Dr. Epstein
Dr. Epstein was a renowned physician who earned his undergraduate, graduate, and medical degrees in his home town and then left for Manhattan, where he quickly rose to the top of his field.
Soon he was invited to deliver a significant paper, at a conference, coincidentally held in his home town. He walked on stage and placed his papers on the lectern, but they slid off onto the floor.
As he bent over to retrieve them, at precisely the wrong instant, he inadvertently farted. The microphone amplified his mistake
resoundingly through the room and reverberated it down the hall! He was quite embarrassed but somehow regained his composure just enough to deliver his paper. He ignored the resounding applause and raced out the stage door, never to be seen in his home town again.
Decades later, when his elderly mother was ill, he returned to visit her. He reserved a hotel room under the name of Levy and
arrived under cover of darkness.
The desk clerk asked him, "Is this your first visit to our city, Mr. Levy?"
Dr. Epstein replied, "Well, young man, no, it isn't. I grew up here and received my education here, but then I moved away."
Why haven't you visited?" asked the desk clerk.
Actually, I did visit once, many years ago, but an embarrassing thing happened and since then I've been too ashamed to return."
The clerk consoled him. "Sir, while I don't have your life experience, one thing I have learned is that often what seems
embarrassing to me isn't even remembered by others. I bet that's true of your incident too."
Dr. Epstein replied, "Son, I doubt that's the case with my incident."
"Was it a long time ago?"
"Yes, many years."
The clerk asked, "Was it before or after the Epstein Fart?"
.
Friday, July 31, 2009
U.S. Economy Shrank Less Than Expected in Quarter
U.S. Economy Shrank Less Than Expected in Quarter
By CATHERINE RAMPELL and JACK HEALY
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: July 31, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/economy/01econ.html?hp
The economy’s long, churning decline leveled off significantly from April through June, the government reported on Friday, supporting hopes that the economy would turn around in the second half of the year.
The American economy shrank at an annual pace of 1 percent in the second quarter, after contracting at an annual pace of 6.4 percent earlier this year. Government spending, bolstered by the first payouts from a $787 billion stimulus package, propped up the economy and accounted for 20 percent of the country’s output.
But consumer spending, which makes up about 70 percent of the overall economy, has continued to fall as fearful Americans hold onto their paychecks and whittle down their spending. This has led to concerns about what will happen once stimulus funds peter out.
“The most severe part of the decline is behind us,” said Joshua Shapiro, chief United States economist at MFR. “But it’s hard to say how sustainable whatever bounce we might see will be. It depends largely on whether the consumer has the genuine ability to spend, or if it’s all just government cheese being handed out.”
The increasing reliance on the government to fuel the economy — and the decreasing contributions from consumers — could put the Obama administration and other Democrats in a difficult position. Many economists say that even if the economy has bottomed, the recovery over the coming months or possibly years many be painfully slow.
“We’re going from recession to recovery, but at least early on, it’s not going to feel like one,” said the chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, Mark Zandi. “For economists, this is a seminal part in the business cycle, but for most Americans, it won’t mean much.”
Bright spots have been seen in stock markets, corporate profits, some housing markets and the pace of job losses. But generally the job market tends to follow the rest of the economy, as employers wait to hire more workers until their businesses strengthen. This means the threat of sustained, double-digit employment in coming months remains.
As long as employers keep slashing jobs, and consumers continue to hurt, pressure may mount on government officials to speed up the recovery.
“At some point it becomes Obama’s economy, not Bush’s economy anymore,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal research group in Washington. “He made a big mistake in overselling the first stimulus, and then in celebrating all the ‘green shoots.’ That just opens the door for people to say, ‘Where are my green shoots? I still don’t have a job.’ ”
Unemployment climbed to 9.5 percent in June, leaving a total of 15 million people out of work and looking for jobs. Consumers, wary of losing their jobs or already unemployed, cut their spending by 1.2 percent in the second quarter and saved more than 5 percent of their disposable income, a stark turnaround from their spendthrift behavior during the housing boom.
“Concerns about a possible ‘double-dip’ recession probably would focus mainly on the consumer,” said Nigel Gault, chief United States economist at IHS Global Insight. “If households continue to try to bump up their savings rate, any growth we get in the overall economy could certainly relapse.”
Friday’s report on gross domestic product — a broad gauge of the country’s output — painted a bleaker picture of the recession than earlier estimates had.
The Commerce Department said the economy tumbled downward by 6.4 percent this winter as the country reeled from the shocks of the financial crisis, and it said the economy grew only 0.4 percent in all of 2008, compared to earlier assessments of 1.1 percent growth.
Now, even with jobs still vanishing and wages flat, many forecasters expect the downturn to level off. Economists say that businesses from small manufacturers to big automakers are poised to rebuild their depleted inventories, which fell by an annualized $141 billion in the second quarter. That restocking could spur economic growth later this year.
The Commerce Department’s quarterly assessment offered a tour through a dreary year. The economy withered during each of the last four quarters, its longest contraction since the 1940s. Businesses cut their investments and laid off millions of workers. Imports and exports tumbled.
The country’s gross domestic product fell to $14.15 trillion in the second quarter, from $14.5 trillion in the second quarter of 2008.
In interviews, small-business owners across the country say the ground is slowly reforming under their feet, and that business no longer seems to be careening downward. Indeed, business investment in structures like new factories and office buildings fell at a rate of 8.9 percent in the second quarter after declining by more than 40 percent in the previous three months. And investment in equipment and software, which fell 36 percent this winter, dropped a more modest 9 percent in the second quarter.
But many employers who have laid off employees or scaled back say they are not about to increase their spending or start hiring.
In Nashville, Jerry Robertson laid off one of his 15 employees, cut his budget for advertising and trade shows and moved into a smaller office space to cut costs at his company, which helps trucking companies manage their operations. His business is down about 10 percent from last year, and clients are still falling off his books.
“We do see it not declining as fast as it was, but we don’t see any growth,” Mr. Robertson said. “We’re still going down.”
By CATHERINE RAMPELL and JACK HEALY
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: July 31, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/economy/01econ.html?hp
The economy’s long, churning decline leveled off significantly from April through June, the government reported on Friday, supporting hopes that the economy would turn around in the second half of the year.
The American economy shrank at an annual pace of 1 percent in the second quarter, after contracting at an annual pace of 6.4 percent earlier this year. Government spending, bolstered by the first payouts from a $787 billion stimulus package, propped up the economy and accounted for 20 percent of the country’s output.
But consumer spending, which makes up about 70 percent of the overall economy, has continued to fall as fearful Americans hold onto their paychecks and whittle down their spending. This has led to concerns about what will happen once stimulus funds peter out.
“The most severe part of the decline is behind us,” said Joshua Shapiro, chief United States economist at MFR. “But it’s hard to say how sustainable whatever bounce we might see will be. It depends largely on whether the consumer has the genuine ability to spend, or if it’s all just government cheese being handed out.”
The increasing reliance on the government to fuel the economy — and the decreasing contributions from consumers — could put the Obama administration and other Democrats in a difficult position. Many economists say that even if the economy has bottomed, the recovery over the coming months or possibly years many be painfully slow.
“We’re going from recession to recovery, but at least early on, it’s not going to feel like one,” said the chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, Mark Zandi. “For economists, this is a seminal part in the business cycle, but for most Americans, it won’t mean much.”
Bright spots have been seen in stock markets, corporate profits, some housing markets and the pace of job losses. But generally the job market tends to follow the rest of the economy, as employers wait to hire more workers until their businesses strengthen. This means the threat of sustained, double-digit employment in coming months remains.
As long as employers keep slashing jobs, and consumers continue to hurt, pressure may mount on government officials to speed up the recovery.
“At some point it becomes Obama’s economy, not Bush’s economy anymore,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal research group in Washington. “He made a big mistake in overselling the first stimulus, and then in celebrating all the ‘green shoots.’ That just opens the door for people to say, ‘Where are my green shoots? I still don’t have a job.’ ”
Unemployment climbed to 9.5 percent in June, leaving a total of 15 million people out of work and looking for jobs. Consumers, wary of losing their jobs or already unemployed, cut their spending by 1.2 percent in the second quarter and saved more than 5 percent of their disposable income, a stark turnaround from their spendthrift behavior during the housing boom.
“Concerns about a possible ‘double-dip’ recession probably would focus mainly on the consumer,” said Nigel Gault, chief United States economist at IHS Global Insight. “If households continue to try to bump up their savings rate, any growth we get in the overall economy could certainly relapse.”
Friday’s report on gross domestic product — a broad gauge of the country’s output — painted a bleaker picture of the recession than earlier estimates had.
The Commerce Department said the economy tumbled downward by 6.4 percent this winter as the country reeled from the shocks of the financial crisis, and it said the economy grew only 0.4 percent in all of 2008, compared to earlier assessments of 1.1 percent growth.
Now, even with jobs still vanishing and wages flat, many forecasters expect the downturn to level off. Economists say that businesses from small manufacturers to big automakers are poised to rebuild their depleted inventories, which fell by an annualized $141 billion in the second quarter. That restocking could spur economic growth later this year.
The Commerce Department’s quarterly assessment offered a tour through a dreary year. The economy withered during each of the last four quarters, its longest contraction since the 1940s. Businesses cut their investments and laid off millions of workers. Imports and exports tumbled.
The country’s gross domestic product fell to $14.15 trillion in the second quarter, from $14.5 trillion in the second quarter of 2008.
In interviews, small-business owners across the country say the ground is slowly reforming under their feet, and that business no longer seems to be careening downward. Indeed, business investment in structures like new factories and office buildings fell at a rate of 8.9 percent in the second quarter after declining by more than 40 percent in the previous three months. And investment in equipment and software, which fell 36 percent this winter, dropped a more modest 9 percent in the second quarter.
But many employers who have laid off employees or scaled back say they are not about to increase their spending or start hiring.
In Nashville, Jerry Robertson laid off one of his 15 employees, cut his budget for advertising and trade shows and moved into a smaller office space to cut costs at his company, which helps trucking companies manage their operations. His business is down about 10 percent from last year, and clients are still falling off his books.
“We do see it not declining as fast as it was, but we don’t see any growth,” Mr. Robertson said. “We’re still going down.”
White House Says ‘Clunkers’ Rebate Plan Will Go On
White House Says ‘Clunkers’ Rebate Plan Will Go On
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Copyright by The Associated Press
Published: July 31, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/01clunkers.html?hp
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted to provide an emergency $2 billion for the “cash for clunkers” program on Friday, and the White House declared the program very much alive, even though new-car shoppers appear to have already snapped up all the $1 billion that Congress originally appropriated for it.
A car was displayed in a dumpster at a dealer in Springfield, Vt., as a promotion for the rebate program, which was said to have exhausted its funds within a week.
The House shoved other business out of the way on its last day before the August recess to rush through a measure to address the cash shortage of the car program. The vote was 316 to 109, with significant support from Republicans as well as Democrats.
The Senate, which will be in session next week, will take up the program then. A spirited debate is likely, as some senators are expected to use the opportunity to push for tougher fuel-efficiency requirements. If the Senate does not go along with the House’s version, the House might have to return to work on a compromise.
The sudden legislative action was prompted by the overwhelming response to the program, formally known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, which its backers say has helped not only car-buyers but the struggling American automobile industry.
Earlier Friday, Robert Gibbs, the chief White House spokesman, offered assurances that the administration was looking for ways to continue the popular new program, which offers $3,500 to $4,500 for people who trade in an old car for a new one with higher fuel economy.
“If you were planning on going to buy a car this weekend using this program, the program continues to run,” he said. “If you meet the requirements of the program, the certificates will be honored.”
Mr. Gibbs declined to say how long the program could continue without an infusion of funds.
“We feel confident that we’ll have a solution that people can agree on moving forward, and that the program continues,” he said.
The $2 billion infusion approved by the House would come from money already set aside for an Energy Department’s loan guarantee program and give it to the rebate program.
“Consumers have spoken with their wallets,” Representative David R. Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin of chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said in urging quick passage.
The panel’s ranking Republican, Jerry Lewis of California, complained that Democrats, who have a 256-to-178 majority in the House, were rushing the measure through with too little thought, let alone debate — “shoveling another $2 billion out the door,” in his words.
But in the end, there was enough support from Republican in states that rely on the auto industry to speed the measure along.
Before the House vote, Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said it was not clear how long funds for the program would last, “so people should go to their car dealers now if they want to take advantage of the program.
Representative Steve Israel, Democrat of New York, predicted that $2 billion would be enough until Congress returns in September. But he added, “there’s going to be a lot of confusion among consumers. We need to wrap this up today.”
The program has proved a boon to the battered auto industry as it struggles to regain its footing, drawing crowds of customers to some showrooms as dealers aggressively promoted the rebates in ads over the last week.
Representatives of the nation’s car dealers said Thursday that they had been told by the Transportation Department to stop offering the rebates because the funds had been quickly exhausted.
But a White House official then said the program had not been suspended, creating confusion about its status.
There was wide support for an additional appropriation for “cash for clunkers,” with members of the Michigan delegation in the forefront. But support was not unanimous and some members of Congress thought the requirements should be tightened.
Senators Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, and Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, said in a joint statement that “we will insist that any extension of the program requires that the minimum fuel economy improvement for newly purchased vehicles be at least two miles per gallon higher than it is under the enacted Clunkers program.” For cars, the current minimum improvement is five miles a gallon. And, they said, to help low-income car owners take part, they would include vouchers for fuel-efficient used vehicles.
But Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts, one of the authors of the original bill, called for a simple extension. He declared Thursday night, “Cash for Clunkers may have run out of cash, but America’s consumers haven’t run out of clunkers.” He said it should be extended to cover 1 million vehicles, about four times the number covered so far.
Mr. Markey said so far participants in the program were getting a 69 percent improvement in fuel economy, with the trade-ins being mostly sport utility vehicles, trucks and vans with over 100,000 miles, being replaced with new passenger cars.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Rules May Limit Cash for Clunkers Program (June 27, 2009)
Comment Share Your Experience
Others were outright opposed; Representative Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican who sits on the House Budget Committee, called the program “another example of the government picking winners and losers.” The program, he said, “enshrines us as a bailout nation.”
In his district in East Texas, he said that Pilgrim’s Pride, a poultry producer, had recently filed for bankruptcy. “Where’s their ‘cash for cluckers’ program?” he asked.
Opposition to the original legislation calling for $4 billion in credits had prompted proponents to reduce the amount to $1 billion.
Meanwhile, some consumers were upset during the past week when mileage estimates were revised, disqualifying some who thought they were eligible. A Web site, NoCashForClunkers.com, has launched an online petition asking Congress to loosen the standards in any emergency legislation so more drivers can qualify.
The auto-rebate program, formally known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, was scheduled to be offered until Nov. 1, or as long as the money was available. But the program was so successful that it has exhausted all the money allocated within the first week. Dealers have submitted applications on behalf of consumers seeking rebates on about a quarter-million vehicles.
The National Automobile Dealers Association surveyed its members in recent days and warned the Transportation Department on Thursday that it had a very large backlog of applications, said Bailey Wood, a spokesman for the association.
Late in the day, the group said the Transportation Department had responded by telling it to stop taking applications at midnight. The government and the dealers were concerned that buyers would close trade-in deals to buy new cars assuming they had a big rebate coming only to discover later that money was not available.
The dealers’ group said late Thursday night that it had not heard about the White House policy reversing the decision. Mr. Wood said that his group would ask Congress and the White House to add money to the plan.
On Thursday evening, the government Web site describing the program, www.cars.gov, still showed a chart shaped like a fuel gauge that indicated $779 million was available for trade-ins of cars and light trucks. (By Friday morning, the chart had been removed from the site.) Earlier Thursday, the Transportation Department issued a news release that said that applications for fewer than 23,000 vehicles had been submitted as of Wednesday, with a rebate value of just under $100 million.
The Transportation Department had begun accepting applications for the rebates on Monday, when rules putting the program in place took effect. But car dealers had been accumulating the applications since July 1, when Congress put the law into effect.
The program had two goals: aiding the ailing car industry and improving fuel economy of the vehicles on the road.
Cars submitted under the program were to be junked. They had to be less than 25 years old and have a fuel economy, as rated by the window sticker, of 18 miles a gallon or less.
The size of the rebate depended on the fuel economy of the replacement vehicle. Consumers were also supposed to receive the scrap value of their trade-ins.
From the dealers’ point of view, the program was a resounding success.
“Two hundred and fifty thousand vehicles in four weeks?” Mr. Wood said. “One word comes out of my mouth: Wow.”
As word spread unofficially on Thursday night, car dealers were suddenly unsure of what to tell would-be buyers.
A Ford dealership in Paramus, N.J., did not know of the apparent suspension until a reporter called seeking comment.
Other dealers said they had no idea what the status of the program was, or whether the deals that they had already signed would be honored by the government. Some said they were notified by e-mail message by fellow dealers.
The dealers’ association, however, had been warning that the money would go quickly.
Under the program, a buyer who picked a car with a mileage improvement of more than four miles per gallon but less than 10 were eligible for $3,500; a buyer whose new vehicle was rated 10 miles per gallon or better than the old one was eligible for $4,500.
Until the cash-for-clunkers program began, the auto industry had been on track for annual sales of about 10 million units, down from the peak of about 16 million units a year.
Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Washington, and Micheline Maynard from Detroit.
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Copyright by The Associated Press
Published: July 31, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/01clunkers.html?hp
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted to provide an emergency $2 billion for the “cash for clunkers” program on Friday, and the White House declared the program very much alive, even though new-car shoppers appear to have already snapped up all the $1 billion that Congress originally appropriated for it.
A car was displayed in a dumpster at a dealer in Springfield, Vt., as a promotion for the rebate program, which was said to have exhausted its funds within a week.
The House shoved other business out of the way on its last day before the August recess to rush through a measure to address the cash shortage of the car program. The vote was 316 to 109, with significant support from Republicans as well as Democrats.
The Senate, which will be in session next week, will take up the program then. A spirited debate is likely, as some senators are expected to use the opportunity to push for tougher fuel-efficiency requirements. If the Senate does not go along with the House’s version, the House might have to return to work on a compromise.
The sudden legislative action was prompted by the overwhelming response to the program, formally known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, which its backers say has helped not only car-buyers but the struggling American automobile industry.
Earlier Friday, Robert Gibbs, the chief White House spokesman, offered assurances that the administration was looking for ways to continue the popular new program, which offers $3,500 to $4,500 for people who trade in an old car for a new one with higher fuel economy.
