Can You Feel It?

So close now, you can feel it.



The countdown will continue...

And Now For Something Completely Different

The countdown will continue...

1 1/2

The countdown continues...

2

The countdown continues...

2 1/2

The countdown continues...

3

What am I waiting for?



The countdown continues...

4

The countdown continues...

Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock

Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock.

The countdown continues...

Hold On, I'm Coming!

The countdown continues...

Waiting

The countdown continues...

Something's Coming

The countdown continues...

Oliver, Come Back!

The countdown starts now...

On The Cover of a Magazine

Madonna Looks Back: The New Issue of Rolling Stone

In January 1984 Madonna had just one album under her belt when she told American Bandstand’s Dick Clark she had lofty plans: “To rule the world.” (Watch the rarely seen clip here, in our Iconic Madonna Moments gallery.) Over the past three decades, she has provoked, innovated and inspired; she’s set and broken her own records, most recently wrapping the highest-grossing tour ever by a solo artist with her Sticky & Sweet show. And now that she’s released the two-disc retrospective Celebration, the pop superstar who rarely looks back sat down with Rolling Stone’s Austin Scaggs for a revealing trip through her early days in New York, some of her biggest scandals, and of course, her most massive hits in our new issue, on stands today.


Celebrating Madonna: Look back at her 50 most iconic moments in photos and videos.

Even as a seventh grader in Michigan, Madonna reveals she knew how to push her audience’s buttons. For her first ever performance, “I had my girlfriends paint my body with fluorescent hearts and flowers,” she recalls of a rendition of the Who’s “Baba O’Riley” that left her fellow students speechless. “I wore a pair of shorts and a midriff top, and I just went mad. … I’m sure everyone thought I was insane. That was the beginning of my provocative performances, I guess.”


Get a look at photos from Madonna’s record-shattering Sticky & Sweet tour.

But having innate stage savvy didn’t mean Madonna grew up a wild child. Though she tells Scaggs about her days as a graffiti artist when she was running with Keith Haring and Jean-Michel Basquiat in New York City (her tag: Boy Toy), life was tamer before that. “I was a geek in high school. I didn’t really have a drink until I got divorced for the first time [from Sean Penn] when I was 30,” she admits. ” ‘Geek’ is not a word anyone uses to describe me, except perhaps [Confessions on a Dance Floor producer] Stuart Price, who once said, ‘You know, you’re a nerd at heart, nobody knows it.’ I took it as a compliment.”

Check out all of Madonna dozen Rolling Stone covers.

She credits her first major shift in style — from punky brunette club kid to blonde wedding wonder — to getting dressed and styled for more photo shoots and videos as her career progressed. “I think people put a lot of emphasis on the whole reinvention of my image, and it’s always been a lot less calculated than people think,” she says. ” I think it’s boring to stay the same. A girl likes to change her look.” But if she had to pick her worst fashion moment: “It was the purple lipstick, fluorescent-green sweater combo. … It’s OK, it was the Eighties. It was a bad-hairstyle era. Let’s face it.”

But Madonna doesn’t have many musical regrets. She tells Scaggs about writing “Live to Tell” and “Vogue,” returning with a head full of brand-new ideas on Ray of Light and teaming with some of the industry’s biggest hitmakers on Hard Candy. But after all these years, she admits she still can’t sniff out a Number One. “I’ve never been a good judge of what things are going to be huge or not. The songs that I think are the most retarded songs I’ve written, like ‘Cherish’ and ‘Sorry,’ a pretty big hit off my last album, end up being the biggest hits,” she tells RS. ” ‘Into the Groove’ is another song I feel retarded singing, but everybody seems to like it.”

Madonna’s Rolling Stone interview is on newsstands now.

Another Step Forward

Justice Dept. seeks action vs. gay discrimination

By Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration's point man on civil rights said Wednesday he will seek to fight discrimination against gays, an area in which the Justice Department has had only a small role in the past.

Tom Perez, the assistant attorney general in charge of the department's Civil Rights Division, said pending legislation in Congress will allow the department to attack discrimination against lesbian, gays, bisexuals and transgender people, a group often referred to by the acronym LGBT.

That would be new territory for the division that has historically gone after discrimination based on race, gender or religion. It would also be a major shift from the division's work during the Bush administration, which opposed expansion of the federal hate crimes law to prosecute those who attack gays. (At least I never voted for him!)

Perez on Wednesday he gave his first speech to division employees, saying the division must be transformed "so that we are capable of tackling the civil rights challenges of the 21st century," include issues not historically addressed by the department.

"We must fight for fairness and basic equality for our LGBT brothers and sisters who so frequently are being left in the shadows," he said, and to "ensure that there's a level playing field in which our LGBT brothers and sisters are judged by the content of their character."

Allison Herwitt, legislative director for Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group, called Perez's words "fantastic."

