Monday, February 9, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Andrew Gumbel: Hollywood betrays its own Top
Something doesn't smell right at Hollywood's retirement home for actors, technicians and studio workers. The stench isn't coming from the corridors or the bathrooms of a facility widely admired for its impeccable nursing standards. Rather it's coming from the executive offices of the Motion Picture & Television Fund, the endowment established 87 years ago by Mary Pickford and Charlie Chaplin that now says it is in deep financial trouble. Last month, the MPTF announced it was closing its long-term care facility and hospital - effectively ending the organization's pledge to "take care of its own" and make sure rank-and-file entertainment industry workers would have their every need attended as they reached the end of their lives. The move means the eviction of more than 100 physically and infirm people in their 80s and 90s over the next several months. The MPTF said then - and has repeated since - that the closures are inevitable because it is losing $10 million a year and faces bankruptcy if it does nothing to stop the flow of red ink. The shortfall, it says, is because reimbursements from Medi-Cal and Medicare keep going down, while the cost of providing care keeps going up. The problem with this explanation is that it is contradicted both by the MPTF's own audited accounts , posted at its website, and by its tax returns. Those documents show no losses, at least up to the end of 2007 (the last year for which figures are available). They show that the fund's assets were growing in 2006 and 2007 - not "draining... at an alarming rate" as one MPTF news release said. They also suggest that reimbursement rates have been going up, not down, in the same period. Clearly, somebody is not shooting straight about all this. The real reasons behind the closures remain a mystery - it could be to do with the meltdown on Wall Street, or it could be something else. The news, meanwhile, has infuriated both the families of the home's residents, who are planning a lawsuit to try to reverse the decision, and the Hollywood community at large, which used to see the home as a rare island of stability and security in a notoriously volatile industry. I've done quite a bit of digging and posted the first of at least two reports at Sharon Waxman's new Hollywood news website TheWrap . Seems to me that David Tillman, the home's chief executive, and Jeffrey Katzenberg, who chairs the MPTF's fundraising arm, have some explaining to do.
 
Steele: Obama Stimulus Is Just "Bling Bling" Top
Just ran into new RNC Chairman Michael Steele who watched President Obama's town hall in Indiana and wasn't impressed. The Obama-backed stimulus, he said, "is just a wish list from a lot of people who have been on the sidelines for years.. to get a little bling, bling."
 
Take HuffPost's World News Quiz Top
Americans are often chastised for knowing little to nothing about world affairs. Time to prove that you can do more than pick out your country on a blank map. Step right up and take HuffPost's World News Quiz. Show us your global-news prowess, compete with your friends and come back every Monday for a new edition. And remember, you won't be able to look yourself in the mirror if your good friend Google helps you out...enjoy! Take last week's quiz . Sign up here to receive the latest HuffPost World news and learn about ways to participate in our coverage.
 
Biblevision: Creepy Kids Love Jesus, Plaid Clothing (Video) Top
This is a clip from the evangelic video series "Bibleman," a superhero (?) who fights villains such as "Wacky Protestor" and "Primordius Drool." In this installment some evil guy has corrupted a black child, so all the white kids sing a song and hate on her. WATCH: (via OMG blog) More on Funny Videos
 
Bruce Raynor: The UNITE HERE Merger - A Missed Opportunity Top
You may have read about problems in our union, UNITE HERE, in the New York Times this weekend . As people who care about the labor movement, I think you deserve to hear what is going on directly from me. By every measure, the 2004 merger of UNITE and HERE has been an abject failure and, unfortunately, it is time for our unions to divorce. Twenty-three elected UNITE HERE leaders representing more than 150,000 members are submitting a resolution to the General Executive Board today stating their desire to move on and leave this failure behind us. This should be a time of incredible hope and concerted action from the labor movement, as we have the most pro-worker administration we have had in generations. We have a real opportunity to pass legislation to make it easier for workers to form unions ( legislation that Wilhelm argued against prioritizing ). And as workers continue to get beat down by this economic crisis, they need a strong labor movement more than ever. I would like nothing more than to be working with our members and elected leaders on the change we campaigned so hard for last fall, and that moved all of us when Obama took office last month. But before we can get the House and Senate moving in the right direction, we need to get our own house in order. I have lived through and worked on countless mergers in my 30 years in the labor movement. Before this, all have succeeded. What has became clear to me and many other affiliate leaders - including HERE leaders that support this divorce - is that what John Wilhelm and his small band of zealots is pursuing is not a merger at all, but a hostile takeover. They want to seize control of the union and UNITE's assets that were built through 100 years of hard work by low income, largely immigrant men and women so he can then redirect them to the failed programs of a few of his favorite locals. We will not let that happen. Wilhelm and HERE have a history of spending recklessly and squandering resources. At the time of the merger, HERE was nearly bankrupt. They had mismanaged their money, including their national pension fund and some of their welfare funds. We bailed out these funds so their members could have their health care and pensions. We will not allow them to run this great union into the ground. Maybe the person who makes the best case for the divorce is John Wilhelm himself. At our merger convention in 2004 Wilhelm defined the standard for our success: "The test of the success or failure of this merger should be whether UNITE HERE organizes substantially more workers in the years to come than our two unions have been organizing separately before the merger." At that time, Wilhelm promised that we would come to this next convention in June 2009 with hundreds of thousands of new members. But the facts speak for themselves. UNITE HERE has organized fewer workers than the two unions were organizing separately prior to the merger despite a skyrocketing organizing budget, yearly dues increases and a rapidly expanding staff. Since 2005, UNITE HERE has spent more than $61 million on organizing in HERE's hotel and gaming sectors with little to show for it. The total membership of our union is stagnant, and only about 32,000 workers have been organized in those robust sectors. In contrast, only $10 million has been spent on campaigns in UNITE's traditional manufacturing, distribution and retail sectors, yet we have organized 7,000 new members in those struggling industries. But not only have John Wilhelm and his associates failed at organizing, and squandered millions of dollars in the process, they have also failed to represent their members. Countless contracts with employers have expired without being renegotiated and members' grievances go unanswered. UNITE has a history of the strongest financial management and assets in the labor movement, staying solvent even at times that our industries have suffered and the national economy has struggled. And this has proved to serve our members well - and allowed us to build more power for workers even in the most trying times. This history is endangered by the Wilhelm clique's financial irresponsibility. They have demanded deficit spending since the merger, and - even in these difficult times - proposed a budget which would increase our annual spending by nearly $6 million, despite forecasting a shortfall of more than $25 million. Failed organizing projects, squandered resources and no accountability; it would be unconscionable to let Wilhelm and his cronies carry out this hostile takeover. To that end, former UNITE leaders have also filed suit in federal court to undo the merger. But we should be able to get past this without the court's help. It is time to separate, for the sake of our members, for the sake of our union. For more information, including the Resolution of the Committee to Re-UNITE and Rebuild, legal filings, a white paper on the failure of UNITE HERE to organize, and more, please contact Amanda Cooper at acooper@unitehere.org
 
Tim Berry: Own or Work at a Small Business? Help Us Measure The Credit Crunch (Survey Inside) Top
It should be a simple question, right? How bad is the credit crunch for small business? Here we are debating a national stimulus bill, now in the Senate, and already looking back on the big bailout of last year. Did that work? For whom? And a new treasury bank plan is supposedly coming next week. With these questions in mind, please join me in collecting some real information on how small businesses are fairing when they apply for a loan. If you own a small business, take a couple minutes to answer a few short questions here . To understand how this will shed light on the current credit crunch, take a look at these results from my prior survey. With due respect to some prominent groups and business reporting (which you can get here , for example, from the Wall Street Journal, or here and here from this blog), most of the public voice of small business seems to be either "we want our bailout," "what's in it for us?" or predictable rehash of last Fall's election campaign; taxes, tax breaks, health care rules, and so on. You do see the stimulus debate bogging down into partisan politics, already, right? As a business owner, with 40 employees and 25 years in business, I don't see a credit crunch as a political football. It's businesses not started, businesses not growing, and businesses failing.  Take the businesses not starting: in a good year this economy generates somewhere between half a million and a million new businesses, and if we don't have that flow going -- and for the last few months, we don't -- then a lot of people who would have jobs don't; and a lot of people who would have been self employed aren't.  Many businesses need financing to survive. Just to put numbers to it, a business that sells $5 million a year through retail channels probably needs about $2 million in borrowed money just to support waiting for channels to pay up. That's just one example, but a real one, one that I've lived through out in the real world. Some businesses need financing to grow. Investment is notoriously scarce these days as angel investment and venture capital are both cutting back, but there are still new ideas and new opportunities. With it all, though, the SBA cut back drastically last year , and the general feeling is that banks, despite the recent bailout, are generally making things harder for business borrowers, not easier . And if that's true, it's not politics, but business; and it's bad news. And yet, I hear from one banker friend that there's a small boom going on (apparently in mortgage refinancing, though, not business loans); and, in the interest of full disclosure, my own business had no trouble signing a new credit line earlier this month. And earlier today I talked to Joel Prakken of Macroeconomic Advisors, who had just released the latest ADP job figures (which are bad, again). Joel says he hears a lot of worry about credit crunch as he talks to businesses around the country, but more worry about rates than worry about not actually having loans approved. Which serves to highlight the real question: how is small business doing with the banks after the meltdown? Or, if you prefer, after the bailout? Help answer these questions by taking this survey or sending it to friends who own a small business. So I'm asking small business owners to join me in this poll about the credit crunch. It's following up on what we started a few weeks ago we asked small business owners to share their experiences here with a simple poll on what they're seeing after the meltdown. That was a pretty bleak picture ; more so when you combine it with the blog the meltdown feature that preceded it. In this case the idea is to get specific about the credit crunch. Small business owners: have you applied for business credit? Was it approved, or turned down? Have you not applied because you didn't think you'd have a chance? Let's see if we can get a better picture of what's really going on out there. Please click here to take this poll.   More on Small Business
 
