Monday, September 14, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Linda McMahon For Senate: WWE Star Set To Run In Connecticut Top
World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) CEO Linda McMahon appears primed to run for Senate in Connecticut and should make an announcement very soon, according to sources with knowledge of her deliberations. "A decision is imminent, and she will likely make a decision over the next couple of days," said a Republican strategist. "It will be made sooner rather than later." One well-placed source said McMahon is "99 percent" in. Another said the announcement could come as early as Wednesday.
 
Chris Weigant: Emerging GOP Theme: Nullification Top
Minnesota's Governor Tim Pawlenty last week joined in the growing chorus in his party singing the praises of nullification . He didn't come right out and use the word, preferring to talk of "state sovereignty" instead, but the concept is the same. This seems to be an emerging theme among the Republican Party as it lurches slowly towards the 2012 presidential campaign. The fact that the issue was largely settled by the Civil War does not seem to faze those wishing to dish up some red meat to GOP voters. Pawlenty made the news while talking on a conference call sponsored by the Republican Governors' Association last Thursday. Asked by a caller about using the Tenth Amendment to reject any healthcare reform passed in Washington, Pawlenty (from two media reports, one in Politico and one from Minnesota Public Radio ) responded with: "Depending on what the federal government comes out with here, asserting the Tenth Amendment may be a viable option, but we don't know the details. We can't get the president to outline what he does or doesn't support in any detail. So we'll have to see. I would have to say that it's a possibility." "You're starting to see more governors, me and governor [Rick] Perry from Texas, speaking out on this and asserting our Tenth Amendment rights. Asserting the Tenth Amendment may be a viable option." Pawlenty also talked of "claims, and maybe even lawsuits, if need be." To be fair to Pawlenty, the next day he walked this back considerably: I made some comments that made it into the press last night about the Tenth Amendment. What I was trying to convey is that we have an important amendment in the U.S. Constitution and we should at least have the discussion. Not seceding from the union, not filing lawsuits, but at least some awareness that the Tenth Amendment exists. That was a pretty fast reversal, from "maybe even lawsuits, if need be," to "some awareness that the Tenth Amendment exists," but then, after all, Pawlenty hails from Minnesota and not Texas. In Minnesota such talk is considered a bit more unseemly (even among Republicans) than in Texas; where such talk is considered pretty mild and wimpy -- when compared, for instance to Texas' governor expressing support for exploring outright secession from the Union . For the record, here is the text of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution : The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. But it's not just a few Republican governors speaking off the cuff about such explosive ideas as nullification and secession. State legislatures in Republican-controlled states are passing actual resolutions stating their intent to follow through on such ideas. These are not legally-binding resolutions, but still it's somewhat of an oddity in modern America. The first I heard of such efforts was from Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Yorker , who wrote about it a few months ago under the title "Bonkers In Georgia." A website dedicated to the idea ( www.tenthamendmentcenter.com ) reports ( speaking of a similar resolution in Alabama) that: If HJR10 passes both houses of the legislature, Alabama would be the eighth state to pass a resolution affirming sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, joining Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Similar resolutions have been introduced in thirty-seven states in the past year. While the resolution is not legally binding, supporters say it's an important first step to "serve notice" to the federal government that it's exercising powers not delegated to it by the People in the Constitution. They say that state-level nullification of federal laws is the next step, and efforts have already begun on this in a number of states. Montana and Tennessee, for example, have passed laws exempting people of their state from certain federal firearms regulations. In 2010, Arizona voters will have the option of approving a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban a future national health care plan in the state. Similar laws and amendments are being considered in states across the country. They also provide the full text of the Alabama resolution, which is much more succinct than the one that passed the state senate in Georgia by a vote of 43-1. Hertzberg dissects some of the language of the Georgia resolution , which he calls: "a resolution that mixes three parts inanity and one part prospective treason into a Kompletely Krazy Kocktail of militia-minded moonshine and wacko white lightning -- a resolution that not only endorses defiance of federal law but also threatens anarchy and revolution." Hertzberg mirthfully points out that the resolution: "is written in a mock eighteenth-century style, ornate and pompous. Just two of its twenty sentences account for more than 1,200 of its 2,200 words. But the substance is even nuttier than the style." But what he fails to connect is that he is, in essence, calling Thomas Jefferson a nutjob. Because the language in question in the Georgia resolution ("where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated [to it by the states], a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy") isn't merely "mock eighteenth-century style," but in fact was written in the eighteenth century, about ten years after the United States Constitution was ratified -- and that the language came directly from Jefferson's pen. Because Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions , which is where Georgia cribbed it from. James Madison wrote a similar document which became the Virginia Resolution . Of course, this was all before the Nullification Crisis in the 1830s, where South Carolina walked up to the brink of open defiance of the federal government (President Andrew Jackson's Vice President, John C. Calhoun, actually resigned over the issue to run for the Senate, where he took up the cause). Congress actually passed a "Force Bill" in 1833 which authorized the president to use military force against South Carolina, should it become necessary; South Carolina readied a militia to fight, as well. The issue was eventually defused, and the Civil War was hence postponed for three decades. But the Civil War (which began in South Carolina, of course) eventually was fought. The concept of nullification was laid permanently to rest, along with the thousands of soldiers who died on both sides during the conflict. So one would think the issue would be dead forever. Apparently, one would be wrong. The Tenth Amendment is one of the rarer parts of the Bill of Rights for the Supreme Court to actually rule on, but every so often one of these cases is taken up by the Court. And, increasingly, Republicans are using it as a "last resort" against federal laws they don't like. Although, to be fair, one of the more recent decisions ( Gonzales v. Raich ) went against a California woman who argued that since she was growing medical marijuana on her own land for her own consumption, the constitutional powers of the federal government to regulate interstate trade simply did not apply. The Supreme Court disagreed, but at least it was consistent, since it had ruled during World War II that a wheat farmer could not use this argument to escape federal war efforts to regulate wheat production ( Wickard v. Filburn ). In both cases, the Court reasoned, even if the farmer didn't sell his or her crop, it could still impact the interstate commerce for that crop. Meaning Congress could, indeed, regulate it. The Supreme Court has also upheld Congress' right to essentially blackmail states to do what the feds want, by using the leverage of withholding federal funding to the states unless they comply with the fed's wishes. Anyone who lived through the 1980s saw how Washington used federal highway funds to blackmail states into raising their drinking age in just such a fashion. But the Supreme Court has also ruled that the feds cannot tell states to actually enforce federal laws directly. Most recently, the Court has struck down gun restrictions such as a "Gun-Free School Zone," or mandatory background checks for gun sales, which (the Court reasoned) cannot be imposed by the feds on the state governments. Meaning that the Tenth Amendment is still open to some degree of interpretation. Most people consider it as much an anachronism as the Third Amendment (which deals with "quartering troops"), but with the conservative bent of the current Supreme Court, who knows how they would rule on a state which decided to "nullify" a federal healthcare system? Which also means that calling the Tenth Amendment movement a bunch of nutjobs may be premature. They consider themselves in the company of Jefferson and Madison, after all. And they have a few recent Supreme Court decisions to give them hope. While outright secession is still relegated to nutjob-type thinking among most Americans today, the movement among Republicans to stick their finger in the eye of a (Democratic, of course) president or Congress doesn't seem so outlandish. This is actually an old argument. The "code words" change over time (from "nullification" to "states' rights" to Pawlenty's "state sovereignty"), but the idea is the same -- we don't care what the feds say, we retain the right to ignore any laws we don't feel like following. And, from these indications, it will likely be an emerging theme among Republican candidates (on a small scale) in next year's elections, and (on a much bigger stage) in the 2012 presidential race. Pawlenty, after all, is widely considered to be thinking about such a run himself -- which goes a long way towards explaining why a governor of a very Northern state should be talking about a concept which usually originates in the American political discussion from the Deep South.   Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com   More on Georgia
 
