-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/11/tuesday-open-thread-70/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
New judge tips circuit to liberals
By ALEXANDER BURNS | 11/10/09 6:58 AM
Democratic judicial nominees took the majority on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals when the Senate confirmed Obama nominee Judge Andre Davis Monday, AP reports.
AP: "Davis gives Democratic nominees a 6-5 edge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has been tough in death penalty cases, backed abortion restrictions and supported President George W. Bush's detainee policies.
"Davis, of Baltimore, was the sixth of Obama's court nominees to be confirmed, including Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Immediately after approving Davis, the Senate voted 88-0 to confirm a seventh Obama nominee -- Charlene Edwards Honeywell -- for a district court seat in Florida. ...
"No appellate court has been more ripe for change than the 4th Circuit, which hears appeals from courts in West Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas and Virginia. Senators have battled for years over its nominees, leaving seats unfilled for years.
"Before Davis' confirmation, five of the court's 15 seats were vacant. Obama has made three other nominations to the court's remaining four vacancies, leaving the circuit on the cusp of possibly reversing course from recent rulings."
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1109/co...
The Boston Globe
Who’s afraid of the big, bad Fairness Doctrine?
OF ALL the Big Lies told by the pooh-bahs of talk radio - that our biracial president hates white people, that global warming is a hoax, that a public health care plan to compete with private insurers equals socialism - the most desperate and deluded is this: that the so-called Fairness Doctrine would squash free speech.
Nonsense.
The Fairness Doctrine would not stop talk radio hosts from spewing the invective that has made them so fabulously wealthy. All it would do is subject their invective to a real-time reality check.
If you don’t believe me, consult the historical evidence. The Federal Communications Commission adopted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. Because the airwaves were both public and limited, the FCC wanted to ensure that licensees devoted “a reasonable amount of broadcast time to the discussion of controversial issues,’’ and that they did so “fairly, in order to afford reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints.’’ That’s the whole shebang.
Pretty terrifying stuff, huh?
Predictably, the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 spurred a talk radio revolution. Why? Because talk radio’s business model is predicated on silencing all opposing viewpoints. If Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were forced to engage in a reasonable debate, rather than ad hominems, they would forfeit the moral surety - and the seductive rage - that is the central appeal of all demagogues.
Would talk radio’s bullies freak out? Absolutely. They know the Fairness Doctrine would spell the end to their ongoing cultural flim-flam. Besides, there’s nothing so intoxicating to a fraudulent moralist as the perfume of fraudulent martyrdom.
The real shock is that journalists haven’t supported the Fairness Doctrine. Then again, consider the state of “mainstream media’’ outlets. Increasingly, they dine on the same fears and ginned-up wrath as talk radio. Rather than wondering, “Does this story serve the public good?’’ they ask, “Will it get ratings?’’
This is how fake controversies (death panels, the birther movement, etc.) have pushed aside real issues, such as how to fix health care, or address climate change. It’s quite a racket. Talk radio hosts foment ignorant rage, then their “mainstream’’ brethren cover this ignorant rage as news.
In so doing, the Fourth Estate has allowed the public discourse to devolve into an echo chamber of grievance. The result is a body politic incapable of recognizing the true nature of its predicaments, let alone potential remedies.
And herein lies a tragic irony. This is the very reason the FCC installed the Fairness Doctrine - not to silence extremists who broadcast inflammatory lies, but to force them to share their microphones with those who beg to differ, in reasoned tones, who recognize that the crises of any age warrant mature debate, not childish forms of denial.
Barack Obama arrived in Washington determined to lift our civic discourse above the din of the echo chamber. But he appears determined to ignore the very tool created to serve this end. Forget about bickering with Fox News, Mr. President. If you want “fair and balanced’’ voices on the public airwaves, convince Congress, or the FCC, to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
If Obama and his congressional counterparts don’t have the guts for that fight, Americans of all political persuasions will continue to seek out “news’’ and opinions that merely reinforce their biases, rather than forcing them to question those biases. America will continue to limp along as a nation of enraged dittoheads, rather than free-thinking citizens who may differ in our politics, but share an honest desire to solve our common plights.
Which brings me to a final mystery: If today’s conservative talkers are so sure they’re right about everything (and they certainly sound sure), and if they believe so ardently in the First Amendment, why don’t a few of them screw up the courage to invite me onto their programs to discuss the risks and rewards of the Fairness Doctrine? No shouting or cutting off microphones. Just good, old-fashioned freedom of speech.
Actually, consider that a dare.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opi...
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. Can we have NOTHING? They had to go and dig up Michelle's white 4th cousins (who she probably otherwise would have never met and wouldn't have cared to meet her)? It's not such a shock, I'm sure most Black people whose families have been around since slavery have distant white family somewhere.
Just ask folks, plain and simple :
1. look at the populations of the countries in West Africa were most of the American transatlantic slave trade began....LOOK AT THEM.
2. now, look at the ' rainbow' of shades that Black America is.
riddle me this, how the hell did we go from #1 to #2 WITHOUT RACIALLY MIXING.
The Black community in America has ALWAYS been ' multi-racial' - from the first time Massa went down to the slave quarters. it's because of that ' mixing', that 2 Black folk, when they get married and have a baby, don't know what's coming out. they can hope for a child that is healthy and normal, but aside from that, they don't know what will happen...never know when a ' throwback' gene will pop out and grab the kid.
my mother's family is an example of it. my maternal grandfather would have fit in walking the streets of Scotland - without missing a beat.
my maternal grandmother was Black ' as the Ace of Spades',and was often mistaken for the 'servant girl' when she went out with her own mother-a former slave-, when they walked the streets of the South.
between them, they had children ranging from chocolate to an aunt who could have passed for a red-headed White woman, and everything in between.
same parents.
don't even begin to try and tell Black folks about being ' multi-racial'. we accept it, because we've had to, because it's part of who we are. White folks have been a long time ignoring it, and wanting to deny how WE came to be ' multi-racial'.
Ever notice how whites will never admit to having black relatives (unless they're famous black folk), but can always tell you, "I'm part Indian. yeah, my family is part Cherokee."
I've had quite a few white friends and associates tell me that. Always wanted to ask them about their black relatives.
don't fall for it Michelle
It's that fifteen minutes of fame thing
By JEANNE CUMMINGS | 11/10/09 5:08 AM EST
The traditional pecking order of Washington’s top trade and business groups has been thrown into disarray by the Obama administration’s far-reaching domestic agenda and its tough tactics against opponents.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, engaged in a name-calling contest with the White House that has ended, for now, with an appearance by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel before its board, is down. The Business Roundtable, which made a conscious decision last November to find areas of common interest with the new administration, is up.
It’s the Independent Community Bankers of America and the Consumer Federation of America that are seeing their ideas prevail in the current debate over rewriting the regulatory framework for the financial industry, not the once-invincible, big New York investment banks.
The reshuffling of power among traditional business associations is important because it undermines a time-held manner in which corporate America intersects with Capitol Hill. Through their associations and trades, companies could share lobbying costs and shun exposure when opposing White House policy proposals.
