Sunday, February 15, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Gibbs: Very Few Days I Don't See Obama With A Basketball Top
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama without a basketball? His press secretary says there are very few days he doesn't see the commander in chief either handling or dribbling a basketball at some point. Spokesman Robert Gibbs says playing ball helps Obama get exercise and relieve stress. Gibbs says that when Obama plays, he can think about something different _ even if only for a short time. Basketball has been a part of Obama's life since he was a kid growing up in Hawaii. A big part of life even today, as Gibbs sees it. Gibbs spoke on CNN's "State of the Union." More on Barack Obama
 
Alfie Patten, 13-Year-Old Dad, Demands Paternity Test Top
Alfie Patten has reportedly demanded a DNA test to prove he really is a father at age 13 after two other teenagers are said to have claimed they had slept with his girlfriend. The schoolboy was described as another symbol of 'broken Britain after it emerged that he and Chantelle Steadman, 15, had parented baby Masie, born five days ago. But today the scandal took another twist after it was claimed Richard Goodsell, 16, and Tyler Barker, 14, may have fathered the child.
 
When Politicians Attack: The 17 Most Violent Political Brawls (VIDEO) Top
Remember the presidential debates a while back? Remember how much better they would have been if Joe Biden had ripped a microphone off its stand and started beating Sarah Palin with it? Fortunately, that sort of thing goes on everyday. And there are cameras to record it. Fortunately, that sort of thing goes on everyday. And there are cameras to record it. More on Political Humor
 
Suze Orman's Valentine's Day Wish: Gay Marriage (VIDEO) Top
Via AmericaBlog , financial adviser Suze Orman gives her wish for Valentine's Day -- that all Americans, gay and straight, can make the most out the money they earn by enjoying the financial benefits of marriage. Watch: More on valentine's day
 
Gregg, White House Still At Odds On Commerce Idea Top
It may seem like a minor footnote in a poorly-thought-out nomination. But the question of who first decided it would be a good idea for Judd Gregg to serve as Commerce Secretary is still in dispute. Both Gregg and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have said that it was the Obama White House -- looking for a replacement for the first failed Commerce nominee, Bill Richardson -- who asked Reid's office for suggestions. Gregg had not expressed interest in the post until Reid put forth his name, Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, told the Huffington Post. Gregg himself has echoed this version of events. "My own perception was that there was an intermediary who came to me and said would you be interested in doing this and I said I would listen," he told CNBC. And yet, the Obama administration continues to insist the opposite. When Gregg initially withdrew his name from consideration, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs stated that it was the New Hampshire Republican who "had approached the White House" for the job. Several days later, they are sticking to the same script. In an appearance on Fox News, chief strategist David Axelrod described the process as follows: Senator Gregg approached us . He said he was interested in serving in the Cabinet at Commerce. We thought he'd be a good representative of American business around the world. And then he decided, as he said, that being the maverick that he is, that he ... didn't belong in anybody's Cabinet. So he had a change of heart. Certainly, one can interpret the word "approach" with certain vagaries so as to make all these statements agree. But someone, it seems, has his facts wrong. On NBC's "Meet the Press," also on Sunday, Axelrod was again asked about how Gregg ended up a cabinet nominee. This time, he wasn't as definitive as to who made the first overture. "Well, what happened was Senator Gregg was very interested in serving in the Cabinet," said Axelrod, "and I think that he had second thoughts. As he said -- as you know, he's quite the maverick in the Senate. He said that he finally concluded he didn't belong in anyone's cabinet, and so he had second thoughts and he withdrew and we're going to move on." More on Obama's Cabinet
 
Boston Globe Begins Major Seven-Part Ted Kennedy Retrospective Top
On a spring day nearly two years ago, Senator Edward Kennedy sat on the porch of his sprawling Hyannis Port home with a friend of five decades, Edmund Reggie, who is also his father-in-law. The two men gazed out at the ocean that has been such an anchor in Kennedy's life and talked about the future. "You're nuts to beat yourself to death like this on the Senate floor," Reggie said. "Passing a new law won't be any more glorious for you than the reputation you've made. Some people say you and Daniel Webster are the greatest senators of all time." More on Ted Kennedy
 
Venezuela Referendum: Plebiscite On Chavez Top
CARACAS -- Venezuelans will vote for a second time on Sunday on whether to scrap term limits, in a referendum that will lay plain their feelings about their president. Voters will be asked to approve or reject a proposed amendment to the constitution that would get rid of all political term limits, thus paving the way for socialist President Hugo Chavez to run for re-election in 2012 and beyond. Recent polls suggest a tight contest, with a margin of as little as 200,000 votes. Opponents to the amendment have warned of a threat to Venezuela's democracy, and have bolstered their campaign by quoting Chavez's hero, the South American liberator Simon Bolivar: ""Nothing is so dangerous as allowing a single citizen to remain in power for a long time." Chavez, meanwhile, has stressed that the amendment simply gives politicians the right to run again, rather than offering indefinite re-election. His campaign has been so careful to avoid the terms "indefinite" and "presidential term limits" that the phrases aren't included in the question voters will answer on Sunday. Instead, the question focuses on voters' "political rights." But while both sides fight over semantics, in reality the vote is a plebiscite on Chavez's 10 years in office. "This is a critical vote because we are going to see how much popularity Chavez has left at the moment," said Alex Sanchez, a research fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Should he lose, Chavez has warned of the dismantling of the social projects he's undertaken since becoming president. His "missions" -- programs that provide free healthcare, adult education and subsidized food markets -- have gained him loyal support in the shanty towns and remote villages of this petro-state. "I think the president has done good things," said Ruth Ledezma, a retired dentist's secretary from the 23 de enero Caracas slum, a Chavez stronghold. "I'm voting 'yes' because I believe in the cause." For their part, opposition political parties point to record homicide and kidnapping rates, as well as to spiraling inflation and sporadic shortages of basic staples of foods such as sugar, milk, chicken and coffee as signs that the government is running the country into the ground. "I'm going to vote no because of the security issue, no because of the lack of housing, and no because of the abuse of power," said Neisa Monges -- who walked all the way from Petare, by some accounts the largest slum in South America, to the center of town in a march against the amendment last Saturday. The government's claim that it has reduced poverty from 51 percent to 28 percent -- a statistic corroborated by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean of the United Nations (ECLAC) -- is misleading, charge opposition critics, who say that the reduction was accomplished on the back of an oil boom that saw oil prices rise from about $8 a barrel in 1998 to as high as $127 last year. The government relies on oil revenue for 93 percent of its income. Now, a per-barrel price of $40 will reveal the unsustainability of his revolution, they say. Energy analysts have commented that the rush to pass this referendum -- so soon after regional elections in November -- is a sign that Chavez fears the economic repercussions of the slide in oil prices. Finance Minister Ali Rodriguez told the newspaper El Universal that the government might "have to make great sacrifices in public spending," but added that they would avoid making cuts in the social sectors. The amendment campaign has been fought amid mounting tensions and accusations of foul play between those for and against the proposal. Chavez sent in the riot police against university students opposed to the amendment -- after he accused them of disrupting civilian life. The opposition has pointed to the open displays of allegiance to the government's "yes" campaign by certain state institutions -- such as the national oil company Petroleos de Venezuela -- as evidence that the government is illegally using state funds to promote the campaign. According to Reuters, just a few of the oil company employees could be found in their offices, as most were out campaigning for the government. The Caracas metro, meanwhile, has been playing salsa jingles with lyrics that exhort voters to back the amendment. And a report by the Media Monitoring Group found that 93 percent of the state TV channel Venezolana de Televison's broadcasts had a bias in favor of the "yes" vote. The report found that the leading opposition channel, Globovison, had a bias of 58 percent in favor of the "no" vote. "While one can see that the state has been using public funds to promote its cause, you can also see that the opposition hasn't lacked its own outlets," said Rodolfo Magallanes, a professor in political studies at the Central University of Venezuela. "Undoubtedly, a portion of public funds have been used and unfortunately it has been like that in Venezuela's history." The consequences of losing appear more serious for opposition parties than for Chavez. He told CNN that he could not rule out putting forward further referendums in coming years on the same issue, a move that was declared legal by the Supreme Court, which he controls. However, such a policy would damage his credentials as a democratic leader, and might cause him to lose support within his party. "Latin American politicians are chameleons by default," said Alex Sanchez. "If the parties within his coalition realize he is losing support... they might say 'it's better to separate.'" The deciding factor in the vote will be unaffiliated voters, a silent majority who make up as much as 32 percent of the electorate, according to a survey by polling firm Datanalisis. Datanalisis found that of the demographic that identifies itself as neither with Chavez nor with the opposition, 65 percent said they were against the referendum. But much would depend on their inclination to vote. "If abstention is less than 30 percent to 35 percent, a victory for the 'no' campaign is almost assured," said John Magdaleno, a political scientist at the Simon Bolivar University. Read more from GlobalPost.com . More on Venezuela
 