Amb. Swanee Hunt: Strains in Odessa Top
I'm at the concert hall in Odessa, sitting on stage behind the first violins as the orchestra rehearses the Scherzo of the Schumann Symphony No. 2. A wave of pathos moves across the groups of players. Now the mournful theme is shifting from minor to major, introducing an element of hope. Lots of metaphors are embedded in this scene, a five-minute walk from the historic Ukrainian port on the Black Sea. Preparing for this trip, I went online to find artistic offerings during our two-day stay. Nothing at all. But when we arrived, we discovered Carmen waiting for us. The opera performance was somewhat uneven, but the arias, costumes, and set were terrific. As much as the performance, the enormous and ornate opera house is the icon of Odessa. Designed by the same architect as the venerable Vienna Opera, replete with gilded ornamentation, grand marble staircases, endless chandeliers, and the occasional satyr - it's a visual thrill. After 11 years of restoration, including shoring up the unstable foundation, it reopened in 2007. There were "financing problems," I'm informed. Yes, like $50 million of state funding that just disappeared. Seems Ukraine has a long way to go on the corruption scale; I'm told the problem starts at top political and business spheres. I'm appalled - until I remember about a thousand examples of special interest money influencing US policy makers. Back on the wooden stage, to the right of the timpani, looking out on a sea of empty red velvet seats... I love these hours of rehearsal, watching my husband pull every bit of beauty from the cellos, cajole a solo out of the oboe, and refine the rumble of the kettle drums. I revel in these rehearsals. It's a shame that the concert audience sees only his back. Instead, they watch the dispassionate faces of the violinists, so intent on counting the rest measures so as not to miss their next entrance. Meanwhile, Charles is not only setting the tempo and giving entrances and cut-offs. His occasional potpourri of words - English, German, Italian, Russian - all seem incidental as his lips, eyebrows, hands, and posture give cues that the players pick up with their peripheral vision. Hobart Earle, an American, has been the orchestra director for 16 years and is credited with its high standard. Charles says the orchestra is excellent, and Hobie is "really something of a hero." Given the political and economic crises, this country needs a lot of heroes right now. The deputy prime minister in Kiev told me that Odessa is the most important cultural center of this country of 48 million. The orchestra is at the center, performing almost every week, but there's also a Russian Theater and a Ukrainian Theater. (Everyone speaks Russian, although I'm told "60 percent of the population thinks in Ukrainian" and schooling is mostly in Ukrainian.) Yegor Yegorov is a tall, 28-year old pianist with brown shaggy hair, which falls at times over his enormous brown eyes. He plays the Mozart 13th Concerto splendidly. He admits that he's nervous before a hometown crowd. "The audience is super intelligent, sophisticating, discriminating. They know music very well, so it's big challenge to play for them." Yegor studied at the Stolyarskiy Academy, founded by a great professor of music before Soviet times. Some 200-300 students, age six to sixteen, take intensive classes in instruments, choir, and music theory on top of their regular subjects, before moving on to the conservatory. Well, now it's evening, and time for the concert. The hall is full, buzzing with excited expectation. Little girls are dressed in adorable satin dresses. Four women in their seventies are sitting on the first two rows with flowers for Yegor and Charles, neither of whom they knew. The applause begins the strong, rhythmic pounding with pleasure, typical of Eastern European audience. The women's faces light up with exhilaration as they hand long-stem red roses up to the stage. Whatever the challenges ahead, the loud, throbbing clap of the audience insists, Ukraine must make it.
 
Second Life Divorce: Woman Catches Husband In Virtual Gay Affair Top
Last week, a man informed his wife that he wanted a divorce via Facebook . This week, a woman wants a divorce after catching her husband in a virtual affair on Second Life! The UK's News of the World reports that Lisa Best caught her husband, John, "with his online trousers round his ankles--having gay dungeon romps in the web world Second Life." The News of the World report continues : The van driver was sitting up beside her at 4am tapping away frenetically--living out his fantasy through his avatar, or online character, called Troy Hammerthall when Lisa opened an eye and caught sight of the screen. "I saw John's little person having it off with another man in a dungeon on the screen," said horrified Lisa, 28. "I just froze with my head on the pillow, silently watching what he was doing. I felt sick to my stomach. According to the report, Lisa is divorcing John over the incident and claims it speaks to a larger problem in their marriage — an apparent internet addiction: After four years of marriage she is divorcing him despite his pleadings that he was only "messing about". "There were three in our marriage--myself, John and his laptop. He had it with him everywhere, even in bed," said Lisa. "And over the last few months he'd become really hooked on Second Life." Read the full News of the World article here or read more about Internet Addiction below.
 
Shunit Harpaz: Israel Needs Tzipi Livni Top
Most Israelis know that a drastic change is needed to get things on a new path to peace and stability in the region. Most Israelis know that past leaders were not able to break the violence cycle through current thinking paradigm. And still, most polls expect the clear winner of the upcoming election to be the right wing Likud party. If the polls got it right, the next Israeli Prime Minister would be Benjamin Netanyahu. His last term as Prime Minister in 1996-99 was evidently unsuccessful, yet the Israelis seem to be amenable to giving him a second chance. Despite his past wrongdoings, Netanyahu is going to get elected this time, as the alternatives lack any public appeal. Netanyahu patiently waited for ten long years to take the helm again. Countless nights of explaining and lecturing on Middle East current affairs on Fox news, NBC and ABC, you could see him everywhere. That is - if you were outside of Israel, living abroad. Netanyahu has been an Israeli ambassador, a job that suits him perfectly. He is eloquent, articulate, charming, everything but what qualifies to be calling the shots. But soon he is going to call the shots, and we'll lose our best spokesman. Nobody would be able to explain his erratic decision making. The world would not buy it. Israelis won't buy it. Nevertheless, he is still leading in the polls. Then why are we heading in this direction? Is it because Israelis found Netanyahu to be so great all of the sudden? Probably not. Desperation and fear, the lowest common denominators, repeatedly lead Israelis to elect right-wing parties whom they think will strengthen Israel's position. You can also blame the lack of competition for this top office. The two other candidates - Ehud Barak, head of the Labor party and Tzipi Livni, leader of Kadima - are not putting up a fight that would truly challenge Netanyahu. Ehud Barak promised a bright new day following his election to office in 1999. Israel did not get even a single bright new minute, let alone a full day. His efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict failed in the Camp David conference. While Barak had the support of President Clinton, PLO leader Yasser Arafat refused to sign the deal. Israelis ended up characterizing Barak as too eager to compromise and too willing to hand over holy land parts to the Palestinians. As for 2009, the Israeli public is satisfied with his service as Defense Secretary in the Gaza war and would like him to keep this position. Tzipi Livni has been a professional public servant for years, leading to her current position as Minster of Foreign Affairs. But no matter what her accomplishments are, she can never become masculine enough. At times of war, voters are looking to crown a former General, the military-veteran type. Tzipi Livni served in the Israeli Intelligence Agency, Mossad, but she is neither a man nor a General. Livni's crucial campaign mistake was playing down her womanhood; therefore missing the opportunity of gaining the support of women voters. Now, at the eleventh hour, she is trying to leverage the issue of her gender. Too little, too late. She should have taken lessons from Hillary Clinton - her famous "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" line touched every woman, supportive of her or not. Where were you Tzipi? While you were sleeping, your competition was passing you by on the right lane. Israelis have already given Netanyahu and Barak a chance to play the Prime Minister role, both of them leaving an after-taste of "no thanks, we wouldn't like to have you again!" The only person who can try and lead a change is Tzipi Livni. She is the one that Israel needs but will probably (according to the polls) not get. Israel needs a fresh start, free of militant view, the compassion of a woman, the care of a mother. Livni would advance peace initiatives faster - not only because her very personal youngest is going to fight the next unnecessary war - but since she gained the best training for the job during her leadership tenure as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Tzipi Livni is now more appreciative of Israel's neighbors, especially Egypt, in conflict resolutions and negotiations. She would work perfectly with President Obama, both young, former lawyers, hopeful for a change, with lots of positive energy. Livni would strive to achieve peace in new ways, preferring diplomatic resolutions over forceful actions, as shown by her expeditious trip to D.C for signing the Gaza ceasefire agreement. If you are looking for hope - she's the one; if you're looking for change - vote for her. Israel needs her now. More on Israel
 
Tom Rielly: A Fellowship Program for Young World Changers Top
How do you help someone who might change the world? You nurture his or her ideas. Then you spread them. Imagine a party. Now imagine a room in which you find: - The founder of Africa's first online ad network - A physicist who uncovered the mathematical patterns of war - An actress who plays a spy in peril - A metals sculptor who's saving coral reefs - The pioneer behind a women's inventor network After eavesdropping, chances are you'd step out of that room and into a world flipped upside-down. That's the idea behind TED. You bring together the world's leading thinkers and doers. You pair techies with filmmakers, designers with doctors, musicians with philosophers, mathematicians with politicians. Then you watch the future take shape before your eyes. That's also the idea behind a new TED program called TED Fellows, whose focus is world-changers-in-the-making -- most of them under age 40. The five people listed above are not hypothetical. It was my honor to introduce them, and 35 other Fellows, at the 2009 TED Conference in Long Beach, California this past week. It's clear their work now is the prototype for what's around the corner. By mixing them with the talent and experience of the TED community, we hope to aid their incredible projects -- and maybe get a sneak peek at what's coming. Many left the conference with new ideas, new project plans, partners, mentors and perhaps financing. I can't predict what exactly will come of it, but more than a few news making collaborations have begun that way in TED's past. TED Fellows is actively seeking outstanding individuals for our next group, who will attend the TEDGlobal conference in Oxford, U.K. this summer. We'll open to applications on February 23rd. Potential Fellows may apply directly or be nominated. (If you have someone in mind, don't wait!) Note: We're focusing on attracting applicants who live or work in the Asia/Pacific region, Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and the Middle East, although people from anywhere around the globe may apply. Our target age range is 21-40, though anyone over age 18 may apply. Ideal candidates should show real achievement and real promise. We're seeking makers and doers -- not just talkers. For more information, please visit www.ted.com/fellows. More on Africa
 
Obama To Visit Peoria, Illinois Caterpillar Plant To Discuss Economy Top
ELKHART, Ind. - President Barack Obama's efforts to promote his economic stimulus plan will include a stop in central Illinois. Obama visited Indiana on Monday, and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says the president plans to be in Peoria on Thursday. Gibbs says Obama will visit a Caterpillar plant. The heavy equipment maker has announced 22,000 job cuts in recent weeks. Originally, aides had insisted that Obama's time would be better spent remaining in Washington to shepherd the stimulus bill, rather than taking the more traditional route of traveling the country to pressure lawmakers. But as difficulties with the legislation increased, trips has been added to Obama's schedule. While in Indiana, Obama said the nation is facing "an economic crisis as deep and as dire as any since the Great Depression." More on President Obama
 
Emily Bracken: 12 Steps To Bush Recovery Top
Many of us come to W-Anon, a group dedicated to helping you get over the George W. Bush years, filled with despair and hopelessness. And many of us would not have voluntarily walked through the doors if we were not in some sort of crisis or pain that forced us to seek help. Though we may not have labeled it this way, we come to W-Anon because our lives have become unmanageable -- and we come seeking relief. W-Anon's 12 Steps to Recovery (based on the tenets of Nixon Anonymous) are listed below: 1. We are not alone. Millions suffered silently along with you, though some, like Bill Maher, suffered not so silently. 2. Accept and admit to ourselves that we voted Bush into office. Twice. 3. Understand that, first and foremost, Bush is a politician. One symptom of this vocation is an uncontrollable desire for power; and the longer Bush continued to rule, his desire for power increased. 4. Being a Bush is a family disease. If one member is afflicted, then the whole family suffers. 5. Put your needs first. Because when we don't we allow the president to put his needs first--namely, going into Iraq so he could kill the man who tried to kill his father. 6. We tried to condone Bush's behavior and now are trying to make up for it or excuse it. But we know only have ourselves to blame and feel emotionally disturbed ourselves. 7. Humbly ask the world to forgive us for our shortsightedness, selfishness and isolationism. 8. Make a list of all the people (Muslims) we allowed to be detained without due process, and ask for their forgiveness. 9. Agree it's a good idea to have direct talks with the Middle East, except when to do so would be unwise. 10. Learn to accept the things we could not change (Bush) and focus on the things we can (ourselves). 11. Know that electing Democrats into office is the only way to restore to this democracy some sort of sanity. 12. Have a cultural awakening as the result of these steps, and try to carry this message to the rest of country by supporting the policies of Obama and the Democrats. Members share Experience, Strength and Hope Scott McClellan, former White House press secretary: "When I came into W-Anon, I was involved in a special relationship with Bush, whose temper often erupted unexpectedly and inappropriately. I'll never forget going to work on a Saturday morning, getting called down to the Oval Office because there was something he was mad about. I had on khakis and a buttoned-down shirt, and I had to stand by the door and get chewed out for about 15 minutes. He wouldn't even let me cross the threshold. It took a long time to understand I had no power over Bush. Only Cheney did. And as my days in W-Anon turned into weeks and the weeks turned into months--I realized things would never improve. And with W-Anon's help, I was finally able to quit and write a tell-all book about my experiences for a very large advance. And my life has drastically improved." More on Middle East
 