Erica Abeel: Toronto Social Diary Top
Hey, the hard-working film journalist has gotta play, too. Unlike some colleagues who disdain parties, with their trans fatty nibbles, I actively seek them out -- provided the party starts before 11 P.M. when I'd rather be flossing. After the day's quota of 4 or 5 films I need to knock back the chardonnay and talk to real people, else I start chatting up the mannequins in Renfrew's. Since leaving New York I've been lobbying for an invite to the exclusive Sony Pictures Classics Party. But I'm not proud about accepting invites from all the C-list events clamoring for my attendance. So the other evening found me cabbing it down one of Toronto's meaner streets to a rather grungy reception behind an Irish pub. The hors d'oeuvres might have been haggis on toast and I didn't even know what film was being feted, but what the hell, it was mellow late summer in Toronto and there was a terrace out back and a cool band with electric keyboard and a vocalist in black leather mini. The previous evening found me at an event in trendy Yorkville -- sort of Toronto's answer to South of 14th Street -- at a party for "The Vintner's Luck" by Niki Caro. I trotted out my very decent French to chat with its stars Jeremie Renier (the kid from "La Promesse" all grown up) and gorgeous Gaspar Ulliel of "A Very Long Engagement." One delightful guy turned out to be the husband of film's female star Vera Farmiga, who is even more beautiful in person than on screen, and radiant from recent motherhood. We all, we discovered, like to hike the Shawangunks. I asked Farmiga how she'd dealt with an implausible plot twist for her character in "Up in the Air" (I won't reveal it, but trust me, you'll spot it) -- a plot twist that only a male director would have let by. Farmiga answered at length but I couldn't hear what she said. Evening highlight was a mini-concert by New Zealand's Topp Sisters, lesbian identical twins and world renowned yodellers who are also featured in a bio pic here. Social low point to date: the bash for the Abu Dhabi Film Commission on the roof of the Hyatt Regency, which offers a grand view of the CN tower, 2nd tallest building in the world. It was 8 P.M., I hadn't eaten since breakfast, and an exotic evening was promised. Getting off the elevator I literally fell into some major cleavage. Wonder if the publicists contract with a special hot bod agency to populate their shindigs, nothing but a Ten need apply. None of the suave types at the party showed an inclination to talk to me. Now, this is precisely what people fear at parties. Undeterred, I focused on a bank of monitors featuring Abu Dhabi camels and what looked like outtakes from "Lawrence of Arabia." Various perfumes were displayed on crystal kiosks. I pinched a bottle for my daughter (the bottle said CK Free, which was either the perfume's name or free swag). Then I posted myself near the kitchen and when the chow came out, lunged. The food was first rate and never stopped coming. "I see you have a hand free," said one server, handing me soup in a shot glass as I scarfed a mini burger. The Canadians are rarely sarcastic, so this was refreshing. Finally, the publicist, hearing the words Huffington Post, introduced me to the head of the Abu Dhabi Film Commission. I asked him what kinds of films would be showing at the upcoming Abu Dhabi fest (now headed by Peter Scarlet, formerly of Tribeca). He replied he didn't know. Also on hand was the top gun His Excellency, but the publicist said she hesitated to introduce me on account of protocol, what kind I'm not sure. So I introduced myself. Whatever the protocol, I think I blew it and hope I don't have a fatwa on my head. Finally spotted an American film person, but he pretended not to recognize me. I've noticed that the Canadians are on a different wavelength than some American journos: they'll talk to you even when the advantage for them is not hugely and immediately evident. I think that the magical disappearing act of so much print media stateside has altered behaviour for the worse, and many of us turn territorial and guard our outlets like country dogs. As for movies, a stereotype has emerged across several films in the festival: the self-pitying, sell-destructing male in full late-life crisis. Such is the unattractive hero of "Solitary Man, "directed by Brian Koppelman and David Levien and starring Michael Douglas. A former hotshot car dealer rich enough to have his alma mater's library named for him, the Douglas character is a womanizer with heart trouble. Especially ominous is the fact that he refuses to pursue diagnostic tests. His gf Mary-Louise Parker makes the error of asking him to accompany her daughter up to college for her admissions interview. Borrowing from the playbook of other aging Lotharios, Douglas ends up in the same bed as the daughter, who is more than game. Douglas's infraction boomerangs when the gf finds out, and through her rich dad's connections kills the job that would put Douglas back in clover. Though he's now broke and on the skids, neither the pleas of a devoted daughter nor his ex wife's willingness to take him in can keep the old goat from bedding women, including his daughter's friend. Michael Douglas sure looks worse for the wear -- is Catherine, who grows younger looking by the year, wearing him out? But he still has that wonderful grainy voice we learned to love from Gordon Gekko. Spoiler alert: best moment is the film's reveal that Douglas has refused to be responsible and get a medical workup because he wants to live whatever life is left on his own terms. His compulsive shagging is meant to compensate for no longer being top dog. And heart meds, one could suppose, might crimp his ability to perform. At this point you kind of admire the guy's stance -- but the reveal comes too late to save the film. P.S. I finally got my invite to the Sony Pictures Classics Dinner. But the dinner had taken place the night before.
 
Byron Steele: Stroger Had Me Fired As Political Payback Top
At 9 o'clock Monday morning, Byron Steele, First Deputy Director of Cook County's Department of Facilities Management was called downtown and given the ax. Why?
 
Shimkus' Obama Walkout Could Create Campaign Problems Top
When downstate Republican Congressman John Shimkus walked out on the president's health care speech last week, he might have walked into an actual re-election fight. More on GOP
 
Scott Mendelson: Tyler Perry's newest film opens at number one (again) while new horror films flop. Weekend box office in review for 09/13/09 Top
In this current decade, Steven Spielberg, Michael Bay, Steven Soderbergh, Peter Jackson, and Brett Ratner have all had four number one openings. Tim Burton, Bryan Singer, Sam Raimi, and Christopher Nolan have had three. Counting his first film on which he was the writer and producer but not officially the director ( Diary Of A Mad Black Woman ), Tyler Perry has had dominated five opening weekends just since February 2005. The only other director who can equal that is Gore Verbinski ( The Mexican , The Ring , and Pirates of the Caribbean 1, 2, and 3). At this point, it's no longer exciting to discuss another Tyler Perry- dominated weekend . He is without a doubt the most consistent draw in film today. His film may never top $100 million, but they also never cost more than $20 million to make. He is a one-man cash cow and Lionsgate is darn lucky that he hasn't decided to start self-distributing. While Lionsgate may be the house that Jigsaw built, it is currently the house that Madea maintains. And as long as he enjoys the mutually beneficial relationship, Perry's films will continue to rake in the cash for the mini-major long after Tobin Bell has moved on. For the record, Tyler Perry's I Can Do Bad All By Myself opened to $23 million, which is Perry's third biggest-opening weekend and the biggest opening for a film without Madea's name specifically in the title. I'm frankly surprised that someone somewhere didn't find a way to include the popular matriarch in the marquee, since the film (based on Perry's second play) is actually the first of Perry's works to feature Madea (and for those wanting to make the Kanye West incident into a racial thing, we should remember that Madea Simmons would have kicked his butt). The Tyler Perry franchise has famously had terrible weekend-to-total multipliers, with several in the 2.1x area. So expect this new one to follow suit and end its run with just under $50 million. The other openers ranged from slightly disappointing to outright flops. The animated post-apocalyptic fantasy 9 ended its five-day weekend with $15 million. The $33 million feature was an ambitious adaptation of director Shane Acker's Oscar-winning short, spearheaded by producers Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov ( Nightwatch , Wanted ). The PG-13 rated animated sci-fi fable will likely be a minor cult item in years to come, so the film will be a longterm investment for Focus. The other two openers were both horror titles, and both more or less flopped. Sorority Row , a remake of a 1980s slasher picture, opened to just $5.5 million. This may just prove that Summit Entertainment is at a loss when it comes to marketing anything that is not a Twilight film or a star-driven project like Knowing . Lionsgate could have opened this to around $12 million with its R-rating intact, and Screen Gems likely would have chopped it down to a PG-13 and opened it to around $20 million. Warner Bros also failed to catch the usually profitable horror wave with Whiteout . Loosely adapted from a graphic novel by Greg Rucka, the 'something's killing people in the arctic' picture opened with just $4.9 million. This was sold completely on star Kate Beckensale's shoulders, but the picture had the conundrum of selling a star primarily known for her sex appeal (it's not like Sheldon, Leonard, Wolowitz, or Rajesh have seen Snow Angels ) while advertising a film that kept the Underworld star bundled up for the entire picture. Oh, and the remake of Fritz Lang's Beyond a Reasonable Doubt opened on five screens to a whopping $17,364. Um, Anchor Bay, didn't they already more or less remake that picture as The Life Of David Gale ? As for the rest of the holdovers, Inglourious Basterds crossed the $100 million mark on Saturday and now sits with $103 million. District 9 is starting to fall a bit, dropping 50% in weekend five. But it's at $108 million and should crawl its way to $120 million. Like Crank and War before it, Lionsgate's Labor Day action picture Gamer dropped hard in weekend two (-65%), so the (hopefully low-budget) video game action picture should crawl to about $25 million before finding a second life as an impulse rental. At $58 million, The Final Destination is now the highest grossing in the series, as well as by far the worst of the nearly decade-long franchise. In terms of tickets sold, it will end up second to the original picture when all is said and done. And with just $21 million after two weekends and a second-weekend drop of 49%, All About Steve will have the irony of being one of Sandra Bullock's lowest-grossing star vehicles ever (ironic because it's the followup to a $161 million-grossing The Proposal , which bested her current record by about $40 million). Julie & Julia , at $85 million, is getting closer to a first-release gross of $100 million than I expected. And GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra is at $144 million; it will cross $150 million and then be pulled instantly. In Warner Bros news, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince now sits just $1.5 million away from the $300 million mark. Again, expect it to cross said milestone and immediately vanish from theaters. The Hangover is now at $272 million. Amazingly, the $45 million-budgeting comedy is now the seventh-highest grossing film in Warner history (and the third-highest grossing Warner Bros film that isn't a Harry Potter picture). Amusingly enough, nine of the top-15 Warner Bros grossers are either a Harry Potter film or a Batman picture. Expect the boy who lived to further dominate the 'Dream Factory' when the last two films come out over the next two years. That's all the news this weekend on the domestic front ( elsewhere , Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs became the third-highest grossing film of all time in overseas box office). Join us next weekend when another crowded slate brings us Steven Soderbergh's attempt at a fifth top-spot debut with the Matt Damon white-collar-crime-comedy The Informant! , while Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs brings the beloved book to life in a narrative that apparently rips off the first act of Meet the Robinsons . Also debuting in somewhat limited release (1800 screens) is the Jennifer Aniston/Aaron Eckhart vehicle Love Happens, which sounds far too close to the Hugh Grant/Julia Roberts comedy featured on The Simpsons - Love Is Nice . I'm personally looking forward to the gossipy punditry when said romantic comedy shockingly fails to do the business of Brad Pitt's Inglourious Basterds (you watch... idiots will draw carp accordingly). But the most closely watched debut will be Jennifer's Body , which will test both the all-by-herself star power of Megan Fox as well as the alleged bankability of writer Diablo Cody (she of Juno ). I've got nothing against Fox (unlike so many others), but if I go, it'll be more for the sight of Amanda Seyfried in hot-nerd glasses. Scott Mendelson More on Jennifer Aniston
 
