Janet Byrne: PHOTOS: 9 Pivotal Moments In Occupy Movement History

On March 21, I passed through Union Square, which is the new Zuccotti Park. Just north of the subway entrance, about fifty Occupy Wall Street organizers and participants were sitting cross-legged on the ground, conducting a General Assembly. A few hundred yards away, a march for Trayvon Martin, the unarmed teenager shot and killed by neighborhood watch coordinator George Zimmerman three weeks before, was mobilizing. I learned the next day that Martin's parents had come up from Florida for the event and that it was called the Million Hoodie March. At the time, I knew only that 30 or 40 people were holding placards that referred to the killing. I stood for a while and watched the Trayvon Martin supporters, and then I decided to move over to the General Assembly.

General Assemblies are open meetings; I joined a ring of observers surrounding the seated OWSers. It was about 5:30 in the afternoon, the weather was warm, and an unexpected calm came over me as I listened in. It's difficult to be cynical or even skeptical when you see a General Assembly that is run well. I had sat in on others; not all of them move along as briskly or with the same intensely quiet purposefulness of this one, and I had even seen a few veer into the very obfuscation, paralysis, and lack of transparency they are meant to replace. After a few minor orders of business, an organizer quickly raised what was clearly the most important item on the agenda: he moved to postpone two working-group meetings scheduled for 6:00 and suggested that, instead of holding the meetings, those assembled lend their numbers to the Trayvon Martin march. There was a display of what David Graeber calls the "sparkly fingers"--consensus. A woman from Florida, who happened to be standing alongside me, let out a whoop; the outburst, oddly emotional, was acknowledged and yet not acknowledged, or at any rate it failed to break the concentration of the powerfully efficient machine that was the General Assembly. Like me, the woman from Florida had wandered over from the other side of the park to watch the democratic process at work. She seemed stunned by the group's generosity, and in a way, so was I.

I found myself thinking back to the days when Barack Obama was vilified by Sarah Palin, Rudolph Giuliani, and others for being a "community organizer." In its wonkiness and openness, in its simple kindness, the General Assembly's offer seemed like the epitome of community organizing.

Occupy will mark its nine-month anniversary on May 17. It is a measure of the movement's vigor and its refusal to go away that the nine moments chosen here are bookended by two large-scale calls to action: the one that inaugurated the movement and the one that leads off its spring resurgence: the call for tens of thousands to Occupy Chicago and other cities for a General Strike on May 1.

Even more ambitious than the original call to occupy Zuccotti Park on September 17, 2011, the General Strike signifies something quite different from the loss of momentum that was expected to have occurred over the winter. From what the journalist Roger Lowenstein has called its "improbable campgrounds thrown together in the shadows of New York skyscrapers," to its growing pains as it ends old political alliances and forms new ones, to its plan to meet the G8 and NATO Summit head-on in peaceful protest in Chicago in mid-May, the movement remains unmistakably alive.

What follows are nine moments that chart its progress and suggest its future direction.

Janet Byrne is the editor of The Occupy Handbook.

In mid-July 2011, the Canadian magazine Adbusters used two ads to promote the idea of a peaceful protest in New York. The Estonian-born Kalle Lasn, the magazine's co-founder, chose his mother's birthday, September 17, as the day the protest would begin. He and senior Adbusters editor Micah White posed a question: "What is our one demand?" Was the question an unanswerable "Zen koan," as Dow Jones's MarketWatch columnist Paul B. Farrell suggested? Or was it meant literally? Broadly stated, the demand seemed to be: let's get money out of politics. The idea soon morphed into a decision not to make one demand. Instead, income inequality, bank executives' pay, excessive lobbying in Congress, and other grievances became collective rallying points. Meanwhile, Lasn and White, in the anti-proprietary spirit of Occupy, a people's movement, make no claim to ownership of OWS, saying simply, "It was out of our hands." In mid-July 2011, the Canadian magazine Adbusters used two ads to promote the idea of a peaceful protest in New York. The Estonian-born Kalle Lasn, the magazine's co-founder, chose his mother's birthday, September 17, as the day the protest would begin. He and senior Adbusters editor Micah White posed a question: "What is our one demand?" Was the question an unanswerable "Zen koan," as Dow Jones's MarketWatch columnist Paul B. Farrell suggested? Or was it meant literally? Broadly stated, the demand seemed to be: let's get money out of politics.

The idea soon morphed into a decision not to make one demand. Instead, income inequality, bank executives' pay, excessive lobbying in Congress, and other grievances became collective rallying points.

Meanwhile, Lasn and White, in the anti-proprietary spirit of Occupy, a people's movement, make no claim to ownership of OWS, saying simply, "It was out of our hands."

In mid-July 2011, the Canadian magazine Adbusters used two ads to promote the idea of a peaceful protest in New York. The Estonian-born Kalle Lasn, the magazine's co-founder, chose his mother's birthday, September 17, as the day the protest would begin. He and senior Adbusters editor Micah White posed a question: "What is our one demand?" Was the question an unanswerable "Zen koan," as Dow Jones's MarketWatch columnist Paul B. Farrell suggested? Or was it meant literally? Broadly stated, the demand seemed to be: let's get money out of politics. The idea soon morphed into a decision not to make one demand. Instead, income inequality, bank executives' pay, excessive lobbying in Congress, and other grievances became collective rallying points. Meanwhile, Lasn and White, in the anti-proprietary spirit of Occupy, a people's movement, make no claim to ownership of OWS, saying simply, "It was out of our hands." '); jQuery('#c_text_121').append(""); if (Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.picture_url !=null && Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.picture_url !=""){ jQuery('#moment_right_121').append(""); }else{ jQuery('#moment_right_121').append(""); } //jQuery('#moment_right_121').append(""); //jQuery('#moment_right_121').append(" "); jQuery('#moment_right_121').append(""); jQuery('#c_text_121').append(""); jQuery('#moment_left_121').append(''); jQuery('#campaign_name_121').addClass('moment_campaign_title'); jQuery('#moment_left_121').append(''); jQuery('#campaign_text_121').addClass('m_campaign_text'); }, otb_design:function(data){ jQuery('#campaign_participate_btn_container_121').remove(); jQuery('#campaign_name_121').addClass('otb_campaign_title'); jQuery('#campaign_text_121').addClass('otb_campaign_text'); jQuery('#campaign_121').addClass('otb_campaign_container'); jQuery('#campaign_title_container_121').append(""); jQuery('#campaign_title_container_121').append(" "); jQuery('#campaign_title_container_121').append(""); }, defaul_design:function(){ jQuery('#campaign_name_121').addClass('campaign_title'); jQuery('#campaign_title_121').html(Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.campaign_title); jQuery('#campaign_bottom_121').remove(); jQuery('#campaign_121').addClass('campaign_container'); }, CampaignLogin : function(){ HuffConnect.Login.onLoginSuccess = function() { window.location.hash = 'join_campaign'; window.location.reload(); } QuickLogin.pop(); }, CampaignJoin : function (join_control, campaign_id){ join_control.style.display = 'none'; jQuery('#btn_take_part_in_survey_121').css("display", ''); jQuery('#campaign_name_121').html(Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.thank_you_email_subject); jQuery('#campaign_text_121').html(Campaign_121.campaign_info.campaign.thank_you_email_body); Campaign_121.CallPostJoinAction(); }, GetFormFail:function(){ alert('Sorry, unable to procees your request'); HuffConnect.hideModal(); }, CallPostJoinAction:function(){ jQuery.ajax({ url: Campaign_121.post_join_actions_url , success: function(data){ huff.use('modal', function(m){ m.show({ content: data, width: 750, height: 550 }) }); //HPUtil.EvalScript(data); } , cache: false }); } };

Terry Newell: The President Is Also a CEO

We think of the president as Commander in Chief, a title that emphasizes his military role. He is also the Chief Executive Officer of the largest organization in America. In the former role, most presidents quite rightly praise the caliber and achievements of our men and women in uniform. The military esprit de corps -- and its effectiveness -- require a supportive Commander in Chief. But presidents have, especially in recent years -- and more especially as candidates for president -- have showered scant praise on the civilian federal workforce or its achievements. When they have done so, as is true of President Obama, it is usually in private appearances, in the hopes that their positive comments about federal workers will not be widely reported. The esprit de corps of the civil service -- and its effectiveness -- also require a visibly supportive CEO, but they don't often get one.

