Politics

Will Durst: Spa Spangled Bog

To say the release of 91,000 classified documents has revealed a disconnect between our public position on Afghanistan and the actual situation on the ground is like inferring a disparity between yoga and bayonets. Dawn dishwashing liquid and green olive tapenade. A tray full of Southern Comfort old- fashioned sweets and a herringbone Segway.

Unlike the Pentagon Papers, we can't even work up a good outrage, mainly because come on, 91,000 documents. That's like reading all seven Harry Potter books thirty times over. I don't care how authentically rustic your wand is, nobody's doing that. There's even questions as to whether it's 91,000 documents, 92,000 documents, if all the documents have been released or more are being held in reserve for we mere Muggles.

I know. What's a thousand documents amongst friends? Well, there's your problem. We don't have any friends. Corruption over there is endemic, pandemic and epidemic. Our allies aren't necessarily allied on our side. The fighting is going badly and a halfway decent deep- dish pizza crust remains a concept the Afghanis seem unable or unwilling to embrace. Not to mention Democracy.

Unplug the drain and the ring around the tub is we've been there 8 years and things are so not getting better. As a matter of fact you could say the movement more resembles whatever is the opposite of getting better. Don't even mention quagmire. Hah. Hah. We sneer at your quagmire. Our Afghanistan participation makes a quagmire look like a refreshing dip in a spring fed pool with buckets of frosty beer within reach and cold cucumbers slices on our eyelids. Spa spangled bog.

This dastardly document dump also managed to tick off Pakistani officials who dispute claims that the ISI, their intelligence agency, is collaborating with the Taliban. "These allegations are always repeated." Hmm. Curious as to why those allegations would always be repeated, eh what? Maybe because, like the sun and those silly allegations about the rising in the East, they're... TRUE?

And for those of you surprised by the amount of grandstanding caused by the WikiLeaks disclosures, either you forgot it was an election year or have been making too many side trips to the magic brownie counter in your medicinal marijuana store. A veritable slew of Congressmen are sharpening their budget scalpels, asking how we can toss Pakistan a couple billion a year in foreign aid while they're helping Afghani insurgents? With friends like these, who needs enemy combatants?

As unexpected as a checkered tablecloth in a pizzeria, the Administration is playing down any revelations. "Nothing new to see here. Everything generally known. Move along." Perhaps, just not generally known by the general public. Privately, White House officials anticipate using these leaks to pressure Pakistan to play nice. Yeah. Right. Dream on, big river. You got a better chance convincing Lindsay Lohan to give up all her nasty habits and start wearing one.

If this leak tells us anything, it's that this is not a winnable war. Right now, America has a lot of stuff on a lot of plates and keeping them all spinning is neither cheap nor easy. Afghan plates, on the other hand, are not very full and they seem to like it like that. Especially when deep- dish pizza crumbs can get them beheaded. As they say in Animal House, "If I were us, I'd be... leaving." Will Durst is a San Francisco based political comedian who often writes. This being an example of questionable merit.

Catch his stand up at a benefit for the Oasis Theater Ensemble in Wausau, Wisconsin, on Friday August 6th. 2 shows.
And as part of the Comedy Talks series on August 15th at the San Francisco Presentation Theater with Robert Morse and Shelley Berman. For tickets: comedytalks.com or 800.838.3006.
His new CD, "Raging Moderate," now available from Stand Up! Records on both iTunes and Amazon.

Arianna Huffington: Sunday Roundup

This week, President Obama pushed back against his natural allies in civil rights groups and teachers' unions who have criticized his education policies -- particularly his Race to the Top initiative -- as anti-teacher and unfair to minorities. "Our goal isn't to fire or admonish teachers," he said. "Our goal is accountability." Teacher effectiveness is the single most important factor driving student performance. Yet, because of overly rigid union contacts, we cannot pay the best teachers more based on their performance -- and it's become next to impossible to fire even the worst teachers. Until we stop this insanity, our national report card will continue to be littered with Fs. The president should be applauded and given major leadership props for taking on this schlerotic status quo. This is what real, beyond-left-and-right bipartisanship looks like.

Chelsea Clinton WEDDING: Frenzy Reaches Fever Pitch As The Big Day Arrives

RHINEBECK, N.Y. — Chelsea Clinton wed her longtime boyfriend under extraordinary security at an elegant Hudson River estate late Saturday.

Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton announced in a statement that their daughter wed investment banker Marc Mezvinsky after weeks of secrecy and buildup that had celebrity watchers flocking to the small village of Rhinebeck for the evening nuptials. The site of the wedding, a Beaux Arts riverside estate called Astor Courts, was sealed off from the general public.

"Today, we watched with great pride and overwhelming emotion as Chelsea and Marc wed in a beautiful ceremony at Astor Courts, surrounded by family and their close friends," the Clintons said. "We could not have asked for a more perfect day to celebrate the beginning of their life together, and we are so happy to welcome Marc into our family. On behalf of the newlyweds, we want to give special thanks to the people of Rhinebeck for welcoming us and to everyone for their well-wishes on this special day."

Chelsea Clinton, wearing a strapless white gown with a full skirt and silver beading around the waist and carrying a bouquet of white flowers, was escorted down the aisle by her father. The former president and the groom wore dark suits, while the mother of the bride wore a fuchsia dress.

It is estimated that hundreds of guests gathered at the historic estate near the end of a near-perfect summer day of warm temperatures, blue skies and cottony clouds. The ceremony was conducted by a rabbi and a reverend as Chelsea Clinton is Methodist and Mezvinsky is Jewish, and included a poem by Leo Marks titled, "The Life That I Have," according to the family.

The wedding was a mix of high society and high security. The road to Astor Courts was blocked off Saturday – neighbors received bottles of wine for their troubles – and the sky above was declared a no-fly zone by federal aviation officials. Police and security guards fanned out around this usually sleepy town.

Consistent with Chelsea Clinton's desire for privacy, the family had released no details of the wedding beyond the date. But the scope of the event became apparent when more than a half-dozen busloads of wedding guests – men in black tie, women in dresses – were transported from a hotel in the village to the riverside ceremony as gawkers looked on.

Celebrities spotted in Rhinebeck for the event included actors Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen, fashion designer Vera Wang, Madeleine Albright, who was secretary of state during Bill Clinton's second term as president and Terry McAuliffe, former Democratic National Committee chairman. The former president's half brother, Roger Clinton, was spotted early Saturday afternoon with his son Tyler, picking up food at a restaurant.

Danson and Steenburgen said they were excited about the upcoming ceremony as they strolled through Rhinebeck toward one of the hotels being used for the wedding.

"I knew her since she was a baby so this is a big moment," said Steenburgen, who wed Danson in 1995. "She's a lovely, lovely girl."

Reporters, who had been searching for celebrities in vain for most of the day, quickly zeroed in on the couple, prompting Danson to ask, "Are we the only celebrities in town?"

Celebrity seekers jockeyed with reporters for sidewalk space over most of the day too. Donna Vena drove 50 miles to Rhinebeck from her home of Mount Kisco, N.Y., in the hopes of spotting a celebrity.

"Why not?" she asked Saturday morning, a camera slung over her shoulder. "Big story. Maybe see Oprah."

Nearby, two young women passed out slices of pizza with "I do" written in pepperoni.

Hundreds of people gathered outside the hotel where many of the guests are staying were rewarded Friday night when the Clintons exited a van arm-in-arm outside the Beekman Arms Hotel.

