So, I heard Hanna was awesome. But at the same time, apparently, Joe Wright, the director doesn't like me. Here's what he said to Movieline:
“I think that the action genre is a very interesting one in terms of its place in a social context. I think that Paul Greengrass showed us with the Jason Bourne films that it was possible to make an action movie with a social conscience, a political-social context. You know, it’s not an accident that the journalist in the third film is writing for The Guardian newspaper. And so, I was interested in making such a film, because most action films that I see are misogynistic and misanthropic, and kind of gun-loving, Republican bullsh*t. And that concerns me because those are the films young people are going to see.”
Monday, April 11, 2011
SUNY teaches people to become squatters
Read the original here.
SUNY Purchase Professor Holds Instructional Seminar On Squatting
What's next, extra credit for going freegan?
An eccentric SUNY Purchase art professor held a "class" yesterday in SoHo where he instructed his hipster students on how to illegally squat in condos around the city.
Chris Robbins organized the seminar with the hopes that at least one or two of the 20 attendees will find an unoccupied apartment or condo and unsafely and illegally move in -- without paying rent or taxes.
Robbins, who lives in idyllic South Salem in Westchester, advocated that people need to move outside their comfort zones.
"My biggest goal in this is to activate people with political beliefs who aren't actually engaging and get them to cross a boundary," said Robbins.
HOME FREE: Chris Robbins (right) yesterday offers tips on moving into disused condos to students (from left) Ayun Halliday, Stefan Fink and Elena Wegmann.
"Basically, we don't know what we are doing, but we have this impetus that we are going to make it happen."
Robbins, whose hourlong class was housed inside a shuttered Catholic school on Mott Street, advocated looking in Sunset Park, Brooklyn and Jamaica, Queens, for the ideal targets.
"Sunset Park has tons and tons of these condos that are finishing" and unoccupied, he explained in an interview with The Post.
"Jamaica, tons and tons of foreclosed single and two-family homes that were boarded up, and that seems like an ideal spot," he added.
Robbins took students step-by-step through the process of converting someone else's property into their own.
First, he said, determine if a building is indeed empty. Then check to see if it's structurally sound. Try to pick a building owned by a bank or the city, since it's easier to stay longer, he suggested.
And once all that's done, make friends with the new neighbors and "become a member of the community."
The former Peace Corps [1]volunteer organized his tutorial through The Trade School, a social-networking site at OurGoods.org where people teach a skill in exchange for gifts. It has no affiliation with his college courses.
Robbins received fruits, vegetables and a Cormac McCarthy [2]novel for his troubles yesterday.
References
^ Peace Corps (www.nypost.com)
^ Cormac McCarthy (www.nypost.com)
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/his_students_know_squat_jT82sJWplM6tbhrkzctflN#ixzz1JFPo1XdP
SUNY Purchase Professor Holds Instructional Seminar On Squatting
What's next, extra credit for going freegan?
An eccentric SUNY Purchase art professor held a "class" yesterday in SoHo where he instructed his hipster students on how to illegally squat in condos around the city.
Chris Robbins organized the seminar with the hopes that at least one or two of the 20 attendees will find an unoccupied apartment or condo and unsafely and illegally move in -- without paying rent or taxes.
Robbins, who lives in idyllic South Salem in Westchester, advocated that people need to move outside their comfort zones.
"My biggest goal in this is to activate people with political beliefs who aren't actually engaging and get them to cross a boundary," said Robbins.
HOME FREE: Chris Robbins (right) yesterday offers tips on moving into disused condos to students (from left) Ayun Halliday, Stefan Fink and Elena Wegmann.
"Basically, we don't know what we are doing, but we have this impetus that we are going to make it happen."
Robbins, whose hourlong class was housed inside a shuttered Catholic school on Mott Street, advocated looking in Sunset Park, Brooklyn and Jamaica, Queens, for the ideal targets.
"Sunset Park has tons and tons of these condos that are finishing" and unoccupied, he explained in an interview with The Post.
"Jamaica, tons and tons of foreclosed single and two-family homes that were boarded up, and that seems like an ideal spot," he added.
Robbins took students step-by-step through the process of converting someone else's property into their own.
First, he said, determine if a building is indeed empty. Then check to see if it's structurally sound. Try to pick a building owned by a bank or the city, since it's easier to stay longer, he suggested.
And once all that's done, make friends with the new neighbors and "become a member of the community."
The former Peace Corps [1]volunteer organized his tutorial through The Trade School, a social-networking site at OurGoods.org where people teach a skill in exchange for gifts. It has no affiliation with his college courses.
Robbins received fruits, vegetables and a Cormac McCarthy [2]novel for his troubles yesterday.
References
^ Peace Corps (www.nypost.com)
^ Cormac McCarthy (www.nypost.com)
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/his_students_know_squat_jT82sJWplM6tbhrkzctflN#ixzz1JFPo1XdP
Quote of the Day
From TheAtlantic:
"To a first approximation, every single voter who is benefitting from a government program right now not only wants to continue benefitting, but believes they have a moral right to do so. "
"To a first approximation, every single voter who is benefitting from a government program right now not only wants to continue benefitting, but believes they have a moral right to do so. "
Who decides what your kids eat?
Read the original here.
Michelle Obama's America: Chicago School Bans Bag Lunches To Protect Kids From Themselves
The Chicago Tribune [1]reported Monday that one Chicago public school -- the Little Village Academy -- has banned bag lunches...to protect the kids from their own "unhealthful" food choices:
Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.
"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."
Carmona said she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for their lunch. Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common.
A Chicago Public Schools spokeswoman said she could not say how many schools prohibit packed lunches and that decision is left to the judgment of the principals.
"While there is no formal policy, principals use common sense judgment based on their individual school environments," Monique Bond wrote in an email. "In this case, this principal is encouraging the healthier choices and attempting to make an impact that extends beyond the classroom."\
But reporters Monica Eng and Joel Hood suggest there are other reasons than a nutrition crusade: "Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch." But if they're really concerned about a learning environment, what if the kids don't eat?
At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad.
"Some of the kids don't like the food they give at our school for lunch or breakfast," said Little Village parent Erica Martinez. "So it would be a good idea if they could bring their lunch so they could at least eat something."
"(My grandson) is really picky about what he eats," said Anna Torrez, who was picking up the boy from school. "I think they should be able to bring their lunch. Other schools let them. But at this school, they don't."
But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food."
At Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side, officials allow packed lunches but confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.) Principal Rebecca Stinson said that though students may not like it, she has yet to hear a parent complain.
"The kids may have money or earn money and (buy junk food) without their parents' knowledge," Stinson said, adding that most parents expect that the school will look out for their children.
References
^ The Chicago Tribune (www.chicagotribune.com)
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/04/11/michelle-obamas-america-chicago-school-bans-bag-lunches-protect-kids-the#ixzz1JEEN4mzV
Michelle Obama's America: Chicago School Bans Bag Lunches To Protect Kids From Themselves
The Chicago Tribune [1]reported Monday that one Chicago public school -- the Little Village Academy -- has banned bag lunches...to protect the kids from their own "unhealthful" food choices:
Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.
"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."
Carmona said she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for their lunch. Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common.
A Chicago Public Schools spokeswoman said she could not say how many schools prohibit packed lunches and that decision is left to the judgment of the principals.
"While there is no formal policy, principals use common sense judgment based on their individual school environments," Monique Bond wrote in an email. "In this case, this principal is encouraging the healthier choices and attempting to make an impact that extends beyond the classroom."\
But reporters Monica Eng and Joel Hood suggest there are other reasons than a nutrition crusade: "Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch." But if they're really concerned about a learning environment, what if the kids don't eat?
At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad.
"Some of the kids don't like the food they give at our school for lunch or breakfast," said Little Village parent Erica Martinez. "So it would be a good idea if they could bring their lunch so they could at least eat something."
"(My grandson) is really picky about what he eats," said Anna Torrez, who was picking up the boy from school. "I think they should be able to bring their lunch. Other schools let them. But at this school, they don't."
But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food."
At Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side, officials allow packed lunches but confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.) Principal Rebecca Stinson said that though students may not like it, she has yet to hear a parent complain.
"The kids may have money or earn money and (buy junk food) without their parents' knowledge," Stinson said, adding that most parents expect that the school will look out for their children.
References
^ The Chicago Tribune (www.chicagotribune.com)
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/04/11/michelle-obamas-america-chicago-school-bans-bag-lunches-protect-kids-the#ixzz1JEEN4mzV
World's smallest violin....
I'm sure Joe Biden's face twitches every time he hears this whining. I'm also sure that Joe would be glad to step up to the plate then. Read the original here.
Not 2 Be Missed | Presidential dream: long walk in the park
Saturday, April 9, 2011 03:07 AM
BY RICHARD S. DUNHAM
Not 2 Be Missed | Presidential dream: long walk in the park
Saturday, April 9, 2011 03:07 AM
BY RICHARD S. DUNHAM
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama wants you to know that he is not a golf addict.
He spends so much time unwinding on the links because security restrictions mean he can't go out for long walks or go to the carwash or the grocery store.
The president's comments came during a session with editors and publishers from Hearst Magazines in which he described life behind the scenes in the White House.
The president said he loves his life in the White House but doesn't enjoy some of the ways of Washington, such as the "kabuki dance" among political partisans before serious policy discussions begin. He also regrets his loss of personal privacy.
"I just miss - I miss being anonymous," he said at the meeting in the White House. "I miss Saturday morning, rolling out of bed, not shaving, getting into my car with my girls, driving to the supermarket, squeezing the fruit, getting my car washed, taking walks. I can't take a walk."
He says he enjoys golf but is not the fanatic that some have portrayed.
"It's the only excuse I have to get outside for four hours at a stretch," he said.
His impossible dream: "I just want to go through Central Park (in New York) and watch folks passing by ... spend the day watching people. I miss that."
He spends so much time unwinding on the links because security restrictions mean he can't go out for long walks or go to the carwash or the grocery store.
The president's comments came during a session with editors and publishers from Hearst Magazines in which he described life behind the scenes in the White House.
The president said he loves his life in the White House but doesn't enjoy some of the ways of Washington, such as the "kabuki dance" among political partisans before serious policy discussions begin. He also regrets his loss of personal privacy.
"I just miss - I miss being anonymous," he said at the meeting in the White House. "I miss Saturday morning, rolling out of bed, not shaving, getting into my car with my girls, driving to the supermarket, squeezing the fruit, getting my car washed, taking walks. I can't take a walk."
He says he enjoys golf but is not the fanatic that some have portrayed.
"It's the only excuse I have to get outside for four hours at a stretch," he said.
His impossible dream: "I just want to go through Central Park (in New York) and watch folks passing by ... spend the day watching people. I miss that."
France leads with decisive action...again
Read the original here.
French Armor Advances Towards Gbagbo's Residence
ABIDJAN (Reuters) - A column of more than 30 French armored vehicles advanced toward the residence of Ivory Coast's Laurent Gbagbo in Abidjan on Monday, a witness told Reuters.
A day after U.N. and French helicopters attacked forces loyal to Gbagbo, damaging the presidential residence in Abidjan and destroying heavy weapons, a French military spokesman said the aim of the current operation was to avoid a "bloodbath" but declined to give further details.
"The vehicles are advancing and there are (French) soldiers behind with a helicopter hovering above," said Alfred Kouassi, a resident who lives in a high-rise building overlooking the boulevard where the French vehicles were moving forward.
"We can hear automatic gunfire," he said.
Gbagbo has refused to step down after his rival Alassane Ouattara won last November's presidential election, according to results certified by the United Nations, reigniting a civil war that has claimed more than a thousand lives and uprooted a million people.
Residents reported heavy fighting on Monday morning between forces loyal to Ouattara and those backing Gbagbo around Abidjan's Cocody and Plateau districts, still controlled by forces loyal to Gbagbo.
Hundreds of fresh pro-Ouattara troops massed at a base camp just north of Abidjan, where a small bus arrived, filled with new Kalashnikov rifles still in their transparent blue wrappers.
The French armored vehicles, each carrying between four to eight men, left their base in the south and headed toward downtown Abidjan early on Monday.
"Armed and ready for combat," the commanding officer ordered. The men cocked their weapons ready to fire as the vehicles rolled out of the base.
"The operation is underway. I cannot give you more details. The aim is to ensure a bloodbath is averted," said Frederick Daguillon, spokesman for the French force in Ivory Coast.
France, the former colonial power in Ivory Coast with more than 1,600 troops in the country, has taken a lead role in efforts to persuade Gbagbo to relinquish power, infuriating his supporters who accuse Paris of neo-colonialism.
"GBAGBO ALIVE"
A spokesman for Gbagbo in Paris said that Gbagbo was still alive after the bombing of his residence.
"President Gbagbo is still alive despite the violence of the bombing overnight which destroyed several buildings at the head of state's residence, including the first lady's offices. We have counted 12 dead," Alain Toussaint said in a statement.
"The bombing resumed 30 minutes ago, some 50 French tanks have taken up position in the streets around the residence," he said. "Between 300 and 400 heavily armed French foot soldiers are also positioned in front of the residence, ready to attack."
Some Gbagbo supporters around Cocody district, where his residence is located, tried to halt the French armored vehicles, kneeling in front of them praying, but were quickly dispersed when another round of firing began.
