I think, with the commercial work that I do, which is actually far less of what I'm doing now because I have a good art career going. But for years no one would have even have known about my street work and street campaign had I not done the corporate work because that's what was funding the street art. The idea that you can even be mad at me now for being a sell out--it never would have happened had I not been a sell out. " On the Hope Image, Fair Use and the Associated Press Lawsuit Fairey (left) at the unveiling of his Hope poster at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington. (Creative Commons/cliff1066s Flickr Photostream) The pre-trial hearing begins today in New York for the lawsuit between the Associated Press and Fairey, who is represented by Lawrence Lessig and Stanford's Fair Use Project. "Yesterday, we filed suit against the AP on Fairey's behalf to vindicate his rights, and disprove the AP's accusations," wrote Anthony Falzone, Executive Director of the Fair Use Project, in a Feb. 10 blog post . Fairey is accused of "infringing copyrights the AP asserts in a photograph Fairey used as a visual reference in creating the Obama Hope poster," according to Falzone's post. "I actually talked to Yosi Sergant at an event and I said, 'I'd like to do something for Barack Obama but I don't want to create fuel for the Right to say 'Look at the company he keeps," Fairey said of the poster's origins. "This guy Shepherd Fairey has been arrested 15 times. All his work is socialist.' Even though all of the work that I've done that has the socialist aesthetic has nothing to do with being a socialist. It's been all over the blogs: 'He loves Mao! and Stalin!' Those were cautionary. I did not want to do something for Obama that wasn't welcome." Sergant (who found himself in a controversy of his own this week that led to being demoted from his post as communications director at the NEA) got approval from the campaign, and Fairey began searching through hundreds of photos, until he landed on a frame that, in his opinion, showed Obama's sincerity and vision. The result: an unofficial patriotic portrayal of Obama that, after being acquired by the National Portrait Gallery at the Smithsonian, also landed him in legal trouble. The image was never created for personal gain. It was created because I just couldn't stand to see my young daughters start to grow up in a Republican administration. That's what allowed me to deviate from my brand, which has been very anti-, very negative, and say I'm going to make an optimistic image, and I'm going to jump right into mainstream politics. [...] I created the image for the benefit of the country, in my opinion. I donated all the money either to the Obama campaign or to used it to make more materials. We made 300,000 posters, 500,000 stickers, T-shirts, got all this stuff out there, but it was never done for profit--it was all reinvested. Now I find myself in this lawsuit. "The concept of fair use is that one can be inspired by copyrighted material and make something new that is obviously referencing the copyrighted material, but is creating something new that has different meaning, is satirical, is not competing with the marketplace of the original piece," Fairey said in the studio interview. "That's fair use of copyrighted material." He argues that his use of the Mannie Garcia/AP photo does not compete in any way with the original market for this photograph. In fact, he said, a cropped version of the photograph now sells for $1,200 in a New York gallery--a price that would have never been possible without his popularization of the Hope image. A man in the audience at the studio asked if Fairey practices what he preaches; had he ever sent cease and desist letters? Yes, Fairey replied. One went to a vendor who reportedly bought a Mercedes with the money he made selling a "bootleg" of the Hope image. He says he told the vendor to stop, or else prove the money was being donated to the Obama campaign. Then there's what he describes as the "gotcha moment that's been out on the Web," Fairey said he went after a man in Texas who took the icon face image and put a "SARS mask" over it, and was then selling posters of the image. The simplified version is that I went after him and told him to stop selling that image. The real reason I went after him on that image is that he was selling bootleg printouts of some of my other images to people as if they were real posters. I was getting feedback from a lot of people who are fans of my work. [...] I felt like I couldn't go after him for a digital output of this poster or that poster, so the easiest way to strike back at him was to try to stop him from selling that other image. And that was a huge mistake because the things were unrelated. And I actually did it to try and get revenge for my fans who felt duped, and were emailing me constantly their frustrations about this guy that's a total parasitic bottom feeder. In pursuing him for something that I actually, when I wasn't in a huff about what he was doing otherwise, would clearly characterize as fair use. It makes me look like a hypocrite. And that was a really big mistake and I regret it. Another audience member, a woman who uses photos as references when painting, voiced concern over copyright issues for fine artists. "That for me is the biggest reason to be fighting the AP is not only to clear my name and my practice, but I think that a very large percentage of contemporary art in galleries and museums out there today would be rendered technically illegal," Fairey responded. "Now, whether each piece would be pursued as infringement, who knows, but for there to be a chilling effect where artists are hesitant to work from references for fear of being sued, they're scared to especially express themselves in ways that that might be inflammatory because--just like what I did to our friend from Texas--they may get some retribution from someone who doesn't like what they're saying. And that is another reason that it's so horrible what I did that." Despite the various controversies Fairey finds himself involved in, he doesn't seem to be curbing his output in the near future. "I think its very important to have that balance whether it's in your art or in your life of being able to just have a lust for life that has some component you enjoy," he said. "And for me, when I make art, it's about making a picture I think is powerful. And whether you want to call it beautiful or not--a lot of people will debate me about the beauty of my art--it's got something that's visually arresting, [and] then you get to share the message."
