GOP senator's wife donates to Obama

Wife of Republican war opponent Chuck Hagel donates to Obama campaign

Sens. John McCain and Chuck Hagel have long been friends. Fellow Republicans and Vietnam War veterans, their Senate offices are just across the hall from each other.

But at least during the presidential primary, Hagel's wife, Lilibet, is helping McCain's likely Democratic rival, Barack Obama.

According to Federal Election Commission records, Mrs. Hagel donated twice to Obama's campaign in February for a total contribution of $500. The contributions were first reported by the Washington Post

The contribution came a month before Sen. Hagel, a sharp GOP critic of the war in Iraq, appeared on ABC's "This Week" and declared that he and McCain have "pretty fundamental disagreements on the future of foreign policy."

But Mrs. Hagel is acting on her own, said Mike Buttry, Sen. Hagel's chief of staff. In fact, Mrs. Hagel has contributed to a Democrat before. Last August, she donated $250 to Niki Tsongas, a Democrat and widow of Sen. Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts who was running to fill a vacant House seat from the state.

"Mrs. Hagel is a private citizen who is entitled to decide who she supports and how she supports them," Buttry said in a statement. "She has admired Mrs. Tsongas for many years, going back to the time when she was married to Senator Tsongas."

He added: "Senator Hagel has not endorsed or supported any candidate in the presidential race."

Original here

ACTION: Searching for John McCain

Searching for John McCain is a massive, online activism campaign designed to make at least ten million non-partisan, poll-tested, on-message voter contacts that reveal the damning truth about John McCain entirely through mainstream news reports and McCain's own words. Through mass blogger participation and the use of embedded hyperlinks, Searching for John McCain will connect millions of curious, low-information swing voters to negative, mainstream news articles about John McCain without 99% of those voters even knowing that Searching for John McCain exists. It is the more sophisticated, and hopefully more effective, 2.0 version of the Googlebomb the Elections campaign which, with only $1,500 and three days of work, reached 6% of the electorate in 47 swing congressional districts during the final two weeks of the 2006 mid-term elections. You can participate if you have a website of your own, if you make comments on other websites, or even if you are a registered user on a community website. It is quick. It is easy. It is free. And it is very, very effective. If it is done correctly, and if enough people participate, this campaign alone should cost John McCain 1% of the vote in November. To learn how to participate, and to learn how it will work, read on into the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: ACTION: Searching for John McCain

