NY state to recognize marriages of gay couples from CA, Massachusetts and Canada

Wow.

Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”

The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

Read More......

Pelosi on McClellan

SF Chronicle

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a wide-ranging editorial board interview with The Chronicle today, offered her own views on the bombshell book by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, who charges that the Iraq war was a bungled policy and the Administration was in ''damage control'' over Hurricane Katrina.

While she hasn't yet read McClellan's tome ''I totally agree'' with his charges, said Pelosi. ''This war was unnecessary. Katrina was a black mark on how the government responded to the needs of our people, and didn't anticipate them.''

''This is a person who was talking to the press, supplied with information that he trusted to be truthful. So I'm sure he felt zapped. Because what could he say, except what he trusted to be the case?''

''I almost wonder how anybody associated with this war, unless they were of completely different philosophy, would not come to the conclusion that this war is a grotesque mistake, that it was misrepresented from the start, not prepared for correctly,'' said Pelosi.

''This war is a big lie. It was a lie to begin with..and it continues to be a lie..at some point, maybe the lies just got to be too heavy for him to carry,'' she said of the former White House spokesman.

Read More......

The mirage economy

For those who are wondering "what's going on with the economy?" this is an excellent article. It's much too easy to look at recent events as one-off problems rather than the collective result of policy. The upside is that when the US is focused it can reinvent itself better than most countries and bounce back. The downside is that because of this long "mirage economy", it's likely to be uncomfortable if not painful.

We still have to face up to the fact that the US middle class has been on the decline for over three decades and no matter how much candy coating or new fangled voodoo economics/financing you throw out there, that is just the way it is. Pulling ourselves out of this hole will take time, not to mention honesty from Washington. Business as usual is not going to cut it. Read More......

Hillary Clinton doesn't speak for me

John and Joe invited me to podcast again with them today, and we addressed the issue of sexism and misogyny in the current Democratic primary. I personally haven't seen or heard of any, and if there's been some, it certainly hasn't made a difference in the places you would most likely first suspect - the "more traditional" (read: less forward-thinking) communities in states like West Virginia and Kentucky which voted overwhelmingly in favor of the white candidate Hillary Clinton.

Today, Hillary Rosen's got a piece up on Huffington explaining why she continues to stand behind Clinton, and loyalty's one of her reasons. You can't argue with that. Good for her. Fine by me. She's also forthcoming in admitting the Clinton campaign sunk itself:

[T]his campaign is losing because of choices and strategies of it's own making. Articles and books will be written after the fact about the lost opportunities, the mixed messages, the insular in-fighting, the financial recklessness and the lack of focus on delegates. She has never caught up in the delegate hunt from those early mistakes.

It's the sentence preceding this admission where we start to disagree. It reads (emphasis mine)

I don't really buy into this notion of the campaign is faltering because Hillary is a victim of sexism. I may part company with some of the Hillary sisterhood on this point. There has been lots of sexism in this race, but this campaign is losing because...

Give me an example. Like I said, I can't think of any time that Clinton's being female has come up in conversation as a reason to vote against her. Where's this sexism taking place? Not on TV. Not online where I read and communicate. Point it out. I'll be happy to speak up against it.

Then there's this, which I buy even less (again, emphasis mine):

Women who have felt powerless to change or even complain about their own lives because they are just too damn busy keeping it together for everyone around them. And they certainly haven't had time for politics.

From the waitress in the diner to the school teacher to the executive on wall street, women feel the daily slights that are often invisible to others. Yes, many of her supporters need real and immediate help from the government, but so many more are just grateful to be noticed.

Sure there are lots of women in this country who don't feel this way. And for all of you who are going to write comments saying as much you don't have to. I am happy for you. Genuinely.

But Hillary's campaign is still going for every woman who has spoken up in a meeting and was greeted with silence only to have a man say the same thing and be praised. It endures for the mothers who are taking care of their children and their parents and their home and has no time to take care of herself. It endures for women who are so scared to see her fail because of what it may say about their chances in life. And yes folks, it resonates for all the women who have seen the younger guy come along and get the promotion even though she has worked in the company loyally for years.

It's not that I don't think there's sexism in everyday life. It's not that I haven't experienced it firsthand. I was the lone woman in a 12-man sports department at a Miami TV station. Guess who didn't get invited to bonding golf outings? When extra Stanley Cup tickets freed up, guess who didn't get 'em even though she'd asked early and often? Who wasn't on the plane for the day trip to the Bahamas for gambling and debauchery with the boys? And that's just one gig. There have been plenty of similar incidents along the way in various stages of my professional career.