As a case in point, Mitt Romney recently let his potential federal workforce know that he thinks they are overpaid. Speaking at a steel fabrication plant on April 25th, he said that "The taxpayers shouldn't have to have money taken out of their pay checks to pay people in government who are our servants who are making a lot more money than we are."

Let's ignore whether federal workers actually earn more than candidate Romney. That part of his statement may have just been rhetorical flourish or an effort to sound, well, more like an average steel fabrication plant worker. Let's focus instead on what Romney's statement says about his role as CEO, a role he knows well as he reminds us.

Taken literally, we could assume that Romney thinks federal workers should make no more than the average American. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics that figure for 2011 was $45,230. So let's assume that President Romney could get his way. That would reduce his salary, the salary of all his cabinet officials, 6,500 senior executives and much of the highly educated federal workforce to much less then they make now. Would that lead to better government? Would we be able to recruit highly talented people to protect our nation, its health, food, drugs, air and water quality, labor force, infrastructure and transportation systems by offering them $45,000 a year?

OK, let's not take him that literally. After all, campaign rhetoric has other purposes than serving as actual proposals. But if he is elected, he will lead a federal workforce that he has said is overpaid -- not worth what they earn. Any private sector executive who took the CEO's job after announcing that his entire workforce was not worth much and should be earning a lot less would not exactly create the conditions for high performance. We know a lot about how to get the best out of people -- their creativity, commitment, and energy. And none of the research says that demeaning your workforce makes that happen. Quite the contrary, the evidence is overwhelming that engaged workers (those who feel appreciated and supported) are more productive, generate higher quality, and cost their firms less (due to sick days, accidents, etc).

Whether federal workers are overpaid relative to their private sector counterparts gets debated all the time, and we need take no side on that issue to realize that bashing the very people who we want to perform better is not likely to help them do so. Candidate Romney's Harvard MBA should have at least taught him that. If he aspires to be the public sector's chief CEO, he should put that education to work.

James M. Gentile: Basic Scientific Research and Its Transformational Potential

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of America's oldest foundation devoted wholly to science, Research Corporation for Science Advancement. In March, I had the pleasure of celebrating the anniversary at a gala at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., where leaders of the scientific community from across the country had gathered for the occasion. Later that night, I ran into Sir Richard Branson at my hotel and joined him for a drink. It was one of those chance encounters that seemed more than coincidental.

The gala was filled with renowned scientists producing the basic cutting-edge research -- often at Nobel Prize-winning levels -- that drives scientific understanding and that Research Corporation for Science Advancement has long championed and funded. Sir Richard represents the commercial application of that science -- especially through his company Virgin Galactic, which plans to provide sub-orbital spaceflights to the paying public, along with suborbital space science missions, from its Virgin Galactic Gateway to Space, dedicated in October in New Mexico.

Congressman Randy Hultgren of Illinois, whose Congressional District includes the renowned federal Fermilab, explained the important distinction between basic and applied science recently on Fox Chicago Sunday. He spoke of basic science as "Newtonian" and applied science as "Edisonian." "Newtonian is really how things work," he explained. "Edisonian is applying it to something practical for us to use." He went on to say that "we need both, but Newtonian is really being lost... and that (basic scientific research) is what's made our nation great." The question is, he continued: "Are we going to be a nation that innovates? To do that, you've got to have basic scientific research."

Research Corporation for Science Advancement provides support for basic science, and its funding comes from applied science. Its founder, Frederick Gardner Cottrell, was both a scientist and an inventor, who used the profits from his creation of the electrostatic precipitator -- an early "green" technology that reduced air pollution from smokestacks -- to create the foundation. Through the foundation, he supported early career scientists in basic research that had the potential to be transformational.

He was convinced that high-risk high-reward research held the key to future progress, and his instinct proved right very quickly. The foundation funded the early work of Ernest O. Lawrence, who created the first cyclotron, and Robert Goddard, whose rocket research was instrumental in our nation's eventually putting a man on the moon. In its 100-year history, Research Corporation for Science Advancement has funded the research of 40 Nobel Prize-winners, including E. O. Lawrence.

The foundation also served as an inspiration for the creation of the National Science Foundation, which it predates. One of Research Corporation's Board Members, Vannevar Bush, was instrumental in successfully advocating enactment of the legislation that created the NSF. With the founding of the NSF came the enduring and ongoing debate about how much research and what kind of research the federal government should fund. What should the federal government pay for and what should be left to private industry or foundations?

In his television remarks, Congressman Hultgren echoed the advice of the legendary Vannevar Bush, who wrote a landmark report requested by President Franklin Roosevelt but delivered after Roosevelt's death to President Harry Truman in July of 1945. In the report, titled Science -- The Endless Frontier, Bush wrote:

"The scientist doing basic research may not be at all interested in the practical applications of his work, yet the further progress of industrial development would eventually stagnate if basic scientific research were long neglected... Basic research leads to new knowledge. It provides scientific capital. It creates the fund from which the practical applications of knowledge must be drawn. New products and new processes do not appear full-grown. They are founded on new principles and new conceptions, which in turn are painstakingly developed by research in the purest realms of science... A nation which depends upon others for its new basic scientific knowledge will be slow in its industrial progress and weak in its competitive position in world trade, regardless of its mechanical skill."

Frederick Gardner Cottrell hoped that basic research would be just as high-risk high-reward as applied research. He would have viewed Lawrence's cyclotron and Goddard's rocket as just as transformational as Google or the iPad. He would have applauded Sir Richard's commercial application of science, while championing the basic research that underpins it.

Research Corporation for Science Advancement's latest initiative, Scialog, combines all three concepts: basic research, a high-risk high-reward approach, and the potential for commercial applications. It funds grants for basic research - and a regular science dialogue (hence, the name Scialog) among its grantees -- for work on solar energy conversion that could produce transformational results and ultimately commercial applications. It's a unique way of combining the Newtonian and Edisonian approaches in an effort to move science more swiftly to a point where basic research can be translated into "applied" economic drivers.

As our nation's leadership in scientific and technological innovation is challenged as never before, federal funding of basic scientific research remains essential, but that research should be potentially transformational. It should provide the scientific underpinning needed to continue American economic leadership and the job growth on which so many Americans depend.

James M. Gentile is president and CEO of Research Corporation for Science Advancement (www.rescorp.org), which celebrates its Centennial -- 100 years of science advancement - this year.

Allen West Becomes A Target

Allen West To Obama: 'America Is About Equal Opportunity, Not Your Liberal Progressive Mantra of Equal Achievement' - Allen West - Fox Nation

---

Allen West Calls DNC Chair 'Vile,' 'Despicable' And 'Not A Lady' | TPMDC

---

Allen West: How does 'Senator Allen West' sound? « Hot Air

Good News For Rick Scott

theledger.com:

April was a good month for Gov. Rick Scott -- at least as far as raising campaign cash.

Scott's political committee -- Let's Get to Work -- hauled in more than $1.1 million with more than a week to go before the month's end.

Read the whole story: theledger.com

"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });

Romney Speaks Out On Chinese Activist Situation

Around the Web:

Chen Guangcheng ' News Stories About Chen Guangcheng - Page ...

Chen Guangcheng is New Pawn in China's Two Tugs of War ...

Blind Chinese activist, Chen Guangcheng, under US protection ...

Chen Guangcheng - Bio, News, Photos - Washington Times

Chen Guangcheng, Blind Chinese Activist, Under U.S. Protection ...

Chen Guangcheng, Chinese dissident, went to U.S. Embassy for ...

Romney says Chinese activist should be protected

Romney says Chinese activist should be protected

Scott Brown Makes Impressive Half-Court Shot

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) made an impressive half-court shot while visiting a community center Friday afternoon.

Brown dropped by the Hyannis Youth and Community Center in Hyannis, Massachusetts to tour the facility and meet with third grade students from the Barnstable Community Horace Mann Public Charter School, according to Cape Cod Today.

After several students attempted shots, Brown took the ball and backed up to the center of the court. With an underhand throw, Brown launched the basketball, sinking it from the half-court line.

This isn't the first time Brown has wrapped sports into his political appearances. Brown recently appeared on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" at Fenway Park decked in a Boston Red Sox jacket, where he pushed back at charges made by his rival Elizabeth Warren.

Watch a video of Brown's impressive half-court shot above.

Also on HuffPost:

"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });

Obama To Attend Celeb-Filled Dinner Hosted By Jimmy Kimmel

HuffPost spoke with celebrities and political figures attending Saturday morning's Garden Brunch ahead of the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Watch the video above.

