Francis Maude defends scope and speed of reforms with claim earlier governments have not pushed ahead vigorously enough

The coalition is trying to push through quicker and more vigorous reforms than attempted by either Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair in their first terms, Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister and senior Tory responsible for the party’s transition into government, said today.

There has been criticism that David Cameron risks overloading the Whitehall machine, and storing up political trouble, by quickly pursuing radical reforms on so many fronts simultaneously.

But Maude, in a Guardian interview, said: “If you look at the last transitions of governments and the way they came in, I would say one of the things that Thatcher regretted was not pushing ahead vigorously enough, and quickly enough, in terms of reform. The big reforming Thatcher governments were not until 1983 and 1987.

“Similarly, the Blair government did not just waste its first 100 days – it wasted its first five years. By contrast we have prepared very carefully. So we are well equipped to hit the ground running”

A member of the cabinet’s “star chamber” on spending, Maude defended plans for a vast efficiency drive, including redundancies in Whitehall, saying it was the best way to ultimately protect frontline public services.

He said he wanted to unleash a new wave of public sector entrepreneurs willing to take over public services as co-ops or mutuals. He also pointed to the 60,000 responses to the Treasury’s call for suggestions on how to make government more efficient as proof that there is a thirst to take charge of public services.

Maude, seen as one of the first modernisers of the Tory party, positively embraced the coalition with the Liberal Democrats, saying: “For a government facing a national crisis, to be a broad-based government is a huge advantage.”

He said the preparatory work he had undertaken for a majority Conservative government “had to be adapted for coalition purposes, but nonetheless we came in with a huge overlap between what we wanted to do and what the Lib Dems wanted to do. Obviously we had thought a lot more about it.”

Referring to the dismissive putdown of the coalition attributed to the leading rightwing backbencher David Davis last week, Maude said: “If I look at the ‘brokeback coalition’ jibe there is a bit of a compliment in there – relationships are good and it is kind of working. There is a lot of trust and a lot of stuff gets sorted out because they [Cameron and Nick Clegg] talk to one another and they have a strong personal relationship.”

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, joined the call to keep up the pace of reform, saying: “The lesson you learn is that you only have limited time in government to make reform happen because after two years you often spend a lot of your time dealing with events. Time is very limited, and if you are going to make change, you have to make change early.”

There has been concern in some Tory circles that the coalition, since its formation in May, has been pursuing too much radical change on too many fronts.

The issue was raised at a political cabinet earlier this month, but it is hard for Downing Street to contain cabinet ministers competing to produce radical agendas before the clouds of the autumn spending round dominate the landscape.

The former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown called on the government this week to slow the pace of reform, urging it to try pilot projects to test the ground before embarking on full-scale change.

Since the election, the government has announced plans to eradicate the structural deficit by the end of the parliament, reform welfare, put GP commissioning at the heart of NHS change, set up a wave of new academies and free schools, elect police commissioners to oversee police, impose radical reforms to the pay and conditions of public sector workers, and introduce the biggest wave of constitutional reform since the 1832 Great Reform Act, including a referendum next May on the alternative vote system.

In a sign that the government recognises that public opinion is in a fragile state, Cameron is to not planning to relax in early August, but will be undertaking two “PM directs” in the regions next week to try to reassure voters that the cuts programme is necessary and not part of an ideological drive to shrink the state.

The shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, who is due to launch a “Save our NHS” campaign tomorrow, said today that the Tories were making the major strategic mistake of reforming the structures of the NHS at a time when it was facing such financial challenge. “They will live to regret this. I think within a year or so, they will have a major crisis on their hands.”

He said government had no full mandate for these reforms as they had not been in the coalition document, which proposed no further significant upheaval.

Maude rejected the charge that the NHS changes could be seen as a surprise. “I think the health reforms, such as GP commissioning, were all there. People should have read the words in the manifesto.”

In the BMA’s fullest response to the white paper, chairman Hamish Meldrum said doctors would engage with the proposals, but warned: “Many are concerned that it will increase the role of the market in healthcare and result in the increased participation of the commercial sector.”

Popularity: 1% [?]

WASHINGTON — The House has approved a bill to boost safety standards for offshore drilling and remove a $75 million cap on economic liability for oil spills.

Democratic leaders call the bill passed Friday a comprehensive response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and say it would increase drilling safety and crack down on oil companies such as BP.

Republicans and some oil-state Democrats opposed the measure, calling it a federal power grab that would raise energy prices and kill thousands of American jobs.

The House passed the bill 209-193. Partisan disagreements in the Senate will likely delay final passage of legislation responding to the Gulf oil spill until at least September, when Congress returns from its summer recess.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Portland authorities signaled on Friday that they will no longer continue to investigate charges made against former Vice President Al Gore stemming from allegations he groped a licensed massage therapist in 2006.

Local television station KOIN reports:

The complaining witness, Molly Hagerty, stated that she was sexually abused during a massage session at the Hotel Lucia when Gore was in Portland.

Hagerty failed a polygraph test during the course of the investigation, and there was no DNA evidence on the pants she claimed she wore during the alleged incident, according to investigators.

Gore has vehemently denied the charges of sexual misconduct that recently came to light when the Portland Police Bureau signaled it was opening an investigation into the case.

After news broke that the probe would be dropped, Gore spokesman Kalee Kreider said in a statement:

“Mr. Gore unequivocally and emphatically denied this accusation when he first learned of its existence three years ago. He respects and appreciates the thorough and professional work of the Portland authorities and is pleased that this matter has now been put to rest.”

The National Enquirer first broke news of controversy last month.

Multnomah County District Attorney Michael D. Schrunk issued a statement summarizing the deficiencies in the case:

1. Ms. Hagerty, who has red hair, states she called Mr. Gore immediately following the alleged incident and told him to “dream of redheaded women” seemingly in contradiction to her assertions that she was terrified of Mr. Gore. Two days after the alleged incident Ms. Hagerty also sent an email to the Hotel Lucia stating that she appreciated the business referrals she received from the hotel. She did not mention any problem with Mr. Gore;

2. Witnesses at the hotel where the alleged incident occurred state they do not remember seeing or hearing anything unusual—directly contradicting Ms. Hagerty’s published claim in the July 12, 2010 of the National Enquirer that she was “shaking and in shock” and “rushed down the hall and to the lobby where the front desk clerk noticed she was upset was asked if she was OK”;

3. Forensic testing of pants retained by Ms. Hagerty as possible evidence are negative for the presence of seminal fluid;

4. Ms. Hagerty has not provided as repeatedly requested medical records she claims are related to the case;

5. Ms. Hagerty has also failed to provide other records related to the case;

6. Ms. Hagerty failed a polygraph examination;

7. It appears Ms. Hagerty was paid by the National Enquirer for her story; and

8. Mr. Gore voluntarily met with detectives and denied all of the allegations.

Popularity: unranked [?]

I am the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. You can read my work on The Seminal or at Rethink Afghanistan. The views expressed below are my own.

I’m not perfect. I don’t get everything right, not by a long shot. For example, remember my optimistic response to Thomas Ruttig’s pessimistic report on the Kabul Peace Jirga? Turns out I was super wrong about that. I understand this blogosphere of ours is an open debate, and I’m willing to reassess how I may have misjudged whatever the situation is on any given day.

So when I see a headline in the New York Times like “In Midterm Elections, Afghan War Barely Surfaces“, something that directly contradicts my analysis, I’m more than happy to take a look and see what we have to learn.

According to my reading of the facts, the movement to end the war in Afghanistan is exploding. Congress is slowly waking up it, and we’ve seen triple the votes to block the war from what we saw just last year. A few more votes like that and it’s over. Not only that, but I’m hearing directly from candidates that their constituents are very interested in the war in Afghanistan.

Here’s Elaine Marshall, candidate for Senate in North Carolina [emphasis mine]:

She then talked about the deep cost on veteran families due to the war, saying, “The emotional and physical trauma that we’ve seen from this war is really just the tip of the iceberg. I’m very concerned as to the emotional and physical state of these folks coming home.” She also said that when she talks to people in her state about her stance, she gets a lot of respect: “People say, ‘I appreciate your stance, I appreciate you talking about it, I appreciate that you’re looking at more than just the headlines.”

And there’s Tommy Sowers, running for the House of Representatives in Missouri [emphasis mine]:

First, across the country, districts like this carry the burden of the war in a visceral way. When I’m in a room, I ask folks if they are veterans or if they’re related to people currently serving – it’s almost the entire room. So, on a very personal level, these people are asking, “What are we accomplishing over there?” A lot of families ask their own family members that are over there this question.

Second, on a fiscal level, this district has suffered under Republican incumbent rule in terms of infrastructure. There’s great concern about the debt, and people ask, “Why are we spending so much money over there?”

But maybe the folks in Missouri and North Carolina are just weird, anomalous Americans, and don’t really count to the New York Times. Fine, the article in question focuses on Pennsylvania. Let’s see what the voters there have to say [emphasis mine]:

Asked what he considers the major issues in this year’s midterm Congressional elections, Claude Nicolas, 24, paused from munching on a sushi roll and crisply ticked off three: jobs, the economy and immigration.

The war in Afghanistan? “Wow, I didn’t think of that,” he replied, almost sheepishly. “That’s definitely a factor of how not on the public radar it is. It’s gone on so long people are tired of it.” [...]

Norman Stellander, a resident of this Philadelphia suburb who usually votes Republican, exemplifies the general lack of interest in the war. Mr. Stellander lost his job with a medical publishing company in June, and the only issue that really matters to him is the economy.

At the bottom of the article, there’s a photo of some buff dude carrying a hot bikini blonde along a beach, inviting us to read about “36 hours in East Hampton.” Well, you might not see it, because there’s also an annoying pop-up asking if you want to read the 600 words they paid some guy to write about the “frenzy” over Chelsea Clinton’s wedding. Clearly the New York Times has their finger firmly on the pulse of Pennsylvania voters, like the unemployed Stellander who, again, lists his number one concern as “the economy.”

Sadly, the reporter does not appear to have followed up and explained to Stellander that the war and the economy are inseparable issues.

