Politics on HuffingtonPost.com

Marian Wright Edelman: Still Hungry in America

2012-02-10T23:55:19Z

“There were some times where, you know, we wouldn't have that much food, and I would tell my mom, ‘I'm not hungry, don't worry about it,’ and I lost a lot of weight. I remember I used to be a size five, and I went from a size five to a size zero,” a New York high school senior said in December.

In 1967, as a young civil rights lawyer in Mississippi, I was asked to testify before the Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty in Washington about how the anti-poverty program in Mississippi was working. The Head Start program was under attack by the powerful Mississippi segregationist delegation because it was operated by church, civil rights, and Black community groups after the state turned it down. After defending the Head Start program, I told the committee I had become increasingly concerned about the growing hunger in the Mississippi Delta. The convergence of efforts to register Black citizens to vote, Black parents’ challenges to segregated schools, the development of chemical weed killers and farm mechanization, and recent passage of a minimum wage law covering agriculture workers on large farms had resulted in many Black sharecroppers being pushed off their near feudal plantations which no longer needed their cheap labor. Many displaced sharecroppers were illiterate and had no skills. Free federal food commodities like cheese, powdered milk, flour, and peanut butter were all that stood between them and starvation. I invited the Senators to come to Mississippi and hear directly from local people about the positive impact the anti-poverty program was making. They did.

I testified again with local community leaders in their subsequent hearing in Jackson -- again sharing the desperate plight of hungry people and urged the Senators to visit the Mississippi Delta with me to experience for themselves the hungry poor in our very rich nation, to visit the shacks and look into the deadened eyes of hungry children with bloated bellies -- a level of hunger many people did not believe could exist in America. “They are starving and someone has to help them,” I said.

Senator Robert Kennedy responded as did Senator Joseph Clark and Republican Senator George Murphy. So in April 1967 they visited homes in Cleveland, Mississippi, asking respectfully of each dweller what they had had for breakfast, lunch, or dinner the night before. Robert Kennedy opened their empty ice boxes and cupboards after asking permission. I watched him hover, visibly moved, on a dirt floor in a dirty dark shack out of television-camera range over a listless baby with bloated belly from whom he tried in vain to get a response. He lightly touched the cheeks, shoulders, and hands of the children clad in ragged clothes outside who responded to his question “What did you have for breakfast?” saying “We haven’t had breakfast yet,” although it was nearly noon. And he tried to offer words of encouragement to their hopeless mothers.

He kept his word to try to help Mississippi's hungry children and went immediately to see Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman the next day and urged him to get some food down there and to eliminate any charges for food stamps for people who had no income. Robert Kennedy's pushing, passion, and visibility helped set in motion a chain of events including a 60 Minutes documentary on “Hunger in America” that led to reforms. But change was slow and incremental. Secretary Freeman did not believe there were people in Mississippi with no income who could not afford to pay $2 for food stamps and sent his own staff back with Peter Edelman, Robert Kennedy’s legislative assistant, to retrace the Senators’ trip. A series of reports in ensuing months funded by the Field Foundation and visits by doctors, including Robert Coles, to examine poor children in Mississippi and other southern states documented that hunger was widespread not just in Mississippi but throughout the south and elsewhere in America.

But as more months passed without enough federal response, I complained in frustration during a visit with Senator Kennedy in Washington. When I told him I was stopping in Atlanta to see Dr. King, he urged me to tell Dr. King to bring the poor people to Washington to make hunger and poverty visible since the country’s attention had turned to the Vietnam War and put poverty and hunger on the back burner. Dr. King responded positively and immediately, and began planning for the campaign. After Dr. King’s assassination, the Poor People’s Campaign was carried on by his staff and I moved to Washington to help as Counsel and federal policy liaison. It was a watershed coming together of White, Black, Native American, and Latino poor seeking jobs and adequate income and an end to hunger.

Many have pronounced it a failure, but I differ and believe it made hunger a national issue and set into motion a number of positive steps that led to major expansions of the federal food safety net programs so many depend on today. After Robert Kennedy’s assassination, the bipartisan McGovern committee continued hearings around the country, a range of hunger activists kept pushing the Nixon administration and Congress to improve the nutrition safety net, and President Nixon appointed a task force headed by Pat Moynihan, his Domestic Policy Advisor, which affirmed hunger was a major problem. President Nixon gave a speech saying hunger had no place in our rich land. A prod towards these steps was a second quiet Poor People’s Campaign delegation, which came to Washington in 1969 and met with President Nixon and his Cabinet in the White House. In that meeting, Rev. Ralph Abernathy and other leaders urged action to end hunger and President Nixon kept responding by saying he was seeking peace in Vietnam. A contentious press conference followed and a series of Congressional visits criticizing the President’s weak response helped catalyze a series of steps including a White House conference on nutrition and incremental expansions of child and family nutrition programs that made a huge difference for millions until they came under attack from Reagan administration budget assaults and attempts to eliminate a range of federal safety net programs.

Today, crucial programs like food stamps, the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program, and school lunch, breakfast and summer feeding programs continue working to combat child and family hunger. Their implementation could be significantly improved but in the current recession, they have proved to be indispensable lifelines for the millions of jobless families with no cash income in our rich nation -- about six million or 1 in 50 Americans, the New York Times reported in 2010 -- for whom food stamps are the only defense against the wolves of hunger. Last year more Americans relied on food stamps to eat than at any time since the program began in 1939 -- 46 million. Yet once again some voices are starting to wonder whether we really need robust anti-hunger programs in America, and whether there are really so many children out there who might otherwise go hungry. A recent skeptical Wall Street Journal article was titled “The Myth of Starving Americans.”

The safety net has indeed made it harder to find starving children with bloated bellies like those Senator Kennedy met in Mississippi in 1967 -- thank God. But the quiet pangs of hunger and the documented signs of chronic malnutrition are still here, from rural Mississippi to inner cities to middle class suburbs where families have fallen on hard times. Hungry boys and girls are not imaginary figures like the fictional Dick and Jane but very real children like Jane Soliternik, a New York City high school senior and the recent recipient of a Children’s Defense Fund’s Beat the Odds® scholarship award. Jane has overcome many odds in her young life, including cardiac surgery, her father’s death, and poverty -- especially after her widowed mother was laid off from her job as a medical assistant during the Great Recession and couldn’t find another job for more than two years. When unemployment benefits were exhausted, Jane and her mother lived on the Social Security payments Jane received following the death of her father. Jane was already facing multiple challenges, and then hunger was added to the list: “There were some times where, you know, we wouldn't have that much food, and I would tell my mom, ‘I'm not hungry, don't worry about it,’ and I lost a lot of weight. I remember I used to be a size five, and I went from a size five to a size zero. So, you know, I try to not eat too much. I try to eat in school. They give me free lunch in school.”

