New alimony law is bad for women

If Massachusetts' strangely arcane Alimony Reform Act were to become the law of the land, the financial well-being and security of married women could be seriously threatened.

The law dramatically changes the way judges grant alimony for nonworking ex-spouses. It is written in gender-neutral terminology, but because 97% of the people who seek and require alimony are women, the effects on women will be substantially greater.

First the (oversimplified) basics: The new law decides whether alimony will be granted, if at all, based not on a wide variety of criteria -- such as the value of the nonworking spouse's contributions to the marriage -- but on how many years the couple stayed married and how much money the working spouse made during the marriage. And it won't last a lifetime. If a marriage lasted 15 years, a woman will receive alimony, at most, for only 10½ years.

It's craziness. The Massachusetts legislature has effectively embraced a policy declaring that being married is roughly akin to working in state government. The more years you log, the bigger your pension, and if you make it to certain cut-off periods, you get a larger sum.

Specifically, five years of marriage or less gets the dependent spouse alimony for a period equal to 50% of the number of months the couple was married. So, if a couple stays married for two years, the dependent spouse will receive alimony for no more than 12 months. A marriage that lasts at least 15 years, but less than 20, entitles the dependent spouse to alimony for 80% of the number of months of the marriage.

If it weren't such a dangerous bill, it might be worth only a few snarky remarks about how people are not widgets, and human relationships should not be subjected to mechanical valuation systems. But this is a bill that threatens serious consequences and will affect women in ways that transcend economic concerns.

For example, one woman told me she's afraid of becoming homeless if her ex-husband invokes the new law to stop her alimony payments. She gave up a career in banking to stay at home and raise the couple's child. When that child went off to college, the husband filed for divorce. She is surviving on a modest alimony payment, but under the new law, payments will stop in two years. Having left a profession, she stands no chance at being hired for a well-paying job in that career. A minimum wage job would pay less than public assistance.

Victims of domestic abuse face an inhumane choice. Those who worry about homelessness if they leave a violent spouse might feel pressured to stay in an abusive relationship to make it to a particular cut-off period. At the same time, men who want to get out of a marriage cheaply can run to divorce court on the eve of the next cut-off period.

Similar bills have been proposed in other states, but women's groups have been deafeningly silent, perhaps because some aspects of the new law seem fair, at least superficially.

For example, a judge can consider the income of a new partner in measuring a dependent spouse's assets. In the past, a divorced woman who was granted alimony would lose it only upon remarriage. This prompted lots of women to simply move in with a man and benefit from his financial support without having his income considered part of her assets during a court assessment of whether her need for alimony has changed.

Lifetime alimony, in such circumstances, is terribly unfair. But it's also rare, especially these days. It happens, but so infrequently and usually in such unusual cases -- where the dependent ex-spouse is financially desperate and unable to work -- that it doesn't merit the restructuring of all alimony laws for all purposes.

Massachusetts divorce lawyer Elizabeth Clague says she's seen a judge grant lifetime alimony only a few times in her 16-year career.

"The cases involved unusual circumstances. One woman was living in a shelter; in another case, the husband had been hiding assets," Clague said. "Lifetime alimony awards are disfavored in Massachusetts and have been for a long time."

Judges ordered alimony under the previous, more flexible, rule based on a holistic view of each case rather than in accordance with arbitrary lines that reward or punish stay-at-home spouses based on years spent in the marriage.

Among other things, a mechanical approach to a woman's value disregards entirely the value of a woman's lost career. If she finished medical school, for example, then stayed home to raise children and care for her family, a judge should be able to take into account this lost opportunity and income.

Instead, the new law dictates that a woman's value is based solely on the length of time she spent enabling her husband to earn a certain income while she cooked, met with teachers and took the kids to soccer practice.

Judges in Massachusetts do retain some discretion to grant alimony beyond the guidelines, in unusual cases, but the stated purpose of the new rule will compel most judges to simply dole out discounted alimony awards based on an awkward calculation of numbers, years and percentages, rather than full valuation of a woman's worth.

Lifetime alimony has been a problem, but the system mostly self-corrected when judges stopped routinely ordering it. For those few men whose payments were unfair, a law granting a more generous standard of review on appeal would have fixed it.

The Alimony Reform Act is too broad, and other states should beware. Lawmakers motivated to please special interest groups would be wise to remember they represent the public interest, not only the interests of wealthy men with lobbyists.

Speeding ticket? Fight like a lawyer

Speeding ticket? Fight like a lawyer

Jimmy Ellis, 'Disco Inferno' singer, dies at 74

 Jimmy Ellis, who belted out the dance anthem "Disco Inferno" in the 1970s for the Trammps, died Thursday in South Carolina, the funeral home handling arrangements said.

He was 74.

Ellis' rich baritone powered the funky Grammy-winning tune from the "Saturday Night Fever" album. It is only second to "The Bodyguard" as the best-selling soundtrack album of all time with sales of 15 million.

Despite the success associated with the hit movie, Ellis and the band couldn't translate it into mainstream appeal, scoring just three R&B Top 10 hits from 1972 to 1978. But the group still commanded respect in the music community.

"But the Trammps' prowess can't be measured by chart popularity. Ellis' booming, joyous vocals brilliantly championed the celebratory fervor and atmosphere that made disco both loved and hated among music fans," the group's biography on allmusic.com says.

The Trammps began in Philadelphia in 1972.

Ellis' memorial service is scheduled for March 16 at Central Church of God in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Is a second term becoming inevitable for President Obama?

There's no such thing as a "sure thing" in politics, but it seems increasingly likely that President Obama is on his way to winning a second term.
The biggest factor working in the president's favor might be the Republicans.
In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken before Super Tuesday, only one in 10 adults said the GOP primary has given them a more favorable impression of the Republican Party. People used words like "unenthusiastic," "lesser of two evils," "painful," "uninspiring" and "depressed" to describe the GOP nominating process.
This may partly be why Obama's approval rating has been rising, hitting 50% in our latest poll. The president also tops Mitt Romney in hypothetical matchups.
The remarkably accurate online prediction InTrade puts Obama's chances of being re-elected at 60%.
But it's not just the Republican carnival that's helping the president. The economy is slowly starting to improve. That's huge. And, despite yesterday's sell-off, the stock market has been headed up. Experts say stock prices are rising on growing expectations that the president will win re-election.
Many Republicans see the writing on the wall. Big Republican donors and strategists are turning their attention to congressional races.
They apparently think they have better chances of winning races in the House and Senate than unseating the incumbent Democratic president. It's looking more and more like they might be right.

