Breaking News Events

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Jess

Cross posting these articles from the Beginning of the End of DADT thread, as I think our current position on this very important issue needs to be passed on as much as possible.

Keeping up with this issue after mid-terms. I ran across a couple articles of interest. Will continue watching and sending every petition in I come across.

One from Huff Post:

Dems To Cave On DADT Repeal In Lame Duck

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_780371.html

Another from Metro Weekly/ Poliglot:

The (Military) Brass Tacks of Lame-Duck DADT Repeal

http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010...-military.html

From the Wall Street Journal:

Drive to Repeal 'Don't Ask' Policy All but Lost for Now

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...961320666.html

Sure does need to be spread around the site! GRRRRRR!!! A whole lot of the right-wing wins have stopped repeal of DADT!

[Greyson]

NEWSWEEK's Power 50: The List

November 01, 2010

In the oversaturated, hypercommodified media culture of 2010, the most influential political figures are generally the ones who make the most money peddling their perspectives. To figure who's tops in this new world, NEWSWEEK asked Wealth-X, an intelligence and research firm, to compile a list of the 50 highest-earning political figures of 2010. Included in the rankings are politicians, ex-politicians, media personalities, and political consultants who hawk their personal brands in the public marketplace—and influence American political discourse in the process. To see a profile of any member of the Power 50, just click on their name in the list below. You can also sort these names to see the list broken down by gender or occupation, just click on the category at the top of the list. And, you can find our full methodology here.


1 Rush Limbaugh Male Talk show host $58.7 million

2 Glenn Beck Male Talk show host $33 million

3 Sean Hannity Male Talk show host $22 million

4 Bill O'Reilly Male Talk show host $20 million

5 Jon Stewart Male Talk show host $15 million

6 Sarah Palin Female Current or former government official $14 million

7 Don Imus Male Talk show host $11 million

8 Bill Clinton Male Current or former government official $7.7 million

9 Keith Olbermann Male Talk show host $7.5 million

10 Rudy Giuliani Male Current or former government official $7 million

11 Laura Ingraham
(tied with 10) Female Talk show host $7 million

12 Newt Gingrich Male Current or former government official $5.5 million

13 Madeleine Albright Female Current or former government official $5 million

14 Stephen Colbert
(tied with 13) Male Talk show host $5 million

15 Arianna Huffington
(tied with 13) Female Journalist $5 million

16 Mark Levin
(tied with 13) Male Talk show host $5 million

17 Chris Matthews 31 Male Talk show host $4.5 million 17

18 George W. Bush Male Current or former government official $4.2 million

19 Bill Maher Male Talk show host $4 million

20 Barack Obama
(tied with 19) Male Current or former government official $4 million

21 Jorge Ramos
(tied with 19) Male Journalist $4 million

22 Joe Scarborough 45 Male Talk show host $3.5 million 22

23 Fareed Zakaria Male Journalist $3.1 million

24 Bob Barnett Male Power broker $3 million

25 Alan Greenspan
(tied with 24) Male Current or former government official $3 million

26 Frank Luntz
(tied with 24) Male Political strategist $3 million

27 Mark Halperin Male Journalist $2.5 million

28 John Heilemann
(tied with 27) Male Journalist $2.5 million

29 Bob Woodward
(tied with 27) Male Journalist $2.5 million

30 Thomas Friedman Male Journalist $2 million

31 Al Gore
(tied with 30) Male Current or former government official $2 million

32 Rachel Maddow
(tied with 30) Female Talk show host $2 million

33 Jon Meacham*
(tied with 30) Male Journalist $2 million

34 Charlie Rose
(tied with 30) Male Talk show host $2 million

35 Karl Rove
(tied with 30)
Male Current or former government official $2 million

36 Condoleezza Rice Female Current or former government official $1.8 million

37 Charlie Cook Male Journalist $1.5 million

38 David Plouffe Male Political strategist $1.5 million

39 David Remnick 41 Male Journalist $1.3 million 39

40 Roland Martin Male Journalist $1.1 million

41 Tina Brown Female Journalist $1 million

42 Dick Cheney
(tied with 41) 7 Current or former government official $1 million

43 John McLaughlin
(tied with 41) Male Talk show host $1 million

44 Colin Powell*
(tied with 41) Male Current or former government official $1 million

45 Eduardo 'Piolin' Sotelo
(tied with 41) Male Talk show host $1 million

46 Richard Stengel
(tied with 41) Male Journalist $1 million

47 Paul Krugman Male Journalist $900,000

48 Mary Matalin* Female Current or former government official $800,000

49 Ann Coulter Female Journalist $750,000

50 David Axelrod Male Current or former government official $720,000

* Disputed our estimates, but declined to provide further information on the numbers.