Dr. Michael J. Breus: Sleep Disorder Saves a Life Top
I love an unusual story about sleep that has as good ending. Check out this headline: Sleep Disorder Helps Woman Escape Fire . This past week a woman in Texas can thank her CPAP machine for saving her life when a fire gutted her home. For those unfamiliar with the CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure machine), it's a device used by people with obstructive sleep apnea who have a problem that causes their airways to collapse during sleep. Their breathing essentially gets cut off multiple times during the night. With a CPAP, the airway stays open so breathing is possible. Sleep becomes much more restful and solid. For Geraldine McNeil, here CPAP became her lifeline. The fire broke out in the early morning hours, and, according to the report, her entire face was covered in soot and ash (and probably chemicals from the combustion, too) except for the area where the CPAP had been. Had she not had the machine on her face, she likely would have been overcome by the smoke. I can't think of a more terrifying event than waking to a fire in your home in the middle of your sleep. We've heard plenty of stories in the news of people who don't survive such tragedies. I've never heard of a CPAP saving a life in an occurrence such as this. Not that one would wish to have sleep apnea. But if it were me, I think I'd choose the sleep apnea and CPAP over trying to wake up in a burning house smothered by smoke and find a way out. The number one cause of death related to fires is smoke inhalation--not burns. Hey, I know the CPAP doesn't win points for being the most attractive device, but now it's got an added benefit: Might save you during fire. Imagine that. This article on sleep is also available at Dr. Breus's official blog, The Insomnia Blog . More on Health
 
Donnie Fowler: Limbaugh: "I'm Obsessed With Me!" Top
Welcome back, Rush! After a week away, possibly at the request of fearful Republicans , Rush Limbaugh's beautiful opening monologue on Monday cites Gallup polling information showing him growing in popularity among Republicans, making him (according to Himself) the most popular conservative in the nation. Sixty percent of Republicans nationally have a "favorable" opinion of him, even in the midst of repeated expressions of hope that Obama fails as president . And fewer and fewer Republicans have a negative opinion. Rooting against America does indeed find favor in the hearts of the Right. Republicans in Washington seem to know it. One leading House Republican strategist asked (even begged) Rush for advice in a Politico column today . The questions John Feehery asks are basic, illuminating the lack of answers GOP elites have for their dramatic electoral losses in 2006 and 2008. We would like to see your plans to make Republicans more competitive. We would also like to see your plan to help Republicans compete in the Northeast, the Upper Midwest, the West Coast and Florida, in the big cities and in the suburbs [where Republicans] have been pretty much wiped out. We would like to see your plan to attract more women's votes. Another problem area is independent voters. Please get us your plans as soon as possible, because we have a lot of work to do. All this attention and pleading just confirms what Democratic leaders and even President Obama have already recognized -- Rush Limbaugh is the unquestionable, undoubted leader of a Republican Party in desperate need of someone to lead them from the wilderness . But El Rushbo was clear on Monday that his focus is not Barack Obama and the Democrats. Rejecting the charges that his main focus is Barack Obama's failure, Rush unequivocally states that he is not obsessed with the new president, "I'm obsessed with me!"
 
The Progress Report: Dueling Recovery Bills Top
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, Ryan Powers, and Pat Garofalo To receive The Progress Report in your email inbox everyday, click here . Last week, the Senate took up the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, an economic stimulus package aimed at boosting the tanking economy. The legislation that emerged from the Senate debate, which is up for a procedural vote today, is substantively different from that which passed the House in January. The differences are due to an effort by a group of "centrist" senators -- the 'gang of moderates' -- to rein in what they characterized as unnecessary spending in the House version. Led by Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME), the gang crafted a compromise that cut spending in the bill by about $100 billion, reducing the total cost to about $780 billion. However, that total does not factor in two new tax breaks that the Senate added -- one for new car purchases and another for home-buyers. With these tax breaks added in, the estimated cost stands at about $827 billion. As a result of the "compromise," though, the Senate bill is now inferior to the House's in terms of stimulative effect. More than two-thirds of the cuts are in areas that would provide the most effective stimulus. As the Center for American Progress' Michael Ettlinger wrote, "there are other smaller cuts in the remaining third that make little sense if the goal is, in fact, to weed out the least effective stimulus provisions." THE DIFFERENCE IS JOBS: The unemployment rate is currently at 7.6 percent, after employers shed 598,000 jobs in a "brutal January." This number jumps to 13.9 percent when the underemployed -- those working part-time who want to be working full-time, or those who have simply given up on finding a job -- are factored in. Over the last three months, 1.8 million jobs have disappeared. As the Center for American Progress' Heather Boushey pointed out, "the United States has not seen job losses of this magnitude over a three month period since 1945." This highlights why job creation in the stimulus package is critical, yet the Senate bill would create between 430,000 and 538,000 fewer jobs than its House counterpart. Of course, as economist Brad Delong noted, "relative to the alternative of no bill we do boost employment in America a year from now by on the order of 3 million." But with potential job losses expected to continue "for another year nationwide" those jobs would mean a lot, and the stimulus should be aimed at those areas in which it can do the most good. OUT -- STATE AID AND EDUCATION: Of the $83 billion cut by the Nelson-Collins gang, $40 billion of it was for state stabilization funding. This is incredibly important funding meant for "helping states and localities avoid wide-scale cuts in services and layoffs of public employees." There are 46 states facing budget shortfalls this year or next, and at least 41 states anticipate shortfalls for fiscal 2010 and beyond. Economist Mark Zandi calculated that every dollar invested in aid to the states has a return of $1.36. Also, this funding moves into the economy quickly, as "states that receive a check from the federal government will quickly pass on the money to workers, vendors, and program beneficiaries." A second area hard-hit by the gang's compromise is education (which the state funding would also have gone towards); the Senate bill "cuts all $16 billion from the original bill for K-12 school construction, [and] trims more than $1 billion from Head Start programs for youngsters." But as the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities pointed out, "thirty-four states have cut education or proposed such cuts because they face massive, devastating budget deficits in this recession." These cuts come in the form of per-pupil expenditure, school meal programs, and teacher layoffs. As one school board president said, "We are at that point where we have no other place to go (for cuts)." This money would have had immediate effects "in terms of forestalling layoffs and really preventing the symptoms of recession from exacerbating the economic woes that we're currently experiencing," CAP's Raegen Miller noted. IN -- INEFFECTIVE TAX BREAKS: While state aid and education were cut, added into the bill in the Senate were tax breaks that will do little to jumpstart the economy. The Senate found just $18 billion in tax breaks it was willing to cut, but among these was a scaling back of the Child Tax Credit expansion proposed by the House. The House bill eliminates the income floor for the credit in 2009 and 2010, opening it up to the working poor who are most apt to spend it; the Senate set an income floor of $8,100. The Senate also included patching the Alternative Minimum Tax, which takes place every year and can hardly be called stimulative. Finally, the Senate included a $15,000 home-buyers credit, in an attempt to address the housing crisis. While it is undeniable that a fix for housing must be found, this tax credit is not it. It is not likely to incentivize anyone who was not going to purchase a home anyway, and as Dean Baker noted, the credit will "cost more than promised." Furthermore, it can go to any home-buyer, "the vast majority of whom will be people who already own a home. If a person buys a home, but sells their current home, it has no net effect on the market." In the end, it will amount to little more than a "house-flipping subsidy." More on Stimulus Package
 
World Optimistic About Obama Presidency: Poll Top
One of the many problems that the Obama administration inherited from Bush and the conservatives is America's abysmal image around the world. It is therefore good news that recent polling data finds the world's publics in an optimistic mood about relations between the United States and other countries. A BBC World Service poll found that an average of two-thirds of the public in 17 countries believe the Obama presidency will produce improved U.S. relations with the rest of the world. Just 19 percent said relations would stay the same, and only 5 percent thought they would get worse. More on Bailout Bandits
 
Judge Diane Pamela Wood Floated As Possible Obama Supreme Court Pick Top
Judge Diane Pamela Wood, 58, has spent the last 14 years going toe-to-toe with the legendary conservative lions of Chicago's 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook, and her fans say she could ably fill the shoes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the moderate-liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Dean Baker: New Thinking on the Economy Top
Jeff Faux, my former boss at the Economic Policy Institute, tells a story from his days as a foot soldier in President Johnson's War on Poverty. Johnson was asked by a delegation from Alaska if he had an anti-poverty program for their state. Johnson assured the delegation that he had a "great big program" for Alaska. As soon as the delegation left, Johnson rushed into Jeff's office and told them that they needed to come up with a program for Alaska. Unfortunately, many liberals have not moved beyond Lyndon Johnson's thinking on the role of the government in the economy. They still tie progressive outcomes - the guarantee of good quality health care, education, childcare, housing and a secure retirement - directly to big government. While the government must play a role in ensuring these outcomes, the point should be to have good government, not big government, as we usually conceive it. There is a long list of ways in which the rules set by the government determine economic outcomes. While these rules have an enormous impact on the economy, they do not amount to "big government" in the sense of a large amount of taxes and spending. Perhaps the most obvious example along these lines is patent protection for prescription drugs. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects that the country will spend more than $330 billion in 2012 for prescription drugs. These same drugs would cost roughly $30 billion in the absence of patent protection. This means that the government's patent monopolies will be redistributing roughly $300 billion in 2012 from patients to the drug companies. (There are alternatives to patent monopolies for financing the research and development of prescription drugs.) To put this sum into perspective, after-tax corporate profits are projected to be less than $1,400 billion in 2012, so the amount at stake in preserving patent protection for prescription drugs will be more than 20 percent of all corporate profits. Alternatively, imagine getting Congress to appropriate $300 billion a year, or $3 trillion over a 10-year budget window, for our favorite government program(s). However, in spite of the enormous amount of money at stake, this issue has received almost no attention from the vast majority of progressives. In fact, most progressives have probably never even gave the issue of patent protection for prescription drugs a moment's consideration. It is easy to find other examples of ways in which government rules determine who gets the money. Along the same lines as patent protection, the entertainment industry and software industry survive in their current form because of the government's copyright protection. This form of government intervention has made thousands of people, from Rupert Murdoch to Bill Gates, very rich at the expense of the rest of us. The trade agreements over the last three decades have been deliberately designed to put manufacturing workers, and noncollege educated workers more generally, directly in competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. The predicted and actual result of this policy is to lower the wages of noncollege educated workers in the United States. Do we want to rebalance the field? Why not set trade rules that put highly paid medical specialists and other big "winners" in direct competition with their low-paid counterparts in the developing world. We can debate whether this is good policy, but there is no dispute that we can use this "market" outcome to bring down the wages of those at the top. And speaking of wages of those at the top, we can also rewrite the rules of corporate governance so that CEOs and other top executives don't get to write their own paychecks. The compensation packages of the top five paid executives could be subject to regular approval by shareholders in a vote where unreturned proxies do not count. My guess is that with these rules much less money would go to those at the top. There are many other ways in which we can change the rules so that less money flows to those on top, leaving more for the rest of us. Changing the rules does not require big government in the sense of large portions of GDP being collected in tax revenue. It does require that government take an active role in the economy, but it is already taking an active role in the economy in these areas. The difference is that, currently, the conservatives have been setting these rules, while progressives have been polite enough not to pay attention. Instead, they have mostly focused their energy on matters that will have far less impact. The economic crisis brought on by the collapse of the housing bubble offers progressives unprecedented opportunities. But we have to be prepared to actually think big, and not just think about big programs.
 
