Monday, November 2, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Jonathan A. Schein: Airline Industry Posts Green Gains Top
It appears that addressing the airline industry's approach to green causes a lot of blowback. For example, I was asked to stop "getting high by sucking the tailpipe of your Prius" for having the temerity to be underwhelmed by Southwest Airlines' new green initiatives.  I did say that any start is good, but SA needs to go further to really make an impact.  In a nod to impartiality, here is an green airline story that is truly making an impact. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized DFW International Airport in their Top 20 Local Government List of largest green power purchasers in the country, ranking it 11th.  DFW is purchasing close to 53 million kilowatt-hours annually from "environmentally preferable renewable resources" such as wind, solar, and geothermal, amounting to 18 percent of its entire purchased energy.  That's one fifth of its power supply coming from sources that don't contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.  This amount of wattage is equivalent to the carbon emissions of about 7,000 passenger vehicles per year, or the amount of electricity needed to power more than 5,000 American homes annually. The airline industry uses a lot of fuel and this is necessary to keep this country moving.  An airport that actively cuts down on its own carbon emissions is a terrific counterbalance as the airlines are looking for more energy-efficient and socially responsible methods.  Considering that DFW is in the middle of a state where oil production is a major portion of the economy is proof positive that the needs of the planet are being met head-on by constituencies that heretofore may not have given them any consideration. And for the record, I don't have a Prius. Jonathan A. Schein is publisher of MetroGreenBusiness.com and GreenBusinessCareers.com
 
John Farr: The Alarming Decline Of Expressive Language, In Life And On Film Top
A month ago I attended a Parents’ Day conference at one of our kids’ private high schools. A history teacher set to retire after 45 years of service was musing on reading the old student literary journals from the forties and fifties. Asked whether by comparison he noticed an erosion in writing skills in the history papers he grades today, he answered “Yes”- vehemently and without hesitation- while also mentioning a decline in expressive language skills in the classroom. There seems little doubt that even as today’s high school and college students are pushed harder in a highly competitive academic environment, they cannot write an essay or use descriptive language nearly as fluently as their parents and grandparents could. I suppose we shouldn’t be that surprised. We live in an instant messaging world, where we’re encouraged to use as few words and symbols possible to get our basic message across. Hence, it’s “CUL8R”. At the same time, we’re so overloaded with various "pop-up images" everywhere we go that inevitably our concentration and sequential reasoning are affected. Some of us old-timers may still find time to read and write descriptively, but are our kids following suit? I think not, or certainly, not enough. Of course, our popular entertainment reflects this same phenomenon, movies included. As some of you know, I watch a succession of very different films all the time, but two I just screened back to back seem particularly relevant to this topic. The first feature was Marcel Carne’s “Le Jour Se Leve” from 1939, new to DVD via Janus’s nifty “Essential Art House” series, the second a contemporary indie romance, “Medicine For Melancholy” (2008) , which The Times’s   A.O. Scott called “an exciting debut” for director Barry Jenkins. A tragic tale of a young working class couple and the sordid character that comes back to haunt them, “Jour” remains poetry that touches all the senses- one of the seminal  pre-war French pictures. I readily admit it’s a bit unfair to compare it to the humble “Medicine”, which, with apologies to Mr. Scott, is about as exciting as an enema. But I do it to make a point. What struck me in the two films was the use of language, or lack thereof. The dialogue in “Jour” positively sings, even with its uneducated protagonists, while the couple in “Medicine” seem to speak very little, and when they do, they have very little interesting to say. Not the ideal ingredients for a memorable film, right?  In general, big budget offerings from mainstream Hollywood are even more script-challenged than their humble indie counterparts.  Yesterday, I walked in on our youngest boy watching Al Pacino and Jamie Foxx in “Any Given Sunday” (1999) .  As I listened to Al reciting his hackneyed lines, I detected a certain absence, a deadness behind his pupils. Because- I surmise- Pacino, the old pro, has done some very good scripts over his forty years in the business. This however is not one of them, and he knows it.  And though my son’s attention is momentarily diverted- the movie is easy for a fifteen year old kid to watch- what is he actually getting out of it? His eyes look dull too, as if he knows that he’s not watching something that will stay with him as our best movies do. It’s just slick filler to help pass a lazy day.  This leads me to believe, perhaps naively, that “bigger, faster, louder” won’t cut it for very long. The century-old history of this medium reveals that most truly enduring films are not only cast and shot effectively, but are also cleverly constructed and written.  One of the principal reasons I love to promote older classic films is that they remind us just how entertaining and rewarding really smart scripts with snappy dialogue can be. In the back of my mind burns the hope that somehow, the thoughtful public will crave this sort of quality again. At the very least, they should know where to go looking for it. By the way, these films don’t all fall into the category of starchy historical dramas, or those more lofty literary adaptations. We’re talking crime stories, comedies, and romances here!  Here are just a few of my favorite vintage titles featuring solid gold scripts that exploit our language in magical ways to achieve their desired effect: The Informer (1935)- During the Sinn Fein rebellion of 1922, hard-luck Dubliner and IRA reject Gypo Nolan (Victor McLaglen) gets into hot water when he informs on his best friend Frankie McPhillip (Wallace Ford), a fugitive from the British "Black and Tans" who winds up with a bullet in his head. Gypo had sought the 20-pound bounty so he could embark on a better life with his prostitute girlfriend, but the rebels aren't about to let him walk away clean. This blistering adaptation of Liam O'Flaherty's novel by John Ford features a searing turn by McLaglen, who plays the barrel-chested Irish boozer and Troubles-era traitor with gut-wrenching pathos, especially when he delivers his last line. A labor of love for Ford, outfitted with Joseph August's atmospheric evocation of foggy Dublin and a superb score by Oscar winner Max Steiner, "Informer" is the kind of full-blooded political drama we rarely get to enjoy today. And McLaglen's turn as the desperate, deeply remorseful brute makes the tragic story of betrayal and redemption even more worthy of struggle. (Writer: Dudley Nichols, who won an Oscar.) Sullivan’s Travels (1941)- John L. Sullivan (Joel McCrea) is a successful director of Hollywood fluff who decides he wants to make a serious picture about "real world" suffering. Disguising himself as a tramp, the earnest but naive Sullivan hits the road with a ridiculous entourage provided by his cynical studio bosses. Eventually, he meets a down-on-her-luck actress (Veronica Lake) and learns the hard way how poverty dampens, but doesn't extinguish, the human spirit. Widely considered the greatest of writer/director Preston Sturges's classic 1940s films, "Travels" is a stunning hybrid, blending giddy slapstick and razor-sharp humor with grim, unblinking social realism. McCrea and Lake make a fun pair, comically and romantically, while Robert Greig is a hoot as Sullivan's droll butler. It's hard to imagine anyone but Sturges concocting this incisively scripted, beautifully directed Hollywood satire, which ultimately has a lot to say about the restorative power of laughter. Double Indemnity (1944)- Gorgeous schemer Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck) enlists a besotted insurance salesman, Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray), to draw up a life-insurance policy on her husband without his knowledge - and then kill him. The murder goes as planned, but the two lovers lose faith in each other's motives when they face suspicious claims investigator Barton Keyes (Edward G. Robinson), whose queries trigger a fatal game of cat and mouse. One of the quintessential noir films, Billy Wilder's "Double Indemnity" is a masterpiece of stark atmosphere and carefully stylized suspense. The talented Stanwyck, a familiar face in the 1940s noir universe, assumes her role with feline deviousness, while MacMurray - narrating the film via flashback - brilliantly plays against type. Raymond Chandler's screenplay sizzles with hard-boiled repartee and the great Edward G. Robinson is aces as always as the dogged investigator hot on the lovers' trail. Sinister, tense, and cynical, Wilder's "Indemnity" is riveting film suspense. The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre (1948)- Fred Dobbs, Bob Curtin and an old-timer named Howard, three motley down-and-outers in Mexico (Humphrey Bogart, Tim Holt and Walter Huston, respectively), pool their meager resources and set off to search for gold. When they find some, they must decide how best to protect it-from thieves and each other- and thus the seeds of distrust and madness are sown. This potent feature helmed by the gifted John Huston delivers savage human drama in a thinking man’s adventure film. Containing suspense, action and humor (thanks to Walter Huston’s salty old coot) ultimately "Treasure" delivers a striking meditation on the destructive nature of greed. Widely considered one of Bogie’s best films, director Huston walked away with Oscars for direction and screenplay, while dad Walter also won a statuette for his indelible, career-capping performance as the cackling Howard. One of the all-time greats. All About Eve (1950)- Joseph L. Mankiewicz's peak as writer/director concerns aging stage actress Margo Channing (Bette Davis), wise in the ways of fame and the theatre, who's nevertheless blindsided by an adoring fan named Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter). Eve enters Margo's orbit as awed acolyte, then slowly usurps everything Margo has in one subtle, masterful act of manipulation. Don’t miss this sharp, caustic take on the theatre world, and the wide assortment of parasites, barracudas, and hangers-on that populate it. Eve is the wolf in sheep's clothing, a comer with just enough talent and cunning to penetrate Margo's inner circle and catch her when she's vulnerable and feeling her age. Davis gives the best performance of her long career, and young Baxter is outstanding. Oscar winning George Sanders also impresses mightily as jaded critic Addison De Witt, the only soul wise enough to see what Eve is up to. On his arm in one key scene is Marilyn Monroe, in a minor bit as a vacuous but decorative chorus girl. Mankiewicz took home directing and screenwriting Oscars that year, and “Eve” also won Best Picture. What a show! The Sweet Smell Of Success (1957)- Desperate to promote one of his clients, slimy press flack Sidney Falco (Tony Curtis) turns to the most powerful man he knows: acid-tongued gossip columnist JJ Hunsecker (Burt Lancaster), who can make or break anyone in New York. Falco gets what he needs from Hunsecker, but then is maneuvered to help ruin a mild-mannered jazz trumpeter (Martin Milner) with eyes for the poison-pen scribe's younger sister (Susan Harrison).Turning from his comedic work at Britain's Ealing Studios to direct this noirish, all-American masterpiece about greed, ambition, and the perversity of power, Alexander Mackendrick relied on estimable playwright Clifford Odets and writer Ernest Lehman for their scripting talent. What resulted was one of the most cynical, caustic films ever made about the sleazy underbelly of Manhattan show business, featuring blistering performances from Lancaster and a young Curtis in his prime. "I love this dirty town," proclaims the Walter Winchell-esque Hunsecker, and you never once doubt him. Sinister, tawdry, and burnished with a tone-perfect jazz score by Elmer Bernstein, "Success" was never this twisted. Dr. Strangelove, Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb (1963)- In this satirical doomsday thriller, a U.S. bomber piloted by Major Kong (Slim Pickens) receives a signal to release its nuclear payload on Russia. When the unfortunate Captain Mandrake (Peter Sellers) seeks out Gen. Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden) to learn why he ordered the drop, and why he's placed his Air Force base on lockdown, it's quickly evident the general has lost his marbles. Meanwhile, President Muffley (Sellers again) meets with senior advisers, including a hawkish general (George C. Scott) and the oddly sinister nuclear scientist Dr. Strangelove (Sellers), to review their limited options to save the planet. The most inspired piece of Cold War satire ever and one of the screen's supreme black comedies, Stanley Kubrick's 1964 "Strangelove" confronted jittery audiences in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and not long after the advent of the H bomb. With Kubrick's twisted genius as director and screenwriter in full bloom, and peerless performances by Peter Sellers (in three roles), Scott, and the unhinged Hayden, the film is unbearably funny and extremely disturbing all at once. (Kubrick and co-writers Peter George and Terry Southern were Oscar-nominated, but lost to that year’s “Becket” , in retrospect a bad call.)   Network (1976)- Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway) is a type A network television executive who rides the wave of an unfolding ratings sensation broadcasting deranged televangelist Howard Beale (Peter Finch, in his final performance). Beale hits a chord with disillusioned Americans, urging them to chant his mantra: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." But the Beale phenomenon may not last, as Howard's ever more bizarre rantings signal an emotional breakdown in the making. Sidney Lumet's devastating, disturbing satire of the modern broadcast age (written by Paddy Chayefsky) still has a lot to say thirty years after release. Beyond portraying a business that bypasses quality in single-minded pursuit of the dollar, television serves as metaphor for a society mired in sensationalism and greed. Dunaway is commanding in a caffeinated performance as ruthless Diana, Holden unusually affecting as a washed-up veteran of TV's glory days, and Finch a revelation as the unbalanced Beale, winning a posthumous Oscar for his work. (Incidentally, Faye won too.) For over 2,000 more outstanding DVD titles, visit www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com . To watch John's videos, go to www.reel13.org .   More on The Oscars
 