Shortly before 11 p.m., the former first lady, wearing a long green dress, waved to the cheering crowd waiting behind metal barricades and quickly went into the hotel. She left with the former president about a half-hour later.

Earlier Friday, Bill Clinton made an appearance around lunchtime, popping out of a car and walking a few blocks, greeting people on his way to a restaurant. Looking fit and relaxed in blue jeans and a black knit shirt, he gave easy answers to questions shouted by well-wishers and reporters.

Chelsea Clinton and Mezvinsky were friends as teenagers in Washington, and both attended Stanford University. They now live in New York, where Mezvinsky works at G3 Capital, a Manhattan hedge fund. Mezvinsky worked previously at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker.

Clinton completed her master's degree in public health earlier this year at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University.

Mezvinsky is a son of former U.S. Reps. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky of Pennsylvania and Ed Mezvinsky of Iowa, longtime friends of the Clintons. His parents are divorced.

MJ Rosenberg: Inside Story: Why ADL Is Opposing Ground Zero Mosque

I don't know why it should be a surprise that the Anti-Defamation League joined the hate mongers in opposing the mosque at Ground Zero.

The fact is that neither the ADL or its twin, the American Jewish Committee (the other old, established Jewish anti-discrimination organization) has been about opposing bigotry or even anti-Semitism for at least a decade.

They now are entirely about defending Israel -- or, at least their right-wing version of Israel. That is why you are infinitely more likely to hear Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, or David Harris, chief of the American Jewish Committee talk about Ahmadedinejad, the Goldstone report, the Turkish flotilla, or the "campaign to discredit Israel" than about hate crimes against Americans (which is what they used to be about).

Even anti-Semitism is of little interest to them -- unless it is connected to Israel. In fact, Harris and Foxman have redefined anti-Semitism as opposition to Israeli policies (the Gaza war, the blockade, the occupation) rather than contempt and hatred of Jews for for simply being Jews. Check out this ad from the American Jewish Committee which is just neocon scaremongering on Iran or this recent statement by Abe Foxman denouncing Presbyterians for opposing Israeli policies on the West Bank.

And there is this -- the craziest of all. It's a video, an "Address to the Iranian People," by Malcolm Hoenlein, who is head of the Conference of Presidents of Jewish organizations, of which ADL and the AJC are members. In it, Hoenlein calls on the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow their oppressors. It's hilarious, especially since it comes from a guy whose constituent organizations are just dying to bomb the hell out of the very Iranians who he addresses with such presumptuous and unctuous compassion.

So what does this have to do with the mosque in New York? Simple. These organizations, and especially their leaders, hate and fear Muslims or, to use their term, "radical Islam." It is not because they are instinctive bigots. It is that they believe that the more acceptance there is of Muslims here at home, the less reflexive hatred there will be for Muslims abroad. And that, in their view, reduces America's sympathy for Israel.

Take this, for instance, David Harris of the AJC has made a specialty of trying to convince Americans that estimates of the number of Muslims this country are grossly inflated. His purpose is to prevent Americans from speaking about American Muslims -- as Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama routinely did -- as if they are central to America, part of the American fabric. Better that they be seen as a fringe group that can be ignored. Why else would the AJC even bother trying to discredit demographic data on Muslims? What, other than paranoia and racial animus, would even cause Harris to commission such a study: fear that one day Americans will speak of the religious makeup of their country as Protestant, Catholic, Jew...and Muslim. The fear is that such thinking could lead Congress, for instance, to start acting as if Muslims mattered too. And that Muslims who live and vote here are -- like Christians and Jews -- as American as apple pie.

Another reason for coming out against the mosque is to build relations with the American far-right. American Jews voted overwhelmingly for Obama -- and will again -- but these organizational types have not liked him from day one. And now they hate him and not because he has weakened the alliance with Israel. These guys just know that, left to his own devices, he would adopt the policy of "honest broker." They sense that, or, more precisely, fear it. They don't have to worry about that with any of the Republican likely candidates, for whom Islamophobia is in their DNA.

Bottom line. The ADL, AJC, Conference of Presidents, and the other "mainsteam" organizations are no longer Jewish organizations, let alone civil rights organizations. They are entirely about defending any and all Israeli policies and, to buttress that goal, demonizing Muslims.

That is why opposition to the mosque is a natural. The only reason that the other organizations aren't (yet) out there with Foxman is that they have better PR sense. But, who knows, they may not want Foxman to be out there as the lone Jewish Crusader.

Here's the good news. Most Jews are liberals. Only a tiny minority are members of these organizations. And even fewer are Israel-firsters. That, in fact, is why Foxman, Harris and Hoenlein are so hysterical. Their base is melting like the wicked witch in The Wizard Of Oz.

The real Israel-firsters have AIPAC which, to its credit, does not pretend to have any interest in domestic issues. These other organizations have nothing. Why not go with Islamophobia? Like its historic twin, old-fashioned Jew-hatred, it has real promise.

MIT Grad Admits Wikileaks Link, But Denies Role In Afghan Leak

A recent MIT graduate acknowledged yesterday that he met and exchanged multiple e-mails with the Army private accused of providing thousands of classified war records to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, but he adamantly denied any role in the massive intelligence leak.

A revelation that should make a difference

The WikiLeaks revelations clearly showed the unprovoked war crimes and unnecessary slaying of innocent Afghan civilians in Afghanistan. The WikiLeaks evidence should make war criminals of George Bush, Tony Blair and Barack Obama. They should all be brought to justice at The International Criminal Court at The Hague for crimes against humanity!

More: continued here

A revelation that should make a difference

The WikiLeaks revelations clearly showed the unprovoked war crimes and unnecessary slaying of innocent Afghan civilians in Afghanistan. The WikiLeaks evidence should make war criminals of George Bush, Tony Blair and Barack Obama. They should all be brought to justice at The International Criminal Court at The Hague for crimes against humanity!

More: continued here

Michael B. Laskoff: Doing Better Than Barack

Recently, I feel transported back to the Clinton impeachment. You remember: a married man who received oral pleasure from someone other than his wife was caught lying about it to the Senate. At the time, America couldn't figure out whether the infidelity itself or the lying was worse; either way, the Republic was certainly doomed! Strange then that Hillary has exchanged Senator for Secretary and Bill has proven the most civic-minded former President since Jimmy Carter. (Love 'em or hate 'em as individuals, you've got to give it up for Habitat for Humanity and The Clinton Foundation.)

What brings this to mind is the rage surrounding Barack Obama. From conservatives and centrists (with jobs), we hear that Obama is a thinly veiled socialist who is dragging a liberty-loving country into the clutches of socialism. Illegal immigrants run wild - murdering, pillaging and occasionally picking strawberries. The unemployed lollygag on public assistance, paid for by hardworking Americans. Meanwhile, taxes are choking the country to death. (Never mind that the tax burden under the mighty Reagan was a good deal higher than it is now.)

Equally, the left despises the President but for totally different reasons. Obama has failed to deliver on health care, gay marriage, immigration, the repeal of don't ask / don't tell, reducing unemployment and the ending of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After eight years of Bush-Cheney, there was supposed to be real change, not pragmatic centrism.

The one thing that both sides seem to agree upon is that Barack Obama is clearly not up to the job. Every day, it seems that someone has a new angle on how our President is failing to save or is actively destroying America. There's virtually no regard for the fact that he's chief executive - not a king - and that we have two other branches of federal government.

