• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди302
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации6
      Страны / Регионы65
      • Показать ещё
      Компании226
      • Показать ещё
      Формат2
      Издания28
      • Показать ещё
      Разное124
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели9
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы1
23 мая, 12:07

Eric Garcetti isn’t running for president (wink, wink)

But the Los Angeles mayor sure sounds like a man who wants to.

23 мая, 01:10

Nation So Sad It's Cheered Up By A Sphere

Like what you read below? Sign up for HUFFPOST HILL and get a cheeky dose of political news every evening! President Trump was provided relief from a tumultuous trip abroad when he got to play with a globe that made his hands look as big as Eurasia. Speaking of hands, and maybe it’s just our wild imagination, but has anyone given any thought to the idea that the country is being run through Melania Trump’s hands? And the president’s budget includes very steep cuts to the social safety net. To all of you who will be roasting your boot on a spit over an oil drum fire in 2020, take comfort: The president saved a few dollars on the F-35. This is HUFFPOST HILL for Monday, May 22nd, 2017: BORED TRUMP NOW JUST GINNING UP HIS OWN CONTROVERSIES - We’re all gonna die.  Marina Fang: “President Donald Trump on Monday denied that he mentioned Israel at the Oval Office meeting where he reportedly leaked classified information to Russian officials, seemingly referring to reports that Israel was the source of that information. ‘Just so you understand, I never mentioned the word or the name “Israel.” Never mentioned it during that conversation,’ Trump said during an appearance with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem as part of his first foreign trip as president. The president was referring to reports that Israel was the source of classified information he disclosed to Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and ambassador Sergei Kislyak during an Oval Office meeting on May 10.  ‘They were all saying I did. So you had another story wrong,’ he said, pointing at reporters in the room. ‘Never mentioned the word “Israel.”’ It was never reported, however, that Trump told the Russians that Israel was the source of the information.” [HuffPost] FLOTUS don’t want no POTUS. Jared Kushner must be so stressed right now, via Politico reporter Annie Karni’s pool report: “Recently, Trump has said that he believes peace in the Middle East is ‘not as difficult as people have thought.’ On Monday night, he said, ‘I’ve heard it’s one of the toughest deals of all.’ And he sounded a little more tempered in his confidence: ‘But I have a feeling we’re  going to get there eventually,’ he said. ‘I hope.’” FLYNN TAKING THE FIFTH - Whew, one less instance of drama for Mitch McConnell to worry about. Amanda Terkel: “Former national security adviser Michael Flynn will not cooperate with a Senate intelligence committee investigation, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination Monday to avoid turning over documents lawmakers have subpoenaed related to his interactions with Russian officials. Flynn resigned in February, after it was revealed that he lied about whether he had substantive contacts with the Russian ambassador before President Donald Trump took office. In a letter to the leaders of the Senate intelligence committee posted by the Associated Press, Flynn’s lawyer said that without ‘assurances against unfair prosecution,’ he would ‘respectfully decline your request for an interview and for the production of documents.’” [HuffPost] This Flynn character may not be entirely on the up-and-up. “Michael Flynn appears to have lied to Pentagon officials about payments he received from Russians when he was interviewed in 2016 for a renewal of his security clearance, according to a document obtained by the top Democrat on the House oversight committee. In a letter released Monday evening by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the congressman details a document that reveals Flynn told investigators he was paid by ‘U.S. companies’ when he traveled to Russia and dined with Russian President Vladimir Putin.” [HuffPost’s Laura Barrón-López] James Comey’s testimony on his firing and the Russia investigation has been postponed, House oversight committee chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) announced on Twitter. OK, MAYBE THERE WILL BE PEOPLE DYING IN THE STREETS, PT. 623,005, 541 - Arthur Delaney: “The Trump administration will unveil its 2018 budget on Tuesday, likely including big-league cuts to social programs in order to pay for more guns and bombs. The first thing to know about Trump’s budget ― or any president’s budget ― is that most of the proposals it contains stand little chance of becoming law. Instead, the president’s budget is a wish list that marks the beginning of a process in which Congress ultimately decides how to set spending levels. Trump reportedly wants to boost military spending and pay for it with big cuts to safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps, along with cuts to dozens of smaller items like the Community Development Block Grant. Republicans are unlikely to go along, since they have struggled mightily to agree on cuts to health insurance subsidies this year. But Bob Greenstein, director of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the party’s love of tax cuts could motivate them to consider all options.”  [HuffPost] Haircut: Bernie Sanders (h/t Haley Byrd). Like HuffPost Hill? Then order Eliot’s book, The Beltway Bible: A Totally Serious A-Z Guide To Our No-Good, Corrupt, Incompetent, Terrible, Depressing, and Sometimes Hilarious Government Does somebody keep forwarding you this newsletter? Get your own copy. It’s free! Sign up here. Send tips/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to [email protected] Follow us on Twitter - @HuffPostHill COURT RULES AGAINST GOP DRAWN DISTRICTS - Cristian Farias: “In a long-awaited decision, the Supreme Court agreed on Monday with a lower court ruling that found that Republican lawmakers in North Carolina drew two congressional districts with improper racial considerations in mind. The ruling is the latest attempt by the justices to clarify the standard for what counts as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering — the push by lawmakers, especially in the South, to draw district lines based on the racial demographics of a specific area. ‘The Constitution entrusts States with the job of designing congressional districts,’ wrote Justice Elena Kagan in the 5-to-3 decision. ‘But it also imposes an important constraint: A State may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason.’” [HuffPost] The sinkhole that formed in front of Mar-a-Lago is almost too easy a target for jokes. CITY ON A HILL UPDATE - Your tired, poor huddled masses yearning to be free can crash on our futon for a couple of nights... maybe. Elise Foley: “Tens of thousands of Haitians who had already been granted temporary reprieve to stay in the U.S. will be allowed to remain for an additional six months, but they should use that time to ‘get their affairs in order,’ a Trump administration official said Monday. The Department of Homeland Security had until Tuesday to decide whether to extend temporary protected status, or TPS, for roughly 58,700 Haitians, who have been approved to remain in the U.S. following a devastating 2010 earthquake in their native country.” [HuffPost] TRUMP STILL THREATENING TO SABOTAGE OBAMACARE - But he’s not doing it today. Jeffrey Young: “In a filing to a federal appeals court Monday, the Justice Department and lawyers representing House Republicans have requested another 90-day delay in the proceedings from a case challenging the legality of payments made to health insurers serving low-income customers…. Without that money, insurers would face major financial losses because the law mandates they offer these discounts whether they get paid back or not. Insurers received about $7 billion in these payments last year. Many states would allow health insurance companies to exit the Obamacare markets this year, leaving their policyholders with no coverage. Moreover, if Trump makes clear the cost-sharing payments won’t be made in the future, health insurance companies would have a strong disincentive to participate in the exchanges next year, leaving consumers with fewer, or possibly no, choices.” [HuffPost] CONGRATULATIONS TO THE LITTLE GUY - [area liberals nervously making sure Ruth Bader Ginsburg is getting enough antioxidants in her diet]. Paul Blumenthal: “Newly minted Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch showed his hand on Monday on where he will likely stand on cases that would increase the amount of power held by large political donors. As the Supreme Court declined to hear a major campaign finance case that could have led to the lifting of campaign contribution limits to political parties, Gorsuch joined Justice Clarence Thomas in an unwritten dissent. That means Gorsuch and Thomas wanted the court to hear the case, and likely wanted to vote to overturn yet another limit on big money in politics. The case, Republican Party of Louisiana v. Federal Election Commission, challenged contribution limits placed on state-level political parties by the 2002 McCain-Feingold reform law. These are the limits on ‘soft money,’ unlimited contributions to the parties for supposedly non-electoral activities, imposed in the wake of scandals related to both how the money was raised and how it was spent.” [HuffPost] The thankfully brief story of the D.C. bar that wanted to introduce a “Pill Cosby” drink to its menu. DEMOCRATS GRIPPED WITH RAHM-BASED NOSTALGIA - To defeat a short-fingered vulgarian, sometimes you need a vulgar man with one shortened finger. Edward-Isaac Dovere and Gabriel Debenedetti: “Democrats see the same ugly storm forming for Republicans that delivered them the majority 11 years ago, and they’re digging out the blueprint. The party is vastly expanding the number of districts it plans to contest, recruiting veterans and business owners to compete in conservative terrain as it did back then. Three senior House Democrats are soon heading to Chicago to seek advice from Rahm Emanuel, the party’s 2006 master strategist. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been tutoring members on the party’s campaign efforts that year…. Emanuel has been in touch regularly with Democratic leaders in Washington, holding frequent strategy phone calls with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.” [Politico] BECAUSE YOU’VE READ THIS FAR - Here’s yet another puppy doing battle with a doorstop. TRUMP ISN’T THE ONLY ONE ON A #MAGA TRIP ABROAD - How come there are never “belligerent ferry passenger asked to disembark” or “irate monorail rider forced to alight” stories? Avi Selk: “Like some bizarre parody of a Trump rally, a belligerent man in a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat was booted off a plane in Shanghai Sunday — defiantly waving as a crowd of passengers jeered in the terminal: ‘Lock him up! Lock him up!’ It’s unclear whether Chinese police did jail the man or who he was. As others on the United Airlines flight described it, he started arguing before he stepped onto the plane. ‘Obviously, the hat provoked some of the stuff,’ said Alexis Zimmerman, who was flying back to Newark from a business trip.” [WaPo] COMFORT FOOD - Dogs try to make sense of fidget spinners. - The winning submissions from the first-ever “Comedy Wildlife Photography Awards.” - An infographic showing all the colors of Mr. Rogers’ cardigans. TWITTERAMA @emmaroller: The Orb and the Obelisk have revealed themselves, as it was foretold. Now we wait for the third Dark Talisman to emerge. @historyinflicks:  Straightforward from here:1 impeach Trump2 steal orb3 fall under maddening spell of orb4 orb devours every human soul5 President Hatch @jephjacobs: Child: do you remember when Trump touched the Orb? Me: Yes. None of us realized what it would- Orb Police: HAIL ORB Me & child: hail orb Got something to add? Send tips/quotes/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to Eliot Nelson ([email protected]) -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