Searching for John McCain What The utilization of simultaneous, widespread embedded hyperlinks in order to connect voters looking for information on John McCain to nine revealing, important news articles on John McCain. Why According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, the number one way that voters use the Internet for political action is to search for information on candidates. In 2004, 34 million Americans used the Internet for this purpose. In 2008, that number will increase significantly, possibly to 50 million or more, with tens of millions looking for information on John McCain. As these voters are looking for information on John McCain, our actions will direct them toward nine articles in particular. Voters are looking for information on John McCain, and we are giving it to them. These nine articles were not chosen lightly. Analyzing and interpreting polling has long been one of the specialties as a blogger, and I have spent the last three months culling through mountains of available polling on John McCain in order to find the top attacks. All nine of these articles directly correspond to messaging on John McCain that, according to my research, effectively raises doubts about McCain among more than 60% of swing voters. Additionally, six of these nine articles are from news organizations that already boast top twenty-five Google search rankings for either "John McCain" or "McCain." As such, in order for those six articles to appear in the top twenty Google searches on either John McCain or McCain, we only have to optimize each of those articles relative to other articles from that news organization. That is a very simple, low-hanging fruit sort of task that can be accomplished in only a matter of days. Further, this messaging is presented by either John McCain himself, or by a non-partisan news organization (or, in most cases, both). As such, the messaging will not be, or be seen as, a partisan attack, making it all the more effective. Personally, I also like that when the inevitable media and conservative outcry against this action kicks in, we can just say that these are all McCain's own words, and all articles produced by national news organizations. Considering that Michelle Malkin claimed Google should sue me over the Googlebomb campaign two years ago, that her readers issued dozens of death threats against me, and that every single TV news organization contacted me about the campaign two years ago, I really like this aspect of the campaign. Finally, all of these articles have "McCain" in the title of the article, and most have "McCain" in the URL for the article, making them easier to optimize on Google. The Articles Here are the nine articles: 1--John McCain Votes to Filibuster Minimum Wage Hike AOL News is highly ranked on John McCain, and the minimum wage increase was incredibly popular. 2--McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist This article emphasizes how corporate special interests have formed McCain's economic policy. If it becomes the top ranked MSNBC article, it will appear in the top ten searches for McCain nationwide. 3--Bush, McCain plug Social Security Seniors are going to be the key swing vote in this election, and they hate Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. This is the best polling message against McCain of all, which isn't surprising since our victory on Social Security is how began to turn the tide against Republicans and conservatives three years ago. The headline alone ties McCain to Bush, and this article already ranks very high on searches for McCain Social Security. 4--McCain blasts Obama's and Clinton's attacks on NAFTA This is a great article because it not only ties McCain to NAFTA, which is quite unpopular, but it also draws a contrast between McCain and Democrats on the issue. The LA Times is also in the top twenty searches for John McCain. 5--McCain in NH: Would Be "Fine" To Keep Troops in Iraq for "A Hundred Years" McCain's "100 years" statement ha damaged him already, and this article has already been significantly optimized on Google. While Mother Jones is not an ideal news source, it is the top article for this quote, and appears in the top thirty searches for John McCain already. 6--McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion This is my personal favorite. The headline just makes McCain look like an asshole, and ties him to Bush. Who is opposed to health insurance for kids? CNN also is in the top ten searches for McCain and John McCain A lot of people will see this one. 7--Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition While I am not thrilled about using Salon, since it isn't as well known, and since there is an advertising wall that hides the story, the title is damaging enough. McCain's opposition to the GI Bill really hurts him, and tying him to Bush is just as bad. This title does both in a clear, straightforward manner. 8--McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion Pretty straightforward, and extremely important. More than half of all women voters think that McCain is pro-choice. This will quickly change their minds. 9--McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy The classic McCain SEO, that still appears in top thirty searches for McCain and John McCain. It is also proof positive that this campaign will work, because it appears as the second CBS news article, but still on the front page in Google searches just below the CBS election center information on John McCain. That is all we need to do to get it on the front page of searches about McCain--optimize it against other CBS articles. Also, even though this SEO campaign was abandoned fifteen months ago, it still ranks in the top forty in McCain searches. If a fifteen month old campaign is still that effective, imagine what we can do with enough participation in this campaign. Even if people searching for information on McCain don't click through to read each of these articles, the titles alone collectively paint a pretty terrifying picture of McCain. Further, their wide subject range will create a trickle down effect for all kinds of searches on McCain. When people look for specific information on McCain's issue positions, these articles will appear in the top ten for many, if not most, of those searches. Action And now the important part. Here is how you can participate in the campaign: 1. Blogroll John McCain: If you have a website of your own, create a blogroll link for either McCain or John McCain, that links to one of these nine articles. 2. Sign John McCain: Put an embedded John McCain link to one of these nine article in your signature line on all community websites where you are registered. Choose any one of the nine that you like. 3. Comment on John McCain: Whenever you write the words John McCain or McCain online, makes sure to do so with an embedded link to one of these nine article. Choose any of the nine that you link. And that is all you have to do. If we can get only a few hundred bloggers to participate, we should be able to put six of these nine articles in the top twenty search results for John McCain and McCain before the end of next week. Over time, all nine should appear in the top twenty, and three or four will appear in the top ten. In the end, this should result in several million voter contacts that provide important information on John McCain. The contacts will all be effective, poll tested, non-partisan, and in line with progressive messaging in this election. They will also be educational, as the people who find these articles might forward them to friends and co-workers, or bring them up in conversations. The ripple effect should be quite powerful. So, please, optimize John McCain today. Put John McCain in your blogroll. Put John McCain in your signature line. Link to John McCain whenever you type his name on a website. This is a quick and powerful action you can take, and it will help us win this election. There isn't another action you can take this election that will have anywhere near as a high a return for the amount of effort it takes to execute. Millions of truly effective voter contacts just by creating embedded hyperlinks on John McCain or McCain. Let's do this. Let's make a difference. Let's win this election. Let's search for John McCain. UPDATE: The first article about the recession being "psychological" has been replaced due to an oversight on my part. It now optimizes John McCain on the minimum wage. Really, I think this is an improvement. Please update your links if you used the first one originally.