Here’s my question to you: Is a second term becoming inevitable for President Obama?

How Obama could win in a landslide

TIME magazine's cover story, which hit the newsstand Thursday, argues that Latino voters will cast the deciding vote in the upcoming election.

After watching the Republican candidates lock the kryptonite that is the immigration issue around their necks during the Arizona debate, my bet is that President Barack Obama could win another term -- even if he loses key swing states such as Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin -- but he must make sure he accomplishes one thing first: Connect with Latinos.

Republicans have not connected with Hispanics; the candidates' approaches to immigration are not compelling and lack substance, from talk of double 30-foot electrified fences to anchor babies and self-deportation. In fact, it could very well be that the 20 Arizona Latino voters on the cover of TIME and half a million more will turn out to vote in Arizona and flip the state to Obama.

Obama comes into the election with 196 electoral votes from safe Democratic states. If he takes Arizona and if Hispanic voters help him flip Missouri, which McCain won by fewer than 4,000 votes, and help him retain Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and North Carolina, then Obama wins with 279 electoral votes, nine more than the 270 needed. If he can retain Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia or Wisconsin, also populated with many Latino swing voters, then he could win in a landslide.

It is clear, then, that connecting with Latino voters could very well be a tipping point for the president; the question is how to make that connection.

In his book "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation," Drew Westen convincingly argues that "people vote for the candidate who elicits the right feelings, not the candidate who presents the best arguments."

Beyond the shared concern for economic growth, jobs, education and health care, Latinos are focused on immigration because the majority of the undocumented workers living here are from Latin America. This is an issue that resonates at a deeply emotional level with Latinos, whether they are descendants of Spanish colonists or a recently arrived Mexican sleeping on a cousin's couch.

Thus to really, deeply connect with Hispanic voters, any candidate needs to address the immigration issue by supporting comprehensive immigration reform and the Dream Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for those who earn a college degree or serve two years in the military.

This is a vital first step to earning the trust of Hispanic voters, who understand that the country needs strong border security but also know that we need a fair way to deal with the nearly 10 million economic refugees who are working in this country and contributing to our society. It's a matter of respect.

So how does Obama -- who has a dubious record himself on immigration -- win the Latino vote?

First he wins the ground war in the battleground states, which is door-to-door combat.

Next he outspends Republicans in Spanish-language media, just like he did John McCain in 2008, by five to one. It's no coincidence that on Tuesday, Obama did an interview with L.A.-based "Piolin," the most influential Spanish-language radio personality in the country. The president reassured Latinos that he is strongly committed to passing comprehensive immigration reform and lambasted the Republican Party for its extreme views and intransigence on the issue.

Hispanics want to feel they are voting for an authentic leader. Hispanics don't have to agree with every position Obama takes, but they must believe in and identify with his worldview.

He needs to explain that the Democratic Party is a welcoming place for Hispanics, that his world view of America is that of a caring, responsible, family and that his political ideals are based on empathy and fairness. Getting these ideas across to Latinos is vital to securing their votes.

Once Obama has established a deep emotional connection with Latinos, he can connect directly to the heart of Latino voters with three simple messages:

1. The economy and jobs.

Under Obama's leadership, an economy that was losing 500,000 jobs a month in the final months of 2008 is now gaining more than 200,000 jobs per month. His policies are working; they just need more time.

2. Health care.

Despite unanimous opposition from Republicans, Obama fulfilled his promise of making health care available to all Americans. Now 32 million more Americans -- including Hispanics -- will be able to afford insurance for the first time.

3. Education.

The president doubled the government's investment in scholarships and financial aid, making college more affordable to millions of Americans. Now students from working-class Hispanic families can go to college and get good jobs.

On the contrary, Republicans may blow hard about their understanding and affection for Hispanics, munching on burritos in the barrio on the campaign trail, but the evidence of authenticity of leadership and the strong record crucial to the Latino vote are just not there.

The refusal of all the GOP candidates to really look at immigration and offer a plan -- despite the glad-handing and tepid avowals of commitment -- makes it clear that the GOP just doesn't have the deep connection with Latinos necessary to pull off a win in November.

Would you want to be a member of Congress? Some of them say the job sucks.

Pity our poor Congress.
With many members of Congress calling it quits this year - some say it's because the job just sucks.
Politico reports that lawmakers young and old are leaving public service for the private sector because "the thrill is gone."
They say it's just too hard to get things done with the gridlock in Washington.
Republican Senator Olympia Snowe made a splash with news of her retirement - highlighting the "dysfunction and political polarization" of the Senate.
Democratic Congressman Barney Frank has said he was frustrated because the public no longer tolerates deal making.
Retiring four-term Oklahoma Democrat Congressman Dan Boren tells Politico, "I'm used to being a player. You want to get things done for your constituents. If you can't ever become speaker or a committee chairman, why are you doing it?"
For some lifers the job just isn't as prestigious as it used to be - plus these days nobody likes them much.
They can't earmark money for constituents, they need to maintain residences in two cities, fundraising is a headache, and a lot of perks have disappeared thanks to ethics rules. Awww…
Oh - and their pay has been frozen for 3 years - at $174,000.
Not quite a hardship for millions of Americans dealing with extended high unemployment, soaring gas prices and plummeting home values.
Want more?
Other lawmakers cite the constant media presence in the era of blogs, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. They worry about having any little thing they do or say splashed on the Internet.
Here’s my question to you: Would you want to be a member of Congress? Some of them say the job sucks.

Joseph Kony: Brutal warlord who shocked world

 If Joseph Kony wasn't the most wanted man in the world, he may be now.

