Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Burger King plans beer-selling Whopper Bar

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2010-01-21-burger-king-beer_N.htm

Burger King plans beer-selling Whopper Bar in South Beach
1-21-10
Bruce Horovitz, USA TODAY

Gimme a Whopper, fries — and a beer.

Those words are no longer wishful thinking. Friday, Burger King (BKC) will unveil plans to sell beer and burgers at a Whopper Bar — a new BK concept to compete with casual dining restaurants — in Miami Beach's tourist-heavy South Beach. The South Beach Whopper Bar is scheduled to open in mid-February.

Don't look for beer at conventional Burger Kings. That's not in the plans. But more Whopper Bars — which offer an assortment of burgers, toppings and beer — could be on tap in tourist hot spots such as New York, Los Angeles and Las Vegas, says Chuck Fallon, president of Burger King North America.

A brewski at the new Whopper Bar — served in special aluminum bottles to keep them extra cold — fetches $4.25. Or, order beer as part of a Whopper combo and your bill will be $7.99 — roughly $2 more than the same combo meal with a fountain drink.

The unusual move comes as the restaurant industry is reeling. Restaurant operators reported lower same-store sales in November, compared with a year earlier, for the 18th-consecutive month, the National Restaurant Association reports. Nearly 65% of operators reported a same-store sales decline in November. December results were unavailable.

Burger King's Whopper Bar isn't the first fast-food chain to test alcoholic beverages domestically. Last year in Seattle, Starbucks opened "15th Avenue Coffee and Tea, inspired by Starbucks." Beyond coffee and tea, it sells regional beers and wines.

By trying to wedge into the fast-casual dining arena with Whopper Bar, Burger King is chasing the 30-and-under crowd, which is the industry's future growth, says Bradford Hudson, marketing professor at Boston University. But the move is very tricky, he says, because "Burger King means fast food."

But Linda Lipsky, a restaurant consultant, says the move makes sense. "The Burger King customer is aging, so they're just trying to grow up with the customer."

The restaurant will initially sell Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors beers. "You can have America's favorite beers with America's favorite burger," Fallon says. More will eventually be added, he says.

But Lipsky says the chain will be challenged to train staff to legally sell and serve alcohol. "You can be an easy mark if you're not used to selling alcohol," she says.

Burger Kings in Germany and Whopper Bars in Singapore and Venezuela sell beer. But this will be the first BK brand in the USA to sell beer. (A Whopper Bar in Universal City does not sell beer.) "We're in the midst of understanding how much beer will be a part of the (sales pitch)," Fallon says.

The restaurant also will offer delivery of all items — except beer.

Heidi Montag: The monster we created

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2010/01/22/heidi_montag_hating/index.html

Friday, Jan 22, 2010
Heidi Montag: The monster we created
She's a hot mess in a triple-D cup, a cosmetically enhanced nightmare -- and a celebrity for our time
By Mary Elizabeth Williams

Though America will never lack for celebrities who parlay our loathing of them into their bread and butter, no one seems to bask better in the spotlight of distaste these days than Heidi Montag.

The spoiled, bitchy and bottomlessly vapid MTV reality star with the tragically self-promoting husband, Heidi Montag is also a monster of our own creation: a woman who seems to exist solely to make the rest of us feel better about our relative depth of character -- and who, apparently, thrives on the negative attention.

Earlier this month, she released an unsurprisingly lackluster album with the poetically appropriate name "Superficial" and started filming a new season of her heavily scripted series "The Hills," all to the yawns of millions. Perhaps fearing that the dawn of a new decade might signal an end to our fascination with watching shallow people do questionable things, the 23-year-old then took to the cover of People magazine last week to show off her multiple cosmetic procedures -- including a horrifying 10 in one day: a brow minilift, nose-job revision, fat injections in cheeks and lips, chin reduction, neck liposuction, ear pinning, breast augmentation revision, liposuction, buttocks augmentation and a little Botox thrown in. In a grand gesture of stating the obvious, she confessed that the reason she put herself through enough work to look like she'd gone through a car window was that she's "beyond obsessed" with self-improvement. Then, just in case that didn't get our attention, the sculpted, pneumatically hootered blonde appeared on "Good Morning America" to tell us, in her Tin-Man-before-the oil-can-stiff-faced way, that "My main message is that 'beauty is really within.'"

Congratulations, Heidi, you clueless, narcissistic, Playboy-posing, Jesus-invoking coauthor of a book about being famous for being famous plastic surgery junkie! You're everything wrong with everything in the world! You win!

For her candor – and rather shameless fame-grubbing – Montag has been near universally vilified. After her story appeared on People, the commenters eagerly panned her new look with unkind comparisons to Joan Rivers. The sentiments ran along similar lines at ABC after the "GMA" appearance, where the adjectives "talking corpse" and "plastic zombie" were bandied about. (Unafraid as ever to be completely tone deaf, the impressively endowed Meghan McCain used her Daily Beast column this week to decry the "boob police" who allegedly "hailed" and "celebrated" Montag for "showing off her new purchases.") Dr. Drew Pinsky, no stranger to publicity-seeking himself, meanwhile quickly diagnosed Montag as a "female cross dresser" who "clearly has some significant emotional issues." In short, lady, you're a hot mess in a triple-D cup.

But there's something almost masochistically unsatisfying about hating on Heidi. Maybe it's just so damn easy, it feels like it's giving the fame monster exactly what she wants. That, of course, has been the perverse quid pro quo pleasure of reality television all along -- its stars get the illusion of true fame, and viewers get the effortless joy of feeling superior to them for their craven pursuit of it.

Heidis don't grow in labs -- they just look like they do. They take root in a culture where looking like a manga avatar spun through a porn movie is not only attainable, it's not even that unusual. Did you watch the Golden Globes earlier this week? It looked like an episode of "Sailor Moon."

Appearing on "Access Hollywood" a few days ago, Montag said, "I wasn't happy with the way I looked … On blogs and after shows, people would circle my chin and say I had Jay Leno Chin. " She's right, they did. They also reviled her as "ugly" every step of the way, too.

So what did she do about it? Did she go quietly to live on a farm or help the homeless or learn a useful trade? No, she fixed it by spending enough money to bail out the American auto industry. And then we criticized her for that too. Gotcha! You want so badly to be famous? OK, but just don't get old or gain weight or go outside looking like an un-Photoshopped version of yourself, bitch! And if you try to, as Heidi put it, "upgrade," we will despise you for being a big fake, judging you from exactly the same glass house from which we called you ugly. Well played, humanity.

Heidi Montag is a woman whose most evident skill is getting attention, one who has gleaned that if she needs to turn herself into a blow-up doll and open herself up to some class-A excoriation to get it, she's still game. The most apt word I can come up with regarding that is just "sad." Sad for someone so desperately eager to "be the best me, in and out," sad for a celebrity cottage industry so equally eager to tear individuals down. Because as long as there are people who measure their own self-regard in relation to their disdain for others, Heidi Montag will never be out of work. And there's something awful enough about watching an enviably pretty young woman surgically transform into a matronly Barbie doll without piling on. That's why I can't be bothered hating her. I couldn’t do a better job than a whole lot of people -- including, it seems, Heidi Montag herself -- are already doing for her.

'Hope for Haiti' raises $58 million and counting

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/23/haiti.telethon

'Hope for Haiti' raises $58 million and counting
January 23, 2010
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Amount is record for donations to disaster relief telethon
Album of performances topped charts in 18 countries
Public may continue to donate for six months
Celebrities answered phones, performed music

Los Angeles, California (CNN) -- Friday night's star-studded "Hope for Haiti" telethon has raised a record-breaking $58 million, with more donations continuing to pour in from around the world, the benefit's organizers announced Saturday.

The preliminary figure is a record for donations made by the public through a disaster relief telethon, according to a news release from telethon organizers.

Additionally, the "Hope for Haiti Now" album, a compilation of the night's musical performances made available on Apple's iTunes, was the No. 1 album in 18 countries Saturday. Sales figures for iTunes are still being calculated, and the preliminary figure of $58 million does not include donations from corporations or large private donors.

People will be able to make donations to "Hope for Haiti" via phone, Web, text messaging and regular mail for the next six months, according to the news release.

A moving performance by Alicia Keys opened Friday night's telethon, and actor George Clooney, serving as the Los Angeles host for the event, made the first appeal for donations to raise money for relief efforts after last week's devastating earthquake.

"The Haitian people need our help," Clooney said. "They need to know they are not alone. They need to know that we still care."

The show was one of the most widely distributed prime-time televised benefits in history, appearing simultaneously on more than 25 networks -- including CNN, where Anderson Cooper reported live from Haiti during the event.

More than 100 actors, musicians and other celebrities answered phones in New York and Los Angeles after professional operators first talked to donors.

"Thank you so much for your donation," actress Reese Witherspoon told one caller. "You can't imagine how much love and great, wonderful energy is here today. People are doing everything they can to make a difference in these people's lives."

Several other calls were aired live, including with Julia Roberts, Steven Spielberg, Taylor Swift and Stevie Wonder.

Swift and Wonder were among the evening's musical performers. Others included Bruce Springsteen, Bono, Jay-Z, Rihanna, Shakira, Beyonce, Mary J. Blige, Coldplay, Christina Aguilera, John Legend, Justin Timberlake, Kid Rock, Sheryl Crow, Keith Urban, Jennifer Hudson, Madonna, Dave Matthews and Neil Young.