Original here

Rupert Murdoch Says Obama Will Win

Carlsbad, CA -- Tonight at the "All Things Digital" conference sponsored by the Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch -- Chairman of News Corp, new WSJ owner, and longtime torchbearer for conservative politics -- said this about Barack Obama: "He is a rock star. It's fantastic" "I love what he is saying about education." "I don't think he will win Florida.....but he will win in Ohio and the election". "I am anxious to meet him." "I want to see if he will walk the walk."

About the presumptive Republican nominee, Murdoch said, "McCain is a friend of mine. He's a patriot. But he's unpredicatble. Doesn't seem to know much about the economy. He has been in Congress a long time, and you have to make a lot of compromises. So what's he really stand for?... I think he has a lot of problems."

Here is the video of Murdoch's appearance at the All Things Digital Conference:

Original here

Hillary's Popular Vote Notion only 'Popular' with the Punditocracy

It is incomprehensible to me that Mrs. Clinton can seriously be touting the notion, with the support of the punditocracy of CNN and Fox, that she is leading in the popular vote and should therefore be seriously considered as the most electable candidate in the November election. She's including those who voted for her in Florida and Michigan's name recognition ballot saying that to exclude them would be to disenfranchise them. What about the Democrats in Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Hawaii and Wyoming who did not cast ballots because they were playing by the pledged delegates playbook and voted by caucus. What about them? Certainly if the rules are going to be changed and judgment is based on the 'popular' vote those voters in the eleven caucus states and Samoa will be disenfranchised. What about them?

And what about us? What about the American people? Haven't we had enough of Mrs. Clinton's mad antics in her pursuit of the realization of venal personal ambition; her 'say anything, do anything, no matter what' effort to manipulate our all too willing media to gull this country's populace into believing that her wretched illegitimacy is indeed legitimate. How much mendacity do we have to suffer, how much brazenness do we have to swallow before someone, anyone, has the decency, the common sense, to relieve us of this terrible trifle, this pathetic madness?

Original here

John Bolton: Citizen's arrest attempt was comic

John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the UN, has brushed off an attempted citizen’s arrest at the Hay Festival in Wales as “comic”.

DRAGON NEWS AND PICTURES

John Bolton argued that the Iraq war was entirely legal

DRAGON NEWS AND PICTURES

George Monbiot is held off by security guards

DRAGON NEWS AND PICTURES

A protestor talks with police at the Hay festival

But he said there was a “larger issue” at stake - that in a democracy people had to accept the elected government’s view on the legality of a conflict.

George Monbiot, the columnist and activist, had tried to perform a citizen’s arrest on Mr Bolton as the former diplomat ended a talk to more than 600 people on Wednesday evening.

In chaotic scenes, Mr Monbiot was stopped from doing so by security guards.

Afterwards Mr Monbiot, a regular freelance contributor for The Guardian, said he was “disappointed” his attempt had failed.

He said: “This was a serious attempt to bring one of the perpetrators of the Iraq war to justice, for what is described under the Nuremberg Principles as an international crime.”

Mr Bolton, a key ‘hawk’ in President George W Bush’s administration between 2001 and 2006, argued strongly in favour of “regime change” in Iraq before the 2003 invasion.

Brushing aside Mr Monbiot’s attempted citizen’s arrest, he said: “I think in my own individual case it’s kind of comic.”

But he added: “I think there’s a larger issue here. You have a democratically elected parliament and its government assessed the war as legal and proper.”

When individuals took actions outside the law, in their eyes to bring those responsible for the war to justice, “that is the point you move towards lawlessness and fascism,” he said.

And when one’s views do match those of the democratically elected government, “you have to accept that”, he added.

Dismissing Mr Monbiot’s attempted citizen’s arrest as “street theatre”, he claimed not to have been aware of much opposition towards his visit.

“I don’t see a lot of it, I must say,” he said. “I would assess it in the same way I assess Monbiot – as an indication of the larger potential problem.”