In the past week, a documentary detailing accusations of vile acts committed by the Ugandan warlord has spread like wildfire on social media (at the time of writing it has had more than 50 million views), prompting international outrage and a groundswell of support for his capture.

In the documentary, "Kony 2012," which was posted online by the U.S.-based group Invisible Children, the tales of atrocities are horrifying: armed supporters force abducted children to kill their own parents, brutal mutilations include the hacking off of lips and limbs, and the sexual slavery of young girls stolen from their families. The group says its aim is to raise awareness and bring Kony to justice.

While some critics question whether the film captures the full scope of the conflict, one matter is without debate: Kony now ranks as one of the International Criminal Court's most wanted men, facing arrest on charges of crimes against humanity after a 26-year campaign of brutality in his failed bid to overthrow the Ugandan government.

How did Kony rise to power?

Kony, a former altar boy, was a young man in his early 20s when he was caught in the storm of violence that marked the final years of Milton Obote's presidency.

Obote was deposed in a military coup in 1985, and soon after Yoweri Museveni's National Resistance Army (NRA) seized power. Kony's Lord's Resistance Army was among those who rose up against Museveni's NRA.

Kony was a spiritual leader, known as a healer among the Acholi people. He inherited a powerful support base from Alice Lakwena, a spirit-medium.

Lakwena's followers would "daub themselves in shea butter crosses which they believed would protect them from bullets and they believed that stones would explode like grenades," explains Matthew Green, author of "The Wizard of the Nile - The Hunt for Africa's Most Wanted," about Kony.

"It was a mystical rebellion," Green says, adding that Kony "was very much an inheritor of her mantle." Lakwena fled to Kenya after Museveni's forces launched a brutal attack on her and her followers.

Staying in northern Uganda, Kony rallied Lakwena's remaining supporters and recruited more with a powerful mix of mythical claims, charisma and unconscionable violence.

What is Kony like?

Green describes being one of the few journalists to ever meet Kony when the rebel leader briefly emerged from his jungle hideout in 2006.

"Although he was surrounded by phalanxes of child soldiers with Kalashnikov rifles and bayonets fixed to them, he actually looked terrified of meeting strangers," Green said.

Despite Kony's apparent fear and paranoia, Green says the rebel leader was charismatic and clearly a "very powerful orator" when speaking to his people.

"He had an almost musical voice as he spoke in his Acholi language and you could see that the people listening were completely captivated."

What are Kony's tactics?

If Kony attracted supporters through his "mystical powers" and charisma, he kept them through fear.

"Certainly the violence is what made his movement so terrifying," Green says. "These attacks were carried out often with machetes or clubs and the violence was designed with a very clear political purpose. It was designed to illustrate to the people in northern Uganda that the government of President Museveni could not protect them."

Kony's forces are believed to have abducted thousands of children to join his cause -- however the exact number is unconfirmed. At the height of the violence during the mid-2000s, parents tried to protect their children from harm by sending them to sleep in towns, away from Kony's ruthless kidnappers.

Brutal punishments were inflicted on those who were accused of disloyalty by an increasingly paranoid leader, Green says. "Kony once gave an order that anyone caught riding a bicycle should have their legs cut off. Bicycles were a very common means of transport in rural areas and he was worried that informers, if they saw the rebels, would rapidly pedal away and alert the nearest army post."

And similarly he would cut off people's hands as a kind of warning not to raise any hands against the rebels," Green adds.

How organized is the Lord's Resistance Army?

Kony created the Lord's Resistance Army with the intention to lead, based on his version of the Ten Commandments. Since then it has grown into a "disciplined fighting force," says Green, explaining that its members occupy a rank and are rewarded for loyalty.

Kony has been able to maintain his hold over them with his mix of self-proclaimed spiritual powers and military strategy, Ned Dalby, Central Africa researcher with the International Crisis Group, said in a 2011 interview with CNN.

"He cultivates this image of himself as a medium for the power of the spirit and at other times, he presents himself as a ruthless military leader. So he's able to maintain cohesion as a group and maintain the loyalty of his fighters," Dalby said.

He noted that some former LRA fighters from northern Uganda have given clues as to why some outside the group stayed loyal to Kony. "They expressed the feeling that because they were given a rank, they were given a certain purpose, and respect and authority," Dalby says. "And then, once they're outside the LRA, they find they've become just another poor person, trying to survive."

Where is Kony now?

"Kony fled back into Sudan probably in late 2005, 2006 and he has not been back into Uganda since, as far as we know," Green said.

He is believed to be accompanied by a small band of supporters, though his followers are still said to be terrorizing people elsewhere on the continent.

"The mass abduction of Ugandan children and the terrible atrocities, the massacres that Kony committed have not occurred for some years now," added Green. "However, his forces are still on the loose in places like Central African Republic and Eastern Congo, and they still retain the capacity to kill large numbers of civilians. So although they're not a threat to Uganda now, they certainly are a threat to the region."

The U.S. has listed the LRA as a terrorist group and in October, Washington authorized up to 100 U.S. Special Operations trainers and military advisers to assist African forces searching for Kony and other leaders of the LRA.

The activities of the group are tracked on a website that uses information from the Invisible Children's Early Warning Radio Network, U.N. agencies and local NGOs to map and document recent crimes.