And there’s the rub. This doesn’t seem to be an instance of people not caring about the war, it’s that they were allowed to forget about it. The mainstream media, typically exemplified by, oh I don’t know, the New York Times, isn’t doing a good enough job of covering the war in Afghanistan, at least relative to the gravity of the situation. The New York Times explains [emphasis mine]:

An analysis of major news reports between January 2007 and July 2010 by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism found that Afghanistan ranked sixth in total coverage by print, online, television and radio outlets, well behind the presidential campaign, the economic crisis, the health care debate and Iraq.

Hmm. Now why do you suppose Nr. Nicolas forgot about the war in Afghanistan? Why was it off the public’s radar? Remember what the people of North Carolina said to Elaine Marshall? “I appreciate that you’re looking at more than just the headlines.” Just like the connection between the war and the economy, the New York Times fails to make the connection between people forgetting about the war and their terrible coverage of that war.

But this doesn’t just cover voters’ perceptions. Candidates themselves are also twisted by the piss-poor mainstream media coverage of the war in Afghanistan. Check out who makes an appearance in that New York Times article: None other than the outsider, anti-establishment, insurgent candidate himself, Navy Admiral turned Congressman Joe Sestak. [emphasis mine]

Representative Joe Sestak, a Democrat who is in a tight race for the United States Senate in Pennsylvania, said it was not a top-of-mind issue for voters he meets.

“The way people have been slammed by the economy, the documents might cause the war to move from the fifth or sixth question I get to the fourth,” he said.

But Mr. Sestak, a retired Navy vice admiral, said he hoped the leaks would prod the Obama administration to do a better job of explaining its goals in Afghanistan and to establish benchmarks for progress.

“The public does have doubts about the strategy,” he said. “Let’s answer their questions.”

Yes, Joe, let’s answer their questions. We can start with “Congressman, why, just this last Wednesday, did you vote yes for $33 billion dollars in order to continue using our soldiers as pawns in an Afghan civil war?” Or maybe “Why did you vote yes to add $33 billion directly to the deficit at a time when congress is seriously discussing cutting critical programs like Medicare and Social Security in order to reduce our debt?”

And remember, Joe, the New York Times isn’t going to help you, so you’ll have to make sure the voters are fully aware of where you stand on the war in Afghanistan. You can just drop it right into your stump speech. Something like “Citizens of Bensalem, Pennsylvania, I am running to be your Senator because I agree with President Obama that our troops should continue to be fighting and dying in a proxy war with Pakistan’s Army and intelligence services. I absolutely believe that we need to blowout the deficit by supporting trillion-dollar wars that make all of you less safe.” You know, you have speech writers, they can figure something out.

You have to tell the voters where you stand, Joe. You have to tell them that you’re voting to continuing the war. Then you might discover that the war is the first question people ask you about, not the sixth or fourth.

But again, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s all in my imagination that both the Democratic and Republican parties are shifting dramatically against the war. Maybe people just don’t care about the war in Afghanistan.

What do you think? Is the New York Times and Joe Sestak right, do you really not care about the longest war in American history? Are you really not interested in adding trillions of dollars straight to the deficit for wars that put us in danger and wreak havoc on our economy? The thousands of dead Americans, Afghans, and Pakistanis, the unworkable bureaucratic garbage of our veterans care system, the countless suicides when that system fails our troops – these things won’t be weighing on you when you enter the voting booth this fall?

If I’m not wrong, and you are actually concerned about our war in Afghanistan, sign our petition declaring “I vote and I demand my elected official end this war by December 2011.” Join us on Rethink Afghanistan’s Facebook page, and be sure to check out the Meetups in your area.

Together we’ll help Congressman Sestak and others get the message: End the war in Afghanistan, or there will be consequences in November.

Popularity: unranked [?]

A few years ago, Lawrence Bender and Jeffrey Skoll set out to make a new documentary about nuclear weapons, a film which would act as a wake up call to the imperative of nuclear abolition, just as their last project, An Inconvenient Truth, galvanized public discourse--and action--surrounding climate change. Teamed up with policy expert Bruce Blair and Writer-Director Lucy Walker (Devil's Playground, Blindsight) they created the newly released Countdown to Zero, which unequivocally argues that, whether by accident, malicious intent of "terrorists" or as a result of failed diplomacy, nuclear weapons pose an unacceptable risk and must be eliminated.

While scores of arms control and disarmament civil society groups are deeply inspired by the mass consciousness-raising and mobilization opportunity the film presents, many disarmament activists are vocally disappointed with the film. They are concerned that the film overemphasizes the hazard of sub-state actors acquiring these weapons of terror and places insufficient responsibility upon countries like the US and Russia for their continued reliance on-- and dangerous posture of-- nuclear weapons.

Countdown to Zero makes the case for abolition without employing the moral arguments eloquently posited by luminaries such as Albert Schweitzer, or Cold Warrior George Kennan, who once stated:

The readiness to use nuclear weapons against other human beings - against people we do not know, whom we have never seen, and whose guilt or innocence is not for us to establish - and, in doing so, to place in jeopardy the natural structure upon which all civilization rests, as though the safety and perceived interests of our own generation were more important than everything that has taken place or could take place in civilization: this is nothing less than a presumption, a blasphemy, an indignity- an indignity of monstrous dimensions - offered to God!

Indeed the film omits many valid arguments highly relevant to advancing to the security of a world without nuclear weapons:

1) The continued possession of nuclear weapons--which by itself entails a threat to use them--instigates others to acquire them. As UN High Representative Sergio Duarte said, "One cannot worship at the altar of nuclear weapons and raise heresy charges against those who want to join the sect."

2) It is necessary to uphold the rule of law by fulfilling the unanimous ruling of the International Court of Justice wherein the Court held " ...there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control"

3) Because nuclear weapons, in the words of the late Senator Alan Cranston, are "unworthy of civilization," it is imperative as a matter of conscience to address their moral impropriety.

4) We should not overlook the injustice and destabilizing impact of the extraordinary economic expenditures wasted on nuclear weapons and outrageous allocations within nuclear weapons-states to modernize their arsenals - a burlesque expression of improved means to unimproved ends.

5) This is the moment to utilize the political high ground opened by the Five Point Plan set forth by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon which includes, inter alia, a "call for the (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) NPT parties to pursue negotiations in good faith - as required by the treaty - on nuclear disarmament, either through a new convention or through a series of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification."

6) Every citizen has a right to demand compliance with the commitments stated as "The reaffirmation by the nuclear-weapon States of their unequivocal undertaking to accomplish, in accordance with the principle of irreversibility, the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all States parties are committed under Article VI of the Treaty," as stipulated in the 2010 Final Document of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, agreed to by 189 countries that are parties to the NPT, and the important diplomatic processes that are necessary to achieve that goal.

Do such omissions weaken the core argument of the film? Do they dilute the film's efficacy as a public outreach and engagement tool? Hardly. Rather, it is the responsibility of civil society groups and concerned citizens to seize the opportunity of this powerful, mass-distributed major motion film arguing for abolition and supplement the film's message by drawing attention to these various initiatives and remonstrations.

Of course nuclear proponents could try to use the film for their own nefarious ends by focusing singularly on the dangers of terrorists or unfriendly states getting a hold of the weapons, arguing that military force can prevent such proliferation. Such people brought the US into a war in Iraq by simply telling lies. Will they try to distort the message of this film? Possibly. However, this possibility should only motivate abolition-minded civil society members to redouble our efforts and help amplify the movie's unambiguous concluding message: that abolition is the only way, and we will achieve it with engaged, public support.

The film's core message is compelling, effectively presented and unambiguous: the only way to address the nuclear threat of nuclear weapons is through their elimination. Towards this end, it calls for incremental threat-reducing steps, such as bringing the new US-Russia Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty into force, taking the weapons off of high alert status, lowering the numbers of existing warheads and obtaining a universal, legal, intrusive, and enforceable agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Russia, the United States and China already have pronounced modernization programs in place, to say nothing of the more shrouded programs by the "unofficial" nuclear weapon states of Israel, India and Pakistan. The politics of turning these programs around will require a shift in the characterization of nuclear weapons: that they are a greater problem than any problem they seek to solve. This is the message of Countdown to Zero. This shift will require all of us to speak up, mobilize public opinion and, as captioned in the last frame of the movie "Demand Zero"!

Jonathan Granoff is the President of the Global Security Institute (GSI). Rhianna Tyson Kreger is a Senior Officer at GSI. See: www.gsinstitute.org.

This post originally appeared on the Tikkun blog.

Even with the House frantically debating a series of last-minute, pre-recess bills, pols still delivered all the ridiculous stories we've come to expect on Fridays. Ronald Regan's son is cashing in on his family's name and combating Godless liberals all at once. David Vitter, still radioactive after his prostitution scandal and hiring an aide with a tragically ironic rap sheet, is trolling for cop endorsements. And, lest we forget, Linda McMahon is under attack for her crotch-kicking habit. Happy weekend, everyone, we'll be patiently waiting by our computers for a "poke" from Rand Paul. This is HUFFPOST HILL for Friday, July 30th, 2010:

JUST IN: BEN NELSON TO VOTE AGAINST ELENA KAGAN - "I have heard concerns from Nebraskans regarding Ms. Kagan, and her lack of a judicial record makes it difficult for me to discount the concerns raised by Nebraskans, or to reach a level of comfort that these concerns are unfounded. Therefore, I will not vote to confirm Ms. Kagan's nomination," the Nebraska Senator said in a statement.

Judd Gregg is a 'aye.' The New Hampshire Senator's support brings the number of Republicans backing Kagan to five. He joins Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Richard Lugar. The Senate is expected to vote on Kagan's nomination next week, its last before the August recess.