President Barack Obama’s approach, however, is to call out chief executives of individual firms both in favor of and opposed to his ideas. The unorthodox approach challenges corporate loyalties by marginalizing the business associations and those who sit in the lucrative top positions that run them.
The shifting fortunes of the city’s dozens of trade and business groups began in the earliest days of the administration, as industries fought over shares of the huge economic stimulus package.
During that debate, the power players in the energy sector were virtually upended. Renewable sources of energy, solar and wind power and a host of other green projects captured about $20 billion in stimulus money — a major victory for the American Wind Energy Association and a host of other nascent energy associations and a blow for old energy powers from Bush administration days such as the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association.
And the movement has continued as the Obama administration has begun to implement its agenda at the departmental and agency level.
AT&T, a longtime dominant voice in Washington, now finds itself playing defense at the Federal Communications Commission, which is considering new rules that would prevent it and other broadband providers from charging major users — such as White House favorite Google — additional fees.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29352...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandrad...
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
There's a difference between sensitivity and stupidity. If there were indeed signs that Maj. Nidal Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood mass murderer, was becoming radicalized in his opposition to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army had a duty to act -- before he did.
Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said Sunday that he was concerned "this increased speculation" about Hasan's evolving political and religious views "could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers." Casey is right to worry about the lunatics and bigots who now will think of all Muslims in the military as potential enemies. But it only feeds such paranoia to ignore alarm bells that an unstable individual, Muslim or not, is about to blow.
According to published reports, Hasan told people of his serious doubts about the U.S. military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hasan, a psychiatrist who had evaluated returning soldiers for stress-related disorders, made no secret of his reluctance to serve in the Afghan theater, where he was to be sent within weeks. According to ABC News, fellow Army doctors told superiors of their concern that Hasan felt divided allegiance -- both to the Muslims whom he felt were under attack and the country he had volunteered to serve.
All this should have been enough to prompt an urgent intervention by Army brass, regardless of Hasan's religion. That it did not is unfair to the thousands of Muslims who have served in the military, and continue to do so, with honor and distinction.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
Gen Casey's concerns come too late. Muslims and Arab interpreters complaints about harassment have gone unaddressed for years.
By WILLIAM C. RHODEN
Published: November 9, 2009
In addition to his signature sky hook and a legacy of winning at every level, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was known for his stamina and fitness. During a 20-year N.B.A. career that included six championships and six Most Valuable Player awards, Abdul-Jabbar had one serious injury, a broken wrist. Other than that had enjoyed a healthy career.
So the news Monday that the 62-year-old star athlete turned writer and coach was battling leukemia came as a stunning revelation.
“Imagine how I felt,” he said in an interview in Manhattan. “It was frightening. You hear the word leukemia and it’s something that really affects you.”
Especially when there is a history of cancer in the family. Abdul-Jabbar had a grandfather and an uncle who died from the disease. “And my father almost died,” he said, “so it’s something that really got me going.”
The first person Abdul-Jabbar thought about after learning he had the disease was a close friend who died of leukemia. He remembered talking to his friend just before the end. “He was weak, his voice was fading, his blood vessels deteriorated — it was really horrific,” Abdul-Jabbar said.
“He got diagnosed one day and within four weeks he was dead,” he added. “I thought I was on that same path. I don’t have that type of leukemia. You just say the word leukemia, you’ve got reason to be scared.”
Abdul-Jabbar learned last December that he has chronic myeloid leukemia, a cancer of the blood and bone marrow in which the body produces cancerous white blood cells. Chronic describes a relatively slow-growing cancer that may take years to progress. Myeloid refers to the type of white blood cell being overproduced.
“It’s been almost a year now since I’ve been diagnosed,” Abdul-Jabbar said. “My first reaction was to deal with it, make that fight for my life.”
Like many patients found to have this particular strain of leukemia, Abdul-Jabbar learned he had the disease while it was in its early phase.
“In order to really deal with this situation, you have to find a specialist and follow their instructions,” he said. “You have to take your medication; you have to get your blood checked regularly so that you can be monitored.”
For the last 11 months he has kept a brisk regimen: coaching with the Los Angeles Lakers, completing a documentary about the all-black Harlem Rens teams and writing a children’s book.
“It’s something that can be managed,” he said of his disease. “You can continue to live a productive life without changing your lifestyle that much. It does not have to be a death sentence.”
Why would someone who has been so fiercely private be so public about such a personal issue? Over the years Abdul-Jabbar has been one of the most intriguing athletes: a champion and, after the cheering stopped, a scholar and intellectual. He has written several best-selling history books, and is completing a documentary film. His seventh book is scheduled to be published in 2011.
Through all his accomplishments — at Power Memorial High School and U.C.L.A. and with the Milwaukee Bucks and the Lakers, Abdul-Jabbar has kept largely to himself. So why such a public disclosure?
“I think that someone like me, who has a public presence, because people pay attention to what’s going on in my life, can help save some lives,” he said. “I want to get the message across: this condition is treatable. I want to get people to go to doctors, take the medication. This disease can be managed and you can continue to live a very meaningful life.”
A related objective is to encourage people, especially men, to take better care of themselves. This means making more frequent trips to the doctor for checkups.
“You’ve got to be proactive about your health,” he said. “You can’t just sit back. If I can affect that condition, I’m a very happy guy.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/sports/basket...
Defense attorneys, on the other hand, filed papers Monday arguing that a term of less than 10 years is appropriate for their client, William Jefferson, a Democrat who represented parts of New Orleans.
Jefferson was convicted in August of bribery, racketeering and other counts. The case made headlines when authorities found $90,000 cash hidden in his freezer, money he received as part of a videotaped FBI sting.
He will be sentenced on Friday. Prosecutors are urging the judge to stick to federal sentencing guidelines, which call for a term of 27 to 33 years. Such a term would be far longer than those received by other congressman in recent scandals.
Feds seek 27 years for former congressman
Jefferson ties to 90K = 27 years. Former B;ham Mayor Langford ties to 200+K = 800 years. Trillion dollars robbery from pension funds = 0 years. Trillion dollars subprime crime = 0 years. Wrecking U.S. economy = God's work.
though I'm still waiting for the string of arrests from the MADOFF case, including those in banking and those at the SEC that had to collude with him.
A Word, Mr. President
Bob Herbert
Reforming the chaotic and unfair health care system in the U.S. is an important issue. But in terms of pressing national priorities, the most important are the need to find solutions to a catastrophic employment environment that is devastating American families and to end the folly of an 8-year-old war that is both extremely debilitating and ultimately unwinnable.
We have spent the better part of a year locked in a tedious and unenlightening debate over health care while the jobless rate has steadily surged. It’s now at 10.2 percent. Families struggling with job losses, home foreclosures and personal bankruptcies are falling out of the middle class like fruit through the bottom of a rotten basket. The jobless rate for men 16 years old and over is 11.4 percent. For blacks, it’s a back-breaking 15.7 percent.
We need to readjust our focus. We’re worried about Kabul when Detroit has gone down for the count.
