‘Vegas’: Is Dennis Quaid finally home on the range?

Image Credit: Lorey Sebastian/CBS

If you’re going to launch a new TV show around a face, you could do a lot worse than Dennis Quaid’s twisted scowl underneath a cowboy hat. In Vegas, which premiered last night on CBS, Quaid plays a wily cattle rancher whose way of life in 1960 Las Vegas is threatened as the Strip’s neon lights get brighter and brighter. Michael Chiklis’s cityslick gangster-slash-casino-mogul took a back seat in the premiere, as Quaid’s Ralph Lamb — a savvy Army sleuth in his younger days — is recruited by his old pal, the mayor of Vegas, to solve the murder of a pretty young casino employee. By the end of the episode, Lamb proves his mettle with his fists, his shotgun, and his noodle. Presto: He’s the city’s new sheriff.

That badge is likely to set him on a collision course with Chiklis’s Vincent Savino, who comes to fix some bugs in his casino operation and stake his claim on the booming city. Savino couldn’t help but be impressed by Lamb at first, though — the good ol’ boy barely flinched after being popped in the face by an airport goon and recovered to dispatch three younger men with his fists. Lamb and Savino might be on different sides of the law, but the mobster would likely admit that the cowboy is his kind of guy. Nevertheless, Savino’s hands are dirty, and when he tells a confidante at the end of the pilot, “I’ll handle [Lamb] when the time comes,” there’s no doubting his conviction.

Quaid’s shift to television will be interesting to follow — especially because his movie career remains as busy as ever. His days of carrying big studio films might be over, but the last 10 years have produced some of his best performances, including Far From Heaven, In Good Company, and HBO’s The Special Relationship. Yet he’s never fully been appreciated for his work on film — zero Oscar nominations — and seeing him in his cowboy duds made me think Sheriff Ralph Lamb might be a natural fit that could turn in to a long-term gig.

Of course, he’s not the first (or 30th) male movie star to make the transition from screen to tube. Alec Baldwin and Steve Buscemi nailed it. Christian Slater and Josh Lucas, not so much. The pilot for Vegas didn’t exactly show its hand last night — it seemed content with simply solving a color-by-numbers CBS murder mystery in order to establish Lamb’s credentials. Future episodes will likely delve into the murky underbelly of the casinos and hopefully depict the shifting relationship between two wary rivals. With some luck, Quaid will find himself home on the range for more than one season.

What did you think of the premiere? What do you think of Dennis Quaid, TV Star?

Read more:
Fall TV: Dramas we’re tuning in for
Which familiar face are you most looking forward to seeing this fall?

View the original article here

‘Dancing With the Stars’: Eliminated pair is….

Update: Annie’s recap is live.

Spoiler ahead! Pitbull’s glowsticks rave and Justin Bieber’s so-not-fetch attempt to introduce leather MC Hammer pants into the ballroom have concluded. After a two-hour results special on DWTS: All-Stars premiere week, one of 13 Sparkalien couples has been cast off of Planet Mirrorballus. ‘Tis a cruel and unusual society they’ve got going on up there. The two eliminated dancers on Week 1 are…..

Pamela Anderson and Tristan MacManus.

Drew Lachey and Anna Trebunskaya joined Pam and Tristan in the bottom two.

No brainer, right? But poor Tristan!

Kirstie Alley in heat and Tom Bergeron in cigarette-miming cool-down mode would like to encourage you to appraise EW.com’s Hidden Gems of the ‘All-Stars’ premiere!

Stay tuned for my full recap later on. Here it is!

https://twitter.com/EWAnnieBarrett

Read more:
‘DWTS’ premiere recap: All-Stars Deserve Half-Points
Your Hidden Gems of the ‘All-Stars’ premiere!
Conrad Green helps Annie size up the ‘All-Stars’ — PHOTO GALLERY

Video reply time! Ask Annie anything about ‘DWTS’ — or whatever — below.

View the original article here

‘The New Normal’ episode 4: Let’s talk about how not racist we are!

Tonight Bryan (Andrew Rannells) and David (Justin Bartha) threw a dinner party to prove to Nana (Ellen Barkin) that they have black friends. Which would mean they’re not racist. She said they were racist for voting for Obama because he’s black, even though they don’t have black friends. And as far as I could tell, they weren’t saying they’d vote for Obama because he’s black. I think they were planning on voting for him for other reasons, but if they realized that, there wouldn’t have been an episode so let’s just go with it.

Anyway, they figured they’d get the nasty Nana whose family has been voting Republican since the Lincoln-era by proving her wrong. So Bryan said some kind of funny, kind of intentionally racist stuff (“He’s of a hue,” about Amir, an Indian friend; “Maybe we can get the cast of Treme to come. I sat next to them at the Golden Globes last year.”)  and invited his black assistant Rocky  (NeNe Leakes, fabulous as ever) to a party to be attended by a Republican — which, in Ryan Murphy’s world, is clearly synonymous with the devil. Only problem is that no black people showed up. Even Rocky just brought white friends (or, as Bryan hoped they were, “black albinos.” He was hoping for “less Bronte, more Pointer.”). ”It’s just that the blond imperial wizard is coming and everyone here is whiter than any woman who’s had Ambien sex with Tiger Woods,” Bryan said.

The dinner party had lots of fun party conversation involving topics like “affordable health care,” “a woman’s right to choose,” and “personal responsibility.” Fun! Fun! Sounds like some people prepped for their dinner party conversation by reading every page of the Democratic and Republican party websites. The one actual non-employee black guest was Rocky’s hottie brother who had a thing for Goldie. And hold on to your stereotypes, viewers! He’s a Republican. (In an earlier cut of this episode, Nana says to him, “You’re like the Loch Ness monster with an Afro.” And who said there were no wise censors?) Then Nana did some really evil (evil-evil, not Republican evil) stuff and tricked Bryan and David into revealing that Goldie is carrying their baby, because that’s the only way Nana could think of keeping Goldie from dating a black man.

All in all, another Issue-filled episode from this Issue-filled series. I’m pretty sure I got what they were going for, but you never know. They say so many racist things to prove that they’re not really racist. Or maybe they are and it doesn’t matter. Or maybe it does and they’re not. Or forget race, just vote. And don’t tell anyone who you’re voting for unless you’re voting for Obama. All I know is the last line of the episode (when the black husband to an Asian-American wife said, “This is perfect! We were just saying we needed some gay friends”) was kind of genius. And I’m starting to feel bad for Ellen Barkin for signing on to this sitcom. It’s one thing to play a Jack Donaghy-esque parody. It’s another to play just a downright mean person. Not much she does would be considered funny were it not on a sitcom.

What do you all think? Can you believe NBC aired such a pro-Obama episode? Do you wish Ryan Murphy would go for more laughs and fewer Lessons? Do you miss Shania’s Little Edie?

View the original article here

Famous friends team up for Joey Ramone video ‘New York City’ — Watch now

Joey Ramone‘s been dead for more than a decade but his legacy lives on — literally. All sorts of fans, friends, and celebrities have teamed up in a new video for his hometown anthem “New York City.” Shot by filmmaker Greg Jardin, the stop-motion video features appearances from the likes of Andrew W.K., Matt & Kim, comedians Kristen Schaal and Scott Adsit, and foodie-troubadour Anthony Bourdain. It’s a loving tribute to one of punk’s most prominent figures.

A deluxe edition of Joey’s final solo record, …Ya Know?, will be released Nov. 23 on BMG.

Watch the video after the jump.

Read More

Frank Ocean plays NYC synagogue, releases new song ‘Blue Whale’: Hear it here
50 Best High School Movies
Julie Andrews, Dolly Parton, the Ramones among Grammy lifetime achievement honoree

View the original article here

‘New Girl’ season 2 premiere: Cast, away!

Image Credit: Adam Taylor/Fox

Raise your glasses and take off your penis casts, Newbies! Jess and her band of misfit boys are back! Last night’s double barrel premiere saw all the highs and lows of a quirky, button-nosed rollercoaster, from fire dancing to thwarted bathroom sex. Now to it!

The first ep, “Re-launch” rightly centered on Schmidt’s genitalia — old and unimproved, but no longer broken! Upon getting his cast removed, he rushed to host a “re-branding event,” and the theme would be “Danger” (perhaps inadvisable considering the party was about his penis). Nonetheless, it was on, and he planned to invite all the usual suspects — his urologist, badminton partner, and financial planner, plus Philip Seymour Hoffman, the ladies from Lululemon, “a guy who once wrote for a little show called Crank Yankers,” and, oh yeah, Cece. (More on that later.)

But amidst this celebration, there was some bad news: Jess was laid off, despite spending the summer tutoring a kid named Vaj Rijuv and not laughing once (not once!). While fielding the guys’ creepy sympathy faces, she seriously entertained the idea of allowing a hospital to infect her with dengue fever for a quick buck but ultimately appointed herself Schmidt’s party planner, largely based on her complete availability and her ability to make “any kind of balloon animal — as long as it’s a worm… or a snake.” She was quickly shut down, though Schmidt would offer her the chance to be his second-string shot girl. This is where Nick came in to disqualify Jess for not having “that specific hotness that shames men into spending $9 on a $2 shot.”

