Pages

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Mumbai Blasts: Shocking Photos





At least 20 people were killed and a hundred more injured after three explosions hit Mumbai as part of an elaborate terrorist attack, authorities say. See shocking photos from the ground.



Three bomb blasts rocked the city of Mumbai Wednesday, killing at least 20 people and wounding more than a hundred. The explosions, which went off at the height of the evening rush hour, struck central locations, including the Opera House, the well-known jewelry Zaveri Bazaar, and the crowded Dadar neighborhood. A fourth explosive device was found, but it did not go off. No one has claimed responsibility, and the attack is the first since Pakistani militants killed more than 160 people in massive assaults on hotels, a train station and a Jewish center in November of 2008.






PHOTOS: The #MumbaiBlasts





3 Serial Explosions in Mumbai - Indiaecho.com
anilnews1, July 13, 2011 at 10:13




How Warren Blew It



AUTHOR

The brain behind the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is once again facing a hostile congressional committee. And it’s her own fault, says Gary Rivlin.


When Elizabeth Warren last appeared before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, she said she could stick around for only an hour due to a scheduling conflict. This time, the Republicans won’t let that happen again. “I expect you to remain before the committee until all members of the committee have had all their questions answered,” Rep. Darrell Issa , the California Republican who chairs the committee, wrote to Warren. His tone called to mind nothing so much as a teacher reprimanding an unruly student.
On Thursday, Warren must once again endure the charade of answering questions about the actions of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that has no official authority until it goes live next week—and over which she is serving as temporary custodian until President Obama nominates, and the Senate confirms, a director.
Yet Warren has only herself to blame—not only for Issa’s tone, but also for this latest demand that she appear before his committee to undergo another round of grilling. The truth is, Warren blew it the last time she was on Capitol Hill. She was cordial on that sweltering Tuesday in late May when she arrived at a small hearing room on the second floor of the Rayburn Building. With equanimity, she answered the prosecutorial questions of Patrick McHenry, the North Carolina Republican chairing the oversight hearing (“Yes or no, Ms. Warren?”)—just as she answered similarly aggressive questions from other Republicans. 
Her mistake came when McHenry called for a recess so that members of the committee could make it to a vote on the House floor. At least a couple of members had not gotten their turn at Warren, so McHenry asked her to stay. Claiming that she had made it clear to his staff that she had a full schedule on tap for the rest of the afternoon, Warren declined. To her credit, at the end of every month she posts her calendar at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau website. But in this case it revealed that she had a few meetings with colleagues inside the Treasury Department and then a 45-minute interview with a Vanity Fair writer.

If only Warren had decided to stay and suffer through interrogations from another couple of Republicans, she wouldn’t have to be going through it again so soon.

 

Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren at the Reuters Future Face of Finance Summit in March, Kevin Lamarque, Reuters / Landov
“I’ve asked questions of a litany of administration officials from Democratic and Republican administrations,” McHenry is quoted as saying in the current issue of Bloomberg Business Week, “and I’ve never seen an action by any witness like I saw that day.” McHenry should have emerged as the victor on that occasion. He and his colleagues had been trying to cast this new creation as a superagency beyond the normal checks and balances of government—and paint Warren, a Harvard Law professor, as one of those pointy-headed elites who think they know what’s best for everyone else. And here Warren was playing right into their hands. McHenry might have kept his cool and said something like “I can’t force you to stay if you don’t think it’s worth an extra few minutes of your time to answer our questions.” Sitting in the chairman’s seat, he might have noted that she seemed contemptuous of Congress.  Instead he dubbed her a liar, Warren gasped, the video of his tough-guy exchange went viral, and the blogosphere cast McHenry as a bully. In sports, the expression is "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."
The first time Warren was summoned to Capitol Hill to talk about the consumer-protection agency was in March, when she appeared before a subcommittee of House Financial Services. The big controversy at that hearing was also the big controversy at the McHenry hearing—and it will no doubt be the big grievance Republicans raise at Thursday’s hearing. It boils down to the settlement agreement the country’s 50 state attorneys general worked out with the banks after their mortgage-servicing subsidiaries were caught taking shortcuts and generally acting too hastily when foreclosing on homeowners. Warren shared some ideas with the AGs while they were working out those agreements--which makes sense, given that consumer protection is her expertise and there’s no rule against a federal official giving advice to a state official who seeks it. But the Republicans who oppose her see this as proof her agency has run amok. Spencer Bachus, the Alabama Republican who now chairs the Financial Services Committee, described Warren’s brainchild as “the most powerful agency ever created.”
Congressman Barney Frank remembers the first time he and his colleagues on the Financial Services Committee debated the idea of a new agency to serve as a kind of product-safety commission for mortgages, credit cards, and other financial products. This was in the fall of 2009, when the Democrats still ran the House and he still served as chair of that powerful committee. Warren hadn’t yet attained national status as a consumer champion, but she was outspoken in her criticisms of the more predatory side of the banking industry.
Republican colleagues on Frank’s committee were hardly keen on this idea of a new regulatory body that monitored the behavior of the banks, debt collectors, and the country’s fringe lenders, but they seemed more intent on ensuring that if such an agency were created, Warren would not be in charge. Scott Garrett, a Republican from New Jersey, even introduced an amendment dictating that the head of this new consumer agency needed to have worked at least one year as a bank employee or a bank regulator. Frank dubbed it “the Elizabeth Warren amendment” because, he told me, “it was written precisely so Elizabeth would not qualify.” Frank recently witnessed more mischief when the House Republicans floated a bill that would have taken away Warren’s salary as the agency’s temporary custodian.
“Who’s Watching the Watchmen,” McHenry dubbed his May hearing. Yet one might ask the same of this four-term congressman, who represents a rural patch of North Carolina. Only a modest portion of McHenry’s campaign contributions come courtesy of anyone who actually lives in his congressional district. His main constituency, at least if his campaign-disclosure forms serve as an accurate stand-in, are the financial institutions and fringe lenders seeking to defang the consumer-protection bureau. The American Bankers Association, Bank of America, and a check-cashing chain based in Florida are among the entities writing McHenry checks for $10,000 or more over the past two years. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan Chase have also been big McHenry contributors. Earlier this year he traveled to the Westin Diplomat Resort & Spa in Hollywood, Florida, to speak at the annual convention of the payday lenders, who make high-interest loans against a person’s next paycheck. In the first three months of 2011, the payday lenders gave McHenry more than $27,000 toward his next election—and it’s fringe players like the check cashers, pawnbrokers, and payday lenders who stand to lose the most in the face of a strong consumer-protection agency. 
Maybe in the end McHenry was simply too eager to please his contributors. Warren scares the bejeebers out of the banks and the fringe lenders, and perhaps he was too willing to take up their cause. Their anger was his. If only Warren had decided to stay and suffer through interrogations from another couple of Republicans, she wouldn’t have to be going through it again so soon. This time she’ll be facing the entire House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform rather than the smaller subcommittee McHenry runs. That means facing a committee of 40, including 27 Republicans. They’ll no doubt ask more or less the same questions and hit on the same talking points: The consumer-protection agency is too powerful, its people aren’t answerable to anyone but themselves. Presumably this time she’ll grin and bear it as she imagines what else she might be doing. 

New Hampshire Executive Council May Reconsider Planned Parenthood Defunding


Author image
by Robin Marty, RH Reality Check
July 12, 2011 - 4:05pm (Print)


The New Hampshire executive council must have gotten a lot of blowback on their comments that women who want to "have a good time" should have to "pay for it."  It appears that they may be reversing their decision to cut off a contract with the state's Planned Parenthood organization -- a contract that was the sole source of free or subsidized birth control for many women in the state.
Blog for Choice reports:
The Executive Council will meet again tomorrow, and could reconsider its vote to defund Planned Parenthood. If you live in New Hampshire, take action through our affiliate.
And not a moment too soon: Nick Toumpas, New Hampshire's commissioner of health and human services, said that cuts to family-planning funding put the state at risk of losing federal dollars.
So tomorrow will be a test of how far these politicians want to take their attacks on women's health care.

Let's see if the public outcry will be enough to sway them.

