NEW YORK TIMES
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
The abortion compromise in the Senate has angered advocates on both sides of the issue. Senator Ben Nelson, the Nebraska Democrat, had been holding up the Senate health care bill until he was satisfied with new anti-abortion language, which was made public on Saturday by the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.
The National Right to Life Committee (pro-life) issued a statement saying it “strongly opposes” the abortion language. The National Organization for Women (pro-choice) also issued a statement strongly opposing the language. And in a second statement, more heated and personal, Terry O’Neill, president of NOW, said she was outraged that the Senate Democratic leadership “would cave in to Senator Ben Nelson.” “Right-wing ideologues like Nelson and the Catholic Bishops may not understand this, but abortion is health care,” Ms. O’Neill said. “And health care reform is not true reform if it denies women coverage for the full range of reproductive health services.” If this language stays in the bill as is, she said, she would call on senators “who consider themselves friends of women’s rights” to vote against “this cruelly over-compromised legislation.”
But two of the Senate’s champions of abortion rights, Senators Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, and Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, issued a joint statement saying they were satisfied with the agreement. But the assurances of Ms. Boxer and Ms. Murray were not enough for some abortion-rights supporters.
Kelli Conlin, president of the National Institute for Reproductive Health, issued a statement saying: “While we recognize the efforts of our pro-choice women senators to combat the onerous conditions upon which Stupak and Nelson have insisted, we are frankly horrified by the shameful process that has allowed two men to hold American women hostage.” The reference in addition to Mr. Nelson was to Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan, who framed the anti-abortion language in the House.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the right-to-life group, said that the new abortion language “solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems.”
At the same time, NOW said the measure would “effectively make abortion coverage unavailable in health insurance exchanges and, ultimately, in private insurance policies as well.”
Monday, December 21, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Illegal Immigrant Students Publicly Take Up a Cause
NEW YORK TIMES
It has not been easy for the Obama administration to deport Rigoberto Padilla, a Mexican-born college student in Chicago who has been an illegal immigrant in this country since he was 6.
Mr. Padilla’s case had seemed straightforward to immigration agents who detained him for deportation in January after he was arrested by the Chicago police for running a stop sign and charged with driving under the influence. But since then, students held two street rallies on his behalf and sent thousands of e-mail messages and faxes to Congress. The Chicago City Council passed a resolution calling for a stay of his deportation and five members of Congress from Illinois came out in support of his cause. One of them was Representative Jan Schakowsky, a Democrat, who offered a private bill to cancel his removal.
Behind Mr. Padilla’s case — and others in Florida of students who fought off deportation — is activism by young immigrants, many of them illegal, which has become increasingly public and coordinated across the country, linked by Web sites, text messages and a network of advocacy groups. Spurred by President Obama’s promises of legislation to grant them legal status, and frustration that their lives have stalled without it, young illegal immigrants are joining street protests despite the risk of being identified by immigration agents.
With many illegal immigrants lying low to avoid a continuing crackdown, immigrant students have become the most visible supporters of a legislative overhaul, which Mr. Obama has pledged to take up early next year. In the meantime, their protests are awkward for the administration, with young, often high-achieving illegal immigrants asking defiantly why the authorities continue to detain and deport them. “Maybe our parents feel like immigrants, but we feel like Americans because we have been raised here on American values,” said Carlos Saavedra, national coordinator of a network of current and former students called United We Dream. “Then we go to college and we find out we are rejected by the American system. But we are not willing to accept that answer,” said Mr. Saavedra, 23, a Peruvian who lived here illegally until he gained legal status two years ago.
The students’ goal is to gain passage of legislation that would give permanent resident status to illegal immigrants who had been brought to the United States before they were 15, if they have been here for at least five years, have graduated from high school and attend college or serve in the military for two years. Known to its supporters as the Dream Act, it has been offered in the Senate by Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, and Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana. Proponents now consider it part of a package that includes a path to legal status for illegal immigrants in general, an estimated 12 million people.
Many illegal immigrant students who were brought to the United States as children receive a shock when they get ready to go to college. They are generally not eligible for lower in-state tuition rates or government financial aid. In most states they cannot get drivers’ licenses.
The troubles for Mr. Padilla began when he drove home after watching a football game and drinking beer with friends. He ran the stop sign, and the traffic police arrested him because he did not have a driver’s license and had been drinking. Eventually, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Immigration agents found him in the county jail. Mr. Padilla, now enrolled at the University of Illinois at Chicago, had no prior record and had been an honors student and president of the Latino student organization at Harold Washington College, which he attended for two years. Friends from both schools mobilized after his arrest.
“The undocumented youth are losing our fear of being undocumented,” said Carlos Roa, an illegal immigrant student from Venezuela who joined that rally. “I’m public with this. I’m not hiding anymore.”
