And yet, Hollywood has long known that politics was a sphere ripe for satirical appropriation. Running alongside the hoary tradition of the political drama is the rich vein of political comedies, treating Washington, or its local equivalents, as ripe for mockery and abuse.

Viewing presidents, senators, generals, and political operatives with a barbed sense of good humor, these films treat politics with the appropriate amount of respect–which is to say, not very much at all.

Here, then, are 10 of the greatest political comedy films ever made. In our era of deflated political discourse, their good humor and cynicism makes the ideal tonic. When the political sphere is dominated by the likes of Sarah Palin, what else is there to do but laugh?

“Duck Soup” (Leo McCarey, 1933)

“Duck Soup” is an ordinarily extraordinary Marx Brothers effort until approximately halfway through, when the Marxes’ brand of illogic shakes hands with the avant-garde, turning a hectic farce into a savage indictment of warfare. “Duck Soup”’s scabrous denunciation of war’s eternal pointlessness—change the costumes, but everything else stays the same—is unstinting, and prescient.

“The Great McGinty” (Preston Sturges, 1940)

“The Great McGinty” is like a fictional adaptation of the memoirs of Tammany’s George Washington Plunkitt, full of graft, chicanery, and corruption. McGinty (Brian Donlevy) is a bum who enters the voting booth on Election Day in exchange for the two dollars promised by the incumbent mayor’s cronies, and soon enough comes to take over the local political machine. The machine, though, ultimately has the last word, and the joke, such as there is one, is on McGinty.

“A King in New York” (Charlie Chaplin, 1957)

After being exiled from the United States for his political beliefs, Charlie Chaplin was out for blood, and “A King in New York” is his riposte to the bullies who had banished him from his adopted home. King’s America is a plastic world of salesmen, hacks, and courtiers, but the tone is amused, not hectoring, and Chaplin’s comedy is as inviting as ever.

“One, Two, Three” (Billy Wilder, 1961)

What could be funnier than the collision of Coca-Cola capitalism and Stalinist Communism in the divided city of Berlin, with machine-gun dialogue spitting fire on the no man’s land between East and West? During postproduction on the film, the Berlin Wall went up, and what had seemed like an amusing farce became a ghoulishly inappropriate, tasteless joke. Or so it seemed to many critics at the time. Some two decades after the fall of that same wall, “One, Two, Three” has regained all its verve, its smashing of Cold War pieties nearly the equal of Dr. Strangelove for sheer audacity.

“Dr. Strangelove” (Stanley Kubrick, 1964)

In Stanley Kubrick’s classic Cold War comedy, the threat of nuclear apocalypse keeps giving way to some other mood, some other genre. All of which is appropriate, in a way; Kubrick had initially intended to make a drama about the nuclear threat. Somewhere along the way, though, the inherent absurdity of nuclear doomsday began to poke through, and Kubrick and co-writer Terry Southern turned their project into a madcap, midnight-black farce.

“Nashville” (Robert Altman, 1975)

Released the year before the U.S. bicentennial, Altman’s sprawling film about the intersection of musicians, political operatives, and assorted loners and oddballs over three days in the country-music capital of the world was intended as a filmmaker’s state of the union. Politics is entertainment, and entertainment is politics; even the third-party presidential candidate Hal Philip Walker, with a platform consisting of banning lawyers from politics and adopting a more tuneful national anthem, is as much stand-up comedian as statesman.

“Being There” (Hal Ashby, 1979)

Ashby’s film is a rip-roaring political screed disguised as a gentle comedy. Peter Sellers’ Chauncey Gardiner is merely a beneficiary of unpredictable circumstance, the projection of others’ hopes and desires with none of his own beyond the immediate: a hot meal, a warm television. Being There is simply too much—a comedy far too exaggerated to possibly swallow—until one remembers that the very next year, a Gardiner-esque blank slate would be elected the 40th president of the United States. If there is a reason that no feature-film biopic of Ronald Reagan has yet been made, it is perhaps because Peter Sellers has already embodied him here.

“The Distinguished Gentleman” (Jonathan Lynn, 1992)

“The Distinguished Gentleman” was a loose remake of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington in which the newcomer was not another idealistic Jimmy Stewart, but an apprentice Claude Rains. The Distinguished Gentleman is a surprisingly tart satire of Republican governance, with Murphy the ambitious black politico who gets ahead by playing the good ol’ boy. “The Distinguished Gentleman” succeeds in large part because of Murphy’s ability to turn corruption into comedy.

