Monday, October 26, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Huff TV: Arianna Weighs In On The Senate Health Care Bill And The Challenges Ahead Top
Arianna appeared on MSNBC's Countdown With Keith Olbermann Monday evening to discuss news that the Senate's health care bill would include a public option for health insurance. While Arianna considered the bill's inclusion of a public option to be a step in the right direction, she also pointed to the troubling aspects that remain in the legislation. "There's is still a lot in the bill which is very troubling. There is the concession to Pharma, which means we cannot negotiate for lower prices because of economies of scale that the government has. There is the fact that the public option would only really reach about 10 million people. It would not affect anybody who already has insurance through their employer. And there is of course the opt out, which means that many, many, millions of people potentially, may not be able to have access to the public option. So There is a lot that is troubling, but it is definitely a step in the right direction with many road blocks remaining." Arianna and Keith went on to discuss the possibility that Democratic Senators Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska may not support the Senate health care bill. WATCH Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Health Care
 
Robert Reich: Breaking Up the Big Banks, and Why Congress Won't Do It Top
And now there are five -- five Wall Street behemoths, bigger than they were before the Great Meltdown, paying fatter salaries and bonuses to retain their so-called"talent," and raking in huge profits. The biggest difference between now and last October is these biggies didn't know then that they were too big to fail and the government would bail them out if they got into trouble. Now they do. And like a giant, gawking adolescent who's just discovered he can crash the Lexus convertible his rich dad gave him and the next morning have a new one waiting in his driveway courtesy of a dad who can't say no, the biggies will drive even faster now, taking even bigger risks. What to do? Two ideas are floating around Washington, but only one is supported by the Treasury and the White House. Unfortunately, it's the wrong one. The right idea is to break up the giant banks. I don't often agree with Alan Greenspan but he was right when he said last week that "[i]f they're too big to fail, they're too big." Greenspan noted that the government broke up Standard Oil in 1911, and what happened? "The individual parts became more valuable than the whole. Maybe that's what we need to do." (Historic footnote: Had Greenspan not supported in 1999 Congress's repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, which separated investment from commercial banking, we wouldn't be in the soup we're in to begin with.) Former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, whose only problem is he's much too tall, last week told the New York Times he'd like to see the restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act provisions that would separate the financial giants' deposit-taking activities from their investment and trading businesses. If this separation went into effect, JPMorgan Chase would have to give up the trading operations acquired from Bear Stearns. Bank of America and Merrill Lynch would go back to being separate companies. And Goldman Sachs could no longer be a bank holding company. But the Obama Administration doesn't agree with either Greenspan or Volcker. While it says it doesn't want another bank bailout, its solution to the 'too big to fail' problem doesn't go nearly far enough. In fact, it doesn't really go anywhere. The Administration would wait until a giant bank was in danger of failing and then put it into a process akin to bankruptcy. The bank's assets would be sold off to pay its creditors, and its shareholders would likely walk off with nothing. The Treasury would determine when such a "resolution" process was needed, and appoint a receiver, such as the FDIC, to wind down the bank's operations. There should be an orderly process for putting big failing banks out of business. But this isn't nearly enough. By the time a truly big bank gets into trouble -- one that poses a "systemic risk" to the entire economy -- it's too late. Other banks, competing like mad for the same talent and profits, will already have adopted many of the excessively-risky banks' techniques. And the pending failure will already have rocked the entire financial sector. Worse yet, the Administration's plan gives the big failing bank an escape hatch: The receiver might decide that the bank doesn't need to go out of business after all -- that all it needs is some government money to tide it over until the crisis passes. So the Treasury would also have the authority to provide the bank with financial assistance in the form of loans or guarantees. In other words, back to bailout. (Historical footnote: Summers and Geithner, along with Bob Rubin, while at Treasury in 1999, joined Greenspan in urging Congress to repeal Glass-Steagall. The four of them -- Greenspan, Summers, Rubin and Geithner also refused to regulate derivatives, and pushed Congress to stop the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation from doing so.) Congress is cooking up a variation on the "resolution" idea that would give the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation authority to trigger and handle the winding-down of big banks in trouble, without Treasury involvement, and without an escape hatch. Needless to say, Wall Street favors the Administration's approach -- which is why the Administration chose it to begin with. If I were less charitable I'd say Geithner and Summers continue to bend over bankwards to make Wall Street happy, and in doing so continue to risk the credibility of the president, as well as the long-term financial stability of the system. Wall Street could live with the slightly less delectable variation that Congress is coming up with. But Congress won't go as far as to unleash the antitrust laws on the big banks or resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act. After all, the Street is a major benefactor of Congress and the Street's lobbyists and lackeys are all over Capitol Hill. The Street obviously detests the notion that its behemoths should be broken up. That's why the idea isn't even on the table. But it should be. No important public interest is served by allowing giant banks to grow too big to fail. Winding them down after they get into trouble is no answer. By then the damage will already have been done. Whether it's using the antitrust laws or enacting a new Glass-Steagall Act, the Wall Street giants should be split up -- and soon. Cross-posted from Robert Reich's Blog. More on Financial Crisis
 
Virginia M. Moncrieff: Look Who's Not Talking. Bono! Top