BREAKING: AL GORE CLEARED BY PORTLAND POLICE - "Portland Police and the Multnomah County District Attorney's office have cleared Al Gore of criminal wrongdoing in the sex assault case filed by masseuse Molly Hagerty. 'After evaluating the materials submitted by PPB I have concluded that I agree with the assessment that a sustainable criminal case does not exist,' said District Attorney Michael D. Schrunk, in a statement. ... Hagerty failed a polygraph test during the course of the investigation, and there was no DNA evidence on the pants she claimed she wore during the alleged incident, according to investigators." http://bit.ly/aTvIZL

The summary provided by the DA:

1. Ms. Hagerty, who has red hair, states she called Mr. Gore immediately following the alleged incident and told him to "dream of redheaded women" seemingly in contradiction to her assertions that she was terrified of Mr. Gore. Two days after the alleged incident Ms. Hagerty also sent an email to the Hotel Lucia stating that she appreciated the business referrals she received from the hotel. She did not mention any problem with Mr. Gore;

2. Witnesses at the hotel where the alleged incident occurred state they do not remember seeing or hearing anything unusual---directly contradicting Ms. Hagerty's published claim in the July 12, 2010 of the National Enquirer that she was "shaking and in shock" and "rushed down the hall and to the lobby where the front desk clerk noticed she was upset was asked if she was OK";

3. Forensic testing of pants retained by Ms. Hagerty as possible evidence are negative for the presence of seminal fluid;

4. Ms. Hagerty has not provided as repeatedly requested medical records she claims are related to the case;

5. Ms. Hagerty has also failed to provide other records related to the case;

6. Ms. Hagerty failed a polygraph examination;

7. It appears Ms. Hagerty was paid by the National Enquirer for her story; and

8. Mr. Gore voluntarily met with detectives and denied all of the allegations.

Gore spokesman Kalee Kreider: "Mr. Gore unequivocally and emphatically denied this accusation when he first learned of its existence three years ago. He respects and appreciates the thorough and professional work of the Portland authorities and is pleased that this matter has now been put to rest."

GOOD RIDDANCE TO JULY! Hottest month ever recorded in the U.S... http://bit.ly/bI1g6s Deadliest month ever in Afghanistan war... http://huff.to/d6gaJA

EARLY VACATION - The House just passed the BP oil spill response bill, the CLEAR Act, on a 209-193 vote. It's a MAJOR overhaul of the oil industry -- so why's the tally so low? Because 21 REPUBLICANS and 9 DEMOCRATS played hooky and skipped off early.

HUFFPOST HILL'S FIRST USE OF "DEMS IN DISARRAY": THEY CAN'T AGREE ON BUSH TAX CUTS - Lucia Graves on the total, complete, irreversible meltdown of the Democratic Party...forever: "Democratic Reps. Tom Perriello and Gerry Connolly of Virginia say their party should stay on message this election season, but it's hard to do when Dems don't agree. The Bush tax cuts will be a pivotal issue in November as candidates hash out how to shrink the deficit and boost the economy, and though Connolly and Perriello often vote together, the freshman lawmakers part ways on whether to extend tax cuts for Americans making over $250,000 per year."

How Speaker Pelosi is messaging the issue (from her interview with David Rogers published today): "We would welcome the distinction between tax cuts for the middle class. And tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country holding hostage the tax cuts for the middle class."

ETHICS SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS "REPRIMAND" FOR RANGEL - WaPo: "The subcommittee that investigated Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has recommended that the embattled lawmaker face just a 'reprimand,' a mild form of punishment similar to that given to Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) when he was rebuked in 1997. Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) told reporters Friday that his four-member investigative subcommittee did not seek the high-level punishments of censure or expulsion, opting for a mid-level sanction that requires the full House to approve it but carries no 1other penalty." http://bit.ly/9ghc9k

The folks at Credo Action have collected over 250,000 signatures for a petition calling on the White House Correspondents Association to award Helen Thomas' vacated seat to NPR. http://bit.ly/cf4Xxv

WHCA President David Jackson, of USA Today, declined to comment on the matter, and Fox News did not reply to a request for comment. But NPR issued a statement Friday trying to distance itself from the petitions: "NPR would like to make it clear that we are not involved in any way in the petitions now circulating... We have no position on the petitions, and no comment on the other media organizations that are competing for the seat." http://politi.co/dACQU4

DWINDLING RETIREMENT SAVINGS "UNDISCUSSED EXPLOSIVE BOMB" - Laura Bassett making your day just that much less cheery: "Aside from stagnant wages, soaring unemployment and plummeting home values, the major tragedy of this recession is the havoc it has wreaked on the retirement incomes of millions of Americans who have planned and saved their entire lives, only to watch that money drain out of their accounts much sooner than they anticipated. Retirement statistics are grim. The percentage of American workers who said they have less than $10,000 in savings grew to 43 percent in 2010, according to a recent survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Nearly a quarter of the workforce said they have postponed their planned retirement in the past year and a CareerBuilder.com survey reports that 61 percent of workers say they are now living paycheck to paycheck, as compared to 43 percent in 2007." http://huff.to/cRsY9j

DAILY DELANEY DOWNER - Senate Democrats want to cut $6.7 billion in future food stamp funding to help pay for Medicaid and education funding for states. For some reason this is more feasible than closing the loophole that allows obscenely rich investment fund managers to pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. Vote's on Monday.

ARTHUR DELANEY COMMISSIONED READER POLL: Which is sadder? Cutting food stamp funding or cutting $25 per week from unemployment benefits? :(

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are way pissed at the White House for saying one thing while doing another (pulling a "Snooki?"). They are "irate that the Obama administration has promised Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) $1.5 billion in farm aid while claiming it can't pay a landmark legal settlement with black farmers. Six members of the Congressional Black Caucus wrote to President Obama on Thursday calling on him to find a way to compensate black farmers who suffered discrimination in government loan programs during the 1980s and 1990s." The Hill: http://bit.ly/bpFttB

TOMORROW'S PAPERS TODAY - Washington Post: Dana Milbank on how talk-show host Glenn Beck has at times spoken against violence, but he more often forecasts it. -- AND -- David Ignatius says the Obama administration and Congress are running scared from the gun lobby. It's the kind of situation, he says, that makes foreigners wonder if good governance has taken a holiday.

NEXT WEEK'S OBAMA TODAY - From the White House: "On Monday, the President will speak at the national convention of Disabled American Veterans in Atlanta, Georgia. He will address our ongoing drawdown in Iraq as we near the goal of ending our combat mission at the end of August, as well as our support for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he will discuss the Administration's commitment to serve our veterans as well as they have served us.

"On Tuesday, the President will host a Town Hall at the White House as part of his Forum with Young African Leaders next week to discuss their vision for transforming their societies over the next fifty years.

"On Wednesday, the President will deliver remarks at the AFL-CIO Executive Committee Meeting. In the afternoon, the President will depart for Chicago, Illinois.

"On Thursday, President Obama will visit a Ford plant in Chicago, Illinois. The President will also attend fundraisers while in Chicago. In the evening, he will return to Washington, DC.

"On Friday, the President will attend meetings at the White House."

OBSERVERS SAY OBAMA RESTORING U.S. CLOUT IN ASIA - AFP: "The Obama administration is now reviving much of Washington's old clout in Asia as missteps by rising giant China prompt its smaller neighbors to turn to the US as a counterweight, analysts say...Obama, who calls himself the first "Pacific" US president as he was born and raised in Hawaii, has also visited the region although he has twice postponed plans to travel to Indonesia, where he spent part of his childhood. 'We haven't seen this kind of diplomatic attention by the United States to the region at senior levels, where it counts, for a long time,' said Douglas Paal, who has served in previous US administrations."http://yhoo.it/drdJ7c

Not dead yet: A group of progressive lawmakers have sent their colleagues a letter encouraging the adoption of a single-payer health system: "Now that a new health care bill has been signed into law, it has never been more important to have a strong movement behind Medicare for All," wrote Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers. "The truth is not enough. We already know that such a health care system has repeatedly proven to control costs more effectively, cover everyone or almost everyone, and deliver care of significantly higher quality than health care systems that tolerate the presence of private health insurance companies. Now we must make it so that the truth can no longer be ignored." Letter: http://bit.ly/9yEiy3

WE THOUGHT YOU SHOULD KNOW - "According to North Korean lore, Kim Jong-il's birth was foretold by a swallow and heralded by a glorious DOUBLE RAINBOW and the appearance of a new star. His official biography says he was born on White-Headed Mountain, the highest peak on the Korean peninsula. On top of the mountain sits the volcanic Heaven Lake." http://bit.ly/zQry

Don't be bashful: Send tips/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to huffposthill@huffingtonpost.com. Follow us on Twitter - @HuffPostHill

GINGRICH: PALIN WILL MAKE PRESIDENTIAL RUN - In an interview with the conservative publication Newsmax, the former House speaker, himself rumored to be mulling a presidential campaign, listed the politicians he anticipates will make a White House run. "There are going to be lots of Republicans running -- Gov. Romney clearly, Gov. Palin, Gov. Huckabee, Gov. Mitch Daniels, Gov. Haley Barbour, Gov. Tim Pawlenty. I think John Thune, the senator from South Dakota, is probably going to get in. Ron Paul's probably going to run again," Gingrich said. The Hill: http://bit.ly/9m0Bvu

TWO WRONGS (MAKE) THE RIGHT: SANTORUM HEADING TO IOWA, WILL MEET WITH STEVE KING - It appears our dream of a presidential bid by renown dog fornication opponent Rick Santorum might be coming true ("Santorum 2012: He Won't Screw The Pooch"). His swing next month will include visits with businessmen, Republican candidates and everyone's favorite congressman, Steve King. http://bit.ly/94ilVh

Republican Texas Senator John Cornyn will give a speech to a meeting of the Log Cabin Republicans. "Despite being against same-sex marriage and opposing efforts to repeal the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy for gays, the Texas Republican told Scripps Howard News Service that he would attend the event to open a dialogue. 'Some things we won't agree on,' he said. 'But I think it's always better to talk and then try to find those things we can agree on rather than just assume there's no common ground whatsoever.'" Dallas Morning News: http://bit.ly/bQt28p

Speaking of Republicans pandering to unlikely constituencies, David Vitter is trying to receive the endorsement of the Louisiana Sheriffs' Association despite his history as a john and hiring a women's issues aide who was charged with assaulting his ex-girlfriend. TPM: http://bit.ly/9c6oAY