http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/01/power-list.html#

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Greyson

NEWSWEEK's Power 50: The List

November 01, 2010

In the oversaturated, hypercommodified media culture of 2010, the most influential political figures are generally the ones who make the most money peddling their perspectives. To figure who's tops in this new world, NEWSWEEK asked Wealth-X, an intelligence and research firm, to compile a list of the 50 highest-earning political figures of 2010. Included in the rankings are politicians, ex-politicians, media personalities, and political consultants who hawk their personal brands in the public marketplace—and influence American political discourse in the process. To see a profile of any member of the Power 50, just click on their name in the list below. You can also sort these names to see the list broken down by gender or occupation, just click on the category at the top of the list. And, you can find our full methodology here.


1 Rush Limbaugh Male Talk show host $58.7 million

2 Glenn Beck Male Talk show host $33 million

3 Sean Hannity Male Talk show host $22 million

4 Bill O'Reilly Male Talk show host $20 million

5 Jon Stewart Male Talk show host $15 million

6 Sarah Palin Female Current or former government official $14 million

7 Don Imus Male Talk show host $11 million

8 Bill Clinton Male Current or former government official $7.7 million

9 Keith Olbermann Male Talk show host $7.5 million

10 Rudy Giuliani Male Current or former government official $7 million

11 Laura Ingraham
(tied with 10) Female Talk show host $7 million

12 Newt Gingrich Male Current or former government official $5.5 million

13 Madeleine Albright Female Current or former government official $5 million

14 Stephen Colbert
(tied with 13) Male Talk show host $5 million

15 Arianna Huffington
(tied with 13) Female Journalist $5 million

16 Mark Levin
(tied with 13) Male Talk show host $5 million

17 Chris Matthews 31 Male Talk show host $4.5 million 17

18 George W. Bush Male Current or former government official $4.2 million

19 Bill Maher Male Talk show host $4 million

20 Barack Obama
(tied with 19) Male Current or former government official $4 million

21 Jorge Ramos
(tied with 19) Male Journalist $4 million

22 Joe Scarborough 45 Male Talk show host $3.5 million 22

23 Fareed Zakaria Male Journalist $3.1 million

24 Bob Barnett Male Power broker $3 million

25 Alan Greenspan
(tied with 24) Male Current or former government official $3 million

26 Frank Luntz
(tied with 24) Male Political strategist $3 million

27 Mark Halperin Male Journalist $2.5 million

28 John Heilemann
(tied with 27) Male Journalist $2.5 million

29 Bob Woodward
(tied with 27) Male Journalist $2.5 million

30 Thomas Friedman Male Journalist $2 million

31 Al Gore
(tied with 30) Male Current or former government official $2 million

32 Rachel Maddow
(tied with 30) Female Talk show host $2 million

33 Jon Meacham*
(tied with 30) Male Journalist $2 million

34 Charlie Rose
(tied with 30) Male Talk show host $2 million

35 Karl Rove
(tied with 30)
Male Current or former government official $2 million

36 Condoleezza Rice Female Current or former government official $1.8 million

37 Charlie Cook Male Journalist $1.5 million

38 David Plouffe Male Political strategist $1.5 million

39 David Remnick 41 Male Journalist $1.3 million 39

40 Roland Martin Male Journalist $1.1 million

41 Tina Brown Female Journalist $1 million

42 Dick Cheney
(tied with 41) 7 Current or former government official $1 million

43 John McLaughlin
(tied with 41) Male Talk show host $1 million

44 Colin Powell*
(tied with 41) Male Current or former government official $1 million

45 Eduardo 'Piolin' Sotelo
(tied with 41) Male Talk show host $1 million

46 Richard Stengel
(tied with 41) Male Journalist $1 million

47 Paul Krugman Male Journalist $900,000

48 Mary Matalin* Female Current or former government official $800,000

49 Ann Coulter Female Journalist $750,000

50 David Axelrod Male Current or former government official $720,000

* Disputed our estimates, but declined to provide further information on the numbers.


http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/01/power-list.html#

Freakin' ARGH!!! As the money turns.... as always, no matter the party!