But ...

Just because Clinton's a woman does not engender blind allegiance. I don't think her campaign is about girl power. It hasn't been from the beginning. It sure isn't about that now. Some women are passionate about her campaign, and I won't deny she has done well amongst some female voters. But I think her campaign has done more to downplay her gender in an effort to prove she's strong enough to be Commander-in-Chief than emphasize it as an asset.

The women I admire are honest and trustworthy and powerful because they honor their promises and play by the rules and still come out on top. I was all for a female President until Clinton started playing dirty. Female President? Yes. This female? Not so much.

This campaign is not - nor has it ever been - primarily about women. If it were, I would have been on board with bells on. To say that's why Clinton hangs on - for all those suppressed victims of sexism who need her now more than ever - is a crock. This campaign is about a woman. One woman. Hillary Clinton.

And she certainly does not speak for me. Read More......

The Podcast is Back

Yeah, we took a little sabbatical from the AMERICAblog podcast, but it's back with a vengeance. Joe and I join former CNN Internet reporter Jacki Schechner to talk about the upcoming rules committee meeting on Florida and Michigan, Joe weighs in about whether Hillary is right that Obama has no chance in the general election, Jacki discusses the role of (or lack thereof) sexism and misogyny in the race, and finally we all discuss everyone favorite cranky old neighbor, John McCain. Jacki also goes off on two great tirades about Hillary's assassination comments and the GOP taking political advantage of the Holocaust.

You can listen to the podcast by clicking here. For those who don't know, a podcast is really just a radio show. Click the link and your computer should play it automatically, assuming you have speakers and your volume is turned up.

As always, you can subscribe to the AMERICAblog podcast via iTunes here, or you can subscribe to the podcast's RSS feed here. And you can listen to any of our old shows via either of the two links in the preceding sentence.

Also, Jacki had a question about UStream.tv - does anybody understood how it works? We thought it might be fun to do some live podcasts, chats, things like that. If anyone has a clue, email me directly, or feel free to weigh in in the comments. Thanks, JOHN Read More......

Are the Clintons still telling major donors that they're taking this all the way to the convention?

First off, I don't recall them ever admitting (until now) that they had any intention of taking this to the convention. Secondly, they're still saying that, even now when most commentators in the media are convinced Hillary will drop out in the next week or two. That they won't drop out, that they're planning internally on taking this all the way to the convention, is what we hear the Clintons just told their major donors on a conference call in the past few days. If this is her graceful exit, why does it sound an awful lot like a detailed plan for a civil war? I'll say it again - Dean, Reid and Pelosi had better have a plan to end this thing next week, or there will be civil war in the party, and Hillary won't be the only one leading it. Read More......

Everyone in the GOP's cranky old man caucus thinks Al Qaeda is in Iran. (They aren't.)

For John McCain and now, Ted Stevens, that whole Al Qaeda/Sunni v. Iran/Shia issue is just too complicated. Cliff Schecter reports that Ted Stevens, like John McCain, doesn't quite get it:

Does it bother anyone else that these people are making foreign policy decisions when they are clearly ignorant? This is from KFQD with conservative talk show host Dan Fagan:

[Senator Ted Stevens]:We expect Al Qaeda to come out some time today with a new manifesto where they ought to be using weapons of mass destruction against the United States. That means that they're realizing they can't win in Iraq. I think they're going to change their way of doing business. And I think we have to be on the alert. These people are all over the world. Al Qaeda's not just in Iraq. They're in Iran. They're in the Philippines. Sen Inouye and I went down to [indistinguishable]. They're over in Indonesia. They're all over.

All over? Not quite. Al Qaeda isn't in Iran except in the diminishing minds of Stevens and McCain. Read More......

An addendum to Clinton's letter to superdelegates

Hillary Clinton sent a memo to the superdelegates today explaining why she'd be the best candidate in the fall -- and she used Karl Rove's chart in her presentation. Seems like she's back to wanting the superdelegates to overturn the whole process and pick her as the nominee.

As you might expect, Clinton's letter doesn't really provide all the necessary info, so here's an addendum:

P.S. Hillary Clinton forget to mention a few things.