This makes Jane just 1 of 14 million children who participate in free or reduced price school lunch programs during the year and are often “at nutritional risk” and go hungry when those meals aren’t provided. Without this vital safety net, we might return to the scenes Senator Kennedy witnessed. Hunger in America is real and widespread and pretending hungry children do not exist or that families should be ashamed of their needs is shameful. Unemployed parents unable to find a job when jobs are scarce should not be blamed for their inability to put food on the table. Robert Kennedy always understood that in addressing the hunger emergency the real culprit was poverty, and lack of jobs, wages, training, and education to provide hope for restless youths trapped into failure and jail rather than given opportunities. The same is true now. Until we solve that crisis, we will still have jobless parents, poor families, and hungry children in America. For now, when more than 16 million American children, one of every four children, are not sure where the next meal will come from, we have urgent work to do.

The Food Research and Action Council (FRAC) did release one small piece of good news in January: a new poll showing American voters overwhelmingly oppose cutting food stamp assistance as a way to reduce government spending. “What this poll tells us is that, despite rhetoric and false claims about the program, Americans across the country see food stamps as a program that works and that is making a real difference for people,” said FRAC President Jim Weill. “American voters won’t tolerate hunger in our midst, and across party lines they support this valuable program.” You and I need to make sure our leaders hear this message loudly and clearly.

Barbara Walters Vs. JFK Alleged Mistress On 'The View'

2012-02-10T23:51:45Z

Mimi Alford, the former White House intern who claims she had an 18-month affair with President John F. Kennedy, sat down for an interview with "The View" (weekdays on ABC) Friday that turned surprisingly combative. Barbara Walters grilled Alford about her motivations for writing about the relationship and criticized her for hurting the Kennedy family.

Walters, who admitted to having an affair with then-married Senator Edward Brooke in early '70s, began the interview by detailing the sexual exploits Alford wrote about in her book "Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath." "The View" co-host pointed to a passage where Alford describes giving oral sex to JFK's friends and younger brother on a dare. Alford pushed back on the notion that she was coerced, but expressed some regret about it. "What mortifies me today is that I accepted the dare," she reflected.

When Alford explained that she didn't intend to hurt anyone by writing the book, Walters interrupted: "I know, but you know it must hurt that family." Alford pushed back against the criticism, explaining that the book was her way of telling her story, and that she needed to write and talk about the experience after keeping it a secret for so many years.

Earlier in the week, Walters' colleague Whoopi Goldberg expressed skepticism about the timing of the book's release and threatened to not show up for the interview. But the present Goldberg took the opportunity to ask Alford, "Why now?" Alford explained that after she was named in a 2003 JFK biography, she felt the desire to tell her own her own story, rather than leave it in someone else's hands.

At that point, Walters interrupted again, making the point that the affair was only mentioned in one paragraph of that biography. "Nobody even remembers it. You could have let it go," Walters suggested. But Alford once again defended taking ownership of her story, and simply said, "That secret affected my whole adult life."

TV Replay scours the vast television landscape to find the most interesting, amusing, and, on a good day, amazing moments, and delivers them right to your browser.

Barbara & Shannon Kelley: Dear Rick Santorum: Whose Family? Whose Values?

2012-02-10T23:48:14Z

With the recent rise of Republican Rick Santorum in the Iowa caucuses, we're sure to hear a couple of words again and again as the right-wing's quest to rebuild America continues:

Family. Values.

I can't help but cringe every time I hear that catchphrase. Not because I dislike families -- I have a terrific one of my own, thank you very much -- but because I have to wonder WHOSE families those wingnuts are talking about. Why did they get to appropriate the phrase?

What I also wonder is this: Why is the word "family" code for a lot of social conservative dogma that is not only irrelevant to what raising a real family is all about, but more importantly, leaves women -- who do the bulk of that raising -- out in the cold?

In the interests of real family values, I vote that we reclaim the term for ourselves.

But back to Santorum, whose message apparently resonated so well in Iowa: Let's start with reproductive rights, wherein Mr. Santorum goes way beyond the pro-life position by suggesting that contraception itself is a dangerous practice -- whether you're married or, God forbid, single. As reported on ThinkProgress, Santorum told CaffeinatedThoughts editor Shane Vander Hart,"[contraception] is not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." How things are supposed to be, he said, is for the purpose of procreation. Here's the video.

An extreme position? Not completely. You may recall that many conservatives in Congress recently voted to defund Planned Parenthood even though abortions only make up 10 percent of the services it provides to women without other means of health care, and that abortion services receive no federal funding. And here's the irony: As the Guttmacher Institute points out:

Publicly funded family planning services help women to avoid pregnancies they do not want and to plan pregnancies they do. In 2006, these services helped women avoid 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 860,000 unintended births and 810,000 abortions

Access to contraception is also an issue of women's health. Here in the U.S., the Institute of Medicine recently came out with guidelines that urge health insurance under President Obama's health care overhaul to include FDA approved contraception as preventative care. Why? Proper spacing of pregnancies can prevent a host of serious health risks for both mother and child.

And while we're at it, here's another case in point: the Affordable Care Act, which Santorum and the rest of those family values folks want to repeal. Let's review. Who suffered most under our health care system of old? Women. And when women suffer, it's often the kids who pay the price. So much for those family values. Lest you forget how our old health care system affected women: Pregnancy was a pre-existing condition. Women, especially when they have kids, are statistically more likely to work part time jobs that do not provide health benefits -- which is fine so long as they can depend on a well-employed husband for job-related health insurance. But what if he loses his job? Or what happens to the kids if mom happens to be single? (Oh, that's right. Family values don't apply to single mothers.)

There's even something more basic when it comes to so-called family values: putting food on the table, and for the majority of the 99 percenters, this has become an ever-more difficult proposition. While it would be ever so Norman Rockwell for every family to have a mom (or, hello, a dad) at home with the kids, where in this economy is that even feasible (that is, if mom and dad are lucky enough to have jobs)? As HuffPost blogger Dan Bimrose notes:

A Rick Santorum candidacy would be a family values candidacy. The family unit is extremely important to working class America. It is to these working class voters he was addressing and referring to when he said:

"They share our values about faith and family. They understand that when the family breaks down, the economy struggles. They understand when families aren't there to instill values into their children and into their neighbors as Little League coaches, as good neighbors, of fathers and mothers being part of a community, that the neighborhood is not safe and they are not free..."

The implication is that the Democrats are responsible for broken families. If the breaking up of American families is truly the cause of our economic failures, which is an incredibly weak argument, he may want to point his finger at Republicans like himself.

What he fails to mention is that the reason that the parents are not there to instill values into their children and coach their baseball teams is because those mothers and fathers are working their asses off. While Republican governors such as the likely former candidate for President Rick Perry seek praise for their ability to create minimum wage jobs, the people working those jobs realize they simply do not pay the bills. They need two of these jobs and their wives need one and none of them provide adequate health care.

And how about the fact that women still make 77 cents to a man's buck? Or the fact that for many women -- the ones working to help put that food on the table -- affordable child care is nothing but a pipe dream because as a society, we've never made it a priority? And what happens to the kids when neither mom nor dad can find a job, or if they do find one, it only pays minimum wage? And yet the same folks who hold up the sanctity of the family are often the ones who vote to dismantle social welfare programs like Medicaid or food stamps. Or vote against extending unemployment benefits.