Christopher Kelly's Girlfriend Questioned In Probe Into Blago Aide's Death Top
CHICAGO — Police investigating the death of ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich's chief fundraiser questioned his girlfriend for more than an hour Monday, saying afterward she had cooperated but refusing to say in detail what was discussed. Clarissa Flores-Buhelos, 30, a real estate agent and former standout basketball player at Northwestern University, answered questions at the offices of prominent Chicago defense attorney Terence P. Gillespie. "The witness was cooperating, the investigation is continuing," Country Club Hills chief of police Regina Evans told reporters as she left the law offices. She declined to say any more about what she and police had discussed. Christopher Kelly, 51, was found slumped in his car Friday night, the day he was supposed to report to prison to start serving time for tax fraud. He died Saturday morning at a Chicago hospital. Drugs were found in the vehicle and authorities have said the case is being treated as a possible suicide. Kelly had raised millions of dollars for Blagojevich's campaigns and had emerged as a trusted adviser – but became snared in the federal investigation of corruption swirling around the administration of the now-impeached governor. An admitted high-stakes gambler who dropped large sums at the tables in Las Vegas and with bookies, Kelly was due to go on trial on corruption charges with Blagojevich, the impeached governor's brother and three other men on June 3. Kelly, a roofing contractor from Chicago's southern suburbs, had already pleaded guilty to $1.3 million in tax fraud and swindling two airlines in connection with $8.5 million in contracts for work on their hangars at O'Hare International Airport. He had been sentenced to three years on the tax charge and had signed a plea agreement under which he was to be sentenced to five years in the O'Hare contracts case. Those were to be served consecutively. On Friday night, Kelly apparently contacted Flores-Buhelos and asked her to meet him in the suburb of Country Club Hills, the community's mayor said. Mayor Dwight Welch said Flores-Buhelos found him sick in his black Cadillac Escalade and drove him to a nearby hospital. After the questioning session Monday, Gillespie sent word that Flores-Buhelos had "answered questions fully and truthfully for an hour" but declined to provide any details of what was said. "She answered every question she was asked," he said. "She cooperated fully, she answered truthfully, the police seemed pleased." Flores-Buhelos eluded reporters clustered around the front and rear of the building by leaving through a cigar shop on the side. Gillespie had said earlier Monday that Flores-Buhelos called him Friday night and told him that police wanted to question her. He said he agreed to meet with her and the police in his office on Saturday morning. But when she called police back to set up the appointment, they said Saturday morning would be inconvenient and suggested meeting on Monday. Welch told reporters on Sunday that Flores-Buhelos had "lawyered up" and was no longer cooperating with the police – something Gillespie challenged. She was always willing to cooperate, Gillespie said, but merely wanted to be accompanied by her lawyer when questioned. Gillespie also criticized Welch for holding up Flores-Buhelos' driver's license at a news conference over the weekend and suggesting she was unwilling to cooperate. "It's outrageous – I've never seen anything like this in 30 years," Gillespie said. The FBI said Monday that it is not involved in the investigation. "We have no jurisdiction," said Cynthia Yates, a spokeswoman at the FBI's Chicago office. "It's a local matter." More on Rod Blagojevich
 
Ed Schultz Hits Limbaugh About 9/12 Protests: Rush Was In "One Of Those Drug-Induced Stupors" (VIDEO) Top
MSNBC host Ed Schultz went after conservative firebrand Rush Limbaugh for greatly exaggerating the number of people that showed up for the 9/12 protests in Washington D.C. Limbaugh is under the misguided assumption that two million people showed up for this march. In reality, the number was closer to 60,000. Schultz couldn't resist getting a little personal in his shot at Rush: Two million people, huh. Not even close, Drugster, About 60,000 - that's the D.C. fire department's estimate. Rush must have been in one of those drug-induced stupors over the weekend where he was seeing double. Well, actually, he was seeing quadruple on that one. Anyway, he's got a math problem. Or he's just got a lying problem. WATCH: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy Send us tips! Write us at tv@huffingtonpost.com if you see any newsworthy or notable TV moments. Read more about our media monitoring project here and click here to join the Media Monitors team. More on Video
 
Lindsay Beyerstein: Daily Pulse: Teabaggers March on DC Top
Approximately 70,000 right wing protesters converged on Washington, D.C. over the weekend to protest government in general, especially president Obama's health care reform package. The signs they carried offered a glimpse of the unrestrained id of the American right. Some carried placards that read " Bury Obamacare with Kennedy ." Signs denouncing imaginary death-panels and non-existent government-funded abortions were among the less extreme messages on display. Watering the liberty tree with blood was a popular theme. (Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh was wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with that slogan when he was arrested.) Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks, the premiere sponsor of the march, exaggerated the turnout by a factor of thirty when he falsely attributed to ABC News the claim that 1.5 million people showed up. In fact ABC reported the DC Fire Department 's estimate of 60,000-70,000 marchers. A crowd of 70,000 is still cause for concern, especially if its leaders have no compunctions about lying. Saturday's march was the culmination of months of organizing by the same right-wing, corporate-funded institutions that steered disgruntled folks to shout down health care reformers at town halls: FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, Patients United, and their various offshoots. Kibbe and his colleagues are trying to paint the march as a spontaneous grassroots movement, but as Adele Stan explains in AlterNet, the Tea Party/Town Hall/Taxpayer March phenomenon is the culmination of years of work by the institutional right. That explains the jumble of messages on display in Washington this weekend: healthcare/guns/taxes/abortion. FreedomWorks didn't even try to impose message discipline because the cacophony is the message. The entire rag tag New Right coalition, forged in the sixties after the defeat of Barry Goldwater, has risen again. [Photo by bosspop1 , Creative Commons.] This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care and is free to reprint. Visit Healthcare.newsladder.net for a complete list of articles on health care affordability, health care laws, and health care controversy. For the best progressive reporting on the Economy, and Immigration, check out Economy.Newsladder.net and Immigration.Newsladder.net . This is a project of The Media Consortium , a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and created by NewsLadder .
 