Francisco Toro: Chavez's All Out Push to be President for Life Top
It's a campaign ad, entitled "Hall of Fame." It opens in a computer-generated museum. As the camera pans from one dictator's portrait to the next, we hear a famous passage written by Venezuela's independence hero, Simon Bolivar, all the way back in 1819: "Nothing is so dangerous as allowing a single citizen to remain in power for a long time. The people get used to obeying him, and he gets used to giving them orders, and that is the root of tyranny." As the words sink in, we see portraits of Robert Mugabe (Caption: Zimbabwe - 29 years in power), Alfredo Stroessner (Paraguay: 35 years in power), Fidel Castro (Cuba: 47 years in power), and others. As the 30 second spot ends, the camera pans one last time and settles on a blank picture frame captioned "Venezuela". The announcer closes, saying: "it's up to you to ensure that no more Venezuelans enter this hall." The ad was produced on behalf of the No-camp ahead of Venezuela's February 15th referendum on lifting term limits, a proposal that would allow Hugo Chavez to stay in power for life. You can see it on YouTube, if you want. Where you probably won't see it, though, is on Venezuelan television. Under rules set by the pro-Chavez National Elections Council, the Council itself gets to decide at what times campaign ads can go out, and on which channels. They deny that this amounts to prior restraint, but unexplained "delays" are keeping "Hall of Fame" and a series of other "No"campaign spots mostly out of sight. The ads show only on a few channels, and never in prime time. "It's not that we've gone away, it's that we've been gagged: they've taped our mouths shut," is how No-campaign leader Julio Borges puts it. As it gets shut out of the air-war via mysterious administrative delays, the opposition's boisterous student movement is systematically harrassed on the ground. In a speech last month, Chávez urged his security forces to "give them some of that good old tear-gas" whenever student protests got out of hand, a green-light that was immediately followed by a spike in heavy handed repression against the kids . Last Friday, he ordered the security forces to "step up surveillance" of the student movement, on vague allegations that they are "plotting to cause chaos". More than campaigning, the opposition is just struggling to keep its head above water. Chavez, meanwhile, is going all out to ensure he wins Sunday's referendum "by a knock-out" . Deploying the massive resources at the disposal of Venezuela's cash-flush petrostate, he's taking no chances and sparing no expense. "Evander Hollyfield against a 12-year old kid. That's how it feels," according to one Caracas resident. Eleven state owned TV channels and hundreds of government financed "community radio stations" broadcast Si propaganda round the clock. All sorts of public buildings, from schools , to state government offices, to Venezuela's IRS to the country's national worker re-training institute are plastered with "Si" propaganda. State owned electric utility crews are tasked with putting up Si signs . Civil servants are strong-armed into "volunteering" and raising funds for the Si campaign. Nearly every government website sports a "Si" banner ad . Nothing is off-limits. "Si" propaganda gets piped into the Caracas Metro, over the PA system. "The next station is Sabana Grande - please remember to vote Si on February 15th." Even the wording of the referendum question itself is unabashedly partisan, a 77 word long ramble that consciously echoes Si campaign themes by asking voters whether they approve of "broadening people's political rights" without ever mentioning term limits as such at all. Perhaps most worrying is that PDVSA, Venezuela's giant state-owned oil company, is getting in on the game. At the end of January, a massive caravan of PDVSA tanker-trucks paraded through the streets of Caracas, decked out in "Si" propaganda. Cars parked at PDVSA parking lots have their windows decorated with "Si"s, in big white letters, whether the driver likes it or not. Reuters reports that, on a recent visit to the Energy Ministry, one oil industry executive found the building nearly empty. When he asked where all the civil servants had gone, one of the few left holding the fort told him everyone had taken the day off to go to a "Si" rally. In effect, Chavez has turned the state itself into an appendage of the Si campaign. It matters little that this is blatantly unconstitutional. With die-hard Chavez loyalists installed in every key post in the state - from the state-owned media to PDVSA from the courts to the Elections Council - there's really no down-side to flouting constitutional rules. No matter how well documented, opposition cries of foul are flatly denied or, more usually, ignored altogether. Of course, this kind of shenanigan isn't new in Venezuela: fifteen months ago, Chavez was defeated in his first attempt to abolish term limits after a campaign that saw its share of abuses. But the scale of the Si's advantage this time around is simply unprecedented, especially on the air. It's not just the Ad Gap, it's the Free Media gap too. A study released last week by Venezuelan and Swedish media researchers found that 93% of the news stories in the flagship State-run TV channel, VTV, favor a "Si" vote with the remaining 7% classed as "Neutral". Another prominent State-run station broadcast 100% Si-friendly news coverage. Neither of the two main state broadcasters has aired a single news story favorable to the "No" campaign. On the other side, neither of the last two remaining dissident TV stations can broadcast free-to-air to a nationwide audience. Globovision (59% "No-friendly" news coverage) broadcasts only in a handful of cities, while RCTV (91% "No-friendly") is available only via cable and satellite, now that its broadcast license has been revoked in retaliation for its critical news coverage. Mr. Hollyfield, meet your opponent. The extremely aggressive Si-campaign shows a government well aware that large majorities of Venezuelans oppose lifting term-limits in principle. They know only an extremely lopsided campaign is likely to bring those numbers around. So far, it's working: while polls taken in December showed the No-side ahead by 15 to 20 points, polls taken in late January show a dead heat. Even if the Si camp were to lose again, all signs are that the government will simply keep holding new votes, year after year, until it eventually gets the answer it wants. The government campaign is centered on a simple message: Voting "Si" does not mean making Chávez president for life. It means giving the people the chance to re-elect him as many times as they want. The proposal would expand people's political rights, they say, by removing an arbitrary restriction on their choice of candidates. Since free and fair elections will still be held every six years, the voters will always get the final say. It's an argument that refutes itself. The massive abuse of state resources we've seen this year tells us all we need to know about how free and fair those future elections are likely to be. In addition to the natural advantages of incumbency, Chávez's perpetual re-election bids would leverage the full might of the Venezuelan petrostate, just as the Si-camp has: a massive built-in advantage that makes Simón Bolívar's 190 year old warning urgently relevant today. As one of the other TV spots that the chavista Elections Council is keeping mostly off the air puts it, there's one other country in the region that holds massively unfair elections at scrupulously regular intervals: Cuba. With political speech limited, the state fully mobilized against dissidents and the incumbent having unlimited access to state resources, Cuban elections are about as democratic as the regime whose windows they dress. All signs are that that's the model Chavez wants to follow. More on Latin America
 
Gulf Coast Hurricane Aid Remains Unspent Top
A massive effort to fix public works destroyed more than three years ago by the Gulf Coast hurricanes remains largely stalled, leaving more than $3.9 billion in federal aid unspent and key repairs far from complete.
 
University Of Chicago Hospital Cutting 450 Jobs Top
University of Chicago Medical Center will lay off 450 workers as part of a recently announced restructuring, the hospital said Monday. The cuts represent about 5% of the Hyde Park hospital's nearly 10,000 workers. Hundreds more jobs are likely to be eliminated through attrition over the next 18 months, officials said. More on Job Cuts
 
Christine Pelosi: Obama's Wireside Chat Will Help Pass American Recovery Package Top
Bringing innovation to tradition, President Obama's weekend wireside chat http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/recoveryvid and prime time fireside chat will combine to help pass his American recovery package. Obama knows that the drama does not exist in the sensationalist media reports about the legislative sausage-making but in the deep anger and anxiety coarsing through the body politic as people struggle to pay rents, mortgages, utilities, healthcare, and tuition bills. Addressing our hunger for change is Obama's strength, but talk won't win this - pragmatism will: people are hurting, and view Obama's American recovery package as the best way forward. While there will be negotiations to add more jobs in a House-Senate conference, Obama will sign a bill by President's Day - less than a month into his presidency. Good thing too, because we cannot wait even 100 days to save American jobs. And yes, by jobs I include government jobs from beat cops to construction contractors and private sector jobs from catering to Internet services. Everyone who works an honest day has a stake in this economy and should not be belittled by elites who contend that their jobs are unworthy of respect or investment. Obama's wireside chat does not exist in a vacuum - it has been heard by tens of thousands of Americans in over 3,587 house meetings in 1,579 cities and 429 Congressional districts over the weekend. But even that impressive showing is not enough. Let's keep Obama's viral message going - share with your friends http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/recoveryvid and call your Senators at 202-224-3121.
 
Geithner Humbles Himself, Flies Coach Top
For those of you still outraged over Timothy Geithner's income tax lapse, maybe you'll take comfort in this: at least the Treasury secretary isn't flying first class these days. Passengers were relieved to see Geithner joining the commoners in coach on the 7:30 p.m. Delta shuttle Sunday night from New York to Washington. More on Timothy Geithner
 
Jonathan Handel: SAG Board Re-Do Successful Top
The SAG Board met yesterday and re-affirmed actions already taken in writing two weeks earlier: the ouster of former National Executive Director Doug Allen and the replacement of the negotiating team. That action paves the way for resumed contract talks with the studios, which are expected to start next Tuesday and Wednesday, Feb. 17-18, according to sources and other media reports. Negotiations will probably continue over a period of a few weeks, as a significant number of issues remain. The Board's vote would appear to render moot a lawsuit filed last week by SAG president Alan Rosenberg. However, according to a source at yesterday's board meeting, Rosenberg 's Membership First faction argued that yesterday's board meeting was itself invalid because it was called by the interim National Executive Director, David White, who was appointed by the written document that Rosenberg 's lawsuit deems to be invalid as well. A judge reviewing the lawsuit last week disagreed , and it seems unlikely that Rosenberg 's threatened appeal will gain much traction. However, given SAG's tangled history over the last 12 months of mostly non-negotiations, Rosenberg and his fellow Membership First plaintiffs 1st VP Anne-Marie-Johnson and board members Diane Ladd and Kent McCord can be expected to try to keep their lawsuit alive as long as possible. The vote in favor yesterday was 59%, which was up from 53% when the written assent document was used two weeks earlier. The change results from two Membership First board members, Angela Watson and Keith Carradine, breaking ranks and voting with the SAG moderates. In other news, the preparations for joint SAG-AFTRA commercials negotiations are apparently going relatively smoothly, with talks the JPC (representing advertisers and ad agencies) expected to start in two weeks, on February 23. The Guild will thus be in the unusual position of having to negotiate its two largest contracts simultaneously, as well as possibly having to continue to fight litigation by its own president. -------------- Subscribe to my blog ( jhandel.com ) for more about SAG, or digital media law generally. Go to the blog itself to subscribe via RSS or email. Or, follow me on Twitter , friend me on Facebook , or subscribe to my Huffington Post articles.
 