It has not been easy for the Obama administration to deport Rigoberto Padilla, a Mexican-born college student in Chicago who has been an illegal immigrant in this country since he was 6.
Mr. Padilla’s case had seemed straightforward to immigration agents who detained him for deportation in January after he was arrested by the Chicago police for running a stop sign and charged with driving under the influence. But since then, students held two street rallies on his behalf and sent thousands of e-mail messages and faxes to Congress. The Chicago City Council passed a resolution calling for a stay of his deportation and five members of Congress from Illinois came out in support of his cause. One of them was Representative Jan Schakowsky, a Democrat, who offered a private bill to cancel his removal.
Behind Mr. Padilla’s case — and others in Florida of students who fought off deportation — is activism by young immigrants, many of them illegal, which has become increasingly public and coordinated across the country, linked by Web sites, text messages and a network of advocacy groups. Spurred by President Obama’s promises of legislation to grant them legal status, and frustration that their lives have stalled without it, young illegal immigrants are joining street protests despite the risk of being identified by immigration agents.
With many illegal immigrants lying low to avoid a continuing crackdown, immigrant students have become the most visible supporters of a legislative overhaul, which Mr. Obama has pledged to take up early next year. In the meantime, their protests are awkward for the administration, with young, often high-achieving illegal immigrants asking defiantly why the authorities continue to detain and deport them. “Maybe our parents feel like immigrants, but we feel like Americans because we have been raised here on American values,” said Carlos Saavedra, national coordinator of a network of current and former students called United We Dream. “Then we go to college and we find out we are rejected by the American system. But we are not willing to accept that answer,” said Mr. Saavedra, 23, a Peruvian who lived here illegally until he gained legal status two years ago.
The students’ goal is to gain passage of legislation that would give permanent resident status to illegal immigrants who had been brought to the United States before they were 15, if they have been here for at least five years, have graduated from high school and attend college or serve in the military for two years. Known to its supporters as the Dream Act, it has been offered in the Senate by Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, and Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana. Proponents now consider it part of a package that includes a path to legal status for illegal immigrants in general, an estimated 12 million people.
Many illegal immigrant students who were brought to the United States as children receive a shock when they get ready to go to college. They are generally not eligible for lower in-state tuition rates or government financial aid. In most states they cannot get drivers’ licenses.
The troubles for Mr. Padilla began when he drove home after watching a football game and drinking beer with friends. He ran the stop sign, and the traffic police arrested him because he did not have a driver’s license and had been drinking. Eventually, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Immigration agents found him in the county jail. Mr. Padilla, now enrolled at the University of Illinois at Chicago, had no prior record and had been an honors student and president of the Latino student organization at Harold Washington College, which he attended for two years. Friends from both schools mobilized after his arrest.
“The undocumented youth are losing our fear of being undocumented,” said Carlos Roa, an illegal immigrant student from Venezuela who joined that rally. “I’m public with this. I’m not hiding anymore.”
Monday, December 14, 2009
Obama accepts Nobel Peace Prize
STAR/TRIBUNE
OSLO, NORWAY - President Obama delivered an impassioned rationale for war in accepting the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace on Thursday, a paradox that he acknowledged even as he defended America's record abroad in promoting human rights, individual freedom and global security.
Obama's remarks offered a lofty, ideological justification for his decision to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and his audience reached beyond the vaulted ceilings of Oslo City Hall to electorates in the United States and Europe, where many believe the war is no longer worth fighting.
While the president invoked Martin Luther King Jr. and called himself "living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence," Obama also recalled the advance of Adolf Hitler's army during World War II to argue that, sometimes, only force can resolve injustice and protect civilian lives.
Obama also used the speech to acknowledge the criticism that, less than a year into his presidency, he is undeserving of a prize that has been given to "Schweitzer and King, Marshall and Mandela." After receiving the award with "great gratitude and great humility," Obama reminded the audience that he is "at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage" and cited rights activists around the world who "have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice."
Obama spoke candidly to an audience full of officials representing countries deeply opposed to the Afghan conflict. He did not receive applause until more than halfway through his speech -- and even then not for his defense of "just war" but for his decision to close the military brig at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and prohibit torture.
Obama also explained that if there is a just war, there must also be a just peace. That, too, requires rules. "First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something," he said.
The Nobel Prize for Peace consists of a diploma and a gold medal bearing the etched face of Alfred Nobel, the wealthy chemist and inventor of dynamite who endowed the prize more than a century ago. It carries a $1.4 million cash award, which the White House has said Obama will donate to charity. First Lady Michelle Obama listened to her husband's words and showed tears by the end.
OSLO, NORWAY - President Obama delivered an impassioned rationale for war in accepting the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace on Thursday, a paradox that he acknowledged even as he defended America's record abroad in promoting human rights, individual freedom and global security.