Joanne Rendell: Is Your Professor a Twit? Top
Everyone's twittering about Twitter this week. David Pogue's "Twitter? It's What You Make It" was amongst the NYTimes.com most read articles this week. Vanity Fair's Michael Hogan just signed up on Twitter so that VF could live blog - or now "live twitter" - their Oscar Party. This week also saw the first Shorty Award Ceremony which honored the best twitterers of 2008 in categories such as entertainment, food, and health. And it's not just New York Times technology writers, Oscar luvvies, and foodies with a knack for haiku who are "micro-blogging" at Twitter. Professors are at it too. They're even using it to teach. The Chronicle of Higher Education's Wired Campus TV has posted a short video featuring David Parry, a professor at the University of Texas, who now uses Twitter as a teaching tool. Parry is a professor of Emerging Media and Digital Culture. He's not some luddite Classical Civ. professor who still writes scholarly papers by hand (or even a professor like my relatively "modern" husband who looked at me blankly when I said I was going to post about Twitter). Thus, it isn't too surprising that Professor Parry is utilizing Twitter in - and out - of his classroom. About half of Parry's grad students are signed up for Twitter and he says that he has a lot better sense of how these students are "doing in the class." When they're struggling with readings or assignments, he gets to know about it through their tweets (their 140 character Twitter posts). Parry is aware that Twittering may blur the lines of professor/student relationships; something he doesn't want to do "too much." However, he believes that the old "walls of the classroom no longer apply." New media tools such as Twitter are now integral in so many students' lives, asserts Parry, and thus they offer a great new avenue in which professors and students can communicate. Thinking back to my own student days, I'm thankful Twitter-teaching wasn't around. The idea of my professors reading updates on my life - with its copious partying and potential for drunken tweeting - makes me shudder. Furthermore, thinking back to the days when I taught undergrads myself, I'm not sure I'd have wanted to trawl through a myriad of student updates to find out what they were thinking about the assigned readings. Yet, at the same time, I can see Parry's point. Maybe a tool such as Twitter can open up more dialogue between professors and students. No longer will students have to struggle with the finer points of Jacques Derrida or quantum physics on their own. They can tweet their confusions and get tweeted straight back by their helpful professor. Moreover, professors will not have to wait until end-of-semester evaluations to find out that their students hated every reading and class discussion. Perhaps it's time all professors became twits.
 
John Lundberg: A Short History Of The Sonnet Top
Seeing as how it's sonnet season, I thought it would be a good time to look at what might be the most popular and enduring form in English poetry. Now, I figure that some of you are suffering from a little Valentine's Day overload, and the last thing you want to read today is "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways," (which is actually from a sonnet by Christina Rossetti) so I'll try avoid effusive sentimentality. But that shouldn't be too difficult as the form has come a long, long way. The sonnet does traditionally celebrate love--albeit a very specific type: courtly (of the royal court) and unrequited. The poet (at that time, almost always a man) would use a sonnet to pine for a woman he could not have. It originated in Italy where it was popularized by Dante and Petrarch among others. Two English poets, Sir Thomas Wyatt and Henry Howard, The Earl of Surrey effectively brought the form to the English language with their translations of Petrarch in the mid-16th Century. The sonnet immediately took root, though poets tinkered with the form's internal structure. A good example of an early sonnet is the 71st in Sir Philip Sidney's famous sequence Astrophel and Stella (published in 1591). In it, Astrophel (from the Greek for "Star Lover") pines for Stella (Latin for "star"). You'll notice the over-the-top praise, which is typical, but the poem also has a remarkable human moment at the end.  Who will in fairest book of Nature know How virtue may best lodg'd in beauty be, Let him but learn of Love to read in thee,      Stella, those fair lines which true goodness show:      There shall he find all vices overthrow, Not by rude force, but sweetest sovereignty Of reason, from whose light those night-birds fly;      That inward sun in thine eyes shineth so. And not content to be Perfection's heir      Thyself, dost strive all minds that way to move: Who mark in thee what is in thee most fair:      So while thy beauty draws the heart to love, As fast thy virtue bends that love to good: But, ah! Desire still cries, Give me some food. Give me some food ! It reads like a 16th century cookie monster. Shortly after Sidney wrote his sonnets, Shakespeare was mastering them, and, at times, standing the form on its head. In his sonnet 130, he makes a point of eschewing hyperbole because his love doesn't need to be lied to, and, by extension, he doesn't need such language to write a great love poem. My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun; Coral is far more red than her lips' red: If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun; If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head. I have seen roses damask'd, red and white, But no such roses see I in her cheeks; And in some perfumes is there more delight Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks. I love to hear her speak,--yet well I know That music hath a far more pleasing sound; I grant I never saw a goddess go, My mistress when she walks, treads on the ground; And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare As any she belied with false compare. By the early 1600s, poets were already exploring new sonnet themes. John Donne used the sonnet to explore faith and doubt in his Holy Sonnets . His sonnet 14 eroticizes his religious devotion. Batter my heart, three-person'd God ; for you As yet but knock ; breathe, shine, and seek to mend ; That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend Your force, to break, blow, burn, and make me new. I, like an usurp'd town, to another due, Labour to admit you, but O, to no end. Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend, But is captived, and proves weak or untrue. Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain, But am betroth'd unto your enemy ; Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again, Take me to you, imprison me, for I, Except you enthrall me, never shall be free, Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me. Weirdly steamy, huh? And as ties to sonnet conventions loosened over the years, poets used the form for just about anything. William Wordsworth wrote hundreds of sonnets on the history of the English church. Shelley wrote sonnets on politics and the frailty of pride. Yeats' great sonnet "Leda and the Swan" vividly describes the impregnation of Leda by Zeus in the form of a swan (it's a little weird). Robert Frost--who stands out as a 20th century master of the form--wrote many sonnets that have little to do with love. Contemporary poets have let loose to such a degree that sonnets are now hardly recognizable aside from their length--still 14 lines. Still, they will often at least give a nod to the sonnet's traditional themes. "Shawl" by Albert Goldbarth is a good example, alluding to love (or, more specifically, desire) before going elsewhere. Eight hours by bus, and night was on them. He could see himself now in the window, see his head there with the country running through it like a long thought made of steel and wheat. Darkness outside; darkness in the bus--as if the sea were dark and the belly of the whale were dark to match it. He was twenty: of course his eyes returned, repeatedly, to the knee of the woman two rows up: positioned so occasional headlights struck it into life. But more reliable was the book; he was discovering himself to be among the tribe that reads. Now his, the only overhead turned on. Now nothing else existed: only him, and the book, and the light thrown over his shoulders as luxuriously as a cashmere shawl. In effect, it's "How do I love thee...oh, nevermind." And that may be exactly what you want the day after Valentine's Day.
 