“If you were planning on going to buy a car this weekend using this program, the program continues to run,” he said. “If you meet the requirements of the program, the certificates will be honored.”
Mr. Gibbs declined to say how long the program could continue without an infusion of funds.
“We feel confident that we’ll have a solution that people can agree on moving forward, and that the program continues,” he said.
The $2 billion infusion approved by the House would come from money already set aside for an Energy Department’s loan guarantee program and give it to the rebate program.
“Consumers have spoken with their wallets,” Representative David R. Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin of chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said in urging quick passage.
The panel’s ranking Republican, Jerry Lewis of California, complained that Democrats, who have a 256-to-178 majority in the House, were rushing the measure through with too little thought, let alone debate — “shoveling another $2 billion out the door,” in his words.
But in the end, there was enough support from Republican in states that rely on the auto industry to speed the measure along.
Before the House vote, Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said it was not clear how long funds for the program would last, “so people should go to their car dealers now if they want to take advantage of the program.
Representative Steve Israel, Democrat of New York, predicted that $2 billion would be enough until Congress returns in September. But he added, “there’s going to be a lot of confusion among consumers. We need to wrap this up today.”
The program has proved a boon to the battered auto industry as it struggles to regain its footing, drawing crowds of customers to some showrooms as dealers aggressively promoted the rebates in ads over the last week.
Representatives of the nation’s car dealers said Thursday that they had been told by the Transportation Department to stop offering the rebates because the funds had been quickly exhausted.
But a White House official then said the program had not been suspended, creating confusion about its status.
There was wide support for an additional appropriation for “cash for clunkers,” with members of the Michigan delegation in the forefront. But support was not unanimous and some members of Congress thought the requirements should be tightened.
Senators Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, and Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, said in a joint statement that “we will insist that any extension of the program requires that the minimum fuel economy improvement for newly purchased vehicles be at least two miles per gallon higher than it is under the enacted Clunkers program.” For cars, the current minimum improvement is five miles a gallon. And, they said, to help low-income car owners take part, they would include vouchers for fuel-efficient used vehicles.
But Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts, one of the authors of the original bill, called for a simple extension. He declared Thursday night, “Cash for Clunkers may have run out of cash, but America’s consumers haven’t run out of clunkers.” He said it should be extended to cover 1 million vehicles, about four times the number covered so far.
Mr. Markey said so far participants in the program were getting a 69 percent improvement in fuel economy, with the trade-ins being mostly sport utility vehicles, trucks and vans with over 100,000 miles, being replaced with new passenger cars.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Rules May Limit Cash for Clunkers Program (June 27, 2009)
Comment Share Your Experience
Others were outright opposed; Representative Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican who sits on the House Budget Committee, called the program “another example of the government picking winners and losers.” The program, he said, “enshrines us as a bailout nation.”
In his district in East Texas, he said that Pilgrim’s Pride, a poultry producer, had recently filed for bankruptcy. “Where’s their ‘cash for cluckers’ program?” he asked.
Opposition to the original legislation calling for $4 billion in credits had prompted proponents to reduce the amount to $1 billion.
Meanwhile, some consumers were upset during the past week when mileage estimates were revised, disqualifying some who thought they were eligible. A Web site, NoCashForClunkers.com, has launched an online petition asking Congress to loosen the standards in any emergency legislation so more drivers can qualify.
The auto-rebate program, formally known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, was scheduled to be offered until Nov. 1, or as long as the money was available. But the program was so successful that it has exhausted all the money allocated within the first week. Dealers have submitted applications on behalf of consumers seeking rebates on about a quarter-million vehicles.
The National Automobile Dealers Association surveyed its members in recent days and warned the Transportation Department on Thursday that it had a very large backlog of applications, said Bailey Wood, a spokesman for the association.
Late in the day, the group said the Transportation Department had responded by telling it to stop taking applications at midnight. The government and the dealers were concerned that buyers would close trade-in deals to buy new cars assuming they had a big rebate coming only to discover later that money was not available.
The dealers’ group said late Thursday night that it had not heard about the White House policy reversing the decision. Mr. Wood said that his group would ask Congress and the White House to add money to the plan.
On Thursday evening, the government Web site describing the program, www.cars.gov, still showed a chart shaped like a fuel gauge that indicated $779 million was available for trade-ins of cars and light trucks. (By Friday morning, the chart had been removed from the site.) Earlier Thursday, the Transportation Department issued a news release that said that applications for fewer than 23,000 vehicles had been submitted as of Wednesday, with a rebate value of just under $100 million.
The Transportation Department had begun accepting applications for the rebates on Monday, when rules putting the program in place took effect. But car dealers had been accumulating the applications since July 1, when Congress put the law into effect.
The program had two goals: aiding the ailing car industry and improving fuel economy of the vehicles on the road.
Cars submitted under the program were to be junked. They had to be less than 25 years old and have a fuel economy, as rated by the window sticker, of 18 miles a gallon or less.
The size of the rebate depended on the fuel economy of the replacement vehicle. Consumers were also supposed to receive the scrap value of their trade-ins.
From the dealers’ point of view, the program was a resounding success.
“Two hundred and fifty thousand vehicles in four weeks?” Mr. Wood said. “One word comes out of my mouth: Wow.”
As word spread unofficially on Thursday night, car dealers were suddenly unsure of what to tell would-be buyers.
A Ford dealership in Paramus, N.J., did not know of the apparent suspension until a reporter called seeking comment.
Other dealers said they had no idea what the status of the program was, or whether the deals that they had already signed would be honored by the government. Some said they were notified by e-mail message by fellow dealers.
The dealers’ association, however, had been warning that the money would go quickly.
Under the program, a buyer who picked a car with a mileage improvement of more than four miles per gallon but less than 10 were eligible for $3,500; a buyer whose new vehicle was rated 10 miles per gallon or better than the old one was eligible for $4,500.
Until the cash-for-clunkers program began, the auto industry had been on track for annual sales of about 10 million units, down from the peak of about 16 million units a year.
Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Washington, and Micheline Maynard from Detroit.
Market Days celebrates Mardi Gras
Market Days celebrates Mardi Gras
By Amy Wooten
Copyright by The Chicago Free Press
July 30, 2009
http://www.chicagofreepress.com/node/3747
This summer may have been unseasonably cool, but the upcoming Market Days street festival will surely heat things up.
Market Days, hosted by Northalsted Area Merchants Association, is one of Boystown’s biggest summertime events. The popular festival is set for Aug. 1-2, and is open from 11 a.m.-10 p.m. each day along Halsted Street from Belmont to Addison.
According to Market Days chairperson Jeff Durbin, the annual festival is trying out two new things in hopes of making the bash more spectacular than ever.
First of all, this year’s Market Days has a theme—“Mardi Gras”—for the first time ever. Booths will look less like they were just thrown haphazardly together along Halsted Street.
“We’re trying to get a little cohesiveness on the street,” Durbin said.
Secondly, Market Days organizers are introducing a new VIP Stage located at Addison and Halsted. While Market Days attendees can still see tons of fabulous bands for the $7 gate donation, people now have the option of buying $30 or $50 tickets that gives them access to the VIP Stage. Ticket holders will have VIP access to several headlining acts (like Syesha Mercado, Lucas Prata, Kristine W and En Vogue on Saturday, and CeCe Peniston, Kathy Sledge, Berlin and Jody Watley on Sunday). They will also have access to private bathrooms, drink tickets and a liquor tent. For $30, get Back of the House VIP Access and one free drink ticket. For $50, get Front of the House VIP Access and two free drink tickets.
While organizers are excited to unveil this new addition, the announcement is causing some confusion and anger in the community. Some believe the VIP Stage will take entertainment away from those who only pay the $7 gate donation. Durbin stressed that the people without VIP access will still have a great time. Non-VIP ticket holders will still be able to see (although there are some obstructions) and hear the VIP Stage acts, and will still have access to several high-quality acts on other stages throughout the weekend. Others have complained about the cost of the VIP tickets. Durbin said 100 percent of ticket sales to the VIP Stage events pay for the entertainment NAMA would otherwise not have been able to afford. That, and “paying roughly $7.50 or so for each of these acts is a really great deal,” Durbin said.
“We’re not taking anything away,” Durbin added. “We’re giving the festival something it’s never had. This is just adding something extra to the festival.”
Non-VIP Stage ticket holders still have access to over 40 acts on the Belmont and Roscoe Stages, as well as the Jazz Oasis. On Saturday, see tons of performers like Dot Dot Dot, Rock Candy, Levi Kreis and 16 Candles. On Sunday, don’t miss Cat Fight, Linda Clifford and the Village People, among many others. Over the weekend, the Jazz Oasis offers everything from jazz and blues acts to a fashion show and cabaret performance. And when you aren’t enjoying music and performance, there are over 400 food and arts and crafts vendors to check out.
Like every year, each $7 gate donation not only helps fund the festival, but also helps maintain Boystown’s streets, paying for extras like daily street sweeping, extra summer security and more.
See the complete lineup or purchase tickets at chicagoevents.com.
By Amy Wooten
Copyright by The Chicago Free Press
July 30, 2009
http://www.chicagofreepress.com/node/3747
This summer may have been unseasonably cool, but the upcoming Market Days street festival will surely heat things up.
Market Days, hosted by Northalsted Area Merchants Association, is one of Boystown’s biggest summertime events. The popular festival is set for Aug. 1-2, and is open from 11 a.m.-10 p.m. each day along Halsted Street from Belmont to Addison.
According to Market Days chairperson Jeff Durbin, the annual festival is trying out two new things in hopes of making the bash more spectacular than ever.
First of all, this year’s Market Days has a theme—“Mardi Gras”—for the first time ever. Booths will look less like they were just thrown haphazardly together along Halsted Street.
“We’re trying to get a little cohesiveness on the street,” Durbin said.
Secondly, Market Days organizers are introducing a new VIP Stage located at Addison and Halsted. While Market Days attendees can still see tons of fabulous bands for the $7 gate donation, people now have the option of buying $30 or $50 tickets that gives them access to the VIP Stage. Ticket holders will have VIP access to several headlining acts (like Syesha Mercado, Lucas Prata, Kristine W and En Vogue on Saturday, and CeCe Peniston, Kathy Sledge, Berlin and Jody Watley on Sunday). They will also have access to private bathrooms, drink tickets and a liquor tent. For $30, get Back of the House VIP Access and one free drink ticket. For $50, get Front of the House VIP Access and two free drink tickets.
While organizers are excited to unveil this new addition, the announcement is causing some confusion and anger in the community. Some believe the VIP Stage will take entertainment away from those who only pay the $7 gate donation. Durbin stressed that the people without VIP access will still have a great time. Non-VIP ticket holders will still be able to see (although there are some obstructions) and hear the VIP Stage acts, and will still have access to several high-quality acts on other stages throughout the weekend. Others have complained about the cost of the VIP tickets. Durbin said 100 percent of ticket sales to the VIP Stage events pay for the entertainment NAMA would otherwise not have been able to afford. That, and “paying roughly $7.50 or so for each of these acts is a really great deal,” Durbin said.
“We’re not taking anything away,” Durbin added. “We’re giving the festival something it’s never had. This is just adding something extra to the festival.”
Non-VIP Stage ticket holders still have access to over 40 acts on the Belmont and Roscoe Stages, as well as the Jazz Oasis. On Saturday, see tons of performers like Dot Dot Dot, Rock Candy, Levi Kreis and 16 Candles. On Sunday, don’t miss Cat Fight, Linda Clifford and the Village People, among many others. Over the weekend, the Jazz Oasis offers everything from jazz and blues acts to a fashion show and cabaret performance. And when you aren’t enjoying music and performance, there are over 400 food and arts and crafts vendors to check out.
Like every year, each $7 gate donation not only helps fund the festival, but also helps maintain Boystown’s streets, paying for extras like daily street sweeping, extra summer security and more.
See the complete lineup or purchase tickets at chicagoevents.com.
Former Chicago couple wins unprecedented Brazilian victory
Former Chicago couple wins unprecedented Brazilian victory
By Amy Wooten
Copyright by The Chicago Free Press
July 30, 2009
http://www.chicagofreepress.com/node/3752
A few years ago, a binational gay couple was forced to leave Chicago and move to Brazil, just so they could be together. Their story, unfortunately, is hardly unique. But the couple just won an unprecedented court ruling in Brazil that they hope serves as a wake up call to folks back in the U.S.
Late last month, U.S. citizen and former Chicagoan Chris Bohlander won the right to live permanently in Brazil with his partner, Zemir Magalhaes, The couple left Chicago three years ago to live together in Goiânia, Goiás, a state in central Brazil. Last month, a Brazilian judge allowed Bohlander to obtain a permanent residency visa—which is normally only given to the foreign spouse of a Brazilian—based on their civil union, which was recognized by a Goiás judge last year. While the government can appeal the decision, the favorable decision is seen as a huge victory for them and GLBT Brazilians.
The couple first met in Brazil. In 1998, the two moved in together in Chicago. Eventually, they were able to secure a visa so Magalhaes could stay. But a few years back, when Magalhaes’ status was ready to expire, the two decided it was best to move to Brazil, where they thought it would be easy for Bohlander to obtain a green card.
Bohlander moved to Brazil with hope. He believed that a recent Rio Grande do Sul ruling in favor of a same-sex binational couple set a precedent. Little did he know that in Brazil, the precedent must be set over and over again.
“I was really surprised to have the same problems here in Brazil,” Bohlander said.
Magalhaes said that after his partner’s visa expired, the couple faced a lot of difficulty. Bohlander couldn’t drive, and the couple was always afraid of his being discovered by authorities, which would mean immediate deportation for Bohlander.
“We were always afraid the police would stop us,” Magalhaes said. “We were living in fear.”
During this time period, the couple reached out to the local GLBT community for answers, but found none, even from GLBT activists and lawyers. Used to the well-organized, close-knit Chicago GLBT community, they were shocked.
While Brazil has a reputation for being an open-minded environment, in part because São Paulo, Brazil, is home to the world’s largest Pride Parade, drawing close to 3.5 million people each year, the couple says Brazil is far from that.
“The cultures are so different,” Bohlander said, adding that the area they live in is very conservative.
Magalhaes said many GLBTs are deeply closeted, fearing that their families will find out their sexuality and reject them. And while Brazil recognizes legal same-sex unions performed abroad for immigration purposes and the southern state of Rio Grande do Dul offers civil unions, the country, as a whole, has a long way to go in terms of GLBT rights. For instance, Brazil has astonishingly high rates of hate crimes against GLBT people.
“Gays and lesbians just hide,” said Magalhaes, who is originally from the western state of Mato Grosso, Brazil.
So when the couple turned to GLBT Brazilian activists, not a single one knew what to do to help the duo stay together. They knew that another binational couple had success by bribing the government, but for Bohlander and Magalhaes, they found that option to be not only deplorable, but also financially unrealistic.
Luckily, a brave and hard-working 28-year-old lawyer, Yuri de Oliveira Pinheiro Valente, stepped forward and took on the case.
“He’s the only one who would take our case,” Bohlander said, adding that the attorney “was just young enough and inexperienced enough to not know any better.”
Valente was able to get the couple’s union recognized in May 2008, and in October 2008, filed a request for Bohlander to obtain a permanent residency visa based on the couple’s civil union.
In Brazil, the couple’s victory is seen as a huge deal, especially because the ruling is based on the fundamental rights and protections guaranteed all Brazilians under the country’s constitution. While they aren’t the first binational couple to receive a favorable ruling, the wording in this case is unprecedented.
Bohlander and Magalhaes are very pleased that the ruling has made such a splash in Brazilian media. “We want to make a big noise,” Bohlander said, “because we want others to do it, too.”
Magalhaes, who knows the community’s silence all too well, hopes that more couples come forward and choose to live openly and fight for their relationship. “I hope the gay community here in Brazil can fight more for their rights,” he said. “Right now, they are afraid to even come out. But we have them the first step. I hope we set an example.”
The couple would like to visit the States again, but said it’s not financially possible right now. Bohlander said the two would prefer to live in Chicago, which they both miss terribly.
“I hope people read about us and think, ‘What’s wrong with this picture? Why should an American move all the way to Brazil just to be with his family?’” Bohlander said. “I hope things change in the U.S. so someday we can come home.”
By Amy Wooten
Copyright by The Chicago Free Press
July 30, 2009
http://www.chicagofreepress.com/node/3752
A few years ago, a binational gay couple was forced to leave Chicago and move to Brazil, just so they could be together. Their story, unfortunately, is hardly unique. But the couple just won an unprecedented court ruling in Brazil that they hope serves as a wake up call to folks back in the U.S.
Late last month, U.S. citizen and former Chicagoan Chris Bohlander won the right to live permanently in Brazil with his partner, Zemir Magalhaes, The couple left Chicago three years ago to live together in Goiânia, Goiás, a state in central Brazil. Last month, a Brazilian judge allowed Bohlander to obtain a permanent residency visa—which is normally only given to the foreign spouse of a Brazilian—based on their civil union, which was recognized by a Goiás judge last year. While the government can appeal the decision, the favorable decision is seen as a huge victory for them and GLBT Brazilians.
The couple first met in Brazil. In 1998, the two moved in together in Chicago. Eventually, they were able to secure a visa so Magalhaes could stay. But a few years back, when Magalhaes’ status was ready to expire, the two decided it was best to move to Brazil, where they thought it would be easy for Bohlander to obtain a green card.
Bohlander moved to Brazil with hope. He believed that a recent Rio Grande do Sul ruling in favor of a same-sex binational couple set a precedent. Little did he know that in Brazil, the precedent must be set over and over again.
“I was really surprised to have the same problems here in Brazil,” Bohlander said.
Magalhaes said that after his partner’s visa expired, the couple faced a lot of difficulty. Bohlander couldn’t drive, and the couple was always afraid of his being discovered by authorities, which would mean immediate deportation for Bohlander.
“We were always afraid the police would stop us,” Magalhaes said. “We were living in fear.”
During this time period, the couple reached out to the local GLBT community for answers, but found none, even from GLBT activists and lawyers. Used to the well-organized, close-knit Chicago GLBT community, they were shocked.
While Brazil has a reputation for being an open-minded environment, in part because São Paulo, Brazil, is home to the world’s largest Pride Parade, drawing close to 3.5 million people each year, the couple says Brazil is far from that.
“The cultures are so different,” Bohlander said, adding that the area they live in is very conservative.
