Thursday, June 19, 2008

Ante Up for Africa - Las Vegas Poker Tournament for Darfur

http://www.anteupforafrica.org/ http://www.enoughproject.org/ The ENOUGH! Project to stop Genocide & Crimes Against Humanity is once again partnering for the 2nd annual Ante Up for Africa, No Limit Texas Hold-Em Tournament in association with the World Series of Poker. Proceeds from the event will once again go to charities that provide aid and assistance to the survivors of the crisis in Darfur, Sudan and support activism dedicated to resolving this crisis. Last year we raised over $700,000 and hope to exceed that this year on July 2nd at 2pm at the WSOP® in the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino. The situation in Darfur, although improved in some ways since our tournament last year, continues to be perilous. Government forces in Sudan embarked upon a campaign of ethnic cleansing that has to date resulted in 400,000 dead and almost 4 million people displaced, living in squalor in refugee camps on the Chad/Sudan border. Deployment of peacekeeping troops has been authorized but helicopters and other supplies are needed to make this a reality. A new U.S. envoy has begun high level talks with the Sudanese government and the International Criminal Court has indicted two top Sudanese officials with more indictments expected to come so pressure is definitely mounting. Last year companies were just beginning to divest themselves of holdings in those entities doing business with Sudan. Now, among others, Berkshire Hathaway and Fidelity have sold all of their holdings in companies that do business there. This is tens of millions of dollars of divestiture. Also 22 states in the U.S. have passed laws barring their pension funds from investing in companies doing business in Sudan. Other states, including Nevada, have initiatives pending to accomplish the same thing. Our hope is that through efforts like Ante Up For Africa, we can continue to keep the issue in the spotlight while providing real funds to support the efforts of peacekeepers and aid workers on the ground.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Conservatives Dominate Talk Radio - CAP's Palmieri on FNC

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html Despite the dramatic expansion of viewing and listening options for consumers today, traditional radio remains one of the most widely used media formats in America. Arbitron, the national radio ratings company, reports that more than 90 percent of Americans ages 12 or older listen to radio each week, a higher penetration than television, magazines, newspapers, or the Internet. Although listening hours have declined slightly in recent years, Americans listened on average to 19 hours of radio per week in 2006. Among radio formats, the combined news/talk format (which includes news/talk/information and talk/personality) leads all others in terms of the total number of stations per format and trails only country music in terms of national audience share. Through more than 1,700 stations across the nation, the combined news/talk format is estimated to reach more than 50 million listeners each week. Conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format: * Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive. * Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk. * A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago. This dynamic is repeated over and over again no matter how the data is analyzed, whether one looks at the number of stations, number of hours, power of stations, or the number of programs. While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, conservative talk continues to be pushed out over the airwaves in greater multiples of hours than progressive talk is broadcast. These empirical findings may not be surprising given general impressions about the format, but they are stark and raise serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Bruce Schneier on Identification & I.D. Security

Bruce Schneier is the chief security technology officer of BT. An internationally renowned security technologist, he is referred to by The Economist as a "security guru." He is the author of eight books, including the best sellers Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly about Security in an Uncertain World, Secrets and Lies, and Applied Cryptography, as well as hundreds of academic articles and papers, and the influential Blowfish and Twofish encryption algorithms. Best known as a refreshingly candid and lucid security critic and commentator, his influential newsletter "Crypto-Gram," and his blog "Schneier on Security," are read by over 250,000 people. He has testified before Congress on several occasions, and has served on several government technical committees. He is a prolific writer and lecturer, and his essays have been published in national and international publications. He is a frequent guest on television and radio, and is regularly quoted in the press on issues surrounding security and privacy.

Identity & Biometrics - Bruce Schneier at CAP

http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2008/06/progressive.html Security of personal information is also a concern of identification and authentication systems. No ID system can be more secure than the breeder documents used to get that ID, says Bruce Schneier. If a birth certificate is used to obtain an ID card, the ID itself cannot be more reliable than the birth certificate, because that is the breeder document. It was easy for the September 11 terrorists to obtain authentic IDs from the DMV by bribing a DMV clerk. If the issuance procedures have flawsand they all willthat will hurt security.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Domestic Partner Benefits for Federal Employees - HIGHLIGHTS

In 1997 President Bill Clinton nominated Jim Hormel to be the first openly gay Ambassador to Luxembourg. After a 20-month politically divisive battle, Secretary Albright swore in Ambassador Hormel. Two years later, in 2001, President Bush nominated Michael Guest to be ambassador to Romania. While there was no battle for confirmation, what both ambassadors had to cope with was an inequitable system that treated them and their committed partners differently under the law. Federal Employees, whether in the foreign service or working in a regional office of HHS, are denied the ability to purchase domestic partner benefits. The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S. 2521 and H.R. 4838) would provide domestic partnership benefits to all federal civilian employees on the same basis as spousal benefits. These benefits, available for same sex domestic partners of federal employees, would include participation in applicable retirement programs, compensation for work injuries, and life and health insurance benefits. By offering health benefits to the domestic partners of federal employees, employment practices in the federal government would be in line with those of Americas largest and most successful corporations, including AT&T, General Motors, and Raytheon. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Sen Gordon Smith, Rep Tammy Baldwin and others appeared at a June 11, 2008 event at the Center for American Progress (CAPAF) to discuss the current policy and the future.

Monday, June 9, 2008

Lationos and the Electorate -- ASK THE EXPERT

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/cardenas_video.html Why do politicians need to start paying attention to Latinos? And what are the biggest issues facing Latino voters right now? Vanessa Cardenas of the Center for American Progress answers these questions in the latest installment of CAP's ASK THE EXPERT series.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

The ID Divide - HIGHLIGHTS

http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/releases/2008/06/ID_Divide_Release.html This spring, 12 nuns were turned away from voting booths during the Indiana presidential primary because they lacked state identification (none of them drove). This was a stark reminder that the recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld Indiana's voter ID law poses lasting consequences for our democracy. This issue of voter identification is just one of the identification issues addressed in a major new report by Cassandra Butts and Peter Swire: "The ID Divide: Addressing Problems of Identification and Authentication in American Society." Much like the "digital divide," the ID Divide is an easily overlooked but vital reality that affects many in our country. Over 20 million adult citizens lack government-issued photo ID, while victims of identity theft and those put on watch lists also fall on the wrong side of the divide. Badly-designed new ID programs, furthermore, may well impose large costs on ordinary citizens, including raising the risk of identity theft. The report stems from the Progressive Identity Project, which included experts in the many areas affected by identification issues: national and homeland security, immigration, voting rights, electronic health records, computer security, and privacy and civil liberties. The report proposes six new Progressive Principles for Identification, and sets forth a comprehensive approach for how the next administration should address issues of identification and authentication. Featured Panelists: Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies, Cato Institute Bruce Schneier, Founder and Chief Technology Officer, BT Counterpane Peter P. Swire, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress; C. William ONeill Professor at the Moritz College of Law of the Ohio State University Tova A. Wang, Vice President for Research, Common Cause Moderated by: Cassandra Q. Butts, Senior Vice President for Domestic Policy, Center for American Progress