First, not all polls arrive at the same conclusion. She cherry-picked, believe it or not. For example, check out this chart from Jed. Or read this analysis from the Associated Press. And, she of all people should know that polls this far out don't indicate who will win in November. (Think back 6 - 8 months to the polls about who would be the Democratic nominee - hint, it wasn't Obama.)

Also, because Hillary lost the nomination awhile back, she hasn't been the recipient of much negative campaigning as Obama turned his attention to McCain. (There's plenty of material with which to work. Plenty.) Her campaign got pretty ugly at times. She attacked a fellow Democrat in ways that the GOP will attack him in the fall. However, no Democrat has attacked her the way the Republicans would, were she to become the nominee. Don't think the Republicans wouldn't attack her in ways the Democrats never did. And it wouldn't take long to drive her negatives even higher.

Oh, one other thing: Money. Clinton is in debt, big time. Over $20 million and counting. Sure, she and Bill can pour some more of their dough into the race, but do you really want to start with a nominee who is in the red? She's running her campaign on borrowed money right now. She's in worse shape financially than John McCain (and McCain isn't doing so hot). That's not a good place to start the general election.

Bottom line: She lost. She put up a good fight, but she lost. Now stop the foolishness, superdelegates. Vote for the nominee and let's get onto the real fight. The Clinton drama has gone on way too long already. Read More......

AP confirms Lieberman will speak at Rev. Hagee's conference

You have to wonder if McCain really did end his relationship with Rev. Hagee. Otherwise, why would one of McCain's top surrogates show up at Hagee's conference? It seems likes there's some kind of "wink, wink" going on here:

Sen. Joe Lieberman says he'll speak at a July conference hosted by Rev. John Hagee, whose endorsement was recently rejected by Republican John McCain because of Hagee's controversial remarks about religion.

Lieberman, one of presumed GOP presidential nominee McCain's strongest supporters, said Wednesday while Hagee's comments were unacceptable and hurtful, he will judge him on his life work fighting anti-Semitism and building bridges between Christians and Jews.

Lieberman, I-Conn., will speak at Hagee's "Christians United for Israel" summit in Washington.

Well, if Lieberman is judging Hagee by his life work, then why didn't John McCain? This is terribly contradictory, coming from a lead McCain surrogate, and a man who has been talked about as possibly VP material for McCain. McCain needs to now distance himself from Lieberman, or admit that his campaign is continuing to help a man who slurs Catholics, Jews and gays. Read More......

Berlin unveils memorial to gay victims of the Nazis

In keeping with our Holocaust theme of the past two days, this is a very good thing. I'm a bit confused as to the monument itself. The way AP describes it, it sounds a bit peep-show-ish. Not sure I like that. And the photo AP associated with it - an old man in a trenchcoat peeping through a hole in a wall - well, let's not even go there.

Anyway, the Holocaust Museum has a special exhibit online about the Nazi persecution of gays. It's worth checking out - here's an excerpt:

"The Nazi campaign against homosexuality targeted the more than one million German men who, the state asserted, carried a 'degeneracy' that threatened the 'disciplined masculinity' of Germany. Denounced as 'antisocial parasites" and as 'enemies of the state,' more than 100,000 men were arrested under a broadly interpreted law against homosexuality. Approximately 50,000 men served prison terms as convicted homosexuals, while an unknown number were institutionalized in mental hospitals. Others—perhaps hundreds—were castrated under court order or coercion. Analyses of fragmentary records suggest that between 5,000 and 15,000 homosexual men were imprisoned in concentration camps, where many died from starvation, disease, exhaustion, beatings, and murder."

Andy Towle has more on the Berlin Monument, he says it's actually quite cool - more here and here. Read More......

ESPN takes shock-jock off the air permanently for Kennedy assassination joke

Good for ESPN. Now how do we take Hillary off the air?

At the opening of his show last Wednesday, Madden said this about Sen. Kennedy, who days earlier had been diagnosed with brain cancer:

"I'm very disappointed to hear that Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts is near death because of a brain tumor. I always hoped Senator Kennedy would live long enough to be assassinated."

Read More......

Mo Dowd: Is Bill Clinton really ready for Hillary to be VP?

Dowd channels Joe Sudbay in today's Times, with a mythical conversation between Obama and Bill Clinton regarding everything Bill would have to disclose in order for Hillary to be fully vetted as VP:

“Mr. President, I’m going to run a very transparent administration, everything on C-Span. So I’ll need a full accounting of your foundation donors.”