At Nick’s challenge, Jess made a mission of becoming the hottest shot girl in the world (or at least Nick’s bar). This notion instantly struck fear into Schmidt’s heart — and rightly. She adopted a stripper name of Ivy and affected a “sexy” whisper voice that could have convinced most medical professionals she was suffering from an obstructed airway. Mostly, though, she just looked like the bastard lovechild of a 1930s cigar girl and Columbia from Rocky Horror. Apparently the teeny tiny silver top hat she got as a layoff consolation gift qualified as “hot.” (For his part, Nick likened her outfit to a turn-of-the-century bathing costume.)

Meanwhile, the ”26-year-old” first-string shot girl Casey (Parker Posey) came with a long list of demands (“I don’t work with amateurs. I don’t split tips. If things get a little freaky in here, I’m out the door because I’m a little diabetic, and I don’t need a hassle. And also, I do accept payment in the form of whip-its — because I’ve got a Ph.D.”) She was, of course, way better than Jess at shot girl-ing, for a variety of reasons, not least of which because Jess took to asking people questions while pouring liquor down their gullets.

Posey’s role was sort of a head-scratcher. Maybe she’s being tested as a temporary (albeit missing-half-her-brain) love interest for Schmidt? You see, Schmidt and Cece are still very much broken up, with no signs of reuniting (their continued charming rapport notwithstanding). You see, Cece found a new fellow named Robbie who at first blush was not only the anti-Schmidt but also the anti-any-girl-would-want this. Physically? Schmidt referred to him as “the one shaped like the Liberty Bell.” Financially? Schmidt called him “the commoner.” Though he did speculate that Robbie must be “workin’ with a real piece of pipe”… because why else would Cece date him? It certainly wasn’t the dance moves or the conversational verve. Despite Robbie’s drip-itude and Schmidt’s truly epic failure of a fire-spinning routine (in khakis!), it was Robbie — not Schmidt — who left the party with Cece. And so back to Ms. Posey. Perhaps she’ll yet be on the receiving end of some Schmidt cheese metaphors? Or perhaps she was just called in to be Parker Posey for a little bit. That remains to be seen.

What is clear is that Jess is not cut out for the high-stakes life of a shot girl. Just when she really got into the spirit of things and executed a hilariously Jess-y jazz-hand-and-kickline-punctuated bar dance to LMFAO’s “Put Your Ass to Work,” Jess realized she didn’t have enough emotional distance from her teaching career to start her next chapter, and Nick gave a great tough love pep talk (even if the shots about her “plywood ass” went too far). In related news, I can officially confirm that their chemistry is still sizzling. I did appreciate that the season started with them firmly as friends so as not to force the development of their relationship too quickly, but must we have been taunted with no less than three almost-kiss moments?

Final mini-arc from “Relaunch”: Winston gets “naughty” — and very Randy Watson- esque – when he indulges in Nick’s specialty fruit cocktails. We’re talking “Groove Is in the Heart”-singing naughty. Then again, Nick is that kind of naughty while soberly taking his morning, so….

NEXT: “Katie knows how the sausage gets made”

View the original article here

Ann Romney on ‘Tonight Show’: ‘This is a guy that I know cares’

Image Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Making her first late-night talk show appearance, Ann Romney stopped by The Tonight Show with Jay Leno last night. Unfortunately, there wasn’t Beyonce love, but there was plenty of talk about Mitt.

The wife of Gov. Mitt Romney seemed a bit nervous for her big debut, but Leno guided her through her remarks, as she first spoke about the emergency landing her plane had to make last week. Leno asked her about Romney’s odd-seeming comment,”[airplane] windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that.” The audience laughed, but Mrs. Romney just said that of course he didn’t mean it seriously, and that was just his was of showing that he was worried and he cared.

Romney Cares! could easily have been the theme of the interview. Beyond the airplane comments, Mrs. Romeny emphasized how much her husband cares about America — particularly needed in light of Romney’s now-infamous “47% comment” caught on video. Asked specifically about the tape, Ann said, “This is  a guy that I know cares. …We care about the 100%,” and “There are two things [I know]: He cares, and he’s competent.”

In the second segment, Mrs. Romney spoke a little bit more about her and Gov. Romney’s 43-year marriage (the couple met in high school), sharing that, “He’s a workaholic at work, and when he comes home he’s a playaholic [when their children were growing up].”

Interestingly, Leno brought up the couple’s Mormon beliefs, asking what it would mean for America if elected. “I love the fact that we have the first African-American President,” she said. “That means to me that we’re leaving prejudices behind. If Mitt were elected, that would mean more of the same.”

This post will be updated with video from the appearance once available.

Read more: 
Obama’s and Romney’s ’60 Minutes’ interviews were a disaster and a triumph — or vice versa
President and First Lady visit ‘The View,’ talk jobs, marriage, and their first kiss
All five Romney sons appear on ‘Conan’, share that Mitt Romney is a prankster

View the original article here

‘Dancing With the Stars’: Your Hidden Gems of the ‘All-Stars’ premiere!

Studies have shown that Hidden Gems of the Week, EW.com’s collection of reader-submitted ridiculata, is the best way to enjoy Dancing With the Stars without ever having to turn it on. It’s a visual feast of sparkles, fringe, and stunning awkwardness. Ready to go down the rabbit hole? Behold this bountiful smattering of Visible Gems!

MOST VALUABLE GEM (MVG) OF THE WEEK

“Pam’s eye roll/hair twirl when the camera focused on Bristol.” –gigi, endorsed by JAYBES, orville1970, AT, Ktbanks, Lorie, Fridgedancer, johoallen, daphne99, Wiltasaurus, Jem H

“Doesn’t the leg part of Kym’s full body fringe remind us ladies of what it looks like to take the sweat pants off after a long, cold winter?? ” –Christy Who Never Dances

“Joey Fatone’s F-note on his lapel” –iggy, endorsed by Fridgedancer

“Helio and Chelsea’s handshake before their dance was very reminiscent of the one young Lindsay Lohan did with her butler in The Parent Trap. Hip bumps ftw!” –Ktbanks

“Chelsie looks like one of those Barbie cakes you get at Target….” –gigi

“Bruno saying Helio wasn’t that great tonight, and Chelsie going “OHHH” like Mario when he jumps on a spiky turtle and dies…” –Mickey021496, endorsed by gigi, Wiltasaurus

“Emmitt giving Apolo the death stare in the celebriquarium when he was getting his scores.” –Liz, endorsed by gigi

Tony pinched Tom’s butt!” –Fridgedancer
“Melissa is wearing a bedazzled dog collar.” –DonnaW

NEXT PAGE: Battle of the cute All-Star offspring!

View the original article here

EW’s Bite of the Night: Submit your favorite quote from tonight’s best TV!

The fall TV season is officially underway! As you tune in to your favorite TV shows tonight, we think it’s only fair that YOU decide the night’s best sound bite.

After you’ve watched your favorite shows, submit your choice sound bite in the comments section of this post. Will it be from the series debut of the The Mindy Project (Mindy Kaling is sure to leave you in stitches!)? The series debut of Vegas or the season premiere of NCIS? The series debut of Ben and Kate or the season premiere of Private Practice? Leave us a comment with your favorite quote of the evening or vote for someone else’s by hitting “Like” next to their submission.

We’ll highlight the most-voted quote as our Bite of the Night tomorrow morning, and give due praise to the submitter. Don’t be discouraged if your pick doesn’t win – there’s a whole new batch of TV tomorrow!

Ready, set, go! Let the sound bite hunting commence.

Read more:
EW’s Morning Bites

View the original article here

‘Sons of Anarchy’ react: The death of [SPOILER] is series’ saddest moment

Image Credit: Prashant Gupta/FX

SPOILER ALERT! If you haven’t watched this week’s episode of Sons of Anarchy yet, STOP READING. Sorry, West Coast, we need to start the viewer support group now. 

We all knew someone was dying this hour. According to our Inside TV poll, which counted more than 41,000 votes, 39 percent of fans believed it would be Unser. He was followed by Juice (18%), Tig (16%), Clay (13%), Opie (9%), and Tara (6%).

UPDATE: In the comments, some fans are saying they’re going to stop watching the show because it was Opie, a man who’d already lost a wife and his father because of the club, who leaves behind two kids, and who was beautifully played by Ryan Hurst. But as I argue below, and as other readers are articulating in the comments, his death makes sense. Great showrunners aim to surprise viewers, but they also know that fans have to be able to look back, connect the dots, and think, oh, of course. Kurt Sutter set the stage for Opie’s farewell. You may not have wanted it to be Opie, but were you blindsided? Opie admitted he wasn’t sure he was capable of loving anyone when he gave his ex $20,000 to take care of his children in last week’s episode. He told her he was going out-of-town and wasn’t sure when he’d be back. He soured on the club, but Jax was his best friend — that’s who he wanted to protect when he got himself tossed in jail and then thrown into the death match. Maybe Jax was the only person Opie remembered how to love.

The fact that fans are talking about sobbing and feeling as though they were going to vomit means the loss mattered. That’s what you want from a good show. That’s a drama in its fifth season having the power — and the balls — to destroy you in an epic way. When a turn was earned, as this one was, you mourn the death of the character and celebrate the life in the show. As Pope said, the pain will take Jax to a new level. It had to cut that deep.