Claims have been circulating that he pulled out of a talk today at the Ideas Festival in Bristol because of threats of disruption by the Stop the War coalition.

Mr Bolton said they were unfounded.

He said the reason was a contractual dispute over the payment of his expenses between the organisers of the Hay and Bristol festivals.

“I would be delighted to go to Bristol and face the fruitcakes down,” he said.

A citizen’s arrest is legal in certain circumstances under the under the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

But Peter Florence, director of the Hay Festival, said on Wednesday that they had sought legal advice and been told carrying out such an arrest would be “completely unlawful” given the circumstances.

He said: ““The Hay Festival encourages visitors to voice their opinions, but also requires that, in their expression, they respect both the law and the speaker.”

Original here

George Bush Authorized the Leak of Valerie Wilson’s Identity

Scottie McC doesn't know it yet. But that's basically what he revealed this morning on the Today Show (h/t Rayne).

During the interview, Scottie revealed the two things that really pissed him off with the Bush Administration. First, being set up to lie by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. And second, learning that Bush had--himself--authorized the selective leaking of the NIE.

Scottie McC: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.

Viera: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?

Scottie McC: Actually, I did. I talked about the conversation we had. I walked onto Air Force One, it was right after an event we had, it was down in the south, I believe it was North Carolina. And I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the President trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the legal proceedings. The revelation was that it was the President who had authorized, or, enable Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the President that that's what the reporter was asking. He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback.

Now, for the most part, this is not new. We have known (since I first reported it here) that Scooter Libby testified that, after Libby told Dick Cheney he couldn't leak the information Cheney had ordered him to leak to Judy Miller because it was classified, Cheney told Libby he had gotten the President to authorize the declassification of that information.

Thus far, though, we only had Dick Cheney's word that he had actually asked Bush to declassify this information. We didn't have Bush's confirmation that he had actually declassified the information. In fact, we've had Dick Cheney's claims that he--Dick--had insta-declassified via his super secret pixie dust declassification powers.

But now we've got George Bush, confirming that he, the President of the United States, authorized the leaks of "this information."

Now, though Scottie refers, obliquely, to "this information," he explicitly refers only to the NIE. But as I've described over and over again, it's not just the NIE Bush authorized Dick to order Libby to leak.

As a review, here's what Libby's NIE lies are all about. This is all documented in this post, and here is the court transcript in which most of this is revealed.

• Scooter Libby has instructions in his notes to leak something to Judy Miller on July 8, 2003
• When questioned about the notation, Libby claimed the instructions related to the NIE
• Libby went further to make certain claims about the NIE leak--that the leak was authorized by Dick Cheney and George Bush, that such an authorization was totally unique in his career, and that Libby was so worried about leaking the NIE to Judy that he double checked to make sure he was authorized to do so
• Libby later made claims that directly contradicted these assertions--most importantly, even though Libby claims the Judy leak was totally unique in his career, he also leaked the NIE to three other people: Bob Woodward, a journalist [David Sanger] on July 2, and the WSJ
• Also, in spite of the fact that Libby says he was really worried about getting authorization to leak the NIE to Judy, he's not really sure whether he was authorized to leak the NIE to Woodward; his concern about the leak to Judy only extended to whatever he leaked to Judy

In short, Libby is almost certainly lying about what he was authorized to leak to Judy on July 8, 2003, in a meeting where Judy Miller admits he talked about Valerie Plame, and where Libby tried to get her to falsely attribute the story.

At this point, Scottie McC is still accepting Scooter Libby's lies, though I suspect he sees the dangerous frailty of them. With Bush's clear admission to Scottie that he was in the loop, and the evidence that, subsequent to receiving an order from Cheney (authorized by Bush) to leak classified information to Judy Miller, Libby leaked Valerie Wilson's identity, the circumstantial evidence shows the President was directly involved in the deliberate outing of a CIA spy. The only question now is whether Bush realized he authorized the leak of Valerie's identity, in addition to a bunch of other classified documents.

