Monday, February 8, 2010

Did We Just Witness the Beginning of Sarah Palin's Presidential Campaign?

AlterNet


By John Nichols, TheNation.com
Posted on February 8, 2010, Printed on February 8, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/145589/

Sarah Palin fed the Teapartisans in Nashville an appetizer of warmed over one-liners about taxes, spending and deficits that add up to "generational theft."

Then she gave the meat eaters what they paid for.

The star of the National Tea Party Convention demanded that Attorney General Eric Holder be bumped from his position.

She demanded White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel be bumped from his position.

She demanded Barack Obama should be bumped from his position.

She objected to Obama as a president and a person.

She talked tough about terrorists.

She objected to Obama and talked tough about terrorists at the same time.

She did not seem to recognize the irony inherent in her applause line about Obama and the so-called "war on terror": "To win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law."

While anyone who is familiar with Palin's track record might be amused by the notion that a woman who quit her executive position as governor to write a fine Alaskan whine of a book would dare accuse someone else of falling short in the leadership department, the delegates to the National Tea Party Convention cheered on cue.

They got the message.

Palin may not know that Africa is a continent.

She may not know the difference between World War I and World War II.

But she knows she wants to be seen as a commander-in-chief-in-waiting.

And that is exactly how the Tea Partisans saw her in Nashville.

In fact, they were so convinced that they shouted "Run, Sarah, Run!"

The 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee's seat-of-the-pants positioning of herself as a potential contender for the country's top job is advancing to a new stage.

Palin left the echo chamber at Opryland and headed to the echo chamber that is Fox News for some Q&A. For once, she was frank about her ambitions.

Would she consider running for president in 2012?

"I think that it would be absurd not to consider (running in 2012)," she explained on "Fox News Sunday."

Indeed, Palin suggested, she will enter the race if she thinks it is "the right thing to do for the country."

That's about as close to an announcement of candidacy as you can get without the actual tossing of a hat.

But then things got interesting.

Palin wouldn't say whether she might run as a Republican or as the candidate of a new Tea Party Party.

She did, however, describe the Tea Partisans as "beautiful" and suggest that their movement is "quite reflective" of Republican values.

But then the woman who leads in at least some polls of potential Republican primary voters said that, like the Democrats, the Republicans "have both lost their way in some respects."

Confused? Don't be. This is Sarah Palin, the woman who declared she was "not a quitter" as she quit as governor.

Precise language, like precise strategy, is not her forte.

Palin practices politics as spectacle.

The Tea Party convention was a good show.

But the real fireworks came in that Fox appearance.

Palin may not fully recognize what she has done -- or maybe she does.

But wherever the line between Palin's fantasies and political reality may be drawn, her "I'll run if it's the right thing to do for the country" line makes her more than a mere shouter from the sidelines. Palin is now moving front and center as a potential challenger to Obama.

That may scare Republicans, at least Republicans who worry about their party's prospects in 2012, just as it may delight Democrats.

But the fact is that Palin owned the spotlight over the weekend. And no other Republican, no other conservative, is anywhere near the stage.

John Nichols is The Nation's Washington correspondent.

© 2010 TheNation.com All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/145589/

ACORN Smear Collaborator Claims Persecution to Raise Money for Her Legal Troubles

AlterNet

ACORN Smear Collaborator Claims Persecution to Raise Money for Her Legal Troubles

By Liliana Segura, AlterNet
Posted on February 8, 2010, Printed on February 8, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/145588/

Late last week, a large pink envelope arrived in our mailbox bearing a "USA NONPROFIT" stamp and, in lieu of a return address, a black and white image of a smiling young woman, her name printed underneath, in lavender script:

If the name or the photo didn't ring a bell, the text on the envelope certainly did:

 

The contents of the envelope were no less hyperbolic:

"Dear Fellow American," the pitch begins. "Let me be direct: Obama's ally ACORN is trying to destroy me."

This is the main thrust of the four-page fundraising appeal by Hannah Giles, the 20-year-old former college student who gained notoriety for posing as a prostitute in the ACORN "sting" carried out with conservative activist James O'Keefe last year.

After O'Keefe's arrest for allegedly trying to tamper with the phones in Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu's office, Giles has distanced herself from her co-conspirator, re-inventing herself as a pioneering champion of the First Amendment and freedom in general. Since being threatened with litigation by ACORN and former ACORN employees, in part on the grounds that she and O'Keefe violated state wiretap laws and engaged in entrapment, Giles set up a legal defense fund, courtesy of the Liberty Legal Institute, and has now started  soliciting donations, non-profit style.