Now, back to the recap… 

Once Pope had his sitdown with Jax in the Commander’s office, it would have been a cop-out had it not been one of the guys in jail. Pope gave Jax his terms: he’d be taking half of SAMCRO’s cartel payday from now on ($50,000 a shipment), Tig would get life in prison and suffer accordingly, and one Son would die as retribution for the Niner and the cop they’d killed. Once the Son was dead, the witnesses would recant their stories, the murder charges would be dropped, and Jax would be set free “to earn.”

Jax: Come on, man, I’m not just gonna kill one of my guys.

Pope: [Smiles] Yes, you are. Before the next guard shift. The cost of doing battle.

Jax: I’m not goin’ to war.

Pope: You already in it, son.

The Commander told Jax this needed to go down in solitary and the shift Sergeant would walk him through it. To get all four of our boys in solitary, Jax had them pound on the prisoners with ties to Pope in the yard. Both sides were put in solitary, two to a room. (That’s still solitary? Okay then.) Jax ended up with Opie, who knew Jax was holding back something. Opie heard it when the Sergeant came in to tell Jax whichever Son he picked would be put in “the box” with Pope’s guys to fight until he loses. When Jax admitted to Opie he had no idea how to keep everyone alive, and the two sat there in silence — that’s when I started to tear up. I couldn’t figure a way out for them either.

Jax then told Opie the truth about everything — why Clay had killed Piney and why he couldn’t let Opie kill Clay. Now I was panicking. I kept asking myself why is Jax telling him all this now? Was it because he was going to choose Opie and owed him that much? Because he was going to pick himself? Because he couldn’t ask Opie to help him come up with a solution with this weighing on him? When the Sergeant came back for Jax’s decision, Opie and Jax tried to stall. The Sergeant clubbed Jax in the knee, and Opie made a move — until the Sergeant pulled his gun. “This is my hell, b—-. I make the rules. If you don’t pick which guy fights, I will,” he said. Opie asked Jax what he was going to do. “Pick the guy,” Jax answered.

When Jax and Opie reunited with Chibs and Tig, Jax told them Pope wanted Tig inside forever and one of them dead. Chibs asked how they were going to handle it. “I don’t give a s— who Pope is or how deep his reach is. He doesn’t make that call. We decide our fate,” Jax said. The Sergeant entered with other guards and asked if he or Jax was making the decision. Jax looked at the boys and said, “My call.” He turned and was about to punch the Sergeant when Opie said, “No,” stopped Jax, and headbutted the Sergeant. In my mind, Jax hadn’t chosen himself — he’d told the boys they were taking their chances and fighting the guards, who hadn’t handcuffed them, together. But Opie, who’d seen the Sergeant pull his gun earlier, knew it wouldn’t end well. All four boys could die.

Opie had told Lyla that he wasn’t sure he loved anything anymore when he asked her to watch his kids. In his mind, he was already dead inside, so he was the one who should make the sacrifice (since Pope wouldn’t allow Tig to). Jax loves his kids and Tara; Chibs had nothing to do with this mess. “Throw him in,” the Sergeant said. As Opie was led away, Jax screamed and tried to stop it, but Chibs and Tig held him back. The Sergeant had pulled his gun again. The Sergeant gave Opie a pipe and told him, “Keep it interesting, s—head.” He must have bet that the Son would last longer than a second against Pope’s four men. Jax beat on the glass and called to Opie. “I got this,” Opie said.

In the comments, I would love for everyone to describe your experience watching this next part of the scene unfold. It’ll be therapeutic knowing that at that moment, I wasn’t the only one who not only teared up but also paused, shouted an expletive or two, and picked up a pillow to hold. You can be honest. I’ll admit that I actually left the room, pillow in hand, and paced and whimpered before pressing play again. When I finally resumed watching, I sat as far away as I could from the screen. Opie did okay just long enough to give you the slightest hope. But the biggest guy grabbed him from behind, and another guy punched him and took the pipe. He struck Opie hard in the face, and Opie collapsed as our boys watched. Jax fought back tears, and Chibs beat on the glass wailing. Opie got back up to his knees, ready for his execution, and kept his eyes on Jax. Tig turned his back, he couldn’t watch. The only sound was Opie’s heavy breathing until the swing and the snap of his neck. Chibs again beat on the glass and wailed, but Jax turned to face us. As we saw one of the guys continue to beat Opie’s lifeless body over Jax’s shoulder, Jax’s chin quivered. Was he still fighting back tears or was it from the anger? His eyes had already turned steely. I say the latter.

The Sergeant walked Jax to the Commander’s office. How much control did it take for Jax not to slam that guy’s head into a wall? Instead, Jax warned him: “I’m gettin’ released. There’s nothing you can do to stop that. I’ll find out who you are and where you live, and then I’m gonna kill you.” Not looking at him while he said that made it even more chilling. Pope was waiting for Jax in the office. Stone-cold Jax told Pope there was a new plan. He’d get the club to sign off on splitting their money with Pope, but he wanted Tig on the outside. Knowing Jax saved his life, Tig would be in Jax’s debt, which gives Jax an internal advantage. “And when I’m done, you can send him out the same way you did his kid. ‘Cause I really don’t give a s—,” Jax said.

“There you go,” Pope said. “Finding the hidden advantage in an unfortunate circumstance. Using pain to take you to the next level. Those are the things that turn players into kings.” Now I understand what Kurt Sutter meant when he said Nero would be a mentor to Jax but Pope would also become an example for him. Pope agreed to the terms and told Jax to keep Tig on a short leash. Jax told Pope the home invasions had to stop as well, and Pope told him those weren’t his doing and better not be the Niners’. Pope’s parting words: “Be smart, Mr. Teller. It’s who you are.”

Jax told Chibs they were getting out the next day, so he should figure out who they owe favors to and get intel on the Sergeant. He told him Tig was going with them but didn’t tell him how. Jax then told Tig, who knew it should have been him in the box, that he’d gotten him cleared. In exchange, Jax wants Tig to back his every play and never vote against him again — which Tig is cool with. Jax neglected to tell Tig that Pope gets to kill him in the end. Was that because Jax has no intention of letting that happen, or because he really doesn’t care about Tig now that he’s watched Opie, his best friend, die because of him? I’d like to think the former, but I fear the latter.

NEXT: Gemma and Tara wage their own war, plus Juice provides much-needed comic relief

View the original article here

Dissed members: Schmidt on ‘New Girl’ joins TV’s phallic injuries club

Image Credit: Fox

When New Girl returns tonight, Schmidt (Max Greenfield) finally gets his penis cast removed. In honor of that glorious occasion — we’re looking back at the worst phallic injuries on TV.

The dissed member: Meredith’s (Ellen Pompeo) one-night-stand Steve Murphy (Sunkrish Bala) on Grey’s Anatomy
When: Season 2, episode 10
What happened? After sleeping with Meredith, Steve develops a priapism — otherwise known as an erection that lasts longer than four hours.
Recovery time: By the end of the episode, Derek (Patrick Dempsey) has Steve’s problem figured out. Turns out, it was all in his head. (Seriously, it was a neurological disorder.)

The dissed member: Dr. Mark Sloan (Eric Dane) on Grey’s Anatomy
When: Season 5, episode 13
What happened? A little on-call room action with Lexie (Chyler Leigh) left little Mark Sloan “bent in the middle.”
Recovery time: Dr. Hunt (Kevin McKidd) clears Sloan for sexual duty in the next episode .

The dissed member: Schmidt on New Girl
When: Season 1, episode 22
What happened? Having sex with CeCe’s (Hannah Simone) rough Russian roommate caused Schmidt’s Schmidt to break.
Recovery time: It’s safe to say that Schmidt will be back in the saddle after four episodes — since he is throwing a party to celebrate his newly healed junk in New Girl’s season premiere

The dissed member: Joe Eskandarian (Amir Arison) on American Horror Story
When: Season 1, episode 7
What happened? Upon learning that the real estate developer has plans to tear down the murder house, young Moira (Alexandra Breckenridge) seduces Mr. Eskandarian. But it’s old Moira (Frances Conroy) who pulls a Lorena Bobbitt on her victim.
Recovery time: Never — he died.

Are we forgetting any? Tell us below!

Related:
‘New Girl’: Schmidt as a Jewish assassin! Magic Mike! Mark Zuckerberg
Penile fracture on ‘Grey’s Anatomy’: What we learned

View the original article here

Mitchell Bard: George Will Says the Republicans Should Be Winning, But Here Is Why They Are Not

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/">

Unemployment is still high, and President Obama's convention speech was solid but not spectacular, and yet he has a small but significant lead in the polls. Obama received an an approval bump after the convention, and a bounce bigger than Mitt Romney's after the Republican convention, which wasn't much of a bounce at all.



Reacting to the unemployment situation in light of the latest disappointing jobs report, conservative columnist George Will said on Sunday's "This Week":

"[I]f the Republican Party cannot win in this environment, it has to get out of politics and find another business."

But Romney is not winning. Generally, when the economy is doing this tepidly in September, it spells doom for the incumbent president. What's going on? Why is Obama winning?



