Tax Tea Party T-Shirts. Starting at 13.99. Order secure from our Online Store at zazzle.com.Choose from dozens of styles and colors combinations.
Available from CafePress for 13.99.
Authentic Gadsden Flag “Don’t Tread on Me” T-Shirts.
Excellent Quality Tees at our Online Store at Zazzle.com.
Buy Authentic Gadsden Flag T-Shirts from our Secure Online Store at Zazzle.com.
Authentic Gadsden Flag “Don’t Tread on Me” T-Shirts.
Iraqi Reporter Throws Shoe At President Bush
President George Bush Today dodged two shoes that were thrown at him by an Iraqi reporter. The president displayed some awesome reflexes by quickly dodging the fast moving shoes which were thrown at a close distance. The president quickly joked; “All I can report is that it was a size 10.” Watch the video at here.
Posted on the Huffington post of all places
President-elect Barack Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had direct conversations with Gov. Rod Blagojevich about Obama’s replacement in the US Senate, FOX News Chicago reports.
Citing “a source familiar with the investigation,” Fox says that Emanuel had “multiple conversations” with Blagojevich and his chief of staff John Harris, who was also arrested Tuesday on federal corruption charges, about the seat and that they we’re “likely recorded and in FBI possession.”
Fox’s source said that Emanuel gave the governor’s office a list of “candidates that would be acceptable to President-elect Barack Obama” but no “quid pro quo” or “dealmaking” is suspected.
Meanwhile, an angry Emanuel says he won’t go to work because of the media stakeout. He told an ABC News cameraman that has received death threats:
The President-elect’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said today he won’t go to the Chicago Presidential transition offices in order to avoid reporters seeking to ask him whether he had contact with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich about the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama’s election.
Emanuel appeared “beet-red,” according to an ABC News cameraman who was invited inside by Emmanuel to use his bathroom this morning.“I’m getting regular death threats. You’ve put my home address on national television. I’m pissed at the networks. You’ve intruded too much, ” Emanuel said, according to the cameraman.
Emanuel has refused to comment as to whether he is the un-named Presidential advisor cited in the FBI affidavit filed in the Blagojevich case. “You’re wasting your time,” Emanuel told a Chicago Sun-Times reporter yesterday. “I’m not going to say a word to you. I’m going to do this with my children. Don’t do that. I’m a father. I have two kids. I’m not going to do it.”
By ALLAHPUNDIT at HotAir.com.
Ed Rendell conveniently frames The One’s cautious handling of this as an amateur mistake that’s destined to prolong the coverage. Really? Amateurishness isn’t the first quality that springs to mind when I think of someone like Axelrod. Nor does the infamously combative Rahm Emanuel strike me as the type to be cowed into silence by death threats. Here’s a radical alternative theory: Maybe they’re honestly worried that someone on the team’s exposed and don’t want to give the press any new crumbs until they have their story straight.
Obama’s staff has declined to respond to even basic questions, like who is conducting the probe, how long it will take, what issues are being explored and whether they are working with federal investigators. Obama has promised transparency throughout his service and to divulge contacts his staff has had with Blagojevich’s office in the coming days. But his staff has locked down on inquiries in the meantime…
Emanuel is not a target of the probe, according to people who have been briefed on the investigation.
The two people spoke on a condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation is ongoing. One is a person close to Emanuel, who said he has been told by investigators that he’s not a subject of their probe…
Another question that Obama’s staff didn’t answer is how he knows that his office had no involvement if he had yet to gather all the facts about conversations they had with Blagojevich’s office. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, transition officials said they do not want to release any information on the internal review until it is completed.
My hunch is the same as Maguire’s — that someone on the team was approached by Blago to make a deal, that the offer was rejected, but that that person then neglected to tell Fitzgerald about it. Is that illegal, i.e. misprision of felony, or just shady? Such are the questions Team Barry may find itself momentarily consumed by.
