obama’s axelrod: trying to lower gas prices is selling “snake oil”

President Obama’s chief political advisor, David Axelrod, made fun of politicians on Sunday who are trying to bring down gas prices. In responding to Mitt Romney’s commitment to permit more drilling and open up new exploration in the United States, Axelrod said, “That’s not oil talk but snake oil talk.”

Obama also poked fun at Romney’s plan to increase the supply of oil by saying he thinks he has a “magic wand”. He went on to say that Republicans have had “the same script for 30 years, it’s like a bad re-run.”

But in 2008, it was candidate Obama who was complaining that the White House wasn’t doing enough to lower gas prices. Obama made fun of then President George Bush for gas prices being “$3.70. Two and half times (higher than) when George Bush took office,” Obama said.

This time, Obama is working hard to pretend that he has nothing to do with high gas prices.

The facts show that gas prices fluctuated throughout 2008 from roughly $1.50 to over $4.00 a gallon. In November 2008, when Obama was elected president, gas prices fell to $1.72. Today, the average gas price is $3.84. It’s much higher in some regions where production and drilling is scarce and in some state’s that require greater refinery processes or have placed higher local sur charges. In California, for instance, gas prices are almost $5 a gallon.

Obama’s assault on oil drilling and the permitting process for new exploration is undeniable. In some campaign stops, Obama has falsely claimed that he is responsible for an increase in oil production – but the fact is that the permits for the new drilling projects he counts were approved during the Bush and Clinton Administrations. The Obama Administration has also tried to delay and obstruct coal production. Last year, a Senate panel proved that the Obama Administration was using the Clean Water Act to stop coal production. Given that the global coal demand is increasing, this obstruction has not only greatly limited the expansion of American jobs but is shrinking the coal production workforce in the Midwest and Southern U.S.

Obama’s team has stopped new oil projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline which would have clearly provided more oil. And we know that an increase in supply means lower prices overall. Some left wing websites have been falsely misrepresenting one study that shows the Keystone XL Pipeline would increase oil production in the Midwest and therefore push the regional price of oil up because more oil would flow out to the rest of the United States. These liberal bloggers falsely call the overall price stabilization affect of the Keystone XL pipeline an “increase”. But the majority of Americans would get lower prices with the Keystone’s increased oil production and stabilization affect. And over time, everyone would benefit from an increase in supply.

But as gas prices increase and the prospect for new jobs stays stagnant, the Obama team will be scrambling to look like they aren’t to blame for a “none of the above” energy plan. Obama’s base of support from radical environmentalists will also be a concern for the president’s team as they consider how to do something to control sky-rocketing energy costs without alienating supporters.

Romney, meanwhile, has called for the Obama team responsible for the assault on new energy exploration and permits to be fired. The trio of obstruction, as he calls them, is Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Environmental Protection Agency Director Lisa Jackson and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

obama celebrates an unapologetic vogue magazine editor

One year ago this month, Vogue Magazine published a glowing profile piece of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s wife, Asma. Over the last year, Vogue Editor in Chief Anna Wintour has defended her magazine’s portrayal of the Syrian First Lady despite the brutal crackdown in Syria by Asma’s husband’s regime that has killed more than 8,000 citizen protesters.

This week, President Barack Obama invited Wintour to the White House for the coveted State Dinner of America’s greatest ally – the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The invite is yet another signal that Obama doesn’t understand how important Syria’s future is to U.S. national security.

Not only has Obama ignored the Syrian people’s cry for help, but he is honoring and rewarding the woman who celebrated the killer’s wife in the pages of a fashion magazine.

Vogue has since deleted the profile piece from its pages. But for a refresher, here are some controversial quotes from writer Joan Juliet Buck:

- “When I first arrive, I’m met on the tarmac by a minder, who gives me a bouquet of white roses and lends me a Syrian cell phone; the head minder, a high-profile American PR, joins us the next day. The first lady’s office has provided drivers, so I shop and see sights in a bubble of comfort and hospitality.” The high profile American PR firm working for the Syrian regime is the notorious firm of Brown Llyod James.

- “The old al-Assad family apartment was remade into a child-friendly triple-decker playroom loft surrounded by immense windows on three sides. With neither shades nor curtains, it’s a fishbowl. Asma al-Assad likes to say, “You’re safe because you are surrounded by people who will keep you safe.” Neighbors peer in, drop by, visit, comment on the furniture. The president doesn’t mind: “This curiosity is good: They come to see you, they learn more about you. You don’t isolate yourself.”

- “Asma al-Assad empties a box of fondue mix into a saucepan for lunch. The household is run on wildly democratic principles. “We all vote on what we want, and where,” she says.”

- “I can’t talk about empowering young people, encouraging them to be creative and take responsibility, if I’m not like that with my own children.”

- “The president joins in the punch line: “Brad Pitt wanted to send his security guards here to come and get some training!”

- “This is the diversity you want to see in the Middle East,” says the president, ringing his bell. “This is how you can have peace!”

Is what’s going on in Syria the kind of peace Wintour was thinking of? And more importantly, is this piece something that President Obama should honor by inviting its unapologetic editor to a White House State Dinner?

vogue magazine’s 2011 glowing profile of asma al-assad (no longer on vogue’s website)


Asma al-Assad: A Rose in the Desert
by Joan Juliet Buck

Asma al-Assad is glamorous, young, and very chic—the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies. Her style is not the couture-and-bling dazzle of Middle Eastern power but a deliberate lack of adornment. She’s a rare combination: a thin, long-limbed beauty with a trained analytic mind who dresses with cunning understatement. Paris Match calls her “the element of light in a country full of shadow zones.” She is the first lady of Syria.

Syria is known as the safest country in the Middle East, possibly because, as the State Department’s Web site says, “the Syrian government conducts intense physical and electronic surveillance of both Syrian citizens and foreign visitors.” It’s a secular country where women earn as much as men and the Muslim veil is forbidden in universities, a place without bombings, unrest, or kidnappings, but its shadow zones are deep and dark. Asma’s husband, Bashar al-Assad, was elected president in 2000, after the death of his father, Hafez al-Assad, with a startling 97 percent of the vote. In Syria, power is hereditary. The country’s alliances are murky. How close are they to Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah? There are souvenir Hezbollah ashtrays in the souk, and you can spot the Hamas leadership racing through the bar of the Four Seasons. Its number-one enmity is clear: Israel. But that might not always be the case. The United States has just posted its first ambassador there since 2005, Robert Ford.

Iraq is next door, Iran not far away. Lebanon’s capital, Beirut, is 90 minutes by car from Damascus. Jordan is south, and next to it the region that Syrian maps label Palestine. There are nearly one million refugees from Iraq in Syria, and another half-million displaced Palestinians.

“It’s a tough neighborhood,” admits Asma al-Assad.

It’s also a neighborhood intoxicatingly close to the dawn of civilization, where agriculture began some 10,000 years ago, where the wheel, writing, and musical notation were invented. Out in the desert are the magical remains of Palmyra, Apamea, and Ebla. In the National Museum you see small 4,000-year-old panels inlaid with mother-of-pearl that is echoed in the new mother-of-pearl furniture for sale in the souk. Christian Louboutin comes to buy the damask silk brocade they’ve been making here since the Middle Ages for his shoes and bags, and has incidentally purchased a small palace in Aleppo, which, like Damascus, has been inhabited for more than 5,000 years.