I would tell the president that more and more Americans are questioning his priorities, including millions who went to the mat for him in last year’s election. The biggest issue by far for most Americans is employment. The lack of jobs is fueling the nervousness, anxiety and full-blown anger that are becoming increasingly evident in the public at large.
Last Friday, a huge crowd of fans marched in a ticker-tape parade in downtown Manhattan to celebrate the Yankees’ World Series championship. More than once, as the fans passed through the financial district, the crowd erupted in rhythmic, echoing chants of “Wall Street sucks! Wall Street sucks!”
I would tell the president that the feeling is widespread that his administration went too far with its bailouts of the financial industry, sending not just a badly needed lifeline but also unwarranted windfalls to the miscreants who nearly wrecked the entire economy. The government got very little in return. The perception now is that Wall Street is doing just fine while working people, whose taxes financed the bailouts, are walking the plank to economic oblivion.
I would also tell him that rebuilding the economy in a way that allows working Americans to flourish will require a sustained monumental effort, not just bits and pieces of legislation here and there. But such an effort will never get off the ground, will never have any chance of reaching critical mass and actually succeeding, as long as we insist on feeding young, healthy American men and women and endless American dollars into the relentless meat grinders of Afghanistan and Iraq.
We learned in the 1960s, when Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society was trumped by Vietnam, that nation-building here at home is incompatible with the demands of war. We’ve managed to keep the worst of the carnage — and the staggering costs — of Iraq and Afghanistan well out of the sight of most Americans, so the full extent of the terrible price we are paying is not widely understood.
The ultimate financial costs will be counted in the trillions. If you were to take a walk around one of the many military medical centers, like Landstuhl in Germany or Walter Reed in Washington, your heart would break at the sight of the heroic young men and women who have lost limbs (frequently more than one) or who are blind or paralyzed or horribly burned. Hundreds of thousands have suffered psychological wounds. Many have contemplated or tried suicide, and far too many have succeeded.
“Mr. President,” I would say, “we’ll never be right as a nation as long as we allow this to continue.”
The possibility of more troops for the war in Afghanistan was discussed Sunday on “Meet the Press.” Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania noted candidly that “our troops are tired and worn out.” More than 85 percent of the men and women in the Pennsylvania National Guard have already served in Iraq or Afghanistan. “Many of them have gone three or four times and they’re wasted,” said Mr. Rendell.
More troops? “Where are we going to find these troops?” the governor asked. “That’s what I want somebody to tell me.”
While we’re preparing to pour more resources into Afghanistan, the Economic Policy Institute is telling us that one in five American children is living in poverty, that nearly 35 percent of African-American children are living in poverty, and that the unemployment crisis is pushing us toward a point in the coming years where more than half of all black children in this country will be poor.
“Mr. President,” I would say, “we need your help.”
Since 1929 the two parties have fought tooth and nail over the governments involvement in the economy. Since Keynesian economics has been used to ameloriate the effects of recessions Herbert is calling for it to be used again. His warning is very simple after a while people simply don't care who caused a problem they want it fixed, i.e. I need money get me a job. W/ jobs Keynesian economics has worked in the troughs of recessions in creating them. Currently the mood of the nation is that those tricks don't work anymore because it causes huge deficits. I have grave doubts that anyone but the knucklehead wing of the economic Republicans belief that loose tax and regulatory policy works either. So there is something of an impasse.
Him calling President Obama to task on not using Keynesian economics is not President Obama losing Herbert. It is Herbert advocating his ideas on what works in creating jobs and will keep President Obama in the WH.
I didn't address the foreign/military policy issues because in the case of Afghanistan I believe that is the wrong idea. If you want to save money in the military sphere I would simply shut down most of the US bases in Europe and Japan. They can pay for their own defense. Some of that money needs to be spent on more forward operating areas, i.e. is areas where the world is at less peace.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/09/tony-p...
Tony Podesta: Turning Change Into Dollars
Tony and Heather Podesta basked in the praise when they donated the iconic, five-foot tall "Hope" portrait of Barack Obama to the National Portrait Gallery just before Inauguration Day. But to those who hoped Obama would reduce the influence of lobbyists in Washington, there was also something uniquely depressing about the gift -- because the Podestas are exactly the sort of K Street powerbrokers candidate Obama railed against.
And while Obama's presidency so far has in many ways failed to live up to his campaign poster, it's been a cash cow for the Podestas, who have been able to leverage their insider status into a slew of new high-paying clients. The husband-and-wife lobbyist couple have become icons themselves -- of the lobbying industry's imperviousness to Obama's change agenda.
In just the first nine months of the year, the couple's separate lobby shops have already made more money than in all of 2008, according to disclosure forms filed with Congress. Heather Podesta's firm, Heather Podesta + Partners, surpassed last year's total of $4.7 million with $5.1 million in lobbying income.
Tony Podesta's firm, the Podesta Group, has already reported nearly $19 million from more than 130 clients -- blowing last year's full-year-total, a record high of $16 million, out of the water. He's registered 50 new clients -- way up from the average clip of 20 new clients a year for previous decade.
Tony Podesta declined interview requests from the Huffington Post. But in March, he told Legal Times what parts of his business he expected would prosper under the Obama change regime:
"The president has signaled defense acquisition reforms, defense budget cuts...The Hill will take up those issues, so there's a lot of work in that field," he said. "We're doing a lot more work in financial services than we had done previously, and also doing more health care work and more energy work."
The Podesta Group's biggest boost appears to have come from the health industry. The firm reported lobbying on health issues for 32 clients that have paid $5.1 million for lobbying so far this year, up from $3.8 million from 18 clients in all of 2008.
Twenty-three clients focused on defense issues -- including seven new ones -- paid the Podesta Group $3.2 million, a 60 percent increase from 2008.
The firm took in $2.2 million this year from clients concerned with energy issues, compared to $1.8 million from seven clients in 2008. And when it came to financial issues, the Podesta Group reported billing 17 clients $2.1 million this year, up from $1.3 million from seven clients last year.
(The numbers may be somewhat imprecise as the firm often lobbies for any given client on more than one issue. And it only accounts for direct lobbying of the federal government, not for public relations work.)
For their money, those clients get a small army of former congressional staffers and Obama campaign officials who can tell them what's happening behind the scenes on the Hill, and can plead their case with former colleagues. From the Podesta Group's website:
"Podesta Group professionals have experience in every aspect of the legislative process as well as expertise in public relations...We understand the politics and publicity that determine our clients' fate in Washington, and we have a track record to prove it."
What the website doesn't mention, because it doesn't have to, is that Podesta's brother, former Clinton administration honcho John Podesta, chaired Obama's transition and remains a top adviser.
Tony Podesta has said that he'd never use the family connection to win favors for clients. But from a business standpoint, it doesn't really matter. Craig Holman, a lobbyist with Public Citizen, told the Huffington Post that the appearance is the payoff. "This is the sort of close family tie that inevitably provides very, very handsome profits for the lobbying firm," he said.
Heather Podesta took the Podesta name six months into the marriage, she told the Washington Post -- after she learned firsthand how much it could impress folks on the Hill.