I'm not saying that the President is perfect, but truly, I can't think of a person who would be doing any better at the moment. And apparently, no one else can either. I've been conducting an experiment over the past couple of days. Every time someone expresses their disappointment, I ask them to name the ideal man/woman who they would install today. Off the bat, no one has proven capable of identifying anyone. True, I've gotten a few, feeble McCain's (eventually) but a dumbfounded stare is the common response.

So let's give the guy a break. Barak may not be the perfect guy for the job but no one else is either.

Obama On GOP Deficit Talk: 'I'm Going To Call Them On Their Bluff'

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has a warning for Republicans who denounce the federal deficit but reject proposals to cut it.

Obama tells CBS, "I'm going to call them on their bluff."

The president promises to have "a bunch of ideas" for deficit reduction, but he didn't specify them in the broadcast interview.

Many analysts say both spending cuts and tax increases are needed to tame the soaring deficit.

Republicans in Congress oppose almost any form of tax increases, as do some Democrats. Lawmakers in both parties call for spending cuts, but they often hedge when cuts are proposed to specific programs.

Obama's interview was taped Friday, and will air on CBS's "Sunday Morning" and "The Early Show" on Monday.

Rick Jacobs: Sock Puppets and Sugar Daddies: NOM and GOProud Go Hand in Hand

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is halfway through its 20-state "One Man, One Woman" tour at which approximately one man and one woman seem to show up for them at each stop. But what NOM lacks in popular, grassroots support, it more than makes up for in funneling money for "anonymous" donors. Wednesday, NOM announced that it would spend untold sums to advertise in Spanish in California in support of Carly Fiorina, the failed CEO who wants to buy a Senate seat.

Not to be outdone, a few miles south of here in San Diego, a year-old right wing group called GOProud has carved out a niche for itself as the NOM of the gay right wing. GOProud, a so-called 527 organization that exists to influence the outcome of federal elections, is the first "gay" organization to accept funds from Doug Manchester and his Hyatt Hotel in San Diego that has been under boycott for two years. Mr. Manchester denies workers their rights and put $125,000 into the Prop. 8 campaign just as it qualified for the ballot.

What do these two organizations have in common? Quite a lot, it turns out.

NOM is under investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for failure to disclose contributors to the 2008 campaign to take marriage away from Americans. It is also under court order in Maine to disclose its contributors to the ballot measure there last November that took marriage away from more Americans. Both of these governmental investigations and actions are largely due to Fred Karger, the intrepid co-founder of the boycott against Manchester and now a candidate for the Republican nomination for president.

NOM is accused of hiding the source of large sums of money directed to it by the Catholic and Mormon Churches into campaigns, ads and even tours. As Courage Campaign and our friends at Freedom to Marry have seen on our NOM Tour Tracker, the money is not used to get out crowds; it is used instead for fancy buses, staff and most importantly for raw politics. NOM is the classic, if well-heeled sock puppet.

But what of GOProud? It received at least $16,000 from Mr. Manchester's entities which constitutes 86% of its total reported budget. That's right. GOProud seems proud to go right to a sugar daddy who happily wrote checks to another front organization, apparently so Mr. Manchester and his Hyatt could say, "We're okay now. Even though we paid to take marriage away from potentially millions of people, we've just given money to a right-wing gay organization, the purpose of which is to raise and spend money to support candidates who oppose marriage and equality for all."

Are you following this? It's complicated, but it's in the tradition of Andrew Breitbart and right-wing dirty tricks. For two solid years, UNITE HERE, the hotel and restaurant workers union, has stood firm with groups like Courage Campaign and the entire LGBT community in San Diego to boycott Mr. Manchester's property. UNITE HERE fought diligently against Prop. 8 and has continued to demand equality at every opportunity. For two years, Mr. Manchester has suffered a huge loss in revenue. And for nearly two years, Mr. Manchester has retained the services of people like gay PR man Howard Bragman, who makes money by advising stars on coming out of the closet and donors to Prop. 8 in gay-washing their dirty money. (Mr. Bragman wrote here on HuffPo that he supports boycotts, but that seemed to change when Mr. Manchester started to pay him to break the boycott that he said he supported.)

The irony of it all is that Mr. Manchester and his advisors seem to have found their ideal fake solution to their anti-American, anti-equality money machine. They can give money to GOProud so that GOProud can be a gay voice in support of anti-gay and regressive candidates such as Mary Bono Mack, Oklahoma's Tom Coburn and Carly Fiorina. Indeed, GOProud advertised against Tom Campbell, the only Republican in the Senate race who supports full equality for LGBT people. GOProud proves that self-loathing knows no bounds.

Courage and our allies at UNITE HERE and virtually the entire LGBT community will proudly continue to honor the boycott of Manchester hotels as we all become increasingly wary of Hyatt itself. We'll also continue to track NOM on its tour and its money hose so that the true movement for equality and American progress can prevail.

Sock puppets and sugar daddies. It could the title of a book about the end of right wing, anti-family, fear mongers. In fact, it's a sad commentary on desperate people who realize that they stand at the fringes of America and history itself. Until progress prevails, we'll hold them all accountable.

(cross-posted at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop 8 Trial Tracker)

Fred Barnes Is On Republican Payroll

The Weekly Standard editor claimed political purity in bashing Journolist, but he's on the Republican payroll

Saul Friedman: The Most Tech Savvy President--Who Ignores Older People

It may be said that Barack Obama, among his other firsts, has become the first president of the Internet age. The Internet, specifically the World Wide Web, did as much as anything in his campaign, to help him win the presidency. And with some unprecedented techniques, he has governed through the internet, explaining his positions, publicizing his major proposals, making promises on issues such as Medicare and Social Security, and assuring prospective voters that his is one of the most open and tech-savvy administrations..

From the beginning of his campaign, through his first year in office, he has had great help from a booming, left-leaning blogosphere, including Move-On, the Center for American Progress, Buzzflash, Common Dreams, The Daily Kos, Crooks and Liars, Firedoglake, and the very profitable Huffington Post.

George Bush could have used the net, but as in most things worldly, he seemed ignorant about the internet and oblivious about its uses; and there seemed to no one able to teach him, if he was teachable. Towards the end of his presidency some corporations helped found a couple of phony grass roots groups and sites, such as Freedomworks,org, which was run by lobbyist and former House Majority Leader (under Newt Gingrich) Richard Armey, who helped create the Tea Party movement and now seeks the privatization of Social Security and Medicare, among other right-wing causes.

During Bush;s tenure, Armey got money from corporations, to bring in audiences to the White House to support some of Bush's initiatives; I doubt that Bush knew. But Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney did not use or need the internet as long as they had the cheerleaders of Fox (faux) News. Now with no Bush to love, Fox has continued to have more influence that the pro-Obama blogs in its scurrilous campaigns, with Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, to cripple the Obama presidency. Think of what Fox did to Georgia Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod; it was a television lynching and Fox has still not owned up to its crime..

Obama has had relatively friendly relations with networks like MSNBC, and its commentators, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. But they have not been Obama toadies, for they have been critical of the president and his policies, especially his compromises, when warranted. But they have not resorted to the kind of loony, hateful vindictiveness seen on Fox.

In an effort to bypass the mostly wrongheaded and irrelevant mainstream media, Obama has depended on several well done, professional web sites to get his messages of accomplishments across. The site www.change.org, ended with the beginning of Obama's presidency. And it became the president's perennial campaign site, "Organizing for America," at www.obama.com , where people can link with the Democratic Party, sign up for the latest news from the administration, volunteer to help Democratic campaigns, read the White House analyses of new legislation, such as the Wall Street reforms and the latest battles in the Congress. If you sign up, you'll get periodic updates and you may be asked to contribute to Democratic organizations.