Think of how much sense this makes. We have evidence that George Bush ordered Libby to respond to Joe Wilson on June 9, 2003. We now have Bush's own confirmation that he authorized the leak Libby made to Judy Miller on July 8, 2003--which included the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity. We know on July 10, Condi told Stephen Hadley that Bush "was comfortable" with the response the White House was making towards Wilson. And we know that--when Cheney forced Scottie McC to exonerate Libby publicly that fall, he did so by reminding people that "The Pres[ident] [asked Libby] to stick his head in the meat-grinder." We know that Libby's lawyers tried desperately to prevent a full discussion of the NIE lies to be presented at trial. And we know that--after those NIE lies did not come out, for the most part (though one juror told me that NIE story was obviously false, even with the limited information they received)--the President commuted Libby's sentence on July 2, 2007.

Original here

CNN's Yellin: Network execs killed critical White House stories

On Wednesday night, CNN's Jessica Yellin talked to Anderson Cooper about Scott McClellan's tell-all memoir and agreed with the former press secretary that White House reporters "dropped the ball" during the run-up to war.

But Yellin went much further, revealing that news executives — presumably at ABC News, where she'd worked from July 2003 to August 2007 — actively pushed her not do hard-hitting pieces on the Bush administration. [UPDATE: Yellin now says it was MSNBC execs, not ABC]

"The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings," Yellin said.

"And my own experience at the White House was that the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives — and I was not at this network at the time — but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president, I think over time...."

But then a shocked Cooper jumped in, asking, "You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?"

"Not in that exact.... They wouldn't say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces," Yellin said. "They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical, and try to put on pieces that were more positive. Yes, that was my experience."

UPDATE: TVNewser reports that Jessica Yellin is going to post a blog item shortly on CNN.com that will clarify her remarks. From what I'm hearing, she'll write that it was MSNBC execs, not ABC that she was referring to last night. Yellin worked at MSNBC during the run-up to war, but then moved on to ABC that summer, where she stayed for four years. UPDATE 2: Yellin confirms this.

Original here

All but conceding Dem primary is over, DNC turns to Obama defense

They don't say the name of their likely nominee in the press release, but the DNC is effectively coming to the defense of Barack Obama for the first time today.

Citing what they call John McCain's "troubling pattern of flubbing key facts and echoing obviously false statements about his own record," the committee has put out a Top 10 of McCain's "misstatements and outright deceptions."

The move comes one day after Obama was hammered by the RNC and right-wing voices for falsely claiming his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz — it was a great-uncle and Buchenwald — and as conservatives buzz about a pattern of embellishments.

1. McCain doesn't even know who is in charge in Iran.
2. Iraq/Iran, Sunni/Shia: McCain doesn't know the difference.
3. McCain still thinks Czechoslovakia (which split into two countries in 1993) exists.
4. McCain wrongly claimed that Baghdad was mostly normal.
5. McCain called Baghdad market safe.
6. McCain can't even remember how little he knows about the economy.
7. McCain falsely claimed he never requested pork.
8. McCain falsely claimed that tax cuts increased government revenues.
9. McCain's claim to be untainted by special interest money is false.
10. McCain wrongly claimed he never supported amnesty.

UPDATE: The DNC, doing their due diligence, asked me to take this post down.

I declined.

But this is what DNC spokesman Damien LaVera has to say:

"This post mistakenly and inaccurately suggests that the DNC is taking sides in the primary. The DNC is absolutely neutral in the primary. The primary is not over. It is our job to hold John McCain accountable and as you can see from the materials below we have raised these same issues you posted about many, many times over the past several months. We also believe that it's important that McCain’s so-called misstatements should be pointed out vigorously, like when he has gotten the basic facts on the ground in Iraq woefully incorrect."

Original here

New York to Back Same-Sex Unions From Elsewhere

Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times

Gov. David A. Paterson, shown at a news conference on budget issues on Wednesday, may push to legalize same-sex unions.

ALBANY — 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.

In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.

“Very shortly, there will be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, and probably thousands and thousands and thousands of gay people who have their marriages recognized by the state,” said Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side and has pushed for legalization of gay unions.

Massachusetts and California are the only states that have legalized gay marriage, while others, including New Jersey and Vermont, allow civil unions. Forty-one states have laws limiting marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Legal experts said Mr. Paterson’s decision would make New York the only state that did not itself allow gay marriage but fully recognized same-sex unions entered into elsewhere.