Magalhaes said many GLBTs are deeply closeted, fearing that their families will find out their sexuality and reject them. And while Brazil recognizes legal same-sex unions performed abroad for immigration purposes and the southern state of Rio Grande do Dul offers civil unions, the country, as a whole, has a long way to go in terms of GLBT rights. For instance, Brazil has astonishingly high rates of hate crimes against GLBT people.
“Gays and lesbians just hide,” said Magalhaes, who is originally from the western state of Mato Grosso, Brazil.
So when the couple turned to GLBT Brazilian activists, not a single one knew what to do to help the duo stay together. They knew that another binational couple had success by bribing the government, but for Bohlander and Magalhaes, they found that option to be not only deplorable, but also financially unrealistic.
Luckily, a brave and hard-working 28-year-old lawyer, Yuri de Oliveira Pinheiro Valente, stepped forward and took on the case.
“He’s the only one who would take our case,” Bohlander said, adding that the attorney “was just young enough and inexperienced enough to not know any better.”
Valente was able to get the couple’s union recognized in May 2008, and in October 2008, filed a request for Bohlander to obtain a permanent residency visa based on the couple’s civil union.
In Brazil, the couple’s victory is seen as a huge deal, especially because the ruling is based on the fundamental rights and protections guaranteed all Brazilians under the country’s constitution. While they aren’t the first binational couple to receive a favorable ruling, the wording in this case is unprecedented.
Bohlander and Magalhaes are very pleased that the ruling has made such a splash in Brazilian media. “We want to make a big noise,” Bohlander said, “because we want others to do it, too.”
Magalhaes, who knows the community’s silence all too well, hopes that more couples come forward and choose to live openly and fight for their relationship. “I hope the gay community here in Brazil can fight more for their rights,” he said. “Right now, they are afraid to even come out. But we have them the first step. I hope we set an example.”
The couple would like to visit the States again, but said it’s not financially possible right now. Bohlander said the two would prefer to live in Chicago, which they both miss terribly.
“I hope people read about us and think, ‘What’s wrong with this picture? Why should an American move all the way to Brazil just to be with his family?’” Bohlander said. “I hope things change in the U.S. so someday we can come home.”
Washington Post Editorial: A Vote on Principle
Washington Post Editorial: A Vote on Principle
Sen. Lindsey Graham's approach to judicial nominations should be emulated by his colleagues.
Copyright by The Washington Post
Friday, July 31, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073003328.html
IN WHAT HAS become a rare phenomenon, a United States senator rose above partisan backbiting and interest-group pressures to support a Supreme Court nominee put forth by the other party. In casting his vote for Judge Sonia Sotomayor Tuesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) struck a blow for comity, decency and intellectual honesty.
"You decided to vote for a man you would not have chosen," Mr. Graham said, referring to Democratic members of the committee who voted to confirm John G. Roberts Jr., President George W. Bush's nominee for chief justice. "I'm deciding to vote for a woman that I would not have chosen."
Mr. Graham, the only Republican on the Senate panel to vote in favor of Judge Sotomayor, said he was doing so because he concluded that she was qualified. Other Republican members also acknowledged her qualifications but voted no because of concerns over her alleged hostility to the Second Amendment and property rights, and the possibility that she would let her personal preferences supplant the law in rendering decisions. Never mind that Judge Sotomayor repeatedly affirmed an individual's right to bear arms and proved during her 17-year tenure on the federal bench that she could separate her personal feelings from her professional duties as a judge.
Mr. Graham's vote has a significance that transcends any single nominee. He was a member of the Gang of 14, a bipartisan group of senators that helped avert filibusters of judicial nominees during the Bush administration. He is standing by the same principles today even though a Democrat now occupies the White House. "What I'm trying to do with my vote is to recognize that we came perilously close to damaging an institution, the judiciary, that has held this country together in difficult times," Mr. Graham added. "The law should be a quiet place, where even the most unpopular can have a shot."
Judge Sotomayor's confirmation, which the full Senate is likely to take up next week, is not seriously in doubt; a handful of Republican senators have already announced their intention to join the majority Democrats in supporting her. More Republican senators should do likewise. Judge Sotomayor may not be their nominee of choice, but as Mr. Graham has noted, elections have consequences.
Sen. Lindsey Graham's approach to judicial nominations should be emulated by his colleagues.
Copyright by The Washington Post
Friday, July 31, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073003328.html
IN WHAT HAS become a rare phenomenon, a United States senator rose above partisan backbiting and interest-group pressures to support a Supreme Court nominee put forth by the other party. In casting his vote for Judge Sonia Sotomayor Tuesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) struck a blow for comity, decency and intellectual honesty.
"You decided to vote for a man you would not have chosen," Mr. Graham said, referring to Democratic members of the committee who voted to confirm John G. Roberts Jr., President George W. Bush's nominee for chief justice. "I'm deciding to vote for a woman that I would not have chosen."
Mr. Graham, the only Republican on the Senate panel to vote in favor of Judge Sotomayor, said he was doing so because he concluded that she was qualified. Other Republican members also acknowledged her qualifications but voted no because of concerns over her alleged hostility to the Second Amendment and property rights, and the possibility that she would let her personal preferences supplant the law in rendering decisions. Never mind that Judge Sotomayor repeatedly affirmed an individual's right to bear arms and proved during her 17-year tenure on the federal bench that she could separate her personal feelings from her professional duties as a judge.
Mr. Graham's vote has a significance that transcends any single nominee. He was a member of the Gang of 14, a bipartisan group of senators that helped avert filibusters of judicial nominees during the Bush administration. He is standing by the same principles today even though a Democrat now occupies the White House. "What I'm trying to do with my vote is to recognize that we came perilously close to damaging an institution, the judiciary, that has held this country together in difficult times," Mr. Graham added. "The law should be a quiet place, where even the most unpopular can have a shot."
Judge Sotomayor's confirmation, which the full Senate is likely to take up next week, is not seriously in doubt; a handful of Republican senators have already announced their intention to join the majority Democrats in supporting her. More Republican senators should do likewise. Judge Sotomayor may not be their nominee of choice, but as Mr. Graham has noted, elections have consequences.
Health Care Realities
Health Care Realities
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: July 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opinion/31krugman.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
At a recent town hall meeting, a man stood up and told Representative Bob Inglis to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” The congressman, a Republican from South Carolina, tried to explain that Medicare is already a government program — but the voter, Mr. Inglis said, “wasn’t having any of it.”
It’s a funny story — but it illustrates the extent to which health reform must climb a wall of misinformation. It’s not just that many Americans don’t understand what President Obama is proposing; many people don’t understand the way American health care works right now. They don’t understand, in particular, that getting the government involved in health care wouldn’t be a radical step: the government is already deeply involved, even in private insurance.
And that government involvement is the only reason our system works at all.
The key thing you need to know about health care is that it depends crucially on insurance. You don’t know when or whether you’ll need treatment — but if you do, treatment can be extremely expensive, well beyond what most people can pay out of pocket. Triple coronary bypasses, not routine doctor’s visits, are where the real money is, so insurance is essential.
Yet private markets for health insurance, left to their own devices, work very badly: insurers deny as many claims as possible, and they also try to avoid covering people who are likely to need care. Horror stories are legion: the insurance company that refused to pay for urgently needed cancer surgery because of questions about the patient’s acne treatment; the healthy young woman denied coverage because she briefly saw a psychologist after breaking up with her boyfriend.
And in their efforts to avoid “medical losses,” the industry term for paying medical bills, insurers spend much of the money taken in through premiums not on medical treatment, but on “underwriting” — screening out people likely to make insurance claims. In the individual insurance market, where people buy insurance directly rather than getting it through their employers, so much money goes into underwriting and other expenses that only around 70 cents of each premium dollar actually goes to care.
Still, most Americans do have health insurance, and are reasonably satisfied with it. How is that possible, when insurance markets work so badly? The answer is government intervention.
Most obviously, the government directly provides insurance via Medicare and other programs. Before Medicare was established, more than 40 percent of elderly Americans lacked any kind of health insurance. Today, Medicare — which is, by the way, one of those “single payer” systems conservatives love to demonize — covers everyone 65 and older. And surveys show that Medicare recipients are much more satisfied with their coverage than Americans with private insurance.
Still, most Americans under 65 do have some form of private insurance. The vast majority, however, don’t buy it directly: they get it through their employers. There’s a big tax advantage to doing it that way, since employer contributions to health care aren’t considered taxable income. But to get that tax advantage employers have to follow a number of rules; roughly speaking, they can’t discriminate based on pre-existing medical conditions or restrict benefits to highly paid employees.
And it’s thanks to these rules that employment-based insurance more or less works, at least in the sense that horror stories are a lot less common than they are in the individual insurance market.
So here’s the bottom line: if you currently have decent health insurance, thank the government. It’s true that if you’re young and healthy, with nothing in your medical history that could possibly have raised red flags with corporate accountants, you might have been able to get insurance without government intervention. But time and chance happen to us all, and the only reason you have a reasonable prospect of still having insurance coverage when you need it is the large role the government already plays.
Which brings us to the current debate over reform.
Right-wing opponents of reform would have you believe that President Obama is a wild-eyed socialist, attacking the free market. But unregulated markets don’t work for health care — never have, never will. To the extent we have a working health care system at all right now it’s only because the government covers the elderly, while a combination of regulation and tax subsidies makes it possible for many, but not all, nonelderly Americans to get decent private coverage.
Now Mr. Obama basically proposes using additional regulation and subsidies to make decent insurance available to all of us. That’s not radical; it’s as American as, well, Medicare.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: July 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opinion/31krugman.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
At a recent town hall meeting, a man stood up and told Representative Bob Inglis to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” The congressman, a Republican from South Carolina, tried to explain that Medicare is already a government program — but the voter, Mr. Inglis said, “wasn’t having any of it.”
It’s a funny story — but it illustrates the extent to which health reform must climb a wall of misinformation. It’s not just that many Americans don’t understand what President Obama is proposing; many people don’t understand the way American health care works right now. They don’t understand, in particular, that getting the government involved in health care wouldn’t be a radical step: the government is already deeply involved, even in private insurance.
And that government involvement is the only reason our system works at all.
The key thing you need to know about health care is that it depends crucially on insurance. You don’t know when or whether you’ll need treatment — but if you do, treatment can be extremely expensive, well beyond what most people can pay out of pocket. Triple coronary bypasses, not routine doctor’s visits, are where the real money is, so insurance is essential.
Yet private markets for health insurance, left to their own devices, work very badly: insurers deny as many claims as possible, and they also try to avoid covering people who are likely to need care. Horror stories are legion: the insurance company that refused to pay for urgently needed cancer surgery because of questions about the patient’s acne treatment; the healthy young woman denied coverage because she briefly saw a psychologist after breaking up with her boyfriend.
And in their efforts to avoid “medical losses,” the industry term for paying medical bills, insurers spend much of the money taken in through premiums not on medical treatment, but on “underwriting” — screening out people likely to make insurance claims. In the individual insurance market, where people buy insurance directly rather than getting it through their employers, so much money goes into underwriting and other expenses that only around 70 cents of each premium dollar actually goes to care.
Still, most Americans do have health insurance, and are reasonably satisfied with it. How is that possible, when insurance markets work so badly? The answer is government intervention.
Most obviously, the government directly provides insurance via Medicare and other programs. Before Medicare was established, more than 40 percent of elderly Americans lacked any kind of health insurance. Today, Medicare — which is, by the way, one of those “single payer” systems conservatives love to demonize — covers everyone 65 and older. And surveys show that Medicare recipients are much more satisfied with their coverage than Americans with private insurance.
Still, most Americans under 65 do have some form of private insurance. The vast majority, however, don’t buy it directly: they get it through their employers. There’s a big tax advantage to doing it that way, since employer contributions to health care aren’t considered taxable income. But to get that tax advantage employers have to follow a number of rules; roughly speaking, they can’t discriminate based on pre-existing medical conditions or restrict benefits to highly paid employees.
And it’s thanks to these rules that employment-based insurance more or less works, at least in the sense that horror stories are a lot less common than they are in the individual insurance market.
So here’s the bottom line: if you currently have decent health insurance, thank the government. It’s true that if you’re young and healthy, with nothing in your medical history that could possibly have raised red flags with corporate accountants, you might have been able to get insurance without government intervention. But time and chance happen to us all, and the only reason you have a reasonable prospect of still having insurance coverage when you need it is the large role the government already plays.
Which brings us to the current debate over reform.
Right-wing opponents of reform would have you believe that President Obama is a wild-eyed socialist, attacking the free market. But unregulated markets don’t work for health care — never have, never will. To the extent we have a working health care system at all right now it’s only because the government covers the elderly, while a combination of regulation and tax subsidies makes it possible for many, but not all, nonelderly Americans to get decent private coverage.
Now Mr. Obama basically proposes using additional regulation and subsidies to make decent insurance available to all of us. That’s not radical; it’s as American as, well, Medicare.
US ‘cash-for-clunkers’ fund runs out - Scheme to be suspended after avalanche of sales
US ‘cash-for-clunkers’ fund runs out - Scheme to be suspended after avalanche of sales
© Reuters Limited
July 31, 2009
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/292613ae-7db4-11de-8f8d-00144feabdc0.html
WASHINGTON, July 30 - The US government’s $1bn ”cash for clunkers” auto sales incentive programme reached its funding limit unexpectedly after an avalanche of business exhausted its funds, an Obama administration official said late Thursday.
Auto dealers began offering government-backed rebates in early July of up to $4,500 to consumers who traded-in their gas-guzzlers for more fuel-efficient vehicles.
But the Transportation Department will need additional cash after rebates for nearly 250,000 vehicles jammed the pipeline nationwide.
The White House was working with Congress to try to extend funding as lawmakers prepared to leave town for the month of August, according to the official who was not authorised to speak for attribution.
The programme was part of a congressional effort to revive slumping US sales and further help domestic automakers, especially General Motors and Chrysler that briefly went bankrupt.
Sales unexpectedly spiked this week after the government began logging transactions and approving rebates that indicated consumers were opting for vehicles that get significantly better gas mileage than the models they were trading in.
The end of the month is usually the busiest time for auto dealers and automakers that have matched the government benefit.
Initially, congressional and industry officials signalled that the programme was going to be suspended late Thursday or early Friday as funding ran out.
The administration opted to keep the program in place while it sought new money. It was not clear where the administration would find additional funding in a short period of time.
”We hope there’s a will and a way to keep the programme going a bit longer,” General Motors said in a statement. ”Any doubt that the programme would jump-start auto sales is completely erased.”
An estimated 16,000 dealers were eligible for the scheme and each would have to sell more than a dozen vehicles at the maximum rebate to reach the government’s funding limit, according to the National Automobile Dealers Association.
US senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Susan Collins of Maine said any extension of the incentive must require greater fuel efficiency and higher reductions of auto emissions.
Congress wrestled with both issues when it established the current incentive to give US manufacturers a better chance of qualifying for the programme.
US auto manufacturers are scheduled to report their July sales next week.
It was unclear how the programme that was to run into the fall was impacting sales at individual companies, including Asian manufacturers like Toyota and Honda that make the most fuel efficient cars on the road.
Nevertheless, analysts expected the programme, if utilized fully, to push US sales above 10m units for 2009, higher than the annual rate so far this year. That would represent a modest jump for an industry that has endured a severe slide in business during the recession.
© Reuters Limited
July 31, 2009
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/292613ae-7db4-11de-8f8d-00144feabdc0.html
WASHINGTON, July 30 - The US government’s $1bn ”cash for clunkers” auto sales incentive programme reached its funding limit unexpectedly after an avalanche of business exhausted its funds, an Obama administration official said late Thursday.
Auto dealers began offering government-backed rebates in early July of up to $4,500 to consumers who traded-in their gas-guzzlers for more fuel-efficient vehicles.
But the Transportation Department will need additional cash after rebates for nearly 250,000 vehicles jammed the pipeline nationwide.
The White House was working with Congress to try to extend funding as lawmakers prepared to leave town for the month of August, according to the official who was not authorised to speak for attribution.
The programme was part of a congressional effort to revive slumping US sales and further help domestic automakers, especially General Motors and Chrysler that briefly went bankrupt.
Sales unexpectedly spiked this week after the government began logging transactions and approving rebates that indicated consumers were opting for vehicles that get significantly better gas mileage than the models they were trading in.
The end of the month is usually the busiest time for auto dealers and automakers that have matched the government benefit.
Initially, congressional and industry officials signalled that the programme was going to be suspended late Thursday or early Friday as funding ran out.
The administration opted to keep the program in place while it sought new money. It was not clear where the administration would find additional funding in a short period of time.
”We hope there’s a will and a way to keep the programme going a bit longer,” General Motors said in a statement. ”Any doubt that the programme would jump-start auto sales is completely erased.”
An estimated 16,000 dealers were eligible for the scheme and each would have to sell more than a dozen vehicles at the maximum rebate to reach the government’s funding limit, according to the National Automobile Dealers Association.
US senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Susan Collins of Maine said any extension of the incentive must require greater fuel efficiency and higher reductions of auto emissions.
Congress wrestled with both issues when it established the current incentive to give US manufacturers a better chance of qualifying for the programme.
US auto manufacturers are scheduled to report their July sales next week.
It was unclear how the programme that was to run into the fall was impacting sales at individual companies, including Asian manufacturers like Toyota and Honda that make the most fuel efficient cars on the road.
Nevertheless, analysts expected the programme, if utilized fully, to push US sales above 10m units for 2009, higher than the annual rate so far this year. That would represent a modest jump for an industry that has endured a severe slide in business during the recession.
Japan reports record deflation - Unemployment hits six-year high
Japan reports record deflation - Unemployment hits six-year high
By Mure Dickie in Tokyo
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: July 31 2009 06:09 | Last updated: July 31 2009 08:34
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9490f6ec-7d8f-11de-8f8d-00144feabdc0.html
Japan set a new record for core consumer price deflation in June, while unemployment hit a six-year high, data released on Friday showed.
The 1.7 per cent year-on-year fall in consumer prices excluding fresh food and the 5.4 per cent jobless rate highlight the continuing troubles of the world's second largest economy, despite a sharp rebound in industrial output over the last four months.
While the falling energy prices that have been the main driver behind the decline in the consumer price index are no bad thing for resource-poor Japan, analysts increasingly worry that deepening deflation fuelled by job insecurity and massive manufacturing over-capacity could undermine economic recovery.
The fall in "core-core" consumer prices, which exclude food and energy, accelerated to 0.7 per cent in June. More recent July price data for urban areas of Tokyo showed a fall of 1.1 per cent.