The first lady works out of a small white building in a hilly, modern residential neighborhood called Muhajireen, where houses and apartments are crammed together and neighbors peer and wave from balconies. The first impression of Asma al-Assad is movement—a determined swath cut through space with a flash of red soles. Dark-brown eyes, wavy chin-length brown hair, long neck, an energetic grace. No watch, no jewelry apart from Chanel agates around her neck, not even a wedding ring, but fingernails lacquered a dark blue-green. She’s breezy, conspiratorial, and fun. Her accent is English but not plummy. Despite what must be a killer IQ, she sometimes uses urban shorthand: “I was, like. . . .”

Asma Akhras was born in London in 1975, the eldest child and only daughter of a Syrian Harley Street cardiologist and his diplomat wife, both Sunni Muslims. They spoke Arabic at home. She grew up in Ealing, went to Queen’s College, and spent holidays with family in Syria. “I’ve dealt with the sense that people don’t expect Syria to be normal. I’d show my London friends my holiday snaps and they’d be—‘Where did you say you went?’ ”

She studied computer science at university, then went into banking. “It wasn’t a typical path for women,” she says, “but I had it all mapped out.” By the spring of 2000, she was closing a big biotech deal at JP Morgan in London and about to take up an MBA at Harvard. She started dating a family friend: the second son of president Hafez al-Assad, Bashar, who’d cut short his ophthalmology studies in London in 1994 and returned to Syria after his older brother, Basil, heir apparent to power, died in a car crash. They had known each other forever, but a ten-year age difference meant that nothing registered—until it did.

“I was always very serious at work, and suddenly I started to take weekends, or disappear, and people just couldn’t figure it out,” explains the first lady. “What do you say—‘I’m dating the son of a president’? You just don’t say that. Then he became president, so I tried to keep it low-key. Suddenly I was turning up in Syria every month, saying, ‘Granny, I miss you so much!’ I quit in October because by then we knew that we were going to get married at some stage. I couldn’t say why I was leaving. My boss thought I was having a nervous breakdown because nobody quits two months before bonus after closing a really big deal. He wouldn’t accept my resignation. I was, like, ‘Please, really, I just want to get out, I’ve had enough,’ and he was ‘Don’t worry, take time off, it happens to the best of us.’ ” She left without her bonus in November and married Bashar al-Assad in December.

“What I’ve been able to take away from banking was the transferable skills—the analytical thinking, understanding the business side of running a company—to run an NGO or to try and oversee a project.” She runs her office like a business, chairs meeting after meeting, starts work many days at six, never breaks for lunch, and runs home to her children at four. “It’s my time with them, and I get them fresh, unedited—I love that. I really do.” Her staff are used to eating when they can. “I have a rechargeable battery,” she says.

The 35-year-old first lady’s central mission is to change the mind-set of six million Syrians under eighteen, encourage them to engage in what she calls “active citizenship.” “It’s about everyone taking shared responsibility in moving this country forward, about empowerment in a civil society. We all have a stake in this country; it will be what we make it.”
In 2005 she founded Massar, built around a series of discovery centers where children and young adults from five to 21 engage in creative, informal approaches to civic responsibility. Massar’s mobile Green Team has touched 200,000 kids across Syria since 2005. The organization is privately funded through donations. The Syria Trust for Development, formed in 2007, oversees Massar as well as her first NGO, the rural micro-credit association FIRDOS, and SHABAB, which exists to give young people business skills they need for the future.

And then there’s her cultural mission: “People tend to see Syria as artifacts and history,” she says. “For us it’s about the accumulation of cultures, traditions, values, customs. It’s the difference between hardware and software: the artifacts are the hardware, but the software makes all the difference—the customs and the spirit of openness. We have to make sure that we don’t lose that. . . . ” Here she gives an apologetic grin. “You have to excuse me, but I’m a banker—that brand essence.”

That brand essence includes the distant past. There are 500,000 important ancient works of art hidden in storage; Asma al-Assad has brought in the Louvre to create a network of museums and cultural attractions across Syria, and asked Italian experts to help create a database of the 5,000 archaeological sites in the desert. “Culture,” she says, “is like a financial asset. We have an abundance of it, thousands of years of history, but we can’t afford to be complacent.”

In December, Asma al-Assad was in Paris to discuss her alliance with the Louvre. She dazzled a tough French audience at the International Diplomatic Institute, speaking without notes. “I’m not trying to disguise culture as anything more than it is,” she said, “and if I sound like I’m talking politics, it’s because we live in a politicized region, a politicized time, and we are affected by that.”

The French ambassador to Syria, Eric Chevallier, was there: “She managed to get people to consider the possibilities of a country that’s modernizing itself, that stands for a tolerant secularism in a powder-keg region, with extremists and radicals pushing in from all sides—and the driving force for that rests largely on the shoulders of one couple. I hope they’ll make the right choices for their country and the region. ”

Damascus evokes a dusty version of a Mediterranean hill town in an Eastern-bloc country. The courtyard of the Umayyad Mosque at night looks exactly like St. Mark’s square in Venice. When I first arrive, I’m met on the tarmac by a minder, who gives me a bouquet of white roses and lends me a Syrian cell phone; the head minder, a high-profile American PR, joins us the next day. The first lady’s office has provided drivers, so I shop and see sights in a bubble of comfort and hospitality. On the rare occasions I am out alone, a random series of men in leather jackets seems to be keeping close tabs on what I am doing and where I am headed.

“I like things I can touch. I like to get out and meet people and do things,” the first lady says as we set off for a meeting in a museum and a visit to an orphanage. “As a banker, you have to be so focused on the job at hand that you lose the experience of the world around you. My husband gave me back something I had lost.”

She slips behind the wheel of a plain SUV, a walkie-talkie and her cell thrown between the front seats and a Syrian-silk Louboutin tote on top. She does what the locals do—swerves to avoid crazy men who run across busy freeways, misses her turn, checks your seat belt, points out sights, and then can’t find a parking space. When a traffic cop pulls her over at a roundabout, she lowers the tinted window and dips her head with a playful smile. The cop’s eyes go from slits to saucers.

Her younger brother Feras, a surgeon who moved to Syria to start a private health-care group, says, “Her intelligence is both intellectual and emotional, and she’s a master at harmonizing when, and how much, to use of each one.”

In the Saint Paul orphanage, maintained by the Melkite–Greek Catholic patriarchate and run by the Basilian sisters of Aleppo, Asma sits at a long table with the children. Two little boys in new glasses and thick sweaters are called Yussuf. She asks them what kind of music they like. “Sad music,” says one. In the room where she’s had some twelve computers installed, the first lady tells a nun, “I hope you’re letting the younger children in here go crazy on the computers.” The nun winces: “The children are afraid to learn in case they don’t have access to computers when they leave here,” she says.
In the courtyard by the wall down which Saint Paul escaped in a basket 2,000 years ago, an old tree bears gigantic yellow fruit I have never seen before. Citrons. Cédrats in French.

Back in the car, I ask what religion the orphans are. “It’s not relevant,” says Asma al-Assad. “Let me try to explain it to you. That church is a part of my heritage because it’s a Syrian church. The Umayyad Mosque is the third-most-important holy Muslim site, but within the mosque is the tomb of Saint John the Baptist. We all kneel in the mosque in front of the tomb of Saint John the Baptist. That’s how religions live together in Syria—a way that I have never seen anywhere else in the world. We live side by side, and have historically. All the religions and cultures that have passed through these lands—the Armenians, Islam, Christianity, the Umayyads, the Ottomans—make up who I am.”