The directive is the strongest signal yet that Mr. Paterson, who developed strong ties to the gay community as a legislator, plans to push aggressively to legalize same-sex unions as governor. His predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, introduced a bill last year that would have legalized gay marriage, but even as he submitted it, doubted that it would pass. The Democratic-dominated Assembly passed the measure, but the Republican-led Senate has refused to call a vote on it.

Short of an act by the Legislature, the directive ordered by Mr. Paterson is the one of the strongest statements a state can make in favor of gay unions.

“Basically we’ve done everything we can do on marriage legislatively at this point,” said Sean Patrick Maloney, a senior adviser to Mr. Paterson. “But there are tools in our tool kit on the executive side, and this is one.”

The directive cited a Feb. 1 ruling by a State Appellate Court in Rochester that Patricia Martinez, who works at Monroe Community College and who married her partner in Canada, could not be denied health benefits by the college because of New York’s longstanding policy of recognizing marriages performed elsewhere, even if they are not explicitly allowed under New York law. The appeals court said that New York must recognize marriages performed in other states that allow the practice and in countries that permit it, like Canada and Spain.

Monroe County filed an appeal with the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, but it was rejected on technical grounds. The county has not decided whether to file another appeal, a county spokesman said on Wednesday. The Court of Appeals has previously ruled that the state’s Constitution did not compel the recognition of same-sex marriages and that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether do so.

Groups that oppose gay marriage said the governor was essentially trying to circumvent the Legislature.

“It’s a perfect example of a governor overstepping his authority and sidestepping the democratic process,” said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization opposed to same-sex marriage. “It’s an issue of public policy that should be decided by the voters.”

Gay rights advocates, however, applauded Mr. Paterson, saying the broad directive would make it clear that gay couples wed in other states were entitled to all of the benefits of marriage in New York and relieve them of the burden of challenging or suing individual agencies.

“He saw no reason to stand in the way of making sure these couples benefit from the rights and protections that come with marriage,” said Susan Sommer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, a group that advocates for gay rights. “It shouldn’t be the burden of each lesbian or gay couple to have to advocate before an agency every time a new issue comes up.”

In the directive, Mr. Nocenti wrote that state agencies should review all rules and regulations to determine whether they conflict with recognition of same-sex marriages and report back to him by June 30. Mr. Nocenti said that state agencies that did not provide “full faith and credit to same-sex marriages” could be subject to liability.

He said that many changes could be made through internal memos or policy statements, but that regulatory changes might be needed in some cases.

Mr. Nocenti directed agency heads to a list of state regulations and statutes that were likely to need overhaul, including measures affecting a spouse’s ability to collect a deceased spouse’s pension and to continue to use public housing.

In addition to conferring more rights on gay couples, the changes might also require more responsibilities. For example, the order that required certain employees of the executive branch to file financial disclosure documents for their spouses would also apply to gay spouses.

It is less clear what the directive means for state policies that are not enforced by state agencies but by the courts, like those that govern child custody or protect a husband and wife from having to testify against one another about statements they made to each other while married.

Coincidentally, Mr. Nocenti’s directive was dated one day before the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Gay marriage proponents said they expected that ruling, which will take effect in mid-June unless the court grants a stay, will lead some gay couples in New York to marry in California so they can take advantage of the protections under New York law.

Of course, many gay New Yorkers might find Canada to be a more convenient option, some gay rights supporters pointed out. Mr. Nocenti also said that marriages performed in Massachusetts should be recognized in New York, though Massachusetts, unlike California, does not permit gay residents from other states to be married there if their home state prohibits same-sex unions.

While gay rights advocates widely praised the spirit of Mr. Paterson’s policy, some saw more than a little irony in the fact that New York has yet to allow gays to marry.

“If you’re going to treat us as equals, why don’t you just give us the marriage license?” said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda. “So this is a temporary but necessary fix for a longer-term problem, which is marriage equality in New York State.”

Original here

Smoke a Joint and Your Whole Family Could End Up Homeless

For 40 years, we have been waging a "war on drugs." Families are kicked out of housing when many have done nothing wrong.

Drug addiction is bad. But the war on drugs is worse.