"I'm the third husband, but this is the first time she's changed her name," Tony Podesta told the Post. "That should tell you something."
One of the Podesta Group's biggest new financial-industry clients this year is Sallie Mae, which hired the firm at a rate of about $30,000 a month. The student loan giant needs help because the Obama administration has proposed bypassing government-backed lenders like Sallie Mae and lending directly to students, which the Congressional Budget Office estimated would save $94 billion over the next ten years, and which would pretty much put Sallie Mae out of business. The lender has long devoted significant resources to lobbying, but this year expanded its roster of outside firms.
The Podesta principals handling Sallie Mae are former Department of Education staffer Lauren Maddox and Israel Klein, a former staffer for Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
The measure passed the House in September, despite opposition from four Democrats -- one of whom, Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), was the beneficiary of a fundraising dinner thrown by the Podestas in July.
New clients on the energy front include Duke Energy, a utility company somewhat sympathetic to the Obama climate change agenda, and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which is much less so.
The ACCCE achieved notoriety this year after reports that that one of its subcontractors sent forged letters opposing climate change legislation to members of Congress. The House launched an inquiry that culminated in lawmakers scolding ACCCE president Steve Miller in a hearing.
Podesta's new defense clients this year joined the ranks of longer-standing clients Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon, and other stalwarts of the military-industrial complex that reap enormous amounts of money through the congressional appropriations process. It's another group for whom change is not a good thing.
The president threatened to veto a defense spending bill unless lawmakers stripped $1.75 billion in funding for unneeded F-22 fighter jets. In July, the Senate voted 58 to 40 to kill the funding after an intense industry lobbying effort.
Despite the veto threat, fourteen Democrats voted to keep funding the F-22. In the springtime, the Podestas set up fundraisers for three of them: Patty Murray (Wash.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), and Daniel Inouye (Hawaii). The Feinstein fundraiser was canceled, however, after the invitation listing Feinstein's committees as the different courses of a meal was made public. (Guests who made contributions between $1,000 and $2,500 could order up Feintstein's "Select Committee on Intelligence for the first course" and "your choice of Appropriations, Judiciary or Rules committees" for other courses.)
Most of the Podesta Group's health industry clients are drugmakers and biotech firms. Podesta clients Amgen, Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Genzyme Corporation, and new signup Eisai are among the Big Pharma members that stand to benefit from current health care reform proposals -- particularly after the White House cut an $80 million deal with the industry. For them, change is good.
Tony, Heather, and John Podesta visited the White House 25 times between the three of them in just the first six months of the year, according to the White House's recently-released visitor logs -- a better advertisement for Tony and Heather Podesta's firms in the change era than they could possibly ask for.
Julian Hattem contributed to this article.
"The Senate on Tuesday gave President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates a victory in the bitter fight over Lockheed Martin’s F-22 fighter jets.
The Senate voted 58-40 to strike $1.75 billion from the 2010 defense authorization bill that would have funded seven more F-22s than what the Obama administration wanted. The administration wants to cap the F-22 fleet at 187 planes."
Obama, Gates win on F-22 fighter jet vote
"Lobbyists Quit in Record Numbers Brody Mullins reports on lobbying in Washington. It’s been a rough few years for lobbyists. They have been attacked by President Barack Obama. They have been targeted in corruption probes. And they have been hurt by the economy."
Lobbyists Quit in Record Numbers
For real change w/ lobbyists all you have to do is have full disclosure, i.e. if you give money personally to any organization you have to do it in your name. If a corporation does it has to be approved by the board ahead of time and on thepublic records of the company recording the names of the individuals/organizations/corporations receiving it.
White House Won't Rescind Lobbyist Board Ban <<-This was HUGE
It’s highly unlikely Murdoch would actually shoot himself in the foot by taking such a step, but that does not stop him from voicing his entertaining rhetoric. In an interview with Sky News Australia, Murdoch declared that he would remove all of his content from Google, once all of his online news sites were converted to paid content.
Murdoch rejects the legal concept of “fair use” of news content, and hinted that he would challenge the doctrine in court one day.
Meanwhile, Murdoch continues to take shots at Google, referring to the company, as a “parasite” and accusing the site of “kleptomania.”
The Wall Street Journal is already behind a partial pay wall, but readers can easily bypass it by clicking through to the article from a Google search.
Murdoch Wages War on ‘Parasite’ Google: Plans to Remove Content, Block Searches
Murdoch and Glickman (Paramount) arrives at the Internet party late (the Internet was 40 years old in October).
These industries (news, journalism, movies, and music) which made no noteworthy contribution to the viability of the 40 years old Internet have applied their normal corporate raider tactics to undermind and wrestle control of the Internet from the Jane and John Doe's of the world, that didn't work.
Using another corporate raiders tactics, declaring "the corporate person must survive for the benefit of all", Murdoch along with the beleaguered journalism industry seeks to sink their vampire fangs on the Internet to drain it for profits. Here's hoping that when Murdoch sets up a toll booth on the Internet, he will accelerate the demise and decline of the 4th estate that offered the public nothing in the first place.
As to Murdoch he will eventually become a smaller and smaller player unless people want his material. You can help by checking the public record for any company he is associated w/ and boycott his products.
That's a little of a stretch don't you think.
Society here means the creators of any kind of information/processes, manufactoring that can be accessed by the internet. Take newpapers, yoou hire a staf to write the articles but you need to pay them. A newspaper used to support itslef by offering advertising to create income to pay the staff. Now you have a situtation where the income is going to Google because they can systematically cross reference your work and provide a bigger base to advertisers(which I am very skeptical about; I seen work indicating that clicks are created falsely on most pages). Google is in essence eating the sources that it derives its income from that leeching. you seem to be arguing that they are more like the worms that clean the teeth of predatory fish. No they are leeches sucking the blood out of newspapers, periodicals, magazines.
I am willing to bet you wouldn't read a damn thing Murdoch prints, puts on TV/radio because you wouldn't pay to read/see/hear you're a n@##$%. But for $50/month and spreading it across a couple of hundred providers for hours on end you are entertained. Hahaha did you see what this racist a@@#$%^ said.
So the argument isn't whether you read a newspaper or not but how you pay for the content of a newspaper if you want it?
Content is not free. No free lunch. Someone has to pay for it.
Agree about google. There are/were far better search engines or spiders to use.
Thanks for tip on Murdoch.
The justices, including the court's newest member, Sonia Sotomayor, seemed to disagree with arguments advocating a patent for a method of hedging.
The case, Bilski and Warsaw v. Kappos, concerned a business method patent that had been denied to Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw, who in 1997 applied for a process that could help institutions like utilities or factories have more predictable energy bills.
The justices peppered J. Michael Jakes, a lawyer for Bilski and Warsaw, with hypothetical patents that they clearly found ludicrous. Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that under Jakes' argument, a patent for “somebody who writes a book on how to win friends and influence people” might be allowed, while Sotomayor suggested a “method of speed dating.”
Jakes argued that some of the examples were potentially patentable, though other considerations would be brought to bear by examiners.