The so-called family values folks would also have us believe that gay marriage threatens not only the social fabric of our nation, but our own marriages as well. Really? Exactly how does that work?

The list goes on, mainly arguments of privilege. But then, if you've ever been part of a family, you probably get it. Maybe prayer in school, opposition to gay marriage, and blowing up the safety net are the kinds of values that made your family strong. But I seriously doubt it. If the health of the American family is what we're after, the values that matter most are more along the lines of equal opportunity, access to good health care and quality education, and above all, an abiding sense of compassion.

I agree with Santorum et al. that the American family is indeed under attack. The question is: By whom?

Pot Bills Move Forward In Maryland

2012-02-10T23:47:00Z

Maryland Del. Dan Morhaim (D-Baltimore County) introduced a pair of medical marijuana bills in the state House on Thursday, the latest development in an effort to help Maryland patients with a doctor's recommendation access the drug.

Morhaim, who described himself as a practicing physician board-certified in internal medicine and emergency medicine, told HuffPost that what he was trying to do was to get "a safe, secure supply of marijuana that's distributed in a safe way to those patients who need it, to change a dealer-patient relationship into a doctor-patient relationship, and to not put people at risk of turning sick people into criminals."

The first bill, HB 1158, would allow patients with a doctor's recommendation to purchase marijuana from licensed dispensaries under the oversight of an independent commission. Any doctor who completed specific state training could make such a recommendation. The second bill, HB 1024 -- which is championed also by Joshua Sharfstein, secretary of the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene -- would emphasize the role of further drug research by requiring patients to go through a doctor at an academic medical center.

The bills stem from recommendations developed by an expert panel commissioned by Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. The panel features two state delegates, including Morhaim, and two state senators, including David Brinkley (R-Frederick and Carroll Counties).

"The work group came out with two reports," said Morhaim. "I favor one over the other, but in honor of the fact that there was a work group and there was not consensus achieved, I felt it was only fair to put forward both reports." He added, "I'll make a strong case for the one I favor, and I hope it's convincing."

Requiring academic medical centers to grow and maintain marijuana could put their federal funding at risk, and some might refuse to participate, Morhaim said in explaining why he favors the first broader bill. Also, hospice patients, whose care centers are not linked with academic institutions and who might well need medical marijuana, would not have access to it.

In May 2011, Gov. O'Malley signed off on legislation removing criminal penalties for medical marijuana patients. But as the law stands, patients are still subject to arrest and prosecution even if they're subsequently able to demonstrate medical necessity.

The bills introduced Friday would protect patients with doctors' recommendations from arrest and prosecution. They would also restrict cultivation to state-registered growers.

Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery County) is expected to sponsor similar legislation in the Maryland Senate.

"Last session the General Assembly decided that it is not a crime for very ill people in the State of Maryland to use marijuana for palliative purposes in accordance with medical advice," Raskin said in a statement on Friday. "What we left open was how such people can safely and legally access the drug. I'm determined that this session we come up with an effective mechanism for making medical marijuana available for the sick and suffering Marylanders who need it."

The proposed legislation comes on the heels of another medical marijuana bill, introduced by Del. Cheryl Glenn (D-Baltimore City), which would establish a dispensary system and allow patients themselves to cultivate limited amounts of marijuana.

Should the bills become law, Maryland would join 15 other states and the District of Columbia in legalizing medical marijuana.

Newt Gingrich Tells CPAC To Teach GOP Establishment a Lesson

2012-02-10T23:40:24Z

WASHINGTON -- Newt Gingrich talked for more than 30 minutes near the end of the day Friday at the annual CPAC conference, and spent most of his time rattling off, in bullet point fashion, policies he would eliminate and policies he would enact if elected.

"We need to teach the Republican establishment a lesson," Gingrich said.

The former House speaker's particular point was this: "We are determined to rebuild America, not manage its decay."

But that was beside the point. Teaching the establishment a lesson has become Gingrich's raison d'etre, his reason for being, since most of those in Washington and in the Republican party establishment have pointedly rejected him and his candidacy.

Mitt Romney is the representative of that establishment to Gingrich, because most of the money and many of the big name elected officials in the party have sided with the former Massachusetts governor over him.

But increasingly, Gingrich's biggest threat is from former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), whose victory in three states this week pushed him ahead of Gingrich in the contest. Gingrich and Santorum may try to run simultaneously through the rest of the primary, but Gingrich's speech here Friday had an oddly deflated feel to it.

It was the same laundry list of topics and to-do's that have characterized Gingrich's speeches after primary contests. He gave similar remarks after his South Carolina win and after his Florida loss. Its thematic core was that he is a "mortal threat" to the establishment.

An establishment candidate cannot win the general election, Gingrich said, because "they don't have the toughness, they don't have the commitment and they don't have the philosophy necessary."

"We intend to change Washington, not accommodate it," he said.

Gingrich talked for at least five minutes about which of President Barack Obama's policies he would undo if elected to the White House, and summed it up this way: "We will have repudiated at least 40 percent of his government on the opening day."

He did not mention Santorum and referenced Romney only once, by way of saying that he would not raise Romney's taxes above 15 percent but would instead cut the rest of the nation's to match that.

His most aggressive attack on Obama focused on the president's decision that he would not allow religiously affiliated employers to deny birth control coverage in employee health insurance plans. Gingrich said that he did not trust reports that the White House backtracked from its original position on the issue to offer a compromise.

"I frankly don't care what deal he tries to cut," Gingrich thundered. "If he wins reelection, he will wage war on the Catholic church the morning after he's reelected. We cannot trust him. We know who he really is and we should make sure the country knows who he really is."

But the most captivating thing about Gingrich's speech may have been the impressive-looking, professionally photoshopped picture of Gingrich standing in front of several public figures who have endorsed him, which was shown on huge video screens on both sides of him while he spoke.

Over Gingrich's left shoulder, in a row: Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain, Michael Reagan, the son of former President Ronald Reagan, and Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer.

Over Gingrich's right shoulder: former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), pollster and Gingrich adviser Kellyanne Conway, former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.) and TV star Chuck Norris.

"We have a conservative dream team," Gingrich said at one point, referencing the photo. "But in the end, we need you."

Gingrich was introduced by his wife, Callista Gingrich, who has up until now almost never spoken in public. She spoke stiffly for a few minutes, but got in a funny dig at Romney, who recently sang "America the Beautiful" at a few campaign stops.

Callista said that her husband supports her singing in the choir at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, but does not himself sing in public.

"I am personally grateful for his wisdom in not trying to sing as a candidate," Callista said. "He knows his limitations."

William Lucas Walker: Prop 8: The Color Of Pee-Pee

2012-02-10T23:28:00Z

Our son was 3 years old when Prop 8 passed, too young to understand what was going on but just the right age to articulate his thoughts on those yellow "Yes on 8" signs he saw everywhere. They were, he announced, "the color of pee-pee."

On some level, he got what was happening to his family.

