The Huffington Post Full Blog Feed

Dave Johnson: The Spying Started BEFORE September 11 - That's The Whole POINT

2008-07-06T03:45:15Z

In the LA Times today, A good-enough spy law,

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the White House directed telecommunications carriers to cooperate with its efforts to bolster intelligence gathering and surveillance -- the administration's effort to do a better job of "connecting the dots" to prevent terrorist attacks.

No, it started a few weeks after Bush took office - a time when the Bush administration was ignoring the terrorist threat. So it was about something else, and was a high enough priority to plan out during the transition. (Can you say "political spying?")

One telecom company, Qwest, refused because it was flat-out illegal. The Bush administration punished them, blocked federal contracts, and in an early indicator of what was to come from the politicized Bush Justice Department, they prosecuted Qwest's CEO on trumped-up charges.

The combination of the telecoms letting Bush illegally spy on us BEFORE September 11, and the politicized Bush Justice Department punishing the company that refused - refused because it was illegal - is the reason so many of us are so adamant that Democrats should not be passing a law giving these companies immunity. The President can't spy on people without warrants, and the telecoms knew that. They knew it was illegal to spy on us without warrants but they went along with it. Why? Why didn't they ask the Bush administration to just get warrants? And why would Democrats vote to let them off the hook?

Don't forget that Watergate was about Republicans illegally wiretapping Democrats. Don 't think they don't do it.

Jessica Catto: Running On Empty At The Aspen Ideas Festival

2008-07-06T01:10:38Z

"Americans do the right thing after they have exhausted all other possibilities." Quoting Churchill, Jim Woolsey, former C.I.A. chief, predicted about action on climate change. That was the optimistic take from the Aspen Ideas festival this week.

"We're headed toward the rapids," said John Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress, on the same panel.

It is difficult to come away from the discussions without profound doubts about our will and ability to do what we should have been doing for the last ten years: switching to electric or hybrid vehicles; providing tax subsidies for wind, solar, and geothermal development; mandating green architecture; utilizing energy conservation technology; carbon taxes and sequestration; and leadership to move these practical and life saving practices from pause to fast forward.

The current administration has neutered the EPA and talked about "oil addiction" while encouraging more drilling and ignoring its own words. Talking the talk and walking the walk have never been farther apart. The pain this will inflict on the world is just now beginning to hit us, at the pump and in harmful weather patterns.

Dr. John Holdren, a scientist from Harvard spoke of the parts per million with which anthropogenic carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide fill the air and at what point those levels produce catastrophic change in our climate. And then there is the methane gas that the melting ice on the tundra will add to the mix. To reverse those levels will take all the technology, leadership and will that we have. The sea ice in the artic is melting at a rate that it may disappear this year or next. Rising seas are predicted to obliterate Florida and Cape Cod in the not too distant future. His conclusion was that we will have to "mitigate, adapt and suffer."

Tom Friedman, columnist for the New York Times, speaking to a packed audience on his new book, "Hot, Flat and Crowded" coupled optimism with the serious stresses on the worlds' resources from an increasing population, sea level rise that will affect migration from Bangladesh to the Caribbean, and a world without enough energy to power its needs. He describes the existing available talent and solutions, but the infrastructure for these new energy sources and their delivery systems is not yet in place. On the other hand, once we have some real leadership, we can begin a new era of job creation and economic growth.

Right now, we are watching the formation of the perfect storm. The factors of economic hardship caused by our dependence on Saudi and other foreign oil are a clear and present danger. They are hurting our productivity, our agriculture, our national security, the structure of our lives and our pride. When our president visited Saudi Arabia recently to plead for more oil, the Saudis presented him with a bicycle. Combine those factors with rising temperatures, crop destruction, food and water shortages, and loss of species at an unprecedented rate, and, well, not just "Houston, we have a problem," but world, we have a problem. By the way, we are a species, too, so we need to pay attention. Just a little intelligent planning could have prevented this abrupt, disruption. It's enough to make a person cross, even testy.

So, we have some choices to make. A new energy tapestry must be woven. It will take many new technologies and innovations, or it can be a nightmare of false choices and lack of political will. The wrong choices will lead to a nasty mess or we can unleash our talent and our will power and create a masterpiece the world will emulate.

How we steer around this perfect storm ultimately is up to us. If we choose the right leaders and if we are insistent enough, they will do the right thing and make the right choices. What we know for certain is that if we are not actively involved in our future, our future may not happen. Democracy imposes this responsibility on us. Are we up for the challenge?

Huff Radio: Arianna Talks To The BBC World Service About The 2008 Election And The Future Of Journalism

2008-07-05T23:42:27Z

Arianna talked to the BBC World Service's Lyse Doucet about HuffPost, the future of media, the 2008 election, and a new direction for journalism.

Click through to the BBC World Service website to listen to the entire interview.