Implied in Will's remark is that the Republicans are somehow not running their campaigns correctly. That is, a GOP candidate doing a good job would win in the current economic environment. I would argue that in the modern Republican party, it is impossible for Will's conception of a good candidate to secure a nomination. That is, the very qualities necessary to get a GOP nomination, especially for president, are the very characteristics that are giving Obama (and a surprising number of Democratic U.S. Senate and U.S. House candidates) the lead despite the unemployment numbers.



The current Republican argument is, essentially, this: There is too much government, so if you elect us, we will cut taxes for the wealthy and remove regulations, which will lead to a stronger economy and jobs for everyone.



I think there is a reason why this argument (offered by this GOP presidential candidate) just isn't flying with enough swing voters right now to put Romney ahead. Simply put, they don't trust him.



We live in a time of decreasing public faith in institutions, including the government. The Republican argument asks voters for an awful lot of trust. That is, a president and Congress cannot legislate the economy directly, but rather they can only make law and policy that they hope will result in positive economic developments. What Romney and his party are asking the American people to do is to trust that the policy they are offering (tax cuts for the wealthy), which will have no direct impact on middle class and working class voters struggling in the current economy, will eventually help them, because these candidates say they will.



(It should be noted that Romney and Paul Ryan are also asking the American people to trust them on the specifics of their tax policies, since they won't disclose details on what they intend to do. Such an approach can be problematic when, according to a recent Pew study, 58 percent of Americans think the wealthy currently pay too little in federal taxes, making the argument for additional tax cuts even harder to sustain.)



For this approach to work, the voters have to trust that they will benefit from the policies that will initially only help people like Romney and Ryan. And right now, enough voters don't trust the Republicans on this issue.



When the Republicans in the House brought the country to the brink of financial collapse in 2011 by holding the noncontroversial debt ceiling extension hostage, Americans had far more trust in Obama than Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner or House Whip Eric Cantor to do the right thing, and it wasn't even close (48 percent v. 30 percent v. 33 percent v. 26 percent, respectively). So going into the 2012 elections, trust may not have been a strong suit for the Republicans.



And then in the Republican convention, the main takeaway from Ryan's speech was that it was filled with lies, a fact acknowledged from sources ranging from progressive media watch dogs (like Think Progress) to a columnist for the Fox News website. Ryan's subsequent lie about his marathon time (first reported not by a liberal media source but by Runner's World) only solidified his public image as a first class pervaricator.



Ryan's lies fit in well with Romney's seeming inability to tell the truth, a frequent problem for him dating back to the GOP primary campaign. More recently, Romney was nailed for running patently dishonest television commercials about Obama's welfare policy, and Rather than apologizing and pulling the spots, the Romney campaign doubled down on the lie, with an aide saying, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."



Clearly, Romney and Ryan aren't the guys to make a successful "trust us" argument to the electorate.



Meanwhile, one of the most lauded speeches at the Democratic convention was given by Bill Clinton, and the bulk of it found the former president debunking the assertions made by Romney, Ryan and others at the Republican convention.



It's no wonder then that the undecided voters in key swing states who will determine the winner in November are not ready to trust Romney and Ryan enough to buy into a policy that doesn't help them initially, but only will based on the promises of those who would benefit immediately. They don't trust Romney and Ryan to deliver.



Throw in the GOP's shift to the extreme right on social issues (as I discussed last month in the context of Todd Aiken's "legitimate rape" statement), which is scaring away some women voters, and the president's ability to hold a lead in the polls despite the economic conditions starts to make clear sense.



George Will may think Romney should be able to win in the current economic environment, but what he is missing is that given the hard shift to the right the Tea Party-dominated Republicans have taken in the last few years, GOP candidates are stuck with a platform and policy agenda that alienate the voters they need to reach the most. Will says that if Romney loses in November, Republicans should get out of politics, but by embracing an extreme right-wing agenda and then lying about it, it is as if the party already has.

View the original article here

Obama's Fundraising Edges Out Romney In August

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/">

WASHINGTON, Sept 10 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama's re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee raised more than $114 million in August, filling up its coffers for an expensive fall against well-funded Republican rival Mitt Romney.

The Democratic incumbent broadened his donor base with more than 317,000 donors who had never given money before, said Obama campaign manager Jim Messina in a statement.

"The key to fighting back against the special interests writing limitless checks to support Mitt Romney is growing our donor base, and we did substantially in the month of August," Messina said. "That is a critical downpayment on the organization we are building across the country -- the largest grassroots campaign in history."

View the original article here

Police Officer In Obama Motorcade Dies After Being Hit By Pickup Truck

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/">

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — A motorcycle police officer who was part of President Barack Obama's motorcade to a campaign event in Florida died Sunday after being struck by a pickup truck.

Officer Bruce St. Laurent, 55, was a 20-year veteran of the Jupiter Police Department and one of several officers from agencies across Palm Beach County helping with security for the president's visit.

He was ahead of the motorcade on Interstate 95 preparing to shut down the highway when he was hit by the Ford F-150, Palm Beach County Sheriff's spokeswoman Teri Barbera said. He was taken to nearby St. Mary's Medical Center and was pronounced dead.

Jupiter Police spokesman Sgt. Scott Pascarella, told The Palm Beach Post he trained St. Laurent when he was a new officer.

"We didn't lose a co-worker. We lost a friend," Pascarella told the newspaper. "He would do anything for anyone."

Barbera said an investigation was ongoing and no charges had yet been filed against the driver.

Obama was on the second day of a bus tour through the key swing state and made a campaign appearance Sunday at the Palm Beach County Convention Center.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said the president didn't see the accident, but he was notified of the officer's death and said "our thoughts and prayers are with the officer's family."

The Post also reported that St. Laurent had been a motorcycle officer for 18 years and in 2005 he earned a Distinguished Service Award by the Traffic Safety Committee of the Palm Beaches.

The newspaper reported that in 2001, he was injured when a vehicle he was chasing suddenly stopped and he rammed into it. The two occupants were later arrested, one on a charge of driving with a revoked license and the other for having an outstanding warrant for reckless driving.

View the original article here

Jeff Biggers: Mourning Keeper of the Mountains Larry Gibson, and the Appalachians He Defended

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/">

More than four years ago, decked out in his trademark yellow cap and shirt, Larry Gibson famously waited his turn at a political rally in Beckley, W. Va., and finally got the chance to ask then-presidential candidate Barack Obama whether he would defend the land and people of central Appalachia.

Few people in our country were so fearless in the face of political pressure, bankers, Big Coal backlash and even death threats; and fewer people had the inspiring impact of this determined mountaineer, who had spent the last two decades crisscrossing the country, leading protests and beseeching power brokers to defend his Appalachian mountains from reckless strip mining operations.

His message was simple and to the point: Love them or leave them, just don't destroy them.

Today, working on his beloved Kayford Mountain homeplace -- the symbolic sky island surrounded by nearly 8,000 acres of mountaintop removal devastation that has served as an important training ground for a generation of activists, educators and chroniclers -- 66-year-old Larry Gibson reportedly died from a heart attack, as committed as ever as one of the most indefatigable, cherished and courageous spokespeople in the movement to abolish mountaintop removal mining.

And still waiting for Washington, D.C. to end to one of the most egregious human rights and environmental crimes in the nation.

And still waiting for an uprising in the hills of Appalachia, and the halls of Congress and the White House to join him on the frontlines of social justice.

Larry Gibson, photo courtesy of Vivian Stockman, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition

"I never wanted to become an activist, but I had to," Gibson told interviewer Taylor Lee Kirkland in 2009. He continued:

If I hadn't I would have been torn off this mountain a long time ago. There are thousands of people around the world who have heard me speak since I started this work, but honestly I wish to God no one knew my name. I wish I didn't have to leave my home and talk to people about mountaintop removal. Last year I traveled eight months out of the year talking to people about this stuff. But I know I have to bring this message to the world and I'm gonna fight for justice in every way I can. We have to have an uprising. This isn't an uprising that can be bought with money, but one that's coming from the hearts of honest and hardworking people.

As the news of Gibson's tragic loss spreads tonight, thousands of students, educators, activists, Washington wonks and policy analysts, and journalists and filmmakers from around the nation and world continue to release statements and post photos of how one mountaineer changed their lives in his pursuit for justice on Kayford Mountain, and his patience in greeting everyone at this homeplace.

"I spent the day with Larry on Thursday," acclaimed photographer Paul Corbit Brown emailed me. "To say he had an enormous impact on all of our lives wouldn't be enough. To say he was a hero wouldn't be enough. To say he changed our lives wouldn't be enough. To say has was deeply loved and will be missed wouldn't be enough. But let me tell you what was on his heart just days ago. He stressed that this fight was never about him or his mountain alone. It was, and is, about all of us and our shared future. It is about the thousands of young people that he called his kids. It is about those not yet born. It wasn't about Larry Gibson and a mountain. He wanted to be a voice for all people and the mountains and homes they love. He wanted to speak for Justice and to inspire those too frightened to speak. And even those who called Larry an enemy and wished to do him harm, he spoke of them, still, as "his People." Rest in Peace, Larry. It was only appropriate that you should be on your mountain when you left this world. You can rest assured that we who you left behind will not rest until we finish the work you so passionately and courageously began."