Giles's fundraising appeal, printed on pink paper and decorated with stars in what is supposed to look like purple marker, portrays her looming legal fights as nothing less than an epic battle between good and evil. Warning that her "ordeal is far from over" -- "I fear it's just the beginning," she writes (emphasis hers) -- Giles says that ACORN has no choice but to "make an example" of her.

 

They know they must destroy me if they are to survive. If they let me get away with exposing them, then more reporters will do more investigative work uncovering even more of ACORN's dirty secrets.
And that will lead to ACORN's implosion once and for all!

The letter contains a number of inaccuracies, large and small. She claims to be a humble college student who cannot afford to defend herself. She is not. (Until last year she attended Florida International University, but has since dropped out, reportedly "in order to keep up with demands for public appearance and job offers," according to Politico.)

She claims that "Congress is on the verge of pulling ACORN's funding for in (sic) federal funding -- delivering a mortal blow to this corrupt and evil taxpayer funded organization."

In fact, Congress's cynical Defund Acorn Act, which was passed last fall, was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in December, who ruled that ACORN was "singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial or administrative, process adjudicating guilt ... The public will not suffer harm by allowing the plaintiffs to continue work on contracts duly awarded by federal agencies."

Giles wildly over-exaggerates Obama's ties with ACORN -- she refers to it as "Obama's ACORN" -- not to mention her role in "exposing" it. "I lifted the veil on Obama's long history of 'community organizing' and close personal ties with ACORN," she writes, adding in a P.S. (in case her point didn't come across), that "Obama's ally ACORN wants to take its revenge on me for exposing its massive corruption."

She vaguely refers to "ACORN's involvement in mortgage rackets for unqualified borrowers that led to the financial crisis," a whopping claim with little basis in reality. (The irony being that ACORN has actually been devoted to combating predatory loans.)

Throughout the letter she describes ACORN as "a bad organization that was corrupting America through massive voter fraud," a group with a "slimy, filthy underbelly," and an organization whose "workers are the irreplaceable 'shock troops' of the left that they must have to wage war against mainstream America and our way of life."

Your gift of $25 or $35 to my special legal defense fund would mean so much to me.
And your gift will help me battle ACORN -- THE group that made Obama into the Chicago politician he is today and put him in the White House.

Giles zeroes in on the most egregious part of the video she and O'Keefe produced, where an ACORN employee appears to give tax advice to her and O'Keefe while they claimed to be arranging to bring child prostitutes to the U.S. from El Salvador.

ACORN has already responded to these claims. The transcripts of material not included in the final videos -- and released by O'Keefe himself -- reveal that the footage was heavily doctored, omitting such relevant facts as 1) Giles pretended that she was the victim of an abusive pimp and was trying to escape, while also wanting to "protect" the underage girls. 2) O'Keefe actually posed as her concerned boyfriend, not a pimp himself.

Giles claims that ACORN employees in Baltimore, Washington, San Diego, San Bernadino, Brooklyn, and Philadelphia "willingly extended their assistance to us." In fact, they were kicked out of numerous offices; in San Diego, ACORN employees called the police.

Numerous people have already fact-checked the claims against ACORN. Last year, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that ACORN broke no laws in the previous five years, including in its employees' interactions with O'Keefe and Giles. Instead, Giles and O'Keefe themselves likely broke state wiretapping laws, the report found.

These facts have done little to protect ACORN from continuous attacks from the right. And it certainly is not stopping Giles from launching a vicious attack on ACORN while sweetly asking for money from strangers. Inviting recipients of her fundraising letter to write a "note of encouragement," she includes check boxes for potential donors to give anywhere from $35 to $5,000.

But lest people mistake her for a right-wing damsel in distress, Giles is quick to reassure people that she can protect herself from the "shock troops" of the left.

"I want to reassure you that they're not going to stop me or shut me up or intimidate me into silence," she says, underlining every word.

Since I was a young girl I've taken Brazilian ju-jitsu and know how to defend myself. And with a few sensible  precautions, I don't think these cowards will show themselves.
But it's made me more aware than ever of how important it is to trust in God and to have the support of my wonderful family.

That includes her father, far right-wing radio host Doug Giles, whose fans include Ted Nugent and Ann Coulter and whose website praises him as "lambast[ing] the enemies of the Lord." 

Liliana Segura is an AlterNet staff writer and editor of Rights & Liberties and World Special Coverage. Follow her on Twitter.