22 мая, 12:11

Paging Rahm: House Dems revive 2006 playbook for 2018

The party is reviving the strategy it used the last time it took the House 11 years ago, but a lot has changed since then.

16 мая, 12:22

‘America’s reliability is now in question’

Chicago’s mayor thinks his party is too focused on Trump’s antics, at the expense of aiming an economic message at the middle class.

14 мая, 14:10

The Kennedy Democrats don't want

The latest Kennedy to run for office is discovering the storied family name isn't enough anymore.

10 мая, 01:59

California takes center stage in battle for House majority

Democrats and Republicans are pouring manpower and money into the state ahead of the 2018 midterms.

09 мая, 23:03

Chicago Reminds Trump's EPA That When It Comes To Climate Change, The Internet Never Forgets

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); The City of Chicago has resurrected climate change data that was deleted from the Environmental Protection Agency website under President Donald Trump. A climate change section recently added to the city’s official website will permanently host decades of EPA research purged by the federal agency in April under Trump’s administration, which is packed with climate-change deniers and friends of the fossil fuel industry. Climate change is real. Since the facts were deleted from the @EPA’s website, check ours. https://t.co/YlzlF4KReO pic.twitter.com/nsjNE3BMG9— ChicagosMayor (@ChicagosMayor) May 7, 2017 A header on the new Chicago-hosted webpage reads: “While this information may not be readily available on the agency’s webpage right now, here in Chicago we know climate change is real and we will continue to take action to fight it.”  The city website includes EPA primers on climate-change science, data showing how greenhouse gasses and emissions influence weather, and a list of federal efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change.   Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said the Trump administration was “burying [its] head in the sand” on climate change, and called for other cities and academic institutions to join his city to help preserve access to the scientific data.  The Trump administration can attempt to erase decades of work on climate change, but burying your head in the sand doesn’t erase the problem— ChicagosMayor (@ChicagosMayor) May 7, 2017 “Cities are becoming central in the climate fight. In the absence of federal leadership, this is a key moment for local action,” Henry Henderson, Midwest director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “Chicago has long been a clean energy leader and is now stepping up to help defend the nation against the seeming war on climate science underway in D.C.” The Trump administration removed a White House webpage devoted to climate change moments after Trump was sworn into office in January.  -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

06 мая, 17:42

Chicago mayor Emanuel posts EPA’s deleted climate change page

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s response to the Trump administration pulling down its website detailing information about climate change: putting up his own. The new section of the City of Chicago’s website, launched this weekend, pulls data from the archived Environmental Protection Agency page, noting, “while this information may not be readily available on the agency’s webpage right now, here in Chicago we know climate change is real and we will continue to take action to fight it.” Emanuel is promising to build the site out more in the coming weeks, using city resources. “The Trump administration can attempt to erase decades of work from scientists and federal employees on the reality of climate change, but burying your head in the sand doesn’t erase the problem,” Emanuel said. Through both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past two decades, the EPA accepted and promoted climate change data. That changed under President Donald Trump, who’s expressed doubts about the science and already eliminated regulations put in place by President Barack Obama, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has repeatedly questioned global warming and fought environmental protections from the government he argues unfairly target businesses. Last week, the EPA scrapped the climate-change website. “We are currently updating our website to reflect EPA's priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Pruitt,” a message on the “page is being updated” EPA site has read since. Emanuel said he wants to see other cities and universities joining in preserving the data that the federal government is removing to ensure it stays public. Emanuel, in office in 2011 after serving as Obama’s first chief of staff, has a local environmental record reducing carbon emissions and waste that he likes to tout. The new Chicago website has information about the science of climate change and its effects on the weather, human impact that has accelerated the problem and steps the federal government had been taking to reduce it.