Deepak Chopra: How to change diabolical science Top
Last column I painted a grim picture of science's dark side. A trend toward diabolical creativity began with the atom bomb in 1945 and has only accelerated since then. But it's not just weapons of mechanized death that cause the problem. Science has long demanded that it be separate from ordinary morality. Medicine marches on unscathed after a drug like Thalidomide produces thousands of deformed babies. Pesticides march on after the serious ecological damage of DDT. Surgeries that have never been properly tested, like the radical mastectomy, thrive as standard practice for decades. Is amoral science the same as good science? Almost every scientist thinks so. Their rationale is that injecting issues of right and wrong impedes the free flow of ideas and stifles progress. One never knows where a new discovery will lead, and so judging it in advance may block a tremendous benefit somewhere down the road. As proof, one can point to the suppression of stem-cell research under the Bush administration, which was an irrational decision based on narrow religious values. When President Obama wiped that ban off the books in his first few days in office, it was undoubtedly the right thing to do. But was it really the same with the atom bomb, DDT, and a host of toxic chemicals still seeping into the soil from various industrial processes? Harm isn't that hard to predict, and yet out of fear and arrogance, science insists on its right to develop any and every technology that can be imagined. The future holds the dark promise of weapons and toxins worse than anything we have today. When the government bans one dangerous innovation, that simply spurs researchers to invent the next drug, insecticide, or artificial hormone that will elude regulators. Now that I have recapitulated the grim picture, what can we do about it? As part of President Obama's call to a new sense of responsibility, science needs to become more humane, safe, cautious, and humble. There is value in living with Nature and nurturing the planet -- almost everyone now agrees -- but how can we nurture anything while at the same time threatening life on Earth through toxic technologies? The big mistake that science has made is leaving out the human factor. In the name of objectivity, science has forgotten subjectivity, or turned it into an enemy. The minute you bring up a simple fact, that every scientist is deeply involved as a human being with his research, skeptics accuse you of being on the side of superstition and charlatanism. That's like saying that if you point out flaws in the Church, you are an atheist. Science is deeply subjective. Researchers have goals based on personal values. They are driven by competition, money, status, and prestige. No one can reasonably dispute that. By the same token, scientists know when they are in disturbing territory. The inventors of the atomic bomb tried to suppress their fears, and when the weapon turned out to be unimaginably worse than anyone ever supposed, many physicists felt deep pangs of regret for moving the world into a new age of destruction and terror. Yet the ethos of amorality forced them to move ahead, as if science automatically outweighs all human objections. Today we have committees on scientific ethics, but these dispense very weak tea, little more than a wringing of hands. The general pattern is that a technology is developed first and worried about afterwards, when it's too late. Few people thinks it's right to clone human beings, for example, but we all sit on our hands waiting for that shoe to drop. As surely it will. It's only a matter of time before the first cloned baby is plastered across the front pages of the tabloids. Just as it's only a matter of time before the next toxic spill, the next horrifying bomb, the next deadly side effect of drugs. We need to realize that the subjective side of science is just as important as the objective side. When researchers come to a dangerous area, they rationalize that if they don't proceed forward, a competitor in Europe, Korea, or Japan will get there first. But that's like saying that a person should shoplift in the department store because someone else will, or that one should shoot down the enemy because the next soldier will. Moral choices are always personal, and the big problem isn't who is going to shoot the enemy but why anybody should. Why should anybody pursue diabolical creativity? I know there are gray areas where one can't make a clear moral choice. Yet the truth is that chemical companies, the pharmaceutical giants, and the weapons industry march through moral barricades that would stop any ethical person. Weapons of mechanized death are wrong to begin with. So is the cult of new and ever more risky drugs. For every advance on the dark side of science, something better is abandoned. Wholesale reliance on pesticides and chemical fertilizers means that you have abandoned taking care of the environment. The unstoppable flood of pharmaceuticals fosters the abandonment of natural medicine, prevention, and wellness. So before we continue to worship blindly at the altar of scientific progress, we need to stop and consider what kind of existence we actually want 20, 30, 50 years from now. The moral choices we make today will determine how healthy the planet is tomorrow. In other words, science can't be given immunity from the shift in values that is happening this very moment. Originally published in San Francisco Chronicle
 
Negar Razavi: Dear President Ahmadinejad and President Obama: Support Generation Y Diplomacy Top
Dear President Ahmadinejad and President Obama, I write to you as an Iranian, as an American, as a young person, and most importantly, as an advocate for dialogue between Iran and the United States. Like the more than 150 million Iranians and Americans that were born after the 1979 revolution, I scarcely remember the events that set our two countries on the path of confrontation. Having inherited this legacy of hostility, however, many of us reject the idea that a clash between the "Great Satan" and member of the "Axis of Evil" is somehow inevitable. You have both publicly stated your support for U.S.-Iran dialogue, and your governments are examining ways to launch such diplomacy. But dialogue between our two countries need not wait until Tehran and Washington sit down at the negotiation table. You can begin the process of dialogue by facilitating exchanges between young Americans and Iranians -- those who will gain the most from such interactions, yet have the least knowledge and understanding of the other. Unlike our parents' generation, few if any young Americans have ever been to Iran. And while many students are rushing to learn Arabic or Chinese, only a small handful is learning Farsi. At the same time, young Iranians struggle to get tourist and student visas to the U.S. To even apply, they must travel to Dubai or Turkey -- a difficult obstacle for the majority of Iranians. Therefore, most young Iranians resign themselves to learning about the U.S. through movies they watch on illegal satellite. Given the stakes right now, it is unacceptable that the next generation -- our future leaders -- know so little about the other. By allowing us space to come together, you are making a relatively inexpensive investment in the long-term security of our countries. This is not to say that the political and geo-strategic differences between the U.S. and Iran are not real. They are. "Citizen diplomacy" will not and should not replace official government negotiations. However, an exchange between young Iranians and Americans can accomplish a great deal by helping build a foundation of understanding and respect, which is essential to sustain future agreements. I have experienced first-hand how rewarding it can be to bring these young people together. In 2004, I co-led a delegation of American students to Iran for a dialogue exchange. The university in Tehran had never hosted Americans before, and the Americans had never traveled to Iran. For some of them, this was their first trip to a Muslim country. The two groups of students debated and discussed issues as diverse and as difficult as Abu Ghraib, terrorism, the role of the media, women's rights and art. On some issues we had clear differences, while on others we found common ground. Ultimately though, the process helped us gain a more nuanced and respectful understanding of the other. Other groups have organized similar Iranian-American exchanges, including a successful program with wrestlers. (This month, the State Department planned to send the USA Badminton team to participate in a tournament in Iran, but were denied visas last minute). However, a spattering of such exchanges is insufficient. Real progress demands that both countries make a serious commitment to the idea of youth dialogue. A series of concrete steps will help open the door for more frequent exchanges. First, President Obama, you can follow through on nascent discussions to open an interest section in Tehran, which could process student and tourist visas for young Iranians. President Ahmadinejad, you can allow the interest section to open and protect it as you would any diplomatic mission. As a next step, both your governments can partner with local museums, professional organizations, and sports leagues to organize a series of youth conferences and exchanges. Bring promising young American mountain climbers to trek the Elborz Mountains. Welcome an Iranian youth orchestra to play at Carnegie Hall. Both your countries greatly value higher education. Allow these institutions to play a more robust role in facilitating dialogue. In the U.S., increase funding for Farsi language and Iranian studies programs at American universities. In Iran, design formal study abroad programs for American students. Both your governments can establish academic fellowships for students from the other country. Similarly, establish cultural centers in each other's capitals that will promote an exchange between young artists and musicians. Down the road, when formal negotiations between the U.S. and Iran begin, the State Department and Ministry of Foreign Affairs can create an official exchange program in each country similar to the State Department's International Visitor Leadership program. But until then, simply open the channels for young people to interact with one another. This means ensuring their safety and security as they travel back and forth. Make clear to your citizens that you support this type of people-to-people contact, and publicly encourage those who wish to learn from the citizens of the other country. President Obama and President Ahmadinejad, if you are truly committed to dialogue, allow the young people from your countries to get to know each other. Remove the obstacles that keep them apart. These smart, motivated and innovative young people will find ways to interact, to learn from another, and ultimately to break apart the fear and misunderstandings that have developed between the Iranian and American people. More on President Obama
 
Jeffrey Sachs: 5 Points on the Critical State of the Economy Top
Here is my general assessment of where we are from an economic point of view, putting the political dynamics mostly aside for the moment. I believe that we should do much better on fiscal policy than we are doing as a nation. (1) There is no room, nor case, for broad-based personal or corporate income tax cuts or credits or rebates. (Much smaller temporary subsidies of house and auto purchases, especially on fuel-efficient cars, make a little bit more sense, though I don't love those either). The deficit is hemorrhaging and will do so for years to come. Despite some ideological claims to the contrary, there will be no scope for sizeable cuts in spending as a percent of GDP, since five core areas (defense and homeland security, veterans affairs, social security, health care, and interest on the debt) take up all federal revenues, meaning that everything else in the budget (education, energy, science, transport, housing, income support, diplomacy, courts, public administration) is effectively on borrowed funds. And with aging, health care cost increases, etc., the underlying chronic deficits will tend to rise, not fall. We will therefore need increased not decreased taxes. Finally, note that temporary tax cuts are likely to have little stimulus effect, even if they could be afforded; (2) Immediate and sizeable spending increases in the stimulus package should be directed to a few areas: significant support for our crisis-ridden state and local governments, especially for health (Medicaid), education, and other urgent public services; income support (unemployment, anti-poverty including food stamps and child nutrition); health care coverage for the uninsured (as well as adequate Medicaid funding mentioned earlier); and a significant multi-year rollout of infrastructure of all sorts (roads, rail, other mass transit, ports, water, energy, broadband, etc.) (3) Future taxes (and revenues as a share of GDP) will have to increase , partly by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy (certainly), and partly by introducing new revenues on carbon (e.g. by auctioning carbon permits or taxing carbon) and eventually I believe by introducing a VAT or something similar. (4) The claim that we should reject infrastructure spending because it rolls out over several years is disastrously wrongheaded. We need a buildup of serious high-return public investments, and we can and should start now. The added stimulus will be useful in future years, but even more useful will be the infrastructure! The most rapid spending will come from sizeable immediate transfers to state and local governments, to the poor, to those without health insurance, and the start-up of some infrastructure spending, and this initial boost will be enough to "buy time" for a sustained and meaningful growth in infrastructure in later years. (5) We need a medium-term expenditure framework in which budget and tax policies are presented with a five-year time horizon. In such a medium-term framework, we would have significant deficit spending this year -- yes, perhaps $1 trillion in total not counting TARP -- but then falling over time by a programmed step-by-step increase in government revenues (rollback of tax cuts, new carbon levies, closing corporate loopholes, and probably introducing a modest VAT). The spending side will eventually taper off in certain categories (e.g. the emergency transfers to the state and local governments), but overall medium-term levels of public spending are likely to increase from 21 percent of GDP to perhaps 24 percent of GDP. Revenues should increase from around 18 percent of GDP to around 24 percent of GDP over a period of 5-7 years. Such a package would require several weeks to put into motion, and some parts might require several months, but that would be time well spent if we would thereby restore a sensible fiscal framework. It would be better to set the medium-term direction of fiscal policy, and to get it right (significant short term stimulus through spending not tax cuts, rising public investments in infrastructure over several years, and a rising trajectory of taxes relative to GDP) over the course of a few more weeks and even months, rather than to do things haphazardly and unconvincingly within a deadline of a few days. Of course, to give the administration its real due, it might be impossible to achieve anything if the opposition proves unmovable to this kind of package, so taking something highly flawed now rather than a better framework that is never enacted (!) would make sense. I regret and worry, however, that we haven't yet had the kind of public discussion about what's really needed for the medium term, and how we can get there. I don't really know if it's "now or never." If that's true, let's have the legislation now. It just doesn't feel right to me, however. And I do worry that the tax cuts and coming mega-deficits might well frustrate a subsequent convergence on a more meaningful and sustainable trajectory in the coming months and years. Finally, this is not meant to be a comprehensive agenda, only a sketch of broad macro policy. We need major systemic reforms in health, energy systems, foreign policy, science and technology, and much more, which will have significant budgetary implications, but which requires ample public debate and policy formulation. Finally, finally, there is a massively important global context which is not even discussed in our current debates. The role of Asia in helping to get the U.S. and Europe out of this mess should not be underestimated. Attacking China is completely wrongheaded in that perspective. We need policy coordination, not bickering. There are important exchange rate, monetary, and financial policy considerations at a global cooperative level which can and should speed recovery. More on Stimulus Package
 