Other celebrities appearing on the telethon included Jon Stewart, Brad Pitt, Tom Hanks, Morgan Freeman, Ben Stiller, Clint Eastwood and Denzel Washington.

Proceeds from the telethon will benefit Oxfam America, Partners in Health, the Red Cross, UNICEF, the U.N. World Food Programme, Yele Haiti Foundation and the Clinton Bush Haiti Foundation.

CNN's Alan Duke contributed to this report.

Avatar Photo of the Week


NFL Wants to Go Steady--With Reebok

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100208/zirin_tittle

NFL Wants to Go Steady--With Reebok
By Dave Zirin & Jeremiah Tittle
January 21, 2010

Call it the Super Bowl for lawyers and the reckoning for football fans. On January 13 the owners of all thirty-two NFL teams asked the Supreme Court to shield them from anti-trust laws. Their argument is that the league does not comprise, despite all evidence, thirty-two individual competing units but is made up of one "single entity."

This might seem bizarre on the face of it. After all, the 49ers and Cowboys don't meet on the field to sing "Kumbaya," and players don't rotate from team to team. But the NFL has won in court every step of the way, and the outcome of this case could provoke a labor lockout or strike that would shut down the most popular sport in the country.

The legal saga started in 2000, when Reebok signed an exclusive contract to slap the NFL logo on its caps and jerseys for every team in the league. Illinois-based hat manufacturer American Needle was, in turn, left out in the cold, no longer allowed to strike deals with individual teams; so it therefore sued the NFL, claiming that by brokering this deal with Reebok, the NFL had violated the Sherman Act.

To the NFL, it was like discovering penicillin. This small merchandiser had been growing like a pestering fungus until that Aha! moment hit, and the league's legal team realized the opportunity before it: a chance to knock out competition among apparel providers.

While the NFL repeatedly won the case in the lower courts, American Needle appealed to the Supreme Court for a hearing. The Court first reached out to the Obama administration to weigh in on the matter. Solicitor General Elena Kagan told the justices, "This case would be a particularly unsuitable vehicle to consider the broad rule that the NFL seeks." Heedless of Kagan's warning, the Supreme Court took the case, and with the NFL's support, American Needle's wish was granted. Now the "single entity" argument will be tested at the highest level, and, like the MLB All Star Game, this time it counts.

To anyone who pays attention to the billion-dollar catfight between Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys, and Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins, each year, in which a new owner is crowned at the unveiling of the franchise value rankings, the idea that the NFL is one company and not thirty-two competing businesses is just absurd. They are called franchises for a reason. Each franchise makes individual business decisions about how to market its product against opposing franchises wearing different-colored uniforms.

However, the NFL insists that even though it is made up of individual teams with individual profits and losses, it is still that "single entity." As the sports experts at Forbes wrote, "From a business standpoint, the NFL, like any sports league, has always predominantly acted as a single entity. Teams compete on the field, which does mean bidding on players and coaches. But from a business standpoint, they're partners above all else." Forbes, "the capitalist's bible," turns collectivist. Why?

It's simple. The NFL's collective bargaining agreement expires in March 2011. There will be no salary cap or salary floor in the league if a new deal isn't reached by March 5, 2010. If the Supreme Court rules that the NFL is a single entity, that changes the way the league negotiates--or doesn't negotiate--with the players. Teams could slash payroll, violate labor law, and the NFL Players Association would have no recourse. Lockout, here we come.

DeMaurice Smith, NFL Players Association executive director, has told ESPN that he has called upon his players to save 25 percent of their salaries over the next two years: because of uncertainty around salary caps and floors, "I look at the way in which it looks like we're moving to this lockout, and first and foremost, we have to be in a position where our young men are in a position to be able to take care of themselves and their families."

New Orleans quarterback Drew Brees took a break from preparing his team's Super Bowl run last week to deliver some Supreme Court testimony. In an op-ed published in the Washington Post, Brees warned that "if the Supreme Court agrees with the NFL's argument that the teams act as a single entity rather than as 32 separate, vigorously competitive and extremely profitable entities, the absence of antitrust scrutiny would enable the owners to exert total control over this multibillion-dollar business."

Serving on the Executive Committee of the Players Association, Brees understands that the players' collective future hangs in the balance. The owners are looking to knock labor rights back into the Stone Age, or at least back to 1993, before Freeman McNeil, football's Curt Flood, left a mammoth footprint on the game by fighting for and winning his rights as a free agent. The players sink or swim with the final decision to be delivered this summer.

It would be even worse for fans, and not only because the Sunday entertainment would go the way of Lost.

If owners were emancipated from anti-trust laws, collusion would be the law of the land. After all, they aren't thirty-two competing entities but one solid corporation. They then could do more than slash payroll. They could raise ticket prices through the roof, and charge $100 for a stocking cap. The NFL-Reebok deal struck a decade ago illustrates quite clearly how the costs of doing business this way are passed on to fans, as "official hats," Brees notes, "cost $10 more than before the exclusive arrangement."

Owners could move clubs on a whim, and be protected legally from violating any individual agreements with individual municipalities. After all, they would be acting in the interest of their "one entity."

In other words, think about everything you despise about the NFL experience: disloyal franchises, overpriced merchandize, unbridled greed, and give it an injection of a Mark McGwire cocktail. The NFL already acts like it has diplomatic immunity. It feeds at the public trough for stadium construction, charges a fortune for tickets, parking, souvenirs and--most tragically--beer, and accepts public input about as well as the CIA does. It is also about as transparent. In addition, if we've learned nothing else from the scandals in banking and on Wall Street, the last thing big business needs in this country is more legal protection and less transparency. We all--fans and players alike--have every right to fear what further legal protection would mean for the future of fandom, no matter what they say at Forbes.

Chicken deaths spark talk of Chupacabras

Chicken deaths near Horizon City spark talk of Chupacabras
By Jay Koester / El Paso Times
01/13/2010

HORIZON CITY -- The legend may be back, just as mysterious and dark, to stalk the unsuspecting.

Until last weekend, Cesar Garcia and brother-in-law Juan Miranda saw their life near Horizon City as secluded and peaceful.

They moved to the area from Chicago three years ago, but have suddenly been beset by strange and unexplained occurrences.

Their rabbits went into hiding, their cat spent the weekend on the roof of their house, their roosters didn't crow, and their dogs didn't bark.

And at least 30 of their chickens were killed by an unknown interloper.

The brothers are hesitant to say what they think spooked their animals or killed their chickens.

But when pressed, they said it: El Chupacabras.

The legend of El Chupacabras has been part of border folklore since stories of the creature's existence in Puerto Rico emerged in the early '90s. The creature has rarely, if ever, been seen, but it leaves dead animals behind. Its name comes from the animal's reported habit of attacking and drinking the blood of livestock, especially goats.

But El Chupacabras is very real to Cesar Garcia, who came out of his house Saturday morning and found 20 dead chickens.

"I saw the chickens were dead, but there was no blood around the sheet metal" in the coop, Garcia said. "All of them were just dead in one big pile. But, really, I don't know what it was because there was no blood.

"If it had been a dog, there would have been blood everywhere because a dog tears them apart."

Garcia was puzzled by the wounds on some of the chickens, which he described as "two pokes."

"We looked it up on the Internet -- the Chupacabras," he said.

On Sunday morning, Garcia's brother-in-law, Miranda, found 10 more dead chickens in a different coop. Sheriff's deputies responded both mornings to investigate, Miranda said. El Paso County sheriff's spokeswoman Chris Acosta confirmed that deputies went to the house in the 15600 block of Slippery Rock.

Miranda said he could not figure out why the family's three dogs did not bark either night. "Nobody heard anything. Nobody saw anything," he said.

Miranda said whatever got the chickens left tracks that included a paw and a heel, and looked like Chupacabras tracks they found on the Internet. "We followed them all the way past the trailer over there, then over the fence. We walked about four blocks and then the footprints vanished."

Henry Flores, director of the Paso Del Norte Paranormal Society, said his group in the past has searched for El Chupacabras in far Northeast El Paso and in Chaparral. The group may now expand the search to the Horizon City area.

"Chupacabras ranks right up there as one of the creatures that has supposedly been seen," Flores said. "It's something we want to try to hunt down when we get a chance."

On their past hunts, Flores said, the group has never glimpsed El Chupacabras, but has found fresh carcasses drained of blood.

"We do see some trails of remains that we think could be the Chupacabras, but we just don't know," he said.

Tony Zavaleta, a professor of anthropology at the University of Texas-Brownsville and an expert in border folklore, said the story of El Chupacabras is kept alive by Spanish-speaking media.

"The Chupacabra is a mythical creature," Zavaleta said. "I reserve the right to say that until someone produces one."

Zavaleta said belief in El Chupacabras has become something of a game to people. Belief is widespread in Latin America and the American Southwest because any mention of the creature quickly gets picked up in the Spanish-speaking media and feeds the craze.

"I don't like to use the word 'hysteria,' but I'll use it with a small 'h.' " Zavaleta said. "Usually, the stories start when a small mammal is killed by a possum, coyote, mountain lion or something. Suddenly, people create an association with the Chupacabras."

The Chupacabras craze was biggest in El Paso in 1995, when T-shirts with images of the goat-sucker, based on "witness accounts," were hot items.

