Melissa Etheridge: You can Forget My Taxes (on Prop 8)

Nov. 17, 2008
Blogs & Stories
The Daily Beast

Singer Melissa Etheridge rails against the passage of the gay-marriage ban in California—and she won't be paying the state a dime.

Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.

Okay, cool I don't mean to get too personal here but there is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California. Oh, and I am sure Ellen will be a little excited to keep her bazillion bucks that she pays in taxes too. Wow, come to think of it, there are quite a few of us fortunate gay folks that will be having some extra cash this year. What recession? We're gay! I am sure there will be a little box on the tax forms now single, married, divorced, gay, check here if you are gay, yeah, that's not so bad. Of course all of the waiters and hairdressers and UPS workers and gym teachers and such, they won't have to pay their taxes either.

Gay people are born everyday. You will never legislate that away.

Oh and too bad California, I know you were looking forward to the revenue from all of those extra marriages. I guess you will have to find some other way to get out of the budget trouble you are in.

…Really?

When did it become okay to legislate morality? I try to envision someone reading that legislation "eliminates the right" and then clicking yes. What goes through their mind? Was it the frightening commercial where the little girl comes home and says, "Hi mom, we learned about gays in class today" and then the mother gets that awful worried look and the scary music plays? Do they not know anyone who is gay? If they do, can they look them in the face and say "I believe you do not deserve the same rights as me"? Do they think that their children will never encounter a gay person? Do they think they will never have to explain the 20% of us who are gay and living and working side by side with all the citizens of California?

I got news for them, someday your child is going to come home and ask you what a gay person is. Gay people are born everyday. You will never legislate that away.

I know when I grew up gay was a bad word. Homo, lezzie, faggot, dyke. Ignorance and fear ruled the day. There were so many "thems" back then. The blacks, the poor ... you know, "them". Then there was the immigrants. "Them.” Now the them is me.

I tell myself to take a breath, okay take another one, one of the thems made it to the top. Obama has been elected president. This crazy fearful insanity will end soon. This great state and this great country of ours will finally come to the understanding that there is no "them". We are one. We are united. What you do to someone else you do to yourself. That "judge not, lest ye yourself be judged" are truthful words and not Christian rhetoric.

Today the gay citizenry of this state will pick themselves up and dust themselves off and do what we have been doing for years. We will get back into it. We love this state, we love this country and we are not going to leave it. Even though we could be married in Mass. or Conn, Canada, Holland, Spain and a handful of other countries, this is our home. This is where we work and play and raise our families. We will not rest until we have the full rights of any other citizen. It is that simple, no fearful vote will ever stop us, that is not the American way.

Come to think of it, I should get a federal tax break too...

Melissa Etheridge is an Academy Award-winning and Grammy Award-winning singer-songwriter.

Melissa Etheridge: Keep Your Laws Off My Family

Oct. 29, 2008
Blogs & Stories
The Daily Beast

As Proposition 8 in California threatens same sex marriage rights, musician Melissa Etheridge looks back on her own struggle to adopt her children with her now wife Tammy.

When my official sample ballot for the November 4th general election arrived I was in the kitchen, where my eldest son was practicing tricks on his yo-yo. As I thumbed through the pamphlet I turned to page 5, state measures. There it was, right between prop 7: The Renewable Energy Generation Initiative Statute, and prop 9:The Criminal Justice System Victims’ Rights Parole Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute:

Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex couples To Marry.

I know my preference of life mate freaks some people out. Maybe it is just their fear of sex or intimacy. Fine, let me stand before my creator and take any consequences there might be to living my life in truth and balance with my spirit.

I called my son over. I said “Read this, tell me what you think”. He, being 9 years old and very proud of his reading skills, read “Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same sex couples to marry.” He looked at me, very matter-of-factly and said, “Wow, that’s lame.”

A rush of memories came over me. What a long strange trip it has been.

I remembered being a new mom in 1997. I followed the long trail of red tape to find a way to adopt my children so they could be covered by health insurance, or so I could see them in the hospital in case of some emergency, along with dozens of other reasons. I was fortunate enough to have the financial resources to find a lawyer that would help me through the heart breaking adoption system. The social worker would come to my house, numerous times, evaluate me, have me fill out all of the forms and then regretfully deny me my right to adopt my children because California law prohibited social workers from adoption approval of same sex couples. Then my lawyer would take my case to a judge that would read the social worker’s words “regretfully deny” and then the judge would say, “overruled, “allowing me to adopt my children within the legal system. I give thanks to these great people who truly believe in equal rights and risked so much for so many families.

There were the dark times, when proposition 22 was put on the ballot in 2000. It was a strange act, more like a true or false question: ”Marriage in the state of California is defined as being between a man and a woman.” Okay…? It passed.