06 мая, 16:01

Obamacare repeal vote upends 2018 House landscape

Republicans worry their incumbents will pay for the vote, and signs abound of an energized Democratic base.

05 мая, 19:54

Are Americans 'Sick and Tired of Winning' Yet?

Conspicuously absent from President Trump’s celebration of Obamacare repeal passing the House was any mention of the people and constituencies it might benefit.

03 мая, 06:13

Warren polishes national profile ahead of 2020

When Donald Trump suggested to a National Rifle Association crowd in Atlanta on Friday that he might face a challenge from Elizabeth Warren in three years, he voiced a thought shared by political pros in both parties. Between her coast-to-coast book tour, a series of high-profile speeches and greater behind-the-scenes involvement in setting the party’s direction in Washington, the Massachusetts progressive the president derides as “Pocahontas” is providing plenty of evidence that she may be poised to go national after her Senate reelection campaign in 2018. Warren — a fundraising juggernaut, an antagonist of big banks and a frequent GOP sparring partner — is primarily focused on crafting anti-Trump tactics on Capitol Hill, supporting her more electorally endangered colleagues and keeping an eye on her own backyard just in case a serious challenger emerges. But she’s also doing everything she needs to do to prepare for a presidential run just in case, cutting a noticeably high public profile and harnessing her political celebrity to shape the party’s future. It’s a future in which many expect she may be running for president, or at least to better position herself to shape the party’s priorities in the event she doesn’t run. “She has a very legitimate claim to one of the fundamental arguments of our time, which is how you reverse the downward pressure on the middle class, and different people have different answers to that, but she was on this issue a long time ago, so she really rose to prominence on this issue,” said David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s top political adviser in 2008 and an architect of his rise to the presidency. “So given the saliency of it, it’s not surprising that she should be in the forefront on these discussions, and in this fight. The absence of a strong economic message was an obvious defect in 2016, so I’m sure she will have a role.” “I look at the U.S. Senate as a parlor of prospective presidential candidates, and obviously her name is among the most prominent among them,” added Axelrod, who said he had coffee with Warren a few months back but hasn’t talked to her since. As she hawks “This Fight Is Our Fight” — her 11th book and a New York Times best-seller — Warren has accepted invitations to speak to prominent left-leaning constituency groups like the NAACP and EMILY’s List, as well as to a conference later this month hosted by the liberal Center for American Progress think tank that’s a showcase for potential presidential hopefuls. Along with that stature, her torrid fundraising has placed her in the top tier of national Democratic figures of influence. Using both in-person appeals and a growing online backing, she brought in more money than any other senator in the first quarter of 2017 — much of it raised online after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell silenced her on the Senate floor as she opposed the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be attorney general. She subsequently used her leadership PAC to dole out $10,000 checks to a wide range of vulnerable Senate colleagues in April, according to previously unreported federal filings, solidifying her status as a top fundraising “get” for her colleagues. Before she took the stage at the NAACP’s annual dinner late last month, for example, she swung by a quick closed-door $25-per-ticket fundraiser for Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow. The event was expected to bring in just a few hundred local Democrats — 915 showed up instead. That fundraising isn’t set to stop anytime soon: She’s due back in California for another big-money swing in June, multiple people familiar with the plans told Politico. There, she’ll appear with a handful of the party’s most prominent political financiers, including Esprit founder and close Clinton friend Susie Tompkins Buell and Guy Saperstein, the attorney and Oakland Athletics part-owner who offered her $1 million to run for president in 2016. In Washington, Warren is playing an increasingly significant role in helping shape the Trump resistance after initially angering grass-roots supporters by voting to allow Ben Carson’s nomination as housing secretary to proceed in January, before apologizing. She’s been surfacing more on national television and appearing regularly at quietly organized, previously unreported private meetings with progressive group leaders that Oregon’s Jeff Merkley has started hosting in his Senate office to get everyone on the same page. Fellow elected leaders and strategists say Warren advocates that the party do a better job of picking its fights against the new president, while raising the alarm about under-the-radar White House and GOP moves she feels aren’t getting enough attention. That tactic mirrors the one advocated by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the former Barack Obama White House chief of staff and a prominent party strategist with whom she recently sat down — at his request — while on her book tour. “I don’t get any sense that we’re in the Battle Plan Stage One of a presidentialrun,” said Neera Tanden, the CAP president and a Hillary Clinton ally who said she speaks with Warren regularly. “I think she really is trying to help create some centrifugal forces within the party to take on Trump and deal with the problems in front of us.” But, Tanden added, “We’re in a situation where, without the White House, Democrats and progressives are looking for leaders who will take Trump on. [Warren] was that person before the election. She is that person now.” As a result of that new role, her extensive fundraising network, and her growing online following, few serious conversations about Democrats’ 2020 primary get far before they settle on Warren’s name. The lessons of the 2016 election are seared into the minds of those surrounding Warren, after she opted not to run and much of the early-voting state manpower and political infrastructure dedicated to drafting her turned into the foundation for Bernie Sanders’ organization. “I adore her; I thought she was the candidate we should have run in 2016,” said Saperstein, explaining that in 2020 Warren is now his second choice for the presidency, behind former “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart. “The problem we had in 2016 is there was so much effort to clear the field for Hillary, and it was a very unhealthy thing.” Declining to endorse either Sanders or Clinton until after the primary, Warren angered some die-hard supporters of the Vermont senator, but — in the minds of her political allies — she managed to shape some of the primary debate around her, tugging the economic conversation to the left. Even against the backdrop of a prospective 2020 field of over two dozen Democrats, Warren’s political following is matched only by those of Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden, potentially allowing her to direct the 2020 contest in a similar way. But that, and a recent book tour that has taken her from New York to Boston to Chicago to Los Angeles, has spurred Massachusetts Republicans to seize on Warren’s national moves, eyeing her as potentially vulnerable in 2018 after a January MassINC/WBUR poll showed that 46 percent of the state’s voters said someone else should have a chance at the Senate. “She’s pretty much been nationally focused exclusively since she got elected, running around the country raising money, talking in extremely hyperpartisan doublespeak and really largely ignoring our home state,” said Kirsten Hughes, the Massachusetts GOP chair. No high-profile Republican has yet stepped up to the plate, but Warren isn’t taking chances. She’s held town hall meetings in her home state and has three Massachusetts commencement speeches scheduled for this spring, working with a campaign team that includes media consultant Mandy Grunwald, strategist Marla Romash, and adviser Kristen Orthman, an alum of former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office, while her former chief of staff, Mindy Myers, runs the Senate Democrats’ campaign wing this cycle. The senator also frequently travels with her state director, Roger Lau, and relies on the work of her digital director, Lauren Miller. Even if a serious Republican challenge to Warren’s reelection in 2018 never takes shape, national GOP leaders have identified that race as a prime opportunity to test lines of attack on her, starting with portraying her as an out-of-touch Harvard elitist whose political views are too far to the left. In recent years, she’s campaigned for a wide range of Democratic candidates in states the party needs, they note, but Senate hopefuls from Kentucky’s Alison Lundergan Grimes to Ohio’s Ted Strickland have fallen short. Viewing her national book tour as a delicate endeavor at a time when Democrats continue to struggle to connect with middle-class voters, the GOP opposition research group America Rising is treating her much as it did Clinton in the run-up to 2016, monitoring her media appearances and badgering her at every turn in an attempt to tarnish her national image. “We learned from our experience with Secretary Clinton that the earlier you start, the more chance you have for these narratives to sink in with the electorate,” said Colin Reed, the group’s executive director. In a sign of how both sides are eager to leverage Warren for their own political advantage, though, her own party decided to use that GOP push as an alarm in itself. “A shadowy conservative group called America Rising just announced new attacks on Senator Elizabeth Warren, saying they’re planning to do everything in their power to ‘make Warren’s life difficult,’” the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee emailed party members last month. “Now we’re counting on our best supporters to show we’ve got Senator Warren’s back.”