Chupacabras stories made the rounds in El Paso-Juárez that year, but one story stood out. A woman in the Juárez area told reporters that she was bitten by the creature on her neck. Her claim was debunked later as a ploy to divert attention from a lover's hickey and her supposed marital infidelity.

El Chupacabras even stumped TV FBI agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully in a 1997 episode of the "X-Files" that starred Ruben Blades.

But Garcia was left to wonder whether his trouble is over and whether it could have been worse: Until three weeks ago, there was still a herd of goats -- allegedly El Chupacabras' favorite food -- on his property.

"Now I'm left with no chickens. Thirty chickens -- gone," Garcia said. "Imagine if we still had the goats."

Jay Koester may be reached at jkoester@elpasotimes.com; 546-6130.

Chupacabras details

"Chupacabras" literally means "goat sucker," but the creature is purported to attack much more than goats, including chickens, birds, dogs, horses and sheep. Some theories of what the Chupacabras may be include a prehistoric dinosaur animal, a top-secret genetic manipulation project gone awry, a demon or a UFO experiment.

Though reports of the Chupacabras' physiology vary, many say that the creature has glowing red eyes, is about 3 to 4 feet in stature, and has small, membrane-like wings.

Mutilated animals that are reported as victims of the Chupacabras are usually reported to be missing their blood and to have two puncture wounds to the neck.

The Chupacabras was first reported in Puerto Rico in the early 1990s.

Soon after the reports in Puerto Rico, strange animal deaths and Chupacabras sightings began to be reported in the Dominican Republic, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, the U.S. and Mexico.

A New Mexico man kicking through the dirt of the West Mesa found the small cadaver of what appeared to be a Chupacabras. He put the specimen in a box, and took it with him to his construction job sites to scare and amuse colleagues, until the creature was finally identified as a type of ocean skate.

The UNAN (National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon) holds the skeletal remains of a supposed Chupacabras cadaver submitted for analysis. The UNAN determined that the cadaver was that of a common dog.

Source: National Geographic

Kucinich shreds Democrats

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/exclusive-kucinich-shreds-democrats/

Exclusive: Kucinich shreds Democrats for betraying the promise of change
Sahil Kapur
Thursday, January 21st, 2010
Slams health bill 'madness'

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) on Wednesday said the Massachusetts election was a "wake up call" for Democrats and that his party had better change course or it could suffer devastating losses come November.

"People elected Democrats in 2008 to change the country's direction," he told Raw Story in a nearly hour-long interview.

"And the same entrenched interests that George Bush could not shake, this current White House is having great difficulty in shaking. One could suggest they might be more entrenched than ever."

Kucinich staunchly defended liberalism but alleged that Democrats are not behaving like liberals.

"There's nothing liberal about the bailouts. There's nothing liberal about standing by and watching banks use public money to get their executive bonuses. There's nothing liberal about giving insurance companies carte blanche to charge anything they want for health care... Since when did that become liberal?"

"There's nothing liberal about letting coal and oil write climate change legislation," he added. "Are you kidding me?"

The 13-year congressman lamented the lack of change in economic policies, tying it to the major problems Democrats are facing.

"The minute the president appointed Tim Geithner and Larry Summers to key policy positions, and the minute that [Ben] Bernanke was named to head the Fed again, we're looking at people who participated in the decline of the economy," he said. "This group has done us a disservice."

"Every area of the economy is still about taking wealth from the great mass of people and putting it into the hands of a few. If you don't have a economic democracy, you don't have a political democracy."

"We have to be more defined as being on the side of the people and not on the side of interest groups that are so entrenched," said Kucinich, who is widely regarded as a champion on progressive issues.

Dems 'jumped in bed with insurance companies'

Kucinich said he's deeply disillusioned with what health reform has become, suggesting Democrats should "slow down" and "take a step back."

"Health care became too complex and too riddled with concessions to insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies," he said. "It's really time to take a new direction and that direction has to be back to the American people."

One idea Democrats are floating is to pass the Senate bill through the House, which would then allow the President to sign it into law.

"I don't think that's going to happen," he said. "The senate bill is so totally flawed that I don't think it can get the votes in the House to pass. I certainly wouldn't vote for it."

"It hits very sharply at people who gave wage concessions to get health care benefits," he said, citing the excise tax on health care benefits. "We're going to ask Americans to take a wage cut? Why?"

"We lost the initiative the minute that our party jumped into bed with the insurance companies. And soon they were looking at increasing taxes as a way of subsidizing insurance companies. It's just madness."

"We're redistributing the wealth of the nation upwards by giving the insurance companies 30 million new customers, $50 billion a year more in revenue."

A number of progressives and Democrats disagree with Kucinich's conclusion, and say despite its flaws the health care bill is at least an important step toward expanding coverage and reducing costs.

"Well, which direction are we building in?" Kucinich responded. "If we give insurance companies a monopoly on health care, if we put no controls on premiums, if we give them antitrust exemptions... Is this the direction we build in to protect health care for people, or to protect insurance companies?"

He said part of America's distrust for the bill is the special deals the leadership cut with certain Senators, citing Sen. Ben Nelson's exemption for Medicaid expenses in Nebraska.

"People know when things get to that point, it's time to stay stop. Stop what you're doing. Don't make another move. Slow it down. That's the message from Massachusetts."

Kucinich voiced his long-held view that the best way to address health care is to achieve a "Medicare-for-all system." He said Democrats shouldn't abandon health reform, but need to signal they realize it's been mishandled.

Rips Obama admin on economy, giving Wall Street 'immunity'

Kucinich said the Massachusetts election was also a referendum on the Obama administration's "inadequate" response to the economic crisis.

"We ought to focus on creating 15 million jobs, and if we do that, we'll regain the confidence of the American people on domestic issues," he said.

"With people losing their jobs, losing their homes, their investments, their savings, retirement security, losing opportunities for their children to go to college, we have to focus on economic issues."

The congressman from Ohio claimed these problems have arisen because the system is skewed against the interests of the people, and that Obama's economic team isn't helping to solve them.

He said the Obama administration was giving Wall Street banks "immunity and too big to fail protection," saying they "even pride themselves on that."

"People understand the precarious nature of the economy, and that's what they're responding to in Massachusetts."

"We're really at a moment here, a moment of pivot. We need to regain the confidence of the American people by rallying them on the economic issues. But if not, Massachusetts will just be a harbinger of what's to come."

Special interests 'more entrenched than ever'

Kucinich lamented Democrats' growing camaraderie with big moneyed interests, claiming it's hurting the party.

"You ask the banks to reform banking?" he said. "Put the insurance companies to reform insurance. Call in nuclear to reform energy policies? Are you kidding me?"

"These problems, lest we forget, did not start with Barack Obama," Kucinich said. "It was George Bush drove the economy over the cliff with a trillion dollar tax cut and a war based on lies, and an expanding trade deficit."

"And we can't do that by playing patty-cake with Wall Street, by caving into the demands of big banks, by playing footsie with insurance companies and by jumping in bed with the pharmaceutical industry.

"Americans are really skittish about the economy, and they have every right to be," he said. "This isn't a left-right argument; this isn't a liberal-conservative argument. This is about down or up."

"We have a really deep recession, and the only way to bring it back up is to have a massive jobs program," he said. "I don't see any evidence" that Obama's economic team is standing behind that.

"We have to listen to what the message is from Massachusetts. We better listen carefully."

Beyond left and right

In what may come as a surprise to some of his supporters, Kucinich declined to blame Republicans for what he believes have been economic policies gone awry.

"We have to be looking at ourselves," he claimed. "We have to be looking at what we need to do to govern... It's really simple: the people don't like what we're doing."

"Democrats have to look at our own responsibilities, not the Republicans' responsibilities," he said. "If we want to give the mantle of leadership to Republicans, they're the minority, they're willing to take it."

Kucinich said the Democratic strategy, as unveiled in a leaked internal memo obtained by Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler, of urging Republicans to take more responsibility was "wrong."

"This isn't about the Republicans, this is about the Democrats."

"There's been a serious mislabeling of politics in America, where there's an attempt to confuse people about who stands for what, and in that it's the triumph of special interests."

'Still time to recover'

Kucinich said that despite the Democrats' turn in the wrong direction, they can still win back the people's trust.

"I'm not one who believes the sky is falling," he said. "We just need to listen to what people are saying. The people of Massachusetts sent the message that they're not willing to be taken for granted."

"Democrats need to take a more aggressive stance," Kucinich posited. "The only time I've ever voted against my party is when I thought we could do better, and be stronger."

"We can only keep our majority if this wake-up call is used in a constructive way, and we have our eyes open."

"We just had an alarm go off in Massachusetts, and we better wake up. Because if we shut the clock off and go back to sleep, when we wake up in November we could end up in the minority."

Despite his harrowing words, Kucinich said he "remains optimistic" that Democrats can "turn things around."

"We still have enough time to recover. A political eternity exists between now and November. Plenty of time. But we have to really reset the pointer of our political direction."

California single-payer plan advances

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/21/BAAN1BLNTP.DTL

California single-payer plan advances
Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Friday, January 22, 2010

Sacramento - As national health care reform grew more uncertain, the California Legislature on Thursday pushed forward a controversial proposal to create a single-payer health system in the state.

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 6-3 along party lines, with Democrats in favor of the proposal, which will be considered by the full Senate next week.