Although there has been record growth in industrial production over the last quarter – including a 2.4 per cent month-on-month rise in June – output is still down by more than one fifth since last year, leaving large excess capacity sure to put pressure on prices.
South Korea on Friday reported a 5.7 per cent month-on-month rise in industrial production, more than double the pace economists expected, while Thailand reported a 3 per cent rise.
Japanese consumer sentiment is likely to remain vulnerable to the continued rise in unemployment, which is already at a level last seen in June 2003, and is expected to climb past the 5.5 per cent record rate set that year.
Labour industry data released on Friday showed that work availability was already at a record low, with only 43 jobs on offer for every 100 applicants.
With the Bank of Japan's policy interest rate already at a meagre 0.1 per cent, the central bank has little in its conventional tool box with which to tackle price falls.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has called for the Bank of Japan to "fight deflation through a strong commitment to implement effective quantitative measures".
However, the BoJ remains relatively relaxed.
In a speech last week, Hirohide Yamaguchi, central bank deputy governor, said "large short-term" price changes could not be avoided after a shock of the scale suffered recently by Japan, but that the BoJ expected deflation to moderate in the six months to March 2010 as the economy recovers.
"The bank therefore thinks it unlikely at present that prices will continue to decline and thereby lead Japan's economy into a deflationary spiral," Mr Yamaguchi said.
By Mure Dickie in Tokyo
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: July 31 2009 06:09 | Last updated: July 31 2009 08:34
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9490f6ec-7d8f-11de-8f8d-00144feabdc0.html
Japan set a new record for core consumer price deflation in June, while unemployment hit a six-year high, data released on Friday showed.
The 1.7 per cent year-on-year fall in consumer prices excluding fresh food and the 5.4 per cent jobless rate highlight the continuing troubles of the world's second largest economy, despite a sharp rebound in industrial output over the last four months.
While the falling energy prices that have been the main driver behind the decline in the consumer price index are no bad thing for resource-poor Japan, analysts increasingly worry that deepening deflation fuelled by job insecurity and massive manufacturing over-capacity could undermine economic recovery.
The fall in "core-core" consumer prices, which exclude food and energy, accelerated to 0.7 per cent in June. More recent July price data for urban areas of Tokyo showed a fall of 1.1 per cent.
Although there has been record growth in industrial production over the last quarter – including a 2.4 per cent month-on-month rise in June – output is still down by more than one fifth since last year, leaving large excess capacity sure to put pressure on prices.
South Korea on Friday reported a 5.7 per cent month-on-month rise in industrial production, more than double the pace economists expected, while Thailand reported a 3 per cent rise.
Japanese consumer sentiment is likely to remain vulnerable to the continued rise in unemployment, which is already at a level last seen in June 2003, and is expected to climb past the 5.5 per cent record rate set that year.
Labour industry data released on Friday showed that work availability was already at a record low, with only 43 jobs on offer for every 100 applicants.
With the Bank of Japan's policy interest rate already at a meagre 0.1 per cent, the central bank has little in its conventional tool box with which to tackle price falls.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has called for the Bank of Japan to "fight deflation through a strong commitment to implement effective quantitative measures".
However, the BoJ remains relatively relaxed.
In a speech last week, Hirohide Yamaguchi, central bank deputy governor, said "large short-term" price changes could not be avoided after a shock of the scale suffered recently by Japan, but that the BoJ expected deflation to moderate in the six months to March 2010 as the economy recovers.
"The bank therefore thinks it unlikely at present that prices will continue to decline and thereby lead Japan's economy into a deflationary spiral," Mr Yamaguchi said.
Eurozone inflation remains negative - Data fuel fears of deflationary phase
Eurozone inflation remains negative - Data fuel fears of deflationary phase
By Ralph Atkins in Frankfurt
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: July 31 2009 11:03 | Last updated: July 31 2009 11:03
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8d56bac6-7db5-11de-8f8d-00144feabdc0.html
Eurozone inflation has plunged further into negative territory, with consumer prices in July down 0.6 per cent compared with a year before.
The larger-than-expected fall in the annual inflation rate could stoke fears of a damaging deflationary phase in the 16-country bloc, even though the European Central Bank believes the rate will soon turn positive again.
In June, annual inflation was minus 0.1 per cent, which was already the lowest since comparable records began in 1991 and probably the lowest in continental Europe since the early 1950s.
Inflation has fallen largely because of lower energy costs, but evidence is mounting that price falls have become more general as a result of the severe recession in the region. Eurozone consumers are also increasingly expecting prices to fall in the year ahead.
Earlier this month the ECB warned that inflation would remain negative “over the coming months, before turning positive again” but argued that “such short-term movements are not relevant from a monetary policy perspective”.
The ECB expects inflation to rebound as the effects of steep falls in oil prices drop out of year-on-year comparisons. It is widely-expected to keep its main interest rate unchanged at 1 per cent when its governing council meets next week.
But the risk for the central bank is that negative inflation rates fuel fears of a protracted period of general price declines, which would compound the region’s economic problems.
Earlier this week Marek Belka, director of the International Monetary Fund’s European department, said the risk of deflation remained minimal, but “we should be vigilant and we should not completely exclude the possibility”.
Underscoring the weakness of the eurozone economy, the region’s unemployment rate edged up to 9.4 per cent in June, the highest for ten years, according to Eurostat, the European Union’s statistical office. In May the rate had been 9.3 per cent.
By Ralph Atkins in Frankfurt
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: July 31 2009 11:03 | Last updated: July 31 2009 11:03
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8d56bac6-7db5-11de-8f8d-00144feabdc0.html
Eurozone inflation has plunged further into negative territory, with consumer prices in July down 0.6 per cent compared with a year before.
The larger-than-expected fall in the annual inflation rate could stoke fears of a damaging deflationary phase in the 16-country bloc, even though the European Central Bank believes the rate will soon turn positive again.
In June, annual inflation was minus 0.1 per cent, which was already the lowest since comparable records began in 1991 and probably the lowest in continental Europe since the early 1950s.
Inflation has fallen largely because of lower energy costs, but evidence is mounting that price falls have become more general as a result of the severe recession in the region. Eurozone consumers are also increasingly expecting prices to fall in the year ahead.
Earlier this month the ECB warned that inflation would remain negative “over the coming months, before turning positive again” but argued that “such short-term movements are not relevant from a monetary policy perspective”.
The ECB expects inflation to rebound as the effects of steep falls in oil prices drop out of year-on-year comparisons. It is widely-expected to keep its main interest rate unchanged at 1 per cent when its governing council meets next week.
But the risk for the central bank is that negative inflation rates fuel fears of a protracted period of general price declines, which would compound the region’s economic problems.
Earlier this week Marek Belka, director of the International Monetary Fund’s European department, said the risk of deflation remained minimal, but “we should be vigilant and we should not completely exclude the possibility”.
Underscoring the weakness of the eurozone economy, the region’s unemployment rate edged up to 9.4 per cent in June, the highest for ten years, according to Eurostat, the European Union’s statistical office. In May the rate had been 9.3 per cent.
Dollar dips ahead of US growth data - Risk appetite slims before GDP figures
Dollar dips ahead of US growth data - Risk appetite slims before GDP figures
By Neil Dennis
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: July 31 2009 11:16 | Last updated: July 31 2009 11:16
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d36ffca2-7dba-11de-8f8d-00144feabdc0.html
The dollar remained on the slide on Friday, with markets in thrall of economic growth data to come from the US later in the day.
While equities were flat and profit taking set into the commodity markets, there was little appetite for risk ahead the GDP data. Currency markets were similarly subdued, with the dollar sticking with the theme of the previous session, when rebounding equity markets drove an uptick in risk appetite.
Sterling was one of the better performers, up 0.5 per cent to $1.6572, after a week of better-than-expected data and forecast-beating corporate results. Against the euro, the pound was up 0.1 per cent to £0.8520, and rose 0.5 per cent to Y158.34 versus the yen.
”Anomalous price action persists amid distorted and thin summer trading conditions as risk have assets performed well supported by better than forecast earnings results,” said Charles Diebel at Nomura.
Investors had also been casting nervous glances toward China, as conflicting and worrying sounds were made about the possible withdrawal of its loose monetary policy. Although the People’s Bank of China later said it would keep loose conditions for as long as needed, the dollar started the week with gains.
But on Friday, the euro climbed 0.3 per cent to $1.401, little perturbed by data showing falling consumer prices and rising unemployment in the eurozone.
The Canadian dollar added 0.3 per cent to C$1.0803, while the New Zealand dollar added 0.5 per cent to $0.6551.
By Neil Dennis
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: July 31 2009 11:16 | Last updated: July 31 2009 11:16
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d36ffca2-7dba-11de-8f8d-00144feabdc0.html
The dollar remained on the slide on Friday, with markets in thrall of economic growth data to come from the US later in the day.
While equities were flat and profit taking set into the commodity markets, there was little appetite for risk ahead the GDP data. Currency markets were similarly subdued, with the dollar sticking with the theme of the previous session, when rebounding equity markets drove an uptick in risk appetite.
Sterling was one of the better performers, up 0.5 per cent to $1.6572, after a week of better-than-expected data and forecast-beating corporate results. Against the euro, the pound was up 0.1 per cent to £0.8520, and rose 0.5 per cent to Y158.34 versus the yen.
”Anomalous price action persists amid distorted and thin summer trading conditions as risk have assets performed well supported by better than forecast earnings results,” said Charles Diebel at Nomura.
Investors had also been casting nervous glances toward China, as conflicting and worrying sounds were made about the possible withdrawal of its loose monetary policy. Although the People’s Bank of China later said it would keep loose conditions for as long as needed, the dollar started the week with gains.
But on Friday, the euro climbed 0.3 per cent to $1.401, little perturbed by data showing falling consumer prices and rising unemployment in the eurozone.
The Canadian dollar added 0.3 per cent to C$1.0803, while the New Zealand dollar added 0.5 per cent to $0.6551.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Obama names Medal of Freedom recipients, including Harvey Milk, Sidney Poitier
Obama names Medal of Freedom recipients, including Harvey Milk, Sidney Poitier
The president said the 16 people he chose to be honored share the quality of being 'agents of change.'
By Mark Silva
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
July 31, 2009
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-obama-medal-freedom31-2009jul31,0,1097003.story
Reporting from Washington - President Obama, attempting to spotlight those who have acted as "agents of change," today announced that he will bestow the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the country's highest civilian honor, on a cast of living and deceased figures widely known in politics, the arts and sciences, sports and social movements.
The 16 honorees named by the White House today include Harvey Milk, the San Francisco city supervisor who led an early movement for gay rights in public life and was assassinated. They include the late Republican Congressman Jack Kemp, a football legend as well, and the ailing Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.
The president's choices, who will be honored at a White House ceremony Aug. 12, include American civil-rights activist the Rev. Joseph Lowery and South African freedom fighter Desmond Tutu. They include a pioneer in sports for women, tennis star Billie Jean King, and the first woman on the Supreme Court, retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
They include actor Sidney Poitier and singer Chita Rivera.
The White House said today that this year's honorees were "chosen for their work as agents of change. . . . They have blazed trails and broken down barriers."
In naming them, Obama has made a calculated statement -- just as his predecessor, former President George W. Bush, made statements with some of his selections for the Medal of Freedom, some of which stirred controversy.
Among the last honorees of the Bush White House: Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, two of Bush's strongest allies in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, honored at the White House in January days before Bush handed over the presidency to Obama, who had pledged to end the war in Iraq.
Among those whom Bush honored in November 2007: Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, author of an amendment banning public funding of abortions.
Among the most controversial of Bush's choices: three of the central players in the run-up to the Iraq war and the execution of American policy in post-invasion Baghdad -- former CIA director George Tenet, ambassador and Iraq provisional authority director L. Paul Bremer and Gen. Tommy Franks -- honored in December 2004 as opposition to the war was growing.
Bush also honored actress Doris Day, golfer Arnold Palmer, bluesman B.B. King and many more during his two terms as president.
Obama, who ran for president with a theme of "change," said in a statement issued today that his Medal of Freedom recipients represent that change.
"These outstanding men and women represent an incredible diversity of backgrounds," Obama said. "Yet they share one overarching trait: Each has been an agent of change. Each saw an imperfect world and set about improving it, often overcoming great obstacles along the way.
"Their relentless devotion to breaking down barriers and lifting up their fellow citizens sets a standard to which we all should strive," the president said.
"It brings great pride to San Franciscans that Harvey Milk will receive this award posthumously," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said today. "Harvey lived his entire life to create opportunity for others . . . work that was so tragically cut short, by ensuring equal rights for all members of the LGBT community.
Pelosi added: "On behalf of all members of Congress, I congratulate our friend and colleague, Sen. Ted Kennedy. Few have accomplished more in a lifetime than Sen. Kennedy has."
Following is the list of recipients, with narratives provided by the White House:
Nancy Goodman Brinker
Nancy Goodman Brinker is the founder of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the world's leading breast-cancer grass-roots organization. Brinker established the organization in memory of her sister, who passed away from breast cancer in 1980. Through innovative events like Race for the Cure, the organization has given and invested over $1.3 billion for research, health services and education services since its founding in 1982 and developed a worldwide grass-roots network of breast-cancer survivors and activists who are working together to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find cures. Brinker has received several awards for her work, and has also served in government as U.S. Ambassador to Hungary (2001 - 2003), Chief of Protocol of the U.S. (2007 - 2009), and Chair of the President's Cancer Panel (1990). In May, Nancy Goodman Brinker was named the first-ever World Health Organization's Goodwill Ambassador for Cancer Control.
Pedro José Greer, Jr.
Dr. Pedro Jose Greer is a physician and the Assistant Dean of Academic Affairs at the Florida International University School of Medicine, where he also serves as Chair of the Department of Humanities, Health and Society. Dr. Greer is the founder of Camillus Health Concern, an agency that provides medical care to over 10,000 homeless patients a year in the city of Miami. He is also the founder and medical director of the St. John Bosco Clinic which provides basic primary medical care to disadvantaged children and adults in the Little Havana community. He has been recognized by Presidents Clinton, Bush, Sr., and Carter for his work with Miami's poor . He is also the recipient of three Papal Medals as well as the prestigious MacArthur "genius grant." He currently has a joint private practice with his father, Pedro Greer Sr.
Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking is an internationally recognized theoretical physicist, having overcome a severe physical disability due to motor neuron disease. He is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, a post previously held by Isaac Newton in 1669. In addition to his pioneering academic research in mathematics and physics, Hawking has penned three popular science books, including the bestselling "A Brief History of Time." Hawking, a British citizen, believes that non-academics should be able to access his work just as physicists are, and has also published a children's science book with his daughter. His persistence and dedication have unlocked new pathways of discovery and inspired everyday citizens.
Jack Kemp
Jack Kemp, who passed away in May 2009, served as a U.S. Congressman (1971 - 1989), Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (1989 - 1993, and Republican Nominee for Vice President (1996). Prior to entering public service, Kemp was a professional football player (1957 - 1969) and led the Buffalo Bills to American Football League championships in 1964 and 1965. In Congress and as a Cabinet Secretary, Kemp was a self-described "bleeding heart conservative" who worked to encourage development in underserved urban communities. In the years leading up to his death, Kemp continued seeking new solutions, raising public attention about the challenge of poverty, and working across party lines to improve the lives of Americans and others around the world.
Sen. Edward Kennedy
Senator Edward M. Kennedy has served in the United States Senate for forty-six years, and has been one of the greatest lawmakers -- and leaders -- of our time. From reforming our public schools to strengthening civil rights laws and supporting working Americans, Senator Kennedy has dedicated his career to fighting for equal opportunity, fairness and justice for all Americans. He has worked tirelessly to ensure that every American has access to quality and affordable health care, and has succeeded in doing so for countless children, seniors, and Americans with disabilities. He has called health care reform the "cause of his life," and has championed nearly every health care bill enacted by Congress over the course of the last five decades. Known as the "Lion of the Senate," Senator Kennedy is widely respected on both sides of the aisle for his commitment to progress and his ability to legislate.
Billie Jean King
Billie Jean King was an acclaimed professional tennis player in the 1960s and 1970s, and has helped champion gender equality issues not only in sports, but in all areas of public life. King beat Bobby Riggs in the "Battle of the Sexes" tennis match, then the most viewed tennis match in history. King became one of the first openly lesbian major sports figures in America when she came out in 1981. Following her professional tennis career, King became the first woman commissioner in professional sports when she co-founded and led the World Team Tennis (WTT) League. The U.S. Tennis Association named the National Tennis Center, where the US Open is played, the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in 2006.
Rev. Joseph Lowery
Reverend Lowery has been a leader in the U.S. civil rights movement since the early 1950s. Rev. Lowery helped organize the Montgomery bus boycott after Rosa Parks was denied a seat, and later co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a leading civil rights organization, with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Rev. Lowery led the march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965. Rev. Lowery is a minister in the United Methodist Church, and has continued to highlight important civil rights issues in the U.S. and worldwide, including apartheid in South Africa, since the 1960s.
Joe Medicine Crow -- High Bird
Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow, the last living Plains Indian war chief, is the author of seminal works in Native American history and culture. He is the last person alive to have received direct oral testimony from a participant in the Battle of the Little Bighorn: his grandfather was a scout for General George Armstrong Custer. A veteran of World War II, Medicine Crow accomplished during the war all of the four tasks required to become a "war chief," including stealing 50 Nazi SS horses from a German camp. Medicine Crow was the first member of his tribe to attend college, receiving his master's degree in anthropology in 1939, and continues to lecture at universities and notable institutions like the United Nations. His contributions to the preservation of the culture and history of the First Americans are matched only by his importance as a role model to young Native Americans across the country.
Harvey Milk
Harvey Milk became the first openly gay elected official from a major city in the United States when he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977. Milk encouraged lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) citizens to live their lives openly and believed coming out was the only way they could change society and achieve social equality. Milk, alongside San Francisco Mayor George Moscone, was shot and killed in 1978 by Dan White, a former city supervisor. Milk is revered nationally and globally as a pioneer of the LGBT civil rights movement for his exceptional leadership and dedication to equal rights.
Sandra Day O'Connor
Justice O'Connor was the first woman ever to sit on the United States Supreme Court. Nominated by President Reagan in 1981, she served until her retirement in 2006. Prior to joining the Supreme Court, O'Connor served as a state trial and appellate judge in Arizona. She was also as a member of the Arizona state senate, where she became the first woman in the United States ever to lead a state senate as Senate Majority Leader. At a time when women rarely entered the legal profession, O'Connor graduated Stanford Law School third in her class, where she served on the Stanford Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Since retiring from the Supreme Court in 2006, O'Connor has served as Chancellor of the College of William and Mary, on the Board of Trustees of the National Constitution Center, and participated in the Iraq Study Group in 2006, as well as giving numerous lectures on public service. She has received numerous awards for her outstanding achievements and public service.