Joe Scarborough: Election Night Preview: GDP Trumps Gay Marriage Top
Tomorrow night's election results will be read, discussed and interpreted for weeks to come. But even before the first vote is counted, we can probably draw some conclusions from those races. VIRGINIA Let's start in the South. A big Republican win in Virginia will not be an earth mover, but instead confirm that the home of Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee is a toss up state that still swings Republican. A Bob McDonnell victory will be seen by most in the media as reflecting a rising discomfort with the explosive growth of Washington, but also, perhaps more importantly, the weakness of the Democratic candidate. While a Virginia loss may be easily explained away by Democrats, a New Jersey loss will not. NEW JERSEY Unlike the Virginia governor's race, the weakest candidate in the race for the Garden State's top job is a Republican. Chris Christie could never be confused with a first tier candidate, but the overweight former prosecutor may soon be moving his bulky frame into the governor's mansion in Trenton. Every Democratic consultant I've talked to over the past few days has let loose involuntary groans every time they talked about this race. Many Democrats began quietly predicting the collapse of the independent candidate at the end of last week and assumed that factor would help Christie. Last minute polls suggest they may be right. Still, I believe the Democrats' turnout operation should keep this race tight all night. If the race is instead a blowout, that can only be bad news for the Democrats. And for those second guessing the president's active involvement in Corzine's race, the fact is that Barack Obama had no choice but to jump head first into the Jersey fight. All the president's men know that a Republican sweep in New Jersey and Virginia will strike fear in the hearts of those swing state Democrats who now hold the future of health care in their sweaty moderate hands. That reality may upset progressive Democrats but it is the reality that confronts the Obama White House tonight. NEW YORK 23 While the twists and turns in Virginia and New Jersey have been fascinating to follow over the past few months, no race has been as entertaining as the special election for New York's 23rd congressional district. Frank Rich used his Sunday column to suggest that conservatives' success in that district would signal the rise of Stalinism in American politics. Other press reports have boiled the race down to a civil war over abortion and gay marriage. And for their part, some conservatives have declared the rise of Doug Hoffman as an indictment of Barack Obama. But all of these interpretations miss the bigger point. Hoffman's ascendancy in NY-23 is less about Barack Obama than it is about a decade of bloated and corrupt Republican leadership in Washington, D.C. This race gave the same conservatives who helped drive Ronald Reagan's victory and the 1994 Republican Revolution something to cheer about for the first time in a long time. It also gave them an opportunity to stick it to an incompetent GOP Establishment. This was, after all, same political party that promised to balance budgets in the 1990s, but then turned around and produced record deficits a over the next ten years. And those same Republican leaders who called for military restraint and a focused foreign policy while Bill Clinton was president then spent the next decade promising to rid the world of tyranny by exporting Democracy across the globe. For years GOP politicians would come on my set in Washington and quietly grouse about the political disaster that was George W. Bush. But then the red light on the camera would then come on and they would meekly fall in line. New York 23 suggests that sorry chapter may be coming to an end. Who knows? Maybe the conservative movement is finally coming to terms with a lesson I learned long ago: that Republican political leaders can't be trusted any more than Democratic party leaders. After all, party bosses of all persuasions pledge loyalties to the advancement of their own party instead of your principles. It took the departure of George Bush and the continued bungling of GOP leaders to finally stir up the sufficient amount of courage for small government conservatives to take on the Republican establishment. The press will continue to make this race about abortion, gay marriage and Sarah Palin, but the fact is that Doug Hoffman has focused on his opponents' positions on the stimulus package, card check and higher taxes. If you're a progressive, don't blame this race's outcome on Focus on the Family. Responsibility rests instead on Club for Growth. Tomorrow, the races in upstate New York as well as Virginia and New Jersey will be decided on one issue. The economy. Here are my predictions a little more than 24 hours before the polls close: Virginia-- Bob McDonnell by 10+ New Jersey-- Chris Christie by 1 New York 23-- Doug Hoffman by 7 After calling me all sorts of unseemly names for my backward thinking and knuckle-dragging ways, comment below and give me your predictions. I'd love to see what you think. I'm especially curious about what New Jersey residents think of their governor's race that will be seen by most voters as a choice between two uninspired candidates. (Despite my prediction, I still have a hard time seeing Jon Corzine losing this race.) More on Morning Joe
 
Anthony Sowell's Neighbor Says Police Knew About Cleveland Rapist's House Top
A neighbor of the convicted rapist in Cleveland who was arrested Saturday night after six decomposed bodies were found in his house said Monday that the police were notified repeatedly about violence there, but little was done. More on Sexual Violence
 