Presented By: Top
 
Gretchen Rubin: How Can I Help You With Your Happiness Project? Top
I'm working on my Happiness Project, and you could have one, too ! Everyone's project will look different, but it's the rare person who can't benefit. Join in -- no need to catch up, just jump in right now. Each Friday's post will help you think about your own happiness project. Because of the big boost in happiness I've gained from my happiness project, one of my main goals in life is to try to convince other people to do happiness projects of their own. I've become a real happiness evangelist (at times, I suspect, a tiresome evangelist), and I'm always trying to think of new ways to coax people into trying various strategies. People often email me to let me know that they've decided to start their own happiness projects; in fact, there are many blogs chronicling people's progress. What I do to help other people with their happiness projects? Every Friday, I post a resolution that I've tried and found helpful, for other people to consider: Make Your Bed , Don't Perform Random Acts of Kindness , Enter into the Spirit of the Season , Abandon Your Self-Control . I also email my Resolutions Chart to anyone who wants to see my resolutions for inspiration as they devise their own. (Just email me at grubin "at" symbol gretchenrubin dot com. Sorry about writing it in that roundabout way; I'm trying to thwart spammers. Just write "Resolutions Chart" in the subject line.) In a month or so, I'm going to do the beta-launch of my fabulous new website of eight happiness-project tools, called (straightforwardly enough), the Happiness Project Toolbox. More on that in future weeks. But what else could I be doing? Although Friday is usually the day I propose a resolution, today instead I'm following one of my most useful resolutions, to "Ask for help." Help me, tell me: how could I do a better job of encouraging other people with their happiness projects? -nudge them to start a project; propose ideas for strategies to try; inspire them to stay motivated; connect like-minded people with each other. I'm going to post this question from time to time. I'd love to hear any ideas, and at this point, I'd be particularly interested to hear suggestions about how to use Facebook effectively. I have Friends on Facebook, and there's a Happiness Project Group (that's how I met my lovely blogland friend Jackie Danicki ; she suggested that I sent it up), and there's a Gretchen Rubin Page . I don't have a good sense of how best to harness these tools, however. I love Facebook, but I use it in an extremely basic way. If you're a Facebook user, what would be useful for you? What would you like to see happening there? Feel free to post a comment below, or if you'd prefer, email me directly at grubin "at" symbol gretchenrubin dot com. More on Happiness
 
Venezuela Referendum: Voters Decide If Chavez Can Run Again Top
CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez, already a decade in power, tried for a second time to win the right to seek re-election far into the future with a referendum Sunday widely regarded as a way to cement socialism in Venezuela. Critics say removing term limits on the president and all other officials would distort democracy. Chavez _ first elected in 1998 _ said the proposed constitutional amendment would deepen democracy by giving voters more choice. He pointed out that Franklin Roosevelt was elected U.S. president four times. "Ten years is nothing. I don't know what they're complaining about," he said Saturday. The current constitution, itself created by a Chavez-backed referendum in 1999, allows two six-year terms. The blare of recorded bugles blasted Venezuelans awake before dawn and long lines formed as the polls opened at 6 a.m. National Electoral Council official German Yepez said the vote was progressing normally. Pre-election polls show the race is tight, and those waiting to cast their ballots said the future of their country is at stake. Yira Guerra, 52, said that thanks to Chavez, her two children have access to free higher education. "My son has obtained a bachelor's degree," Guerra said proudly, adding that she fears such advances will be lost under another leader. Others say allowing Chavez to extend his time in office even if he has to win repeated elections is dangerous. "We don't want anybody to stay perpetually in power," said Carmen Gilarte, a 50-year old mother of three who complained of government corruption and rampant crime. "We have to give opportunities to the next generation," she said. Without a constitutional amendment, Chavez will have to leave office in 2013. He lost a broader referendum in December 2007 that also sought to abolish presidential term limits, and says nothing is stopping him from trying again if he loses this time. Chavez says he needs the amendment to seek re-election in 2012 and complete Venezuela's transition to socialism _ a process he has said could take another decade or more. "It's a little change in the constitution. But the fact that it's little doesn't mean it won't have great repercussions in Venezuela and beyond," Chavez said. Supporters of a "no" vote say a Chavez victory would remove the last remaining check on the president's power. Since the opposition boycotted the 2005 congressional elections, the Chavez-dominated National Assembly has packed The Supreme Court and National Electoral Council with Chavez allies, they say _ giving the socialist leader almost total control. A "no" vote could embolden the opposition ahead of next year's congressional vote. More on Venezuela
 
Elisabeth Hasselbeck: Fashion Designer (PHOTOS) Top
Elisabeth Hasselbeck has been busy outside of "The View" as a clothing designer for QVC. The shopping network brought some of their collections to New York Fashion Week, among them the one to which she contributes. Hasselbeck, along with husband Tim and kids Grace and Taylor, sat in the front row of the show. QVC sells a line of "Elisabeth Hasselbeck for Dialogue" clothing. The description on QVC's website of the line says the following : About the Brand Speak directly to your fashion sense with Dialogue® -- the new language of style. Specializing in wools, knits, silks, and other fine fabrics, this QVC-exclusive brand offers tasteful, chic separates. Striking the perfect balance between polished and playful, Dialogue incorporates the latest color palettes with panache. PHOTOS: More on Slideshows
 