“Wag the Dog” (Barry Levinson, 1997)

This remarkably prescient satire anticipated the soon-to-develop Monica Lewinsky saga: a president, caught with his pants down, engineers a fantasy conflict (with Albania) to distract attention from his peccadilloes on the eve of an election. Dustin Hoffman is superb as Stanley Motss, the twinkly-eyed Hollywood mogul—think Lew Wasserman with incurable diarrhea of the mouth—brought in to produce the war.

“Charlie Wilson’s War” (Mike Nichols, 2007)

Director Mike Nichols had also directed the tart Clinton roman a clef “Primary Colors” (1996), but “Charlie Wilson’s War,” with Tom Hanks as the boozy Texas congressman who founds the Afghan resistance in their war with the Soviet Union, is a raucous, amoral political satire with a surprising kick. Hanks and a superb supporting cast recreate the free-wheeling atmosphere of Washington in the go-go Reagan 1980s. “Charlie Wilson’s War” is a madcap Washington adventure whose mujahedeen hilarity rings distinctly, and deliberately, hollow.

On the surface it makes no sense. Why should political ideology affect humor when it doesn’t affect earnings potential or charity-giving or most anything else?

But there is no good right-slanted Onion, or Daily Show or Bill Maher and no right-wing satirist who can nail liberals like Stephen Colbert nails conservatives.

In 2007 Fox tried to launch a show to take on Comedy Central (despite Jon Stewart, in particular, sniping across political lines). The 1/2 Hour News Hour, marked by canned laughter, was described as “so heavy handed that it seems almost like self-parody,” and was quickly cancelled.

If the Teabuggers, whose idea of hilarity is at the ‘dress up funny’ level of high-school skits, are the cutting edge, the new generation, then prospects are not looking good for the future either.

Maybe it’s because absurdity and hypocrisy — staples of political humor — are far more prevalent on the right. If a family-values conservative gets caught with a wide-stance in an airport bathroom stall, or claims to be “hiking the Appalachian trail” when he’s in fact schtupping the Argentinian woman, that is amusing. When liberals cheat or lie it tends to be far more mundane.

Or it might be that comedy, like journalism, is best when it comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable. It’s certainly partly built of empathy. ACORN, for all of its flaws, mainly works to give voice to the disenfranchised

Sure, you can trick them and sneakily edit your reporting and make them look silly, like O’Keefe did. But comforting the comfortable, and afflicting the afflicted just comes off as mean and nasty and smug. See: Dennis Miller and Ann Coulter.

Coulter and Miller were a sorority girl and and frat boy  — Delta Gamma and Sigma Tau Gamma respectively. Which stands in contrast to the depressed, substance-abusing end of society that spawns many funny people. Richard Pryor made jokes about his cock looking like a foot from all the STDs he’d caught, and about setting himself on fire while smoking crack. We fear he would not be at all Sigma Tau Gamma material.

O’Keefe, from all we know about him, is more their stuff. He has grown up in a wealthy bubble, in slacks and blazers from the cradle up. That bubble is almost a prerequisite of conservatism — it’s hard to be poor, or experience poverty, and still think poor people are just lazy.

That is not to say privilege is a bar to humor or empathy, but if the toughest experience you’ve had is Juanita ironing an inadequate crease into your golf pants even though you’ve told her about this before, you may struggle to wield the comedy of universal experience.

Even if they have done some dumb, amusing things with their lives, conservatives are not given to self-deprecation, another shortcut to laughs. If Rush Limbaugh joked about Oxycontin, or Bill O’Reilly made falafel gags in the same way Letterman referenced his cheating, they might be more likeable.

Perhaps in the end it’s just because, in the words of Stephen Colbert, “reality has a well-known liberal bias.” Reality is funny. The rest is just wearing silly costumes for Andrew Breitbart.

Obama called this time “a new moment of promise.”

He told an intimately personal tale of his own family, and how the history of colonialism should not blur the aspirations of modern nations, pointing to Ghana as one that embraced democracy early.

“I say this knowing full well the tragic past that has sometimes haunted this part of the world,” said, whose mother came from Kansas, his father from Kenya. “I have the blood of Africa within me, and my family’s own story encompasses both the tragedies and triumphs of the larger African story. ”

He spoke of his grandfather, a cook for the British in Kenya called “boy” by his employers. He spoke of his father herding goats in a tiny village, and he spoke of the problems that have persisted across the African continent.

“It is easy to point fingers, and to pin the blame for these problems on others,” he said. “Yes, a colonial map that made little sense bred conflict, and the West has often approached Africa as a patron, rather than a partner.

“But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants,” he said. “Here in Ghana, you show us a face of Africa that is too often overlooked by a world that sees only tragedy or the need for charity. The people of Ghana have worked hard to put democracy on a firmer footing, with peaceful transfers of power even in the wake of closely contested elections.”