Tom Gerdy: The Other Energy Crisis and The Prom Night Pimple

2008-07-05T23:08:23Z

I have yet to pay $4.00 for a gallon of gas but I am sure that magical moment for me is only days away. It won't be quite as memorable as where I was when JFK was shot, but breaking the $4.00 barrier will be a pretty big moment for me. For decades, it's as if we have been asking Stevie Wonder to watch the world oil and gas situation for our country. No, I take that back and apologize to Little Stevie 'Fingertips' Wonder for that comment. Even a blind man could have seen this coming. A commitment similar to Kennedy's moon landing promise should have been made decades ago. Maybe we have just had a little too much Texas in our government over the past couple of decades and that has kept us from attending rehab for our gas addiction.

As challenging as our current oil predicament is, that's not what I need to discuss right now. We have a bigger and potentially much more dangerous energy problem. The Other energy challenge has the potential to do much more damage than the oil and gas problem. The Other energy challenge touches each and every American on a daily basis. The total dollar cost of the Other energy crisis is hard to put a figure on. Lives are lost every single day due to the Other energy crisis. The Other energy crisis is the negative energy and lost opportunities created by lack of action, surrender or apathy.

There are times when the challenges we face personally or as a society seem insurmountable and overwhelming. The perceived magnitude of some of the issues we need to address often causes people to throw up their hands and give up.

There are times when our skewed vision of our personal short comings, abilities or lack there of keep us from stepping forward and changing the world. Personal issues are often like the prom night pimple. As you primped for the prom, the pimple on your forehead looked like a third eye. The reality is that your inside out perception acted like a magnifying glass. From the outside it really wasn't nearly as bad as you viewed it in the mirror. So don't let your perception of your abilities or short comings keep you from going to the prom. You can make a difference.

Often the roadblock to action is caused by the sheer magnitude of some of the challenges we face as a country or in our own communities. There are problems that seem too big to even try to address. We have to keep sight of the fact that every change, every invention and every major problem that was ever solved throughout history started with an idea in the head. The idea was followed up by a commitment from the heart. The hands then listened to the heart and the rest is history.

Albert Einstein changed history not only because he was smart, but also because he was wise. He was quoted as once saying, "I don't know what your destiny will be but one thing I know, the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who have sought and found how to serve." Most of what I write involves calling attention to a challenge we are facing followed by a call to action. I always have hope that at least one person will hear each call, move forward, and find happiness. I hope it's you.

Patt Morrison: One Man, One Vote, What Am I Bid?

2008-07-05T22:34:09Z

What is it with us? We nail the small-time lawbreakers and put them away for decades -- but the big-time operators can get away with murder and their millions.

Max P. Sanders is a Minnesota college student who put his vote up for sale on eBay, starting bid $10, along with the cheerful listing, ``You're country depends on You!'' [Misspellings and erroneous capitalization thrown in free.]

He has now been charged with a felony -- bribery, and violating a 115-year-old Minnesota law against vote-selling.

Maybe it was a joke, as Sanders told authorities. Maybe he chose to call it that after the fact. What's really a joke is that the high-and-mighty official marketplace of legislative votes and support that goes under the grander names of lobbying and campaign financing is considered on the up-and-up, so long as it doesn't look too obvious. Sanders could get five years in prison. What do these high-end operators get? Re-elected.

If you don't think a vote doesn't matter, you haven't been paying attention since, oh, November 2000. It's heartening that the Minnesota county prosecutor puts such a premium on the sacred right of voting. But if selling one vote is a crime, where's the outrage, where are the consequences of manipulating or denying or nullifying tens of thousands of votes? Maybe we should send that prosecutor to Washington when he's finished with the Sanders caper, and put him in charge of the Federal Election Commission.

How much longer will votes matter, anyway? What our leaders really seem to value from us is our Visa cards, not our votes. We're so much less trouble as consumers than we are as citizens. Citizens have rights; consumers have needs. Maybe Sanders' real mistake was undervaluing his vote. A few more zeroes on there and maybe he'd be hailed in some quarters not as a jailbird in the making, but as an entrepreneur.

Joe Galloway: How Dare They Rip The Fourth Amendment?

2008-07-05T22:28:55Z

Early next week the U.S. Senate will vote on an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with a few small amendments intended to immunize telecommunications corporations that assisted our government in the warrantless and illegal wiretapping it has grown to love.

That such a gutting of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution even made it out of committee is yet another stain on the gutless and seemingly powerless Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

That a majority on both sides of the aisle -- not least of them the presumptive nominees for president of both political parties -- intend to vote for such a violation of Americans' right to privacy and of the sanctity of their personal communications is a stunning surrender to those who want us to live in fear forever.

We are living in a time when the right of habeas corpus -- which simply put is your right to be brought before a proper court of law where the government is made to prove that there is good and legal reason to detain you -- recently survived by a margin of only one vote at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now these bad actors are prepared to set aside your right to privacy -- written into the Constitution as a key part of our Bill of Rights -- with hardly a nod in the direction of the true patriots who rebelled against an English king and his army to guarantee those rights.

That they will do this while the last empty phrases of the political windbags at the Fourth of July celebrations are still echoing across a thousand city parks and the bright red, white and blue bunting and blizzard of American flags still flap in the breeze is little short of breath-taking.

How dare they?