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama will attend the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner on Saturday night.

Jimmy Kimmel, who hosts ABC's late-night talk show "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" will be the featured comedian at the association's 98th annual dinner at the Washington Hilton.

The White House Correspondents' Association dinner is traditionally attended by the president and first lady, along with various government officials and members of the press corps.

Proceeds from the event fund scholarships and awards to support and recognize excellence in journalism.

Also on HuffPost:

'); jQuery('#c_text_1504').append(""); if (Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.picture_url !=null && Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.picture_url !=""){ jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(""); }else{ jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(""); } //jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(""); //jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(" "); jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(""); jQuery('#c_text_1504').append(""); jQuery('#moment_left_1504').append(''); jQuery('#campaign_name_1504').addClass('moment_campaign_title'); jQuery('#moment_left_1504').append(''); jQuery('#campaign_text_1504').addClass('m_campaign_text'); }, otb_design:function(data){ jQuery('#campaign_participate_btn_container_1504').remove(); jQuery('#campaign_name_1504').addClass('otb_campaign_title'); jQuery('#campaign_text_1504').addClass('otb_campaign_text'); jQuery('#campaign_1504').addClass('otb_campaign_container'); jQuery('#campaign_title_container_1504').append(""); jQuery('#campaign_title_container_1504').append(" "); jQuery('#campaign_title_container_1504').append(""); }, defaul_design:function(){ jQuery('#campaign_name_1504').addClass('campaign_title'); jQuery('#campaign_title_1504').html(Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.campaign_title); jQuery('#campaign_bottom_1504').remove(); jQuery('#campaign_1504').addClass('campaign_container'); }, CampaignLogin : function(){ HuffConnect.Login.onLoginSuccess = function() { window.location.hash = 'join_campaign'; window.location.reload(); } QuickLogin.pop(); }, CampaignJoin : function (join_control, campaign_id){ join_control.style.display = 'none'; jQuery('#btn_take_part_in_survey_1504').css("display", ''); jQuery('#campaign_name_1504').html(Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.thank_you_email_subject); jQuery('#campaign_text_1504').html(Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.thank_you_email_body); Campaign_1504.CallPostJoinAction(); }, GetFormFail:function(){ alert('Sorry, unable to procees your request'); HuffConnect.hideModal(); }, CallPostJoinAction:function(){ jQuery.ajax({ url: Campaign_1504.post_join_actions_url , success: function(data){ huff.use('modal', function(m){ m.show({ content: data, width: 750, height: 550 }) }); //HPUtil.EvalScript(data); } , cache: false }); } };

James Zogby: A Battered Romney Wins: On to November

It was rough going, but Mitt Romney, having run the gamut of the U.S. presidential primary process, has survived. He can now be considered the Republican Party's presumptive nominee.

From the beginning, Romney had distinct advantages over his opponents. He had run before--and had, in fact, not stopped running since losing to John McCain in 2008. He, therefore, knew the process better, and was better prepared for the long-haul than those neophytes to presidential campaigns who ran against him.

Relying on his friends and colleagues from the world of finance, Romney had, from the outset, a huge money advantage. Not only was he able to amass a substantial war-chest for his campaign, he also had at his disposal a number of "unconnected" super-PACs which spent lavishly on advertising campaigns doing the dirty work of destroying his opponents.

Given the weakness of his competitors, Romney had the support, quietly at first but then more publicly, of the Republican establishment. This support helped his organizing and fundraising efforts. While his opponents were cash-strapped and forced to focus their resources on early states or a few targeted regions where they knew they might do well, money and establishment backing assisted Romney in pre-positioning his campaign to win in the later states in the primary process.

Finally, Romney, though not the smartest, most comfortable, or most charismatic candidate in the field, was certainly the most driven and desperate--and it was this quality that gave him the wherewithal to do whatever it took to win. Presidential politics can be a bloody business, and this year's contest was no exception. For months Romney had been pummeled by his opponents, embarrassed at times, and forced to adopt positions that were totally inconsistent with his past record. But, in the end, Romney triumphed, destroying his detractors and competitors, while re-fashioning himself as the true conservative standard-bearer--a not altogether believable designation.

With all but Ron Paul now out of the race, Romney stands victorious, but the price of victory has been dear. An example of this high cost was on display this week. Most of Romney's former opponents, as weird and flawed as each of them were, could not bring themselves to offer a full-throated endorsement of the man who had beaten them. Some begrudgingly acknowledged that they would support him simply because they wanted to beat President Obama in November. Others maintained that while the contest was over, the struggle over the ideological direction of the party continued. Still others decried the process as flawed, griping about big money and negative campaigns as reasons why they had lost.

In addition to being a blood sport, presidential politics can be like a disease that affects the egos of those who compete. Those who enter the fray often have a serious ego problem to begin with. Even little successes along the way only serve to reinforce this problem, until it becomes out of control--and this year's contest was a special case.

While most Republicans were dissatisfied with Romney--and with most serious GOPers staying out of the race--the rather weird collection who did run, ended up playing "leap frog" with each other, each taking the lead for a time until brought down either by their own inadequacies or the withering attacks from Romney's big money machine. The result of this has been a host of embittered, wounded, and over-grown egos who may still believe that they are the better candidate.

On one level, it can be said that none of this may matter since two years from now, most Americans will be hard pressed to even recall the names of all those who ran against Romney in 2012. But Romney's problem was never with these opponents, it was with the Republican base they played to. He was never the favorite of the religious right/social conservatives--a substantial group that constitutes nearly 40% of the Republican base. Nor was he trusted by the activist core who formed the "Tea Party." In fact, the reason for the "leap frogging" during the primaries was the base's desperate search for "anybody but Mitt" to be their nominee. The game is now over, and the party's base is in the process of "settling for Mitt"--but I'm not sure that they are in love with him.

During the campaign, Romney attempted to court these hard-line voters. His inclination may now be to "reset" his positions and image so as to better compete for the support of independent and moderate voters in the general election, but to do so will expose his right flank and cause his still wary supporters and past opponents to be even less enthusiastic about his candidacy.

A battered Romney held on a short leash by his party's right wing should be good news for President Obama, but with the electorate as deeply divided as it is, national polls are telling a different story. The President, it appears, may also have trouble re-energizing parts of his base and convincing some independent voters. As a result, most polls show this Obama-Romney match-up may be as close and as bitterly contested as any in recent history.

'); jQuery('#c_text_1504').append(""); if (Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.picture_url !=null && Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.picture_url !=""){ jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(""); }else{ jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(""); } //jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(""); //jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(" "); jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(""); jQuery('#c_text_1504').append(""); jQuery('#moment_left_1504').append(''); jQuery('#campaign_name_1504').addClass('moment_campaign_title'); jQuery('#moment_left_1504').append(''); jQuery('#campaign_text_1504').addClass('m_campaign_text'); }, otb_design:function(data){ jQuery('#campaign_participate_btn_container_1504').remove(); jQuery('#campaign_name_1504').addClass('otb_campaign_title'); jQuery('#campaign_text_1504').addClass('otb_campaign_text'); jQuery('#campaign_1504').addClass('otb_campaign_container'); jQuery('#campaign_title_container_1504').append(""); jQuery('#campaign_title_container_1504').append(" "); jQuery('#campaign_title_container_1504').append(""); }, defaul_design:function(){ jQuery('#campaign_name_1504').addClass('campaign_title'); jQuery('#campaign_title_1504').html(Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.campaign_title); jQuery('#campaign_bottom_1504').remove(); jQuery('#campaign_1504').addClass('campaign_container'); }, CampaignLogin : function(){ HuffConnect.Login.onLoginSuccess = function() { window.location.hash = 'join_campaign'; window.location.reload(); } QuickLogin.pop(); }, CampaignJoin : function (join_control, campaign_id){ join_control.style.display = 'none'; jQuery('#btn_take_part_in_survey_1504').css("display", ''); jQuery('#campaign_name_1504').html(Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.thank_you_email_subject); jQuery('#campaign_text_1504').html(Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.thank_you_email_body); Campaign_1504.CallPostJoinAction(); }, GetFormFail:function(){ alert('Sorry, unable to procees your request'); HuffConnect.hideModal(); }, CallPostJoinAction:function(){ jQuery.ajax({ url: Campaign_1504.post_join_actions_url , success: function(data){ huff.use('modal', function(m){ m.show({ content: data, width: 750, height: 550 }) }); //HPUtil.EvalScript(data); } , cache: false }); } };

Jamin Raskin: Mitt Romney's Constitutional Advisor, Robert Bork, Continues the War on Women's Rights

Mitt Romney is eager these days to change the subject from what the public sees as his party's "war on women." He seeks to close the huge gender gap that has opened up as women flee the party of Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh in search of something a little less patriarchal and misogynistic.