Initially, patents chiefly concerned tangible things: new machines, chemical compounds and the like. Over time, the rules have broadened to include increasingly abstract inventions that came to include “business methods” — ways of doing things.
A 1998 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group, led to the issuance of thousands of such patents.
In the Bilski case, the Patent and Trademark Office, pulling back from the realms of abstraction, denied the patent as overly abstract, and the same appellate court ruled in support of the patent office.
The case has drawn intense interest and nearly 70 amicus briefs by interested parties.
“I think this case is the case of the century for patent law,” said John F. Duffy, a professor at the George Washington University Law School.
High court may redraw line on what's a patent
But it's hard to be sure, since the latest negotiations for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement were held in secret, as they have been in the past, and the only details came to the public through leaks, says Michael Geist, a law professor and Star columnist, who himself posted a leaked chapter on the agreement's Internet Policy on his personal website.
"We're dealing with intellectual property agreements that are being treated as akin to nuclear secrets and that just doesn't make any sense at all," Geist says. "That's the transparency side of this. Then, of course, there's the content side of it... this week, they crossed the line into the realm of affecting individuals very, very directly."
If it's any measure of the public's interest, Geist's site got 100,000 unique hits in a 24-hour span after he posted the document.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is an attempt to update international law to deal with online intellectual-property violations. The negotiations concluded on Friday and the next round are scheduled for Mexico in January.
The member states, which include the U.S., Canada, the European Union, and other states including Morocco and Mexico, hope to finish off the discussion and make it law later that year. For the average Internet user in Canada, then, 2010 could shape up to be a drastically different year than 2009, with much more scrutiny given to everything you do on your computer and mobile device – every download, upload, viewing, phone unlocking, burning, backing up, etc.
One of the proposals, according to leaks, involve a three-strikes system: three infringements and your Internet service provider (ISP) has to yank the cord from the IP address, not just the lone user. A few illegal downloads, iPhone hackings or movie uploads and an entire family could be without Internet for 12 months.
New Copyright Treaty – Three Strikes and Your IP Address is Gone
By NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON | 11/9/09 7:02 PM EST
When Michelle Obama moved into the White House, she instantly became one of the most famous first ladies in history, a symbol of racial pride, a victor in the battle of the sexes and the picture of a modern woman, mother and wife.
But from her days on the campaign trail to her residency in the White House, Obama’s favorability rating has been in flux, from a low of 48 percent in June 2008 to a peak of 72 percent last March to a slide to 61 percent in a recent Gallup Poll.
That 11-point stumble – some might call it a tumble – seems at odds with the focus of a White House publicity team that is carefully crafting her image and building a decidedly current, wholesome, upbeat brand. But while Obama has broadened the reach of her office, White House observers say that the role and projects she has embraced so far are seen by some as disappointingly traditional.
“If you asked most people, they would say she defines her job as first lady as taking care of her family, and maybe that’s what the White House wants — what she wants,” said first lady historian Betty Boyd Caroli. “A lot of people appreciate that, but some people wanted more, and maybe that’s why the numbers are dipping.”
Like her husband, Obama moved into the White House with outsize expectations from different and sometimes competing constituencies: fashionistas, black women, working women, working mothers, stay-at-home mothers, feminists, post-feminists — all identify with her.
“There was so much pressure on her as the first African-American first lady to be out there and performing in the public eye, and she did get a nice start, visiting the agencies, planting the garden and letting people see this side of her,” said Anita McBride, chief of staff to Laura Bush, whose job approval ratings once stood at 85 percent — the best ever recorded for a first lady.
“But I think she worries about making a misstep, about criticism, and I think that could contribute very much to taking a lower profile, and some of the popularity going down,” as it did in the Gallup Poll two weeks ago, McBride said. “I think she started out in an impossible situation because there was so much pressure on her to be doing everything.”
Caroli also said that Obama’s campaign-style foray into Chicago’s failed Olympics bid in Copenhagen also might have put a dent in her popularity.
East Wing aides say that Obama’s approach to her role fits with her interests and passions. They point to her open-door policy at the White House, where she has hosted hundreds of local schoolchildren, and her visits to dozens of schools and community centers. Instead of one signature issue, they say, she’s chosen several, with the White House garden serving as a kind of symbol for her many passions —community service, fitness, healthy eating, work-life balance, mentoring, good mothering.
“My message to women: Do what makes you feel good because there’ll always be someone who thinks you should do it differently,” she said in a recent interview with Prevention Magazine.
She kicked off a year-long mentoring program last week and will take up health care and seniors on Friday; aides said she will turn her attention to childhood obesity this winter and will continue to focus on the importance of mentoring young girls, using her own life story as a way to encourage change..
White House historians point to a fundamental difference in how Americans view the wives of Republican and Democratic presidents. Laura Bush, for instance, kept very high approval ratings, even as her husband’s tanked, because she maintained a separate identity and was viewed as a traditional first lady who didn’t meddle in Oval Office affairs. McBride said her staff didn’t conduct polls but instead looked at issues of the day to see where the first lady could make a difference without running into trouble.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29347...
Interesting.
if she shows her intelligence then she's heavy handed like Hillary
and if she has a more mothering approach
then the so called feminists will say she's a stepford wife
Michelle just needs to continue doing what she is doing
she's doing an excellent job
By REP. LYNN WOOLSEY | 11/9/09 11:09 PM EST
I expect political hardball on any legislation as important as the health care bill.
I just didn’t expect it from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
Who elected them to Congress?
The role the bishops played in the pushing the Stupak amendment, which unfairly restricts access for low-income women to insurance coverage for abortions, was more than mere advocacy.
They seemed to dictate the finer points of the amendment, and managed to bully members of Congress to vote for added restrictions on a perfectly legal surgical procedure.
And this political effort was subsidized by taxpayers, since the Council enjoys tax-exempt status.
When I visit churches in my district, we are very careful to keep everything “non-political” to protect their tax-exempt status.
The IRS is less restrictive about church involvement in efforts to influence legislation than it is about involvement in campaigns and elections.
Given the political behavior of USCCB in this case, maybe it shouldn’t be.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29336...
by DougJ
K-thug summarizes why no one should be rooting for FreedomWorks/Club For Growth/Beck/Palin in the Republican civil war:
And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in California could happen at the national level. In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state’s fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.
The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here — and it’s very bad for America.
To be clear, the Beck/Palin wing is ascendant right now and everyone should admit that. But, as amusing as it was, the Republican debacle in NY-23 should frighten everyone.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=29501
the Republicans have been doing this for years in those two states. neither one is a big home to the wing you speak about. I want them to self destruct their party. If the D's would come to meeting on a public message they would beat the pants off the republicans because they could point out how they are being obstructionist. Abortion in the healthcare debate is a great example.
By SETH MYDANS
Published: November 9, 2009
DA NANG, Vietnam — Cmdr. H. B. Le, the first Vietnamese-American to command a United States Navy destroyer, had just stepped ashore on a formal port call, making an emotional return to Vietnam for the first time since he fled as a young boy on a fishing boat at the end of the war in 1975.