Six months earlier, on May 14, 2008, my children and I had helped their Papa celebrate his 40th birthday. Since Kelly was born here in Los Angeles, we took him on a sort of "This Is Your Life" driving tour. We visited the hospital where he was born, his childhood home in Sylmar, his kindergarten and elementary schools. After that we drove to Pasadena so we could show the kids the spot where Kel and I had met, in the courtyard of All Saints Episcopal Church. Growing up, Kelly's mom had told him that if he was lucky, he'd meet the person he was going to marry at church. As usual, she was right, though I doubt she pictured a bride with my testosterone levels.

The next morning, May 15, a late, unexpected birthday gift arrived. It wasn't the sort of thing you could wrap or slip into a card. It was too big. Huge, in fact. The California Supreme Court had just handed down a landmark verdict: Kelly and I were no longer banned from getting married. That night, after nine years and two children, I was finally able to propose to the love of my life. There were tears, so it was fitting that our daughter captured the moment on the video camera we've used to record every moist event in our family's life together, from her sticky birth to the time she threw up on her grandfather.

Kelly insisted that we marry the first day such unions would become legal, June 17, before -- as he so presciently put it -- "they try to take it away from us." Bastards. That's what I was thinking. Our children will no longer be bastards! Our plan to correct this problem was to take the kids to the county courthouse, pay for our license, and get hitched then and there. But our next-door neighbor had other ideas.

"You finally get the right to marry, and you're not having a wedding?" cried Judy. "You have to have a wedding!" I told her we were on a tight timetable -- three weeks -- and besides, a wedding wasn't in our budget. Judy was hearing none of it. "We'll help you," she said. "We'll make it happen."

"Who'll make it happen?" I asked.

"Your neighbors. The Ladies of La Punta Drive!" I wondered by it was so important for her to see us get married, so I asked, and she answered: "Because we love your family, and we want you to have what we have." A moment I'll never forget.

So the Ladies of La Punta kicked into high gear. Mary, an attorney, forever reversed my low opinion of lawyers by baking us a spectacular, three-tier wedding cake. Alexa augmented a $100 flower budget by grabbing a machete and taking to the street like some feral florist, whacking down enough greenery to turn our living room into a lovely, low-cost garden. As for Judy, she took pictures with a broken wrist, while Lisa handled the nuptial food, demonstrating what every parent of a pregnant bride has known for years: there's nothing like Costco for a quickie wedding reception. Neil, our daughter's godfather and an Episcopal priest, officiated. Our attendants were our children: Elizabeth, then 7, and James, 2-and-a-half. Elizabeth called herself our groomsmaid and never looked more radiant. Or proud. James froze on the aisle, as 2-year-olds have done throughout time. Still, he managed to strew a path of leaves for his parents as they strode toward a day they thought would never arrive.

Nothing can compete with the birth of your kids for sheer depth of joy, but our wedding day was a close second. Kelly and I repeated the vows we'd made to each other at a religious blessing of our union at All Saints Church in 2001. Only this time we were able to use the words "lawfully wedded." We were married, in the eyes of our god, our state, our friends and family, but, most importantly, our children.

The reception rocked. Way back in 1995, I had written the gay wedding episode of Roseanne, the first time a national television audience had witnessed such a(n illegal) thing. At his sitcom reception, Martin Mull, who played one of the grooms, looked aghast at the wedding cake topper Roseanne had concocted for him. She explained herself in her trademark nasal whine: "I couldn't find anything with two grooms, so I ripped off the bride and stuck on one of D.J.'s action heroes from Pocahontas."

I loved that cake topper and had kept it as a souvenir. When Mary told me about the three-level, 18-million-calorie confection she planned to bake, I dug the topper out of storage. And once again, these two little men, plastic but clearly meant for each other, took their place on the frosting, this time as a legally married couple: Mr. and Mr. Captain John Smith. Our children thought it was funny. And it was.

But as Elizabeth and James watched our wedding day unfold, what neither of them realized was this: though it may have seemed to be about us, this day was very much about the two of them. Marriage has a way of providing kids with a sense of stability most children take for granted. Now our kids no longer had to stand on a playground wondering why everybody else's parents could be married but theirs could not.

Five months after our happy day, the "Yes on 8" campaign convinced over half of California's electorate that my family's having equal access to marriage is a Very Bad Thing. I heard them say, a lot, "Why do you need to be married? You guys get the same rights and protections as marriage. It's just called domestic partnerships; really, it's exactly the same," as if pointing in the far distance and saying, "See, there it is, way over there. Squint." I grew up in the segregated South, and those arguments sounded awfully familiar. I was in a domestic partnership for eight years; I've been married for five months. The water does not taste the same.

In the final weeks leading up to the election, as I was driving Elizabeth home from school, we passed a newspaper stand on which someone had plastered a "Yes on 8" bumper sticker. She became visibly agitated, as she did whenever she saw a "Yes on 8" yard sign. She asked if I would stop the car so that we could scrape off the bumper sticker. I explained to her that we live in America and there's a thing called freedom of speech, which means everyone has the right to express their opinion, as long as they're not hurting anyone. She started to cry, saying, "But they are. They're hurting our family. Why do all those people want to hurt our family?" It was one of my lowest moments as a father.

Prop 8 passed that November. Elizabeth's second-grade class had been following the presidential election, so she knew about percentages and majorities. What she was unable to wrap her mind around was the fact that over half the voters in California thought we had no legal right to be a family.

It was months before she told me about the nightmares she'd been having, dreams of people with yellow signs coming to our house with torches, trying set fire to our home. I wish I were making this up. Sadly, no. Thanks, National Organization for Marriage. To you I would say this: if, as your misleading campaign ads bleated for months, you main goal is to protect children, how could you possibly do this to mine?

We got married that very warm, first possible evening in June, not to be part of history or to make some political statement, but because we're a family and want what's best for our kids. Luckily, California's Supreme Court subsequently held that our marriage, and the other 18,000 marriages performed during those five months, had been entered into in good faith and could not be evaporated by a vote. But what about the other families, the ones who weren't lucky enough to marry when they had the chance?

Even with Tuesday's court ruling finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, with the inevitable stays and delays as the case likely works its way to the Supreme Court, for months and probably years we'll have California kids standing on playgrounds wondering why they can't have married parents like their friends.

This post is the first in a series of Spilled Milk columns by William Lucas Walker that chronicle his journey through parenthood.

Actress In Racist Campaign Ad Reportedly Identified

2012-02-10T23:19:37Z

The young woman who starred in a much-maligned Senate campaign ad targeting Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and released by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) has reportedly been identified as Lisa Chan, a 21-year-old California native.

The blog Angry Asian Man, which first reported the details, reports that Chan is a part-time actress and model -- a beauty pageant contestant and winner, in fact -- UC Berkeley graduate, founder of a non-profit for under-served youth, and now star of the most controversial ad so far of the 2012 election cycle.