When last I looked at the site, it was linked to just about every social networking service, under the heading, "Obama Everywhere." And I watched a fair but simplistic YouTube presentation on what the Wall Street reforms mean to homeowners. It does not include the giveaways to banks as a result of Republican opposition and Obama's compromises. If you want to know more you may click on www.financialstability.com , which is a private search engine for financial planning and advisors. I don't know if they have financial ties to Democrats.

As the administration perfects its internet strategy, it has created sites specific to the messages it wishes to deliver. The newest and most useful is www.HealthCare.gov ,which was launched earlier this month by the Department of Health and Human Services. The site was designed for relatively simple searching to learn what the new health care reforms are offering and how to find private insurance. You may choose your state and find coverage options for yourself and your family and you can familiarize yourself on the new regulations that prohibit cancellation of your insurance if you get sick or refusal of coverage for a pre-existing condition.

Also there is some handy information on what is now the law: Adult children can stay on their parents' insurance until age 26. If you enroll in Medicare are a private plan, after September 23, most preventive tests, mammagrams, prostate tests, colonoscopies and immunizations, will be free-no deductibles, or co-insurance. And I guess you know by now that if your Part D drug coverage finds you in the dreaded "doughnut hole," let HHS know and the government will ease your pain with a $250 check. Beginning next year the law calls for the gradual closing of the hole. The site has a link to one of the better nonprofit advocacy sites www.medicareadvocacy.org

All this internet stuff is good, but the White House internet machine and its blogger allies are missing an important audience that Obama has overlooked to his political peril. Older people, who should be his natural constituency, are not as enamored with Obama as many younger voters. One reason they are ignored; most of the elderly don't use the internet. And the Obomans have, from the start gone after the votes and enthusiasm of younger people.

But older people are the most consistent voters and their number is growing. The latest Pew Research poll reports that older voters are inclined this year to vote Republican by a 52-41 margin; even voters over the age of 49 say they'll vote Republican by a 45-43 margin. Only young voters say, by a 57-32 margin, they'll vote Democratic. Pew says Obama's approval rating has dropped this summer by nine points among white independents and 12 points among women over 50.

Those figures for older voters, which reflects how they voted in 2008, suggest they will be voting against their interests, for the Republicans promise to privatize Medicare and dismantle Social Security. But the older generation, may not believe those threats and may be more concerned about and afraid of the huge federal debt. They are, after all, still recalling the Great Depression.

Beyond that, Barack Obama's youth and his cool and cerebral style, according to many commentators, are not connecting with the older generations. Their members of Congress hold meetings about the health care reforms, but they reach only a few people.. And the Medicare manuals they will get can be confusing. Older people don't care much about the reforms in private insurance, which they don't use.

While more and more older Americans are taking to the internet, large numbers depend on the mails, television, their neighbors and doctors to figure out how the health reforms will or won't affect them. I'm not aware that HHS is reaching out to older people with mailings. And all they know is that they don't want the government messing wit their Medicare.

write to saulfriedman@comcast.net Friedman also writes for www.timegoesby.net

The Karate Kid, Harald Zwart, 140 mins (PG) The A-Team, Joe Carnahan, 119 mins (12A)

Some parents might take their son to see a film on his birthday, but Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith have gone one better: they’ve put their son in a film of his own.

More: continued here

The Karate Kid, Harald Zwart, 140 mins (PG) The A-Team, Joe Carnahan, 119 mins (12A)

Some parents might take their son to see a film on his birthday, but Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith have gone one better: they’ve put their son in a film of his own.

More: continued here

Peter Hitchens on the disturbing picture of growing repression at the heart of ‘Eurabia’

Among the bayonet-like minarets of ancient Istanbul, an East wind is blowing. It will chill us all… says The Mail On Sunday columnist.

More: continued here

Saturday: 15 Iraqis Killed, 39 Wounded

Updated at 9:12 p.m. EDT, July 31, 2010 An unconfirmed message purportedly from Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, who was Iraq's military commander under Saddam, was released to the media. In it, the voice warned the government of attempting to root out Ba'ath loyalists. At least 15 Iraqis were killed and 39 more were wounded in attacks unrelated to the threatening message. Several of the attacks occurred yesterday but went unreported until today. Separately, an Italian anti-death penalty group reported that state executions rose in number last year.
Read more [Politics from UnFox News]

MJ Rosenberg: Inside Story: Why ADL Is Opposing Ground Zero Mosque

I don’t know why it should be a surprise that the Anti-Defamation League joined the rightist haters in opposing the mosque at Ground Zero.

More: continued here

A revelation that should make a difference – Khaleej Times

MiamiHerald.com A revelation that should make a difference
Khaleej Times
…war crimes and unnecessary slaying of innocent Afghan civilians in Afghanistan. The WikiLeaks evidence should make war criminals of George Bush, …
The terrible truth about the "good war"Socialist Worker Online

all 715 news articles »

More: continued here

A revelation that should make a difference – Khaleej Times

MiamiHerald.com A revelation that should make a difference
Khaleej Times
…war crimes and unnecessary slaying of innocent Afghan civilians in Afghanistan. The WikiLeaks evidence should make war criminals of George Bush, …
The terrible truth about the "good war"Socialist Worker Online

all 715 news articles »

More: continued here

Tom Vander Ark: Let Change Happen

The situation in US K12 education is really bad: states are broke and the calcified system is unable to respond creatively; deep inequities persist; and urban centers are unable to elect and sustain effective school governance.

The situation in US K12 education is really good: Race to the Top created more policy reform in eight months than we saw in the last eight years; there is some attention to chronic failure; and voluntary common standards will unleash investment and innovation. And then there is the undeniable press of learning technology--a storm surge behind a stubborn levy of employment contracts, outdated policies, and monopoly certification rights. The sector is a generation behind the rest of the economy, but new learning apps are sneaking into the formal system and even more rapidly into personal technology.

It's official: anyone can learn anything anywhere and usually for free. So what the heck is school for? It's an expensive custodial service, ineffective credentialing service, and varies widely as a motivational and instructional service. For teens, school is primarily a physical manifestation of their social network.

As learning online continues to double every 2-3 years, new learning options will be developed and traditional schools will incorporate blends of online and onsite learning. School will become more relevant, more effective, and more efficient. In places where innovation is encouraged and productivity is sought, we'll see six big shifts:
1. From annual tests to the instant feedback of embedded assessment
2. From age-cohorts slogging through print to individual learning pathways: adaptive lessons, courses, and schools
3. From classrooms and courses to online communities
4. From master schedules to playlists and projects
5. From institutions to individuals: the multi-provider transcript
6. From haphazard systems to School-As-A-Service available 24/7

How does this happen? It's hard to force organizational change; it's possible but uses up a lot of political capital. It's often more productive to let change happen--providing incentives, reducing barriers, granting permission, more judo than sumo.

Options and incentives allow change to occur where and when ready. Statewide choice is a great place to start--simply eliminate school district monopolies and allow students to enroll anywhere (space permitting). If money follows the student to the best option, more good options will develop.

This week we saw traditional civil rights groups protecting the status quo and criticizing the president for providing incentives for states and districts willing to innovate to improve education for low income and minority students. Gap-closing equity advocates like Michael Lomax, co-chair of Education Equality Project, strongly support the President's agenda.