But Romney's problems with America's women may be just beginning. He can distance himself from the theocratic musings of other Republicans and the macho bullying of Fox News talking heads, but he cannot run away from his own selection of former Judge Robert Bork, in August of last year, to become his principal advisor on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

Bork hopes to wipe out not only the constitutional right to privacy, especially the right to contraception and to abortion, but decades of Equal Protection decisions handed down by what he calls a feminized Supreme Court deploying "sterile feminist logic" to guarantee equal treatment and inclusion of women. Bork is no casual chauvinist but rather a sworn enemy of feminism, a political force that he considers "totalitarian" and in which, he has concluded, "the extremists are the movement."

Romney may never have to elaborate his bizarrely muted reaction to Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" ("it's not the language I would have used"), but he will definitely have to answer whether he agrees with his hand-picked constitutional advisor that feminism is "totalitarian"; that the Supreme Court, with two women Justices, had become "feminized" at the time of U.S. v. Virginia (1996) and produced a "feminization of the military"; and that gender-based discrimination by government should no longer trigger heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.

Romney has already said that, "The key thing the president is going to do... it's going to be appointing Supreme Court and Justices throughout the judicial system." He has also said that he wishes Robert Bork "were already on the Court."

So look what Robert Bork thinks Romney's Supreme Court Justices should do about the rights of women.

Wiping Out Contraceptive, Abortion and Privacy Rights

Romney certainly hoped to leave behind the surprising controversy in the Republican primaries over access to contraception, but Robert Bork's extremist views on the subject guarantee that it stays hot. Bork rejects the line of decisions, beginning with Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), affirming the right of Americans to privacy in their procreative and reproductive choices. He denounces the Supreme Court's protection of both married couples' and individuals' right to contraception in Griswold and Eisenstaedt v. Baird (1972), declaring that such a right to privacy in matters of procreation was created "out of thin air." He calls the Ninth Amendment -- which states that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" -- an "inkblot" without meaning. For him, the right of people to decide about birth control has nothing to do with Due Process liberty or other rights "retained by the people" -- it is the illegitimate expression of "radical individualism" on the Supreme Court.

Bork detests Roe v. Wade (1973), a decision he says has "no constitutional foundation" and is based on "no constitutional reasoning." He would overturn it and empower states to prosecute women and doctors who violate criminal abortion laws. Bork promises:

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, just so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of the judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that.

In other words, the Court's "integrity" would require a President Romney to impose an anti-Roe v. Wade litmus test on all nominations to the Court.

Ending Heightened Scrutiny of Government Sex Discrimination under Equal Protection

Bork is the leading voice in America assailing the Supreme Court for using "heightened" Equal Protection scrutiny to examine government sex discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. While women and men all over America cheered the Supreme Court's 7-1 decision in United States v. Virginia (1996), the decision that forced the Virginia Military Institute to stop discriminating and to admit its first women cadets, Bork attacked it for producing the "feminization of the military," which for him is a standard and cutting insult --"feminization" is always akin to degradation and dilution of standards. He writes: "Radical feminism, an increasingly powerful force across the full range of American institutions, overrode the Constitution in United States v. Virginia." Of course, in his view, this decision was no aberration: "VMI is only one example of a feminized Court transforming the Constitution," he wrote. Naturally, a "feminized Court" creates a "feminized military."

Bork argues that, outside of standard "rational basis" review, "the equal protection clause should be restricted to race and ethnicity because to go further would plunge the courts into making law without guidance from anything the ratifiers understood themselves to be doing." This rejection of gender as a protected form of classification ignores the fact that that the Fourteenth Amendment gives "equal protection" to all "persons." But, if Bork and his acolytes have their way, decades of Supreme Court decisions striking down gender-discriminatory laws under the Equal Protection Clause will be thrown into doubt as the Court comes to examine sex discrimination under the "rational basis" test, the most relaxed kind of scrutiny. Instead of asking whether government sex discrimination "substantially" advances an "important" government interest, the Court will ask simply whether it is "conceivably related" to some "rational purpose." Remarkably, Mitt Romney's key constitutional advisor wants to turn back the clock on Equal Protection jurisprudence by watering down the standards for reviewing sex-discriminatory laws.

Judge Bork Means Business: the Case of the Sterilized Women Employees

If you don't think Bork means all this, go back and look at his bleak record as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Take just one Bork opinion that became a crucial point of discussion in the hearings over his failed 1987 Supreme Court nomination. In a 1984 case called Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union v. American Cyanamid Co., Bork found that the Occupational Safety and Health Act did not protect women at work in a manufacturing plant from a company policy that forced them to be sterilized -- or else lose their jobs -- because of high levels of lead in the air. The Secretary of Labor had decided that the Act's requirement that employers must provide workers "employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards" meant that American Cynamid had to "fix the workplace" through industrial clean-up rather than "fix the employees" by sterilizing or removing all women workers of child-bearing age. But Bork strongly disagreed. He wrote an opinion for his colleagues apparently endorsing the view that other clean-up measures were not necessary or possible and that the sterilization policy was, in any event, a "realistic and clearly lawful" way to prevent harm to the women's fetuses. Because the company's "fetus protection policy" took place by virtue of sterilization in a hospital -- outside of the physical workplace -- the plain terms of the Act simply did not apply, according to Bork. Thus, as Public Citizen put it, "an employer may require its female workers to be sterilized in order to reduce employer liability for harm to the potential children."

Decisions like this are part of Bork's dark Social Darwinist view of America in which big corporations are always right and the law should rarely ever be interpreted to protect the rights of employees, especially women, in the workplace.

No matter how vigorously Mitt Romney shakes his Etch-a-Sketch, Americans already have an indelible picture of what a Romney-run presidency and Bork-run judiciary would look like and what it would mean for women. With Robert Bork calling the shots on the courts, a vote for Mitt Romney is plainly a vote against women's rights, women's equality and women's freedom.

Jamin Raskin is the author of the new PFAW Report, "Borking America: What Robert Bork Will Mean for the Supreme Court and American Justice."

PHOTOS: Cops Shoot Playful Chihuahuas, Elderly Labs

Last week, Austin, Texas, Police Chief Art Acevedo publicly apologized to Michael Paxton over the death of his dog Cisco. Paxton was playing fetch with the Australian cattle dog mix in his backyard when a police officer pulled into the driveway in response to a 911 call. The officer had the wrong house. When Paxton left the yard to get something from his truck, he said the officer confronted him. Cisco ran around from the back, toward the officer. The officer simultaneously ordered Paxton to put his hands in the air and to restrain his dog. The officer then shot the dog.

Cisco's death made national news. Paxton's Facebook page detailing the killing and calling for a reprimand of the officer, has generated more than 100,000 "likes." But Paxton isn't the first dog owner whose pet has been shot to death by police. A search of news articles from the past year shows more than 100 separate incidents.

There are no national records of dogs shot by cops. There isn't even good national data on the number of people shot by police. As a result, there's no way to tell if pet killings by police are increasing in frequency. The increased attention may be due to awareness or to news outlets more likely to report them. Pet owners also can publicize the incidents through social media. And with public surveillance, cell phone cameras, and security cameras, there is more likely to be video of a shooting. Sites that include "Dogs That Cops Killed" and the Facebook group "Dogs Shot by Police" track new incidents and allow grieving owners to share stories. The activism site Change.org also now includes calls for action in similar cases, with petitions like "Justice for Big Boy," and "Justice for Bud."

When police officers shoot dogs, departments usually deem the shooting justified if the officer felt threatened by the animal. But an officer's perception doesn't always mean the animal actually was a threat. In recent years, police officers have shot and killed chihuahuas, miniature dachshunds, Wheaton terriers, and Jack Russell terriers. Last month, a California police officer shot and killed a boxer puppy and pregnant chihuahua, claiming the boxer had threatened him. The chihuahua, he said, got caught in the crossfire. When a San Bernardino, Calif., woman called police to report a burglary in progress behind her house last month, they responded, jumped her fence to confront the burglars, then shot her dalmatian mix, Julio. He survived. Police officers have also recently shot dogs that were chained, tied, or leashed -- obviously posing no real threat to officers who killed them.

