Politics | UnFox News - Not a Propaganda Arm of the Republican Party

Christine O'Donnell, Tea Partying Delaware Senate Candidate, Gets Grilled Over Exaggerated Claims

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:00:51 -0500

Christine O'Donnell, a Tea Party Express-backed candidate running against Rep. Mike Castle in an upcoming Delaware GOP Senate primary, had her hot streak put on ice Thursday morning, as conservative radio host Dan Gaffney repeatedly rained all over the conservative candidate's recent parade.

WGMD's Gaffney -- who had supported O'Donnell in her 2006 quest for the Senate but apparently no longer felt compelled to be nice to her at all -- grilled O'Donnell about recent statements in which she claimed that she had tied now-Vice President Joe Biden in two of three districts during her second Senate campaign in 2008.

"Christine, he won in votes, you know that," Gaffney told O'Donnell about the vote count in Sussex County.

"What about Kent County?" Gaffney asked.

"We trailed by about 10,000 votes, I said we nearly tied," O'Donnell clarified, countering her campaign trail contention that she had actually tied Biden.

The rest of the exchange was equally caustic, with Gaffney digging into issues of O'Donnell's lasting 2008 campaign debt, college degree, a recent altercation at a candidate forum, and a controversial attack ad by one of her former associates that claimed Rep. Castle was gay.

O'Donnell explicitly distanced herself from the ad, Thursday, saying that she had nothing to do with its production and did not condone the message.

"Yates doesn't work form my campaign anymore," O'Donnell said of the video's creator. "I think that's a very tacky approach. I never said Mike Castle was gay, that is an insult to his wife Jane and and insult to Mike Castle."

Listen to the entire interview here.

Bush Tax Cuts: More Dems Come Out Against Tax Increases For The Rich

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:00:41 -0500

WASHINGTON — Congress seems increasingly reluctant to let taxes go up, even on wealthier Americans.

Worried about the fragile economy and their own upcoming elections, a growing number of Democrats are joining the rock-solid Republican opposition to President Barack Obama's plans to let some of the Bush administration's tax cuts expire.

Democratic leaders in Congress still back Obama, but the willingness to raise taxes is waning among the rank and file as the stagnant economy threatens the party's majority in the House and Senate.

"In my view this is no time to do anything that could be jarring to a fragile recovery," said Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, a first-term Democrat.

The most sweeping tax cuts in a generation are due to expire in January, and that's setting up a showdown when lawmakers return from their summer vacations this month. By waiting to act on the tax cuts until just before congressional elections in November, Democratic leaders have raised the stakes, politically and for taxpayers.

If Congress fails to act - a possibility given the gridlock that has gripped the Senate - workers at every income level would face significant tax increases next year.

Taxpayers making between $40,000 and $50,000 a year would get hit with an average income tax increase of $923 next year. Those making between $50,000 and $75,000 would face an average increase of $1,126, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

Obama wants to make the tax cuts permanent for middle- and low-income families while allowing them to expire for individuals making more than $200,000 and married couples making more than $250,000.

Republicans want to make all the tax cuts permanent, adding nearly $4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Most Democrats in Congress support Obama's plan, but a growing number have come out in favor of extending all the reductions for a year or two, leaving the outcome very much in doubt.

"It's going to be hard to resist a one-year extension for everybody, given the state of the economy," said Clint Stretch, a tax expert at the consulting firm Deloitte Tax LLP. "That's where I think the ball is moving."

The tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush. They provided help for both rich and poor, reducing the lowest marginal rates as well as the top ones and several in between. They also provided a wide range of income tax breaks for education, families with children and married couples.

Taxes on capital gains and dividends were reduced, while the federal estate tax was gradually repealed, though only through this year.

Connolly said the nation cannot afford to make all the tax cuts permanent, which would add about $3.9 trillion to the national debt over the next decade according to updated estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

"I would say certainly a year, until we feel more confident about the economic growth of this economy," he said.

Another freshman Democrat, Rep. Bobby Bright of Alabama, said he would like to see all the tax cuts extended for two or three years, if lawmakers cannot agree on a more permanent plan.

"Party leaders are not my directors or my boss," Bright said. "My boss is my constituents, and I've heard from a vast majority of my constituents that they don't believe in tax increases on anybody at this point in time."

Bright is high on the re-election endangered list, one of roughly four dozen Democrats in districts won by Republican presidential nominee John McCain in 2008.

In the Senate, where Democrats need unity and at least one Republican vote to overcome filibusters, at least three Democrats and independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut have said they want to extend all the tax cuts temporarily.

Several Democratic candidates for Senate have also come out in favor of extending them all, including Robin Carnahan in Missouri and Jack Conway in Kentucky.

"Jack Conway was in favor of the Bush tax cuts when they first passed (in 2001 and 2003), and he's in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts now," said spokeswoman Allison Haley.

Obama first staked out his position on taxes during the presidential campaign, and his administration has been adamant that the nation cannot afford to extend the reductions for top earners.

Obama's plan would let taxes increase by a little more than $38 billion next year, with nearly 80 percent of the increase falling on families making more than $1 million, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Taxpayers making between $200,000 and $500,000 would face an average tax increase of $532, according to the analysis. Those making from $500,000 to $1 million would average an increase of a little more than $9,800. Taxpayers making more than $1 million would average an increase of just over $95,000.

This week, White House economic adviser Jason Furman said it would be a bad idea to extend tax cuts for the wealthy, even for just a year, because it would open the door to making them permanent. Last week, Vice President Joe Biden said Republican claims that small businesses would be hurt by the proposed tax increase are a "bunch of malarkey."

On Thursday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said extending cuts for the wealthy would do little to improve the economy.

"We are focused first and foremost and only on extending tax cuts for the middle class," Gibbs said.

Tony Blair's Memoir Asks 'Whether I May Have Been Right' About Iraq (VIDEO)

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:55:36 -0500

ABC's Christiane Amanpour spent "a couple of hours" with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to talk about politics and friendships, the essential content of his recently released memoir, "A Journey."

"His book is a personal reflection of the many relationships he had with presidents, prime ministers and even princesses, like Diana," said Amanpour in an excerpt of the interview featured on "Good Morning America" yesterday.

On GMA, Amanpour explained that Blair "sees the key to breaking the impasse in the Middle East: 'No one has ever gripped it long enough or firmly enough. The gripping is intermittent and intermittent won't do'."

In his memoir, Blair writes about George W. Bush:

"George had immense simplicity in how he saw the world. Right or wrong, it led to decisive leadership."

And on the war, he writes:

"On the basis of what we do know now, I still believe that leaving Saddam in power was a bigger risk to our security than removing him and that, terrible though the aftermath was, the reality of Saddam and his sons in charge of Iraq would at least arguably be much worse. ... I am unable to satisfy the desire even of some of my supporters, who would like me to say: it was a mistake but one made in good faith. Friends opposed to the war think I'm being obstinate; others, less friendly, think I'm delusional. To both I may say: keep an open mind."

About Blair's book, in his 3.5 star review in The Los Angeles Times, Tim Rutten writes:

"As a book, it's unusual because he wrote it himself, which makes this volume unique among the English-speaking world's recent political autobiographies. It also gives "A Journey" a disarming frankness that a professional collaborator almost certainly would have manicured away, along with anecdotes that are unintentionally self-revealing."

Concerning the book's treatment of the Iraq war, Rutter writes:

"Given the donation of this memoir's royalties to Britain's Iraq war casualties, a great deal of attention is likely to focus on Blair's second thoughts concerning those conflicts. To put it concisely, he doesn't have any. 'I have often reflected as to whether I was wrong,' he writes. 'I ask you to reflect as to whether I may have been right'."

According to USA Today, despite praising many aspects of George W. Bush's personality and leadership, Blair ultimately writes:

"'It was more difficult, frankly,' to warm to Bush, said Blair, former leader of the liberal Labor Party. Clinton, he said, was his 'political soul mate'."

On the market for only two days, Blair's "A Journey" has become an instant bestseller.

Interested in all the hype? Find out what Blair has to say about the Iraq war, leadership and political friendships.

WATCH:

Kenneth K. Lee: One Year and Waiting -- The Nomination of Edward M. Chen

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:51:01 -0500

In August 2009, President Obama nominated U.S. Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen to the federal bench in San Francisco. Over a year later, his nomination remains stalled amid Republican opposition.

It's easy to see why Judge Chen is a tantalizingly easy target: For 16 years, he served as an ACLU staff attorney taking on causes that are anathema to conservatives. He has also made public statements that earned the ire of the conservative blogosphere. For example, in the immediate aftermath of September 11, he said that he had a "sickening feeling in [his] stomach" that racism and nativism would bear upon innocent Muslims in the United States.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has twice held hearings on his nomination and voted on him favorably, but Judge Chen has yet to provide an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. The Senate has twice returned his nomination to the White House without any action, but President Obama will likely renominate Judge Chen once again, triggering another judicial face-off.

Republicans may feel emboldened to continue their opposition of Judge Chen, especially in light of their likely gains this fall. But it would not be in the long-term interest of the Republicans or the country to engage in a de facto filibuster of Judge Chen.

Both parties bear some blame for the politicization of the judicial nomination process. Denying an up-or-down vote for Judge Chen would only reinforce this vicious cycle of partisan warfare over the third branch. District court nominees, in particular, should not be stymied because they, unlike their appellate brethren, typically are not the last word and do not shape the law. As trial court judges, they represent the nuts-and-bolts of the judicial system, ensuring that litigants have their day in court.

None of the arguments offered in opposition to Judge Chen's nomination, when examined closely, has merit.

First, many conservatives claim that Judge Chen will be a judicial activist, pointing to his affiliation with the ACLU. Conservatives should oppose such guilt-by-association. It's no more valid here as it is when liberals invoked the specter of the Federalist Society to oppose Republican nominees. A far better barometer of Judge Chen's judicial qualifications is his nine-year record as a federal magistrate judge. No one has objected to Judge Chen's opinions, and he has been praised by local lawyers as a diligent and fair jurist. That speaks volumes.

To be sure, Judge Chen's philosophy leans to the left and a Republican President would not likely nominate him. In fact, Judge Chen's name had been floated as a potential nominee during the Bush Administration, but he obviously was not nominated. But elections have consequences. President Obama should generally be entitled to a high level of deference in his appointments. As long as the nominee is not out of the mainstream and has the proper character, he or she should be confirmed, or at the very least, receive an up-or-down vote.

Second, Judge Chen's comments after September 11 perhaps could have been better phrased, but the gist of his message is no different that what President Bush cautioned after 9/11 when he implored the country "to make sure that every American is treated with respect and dignity during this period of - during any period, for that matter - of American history, particularly during this time." And to the credit of the American people and the Bush Administration, there was no spate of violence against Muslim Americans or an executive order curtailing their rights.

Finally, many Republicans believe that this is payback for Democrats' orchestrated stonewalling of President Bush's highly qualified appellate nominees such as Miguel Estrada, Peter Keisler, and Carolyn Kuhl. Even a well-regarded district court nominee, James Rogan, was deep-sixed.

The GOP frustration is understandable. And that's why Republicans have relished targeting a darling of the left, Berkeley Law professor and Ninth Circuit nominee Goodwin Liu. Perhaps President Obama would be wise to extend an olive branch by renominating one of the Bush nominees, much like President Bush did with President Clinton's judicial candidates. But the unfortunate treatment of the Bush nominees shouldn't be a license for the GOP to do the same.

Republicans don't have to vote for Judge Chen's confirmation because no nominee is entitled to a coronation. But they should at least provide him with an up-or-down vote. It's only a matter of time before there will be another Republican in the White House, and conservatives will then want an up-or-down vote for all nominees.

