U.S. fails on potential bioterror threat

A study recently released by a congressionally mandated panel says the United States isn't currently prepared to deal with a biological terrorist attack.

The commission gave the Obama administration a failing grade on the nation's ability to respond to a biological attack like the release of deadly viruses or bacteria.

"Nearly a decade after Sept. 11, 2001, and one month after the Christmas Day bombing attempt, the United States is failing to address several urgent threats, especially bioterrorism," Former Sen. Bob Graham, chairman of the commission, said. "Each of the last three administrations has been slow to recognize and respond to the biothreat. But we no longer have the luxury of a slow learning curve, when we know al Qaeda is interested in bioweapons."

The investigation recommended five steps the government should take to deal with the threat of bioterrorism: Conduct a comprehensive review of the domestic program to secure dangerous pathogens, develop a national strategy for advancing the ability to conduct forensic analysis of bioterror attacks, tighten government oversight of laboratories that deal with dangerous pathogens, promote a culture of security awareness among scientists and enhance the nation's rapid response plan to prevent biological attacks from inflicting mass casualties.

Maybe even more alarming is the fact that Graham said it is likely a chemical or nuclear attack could occur by 2013.

"It is more likely than not under the current circumstances and without decisive and urgent commitment that there will be a weapon of mass destruction used by a terrorist organization someplace on earth between now and the end of 2013," he said.

Graham added it is well within al Qaeda's capabilities to acquire and execute a biochemical attack, compared to a nuclear or chemical weapon attack, which would be harder for the terrorist group to obtain.

Note: It has been long suspected that bin Laden has "suitcase nukes," which are small nuclear weapons contained in suitcases. According to some intelligence agencies, bin Laden has already snuck a number of the nukes over the Mexican border and is preparing to detonate bombs in nine U.S. cities. He calls the plot the "American Hiroshima." The bombs, however, are much smaller than the ones the U.S. dropped on Japan in 1945, and would not bring about the type of destruction that took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While many U.S. officials have, and continue to, express concern over such an attack, many others believe the theory to be exaggerated.

Comforting to know, right?!

'Hope for Haiti Now' Telethon Scheduled for Tonight

Be sure to check out the two-hour telethon 'Hope for Haiti' tonight! The event kicks off at 8 p.m. ET and will be featured on virtually every television station including CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, BET, CW, HBO, MTV, VH1 and CMT. The event will also stream live via YouTube, Hulu, MySpace, AOL, MSN, Yahoo, Fancast, MTV.com, CNN.com, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Alltel and Sirius XM. The event was organized by George Clooney and Haitian-born artist Wycleaf Jean. Artists scheduled to perform include: Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews, Alicia Keys, Stevie Wonder, Coldplay, Bono and Jay-Z, among others

Liberal talk radio station Air America to cease live programming

In a shocking announcement earlier today, Air America Radio, the sole full-time liberal talk radio station, will file bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code and cease its live programming as of today.

It's a sad day for any liberal who covets Air America Radio as one of the lone voices on the airwaves of liberal talk radio that has long been dominated by right-wing nuts such as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage.

Air America officials cited the "difficult economic" environment as having a significant impact on the company's business.

Air America Radio launched in April 2004 as the only full-time "progressive voice" in broadcast media.  It was a corner stone for discussion in America in an era when people were expected to just accept such events as the war in Iraq and the dissemination of people's rights, or be characterized as "un-American". In recent months, since I left my position as Managing Editor of a community newspaper, I have not listened to the station much. However, during my time with the paper, the station helped me to get a much needed dose of fair reporting and liberal opinions, instead of having to turn to nuts like Limbaugh, who did nothing more than to raise my blood pressure at my already high stress job.

Thank you Air America Radio for being the lone voice over the past five years for progressives and liberals in this country. And thank you for doing the one thing most of the media was afraid to do during the Bush administration - stand up to the bastards and their lies!