A resident said he saw 15 pro-Gbagbo soldiers surrender their weapons and battle fatigues to the French soldiers. A French army source later said over 100 pro-Gbagbo army had surrendered their weapons.
Helicopter attacks a week ago on Gbagbo's heavy weapons by the United Nations and France appeared to bring Gbagbo's forces to the point of surrender, but they used a lull in fighting to regroup before taking more ground in Abidjan.
HEAVY WEAPONS TARGETED
The latest fighting in Abidjan pushed cocoa prices up by more than 3 percent to $3,077 per tonne, while Ivory Coast's $2.3 billion bond fell by one point as hopes faded for a quick resolution to the conflict.
However a major shipping firm, Maersk Line, said one of its ships would this week call at Abidjan to pick up cocoa for the first time since sanctions were lifted by the European Union.
Hamadoun Toure, spokesman for the U.N. mission in the country, had said on Sunday U.N. and French forces were seeking to neutralize Gbagbo's heavy weapons.
"We had targeted and hit several different places where we found heavy weapons, not only the areas around Gbagbo's residence, but all places where we know that there are heavy weapons," Toure said.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said the U.N. headquarters in Ivory Coast, Ouattara's base and two civilian districts had been hit by machinegun, sniper and rocket-propelled grenade fire in recent days.
"These actions are unacceptable and cannot continue," said Ban on Sunday, authorizing U.N. peacekeepers to use "all necessary means" to suppress the use of heavy weapons by Gbagbo's troops, protect civilians and peacekeepers.
Ouattara's forces swept from the north to coastal Abidjan almost unopposed more than a week ago in a drive to install Ouattara as the top cocoa producer's leader.
Gbagbo's defeat had appeared imminent last week and talks took place between the two sides. But Gbagbo's soldiers have dug in, holding on to swathes of the city and frustrating hopes of a swift end to the conflict.
Even if Gbagbo relinquishes power, Ouattara's ability to unify the West African country may be undermined by reports of atrocities against civilians since his forces charged into Abidjan. Ouattara's camp has denied involvement.
Human Rights Watch said on Saturday that forces loyal to Ouattara had killed hundreds of civilians, raped over 20 women and girls perceived as belonging Gbagbo camp and burned at least 10 villages in western Ivory Coast.
Those loyal Gbagbo, in turn, killed more than 100 alleged supporters of Ouattara in March.
Relief agency Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), said on Sunday that the battle for Abidjan is pushing its four million residents ever closer to a health disaster.
(Additional reporting by Emmanuel Braun in Abidjan, Louis Charbonneau at the United Nations, Vicky Buffery in Paris and Bate Felix in Dakar; writing by Bate Felix; editing by Giles Elgood)
ABIDJAN (Reuters) - A column of more than 30 French armored vehicles advanced toward the residence of Ivory Coast's Laurent Gbagbo in Abidjan on Monday, a witness told Reuters.
A day after U.N. and French helicopters attacked forces loyal to Gbagbo, damaging the presidential residence in Abidjan and destroying heavy weapons, a French military spokesman said the aim of the current operation was to avoid a "bloodbath" but declined to give further details.
"The vehicles are advancing and there are (French) soldiers behind with a helicopter hovering above," said Alfred Kouassi, a resident who lives in a high-rise building overlooking the boulevard where the French vehicles were moving forward.
"We can hear automatic gunfire," he said.
Gbagbo has refused to step down after his rival Alassane Ouattara won last November's presidential election, according to results certified by the United Nations, reigniting a civil war that has claimed more than a thousand lives and uprooted a million people.
Residents reported heavy fighting on Monday morning between forces loyal to Ouattara and those backing Gbagbo around Abidjan's Cocody and Plateau districts, still controlled by forces loyal to Gbagbo.
Hundreds of fresh pro-Ouattara troops massed at a base camp just north of Abidjan, where a small bus arrived, filled with new Kalashnikov rifles still in their transparent blue wrappers.
The French armored vehicles, each carrying between four to eight men, left their base in the south and headed toward downtown Abidjan early on Monday.
"Armed and ready for combat," the commanding officer ordered. The men cocked their weapons ready to fire as the vehicles rolled out of the base.
"The operation is underway. I cannot give you more details. The aim is to ensure a bloodbath is averted," said Frederick Daguillon, spokesman for the French force in Ivory Coast.
France, the former colonial power in Ivory Coast with more than 1,600 troops in the country, has taken a lead role in efforts to persuade Gbagbo to relinquish power, infuriating his supporters who accuse Paris of neo-colonialism.
"GBAGBO ALIVE"
A spokesman for Gbagbo in Paris said that Gbagbo was still alive after the bombing of his residence.
"President Gbagbo is still alive despite the violence of the bombing overnight which destroyed several buildings at the head of state's residence, including the first lady's offices. We have counted 12 dead," Alain Toussaint said in a statement.
"The bombing resumed 30 minutes ago, some 50 French tanks have taken up position in the streets around the residence," he said. "Between 300 and 400 heavily armed French foot soldiers are also positioned in front of the residence, ready to attack."
Some Gbagbo supporters around Cocody district, where his residence is located, tried to halt the French armored vehicles, kneeling in front of them praying, but were quickly dispersed when another round of firing began.
A resident said he saw 15 pro-Gbagbo soldiers surrender their weapons and battle fatigues to the French soldiers. A French army source later said over 100 pro-Gbagbo army had surrendered their weapons.
Helicopter attacks a week ago on Gbagbo's heavy weapons by the United Nations and France appeared to bring Gbagbo's forces to the point of surrender, but they used a lull in fighting to regroup before taking more ground in Abidjan.
HEAVY WEAPONS TARGETED
The latest fighting in Abidjan pushed cocoa prices up by more than 3 percent to $3,077 per tonne, while Ivory Coast's $2.3 billion bond fell by one point as hopes faded for a quick resolution to the conflict.
However a major shipping firm, Maersk Line, said one of its ships would this week call at Abidjan to pick up cocoa for the first time since sanctions were lifted by the European Union.
Hamadoun Toure, spokesman for the U.N. mission in the country, had said on Sunday U.N. and French forces were seeking to neutralize Gbagbo's heavy weapons.
"We had targeted and hit several different places where we found heavy weapons, not only the areas around Gbagbo's residence, but all places where we know that there are heavy weapons," Toure said.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said the U.N. headquarters in Ivory Coast, Ouattara's base and two civilian districts had been hit by machinegun, sniper and rocket-propelled grenade fire in recent days.
"These actions are unacceptable and cannot continue," said Ban on Sunday, authorizing U.N. peacekeepers to use "all necessary means" to suppress the use of heavy weapons by Gbagbo's troops, protect civilians and peacekeepers.
Ouattara's forces swept from the north to coastal Abidjan almost unopposed more than a week ago in a drive to install Ouattara as the top cocoa producer's leader.
Gbagbo's defeat had appeared imminent last week and talks took place between the two sides. But Gbagbo's soldiers have dug in, holding on to swathes of the city and frustrating hopes of a swift end to the conflict.
Even if Gbagbo relinquishes power, Ouattara's ability to unify the West African country may be undermined by reports of atrocities against civilians since his forces charged into Abidjan. Ouattara's camp has denied involvement.
Human Rights Watch said on Saturday that forces loyal to Ouattara had killed hundreds of civilians, raped over 20 women and girls perceived as belonging Gbagbo camp and burned at least 10 villages in western Ivory Coast.
Those loyal Gbagbo, in turn, killed more than 100 alleged supporters of Ouattara in March.
Relief agency Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), said on Sunday that the battle for Abidjan is pushing its four million residents ever closer to a health disaster.
(Additional reporting by Emmanuel Braun in Abidjan, Louis Charbonneau at the United Nations, Vicky Buffery in Paris and Bate Felix in Dakar; writing by Bate Felix; editing by Giles Elgood)
Friday, April 8, 2011
Vacation Days
If the government shuts down, do the President's vacations shut down too? Meh, I suppose an imminent Government shutdown over a bitter budget battle is no reason not to take a personal weekend. Read the original here.
The Virginia Gazette, Williamsburg Virginia > News > President Obama, First Family Plan To Vacation In Williamsburg This Weekend
WILLIAMSBURG -- The leader of the free world may be coming to Williamsburg for some rest and relaxation if Congress is able to come to agreement on the budget. President Obama and the First Family are planning to visit the area this weekend in what the White House described Wednesday as a "long-planned family trip to Colonial Williamsburg."
But the trip might get grounded if a government shutdown can't be averted by Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
The announcement that Obama was coming generated excitement from Williamsburg Mayor Clyde Haulman. "I think it's terrific. Williamsburg was voted as the number one family destination," Haulman said. "The first family is coming to the first destination."
Haulman said that he didn't know where the Obamas would be staying or what was on their schedule. "I was just informed that they were coming. … I don't know where they're staying in Williamsburg," Haulman said.Tom Shrout, a spokesman for Colonial Williamsburg, said that he had not received any confirmation on Wednesday that the Obamas would be visiting. "It'd be wonderful to have them visit the historic area," Shrout said. "But we've had no confirmation of it at this time. We'll see what tomorrow brings."
Like many Colonial Williamsburg visitors, the Obamas have two school-aged daughters who may be eager to learn about the history of the country their father leads.
The White House cautioned that the Obamas' plans would be altered if negotiations on the federal budget stall. According to news reports, the White House was planning to hold talks again Wednesday evening.
Staff writer Tyra M. Vaughn contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2011, Newport News, Va., Daily Press
http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-williamsburg-mayor-president-obama-coming-to-visit-this-weekend-20110406[1],0,6881733.story
References
^ http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-williamsburg-mayor-president-obama-coming-to-visit-this-weekend-20110406 (www.dailypress.com)
The Virginia Gazette, Williamsburg Virginia > News > President Obama, First Family Plan To Vacation In Williamsburg This Weekend
WILLIAMSBURG -- The leader of the free world may be coming to Williamsburg for some rest and relaxation if Congress is able to come to agreement on the budget. President Obama and the First Family are planning to visit the area this weekend in what the White House described Wednesday as a "long-planned family trip to Colonial Williamsburg."
But the trip might get grounded if a government shutdown can't be averted by Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
The announcement that Obama was coming generated excitement from Williamsburg Mayor Clyde Haulman. "I think it's terrific. Williamsburg was voted as the number one family destination," Haulman said. "The first family is coming to the first destination."
Haulman said that he didn't know where the Obamas would be staying or what was on their schedule. "I was just informed that they were coming. … I don't know where they're staying in Williamsburg," Haulman said.Tom Shrout, a spokesman for Colonial Williamsburg, said that he had not received any confirmation on Wednesday that the Obamas would be visiting. "It'd be wonderful to have them visit the historic area," Shrout said. "But we've had no confirmation of it at this time. We'll see what tomorrow brings."
Like many Colonial Williamsburg visitors, the Obamas have two school-aged daughters who may be eager to learn about the history of the country their father leads.
The White House cautioned that the Obamas' plans would be altered if negotiations on the federal budget stall. According to news reports, the White House was planning to hold talks again Wednesday evening.
Staff writer Tyra M. Vaughn contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2011, Newport News, Va., Daily Press
http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-williamsburg-mayor-president-obama-coming-to-visit-this-weekend-20110406[1],0,6881733.story
References
^ http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-williamsburg-mayor-president-obama-coming-to-visit-this-weekend-20110406 (www.dailypress.com)
Democrats try to one-up each other in being "civil"
Money Quote:
'“We are absolutely outraged. This is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians,” she said.'
Read the original here.
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton Upset Over Treatment Of DC During Shutdown Resolution Talks
WASHINGTON - Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D -DC) was on fire when she spoke to FOX 5 Morning News Thursday about how Washington, D.C. residents are being treated as work to avoid a government shutdown continues.
“We are absolutely outraged. This is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians,” she said.
“It’s time that the District of Columbia told the Congress to go straight to hell,” Norton continued after explaining how an attached rider to the latest bill prevented D.C. from spending its own money on abortions for low income women.
“If these Republicans insist that, if they don’t get the whole pie they’ll take the whole country down with them,” she continued, “then we have got to make them pay the price.”
Update: Eleanor Holmes Norton also joined us on the FOX 5 NewsEdge at 6 to discuss the looming government shutdown and its effects on the District. (VIDEO #2)
MORE ONLINE: Government Shutdown on myfoxdc[1]
References
^ Government Shutdown on myfoxdc (www.myfoxdc.com)
Read more: http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/politics/delegate-eleanor-holmes-norton-upset-over-treatment-of-dc-during-shutdown-resolution-talks-040711#ixzz1Iw8uFTZu
'“We are absolutely outraged. This is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians,” she said.'
Read the original here.
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton Upset Over Treatment Of DC During Shutdown Resolution Talks
WASHINGTON - Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D -DC) was on fire when she spoke to FOX 5 Morning News Thursday about how Washington, D.C. residents are being treated as work to avoid a government shutdown continues.
“We are absolutely outraged. This is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians,” she said.
“It’s time that the District of Columbia told the Congress to go straight to hell,” Norton continued after explaining how an attached rider to the latest bill prevented D.C. from spending its own money on abortions for low income women.