CRIST AHEAD IN FLORIDA - A day after a poll found Jeff Greene overtaking Kendrick Meek in the Democratic primary, a new Quinnipiac survey of the general election renders that finding a wee bit moot. Crist leads with 37% of the vote with Marco Rubio pulling in 32% and Green 17%. If pitted against Meek, it's Cirst 39%, Rubio 33% and Meek 13%. http://bit.ly/bhzXzq

Really sticking to his free-market guns, Colorado gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis is refusing to return the 300 grand he earned for "writing" those plagiarized articles. Colorado Independent: "McInnis has so far avoided making any arrangements to pay back to the influential conservative Hasan Family Foundation the $300,000 he was paid to produce a series of water articles he plagiarized. After repeated failed attempts to recover the money or to workout a payment plan with McInnis, the foundation has now handed the matter over to its attorneys." Uh oh! http://bit.ly/aXWzXa

BECAUSE YOU'VE READ THIS FAR - Here's Sammy, the static electricity dog: http://bit.ly/aJ71S7

Yesterday we reported that a group of senators were going after alcoholic energy drinks but neglected to mention that the Senate voted to increase the penalties for pot brownies. TPM: "Yes, the same week that Congress significantly reduced the racially-charged crack-powder sentencing disparity, they also voted to create one between pot brownies and dime bags. The Senate voted to pass by unanimous consent (that it, without a roll call vote) S. 258, known colloquially as the Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2010, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and co-sponsored by Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Charles Grassley (R-IA)." http://bit.ly/awYEyv

Happy National Cheesecake Day, America! To commemorate this joyous holiday, here is a capitalized, superlative-laden HuffPost slideshow: http://huff.to/cjRKkF

TEA PARTY CANDIDATE OUTS LINDA MCMAHON AS KICKER OF GROINS - A new campaign spot for Peter Schiff, a Tea Party-backed primary challenger to Connecticut Senate candidate Linda McMahon, the candidate's campagin accuses McMahon of financially supporting Democrats. The accusations are interwoven with the same clip of McMahon kicking some guy in the crotch in a WWE ring. The clip serves as a reminder to voters that McMahon used to be an executive for the wrestling league. http://bit.ly/aIFg6E

As if Michigan didn't have enough problems: "With only days remaining before Michigan's primary election, former State Rep. Leon Drolet has filed a 10-page anti-defamation suit against one of his challengers, current state Rep. Kim Melzer, who accused him in a campaign flier of trying to legalize gay sex in public parks and restrooms." Detroit Free Press: http://bit.ly/a5zZOX

RAND PAUL WANTS TO FRIEND YOU - We're still waiting for "100,000 pokes for Barbara Mikulski." The Atlantic's Chris Good: "Paul announced today that he wants to add 100,000 new friends on Facebook this Sunday, via a Facebook "bomb," setting his faithful to work recruiting them. (The top five recruiters get to be something like real friends with him; they'll have lunch with Paul in person.)" http://bit.ly/9sO22F

Because Gmail is a fluoride-laced liberal conspiracy to advance the homosexual agenda, Michael Reagan, son of Ronald, is selling @reagan.com e-mail addresses. "People who believe in true Reagan Conservative Values are unwittingly supporting the Obama, Pelosi and Reid liberal agenda! What do I mean? Well, every time you use your email from companies like Google, AOL, Yahoo, Hotmail, Apple and others, you are helping the liberals. These companies are, and will continue, to be huge supporters financially and with technology of those that are hurting our country," Reagan wrote. CBS News: http://bit.ly/aUO5L6
As we mentioned yesterday, the President told the ladies of "The View" that he didn't know who the Jersey Shore's Snooki is, despite mentioning her in his WHCD speech. Today the RNC released a policy breifing entitled "Less GTL, More GDP Mr. President." http://bit.ly/bGE3EQ

JEREMY THE INTERN'S WEATHER REPORT - Tonight: It's a great night for outdoor activities. A thin layer of clouds have kept the temperature down to the mid-80s. It should fall to the high 70s. Saturday: Expect high-80s, with less cloud cover. Sunday: While it might not be a total washout, expect rain. A nice morning will mean a bad afternoon. Go golfing tomorrow instead. Thanks, JB!

Jeremy advertisement: I'm available for parties. Sign us up, JB!

COMFORT FOOD

- We can barely contain ourselves. Daft Punk's score for the upcoming Tron movie has been leaked. http://bit.ly/c0BgRt

- Jimmy Fallon as Neil Young singing "Double Rainbow." Is it just us or does Fallon do a better Neil Young than Neil Young? http://bit.ly/beVEII

- Original concept drawings for "Back To The Future 2" http://bit.ly/d8IE8d

- Some amazing stunts with ladders. http://bit.ly/bjwgbU

- A truly inspired, and sick as all get out, .gif file. http://bit.ly/bnfisc

- An animal orchestra. http://bit.ly/dzGAbI

- The hilarious "Markets Of Britain'" from the folks at Boing Bonig proves the spirit of Monty Python lives on. http://bit.ly/dvi9BL

TWITTERAMA

@KagroX: On C Street and picking up a WiFi signal called "Holyspirit." Creepy! I feel my spiritual stance widening.

@elliottjustin: bit close to Ground Zero for my taste RT @NewYorkObserver Goldman Sachs' Battery Park City Plans http://bit.ly/cMRvGU

@brianbeutler: Whoa, Anthony Weiner brought a soundtrack with him to the House floor. http://bit.ly/cNT5lR

THE TUBE

TONIGHT: Linda Sanchez and Sam Stein were on Ratigan's show. Mike Pence is on Political Capital with Al Hunt. Claire McCaskill weighed in on the 9/11 health bill on Hardball. Ed Schultz talks to Gary Peters about job creation.TOMORROW: Jennifer Granholm is on Situation Room.

SUNDAY SHOWS

Meet the Press: Admiral Mike Mullen, Mike Bloomberg, Alan Greenspan, Ed Rendell, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Mark Halperin.

This Week: Nancy Pelosi, Robert Gates, Donna Brazile, Paul Krugman, Ahmed Rashid, George Will.

Face the Nation: Mike Mullen, Jon Kyl, Richard Haass, Thomas Saenz.

State of the Union: Carl Levin, Lindsey Graham.

ON TAP

TONIGHT

5:00 pm - 8:30 pm: Jazz in the Garden this week features trombonist John Jensen [Smithsonian Sculpture Garden, 700 Constitution Avenue NW].

8:20 pm - 10:20 pm: The Rosslyn "I Love The 90s" Film Festival this week screens "Dumb and Dumber" [Gateway Park, 1300 Lee Highway].

8:30 pm: The Discovery Channel kicks off Shark Week with a free screening of "Ultimate Air Jaws" about the flying great white shark [Veterans Plaza
850 Ellsworth Drive, Silver Spring].

SUNDAY

2:00 pm: Head over to Meridian Hill Park where there will be a flash mob dance performance. Put this music on your Mp3 player http://bit.ly/dtgFHF and bring headphones. [Meridian Hill Park, 1600 W Street NW].

2:00 pm - 4:00 pm: The Midcentury Modern Film Series puts on a free screening of "The Incredibles" [Textile Museum, 2320 S Street NW].

Got something to add? Send tips/quotes/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to Eliot Nelson (eliot@huffingtonpost.com), Ryan Grim (ryan@huffingtonpost.com) or Nico Pitney (nico@huffingtonpost.com). Follow us on Twitter @HuffPostHill (twitter.com/HuffPostHill). Sign up here: http://huff.to/an2k2e

The gloves came off in the political ad spectrum this week (that is, if they were ever on to begin with).

Sharron Angle blamed Sen. Harry Reid (D- Nevada) for the economic meltdown, who in return marveled at her running ability. Republicans blamed President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a plot to take over America.

Jeff Greene and Kendrick Meek traded barbs over who was less corrupt. Even Joe the Plumber got a right hook in.

While this barrage of nastiness may hurt the nation's political discourse, it sure makes for some awesome advertising. Why think about November when you can have the best ad of the week?

In polite society, one supposedly never discusses religion or politics. In America, it seems we can rarely separate the two.

The latest fracas over faith in the public square involves the plans for Cordoba House, an Islamic Center, including a "mosque," to be built two blocks from Ground Zero. Proposed to bridge the differences between Islam and the West, the $100-million project, which includes a prayer room rather than an actual mosque, has won the backing of Mayor Bloomberg, among others. But with the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks looming, the race for Governor of New York heating up, and a Presidential election in the wings, Cordoba House was plunged into America's boiling pot of religious politics. And like New York's recent weather, the political firestorm that has been ignited shows no sign of cooling.

The pot was first stirred when Sarah Palin implored the group behind Cordoba House not to build the center, asking Muslims via Twitter, to "refudiate" the plan.

Raising the temperature was Newt Gingrich on his website, Newt.org, where he warned that "America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization."

This whole argument might be construed as a momentary blip in a slow summer news cycle. But the fear and loathing of faiths that supposedly threaten America's existence is nothing new. The grade school notion of America as a "Melting Pot" nation in which all are welcomed to worship is a myth. Since Spanish Catholics slaughtered French Protestants in Florida in 1565, ingrained religious animosity has been an unhappy and uncelebrated American tradition. For centuries, Catholics, Jews, Mormons and other "foreign" religions have encountered disdain, discrimination and worse.

In fact, the political attacks on the Islamic Center recall an earlier assault on a religious compound built near an American memorial.

It was August 1834 and the place was Charlestown, Massachusetts, outside Boston. The "threat" then came from a Roman Catholic convent where Ursuline nuns ran a private school for girls called Mount Benedict.

But the Ursuline Convent stood near sacred ground -- the site on which the Bunker Hill Monument was being built. To many Americans, the Ursuline compound nearby was an affront, a symbol of a foreign faith that was evil, hateful and a threat to the nation.

On the night of August 11, 1834, a few hundred locals descended on the convent. As the nuns and their young charges cowered, both the convent and school were ransacked and torched by the mob. A mausoleum was then opened, coffins overturned and the remains scattered. When the three nights of arson and mayhem was over, the Ursuline convent and the school it housed were in ruins.