“Does that include the Jews?” I ask.

“And the Jews,” she answers. “There is a very big Jewish quarter in old Damascus.”

The Jewish quarter of Damascus spans a few abandoned blocks in the old city that emptied out in 1992, when most of the Syrian Jews left. Their houses are sealed up and have not been touched, because, as people like to tell you, Syrians don’t touch the property of others. The broken glass and sagging upper floors tell a story you don’t understand—are the owners coming back to claim them one day?

The presidential family lives surrounded by neighbors in a modern apartment in Malki. On Friday, the Muslim day of rest, Asma al-Assad opens the door herself in jeans and old suede stiletto boots, hair in a ponytail, the word happiness spelled out across the back of her T-shirt. At the bottom of the stairs stands the off-duty president in jeans—tall, long-necked, blue-eyed. A precise man who takes photographs and talks lovingly about his first computer, he says he was attracted to studying eye surgery “because it’s very precise, it’s almost never an emergency, and there is very little blood.”

The old al-Assad family apartment was remade into a child-friendly triple-decker playroom loft surrounded by immense windows on three sides. With neither shades nor curtains, it’s a fishbowl. Asma al-Assad likes to say, “You’re safe because you are surrounded by people who will keep you safe.” Neighbors peer in, drop by, visit, comment on the furniture. The president doesn’t mind: “This curiosity is good: They come to see you, they learn more about you. You don’t isolate yourself.”

There’s a decorated Christmas tree. Seven-year-old Zein watches Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland on the president’s iMac; her brother Karim, six, builds a shark out of Legos; and nine-year-old Hafez tries out his new electric violin. All three go to a Montessori school.

Asma al-Assad empties a box of fondue mix into a saucepan for lunch. The household is run on wildly democratic principles. “We all vote on what we want, and where,” she says. The chandelier over the dining table is made of cut-up comic books. “They outvoted us three to two on that.”

A grid is drawn on a blackboard, with ticks for each member of the family. “We were having trouble with politeness, so we made a chart: ticks for when they spoke as they should, and a cross if they didn’t.” There’s a cross next to Asma’s name. “I shouted,” she confesses. “I can’t talk about empowering young people, encouraging them to be creative and take responsibility, if I’m not like that with my own children.”

“The first challenge for us was, Who’s going to define our lives, us or the position?” says the president. “We wanted to live our identity honestly.”

They announced their marriage in January 2001, after the ceremony, which they kept private. There was deliberately no photograph of Asma. “The British media picked that up as: Now she’s moved into the presidential palace, never to be seen again!” says Asma, laughing.

They had a reason: “She spent three months incognito,” says the president. “Before I had any official engagement,” says the first lady, “I went to 300 villages, every governorate, hospitals, farms, schools, factories, you name it—I saw everything to find out where I could be effective. A lot of the time I was somebody’s ‘assistant’ carrying the bag, doing this and that, taking notes. Nobody asked me if I was the first lady; they had no idea.”

“That way,” adds the president, “she started her NGO before she was ever seen in public as my wife. Then she started to teach people that an NGO is not a charity.”

Neither of them believes in charity for the sake of charity. “We have the Iraqi refugees,” says the president. “Everybody is talking about it as a political problem or as welfare, charity. I say it’s neither—it’s about cultural philosophy. We have to help them. That’s why the first thing I did is to allow the Iraqis to go into schools. If they don’t have an education, they will go back as a bomb, in every way: terrorism, extremism, drug dealers, crime. If I have a secular and balanced neighbor, I will be safe.”

When Angelina Jolie came with Brad Pitt for the United Nations in 2009, she was impressed by the first lady’s efforts to encourage empowerment among Iraqi and Palestinian refugees but alarmed by the Assads’ idea of safety.

“My husband was driving us all to lunch,” says Asma al-Assad, “and out of the corner of my eye I could see Brad Pitt was fidgeting. I turned around and asked, ‘Is anything wrong?’ ”

“Where’s your security?” asked Pitt.

“So I started teasing him—‘See that old woman on the street? That’s one of them! And that old guy crossing the road?

That’s the other one!’ ” They both laugh.

The president joins in the punch line: “Brad Pitt wanted to send his security guards here to come and get some training!”

After lunch, Asma al-Assad drives to the airport, where a Falcon 900 is waiting to take her to Massar in Latakia, on the coast. When she lands, she jumps behind the wheel of another SUV waiting on the tarmac. This is the kind of surprise visit she specializes in, but she has no idea how many kids will turn up at the community center on a rainy Friday.

As it turns out, it’s full. Since the first musical notation was discovered nearby, at Ugarit, the immaculate Massar center in Latakia is built around music. Local kids are jamming in a sound booth; a group of refugee Palestinian girls is playing instruments. Others play chess on wall-mounted computers. These kids have started online blood banks, run marathons to raise money for dialysis machines, and are working on ways to rid Latakia of plastic bags. Apart from a few girls in scarves, you can’t tell Muslims from Christians.

Asma al-Assad stands to watch a laborious debate about how—and whether—to standardize the Arabic spelling of the word Syria. Then she throws out a curve ball. “I’ve been advised that we have to close down this center so as to open another one somewhere else,” she says. Kids’ mouths drop open. Some repress tears. Others are furious. One boy chooses altruism: “That’s OK. We know how to do it now; we’ll help them.”

Then the first lady announces, “That wasn’t true. I just wanted to see how much you care about Massar.”

As the pilot expertly avoids sheet lightning above the snow-flecked desert on the way back, she explains, “There was a little bit of formality in what they were saying to me; it wasn’t real. Tricks like this help—they became alive, they became passionate. We need to get past formalities if we are going to get anything done.”

Two nights later it’s the annual Christmas concert by the children of Al-Farah Choir, run by the Syrian Catholic Father Elias Zahlawi. Just before it begins, Bashar and Asma al-Assad slip down the aisle and take the two empty seats in the front row. People clap, and some call out his nickname:

“Docteur! Docteur!”

Two hundred children dressed variously as elves, reindeers, or candy canes share the stage with members of the national orchestra, who are done up as elves. The show becomes a full-on songfest, with the elves and reindeer and candy canes giving their all to “Hallelujah” and “Joy to the World.” The carols slide into a more serpentine rhythm, an Arabic rap group takes over, and then it’s back to Broadway mode. The president whispers, “All of these styles belong to our culture. This is how you fight extremism—through art.”

Brass bells are handed out. Now we’re all singing “Jingle Bell Rock,” 1,331 audience members shaking their bells, singing, crying, and laughing.

“This is the diversity you want to see in the Middle East,” says the president, ringing his bell. “This is how you can have peace!”

February 25, 2011 9:03 a.m.

it’s time to tax internet gambling and make it legal

One of the complaints from the Occupy movement protesters is that gambling by the banking sector is what created the economic crisis gripping the globe. And they’re partially correct in placing blame at the feet of bankers who recklessly played the markets like a game of Monopoly. But risk is an inherent part of business, politics and life – and demonizing the private sector for taking chances without presenting viable alternatives is nonsensical. Ironically, one of the surest bets for the Super Committee in Washington currently looking for ways to cut spending and balance the federal budget involves opening the United States to regulated, safe and legal gambling. It’s time for Washington lawmakers to pass the bill that taxes online gambling revenues and makes it legal.