For more information, visit: http://airamerica.com

Supreme Court rules in favor of corporations "influencing elections"

The Supreme Court ruled today that corporations in the United States have the right to free speech, including the right to spend millions on campaign commercials for candidates they support.

The ruling derives from the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which actually had nothing to do with the ruling that corporations have the right to fund campaign ads - for the last 100 years corporations have been deemed citizens and therefore forbidden to spend millions - possibly even billions - of dollars to influence campaigns thanks to an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court.

Citizens United originally brought the suite before the Supreme Court to rule that its anti-Hillary Clinton movie, called "Hillary: The Movie," was not considered political speech under the law and thus didn't need to end its television advertisements for the film with disclosures that they had funded the film. In the ruling, the Supreme Court rejected Citizens United's arguments that groups need not disclose who funds such propaganda (yes, only right-wing organizations like Citizens United would try to hide who funded a movie so they are not responsible for the lies conveyed in such a film), ruling that such disclosures were required for organizations like Citizens United under the constitution. It's now apparent that Citizens United never had any interest in obtaining such a ruling, but rather wanted to open up the doors for corporations to flood the airwaves with multi-million dollar campaigns ads for candidates.

The decision, however, will now allow corporations to run their own advertisements for or against political candidates, as long as they are branded by the corporation and the candidates themselves.

The big question right now is, 'what is to stop Exxon from spending millions of their billion dollars yearly profits on commercials for pro-drilling candidates'? Or Pepsi or Coke from supporting candidates who don't support a new tax on soda products? This is a truly disappointing decision out of the Supreme Court, even if it has a majority of conservative judges. Not that it won't benefit liberals as much as it will benefit conservatives in the end, but it is just another way for these billion dollar corporations to influence our lives through money - as if years of lobbying has not cost us enough as citizens already - can you say "death to affordable health care for all". And as if the media doesn't already have enough influence on the outcome of elections in the first place.

The good news is that some members of Congress are already calling for a changing of the constitution in order to overthrow the Supreme Court's decision. Either way, corporations still may be reluctant to finance such commercials for candidates they support - or those who support their agenda - because of the possibility that if per say Exxon was to support someone like Sarah Palin for president in an election, people on the left might actually begin to boycott their products. And if that is the case, you will never see this guy paying for gas produced or sold by Exxon again - not that I try not to purchase products from them in the first place, but I will make it a point to end such practice once and for all. If the decision stands without Congress getting involved, corporations will not only be corrupting our politicians, but they also will be corrupting us citizens as well.

How To Get A Republican To Agree With A Democrat

Here is a funny, yet somewhat honest look by journalist Ken Kupchik at a few tactics Democrats should implement to get Republicans to turn from the "party of no!" to the "party of yes!" If nothing else, it is good for a laugh, because even in politics, we need to learn to laugh once and awhile.

By Ken Kupchik

How can we get the "Party of No" to become the "Party of Yes"? Let's be honest, the best we can expect is the "Party of Maybe I Will Think About It And Get Back To You Later." But here are some strategies that could possibly work:

10) Cast votes only on "opposite day".
9) Offer one free tax cut to the rich with every five "yes" votes.
8) Just lie and say they're voting for a war.
7) Tell them Scott Brown would vote yes.
6) Tell them Glenn Beck it will get him mega attention if he promotes a yes vote.
5) Cite a Rasmussen poll.
4) Promise to admit that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Hollywood liberal elite if they vote yes.
3) Send in Michael Steele, he's bound to screw it up.
2) Offer rational arguments, based in fact and empirical evidence showing the potential benefit of voting in favor of the bill (will only work if you offer a substantial monetary bribe as well)
1) Pretend that the Democrats are against it.

Out with the new and in with the old: Coakley's choke costs Dems filibuster proof super-majority

For more than 46 years, Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy, one of the greatest legislators in American history, held the Senate seat in Massachusetts. Before him, his brother, President John F. Kennedy, held the seat for seven years. Combined, the Kennedy family held the seat for more than 50 years and helped shape the lives of millions of Americans, both in Massachusetts and nationally, through their history making legislation on such issues as civil rights, women's rights and health care. Now, the legacy of the Kennedy's is all but an afterthought, following the political hack, Martha Coakley's, loss to former nude male model, Republican Scott Brown.