During U2's live streaming from the Rosebowl it seems that the unthinkable has happened. Bono has started editing himself. There was still some of that naff self righteous patter but I remember U2 concerts when you could retire to the back stalls for a bit of a snooze between songs while Bono rabbited on about Burma, or Mandela, or whales, or the memory of Martin Luther King or the Troubles......whatever. Don't get me wrong. Among many of my friends I am often the only one who thinks dear Bono is actually doing something incredible during his days off (unlike those people lounging on sofas criticising him, for it seems, working to alleviate world hunger and poverty) but I now prefer my live music served up sans manifesto de half baked. Now this wasn't always the case. I once saw Courtney Love eat up most of Hole's set slurring her way through an unintelligible stage patter. She was talking total rubbish but yes, it was utterly mesmerizing. At the same festival Iggy Pop spent a great deal of time talking about his dick and then thought the best thing to do was show it to us. (I was too far from the stage to now give an honest assessment of the appendage). And at the same festival Rage Against The Machine table-thumped against a grab bag of causes that left me totally addled. Cuban refugees, the arms race, Africa, Republicans, pseudo-Republicans, gay Republicans, gay hating Republicans, gay Cuban refugees. Zack de la Rocha raved on ..........and on, and the gaps between the songs were so long that I could have completed a sophomore political science thesis and had time to spare. This was a very long time ago. Several generations ago in rock years (which if you add up rock years like you do dog years, you begin to feel creakingly old at oh, about 30). There was nothing unusual at all about the amount of time The Ig , Courtney and Zack blathered on. Now granted, even in the loosey goosey world of rock and roll Courtney Love is the exception to just about every rule, but don't you think that times have changed? No longer are we content to hear the tin pot half-baked undergraduate political ramblings of some bloke who just happens to have the mic. What in the hell would he know? And why is he breaking up the set like that? Start with your first song and don't stop paying until the final bar of your last. Thank you, money well spent. I realised I was over the political science lessons one night in a gigantic pub venue where some of the best alternative bands were playing. Granted, I was older than most of the audience, but in my defence so I was still pretty young (it was a long time ago). A band with members that I knew quite well played, and the lead singer - a lovely guy who fancied himself a bit of a political activist - chatted between songs from a seeming shopping list of pet causes including the right wing governor of his home state. His diatribe went like this (and I am fairly sure I am recounting this word perfectly). "Now listen, this dude is, you know, like a bad man and yeah! Like yeah! We gotta you know...yeah right! .......it's like bad news man, and he's a fascist and man, he's just bad news, I'm here to tell you......so like wow.....". In fairness this chap was a fan of John Pilger which would dull anyone's political acuity but honestly, I was hoping that he would just shut up and get on with the set. The last big concert I saw was Nine Inch Nails. Now Trent really knows how to shut up. The band walked on stage and cranked it up. About an hour later Trent spoke for the first time. "Thank you" he said. Then off they churned again with their industrial strength boil-in-the-bag assault. My skull was catapulted onto the back wall of the arena and I didn't want to have to stop for a minute to hear Trent crap on about many of his causes. And he does have them. We all know that Trent is an ardent animal rights activist and musician's rights advocate. Last week he came out all guns blazing about the use of music as torture at Gitmo. But did he give us a lecture and a bit of finger wagging in between Head like a Hole and March of the Pigs? Thankfully, no. Toward the end of the set, Trent mumbled the names of the band with a bit of an arm wave in their direction. Didn't catch the names, didn't care. I was waiting for more songs with naughty words in them. Maybe I'm just more grown up and going to more grown up concerts although my desire to hear naughty words in NiN songs may be an indication that this is not entirely true. But the need to fly your political colors, or just ramble about the addled state of your brain (refer: Iggy and Courtney) or have meaningless discussions with the audience about how- is everyone-feeling-this-great-day seems to be receding. Is it because rock is the mainstream? Or is it because as esteemed music critic Greil Marcus famously once said, (and I am paraphrasing here) we are just too grown up to get our political education from some numbskull with a guitar? Like I said, I have lived my life in love with numbskulls with guitars, but now it seems cooler than ever to just shut up.
 
Diane Dimond: The Crime Clock And You Top
The official "Crime Clock" is counting down the odds that you or a family member or a friend will be touched by violent crime in the coming year. Think it can't happen to you? The Crime Clock doesn't recognize race or age or gender. It's all about statistics. The figures are compiled each year by the National Center for Victims of Crime. The numbers come from various government and private agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Council of Better Business Bureaus. The Crime Clock might easily be dismissed as just a bunch of numbers but it really isn't. It's the scoreboard on which America keeps track of all the criminal ugliness that happens in our country. Take the individual crimes committed and divide by the number of citizens we have and you get numbers that will leave you numb. While I'm usually skittish of statistics that can be easily manipulated or interpreted in biased ways I really think you can take these stats to the bank. Ready to digest some mind boggling figures? There are so many homicides in America every year it extrapolates to this: One person is murdered every 31 minutes in America. One person, woman or man, is raped every 1.9 minutes. One child is reported abused or neglected every 35 seconds! Stop for a minute and imagine the true impact of these statistics. The agony of men, women and children left behind in the wake of these crimes, their scars carried for a lifetime. And that's not all. The Crime Clock tells us one person is killed in an alcohol related traffic accident every 40 minutes in America - that's more than four dozen people every single day. One woman is victimized by an intimate partner every 52 seconds; one man is similarly assaulted every 3 and a half minutes. Just imagine the number of people crippled by domestic violence every single day. It's mind boggling! One American home is burglarized every nine seconds. So what do you think your chances are of coming home one day to find your home has been violated, your belongings gone? One elderly person falls victim to a violent crime every 4 minutes in the United States and every single hour of every single day someone reports they have been victimized as part of a hate related crime. What are we doing to each other? Last week in this space I wrote about a wonderful organization called Crime Survivors (www.CrimeSurvivors.org) based in Orange County, California, founded and maintained by crime survivor Patricia Wenskunas. The group struggles to make sure victims of crime are not forgotten in a system that gives so much benefit of the doubt to criminal defendants. I'm not knocking the idea of "innocent until proven guilty," I just think we should give equal consideration to those left victimized. Patricia's mantra is that victims are blameless, that they can rise above their victimhood into true survivor status with the proper support. Reading mere numbers can sometimes fog the brain. It's not until we hear individual stories about specific victims that we can truly begin to focus on the plight of victims and their families who suffer through the crime with them. For every high-profile media case - think Matthew Sheppard, Elizabeth Smart or Jaycee Dugard - there are hundreds of thousands of others each year you never hear about. I doubt you heard about Patricia Wenskunas's terror. She had suffered an eating disorder since childhood molestation by an uncle. As an adult, a single mother, she decided to hire a trainer to get her on a healthy path. Nine months into the program her trusted trainer invited himself to her home where he surreptitiously drugged her, beat her black and blue, bound her and suffocated her with layers of saran wrap. She survived, she told me, because when he threatened to kill her son if she screamed she leaped off a balcony to find help. At that point Patricia the victim became Patricia the survivor. None of us should be complacent or fall into the trap of thinking crime happens to someone else. The Crime Clock says otherwise. The Crime Clock shows us the odds are not necessarily in our favor of getting through life without being touched by the constant swirl of crime that infects our country. I've met a lot of victims in my line of work. None of them want to suffer with the burden of what they've been through. I come away thinking there has to be a way we can help those of our fellow citizens most deeply damaged by violent crime. Patricia, and groups like hers, can't do it alone. Diane Dimond can be reached through her web site at: www.DianeDimond.net -30-
 