John Carlin: Red Hot House Party! Top
Tuesday night we had an inspiring loft party in Williamsburg, Brooklyn filled with acoustic performances of songs from our upcoming album, "Dark Was The Night," which comes out next Tuesday. It was the party I dreamed about in college, filled with interesting young creative people talking, drinking beer, eating pizza and listening to great music. Of course, those parties never happened back then and the music we listened to was recorded -- not actual world class bands performing live in front of us. The point of the party wasn't the party itself, but to capture the performances on video; shot by a mad genius French filmmaker, Vincent Moon, who has been a pioneer in making low key on line live video under various names, most famously his "takeaway parties," which have become the underground indie rock MTV unplugged for a generation reading blogs like Brooklyn Vegan, Pitchfork and Stereogum instead of Rolling Stone or Spin. I will post a few videos and a link to the whole party when Vincent has spun them into his own particular gold. Another striking thing about the party -- and the current generation of gifted rockers -- is the absolute lack of pretense or difference between the performers and the audience. Everyone looked and acted the same, even if some of them, like loft owner Jonathan, taught 7th grade history on the Upper West Side, were there to listen and some of them were going to play violin drums guitar or sing. Everyone milled around talking and drinking modestly and every now and then a few of them would drift toward the large windows looking out toward Manhattan and sing a few songs. Even the drifting frantic digital video camera people seemed natural and part of the overall fabric of the night for a generation that Twitters and posts pictures of what they had for lunch on their Facebook page. The first musicians to move toward the stage were three young men with ordinary scruffy shirts shoes and haircuts who moments before were an invisible part of the crowd. Their band is called Yeasayer, who recorded one of the best tracks on the album, which you can stream and hear for yourself by using the widget in my last post. On record the song is very dramatic, building from exotic layers of percussion into soaring plaintive vocals that settle into a melody and chorus you can't get out of your head. In another era this would be a hit song sung by young people around the world. The three guys sat casually on stools in a tiny circle with a few candles flickering around them along with the City lights outside. The lead singer leaned over and pushed play on an old boom box and the sound of chickens filled the room. The fellow to his left started playing a toy melodica (a handheld keyboard instrument with a tube you blow into that was made famous by the Jamaican Dub master Augustus Pablo) and the one to his right played a modest rhythm. Nothing you could actually call a drum pattern. Then they began to sing and shape the haunting song into something even more strange and interesting than they had concocted in the recording studio. When it was over and the loop of clucking chickens cross-faded into the chatter of fifty people in a large room with a tin ceiling built a hundred years ago for factory workers to make some long forgotten stuff, the guys melded back into the crowd. Another twenty minutes or so passed and a few of the other folks who were milling about started to move toward the stage. The tall fellow, David Longstreth, had a guitar so everyone could tell something musical was about to happen, but he had such a worried expression on his face we couldn't quite tell. He was flanked by two attractive young women wearing jeans and tops that looked less like artists than most of the people hanging out in Williamsburg on the way to the loft from the Bedford subway stop. One of the women did have a nice fur hat that looked like her grandmother might have worn if she had gone to one of John Phillips legendary parties in Laurel Canyon 45 years ago. She sat down at an upright piano while David started to explain how the song was something he had collaborated on with David Byrne, who was touring at that moment halfway around the world in Australia and that they had never worked out the harmonies, much less played the song live. So he had the lyrics written down on sheets of paper and asked the audience to sing along. He held his guitar high on his chest like Pete Seeger at some civil right rally in 1965, strummed the opening chords and began belting out the song. It was infectious and everyone just joined in filling the room with a lovely sound. When it was over, The Dirty Projectors began the song in earnest. It starts with an amazing vocal performance by Amber Coffman, whose voice charms and takes you by surprise at the same time. On record (which you can hear for yourself on the exclusive Huffington Report stream on my last post) it comes at you like some crazy deconstruction of a doo wop song by way of a new wave Talking Heads-era band circa 1975. In person, it was even more odd to see this sound burst forth from a young women who a moment ago was hugging the dark corners of the room. Everyone joined in the third verse and the song became a kind of glue between the people performing and the whole crowd, even if the worried look never left Longstreth's face. I felt as if I had finally gotten the idea of folk music and saw it reinvented in front of my eyes. Another twenty minutes went by, people chatted, drank a little more and another cluster of musicians started to move toward the windows, set up real music stands and pull out classical instruments--flute, trombone, violin, etc. A very young man named Nico Muhly sat at the piano and began directing the musicians into the beautiful baroque arrangement he wrote for song "So Far Around The Bend" The National contributed to Dark Was the Night. The swirling patterns of flute clarinet and violin filled the room, transforming it from a indie folk fest to something different and more ethereal, as if this was a reinvention of classical music; using what made it the center of European culture for centuries and making it relevant to the present. Nico is a rising star and seems capable of doing that. He recently did the score for "The Reader," the movie starring Kate Winslet in a theater near you. After the arrangement found its equilibrium, the musicians in The National gathered around them and added their drums, guitars and keyboards. In the center Aaron Desner and Bryce Desner, my friends who brought the whole album together, had a bemused look on their faces, focused but casual. Then Matt Berninger, the lead singer, put down a plastic cup, walked towards them and began singing the poignent poetic lyrics he wrote for the song Aaron composed. It's a song about a beautiful party girl lost in the swirling seductions of New York. The song itself swirled around the loft and took on the life of the party it was trying to describe. Dark Was The Night is the 20th Red Hot AIDS benefit album. Please pre-order the album at http://www.amazon.com . It's great music for a great cause. More on Video On HuffPost
 
10 African American Women Who Changed the World Top
Black History Month dates back to 1976, when "Negro History Week" was extended to the month of February. That year doesn't seem so long ago, but when we stop to consider where we are in 2009, it's shocking to see how far we've come. Along with celebrating black history, we're also celebrating the fact that the NAACP will celebrate its 100th anniversary on February 12. We're rejoicing that a man of color now occupies the most powerful position in the country. It might seem like social change happens slowly, but witnessing such momentous events in our lifetime makes its occurrence undeniable. Though Obama's election ignited a nation with optimism, it is just as inspirational that a woman came so close to the presidency. We have much to be grateful for this month, and it seems essential to recognize the achievements of some of the African American women whose pioneering efforts made this groundbreaking election possible. 1. Sojourner Truth Sojourner was born into slavery with the name Isabella Baumfree. She changed her name after escaping from her owner and became a Christian preacher while living with a family in New York. After the state's Emancipation Act was passed, she became a vehement and vocal supporter of abolition and women's rights. She traveled the country giving speeches, including a famous one entitled Ain't I a Woman? that emphasized the strength and power of women and the need for equality between the sexes. More on Giving
 