In case you’re wondering, no, Obama’s approval rating hasn’t suffered from this at all.
The categorical denials coming from Barack Obama on the Rod Blagojevich pay-to-play scandal took another hit today from the Chicago Tribune. Two sources confirm that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s new chief of staff, had a number of conversations with Blagojevich chief of staff John Harris to discuss acceptable candidates to fill the rest of Obama’s Senate term. These conversations got captured by federal wiretaps and will likely be reviewed by a grand jury looking to indict people on corruption charges:
Rahm Emanuel, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick to be White House chief of staff, had conversations with Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration about who would replace Obama in the U.S. Senate, the Tribune has learned.
The revelation does not suggest Obama’s new gatekeeper was involved in any talk of dealmaking involving the seat. But it does help fill in the gaps surrounding a question that Obama was unable or unwilling to answer this week: Did anyone on his staff have contact with Blagojevich about his choice for the Senate seat? …
One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps.
Another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor’s administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris. The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.
Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.
Sometime after the election, Emanuel called Harris back to add the name of Democratic Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan to the approved list, the source said.
As I wrote this week, no one would be surprised to hear that Emanuel and Obama had enough interest in the latter’s replacement to get in contact with the man who would normally make that appointment, Governor Blagojevich. After all, the composition of the Senate matters a great deal to Obama, who needs to ensure that his agenda gets the most support possible in the next two years. Given the corruption in Illinois politics, it might make it even more important to get involved in the process early to avoid getting someone who would embarrass the administration at a later point in time, especially with Patrick Fitzgerald’s years-long probe into Illinois politics still ongoing.
However, Barack Obama and his team chose not to give that honest and common-sense explanation. Instead, they issued categorical denials that Obama and his staff had contacted Blagojevich or his staff about the succession. It’s a mystifying claim, and one that will apparently get proven false fairly easily. Now, instead of just saying that contact existed but that no one had tried making deals, they have thrown away their credibility on a very foolish point — which will lead to the conclusion that Team Obama has something very significant to hide.
Now it comes down to the Watergate question for both Emanuel and Obama: What did they know, and when did they know it? Did Emanuel’s conversations with Harris or anyone else involve discussions of quid pro quo? Team Obama will deny it, but they spent all of this week denying any conversations took place, and only the most gullible will believe denials from this point forward. The wiretaps will go to the grand jury, and we will see whether Emanuel got himself caught in Fitzgerald’s nets.
If he did discuss quid pro quo and didn’t report it to the feds, Emanuel may or may not have committed a crime, but Obama will have no choice but to fire him. And axing a Chief of Staff before even taking the oath of office does not lend much confidence in either the competence nor the honesty of the new President.
Update: Here’s what Obama said in his December 11th statement:
I had no contact with the governor’s office. I did not speak to the governor about these issues, that I know for certain. What I want to do is to gather all the facts about any staff contacts that may have taken place between the transition office and the governor’s office, and we’ll have those in the next few days and we’ll present them. But what I’m absolutely certain about is that our office had no involvement in any deal-making around my Senate seat. That, I’m absolutely certain of, and that would be a violation of everything this campaign has been about. That’s not how we do business.
So Obama said in one part that he himself hat no contact with the governor’s office or the governor regarding the appointment, which makes sense, because he’s got other issues to handle. He then claims that his office “had no involvement in any deal-making around my Senate seat.” If that’s true, then what was Emanuel discussing with Harris — and how did Blagojevich know that they wouldn’t give him anything but their appreciation? From the complaint, it doesn’t sound like an assumption Blagojevich made. (Hat tip: HA reader David M)
By JIM VANDEHEI & MIKE ALLEN
President-elect Obama made official the worst-kept secret in Washington this morning: that his national security team will be headlined by a bitter political rival (Clinton) and a member of President Bush’s war cabinet (Gates).
Beyond the obvious symbolism, however, Monday’s moves also offer some important evidence on the best-kept secret of the past two years: how will a President Obama actually govern in these troubled times?