The vote came two days after Massachusetts voters elected a Republican U.S. senator to fill the seat long held by Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy - putting President Obama's national health bill in jeopardy. Backers of the California plan said the timing was coincidental and due to legislative timelines.

But political observers said the vote could come back to hurt state Democrats in November and viewed the move as motivated by the turmoil in Washington, D.C. Similar incarnations of the California plan have twice been passed by the Legislature and both were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. A spokeswoman for the Republican governor said Thursday he would veto this bill if it comes to his desk.

Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, is sponsoring the bill, and said states will have to act to create single-payer systems. The public option, a form of single-payer insurance, appears unlikely to be part of the final national bill, if there is a final bill.

"We always wished there would be single-payer reform in Washington, but given the political reality that that's not going to happen, it's not going to deter us from the pursuit of single-payer in this state," Leno said.

The proposal, which is estimated to cost $200 billion, would eliminate private health insurance in California and replace it with a state-run system, which would be provided to every California resident. That system would be overseen by a new state agency that also would ultimately decide what services the coverage would entail.

The price tag would be paid by pooling all state and federal money currently spent on health services, which would require federal approval, along with a payroll tax that would be paid by both employees and workers. In a previous incarnation of the bill, that tax was set at 16 percent. The financing is not part of the latest version. Backers also think the single-payer system will greatly reduce administrative costs, which also would help pay for the system.

Republicans in the Legislature said they were dumbfounded that the bill would move forward given the climate toward health reform nationwide.

"I believe the Democrats in Sacramento just don't get it," said Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Thousand Oaks (Ventura County). "This was literally 48 hours after the most liberal state in the country voted down Obamacare. They are not listening to people in the state or the country."

Steven Maviglio, a Democratic consultant, supports a single-payer plan but said flatly, "this is not the time to do it."

"Anyone who has read a newspaper in the last 24 hours knows this will not help the Democrats in November and it could hurt them," Maviglio said. He said the timing would be right "when the state isn't billions in debt."

Advocacy groups that support the bill disagreed, however. Deborah Burger, president of the California Nurses Association, called the timing of California's action "perfect."

"The national bill really is not addressing the needs of Americans and they really want us to go forward with something that meets our needs instead of imposing taxes on people who already have health care benefits," Burger said.

Opponents, though, said the proposal would not address the underlying cost-drivers in health care.

"It is just reorganizing care and having the government take over health care decisions," said Charles Bacchi, executive vice president of the California Association of Health Plans.

Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, is chairwoman of the committee that approved the proposal and voted in favor of it. She said the cost, if passed, would be about $1 million in the first year to do initial administrative planning. She said it would not hurt the state's budget, which is facing a $20 billion deficit through June 2011, and said she thinks Californians approve of the effort.

"If it's not going to happen at the federal level, it's important for us to keep the discussion alive and see if this is a viable option," Kehoe said.

But Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California, said he thought the vote was more of a symbolic move by lawmakers to get the attention of big-money organizations pushing for single-payer insurance.

"An organization involved in health care nationally is probably feeling pretty bruised this week. This is the perfect opportunity for state legislators to remind that organization that they still have friends in Sacramento," Schnur said.

E-mail Wyatt Buchanan at wbuchanan@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

HealthierTalk.com

http://www.healthiertalk.com

HealthierTalk.com
Natural Health News & Community

A place where users can share articles, studies, blogs, musings, videos... anything relating to the world of natural health!

NASA Announces Designs for Personal Flying Suit

http://intransit.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/nasa-announces-designs-for-personal-flying-suit/

January 21, 2010
NASA Announces Designs for Personal Flying Suit
By DAN SALTZSTEIN

A conceptional rendering of the Puffin personal flying suit. Forget the Segway. Leave that jet pack behind. NASA is working on a personal flying suit.

Conceptual designs for the experimental vehicle, called Puffin, were introduced by Mark D. Moore, an aerospace engineer at NASA’s Langley Research Center, at a meeting of the American Helicopter Society on Jan. 20 in San Francisco. The Puffin is designed to be 12 feet in length, with a total wingspan of 14 and a half feet; it would weigh in at 300 pounds (without a pilot).

Two major elements distinguish the Puffin suit from the jet packs of ’50s-era sci-fi flicks. First, it is completely self-contained: the pilot would actually step into the suit, which has a cockpit-like area and helicopter-style blades, allowing for high-altitude flying (unlike those sci-fi jet packs).

Second, it is designed to be powered by electric motors, making it relatively quiet, lightweight and more reliable (electric motors have fewer moving parts than conventional ones), and with a low environmental impact.

Of course, the Puffin is just a theory at the moment. It might be best used for covert military missions or rescue operations. But if it does emerge as an option for conventional flight, traffic jams might take on a whole new meaning.

How Corporations Became People

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/25575

Seminal Watercooler – How Corporations Became People
Jim Moss
Thursday January 21, 2010

As we begin to digest the unbelievable Supreme Court decision from earlier today, it might be helpful to remember how this whole idea that corporations are entitled to the same rights as individuals began:

1886, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."

The court reporter duly entered that into the summary record of the Court’s findings. Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history.

In the 22nd century, do you think people will look back on today’s Supreme Court ruling with the same distaste that we look back at this one from 1886? Does granting corporations the right to spend freely on political ads also have the potential to change history?

Beast of the Month - July 2009

Glenn Beck
Right-Wing Propagandist

"I yam an anti-Christ..."
John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten) of The Sex Pistols, "Anarchy in the UK"

"And if I may speak to Glenn directly for a moment, dude, you are rocking it. I know some people say you're an unstable individual and to give you a public forum is grossly irresponsible, but remember: they crucified Jesus. Crank up the crazy and rip off the knob."
Stephen Colbert on Mr. Beck

Okay, we admit it, The Konformist isn't the biggest fan of Barack Obama. Still, even if you hate a guy, it should be on what he actually is and not on what he isn't.

Over the last few months, criticism of Obama in the mainstream press has been dominated by two groups of people: the "teabaggers" (seriously, stop snickering!) led by noted "men of the people" such as multi-millionaires Rick Santelli of CNBC and Sean Hannity of Fox News, who protest O's supposed far left economic policies; and the "birthers" led by the entertaining Orly Taitz, who insist that Obama can't even be president due to his alleged secret birth in Kenya (or perhaps some even more exotic and sinister locale, such as Russia or - God forbid - France.) The end result of these two movements is the image of Barack Hussein Obama as an evil socialist totalitarian who is secretly plotting to destroy America for his foreign masters. (Never mind that Obama actually occupies the far right of the Democratic Party economically, and that if he's destroying America for any foreign master, it's the banking system.) Suddenly, the charges of Larry Sinclair seem tame that Obama is merely a closeted crack-smoking homosexual.

True, maybe The Konformist has little leg to stand on in mocking others for engaging in elaborate paranoid conspiracy theories. Still, one recent news hysteria perfectly exemplifies how most of the right-wing paranoia surrounding BHO is not only silly, but seems to be a designed misdirection of a mass movement. Consider what happened in April after the Department of Homeland Security’s report, titled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, was leaked onto the Internet, detailing the DHS contention that right-wing politics was a breeding ground for not-so-future terrorism. Immediately, a frenzy of reactionary frothings exploded over the web and right-wing radio about the report. Leading the charge was host Michael "Weiner" Savage, yet another right-wing establishment media blowhard who is a millionaire faux populist. The report, Savage and others insisted, was proof that the Obama administration was a crypto-Marxist cabal plotting to destroy America. So The Konformist must give credit to Kurt Nimmo of Alex Jones' excellent PrisonPlanet.com website, which has been a leading source for top notch political analysis in the age of Obama. Because of the supposed conservative leanings of Mr. Jones (though a review of his site would show his opinions are far more nuanced and certainly more honest than the mainstream media's right wing shills) Prison Planet became one of the sites the DHS report was leaked to. Unlike most other sites that followed with delusional rants, Nimmo noted something about the report that should have been immediately obvious: it was written in January 2007, when the Bush Administration was in charge. Likewise, another DHS report released earlier this year was titled Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade. This pretty much proves that the Rightwing Extremism report wasn't an Obama Kult assault on the right but rather part of an attack embraced by both George and Barack on anyone deemed a political misfit of any stripe.

Of course, perhaps it says something about the current political climate that Alex Jones and The Konformist can now be described as moderate voices of reason. (We don't mean this as a knock on Jones, but even his biggest fans would concede central to his appeal is a sensational style that resembles a carnival barker.) Chalk it up to a political dialogue dominated by the likes of Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter and Savage. Still, in recent months even these mouthpieces have been overtaken by radio and TV host Glenn Beck, The Konformist Beast of the Month.

Mr. Beck has been host of his own nationally syndicated radio show since 2000. His astounding success over the radio has led to a TV career as a host, first on CNN Headline News since 2006 and then moving to Fox News in January. (His success on TV is all the more remarkable considering he is a decidedly physically repulsive specimen.) He has also written two New York Times bestsellers, making him a multi-media sensation who rivals Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern.

How has Mr. Beck become so popular? Simple: by behaving in a decidedly unhinged manner over the airwaves, all while espousing a reactionary political philosophy.

This was highlighted in March, when he choked up on air, wiping tears from his eyes and declaring, "I'm sorry. I just love my country, and I fear for it." For this one, Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert (who has had a field day over the entire Glenn Beck trend) spoofed him by choking up on his own show and saying, "I'm sorry. I just love Glenn Beck's sanity. And I fear for it." Colbert also earned some chuckles after Beck had a close-up of his "crazy eyes" so viewers could see just how serious he was. Colbert one-upped this by having an anal exam with a camera so viewers could literally see just how full of crap he was.