A youthful and smiling man of 39, he bore on his shoulders the weight of the symbolism of cautiously warming military ties between Vietnam and the United States in the visit over the weekend.
But the symbolism became more nuanced when his welcoming ceremony was delayed by a dispute over a request to display the red Vietnamese flag with its gold star aboard the U.S.S. Blue Ridge, the flagship of the Seventh Fleet, which had just pulled into port.
Two hours later the flag was finally raised high on the yardarm, seemingly in accord with the Vietnamese demand and contrary to American naval custom.
The waiting generals began to smile again, the red carpet was rolled out and Commander Le was free to proceed with his return.
“Stepping ashore was awesome,” he said after landing from his destroyer, the U.S.S. Lassen, which was anchored in Da Nang Harbor. “To be able to return to Vietnam after 35 years and to be able to do it as commander of a United States naval warship was an incredible honor and a privilege.”
He was returning to a very different Vietnam from the one he fled at the age of 5 with his parents and three of his siblings. Most people in this young nation, like Commander Le himself, have no memory of the war.
In the last decade or more, Vietnam has opened its economy, increased trade with the United States and risen from postwar poverty even as the Communist government maintains control of the news media and political expression.
The city of Da Nang today, with four new bridges, broad streets and an emerging high-rise skyline, is almost unrecognizable to those who were here during the war years.
Despite the changes, the flag-raising dispute and the background of Commander Le’s own story illustrated the complexities of a relationship that remains shadowed by the war, even as it moves tentatively forward.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/world/asia/10...
By PATRICIA COHEN
Published: November 9, 2009
There is a moment at the beginning of this latest revival of “Dreamgirls” when reality and fantasy mesh, when the actresses performing onstage at the Apollo Theater in Harlem are as excited and anxious about their chance at stardom as the fictional ’60s-era singers they portray.
You’re talking about it, but you’re actually there,” said Moya Angela, who plays Effie White, the role that made her movie and Broadway predecessors, Jennifer Hudson and Jennifer Holliday, stars. Speaking in a husky whisper after a recent performance, she added: “This is definitely a big break for me. Most women in this role really take off after this.”
The decision to open the national tour of “Dreamgirls” at the Apollo, where this 1981 Broadway musical begins and ends, would seem to be a natural. The producer John Breglio recalled that the initial reaction was quite different, however: “Everybody thought I was crazy.”
“But I really wanted this to be an uptown experience,” he said.
The Apollo, celebrating its 75th anniversary this year, has a relatively narrow stage and a tiny backstage. There is barely room to stand with your arms outspread in some parts of the wings, precious little space to lay out costumes for the performers’ lightning-quick changes, and no pit for the 15-piece orchestra.
This presented serious logistical problems for a musical that has a cast of 26, uses more than 580 outfits (designed by William Ivey Long) and 184 wigs (created by Paul Huntley).
“We had a traffic jam,” an actor called out from the stage at a recent rehearsal, explaining a delay to the director, Robert Longbottom. The performers exiting the stage ran into other actors who were coming out, and bumped into the show’s only major prop, a thin, clear plastic table.
“Are the Dreams O.K.?” Mr. Longbottom asked. Everyone was fine. The orchestra is in a separate room on the second floor. Sam Davis conducts with an eye on a computer screen that shows what’s happening onstage. “Ba ba ba,” short and staccato, he explained to the musicians, “not ba-ah, ba, ba.” At the same time a couple of people interested in renting the room for a future recital were taking a tour. Downstairs two tiny black-and-white monitors affixed to the front of the balcony allow the actors to see the conductor’s cues.
Beneath the stage the green room — normally a waiting room for performers — has been converted into a miniature version of Filene’s basement, with racks of gowns in powdery satin pastels and shimmering amethyst, turquoise and vermillion sequins; suits lined up shoulder to shoulder in black gabardine, red velvet, and silver and gold lame; and enough shoes to satisfy Imelda Marcos.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/theater/10dre...
Weak Economy and Tighter Security Dissuade Illegal Entrants; Drug Seizures Jump
By CAM SIMPSON
The number of people caught illegally entering the U.S. dropped by more than 23% during the past year, continuing a longer trend, federal data shows.
The struggling U.S. economy and rising joblessness are major factors behind the decline. But government officials say investment in border security since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, also has deterred illegal immigration
Drug seizures along the border, meanwhile, rose over the same period, according to the government. Authorities say tougher enforcement has forced smugglers to try such methods as flying ultra-light aircraft over border fences.
U.S. border apprehensions dropped to 556,041 in fiscal year 2009 -- which ended Sept. 30 -- compared with 723,825 in the 2008 fiscal year. Border apprehensions have fallen nearly 67% decline since fiscal year 2000, when the border patrol made 1,675,438 arrests.
The Obama administration will use evidence of tougher border enforcement as part of its strategy to win support for a congressional overhaul of the U.S. immigration system next year. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is scheduled to give a speech about the administration's plans Friday at the Center for American Progress, a Democrat-affiliated think tank in Washington.
Some state and local officials along the U.S.-Mexico border, including Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry, have said federal enforcement needed to be tougher. Mr. Perry recently said he would send teams of Texas Rangers to beef up security along the frontier.
The U.S. has nearly doubled the number of border-patrol agents in the past five years and uses a combination of patrols, fences, electronic sensors and pilotless drone aircraft. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, is expected to release its 2009 data this week.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125781594948540...
By Sean Lengell
Sen. Joe Lieberman plans to start a congressional investigation into Thursday's shooting rampage at Fort Hood, saying that if initial reports hold true, it would be "the most destructive terrorist act to be committed on American soil since 9/11."
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim Army psychiatrist, is accused of fatally shooting 13 people and wounding 31 others at the Texas military base. Authorities say he was shot in an exchange of gunfire during the attack and remained hospitalized in critical but stable condition Sunday night.
"I want to say very quickly we don't know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act," said Mr. Lieberman, Connecticut independent.
Maj. Hasan, a U.S.-born Muslim of Palestinian heritage, reportedly had voiced dismay over U.S. wars in Islamic countries and said the nation's struggle against terrorist threats was a "war on Muslims." He also was said to be distraught that he was about to be deployed.
His family says he was a target of prejudice and harassment over his Islamic faith.
Mr. Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said he will work with the panel's ranking Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, to investigate the shooter's motives.
"I think the first steps that should be taken in this regard should be taken by the U.S. Army, because this was an attack on American troops," Mr. Lieberman said. "You've got to see it as if 12 American troops were killed in Afghanistan.
"I am intending to begin a congressional investigation of my homeland security committee into what were the motives, what were the motives of Hasan in carrying out this brutal mass murder ... and to ask whether the Army missed warning signs that should have led them to essentially discharge him."
Mr. Lieberman dismissed the notion that Maj. Hasan's freedom of speech rights would have been violated if the Army had stepped in to discipline or discharge him for his reported comments before the shooting.
"Really, in the U.S. Army, this is not a matter of constitutional freedom of speech," he said. "If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/09...
I was wondering about your Mad Men finale comments?
enjoyed the threads at Coates
and
PostBourgie
http://postbourgie.com/2009/11/09/mad-men-seaso...