Sidney Poitier
Sidney Poitier is a groundbreaking actor, becoming the top black movie star in the 1950s and 1960s. Poitier is the first African American to be nominated and win a Best Actor Academy Award, receive an award at a top international film festival (Venice Film Festival), and be the top grossing movie star in the United States. Poitier insisted that the film crew on The Lost Man be at least 50 percent African American, and starred in the first mainstream movies portraying "acceptable" interracial marriages and interracial kissing. Poitier began his acting career without any training or experience by auditioning at the American Negro Theatre.
Chita Rivera
Chita Rivera is an accomplished and versatile actress, singer, and dancer, who has won Two Tony Awards and received seven more nominations while breaking barriers and inspiring a generation of women to follow in her footsteps. In 2002, she became the first Hispanic recipient of the coveted Kennedy Center Honor. Propelled to stardom by her electric performance as Anita in the original Broadway premiere of West Side Story, Rivera went on to star in additional landmark musicals such as Chicago, Bye Bye Birdie, and Jerry's Girls. She recently starred in "The Dancer's Life," an autobiographical musical about her celebrated life in the theatre.
Mary Robinson
Mary Robinson was the first female President of Ireland (1990 - 1997) and a former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997 - 2002), a post that required her to end her presidency four months early. Robinson served as a prominent member of the Irish Senate prior to her election as President. She continues to bring attention to international issues as Honorary President of Oxfam International, and Chairs the Board of Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI Alliance). Since 2002 she has been President of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative, based in New York, which is an organization she founded to make human rights the compass which charts a course for globalization that is fair, just and benefits all.
Janet Davison Rowley
Janet Davison Rowley, M.D., is the Blum Riese Distinguished Service Professor of Medicine, Molecular Genetics & Cell Biology and Human Genetics at The University of Chicago. She is an American human geneticist and the first scientist to identify a chromosomal translocation as the cause of leukemia and other cancers. Rowley is internationally renowned for her studies of chromosome abnormalities in human leukemia and lymphoma, which have led to dramatically improved survival rates for previously incurable cancers and the development of targeted therapies. In 1999 President Clinton awarded her the National Medal of Science -- the nation's highest scientific honor.
Desmond Tutu
Desmond Tutu is an Anglican Archbishop emeritus who was a leading anti-apartheid activist in South Africa. Widely regarded as "South Africa's moral conscience," he served as the General Secretary of the South African Council of Churches (SACC) from 1978 - 1985, where he led a formidable crusade in support of justice and racial reconciliation in South Africa. He received a Nobel Peace Prize for his work through SACC in 1984. Tutu was elected Archbishop of Cape Town in 1986, and the Chair of the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1995. He retired as Archbishop in 1996 and is currently Chair of the Elders.
Muhammad Yunus
Dr. Muhammad Yunus is a global leader in anti-poverty efforts, and has pioneered the use of "micro-loans" to provide credit to poor individuals without collateral. Dr. Yunus, an economist by training, founded the Grameen Bank in 1983 in his native Bangladesh to provide small, low-interest loans to the poor to help better their livelihood and communities. Despite its low interest rates and lending to poor individuals, Grameen Bank is sustainable and 98% percent of its loans are repaid -- higher than other banking systems. It has spread its successful model throughout the world. Dr. Yunus received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for his work.
mdsilva@tribune.com
The president said the 16 people he chose to be honored share the quality of being 'agents of change.'
By Mark Silva
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
July 31, 2009
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-obama-medal-freedom31-2009jul31,0,1097003.story
Reporting from Washington - President Obama, attempting to spotlight those who have acted as "agents of change," today announced that he will bestow the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the country's highest civilian honor, on a cast of living and deceased figures widely known in politics, the arts and sciences, sports and social movements.
The 16 honorees named by the White House today include Harvey Milk, the San Francisco city supervisor who led an early movement for gay rights in public life and was assassinated. They include the late Republican Congressman Jack Kemp, a football legend as well, and the ailing Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.
The president's choices, who will be honored at a White House ceremony Aug. 12, include American civil-rights activist the Rev. Joseph Lowery and South African freedom fighter Desmond Tutu. They include a pioneer in sports for women, tennis star Billie Jean King, and the first woman on the Supreme Court, retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
They include actor Sidney Poitier and singer Chita Rivera.
The White House said today that this year's honorees were "chosen for their work as agents of change. . . . They have blazed trails and broken down barriers."
In naming them, Obama has made a calculated statement -- just as his predecessor, former President George W. Bush, made statements with some of his selections for the Medal of Freedom, some of which stirred controversy.
Among the last honorees of the Bush White House: Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, two of Bush's strongest allies in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, honored at the White House in January days before Bush handed over the presidency to Obama, who had pledged to end the war in Iraq.
Among those whom Bush honored in November 2007: Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, author of an amendment banning public funding of abortions.
Among the most controversial of Bush's choices: three of the central players in the run-up to the Iraq war and the execution of American policy in post-invasion Baghdad -- former CIA director George Tenet, ambassador and Iraq provisional authority director L. Paul Bremer and Gen. Tommy Franks -- honored in December 2004 as opposition to the war was growing.
Bush also honored actress Doris Day, golfer Arnold Palmer, bluesman B.B. King and many more during his two terms as president.
Obama, who ran for president with a theme of "change," said in a statement issued today that his Medal of Freedom recipients represent that change.
"These outstanding men and women represent an incredible diversity of backgrounds," Obama said. "Yet they share one overarching trait: Each has been an agent of change. Each saw an imperfect world and set about improving it, often overcoming great obstacles along the way.
"Their relentless devotion to breaking down barriers and lifting up their fellow citizens sets a standard to which we all should strive," the president said.
"It brings great pride to San Franciscans that Harvey Milk will receive this award posthumously," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said today. "Harvey lived his entire life to create opportunity for others . . . work that was so tragically cut short, by ensuring equal rights for all members of the LGBT community.
Pelosi added: "On behalf of all members of Congress, I congratulate our friend and colleague, Sen. Ted Kennedy. Few have accomplished more in a lifetime than Sen. Kennedy has."
Following is the list of recipients, with narratives provided by the White House:
Nancy Goodman Brinker
Nancy Goodman Brinker is the founder of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the world's leading breast-cancer grass-roots organization. Brinker established the organization in memory of her sister, who passed away from breast cancer in 1980. Through innovative events like Race for the Cure, the organization has given and invested over $1.3 billion for research, health services and education services since its founding in 1982 and developed a worldwide grass-roots network of breast-cancer survivors and activists who are working together to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find cures. Brinker has received several awards for her work, and has also served in government as U.S. Ambassador to Hungary (2001 - 2003), Chief of Protocol of the U.S. (2007 - 2009), and Chair of the President's Cancer Panel (1990). In May, Nancy Goodman Brinker was named the first-ever World Health Organization's Goodwill Ambassador for Cancer Control.
Pedro José Greer, Jr.
Dr. Pedro Jose Greer is a physician and the Assistant Dean of Academic Affairs at the Florida International University School of Medicine, where he also serves as Chair of the Department of Humanities, Health and Society. Dr. Greer is the founder of Camillus Health Concern, an agency that provides medical care to over 10,000 homeless patients a year in the city of Miami. He is also the founder and medical director of the St. John Bosco Clinic which provides basic primary medical care to disadvantaged children and adults in the Little Havana community. He has been recognized by Presidents Clinton, Bush, Sr., and Carter for his work with Miami's poor . He is also the recipient of three Papal Medals as well as the prestigious MacArthur "genius grant." He currently has a joint private practice with his father, Pedro Greer Sr.
Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking is an internationally recognized theoretical physicist, having overcome a severe physical disability due to motor neuron disease. He is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, a post previously held by Isaac Newton in 1669. In addition to his pioneering academic research in mathematics and physics, Hawking has penned three popular science books, including the bestselling "A Brief History of Time." Hawking, a British citizen, believes that non-academics should be able to access his work just as physicists are, and has also published a children's science book with his daughter. His persistence and dedication have unlocked new pathways of discovery and inspired everyday citizens.
Jack Kemp
Jack Kemp, who passed away in May 2009, served as a U.S. Congressman (1971 - 1989), Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (1989 - 1993, and Republican Nominee for Vice President (1996). Prior to entering public service, Kemp was a professional football player (1957 - 1969) and led the Buffalo Bills to American Football League championships in 1964 and 1965. In Congress and as a Cabinet Secretary, Kemp was a self-described "bleeding heart conservative" who worked to encourage development in underserved urban communities. In the years leading up to his death, Kemp continued seeking new solutions, raising public attention about the challenge of poverty, and working across party lines to improve the lives of Americans and others around the world.
Sen. Edward Kennedy
Senator Edward M. Kennedy has served in the United States Senate for forty-six years, and has been one of the greatest lawmakers -- and leaders -- of our time. From reforming our public schools to strengthening civil rights laws and supporting working Americans, Senator Kennedy has dedicated his career to fighting for equal opportunity, fairness and justice for all Americans. He has worked tirelessly to ensure that every American has access to quality and affordable health care, and has succeeded in doing so for countless children, seniors, and Americans with disabilities. He has called health care reform the "cause of his life," and has championed nearly every health care bill enacted by Congress over the course of the last five decades. Known as the "Lion of the Senate," Senator Kennedy is widely respected on both sides of the aisle for his commitment to progress and his ability to legislate.
Billie Jean King
Billie Jean King was an acclaimed professional tennis player in the 1960s and 1970s, and has helped champion gender equality issues not only in sports, but in all areas of public life. King beat Bobby Riggs in the "Battle of the Sexes" tennis match, then the most viewed tennis match in history. King became one of the first openly lesbian major sports figures in America when she came out in 1981. Following her professional tennis career, King became the first woman commissioner in professional sports when she co-founded and led the World Team Tennis (WTT) League. The U.S. Tennis Association named the National Tennis Center, where the US Open is played, the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in 2006.
Rev. Joseph Lowery
Reverend Lowery has been a leader in the U.S. civil rights movement since the early 1950s. Rev. Lowery helped organize the Montgomery bus boycott after Rosa Parks was denied a seat, and later co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a leading civil rights organization, with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Rev. Lowery led the march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965. Rev. Lowery is a minister in the United Methodist Church, and has continued to highlight important civil rights issues in the U.S. and worldwide, including apartheid in South Africa, since the 1960s.
Joe Medicine Crow -- High Bird
Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow, the last living Plains Indian war chief, is the author of seminal works in Native American history and culture. He is the last person alive to have received direct oral testimony from a participant in the Battle of the Little Bighorn: his grandfather was a scout for General George Armstrong Custer. A veteran of World War II, Medicine Crow accomplished during the war all of the four tasks required to become a "war chief," including stealing 50 Nazi SS horses from a German camp. Medicine Crow was the first member of his tribe to attend college, receiving his master's degree in anthropology in 1939, and continues to lecture at universities and notable institutions like the United Nations. His contributions to the preservation of the culture and history of the First Americans are matched only by his importance as a role model to young Native Americans across the country.
Harvey Milk
Harvey Milk became the first openly gay elected official from a major city in the United States when he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977. Milk encouraged lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) citizens to live their lives openly and believed coming out was the only way they could change society and achieve social equality. Milk, alongside San Francisco Mayor George Moscone, was shot and killed in 1978 by Dan White, a former city supervisor. Milk is revered nationally and globally as a pioneer of the LGBT civil rights movement for his exceptional leadership and dedication to equal rights.
Sandra Day O'Connor
Justice O'Connor was the first woman ever to sit on the United States Supreme Court. Nominated by President Reagan in 1981, she served until her retirement in 2006. Prior to joining the Supreme Court, O'Connor served as a state trial and appellate judge in Arizona. She was also as a member of the Arizona state senate, where she became the first woman in the United States ever to lead a state senate as Senate Majority Leader. At a time when women rarely entered the legal profession, O'Connor graduated Stanford Law School third in her class, where she served on the Stanford Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Since retiring from the Supreme Court in 2006, O'Connor has served as Chancellor of the College of William and Mary, on the Board of Trustees of the National Constitution Center, and participated in the Iraq Study Group in 2006, as well as giving numerous lectures on public service. She has received numerous awards for her outstanding achievements and public service.
Sidney Poitier
Sidney Poitier is a groundbreaking actor, becoming the top black movie star in the 1950s and 1960s. Poitier is the first African American to be nominated and win a Best Actor Academy Award, receive an award at a top international film festival (Venice Film Festival), and be the top grossing movie star in the United States. Poitier insisted that the film crew on The Lost Man be at least 50 percent African American, and starred in the first mainstream movies portraying "acceptable" interracial marriages and interracial kissing. Poitier began his acting career without any training or experience by auditioning at the American Negro Theatre.
Chita Rivera
Chita Rivera is an accomplished and versatile actress, singer, and dancer, who has won Two Tony Awards and received seven more nominations while breaking barriers and inspiring a generation of women to follow in her footsteps. In 2002, she became the first Hispanic recipient of the coveted Kennedy Center Honor. Propelled to stardom by her electric performance as Anita in the original Broadway premiere of West Side Story, Rivera went on to star in additional landmark musicals such as Chicago, Bye Bye Birdie, and Jerry's Girls. She recently starred in "The Dancer's Life," an autobiographical musical about her celebrated life in the theatre.
Mary Robinson
Mary Robinson was the first female President of Ireland (1990 - 1997) and a former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997 - 2002), a post that required her to end her presidency four months early. Robinson served as a prominent member of the Irish Senate prior to her election as President. She continues to bring attention to international issues as Honorary President of Oxfam International, and Chairs the Board of Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI Alliance). Since 2002 she has been President of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative, based in New York, which is an organization she founded to make human rights the compass which charts a course for globalization that is fair, just and benefits all.
Janet Davison Rowley
Janet Davison Rowley, M.D., is the Blum Riese Distinguished Service Professor of Medicine, Molecular Genetics & Cell Biology and Human Genetics at The University of Chicago. She is an American human geneticist and the first scientist to identify a chromosomal translocation as the cause of leukemia and other cancers. Rowley is internationally renowned for her studies of chromosome abnormalities in human leukemia and lymphoma, which have led to dramatically improved survival rates for previously incurable cancers and the development of targeted therapies. In 1999 President Clinton awarded her the National Medal of Science -- the nation's highest scientific honor.
Desmond Tutu
Desmond Tutu is an Anglican Archbishop emeritus who was a leading anti-apartheid activist in South Africa. Widely regarded as "South Africa's moral conscience," he served as the General Secretary of the South African Council of Churches (SACC) from 1978 - 1985, where he led a formidable crusade in support of justice and racial reconciliation in South Africa. He received a Nobel Peace Prize for his work through SACC in 1984. Tutu was elected Archbishop of Cape Town in 1986, and the Chair of the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1995. He retired as Archbishop in 1996 and is currently Chair of the Elders.
Muhammad Yunus
Dr. Muhammad Yunus is a global leader in anti-poverty efforts, and has pioneered the use of "micro-loans" to provide credit to poor individuals without collateral. Dr. Yunus, an economist by training, founded the Grameen Bank in 1983 in his native Bangladesh to provide small, low-interest loans to the poor to help better their livelihood and communities. Despite its low interest rates and lending to poor individuals, Grameen Bank is sustainable and 98% percent of its loans are repaid -- higher than other banking systems. It has spread its successful model throughout the world. Dr. Yunus received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for his work.
mdsilva@tribune.com
Daley backs business set-asides for gay-owned firms
Daley backs business set-asides for gay-owned firms
by Dan Mihalopoulos
Copyright © 2009, The Chicago Tribune
July 29, 2009
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/07/daley-backs-business-setasides-for-gayowned-firms.html
Mayor Richard Daley said today he would support an effort to give preferential treatment in city contracting to businesses owned by gays and lesbians.
The city already sets aside a portion of contracts for businesses owned by blacks, Hispanics, Asians and women. Now Ald. Thomas Tunney (44th), the City Council’s openly gay member, wants companies owned by gays and lesbians to enjoy the same consideration in doing business with the city.
“I think it’s good,” said Daley, who enjoys strong support from gays and lesbians. “It helps small businesses. It helps businesses grow in the city, and that’s what you want.”
by Dan Mihalopoulos
Copyright © 2009, The Chicago Tribune
July 29, 2009
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/07/daley-backs-business-setasides-for-gayowned-firms.html
Mayor Richard Daley said today he would support an effort to give preferential treatment in city contracting to businesses owned by gays and lesbians.
The city already sets aside a portion of contracts for businesses owned by blacks, Hispanics, Asians and women. Now Ald. Thomas Tunney (44th), the City Council’s openly gay member, wants companies owned by gays and lesbians to enjoy the same consideration in doing business with the city.
“I think it’s good,” said Daley, who enjoys strong support from gays and lesbians. “It helps small businesses. It helps businesses grow in the city, and that’s what you want.”
State Rep. Harris endorses Steans/Harris endorses Steans for 7th District seat
State Rep. Harris endorses Steans
by Andrew Davis
Copyright by The Windy City times
2009-07-29
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=21920
Windy City Times has learned that State Rep. Greg Harris, who is openly gay, has endorsed incumbent State Sen. Heather Steans over challenger Jim Madigan in the 7th District race.
Harris told the blog Your Two Cents that Steans "has been a strong advocate for lesbian, gay and trans [ gender ] issues in Springfield, worked hard behind the scenes in the last few months to preserve funding for HIV/AIDS services in Illinois and is well thought of in the district as well."
Steans said in a statement that "Greg has been a true mentor and guiding force for me in Springfield. He is a voice for progressive policy change, most notably in human rights and health care reform. And I look forward to our continued fight for marriage equality."
Madigan—who will be the first openly gay individual in the state senate if elected—e-mailed Windy City Times, "An incumbent Democratic legislator will have the endorsement of the organizations who rely on Springfield for funding, as well as other elected officials within the party. I expect, understand and respect that.
"While I appreciate Rep. Harris' opinions on this race, I would think he, more than many, would realize how vital it is for all communities to be directly represented. I have worked hard all my life to put myself through college and law school, stand up for women's equality, and be an advocate for underserved populations. I look forward to working hard during this election and winning the endorsement of the people of the 7th District." Madigan added that he "did not ask for or seek [ Harris' ] endorsement."