Taliban: Cease Fire In Pakistan's Swat Valley Top
ISLAMABAD — The Taliban announced a 10-day cease-fire in Pakistan's Swat Valley on Sunday after freeing a Chinese hostage during peace talks with the government, while an abducted American threatened with imminent death by his kidnappers remained missing. Past peace deals with militants, including in Swat, have failed, and any agreement this time could re-spark U.S. criticism that the talks merely give insurgents time to regroup and rearm. Pakistan's government, however, insists that it cannot rely on force alone to defeat the al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in its regions bordering Afghanistan. Taliban spokesman Muslim Khan called the release of Chinese engineer Long Xiaowei a goodwill gesture as government officials and a group linked to the Swat insurgents said they had come to terms on introducing elements of Islamic law in Swat and surrounding areas. "In view of these developments, we announce a unilateral cease-fire for 10 days, but we reserve the right to retaliate if we are fired upon," Khan told The Associated Press. Regaining Swat, a former tourist haven, is a major test for Pakistan's shaky civilian leaders. Unlike the semiautonomous tribal regions where al-Qaida and Taliban have long thrived, the valley is supposed to fall fully under government control. Meanwhile, a string of attacks on foreigners _ including the apparent beheading of a Polish geologist _ have underscored the deteriorating overall security in the country. On Friday, the kidnappers of American U.N. official John Solecki threatened to kill him within 72 hours and issued a 20-second video of the blindfolded captive saying he was "sick and in trouble." U.N. officials said Sunday they were still trying to establish contact with the gunmen who seized Solecki on Feb. 2 in Quetta, a southwestern city near the Afghan border. The kidnappers have identified themselves as members of the previously unknown Baluchistan Liberation United Front, indicating a link to separatists rather than to Islamists. The captors have demanded the release of 141 women allegedly held in Pakistan, but Interior Ministry chief Rehman Malik has denied that the women are being held. Baluchistan provincial government spokesman Syed Kamran said it was offering a $31,363 reward "for any information leading to the recovery of the kidnapped U.N. official." Earlier this month, Polish geologist Piotr Stanczak was apparently beheaded by Islamist militants in a video obtained earlier this month by news media and believed by the Polish government to be authentic. If confirmed, it would be the first killing of a Western hostage in Pakistan since American journalist Daniel Pearl was beheaded in 2002. Pakistani government officials could not immediately be reached for comment on the announced cease-fire. Nor would any comment on whether a ransom was paid or militants were freed in exchange for the Chinese captive's release Saturday. Long's freedom was secured days before a planned visit to China by Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. He and fellow telecommunications engineer Zhang Guo were kidnapped in August in the Dir region of northwestern Pakistan. They both escaped in mid-October, but Long hurt his ankle and was recaptured, while Zhang got away, China's state-run Xinhua News Agency said. Long was in good condition Sunday and expected to return to China after a medical checkup, China's Foreign Ministry said. Chinese officials gave no details on whether money was paid or militants freed for Long's retrieval. Mian Iftikhar Hussain, information minister for North West Frontier Province, confirmed that authorities were talking to members of the Tehrik Nifaz-e-Sharia Mohammed, or the Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Law, on ways to implement on-the-books regulations allowing Islamic judicial practices in Swat and surrounding areas. Tehrik Nifaz-e-Sharia Mohammed is led by Sufi Muhammad, whom Pakistan freed last year after he renounced violence. Muhammad is the father-in-law of Maulana Fazlullah, leader of the Swat Taliban. His spokesman said Sunday that the Taliban would adhere to any deal reached with Muhammad. "Once Islamic law is imposed there will be no problems in Swat," Khan said. "The Taliban will lay down their arms." The Pakistani government has usually tried to avoid negotiating directly with militants, for instance using tribal elders as intermediaries. Although agreeing to an Islamic judicial system is a concession to the insurgents, many civilians in the region would likely welcome the move after years of dissatisfaction with the inefficient secular justice system. But how exactly the government is willing to define Islamic law remains to be seen. The talks revolved around some 22 points, Hussain said, but would not elaborate pending a final announcement. A broader peace deal last year with Fazlullah's militants effectively collapsed within a few months, and Pakistani security officials blame that agreement for the militants' gains in Swat since. Hussain insisted that dialogue would move forward, but warned that the government would resort to force if it had to. ___ Associated Press writers Henry Sanderson in Beijing, Riaz Khan in Peshawar and Habib Khan in Timar Garah contributed to this report. More on Pakistan
 