Those denizens of the White House and Capitol Hill and all those gray granite buildings that line avenues with names like Constitution and Independence in the nation's capitol would have us believe that we must trade our rights, all of our rights, for some measure of security from the terrorists.

They would have us believe that a nation of 300 million people must surrender what a million other Americans gave their lives in war to protect in order to protect us from a couple of hundred fanatics hiding in caves in Waziristan.

Benjamin Franklin himself wrote of such a debate:

"Those who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The fact that British troops, operating on flimsy general warrants handed out by local magistrates, were kicking in the doors of ordinary Americans and rifling through their pantries and papers in search of smuggled, untaxed goods was a prime reason why our ancestors rebelled against their king and went to war.

This is WHY we celebrate the Fourth of July. This is why the vote on renewing the expanded version of FISA and whitewashing the egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment for seven long years by our government is important.

If neither John McCain, the Republican, or Barrack Obama, the Democrat, can find the courage to oppose such a violation of so basic a right, then what are we to do for a president, a successor to George W. Bush, The Decider, who has since 9/11 decided what rights you are entitled to keep, what laws he will or will not obey, and whether you will be protected by these words of the Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's it. That's the Fourth Amendment. That is what these folks in Washington, D.C., have violated continuously and in secret for seven long years.

Somewhere across an ocean and a desert, hiding in his cave, a man of hate named Osama bin Laden is laughing up the sleeve of his dirty robe at the thought that he and a small handful of fellow fanatics could tie a great nation in knots -- knots of fear stoked by our own leaders.

We have done incalculably more and greater damage to ourselves since September 11, 2001, than a thousand bin Ladens and ten thousand al Qaida recruits could ever have done to us.

Franklin D. Roosevelt famously declared that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." Now it would seem that we have no one to fear but ourselves and our leaders.

The questions I pose are these:

How can even one senator on either side of the aisle in good conscience vote in favor of this law that does nothing to enhance our security and everything to diminish our rights as a free people?

How can both men who seek to become our next president cast such a vote when both should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder declaring that they would govern by our consent and with our approval, not by wielding the coercive and corrosive and corrupt powers that King George III and his latter-day namesake from Texas thought are theirs by divine right?

This post was originally published by McClatchy Newspapers

Michelle Renee: Learning to Love Yourself Through It All

2008-07-05T22:09:23Z

I was in a meeting the other day and found myself uttering the words, "You have to love yourself through it all." as a response to the question of the important take-away message to those who have gone through insufferable circumstances; those I will be speaking with as an Advocate for Children's Hospital Chadwick Trauma Center.

I realized that is exactly what I have done, but first I had to learn how to love myself at all, something that has not come easily or without purposefully taking time alone in stillness to learn to do so. Sitting with my brother last night we began to talk about our childhood and the topic of self-love. I listened to his tender way of expressing his thoughts and the anger associated with being a survivor of child abuse and domestic violence. That anger and fear kept the truth of self-love on the outside looking in, ringing that doorbell waiting for the heart to welcome it in, while self-destruction ruled for so long and at times I didn't even know it. What I thought was buried was living and breathing just underneath the surface of every decision I was making for years. When I got home last night I stood in the mirror, acknowledged every dimension of myself and life, and spoke out loud beginning with, "What and who do you see through the eyes of self-love." The experience was profound for me.

I have come to know that every time I look deeper within and am completely honest with myself it is as though I am starving negative energies; not watering or feeding that which I had allowed to run my life, make my decisions, choose past partners, and more for nearly my entire life. I discovered that for these self-defeating energies or forces, just like those that are positive and self-loving, must be fed to survive. They feed and fatten up on attention, are needy little light suckers and bloat up with power the more attention you give them.

When I began to love myself by accepting all experiences without judging myself- embracing each choice that led me to the next and to the next right up to right now- shame, guilt, anger, fear, blame-they all began to shrink. From powerful to powerless; from fat hogs at the troth to shriveling grapes on the vine.

Today, knowing and loving also the negative or dark aspects of myself that will forever remain because I am human, I choose to focus on feeding the positive energy that is within me, co-creating and attracting with God an abundant life that is built on all that has happened, discovering the gifts in that while filling the belly of self-love-giving power to that which will serve my divine purpose and the divine within.

So today, and each day ahead, give yourself permission to acknowledge all that has come before this moment, seek to accept and embrace the incredible tapestry that is you and decide that you will love yourself through it all.

David Paul Appell: Ingrid for President / Ingrid Para Presidenta

2008-07-05T20:38:44Z

(Para español, vea abajo)

Okay, the timing was a little bit fishy - right as John McCain was trying to pander to U.S. Latino voters with his visit to Colombia and its president, Álvaro Uribe, who happens to be a Bush buddy and Obama critic. Nonetheless, the Colombian military's rescue of Ingrid Betancourt, three U.S. military contractors, and eleven Colombian soldiers and policemen from their FARC captors is worthy of joining Entebbe, the Andrea Doria, and Baby Jessica in the inspiring annals of thrills and chills. It got people out in the streets honking car horns all over Latin America, and I have no doubt that phones are still jangling throughout Tinseltown even as you read this. Singers Shakira and Juanes, you'll be gratified to know, are over the moon, and the Vatican says it's rather pleased, too (even though Betancourt, during her first campaign for senate years ago, once stood on street corners handing out "condoms against corruption"; with the Curia it's got to be barebacking or nothing).