"Larry was one of the strongest, kindest, most dedicated peaceful warriors for justice I've ever known in my life," said Rory McIlmoil, a West Virginia-based coal and clean energy analyst. "And that no matter who you were, or which side you were on, Larry's smile, his laugh, and his compassion would remind you that we're all human and that we should care and fight for each other. I'm definitely going to miss Larry Gibson."

"The world is better for all Larry did to try to ensure a future hope for besieged and blasted generations of Appalachia," said Bob Kincaid, president of the Coal River Mountain Watch board. "At Kayford Mountain, he was among the first to show the world the ravages of Mountaintop Removal, making real and immediate and undeniable the coal industry's most dirty secret. Where I'm sure he is, I know the waters run clear and cool, and the air is no longer choked with dust, and Larry smiles in leisure well-earned."

"For those who love mountains, Larry was a god," wrote Rob Perks, with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C. "There was no one like him, a man who literally put his life on the line to keep the coal industry from stealing our shared legacy. His spirit will live on in our continued fight to end The travesty of mountaintop removal."

"Larry's endlessly inspiring efforts and words are exemplary of a true hero," noted Chelsea Marie Ritter-Soronen, a St. Louis-based artist who took part in Mountain Justice and direct action protests in West Virginia. "Like many, I'll never forget the first time I heard him speak about mountaintop removal, it simply changed my life."

View the original article here

Romney Raises More Than $111 Million In August

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/">

BOSTON, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney raised more than $111 million in August, according to a statement issued by his campaign, maintaining an overwhelming cash advantage over President Barack Obama.

With less than two months to go before the Nov. 6 presidential election, Romney maintained his streak of fundraising dominance as his campaign, the Republican National Committee and state Republican parties reported that together they have about $168.5 million in cash at their disposal.

While Obama shattered every fundraising record in 2008 after becoming the first presidential candidate to opt out of a federal matching funds system, Romney has significantly outpaced the president in his bid for the White House this year.

After raising $101 million in July, Romney and the joint Victory Fund he shares with the Republican National Committee already enjoyed a $60 million cash-on-hand advantage over Obama.

The president's campaign has also burned through money faster than the Republican candidate, spending $58.5 million in July, with about two-thirds of that going to advertising.

Republicans view the combination of Obama's high cash burn rate and polls that show a tight race as evidence that they have withstood the advertising onslaught Obama's campaign launched early in the year.

"This race is a dead heat, even after they have spent over $100 million attacking Mitt Romney with negative ads," one senior Romney adviser said Sunday.

Romney is also now free to spend the millions of dollars he raised during his primary campaign.

Legally, Romney was barred from spending money he raised before he formally accepted the Republican nomination, which he did in Tampa more than a week ago.

The day after Obama accepted his party's nomination for president at the Democratic convention in North Carolina, the Romney campaign demonstrated it was ready to start spending some of that money in a homestretch assault on Obama.

Republicans seized on a disappointing jobs report on Friday morning, announcing they bought ad time in the key swing states Obama won in 2008 but are now in play.

Romney, on the air in the key states of Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and North Carolina, was set to expand his advertising to Wisconsin on Monday.

"What we very deliberately did, we held our powder and we knew these jobs numbers were going to be a big moment," said one Romney adviser. "And we loaded up to come back on Friday, and we've gone up in a big way."

While Romney spent much of the summer fundraising, senior adviser Kevin Madden indicated that the Republican candidate would shift his focus to spending time with voters down the homestretch.

"We'll continue to do some fundraising throughout this month, but I think we're in that critical phase where we're trying to put our emphasis on voter contact and having the governor do more retail campaigning," Madden said.

View the original article here

HuffPost Radio: BOTH SIDES: Matalin vs. Reagan: Does "On-Your-Side" Beat "On-Your-Own"?

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/">

By Mark Green

Mary Matalin and Ron Reagan debate who scored and who flubbed at the back-to-back Conventions. Telegenically, it was Ozzie & Harriet vs. Modern Family. My guess -- in a year or generation, folks will remember Gabby Giffords walk and Clint Eastwood's "performance." Here's a side-by-side comparison of the past two weeks and the possible impact this November:

*On Ann and Michelle. There's a consensus that each wife did well at what only they could do -- humanize their guys. But Ron thinks that Michelle used more convincing anecdotes -- Barack's the same person who wants to help young students also in debt -- while Mary is gently skeptical at Mrs. Obama's politically tinged comments (not "how much money you earn [but] the difference you make.")

*On Castro and Christie. Ron's impressed at San Antonio Mayor Castro's eloquence, humor and jabs -- e.g., his metaphor that success is more a "relay" than a sprint. (Eerie: does Limbaugh yet realize that recent Dem keynoters have included a Hussein and a Castro?] Mary scoffs at critics who think that Governor Christie was too negative and angry. "He's a breakthrough governor on public sector budgeting and wasn't discordant coming right after Mrs. Romney. People are tired of platitudes and slick." Slick he's not.

LISTEN HERE:

*On Ryan. Bill Maher summed up the reaction to #2: "So many lies - what a great speech!" The Host asks whether Paul Ryan/Bunyon is the next "Reagan" because of his blue-eyed sincerity...or whether he's Lyin' Ryan as described by Democrats and fact-checkers. Mary asserts that "everything he said was true", the GM bailout wasn't successful Simpson Bowles didn't do enough on entitlements.

Ron is withering on Ryan: "He lied his behind off" about a) the Janesville plant closing because of Obama's failure, b) Obama's "cuts" to Medicare and c) his similar opposition to Simpson-Bowles; and then there was that telltale falsehood about doing a marathon in 2:50 when it was over 4 hours. No, it's not as bad as the reported 11 holes-in-one in the first round of golf played by North Korean leader Kim Jong-un but still...

*On Rubio and Clinton. These were probably the two most lauded talks of the Conventions. Rubio used his escape-to-freedom story to help explain how Obama was moving us "backwards not forward" - Ron thinks that Rubio could appeal in a future presidential cycle to Hispanics and the young since he's both.

After laying waste to core Republican arguments, is Bubba still the Republicans favorite Democrat now (...wasn't he once impeached by them?). Mary says that "he's everybody's favorite" who astonishingly ad-libbed a third of his talk. "But your party shouldn't want a former president to out-perform the current one," she objects. To which Ron can't resist interjecting, "that's no problem for you guys, with W."

*On the Gender Gap. Did Republicans reduce their disadvantage in polling with women? We hear from Romney talking emotionally about how his parents partnered on their respective campaigns and how many prominent female GOP governors were speaking at their Convention. Mary reminds us of the male gender gap but then adds that focusing on abortion may have been a big deal 30 years ago but "normal women - whose goal in life isn't free birth control -- care far more about their jobs and careers."

Ron pounces. "Republicans will continue to have problems with women with candidates like Todd Akin and Paul Ryan." Heated talk and cross-talk ensues: Mary says that Akin was roundly criticized and Ryan is not for an abortion ban; Ron asks about the GOP platform; "you're talking about the platform?" she says contemptuously; Ron plows ahead -- "if your daughter was raped and got pregnant, would you permit an abortion?"; Mary replies that Romney and Ryan now both permit exceptions in cases of rape and incest; the Host concludes that while the Republican nominees now say that they're not absolutist, they also support a Human Life Constitutional Amendment which would ban all abortions.

*On Flubs. Is it a hill of beans that the Republican nominee didn't mention the troops or Afghanistan war in his acceptance speech or that the Democratic Platform initially lacked the word "God" and failed to reassert that an undivided Jerusalem should always be the capital of Israel? She discounts the troops-war omission but stresses that a Democratic Convention that "cheers an abortionist from NARAL but omits God from its Platform has a problem."

Speaking of flubs, what about Clint Eastwood's unrehearsed and unvetted prime-time "fistful of awesome" (Jon Stewart)? Wasn't it political malpractice to allow Eastwood draw attention away from Mitt Romney on the biggest night of his life and from water coolers everywhere the next day? "No" Mary fairly shouts, concluding that it was just the thing to puncture those who say Conventions are too scripted and boring. "It was fabulous!" "It was... fabulous," Ron cheekily agrees!

*On Romney & Obama. Did they rise to the occasion?

Governor Romney's most quoted line the next day is the one mocking Obama for saying that he'd "slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet" while he instead would "help you and your family." Mary thinks that it effectively highlighted both Obama's grandiosity and Romney's meat-and-potatoes appeal. Ron is disgusted: "OK. But in a 100 years his great grandchildren will say what an idiot their great-grandfather was because he turned global warming into a punch line."

Although Ron notes that "President Obama is a hard act to follow," most commentators agree that his acceptance speech is more soaring, thematic and taunting. He defrocks Romney on comments about Russia and stumbles in London but also lays out his view that "citizenship [mutual obligations] is the essence of democracy" as well as reminding all in the hall and at home that "you are the change... the hope" in terms of what he's accomplished and may yet if rehired.

Mary wraps up the show by graciously saying that both men and Conventions did well BUT that Obama's policies weren't working since there was a bad jobs report the following morning and that the "Obama recovery was weaker than the Reagan recovery."