Derrick Crowe: Constitutional Death Spiral in Afghanistan Top
The U.S. is pinwheeling its arms on the edge of a very deep abyss in Afghanistan. In a Nixon-like display of corruption and paranoia, Hamid Karzai and his cronies, who would likely have won a legitimate election, engaged in such widespread vote fraud that Afghanistan likely faces either renewed civil conflict or a constitutional death spiral. These factors render General Stanley McChrystal's strategic assessment, which refers to its own "most important component" as "a strong partnership with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) that will build the capacity needed to provide Afghanistan with a stable future," myopic in the extreme. In this context, a review that includes such useless prescriptions as "Promote a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan that serves the Afghan people," shows how far into fantasy land U.S. "strategic thinking" has strayed. Simply put, the political is killing us in Afghanistan. The self-inflicted wounds in the political arena we've bestowed upon ourselves since 2002 may be irreversible and terminal. One thing is certain: if the president can't break out out of the imaginary Afghanistan his advisers are creating for him, we are dead, and we won't be the only ones. Recall the threat made by Abdullah supporters prior to the election : Even before the August 20 poll, Abdullah's supporters were predicting Iran-style protests "with Kalashnikovs" if President Hamid Karzai won in the first round, insisting he could do so only by cheating. Apparently, this was no idle threat: The price of Kalashnikovs has doubled in Afghanistan. For a country awash with arms, the fact that the weapons are now fetching $600 apiece is a cause of some surprise, but a surge of demand is to blame for the increase, with a steady stream of weapons said to be heading for the north. This is the Tajik constituency of Abdullah Abdullah, the presidential candidate who claims the election is being stolen by the incumbent Western-backed President, Hamid Karzai. Despite international pressure, Abdullah has flatly stated he would not accept a position in a unity government. Instead, he wants a second round vote, and a leaked report from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights shows he's likely justified in his demands: The Sunday Times has obtained a report by monitors from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, completed yesterday, which said 1,253,806 votes -- 23% of the total counted so far -- could be fraudulent. According to the analysis, if all these votes were cancelled then Abdullah's share would increase by almost 4 percentage points to 32.03%. Karzai's share would drop by 6.62 points to 47.48%, triggering a second round. The share of Ramazan Bashardost, the third-placed candidate, would rise to 10.7%. But the fine print is a killer. Consider the following somber assessment from ICOS : The Afghan Electoral Law states an election run-off must be held "within 2 weeks after the announcement of the election results". However, a modified schedule had been organised stipulating a second round in the first days of October. As a result of the Electoral Complaints Commission stipulating recounts and audits, this schedule cannot be maintained and final results may well not be known for several weeks. If a run-off or revote is necessary, this would not be hampered in the next months by the harsh winter conditions in many areas of northern Afghanistan. This would delay the second round until spring - leaving Afghanistan in a constitutional vacuum for months. There are no provisions in the Afghan Constitution to allow President Karzai to continue in the Presidency in such circumstances. "This raises the possibility of both a lack of legal authority in the Presidency and resulting political instability and government paralysis dragging on for many months," said MacDonald. "There are a lot of questions to be asked at the moment and no good answers being offered. Great uncertainties lie ahead." So, let's review: We validated a corrupted loya jirga outcome in 2002 that put thugs, warlords, and drug lords in charge of Afghanistan and that silenced democratic reformers. We put our stamp of approval on a corrupted 2004 election, which further normalized vote fraud in the Afghan "democracy." The corruption infesting the Afghan government came to full flower in this past month's election, resulting not only in political unrest, but causing an extended vote verification process that will likely delay a certification of the election beyond the climate's point of no return for a recount. Now, there are only two obvious ways forward: The election commission moves forward with a certification of Karzai's win, setting off the "protests with Kalashnakovs," i.e., civil war between the Tajiks and the Pashtuns (welcome back to problem to which the Taliban were the solution ). The election commission declares a runoff that must be delayed until spring to make it possible for the Tajiks to cast their votes. This delay will mean that the constitutional mandate for the Karzai government will expire before the results of the runoff can be certified, which is to say that the government, legally, will cease to exist. If #1 happens, the counterinsurgents (that's us) will be put in the position of defending an illegitimate government against patriots rejecting the theft of their government by people largely seen as U.S. stooges. If #2 happens, then counterinsurgency is not possible because the vote fraud which the incumbents participated in triggered a process that annihilated their own legitimacy. Regardless of whether you think this war is just or unjust; regardless of whether you think COIN was the right strategy; regardless of whether you believed prior to the election that we need more troops or less troops; whether you think 9/11 required a military response or any of a number of alternatives; the United States has poured massive amounts of blood and treasure into giving the Kabul government a chance to take root, and that investment has not been answered by good faith efforts to create a democratic future for the Afghan people. Instead, it's been answered by actions so base and self-serving on the part of Karzai and his cronies that following the only legal processes for untangling their mess without risking a bloody civil war will drive a legal paradox that revokes their constitutional mandate. This paradox has one bright, shining meaning: the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan failed democracy's test. They are not worth one more drop of U.S. blood. They are certainly not worth the accidental killing of one more Afghan civilian on the conscience of troops put in a no-win situation by U.S. policymakers unwilling to read the writing on the wall. It's over. It's done. Kobayashi Maru . It's no longer a question of whether Afghanistan is "worth it." The only question left to answer is, "how much more Hell will we put our young men and women through because we don't have the political courage to admit the truth, and act?" Derrick Crowe is the Afghanistan blog fellow for Brave New Foundation / The Seminal . You can learn more about the dangers posed to U.S. national security by the war in Afghanistan by watching Rethink Afghanistan (Part Six): Security , or by visiting http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog . More on Afghanistan
 