On a more serious note, FAIR columnist Norman Solomon had this to say about Glenn: "Beck has become a national phenom with his nightly hour of polemics... urging war on Iran, denouncing 'political correctness' at home, trashing immigrants who don’t speak English, mocking environmentalists as repressive zealots, and generally trying to denigrate progressive outlooks." Eric Boehlert of MediaMatters.org notes that on his show, Beck "disparages liberals, gays, Democrats, blacks, immigrants, and Muslims at will."

That's not all he's tried to disparage. In 2005, he called the victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans "scumbags." He then added: "I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims." He said both after admitting that nobody "in their right mind is going to say this out loud," proving that Beck himself knows he's insane. Not to leave bad enough alone, in 2007, he mocked victims of the Southern California forest fires as "a handful of people who hate America... a lot of them are losing their homes." It got even funnier the end of June, when Beck had on his show "former" CIA agent Michael Scheuer. Scheuer declared, "The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States... Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently and with as much violence as necessary.” To this adovocacy of mass terrorism, Beck nodded in approval.

Pretty hilarious stuff.

Hilarious, at least, until someone dies. That's what happened in April, when 22-year-old Richard Poplawski killed three Pittsburgh policemen and wounded two others in a bloody shootout. It soon was uncovered that Poplawski, a neo-Nazi, was a huge fan of Beck and his right-wing rantings on Fox News. He was also a fan of the white supremacist Website Stormfront, posting videos of Beck's show on the site. Poplawski was obsessed with right-wing conspiracies, believing that Obama was going to start confiscating guns and rounding up right-wingers in FEMA concentration camps, all part of a New World Order plot to turn Team USA into a Maoist dictatorship.

To be fair, much of this thinking is central to the appeal of Alex Jones, who Poplawski also was a fan of. What Jones did not share, however, was his racist world view, including a belief that America was secretly controlled by a gang of evil Jews. While Beck also eschews the anti-Semitic plots (perhaps because Jews are fortunately not a socially sanctioned scapegoat group anymore) he does, as noted before, engage in trashing of minorities in the same vein as Limbaugh does. Perhaps it isn't overt, in-your-face racism, but it is there.

Certainly it is too much to blame the Pittsburgh murders on Glenn Beck. After all, many "liberal" sites tried to smear Alex Jones with the same brush after it was discovered Poplawski was a fan. But it is hard not to listen to the venomous rage spewed out by Beck (as well as Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter and Savage) and imagine what it could do to borderline personalities. Somehow The Konformist suspects the Poplawski murders are the first shot of what may turn into a very disturbing fad.

Which, of course, is only part of what is dangerous about Beck. The bigger issue is that he, along with his fellow right-wing blowhards, are channeling the legitimate anger and frustration of the masses into options controlled by the GOP. Thus, the protests of Ron Paul that once frightened the Republican establishment (tellingly, Paul was even more marginalized on Fox News than CNN in 2008) has morphed into the teabagger movement, which is backed by mainstream GOP politicians such as Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. The controlled teabagger movement focuses all its rage on the Obama stimulus plan that marginally aided the poor and middle class, while remaining silent about the obscene bailout of Wall Street (which Ron Paul vociferously opposed.) Likewise, Beck will embrace the conspiracy theories of Alex Jones, provided they can be packaged in a way where viewers can use them to support the Republicans. And perhaps even more important, Beck and his cohorts will ignore any criticism of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever else the Pentagon decides to attack in the future, even though an anti-war message is central to both Jones and Paul.

Of course, whenever Beck gets cornered by his own reactionary beliefs, he tries to dismiss himself as a rodeo clown, a harmless buffoon who is more of an entertainer than a political ideologue. On this issue, The Konformist must concede that as pure theater, Beck is indeed very entertaining. But looking at what the Poplawski murders might lead to, and looking how Beck is manipulating the anger of the masses into faux-populist movements, we have to wonder who will get the last laugh.

In any case, we salute Glenn Beck as Beast of the Month. Congratulations, and keep up the great work, Glenn!!!

Thanks to ColbertNation.com, Fair.org, MediaMatters.org, PrisonPlanet.com & RawStory.com for help on this article.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Budd Hopkins interview by Skylaire Alfvegren

http://forteanswest.com/wordpress-mu/blog/2010/01/22/budd-hopkins-interview-by-skylaire-alfvegren/

Budd Hopkins interview by Skylaire Alfvegren
January 22nd, 2010

UFOs have been popping up again, en masse over Texas and Brazil, grounding planes in Chicago, appearing over foreign military bases; images captured by Royal Air Force employees recently made front page news in Britain’s leading daily paper.

It’s all growing more fantastic: the Vatican blessed a belief in aliens, which doesn’t, it turns out, “contradict a belief in God.” A respected former astronaut claims we’ve been lied to about the UFO subject for over 60 years. Disc-shaped and extra-terrestrial imagery are appearing once again in advertising, on television, and in movies (even Indiana Jones got in on the action).

“Don’t react to what might at first seem dubious,” cautioned veteran alien abduction researcher Budd Hopkins at the annual symposium of the Mutual UFO Network, held in San Jose, CA. A throng of about 50 investigators arrived a day early to listen to this ufological giant. Tall, snowy-haired and soft-spoken, one might not guess Hopkins to be among the world’s foremost experts on abduction phenomena—but he practically gave birth to its study.

Moving to Manhattan in 1953 after “discovering art with a capital A,” Hopkins reveled in the abstract expressionist movement of the time and “sort of immediately met the painters… de Kooning and Kline and Pollock and Rothko.” Hopkins’ art—found in the collections of, among others, the Whitney and the Guggenheim in New York, the Smithsonian Hirshhorn Museum in D.C., and San Francisco’s Museum of Modern Art—exist light years away from what has brought the Wheeling, West Virginia-born painter, researcher, writer and hypnotherapist much of his international renown.

It began harmlessly enough: in 1975, Hopkins researched a multiple-witness UFO report with investigator Ted Bloecher. The next year, an article he penned for New York’s Village Voice caught fire and was reprinted in Cosmopolitan Magazine.

Hopkins was tormented by the experiences of others; levitating out of windows into silently hovering, lighted airships, and enduring medical examinations conducted by creatures generously described as “humanoid.” Many spoke of hours’ of irretrievable memories, which Hopkins would later dub “missing time.” To date, Hopkins can’t tally the number of frantic letters and teary phone calls he received–nor the number of hypnotic regressions he witnessed–in the early days of his research, but they number in the hundreds.

Abductions, impregnation, hybrid children, radiation sickness, near misses with civilian aircraft and undeniable evidence that something is out there—all casts the alien business in a sinister light. Unidentified Flying Objects–a loaded Air Force term which has slowly been replaced by the less sci-fi sounding “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena”—are apparently capable of disappearing at will, shutting down missile systems and stopping on a dime at speeds our Air Force can only dream of.

In our interview, Hopkins didn’t toss out a single assumption about the abductees’ origins, and only commented on their motives in passing. He stays, he says, “conservatively fixed in my area of expertise.” He admits that from his abductee research, “we don’t have much that’s pleasant or benign.” Years ago, he started the Intruders Foundation (www.intrudersfoundation.org), a non-profit organization created to document and research alien abductions and provide support for abductees.

Currently, Budd has nearly finished a multi-faceted memoir entitled, Collage: Art, Life and UFOs, while a documentary crew is examining the work of Hopkins and partner Leslie Kean, a journalist/UFO historian who organized a press conference last November intended to stir our government understanding why the phenomenon “should be made public, and why at least investigations should be made.” The press conference hosted two generals and 14 high government officials, from around the world. Kean has stated that “the U.S. is holding everyone else back.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skylaire Alfvegren: Harvard’s John Mack dedicated his book Abduction to “Budd Hopkins, who led the way.” For over 30 years, you’ve balanced a successful art career with the tenuous field of UFO abduction research. Interest in the UFO phenomena is incredibly cyclical. It hasn’t been as in the forefront of mass Western consciousness since the 50th anniversary Roswell incident 11 years ago.

Budd Hopkins: It’s a statement of what the public believes about the reality of UFOs, of the reality of abductions; those numbers keep going up. There have been so many new, interesting incidents—the Texas flap, of course, the O’Hare incident [where a UFO grounded planes and astonished onlookers at the Chicago airport in on November 7, 2006]—those things have certainly kept the subject in the public’s mind.

SA: In the introduction to your first book, Missing Time (1981), you referred to the abduction phenomena as an “epidemic,” claiming that 70-80% of such experiences went unreported. Do you think that figure has changed because people are more amenable to the concept now?

BH: I think it’s difficult to say. It isn’t just that people fear ridicule, which is absolutely basic to this phenomenon. Many letters I get start with a sad little statement: “I hope I’m not wasting your time,” or “there may be nothing to this, but it’s been bothering me for years and I have to talk to somebody.” And they may only remember fragments; they don’t want to believe that such a thing happened to them. I get letters and phone calls from people I can’t really do anything for because they live in distant places and I don’t have—there doesn’t exist–a really good list of therapists to refer them to.