Then I remembered my own wedding in 2003. I had found my true love, Tammy. It was a magical ceremony that started with my children walking with me down the aisle to meet my bride as the two aisles merged into one. I wanted to stand in front of my community of family and friends and declare my promise to be committed to my partner, now my wife, through thick and thin, in sickness and in health, something that would be tested with my breast cancer diagnosis and treatment later that next year. The day before the wedding Grey Davis gave same sex couples domestic partnership rights, one of his last moments as governor and we proudly hung our certificates on our wall. They were limited rights, but doggone it, it was a beginning.

I will never forget the day earlier this year when the news came down the wire that the Supreme Court of CA. had declared same sex marriage legal. We told our children about it and all danced around the room in family glee. I have four children now, my 11-year-old daughter, my 9-year-old son and boy and girl twins, aged two. We knew the only way our rights could be taken away was through a ballot measure and a constitutional amendment revoking the rights of same sex couples.

And now here it is.

Prop 8 is a blatantly hateful, and fearful proposition that I believe the great citizens of California can see through. The proponents of it have run the most fearful of television ads telling the people that if this doesn’t pass they will have to teach about homos to small grade school children. I can’t seem to recall any relationships ever being taught in school and I can’t find anything about that in this proposition. Now, I know my preference of life mate freaks some people out. Maybe it is just their fear of sex or intimacy. I know that they hold up the bible and say that it’s wrong. Fine, let me stand before my creator and take any consequences there might be to living my life in truth and balance with my spirit.

I believe in our democracy. I believe in our constitution. I believe we live in the greatest country in the world. I believe that we are as strong as our weakest link and if we deny any of our citizens the right to “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” then we deny it to all of us.

I will be waking up with my children on November 5th and I will be fixing them
breakfast as I usually do. I look forward to telling them that prop 8 was defeated. I am sure my son will say, “Good, that was lame.”

Yes, lame indeed.

Rahm Emanuel Roasts Stephen Colbert for Charity

AlterNet.org
November 15, 2008.

Watch the video:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/107256/rahm_emanuel_roasts_stephen_colbert_for_charity/

Obama's new chief of staff takes on his pseudo-nemesis, the host of the Colbert Report.

White House chief of staff-designate Rahm Emanuel took some time off from the transition Friday night to hurl barbs at his longtime pseudo-nemesis Stephen Colbert (as well as Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, Joe Lieberman, et al...)

Colbert was roasted as part of a charity event for the Spina Bifida Association, organized every year by Judy Woodruff and Al Hunt. (Click here to donate to the cause.)

We've posted some text highlights from Emanuel and Colbert below, and videographer/journalist Liz Glover was kind enough to pass along video of the event (note: the first minute or so is choppy).

Some highlights from Rahm's speech:

On Joe Biden: "Unfortunately, Joe Biden couldn't make it here tonight. Joe's the one who predicted that President-elect Obama will be tested by a crisis in the first six months of his presidency. What he didn't mention: the crisis will no doubt be over something Joe said."

On Steny Hoyer: Stephen is a guy who knows that no matter how smart or successful he is, he'll always play second fiddle to Jon Stewart. If he thinks that's humiliating, try standing behind Steny Hoyer.

On Barack Obama: Of course, Stephen and I do have our differences. Stephen believes the messiah is Jesus Christ. In my briefing books, that's Barack Obama.

On Sarah Palin, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Lieberman: "I'm scared of Stephen Colbert. I'm not alone. My colleagues in Congress, political operatives, the top minds in Washington, even some of the people in this room -- we're all scared of Stephen Colbert... We're scared of Stephen Colbert in the same way Sarah Palin is scared of a geography bee. We're scared of him the same way that John Edwards is scared of the National Enquirer. Mary Matalin is scared of Stephen, and she's seen Carville naked! ... Even Hillary Clinton is scared of Colbert, and this makes no sense to me -- she is a woman who braved sniper fire at the Battle of Bosnia's Airport. We're frightened of Colbert, but we know that deep down, underneath the Republican character you see on TV, there's still a good man, there's still hope for him. It's the same way we feel about Joe Lieberman."

On Sen. Orrin Hatch's musical talents: "Did you know that Orrin is a songwriter much the way Joe is a plumber?"

On DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton: "In Congress, Eleanor is allowed to speak, but doesn't have a real vote or a final say. So she has the same role I used to play with Nancy Pelosi."

On Mark Shields: "He's been called one of the funniest, wittiest political analysts in Washington, which is like being called the sexiest member of the Supreme Court."