 
Mike Lux: The Contrast Top
The 9-12ers are here in DC today, "tens of thousands!" according to FOX News. While I am of course happy for them, enjoying their constitutional rights that their ideological forbears fought against (that whole Bill of Rights thing was bitterly opposed by the conservatives in the 1790s, and states' righters don't even think it applies to the states at all), I do find it odd that for such an incredible mass movement, promoted day and night by Fox News and every right wing radio host in America, they couldn't turn out more people than this. Oh, well, maybe next time. I do worry about them though. I mean, a lot of them are older, and this anger they carry around must be terrible for the toll it takes in terms of the high blood pressure, hypertension, and heart disease. They really should take a Valium like a normal person. Oh, and I also worry about their political beliefs. If this gang of Palinista, birther, secessionist, tea bagger, scream-at-the-President-and-members-of-Congress-rant-and-raver ever took power, this country would truly be in a world of hurt -- I mean we tried a slightly milder version of it from 2001 to January 20th of this year, and look how messed up we got. Rachel Maddow did a superb piece on this gang of misfits and hooligans last night, which was especially fabulous because she did an interview with me you can see below. Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy It was fun, although it's always hard to calibrate how perky to look when you are just staring into the remote camera with an earpiece in your ear. Hopefully, I didn't scare anybody. Although speaking of scaring people, my company inbox last night overflowed with angry right wingers saying, well, really angry things: calling me all kinds of names, making their usual threats, even calling me ugly (okay, you might not think one is so crazy, to each their own). So, again, I appeal to you guys: relax, take deep breaths, maybe take your blood pressure medicine before your veins pop. I promise that after I get appointed to the death panel, all the euthanasia will be painless. More on Rachel Maddow
 
Robert Naiman: GObama! US Agrees to Talks with Iran Top
To any naysayers who say President Obama has broken all his promises, I say, with all due respect: " na na na na na ": AP reports : The United States and five partner countries have accepted Iran's new offer to hold talks, even though Iran insists it will not negotiate over its disputed nuclear program, the State Department said Friday. I realize that this may be cold comfort if you took Obama seriously when he said that he was going to renegotiate NAFTA. Okay, that promise was not for real, sorry. But when he said he was going to talk to Iran, apparently he meant it. Who knew? It could have gone the other way. The US could have said - we offered Iran talks on how Iran was going to stop enriching uranium, and Iran has clearly said that it has no intention of stopping the enrichment of uranium, therefore, Iran has not agreed to our offer of talks. And therefore, we have no choice but to proceed with efforts to cut off Iran's access to gas imports. As everyone knows, there are plenty of folks in Washington - and at least one other capital city - who would have applauded such a course. But Obama decided to take the high road. We said we wanted talks, and Iran is saying that it wants talks, so let's talk. Why not? Iran says it wants comprehensive talks. So? Who's against comprehensive talks? More US-Iran cooperation could help make the world a better place on a lot of fronts: Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Lebanon. Making progress in negotiations on Iran's "nuclear file" will not be trivial. But there is a feasible solution, and everyone knows it. As Robert Dreyfuss wrote recently in The Nation : a solution, of course, would almost definitely have to concede to Iran the right to enrich uranium, on its own soil and independently, in exchange for transparency and a strengthened regime of international inspections. Dreyfuss notes that while President Obama has acknowledged Iran's right to "the peaceful use of nuclear energy," he has been silent on the question of enrichment. A charitable view - but also quite a plausible one - is that Obama would only acknowledge Iran's right to enrich uranium as part of a deal. If I'm a State Department negotiator, I'm thinking that this is a bargaining chip I'm taking in to the talks. And if I'm a political person in the Administration, I'm thinking that the time to acknowledge Iran's right to enrichment is not before talks, likely unleashing a firestorm of protest from the Likud lobby and its allies in Congress, but in the context of a multilateral deal, when criticism will have a much harder time getting traction. And if I'm a "Washingtonologist" in Tehran, I haven't failed to notice that Senator Kerry - chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - has acknowledged Iran's right to enrich uranium. Of course, Senator Kerry does not speak for the Administration. But if I'm a "Washingtonologist" in Tehran, I figure that Senator Kerry is in regular communication with the State Department, and that Senator Kerry wouldn't make a statement that the State Department really doesn't want him to make, and I would take Senator Kerry's statement as a signal that there's an endgame in which the US acknowledges Iran's right to enrich uranium. This speculation may soon be put to the test, and that's a very good thing. There's vagueness in both the US and Iranian positions, as one would expect. If serious talks commence, the world should be able to see who's trying to get to yes and who's throwing up obstructions. More on Foreign Policy
 
Dave Lindorff: In Praise of 'Joe' Wilson: What's Wrong with Calling Out Lies in Congress? Top
Liberals are acting all righteous and offended that a member of the Republican opposition, Rep. "Joe" Wilson of South Carolina, would deign to besmirch the "dignity of the presidency" by calling out "You lie!" in the middle of President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday evening. But what's wrong with that? Whatever the veracity of Obama's claim that his proposed health care "reform" would not pay for the health care of illegal immigrants residing in the US (and one can only hope that statement was fatuous, because at a minimum we would certainly want the government to pay for the care of an illegal immigrant in childbirth, or of an illegal immigrant who came down with a contagious disease), and even if Rep. Wilson is a racist bozo who wrongly thinks or wants to imply that Obama's plan would be out there enrolling undocumented workers in the millions at taxpayer expense, why shouldn't members of Congress call out a president if they think he's lying to them from the podium? One of the big problems with American democracy is that the presidency has over the years been elevated to the level of a monarchy, with all the imperial trappings and pomposity formerly associated with royalty. Presidents surely should get no more respect than a prime minister, and look at the hoots and catcalls PMs have to endure when they address Parliament in the UK. That's a good thing. Anyhow, it would have been far better if, instead of clapping wildly, liberal Democrats in Congress had hooted down some of the other whoppers and stretchers told by the president in his health care address. Among them: 1. First and foremost, Obama's claim that he was "determined to be the last" president to have to deal with health care reform and that he didn't want to "kick the can" down the street for a future administration to deal with. In fact, that is just what he did with his proposal, which has left the basic untenable system of employee-financed health care in place, and which has left the private insurance industry in control of who gets treatment and how much they will have to pay for it. It's a sure bet that before very long -- perhaps in just four more years -- another president will face the same crisis. A boisterous cat-call of "Can Kicker!" here would have been in order. 