This the text of the president’s address to the parliament of Ghana:

“Good morning. It is an honor for me to be in Accra, and to speak to the representatives of the people of Ghana. I am deeply grateful for the welcome that I’ve received, as are Michelle, Malia, and Sasha Obama. Ghana’s history is rich, the ties between our two countries are strong, and I am proud that this is my first visit to sub-Saharan Africa as President of the United States.
I am speaking to you at the end of a long trip. I began in Russia, for a Summit between two great powers. I traveled to Italy, for a meeting of the world’s leading economies. And I have come here, to Ghana, for a simple reason: the 21st century will be shaped by what happens not just in Rome or Moscow or Washington, but by what happens in Accra as well.
This is the simple truth of a time when the boundaries between people are overwhelmed by our connections. Your prosperity can expand America’s. Your health and security can contribute to the world’s. And the strength of your democracy can help advance human rights for people everywhere.
So I do not see the countries and peoples of Africa as a world apart; I see Africa as a fundamental part of our interconnected world – as partners with America on behalf of the future that we want for all our children. That partnership must be grounded in mutual responsibility, and that is what I want to speak with you about today.
We must start from the simple premise that Africa’s future is up to Africans.
I say this knowing full well the tragic past that has sometimes haunted this part of the world. I have the blood of Africa within me, and my family’s own story encompasses both the tragedies and triumphs of the larger African story.
My grandfather was a cook for the British in Kenya, and though he was a respected elder in his village, his employers called him “boy” for much of his life. He was on the periphery of Kenya’s liberation struggles, but he was still imprisoned briefly during repressive times. In his life, colonialism wasn’t simply the creation of unnatural borders or unfair terms of trade – it was something experienced personally, day after day, year after year.
My father grew up herding goats in a tiny village, an impossible distance away from the American universities where he would come to get an education. He came of age at an extraordinary moment of promise for Africa. The struggles of his own father’s generation were giving birth to new nations, beginning right here in Ghana. Africans were educating and asserting themselves in new ways. History was on the move.
But despite the progress that has been made – and there has been considerable progress in parts of Africa – we also know that much of that promise has yet to be fulfilled. Countries like Kenya, which had a per capita economy larger than South Korea’s when I was born, have been badly outpaced. Disease and conflict have ravaged parts of the African continent. In many places, the hope of my father’s generation gave way to cynicism, even despair.
It is easy to point fingers, and to pin the blame for these problems on others. Yes, a colonial map that made little sense bred conflict, and the West has often approached Africa as a patron, rather than a partner. But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants. In my father’s life, it was partly tribalism and patronage in an independent Kenya that for a long stretch derailed his career, and we know that this kind of corruption is a daily fact of life for far too many.
Of course, we also know that is not the whole story. Here in Ghana, you show us a face of Africa that is too often overlooked by a world that sees only tragedy or the need for charity. The people of Ghana have worked hard to put democracy on a firmer footing, with peaceful transfers of power even in the wake of closely contested elections. And with improved governance and an emerging civil society, Ghana’s economy has shown impressive rates of growth.
This progress may lack the drama of the 20th century’s liberation struggles, but make no mistake: it will ultimately be more significant. For just as it is important to emerge from the control of another nation, it is even more important to build one’s own.
So I believe that this moment is just as promising for Ghana – and for Africa – as the moment when my father came of age and new nations were being born. This is a new moment of promise. Only this time, we have learned that it will not be giants like Nkrumah and Kenyatta who will determine Africa’s future. Instead, it will be you – the men and women in Ghana’s Parliament, and the people you represent. Above all, it will be the young people – brimming with talent and energy and hope – who can claim the future that so many in my father’s generation never found.
To realize that promise, we must first recognize a fundamental truth that you have given life to in Ghana: development depends upon good governance. That is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many places, for far too long. That is the change that can unlock Africa’s potential. And that is a responsibility that can only be met by Africans.
As for America and the West, our commitment must be measured by more than just the dollars we spend. I have pledged substantial increases in our foreign assistance, which is in Africa’s interest and America’s. But the true sign of success is not whether we are a source of aid that helps people scrape by – it is whether we are partners in building the capacity for transformational change.
This mutual responsibility must be the foundation of our partnership. And today, I will focus on four areas that are critical to the future of Africa and the entire developing world: democracy; opportunity; health; and the peaceful resolution of conflict.
First, we must support strong and sustainable democratic governments.
As I said in Cairo, each nation gives life to democracy in its own way, and in line with its own traditions. But history offers a clear verdict: governments that respect the will of their own people are more prosperous, more stable, and more successful than governments that do not.
This is about more than holding elections – it’s also about what happens between them. Repression takes many forms, and too many nations are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the Port Authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end.
In the 21st century, capable, reliable and transparent institutions are the key to success – strong parliaments and honest police forces; independent judges and journalists; a vibrant private sector and civil society. Those are the things that give life to democracy, because that is what matters in peoples’ lives.