I have always been w/ Don. I'm going forward not matter what. After he and Connie called each other out you knew what was going to happen; fix bayonets, forward march.
I do want to comment about the women. They wrote Brickhouse for Joan. "She mighty mighty" not a den mother, head hen or anything else. She is the one women whom Don has always known to tread carefully around as she has always been able to do more for him than he for her. As an after thought I think that is why Don told Rodger everyone thinks your a fool at his party. Don knows Joan and Rodger are the soul mates.
The Breck girl is something else. She is going to go postal on someone.
Trudy was the real surprise. She always put spine in Pete. I didn't realize when they didn't go to the wedding and she kicked off her shoes to cuddle up to Pete she was about to become a player(?).
Peggy has always wanted a Dad. Don is it. She just got the keys to the car.(If this was shot in California she'd show up in a Mustang convertible next yr).
Peggy is finally a player, and for some reason, Pete never bothered me as much as he does other folks.
It popped into my head because the line Very Good, Happy Christmas resonated here as insult but in England that is traitor class talk. Pyrce isn't going back to London cause nobody cares(here) what school he went to. It is even more amazing when you think about how important it has become in this country to go the right schools.
Abbott wrote that the site's creator, Isaac Eiland-Hall, "can be said to be making a political statement," which is a "legitimate non-commercial use" of Beck's name.
Eiland-Hall had argued that the site parodied Beck by using the same rhetorical techniques that Beck uses on the air. In legal papers filed on his behalf by First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza, he referenced a YouTube clip of Beck interviewing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Muslim, during which Beck asked Ellison to prove that he was "not working with our enemies."
Arguing With An Idiot: Glenn Beck's Lawsuit Against Parody Site Rejected
You keep asking the very legimate question of what is needed to win. I think it's possible but understanding culturally what we need to do is the tipping point winning. When you read this about the Major I understand why you know what you know. It is looking at the racism still at home
was this a setup or gross incompetence?
it's like he had neon lights- GET ME OUTTA THIS ARMY.
Knowing what you know, do you really believe that we have the ' cultural awareness' to do this properly?
be honest.
He was promoted to Major THIS PAST MAY.
Why?
CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS | Families with kids already in will have a better chance of getting another admitted
ovember 10, 2009
BY ROSALIND ROSSI AND ART GOLAB Staff Reporters
A greater share of prized Chicago magnet school seats would go to the brothers and sisters of current magnet students -- as well as to neighborhood kids -- under a long-awaited magnet admission plan expected to be unveiled this week.
And for the first time in Chicago, the income level and other socio-economic factors in a child's neighborhood would play a role in whether that child is admitted to a magnet school, sources say.
The process for gaining entry into the "jewels'' of the Chicago Public School system is undergoing a massive overhaul.
A judge's September decision to throw out a nearly 30-year-old desegregation consent decree also has thrown overboard the process of using race to decide magnet school admission. Instead, CPS officials want to join about 60 other school districts nationwide that use various socioeconomic factors to create diversity in schools.
However, the new policy is also expected to be more family and neighborhood friendly, sources say.
This school year, more than 25,000 students applied for seats at 37 elementary magnet schools that used race, sibling status and address to decide admissions, data obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times showed. Only 12 percent of all applicants won admission, the data indicated.
And although siblings of existing students had a much greater chance of winning magnet seats, their entry under the old admission policy was not a lock. Only 45 percent of open seats were set aside for them under the old process.
That's been one of the worries of Kay Ragozzino, who lives in Chicago's Little Italy neighborhood. Her oldest child, Dante, is now a first-grader at Andrew Jackson Language Magnet. If Dante's 4½- year-old brother, Marco, doesn't win the Jackson admission lottery, Ragozzino said, she may have to consider the unthinkable -- moving out of the city.
The logistics of two working parents trying to transport two kids to two different schools would be "untenable,'' said Ragozzino, an education researcher and wife of a University of Illinois at Chicago professor.
"If he [Marco] were not to get in, everything would be on the table,'' Ragozzino said. "It would be extremely hard for us to leave, but not having two kids in the same school would make leaving the city something we'd have to consider.''
However, under the new proposal -- which still faces a series of public hearings and board approval -- siblings would get first dibs at all open magnet seats, not just 45 percent of them, officials said.
Siblings already are faring well in winning entry-level magnet seats with 92 percent winning admission for this school year. The new proposal should boost those numbers even higher, especially at the most competitive schools.
After the sibling lottery, sources said, half of the remaining seats would go to neighborhood kids -- up from a current threshold of 30 percent in most magnet schools.
And the other half of the seats would be decided based on socioeconomic factors -- the most complicated part of the equation.
According to sources, CPS officials hope to look at annually updated census tract data reflecting several socioeconomic variables of the area in which applicants live. That could include the area's median family income; adult education level; percent of single parents; the level of owner-occupied homes; and the percent of children living in homes where a language other than English is spoken.
Median income would not be divided into poor vs. non-poor, but rather be into about four gradations, each carrying different levels of weight, officials said.
Officials are hoping that socioeconomic barometers will help magnet schools stay racially diverse -- one element that Ragozzino now finds especially appealing.
With greater sibling and neighborhood student bodies, Ragozzino said, her sons might be able to go to school with more kids from the neighborhood, and then come home and play with them.
"It's better for communities and families,'' Ragozzino said of the new policy. "It's terrific news.''
http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/1874845,...
----------------------------
What does magnet mean in this context?
Neighborhood schools
The Magnet System
basically, that was the breakdown.
the jockeying for spaces in magnet schools is utterly crazy. watching middle-class parents trying to get their children into a good magnet school is watching clear politics. and, this is for kids who have actually passed the tests and gotten high enough scores.
the craziness truly begins when you have the ' lottery'. there are so many slots in those schools that don't depend on testing, but are like what it's called - a lottery.
Part II: A bad man, not a bad religion
7:56 am November 10, 2009, by ctucker
You can usually see the warning signs with the 20/20 vision of hindsight, of course. So it is with Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan, who allegedly went on a killing spree at Ft. Hood, Texas last week, mowing down dozens, killing 13.
Now, after he has already killed many and maimed others, investigators are finding evidence that Hasan was, at the very least, deeply troubled. Perhaps the most obvious sign was a lecture he gave a year and a half ago, in which he warned that Muslims soldiers should be allowed to duck out of fighting against fellow Muslims to avoid “adverse events.”
“It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims,” he said in the presentation.
The first thing to note is this: Many Muslim Americans who are serving courageously in the U.S. Armed Forces disagree strenously.
Some of the thousands of Muslims in the U.S. military worry that one burst of violence could unravel all of their work to be accepted as loyal, dedicated soldiers, and that their reputation could be another casualty of the attack.
ad_icon
“Just as this guy in Fort Hood doesn’t represent every single Muslim in the world or in this county, the few ignorant or racist people that remain in the military, they are so few and far between, they do not represent the military at large,” said Ashkan Bayatpour, 25, a U.S. Navy veteran and the American-born son of Iranian immigrants.