2. Obama said that "nothing else even comes close" to health care expenditures in terms of causing the federal deficit. In fact, something does -- the military budget -- but that topic is off limits for both Republicans and Democrats. Why couldn't Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold have yelled out, "What about military spending!" 3. Perhaps one of the biggest lies of the night was the president's claim that while there are "arguments to be made" for single-payer systems like Canada's, switching to single-payer in the US would require building "an entirely new system from scratch." The truth: Medicare is already a successful single-payer system and in fact, it is bigger and older than Canada's own nation-wide system. Expanding it to cover every American would not be starting from scratch at all. It would be expanding something already time-tested . Where were the shouts of "What about Medicare!" from Rep. John Conyers (and his dozens of cosigners), whose bill, HR 676, to expand Medicare to all has been barred from getting even a hearing by the House leadership with encouragement from the White House? 4. The president insisted that insurance executives don't "cherry-pick" profitable customers and push out those who are sickest, because they are "bad people." He said they are just doing it because it's profitable. It would have been nice if at least someone in the assembled throng of lobbiest-enthralled House and Senate members had shouted out something like "Just like bank robbers and drug dealers!" because the truth is that health insurance executives are bad people. They know that they are killing people every day through their ruthless policies, and they go right ahead and do it. Pursuit of profit does not, or at least should not, constitute a license to kill. (Just imagine a hit man, at his sentencing hearing, telling the judge, "I'm not a bad person, Your Honor. I just knock people off because it's profitable.") 5. The president said he was "not trying to put the insurance industry out of business," and added, "They provide a legitimate service." This line, not surprisingly, given the amount of money that industry has lavished on members of Congress and on the president himself, got what was probably the loudest bi-partisan applause of the night. But it surely led to a lot of groans and of coffee, tea or beer being spewed out involuntarily across carpets and upholstery in homes across America. Legitimate service? Insurance firms are nothing but vampires, or better, leeches on the health care system. They provide no service. Ask doctors, who have to fight to get permission to treat patients, and then fight to get reimbursed. Ask patients, who spend hours on the phone arguing with faceless drones, some probably in Bangalor or Manila, who are denying them coverage for needed medicines or procedures that are supposed to be covered. Listen to the testimony of whistle-blowers who have confirmed that those drones actually get paid bonuses based upon the number of claims they manage to deny. How satisfying it would have been if someone in Congress had yelled out, "Legitimate service my ass!" 6. Turning to the pathetically circumscribed and downsized "public option" in his "reform" plan, Obama declared that "a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option." Well that may be true, but it's not the whole truth. It would have been a great moment for Kucinich or Conyers or some other progressive member of Congress to shout out: "A majority also favors a single-payer plan!" 7. And where the defenders of women's rights, when Obama vowed that under his plan, "no federal funds would be used to fund abortions?" Couldn't someone have shouted out, "Women have rights too!" Is the president really saying that if a woman is raped, or a child gets pregnant through incest, or if a woman's life is at risk because of a pregnancy, that his plan will not pay for her to obtain an abortion? Cries of "For shame!" should have been ringing through the hall! 8. Finally the president said that one reason the nation has such record deficits is that during the prior administration, so many initiatives, "including the Iraq War," were set in motion but "not paid for," and he vowed, "I will not make that same mistake with health care." But he is doing the same thing with supplemental war funding requests for his war in Afghanistan, and with the continued war and occupation in Iraq, and someone should have called him on that. Besides, there's no way that the program he is proposing will be paid for by current funding. It will add to the deficit and he should have the courage to admit it, or to call for more taxes on the wealthy to pay for it. A lusty "Tax the rich!" cry in unison from the progressive caucus would have been appreciated by viewers. Whack-job or not, Rep. Wilson did the cause of democracy and honest discourse a favor when, faced with a statement he felt was clearly false, he found he couldn't repress the urge to call the president a "liar." In doing so, he put a much-needed ding in the wholly inappropriate and dangerous imperial aura of "respect" that has grown like lichens around the office of President. No more than anyone else in this nation, a president should have to earn the respect not just of the members of Congress, but of the broader public. He or she is another citizen, no more and no less, and when a president, like President Obama in this instance, dissembles, exaggerates or attempts to deceive or mislead, it is healthy for democracy if he is called out on it immediately and publicly. We need more honesty in Washington, not more civility.
 
John R. Bohrer: Joe Wilson and the 9/12 March: The Week That Decency Died? Top
In the age of expansive punditry, we tend to over-analyze events as they happen. Everything is historic, everything is a game-changer, and our rhetoric reflects that. The truth is, none of us can say for sure how something will figure into American history because none of us can predict the future. So two events that occurred in the last few days could either read as speed bumps or roadblocks in our history books. They are Joe Wilson interrupting a presidential address before a joint session of Congress and the '9/12 March on Washington.' All Americans should mourn on 9/11. In the New York area, TV stations still broadcast the memorial reciting the names of those who died. It's a reminder of the solemnity, the togetherness and the pride we feel in our country, and the heroism of that dark day. This is why these 9/12 protests are so repugnant and disrespectful. There's no other way to describe them. They are re-appropriating a national tragedy not to bring Americans together, but to divide. One of the organizers traced the event's roots back to the tea parties of February, which were not so much in opposition to what President Obama was doing as much as they were in opposition to President Obama winning ... but in the months and protests since, the media and others in government have lost sight of that. The subsequent protests -- against taxes on April 15, against health care reform in August -- have never been about the policies; these events would go on regardless. They are extensions of the 'sore loser' rallies, and they're one hundred percent partisan. That is why their attempts to wrap themselves in the tragedy of 9/11 is so wrong. The only kind of 9/12 protest I'd like to see is one promoting the care for rescue workers now suffering from lung illnesses. Of the list that was read in New York yesterday, a new name was added this year: Leon Heyward, who helped evacuate disabled employees from one of the buildings and died last October of lymphoma. But getting