Obama's remarks offered a lofty, ideological justification for his decision to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and his audience reached beyond the vaulted ceilings of Oslo City Hall to electorates in the United States and Europe, where many believe the war is no longer worth fighting.
While the president invoked Martin Luther King Jr. and called himself "living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence," Obama also recalled the advance of Adolf Hitler's army during World War II to argue that, sometimes, only force can resolve injustice and protect civilian lives.
Obama also used the speech to acknowledge the criticism that, less than a year into his presidency, he is undeserving of a prize that has been given to "Schweitzer and King, Marshall and Mandela." After receiving the award with "great gratitude and great humility," Obama reminded the audience that he is "at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage" and cited rights activists around the world who "have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice."
Obama spoke candidly to an audience full of officials representing countries deeply opposed to the Afghan conflict. He did not receive applause until more than halfway through his speech -- and even then not for his defense of "just war" but for his decision to close the military brig at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and prohibit torture.
Obama also explained that if there is a just war, there must also be a just peace. That, too, requires rules. "First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something," he said.
The Nobel Prize for Peace consists of a diploma and a gold medal bearing the etched face of Alfred Nobel, the wealthy chemist and inventor of dynamite who endowed the prize more than a century ago. It carries a $1.4 million cash award, which the White House has said Obama will donate to charity. First Lady Michelle Obama listened to her husband's words and showed tears by the end.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Hacked emails cause climate change questions
THE DAILY COLLEGIAN
British police are investigating the theft of hundreds of private e-mails -- some from a Penn State professor -- that were leaked last week by hackers, causing a commotion over whether scientists have exaggerated the effects of man-made climate change. But the professor in question, Penn State meteorology professor Michael Mann, said Friday the e-mails have been taken out of context.
Hackers accessed the e-mails two weeks ago from a server at the University of East Anglia in eastern England, a climate change research center.
The Associated Press reported that some "climate change skeptics" say the leaked documents suggest scientists exaggerated information and manipulated data regarding global warming. But Mann said he and his colleagues used a lot of "understood" language in their e-mail conversations that might not translate to outside readers.
Mann said many of the e-mails that were released were ones he received, not ones that he sent. One of the e-mails from a colleague references a paper Mann wrote that discusses two separate data sets spanning two separate periods of time. Combined, these data display long-term climate changes.
The Associated Press reported that the center's director, Phil Jones, e-mailed his colleagues to say he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Jones confirmed this was accurate, the Associated Press reports, but the "Keith" in reference could not be identified.
The data is clearly labeled and nothing is hidden, Mann said. But he said the word "trick" -- which, to the scientists, meant "a clever device" to understand the data -- has been distorted by some people in an attempt to allege climate change researchers were manipulating the data. The words have been taken out of context, Mann said.
British police are investigating the theft of hundreds of private e-mails -- some from a Penn State professor -- that were leaked last week by hackers, causing a commotion over whether scientists have exaggerated the effects of man-made climate change. But the professor in question, Penn State meteorology professor Michael Mann, said Friday the e-mails have been taken out of context.
Hackers accessed the e-mails two weeks ago from a server at the University of East Anglia in eastern England, a climate change research center.
The Associated Press reported that some "climate change skeptics" say the leaked documents suggest scientists exaggerated information and manipulated data regarding global warming. But Mann said he and his colleagues used a lot of "understood" language in their e-mail conversations that might not translate to outside readers.
Mann said many of the e-mails that were released were ones he received, not ones that he sent. One of the e-mails from a colleague references a paper Mann wrote that discusses two separate data sets spanning two separate periods of time. Combined, these data display long-term climate changes.
The Associated Press reported that the center's director, Phil Jones, e-mailed his colleagues to say he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Jones confirmed this was accurate, the Associated Press reports, but the "Keith" in reference could not be identified.
The data is clearly labeled and nothing is hidden, Mann said. But he said the word "trick" -- which, to the scientists, meant "a clever device" to understand the data -- has been distorted by some people in an attempt to allege climate change researchers were manipulating the data. The words have been taken out of context, Mann said.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Los Angeles Episcopalians elect lesbian bishop
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Los Angeles Episcopalians elected an openly lesbian bishop late Saturday, the denomination's news service reported.
The Rev. Mary Douglas Glasspool, 55, will become the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church since Gene Robinson took office in New Hampshire in 2004, if she is formally approved.
Conservative factions in the Anglican Communion -- a 77-million member denomination worldwide, with the Episcopal Church as its U.S. branch -- have opposed the ordination of gay bishops.
Glasspool's election is the first choice of an openly gay bishop since the church ended an agreement designed to keep the worldwide Anglican Communion from tearing itself apart. In the wake of the Robinson controversy, Episcopalians called a temporary halt to appointing any more openly gay bishops, to give the church time to hammer out a compromise. They voted this summer not to renew the ban.