© 2010 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/145588/

GOP Obstructionists May Block Jobs Bill

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/08/gop-obstructionists-may-block-jobs-bill/

This post was originally published on the Washington Monthly.

The Senate Democratic leadership hoped to have a vote on a new jobs bill as early as today, but a regional blizzard closed the government and delayed the legislative process.

But even as the snow begins to melt, it's unclear if Republican obstructionism will thaw enough to even allow the Senate to vote on the proposal. It's tempting to think that even the GOP, as far gone as it is, would have to be crazy to block a jobs bill when unemployment is nearly 10%. Given that Dems have included a variety of tax cuts in their plan, it seems like even reflexively right-wing lawmakers would at least allow a vote on the nation's most important issue.

But, at this point, the threat of Republicans blocking a vote on a jobs bill remains very real. Brian Beutler added:

…Democrats still don't have enough votes to overcome a filibuster, and unless they can win over at least one Republican, they may adjourn this coming weekend empty-handed.

What's the hang up? Republicans are working with Democrats on one key aspect of the legislation: tax relief for employers who hire new employees. But beyond such a measure, Republicans are balking at supporting a full package.

It seems, then, that we're left with a familiar dynamic — Republicans will allow a vote on a bill that gives them what they want, but nothing else.

This seems like it should be political suicide, given the public's hopes for an improved jobs landscape, but Senate Republicans hope Americans just won't be knowledgeable enough to know the difference. The public, they assume, won't know that the GOP is blocking a modest jobs bill, and won't know that a 59-vote majority isn't enough to pass legislation.

And they may very well be right. But let's not forget that if Republicans won't even let the Senate consider a modest jobs bill, filled with GOP-friendly tax cuts, in the midst of an employment crisis, how is it that any bill on any issue at any time can reasonably be expected to pass? For that matter, how is it that the Democratic majority can reasonably be expected to work with the discredited minority as if they were serious about addressing the nation's challenges?


Right-wing media jump to defend Palin after "crib note" criticism

Media Matters for America


http://mediamatters.org/items/201002080024

Right-wing media figures have rushed to defend Sarah Palin from criticism that she apparently wrote "crib notes" on her hand during her Tea Party Convention appearances by claiming, among other things, that it's a "non-issue" and that having notes on her hand was "folksy," "down to earth," and "just like busy moms."

Right-wing media defend "busy mom" Palin's "crib note[s]" by claiming it's "folksy" and "down to earth"

Fox & Friends: Palin was "folksy," "down to earth," and "it's an exact opposite of reading off the teleprompter." On Fox News' Fox & Friends, after co-host Steve Doocy noted that the "left" was criticizing Palin for apparently using crib notes while she took a "shot at the guy who uses a teleprompter," co-host Gretchen Carlson replied, "I think she did it on purpose. Yeah, because I think it's an exact opposite of reading off the teleprompter. Reading off complete script written for you with every word in a sentence, and here she's just taking crib notes on her hand. It makes it look as if she can just talk off the cuff and that she just jotted down a few couple notes before she went off to give a big, long speech." Later, co-host Brian Kilmeade called it "folksy," and "down to earth." From the February 8 edition of Fox & Friends:

CARLSON: I think she did it on purpose.

DOOCY: You do?

CARLSON: I think she did it on purpose. Yeah, because I think it's an exact opposite of reading off the teleprompter. Reading off complete script written for you with every word in a sentence, and here she's just taking crib notes on her hand. It makes it look as if she can just talk off the cuff and that she just jotted down a few couple notes before she went off to give a big, long speech.

KILMEADE: I am jealous.

DOOCY: I think she did -- I think she did it because she probably does it a lot. I do that all the time.

KILMEADE: I personally am jealous, because I used to get in trouble if I wrote on my palms because my mom explained to me the ink would get through my pores and I would die. So I stopped doing that in the fifth grade.

DOOCY: Really?

KILMEADE: Why doesn't she just -- there's nothing wrong with if she had a card. Just jot a card down -- energy, taxes, hope, whatever it is. But -- then no one has a problem. But to sit there and look at -- do the interview and then look down at her hand, I think that is -- it's, like you said, Gretchen, before, folksy, absolutely. Down to earth. I can identify. But if you're going to write it on your hand, why not just say, staffer, can you hand me a card? And then it would have been OK.

CARLSON: Like I say, I think it was on purpose. But anyway, we may never know.


Gateway Pundit's Hoft: It's a "non-issue" for the "TelePrompter-less former Governor." On Gateway Pundit, blogger Jim Hoft wrote: "On Sunday the left went bonkers after they discovered that the TelePrompter-less former Governor Sarah Palin wrote notes on the palm of her left hand for her speech to the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville. The far left absolutely freaked over this non-issue rather than focus on her brilliant speech knocking the Obama Administration's horrid record on economics and national defense." 