KONY 2012

What Israel Really Wants

 I’m skeptical that the Israelis are getting ready to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. In the end, they might do it. But I suspect they are not ready to do so anytime soon.
That’s because they are talking so much about it. If they were really ready to move their F-15s and F-16s and their submarine-launched missiles against targets in Iran, they would be a lot more quiet.
Two historic notes: When the Israelis bombed Syria’s nuclear facility in 2007, they just did it. They didn’t discuss it openly in advance. Few folks even knew that Syria was building such a facility.
The same was the case back in 1981 when the Israelis destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor in Iraq. They just did it without discussing it in advance.
If the Israelis were really getting ready to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, why would they be giving such advance notice to the Iranians to prepare their air-defense systems?
So that raises this question: Why are the Israelis talking about the military option so publicly right now?
I suspect all the talk is designed to put great pressure on the U.S. and the international community to toughen sanctions against Iran dramatically, including an effective halt to Iranian oil exports, which finance the regime.
That’s why the international community recently sanctioned Iran’s Central Bank, which handles oil export financial transactions.
The Israelis probably have one more objective.
If the sanctions don’t result in U.N. nuclear inspectors coming back in and the Iranians backing down, I suspect all the tough talk from the Israelis is also designed to pressure the Obama administration to initiate the military option, instead of Israel. The U.S. military capability – for such a mission - is much better than Israel’s. The American bunker-busting bombs are a lot more powerful.
If, in the end, the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak concludes that the Israelis, themselves, need to strike, they probably would rather do it during this U.S. presidential election year than wait until 2013. The domestic political pressure on President Obama to side with Israel this year will be intense.
Having said all that, here’s one final note. It’s well-known that there’s no love lost between Netanyahu and Obama, and that was evident today in both their body language and the way they addressed each other so formally. But despite that, the military-to-military relationship and intelligence-to-intelligence relationship between the U.S. and Israel are stronger than they've ever been.

Obama and Netanyahu focus on Iran's nuclear program

Washington,President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday their nations stand together in their efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The two leaders met at the White House to discuss Iran's nuclear program and other Middle East issues amid talk speculation that Israel may attack nuclear sites in Iran. What is at stake as leaders meet?
In comments to reporters before the meeting, Obama said both he and Netanyahu would prefer a diplomatic solution to the Iranian issue.
However, Obama said -- as he had Sunday in a speech to the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) -- that military force remains an option to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
"The United States will always have Israel's back when it comes to Israel's security," Obama said, repeating a line from the Sunday speech as Netanyahu nodded in agreement.
"I reserve all options and my policy here is not going be one of containment; my policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and, as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are on the table, I mean it," Obama added.
Netanyahu said he welcomed Obama's "strong speech" on Sunday and noted that Iran considers the United States and Israel to be similar foes.
"For them, you're the great Satan, we're the little Satan," Netanyahu said. "For them, we are you and you are us. And you know something, Mr. President? At least on this last point, I think they're right. We are you and you are us. We're together. ... Israel and America stand together."
Netanyahu insisted that Israel will remain "the master of its fate" in ensuring that Iran not obtain a nuclear weapon.
"Israel must reserve the right to defend itself and after all, that's the very purpose of the Jewish state, to restore to the Jewish people control over our destiny," Netanyahu said. What does Israel really want?
Tehran has insisted that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. U.S. and Israeli officials have said they suspect that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Both have said they will act to prevent that from occurring.
Earlier Monday, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Director General Yukiya Amano, reiterated agency statements that it cannot say whether Iran's nuclear program is peaceful.
Amano said the IAEA "continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions."
Monday's White House meeting lasted for two hours, with the leaders then taking part in a working lunch with their delegations, according to senior U.S. administration officials who spoke on condition of not being identified.
During the meeting, Netanyahu was expected to press Obama for clarity on what would constitute the "red line" on nuclear arms that would cause the United States to strike Iran.
However, the senior administration officials said Israel did not expect the Obama administration to shift from its stance that opposes Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, compared with Israel's opposition to Iran gaining even the capability of developing a nuclear weapon.
Obama, meanwhile, was considered likely to push Israel to refrain from any military action on its own in order to give diplomacy and expanded sanctions against Iran a full chance to resolve the issue.
The president had no public appearances after Monday's meeting, while Netanyahu was to speak later at the AIPAC conference in Washington. The White House announced Obama will hold a news conference on Tuesday.
Obama is under criticism over his Iran policy from Republican opponents, including the leading GOP contenders to run against him in November's U.S. elections. Republicans call for a stronger public stance against the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon.
Accusing the White House of embracing a policy of "appeasement" toward Iran, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said the president has "turned his back on the state of Israel."
He said Obama is "all talk and no action" on the matter of Iran and its putative nuclear aspirations.
Santorum made the comments in Westerville, a suburb of Columbus, during his final push through the state before Tuesday's Ohio primary.
Speaking Sunday to AIPAC, Obama warned that "all elements of American power" remain an option to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, though the president also made clear that he prefers diplomacy over war.
"Too much loose talk of war with Iran" only benefits the Iranian government by driving up the price of oil, Obama said to the pro-Israel lobby group.
Obama said his policy is not containment of a nuclear Iran, but preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. At the same time, he emphasized that Iran "should not doubt Israel's sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs."
While Obama's statements are consistent with his past pronouncements, his specific reference to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon -- rather than the capability of building a nuclear weapon -- maintained what some consider to be a difference between his and Netanyahu's position.
Israeli officials say that if Iran were to become able to enrich weapons-grade uranium, it would potentially cross the "red line" of nuclear weapons capability that Israel fears.
In a statement issued Sunday after Obama's speech, Netanyahu expressed appreciation for the president's position that all options are on the table to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
"I also appreciated the fact that he made clear that, when it comes to a nuclear-armed Iran, containment is simply not an option," Netanyahu said, "and equally, in my judgment, perhaps most important of all, I appreciated the fact that he said that Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat."