The ad, which aired in Michigan on Super Bowl Sunday and was removed from circulation later in the week, shows a woman, reportedly played by Chan, bicycling through a landscape of rice paddies dressed in khakis and a yellow shirt -- apparently the reason for an unfortunate typo that labeled her as "yellowgirl" in an html code.

As she approaches the camera, the actress thanks "Michigan Senator Debbie Spend-it-Now" for supposedly spending too much money, in turn helping the Chinese economy.

"Your economy get very weak. Ours get very good," she says in broken and stereotypically accented English.

Chan hasn't commented on her reported role in the ad, but she has apparently been affected by the backlash. From the Angry Asian Man blog:

From what I understand, she's now proactively trying to address and undo her role in the racist messaging of Hoekstra's campaign, and has partnered with a community organization to release a statement with her version of the story.

The original ad is below:

Bill Gunderson: Can a Businessman Run a Country?

2012-02-10T23:01:21Z

President Obama sure likes to hold Warren Buffett up as an example these days. After all, it is Warren Buffett that is dying to pay a higher tax rate. Never mind that he is currently fighting the IRS over a paltry billion dollars or so in unpaid taxes.

Warren is also hot and bothered about his secretary paying a higher effective tax rate than most millionaires and billionaires. Of course, we still have not seen her tax return, so we really don't know what rate she does pay. I guess it does not matter however, that Mitt Romney paid several million in taxes while Buffet's secretary may have paid a few thousand. Who's counting anyway?

My question to you the reader is this: If God forbid, something should happen to Mr. Buffett, would he feel more comfortable hiring Barack Obama or Mitt Romney to take over the management of Berkshire Hathaway? Oh, I know what you are thinking, government cannot be run like a business; it takes politicians to get things done.

It is thinking like this that has helped create a current debt load of $15 trillion dollars! Do you think that Mr. Buffett would have gotten us into the mess that we are currently in had he been running the country over the last 10 years? I highly doubt it. Warren still lives in the same humble abode that he has lived in for years. He is known for being pretty frugal. Oh, I forgot however that Mr. Buffett is a businessman though. We can't have a businessman running our country.

Actually, it would be real interesting to know where we would be today had Warren Buffett been running the country for the last 10 years. Maybe he would have consulted with other businessmen like Steve Jobs of Apple Computer or Jim Skinner of McDonald's about the economy and job creation. Instead our president goes to CEOs like Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric and Antonio Perez of Eastman Kodak to get his advice about job creation.

Is that the same Jeffrey Immelt who has had the stock of GE going backwards by an average of 3.3 percent per year over the last 10 years? Is that the same Antonio Perez who just had his company file for bankruptcy? Eastman Kodak was once a member of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, it is now a penny stock! I don't know about you, but when I want to lose weight, I seek out a skinny diet counselor.

Now back to Berkshire Hathaway. What does President Obama's resume look like when it comes to investing in companies? Let's see, there was some $520 million that went into Solyndra. How did that one turn out? Did the investment go there on merit or favoritism? What would Buffet's shareholders say if Warren made an investment that went from $520 million to zero in the span of 18 months?

How did the Obama administration's investment in Beacon Power go? Oh well, it is just taxpayer money that we don't have. How about the billions that went into the so-called stimulus program? What kind of return are we getting on that one?

While it is intriguing to think where our country might be today had a crackerjack businessman like Warren Buffett been running the show, it is an absolutely frightful thought to think where Berkshire Hathaway might be today, had Mr. Obama been at the helm for the last 10 years. This may sound like a harsh observation, but close your own eyes and ponder these questions for a minute.

The bottom line is this: What we have been doing has not been working. The hole that we have to climb out of here in America is getting deeper and deeper and deeper. In fact, it is getting so deep, I think I can see Greece-austerity, strikes, riots, and bailouts anyone?

We need a different skill set in the White House right now. We need a turnaround expert in the worst way. Oh, I forgot that a businessman cannot run a country. If a bunch of politicians can run the country into the ground, I feel pretty confident that it will take some businessmen to turn it around.

Mark Olmsted: Human Rights Invisible to the Right

2012-02-10T22:54:16Z

Much has been made of whether "the right to privacy" is in the Constitution. It's not, explicitly. Who cares? When is America going to stop fetishizing a document written by rich white men 230 years ago who owned slaves and didn't think woman were worthy of the vote?

Of course the Founders couldn't conceive of two men getting married. Here's a few other things they didn't have an opinion on: air traffic control, immigration reform, equal pay for equal work, and Social Security. They would have thought a "safety net" was a term used by fishermen. The idea of a black president, voted in by both sexes of myriad colors would have provoked peals of laughter in the Continental Congress.

Some rights they forgot to put in the Constitution: The right to be non-violent. The right to love another consenting adult and do what you want together behind closed doors. The right not to be a parent.

In the ideal NewtSantoRomneyverse, you might be legally deprived of the resources to purchase contraception. If you're in a working poor family that can barely buy shoes for the children you do have, it could mean that you do not have even a fundamental right to intercourse, for fear of creating a child you don't have the resources to raise.

Another one the Founders forget to spell out: the right to marital copulation.

So if you can't afford the pill, and the condom breaks, you and your wife may be forced to make the choice of an extra child who will be the tipping point into poverty, or scraping together enough money for an abortion. Let's not even talk about an unmarried woman, or a woman who's been raped, or a victim of incest. Let's not even talk about the social costs of children raised in homes that cannot provide for them materially or spiritually, the inexpressible sadness of being born unwanted. Spend some time in prison Rick. It will be everywhere you look.

Less access to contraception equals more unplanned pregnancies. More unplanned pregnancies lead to more abortion. These "pro-lifers" are anything but.

And if you are against contraception, you don't believe that human beings have a fundamental right not to bear offspring.

President Obama is once against violating the cardinal rule of never playing defense. He needs to attack. Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich are not pro-religion, they are deeply immoral. They believe in policies that would increase abortion and poverty. They are the anti-lifers, and it needs to be said, loudly, clearly and unapologetically.

Jill Hanauer: Beyond the Enthusiasm Gap: What the Caucuses Tells Us About the Political Environment in Colorado

2012-02-10T22:53:23Z

In the wake of Tuesday night's surprising Colorado caucus results, many are wondering whether frigid temperatures should be blamed for a lower-than-expected turnout. However, taking a look at the numbers behind Rick Santorum's victory in Colorado, it becomes clear that the results actually reflect moderate Republican voters cooling on the Republican field, and that bodes poorly for the GOP in a state where moderate voters hold the keys to the kingdom.

Following an embarrassingly low turnout in Nevada last week, Colorado Republican officials predicted a turnout exceeding 70,000. As it turned out, turnout fell about 4,000 short of those projections, leading to widespread conjectures from national pundits over whether the low turnout was indicative of a lack of enthusiasm for the GOP field, or whether some other factor -- like the weather -- was responsible.

To answer that question, these pundits should be looking beyond the overall turnout number at where turnout numbers changed since 2008.