NRO's Spruiell writes in defense of Palin: She "speaks from concise notes like everybody else. And, like other busy moms, she sometimes writes notes on her hand."
 Stephen Spruiell at the National Review Online blog The Corner wrote of the criticism: "On the left, where this opinion of Palin already prevails, anything which reinforces it will be picked up and cheerfully passed around. And, to the extent that anyone not on the left notices this giddy snobbery, it will play to Palin's strengths." He continued, "For example, one might say: 'Unlike the guy who needs a three thousand dollar teleprompter to get out of bed in the morning, Palin speaks from concise notes like everybody else. And, like other busy moms, she sometimes writes notes on her hand.' The comeback is so obvious that, again, I really can't figure out why Palin's detractors are bringing this up at all."

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.

Rush Limbaugh Totally Looks Like “Violator” from Spawn

http://totallylookslike.com/2010/02/08/rush-limbaugh-totally-looks-like-violator-from-spawn/

As Democrats Get Tough On Financial Reform, Republicans Court Big Banks from Think Progress

 

afwesWary of impending reforms following the financial crisisr, the financial sector — whose irresponsible behavior was a major factor in causing the global recession — donated heavily to members of both parties during last year's election cycle. In all, the financial, insurance, and real estate industries (collectively known as "FIRE") donated $476 million to federal campaigns in 2008, dwarfing nearly every other sector.

The 2010 election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) suggested the public is fed up with the financial industry's heavy influence in our political system, combined with the fact that unemployment is abnormally high while big banks continued to dole out huge bonuses. A poll conducted among Brown voters who had previously supported Obama found that 51 percent of them believed "that Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street."

The Obama administration responded to the Massachusetts election by unveiling a new, tough set of financial reforms — crafted by former Fed Reserve chairman Paul Volcker — that would "put limits on the size of banks and…prohibit commercial banks from engaging in…proprietary trading," prompting one financial observer to remark that the "administration will do anything to stop us revisiting the financial abyss of 2008, and now, the man who ended the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, has finally been heard."

The New York Times reports today that the financial sector — which donated more to Democrats than Republicans in the 2008 election cycle — is responding to the Democrats' populist push by channeling their contributions and support from the Democrats to the Republicans:

[JP Morgan Chase] chief executive, Jamie Dimon, is a friend of President Obama's from Chicago, a frequent White House guest and a big Democratic donor. Its vice chairman, William M. Daley, a former Clinton administration cabinet official and Obama transition adviser, comes from Chicago's Democratic dynasty.

But this year Chase's political action committee is sending the Democrats a pointed message. While it has contributed to some individual Democrats and state organizations, it has rebuffed solicitations from the national Democratic House and Senate campaign committees. Instead, it gave $30,000 to their Republican counterparts. [...]

Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street's "buyer's remorse" with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street "fat cats," they may fight back by withholding their cash.

"If the president doesn't become a little more balanced and centrist in his approach, then he will likely lose that support," said Kelly S. King, the chairman and chief executive of BB&T. Mr. King is a board member of the Financial Services Roundtable, which lobbies for the biggest banks, and last month he helped represent the industry at a private dinner at the Treasury Department. [...]

"If the president wanted to turn every Democrat on Wall Street into a Republican," one industry lobbyist said, "he is doing everything right."

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) "made a pitch" for supporting Republicans to Dimon while having drinks at a Capitol Hill restaurant. "I just don't know how long you can expect people to contribute money to a political party whose main plank of their platform is to punish you," Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said.

Reflecting on the Democrats' new aggressive stance against Wall Street, progressive strategist Mike Lux writes, "In my experience, the biggest single reason for Democrats avoiding populist rhetoric is worrying about the political donations you would lose as a result. … Democrats cannot win in the 2010 elections without going after the big banks, and that means they will have to give up a lot of money. The tradeoff is certainly worth it in terms of extra votes they will get."

The Tea Party Versus Obama - anti anything not white or traditionally "American"

http://www.truthout.org/the-tea-party-versus-obama56757

Nashville - "English only." Under this pretext, this reporter gets nothing but monosyllables and a pronounced lack of interest on the part of my intended interview subjects once they detect a foreign accent in my English. It's not yet eight in the morning, but those attending the first National Tea Party Convention here in Nashville are already exercising a sociopolitical muscle that Tom Tancredo - the populist, firebrand American political figure - flexed the night before.