back to the point, take these partisan 9/12 protests and add them to Representative Joe Wilson's disrespect for the office of the President of the United States. Wilson, who was not only rude but factually incorrect in his outburst, refused to give an apology on the House floor even after his caucus leader pleaded with him to do so. It seems Wilson feels no need to show civility toward a person on the other side of the partisan divide. And sadly, there are more than enough people who feel he is justified. This sets an awful precedent. Which leads to this week's place in American history. Will we one day look back upon this week -- one in which we observed the anniversary of terrorist attacks that united us -- as the week in which all decency left American politics? Those shouting at the 9/12 March on Washington believe they are making history. They believe today is the day their partisan revolution begins, in which they run Democrats from Congress and the White House. If they fail, they will be no more memorable than those who rallied against the New Deal reforms. But if their shamelessness somehow succeeds, this week may very well be marked in history. Fortunately, the fact that we cannot predict what will one day fill our history books is accompanied by this simple idea: we can always shape it. More on Tax Day Tea Parties
 
Anamaria Wilson: Tough Chic Still in High Gear at Fashion Week Top
It is always with a mixture of trepidation and dread that I begin covering New York Fashion Week. Where's the joy, the excitement, you ask? Somewhere under a cheetah Yves Saint Laurent dress. On the heels of a lazy Labor Day and an August virtually devoid of a spike heel, comes mayhem that starts at 8 a.m and ends at 1 a.m. -- if you're behaved, that is. So, away go the blowy boho dresses and Grecian flats. Enter the perfectly fluid Dries, the sharp blazers, and the new tough shootie. Between the meticulous outfit organizing, show scheduling, party planning, the caravaning to and fro and well, just plain ol' work, it's enough to drive a girl to drink. And thankfully, there are always plenty of cocktails to be had after hours--my personal favorites are the Peronis at the Tents. How else to endure the endless air kissing and hobnobbing with the fashion flock at its most narcissistic and self-important? Anyway, enough grousing. Let's talk about the clothes. Newbie designer Prabal Gurung, who hails from Nepal, became the hot new thing last season after debuting a striking, beautifully tailored collection of razor sharp cocktail dresses. He garnered not only rave critical reviews, but A-list lookers Demi Moore and Rachel Weisz both stepped out in his frocks--on the same evening, too, if memory serves. At his presentation on Thursday in Chelsea, Gurung served up the same mix of evening dresses, but infused the collection with some additional yet equally elegant separates like beautifully cut jackets and trousers. Inspired by the iconic cobalt, black and silver Yves Saint Laurent Rive Gauche eau de toilette bottle (my signature scent, imagine), the color palette was specific, so too was the tailoring. He loves a bow and a sculptural flourish. Jason Wu, a designer who two seasons ago would merely have been characterized as up and coming has now officially arrived, and at the St. Regis, no less. Thank you, Michelle Obama. Her penchant for Wu's ladylike looks put his name on the proverbial fashion map and he's working hard to keep it. This time around, he skewed a touch younger and edgier with modern pieces like a romper and a relaxed pantsuit but in luxe fabrics. He punctuated the looks with sexy, hard Guiseppe Zanotti heels for some toughness. But the collection was still rich, rich, rich, and rife with cocktail dresses galore. Lest you worry that this means next spring is a season for uber-feminine dressing, just wait. The tough chic look that's been kicking around for the last couple of seasons is still in high gear. Lesser designers who didn't get it the first or third time around are now espousing it which means that this look will go on and on. Thankfully, there are some sure hands around that stick to what they know. The boys over at Rag & Bone, David Neville, and Marcus Wainwright kept to their hip English roots. They are down with a menswear-inspired jacket for women, and so are we. Lots of pants, some thermal, scores of minis, and an overriding cool downtown vibe. Right on point. Now am off to It-boy Alexander Wang's show. Backstage is likely to be a circus. Details tomorrow. More on Fashion Week
 
Harut Sassounian: Who Will Blink First, Armenia or Turkey? Top
After months of rampant rumors and news leaks, the Foreign Ministries of Armenia and Turkey, with Switzerland as mediator, issued a joint statement on August 31, making public the text of two protocols intended to regulate their problematic relationship. In a previous joint statement released on April 22, Armenian and Turkish officials stated that they had agreed to a "roadmap," which was to normalize their relations "within a reasonable time frame." At the time, the two sides had indicated their agreement in principle by "initialing" the two protocols, the text of which was not published until August 31. This lengthy delay was due to Turkey backing down from the "roadmap" under pressure from Azerbaijan. Pres. Ilham Aliyev had insisted that Turkey keep its border with Armenia closed until the Karabagh (Artsakh) conflict is resolved. During the ensuing months, in the absence of any progress in Armenian-Turkish relations, there was widespread speculation on whether Armenia's President Serzh Sargsyan would agree to travel to Turkey on October 14, to attend the World Cup qualifying soccer match between the national teams of the two countries. Pres. Sargsyan attempted to pressure Turkey to keep its end of the bargain in the declared "roadmap," by announcing that he would go to Turkey only if the border were open, or on the threshold of being opened. The American government was also pressuring Turkey to move forward with the envisaged agreement with Armenia. On the days leading to August 31, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned both Pres. Sargsyan and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, to help overcome any remaining stumbling blocks. Since Pres. Obama had broken his campaign promise by not using the term "Armenian Genocide" in his April 24 statement, under the pretext that doing so would undermine the on-going "delicate" negotiations between Armenia and Turkey, the United States sought some progress in these two countries' relations, as a face saving measure for the American president. As a result, Armenia and Turkey disclosed for the first time on August 31 the actual text of the two protocols and announced that they "have agreed to start their internal political consultations" on the "Protocol on the establishment of diplomatic relations" and the "Protocol on the development of relations." These consultations are to be completed within six weeks, after which the two states will sign and submit these Protocols to their respective Parliaments for ratification. The first Protocol commits the two sides to open their common border and to establish diplomatic relations. It also requires Armenia and Turkey to recognize "the existing border between the two countries as defined by the relevant treaties of international law." This is an important requirement for Ankara as it seeks to put an end to Armenian claims to "historic Armenian lands," now part of the territory of the Republic of Turkey. On the other hand, many Armenians would reject this provision, as they want to leave the door open for future claims on the usurped territories, including Mount Ararat. The second Protocol contains the most controversial element of both documents. It states that Armenia and Turkey "agree to implement a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations." An "intergovernmental bilateral commission" would first be established, comprised of several sub-commissions, one of which would deal with "historical" issues. A "timetable" attached to the second Protocol further specifies that Armenian, Turkish as well as Swiss and other international experts shall take part in the deliberations of "the sub-commission on the historical dimension." These two Protocols are bound to raise serious concerns and could cause major political turmoil within Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Armenia. Azerbaijan's President Aliyev would most probably once again go on a rampage against Turkey, as he did during the announcement of the first "roadmap" on April 22. Given Azerbaijan's valuable energy resources and their transit through Turkey, Ankara's leaders can ill-afford to ignore Aliyev's temper tantrums! There could also be turmoil within Turkey as both the political opposition and elements of the "deep state" may organize massive demonstrations and denounce Turkish leaders for being unpatriotic and favoring relations with Armenia over "brotherly" Azerbaijan. Such accusations could chip away just enough votes from the ruling majority in the Turkish Parliament to reject the ratification of the Protocols. Ratification is also not a foregone conclusion in Armenia. For more than a year, many Armenians, both in Armenia and the Diaspora, have vigorously complained to the government about the wisdom of negotiating such an agreement. They objected to the plan to establish a sub-commission on "historical" issues, which by its very nature would cast doubt on the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. In addition, many Armenians do not accept "the existing border" with Turkey, in order not to preclude future Armenian territorial claims. The apprehension created by this document could lead to large demonstrations both inside and outside of Armenia and cause serious political dissension, jeopardizing Armenia's stability and security. Given the pressure brought to bear on the Armenian government by Russia, the United States, and Europe, it will not be easy for Armenia to back down from going forward with this agreement. Nevertheless, It is still possible that as a result of a sharp confrontation between Azerbaijan and Turkey on this issue, compounded by domestic opposition, the Turkish government may quietly urge its parliamentary majority not to ratify these Protocols. To maintain the heat on Turkey and force it to blink first, Armenia might not sign any agreement with Azerbaijan over Artsakh for the time being. It is also possible that the outcry by Armenians worldwide against these Protocols would convince the Armenian government not to go through with this agreement and urge its majority in Parliament to vote against it. Unfortunately, the repeated warnings to the Armenian authorities at the start of these negotiations went unheeded. It would have been much easier back then to make appropriate policy adjustments and take corrective measures. Should Armenia back down from this agreement first, it may bring upon itself the displeasure of the major powers. Nevertheless, at this critical juncture, the Armenian government's preeminent concern should be safeguarding the country's national interest rather than earning brownie points from foreign powers! More on Turkey
 
Frank Schaeffer: Glenn Beck and The 9/12 Marchers: Subversives From Within Top
Who are these people?! Where do they come from?! Ordinary Americans might wonder why anyone would stoop so low as to follow Glenn Beck, Fox News and Dick Armey (and their corporate sponsors masquerading as "FreedomWorks") as they organize their "9/12 March On Washington" to cynically exploit the 9/11 attack. Patriotic Americans might question the organizer's aim to provide a media forum for dimwitted right wingers to scream "Liar!" "Socialist!" "Antichrist!" "Muslim!" "Death Panels!" "He's not an American!" and so on and on and on about the commander in chief charged with defending us from further attacks. And some people might even cry "shame on you!" to the more mainstream Republicans participating that include Dick Armey of FreedomWorks, as well as GOP Reps. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Mike Pence of Indiana, Tom Price of Georgia, and South Carolina GOP Sen. Jim DeMint. Ordinary folks from Planet Earth may ask why the Republican Party, right-wing activists and members of the Religious Right seem so unreachable with mere facts let alone decency and decorum. (As the proud father of a US Marine who fought in Afghanistan, I'm particularly outraged that these people would exploit the 9/11 attacks after my son and others were prepared to give their lives in response to our enemies.) As a former Religious Right leader, who was raised (and home-schooled by my Evangelical-leader parents, Francis and Edith Schaeffer) in the movement, let me explain just why the ordinary rules of decency don't apply to the right these days. Let me also answer this question: Who are these people? Protecting Your Children From Satan A big part of the answer to understanding the heightened climate of outright hate and fear of the "other" is the home school and Christian school movement. It is a modern incarnation of the anti-federal government ideology of earlier firebrands such as John Calhoun who was the 7th Vice President and a Southern politician in the 19th century. Calhoun embraced slavery, states' rights, limited government, and said that Americans should secede from the union if it went against their wishes. (See: "Calhoun Conservatism Raises Its Ugly Head" by Mike Lux in the Huffington Post Sept 11/09.) In the early 1970s the evangelicals like my late father and James Dobson decided that the our society had fallen so far "away from God" and so far from "America's Christian history" that it was time to metaphorically decamp to not just another country but to another planet:. In other words virtually unnoticed by the media and mainstream political operatives, a big chunk of American society seceded from the union in all but name. What they did is turn the white race-based in "Christian school" movement of the 1950s into a countercultural phenomena. As tens of thousands of new Christian schools opened, it was no longer just about "protecting" white kids from minorities and African-Americans. It was about protecting your children from Satan in other words the United States government's long reach through the public school system. To protect your children from Satan -- in other words mainstream, open patriotic and pluralistic America -- you either kept them at home where mom and dad could teach the children right from wrong or send them to a cloistered private evangelical/fundamentalist school. At home or in school you used curriculum prepared by the likes of James--beat-your-child-and-dare-to-discipline-Dobson, RJ-slavery-was-a-good-thing-Rushdoony, or many and other right-wing anti-American activists. That curriculum presented "secular America" as downright evil. Hating the USA became next to godliness. The Anti-American Home Schoolers Come Of Age We are now several generations into this experiment of holier-than-thou withdrawal from our American mainstream culture. If you wonder who it is that's both running and underwriting organizations such as the Family Research Council, Focus On The Family, Freedom Works and other organizers of the 9/12 March and who are most faithful followers the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh or viewers of Fox News your answer is: it's the home school/Christian school generation of men and women now hitting their thirties and even forties who might as well have been raised on a different planet. What are these home school and Christian school children taught? Here's a quote from one of the far right's leading home school curricula creators: "The