Just a few years ago, conservative Republicans in control of the White House and Congress moved to block online gambling in order to appease the religious right and their concern that gambling is a sin akin to drinking and smoking. But the far right’s worry should be no concern for governments. Drinking and smoking are already legal, and so are many other societal behaviors that the far right and far left try to control. America is founded on the principal that if you don’t like it, then don’t do it – but don’t stop someone else from enjoying it.

A Congressional Joint Committee on taxation found that the online gambling industry could bring in $42 billion to the federal government over 10 years. That’s a new and big source of revenue at a time when Medicare and Defense spending are facing massive cuts over the next several years. Sooner or later, Washington politicians will give-in and realize that internet gambling tax revenue is too good to pass up.

The federal legalization of internet gambling is inevitable for a number of reasons:

1. The U.S. is missing out on a growing revenue source: As lawmakers struggle to clamp down on American free choice, the rest of the world is experiencing explosive growth in online gambling. Worldwide, the industry is worth $30 billion annually, of which $4 billion comes from America in spite of a government ban. It’s staggering to watch that kind of money flow overseas while the U.S. spends money on anti-gambling enforcement.

2. Prohibition is useless: Speaking of law enforcement, it’s a huge mistake to believe that prohibition works now any better than it did a hundred years ago. There are too many grey areas and dark alleys on the web to allow effective monitoring and enforcement. The government would do better to focus its enforcement energy and dollars on real crimes at the U.S. border.

3. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: Federal regulation could stimulate the creation of 30,000 American jobs. Given the national unemployment rate is 9% this should be a no-brainer.

4. Gaming is a growing industry: There was a time not long ago when Las Vegas and Atlantic City were the only places in the nation to gamble legally, but Indian casinos, video gambling, slot machines, lotteries and more are popping up across the country. Florida, Illinois, Minnesota and New Hampshire are just a few of the states currently discussing the issue. It’s time for the federal government to catch up.

5. Free choice: America learned long ago that it can’t restrict consumers’ free will. This is America, not the Middle East. Regulation and education are the best ways to clean up perceived vice industries.

6. Consumer protection: The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement and Protection Act (UIGEA) of 2006 – the most significant piece of federal legislation restricting online gambling – effectively eliminates all protections for the 10 million Americans estimated to currently gamble online. While many states enact legislation to allow some forms of gambling and protect consumers, Washington ignores the problem.

7. Industry support is finally here: The American Gaming Association, the trade organization for the industry, has long opposed online poker but recently reversed direction and now openly supports regulation of online gambling. Industry support is critical in making any regulation successful, and the welcome mat put out by the industry is a game changer.

In April, a crackdown by the Department of Justice on online gambling companies sent shock waves through the industry. The Obama Administration’s aggressive enforcement surprised many pro-capitalism allies. With recent bills in support of online gambling by Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), GOP opposition has softened. The roadblock to regulating internet gambling is the Obama Administration. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), a longtime proponent of regulating online gambling and Obama supporter, recently went so far to say that President Obama was “protecting the public from the scourge of inside straights.”

At a time when both parties seem to make sport out of creating gridlock in Congress, President Obama ought to join the bi-partisan support for regulating internet gambling. The famously risk-averse President should double down on a sure bet.

bloomberg gives $50 million to drive american jobs to china

Make no mistake about it, Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is a technology whiz.  But his energy ideas are bankrupt.  His $50 million gift to support the Sierra Club’s anti-coal agenda and to stop coal-fired power plants will undoubtedly help move American jobs to China.  As the Mayor of America’s largest city, Bloomberg should understand the overwhelming demand for affordable energy.  While everyone supports alternative energy initiatives and green technology research, current energy demand cannot be met with the combination of sources we now have in place – let alone for the hyper growth predicted world-wide.  Conserving energy and increasing our reliance on hydro, wind, and other forms of green energy is beneficial, but the reality is billions of people around the world have no or partial access to electricity now.  Letting uber-environmentalists and billionaire elites further limit the supply of energy will only drive up costs for everyone.  And limiting or stopping coal production in the United States will move jobs to China and India and give them a significant economic advantage to deliver a cheap energy source to consumers world-wide without American competition.

But perhaps the most troubling aspect of the Sierra Club’s assault on American coal
producers is that it’s based on political calculations not current science.  Environmentalist Jane Hamsher, the founder of the highly popular green website FireDogLake said it best, “The Sierra Club is a marquee name that has indeed gone for the green: cash. Environmental activists should carefully examine the way in which the organization is operating, and whether its agenda is worthy of continued support.”  As Hamsher and others have suggested, the Sierra Club’s political maneuvers seem to be based on whether or not contributions are included.  For example, their acceptance of $1.1 million from Clorox while endorsing certain chemical industry practices wasn’t based on science or grass-roots activism but
money.  Bloomberg’s multi-million dollar gift seems perfectly timed for his possible presidential run.  The coal industry, on the other hand, must make their case to the American people without special interest buyouts.

American coal producers are confident that an honest assessment of the facts will show that the old environmental argument that coal is a dirty source of energy no longer applies.  Total Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions have been reduced 49% since 1970 and total Sulfur Dioxide emissions have been reduced 63% since 1970 despite coal use almost tripling.  Many coal plants have replaced older production lines with critical new technology that make production faster, cheaper and the coal produced cleaner.  For example, new scrubbing technology removes 90% to 98% of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and next generation clean coal plants can drastically reduce carbon dioxide. Replacing older coal-fired power plants throughout the U.S. with the latest technology would give the added benefit of creating a real economic revolution through 150,000 thousand new construction jobs and an expanded permanent workforce.  It could also achieve near zero emissions with the incremental electricity generated resulting from more efficient plants that would replace older technology.   So why wouldn’t Bloomberg and the Sierra Club use their $50 million and considerable resources to support coal production plant changes that also create more jobs?  The answer, of course, is more politics.  The coal industry is spending too much time defending the assault on its very existence rather than on implementing the very technologies that the opposition says it supports.

The assault on coal also ignores one of America’s best natural resources.  Its’ production provides high paying jobs and fuels economic growth by providing 150,000 direct jobs and 400,000 indirect jobs in the U.S. alone.  The average wage
for an American coal miner is $73,476 – 62% higher than the average wage of all
U.S. workers.  Despite unemployment rising to 9.1% and budget deficits at their highest level ever, the Obama Administration continues to limit oil production, question the safety of natural gas fracking and institute new rollbacks on nuclear energy.  We can’t afford to also decrease the cheapest energy source America has – coal.  The simple fact is that in the states where there has been a government assault on coal production, consumers pay higher electricity rates.

We must do better.  Rather than work with the business community to make effective change, the Sierra Club leadership has decided to veer left and right looking for more corporate and political donors and access.  And Michael Bloomberg, a successful businessman, should understand that assaulting a growing and popular industry will wreck further havoc on our struggling economy.  The growing international demand for coal demands that America’s business and political leaders come together to work to grow the coal industry instead of shrink or eliminate it.  The facts show that technology is available today to significantly reduce harmful emissions from utilizing coal.  Environmentalists should be celebrating the progress the industry has made, not holding it hostage for political
payoffs.

dan savage at white house pride reception: obama won’t support marriage before ’12 election, im not furious

Below is the official White House Press Pool Report from President Obama’s Pride reception at the White House.