An extremely hearty breakfast - "a traditional American meal," a smiling grandmother from Florida informs me - is spread out before me: scrambled eggs, sausages, bacon and potatoes, all of it to be washed down with loads of coffee (also "American," of course). This meal will provide the much-needed strength and energy to the Tea Party-goers as they prepare for the tough mission that lies ahead of them: taking back America for the Americans.

This Tea Party maxim affects one American in particular: the president of the United States, Barack Obama. There are more than a few Tea Party supporters who believe that the president is not, in fact, an American, and they demand that he show his birth certificate to prove them wrong. "Taking back America for the Americans" is a saying that might also affect Samyra, the Palestinian woman who serves coffee at the convention; and Roberto, the man from El Salvador who makes up the hotel beds; and Ahmadu, the Ethiopian cab driver who transports the California Tea Party delegation back and forth from the hotel.

Tom Tancredo, former Republican Congressman of ten years, may not work on the Hill at the moment, but he is by no means removed from the political arena. During his opening speech at the Tea Party Convention on Thursday, he denounced "the cult of multiculturalism" that he believes is undermining the nation. Famous for his anti-immigration agenda and his (failed) attempts to amend the Constitution so as to make English the nation's official language, Tancredo told his Tea Party audience that Obama had been carried into power because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country." He went on to voice his concern over the fact that voting rights are afforded to citizens "who can't even spell the word 'vote' or say it in English." The applause was thunderous inside the convention hall, but Tancredo's controversial remarks have fanned the flames of a particular brand of extremism that the movement's defenders have been trying to mask. Literary tests were used during segregation days to keep black voters out of the booths until a law banned the practice in 1964.

"This is our country," Tancredo told the crowd. "Let's take it back." This sentiment is at the heart of the Tea Party movement: along with a fervent and allergic opposition to taxes and the authority of the federal government, the primary objective of the Tea Party appears to be to essentially "re-establish" America through a second revolution that, in the opinion of many supporters, has already begun. To legitimize their viability as a force to be reckoned with, Tea Party loyalists highlight their contribution to three triumphant battles against the political powers that be: flipping the gubernatorial posts in both Virginia and New Jersey from blue to red, and ushering the populist Scott Brown into the Massachusetts Senate seat left vacant by the late Ted Kennedy. This latter victory has already been dubbed "the Massachusetts Miracle."

So, what is this Tea Party, then, and where did it come from? The name is borrowed from one of the famous events that triggered the American Revolution. In 1773, a group of colonists, in an act of protest against the British Empire and their bloody taxes, hurled crates of tea into the Boston Harbor. Samuel Adams, one of the founding fathers of the United States, is suspected of being one of the instigators of the rebellion. Today, in addition to being the name of a popular Boston-based beer company, Sam Adams' legacy lives on in the convention hall of the Gaylord Opryland Hotel (the largest American hotel outside of Las Vegas), here in Nashville, where several Tea Party-goers can be seen dressed up in historical Adams attire, parading up and down the hallways and calling for "the revolution."

The 21st-century incarnation of the Tea Party is a movement that brings together mostly white, working-class men who find themselves in a state of panic after being hit hard by the economic crisis. Many of these people also feel uneasy about the presence of a black man in the White House - a black man who they regard, moreover, as a racist, a Marxist and possibly a Nazi.

The birth of the Tea Party movement - which came out in full force this past September as thousands congregated in Washington, DC, on September 09, 2009 - can be traced back to the furious outburst of CNBC's Rick Santelli who, in February of 2009, [called for a "Chicago Tea Party"] to oppose the Obama administration's housing bailout proposal. After that, the movement took off and Americans across the country began to organize their own Tea Party protests.

Although they claim to have neither Republican Party affiliation nor an official leader, Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential nominee for the Republican Party, closed the convention on Saturday night at a dinner party that cost attendees $350 a plate, lobster option available. Palin charged $100,000 for her appearance, a bounty she says she will give back to "the cause." The high cost of the event has been a source of friction among Tea Party followers: charging a $549 registration fee during times of economic crisis was reason enough for FreedomWorks, a primary organizer of the movement, to skip out on the Nashville convention. Could this be the first schism in what might eventually become an official third party in the United States?

Translation: Ryan Croken.