“Oh, sure thing, buddy, from this day forward.”

“No, Bill, we’ll need full disclosure of your business dealings for the last eight years. And you can no longer accept Arab millions — not if I’m going to talk tough to them about oil. I can’t send Hillary on diplomatic missions to the Middle East if you’re taking money from Dubai and Kuwait. And no more trips to Kazakhstan. I wouldn’t want to have to put a Geiger-counter bracelet on you to check that you’re not involved in another shady uranium deal.”

“Ha, ha.”

“We need to know where that $11 million came from that you guys loaned your campaign. And the $15 million from Ron Burkle at Yucaipa and the $3 million from Vinod Gupta. And you must spill about any offshore accounts in the Caymans. And no more big-money speeches, Bill. You guys have already cashed in for more than $100 million.”

“You’re right, Barack, no more speeches. Just conversations. If a C.E.O. interviews me in front of a small audience, that’s fine. But no speeches.”

“I’m not debating the meaning of the word ‘speech,’ Bill. We’re going to have an administration so squeaky clean that it makes Jimmy Carter look like Marc Rich. All your trips abroad will have to be authorized by a higher authority.”

“The State Department? Fine, I’ll check with them.”

“Higher.”

“Oh, no. Not that.”

“Yes, Michelle. She’ll have you on a much shorter leash, Bill, and it’s not so fun. There’ll be no more Ron Air, no Burkling and Binging. Eight long years of Michelle watching your every move. No eruptions of any kind. And that big telescope in the Naval Observatory is off limits. We’re going to be a family-values administration. And in the campaign, we’ll use you the way Al Gore did: Not at all. No more Bill YouTube meltdowns.”

Read More......

Borat meets Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr

It's an oldie, but it still made me laugh out loud. (Hat tip, Ablog reader Jeff.)

Read More......

Sadr continues populist moves in Iraq

Moqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shia political and military leader in Iraq, continues to loudly criticize the US presence in Iraq. With negotiations regarding the US troop levels past 2008 being negotiated, Sadr is calling for the issue to be put to national referendum. Any national vote on the American presence would almost certainly result in a sweeping repudiation of the continued role in Iraq, and Sadr knows it. He also knows that it will never go to a vote, so he can earn increased popular credibility without having to take on any blame for a military transition. CNN reports,

An agreement between the United States and Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain operating in Iraq past 2008 should be put to a popular referendum, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr urged in an online message to his followers.

The message also calls for weekly protests against the agreement, being negotiated by the two governments.

The debate is weirdly academic simply because the post-2008 American role will be determined by the new president, not by the current administration. Still, some important elements are being negotiated, and as always, political leaders are looking for the angles. Read More......

McClellan's book: Bush can't remember if he ever used cocaine

That means he was either drunk off his ass, or under the influence of other drugs. But it also means that he was willingly at parties where people were using such drugs, if he's not sure if he himself partook. Nice.

McClellan tracks Bush's penchant for self-deception back to an overheard incident on the campaign trail in 1999 when the then-governor was dogged by reports of possible cocaine use in his younger days.

The book recounts an evening in a hotel suite "somewhere in the Midwest." Bush was on the phone with a supporter and motioned for McClellan to have a seat.

"'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'"

"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be?" McClellan wrote. "How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."

Bush, according to McClellan, "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie."

"So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true," McClellan wrote. "And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious — political convenience."

In the years that followed, McClellan "would come to believe that sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment." McClellan likened it to a witness who resorts to "I do not recall."

Read More......

Colorado Springs shuttle bus for gamblers gets $382,000 in anti-terror grants

Nice. And having worked on the Hill, my mind immediately asks "who's the Colorado politician who made this pork happen?"

Wayne Allard is the Republican Senator (and with a Republican administration, it's far more likely the Republican asked for and got this). Republican Doug Lamborn is the House member representing Colorado Springs. Read More......

Despite Clinton's "overstatements and exaggerations," Obama polling very well against McCain with key groups

This is almost sad. Hillary Clinton is just making stuff up now. It didn't have to be like this.