In it you will see that Dan Savage thinks supporting gay marriage is being “out on the furthest limb” for Obama so he isn’t furious with him for his position.  Savage also predicts that Obama won’t ”evolve” on gay marriage until February, 2013 – after the next presidential election.  You will also see that union spokesman Gregory King thinks gays aren’t prioritizing marriage so Obama doesn’t need to either.  With supporters like these it’s no wonder Obama doesn’t feel pressure from the gay community.

From: Julie Mason
To: Finkenbinder, Benjamin N.
Cc: Hughes, Caroline E.
Sent: Wed Jun 29 18:43:29 2011
Subject: Pool Report #1 pride reception

No, he didn’t endorse gay marriage.

The East Room contained: a few hundred attendees, a full bar, a couple of small, round tables covered in shimmery purple cloth piled high with canapes and desserts: puff pastries, baby lamb chops, mini cupcakes, slices of cake and more. The centerpieces were oversized bouquets of roses in pink, orange, red and purple. A band played light jazz and R&B.

The crowd was mostly white and the men significantly outnumbered the women. Dan Savage was there — quotes from him after Obama.

Obama entered the room at 6 p.m. to huge cheers. Facing north, he assured the crowd that “Nothing ruins a party like a long speech from a politician” and promised to go short. He talked about his accomplishments so far — hospital visits, DADT, DOMA, etc.

He said he understands the frustration many in the gay community feel about the pace of accomplishments — “I know I can count on you to let me know,” he said. “This is not a shy group.”

The crowd interrupted him a few times with spontaneous cheers and applause — when he mentioned “spouses” (without endorsing the concept) and more.  Check the transcript. He spoke for about nine minutes.

Dan Savage, a columnist, author and gay activist was there with his husband (they married in Canada), Terry Miller. Dan was wearing a black and white plaid shirt with a small button that said, “evolve already.” Terry wore a white shirt with a hot pink bow tie.

“I believe the president should evolve,” Savage said. “He says he’s evolving, I believe him.” He added, “I want to hurry him along.”

Savage, a strong proponent for gay marriage, said his presence at the White House should not be construed as a surrender on the issue. “We can scream and yell and be dicks and wear buttons” and still eat Obama’s cupcakes and drink his champagne, Savage said.

He predicted Obama’s evolution on gay marriage would be complete in February, 2013. Savage called Obama’s politics “the art of the possible.”

“We need to keep the pressure on and take ‘yes’ for an answer,” Savage said.

“I’m not one of the gay activists furious at the president because he’s not out on the furthest limb” on gay marriage, Savage said.

Also in the room and willing to make eye contact with the pool: Gregory King, a spokesman for AFSCME and a former spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign Fund.
King said, “I think Obama has done more for the LGBT community than any president in history.”

“He’s been effective at bringing change and ending discrimination,” King said.

Regarding gay marriage, “I know many couples who wouldn’t place that at the top of the agenda,” King said.

Julie Mason
POLITICO

the koran in florida and the mormons on broadway

This week, two different religions were mocked and disrespected in the United States and the followers’ reactions couldn’t have been more different.  While a lone preacher in Florida burned a copy of the Koran, a Broadway show opened in New York making fun of the Mormon faith with irreverent humor and sacrilegious musical numbers.  Some Muslim followers in Afghanistan reacted to the burning by storming the UN compound and killing innocent international public servants.  The Mormon Church reacted to the musical by pointing the public to the superficial nature of it and the supernatural power of their faith.

While burning the Koran is religiously intolerant and insensitive to our Muslim brothers and sisters, to suggest that it endangers American lives in and of itself is ridiculous.  What endangers Americans’ lives is the over-reaction to the burning by extremists, not the act of free speech.  The assumption that people will kill because of the burning of a book and therefore the book shouldn’t be burned justifies the over-reaction and makes it a rational answer.  There should be a universal condemnation to the killings because it isn’t rational or acceptable.  Radical followers of Islam killed innocent people in reaction to a radical follower of Christianity’s lighting a book on fire.  I would characterize both radicals as not truly following the God they claim to be following.  Islam and Christianity teach peace and acceptance not provocation and death. 

To assume that people are going to be killed if a Koran is burned is a dangerous supposition.  The patronizing reaction by many liberals and politicians to condemn the burning of the Koran on the same level as the UN killings – and many times in the same sentence – left an assumption that the reaction was a natural outcome of the action.  President Barak Obama’s statement on the UN murders also wasn’t helpful in teaching religious tolerance.  Obama elevated the Koran burning to an extreme offense and therefore gave comfort to an extreme reaction.  “The desecration of any holy text, including the Koran, is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry,” said Obama.  The White House’s use of the word extreme was inappropriate for this situation. 

Compare American liberals’ reaction to the Koran burning with their gleeful embrace of Trey Parker’s and Matt Stone’s Broadway musical about the Mormon faith.  A musical with a song called: “Fuck you, God” and described by the authors as an “atheist love letter to religion”.  New York Magazine said, “What’s so uniquely winning about The Book of Mormon is its scruffy humanism, its eagerness to redeem its characters—even its smaller ones.”  And Jon Stewart was left speechless after he said “it was so good, I almost don’t know what to say.”  The reviews for the musical have been the best any modern Broadway show has ever seen.  And very few liberals have condemned the defilement of the Mormon Church’s holy text as Obama has for the Koran.  If we believe that desecrating a religion’s holy text endangers lives then so does the accolades and support for The Book of Mormon on Broadway.  I, for one, don’t accept this premise. 

For American Mormons, the Broadway show and its embrace by the mainstream and liberal media has been embarrassing and humiliating.  But the even tempered official Mormon Church reaction should make everyone take a second look at the religion.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints issued a statement saying, “The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening, but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people’s lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ.”  The actions of some Afghan Muslims who killed UN officials as a reaction to the burning of a Koran in Florida cannot be justified or even confused to be a rational response.

advocate magazine covers-up the democratic label for anti-gay politician

The powerful anti-gay Democratic State Senator from New York, Carl Kruger, was outed this month by the New York Post for allegedly taking bribes that were used to partially pay for his gay lover’s water front mansion.  In its front page March 11 story, the Post outed the Democrat as a hypocrite because of his 2009 vote to deny equal marriage rights to gays despite having an alleged romantic relationship with a man.  The Post labeled the politician’s partisan affiliation prominently in the first sentence of the article.  The same day, New York Magazine used the label “Democratic” as the third word in its first sentence to describe Kruger in its’ breaking news story.  New York Magazine even finished their piece by admonishing, “if true, it serves as a helpful reminder that the phenomenon of hypocritical politicians who live gay lives in secret, but vote against gay issues in public, is not reserved for only one side of the aisle.”  But The Advocate magazine, the supposed promoter of gay rights and reason, only sits on the left side of the aisle.  It dropped Kruger’s political affiliation from its story’s headline and lead paragraph when it announced the influential Democrat’s troubles.  In fact, the editors of The Advocate only alluded to Kruger’s political affiliation in the last sentence of the last paragraph of their story by saying Kruger was “one of eight New York Democrats to vote against the state’s marriage equality bill, which failed to pass the senate.” 

Was it a mistake or was it deliberate? A look at the facts suggests it is part of The Advocate’s ongoing partisan bias – a bias permeating the gay media, but not always part of the left’s media playbook.  The Advocate’s cover-up and obvious strategic move is steeped in history.  Earlier this year on January 3, The Advocate writer Julie Bolcer wrote an article titled: “Iowa Republican Obsessed With Marriage Issue?”  Note the partisan affiliation announced in the title.  The lead sentence in Bolcer’s story also messaged the anti-gay candidate’s political relationship, “A friend and former campaign adviser to Iowa gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats says the Republican who led the recall effort against three state supreme court justices, is “obsessed with the gay-marriage issue.”” The word “Republican” is used consecutively throughout Bolcer’s piece and in gratuitous ways.