“If these Republicans insist that, if they don’t get the whole pie they’ll take the whole country down with them,” she continued, “then we have got to make them pay the price.”
Update: Eleanor Holmes Norton also joined us on the FOX 5 NewsEdge at 6 to discuss the looming government shutdown and its effects on the District. (VIDEO #2)
MORE ONLINE: Government Shutdown on myfoxdc[1]
References
^ Government Shutdown on myfoxdc (www.myfoxdc.com)
Read more: http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/politics/delegate-eleanor-holmes-norton-upset-over-treatment-of-dc-during-shutdown-resolution-talks-040711#ixzz1Iw8uFTZu
Minority Leader Pelosi brings "Civility to discourse"
Read the original here.
Nancy Pelosi Calls GOP Budget 'A War On Women' - Jennifer Epstein
There is “a war on women,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says, and it’s being led by her own colleagues on the other side of the aisle in Congress.
“There is actually a war on women,” the California Democrat said Thursday in Washington, taking aim at House Republicans’ efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and restrict access to abortions, among other measures.Continue Reading[1]
“Abortion is one issue, but contraception and family planning and birth control are opposed by this crowd too,” the first female speaker of the House said of Republicans at the Feminist Majority Foundation’s Women, Money and Power Summit, CNN reported[2].
“We have a big fight on our hands, in terms of respect for women, and our, what is right for our country in terms of our family decisions, in terms of Medicaid and Medicare,” she said. “We have to create a drumbeat across America.”
House Republicans have proposed one bill that would eliminate all federal funding for abortions and restrict access to the procedure. Another measure, passed Thursday afternoon as part of the GOP-favored continuing resolution to keep the government functioning for another week, fund the military for the rest of the fiscal year and cut $12 billion in spending, includes among its cuts the end of federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said that his caucus will not back down from its efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, and it’s said to be a major sticking point[3] in budget negotiations between the House GOP and the White House. In February, he indicated that he had told religious leaders[4] he wanted to “win the war not just win a battle” over Planned Parenthood and abortion.
Pelosi said that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) proposed 2012 budget plan and its vision for reforming Medicare and Medicaid would also disproportionately hurt women.
“This is not reform,” she said. “This is the same old ideological turn back the clock for women — end Medicare.”
In an interview with CNN, Pelosi went even further in attacking the GOP agenda and what it would mean for women.
“If you are talking about jobs, their pay in the workplace, health care … no longer is being a woman a pre-existing medical condition. They want to change all of that,” Pelosi said. “So in every aspect — whether it is employment, whether it is education, whether it is health care, whether it is retirement, whether it is collective bargaining, which affects women as well — women have a lot to lose with the ideological old-style agenda of the Republicans.”
References
^ Continue Reading (www.politico.com)
^ CNN reported (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
^ a major sticking point (www.politico.com)
^ told religious leaders (blogs.cbn.com)
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52793.html#ixzz1Iw8SoE00
Nancy Pelosi Calls GOP Budget 'A War On Women' - Jennifer Epstein
There is “a war on women,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says, and it’s being led by her own colleagues on the other side of the aisle in Congress.
“There is actually a war on women,” the California Democrat said Thursday in Washington, taking aim at House Republicans’ efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and restrict access to abortions, among other measures.Continue Reading[1]
“Abortion is one issue, but contraception and family planning and birth control are opposed by this crowd too,” the first female speaker of the House said of Republicans at the Feminist Majority Foundation’s Women, Money and Power Summit, CNN reported[2].
“We have a big fight on our hands, in terms of respect for women, and our, what is right for our country in terms of our family decisions, in terms of Medicaid and Medicare,” she said. “We have to create a drumbeat across America.”
House Republicans have proposed one bill that would eliminate all federal funding for abortions and restrict access to the procedure. Another measure, passed Thursday afternoon as part of the GOP-favored continuing resolution to keep the government functioning for another week, fund the military for the rest of the fiscal year and cut $12 billion in spending, includes among its cuts the end of federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said that his caucus will not back down from its efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, and it’s said to be a major sticking point[3] in budget negotiations between the House GOP and the White House. In February, he indicated that he had told religious leaders[4] he wanted to “win the war not just win a battle” over Planned Parenthood and abortion.
Pelosi said that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) proposed 2012 budget plan and its vision for reforming Medicare and Medicaid would also disproportionately hurt women.
“This is not reform,” she said. “This is the same old ideological turn back the clock for women — end Medicare.”
In an interview with CNN, Pelosi went even further in attacking the GOP agenda and what it would mean for women.
“If you are talking about jobs, their pay in the workplace, health care … no longer is being a woman a pre-existing medical condition. They want to change all of that,” Pelosi said. “So in every aspect — whether it is employment, whether it is education, whether it is health care, whether it is retirement, whether it is collective bargaining, which affects women as well — women have a lot to lose with the ideological old-style agenda of the Republicans.”
References
^ Continue Reading (www.politico.com)
^ CNN reported (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
^ a major sticking point (www.politico.com)
^ told religious leaders (blogs.cbn.com)
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52793.html#ixzz1Iw8SoE00
Wasn't someone talking about "civility in discourse" not too long ago?
Things of note:
Facebook Event: Let’s Dump Trash At Boehner’s Pad – CNN Political Ticker
Washington (CNN) - If the federal government shuts down come Friday, House Speaker John Boehner may be in for quite a mess at his Washington, D.C. residence if some Facebook users have their way.
A Facebook event[1], entitled "If Boehner shuts down the government I am taking my trash to his house," has popped up and is gaining steam as the shutdown showdown ramps up on Capitol Hill. If the federal government shuts down, one of the District's services that will stop is trash pickup.
"Speaker John Boehner is ready to shut down the government, including District of Columbia city services like trash collection," it says on the page. "Well, if he won't allow us to use OUR TAX DOLLARS to pick it up, maybe we should just BRING IT TO HIM."
As of 2:30 p.m. EST there are 1,476 attending; 126 are listed as maybe; 156 aren't showing up; and 4,652 are still making up their minds (much like Congress, apparently).
The trash-a-thon is scheduled for Saturday and apparently will last through June 30.
Organizers of the event - Jonah Goodman and Nolan Treadway - write on the page that even if the government shutdown doesn't occur, they will "move forward with this event, we'll provide details on location(s) and we'll make sure it's done in a sanitary and respectful way. Please don't list any personal addresses for members of Congress on this page."
Goodman is listed in the Democratic National Committee network. Treadway is the political and logistics director for the liberal group Netroots Nation.
House Speaker Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel did not comment to CNN on the group. But he said that "The Speaker has made clear that he wants to cut spending and keep the government open. The House will pass yet another bill to that this afternoon. If the government does shut down, these folks should focus their ire on the Democrats who are actively rooting for a government shutdown, hoping for partisan gain."
Reaction on the page is, like Washington, all over the place.
Amy Lysander: "Do you plan on trashing the yards of the Democrats who are actually causing a shutdown? The House passed a bill to keep the government open. Two of them, actually. The Senate hasn't. Where's Harry Reid's house?"
Diane C. Russell: "Dems controlled Congress completely for 11 months after Obama submitted FY 2011 budget, but FAILED to do their duty and REFUSED to pass any appropriations, either before or after the beginning of the fiscal year."
Brian Devine: "I'll bring some styrofoam from the Hill caf."
Darrin Morgan: "Darn! I just cleaned out my garage. Oh, well. I have some rotten fruit I can throw at the Weeper of the House."
References
^ event (www.facebook.com)
- At what point does the DNC have to take responsibility for what their members do?
- How do you arrange to dump trash on a politician's private residence in a "sanitary and respectful way"?
Facebook Event: Let’s Dump Trash At Boehner’s Pad – CNN Political Ticker
Washington (CNN) - If the federal government shuts down come Friday, House Speaker John Boehner may be in for quite a mess at his Washington, D.C. residence if some Facebook users have their way.
A Facebook event[1], entitled "If Boehner shuts down the government I am taking my trash to his house," has popped up and is gaining steam as the shutdown showdown ramps up on Capitol Hill. If the federal government shuts down, one of the District's services that will stop is trash pickup.
"Speaker John Boehner is ready to shut down the government, including District of Columbia city services like trash collection," it says on the page. "Well, if he won't allow us to use OUR TAX DOLLARS to pick it up, maybe we should just BRING IT TO HIM."
As of 2:30 p.m. EST there are 1,476 attending; 126 are listed as maybe; 156 aren't showing up; and 4,652 are still making up their minds (much like Congress, apparently).
The trash-a-thon is scheduled for Saturday and apparently will last through June 30.
Organizers of the event - Jonah Goodman and Nolan Treadway - write on the page that even if the government shutdown doesn't occur, they will "move forward with this event, we'll provide details on location(s) and we'll make sure it's done in a sanitary and respectful way. Please don't list any personal addresses for members of Congress on this page."
Goodman is listed in the Democratic National Committee network. Treadway is the political and logistics director for the liberal group Netroots Nation.
House Speaker Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel did not comment to CNN on the group. But he said that "The Speaker has made clear that he wants to cut spending and keep the government open. The House will pass yet another bill to that this afternoon. If the government does shut down, these folks should focus their ire on the Democrats who are actively rooting for a government shutdown, hoping for partisan gain."
Reaction on the page is, like Washington, all over the place.
Amy Lysander: "Do you plan on trashing the yards of the Democrats who are actually causing a shutdown? The House passed a bill to keep the government open. Two of them, actually. The Senate hasn't. Where's Harry Reid's house?"
Diane C. Russell: "Dems controlled Congress completely for 11 months after Obama submitted FY 2011 budget, but FAILED to do their duty and REFUSED to pass any appropriations, either before or after the beginning of the fiscal year."
Brian Devine: "I'll bring some styrofoam from the Hill caf."
Darrin Morgan: "Darn! I just cleaned out my garage. Oh, well. I have some rotten fruit I can throw at the Weeper of the House."
References
^ event (www.facebook.com)
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Quote of the Day
Related to the previous post, but the full quote from the White House Transcript via the WSJ:
At a town-hall meeting yesterday in Fairless Hills, Pa., a man in the audience asked Obama about gasoline prices, which are currently in the range of $4 a gallon. According to the Associated Press, Obama responded "laughingly" and "needled" the questioner. The president's sarcasm comes through in the White House transcript:
I know some of these big guys, they're all still driving their big SUVs. You know, they got their big monster trucks and everything. You're one of them? Well, now, here's my point. If you're complaining about the price of gas and you're only getting eight miles a gallon--(laughter)--you may have a big family, but it's probably not that big. How many you have? Ten kids, you say? Ten kids? (Laughter.) Well, you definitely need a hybrid van then. (Laughter.) . . .
So, like I said, if you're getting eight miles a gallon you may want to think about a trade-in. You can get a great deal. I promise you, GM or Ford or Chrysler, they're going to be happy to give you a deal on something that gets you better gas mileage.
The transcript shows that Obama got lots of laughs. But presumably he was speaking to a friendly audience--to people who regard the burning of gasoline as sinful and who, at least in theory, are attracted to the idea of $8-a-gallon gasoline.
You should just get a new car...
Here's the money quote.
"Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.
“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”'
If only cash for clunkers hadn't gotten rid of so many perfectly well running used cars. Oh well, I'm sure mocking citizens who question you is perfectly presidential. Read the original here.
Obama: Expect Little Short-Term Relief On Gas Prices - Fall River, MA
FAIRLESS HILLS, Pa. —
Pitching the promise of energy independence, President Barack Obama cautioned Wednesday that it’s going to be tough to transition from America’s oil-dependent economy and acknowledged there’s little he can do to lower gas prices over the short term.
“I’m just going to be honest with you. There’s not much we can do next week or two weeks from now,” the president told workers at a wind turbine plant. It’s a theme Obama’s struck before as he tries to show voters he’s attuned to a top economic concern with gas prices pushing toward $4 a gallon.
Obama said he wants to move toward “a future where America is less dependent on foreign oil, more reliant on clean energy produced by workers like you.” That will happen by reducing oil imports, tapping domestic energy sources and shifting the nation to renewable and less polluting sources of energy, such as wind, the president says. He has set a goal of reducing oil imports by one-third by 2025.
But the president said it won’t happen overnight and if any politician says it’s easy, “they’re not telling the truth.”
“Gas prices? They’re going to still fluctuate until we can start making these broader changes, and that’s going to take a couple of years to have serious effect,” Obama said.
Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.
“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”
The president spoke at a town hall meeting at Gamesa Technology Corp., a Spanish company that makes giant turbines that use wind to generate electricity. According to the White House, it is the first overseas company of its kind to set up shop in the U.S.
Back in Washington, negotiations continued on a budget deal to avert a government shutdown Friday and Obama urged lawmakers to get it done.
The president said he wants to cut spending, but not at the expense of cutting priorities like energy and education.
As fuel prices rise because of growing demand worldwide and political unrest in oil-producing nations in North Africa and the Middle East, drivers are feeling pinched at the pump. Republicans blame Obama and his policies and he, in turn, is striving to show the public that he gets it.
Gasoline prices rose another 2 cents Tuesday to a new national average of just over $3.68 a gallon, according to AAA and other sources. Obama’s visit to Gamesa was his fourth energy event since March 11. He’s scheduled a fifth for Friday in Indianapolis.