Limbaugh revels in the crossfire after Fluke comments

 Republican kingmaker or entertainer? Truth teller or "big fat idiot"?
How about "lightning rod"?
Once again, Rush Limbaugh -- the conservative provocateur with the self-described "talent on loan from God" -- is in hot water. Limbaugh, who has been the leading talk-radio host for more than two decades, ignited this most recent controversy when he made comments about Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, who had testified as an advocate for contraception at a Capitol Hill hearing.
"What does it say about the college co-ed Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says she must be paid to have sex?" Limbaugh asked on his show last Wednesday. "What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex, she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."
His remarks set off a major outcry, prompting top Republicans and Democrats alike to denounce the famed talk show host.
Limbaugh apologized Saturday, saying his "choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir."
He added, "I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."
The damage, however, has been done. Eight companies, including AOL, Quicken Loans and ProFlowers, have announced they will pull ads from Limbaugh's show, the No. 1 radio show in America.
What effect this will have on Limbaugh -- and the 600-plus radio stations his show airs on -- is anyone's guess.
Limbaugh's situation is complicated by the politics of his show, said Michael Harrison, founder and publisher of Talkers magazine, which covers the talk industry.
Talk radio "has such a high profile and so much buzz factor, people tend to give these big-time talk-show hosts" far more sway than they actually have, Harrison said. "People who see things through the political lens only see things politically."
But politics is only part of the story, he said.
"The fact is, he's primarily an entertainer."
Glory in fury
The Fluke controversy is far from the first time Rush Hudson Limbaugh III has made controversial statements -- or backtracked.
In 2006, Limbaugh mocked Parkinson's-afflicted actor Michael J. Fox after Fox appeared in a political commercial for Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill. He later offered a conditional apology: "I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act."
Three years earlier, Limbaugh resigned from ESPN's "Sunday NFL Countdown" after igniting a controversy with statements about African-American quarterback Donovan McNabb. "My comments this past Sunday were directed at the media and were not racially motivated. I offered an opinion," Limbaugh said. "This opinion has caused discomfort to the crew, which I regret."

Limbaugh's remarks were inspired by Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke's Capitol Hill testimony.

Limbaugh has also mocked presidential children Amy Carter ("the most unattractive presidential daughter in the history of the country") and Chelsea Clinton (comparing her to a dog). Both times, he apologized, though some critics questioned the spirit of his regret.
His words still carry weight within the Republican Party, and just as often raise the hackles of his ideological opponents.
Limbaugh often glories in their fury, letting fly with such terms as "feminazis" ("Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society," he once said), "caller abortions" (disconnecting unwanted callers), "banking queen" (for the openly gay congressman and House Financial Services Committee member Barney Frank) and "state-run media" (mainstream media).
Indeed, before a number of advertisers had announced their intent, Limbaugh doubled down on the Fluke controversy. After President Obama called the student, Limbaugh mocked the story on his show.
"The president called her to make sure she's OK," Limbaugh said. "What is she, 30 years old? Thirty years old, a student at Georgetown Law, who admits to having so much sex that she can't afford it anymore."
Limbaugh has been stoking passions since he first went on the air as a talk-show host in 1984, replacing the equally outrageous Morton Downey Jr. in Sacramento, California. Previously, Limbaugh -- part of a noted southeast Missouri Republican family -- had worked as a music DJ under the name Jeff Christie and as director of promotions for the Kansas City Royals. In Sacramento, he found his exaggerated "El Rushbo" persona and set about raising ratings and emotion in equal measure. By 1988, he had moved to New York and his show went national.
He quickly became a star, reaching more than 5 million listeners for his "EIB Network" by 1991. (Current numbers are difficult to determine, says Harrison, but Talkers believes Limbaugh reaches 15 million people a week. Others question the figures.) "EIB" stood for "Excellence In Broadcasting" -- a typical mock-heroic Limbaugh touch befitting his golden voice.
Even those who disagree with him acknowledge his radio talent.
"Rush is just an amazing radio performer," "This American Life" host Ira Glass told The New York Times Magazine in a 2008 Limbaugh profile by Zev Chafets, who later wrote a Limbaugh biography. "Years ago, I used to listen in the car on my way to reporting gigs, and I'd notice that I disagreed with everything he was saying, yet I not only wanted to keep listening, I actually liked him. That is some chops. You can count on two hands the number of public figures in America who can pull that trick off."
The power of the bully pulpit
Limbaugh also became a power within the Republican Party, using his bully pulpit to promote conservative views and denigrate Democrats and their fellow travelers. The GOP appreciated the boost, naming him an honorary member of the 1994 "Contract With America" congressional freshman class.
He branched out, writing best-selling books -- the first two were titled "The Way Things Ought to Be" and "See, I Told You So" -- and starting a syndicated TV talk show, which was produced by future Fox News head Roger Ailes.
Limbaugh's popularity naturally led to detractors. Perhaps the most publicly outspoken was comedian Al Franken, who ripped Limbaugh's books with his own, titled "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations." That book, along with regular Comedy Central appearances opposite such political personalities as Arianna Huffington, helped establish Franken as a left-wing force. The Democrat is now one of Minnesota's U.S. senators.

Limbaugh's show is the No. 1 radio talk show in America.

Given the mockery Limbaugh dishes out, his personal life has left him open to jokes. He's been divorced three times; he married his fourth wife, Kathryn Rogers, in 2010. He's struggled with weight problems. He suffered from addiction to pain medication and was named during a 2003 investigation into a black market drug ring in Palm Beach County, Florida.
He also was detained by drug enforcement agents in 2006 after returning from the Dominican Republic. The agents confiscated a supply of Viagra; the prescription was not in Limbaugh's name.
Democratic Party leaders have also found Limbaugh a useful target, making him the center of a 2009 advertising campaign.
Over the years, several Republicans have backed off positions on issues after being taken to task by Limbaugh. In 2009, Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Georgia, criticized Limbaugh and fellow conservative talk-show host Sean Hannity for their attacks on the congressional GOP leadership; he apologized within 24 hours.
Other Republicans have spoken out against handling Limbaugh with kid gloves. "The problem I'm having with the party right now is when he says things that I consider to be completely outrageous, I would like to see other members of the party do likewise, and they don't," former Secretary of State Colin Powell told CNN in 2009. Powell had been a subject of Limbaugh's gibes.
Talkers publisher Harrison -- who describes Limbaugh personally as "basically a shy man," sensitive to slights but "intelligent enough to have overcome his emotions and stay out of the public profile" -- believes that Limbaugh will weather this storm, as he has so many others.
"I suspect he will come through this, because Limbaugh is not an elected official, he's not a clergyman, he's not a member of the government, he's just basically in the same business Ryan Seacrest is in," he said. "In the end, all of this talk helps keep him out there as one of the big controversial talk-show hosts of our time."
That doesn't mean, however, that Limbaugh is done dodging bullets. In our passionate times, a person who rouses of any sort of emotion is bound to stay a target. (On Monday, attorney Gloria Allred jumped into the fracas with an open letter calling Limbaugh's apology "meaningless.")
Don Imus was suspended after racially insensitive remarks in 2007. Shock jock Howard Stern had several run-ins while broadcasting in local New York radio and in syndication. Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the moralistic commentator and author, left broadcast radio in 2010, telling CNN's Larry King: "The reason is, I want to regain my First Amendment rights." Stern and Schlesinger now ply their trades for the subscription-based satellite radio company Sirius XM.
"Anybody in talk radio who states a political opinion gets as many enemies as they get supporters," Harrison said. "Being a celebrity today is dangerous, and being a controversial talk-show host is a very dangerous profession."