SA: In Missing Time, you write, “I stated at the beginning of this book that the readers’ credulity would suffer perhaps unsupported stress. I made that statement just because the limits of my own belief system had been sorely strained by these unfolding cases.” So you didn’t start off as some wide-eyed believer.

BH: God, no. When I started, in ‘76, there were maybe ten or 11 known abduction cases. And in each one, people remembered a huge amount, like [Betty and Barney] Hill. They remembered the craft, the aliens in the windows… the ’73 Pascagoula, Mississippi incident where Charlie Hickson and Alvin Parker remembered being taken inside a craft, all before hypnosis. What I found out was that there were people that remembered very little, but knew that something terrible had happened to them at a certain place. They had some vague memories, which turned out to be those of classic abductions. Suddenly, a huge door opened as to how widespread this might be.

SA: Do you think an abductee’s memory lapse is the result of an unconscious blocking of traumatic experiences, or do you think its purposeful amnesia produced by the abductors?

BH: The latter operates very strongly, but the former is also true. People don’t want to remember what they do remember.

SA: In your book Intruders you quote a skeptic who said that people who take UFOs seriously are really cultists. Your response was, “cults are all beliefs and no miracles. The UFO situation is the polar opposite: all miracles and no beliefs.”

BH: Right. I had to learn to say and think about things as I went along. I had to learn, in a sense, how to conduct police style investigations. I’m ultimately self-taught. Folklore changes all the time, but these phenomena don’t change.

SA: And there’s no university degree, no handbook, for abduction researchers.

BH: This summer I’m hoping to present, at least in presentation form, a kind of mini-handbook for investigators on how to handle people who are afraid they might be abductees. What to say and not to say, and then, for those who work with hypnotists, or who are trained themselves, how to move the whole thing along, and recognize how to get around roadblocks.

SA: Did you study hypnotherapy as a response to becoming an investigator?

BH: When I first started running into abduction cases in ‘76, I hooked up with an interested psychologist, Dr. Aphrodite Clamar, and took my subjects to her. I would watch her techniques, writing notes, questions. As I’ve put it in the book, I had a seven-year apprenticeship where I didn’t do any hypnosis, but I sat in with God knows how many subjects, and other hypnotherapists, to learn how to do it myself. The major issues are how you handle the emotions of the people, how to question without leading, how to illicit information, despite a block. It’s really a question of how the whole session goes rather than how to get a person into a trance state.

SA: How have you remained so sane, while being involved in this for so long?

BH: I’ve learned to juggle lots of things. Learning to handle the media, which enjoys presenting some designated skeptic who can’t wait to blast holes through the subject. A few years ago, I appeared on Larry King Live. The subject was abductions. This woman wrote a book that claimed that all abductions were really sleep paralysis—including cases where people are driving cars! I said that there are basically two groups, two major attitudes, towards the subject: the first are the skeptics, and the second are the true believers.

SA: Where do you fall?

BH: I’m a skeptic, because I don’t know if something happened or didn’t happen, until I do my own investigation. I said, our friend here on Larry King is the true believer, because she knows in advance that no matter what anybody tells her, it didn’t happen, that it couldn’t happen.

SA: In your books and investigations, “now-familiar patterns,”–people being “frozen,” or pulled from cars, being “immobilized” or “switched off” while their companion is abducted–are repeated time and again.

BH: While writing Missing Time many of these patterns emerged. For instance, a screen memory is a false image imposed by the aliens in order to soften their actual appearance and reduce the abductee’s fear. That whole phenomenon wasn’t known until I wrote about it. I don’t know of any abduction researcher who doesn’t accept all of the patterns, but until I could collect them in the book, and understand them, they were unknown.

SA: You mention alien implants in Intruders, which was published in 1987, while Dr. Roger Leir [a southern California podiatrist who performs implant removal operations] didn’t publicize his first surgery until the ‘90s. What are your thoughts on these alleged implants?

BH: I definitely feel that implants have been placed in people. I have no idea what they’re for, or why they would’ve been put there, all without a scar!

SA: It irks me when Dr. Leir does one of these removals, and some TV show takes the object to one lab, and the one lab says, “The material components of this could have been produced terrestrially.”

BH: It’s very hard to prove a negative. And that’s Dr. Leir’s problem, once he’s removed one of these weird things, of establishing that it could NOT have been manufactured on Earth. It just needs a huge amount of intense lab work, which is unfortunately very expensive.

SA: You state that 19% of abductees studied have implants, but that the figure could be much higher, and that the indications were that “the ultimate destination for the implant was the brain.” That’s incredibly creepy.

BH: The entire business should give you an uneasy feeling. There’s no easy way to talk your self out of a metal object that shows up on an x-ray in the interior of the brain; something that couldn’t have been put there.

SA: The idea of a tracking device in the arm seems comparatively benevolent.

BH: I don’t think we have any idea what these things are for. The idea of tracking devices is so anthropomorphic. That’s the way we think about wild animals.

SA: Does it seem like there’s an increase in abductions in times of world or political crisis, or does it seem like they’ve got their own agenda entirely?

BH: I haven’t seen much evidence that they’re concerned about what’s going on. Linda Cortile was the only case that I have ever run into where there seems to be a deliberate attempt to present themselves to world leaders. [the New York housewife was allegedly levitated out of her Manhattan high rise during a series of abductions which featured complicated messages about the environment, as well as government complicity. Her story became the basis of Hopkins’ third book, Witnessed.] In some of the cases where they present imagery, where it seems to be real, the abductee is shown a beautiful, lush Earth and then it’s all burning up. That may have to do with a concern that we ought to take better care of the planet, but the problem is, is that going to be for us, or for them? But attempting to communicate with political leaders, or effect what’s going on has never been a central issue. Don’t forget that there are abductions that go back to the 1920s and all through WWII, decades before the dropping of the atomic bombs, and the murders of hundreds of thousands of people… there’s no record that aliens rescued one single baby from Auschwitz, or anything.

BH: One of the new patterns I discovered was what I call the “Mickey and Baby Ann” issue, the fact that Linda Cortile and Richard [who was intimately involved in her experiences] had been abducted together as children. Subsequently, I’ve run into a number of other cases like that. I have maybe four in the book, and these were all people who didn’t know about the original case.

SA: You’ve got abductions that date from the ‘20s, with the same elements present almost a century later. Like Susan Williams [who was paired with another child and abducted in the late ‘30s; decades later, she was abducted alone and artificially inseminated.] Such cases erode a widespread notion that the modern UFO era began with the atomic bomb and Kenneth Arnold [the pilot/UFO witness who coined the term flying “saucer” in 1947].

BH: The same patterns go way back… and the real interesting cases are in a certain way similar to each other.

SA: Why are certain individuals targeted for abduction and experimentation, and not others?

BH: We don’t know the answer. But the point is that the abductions… the removal of sperm and ova, the reproductive experiments, which result in the production of these little “babies” which are presented to their “parents” later on… I really don’t think anyone had written about that before I did. I discovered all of that in the middle ‘80s, and I think of it as the Rosetta stone of the UFO phenomena. Because what it does is explain what the whole thing is about, and why it’s covert.

SA: Were you the first researcher to use the term “hybrid”?

BH: Yes, I think that a better term would be “genetically altered beings.” We don’t know why they are being produced, but the implications aren’t good. It might happen again and again to the same person, for decades. And it might be generational. [The hybrids do] explain why abductions happen–and happen across generations–to members of the same family: you’re dealing with the same bloodline and genetic strain.

SA: Why are mid-Western housewives being abducted, as opposed to quantum physicists?

BH: The fact is that they’re taking chunks of people, literally, their flesh! They’re not only taking sex cells, they’re taking samples of flesh, or “scoop marks.” The abductors have all the brains in the world. Perhaps they lack our physical differences, our sexuality, and so forth. That’s the part they seem interested in, and maybe they’re not concerned with the person’s intelligence, as long as they’re the right physical type. They’re studying that person physically, genetically.

This is all speculation, but it seems like they can take anybody. I’ve met a NASA research scientist who is an abductee, and obviously extremely intelligent. High-ranking military, eight psychiatrists–I’ve worked with a lot of people who are very bright, incredibly gifted. But I think that the higher up the socio-economic ladder the person is, the less likely they are to come forward.

SA: That makes sense.

BH: There’s no way of knowing! [As researchers] we get those who come to us, which may not be a real sample of what’s out there in terms of abductees. I’ve worked with two MacArthur Genius grant recipients, but they didn’t want to come forward.

SA: You’ve taken measures to make sure that certain details of the abduction phenomena aren’t disclosed; like the craft symbols that some abductees have seen and written down. Your concern with the well being of these people is evident. You’re empathetic, but extremely analytical, and every chapter is a cliffhanger.

SA: In ’93, you learned of an “official investigation” into Linda’s case. I’m curious to know who or what agency might’ve conducted it.

BH: I’m not an expert on what branches of the government might be involved. I have reason to believe that the agents, Richard and Dan, were with the National Security Agency (NSA). But I don’t have any hard evidence. Obviously, somebody is doing it for the government.

SA: Later on in Witnessed, Richard’s associate states that UFOs were considered a “threat to national security,” but I don’t think that statement has ever been made publicly.

BH: They’ve tried to say the opposite, that it’s NOT a national security issue. [The U.S.A.F. commissioned, University of Colorado-penned] Condon Report [was written] mainly to determine if this was a national security issue, a safety issue, and decided it wasn’t.