That Republicans did not meet their turnout goal is attributable in large part to underperformance in Arapahoe, Jefferson, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver and Douglas counties in the Denver-Boulder metro area. In Denver, for instance, over 4,000 Republicans caucused in 2008. This week, just over 3,200 Denver Republicans caucused. In Arapahoe County, turnout declined by about 20 percent. These counties -- populated largely by moderate, affluent Republican voters -- also happened to vote most-heavily for Romney.

That turnout was low in these moderate counties is consistent with our polling, which found that likely Colorado voters describing themselves as moderate or liberal Republicans were less enthusiastic about voting in 2012 than conservative Republicans, moderate Democrats, or liberal Democrats.

To the extent that any Colorado counties actually saw an uptick in voter turnout, these districts were largely rural, traditionally conservative communities, and they generally voted for Rick Santorum.

Mesa County on Colorado's Western Slope, for example, saw an uptick in turnout of over 50 percent from 2008. The traditional conservative stronghold also went for Rick Santorum by double digits this week.

The small rural counties on the Eastern Plains, which voted most heavily for Mike Huckabee in 2008, also saw increases in voter turnout. Kit Carson County, for example had a 27 percent increase in turnout, and voted nearly 4-1 for Santorum. Prowers County, on the border with Kansas, had a 34 percent increase in turnout from '08, and voted over 2-1 for Santorum. This trend held, for the most part, across the state's rural Eastern Plains.

It's worth noting that turnout did not increase in every county that voted for Santorum, but the fact that surges in caucus turnout were so concentrated in conservative areas does suggest that the party's right-wing base is far more enthusiastic and engaged in the primary process than moderate Republicans.

We've seen this haunt Colorado Republicans in the recent past. In 2010, the party's right wing propelled Ken Buck to the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. Buck's support for the Personhood ballot initiative, which will be on the ballot again in 2012, and his conservative credentials endeared him to Tea Party groups and Evangelical voters, but his ideological rigidity turned off moderate independent voters and ultimately lead to his defeat.

If Republicans plan to win in a state like Colorado, where independent voters are a third of the electorate, their nominee will need to pass muster with moderates. The fact that moderates largely stayed home this week means the party's right wing will have a greater say in Republican party politics this year, and that's a cold hard truth for Republican officials.

Michael Meyers: Racial Politics and the Non-White Vassals of White Politicians

2012-02-10T22:49:48Z

I am cussin' every time I turn on the TV and hear liberal pundits accuse the GOP Presidential candidates of outright racism and of the use of racial code words. It's as if we're existing in a pre-civil rights revolution time warp instead of the 21st century where race in America ain't what it used to be.

The charges of racism are interspersed with accusations of class warfare inasmuch as Mitt Romney, the pundits say, admitted to being unconcerned with the very poor, they who have a safety net, according to Romney. Conservatives, too, bandy about bold allegations of class warfare, when they criticize President Barack Obama's campaign rhetoric, accusations which the liberal pundits cite as further examples of race-baiting by white conservatives against America's first African-American president.

Say what?

When it comes to racial paranoia MSNBC is in a bizarro world of its own. Andrea Mitchell, among others, decried Newt Gingrich's racial overtones as "dog whistles" aimed at white voters. Chris Matthews piped in, accusing The Newt of the racially charged use of "Juan" when Gingrich answered a question from journalist Juan Williams during the South Carolina debate. And MSNBC star host Rachel Maddow inveighed that Gingrich, when he chastised Obama as "Entertainer-in-Chief -- for Obama's having crooned at the Apollo Theater--was depicting Obama as a minstrel; she said Gingrich's criticism was sheer race-baiting, an example of Gingrich's "calling out to minstrelsy."

Obama as minstrel.

Obama as shirker.

Obama as incompetent -- these are, to the liberal pundits, all racial code words -- examples of GOPers vying for his job engaging in modern-day racism.

It's as if every critical word of Barack Obama is to be dissected for proof that the GOP candidates running for President are crude or subtle racists; and their non-white backers and party members are castigated as mere vassals of the white power structure, and as traitors to their race. The harshest calumny has been aimed at GOP Congressman Allen West; but Herman Cain, Ron Christie, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley have been ripped too by malicious name-calling based on their race and their political persuasion. The noisy whisper is, "How can any self-respecting black, Latino or Asian front for this crop of Republicans who are so hostile to civil rights and who use racial coda to appeal to an angry white electorate?"

I am a civil rights specialist and I know something about racism -- in its overt and subtle forms -- and many guises. But I am still waiting for hard evidence that Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum are running a Southern strategy for the White House prize -- seeking and intending to divide the electorate along racial lines, passions and fears. Yes, yes, yes, I know, the "historian" Gingrich has accused President Obama of being the "food stamps president," but that was a laughable moment, not racial coda. Everybody knows, except the "historian" Gingrich, that LBJ was our "food stamps president." It was Johnson, the former segregationist, who established the federal food stamp program as a response to a national hunger and malnutrition crisis. In fact, as everyone knows, most Americans on food stamps are whites, not blacks.

Still, the pundits at MSNBC assure me that Gingrich is race-baiting when he calls Obama "the food stamps president," and that Romney, the patrician, is out of touch with black and poor folks because he is, after all, a very wealthy man. But wasn't also JFK, and Nelson Rockefeller, and FDR? Wealth alone is not the litmus test for being "out of touch." Nor is double speak, constant compromise, or pretense at caring for the downtrodden sure signs of progressive politics.

And what about this charge of minstrelsy? More than black politicians have been singing for votes. He was off-key, but we all heard Mitt Romney sing "America The Beautiful." And Herman Cain, until his voice grew hoarse from denying sexual harassment allegations sang gospel. "Amazing Grace" made a comeback as an American standard more than a few times when Cain took the stage. I saw none of this singing as racial much less the criticism of it as racial coda, no more than I interpreted the many charges harassment charges against Cain, from white and black women, as "racist."

Obama, as a "minstrel," is MSNBC's invention.

Now, I know that racists, racial buffoons, and race hustlers come in many shapes and guises, but I need firmer evidence that the current field of GOP candidates -- backed up by their non-white supporters -- are running the old race game on us. Yet the only thing MSNBC keeps putting in our face and harping on is their bottom line, seemingly, that a black man who is president can't get no respect.

Of course, I know that we have not yet stamped out racism completely in America. That is exactly why it is so important not to trivialize racism by calling things racist that they are not. False accusations repeated again and again do not make a truth. Liberals should know better than to keep crying racism, falsely. because we need everyone on board and everyone's attention when we spot and fight real outbreaks of racism and skin color discrimination.

I just don't fancy Newt Gingrich -- he's wrong, wrong, wrong -- and block-headed and intemperate on so many issues. His meanness turns me cold -- but isn't that enough of a criticism of him? Do we need go "there" -- that is, conjure up that he is being racist whe he is talking plainly and acerbically?