Progress will be uneven but it is inevitable: high expectations, responsive services, efficient delivery, and multiple options. Let change happen.

NOM Warms Up In Minnesota For Iowa Anti-Gay Marriage Rallies - On Top Magazine

On Top Magazine
NOM Warms Up In Minnesota For Iowa Anti-Gay Marriage Rallies
On Top Magazine
“We view ourselves as a new civil rights movement. … Committed to something that in the 1960s was key: the right to vote.” “If we do not stand up for ...

and more »
Read more [Politics from UnFox News]

Paul Abrams: Human Embryonic Stem Cells Approved by FDA for Clinical Trials. May Improve Lives, Solve Deficit--Yet, Totally Ignored by the Media.

Ten years from now, school children reading about major events in history and in science--other than from textbooks produced for Texas schools--will learn: "On Friday, July 30, 2010, just 18 months into President Obama's first term, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first tests of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) in patients. It was the beginning of the era of Regenerative Medicine".

They will also read that it was totally ignored by the media.

Within a couple of months, a patient paralyzed by a spinal cord injury who is to undergo surgery to stabilize his spine will receive as part of that procedure the first-ever injection of hESCs, in this case altered in the laboratory to become a certain type of nerve cell. A Bush FDA would never have allowed it (although the Tea Party would have allowed it on day 1, to remove all government interference so anyone with anything he called a good hESC could inject it or anything else, right?--an interesting question to put to Dr. Rand Paul, and Gov. Sarah Palin, is it not?)

In laboratory animals these same hESCs (note: human cells in an animal and not rejected!) restored lower limb and tail function in rats that had crush injuries to their spinal cords. Untreated rats remained paralyzed.

If these hESCs are safe, and perform as hoped, that injection will be the 21st century's "shot-heard-round-the-world".

Also in development in many laboratories and companies are hESCs that have been altered in the laboratory to become heart cells (to reverse heart failure), pancreas cells (to reverse type I diabetes), other nerve cells (to reverse Parkinson's Disease), eye cells (to reverse macular degeneration), and so forth.

A study of hESCs in macular degeneration (loss of the central part of vision, leaving the ability to see only peripherally, affecting 2-3 million Americans) is slated for this year in the UK. Those same cells worked in an animal model of that disease.

The embryos from which these cells arise were frozen from IVF procedures, and would have been discarded, but instead were used, with parental permission, as the source of cells to save and improve the lives of others.

The positive impact on human suffering is beyond measurement.

But, the positive effects on our long-term, structural debt problems can be sketched. Healthcare costs in our aging population are the largest part of our potential debt, and diabetes and its complications alone account for ~20% of that cost. For most uses, hESC will likely be out-patient therapy.

To provide a context for how far we have come politically, note that the Republican Congress in the early part of this decade, not once but twice, passed a law outlawing all hESC research, and providing for the arrest at the border of any returning US citizen who had gone abroad for hESC treatment.

Imagine police being empowered to stop you, demanding not only your papers, but also your DNA--all brought to you by your friendly "small-government" people.

If Democrats cannot find the backbone to go after Republicans on their transparent hypocrisy (Karl Rove, lying as usual about the numbers, criticizing Harry Reid for not bringing "enough" stimulus money to Nevada), perhaps a good backbone transplant, using hESCs, might help them keep them from darkening our lives again.

Hopefully, some patients who would otherwise never walk again, will now walk. And, hopefully, they will walk in the inexorable march of history, forward and not backwards.

Obama Weekly Address: President Rips Republicans For Blocking Small Business Lending Bill

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is going after Senate Republicans who have stymied his proposal to create a $30 billion fund to help unfreeze lending for credit-starved small businesses.

His election-year push for additional job measures suffered a fresh setback this past week when the GOP blocked the small-business plan.

The president used his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday to accuse Republicans of "holding America's small businesses hostage to politics." He said the bill has the support of business groups and contains many ideas favored by both parties.

"Understand, a majority of senators support the plan. It's just that the Republican leaders in the Senate won't even allow it to come up for a vote," Obama said. "That isn't right."

Obama made clear that it's not only a policy disagreement, but a reason for voters to steer away from Republicans in November's pivotal congressional elections, which will determine whether Democrats keep their majorities in the House and Senate.

"When America is just starting to move forward again, we can't afford the do-nothing policies and partisan maneuvering that will only take us backward," he said.

The proposed fund would be available to community banks with less than $10 billion in assets, to help them increase lending to small businesses. The bill would combine the fund with about $12 billion in tax breaks aimed at small businesses.

Democrats say banks should be able to use the lending fund to leverage up to $300 billion in loans, helping to loosen tight credit markets. Some Republicans, however, likened it to the unpopular bailout of the financial industry.

Democrats wanted to pass the bill before Congress left town for summer vacation, but that won't happen with House members already headed home for its August break and the Senate in session for another week before its recess begins.

Congress has extended unemployment benefits for people who have been out of work for long stretches and passed a measure that gives tax breaks to businesses that hire unemployed workers. But many other initiatives stalled, in part because of concerns they would add to the growing national debt.

The vote to end a Republican filibuster on the latest measure was 58-42. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., joined all Republicans to vote to continue the filibuster, but only as a procedural step that allows him to call up the bill again.

Alvin McEwen: Supporter of Uganda's anti-gay bill joins 'Truth Academy'

Anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera has a new "instructor" for his upcoming anti-gay training conference - Cliff Kincaid.

From People for the American Way:

His list of instructors are dubious enough, but the selection of Kincaid adds more of a sinister air to the mix.

Kincaid openly supports Uganda's "Kill The Gays" bill even afer it was facing an international backlash.

In February he said the following:
"Uganda's people and government deserve support, not criticism, from the United States. They are up against the international homosexual lobby, the money of George Soros, and the Obama Administration. They are trying to create a Christian culture that is protective of families and children." 

One can only imagine how he will be instructing the next generation to fight the so-called "gay agenda."

Related posts: 

'Porno Pete' LaBarbera wants to instruct the next generation

Protest Planned Against 'Americans for Truth' Anti-Gay Workshop

Anti-Gay "Truth Academy" curriculum released

Peter LaBarbera's Warped Understanding of Civility

The Drumbeats of War with Iran are getting Louder – PBS

The Drumbeats of War with Iran are getting Louder
PBS
Does the light bulb not remind you of the infamous nuclear mushroom cloud invoked by Condoleezza Rice to justify the invasion of Iraq? …

and more »

More: continued here

The Drumbeats of War with Iran are getting Louder – PBS

The Drumbeats of War with Iran are getting Louder
PBS
Does the light bulb not remind you of the infamous nuclear mushroom cloud invoked by Condoleezza Rice to justify the invasion of Iraq? …

and more »

More: continued here

Rev. Jennifer Kottler: The Immigration Fight Isn't Over

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton preliminarily struck down key provisions in Arizona's infamous SB 1070 law and ruled that states cannot preempt federal law. While important, this is a victory that rings hollow for me and all those who care about the true reform of our immigration system. In many ways, the damage to neighborhoods and communities had already been done, as people did not wait to see how the law would affect them. Many mixed-status families pulled their children out of school and moved out of state, closing stores and restaurants and leaving many immigrant neighborhoods like ghost towns. This did not just affect undocumented immigrants but all those whose status might be called into question -- including citizens, permanent legal residents, and temporary visa holders.

The court's preliminary decision is only the beginning of the litigation process, which will unfold in the coming months. Yesterday's ruling, however, is a necessary first step in affirming the principle that it is the federal government's responsibility to set immigration policy and to enforce that policy. It affirms that even if the federal system is failing, states do not have the authority to set or enforce their own policies.