William Astore: Catch-22 in Afghanistan Top
In the U.S. debate on Afghanistan, virtually all experts agree that it's not within the power of the American military alone to win the war. For that, Afghanistan needs its own military and police force, one that is truly representative of the people, and one that is not hopelessly corrupted by drug money and the selfish concerns of the Karzai government in Kabul. The conundrum is that any Afghan military created by outsiders - and America, despite our image of ourselves, is naturally seen by most Afghanis as a self-interested outsider - is apt to be viewed as compromised and illegitimate. Committing more American troops and advisors only exacerbates this problem. The more U.S. troops we send, the more we're "in the face" of the Afghani people, jabbering at them in a language they don't understand. The more troops we send, moreover, the more likely it is that our troops will take the war's burdens on themselves. If history is any guide, we'll tend to push aside the "incompetent" and "unreliable" Afghani military that we're so at pains to create and celebrate. We have a classic Catch-22. As we send more troops to stiffen Afghani government forces and to stabilize the state, their high-profile presence will serve to demoralize Afghani troops and ultimately to destabilize the state. The more the U.S. military takes the fight to the enemy, the less likely it is that our Afghani army-in-perpetual-reequipping-and-training will do so. How to escape this Catch-22? The only answer that offers hope is that America must not be seen as an imperial master in Afghanistan. If we wish to prevail, we must downsize our commitment of troops; we must minimize our presence. But if we insist on pulling the strings, we'll likely as not perform our own dance of death in this "graveyard of empires." A little history. Some two centuries ago, and much like us, the globe-spanning British Empire attempted to extend its mastery over Afghanistan. It did not go well. The British diplomat in charge, Montstuart Elphinstone , noted in his book on "Caubool" the warning of an Afghani tribal elder he encountered: "We are content with discord, we are content with alarms, we are content with blood; but we will never be content with a master." As imperial masters, British attitudes toward Afghanis were perhaps best summed up in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ninth Edition (1875). The Afghanis, according to the Britannica , "are familiar with death, and are audacious in attack, but easily discouraged by failure; excessively turbulent and unsubmissive to law or discipline; apparently frank and affable in manner, especially when they hope to gain some object, but capable of the grossest brutality when that hope ceases. They are unscrupulous in perjury, treacherous, vain, and insatiable in vindictiveness, which they will satisfy at the cost of their own lives and in the most cruel manner .... the higher classes are too often stained with deep and degrading debauchery." One wonders what the Afghanis had to say about the British. The accuracy of this British depiction is not important; indeed, it says more about imperial British attitudes than it does Afghani culture. What it highlights is a tendency toward sneering superiority exercised by the occupier, whether that occupier is a British officer in the 1840s or an American advisor today. In the British case, greater familiarity only bred greater contempt, as the words of one British noteworthy, Sir Herbert Edwardes, illustrate. Rejecting Elphinstone's somewhat favorable estimate of their character, Edwardes dismissively noted that with Afghanis, "Nothing is finer than their physique, or worse than their morale." We should ponder this statement, for it could have come yesterday from an American advisor. If the words of British "masters" from 150 years ago teach us anything, it's that Afghanistan will never be ours to win. Nor is an Afghani army ours to create. Like the British, we might fine-tune Afghani physiques, but we won't be able to instill high morale and staying power. And if we can't create an Afghani army that's willing to fight and die for Karzai or some other government we consider worthy of our support, we must face facts: There's no chance of winning at any remotely sustainable or sensible cost to the United States. Nevertheless, we seem eager to persist in our very own Catch-22. We may yet overcome it, but only by courting a singularly dangerous paradox. In Vietnam, our military spoke of destroying villages in order to save them. Will we have to destroy the American military in order to save Afghanistan? For that may be the ultimate price of "victory" in Afghanistan. More on Afghanistan
 
Phil Trounstine: Inside Story: Why Newsom's Gov Bid Collapsed Top
By Phil Trounstine and Jerry Roberts www.calbuzz.com San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's publicly-stated reason for dropping out of the Democratic race for governor was the absolute truth: "With a young family and responsibilities at City Hall, I have found it impossible to commit the time required to complete this effort the way it needs to -- and should be -- done." But, according to sources close to Prince Gavin, it didn't have to be so. Despite his charisma, policy depth and breezy communication skills, Newsom found himself behind Attorney General Jerry Brown by 8-to-1 in campaign cash and 20 points in the polls because of three key problems: his utter lack of discipline, his inability to manage his City Hall staff and his faulty judgment about the practical operations of a statewide campaign. Last week, with about $375,000 in the bank, Newsom finally realized he would have to put City Hall on maintenance mode and commit to at least 20-40 hours a week on the phone, schmoozing donors and political shakers, raising money the old-fashioned way - a task he simply could not make himself do. For Newsom, as he said in his statement, it truly was "impossible to commit the time required to complete this effort the way it needs to - and should be - done." In part, this is a function of how Prince Gavin operates in the political world. "Newsom is really motivated by public policy," said one insider. "He wants to pull together all the stakeholders and hammer out the next new policy option." Time and agaiericgarryn he would find one excuse after another to blow off scheduled time for fund-raising, even when his campaign staff arranged for an office across the street from City Hall. He could not be made to make the phone calls -- even in the car during drive time -- for a senator's birthday or a labor leader's new baby or whatever political chingadera needed tending at any given moment. Partly this was a function of what might be called Newsom's Political Attention Deficit Disorder. But his PADD was reinforced and amplified by the political strategy that the candidate originally bought into - the theory propounded by Eric Jaye, his long time strategist, that given a national base among gays, progressives and greens, Newsom would be able to raise $35 million, mostly online, through Twitter, Facebook and other social "new campaign" networking channels. This was an absurd projection. By comparison, Phil Angelides, who was state treasurer, former state party chairman and a prolific fundraiser with a deep base in the Greek-American community when he became a candidate for governor, had managed to raise $22.3 million over 3 ½ years leading up the 2006 primary. Jaye's model may have been wildly unrealistic, but it dovetailed nicely with Newsom's personality and his desire to believe that he could raise the money he needed without resorting to old-fashioned dialing-for-dollars. A byproduct of Jaye's belief in the social-networking model: the finance and political directors he had brought into the campaign had nothing like the experience a campaign would demand if traditional fund-raising and connecting with existing party power centers were regarded as crucial endeavors. Meanwhile, Newsom's City Hall staff - who were close to Jaye and whose base is simply the voters of San Francisco - hoarded the candidate's schedule and constantly came up with new initiatives and ideas for the mayor that the campaign staff often only learned about after the fact. The rift in the campaign - with Garry South, Peter Ragone and Nick Clemons on one side versus Jaye and his City Hall allies on the other - grew increasingly bitter; Jaye argued that Newsom should use his successes in San Francisco to demonstrate his fitness to be governor, while the others pushed for Newsom to demonstrate viability through fund raising, building statewide support and articulating a political message about change and reform to contrast with Brown, whom they would aggressively portray as old-school status quo. In late July, Jaye was ousted from the campaign. But Newsom still could not bring his City Hall operation to heel. Newsom's support for a tax on soda products (in September) and his police chief's new plan to allow unlicensed drivers to phone a friend to retrieve their car after a traffic stop (last week) are just two recent examples of policies the campaign had no idea about before they were announced to the news media. Newsom ultimately was incapable of managing the conflict between the innate leftiness of his San Francisco City Hall staff and the realpolitik pragmatism of his California campaign staff. The Newsom strategic message - new versus old, change versus status quo - was always a long shot: making Jerry Brown look like a geezer is no easy task, even though he's 71 years old, bald and sports bushy white eyebrows. There's something Tony Bennett about him that resists being branded as over-the-hill. But as a 42-year-old mayor from a liberal Northern California city, it was Newsom's best shot. With enough money and political support behind him, he might have made a run at Brown, not from the left or the right but from the future. But there's the paradox: Newsom thought that propounding a new ideas message meant he could avoid the old politics necessity to focus on fundraising and building alliances. As a political matter, it was a fatal flaw. Read more about California politics at www.calbuzz.com
 
Karen Dalton-Beninato: 10 Pix from 11th Voodoo Music Experience Top
The Voodoo Music Experience just wrapped its 11th year, and volume-wise it goes to 11 (to borrow a phrase from Spinal Tap). Voodoo had an uphill climb, announcing its lineup on the weekend Michael Jackson died and fighting to change its date to Halloween for a New Orleans City Park extravaganza with George Clinton and and Kiss. In association with the Life is Art Foundation, this year's festival was full of eye-catching installations. Here are 10 of our photos from a weekend that included a full moon and Halloween, as we now segue into a Saints Game. Who Dat indeed.   A wild thing in front of, appropriately enough, The Pogues. * * *    Blue man walking ***      Pirate photo shoot in front of glowing art installation ***   Backlit tent with mysterious residents ***   Trombone Shorty and Orleans Avenue bathed in light ***   The Life Aquatic Welcomes You ***   ** OK Art installation shining across the lagoon ***   Voodoo Artist Lionel Milton with Tariq Hanna, winner of TLC's Ultimate CakeOff, creating Let Love Rule cake for Lenny Kravitz. ***   The finished product with a spinning top celebrate the 20th anniversary of Kravitz' Let Love Rule . ***     NOMRF Founder Jeff with  Voodoo Music Experience Founder Steven Rehage represent in the appropriate hats. Last year Sony Playstation and Southern Comfort hosted its Little Big Planet kickoff to benefit the New Orleans Musicians Relief Fund at Voodoo. It's always worth coming home to the party. More on Michael Jackson
 