Before Ron is forced to choose between his father and his party's president, the Host agrees to have a longer conversation about whether we're "better off today than four years ago" and who is better positioned at the post-Labor Day campaign kickoff. Politico's answer: "Advantage Obama. "

Mark Green is the creator and host of Both Sides Now, which is powered by the American Federation of Teachers.

Send all comments to Bothsidesradio.com, where you can also listen to prior shows.

Both Sides Now is available
Sat. 5-6 PM EST From Lifestyle TalkRadio Network
& Sun. 8-9 AM EST from Business RadioTalk Network.

View the original article here

Teachers In Country's 3rd Largest District Go On Strike

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/">

On Monday, Chicago's public school students won't have any classes to go to.

After weeks of negotiations, Mayor Rahm Emanuel's team and the Chicago Teacher's Union failed to agree on a contract. On Sunday night, CTU officially announced it was going to strike for the first time in a quarter century. So on Monday, instead of teaching, the union's 26,000 educators will protest.

"In the morning, no CTU members will be inside our schools," CTU President Karen Lewis said Sunday at a late-night press conference outdoors, surrounded by throngs of reporters and teachers. She appeared in a bright red jacket with crimson lipstick, the intensity of her wardrobe illustrating the defiance in her words. "We will walk the picket lines, we will talk to parents, we ... will demand a fair contract today, we demand a fair contract now," she said, calling the ordeal an "education justice fight."

But when it comes to exactly what the strike it about, the stories of the city and the union vary dramatically. Shortly after Lewis finished saying that the union was striking over contract negotiations, teacher evaluations, lack of proper air conditioning, and broader pedagogical issues -- such as class size and out-of-class services for poor kids -- Emanuel addressed the press.

"This is totally unnecessary, this is avoidable, and our kids do not deserve this," he said.

The mayor, who fashions himself an education reformer, wore no tie. While Emanuel usually doesn't mince words, his anger appeared more internalized, more resolute. At moments, he appeared to be on the verge of tears. His hand shook visibly as he took a sip of water in between statements. "This is a strike of choice," he said.

From Emanuel's perspective, after weeks of negotiation, only two issues remain unresolved. The first is a principal's right to choose the teachers that work in his or her school. "It's essential that the local principal who we hold accountable for producing the educational results not be told by the CPS bureaucracy ... and not be told by the union leadership who to hire," he said.

Second, he added, is the impasse over how to implement a recent law that requires standardized tests to count for, initially, one quarter of all teacher evaluations. "I'm telling you, these were the final two issues," he said, exasperated.

Emanuel was followed by Chicago's police chief, who said that no police would be on administrative duty Monday. Rather, they would all be on the streets, monitoring protest activity and making sure kids weren't just hanging out. The district has set up over 100 spaces with alternate activities to keep students safe in places like churches and nonprofits.

On Sunday, CPS officials such as School Board President David Vitale and CTU leadership -- not including Lewis -- holed up in a negotiation room for hours. In the tense weeks before, the Associated Press reports, the district offered CTU a 2 percent raise for four years. Incensed, the union was quick to point that a snip-happy Emanuel had nixed a 4 percent raise just the year before, and in turn, asked for a 30 percent raise over two years. According to the AP, Lewis told union officials weeks ago that CTU would accept a raise as low as 19 percent. On Sunday, according to CPS, Vitale offered a 16 percent raise over the next four years, in addition to new job opportunities for laid off teachers. CPS also offered its first-ever paid maternity leave, and the joint implementation of teacher evaluations.

But at the end of the day, CTU, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers, announced its official plan to strike. "People are actually surprised by how much CPS conceded. It seems like they did give in a lot," Wendy Katten, a parent and activist who runs a group called Raise Your Hand for IL Public Ed, told The Huffington Post late Sunday. "CTU is trying to show that they have the ability to shape public education, and that they're not going to be trampled on. It can't just be about small specifics -- to strike over air conditioner, I don't know."

Katten's daughter will be missing out on fourth grade tomorrow -- instead of school, she'll be going to "strike camp," a day of activities organized by a local church where parent volunteers will watch children with two working parents. "Some delegates think it's a beautiful thing to strike, but you know what? It's not beautiful, it's a last resort," said Katten, who generally supports the union.

The move is an act of defiance against education reform groups whose policies have angered the union -- last year, the state legislature, led by the national advocacy group Stand for Children, passed a law that mandated specific teacher evaluations that count students' standardized test scores for 25 percent initially, and that specifically required that CTU have 75 percent of its membership agree to any strike. Months later, the group's leader Jonah Edelman was
caught on tape boasting about how he outsmarted the unions in negotiating the bill.

Emanuel campaigned on the promise of making Chicago's schools better, promising -- and later, trying to enact -- policies in line with a nationwide, Obama-supported movement known as education reform. Emanuel wanted principals to have more autonomy over hiring; he wanted teachers to be evaluated more stringently; he wanted to encourage the growth of charter schools; but, above all, he wanted Chicago to have a longer school day. So he trotted out research and Stand's talking points showing that Chicago's schools have the shortest days in the nation, and sought to implement the teacher-evaluation law -- which contained a special provision that allowed him to lengthen the school day.

But when trying to negotiate the specifics of that extension with the union, trouble arose. Emanuel tried to circumvent the union by asking individual schools' teachers to vote to waive the contract and make the school day longer, but stopped once CTU took complaints about the process to the the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board. While Emanuel sought to add school hours, the city also couldn't afford to pay an amount the union sought for the extra time required of teachers. But a deal reached in late July gave both sides what they wanted: students would see a 20 percent longer school day -- seven hours for elementary students and 7.5 hours for high schoolers -- and current teacher hours would largely be unaffected. To fill the gaps, CPS planned to hire back 477 tenured teachers who were laid off over the last three years, at an annual cost of $40-$50 million. It was just one of many flashpoints Emanuel, a Democrat, had with the union.

In her remarks Sunday night, Lewis said the union and the city would continue negotiating Monday, but no firm plans had been set. Then, during his press conference, Emanuel said his team was ready to negotiate "starting now." CTU emailed reporters saying Lewis had texted CPS asking to go back to the drawing board that night; CPS officials said that text never came.

Beyond the claims that are legal for CTU to strike against, CTU's complaints echo the broader ones of teachers' unions across America: standardized tests are over-emphasized; class sizes are ballooning; teacher evaluations that use standardized tests "cheapen" schools. Lewis said that the evaluation system required so much administrative work that even the principals, usually not union bedfellows, were calling CTU, asking for help. "When principals are calling Chicago Teachers Union, you know there's something wrong with this plan," Lewis said. "Class size matters, it matters to parents," she added.

Teachers have reported having as many as 42 students in one classroom, but Emanuel said that rules surrounding class size were not being negotiated, and that if classes are too large, schools have recourse to change that. "Class size isn't the issue," he said.

The strike coincides with the first day of a cross-country bus tour U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will take to discuss education. Duncan gained his education credentials leading the district, so the issue might come up on the trail this week.

"We're all very nervous about the outcome," Xian Barrett, a Chicago high school law and history teacher, told HuffPost Sunday. "But I'm also hopeful that we're finally taking a stand on issues that have more to do with educating children than salary or benefits. It's about who has the right to determine how children are educated in the community."

Some parents were dismayed. "I am up and have to explain to my daughter in the morning why she can't go to school," tweeted Karen Travis, a parent who was traveling and was unable to speak by phone. "We won't be a CPS family after this year. The education is horrific, and I will pay for private school in the future," she added.

View the original article here

OH-2012 President: 50% Obama (D), 45% Romney (R) (PPP 9/7-9/9)

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/">

PPP (D)
9/7/12-9/9/12; 1,072 likely voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
PPP release

Ohio

Obama Job Approval
48% approve, 48% disapprove (chart)

2012 President
50% Obama (D), 45% Romney (R) (chart)

View the original article here

Roger Hickey: Obama, Yes... and Win the House, Too

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/">

President Obama is enjoying a post-convention bump in job approval (Gallup says 7 percentage points -- from 45 to 52 percent) after the negative and divisive Republican convention, followed by the energetic populism of the Democrats in Charlotte. With large leads among women and people of color, and the stark contrast on economic issues building movement toward Obama even among white males in key states, the prospects for Obama winning a second term are starting to look pretty good.

But what about the House? Prospects for Dems keeping the Senate are looking better, but if the House of Representatives stays in Republican hands, even if President Obama is re-elected his second term will be crippled. Obama can still name good Supreme Court justices, and he can veto terrible legislation -- both good reasons to vote for him -- but, in the face of Republican obstructionism, he will be virtually powerless to pass economic recovery laws aimed at creating jobs and getting the economy growing and not shrinking.

Obama has repeatedly told voters they have the opportunity to "break the current stalemate in Washington between two fundamentally different ideas on how to create strong, sustained economic growth" -- as he said in Cleveland on June 14. A few days later he told a campaign crowd "What's holding us back is a stalemate in Washington between two fundamentally different visions on which direction we should go, and this election is your chance to break that stalemate.".