Time and again, Ghanaians have chosen Constitutional rule over autocracy, and shown a democratic spirit that allows the energy of your people to break through. We see that in leaders who accept defeat graciously, and victors who resist calls to wield power against the opposition. We see that spirit in courageous journalists like Anas Aremeyaw Anas, who risked his life to report the truth. We see it in police like Patience Quaye, who helped prosecute the first human trafficker in Ghana. We see it in the young people who are speaking up against patronage, and participating in the political process.
Across Africa, we have seen countless examples of people taking control of their destiny, and making change from the bottom up. We saw it in Kenya, where civil society and business came together to help stop post-election violence. We saw it in South Africa, where over three quarters of the country voted in the recent election – the fourth since the end of Apartheid. We saw it in Zimbabwe, where the Election Support Network braved brutal repression to stand up for the principle that a person’s vote is their sacred right.
Make no mistake: history is on the side of these brave Africans, and not with those who use coups or change Constitutions to stay in power. Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.
America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation – the essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its own destiny. What we will do is increase assistance for responsible individuals and institutions, with a focus on supporting good governance – on parliaments, which check abuses of power and ensure that opposition voices are heard; on the rule of law, which ensures the equal administration of justice; on civic participation, so that young people get involved; and on concrete solutions to corruption like forensic accounting, automating services, strengthening hotlines, and protecting whistle-blowers to advance transparency and accountability.
As we provide this support, I have directed my Administration to give greater attention to corruption in our Human Rights report. People everywhere should have the right to start a business or get an education without paying a bribe. We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don’t, and that is exactly what America will do.
This leads directly to our second area of partnership – supporting development that provides opportunity for more people.
With better governance, I have no doubt that Africa holds the promise of a broader base for prosperity. The continent is rich in natural resources. And from cell phone entrepreneurs to small farmers, Africans have shown the capacity and commitment to create their own opportunities. But old habits must also be broken. Dependence on commodities – or on a single export – concentrates wealth in the hands of the few, and leaves people too vulnerable to downturns.
In Ghana, for instance, oil brings great opportunities, and you have been responsible in preparing for new revenue. But as so many Ghanaians know, oil cannot simply become the new cocoa. From South Korea to Singapore, history shows that countries thrive when they invest in their people and infrastructure; when they promote multiple export industries, develop a skilled workforce, and create space for small and medium-sized businesses that create jobs.
As Africans reach for this promise, America will be more responsible in extending our hand. By cutting costs that go to Western consultants and administration, we will put more resources in the hands of those who need it, while training people to do more for themselves. That is why our $3.5 billion food security initiative is focused on new methods and technologies for farmers – not simply sending American producers or goods to Africa. Aid is not an end in itself. The purpose of foreign assistance must be creating the conditions where it is no longer needed.
America can also do more to promote trade and investment. Wealthy nations must open our doors to goods and services from Africa in a meaningful way. And where there is good governance, we can broaden prosperity through public-private partnerships that invest in better roads and electricity; capacity-building that trains people to grow a business; and financial services that reach poor and rural areas. This is also in our own interest – for if people are lifted out of poverty and wealth is created in Africa, new markets will open for our own goods.
One area that holds out both undeniable peril and extraordinary promise is energy. Africa gives off less greenhouse gas than any other part of the world, but it is the most threatened by climate change. A warming planet will spread disease, shrink water resources, and deplete crops, creating conditions that produce more famine and conflict. All of us – particularly the developed world – have a responsibility to slow these trends – through mitigation, and by changing the way that we use energy. But we can also work with Africans to turn this crisis into opportunity.
Together, we can partner on behalf of our planet and prosperity, and help countries increase access to power while skipping the dirtier phase of development. Across Africa, there is bountiful wind and solar power; geothermal energy and bio-fuels. From the Rift Valley to the North African deserts; from the Western coast to South Africa’s crops -Africa’s boundless natural gifts can generate its own power, while exporting profitable, clean energy abroad.
These steps are about more than growth numbers on a balance sheet. They’re about whether a young person with an education can get a job that supports a family; a farmer can transfer their goods to the market; or an entrepreneur with a good idea can start a business. It’s about the dignity of work. It’s about the opportunity that must exist for Africans in the 21st century.
Just as governance is vital to opportunity, it is also critical to the third area that I will talk about – strengthening public health.
In recent years, enormous progress has been made in parts of Africa. Far more people are living productively with HIV/AIDS, and getting the drugs they need. But too many still die from diseases that shouldn’t kill them. When children are being killed because of a mosquito bite, and mothers are dying in childbirth, then we know that more progress must be made.
Yet because of incentives – often provided by donor nations – many African doctors and nurses understandably go overseas, or work for programs that focus on a single disease. This creates gaps in primary care and basic prevention. Meanwhile, individual Africans also have to make responsible choices that prevent the spread of disease, while promoting public health in their communities and countries.