Kenneth K. Lee is a lawyer in private practice in Los Angeles. He previously served as an Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush and helped oversee the judicial nominations in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Erik S. Syverson: The Coming Wave of Social Media Class Actions

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:19:50 -0500

The fun, free, Wild West days of the Internet are over -- and in their place have come the quiet, controlled online suburbs of Facebook and other social media networks. As online society corrals itself into gated communities, we have the (reasonable) expectation of better privacy and protection ... But the reality is just the opposite. Ironically, the more organized the Internet becomes, the more at risk we all are of losing our personal privacy.

I'm an attorney -- one of the few in the country who bases an entire practice on Internet litigation. I've sued Google, CitySearch, Interactive/IMC and TicketMaster -- all for Internet-related offenses.

This week, I'm joining my colleagues at the country's largest conference of class action attorneys -- the 28th Annual Convention for the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA) -- in Las Vegas. While these attorneys are here to discuss a variety of issues and concerns, the one big one that is popping up on everyone's radar is online privacy.

Online privacy is a big issue already, but it's going to get even bigger. And here's why: people have more at stake online than ever before. We have our families, children, friends and pets stored online -- we shop online -- we bank online -- we "friend" those we agree with, and write ranting posts to those we don't -- we post explicit photos of ourselves and others online - and we make defamatory statements as well.

Our social lives, private lives, business lives, financial lives, children's lives and even pets lives are now more online, intertwined with the Web, than ever before. Therefore, we have a lot more to lose when that privacy is suddenly violated.

Enter Google. And Facebook. Two companies that are notorious for violating user privacy. Street View, Buzz, Beacon, "Like" buttons ... all programs promoted as exciting new features by these companies, all ultimately flawed because they took away an individual's right to control what is seen and known about him online.

Now enter the lawyers. This year alone, Google has been sued twice in class actions for violating users' privacy -- once for its Street View program, the other for its disastrous launch of Buzz. Late last year Facebook also settled a class action suit, to the tune of $9.5 million, for violating users' privacy with its "Beacon" program that shared information on individual's buying habits. It's in another class action this year over the "Like" buttons, which plaintiffs claim have misappropriated the names/likenesses of minors without parental consent.

And the complaints just keep on rolling in.

It may seem odd to the average person that there could even be such a thing as an Internet class action -- or, more specifically, a Facebook class action. But when one considers how much of our lives is at stake online -- and not just our lives, but that of our children too -- it begins to make sense.

In a way, it is almost as if online privacy has become the new lead-tainted toy. It's a new danger that appears out of nowhere -- there is no way to anticipate it or prevent it. There are no real authorities out there to help. No regulation. You're either lucky, or you're not. Consumers are left on their own, and, as a result, more of them are turning to attorneys for help.

There may come a time when the federal government creates a better system of Internet regulations and laws to safeguard user privacy -- or at least to define a reasonable expectation for it.

But until that happens, the Web's boundaries, and personal rights, will continue to be fought out in case law -- lawsuit by lawsuit, social program by social program.

George Mitrovich: Glenn Beck v. Keith Olbermann & Rachel Maddow

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:18:27 -0500

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. ~ William Butler Yeats

Glenn Beck, the famous talk show host on Fox News, was in our nation's capital last Saturday to appear at a meeting of his own creation. He and his followers gathered at the Lincoln Memorial to stage a rally where 47-years earlier Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers culminated their march on Washington.

On that momentous occasion, August 28, 1963, King gave his unforgettable "I Have a Dream" speech, a speech that transformed a movement and touched America's soul -- and conscience.

But Glenn Beck's speech, quasi-revivalist in tone, warned of America's drift into "darkness." He did so because he's alarmed about our country, about its direction. Without dismissing Beck's sincerity it's doubtful whether his speech or King's could have been more dissimilar.

Beck claims 500,000 people attended his event. CBS News commissioned AirPhotosLive to provide an aerial view of the rally. AirPhotosLive placed the crowd at 78,000 (plus or minus 9,000.)

You can slice and dice away, but no matter which side of the count you come down on, whether pro or anti-Beck, a whole lot of people showed up at the Lincoln Memorial to cheer their hero.

Quarrels over crowd count are common -- and often the quarrel becomes the story. There's the "official" count and the rally organizer's count, and that's the way it is. But as it relates to Washington last Saturday does it matter? You can go with CBS' 78,000 or Beck's 500,000, but whatever the final number, it was big. So give Beck that.

I couldn't help but wonder, however, what might happen if Beck's polar opposites politically, Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow of MSNBC staged a similar rally?

Would 78,000 come, 250,000, 500,000? Would an Olbermann/Maddow crowd be as committed as Beck's? Would they give up a summer's weekend to travel to Washington to cheer their heroes, as did Beck's?

Could Olbermann or Maddow summon from the depths of their followers similar intensity and dedication to cause? Would they, the MSNBC faithful, like the Fox faithful, arise from their Lazy Susans, walk away from the putting green, cancel plans to go to Disney World, forgo sailing off Cape Cod, to show the flag?

Olbermann and Maddow are smart and talented performers, no less committed in their beliefs and values than Beck, but Olbermann/Maddow's ability to attract a similar size crowd to Beck's, doubtful.

Here's why:

Since the beginning of the Obama presidency liberals and progressives have demonstrated little political passion compared to those on the right. Once the election was over, once a black man was elected president, once the Democrats controlled Congress, liberals and progressives declared victory - and left the game.

Yes, it was a historic win for the Democratic Party and people on the left, but the game wasn't over; it was just beginning.

Surely, that could be seen in last summer's rage over health care, where in public forums across the country the right showed up in huge numbers -- irate, strident, and full of wrath. If you supported health-care they shouted you down, accused you of favoring socialized medicine (never mind that many of the accusers were on Medicare), said you were Marxists or communists -- or worse.

Their mantra was unrelenting, "We want our country back!" they yelled.

In the midst of this, when civil discourse was losing, when men and women in elected office were silenced by fear, liberals and progressives became invisible.

Having walked precincts for Obama, having organized political fundraiser, and having prayed for deliverance from George W. Bush and what many believed were the ill-fated consequences of his presidency, liberals and progressives were content. Having achieved what they so desperately wanted, they opted out. Mission accomplished.

In their absence a new political movement was born. The Tea Party became the rage.

Sarah Palin may or may not be its leader, it may or may not have a coherent political philosophy, but those who joined or followed or identified with the Tea Party, emerged a force. It was said they lacked "sophistication", but passion and intensity can be a wonderful thing in politics.

There is precedence for what happened in the wake of Obama's victory. It happened before but the lesson was forgotten, and, in consequence, its history ignored.

In the 60s and 70s, having finally achieved their principal objectives, civil rights as the rule of law, the end of the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon out of office and disgraced, liberals were spent, emotions drained, energy gone. There were no more rivers to cross or mountains to climb. Everest, K-2, and Annapurna were conquered. Liberalism was victorious. Those who believed in its cause, which they believed to be moral and just, turned to other pursuits.

A large political vacuum was created, but it didn't last. Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority arose -- and American politics were forever changed.

What was Falwell's inspiration?

He said he watched William Sloane Coffin Jr., the Berrigan brothers, and other Christian clergy march against the war in Vietnam and decided if they could march against a war he could march for the rights of the unborn. Coffin, the Berrigans and others left the parade. Falwell and Robertson and Dobson took their place.

We do not know the Tea Party's dÃ©nouement, what the political effect will be in November. But what we do know is this: Unless liberals can find their hearts, their souls, and reclaim their energy and sense of mission, Obama's 2008 victory will have ended before it began.

And the "darkness" Glenn Beck believes America is drifting into, will come to pass -- but the darkness will be different than he foresees.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: Making Congress More Transparent

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:17:46 -0500

As I travel across the state and listen to New Yorkers, there is no question how worried people are about the economy -- if the job they have today will be here tomorrow, if the job they lost is ever coming back, and how they are going to make ends meet and provide for their families. I share these concerns and I'm working each and every day to put New Yorkers back to work, support small businesses and grow our economy for the long term.

But what I also hear from people time and again is that they have very little faith that Congress is working to solve their problems. Frankly, when they look to Washington they see a lot of people who are more concerned about scoring cheap political points than improving their lives and solving their problems.

The fact is, New Yorkers feel they're not being heard, that too much business is happening behind closed doors and too often the system only benefits the special interests that have way too much power. That's why I am traveling the state during August recess to promote my transparency agenda and let New Yorkers know that making Washington work for you is one of my top priorities.

As I wrote back in July, the four pillars of my reform agenda are as follows:

1. Make Federal Funding Requests Fully Transparent
2. Reduce Corporate Special Interest Influence on Elections
3. End Automatic Congressional Pay Raises
4. Ban Anonymous Holds on Legislation

I'm pleased to report that in late July, the first item on my agenda took a step forward when the Earmark Transparency Act -- which I wrote with Republicans Tom Coburn and John McCain, and Democrat Russ Feingold to create an easily searchable earmark database -- passed out of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Under our bill, every single lawmaker will have to disclose the amount of their initial request, the amount approved by Committee, and the amount approved in final passage. They will also need to disclose the type of organization receiving the funding, what they will use it for, and justify why they need taxpayer dollars to fund their project.

If everyone in America can easily see who and what their lawmakers are requesting taxpayer money for, we can keep elected officials honest, end the days of political, special interest favors, and reduce wasteful spending.

Now that it's passed out of committee, I have asked Majority Leader Reid to bring this bill up for a vote on the Senate floor. Will you help me push this important reform through the Senate and co-sign my letter to Majority Leader Reid?

You can read the full letter below:

Dear Leader Reid,
I write today to request that the Senate consider a bipartisan earmark transparency bill before the end of this Congressional session. Providing more openness and transparency to the earmark process will create greater accountability and more effectively engage our constituents in our efforts to create jobs and invest in our communities.

I, along with 27 of our colleagues, recently cosponsored the Earmark Transparency Act, S. 3335. This bill requires that all earmark requests made by Senators be listed in an easily searchable, public, database. Specifically, the legislation requires the database to include the following information about each federal funding request:

- Amount of initial request made by requestor;
- Amount approved by the Committee of jurisdiction;
- Amount approved in final legislation (if approved);
- Type of organization receiving the request (public, non-profit, or private for-profit entity);
- Project name, description and estimated completion date;
- Justification explaining how the spending item would benefit taxpayers;
- Description, if applicable, of all non-federal sources of funding for the Congressionally directed spending item;
- Requests and supplemental documents submitted to a committee of Congress.

This legislation has broad bipartisan support and it is my firm belief that more openness and transparency will improve the earmark process.

For the last three years, I have listed my earmark requests on my website and I have received positive feedback from my constituents. By providing my constituents with all the information about the requests I make, I've empowered citizens in New York to play a role in the process, articulating what projects they think are smart investments and areas where taxpayer money could be better invested.

As you know, President Obama has called for a single Web site to track all earmark requests and it is my hope that we may be able to create something that can be used during the appropriations process next year.

I realize the Senate schedule will be very busy this year, but I hope that I may work with you to carve out just a small amount of time to consider this important issue.

Thanks for joining me in the fight to make Washington more transparent and our representatives more accountable so that we can restore Americans' faith in their government again.

P.S. When it comes to reforming the way Washington works, I know that at the top of people's list of priorities is filibuster reform. Right now there is no question that the Republicans are abusing the filibuster and I absolutely support reforming it so that we have majority rule in the US Senate. There are a number of legislative proposals I'm considering to accomplish this important reform.

Louisiana Democrats Drop Vitter Prostitution Video Opus

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:13:59 -0500

Last week, I was surprised (and chagrinned) to learn that despite the widespread, inside-the-beltway knowledge of Senator David Vitter's (R-La.) prostitution scandals, an astonishingly large segment of his statewide electorate had no awareness of his past. As Brian Beutler reported:

Yesterday, PPP unveiled a handful of the toplines of this same poll, suggesting that a great number of voters are still unaware of Vitter's recent travails, including prostitution scandals, and the more recent discovery that he knowingly employed a top aide for two years after the aide attacked his girlfriend with a knife. Only 21 percent say Vitter is a "good model" of Christian living. But 44 percent say he's not a good model, and 35 percent say they don't know.