Bill and Melinda Gates To Share "Impatient Optimism" Via Webcast Top
Although the U.S. sends billions of dollars to other countries in foreign aid each year, Bill and Melinda Gates understand it's hard to wrap our minds around what that means for a single person on the other side of the world. That's why they've launched " The Living Proof Project: U.S. Investments In Global Health Are Working " through the B ill and Melinda Gates Foundation . The project comprises an ongoing collection of personal stories, multimedia and progress sheets that document the success of the U.S.'s global health initiatives. "Our hope is that if more people see this impact they will be moved to share these compelling stories and support America's continued leadership in global health," Melinda Gates wrote in a blog post on Monday. "I know that for Bill and for me, these stories have had a profound impact on the way we look at the opportunities in the years ahead. At our foundation, we have come to believe that sharing stories of success is one of the most important things we can do to motivate and inspire others. Through our work, especially our visits to the field, we have been deeply touched by personal stories of lives changed for the better." To launch the project, Bill and Melinda Gates will speak via webcast tomorrow, October 27. Tune in at 7 p.m. EDT to watch their presentation, " Why We Are Impatient Optimists ," which will highlight some of the remarkable success stories from U.S. global investments and outline those that are yet to come. Impact will feature the webcast here in real time tomorrow. Don't forget to add this special event to your calendar so you don't miss the broadcast. If you're an impatient optimist who can't wait until tomorrow to learn more about this campaign, you can visit The Living Proof Project right now to start learning more about global heath success stories. More on Bill Gates
 
Chris Weigant: Media's Credibility (Not Public Option) Is What Is Dead Top
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today announced that the public option (Charles Schumer's "opt out" plan, in particular) will be contained in the bill he moves to the Senate floor. This is an absolute shock to the media, since they have been obsessing over only one bill out of a total of five that congressional committees have passed to date -- the one produced by Max Baucus' Senate Finance Committee. Baucus' bill (which took the longest to appear) is the only one of these five bills without a public option. But, in apparent widespread confusion as to how Congress actually works, the media has been pushing the "public option is dead" theme for so long, it's no wonder they're so astonished at today's news. Because it proves (yet again, I might add) that the media's credibility is really what should have been pronounced dead months ago, and not the public option. A quick trip through Lexis/Nexis (searching on "public option is dead") proves this beyond any doubt. Republicans offered this up as a piece of "conventional wisdom," and the media swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker all summer long. While there were voices in the blogosphere's wilderness saying "there are bigger fights ahead, Baucus' committee is a minor skirmish," most of the mainstream media watched the hotheads yelling at town hall meetings, and took an enormous leap to reach the conclusion that the public option was deader than a doornail. Forgetting, I suppose, that a scattering of angry, vocal protesters are not who writes the actual legislation . Or something. At this point, it's hard to even fathom the depths of the media's distractibility on crucial issues facing our nation. Here are just a few of the recurring instances of beating the particular "public option is dead" drum from the past few months (emphasis added by yours truly):   7/29/09 -- Fox News MARTHA MACCULLUM: What we're hearing on the Senate side is that the public option is dead . From the print media: 7/24/09 -- New York Daily News -- "Health Plan Stalls. Prez Concedes It May Not Get To Congress Till Fall" Reid bent to reality as senators on the stalled Finance Committee met for hours hoping to clear the air, emerging to say their talks were "contentious." Reform opponents cheered the delay, predicting it at least dooms the President's push for a government-run insurance option . "I am very confident . . . that if Congress does not pass a health care bill with the public option before Labor Day, the public option is dead," conservative activist Rick Scott said in an e-mail to supporters. Insiders say the delay would not land reform in the morgue. "Not fatal at all," said a Finance Committee aide. Analysts agreed, but predicted the slowdown will prompt a barrage of attacks lasting through the summer. That last sentence certainly appears prophetic in hindsight, I have to admit. Kent Conrad began pushing his "co-op" plan pretty hard around this point, and with it served up more fodder for the "public option is dead" theme: 8/5/09 -- USA Today (with Reuters listed as source) -- "Health Co-ops Emerge As Weak Substitute" Opposition in the Senate is so strong that some negotiators have concluded the public option is dead there . The co-op idea, championed by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., arose as an alternative free of the "government" stigma to provide competition for private insurers. Fox News, of course, pronounced the public option dead repeatedly: 8/16/09 -- Fox -- Fox News Sunday CHRIS WALLACE: Senator Conrad, as a practical matter, especially given what Secretary Sebelius says, is the public option dead? SENATOR KENT CONRAD: Well, there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option. That's why I was asked to come up with an alternative. And I want to just make a tweak to what you've referred to as the cooperative plan. . . . WALLACE: And real quickly, Senator Conrad, because I want to move on to the next fact check, would the president be better off just taking the public option off the table right now? CONRAD: Look, the fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option. There never have been. So to continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort. This line (complete with its "rabbit metaphor") was widely quoted for the next two weeks, which I'll get to in a minute. But later on in the same show, A.B. Stoddard from The Hill newspaper, reinforced Conrad's words, by explaining why the president should just announce to the world that the public option is dead: A.B. STODDARD: I think there's time if he wants to be a strong president and come in even behind the scenes -- if he doesn't declare the public option dead in public, come out and, behind the scenes, start speaking to the liberal members and say, "I want a bipartisan bill by September 15th. I want a reasonable incremental bill that will pass, that will not kill