The desolation of the Ursuline Convent in August 1834 is not one of the proud events that historic Boston touts to patriotic visitors. And it is hardly unique. America's past is littered with similar examples of intolerance, sectarian hatred and ultimately, religious violence. A decade after the attack on the Ursuline Convent, Philadelphia was torn apart by the anti-Catholic Bible Riots, in which dozens died and the homes of mostly Irish Catholic immigrants were destroyed along with two Catholic churches in an argument begun over which Bible to use in public school.

For much of America's history, the religious fear and loathing were directed mostly towards Catholics -- especially Irish Catholics -- who were thought to be plotting to turn America over to the Pope. Now, of course, the perceived threat comes from Islam and a symbol like Cordoba House has replaced the nefarious Ursuline Convent.

In 1790, after taking the oath of office just a few blocks from what is now Ground Zero, President Washington wrote a letter to another much maligned and distrusted group -- the Jewish congregation of Newport, Rhode Island. "Happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens."

His words should be required reading for public officials -- past, present and future. They might even make a good plaque at Ground Zero.

You can read more about the burning of the Ursuline Convent, the Philadelphia Bible Riots and the history of anti-Catholicism in A Nation Rising.

The Republican National Committee is taking aim at President Obama with a line of attack accusing the White House of spending a disproportionate amount of time talking about MTV hit reality show "Jersey Shore" when the issue of the economy should be taking center stage.

"Less GTL, More GDP Mr. President" is the message the RNC hurled at the Obama administration in a "research briefing" and video montage released by the organization on Friday. (GTL stands for "Gym, Tanning, Laundry" -- a mantra touted by the reality stars of "Jersey Shore.")

But absent in the charge is mention of the fact that the RNC retweeted a message from GOP Sen. John McCain pulling Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi into the political sphere last month. "@Sn00ki u r right, I would never tax your tanning bed! Pres Obama's tax/spend policy is quite The Situation. but I do rec wearing sunscreen!" said the message from the Arizona Senator.

Meanwhile, it didn't take long for the Democratic National Committee to fire back at the RNC's "Jersey Shore"-themed attack, which came the same day as the president delivered a speech in Detroit, Mich. lauding the economic revamp seen by U.S. automakers since the administration swept in to bailout the industry.

"What's clear is that while the President took bold action to pull our economy out of the ditch that Republicans had left it in, the GOP sat on the sidelines playing political games that didn't do a thing to help American families," asserted DNC National Press Secretary Hari Sevugan. "So, thanks, but we'll pass on advice from a party that spent more time helping the Southern California sex club economy than the American economy at large."

So, where do the vibrant characters featured on "Jersey Shore" fit into the political exchange?

On Friday, Snooki sent a strong message to the president over Twitter. "@whitehouse President Obama...love to tan in the rose garden :) ...I'll teach you how to fist pump!" the super-tan star said despite her recent admission of not voting for Obama in the 2008 presidential election. "To be honest with you, the only reason why I voted for [McCain] was because he was really cute and I liked when he did his speeches," Snooki told Arizona Senator's daughter, Meghan McCain, earlier this month.

WATCH: RNC's 'Less GTL, More GDP Mr. President' Ad

Last week, I argued that a reported “jump” for Democrats in Gallup’s weekly tracking of the national generic U.S. House ballot was most likely a statistical blip. I boldly predicted that “more data” this week would “likely settle the issue.” That latter assertion turned out to be wrong, as the issue isn’t settled, but I’m still not convinced that we’re seeing a real shift in voter preferences nationally.

Let’s review: Generally speaking, the generic House ballot is a poll question that asks registered or likely voters whether they would support "the Democratic Party's candidate or the Republican Party's candidate" in their congressional district if the election were held today. Since March, Gallup has released a weekly result based on roughly 1,600 interviews of registered voters that has averaged a 46% to 46% dead heat, but mostly varied within the expected margin-of-error range of plus or minus 3%.

Last week’s Gallup result showed Democrats with a six-point lead (49% to 43%), a result that I argued was likely the sort of random statistical “blip” we should expect from time to time with this sort of tracking survey. This week, Gallup reported a Democratic margin is a slightly narrower four points (48% to 44%), but Gallup’s analysis noted that it “marks the second straight week in which Democrats have held an edge of at least four percentage points” and “the first time either party has held an advantage of that size for two consecutive weeks” in Gallup’s tracking.

So this week’s data doesn’t resolve things. As Charlie Cook writes today, these results mark “one of those periods of uncertainty” where those of us who watch polls closely are unsure whether the results “signal a key turning point in public opinion…just a hiccup, a passing blip…[or] an outlier poll, a statistical anomaly that is the political equivalent of a false positive medical test.”

I’m still dubious that the we are seeing a real change in voter preferences. First, while this week’s Gallup’s numbers do tend to confirm last week’s upward turn, they are also statistically consistent with the 46%-to-46% result that Gallup has shown on average since March. Combining samples for the last two weeks might yield a statistically significant difference from the average, although it would be close.

Second, none of the other pollsters that fielded national media surveys in recent weeks confirm a “jump” in the Democratic direction since the passage of financial reform legislation on July 16. While these surveys have “house effects” that produce different results over time, we can look at trends for individual pollsters. Six (Ipsos, Rasmussen, CNN/ORC and Zogby) show nominal shifts in the Republican direction as compared to their average result earlier this year, and one (YouGov/Polimetrix) shows no change. Only Gallup shows a shift to the Democrats.

Third, Charlie Cook took the next logical step and informally “canvassed several pollsters who see large quantities of data from around the country.” These are the campaign consultants that have been doing benchmark and tracking surveys for their clients over the summer. “None,” he writes, “seems to have detected any shifts in the past two weeks.”

Charlie also makes the point that he sees “no defining event has taken place,” including passage of the banking bill, “that would have triggered a significant shift in this year’s race” and says the pollsters he talked to are also “at a loss in figuring out what would have triggered a change.” Count me as similarly puzzled.

That said, I am not arguing that we ignore the Gallup data. Aside from its well-deserved reputation, Gallup is also the only organization polling on the generic ballot in recent weeks which interviews Americans on their landline and cellphones. It would be surprising for the cellphone interviewing to make that big a difference, but we can’t rule that possibility out.

So, as my friend Charlie Cook counsels, we need to “sit tight” and wait for more data.

British Petroleum's (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded off the Gulf Coast more than 100 days ago and we have witnessed the devastation ever since. Oil has washed ashore from Texas to Florida and the lives of millions of Americans have been put on hold. The magnitude of the spill exposed the inadequacy of BP's emergency response and raised serious questions about the effectiveness of the Department of Interior's oversight of offshore drilling.

The BP oil spill was just the latest chapter in a long history of regulatory and ethical failures at the Interior Department and the Minerals Management Service (MMS). It is apparent that over the last decade, MMS essentially permitted the oil industry to police itself - allowing BP and other companies in the industry to pick and choose which regulations they would follow. At the same time, the number of oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico expanded dramatically and further into much deeper waters while the agency remained at approximately the same size.

After the oil spill, Secretary Salazar proposed a sweeping reorganization of MMS that would split the agency into three separate departments, The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and the Office of Natural Resources Revenue. To get a better understanding of the proposed changes, I convened a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing recently where we were able to ask Interior Secretary Salazar and Michael Bromwich, the new director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), critical questions about the reorganization.

According to Secretary Salazar, the necessary checks and balances have been implemented to prevent unethical behavior within the three new entities. The ethics and enforcement standards for all employees were strengthened, and more rigorous safeguards were implemented to separate royalty collection from the safety and environmental oversight tasks.

We also discussed concerns related to conflicts of interest and revenue collections. Secretary Salazar explained that recommendations from the Department's Inspector General have been adopted and he highlighted the termination of the Royalty-in-Kind program that will reduce the likelihood of fraud or collusion within the oil and gas industry. He also stated that as the department evaluates new areas for oil and gas exploration, they will conduct a thorough environmental analysis and examine the potential safety and spill risks before approving plans to drill.

Michael Bromwich was chosen to lead BOEM because of his experience as an Inspector General at the Justice Department and his demonstrated ability to turn around failing institutions. After leaving the Justice Department he helped reform police departments around the country before working in private practice where he conducted several internal investigations for companies in a variety of industries. Mr. Bromwich expressed to the committee that he is determined to promptly respond to any allegations or evidence of misconduct or unethical behavior between BOEM employees and the oil and gas industry. He also made clear that he is determined to improve the bureau's ability to respond to issues and crises, like the Deepwater Horizon spill, as quickly as possible.

I am encouraged by Secretary Salazar's and Director Bromwich's dedication to put common sense reforms in place that will strengthen the oversight of the oil industry. Although the agency has much work to do, I remain optimistic reform will occur.

From the very first moments after the twin towers of the World Trade Center crumbled on 9/11, it has been difficult to see through the dust left by the collapse. The resulting haze -- an unprecedented mixture of pulverized concrete, glass, steel and the minute particles of daily life -- obscured the truth. Nine years later, the air still has not cleared.

That much was evident on Capitol Hill last night. Although a big majority of Congress (255) voted to reopen the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund to help the thousands of responders and volunteers who braved the dust, smoke and ash, the bill did not pass and the fund will stay closed. A simple majority wasn't enough because House leaders said they had decided to rely on a risky strategy to pass the bill without giving Republicans a chance to amend it. Under those rules, a two-thirds majority was needed to pass.

Like so much else involved with the lingering health effects of the dust, the move seemed enveloped in histrionics and stagecraft. No one believed that even a bill to provide medical assistance to injured firefighters and cops could garner the required 276 votes, not at this time. Nor was it clear that there would ever be enough votes in the Senate to clear the way for a new entitlement program projected to cost $7 to $10 billion.

But by putting up the bill now, House leaders and the democratic majority won the right to say in November that they had voted for the bill and that it would have passed, and the heroes of 9/11 would have been helped, if only the Republicans had gone along. (12 Republicans did) New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it was outrageous that the legislation "became a victim of partisan election-year politics."