"What's so different between this administration and the last is that we have people who want to have these protections in place and to enforce these protections, and you have the top of the Civil Rights Division willing to openly talk about these protections," said Herwitt.

Conservative activists argued that such moves could come at the expense of people of religious faith.

"Too often it's religious liberty that's at stake when homosexuality is promoted in our society. The rights of people of faith who adhere to a biblical view of sexuality should not be crushed under the Obama administration's political promises to homosexual activists," said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of Focus on the Family Action.

Federal civil rights laws say little about attacks or discrimination fueled by anti-gay bias. The Senate, though, is on the verge of passing legislation that would broaden the hate crimes law and allow federal prosecutions of bias attacks on gays.

Attorney General Eric Holder has repeatedly urged Congress to pass the new hate crimes law, saying the expansion of federal prosecutions for such attacks is long overdue.

Separately, the House has taken a tentative step to consider a law that would outlaw anti-gay or gender identity discrimination in the workplace.

During the Clinton administration, the department's Civil Rights Division had an internal group that examined gay rights issues, but the effort ended during the Bush administration.

Perez's goal of greater government action on gay rights speech can only come if Congress changes civil rights law.

That seems likely in the case of bias-driven violence. The new hate crimes bill has survived a number of votes and now needs only a final vote in the Senate before going to the president's desk for his signature. In the case of the workplace bill, called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the chances of success are less clear.

Twenty-one states already have laws prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 12 extend those laws to gender identity — California, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Several other states protect public employees who are gay or transgender.

A Letter From Joe Solmonese

This weekend was big.

From President Obama's speech at our National Dinner to final House passage of hate crimes to the National Equality March, the nation's attention is on LGBT equality – we have a burst of momentum.

But this is no time to grow complacent. We need your help to capitalize on this moment.

The next month and a half will be tough – while we fight against anti-LGBT ballot initiatives in multiple states, we must also act NOW to push our federal agenda to its tipping point, or we could miss this window.

We need to raise $200,000 for a renewed effort to seize this opportunity and advance our federal agenda and fight for marriage equality in the states without delay. Will you be part of this fight?

We've created a video that shows how your support helps us cut through the lies.

Watch the video and help us raise $200,000 by October 26 to make sure a signed hate crimes law is just the first victory we seize this fall.

Watch the video and help us raise $200,000 by October 26 to make sure a signed hate crimes law is just the first victory we seize this fall.

We'll have to be strategic to build on our momentum. It won't last forever. Because the signs of our opposition are all around:

•Right-wing groups up in arms over President Obama's speech, declaring that he "used the bully pulpit tonight to defy the Creator" and supports "radical social policies," while demanding that he meet with "ex-gays" at the White House.


•Anti-LGBT groups behind a Prop. 8-style initiative in Maine blanketing the airwaves with the same fear-mongering ads they used in California, including their claim that same-sex marriage would be "pushed on students."

•The new President of the UN General Assembly – which is charged with protecting rights and safety around the world – calling homosexuality "totally unacceptable."

•A workshop at a right-wing conference in St. Louis – "How to Counter the Homosexual Extremist Movement" – on how to be less "nice" in fighting against gay rights.

We're fighting back. With your support right now, our first step is to get the hate crimes bill signed into law; then we'll make it illegal to fire and harass LGBT employees once and for all with an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act and an end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

These vital protections – and the millions more LGBT people who will be able to come out because of them – will lay the foundation for the toughest Congressional battle: repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.

I know exactly what it is that will allow us to win these battles. I saw it in the crowd at our dinner. I see it in the hundreds of volunteers who have met with Congress members through our No Excuses campaign. And it was in every face at the National Equality March.

It's determination. Plain and simple and unrelenting.

Please give as generously as you can today – help us pass the life-changing bills before Congress and win multiple state-level challenges.

Thank you for being part of this historic fight with us.

Joe Solomenese

Scene of the Day

Hands down, my favorite movie of all time.

Classic.

"Poppies. Poppies will put them to sleep."

Song of the Day

Sly & the Family Stone - "Everyday People"


Sometimes I'm right and I can be wrong
My own beliefs are in my song
The butcher, the banker, the drummer and then
Makes no difference what group I'm in
I am everyday people, yeah yeah
There is a blue one who can't accept the green one
For living with a fat one trying to be a skinny one
And different strokes for different folks
And so on and so on and scooby dooby doo-bee
Oh sha sha - we got to live together
I am no better and neither are you
We are the same whatever we do
You love me you hate me you know me and then
You can't figure out the bag l'm in
I am everyday people, yeah yeah
There is a long hair that doesn't like the short hair
For bein' such a rich one that will not help the poor one
And different strokes for different folks
And so on and so on and scooby dooby doo-bee
Oh sha sha-we got to live together
There is a yellow one that won't accept the black one
That won't accept the red one that won't accept the white one
And different strokes for different folks.