Ryan Croken is a freelance writer and editor based in Chicago. His essays and book reviews have appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer, Z Magazine and ReligionDispatches.org. He can be reached at ryan.croken@gmail.com.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Costa Rica Elects First Woman President, Inspiring the Region

http://www.truthout.org/costa-rica-elects-first-woman-president-inspiring-region56754

Palin’s Increasingly Casual Falsehoods from The Plum Line

 

One interesting consequence of Sarah Palin's decision to remain part of the national conversation while refusing to undergo any media scrutiny or cross-examination is that her lying is growing increasingly blatant, casual and even effortless.

Case in point: On Fox News yesterday, Palin explained why it's okay that Rush Limbaugh used the word "retard" even as Rahm Emanuel's use of the term "retarded" constituted a firing offense:

PALIN: I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with 'f-ing retards' and we did know that Rahm Emanuel has been reported, did say that. There's a big difference there. But again, name-calling, using language that is insensitive, by anyone, male, female, Republican, Democrat, is unnecessary. It's inappropriate. Let's all just grow up.

So Palin's claim is now that Rush didn't refer to people he disagrees with by using the R-word. But of course, Rush did exactly that:

rest at http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/sarah-palins-increasingly-casual-falsehoods/

Ex-Merrill Lynch Boss John Thain Is A CEO Again for bankrupt commercial and consumer finance company, CIT.

http://consumerist.com/2010/02/ex-merrill-lynch-ceo-john-thain-is-a-ceo-again.html

Police Lose Track of Sex Offenders in Chicago Area from ProPublica: Articles and Investigations

http://www.propublica.org/article/police-lose-track-of-sex-offenders-in-chicago-area-0208

by Alexandra Andrews, ProPublica -

This is one of our editors' picks from our ongoing roundup of Investigations Elsewhere.

In Chicago and its surrounding counties, sex offenders are flouting a law that requires them to register both their home and work addresses with local authorities – and getting away with it, reports the Chicago Tribune.

The Tribune found that as of mid-January, nearly 800 sex offenders had been missing for a month or more. But warrants had been issued for just 135 of them.

Police still search for missing offenders without warrants, but the Tribune calls those efforts "hit-and-miss." A lack of manpower and the limitations of working without a warrant hobble such efforts. For instance, Chicago police enter "investigative alerts" into their computer system, but those are rarely seen by other departments. In January, an eight-week sweep for offenders netted 40 arrests, but that level of effort is apparently rare.

Cara Smith of the Illinois attorney general's office told the Tribune, "No one would disagree that a warrant for every offender would be terrific. It's just not that easy."

According to the report, authorities say that sometimes warrants aren't issued "because the law isn't clear on who can issue them."

But, the Tribune counters, "even in cases where the law allows warrants to be issued, they often aren't."

Return of the Birthers Sparks Angry Exchange at Tea Party Convention

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/02/08/birthers-rebirth-sparks-angry-exchange-tea-bag-ball/

Alaska Legislature Plans $1.5 Million Astroturf Fight Against Endangered Species Act from TPMmuckraker

 

Seeking to protect the oil industry, the Alaska state legislature has appropriated $1.5 million to fund an astroturf campaign to weaken the Endangered Species Act and put on a conference questioning the listing of polar bears as a threatened species.

Over the objections of some members who warned of "PR damage" to the state, a group of lawmakers late last week decided to move ahead with reviewing bids from public relations firms for the polar bear contract, the Anchorage Daily News reported.

Polar bears were listed as a threatened species in 2008 because of the loss of sea ice due to climate change. Worried that the move would damage prospects for new oil and gas development, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin immediately objected to decision by the Bush Administration.

That same year, Republican state Rep. John Harris proposed putting on a conference for climate change skeptics to fight the polar bear decision. "We want to have the money to hire scientists to answer the Interior (Department) scientists," he said at the time.

That idea became too controversial, but the new conference OKed by the state's Legislative Council amounts to a toned down version of Harris' original idea.


Alaska State Rep. John Harris

The primary purposes of the conference will be to challenge the listing of polar bears and to determine the best ways to lessen the impacts of the Endangered Species Act for the oil and gas industries.

To do that, a Harris aide told the Anchorage Daily News, the PR firm will "initiate a grass-roots movement" to go to Congress and demand reforms to the law.

The Council is now looking at bids from various PR firms.

Among those interested is Rudy Giuliani, who pitched Harris aide Eddie Grasser on awarding the contract to Bracewell Giuliani, the ADN reported in December.

Rush University Medical Center - Dirty Conditions Found In More Hospital Rooms

Rush University Medical Center is one of the country's most renowned hospitals, and it's right here in Chicago. But questions about it's cleanliness were raised by one our viewers.

That sent 2 Investigator Dave Savini to take a look with a hidden camera.