Obama argues that shifting to cleaner and domestic energy sources will help create jobs and boost U.S. competitiveness.
Education is another item on Obama’s competitiveness agenda. Obama’s appearance keeps a promise he made to the National Action Network when he spoke there as a presidential candidate in 2007. Obama pledged to return, win or lose.
He returns just two days after launching his re-election bid. He is facing a key constituency that at times has scolded him for not being attentive enough to certain issues, such as double-digit black unemployment, but continues to hold him in high regard.
Obama deflects such criticism by arguing that his polices to expand the economy, create jobs and improve the education system, among other goals, will help the country as a whole, blacks included.
Ninety-five percent of blacks who voted, opted for Obama in 2008. A Gallup poll released last week showed his job approval among blacks holding at 84 percent, about the same as six months earlier.
AP National Writer Jesse Washington contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.heraldnews.com/archive/x675823241/Obama-Expect-little-short-term-relief-on-gas-prices#ixzz1IqIETtQz
"Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.
“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”'
If only cash for clunkers hadn't gotten rid of so many perfectly well running used cars. Oh well, I'm sure mocking citizens who question you is perfectly presidential. Read the original here.
Obama: Expect Little Short-Term Relief On Gas Prices - Fall River, MA
FAIRLESS HILLS, Pa. —
Pitching the promise of energy independence, President Barack Obama cautioned Wednesday that it’s going to be tough to transition from America’s oil-dependent economy and acknowledged there’s little he can do to lower gas prices over the short term.
“I’m just going to be honest with you. There’s not much we can do next week or two weeks from now,” the president told workers at a wind turbine plant. It’s a theme Obama’s struck before as he tries to show voters he’s attuned to a top economic concern with gas prices pushing toward $4 a gallon.
Obama said he wants to move toward “a future where America is less dependent on foreign oil, more reliant on clean energy produced by workers like you.” That will happen by reducing oil imports, tapping domestic energy sources and shifting the nation to renewable and less polluting sources of energy, such as wind, the president says. He has set a goal of reducing oil imports by one-third by 2025.
But the president said it won’t happen overnight and if any politician says it’s easy, “they’re not telling the truth.”
“Gas prices? They’re going to still fluctuate until we can start making these broader changes, and that’s going to take a couple of years to have serious effect,” Obama said.
Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.
“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”
The president spoke at a town hall meeting at Gamesa Technology Corp., a Spanish company that makes giant turbines that use wind to generate electricity. According to the White House, it is the first overseas company of its kind to set up shop in the U.S.
Back in Washington, negotiations continued on a budget deal to avert a government shutdown Friday and Obama urged lawmakers to get it done.
The president said he wants to cut spending, but not at the expense of cutting priorities like energy and education.
As fuel prices rise because of growing demand worldwide and political unrest in oil-producing nations in North Africa and the Middle East, drivers are feeling pinched at the pump. Republicans blame Obama and his policies and he, in turn, is striving to show the public that he gets it.
Gasoline prices rose another 2 cents Tuesday to a new national average of just over $3.68 a gallon, according to AAA and other sources. Obama’s visit to Gamesa was his fourth energy event since March 11. He’s scheduled a fifth for Friday in Indianapolis.
Obama argues that shifting to cleaner and domestic energy sources will help create jobs and boost U.S. competitiveness.
Education is another item on Obama’s competitiveness agenda. Obama’s appearance keeps a promise he made to the National Action Network when he spoke there as a presidential candidate in 2007. Obama pledged to return, win or lose.
He returns just two days after launching his re-election bid. He is facing a key constituency that at times has scolded him for not being attentive enough to certain issues, such as double-digit black unemployment, but continues to hold him in high regard.
Obama deflects such criticism by arguing that his polices to expand the economy, create jobs and improve the education system, among other goals, will help the country as a whole, blacks included.
Ninety-five percent of blacks who voted, opted for Obama in 2008. A Gallup poll released last week showed his job approval among blacks holding at 84 percent, about the same as six months earlier.
AP National Writer Jesse Washington contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.heraldnews.com/archive/x675823241/Obama-Expect-little-short-term-relief-on-gas-prices#ixzz1IqIETtQz
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
...And then leaves town....
Read the original here.
West Wing Briefing: Obama Headed Out Of D.C. As Shutdown Looms - 44
A fiery President Obama insisted[1] Tuesday after that if he and congressional leaders couldn’t reach a deal to avert a government shutdown, “I want a meeting again tomorrow here at the White House.”
“I will invite the same folks that we invited today,” he added. “And if that doesn’t work, we’ll invite them again the day after that. And I will have my entire team available to work through the details of getting a deal done.”
Obama’s team may not include the president himself. Despite the impasse in Washington over federal spending[2], the president as of early Wednesday was scheduled to give two speeches outside of Washington: one on energy in the Philadelphia suburbs, then another Wednesday evening to a group of black political activists in New York.
If the schedule remains intact, it will be the president’s first trip outside the capital since he officiallydeclared[3] Monday he will seek a second term. And while Obama (D) and his aides have repeated said he will not focus on his campaign in the next few months, his schedule may contradict those words.
Obama’s town hall on energy will be held at a wind turbine plant in the town of Fairless Hills in Bucks County, a well-known political bellwether in the Philadelphia area. While the city of Philadelphia overwhelmingly votes Democratic, its suburbs swing between the Democratic and Republican parties, making them crucial for Obama’s 2012 campaign.
The president defeated Sen John McCain (R-Ariz) in Pennsylvania with 55 percent of vote in 2008. But Republicans won the U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races there in November, suggesting a dip in enthusiasm for the president’s political party.
In New York City, Obama he won’t be wooing big-money donors[4], like he did last week. Instead, he will appear at the 20th anniversary of National Action Network[5], the group run by black activist and Obama backer the Rev. Al Sharpton.
For black voters, it’s not a question of whether they will support Obama, but how many will turn out in 2012. While polls show many other groups who backed the president in 2008 have fallen back in their enthusiasm, around 90 percent of blacks continue to approve of Obama’s performance in most polls. But Democrats say the huge black turnout that helped Obama win in states like Virginia and North Carolina is not a guarantee in 2012,as the motivation of electing the nation’s first black president is now gone.
By Perry Bacon Jr. | 05:45 AM ET, 04/06/2011
References
^ insisted (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ impasse in Washington over federal spending (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ declared (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ wooing big-money donors (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ National Action Network (www.nationalactionnetwork.net)
^ let Post editors know (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ let Post editors know (www.washingtonpost.com)
West Wing Briefing: Obama Headed Out Of D.C. As Shutdown Looms - 44
A fiery President Obama insisted[1] Tuesday after that if he and congressional leaders couldn’t reach a deal to avert a government shutdown, “I want a meeting again tomorrow here at the White House.”
“I will invite the same folks that we invited today,” he added. “And if that doesn’t work, we’ll invite them again the day after that. And I will have my entire team available to work through the details of getting a deal done.”
Obama’s team may not include the president himself. Despite the impasse in Washington over federal spending[2], the president as of early Wednesday was scheduled to give two speeches outside of Washington: one on energy in the Philadelphia suburbs, then another Wednesday evening to a group of black political activists in New York.
If the schedule remains intact, it will be the president’s first trip outside the capital since he officiallydeclared[3] Monday he will seek a second term. And while Obama (D) and his aides have repeated said he will not focus on his campaign in the next few months, his schedule may contradict those words.
Obama’s town hall on energy will be held at a wind turbine plant in the town of Fairless Hills in Bucks County, a well-known political bellwether in the Philadelphia area. While the city of Philadelphia overwhelmingly votes Democratic, its suburbs swing between the Democratic and Republican parties, making them crucial for Obama’s 2012 campaign.
The president defeated Sen John McCain (R-Ariz) in Pennsylvania with 55 percent of vote in 2008. But Republicans won the U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races there in November, suggesting a dip in enthusiasm for the president’s political party.
In New York City, Obama he won’t be wooing big-money donors[4], like he did last week. Instead, he will appear at the 20th anniversary of National Action Network[5], the group run by black activist and Obama backer the Rev. Al Sharpton.
For black voters, it’s not a question of whether they will support Obama, but how many will turn out in 2012. While polls show many other groups who backed the president in 2008 have fallen back in their enthusiasm, around 90 percent of blacks continue to approve of Obama’s performance in most polls. But Democrats say the huge black turnout that helped Obama win in states like Virginia and North Carolina is not a guarantee in 2012,as the motivation of electing the nation’s first black president is now gone.
By Perry Bacon Jr. | 05:45 AM ET, 04/06/2011
References
^ insisted (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ impasse in Washington over federal spending (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ declared (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ wooing big-money donors (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ National Action Network (www.nationalactionnetwork.net)
^ let Post editors know (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ let Post editors know (www.washingtonpost.com)
President scolds Congressional Leaders
Read the original here.
Barack Obama: Time To Act Like 'Grown-Ups' - Glenn Thrush And MJ Lee
President Barack Obama on Tuesday called on congressional leaders – especially Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) – to act like “grown-ups” and avert a government shutdown after they made no apparent progress[1] in reaching a budget agreement at a White House meeting earlier in the day.
Obama, in a surprise appearance[2] at the daily White House press briefing, underscored his direct involvement in the process – after weeks of publicly staying on the sidelines — and promised round-the-clock talks to stave off the shutdown that could occur on Friday.Continue Reading[3]
And he rejected[4] a Republican proposal to enact a third short-term spending deal — unless it’s a technical “paperwork” bridge to a larger bipartisan agreement.
Obama said lawmakers need to “act like grownups” and get a deal done, claiming “we have more than met the Republicans half way,” by agreeing to $73 billion in cuts from his 2011 budget - a number originally proposed by Boehner.
“We are now closer than we’ve ever been in getting an agreement,” Obama said, holding his thumb and forefinger an inch apart.
Obama, who left open the possibility of postponing a planned Wednesday trip to Philadelphia to directly participate in talks, added: “There are some things we can’t control… like earthquakes and tsunamis… What we can control is our capacity to have a reasoned, fair conversation between the parties.”
The president said his meeting with Boehner and legislative leaders Tuesday morning was productive but the speaker rejected the idea that the two sides had reached a deal.
“I think the American people recognize we are in some pretty unsettled times right now, we don’t have times for games, we don’t have time for trying to score political points and maneuvering… Not on this.”
For his part, Boehner said the meeting went well, but told reporters that the two sides weren’t close to a deal, citing the nature and size of the cuts proposed by the White House.
“Despite attempts by Democrats to lock in a number among themselves, I’ve made clear that their $33 billion is not enough,” he said in a statement, referring to the amount of real cuts proposed by Democrats.
Boehner blasted Obama’s proposal as “smokes and mirrors” and has suggested the White House accept a new one-week extension with a year-long guarantee for military spending.
Boehner and Reid will meet later today – and have asked for administration officials to stay away, Obama said.
“The speaker apparently didn’t want our team involved in that discussion,” he added. “That’s fine. If they can sort it out, then we’ve got more than enough to do. If they can’t sort it out then, I want them back here tomorrow. But it would be inexcusable for us to not be able to take care of last year’s business.”
Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck contested Obama’s account of the the afternoon meeting.
“The Speaker never said he didn’t want the White House there, just that he wanted to meet with Senator Reid,” he said. “Speaker Boehner and Senator Reid have been having regular discussions on this topic for weeks. This is just one of those occasions.
Federal agencies have begun making contingency plans for a possible shut down and Obama laid out several functions that would stop if the government shuts down, including some veterans’ benefits, small business loans and national parks and monuments.
He quipped that lawmakers have “enough of a cushion” that is not available to other Americans.
Matt Negrin contributed to this report.
References
^ no apparent progress (www.politico.com)
^ surprise appearance (www.politico.com)
^ Continue Reading (www.politico.com)
^ he rejected (www.politico.com)
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52593.html#ixzz1IkSQPsNC
Barack Obama: Time To Act Like 'Grown-Ups' - Glenn Thrush And MJ Lee
President Barack Obama on Tuesday called on congressional leaders – especially Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) – to act like “grown-ups” and avert a government shutdown after they made no apparent progress[1] in reaching a budget agreement at a White House meeting earlier in the day.
Obama, in a surprise appearance[2] at the daily White House press briefing, underscored his direct involvement in the process – after weeks of publicly staying on the sidelines — and promised round-the-clock talks to stave off the shutdown that could occur on Friday.Continue Reading[3]
And he rejected[4] a Republican proposal to enact a third short-term spending deal — unless it’s a technical “paperwork” bridge to a larger bipartisan agreement.
Obama said lawmakers need to “act like grownups” and get a deal done, claiming “we have more than met the Republicans half way,” by agreeing to $73 billion in cuts from his 2011 budget - a number originally proposed by Boehner.
“We are now closer than we’ve ever been in getting an agreement,” Obama said, holding his thumb and forefinger an inch apart.
Obama, who left open the possibility of postponing a planned Wednesday trip to Philadelphia to directly participate in talks, added: “There are some things we can’t control… like earthquakes and tsunamis… What we can control is our capacity to have a reasoned, fair conversation between the parties.”
The president said his meeting with Boehner and legislative leaders Tuesday morning was productive but the speaker rejected the idea that the two sides had reached a deal.
“I think the American people recognize we are in some pretty unsettled times right now, we don’t have times for games, we don’t have time for trying to score political points and maneuvering… Not on this.”
