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.