And so, the Louisiana Democratic party continues with their effort to raise awareness of Vitter's transgressions -- or, as they put it, "Forgotten Crimes." Today, they've released a five-and-a-half minute video, detailing Vitter's history with America's prostitutes. One of the more interesting reminders that the video provides is that Vitter had his standing-next-to-my-wife public confessional long before New York Governor Eliot Spitzer made it famous and got the adjective "disgraced" affixed to his name. And one of the things that we perhaps did not need to know was the lengths to which Vitter went in allegedly tidying up the scenes of his trysts.

But I digress, here is the Louisiana Democratic Party's entry for Best Documentary Short Film! Brian Beutler has more.

[WATCH]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

G.W. Schulz: Coast Guard Resources for Protecting the Environment Fell in Recent Years

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:44:50 -0500

The Coast Guard since 2005 has dedicated fewer and fewer resources to environmental protection, one of its myriad responsibilities that includes preventing oil spills like the BP catastrophe now making history in the Gulf of Mexico.

A new report from the Department of Homeland Security's watchdog inspector general says the number of resource hours committed annually by the Coast Guard to stopping perpetrators from dumping illegally into the ocean and otherwise halting the discharge of dangerous substances dropped in 2009, continuing a trend that's lasted now for five years.

Lawmakers mounted ever-increasing pressure on the Coast Guard to fight terrorism after Sept. 11 while also insisting that it maintain traditional duties the public is more familiar with, among them plucking citizens from raging floodwaters and rescuing boaters stranded at sea. Resource hours dedicated to search and rescue have also dipped since 2001, although that particular mission depends on how many people actually need help.

Energy devoted to the Coast Guard's so-called "homeland security missions," which include things like securing the nation's ports and stopping undocumented migrants from entering the United States, have increased markedly since the 9/11 hijackings. The federal government defines "resource hours" as the amount of time aircraft are in flight and ships are in the water carrying out specific missions.

More of those hours were spent by the Coast Guard in 2009 protecting the nation's ports, waterways and coastlines from "maritime security threats" than anything else. Marine environmental protection has been at the bottom of the Coast Guard's several missions for at least four years when using resource hours as a measurement. The IG is required by Congress to report on the division of resource hours annually.

Actual incidents involving the spillage of oil and other dangerous chemicals were declining prior to the BP disaster, which may account at least in part for the fact that such environmental hazards were "not at the top of the list," as a retired Coast Guard captain described it to the Washington Post recently.

The Post published an assessment of the Coast Guard Aug. 13 and pointed out that its inspectors relied on decades-old regulations when they visited offshore drilling rigs to ensure workers were adequately protected and units were seaworthy:

Since the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, investigations into oversight gaps have focused on systemic problems within the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, which in recent weeks has been renamed and revamped. But the Coast Guard, which shared oversight with MMS, has largely escaped scrutiny. ... Some analysts said the spill highlights the need to rethink Coast Guard priorities. In the past 35 years, Congress has handed the agency at least 27 new responsibilities, according to a tally by Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 'They just don't have enough personnel to carry out all those missions,' said Oberstar, who favors severing the Coast Guard from the Homeland Security Department. 'That's just not possible.'

Elevated Risk reported in May that budget plans by the Obama administration called for cutting $75 million and hundreds of personnel from the Coast Guard. That included decommissioning a strike force coordination center in North Carolina, which provides support to specialized teams in charge of handling oil spills and the release of other hazardous materials. Coast Guard officials promise the center's responsibilities will be taken over by offices elsewhere and not abandoned.

Members of a key Senate subcommittee that controls the federal government's purse strings nonetheless complained in a July report that the Coast Guard's obligation to protect the environment "has been diluted by the increased demands of other homeland security missions." The panel noted a 45 percent drop overall in mission hours dedicated to marine environmental responses since Sept. 11.

Obama's proposed 2011 budget also sought an increase in funding of more than $45 million for the Coast Guard to battle drug traffickers, a homeland security mission, while its search-and-rescue functions, considered a "non-homeland security mission," was scheduled to lose almost $50 million over the previous year.

But many of the Coast Guard's high-profile response missions in recent months had nothing to do with the drug war. Coast Guard men and women were among the earliest to arrive in January when a colossal earthquake turned Haiti's Port-au-Prince into near rubble. Its personnel were there to free motorists and homeowners trapped during torrential May floods in Tennessee. It remains the face of Washington's response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion that killed 11 people before launching an unforgettable environmental tragedy.

Recently retired Adm. Thad Allen likes to remind the public that all of these doubtlessly heroic episodes were carried out despite the Coast Guard having one of the oldest fleets in the world. He said during a February speech that two water vessels were forced to abandon the Haiti relief effort for emergency repairs and aircraft were diverted to help supply repair parts rather than participate in evacuations.

One of the Coast Guard's leading preoccupations for several years now has been a gigantic, multibillion-dollar campaign to modernize its aging ships and aircraft and purchase advanced technologies. Known as Deepwater, Allen doesn't always emphasize publicly for obvious reasons that the program has suffered from serious allegations of poor contractor oversight, mismanagement and waste.

The bungled handling of Deepwater has since made pleas from senior leaders for more money a tougher sell even as many acknowledge that the rank-and-file are being asked to do too much. Allen himself eventually conceded that the Coast Guard relied excessively on large defense contractors to direct Deepwater, but not before the program endured costly setbacks.

G.W. Schulz joined the Center for Investigative Reporting in 2008 to launch its ongoing homeland security project. Read the project's blog, Elevated Risk, here.

Sally Kohn: Next Bailout to Watch: The GOP and the Richest of the Rich

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:39:23 -0500

The Institute for Policy Studies just released it's 17th annual study of CEO compensation revealing that the CEOs of the 50 corporations that cut the most jobs over the last two years received average bonuses higher than those paid to CEOs of the largest 500 businesses in America. You follow that? The CEOs who cut jobs got the largest rewards.

What's worse, the Institute for Policy Studies found that 36 of those 50 CEOs cut jobs at a time when their corporations were reporting record profits. They cut jobs, helped sink the economy and put even more money in their own pockets. And now Republicans (and, unfortunately, some conservative Democrats) want to reward these richest of the rich by giving them giant tax cuts?!?

Bailing out the super rich won't help grow the economy. It will only further grow the monstrous gap between unemployed and struggling average American workers and the elite ranks of greedy CEOs --- which is part of the problem in the first place.

In the Wall Street Journal, Michael Boskin (the former chair of the Council of Economic Advisors under George W. Bush) writes: "Businesses are flush with cash and profits have been solid." In fact, businesses have been flush with cash for over a decade but as a matter of corporate policy and culture, big business has spent its money raising CEO salaries and paying higher short-term dividends instead of hiring more workers, creating better products and services and investing in our economy's --- and our nation's --- future.

Structurally, Wall Street has encouraged this extreme greed and inequality under the rationale of "trickle down" economics. But while even the Wall Street Journal acknowledges that big business is faring just fine in this economic crisis, the estimated 75% of Americans who've been touched by unemployment and recession aren't feeling a drop of that trickle.

Meanwhile, the New York Times echoed a report in the Financial Times that the business lobby is bucking against new disclosure requirements in financial reform legislation that will require corporations to compute the discrepancy between salary and benefits paid to CEOs compared with those paid to regular workers in companies. The business lobby insists the complaint over the regulation is about "logistical" challenges --- but, in truth, they don't want the failure of "trickle-down economics" to be so blatantly and indisputably proven.

The New York Times writes: "It is clear that C.E.O. pay has skyrocketed while workers' pay has stagnated; it is also clear that skewed pay and rising income inequality correlate to bubbles and crashes." While in 1960 the average American CEO made 61 times what the average worker in his or her company was paid, now CEOs make an average of 411 times what their workers are paid. Some CEOs make 900 times more than their lowest paid employees. Are those CEOs really working 900 times harder? Or have we rigged our economic system to help CEOs and hurt the rest of us? Income and wealth for the top 1% of America has been growing while, adjusted for inflation, the rest of us are actually working harder and harder for less and less reward.

Given all that, conservatives want to give the richest of the rich EVEN MORE money from our public pockets?

In the Constitution, our Founding Fathers gave the federal government the ability to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." That "general Welfare" includes distributing resources more fairly and creating equal opportunity for all. These are core American values. We recognize that the children of Donald Trump inherently start off their lives several steps ahead of your kids or mine --- let alone the child of a single, young mother who doesn't have a job or a place to live. What makes America a great nation is not that the rich get richer but that we create conditions so those who start below have a chance at catching up and even getting rich themselves. Our national pride comes from what everyday Americans are able to achieve here, not from multiplying the largess of already-successful billionaires.

But conservatives have corrupted the idea of fair distribution not just to oppose providing vital supports for poor and working class families but to endorse policies that actually re-distribute money from average Americans to the very, very rich. Make no mistake about it, when Republicans call for extending Bush-era tax breaks on the richest of the rich, that means re-distributing OUR government funds away from unemployment benefits, veterans services, food stamp programs and public schools.

The independent Council of Economic Advisors has said government spending to stimulate the economy created between 2.5 and 3.6 million jobs in the second quarter of 2010. According to the Wall Street Journal 70% of economists say that government stimulus spending helped the economy. So let's make this simple --- a dollar in the hands of government does more to help the economy and jobs (including YOUR job and YOUR family's bottom line) than that same dollar in the hands of the richest of the rich.

Our economic crisis was caused by deep, structural problems --- free trade agreements sending manufacturing jobs oversees, to decimating worker protections to letting finance capital run wild. But scholars have also found a striking correlation between inequality and economic crises --- as the gap between the rich and the rest of us gets bigger, recessions erupt. Conservatives are right in accusing some of us "liberals" of seeing an opportunity within this financial crisis. We see an opportunity to finally make the American economy work for working people instead of the just the super rich.

Christine O'Donnell, Delaware Tea Partier, Criticized Masturbation On MTV's 'Sex In The 90s' Show

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:38:28 -0500

Long before she became the latest fascination of the political press and the cause-of-the-moment of the Tea Party movement, Christine O'Donnell (R-D.E.) was appearing on news outlets large and small extolling the sins of not just sex but masturbation.

The Delaware Republican, who is challenging Rep. Mike Castle in the state's Senate primary and has earned the financial backing of a portion of the Tea Party movement, made an appearance in the MTV series "Sex In The 90s." Entitled "The Safest Sex Of All," the episode was ostensibly geared towards understanding the importance of abstinence. But O'Donnell's guidance went a bit further. Masturbation, she argued, is not a moral substitute for sex. "The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can't masturbate without lust."

"The reason that you don't tell [people] that masturbation is the answer to AIDS and all these other problems that come with sex outside of marriage is because again it is not addressing the issue," she extrapolated. "You're just gonna create somebody who is, I was gonna say, toying with his sexuality. Pardon the pun."

The president of Saviors Alliance for Lifting the Truth (SALT), O'Donnell was, at the time, just becoming a visible voice in the pro-"chastity" movement. Her organization, a youth-based group started in 1996 with a focus on establishing conservative Christian values in college-aged kids, made frequent appearances on television in addition to lobbying Congress. They did it all despite taking in just $2,000 in revenue.

SALT also helped mold and advocate a host of positions on sex education that, in the context of O'Donnell's current Senate run, seem a bit doctrinaire. In November 1998, for instance, she wrote a piece for an outlet called the Cultural Dissident, discussing why simply being abstinent was not a lofty enough goal.

Yes, I am a Christian. Yes, I do seek to surrender my entire life to the will of our Father. That is precisely why I don't talk about abstinence or secondary virginity when I am asked to speak about sex. Abstinence is a physical discipline, not a calling. It makes our physical condition the goal.