White House Quietly Working To Weaken Investor Protection Top
The White House is quietly working to undercut a key post-Enron reform, significantly weakening protection for everyday investors and threatening the administration's image as a champion for financial regulatory reform. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been telling Democratic members of the House Financial Services Committee that he supports amending the Investor Protection Act of 2009 -- a bill designed to beef up protection for investors -- in order to exempt small businesses from a requirement in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that mandates audits of internal controls. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted in 2002 in the wake of accounting scandals at Enron and Worldcom that rocked investors and damaged confidence in the markets. "This has enormous significance to individual investors," former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt told the Huffington Post. "This is something the Republicans could never have accomplished, and what a bitter irony it is that the Democrats...are emasculating the best piece of legislation of the past 20 years." Emanuel is said to support an amendment proposed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) that would exempt firms with a market capitalization of less than $75 million from the reporting requirement. Firms under that limit had not yet been subject to the reporting requirement, although they were told they'd have to comply by 2010. Maloney's amendment would further delay implementation. Slightly more than half of all publicly-traded companies would be affected. Another amendment, offered by freshman Rep. John Adler, a Democrat from New Jersey, would raise that limit to $700 million, exempting four out of five publicly-traded companies. Last week, the bill's sponsor, Rep. Paul Kanjorski, (D-Penn.), thought he had fought off both amendments. Then the White House intervened. Final roll call votes are scheduled for Wednesday. The White House position, according to those familiar with Emanuel's argument, is that small businesses should not be the focus of onerous regulations because they aren't the ones causing the problems. And if the Maloney amendment passes, it would allow Democrats to say they're champions of small business. But these are still public companies, notes Lynn E. Turner, former chief accountant for the SEC from 1998 to 2001. They're not mom-and-pop shops. And if they've decided to go public in order to attract more money, they've agreed to certain costs. The transparency that comes with regular audits of internal controls should be one of them, he says. "Democrats like to talk a lot about how the deregulatory Bush Administration caused the financial crisis. I'm frankly having a hard time understanding why some of those same Democrats are lending their support to legislation that would weaken protections against accounting fraud even more than Christopher Cox's SEC was willing to do," said Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America, in a reference to the much-maligned former SEC chairman under the previous administration. "And [the Obama administration] wonder[s] why people question their credibility as financial reformers?" "It's the freshman members of Congress, fearful for reelection, that are pandering to interests that want to overturn this legislation," Levitt said. "It makes a mockery of what the Democratic Party has always stood for -- individual investors." The amendments and the ensuing fight were first reported by the Huffington Post last week. Roper and others say the amendments increase the chances of financial fraud. Current SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro wrote Kanjorski last week, expressing concern about Adler's amendment. Gary Gensler, the current chairman of another federal market regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, praised Sarbanes-Oxley in May during his swearing-in ceremony, referring to his role in its passage as a key Senate aide as being "one of the proudest moments of my career in government service." Sarbanes-Oxley brought "sweeping reforms of corporate responsibility, accounting and securities laws," he said at the time. In response to a request for comment from the White House, an aide to Emanuel said: "The administration is working with Congress to pass landmark financial regulatory reform legislation that will protect consumers and prevent the kind of irresponsibility that caused the recession of the past two years." Adler defended his amendment last week. His spokeswoman said the provision protects small businesses from "cost prohibitive regulations." Under Adler's definition, "small businesses" can be worth up to $700 million. Levitt said the portion of Sarbanes-Oxley under attack "is the absolute touchstone of what individual investors care about -- this is the holy grail." In 2002, the bill passed the Senate by a 99-0 vote; it passed the House 423-3. Kanjorski's spokeswoman released the following statement when reached for comment: "The legislative process is fluid. The Congressman is committed to having a strong investor protection bill, and to working closely with the Administration and Members on the Committee on the legislation." That fluidity has consumer and investor advocates like Roper nervous. "Why are we having to waste our time defending reforms adopted in the wake of the last financial crisis when we should be focused on the reforms needed to address the current financial crisis?" More on Financial Crisis
 
Heidi DeJong Barsuglia Denies Mike Duvall Affair: Energy Lobbyist Reinstated After Recorded Sex Talk Top
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — An energy lobbyist who was the subject of an investigation after a former California lawmaker was caught on tape bragging about having sex with her is denying the relationship and has been reinstated to her job. In a statement released Monday, Sempra Energy lobbyist Heidi Barsuglia called the scandal surrounding former Assemblyman Mike Duvall's comments "a professional and personal nightmare." She denied engaging in any kind of illegal or unethical behavior. Her attorney, Malcolm Segal, added: "Just so there is no doubt left in anyone's mind, what Mr. Duvall later called 'inappropriate storytelling' was just a plain old-fashioned lie. Mrs. Barsuglia is considering all of her legal remedies." Duvall, a 54-year-old married father of two, was recorded last July during a break in a committee hearing telling another lawmaker about his extramarital exploits with two lobbyists. Legislative committee hearings are videotaped as a matter of practice, and Duvall apparently was unaware his microphone was on. He could be heard on the tape describing in lurid detail his sexual conquests, including a spanking fetish, the skimpy, "eyepatch" underwear of one woman and his carrying on two affairs simultaneously. Duvall, a lawmaker from Yorba Linda known for promoting family value issues, resigned the day after the tapes became public in September, saying he did not want to distract the Legislature. He said his only offense "was engaging in inappropriate storytelling." The statement from the Sempra Energy lobbyist came as the FBI announced it was ending its investigation into Duvall's alleged relationships. The state attorney general, California Fair Political Practices Commission and Assembly Ethics Committee also have declined to investigate. Sempra said Barsuglia, 39, is being taken off leave and will be fully reinstated. The company said its internal personnel investigation is closed. "The company does not tolerate the type of behavior alleged in the media reports," the company said in a statement. Barsuglia's attorney said Duvall's comments defamed her and that he did little to repair the damage after they were made public. "Her reputation, her job, and her exemplary career have all been placed in jeopardy by Duvall's disgusting remarks," Segal said. Duvall did not immediately return a telephone message left Monday at his Farmers Insurance office in Yorba Linda. More on GOP
 
William Bradley: It's November 22, 1963 On Mad Men: HuffPost Review Top
"Everything's going to be okay." -- Don Draper No, Don. It won't. It really won't. A day we've long awaited on Mad Men , November 22, 1963, has arrived in "The Grown-Ups," the second to last episode of this very fine third season. As always in these reviews, there be spoilers ahead, so you've been warned. President John F. Kennedy delivers his Inaugural Address. I've always wondered how Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner and the shows's terrific corps of writers and producers would handle one of the most critical and shattering events in American history, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. I think they pulled it off brilliantly. Having lived through both, albeit as a small child in the first instance, the JFK assassination was an even bigger event than 9/11. I can give you historical and political reasons for this, but I'm not really writing about politics per se in these reviews. The Kennedy assassination -- and the tragedy is deepened even further by virtue of the fact that this is the first Kennedy assassination, presaging the assassination five years later of my boyhood hero, Robert F. Kennedy -- was the first mass experience of a televised event. It was an astonishing experience, a cultural breakpoint, which had its greatest impact on young people. It is no coincidence that the tremendous grief and angst that the assassination of JFK triggered would segue, only weeks later, into the American version of Beatlemania. Which was even more intense in America than in Britain. The following month, under pressre from radio listeners hearing bootleg copies from Britain, Capitol Records made an early release of a single called "I Want To Hold Your Hand." And the month after that, the American version of the album released in Britain on the very day of the JFK assassination, "With The Beatles." Which I'm listening to now. Betty Draper discovered Don's little box of big secrets in Episode 11. Rather than treat the assassination as a background event, with, say, Joan telling a friend on the phone how sad it was as she put on her stockings and Pete -- the show's unacknowledged modernist all along -- banging his head against the wall in his office, the show placed it right in the foreground throughout. That's as it had to be. This is a show about many things, but it views its era, which is now about to change again, and very dramatically, through the prism of the advertising business. Advertising is about media. Media reflects and directs the culture. And there was no bigger media event than the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Deftly directed by Oscar nominee Barbet Schroeder, the episode begins deceptively with Pete Campbell sleeping in his office, looking like a child on his sofa. (He grows up a great deal in the next few days.) There's a cold snap, the heat in the Sterling Cooper building isn't working, and he's freezing. Hildy brings him cocoa, but it's made with water, as Pete sulkily points ot. Then he apologizes to her, which he wouldn't have done in season one. Don Draper was on top of the world in Episode 10. Summoned to Lane Pryce's office -- the Brit is amusingly wearing a heavy scarf, and gloves, from his London days -- Pete gets what Lane correctly tells him is bad news. Lane has decided to promote Ken Cosgrove over Pete, ending their competition as co-chiefs of accuonts. Ken gets the senior vice presidency, and Pete gets a consolation title. Lane gives Pete a very insightful explanation for the decision. (And it is his decision, solely, which again raises the question of how Roger Sterling, whose name was left off the latest organizational chart handed down from London, would be able to summarily fire art director Sal Romano.) Pete, explains Lane, does an excellent ob of meeting the clients' needs. However, "Mr. Cosgrove has the rare gift of making clients think they haven't any needs." Don Draper's amigo and uber-client, Connie Hilton, was disappointed in Episode 9 when surrogate son Don didn't give him the Moon. But he's still a big fan, hosting the 40th anniversary party for Sterling Cooper at the Waldorf Astoria. Ken really is quite charming and adept at what he does, seemingly effortlessly. And, typically, he's making nice out in the office as Pete decides he's taken ill and heads for home. Coming out of the elevator, he runs into Peggy Olsen and her ill-conceived roommate, who've had a less than frolicking lunch. Peggy's roomie doesn't like Duck Phillips' aftershave. In fact, she doesn't like the whole idea of Duck. After all, he's not married. "Why are you with him,"? she asks Peggy. Elsewhere, my least favorite character in the show -- okay, next to Betty's brother -- Roger Sterling's spoiled brat of a daughter, Margaret, is with her mother, Roger's ex-wife. Whose divorce demands when Roger married Don's 20-year old secretary Jane led to the sale of Sterling Cooper to their British overlords. Here's a quick recap of Episode 8. Margaret is whining and complaining. Jane gave her a beautiful wedding present from DeBeers. She's so terrible! "Doesn't she know that, that she ruined my life?" And she's giving Margaret advice! "Don't go to bed mad. Be sexy." Margaret works herself into such a state that she declares that, since Jane is coming to her wedding -- brilliantly set for November 23, 1963 -- she's not going to go herself. So she calls Daddy to whine some more. Roger Sterling is, as you know, played by the terrific John Slattery. And in a devilish bit of casting, his real-life wife Talia Balsam plays his now ex-wife on the show. Roger tells the erstwhile apple of his eye to put Mona on the phone. They hilariously tag team the brat to kind yet definitive effect. Now Roger is exasperated by both his daughter and his young wife. For he "forbid" her to be in contact with his daughter. When she comes in, looking like a cross between Jackie Kennedy and a New York fashion model, he upbraids her, treating her like a child for contacting Margaret. "I'm the good person here," she exclaims. No, you're not, he tells her, because she didn't do what she was told. She doesn't take that sort of thing well, and so Roger's lovely row with Jane ends with her locking herself in her room. Now we're at Pete's. He's eating some sort of comfort food, and tells his wife he's been fired. After coolly determining that he hasn't been, with Pete hilariously describing his session with Lane, Trudy is again looking for the bright side. And probing. "Stop it with the Ellery Queen," Pete tells her, not unkindly. A quick recap of Episode 7. That night, Betty is impressed to find Don rocking their crying baby in the middle of the night. He's trying, and the storm of last episode's revelation of his total identity theft has passed. Still, there's a certain reserve in her manner. Now we're at Sterling Cooper on November 22nd. Peggy is going over ideas with Paul Kinsey. The phone rings and it's Duck Phillips. He wants to hook up. Now. For a nooner at the Elysee Hotel. He even throws in a Montecristo sandwich for enticement, knowing her appetites. Peewee, he says, it's been three weeks. "Peewee?" Overhearing her side of the conversation and getting the gist, Paul gently ribs Peggy, who tries to say she has to go the printer. And off she goes. Not to the printer. Pete and Harry Crane are talking office politics. Harry acknowledges he knew that Pete wasn't getting the big ob, having been informed but not consulted. The TV is on in Harry's office, as it always is, since he has to monitor shows to see if their TV ads air. Pete asks that the sound be turned down, at least, while they talk. Harry notes that his hard work, too, has been overlooked by the Sterling Coo leadership. "I'm going to die at this desk unnoticed," he says. Ironic. "Guy Walks Into An Advertising Agency" is a consequential episode. A moment later, CBS anchor Walter Cronkite comes on to announce the first fragmentary report of the shooting in Dallas. Neither Harry nor Pete notice. That doesn't last long, as a crowd of their co-workers bursts into the office, demanding that the sound be turned up. Don is in Lane's office, complaining that his choice to replace Sal as art director has been turned down. No art director, per London, says Lane. It's too expensive. When Don protests, Lane offers him his phone to call St. John Powell. Stymied, Don leaves in a huff with the line, "Bert Cooper still has some say around here." Then the phone Lane had offered Don to call London rings. "What?!," he exclaims at the unheard news. Eagerly awaiting Peggy's arrival, Duck hears the early report, then yanks out the TV's power cord. He wants to get busy with Peggy before dealing with as big a distraction as the assassination of the president. The phones are ringing now, unanswered, all over Sterling Cooper as Don walks through the office. Then the phones go silent. The telephone system across the country, overloaded, is going down. "What the hell is going on,?" Don demands. No one but the audience hears him. The essential milieu of Mad Men is not all that admirable. Back at Chez Draper, Betty is in shock. She and Carla, the African American housekeeper who spends so much of her time raising the Drapers' kids, are both crying heavily as the Cronkite confirmation comes that President Kennedy is in fact dead. Little Sally, so keyed into Betty's emotions, hugs her to comfort her. Recall that Betty said that she hated Kennedy in season one. Because the sexy neighborhood divorcee worked on his campaign. That was sad little Glenn's mother, who had threatened Betty with her independence. Now Betty, perhaps enticed by the glamorous vision of the Kennedy marriage -- she was transfixed when Jackie did her televised tour of the White House early in season two -- loves Kennedy and is devastated by his assassination. This event will lead her to reconsider the shaky foundations of her own life. In afterglow, as it were, at the Elysee, Peggy is dreamy yet concerned. "Did you give me a hickey,?" she asks. Her mother so hates seeing those. Duck has something else on his mind. "Listen," he tells her, "there was a news story on before you came in. It's been distracting me." And so they, too, learn of the assassination. Well, Peggy learns. Duck already knew, which should give Peggy pause as she considers the nature of their relationship. Here's a quick recap of Episode 5. Meanwhile, Margaret, in billowy white dress, is sobbing that her wedding is ruined. Ruined! Back at Chez Draper, where Don has returned as nothing is getting done at Sterling Coo on this day, Don and Betty are hugging, qite warmly, clinging to each other really, and the kids are transfixed by what they are seeing on the television. Betty's a wreck. But Don tries to maintain an even strain. He asks why the kids are watching this. This is clearly not what Betty wants to hear. "What am I supposed to do? Keep it from them?" Don tells the kids to turn off the TV. But they don't. And neither, finally, does he. Gathering them with him on the sofa, he tries to keep it cool. "Everything's going to be okay. We have a new president. Everyone's going to be sad for a bit.There's a funeral on Monday." Then Don starts to get it, as little Bobby asks: "Are we going to the funeral?" A quick recap of Episode 4. The next day, however, Don is insistent on going to
 