The parlor game of who gets what job is largely over, save a few of the less prestigious cabinet gigs. Here is what today’s announcement – combined with the unveiling of his top White House staff and economic team – tell us about the 44th president as he prepares to take over.
• He is an intellectual, who is more impressed by academic and governing credentials than familiarity and loyalty.
New York Times columnist David Brooks nailed it recently when he called the emerging cabinet a “valedictocracy”: a team of the nation’s first-in-class Ivy League elites. He meant it as a compliment. He’s not alone: it’s hard to find Republicans who don’t express admiration (at least in private) for the emerging Obama team.
Of the 18 top appointments announced so far, 12 have degrees from Ivy League institutions, Stanford or MIT. Susan Rice was a Rhodes Scholar; Larry Summers was the youngest tenured professor in Harvard history and Greg Craig, the top White House lawyer, attended Exeter, Harvard, Cambridge and Yale.
Few of the early picks could be considered Obama loyalists. Hillary Rodham Clinton thought she would be banished to the outer reaches of Obama’s world. Now, she’s secretary of state. Robert Gates thought he was headed for retirement. Now, he will run war policy for anti-war Obama. The victor has proved to be anything but vindictive.
There could be a cost to having so many high achievers around the same table. Bush’s war Cabinet was also praised for its experience and gravitas, but wound up being a dysfunctional snake pit.
• He is willing to take big risks.
His economic and national-security teams are getting packed with huge personalities who see themselves as architects, not assembly-line workers. The potential for big clashes in tough times is high. But so is the potential for big results.
Hillary Clinton could be a fabulous world diplomat, considering her familiarity with leaders and global problems. She could also be a disaster if the Clinton family’s penchant for personal and political dramas distract the Obama presidency. Gates could be the perfect man to end the Iraq war: A Bush appointee with strong ties to the GOP establishment. Or he could clash with the new, outsized personalities around him. And don’t forget: Joe Biden is vice president and deference isn’t his specialty.
Ego management will also be a necessity on the economic team. Lawrence Summers, who will be the White House economic adviser, was so harshly critical of colleagues when he was Clinton’s Treasury secretary that the president himself once urged him to stay respectful of colleagues at a cabinet meeting, Democrats recalled. Tim Geithner, the new Treasury secretary, worked under Summers in the Clinton years. Now it’s Geithner who’ll be the public face of the economic team - and former colleagues are imagining a delicate dance between the headstrong mentor and his former protégé. .
He is very focused on governing—and prefers persuasion to force.
Obama inherits what every president dreams of: a Congress controlled by his party and with strong majorities. Unlike Bush, he seems to genuinely care what they think.
Many Republicans resented the way Bush simply dismissed the power and input of Congress. He saw his victories as mandates to implement his agenda and was dismissive of naysayers in either party. Obama seems to making a different calculation: Democrats can win big if they proceed with something resembling a parliamentary approach to governance.
Don’t look right at her! Hillary Clinton was announced as Secretary of Snake. Today, we have launched our Hillusa: Secretary of Snake Campaign. Just as we have and continue to use the Obama Hood Cartoon we will get this to the masses. I encourage anyone with their own blog to download the image and post. Make sure to use tags that say Hillary Clinton Secretary of State + Secretary of Snake. If you don’t have your own blog, you can post it on forums. This campaign will be centered around this image appearing in search results for Hillary as Secretary of State.
“If you would like other sizes of the image, email contact@obamahood.org. “
By MIKE ALLEN at Politico.com:
It’s finally official: President-elect Obama will appear with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in Chicago on Monday as he names her secretary of state, a remarkable reunion of once-bitter rivals.
The news conference at a Chicago hotel is scheduled to begin at 10:40 a.m. Eastern.