SA: But during the “early days” of UFO sightings, so many U.S. pilots were shot down while trying to attack UFOs that an official ‘stand down’ policy had to be enforced.

BH: Those are subjects that I can’t speak about with any authority. There are other things, crop circles, government cover-ups, the removal of implants, crash retrievals—but abductions are enough to absorb your entire goddamned life!

SA: What do you think about the exo-politicans?

BH: I think the exo-politicans are doing enormous harm. They have this list of how many different alien races there are, which absolutely nobody knows, and they’re going to get ready when they land, and you have people like Stephen Bassett running around claiming the government’s about ready to announce disclosure, holds a press conference, and is totally lambasted. Or that [New Mexico] Governor Richardson was a CIA agent, in on the UFO thing… you can’t imagine what happens when they present that to the press, which immediately thinks of all of us—my work, everyone who’s serious—in the same way as the exo-politicians or the Ashtar Command.

SA: Media people decide they’re going to lump the kooks in with the real investigators because across-the-board derision of entire subject is the easiest way to avoid seriously investigating any of it.

BH: I was speaking at a conference in Italy, and this man had a power point presentation, and went through, I don’t know, maybe 20 different alien races. People who I knew to be total nut cases, who claimed to see some being with wings… it’d be listed as one of the races! And when it came to the people in the Hill case, he got the name wrong! He called them Betty and Barney Woods! He was ignorant of the basic material. So, this guy, like the exo-politicans, the ‘experts’ claiming there are 57 or 68 different races, there’s no evidence behind any of it, and they’re doing enormous damage. And there’s disinformation being spread: I’ve known two military who were shown different documents… one claimed there were 13 alien races visiting Earth, another, 69. It smells like disinformation.

SA: Who is abducting us? And what is their agenda?

BH: We don’t know their program, all of their techniques, we don’t really know what their goals are. Will they take over? Will they co-exist with us? They do seem to all be working together, however. It’s not one group doing A, and another doing B. It’s interesting, frightening and suspicious.

SA: Let’s talk technology. Is our technology capable of “switching” people “off,” during abductions, or rendering them invisible, as you talk about in your last book, Sight Unseen? [Wherein UFO cases are combined/contrasted with our developing technology or held up against the cutting edge of science.] JPL has already utilized adaptive camouflage, and there is talk of our capabilities to create giant holographic projections.

BH: This is all secret stuff so we really don’t know their capabilities. You’ve probably seen on television, the ray that can be emitted from a truck… it doesn’t paralyze a target or do permanent harm, but it can knock them, like, 80 feet out of the way. You just aim it at the guy, and down he goes. But despite all the talk about remote viewing, nobody has found Bin Laden! And soldiers had to stumble over Saddam Hussein. Even our smart bombs miss their targets occasionally. We don’t seem to have anything that’s anywhere near alien efficiency, with the ability to paralyze people, or control humans’ behavior by simple eye contact. We don’t have it, and I certainly hope we don’t get it very soon, either!

McCain's wife, daughter back gay marriage

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/20/AR2010012004764.html

McCain's wife, daughter back gay marriage movement
By JOAN LOWY
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 20, 2010

WASHINGTON -- Cindy McCain, the wife of 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, and their daughter Meghan have posed for photos endorsing pro-gay marriage forces in California.

Mrs. McCain appears with silver duct tape across her mouth and "NOH8" written on one cheek in a photo posted Wednesday to the Web site of NOH8, a gay rights group opposed to Proposition 8. The ballot measure passed by California voters in 2008 bans same-sex marriage.

The McCains' daughter Meghan, who has been outspoken in her support for gay rights, has also endorsed NOH8. She appears with silver duct tape across her mouth and "NOH8" on a cheek in a photo on her Twitter site.

Cindy McCain contacted NOH8 and offered to pose for the photo endorsement, the Web site said.

John McCain's office said in a statement that the Arizona senator respects the views of members of his family but remains opposed to gay marriage.

"Sen. McCain believes the sanctity of marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman," the statement said.

John McCain backed an Arizona ballot measure passed by voters in 2008 that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

The NOH8 Web site praised Cindy McCain's willingness to publicly endorse a cause that is unpopular within the Republican Party.

"The McCains are one of the most well-known Republican families in recent history, and for Mrs. McCain to have reached out to us to offer her support truly means a lot," the site says.

"Although we had worked with Meghan McCain before and were aware of her own position, we'd never really thought the cause might be something her mother would get behind. We have a huge amount of respect for both of these women for being brave enough to make it known they support equal marriage rights for all Americans."

Meghan McCain said Wednesday in a Twitter message linked to her blog: "I couldn't be more proud of my mother for posing for the NOH8 campaign. I think more Republicans need to start taking a stand for equality."

Meghan McCain was asked to be the keynote speaker at next month's National Equality Week at George Washington University in Washington for her advocacy, but her appearance has drawn criticism from Republicans on campus, the NOH8 site said.

McCain's Senate re-election campaign said Wednesday that his presidential running mate, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, will come to Arizona to campaign for him in March. Palin has been a vocal opponent of gay marriage.
---
On the Net:

http://www.noh8campaign.com/

http://twitter.com/mccainblogette/

Edwards Admits Fathering Love Child

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/report-john-edwards-set-admit-paternity-love-child/

January 21, 2010
Edwards Admits Fathering Love Child, Reportedly Separates From Wife
FOXNews.com

Former presidential candidate John Edwards has admitted fathering his former campaign videographer's child.

In a statement released to NBC News, Edwards said, "I am Quinn’s father. ... It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me."

Friends of the family said that Edwards and wife, Elizabeth, have separated, NBC reported.

The admission comes after months of denials from Edwards that he fathered former mistress Rielle Hunter's daughter, Frances Quinn. The revelation also comes a week before his former campaign aide, Andrew Young, is set to appear in an ABC News interview saying he posed as the father when the scandal first broke as a favor to Edwards.

The two-time presidential candidate also admitted to providing financial support to the child and said in the statement that he has "reached an agreement with her mother to continue providing support in the future."

"To all those I have disappointed and hurt these words will never be enough, but I am truly sorry," Edwards said.

Edwards' wife told The Associated Press that "the whole family feels relieved" that her husband claimed paternity, but she would not comment on the status of their marriage.

Young's interview is scheduled to air on ABC next Friday, but may be pushed forward.

Previous reports have claimed that a secret DNA test proved Edwards' paternity to the child.

The test was taken after Hunter tried to get financial help from Edwards for Frances.

Edwards admitted in August 2008 to an affair with Hunter that he says ended in 2006. That year, Edwards' political action committee paid Hunter's video production firm $100,000 for work. Then the committee paid another $14,086 on April 1, 2007.

A federal grand jury last year investigated whether Edwards broke campaign finance law by paying "hush" money to Hunter and Young over the affair.

High court ruling a game-changer

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/supreme.court.analysis/

Analysis: High court ruling a game-changer for campaign spending
Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
January 21, 2010
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not ban political spending by certain groups.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Supreme Court makes a landmark ruling Thursday on campaign finance
Ruling changes the way independent spending on elections is conducted
The FEC will now be tasked to craft new rules to ease limits on corporate spending

Washington (CNN) -- Campaign 2010 is in full swing: Massachusetts elected its new U.S. senator this week, and the first congressional primaries are just days away.

Now the first task for every federal candidate in this midterm election year will be to read the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday on campaign finance for a reality-check road map to their political future. The 183-page decision promises to completely change the way independent spending on elections is conducted.

In Citizens v. Federal Election Commission, the justices in a large sense have erased the subtle but important distinction between corporate donors, which are subject to regulation, and individual donors, who largely are not.

"It's about money," said Lawrence Noble, former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission and a national expert on campaign spending. "It's about free speech and it's about the ability of corporations to influence elections through the use of their treasury money."

The FEC will now be tasked with taking this high court opinion and crafting new rules to ease limits on corporate spending. The big winners will be businesses, unions and advocacy groups seeking to influence the elections, mainly through what are called "issue ads." Other beneficiaries will be television networks like CNN and radio stations that regularly air these campaign commercials.

The potential to upset a long-standing, if shaky balance over regulating political speech created a frenzy of cockeyed alliances among groups normally at odds, and spawned nearly four dozen legal briefs in connection with the case the court ruled on Thursday.

It being a case about politics, it was no surprise mini-campaigns were launched on both sides.

Competing reaction to the ruling from groups and individuals suggest a sea change in the business of federal elections.

"It's the Super Bowl of bad decisions," said Common Cause President Bob Edgar, himself a former Pennsylvania congressman.

"For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process," said Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. "By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers. Our democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some but for all."

Other interested parties include wealthy, politically active donors -- such as liberal financier George Soros and moderate businessman and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who have spent vast sums of their own money to back political causes or fund their own campaigns for office.

The case stems a documentary on Hillary Clinton. Produced last year by the conservative Citizens United, "Hillary: The Movie" was a scorching attack on her.

At the time of the 90-minute movie's premiere, Clinton was locked in a tough primary fight with Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, but her candidacy failed before the feature was widely shown, or had any real impact on the race. A federal court blocked Citizens United from airing ads, as well as airing the documentary on cable television's video-on-demand.
The film later appeared in several theaters, and was released on DVD and the Internet -- outlets that are not subject to federal regulation.