* * *

And from Stephen Colbert's speech:

On Judy Woodruff: "Judy, great to see you tonight. I love Judy's work, I haven't seen you lately, where have you been? PBS? Oh that explains it. It's a great place to get away from it all -- especially all the viewers. It's essentially the witness protection program for journalists. If you testify against the mob, they send you to Newshour. Is Jim Lehrer here? Jim Lehrer, the man brave enough to be boring. ... The important thing, Judy, is you're doing good work -- you are helping millions of elderly go to sleep every night. Well, technically it's dozens, a lot of people use the Weather Channel instead."

On Alan Greenspan: "Alan Greenspan is here, and we're in the middle of a once-in-a-century financial meltdown, so of course the question everyone is asking is, How did Alan Greenspan land Andrea Mitchell? Seriously. Keep kissing him, Andrea, he's going to turn into a prince one of these days."

On Ben Bradlee: "Ben Bradlee is here -- nice to see you Ben. Congratulations on your latest children's book, 'Grandpa, What Was Print Media?'"

On Chris Matthews: "Chris Matthews is here tonight, thank you so much for coming here tonight. People are asking, how did he come here, doesn't he have a show? Well what people don't know is that many nights, Chris just puts a blond wig on a potato and nobody notices. You're a good man -- good luck in Pennsylvania on that run."

On Dana Perino: "Dana Perino is here, what an honor to be roasted by the spokesman for the president. Dana Perino, wonderful to see you. I always knew Scott McClellan would hatch into something beautiful. When you crawled out of the McClellan cocoon, did you have to devour the shell for nutrients or is he still lurking around someplace? ... I loved it when you told Helen Thomas that the 'Mission Accomplished' banner should have read, 'Mission Accomplished For These Sailors Who Are On This Ship On Their Mission.' I certainly hope you had a banner for that explanation. Do you get sore the next day after shoveling it that hard? I kid, I kid, but no, Dana, you are the one person who I don't mind slamming me on this entire podium, because I know for the last year and a half you haven't meant anything you've said."

On Bill Clinton: (Speaking to Rahm) "Can I be in your cabinet? If Hillary says no, can I be Secretary of State? I promise I'll be good, I'll just sit in the back of the room, I won't say anything! No special conditions, I'll agree with everything that you say. And I promise, unlike Bill Clinton, if I say something nice about Barack in public, I won't look like I'm trying to pass a stone."

Keith Olbermann on Prop 8

California Prop 8 Letter

by Lorri L. Jean
November 5, 2008

Sadly, fueled by misinformation, distortions and lies, millions of
voters went to the polls yesterday and said YES to bigotry, YES to
discrimination, YES to second-class status for same-sex couples.

As of this morning, more people had voted for Proposition 8 than
against it. The Secretary of State’s office has yet to call the race as
millions of votes remain to be counted. Thus, the No on 8 Campaign is
not calling the race.

While we do not know what the exact margin will be, we do know that
millions of people voted to eliminate the fundamental rights of their
neighbors, colleagues, families and friends.

Yesterday will be judged as a shameful chapter in the history of our
state and our nation. While hope overcame fear in the Presidential
election, fear reigned supreme for millions of California voters.

The Yes campaign engaged in the most immoral and reprehensible tactics
imaginable. They took $40 million dollars--most of it funded by Mormons
at the direction of their Church President--and subjected people in our
state to a constant barrage of lies and distortions. The Mormon Church
was not alone, however, organizations like Focus on the Family, the
Knights of Columbus, and the American Family Association also supported
this hateful initiative.

They couldn’t win with the truth so they resorted to something far more
sinister. They even stooped so low as to distribute a campaign mailer
fraudulently suggesting that President-elect Obama supported their
efforts, when they knew for a fact that he had come out in opposition
to Proposition 8.

That is clearly the only way these anti-gay extremists could advance
their agenda of discrimination and exclusion. Most fair-minded people
find such tactics and concepts absolutely repugnant and more would have
voted "no" were it not for such a deceptive campaign of scare tactics
and lies.

I am angry and enormously sad. And I’ll have more to say once the No on
8 Campaign calls this race. For now, our legal eagles have filed suit
against Proposition 8, which should never have been on the ballot in
the first place.

Amidst all the emotions I am feeling today, I am taking heart in the
fact that no matter the result of this particular battle, the war is
far from over. Of one thing I am certain, the freedom to marry will one
day be the law of the land. Our success is inevitable in time. We will
work ceaselessly to see that this day comes as soon as humanly
possible.

President-Elect Barack Obama in Chicago

November 4, 2008

HISTORY!

California Appears Likely to Ban Gay Marriage

By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD and ABBY GOODNOUGH
Published: November 5, 2008

LOS ANGELES — Measures to prohibit same-sex marriage won in two states on Tuesday, and most significantly, appeared headed for victory in California, where such unions have been legal for nearly the last five months.