But it wasn’t the first or last time The Advocate tried its’ partisan tactic.  In November 2010, Bolcer also wrote an article titled: “Iowa Republican Predicts Removal of More Judges”.  Note the title announcement of the politician’s political affiliation again.  The lead sentence of Bolcer’s piece also once again messages the anti-gay politician’s political party connection, “Following a voter recall of three Iowa supreme court justices who voted for marriage equality, state senate Republican leader Paul McKinley said the four remaining justices would be at risk of losing their jobs unless lawmakers give Iowans a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriages.”

And in October of 2010, Bolcer writes yet another article for The Advocate about an anti-gay candidate titled: “N.Y. Republican: Gays Are “Dysfunctional”.  The hopeful politician’s political attachment was also described in Bolcer’s first sentence, “Carl Paladino, the Republican candidate for governor in New York.”  It’s a pattern consistently repeated throughout The Advocate’s online archive.

The Advocate’s obvious double standard in describing politicians’ political affiliations is glaringly partisan.  When a Republican is anti-gay, the political relationship will be announced in the title of the article, messaged in the lead sentence and repeated throughout the piece.  But when a Democrat is anti-gay, the political membership will not be mentioned in the article’s title or even lead sentence.  In the case of Kruger, The Advocate only took a passing shot by referring to the politician’s colleagues’ political association.

Even New York Magazine, known for being a left-wing operation, describes Kruger as a Democrat.  So why would The Advocate cover it up?  Continuing to shill for the Democratic party after its’ disastrous two years of Washington control is foolish and naive.  And pretending that anti-gay elements exist in just the Republican party alone is one of the erroneous assumptions that led to Prop 8’s passage in California.  Readers deserve better from a publication calling itself their advocate.  As for the editors, for whom do they think they are advocating?

san francisco mayor lee’s assault on california’s innovation

California has long been the preeminent home for dreamers, seducing the world’s most talented and successful movie stars, musicians, writers, techies, developers and deal makers.  California is the place the talented and driven go to turn dreams into reality.  Their personal success has, in turn, fueled government’s economic engines for decades, pushing California from the country’s dusty western outpost into the eighth largest economy in the world.  But some politicians are seeking quick fixes for the decades of their out of control spending habits by extorting some of the world’s most innovative companies.  San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and the Board of Supervisors reached a 20 year low this past week when proposed a new tax scheme to raise revenue from innovative entrepreneurs.  What an anti-American idea; this isn’t Russia.  Mayor Lee should end his thoughtless campaign to drive jobs from San Francisco and start prioritizing spending from the revenue he has.  San Francisco doesn’t have a revenue problem, they have a leadership problem. 

The city’s payroll tax – a rarity for Silicon Valley and other major tech industry hubs – punishes pre-IPO companies with excessive taxes for keeping their offices in San Francisco.  Companies like Twitter that haven’t yet gone public are being punished if they don’t move to the city’s new business development zone dubbed “hooker central” by some.  If they move to the low end, they get a high end tax break.  Unlike San Diego who redeveloped a 16 block decaying section of the city to attract new businesses, San Francisco wants privates companies to move to the blighted area before they do the work.  Looking at topographical maps of crime in San Francisco leads one to question why the public needs a Mayor and Board at all if they just tell private companies to do the hard work of redevelopment. 

Twitter and other pre-IPO tech companies have three unattractive options:  1) pay exorbitant taxes and stay in their offices; 2) force their employees and clients to travel to undesirable and unsafe new offices; or 3) flee the city limits.  To be fair to Lee, the payroll tax has been on the books since 2004 but it hasn’t been enforced until now.  It’s a travesty that an unelected official like Lee would be allowed to destroy growing businesses in San Francisco.  Twitter, perhaps suffering a bit of Stockholm Syndrome, has taken the high ground in the media, staying quiet, avoiding critical comments, and agreeing to stay if the incentive laid out by Lee is approved.

Unsurprisingly, the response by businesses to schemes like these is to simply flee California.  Hitched to their U-Hauls are much-needed tax revenue, jobs, prestige and a myriad of other benefits for the state.  The list of companies abandoning the state is staggering:  Computer Sciences Corp., DaVita, Hilton, Nissan North America, Northrup Grumman, the list goes on.  And for those innovative tech companies staying put, expansion plans are being made outside of California.  Apple built a $1 billion facility in North Carolina – a lovely place but not the hotbed of innovation like California.  eBay’s new operations center is in Utah.  Even the Automobile Club of Southern California uses its AAA Texas employees to do the work for the state.

Developing these creative tax traps – which would make Inception director Christopher Nolan jealous – requires enabling and support from the highest levels of the state’s political system.  Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein provide cover for Lee, his Supervisor friends and Lee’s counterpart in Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.  Politicians are shamelessly taking entrepreneurs hostage because they can’t come up with innovative solutions on their own.  They bleed every penny they can out of local businesses, and when a company skips out-of-state for reasonable tax laws, they find a new one to bully.  Lee’s characterization of this scheme as an “incentive” is laughable – it only incents politicians to chase naive ideas.

as the nfl fumbles, the ufc kicks it up a notch

As the National Football League spun into an abyss of finger pointing and legal action this past week, the Ultimate Fighting Championship made a brilliant, under-the-radar power play by acquiring Strike Force – the last remaining hurdle to unifying the sport under one organization.  The UFC may appear like an upstart against the NFL powerhouse in terms of fan base, revenue and reputation, but securing absolute ownership of the elite athletes of the sport signals that Dana White and company are an entertainment force to be reckoned with.  Bringing together the sport under one brand allows greater fan loyalty, more marketing opportunities and exponential revenue growth.  It’s a game-changer within an industry historically dominated by the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL.

But now the UFC has been elevated to the elite club of sports entertainment organizations.  And like most grassroots movements, the mainstream media and politicians are the last to realize it.

It wasn’t long ago that baseball, hailed as American as apple pie, was the nation’s pastime.  Even with the Super Bowl as the most watched TV event of the year, football couldn’t knock baseball from its throne.  Then the 1994 MLB strike happened.  Fans revolted and were forced to consider other entertainment options, giving football a fresh look.  Although today’s baseball ticket prices, player salaries and annual revenues show the sport is as strong as ever, the ’94 strike gave the NFL a chance to earn fans’ loyalty and permanently change the pecking order of professional sports.  Baseball executives and players can be pleased that a crisis was averted but there is still that creeping feeling of “what if?”

The inherent violence in the UFC will likely never win over enough of the female population for it to take the throne as America’s top sport, but those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  The NFL is heading for a drop-off that is entirely avoidable and the UFC is poised to take advantage of it if it happens.  Americans have always had a love affair with sports – all types of sports.  The spirit of teamwork and personal growth and the hope of fame and fortune is inherent on American little league fields, Saturday soccer schedules and high school locker rooms.  NFL fans will look elsewhere for their entertainment if there is a strike and there are plenty of options.