Courtland Milloy of the Washington Post wrote a heart-breaking story that exemplifies the wasteful and counterproductive way our society deals with illegal drug use. Mr. Milloy talks about Frances Johnson, a 68-year-old grandmother in Washington, D.C. who faces eviction simply because her grandson was arrested for possessing a small amount of marijuana. The federal government's public housing system has a "one strike and you're out" policy for any drug law violation -- even if that violation occurs miles away from home.

How does our society benefit from making homeless a whole family because of a little bit of marijuana? Why are we punishing Ms. Johnson who herself did nothing wrong? Does anyone really believe such draconian policies will help reduce marijuana use? How will an eviction affect her grandson's chances for recovery? Should any family be kicked out of their home for a loved one's drug use?

Though they contain no racist language, the application of the government's zero-tolerance prohibition policies are overtly racist, classist, ineffective and inhumane. The New York Civil Liberties Union released a report earlier this month that found 83 percent of those charged with marijuana possession over the last 10 years are black or Latino even though federal surveys show that whites are more likely to use pot. If you are poor and live in public housing, your whole family is punished for a drug offense--even for smoking a joint. But if you are middle class and do not rely on public housing or other benefits it is a "personal" issue. Despite our arresting a staggering 800,000 people for marijuana last year, marijuana is as easily available as ever -- to find some, just inquire around your local high-school.

For 40 years, we have been waging a "war on drugs." Just what does our $40 billion-a-year drug war get us? Our prisons are exploding with nonviolent drug offenders; families are kicked out of housing when many have done nothing wrong; thousands die from street violence generated by prohibition's lucrative black market; and drugs remain as plentiful and easy to obtain as ever.

Enough is enough. Ms. Johnson should not be more "collateral damage" from this unwinnable war.

Original here

3 Hidden Costs of High Oil Prices

As a barrel of oil hovers around $130, the news has been bombarding us with the obvious effects of high oil prices. As most people weep at the pump, some environmentalists are rejoicing. Gas consumption is down, but there are additional hidden costs to high gas prices that leave even green minded folks with a frown.

1-Difficult to Extract Oil & High Environmental Impact

High oil prices are making it economically viable to utilize oil that is difficult to extract. One example of this is just north of the border.

In the U.S., our single biggest source of foreign oil is from Canada. Although this may be reassuring from a foreign policy standpoint, much of this oil comes with a steep environmental price tag. Known as tar sands oil, 2 tons of sand are needed to produce one barrel of oil in a very resource and energy intensive process.

One technique that is used is to mine the sand leaves huge holes in the earth and devastates the ecosystem. Another technique involves injecting steam underground, requiring large amounts of energy. Tar sands oil generates 2-3 times the greenhouse gas when compared to conventional oil.

“It is quit alarming from an ecological standpoint,” said David Fields of Greenpeace Canada. “Developing the tar sand will make it impossible for us to effectively tackle climate change.

2-Difficult to Extract Oil is an Unreliable Supply

There are reasons why many sources of oil were overlooked in the past. Some are in areas that are populated, making it difficult to obtain permits. Other oil reserves rely on large amounts of energy, making the operation vulnerable to fluctuating energy costs.

Going back to the Canadian tar sands example, large quantities of natural gas are needed to extract this oil. In the cool Canadian climate, large amounts of natural gas are also used to heat homes. If natural gas prices spike or Canadians prioritize conservation of natural gas reserves over short-term profits, this source of oil could dry up.

3-Oil Companies are More Powerful as Profits Increase

In 2007, Exxon made nearly $1300 a second in profits. With record high corporate profits, Exxon reported annual earning of $40.61 billion. While Americans are spending at the pump, the power of this company is increasing. Unfortunately, some of the companies that are rolling in dough are not necessarily ideal corporate citizens.

Exxon has refused to pay court ordered fines for the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 to help compensate the fishermen for loss of their livelihood. The company has also supported groups that question global warming, a practice that has even been criticized by other oil companies.

The political power of oil companies is staggering and is a special interest that is often not in line with what is best for society. The oil industry has donated $180 million to political candidates since 1989. 89% of political donations made by Exxon went to republican candidates.

As with all complex situations, there are numerous positive and negative aspects. What other hidden factors do you find noteworthy?

Original here