Even Hugo Chávez was forced to pretend delight, even though this turn of events deprived him of the political hay he's been trying to make brokering negotiations between the FARC and the Uribe administration. Nonetheless, there have inevitably been a few skunks slinking about the garden party; some media suggested the operation was carried off by bribing FARC members instead of a sting, and that the "rescue" was faked. And Chávez should've passed the happy-memo to his propagandists at the Agencia Bolivariana de Prensa, who had the chutzpah to make the cynical - nay, Alice-in-Wonderlandish - claim that the operation violated and made a mockery of "international humanitarian law" by using tricks such as a helicopter painted with a red cross. "Not even Ingrid Betancourt can save the Colombian narcopresident," they huffed.

She's sure doing a heckuva job of it for the moment, though. Since taking office in 2002, Uribe hasn't always been easy to pigeonhole. Yes, in many ways he's turned out to be a combative little right-winger, but his success in reversing Colombia's slide toward becoming a failed narco-state has boosted the confidence and optimism of rich and poor alike, and pretty much coated the president with Teflon; recent approval ratings have topped 80 percent, and this excellent jungle adventure no doubt will boost them yet higher. This country of nearly 45 million still has myriad and monstrous problems - poverty's still rampant; agrarian reform desperately needed; and despite billions sent by Washington for the antidrug Plan Colombia, the country remains the world's top cocaine exporter, with coca production up 27 percent last year. Still, it's hard to get around the fact that after decades of do-nothing governments that were useless or worse (having been compromised and even infiltrated by drug traffickers or paramilitaries), arguably Uribe may have been the right man at the right time.

There's still another big problem, though: there's definitely a dark side to Uribe. Allegations are constantly surfacing of his past ties to Pablo Escobar and other narco-traffickers, as well as death squads (including helping them plan at least one village massacre), dating from his tenure as governor of Antioquia state. Union members, the political opposition, and human-rights activists are still being harassed and even killed at alarming levels, and some critics say the government has an indirect (sometimes not so indirect) hand in that. More than two dozen members of Uribe's legislative supporters have been arrested for similar ties and corruption (including his own cousin), and the president himself is being investigated for bribing opposition lawmakers in 2004 to vote for the change in the constitution that allowed him to run for a second consecutive term. It's certainly true that this president's tenure has been marked by highhandedness and casual disrespect for constitutional norms (sound familiar?), and after flip-flopping on a campaign promise and ramming through the '04 constitutional change, now he's angling for a referendum to allow him a third. And you'd better believe he'll be exploiting to the hilt this past week's dramatic blow against the FARC, just like Bush did so brazenly with 9/11.

Yet ironically, though Madame Betancourt has added immeasureably to Uribe's luster in the short term, in the 2010 election it could be she who rescues her country from yet another populist version of the traditional Latin American caudillo (strongman). She was already Colombia's second most popular politician after Uribe and was always anti-FARC and anti-corruption; now she's become its Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi. With her "Ph.D. in FARC studies," as she put it, after six years in captivity Betancourt is the perfect candidate to combine toughness on terrorism, narcotrafficking, and paramilitaries with the progressive sensibility, compassion, and concern for social justice seemingly lacking in Uribe. Besides promising a campaign to free the rest of the FARC's 700 hostages by methods including negotiation, she has also hinted at another run for the top job. If she does, Ingrid Betancourt could become not just one the world's most respected presidents but also a much-needed beacon of hope in Latin America. And one of these years, we can no doubt also look forward to her trip to Stockholm.

Ingrid Para Presidente

¡Qué casualidad! Sucede que en plena visita de John McCain a Colombia y su presidente Álvaro Uribe (amigote de Bush y critico de Obama) buscando mejorar su imagen entre los votantes hispanos de EEUU, el ejército colombiano rescata de manos de las FARC a Ingrid Betancourt, tres asesores al ejército estadounidense y once militares y policías colombianos en una operación que merece celebrarse en la historia al nivel del inspirante rescate del aeropuerto de Entebbe o de la nave Andrea Doria. En toda América Latina, la gente se botó para la calle a sonar el claxon, y no dudo que en Hollywood los teléfonos aún sigan sonando todo este fin de semana. Shakira y Juanes por supuesto están contentísimos, al igual que el Vaticano (a pesar de que Betancourt en su primera campaña para el senado hace diez años repartió "condones contra la corrupción"; con la Curia el sexo tiene que ser "a pelo", como dicen los mexicanos, o nada).