Super Tuesday won't end the GOP race

 It's probably better to be the default candidate than the noncandidate, but it's a position that usually has too many gaps to fill. That seems to be the position of Mitt Romney, and it says a lot about the current state of the Republican Party.
When the Seattle Times came out for Romney ahead of the Washington caucus, the editors stopped short of a real endorsement, calling him the "practical choice" and "the only option in a weak field." They wrote that he "does not excite voters and is a suspect choice, except for all the others."
Several candidates created political earthquakes, only to sink beneath their own aftershocks. One might argue that Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Rick Perry represented the usual "froth" that appears every four years, and now the Republican Party has gotten down to the serious business of nominating a candidate. But the track records of Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum suggest otherwise.
Of the three remaining candidates, Santorum had the best chance to make a run at Romney. He's emerged as the strongest anti-Romney choice. But Santorum has problems other than what may be called a narrow appeal. (He does best among the evangelical Christians, the less educated and rural voters, which do not not even constitute a majority of Republicans.) On Super Tuesday, Santorum may lose more than a quarter of the delegates in Ohio even if he wins, because he didn't file full delegate slates in all 16 congressional districts.
But as long as some billionaire is paying the bills -- and pulling the strings -- a candidate can and will stay in the race. Sheldon Adelson has propped up Newt Gingrich. Peter Thiel supports Ron Paul, and Santorum's got "not tonight, I've got a headache" billionaire Foster Friess.
The Republican nomination may go to the highest bidder. Romney's already spent almost as much as Gingrich, Paul and Santorum combined. But in some ways the process seems more like a circus than an auction -- or a poorly rehearsed skit of "Who's on first?"
Of the 13 states that have chosen delegates, there's been a counting controversy in two of them. (Of course, when it comes to counting votes, the Republicans have perfected the "fuzzy math" approach.) Iowa flipped from Romney to Santorum, and Maine is going to recount its votes. Romney had to scramble to win Michigan, his home state, which should have been a no-brainer. And probably was.
If this race stays close into the late spring, the candidates will look for reasons to raise questions about how delegates are being allocated and counted. Such confusion calls into question their competency. If the Republicans can't trust themselves to count to 1,144 -- the number of delegates needed to with the nomination -- without messing up the numbers, how can the country trust them to honestly manage bigger numbers?
This brings us back to Romney, the apparent nominee-by-default. He's the leading candidate, and the Republicans just aren't excited. GOP turnout has dropped in 5 of the 13 states that have voted so far. (Colorado dropped 6%, Missouri 57%; Florida, Nevada and Minnesota dropped in double digits.) Compared to four years ago, Romney's numbers dropped in six of the nine states (only 1% in Iowa, but 46% in Colorado, 63% in Missouri and 68% in Minnesota). Ironically, the only state with a significant increase in GOP turnout was South Carolina, where Republicans voted against Romney in a landslide -- he got just 28% of the vote.
GOP turnout in 2012 is even worse when compared with Democratic primary turnout in 2008, despite population growth. Except for South Carolina, turnout is lower in every state that has voted so far -- and by significant numbers. Turnout is down by 69% in Missouri, 72% in Nevada, 77% in Minnesota, and 86% in Maine. In those four states combined, the average drop of turnout is more than 75%. Those numbers don't bode well for the nominee or the party, no matter how much fuzzy math they use come November.
One reason for GOP indifference may be, ironically, Romney's strength: He's a fighter. But he fights with negatives. While he succeeds in soiling his opponents, he also sullies himself. He has a very high unfavorable rating among independents, and even among Republicans he doesn't match where John McCain was at this point four years ago. When Romney's not negative, he appears unfocused and becomes like a gaffe machine on steroids: "Cadillacs," "Blunt amendment," "firing people," "not worried about the poor," etc.
So what's ahead? A desperate race and a war of attrition. Santorum, Paul and Gingrich have no incentive to exit the race, because they're being paid to stay in and they're getting just enough delegates. Therefore, what we've seen is what we'll get -- a negative arc; shrill attacks against other candidates; hysterical hyperventilation against Obama; the language of fear, war and doublespeak; and a social issue feeding frenzy, with fainting spells when women's health is mentioned and panic over immigration. And the media lapping it up.
It's going to be a long, hot spring.

Rush Limbaugh - "It Makes Her A Slut, A Prostitute"

 WOW HE CALLED THIS AN  APOLOGIES,VERY FUNNY RUSH,. WHAT DO YOU THINK IS HE RIGHT OR WRONG?

Don Imus On Rush Limbaugh: ‘He’s A Fat, Gutless, Pill-Popping Loser’

  During Monday’s news updates on Fox Business Network’s Imus In The Morning, host Don Imus,went off on Rush Limbaugh‘s weekend apology to Sandra Fluke, calling Limbaugh a “fat, gutless, pill-popping loser.”Now of all people Imus,puts his two cents in.
Imus expressed anger over Limbaugh’s apology, pointing out that it was done on his website and not in person.
“A lame apology on his website, in which he says he didn’t mean to personally attack her,” Imus said, “is gutless.” Imus took issue with Limbaugh’s “sustained, vile, personal attack” on Fluke over three days, and said that if he’s going to apologize, you have to “go sit down with her” and apologize.
“He’s a fat, gutless loser,” Imus added, “and if I’m running a radio station, he’s not on it… until he does that.”
Later in the show, during another news report, Imus added a few nuggets to his argument. He re-iterated his belief that Limbaugh needed to apologize to Fluke personally, again calling him gutless.
“It’s the worst kind of cowardice,” Imus said. “Maybe he’s still jacked up on the Oxycontin, or whatever it is, but you can’t say stuff about somebody and not, 1) own up to it, and, 2) have guts enough to go sit down with her and say, ‘Look, I’m sorry and I won’t do this again.’ But no, he’s a punk.”
Watch Imus’ first Rant on Limbaugh here:

RUSH,COMMENT ON SANDRA FLUKE,.