Years later, she was part of a group of outraged religious conservatives who criticized President George W. Bush for allowing continued research on 60 stem cell lines that had already been developed (Bush's position was considered restrictive in its own right). More recently, she suggested that age-appropriate sex education, even for kindergarteners, could convince children that strangers with candy were "not so creepy."

There is, indeed, an abundance of writing and television appearances from this time period of O'Donnell's life that provide a window into her personal beliefs and politics. The fact that they haven't surfaced is owed, primarily, to the fact that no one took her candidacy seriously until this past week. That's now changing. The Castle campaign pledged on Thursday to launch negative advertisements against O'Donnell -- a remarkable and undoubtedly unexpected use of funds from a candidate who was supposed to coast to victory.

More Dems buck plan to let taxes increase for rich (AP)

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:32:16 -0500

AP - Congress seems increasingly reluctant to let taxes go up, even on wealthier Americans.

Stephanie Miller: Me and Face the Grayson for September 2, 2010

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:29:39 -0500

Me and Face the Grayson for August 19, 2010

According to Alan Grayson you only have three friends in this life: "God, your mama and the Democratic Party."

Click on the soundclip below to hear Alan and I discuss how loaded poll questions, phony rallies, Koch Brothers' money and Republican talking points are being used to keep people from voting Democratic "in an election that will draw the electoral map of the country for a decade to come."

As for the crowd at last weekend's Beckapalooza, Congressman Grayson was unimpressed: "these are people who were wearing sheets on their heads 25 years ago."

Visit stephaniemiller.com for more.

Erich Origen and Gan Golan: Happy Labor Day to the Unemployed

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:28:26 -0500

As you watch the Labor Day parade this year (assuming your city hasn't cancelled it due to lack of funds), you may be reminded of our national crisis of unemployment.

Some people see the unemployed merely as laborers who failed in the labor market. If you (and millions of others) fail, that's just what the market needs to stay healthy for that other class of people, investors. Forgotten is the idea that we all belong to a larger group called citizens.

We all know the promise--America's promise of unlimited social mobility. Nothing is stopping you from scaling the ladder, so get climbing! The American Dream is within anyone's grasp!

Yet in the last 30 years, the American Dream has grown increasingly out of reach for more and more people--unless they live in a country other than America. According to our nonpartisan friends at Measure of America, "A poor child born in Germany, France, Canada, or one of the Nordic countries has a better chance to join the middle class in adulthood than an American child born into similar circumstances." Take THAT, you cheese-eating socialists!

In contrast, the American economic ladder has broken down--these days, you have to be born above a certain rung if you want to climb at all. And that rung is getting higher by the year.

The Nerve and The Thumb cut Everyman's "entitlements" (image from the book The Adventures of Unemployed Man)

So what? We should let people disappear from the marketplace like a bad product or business idea, right? We're not citizens, merely economic winners and losers--and we reward only the winners. That's what makes America great.

Except it isn't what makes us great.

We all contribute to the success of this country, even when we fail--and our failure often makes the winners that much better because they had to compete against us. College and professional sports leagues realize this--there, the winner does not take all, but rather is rewarded while also enriching the entire league. The point is to have a strong league in which great individual achievements are possible.

Not so with the Just Us League of America. Their sinister plan? Any and all rewards go straight to the top (especially to CEOs who cut jobs and got richly rewarded). Those at the top are held up as role models--ignoring the fact that the educational, economic, and social structures that would make a respectable level of achievement possible for more people are defunded, destroyed, or out of stock. Sorry.

Ask yourself this: Can The American Dream be achieved by an individual in isolation? Do we want people to succeed at everyone else's expense? Or is Everyman's loss--sooner or later--every man's loss? We must face that fact that even in America, the success we strive for and celebrate is never purely "self-made." We aim to foster success in America--for all.

Labor Day is a celebration of American laborers. That's worth celebrating. But let's remember that we are not merely laborers. We are American citizens. And we are all in this together.

Kabul Bank Bailout? Mahmoud Karzai, President's Brother, Calls For U.S. To Shore Up Bank

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:14:28 -0500

Hamid Karzai's older brother wants the U.S. to guarantee deposits at Afghanistan's largest bank to stop a developing bank run fueled by fears of fraud.

Mahmoud Karzai, Kabul Bank's third-biggest shareholder, told The Washington Post that "America should do something":

Action by the United States, said Mahmoud Karzai, would prevent a run on Kabul Bank and protect other banks, too. He said Kabul Bank is "stable and has money" but cannot withstand a stampede by panicked depositors.

"If the Treasury Department will guarantee that everyone will get their money, maybe that will work," said Karzai, who holds 7 percent of the bank's shares, making him the third-biggest shareholder. Karzai, who spends most of his time in Dubai - where he lives in a waterfront villa paid for by Kabul Bank - rushed to Kabul on Wednesday to join efforts to salvage the bank.

Larger than usual crowds gathered to withdraw funds from Afghanistan's largest bank Wednesday and Thursday after two top executives resigned amid allegations of mismanagement and unorthodox real estate loans. But Afghan Finance Minister Omar Zakhilwal said that fears about the stability of Kabul Bank had not sparked a "crisis" at Kabul Bank.

"We are 100 percent sure that Kabul Bank is safe," Zakhilwal said. "I, as finance minister, am giving you my guarantee that your money is safe - if it's one Afghani, one dollar, one euro, up to millions. ... Kabul Bank is not in danger." Zakhilwal said every penny of customers' deposits would be guaranteed.

Afghan television stations broadcast remarks Wednesday night from the central bank governor, Abdul Qadir Fitrat, who insisted that Kabul Bank was solvent and had enough liquidity to meet demands. On Thursday, the Afghanistan Banks Association issued a statement of support for the bank, and Zakhilwal sought to reassure customers that their deposits were safe.

"The government of Afghanistan guarantees that every penny that they have deposited will be paid back to them if they request it," he said. "But what we are requesting of the Afghan people is not to rush because rush is not good for them, and it's not good for the banking system. We guarantee the money."

Some customers went anyway.

Nazifa Amiri, who works for a foreign aid agency in Kabul, said problems with the bank would have an especially devastating effect on poor Afghans like herself.

"I need this money to feed my children, plus we have the festival coming up," said Amiri, referring to next week's celebration of the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Amiri successfully drew her monthly salary of $390 from the bank's branch in Kabul's Wazir Akbar Khan neighborhood. However, Defense Ministry employee Mohammad Zami said he had been rebuffed when attempting to withdraw dollars from his account at the same branch, with managers saying more currency was on its way.

"I don't have a lot of money in it, but this is supposed to be a trustworthy bank to serve the Afghan people. It's not good to see it tied up in politics," Zami said.

A branch manager, who declined to give his name because staff had been ordered not to speak to media, said dollar stocks ran out about one hour after opening, although supplies of Afghan currency were sufficient to meet demand.

Shah Masood Azha, a businessman in the southern city of Kandahar, said residents remained worried about the safety of their accounts.

"This is a result of poor oversight, and the government needs to have many more checks and balances," Azha said.

Problems at the bank could have wide-ranging political repercussions since it handles the pay for Afghan teachers, soldiers and police in this unstable, impoverished nation beset by the stubborn Taliban insurgency, widespread drug trafficking and plundering of aid money.

The Finance Ministry issued a statement assuring government employees that they would continue to be able to deposit and withdraw their salaries at Kabul Bank. The statement added that the replacement of top executives would improve management and services and was "part of the life cycle of a business."

The bank's woes also tie into the web of corruption and personal connections that has soured many Afghans on their government.

Gen. David Petraeus, top commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, was asked about Kabul Bank's woes at a round-table with reporters on Thursday.

"I'm not really the guy in the financial sector here in Afghanistan but financial issues can have security issues and therefore we keep an eye on them," Petraeus said. "In this case our assessment is that the governor of the central bank has taken prudent measures. He has announced what it is that he has been doing to reassure depositors ... Our sense is that he and the minister of finance have taken a very prudent course," that should reassure depositors. "I think this will be OK."

Sherkhan Farnood, former chairman of Kabul Bank, and Khalilullah Ferozi, former chief executive officer, resigned because, under new reforms, only banking professionals can hold the top operating positions at banks. The bank is being run by Masood Ghazi, a former official at the central bank. The bank said top executives at some of Afghanistan's other 16 private banks might have to step aside as well to conform with the reforms.

Farnood, a world class poker player, and Ferozi each own 28 percent of the bank's shares. President Hamid Karzai's brother, Mahmood Karzai, is the bank's third largest shareholder with 7 percent.

The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Kabul Bank's losses could exceed $300 million - and that the figure is more than the bank's assets. The Washington Post reported that the central bank had ordered the newly resigned chairman to hand over $160 million in real estate holdings in Dubai purchased for relatives and friends of the political elite.

Zakhilwal challenged claims that the bank was on a shaky foundation. Kabul Bank has more than $1 billion in deposits. He said the property pledged as collateral for loans at the bank is "way more - in fact twice as much - as the loans that they have given out."

---

Associated Press Writers Amir Shah in Kabul and Mirwais Khan in Kandahar contributed to this report.

Kate Kelly: Labor Day: Thanks to One Group that made a Difference

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:57:41 -0500

For most people today, the Labor Day weekend signals the final weekend of summer. Though some schools now start in late August, the three-day September holiday still provides many families with the last opportunity for a beach visit or a hiking trip, knowing that autumn weather, football, and the regular routine of fall school days are guaranteed to follow.

But as one might expect, the original intent of he holiday was to honor American workers, particularly those who are members of trade and labor organizations. In that spirit, I would like to take a moment to honor some of these people who helped make America great.

In some of my reading, I came across the fact that the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters was the first labor organization for African-American workers that was acknowledged by the American Federation of Labor. (The AF of L was formed in 1886 and was one of the first federations of labor groups in the United States.)

That caught my interest. When we think of railroads of the past, we may think of the "romance of the rails," or possibly the struggle of laying track throughout the United States, but rarely would we think about the working conditions of those who worked for the passenger railroads.

As I investigated it, I found that the story of those workers is more than worthy of a reminder on Labor Day, for the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters is an important story of labor and color and class unrest. I would recommend to anyone interested, the book, Pullman Porters and the Rise of Protest Politics in Black America, 1925-1945 by Beth Tompkins Bates.

George M. Pullman began the Pullman Palace Car Company in 1867 with the concept that customers would pay a premium charge for luxury service and better sleeping accommodations. The Civil War had just ended, so who better to hire for the fine personal service that Pullman envisioned than former slaves who were adept at offering personal service? White men were hired as conductors but Pullman hired only African-Americans as porters.

For a time, the situation seemed ideal. For the first time, black men were finding regular employment. Though the pay was low, many worked hard and either used their income to pay for education or to put down a down payment on a home. For many, it was their first taste of middle class living.

In their work, they were required to be obsequious to all the white people traveling by train; they had to pay for their own supplies for the job which included things like shoe polish and any cleaning equipment, and in a total depersonalization of porters as people, customers were encouraged to refer to each of them as "George," after the founder of the company.

Despite the less than ideal circumstances of their jobs, the porters played an important role in bringing information to African-American communities. They traveled throughout the United States, and took with them news of other areas as well as taking with them music and songs that were popular elsewhere in the country.

George Pullman ran a paternalistic company, and since he built a town, Pullman, Illinois, for white Pullman employees, he saw that he needed to do something for his maids and porters. Integrating Pullman, the town, was not going to happen, so he donated to black churches and other organizations in the Chicago area where the company was based. Though these efforts were well-meant, they were always on Pullman terms.

The inequities of the working conditions continued to rankle many of the porters and maids. Porters were paid about one-third the monthly salary earned by white conductors, and their work months were about 400 hours vs. 250 hours for conductors. The company justified the different pay scale by saying that porters could earn tips. In addition, the porters were expected to absorb their own costs for supplies as well as for food and accommodations while on the road.

