Scott Lee Cohen is Out

The Illinois Democratic Lieutenant Governor nominee who has been hounded by scandal since the day after he won the Democratic primaries last week, has stepped down, tearfully.

The next step is for the Democratic Party’s State Central Committee to elect a replacement. The process is, apparently, quite complex. Chicago Public Radio (WBEZ) has a blog that sums up the process pretty well, noting that some things we just do not know yet.

My HuffPo article: Jeff Haas and Bill Ayers discuss new book

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/08/jeff-haas-bill-ayers-disc_n_453332.html


"Back [in the 60's] segregation was normalized so it's easy to say 'If I would have been alive I would have been right there.' But would we have been?" Bill Ayers, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, posed the question Thursday night to a standing room only audience in the back room at Barbara's Bookstore on South Halsted.

Ayers, ironically, was himself a left wing radical and founding member of the controversial group Weather Underground during the Vietnam War. He recently returned to the spotlight as questions arose over his connection to then-presidential-hopeful Barack Obama, nearly costing Obama the election.

Ayers joined a panel of activists at different levels of career revolutionism, to discuss the legacy of Fred Hampton and to promote Jeff Haas' book "The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and Chicago Police Killed a Black Panther." The panel was hosted by Barbara's Bookstore in honor of Black History Month.

Haas' book recounts his personal story of growing up a privileged white man in Atlanta, then coming to Chicago after graduating from law school. He learned of the Black Panther movement as a young lawyer working to get Hampton released from prison. He succeeded, only to have Hampton assassinated on December 4th, 1969, in what he worked for years to prove was the work of Chicago police and the FBI, tracing all the way up to its director, J. Edgar Hoover. Haas co-founded The People's Law Office and worked to uncover the covert and often illegal government program to obtain secret evidence on activists, COINTELPRO.

Ayers was moderator of the panel that included Haas, headliner of the evening; LaDonna Redmond, Chicago community activist and co-founder of Graffiti and Grub; Dr. David Stovall, a University of Illinois at Chicago professor in Educational Policy Studies; and honorary guest Bill Hampton, Fred Hampton's brother.

In his southern drawl, Haas began the discussion by giving a substantial recap of the events leading up to the incident that shocked Americans and enraged civil rights activists over 40 years ago. He read an excerpt of the book describing his visit to a church on Chicago's West side to hear Hampton speak, quoting him:

"If you ever think about me and you ain't gonna do no revolutionary act, forget about me. I don't want myself on your mind if you're not going to work for the people. If you're asked to make a commitment at the age of twenty, and you say I don't want to make a commitment at the age of twenty, only because of the reason that I'm too young to die, I want to live a little longer, then you're dead already."

The panelists discussed the legacy of Fred Hampton, hoping to encourage people to get involved in defending civil rights.

"We are all living in a living history," Redmond said. "If we want peace, don't ask what Obama did, ask what you did."

Afterward, Haas signed copies of his book and signed mine:

"Tell truth for power. Keep the struggle for justice alive."

State of the Union: Everything rolled into one

Or as the Twitter-sphere calls it: SOTU (saves space). President Obama addressed the nation last night in his first State of the Union. I had to watch it on MSNBC online after it aired because I was at an event when it came on, so I didn't have the typical feeling I get of watching "with the whole nation," but I was pretty impressed that he addressed so many things in such a short amount of time. He spent more than 25 mins (from my personal estimations) talking about jobs and the economy. Mostly empathizing with people, with a few plans sprinkled in). Then he diversified his topic portfolio by smoothly transitioning in education, limiting federal spending (plus a 3-yr freeze...we will get to that later), climate change efforts, health care (I waited for it and waited for it and he did get there, albeit,with a pretty quick mention), the wars, repealing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the military (which was huge, I thought it should have been talked about more by the media. But I guess since Sam Stein on HuffPo broke the news, people were just expecting it. I was still impressed) and he even criticized the Supreme Court decision to deregulate corporate campaign donations - the justices were sitting right there! It was ballsy. Justice Alito was about to stand up and say something, the news sites reported he was saying "that's not true" to Obamas claims that corporations were going to steamroll the needs of the people. My point is that he addressed a lot of issues, but had to do it in a short sentence or two because he spent so long talking about jobs and the economy.