Given how often police officers encounter pets, one would think training for handling dogs would be common. An officer untrained in recognizing a dog's body language, for example, could easily mistake a bounding dog from a charging one, a nervous dog from an angry one, or an aggressive dog from one that's merely territorial. Groups like the Humane Society and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals offer free training to police departments, but both organizations said few departments take them up on the offer. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle are among departments that don't provide regular training to officers on how to respond to dogs.

Contrast that to the U.S. Postal Service, another government organization whose employees regularly come into contact with pets. A Postal Service spokesman said in a 2009 interview that serious dog attacks on mail carriers are extremely rare. That's likely because postal workers are annually shown a two-hour video and given further training on "how to distract dogs with toys, subdue them with voice commands, or, at worst, incapacitate them with Mace."

In drug raids, killing any dog in the house has become almost perfunctory. In this video of a 2008 drug raid in Columbia, Mo., you can see police kill two dogs, including one as it retreats. Despite police assurance that the dogs were menacing, the video depicts the officers discussing who will kill the dogs before they even arrive at the house. During a raid in Durham, N.C., last year, police shot and killed a black Lab they claimed "appeared to growl and make aggressive moves." But in video of the raid taken by a local news station, the dog appears to make no such gestures.

Many criminals -- particularly drug dealers -- protect themselves with aggressive dogs trained to attack intruders. But shooting the animals as a matter of procedure can sometimes be dangerous to police. During a 2008 raid in Lima, Ohio, one officer heard his fellow officer shooting dogs in the home and mistook the shots for hostile gunfire. Thinking he was under attack, he opened fire at shadows coming from an upstairs bedroom. In that room, 24-year-old Tarika Wilson was on her knees, as she had been instructed, with one hand in the air and her other arm holding her year-old son. Wilson was killed, and the boy lost a hand. During a 2007 raid in Stockton, Calif., a police officer inadvertently wounded Kari Bailey, 23, and her 5-year-old daughter Hailey while trying to kill the family dog. (The police had shown up at the wrong address.) Last month, one officer firing at pit bulls in Minneapolis accidentally shot a fellow cop.

Below, HuffPost has assembled a slide show of cop-shoots-dog incidents from the last several years, as well as the results of our efforts to see if the police departments involved provide training in the handling of dogs.

Also on HuffPost:

"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });

Biden: 'You All Look Dull As Hell'

Vice President Joe Biden told audience members at a Friday fundraiser that they looked "dull as hell."

The vice president was speaking at the Fairfax Hotel in Washington to over two hundred members of the Turkish and Azerbaijani communities.

Biden was speaking about Azerbaijan, and said progress had been made "in the interest of the region and the interest of the United States of America."

Then, according to a White House pool report, he said, "I guess what I'm trying to say without boring you too long at breakfast -- and you all look dull as hell, I might add. The dullest audience I have ever spoken to. Just sitting there, staring at me. Pretend you like me!" That reportedly drew laughs from the audience.

Then it was back to Azerbaijan.

"But the point of it is this. We view Azerbaijan as country with tremendous potential. We want Azerbaijan to succeed in its goal of developing a modern democracy and becoming a regional leader," said the vice president.

The vice president also spoke on foreign policy, echoing his attack line Thursday that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, was stuck in a Cold War mindset given his hawkish stance towards Russia.

'); jQuery('#c_text_1504').append(""); if (Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.picture_url !=null && Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.picture_url !=""){ jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(""); }else{ jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(""); } //jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(""); //jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(" "); jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(""); jQuery('#c_text_1504').append(""); jQuery('#moment_left_1504').append(''); jQuery('#campaign_name_1504').addClass('moment_campaign_title'); jQuery('#moment_left_1504').append(''); jQuery('#campaign_text_1504').addClass('m_campaign_text'); }, otb_design:function(data){ jQuery('#campaign_participate_btn_container_1504').remove(); jQuery('#campaign_name_1504').addClass('otb_campaign_title'); jQuery('#campaign_text_1504').addClass('otb_campaign_text'); jQuery('#campaign_1504').addClass('otb_campaign_container'); jQuery('#campaign_title_container_1504').append(""); jQuery('#campaign_title_container_1504').append(" "); jQuery('#campaign_title_container_1504').append(""); }, defaul_design:function(){ jQuery('#campaign_name_1504').addClass('campaign_title'); jQuery('#campaign_title_1504').html(Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.campaign_title); jQuery('#campaign_bottom_1504').remove(); jQuery('#campaign_1504').addClass('campaign_container'); }, CampaignLogin : function(){ HuffConnect.Login.onLoginSuccess = function() { window.location.hash = 'join_campaign'; window.location.reload(); } QuickLogin.pop(); }, CampaignJoin : function (join_control, campaign_id){ join_control.style.display = 'none'; jQuery('#btn_take_part_in_survey_1504').css("display", ''); jQuery('#campaign_name_1504').html(Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.thank_you_email_subject); jQuery('#campaign_text_1504').html(Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.thank_you_email_body); Campaign_1504.CallPostJoinAction(); }, GetFormFail:function(){ alert('Sorry, unable to procees your request'); HuffConnect.hideModal(); }, CallPostJoinAction:function(){ jQuery.ajax({ url: Campaign_1504.post_join_actions_url , success: function(data){ huff.use('modal', function(m){ m.show({ content: data, width: 750, height: 550 }) }); //HPUtil.EvalScript(data); } , cache: false }); } };

Feds Update Criminal Background Check Policies, In Aim To Prevent Discrimination

WASHINGTON -- Is an arrest in a barroom brawl 20 years ago a job disqualifier? Not necessarily, the government said Wednesday in new guidelines on how employers can avoid running afoul of laws prohibiting job discrimination.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's updated policy on criminal background checks is part of an effort to rein in practices that can limit job opportunities for minorities that have higher arrest and conviction rates than whites.

"The ability of African-Americans and Hispanics to gain employment after prison is one of the paramount civil justice issues of our time," said Stuart Ishimaru, one of three Democrats on the five-member commission.

But some employers say the new policy ' approved in a 4-1 vote ' could make it more cumbersome and expensive to conduct background checks. Companies see the checks as a way to keep workers and customers safe, weed out unsavory workers and prevent negligent hiring claims.

The new standard urges employers to give applicants a chance to explain a report of past criminal misconduct before they are rejected outright. An applicant might say the report is inaccurate or point out that the conviction was expunged. It may be completely unrelated to the job, or an ex-con may show he's been fully rehabilitated.

The EEOC also recommends that employers stop asking about past convictions on job applications. And it says an arrest without a conviction is not generally an acceptable reason to deny employment.

While the guidance does not have the force of regulations, it sets a higher bar in explaining how businesses can avoid violating the law.

"It's going to be much more burdensome," said Pamela Devata, a Chicago employment lawyer who has represented companies trying to comply with EEOC's requirements. "Logistically, it's going to be very difficult for employers who have a large amount of attrition to have an individual discussion with each and every applicant."

The guidelines are the first attempt since 1990 to update the commission's policy on criminal background checks. Current standards already require employers to consider the age and seriousness of an applicant's conviction and its relationship to specific job openings. And it is generally illegal for employers to have a blanket ban based on criminal history.

But the frequency of background checks has exploded over the past decade with the growth of online databases and dozens of search companies offering low-cost records searches.

About 73 percent of employers conduct criminal background checks on all job candidates, according to a 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management. Another 19 percent of employers do so only for selected job candidates.

That data often can be inaccurate or incomplete, according to a report this month from the National Consumer Law Center. EEOC commissioners said the growing practice has grave implications for blacks and Hispanics, who are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system and face high rates of unemployment.

"You thought prison was hard, try finding a decent job when you get out," EEOC member Chai Feldblum said. She cited Justice Department statistics showing that 1 in 3 black men and 1 in 6 Hispanic men will be incarcerated during their lifetime. That compares with 1 in 17 white men who will serve time.

The EEOC also has stepped up enforcement in recent years. It currently is investigating over 100 claims of job discrimination based on criminal background checks.

Earlier this year, Pepsi Beverages Co. paid $3.1 million to settle EEOC charges of race discrimination for using criminal background checks to screen out job applicants, some who were never convicted.

Constance Barker, one of two Republicans on the commission, was the only member to vote against the new policy. She blamed colleagues for not letting businesses see a draft of the guidelines before voting to approve them.