Hillary yesterday, in what CBS calls a "Wide Net of Exaggeration":

During an evening rally in Montana’s largest city Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton explained to the crowd why she should be the Democratic Party’s nominee, but what ensued was a list of overstatements and exaggerations as she made her case. “You have to ask yourself, who is the stronger candidate? And based on every analysis, of every bit of research and every poll that has been taken and every state that a Democrat has to win, I am the stronger candidate against John McCain in the fall,” she said.

Not exactly.

It's not like these early polls even matter, but since Clinton is making an issue of them, here's the latest analysis from The Associated Press, which rebuts a lot of Clinton's exaggerations:

A look at voters who have been closely contested in recent presidential elections - or veered from one party to the other, making them true swing groups - shows a significant number have leaned toward Obama's rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the primaries. Besides women and Catholics, these include the elderly, the less educated and suburbanites, leading Clinton to argue that this makes her the Democrats' stronger candidate for the fall campaign.

Yet Obama's performance with these voters in the primaries doesn't necessarily mean he'd do poorly with them in the general election, assuming he nails down the last few convention delegates he needs to win the nomination.

Polls this month show the Illinois senator leading McCain among women, running even with him among Catholics and suburbanites and trailing him with people over age 65. Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has shunned him against Clinton - whites who have not completed college - he's doing about the same with them as the past two Democratic presidential candidates.

Obama is doing well against McCain with groups he has dominated in the primaries. Polls show him ahead of the Arizona senator with young people and college graduates, though the results vary from poll to poll among independents.

Read More......

Majority of California voters don't want constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages

This is the "Field Poll," as Markos calls it "the only poll that matters in California."

A majority of registered Californian voters oppose changing the constitution of the most populous U.S. state to bar gays from marrying, according to poll released on Wednesday.

The Field Poll survey found 51 percent against approving a possible November ballot measure to prohibit gay marriage, with 43 percent in favor. A slightly differently worded question on the same issue found 54 percent opposed and 40 percent in favor.

The poll follows a state Supreme Court decision this month that barring homosexuals from marrying violated the California Constitution. Opponents of same-sex marriage have intensified efforts to put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot in November.

It's only a matter of time, with youth overwhelming support granting marriage rights to gay couples, which is why the right-wing homophobes want constitutional amendments. They are quite literally trying to stop the public from eventually approving of gay unions, even if the majority of the public agrees it's okay and wants to do it. Their hands will be tied by these onerous constitutional amendments. If you just leave it up to the people, there's no need for an amendment. Or, you could have an amendment that stop courts from requiring gay marriage but would permit the legislature to approve it (not that I'd approve of such an amendment, but still).

The poll found a strong generational gap on the issue, with those aged 18-29 approving of gay marriage by 68 percent and those 65 or older disapproving by 55 percent.

The poll found that in recent decades a growing number of Californians have approved allowing same-sex couples to marry, with 51 percent of those polled now approving, up from 44 percent in 2006 and 30 percent in 1985.

Read More......

Phil Gramm's client tells employees to avoid USA

This sounds like serious trouble ahead, possibly with the US Justice Department and SEC. John McCain's leading economic adviser and co-campaign chair Phil Gramm needs to explain why his client is telling employees to avoid travel to the US. Shouldn't we expect more from a possible Treasury Secretary? Has the bar really been lowered this far? Read More......

McCain's lobbyist problems continue - will Phil Gramm now resign?

Besides lobbying for UBS - one of the worst hit banks in the subprime crisis, based in Europe - McCain national campaign co-chair, economic adviser and possible choice for Treasury Secretary, Phil Gramm played a critical role in setting up countless problems that the US is facing today. It was his signature legislation that cast aside Depression era laws and regulations, creating the Wild West gambler environment that has forced a bailout of the industry and thrown the entire US economy (and soon world) into a tailspin. Haven't we seen enough of this? The GOP experiment has shown everyone how serious the consequences can be. Of course, if anyone read a bit of history they would have known we've been here before. They also would remember McCain's role in the last banking failures we experienced back in the 1980s when he was part of the Keating Five scandal. Read More......

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Well, there is certainly a lot buzzing around this morning.

McCain and Bush had one of their joint fundraisers last night for Bush's third term -- no pictures, remember. Because, if someone took a picture of Bush and McCain, people might start to link them? They're already inextricably linked. Every time McCain says "Iraq," McCain is Bush.