I would mention too, though, that he did not address the Guantanamo Bay closure (or lack thereof), which was a big issue in his inauguration speech and other speeches. But that is likely because he did not want to bring up the fact that he failed to do what he said. He was not afraid to say he added a trillion to the deficit (after talking about how Bush took us from a budget surplus to a huge deficit (artfully, without mentioning Bush's name at all - the camera panned to McCain mumbling to himself), so I think he could have addressed his failure at Gitmo. But he didn't. He never said he would, so it's cool. But I noticed.

And after promising to address the Middle East conflict, he did not bring up the fact that he (more accurately, Hillary Clinton) failed completely at halting Israeli settlement building. Which is a foreign policy issue so I guess it is not relevant compared to the domestic issues he talked about...but if we are throwing out issues to talk about, I think it deserved a passing mention. But again, not a huge surprise or let down, just something I noticed.

Also absent in talking about domestic issues we are facing as Americans: Oprah is leaving! He didn't even mention the talk show maven's last year. Poor Oprah! ...just kidding.

Doubling our Efforts in Afghanistan

Last night President Obama addressed an auditorium full of servicemen and women , as well as the rest of the nation, to inform us of his plans in Afghanistan, to justify his actions, and to layout a timeline.

His policy on Afghanistan was always that we would beef up our efforts there, which people seem to have forgotten. He wanted to pull out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan, which he is doing. People have been flustered recently with his failures to uphold other campaign promises, which may be causing some confusion. The Afghanistan issue is not to be confused with his promises on Guantanamo Bay, which he said would be closed in 18 months (FAIL). Or his stance on freezing illegal settlement building in Israel (EPIC FAIL).

But in many ways people are starting to view Afghanistan as another Vietnam, which the president addressed in his speech. He noted that Afghanistan was different from Vietnam in one very big way - the terrorists who (allegedly) attacked the U.S. live there. Now, I know it sounds conspiracy-theoretical, but there has been no proof or trial to say that the exact masterminds of the 9/11 attacks are living in territorial Afghanistan as opposed to anywhere else in the world. I seem to remember in 2001 when the attacks happened that everyone said the enemy was among us, living in the U.S.. Afterall, all of the hijacked flights were domestic flights. But Former President Bush grabbed his shotgun and threw on his britches and ran after the ambiguous enemy in Afghanistan almost immediately after the attacks, basing his decision on secret intelligence. 8 years later, that secret intelligence has never been tested, but we are doubling our efforts in the region.

Now, I am definitely interested in making sure Americans are safe and, if there is a threat in Afghanistan, neutralizing it. We started the job, we got 2 sides formed, we have Afghanis fighting against Afghanis and policemen being attacked and a corrupt leader in the region. Now is definitely NOT the time to throw our hands up and say we tried. By this point, we have gotten in too deep to back out.

One thing I noticed: the most poignant point in the president's address was at the very end when he went down to shake hands with the servicemen and women who were in the front rows of the auditorium; our brave soldiers clamored for attention, eagerly sticking out their hands, hoping to shake the hand of the man who has just torn them from their families and sent them to the front lines of guerrilla warfare. How ironic. Either they believe in his message wholeheartedly, or he just has that much star power.

It is rather unfortunate that President Obama is now being viewed as the reason we are sending in more troops. He is not. He is simply managing the mess and doing the only thing we can do - finish what we started. It will definitely be a reminder of the Vietnam war and if we win, people will always say "Ahhhh that's what would have happened! We should have stayed in Vietnam." But if we lose, be prepared for people to say "We should have shot Obama like we shot Kennedy." As ancient military strategist Sun Tzu once said "Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories."