"I object to the utter and blatant lack of transparency in the process," Barker said. "We are now to approve this dramatic shift ... without ever circulating it to the American public for discussion."

But other members said the commission held a major hearing on the issue last year and took more than 300 comments.

Nancy Hammer, senior government affairs policy counsel at the Society for Human Resource Management, said a big concern is the potential conflict between the new guidance and state laws that require criminal background checks in certain professions.

Nurses, teachers and day care providers, for example, are required by some state laws to have background checks. The new guidelines say a company is not shielded from liability under federal discrimination laws just because it complies with state laws.

Devata, the employment attorney, said the new guidelines may have a chilling effect that discourages employers from conducting criminal checks.

"I think some businesses may stop doing it because it's too hard to comply with all the recommendations in the guidance," she said.

The NAACP praised the new guidelines, saying they would help level the playing field for job applicants with a criminal history.

"These guidelines will discourage employers from discriminating against applicants who have paid their debt to society," NAACP President-CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous said.

___

"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });

Richard Trumka: Is Walmart Too Big, Powerful, Influential to Obey the Law?

This week's reports from the New York Times about Walmart's practices in Mexico are breathtaking. The Times found "credible evidence that bribery played a persistent and significant role in Walmart's rapid growth in Mexico." The Times interviewed an executive of Walmart's Mexican subsidiary who "bought zoning approvals and reductions in environmental impact fees." According to the New York Times, when lawyers for Walmart discovered this activity and informed senior management, then Walmart CEO Lee Scott ordered Walmart's internal investigative protocols revised to give the targets of internal investigations more control over those same investigations. The specific reports about conduct in Mexico were ignored, the executives involved were promoted and a senior in-house lawyer who objected subsequently left Walmart. The apparent result was that Walmart grew dramatically in Mexico at the expense of its Mexican competitors, leading to Mexico becoming Walmart's second largest market after the United States. The executive identified in Walmart's in-house investigator's notes as "most responsible" was promoted to head of all U.S. Walmart stores.

Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, it is a crime for a U.S. company to bribe an official of a foreign government -- just as it is a crime to bribe an official of the United States government. It is also a crime in Mexico to bribe an official of the Mexican government. And bear in mind that the Times story does not describe the acts of isolated individuals -- it describes conduct and elaborate efforts to suppress the results of internal investigation of that conduct involving multiple top executives over a period of years. In other words, the New York Times story describes "credible evidence" of criminal activity and the willful neglect of criminal activity involving individuals at the highest levels of one of America's largest corporations.

Nothing like this has happened since the collapse of Enron and Worldcom in 2002. And Walmart is of course a more important company than either Enron or Worldcom. Walmart is the largest private employer in the United States. And in the days since the Times story appeared, the Washington Post has reported that Walmart has participated in an aggressive lobbying campaign to weaken the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which makes bribing foreign officials a crime.

Breathtaking, yes. Yet not a total surprise to Walmart employees in the U.S. or Mexico. Walmart workers know that Walmart is indifferent to the law -- that is the lesson of a trail of employee harassment and fired union activists in the U.S. and Canada. And in Mexico, employees work under protection contracts with company-controlled "unions" that ensure the company will maintain low wages and prevent workers from organizing a legitimate union.

But this story has a number of other lessons that all Americans need to understand, lessons about even more than Walmart.

First, the Walmart episode shows the utter futility of expecting large corporations, their boards and their law firms to police themselves. Over the last 10 years, Walmart has spent many millions of dollars trying to persuade investors and policy makers that it is a responsible corporate actor -- with internal checks on improper behavior. The Times report reveals all of this as so many fairy stories -- behind which is a strategy for corporate growth that appears to have relied on bribery.

Second, this episode reveals the tragic folly of NAFTA. When NAFTA was passed in 1994, many in Mexico hoped NAFTA would lead to their country shedding a legacy of public corruption and becoming more like the United States in terms of rule of law. This expectation was right in that it flowed from an understanding that a free trade agreement means economic and legal integration. But it naively assumed that rule of law would win out. Instead, NAFTA has been a race to the bottom in every respect -- including rule of law. U.S. firms like Walmart did not want a North America where the rule of law applied to big corporations -- they wanted a legal system that was for sale both in Mexico and the United States. And so far that's what it appears they got.

Third, who were the losers in Walmart's Mexican business-as-bribery strategy? It appears the losers were Mexicans -- Mexican retailers who could not outbid Walmart, Mexican citizens who saw their environmental laws ignored. The inevitable next question is: Are we too going to be losers in that the rule of law will be undermined in the United States when we decide Walmart is too big, too powerful, too influential to have to obey the law?

That question is now before the bodies responsible for enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act -- the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department -- and ultimately the courts. The federal statute book is clear -- it is a crime for a U.S. corporation to bribe an official of a foreign government. The U.S. code is also clear that it is illegal to fire a worker for trying to form a union. Walmart has gotten away with violating our labor laws en masse for decades. Will they be able to similarly ignore our criminal laws and get away with it? If they do, we will know that NAFTA has succeeded not only in lowering living standards on both sides of the border, but in destroying the rule of law.

Biden Delivers Strong Attack On Romney

NEW YORK -- Vice President Joe Biden has issued a strong defense of President Barack Obama's foreign policy record and suggested that Republican Mitt Romney doesn't understand the role of contemporary commander in chief.

Biden delivered a campaign foreign policy speech Thursday at New York University.

The vice president said Obama had met the foreign policy challenges facing the United States in the 21st century, including ending the war in Iraq and ordering the mission that killed Osama bin Laden.

He said Romney's foreign policy vision is stuck in the Cold War-era.

Romney advisers held a conference call before Biden spoke to criticize Obama's record on foreign policy.

John Lehman, Navy secretary in the Reagan administration, accused Obama of "a gross abdication of leadership" that could have practical and political consequences.

Earlier on HuffPost:

'); jQuery('#c_text_1504').append(""); if (Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.picture_url !=null && Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.picture_url !=""){ jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(""); }else{ jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(""); } //jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(""); //jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(" "); jQuery('#moment_right_1504').append(""); jQuery('#c_text_1504').append(""); jQuery('#moment_left_1504').append(''); jQuery('#campaign_name_1504').addClass('moment_campaign_title'); jQuery('#moment_left_1504').append(''); jQuery('#campaign_text_1504').addClass('m_campaign_text'); }, otb_design:function(data){ jQuery('#campaign_participate_btn_container_1504').remove(); jQuery('#campaign_name_1504').addClass('otb_campaign_title'); jQuery('#campaign_text_1504').addClass('otb_campaign_text'); jQuery('#campaign_1504').addClass('otb_campaign_container'); jQuery('#campaign_title_container_1504').append(""); jQuery('#campaign_title_container_1504').append(" "); jQuery('#campaign_title_container_1504').append(""); }, defaul_design:function(){ jQuery('#campaign_name_1504').addClass('campaign_title'); jQuery('#campaign_title_1504').html(Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.campaign_title); jQuery('#campaign_bottom_1504').remove(); jQuery('#campaign_1504').addClass('campaign_container'); }, CampaignLogin : function(){ HuffConnect.Login.onLoginSuccess = function() { window.location.hash = 'join_campaign'; window.location.reload(); } QuickLogin.pop(); }, CampaignJoin : function (join_control, campaign_id){ join_control.style.display = 'none'; jQuery('#btn_take_part_in_survey_1504').css("display", ''); jQuery('#campaign_name_1504').html(Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.thank_you_email_subject); jQuery('#campaign_text_1504').html(Campaign_1504.campaign_info.campaign.thank_you_email_body); Campaign_1504.CallPostJoinAction(); }, GetFormFail:function(){ alert('Sorry, unable to procees your request'); HuffConnect.hideModal(); }, CallPostJoinAction:function(){ jQuery.ajax({ url: Campaign_1504.post_join_actions_url , success: function(data){ huff.use('modal', function(m){ m.show({ content: data, width: 750, height: 550 }) }); //HPUtil.EvalScript(data); } , cache: false }); } };

Andy Kutler: The Secret Service: Still Worthy, America

A little more than a decade ago, as a heavy snow fell on the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, a young Secret Service agent had the misfortune to draw what may have been the most unusual post-standing assignment in the 137-year history of his agency. He was to spend the night alone on a remote, mountainous ridgeline on the outskirts of Park City, in a hastily constructed shelter the size of a phone booth. His survival kit included his sidearm, a flashlight, a two-way radio, and a snow shovel to dig himself out come morning. Electronic sensors would occasionally activate, requiring the agent to plunge himself into the cold darkness, unsure if he was going to confront a terrorist or a mountain lion.