30 апреля, 02:01

Chicago Was On The Verge Of Police Reform. Then Trump Picked Jeff Sessions To Run The DOJ.

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); CHICAGO ― In the final months of the Obama administration, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division scrambled to complete its biggest-ever investigation of a city police department: a 13-month probe of Chicago’s 12,000-strong police force that wrapped up just a week before President Donald Trump’s inauguration. For more than a year, the division’s lawyers reviewed thousands of Chicago Police Department documents, visited all 22 police districts, went on 60 ride-alongs, reviewed 170 police shooting files, examined over 425 incidents of less-lethal force, interviewed 340 department members and talked to about 1,000 Chicago residents. Their final report, issued Jan. 13, recognized the tough job officers had in Chicago as they dealt with spiking gun violence, and praised the “diligent efforts and brave actions of countless” officers. But a “breach in trust” eroded Chicago’s ability to prevent crime, because officers were able to escape accountability when they broke the law, the report found. Because “trust and effectiveness in combating violent crime are inextricably intertwined,” the report found “broad, fundamental reform” was needed in Chicago. Without a formal legal agreement to reform — known as a consent decree — and independent monitoring, the report concluded, reform efforts in Chicago were “not likely to be successful.” Jeff Sessions, Trump’s attorney general, disagrees. In recent weeks, Sessions has expressed deep skepticism about the role of the federal government in fixing broken police departments, leaving serious doubts about the ultimate outcome of the Justice Department’s work in Chicago. Sessions wants the Justice Department to serve as the “leading advocate for law enforcement in America.” While admitting he hadn’t read the full Chicago report, he called it “anecdotal” and “not so scientifically based.” Earlier this month in Baltimore, a Justice Department lawyer said Sessions had “grave concerns” about an agreement previously reached between that city and the Obama administration. A federal judge signed off on the deal over Sessions’ objections.In an interview with a conservative radio host this month, Sessions seemed to suggest that Justice Department investigations and consent decrees were resulting in “big crime increases.” In an op-ed for USA Today last week, Sessions wrote that consent decrees could amount to “harmful federal intrusion” that could “cost more lives by handcuffing the police instead of the criminals.” There’s too much focus on “a small number of police who are bad actors,” Sessions wrote, and “too many people believe the solution is to impose consent decrees that discourage the proactive policing that keeps our cities safe.” Chicago has a serious violent crime problem. Last year was the deadliest in the city in two decades, with 762 homicides. But supporters of police reform like Jonathan Smith, a former official in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said that Sessions was “simply wrong” to suggest that crime goes up as a result of reform (or, in Chicago’s case, an investigation). DOJ investigations can increase community confidence in police departments and make people safer, Smith argued. “In communities like Baltimore and Chicago where certain neighborhoods are experiencing gun violence, the problems long predate Justice Department involvement,” said Smith. “The issues in those communities are linked to weakened gun laws that create easy access to firearms, lack of opportunity for jobs and housing and a history of police misconduct that creates mistrust between police and the communities they serve. Lack of police accountability is often a significant contributing factor in a spike in crime because of community mistrust.” Lorie Fridell, a criminologist and police bias expert from whom the Chicago’s Police Accountability Task Force solicited information for its report released last year, said DOJ investigations not only help to usher in badly need reforms to the specific departments probed, but other departments also rely on the reports to determine if their own departments are meeting constitutional standards. “I think it’s very unfortunate the DOJ is no longer going to prioritize police reform,” Fridell said. ”The future of police reform is therefore going to have to come from the ground up. It’s going to be important for concerned individuals to demand high-quality policing.” The future of police reform is ... going to have to come from the ground up." Criminologist Lorie Fridell Ian Prior, a Justice Department spokesman, said it should be “eminently clear” that the Justice Department “will never negotiate or sign a consent decree that could reduce the lawful powers of the police department and result in a less safe city.” Sarah Isgur Flores, the top spokeswoman for the Justice Department, declined to point to any specific sections of consent decrees Sessions or the department took issue with, though she said there were “several areas of concern” with the Baltimore agreement, which she alleged was “thrown together in such a hurried fashion.” She said Trump’s administration “agrees with the need to rebuild public confidence in law enforcement” but had serious worries “where consent decrees may reduce the lawful powers of the police department.” Sessions appears to believe civil rights and constitutional policing were somehow adversarial to effective crime fighting, said Vanita Gupta, who headed the Civil Rights Division in the final years of the Obama administration. But “there’s no evidence that backs up what he’s saying,” she argued. Gupta rejected the new administration’s suggestion that the Baltimore agreement was tossed together at the last minute, calling it “an insult to the city and to the Baltimore Police Department,” and suggested they need take a closer look at what DOJ investigators found in Chicago. “If the attorney general and his staff actually read the report, they would see reflected in that report the perspective of hundreds of Chicago police officers themselves, who talked to us about the realities of policing in the Chicago Police Department,” said Gupta. “That report reflects in many ways a very significant set of voices from law enforcement itself.” Sessions dismissing the Justice Department’s reports without reading them also frustrates Christy Lopez, a former top Civil Rights Division official. It’s “ignorant” to describe the reports as anecdotal, Lopez said. The Chicago investigation, for example, revealed that just 1.4 percent of all misconduct complaints were sustained, or upheld as valid, over a period of more than five years, and that white Chicagoans were much more likely to have their complaints sustained than black or Latino residents. “That’s not anecdotal,” says Lopez. Lopez also said that dismissing the individual stories highlighted in the DOJ reports as anecdotal is “deliberately blind” to what investigators were trying to do. “It devalues people when you minimize the importance of their stories,” Lopez said. “You can call them anecdotes, but, for example in the Ferguson case ― when we have an officer writing down in his own report that after he went out and arrested a woman who’d called in on a domestic violence call, and he arrested her for an occupancy permit violation, and she says ‘I’ll never call the police again, even if I’m being killed’ ― that many be an anecdote, but that’s an important story to tell.” It devalues people when you minimize the importance of their stories." Christy Lopez Chicago residents for years have demanded changes like a citizen-led review board for police misconduct cases or improved mental health and crisis training. Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson have both expressed willingness to enact reform, with or without oversight from the courts or the DOJ. Failure to get traction for reforms — even as they face an obstinate police union — could spell political trouble for both of them. In the absence of federal action, advocates “are looking at every option ― including litigation, political pressure and legislation” to bring about reform, said Karen Sheley, director of the ACLU Illinois’ police practices project. The city has “hit a crisis point,” she added. “Everyone in Chicago should be asking their elected officials to support reform, including of the police union contracts, which are being negotiated now.” A lack of police reform has already come at a high cost to Chicago taxpayers. Since 2004, the city has forked over about $662 million for police misconduct in the form of multimillion-dollar settlements, as well as legal fees and other penalties. Settlements totaling more than $100,000 require city council approval ― and they always get it. Police who break the rules and later cost the city money are rarely punished, allowing a core of officers especially prone to violating rules to propel the staggering payout costs. In his op-ed last week criticizing police reform, Sessions pointed to violent crime spikes in Chicago and Baltimore as reasons not to implement reform, even though neither city has implemented consent decrees. In an email to HuffPost, a Justice Department representative provided links to stories about crime spikes in New Orleans, Cleveland and Albuquerque, New Mexico, all cities that came under federal scrutiny. One story highlighted comments from Louisiana’s attorney general, who argued that the Justice Department consent decree has resulted in a spike in crime in New Orleans. “It’s not fair to say that the city of New Orleans is less safe because of consent decrees,” New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, a Democrat, told HuffPost after a meeting with Sessions this week. Nobody was surprised by the findings. The issues in Chicago are longstanding and deep-rooted." Vanita Gupta Federal consent decrees on policing do have a mixed record, but there are plenty of success stories. The consent decree monitor in Seattle, for example, recently said the police department had made a dramatic turnaround, and the overall crime rate in Newark, New Jersey, is lower than it’s been in 50 years. Peter Harvey, the consent decree monitor in Newark, said it’s simply not true that federal police reform efforts lead to violent crime spikes, and that the community is excited by the prospect of modern policing being implemented in Newark. “Remember, it’s the community that helps you police. Very few cities have enough cops to patrol a city 24-7 effectively, 12 months a year. You need the community to help you,” said Harvey. “The community will help you if you ask the community to engage with you, but what the community will not do is watch you place community residents in chokeholds where they die, and then turn around and say, ‘Well, we want to be your friend.’ Those are inconsistent messages.”  Harvey said the overwhelming majority of cities he knew of found a consent decree to be a positive development, because it allowed them to bring about changes they may have wanted for years but could not implement. “In virtually every city that has had a consent decree, shootings have gone down, killings have gone down, judgments against the city have been reduced, and morale in the police department has been raised and morale in the community has been raised,” Harvey said. “It’s not going to negatively impact the crime rate, because you’re not inviting the police not to patrol, you’re not inviting the police not to enforce the law, you’re inviting the police to follow constitutional mandates.” There’s a fear, a tremendous fear I’ve heard from residents, who wonder, ‘Where do we turn?'" Father Michael Pfleger of Chicago The DOJ’s change of agenda is worrying, said Father Michael Pfleger, the outspoken pastor of Chicago’s St. Sabina Church on the South Side of Chicago. “The Justice Department, sort of being the big brother watching, the enforcer, has been a good thing across the country,” said Pfleger, who has organized his congregation to regularly protest violence and police brutality. “Now Sessions has certainly sent a message that police have no one standing over them ensuring they’re acting justify and fairly. ... That’s not what we need right now. Yes, we need strong police, but not an imposing force.” “There’s a fear, a tremendous fear I’ve heard from residents, who wonder, ‘Where do we turn? If the police are wrong, then where do we turn?’” he said. Leaving the systemic problems found in Chicago unfixed “would be a serious abdication of the Justice Department’s responsibility,” Gupta said, noting that investigating patterns and practices of unconstitutional policing was a mandate given to the Justice Department by Congress. “Nobody was surprised by the findings,” Gupta added. “The issues in Chicago are longstanding and deep-rooted. To think that there could be a crime-fighting strategy that doesn’t address police legitimacy and the severe breakdown in police-resident trust in certain neighborhoods in Chicago to me actually seems quite dangerous.” She finds it telling that Sessions and the DOJ have not identified any specific provisions of consent decrees that raise concerns. “What is it specifically that is causing alarm?” she asked. “Is it really the program at large that this Justice Department is seeking to diminish?” Ryan J. Reilly reported from Washington. Kim Bellware reported from Chicago. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=5876f814e4b03c8a02d57615,58e7b05de4b05413bfe26b39,58e3039ee4b03a26a3656ff2,58c2e5a0e4b054a0ea6a6547 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