The early organizers who started agitating for change were porters based in New York City. They were aware of two undeniable hurdles they needed to overcome to do any good for their workers. The first was that they had to take their organizing to Chicago, where most of the porters were based; they also knew they had to figure out a way to organize without the company learning ahead of time what was underway. The Pullman Company kept spies in various jobs throughout the company so that the company could nip in the bud any signs of unrest.

The plan the organizers came upon was a good one. They selected as their leader, a non-Pullman employee, Asa Philip Randolph, who was editor of a monthly magazine in Harlem, the Messenger. By using someone from outside the company, Randolph could operate without fear of reprisal. Randolph began with the group in 1925, committed to the fact that porters should be able to negotiate their own economic contract and that "the time had passed when a grown up black man should beg a grown up white man for anything."

Perhaps the major issue that slowed progress of the Brotherhood was the fact that the Pullman Company employed so many African-Americans who were only a few steps away from relatives who had been slaves. Discrimination was rampant in most professions, so the fact that Pullman provided employment was not unappreciated. In addition, the Pullman financial support of black churches and YMCAs meant that many in the community were reluctant to go up against the company. But the injustices of the workplace kept the organizers energized, and ironically, a key turning point in the Brotherhood's campaign came about when they gained the aid of women.

In 1913 the women of Illinois--black and white--gained suffrage rights, and the organizational tools the women who had fought for suffrage became beneficial to the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters' campaign for what they viewed as "full citizenship" for black men.

After Randolph took the helm, it took ten more years' effort through some of the toughest economic times our country has seen. Finally federal changes in the Railway Labor Act in 1934 meant that by 1935, the Brotherhood won certification to represent the porters. At that time, the American Federation of Labor fully recognized the all-black organization. Two years later the Brotherhood signed its first collective bargaining agreement with the Pullman Company; they gained pay increases, a shorter work week, and the right to overtime pay.

Ultimately, the leadership and skills gained by members who were part of the Brotherhood went on to be used in organizing the U.S. civil rights movement.

Though there are many groups that organized to protect the downtrodden worker, the actions of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, and the women who helped them with their campaign, seem very worthy to acknowledge as we approach this Labor Day.

http://www.americacomesalive.com

Renee Feltz: Is it really possible to opt-out of Secure Communities?

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:56:26 -0500

Last Thursday federal officials released a memo called "Setting the Record Straight" that outlines for the first time how local police can opt-out of sharing arrest data with immigration authorities via enrollment in the "Secure Communities" program. But so far, the process exists only on paper.

The memo from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) states:

All of these steps sounded familiar to San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey, except the resolution.

"I did all of that," he said after reading the explanation.

When California signed a statewide agreement with ICE, Hennessey sent a letter to ICE on June 3 asking for his jurisdiction to opt-out of the program which allows agents to access arrest data from local jails.

Deputy Director for Secure Communities, Marc Rapp, responded to Hennessey with a phone call, the upshot of which was that there was no way his request could be granted. Shortly afterward, Secure Communities went into effect over the objection of the sheriff and his Board of Supervisors.

"I followed procedure, but they did not follow procedure," said Hennessey.

Now the sheriff has sent another letter, this time asking California Attorney General, Jerry Brown, to clarify whether San Fransisco can stop sending its misdemeanor arrest data to ICE.

Confusion over how to opt-out of Secure Communities may explain how ICE has enrolled 574 jurisdictions in 30 states since it began two years ago. While the new memo suggests Secure Communities is voluntary, it definitely seemed mandatory when Orange County, North Carolina tried to opt-out in January 2009.

"My first reaction to the memo was that this is a complete contradiction to everything they said before," said Marty Rosenbtlath, staff attorney with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.

Rosenblath is a member of Orange County's Human Rights commission, which was asked to investigate Secure Communities.

"We were told point blank by ICE that the only way for Orange County to opt-out was to stop fingerprinting people," he said.

As a result, the county passed a resolution with the following request:

Now Rosenbluth says he plans to revisit the opt-out issue with the commission and the sheriff.

"At our next meeting we're going to say, 'Excuse us, we have this new information," said Rosenbluth. "Would you mind please considering it?"

In counties already enrolled in Secure Communities, the push back is coming from both activists and local officials. Members of the New Sanctuary Movement in Philadelphia plan to ask the mayor to reconsider opting out. County Supervisors in Santa Clara, California may pass a resolution opposing the program.

Civil rights groups who filed an open records request with ICE in part to clarify the opt-out process say the agency's next step should be to include similar instructions in agreements with states yet to be enrolled.

"We demand a clear protocol be included in every single Secure Communities agreement," said Sarahi Uribe with the National Day Labor Organizing Network and lead organizer of the "Uncover The Truth Behind ICE and Police Collaborations" campaign.

Governors in Colorado and Washington could decide as soon as this week whether they will sign an agreement to enroll their states in Secure Communities. If they choose to join, local law enforcement agencies in those states could unleash a wave of opt-out requests that will put ICE's new explanation to the test.

The agency is already on the hot seat back in San Fransisco. ICE spokesman, Richard Rocha, told the Washington Independent he will discuss Sheriff Hennessey's new request to opt-out and seek a resolution that may "change the jurisdiction's activation status."

Stay tuned...

This post originally appeared on DeportationNation.org, a news website dedicated to critical coverage of how Secure Communities has turned local police into the front lines of a federal immigration crackdown.

Rep. Mike Honda: Model Minority Myth Mucking Up Asian-American College Pursuits

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:53:23 -0500

When it comes to acquiring a college degree, there is a general assumption that Asian Americans do it best. This assumption is both erroneous and dangerous. It is erroneous because it belies the reality that many Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) subgroups fall far short of this assumed standard, with substantial numbers never graduating high school or college. It is dangerous because this model minority myth prevents the provision of public and private resources designated specifically for minority serving institutions, exacerbating a deleterious and downward spiral among underperforming AAPI subgroups.

Granted, the assumption has some truth to it. College graduation rates among Asian Americans are the highest among all ethnic groups, at 65 percent, followed by whites at 59 percent. The only racial/ethnic group, furthermore, to not see their young men falling behind their predecessors in postsecondary attainment is Asian Americans.

Look a little deeper, however, and a divergent trend is equally pervasive among AAPIs. According to a report published last month by the National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education, the majority of Cambodian, Laotian, and Hmong communities living in America, aged 25 years and older, have only a high school degree or less. Equally disconcerting is that only 12-13 percent of them have a bachelor's degree or more. The same problem exists among Tongan, Samoan, Guamanian and Native Hawaiian communities.

Large sectors of the AAPI population, in fact, suffer from soaring secondary school dropout rates, low rates of college participation and low college completion rates. These low educational attainment rates correlate with high unemployment rates, spiraling AAPI subgroups further into poverty. The unemployment rates of poorer-performing Pacific Islanders and Southeast Asians are three to five times greater than those of many East Asian and South Asians. Tongan Americans, for example, who maintain with the highest unemployment rate among all AAPI subgroups at nearly 16 percent, have some of the highest secondary school dropout rates and lowest college completion rates.

So how do we fix this problem? Much of the solution lies in ensuring adequate resources and representation. On resources, since many AAPI-serving institutions are not recognized as minority serving institutions (MSIs) they are, consequently, not incorporated into MSI-specific initiatives, which would ensure access to federally allocated funds and foundation-led forums on best practices and strategies. To fix this, a clearer definition of MSIs that includes AAPIs is necessary so that these institutions can gain better access to a myriad of critical resources. Additionally, more resources explicitly dedicated to college-level English-language learning and developmental reading are essential. On this, AAPIs top the charts. Nearly half of all AAPI community college students enroll in developmental reading courses with another 40 percent requiring an English language course, more than any other racial/ethnic group.

On representation, AAPI students will be better equipped to pursue and complete education degrees if AAPIs are better represented in leadership positions within and without the school system. That AAPI students comprise nearly four percent of total primary and secondary enrollment, while half that number of AAPIs are in teaching positions, makes cultural and linguistic barriers all the more problematic. That a disproportionately low percentage of AAPIs serve in high school and college leadership positions - with 0.6 percent serving as public school principals, and 0.9 percent as college presidents - increases the likelihood that AAPI-specific concerns will remain unaddressed.

Increased AAPI representation in school teaching and leadership positions is critical if we want to improve AAPI high school and college completion rates. But visible AAPI leadership outside the school is equally important. Like the young African Americans who were inspired by Barack Obama's ascendency to presidency, so too must AAPIs have role models in leadership positions. That AAPIs comprise only 2.3 percent of senior executive positions in the public sector (a figure which President Obama boosted by nominating three AAPIs to his cabinet) and only 1.5 percent of Fortune 500 board seats in the private sector means more work must be done to inspire young AAPIs to pursue higher education.

Ridding our educational system of these race-related equity gaps will take time and significant effort, but it is possible. As a former educator for 30 years, this is a lifelong goal of mine. By helping vulnerable minority groups pursue and complete higher education, we simultaneously address socio-economic disparities and racial inequalities, increase the competitiveness of America's workforce, increase our tax base, and provide sustainable alternatives to the ill-fated options that youth tilt toward today.

We can only do this if we look past the assumptions we hold, dig deep for better data that better represents our reality, and act quickly on that data to correct any disparities. On this, much work awaits.

Rep Honda (CA-15) is the Chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Dems accuse Fox News of bolstering Ohio candidate (AP)

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:49:12 -0500

AP - The Democratic Governors Association has filed an elections complaint in Ohio alleging Fox News Network illegally helped the Republican governor nominee solicit funds during a television appearance.

Thursday: 11 Iraqis Killed, 9 Wounded

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:35:24 -0500

Violence remained fairly light today; however, at least 11 Iraqis were killed and nine more were wounded across the country. Meanwhile, U.S. military advisers warn that the Iraqis must correct the inefficiencies of their armed forces if U.S. troops hope to withdraw next year.

Elizabeth Warren Won't Be Returning To Harvard, Sparking Speculation About Her Future

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:25:48 -0500

In case you missed it, today's bit of hot and sexy Beltway speculation concerns Congressional Oversight Panel Chair Elizabeth Warren. The Washington Post's Brady Dennis reports today that Martha Minow, the dean of Harvard Law School, sent around an email to students today informing them that Warren, who was scheduled to teach contracts class in the fall, will not be returning. "Professor Warren regrets that she will not be able to teach you this fall and we regret the last minute change," Minow wrote.

So, time for everyone to start straight-up speculating as to whether this means Warren is soon to be named the head of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection! Warren is beloved by progressives because of her unwavering support for consumer protection, Wall Street oversight, and her larger opinions on the American middle class (specifically, that there should be one, and that it should not get murdered constantly, in financial crises.) Of course, these are the very same opinions that make her all but unconfirmable in the eyes of people like Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.).

But the White House, having spent the year deriding the "professional left" and referring to their base as "f-cking retarded", could really stand to toss their supporters some kind of bone, especially in the wake of a terrifying Gallup poll that found a yawning gap in enthusiasm between Democrats and Republicans, who have wisely spent the past year telling their base that they are special, precious angels who have been terribly misunderstood.

Of course, the White House has already done what it can to throw a damp towel on the sudden uptick in speculation. As Jonathan Weisman reports for the Wall Street Journal:

"No decision has been made and no plans for an announcement this week," White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki said curtly.