What happened last night shouldn't surprise anyone. There's been confusion and double speak about the environmental and health consequences of the recovery and clean up operations from the very beginning. The unwillingness of authorities to stop and answer the tough questions about what happened has led to an ever expanding political, legal and scientific morass in which stagecraft often speaks louder than the truth.

It all started in the days after the attack in 2001 with the unwillingness of federal officials to clearly describe the conditions Lower Manhattan in plain language that would have helped the responders know how and when to protect themselves with the proper equipment. Then the city, in a legitimate rush to recover and get back to business, allowed misunderstandings to continue.

There's little doubt now that the dust hurt firefighters and other responders who were there in the worst conditions of the first three days. Even veterans of many fires said they'd never experienced anything like it before. Further studies showed conclusively that asthma increased and that there was a spike in certain lung-scarring diseases like sarcoidosis.

But beyond that, most of what followed was correlation, not causation, and without solid scientific proof, the vast array of compounds in the dust that resulted from the obliteration of a vertical city made it possible to see hundreds of different ailments as being related to exposure to the dust. Maybe so, but science says it's not likely.

Still, with the authority of the government undermined by the early ambiguous statements, everything could be questioned. The term "hero" was applied to everyone who claimed to have spent any time at or near ground zero for the nine months it took to clear the site. Once the original Compensation Fund closed shop at the end of 2003, the personal injury lawyers drew near, sniffing at the $1 billion insurance policy that the Bush Administration had put into place.

In time, they signed up more than 10,000 clients who claimed they had contracted a vast array of more than 350 different kinds of illnesses, all because of the dust. After years of litigation, we now know that while some have become seriously ill, thousands have only sinusitis and other minor ailments, while hundreds admit they are not sick at all but worried they might be.

The city -- which had originally fought against the idea of admitting that the dust had caused any illnesses -- recently agreed to a settlement that could exceed $700 million. But there are so many plaintiffs that once lawyers' fees and expenses are taken out, the recoveries are pitifully small, especially for the responders whose lungs have been ravaged. Those who legitimately need the help won't get all they should, while some could end up with more than they deserve.

The irony now is that the settlement can go forward only if 95 percent of the nearly 10,000 plaintiffs accept it. But many have been reluctant to join the settlement and preferred to wait for Congress to reopen the Victim Compensation Fund.

What has truly been lacking since 2001 is candor, a commitment to the truth fed by science and justice, not histrionics. It's time for the dust to finally be cleared from the air and to see the truth for what it is, so that the city, and the country, can finally move on.

I was never a Boy Scout but I was a helluva Cub Scout.

Pack 30, First Congregational Church. I rose through the ranks: Bobcat, Wolf, Bear, Lion. I accumulated Gold and Silver Arrow Points, the Cubs' junior varsity version of merit badges. My mom was a Cub Scout den mother and spent a lot of time teaching fake Indian campfire songs and decorating various arts and crafts with poster paint.

But when the time came to transfer to the big guys, the Boy Scouts, I saw years of knot tying and helping little old ladies across the street ahead of me and opted not to re-up. Nonetheless, I feel my time served qualifies me to have an opinion about President Obama not appearing in person at this week's National Scout Jamboree in Caroline County, Virginia.

The Jamboree is a gathering of the clans that takes place every five years or so and this year's is especially significant as 2010 marks the centennial of the scouting movement in the United States. Congratulations. The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is a wonderful organization.Truly.

But the right wing of this country, with the aid of Fox News and other media outlets, has opted to ignore many of the qualities one usually associates with a good scout -- trustworthiness, honesty and especially cleanliness -- to sling mud at the president for not making a personal appearance at the Jamboree. Instead, he videotaped a message for the lads.

Not exactly a sin on the order of massive oil spills or ethnic purification. But to hear conservative commentators you'd think he had at the very least used the flag to buff Air Force One. All of this complicated by the fact that the president came to New York instead for some fundraisers and an appearance on The View.

"It's unfortunate that President Obama didn't take the time to promote the Boy Scouts this week, but they should be able to thrive, as they have for the past 100 years, without him." So sniffed Eagle Scout Nik Nelson, writing in The Weekly Standard, where he's an intern.

What these folks fail to mention is that President Obama met with a group of scouts and their leaders just a little more than two weeks ago. In the Oval Office. In fact, the president does so every year, but this year, special attention was given to the centennial.

As Scouting Magazine's official blog reported, "During the White House meeting, the president and the BSA delegation shared their mutual goals for addressing key concerns for our nation's youth: healthy living, service to the community, and environmental stewardship."

Admitting this, of course, would mess with the conservative narrative. Nor, it turns out, is this the first time that elements of the right have shamelessly tried to use the Boy Scouts, of all organizations, to impugn the Obama White House. A whispering campaign via e-mail (in cyberspace, no one can hear you scream) alleged that unlike his predecessors the president has refused to sign Eagle Scout certificates. As it turns out, there was a gap between the Bush and Obama presidencies when blank certificates were sent out.

But, as the debunking website www.snopes.com reports, "Production of new Eagle Scout certificates bearing President Obama's signature... got underway in late 2009 for distribution to Scouts who obtained Eagle rank in Spring 2010. President Obama has also mailed over 13,000 personal letters of congratulation to individual Eagle Scouts, including a September 2009 case in which every single one of the five most senior members of Troop 182 in Palatine, Illinois, earned eagle rank."

Now all of this would be simply silly if not for the fact that this is the pattern: find a bright, shining lie, an often trivial issue, reshape it to your agenda of attack and fear, distort and dissemble, bang it like a drum to rouse the media circus and distract the public - and its public servants -- from the critical work necessary to survive as a republic.

The Shirley Sherrod debacle at the Department of Agriculture last week is just one example. The current fight over building an Islamic "mosque" near (not "at") Ground Zero here in Manhattan is another and perhaps the loudest.

Once again, downtown New Yorkers are faced with outsiders telling us our business. Newt Gingrich: "There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over." Sarah Palin: "Many Americans, myself included, feel it would be an intolerable and tragic mistake to allow such a project sponsored by such an individual to go forward on such hallowed ground. This is nothing close to 'religious intolerance.' It's just common decency."

But as developer Sharif El-Gamal told Jordana Horn of The Jerusalem Post, "Those aren't my neighbors, my friends or my New Yorkers. A vocal minority have come out to amplify their own agendas of hate and bigotry that have nothing to do with my project." He notes, too, as have many others, that calling it a mosque is an exaggeration. "There will be a mosque component, which will be a separate not-for-profit component of the project," Gamal said. "It's going to be a small component in a community center, just like the 92nd Street Y has a synagogue."

This is not to deny the emotions that always will be stirred by 9/11, especially by the friends and families of those who died there, but as Padraic O'Hare, director of the Merrimack College's Center for the Study of Jewish-Christian-Muslim Relations at Merrimack College, wrote in The Washington Post, "Build a house which nurtures and cultivates less wounded, less ego-driven and more just and peaceful Muslims, people of real and healthy prayerfulness? Hand me the shovel."

Meanwhile, as the citizenry has its attention diverted by xenophobic anti-Muslim harangues, on Thursday night, Republicans in Congress killed the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act to help emergency workers and others near Ground Zero. As the New York Daily News reported, the bill "would spend $3.2 billion on health care over the next 10 years for people sickened from their exposure to the toxic smoke and debris of the shattered World Trade Center. It would spend another $4.2 billion to compensate victims over that span, and make another $4.2 billion in compensation available for the next 11 years."

GOP members called it a "slush fund." Is there a merit badge for classy?

Michael Winship is senior writer at Public Affairs Television in New York City.

Yesterday, at the American Enterprise Institute Newt Gingrich gave a speech on national security titled, "America at Risk: Camus, National Security, and Afghanistan." Let's forget for a second about the sheer hilarity of Gingrich giving a speech on Camus and national security, and focus on what he actually said and the consequences of such rhetoric. The basic premise of his speech is that he believes "sharia is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the US and the world as we know it."

Gingrich has latched onto this "Islamophobic" rhetoric in the past couple weeks. First, his speech on the building of a Muslim Community Center at Ground Zero, where he warned that "America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization." In the same speech he argued that we should look to Saudi Arabia as a standard bearer on religious freedoms saying, "There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia." He followed those remarks up with an article in Human Events this week, again warning of the creeping influence of Sharia law into American society. He writes: "Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia but others use non-violent methods -- a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence."

Gingrich obviously wants to be president and thinks that promoting fear and xenophobic hysteria a good way to play to certain audience. But he should consider the consequences of such rhetoric. There has been a rise in Islamophobic speeches, protests and organizations in recent weeks and months. From Brooklyn, NY, to Temecula, CA, there have been protests against Mosques being built in neighborhoods. A group in Virginia calls themselves the Virginia Anti-Sharia Task Force (VAST). In Florida there was even a Koran burning party that was organized. There are a number of theories as to what is causing this uptick, ranging from a decade of war to the economic downturn. Regardless, when leaders of the conservative establishment like Gingrich sink to such paranoid and craven politicization, it justifies and promotes this sort of behavior.

Mayor Bloomberg had a great response to this type of behavior when Sarah Palin expressed her opposition to ground zero plans: "Everything the United States stands for and New York stands for is tolerance and openness, and I think it's a great message for the world that unlike in other places where they might actually ban people from wearing a burqa or they might actually keep people from building a building, that's not what America was founded on, nor is it what America should become."

But the frame that Gingrich is promoting is not only un-American and counter to our values, it is also counterproductive to our anti-terrorism efforts. First, at a strategic level, it plays into al Qaeda's framework that the West is at war with Islam. As Malcolm Nance, a former military intelligence officer and author of An End to al-Qaeda, recently told the American Prospect's Adam Serwer: "When you frame it as a fight against Islam and Islamic fundamentalism ... you're almost encouraging Osama bin Laden's line of thinking. He loves this idea that this is seen as a clash between Islam and the West; he wants that, he thrives on that."