Hasta Hugo Chávez se ha visto obligado a fingir la alegría, aunque este acontecimiento le haya quitado la ventaja política que buscaba en facilitar negociaciones entre las FARC y el gobierno de Uribe. No obstante e inevitablemente, algunos en la prensa án aguando la fiesta, sugiriendo que la operación se llevó a cabo no por sorpresa y clandestinamente, sino sobornando a selectos guerrilleros. Y a Chávez parece que se le olvidó comunicarle la línea oficial de alegría a sus propagandistas en la Agencia Bolivariana de Prensa, quienes tuvieron la cara dura y cinismo de alegar que el rescate violó y se burló de la "ley humanitaria internacional" por usar trucos como un helicóptero pintado con una cruz roja. "Ni siquiera Ingrid Betancourt puede salvar al narcopresidente colombiano," han declarado en su desdén.

Pero al parecer, ella lo está salvando de maravilla, al menor por ahora. Desde que asumió la presidencia en el 2002, Uribe no ha sido siempre fácil de estereotipar. Claro, en muchos sentidos este hombre diminutivo ha resultado ser un derechista combativo, pero su éxito en dar marcha atrás al descenso de Colombia hacia un narco-estado fallido ha reforzado inmensamente la confianza y optimismo de los pobres tanto como de los ricos, y le ha dado a este presidente una popularidad que lo hace parecer invulnerable; los recientes sondeos de opinión le dan por lo menos un 80 por ciento de aprobación popular, y este éxito en la selva lo hará sin duda aún más apreciado por el momento. Este país de casi 45 millones aún sufre muchos y enormes problemas -- abunda la pobreza; urge la reforma agraria; y a pesar de los mil millones proveídos por Washington a la campaña anti-droga del Plan Colombia, el país sigue siendo el primer exportador mundial de cocaína, con una subida del 27 por ciento en la producción de coca el año pasado. Aún así, se podría decir que muy posiblemente, después de décadas de gobiernos inútiles o peor (comprometidos o hasta infiltrados por narcotraficantes y paramilitares), Uribe haya sido el hombre correcto para su país en este momento de la historia.

Pero hay otro gran problema: Uribe tiene sin duda alguna su lado oscuro. Constantemente aparecen testigos acusándolo de vínculos con Pablo Escobar y otros narcos, además de escuadrones de la muerte durante su gestion como gobernador del departamento de Antioquía (en un caso se le ha acusado inclusive de ayudar en la coordinación de una masacre en un pueblo). Algunos críticos van más allá, insistiendo que el gobierno tiene algo que ver con el hostigamiento (y a veces asesinato) en números alarmantes de sindicalistas, opositores políticos, y activistas por los derechos humanos. Casi cincuenta de sus apoyantes en el congreso han sido detenidos por similares vínculos y por corrupción (entre ellos su propio primo), y Uribe mismo está bajo investigación por sospecha de haber sobornado a legisladores en el '04 para que votasen a favor de un cambio constitucional que le permitiera al presidente postularse para un segundo período consecutivo de cuatro años. De hecho, durante el gobierno de este presidente, ha habido numerosas quejas de arrogancia y falta de respeto por las normas constitucionales. Además, después de renunciar su promesa de campaña y forzar la aprobación del cambio constitucional, ahora está preparando el camino para postularse por tercera vez. Y no dudemos que se aprovechará plenamente de este golpe dramático contra las FARC, tal y como lo hizo George Bush con las torres gemelas.

Pero irónicamente, aunque el rescate de Madame Betancourt haya realzado la imagen del presidente a corto plazo, en las elecciones del 2010 bien pudiera ser ella quien rescate a Colombia de de caer otra vez en el caudillismo. Desde hace tiempo ya era la segunda en popularidad en el país, siempre anti-FARC y anti-corrupción; y ahora transformada en el Nelson Mandela y la Aung San Suu Kyi de Colombia. Con su "especie de doctorado en las FARC," como dijo, después de seis años de cautiverio Betancourt podría ser la candidata perfecta que mezcla fuerza contra el terrorismo, narcotráfico, y paramilitares con la sensibilidad progresista, compasión, e interés en la justicia social de los cuales parece carecer Uribe. Además de prometer una campaña para obtener la libertad del resto de los 700 rehenes de las FARC (negociando si hiciera falta), ha indicado que se volvería a postular también para el cargo más alto de la nación. Si se presenta y gana, Ingrid Betancourt podría llegar a estar no sólo entre los presidentes más respetados del mundo sino también un faro de la esperanza para toda América Latina. Y no dudemos por un instante que un año de éstos la veremos viajando a Estocolmo.

Harold Pollack: Sorry Mr. President, but Jesse Helms was NOT a "kind, decent, and humble man," nor a "great patriot."

2008-07-05T20:31:17Z

Jesse Helms has passed, and what should we say? We can extend our condolences to the Helms family, who are not responsible for his misdeeds and odious views.

What else can you say? Here is one approach, according to my morning Tribune:

"Jesse Helms was a kind, decent, and humble man and a passionate defender of what he called 'the Miracle of America.' So it is fitting that this great patriot left us on the 4th of July," President George W. Bush said in a statement Friday.

Let's take a deep breath and re-read President Bush's statement.