Andy Worthington: Who's Running Guantanamo? Top
On January 20, the answer to that question seemed obvious. In his inaugural speech , with George W. Bush standing just behind him, President Obama pointedly pledged to "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" -- a clear indication that, as he promised in a speech in August 2007 , he would dismantle the extra-legal aberrations of the Bush administration's "War on Terror": When I am President, America will reject torture without exception. America is the country that stood against that kind of behavior, and we will do so again ... As President, I will close Guantánamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions ... We will again set an example to the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary. The next day, President Obama requested the military judges at Guantánamo to call a halt for four months to all proceedings in the Military Commissions at Guantánamo (the terror trials conceived by Dick Cheney and his close advisers in November 2001), to give the new administration time to review the system and to decide how best to progress with possible prosecutions. The day after, he signed his first executive orders , stating that Guantánamo would be closed within a year, upholding the absolute ban on torture, ordering the CIA to close all secret prisons, establishing an immediate review of the cases of the remaining 242 prisoners in Guantánamo, and requiring defense secretary Robert Gates to ensure, within 30 days, that the conditions at Guantánamo conformed to the Geneva Conventions. At first, everything seemed to be going well. Two judges immediately halted pre-trial hearings in the cases of the Canadian Omar Khadr and the five co-defendants accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks, and the President even secured an extra PR victory when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , the self-confessed architect of 9/11, who had been seeking a swift trial and martyrdom in the discredited Commission system, expressed his dissatisfaction to the judge. "We should continue so we don't go backward, we go forward," he said. The first sign of dissent from the Pentagon However, on January 29, the Commissions' recently appointed chief judge, Army Col. James M. Pohl, provided the first challenge to the President's plans, when he refused to suspend the arraignment of the Saudi Prisoner Abdul Rahim al-Nashiri , scheduled for today, February 9, stating that "he found the prosecutors' arguments, including the assertion that the Obama administration needed time to review its options, to 'be an unpersuasive basis to delay the arraignment.'" Suddenly, urgent questions were raised about who was running Guantánamo, as it transpired that, although Barack Obama could request what he wanted, the Commissions, as Col. Pohl pointed out, had been mandated when "Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which remains in effect." He added, "The Commission is bound by the law as it currently exists, not as it may change in the future." Moreover, the only official empowered to call off al-Nashiri's arraignment was Susan Crawford , the Commissions' Convening Authority, who retains her position as the senior Pentagon official overseeing the trials, even though she is a protégée of former Vice President Dick Cheney, and a close friend of Cheney's Chief of Staff, David Addington, the two individuals who, more than any others, established the "arbitrary justice" that Barack Obama pledged to bring to an end. After a few fraught days, Crawford was evidently prevailed upon to call off the arraignment, which she did on February 5, dismissing the charges without prejudice (meaning that they can be reinstated at a later date). She refused to comment on her decision, and in fact has only spoken out publicly on one occasion since being appointed in February 2007, when she admitted, in the week before Obama's inauguration, that the treatment to which Saudi prisoner Mohammed al-Qahtani was subjected amounted to torture . Instead, a Pentagon spokesman stepped forward to state, "It was her decision, but it reflects the fact that the President has issued an executive order which mandates that the Military Commissions be halted, pending the outcome of several reviews of our operations down at Guantánamo." This was hardly sufficient to assuage doubts about why a Cheney protégée was still in charge of the Commissions, and these doubts were amplified when the Associated Press announced that two more Bush political appointees -- Sandra Hodgkinson, the former deputy assistant defense secretary for detainee affairs, and special assistant Tara Jones -- had been moved to civil service jobs within the Pentagon. Hodgkinson had spent several years defending the Bush administration's detention policies, and Jones, as the AP explained, worked for a Pentagon public affairs program "aimed at persuading military analysts to generate favorable news coverage on the war in Iraq, conditions at Guantánamo and other efforts to combat terrorism," which was "shut down amid fierce Capitol Hill criticism and investigations into whether it violated Pentagon ethics and Federal Communications Commission policy." The mass hunger strike However, while Col. Pohl's dissent and the continuing presence of Susan Crawford raise serious doubts about the Pentagon's ability -- or willingness -- to embrace President Obama's post-Bush world, the most troubling developments are at Guantánamo itself. Although Robert Gates, the only senior Bush administration official specifically retained by Obama, has shown a willingness to adjust to the new conditions (which is, presumably, what encouraged Obama to retain him in the first place), it seems unlikely that, even with the best will in the world, he can address the problems currently plaguing Guantánamo in the remaining twelve days of the time allotted to him to review the conditions at the prison. A month ago -- inspired, in particular, by the seventh anniversary of the prison's opening, and by the change of administration -- at least 42 prisoners at Guantánamo embarked on a hunger strike. According to guidelines laid down by medical practitioners, force-feeding mentally competent prisoners who embark on a hunger strike is prohibited, but at Guantánamo this obligation has never carried any weight. Force-feeding has been part of the regime throughout its history, and was vigorously embraced in January 2006, in response to an intense and long-running mass hunger strike, when a number of special restraint chairs were brought to Guantánamo, which were used to "break" the strike. As I reported last week , the force-feeding, which involves strapping prisoners into the chairs using 16 separate straps and forcing a tube through their nose and into their stomach twice a day, is clearly a world away from the humane treatment required by the Geneva Conventions, as are the "forced cell extractions" used to take unwilling prisoners to be force-fed. Now, however, Lt. Col. Yvonne Bradley, the military defense attorney for the British resident Binyam Mohamed (whose "extraordinary rendition" and torture set off a Transatlantic scandal last week), has reported that conditions inside the prison have deteriorated still further. In an article in yesterday's Observer , Lt. Col. Bradley, who indicated that her client was "dying in his Guantánamo cell," reported on a visit to the prison last week, and stated, At least 50 people are on hunger strike, with 20 on the critical list, according to Binyam. The JTF [Joint Task Force] are not commenting because they do not want the public to know what is going on. Binyam has witnessed people being forcibly extracted from their cell. Swat teams in police gear come in and take the person out; if they resist, they are force-fed and then beaten. Binyam has seen this and has not witnessed this before. Guantánamo Bay is in the grip of a mass hunger strike and the numbers are growing; things are worsening. It is so bad that there are not enough chairs to strap them down and force-feed them for a two- or three-hour period to digest food through a feeding tube. Because there are not enough chairs the guards are having to force-feed them in shifts. After Binyam saw a nearby inmate being beaten it scared him and he decided he was not going to resist. He thought, "I don't want to be beat, injured or killed." Given his health situation, one good blow could be fatal. Lt. Col. Bradley added that Mohamed's account of the "savage beating" endured by a fellow prisoner was the "first account [she had] personally received of a detainee being physically assaulted at Guantánamo." And yet, although Lt. Col. Bradley's account indicates that the crisis in Guantánamo is such that ongoing discussions about implementing the Geneva Conventions should be replaced by urgent intervention to address the prisoners' complaints (and alleviating the chronic isolation in which most of the prisoners are held would be a start), the conditions in Guantánamo have been met with a resolute silence from the Pentagon and the White House. Will it really take another death in Guantánamo -- the sixth -- to provoke an immediate response? Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press), and maintains a blog here . More on Guantánamo Bay
 