Savini responded to a call from Jane Isaac. Her husband was a patient at the facility and they say the hospital room was dirty.

"I wouldn't want anybody to be in there," Jane Isaac said.

She was upset about what Savini found -- dirty conditions in bathrooms, on floors, near sinks, toilets and on numerous spots along John Isaac's bed and on his handrails. The emergency pull cord in his bathroom had brown substance on it. John Isaac expressed his concern about the conditions, saying he was concerned about catching, "some disease or something."

Savini also found problems in the nearby staff bathroom. Using a quarter, Savini scraped out brown substance along the wall and documented dirty soap dispensers. When asked by Savini, "What was so disturbing about the soap dispensers?" Jane Isaac's responded, "This is where the doctors wash their hands and the nurses."

rest at http://cbs2chicago.com/investigations/hospital.rooms.dirty.2.1478088.html

Why I Had to Stop Making Hardcore Porn - porn can represent with shocking clarity the inability of a modern society to empathize

AlterNet


By Sam Benjamin, SeXis Magazine
Posted on February 7, 2010, Printed on February 8, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/145574/

When I was in my early 20s, I made my living as a pornographer. For more than five years, my working life revolved around framing acts of public copulation. I've pushed cameras and microphones into dwellings no machines should ever go. I've been granted a front-row seat to scenes of startling intimacy. I've helped pick up thousands of used baby-wipes. Somewhere along the line, I gained a financial stability that, in light of the rather limited artistic scope of the movies I helped produce, I probably didn't deserve.

But after half a decade of the sex grind, I decided to call it quits. For despite having entered the smut leagues with the very best of intentions, the vast majority of the porn I ended up shooting was not "sex-positive" in character. Instead, the sex I found myself videotaping was of the Gonzo variety: the kind of scenes that are harshly lit, reek of a basement in the San Fernando Valley, and inevitably wind up devoured and forgotten in 15 minutes. If my "career" as a director is notable in any way, it's that I've played for both sides—which is to say, while I've shot hundreds of hetero scenes, I've shot almost as many in gay porn.

We Have to Give Them What They Want

Though gay and straight porn may appear distinct from one another mostly due to the various orifices which receive the majority of the camera's gaze, for me, the most important difference was that they felt governed by subtly different moral tenets.

Let's begin with straight porn; for that's where I began. I got into porn as a horny 23-year-old Jewish kid, hoping to stare at and hopefully score with curvy women who didn't see a roll in the hay as too absurd a way to make their rent. Perhaps I was blessed with an excessively literal mind, but I quite simply imagined that the best way for me to live out my sexual fantasies was to, well, join the sex industry itself. It was not to be so simple, I soon discovered: many a man had shared my same dream. A good job was hard to come by, but after months of crushing disappointments, I finally landed a mildly lucrative gig shooting camera for a website. Understandably, I was psyched.

But in due time, I came to learn that within the context of the heterosexual L.A. industry, while my overt task at hand was to make sure that the girls got naked, my true responsibility as director was to make sure the girls got punished. Scenes that stuck out, and hence made more money, were those in which the female "targets" were verbally degraded and sometimes physically humiliated.

None of it was written in my contract, of course; it was more of a contextual thing. Like: Everyone's doing it . . . thus, so shall we. My various superiors across the years saw the issue from a businessman's perspective, reminding me quite openly of the need to keep up with our competition. Anabolic's getting nasty? Then we need to be nastier. Another one of their gambits was "We owe it our viewers." We have to give them what they want! (And what do "they" want? Scenes of degradation, of course. Gloryholes and gang-bangs. The facial cumshot became de riguer sometime in the 1980s, but by the 2000s, you literally had to do it in every scene or risk not collecting your paycheck.)

What surprised me most though, was the fact that I found within myself a happy willingness to be violent, a willingness to degrade. Though my bosses may have ordered me to organize and record the scenes of degradation, I followed their orders, and not without pleasure. Something cowardly within me, an internal space, suffused with a weak kind of anger, felt satisfied when I saw a woman "take her punishment." I clung to the sense of temporary empowerment I found through the bullying. Lust-colored aggression and the satisfaction of making "good money" guided me through scene after scene.

Of course, all participants in porno are complicit, both the bottoms and tops. Both genders willingly participate in heterosexual porn, and to some extent, both are marginalized: I was literally ordered not to film men above the waist if I could help it. And while men do make up the majority of porn's audience, women watch heterosexual porn, too—quite a few likely doing so with major outrage or dissatisfaction. Still, though, straight porn unarguably continues to be the untrammeled domain of male fantasy.