Lanny Davis: The Definition of the Word "Lie": The Right (and the Left) Need to Re-Learn It Top
Let's face it, whether you are conservative, moderate, or liberal, Democrat or Republican, if you are rational and fair, you should agree: Congressman Joe Wilson was rude, obnoxious, and offensive when he shouted out at President Barack Obama during Wednesday night's speech before a joint session of Congress, "You lie." He was also wrong. Even if President Obama's claim was not true that his health care programs excluded illegal aliens, that does not make it a "lie." Lying requires intentional deception -- not accidental or careless falsehoods. "To lie is to state something that one knows to be false," according to Wikipedia. Lying is a "false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive, an intentional falsehood," according to Dictionary.com. I tested this commonly understood definition of "lie" vs. a "false statement" on my expert on the subject, my 11 year-old son, Josh. "Josh, what's a lie?" I asked. "It's when I tell you I did my homework when I didn't do my homework," he said. "But suppose you thought you had done your homework, because you had done your reading but had forgotten that you hadn't done your math. Would that be a lie -- or a mistake?" I asked Josh. "A mistake," said Josh. "So what's the difference between a lie and a mistake?" I asked Josh. "I never lie to you, dad -- only make mistakes." End of discussion. For Josh at least. Did Rep. Wilson have a shred of evidence that President Obama knew the following statement on Wednesday night was false when he said it? The answer is no. Here is the president's statement: "There are those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." There is no evidence that Mr. Obama believed this statement to be untrue -- which would make it a lie. However, the irony is that Rep. Wilson would have been reasonable in saying (after the speech -- not shouting from the floor) that Mr. Obama's statement on Wednesday night's speech was not entirely accurate or, at least, was ambiguous or incomplete. As Declan McCullagh wrote on CBSNews.com, if Mr. Obama were referring to the only comprehensive health care bill that has yet passed the Congress -- House Bill H.R. 3200 -- then his statement could reasonably be said to be not entirely accurate. Liberal defenders of Mr. Obama, such as MSNBC TV host Keith Olbermann, the next night attempted to trump Mr. Wilson's charge by quoting Section 246 from H.R. 3200: "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS: Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." Mr. Olbermann emphasized the ALL CAPS header in his commentary. But he failed to point out the limit of the provision -- referring only to "affordability credits." As CBS blogger McCullagh pointed out, according to an August 25 report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), there is nothing in H.R. 3200 that specifically excludes illegal aliens from being allowed to purchase private or public insurance on the Health Insurance Exchange. And the CRS concluded that the bill's individual mandate to have health insurance (with tax penalties for non-compliance) would apply to both legal U.S. residents as well as illegal aliens. Moreover, as McCullagh and others have pointed out, Nevada Republican Congressman Dean Heller tried to amend H.R. 3200 in the House Ways and Means Committee by explicitly requiring whoever is eligible under the legislation to prove they are legal U.S. residents when they seek to participate or receive benefits. But that amendment was defeated by the Democrats in a party-line vote. A reasonable inference can be drawn that at least the House Democrats who voted against this amendment did not intend to provide serious enforcement to prevent illegal aliens from benefiting from the legislation. But the fact is, Mr. Obama did not refer to H.R. 3200 when he made his statement. He only referenced "our reform efforts" -- whatever that means -- which could mean what he intended to support in the future, not any specific bill. That may be ambiguous -- but it cannot fairly be labeled a "lie" without any evidence of his contrary plans in the future. By the way, my personal opinion on the issue of whether illegal aliens should or should not be included in the bill: It's a silly argument. Politically, no bill can pass without an explicit exclusion of illegal immigrants, especially now. That's a fact, whether you agree or not. Moreover, it's beside the point. What public hospital emergency room doctor and nurse, dealing with a person suffering potentially fatal injuries, will refuse to help and say, "Show me your birth certificate or Green Card or you can just go off and die?" That doesn't happen now -- which is why we are all subsidizing with our taxes public hospital ER rooms, including treating illegal aliens who are in extremis -- and won't happen if we pass national health care. That is another stubborn fact, like it or not. On fellow Democrats and liberals being too outraged and or sanctimonious about Mr. Wilson's misuse of the word "lie," my humble advice: Beware of opening yourself to the charge of practicing a double standard. Of course there is a difference between shouting the words "you lie" during a presidential speech in a joint session of Congress vs. misusing it unjustifiably outside of the halls of Congress. But the fact is, some Democrats, in Congress and on the left blogosphere, in my opinion, did misuse the "L" word to describe George W. Bush over and over again. Some members of Congress booed President Bush in 2005 during his State of the Union speech -- not as bad as shouting out "you lie" but still bad. And other responsible Democratic leaders remained, with few exceptions, silent in the face of all these examples -- and by their silence, arguably, were complicit. For example, if you Google the name "George Bush" and the word "lie," you will get 2,540,000 hits -- and, it's a safe bet, most of those hits came from certain Democrats who didn't make the distinction between a knowing, intentional deception (a "lie") and an unwitting or careless falsehood. For example, we now know that President George Bush was wrong when he said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which was the primary basis for the preemptive invasion of Iraq. The question is, did he know at the time he said it, repeatedly, that there were, in fact, no WMD? If he did, that would be a lie. If he did not, it would not -- it would be a false statement. There is objective evidence that he did not -- that he had good reason to believe there were WMD because so did President Bill Clinton, his administration, and much of the intelligence community in this country and among our European allies. Yet many Democrats repeated over and over that former President Bush was a "liar" and continue to do so to this day. They failed to make the same distinction as did Mr. Wilson: the difference between intentional vs. non-intentional deception. Whenever I would point out that I did not believe George Bush was a liar based on the many others who believed there were WMD (full disclosure -- we were friends at Yale College and remain friends to this day and I believe him to be sincere), my emails would fill up with the worst and vilest hate from people who called themselves liberals. So, my fellow Democrats, before getting too righteous in denouncing Mr. Wilson, remember the ancient and wise saying from the Good Book (Galatians VI) and be humble: As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Cross posted with the Washington Times and The Hill . Lanny J. Davis, a Washington lawyer and former special counsel to President Clinton, served as a member of President George W. Bush's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. He is the author of "Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics is Destroying America." More on Barack Obama
 
Roger Federer Outburst (VIDEO): Curses At Umpire At US Open Top
It seems the women's semi-final at the US Open won't be the only high-profile match marred by a profane outburst. Although it appears that it was not nearly as intense (and critically important to the match) as what happened to Serena Williams, Roger Federer cursed at the chair umpire after he disagreed with his opponent, Juan Martin del Potro, being allowed to challenge a call after a lengthy period of time. Federer began complaining to the chair umpire that del Potro should not be allowed to challenge a line call so long after the point had ended: "I wasn't allowed to challenge after two seconds. The guy takes like 10 every time." The umpire told Federer to be quiet, and this did not sit well with the tennis champion: "You have any rules? Don't tell me to be quiet, ok? When I want to talk I'll talk, all right...I don't give a shit what he said, ok?" WATCH: Send us tips! Write us at tv@huffingtonpost.com if you see any newsworthy or notable TV moments. Read more about our media monitoring project here and click here to join the Media Monitors team. More on Sports
 
Erica Abeel: Michael Moore Takes on Goldman Top
You could think of Up in the Air by Jason Reitman and The Informant by Steven Soderbergh as an amuse-bouche before the main course of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story . The film is everything I hoped it would be: hard-hitting, instructive yet entertaining, sad and funny both -- in a word, essential. If enough people see the damn thing it could ignite a populist rage that's kept in check partly by ignorance of the economic and social inequities laid out in Moore's expose. Setting forth his argument with homespun logic, intelligence, and drama, Moore takes on the challenge of demystifying the economic meltdown that has brought so many Americans to their knees. He lays the blame on the abuses of capitalism, singling out the bankers and Wall Street, who have launched a financial coup d'etat, substituting their interests for the will of the electorate and Congress. Moore especially targets Goldman Sachs, which profited handsomely following the bailout and whose alumnae dominate Treasury. Kicking off with a parallel between the decline of Rome and the United States, Moore shows us suffering in America and the cruel world of foreclosures and evictions, focusing on one particular midwestern family. Adding insult to injury, the bank pays them a thousand bucks to ready for the next owner a property owned by the family some forty years. He targets as well the vulture-like real estate people -- and a company actually named Condo Vultures -- who flood in to profit from others' misfortune. Another target of Moore's wrath: Ronald Reagan, who oversaw the whittling down of the 90% tax on the wealthy. As a result the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 95%, establishing what Reagan's flacks called a "plutonomy." In contrast, essential workers such as pilots at American Eagle make $19,000 a year, live on food stamps and work second jobs. Another fruit of unrestrained capitalism: for-profit prisons whose owners are in cahoots with the judges to stock them with kids guilty of minor infractions. New to this piece of agitprop are insights into how Moore became a crusader. Apparently as a boy he was attracted to the priesthood, more precisely the activist clergy who went to jail in protest over Vietnam. In a savvy strategy to enlist support for his vision in this God-centered country, Moore enlists a bishop to declare that capitalism is radically evil and runs counter to religion and Jesus. Moore's Capitalism could -- and will -- be accused of over-simplifying. But in this case simple is to the good. When it comes to the economy, mystification is one of the great tools of the Right. Moore does a comic schtick in front of a bank trying to get the wizards of finance to define a derivative. Even a Harvard prof fumphers around without producing a cogent explanation. Of course the film also includes Moore's trademark attempts to bust through security at steel-clad corporations so he can have a productive tete a tete with the CEO. And there's a hilarious sequence of Moore surrounding the Stock Exchange with yellow tape and declaring it a crime scene, to the delight of tourists standing by. Despite the suffering and galling inequity on display, Capitalism delivers green shoots. A number of people, ranging from sheriffs to factory owners, appear transformed by something resembling moral qualms, and turn unwilling to perform as America's executioners. It reminds me of the scene in Eisenstein's Potemkin when the workers under orders to shoot their own refuse to do so. Similarly, in Reitman's Up in the Air the chief "termination engineer" who fires people by video conferencing quits the job in horror over her own behavior. There's a terrific progressive agenda in this year's Toronto lineup. Can a movie alter anything? Doubtful. But these films reveal that there's new awareness in America quietly getting born.
 