us in the next two elections. You need to stay with me on this." He needs to exert himself. The problem is if they miss that deadline, as Ceci mentioned, then the Democrats -- the liberal wing is going to pile on and say, "Let's just go without them. Let's do a bill without the Republicans. Let's use reconciliation, have a public plan." And President Obama knows that's not -- it's politically just too perilous . But it wasn't just Fox. CNN repeated the "public option is dead" discussion quite a few times. Here is a snippet of one of these, with Joe Klein of Time magazine and Patricia Murphy of PoliticsDaily.com debating the importance of the town hall protesters. Klein shows a rare moment of "gosh, the media is the one who determines what is 'news' so don't act so amazed" -- which is seldom heard from the media pack when marveling at "what is news" without taking responsibility: 8/17/09 -- CNN JOE KLEIN: They're turning out handfuls of people who scream very loud. (CROSSTALK) PATRICIA MURPHY: And they're making the news. (CROSSTALK) KLEIN: They're making the news because we're letting them make the news. (CROSSTALK) MURPHY: And it's working. And the public plan is off the table now. KLEIN: Well, but the public plan was never going to be on the table. Chris Matthews was an early proponent of the death of the public option, and has talked about it for months, both on his Hardball show and on his weekly Chris Matthews Show . An early example was Pat Buchanan saying "I think the public option's dead" on the Hardball that aired August 18, 2009. This show also amusingly had Matthews calling NBC's Chuck Todd "Chuckaroo" on the air, as well as Todd coming out with this frank admission (also rare for the media): "...we always say that the country has A.D.D., you know, and doesn't seem to remember what happened just five minutes ago." Back on Fox, Dana Perino had this to say on Sean Hannity's show: 8/18/09 -- Fox News -- Sean Hannity DANA PERINO: I think what this signaled this weekend is that the public option is dead. It's not coming back. ... They misread the American electorate. They absolutely misread on how seniors were going to feel about this. And they are walking down a road where they're going to not be able to unite the country on anything unless they can pull back. On the show Inside Washington , they got into the "rabbit metaphor" from Kent Conrad's earlier statement. This led to an amusing mistranscription that I just had to include, because it's funny: 8/23/09 -- WJLA -- Inside Washington After saying last weekend that the rabbit will probably be taken off the table, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius this week gave the little fellow a newly sun life. Um, perhaps you meant to type "a new lease on life"? Heh heh. Sorry, when you spend all day reading transcripts, you take your childish humor where you can find it... But the real thing worth pointing out from this show was Charles Krauthammer, a little later on, following the same metaphor down the rabbit hole. Or, as he would put it, the wabbit hole: CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The wascally wabbit is dead. It doesn't have a chance. In the end, the liberals are bluffing. Mara Liasson of NPR put it, I think, correctly. There's no left wing Democrat who's going to lose a seat if the option is left out of the bill. There're a lot of moderate Democrats who will lose a seat if the public option is in the bill. And that will determine how it goes. There'll be no public option. There might be a co-op idea, which is a Trojan horse, which will be a substitute. Wait a minute, I thought it was a rabbit... now it's a horse? I'm confused. Back on Fox, Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove were betting on the imminent death of the public option. While no terms were actually discussed, Rove actually took the "public option is not dead" side of the bet, since he probably knows how Congress actually works, rather than the fantastical way it has been constantly viewed by the media throughout this debate. O'Reilly starts by airing a clip of the two talking the previous week. 9/14/09 -- Fox News -- The O'Reilly Factor (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL O'REILLY: I think the public option is gone. He threw it right out the window. So liberals aren't going to like that. It's gone. I think... KARL ROVE: Bill, I don't agree with you. I think tonight he had a tougher tone on it than before. O'REILLY: No. NO. ROVE: I hope you're right. I thought his tone tonight was very tough. O'REILLY: No, you heard him say, look, the progressives -- this is just the way to get their -- he's going to throw that out. (END VIDEO CLIP) O'REILLY: Well, yesterday, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LINDSEY GRAHAM: Well, I think the public option is dead. It's probably been dead a long time, because the public is very afraid. Eighty-five percent of the people with private health insurance like what they've got. (END VIDEO CLIP) O'REILLY: Here now, FOX News analyst Karl Rove. I don't understand this. It looks like I may have been right. ROVE: I hope you're right. With you and Lindsey Graham saying it's gone, it is Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and new chairman of the Senate Health and Education and Labor Committee, Tom Harkin, saying... O'REILLY: Olympia Snowe, the Republican senator from Maine. ROVE: Forty -- 40/60, forty to sixty. O'REILLY: But you know how much damage there will be if that gets in there. ROVE: Absolutely. O'REILLY: And so I... ROVE: Which is why I'm hoping you're right. O'REILLY: You're not going to bet me a lot of money. ROVE: I will bet you. O'REILLY: How much do you want to bet? ROVE: Well, I'm not a gambler. I'm happy to make a modest bet with you. I hope you are right. Please. O'REILLY: But you're still standing to your guns? ROVE: Because look, it's a question of math. You have a huge Democrat majority in the House. And you have the speaker of the House. O'REILLY: He that could get it done. One-termers. ROVE: Sure. But you know what? If they got that done, that would be one term worth having from the perspective of a lot of progressives. O'REILLY: I don't think Obama wants a one term. ROVE: In the Senate Democrats, you've got people who are flaking out, because they're looking for a way to get a soft public option. That is to say, well, we're not for the public option. O'REILLY: Yes, they'll work for guys... ROVE: We are the trader or the co-opt. O'REILLY: The big federal insurance apparatus isn't going to happen. I said before we had all dodged a bullet because Tom Daschle had to withdraw from consideration for Secretary of Health and Human Resources. Here's why: 9/29/09 -- Bloomberg TC -- Peter Cook interviews Tom Daschle PETER COOK: And right now, as you look at the votes in this committee so far, the underlying bill is basically intact, no major changes to it. If these public-option votes go down today, does that mean the public option's dead? TOM DASCHLE: Well, it means that it's not dead, but that it's not necessarily - COOK: Life support - DASCHLE: Yes. It's probably on life support. It'll go to the Senate floor. There, they will have other votes. There may be other dynamics. There's another amendment on a public option that probably has a lot more possibility, and that is the so-called Snow amendment, which is a trigger for a public option over the course of several years. If we fail to accomplish everything we set out to do, the trigger sets in, maybe in about five years. . . . DASCHLE: I think it's possible, but it's not very probable. My guess is, at the end of the day, Democrats are going to coalesce. They're going to come up with an agreement on something that doesn't make them all that enthusiastic but, in large measure, addresses all of the concerns