Massachusetts voters, meanwhile, rejected a proposal to eliminate the state income tax as voters considered a wealth of ballot initiatives nationwide.

On Wednesday morning, with 95 percent of California precincts reporting, the anti-same sex marriage ballot initiative known as Proposition 8 had 52 percent of the vote but was still considered too close to call. Arizona and Florida voters approved similar proposals to enshrine a ban on same sex marriage in their state constitutions. Voters in 36 states weighed in on 153 ballot measures, including 59 initiated by citizens. Colorado had 14 ballot questions, more than any other state, including whether to ban race- and gender-based affirmative action. Early results showed that proposal would not pass, nor another that would define human life as beginning at fertilization, effectively giving fertilized eggs the same constitutional rights and protections as people

Only three state ballots included questions on same-sex marriage this year, compared with eight in 2006 and 11 in 2004.

But the decision in California, a trend-setter in so many arenas, was seen by opponents and advocates as an important test of the tolerance for gay marriage.

A total of $73 million was spent in the race, a record for a ballot measure on a social issue, resulting in incessant television and radio commercials from both sides. Advocates of the ban played up their belief children could be taught about gay marriage in schools and opponents likened approval of the measure to denying fundamental civil rights.

The measure came only months after the state’s highest court ruled it constitutional and spurred thousands of gay couples to marry there. In Massachusetts voters heeded heeding the pleas of public officials and employees who said it would decimate the state budget and paralyze school systems, police departments and other agencies.

With 70 percent of precincts reporting just before 11 p.m., only 30.6 percent of voters had endorsed the tax repeal while 69.4 percent had rejected it. That suggested a far stronger defeat than in 2002, when a similar proposal came close to passing.

Opponents spent more than $4.5 million fighting the measure, which would have saved the average taxpayer here about $3,600 a year. The income tax provided about 40 percent, or $12.5 billion, of the state’s budget last year, and Gov. Deval Patrick was among many who warned of staggering cuts if it passed. Proponents pointed to recent corruption scandals as evidence that the state routinely squandered tax dollars.

Connecticut voters rejected a plan for the state to hold a rare convention to make changes to its constitution. Opponents of same-sex marriage had expressed hope that a convention could lead to a ballot initiative to ban the practice, which the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled legal last month.

Connecticut is the third state, after Massachusetts and California, to allow marriage between people of the same sex.

In Michigan, voters decided to allow people with illnesses like cancer and multiple sclerosis to use marijuana.

In South Dakota, voters appeared to rebuff a proposal to ban all abortions in the state except those performed because of rape or incest or to protect a woman’s health. The question was almost identical to one the state’s voters rejected in 2006.

Early results showed voters in Arkansas supporting a proposal to bar unmarried couples from adopting or acting as foster parents, which critics said was unfairly aimed at gays. Residents of Washington State were voting on whether to allow assisted suicide for the terminally ill, just as Oregon already does.

In addition to the income tax vote, Massachusetts residents embraced proposals to ban greyhound racing, a longtime tradition in the state, and to ease penalties for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. Maine residents voted to repeal a new law that would increase taxes on beer and wine and impose new taxes on soda to finance the state’s health insurance system.

Among the more unusual measures on this year’s ballots was one in Florida that would repeal an old clause in the state constitution that allows legislators to bar Asian immigrants from owning land. The repeal would be symbolic, as equal protection laws would prevent lawmakers from applying the ban. With 78 percent of precincts reporting just before 11 p.m., the vote was close, with 52 percent voting to preserve the clause.

The Promise: For Many Abroad, an Ideal Renewed

New York Times

By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: November 5, 2008

GAZA — From far away, this is how it looks: There is a country out there where tens of millions of white Christians, voting freely, select as their leader a black man of modest origin, the son of a Muslim. There is a place on Earth — call it America — where such a thing happens.

Even where the United States is held in special contempt, like here in this benighted Palestinian coastal strip, the “glorious epic of Barack Obama,” as the leftist French editor Jean Daniel calls it, makes America — the idea as much as the actual place — stand again, perhaps only fleetingly, for limitless possibility.

“It allows us all to dream a little,” said Oswaldo Calvo, 58, a Venezuelan political activist in Caracas, in a comment echoed to correspondents of The New York Times on four continents in the days leading up to the election.

Tristram Hunt, a British historian, put it this way: Mr. Obama “brings the narrative that everyone wants to return to — that America is the land of extraordinary opportunity and possibility, where miracles happen.”

But wonder is almost overwhelmed by relief. Mr. Obama’s election offers most non-Americans a sense that the imperial power capable of doing such good and such harm — a country that, they complain, preached justice but tortured its captives, launched a disastrous war in Iraq, turned its back on the environment and greedily dragged the world into economic chaos — saw the errors of its ways over the past eight years and shifted course.