University Of Illinois Faculty Leaders Drop Plan To Oust President Over Scandal Top
Leaders of the University of Illinois's Faculty Senate are backpedaling on their call to oust the university's top administrators.
 
John Wihbey: Copenhagen Countdown: Todd Stern's Tough Spot Top
The clock is ticking down ominously on America's potential for climate change leadership, and it's worth taking stock of the historic - and volatile - moment we're now in. Lost in the political storms of last week was an important cry from a key operator: President Obama's climate envoy, Todd Stern. As he urgently called for the Senate to pass a bill to address global warming, the tone of his remarks underscored the worrisome prospects for a new global deal on climate change at the Copenhagen conference in December. "The most important thing is Congress send the president legislation," Stern told the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. "It gives us the kind of credibility and leverage that'd be useful in the context of these negotiations." He said that it is "critical that the Senate now do its part" and said "bluntly" that global negotiations have become "difficult." It was a clear cry for help and action at a crucial moment. Stern's remarks to the Senate in June did not have quite the same sharp urgency: "I would love to have as much progress on the law by the time of Copenhagen as possible. If it can be done by Copenhagen, that would be great." In other words, the great climate deal-making game is now in the fourth quarter. World diplomacy on the issue is accelerating, with several high-stakes events coming up, including the G-20 next week in Pittsburgh and President Obama's visit to China in November. We are barely a dozen weeks from Copenhagen. Take a moment to consider the position of Stern, the globe-trotting special envoy who must lay the tracks for Copenhagen. He doesn't get a ton of press, and he deals in wonky details. But his job is all-important right now. And here's the absurdity of his position: he has to extract promises from other nations who have no faith that his own country, the U.S., can or will deliver on the issue of capping emissions. Moreover, remember that the Senate has to ratify any treaty he helps negotiate at Copenhagen. The U.S. Senate voted 95 to 0 against the last climate treaty, before the ink was dry or President Clinton could even submit it to Congress. So Stern can't guarantee anything on either end. Try playing with that hand. Of course, Stern now has passage of the Markey-Waxman House climate bill to show as proof that America is serious about moving toward a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. But the question has been whether or not mere progress toward the goal - or actually producing a signed bill before Copenhagen - is necessary for the U.S. to strike a Copenhagen deal. The fall began with bad news on that front: the new Senate bill was not introduced by Senators Kerry and Boxer on Sept. 8, as planned, and will be put off until at least late September. So where does this leave Stern? Will he, and the U.S. delegation generally, have the weakest negotiating position imaginable in December - with no more good-faith efforts from Washington, and some very tough, skeptical people across the table in Copenhagen? From a scientific standpoint, the key to making any impact is getting both the U.S. and China to cut emissions dramatically. We produce collectively some 40 percent of the world's emissions. On that front, there has been some progress: starting with the "secret talks" early on; through promising, private-sector technology deals this year, which show a willingness to collaborate. Throughout, Stern has been positive about talks with China, though he's still candid about the fact that there have been no "breakthroughs." Much of what Stern is having to navigate - and this dynamic goes back to Kyoto in the 1990s - is essentially the climate negotiator's paradox of who blinks first: I won't do a binding emissions cap if you won't do a binding cap first, ad nauseum. Still, there's a decent possibility, according to Senator Maria Cantwell, that the U.S. and China might strike a bilateral deal, but no wider agreement could materialize at Copenhagen. "I'd place higher odds on the ability of the United States and China to reach an agreement than I would on us passing legislation or on having Copenhagen agreed," Cantwell said earlier this month during a trip to China. China and India, and other developing nations, have turned up the heat to get serious concessions by the U.S. and other Western countries. They want help with clean tech and billions in aide to help them make the transition to greener economies. They may get some of that, if U.S. politicians can be convinced it won't hurt America's economic competitiveness, and may even lead to new opportunities. Many of the details can be worked out at Copenhagen and follow-up conferences. But the enormous question of this fall season remains: What does Stern need in hand to ink some preliminary deals, the kind that will lead to success at Copenhagen? It's universally agreed that the worst possible outcome would be for the Senate to block a bill in advance of Copenhagen. Perhaps the old nuclear notion of "strategic ambiguity" of some kind on climate progress will be America's position. (Without a Senate bill, there are a variety of default scenarios, explained very well by Kate Sheppard at The New Republic.) Senator Kerry, the Foreign Relations chairman, said in July that a final U.S. climate law would not necessarily lead to failure at Copenhagen: "Look, our goal is to pass it. I don't think we even have to have it passed, essentially. But our goal is to do that. And it's better if it is. But it's not catastrophic if it isn't." It may not be catastrophic. But it sure leaves Todd Stern, the man of the climate change hour, in a tough spot. More on Climate Change
 
Kristina O'Neill: Lady Gaga's Pantslessness Influences Designers; New York Eagerly Awaits Marc Jacobs Top
I like to start Fashion Week off on the right foot, and for me that means the right footwear. Sadly, that wasn't the case this season. While I had major shoe crushes (all the tough-chic "shooties!"), I had no designer kicks of my own to boast about. And so, I still pad around in my well-worn K. Jacques gladiator flats. The right shoes will take me from my home in Brooklyn all the way to the cobbly streets of Paris , so I need a pair that will literally go the distance. Lucky for me, the first weekend of the New York shows wasn't too hectic and I was able to locate a Burberry wedge bootie with a crepe sole. Picture a chic sneaker. Sold. Shoe problem solved, I could concentrate on the clothes I was seeing -- although nothing has blown me away yet. Sometimes that's okay; often the best trends creep up on you. I've been contemplating "couture sport," mulling over the positive effect of cobalt blue, and flirting with the idea of feathers. But it won't be until after we see Marc Jacobs tonight that the blueprint of the season will be laid out for us. You see, Marc might not be fashion's most precise designer, but he is its most perceptive, defining the mood of the times, rolling out the plan in New York, and etching it into our desires at Louis Vuitton in Paris three weeks later. After Marc's show tonight, everyone will be donning their bubblegum-pink wristband to get into his afterparty (thrown by V magazine), where Lady Gaga will play. I find her influence on fashion fascinating. Even Derek Lam , one of American sportswear's clearest voices, showed pantless looks yesterday (but thankfully not the full lion face mask she wore to the MTV Awards). This wasn't swimwear by any means. Think gorgeous crepe blouses that Joan Crawford would have favored, but without the bottom half, which he cheekily termed "deck sides." Someone who isn't big on pants, but isn't exactly running around in her underwear, either, is Victoria Beckham (pictured here at her show with Bazaar staffers) , who is in her third season of her dress collection. We saw her yesterday afternoon for an intimate presentation narrated by VB herself. As it turns out, the former Spice Girl has a spicy sense of humor herself. Of a strapless mini, she said, "There's something quite sexy about the fact that it looks like it could fall down at any minute," and when her showstopping finale dress in a deep cerise came out, she joked that what she loves best about it is "how beautifully it will clash with the red carpet." Ahh, if only everyone's fashion dramas were that, well, dramatic. For more on New York Fashion Week, check out our full Fashion Week coverage with behind-the-scenes videos, party pictures from all the hottest fetes, and early looks at trends for both fall and next spring.
 