Sandra Fluke Says Rush Limbaugh's Apology Doesn't Change Anything

 The Georgetown law student who drew an apology from Rush Limbaugh this weekend after the conservative radio host called her a "slut" on his show said that his public apology wasn't sufficient during an appearance on ABC's "The View" today.
"I don't think that a statement like this issued, saying that his choice of words was not the best, changes anything, and especially when that statement is issued when he's under significant pressure from his sponsors who have begun to pull their support," said the 30-year-old student, Sandra Fluke.
Limbaugh called Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" on his show last week after hearing her testify to Congress arguing that her university's health insurance should cover contraception for female students.
On Saturday, he wrote an apology after several sponsors pulled their advertising from his program in response to the Fluke comments.
"My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir," Limbaugh wrote in a released statement. "I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."Fluke said she has not heard from Limbaugh personally but added that she's not hoping to speak with him.
"The statements he's made about me over the air are personal enough, so I'd rather not have a personal phone call with him," Fluke said.
On his show today, his first on-air appearance since advertisers began dropping out, Limbaugh said that "those two words were inappropriate" and that he didn't think Fluke "was either of those two words."
"The apology to her over the weekend was sincere," he said. "It was simply for using inappropriate words in a way I never do."
On Friday, two days after his initial comments, Limbaugh repeatedly told his listeners that Fluke has "so much sex she can't afford it." President Obama called Fluke to offer his support that day, and Limbaugh drew out his crusade by mocking the president for placing the call.
AOL today announced it was yanking its advertising from Limbaugh's radio show, the latest in string of advertisers to do so. The company wrote on Facebook that Limbaugh's comments "are not in line with our values."
Another advertiser, ProFlowers, pulled out after more than 7,000 people commented on the ProFlowers Facebook page about Limbaugh's tirade against the Georgetown University Law School student.
"Mr. Limbaugh's recent comments went beyond political discourse to a personal attack and do not reflect our values as a company," the Internet-based flower delivery company wrote in a statement on its Facebook page Sunday afternoon. "As such, ProFlowers has suspended advertising on The Rush Limbaugh radio program."
Fluke didn't take a stand directly on whether advertisers should abandon Limbaugh, but she said that "Americans have a long tradition of supporting companies that share the values that they have."

Lenders increasingly allow the foreclosed to stay

Forced by the harsh realities of the real estate market, lenders are increasingly likely to allow defaulting owners to remain in their homes — a change in attitude and strategy that is helping to buoy some neighborhoods while further slowing the nation’s foreclosure process.     Some lenders are now willing to make deals with owners to let them stay after defaulting, offering to pay home insurance, for example, while the resident pays for utilities. Other lenders simply look the other way, quietly putting off foreclosure sale dates, knowing that the costs of the ordeal probably exceed the diminishing value of the properties.
The evolution in thinking was perhaps inevitable, experts say. Across the country, more than 644,458 properties were lingering in bank ownership at the end of January, but even more — some 710,725 — were coming down the foreclosure pipeline, according to RealtyTrac, a real estate and foreclosure analysis firm.
In addition, states and municipalities have grown more aggressive in the last few months in trying to force banks to maintain foreclosed properties, which have become blights on neighborhoods from coast to coast. Last month, lawmakers in Florida and courts in New York considered new ways to require lenders to alter loans to keep people in their homes or complete foreclosures more quickly.
“Under normal circumstances, the banks would be able to cover the cost of maintenance, upkeep and property taxes by just reselling the property, but these are desperate times, and banks are resorting to somewhat desperate measures in some cases,” said Daren Blomquist, a vice president at RealtyTrac, a real estate analysis firm. “It is more of a factor now because property values have come down and will not cover all these costs when the banks resell the property, if they can resell the property.” When the housing bubble burst almost six years ago, millions of Americans were forced to vacate their homes within months of defaulting, in a system that worked like an eviction mill, often resulting in vandalized properties and bitter feelings between banks and borrowers.
Since then, the average time it takes to complete a foreclosure has nearly tripled nationwide, from four months in 2007 to about a year at the end of 2011, according to RealtyTrac, with the slowdown most evident in some of the hardest-hit states, including California, Florida and Illinois. Homeowners in Florida who default can now expect to wait more than two years in legal limbo, the one big upside being the opportunity to remain at home without paying for it.
As a result, the relationship between many borrowers and lenders is softening from outright animosity to something that more resembles a détente.
Michelle Murray-Clark is one of the beneficiaries — or so she calls herself on a good day. A grocery clerk who found work last month after three years of unemployment, Ms. Murray-Clark has not made a mortgage payment in 40 months. American Home Mortgage Servicing, the loan processor, has not taken steps to evict her and is working on a third attempt at a loan modification.
The company is also paying insurance on her little house with the blue aluminum siding near downtown Orlando. They talk every week.
“Our whole philosophy is that it’s beneficial to keep people in their homes — better for the consumer, the investors, and for us,” said Philippa Brown, the vice president for corporate communications at American Home Mortgage Servicing. “Our job is to work with homeowners who are experiencing hardship and find ways that will keep them in their homes. We’re open to new ways of doing things.”
Guy D. Cecala, the publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an industry newsletter, explained: “Are you better off leaving a defaulted borrower in there if they’re at least maintaining the property? A lot of times, the answer is yes.”
Many wonder why it has taken the banks and loan servicers so long to adapt. Andrae Bailey, executive director of the Community Food and Outreach Center in Orlando, said, “We are seeing lenders start to work with families in a way that would have made sense in 2008.” But he worries that because so many neighborhoods have already deteriorated, “it’s too little too late.”
These days, some banks announce their willingness to compromise to keep houses occupied. Vickee Adams, a spokeswoman in the home mortgage division of Wells Fargo, said, “To the point of folks remaining in their homes, there is a benefit to keeping a community active with residents.”
Other lenders are often reluctant to discuss such arrangements because of questions of fairness that are inevitably raised: why should defaulting homeowners get a break?
The slowing of a process that was widely seen as out of control has been a welcome relief to many borrowers who are likely to be in economic distress as a result of long-term unemployment or underemployment, experts say. But interviews with several homeowners who have had lengthy stays in their homes after defaulting show that the impact on their lives is both a blessing and a curse.
“Sometimes I wake up in a foul mood,” said Ms. Murray-Clark, 52. “The mortgage company, they say, ‘We’re going to work with you,’ so I stop packing. Then they say, ‘Sorry, it didn’t work,’ and I start packing. Then they say, ‘Let’s try again!’ And I stop packing.”
“I know that this is way long for anybody to be in their house,” she said.
But every day, questions nag: Should she save her first paycheck to pay for movers, or should she make repairs to the roof? If the latest attempt at a loan modification comes through, how will she pay for the accumulated interest and penalties?
“It’s very tense, because I don’t know what’s going to happen,” she said.
Judith Fox, a law professor who directs the Economic Justice Project at the Notre Dame Law Center in South Bend, Ind., has changed the advice she gives defaulting clients. “Three or four years ago, I would always tell clients, ‘You have three or four months to get yourself together,’ ” she said. “Now I tell folks, even if they’ve been foreclosed, ‘Just stay put, because it could be years before anything happens.’ ”
One of Ms. Fox’s clients is Nicholas Cline, 35, a construction worker who fell behind on his mortgage payments in 2009. (He thought he had modified his loan, but the company he was working with has since pleaded guilty to criminal fraud.) The bank that holds Mr. Cline’s mortgage has left him alone, he said. No letters, no calls, no hassles.
“But now that it’s going on three years, what do you do?” Mr. Cline said. “I am living in my house. But the stress of this, not knowing what’s going to happen or when, it’s an unbelievable burden on your mind.”
In New York, the time to complete a foreclosure has almost quadrupled, from 263 days in 2007 to 1,019 days in 2011. Abraham Kleinman, a lawyer in Uniondale who represents homeowners fighting foreclosure, said he counseled a client who felt guilty about remaining in his home so long after defaulting. “He says to himself, ‘I’m sitting here rent free, it can’t go on forever,’ ” Mr. Kleinman said. “But the plaintiff has not been aggressive. As near as I can tell, they’ve put this to the side.”