They say the country that weakened democratic forces abroad through a tireless but often ineffective campaign for democracy — dismissing results it found unsavory, cutting deals with dictators it needed as allies in its other battles — was now shining a transformative beacon with its own democratic exercise.

It would be hard to overstate how fervently vast stretches of the globe wanted the election to turn out as it did to repudiate the Bush administration and its policies. Poll after poll in country after country showed only a few — Israel, Georgia, the Philippines — favoring a victory for Senator John McCain.

“Since Bush came to power it’s all bam, bam, bam on the Arabs,” asserted Fathi Abdel Hamid, 40, as he sat in a Cairo coffee house.

The world’s view of an Obama presidency presents a paradox. His election embodies what many consider unique about the United States — yet America’s sense of its own specialness, of its destiny and mission, has driven it astray, they say. They want Mr. Obama, the beneficiary and exemplar of American exceptionalism, to act like everyone else, only better, to shift American policy and somehow to project both humility and leadership.

And there are others who fear that Mr. Obama will be soft in a hard-edged world where what is required is a clear line in the sand to fanatics, aggressors and bullies. Israelis worry that he will talk to Iran rather than stop it from developing nuclear weapons; Georgians worry that he will not grasp how to handle Russia.

An Obama presidency, they say, risks appeasement. It will “reassure Europeans of their defects,” lamented Giuliano Ferrara, editor of the Italian right-wing daily Il Foglio.

Such contradictory demands and expectations may reflect, in part, the unusual makeup of a man of mixed race and origin whose life and upbringing have touched several continents.

“People feel he is a part of them because he has this multiracial, multiethnic and multinational dimension,” said Philippe Sands, a British international lawyer and author who travels frequently, adding that people find some thread of their own hopes and ideals in Mr. Obama. “He represents, for people in so many different communities and cultures, a personal connection. There is an immigrant component and a minority component.”

Francis Nyamnjoh, a Cameroonian novelist and social scientist, said he saw Mr. Obama less as a black man than “as a successful negotiator of identity margins.”

His ability to inhabit so many categories mirrors the African experience. Mr. Nyamnjoh said that for America to choose as its citizen in chief such a skillful straddler of global identities could not help but transform the nation’s image, making it once again the screen upon which the hopes and ambitions of the world are projected.

Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at the People’s University of China, said Mr. Obama’s background, particularly his upbringing in Indonesia, made him suited to understanding the problems facing the world’s poorer nations.

He and others say they hope the next American president will see their place more firmly within the community of nations, engaging in what Jairam Ramesh, junior commerce minister in the Indian government, called “genuine multilateralism and not in muscular unilateralism.”

Assuming Mr. Obama does play by international rules more fully, as he has promised, can his government live up to all the expectations?

“We have so many hopes and wishes that he will never be able to fulfill them,” said Susanne Grieshaber, 40, an art adviser in Berlin who was one of 200,000 Germans to attend a speech by Mr. Obama there in July. She cited action to protect the environment, reducing the use of force and helping the less fortunate. In essence, she wants Mr. Obama to make his country more like hers. But she is sober. “I’m preparing myself for the fact that peace and happiness are not going to suddenly break out,” she said.

Many in less developed countries — especially in the Arab world — agree that Mr. Obama will not carry out their wishes regarding American policy toward Israel and much else, and so they shrug off the results as ultimately making little difference.

“We will be optimistic for two months but that’s it,” predicted Huda Naim, 38, a member of the Hamas parliament here who said her 15-year-old son had watched Mr. Obama’s rise with rapt attention.

But some remain darkly suspicious of the election itself. They doubted that Mr. Obama could be nominated or elected. Now they doubt that he will govern. The skeptics say they believe that American policy is deeply institutionalized and that if Mr. Obama tries to shift it, “they” — the media, the corporate robber barons, the hidden powers — will box him in or even kill him.

“I am afraid for him,” said Alberto Müller Rojas, a retired Venezuelan Army general and the vice president of President Hugo Chávez’s Unified Socialist Party. “The pressures he will face from certain sectors of society, especially from white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, will be enormous.”

Part of that fear stems from genuine if distant affection.

“He has charisma, he’s good-looking, he’s very smart, he’s young and he knows how to make people like him, to the point that when he went to bow down to the Israelis, people here still made excuses for him,” said Nawara Negm, an Egyptian writer and blogger.

There is another paradox about the world’s view of the election of Mr. Obama: many who are quick to condemn the United States for its racist past and now congratulate it for a milestone fail to acknowledge the same problem in their own societies, and so do not see how this election could offer them any lessons about themselves.