Glasspool, now based in Baltimore at the Diocese of Maryland, is the first openly gay candidate elected bishop since then. The Diocese of Minnesota considered an openly gay candidate for bishop in October, but chose another priest when votes were cast.
Some Episcopal leaders reacted angrily to Glasspool's election. The Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon, canon theologian from the Diocese of South Carolina, said the election "represents an intransigent embrace of a pattern of life Christians throughout history and the world have rejected as against biblical teaching," according to the Episcopal Church site.
Glasspool also becomes the second woman bishop in the 114-year history of the diocese -- elected only hours after the first, the Rev. Diane Jardine Bruce, 53. She is the 17th woman elected as an Episcopal bishop nationwide, according to the diocese Web site. Her partner, Becki Sander, recently earned a doctorate in social work.
Glasspool, who has been ordained a priest for 27 years, is the daughter of an Episcopal priest, the diocese said.
The Rev. Mary Douglas Glasspool, 55, will become the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church since Gene Robinson took office in New Hampshire in 2004, if she is formally approved.
Conservative factions in the Anglican Communion -- a 77-million member denomination worldwide, with the Episcopal Church as its U.S. branch -- have opposed the ordination of gay bishops.
Glasspool's election is the first choice of an openly gay bishop since the church ended an agreement designed to keep the worldwide Anglican Communion from tearing itself apart. In the wake of the Robinson controversy, Episcopalians called a temporary halt to appointing any more openly gay bishops, to give the church time to hammer out a compromise. They voted this summer not to renew the ban.
Glasspool, now based in Baltimore at the Diocese of Maryland, is the first openly gay candidate elected bishop since then. The Diocese of Minnesota considered an openly gay candidate for bishop in October, but chose another priest when votes were cast.
Some Episcopal leaders reacted angrily to Glasspool's election. The Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon, canon theologian from the Diocese of South Carolina, said the election "represents an intransigent embrace of a pattern of life Christians throughout history and the world have rejected as against biblical teaching," according to the Episcopal Church site.
Glasspool also becomes the second woman bishop in the 114-year history of the diocese -- elected only hours after the first, the Rev. Diane Jardine Bruce, 53. She is the 17th woman elected as an Episcopal bishop nationwide, according to the diocese Web site. Her partner, Becki Sander, recently earned a doctorate in social work.
Glasspool, who has been ordained a priest for 27 years, is the daughter of an Episcopal priest, the diocese said.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Obama to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
STAR/TRIBUNE
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and HELENE COOPER
WEST POINT, N.Y. - President Obama announced Tuesday that he would speed 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in coming months, but he vowed to start bringing U.S. forces home in the middle of 2011. He said that the United States could not afford an open-ended commitment and that it was time for Afghans to take more responsibility for their country.
Saying he could "bring this war to a successful conclusion," Obama set out a strategy that would seek to reverse Taliban gains in large parts of Afghanistan, protect the Afghan people from attacks, provide time for Afghanistan to build its own military capacity and a more effective government and increase pressure on Al-Qaida in Pakistan.
"I see firsthand the terrible ravages of war," Obama told 4,000 cadets, in a somber speech at the United States Military Academy. "If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow. So no, I do not make this decision lightly."
The speech at West Point, the culmination of a review that lasted three months, could well prove the most consequential of Obama's presidency. In it, he sought to convince an increasingly skeptical nation that the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the continued existence of Al-Qaida across the border in Pakistan were direct threats to U.S. security, and that he could achieve the seemingly contradictory goals of expanding American involvement in the war even as he sought to bring it responsibly to a close.
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and HELENE COOPER
WEST POINT, N.Y. - President Obama announced Tuesday that he would speed 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in coming months, but he vowed to start bringing U.S. forces home in the middle of 2011. He said that the United States could not afford an open-ended commitment and that it was time for Afghans to take more responsibility for their country.
Saying he could "bring this war to a successful conclusion," Obama set out a strategy that would seek to reverse Taliban gains in large parts of Afghanistan, protect the Afghan people from attacks, provide time for Afghanistan to build its own military capacity and a more effective government and increase pressure on Al-Qaida in Pakistan.
"I see firsthand the terrible ravages of war," Obama told 4,000 cadets, in a somber speech at the United States Military Academy. "If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow. So no, I do not make this decision lightly."
The speech at West Point, the culmination of a review that lasted three months, could well prove the most consequential of Obama's presidency. In it, he sought to convince an increasingly skeptical nation that the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the continued existence of Al-Qaida across the border in Pakistan were direct threats to U.S. security, and that he could achieve the seemingly contradictory goals of expanding American involvement in the war even as he sought to bring it responsibly to a close.