Obama is right, of course, but only if the voters reelect him AND sweep into office at least 25 Democrats to seats now held by Republicans. You didn't hear much about taking back the House as a goal of Democrats at the Charlotte convention -- an indication that they don't want to look like failures if they fall short. But for the same reasons Obama now looks like a winner, Democrats and independent activists now have the possibility of "nationalizing" contests for the House and turning this election into an historic wave election that can truly "break the stalemate" and put the nation on a course of decisive change. How do we do that?

1. Tell voters Republican economics won't just fail -- they will kill jobs and plunge us back into recession.

Too many Democrats describe the Romney-Ryan-Republican economic plans as taking us back to "the failed Bush policies." But they are much worse than that -- because they would not only cut taxes for the rich, THEY WOULD KILL JOBS AND PUSH AMERICA BACK INTO RECESSION. Romney and Ryan (and every House member who voted for the Ryan budget) would cut public spending so drastically they would destroy our struggling recovery and throw millions more Americans onto the unemployment rolls. Republicans have voted repeatedly for this kind of European-style austerity. Democratic challengers should call them what they are: job killers. And challenge incumbent Republican Members of Congress to repudiate their votes for the Ryan budget.

2. Oppose outrageously unfair tax cuts for the wealthy.

House Republicans think making the Bush tax cuts for millionaires permanent is very popular with voters -- but they are very wrong. All but four House Republicans voted for the Ryan budget containing these tax provisions. Many of them were committing political suicide -- if Democrats take them on. Every tax provision in the Ryan budget is wildly unpopular in the minds of the majority of voters who reject the idea of more tax cuts for the super-rich. A June 2012 Peter Hart and Associates poll of likely voters for Americans for Tax Fairness found:

• 72 percent favor increasing tax rates on incomes above $250,000 (rolling back the Bush tax cuts).


• 68 percent favor ending tax breaks for corporations shipping jobs overseas.


• 64 percent want to ensure large corporations pay their fair share of taxes.


• And 46 percent want to end the low (capital gains) tax rate on income from stocks and bonds

The take-away: Americans hate the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy -- on fairness grounds alone. But Republicans claim tax cuts for the rich are the best way they will create jobs, so the unpopularity of their tax plan (if we expose it) undercuts the entire GOP (so-called) jobs and growth plan as well.

3. Stand up for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- and expose all GOP incumbents who have voted to destroy those popular programs.

A large number of House Republicans are on record calling for cuts to Social Security benefits or increases in the retirement age. And many support the kind of privatization of Social Security that Paul Ryan called for in his 2010 Roadmap for America's Future, embraced by most of the House Republican caucus. If Democratic challengers are bold enough to declare opposition to Social Security benefit cuts and attack the idea of privatization, they will find they can put their Republican opponents on the defensive, as these damaging changes to America's most important retirement program are unpopular, even to members of the Tea Party.

All but four House Republican incumbents voted for the 2012 Ryan budget, which passed the House only to be defeated in the Senate. Denounced by the U.S. Catholic bishops for its very large cuts to programs aimed at reducing poverty, including Medicaid, the Ryan budget was described by the bishops as "fail[ing] to meet these moral criteria." And the "Nuns on the Bus" have been touring the country, rallying voters against Medicaid cuts.

The Ryan budget would also turn Medicare into a voucher system, which would cost seniors a larger and larger portion of their incomes, as the value of vouchers fail to keep up with the cost of health care. And it would force older Americans to deal with a confusing array of private insurance plans in their retirement years. This Medicare voucher plan, embraced by Mitt Romney, is very, very unpopular with seniors and Americans of all ages. Aggressive defense of Medicare by Democratic challengers can turn many a contest into an upset.

For those who doubt Dems can win in tough races, consider the 2011 special election victory of Rep. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat running in Jack Kemp's old upstate district, New York 26 -- which hadn't elected a Democrat in four decades. A Washington Post article attributed her victory to her opposition to the "House Republicans' budget plan authored by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan -- and, in particular, his proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher program." Hochul's winning message could win almost anywhere this year: "I won't to let them cut Social Security benefits and end Medicare as we know it while giving more tax cuts to the rich." That was, and is, a winning message. Add a plan for jobs, and your opponent is on the ropes by Election Day.

4. Fight for JOBS FIRST -- and go after every incumbent who opposed Obama's American Jobs Act.

Republicans won the House in 2010 by pointing to high unemployment and charging the Democratic economic program had failed. At that point Democrats had no new jobs plan to run on. A year ago, President Obama stopped talking about deficit reduction and put the American Jobs Act on the table. Every Democrat running for a House seat this year can accuse the Republican incumbent of blocking that jobs plan, which independent experts have estimated would have produced 1.9 million jobs by rebuilding America's infrastructure and schools and helping states hire, not lay off, teachers and cops and firefighters. Democrats need to campaign as a party with a popular plan to put people to work, grow the economy, and get the private sector growing faster. And it would be great if President Obama would campaign a little bit more like Harry Truman, denouncing Republicans in the House (what Truman called the "do nothing Republicans") for their obstructionism in blocking passage of his jobs bill.

Democratic candidates for the House also need remind voters that the (Romney-Ryan) Republican plan to slash public spending will kill jobs and throw the U.S. back into recession -- just as similar radical austerity regimes in Britain and Ireland and Spain and other European countries have caused recession to sweep the continent. We have to expose the Republicans' post-election plans to cut taxes for the wealthy (which won't stimulate the economy) and their plans to slash public investment, which will kill economic growth and increase joblessness.
While acknowledging that we have to get deficits under control in the long term, Democrats must insist that America's first priority must be to get unemployment down and economic growth up. And that means getting voters educated and alerted to Republican plans to impose draconian austerity if they manage to keep the House. In the next 60 days, Democrats must be the champions of full-employment, and get the voters to see Republicans as the job killers that they are.

5. Charge up the Democratic base voters -- and give them a reason to get out and vote.

The spectacle of Republicans in Tampa attacking women, welfare-baiting minorities, and doubling-down on tax cuts for the rich has fired up Democratic base voters -- even among progressives, who may have problems with Obama, but who know letting Romney and a Republican Congress run the country would be a disaster. The Charlotte convention helped as well: showing off Democrats as both diverse and united -- and fighting for a much more progressive vision of our economic future.

President Obama is right when he says this election offers us the opportunity to "break the current stalemate in Washington between two fundamentally different ideas on how to create strong, sustained economic growth." But we all have to work to get him to go beyond a pitch for his own re-election. He should ask voters to "send to Washington a new group of Congressional leaders who will work with me to break that stalemate." As he gets more confident in his own re-election, I hope we can get him to call for throwing out the obstructionists.

However, as we've learned, we can't wait for Obama. It's our country, and we need to save it. So it's our job to get to work in every Congressional district that might produce that swing of 25 seats. We've got to teach the Democratic candidates how to campaign -- against the Romney-Ryan job-killing plan, for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, against unfair tax cuts for the wealthy, and for the Democratic plan for jobs.

As I write this, MoveOn is sending around Nate Silver's new analysis in the NY Times that finds "Obama's chance of victory would be an amazing 91 percent if everyone who's registered actually votes this year." MoveOn is asking for contributions to raise $600,000 this week to create (with the AFL-CIO's Workers' Voice) the largest independent get-out-the-vote operation in the country. This kind of thing is doable, and you can learn more here, because getting out the Democratic base vote -- and giving them good reasons to vote -- is going to be crucial in the next two months.

Here's another encouraging sign: Political scientists Jacob Hacker and Nate Loewentheil recently published a paper that summarizes in accessible (and non-political) language, the first four points above. After a blogger conference call to discuss A New Strategy for Prosperity, the legendary Digby and colleagues got the document to progressive House candidates they are supporting, and 16 of them have endorsed the ideas and are running under the banner of Americans for Real Prosperity.

The old optimism from 2008 is coming back -- tempered by the realities of the last four years. We should all work for the re-election of Barack Obama, but we should also work to make sure he has a Congress that can help him carry out the big changes that America needs. And we've got to make sure that after the election there is a powerful progressive movement pushing President Obama and the new Congress to do what needs to be done.

View the original article here

Health Problems, Funding Fights Cloud 9/11 Anniversary

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/">

* Politicians excluded from speaking at anniversary

* At least 1,000 emergency workers have died from respiratory ailments

* WTC collapse, jet fuel and burning plastics released carcinogens

By Chris Francescani

NEW YORK, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Eleven years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, New Yorkers will mark the anniversary on Tuesday against a backdrop of health concerns for emergency workers and a feud over financing that has stopped construction of the $1 billion Ground Zero museum.

While notable progress on redevelopment of the World Trade Center has been made since early disputes over financial, design and security issues, the project remains hobbled by political battles and billions of dollars in cost overruns.

A major sticking point is the museum at the heart of the World Trade Center (WTC) site redevelopment. Construction has been suspended because of a feud over finances between the National September 11 Memorial and Museum foundation and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

When the foundation announced recently that for the first time, politicians would be excluded from having speaking roles in the Sept. 11 anniversary ceremonies, it was seen by many victims' families and others in the 9/11 community as a public reflection of these behind-the-scenes disputes.

Overall site redevelopment costs have grown to nearly $15 billion, up from $11 billion in 2008, according to a recent project audit.

But for many of the families of 9/11 victims and ailing Ground Zero workers, the redevelopment disputes are a disheartening sideshow to the rising loss of human lives.