Deion Sanders’ marital split gets $200M uglier

Deion Sanders says he doesn't use "the media as a platform to fight my battles." Unless you count going on 103.3 FM's Ben and Skin Show in Dallas to dismiss the $200 million lawsuit filed by his wife, Pilar, as absurd and frivolous. "That's like me suing a homeless dude for a burger and some fries," said the Neon one. On his side is Deiondra Sanders, Deion's daughter from another relationship, who has called Pilar a "gold diggin' ho" via Twitter. If only Deion's "Sports Dads" series had the same can't-look-away quality as his divorce.
Anytime an athlete is involved in a TMZ report they should be terrified looking to run for the hills.

Luckily for former NFL star and current NFL Network broadcaster Deion Sanders, the report is beyond ridiculous.

He is currently going through a messy divorce with ex-wife Pilar that has been rather public. On Wednesday she decided to file the paperwork to sue Sanders and their daughter Deiondra for $200M. The allegations are quite severe according to TMZ:

In her lawsuit, Pilar claims Deiondra and Deion have been attacking her with various "emotional weapons" for years ... including dominance, humiliation, isolation, threats, intimidation, denial and blame.

Pilar claims the Twitter rant was just another example of the humiliation she was forced to endure during the marriage ... adding, "[Deion and Deiondra] even persuaded [Pilar] that she was and is worthless, a 'gold diggin' ho, and that no one else would want her."

Pilar also claims the two would intimidate her by leaving various weapons on display around the house and "hurting pets."

So verbal attacks can cause $200M worth of damage? Are you serious? Deion has never been accused of physical abuse. Is it his fault Deiondra took his side in the divorce?

The Twitter rant by Deiondra where she called her names obviously hit Pilar hard, but you can’t blame Neon Deion for that. Sure he is always trying to win over his daughter…that’s what every father is trying to do.

The report doesn’t go into detail about how Deion was “hurting pets,” which makes you wonder why she even mentioned it.

The whole lawsuit is preposterous. I’m sure Deion didn’t always call his wife the kindest of words, but that’s why the couple is getting divorced. Only in America is a $200M lawsuit attached.

Pilar claims her husband and daughter persuaded her into thinking she was a gold digger, but after this lawsuit it’s hard to disagree with Deion and Deiondra.

Kenny Rogers and Dolly Parton - Islands In The Stream

UNSUNG/PHYLISS HYMAN,.

UNSUNG/PHYLISS HYMAN,.

Unsung - Phyllis Hyman part 1

The history of modern  soul music is unfortunately littered with stories of truly magnificent artists who spent much of their adult lives fighting personal demons while creating seminal music. Phyllis Hyman is, sadly, one of those stories. The Philadelphia native was a popular jazz club singer in New York when hot producer Norman Connors witnessed her show and pegged her to perform a cover of the Stylistics' "Betcha By Golly Wow" on his You Are My Starship album. Her emotive, jazzy stylings melded perfectly with Connors' production, and her stunning performance resulted in her being signed by Buddah Records for a 1977 self-titled solo debut.

Sheila E. - Hold Me [1987]

Patti LaBelle - On My Own ft. Michael McDonald

VOICE Magazine Special Limited Issue, WHITNEY HOUSTON; Tribute to a Legacy#share

VOICE Magazine Special Limited Issue, WHITNEY HOUSTON; Tribute to a Legacy#share