The primary election will take place February 2010.
Harris endorses Steans for 7th District seat
By Amy Wooten
Copyright by The chicago Free Press
July 30, 2009
http://www.chicagofreepress.com/node/3750
Openly gay state lawmaker Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago) recently endorsed colleague Rep. Heather Steans (D-Chicago) over gay activist Jim Madigan, who is challenging her for the 7th District seat.
Madigan told CFP that the news was “not a surprise,” in large part because he did not seek Harris’ endorsement.
“An incumbent Democratic legislator will have the endorsement of the organizations who rely on Springfield for funding, as well as other elected officials within the party,” Madigan added in an e-mailed statement to CFP. “I expect, understand and respect that. While I appreciate Rep. Harris’ opinions on this race, I would think he, more than many, would realize how vital it is for all communities to be directly represented. I have worked hard all my life to put myself through college and law school, stand up for women’s equality, and be an advocate for underserved populations. I look forward to working hard during this election and winning the endorsement of the people of the 7th district.”
Harris told CFP that Madigan running against a strong GLBT ally created a “difficult situation.” Harris added that while he thinks Madigan is “an incredibly smart and talented guy,” Steans is “a strong ally and supporter for our community, and when it comes down to it, you have to support the people who have supported our community.”
Harris endorsed Steans in her 2008 race against community activist Suzanne Elder. Steans has supported Harris’ civil unions bill, as well as other GLBT rights efforts.
Thus far, Steans has raised substantially more than Madigan, who held to his promise not to raise campaign funds while he was still interim executive director of Equality Illinois, a gay rights organization that has worked closely with Harris on his fight for marriage equality in Illinois.
The 7th District covers areas of GLBT-heavy neighborhoods such as Edgewater, Rogers Park, Andersonville and Uptown.
by Andrew Davis
Copyright by The Windy City times
2009-07-29
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=21920
Windy City Times has learned that State Rep. Greg Harris, who is openly gay, has endorsed incumbent State Sen. Heather Steans over challenger Jim Madigan in the 7th District race.
Harris told the blog Your Two Cents that Steans "has been a strong advocate for lesbian, gay and trans [ gender ] issues in Springfield, worked hard behind the scenes in the last few months to preserve funding for HIV/AIDS services in Illinois and is well thought of in the district as well."
Steans said in a statement that "Greg has been a true mentor and guiding force for me in Springfield. He is a voice for progressive policy change, most notably in human rights and health care reform. And I look forward to our continued fight for marriage equality."
Madigan—who will be the first openly gay individual in the state senate if elected—e-mailed Windy City Times, "An incumbent Democratic legislator will have the endorsement of the organizations who rely on Springfield for funding, as well as other elected officials within the party. I expect, understand and respect that.
"While I appreciate Rep. Harris' opinions on this race, I would think he, more than many, would realize how vital it is for all communities to be directly represented. I have worked hard all my life to put myself through college and law school, stand up for women's equality, and be an advocate for underserved populations. I look forward to working hard during this election and winning the endorsement of the people of the 7th District." Madigan added that he "did not ask for or seek [ Harris' ] endorsement."
The primary election will take place February 2010.
Harris endorses Steans for 7th District seat
By Amy Wooten
Copyright by The chicago Free Press
July 30, 2009
http://www.chicagofreepress.com/node/3750
Openly gay state lawmaker Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago) recently endorsed colleague Rep. Heather Steans (D-Chicago) over gay activist Jim Madigan, who is challenging her for the 7th District seat.
Madigan told CFP that the news was “not a surprise,” in large part because he did not seek Harris’ endorsement.
“An incumbent Democratic legislator will have the endorsement of the organizations who rely on Springfield for funding, as well as other elected officials within the party,” Madigan added in an e-mailed statement to CFP. “I expect, understand and respect that. While I appreciate Rep. Harris’ opinions on this race, I would think he, more than many, would realize how vital it is for all communities to be directly represented. I have worked hard all my life to put myself through college and law school, stand up for women’s equality, and be an advocate for underserved populations. I look forward to working hard during this election and winning the endorsement of the people of the 7th district.”
Harris told CFP that Madigan running against a strong GLBT ally created a “difficult situation.” Harris added that while he thinks Madigan is “an incredibly smart and talented guy,” Steans is “a strong ally and supporter for our community, and when it comes down to it, you have to support the people who have supported our community.”
Harris endorsed Steans in her 2008 race against community activist Suzanne Elder. Steans has supported Harris’ civil unions bill, as well as other GLBT rights efforts.
Thus far, Steans has raised substantially more than Madigan, who held to his promise not to raise campaign funds while he was still interim executive director of Equality Illinois, a gay rights organization that has worked closely with Harris on his fight for marriage equality in Illinois.
The 7th District covers areas of GLBT-heavy neighborhoods such as Edgewater, Rogers Park, Andersonville and Uptown.
Race to equality: Fed marriage lawsuits
Race to equality: Fed marriage lawsuits
by Lisa Keen
©2009 Keen News Service
2009-07-29
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=21918
This is the third in a series looking at the suddenly crowded field of federal lawsuits seeking to make history by being the first to secure equal marriage rights in the United States.
By Lisa Keen
Keen News Service
In law, a dead horse can beat a stallion at the finish line. And that's just the kind of scenario one U.S. senator was envisioning with his questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in July.
The dead horse is Baker v. Nelson, a case brought by a gay male couple denied a marriage license in Minneapolis during the toddlerhood of the gay civil rights movement, less than a year after the Stonewall Rebellion.
The stallion is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a case brought by two same-sex couples denied marriage licenses in San Francisco just this year, a time of enormous advances in equality for LGBT people, particularly with regards to marriage licensing.
The surprise stallion
If not for one thing, Perry might be just another four-legged, Triple Crown wannabe. But this entry into the field of federal lawsuits seeking equal marriage rights has a superstar legal team in the saddle.
Famous conservative Theodore Olson and well-known liberal David Boies announced in May they were joining forces to file the lawsuit to challenge California's ban on same-sex marriage. They knew there would be gasps of surprise—particularly given Olson's very strong connections, past and present, with conservative politics. They knew there would be critics—particularly from the established LGBT legal community that has been immersed in the marriage equality fight since its most sincere origins in Hawaii in 1993. But they promised they were committed to run the track all the way to the Supreme Court.
Olson and Boies, with the support of a newly formed group called American Foundation for Equal Rights, filed in a federal district court in San Francisco, one of the most liberal districts in one of the more progressive circuits, the 9th.
Olson has argued at least 50 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court already and won most of them. He was solicitor general—a position sometimes dubbed as "the 10th justice"—from 2001 to 2004 and had an 82 percent win rate before the Supreme Court.
Though Boies' numbers are not as impressive, he has been seen successful enough to be dubbed the "Tiger Woods of the legal profession" and "the Wall Street Lawyer Everyone Wants."
"We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause," wrote Boies in a July 20 essay in the Wall Street Journal, "and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens."
The part that captured the imagination of many people in and out of the LGBT community was Olson's very strong ties to conservative politics. He helped found the ultraconservative Federalist Society and held high positions in the administrations of some of the most anti-gay presidents in history. Suddenly, for the first time, he was talking publicly about "gay men and lesbians" as "our neighbors, co-workers, teachers, friends and family."
Olson's involvement was such a surprise, it prompted some bloggers to speculate he was trying to sabotage momentum for same-sex marriage by bringing a premature lawsuit. But it prompted others to praise him for waging a fight for equality that a gay-friendly President Obama seemed reticent to take on.
As knowledgeable, strategic and committed as the LGBT legal community is, it is hard to imagine a more powerful and prominent legal team as Olson-Boies for a same-sex marriage case. But gay legal and political groups were instantly critical. In a joint statement issued just days after the Olson-Boies lawsuit was announced, nine of the country's biggest, oldest, and best-known gay legal and political groups issued the unprecedented warning that "premature lawsuits based on the federal Constitution" could be "ill-timed."
Signing onto the statement are Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the national Freedom to Marry organization, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the Equality Federation and the American Civil Liberties Union.
" [ W ] ithout more groundwork," according to the statement, "the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage."
"You must be able to identify at least five justices ready and willing to rule for equality," said Freedom to Marry's Evan Wolfson, in an interview. "And given who sits on the Court today, we'd better create as much progress before then to help solidify a possible five."
"The key to winning any lawsuit is not just being right," said Wolfson, "and it's not just having good lawyers and writing good briefs. It's creating the climate of receptivity that enables and emboldens good judges to do the right thing."
Olson, in an e-mail exchange with this reporter, said he tends to agree "that an appropriately favorable environment is certainly helpful." But, he says, "no one can chart these things with any degree of precision or certainty," and that his legal team feels the case "can and should be brought at this time."
"And, of course, our clients are anxious for their constitutional rights to be honored, and believe that the federal courts should be ready to honor them," adds Olson.
To those questioning his motives, Olson, at the news conference announcing the lawsuit, said he hopes people "don't suspect my motives."
"We all have friends and family—I don't have a family member who's gay, but we all have friends and co-workers and neighbors [ who are gay ] ," said Olson in an interview with Karen Ocamb of Frontiers in L.A. magazine. "And they are citizens and they are our friends and they should be treated equally. And we have an obligation to stand up for them."
Olson noted that he has never supported any anti-gay marriage efforts and said he feels "very strongly that [ marriage equality for same-sex couples ] is the right position for America."
"I hope people will believe me."
He said he also believes there are five justices on the Supreme Court ready to vote the right way because there were six votes for overturning sodomy laws, via Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.
There is one handicap on this powerful federal lawsuit; however, though hardly a dark one. Should voters in California have the opportunity and impetus to overturn Proposition 8 at the ballot box, Olson acknowledges the Perry lawsuit will become moot—out of the race.
Has the race has been run?
Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, doe not think the federal courts are ready to honor the constitutional rights of gay couples; he thinks the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on same-sex marriage and created a precedent that is binding.
During the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor July 15, Grassley asked questions about Sotomayor's commitment to precedents—previous rulings of the high court—both generally and specifically as regarding "marriage law."
Specifically, he brought up the 1972 case, Baker v. Nelson, in which a gay couple sought a marriage license in Minnesota and, when denied one, sued in state court. The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed the couple's appeal and they then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court also dismissed the couple's appeal. Dismissing an appeal is an action that has more significance than simply refusing to hear the appeal. The latter means almost nothing: The high court receives thousands of appeals every year and can spend time on only about 150 at best. Only about 80 or 90 produce actual opinions on matters of law; the other 50 or 60 are "disposed of" in some other fashion.
That's what happened with Baker; the supreme court dismissed the gay couple's appeal, explaining it was doing so because there was no "substantial federal question" presented by the case.
There is dispute within legal circles as to whether that dismissal in 1972 means anything today, but Grassley made clear he thinks it does. He said it means "the federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear due process and equal protection challenges to state marriage laws."
"Do you agree that marriage is a question reserved for the states to decide on Baker v. Nelson?" asked Grassley.
Sotomayor said that "is a question pending and impending in many courts," and she declined to offer her opinion at the confirmation hearing.
Grassley tried to push her on the issue, interrupting her and contradicting himself, saying he was asking "a very simple question based upon a precedent that Baker v. Nelson is based on."
"Are you saying to me that Baker v. Nelson is not a precedent?" asked Grassley.
Sotomayor again sought to deflect the question, saying she had not reviewed the case in some time and, "I actually don't know what the status is."
"If it is the court's precedent," she said, "…I will apply that precedent to the facts of any new situation that implicates it." She said she expects that, whenever a marriage case comes to the high court, one side will argue that Baker is precedent and the other side will argue the opposite."
The debate over the meaning of Baker is already playing out in Smelt, where the Obama Justice Department has argued that the Supreme Court's dismissal of Baker in 1972 benefits those who seek to uphold DOMA and "has precedential effect and is binding."
But DOJ is not likely to have the last word on that. Attorneys for plaintiffs challenging marriage bans will almost certainly seek to argue that Baker did no more than dispense with an appeal whose time, 37 years ago, had not yet come and whose place, at that time, was one state court.
The time and place have changed in 2009. Advancements in the LGBT civil rights movement have created a better track upon which to test the mettle of equal protection when it comes to marriage licensing. Lawsuits are coming from not just one state but from several. And the federal government has, through the Defense of Marriage Act, turned what used to be a state matter into a federal issue. In fact, some may argue DOMA has exacerbated a disparity among the states on how to treat same-sex marriage. And that disparity is just the sort of issue that attracts Supreme Court attention.
by Lisa Keen
©2009 Keen News Service
2009-07-29
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=21918
This is the third in a series looking at the suddenly crowded field of federal lawsuits seeking to make history by being the first to secure equal marriage rights in the United States.
By Lisa Keen
Keen News Service
In law, a dead horse can beat a stallion at the finish line. And that's just the kind of scenario one U.S. senator was envisioning with his questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in July.
The dead horse is Baker v. Nelson, a case brought by a gay male couple denied a marriage license in Minneapolis during the toddlerhood of the gay civil rights movement, less than a year after the Stonewall Rebellion.
The stallion is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a case brought by two same-sex couples denied marriage licenses in San Francisco just this year, a time of enormous advances in equality for LGBT people, particularly with regards to marriage licensing.
The surprise stallion
If not for one thing, Perry might be just another four-legged, Triple Crown wannabe. But this entry into the field of federal lawsuits seeking equal marriage rights has a superstar legal team in the saddle.
Famous conservative Theodore Olson and well-known liberal David Boies announced in May they were joining forces to file the lawsuit to challenge California's ban on same-sex marriage. They knew there would be gasps of surprise—particularly given Olson's very strong connections, past and present, with conservative politics. They knew there would be critics—particularly from the established LGBT legal community that has been immersed in the marriage equality fight since its most sincere origins in Hawaii in 1993. But they promised they were committed to run the track all the way to the Supreme Court.
Olson and Boies, with the support of a newly formed group called American Foundation for Equal Rights, filed in a federal district court in San Francisco, one of the most liberal districts in one of the more progressive circuits, the 9th.
Olson has argued at least 50 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court already and won most of them. He was solicitor general—a position sometimes dubbed as "the 10th justice"—from 2001 to 2004 and had an 82 percent win rate before the Supreme Court.
Though Boies' numbers are not as impressive, he has been seen successful enough to be dubbed the "Tiger Woods of the legal profession" and "the Wall Street Lawyer Everyone Wants."
"We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause," wrote Boies in a July 20 essay in the Wall Street Journal, "and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens."
The part that captured the imagination of many people in and out of the LGBT community was Olson's very strong ties to conservative politics. He helped found the ultraconservative Federalist Society and held high positions in the administrations of some of the most anti-gay presidents in history. Suddenly, for the first time, he was talking publicly about "gay men and lesbians" as "our neighbors, co-workers, teachers, friends and family."
Olson's involvement was such a surprise, it prompted some bloggers to speculate he was trying to sabotage momentum for same-sex marriage by bringing a premature lawsuit. But it prompted others to praise him for waging a fight for equality that a gay-friendly President Obama seemed reticent to take on.
As knowledgeable, strategic and committed as the LGBT legal community is, it is hard to imagine a more powerful and prominent legal team as Olson-Boies for a same-sex marriage case. But gay legal and political groups were instantly critical. In a joint statement issued just days after the Olson-Boies lawsuit was announced, nine of the country's biggest, oldest, and best-known gay legal and political groups issued the unprecedented warning that "premature lawsuits based on the federal Constitution" could be "ill-timed."
Signing onto the statement are Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the national Freedom to Marry organization, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the Equality Federation and the American Civil Liberties Union.
" [ W ] ithout more groundwork," according to the statement, "the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage."
"You must be able to identify at least five justices ready and willing to rule for equality," said Freedom to Marry's Evan Wolfson, in an interview. "And given who sits on the Court today, we'd better create as much progress before then to help solidify a possible five."
"The key to winning any lawsuit is not just being right," said Wolfson, "and it's not just having good lawyers and writing good briefs. It's creating the climate of receptivity that enables and emboldens good judges to do the right thing."
Olson, in an e-mail exchange with this reporter, said he tends to agree "that an appropriately favorable environment is certainly helpful." But, he says, "no one can chart these things with any degree of precision or certainty," and that his legal team feels the case "can and should be brought at this time."
"And, of course, our clients are anxious for their constitutional rights to be honored, and believe that the federal courts should be ready to honor them," adds Olson.
To those questioning his motives, Olson, at the news conference announcing the lawsuit, said he hopes people "don't suspect my motives."
"We all have friends and family—I don't have a family member who's gay, but we all have friends and co-workers and neighbors [ who are gay ] ," said Olson in an interview with Karen Ocamb of Frontiers in L.A. magazine. "And they are citizens and they are our friends and they should be treated equally. And we have an obligation to stand up for them."
Olson noted that he has never supported any anti-gay marriage efforts and said he feels "very strongly that [ marriage equality for same-sex couples ] is the right position for America."
"I hope people will believe me."
He said he also believes there are five justices on the Supreme Court ready to vote the right way because there were six votes for overturning sodomy laws, via Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.
There is one handicap on this powerful federal lawsuit; however, though hardly a dark one. Should voters in California have the opportunity and impetus to overturn Proposition 8 at the ballot box, Olson acknowledges the Perry lawsuit will become moot—out of the race.
Has the race has been run?
Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, doe not think the federal courts are ready to honor the constitutional rights of gay couples; he thinks the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on same-sex marriage and created a precedent that is binding.
During the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor July 15, Grassley asked questions about Sotomayor's commitment to precedents—previous rulings of the high court—both generally and specifically as regarding "marriage law."
Specifically, he brought up the 1972 case, Baker v. Nelson, in which a gay couple sought a marriage license in Minnesota and, when denied one, sued in state court. The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed the couple's appeal and they then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court also dismissed the couple's appeal. Dismissing an appeal is an action that has more significance than simply refusing to hear the appeal. The latter means almost nothing: The high court receives thousands of appeals every year and can spend time on only about 150 at best. Only about 80 or 90 produce actual opinions on matters of law; the other 50 or 60 are "disposed of" in some other fashion.
That's what happened with Baker; the supreme court dismissed the gay couple's appeal, explaining it was doing so because there was no "substantial federal question" presented by the case.
There is dispute within legal circles as to whether that dismissal in 1972 means anything today, but Grassley made clear he thinks it does. He said it means "the federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear due process and equal protection challenges to state marriage laws."
"Do you agree that marriage is a question reserved for the states to decide on Baker v. Nelson?" asked Grassley.