[MsDemeanor]

Shrub continues to prove that he can't actually read or write. It turns out that an assistant did the online research, and the book is full of passages lifted from other sources.

That man is an idiot.

linkyloo

[Nat]

As requested, I am crossposting this here

Originally Posted by Nat

Meet The Illinois Woman Arrested For Assaulting Cop With A Sex Toy

when Bildsten reached inside a dresser drawer to get the purported cash, she instead removed a “clear, rigid feminine pleasure device,” held it above her head, and advanced on the cop “in a threatening manner.” The officer responded by knocking the sex toy out of the way before he was struck with the device.

The sex toy, which was not confiscated by cops, was further described by Deputy Chief Kevin Woodside in a TSG interview. The item, he noted, was six inches long and “attached to a nylon harness.”

[Dutch Leonard]

I heard this on Iowa Public radio this morning, here is a Chicago Tribune article about it:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,6721747.story

[weatherboi]

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N...rtive_Teacher/

[AtLast]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ing-passenger/

I avoid flying as much as possible- never liked it even when I had to do a lot of it for work. Give me a train or a road adventure!

This brings up abucnh of things- from why his junk is more important than my boobs, to what IS the status of our rights and freedoms and security post 9/11? This on the heels of the non-passenger currier flight bombs. Also this story has a sexual abuse issue within it via this guy. Interesting story to ponder what we live with today in terms of security.

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ing-passenger/

This brings up abucnh of things- from why his junk is more important than my boobs, to what IS the status of our rights and freedoms and security post 9/11?

It's not. You too could refuse the search and be escorted from an airport, should you want to.

By buying a ticket and going through the various search points and security measures, we give up quite a few rights. It's in the fine print on the airline/ticket purchasing sites. I'm not saying it's right; just that that is how it is at this point in time.

[Nat]

Sarah Palin's Daughter Uses Homophobic Slurs

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Nat

Sarah Palin's Daughter Uses Homophobic Slurs

Shock me shock me shock me.

Apple - Tree.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Gemme

It's not. You too could refuse the search and be escorted from an airport, should you want to.

By buying a ticket and going through the various search points and security measures, we give up quite a few rights. It's in the fine print on the airline/ticket purchasing sites. I'm not saying it's right; just that that is how it is at this point in time.

Interesting how the media I have been seeing about this hasn't focused on that you bring up that is very important- that fine print! He is an adult person that can read and purchased his ticket!

I see some of the issues some people are having about the body scanners, pat downs, etc., but, yes.... these measures have been taken for some pretty sobering and realistic reasons.

Probably because I don't fly often, I just do what is required for securiy when I do fly. It will be the same with these newer measures taking effect. I can understand how people that need to fly often can get annoyed with this. Yet, not having these safeguards seems nuts to me. Only takes one bomb, weapon (remember the box cutters) to cause a major disaster with innocent people being killed or injured.

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

Interesting how the media I have been seeing about this hasn't focused on that you bring up that is very important- that fine print! He is an adult person that can read and purchased his ticket!

I see some of the issues some people are having about the body scanners, pat downs, etc., but, yes.... these measures have been taken for some pretty sobering and realistic reasons.

Probably because I don't fly often, I just do what is required for securiy when I do fly. It will be the same with these newer measures taking effect. I can understand how people that need to fly often can get annoyed with this. Yet, not having these safeguards seems nuts to me. Only takes one bomb, weapon (remember the box cutters) to cause a major disaster with innocent people being killed or injured.

Exactly.

However, in this one guy's case, I side with him. He checked the website to make sure the scanner wasn't in use at that airport but the website was not upgraded to show that it was. He even offered several times to go through the metal detector.

It feels like the TSA made a case of him, to show that they would not allow any kind of disagreement with their rules.