Fox News tries to pass off Glenn Beck rally footage as anti-healthcare rally

The flagging peace process: Is Israel too strong for Barack Obama? | The Economist

The flagging peace process: Is Israel too strong for Barack Obama? | The Economist

Nov 5th 2009 | CAIRO AND JERUSALEM
From The Economist print edition
As America drops its demand for a total freeze on the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, angry Palestinians say there is no scope for resuming talks

Illustration by Peter Schrank

FIVE months after Barack Obama went to Cairo and persuaded most of the Arab world, in a ringing declaration of even-handedness, that he would face down Israel in his quest for a Palestinian state, American policy seems to have run into the sand. The American president’s mediating hand is weaker, his charisma damagingly faded. From the Palestinian and Arab point of view, his administration—after grandly setting out to force the Jewish state to stop the building of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land as an early token of good faith, intended to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiation—has meekly capitulated to Israel.

The upshot is that hopes for an early resumption of talks between the main protagonists seem to have been dashed. Indeed, no one seems to know how they can be restarted. The mood among moderates on both sides is as glum as ever.

Mr Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, made matters worse by actually praising Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, for promising merely to “restrain” Israel’s building rather than stop it altogether, as he was first asked to do. Previously Mrs Clinton had insisted that stop meant stop. There should be no “organic growth” of existing settlements and no exceptions for projects under way. Nor did she specifically exempt East Jerusalem, which Palestinians view as their future capital but which many Israelis see as theirs alone. And she had earlier castigated Israel for demolishing Palestinian houses in the city’s eastern part. Now, in Israel on October 31st, she changed her tune, seeming to acquiesce in Mr Netanyahu’s refusal to meet those earlier American demands and congratulating the prime minister on his “unprecedented” offer to build at a slower rate than before.

Mr Netanyahu’s case is that being “prepared to adopt a policy of restraint on the existing settlements” is indeed a concession. No new settlements would be started, no extra Palestinian land appropriated for expansion. But some 3,000 housing units already commissioned must, he said, be completed. Building must go on in East Jerusalem, he has repeatedly said, as it cannot be part of a Palestinian state.

Mrs Clinton later awkwardly backpedalled, assuring the Palestinians that she still considered all settlements “illegitimate”, while pleading with them to resume talks. That seems unlikely. A storm of abuse raged in the Palestinian and Arab press. Mr Obama, it was widely deduced, had caved in after his own ratings in Israel had slumped, according to some Israeli polls, to as low as 4%. Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Fatah party who presides over the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, expressed extreme disappointment—and continued to insist that talks could not resume until there was a full building freeze.

Among Palestinians at large, Mr Abbas has been derided for putting his faith in the new American administration. Hamas, the Islamist movement that runs the Gaza Strip, the smaller of the two main parts of a future Palestinian state, mocked him for ever thinking that Mr Obama could change American policy towards the Middle East.

Last month he called a general and presidential election for January 24th. But with opinion polls showing his popularity diving, on November 5th he said he would not stand for re-election. Hamas, in any event, said it would refuse to take part in the polls. Mr Abbas, it seems, has been forced to acknowledge that his authority—and his ability to grapple with the Israelis in negotiations if they had resumed—has been eviscerated.

Besides, even if talks did start again, no agreement would stick without the acquiescence of Hamas, which won the last Palestinian election, in 2006, and is still strong enough to kibosh any deal done without it. Yet discussions between the two rival groups, under the aegis of the Egyptians, have been stuttering along for more than a year without getting anywhere.

Mr Netanyahu, on the other hand, was cock-a-hoop. The right-wing and religious ministers who make up the bulk of his coalition government can scarcely believe his luck. The prime minister is riding high in the Israeli people’s esteem. Building work is proceeding apace in many of the settlements. He looks as if he has emerged unscathed from a brush with a hostile American president.

Mr Obama is being criticised, even by Israelis and Americans on the left, for making demands of Mr Netanyahu that he should have known would never be met. Some say the president should himself fly to Israel to address the Israeli people directly with a game-changing plan of his own. But no one, least of all in Washington, seems to know what that might be.

Iranian Women's Rugby

Rugby is a fierce sport - these ladies must be tough enough not only to withstand the physical challenges but also to stand up against cultural misconceptions about women.