If you don't already know, Brown defeated Coakley yesterday in a special election for Kennedy's seat. The blame game had already begun by Democrats prior to polls closing in the state as each party tried to point the finger at one another for the historic loss. While issues like health care, jobs and even the continuation of the war in Afghanistan can all be attributed to the Democrats embarrassing defeat at the hands of a virtual unknown, it is not hard to figure out why Martha Coakley lost the seat and Brown won: She ran a pathetic, virtually non-existent campaign, while Brown ran as good a campaign as one can run. It's really that simple. And while some Independent voters might have been trying to send President Obama a message, I think the vote had more to do with state politics than the state of the nation.

While I believe this to be true, many analysts throughout the country are trying to point the finger at health care for the devastating loss that will now most likely kill the health care bill once and for all. If so, Obama will be the seventh president since FDR, not to mention Richard Nixon also tried proposing a universal health care bill in 1974, to try and pass a universal health care bill. I wonder though, how can this election have anything to do with heath care when Massachusetts is the only state in the country that basically has universal health coverage already in place - with 97 percent of people covered under their popular health care bill that was sponsored by Sen. Kennedy. So I have a hard time buying the fact that health care was the driving reason behind Brown's victory - whether the Republicans want to spin it like that is a different story, but I can't see a state that has a health care system in place much like the one currently proposed in Congress would vote against a candidate strictly on that issue.

Obama currently sits at a 48 percent approval rating, with only 39 percent of people saying they would vote for him for reelection right now (of course that is not taking into consideration who his Republican opponent will be, and at this point the GOP still has no one to match his charisma). Sure people are upset. They were promised hope and change like no other presidential candidate had promised before, but of course I guess most of these people didn't bother listening to the substance behind Obama's soaring speeches and articulate rhetoric, because if they did, they would find he is doing everything he said he was going to do during the election. This is the change Obama sold to us all last year and I guess now people are having buyer’s remorse.

Not only that, but he is tackling some of the biggest challenges in our nation's history, having to combat two wars, terrorism, health care, and a failing economy, all of which was created thanks to the Republicans, who the voters of Massachusetts just put back in power. I think most of us on the left understand the challenges the president is facing, and the decisions he is making, while those on the right will never like it, and people in the middle will continue to dominate the outcome of these elections as they flip flop between candidates like John McCain did on the issues during the 2008 elections.

What I am fearful of right now is that people don't really know how to vote. They know jobs are being lost and the economy, while stable, is still not showing the turnaround we would all like to see. They now all of a sudden are beginning to question our presence in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after almost a decade of fighting in both places. And they are frightened that health care for all is a bad thing, just like their parents, grandparents and great grandparents believed when FDR first proposed such a system.

But the biggest problem with their current view of the Obama administration and Democrats is that they believe they can vote away all of their problems by putting the same party back in power that put this country in this situation in the first place. I knew Americans had short memory's, but I didn't know it took only a year for them to turn their backs on the party they elected to fix the country, in order to put back in power the morons who ruined it in the first place - plus can anyone name one idea Republicans have come up with to fix our problems in the past year? Anyone? Cause I sure as hell can’t. They have spent all of their time trying to obstruct “change,” instead of trying to create their own.

To show you just how some of these voters are thinking, yesterday, CNN was playing messages from callers concerning who and why they were voting for a specific candidate in the election. One caller said he was unhappy with the money the country was wasting on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, so he wanted to send a clear message to Obama. I guess this character forgot that it was the Republicans who got us into these two wars in the first place and it is the Republicans who would vote to leave us there for another 100 years if given the chance. Like this caller, some of the reasoning behind these people voting for Brown makes absolutely no sense. I just don't get how the Republicans and Bush get eight years to fuck this country up and these same voters won't give Obama more than a year to have his agenda come together and get us back on track. I guess it just proves how ignorant we are as voters and that is why I feel our failure is inevitable - we were promised change, our president is working toward change, and then we stop it all dead in its tracks because we are not happy with how long the change is taking.