I've flown several times, but not really since the scanners have been in place. I've been patted down, but not in the 'new' method. So, I can only say what I 'think' I might do or choose in a situation like that but I definitely feel as if they, the individuals he came across and the department as a whole, were absolutely uncompromising. If he'd refused the metal detector as well, I could see why they might be heavyhanded with him.

[weatherboi]

[suebee]

Originally Posted by weatherboi

For once I'm speechless.

[betenoire]

Lisa Murkowski has apparently won the senate race in Alaska.

Now, I do get that she's a Republican - but she's not the Tea Party backed Joe Miller. So this IS good news.

The devil you know, kids.

Murkowski becomes 1st write-in senator since '54

[Nat]

Palin says she can beat Obama...

Republicans are talking openly about President Obama's vulnerability for re-election in 2012, and one of them is Sarah Palin.

When ABC's Barbara Walters asked the former Alaska governor, "if you ran for president, could you beat Barack Obama?," Palin replied: "I believe so."

Palin -- tabbed by Walters as one of the "10 Most Fascinating People of 2010" -- again said she is weighing a White House bid.

"I'm looking at the lay of the land," she told ABC. "And ... trying to figure that out, if it's a good thing for the country, for the discourse, for my family, if it's a good thing."

The full interview airs Dec. 9.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Nat

Palin -- tabbed by Walters as one of the "10 Most Fascinating People of 2010" -- again said she is weighing a White House bid.

Dear Scary Lady Sarah;

Oh please oh please oh please run, Sarah. It'll be funny! SNL has been so -boring- lately.

And you'll lose.

Love,

Brandy

[Greyson]

Insurers Gave U.S. Chamber $86 Million Used to Oppose Obama's Health Law

By Drew Armstrong

Nov 17, 2010 Health insurers last year gave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $86.2 million that was used to oppose the health-care overhaul law, according to tax records and people familiar with the donation.

The insurance lobby, whose members include Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Cigna Corp. of Philadelphia, gave the money to the Chamber in 2009 as Democrats increased criticism of the industry, according to a person who requested anonymity because laws don’t require identifying funding sources. The Chamber got the money from the America’s Health Insurance Plans as the industry urged Congress to drop a plan to create a competing government-run insurance plan.

“Clearly the secrecy was important to industry,” Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, said in an interview. The group tracks money in politics and isn’t affiliated with a political party. “Eighty-six million dollars is an astonishing sum,” she said.

The spending on the Chamber exceeded the insurer group’s entire budget from a year earlier and accounted for 40 percent of the Chamber’s $214.6 million in 2009 expenditures. The spending reflects the insurers’ attempts to influence the bill, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will provide coverage to 32 million previously uninsured Americans, after Democrats in Congress and the White House put more focus on regulation of the insurance industry.

U.S. Disclosure Law

The $86.2 million paid for advertisements, polling and grass roots events to drum up opposition to the bill, said Tom Collamore, a Chamber of Commerce spokesman. The Chamber said in a statement it used the funds to “advance a market-based health-care system and advocate for fundamental reform that would improve access to quality care while lowering costs.”

The organizations disclosed the funding yesterday in annual tax records required under U.S. law. The Chamber’s records show it received $86.2 million from a single group, which a second person briefed on the transaction by those involved identified as Washington-based America’s Health group.

Insurers gave the $86.2 million to the Chamber in August 2009, funded by health insurers, said the first person. Early that month, America’s Health Chief Executive Officer Karen Ignagni said Democrats were trying to “demonize” insurers.

Only Amounts Required

Tax forms require organizations to list only the amounts granted or received from other groups, not the organizations’ identities. Health insurers expressed opposition to parts of the health-care legislation while they conferred with congressional Democrats writing the bill and the White House. At the same time, the Chamber of Commerce was advertising its opposition.

The Chamber spent $45.5 million on a campaign against the bill in 2009, according to TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, an Arlington, Virginia-based company that tracks political advertising.

The Chamber began in March 2010, weeks before the bill became law, another $10 million effort focused on pressuring lawmakers to vote against the bill. Blair Latoff, a spokeswoman for the Chamber, wouldn’t say how much of the money was spent in 2009 and how much, if any, was used in 2010.