Joke of the Day

During a recent password audit, it was found that a blonde was using the following password:

MickeyMinniePlutoHueyLouieDeweyDonaldGoofy

When asked why such a long password, she said she was told that it had to be at least eight characters.

Nobel Jury Speaks Out

The reaction to Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize has been funnier than any sitcom on television. Yet sad at the same time.

He didn't nominate himself, he didn't vote for himself, he was totally humbled by winning it and he is using it as a catalyst to work towards a better, safer world for ALL people.

Shouldn't we just be proud that an American President was recognized in a positive manner for once?

And if the roles were reversed and a republican president had won, WE would be un-American for saying anything against it...but THEY can say anything they want against him. Heck, they get mad when he pees in the wrong urinal.

We really need to grow up as a country and start focusing on making this a better place now that we have a positive, inspiring leader.

Every other country would be dancing in the streets celebrating that one of their countrymen, not to mention their leader, won a prestigious award.

Not America.

I really do love America and what it has the potential to be.
But Americans really FUCK that up.

Nobel jury speaks out in defense of Obama prize
By Ian Macdougall And Karl Ritter, Associated Press Writers

OSLO – One judge noted with surprise that President Barack Obama "didn't look particularly happy" at being named the Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Another marveled at how critics could be so patronizing.

In a rare public defense of a process normally shrouded in secrecy, four of the Nobel jury's five judges spoke out Tuesday about a selection they said was both merited and unanimous.

To those who say a Nobel is too much too soon in Obama's young presidency, "We simply disagree ... He got the prize for what he has done," committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland told The Associated Press by telephone from Strasbourg, France, where he was attending meetings of the Council of Europe.

Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

"All these things have contributed to — I wouldn't say a safer world — but a world with less tension," he said.

For nine-year Nobel committee veteran Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, Obama's demeanor spoke volumes when he first acknowledged the award during a news conference Friday on the lawn of the White House Rose Garden.

"I looked at his face when he was on TV and confirmed that he would receive the prize and would come to Norway, and he didn't look particularly happy," she told the AP by telephone.

"Obama has a lot of problems internally in the United States and they seem to be increasing. Unemployment, health care reform: They are a problem for him," she said.

She acknowledged there was a risk the prize might backfire on Obama by raising expectations even higher and giving ammunition to his critics. "It might hamper him," Ytterhorn said, because it could distract from domestic issues.

Still, she added: "Whenever we award the peace prize, there is normally a big debate about it" so the Obama controversy was not unexpected.

It was unusual, however, for the Nobel jury to speak out so candidly about their selection.

Even the most seasoned Nobel watchers were surprised by Obama's Nobel — they hadn't expected the U.S. president, who took office barely two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline, to be seriously considered until at least next year.

Jagland said that was never an issue for the Nobel committee, which followed the guidelines set forth by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite who established the prize in his 1895 will.

"Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said.

"Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"

Aagot Valle, a left-wing Norwegian politician who joined the Nobel panel this year, also dismissed suggestions that Obama was undeserving of the honor.

"Don't you think that comments like that patronize Obama? Where do these people come from?" Valle said from the coastal city of Bergen. "Well, of course, all arguments have to be considered seriously. I'm not afraid of a debate on the Peace Prize decision. That's fine."

World leaders have reacted positively to Obama's Nobel in most cases, the committee said, with much of the criticism coming from the media and Obama's political rivals.

"I take note of it. My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous," Jagland said.

In announcing the award Friday, the committee, whose members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, applauded the change in global mood brought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation. They also praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.

The White House declined comment on the Nobel judge's latest statements.

However, Obama expressed surprise and humility at Friday's news conference, saying the prize should be considered not a "recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."

Nobel Peace Prize selections have often been surrounded by fierce debate. Controversial awards include the 1994 prize shared by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli leaders Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin for Mideast peace efforts, as well as the joint prize to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho for a 1973 cease-fire agreement. The Vietnam War continued for two more years.

So the Nobel jury "expected that there would be a discussion" about Obama's award, said Kaci Kullman Five, a former Conservative Party parliamentarian and longtime Nobel committee member.

Valle said the criticism shouldn't overshadow important issues raised by Obama's Nobel.

"Of course I expected disagreement and debate on ... giving him the prize," she said. "But what I want now is that we seriously raise a discussion regarding nuclear disarmament."

A Step Forward

Health bill clears hurdle with support from Snowe
By AP Special Correspondent David Espo

WASHINGTON – Historic legislation to expand U.S. health care and control costs won its first Republican supporter Tuesday and cleared a key Senate hurdle, a double-barreled triumph that propelled President Barack Obama's signature issue toward votes this fall in both houses of Congress.

