Posts Tagged ‘commitment’

Save The Planet Protest: James J. Lee’s Demands (TEXT)

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

“Save The Planet Protest” is a website allegedly belonging to James J. Lee, the gunman who died following today’s hostage situation at the Discovery Communications building in Maryland. Lee lists 11 demands for The Discovery Channel on the website. Read the full manifesto posted on SaveThePlanetProtest.com below. The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY: Read More…

Read the original post:
Save The Planet Protest: James J. Lee’s Demands (TEXT)
Iluvnutrition

Richard N. Haass: Obama’s Iraq Speech Left More Questions Than Answers

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

Cross-posted from CFR.org Speaking on August 31 to the American people from the Oval Office, President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. combat mission in Iraq was over after more than seven costly years. “Now, it’s time to turn the page,” he said. But turning the page entirely will be difficult; in fact, the president raised more questions than he answered. The fifty thousand U.S. troops still in Iraq are there to advise and assist. But what happens if Iraqis cannot deal successfully with the continuing threat posed by terrorists, their own sectarian divides, and the meddling of neighbors? What is the continuing U.S. stake in Iraq, and what is the United States prepared to do on its behalf? What is more, the president reiterated his commitment to ending the U.S. military presence in Iraq entirely by the end of 2011. But would this be wise? Doing so would increase the odds that Iraq would become far messier. Iraqis themselves realize this, and if and when a new government is formed, its leaders are likely to ask that tens of thousands of American troops stay on for an extended period. There is a strong case that the United States should be prepared to do so; Iraqis should be prepared not only to ask for this but to help pay for it. The president suggested that Iraq was something of a precedent for Afghanistan, in that a military build-up could buy time to train government forces so they could assume a larger role, thereby allowing for a drawdown in American troop numbers and activity. “Open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s,” Obama declared. But the calendar-vs.-conditions contradiction at the heart of U.S. Afghan policy remains: U.S. troops will begin to depart in less than a year, but the pace of withdrawals will be determined by the situation on the ground. What if conditions in Afghanistan do not improve at a pace to allow meaningful troop withdrawals? This is all too possible given the divided and corrupt Afghan central government, a Pakistani “partner” that is pursuing its own agenda, and a resilient Taliban. The time will come, hopefully sooner than later, when the president will reject both a calendar and a conditions-based approach to Afghanistan and adopt a less ambitious and costly goal of going after terrorists, establishing local partnerships, and reaching an accommodation with those Taliban leaders willing to distance themselves from al-Qaeda. Considerations of cost are significant here, as the president also stated that “our most urgent task is to restore our economy.” This may well be true, but spending $100 billion or more a year in Afghanistan will make the process of cutting defense spending and reducing the deficit far more difficult. How, then, should the United States manage its need to restore its fiscal base and remain the world’s leading power? This may be the biggest question of all, one that we look forward to the president and the congressional leadership addressing. CFR President Richard N. Haass is author of War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars.

See the original post:
Richard N. Haass: Obama’s Iraq Speech Left More Questions Than Answers
Iluvnutrition

Obama visiting New Orleans on Katrina anniversary

Sunday, August 29th, 2010

By ERICA WERNER 2010-08-29T11:40:29Z VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass. (AP) — President Barack Obama is aiming to underscore his commitment to a region weary of calamity as he travels to New Orleans on the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina….

More here:
Obama visiting New Orleans on Katrina anniversary
Iluvnutrition

Jakada Imani: Honoring the Dream

Friday, August 27th, 2010

This Saturday, on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s I Have a Dream Speech, conservatives will gather for a “Restoring Honor” rally at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial. For the Tea Party crowd to connect themselves to the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement can’t be seen as anything other then deeply disingenuous. When thousands of people joined Dr. King to march on Washington, they were demanding that the federal government intervene on behalf of poor people. They called on the government to do more to level the playing field. However, the forces that are gathering this weekend want just the opposite. But, that’s not the biggest concern for me. The rally where King made his most famous speech was named the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Today we have millions of people out of work. The gap between the rich and poor is growing. Joblessness still disproportionally impacts people of color . Each month thousands more lose their homes. And not because of taxes, but due to the power and decisions of the banks our taxes bailed out. This is what truly concerns me and fuels my commitment to change. Dr. King’s dream was about what we could do together. In 1963, he told thousands of freedom fighters, “We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.” And the anniversary of the rally is a fitting time to reflect on all we have achieved in our communities for people of color, women, LGBTQ communities and working folks. For each of these achievements, there have been people in motion; that is why they are called movements. People-powered action, driven by faith and the belief that we can make things better together. That is how change happens. Read More… More on Glenn Beck

View original post here:
Jakada Imani: Honoring the Dream
Iluvnutrition

Bloomberg Launches Another Impassioned Defense Of Cordoba House

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

In a rousing address before a predominantly Muslim audience Tuesday night, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg reaffirmed his commitment to the controversial Islamic cultural center near the former site of the World Trade Center. Bloomberg, who hosted the annual Ramadan Iftar dinner at his official Gracie Mansion residence, did not back away from his position as the most vocal and public defender of the so-called “Ground Zero mosque.” If anything, he couched his defense of the project in even deeper moral and political terms, calling the Cordoba House a telling illustration of intrinsic American principles and a valuable tool in the war on terror. From Bloomberg’s prepared remarks: Read More… More on Michael Bloomberg