The potential exists for President Barack Obama to appoint Warren to the head of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, but that window is closing -- the House and Senate reconvene on September 13.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Bill Lasarow: The Republican Party Today, Part 2: The Sucker Wing

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:12:48 -0500

Watching some of Fox News' coverage of the Glenn Beck hosted event at the Capital Mall over the weekend I caught about the umpteenth clip of one of his fans pointing out that they were there to support the Constitution. And, oh yes, that the President does not believe in it. Disagreement for many, perhaps most of these people adds up to a consistent conclusion: We are True Americans, and liberals, the "hate America crowd," are knowingly and deliberately working to destroy it (as Mr. Beck loves to say, "liberalism is a cancer." Eradicate it!). It's a conundrum so resoundingly stupid that my emotions get a bit carried away. "No lady," I want to scream at that inscrutable screen, "it's YOU who do not support the Constitution. It's you and the millions of useful idiots like you who have made it possible that America will be destroyed."

The Kleptomaniac Wing of the Republican Party came that close to dong just that three years ago, and these people are the very enablers who may permit them to finish the job. They love to think of themselves as such Patriots; the liberals, on the other hand, are traitors. Naturally liberals want to refrain from reflecting back such silliness, so they typically end up defending their own patriotism. But the truth is nearly as simple as the minds of these followers: They are not patriots at all; this particular mass of American humanity is selfish, narcissistic, and extremely fearful of losing what little they have. Or what they think they have. They've already had a fair amount taken from them by the very oil, banking, and armament execs that encourage and support them politically. And who will be thrilled to knock them back to the streets and perhaps, if all goes well, debtors' prison; it's just business after all. These victims hand their parasites the means by which they engorge themselves; in return they get to think of themselves as "patriots." It's fun to dress up in Red, White and Blue; you feel good about yourself.

Imagine how in an America of the Koch brothers making and Grover Norquist's highest ideals we have no minimum wage, no child labor laws, no public education, no social security, no regulation of business, no environmental protection. And just imagine what we will all retain because of it: Liberty! Shout that principle to the rooftops; do it effectively and you will rake in millions of dollars in donations or revenue from the very patrons who so enjoy doling out those dollops of Liberty. This is not the American liberty that I know and value, in which the individual's free will is taken as a given. It certainly is not the liberty from which we have gradually constructed the public structures that exist to protect and further the integrity of that natural diversity, not to mention the broad economic interest of the middle class. What these folks grasp as "constitutional" is feudalism, a wholly other sort of social contract.

It's the Sucker Wing of the Republican Party that will always make sure the true American elite maintains some sort of perch. During the 1930s the Kleptomaniac Wing flopped when it came to seizing the public sector because Roosevelt and the Democrats succeeded in convincing most of the Sucker Wing that they really would be suckers if they voted against their own personal interests. They succeeded at this in good part because they "welcomed the hatred" of the kleptomaniacs. The black comedy we see playing out today suggests that the kleptomaniacs have improved their techniques and sharpened their investments. Liberals, by contrast, are mostly unwilling to even try to separate the marks from their predators; many of them, too many, appear to long for their piece of the action.

Add the two wings together, kleptomaniacs and suckers. We now have an impressively virulent incarnation of a major party. It yearns to swallow the county whole and purify it. All I see coming out of the other end of this is one enormous turd. And it stinks.

Top Obama ally: Democrats will hold the US Congress (AFP)

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:11:21 -0500

AFP - President Barack Obama's Democratic allies will defy glum forecasts of a rout in November elections and keep control of the House and Senate, one of the party's congressional leaders said Thursday.

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Sued By Justice Department In Civil Rights Probe

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:10:46 -0500

PHOENIX — The U.S. Justice Department sued Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Thursday, saying the Arizona lawman refused for more than a year to turn over records in an investigation into allegations his department discriminates against Hispanics.

The lawsuit calls Arpaio and his office's defiance "unprecedented," and said the federal government has been trying since March 2009 to get officials to comply with its probe of alleged discrimination, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and jail policies that discriminate against people with limited English skills

Arpaio had been given until Aug. 17 to hand over documents the federal government first asked for 15 months ago.

Arpaio called the Justice Department actions harrassment at a news conference Thursday morning in downtown Phoenix. His office has said it won't hand over additional documents because federal authorities haven't said exactly what they were investigating.

"They have hundreds of thousands of reports, hundreds of thousands," Arpaio said. "They're so broad, we're trying to narrow it down. We're trying to work with them."

The lawsuit is the latest action against Arizona by the federal government, which earlier sued the state to stop its strict new immigration law that requires police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are in the country illegally.

"The actions of the sheriff's office are unprecedented," said Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the department's civil rights division. "It is unfortunate that the department was forced to resort to litigation to gain access to public documents and facilities."

The lawsuit said the department is investigating police practices and jail policies but did not specify the documents sought in its dozens of requests. It was filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix and names Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and the county.

Arizona's new law – most of which a federal judge has put on hold – mirrors many of the policies Arpaio has put into place in the greater Phoenix area. Arpaio believes the inquiry is focused on his immigration sweeps, patrols where deputies flood an area of a city – in some cases heavily Latino areas – to seek out traffic violators and arrest other offenders.

Critics say his deputies pull people over for minor traffic infractions because of the color of their skin so they can ask them for their proof of citizenship.

Arpaio denies allegations of racial profiling, saying people are stopped if deputies have probable cause to believe they've committed crimes and that it's only afterward that deputies find many of them are illegal immigrants.

The sheriff's office has said half of the 1,032 people arrested in the sweeps have been illegal immigrants.

Last year, the federal government stripped Arpaio of his special power to enforce federal immigration law. The sheriff continued his sweeps through the enforcement of state immigration laws.

The department's lawsuit said Arpaio's office signed agreements promising to cooperate with civil-rights investigations and other reviews when it accepted federal law enforcement grants.

Last year, the nearly $113 million that the county government received from the federal government accounted for about 5 percent of the county's $2 billion budget. The lawsuit listed $16.5 million of funding provided Arpaio's office through several programs.

In a separate investigation, a federal grand jury in Phoenix is examining allegations that Arpaio has abused his powers with actions such as intimidating county workers by showing up at their homes at nights and on weekends.

A Hispanic activist said a federal judge might have to threaten jail time to get Arpaio to cooperate in the lawsuit filed Thursday.

Hispanics alleging racial profiling by Arpaio's deputies in a lawsuit already pending in federal court have met with resistance in their own dcoument demands, said Lydia Guzman of the Phoenix-based civil rights group Somos America.

"It's going to take the hard hand of the judge to order some sanctions against the sheriff's office," Guzman said.

___

Associated Press Writers Paul Davenport and Amanda Lee Myers contributed to this report.

The Media Consortium: Weekly Diaspora: The High Cost of Cheap Labor

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:54:50 -0500

by Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger

A new study about the effects of immigration on U.S. employment supports the long-standing arguments of immigration advocates: Rather than displacing American workers, immigrant labor actually makes our economy stronger. Kevin Drum has the details at Mother Jones.

Now, with reports that undocumented laborers are a mainstay of disaster relief efforts all over the country, Americans are beginning to get a sense of the unsavory work relegated to many immigrants, and the high price immigrants pay for the simple privilege of employment.

Undocumented workers driving wages up

Going back to Mother Jones, new research examining the relationship between immigration and U.S. employment found that--contrary to conventional anti-immigrant wisdom--immigration does not negatively affect American employment. Instead, immigration drives wages up by pushing low-wage American workers into higher-paying jobs.

Here's how it works: As less-educated immigrants gravitate towards work that requires fewer English language skills (like manual labor), their less-educated American counterparts move on to higher-paying, communications-intensive work that capitalizes on their comparatively better English language skills. This naturally drives wages up, and makes for a more productive economy overall.

The irony, as Drum notes, is that those who complain about immigrants stealing American jobs are the same people who want immigrants to learn English and assimilate as quickly as possible. "If they did," Drum argues, "then they'd just start competing for the higher paying jobs that natives now monopolize."

Stiffed in New Orleans

The reality of being an undocumented worker in the U.S. is starker than most Americans realize. Not only are immigrants doing work that most would rather not, they are also often cleaning up the messes that Americans leave behind.

Five years after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, undocumented laborers remain a key component of reconstruction efforts. Initially drawn to the city by the prospect of work and the Department of Homeland Security's decision to suspend employment immigration enforcement, many undocumented laborers relocated to New Orleans to assist with rebuilding. But, as Elise Foley reports at the Washington Independent, their immigration status renders them especially vulnerable to rampant wage theft, threats of deportation and workplace violence.

The situation is so dire for many workers that numerous nonprofit groups have initiated projects in the city and are calling for legislation to combat the problem. However, a key concern is that rising anti-immigrant sentiment in other parts of the U.S. could exacerbate difficulties in New Orleans. If such sentiment results in even greater labor abuses or renewed immigration enforcement, whole communities of people who have been dedicated to rebuilding the city could find themselves without livelihood, or even be displaced.

Exploited undocumented workers clean up oil spills

Given the reality that undocumented workers are charged with some of the dirtiest and most unsafe work American employers have to offer, it shouldn't be surprising that U.S. companies rely on immigrant labor to clean up their worst messes. Not only do undocumented workers have fewer employment options, their immigration status renders them far less likely to report unsafe working conditions, exposure to hazardous materials, and underpayment--making them especially attractive to employers looking to save money or hide bad behavior.

So, naturally, undocumented workers were called in to deal with the catastrophic BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico (though their compliance only earned them the undue attention of Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and, more recently, an oil spill in Michigan.

As Todd A. Heywood at the Michigan Messenger reports, one company in particular has come under fire for hiring and then exploiting undocumented laborers. Hallmark Industrial, a Texas contractor hired to clean up the oil spill, allegedly paid its workers only $800 for up to 100 hours of work per week. Additionally, the company subjected them to unsafe and hazardous working conditions, and even failed to provide workers with on-site toilets--forcing workers to relieve themselves in the areas they were charged with cleaning.

Just 24 hours after the Michigan Messenger broke the story, Hallmark Industrial was fired from the oil spill clean up, its contract terminated by the company which hired it, Garner Environmental Services, Inc. Whether that's a victory is questionable. Following the termination of the contract, 40 undocumented workers were arrested in Texas, on a bus chartered by Hallmark--presumably just returned from Michigan. While the termination of the contract ensures that its workers won't be subjected to further workplace abuses, it also ensures that those same individuals must begin the difficult task of finding similar work elsewhere.

Unemployed in California labor camps

Clearly, despite an inexorable willingness to perform low-wage manual labor, undocumented workers are not impervious to the unemployment epidemic. In U.S. labor camps--where migrant agricultural workers can find seasonal or even long term lodging near ranches--farm work is increasingly harder to come by.

As David Bacon highlights at New America Media, both undocumented immigrants and legal "guest workers" are adversely affected by the recession. While the latter possess work visas and may therefore stay in the country legally, both groups live together in the same labor camps, where they remain, ironically, unemployed. Given the present economic climate, there isn't enough work for even the lowest-wage workers. And in spite of their legal status, even guest workers are barred from applying for unemployment benefits.

The recession has cast both undocumented and legally sanctioned agricultural workers into circumstances even more dismal than those advertised by UFW when it launched its "Take Our Jobs" campaign earlier this summer. Outlining the long hours, low pay, and back-breaking labor associated with farm work, UFW satirically invited American citizens to replace the scores of overworked and undocumented laborers that keep our agricultural industry afloat.

Though meant to be a tongue-in-cheek response to the misconception that immigrants steal American jobs, the campaign exposes a real, if unfortunate, truth about undocumented workers: Even as their presence drives Americans into higher paying jobs, Americans employers are all too happy to subject the undocumented to the worst indignities.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse . This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

Jan Brewer, Terry Goddard Spar Over Illegal Immigration In First Televised Debate (VIDEO)

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:47:20 -0500

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer and Democratic challenger Terry Goddard sparred over illegal immigration and the state's economic troubles during their first and possibly only televised debate Wednesday.

Goddard accused Brewer of damaging Arizona's image and business prospects by giving short shrift to economic development and by portraying the state as a violent place because of border-related crime.

Brewer has failed to take decisive action to create jobs and should have lawmakers in special session right now to craft stimulative tax relief, he said. "This is an emergency."