stranger in ancient Israel did not serve as a judge, although he received all the benefits of living in the land. The political question is this: By what biblical standard is the pagan to be granted the right to bring political sanctions against God's people? We recognize that unbelievers are not to vote in Church elections. Why should they be allowed to vote in civil elections in a covenanted Christian nation? Which judicial standards will they impose? By what other standard than the Bible?" (Gary North of Institute For Christian Economics) The generation raised on the belief that the US government is illegitimate because it is trying to "impose" non-biblical laws on people has hit the streets. These are the people who grew up indoctrinated into an alternative reality. Today they are out there waving signs of Obama dressed as Hitler. They are buying weapons and ammunition. Some are in the growing and revived militia movement. They are Dick Armey's foot soldiers. People like Armey and Beck can count on the ignorance of their dupes. It's against their religion to read a real newspaper, watch anything but Fox or go to a real school. Evangelical Red Guards Over the last 30 years Evangelical fundamentalists have managed to do what Chairman Mao failed to do with his Red Guards: indoctrinate a whole generation of evangelical people to see their own society as the enemy and act like subversives from within the culture. These people are more anti-American than Al-Qaeda. The "Christian Reconstruction" movement is working for theocracy. Reconstructionism (of which Gary North is one leader) says that the law given for the political and legal ordering of ancient Israel is intended for all people at all times. Reconstructionist leader David Barton gives a definition: "The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God's law." Who are Glenn Beck's foot soldiers? In effect what we have is a group of indoctrinated people who have never actually lived in America because they were brought up deliberately cloistered from it by their parents and churches. Because they are legally "Americans" they can move freely around our democracy trying to destroy it working within the United States. Today they are acting like a fifth column, no, they are a fifth column. Some of them have not just seceded metaphorically, there is even a growing movement for states to secede literally. Today the right wing America haters actually are doing to America what no "illegal" immigrants ever do: work to overthrow our democracy and replace it with a theocracy. The home-schooled, privately educated brainwashed horde are an antidemocratic, fundamentally anti-American political movement. For a start they do not accept the results of the last election. Liberal/Progressive Wishful Thinking and Blindness Meanwhile those ordinary Americans including many Democrats, progressives and liberals who work within the system can hardly imagine that there are people so far outside the lines of what they regard as ordinary decent behavior that the progressives seem psychologically unequipped to deal with this reality. President Obama is one such person. His talk of bipartisanship is a pipe dream. Why? Bipartisan Pipe Dream Because you can't be bipartisan with people who don't play by the same rules -- say accepting the will of the people -- as you do. Obama is not alone in his gentlemanly wishful thinking. For instance consider New York Times book review editor Sam Tanenhaus saying in his book ( The Death of Conservatism ) that the the conservative movement is over. Tanenhaus rightly points out that the extremism of the right has driven away traditional Republicans. I ought to know! I, as a life-long Republican and former Religious Right activist helped create this situation. But Tanenhaus and others like him just don't get the fact that the far right is resurgent , in fact more dangerous than ever as a wounded animal is dangerous. They don't get it because kindly liberals also live in a bubble. The kindly liberal reasonable bubble of an open liberal culture in which reason, argument in fact prevails is far removed from the other America, one of militia training camps, fundamentalist churches, parents who follow Dobson's "parenting" advice by "breaking" their children and whipping them (as Dobson tells them to do in his books) and thus raising the damaged and dangerous automatons of biblical vengeance and sadism. The Last Chess Game You'll Ever Play What reasonable people don't understand is this: if one person is playing chess abiding by the rules and their opponent is losing at the chess game it may appear that they have lost the match. But what if one person is willing to change the rules ? For instance, if you're playing chess against someone who -- if they start losing -- takes a lead pipe out of their back pocket and smashes you over the head with it the "rules" change. Serial Killers The real story of the Religious Right and their power to destroy is told by Max Blumenthal in Republican Gomorrah , and Jeff Sharlet in The Family and by me in Crazy For God . What our books have in common is the understanding that you can lose in the political system but still "win" -- according to your destructive agenda -- if your agenda is non-political but rather religious and apocalyptic in nature . To understand the Religious Right today and how dangerous they are don't think politics -- think serial killers who "win" by "getting even" with the society they perceive as having disrespected them. It isn't about facts. It isn't about election results. It isn't about truth. It's about victimhood and revenge on the "elite" in other words on everyone not like you. It is about the weird combination of sadism and masochism Blumenthal describes in his book. Think Republicans who have no plan of their own for health care reform other than stopping Obama. Think "Deathers" and "Birthers" who are all about de-legitimizing our system as "evil" because it includes rights for gays. New Rules: Anarchy and Scorched Earth What those who think that the power of the Religious Right and/or the Republicans is ended don't understand is that it's only ended if you believe in the rules. When I say the rules I mean, for instance, that if you lose an election the other side gets to legislate. However if your opponent is not interested in the rules and is, A) waiting for Jesus to return and consume all the "infidels" or, B) you are just waiting to take that "lead pipe" out of your back pocket -- say go to public meetings and intimidate people by carrying loaded weapons to those meetings -- or worse, maybe even use them to shoot down someone -- all polite bets are off! The fact of the matter is we now know what the experiment in raising children outside of the American mainstream means. It means that there's a whole subculture within American culture that mistrusts facts precisely because they are facts . They glory an alternative view of not just politics but of reality. They frequent the creationist museum and look at dioramas of dinosaurs cavorting with humans. They believe that gay people choose to be gay just stick it to the rest of us and could change if they invite Jesus into their hearts. They believe that before you run for governor of Alaska, for instance, you should get a preacher specializing in "casting out the spirit of witchcraft" to anoint you so you can win against the demonic forces of secularism -- as was the case with Sarah Palin when she first ran for governor. They believe that the NRA was telling the truth when they claimed that Obama would "take away your guns" and so have loaded up with more guns and ammunition. They think the time has come to rise up and overthrow the government. And yes, most of them also believe that black people are inferior to whites, so to have a black man in the White House is itself "proof" of American's fall from grace. There's no arguing