Senator Helms was not a kind or decent man. I don't know how he treated close friends and immediate family, and I don't really care. In his public and political life, he was loathsome. Here is one story that, by itself, richly earns the label http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/04/jesse-helms-is-dead.aspx:

Soon after the Senate vote on the Confederate flag insignia, Sen. Jesse Helms (R.-N.C.) ran into [African-American Illinois Senator Carol] Mosely-Braun in a Capitol elevator. Helms turned to his friend, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), and said, "Watch me make her cry. I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing 'Dixie' until she cries." He then proceeded to sing the song about "the good life" during slavery to Mosely-Braun.

Dozens of other incidents make the same point. The only mildly surprising aspect of this one is the discovery that Orrin Hatch stood by during this ungentlemanly, in every way abominable display by his colleague and friend. The real "Miracle of America" is our glorious constitution, along with its accompanying imperfect effort to widen the circle of equality to include every American. The ranks of its passionate defenders do not include open segregationists.

More than anyone else, Helms openly opposed funding for HIV prevention and treatment because he regarded gays and lesbians--presumably drug users, too--as "disgusting people." He opposed academic research, the arts, foreign aid, the United Nations, domestic and international public health efforts, and of course affirmative action and the Martin Luther King holiday.

On the occasion of Helms' Senate retirement, courtly moderate David Broder wrote one of the very few personally ascerbic columns of his long newpaper career. Titled simply: "Jesse Helms, White Racist," Broder deserves enduring credit for saying what needed to be said. Broder sharply criticized his own paper for spending only two out of 54 paragraphs in a large retrospective noting Helms' racism. Reading the New York Times soft-pedeled obituary today, these words resonate.

I am amazed to see so many Conservatives and Republicans offer encomiums to this man today. Do they understand how such comments tarnish their legacies? Many call him a righteous and principled father of modern conservatism. Indeed he was, playing a key role supporting Ronald Reagan and other national Republican leaders.

The only thing fitting about Helms' July 4 passing is that we note the passing of the last openly racist, blatently un-Reconstructed southern politician.

So what do we say when an odious man passes from our midst? Here's my take: God bless his family, but good riddence to him.

Paul Szep: The Daily Szep- Caricature of Rush Limbaugh

2008-07-05T20:14:42Z

Robert J. Elisberg: Oregon Track Fans Prove Why They're The Best

2008-07-05T19:04:17Z

Oregon Track Fans Prove Why They're The Best

I've always read how Oregonians are the most knowledgeable track-and-field fans in the U.S. -- arguably the only "en masse" knowledgeable track-and-field fans in the U.S. That's pretty much why the current Olympic track-and-field trials are being held in Eugene, Oregon. The state began its world-class Prefontaine Classic in 1976, in honor of its favorite son, Steve Prefontaine.

I was watching the Olympic trials, being held in Hayward, Oregon, being aired on very late-night cable USA Network (the broadcast didn't even begin until 11 PM), and Oregon track fans proved their reputation again. Actually, they proved more than their reputation, but their uniqueness. Their supremacy. And they proved it in a joyous - and hilarious way.

For the 1500 meter semifinal race, only the top six finishers would make the finals. One of the contestants was a 16-year-old little kid, Jordan Hasay, from San Luis Obispo, California. And when I say "little kid," it's not a comment on merely just that she is 16. She's tiny and has a long, flowing ponytail all the way down her back. A newspaper account the morning after the race described her as "peanut-sized." She has a bubbly, excitable kid "Oh, my god," personality. In fact, she almost wasn't even a contestant - arriving at the trials not even knowing if she'd be able to run. She'd had the 31st fastest time, and two people had to drop out for her to get in. But she and her folks had showed up anyway -- she said she simply liked watching the races.

Finally getting into the race, she was running back in the pack most of the time, but on the last lap started to move up. And has she neared the final turn, now in around eighth place, she put on a final-stretch spring and moved up into qualifying sixth place - and then even passed that runner and finished fifth. Moreover, she set an American high school record, running just over 4:14, breaking the old record by almost two full seconds. (She finished out of first by just 2.75 seconds.) The announcers were enthusiastic and commented on how college track coaches were probably salivating all over the country, not just in Oregon.

Hasay gave a bubbly interview right after, and was so enthusiastic, overwhelmed that she simply made the finals. "It was so unbelievable," she kept saying. "It was so unbelievable." (Later she was still bubbling when she told San Francisco Chronicle reporters, "It was incredible. Every time I picked off a runner I could hear the crowd screaming," adding that "I was pretty tired at the end. The last 300 I gave it all I had to see what I could do.")

And then the broadcast cut to a commercial. But the people who'd filled the stadium for their beloved sport hadn't had their say yet.

When USA Network at last got back from the break, you could tell something was up, because the announcer had an almost-incredulous sound in his voice, as he commented about the knowledgeable Oregon track fans. After which he said, "We're going to show you what just took place and see if you can make out what the crowd is chanting."

It's usually near-impossible to understand clearly what crowds are shouting. But this was clear as day. They ran the tape, and there was this little, "peanut-sized" girl sitting on the side of the track, looking up into the crowd, a huge beaming smile on her face and waving to them. And she was no doubt smiling because you could hear what sounded like half the huge stadium chanting in this massive roar --

Go to Or-e-gon (Clap-Clap ClapClapClap)
Go to Or-e-gon (Clap-Clap ClapClapClap)
Go to Or-e-gon (Clap-Clap ClapClapClap)

Now those are track fans.