Read more:
Bloomberg Launches Another Impassioned Defense Of Cordoba House
Iluvnutrition

Target’s Promised ‘Review Process’ For Political Donations Has A Lot Of Anti-Gay Ground To Cover [UPDATE]

Friday, August 6th, 2010

As you may have heard, mega-retailer Target has come under fire recently for contributing to a political action committee called MN Forward, which supports the gubernatorial ambitions of Tom Emmer, a candidate whose hostility toward the LGBT community begins with opposition to same-sex marriage and runs through to wholesale denial of equal rights and alliances with organizations whose takes on the gay community neatly align with those Ugandan madmen . It took a long while for the Human Rights Campaign — which had previously bequeathed to Target a pristine 100-percent rating on its Corporate Equality Index — to get off the mat and take up this matter with the retailer. They’ve since applied pressure to both Target and Best Buy . For their trouble, they’ve earned an apology from Target CEO Greg Steinhafel , along with a nebulous promise that Target will institute a “review process for future political donations.” Abe Sauer, who has put a bullseye of his own on this story, returns to The Awl today with as rich an exploration of both new and old angles to this story as you’re likely to find anywhere. From Sauer’s report, it seems like any “review process” Target institutes for the benefit of maintaining a good relationship with the LGBT community has got a long period of reflecting on past actions to look forward to: The truth is not that Target and its leadership have suddenly turned on their commitment to gay rights. It’s more that it never really existed to begin with. Further research shows that Target has funneled significant funding to the most socially conservative of Republicans and that it boasts a frightening culture of anti-gay candidate support from Target’s own stable of top executives. We have already noted that CEO Gregg Steinhafel and his wife both maxed out their personal contributions this year to Michele Bachmann and Tom Emmer. But Steinhafel is just the captain of the crew. Target’s current group of top corporate officers have supported a murderers row of anti-gay politicians. Even more confusing, some of those anti-gay candidates supported by Target’s PAC and its executives don’t even represent Minnesota. That’s just a taste, please make with the click to get the full story. Here’s an addition worth noting, however: Al Franken, who is a very staunch supporter of complete gay equality, received zero dollars from Target executives or the Target PAC. Coleman, meanwhile, supported a constitutional amendment against gay equality. How on earth did they maintain a perfect rating from the HRC? UPDATE: While Target is reviewing their process for political donations, maybe they’d like to explain this? From Open Secrets : Looks like Target was playing both sides of the fence in California’s Proposition 8 battle, except they favored the anti-marriage equality side by a wide margin. And to dovetail back to the HRC Corporate Equality Index, here’s what HRC spokesman Michael Cole told Abe Sauer on July 29 : Cole told us, “It’s important to understand that the CEI is a measure of the workplace practices of a company toward its own LGBT employees. We don’t believe that rating companies based upon their political contributions is an accurate reflection of their commitment to LGBT equality in the workplace.” Further, Cole says, “Unless the contribution is to a ballot initiative that is anti-LGBT (such as California’s Prop. 8 in 2008), political contributions are not factored into a company’s score….” So it looks like the HRC needs to embark on an internal review of their own, as well. UPDATE: As has been pointed out to me, yes, the Open Secrets figures here do not necessarily mean anything other than deep-pocketed individual employees of Target are making personal contributions to these ballot initiatives. So, to be clear, Target employees were playing both sides of the Prop 8 fence. My primary concern in this instance, is with the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index, which measures “workplace practices” but eschews any rating based on political contributions save those made “to a ballot initiative that is anti-LGBT (such as California’s Prop. 8 in 2008).” In this instance, it’s just one more red flag that the HRC should have noted before awarding Target a perfect 100% rating. RELATED: Real America: Target Doesn’t Support Gay Equality Because It Never Did [The Awl] [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] Read more: Politics News , LGBT Issues , Gay Rights , 2010 Elections , Tom Emmer , LGBT Rights , Target , Minnesota Governor , Gay Marriage , Politics News

Excerpt from:
Target’s Promised ‘Review Process’ For Political Donations Has A Lot Of Anti-Gay Ground To Cover [UPDATE]

Kevin Powell: Kevin Powell for Congress Statement on Financial Disclosure Concerns