in cost, access and quality that we've been talking about all year. Back at CNN, Gloria Borger weighed in on the issue: 9/29/09 -- CNN -- Campbell Brown CAMPBELL BROWN: After today's vote, is public option dead or alive? GLORIA BORGER: I think it's pretty dead, Campbell. I think it's safe to say that right now it looks like it's a goner. Alex Castellanos, over at The Situation Room on the same network, agreed, with an Hallowe'eny mental image for us all to enjoy: 9/29/09 -- CNN -- The Situation Room ALEX CASTELLANOS: Look, the president and the Democratic Party, Wolf, for a long time have been very clear. They would like government-run health care. They can't get it now, so they will take what they call a public option, a step toward that. In the short term, the public option is dead. They don't have the votes in the Senate. It's like when you die your hair and your fingernails keep growing for a few days. Well, the public option... it will still keep growing for a few days, but it's dead. It's not going to happen. The Wall Street Journal was also quite convinced: 9/30/09 -- Wall Street Journal -- Greg Hitt Bipartisan vote in Senate Finance Committee defeats proposal for government-run health insurance plan to help those who cannot get affordable insurance; defeat suggests so-called public option is dead in Senate , though it clings to life in House; public option could be revived if Obama administration weighs in strongly; alternative could be 'trigger' option that takes effect only if other steps fail to expand coverage and lower costs The Washington Times agreed (note: the number five is apparently a "large number" to the folks a the Times ): 9/30/09 -- Washington Times -- "Public Option Rejected Twice By Senate Panel; Democrats Defect In Large Numbers, Complicating Reform" In a long-awaited fight that pitted Democrats against one another, liberal lawmakers failed twice Tuesday to insert a government-run health insurance program into the emerging Senate health care reform bill but vowed that the battle for a
 
J.S. McDougall: The Billboard Analogy: The Missing Proof that Social Media Sells Books Top
Coca-Cola isn't alerted by Rickie's Convenience Mart every time you buy an ice cold bottle after walking past their signs at the local little league field. Nike can't run the numbers (groan) on how many times people have purchased new kicks after seeing skinnier people in their ads on the subway. And McDonald's can't track the number of times their mouth-watering billboard on the highway has prompted you to throw your new shoes in the backseat and detour your commute home through the local drive-through. None of these well-worn advertising strategies can show absolute proof of effectiveness. For example, at no point can Coca-Cola print out a Google Analytics chart that reads: Walker Little League Park Location: Plymouth, Colorado Time Period: 09/01/2008 to 09/01/2009 Signs: 1 Size: 3' x 4' Views: 120,658 Unique Views: 107,311 Purchases Inspired by This (1) Sign(s): 69 x 12 oz cans, 135 x 20 oz bottles Unique Views/Sale Conversion Rate: 0.002% So what's wrong with them? Why do they continue to plaster every available surface with their logos and product placement? Are they mad? Do they just looooove throwing around? What's the value of a sign on a fence? The answer is simple: There's value in familiarity. So then, why—if these corporate giants continue to see the value in pouring untrackable advertisements out into the real world—do so many companies hesitate to do so online? "Can we track sales?" is a question I hear often when I speak with book publishers about the potential of participating in the world of social media. It is a valid question. All publishers, especially smaller ones, are right to be weary of investing valuable time and energy into new marketing landscapes. I have two answers to that question. Yes! Sales can be tracked. Just like with pay-per-click advertising campaigns online, publishers can track sales that originate from a specific link that has been passed out into, and around, the digital world. For example, businesses promoting themselves on Twitter can use traffic-tracking services, such as Google's Analytics, to see the number of folks who have come to their web site from Twitter in general, or from a single Tweet specifically. The same is true of Facebook, YouTube, Blip.tv, Current, the blogosphere at large, and any other web site or service out there. In this way, publishers can gauge and evaluate the effectiveness of their social media promotions when customers make purchases their through the business's own web site. No! Sales cannot be tracked. Off-web-site sales, however, are difficult—or impossible—to track. For example, let's say a customer sees a Facebook news item, which promotes your company's latest book, slide down their news feed—but, instead of clicking the news item's link to purchase the book directly from your web site, that person decides, instead, to purchase the book from his or her favorite local book shop. Sure, any sale is a good thing. The problem is—this is one you'll never know about. Or, more accurately, you'll never be able to tie that book sale from the local book shop to the Facebook news item you posted. Is that situation so unlike Coca-Cola's little league signs? Obviously, no mortal publishers can afford to plaster every little league field in the the country with book covers just for a little familiarity. So in order to place books in front of potentially millions of people every day, publishers must market their content online. Most businesses already know this, and therefore, many have invested substantial time and energy building knock-your-socks-off web sites and packing it full of information and content. This is a necessary and wonderful thing to do, but it is only the first step. Here's why: (Comparatively speaking, of course.)   (...and Twitter...and YouTube...and the blogosphere...) Where would you rather plunk down a billboard? Without a social media strategy publishers are limiting their web audience to the people who are already looking for them. And while, great web sites and content are important for high sales conversion rates, they do little to boost traffic. Social media presents you with the opportunity to tap into new audiences and invite interested folks back to your site...for the evening. By participating in the world of social media, publishers can drop their promotional content, friendly sales staff, and valuable expertise into a sea of millions of very-talkative people. Publishers choosing to conduct themselves well * in these new communities will be served well by rapid-fire word of mouth, increased site traffic, and more trackable (and untrackable) sales. This is the new crowd marketing. And we should be happy that—unlike with real-world crowd marketing—it has a relatively low cost-of-entry and we are able to track more than none of the sales. There is value in familiarity. * Social media platforms cannot be viewed as new marketing channels—in the old sense of the term. These are communities. People do not sign on to be bombarded with one-way marketing messages. Businesses doing so get blocked and un-friended and booed and bad-mouthed. People use these spaces for friendly and encouraging interactions. Relax your marketing muscles and go meet your customers. This was originally published on Jesse's blog at http://www.jsmcdougall.com . More on Book Publishing
 
Regina Weinreich: Brighton Beach Memoirs Top