And Dana White is ready.  The UFC has risen from its humble beginnings in 1993 to surpass the one billion dollar mark; and it’s now broadcasting in more than 130 countries.  Fighters Randy Couture and Quinton Jackson are crossover successes and starred in two Hollywood blockbusters last year – The Expendables and The A-Team, respectively.  When Charlie Sheen’s fight with Chuck Lorre and CBS erupted, he name dropped the octagon – the UFC’s standard fight structure – as the place to bring his tiger blood and fire-breathing fists.  And the UFC is one of the premiere case studies of how social media can deliver when done right.  White’s embrace of Twitter showcases his strong personality and fan-appeal and he has personally won over legions of paying followers with his unparalleled direct dialogue.  With a rabid and growing fan base, the UFC’s ceiling is nowhere in sight.

As the NFL’s labor situation spirals out of control and with the NBA only a few months from a similar fate, UFC’s owner Zuffa LLC and White are surely brushing up on their history.  The redneck, uncouth reputation that’s unfairly been attached to the UFC like a scarlet letter is starting to fade.  Don’t let the tattoos, dark music and gallons of blood spilled on the mat fool you, this is a multi-billion dollar industry.

The political elites in Washington, financial whizs on Wall Street and studio heads in Hollywood ignore the sport at their own peril.  An economic impact report last year determined the sport could generate $25 million a year in benefits to New York alone if the state allows fights to be held and regulated.  That’s based on holding only two events.  In the midst of the financial crisis, legislators in Albany and Washington, DC have foolishly failed to ignore the sport.  And taxpayers should be outraged.

You don’t have to be a football or mixed martial arts fan to appreciate the spectacle of an American sports entertainment industry rising to world-wide prominence.  It’s a uniquely American story that should be celebrated by even government tax collectors.

chris dodd will do for hollywood what he did for wall street…

Hollywood Follows Wall Street?

Hollywood is supposed to be the place where people take risks.  It’s the place where the industry types push the limits anew and create something fresh from the faint.  It’s not supposed to be a place where yesterday is the standard.  But this week, the Hollywood establishment made two choices that puzzled the forward looking – the Oscar for Best Picture went to the safest movie “The King’s Speech,” and the studio heads picked ethically challenged Chris Dodd to lead the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

In the press release announcing his appointment as the new MPAA Chairman and CEO, studio heads credited Dodd as “battle-tested” and experienced at “consensus-building”.  But for anyone paying any attention to what’s happening in Washington these days, he’s one of the last people Hollywood needs representing them in the nation’s capital.  For the last 30 years, Dodd has been a polarizing partisan in Washington.  He’s a “proud Democrat” who considers bipartisanship a talking point rather than a philosophy.   In fact, when The Hill – one of two daily newspapers focused on Capitol Hill – surveyed every Senator in 2009 for their opinions on bipartisanship among their ranks, Dodd was named the third least bipartisan member of the Senate.  The studio heads are obviously partisans themselves but they shouldn’t also be foolish.  A simple study of the political lay of the land for 2012 shows the Democrats in the Senate headed for a major defeat.  If polls are accurate, Dodd will be expected to deliver votes from the majority Republican Party he has trash-talked for three decades.

While political expediency may seem inconsequential to Hollywood, it’s a critical issue inside the Beltway.  The Democratic Party has long embraced Hollywood – supporting legislative agendas, making major campaign contributions and tolerating its creativity when critics complain the entertainment industry is out-of-touch with America.  And Hollywood’s outreach to conservatives has been almost non-existent.  The one-sided strategy is a big risk and having Dodd lead it is even more dangerous.  As revolutions in technology and international distribution continue to risk Hollywood’s current status quo, the last person the industry needs as its spokesman is banking specialist Dodd. 

Sending Dodd to Washington means Hollywood is looking to replicate Wall Street’s behavior of the last decade.  Dodd gave us the multi-billion dollar bailouts and failures of AIG, Bear Stearns and Countrywide from his perch as Chairman of the Banking Committee.  Why would Hollywood studio executives want to create the sequel if the original flopped?  American taxpayers have seen this movie before.

Richard Grenell & Brad Chase

no wonder aig needed a bailout

When you get a $173 billion dollar bailout from American taxpayers you don’t have to worry about making good financial decisions – especially when Congress and the Obama Administration aren’t paying attention to what you’re doing.  Ever since AIG got their enormous taxpayer bailout, they have been dragging their feet on paying back the money.  In Taiwan, AIG has flailed repeated in what should have been an easy sale of its local insurance unit, called Nan Shan.  Most recently, AIG inexplicably chose the low bidder in a deal that Taiwanese regulators may have to reject for the second time.  This is no way to run a company, unless you aren’t worried about the bottom line because you are owned and backed by the U.S. government.  The American taxpayer owns 92% of AIG but has no say in its decision-making process.

Last year, AIG CEO Robert Benmoche said, “I’m confident you’re going to get your money back plus a profit.”  But today, AIG remains one of the largest debtors under the TARP bailout program.  The Taiwan example may be the perfect illustration for why they haven’t been able to pay the U.S. taxpayer back.  As part of AIG’s original agreement with the U.S. government, it is required to sell off their assets.  U.S. regulators assumed that meant they would sell them to the highest bidder.  Since AIG is using our money, they have a responsibility to the American taxpayer to take the best price they can get, right?  Well, not really.  The financial wizards at AIG took the 4th highest price for their Taiwanese unit and left $800 million on the table.

AIG’s incompetence is on prominent display in Asia — and the Obama administration and Congress seem not to care.  In its first go-round, which began in May of 2009, AIG tried to sell Nan Shan to a consortium consisting of a battery manufacturer with operations in mainland China and a Hong Kong-based venture capital group.  Included in the consortium were people with official positions bestowed by the Chinese Communist Party.  Astonishingly, it didn’t occur to AIG that this might be a sensitive issue for Taiwanese regulators.  The deal was announced in September of 2009 and rejected the following summer by overseers.  But few people outside of AIG’s executive suite were surprised.

Round two does not appear to be going any better for the bailed out company.  Just last month, AIG chose a supermarket operator named Ruentex from 4 different bidders who wanted to buy their Taiwan business.  You’d think AIG would prefer a finance company be owned by a company with finance experience, right?  More stunningly, AIG reportedly left almost $1 billion sitting on the table—money that rightly belongs to U.S. taxpayers – in the deal.  They reportedly passed over three would-be buyers, offering up to $3 billion for Nan Shan, in order to take a $2.2 billion offer from a company that sells more wontons than insurance policies.  It’s no wonder AIG needed a bailout. 

The outcome, which surprised not only onlookers in Taiwan, but Wall Street analysts in New York, continues to defy serious explanation.  AIG claims the Ruentex offer was the most credible and best overall.  But the deal seems suspect.  Obama’s Treasury Department and Congress should be asking some serious questions.  But the Obama team hasn’t even instructed our de-facto embassy in Taipei to talk to the Taiwanese government about the U.S. interest the deal.  This means, nobody is watching what AIG is doing.  But since AIG is gambling with our money, someone in Washington should start asking some tough questions.

hillary’s advocate

The Advocate’s cover story by Kerry Eleveld on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is riddled with inaccuracies, hype and spin.  Eleveld’s piece and The Advocate’s continuous partisan political coverage contributes to the erroneous and dangerous assumption that all Democrats are good and all Republicans are bad on LGBT issues.  Eleveld failed to quote one single dissenting opinion from the spin Clinton staffers spun her.  While there is no question that Clinton has built on the changes made by Secretary Condi Rice for LGBT staffers at State (and should be applauded for that progress), the premise that the Bush State Department team was hostile and the Clinton team has done all it can do is flat wrong.  A more nuanced and balanced piece would have given it greater credibility.   