Also attending will be Robert M. Gates, President Bush’s Defense Secretary, who will remain at the Pentagon. Clinton and Gates are part of a national security team stocked with some of the best-known names in government. The officials said that Obama is also naming Eric H. Holder Jr., the former number-two-official at the Justice Department, as attorney general; Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as secretary of Homeland Security; Susan E. Rice, the Obama campaign’s senior foreign policy adviser, as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser.
The “Team of Rivals” war cabinet is very experienced and will have great credibility with the military and with allies abroad, but it constitutes several distinct power centers that could lead to clashes in tough times.
Obama’s transition team gave the green light to Clinton’s nomination after lawyers worked out a remarkable agreement addressing potential conflicts of interest for former President Bill Clinton, who has extensive financial ties abroad.
Most remarkably, the former president agreed to release the long-secret list of 208,000 donors to his presidential library and foundation. As one of nine concessions, he has promised to put out the list by the end of the year.
“It speaks to President Clinton’s willingness to do more than what’s asked of him,” said a Democratic official familiar with the protracted negotiations between Clinton emissaries and Obama transition aides.
The agreement was negotiated by Cheryl Mills, Robert Barnett, Bruce Lindsey and Doug Band on the Clinton side and John Podesta and Todd Stern on the Obama side.
Here’s the full text of the internal guidance about the agreement:
“At the request of President-elect Obama, and to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest between the work of President Clinton and the service of Hillary Clinton should she be nominated and confirmed as Secretary of State, President Clinton is taking the following steps above and beyond the requirements of current laws and regulations.
— The Clinton Foundation will publish the names of everyone who has contributed since its founding in 1997 (this year).
— Should Senator Clinton be nominated and confirmed as Secretary of State, during her time of service, the Foundation will also publish the names of everyone who contributes going forward on an annual basis.
— The Foundation will separately incorporate CGI [the Clinton Global Initiative] from the Foundation; President Clinton will continue to host CGI gatherings, such as the one in NYC and its meetings for college and university students, as Founding Chairman of CGI.
— Although President Clinton will continue to invite participants to CGI events (which involves normal registration fees), he will not solicit ’sponsorship’ contributions for CGI.
— CGI will also not host annual events outside the US and CGI will not solicit or accept foreign government contributions.
— Given the extensive and life-saving work of the Clinton Foundation’s HIV/AIDS Initiative which can and should continue, the Foundation will continue to fulfill its commitments funded by foreign governments (including, among others, Sweden Norway, France, Great Britain). In the event an existing contributing country chooses to substantially increase its commitment, or a new country, or government-owned entity, decides to contribute, the Foundation will share such proposed contributions with the State Department ethics officials. State may also share the issue to the WH Counsel’s office for review. To whatever extent there are conflict of interest concerns raised about such potential contributions related to Senator Clinton’s service as Secretary, they will be conveyed to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation for appropriate action.
— Same procedure to be followed for any foreign country contributors to CCI [Clinton Climate Initiative], CGSCI [Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative] and CHDI [Clinton Hunter Development Initiative].
— Regarding President Clinton’s private work, during her tenure, President Clinton will share proposed hosts of speeches with the State Department ethics officials for their review, and as appropriate for review by the White House Counsel. Again, should there be conflict of interest concerns related to the Senator’s anticipated service as Secretary, they will share those concerns with Senator and President Clinton for appropriate action.
— During her tenure as Secretary of State, should she be nominated and confirmed, President Clinton will share any proposed consultant relationships with State Department ethics officials, and the same procedures outlined above will apply here as well.
“None of these protocols is required by any law, and all of them go above and beyond the requirements of the law to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. The procedures are, of course, in addition, to the already extensive laws and regulations government the activities of spouses of federal officials (such as those outlined in 5 USC 208 and related regulations).”
Peter O’Neil, Europe Correspondent, Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, November 27, 2008
PARIS - There is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries, including Canada.