The Yes Men: Chamber of Commerce M.I.A.! Chevron Takes the Heat! Top
While you were sleeping this past Sunday evening, a most unusual incident transpired in San Francisco. Three top Chevron executives led a procession of hundreds from the Roxie Cinema at 16th and Valencia to the Chevron station at Market and Castro. It was quite a sight . The execs stood atop wheeled platforms wearing " Survivaballs ," 6-foot diameter "grub suits" designed to keep our most valuable citizens safe in the event of climate calamities they may have caused. "We at Chevron have found a way to sustainably use fossil resources, while ensuring our survival in any ensuing climate crisis," said one bulbous executive. "I feel great, but I almost feel bad for the 99% of the population who can't afford one of these things." After being dragged the mile uphill by hazmat-suit wearing minions, the executives descended from their wheeled daises to enact a series of "tableaux morts" from the post-apocalyptic future, with the Chevron station as backdrop. In one, they demonstrated to passersby just how easily a Survivaball could suck the lifeblood from any number of "less fiscally responsible" citizens. In another, they demonstrated how Survivaballs would protect executives from pounding assaults by starving hordes. "This is only a little stretch," said Antonia Juhasz, director of the Chevron Program at Global Exchange. "Chevron is already actively sucking the lifeblood from many communities worldwide, including here in California, where they're not only destroying the environment, they're shirking $1.5 billion in taxes annually with the help of their lobbying. Also, for some it can feel as if Chevron has so successfully bought off the government that no amount of pounding will matter." Larry Bogad, one of the protest organizers and a theatre professor at UC Davis, concurred. "Even the Pentagon agrees: corporations like Chevron are driving us to the brink of disaster. The rich will definitely need something like Survivaball to survive the result of what they're doing." The eerie, elaborate protest ended on a positive note. "There's one thing a Survivaball cannot withstand," intoned Bogad through a bicycle-powered sound system. "And that's when citizens organize, and change the rules of the game, so that companies like Chevron can't keep undermining democracy and destroying the world." The ensuing demonstration had the Survivaballs fleeing back down Market street whence they had marched, pursued by protesters, dozens of people in skeleton suits, and the fifty or so rebellious former "Chevron workers" who had dragged them up the hill. "Organized resistance works," said Juhasz. "Right here in Richmond, long-term community organizing, combined with a lawsuit, has succeeded in stopping Chevron from a major retooling of its refinery -- which would have increased Chevron's already toxic presence in this area. They've been stopped dead in their tracks." "There's still time," said David Solnit of Mobilization for Climate Justice West, one of the protest's organizers. "But we really have to act now. We've got to get organized, stay organized, and fight hard and effectively. One way to join the fight is to visit www.BeyondTalk.net ." Chevron is a target of citizen protests in California, across the United States and around the world because of Chevron's role at the forefront of climate destruction, human right and public health abuse, environmental devastation, economic strangulation, and wars for oil ( The True Cost Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report ). Despite their record of heartily defending Chevron in disputes worldwide, the US Chamber of Commerce was nowhere to be seen Sunday evening. The Chamber, which is suing the Yes Men for impersonating them in a press conference two weeks ago, has purchased numerous Google Ad spots begging readers to give them money because they're " under attack " by the Yes Men and others. Following a special screening of The Yes Men Fix the World , Bogad, Juhasz, Solnit, and film director Andy Bichlbaum led the entire theater audience, throngs of others waiting outside, and dozens of others who came out of their houses and off the streets to join the mass theatrical procession up 16th Street to the Chevron station at Market and Castro. This is the latest, and most elaborate in a series of post-screening rampages in major American cities including New York City and, most recently, Chicago . More video and photos coming soon : http://theyesmen.org/blog/chevron And new Babelgum channel here! http://www.babelgum.com/yesmen More on Gas & Oil
 