In Russia, for example, where Soviet leaders used to respond to any American criticism of human rights violation with “But you hang Negroes,” analysts note that the election of Mr. Obama removes a stain. But they speak of it without reference to their own treatment of ethnic minorities.

“Definitely, this will improve America’s image in Russia,” said Sergey M. Rogov, director of the Institute for U.S.A. and Canada Studies in Moscow. “There was this perception before of widespread racism in America, deeply rooted racism.”

In Nigeria, a vast, populous and diverse collection of states, Reuben Abati, an influential columnist, has written, “Nigerians love good things in other lands, even if they are not making any effort to reproduce the same at home,” adding, “If Obama had been a Nigerian, his race, color and age would have been an intractable problem.”

So foreigners are watching closely, hoping that despite what they consider the hypocrisies and inconsistencies, the nation they once imagined would stand as a model for the future will, with greater sensitivity and less force, help solve the world’s problems.

There is a risk, however, to all the extraordinary international attention paid to this most international of American politicians: Mr. Obama’s focus will almost certainly be on the reeling domestic economy, housing and health care. Will he be able even to lift his head and gaze abroad to all those with such high expectations?

Reporting was contributed by Rachel Donadio from Rome; Steven Erlanger from Paris; Nazila Fathi from Tehran; Isabel Kershner from Jerusalem; Nicholas Kulish from Berlin; Clifford J. Levy from Moscow; Sarah Lyall from Reykjavik, Iceland; Lydia Polgreen from Dakar, Senegal; Simon Romero from Caracas, Venezuela; Somini Sengupta from New Delhi; Michael Slackman from Cairo; Sabrina Tavernise from Istanbul and Kiev, Ukraine; Edward Wong from Beijing; and Robert F. Worth from Sana, Yemen.

Michael Moore's Post Election Letter

November 5, 2008

Friends,

Who among us is not at a loss for words? Tears pour out. Tears of joy. Tears of relief. A stunning, whopping landslide of hope in a time of deep despair.

In a nation that was founded on genocide and then built on the backs of slaves, it was an unexpected moment, shocking in its simplicity: Barack Obama, a good man, a black man, said he would bring change to Washington, and the majority of the country liked that idea. The racists were present throughout the campaign and in the voting booth. But they are no longer the majority, and we will see their flame of hate fizzle out in our lifetime.

There was another important "first" last night. Never before in our history has an avowed anti-war candidate been elected president during a time of war. I hope President-elect Obama remembers that as he considers expanding the war in Afghanistan. The faith we now have will be lost if he forgets the main issue on which he beat his fellow Dems in the primaries and then a great war hero in the general election: The people of America are tired of war. Sick and tired. And their voice was loud and clear yesterday.

It's been an inexcusable 44 years since a Democrat running for president has received even just 51% of the vote. That's because most Americans haven't really liked the Democrats. They see them as rarely having the guts to get the job done or stand up for the working people they say they support. Well, here's their chance. It has been handed to them, via the voting public, in the form of a man who is not a party hack, not a set-for-life Beltway bureaucrat. Will he now become one of them, or will he force them to be more like him? We pray for the latter.

But today we celebrate this triumph of decency over personal attack, of peace over war, of intelligence over a belief that Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs just 6,000 years ago. What will it be like to have a smart president? Science, banished for eight years, will return. Imagine supporting our country's greatest minds as they seek to cure illness, discover new forms of energy, and work to save the planet. I know, pinch me.

We may, just possibly, also see a time of refreshing openness, enlightenment and creativity. The arts and the artists will not be seen as the enemy. Perhaps art will be explored in order to discover the greater truths. When FDR was ushered in with his landslide in 1932, what followed was Frank Capra and Preston Sturgis, Woody Guthrie and John Steinbeck, Dorothea Lange and Orson Welles. All week long I have been inundated with media asking me, "gee, Mike, what will you do now that Bush is gone?" Are they kidding? What will it be like to work and create in an environment that nurtures and supports film and the arts, science and invention, and the freedom to be whatever you want to be? Watch a thousand flowers bloom! We've entered a new era, and if I could sum up our collective first thought of this new era, it is this: Anything Is Possible.

An African American has been elected President of the United States! Anything is possible! We can wrestle our economy out of the hands of the reckless rich and return it to the people. Anything is possible! Every citizen can be guaranteed health care. Anything is possible! We can stop melting the polar ice caps. Anything is possible! Those who have committed war crimes will be brought to justice. Anything is possible.

We really don't have much time. There is big work to do. But this is the week for all of us to revel in this great moment. Be humble about it. Do not treat the Republicans in your life the way they have treated you the past eight years. Show them the grace and goodness that Barack Obama exuded throughout the campaign. Though called every name in the book, he refused to lower himself to the gutter and sling the mud back. Can we follow his example? I know, it will be hard.