When the 110-storey Twin Towers came down, thousands of tons of steel, concrete, window glass and asbestos came down with it. While thousands of gallons (litres) of flaming jet fuel and burning plastics released deadly carcinogens.

Last week, the New York City Fire Department added nine names to the 55 already etched on a wall honoring members who have died of illnesses related to Ground Zero rescue and recovery work.

Some estimates put the overall death toll from 9/11-related illness at more than 1,000. Nationwide, at least 20,000 Ground Zero workers are being treated and 40,000 are being monitored by the World Trade Center Health Program.

"We're burying guys left and right," said Nancy Carbone, executive director of Friends of Firefighters, a Brooklyn-based non-profit that helps treat first responders. "This is an ongoing epidemic."

In the past seven weeks, three New York City cops, two firefighters and a construction union worker who toiled at Ground Zero have died of cancer or respiratory illnesses, according John Feal, who runs a non profit that monitors Ground Zero health care issues.

The staggered nature of the respiratory diagnoses have complicated efforts to distribute $2.7 billion in federal victim compensation funds. A range of cancers is expected to be added to the list of ailments covered by the fund this month.

Leslie Haskins, who lost her husband on 9/11, said she has grown disillusioned by the politics of the reconstruction, and wants to see more attention paid to the ailing workers.

"They are sick and dying and their marriages are breaking up," she said. "Why are we pouring all this money into buildings when men don't have enough insurance to buy breathing apparatus?"


PROGRESS AND SETBACKS

Retired Fire Department of New York City (FDNY) battalion chief Jim Riches, who spent nine months digging through the rubble at Ground Zero before his firefighter son's body was recovered, called the reconstruction disputes "a disgrace."

Seven years ago, Riches was hospitalized with acute respiratory disease and fell into a 16-hour coma. He came out of the coma with stroke-like symptoms.

"We can send men to the moon but we can't rebuild some buildings in more than 10 years?" he asked.

Some progress has been made by Larry Silverstein, the developer who owned the lease on the Twin Towers and is now building three office tower at the Ground Zero site, and the Port Authority. The September 11 foundation has also raised hundreds of millions in private and public funding for the overall project.

One step forward was last fall's opening of the September 11 Memorial at Ground Zero, twin reflecting pools in the footprints of the towers. More than four million people have visited.

Also, One World Trade Center, one of the tallest towers in the country, is near completion and expected to open in 2014.

Yet disagreements over costs have undermined the rebuilding and hurt public relations. Among the disputes, the September 11 foundation insists the Port Authority owes it $140 million, according to a source familiar with the financial issues.

The Port Authority believes it is owed $300 million, the source said.

Feal, a demolitions expert who lost part of his leg doing post 9/11 recovery work, is among those who said they are tired of reading about the contentious World Trade Center project when health concerns persist.

"2,751 lives were lost that day," he said "That's sad, but they didn't suffer long. These first responders have been slowly dying for 11 years."

View the original article here

Raymond J. Learsy: NOPEC ('No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act': A Presidential Issue And A Test Of Political Integrity

type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/">

The weekend past, the most auto traveled of the year, gasoline hit a record Labor Day high. It is well past time for all our branches of government, in the name of the nations bludgeoned consumers, to stop playing doormat to the oil interests, most especially the machinations of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

The United States is the world's largest consumer of oil and instead of using its massive purchasing power to forge a level playing in the oil market it has consistently permitted OPEC, and oil interests piggybacking on OPEC's manipulations, to ever higher oil/gasoline prices, to make us dance to their tune, hiding under the preposterous umbrella of 'sovereign immunity' permitting OPEC's collusive practices countenanced by an out of touch U.S. judicial branch of government, as though sovereign economic aggression was analogous to not giving parking tickets to cars with diplomatic plates. This has now gone on for years with a near 5 fold increase in the price of oil since the turn of the century with nary a push back from our government or its agencies.

Yet some years ago, in 2007, there was a genuine effort to change the equation in a fundamental way when Congress voted overwhelmingly, in defiance of the oil lobby and their allied interests for the NOPEC bill, so named because it would allow the international oil cartel, OPEC, and its national oil companies operating outside the law, hiding behind our sovereign immunity shield, to be sued and held accountable for what are clearly anti-competetive attempts to limit the world's supply of petroleum and the consequent impact on oil prices.

In defiance of oil interests Congress voted overwhelmingly for the Bill (70 votes to 23 in the Senate and 345 to 72 in the House). This was an act of refreshing and courageous leadership by our Congress only to be abandoned after President George W. Bush, that great stalwart of oil interests and friend of Saudi Arabia, made it clear that he would veto the bill should it land on his desk.

Anti-OPEC legislation has a long history and varied forms of a NOPEC bill have been introduced some sixteen times since 1999, only to vehemently resisted by the oil industry, its allied oil interests like the American Petroleum Institute and their legion of "K" Street Lobbyists, fully cognizant that the higher OPEC can push oil prices the greater the profits for domestic oil companies. Then, of course, the diplomatic pressure by potentially impacted national interests as the assertion of the UAE's oil minister Mohamed bin Dhaen al-Hamli not so subtle threat "If the U.S. wants to sue (OPEC) member countries it's extremely dangerous".
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2007/06/28/OPEC-bill-will-hurt-US/UPI-29251183080388/

In 2000 the proposed bill took form as the "Oil Price Reduction Act and International Energy Fair Pricing Act" seeking to force the President to reevaluate or even suspend economic and security ties to those states engaged in "oil price fixing to the detriment of the U.S. economy."

The legal loophole has not only permitted collusion among OPEC member states to impact the price and availability of oil, but equally insidious has permitted their national oil companies, the instruments of OPEC manipulation, to control important swaths of America's refinery capacity such as PDVSA, Venezuela's national oil company's ownership of CITGO with its significant refineries at Corpus Christie TX., Lamont, ILL., and Lake Charles, LA. supplying 13,500 domestic gasoline stations, thereby having direct impact on U.S. gasoline prices and availability. This while on May 31 of this year a valve turning ceremony took place at Port Arthur, LA. signaling the completion of the Motiva Enterprises Refinery, owned 50% by Saudi Aramco and 50% by Shell, of their 600,00b/d refinery expansion, making it the largest refinery in the USA. Opportunistically situated at Port Arthur with its access to the world's shipping lanes, it is strategically placed to export petroleum based commodities such as gasoline, diesel, heating oil, etc. to world markets taking pricing pressure off America's growing production of oil and keeping oil prices up which is Saudi Aramco's primary strategic business and Shell's not far behind. Ironically perhaps, perhaps better said purposefully with malice afor thought, the plants 600,000 b/d capacity is almost the equivalent of America's new oil frontier, North Dakota, with its daily oil production of 600,000 barrels/day.

In the face of OPEC and oil interests riding roughshod over the nations economic interests, this administration showed its true colors in the eye opening court case, litigated during the past year:
-United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (No. 06-3569) Spectrum Stores Inc.....et al Plaintiffs-Apellants
v.
CITGO Petroleum Corporation; Petroleos De Venezuela S.A. ....et.al.

With the plaintiffs charging that the Venezuelan State Oil Company is "liable under the Sherman Act for its participation in a global price fixing conspiracy with the OPEC member nations and other private oil companies."

Given the issue of "Sovereign Immunity" the court asked the Obama administration to file a brief commenting on the merits of the complaint. Incredibly the administration filed an amicus brief upholding the defendants argument that the plaintiffs had no standing because of the principle of 'Sovereign Immunity' and joined by the Department of State, Treasury, Energy and Justice Departments.

This was a sea change from not only the President's position, but also his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton when both were serving in the Senate. Then Senator Clinton was co-sponsor of the "S.879 (110th): No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act of 2007" sponsored by Senator Herbert Kohl (D-Wis.) on March 17, 2007 -"a bill to amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal". As cited above the Bill was introduced in April of that year but was not enacted.

President, then Senator Obama voted "Yes" for the NOPEC Act of 2007, on making oil producing and exporting cartels illegal. Voting "Yes" would have amended the Sherman Act, making it a violation for any state:
-To limit oil production/distribution of oil/natural gas
-To set or maintain the price of oil/natural gas
-To otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil/natural gas
- When such collective action has a direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market supply, price, or distribution of oil and natural gas in the U.S.

On February 29 of this year Sen. Herbert Kohl Chairman of the Senates Judiciary Committee, introduced once again the "No Oil Producing & Export Cartels (NOPEC) Act." Senator Kohl's clarion call is lucid and should finally be heeded:
"Now is the time, with the people we represent seeing soaring energy prices eat into their family budgets, to finally pass this legislation into law and give our nation a long needed tool to counteract this pernicious and and anti-consumer conspiracy"

Clearly the Bill has gone nowhere because it did not have the Administration's support. And therein lies the crux of the issue.

Is the Obama administration as pathetically submissive to OPEC and oil industry pressures as the Bush administration? How would they deal with this issue if they were given "four more years." And not to be left out, how would a Romney administration handle this hot potato. These are important questions that need be asked now, before the election, so Americans will have an understanding on whose side the next elected President is on, the oil barons or the battered American consumer.

View the original article here