Across Africa, we see examples of people tackling these problems. In Nigeria, an Interfaith effort of Christians and Muslims has set an example of cooperation to confront malaria. Here in Ghana and across Africa, we see innovative ideas for filling gaps in care – for instance, through E-Health initiatives that allow doctors in big cities to support those in small towns.
America will support these efforts through a comprehensive, global health strategy. Because in the 21st century, we are called to act by our conscience and our common interest. When a child dies of a preventable illness in Accra, that diminishes us everywhere. And when disease goes unchecked in any corner of the world, we know that it can spread across oceans and continents.
That is why my Administration has committed $63 billion to meet these challenges. Building on the strong efforts of President Bush, we will carry forward the fight against HIV/AIDS. We will pursue the goal of ending deaths from malaria and tuberculosis, and eradicating polio. We will fight neglected tropical disease. And we won’t confront illnesses in isolation – we will invest in public health systems that promote wellness, and focus on the health of mothers and children.
As we partner on behalf of a healthier future, we must also stop the destruction that comes not from illness, but from human beings – and so the final area that I will address is conflict.
Now let me be clear: Africa is not the crude caricature of a continent at war. But for far too many Africans, conflict is a part of life, as constant as the sun. There are wars over land and wars over resources. And it is still far too easy for those without conscience to manipulate whole communities into fighting among faiths and tribes.
These conflicts are a millstone around Africa’s neck. We all have many identities – of tribe and ethnicity; of religion and nationality. But defining oneself in opposition to someone who belongs to a different tribe, or who worships a different prophet, has no place in the 21st century. Africa’s diversity should be a source of strength, not a cause for division. We are all God’s children. We all share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to access education and opportunity; to love our families, our communities, and our faith. That is our common humanity.
That is why we must stand up to inhumanity in our midst. It is never justifiable to target innocents in the name of ideology. It is the death sentence of a society to force children to kill in wars. It is the ultimate mark of criminality and cowardice to condemn women to relentless and systematic rape. We must bear witness to the value of every child in Darfur and the dignity of every woman in Congo. No faith or culture should condone the outrages against them. All of us must strive for the peace and security necessary for progress.
Africans are standing up for this future. Here, too, Ghana is helping to point the way forward. Ghanaians should take pride in your contributions to peacekeeping from Congo to Liberia to Lebanon, and in your efforts to resist the scourge of the drug trade. We welcome the steps that are being taken by organizations like the African Union and ECOWAS to better resolve conflicts, keep the peace, and support those in need. And we encourage the vision of a strong, regional security architecture that can bring effective, transnational force to bear when needed.
America has a responsibility to advance this vision, not just with words, but with support that strengthens African capacity. When there is genocide in Darfur or terrorists in Somalia, these are not simply African problems – they are global security challenges, and they demand a global response. That is why we stand ready to partner through diplomacy, technical assistance, and logistical support, and will stand behind efforts to hold war criminals accountable. And let me be clear: our Africa Command is focused not on establishing a foothold in the continent, but on confronting these common challenges to advance the security of America, Africa and the world.
In Moscow, I spoke of the need for an international system where the universal rights of human beings are respected, and violations of those rights are opposed. That must include a commitment to support those who resolve conflicts peacefully, to sanction and stop those who don’t, and to help those who have suffered. But ultimately, it will be vibrant democracies like Botswana and Ghana which roll back the causes of conflict, and advance the frontiers of peace and prosperity.
As I said earlier, Africa’s future is up to Africans.
The people of Africa are ready to claim that future. In my country, African-Americans – including so many recent immigrants – have thrived in every sector of society. We have done so despite a difficult past, and we have drawn strength from our African heritage. With strong institutions and a strong will, I know that Africans can live their dreams in Nairobi and Lagos; in Kigali and Kinshasa; in Harare and right here in Accra.
Fifty-two years ago, the eyes of the world were on Ghana. And a young preacher named Martin Luther King traveled here, to Accra, to watch the Union Jack come down and the Ghanaian flag go up. This was before the march on Washington or the success of the civil rights movement in my country. Dr. King was asked how he felt while watching the birth of a nation. And he said: “It renews my conviction in the ultimate triumph of justice.”
Now, that triumph must be won once more, and it must be won by you. And I am particularly speaking to the young people. In places like Ghana, you make up over half of the population. Here is what you must know: the world will be what you make of it.
You have the power to hold your leaders accountable, and to build institutions that serve the people. You can serve in your communities, and harness your energy and education to create new wealth and build new connections to the world. You can conquer disease, end conflicts, and make change from the bottom up. You can do that. Yes you can. Because in this moment, history is on the move.
But these things can only be done if you take responsibility for your future. It won’t be easy. It will take time and effort. There will be suffering and setbacks. But I can promise you this: America will be with you. As a partner. As a friend. Opportunity won’t come from any other place, though – it must come from the decisions that you make, the things that you do, and the hope that you hold in your hearts.
Freedom is your inheritance. Now, it is your responsibility to build upon freedom’s foundation. And if you do, we will look back years from now to places like Accra and say that this was the time when the promise was realized – this was the moment when prosperity was forged; pain was overcome; and a new era of progress began. This can be the time when we witness the triumph of justice once more. Thank you. ”