But none of this is too enlightening. After all, we've all seen "bad" porn, hateful porn, and I think most have a basic sense of where it comes from. Men get bummed when they can't get sex. They feel ashamed when they turn to porn for release. Hate and disappointment is released along with their libidos. Disappointment and disrespect washes over the sex workers. It infects the camera crew.

The point at which this treatise becomes useful, however, is when we take a closer look at gay porn—which is precisely what I had to do, midway through my journey through porn.

The Zen of Gay Porn

After three years of shooting, I'd disowned the Gonzo world. I had just seen too much. It had taken a toll on me, in the form of broken relationships, guilt, and regrettable behavior. I concluded that my life would be a hell of a lot sunnier if I could stop collecting money for videotaping women getting crushed before my eyes, and I simply removed myself from the arena. I applied to graduate school and eventually got in. I studied, talked a lot in class, and loved it. But I was poor. I was really, really poor.

So I called my last boss up, rather shamefacedly, and asked him for my job back. "I don't have it anymore," he said, "but we're starting a new site. Would you be okay with shooting gay?"

For a moment I considered. I had never seen two guys go at it before, and at first the idea didn't appeal to me. Though I thought of myself as very open-minded, for some reason the idea of filming male sex ad infinitum, from a first-row seat, depressed me. Perhaps I still envisioned my foray into porn as a type of sexual wish-fulfillment: with nothing to gain in terms of conquest, these scenes may have lost a bit of their luster. Or maybe it's more honest to say that I was simply scared.

In the end, it didn't matter: my desire for the easy paycheck won out, and I took the job. And rather quickly, I came to feel happy that I had—morally, it was another world entirely. The scenarios were still contrived, I admit, and the orgasms were half-hearted, if they came at all. I employed plenty of guys who were there for the money, make no mistake about it; and without exception, the production values stayed amateur. But the shame, rage, and sexual violence that I had come to associate with porn was almost completely absent. That meant something.

Gay porn, in fact, was so goddamn simple that it approached a type of Zen beauty. I mean, this was guys taking on guys, in every shape and form imaginable, for the most part in good humor and absent-minded lust. They may have stuck to roles of "tops" and "bottoms," but in the dressing room, we all seemed equals, on the same team. Everyone laughed at me for being a straight guy shooting gay porn. Some tried to entice me to jump in front of the camera for kicks. But we all laughed about it. We all seemed like friends. The sadness and the degradation I had come to associate with my job, with videotaped sex for money, was suddenly absent.

But I'm saddened to think that the only path to the absence of hostility and anger in porn is to remove women from the equation. It doesn't bode well, especially for a world in which men and women must continue to co-exist. In the first half of my porn-life, I lived inside of a world where it almost seemed like an entire gender was being denigrated, like that was the whole point—where very young women were choked and slapped and written-on with lipstick, simply for the crime, it seemed, of being a woman. You should have slept with me, seemed to be the unspoken message. Now see what I have to do to you.

Choosing the Photograph

The semiotician Susan Sontag writes that, "Photography is essentially an act of non-intervention." She references the famous photograph of a Vietnamese child, running down a road, her back burned from napalm: "Part of the horror of such journalistic coups of contemporary photojournalism . . . comes from the awareness of how plausible it has become, in situations where the photographer has the choice between a photograph and life, to choose the photograph." Every day, I saw people in pain. And yet, I always chose the photograph.

Even so, I don't regret my decision to work in porn. I regret how I acted within it, and wish that I had been driven more frequently by compassion than instinctive cruelty. But on its most basic level, pornography is neither evil nor noble. It is a sexual means to a solitary end, and for most, porn simply represents a harmless way to spend a half-hour: a bit of lust-inspired drivel that, done right, can serve a very practical purpose.

Moreover, within the world of heterosexual pornography, it's clear that not every scene is degrading. Some are directed by women, others by alt-porn types who fancy a pink mohawk and maybe a bit of plot more so than your average everyday, run-of-the-mill gangbang; many films, happily, are simply produced by people who don't seem propelled by anger. Some are just plain damn sexy.

At its worst, though, porn can represent with shocking clarity the inability of a modern society to empathize. We are living in an increasingly individualistic, over-privatized, fragmented society, and it's not going to get any better any time soon. Perhaps the character of our generation will be judged in how we react to the images that run before us on our screens: do we wish for the objects of our desire to be punished, humiliated? Or treated with respect? The answer is in our collective consciousness. It is up to us.

© 2010 SeXis Magazine All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/145574/