Admittedly, Coakley was a fool, who did not find it necessary to get out and pound the pavement in order to win the seat and that is why she inevitably lost – and deservingly so. Kennedy even after four decades in the Senate, always continued to pound the pavement, even pulling up to cars with bumper stickers reading his name to further talk with them about the issues and let them know he cared about them as an individual voter. However, if this is a referendum on where the country is going then why did it take Americans almost six years before they voted out the Republicans in Congress and eight years before they voted out President Bush, while many of the same issues they bitch about today were all coming to a head.

I guess some of these people just think Washington is out of control. And to that I say, yes, it is out of control, if you consider bailouts that stopped the cataclysmic failure of our economy, health care that would offer affordable insurance to the more than 40 million Americans currently living without it and the end to the war in Iraq and a strategy to get out troops out of Afghanistan in a responsible way. If you consider all of these things out of control, then yes, the Obama administration is out of control and I am proud to support it.

They say the people who voted for Brown are now trying to target Obama with this reverse idea of "change." Well nothing has changed, so I guess they just want to go back to the same old idiots who ran this country for the last eight years. If they wanted real change, if they really wanted to send a message they would have voted for Independent candidate Joe Kennedy (no relation to Ted Kennedy). Now that would have sent a real message to Washington.

What this means for health care and Democrats moving forward.

So I guess now you ask what this means for health care and more importantly the Obama agenda. Well, it’s not good. The Democrats finally had the votes in both the Senate and House to pass a bill that FDR, Truman, Nixon and Clinton all failed to pass. History and health for all Americans was in the making, but now the Democrats have to go back to the drawing board if they intend to get anything passed. They do, however, have a few options.

The first is to just try to ram the Senate bill through the House and bring it to a vote before Brown is seated. This appears to be the Democrats best bet, however, it is greatly feared that it will upset the public even more for pushing through this back room deal. Plus, the Senate health bill as it stands, is more of a present for insurance companies than it is working people, so in the end I guess we have to ask, “is any bill better than no bill at all?”

The second option is asking the Senate to accept provisions to their bill as a condition for House passage. However, this is very complicated and would force Senate Democrats to seek a procedure called reconciliation to pass the bill with 51 vote - the fillibuster, the dumbest procedure in politics, allows a party to debate an issue for as long as they would like unless 60 of the 100 Senators vote to move forward. This is why the Democrats super-majority was so important to their agenda.

The third option would be to convince a more liberal, Republican like Olympia Snow of Main to support the bill. While this could be difficult considering she voted against the current Senate bill, Obama has continued to stay in contact with Snow about the possibility.

The fourth option is for Democrats to water down the bill and try to pass whatever they can. This, however, could be tough due to a number of Democratic Congressman and Senators threatening to vote against any bill that does not have specific provisions they had previously voted for.

Of course then there is always the option of just putting the bill up for a vote and forcing politicians from both sides of the isle to vote against it. This is my favorite option. If politicians want to deny people health care coverage because it fails to meet their own standards, then let them do it, and let them explain to their voters why they don't have health insurance in the next election.

In the end, it is a sad day for all Democrats and individuals looking for real health reform. Sen. Kennedy spent most of his life fighting for such a bill and it's just sad now that his vote will be used to kill it - and in turn will lead to the deaths of more than 40,000 Americans this year alone. But I guess that is just something we will have to live with, because while we all throw our money toward the earthquake victims of Haiti, and justifiably so, we are more concerned about the money our nation will spend on such a bill than we are the lives that will be lost in denying health care for all.