Results of the poll were released this week in advance of the start of a major international conference in Poland where delegates are considering steps toward a new international climate-change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
There already are reports emerging that some countries, such as coal-dependent Poland, are pushing for special treatment to avoid making major commitments to slash carbon emissions during a global economic downturn.Less than half of those surveyed, or 47 per cent, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions, down from 58 per cent last year.
Only 37 per cent said they were willing to spend “extra time” on the effort, an eight-point drop.
And only one in five respondents - or 20 per cent - said they’d spend extra money to reduce climate change. That’s down from 28 per cent a year ago.
The Canadian results, from a poll of 1,000 respondents conducted in September, were virtually identical to the overall figures. There are no comparative figures for Canada because Canadians weren’t included in the global study in 2007.
The 11 countries surveyed were Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States. There were 2,000 respondents surveyed in China, including 1,000 in Hong Kong.
The survey was conducted as part of a joint collaboration between the financial institution HSBC and environmental groups, such as the Earthwatch Institute.
“There’s consumer reluctance that’s creeping in, and we’ve seen that some are being stunned into inaction by the enormity of the task,” said Earthwatch executive vice-president Nigel Winser.
Results of the poll suggested that 55 per cent of respondents in the 11 countries said their governments should be doing more by investing in renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and wave power.
That’s more than double the 27 per cent who wanted their governments to participate in Kyoto-style international agreements to reduce emissions.
In Canada, the same portion favoured renewable-energy options, while 32 per cent supported collective international efforts.
“People believe governments are focusing too much attention on indirect actions that pass responsibility for climate change onto others, such as increasing taxes on fossil fuels, encouraging individual environmentally friendly activities and participating in international negotiations, such as the Kyoto Protocol,” the report said.
“More needs to be done to inform consumers about measures such as green taxation or carbon trading to help them understand how tangible these can be.”
The poll helps explain why outgoing Liberal Leader Stephane Dion had so much difficulty during the election campaign trying to sell his Green Shift platform that proposed a carbon tax in order to encourage emission reductions.
Earthwatch’s Winser said the silver lining in the poll was that it stresses public dissatisfaction with the performance of all governments.
“We welcome this survey because it shows that individuals want their governments to do more.”
HSBC was unable to provide the poll’s margin of error.
Obama campaigned and won the election by telling a majority of voters in this country exactly what they wanted to hear. Every move was calculated. Every position was based on the latest polling numbers. He won by campaigning on raising taxes for only 5% of Americans and cutting taxes on 95%. In a society that has moved more and more towards a belief that the government owes them something and lives by the “I got mine” mentality - This Works! When everyone was mad at Wall Street, Obama ripped into Wall Street. If gas prices were too high, he ripped into the “evil” oil companies. Furthermore, he convinced a majority of drones in this country that the war in Iraq was lost and we should pull out in retreat knowing full well he was never going to pull out.
By JONATHAN MARTIN at Polico.com:
Leading opponents of the war have mostly been silent as president-elect Barack Obama, who first built his national image on the foundation of his early opposition to the Iraq war, assembles a group of national security hands that is anything but a team of doves.
It’s a disorienting moment for the peace wing of the Democratic Party, at once elated America selected a new president opposed to the Iraq war and momentarily disoriented by the imminent removal of a commander-in-chief whose every action they’ve opposed for the past eight years.
“Shock has paralyzed them for the moment,” said Steven Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation who writes The Washington Note, a popular foreign policy blog. “We are in an Obama bubble now. And it’s tough to step out and be first to deflate the bubble.”
Especially, he added, before that bubble takes shape.
“You’ve got some people like myself who are saying there may be an interesting design in what Obama is trying to do. Maybe it doesn’t fit easily in a neatly sculpted box of liberal pacifist and warmonger hawk. Maybe it’s more complex than that.”
Still, it’s clearly a team that tilts to the right of Democratic foreign policy thought.
Vice-president-elect Joe Biden initially backed the war in Iraq and has supported other military interventions in his long Senate career. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton also supported the Iraq war resolution, a vote that Obama framed as a critical failure of judgement during the primary. She’s also taken a harder line on Iran than the president-elect—and is in line to be his Secretary of State.