President Barack Obama has had his first meeting with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican.

A Vatican spokesman says they discussed the “defence and the promotion of life” and that the President has promised the Pope he will try to limit the number of abortions in America.

They also discussed sensitive bioethics matters, Middle East peace and the situation in Honduras and Cuba.

First Lady Michelle Obama and the two Obama daughters also spent time with the Pope.

In a surprise move, the pontiff gave Mr Obama a booklet explaining Vatican opposition to practices such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, which Mr Obama supports.

“Mr Obama told the pope of his commitment to reduce the number of abortions and of his attention and respect for the positions of the Catholic Church,” Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said.

Mr Obama supports abortion rights and says his policy is to change economic and social conditions so as to put more women in situations where they do not feel they have to have an abortion.

As part of the federal intervention in the Northern Territory, the Crime Commission was seeking access to the detailed health records of eight underage girls, including their sexual health history, as part of investigations relating to child sex abuse.

But last year the remote Aboriginal health service holding the records successfully argued that providing that information would breach patient confidentiality.

The organisation, which has only been identified as “NTD8″ in court proceedings, said handing over the files could also stop other young women from seeking medical advice and treatment.

“The material before the primary judge [in previous proceedings] showed that there was a concern that, if the notice had to be complied with, the police might interview the young girls and their families,” the Federal Court said as part of background to its judgement today.

The commission appealed the earlier decision to refuse access to the files.

The Federal Court today found in favour of the commission and set aside the earlier decision, thereby allowing the commission to access the records.

The Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance Northern Territory says it is seeking legal clarification about the impacts of the ruling on the Aboriginal health sector.

A spokeswoman for the commission says strict secrecy provisions mean it cannot say publicly whether it will now obtain the documents.

She says the Commission will continue to give paramount consideration to the best interests of all Indigenous children.

‘Police state’

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) says it is concerned about the potential ramifications of the court ruling.

The president of the Territory branch of the AMA, Paul Bauert, says the decision sends the wrong message to young people.

“The harm done by this decision will far outweigh any benefits from this decision,” he said.

“And the harm will be in the breakdown of trust between young people seeking health professionals’ advice.”

Dr Bauert says the outcome comes on top of NT legislation requiring the mandatory reporting of underage sex.

“We’ve got the balance completely wrong,” he said.

“It has huge implications for public health considerations, particularly for young people.

“And quite frankly it sends a message to young people, and to medical practitioners and health professionals thinking of coming here, that we’ve turned into a police state.”

Thanks to murderous Mao (he killed more than Hitler and Stalin) & his loyal Red comrades, Tibetan Buddhism came to the West following the 1959 “liberation.”

Given that 50 years have passed, the last generation of born-and-raised-and-trained in Tibet teachers is getting long in the tooth. So get thee to a nunnery or monastery–or an urban meditation center, or a luxurious rural retreat–and dip your toes in enlightenment.

The Buddhists won’t mind if you’re just window-to-the-soul shopping…a pioneer (along with Alan Watts and Suzuki Roshi) in transmitting Buddhism to the West, Chogyam Trungpa (author; founder of Naropa University) wanted his best-selling Shambhala book to be sold in every grocery in America, right by the tabloids.

Though he warned against “spiritual materialism“–using religion to perfect the Self, and brace up the ego–he wanted the wisdom of Buddhism to be available, and made practical, to Rabbis, Reverends and Heathens alike.

So here’s my Top 10 Buddhist Teachers You Can Study With list. I’ve disqualified charlatans, egomaniacs, promising youngsters who have yet to prove themself…and those who you can’t really study with because they’re too famous to actually study with (Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh), in private meditation retreat all the time (Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, Dzongsar Khentsye Rinpoche), or rarely in the West (The Karmapa, Khandro Rinpoche).