28 апреля, 19:20

TURNABOUT IS FAIR PLAY: The Democrats’ First 100 Days. Matthew Continetti: Democrats feel be…

TURNABOUT IS FAIR PLAY: The Democrats’ First 100 Days. Matthew Continetti: Democrats feel betrayed. The Electoral College betrayed them by making Trump president. Hillary Clinton betrayed them by running an uninspiring campaign. James Comey betrayed them by reopening the investigation into Clinton’s server 11 days before the election. Facebook betrayed them by circulating fake news. […]

27 апреля, 04:37

Closing EPA's Great Lakes Office Would Put Nation's Water At Risk, Dems Warn Scott Pruitt

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); CHICAGO ― Fifty-one million jobs, 90 percent of the U.S. freshwater supply and many Superfund sites could be jeopardized if the Environmental Protection Agency closes its Chicago-based Region 5 office. That was the sober but urgent warning from congressional Democrats who on Tuesday penned a letter to EPA head Scott Pruitt urging him to preserve the Great Lakes area office amid rumors it could be shuttered as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to slash the EPA’s budget.  “EPA Region 5 is critical to protecting the air, drinking water and health of residents in the six Great Lakes states the region serves, and closing its headquarters in Chicago would make EPA less efficient and effective in its efforts to protect human health and the environment,” read the letter.  Congresspeople from the six states covered by EPA Region 5 signed the Tuesday letter to Pruitt, including Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.). (Read the full letter below.)  Multiple sources previously told HuffPost the White House aims to gut almost one-third of the EPA’s budget and eliminate 1 in 5 employees for the 2018 fiscal year.  In an April 17 letter to EPA Region 5 employees obtained by HuffPost, Acting Region 5 Director Bob Kaplan said rumors of the office’s closure were “not true” and called them “pure speculation.” And in a visit last week to East Chicago, Indiana, which is grappling with a lead contamination crisis affecting both the water and soil, Pruitt reportedly denied to a resident of the town that Region 5 was on the chopping block. The denial from officials has done little to quell the concerns of the Region 5 employees. “Everyone here is very worried even though our regional management here denied [the rumors],” Michael J. Mikulka, president of Local 704, which represents the EPA Region 5 employees, told HuffPost last week. About a month ago, the union got three press calls in the same day asking if it had heard there was announcement Region 5 might be closed. The Office of Management and Budget also issued a memo in March asking the EPA to propose two regions for elimination. Then, two weekends ago, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel issued a statement in support of keeping Region 5 open following reports in the Chicago Sun-Times and Politico that it was on the chopping block. “If the mayor issues a press statement, it’s based on something. It’s not from his imagination,” Mikulka said. A veteran EPA employee who has spent decades at the Region 5 office said for years employees have heard rumblings of the agency getting rid of regions. “There are about 1,000 people in Region 5 and it has the most industrial regions of all of the EPA,” the employee, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisal, told HuffPost. “My question is, ‘Why us?’ We’re a big region in terms of geography. It takes four hours [flying] to get to the edge of the whole region.” According to the Sun-Times, if Region 5 shuttered, employees would go to Region 7, 20 miles south of Kansas City, Kansas. “There are a lot of folks who simply won’t do the move. And to be honest, that’s why it’s being suggested,” the employee said. “The Trump administration suggested getting rid of 31 percent of the budget ― about 3,000 employees, which is about 20 percent of the EPA workforce. How are they going to get there? It’s a lot easier to combine regions knowing that many of the staff in Region 5 would not want to move to Kansas City.” The employee predicted that if the closure came to pass, “at least half” of the Region 5 employees would not go. Several EPA employees said the demand for functions like water-testing and state oversight already outpaces the regional office’s resources.  Members of Congress who signed Tuesday’s letter underscored the important role the region plays in ensuring a quick response to spills and contamination in the six states, which are criss-crossed with oil and gas pipelines ― spills often near the bulk of the nation’s freshwater supply and the Mississippi River waterways.  Shutting down the Region 5 office would make the agency’s partnerships with state and local bodies more difficult and less efficient, with dubious overall cost savings, the letter argued.   Mikulka, the EPA employees’ union president, said shuttering Region 5 would be an effective way to hobble an agency whose mission is largely at odds with the Trump administration’s deregulation-oriented, anti-climate-protection stance.  “If we have the most industry and we do the most enforcement and get the greatest results, what better way to disembowel the EPA than going after Region 5?” Letter From Senators and Reps to Pruitt 042517 by Kim Bellware on Scribd -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

24 апреля, 20:48

Will We Abandon Women’s Rights In The Name Of Progressive Politics?