Immigration is continually labeled as an issue that "deeply divides Americans." But is that true? Recent polling found widespread support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. A new study sponsored by America's Voice found that more than 75 percent of Americans who read a description of comprehensive immigration reform said they would support the measure. And according to Robert Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute, "More than 8-in-10 Americans -- including overwhelming majorities of white mainline Protestants, Catholics, and white evangelicals -- believe strongly that immigration reform should be guided by the values of protecting the dignity of every person and keeping families together, as well as by such values as promoting national security and ensuring fairness to taxpayers." There is a strong and growing consensus around much of what needs to be addressed by comprehensive reform.

It won't be enough simply to enforce the laws we already have. While we are indeed a nation of laws, we are also a nation made up largely of immigrants and the progeny of immigrants. Moreover, we are a nation made up largely of Christians and people of other faiths -- faiths that teach and compel their followers to care about what happens to the other, and to honor the dignity of everyone created in the image of God. Granted, there is a vocal minority opposed to reform. And ironically, most -- if not all -- of the opponents are the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, or great-great-grandchildren of immigrants. Most of these people's ancestors would not have been able to immigrate legally under our current system.

So now what? First of all, as November creeps closer, Bolton's decision assures that comprehensive immigration reform as a moral issue will be front and center this election season. But as people of faith, we must reject the use of this issue to drive fear into the debate and pit citizen against citizen, and citizen against immigrant. We have to reject the politicization of this issue, and the use of immigrant families as tools to win (or make the other lose) an election. And when we see it happening, we need to call it out.

Secondly, it's not enough to repeal the most controversial parts of SB 1070, as important as that is. The overall law still went into effect, and it will lead to a confusing patchwork of guidelines on the ground in Arizona. This is a costly byproduct of enjoining the law, as law enforcement will have to haphazardly interpret the remaining provisions.

Therefore, lawmakers must act to fulfill their duty to make laws and set federal policy on immigration. It will take fewer politicians and more statesmen and stateswomen to reform our broken system. President Obama must lead on comprehensive immigration reform, and Congress must be willing to lead as well -- by having a fair and truthful debate on this issue and passing a bipartisan bill that will be good for our country. Clearly, the longer they wait, the more dysfunctional our system becomes.

Finally, each of us needs to be willing to lead on this issue. As difficult as it is to talk about issues like this with our friends and families, we have a responsibility to challenge falsehoods and myths about immigrants and talk about the contributions they make to our communities. We need to transform the rhetoric into truth. At the heart of our Christian tradition is the belief that true and lasting transformation is not only possible but necessary, and it can only happen when we are willing to do what needs to be done for the common good.

While I was at an interview on July 28 about the Arizona law, I met a young woman. She asked me if I supported the Dream Act. (The Dream Act would allow students who graduate from college or go into the military the opportunity to become U.S. citizens.) I told her that we did, and she responded with thanks. She said a friend of hers just graduated from a prestigious East Coast university at the top of his class, but because he was undocumented, he is not able to get a professional job (despite his intellect and gifts) or go to graduate school. Instead, he is back home working in his family's restaurant business, and our country and society lose out because we aren't utilizing his gifts.

Also on the afternoon of July 28, children of immigrants -- mostly U.S. citizen children, many or most of whom live in mixed-status households -- held a march across from the White House to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform. These children live in fear of being separated from parents and family, many of whom came here for work they couldn't find in their own countries. They came to provide for their families. They want what all parents want -- for their children to be healthy and fed.

Transformation is not easy. In truth, it's very, very difficult. While we need the political will to transform our society, and leadership to get it done, we also need to be personally transformed, and we need to act as agents of transformation. If we fail to think and act differently, if we fail to change the way immigration is understood and debated in this country, we will fail our neighbors, our children, and our God. We have to choose to be transformed, and we have to choose to be active participants in the transformation of our society for good.

James Zogby: Dangerous Illusions

After a century in which tragedy has been heaped upon tragedy across the Middle East, it is distressing to see how many dangerous illusions still shape the behavior of so many of the region's principal players.

This truth was brought home by a recent report, "A Third Lebanon War", issued by the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The author of the report, former Ambassador to Egypt and Israel, Dan Kurtzer, after methodically assessing factors on all sides, advises U.S. policy makers to prepare for the possibility of war in the next 12 to 18 months between Israel and Hizbollah forces in Lebanon.

(Kurtzer wrote his piece well before rumors that an international tribunal may be indicting members of Hizbollah for the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. And while this has generated a new set of concerns with the focus now on Lebanon's internal stability instead of war with Israel, the CFR piece remains useful for its analysis and the dangers it examines.)

The developments that prompt Kurtzer's assessment are twofold: Israel's growing concerns with the quantity and quality of weapons alleged to have been amassed by Hizbollah in violation of U.N. Security Council Res. 1701, and the heightened war-like rhetoric on both sides.

Kurtzer sees it as unlikely that Hizbollah would launch hostilities, and suggests that the more likely scenarios are that Israel would either try to lure the Lebanese militia into a war or take it upon itself to attack Hizbollah positions in Lebanon in an effort to "degrade" the group's military "capabilities".

Kurtzer cautions that no good would come of this renewed conflict. Lebanon would again pay a bitter price. Israel, already experiencing some degree of international isolation, would see its standing further compromised and such an adventure would most likely not result in dislodging or weakening Hizbollah. And the U.S. would witness severe setbacks to its three major policy objectives in the Middle East: "slowing or stopping Iran's nuclear program, withdrawing combat forces from Iraq, and helping Middle East peace talks succeed".

While Kurtzer suggests measures the U.S. might take to discourage an Israeli attack or, after hostilities begin, to limit them, he acknowledges that the combination of partisan politics and the work of the Israel lobby would likely restrain the Administration from taking too aggressive a stance to pressure Israel or more actively engage Iran and Syria, or to open a dialogue with Hizbollah--all with an eye toward easing regional tensions.

In the end, Kurtzer concludes that while the U.S. "should work to avert another war in Lebanon, its capacity to do so is limited". He, therefore, concludes that the Administration's best options are to prepare for a worst case scenario. Among these options are: "upgrading U.S. intelligence collection and U.S. Israeli intelligence cooperation"; "publicly restate U.S. support for Israel's right to self-defense and concerns about Hizbollah's rearmament"; "increase diplomatic pressure on Syria"; and "prepare for possible postwar diplomatic initiatives".

After reading the CFR report, several questions came to mind, focusing on the dangerous illusions that appear to guide behavior of all involved in this bizarre "dance of death".

If no good will come of a third Lebanon war, as Kurtzer rightly notes, then why are we, once again, at the brink of conflict? At what point do Israel's military planners realize that one more war will bring them no closer to regional peace and acceptance than any of the past wars? If Hizbollah is truly concerned with the rights, safety, security and prosperity of its people, then why does it persist in this dangerous game of rearming and brinkmanship? If the U.S. has so much to lose, then why will it allow partisan politics and a lobby to limit its ability to protect its national interests by actively working to restrain one bully or opening a dialogue with another? Can Dan Kurtzer, whose thoughtful and disturbing analysis has so correctly identified the costs, futility and dangers of renewed conflict, really believe that the recommendations he proposes at the end will do anything but encourage the war planners to proceed on their fools' errand? And can anyone really believe that at the end of yet another devastating round of hostilities the region will be anymore receptive to a productive "diplomatic initiative" than it has been after past conflicts or it is today?