Jim Jones, a retired Marine General who advised Clinton, Obama and John McCain during the campaign and has refused to disclose his partisan leanings, is slated for National Security Adviser. And running the Pentagon? For at least the first year of his administration, it’s virtually certain that the new president will retain Robert Gates—the Secretary of Defense appointed by President Bush.
Liberals scored one victory, though, when a top candidate to take over the CIA withdrew from consideration this week after concerns surfaced over his views on the agency’s interrogation methods. In a letter taking his name out of consideration, John Brennan said he didn’t want to be a “distraction” to the president-elect.
Yet most leaders on the left are keeping to themselves any criticisms of the centrist quartet that will help shape and implement Obama’s foreign policy.
For now there is a measure of trust from liberals who believe Obama will hold to the principles he espoused during the campaign: end the war in Iraq, negotiate with adversaries and restore America’s standing in the global community.
“We should have a simple sign on our wall saying, ‘It’s the policy stupid,’” said Tom Andrews, the former Maine congressman, riffing off James Carville’s 1992 Clinton campaign mantra. “Many will give President-elect Obama the benefit of the doubt about who is executing the policy as long as there is no comprise or backtracking on the policy itself,” added Andrews, who now heads the group “Win Without War.”
There is, Andrews noted, a reluctance to carp before Obama is even sworn in. “He hasn’t been president for one second yet,” the former congressman observed.
Progressives who knew Obama before his ascent onto the national stage also suggest that he’s remaining on the same course he’s always charted – one that hews closer to the middle than those on the right will give him credit for or those on the left would prefer.
Maryiln Katz, a veteran of the peace movement dating back to her days as a member of Students for a Democratic Society, helped organize the October 2002 rally in Chicago’s Federal Plaza where Obama declared his opposition to what he called a “dumb war.”
But, Katz recalled, the then-state senator also made certain to point out he was no pacifist.
“He asserted his own position in contradiction to [the] anti-war movement,” she said. “He wasn’t us. He didn’t pander to the crowd.”
But Katz, a well-connected Chicago public-relations executive, said that some liberals chose to ignore the part of the speech where Obama stressed that he was not against military force and actually urged more aggressive pursuit of al Qaeda.
“A lot of people took his position on Iraq and projected our politics onto him,” she said. “And that was never him. It was never true.”
By Randall Mikkelsen for REUTERS
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise - to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans - as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said on Sunday.
David Axelrod, the Obama campaign strategist who was chosen to be a senior White House adviser, was asked if the tax cuts could be allowed to expire on schedule after tax year 2010 rather than being rolled back by legislation earlier. “Those considerations will be made,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Bill Daley, an adviser to Obama and commerce secretary under former President Bill Clinton, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the 2010 scenario “looks more likely than not.”
President George W. Bush’s tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2010. After that they would revert to 2001 levels, when the top individual tax rate was 39.6 percent.
Obama has called for reducing taxes for the middle class, but requiring the wealthiest Americans to pay more than the current top rate of 35 percent.
His aides’ comments suggest Obama may be wary of imposing any additional tax burden at a time of deep crisis, despite the outlook for record budget deficits and mounting national debt. He may also be seeking to bolster Republican support for his recovery measures.
“The main thing right now is to get this economic recovery package on the road, to get money in the pockets of the middle class, to get these projects going, to get America working again, and that’s where we’re going to be focused in January,” Axelrod said.
Obama said on Saturday he was crafting an aggressive two-year stimulus plan to revive the economy, aiming to save 2.5 million jobs by January 2011 through projects including transportation infrastructure, school modernization and alternative energy.
Obama called in October for a $175 billion stimulus measure, but he suggested he was ready to push for a much larger package.