If the view from under the Brighton Beach el is not quite today's world vision, it offers a nostalgia trip to the late 1930's that is worth glimpsing, especially through Neil Simon's round lenses. The subject of Brighton Beach Memoirs , directed by David Cromer, is a budding writer's coming of age. Eugene Morris Jerome, a stand-in for the playwright played by Noah Robbins, a young actor who somewhat resembles Adrien Brody if he were a nerd, narrates the story of his family as he, post-Bar Mitzvah, still home, ventures toward young manhood. He is aided along the way by parents at a time when father knew best, and mother, worried and fed her brood-as fits their economy, liver and lima beans. From an upstairs bedroom in the two-story house, a set beautifully designed by John Lee Beatty, Eugene's brother Stanley (in an excellent performance by Santino Fontana) coaches his younger brother in the fine arts of masturbation and voyeurism, particularly centered around their cousin who along with her mother and sister is now living with them. A war on the other side of the world threatens to provide them with yet another set of relatives escaping Hitler, and you know that this household, though scrapping along between paychecks, would accommodate the expansion. The story follows the rhythms of each character, Eugene's widowed aunt, Blanche (performed winningly by Woody Allen veteran Jessica Hecht), the young sickly Laurie (Gracie Bea Lawrence) studying for her history test, her older sister Nora (Alexandra Socha) headed for Broadway, or probably not, as she goes out at all hours sporting red lipstick. Stanley, himself trying to figure out his next moment, may join the army, and while the upstairs bedrooms and porch provide places for family members to converse and conspire, all come together at the dinner table, where Eugene drops his napkin, the better to see what's under Nora's skirt, and where the others succeed or fail to speak their mind. Overseeing all is Kate Jerome (a good Laurie Metcalf in a role made famous by Linda Lavin) whose illogical logic as mom, through Simon's one-liners and a lot of rolling eyeball, is often the butt and source of the play's abundant humor. You see the hardship of this quintessential Jewish mother in her calculated shtick. But you wish for more warmth, a heimish- je ne sais quoi quality in Jewish family life that is missing and necessary to make this batter leaven and rise. Needless to say, Eugene finally sees the peaks of the Himalayas. You may think you know what this means but see the play to get the full funny impact. In November, this revival will play in repertory with its sequel, Broadway Bound , and I for one can't wait.
 
Antonio Villaraigosa: Fighting Loan Modification Scams Top
In Los Angeles, two thirds of the families facing foreclosure who walk through the doors of our HUD-approved housing counseling agencies have been scammed by so-called mortgage modification consultants. These consultants promise the world to vulnerable homeowners desperate to stay in their homes, charge advanced fees as high as $5,000 and then take the money and run. Today, I took a big step in increasing the resources that homeowners need in order to combat loan scams and foreclosure fraud. I announced the start of NeighborWorks America's national campaign against loan modification scams. I stood with Eileen Fitzgerald, Chief Operating Officer of NeighborWorks America, to deliver this simple message to Angelenos and the rest of country: You don't need to pay for a loan modification. If you are facing foreclosure, there are HUD-approved housing counseling agencies ready and able to assist you FOR FREE. If a deal sounds too good to be true, it is! I was honored that NeighborWorks America chose Los Angeles to launch this valuable campaign. Over the past two and a half years, more than 28,000 Angelenos have fallen victim to foreclosure. That's 28,000 friends and neighbors who lost their homes and their stake in the American dream. Over the past year, we have worked tirelessly to get the message out about the dangers of loan scams to our residents. In fact, in this crisis, we were the first city in the country to ban mortgage modification consultants from charging advanced fees. It's high time that elected officials, non-profit organizations, and banks work together to shut the door on loan scams and foreclosure fraud once and for all. As they say, forewarned is forearmed. By giving our homeowners credible information and directing them to reliable resources, we can beat these scammers! To report a scam or to spot a scam, homeowners should go to the NeighborWorks campaign website , or call 1-888-995-HOPE.
 
How One Small Town Is Bringing Fresh Water To Africa Top
What do a nightclub promoter, a set of adopted twins, and 30 spray-painted driveways have in common? They're all part of one Midwest community's mission to bring clean water to Africans, Quad-City Times reported last week. The story goes something like this: Scott Harrison, a NYC nightclub and fashion event promoter, left the Big Apple for Liberia in search of some spiritual fulfillment. There, he realized the country's huge need for fresh water wells and came back to the U.S. to form charity: water , with the goal of building wells for communities in developing countries around the world. Meanwhile, halfway across the U.S., Muscatine, Iowa residents Jody and Andy Landers decided to expand their family by adopting twins from Sierra Leone. When they traveled to Africa to pick up their children, they too saw the difficulties caused by water shortages. They decided to do something about it by getting their entire community involved. Last Fall, the Landers started Water For Christmas , a campaign to encourage Quad-City region residents to donate to charity: water instead of buying gifts for family and friends: Their efforts worked. Thanks to Quad-City region support, and a growing online presence via various blogs and Facebook, the campaign was able to raise $59,000 in about two months. That money was enough to build 12 new wells in Africa. Harrison's organization says the average well costs about $5,000, depending upon how far underground the water is. Last year's project was so successful that the Landers are expanding their efforts for this holiday season. They've worked especially hard to raise awareness-- For 2008, they got community members and school kids in the region to Dance For Water and this year, they kicked off the new season of giving with a four-mile run/walk. For the duration of the holiday season, Tom Randleman, a local math teacher and Christmas For Water volunteer, is painting the H20 Africa logo on people's driveways for $20 donations. Each donation is enough to provide 20 years of clean water to one African, and more than 30 Muscatine residents have had their driveways painted so far. You don't have to be a resident of the Quad-Cities to do it to spread the goodwill that Muscatine residents have fostered. Charity: water makes it easy to provide fresh water to communities in developing countries in four ways : Volunteer in NYC : The nonprofit is looking for extra help at its headquarters. Become a student leader : According to charity: water, 50 percent of schools around the world don't have clean water. Water For Schools, the group's student-run awareness initiative, will help you champion the clean water initiative at your school. Fundraise for a well : Through mycharity: water , you can create fundraising campaigns and collect donations. The best part? Every dollar raised is tracked to a water project, and in 12-18 months you can see results of your donations using GPS and photos. Spread the Word : Muscatine's online awareness campaign was a big success, and you can add to it by setting your twitter background or blog banner or to one of several cool-looking charity: water images. At Impact, we love seeing a community get so wholeheartedly behind one cause, and this story made us wonder, how have other communities come together to make a difference? We'd love to hear your stories about how the people in your community has effected change locally or around the world.
 
How Reid Found His Silver Bullet: Opt-Out Pitched Just Three Weeks Ago Top
Two months ago, the public option for insurance coverage was being read its last rites. On Monday, it was alive and well after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he would include the provision as part of a broader health care bill. The announcement was a dramatic triumph for the progressive community , which had howled and hissed for months as the prospects for a government-run plan dimmed. But the story behind Reid's decision has more to do with backroom negotiations behind a hastily proposed idea than with a change in political temperament. The compromise proposal that turned out to be the senator's solution for the public option impasse -- allowing states to opt-out of the system -- first came to his attention only three weeks ago, an aide confirmed. In the weeks after the Congress came back from the August recess it was clear that reform in general -- and the public option in particular -- had lost inertia as a result of systematic attacks from boisterous town-halls protesters. In the Senate, the prospects of corralling the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster seemed out of reach. Democrats began kibitzing with each other to find a solution. Conservatives in the party were not on board a public plan, but liberals were equally sour on a bill without one. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle had proposed allowing state governments to set up their own government-run systems back in June . But that too had been ridiculed among progressives. Around the time that the Senate Finance Committee was slated to vote on (and ultimately reject) two variations of a national public option, two of its members -- Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) -- began informal talks about how to bridge the divide within the caucus. Carper went first. The Delaware Democrat proposed a variation of Daschle's state-run entity -- in which states would instead be able to opt in to a national public plan. "It caught on," said one Democratic Senate aide who was privy to the early conversations. "[Carper] started talking about it with other moderates. It seemed inoffensive. [Schumer] recognized it had potential with the moderates and tried to meet them halfway in terms of the having a state option." Days after the first discussions took place, Schumer brought back a counteroffer. Instead of having states opt in to the system, invert it: allow them to opt out. "If you are at the point of supporting an opt in then it is not much of a stretch to support an opt out," the aide said. "But on a practical level it makes a worlds worth of difference. It removes the barrier of creating a public option and makes the barrier getting out of one." Significant hurdles remained. At the most basic level, there was nothing on paper to distribute to colleagues. Schumer and Carper began recruiting members behind closed doors and over the phone. Much of the attention was spent on the party's conservatives. But there was also a recognition that if they went too far, progressives would be offended. Sen. Jeff Merkley, a freshmen Democrat from Oregon, became a voice of support and a key player in the negotiations. "We started talking about the idea of using the federal approach, about using a bridge to get our caucus together. Every single more moderate Democrat felt there was something promising in that approach, that it might be a bridge they could live in," Merkley told the Huffington Post. "It was a federalist approach. States become a laboratory. Some will chose one direction. Others another. This will allow members to go home and say 'no one, no state has have to be part of this if they don't want to.'" It also didn't offend liberals like Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), both of whom, congressional aides said, were supportive of the idea. And after the first report surfaced that it was being discussed -- in the Huffington Post -- the blogosphere was unexpectedly receptive. "It was almost too good," said an aide involved in putting the proposal together. "It almost created the sense that people on the left were endorsing it too quickly. It began to look less like a compromise." And yet, even after the positive initial reviews, leadership remained skeptical. Staffers in Reid's office privately discouraged reporters from trumpeting the opt-out as a solution to the public option bypass, worried that expectations were exceeding political realities. Schumer and Carper kept discussions going and brought the idea up in caucus meetings, aides say. And then, roughly a week and a half ago, they pitched another element to make it more alluring. Instead of allowing the Senate to vote on whether to write the proposal into health care legislation, Reid would simply include it as part of the merged product between the Senate Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee. No longer would 60 votes be needed to pass the public plan. Instead, 60 votes would be needed to remove it. "Rather than see if they would endorse it, we asked them: 'If we did an opt-out would that be the end of the world? Would it be a deal breaker?'" said the aide involved in putting the proposal together. "The ones who didn't like the idea signaled they wouldn't hold up the bill." Reid ended up surveying his members and reaching the same conclusion: more than just bringing together the ideological camps inside the caucus, the opt-out (at least at the onset) wasn't objectionable enough to persuade members to support a Republican filibuster. "The more he looked into it the more he thought it was a compromise that he thought could be supported by the caucus," said a leadership aide. "It's not everything he wants. It is not the silver bullet. But it is a way to thread the needle." Towards the end of last week, after working the phones and talking with members, Reid settled on including the opt-out as part of the Senate's final health care package. "We've spent countless hours over the last few days in consultation with senators who've shown a genuine desire to reform the health care system. And I believe there's a strong consensus to move forward in this direction," Reid said Monday. His decision came despite the private worries of the Obama administration, which remains concerned that the 60 votes aren't there. But skepticism from the White House isn't the only hurdle that remains. While a host of Democrats, including the administration, publicly praised Reid for standing by an opt-out public option, internal whip counts indicate that there are approximately 57 votes for the proposal. Convincing the remaining three caucus members that the bill should be allowed to get an up-or-down vote remains an uphill lift. Having a president that iis non-committal in the process makes it even harder. Meanwhile, the likelihood that the proposal will not have a single Republican member's support removes the bipartisan cover that some conservative Democrats are demanding. Still, the emergence of the opt-out option and its ultimate embrace by Reid has provided a major boost to health care reform and breathed new life into the prospects of a government-run insurance alternative. "I think there has been a big change in momentum since the late summer and a growing belief in the caucus that this is a reasonable compromise," said Merkley. "We think it is going to sell itself."