Michelle Obama and Betty Ford: How One Used Her Power and the Other Still Could



Author image
by Rebecca Sive, The Sive Group, Inc. www.rebeccasive.com
July 12, 2011 - 12:48pm (Print)


“What is not debatable is that Betty Ford’s tenure as First Lady was the last time in American politics that someone in that role could inspire bi-partisan admiration—even while expressing her own political views.  American politics has become so polarized, and the culture wars so fierce, that First Ladies can only be broadly liked if they suppress their own views on controversial matters. Betty Ford’s passing reminds us of what has been lost in our political culture.” 
While I agree with Carol Joffe “…that [today] First Ladies can only be broadly liked if they suppress their own views on controversial matters,” I’m perplexed at the suggestion that being “broadly liked” is a sufficient standard of review, as well as by Joffe’s apparent assertion that this need for First Ladies to be bland is something new. It isn’t.
She could have been bland, and, consequently, “broadly liked,” but she wasn’t.  Instead, Roosevelt understood the needs of her times, and the power of the First Lady’s bully pulpit, and chose otherwise.
In fact, every First Lady has the opportunity to define the role. Yes, for Betty Ford, there was Pat Nixon, but there was also Eleanor Roosevelt. 
Fortunately for the rest of us, Betty Ford chose Eleanor Roosevelt.  
As a result of making this choice, today we remember Betty Ford as a political leader of the first American rank: Great political leader, not great First Lady, because she chose, as First Lady, to use her bully pulpit to advocate to make life better for American women, to advocate for nothing less than our equality.
Yes, Betty Ford was fortunate that she was “broadly liked,” notwithstanding her political views, but the fact is that she wouldn’t have done what she did, and said what she said, if she had been worried about being liked. She wasn’t, and so she said what she said, and did what she did, for the rest of us.
Besides, I don’t think the “being broadly liked” standard of review is sufficient to the need in these dark days, if it ever was. Certainly, it wasn’t in Betty Ford’s 1970’s, post-Roe v. Wade America, when we were battling to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to secure our equality.
I repeat:  Fact is, Betty Ford had a choice then, just as Michelle Obama does now.
Yes, childhood obesity and the plight of military families are significant problems that plague America. But they are not our main problems. The main problem today-- in Michelle Obama’s First Lady time-- is just the same as it was in Betty Ford’s First Lady time: American’s women’s lack of equal access to opportunity.
Yes, it’s a good thing that Michelle Obama is so widely admired, but she could be so much more, especially for the millions of downtrodden American women, including those who lack adequate reproductive health care and access to abortion. Why can’t she be a political leader of the sort First Lady Betty Ford was?   How to think about this on this day when Michelle Obama joins Betty Ford’s family to mourn a First Lady who had American women’s equality and reproductive rights first in her heart, mind and speech all the time?
Rightly so, President Obama is fond of telling us how gifted First Lady Michelle Obama is.
Indeed: She is as well-educated as he is; she is equally compelling as a public speaker; she is equally accomplished professionally; and, when younger, she was as committed as he was to a career devoted to securing equality and social justice.
I first met Michelle Obama twenty years ago when she asked me to join the board of directors of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies.  What a treat it was to hear her speak of her dreams of social justice and equality. I’m missing that Michelle Obama right now.
As I was thinking about Betty Ford’s advocacy for abortion rights, I went back to read the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, rendered when Betty Ford was the spouse of one of the most important Members of the U.S. Congress. It’s easy to imagine Betty and Jerry Ford, who shared the same view on abortion rights, sitting at that suburban Virginia breakfast table, discussing the section of the decision I quote below: 
“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is…is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”
I imagine that Michelle Obama read that same paragraph while at Harvard Law School. I imagine that it resonated with her, just as it did with Betty Ford.  After all, for Michelle Obama, this Fourteenth-Amendment cornerstone of the Roe decision was the very same Fourteenth Amendment that freed her slave ancestors.
I am very grateful for these two inspiring First Ladies, Michelle Obama and Betty Ford. I am very grateful for these two American girls whose heartland families instilled such high ambitions in their daughters. They are both terrific role models for the rest of us, both testaments to the power of working hard and persevering to achieve for oneself and in order to help others.
But it sure would be wonderful if Michelle Obama, First Lady, were able to be like Betty Ford, First Lady, in yet another way:  To be an unabashed advocate for equality for American women, including women who need to choose abortion.