That another war will create peace; that more arms that only provoke your dangerous better-armed and unrestrained neighbor will make you secure; that bad policy made under the duress of domestic politics will produce anything other than bad results - these are the dangerous illusions under which all have been laboring for decades, and apparently still are.

Obama Weekly Address: President Rips Republicans For Blocking Small Business Lending Bill (VIDEO)

Associated Press WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is going after Senate Republicans who have stymied his proposal to create a $30 billion fund to help... Nick Graham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-news/reporting/nick-graham/
Read more [Politics from UnFox News]

Obama Speaks About Rangel For First Time: 'He's Somebody Who's At The End Of His Career'

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Friday called ethics charges against Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel "very troubling" and said he hopes the longtime lawmaker can end his career with dignity. Several House Democrats went further, flat-out urging the New York congressman to resign.

"He's somebody who's at the end of his career," Obama said in an interview that aired Friday on "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric." "I'm sure that what he wants is to be able to end his career with dignity. And my hope is that it happens."

Obama, speaking on the issue for the first time, praised the 20-term Rangel for serving his constituents well but called the more than one-dozen tax and disclosure charges against him "very troubling."

It was hardly an endorsement for the veteran lawmaker, but fell well short of the calls for resignation Rangel received on the eve of the House's August recess. As House Democrats headed home, they wrestled with how to handle the matter in their districts ahead of the midterm elections.

Republicans, meanwhile, raced ahead with plans to make Rangel the face of corrupt Washington under the rule of Democrats who had vowed to clean up Congress.

For his part, Rangel met with perhaps his staunchest supporters, members of the New York state delegation, in the stately Capitol parlor named for the Ways and Means Committee that he headed until March.

"He indicated there was some sloppiness" in his official papers, Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., told reporters, "but, you know, there's no criminality here."

House rules and credibility – not criminality – were the reasons cited by more than a half dozen House Democrats known to have called for Rangel's resignation by late afternoon Friday.

A House panel on Thursday made public for the first time 13 charges of misusing his office and tax and disclosure violations against Rangel, 80, as it opened the trial phase of the ethics proceedings against him. If Rangel and the ethics committee do not settle the case, it goes to a public trial this fall, at the height of an election season in which every member of the House, 36 in the Senate and the Democratic majorities of both chambers are on the line.

Either conditionally or outright, Democrats calling for Rangel's resignation included Rep. Walter Minnick of Idaho, Betty Sutton of Ohio, John Yarmuth of Kentucky, Zack Space of Ohio, Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona and Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio.

"Too many politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, have fallen victim to the idea that they are 'different' than regular folks and nothing could be further from the truth," Kirkpatrick said in a statement.

"It is our job as members of Congress to hold each other accountable to a higher standard regardless of party," she added. "If the serious charges against (Rangel) are accurate, he needs to resign."

Rangel denies the charges and says the indictment released Thursday contains factual errors.

"We've heard Charlie in the Ways and Means Committee, and he's addressed these charges. He never denied they happened. He always has an explanation. You can excuse one or two, but not 13," Yarmuth told the Louisville Courier-Journal in an interview published Friday. "I don't see how he can stay if they're true. I believe they are."

Back home in Rangel's Harlem district, he remains revered and could well win reelection if his political career survives the ethics probe. One constituent said Friday she had mixed feelings after reading news accounts of the allegations against him.

"I don't think he is 100 percent honest, but he's no worse than other politicians," said Charynda Morez, a college student, who was buying groceries at a deli.

She said that she didn't know how he should be punished, but that Rangel should resign anyway. Rangel has four apartments "when there are people who don't have a home," she said, citing allegations that Rangel lived in four combined rent-stabilized apartments instead of one, in violation of New York City law.

Democratic leaders are urging their members to cast the election as one about a choice between their party, which under President Barack Obama has overhauled health care and Wall Street, and a GOP-tea party combination that wants to roll back Democratic accomplishments.

House Republicans relished using Rangel to change the subject – especially if he does not reach a settlement with the ethics committee. A public trial equates to a free media presentation of the misdeeds of one of the most senior Democrats in the House.

The House Republicans' campaign arm released a list of Democrats who have not returned campaign contributions they received from Rangel during their careers and said those lawmakers would face questions about the matter from constituents during the August break.

"It's very difficult for Democrats to make the case that this is a 'choice' election when the national headlines are focused around an ethics scandal that has clearly impacted the party in power," said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee.

Rangel retained many supporters Friday. The New York delegation and the Congressional Black Caucus, which was co-founded by Rangel, urged their colleagues not to rush to judgment. House leaders eager to avoid alienating black voters remained mum on what Rangel should do.

Some Democrats privately said they took a small measure of comfort in one revelation. Rep. Gene Green, the Texas Democrat who led the four-member bipartisan panel of investigators, told reporters that his committee recommended a relatively mild punishment for Rangel – reprimand, a statement of wrongdoing voted by the whole House that carries no other penalty.

But statements continued to trickle out that left no doubt that at some point, Democrats would have to look out for No. 1 - themselves.

"If at the trial's conclusion Mr. Rangel is found guilty by his peers, then he should incur the full punishment allowed by the House, including removal from office," said Rep. Bobby Bright, D-Ala.

___

Associated Press writers Larry Margasak and Ben Evans contributed to this report.

Todd Green, Ph.D.: Anti-Mosque Sentiment in America: Lessons from Europe?

Many Americans find it difficult to believe that the U.S. has anything to learn from Europe when it comes to religion. The recent controversies over mosques suggest otherwise. That's because this is a story that has been playing out in Europe for some time, with results ranging from restrictions on religious liberty to a worsening of tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims. America cannot afford to go down the same path.

Anti-mosque sentiment is clearly on the rise in America. Efforts to block the construction of the proposed Cordoba Center in New York City are the most noteworthy, but proposed Islamic centers and mosques in places such as Murfreesboro, TN, and Temecula, CA, are also under attack. Why? Some opponents are quick to cite mundane reasons such as zoning laws or increased traffic. But one look at some of the placards in a recent Murfreesboro protest tells a different story. One stated: "Mosque Leaders Support Killing Converts Tell It!" And one protester told a local news station that "[i]n Islam, a mosque means 'We have conquered this country' ... They're going to say, 'We have conquered Tennessee.'"

Opposition to mosques is rising in America because of a deep-rooted fear that Islam is a violent religion bent on terrorism whose increasing presence and visibility is a threat to public safety if not natural security. Sarah Palin's recent tweet confirmed this popular conception of Islam. Coining a new word for the occasion, she pleaded with "peaceful Muslims" to "pls refudiate" the plans for a proposed mosque near Ground Zero. By implication, to build a mosque near Ground Zero is to engage in a violent act that, in Palin's words, "stabs you in the heart."

Deb Feyerick, a CNN reporter, reinforced this perception of Islam while interviewing Sharif El-Gamal, one of the Cordoba Center's developers. When El-Gamal made the point that Jewish community centers and YMCAs were located throughout the country, Feyerick responded, "But the Jews didn't take down the two towers ... But the Christians didn't take down the two towers." Her choice of words was unfortunate. The implication was that "the Muslims" (as opposed to some Muslims) did destroy the World Trade Center. Islam equals violence, terrorism. It doesn't deserve the same freedoms as other religious communities.