S.D. Liddick: Open Letter to a Craven Reporter in Iraq Top
Dahr Jamail, I'm an independent reporter in Iraq, on assignment for a U.S. magazine (as well as a Huffingtonpost.com blogger). I've just come off a three-week civilian tour of Anbar Province, living with sheiks and Iraqi civilians, trying to get a feel for the people that will be taking power as the U.S. pulls out ( see article ). I just read your piece about Sheik Aifan Sadun, the " Teflon Don " of Fallujah. I've researched similar figures, in Haditha, Bagdadi, Hit and Al Qaim, and I saw many of the same things you did. But I've come to very different conclusions. That, I believe, is because you had a pre-existing agenda you were determined to conform evidence to (i.e., war is bad, the U.S. is waging a war, so whatever it's doing in Anbar is bad); and because you're a coward. The U.S. is an empire and the Iraq debacle is evidence of 21st century imperialism, no doubt. I still don't think we should be here. But that debate became passé six years ago. Now it's a question of how soon the U.S. gets out and what happens before and after it does. I've met too many good and decent people here to write this place off, smart and hard working Iraqis that want and deserve a first-world existence. As with Sheik Sadun, the man I studied in Haditha--Sheik Mohammed Hussein Shaffir--has foibles and flaws; he's involved in at least one sideline of organized crime, probably several. But I actually took the time to talk to the Marine Corps about their support of him (as well as the citizens of Haditha, its business leaders, the U.S. State Department, Iraqi politicians, the Iraqi police, et al.). What I realized, after some unbiased investigation, is that the players being prepped to take power in Anbar are in the positions they are for some very pragmatic reasons--namely they're still alive and they can kill terrorists (thousands of their counterparts have been assassinated). You overlook an essential point: this place is still a fucking war zone, you ignorant cur. Fallujah and Anbar are just out of an internecine civil war/insurgency (if it's indeed finished), that's followed a destructive invasion, which came on the heels of 12 years of debilitating international sanctions and 30 years of repressive authoritarian rule. It's not a bastion of fucking Rotary Club nominees. When you pick from an attenuated (and flawed) lot, you take what you get--that's a simple law of nature. When war comes (and to repeat, we're well beyond the point of talking about whether that war was just or not) anybody with a pot to piss in picks up--with their pot and all their belongings--and moves away; in this case to Syria, Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Those left behind are generally not the richest or the best educated of the lot. They are the fighters and the scrappers--the survivors. When it comes time to put the pieces back together, it's going to be those who stayed--and who are still standing--that lay down the first blocks in the new foundation. The people with money will eventually come back, with their pots to piss in and all their wealth and education--and will eventually be incorporated back into the social structure (I'm a Marxist, so I figure they'll probably end up running it, as they always do). But they're not going to come back till the violence is gone (and even a couple of years after that). So ironically, it's the plebes--those survivors lacking celebrated family names, abbreviated titles or BMWs--who fought so hard for the security that will afford the patricians their return (men like Mohammed Shaffir and probably Aifan Sadun). Those scrappers are often brave, but they're survivors first; and in a conflict as dirty as a religion-on-religion civil war, they're often tarnished. It's these characters--and the tribe (I don't care how much the military likes or dislikes a particular front runner, if his tribe is the strongest and he's its sheik, he's going to be the area's leader)--that will control the government until normalcy resumes. How long will that take? Who's to say? I couldn't see it taking less than ten years. Fallujah was obliterated in 2004 (the way the process was explained to me--from both sides--the U.S. and Iraqi armies evacuated the city before demolishing it, telling anybody that stayed they would be considered combatants), meaning it's five years beyond its cataclysm. The city has come a long way in that time (a contingent of executives from one of its radio stations swore to me it's now one of the safest cities in Iraq). I'm willing to bet that in another five years--progressing at the current rate--it will be considered something close to normal again. In the meantime, things are going to look strange and probably seem hopeless from some points of view (look at the example of Spain's tumultuous transition from totalitarianism to democracy, in the early 1980s). What is it you expect of the Marine Corps, anyway? Should it be assassinating the existing power figures and replacing them with U.S. minions? Because that's about the only option I see. (I've also studied a case in which the Marines had a bad apple removed in Hit--and they employed a smart, democratic process, involving local leaders). You indicate the Marines are supporting Sheik Sadun, but did they pick him? In the cases I've studied, there have been a limited number of aspirants, players that could actually hold power in their region, and the Corps carefully decided which one to back (based a priori on the player's ability to stay alive and having a lot to do with the strength of his tribe). Sheik Mohammed Shaffir is also a Colonel, in charge of the Provisional Security Force (PSF) in Haditha, and he's been shot seven times on three different occasions. I've walked through the rubble of the five houses he used to own, which Al Quaeda bombed to bits. I didn't get to meet his dead brother; nor the dozens of fathers, sons, uncles and cousins of his PSF soldiers that have been killed by Al Quaeda. These people, as I'm sure is the case with the sheik you've excoriated so bravely in print, have sacrificed in ways you and I will probably never understand (did you talk so disparagingly to the sheik's face, or when he was feeding you or providing for the security that kept your head attached to your shoulders?). If you talked to the military you'd find they have a very simple plan: security before all else. And talking to a Corporal or Sergeant as you indicated you did (to get your clever Teflon Don lede) was something like talking to the plumber at City Hall for an understanding of the mayor's new financial policy. As a journalist, criticizing military policy without talking to the military is completely incompetent. But with you, it goes deeper. You hide behind political artifice to lob your mines of pre-conclusion, like a craven wretch. And really, I think that goes to the solid core of the dregs of the problem. You're not a coward merely because you're afraid to seek the truth when it might not conform to your views ... rather your chickenshit views are shaped by the fact you're a coward. I bet you were one of those kids in high school who got the shit kicked out of him by bullies. You probably developed some deeply seated complex for power and aggression by the time you were a sophomore, and now you rail out blindly against all exhibitions of it. The irony here is that you and I probably agree on some overarching premises. This war has ultimately been waged for the same reasons all wars are waged--natural resources and geopolitical advantage; we probably see eye-to-eye there. But grow some balls, Dahr; be more honest--and brave--in the future. Nearly every American soldier on the ground--no matter how misguided vis-à-vis the underlying motivations that brought the U.S. to Iraq--is here because of a sincere and genuine desire to help; none of them, I wager, have come to further an empire. Whether it be to fight against terrorism so people back home feel a little safer in skyscrapers, or to relieve a weary Iraqi population of a dictator, they're here for honorable reasons; just as is the case with the majority of those Iraqi soldiers (who still have targets on their foreheads). Which makes your fink agenda a slap in the face to about a million people who have fought and died and lost legs, brothers, and lots of blood in the hope of making something as simple as a secure place to live. The military has been surprisingly forthcoming with me and all I had to do was ask. Marine Corps Colonel Patrick Malay sat with me on three different occasions, for long discussions about security in his area of operation in Anbar. One thing I learned quickly is that the military's officer corps is filled with the best of America's minds--kids that aced their college entrance exams, were the captains of their ball teams, and had to be nominated by senators to go to the schools they did. These are the guys (along with their much more experienced superiors) that are deciding strategy--and they're fucking smart. I was allowed to sit in on a couple of their high level briefings--again, all I had to do was show some kind of aptitude for objectivity--and I can tell you their comprehension of the situation on the ground is apt, their thinking clever, and their intentions centrally wrapped up with the Iraqi people. At the heart of it all, they're smart enough to be pragmatic. The first thing Malay told me is that we need to drop bullshit Eurocentric pretenses. Iraq is not America, nor even Europe, and it never will be. It will have a democracy, he said, but it will be an Arab one, likely Muslim, and the tribe will be a central component. Realpolitik is at the crux of the Marines' policy. The Corps knows that to win a modern guerrilla conflict, it has to win the hearts and minds of the people. To do that, it needs to clear an area of combatants, hold it (keeping the area clean) and build (i.e. give the people viable options for work and self support). As part of that thinking, the Corps considers GDP--its term for an area's traditional sources of revenue--a crucial piece of the puzzle. As Malay pointed out, in northern, eastern, and southern Iraq, the GDP has traditionally been oil. In western Iraq there is no oil. For eons, the GDP there has had something to do with smuggling (largely the oil that's been pulled out of the ground in other parts of the country). Malay doesn't strike me as a fan of smuggling or smugglers (in fact, given his stern bearing and Colonel-like thinking, he probably abhors it more than most). But he knows that a war torn country isn't going to be reconfigured on the rosy, utopian fantasia of liberals and "independent" journalists still trying to work through the ass-whoopings they suffered in high school. A people has to be able to sustain itself, that's crucial to military strategy. And like it or not--and the Marines I talked with (especially the junior Marines) don't like it at all--Anbar is going to have smuggling in its future; just as it did in its past (and if a homegrown repressive dictator couldn't staunch it, why should we think a foreign superpower can ... or that it would even want to re-write the region's ethical code). The Marine brass has incorporated that bit of realpolitik into its policy in Western Iraq--it knows there will be less than palatable characters in Anbar who will necessarily be a part of the re-emerging political scene. And part of the relationship with them will involve money--as have the millions (perhaps billions) of dollars in micro-grants and micro-loans I've seen distributed to woman's groups, trade groups, small business owners, schools, libraries, mechanics, shepherds and on and on. The military's policy is designed from the bottom-up on security. The plan is simple--so simple (in theory), it can't fail. Security will bring outside investment, which will thereby enhance existing security, which will bring more investment, further enhancing security, and so on. It's uncomplicated and it's already working. The lynchpin is security. The people of Anbar want it desperately (I lived with these people for most of the past month, and I can't tell you how desperately they want it) and they need it to be able to rebuild. Men like Shaffir (and probably sheik Sadun) can bring that security. They are part of a small cast of men that can take on the military's grand contract (i.e. "I will bring peace") and guarantee delivery. I'm not saying Shaffir should be Prime Minister. And the Marine brass I talked to didn't think he would be a leader in Anbar, forever. The progression is, in fact, very natural. Security is achieved by men like Shaffir and then, through the democratic process (and ironically, he's the only shot they have at a democratic process in the first place), society can decide to keep him around with his foibles, tell him to clean them up, or just find another leader. First comes the security--and if you want security in a world where the good people are all scarred or dead--you don't hire Alex fucking Keaton. You hire somebody who can stand up against an enemy that's become the enemy of the people, as Al Quaeda has (the debate over who is and isn't a terrorist is for another time and place). The fact is, men like Shaffir and the sheik you lampooned stood up at a parlous time (for whatever motivations, honorable or venal) and went toe to toe with a baleful brood of characters (foreigners, fanatics, decapitators and the virulently uneducated)--and the people haven't forgotten all that they've given. Are they criminals? Yes, they are. Should they be scrutinized? Of course. But they're also heroes to many, and widely viewed as the saviors of their small towns and neighborhoods. And, perhaps more importantly, they continue to kill terrorists--men Iraq has listed as Al Quaeda operatives. The fact you, a sniveling coward and ankle-biter hiding preconceived intentions behind putative journalism, are taking pot shots at them appalls me. Due in part to them, mothers are no longer worried their daughters will be unwillingly pimped out to the unsightly foreign reprobates that came here with criminal networks, in the name of Islam, toting guns and all the vagaries of death. People are building houses (tons of them), sharing chai in neighbor's diwans , and getting down to the brass tacks of figuring out how the hell to rebuild infrastructure that was already neglected and miserably dilapidated before it was bombed to pieces. In a way, Anbar is exactly where it should be upon waking from the nightmare of civil war--fucked up. The crucial fact is the state of fucked-up is moving in a positive direction and doing it rapidly. Just two years ago, the country's top politicians were worried about making it to work alive. Today, they're setting up anti-corruption networks and guilty politicos are nervously looking over their shoulders, realizing that as the violence drops off, so too does their cover. The people of Anbar are leaving their houses again and the markets are full. I've shopped in them. The heart of the problem in all of this isn't only with the people of Iraq, it's also with Americans in this age of rapid and uncensored hydra-headed media--and the fact anybody can print anything. The threat there lies in the fact that 80-percent of people in society are grazers (and you can check Chomsky on this, Colonel Malay, or anybody who's served time); non-thinkers that only want to be herded and told what to do. It's those people who read your half-truths online and don't realize you're "independent" for a reason. I'm phobically allergic to the conservative Republican types the military is rife with, but I've only been in country
 