At another level, this fear mongering and overreaction serves to diminish America's resilience, an important component of America's counterterrorism strategy. The National Security Strategy says that resilience is, "the ability to adapt to changing conditions and prepare for, withstand, and rapidly recover from disruption." There are many facets of this approach, from a resilient infrastructure to a resilience economy. However an important part is also a resilient society that does not abandon its core values as soon as they're challenged. Yet a decade after 9/11 Gingrich is ready to give up on America's strength and resiliency. In addition, Stephen Flynn, president of the Center for National Policy, who has been the leader for years on promoting resilience, says that there is also a deterrent value to resilience saying that, "if an adversary believes that Americans are well-prepared to prevent, withstand, and rapidly recover from acts of terrorism, the appeal of engaging in such acts would be diminished." Basically, by his hysteria, Gingrich is feeding into al Qaeda's goal of promoting a hysterical reaction.

Finally, and perhaps most dangerously, this type of rhetoric and behavior isolates and vilifies the Muslim American community -- a crucial partner in combating radicalization and terrorism. Former NYPD and LAPD Chief William Bratton described his interactions with Muslim Americans, calling them "extraordinarily law abiding community." Robert Mueller has testified that, "many of our cases are a result of the cooperation from the Muslim community in the United States." And we have seen time and again that Muslim American groups and individuals play an important role in disrupting terrorist plots and preventing domestic radicalization. Examples include The Council on American Islamic Relations' (CAIR) assistance with the FBI that led to the arrest of the five northern Virginia men who were recently sentenced in a Pakistani court to Aliou Nasse, the Senegalese Muslim immigrant who saw smoke coming from an unattended SUV parked in Times Square. Muslim American groups and individuals have repeatedly proven to be the most important partner in combating terrorism. Isolating and vilifying Muslim Americans, while we should be creating ties and increasing cooperation, is simply counterproductive.

Gingrich's behavior denies the strength and resiliency of America. It has me saying words I never thought I would utter: I miss the rhetoric of George W. Bush. After all he clearly said, "Ours is a country based upon tolerance and we welcome people of all faiths in America."

It's a classic Friday political number: Release bad news in the hopes that no-one is paying attention.

So, today, this Friday, the last possible Friday in July no less, the Friday two days before the "dog days of August," what's the news?

Well, the news is that the President has directed his Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, to issue a regulation for healthcare reform's high-risk insurance pools, a regulation deathly to American women.

Here's Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood, responding to the President's decision:

So who does this regulation affect? The high-risk insurance
pools are being created for some of the most medically
vulnerable women in the country -- those with pre-existing
conditions such as breast and ovarian cancer, AIDS, diabetes
and other conditions that may make pregnancy extraordinarily
dangerous.

The HHS regulations mean that women won't be allowed to obtain
abortion coverage through the new high-risk insurance pools
beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the life of the
woman). They won't even be given the option to pay for that
coverage with their own money. We can't let this decision stand.

The final health care reform bill included extensive
restrictions on using federal funds to pay for abortion
coverage, but this new ban goes beyond what it is in the law.
Quite simply, HHS has chosen to place a new burden on women who
are ill and extremely vulnerable, women who may need to seek
abortion coverage.

What in the world is going on this July Friday, when I, for one, had hoped to only be thinking about what Chelsea Clinton might be wearing this weekend?

Well, here's what Paul Krugman had to say this Friday morning, on a very much healthcare-related note:

But progressive disullusionment isn't just a matter of sky-high expectations meeting prosaic reality. Threatened filibusters didn't force Mr. Obama to waffle on torture; to escalate in Afghanistan; to choose, with exquisitely bad timing, to loosen the rules on offshore drilling early this year.

Nor did "threatened filibusters force" the President to continue to deny women equal access to healthcare, as he did today.

What has the President said today, albeit via his HHS Secretary? Well, in effect, that when it comes to healthcare (of all things) men can pay their own way (for whatever they want), but women can't. No matter what harm that may cause to them.

This is tragic, especially when there's just no earthly reason for it, not to mention nothing so prosaic as "threatened filibusters."

In the "dog days of August" two decades ago, I met a young community organizer at a public hearing on Chicago's South Side. He and I sat together and listened and learned from neighborhood residents seeking what we all deserve: a fair shake. That organizer was Barack Obama.

Well, Mr. President: Then you couldn't deliver to those women the fair shake they deserved. But, today, in this upcoming "dog days of August" week, you, and only you, can deliver -- to each and every American woman -- the fair shake she deserves, the one that's about saving her life and health.

Mr. President: As you think about your visit with those women autoworkers today, think about their lives as well as their jobs. Their lives depend on you. You have made that very clear today. Don't fail them by permitting this HHS rule to live.

By Melina Milazzo, Pennoyer Fellow, Law and Security program

This Sunday will mark eight years to the day in which lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) gave their legal seal of approval to use abusive techniques during interrogation which amounted to torture. On August 1, 2002, lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee signed their names to the torture memos, providing perverse legal justifications that stripping a detainee naked, dousing him with water, depriving him of sleep for up to eleven days, exposing him to extreme temperatures, slamming him into walls, subjecting him to stress positions for hours, forcing him into cramped boxes with insects, and waterboarding him did not amount to torture.

In February of this year, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility issued a report highlighting the flawed legal analysis and lack of independent judgment by the principal authors of these memos. The OPR report found that Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo committed intentional professional misconduct and OLC Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee acted in reckless disregard of his obligation to provide thorough, objective and candid legal advice. Despite the report's scathing findings, neither one of the attorneys has been held accountable. And, time is ticking.

In the United States, some crimes of torture, including conspiracy to commit torture are subject to an eight-year statute of limitations. That is, the government only has eight years from the time a crime is complete to bring charges. As any prosecutor will tell you, the statute of limitation analysis is complicated and should not be oversimplified. To be clear, prosecutions for torture are still possible and we should not give up calling for accountability for the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody. Time, however, is of the essence.

To date, no commander or senior official has been held responsible for the widespread abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, or at any of the CIA secret prisons. While U.S. Attorney General Holder has opened a "preliminary review" of whether federal law was violated in the interrogation of certain detainees, it is unclear whether a full investigation or charges will follow. Holder reportedly stated that the review is close to being finished. It is imperative that the appointed career prosecutor has sufficient discretion to follow the facts wherever they lead, not only investigating those who implemented the U.S. torture policy, but also those who authorized and enabled it.

This Sunday should be a reminder that eight long years have passed since the United States' values were subverted and our national security interests were put at risk. If the United States wants to realign its values and interests, it must account for its past abuses head on rather than running out the clock.

In 2002, the full weight of the United States Executive Branch was dispatched to tell the people and the world that Iraq was a growing threat to the security of post-9/11 America.
 
Saddam Hussein, senior Bush Administration officials like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice told us, was behind the 9/11 attacks -- and at that very moment was so dangerous, so focused on revenge against the United States that we had only one option: take-him out.
 
But even in 2002, in the midst of the fear campaign unleashed by the White House to create public support for an invasion, credible voices in the American mainstream questioned the Administration's claims. The respected Brookins Institution, bucking a mainstream media that mindlessly echoed the Administration's war drums, cautioned:
 

The claims of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney that Iraq might join with terrorists to strike the United States at any time are far-fetched.
 
Very little about the historical record or current intelligence lends credence to that view. It cannot be fully dismissed as a possibility, but it appears to be a remote one at worst.

 
Dick Cheney famously warned on Meet the Press that Saddam was linked to 9/11 and ready and able to pull-off another 9/11 style attack.
 
Never mind that there was no evidence linking Al-Qaeda to Saddam. Yet Condoleezza Rice famously said on CNN:
 

"We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon... And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device... The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

The rest, as they say, is history.

But in the United Kingdom, this history is now subject of an exhaustive review.

An official panel is gathering evidence of the rush to war and the efforts of Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, in cahoots with George Bush's White House, to create fear and panic -- a sense that war was the only sensible option unless the world wanted another disaster like the 9/11 attacks.

This panel is interviewing all the key British protagonist of the campaign for war. From Tony Blair on down, members of his government and the non-political heads of key departments are giving their testimony as to what really happened.

In a particularly devastating testimony, Baroness Manningham-Buller, leader of Britain's MI-5 intelligence agency, used a wrecking ball to demolish the public arguments that were used to justify the war.

The New York Times reports that Lady Manningham-Buller has debunked the whole rational for the war. No weapons of mass destruction. No ties between Saddam ties and Al-Qaeda. The Baroness told the panel:

"There was no credible intelligence to suggest that connection, and that was the judgment, I might say, of the C.I.A.," she said.

"Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11," she added, "and I have never seen anything to make me change my mind."

But, she said, "it was not a judgment that found favor with some parts of the American machine" -- namely Donald H. Rumsfeld, the United States Secretary of Defense at the time.

That "is why Donald Rumsfeld started an alternative intelligence unit in the Pentagon to seek an alternative judgment," she said.

Lady Manningham-Buller also said that Britain relied on "fragmentary" intelligence before invading Iraq, and that MI5 had not believed that Mr. Hussein was amassing unconventional weapons in Iraq, as the government contended.

The belief that Iraq might use such weapons "wasn't a concern in either the short term or the medium term to my colleagues and myself," she said.

Moreover, the strategic implications of a war without purpose, a war that was waged based on a lie, are long lasting and still impacting the security of the United States and Britain.

The New York Times goes on to quote the Baroness' assessment of the strategic damage the war has done:

"By focusing on Iraq, we ceased to focus on the Al Qaeda threat or we reduced the focus on the Al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan," she said. "I think that was a long-term, major and strategic problem."

The invasion led to an "almost overwhelming" increase in homegrown terrorism, she said, so much so that MI5 had to have its budget doubled in the following months. And after the invasion, about 70 to 80 Britons traveled to Iraq to join the insurgency, she said, thus creating a threat where there had been none.

"Arguably, we gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad," she said.

The tragedy of millions of displaced people, thousands of American and Iraqi casualties, almost a trillion dollars of American treasure wasted -- and the emboldening of Iran as the U.S. gave them the time and space to rush forward with their nuclear weapons development -- are a somber reminders of why elections matter.