If I’ve forgotten or overlooked anyone, I’ll be happy to add them to the must-check-out list if I get a groundswell of vicious comments.

1. Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche ~ he’s young but not too young, experienced, thoroughly Westernized (though exotically Tibetan, heritage-wise), a great teacher and frequently accessible at programs around the US, Europe, Canada, even South America. But because he’s a rising star, you’ve got to make an effort if you want personal training.

2. Pema Chodron ~ though Pema is a best selling, accessible, wise, safe teacher, and Oprah loves her…I nearly disqualified her because she’s no longer frequently accessible. But she’s just too good to overlook. So check out her teaching schedule, and connect with her before she retires or goes into retreat.

3. Sharon Salzberg ~ like Pema, she’s a best-selling author and accessible teacher. While less magnetizing than Pema, she’s deeply experienced and warm-hearted. With her partners-in-crime Joseph Goldstein and Jack Kornfield, she teaches mostly out of the Insight Meditation Centre in Barre, Mass.

4. Ponlop Rinpoche ~ like Mipham Rinpoche and Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche (below), a young, well-trained teacher who belongs to the first generation of Tibetan Buddhist raised and trained in the West. He’s got an avid, small community–perfect if you want personal attention and training.

5. Joan Halifax Roshi ~ a strikingly-lovely, wise and venerable American Zen teacher, she’s based out of her Upaya Zen Center in New Mexico, and works with the yoga community extensively. A superstar.

6. Dr. Reggie Ray ~ while he’s been caught in that “I’m American yet folks treat me like a guru vortex” that’s chewed up and spit out Osel Tendzin and Richard Baker Roshi before him, Reggie is like Pema a magnetic, accessible teacher. Unlike Pema, he’s got a small community with whom he works closely. Perfect if you want personal attention and training.

8. Norman Fischer ~ I don’t know him at all, being mostly a Tibetan Buddhist trained boy myself, but he’s got a stellar reputation for integrity.

9. Robert Thurman, Dr. Judith Simmer-Brown, Dale Asrael, Frank Berliner ~ alright, I’m cheating–combining four in one–but if you’re college-age, you can find the last three professors (and other gems, too) at little Naropa University. Dr. Simmer-Brown is an expert in feminism, or the feminine principle in Buddhism, Ms. Asrael is wise and kind, Mr. Berliner is deeply serious, knowledgeable, caring, and impossibly good looking–the Marlboro man of Buddhism

As for superstar Robert Thurman, he teaches at Columbia, and is perfect for those who want to connect with the Dalai Lama’s teachings.

10. Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche ~ like Ponlop Rinpoche, if you’re looking for a small community, personal attention and deep study, he’s perfect for you. If however, like me and most, you’re looking to simply inject a little mindfulness and awake-ness and peace and sanity into your daily life, stick with the superstars listed above.

The basic point: meditation is good for you. As Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche says, we here in the West get that we have to train our bodies if we want ‘em to be healthy. But what about our minds? We ignore them. So get thee to an eco meditation cushion, if only for a few minutes each morning before the day’s madness ensues…and if you need a jump-start of inspiration or a little training, check out one of the above.

The first, sent to us by a reader and designed by Tor Myhren who is Chief Creative Officer for Grey Advertising in New York, asks you to imagine what the issues would be if Obama were white and John McCain were black.

The second, which we found posted on Houston street in Manhattan last night, imagines Obama as a cholo and offers him as the best candidate for “El Presidenté” (with an inappropriate accent mark. Whoops.)

We did a little googling and found out it was designed by a hair stylist named David Cordova in Los Angeles. He said in an interview that his motivation was getting hispanics to vote for Obama. Both are traffic stopping to be sure.

Check them out after the jump and be sure to vote tomorrow if you haven’t already.

Here’s the Obama cholo poster in color, but not very big.

While bailouts, regulation and taxes have dominated much of the national discussion, there is also an intense battle being waged over a critical piece of legislation that will revitalize our struggling middle class and get our economy back on track.

This battle over the Employee Free Choice Act is one that began well before our current crises, but which has gained new intensity as voters look beyond the political rhetoric and more closely examine the candidates’ positions on issues affecting the middle class.

Reacting against public momentum and the real potential of a pro-worker President and majority Senate, anti-union corporations have engaged in a well-funded attack to mislead the public on the Employee Free Choice Act.

While it is no secret that Senator John McCain opposes this critical bill–his opposition has become a favorite talking point in recent stump speeches–the majority of attacks from anti-union corporate interests have focused on key Senate races, the outcomes of which could decide the fate of this bill.

Whether from big business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce or deceptively named corporate front groups such as the Employee Freedom Action Committee, the public has endured a heavy dose of rhetoric against any candidate who supports change to our corporate-dominated economic system.