Billy Parish: A Big Breakthrough on Green Jobs Top
The New York State Senate and Assembly, too often a model of corruption and dysfunctionality, rose above petty politics last week to pass forward-thinking legislation on climate and energy, setting a precedent for bipartisanship and a sensible cap and trade system. The State Senate passed the groundbreaking Green Job/Green New York Act , with strong support from Republicans, Democrats, and the Working Families Party, which spearheaded the legislation. The bill -- expected to be signed into law this week by Gov. David Patterson leverages $112m in revenue from the Northeasts's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) into $5 billion of private investment to finance home weatherization, energy efficiency projects, and green jobs creation. We should all be paying closer attention for three reasons: 1) It is one of the first large-scale pieces of legislation that concreteley demonstrates why green jobs are a win-win-win. Homeowners win by reducing their energy costs. The private sector wins by gaining a safer investment with strong expected returns. strong return on investment. And New Yorkers benefit through the creation of 16,000 new jobs and the increased economic activity and tax receipts the program will generate. It's a blueprint that can work other states and regions as well. 2) It's also a model for sensible national climate and energy policy. While the version of the American Clean Energy & Securities Act that passed in the House gives away a substantial portion of the pollution allowances to utilities, the RGGI program in the Northeast auctions off the credits creating the $112 million in revenue, which the state is leveraging 50x to create new jobs and save homeowners on their heating and electricity bills. 3) Finally, the Green Job/Green New York Act highlights the power of bipartisan efforts to achieve common sense solutions. Republican support is what made the bill possible. Rather than fight any effort for sensible policy like the national Republican leadership, local leaders have proven to be in touch with the concerns of their constituents, helping to pass the bill 52-8 in the Senate and 147-0 in the Assembly. But putting politics aside and the needs of New Yorkers first, they showed the way for national cooperation on this issue. To learn more about the bill and its passage, check out David Sasson's piece on SolveClimate.org. This entry is cross-posted on Grist.org. More on Climate Change
 
Carl Pope: Did Thomas Jefferson Think Corporations Were People? Top
Washington, D.C. -- The Supreme Court has just finished hearing oral arguments about whether it should overturn 102 years of precedent and rule that corporations have the same right to spend money to influence elections that citizens possess. The Court stunned most observers back in June, when it asked for reargument in what seemed a small and narrow case: Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission. At issue was whether the McCain-Feingold legislation, which banned corporate and union electioneering, also precluded a corporation from distributing a movie highly critical of a political candidate (in this case, Hilary Clinton). That's hardly an earth-shattering question, except to those involved. But in asking for reargument in that case, the Court invited the publisher of the movie to make the case that Congress did not have the authority to limit corporate political expenditure, even though as far back as 1902, and as recently as 2006, the Court had upheld that authority. Since the conclusion of the oral arguments, media coverage has focused on Chief Justice Roberts, who seems likely to be the swing vote. The four most liberal justices have made it pretty clear that they may not think Congress intended to ban making a movie, but they think corporate political expenditures of other sorts can be limited. However, three of the conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) plus usual swing voter Anthony Kennedy appear ready to open the floodgates to corporate dominance of political discourse. The appeal being made to Roberts is that in his confirmation hearing he took a strong stand that the Court should not lightly overturn its own precedents. He presented himself as an incrementalist, a justice opposed to big changes in direction. You can argue whether Roberts has actually lived up to his judicial-restraint packaging, but a huge effort is underway to persuade him, in this case, to do so. Thus, in addition to a New York Times editorial urging a narrow ruling, the Times piled on Roberts with an op-ed by Jeffrey Rosen arguing that how Roberts handles this case would determine whether he goes down in history as another Chief Justice Marshall, Roberts's stated role model, or instead as a new Earl Warren, the chief justice whom conservatives demonize for judicial overreach. It's true that judicial restraint ought to lead Roberts to a narrow ruling in this case rather than overturning a century of precedent. But what's striking is that no one is challenging the three most conservative justices -- yet it's their position on this case that's most contrary to their self-declared judicial philosophies. For Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are "originalists"  -- justices who claim that it is not previous Supreme Court precedent that should govern, but instead the intentions and understanding of those who drafted the Constitution (and its amendments). But the Citizens United case brings into stark focus the great, huge buzzing fly in the ointment of the originalists: They don't believe their own doctrine, not even vaguely. And as far as I can tell, this is almost universally true of those who wear the originalist banner. Here's the problem: If you want to throw out what the originalists call "judge-made law" (interpretations of the Constitution that its drafters did not intend), then you don't get to throw out just Roe v. Wade on abortion, Baker vs. Carr on apportioning state legislatures, and Miranda on defendant's rights. You cannot board originalism like a trolley, ride it through the cases you don't like, and then get off back in 1953, when Earl Warren joins the Court, or even back in 1935, when the Court begins taking a more expansive view of Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce. No, if you want to argue originalism, you must also throw out all the judge-made law of the last half of the 19th century, too. And it is the cases of that era --cases that established that corporations have rights like individuals -- that Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are relying on to make their case for throwing out Congressional regulation of corporate political spending. The key decision came in 1886, in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railway. At the start of the case, the Chief Justice announced that the Court would not even hear arguments about whether the 14th amendment, guaranteed equal rights to all citizens, included corporations -- the Court simply declared that it did. In doing to, it ignored the well-established legal doctrine that once a state gave a corporation a privilege it constituted a contract that must be honored but also that the specific privileges granted came with its charter and did not extend beyond it. Now this was judge-made law with a vengeance. It utterly upset the small-holder character of the original Constitution, with its deeply ingrained mistrust of corporations and other large economic institutions. But even after these cases, the Courts continued to rule that Congress and the states had the right to regulate some corporate political spending. (Indeed, in a 1978 case that restricted the right to limit corporate spending on ballot measures, Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented specifically because he did not feel that corporations were persons for purposes of political speech.) Now what faces the Court in Citizens United v. the FEC is an effort to complete the judge-made revolution that begin in Santa Clara. Corporations would be granted not only the special privileges of their status (immortality, limited liability, protection from most criminal sanctions) but also the full range of political privileges of American citizens. And Alito, Scalia, and Thomas don't acknowledge this enormous incompatibility with their purported judicial doctrine, and few in the media have challenged them on it. (Briefs have been filed with the Supreme Court raising this issue -- but they get barely any public notice. ) In the oral arguments, newly arrived Justice Sotomayor raised openly from the bench, for the first time in decades, the question of whether the original corporate personhood cases like Santa Clara were rightly decided. If the Court overreaches in this case, it may find that it has done the thing that Bob Dole used to say was always the worst error you could make in politics -- to kick a sleeping dog. Americans have, by and large, forgotten or never heard of the Santa Clara decision. Do Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia really want to remind them? More on Supreme Court
 
Casey Gane-McCalla: Katrina's Lessons Are as Important as 9/11's Top
Last Friday was the 8th anniversary of 9/11. The previous week was the 4th anniversary of Katrina. While the media covered a lot of the 9/11 memorials, concerts and memories, it seemed as if the legacy of Katrina got very little attention. Both events have had a great impact on our country, but it seems as if politicians and pundits only learned something from 9/11. I'd like to think that the lessons of 9/11 would be: Be extremely cautious about domestic terrorists, don't train militant religious fanatics to fight your enemies, because they might come back to bite us and treat all threats against our country seriously. While people in the media talk about the lessons of 9/11 very often, it is rare to hear pundits and politicians talk about the lessons of Hurricane Katrina. While 9/11 left 2,998 people dead or missing, Hurricane Katrina left 2,536 people dead or missing and displaced over one million people. But 9/11 changed several ways the government operates in terms of foreign and domestic polices, while Katrina changed very little. After 9/11, we invaded two countries, started the patriot act and changed airline travel as we know it. Katrina has caused no significant changes in US policy. What the world saw after Katrina, was a natural disaster inflamed by poverty, segregation and racism. While the government may not have been able to stop the hurricane, the U.S. could have definitely prevented the racism and poverty that made Hurricane Katrina way worse than it should have been. Hurricane Katrina was an embarrassment to the United States. Despite its great wealth, the U.S. could not take care of its own. After Katrina, George Bush's approval rating was 45%, half of the 90% it reached after September 11th. Hubert Humphrey once said, "A nation is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. Congress should not ignore the plight of our nation's poorest and sickest beneficiaries any longer." The judgment on George Bush from his reaction to Katrina both domestically and internationally is part of his legacy forever. Still, it seems as if the lessons of Katrina have been lost on the Republican party. The Republicans obviously have not learned anything from Hurricane Katrina, as they continue to disregard poor, disenfranchised people, which is reflected in their opposition to health care. Diseases, like hurricanes, affect everybody. Yet, as in Katrina, the rich seem to be protected against them, while the poor and minority populations are vulnerable and often left with no help to protect themselves against them. If the next Katrina comes as a virus (like Swine Flu), once again the rest of the world will see how America treats its poorest and sickest beneficiaries. That is why we need health care for every citizen. If America has learned anything from the lessons of Katrina, it is that America must protect all of its citizens, regardless of economic or racial backgrounds. Katrina was a reminder of the poor people who are rarely on TV and not seen or heard. These people are Americans, not third world refugees. They are entitled to the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness given to us in the Declaration of Independence. Just like the government is responsible for trying to help its citizens from disaster, it should be responsible for taking care of its citizens from diseases and health risks. Protecting our citizens and keeping our country safe is no just about bombing countries that we think our threats. Not all threats come from Islamic extremists. Hunger, poverty, crime, natural disasters and diseases also threaten the safety of our country and citizens. If we can spend billions of dollars to invade other countries to keep our country safer, we should sacrifice to make the country safer for all of our citizens from natural disasters and diseases. It is time to heed the lessons of Katrina. We are one country and all of our citizens are important, rich and poor, black and white. When a government gives an every man for himself attitude towards disease and natural disasters, it reflects badly on our country. It is the duty of our country to protect its citizens not only against terrorist attacks, but also against natural disasters and diseases as well. That's why we need to make sure every one of our citizens has the right to health care.
 