"Sadly, Arizona, our home, the state we love, is in serious trouble," said Goddard, the state's two-term attorney general. "Jan Brewer said at the beginning (of the debate) that she's changing everything, and sadly that's all too true."

Brewer counterattacked by repeating a campaign charge she first leveled Tuesday. She said Goddard's union supporters were hurting Arizona through a boycott in protest of the state's illegal immigration law.

"I will call you out," she told Goddard. "Maybe you can talk to your union friends about stopping the boycott."

He dismissed her demand, saying he opposes the boycott.

The immigration law, Brewer said, was a needed response to the burdens placed on the state by an influx of illegal immigrations. And, she added, "it has gotten the attention of the federal government."

On the economy, Brewer said her administration was encouraging economic development by attracting business expansions and relocations, and freezing state regulations. She said she did that after taking office and finding the state's finances a mess.

Brewer was the elected secretary of state when she became governor in January 2009. Gov. Janet Napolitano had resigned to join President Barack Obama's Cabinet.

"We have cut the budget, we have balanced the budget, and we are moving forward. We are doing everything that we could possibly do," said Brewer, who in May won voter approval of a temporary sales tax increase. "They listened to Jan Brewer, trusted me and believed in me because of my long record in public service."

But Goddard said Brewer only balanced the budget on paper and that each of the past several fiscal years actually ended with deficits.

Goddard hasn't proposed his own budget-balancing plan, instead merely criticized cuts to spending on popular programs, Brewer said. "You're cut out of the same cloth as the Obama administration -- bigger government and more spending," she told Goddard.

Goddard said he has presented a job-creation plan that will restore the state to economic health. After the debate, he told reporters he plans to offer "suggestions" on balancing the budget.

Brewer later cut short her own post-debate remarks to reporters when she was repeatedly asked about Goddard's demand that she recant a statement she made during a television interview that there had been beheadings in the desert.

Goddard said that remark and others by Brewer hurt the state by inhibiting economic investments and tourism visits.

The debate began awkwardly for Brewer, who paused for at least five seconds in the middle of her opening statement as she collected her thoughts.

Brewer and Goddard were required to participate in the state-sponsored debate, which was aired by KAET-TV of Arizona State University, because their campaigns have accepted public funding.

Green Party nominee Larry Gist and Barry Hess, the Libertarian candidate, also participated in the debate. Their participation was voluntary because neither is accepting public funding for their campaigns.

The recession, not the immigration law, should be the focus of the campaign, Hess said. "It's not the issue when ... people are out of work."

Goddard has challenged Brewer to additional debates, proposing ones devoted to topics such as the state budget, public safety, education, jobs, immigration and border security. His suggested locations included Tucson, Kingman, Sierra Vista, Phoenix, Yuma and Flagstaff.

Goddard's campaign said it hasn't received a response from Brewer's campaign, and the governor's campaign spokesman, Doug Cole, did not flatly reject the challenge Tuesday. But he said the public already knows who Brewer and Goddard are and what their records are.

Goddard was unopposed in the Aug. 24 primary. Brewer cruised to victory with nearly 82 percent of the vote, according to unofficial results.

WATCH:

Martha Stewart Wants To Interview Nancy Pelosi, Calls Her 'Absolutely Beautiful'

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:42:14 -0500

Martha Stewart wants to interview some HuffPost favorites on her new programming for the Hallmark Channel, the New York Daily News reports. Stewart has her eye on House Speaker and Most Stylish Female Politician Nancy Pelosi, saying, "She's a phenomenal woman, I mean, look at what she's done," and calling her "absolutely beautiful." Stewart also said she'd be interested in talking to Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton.

She won't be sticking only to politics, though. The New York Post reports on September 19, Hallmark will air an hour-long, fashion-themed "Martha Stewart Presents" featuring interviews with designers Donna Karan, Diane Von Furstenberg, Tory Burch and J. Crew's Jenna Lyons. Stewart told the Post, "I'm attracted to groups of people," like "the hottest, sexiest, young male movie stars -- who are they really, how do they live, how do they cope?...There's also my favorite comedians and how they come up with their material, how are they so talented and verbose and so fantastic?"

Where are they now? Serial Iraq misinformers find home at Fox

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:35:28 -0500

During the run-up to the Iraq war, some of the worst purveyors of misinformation about Iraq had a home at Fox News, and their ranks have swelled considerably since then. Media Matters takes a look at the track record of wrong predictions and shoddy analysis about the war in Iraq by many of Fox News' contributors and analysts.

Murkowski Upset Erases Alaska Seniority In The Senate

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:32:09 -0500

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — The defeat of Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski by an upstart fiscal conservative in Alaska's GOP primary could mark a significant shift for a state that has so long relied on federal pork to survive. The outcome was also an unexpected blow to the seniority Alaska has enjoyed in the Senate.

Even as the far northern state stubbornly adheres to its reputation for independence, it relies more heavily on federal spending than any other state, thanks largely to congressional powerhouses such as the late Republican Sen. Ted Stevens.

But a shift in that approach could come in the form of Joe Miller, who defeated Murkowski with the strong backing of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Express as he campaigned against runaway government spending.

Noting that Alaska has long depended on federal largesse, Miller says the state could work toward self-reliance with more control of its own resources and a reduction in federal regulatory burdens.

He is favored to win in November over Democrat Scott McAdams, a little-known mayor of the southeast Alaska town of Sitka.

Alaska's sole representative in the U.S. House, Don Young, has been adept at bringing federal dollars to the state for almost four decades and no one expects his goals to change.

But Stevens, who was killed in a plane crash last month, brought home billions from Washington to fund highways, pipelines, ports. Alaska lost his formidable seniority and some power to capture a huge share of federal money when he was defeated by Democratic Sen. Mark Begich in 2008 following a corruption conviction that was later dropped.

For many longtime political observers in Alaska, Murkowski's defeat continues a trend of losing Senate seniority and influence – key elements in the state capturing hundreds of millions of federal dollars each year.

Without Murkowski and with Begich still building tenure, Alaska has virtually no pull in the Senate, said University of Alaska Fairbanks political science professor Jerry McBeath.

"And the Senate has served Alaska marvelously over the 50-year period of statehood," he said.

University of Alaska Anchorage political science professor Carl Shepro noted that in post-victory interviews, Miller has toned down his anti-spending stance a bit, probably to appeal to less conservative Republicans.

"So this is not a Joe Miller comes to D.C. and Social Security is gone, Medicare is gone," he said. "But what Joe Miller does do, and what those that I think are joining in this message do is get this government back from the fiscal brink, back from bankruptcy so that we can ensure that the contracts that we've made with our seniors, that we can honor those."

Still, Shepro believes Miller means to sharply cut the flow of federal money coming to Alaska. Shepro expects there would be plenty of senators more than happy to accommodate such a freshman.

Many Alaskans just don't realize how significant the federal government is to the state, where federal government bashing is a state pastime, said Clive Thomas, a political science professor at the University of Alaska Southeast.

"I think what people want is, they don't want the regulation, but they want the money," he said. "But you've got to walk a fine line and Ted Stevens realized that."

The importance of the federal government is recognized by many in Alaska's interior, where Stevens and Young have been revered for years by many, including Alaska Natives living in remote locations.

Tanana, a largely Athabascan community of 300, relies on federal funding for as much as 75 percent of the its economy, said Bear Ketzler, its city administrator. Ketzler, a Murkowski supporter, said it's too soon to feel the repercussions of losing Stevens. He fears Murkowski's loss will only add to an expected cut in federal aid.

"In the short term, we're going to be OK," he said. "In the long term, our future in Alaska looks very, very bleak."

Patti Higgins, state chair of the Alaska Democratic Party, said she disagrees. If Democrats retain their Senate majority, Alaskans would be better off to elect a second Democrat to the Senate, she said.

"With the Democrats in power, I think we're sitting pretty."

Dahlia Scheindlin: Middle East Peace Talks: Getting Religion Right

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:07:21 -0500

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is already super-saturated with religion. If only the land was a little less holy, many feel, perhaps the conflict wouldn't be so intractable. So it might seem strange to argue that the direct peace talks need to marry religious sensibilities with political realities, rather than divorce them.

It's easy to get this wrong. In a recent commentary, James Carroll
claims that the conflict is rooted in Christianity's historical political/theological attacks on both Judaism and Islam.

As if a binary religious conflict wasn't enough, in his eyes it's now a triple tango - which rather seems to compound the difficulties of resolution. Charles Glass' cogent response - while providing an important political corrective - goes too far in the other direction. His notion that it's all about having a better life and preventing the uprooting of olive trees is right. There can be no trivialization or distraction from the fact that people's lives and property are being uprooted, terrorized and sometimes destroyed in this conflict (on both sides). But it's not only that.

There is a religious conflict here. The land is not about to get less holy. The wish for people to stop being "irrational" and killing or usurping in the name of god is naÃ¯ve. The fact that many Israelis hardly visit Jerusalem, or that the majority (roughly 70%) of Israeli Jews are not orthodox, will never detract from the symbolic importance of Jerusalem in their hearts and souls. Palestinians may need olive trees and more likely investment in a high-tech industry. But they also need Haram al-Sharif.

After decades and millennia of religious, national and ethnic conflicts, their occurrence should not be a surprise. What is surprising is that policy circles still have few systematic guidance for accepting and working with the religio-symbolic factors in this reality. The tendency is either to blame religion in a facile way as the root of conflict; or else to write it off as elite manipulation of masses for cynical purposes.

Both fail to account for the mass of people who cherish their religious and spiritual beliefs, but are neither fanatics nor warmongers. The crazies get all the attention, while such people are left out of the equation.

So when political leaders and negotiators meet in Washington, they will deal with security, sovereignty issues, timetables and such - but when it comes to settlements, everyone will freeze but the construction. That's because religious settlers are involved, and everyone is afraid of their brand of god.

Because religion is always viewed so negatively it is never looked at neutrally, as a factor to be accounted for, by answering to the legitimate religious needs of moderates, not demands of extremists.

Distinguishing and then incorporating the legitimate religious dimension of the conflict into conflict resolution is logical. Instead of fearing religion, this means thinking through strategic, moral and pragmatic religious needs. Think of it as the legalization and thus regulation of a soft drug, while banning the hard stuff from the table.

This could help negotiators address some of the tough realities. Here are two of thorniest: first, some people's religious needs violate other people's human rights (I refer here mainly to political and economic rights). What for the settlers is hallowed ground is the physical livelihood and property of another. Second: the religious needs of one community impinge on the religious claims and forms of expression of the other. Jerusalem is an axis mundi to both.

And here are some guidelines for addressing them in a way that combines universalist, secular democratic principles that can reach across community lines, with the de facto reality of religious particularism:

1. Religion versus human rights. In a contest of this kind, human rights take precedence, period. Human rights cannot be violated on theological grounds. That's modernity - and those who would deny it are simply living on the wrong end of history. Where religious belief does not directly threaten or violate human rights, then the question is political and shouldn't be overspiritualized (think of this as an overdose of a hard drug). On the ground that means: no new settlements, period. And even if large, existing places like Gush Etzion of Ma'aleh Adumim remain part of Israel, their infrastructure and roads cannot be allowed violate Palestinian movement or livelihood rights. But that's a political issue - and much less charged.

The claim that dismantling settlements violates human rights is outside of this argument because dismantling them is not theologically motivated. And it would be done by a democratically elected, representative government that enjoys decent ratings and rare coalition stability.

2. Competing religious claims. This mainly applies to Jerusalem. First, we can ask whether these claims are really mutually exclusive or if there is any hope of mutual existence (I avoid the term 'co-existence' with its connotations of failed naÃ¯vetÃ©). If mutual existence is possible, that is a principle that allows for shared control over the Temple Mount, or international arrangements.
But to agree on mutual existence, each nation must first recognize the other's religious claims (for example, to Jerusalem). Nobody likes this. Israelis and Palestinians tend to do the opposite, and there are many examples: Mordechai Kedar, a respected professor of Arabic literature at Bar Ilan University, argues that historically, the connection of Islam to Jerusalem was originally political, not sacred - this is a de-legitimization of the Muslim connection.