Tens of millions of dollars have poured into battleground states to protect an economic status quo that is heavily stacked against the majority of America. It’s time the public gets an honest depiction of the Employee Free Choice Act and how it will benefit America during these tough economic times.

Clearly, the middle class is bearing the burden of this economy, one in turmoil from the housing and financial crises. While worker productivity increased over the last seven years, wages remained stagnant. We lost 159,000 American jobs in the month of September alone, and continue to see costs for energy, health care and food skyrocket.

Even in times of record profits, corporations and their highly-paid CEOs often treat employees unfairly: cutting back hours, health benefits, and raises. And when workers try to form unions to improve their lives, they’re often met with harassment and resistance from these companies. In fact, 30 percent of employers faced with an organizing effort fire workers for their support of a union.

It’s no coincidence that the decline of the middle class has corresponded with a drop in union membership. Workers in unions earn 30 percent higher wages on average, and are 59 percent more likely to have employer-covered health insurance. Particularly in these tough times, workers need more opportunities to get ahead. That’s why unions matter and make a difference. Increased union membership will strengthen America’s middle class and re-energize our economy; we can accomplish both with the Employee Free Choice Act.

This critical legislation will give workers a fair and direct path to form unions through majority sign-up, help employees secure a contract with their employer in a reasonable time period and create real penalties for employers who fire workers and break the law. More than anything, the Employee Free Choice Act will reform our outdated labor laws to level the playing field, allowing workers to exercise their right to form a union if they so choose. In doing so, it will build upon, as well as offer, more opportunities for America’s workers to ascend into the middle class through good-paying, union jobs.

Unfortunately, while this year’s Senate candidates often speak of helping the middle class, many of them join Senator McCain in strongly opposing passage of the Employee Free Choice Act and even blocked it from getting an up or down vote in the Senate last year.

Millions of Americans are indeed paying close attention to the candidates, their positions on issues, and their ability to change the current trajectory of the economy. The Employee Free Choice Act is one of the most important vehicles to address the concerns of middle class families and it deserves the support of all our political leaders.

The chairman of Gazprom, which is world’s largest extractor of natural gas and the biggest company in Russia, Alexey Miller, stated that the three companies were creating a “big gas troika”. He mentioned that the decision to create the carted would mean increase in prices for hydrocarbons.

“We are united by the world’s largest gas reserves, common strategic interests and, which is of great importance, high cooperation potential in tripartite projects. We have agreed to hold regular – three to four times a year – meetings of the gas G3 to discuss the crucial issues of mutual interest,” said Miller.

The statement of Gazprom’s chairman is likely to tense the situation on the west, pushing it to focus on energy alternatives, such as wind. Miller arranged a meeting at Tehran with Gholamhossein Nozari, petroleum minister of Iran, and Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah, deputy prime minister of Qatar, who is also the country’s oil and energy minister. Gazprom’s representative announced that the group was setting a technical committee, featuring experts and specialists who would discuss the realization of cooperative projects, which would include a value chain ranging from geological exploration to marketing, The Guardian reports.

Despite the fact that Russia decided not to state the term “cartel,” the Iranian side, and namely Nozari, at a news conference said everything loud and clear: “there is a demand to form this gas Opec and there is a consensus to set up gas Opec.”

On Friday Opec will held a meeting where its members will analyze the ways to drive prices for oil. At the same time Miller said that the prices for fossil fuels would increase. “We share the opinion that oil price fluctuations don’t put in question the fundamental thesis stating that the era of cheap hydrocarbons has come to an end.”

At one of its recent meeting the European commission announced that it votes against the creation of organizations that might put a ceiling on competition. Ferran Tarradellas Espuny, the spokesman of the European commission outlined that the European commission considers that energy supplies should be marketed should be traded in a free market. Western analysts believe that Russia and Iran would take advantage of the cartel to pursue their political goals.

Representatives of western Europe raised concerns after Moscow cut off gas to Ukraine during the political and commercial disagreements. As for Iran, then its leader stated that they would choke off oil shipments coming from the Persian Golf in case of assault on the country.

The meeting, which will take place in Tehran, will need to be further discussed at other meeting in Russia and Qatar. However, the first meeting is the most important step forward to the creation of such group. It is worth mentioning that the idea was proposed in January 2007 by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iranian leader.

About half of European Union’s gas is imported from Russia and Moscow gained a tight hold on gas supplies, controlling the majority of pipelines from Russia and central Asia. According to James Cordier, president and head trader of Florida Liberty Trading Group and OptionSellers.com, the idea to try to control supply markets is a good one. Although it won’t affect oil, it is still advantageous to deliver natural gas where it should go and control the supply to be able to control the price.