By Rebecca Traister The most disturbing thing to emerge from last week’s badly bungled Democratic “Unity Tour” staged by Vermont senator Bernie Sanders and new DNC head Tom Perez was the fact that the only thing on which the two men seemed to easily agree was that reproductive rights are not necessarily fundamental to progressive politics. This led to uproar and outrage among some precincts of the left, and eventually to mea culpas and “clarifications” from Sanders and Perez. But it is worth closely examining this fight over the importance of reproductive rights in the party because it is an argument that the Democrats seem to rehash over and over and over again. Related: What the Democrats Need to Do to Take Congress in 2018 To recap: On Wednesday, Sanders gave an interview in which he said that he “didn’t know” if Jon Ossoff, the Democrat who the day before had earned more than 48 percent of the primary vote in a longtime Republican House district in Georgia, was a progressive. It was an odd move for a powerful left-wing politician on a tour to rejuvenate Democratic politics to fire a shot of ambivalence at a Democratic candidate in any tight race, but it felt especially egregious given that Ossoff was now facing Karen Handel, a virulently anti-choice Republican who was forced to leave the Susan G. Komen Foundation in 2012 after trying to sever the organization’s ties with Planned Parenthood, and who actively supported voter-suppression efforts as Georgia’s secretary of State. Sanders’s definition of what constitutes a progressive became even murkier when he suggested that the election of Heath Mello, who’s running for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska — and who as a state senator sponsored a 20-week abortion ban and mandatory ultrasounds for women seeking abortions — would represent a “shot across the board, that in a state like Nebraska a progressive Democrat can win.” Not to be outdone, Perez amplified the message that reproductive rights are negotiable for the Democratic Party. “If you demand fealty on every single issue,” Perez said, “then it’s a challenge. The Democratic Party platform acknowledges that we’re pro-choice, but there are communities, like some in Kansas, where people have a different position.” Well, sure. There are also communities in Kansas where voters have different positions from Democrats on immigration reform, labor protections, climate change, voting rights, and health care, and it would be vexing — and not at all progressive — for post-2016 Democrats to alter their stances on any of those issues. This Unity Tour was supposed to be a means for Perez and Sanders to pull together left-leaning voters, still divided after the spirited primary between Sanders — the democratic socialist whose campaign brought in millions of voters excited about a left-leaning populist agenda — and Hillary Clinton, who was pulled to the left by Sanders and beat him by 3 million votes, becoming the ultimately unsuccessful nominee. Sanders, who is an Independent, has been describing this moment as a chance to “radically transform the Democratic Party,” and his aims are by many measures righteous: He wants to get big money out of politics and reduce the enormous power of what he calls the “millionaire and billionaire class;” he advocates for single-payer health care, free college tuition, and a higher minimum wage, and on this tour has insisted that “it has got to be that those ideas are allowed to become the dominant theme of the Democratic Party and that’s the choice Democrats are going to have to make.” Related: The 200-Year Fight for Abortion Access The problem is that Sanders’s vision — and the vision of Perez and the DNC — as they laid it out this week, looked less like a radical transformation of the Democratic Party and more like a return to mistakes the party has made in the past. These mistakes have nothing to do with economic equality, and everything to do with a willingness to sacrifice the rights of much of the party’s base. For some time now, Sanders — who, it should be noted, has an extremely strong legislative record on reproductive rights — has spoken somewhat carelessly about a populist strategy that exchanges some core Democratic beliefs for the set of issues that are most important to him. “Once you get off the social issues — abortion, gay rights, guns — and into the economic issues, there is a lot more agreement than the pundits understand,” he said in 2015. In January of this year, at a CNN Town Hall, he reiterated, “Yes, of course, there are differences on issues like choice or on gay rights … But on many economic issues, you would be surprised at how many Americans hold the same views.” Sanders is wrong that reproductive rights (or gay rights, for that matter) are separate from economic issues. The ability to control reproduction is central to women’s social, professional, and economic stability, and the women most likely to require abortion services and to be negatively affected by restrictions on access to reproductive health care are poor and low-income women, disproportionately women of color. But he and Perez were also wrong to view compromising on abortion as part of a pragmatic political path forward and to hold up an aggressively anti-abortion Democrat as some exemplar of progressivism’s future. Heaps of contemporary polling shows abortion is not the divisive issue it was long assumed to be. In 2015, polls showed that seven in ten voters, including independents — and even in Kansas­ — not only supported safe and accessible abortion but were willing to vote based on that support. A postelection Pew study found support for Roe to be at 69 percent, an all-time high. Omaha, the city where Heath Mello is running for mayor, was carried by Clinton — who made the most full-throated case for reproductive rights ever offered by a presidential candidate in her final debate against Donald Trump — by eight points. (For the record, Mello released a statement on Thursday claiming that, “While my faith guides my personal views, as Mayor I would never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care,” which is a lovely sentiment, except for the fact that as state senator he literally did do lots to restrict access to reproductive health care.) There is absolutely no need to abandon women’s rights in the name of advancing progressive politics. And yet the party has done it time and again, often after losing presidential elections. It happened after the 2004 defeat of John Kerry, despite the fact that there was little evidence that Kerry’s pro-choice politics had anything to do with his loss. “I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats,” Howard Dean said in December of 2004, as he worked to become the Democratic party chairman. Many Democrats at the time reembraced the Clintonian formulation of “safe, legal, and rare” — a phrase long rumored to have been the invention of Hillary Clinton — which cast abortion not as a legal right necessary to women’s autonomy and economic equality, but as a necessary evil. Clinton herself, then a senator from New York, was part of the stampede away from reproductive rights, telling a group of family-planning advocates in early 2005 that abortion is “a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.” Related: Kirsten Gillibrand Is an Enthusiastic NO The deprioritization of reproductive rights was part of the strategy that helped Rahm Emanuel, chair of the DCCC, win the House for Democrats in 2006. But Ilyse Hogue, head of NARAL Pro-Choice America, argues that we should evaluate that strategy now with an understanding of its longer-term implications: “It did not result in more progressive legislation or in a durable governing coalition,” she says. “It depressed the base and predicated the rise of the Tea Party.” Yes, the House majority allowed for a progressive win in the reform of health care, but it also led to a quagmire for progressives when anti-abortion Democrat Bart Stupak proposed an amendment to the ACA preventing federal insurance programs from paying for abortions; thanks in part to other anti-abortion Democrats, the amendment garnered enough support to pass the House, though it stalled in the Senate, and President Obama eventually broke the stalemate by promising an executive order that ensured that no taxpayer money would be used to cover abortion care. During that fight, there was much resentment directed toward the reproductive-rights activists and pro-choice Democrats who objected to passing health-care reform without equal protections and benefits for women: How could you stand in the way of greater progress? This circular formulation, in which reproductive-rights advocates are told that they must sacrifice their issues in order to make progress on those same issues, was repeated by Sanders in an NPR interview on Thursday, in which he explained that, “If we are going to protect a woman’s right to choose, at the end of the day we are going to need Democratic control over the House and Senate, and state governments all over this nation. And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can’t exclude people who disagree with us on this one issue.” Women have heard this argument again and again, and we have remained the reliable base of a party that has elected and elevated to positions of greater power anti-choice Democrats including Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Tim Kaine, and Bob Casey. In fact, it’s hard not to feel that it’s because of the dedication of women, and particularly women of color, to the Democratic Party — where else are they going to go? — that party leaders feel freer to take them for granted and trade their fundamental rights in obsessive pursuit of the great white male. This is how Dems always imagine that they can make inroads in red states. It’s third-way centrist bullshit. But right now, perhaps unlike at any other moment in history, it is also crazily blind to what’s actually happening around the country, as this week’s fierce pushback to Perez and Sanders showed. As Hogue — who went on a Twitter tirade about the proposed compromise on Wednesday night — pointed out, in 2006 Rahm Emanuel could get away with de-emphasizing women’s rights in part because the organized resistance of the moment was anti-war. This time, she says, “the organized resistance is women.” In fact, one recent poll showed that 86 percent of the people making daily calls to Senate and House offices are women, most of them middle aged. And after his better-than-expected showing in Tuesday’s primary, Ossoff said, “This is a story of women in this community,” noting the “thousands of volunteers and organizers … led by women who have been pounding the pavement and knocking on doors for months.” Related: Why Abortion’s Deadly DIY Past Could Soon Become Its Future In the midst of one of the most activated, energized, ground-up movements in modern Democratic political history — where the energy is coming from women who remain underrepresented in state and federal legislatures — the Unity Tour, with its two men making pronouncements about what the party should do next, felt exceedingly out of touch. And the dynamic — the women doing the labor of organizing and protesting and campaigning, knocking on doors and making calls and sending postcards, while guys speak from the microphones about the need to compromise on their rights — is depressingly retro. “Open your eyes to where the resistance is really coming from,” Hogue urged on Thursday. “There are literally millions of women who have been pouring calls into Senate offices, House offices, going to town halls, filing to run for office; we are literally three months out from the largest protest in U.S. history that was overwhelmingly women, in the name of women; that’s where the resistance is. This is the Democratic party base. So why is the place to start negotiating the place that pulls the heart out of the resistance?” In a sign that the political pressure of a female grassroots is more powerful than ever, both Perez and Sanders responded to criticism with course corrections on Friday afternoon. Perez released a statement reading in part: “Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health. That is not negotiable.” Perez also said he fundamentally disagrees with Heath Mello’s personal beliefs about reproductive rights and that he’ll be meeting with women leaders from around the country next week to discuss “how we can make sure our Democratic candidates and elected leaders are living up to these fundamental values.” This is good news, though it prompts the question: Why weren’t women leaders central to the planning of the Unity Tour in the first place? Sanders, meanwhile, didn’t give much ground on opening up the progressive tent to anti-choicers, but he did offer an unequivocal endorsement of Ossoff: “His victory would be an important step forward in fighting back against Trump’s reactionary agenda.” It’s unlikely that this will be the last we see of Democrats trying to shore up populist support by sidelining women’s rights, but at least we know that this time around activists and advocates are energized and engaged and pushing back. Maybe the party won’t be doomed to repeat some of its worst history after all. More from The Cut: Why Everyone Loves the Alpha Girl When Women Pursue Sex, Even Men Don’t Get It 25 Famous Women on Fear Sharing Workout Results With Your Friends Pushes You to Exercise Even Harder Celebrating the Work of Black Women Artists in the Second-Wave Feminist Movement -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