A decade later, the entire United States Secret Service finds itself in similarly unchartered terrain, thanks to the brazen stupidity of a small handful of agency personnel during a recent presidential visit to Cartagena, Colombia.

Full disclosure -- I was once an employee of this agency, far and away the most rewarding time of my professional career. More disclosure -- I couldn't care less at this point about the Cartagena 12. They have been thoroughly and rightfully castigated in the public realm, their careers effectively derailed, their family lives upturned.

The continued media fixation is of little surprise. "These men endangered the president!" declare the shrill talking heads wallpapering the 24/7 cable news. Other so-called experts have suggested that these escapades could have been used as blackmail material in an assassination attempt, or allowed the president's schedule to fall into the wrong hands. True, the Colombians know how to take out a motorcade. But that was Harrison Ford, a few SUVs and a fictional yarn spun by Tom Clancy. The real presidential motorcade is a tad tougher to tangle with in real life. Moreover, are we to believe that an agent who is clearly willing to trade his life for the president's is also willing to sell out his country lest his wife learn of his marital infidelity?

The Secret Service has already thrown the book at the supervisors and their subordinates involved in Cartagena; more dismissals are likely to follow. I'd like to think the aggressive response might diffuse some of the hysterics surrounding this "scandal." But alas, this is Washington, a city that embraces sensational headlines like Donald Trump embraces ... Donald Trump. What is tragically unfair is how this extraordinary episode has tarnished an agency with such an enduring legacy. And so stand some 5,988 chagrinned colleagues the Cartagena 12 left behind to answer to Congress, the media, the public and their own friends and families. That's 5,988 men and women who are infuriated, deeply embarrassed, and reluctant now to even open a newspaper or turn on the television. The wounded pride is felt among the broader Secret Service family as well -- the scores of former and retired personnel unaccustomed to seeing their collective integrity challenged in public.

It saddens me to think that the public may associate the entire agency with the dozen oafs who exercised shockingly poor judgment. Instead, I hope in the coming weeks the agency is judged by Congress and the public not only by its proud history and record of accomplishment, but by how officials reacted in the hours and days after the events unfolded in Cartagena. So far, we know each agent and officer involved was swiftly recalled from Colombia, replaced and disciplined. An internal investigation was launched immediately with the agency pledging to leave no stone unturned. Judging from the information spill coming from Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and others on the Hill, the Secret Service has clearly been forthcoming and sharing its findings with key congressional oversight committees. We'll learn more later, but early indications are that the Secret Service has handled this matter deftly and entirely appropriately, sweeping nothing under the rug.

In public, Secret Service agents are perceived as wooden and robotic. In truth, they are as human as the rest of us, trying to raise families, make ends meet, and hoping the communities they live and work in remain safe from those who wish us great harm. What sets these men and women apart from most is their passionate dedication to their craft, their camaraderie, and their tireless devotion to duty.

They live on a razor's edge that is impossible for most to fathom -- the possibility that any minute, one operational mistake, or even an event out of their control, could result in every one of those agents and officers being held responsible for one of the worst catastrophes in our national history. Talk about a pressure cooker environment. And yet the Secret Service's operational excellence is the benchmark their law enforcement and military colleagues strive to emulate every day. They were the standard before Cartagena, and remain so today.

After this story broke, it was alarming to see a handful of individuals emerge from the woodwork with breathtaking speed to allege "culture problems" at the Secret Service. You'll hear nary an official response to such charges, as this is an agency that is necessarily thick-skinned, content with ignoring the hardballs being lobbed from the likes of book-hawking authors who have never spent a single day working in security or law enforcement.

The politicians though, are a different sort, and a few seem to have much to say. Amid the handful of members of Congress that have taken a stern but measured tone, we are also hearing a fair share of what Newt Gingrich might call "pious baloney." The pious being that madcap Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) suggesting that Congress should investigate how agents spend their free time, and the baloney being the buffoonish Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) implicating White House staff in this incident, despite lacking a scintilla of evidence suggesting so.

And what of Director Mark Sullivan? Sullivan was appointed by President Bush and retained by President Obama; that in itself is a rarity within an executive branch that has become deeply politicalized in the last decade. The director of the Secret Service is traditionally chosen from the agency ranks and one of the few remaining positions in government untainted by the partisan toxicity and ideological crusades that have consumed Washington.

The absurd notion that Sullivan has cultivated a permissive culture that condones such blatant misconduct and irresponsibility is ignorant malarkey put forward by a small few who most likely have some sort of axe to grind or book to shill. I worked under Director Sullivan. He is personable, approachable, and as his 34 years in law enforcement has demonstrated, an immensely dedicated and conscientious agency leader and public servant. I am confident that there is no one more livid, more sickened, and more committed to ensuring that what happened in Colombia never occurs again than Mark Sullivan.

Let's have some perspective, people. This is not the worst scandal in the history of the Secret Service; it is the only scandal, which means something, as we're talking about an agency that was founded in 1865, decades older than even the FBI. Cartagena was an isolated, sophomoric stunt that only Bluto and the rest of Delta House would have approved of.

April 12, 2012 was surely a dark day for the Secret Service, but the worst day? Not even close. That distinction belongs to November 22, 1963, with March 30, 1981 a close second. As always, the agency will endeavor to learn and evolve, and move forward. Ridicule the 12; they're fair game. But the Secret Service's motto is "Worthy of Trust and Confidence," and yes, America, it still is.

Is Mitt Romney The Last Boomer To Run For President?

www.thedailybeast.com:

If Mitt Romney succeeds in his quest for the presidency, the media will focus on his status as the first Mormon in the White House. But it's even more significant that he'd represent the last of another kind: the baby boomer.

Read the whole story at www.thedailybeast.com

"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });

Ian I. Mitroff: The Republicans' Masterful and Insidious Prey on America's Founding Fears and Stories: Part III

In two recent op-eds in The Huffington Post, "The Republicans' Masterful and Insidious Prey on America's Founding Fears," and "The Republicans' Masterful and Insidious Prey on America's Founding Fears, Part II," I talked about two masterful analysts of America's founding myths and stories, Rupert Wilkinson and Robert Reich.

Wilkerson identified four fears have not only been present from the very founding of the Republic, but they are so basic that they are virtually synonymous with it: 1) The Fear of Being Owned; 2) The Fear of Falling Away; 3) The Fear of Winding Down; and 4) The Fear of Falling Apart.

In turn, Reich described four primary myths or stories that historically have not only defined American character, but have from the very beginning of our existence as nation shaped our major attitudes and policies towards key issues and problems: 1) The Rot at the Top; 2) The Barbarians at the Gate; 3) The Triumphant Individual; and, 4) The Benevolent Society.

Briefly, The Rot at the Top is all the European despots, evil kings, and tyrants from whom we initially fled. Given that Freudian Oedipal fears are always just beneath the surface as a natural phase of human development, they are especially painful, easily triggered, and manipulated when they have a strong basis in historical fact.

The Rot at the Top corresponds directly to Wilkerson's Fear of Being Owned. It helps to explain why the outrage towards President Obama and "Obamacare" is so nasty and intense. As the head of government, a black president especially stokes fear, fury, and hatred of unimaginable force.

As helpful as Wilkerson and Reich are in understanding the largely unconscious forces that not only drive all Americans, but are especially powerful in motivating today's Republicans and conservatives, I want to go even deeper. In a recent book, Why Some Politicians Are More Dangerous Than Others, NYU psychiatrist James Gilligan makes the case that lethal violence, whether in the form of homicide or suicide, has increased significantly under Republican presidents and declined just as significantly under Democratic presidents. Indeed, lethal violence typically reaches epidemic levels under Republican presidents. Even under Democrats, it is still significantly higher than other developed nations.

The link is as follows: While Republicans perpetually talk about getting tough on crime, they actually need it to get and stay in power. Pitting the lower middle class and poor against the really poor, who are simultaneously seen as responsible for and the victims of crime, is a great way of diverting attention away from the fact that under Republicans, unemployment, income and social inequality, all of which lead to crime, actually increase considerably under Republican presidents. This is precisely why Gilligan sees some politicians, mainly Republicans -- there are enough Democrats -- as more dangerous than others.