 
CNN Falls To Last Place In Primetime Demo Top
The October 2009 cable news ratings are in with a major milestone: CNN has fallen to last place in the primetime demographic, the category advertisers covet most and in which three of its four primetime shows finished last for the first time ever. CNN fell to fourth with an average of 190,000 A25-54 viewers in primetime in October, just behind sister network HLN, which averaged 191,000 A25-54 viewers in primetime. Fox News won the prime demo with 583,000 A25-54 viewers, and MSNBC came in second with 239,000. In total viewers, Fox News won primetime with an average of 2,234,000. MSNBC averaged 730,000 total viewers, CNN averaged 679,000 total viewers, and HLN averaged 530,000 total viewers. In the total day ratings, Fox News won among A25-54 viewers with an average of 344,000, while CNN (142,00) and HLN (146,000) beat last-place MSNBC (131,000). Among total viewers in total day ratings, Fox News averaged 1,255,000 for first place. CNN placed second with 486,000, MSNBC placed third with 359,000, and HLN placed last with 307,000. In all categories, CNN and MSNBC fell to their respective 2009 lows, and the networks have taken to squabbling with each other over whose October was better. "We're thrilled to be beating CNN in primetime, where the money is made," a MSNBC spokesperson told the Huffington Post. "We couldn't be more pleased that both our networks (CNN and HLN) are now topping MSNBC in total day and that CNN.com leads all TV news competitors on the web," a CNN spokesperson said. "As we have said for years, we measure our audience across all CNN Worldwide platforms and throughout the day, not just primetime. CNN provides quality journalism and our ratings reflect the news environment more than opinion programming does - especially in primetime." Fox News took the top 13 programs in all of cable news, with "The O'Reilly Factor" on top for the 107th consecutive month. O'Reilly averaged 3,389,000 total viewers; "Glenn Beck" (2,748,000), "Hannity" (2,374,000), "Special Report with Bret Baier" (2,248,000), and "Fox Report with Shepard Smith" (1,989,000) rounded out the top five (full ranker below). "Anderson Cooper 360" is a particular let-down for CNN, as it came in last place at 10PM in the primetime demographic, losing even to repeats of "Countdown" and "Nancy Grace." "Lou Dobbs" also came in last in the prime demo; in fact, "Campbell Brown" also came in last in the prime demo, making "Larry King Live" the only CNN program not to lose in that category (it beat the new "Joy Behar Show" on HLN). Total Day (M-Su), Total Viewers Fox News: 1,255,000 CNN: 486,000 MSNBC: 359,000 HLN: 307,000 Total Day (M-Su), A25-54 Fox News: 344,000 CNN: 142,000 HLN: 146,000 MSNBC: 131,000 Primetime (M-Su), Total Viewers Fox News: 2,234,000 MSNBC 730,000 CNN 679,000 HLN 530,000 Primetime (M-Su), A25-54 Fox News: 583,000 MSNBC: 239,000 HLN: 191,000 CNN: 190,000 7PM, Total Viewers Fox Report with Shepard Smith: 1,989,000 Hardball: 649,000 Lou Dobbs Tonight: 631,000 Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell: 461,000 7PM, A25-54 Fox Report with Shepard Smith: 463,000 Hardball: 182,000 Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell: 167,000 Lou Dobbs Tonight: 163,000 8PM, Total Viewers O'Reilly Factor: 3,389,000 Countdown: 1,020,000 Nancy Grace: 830,000 Campbell Brown: 648,000 8PM, A25-54 O'Reilly Factor 875,000 Countdown: 294,000 Nancy Grace: 269,000 Campbell Brown: 161,000 9PM, Total Viewers Hannity: 2,374,000 Rachel Maddow: 880,000 Larry King Live: 842,000 Joy Behar: 535,000 9PM, A25-54 Hannity: 659,000 Rachel Maddow: 246,000 Larry King Live: 224,000 Joy Behar: 183,000 10PM, Total Viewers On the Record with Greta van Susteren: 1,958,000 Anderson Cooper 360: 689,000 Countdown (repeat): 600,000 Nancy Grace (repeat): 495,000 10PM, A25-54 On the Record with Greta van Susteren: 533,000 Nancy Grace (repeat): 222,000 Countdown (repeat): 218,000 Anderson Cooper 360: 210,000 October 2009 Total Viewers Cable News Program Ranker: October Cable News Total Viewers Program Ranker Live SD - October 2009 A25-54 Cable News Program Ranker: October Cable News A25-54 Program Ranker - Correction : An earlier version of this story said it was the first time CNN had fallen to last place in primetime; the network had actually placed last twice already in 2009. October 2009 is the first month that three of CNN's four primetime programs placed last. The Huffington Post regrets the error. More on CNN
 
Cameron Sinclair: Modernisms' Olmsted: Lawrence Halprin dead at 93 Top
A few weeks ago, I spent a few nights up at Sea Ranch on the Northern California shoreline. I had heard of pioneering landscape architect Lawrence Halprin when I moved to the Bay Area and when the local design community spoke of him, it was as a true living legend. It wasn't until I walked the grounds of Sea Ranch that I truly understood his impact on the California landscape. Breathtaking is an understatement. Yesterday, at the grand age of 93, he passed . Beyond Sea Ranch, Lawrence was best known for the FDR Memorial in Washington DC, the approach to Yosemite Falls and in SFs' Ghirardelli Square, United Nations Plaza, Levi Plaza and Stern Grove. Winner of many medals and awards, Halprin kept working well into his nineties. He is survived by his wife, dancer and choreographer Anna Halprin and daughters Daria Halprin-Khalighi and Rana Halprin. Anna said of her husband, "He believed that the most important thing about designing is to generate creativity in others and to be inclusive" He authored least eight books and produced a documentary on Salvador Dali. However it will be his impact on the land that will be his lasting legacy as moderisms' Olmsted. interesting find -- Halprin talks about the movie Dark City and why we walked out * 'Modernism's Olmsted' coined by @svrdesign via twitter (thanks!)
 

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)