For his part, Boehner said the meeting went well, but told reporters that the two sides weren’t close to a deal, citing the nature and size of the cuts proposed by the White House.
“Despite attempts by Democrats to lock in a number among themselves, I’ve made clear that their $33 billion is not enough,” he said in a statement, referring to the amount of real cuts proposed by Democrats.
Boehner blasted Obama’s proposal as “smokes and mirrors” and has suggested the White House accept a new one-week extension with a year-long guarantee for military spending.
Boehner and Reid will meet later today – and have asked for administration officials to stay away, Obama said.
“The speaker apparently didn’t want our team involved in that discussion,” he added. “That’s fine. If they can sort it out, then we’ve got more than enough to do. If they can’t sort it out then, I want them back here tomorrow. But it would be inexcusable for us to not be able to take care of last year’s business.”
Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck contested Obama’s account of the the afternoon meeting.
“The Speaker never said he didn’t want the White House there, just that he wanted to meet with Senator Reid,” he said. “Speaker Boehner and Senator Reid have been having regular discussions on this topic for weeks. This is just one of those occasions.
Federal agencies have begun making contingency plans for a possible shut down and Obama laid out several functions that would stop if the government shuts down, including some veterans’ benefits, small business loans and national parks and monuments.
He quipped that lawmakers have “enough of a cushion” that is not available to other Americans.
Matt Negrin contributed to this report.
References
^ no apparent progress (www.politico.com)
^ surprise appearance (www.politico.com)
^ Continue Reading (www.politico.com)
^ he rejected (www.politico.com)
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52593.html#ixzz1IkSQPsNC
Who decides what you eat?
Read the original here.
New York City Councilman Leroy Comrie Proposing Bill To Penalize Fast Food Chains For Unhealthy Kids' Meals « CBS New York
NEW YORK (CBS 2) – San Francisco’s already done it, and now New York[1] may follow suit. New York City[2] Councilman Leroy Comrie thinks the city should consider a ban on “Happy Meals”[3] and similar fast food promotions[4]aimed at kids unless those meals meet certain nutritional standards, Jay Dow reports[5].
Comrie has fought the battle of the bulge himself.
“As you know, and I’m an example, nearly one-third of all children in New York City and throughout the United States are either overweight or obese,” Comrie said.
Comrie planned to introduce his own bill Wednesday that would essentially rewrite what could currently be considered a “Happy Meal.” The bill would require establishments that offer toys[6] with food make sure the meals are 500 calories or less and have low fat and low sodium totals.
Penalties would be steep: between $200 to $2,500 for repeat restaurant offenders who use toys to sell unhealthy meals.
Comrie said fast food restaurants know exactly what they’re doing.
“It comes as no surprise that these ads and meals are also targeted in low income and minority neighborhoods that are already at risk for childhood obesity. These are the same communities that have limited access to supermarkets, limited access to healthy food options,” Comrie said.
In a statement, Mason Smoot, vice president and general manager for McDonald’s in the New York Metro Area said, “Our Happy Meals make it easier for families to choose the right foods in portions just for kids. We provide options for our customers and trust them to make the decisions that are right for their families. Politicians should too.”
Do you side with Councilman Comrie? Should Happy Meals be banned? Let us know below…
References
^ New York (newyork.cbslocal.com)
^ New York City (newyork.cbslocal.com)
^ “Happy Meals” (newyork.cbslocal.com)
^ fast food promotions (http)
^ Jay Dow reports (newyork.cbslocal.com)
^ toys (newyork.cbslocal.com)
New York City Councilman Leroy Comrie Proposing Bill To Penalize Fast Food Chains For Unhealthy Kids' Meals « CBS New York
NEW YORK (CBS 2) – San Francisco’s already done it, and now New York[1] may follow suit. New York City[2] Councilman Leroy Comrie thinks the city should consider a ban on “Happy Meals”[3] and similar fast food promotions[4]aimed at kids unless those meals meet certain nutritional standards, Jay Dow reports[5].
Comrie has fought the battle of the bulge himself.
“As you know, and I’m an example, nearly one-third of all children in New York City and throughout the United States are either overweight or obese,” Comrie said.
Comrie planned to introduce his own bill Wednesday that would essentially rewrite what could currently be considered a “Happy Meal.” The bill would require establishments that offer toys[6] with food make sure the meals are 500 calories or less and have low fat and low sodium totals.
Penalties would be steep: between $200 to $2,500 for repeat restaurant offenders who use toys to sell unhealthy meals.
Comrie said fast food restaurants know exactly what they’re doing.
“It comes as no surprise that these ads and meals are also targeted in low income and minority neighborhoods that are already at risk for childhood obesity. These are the same communities that have limited access to supermarkets, limited access to healthy food options,” Comrie said.
In a statement, Mason Smoot, vice president and general manager for McDonald’s in the New York Metro Area said, “Our Happy Meals make it easier for families to choose the right foods in portions just for kids. We provide options for our customers and trust them to make the decisions that are right for their families. Politicians should too.”
Do you side with Councilman Comrie? Should Happy Meals be banned? Let us know below…
References
^ New York (newyork.cbslocal.com)
^ New York City (newyork.cbslocal.com)
^ “Happy Meals” (newyork.cbslocal.com)
^ fast food promotions (http)
^ Jay Dow reports (newyork.cbslocal.com)
^ toys (newyork.cbslocal.com)
When $ trumps care. When Government runs health.
Read the original here.
BBC News - Surgeons Raise Alarm Over Waiting
5 April 2011 Last updated at 12:00 ET By Branwen Jeffreys Health correspondent, BBC News
Continue reading the main story[1]
“Start Quote
We've started to get reports over the last nine months that access to these services are being restricted”End QuotePeter Kay, president of BOA
"GPs were told not so send as many patients to hospital, maybe to delay referrals until the end of the financial year while perhaps introducing thresholds for surgery."
He says that simply delaying surgery by one means or another does not improve the outcome for patients as their condition can deteriorate.
"The double jeopardy is that patients wait longer in pain, and when they have the operation, the result might not have been as good as it otherwise would have been had they had it early. "Limits and delays
The BBC asked orthopaedic surgeons through the BOA if they had seen delays to these operations as a result of measures introduced during the last financial year.
Overall, 692 surgeons in England sent the BBC information about the policy on hip and knee replacement of their local Primary Care Trust (PCT).
Between them they covered the majority of PCTs in England. In some areas no restrictions were being imposed, but in others the specialists reported delays or new thresholds for surgery.
106 surgeons told the BBC routine operations had been put on hold in their area. Others described new limits on when patients qualify for hip or knee replacements.
152 specialists said patients now have to be more disabled or in greater pain, and 118 told us hip and knee surgery had been regarded as a procedure of low priority.
The data reveals a picture of overlapping restrictions, with some surgeons reporting more than one new policy had been introduced in the same area.Routine surgery put on hold
Peter Kay, president of the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA), says hip and knee ops save society money.
A number of PCTs have been explicit about their decisions to put all routine operations on hold for several months up to April to help balance their budgets by the end of the financial year. They include Warrington, Sheffield, Eastern and Coastal Kent, Bury and Warwickshire.
Alex Waring, a patient in Warwickshire, was told he was being referred for an urgent knee replacement in August of last year. Now he looks at that letter with bewilderment as more than seven months later he is still waiting for surgery.
Mr Waring has already had one successful knee replacement and says he is in daily pain waiting for this second operation.
"It's excruciating sometimes to put it mildly. And it affects you at the times when you're not expecting it. I get off my mobile scooter and nearly fall over because my knee is gone, the pain, you've to sit there until the pain just goes away."Invisible waiting
Putting routine operations on hold means that GPs simply stop referring their patients for surgery. So although a patient might be waiting longer, this isn't recorded in the official waiting statistics.
Another way of adding invisible waiting time into the system is to implement stricter new criteria which have the effect of delaying the point when a patient can be referred for treatment. An investigation by the BBC also found evidence in many PCT board papers of new thresholds being added for hip and knee replacements.
They include introducing scoring systems for patients for pain or disability, or not allowing some obese patients to be referred for surgery until they have been on a weight loss programme.
Professor John Appleby, chief economist at the Kings Fund, says it is a mystery why these operations are being targeted for savings. "I find it difficult to understand. Hip operations are quite expensive, but patients get a lot of benefit for that money. This is actually very good value for money indeed."
These delays and restrictions are a response to the financial challenge facing the NHS in England. The scale of it was set out under the last Labour government, but the decisions on how to find those savings are being made now.
The coalition government has stopped performance managing the 18 week waiting time, although it remains a legal right under the NHS constitution.
A Department of Health spokesman said: "When clinicians and patients are making decisions about joint replacement surgery, it is right that other procedures - which could provide better outcomes for patients and provide better value for taxpayers - are also considered.
"Our modernisation plans for greater patient choice will drive improvements in quality and waiting times as we focus on the entire patient pathway, not just a narrow part of it, so that people live longer healthier lives."
References
^ Continue reading the main story (www.bbc.co.uk)
BBC News - Surgeons Raise Alarm Over Waiting
5 April 2011 Last updated at 12:00 ET By Branwen Jeffreys Health correspondent, BBC News
In England in 2009/10 there were 101,020 hip replacements and 73,378 knee replacements carried out
Surgeons say patients in some parts of England have spent months waiting in pain because of delayed operations or new restrictions on who qualifies for treatment.
In several areas routine surgery was put on hold for months, while in many others new thresholds for hip and knee replacements have been introduced.
The moves are part of the NHS drive to find £20bn efficiency savings by 2015.
The government said performance should be measured by outcomes not numbers.
Surgeons have described the delays faced by patients as "devastating and cruel". Peter Kay, the president of the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA), says they've become increasingly frustrated that hip and knee replacements are being targeted as a way of finding savings.
"We've started to get reports over the last nine months that access to these services are being restricted.
Surgeons say patients in some parts of England have spent months waiting in pain because of delayed operations or new restrictions on who qualifies for treatment.
In several areas routine surgery was put on hold for months, while in many others new thresholds for hip and knee replacements have been introduced.
The moves are part of the NHS drive to find £20bn efficiency savings by 2015.
The government said performance should be measured by outcomes not numbers.
Surgeons have described the delays faced by patients as "devastating and cruel". Peter Kay, the president of the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA), says they've become increasingly frustrated that hip and knee replacements are being targeted as a way of finding savings.
"We've started to get reports over the last nine months that access to these services are being restricted.
Continue reading the main story[1]
“Start Quote
We've started to get reports over the last nine months that access to these services are being restricted”End QuotePeter Kay, president of BOA
"GPs were told not so send as many patients to hospital, maybe to delay referrals until the end of the financial year while perhaps introducing thresholds for surgery."
He says that simply delaying surgery by one means or another does not improve the outcome for patients as their condition can deteriorate.
"The double jeopardy is that patients wait longer in pain, and when they have the operation, the result might not have been as good as it otherwise would have been had they had it early. "Limits and delays
The BBC asked orthopaedic surgeons through the BOA if they had seen delays to these operations as a result of measures introduced during the last financial year.
Overall, 692 surgeons in England sent the BBC information about the policy on hip and knee replacement of their local Primary Care Trust (PCT).
Between them they covered the majority of PCTs in England. In some areas no restrictions were being imposed, but in others the specialists reported delays or new thresholds for surgery.
106 surgeons told the BBC routine operations had been put on hold in their area. Others described new limits on when patients qualify for hip or knee replacements.
152 specialists said patients now have to be more disabled or in greater pain, and 118 told us hip and knee surgery had been regarded as a procedure of low priority.
The data reveals a picture of overlapping restrictions, with some surgeons reporting more than one new policy had been introduced in the same area.Routine surgery put on hold
Peter Kay, president of the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA), says hip and knee ops save society money.
A number of PCTs have been explicit about their decisions to put all routine operations on hold for several months up to April to help balance their budgets by the end of the financial year. They include Warrington, Sheffield, Eastern and Coastal Kent, Bury and Warwickshire.
Alex Waring, a patient in Warwickshire, was told he was being referred for an urgent knee replacement in August of last year. Now he looks at that letter with bewilderment as more than seven months later he is still waiting for surgery.
Mr Waring has already had one successful knee replacement and says he is in daily pain waiting for this second operation.
"It's excruciating sometimes to put it mildly. And it affects you at the times when you're not expecting it. I get off my mobile scooter and nearly fall over because my knee is gone, the pain, you've to sit there until the pain just goes away."Invisible waiting
Putting routine operations on hold means that GPs simply stop referring their patients for surgery. So although a patient might be waiting longer, this isn't recorded in the official waiting statistics.
Another way of adding invisible waiting time into the system is to implement stricter new criteria which have the effect of delaying the point when a patient can be referred for treatment. An investigation by the BBC also found evidence in many PCT board papers of new thresholds being added for hip and knee replacements.
They include introducing scoring systems for patients for pain or disability, or not allowing some obese patients to be referred for surgery until they have been on a weight loss programme.
Professor John Appleby, chief economist at the Kings Fund, says it is a mystery why these operations are being targeted for savings. "I find it difficult to understand. Hip operations are quite expensive, but patients get a lot of benefit for that money. This is actually very good value for money indeed."