"When history calls, history calls," said Maine Republican Olympia Snowe, whose declaration of support ended weeks of suspense and provided the only drama of a 14-9 vote in the Senate Finance Committee. With her decision, the 62-year-old lawmaker bucked her own leadership on the most high-profile issue of the year in Congress, and gave the drive to remake health care at least a hint of the bipartisanship that Obama seeks.

At the White House, Obama called the events "a critical milestone" toward remaking the nation's health care system. He praised Snowe as well as Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the committee, and declared, "We are going to get this done."

There were fresh challenges. Within minutes of the vote, labor unions and large business organizations both demanded changes in the bill, which was an attempt at a middle-of-the-road measure fashioned by the committee under Baucus' leadership.

Still, nearly nine months after the president pledged in his Inaugural Address to tackle health care, legislation to expand coverage to millions who lack it has now advanced further than President Bill Clinton's ill-fated effort more than a decade ago — or any other attempt in more than a generation.

The next move in the Senate is up to Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose office said the full Senate would begin debate on the issue the week of Oct. 26.

Nominally, Reid must first blend the bill that cleared during the day with a version that passed earlier in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. But in reality, the majority leader — with the participation of the White House — has a virtual free hand in fashioning a measure to wind up gaining the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster.

"The bottom line here is we need a final bill, a merged bill, that gets 60 votes," Baucus said. "Our goal is to pass health care reform not just talk about it."

Reid's most politically sensitive decision revolves around proposals for the federal government to sell insurance in competition with private industry. The Senate bill approved in committee during the day omits the provision, while the one passed earlier includes it and many House Democrats support it as well.

In general, bills moving toward floor votes in both houses would require most Americans to purchase insurance, provide federal subsidies to help those of lower incomes afford coverage and give small businesses help in defraying the cost of coverage for their workers.

The measures would bar insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions, and for the first time limit their ability to charge higher premiums on the basis of age or family size. Expanded coverage would be paid for by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from future Medicare payments to health care providers. Each house also envisions higher taxes — an income tax surcharge on million-dollar wage-earners in the case of the House, and a new excise levy on insurance companies selling high-cost policies in the case of the Senate Finance Committee bill.

Apart from Snowe, Republicans on the committee cited higher taxes, a greater federal role in the insurance industry and other concerns as they lined up to oppose the bill.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said the legislation would place the nation on a "slippery slope to more and more government control of health care."

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, elicited testimony earlier from the head of the Congressional Budget Committee that a substantial portion of the bill's tax increases would fall on groups Obama has vowed would be protected: individuals making $200,000 or less and couples below $250,000.

Snowe, too, said there were problems with the bill, but on balance, the risks of doing nothing were too great.

"We should also contemplate the decades of inaction that have brought us to this crossroads," she said. "The status quo approach has produced one glaring common denominator, that is that we have a problem that is growing worse, not better."

The vote made the Finance Committee the last of five in Congress to complete its work on health care. It also marked a personal triumph for Baucus, who weathered criticism from fellow Democrats after his attempt at bipartisanship cratered earlier this fall after months of exhaustive effort. In the end, disgruntled liberals on the panel, including Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Ron Wyden of Oregon, went along in hopes the bill eventually would be reshaped more to their liking.

Across the Capitol, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants have been at work for weeks trying to blend legislation approved by three House committees. The eventual result is certain to include a government option, but the details of the plan have split the rank-and-file and leaders have spent days struggling with the issue.

One group favors allowing the government to negotiate with doctors, hospitals and other health care providers for fees to be paid to treat patients who have federal insurance policies, an approach that involves higher costs for the government.

The other, lower-cost approach envisions a fixed payment schedule linked to Medicare. Officials say that alternative was quietly sweetened in recent days for the benefit of hospitals, medical device makers and others to put them on an even plane with doctors.

Apart from the details of the emerging bills, there were signs that the political struggle was intensifying.

Several officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said business groups were discussing plans to step up their opposition to legislation. The health insurance industry made clear its own unhappiness on Monday when it released a study by the prominent auditing firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, saying the Finance Committee bill would raise premiums significantly for millions who already have insurance.

The report drew intense criticism from the White House, Democrats in Congress and other advocates of the legislation. By Monday night, the auditing firm appeared to backpedal, issuing a statement acknowledging its report was based only on an analysis of four provisions in the proposed legislation.

Ironically, the insurance industry launched its attack against the version of the legislation that omits the government option — the one provision above all others that insurers oppose. Officials said they were motivated by a provision that would have excused millions from a requirement to have insurance, thus reducing the pool of new customers seeking coverage.

Democrats said that industry representatives had also complained in private conversations about a provision that would have limited insurance companies' ability to write off the cost of any executive salary in excess of $500,000 a year. The committee inserted the provision into the measure at the request of Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.