Graham: Nationalizing Banks Should Be On The Table Top
In a gloomy segment about the financial sector on ABC'S This Week, two self-avowed fiscal conservatives said that the U.S. Government should at least consider nationalizing the country's banking system as a means of moving beyond the current lending crisis. "This idea of nationalizing banks is not comfortable," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). "But I think we've got so many toxic assets spread throughout the banking and financial community, throughout the world, that we're going to have to do something that no one ever envisioned a year ago, no one likes. To me, banking and housing are the root cause of this problem. I'm very much afraid any program to salvage the bank is going to require the government... I would not take off the idea of nationalizing the banks." The remark prompted a bewildered smile of sorts from fellow panelist Maxine Waters (D-CA) who said, to no one in particular, "We have come a long way." Indeed we have. While Graham was supported in his assessment by Waters and Rep. Peter King (R-NY), both of whom said nationalization should remain on the table, he found opposition from his Democratic counterpoint on the panel, Chuck Schumer. "I would not be for nationalizing," said the New York Senator, whose constituency includes the epicenter of the U.S. banking industry. "I don't think government is good at making these decisions." Another voice in opposition to nationalization is President Barack Obama, who in a recent interview with ABC rejected the "Swedish" approach to revamping the banking system. "We want to retain a strong sense of that private capital fulfilling the core -- core investment needs of this country," said the president . Sunday's discussion was prompted by a Washington Post op-ed that morning by economist Nouriel Roubini entitled: "Nationalize the Banks! We're all Swedes Now." Nationalization is the only option that would permit us to solve the problem of toxic assets in an orderly fashion and finally allow lending to resume. Of course, the economy would still stink, but the death spiral we are in would end. [...] Nationalizing banks is not without precedent. In 1992, the Swedish government took over its insolvent banks, cleaned them up and reprivatized them. Obviously, the Swedish system was much smaller than the U.S. system. Moreover, some of the current U.S. financial institutions are significantly larger and more complex, making analysis difficult. And today's global capital markets make gaming the system easier than in 1992. But we believe that, if applied correctly, the Swedish solution will work here.
 
GM, UAW Talks Breakoff And Chrysler Talks Stall Top
Talks between the United Auto Workers and General Motors Corp central to a turnaround plan for the struggling automaker have broken down over the issue of retiree healthcare costs, a person briefed on the talks said on Saturday.
 