These delays and restrictions are a response to the financial challenge facing the NHS in England. The scale of it was set out under the last Labour government, but the decisions on how to find those savings are being made now.
The coalition government has stopped performance managing the 18 week waiting time, although it remains a legal right under the NHS constitution.
A Department of Health spokesman said: "When clinicians and patients are making decisions about joint replacement surgery, it is right that other procedures - which could provide better outcomes for patients and provide better value for taxpayers - are also considered.
"Our modernisation plans for greater patient choice will drive improvements in quality and waiting times as we focus on the entire patient pathway, not just a narrow part of it, so that people live longer healthier lives."
References
^ Continue reading the main story (www.bbc.co.uk)
Business can move. Cities cannot.
Imagine my shock, that the city of San Francisco realizes that businesses can leave. Read the original here.
San Francisco Approves Twitter Tax Break « CBS Sacramento
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS/BCN/AP) — The SanFrancisco[1] Board of Supervisors approved a tax break Tuesday to keep Twitter from fleeing the city.
The measure passed 8-3 exempts the micro-blogging service from paying payroll tax[2] on new hires if it moves to the city’s neglected Mid-Market area.
”This is a tax policy designed to revitalize neighborhoods in San Francisco that have been blighted for decades,” said Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, who was also one of the measure’s sponsors.
The exemption applies beyond Twitter, to any business in the Mid-Market or Tenderloin neighborhoods, on or near Market Street between Fifth Street and Van Ness Avenue. But city officials called Twitter the big fish that could spur economic growth.
Twitter is already outgrowing its current San Francisco headquarters in the city’s South of Market neighborhood, and the company is poised to expand from a few hundred to a few-thousand workers[3].
While seeking a building with more office space, the company had said it had considered moving down the Peninsula to a city that has no payroll tax.
But last month, Twitter signed a letter of intent to sign a six-year lease and move into the San Francisco Mart building on the southwest corner of Market and Ninth streets, contingent upon supervisors approving the tax break.
Soon after, Zynga, maker of social games like Farmville, indicated it would leave its San Francisco headquarters unless the tax break was expanded to include it. Other online companies like review site Yelp and real estate site Trulia indicated the payroll tax was among the reasons they were adding jobs outside of the city.
San Francisco is the only city in the state that charges companies a payroll tax; 1.5 percent of total employee compensation each year if the firm has more than $250,000 in payroll. The tax also applies to money made on stock options, a prime consideration for Twitter and Zynga which are both rumored to be exploring initial public offerings.
The payroll tax debate came at a time when the city’s high tech startup scene teems with energy not seen since before the first Internet bubble burst in 2000.
John Avalos, Ross Mirkarimi and David Campos were the three supervisors who voted against the legislation. The critics called the plan an ill-conceived corporate giveaway that would lead other companies to issue ultimatums demanding similar treatment.
“I worry that we set the wrong precedent,” said Avalos, who predicted that the measure would result in many more companies asking for tax exemptions and could take businesses away from other areas of the city.
The city’s largest union, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), also opposed the legislation, arguing that wealthy companies didn’t need tax breaks.
The measure was supported by the Chamber of Commerce, which maintaned the tax cuts help job development in an area of the city where half of the office space is vacant.
The Chamber’s view was ultimately echoed by the board’s majority.
“We finally have a chance to put into place a policy that will bring economic development and jobs. This ordinance offers hope to revitalize a long neglected part of our city,” said Supervisor Jane Kim, another of the measure’s backers.
Mirkarimi, a member of the board’s progressive wing, had proposed a two-year moratorium on payroll taxes on stock options for all city companies as an alternative to the Twitter deal.
The legislation passed Tuesday will require Twitter and other larger companies in the area to enter into agreements with the city outlining actions the businesses will take to benefit the surrounding community.
The agreements are intended to assuage concerns of low-income residents worried that an influx of businesses could raise rents and price them out of the neighborhood, as happened in other parts of the city during the first dot-com boom.
“We want some assurance that the people will not be displaced,” said neighborhood resident Jesus Perez, 31, who attended the board meeting to show his opposition. “All the property is going to start climbing up.”
Under city rules, the full board will vote again on the measure as early as next week before it goes to the desk of Mayor Ed Lee, who is a backer of the tax break and is expected to sign it into law.
(Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
References
^ San Francisco (sacramento.cbslocal.com)
^ payroll tax (sacramento.cbslocal.com)
^ workers (sacramento.cbslocal.com)
San Francisco Approves Twitter Tax Break « CBS Sacramento
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS/BCN/AP) — The SanFrancisco[1] Board of Supervisors approved a tax break Tuesday to keep Twitter from fleeing the city.
The measure passed 8-3 exempts the micro-blogging service from paying payroll tax[2] on new hires if it moves to the city’s neglected Mid-Market area.
”This is a tax policy designed to revitalize neighborhoods in San Francisco that have been blighted for decades,” said Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, who was also one of the measure’s sponsors.
The exemption applies beyond Twitter, to any business in the Mid-Market or Tenderloin neighborhoods, on or near Market Street between Fifth Street and Van Ness Avenue. But city officials called Twitter the big fish that could spur economic growth.
Twitter is already outgrowing its current San Francisco headquarters in the city’s South of Market neighborhood, and the company is poised to expand from a few hundred to a few-thousand workers[3].
While seeking a building with more office space, the company had said it had considered moving down the Peninsula to a city that has no payroll tax.
But last month, Twitter signed a letter of intent to sign a six-year lease and move into the San Francisco Mart building on the southwest corner of Market and Ninth streets, contingent upon supervisors approving the tax break.
Soon after, Zynga, maker of social games like Farmville, indicated it would leave its San Francisco headquarters unless the tax break was expanded to include it. Other online companies like review site Yelp and real estate site Trulia indicated the payroll tax was among the reasons they were adding jobs outside of the city.
San Francisco is the only city in the state that charges companies a payroll tax; 1.5 percent of total employee compensation each year if the firm has more than $250,000 in payroll. The tax also applies to money made on stock options, a prime consideration for Twitter and Zynga which are both rumored to be exploring initial public offerings.
The payroll tax debate came at a time when the city’s high tech startup scene teems with energy not seen since before the first Internet bubble burst in 2000.
John Avalos, Ross Mirkarimi and David Campos were the three supervisors who voted against the legislation. The critics called the plan an ill-conceived corporate giveaway that would lead other companies to issue ultimatums demanding similar treatment.
“I worry that we set the wrong precedent,” said Avalos, who predicted that the measure would result in many more companies asking for tax exemptions and could take businesses away from other areas of the city.
The city’s largest union, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), also opposed the legislation, arguing that wealthy companies didn’t need tax breaks.
The measure was supported by the Chamber of Commerce, which maintaned the tax cuts help job development in an area of the city where half of the office space is vacant.
The Chamber’s view was ultimately echoed by the board’s majority.
“We finally have a chance to put into place a policy that will bring economic development and jobs. This ordinance offers hope to revitalize a long neglected part of our city,” said Supervisor Jane Kim, another of the measure’s backers.
Mirkarimi, a member of the board’s progressive wing, had proposed a two-year moratorium on payroll taxes on stock options for all city companies as an alternative to the Twitter deal.
The legislation passed Tuesday will require Twitter and other larger companies in the area to enter into agreements with the city outlining actions the businesses will take to benefit the surrounding community.
The agreements are intended to assuage concerns of low-income residents worried that an influx of businesses could raise rents and price them out of the neighborhood, as happened in other parts of the city during the first dot-com boom.
“We want some assurance that the people will not be displaced,” said neighborhood resident Jesus Perez, 31, who attended the board meeting to show his opposition. “All the property is going to start climbing up.”
Under city rules, the full board will vote again on the measure as early as next week before it goes to the desk of Mayor Ed Lee, who is a backer of the tax break and is expected to sign it into law.
(Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
References
^ San Francisco (sacramento.cbslocal.com)
^ payroll tax (sacramento.cbslocal.com)
^ workers (sacramento.cbslocal.com)
Monday, April 4, 2011
Like to eat what you want? Not if you work for NY Health Dept anymore.
Read the original here.
Health Dept. Workers Cringe At New Rules Restricting Foods, Fragrances, Decorations
No overbearing perfume. No obscene pictures. And definitely no French fries for work lunches.
That's the new edict for employees of the same city Health Department that brought you calorie-counting menus and snuffed out smoking on beaches and in parks.
The updated rules - which range from what workers can serve at agency powwows to how loud they can talk in the office - come as the Health Department begins to move into its new Queens digs today.
A set of guidelines for "Life in the Cubicle Village" sent to employees asks them to avoid wearing products with "noticeable odors" or posting "any displays, photos, cartoons, or other personal items that may be offensive."
They also should avoid eavesdropping.
If they can't - "at least resist the urge to add your comments," the cubicle rules recommend.
Employees also got a bright-colored brochure stipulating what can and can't be served at meetings and parties.
Tap water is a menu must when food or drinks are served. Other beverages must be less than 25 calories per 8 ounces.
"Cut muffins and bagels into halves or quarters, or order mini sizes. Offer thinly-sliced, whole-grain bread," the brochure states.
Deep-fried foods are an absolute no-no and "cannot be served."
For celebrations, cake and air-popped popcorn - "popped at the party and served in brown paper lunch bags" - are allowed.
But when a "celebration cake" is served, cookies can't be offered.
"These standards are mandatory for meetings and events sponsored by the Health Department," the brochure states.
Health honchos say they are just practicing what they preach.
"The Health Department is leading by example by updating its guidelines for food and beverages served at agency meetings and events," spokeswoman Erin Brady[1] said.
Still, one Health Department worker said she was surprised by the brochure's nitpicking detail.
"This seems like micromanaging," she said.
The cubicle village tips are good - but unnecessary - advice, she said. "As somebody who does not have sensitivity to perfumes or scents or smells of people's foods, I thought it was kind of ridiculous, though I'm sure the people who do have those kinds of problems are grateful."
The gerbil-loving food choices are in step with Health Commissioner Thomas Farley[2]'s push to reduce New Yorkers salt, sugar and alcohol consumption.
The Daily News reported in December that he put the kibosh on booze at the agency's holiday bash and called for a menu that included "healthy options."
The agency's nearly 3,000 employees begin a massive move today from their age-old lower Manhattan[3] headquarters to new office space built by Tishman Speyer[4] in Long Island City[5], Queens.
The move is expected to be complete by May.
klucadamo@nydailynews.com[6]
With Erin Einhorn[7] and Ellen Tumposky[8]
References
^ Erin Brady (www.nydailynews.com)
^ Thomas Farley (www.nydailynews.com)
^ Lower Manhattan (www.nydailynews.com)
^ Tishman Speyer Properties LP (www.nydailynews.com)
^ Long Island City (www.nydailynews.com)
^ klucadamo@nydailynews.com (www.nydailynews.com)
^ Erin Einhorn (www.nydailynews.com)
^ Ellen Tumposky (www.nydailynews.com)
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/04/2011-04-04_health_depts_new_guide_focuses_more_on_donts_than_dos.html#ixzz1IaP0sBZh
That's the new edict for employees of the same city Health Department that brought you calorie-counting menus and snuffed out smoking on beaches and in parks.
The updated rules - which range from what workers can serve at agency powwows to how loud they can talk in the office - come as the Health Department begins to move into its new Queens digs today.
A set of guidelines for "Life in the Cubicle Village" sent to employees asks them to avoid wearing products with "noticeable odors" or posting "any displays, photos, cartoons, or other personal items that may be offensive."
They also should avoid eavesdropping.
If they can't - "at least resist the urge to add your comments," the cubicle rules recommend.
Employees also got a bright-colored brochure stipulating what can and can't be served at meetings and parties.
Tap water is a menu must when food or drinks are served. Other beverages must be less than 25 calories per 8 ounces.
"Cut muffins and bagels into halves or quarters, or order mini sizes. Offer thinly-sliced, whole-grain bread," the brochure states.
Deep-fried foods are an absolute no-no and "cannot be served."
For celebrations, cake and air-popped popcorn - "popped at the party and served in brown paper lunch bags" - are allowed.
But when a "celebration cake" is served, cookies can't be offered.
"These standards are mandatory for meetings and events sponsored by the Health Department," the brochure states.
Health honchos say they are just practicing what they preach.
"The Health Department is leading by example by updating its guidelines for food and beverages served at agency meetings and events," spokeswoman Erin Brady[1] said.
Still, one Health Department worker said she was surprised by the brochure's nitpicking detail.
"This seems like micromanaging," she said.
The cubicle village tips are good - but unnecessary - advice, she said. "As somebody who does not have sensitivity to perfumes or scents or smells of people's foods, I thought it was kind of ridiculous, though I'm sure the people who do have those kinds of problems are grateful."
The gerbil-loving food choices are in step with Health Commissioner Thomas Farley[2]'s push to reduce New Yorkers salt, sugar and alcohol consumption.
The Daily News reported in December that he put the kibosh on booze at the agency's holiday bash and called for a menu that included "healthy options."
The agency's nearly 3,000 employees begin a massive move today from their age-old lower Manhattan[3] headquarters to new office space built by Tishman Speyer[4] in Long Island City[5], Queens.