Sunlight Proposed For County Lobbyists And Politicians Top
Cook County lobbyists would have to disclose new clients within two days of landing them under new ethics rules proposed Monday by county Clerk David Orr and a bipartisan group of County Board commissioners.
 
The Richest Members Of Congress: See The Top Ten (SLIDESHOW) Top
Roll Call has documented the 50 richest members of Congress, finding that the economic downturn had hit this flush group hard : Lawmakers on this year's list reported a combined loss of more than $275 million from their minimum net worth since 2007. While the combined wealth of the 50 richest Members tallied approximately $1.3 billion in 2008, that figure falls nearly $171 million short of the previous club, which put up a total of almost $1.5 billion. Still, none of these lawmakers are scrounging for cash. Here's a slideshow of the top ten: Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Photo Galleries
 
B. Jeffrey Madoff: An Honest Display of Lying Top
Commuters jammed the train. As one commuter exited, another immediately sat down next to me. "Oh, it's you," he said. "I remember you. " I remembered him too. "Listen," he said, opening his laptop. "I'm not interested in discussing politics with you. We have different points of view. You're not going to convince me of anything and I'm probably not going to change your mind either." I nodded. He was right. What's the point of having a discussion with someone when you already know the outcome? I looked out the window, content to count the rapidly passing trees. He turned to me, "So, what did you think of your boy Obama's speech the other night?" My boy Obama? "I thought you didn't want to discuss politics." "I don't. I was just wondering what you thought about his speech. He went on and on -- must've been 45 minutes. " "You want my opinion on the length of his speech?" "Never mind." He turned his attention back to his computer screen. "What was your opinion of the Congressman from South Carolina, Joe Wilson, yelling "You lie!" at the President." I asked him. "It may not have been appropriate, but it was an honest display of emotion." "So if someone assaults someone who they disagree with, the fact that it was an honest display of emotion ought to square things?" I asked. "That wouldn't fly in a courtroom. Sorry I shot those people, your honor, but it was an honest display of emotion." "You're making a big deal out of a little outburst," he said dismissively. "It would be more credible if Wilson and others like him showed their distaste of government sponsored health care by giving up their own government sponsored health care." "He said he was sorry, what more do you want?" he countered. "I'm sorry I had sex with your wife said your neighbor." "That's offensive." "It's offensive that an elected official behaved like a drunk in a barroom during a Presidential speech. Whether you agree with him or not, Obama is the president and there is supposed to be a respect for that office. You talk about family values and role models, what kind of message is his behavior sending?" I asked. "This is just another example of the left trying to demonize the right." "I admit I do have a fundamental problem with people showing up armed at town hall meetings, shouting down others who disagree then taking that same kind of disruptive behavior into a presidential speech. It stretches the boundaries of acceptable behavior. What happened to civilized debate?" "I feel bad for Joe Wilson. He's being made an example of." "This is the best thing that ever happened to him," I countered. "A few days ago nobody knew who he was, now everybody does. He certainly couldn't get a national reputation for his accomplishments in Congress." "Listen, a lot of people just want their America back," He was agitated. "Are you talking about the Navajos?" "I'm talking about almost two and a half million people who showed up in Washington to protest health care reform and the direction of this administration." He was getting more agitated. "Where did you come up with that number?" "That was the official estimate, " he said. "You lie!" I shouted. "Associated Press estimated the crowd to be tens of thousands, ABC news reported 60,000-70,000. Freedomworks, the organizer of the march estimated "hundreds of thousands" on their own website." "These were estimates from bloggers who were there-" "I guess you're right," I agreed. "People like me have been unreasonable about hearing the other side of the health care debate. What is the other side of the debate?" "The current plan provided coverage for illegal immigrants until that was brought to light." "You lie!" I shouted. "I beg your pardon?" I continued,"You lie about the plan covering illegal immigrants, you lie about health care reform leading to socialized medicine, you lie about care being denied to the elderly, you lie about the government eliminating Medicare, you lie about the President brainwashing our children-" "That's unfair, untrue and rude-"he interrupted. "In fact, the success of "Cash for Clunkers" is being combined with health care reform so sick old people can be traded in for younger, healthier ones. Your grandparents could end up being younger than you -- and you get a new car in the trade." "Now you're being ridiculous-" "Maybe if I say it loud enough and often enough people will believe it - it works for you." He angrily snapped his laptop shut. "There are legitimate questions about the costs," I said, "how it will be paid for, what services would be affected, how it will be implemented, what is included, what isn't - rational questions for a rational discussion-" "I'm not interested in your idea of rational discussion." He got up to leave as the train screeched to a halt. "Our country is at risk of a government takeover of our health care system." "I agree with you." He looked back at me, puzzled. "You agree?" "I agree that you're not interested in having a rational discussion." He turned away, muttering, "You lie," under his breath. More on Health Care
 
Canadian PM Harper Says He Won't Extend Afghan Mission Top
TORONTO — Canada will not extend its mission in Afghanistan even if President Barack Obama asks him to when the countries' leaders meet this week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Monday. Harper spokesman Dimitri Soudas reiterated in a briefing Monday that Canada will withdraw its troops in 2011. One hundred and thirty Canadian soldiers and a diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan, where Canada has 2,500 troops. "Canada's position is clear," Soudas said. "The military component of the mission ends in 2011." Canada first sent troops to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the United States and increased its deployment after declining a U.S. request to dispatch troops to Iraq. Although Canada has usually served in more of a peacekeeping role in overseas missions after World War II, Harper has been a steadfast ally in the post-Sept. 11 fight against al-Qaida. In 2005, Canada assumed responsibility for Kandahar, one of Afghanistan's most dangerous provinces. Last year, Harper said Canada had done its part after serving in the volatile region and announced Canada's troops would be withdrawn in 2011, extending its mission by two years. Although Canada's participation is slated to end in two years, critics are growing increasingly wary of a mission that they see as too dangerous. Soudas said post-2011 Canada will examine what other contributions it can make in reconstruction, aid or training. The Obama administration is considering whether to boost the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond the 68,000 approved to be there by the end of the year. Violence in Afghanistan has soared to record levels, requiring more troops to secure wide stretches of countryside. "We expect that the president will have a chance to discuss with Prime Minister Harper when they meet on Wednesday our combined efforts in Afghanistan, where Canada has made significant contributions and sacrifices," U.S. National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer said. "The two leaders have met more than half a dozen occasions so far, which reflects the strength and breadth of the bilateral relationship." Obama and Harper also are expected to discuss the economy, border security and the environment during Wednesday's one-hour meeting in the Oval Office. The prime minister visits Obama as a possible election looms in Canada. The main opposition party has vowed to try to topple Harper's minority government in a no confidence vote at the first opportunity. That might happen as soon as Friday. Harper will also visit the Senate majority and minority leaders and the House of Representatives speaker on Thursday to express concerns about the so-called Buy American provisions in the U.S. economic stimulus package. Those provisions that exclude Canadian companies from state and municipal construction projects. The Canadian government and the Obama administration have named negotiators to examine a proposal by Canada that would grant American firms guaranteed access to Canadian procurement contracts in return for a waiver on Buy American provisions. Canada and the U.S. share the largest trading relationship in the world. About 70 percent of Canada's exports go to the U.S. Soudas called the relationship with the U.S. Canada's most important. The two leaders have already met several times but it will be Harper's first official trip to meet Obama in the U.S. Obama visited Ottawa in February, shortly after being inaugurated, in his first visit to a foreign country as president. ___ Associated Press Writer Darlene Superville in Washington contributed to this story. More on Afghanistan
 

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)