It was absolutely hysterical to hear. And even more wonderful.

But there was one problem for all those track coaches hoping. She's only a junior...

[Photo credit: Los Angeles Times]

Jordan Hasay was supposed to have flown to Poland on Friday, to run in the USA Juniors track-and-field world meet. She got special dispensation for U.S. officials who re-booked her flight, so that she could leave on Monday.

The Olympic finals in Oregon are on Sunday.

Ryan J. Davis: Help Save NYC Nightlife

2008-07-05T18:39:57Z

This Tuesday, you have a real opportunity to stand up for New York City nightlife, which has been increasingly under attack from a small group of residents. These groups are fighting to end the city's legacy as a global nightlife destination, attempting to allow fewer licenses to be issued, closing bars early, and even shutting down some venues.

The historic Roxy nightclub is attempting to reopen, and their ability to obtain a liquor license may be blocked by Chelsea's fringe anti-nightlife activists. On Tuesday, you can attend Community Board Four's Business Licenses & Permits Meeting and ask the Board to preserve New York's outstanding nightlife.

Roxy could practically be designated a landmark, defined in New York City as a structure at least thirty years old that possesses "...a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or nation," according to the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Roxy first opened in the 1970s as a roller disco, and was known as the 'Studio 54 of roller rinks,' whose guest list included the 1980 US Mens Hockey Team, which had just won an Olympic Gold Medal for the United States. In 1982, Roxy transformed into one of the birthplaces of hip hop, showcasing hip hop pioneers as illustrious as Afrika Bambaataa and Grandmaster Flash. My own memories are more recent; I was a regular attendee of Roxy Saturdays, the John Blair-sponsored gay night where icons like Madonna and Cher would occasionally perform. Even beyond its cultural and historical importance, though, Roxy was an absolute success story as a clubgoing destination; it remains a beloved fixture in New York's nightlife and has earned the right to reopen in the neighborhood that it has fostered for over thirty years.

Beyond The Roxy's license problem, there is a disturbing trend first reported last April in The New York Sun. "In most parts of Manhattan, bar and club owners say, it has become nearly impossible to open new nightlife establishments that are permitted to serve alcohol until 4 am." The "City That Never Sleeps" is under attack from those residents who move into neighborhoods that have been revitalized in large part by their vibrant nightlife, only to attempt gut that very nightlife and turn the neighborhoods into the equivalent of suburban bedroom communities. Unless we act now, we could see our 4am nightspots dwindle off. Make your voice heard Tuesday.

This is more than a lifestyle concern; nightclubs and the businesses that serve them bring over $10 billion in economic activity to New York City and employ over 100,000 people. On Tuesday, tell the Board that failure to grant full liquor licenses will effect thousands of your friends and neighbors.

The fight won't be over Tuesday, though: please mark your calendars for Wednesday, July 23rd, when the full board will meet to debate its final recommendation to the State Liquor Authority. We need hundreds of people, gay and otherwise, to come and show power in action. The anti-nightlife frenzy of Community Board Four is destroying the quality of life for thousands of people in our community. Let's
exercise our democratic rights and reopen Roxy.

I hope you'll join me at both meetings. Bring a friend. Bring five. The future of New York City nightlife is in your hands. And hey, we can all go out for some drinks afterwards. Hopefully we can find a place nearby still open.

Meeting Details:

Community Board 4, Business Licenses & Permits Meeting, Tuesday, July 8th @ 6:30PM at The Westin Hotel (270 W. 43rd St.) in The Minetta Room.

Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008, 6:30 p.m, Roosevelt Hospital, 1000 Tenth
Av. (b. 58th / 59th)

PS: Want to help? Attend this Facebook Event and invite your friends!See you Tuesday.

Originally Posted on Fancy Animals.

Jonathan Handel: Qualified Voting Redux

2008-07-05T18:12:54Z

Remember "qualified voting"? Also called "affected voting," it's the idea that only some union members should be eligible to vote on a contract (or strike authorization): namely, those who are actually affected by it - i.e., those who work under the contract. The countervailing argument is that unions are supposed to be united, and thus any member should be able to vote on any contract.

Several months ago, anti-strike forces in SAG pushed for qualified voting, putting forward a proposal that would have disqualified many SAG members from voting because they hadn't worked even a day in the previous 12 months as a SAG actor. That would have reduced the likelihood of a strike, because actors who aren't working have little to fear from a work stoppage (they're already not working). SAG leadership killed the proposal, describing the proposal as anti-democratic.

Ironically, while spurning qualified voting for their own union, SAG's leadership urges it on AFTRA, complaining that news anchors, weathermen, and assorted other non-actors get to vote on the AFTRA primetime deal now out for ratification. That complaint seems a bit hypocritical to me. What's good for the SAG goose should be good for the AFTRA gander.

For what it's worth, the Writers Guild uses a hybrid system: news writers didn't get to vote on the WGA deal, but all other members, even those whose only credits or writing income was in the distant past, did. That included not only writers of features and scripted TV, but also writers of game shows and late-night variety shows, which are rather different businesses than traditional scripted work.