You can hardly blame them for worrying, since so many commentators and some politicians are rushing to stigmatize all Muslim soldiers.
The second thing to note is this: The military has never fully come to terms with the emotional trauma of war; but, since the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, it has tried to do better, stepping up its efforts to treat combat stress. That may have led officers to overlook Hasan’s own mental problems; after all, the military needed psychiatrists.
It’s now clear the Army has to do a better job of making sure its mental health professionals are up to the task.
http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2009/11/10/...
By: Jon Walker Tuesday November 10, 2009 8:30 am
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told The Hill that he would absolutely back using reconciliation to pass health care reform.
And when asked whether he would support reconciliation in the event Lieberman and other Democrats blocked consideration of the bill, Sanders said: “Absolutely. Look, the trick here is to do the best that we can for the American people.
“And that is quality, affordable healthcare for all of our people,” he added. “If we can’t do it because we don’t get 60 votes, then there are other ways that we have to proceed. And I would strongly support those other ways.”
The important thing about the health care fight is that it is not like most legislative battles in the Senate. Normally, a handful of conservative Democrats and a few Republicans will demand outrageous concessions to get to the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster. Progressive senators are left will little recourse. They can try calling their bluff, negotiating some a deal on an unrelated bill, let the bill die (including the provisions they strongly champion), or accept the terrible demands for the greater good of passing something.
Health care reform is different because progressive Democrats have the option of using reconciliation. Reconciliation measures can’t be filibustered, so they only needs a simple majority to pass. Because of the Byrd rule, there are problems with using reconciliation. Kent Conrad has often said it would make “swiss cheese” of the bill. But if Lieberman, Nelson, Bayh, and Lincoln are allowed to control the debate, reform will end up “swiss cheese” anyway. It is starting to look like the holes the Byrd rule will make in the bill would be smaller and more easily fixed.
Sanders is raising the possibility the he might filibuster health care reform if it is too conservative. Normally this would be very difficult stance, but, with health care reform, Sanders can filibuster the bill without risking that nothing will be passed. Obama and Reid are so desperate for a victory that they would be forced to use reconciliation. On this issue, Sanders and other progressives in the Senate have the power to make sure Lieberman does not win.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/10/ber...
by BooMan
Tue Nov 10th, 2009 at 11:25:12 AM EST
It's encouraging that Press Secretary Robert Gibbs threatened to use the budget reconciliation process if the health care bill stalls in the Senate. Other than a brief burst of optimism I had after Senator Paul Kirk was seated as Kennedy's replacement, I have never believed that Obama could pass a public option through the Senate. The only chance I could see for doing that was to first pass a bill through the Senate that didn't have a public option. This would allow Harry Reid to pass all the procedural hurdles up to the point that the Senate had to vote on the Conference Report. At that point, with both Houses having passed a health care reform bill, we'd be waiting for the historic vote on final passage. There would be the maximum possible amount of pressure on Democratic senators not to kill all the hard work made up to that point by denying the Majority Leader a procedural vote to bring the bill up. If a public option was going to survive, it needed to be introduced only at this final point in the process. That wouldn't guarantee passage, but it would provide us with the best chance. And, if some lonely senator like Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson decided to take the heat and kill reform at that point, it would be relatively easy to make the case for using the budget reconciliation process rather than let one or two insurance whores in the caucus stand in the way of historic reform.
Harry Reid decided to go in another direction. He decided to make the public option part of the base bill. As soon as he did that, it killed off all the momentum for a robust public option in the House. The leadership asked the Progressives to prove that they had the votes for it, and they couldn't. It didn't seem to matter too much because the robust public option was never going to pass the Senate anyway. It was, as Pelosi stated repeatedly, a chip to use in the Conference Committee. She wanted a robust public option in hand because she always assumed that the Senate version would lack any public option at all. The idea was that each side would compromise, and the end result would be a public option that was not tied to Medicare reimbursement rates. But, when Reid put exactly that type of public option in the base bill, there was no longer any need for the House to pass the stronger version. It was easier to give nervous centrists a break and only ask them to vote for a non-robust public option that more nearly resembled the Senate version. It shouldn't make much difference in the end. The House and Senate would still wind up in the same place, they'd just start out with less of a divide.
But, of course, things didn't turn out exactly that way. Pelosi didn't gain extra votes once she dropped her push for a robust public option. Instead, the House conservadems got greedy and insisted on adding the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Even then, Pelosi saw no spike in centrist support. She passed the bill with a mere two more votes than she needed, and one of those votes was from a Republican. It's encouraging that Obama has announced that he finds the Stupak-Pitts language unacceptable, but it's not clear that he can strip it out without losing the support of three congresspeople.
Meanwhile, Reid's gambit appears to be failing, as he can't line up 60 votes for the base bill. Unless something changes, Reid will be forced to withdraw his bill and reintroduce one that has no public option. Failing that, he could give up and go straight to the budget reconciliation process. But, unlike the scenario I crafted, where the blame for failing to pass something with a public option would come at the very end of the process and fall on Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson, in this scenario the failure would come prior to the Conference Committee and fall solely on Reid for miscalculating and failing to lead his caucus. Far from demonstrating overwhelming support for the public option, he would have demonstrated that it was a non-starter in the Senate. Meanwhile, the House barely passed a bill that had ridiculous abortion restrictions and a non-robust public option. How could they be expected to turn around and pass a bill in reconciliation that is much stronger?
I know that the people pushing for a public option in the base Senate bill meant well, and they have convinced themselves that only through their efforts has a public option survived at all. But it is not that simple. The Progressives were pledged to vote against any bill that doesn't have a robust public option, but they showed the emptiness of that threat when they couldn't muster the votes to pass one and they backed down. Reid was pressured into introducing the public option prematurely, over the doubts of the White House, and now he's left holding the bag.
Procedure in complicated and infuriating. But making the wrong calls on procedural moves has now imperiled the passage on any health care reform whatsoever, whether done under reconciliation or not.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/11/10/1...
Armey of Ignorance
In the midst of a seriously disgusting interview with Dick Armey, the former House majority leader offers his analysis of the financial crisis:
But at what point do we allow the government to order people that you must sell your product to this person or that person, irrespective of any good judgment? We saw what happened in housing when they ordered banks to make loans to people who weren’t qualified. Are we now going to have the same destructive influences in health care because we’re going to order doctors to provide services and so forth?
There’s a persistent delusion, on the part of many pundits, to the effect that we’re actually having a rational political discussion in this country. But we aren’t. The proposition that the Community Reinvestment Act caused all the bad stuff, because government forced helpless bankers into lending to Those People, has been refuted up, down, and sideways. The vast bulk of subprime lending came from institutions not subject to the CRA. Commercial real estate lending, which was mainly lending to rich white developers, not you-know-who, is in much worse shape than subprime home lending. Etc., etc.
But in Dick Armey’s world, in fact on the right as a whole, the affirmative-action-made-them-do-it doctrine isn’t even seen as a hypothesis. It’s just a fact, something everyone knows.
Truly, sometimes I despair.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/arm...