History Up Close: One year since Obama assumed historic presidency

Editors note: On Jan. 20, 2009, Barack Obama took the oath of office on the same bible his political hero, Abraham Lincoln, used for his own swearing in. Instead of doing another story highlighting the successes and failures of the Obama administration over the past year. I thought it would be more fun to post a first hand account of my own experience at the historic inauguration last year. This piece originally appeared in Saratoga TODAY Newspaper and an abridged version also appeared in The Prescription's "A New Hope" issue.

Washington D.C. - The streets of our nation's Capital are jam-packed with a vast array of men, women and children of all races, creeds and backgrounds as the dawn of a new era in American history is about to be ushered in with the swearing-in of the nation's first African-American president, Barack Obama, as I arrive in downtown Washington D.C. Tuesday morning.

Just a few hours prior, my friend Mark and I had sat patiently aboard a Wade Tours bus awaiting our arrival at RFK Stadium. Nearly two hours later we had arrived in the heart of our nations Capital via shuttle bus - joining the long sprawling lines of people who walked through the streets as if they were there on a mission from God.

Vendors selling an array of merchandise from shirts to handbags to dog collars all donning Barack Obama's name and/or face are being sold on every street corner. The man who started out as a virtual unknown to the American people a little more than a year ago has now risen to rock star status as people swarm each vendor buying up merchandise as if it were going out of style.

After more than a mile walk through the record-breaking crowds my friend and I somehow make it into the National Mall via a barrier we are able to force our way over. Getting into the Mall is just short of a miracle as it is nearly impossible to maneuver our way around the porta-potties that are covered with supporters trying to get the best vantage point possible. With little choice we find ourselves herded like cattle into a spot a few hundred yards to the right of the Washington Monument just as the booming voice of Charlie Brotman - the announcer of every inauguration since 1957 - comes echoing throughout the 1.2 mile long corridor.

The sea of people that stand before us is overwhelming as I am knocked around like a pinball in a machine. Movement is limited as the notion of unity and togetherness begins to take on a whole new meaning.

The energy from the people courses throughout the Mall like electricity through water as the commotion of the crowd of approximately two million people scream, talk and chant as the living presidents are introduced on stage. Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton receive exceptionally grand ovations, but the announcement of both George Bush Sr. and Jr. is a totally different story. Just the mention of their names causes the crowd to erupt in an angry frenzy of "boos" - President Bush rightfully taking the brunt of the exchange as the crowd enters into an animated chant of "Na na na na na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!"
The song sparks one child in back of me to ask his mother, "Are they being serious?" to which she replies "unfortunately, yes."

Our reaction, however, is something that only the millions in attendance witness as a man standing by us announces that the major news stations failed to air the crowd's reaction on television.

While the crowd enjoys the opportunity to heckle the Bush's, it is President-elect Obama for whom the multi-generational crowd has gathered in Washington to support and honor on the day.

Although it is impossible for most of us standing at the back of the monument to view one of the many jumbo television screens located along the perimeter of the Mall - the voices of those speaking on the steps of the Capitol can for the most part be heard clearly echoing through the crowd. As nice as it would be to see as well as hear, it is not Obama's face that drew more than 60 million Americans to vote for him or millions of others to trek from sea to shining sea to see him take the oath of office but rather his message and inspiration of a better more prosperous America.

As it is hard to hear over some inconsiderate people who insist on talking - though they are scorned by others around us - for the most part people are focused on each inspirational, hopeful word as they eloquently roll off the new President's tongue during his inaugural address.  

"We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America," Obama proclaims. 

As people of all different races stood by listening to Obama call upon the American people for a greater good, it is hard for some - especially the African Americans present - to hold back the overwhelming emotions of centuries of oppression. For at first it was hard for me to understand why so many parents had brought their children to such an overwhelming, potentially dangerous event, but I now realize it was the promise that their children could now realistically dream that they too could one day stand before the American people as the country's commander-in-chief that made them take the chance of bringing their children along. In many ways it was the reason that future generations of all races of children were present to witness the moment because whether you agree with him or not, Obama's rise to power truly proves that anything is possible in America. In his speech, Obama too acknowledged this notion and the historic nature of his nomination to America's highest office.