I want to thank everyone who gave of their time and resources to make this victory happen. It's been a long road, and huge damage has been done to this great country, not to mention to many of you who have lost your jobs, gone bankrupt from medical bills, or suffered through a loved one being shipped off to Iraq. We will now work to repair this damage, and it won't be easy.

But what a way to start! Barack Hussein Obama, the 44th President of the United States. Wow. Seriously, wow.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.com

Paulson's Swindle Revealed

Wednesday 29 October 2008
by: William Greider, The Nation

The swindle of American taxpayers is proceeding more or less in broad daylight, as the unwitting voters are preoccupied with the national election. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson agreed to invest $125 billion in the nine largest banks, including $10 billion for Goldman Sachs, his old firm. But, if you look more closely at Paulson's transaction, the taxpayers were taken for a ride - a very expensive ride. They paid $125 billion for bank stock that a private investor could purchase for $62.5 billion. That means half of the public's money was a straight-out gift to Wall Street, for which taxpayers got nothing in return.

These are dynamite facts that demand immediate action to halt the bailout deal and correct its giveaway terms. Stop payment on the Treasury checks before the bankers can cash them. Open an immediate Congressional investigation into how Paulson and his staff determined such a sweetheart deal for leading players in the financial sector and for their own former employer. Paulson's bailout staff is heavily populated with Goldman Sachs veterans and individuals from other Wall Street firms. Yet we do not know whether these financiers have fully divested their own Wall Street holdings. Were they perhaps enriching themselves as they engineered this generous distribution of public wealth to embattled private banks and their shareholders?

Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, raised these explosive questions in a stinging letter sent to Paulson this week. The union did what any private investor would do. Its finance experts vetted the terms of the bailout investment and calculated the real value of what Treasury bought with the public's money. In the case of Goldman Sachs, the analysis could conveniently rely on a comparable sale twenty days earlier. Billionaire Warren Buffett invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs and bought the same types of securities - preferred stock and warrants to purchase common stock in the future. Only Buffett's preferred shares pay a 10 percent dividend, while the public gets only 5 percent. Dollar for dollar, Buffett "received at least seven and perhaps up to 14 times more warrants than Treasury did and his warrants have more favorable terms," Gerard pointed out.

"I am sure that someone at Treasury saw the terms of Buffett's investment," the union president wrote. "In fact, my suspicion is that you studied it pretty closely and knew exactly what you were doing. The 50-50 deal - 50 percent invested and 50 percent as a gift - is quite consistent with the Republican version of spread-the-wealth-around philosophy."

The Steelworkers' close analysis was done by Ron W. Bloom, director of the union's corporate research and a Wall Street veteran himself who worked at Larzard Freres, the investment house. Bloom applied standard valuation techniques to establish the market price Buffett paid per share compared to Treasury's price. "The analysis is based on the assumption that Warren Buffett is an intelligent third party investor who paid no more for his investment than he had to," Bloom's report explained. "It also assumes that Gold Sachs' job is to protect its existing shareholders so that it extracted from Mr. Buffett the most that it could.... Further, it is assumed that Henry Paulson is likewise an intelligent man and that if he paid any more than Mr. Buffett - if he paid $1 for something for which Mr. Buffett would have paid 50 cents - that the difference is a gift from the taxpayers of the United States to the shareholders of Goldman Sachs."

The implications are staggering. Leo Gerard told Paulson: "If the result of our analysis is applied to the deals that you made at the other eight institutions - which on average most would view as being less well positioned than Goldman and therefore requiring an even greater rate of return - you paid a$125 billion for securities for which a disinterested party would have paid $62.5 billion. That means you gifted the other $62.5 billion to the shareholders of these nine institutions."

If the same rule of thumb is applied to Paulson's grand $700 billion bailout fund, Gerard said this will constitute a gift of $350 billion from the American taxpayers "to reward the institutions that have driven our nation and it now appears the whole world into its most serious economic crisis in 75 years."

Is anyone angry? Will anyone look into these very serious accusations? Congress is off campaigning. The financiers at Treasury probably assume any public outrage will be lost in the election returns. I hope they are mistaken.

--------
William Greider has been a political journalist for more than thirty-five years. A former Rolling Stone and Washington Post editor, he is the author of the national bestsellers One World, Ready or Not, Secrets of the Temple, Who Will Tell The People, The Soul of Capitalism (Simon & Schuster) and - due out in February from Rodale - Come Home, America.

I now denounce you Chuck & Larry

John Stewart
The Daily Show

So Little Time, So Much Damage

Nov. 3, 2008
The New York Times, Editorial

While Americans eagerly vote for the next president, here’s a sobering reminder: As of Tuesday, George W. Bush still has 77 days left in the White House — and he’s not wasting a minute.