The Supreme Court initially heard the case in March 2008, looking at the conflict between, on one hand, Congress' expressed desire to control the power of well-financed private groups to spread their political messages and, on the other, concerns over the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The court apparently could not reach a conclusion on whether independent groups are subject to the same federal oversight as political committees.

"I've seen this movie," Justice Stephen Breyer wryly noted at the time. "It's not a musical comedy."

Re-arguments were ordered, and the scope of the case was expanded significantly, into whether important precedents banning direct corporate spending in campaigns should be re-examined.

One of those precedents was in 1990, when the high court supported state laws preventing corporations from using what the majority called "the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth" to support candidates, largely through their own advocacy ads. The ruling required the money to come only from a group's closely regulated political action committee, not directly from what are called "general treasury" funds.

The idea was to ensure corporate money was not spent on election-related issues that union members, shareholders, or employees might oppose. PACs are funded only through individual donations.

And in 2003, the justices upheld the landmark Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, widely known as the McCain-Feingold law, which took effect the day after the November 2002 elections.

Among its many provisions were a ban on "soft money," the unlimited and unregulated contributions to national political parties; a ban in the 60 days before an election on advocacy ads -- those criticizing or supporting a candidate's stand on an issue; and contribution limits and donor disclosure requirements.

Supporters of the law say it was designed to prevent corruption in politics. Opponents said it would criminalize free speech and association.

Since its enactment, the high court has written 22 opinions trying to interpret the law. The Citizens United case was the first in recent years to confront the free speech argument head on.

In its most narrow scenario, the five-member conservative majority handed the "Hillary" moviemakers a partial defeat, saying they are subject to donor disclosure requirements. But that was only a subplot in a far broader free-speech opinion that will benefit other outside groups with a political message they are itching to promote.

"Today's decision is a minor revolution in campaign finance law," said Thomas Goldstein, founder of ScotusBlog and a prominent appellate attorney. "The court's decision overturns the previously settled distinction between corporate and individual expenditures in American elections. It presumably applies equally to state and local elections, given that the court [now] recognizes a First Amendment right."

The "Hillary" movie case could launch a range of as-yet-unanswered questions about political speech and government regulation.

Because the filmmakers argued their work was information, not political advocacy, should the government place itself as the ultimate arbiter of what is "news"? Some media groups say no. " 'Hillary: The Movie' does not differ, in any relevant respect, from the critiques of presidential candidates produced throughout the entirety of American history," said the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, in a brief to the high court.

And can distinctions be drawn over regulating 30-second or one-minute "attack ads," and a 90-minute documentary that could be viewed as an ideological "informercial"? Those distinctions could be future fodder for the courts.

At is core, McCain-Feingold clearly will continue to have an impact on every candidate, and everyone that raises or spends campaign dollars. But the law's full power has been blunted significantly.

Now the high court has mediated that tricky line, favoring the right of expression of corporations and individuals over congressional efforts to protect against electoral corruption.

Coming soon to a television near you: campaign ads, ads, ads.

Blame the all-powerful left!

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/20/left/index.html

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010
Blame the all-powerful left!
Glenn Greenwald

I have a contribution this morning to the New York Times examining the Scott Brown victory, and I'll post the link to it once it's up. But for the moment, I want to address two equally moronic themes emerging over the last couple of days which seek to blame the omnipotent, dominant, super-human "Left" for the Democrats' woes -- one coming from right-wing Democrats and the other from hard-core Obama loyalists (those two categories are not mutually exclusive but, rather, often overlap).

Last night, Evan Bayh blamed the Democrats' problems on "the furthest left elements," which he claims dominates the Democratic Party -- seriously. And in one of the dumbest and most dishonest Op-Eds ever written, Lanny Davis echoes that claim in The Wall St. Journal: "Blame the Left for Massachusetts" (Davis attributes the unpopularity of health care reform to the "liberal" public option and mandate; he apparently doesn't know that the health care bill has no public option [someone should tell him], that the public option was one of the most popular provisions in the various proposals, and the "mandate" is there to please the insurance industry, not "the Left," which, in the absence of a public option, hates the mandate; Davis' claim that "candidate Obama's health-care proposal did not include a public option" is nothing short of an outright lie).

In what universe must someone be living to believe that the Democratic Party is controlled by "the Left," let alone "the furthest left elements" of the Party? As Ezra Klein says, the Left "ha[s] gotten exactly nothing they wanted in recent months." The Left wanted a single-payer system, then settled for a public option, then an opt-out public option, then Medicare expansion -- only to get none of it, instead being handed a bill that forces every American to buy health insurance from the private insurance industry. Nor was it "the Left" -- but rather corporatist Democrats like Evan Bayh and Lanny Davis -- who cheered for the hated Wall Street bailout; blocked drug re-importation; are stopping genuine reform of the financial industry; prevented a larger stimulus package to lower unemployment; refuse to allow programs to help Americans with foreclosures; supported escalation in Afghanistan (twice); and favor the same Bush/Cheney terrorism policies of indefinite detention, military commissions, and state secrets.

The very idea that an administration run by Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel and staffed with centrists, Wall Street mavens, and former Bush officials -- and a Congress beholden to Blue Dogs and Lieberdems -- has been captive "to the Left" is so patently false that everyone should be too embarrassed to utter it. For better or worse, the Democratic strategy has long been and still is to steer clear of their leftist base and instead govern as "pragmatists" and centrists -- which means keeping the permanent Washington factions pleased. That strategy may or not be politically shrewd, but it is just a fact that the dreaded "Left" has gotten very little of what it wanted the entire year. Is there anyone who actually believes that "The Left" is in control of anything, let alone the Democratic Party? The fact that Lanny Davis -- to prove the Left's dominance -- has to cite one provision that was jettisoned (the public option) and another which the Left hates (the mandate) reflects how false that claim is. What are all of the Far Left policies the Democrats have been enacting and Obama has been advocating? I'd honestly love to know.

And then there is the "Blame the Left" theme from Obama loyalists, who actually claim that the Democrats' problems are due to the fact that the Left hasn't been cheering loudly enough for the Leader. I recall quite vividly how Bush followers spent years claiming that the failings of the Iraq War were not the fault of George Bush -- who had control of the entire war, the entire Congress, and the power to do everything he wanted -- but, rather, it was all "the Left's" fault for excessively criticizing the President, and thus weakening both him and the war effort.

To insist that the Democratic Party's failures are not the fault of Barack Obama -- who controls the entire party infrastructure, its agenda, the news cycle, and the health care plan -- we now hear from Obama supporters a similar claim: it's all the Left's fault for excessively criticizing the Leader. A couple of days ago, Josh Marshall promoted -- and Kevin Drum endorsed -- a post that made this claim:

And we can look no further than Howard Dean, and MSNBC, and Arianna Huffington, and, yes, some columnists at the Times and bloggers here at TPM--you know, real progressives--who have lambasted Obama again and again since last March over arguable need-to-haves like the "public option," as if nobody else was listening. They've been thinking: "Oh, if only we ran things, how much more subtle would the legislation be," as if 41 senators add up to subtle. Meanwhile the undecideds are thinking: "Hell, if his own people think he's a sell-out and jerk, why should we support this?"


The reason "the Left" criticized the Iraq War was because . . . they thought it was a bad thing and thus opposed it. The reason some on the Left have been criticizing the health care plan and other Obama policies (the ones I listed above) is because . . . they think they're bad things and thus oppose them. For instance, health care opponents believe that forcing Americans to buy private insurance that they can't afford and/or do not want is bad policy and will harm the Democrats politically. That's what rational citizens do: they support proposals that they think are good and oppose the ones they think are bad. What are people on "the Left" supposed to do: go on television and into their columns and lie by pretending they support things that they actually oppose, all in order to sustain high levels of affection and excitement for Barack Obama? Someone who would do that is what we call a dishonest propagandist and party loyalist, and, in any event, is unlikely to have any credibility with anyone beyond already-converted, fellow Obama admirers.

A political party is actually much healthier and stronger when criticisms of the Leader are permitted. Ask the Republicans circa 2005 and 2006 about how a party fares when party-loyalty and leader-loyalty trump all other considerations. Moreover, if a political party adopts a strategy of ignoring its base, as the Democrats routinely do, it's an inevitable cost that the base will become dispirited and unmotivated. As Darcy Burner put it yesterday: "Perhaps if the Democratic base doesn't show up to elect Coakley, party leadership should consider *trying to appeal* to the base." There's a reason it's called "the base" -- it's because it's the foundation of the party -- and, as the Republicans never forget, there is a serious cost to ignoring or spurning them.

As I note in my NYT contribution today, the reasons for the Democrats' failings generally -- and the Scott Brown victory specifically -- are complex, and shouldn't be simplified in order to declare vindication for pre-existing beliefs (Obama loyalists: it was all about Coakley!; right-wing Democrats: it's all the Left's fault!; Republicans: it's a rejection of liberalism!). But whatever else is true, the Left, as usual, has very little power, both within the Party and in general. Blaming them for the Democrats' failings is about as rational as the 2006 attempt to blame them for the collapsing Iraq War. The Left is many things; "dominant within the Democratic Party and our political discourse" is not one of them.

All that said, and as horrible as the Democrats have been all year, the most amazing -- and depressing -- aspect of all of this is how Americans have so quickly forgotten how thoroughly the Republicans, during their eight-year reign, destroyed the country. Whatever the source of our national woes are, re-empowering that faction cannot possibly be the answer to anything.