"This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed -- why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath," Obama remarks.

The inspiration and hope that Obama has brought to the American people can be seen glistening in the eyes of the people as he finishes his address and the crowd turns to peacefully exit the Mall. Unlike our entrance, our exit is less chaotic as people help each other pass through the dense crowd. People remark about the kindness of others as a group of people stop to allow an older couple or a mother with two small children to pass by.

Although chaotic and potentially dangerous due to the enormity of the crowd, at no point was there anything other than peace and kindness emulating from those in attendance.

As we make our way through the buzzing streets and back to the shuttle buses, I see the presidential helicopter fly low overhead to give Bush one last chance to wave goodbye. As the plane trails off over the horizon, I observe that most people in the streets hardly even took the time to look up let alone wave at the low flying plane - a symbol, at least to me, that people were ready to put the last eight years behind them and look to the future.

My arrival back at the bus close to two hours later marks the end of the historic day. As I sit there waiting for the buses' departure from the parking lot through the two-hour-long line, I overhear a woman in the back speaking on the phone. Her words sum up the whole historical experience.

"I have never seen so much love for one person in my life," the woman says. "It was everything I imagined and more...you just had to be there."

Coakly blows it for Dems

The results in the Massachusetts Special Election for Sen. Ted Kennedy's Senate seat are in! And the news is devastating for all of us Democrats.

Martha Coakly, the Democratic nominee, had a 20 point lead as of two weeks ago over virtual unknown Scott Brown, but now the Associated Press reports, Brown, in one of the biggest upsets in politics in decades, has stolen the seat that was owned by Democrats since President John F. Kennedy first won the seat in 1953.

While there will be plenty of time to point fingers over why the seat was lost in one of the bluest states, the bigger issue is: A. What does this mean for Obama's agenda?, and, B. How can Democrats stop the bleeding before the 2010 elections and more importantly the 2012 elections.

I am too depressed to comment any further on tonight's election. I will publish a full commentary on what this means for Democrats and the future of our nation, tomorrow.

Protest planned for Bruno's legal defense fundraiser

Local opponents of former Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno will gather tonight outside the Desmond Hotel in Albany to protest a fundraiser to raise money for his legal fund.

It has been reported that Bruno has already burned through close to $1 million in legal fees since his defense began. Organizers of the fundraiser include John Nigro, an Albany developer and member of the state’s  Legislative Ethics Commission, which has angered many due to Bruno's conviction on two federal fraud chargers in December.

“Joe Bruno is proof that we need ethics reform” Doug Bullock, an Albany County legislator, said in a statement. “Bruno was using his government office, staff, and lawyers – all for personal profit. His felony conviction of this theft cries out for legislative reform.”

Bruno was acquitted on six other corruption chargers and has maintained his innocence. He is currently appealing the convictions.

The planned protest is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. at the Desmond Hotel, located at 660 Albany Shaker Road in Colonie. There will be extra signs, brooms and mops available for those who don't have their own.

Palin to bring "in-depth analytical skills" to FOX News

So did you hear the news that former Governor Sarah Palin will be bringing her expert political commentary and analysis to FOX News after the two announced the signing of a two-year agreement Monday.

"I am thrilled to be joining the great talent and management team at Fox News," Palin said in a written statement. "It's wonderful to be part of a place that so values fair and balanced news."

Ha, only Sarah Palin would call FOX News "fair and balanced". But it's good to know that FOX has decided to commit to a more unbiased news team - cause you know they have so many liberals on the station.

Nonetheless, I do think the move is brilliant in terms of ratings, you know she will command attention from liberals as well as conservatives. But if the Wasilla hockey mom intends to provide political analysis for a news station, she might want to sharpen up on her interview skills. But as long as she performs as well as she did in the interview above, she should do just great!

Can't wait to watch Alaska's first nut show us how little she really knows about politics.