All of this eerily resembles European attitudes towards Islam. In Europe, some extraordinarily tough measures have been enacted to counter Islam's increasing public presence, most notably through the bans on veils in France. But mosques and minarets (the prayer towers connected to mosques) have also been targeted. In 2008, two Austrian provinces banned the construction of "conspicuous" mosques and minarets. The Swiss people voted overwhelmingly to prohibit the construction of new minarets in November 2009. And controversies persist over mosques and minarets in cities such as Copenhagen, Cologne, and Marseille.

Many Europeans are clearly anxious over Islam's increasing presence and visibility because they, too, tend to define Islam as an inherently violent religion. The Swiss campaign against minarets succeeded because organizers tapped into popular fears concerning Islam, with minarets portrayed as weapons used by Muslims to conquer Europe. Polls indicate that plenty of other Europeans share these fears.

For their part, Muslims have adopted an accommodating attitude in the overwhelming majority of conflicts concerning mosques and minarets. They have agreed to relocate proposed mosques to less central (and less visible) locations. They have modified architectural designs so that mosques look, well, less mosque-like. They have kept minarets relatively short so as not to rival church towers and steeples, or they have simply not erected minarets. They have developed creative ways to issue the call to prayer, such as short-wave transmitters and text messaging, to ease concerns from non-Muslims over hearing the call from loudspeakers. In the Marseille mosque currently under construction, a flashing light will be used to issue the call to prayer.

Over and over again, Muslims across Europe have responded with respect and deference to local and national concerns and have followed the relevant laws affecting where or how they can build mosques. This is a far cry from the violent, anti-democratic reputation that the Islamic faith still has in much of Europe. But the second-class treatment Muslims have received is taking its toll, and tensions are rising between European countries and Muslims, particularly among the younger generations. Many Muslims continue to feel like foreigners and outsiders in their own country.

The European response to Islam continues in many cases to operate on unfortunate stereotypes and caricatures. It involves rendering that which is visible invisible, that which is present absent. In doing so, freedom of religion becomes the major casualty, hostility towards Muslims persists, and opportunities to build bridges between Islam and the West pass by.

We should think long and hard about whether we want to mimic Europe in its treatment of Islam. Our nation prides itself on religious tolerance and diversity. Our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. But efforts to prohibit the construction of Islamic centers and mosques undermine these principles and move us closer to a Europe where restrictions on religious liberty are the most common means of "dealing" with Islam. We also risk missing some of the same opportunities as Europeans if we oppose the construction of religious centers whose purpose often includes helping non-Muslims discover what they share in common with Muslims, either as people of faith or as loyal citizens.

America has a long history of learning from some of the mistakes made in Europe when it comes to religious toleration and liberty. Here we have yet another opportunity to do so. Let's not miss it.

Maxine Waters ETHICS CHARGES: Democratic Rep May Face Public Trial

WASHINGTON — A second House Democrat, Rep. Maxine Waters of California, could face an ethics trial this fall, further complicating the election outlook for the party as it battles to retain its majority.

People familiar with the investigation, who were not authorized to be quoted about charges before they are made public, say the allegations could be announced next week. The House ethics committee declined Friday to make any public statement on the matter.

Waters, 71, has been under investigation for a possible conflict of interest involving a bank that was seeking federal aid. Her husband owned stock in the bank and had served on its board.

New York Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel also faces an ethics trial this fall on charges that include failure to disclose assets and income, nonpayment of taxes and doing legislative favors for donors to a college center named after him.

Both Waters and Rangel are prominent members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the trials would be an embarrassment for the group. Dual ethics trials would also be a major political liability for Democrats, forcing them to defend their party's ethical conduct while trying to hold on to their House majority.

While Rangel is a former chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, Waters is a prominent member of the House Financial Services Committee.

Waters came under scrutiny after former Treasury Department officials said she helped arrange a meeting between regulators and executives at Boston-based OneUnited Bank without mentioning her husband's financial ties to the institution.

Her husband, Sidney Williams, held at least $250,000 in the bank's stock and previously had served on its board. Waters' spokesman has said Williams was no longer on the board when the meeting was arranged.

Waters has said the National Bankers Association, a trade group, requested the meeting. She defended her role in assisting minority-owned banks in the midst of the nation's financial meltdown and dismissed suggestions she used her influence to steer government aid to the bank.

"I am confident that as the investigation moves forward the panel will discover that there are no facts to support allegations that I have acted improperly," Waters said in a prior statement.

The committee unanimously voted to establish an investigative subcommittee to gather evidence and determine whether Waters violated standards of conduct.

Waters, like Rangel, could settle her case by arranging a plea bargain with the ethics committee. So far she has decided instead to fight.

___

Online:

House ethics committee: http://ethics.house.gov

Maxine Waters ETHICS CHARGES: Democratic Rep May Face Public Trial

WASHINGTON — A second House Democrat, Rep. Maxine Waters of California, could face an ethics trial this fall, further complicating the election outlook for the... AP http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-news/reporting/anna-almendrala/
Read more [Politics from UnFox News]

Back to School: LGBT books in the curriculum

Educational Publisher Mason Crest is releasing a series of books on LGBT topics for middle school students. The 15 book series The Gallup’s Modern Guide to Gay, Lesbian & Transgender Life [1] will debut in the fall exploring different aspects of LGBT life. Topics will range from the importance of positive role models to social and political stigma to bullying. [2] The books are aimed at middle school students of any sexual orientation or gender identity. “Forty years ago, homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder,” said Philip Cohen, CEO of Mason Crest. “Today it’s becoming an accepted part of our society, no longer something hidden and taboo. Homosexuality has come out of the closet and we are proud to be the pioneers of this new series to educate young adults in a positive tone.” The senior consulting editor of the series, James Sears said, “By teaching young people…that gender and sexuality cover a spectrum of expression, we extinguish the notion of difference or ‘queerness’ that fuels bigotry, intolerance, and hatred. Books in this series will allow educators to work with all the kids; onlookers, bullies and victims to create a larger sense of acceptance of sexual orientation.” According to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network’s (GLSEN [3]) 2007 National School Climate Survey, only 23 percent of middle school students reported that their school libraries included LGBT-related resources. Just six percent reported that LGBT topics were included in textbooks or required reading. Sears said the books will help students learn from different perspectives which would “allow kids of all sexual and gender orientations to gain a greater acceptance for peer differences.” [1] http://www.lgbt-books.com/index.asp [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-gay-books-transgender-gallup-top.jpg [3] http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/home/index.html
Read more [Politics from UnFox News]

XGW Digest: July 31, 2010

-NOM’s Summer for Marriage tour scores a modestly successful turnout in St. Paul, MN after playing to near-empty plazas in Lima, OH; Indianapolis, IN and Madison, WI.  Turnout returned to normal in Rochester and St. Cloud.

-The New Jersey Supreme Court declines to hear a case petitioning for marriage equality.

-Target donates $150,000 to an organization with anti-gay ties.

-Clay Greene, an elderly gay man forcibly separated from his dying partner, wins a $600,000 settlement from Sonoma County, California.

-Nepal to host its first gay pride event.

-NOM’s summer tour draws out some of its more radical supporters.

-A new study from the University of Virginia finds that adopted children fare just as well with same-sex parents as with opposite-sex parents.

-The Family Research Council finds another study to distort.

-A Memphis, TN city councilwoman receives death threats for supporting an anti-discrimination ordinance.

-Texas Senator John Cornyn speaks at a Log Cabin Republicans fundraising event.

-Jerusalem Pride encounters protesters, but no violence.

-The Episcopal Church begins developing a rite for blessing same-sex couples.