Here are a few of the facts you didn’t get from Eleveld.  I feel compelled to correct the record:

- Clinton has the same stance on gay marriage as Rice and Dick Cheney.  Eleveld’s excuse-making for Clinton’s stance by saying “she wasn’t taking any political bait” or was trying not to cross her boss is ironic given that Bush Administration officials were not allowed the same courtesy or treatment for their differing views.

- Changes to passport regulations for transgendered people were designed and begun under Bush and Rice.  DAS Brenda Sprague says it but Eleveld gives Clinton the credit.  Eleveld’s use of the word “apparently” to refer to this fact is offensive to those of us who worked at State under Bush and made progress on LGBT issues.  Give credit where credit is due.

- Mark Bromley is a Democrat who worked for liberal Senator Russ Feingold.  His characterization of his conversation with an unnamed Bush Administration official three years ago is presented without evidence because it isn’t true.  Eleveld failed to check the facts on his assertions.

- Pat Kennedy is a friend of mine whom I have worked closely with for several years.  While I fought to make changes at State during the Bush years to extend certain rights and privileges for my partner, Kennedy was part of the team that stonewalled and ultimately denied my repeated demands and ignored my follow–up requests.  It’s also important to note that neither Bromley nor any other LGBT activist helped my cause at the time.

- Eleveld’s characterization of Clinton’s weak Ugandan response is laughable and defies logic.  Clinton’s State Department handled the Ugandan situation as Rice’s State Department handled most every LGBT issue that arose in Africa – through quiet diplomacy as not to offend another government.  To subscribe pure motives to Clinton’s hushed strategy but not to Rice’s is fantasy and beguiles decades of State Department practices.  Cheryl Mills may think back-channeling is something new but I can assure you it is not.

- Highlighting the fact that Clinton knew a staffer’s name carrying her bags for a week hardly seems remarkable or note worthy.  The story was gratuitous.

- Claiming that the highest ranking openly gay official under Clinton is a deputy assistant secretary level employee is embarrassing given the premise of the article and the excuse making Eleveld does for Clinton’s failed promise to appoint one person to her senior team to cover LGBT issues.  Rice’s State Department had higher ranking openly gay officials than this State Department has.  They were just never highlighted by The Advocate.

Over the last months, conservatives have complained to The Advocate for its inaccurate and glowing coverage of Obama Administration official Susan Rice, its lack of coverage of John Bolton’s support for DADT and gay marriage, and it’s whitewashing of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s failed 2 years of dominance.  The Advocate has never responded to the questions raised. 

This past week, singer/songwriter Sophie B. Hawkins three times reached out to The Advocate to highlight the gay conservative group GOProud’s event in Washington, DC where Hawkins performed.  All phone calls and emails from Hawkins and her team were systematically and completely ignored.  This disregard for conservative activism by Advocate staffers has sadly been the norm and only further distorts the political problems LGBT people face.  It’s time The Advocate stop painting Democrats with a perfect brush and start highlighting the efforts of gay conservatives working to limit government’s involvement in LGBT people’s lives.  Haven’t the last 2 years of total Democratic domination in Washington proven that the recycled stories and tired headlines of how wonderful Democrats have been on LGBT issues are wrong?

huffpost purchased by aol

The Huffington Post may have been founded as the liberal answer to the conservative Drudge Report, a place for progressive wound-licking in the wake of George W. Bush’s re-election.

But on Monday, Arianna Huffington was distancing herself from the lefty label as she announced the sale of HuffPost to AOL for $315 million.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49006.html#ixzz1DJSx7nLn

Arianna Huffington is pictured. | AP Photo

gay leaders need a tea party shakeup; 111th congress a total failure

The entrenched gay leaders in Washington, DC, have spent the last two years blaming Republicans for the fact that they themselves have struck out on Capitol Hill and will end the 111th Congress with nothing to show for their multimillion-dollar fundraising efforts.  If this were a public company, the Board or the shareholders would have run these leaders out of town a long time ago. 

Despite campaigning for decades to put Democrats in control of all of Washington, their dream ticket of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama failed to deliver what the gay leaders themselves promised the movement.  Led by Joe Solmonese of Human Right Campaign and Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemen’s Legal Defense Network, gay leaders have been tripping over themselves to protect President Obama from blame for not making the promised progress on gay equality.  Solmonese and Sarvis are the faces of the most expensive failed gay campaign in history.  Other gay leaders in Washington also have turned their comfortable and high-paying perches into a safe haven free from the consequences of job performance evaluations. 

Gay Americans from outside Washington should demand that they stop sacrificing progress to further their personal political careers.  It’s time we found some young gay leaders who will work for equality and not be concerned about pleasing the Democratic Party.  

Gay politics are not black and white.  It isn’t true that all Democrats are good on gay issues and all Republicans bad.  The outcome of the Prop 8 vote in California, where the traditionally Democratic state also overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama for President, proves that Democrats have a lot of work to do in their own party.  Republicans have failed us, too.  I am not suggesting we dismiss the GOP sins of advocating for small government policies while practicing intrusive, big government tactics.  But Republicans who advocate laissez-faire principles can be great allies, just as liberal Southern Democrats can be strong opponents working against us.  But Somonese and Sarvis have never seen it this way.  For them, it’s all a process to help the Democratic Party win more seats.  And for this failed strategy, they should be judged harshly.

The partisan leaders of the gay and lesbian movement in Washington have spent endless political capital telling us that we would be better off if all of our elected officials were Democrats.  They have spent millions of dollars trying to convince us that we will be taken care of by a partisan Democratic America.  At the same time, they have also secured their positions of prominence within the Democratic Party by being able to deliver the gay vote.  Sadly, we have become tokens for their careers.  In early 2009, Sarvis sent a strong message to his Democratic friends that it wasn’t the right time for the Democratic Party to take up gay issues yet.  He told the Washington Times that waiting until at least 2010 for some LGBT victories made sense.  “Where does ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ fall in all this?,” Sarvis asked.  “I would say it is not in the top five priorities of national issues.”  His Board should have fired him on the spot.

It is painfully obvious that the national gay leaders have promoted their own partisan agendas and careers within the Democratic Party instead of working to ensure passage of civil rights.  Solmonese, a seasoned Democratic Party activist who at first maneuvered for a political appointment in the Obama Administration, couldn’t even move Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who represents the gayest district in the country, to put DADT or gay marriage up for a standalone vote in the House.  And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid easily manipulated gay leaders into supporting him to wait until after November’s elections to put controversial issues up for votes.  Reid wanted this issue to be unresolved going into November’s elections and Solmonese and Sarvis allowed it.  The real tragedy is that gay leaders in Washington don’t have enough moxy to move their own political party – the party that controls the White House, the Senate and the House.  It is a sign that they either don’t have the skills to make political progress or are too close to the Democratic leadership and therefore unwilling to make the necessary push.  We can do better and we should start by demanding for Somonese’s and Sarvis’ resignations.

why aren’t we profiling?

Leaders at all levels of government should be profiling those individuals who make bombs, smuggle weapons on planes or support those who do. Wire tapping, profiling and undercover operations are less intrusive and cheaper than patting down every traveler’s body. The ACLU’s mission is not to keep Americans safe but to ensure that an individual’s private behavior stays private. Unfortunately, the government is going to have to find and stop some private behavior before it becomes a public terrorist attack.