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who is part of the majority leadership team in the Senate, told ABC’s “This Week” that an economic recovery package between $500 billion and $700 billion is needed and could be ready by the time Obama takes office on January 20.
“I think it has to be deep. In my view it has to be between five and seven hundred billion dollars,” Schumer said.
From Fox News
A pagan priestess runs into the president of the atheists in a phone booth in New York.
No, it’s not a joke — it’s the start of a controversial report from National Public Radio — and your tax dollars may have paid for it.
New York City officials this fall launched an art project called “Public Prayer Booth,” which features a modified phone booth rigged up with a flip-down kneeler. Passers-by, if they’re in the mood, can bend to their (padded) knee and say a prayer — a private moment in a very public atmosphere.
To cover the story, NPR sent reporter Margot Adler, a Wiccan priestess and author of two books on paganism. Lo and behold, she happened upon the president of the New York City Atheists, Ken Bronstein, an outspoken opponent of public religious displays.
“I just happened to be walking by at this exact moment,” Bronstein told Adler. Then he denounced the display of what he called a “supernatural situation” on city property. Bronstein said that it was inappropriate for the public sphere and had to go.
“You know, if they want to put it on private property, that’s where it should go — but not in public space,” said Bronstein.
Critics are calling the radio report a biased assault on religion — one that’s being supported in part with public funds.
“There are serious efforts under way right now to erase religious expression from the public square,” said Father Jonathan Morris, a Catholic priest and FOX News contributor. “I don’t understand why these groups would be so fascinated with taking this [religious expression] away.”
NPR vehemently denied that its coverage was opposed to prayer or organized religion.
“There’s no bias in this story and to imply that there is because of a reporter’s religious beliefs is absurd,” said Anna Christopher, an NPR spokeswoman. “[Adler] spoke with several different people with several different viewpoints on the booth.”
Adler said traffic was sparse by the booth and she had trouble finding someone who took it seriously enough to pray there, but she interviewed a woman named Francesca Richardson who lives on disability payments and stopped to say a prayer. Adler compared her to Avery Williams, 7, who said grace for her ailing pets.
“Well, my gerbil died so we prayed for him, and my dog had a very bad leg so we prayed for that too,” said Williams.
Asked whether their reporter was taking snipes at the faithful on the government dime, NPR was adamant that she wasn’t and explained that only a minuscule amount of its funding comes from the government.
“Less than two percent [of NPR's budget] comes from competitive grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts,” Christopher said.
“There’s no disrespect for religion at all. Our reporters are able to separate their private practices … and their standards as journalists, and in no way does [Adler's] religious affiliation affect that.”
Religious groups were enthused about the project, saying it provided an opportunity to discuss religion in the public sphere.
“Any respectful artistic expression that gets us thinking about spiritual realities, respectful artistic expression is good,” said Morris.
The public flare-up is just what Dylan Mortimer — the 29-year-old artist who created the installation — was hoping to stir up with his work. Religion is “just one of those topics you don’t bring up at the dinner table,” he said. “My hope and my dream would be that there will be a respectful way to engage in dialogue.”
On that front, Mortimer’s work has been a smashing success.
“Some people love them, some people use them sincerely in prayer, some people use them jokingly. Some people laugh at it, some people are offended, some people have put graffiti on them,” Mortimer told FOXNews.com. “All of those reactions are totally valid.”
Mortimer’s installment, which is set to come down later this month, is sponsored by New York City’s Department of Parks and Recreation as part of its 40-year-old Art in the Parks series. Asked about the controversy over the artwork, the city said it stood by Mortimer’s piece.
“[Mortimer] is working independently and his work raises questions about religion in the public realm, but he does not take a position on it,” said Christina DeLuca, a spokeswoman for the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. “As he says, the goal is to spark dialogue, and we hope New Yorkers receive the work in this spirit.”
President-elect Barack Obama says he thinks it’s ethical to use embryos that would otherwise be destroyed for research into illnesses.