Chris Weigant: Obama Poll Watch [October 2009] -- Flattening Trends Top
Is the absence of a trend a trend? Much like Sherlock Holmes' non-barking nocturnal canine, the remarkable thing about President Barack Obama's poll numbers last month was that nothing remarkable happened. Both trendlines were pretty flat for the month, which was the second month in a row of little movement. Things are not getting much better for Obama's approval rate, but then neither are they getting much worse. This is good news, of a sort, because what preceded it was a pretty steep drop in the polls for Obama. But for two months in a row now, Obama has stopped this trend. He has, however, not reversed it yet. So, for now "no news is good news" is going to have to be good enough. We'll dig into these numbers a bit here, and then we continue with our look back at previous presidents, and how Obama stacks up to them, by taking a look at Ronald Reagan's numbers -- which bear a striking similarity to Obama's so far. Updated charts of Obama compared to G.W. Bush, Clinton, and G.H.W. Bush are available (as always) at my ObamaPollWatch.com site. But enough of this shameless plugging of websites, let's get on to this month's charts: [ Click on graph to see larger-scale version. ]   October 2009 As you can see, the trendlines are holding pretty steady for Obama. October started off on a very strange note for Obama, when it was announced that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama himself seemed a little bemused at the choice, but the Republicans (as Republicans are wont to do) went overboard with criticizing the choice. Somehow it was a "political liability" for Obama to have won one of the most (if not the most ) prestigious awards on the planet. Um, what? Obama's poll numbers rose at this point, but it was a mini-bump at best, which I'll talk about in a bit. The media woke up last month from an eight-year nap and discovered that America has troops in Afghanistan. Who knew? This issue was served up as some sort of existential crisis by the talking heads, who all tried to portray Obama as somehow weak for taking his time deciding how many troops he will send to the country next spring. The "next spring" part of that concept was completely and totally ignored by the media, since it did not fit their preconceived storyline. The Pentagon brass did their best to paint Obama into a corner, and the media went along for the ride. But while it was a continuing theme all month, the story won't really get big until Obama does announce what he's going to do there, so it didn't affect Obama's poll numbers much either way. Healthcare reform grinded on in Congress, with some actual progress being made by both houses. But my guess is that most Americans (the ones who aren't reading wonky microscopic analyses of poll numbers, I should say) are getting tired of the whole debate. America has the attention span of about two weeks, max; and I think most people have begun tuning the whole thing out, and won't get interested again until something actually gets passed. This is just my gut feeling, of course. I do my best to keep the interest level up with gratuitous sports metaphor usage (see: "Halftime At The Healthcare Reform Superbowl" for instance), but it gets hard at times, even I admit. Healthcare reform will likely make progress in the upcoming month, but likely won't near the finish line until December. The big story this month was, once again, the media falling flat on their collective faces after spending months patting themselves on the back and complimenting each other on their cleverness in pronouncing the public option deader than doornails. Much to their astonishment, the public option seems to be surviving in both the House and the Senate. But let's take a closer look at Obama's October numbers, and then we'll take a look at what they mean and the overall trends. Barack Obama's approval numbers were down last month by a half a percent, to a new monthly low of 52.2 percent. While this was a bigger drop than last month's 0.1 percent decline, it's still nowhere near as alarming as his seven percent drop in July and August combined. The big news for Obama is pretty small, but at least it's good news -- his disapproval number actually went down , for the first time since he took office. Granted, it only declined a tenth of a percent, from 42.0 to 41.9 percent, but it still marks a reversal of the earlier steep climb of Obama's disapproval number. But with both of these trendlines staying so flat, it's hard to tell what they're going to do next. And at the end of the month, both numbers started turning against Obama, and will bear watching next month.   Overall Trends Looking within the month at the daily numbers shows that Obama hit a peak around mid-month, and has been slipping since then. The third day of the month, Obama hit 51.6 percent approval, then climbed to 53.6 percent mid-month. But by the end of the month, this had fallen back to 51.6 percent again, meaning he made a few points, and then gave them back again. One more piece of good news for Obama (which I believe I forgot to mention last month) is that for the second straight month he did not hit an all-time low in his daily approval. His low point came at the end of August, when he sank to 51.2 percent, and he hasn't been as low since. While the numbers haven't moved around much since then, and the trendline has been pretty flat, at least he's not setting new lows each month anymore. Obama's disapproval numbers were much more active last month than his approval numbers. While approval only moved around within a 2.1 percent range, his disapproval numbers swung back and forth 4.9 points. He started the month around 41 percent, and then actually fell below 40 percent in mid-month (39.4) for the first time since the beginning of August. But this trend reversed itself in the last half of the month, and Obama hit 44.3 percent just before month's end -- a new all-time daily high for disapproval. What this all means is that while the numbers average out looking pretty good for Obama, because we only post one number per month it's hard to see what was really going on. Obama's numbers started rising in September, fell back a bit as we entered October, hit a high mid-month, and then have fallen back a bit since. Meaning he enters November with the trendlines against him. November will likely bring progress on the healthcare reform front, but probably not passage of a final bill, which will likely wait until after Thanksgiving. But Obama is set to announce his Afghanistan policy this month, which is going to have a strange effect on his numbers. If Obama announces a large increase in troops, it may turn some of his base negative, and he may actually pick up support from people who are generally against him. Whether these two counter-intuitive trends will cancel each other out or not remains to be seen. But if healthcare reform does indeed pass this year, Obama is going to get a big bump when it does happen, so while November may not be a good month for the president, December may be a lot better for him. We'll see.   Obama v. Ronald Reagan We continue this month in our march through the past, comparing our current president with the previous residents of the Oval Office. For updated charts on Clinton and both Bushes, see the ObamaPollWatch page. But this month our featured past president is none other than Ronald Wilson Reagan. Let's start with Reagan's charts, for both his terms in office. [ Click on graphs to see larger-scale versions. ] Normally, this is the spot where I offer up a quick review of what happened during past presidencies, but I got lucky because Paul Abrams wrote a Huffington Post article today about the economy under Ronald Reagan's first term, so I will just direct you to his fine work instead. Go ahead, check it out -- I can wait. You might find it helpful to refer to the charts below while reading, as Abrams mentions some very specific dates in it. All done? Good! Ronald Reagan is a very interesting president to compare to Barack Obama, because they both attempted big things during their first year in office, and because they both had some pretty grim economic issues to deal with. Of course, Obama faced different crises than Reagan and I won't quibble as to whose situation was more dire. Because I found it very interesting to chart Obama against Reagan. Here are both terms of Reagan versus Obama so far: And here is just Reagan's first term versus Obama, to make it even clearer what I'm talking about: Now, I'm not about to claim that history is repeating itself, or that Reagan's numbers are going to be a harbinger of Obama's numbers in the near future. But it certainly could work out that way. Reagan's first term graphs are remarkable for their slow and gradual trendlines. Reagan started off extremely popular, then saw his numbers sink for two straight years until his approval had fallen below 40 percent and his disapproval had climbed above 50 -- dangerous territory for any president to be in. But then, at this nadir, the tide turned. I referenced Abrams' article earlier, because it largely said what I was going to say here -- this was due mostly to the economy recovering. In general, when economic times are good, people approve of what politicians are doing; and when times get tough, people tend to be more negative. But the economy doesn't turn on a dime. It takes a while to reorient. The stock market's revival and the official end of the recession is one thing, but getting everyone back to work is another. Unemployment numbers always lag behind the other economic indicators, and most economists today predict that the jobs won't start coming back until next year, at the earliest. This means unemployment will officially top ten percent, which no president likes to see happen on their watch. It also means the economic malaise may drag down Obama's approval for some time to come. While up until now Obama has held firmly onto his base -- which I define here as "the percent of people who voted for him" -- this support may start to slide next year. He'll get a bump from signing healthcare reform, but until the jobs start coming back, he's going to be facing a headwind. If this scenario plays out, the political question will be whether the trend turns around for Obama in time for the midterm elections. If unemployment hasn't turned around by this time next year, we're all going to have to get used to seeing a lot more Republicans in Congress. If, however, Obama is beginning the same sort of approval recovery that Reagan enjoyed for the last two years of his first term, then Democrats will have more of a chance of holding their ground in Congress.   [Obama Poll Watch Data:] Column Archives [ Sep 09 ], [ Aug 09 ], [ Jul 09 ], [ Jun 09 ], [ May 09 ], [ Apr 09 ], [ Mar 09 ]   Obama's All-Time Statistics Monthly Highest Monthly Approval -- 2/09 -- 63.4% Lowest Monthly Approval -- 10/09 -- 52.2% Highest Monthly Disapproval -- 9/09 -- 42.0% Lowest Monthly Disapproval -- 1/09 -- 19.6% Daily Highest Daily Approval -- 2/15/09 -- 65.5% Lowest Daily Approval -- 8/20/09 -- 51.2% Highest Daily Disapproval -- 10/28/09 -- 44.3% Lowest Daily Disapproval -- 1/29/09 -- 19.3%   Obama's Raw Monthly Data [All-time high in bold , all-time low underlined .] Month -- (Approval / Disapproval / Undecided) 10/09 -- 52.2 / 41.9 / 5.9 09/09 -- 52.7 / 42.0 / 5.3 08/09 -- 52.8 / 40.8 / 6.4 07/09 -- 56.4 / 38.1 / 5.5 06/09 -- 59.8 / 33.6 / 6.6 05/09 -- 61.4 / 31.6 / 7.0 04/09 -- 61.0 / 30.8 / 8.2 03/09 -- 60.9 / 29.9 / 9.2 02/09 -- 63.4 / 24.4 / 12.2 01/09 -- 63.1 / 19.6 / 17.3   Questions or comments? Use the Email Chris page to drop me a note.   Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com   More on Health Care
 
Paul McRandle: The Green World Series Top
Tonight's the night when we'll find out if Cliff Lee can help turn the Phillies around and give some hope to their fans. Six other teams have overcome three-game defeats in World Series history, but both the Yankees and the Phillies have already shown that they can make significant strides towards reducing their environmental impact in their stadiums, their touring and their food service. Major League Baseball was the first professional sports league to partner with NRDC for help improving their energy sourcing , public education and other efforts. The story isn't without its controversy, particularly regarding the building of the new Yankee Stadium , but it also shows how far the environmental movement has moved outside the ranks of the converted. Green Team member Matt Eisenson took on the battle for greenest team in a sport's radio transcript for Simple Steps: As the battle wears on for this year's World Series Championship, New York and Philadelphia's off-the-field contest has gained increasing visibility in the stadiums and in the press: Which team is more green? Stuck in a stalemate, the Yankees and Phillies have decided to settle it on the field. Simple Steps' Green Sports radio provides exclusive excerpted coverage of the single-game bout. Top of the 1st. The Yankees dugout is itching for a run. The first batter squares off, aiming to hit one out of the park for energy efficiency. New lighting improvements to Yankee Stadium are saving 207,000 pounds of heat-trapping pollutants per game, but is it enough for a run? It's a ground ball down left field. It's looking like a single...but what's this...the runner gets an extra boost: the new Great Hall uses natural cooling from its open windows instead of air conditioning. He's looking for a steal to third, but is stopped short: The park's additional 37 air-conditioned luxury suites (on top of the previous 30) and 1,400 television screens cut into his momentum. Read the full story here... More on Green Energy
 
