Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Spencer Green: Changes in Remake of Friday the 13th Top
- New hockey mask designed by Bob Mackie - Ecology-minded Jason uses solar-powered machete, turns hacked bodies into mulch for organic vegetable garden - Higher budget allows digital effects shot which follows spear as it is shoved up victim's ass, travels through intestinal lining and pierces heart, releasing delicious candy to good girls and boys who don't have sexual intercourse - Tragic backstory of Jason being ritually abused by Chris Brown - Ten billion dollars of economic stimulus package go to rebeautifying Camp Crystal Lake and funding research programs to see how decapitating nubile teens will benefit renewable-energy industry - Cameo by older Kevin Bacon, gets arrow through neck just as he is about to warn younger self not to make Quicksilver - Killer reads passage from Ezekiel 25:17 to teens before disembowelling them - Henry Blake's plane is shot down over Crystal Lake; it spun in...there weren't no survivors - Stimulating campfire debates between teens on Article 5, Section 2 of the Kyoto Protocol , and whether methodologies for estimating anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol shall be those accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and if they should be agreed upon by the Conference of the Parties at its third or fourth session - Teen victims receive continuous Twitter updates as others are being killed - Larry H. Parker hired by Mrs. Vorhees to sue owners of Camp Crystal Lake for gross negligence, gets her two million dollars ** - Jason joins group therapy with Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger, Jigsaw, kid from "Deliverance," overcomes anger issues, is focus of new book by Malcolm Gladwell - "Ch-ch-ch-ha-ha-ha" music replaced by Glenn Miller Orchestra playing "Moonlight Serenade" - Audiences spooge with delight over the prospect of young men and women being hunted down and killed like so much vermin *** ** Se habla Español! *** wait, that remains the same More on Movies
 
James Gray: Joaquin Phoenix Retires Top
Joaquin Phoenix announced his retirement last month, and though I was profoundly disappointed, I can't say I was surprised. He's best described as a mercurial person, so there's a chance he might yet change his mind -- selfishly, I hope he does -- but his decision is consistent with the person he is and was and always will be. He doesn't care about anything but the work, and even then he cares only about process and never the product (in fact, he doesn't even watch his own films). The young man gave acting everything he had. Perhaps he just ran out of gas. I know now how hard it is to find a true original like him, and that for a time I simply got lucky. I first met Joaquin in 1997, on a cold winter night in New York. It was a blustery and brutal evening after a brutal day, and I'd had nothing less than a brutal week trying to cast my film The Yards . I'd met with what seemed like a hundred actors, and most of them seemed talented and enthusiastic. But what they all lacked -- for me, anyway -- was a certain quality that separates the best from the rest: an ability to communicate a complex inner life. The camera doesn't lie, so they say (though others have said it lies constantly, and both are right), but what it does above all else is magnify. If you think it, you can think it a whole lot on the big screen and you don't have to say a word. If you don't care, we can see that you don't, twenty feet high. It's a heightened reality, but necessarily a more intimate one, and if you're at war with yourself, the medium tends to reward you. It was immediately clear to me, after only a few moments of conversation, that Joaquin was that and many other things. He was conflicted, he was bright, and he was hungry. Something else was obvious, too: Joaquin had danger. I wasn't scared of him, but I was scared of what he might do, most of all to himself. I had to work with him as soon as possible. Looking back on our first collaboration, I'm not sure we actually collaborated all that much. I seem to remember a whole lot of torment and angst and yelling and screaming. But I also remember consistently being amazed by the emotional depth of the then-twenty-four year-old, and I loved his feral unpredictability. He seemed ready to explode at any minute. He was hard on himself, a true perfectionist -- though just as often, his fury was directed at me. I didn't care. We had one thing in common, and that was a total commitment to the work. We will no doubt fail, we told each other over and over again, but at least we will fail giving it everything we have. He was untrained and undisciplined, usually requiring multiple takes and a great deal of coaching. So did I. The Yards feels now like the first round of a boxing match in which neither fighter seems ready to engage. Both dance around the ring at the sound of the bell, sizing each other up, waiting for the real battle to begin. What are the strengths of my opponent? The weaknesses? And what terrible surprises might be in store? We went six years before working together again, though we did see each other frequently in that time and became good friends. We recognized quickly that we had the same tastes; every now and then, we would call each other, usually late at night -- did you see that film? What a piece of shit! -- and the call would last for hours. I learned, too, that he had admirers from all walks of life. When Johnny Cash (!) told me he could quote "that Phoenix fella" at will, I decided to put the two of them together for a dinner. What followed was of course a meal for the ages. I could see his craft reaching a new level in Walk the Line , and I'll confess I became a little jealous of Jim Mangold, the film's director. I knew the next picture I got to make would have to have that Phoenix fella in it, come hell or high water. Our second picture together was We Own the Night , and it was different. I can't speak for Joaquin -- though Lord knows, I've tried and failed, many times -- but for me, it was a more complex and contentious and rewarding experience. He'd matured, and he'd begun to grow out of me. It was as though he understood his weapon and was figuring out how best to use it. He thought long and hard about every scene, turning it over in his mind, and he studied his script until it became hopelessly tattered and all but unreadable. We worked night and day, rehearsing and discussing. Sometimes it would lead to horrible arguments -- often my fault! I'm no diplomat -- but in my (weak) defense, there were times I couldn't distinguish with whom I was speaking. Was it character or actor? This time, he went in, and he went in deep. Okay, you want me to see my father dead, in the street? Well then, I might vomit for real (he did); you want me to be terrified of that man? Go 'head, have him belt me, right in the face (he got walloped, but good); you want me to swallow that charcoal? Force it down my throat, man (he inhaled, with relish). The crew would be in awe at his level of commitment, and it raised everyone's game. You knew if you went to work that day and didn't give everything you had, it meant you were letting him down somehow. There's no amount of money you can pay an actor for that. It makes the process of motivating cast and crew a cakewalk. Thank you for that, Joaquin. I wrote Two Lovers knowing that if he didn't want to do it that it would never get made. The role was created for him: a tormented soul, struggling, lost, lonely, and finally, beautiful and heartbreaking. Who else could do it? Who else would ? Thankfully for me, he said yes, and the shoot was the happiest of the three. We developed a shorthand, but more often than not he was on his own, and he was liberated. The result is work that seems to my eyes eerily redolent of Montgomery Clift at his best. Forgive me, but I have trouble accepting this retirement thing. I need his moments of authentic heartbreak, of unfiltered emotion, of poetic humanity. Joaquin shares my passion for exploring the melancholy movements of life, the sad awareness of time's ruthless march; and he far surpasses me in emotional intellect, ready always to recognize genuine tenderness and reject all artifice. He has embraced an elegant, higher truth. At the end of Two Lovers he seemed simultaneously exhausted and bored. I realized he'd long ago left most of us in the dust. Perhaps that's why he's done with acting: when you can do it all yourself and your genius has outgrown the mediocrity of others, why bother?
 