Thursday, August 5th, 2010

On August 5, 2010, the New York Daily News broke a story regarding candidate Kevin Powell’s having not yet disclosed his financial statements for the his race in 2010 and his failure to file in 2008. The Powell Campaign admits it failed to file on time. “As a candidate, this was clearly not in line with my commitment to full disclosure. We are moving forward to correct our mistake and will notify you as soon as we are told that the disclosure has been processed.” As for Mr. Towns’ desire to obtain the filing, Powell admits Mr. Towns has his reasons. “I admit up front that Congressman Towns and the press will find that I have been struggling to maintain my own home due to the subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting recession. As an author and a community activist, I have made a living promoting change through various mediums, but this crisis has been very hard on those of us trying to positively impact our communities from outside of government.” Powell contests that he, unlike Congressman Towns, is attempting to right his disclosure issue. “We are doing what we can to make things right with Washington. It will take time and remains out of our hands as they have the filing and we await their response. My opponent, on the other hand, has the power to hold up processes in Washington, just as he did as Chairman last summer when he stalled the investigation into Countrywide’s “Friends of Angelo” preferable mortgage treatment as he and other members of Congress had benefited from to obtain luxurious homes at reduced rates.” Please see http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB124588865553750813.html Powell continues, “We here in the 10th Congressional District are struggling to keep our homes due to financial and mortgage policies that benefited the Congressman and his Washington friends. He’s really no longer one of us.” For Press Inquiries please contact Marisa King-Redwood at Marisa@kevinpowell.net or 212-360-0399

Read more from the original source:
Kevin Powell: Kevin Powell for Congress Statement on Financial Disclosure Concerns

Judge H. Lee Sarokin: Renovation of St. Patrick’s Cathedral Opposed Based Upon Church’s History of Child Molestation

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

I do not know whether or not the comparison is apt. The suffering of the victims and families of child molestation may not compare with those of 9/11, but some claim the suffering is equal. The point, however, is that if we prohibit religious buildings because of the dastardly acts of some members of that religion, then no religious building could ever be erected. I certainly recognize and respect the opposition to the Cordoba Center at that particular site at this particular time, but we must distinguish between the right to protest and the right to prohibit. Both sides in this dispute point to the symbolism of this structure at Ground Zero (although, in truth, it appears to be near , rather than at Ground Zero). In my mind, that issue should be resolved by asking what the decision says about our nation. Denying the structure says that we value anger and revenge and wish to punish the whole for the acts of a few. Allowing it says that we value our commitment to religious freedom and that we do not condemn an entire religion for the acts of some of its members. Denial demeans us. Permission distinguishes us.

Follow this link:
Judge H. Lee Sarokin: Renovation of St. Patrick’s Cathedral Opposed Based Upon Church’s History of Child Molestation

Obama honors 13 citizens for their good deeds – The Associated Press

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

Politic365 (blog) Obama honors 13 citizens for their good deeds The Associated Press WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is honoring 13 people for their commitment to helping their communities, country or fellow Americans. Obama said the winners of the Presidential Citizens Medals see a need and meet it despite the challenges they may … Obama honors CNN Hero who cooks meals for homeless people CNN 2 Chicago women to receive Presidential Citizens Medal Chicago Tribune New England women honored at White House NECN The News Journal

Bart Motes: How to End the Filibuster and Drive the Republicans Crazy

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010

Over at the Washington Post, Ezra Klein posts a fantastic piece on how the filibuster could be easily ended with 51 votes. Conventional wisdom suggests 67 votes are necessary (first a vote of 60 to break the filibuster, then a vote of 67 to change the Senate rules), yet Klein observes this conventional wisdom may be misguided. Citing historical support from left (Robert Byrd) and right (Richard Nixon), Klein suggests that the “so-called” constitutional option would allow a new Senate to set its own rules and eliminate the filibuster. The catch is that even enthusiasts of the idea believe that such a change can only be made at the beginning of a new Congress. Yet this fact, far from being a deal breaker, is great news for Democrats. First, read Ezra’s piece . I’ll wait here. Done? Great. Since the filibuster cannot be eliminated until a new Congress is sworn in in January, Democrats are presented with a tremendous political opportunity. Simply pledge en masse to support elimination of the filibuster regardless of which party controls the Senate when the new Congress is sworn in. This idea places Senate Democrats in an unfamiliar position, since it requires them to be both brave and cynical, whereas they are usually most comfortable being cowardly and idealistic. Pledging to eliminate the filibuster is a little brave because the possibility exists that the Republicans could take control in January and the Democrats would therefore be surrendering the ability to stop them on principle. But it is also cynical because the chances of the Republicans taking control of the Senate is pretty minimal. So regardless of whether Republicans argue on the basis of principle: that it is important to be able to gum up the works and prevent change or because of political calculation: they want to be able to continue to oppose the Democrats’ agenda, it undercuts their argument that Democrats have failed to deliver on their change mandate. The more Republicans protest, the clearer it would become that the blame for Democratic failure to enact more of their agenda rests in large part on the shoulders of the Republicans. Forcing the Republicans to argue against the filibuster also forces them to admit they will not able to retake the Senate, depressing their voter enthusiasm. Democrats have been looking for a way to re-frame the media narrative of this election. Here it is. By pledging to eliminate the filibuster regardless of which party controls the Senate, Democrats will make a powerful statement about their commitment to principle regardless of political fortune. And for once, principle will actually serve Democratic political fortunes. More on 2010 Elections

Excerpt from:
Bart Motes: How to End the Filibuster and Drive the Republicans Crazy