24 апреля, 16:44

Obama Makes First Major Appearance Since Leaving The White House

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday makes his first major appearance since leaving office, having chosen Chicago, the city where his political career started, to emerge from a three-month hiatus from the public eye. Obama will meet youth leaders and promote community organizing near the same South Side neighborhoods where his own activism blossomed and propelled him to two terms in the White House that ended with Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who served as Obama’s first White House chief of staff, said that he was proud that Obama picked Chicago to make his last speech as president and the first in his post-presidency. “I think it reflects his emotional, as well as his intellectual, commitment to this city and seeing this city as his home,” he said. Obama’s continued connection to Chicago is important to the city, which has global aspirations as well as a palpable insecurity about its place in the world. During the last year of Obama’s second term, Chicago laid claim to its share of his legacy by beating out Hawaii and New York as the site of his presidential library. Obama, who still owns a home in Chicago, was raised in Hawaii. The former president and his wife Michelle are expected to move from Washington to New York once their younger daughter, Sasha, graduates from high school. David Axelrod, a former top political adviser to Obama, said the decision to house the library in Chicago should have eased any concerns that its residents may have had about the former Democratic president’s commitment to the city. But Monday’s event, he said, is another important sign of the former president’s strong links to Chicago. “He’s going to be more visible moving forward,” he said. “I think this is clearly a coming-out.” Reverend Michael Pfleger, a social justice activist who heads a large South Side Roman Catholic church, said a prominent Obama presence could help the nation’s third-largest city confront some of the thorny problems it faces. Chief among them is a spike in gun violence, an issue that Trump has highlighted as a sign of lawlessness and the failure of the Democratic politicians who have long run Chicago. “It’s his life, and he’s not in elected office right now, so he can do what he wants,” Pfleger said. “But I’d love to see him engage in his home of Chicago. He could make a huge difference.” Civil Rights activist Jesse Jackson said Obama could use his powerful platform to address stark inequalities in Chicago schools, housing and employment, and to advocate for reinvestment in blighted neighborhoods. Monday’s event takes place on the South Side campus of the University of Chicago, where Obama once taught constitutional law. It is intended “to encourage and support the next generation of leaders driven by strengthening communities,” according to a statement. Since leaving office, Obama has kept a relatively low public profile, taking vacations in Palm Springs, California and the British Virgin Islands, where he indulged in the sport of kite-boarding while vacationing with British billionaire Sir Richard Branson. Together with his wife, who grew up on Chicago’s South Side, the former president recently struck a two-book, $65 million memoir deal. He is expected to travel to Berlin to meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel next month.   (Reporting by Chris Kenning; Editing by Mary Milliken) -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

20 апреля, 11:50

Why Some Cities and States Are Footing the Bill for Community College

Americans are often expected to have some level of higher education before they enter the workforce. These political leaders are asking: Shouldn’t government help them along?

Выбор редакции
18 апреля, 00:00

Chicago, the City of Weak Shoulders and 'I Can't'

Dennis Byrne, RealClearPoliticsMayor Rahm Emanuel has done the unthinkable: He told graduates of the city’s dismal public school system that he wants them to do something with their diploma. Or else they won’t get a diploma. Something like: get a job, go to college, join the military or even sign up for a “gap” year. In announcing his “Learn. Plan. Succeed.” idea at a press conference earlier this month, he said, “You won't be able to graduate ... unless you show that letter of acceptance to any one of the … outlets we talked about: college, community college, armed services...

Выбор редакции
17 апреля, 15:32

SCENES FROM RAHM EMANUEL’S CHICAGO: 29 people shot in less than 18 hours in Chicago….

SCENES FROM RAHM EMANUEL’S CHICAGO: 29 people shot in less than 18 hours in Chicago.

14 апреля, 00:18

Two Steps Forward

As the Trump administration lurches from failure to incompetence to disaster and back again, it’s important to keep pointing out that there is progress still happening in this country—it’s just not originating from Congress or the White House. And a lot of the best news continues to be about renewable energy—and I don’t just mean last week's revelation that the Kentucky Coal Museum has installed 80 solar panels on its roof to lower its electric bill. A more significant solar milestone reported this week is that for a few hours on March 11 utility-scale solar power met roughly half of the electricity needs of the grid that supplies electricity to 80 percent of California and part of Nevada. That’s kind of amazing when you consider that California’s current goal is to get half of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030. Seems like a clear opportunity to both raise California’s goal and accelerate the timeline, no? The other exciting clean energy news from the past week came from two great American cities: Chicago and Portland, Oregon. On Sunday, Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel announced that the Windy City would transition all of its municipal buildings and operations to 100 percent clean, renewable energy by 2025. That currently makes Chicago’s the largest fleet of public buildings in the country to commit to clean energy. It’s a doubly sweet victory because the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign traces some of its (grass)roots to the struggle to close Chicago’s notorious Fisk and Crawford coal plants, which were finally retired in 2012. One day after Chicago’s announcement, Portland mayor Ted Wheeler and Multnomah County commissioner Jessica Vega-Pederson announced a new plan for transitioning the City of Roses to 100 percent clean energy by 2050. Once approved by the city and county commissioners, the plan will make Portland the largest city in the country to commit to transition all energy sectors to 100 percent clean energy (San Diego, which is larger, has so far committed to 100 percent clean electricity). Portland and Chicago are not alone, of course. Around the country, cities are moving full speed ahead by setting ambitious goals and taking actions to reduce carbon emissions. Although it's tempting to see this as a natural response to federal inaction and rollback on climate change, the trend started long before Trump's election. The real reason municipal governments are taking the lead on clean energy is because it's so much better for the people who live in those cities: It’s healthier, it costs less, it creates better jobs, and it makes cities more livable. What’s not to like? The Republican Congress and the Trump administration seem to agree on just one thing: walking America backward. And though their current majority means we must fight every attempted rollback with unflagging persistence and determination, we must press forward with our inclusive vision of 100 percent clean energy that works for all. Trump and friends can’t keep us from taking two (or 200!) steps forward for every step that they retreat. And when it comes to renewable energy, those steps are more like a sprint. Every day seems to bring news of more progress, whether it's from cities, counties, states… or coal museums.   -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

21 марта 2016, 13:00

«Черный дом»: фильм о коррупции, запрещенный в США

Фильм «Черный дом», раскрывающий коррупционные схемы Госдепа США и лично Барака Обамы, был запрещен к показу как минимум на территории США. Однако картина все же стала доступна для массовой аудитории. По мнению изначально опубликовавшего его Дмитрия Пучкова, фильм должны посмотреть как за рубежом, так и в России. И для того, чтобы сделать картину более доступной, журнал «Политическая Россия» публикует фильм «Черный дом» с собственным дублированным переводом.

20 декабря 2015, 11:46

Scofield: Предвыборная кампания в США

Президент РФ Владимир Путин после большой пресс-конференции заявил журналистам: «Он [Дональд Трамп] яркий очень человек, талантливый, без всяких сомнений. Не наше дело определять его достоинства, это дело избирателей США, но он абсолютный лидер президентской гонки.