Amy York Rubin: Israel's Stubborn Minority Top
"There is not much to get excited about for the elections. We already have a President." Confused silence pulsates in the modestly hip suburban living room of Motti and Hanna as I wait for an explanation. "We have Obama." After only a handful of minutes and the exchange of a few key words - Phd, co-existence efforts, homemade flax seed bread - a silent message has been neatly conveyed to me. Motti and Hanna are what some in America might call "progressives." They can explain in detail the various levels of rights that Palestinians are afforded depending if they live in East Jerusalem or Area A, B or C of the West Bank and they make pained and unpleasant faces at the thought of a Benjamin Netanyahu victory on Tuesday. Hanna can barely talk about the elections without looking eternally depressed. "Regardless of who wins we are in deadlock. During this last occupation all of the major candidates talk only of being 'stronger' and more 'aggressive.' None of them will look for opportunities to stop fighting." For Motti and Hanna, any opportunity for optimism came after President Obama's victory. There is the tiniest sliver of possibility in their voices when they talk about Obama's potential to persuade the new Israeli government to try a different approach in Gaza and in the way they deal with Hammas. Hanna especially doesn't seem to really believe this will happen but it is the only shred of possibility she is still considering. "I know we must defend ourselves when Hammas is shooting rockets into the homes of our families. That is not the question. The question is, for me, is there another way, something else we can do to begin to stop the cycle of violence? Hammas is not as unified of an organization as the media sometimes portrays. Hammas is a mess, a mess that was originally created by the Israeli government. There are some leaders of Hammas, perhaps not the most vocal spokespersons, with whom we may be able to talk and negotiate with...directly. " This is an idea that not even Hanna's husband will calmly listen to, let alone the next prime minister of Israel. While the belief that it is necessary to negotiate with Hammas may be the opinion of a small minority, the more abstract idea of doing things differently and the belief that Israel's government is making too many costly mistakes that reek of hypocrisy does not at all appear to be a minority opinion. The problem is that, in part, because there is no viable political option, no real candidate or party for people like Hanna and Motti they are convinced that they are a very small minority in Israel. While it is true that it is uncommon for someone like Hanna, the daughter of an Auschwitz Holocaust survivor, to speak more passionately about the plight of the Palestinians than the need to aggressively defend the Jewish State of Israel, they may be part of a more diverse and substantial minority than they realize. "One in 3 Israelis are undecided. And it is already the Shabbat before the election." Aaron, a 21-year old with only three months left in the army, breathlessly relays this statistic and then goes on to explain to me as we walk down the always-crowded Allenby St. in Tel Aviv that he is one of these undecided Israelis. However, unlike Hanna and Motti, there is an undeniable excitement in his voice. He is thrilled and eager to vote on Tuesday - it will be the first time he has ever voted. Talking to Aaron is like listening to a voice from the future. He is so far beyond the concepts and archetypes that define Motti and Hanna's generation of Israeli baby-boomers that I have a difficult time accepting that he has actually been living in Israel for the past 21 years and not in some Disney-approved version of the state. When I ask about his experience and understanding of the relationship between Jews and Arabs living together in Israel, he unsuccessfully attempts to contain his creeping smile and explains: "It is funny to say 'Arabs' and 'Jews' - we are all really just Israelis." Aaron did not grow up in Jerusalem. Unlike Hanna and Motti, Aaron does not have a home with a bomb shelter, he is a little shaky on his understanding of the different rights that Arabs in East Jerusalem and the West Bank are afforded and he cannot tell you much about the origination of Hammas. Aaron grew up in a small town in northern Israel where many of his friends and neighbors were Arab, Arab Israelis. He played sports with them, went to school with them and saw his parents befriending their parents. To Aaron, it is almost a foreign idea to suggest that Arabs and Jews cannot live together peacefully. He does not see that as a real problem, so he does not make it a political priority. "I think this election is an opportunity to vote on something other than just the conflict in Gaza, the situation of Israelis and Palestinians. Of course security is important, but there are other issues too and in some ways I think that if we want Israel to be secure from outside threats then we have to first look inside Israel and think about how we treat our own people. " This type of prioritizing is strikingly different from many of the other soldiers I spoke with. Most other soldiers are quick to bury an attentive listener in what appears to be a series of regurgitated ideologies in favor of a more aggressive Israel. Aaron was the first soldier I spoke with who was more passionate about improving the education system and addressing inequalities in the economy than he was about any issue - violent or otherwise - that concerned Israelis and Palestinians or Arabs and Jews. Like Hanna and Motti, Aaron was quick to explain to me that among the soldiers, he is in the minority. Gesturing repeatedly with his hands around his eyes he is confident in telling me that most other soldiers, and in fact most other Israelis, have tunnel vision. They are narrowly focused on aggressively defending Israel. However, despite his uncommon priorities and self-proclaimed minority status, as Aaron continued he illuminated the one factor that appears to be universal among a generation of young soldiers from across the political and ideological spectrum. "Really, the biggest thing for me I think is honesty. I want to be able to believe that our Prime Minister is being honest with us." The desire for someone we can trust, believe in, maybe even someone who can offer a fresh start is something many American voters may identify with. This desire is one of the few political values that connects every Israeli on the eve of this election. From first-time voting soldiers returning from Gaza to exhausted progressives like Motti and Hanna, no one appears satisfied with the way things have been going, or with the choices they see in front of them. Even Aaron loses his idealistic edge when he considers the choice of candidates this election offers. "All I can think is that maybe Tzipi Livni will be a fresh start. We already know that the other two have led us astray. We know they are corrupt. We know they cannot be trusted. I don't have much hope that Livni will be different but right now she is our best chance at someone who might decide to be honest." While it is true that Aaron would not align himself politically with Hanna, nor with many of his fellow soldiers, none of them are saying anything drastically different from one another. Aaron will likely vote for Tzipi Livini, Hanna will vote for the far-left party Hadash and most of Aaron's fellow soldiers will choose between Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak. However, they are all expressing the same desire for...yes, change. The biggest problem for all of them, and the one thing that politically everyone seems to agree on, is that in this election cycle none of the major candidates are offering anything even remotely resembling change. As Aaron's bus back to his army base pulled up to the bus station where we had been talking he turned to me and said: "You know I saw the other day on the news this thing with Obama and...Daschle. Obama was saying he was sorry and that he had made a mistake." I braced myself for what I assumed would be the unavoidable assertion that even 'fresh starts' who promise change will inevitably mean business as usual in politics but instead Aaron smiled and told me: "I was so jealous. I wish that we can have in Israel a prime minister like that. A politician who can say to the people, 'I made a mistake, I am sorry. Lets fix this and try again.' " More on Israel
 
Fortune 's Stanley Bing: Hard Times on Half A Million a Year? Top
Oh, the whining over fine dining that's been heard in the all-but empty bistros of Manhattan as the last expense account executives cut into their exquisitely tender veal and complain about the Obama salary cap! Just yesterday the Times ran a piece about how tough it was going to be for affluent upper East Siders to stay that way if the cap held. Sure, a limit on comp will change the make-up of the individuals who surface for the top slots in banking and industry. And that's a bad thing why? If a company needs a bailout -- hey, let's call it what it is: a handout -- shouldn't it come with certain strings attached? Son, if you want this money for college, you're not going to be spending it on a car. Right? Only a wayward teen would expect otherwise. Is $500,000 base, with a bonus to be decided upon performance, an unrealistic sum? It seems so to people accustomed to the good life that was promised to them in business school and the lucre they accumulated during the boom. But where does it fall in the vast scheme of things? A little review of the factsyields some perspective. The numbers seem kind of unbelievable to me, but then I live in a variety of charming urban areas where a dinner for two that comes in under $100 is considered an eyepopping steal. Median base salaries: Elementary School Teacher: $49,979 Physician: $147,480 Manager: $128,540 Attorney: $88,944 (who are these guys?) Architect: $56,637 Registered Nurse: $61, 603 Now granted, these are median salaries. The 75th percentile of these jobs, which are arguably every bit as important in our social scheme as that of Banker, are about 20% higher than the median in each case. And of course there are those at the top of their professions that make a lot more. But this gives you some notion of what a base of $500,000 means to just about everybody but a Banker. I have an idea. How about we open the top slots at failing fiduciary institutions to Teachers, Architects and Registered Nurses? Let's leave attorneys out of it. They're already in there somewhere making hay while the the sun don't shine, I bet.
 
Late-Night Joke Round-Up Top
 
"Living" Doll Made Of Human Cancer Cells Created By Scientists Top
A "living" doll made of human cancer cells has been created by scientists to illustrate a new method of testing potentially life-saving treatments.
 
Omri Marcus: Benjamin Netanyahu for Dummies Top
Unless some major surprise takes place in the next few hours (and in the Middle East everything is possible), Israel's next Prime Minister will be, once again, Benjamin Netanyahu. It's that old Jewish saying once again "the problem with political jokes is that at some point they become Prime Minister". I think we might have to update the saying, because Benjamin Netanyahu is about to prove that a political joke can be Prime Minister - twice. For those of you who were lucky enough to forget the guy, here is a quick reminder: Benjamin Netanyahu AKA "Bibi", "Mr. Netanyahu" and "That buffoon that I can't believe he is running for office again" won the election in 96', running against then Prime Minister and Noble prizewinner Shimon Peres. I'm not sure if you Americans can relate, but it was a tough day when an untalented right-wing nominee won the election by a mere few thousand votes, over the experienced and wise left wing candidate. His years in office were good for me; after all I am a comedy writer. A few months after he was elected, he ordered, despite the objection of the Ministry of Defense, that a new exit be dug out in the underground tunnel of the Western Wall. Digging up the holiest place in the world didn't seem to bother the young leader. As work started he decided to take a tour of Europe, ignoring the warnings as not "a good enough reason" to cancel his tour. So while the quarrymen carved away at the heart of the three major religions, Mr. Netanyahu was in far away London. 16 IDF soldiers and over 70 Palestinians were killed, but hey, we got a nice new tunnel, and now no one can say that in Israel there is no light at the end of it. In promoting the peace process in the Middle East Netanyahu's only claim for fame was the Wye River Memorandum, which was signed in October 1998. It was an agreement with the Palestinian Authority that was breached by both parties on the flight back home. It was such a waste of paper that if you search for it in Wikipedia, you'll get the message "Create the document". Netanyahu's wife Sarah is an odd mixture between Jackie Onassis and Jackie Chan. In one famous incident, Mrs. Netanyahu allegedly threw a shoe at her secretary. My guess is that these days she's thinking of suing an Iraqi journalist for violating her copyrights. However, Benjamin Netanyahu was not all bad - during his tenure, he succeeded where all his predecessors failed - uniting the entire nation, probably for the first time since the revelation of Sinai. In 1999 it didn't matter if you were left wing or right wing, Jewish or Arab, secular or orthodox, the entire country was united in a desire to send Netanyahu as far away as possible from office. After he was defeated by Ehud Barak in the 1999 election, he temporarily retired from politics, but returned in 2003 and accepted the post of Minister of Finance. There is no death penalty in Israel, but we got pretty close with Netanyahu's economic policy towards old and poor people. Like everything in the Middle East, no one can explain how the hardcore Netanyahu voters always were and still are those exact same people. Netanyahu has often been accused of having a severe memory problem, but electing him PM for the second time this coming Tuesday, will prove that memory loss is a national epidemic. More on Israel
 
Bill Scher: Our Phone Calls Are Working, Don't Let Up! Top
Last week, Campaign for America's Future sounded the alarm that phone calls were running 100 to 1 against an economic recovery bill, giving Congress a false impression of what the American majority wants and needs from its government. We needed to get engaged to prevent right-wing obstructionists from distorting the debate and misrepresenting public opinion. Several other organizations made similar appeals, including Americans United for Change , True Majority , the National Education Association and the Apollo Alliance. And bloggers picked up the torch, including FireDogLake , The Seminal , Factesque , The Nation's ActNow and CAF's own Bernie Horn on DailyKos. Guess what? It worked. We went from getting beat 100 to 1 to achieving rough parity. On the Senate floor Friday night, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) announced: The calls are mounting from one end of the political spectrum saying there are too many expenditures, and the calls are mounting on the other end of the political spectrum saying that there is not enough money being spent on the proposal which we are advancing here tonight. That's a huge shift from where we were at the start of the week, and is part of the reason Senators were compelled to finalize a compromise and end their foot-dragging. But this fight isn't over, and our calls are still needed. The Senate is expected to vote on the compromise Tuesday after procedural votes today. Then, the House and Senate need to iron out their differences. The Senate compromise sacrificed billions for school improvements and aid to state governments facing massive layoffs and service cuts, to accommodate more tax cuts primarily for upper-income families. Paul Krugman estimates the Senate compromise costs 600,000 jobs. All this week, Congress needs to hear your voice for a "big and bold economic recovery bill NOW." If representatives know that's what their constituents want, they will be both more inclined to keep that critical public investment from the House bil, and act with the speed needed to best mitigate the pain from the current recession. Phone calls are best, because they get immediately tallied. But congressional phone lines have been overloaded at times. Keep trying! Call the main congressional switchboard toll-free 1-866-544-7573. Find your House member's contact information at House.gov . Try calling either the Washington office, or the local office. Find your Senators' contact information at Senate.gov . Try calling either the Washington office, or the local office. If getting through on the phone is impossible, then send emails or write letters, using the contact information found at the above links. Our voices are being heard, and we can't let up now. Originally posted at OurFuture.org. More on Economy
 