From the Associated Press:
When the Bush presidency ends, opponents of embryonic stem cell research will face a new political reality that many feel powerless to stop.
President-elect Barack Obama is expected to lift restrictions on federal money for such research. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also has expressed interest in going ahead with legislation in the first 100 days of the new Congress if it still is necessary to set up a regulatory framework.
“We may lose it, but we’re going to continually fight it and offer the ethical alternative,” said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. “I don’t know what the votes will be in the new Congress … but it’s very possible we could lose this thing.”
Stem cells are the building blocks that turn into different kinds of tissue. Embryonic stem cells, unlike more mature versions, are blank slates. If scientists could control them, they could direct regenerative therapy, perhaps allowing a diabetic’s pancreas to begin produce insulin, for example.
Harvesting stem cells from four- or five-day-old embryos kills the embryo, which outrages opponents of this type of research. But supporters say hundreds of thousands of embryos stored in fertility clinics eventually will be destroyed anyway and that people should be allowed to donate them for research that could help others.
“I believe that it is ethical to use these extra embryos for research that could save lives when they are freely donated for that express purpose,” Obama wrote during the campaign in response to 14 questions from scientists, doctors and engineers.
Under President George W. Bush, federal money for research on human embryonic stems cells was limited to those stem cell lines, or families of constantly dividing cells, that were created before Aug. 9, 2001. No federal dollars could be used on research with cell lines from embryos destroyed from that point forward. Federal regulations do not restrict embryonic stem cell research using state or private funds.
John Podesta, head of Obama’s transition team, strongly hinted that the president-elect would deal with stem cell research soon after taking office Jan. 20. “As you know, he has said something specific about stem cell research, so I think you can expect that what he said in the campaign will be fulfilled once in office,” Podesta said.
Obama made it clear during the campaign he would overturn Bush’s directive.
“As president, I will lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001, through executive order, and I will ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight,” he said.
Opponents of such research say they will press their case on several fronts.
The main argument is that life begins at conception — that once fertilization occurred in the lab, so did a human being.
Secondly, they will argue that scientists are having success using other methods — adult stem cells that form specific tissues, or reprogramming skin cells to act like stem cells — so money should be directed where the biggest scientific breakthroughs have occurred. For example, this past week, doctors gave a woman a new windpipe with tissue grown from her own stem cells, eliminating the need for anti-rejection drugs.
“We still intend to try and talk about the real facts that it’s the adult stem cells providing the actual treatments,” said David Prentice, senior fellow at the Family Research Council.
Added Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America: “There’s a lot that’s happened over the seven years that includes some remarkable scientific discoveries, which really should have made the issue of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research moot.”
But Sean Tipton, director of public affairs at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, took aim at those arguments.
“It’s a little disingenuous for opponents who have effectively blocked federal funding of the work to then cite a lack of progress,” Tipton said. “You hold someone at the starting line then you criticize them for not getting very far.”
Dr. Chi Dang, professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, agreed there have been tremendous advances with adult stem cells. But he said it is not yet clear that they have enough flexibility to be used in all the ways that an embryonic stem cell could be.
“From a scientific viewpoint, we would be cornering ourselves into generalizing things that may not be true,” Dang said.
Dang also said these embryos would otherwise be discarded.
“The question is: Is it ethically more acceptable to destroy these embryos by pouring acid on them, or do you deploy these clusters of cells to create new cell lines that could benefit us in the future?”
Samuel Pfaff, a professor at the Salk Institute for Biologic Studies, said he also supports greater embryonic stem cell research to understand what makes them so special that scientists can endow other cells with similar properties.
“I think it’s very fair to say that the long-term trajectory for this area of science is to understand embryonic stem cells so well that we don’t have to use them anymore.” Pfaff said.
Obama taps Timothy Geithner to be Treasury Secretary. Geithner is currently the New York Federal Reserve chief.
Read the full Fortune Magazine article here: Obama Treasury pick means small-dose change