And, how about that Scotty McClellan? Who knew he had it in him? Oh, the knives are going to be out for him over the next couple days. Scotty's going to experience for himself the character assassination and personal attacks that he used to launch back in his White House days. I love a good intra-GOP battle, but an intra-Team Bush cat fight is even better.

Only six more days til the primaries are over. Six more days. Read More......

Will subprime crisis take down Citigroup?

Who could have even imagined Citi being bought out a year ago? They were one of the high flying winners on Wall Street and rated as the largest company in the world only last year. Thanks to their drunken-sailor gambling on shoddy subprime loans, the CEO Charles Prince walked away with a princely fortune but the company itself is now a prime target by European banks. Part of what makes this possible (besides the enormous subprime losses) is the feeble US dollar. Yes, it's the same dollar that is contributing to the record high oil prices. In short, the weak dollar policies of the Bush administration are coming home to roost. (Third term, anyone?)

So should this takeover happen, what does it mean to US consumers? For starters it means one less bank out there so this would be continuing the trend since Reagan of consolidation in the US banking industry. Some may be impressed by the idea of Sovietesque mega banks but besides the high rollers - who got us into this headache in the first place - I don't see how a 200,000 person bank is really good. For mega deals, sure, but for the rest of us, I just don't see it.

Also, we need to step back and look at the Bear Stearns collapse and bailout. Is it in the best interest of consumers, taxpayers or the government to create another situation where failure is not an option? Bear Stearns was a small company with only 14,000 people employed. What are the consequences of a mega bank failure? Even today we have yet to see any serious talk in Congress - Democrats or Republicans - about that bailout. It's as if it was a non-issue yet in reality, that was big. We have not seen any signs of change on Wall Street in terms of healthy pay despite record failure so there is no reason why we should allow ourselves to be set up for the next bailout. Read More......

African nations call out "free trade" spin

The term "free trade" has to be one of the most abused names currently being used. It paints a picture that is at best only half true. The US, especially with Republicans, always rolls out this line when there happens to be one special interest group or another who wants to crush a world market. Under the banner of "free trade" they wipe out a market, such as the cotton market in Africa, and then march forward with one less competitor. Isn't capitalism great and aren't those poor countries freeloaders?

Using the example of cotton, thanks to taxpayer sponsored welfare for millionaire farmers in the US, they can sell well below the cost that local African producers can offer so it's impossible to make money. Out go jobs and money, forcing people to reach out for financial aid from foreign governments. In the US when China or other countries do this in steel, for example, we call it "dumping" and it's considered very bad if not illegal. Countries like the US or Europe have much deeper pockets and can afford to take legal action. The incoming millions and billions never quite trickles down as various people grab a piece. Is that bad? Of course, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking this doesn't happen in the US. Even when the US government is supposed to be monitoring US taxpayer money in Iraq, we end up with billions missing.

Our model for assisting countries (and people) in need is never going to be perfect and will always change. At the moment, it's increasingly obvious that the current model is in desperate need of change. It is possible to help poor countries without always throwing cash and expecting results. The problem now is that the West still wants to preach "free trade" rubbish instead of instituting fair trade policies. Read More......

ABC's Jake Tapper on Auschwitz and Buchenwald

I like Jake's blog. I like Jake's coverage, but his blog is, well, a real blog. He actually writes what he thinks. His take on the "which camp did Obama's uncle liberate" flap is moving and well put.

No matter where you stand, I guess I just don't particularly care to see Concentration Camp survivors on the same page as cartoon Pinnochios, as whoever does graphics for the Washington Post's great fact-checker Michael Dobbs has done HERE.

And do we really need the headline "Where In the World Is Auschwitz?" This isn't a joke.

I am certainly part of the media world that pounces on politicians when they screw-up. As such, I'm often guilty as charged when it comes to not seeing the forest for the trees. In this instance, the forest is the deliberate extermination of 12 million people. And the sacrifices of the brave Americans who risked and gave their lives to save those people victimized by Nazi barbarism. Not to mention our fighting men and women through the generations who have had to deal with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a conversation about which prompted Obama to mention his great uncle.

Obama deserved to be called out for his mistake. But it's also worth noting that despite all the talk about Obama's problems with the Jewish community, he's never mentioned before that his great uncle helped liberate a concentration camp until it came up in North Las Vegas in a conversation about PTSD.

I hadn't thought of that. It's an excellent point. Obama refused to use his family history to help himself. He only brought it up when he wanted to help others. Read More......