Muhammad Sahimi: Do Not Do Anything That Would Help Ahmadinejad To Get Re-Elected Top
Iran will hold her presidential elections on June 12. Even though the campaigns have not officially begun, the elections are already the most important subject of political discussions in Iran, and in the Iranian community is Diaspora. But, Iranians are not the only ones who have a stake in the outcome of the elections. The West, and in particular the United States, also has great stake in the outcome. This calls for rethinking of the U.S. policy towards Iran, both in the short and long terms. Let me first be clear about the limits of power that Iran's president has. According to Iran's constitution, the president is the number two official in the country. The highest authority of the land is the Supreme Leader, who is currently Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei whose power vastly exceeds that of the president. In addition, all the candidates for most elections are vetted by the Guardian Council, a constitutional body that supervises most elections in Iran. Thus, elections in Iran are usually neither democratic, nor fair. But, they are usually competitive. The outcomes are often unpredictable, which makes the elections meaningful. They also have meaningful consequences for Iran. But, this is not to say that Iran's president does not have any power. In addition to the fact that the country is run by the president, all we need to do is recalling Iran's foreign policy from 1997-2005, when Mohammad Khatami, a reformist cleric, was Iran's president, and compare it with that of Iran's current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , a Muslim fundamentalist with a Ph.D. in civil engineering. Khatami pursued détente with the West. During his two terms as Iran's president, the relations with the West, and in particular with the European Union, greatly improved. He was one of the first heads of state to condemn the terrorist attacks of September 11, and proposed the dialogue of civilizations , as opposed to Samuel Huntington's clash of civilizations . He also improved Iran's relations with her neighbors and other nations in the Middle East. When the U.S. attacked Afghanistan in 2001 in order to overthrow the Taliban, Khatami's administration provided crucial help to the U.S. by opening Iran's airspace to the U.S. aircrafts, and providing intelligence on the Taliban. Iran's main ally in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance, was actually the first to enter Kabul, Afghanistan's capital, and overthrew the Taliban regime. Iran played an indispensable role in the formation of the national unity government that emerged after the Taliban regime was overthrown. Next to the U.S., Iran also made the largest pledge of aid to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Khatami's administration negotiated a temporary suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment program, signed the Additional Protocol of Iran's Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and agreed to carry out its provisions voluntarily until the Iranian parliament ratified the Agreement. But, since the European Union reneged on its promise to Iran on a comprehensive proposal that would address both Iran's aspirations for nuclear technology and her legal rights under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the West's concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Iran suspended the Agreement in February 2006. Khatami's first term also witnessed the development of a relatively free press in Iran, the establishment of many non-governmental organizations, and some important elements of a civil society. Iran's economy also improved greatly during the Khatami era. Unfortunately, Iran's Constitutions bars the president from seeking a third consecutive term and, therefore, Khatami had to step down in August 2005. Polls have consistently indicated that he is still the most popular politician in Iran. Contrast this with what Ahmadinejad has done in the international arena. His denial of the Holocaust and rhetoric about Israel (even though what he had actually said was mistranslated and misinterpreted), and his confrontational and aggressive foreign policy have contributed greatly to Iran's isolation in the international arena. Although, as I have explained in a separate article, there is no legal basis for sending Iran's nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council, Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and aggressive policy created enough concerns that enabled the U.S. and her European allies to convince others to agree to sending the dossier to the UNSC. Ahmadinejad's administration has suppressed internal dissent, and greatly limited freedom of expression. His government has grossly mismanaged Iran's economy. Despite earning nearly $300 billion from exporting oil over the past 3 years, unemployment and inflation are at record levels. Corruption has also increased dramatically, to the point that even Ahmadinejad's supporters have been protesting the miserable state of the economy, with many of them deserting him. Mashallah Shamsolvaezin, a well-known reformist Iranian journalist, has likened Ahmadinejad to a daily worker who may work hard, but believes in no planning. On Sunday Khatami announced that he will run in the upcoming elections. That will polarize the elections. Although the hardliners have been bickering among themselves about what to do with Ahmadinejad, now that Khatami has announced his intentions, they will likely support Ahmadinejad for a second term. Therefore, Iranians will have two fundamentally different candidates to vote for: Khatami, an enlightened, moderate, reformist cleric with honesty and integrity, and international respect and prestige, vs. a fundamentalist hardliner that has ruined Iran's economy, suppressed freedom, and tarnished Iran's international reputation. The West should avoid interfering in Iran's internal affairs. Iran's elections are a purely internal matter for the Iranians. It is up to them to decide whom they want to vote for. The West, and in particular the U.S., can, however, avoid doing anything over the next 4 months that may help Ahmadinejad to win. He has to win the elections on his own record. What should the U.S. avoid doing over the next 4 months? The U.S.-Iran relations are as thorny an issue in Iran as in the United States. President Obama has wisely said repeatedly that his administration wants to negotiate with Iran without any preconditions. Khatami tried to improve the relations between the two nations, but the hardliners blocked his attempts. At the same time, polls indicate consistently that at least 75% of Iranians support re-establishment of diplomatic relations with the U.S. The hardliners are aware of this fact. It is not that they oppose a rapprochement with the U.S., but that they want to achieve it themselves, because they consider it the "grand prize" of the Iranian politics. Thus, unless an unexpected new issue arises that would require immediate negotiations between the two countries, the Obama administration should put off any serious negotiations with Iran until after Iran's elections. Any serious negotiations over the next four months that improves the situation between Iran and the U.S. will be beneficial to Ahmadinejad. At the same time, the administration should not push for any new round of UNSC-approved sanctions against Iran because, aside from serious doubts about the legality of such sanctions (which I have explained in another article), the hardliners will use them to incite Iranian nationalism, which is very fierce. Four months are not going to make a dramatic difference in what is going between Iran and the U.S. Iran's nuclear program is under full inspection and safeguards of the IAEA. But, the re-election of Ahmadinejad will make a dramatic difference to the chances of Iran playing a more positive role in the region. We should avoid doing anything to help it happen. More on Iran
 
Ira Forman: Delusional or Just Cynical? Top
One of the more fascinating spectator sports in recent weeks has been watching the behavior of the Republican apparatchik class as it sounds off on President Barack Obama's economic recovery package. A good example of this "frothing at the mouth" reaction is a January 5, 2009 blog penned by Jonathan Tobin, Executive Editor of Commentary . Tobin, the former editor of a Jewish weekly newspaper, approaches the issue from a Jewish communal perspective. Like many Jewish movement conservatives, he is baffled and frustrated at the fact that most Jewish communal organizations are not slavishly committed to his own extreme conservative view of the world. Tobin dismisses most of the Jewish communal organizations' support for the Obama stimulus plan as merely reflective of their commitment to "a statist, liberal welfare-state agenda-- even if it has very little to do with what is or is not good for the Jews." The support for the stimulus package by other Jewish organizations (most notably United Jewish Communities [UJC]) which can't be so easily dismissed, is, in Tobin's telling, merely a function of their self-serving devotion and addiction to government grants. Tobin ends his piece by dismissing the notion that the recovery package is about getting the country out of recession as "laughable." There is so much cynicism and/or delusion in his post that it is hard to know where to begin a critique. One of the most damning lines in this piece is Tobin's dismissal of the fight over the stimulus package as merely "a partisan dust-up." This brings to mind Rush Limbaugh's recent comment that he wants President Obama to fail. Conservatives have a right to disagree with a Democratic administration, but are they seriously blind to the gravity of the current economic crisis? Are all policy disagreements with Obama, no matter what their consequences to the country, to be defined as mere partisan politics? Is this debate about how to reverse the worst economic downturn since the 1930s so trivial as to be dismissed as simply partisan bickering? Then there are Tobin's ideological blinders. He can't bring himself to seriously analyze the possible reasons for Jewish communal support for social welfare spending. Is there no possible rationale for support of such programs in the extensive social justice themes of the Jewish tradition? Apparently not: it seems as if Tobin's response (similar to the historical response of many elites when their ideology is rejected by a sizeable democratic majority) is to dismiss the opinions of most of the American Jewish population with the notion that "the masses are asses." The most stunning comments in this blog post is Tobin's argument that the Obama package is just a "massive federal spending bill" aimed at satiating the demands of liberal interest groups and "will do nothing to 'jump start' the economy." Thus the opinion of the vast majority of serious economists in this country is quickly dismissed with a sarcastic quip that the "[t]he notion that this money will get the country out of the recession is laughable and its authors know it." As Obama so directly countered his "know-nothing" critics last week, the whole point of a stimulus is federal spending. Tobin and his conservative comrades can blithely dismiss the opinions of our most respected economic analysts on the need for massive federal spending at this juncture of a severe economic downturn (especially given the fact that the federal government has no monetary tools at its disposal). However, they are hard pressed to counter our historical experience from the 1930s and early 1940s of the efficacy of massive federal spending in times of economic crisis. Most cynically, Tobin, like most congressional Republicans, finds miniscule pieces of the package they characterize as pork barrel spending and present us with no credible alternatives to the Obama plan. Should we assume that they'd like to go back to the GOP policies of the first third of the twentieth century-- balanced budgets and let the markets take care of the rest? Or should we assume that they want more of the policies of the recently discredited Bush administration-- massive tax cuts for the wealthiest-- even when conservative economists largely agree that tax cuts in general (and especially tax cuts for the rich) will be saved and not spent? The good news about this Republican/conservative response is that in blindly attacking the Obama economic recovery, they have turned themselves into the true heirs of Herbert Hoover/laissez faire Republicananism-- a sure recipe for GOP political failure in the coming decade. The bad news is that with the filibuster tool, a minority of 40 GOP Senators can place political cynicism or ideological rigidity over the necessity to move quickly and decisively before this economic downturn turns into another Great Depression. More on Stimulus Package
 
Kathleen Sebelius: Health And Human Services Secretary? Top
Kathleen Sebelius could replace Tom Daschle as President Obama's nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary. An official says she's a top candidate, based in part on her long and close working relationship with the president. From the AP : Sebelius, 60, signed on early with the Obama campaign, backing his candidacy over that of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination and now secretary of state. Sebelius worked tirelessly for Obama's bid and was a top surrogate to women's groups, especially after Republicans picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as their vice presidential nominee. Advocacy groups like the consumer watchdog role Sebelius played as insurance commissioner for eight years before she became governor. A Kansas Democrat close to Sebelius said she had not spoken about the post in recent days but appeared to remain a strong contender. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not officially authorized to speak for the governor. * * * * * Johnathan Cohn, an expert on health care policy, writes at The New Republic : People marvel about [Sebelius'] managerial abilities and there's no question about having the relevant experience. She was the state insurance commissioner before she became governor; over the years, she's fought to stamp out fraudulent carriers, block dangerous industry mergers, and overcome lawmakers opposed to expansions of government health insurance for kids. She's well-known and well-liked by the health care advocacy community. And while she's not steeped in the ways of Washington, she'd have plenty of advisors to help -- not to mention a strong relationship with Obama, based in part on her bipartisan touch. However, Sebelius is said to be considering a run for the Senate in 2010, meaning she might turn down the HHS post if offered. More on Kathleen Sebelius
 
Indevus Gel Protects Women From AIDS Virus: Research Top
An Indevus Pharmaceuticals gel formulated to protect women from the virus that causes AIDS appeared to protect about a third of them from infection -- the first time a so-called microbicide has been shown to work, researchers told a conference in Montreal.
 
Castro Drafts Memo: "Reflections By Comrade Fidel: Rahm Emanuel" Top
I received this morning Fidel Castro's reflections on "Rahm Emanuel" which the former Cuban president drafted on February 8th. I won't set any context -- other than to say that I find his positive reference of economist John Kenneth Galbraith intriguing. Galbraith's son, a colleague of the next Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg at UT Austin, is author of the critically acclaimed and well-selling Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Liberals Should Too.
 

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)