Like many Jews, Kedar often repeats that Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Qu'ran. The notion that Palestinian and Muslim claims to Jerusalem are hyped, artificial or recent is widespread among certain Jewish circles.

Some Palestinian religious and political figures too are guilty of denying the Jewish historical and religious attachment to Jerusalem, both ancient and modern. Both political and religious figures such as Ikrima Sabri, former Mufti of Jerusalem, have denied Jewish connections to the Temple Mount, or the current legitimacy of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem at all.

Then in a terrible feedback loop, each side begins to panic that the de-legitimization will be followed by action from the other side to destroy its connection to holy places. Thus Kedar says that the current Muslim approach to Jews in Jerusalem is theological - but it is supersessionist. Palestinians often accuse Israel of trying to uproot the Muslim presence (as in the Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance controversy) and take over the Haram to rebuild the Temple. Jews complain that archeological sites are being looted, to obscure the ancient Jewish presence. And so the crushing sense of victimhood and potential annihilation - spiritual, not just physical - is blown up even larger than it already is for Israelis and Palestinians. It bears no repeating that this sense of victimhood is a primary obstacle to concessions on both sides.

In this sense, both sides must take responsibility for bringing religion in: specifically, the religious narrative and sensitivities of the other. Public acknowledgments of such by leaders could have a cautiously positive impact on each population. A third party, perhaps President Obama, could be ideal for helping this along.

The Middle East talks face enough obstacles already and religion is usually one of them. Responsible, thoughtful acceptance of its presence can help navigate - and maybe mitigate - its dangers. Eventually this might even yield opportunities.

Vets Call On Obama To Fire Alan Simpson

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:05:00 -0500

A major veterans organization called on President Obama to remove Alan Simpson from the deficit commission for questioning why veterans are not "helping us to save the country" by foregoing health care benefits promised in return for their military service.

On Tuesday, Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming and currently the co-chair of a deficit commission looking into spending cuts, decried "the irony that the veterans who saved this country are now, in a way, not helping us to save the country in this fiscal mess."

Simpson wants to cut the national debt by slashing benefits for veterans. VoteVets.org, which represents 50,000 veterans, has had enough. The group's chairman, John Soltz, said that veterans had been concerned by comments Simpson made disparaging Social Security, calling it "a milk cow with 310 million tits!" and suggesting that military pay be frozen.

The "final straw," writes Soltz, was Simpson calling for veterans' benefits to be cut.

"President Obama, this week you called for all Americans to honor and thank our troops. I know you agree that honoring our troops can't just be lip service. And the best way to honor those who serve our country is to make sure that we take care of them once they return home," he writes. "It has become all too clear that Senator Simpson cannot be trusted to objectively review the budget and make impartial recommendations about our nation's economic priorities. We ask that you remove him from his current position so that the commission can continue its work in a way that will give the military community--and all Americans--confidence in the conclusions it reaches."

The full letter:

September 2, 2010

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

I write to you as the chairman of VoteVets, a pro-military organization comprised of over 50,000 veterans and military families and another 50,000 civilian supporters, about the head of your Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, former Senator Alan Simpson.

We have long been concerned about Senator Simpson's troubling pattern of denigrating those who rely on Social Security. As you are aware, of the more than 23 million veterans, almost half--approximately 10 million--collect Social Security benefits. And that number has quadrupled since the 1960s.

So you can see why Senator Simpson's comments referring to people on Social Security as "greedy geezers" and "lesser people" were so troubling. And his recent email to the Older Women's League where he accused the executive director of "babbling into the vapors" in her work to protect the vital program while referring to it as "a milk cow with 310 million tits" has only deepened our concern.

We were also troubled when reports surfaced in August that Senator Simpson was interested in using the commission as a means to freeze military pay and raise the amounts that service members pay for their healthcare.

But then on Tuesday, Senator Simpson actually put veteran's benefits on the chopping block, too, blaming disabled veterans for the country's fiscal situation. And for us, that is the final straw.

President Obama, this week you called for all Americans to honor and thank our troops. I know you agree that honoring our troops can't just be lip service. And the best way to honor those who serve our country is to make sure that we take care of them once they return home. That means strengthening the vital programs we rely on, including Social Security and veterans' health care, not undermining them as Senator Simpson seems intent on doing.

It has become all too clear that Senator Simpson cannot be trusted to objectively review the budget and make impartial recommendations about our nation's economic priorities. We ask that you remove him from his current position so that the commission can continue its work in a way that will give the military community--and all Americans--confidence in the conclusions it reaches.

Sincerely,

Jon Soltz
Iraq War Veteran
Chairman, VoteVets.org

Sarah Palin And Glenn Beck To Meet In Alaska For Secretive 9/11 Event

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:40:26 -0500

Lost amid a rather scathing Vanity Fairprofile profile lies a tidbit that is sure to raise some eyebrows -- Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin will appear together at a largely unpublicized 9/11 event in Anchorage Alaska.

Here's the relevant passage from Vanity Fair's Michael Joseph Gross:

Moore, a green-eyed blonde who, like Palin, was once an Alaska beauty queen, albeit a few stripes more self-aware, drives her Subaru through downtown Anchorage, steering with one hand, holding a cigarette and her smartphone in the other. When Devon calls to tell her that Glenn Beck has booked the Dena'ina Center, the largest venue in Anchorage, for a speech on September 11, 2010, she sits bolt upright and yells. Immediately, they start trying to figure out what the news might mean. "Listen, listen, listen: Why in the world do you imagine Glenn Beck would come to Anchorage on 9/11? You think he might have a special guest? With a special announcement? Oh," she says, her whole face falling as the implications of a Palin campaign kickoff hit her, "Jesus Christ."

Glenn Beck addressed his trip to the Frontier State on his radio show this week, calling it a "vacation" but keeping the nature of the event vague.

"I'm gonna give a speech up there and Sarah's gonna give a speech, but that's it," Beck said.

The highly significant time, place, guest list, and venue -- the Dena'ina Center is indeed lavish and large -- have led some, such as film-critic and sometimes political commentator Roger Ebert to speculate that the event has been planned in order to announce a Palin, or perhaps Beck-Palin or Palin-Beck 2012 presidential run.

"The symbolic date of 9/11 invests this event with the inescapable possibility that he and Palin plan to announce their Presidential candidacy for 2012," Ebert wrote Thursday.

Others such as AllahPundit at conservative blog HotAir have scoffed at this idea, however, saying that neither would be foolish enough to "co-opt 9/11 for something as self-aggrandizing as a campaign launch."

It's also worth mentioning that, according to a recent poll, most Alaskans, including Republicans, don't want Sarah Palin to run for president. So, if Sarah Palin does indeed have plans to run in 2012 -- and recent polls would also suggest that many people don't necessarily think that's a good idea at this point -- perhaps an announcement on this date in the heart of Alaska wouldn't be idea.

Beck has also repeatedly made clear that he has no presidential aspirations, telling Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday this week that he would rather be on vacation than running for the top office.

Watch Glenn Beck talk about his 9/11 Alaska appearance on his radio program:

Dear Pigeon Guts: Are Homosexuality and Catholicism Mutually Exclusive? - AfterElton.com

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:31:28 -0500

Dear Pigeon Guts: Are Homosexuality and Catholicism Mutually Exclusive?
AfterElton.com
That said, having worked with many gay foster teens over the years, it can also be extremely rewarding. There aren't many things you can do in life that can ...

and more »

Netanyahu, Abbas Begin Direct Mideast Peace Talks

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:00:05 -0500

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton formally opened the first direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians in nearly two years on Thursday, imploring the parties to make needed compromises to forge an agreement.

At a ceremony in the State Department's ornate Benjamin Franklin room, Clinton said the Obama administration was committed to bringing about a settlement in a year's time. But she stressed that after decades of failed attempts, the heavy lifting must be done by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

"You each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change," Clinton said.

Thursday's negotiations are the first since the last effort broke down in December 2008, and are fraught with complications, including recent violence in the West Bank and Israeli settlement activity. Expectations are low and U.S. officials have said that success may be only an agreement to hold a second round of negotiations.

Sitting at the top of a U-shaped table between Netanyahu and Abbas, Clinton congratulated the two for agreeing to resume negotiations but warned of difficult days to come in the effort to create an independent Palestinian state.

"We cannot and we will not impose a solution," she said.

"I know the decision to sit at this table was not easy," Clinton added. "We understand the suspicion and skepticism that so many feel, borne out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes."

Officials say they are hoping to arrange a critical meeting for Sept. 15 in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik and top aides to the leaders are expected to meet later Thursday to iron out final details of the next step.

DGA Files Complaint Against Fox News For Illegal Contribution To GOP Candidate

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:55:36 -0500

Keeping up its war with Fox News, the Democratic Governors Association on Thursday filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission accusing the network of making an illegal in-kind contribution to gubernatorial candidate John Kasich (R-OH).

The complaint, clocking in at seven pages and signed by the DGA's Executive Director Nathan Daschle, makes some far-reaching charges. But the basic allegation is that Fox's decision to run a hyron featuring Kasich's website at the same time that the Republican Senate candidate was soliciting donations on Bill O'Reilly's show constitutes an in-kind contribution from the station to the candidate.

"There is reason to believe that FOX News Network, L.L.C. violated Ohio election law on August 18, 2010 when John Kasich appeared on a network program, solicited contributions for his campaign, and FOX News added the graphics "John Kasich (R), KasichforOhio.com" under Mr. Kasich's image. The Kasich campaign raised more than $21,000 from the FOX News solicitation," the complaint reads.

There are two election law violations that the complaint sites. The first is the prohibition of in-kind contributions in the form free political advertising -- which in the case of Kasich's appearance on Fox lasted "at least 1 minute and 30 seconds," according to the DGA. The second violation is the failure of Fox News Network LLC "to provide a 'paid for by' disclaimer on its political advertisement for John Kasich."

The complaint, which was sent last night to the Ohio Elections Commission, is premised on the idea that the display of Kasich's website is legally analogous to running an ad on his behalf. It is an argument that would seemingly engulf a number of other stations beyond Fox which have likewise allowed candidates to enumerate their website URLs and urge donors to head there.

But in an interview with the Huffington Post, Daschle said that a distinction must be made between running the website URL as a chyron (as Fox did) and simply allowing a candidate to pitch his or her page to viewers.

"We did our homework," he said. "We talked to other networks and other networks told us they have policies against putting up campaign websites like Fox did... Certainly other networks will have candidates on the air. But people don't take it as far as Fox does."

"And again context here matters," Daschle added. "This isn't accidental. It is part of a pattern of activities Fox has taken to elect Republicans. This is just one more step in that direction, they gave a million to the Republican Governors Association. They are putting candidates on their air, giving them endorsements, and helping them raise money."

There is, of course, another layer of context to consider here, mainly that the DGA's battles with Fox are mutually beneficial. A fundraising drive launched after Fox made a $1 million donation to the RGA netted the DGA a similar amount of donations. Even Daschle acknowledged that filing suit against the network carries side benefits for his organization.

"Sometimes situations are a win-win," he said. "We are not only doing the right thing but, yeah our donors are pleased because Americans don't like seeing Fox blatantly use its position to help Republicans... When Fox does this, our donors and a lot of new donors come to the DGA as a way to say, 'Keep fighting Fox'."

But the DGA header stressed that the complaint filed in Ohio is not a publicity stunt. And he promised to file additional complaints in other states should Fox run a similar stunt with another gubernatorial candidate.

Neither Fox News nor the RGA immediately returned request for comment.

Read the full complaint here:

ohio fox