More importantly, as a psychiatrist, Gilligan digs deeper for the underlying unconscious elements of human behavior. Republicans, and the Red State constituents they represent, are governed largely by a shame-based morality or ethic. Democrats, and their Blue State constituents, are governed largely by a guilt-based morality.

Under shame, I am bad. Under guilt, we or I did something bad, but we are not necessarily bad per se. Those who have suffered shame, say by being fired or chronically unemployed, are more likely to feel they are bad, and as a result, to strike back with intense acts of violence against others (homicide) or oneself (suicide).

In contrast, under guilt, one is motivated to help those who through no fault of their own have suffered, e.g., racial discrimination, unemployment, etc.

I cannot stress enough that it is absolutely vital to understand that these forces are largely unconscious. They are also not necessarily independent for one can be under the grip of both of them simultaneously.

Understanding such forces is crucial in attacking issues such as gun control, which are completely out of control. Even though the vast majority of both NRA and non-NRA gun owners are for tighter gun control laws, fear and shame are still the primary factors driving gun ownership to record highs. But neither fear nor shame can be approached directly, for one is generally too ashamed to admit one is ashamed! They have to be approached indirectly. For example, one needs to get uber-macho spokespersons to say in the most nonthreatening and blameless terms that it is OK to have as few guns as possible in one's home: "It's the manly thing to cut back."

My point is not that we will solve all of our thorny problems through a better understanding of unconscious forces alone. That is absurd. But, we will not solve them through all of the appeals to so-called rational policies and thinking alone!

Unfortunately, conservatives understand this far better than liberals. If they are so smart, why do liberals have such trouble in understanding the power of emotions and good stories to shape politics and people's behavior? Because sadly, as a general rule, liberals don't understand that we don't learn with our conscious minds alone. I don't believe that we even learn primarily through consciousness!

Ian I. Mitroff is a crisis expert and an Adjunct Professor at UC Berkeley. His most recent book is Swans, Swine, and Swindlers: Coping With the Growing Threat of Mega Crises and Mega Messes, Stanford, 2011. He is the co-author of the forthcoming book with Murat Alpaslan, A Prefect Mess: Why Everything Is a Mess and How to Cope With It, University of Pennsylvania Press. His Ph.D. is in Engineering Science and the Philosophy of Social Systems Science from UC Berkeley.

Josh Sugarmann: Ted Nugent: Convicted "Slob Hunter"

While Ted Nugent's latest rhetorical eruption gained widespread attention in the news media and warranted a visit from the U.S. Secret Service, pro-gun reaction in blogs and on-line comments has ranged from grudging acquiesence to full-throated support. As one pro-gun blogger noted:

... I've never been a fan of Nugent's over-the-top rhetoric, but that's too bad, because there's nothing I can do about it. Uncle Ted is one of the highest vote getters every time he's up for the [NRA] Board. Any time he's around at Annual Meeting people are lining up around the corner to meet him, get autographs, or what have you.

He then drills down to the essence of Nugent's appeal:

Our opponents are constantly telling us nonsense like the NRA leadership are out of touch with their membership. I hate to tell you guys, but the reason Nuge can dominate a board election is because a lot of members like his over-the-top, take-no-prisoners confrontational style. They get to see Ted Nugent say and do things that validates many of their core beliefs, and say it in a way they could never get away with in polite society. It is a difficult thing for our opponents to accept, but if NRA is out of touch with its members, that often runs in the other direction, and not in their direction.

(This may be why the NRA is willing to meet Nugent's price of $50,000 to actually show up at its annual meeting, a fee that is $15,000 higher than what he reportedly charges outside the "NRA family.")

The reality is that Nugent isn't talking to the general public, but the pro-gun activist core: both members and non-members. Public condemnation from the world outside the NRA's sphere of websites, online talk shows (where Nugent made his comments), e-mails, and magazines -- the media, politicians, non-gun owners, etc., etc., etc. -- only validates such views.

But here's something from the outside world that may actually permeate the NRA's rhetorical bubble.

Ted Nugent is a "slob hunter" -- an outdoorsman who places conservation and the standard of ethical hunting second to his own personal enjoyment or interests.

Nugent is expected today to finalize a federal plea agreement in which he pleads guilty to transporting a black bear he illegally killed in Alaska. According to the plea agreement, Nugent illegally shot and killed the bear in 2009 on Sukkwan Island after wounding another bear in a bow hunt. The bow incident counted toward a state seasonal limit of one bear. The incidents took place while he was filming his hunting cable show.

In the agreement, Nugent agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and agreed to a two-year probation, including a special condition that he not hunt or fish in Alaska or on Forest Service properties for one year. Nugent also agreed to pay the state $600 for the bear that was taken illegally and to film a public service announcement, according to the document.

Nugent's action violated two of the NRA's Hunter's Code of Ethics, which includes the statements:

• I will obey all game laws and regulations, and will insist that my companions do likewise.
• I will do my best to acquire those marksmanship and hunting skills, which insure clean, sportsmanlike kills.

According to Nugent's lawyer, fellow NRA Board member and Anchorage attorney Wayne Anthony Ross (who's had his own controversial history), Nugent didn't know he was breaking the law.

So why would one member of the NRA leadership defend another for violating the organization's own Hunter's Code of Ethics? Because it's business as usual.

As I note in my 1992 book, NRA: Money, Firepower & Fear, members of the NRA leadership with far higher pay grades than Nugent have been involved in slob hunting. In 1985, former NRA Executive Vice President (the position Wayne LaPierre holds today) Ray Arnett violated federal game laws, firing at game birds while a motorboat he was riding in was under power. To add insult to injury, the event occurred while he was being filmed for an "I'm the NRA" television commercial. Arnett (who later was forced to resign as the result of a sex scandal) paid a $125.00 fine that he later likened to a speeding ticket.

To the Nugent fans who embrace the aging rocker for his "over-the-top, take-no-prisoners confrontational style," his conviction, fine and probation can be dismissed as just another example of an oppressive federal government stamping out freedom bear carcass by bear carcass.

To the ever-dwindling number of traditional hunters and sportsmen who decades ago populated the NRA, Nugent's violation -- and a fellow member of the NRA's leadership literal defense of it -- could actually raise questions regarding his role with the organization.

Follow Josh Sugarmann on Twitter: www.twitter.com/VPCinfo

'Landmark' Ruling Deems Transgender Employees Protected Under Anti-Discrimination Laws

In what has been hailed as a "landmark" move, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled Monday that employers which discriminates against an employee or potential employee based on their gender identity is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on sex.

Having earlier filed a complaint on behalf of Mia Macy, a California transgender woman denied a job, the Transgender Law Center issued the following statement, re-printed in The Miami Herald among other publications, on the ruling:

"In its unprecedented decision, the EEOC concluded that 'intentional discrimination against a transgender individual because that person is transgender is, by definition, discrimination 'based on ' sex' and such discrimination ' violates Title VII.

The ruling came as a result of a discrimination complaint filed by Transgender Law Center on behalf of Mia Macy, a transgender woman who was denied a job as a ballistics technician at the Walnut Creek, California laboratory of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Ms. Macy, a veteran and former police detective, initially applied for the position as male and was told that she virtually was guaranteed the job.

Ms. Macy was exceptionally qualified for the position, having a military and law enforcement background and being one of the few people in the country who had already been trained on ATF's ballistics computer system. After disclosing her gender transition mid-way through the hiring process, Ms. Macy was told that funding for that position had been suddenly cut. She later learned that someone else had been hired for the job."

Macy said in a news release that she was personally grateful for the ruling: "Although the discrimination I experienced was painful both personally and financially, and led to the loss of my family's home to foreclosure, I'm proud to be a part of this groundbreaking decision confirming that our nation's employment discrimination laws protect all Americans, including transgender people."

Masen Davis of the Transgender Law Center told Metro Weekly that the decision is a ''big leap forward.''

"Transgender people already face tremendous rates of discrimination and unemployment,' Davis told the Washington Blade. 'The decision today ensures that every transgender person in the United States will have legal recourse to employment discrimination, and with it a way to safeguard their access to vital employment benefits such as health insurance and retirement savings plans.'

For more information on the Transgender Law Center, click here.

Take a look at some transgender pioneers below:

The Brazilian supermodel was discovered by Givenchy designer Riccardo Tisci when he hired her as his personal assistant. Soon after she became his muse and her modeling career began.

She has been featured in high-profile fashion magazines like "Vogue Paris," "Hercules," "Interview," "Love," and "Cover."

Also on HuffPost:

"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });