<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Arianna Huffington</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/arianna_huffington/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 10:39:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Unreality TV</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/30/unreality_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/30/unreality_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Donald Rumsfeld]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/06/30/unreality</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's become painfully obvious that the only enemies Rumsfeld can defeat are the straw men he creates in his mind. It's time to cancel his show.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you could distill this administration down to one single thing, it would be this: a complete inability -- indeed a pathological aversion -- to changing course, even when the current course is taking us over a cliff. </p><p>Combine that with rank incompetence, and you've got quite a potent -- and deadly -- combo. It was on full display last night during the president's speech on Iraq and last week during Donald Rumsfeld's multiple public appearances. </p><p>First the president's speech. </p><p>The president's "new direction in Iraq" speech rehashed the same tired material he's been using on Iraq for years. Indeed, it was a veritable Greatest Hits collection. He even invoked the terrorist formerly known as Osama Been Forgotten two times. Even more shockingly -- though not unexpectedly -- he played the "conflate 9/11 and Iraq" card again and again and again and again and again. Five mentions in all for the terrorist attack that had absolutely nothing to do with the war in Iraq -- supposedly the topic of the speech. Here's a sample: "The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lesson of Sept. 11." </p><p>And now on to the secretary of defense. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/06/30/unreality_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/30/unreality_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judging what&#8217;s news</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/23/holloway/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/23/holloway/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Jackson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/06/23/holloway</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When the major networks cover stories like the Michael Jackson  trial instead of the Downing Street memo, just click the remote.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was thinking a lot over the weekend about the news and about how the news becomes the news, and then I read Jay Rosen's <a target="new" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/jay-rosen/the-downing-street-memo-a_2902.html">brilliant take</a> on the Downing Street memo coverage. Rosen elaborates on Josh Marshall's assertion that "news stories have a 24-hour audition on the news stage, and if they don't catch fire in that 24 hours, there's no second chance." Rosen's theory is that blogs have become the news cycle's appeals court, and that the Downing Street memo story is still alive because it won on appeal. And thank God. </p><p>But unlike a traditional court, the Blog Circuit Court of Appeals lacks an enforcement arm. The only way its decisions can be enforced is by constant reiteration of the decisions. </p><p>Which brings me back to this weekend. If you were to get your news only from television, you'd think the top issue facing our country right now was an 18-year-old girl named Natalee Holloway who went missing in Aruba. Every time one of these stories comes up -- like, say, the Michael Jackson trial -- when it's finally over I think, what a relief, now we can get back to real news. But we never do. When one of these big-league nonstories ends, they just call up a new one from the minors ... and off they go with another round of breathless reporting. Anything to not have to actually report actual news. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/06/23/holloway/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/23/holloway/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Where are the Democrats?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/16/iraq_105/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/16/iraq_105/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq war]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/06/16/iraq</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A majority of Americans say the war in Iraq hasn't made the U.S. safer. Why aren't more Democrats demanding that the White House develop an exit strategy?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"What Korea was to Truman, and Vietnam was to LBJ, Iraq will be to George W. Bush," Arthur Schlesinger told me last week. In all three cases, the public grew weary of a drawn-out war with no end in sight. History shows that there is nothing sacrosanct about wartime presidents. There is no guaranteed immunity for them. Rally round the president when the nation is at war is the American tradition -- but only for a time. The Korean War forced Truman to pull out of the 1952 race. Vietnam forced Johnson to pull out in 1968. </p><p>Bush was able to keep Iraq at bay long enough to get reelected, but the debacle threatens to derail his second term. Just look at the latest polls. According to Washington Post/ABC News, for the first time a majority of Americans feel that the war has not made the U.S. safer. Fifty-eight percent disapprove of Bush's handling of it. Fifty-eight percent say the war was not worth fighting. And 73 percent consider the number of casualties unacceptable. </p><p>But poll numbers are not the only figures the White House should be worrying about. Dick Cheney's "last throes" delusion is being rebutted by the figures coming out of Iraq every day. May was the fifth deadliest month of the war for U.S. troops. And in just the first two weeks of June, 41 Americans have been killed and 75 wounded. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/06/16/iraq_105/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/16/iraq_105/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Making Mehlman more comfortable</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/07/mehlman_4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/07/mehlman_4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2005 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/06/07/mehlman</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tim Russert lets RNC chair Ken Mehlman dodge the Downing Street memo, blame the deficit on 9/11, and "respectfully disagree" with criticism from his own party.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sunday's "Meet the Press," featuring RNC chair Ken Mehlman, was another classic example of why host Tim Russert is fast becoming journalism's answer to the E-ZPass, that electronic tag that allows drivers to go through toll booths without having to stop. On the show today, Mehlman was allowed to distort, twist, manipulate, obfuscate and "disassemble" his way through every stop on the disinformation highway. </p><p>The key to the E-ZPass method is no follow-ups -- or lame follow-ups quickly abandoned. And Mehlman is a master at dealing with those. His technique? Just repeat or slightly rephrase his talking point, and trust that Russert will give up, wave him on, and proceed to the next prepared question. </p><p>To see a master in action, let's go to the transcript: </p><p>Early in the interview, Russert asks Mehlman whether "the president has hit a wall with his domestic agenda? What's the problem?" </p><p>The RNC chair dances around the question so deftly his moves should be taught at Arthur Murray: "Tim, I don't think there's a problem," he responds, and then promptly changes the subject to Ronald Reagan before closing with an RNC commercial. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/06/07/mehlman_4/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/07/mehlman_4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Iraq: The next Democratic battlefront</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/05/27/iraq_104/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/05/27/iraq_104/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2005 21:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Howard Dean]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/05/27/iraq</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With the situation in Iraq at its bleakest, it's time for Democrats to do battle with Republicans.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now that the Democrats have won the battle over the nuclear option (or, at least, come away with a tie), they need to turn their attention to what it will take to become more than a minority party that wins a fight every now and then. They have been surprisingly successful at battling Bush's domestic agenda, but if they're going to broaden their appeal, they first have to broaden their battlefronts to include Iraq. </p><p>After John Kerry lost in November, the conventional wisdom was that he hadn't been "me too" enough about Iraq. But the truth is the exact opposite. </p><p>This war is a quagmire, and if the Democrats don't know it, the American people do -- 57 percent don't believe the Iraq war was worth it. </p><p>On Tuesday (May 24) the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a British think tank, released its "2004/2005 Strategic Survey." The report, a well-respected annual assessment of the security situation worldwide, cites a number of positive developments in the Middle East. </p><p>But it's important to remember that those developments are hardly the product of Bush's policies. After all, Bush wasn't responsible for the death of Yasser Arafat, nor did he order the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the anti-Syrian former prime minister of Lebanon, which touched off the pro-democracy demonstrations there. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/05/27/iraq_104/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/05/27/iraq_104/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nailing the Hammer? Not so fast</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/04/21/tomdelay/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/04/21/tomdelay/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tom Delay]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/04/21/tomdelay</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tom DeLay's ethical rap sheet is longer than the list of  boys who have shared Michael Jackson's bed. But the new GOP line is "He hasn't done anything wrong."]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Hammer was in a steely mood this weekend. Moments before brandishing a rifle over his head, embattled House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told a crowd of gun lovers at the National Rifle Association's annual convention, "When a man is in trouble or in a good fight, you want to have your friends around -- preferably armed." </p><p>The NRA members, who had paid $75 to dine on sirloin steak with peppercorn cognac sauce and hear DeLay wax romantic about firearms -- "If you want to empower women in America, give 'em a gun" -- responded with thunderous applause. I wouldn't be surprised if the judges in the Terri Schiavo case, who DeLay had said would have to "answer for their behavior," responded by running out to buy bulletproof vests. </p><p>Among the friends gathering round DeLay is Rep. Roy Blunt, the No. 3 Republican in the House, who appeared on "Meet the Press" to defend his colleague the morning after DeLay's NRA speech. No word on whether Blunt was packing heat. But his performance marked a new low in the GOP's "see no evil" approach to their man Tom. </p><p>The key exchange started with Tim Russert offering a chapter-and-verse recital of DeLay's misdeeds -- and quoting generously from the Wall Street Journal's scathing "Smells Like Beltway" editorial. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/04/21/tomdelay/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/04/21/tomdelay/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Whitewashing the pope</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/04/14/pope_12/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/04/14/pope_12/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/04/14/pope</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The media's obsessive coverage of the pope's death does not include a discussion of the tragic failures of his reign.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paint the last month black. It's been an orgy of mourning, a cornucopia of death. We've had Terri Schiavo, Pope John Paul II, Prince Rainier, and Charles and Camilla's wedding -- which felt as grim as any funeral. All brought to us in no-longer-living color. If nothing else, the media have outed themselves as the ultimate necrophiliacs. I expect CNN and Forest Lawn to announce a sponsorship agreement any day now. </p><p>The pope's interminable interment was the magenta-colored cherry on the death sundae. The TV coverage was so over-the-top and utterly uncritical, it was as if John Paul had been, well, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Or, at least, Jim Caviezel. </p><p>Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that the last week should have been spent trashing the late pontiff. His many achievements -- taking on communism, embracing the Third World, speaking out for the poor, and standing up against war -- surely deserved recognition and praise. But you'd think the wall-to-wall coverage would have included some serious discussion of the two tragic failures of his reign: his woeful mishandling of the church's child-molestation scandal, and how his archaic position on condoms contributed to the deaths of millions of people, especially in Africa. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/04/14/pope_12/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/04/14/pope_12/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Boyz on the Hill</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/04/07/budget_14/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/04/07/budget_14/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/04/07/budget</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bush budget-cut gang is gunning for Medicaid and permanent tax cuts, while doing nothing to secure the nation's increasingly dangerous city streets.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Over the next week or so, House and Senate negotiators will try to hammer out the differences in their competing budgets. Among the major bones of contention: disagreements over how deeply to cut Medicaid; whether to make President Bush's expiring first-term tax cuts permanent; and whether to go along with the president's proposal to slash funding for a wide range of programs related to homeland security. </p><p>No, President Bush is not gutting the Department of Homeland Security. The problem is Bush's definition of homeland security. Apparently, it doesn't include things like the safety of our streets. Especially the streets of our inner cities, which have become war zones. </p><p>After plummeting during the 1990s, gang violence is making a bloody comeback all across America, with gang-related homicides up 50 percent since 1999. According to Justice Department estimates, there are about 21,500 gangs nationwide with over 730,000 members. And these gangs are no longer confined to Los Angeles and New York. Cities like Denver, Portland, Ore., Salt Lake City, and Tulsa, Okla., have all seen dramatic surges in gang-related criminal activity. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/04/07/budget_14/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/04/07/budget_14/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Starving for leadership</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/03/29/schiavo_6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/03/29/schiavo_6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/03/29/schiavo</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Democrats missed a golden opportunity to reclaim the "moral values" debate in the Terri Schiavo case.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This column is not about Terri Schiavo and the wrenching spectacle that has surrounded her tragic fate. May she rest in peace. </p><p>It is about congressional Democrats and how they once again pathetically misread what moral values mean in a political context. May they miraculously wake from their persistent vegetative state -- or it won't be long before they are receiving their political last rites. </p><p>Ever since November, Republicans (aided and abetted by a poorly worded exit poll) have not only succeeded in defining the last election as having been about moral values, they've succeeded in defining moral values. In the GOP's extraordinarily abridged moral dictionary, fighting against gay marriage is morally valuable; fighting against 12 million children living in poverty is not. </p><p>Democrats, meanwhile, have been going through the most embarrassing public identity crisis since Anne Heche couldn't decide if, when it came to the bedroom, she preferred surf or turf. They've been mastering the feeble arts of second-guessing themselves and ducking for cover. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/03/29/schiavo_6/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/03/29/schiavo_6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Paying the price for Bush&#8217;s retro energy policy</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/03/24/energy_14/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/03/24/energy_14/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Auto Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/03/24/energy</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[President Bush's energy policies are a throwback to the age of the dinosaurs.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The new sales pitch for President Bush is that he's a forward-thinking visionary, right? His policies in the Middle East were, it turns out, not about the bloody debacle in Iraq today but about democracy spreading throughout the region in a glorious future. And his plan to fix Social Security is not at all about privatizing the jewel of the New Deal but simply about ensuring a safe and secure system well past 2052. </p><p>But when it comes to dealing with the many energy-related crises we're facing, can the Bushies really go on pretending that their policies are any more forward-looking than a rerun of "That '70s Show"? </p><p>Exhibit A is the president's bizarre and long-standing obsession with drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which just got Senate approval last week. I mean, how retro can you get? Instead of pushing to increase fuel-efficiency standards that could save millions of barrels of oil each day and calling for a national commitment to invest in renewable sources of energy, he's after one more fix of dinosaur byproducts from one of the world's last pristine places. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/03/24/energy_14/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/03/24/energy_14/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Washington establishment fails Logic 101</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/03/17/fairytale/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/03/17/fairytale/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq war]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/03/17/fairytale</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Politicians and pundits who attribute changes in the Middle East to the American invasion are living in a fairy tale.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just got back from a trip to the Happiest Place on Earth. Didn't ride the teacups, though. Because I wasn't in Disneyland but in Washington, D.C., where everyone is walking on air, swept away by the Beltway's latest consensus: President Bush was right on Iraq, and as a result, Tomorrowland in the Middle East will feature an E-ticket ride on the Matterhorn of freedom and democracy. </p><p>The political and cultural establishment has gone positively Goofy over this notion. In the corridors of power, Republicans are high-fiving and Democrats are nodding in agreement and patting themselves on the back for how graciously they've been able to accept the fact that they were wrong. The groupthink in the nation's capital would be the envy of Dear Leader Kim Jong Il. </p><p>Even heroes of mine like Jon Stewart and my buddy Bill Maher have hopped on the Bush bandwagon. "I've been supportive of President Bush," Maher told Wolf Blitzer this week, "now that I think Iraq is turning around ... He had a bigger and better idea than the rest of us." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/03/17/fairytale/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/03/17/fairytale/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Senate&#8217;s moral bankruptcy</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/03/10/bankrupt/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/03/10/bankrupt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Senate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/03/10/bankrupt</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The pending bankruptcy bill reads like a wish list for the credit card industry -- and couldn't be nastier to the average American consumer.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>U.S. senators are about to pass a bankruptcy bill so hostile to ordinary American families that it could only have come about in a place as corrupt, cynical and unmoored from reality as Washington, D.C. </p><p>In a normal world, those elected to represent the interests of the people would have fought for bankruptcy legislation that would, well, represent the interests of the people. But not in Beltway Bizarroland. Instead of cracking down on predatory lending practices, closing loopholes that favor the wealthy, and strengthening the safety net for working people, single mothers and elderly Americans struggling to recover from a financial setback, the Senate put together a nasty little bill that reads like a credit industry wish list. Rubbing salt in the wound, Sen. Charles Grassley, the bill's chief sponsor, labeled it the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 -- even though it does nothing to prevent bankruptcy abuse or protect consumers. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/03/10/bankrupt/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/03/10/bankrupt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A tale of two leadership styles</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/03/03/andystern/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/03/03/andystern/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/03/03/andystern</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I've seen the future of progressive leadership in America, and his name is Andy Stern.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After seeing the young Bruce Springsteen in concert, rock critic Jon Landau famously wrote: "I have seen the future of rock and roll, and its name is Bruce Springsteen." </p><p>Well, I've just had a Springsteen moment. After spending some time last week with Andy Stern, the groundbreaking president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), I'm ready to declare: I've seen the future of progressive leadership in America, and its name is Andy Stern. </p><p>You'll forgive me if I temporarily trade my critic's platform for a cheerleader's megaphone, but I've spent the better part of my adult life obsessing over the dwarfish nature of modern political leaders. (I even wrote an entire book about it in my mid-20s, and watched while it was rejected by 36 publishers before it finally saw the light of day.) So when I see the real deal, I react like a starving woman being escorted to an all-you-can-eat buffet. </p><p>Now, I suspected that Stern was the real deal even before I met him, having followed his fight to pull the American labor movement out of its decades-long death spiral. But what indisputably come across in person are his fire and passion for the 1.7 million janitors, nurses, social workers, security guards and home healthcare aides he represents -- and, by extension, for all working Americans. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/03/03/andystern/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/03/03/andystern/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Coming to a flat screen near you: The Pentagon Channel</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/02/24/pentagon_7/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/02/24/pentagon_7/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/02/24/pentagon</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you hate the truth, you'll love DoD TV!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Bush administration has shown a willingness to do just about anything to manipulate public opinion. It paid pundits to say nice things about it. It spent lavishly to create bogus -- and, according to the comptroller general, illegal -- video news reports on the president's Medicare, education and drug policies. And it has given us Gannon/Guckert-gate. </p><p>Now the Bushies are taking things to the next level. Not content to buy their press coverage retail, they are producing and distributing their own news network. And no, I'm not talking about Fox. It's the Pentagon Channel, a 24/7 niche network brought to you by the Department of Defense. </p><p>Started last year as an internal public relations unit within the Pentagon and designed to keep U.S. soldiers and their families informed about all things military, the network is now expanding its reach to the general public. A number of cable systems, including Time Warner, already carry the Pentagon Channel -- and the Dish Network will soon begin beaming the station to its more than 11 million viewers right alongside the half-dozen porn channels the satellite giant offers. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/02/24/pentagon_7/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/02/24/pentagon_7/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>True lies</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/02/17/eisner_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/02/17/eisner_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/02/17/eisner</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why Michael Eisner is the Disneyland doppelganger of the deceptive Arnold Schwarzenegger.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Like most everyone else in and around Hollywood, I spent part of this past weekend devouring "DisneyWar," James Stewart's 572-page vivisection of Disney CEO Michael Eisner. Throughout the chilling read, I couldn't shake the feeling that Eisner reminded me of someone. </p><p>The answer came when I got to the epilogue. "Eisner's most glaring defect," writes Stewart, is "his dishonesty." Stewart goes on to describe Eisner's "tendency to distort, embellish or forget the truth" until he becomes incapable of distinguishing reality from his own fabrications. </p><p>That's when it hit me: Eisner is the Disneyland doppelg&auml;nger of Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's all right there: the unremitting duplicity, the penchant for saying one thing then doing another, the gift for irrational invective, the way both men forge personal bonds with others, then turn around and stab them in the back -- often just hours later. </p><p>Mouseketeer Mike and the Governator are pathological peas in a pod. </p><p>"DisneyWar" is a laundry list of Eisner's lies and deceptions. We get chapter and verse on his infamous two-faced handling of best friend Michael Ovitz, prot&eacute;g&eacute; Jeffrey Katzenberg, and heir apparent Robert Iger -- as well as the dishonesty-drenched disintegration of his relationships with the Weinstein brothers at Miramax and Steve Jobs at Pixar. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/02/17/eisner_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/02/17/eisner_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The buck stops where?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/02/10/truman_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/02/10/truman_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/02/10/truman</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Only 27 cents of every dollar spent on rebuilding Iraq actually reaches Iraqis. It's time for Congress to investigate the corruption that's pouring billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayers' money  down the drain -- or into Halliburton's pockets.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With the president preparing to hit up Congress for an additional $80 billion for the war in Iraq, I thought it might be a good time to crack open a history book. </p><p>In 1941, as the United States was on the verge of entering World War II, Sen. Harry S. Truman launched an investigation into reports of widespread waste, corruption and mismanagement in the nascent war effort. Over the next three years, the Truman Committee held hundreds of public hearings, visited military bases across the country and ended up saving taxpayers $15 billion. His efforts also saved countless lives by rooting out contractors using inferior materials and producing shoddy equipment. </p><p>We sure could use "Give 'em Hell, Harry" today -- although, given the epidemic of corruption infecting the reconstruction of Iraq, even he would have his work cut out for him. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/02/10/truman_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/02/10/truman_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another &#8220;Mission Accomplished&#8221; moment?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/02/02/iraq_94/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/02/02/iraq_94/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq war]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/02/02/iraq</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The White House waxes triumphant over Sunday's elections and the media play along -- but Iraq is still a debacle.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Quick, before the conventional wisdom hardens, it needs to be said: The Iraqi elections were not the second coming of the Constitutional Convention. </p><p> The media have made it sound like last Sunday was a combination of 1776, the fall of the Berlin Wall, Prague Spring, the Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Filipino "People Power," Tiananmen Square and Super Bowl Sunday -- all rolled into one. </p><p> It's impossible not to be moved by the stories coming out of Iraq: voters braving bombings and mortar blasts to cast ballots; multiethnic crowds singing and dancing outside polling places; election workers, undeterred by power outages, counting ballots by the glow of oil lamps; teary-eyed women in traditional Islamic garb proudly holding up their purple ink-stained fingers -- literally giving the finger to butcher knife-wielding murderers. </p><p> It was a great moment. A Kodak moment. And unlike the other Kodak moments from this war -- think Saddam's tumbling statue and Jessica Lynch's "rescue" -- this one was not created by the image masters at Karl Rove Productions. </p><p> But this Kodak moment, however moving, should not be allowed to erase all that came before it, leaving us unprepared for all that may come after it. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/02/02/iraq_94/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/02/02/iraq_94/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oscar time</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/01/27/oscars_11/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/01/27/oscars_11/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/01/27/oscars</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Presenting the best and worst, most compelling and most pathetic performances in politics and movies in 2004.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With this year's Oscar nominations just out and already sparking heated debate (Was Hollywood too chastened to nominate Michael Moore? Too Jewish to embrace Mel's "Passion"? And what happened to <a href="/ent/feature/2005/01/27/giamatti/index.html">Paul Giamatti</a>?), I thought it would be a good time for this column's traditional salute to outstanding achievements in the worlds of politics and entertainment -- which have, after all, become increasingly hard to tell apart. </p><p>This year, I've decided to dub these awards "the Arnolds" -- I mean, it isn't every year that the chief executive of the most populous state in the union also lands a prominent role in a Jackie Chan flick (though the Governator playing a womanizing Turkish prince was a bit of a stretch). </p><p>So, without further ado, the envelopes please ... </p><p><b>Sequel </b> </p><p>Best: <a href="/ent/movies/review/2004/05/19/shrek2/">"Shrek 2."</a> </p><p>Worst: Bush-Cheney 2004. </p><p><b>Performance by a Grizzled Veteran </b> </p><p>Best: <a href="http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2004/12/15/million_dollar/">"Million Dollar Baby's"</a> Clint Eastwood gets another shot at glory when he trains a female boxer to fight for all the marbles. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/01/27/oscars_11/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/01/27/oscars_11/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Not this time, Mr. President&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/01/20/iraq_money/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/01/20/iraq_money/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/01/20/iraq_money</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dems will soon have an "accountability moment" of their own -- when Bush asks Congress for another $100 billion for Iraq.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When pressed by the Washington Post last week about why no one in his administration has been held accountable for the myriad failures in Iraq, President Bush sounded uncannily like Will Forte's petulant caricature on "Saturday Night Live": "Well, we had an accountability moment -- and that's called the 2004 election." </p><p>There was no word on whether the president then put his thumb on his nose and wiggled his fingers, or just went with the more efficient single middle finger. </p><p>In the next few weeks, Democrats in Congress will have an "accountability moment" of their own -- George Bush's request for another $80 billion to $100 billion in supplemental funding for the war in Iraq. </p><p>This will be the third time since the war began that the president has come to the Hill looking to refill his Iraqi coffers. The last two times, congressional Democrats helped rubber-stamp his requests, forking over $152 billion in military funding. </p><p>The time has come for Democratic leaders to say: "Not this time, Mr. President." </p><p>First they need to admit that they were wrong. Wrong to trust the president and wrong to allow him to put our troops in harm's way without a plan for post-Saddam Iraq, without significant allies (sorry, Bulgaria), and without an exit strategy. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/01/20/iraq_money/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/01/20/iraq_money/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Apocalypse later</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/01/13/future_5/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/01/13/future_5/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//huffington/2005/01/13/future</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With nearly religious fervor, the Bush administration is mortgaging America's future into oblivion.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Near the beginning of "Saturday Night Fever," John Travolta's Tony Manero, frustrated that his boss thinks he should save his salary instead of spending it on a new disco shirt, cries out, "Fuck the future!" To which his boss replies: "No, Tony, you can't fuck the future. The future fucks you! It catches up with you and it fucks you if you ain't prepared for it!" </p><p> Well, I don't know if you've noticed, but America has morphed into a nation of Tony Maneros -- collectively dismissing the future. And nowhere is this mindset more prevalent than at the Bush White House, which is unwavering in its determination to ignore the future. </p><p> The evidence is overwhelming. Everywhere you look are IOUs passed on to future generations: Record federal debt. Record foreign debt. Record budget deficits. Record trade deficits. </p><p> And this attempt to "fuck the future" is not limited to economics. You see the same attitude when it comes to energy policy, healthcare, education, Social Security and especially the environment -- with the Bushies redoubling their efforts to make the world uninhabitable as fast as possible. (See their attempts to gut the Clean Air Act, gut the Clean Water Act, gut the Endangered Species Act, gut regulations limiting pollution from power plants.) </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/01/13/future_5/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/01/13/future_5/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