Sotomayor said that "is a question pending and impending in many courts," and she declined to offer her opinion at the confirmation hearing.
Grassley tried to push her on the issue, interrupting her and contradicting himself, saying he was asking "a very simple question based upon a precedent that Baker v. Nelson is based on."
"Are you saying to me that Baker v. Nelson is not a precedent?" asked Grassley.
Sotomayor again sought to deflect the question, saying she had not reviewed the case in some time and, "I actually don't know what the status is."
"If it is the court's precedent," she said, "…I will apply that precedent to the facts of any new situation that implicates it." She said she expects that, whenever a marriage case comes to the high court, one side will argue that Baker is precedent and the other side will argue the opposite."
The debate over the meaning of Baker is already playing out in Smelt, where the Obama Justice Department has argued that the Supreme Court's dismissal of Baker in 1972 benefits those who seek to uphold DOMA and "has precedential effect and is binding."
But DOJ is not likely to have the last word on that. Attorneys for plaintiffs challenging marriage bans will almost certainly seek to argue that Baker did no more than dispense with an appeal whose time, 37 years ago, had not yet come and whose place, at that time, was one state court.
The time and place have changed in 2009. Advancements in the LGBT civil rights movement have created a better track upon which to test the mettle of equal protection when it comes to marriage licensing. Lawsuits are coming from not just one state but from several. And the federal government has, through the Defense of Marriage Act, turned what used to be a state matter into a federal issue. In fact, some may argue DOMA has exacerbated a disparity among the states on how to treat same-sex marriage. And that disparity is just the sort of issue that attracts Supreme Court attention.
Iranian Police Move to Break Up Mourning Ceremony
Iranian Police Move to Break Up Mourning Ceremony
By ROBERT F. WORTH and NAZILA FATHI
Copyright by The Associated Press
Published: July 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/world/middleeast/31iran.html?ref=global-home
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Iranian riot police used tear gas and wooden batons to disperse thousands of opposition supporters in central Tehran on Thursday as they massed to commemorate those killed in the unrest after the disputed June 12 presidential election, witnesses said.
In what appeared to be the most serious street challenge by the opposition in weeks, the witnesses said, demonstrators gathered around a large prayer venue, the Grand Mosala, as well as in central Vali Asr square, where tens of thousands had gathered in the street demonstration in the days following the election.
Earlier Thursday, police and demonstrators clashed at a cemetery in the city’s southern outskirts where some of those killed in the post-election violence are buried, including Neda Agha-Soltan, a young woman shot to death, whose bloodied image, circulated widely on the Internet, has become an icon of the post-election crackdown.
The opposition leader, Mir Hussein Moussavi, who has asserted that the election was stolen from him in a massive fraud, was among the thousands who arrived at the cemetery, but the police surrounded him and forced him to return to his car before he could offer prayers, news reports said.
Some in the crowd chanted Mr. Moussavi’s name and “death to the dictator!” according to videos posted on the Internet and witness accounts reported by The Associated Press. When another opposition leader, reformist cleric Mehdi Karroubi, attempted to give a speech, the police moved in, firing tear gas and swinging wooden batons at the mourners, news reports said.
Thursday was a day of symbolic importance in Iran because 40 days have passed since the shooting of Ms. Agha-Soltan. The 40th day marks an important Shiite mourning ritual. Similar commemorations for dead protesters fueled the demonstrations that led to the Islamic Revolution in 1979. The authorities had denied permission to hold any formal mourning ceremonies.
The treatment of the detained protesters, some of whom have died in prison, has become one of the most explosive issues facing the Iranian authorities as they seek to restore calm in the country. The Iranian authorities have sought to defuse the issue by ordering the release of many of those held, but they have charged some with serious crimes and continued with arrests.
Mohammed Khatami, the former reformist president and an ally of Mr. Moussavi, made fierce comments Thursday in meeting with reformist members of Parliament, his Web site reported.
“Crimes have taken place and people have died. Our people, young, women and men have been treated in ways that if it had taken place in foreign prisons everyone was screaming that it should be confronted,” he said. “Such behavior is harmful for the revolution and society.”
Earlier Thursday, the police arrested two prominent Iranian filmmakers when they tried to lay flowers at Ms. Agha-Soltan’s grave, The A.P. said. One of them was Jafar Panahi, best known for his film, “The Circle,” which was critical of the treatment of women under the Islamist government and was banned in Iran. A female associate and documentary maker, Mahnaz Mohammadi, was arrested with him, The A.P. said.
At the late afternoon protests in downtown Tehran, many were arrested, but the crowd remained defiant even as they were sprayed with tear gas, a witness said.
“The crowd is still as large as it was weeks ago, and you see people from all classes and ages,” the witness, who spoke anonymously said. “When will the rulers see this? They cannot rule by killing and arresting people.”
On Wednesday, the police arrested two additional prominent reformists, Saeed Shariati and Shayesteh Amiri, opposition Web sites reported. Separately, an “underground network providing foreign media outlets with photos and footage of the post-election unrest” was identified and its members arrested, state-run Press TV reported, citing security forces.
The report said that the network was made up of “pro-reform extremists” and that at least two members had confessed to providing images of the unrest to Western news media in an effort to “stage a regime change” in Iran. The Iranian leadership has blamed foreign news outlets for encouraging the riots and rallies.
On Tuesday, the authorities released 140 detainees, amid accusations that jailed protesters had been tortured and killed. Prominent conservatives and senior clerics have joined the opposition in denouncing the abuses, and the release of the detainees appeared to be part of a government effort to defuse the issue.
Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, a dissident and one of Iran’s most senior clerics, issued a harsh statement on Wednesday on his Web site, saying the government’s closing of one notorious detention center was not enough. “Was the shah able to resist the protests by jailing, torturing, extracting confessions and lying?” he said, referring to the fall of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in the 1979 revolution.
There were some conciliatory gestures from the government on Wednesday, with Iran’s top police official, Brig. Gen. Ismail Ahmadi-Moqaddam, saying some officers “went to extremes” and caused damage during the post-election protests, Press TV reported. The prosecutor general of Iran, Ayatollah Qorban-Ali Dorri-Najafabadi, said that more detainees would soon be released and that a “serious judicial inquiry” was being conducted into prison deaths after the election, Iranian news agencies reported.
But the authorities have also said that their clemency is limited, and that protesters who crossed the line will be punished. On Wednesday, the authorities said that 20 protesters charged with serious crimes would be put on trial for charges including “attacking military units and universities, sending pictures to enemy media, carrying firearms and explosives, organizing thugs and rioters, and vandalizing public property,” state television reported.
Robert F. Worth reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Nazila Fathi from Toronto. Alan Cowell contributed reporting from Paris, and Sharon Otterman from New York.
By ROBERT F. WORTH and NAZILA FATHI
Copyright by The Associated Press
Published: July 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/world/middleeast/31iran.html?ref=global-home
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Iranian riot police used tear gas and wooden batons to disperse thousands of opposition supporters in central Tehran on Thursday as they massed to commemorate those killed in the unrest after the disputed June 12 presidential election, witnesses said.
In what appeared to be the most serious street challenge by the opposition in weeks, the witnesses said, demonstrators gathered around a large prayer venue, the Grand Mosala, as well as in central Vali Asr square, where tens of thousands had gathered in the street demonstration in the days following the election.
Earlier Thursday, police and demonstrators clashed at a cemetery in the city’s southern outskirts where some of those killed in the post-election violence are buried, including Neda Agha-Soltan, a young woman shot to death, whose bloodied image, circulated widely on the Internet, has become an icon of the post-election crackdown.
The opposition leader, Mir Hussein Moussavi, who has asserted that the election was stolen from him in a massive fraud, was among the thousands who arrived at the cemetery, but the police surrounded him and forced him to return to his car before he could offer prayers, news reports said.
Some in the crowd chanted Mr. Moussavi’s name and “death to the dictator!” according to videos posted on the Internet and witness accounts reported by The Associated Press. When another opposition leader, reformist cleric Mehdi Karroubi, attempted to give a speech, the police moved in, firing tear gas and swinging wooden batons at the mourners, news reports said.
Thursday was a day of symbolic importance in Iran because 40 days have passed since the shooting of Ms. Agha-Soltan. The 40th day marks an important Shiite mourning ritual. Similar commemorations for dead protesters fueled the demonstrations that led to the Islamic Revolution in 1979. The authorities had denied permission to hold any formal mourning ceremonies.
The treatment of the detained protesters, some of whom have died in prison, has become one of the most explosive issues facing the Iranian authorities as they seek to restore calm in the country. The Iranian authorities have sought to defuse the issue by ordering the release of many of those held, but they have charged some with serious crimes and continued with arrests.
Mohammed Khatami, the former reformist president and an ally of Mr. Moussavi, made fierce comments Thursday in meeting with reformist members of Parliament, his Web site reported.
“Crimes have taken place and people have died. Our people, young, women and men have been treated in ways that if it had taken place in foreign prisons everyone was screaming that it should be confronted,” he said. “Such behavior is harmful for the revolution and society.”
Earlier Thursday, the police arrested two prominent Iranian filmmakers when they tried to lay flowers at Ms. Agha-Soltan’s grave, The A.P. said. One of them was Jafar Panahi, best known for his film, “The Circle,” which was critical of the treatment of women under the Islamist government and was banned in Iran. A female associate and documentary maker, Mahnaz Mohammadi, was arrested with him, The A.P. said.
At the late afternoon protests in downtown Tehran, many were arrested, but the crowd remained defiant even as they were sprayed with tear gas, a witness said.
“The crowd is still as large as it was weeks ago, and you see people from all classes and ages,” the witness, who spoke anonymously said. “When will the rulers see this? They cannot rule by killing and arresting people.”
On Wednesday, the police arrested two additional prominent reformists, Saeed Shariati and Shayesteh Amiri, opposition Web sites reported. Separately, an “underground network providing foreign media outlets with photos and footage of the post-election unrest” was identified and its members arrested, state-run Press TV reported, citing security forces.
The report said that the network was made up of “pro-reform extremists” and that at least two members had confessed to providing images of the unrest to Western news media in an effort to “stage a regime change” in Iran. The Iranian leadership has blamed foreign news outlets for encouraging the riots and rallies.
On Tuesday, the authorities released 140 detainees, amid accusations that jailed protesters had been tortured and killed. Prominent conservatives and senior clerics have joined the opposition in denouncing the abuses, and the release of the detainees appeared to be part of a government effort to defuse the issue.
Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, a dissident and one of Iran’s most senior clerics, issued a harsh statement on Wednesday on his Web site, saying the government’s closing of one notorious detention center was not enough. “Was the shah able to resist the protests by jailing, torturing, extracting confessions and lying?” he said, referring to the fall of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in the 1979 revolution.
There were some conciliatory gestures from the government on Wednesday, with Iran’s top police official, Brig. Gen. Ismail Ahmadi-Moqaddam, saying some officers “went to extremes” and caused damage during the post-election protests, Press TV reported. The prosecutor general of Iran, Ayatollah Qorban-Ali Dorri-Najafabadi, said that more detainees would soon be released and that a “serious judicial inquiry” was being conducted into prison deaths after the election, Iranian news agencies reported.
But the authorities have also said that their clemency is limited, and that protesters who crossed the line will be punished. On Wednesday, the authorities said that 20 protesters charged with serious crimes would be put on trial for charges including “attacking military units and universities, sending pictures to enemy media, carrying firearms and explosives, organizing thugs and rioters, and vandalizing public property,” state television reported.
Robert F. Worth reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Nazila Fathi from Toronto. Alan Cowell contributed reporting from Paris, and Sharon Otterman from New York.
Crisis in the Operating Room
Crisis in the Operating Room
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: July 29, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/world/middleeast/31adviser.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=global-home
KARACHI, Pakistan
Afterward, they comforted each other with the blasphemy: “It was God’s will.”
It was the first pregnancy for Shazia Allahdita, 19. I was in the operating room at a public hospital here in Karachi as surgeons performed a Caesarean section on her to try to save her life.
As she lay unconscious under the anesthesia, doctors plucked a baby boy from her uterus and then labored to revive the child. “He has a heartbeat, but he’s not crying,” Dr. Aijaz Ahmed explained tersely as he gave the boy oxygen. “He’s not responding. I think he’s getting weaker.”
These dramas play out constantly in poor countries. One woman dies a minute from complications of pregnancy or childbirth somewhere in the world, and 20 times as many suffer childbirth injuries.
There’s no mystery about how to save these lives. Some impoverished countries, such as Sri Lanka, have succeeded stunningly well at saving mothers simply because they have tried. But foreign aid donors like the United States have never shown much interest in maternal mortality, and impoverished women are typically the most voiceless, neglected people in their own countries — so they die at astonishing rates. Here in Pakistan, 1 woman in 74 will die at some point in her life from complications during pregnancy.
Shazia’s suffering is typically unnecessary. It all would have worked out fine if she had gone to a hospital to deliver her baby. She wanted to. Her husband and relatives all agreed, when I interviewed them later, that she had had her heart set on delivering at the public hospital here. It’s also free, so long as supplies haven’t run out (other times, family members have to rush out to buy supplies).
But Shazia’s female in-laws thought that a hospital birth was a silly extravagance, and a young Pakistani woman is at the mercy of her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law. (In Pakistan, men are little involved in such decisions about childbirth.) It didn’t help that the in-laws resented Shazia because she and her husband, Allahdita, had breached tradition by marrying out of love rather than by family arrangement.
When Shazia went into labor, the family summoned a traditional birth attendant to help with the delivery. Hours passed. Nothing happened. Shazia asked to go to the hospital, but it was far away and would require what for them would be an expensive taxi fare of 300 Pakistani rupees, equivalent to about $3.75.
“If she went to the hospital, then every time the family visited it would be a long way to go and very inconvenient,” explained an aunt, Qamarunnisa. “It was so much easier to go to the local health post. It seemed easier.”
So the family eventually took her to a local clinic, where Shazia struggled to deliver for another 24 hours of labor. The family discussed taking her to the hospital, but the obstacle was the 300 rupee taxi fare. “If it hadn’t been for the money, she would have come here,” said Qamarunnisa.
But nobody wanted to pay. Shazia’s in-laws truly are poor, but it’s hard to imagine that they would have balked if it had been a man in the family who was in danger — or if they had known that Shazia was carrying a baby boy.
“If they had known it was a son, they would have come up with 500 rupees,” said Dr. Sarah Feroze, as her colleagues struggled to save Shazia and her baby.
Finally, some 30 hours after Shazia’s water had broken, an aunt paid for the taxi to the hospital. The doctors immediately saw that Shazia’s baby could not fit through her pelvis and rushed her into the operating theater for the C-section.
Shazia lived. The baby died.
I visited Shazia the next day. She was in a crowded, stifling ward. The power had gone out. Her bedding was soiled. She was crying.
Outside, her husband, Allahdita, was grieving but philosophical. “It is God’s will,” he said, shrugging. “There is nothing we can do.”
That’s incorrect. If men had uteruses, “paternity wards” would get resources, ambulances would transport pregnant men to hospitals free of charge, deliveries would be free, and the Group of 8 industrialized nations would make paternal mortality a top priority. One of the most lethal forms of sex discrimination is this systematic inattention to reproductive health care, from family planning to childbirth — so long as those who die are impoverished, voiceless women.
Thankfully, there is the dawn of a global movement against maternal mortality. Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain and the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, are trying to work with the United States and other countries to hold a landmark global health session at the U.N. focusing, in part, on maternal health. If that comes to pass, on Sept. 23, it will be a milestone. My dream is that Barack and Michelle Obama will leap forward and adopt this cause — and transform the prospects for so many young women like Shazia.
I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: July 29, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/world/middleeast/31adviser.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=global-home
KARACHI, Pakistan
Afterward, they comforted each other with the blasphemy: “It was God’s will.”
It was the first pregnancy for Shazia Allahdita, 19. I was in the operating room at a public hospital here in Karachi as surgeons performed a Caesarean section on her to try to save her life.
As she lay unconscious under the anesthesia, doctors plucked a baby boy from her uterus and then labored to revive the child. “He has a heartbeat, but he’s not crying,” Dr. Aijaz Ahmed explained tersely as he gave the boy oxygen. “He’s not responding. I think he’s getting weaker.”
These dramas play out constantly in poor countries. One woman dies a minute from complications of pregnancy or childbirth somewhere in the world, and 20 times as many suffer childbirth injuries.
There’s no mystery about how to save these lives. Some impoverished countries, such as Sri Lanka, have succeeded stunningly well at saving mothers simply because they have tried. But foreign aid donors like the United States have never shown much interest in maternal mortality, and impoverished women are typically the most voiceless, neglected people in their own countries — so they die at astonishing rates. Here in Pakistan, 1 woman in 74 will die at some point in her life from complications during pregnancy.
Shazia’s suffering is typically unnecessary. It all would have worked out fine if she had gone to a hospital to deliver her baby. She wanted to. Her husband and relatives all agreed, when I interviewed them later, that she had had her heart set on delivering at the public hospital here. It’s also free, so long as supplies haven’t run out (other times, family members have to rush out to buy supplies).
But Shazia’s female in-laws thought that a hospital birth was a silly extravagance, and a young Pakistani woman is at the mercy of her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law. (In Pakistan, men are little involved in such decisions about childbirth.) It didn’t help that the in-laws resented Shazia because she and her husband, Allahdita, had breached tradition by marrying out of love rather than by family arrangement.
When Shazia went into labor, the family summoned a traditional birth attendant to help with the delivery. Hours passed. Nothing happened. Shazia asked to go to the hospital, but it was far away and would require what for them would be an expensive taxi fare of 300 Pakistani rupees, equivalent to about $3.75.
“If she went to the hospital, then every time the family visited it would be a long way to go and very inconvenient,” explained an aunt, Qamarunnisa. “It was so much easier to go to the local health post. It seemed easier.”
So the family eventually took her to a local clinic, where Shazia struggled to deliver for another 24 hours of labor. The family discussed taking her to the hospital, but the obstacle was the 300 rupee taxi fare. “If it hadn’t been for the money, she would have come here,” said Qamarunnisa.
But nobody wanted to pay. Shazia’s in-laws truly are poor, but it’s hard to imagine that they would have balked if it had been a man in the family who was in danger — or if they had known that Shazia was carrying a baby boy.
“If they had known it was a son, they would have come up with 500 rupees,” said Dr. Sarah Feroze, as her colleagues struggled to save Shazia and her baby.