with such people and no winning against them using mere elections. They are not playing by American rules. Their idea of winning is not fair elections but Armageddon. Religious Right Growing Again Those who say that the Religious Right and the far right have lost their power are looking through the lens of rule-obeying democratic liberalism. They don't understand that their opponents will always carry the proverbial lead pipe in his or her back pocket. To the progressives who think that the Religious Right and the right wing has lost its power I say this: You're correct when it comes to political facts (for the moment) of the last election, but you're dead wrong when it comes to the way revolutions work. Second American "Tea Party" Revolution Revolutionaries never have played by the rules. They don't have to win by the rules. They hate the rules. They don't live in a rule based or fact based universe. They believe they are serving a "higher cause" so it makes the "mere human" rules unimportant. They're ready to shout down opponents, call out "liar" about someone telling the truth, undermine public meetings and/or commit physical violence. They are also willing to become the tools of cynical corporate lobbyists using them for ulterior purposes, say stalling health care reform. In order to "win" -- in other words destroy our country as we know it -- the far right merely needs to be true to its own rule which is, to put it very mildly, that coloring outside the lines is not only perfectly okay but required. Conclusion Not only do the Religious Right distrust facts to them facts are evil. You are "satanic" if you believe in evolution. You're also satanic if you believe health-care reform is about anything but death panels and abortions. You're satanic if you don't believe that gay people are evil or that if you think sex education is sensible. You're satanic if you don't believe in Satan! The tactics that progressives develop for actually winning against the right have to involve far more than politics. They have to also involve ceaseless vigilance against an enemy that has now -- literally -- raised up an armed, paranoid and deluded alternative nation within our borders and created a fifth column to undermine the United States and our democracy. They need to be called out by the rest of us in no uncertain terms. Long term the Religious Right subculture has to be understood, then exposed for what it is: an anti-democracy movement built on willful lies with potentially violent underpinnings in the thrall of an apocalyptic cult of revenge on everyone not like "us." It is also the useful tool of corporate lobbyists. Who use these shock troops of the proudly ignorant for non-ideological reasons. The Religious Right may have lost a round politically but they've still got a "lead pipe" in their back pocket. They can still "win" by making the rest of us lose our democracy by increments. They will even spit in the rest of our faces by exploiting
 
Steve Fleischli: Power Plants Don't Have to Suck (Literally) Top
For decades, electric power plants have quietly preyed on America's waterways and devoured our fisheries, but their actions have largely escaped government accountability. Now - after years of successful litigation brought by environmental groups - the federal Environmental Protection Agency and many states like California have the opportunity to do something meaningful to prevent this senseless slaughter. Experts have long known that cooling water intake structures operated by the electric utility industry are "the single largest predators of our Nation's waters." Collectively, the power industry sucks in approximately 80 trillion gallons of water annually to cool their equipment - a number so staggering it is equivalent to four times the amount of water in all of the Chesapeake Bay . In the process of using this water for cooling, power plants kill on a massive scale fish, larvae and other aquatic organisms - and often do so in sensitive or important spawning areas. These organisms are mangled on grates or superheated inside the power plants. And while a fisher might pay $40 or more a year for a local fishing license that limits with exacting specificity what kind and how much of a species he or she can catch, the power industry has an unbridled license-to-kill unlike anything seen in a summer action movie. In New Jersey, the Salem Nuclear Plant - the nation's largest user of cooling water - withdraws more than 3 billion gallons of water per day from Delaware Bay, killing an estimated 845 million fish a year. Combined, the 19 California plants using antiquated once-through cooling technology are allowed to suck in 16 billion gallons of sea water every day and kill an estimated 79 billion fish, larvae and other marine life - including two dozen sea lions and a dozen seals - annually. The Bay Shore power plant in Ohio kills 46 million Lake Erie fish and sucks in another 2 billion larvae a year. This killing surpasses many types of commercial and recreational fishing in some areas, and is completely unnecessary. Widely available and affordable technologies reuse and recycle cooling water, preventing fish kills almost entirely. Most new power plants use closed-cycle cooling, which recirculates water and can reduce fish mortality by 95% or more. Even better, dry cooling technology is currently used at dozens of power plants in the U.S. and hundreds worldwide. According to the environmental group Riverkeeper, which for years has led the environmental effort to modernize the nation's power plants, for every 10,000 fish killed by a once-through cooling plant, about 9,996 can be saved by dry cooling. The costs can also be reasonably borne by industry. In Massachusetts, for example, the Brayton Point power plant, which provides approximately 6% of New England's electricity and fought improvements for years, is currently upgrading its plant at the modest expense to ratepayers of six to18 cents a month . This revelation prompted one EPA official to note that the cost of compliance when added to other upgrades at the plant was less than the price of the postage stamp needed to mail the monthly electric bill. But nearly 40 years after Congress first sought to solve this problem, the power industry continues its massive ecological destruction. Nationally, hundreds of outdated once-through cooling power plants remain on both fresh waterways and along our coasts. It is time for EPA and the states to act and to do so definitively. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year set the stage for new rules from EPA on the issue, and those rules should be forthcoming during President Obama's tenure. Ahead of these new rules, California stands poised to be a leader on this issue like it has on so many other environmental initiatives. A recent proposal by the California State Water Resources Control Board to phase out once-through cooling has a chance to end this pointless destruction along the state's entire coast. But while the intentions of the proposal are laudable and should be supported, the current draft still suffers from loopholes big enough to swallow a whale. California should seize this opportunity and set a strong example by making clear the need to upgrade all power plants to the best technology available. No more excuses. No more delay. The federal government then should follow that lead and require modern technologies such as closed-cycle and dry cooling that drastically reduce the impact on our waterways. If our current national situation has taught us anything it is that we can no longer take the seemingly endless wealth of this great country for granted. Our national assets include the bounty of our fisheries, and EPA and the states need to put a stop to this appalling and illegal waste. New York City-based attorney Reed Super and Los Angeles-based marine biologist Tom Ford contributed to this post.