If the insinuations and outright accusations of GOP racism are real -- that the GOPers seeking to evict the first African-American President from the Oval Office are racist, and they are trying to return America to its antebellum period of race relations, then why haven't the journalists at MSNBC asked a single salient question of the "historian" Newt Gingrich, and of Ron Paul, and the others, about race prejudice and discrimination in America? Such a question is not about food stamps. The genuine article of a question -- which should have been asked in South Carolina -- on the night of Martin L. King, Jr.'s birthday -- is this: "What would you have advised President Eisenhower to do with the Supreme Court's unanimous decision to outlaw public school segregation -- a decision that overruled many Southerners' concept of states' rights? Would you have urged President Ike to ignore the decision? Would you have had the nine justices hauled before the Congress to explain themselves? In your vision of federalism, is the federal law and the Constitution the supreme law of the land, which trumps claims of states' rights, those who said states had a right to deny persons because of their skin color equal protection under the law?"

Newt Gingrich's reply to such a real question would have been telling; he would have, I suspect, had to backtrack on his absurd declaration of war on the federal judiciary. Even Ron Paul, who laments the 1964 Civil Rights Act, would not today urge its repeal. That's because they know America is finished with racial segregation of old. We can't go backwards on race relations and fundamental civil rights protections -- and every candidate, white and black, who wants to get elected, knows that.

We're a lot more advanced on the race question than the MSNBC pundits give us viewers and Americans credit for.

It's also sad that MSNBC's pundits don't yet get that not every white conservative is a racist at heart and that not every black or non-white looks or thinks alike. There are some non-whites who side with Romney; others (including youths) who salute Ron Paul; and some who say amen to Rick Santorum's candidacy. Likewise, Gingrich is drawing support from those citizens and immigrants who think like Gingrich has the right idea about not deporting the undocumented. These GOPers and independents are of different faiths, various skin colors, and ethnicity.. They include Herman Cain, who backs Gingrich, and Nikki Haley, who backs Romney, and the youths who back Ron Paul. They do not think of themselves as turning back the clock on civil rights because of their political views and personal choices. The suggestion that they are either modern-day "racists" or enablers of turning us back to our discredited racial past is sheer racial rhetoric and poppycock.

The GOPers plainly and simply have a different view of things than most of us liberal Democrats. But even I can understand their frustration with big government, high taxation, and the broken promises of the DC establishment. They, and I, are beet red angry. We want things to change for the better. We long for JFK's rising tide lifts all boats. But if that adage still holds, we haven't seen or felt that as yet. Hence, that is why we do see a rising chorus of minorities who are criticizing Obama, the incumbent, and who are breaking party ranks, and joining forces with others, black and white, also are fed up with government as we have known it. And they too also recoil at the rehtoric of Herman Cain about how blacks are on the Democratic Party plantation. That's utter nonsense and he knew it when he uttered that hyperbole. People don't want to be labeled black or white or as "vassal" or "slave master;" that's old-hat now as well as rancorous racial bluster.

The rainbow of divergent opinions about what we should do to fix things is healthy, not symptomatic of going backwards on race. Labeling blacks and Latinos and Asians who support the party of Lincoln "today's Uncle Toms" does not advance us one whit.

I strongly disagree with Congressman Allen West, ex-businessman Herman Cain, Senator Marco Rubio, and SC Governor Nikki Haley, but they're entitled to their viewpoint and their choice of Presidential candidate and political party without being written off as traitors to their race and people.

Those more certain about the manifestations of racism than me -- such as the MSNBC pundits -- may think they know better than me and the rest of us who is and who isn't "authentic" and who is and is not black or Latino or Asian. But I regard the rage of white liberals at MSNBC over the skin color of those who back limited government, low taxation, and who back GOPers over Obama, as singularly regressive, contrived and mischievous. Just because a man shares my skin color -- or doesn't -- tells me no more than that; skin color in America today is not a proxy for anything solid and meaningful by way of prediction or evaluation of efforts. That's what Dr. King struggled to achieve; and that's what we have accomplished-in our victories over racial prejudice -- the right of blacks and all who constitute racial minorities to be treated and regarded as individuals.

Let's all take a deep breath and acknowledge: We have come a mighty long way as a nation in turning the corner on "race." As we evaluate President Obama, and his GOP rivals -- let's ask ourselves -- What does the candidate's race really have to do with anything? MSNBC's pundits may posit otherwise, but what do they really know about race?

Ellen R. Shaffer: Who Won? We Will

2012-02-10T22:44:06Z

It's been a roller coaster month for women's health, and it's not over yet.

Congressional Republicans and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops vow to continue their attacks on coverage for birth control. Most of us use birth control, including most Catholics. Well over half of all women who use birth control use it to manage other conditions -- like endometriosis or to prevent ovarian cancer. And more than one in three women has difficulty affording birth control today.

The administration decided to require coverage for contraception without co-payments and deductibles after a year and a half of scientific review and public debate over women's preventive health benefits. Churches were excluded from the requirement, but religiously-based hospitals, universities and charities were included, as they already are in 28 states.

Today the president announced that while the coverage requirement will stand, providing economic protections to millions, religious employers will be able to stand removed from providing the coverage. Instead, insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage at no additional cost, by contacting women directly. It remains to be seen whether the notoriously inefficient and miserly health insurance industry will succeed in making this a seamless experience for women employed at these institutions.

The Bishops' attack and the administration's jiujitsu maneuver came a scant week after public outcry supporting Planned Parenthood after anti-choice leaders at the Komen Foundation threatened to cut funding for PP's breast health care services.

How did this happen? More importantly, how can we stop it?

1. Recognize the real threat. The Bishops are organized and wealthy. They pushed out a virtually baseless but catchy campaign claiming that the contraception coverage rule violated religious freedom, and whipped up zealots in church services to generate 1200-1700 calls a day to vulnerable senators. They forged an alliance with the Catholic Health Association, both a large employer and a funder for many advocacy groups who might otherwise have spoken out. Extremist Republicans in Congress were and are only too happy to divert attention away from their own ineffectiveness on the economy.

2. Get organized! Breast cancer patients are linked and organized, partly through networks devised by Komen itself and Planned Parenthood. When the challenge came, they were on the case.

3. Take on the issue. We can win on birth control and abortion. Avoiding reproductive health, rights and justice will not be an option in the 2012 election.

And sign statements by our partners urging Congress and the President to stand strong for women's health.

To learn more about the Trust Women/Silver Ribbon Campaign, click here.

Tell Congress hands-off birth control

Some States Using Funds From Foreclosure Deal To Close Budget Gaps

2012-02-10T22:39:34Z

Well, that was fast.

Two states have already announced that they won't be using all of their share of the $25 billion allocated in Thursday's historic foreclosure settlement to pay its intended recepients -- the homeowners and borrowers who saw the housing market collapse beneath their feet.

Instead, in some areas, a share of those dollars is likely to be diverted to state budgets, in a bid to offset some of the massive deficits that states have been struggling with since the economic downturn, according to reports.

In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker and state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen have announced plans to use $25.6 million of the settlement money -- about 18 percent of the $140 million Wisconsin will get in total -- to plug holes in the state's budget, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. As the MJS notes, this is a reversal of Walker's previous opposition to using legal settlements to close budget gaps.