The Administration of George W. Bush will serve as a reminder that the other branches of government must remain vigilant against power-grabs by the Executive.

But perhaps the biggest lesson of all is that the media must fight its instinct to ingratiate itself with the powerful. Journalists' ultimate clients are the people -- democracy can only thrive when the electorate is properly informed.

Strategic blunders of the magnitude of the Iraqi War will only be avoided when the people have their hands firmly on the helm of the ship of state.

On Friday, Congress passed a major bill on aviation safety in response to last year's crash of Continental Flight 3407 that was en route to Buffalo, New York, according to the Associated Press.

The bill applies to all airlines and is the first real attempt to revise the rules regarding pilots in decades. Under the bill, airlines are required to hire more experienced pilots, investigate pilots' past experience more thoroughly, supply better training and requires a change in pilots' work schedules to avoid fatigue-related incidents.

The House approved the bill last week. President Obama is expected to sign the bill by Sunday.

Pilot error was deemed the cause in last year's Continental crash. Congressional members praised the family members and friends of that flight's victims, who lobbied heavily for the measure. Sen. Schumer said in a statement: "This is a textbook example of a small group of people who, with only right on their side, were able to overcome large and powerful special interests."

The bluntly-named group “Stop Islamization in America” has posted signs on the sides of metro buses across the country this summer, reading: “Fatwa on your head?” and “Leaving Islam?” Pamela Geller, who heads the organization, says she just wants to help out Muslims endangered by their own religion.

Funny: I don’t believe I’ve seen any signs yet reading: “Priest molesting you in the confession booth? Leaving Catholicism?”

There is a new and disturbing trend towards Muslim bashing in the United States. If it continues apace it is likely to help stir up a real national “clash of civilizations.” Too bad. The American Muslims I know are some of the most open-minded and tolerant practitioners of the Islamic faith.

Witness Newt Gingrich’s bizarre stance on the planned Muslim community center two blocks from the World Trade Center with a mosque on one floor: “There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia,” he contends.

Is he saying we should be just as intolerant as some of the world’s most authoritarian governments? It certainly sounds like it.

Folks jumping on the anti-Muslim bandwagon this summer might like to recall that America’s founders stressed religious tolerance for a reason: Minority faiths deserve the same protection as all faiths, particularly because they are likely to be the first ones persecuted by the majority. Maybe that is why Thomas Jefferson bothered to read his own Koran. The father of the nation, George Washington, harbored no anxiety towards other religions on American soil. In one instance, he wrote this to his agent about hiring workmen at Mount Vernon: “If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.”

Gingrich and his brethren are now trying to stir up new fears about Islam in America. His clique has little credibility, however.

In the build up to the Iraq War, Gingrich, like many in his set, missed the story inside that nation on how Saddam’s own policies had kept the al Qaeda genie in the bottle. Gingrich wrote a column in USA Today, entitled: “Strike Sooner Than Later.” He played a key role in driving the U.S. into a bungled invasion that was unrelated to the 9/11 attacks, cost at least one trillion in U.S. tax dollars and helped further the false impression that America was at war with Islam. Not surprisingly, as CNN’s Peter Bergen later documented, in the wake of the invasion of Iraq, terrorist attacks around the world rose by a factor of 600 percent.

Now this discredited gang is warning Americans to be bold and courageous and step up to the threat of “Islamization” posed by the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims. Gingrich claimed recently at the National Press Club that his own grandchildren live in fear of legions of suicide bombers anxious to invade American soil.

His real message: Brace yourself for endless confrontation. Never mind the motivations for Islamic terror and how America’s own naïve actions in the Islamic realm helped create the Frankenstein we are facing abroad.

Both Gingrich and Geller have fertile ground to make political hay. Nearly half of all Americans believe that Muslims are prone to violence, according to recent polling data. Others openly doubt the loyalty of Muslim Americans. With the constant warnings on Fox News and other cable stations that we must watch our back abroad and at home, it is little wonder that so many Americans remain a bit terrified of the “other.”

Americans need to take a deep breath. Not unlike fringe Christian groups, only a small percentage in the Islamic realm subscribe to any kind of violence at all. Islam is not creeping into American classrooms and undermining the way our children think. The very notion that we should fear this is reminiscent of Senator McCarthy’s “red baiting” tactics.

In my researching my book, My Brother, My Enemy from Sahelian Africa through the Holy Land, South Asia and onto Indonesia, I discovered that it is the hyperbolic language in the West — the use of such absurd phrases as “Islamo-facism” — that helps stir the passions of young Muslims, many of them already disenfranchised by their own governments. Worse, when we pay lip-service to such talk, we are essentially elevating the fringe element within Islam to an undeserved level of international prominence. Indeed, Al Qaeda loves this language because it plays into their own “us versus them” propaganda cycle.

As for this “clash of civilizations” that Gingrich and Geller are pushing, our foes must be saying, “Bring it on!” It should be no wonder that when we go hunting for false specters, we create the kind of monsters we fear the most.

Fortunately, there is another direction — the American way. Lest we be fooled again, there are encouraging signs out there. There is an expanding moderate middle in Islam; one that Americans and their politicians should be encouraging and paying far more attention to than the fringe. National polls in the largest Arab country, Egypt, for example, show that four of five Egyptians believe that democracy is a very good system of government.

Likewise, Americans should be wary of the damning message that it sends across the globe when leading American politicians like Gingrich argue to curtail their shared religious freedom, a cornerstone of our tolerant nation.

Popularity: unranked [?]

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) was abruptly torn away from a live radio interview Friday when a policeman pulled him over and told him to hang up the phone. The Congressman had been speeding.

Lungren was caught in a traffic stop by Washington-area police while attempting to talk with Sacramento-based KFBK about the recent passage of the "International Megan's Law," a bill that expands on domestic legislation designed to keep track of the travel and movement of registered sex offenders.

Before Lungren was given a chance to delve too deeply in to the explanation of the bill, however, a voice is heard asking, "can you hang up the phone, sir?"

To which Lungren responds, while audibly stifling laughter: "I have to get off the phone in just a moment here. Can I call you back in just a second? I'm sorry - I'm talking with a police officer here."

When the interview resumes, the host asks Lungren to explain what happened:

"Well I was driving here, probably just slightly over the speed limit," Lungren responds, before completing the interview about the purpose of the recently passed international anti-sex offender legislation.

Lungren Communications Director Brian Kaveney has told CNN that the officer who stopped the congressman along the George Washington Parkway in Virginia let him off with a warning.

Listen to the interview:

The inability of the Obama administration to follow through on its promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay has largely been attributed to successful Republican (and Democratic) efforts to block funds for an alternate domestic facility.

But there is a far more complex legal argument that has complicated the process. And that involves figuring out a way to handle the so-called "fifth category" of detainees who are deemed too dangerous to release but too difficult to prosecute due to evidentiary issues. The president and his legal team have spent an enormous amount of time trying to come to some arrangement that would satisfy the administration's hope of closing Gitmo and obvious national security concerns. Several months ago, the Guantanamo Review Task Force outlined a process for judicial review of those individuals.

But even with progress (however marginal) frustrations have grown on Capitol Hill. In an interview with the Huffington Post last week, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) criticized the White House for sidestepping transparency (code word, perhaps, for civil liberties) with regards to its handling of the fifth category.

"[The White House] should have had an open and transparent way in which those who are going to be detained indefinitely are reviewed and that there is understanding internationally and acceptance internationally that we are complying with acceptable standards," said the Maryland Democrat.

"There's been two problems [with closing Gitmo]," he added. "Not only do we not have the money, we don't have the policy. I asked the Attorney General when we were going to have the policy and we don't have it yet. Whether at Gitmo or whether in Illinois [at the replacement facility], there's got to be some type of review and transparent process. We haven't put that in place yet."

Cardin, in the end, remains relatively optimistic that the administration will find a solution to the detainee issue, a sentiment that White House officials share more confidently today than several months ago. But that of course doesn't portend Gitmo's closure. Democrats who support the shutting of the detention facility fully acknowledge that there is no momentum behind the campaign anymore, with few votes to actually spend money on an alternate facility.

"It's frustrating to me because it's iconic," said Cardin. "I was there not too long ago... I guess a third of the [detainees] are in the process of being disposed of one way or the other. So you've got a hardcore number of 50, 60, something like that, they don't know exactly what to do with them. The best thing to do is to transfer them over to this Illinois facility that's going to be build and handle them there. Illinois is prepared to do it and have a due process, transparent -- not just in America but transparent internationally -- on how these individuals are classified and remain in custody. That's what they should do. That's what the president told me he was going to do. That's what the Attorney General told me he was going to do."

The Truth-o-Meter says: Pants on Fire! | E-mail says Obama had to have been traveling on another country's passport to get into Pakistan

In an effort to prove that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president, birthers have come up with some very creative arguments. A curious reader forwarded a chain e-mail that made an interesting claim. "Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's 'no travel' list in 1981," read the e-mail. Therefore, "when Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport." The most effective chain e-mails, like the best lies, are built on an incorrect but seemingly plausible "fact" that they follow to what ...

>> More

The Truth-o-Meter says: Pants on Fire! | E-mail claims Obama's college transcripts reveal Indonesian citizenship

One of our readers tipped us off to a chain e-mail that contains a purported Associated Press article claiming that, among other things, smoking-gun evidence has been found that proves Barack Obama really is not eligible to be president. "The group 'Americans for Freedom of Information' has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College," read the alleged AP article. "Released today, the transcript school [sic] indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with ...

>> More

The Truth-o-Meter says: Pants on Fire! | E-mail claims Supreme Court agreed to rule on Obama's citizenship

Despite overwhelming evidence that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States and eligible to be  president, there are still plenty of people out there who believe that President Obama is a fraud. One of our loyal readers forwarded us a chain e-mail with several claims that we just couldn't pass up. In the chain e-mail is an article titled "Very Quietly Obama's Citizenship Case Reaches the Supreme Court." You would think this would have been big enough news that we would have heard about it, but this "article" has a dateline of April 1 ...

>> More