The move is expected to be complete by May.
klucadamo@nydailynews.com[6]
With Erin Einhorn[7] and Ellen Tumposky[8]
References
^ Erin Brady (www.nydailynews.com)
^ Thomas Farley (www.nydailynews.com)
^ Lower Manhattan (www.nydailynews.com)
^ Tishman Speyer Properties LP (www.nydailynews.com)
^ Long Island City (www.nydailynews.com)
^ klucadamo@nydailynews.com (www.nydailynews.com)
^ Erin Einhorn (www.nydailynews.com)
^ Ellen Tumposky (www.nydailynews.com)
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/04/2011-04-04_health_depts_new_guide_focuses_more_on_donts_than_dos.html#ixzz1IaP0sBZh
Politico decides to start looking at "What Obama says instead of "how..."
Read the original here.
Politico's Roger Simon: 'Obama's The Greatest Orator Of Modern Times'
By Noel Sheppard | April 03, 2011 | 16:11
Politico's Roger Simon said Sunday Barack Obama is the greatest orator of modern times.
Chatting with Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Simon also said journalists are just now looking beyond the President's speaking skills and analyzing what he's actually saying (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Politico's Roger Simon: 'Obama's The Greatest Orator Of Modern Times'
By Noel Sheppard | April 03, 2011 | 16:11
Politico's Roger Simon said Sunday Barack Obama is the greatest orator of modern times.
Chatting with Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Simon also said journalists are just now looking beyond the President's speaking skills and analyzing what he's actually saying (video follows with transcript and commentary):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-3uGmquQ68
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: So is the press starting to sour on the stalemate in Libya?
Joining us now here in Washington, Roger Simon, chief political columnist for Politico; Dana Milbank, columnist for "The Washington Post," and in San Francisco, Debra Saunders, a columnist for "The San Francisco Chronicle."
Roger Simon, are the journalists and the anchors we just saw now aggressively challenging and acting openly skeptical about the Obama policy in Libya?
ROGER SIMON, CHIEF POLITICAL COLUMNIST, POLITICO: Yes, and that's a good thing. We're supposed to be openly skeptical.
The bloom isn't entirely off the rose between Obama and the press, but reporters are starting to concentrate more than ever on what he says rather than how he says it. We will stipulate that he's the greatest orator of modern times, but now we're looking beyond that in every speech for what he's actually telling us.
"We will stipulate that he's the greatest orator of modern times..."
Really? Better than Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt?
"...but now we're looking beyond that in every speech for what he's actually telling us."
"We're" just starting to do that now? Shouldn't that have begun in February 2007 when the junior senator from Illinois first threw his hat in the presidential ring?
Obama's been president for 26 months in the midst of what many claim was the worst recession since the depression and journalists are just now getting beyond his oratory to actually analyze what the most powerful man in the world is saying.
Gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, doesn't it?
Of course this isn't at all surprising for if they had done that 48 months ago, Obama would never have become the Democrat nominee let alone America's chief executive.
As such, the only things shocking in Simon's revelation was that these shills have actually started doing their jobs as it pertains to the object of their affection and someone on the left finally admitted what most of us on the right have known for years.
I'd give kudos to Simon for his honesty but it wouldn't be in order given its tardiness.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/03/politicos-roger-simon-obamas-greatest-orator-modern-times#ixzz1IZX7dtwZ
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: So is the press starting to sour on the stalemate in Libya?
Joining us now here in Washington, Roger Simon, chief political columnist for Politico; Dana Milbank, columnist for "The Washington Post," and in San Francisco, Debra Saunders, a columnist for "The San Francisco Chronicle."
Roger Simon, are the journalists and the anchors we just saw now aggressively challenging and acting openly skeptical about the Obama policy in Libya?
ROGER SIMON, CHIEF POLITICAL COLUMNIST, POLITICO: Yes, and that's a good thing. We're supposed to be openly skeptical.
The bloom isn't entirely off the rose between Obama and the press, but reporters are starting to concentrate more than ever on what he says rather than how he says it. We will stipulate that he's the greatest orator of modern times, but now we're looking beyond that in every speech for what he's actually telling us.
"We will stipulate that he's the greatest orator of modern times..."
Really? Better than Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt?
"...but now we're looking beyond that in every speech for what he's actually telling us."
"We're" just starting to do that now? Shouldn't that have begun in February 2007 when the junior senator from Illinois first threw his hat in the presidential ring?
Obama's been president for 26 months in the midst of what many claim was the worst recession since the depression and journalists are just now getting beyond his oratory to actually analyze what the most powerful man in the world is saying.
Gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, doesn't it?
Of course this isn't at all surprising for if they had done that 48 months ago, Obama would never have become the Democrat nominee let alone America's chief executive.
As such, the only things shocking in Simon's revelation was that these shills have actually started doing their jobs as it pertains to the object of their affection and someone on the left finally admitted what most of us on the right have known for years.
I'd give kudos to Simon for his honesty but it wouldn't be in order given its tardiness.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/03/politicos-roger-simon-obamas-greatest-orator-modern-times#ixzz1IZX7dtwZ
All in all, 'Yeeaaaaarrggghhh' was probably more truthful...
Read the original here. Relive 'Yeeeaaaaaarggghhhh' here.
Howard Dean Tells College Students Fox News Lies - Then Lies To Them Four Times
The disgustingly sanctimonious Howard Dean gave a lecture at Carnegie Mellon University on March 24 wherein he once again attacked Fox News calling it a propagandist arm of the Republican Party that lies to the American people.
Ironically, during his one hour speech, the former Vermont governor committed some laughable whoppers of his own (multi-segment video follows with commentary, apologies in advance for problems in the original recording):
Howard Dean Tells College Students Fox News Lies - Then Lies To Them Four Times
The disgustingly sanctimonious Howard Dean gave a lecture at Carnegie Mellon University on March 24 wherein he once again attacked Fox News calling it a propagandist arm of the Republican Party that lies to the American people.
Ironically, during his one hour speech, the former Vermont governor committed some laughable whoppers of his own (multi-segment video follows with commentary, apologies in advance for problems in the original recording):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GJ_kkNGOnY
This first segment was the typical, run-of-the-mill nonsense from Dean about Hillary Clinton's vast right-wing conspiracy and how Rush Limbaugh is just today's Father Coughlin.
Moments later, Dean went after Fox News saying that the difference between it and MSNBC isn't bias because all news outlets have some form of bias, which I agree with.
However, he then claimed, "What Fox News says is often not true, and they know it's not true and they say it anyway. It is not a news organization. It is a very expensive, incredibly well-funded, right-wing propaganda organization."
Dean continued to drive this point home claiming that the reason so many Fox viewers believed Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 was because "they were lied to every single day on virtually every program on Fox News."
To give his audience an idea of what he considers real news, Dean actually said CBS's Katie Couric is balanced.
And then the lies began.
"The top one percent of Americans owns twice as much as the percentage of America than they did 20 years ago, and that of course has to come from somebody else, and it comes from the people who aren't in the top one percent."
Nonsense. The reason people at the top have seen such huge wealth gains in the past 20 to 30 years is because of an increase in stock, commodity, and real estate prices. This is what they invest in, and those investments - despite several bubble bursts - have done extremely well.
It really is a disgusting myth foisted upon the society by America's liberals that the rich take from the poor. The rich don't think about how to get money from the poor because the poor don't have any money to take.
But Dean was just getting warmed up, for he next claimed Republicans controlled the House and the Senate for six years while George W. Bush was President.
I guess Dean forgot that while he was governor of Vermont, a Republican Senator from his state by the name of Jim Jeffords defected from the GOP on May 24, 2001, giving the Democrats back the Senate.
As such, Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress less than 4 1/2 years while Bush was in the White House.
But why should the holier-than-thou Dean know what happened in his very state right under his very nose?
Next, he claimed that in 2008, more people under the age of 35 voted than over the age of 35.
Unbelievable nonsense. As you can see from the exit polls[1], 36 percent of voters that year were 39 and younger; 64 percent were 40 and older.
What Dean told these students wasn't even close to the truth.
But his biggest lie was still to come, as in the final segment of our video, Dean said, "Charter schools were a creation of the Right. Charter schools were created originally to maintain segregation in the South to avoid the anti-discrimination stuff that was coming out of the courts, and then to attack the teachers unions."
Really? Well, that's not the way Wikipedia records[2] the history of charter schools:
The charter school idea in the United States was originated by Ray Budde, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and embraced by Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers, in 1988 when he called for the reform of the public schools by establishing "charter schools" or "schools of choice". At the time, a few schools already existed that were not called charter schools but embodied some of their principles, such as H-B Woodlawn. As originally conceived, the ideal model of a charter school was as a legally and financially autonomous public school (without tuition, religious affiliation, or selective student admissions) that would operate much like a private business—free from many state laws and district regulations, and accountable more for student outcomes rather than for processes or inputs (such as Carnegie Units and teacher certification requirements).
Minnesota was the first state to pass a charter school law in 1991. California was second, in 1992.
So, the concept was created by a Massachusetts professor and not in the South for racist reasons. As for the intent to attack the teachers' unions, the president of the AFT was involved.
Clearly, Dean just made this whole thing up.
In case you're wondering if Wikipedia got it right, here's what USCharterSchools.org claims[3] is the history of such educational facilities:
The term "charter" may have originated in the 1970s when New England educator Ray Budde suggested that small groups of teachers be given contracts or "charters" by their local school boards to explore new approaches. Albert Shanker, former president of the AFT, then publicized the idea, suggesting that local boards could charter an entire school with union and teacher approval. In the late 1980s Philadelphia started a number of schools-within-schools and called them "charters." Some of them were schools of choice. The idea was further refined in Minnesota where charter schools were developed according to three basic values: opportunity, choice, and responsibility for results.
In 1991 Minnesota passed the first charter school law, with California following suit in 1992.
A 2005 New York Times piece[4] about Budde also confirmed this:
Dr. Budde, a former assistant professor at the school of education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, first suggested the term "charter" for use in education in the 1970's to describe a novel contracting arrangement designed to support the efforts of innovative teachers within the public school system. He long opposed the later idea that charter schools could be an alternative to public education.
The charter arrangement could result in a new type of school, Dr. Budde said, that would give teachers increased responsibility over curriculum and instruction in exchange for a greater degree of accountability for student achievement.
In 1988, Dr. Budde elaborated on the concept in a book, "Education by Charter: Restructuring School Districts" (Learning Innovations). Dr. Budde illustrated his points with a model school system that allowed groups of teachers to receive charters from the school board, granting them the authority to manage schools and try new educational approaches within the existing structure of their home districts.
As the charter school movement gained followers across the country and progressed, it expanded to include schools operating outside the mainstream public school administration.
As such, Dean was dead-wrong about charter schools originally being a racist idea that was also used to attack the teachers' unions.
Add it up, and in the course of only 60 minutes, Dean told at least four complete lies to this audience made up largely of college students.
And he's got the nerve to point fingers at Fox News.
For those interested, here's Dean's entire speech:
(H/T The Blaze[5])
References
^ exit polls (www.cnn.com)
^ records (en.wikipedia.org)
^ claims (www.uscharterschools.org)
^ piece (www.nytimes.com)
^ The Blaze (www.theblaze.com)
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/03/howard-dean-tells-college-students-fox-news-lies-then-lies-them-numer#ixzz1IZUzYW7Q
This first segment was the typical, run-of-the-mill nonsense from Dean about Hillary Clinton's vast right-wing conspiracy and how Rush Limbaugh is just today's Father Coughlin.
Moments later, Dean went after Fox News saying that the difference between it and MSNBC isn't bias because all news outlets have some form of bias, which I agree with.
However, he then claimed, "What Fox News says is often not true, and they know it's not true and they say it anyway. It is not a news organization. It is a very expensive, incredibly well-funded, right-wing propaganda organization."
Dean continued to drive this point home claiming that the reason so many Fox viewers believed Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 was because "they were lied to every single day on virtually every program on Fox News."
To give his audience an idea of what he considers real news, Dean actually said CBS's Katie Couric is balanced.
And then the lies began.
"The top one percent of Americans owns twice as much as the percentage of America than they did 20 years ago, and that of course has to come from somebody else, and it comes from the people who aren't in the top one percent."
Nonsense. The reason people at the top have seen such huge wealth gains in the past 20 to 30 years is because of an increase in stock, commodity, and real estate prices. This is what they invest in, and those investments - despite several bubble bursts - have done extremely well.
It really is a disgusting myth foisted upon the society by America's liberals that the rich take from the poor. The rich don't think about how to get money from the poor because the poor don't have any money to take.
But Dean was just getting warmed up, for he next claimed Republicans controlled the House and the Senate for six years while George W. Bush was President.
I guess Dean forgot that while he was governor of Vermont, a Republican Senator from his state by the name of Jim Jeffords defected from the GOP on May 24, 2001, giving the Democrats back the Senate.
As such, Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress less than 4 1/2 years while Bush was in the White House.
But why should the holier-than-thou Dean know what happened in his very state right under his very nose?
Next, he claimed that in 2008, more people under the age of 35 voted than over the age of 35.
Unbelievable nonsense. As you can see from the exit polls[1], 36 percent of voters that year were 39 and younger; 64 percent were 40 and older.
What Dean told these students wasn't even close to the truth.