 
Terry Gardner: GM Forget the Guarantee, Fight for Clean Air Top
Will California ever be permitted to implement its Clean Air Act? First we had a President that removed the words "Environment" and "Protection" from the EPA's mission statement. Under the Bush Administration, I believe EPA stood for the Embracing Petroleum Agency. We finally have a President that takes the long view on the environment, and instead of looking for a quick fix, wants to takes steps to transform America into a more sustainable country. And sustainability is good for business. Just look at all Walmart's white roofs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Automobile Dealers Association have filed a federal lawsuit to stop California from moving forward with new greenhouse gas emissions rules for cars and trucks: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-emissions-waiver11-2009sep11,0,1938672.story What good is a business's bottom line if we end up with air we can see and chew? Could these litigants be required to suck on a tail pipe for half an hour or take a quick jog through Beijing before opening arguments? If the plaintiffs claim to be Christian, as a Christian I'd love to see their version of "The Bible" . Perhaps they have an Exxon or Mobil edition where the language calling for all God's children to be custodians of the planet is redacted. The other news that broke today was General Motors' new money back guarantee. If I buy a GM car and am not thrilled with it, I can return it within 60 days and get my money back, provided I have driven less than 4,000 miles. The offer also emphasizes the brand names of Chevy, Buick and Cadillac to help us forget about the GM bankruptcy hiccup. ( http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gm-moneybackbox11-2009sep11,0,7551730.story ) Well, GM, I've got a better idea. You invented the electric car and then buried it (the EV-1). You're in the process of creating an awesome electric vehicle, the Chevy Volt. So why not step up and embrace lower emissions? Instead of offering me a guarantee, how about filing a Friend of the Court brief on behalf of the EPA? Any auto maker that would file a Friend of the Court brief on behalf of California, the EPA and their own lungs is a car company from whom I'd like to buy a vehicle. Toyota, Honda, Chrysler? And if not an automobile company, how about it Walmart? You've been a leader in sustainability?
 
Max Wolff: Things Are Getting Better Top
The first and best response to this statement is always a series of questions. The first two inquiries should be, which things and for whom? We are not in the habit of asking these two questions, and it shows. To see why these questions are not asked, let's ask them. Let us also acknowledge that many things have gotten better. What is getting better? Our remaining financial institutions are more profitable and less subject to public and business suspicion. These firms are also bigger and face significantly less competition. Many financial firms have used new legal options, special programs, government handouts and reduced competition to begin to rebuild. This is a marked improvement over the dire circumstance of one year ago. As you read this, we are in the middle of the one-year anniversary of the nine days that shook the financial world. The period between September 7, 2008 and September 16, 2008 witnessed the collapse of much of the US investment banking and home mortgage lending systems. We lost Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Lehman Brothers, AIG and independence for Merrill Lynch in just over a week. Today, we are not all seized by panic as the financial world collapses atop our heads. It remains to be seen and tested how many of our deep structural problems have been fixed. I am skeptical. Who is benefiting? Public sentiment is better than it was one year ago and asset markets have done very well. The S&P 500 is about 125 points, 12%, below where it was one year ago. This masks the reality that asset prices plunged from September 2008-March 2009 and have spent the last 6 months surging back. On the close of business, Wednesday 09 September 2009 we are 40% and over 290 points, above the lows reached in February and early March 2009. Corporate profits have also begun the process of rebounding from their recent crash. Corporate profits rose 5.7% even as the economy contracted by 1% in the second quarter of 2009. Profits and assets have done well. Thus, the commanding heights of America's stratified income structure have begun to heal themselves across the last few months. The three graphics included here offer a valuable view. What we call recovery is a return to the structural economic conditions that created the problems that came to a head in 2001 and 2007. We are getting back on trends that have created the consumer debt problems and the bubble, boom and bust cycle that has defined the US economy for more than a decade. The great mass of Americans live on income earned from employment. Here, the story is very, very different. The number of hours worked presently hovers near a 40-year low. America's average work week has fallen to 33.1 hours. We have only kept these numbers for 45 years. The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides multiple measures of unemployment. The official unemployment rate, widely reported at 9.7%, is too narrow to speak to the extent of job weakness in America. The most inclusive measure, called U-6, includes involuntary part time workers and people out of work and desiring jobs who have given up looking. The inclusive U-6 unemployment rate in America is 16.8%. Perhaps this more inclusive unemployment rate helps to explain our 350,000 foreclosure filings a month and the one million homeless school children starting the new school year? American consumption is 69% of the US economy and 14% of world GDP. Let's ask one last question. How did we get here? The two charts below, all data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, illustrate the challenges facing the bottom 80% of Americans. These problems have been a long time building. Figure 1 Average Weekly Hours of Production Workers 1964-2009 Figure 2 Average Hourly Earnings in 1982 Dollars 1964-2009 Look closely at the vertical axis in each graph. The range of values is fairly small. This is particularly crucial in Figure II, Average Hourly Earnings in 1982 Dollars. Our average hourly earnings - corrected for inflation - have been stuck between $7.50 and $9.00 for 45 years. Only real and sustained wage and job growth will allow most Americans to announce recovery. We have not seen either yet. More on Stimulus Package
 

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)