Damien Hoffman: Professor David Colander Tells Congress Econ Models are Flawed Top
This may sound like common sense to investors and traders, but most people -- including policy makers -- do not readily accept the flawed nature of economic models. Thank goodness we have professor David Colander testifying to Congress in order to enlighten an otherwise dim room. Colander's work at Middlebury College focuses on the incentives and work-product of economists. His work has become increasingly more important as economists have heavily influenced policy making in recent years. In addition to exposing a few absurd underlying economic presuppositions such as "individuals behave with rational self-interest," Colander is helping shift incentives for professional economists away from publishing toward engaging in more useful studies. Based on these noble efforts to save us all from flawed economic models screwing up our daily lives, we are proud to award David Colander our third Medal of Honor for Excellent Service in addition to Josh Rosner and Chris Whalen ... Damien Hoffman: David, what type of economics do you research and teach? David: I'm called the "Court Jester of economics." I'm the person who says what everybody knows, but appropriate people know better than to say. I'm an economist watcher. I look at the incentives economists face, then understand and interpret economics through those incentives. So, I look at the economics of economics of economists [laughs]. Most people assume economists are searching for truth. In reality, economists are searching to achieve certain institutional goals like getting tenure, publishing articles, or doing a whole variety of things which may be related to truth. Therefore, there's all kinds of incentive compatibility problems. What's happened in pure macro theory I have considered a travesty for a long time and have written about it for the last 20 years. Damien: How did this travesty arise? David: The models are useful and were useful at some point, but they quickly lost their usefulness. In order to make them manageable they had to use so many assumptions that they deviated so far from reality and ultimately stopped shedding light on reality. Over time, we should have considered much more complicated non-linear dynamic models and a whole variety of new models -- but economists didn't do that. They kept dotting I's and crossing T's on a very restrictive equilibrium model which assumed away many of the most important elements that cause fluctuations and lead to the interesting effects that we see in the real macro economy. Damien: How did this all lead to you testifying to Congress? David: The Congressional Committee heard of that work and invited me for that reason. Damien: When you testified and said the models are too rigid in the face of unpredictable human behavior constantly changing in real time, was that too scary for legislators whose role in society is to increase order and reduce chaos? David: I hope not because that's reality. If reality is too scary, maybe some people think we have to hide it. I don't consider that especially scary at all. It's just a statement of common sense and the reality of what we know. As opposed to moving on after discovering problems with the models, economists continued looking at the same model. Perhaps they did so to avoid the scary dimensions that would have all kinds of results happening. Joseph Schumpeter once said when talking about these models that, "Most of the non-linear dynamic models that I favor have multiple equilibrium." And, he said, "You have to assume away all these multiple equilibria if economics is going to have any chance of being a science." I consider that absolutely wrong. You have to deal with the fact that there are multiple equilibria if economics is going to have any chance of being a science. Damien: Over the past 20 years, economists have slowly altered their image as more of a hard science when in fact it's a social science. How do we return to understanding an economist's role in providing information instead of elevating them to a high priest of finance? David: There are many different roles for economists. There's some roles for highly mathematical economists who analyze and study systems. There's some roles for people who understand the institutions. The problem is that economics has forgotten those advantages and gives people incentives to work only on fairly esoteric problems rather than practical problems. That has to do with the nature of incentives in academia. Damien: How did you suggest Congress deal with these incentive issues? David: The only way to change anything within the system is to change the incentive structure of the people who are operating there. That's a basic economic insight. The way to achieve progress isn't through regulation and telling people what to do. The way to do it is to change the incentives they face so their incentives match what you want them to do. Currently, the incentives in academia are for publishing articles written for other economists. And all economists compete in the same dimension. My emphasis has been there should be multiple dimensions of competition -- multiple types of outlets for economic research. And, they should be equally rewarded. Economists need more cross-disciplinary input from outside. I suggest having a variety of people on the reviewing committee such as physicists, mathematicians, politicians, and business people. My second suggestion was we need a lot more people with expertise in interpreting models -- people who can understand the reasons for the modeling, why it was done, and the mathematics behind it. Then, those interpreters will spend time in asking, "Is this particular model going to be useful for a particular problem?" Currently, there's no incentive for economists to ask these critical questions. Damien: If economists are not focused on the efficacy of their models, what role should economists be playing as policy makers? David: It depends on the particular economist. The training that economists get in graduate school does not prepare them to be policy makers. Instead, it prepares them to be article writers. Policy makers require a much broader sense and understanding. They need to know institutions. They need to know politics. They need to know a whole variety of issues. Some economists have that ability. Other economists don't. A lot of economists don't have those skills because they're not trained in them. They have to learn them on their own. So, whether they should be policy makers or not depends upon the particular characteristics of the individual economist. Damien: How has the Federal Reserve dealt with this problem? David: I don't think the Fed can be condemned for causing the problem or praised for avoiding it. They're part of the whole overall system. However, they've told me in order to recruit the top economists, they've had to change their incentive structure. The only thing the young people want to do is continue publishing. I get scared when the Fed gets more worried about publications rather than policy. In the past, the people at the Fed were promoted because they wrote good policy memos and provided good advice. Currently, Fed employees are being promoted in the research division by how much they publish. Damien: David, thank you very much for all your hard work. We wish you the best in your efforts. David: Thank you very much, Damien. I am honored you considered me for this award. More on Financial Crisis
 
Naomi Starkman: Tests Find Wide Range of Bisphenol A in Canned Soups, Juice, and More Top
Consumer Reports' latest tests of canned foods, including soups, juice, tuna, and green beans, have found that almost all of the 19 name-brand foods tested contain measurable levels of Bisphenol A (BPA). The results are reported in the December 2009 issue and also available online . BPA, which has been used for years in clear plastic bottles and food-can liners, has been restricted in Canada and some U.S. states and municipalities because it has been linked to a wide array of health effects including reproductive abnormalities, heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, and heart disease. I've reported on BPA over at Civil Eats here , here , and here . Federal guidelines currently put the daily upper limit of safe exposure at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight. But that level is based on a handful of experiments done in the 1980s rather than hundreds of more recent animal and laboratory studies indicating that serious health risks could result from much lower doses of BPA. Several animal studies show adverse effects, such as abnormal reproductive development, at exposures of 2.4 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight per day, a dose that could be reached by a child eating one or a few servings daily or an adult daily diet that includes multiple servings of canned foods containing BPA levels comparable to some of the foods Consumer Reports tested. In keeping with established practices that ensure an adequate margin of safety for human exposure, Consumer Reports' food-safety scientists recommend limiting daily exposure to BPA to one-thousandth of that level (standard safety limit setting practice), or 0.0024 micrograms per kilogram of body weight, significantly lower than FDA's current safety limit. Consumer Reports tested three different samples of each canned item for BPA and found that the highest levels of BPA tests were found in some samples of canned green beans and canned soups. Canned Del Monte Fresh Cut Green Beans Blue Lake had the highest amount of BPA for a single sample, with levels ranging from 35.9 parts per billon (ppb) to 191 ppb. Progresso Vegetable Soup BPA levels ranged from 67 to 134 ppb. Campbell's Condensed Chicken Noodle Soup had BPA levels ranging from 54.5 to 102 ppb. Average amounts in tested products varied widely. In most items tested, such as canned corn, chili, tomato sauce, and corned beef, BPA levels ranged from trace amounts to about 32 ppb. (A microgram BPA /kg food is equivalent to a ppb level found in food, the only difference being that it's a microgram of BPA/kg of food tested versus the exposure or dose limits of microgram of BPA/kg of a person's body weight per day. So, in the example of the green beans, based on one serving of the average level from three cans tested, the average concentration is 123.5ppb of BPA in the can, the next conversion is to ug BPA per serving, 14.9 ug BPA / serving of green beans, so for a small child (22lbs or 10kg) that would calculate to 1.49 ug BPA/kg-bw and for an adult (example used in the magazine, 165lb, 75kg) .20 ug BPA/kg bw for a 75kg adult.) The study also revealed that bypassing metal cans in favor of other packaging such as plastic containers or bags might lower but not eliminate exposure to BPA, but this wasn't true for all products tested. In addition, BPA was found in some products labeled as "organic" and some cans that claimed to be "BPA-free." "The findings are noteworthy because they indicate the extent of potential exposure," said Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Director of Technical Policy, at Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. "Children eating multiple servings per day of canned foods with BPA levels comparable to the ones we found in some tested products could get a dose of BPA near levels that have caused adverse effects in several animal studies. The lack of any safety margin between the levels that cause harm in animals and those that people could potentially ingest from canned foods has been inadequately addressed by the FDA to date." Consumers Union has previously called on manufacturers and government agencies to act to eliminate the use of BPA in all materials that come in contact with food and beverages. An FDA special scientific advisory panel reported in late 2008 that the agency's basis for setting safety standards to protect consumers was inadequate and should be reevaluated. A congressional subcommittee determined in 2009 that the agency relied too heavily on studies sponsored by the American Plastics Council. Given the new findings, Consumers Union sent a letter to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg reiterating its request that the agency act this year to ban the use of BPA in food- and beverage-contact materials. FDA is expected to announce the findings of its most recent reassessment of the safety of BPA by the end of this month. Bills are currently pending in Congress that would ban the use of BPA in all food and beverage containers. Industry has been waging a fight against new regulations, and California Assembly members recently voted not to ban BPA from feeding products for children under three. Consumer Reports is advising those who are concerned that they might be able to reduce, though not necessarily eliminate, their dietary exposure to BPA by taking the following steps: Choose fresh food whenever possible. Consider alternatives to canned food, beverages, juices, and infant formula. Use glass containers when heating food in microwave ovens. Originally published on CivilEats.
 