But his biggest lie was still to come, as in the final segment of our video, Dean said, "Charter schools were a creation of the Right. Charter schools were created originally to maintain segregation in the South to avoid the anti-discrimination stuff that was coming out of the courts, and then to attack the teachers unions."Really? Well, that's not the way Wikipedia records[2] the history of charter schools:
The charter school idea in the United States was originated by Ray Budde, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and embraced by Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers, in 1988 when he called for the reform of the public schools by establishing "charter schools" or "schools of choice". At the time, a few schools already existed that were not called charter schools but embodied some of their principles, such as H-B Woodlawn. As originally conceived, the ideal model of a charter school was as a legally and financially autonomous public school (without tuition, religious affiliation, or selective student admissions) that would operate much like a private business—free from many state laws and district regulations, and accountable more for student outcomes rather than for processes or inputs (such as Carnegie Units and teacher certification requirements).
Minnesota was the first state to pass a charter school law in 1991. California was second, in 1992.
So, the concept was created by a Massachusetts professor and not in the South for racist reasons. As for the intent to attack the teachers' unions, the president of the AFT was involved.
Clearly, Dean just made this whole thing up.
In case you're wondering if Wikipedia got it right, here's what USCharterSchools.org claims[3] is the history of such educational facilities:
The term "charter" may have originated in the 1970s when New England educator Ray Budde suggested that small groups of teachers be given contracts or "charters" by their local school boards to explore new approaches. Albert Shanker, former president of the AFT, then publicized the idea, suggesting that local boards could charter an entire school with union and teacher approval. In the late 1980s Philadelphia started a number of schools-within-schools and called them "charters." Some of them were schools of choice. The idea was further refined in Minnesota where charter schools were developed according to three basic values: opportunity, choice, and responsibility for results.
In 1991 Minnesota passed the first charter school law, with California following suit in 1992.
A 2005 New York Times piece[4] about Budde also confirmed this:
Dr. Budde, a former assistant professor at the school of education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, first suggested the term "charter" for use in education in the 1970's to describe a novel contracting arrangement designed to support the efforts of innovative teachers within the public school system. He long opposed the later idea that charter schools could be an alternative to public education.
The charter arrangement could result in a new type of school, Dr. Budde said, that would give teachers increased responsibility over curriculum and instruction in exchange for a greater degree of accountability for student achievement.
In 1988, Dr. Budde elaborated on the concept in a book, "Education by Charter: Restructuring School Districts" (Learning Innovations). Dr. Budde illustrated his points with a model school system that allowed groups of teachers to receive charters from the school board, granting them the authority to manage schools and try new educational approaches within the existing structure of their home districts.
As the charter school movement gained followers across the country and progressed, it expanded to include schools operating outside the mainstream public school administration.
As such, Dean was dead-wrong about charter schools originally being a racist idea that was also used to attack the teachers' unions.
Add it up, and in the course of only 60 minutes, Dean told at least four complete lies to this audience made up largely of college students.
And he's got the nerve to point fingers at Fox News.
For those interested, here's Dean's entire speech:
(H/T The Blaze[5])
References
^ exit polls (www.cnn.com)
^ records (en.wikipedia.org)
^ claims (www.uscharterschools.org)
^ piece (www.nytimes.com)
^ The Blaze (www.theblaze.com)
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/03/howard-dean-tells-college-students-fox-news-lies-then-lies-them-numer#ixzz1IZUzYW7Q
Friday, April 1, 2011
Cultural Sensitivity or Tactical Weak Point?
Read the original here.
Don't Forget Your Hijab, Soldier! American Servicewomen Encouraged To Wear Headscarves In Afghanistan | The Daily Caller
In an effort to get closer to the local population, American female soldiers stationed in Afghanistan[1] are being encouraged to wear a Muslim headscarf when interacting with civilians. But some question whether the practice constitutes cultural sensitivity or a form of appeasement that is degrading to U.S. soldiers.
Major Kyndra Rotunda, executive director of the Military Law and Policy Institute and AMVETS Legal Clinic, told The Daily Caller that while the women are not being ordered to wear the head scarf, encouragement is tantamount to a demand.
“They say they are encouraging women to wear the headscarf when they are out and about and on patrol. But the problem is — and I think anyone who has been in the military[2] understands that being encouraged to do something is about the same thing as being ordered — it really puts them in an uncomfortable position when their commander says, ‘We really want you to do this, technically you don’t have to, but we really want you to do this,’” she said.
Lt. Col. Michael Lawhorn, a U.S. Central Command spokesman, stressed to TheDC that while commanders are encouraging American women to wear headscarves while engaging with civilians, they are not having them wear the headscarf in lieu of their kevlar helmets.
“Nobody is saying, ‘Okay as we head out onto this dangerous street, you wear a hijab instead of your kevlar helmet,’” Lawhorn said. “As women are on some of these engagement teams and they are going to go into places where are going to predominantly be dealing with other women, like giving them medical information or finding out their concerns are in the local community. Local commanders are encouraging them — not demanding, but encouraging — if they feel more comfortable — ‘Feel free to wear a headscarf.’”
Rotunda remained unconvinced, telling TheDC that helmets are always the preferred head wear among soldiers.
“Even if it is outreach, you never know what to expect. You really should be wearing your kevlar helmet, it is a safety issue,” she said.
Retired Col. Martha McSally, whose grievance about being forced to wear the Muslim abaya[3] while stationed in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s resulted in 2002 legislation outlawing the practice of making female soldiers[4] wear Muslim religious garb in Saudi Arabia, told The Daily Caller that the sanctity of the uniform should not be sullied with outside accessories like the hijab.
“Another thing that makes this inappropriate is that they are wearing it with their uniform,” she said. “All the services have several-hundred-page regulations about what is appropriate and is not appropriate to wear with the uniform, and we have very strict guidelines … You are representing the United States government[5]. You are wearing the U.S. military uniform, and it confuses what you are representing when you add this to the uniform.”
In mid-February one of the sponsors of the 2002 legislation that outlawed the practice of making female soldiers in Saudi Arabia wear the abaya, Rhode Island Democratic Rep. James Langevin, wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates requesting more information about soldiers in headscarves.
“I understand the mission in Afghanistan is drastically different than the situation our female troops faced in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 10 years ago,” Langevin wrote. “However I am interested to know the precise policies or operating instructions that are currently being employed with regard to the garments worn by female service members in Afghanistan and other Muslim nations.”
Langevin continues to wait for a response.
Female service members are not the only ones concerned. Retired Navy SEAL[6] Scott Taylor told TheDC that he has been troubled by reports of women wearing the headscarves with their uniforms.
“I am completely oppose appeasement to a culture rather than respecting it,” Taylor wrote in an email. “My personal Middle Eastern experience in a very conservative country has taught me that Muslims can feel respected without submitting to an impersonation of their culture. There is little or nothing gained by an American woman in a Hijab, in what is deemed by some as cultural sensitivity. Women in Female Engagement Teams can successfully complete their stated mission without utilization of the Hijab. Encouraging (which coming from leaders is basically an order within the military) this approach is against what the American soldier in uniform stands for. Soldiers operating covertly are a different story.”
Colonel Martha McSally is hopeful that the experience she had in Saudi Arabia being forced to wear the abaya will not be repeated in Afghanistan with the hijab.
“I am a civilian now, I retired from the Air Force, these things will not apply to me, so there is no personal connection in that sense. But as an American and someone who went through this with the abaya … I feel on principle, for the same reason the abaya was wrong, this is wrong,” she said. “It is important to be sensitive to the local culture in any mission, and understand the culture but this is not about shaking with your left hand or showing the bottom of your feet … this symbolizes that women have a lower status than men.”
Major Rotunda is hopeful that Congress[7] will get involved to ensure that female soldiers are no longer pressured to comply.
“It is clearly within Congress’s realm to pass another provision like what they passed in 2002,” she said. “If the military on its own doesn’t stop this nonsense.”
Follow Caroline on Twitter[8]
References
^ Afghanistan (dailycaller.com)
^ military (dailycaller.com)
^ abaya (en.wikipedia.org)
^ soldiers (dailycaller.com)
^ States government (dailycaller.com)
^ Navy SEAL (dailycaller.com)
^ Congress (dailycaller.com)
^ Follow Caroline on Twitter (twitter.com)
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/31/dont-forget-your-hijab-soldier-american-servicewomen-encouraged-to-wear-headscarves-in-afghanistan/#ixzz1IILxfCXu
Don't Forget Your Hijab, Soldier! American Servicewomen Encouraged To Wear Headscarves In Afghanistan | The Daily Caller
In an effort to get closer to the local population, American female soldiers stationed in Afghanistan[1] are being encouraged to wear a Muslim headscarf when interacting with civilians. But some question whether the practice constitutes cultural sensitivity or a form of appeasement that is degrading to U.S. soldiers.
Major Kyndra Rotunda, executive director of the Military Law and Policy Institute and AMVETS Legal Clinic, told The Daily Caller that while the women are not being ordered to wear the head scarf, encouragement is tantamount to a demand.
“They say they are encouraging women to wear the headscarf when they are out and about and on patrol. But the problem is — and I think anyone who has been in the military[2] understands that being encouraged to do something is about the same thing as being ordered — it really puts them in an uncomfortable position when their commander says, ‘We really want you to do this, technically you don’t have to, but we really want you to do this,’” she said.
Lt. Col. Michael Lawhorn, a U.S. Central Command spokesman, stressed to TheDC that while commanders are encouraging American women to wear headscarves while engaging with civilians, they are not having them wear the headscarf in lieu of their kevlar helmets.
“Nobody is saying, ‘Okay as we head out onto this dangerous street, you wear a hijab instead of your kevlar helmet,’” Lawhorn said. “As women are on some of these engagement teams and they are going to go into places where are going to predominantly be dealing with other women, like giving them medical information or finding out their concerns are in the local community. Local commanders are encouraging them — not demanding, but encouraging — if they feel more comfortable — ‘Feel free to wear a headscarf.’”
Rotunda remained unconvinced, telling TheDC that helmets are always the preferred head wear among soldiers.
“Even if it is outreach, you never know what to expect. You really should be wearing your kevlar helmet, it is a safety issue,” she said.
Retired Col. Martha McSally, whose grievance about being forced to wear the Muslim abaya[3] while stationed in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s resulted in 2002 legislation outlawing the practice of making female soldiers[4] wear Muslim religious garb in Saudi Arabia, told The Daily Caller that the sanctity of the uniform should not be sullied with outside accessories like the hijab.
“Another thing that makes this inappropriate is that they are wearing it with their uniform,” she said. “All the services have several-hundred-page regulations about what is appropriate and is not appropriate to wear with the uniform, and we have very strict guidelines … You are representing the United States government[5]. You are wearing the U.S. military uniform, and it confuses what you are representing when you add this to the uniform.”
In mid-February one of the sponsors of the 2002 legislation that outlawed the practice of making female soldiers in Saudi Arabia wear the abaya, Rhode Island Democratic Rep. James Langevin, wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates requesting more information about soldiers in headscarves.
“I understand the mission in Afghanistan is drastically different than the situation our female troops faced in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 10 years ago,” Langevin wrote. “However I am interested to know the precise policies or operating instructions that are currently being employed with regard to the garments worn by female service members in Afghanistan and other Muslim nations.”
Langevin continues to wait for a response.
Female service members are not the only ones concerned. Retired Navy SEAL[6] Scott Taylor told TheDC that he has been troubled by reports of women wearing the headscarves with their uniforms.
“I am completely oppose appeasement to a culture rather than respecting it,” Taylor wrote in an email. “My personal Middle Eastern experience in a very conservative country has taught me that Muslims can feel respected without submitting to an impersonation of their culture. There is little or nothing gained by an American woman in a Hijab, in what is deemed by some as cultural sensitivity. Women in Female Engagement Teams can successfully complete their stated mission without utilization of the Hijab. Encouraging (which coming from leaders is basically an order within the military) this approach is against what the American soldier in uniform stands for. Soldiers operating covertly are a different story.”
Colonel Martha McSally is hopeful that the experience she had in Saudi Arabia being forced to wear the abaya will not be repeated in Afghanistan with the hijab.
“I am a civilian now, I retired from the Air Force, these things will not apply to me, so there is no personal connection in that sense. But as an American and someone who went through this with the abaya … I feel on principle, for the same reason the abaya was wrong, this is wrong,” she said. “It is important to be sensitive to the local culture in any mission, and understand the culture but this is not about shaking with your left hand or showing the bottom of your feet … this symbolizes that women have a lower status than men.”
Major Rotunda is hopeful that Congress[7] will get involved to ensure that female soldiers are no longer pressured to comply.
“It is clearly within Congress’s realm to pass another provision like what they passed in 2002,” she said. “If the military on its own doesn’t stop this nonsense.”
Follow Caroline on Twitter[8]
References
^ Afghanistan (dailycaller.com)
^ military (dailycaller.com)
^ abaya (en.wikipedia.org)
^ soldiers (dailycaller.com)
^ States government (dailycaller.com)
^ Navy SEAL (dailycaller.com)
^ Congress (dailycaller.com)
^ Follow Caroline on Twitter (twitter.com)
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/31/dont-forget-your-hijab-soldier-american-servicewomen-encouraged-to-wear-headscarves-in-afghanistan/#ixzz1IILxfCXu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