“With so much at stake we, like other major stakeholders, invested in advocacy,” Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for the insurers, said in an e-mail. “We supported a number of leading health-care advocacy organizations and coalitions that shared our views.” He declined to answer other questions on the money.

‘Breathtaking’ Amount

The amount is “breathtaking,” said Trevor Potter, the head of the political activity practice at Washington law firm Caplin & Drysdale.

The $86.2 million dwarfs other large donations given to the Chamber, such as a $15.4 million 2008 transaction whose contributor isn’t identified, as well an anonymous $4.5 million contribution in 2009, according to records.

By funneling the money through the Chamber, insurers were able to remain at the table negotiating with Democrats while still getting the bill criticized. “It enables you to have it both ways,” Potter said in a phone interview.

“They clearly thought the Chamber would be a more credible source of information and advertising on health-care reform, and it would appear less self-serving if a broader business group made arguments against it than if the insurers did it,” said Potter, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.

Critics Pounce

The Center for Responsive Politics’ Klein said that the public would have been “better served” by insurers disclosing the money when they gave it. “Perhaps this key debate would have progressed differently if the true source of the chamber’s spending had been known at the time,” Klein said.

The White House criticized the insurer money in a blog post. Insurers were “desperate to preserve their ability to discriminate against you if you had a preexisting condition, drop your care when you got sick and limit the amount of care you could receive in a year or a lifetime,” wrote Stephanie Cutter, assistant to the president for special projects.

Representative Pete Stark, a California Democrat who helped write the health-care law in the House, criticized the insurer spending in a letter to fellow members of Congress. “That $86 million in attack ads could have been better spent to reduce insurance premiums,” he wrote.

U.S. ChamberWatch, a Washington group that has been critical of the Chamber of Commerce, called the $86.2 million transaction “breathtakingly” large. “The U.S. Chamber has given up the right to call themselves the voice of American business; they are the voice of the insurance industry,” Christy Setzer, the group’s spokeswoman, said in a statement.

Insurance company members of America’s Health that didn’t respond to questions about whether they gave money to the 2009 effort were: Jim Turner, a spokesman for Louisville, Kentucky- based Humana Inc.; Tyler Mason, a spokesman for UnitedHealth Group; Mohit Ghose, a spokesman for Hartford, Connecticut-based Aetna. Kristin Binns, a spokeswoman for Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc., and Cigna spokeswoman Gloria Barone declined to comment.

To contact the reporter on this story: Drew Armstrong in Washington at darmstrong17@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-17/insurers-gave-u-s-chamber-86-million-used-to-oppose-obama-s-health-law.html

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Dear Scary Lady Sarah;

Oh please oh please oh please run, Sarah. It'll be funny! SNL has been so -boring- lately.

And you'll lose.

Love,

Brandy

I want to believe that she would lose. However, I remember an old time B movie star from California that wasn't taken as a serious contender for the US president in the mid-70's that went on to be elected in 1980 and re-elected even with the early symptoms of Alzheimer's. He also was the product of the ultra-far-right, Christian fundamentalists of the GOP. He too, ran during a time of economic turmoil and immgration of Latinos was under fire (although, Reagan pushed for amnesty).

After the mid-terms and just the kind of racist crap and socialist characterization of Obama, plus the impact of US politics of Faux News and multi-billionare supporters.... along with the apathy of those that came out for Obama in '08 during the mid-terms.... I will not underestimate Palin's chances of being elected US president. Or, MIS-underestimate them (peas in a pod, Palin & "Dub'ya").

George W Bush was elected and re-elected, too. And a lot of his appeal was his down-home, folksy style. Nope.... not convinced that Palin could not get elected, especially if our economy remains slow and unemployment is not significantly decreasing.

But, oh yes.... SNL would be much better if she were running... Cruel, cruel, joke as it would be if she did and won.

People are so fed-up and frustrated with Washington in growing numbers from all over the political spectrum, I really DO fear her being elected! Big time scary!!!

The one thing that gives me hope is the growing nubers of Latinos getting involved in the political process and the huge numbers that will be new voters. And let's hope that this population can finally see more of their own elected all over the US!