Tara Stiles: Help! I'm Addicted to FaceBook! Top
Pretty much everyone I know has a Facebook account. I use it for emailing, messaging, sharing pictures, and more. That sounds pretty reasonable, right? Well, Facebook has a way of creeping from something useful into a major contributor to carpal tunnel, burning eyes, procrastination, and mindless clicking. Haven't seen people you went to high school with in ten years or more? With Facebook it's no problem. Since you can view everyone's friend list as soon as you connect with one person, the floodgates open, and you're back in your hometown, for better or worse. Want to see what people are up to but have no interest in really talking to them? No problem with Facebook. If someone has an open profile you can click around on their page like you are their BFF, seeing all their pictures, friends' comments, and status updates. You can locate exactly where someone is and how they're feeling today in 3 minutes or less. Got something to promote? It's no problem with Facebook. Set your favorite site as your status, create a link to your project and your friends will surely check it out. Got a new business? Create a Facebook group and your friends can join and keep in contact with all the updates of your company. Ok, obviously I am a Facebook user. I enjoy seeing a picture of my friend when I send them a message. I am a fan of the status update. I even like notifications and am only mildly concerned when I am friend-requested by a total stranger. I enjoy clicking through pictures of my long lost friends' houses in the suburbs and seeing their kids covered in spaghetti. It's sort of exotic to a country girl transplant like me. So here is the problem, well, my problem. And I am assuming I'm not alone on this one. I'm on Facebook all the time! I go to the site not even conscious that I am going to it. I turned on my computer this morning with the intention of opening Word first thing, and where did I find myself? You guessed it. Facebook. I am addicted! Admitting is the first step to recovery (bankers take note). Sign me up for Facebook rehab. Pope Benedict XVI has warned us about getting in a pickle with Facebook. Now I'm not one to go around quoting any kind of Church, especially if you knew the extent of my Catholic grade school story, but this was sort of interesting. The Associated Press brought us his thoughts about how Facebook (and MySpace, a whole other topic mostly about kids and bands) can foster friendships and understanding, but warns that they also can isolate people and marginalize others. Benedict welcomes as a "gift" new technologies such as social networking sites, saying they respond to the "fundamental desire" of people to communicate. But he warns that "obsessive" virtual socializing can isolate people from real interaction and deepen the digital divide by excluding those already on the sidelines. He urges producers to ensure that the content respects human dignity, and of course the "goodness and intimacy of human sexuality." What about burning eyes, carpal tunnel, hunched shoulders, stiff hips, and monkey mind? Those issues are more interesting to me as a health, yoga, and psychology geek. I would friend-request the Pope. What would his status updates be? "Slipping into Prada loafers getting ready for mass." So here I am, busted by the Pope! On one hand, he's got a point. Cyber-bullying is not a joke. The horrific suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier from Missouri in October of 2006 was the direct result of her former friend's mom taunting her through MySpace. Being a teenager is hard enough. I can't even imagine what kids go through now. There are so many new ways to torture each other. I know a few teens in NY that have problems with teasing each on Facebook too. It's a mess. I'm sure adults have had problems with taunting and other social blunders on Facebook too, but the majority of problems adults face is just plain over-use. Let me reference my "25 random things." If you're a Facebook user, you are well aware of the "25 random things" that have been going around in the last few months. Maybe you've written yours. Or, maybe you think you won't get pulled in. Good luck. I should be writing at this moment. July 1st deadline will be here soon. FB is one big distraction really, but I do firmly believe in its usefulness. And its ability to deliver BlockBuster-esque horror, comedic, and dramatic episodes in the disconnected yet intimate way only the modern web experience can. Correct me if I am alone on this one, but the reality of our lives displayed on Facebook splattered with debauchery is a big part of the fun! I've come up with some warning signs here. This may be the start of developing a support group for Facebook addicts. The group will be listed on Facebook, where you can become a fan of the group, add pictures, look at pictures of other cute people who are in the group, and write on the wall. 10 warning signs that you may be addicted to Facebook 1. Facebook is your home page. 2. You update your status more than twice a day. 3. You have over 500 "friends" half of whom you've never actually met. 4. As soon as you step away from your computer you're on FB on your phone. 5. You are a FB stalker. You qualify as a FB stalker if you a) click on someone's profile more than once a day even if they haven't messaged or tagged you in a photo. b) have dragged and dropped more than 3 FB photos (not from your own profile) c) actually go to a place mentioned on someone's page in hopes of seeing them in real life...creepy! 6. You change your profile picture more than a 12-year=old girl. 7. You have checked your FB page while reading this article. 8. You clean up your "wall" so it looks like you spend less time on FB. 9. You are a member of more than 10 groups and respond to every event invitation "attending" even if you have no intention of going. 10. You change your relationship status just to mess with people. More on Relationships
 
Senior Wall St Execs Were Convinced Madoff Was A Fraud Yet Said Nothing Top
Senior executives at some of Wall Street's biggest firms were convinced Bernard Madoff was a fraud as early as 2005 - yet none alerted authorities, documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission reveal. More on Bernard Madoff
 
Obama On Republicans: 'I'm An Optimist, Not A Sap' Top
In an interview with columnists aboard Air Force One, President Obama talked about what he learned from the stimulus battle. Pronouncing himself impressed with his team for moving the legislation through Congress so quickly, he said the plan wasn't everything he wanted but was still a "very good start on moving things forward." As for his experience with congressional Republicans, the president said , "I made every effort to reach out to Republicans early to get their input and to get their buy-in. I think that there were some senators and House members who have a sincere philosophical difference with the idea of any government role in boosting demand in the economy. They don't believe in [John Maynard] Keynes and they're still fighting FDR ... I think we can disagree without being disagreeable on that front." He added that the GOP also made a "political and tactical" decision to oppose the stimulus as a way to rally their base. "Whether that's a smart strategy, I think you should ask them." He said that it was his impression that the House Republicans decided to vote party-line against the bill before he met with them. "I'm not sure that there was a whole host of things that we were going to do that was going to make a difference." (Republicans dispute that interpretation, claiming they were open to the stimulus when the met with Obama.) White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said recently that Obama lost control of the stimulus debate by focusing too much on bipartisanship . Asked if he would be so willing to reach out to Republicans in the future, the president responded, "You know, I am an eternal optimist. That doesn't mean I'm a sap." The president also outlined his priorities for the rest of the year : My priorities for the rest of the year. Number one is to get the right structure for the successor to TARP; spending the $300-some billion that has already been authorized as wisely as possible, and injecting transparency and trust into the financial system. Having a housing program that provides relief to people who are at risk of losing their homes. Financial regulations that ensure that the crisis doesn't happen again. A innovative and aggressive push for health care reform that focuses not just on access but also on costs, and trying to just provide relief to working families. And a push for an energy policy that puts us on a path to sustainability.
 
Presented By: Top
 
White House Concerned About Pay Caps, Could Change Stimulus Top
The Obama administration acknowledged on Sunday that its top economic officials had expressed concerns to Congress that the sharp restrictions on executive compensation included in the stimulus package could be counterproductive. Moreover, they did not to rule out the possibility that the president could loosen the restrictions. In an appearance on Fox News Sunday, chief strategist Axelrod said that the President and Congress shared the same "outrage" over the "spectacle of gaudy bonuses for executives at firms that are getting extraordinary assistance from American taxpayers." But he also acknowledged "concerns" that the restrictions in the stimulus went too far. Critics of restrictions believe they will encourage top-officials to leave their companies or persuade banks to not participate in the TARP program. "Well, obviously, Secretary Geithner and Mr. Summers had concerns about that," said Axelrod. "And they expressed those concerns. But the concerns are at the margins and the goal is one we share." The president has said he favors capping compensation. But in the final version $787 billion package, Congress also put restrictions on the size of bonuses that bank executives could receive, and expanded the pool of impacted companies beyond what President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner announced in early February. Here is the transcript: CHRIS WALLACE: It now turns out that buried in the economic stimulus plan that was passed this week by Congress is a measure that would sharply restrict bonuses for top earners on Wall Street. The White House is reportedly worried that this could result in a brain drain from the firms. That some firms may pay the money back more quickly than they responsibly should so they don't have those restrictions. Is the white house going to try to soften that set of restrictions on pay? AXELROD: Let me say the President's been very clear that he shares the outrage that most Americans feel about the spectacle of gaudy bonuses for executives at firms that are getting extraordinary assistance from American taxpayers. It's not right. It shouldn't move forward. He's announced his own guidelines for how we should restrict that. In some ways they're tougher than the ones that the Senate passed. They have a hard cap, for example, on compensation. And in other ways they differ. So we're going to work with them... with Senate and the House -- to come up with an appropriate approach to this. WALLACE: You're saying what was passed by the Congress in the economic stimulus bill is not the last word. AXELROD: I'm saying we all have the same goal. We all have the same sentiment and we want to do something that's workable and we'll work with them to get to that point. WALLACE: And do you worry that what they've passed in the economic stimulus could be counterproductive? AXELROD: Well, obviously, Secretary Geithner and Mr. Summers had concerns about that. And they expressed those concerns. But the concerns are at the margins and the goal is one we share. More on David Axelrod
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)