Meanwhile, in Missouri, state Attorney General Chris Koster has said that he plans to put $40 million of Missouri's settlement money -- about 20 percent of the total $196 million -- into the general state fund, apparently in response to Governor Jay Nixon's call for a stronger college and university budget, Stateline reported.

In the wake of Missouri and Wisconsin's announcements to use the settlement funds for purposes other than directly assisting borrowers -- and with similar announcements possibly forthcoming from other states -- critics have begun comparing Thursday's deal to the 1998 tobacco settlement that saw some of the country's largest tobacco companies agree to pay $246 billion over the next 25 years to fund public-health initiatives.

Much of that money has since been spent on other things, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which estimates that states will receive $25.6 billion from the tobacco settlement this year, but only use 1.8 percent of it to combat tobacco use.

If the news that some of the money from the foreclosure settlement won't end up in borrowers' hands is disappointing to some, it won't be the first time this week that the deal has let someone down.

While the settlement involves five of the country's largest banks -- Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Ally Financial, Wells Fargo and Bank of America -- and an amount of money that has been called one of the largest mortgage settlements in history, many borrowers stand to realize practical benefits that are marginal at best.

Some 1 million homeowners will receive material mortgage relief that may help them stave off a default, but another 775,000 borrowers who have lost their homes to foreclosure will receive payments of no more than $2,000.

And the settlement excludes mortgages owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the massive mortgage agencies currently in government conservatorship, which means about half the country's mortgages aren't covered at all by the deal.

GA-2012 Primary: 35% Gingrich, 26% Santorum, 16% Romney, 5% Paul (Rosetta Stone/Landmark 2/9)

2012-02-10T22:29:50Z

Rosetta Stone Communications (R) / Landmark Communications (R)
2/9/12; 1,475 likely Republican primary voters, 2.6% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
SavannahNow.com story

Georgia

2012 President: Republican Primary
35% Gingrich
26% Santorum
16% Romney
5% Paul

Faiz Siddiqui: An Appeal: Winning Back Political Discourse

2012-02-10T22:22:37Z

In the wretched political climate of today, openly debating the issues is kind of like being mercilessly bludgeoned with a 20-pound sledgehammer: It will almost certainly induce a headache of some kind, and the only tangible result will be a blunt device soaked entirely in blood.

If this not-implausible episode of political wrangling tells us anything, it's that the American people have abandoned any notion of civilized discourse whatsoever. Sound logic and reasoning have, as of late, become something of a rhetorical taboo.

Look no further than the 2012 GOP presidential race to see such a harmful dynamic in action, with the spewing of antiquated ideals, patronage to dead politicians and appeal to visceral fears of the unknown running rampant. Our existence in this hellish, wild-west-reminiscent dystopia -- the kind of place where Newt Gingrich is still relevant -- is essentially worthless, the Zimbabwean dollar of public opinion.

Make no mistake, this is the backwards, vitriolic world we live in:

1. Arguments are won only when adversaries have retroactively wished abortion upon themselves.

2. Bigotry and intolerance are totally acceptable when conveyed through a keyboard (they're OK in front of national audiences too, but only if thinly-veiled).

3. The validity of points raised is measured by the number of times they give mention to Ronald Reagan (Additionally: Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan).

Needless to say, this destructive, mostly-contrived model of modern politicking, which mainly emphasizes McCarthyism and political forum trolling, is a death wish for a democratic America. Put simply, a voting population that's as uninformed and misinformed as ours is about as qualified to participate in democracy as every suppressive despot who's ever lived.

Lucky for us, there's at least one innovative political savant out to save us -- not with a blacklist, but rather, with logic. Oh, and some Jenna Marbles-inspired video editing.

With his newly-created YouTube Channel, "Hallitics (rhymes with politics)," Luke Hall, an ambitious 19-year-old politician from Cincinnati, strives to limit misinformation by changing the way we take in politics in the first place. Of course, Luke would just tell you he's trying to "encourage and facilitate civil, informed political discourse," as if his movement carries within it no larger implications whatsoever.

Nonetheless, to a generation that finds itself increasingly uninformed and apathetic, the young politician is probably the mundane equivalent of Clark Kent: a rare but sure glimmer of hope, one with an unparalleled affinity for intellectual discussion and, among other things, striped shirts.

With "Hallitics," he aims to post weekly videos "dissecting and talking about political issues as objectively as (he) can." The whole idea is basically cable news, only without the accompanying intellectual napalm -- like the infamous Crossfire.

Luke is essentially promoting real, tangible change in the political conversation, not through his own entrenched ideologies, but rather with the plain truth, the lack of any partisan ideology whatsoever. You see, instead of making uninformed decisions for the voting population, Luke seeks to enlighten it. Facilitate healthy discussion rather than cheaply pander on arbitrary grounds like politicians' obsessions with mundanities like golf and teleprompter use.

The newly-launched channel currently features three issue-related videos: a post on the Balanced Budget Amendment and a two-part series on the dynamic political situation surrounding Iran. Head over to YouTube and you'll see that the cuts look and feel like something out of the Khan Academy, rather than just the regurgitated C-SPAN they could have been. Like Sal Khan's videos, "Hallitics" discussions aren't written for experts, or in this case, political savants. Rather, they're presented in terms anyone can understand, even, say, a lazy, apathetic millennial who couldn't care less about his government homework, let alone the study of international politics.

We can only hope that "Hallitics'" foolproof model serves as a catalyst for constructive political discussion going forward. The nation will be healthier for it, and maybe it'll force hacks like Bill O'Reilly and Ed Schultz to clean up their acts or clean house, like the revenue-starved Glenn Beck, whose notoriously brain-frying FOX News show went off the air in 2011.

With "Hallitics," Luke has a winning formula that the American people should embrace. A formula of informed and effective argument, principles that are almost antithetical to the "screw you/go to hell" politics of today.

Regardless of how we go about changing, one thing is clear: We can no longer accept living in the type Orwellian nightmare where angry primetime bobble heads can spout absurdities like "tide goes in, tide goes out -- can't explain that!" and actually be lauded for disproving science. The kind of backwards society where lifetime politicians can boast that they're "Washington outsiders" after making careers and loads of money on their being Washington insiders. A compartmentalized world where social commentators can get by referring to the gays and the blacks simply as "the gays" and "the blacks," as if the groups are intellectually-synchronized, and uniting straight from the tackle box of American demographics.

The spirit of global protest demands that America stand up against its most grave injustice, an ignoble farce that might be weakly characterized as "a lack of transparency" in politics. We have to change ourselves, whether through Luke Hall's videos or any other accessible, innovative medium -- anything that gets us away from the O'Reilly and Schultz-influenced "loud is convincing" modus operandi of maligning dissenters.

"Hallitics" is most certainly the start we need. We can choose to adopt its message, improve ourselves and thereby make the country's political situation a little less laughable.

Either that, or we can stick with the current system of partisan hackery -- the one that's destructive and all, and in a larger sense, an assurance of further division and probably imminent death to any notion of a democratic America.

And you thought the bludgeoning sounded bad.