To put a cherry on it all, we turn to recent news from a third actors union (they all should merge one day), Actors' Equity, which reached a deal with Broadway theater owners on its own contract earlier this week. In passing, Variety discusses the ratification procedure that will now follow: the contract will be sent to the members, "with voting eligibility reserved for members who have worked under the production contract since 2000." Sounds a lot like the qualified voting that SAG rejected. Is Equity inequitable, or just sensible? I'm almost sorry I raised the question.

Arianna Huffington: Sunday Roundup

2008-07-05T18:01:24Z

This week FARC got Punk'd; More of the Same McCain got even more so by putting a Rove acolyte at the controls of his campaign; and Condi Rice showed how limited her imagination is, saying the Iraq war has been "tougher than any of us dreamed." Actually, Madame Secretary, many people were wide awake before the war and warned that it would be a nightmare. Of course, Rice has displayed her tragic lack of imagination before, claiming no one "could have predicted" terrorists flying airplanes into buildings before 9/11 despite the fact that, in the words of the 9/11 Commission, such a "possibility was imaginable, and imagined" by multiple government and law enforcement agencies. Perhaps upon her return to Stanford, she can enroll in some imagination expansion courses.

Erin Kotecki Vest: I'll See Your GrassRoots FISA Problem and Raise You Some Pissed Off Women

2008-07-05T17:34:42Z

I'm not going to lie.

My brain still fuzzy after the 4th's fireworks and libations, I had to rub my eyes and go get my glasses upon reading this morning's headlines.

"Obama: Mental distress can't justify late abortion"

My heart sank.

Then I had to clear the cobwebs from my brain and process what was being said before I cried into my Women for Obama t-shirt.

Here is the short version, and what went on in my head as I read:

Senator Obama did an interview with some Christian magazine and said

Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."
Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

In my head:

oh holy hell, is he pandering to the right with this crap? are you kidding me? why would he even talk about limits and and definitions when the women's vote is being so heavily courted by Senator McCain...is he talking about limits on just late term or could this carry over into 'mental distress' in any termination of pregnancy and what exactly qualifies as 'mental distress' and who gets to decide and why is the government even INVOLVED in this and why on earth wold he say some like that to a Christian magazine and would he have said the same to planned parenthood and what in the hell is going on with my candidate because I realize this whole 'move to the center' thing is really just people educating themselves on where he has ALWAYS stood but has he always stood against mental distress/late term abortion stuff....crap I need coffee.

I then hinted to fellow Huffington Post contributor Lee Stranahan that he was welcome to drive the extra 20 minutes to deliver me a latte, since he was already out getting one for his wife. Lee politely mentioned something about gas prices and I begrudgingly made myself a pot.

I'm now two cups in and ready to break this down a bit so no one gets hysterical and suffers the same caffeine-free heart failure I did a few hours ago.

NARAL endorsed Obama. They believe "A health exception must also account for the mental health problems that may occur in pregnancy. Severe fetal anomalies, for example, can exact a tremendous emotional toll on a pregnant woman and her family."

If Obama acts on his position, he'd be going against NARAL and other pro-choice entities.

However, Obama spokespeople stress "Obviously, as he stated in the interview, he has consistently believed those exceptions should be clear and limited enough to ensure that they don't undermine the prohibition on late-term abortions."

Which I HOPE means he's not going to push that provision because it would undermine.

We will need clarification on that before we all go crazy here.

I'll be the first to admit late-term abortion is where my very staunch support of all reproductive rights gets clouded. It's uncomfortable to think about, to grapple with, to imagine. However I always default to the position of NOT knowing every woman's situation.

We also know our right to control our own reproduction is constantly under attack. The anti-choice movement takes every inch they can get on any issue on the table to tries and 'undermine' current laws and legislation.

The issues are varied and the debate is large and overwhelming.

Even in my own family, the discussion and debate causes problems. My husband and I disagree over parental consent and continue to go around-and-around on the topic.

I respect my husband's opinion, but I think he's wrong.

I respect Senator Obama's opinion, but I think he's wrong.

I still married my husband, and we continue to debate the issue.

I'm still voting for Obama, and expect we will continue to debate the issue.

Maybe voting is a bit like marriage.

My husband has core values that I agree with and we compromise and fight and respect each other on some of the details.

Senator Obama has a core values that I agree with...I'm guessing between FISA and this, the compromise and fight and respect on those details will also emerge.

So long as those core values remain, I'm guessing we can stay out of divorce proceedings.

So long as those core values remain, I'm guessing we can stay out of third-party candidate, write-in vote proceedings.

The Senator, like my husband, remains the best person for the job.

Although I wish they were both a bit more like Mrs. Stranahan's husband and would bring me some coffee.

Erin Kotecki Vest is Political Director at BlogHer.com and thinks she's Queen of the World on her own blog Queen of Spain blog. She also contributes over at MOMocrats where even her non-coffee bringing husband has guest posted so the entire family can Rage Against the McCain.