Finally, some 30 hours after Shazia’s water had broken, an aunt paid for the taxi to the hospital. The doctors immediately saw that Shazia’s baby could not fit through her pelvis and rushed her into the operating theater for the C-section.
Shazia lived. The baby died.
I visited Shazia the next day. She was in a crowded, stifling ward. The power had gone out. Her bedding was soiled. She was crying.
Outside, her husband, Allahdita, was grieving but philosophical. “It is God’s will,” he said, shrugging. “There is nothing we can do.”
That’s incorrect. If men had uteruses, “paternity wards” would get resources, ambulances would transport pregnant men to hospitals free of charge, deliveries would be free, and the Group of 8 industrialized nations would make paternal mortality a top priority. One of the most lethal forms of sex discrimination is this systematic inattention to reproductive health care, from family planning to childbirth — so long as those who die are impoverished, voiceless women.
Thankfully, there is the dawn of a global movement against maternal mortality. Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain and the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, are trying to work with the United States and other countries to hold a landmark global health session at the U.N. focusing, in part, on maternal health. If that comes to pass, on Sept. 23, it will be a milestone. My dream is that Barack and Michelle Obama will leap forward and adopt this cause — and transform the prospects for so many young women like Shazia.
I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.
U.S. Adviser’s Blunt Memo on Iraq: Time ‘to Go Home’
U.S. Adviser’s Blunt Memo on Iraq: Time ‘to Go Home’
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: July 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/world/middleeast/31adviser.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
WASHINGTON — A senior American military adviser in Baghdad has concluded in an unusually blunt memo that the Iraqi forces suffer from deeply entrenched deficiencies but are now capable of protecting the Iraqi government, and that it is time “for the U.S. to declare victory and go home.”
Prepared by Col. Timothy R. Reese, an adviser to the Iraqi military’s Baghdad command, the memorandum asserts that the Iraqi forces have an array of problems, including corruption, poor management and the inability to resist political pressure from Shiite political parties.
For all of these problems, however, Colonel Reese argues that Iraqi forces are competent enough to hold off Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias and other internal threats to the Iraqi government. Extending the American military presence in Iraq beyond 2010, he argues, will do little to improve the Iraqis’ military performance while fueling a growing resentment.
“As the old saying goes, ‘Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days,’ ” Colonel Reese wrote. “Since the signing of the 2009 Security Agreement, we are guests in Iraq, and after six years in Iraq, we now smell bad to the Iraqi nose.”
A spokeswoman for Gen. Ray Odierno, the senior American commander in Iraq, said that the memo did not reflect the official stance of the United States military, was not intended for a broad audience, and that some of the problems the memo referred to had been solved since its writing in early July.
Referring to the Iraq Security Forces, the memo said: “The massive partnering efforts of U.S. combat forces with I.S.F. isn’t yielding benefits commensurate with the effort and is now generating its own opposition. We should declare our intentions to withdraw all U.S. military forces from Iraq by August 2010. This would not be a strategic paradigm shift, but an acceleration of existing U.S. plans by some 15 months.”
Before deploying to Iraq, Colonel Reese served as the director of the Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, the Army’s premier intellectual center. He was an author of an official Army history of the Iraq war — “On Point II” — that was sharply critical of the lapses in postwar planning.
Colonel Reese’s memo comes at a sensitive time in the Iraq conflict as American forces are gradually shifting to an advisory role. American combat troops moved out of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities last month, as required by the Status of Forces Agreement concluded by the United States and Iraq.
Colonel Reese’s memo lists a number of problems that have emerged since the withdrawal. They include, he wrote, a “sudden coolness” to American advisers and the “forcible takeover” of a checkpoint in the Green Zone. Iraqi units, he added, are much less willing to conduct joint operations with their American counterparts “to go after targets the U.S. considers high value.”
The Iraqi Ground Forces Command, Colonel Reese wrote, has imposed “unilateral restrictions” on American military operations that “violate the most basic aspects” of American-Iraqi agreement.
“The Iraqi legal system in the Rusafa side of Baghdad has demonstrated a recent willingness to release individuals originally detained by the U.S. for attacks on the U.S.,” he added.
The spokeswoman for General Odierno, Lt. Col. Josslyn Aberle, responded in a e-mail to questions about the memo. “The e-mail was written by Col. Timothy Reese at the beginning of July and sent to selected personnel within Multi-National Division Baghdad on our classified e-mail system,” Colonel Aberle wrote. “It was expressed to a limited audience, and not meant for wider/general distribution.
“The e-mail reflects one person’s personal view at the time we were first implementing the Security Agreement post-30 June. It does not reflect the official views of U.S. Forces in Iraq. Since that time many of the initial issues have been resolved and our partnerships with Iraqi Security Forces and G.O.I. partners now are even stronger than before 30 June.” G.O.I. is the abbreviation for Government of Iraq.
Under the plan developed by General Odierno, the vast majority of the approximately 130,000 American forces in Iraq will remain through Iraq’s national elections, which are expected to be held next January. After the elections and the formation of a new Iraqi government, there will be rapid reduction in American forces. By the end of August 2010, the United States would have no more than 50,000 troops in Iraq, which would include six brigades whose primary role would be to advise and train Iraqi troops.
Some experts, such as Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former adviser to General David H. Petraeus, have argued that this timetable may be too fast given the host of remaining problems in Iraq, including differences between Kurds and Arab leaders, remaining Sunni-Shiite tensions and the possibility that the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki might become more authoritarian.
“Renewed violence in Iraq is not inevitable, but it is a serious risk,” Mr. Biddle wrote in a recent paper. “A vigorous preventive strategy is clearly preferable, therefore. The most effective option for prevention is to go slow in drawing down the U.S. military presence in Iraq. Measures to maximize U.S. leverage on important Iraqi leaders — especially Maliki — can be helpful in steering Iraqis away from confrontation and violence, but U.S. leverage is a function of U.S. presence.”
Related
Text of Colonel Reese’s Memo (July 31, 2009)
Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (117) »
During his recent appearance in Washington, Mr. Maliki also appeared to be contemplating a possible role for American forces after the December 2011 deadline for the removal of all American troops under the Status of Forces Agreement.
The Iraqi prime minister noted in an appearance at the United States Institute of Peace, a Washington-based research organization, that the Status of Forces Agreement, would “end” the American military presence in his country in 2011. “Nevertheless, if Iraqi forces required further training and further support, we shall examine this at that time based on the needs of Iraq,” he said.
During his visit to Iraq earlier this week, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates indicated that might be a “modest acceleration” the number of American forces that are withdrawn from Iraq this year. At the same time, Pentagon and military officials indicated that Kurdish-Arab friction remains a serious worry and that the American advisory role is still very important.
But Colonel Reese questioned the value of an extended advisory role.
“If there ever was a window where the seeds of a professional military culture could have been implanted, it is now long past. U.S. combat forces will not be here long enough or with sufficient influence to change it,” he wrote. “The military culture of the Baathist-Soviet model under Saddam Hussein remains entrenched and will not change. The senior leadership of the I.S.F. is incapable of change in the current environment.”
Colonel Reese appears to have anonymously circulated a less colorful version of his memo on a blog dubbed “The Enchanter’s Corner.” The author is described as an active-duty Army officer serving as an adviser in Iraq who is “passionate about political issues.” Since word of the memo began to spread, the memo has been removed from the site.
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: July 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/world/middleeast/31adviser.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
WASHINGTON — A senior American military adviser in Baghdad has concluded in an unusually blunt memo that the Iraqi forces suffer from deeply entrenched deficiencies but are now capable of protecting the Iraqi government, and that it is time “for the U.S. to declare victory and go home.”
Prepared by Col. Timothy R. Reese, an adviser to the Iraqi military’s Baghdad command, the memorandum asserts that the Iraqi forces have an array of problems, including corruption, poor management and the inability to resist political pressure from Shiite political parties.
For all of these problems, however, Colonel Reese argues that Iraqi forces are competent enough to hold off Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias and other internal threats to the Iraqi government. Extending the American military presence in Iraq beyond 2010, he argues, will do little to improve the Iraqis’ military performance while fueling a growing resentment.
“As the old saying goes, ‘Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days,’ ” Colonel Reese wrote. “Since the signing of the 2009 Security Agreement, we are guests in Iraq, and after six years in Iraq, we now smell bad to the Iraqi nose.”
A spokeswoman for Gen. Ray Odierno, the senior American commander in Iraq, said that the memo did not reflect the official stance of the United States military, was not intended for a broad audience, and that some of the problems the memo referred to had been solved since its writing in early July.
Referring to the Iraq Security Forces, the memo said: “The massive partnering efforts of U.S. combat forces with I.S.F. isn’t yielding benefits commensurate with the effort and is now generating its own opposition. We should declare our intentions to withdraw all U.S. military forces from Iraq by August 2010. This would not be a strategic paradigm shift, but an acceleration of existing U.S. plans by some 15 months.”
Before deploying to Iraq, Colonel Reese served as the director of the Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, the Army’s premier intellectual center. He was an author of an official Army history of the Iraq war — “On Point II” — that was sharply critical of the lapses in postwar planning.
Colonel Reese’s memo comes at a sensitive time in the Iraq conflict as American forces are gradually shifting to an advisory role. American combat troops moved out of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities last month, as required by the Status of Forces Agreement concluded by the United States and Iraq.
Colonel Reese’s memo lists a number of problems that have emerged since the withdrawal. They include, he wrote, a “sudden coolness” to American advisers and the “forcible takeover” of a checkpoint in the Green Zone. Iraqi units, he added, are much less willing to conduct joint operations with their American counterparts “to go after targets the U.S. considers high value.”
The Iraqi Ground Forces Command, Colonel Reese wrote, has imposed “unilateral restrictions” on American military operations that “violate the most basic aspects” of American-Iraqi agreement.
“The Iraqi legal system in the Rusafa side of Baghdad has demonstrated a recent willingness to release individuals originally detained by the U.S. for attacks on the U.S.,” he added.
The spokeswoman for General Odierno, Lt. Col. Josslyn Aberle, responded in a e-mail to questions about the memo. “The e-mail was written by Col. Timothy Reese at the beginning of July and sent to selected personnel within Multi-National Division Baghdad on our classified e-mail system,” Colonel Aberle wrote. “It was expressed to a limited audience, and not meant for wider/general distribution.
“The e-mail reflects one person’s personal view at the time we were first implementing the Security Agreement post-30 June. It does not reflect the official views of U.S. Forces in Iraq. Since that time many of the initial issues have been resolved and our partnerships with Iraqi Security Forces and G.O.I. partners now are even stronger than before 30 June.” G.O.I. is the abbreviation for Government of Iraq.
Under the plan developed by General Odierno, the vast majority of the approximately 130,000 American forces in Iraq will remain through Iraq’s national elections, which are expected to be held next January. After the elections and the formation of a new Iraqi government, there will be rapid reduction in American forces. By the end of August 2010, the United States would have no more than 50,000 troops in Iraq, which would include six brigades whose primary role would be to advise and train Iraqi troops.
Some experts, such as Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former adviser to General David H. Petraeus, have argued that this timetable may be too fast given the host of remaining problems in Iraq, including differences between Kurds and Arab leaders, remaining Sunni-Shiite tensions and the possibility that the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki might become more authoritarian.
“Renewed violence in Iraq is not inevitable, but it is a serious risk,” Mr. Biddle wrote in a recent paper. “A vigorous preventive strategy is clearly preferable, therefore. The most effective option for prevention is to go slow in drawing down the U.S. military presence in Iraq. Measures to maximize U.S. leverage on important Iraqi leaders — especially Maliki — can be helpful in steering Iraqis away from confrontation and violence, but U.S. leverage is a function of U.S. presence.”
Related
Text of Colonel Reese’s Memo (July 31, 2009)
Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (117) »
During his recent appearance in Washington, Mr. Maliki also appeared to be contemplating a possible role for American forces after the December 2011 deadline for the removal of all American troops under the Status of Forces Agreement.
The Iraqi prime minister noted in an appearance at the United States Institute of Peace, a Washington-based research organization, that the Status of Forces Agreement, would “end” the American military presence in his country in 2011. “Nevertheless, if Iraqi forces required further training and further support, we shall examine this at that time based on the needs of Iraq,” he said.
During his visit to Iraq earlier this week, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates indicated that might be a “modest acceleration” the number of American forces that are withdrawn from Iraq this year. At the same time, Pentagon and military officials indicated that Kurdish-Arab friction remains a serious worry and that the American advisory role is still very important.
But Colonel Reese questioned the value of an extended advisory role.
“If there ever was a window where the seeds of a professional military culture could have been implanted, it is now long past. U.S. combat forces will not be here long enough or with sufficient influence to change it,” he wrote. “The military culture of the Baathist-Soviet model under Saddam Hussein remains entrenched and will not change. The senior leadership of the I.S.F. is incapable of change in the current environment.”
Colonel Reese appears to have anonymously circulated a less colorful version of his memo on a blog dubbed “The Enchanter’s Corner.” The author is described as an active-duty Army officer serving as an adviser in Iraq who is “passionate about political issues.” Since word of the memo began to spread, the memo has been removed from the site.
Democrats agree compromise deal on health reform
Democrats agree compromise deal on health reform
By Edward Luce in Washington
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: July 30 2009 00:41 | Last updated: July 30 2009 00:41
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/149cdbbe-7c94-11de-a7bf-00144feabdc0.html
Democratic leaders struck a tentative compromise on Wednesday with their conservative “Blue Dog” colleagues that will enable healthcare reform to move forward in the House of Representatives after several weeks of internal bickering.
The deal provides a much higher level of exemption for small businesses, which had been a principal sticking point for the Blue Dog Democrats, and shaves off $100bn in costs from the 10-year $1,000bn plan
But it also comes with a sting in the tail for President Barack Obama.
As part of the compromise, the House will not vote as a whole on the bill before it goes into recess tomorrow. This means that neither chamber will have responded to Mr Obama’s call for passage of healthcare reform before Capitol Hill breaks up for the summer.
“We did give them a deadline, and sort of we missed that deadline but that’s OK,” Mr Obama said on Wednesday at a rally in North Carolina to boost healthcare reform. “We don’t want to just do it quickly, we want to do it right.”
Wednesday’s compromise cleared what could have been a damaging impasse in the lower chamber going into the congressional recess.
Under the deal, which was supported by only four of the seven Blue Dog lawmakers involved in the talks, small businesses with annual revenues of less than $500,000 a year will be exempt from paying for employee healthcare – double the previous ceiling.
In addition, lawmakers agreed to the creation of healthcare co-operatives, which conservative Democrats have put forward as an alternative to the public health insurance option that liberals support.
Under the compromise both the cooperatives and the public option will be retained.
It is not clear whether the public option will survive a similar drawn-out negotiation in the Senate finance committee, which has yet to achieve an equivalent breakthrough.
Wednesday’s deal will enable the White House to say that the health reform train remains on track, even if it is moving painfully slowly. But Republican opponents of the deal believe the delays will give them extra latitude to unpick the weakening coalition in favour of reform during the five weeks of recess.
Republicans plan to blitz the districts of vulnerable Democratic lawmakers in August with advertisements attacking “socialised healthcare”.
On Wednesday John Boehner, the Republican House leader, said: “One of the reasons the Democrats are pushing so hard before the leave is they know that if this bill hangs out there for the August recess, it will be shredded and when they get back there will be nothing.”
A Gallup poll released on Wednesday showed a deep ambivalence among Americans over the merits of healthcare reform with just 44 per cent saying the proposed reforms would improve medical care in the US and only 26 per cent believing it would improve their personal care. Barely a fifth said it would expand their own access to medical care.
“We are going to have the mother of all August recesses,” said Bill Galston, a scholar at Brookings who was involved with the last attempt at healthcare reform in 1993 under the Clinton administration.
“There is going to be a huge battle at the grassroots for the soul of the American voter and it’s not clear which way it will go,” he said.
By Edward Luce in Washington
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: July 30 2009 00:41 | Last updated: July 30 2009 00:41
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/149cdbbe-7c94-11de-a7bf-00144feabdc0.html
Democratic leaders struck a tentative compromise on Wednesday with their conservative “Blue Dog” colleagues that will enable healthcare reform to move forward in the House of Representatives after several weeks of internal bickering.
The deal provides a much higher level of exemption for small businesses, which had been a principal sticking point for the Blue Dog Democrats, and shaves off $100bn in costs from the 10-year $1,000bn plan
But it also comes with a sting in the tail for President Barack Obama.
As part of the compromise, the House will not vote as a whole on the bill before it goes into recess tomorrow. This means that neither chamber will have responded to Mr Obama’s call for passage of healthcare reform before Capitol Hill breaks up for the summer.
“We did give them a deadline, and sort of we missed that deadline but that’s OK,” Mr Obama said on Wednesday at a rally in North Carolina to boost healthcare reform. “We don’t want to just do it quickly, we want to do it right.”
Wednesday’s compromise cleared what could have been a damaging impasse in the lower chamber going into the congressional recess.
Under the deal, which was supported by only four of the seven Blue Dog lawmakers involved in the talks, small businesses with annual revenues of less than $500,000 a year will be exempt from paying for employee healthcare – double the previous ceiling.
In addition, lawmakers agreed to the creation of healthcare co-operatives, which conservative Democrats have put forward as an alternative to the public health insurance option that liberals support.
Under the compromise both the cooperatives and the public option will be retained.
It is not clear whether the public option will survive a similar drawn-out negotiation in the Senate finance committee, which has yet to achieve an equivalent breakthrough.
Wednesday’s deal will enable the White House to say that the health reform train remains on track, even if it is moving painfully slowly. But Republican opponents of the deal believe the delays will give them extra latitude to unpick the weakening coalition in favour of reform during the five weeks of recess.
Republicans plan to blitz the districts of vulnerable Democratic lawmakers in August with advertisements attacking “socialised healthcare”.
On Wednesday John Boehner, the Republican House leader, said: “One of the reasons the Democrats are pushing so hard before the leave is they know that if this bill hangs out there for the August recess, it will be shredded and when they get back there will be nothing.”
A Gallup poll released on Wednesday showed a deep ambivalence among Americans over the merits of healthcare reform with just 44 per cent saying the proposed reforms would improve medical care in the US and only 26 per cent believing it would improve their personal care. Barely a fifth said it would expand their own access to medical care.
“We are going to have the mother of all August recesses,” said Bill Galston, a scholar at Brookings who was involved with the last attempt at healthcare reform in 1993 under the Clinton administration.
“There is going to be a huge battle at the grassroots for the soul of the American voter and it’s not clear which way it will go,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