Paul Loeb: Join MoveOn's Primary Pledge to Rein in Rogue Democrats Top
Like many of us, I've been cursing Max Baucus through most of the summer, for blocking our best chance for real health care reform in forty years. Now Baucus at least says he won't filibuster, but Joe Lieberman threatens to bring the bill down, and with it perhaps Obama's presidency. As the health care fight approaches its end game, there's now a way for us, as ordinary citizens, to exercise power, and create enough of a potential cost to deter Lieberman, Baucus, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, or any of the other Democratic or once-Democratic obstructionists from using the threat of supporting a Republican filibuster to destroy our chance to move forward. These are small-state Senators, so most of us aren't constituents. As a result, we've watched, fuming in frustration, as they've rejected effective and popular approaches--like a House version that includes a serious public option and covers the costs by taxing the wealthy--in favor of highly regressive approaches almost certain to feed political backlash. Their resistance has made the Democrats look weak, divided, and incapable of leading. They're likely to do the same on global climate change, and every other key issue. But MoveOn has now created a simple but elegant approach to create at least a measure of deterrence: a pledge to back challengers against any member of the Democratic Caucus (including Lieberman) who supports a filibuster. We pledge whatever amount we can , even if only modest. The more money that gets pledged, and the more supporters, the more it could provide a real base for high-quality opponents to step up and challenge any even nominally Democratic Senator who is willing to so thoroughly dash the hopes of the American public as to prevent us from at least beginning to fix our profoundly broken health care system. And with enough support, the deterrent will actually work, and even the most craven and opportunistic Senators on the fence (I'm talking about you, Joe Lieberman), will come into line. These Senators could still vote their conscience, or lack thereof, and refuse to actively support bills or amendments they disagreed with. No one's denying them their voice or their actual vote on the bill. They just can't empower Republican efforts to completely block an up-or-down vote, and to totally obstruct the chance to address any of our key issues. I actually proposed a similar idea in an earlier version of this piece, and am gratified to learn that it contributed toward MoveOn's critically important initiative. Obviously, the more people participate in this pledge, the more pressure it creates for these Senators to back down from completely being loyal soldiers for the insurance companies, because the more credible opponents they would draw. Most of the Senators we're pressuring also happen to come from small states where media is relatively cheap, so the potential money available from such an approach would also go further than in many others, making the list even more of a deterrent. This kind of petition could also be a credible threat for a longer horizon. Max Baucus runs next in 2012. Popular and progressive Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer is term limited out in 2010. If Baucus backtracks on his recent promise not to filibuster, enough people pledging might well encourage Schweitzer to run. When I broached the petition idea to former nine-term Montana Congressman Pat Williams, he loved it, calling it "precisely the way to move the Congress to do what the majority of Americans want." Forcing Senators like Lieberman, Nelson, Baucus, and Lincoln to respond to the American public would be the right thing politically as well as morally. In a recent Lake Research poll , 64 percent of those surveyed opposed requiring all Americans to buy insurance in the absence of a public option. With a public option included, the margin reversed, and 60 percent supported it. In Lieberman's home state of Connecticut, a public option got 68 percent support . When a recent CBS poll asked how to finance the health care bill, people responded, by a 55 to 37 percent margin, that they should tax those making over $250,000 a year, the approach of Pelosi's House version. We could also use collective pressure to demand that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee refuse to help any Democratic Senators who support a Republican filibuster. This seems a reasonable line to draw, given how destructive the resistance of this small group has been to the Party's ability to build on their electoral mandate and act. Others have talked of a pledge to refuse to donate or volunteer for any particular candidates who'd cross that line. But withholding money or support in the general election is a risky game of chicken, where we if we lose, we're guaranteed an even-worse Republican. Primary challenges have a chance of actually ending up with a decent Senator who represents their constituency. Given enough people who pledge, this just might keep these obstructionist Senators honest enough to do what they should have to begin with, in actually working to pass good bills, so we won't have to recruit new challengers. Think of how Arlen Specter has become more progressive since the primary challenge of Joe Sestak. The challenges here would be more hypothetical, but could well have the same positive affect. A petition with enough signatures would also give Harry Reid some leverage to stand up more firmly when merging the two Senate bills, or to pursue the reconciliation option that allows passage of key sections with just 50 votes. It will also encourage Nancy Pelosi to continue drawing the line for a strong public option and progressive taxation when the bills go to the joint Senate-House committee. If we can get the obstructionists to realize their lack of loyalty might just cost them their Senate seats, they might actually be the ones to back down. Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association, and Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in a Cynical Time, whose new and completely revised second edition will be published March 30, 2010. See www.paulloeb.org To receive Paul's articles directly email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles More on Nancy Pelosi
 
Denver Halloween Snowstorm Time Lapse Top
Denver's Halloween snowstorm--the biggest October storm in 12 years --caught many of us by surprise. One YouTube fan, however, was ready with a camera. This time lapse video condenses the entire storm into one minute: More on Halloween
 
Web Could Run Out of Addresses By 2010, Warn Internet Experts Top
A survey, conducted by the European Commission, found that few companies are prepared for the switch from the current naming protocol, IPv4, to the new regime, IPv6. Web experts have warned that we could run out of internet addresses within the next two years unless more companies migrate to the new platform.
 
Google Cofounder Gives To Charity That Helped Him Escape Anti-Semitism Top
How many times do you use Google every day? Next time you're checking stocks, researching at work or cyber-stalking an ex-boyfriend, take a minute to type in The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society . Without them, Google may have never existed, the New York Times reported. Thirty years ago, HIAS helped a 6-year-old Sergey Brin and his family escape anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union and start a new life in the U.S. Brin went on to cofound Google and is now worth an estimated $16 billion from his online information empire. Last week, on the anniversary of his immigration to America, Brin donated $1 million to the organization. "I would have never had the kinds of opportunities I've had here in the Soviet Union, or even in Russia today," Mr. Brin said in an interview. "I would like to see anyone be able to achieve their dreams, and that's what this organization does." While the amount is relatively small, Brin said it is just the beginning of his philanthropic aspirations. Mr. Brin noted that Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft, was widely criticized for not giving away enough money but is now known as one of the world's leading philanthropists. "While everyone was criticizing him, he was generating a whole lot more money for his foundation, and ultimately, when he got serious about philanthropy, he did it really well," Mr. Brin said. "I'd like to learn from that example." He has also used his tech savvy to help out HIAS. Google has digitized their archives and Brin, who now sits on the board of HIAS, has started a social networking site for the organization to preserve the stories of Hebrew immigration to the U.S. During the past several years, Brin and his wife have donated $30 million to charity, mostly to promote research to cure Parkinson's disease, such as to The Michael J. Fox Foundation . He said he wants to continue to build his philanthropy systematically. More on Google
 
Obamas' Presidential PDA: One Year As A Cute First Couple (PHOTOS, POLL) Top
In this weekend's New York Times Magazine 's story on the Obamas' marriage, reporter Jodi Kantor writes, "[F]riends who visit the White House describe occasionally turning corners to find the first couple mid-embrace." And we don't doubt it! Barack and Michelle are frequently photographed holding hands, and sometimes seen sneaking a kiss or making eyes at each other. We've rounded up our favorite post-inauguration Obama PDA pics. Which moments are sweet...and which are the sweetest? Take a look and vote. And for more lovey-dovey snapshots, check out our Obama PDA Big News Page . Photos from AP, Getty, and White House. Who Is The Ultimate Game Changer In Style? VOTE NOW! And follow HuffPost Style on Twitter and become a fan of HuffPost Style on Facebook while you're at it. More on Obama PDA
 
Hynes Rebuffs Quinn's Call For Truce Following Negative Ad (WATCH) Top
After weeks of bitter intra-party feuding that has played out in the form of millions of dollars worth of competing TV ads, Gov. Pat Quinn is offering a truce to Democratic gubernatorial rival Dan Hynes. Gov. Quinn's campaign manager John Kamis issued a statement Monday offering to pull its latest ad -- one that accuses state Comptroller Hynes for being missing in action during the budget crisis -- if Hynes agrees to pull down one that the Quinn campaign says unfairly characterizes the governor's budget proposal. "Dan Hynes can continue down the negative TV campaign path that he started," Kamis said in the statement, "or he can join Governor Quinn is restoring this campaign to the informative, issues-based principles that Democratic primary voters deserve. We await his decision." The Hynes campaign wasted no time making its decision, releasing a response statement Monday afternoon eviscerating Quinn for what has come to be known as "the spa ad," which accuses Hynes of spending a leisurely morning at a spa while Quinn was hard at work trying to solve the budget crisis. "Two days after launching an embarrassingly absurd attack ad that continues to draw derision from outside observers, the Quinn campaign wants a way out," Hynes spokesman Matt McGrath said. "No thanks. We will continue to run our campaign based on a discussion of the central issue facing the state of Illinois and its future - the budget crisis." Watch Hynes' ad that got the Quinn campaign riled up: Watch the Quinn "Spa" ad:
 

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.
at

No comments:

Post a Comment