President Bush’s aides have been scrambling to change rules and regulations on the environment, civil liberties and abortion rights, among others — few for the good. Most presidents put on a last-minute policy stamp, but in Mr. Bush’s case it is more like a wrecking ball. We fear it could take months, or years, for the next president to identify and then undo all of the damage.

Here is a look — by no means comprehensive — at some of Mr. Bush’s recent parting gifts and those we fear are yet to come.

CIVIL LIBERTIES We don’t know all of the ways that the administration has violated Americans’ rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Last month, Attorney General Michael Mukasey rushed out new guidelines for the F.B.I. that permit agents to use chillingly intrusive techniques to collect information on Americans even where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Agents will be allowed to use informants to infiltrate lawful groups, engage in prolonged physical surveillance and lie about their identity while questioning a subject’s neighbors, relatives, co-workers and friends. The changes also give the F.B.I. — which has a long history of spying on civil rights groups and others — expanded latitude to use these techniques on people identified by racial, ethnic and religious background.

The administration showed further disdain for Americans’ privacy rights and for Congress’s power by making clear that it will ignore a provision in the legislation that established the Department of Homeland Security. The law requires the department’s privacy officer to account annually for any activity that could affect Americans’ privacy — and clearly stipulates that the report cannot be edited by any other officials at the department or the White House.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has now released a memo asserting that the law “does not prohibit” officials from homeland security or the White House from reviewing the report. The memo then argues that since the law allows the officials to review the report, it would be unconstitutional to stop them from changing it. George Orwell couldn’t have done better.

THE ENVIRONMENT The administration has been especially busy weakening regulations that promote clean air and clean water and protect endangered species.

Mr. Bush, or more to the point, Vice President Dick Cheney, came to office determined to dismantle Bill Clinton’s environmental legacy, undo decades of environmental law and keep their friends in industry happy. They have had less success than we feared, but only because of the determined opposition of environmental groups, courageous members of Congress and protests from citizens. But the White House keeps trying.

Mr. Bush’s secretary of the interior, Dirk Kempthorne, has recently carved out significant exceptions to regulations requiring expert scientific review of any federal project that might harm endangered or threatened species (one consequence will be to relieve the agency of the need to assess the impact of global warming on at-risk species). The department also is rushing to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list — again. The wolves were re-listed after a federal judge ruled the government had not lived up to its own recovery plan.

In coming weeks, we expect the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a final rule that would weaken a program created by the Clean Air Act, which requires utilities to install modern pollution controls when they upgrade their plants to produce more power. The agency is also expected to issue a final rule that would make it easier for coal-fired power plants to locate near national parks in defiance of longstanding Congressional mandates to protect air quality in areas of special natural or recreational value.

Interior also is awaiting E.P.A.’s concurrence on a proposal that would make it easier for mining companies to dump toxic mine wastes in valleys and streams.

And while no rules changes are at issue, the interior department also has been rushing to open up millions of acres of pristine federal land to oil and gas exploration. We fear that, in coming weeks, Mr. Kempthorne will open up even more acreage to the commercial development of oil shale, a hugely expensive and environmentally risky process that even the oil companies seem in no hurry to begin. He should not.
ABORTION RIGHTS Soon after the election, Michael Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, is expected to issue new regulations aimed at further limiting women’s access to abortion, contraceptives and information about their reproductive health care options.

Existing law allows doctors and nurses to refuse to participate in an abortion. These changes would extend the so-called right to refuse to a wide range of health care workers and activities including abortion referrals, unbiased counseling and provision of birth control pills or emergency contraception, even for rape victims.

•

The administration has taken other disturbing steps in recent weeks. In late September, the I.R.S. restored tax breaks for banks that take big losses on bad loans inherited through acquisitions. Now we learn that JPMorgan Chase and others are planning to use their bailout funds for mergers and acquisitions, transactions that will be greatly enhanced by the new tax subsidy.

One last-minute change Mr. Bush won’t be making: He apparently has decided not to shut down the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — the most shameful symbol of his administration’s disdain for the rule of law.

Mr. Bush has said it should be closed, and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and his secretary of defense, Robert Gates, pushed for it. Proposals were prepared, including a plan for sending the real bad guys to other countries for trial. But Mr. Cheney objected, and the president has refused even to review the memos. He will hand this mess off to his successor.

We suppose there is some good news in all of this. While Mr. Bush leaves office on Jan. 20, 2009, he has only until Nov. 20 to issue “economically significant” rule changes and until Dec. 20 to issue other changes. Anything after that is merely a draft and can be easily withdrawn by the next president.

Unfortunately, the White House is well aware of those deadlines.