Japanese Blackface Obama: Yes We Can Be Incredibly Inappropriate Top
Gabe over at Videogum found this amazingly disturbing video of a Japanese black-face version of Obama. The video, posted on inauguration day, shows "Barack" and "Michelle" making a grand entrance and then performing a magic show. (Perhaps this is a racial metaphor for the magic of America electing a black president?) "Barack Obama" uses all of his familiar catch-phrases, but this time it's yes we can pull an orange out of a hat. WATCH: More on Funny Videos
 
Ruth Madoff Withdrew $15.5 Million Weeks Before Husband's Arrest Top
Ruth Madoff, the wife of Bernard Madoff, withdrew $15.5 million from a Madoff-related brokerage firm in the weeks before Mr. Madoff's arrest, according to the Massachusetts Secretary of State. A complaint filed Wednesday by Secretary William Galvin's office said Ruth Madoff withdrew $5.5 million on Nov. 25 and $10 million on Dec. 10, according to documents from Cohmad Securities, which was co-owned by Mr. Madoff and which the Massachusetts office is investigating. Mr. Madoff was arrested Dec. 11 on allegations of perpetratin More on Bernard Madoff
 
The Brain Benefits Of A Mediterranean Diet Top
Eating a Mediterranean diet appears to lower risk for mental decline, and may help prevent Alzheimer's in people with existing memory problems, new research suggests. The finding, published today in The Archives of Neurology, tracked the eating habits of 1,393 people with no cognitive problems and 482 patients with mild cognitive impairment, a preliminary state of mental decline that can sometimes signal the onset of Alzheimer's disease or other forms of dementia. The patients were then grouped based on whether they were low, moderate or consistent followers of a Mediterranean diet. People were considered to be strong adherents to a Mediterranean-style diet if they regularly ate large amounts of fish, fruits, vegetables, legumes and monounsaturated fats like olive oil, while at the same time consuming moderate amounts of alcohol and only small quantities of meat and dairy products.
 
Laura Flanders: Reconstruction Now! Top
President Barack Obama ended his first prime time press conference on the "I" word. "When I hear people just saying we don't need to do anything...then what I get a sense of is that there is some ideological blockage there that needs to be cleared up." The ideological blockage the President's talking about is about as big as it gets. Whose nation is this, what's its treasure to be used for and who gets to decide? Essentially, that's the "blockage" we're talking about and it's the baggage our nation's been carrying around since its start. When an earlier senator from Illinois gave what came to be known as the Gettysburg Address conservatives hated it. As Willmoore Kendall, a leading conservative from the mid 1900s, wrote of Abraham Lincoln: "he attempted a new act of founding, involving a startling new interpretation of that principle of the founders which declared that all men are created equal." "We should not allow him...to 'steal' the game," Kendall wrote. Kendall's quoted in Mike Lux's new book, the Progressive Revolution, just out. As Lux points out, what conservatives hated about Gettysburg was the proposition that equality was a central principle of US government. They didn't like the idea of a government by a single people, rather than a collection of elites. They certainly rejected the notion that US government should be a government of the people, by the people for the people. They didn't like that. Into the 21st Century, we're hardly beyond rule by elites. You only have to witness the victory of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, friend of elite bankers, over Congressional leaders and administration officials in designing the bank bailout to know that. (The second gush of bailout money up to elites will be as generous and un-onerous as the first -- at least on banks.) Nor are we yet one nation -- at least when it comes to paying taxes. Not if the evasive habits of cabinet nominees are anything to go by. But the notion that government has a responsibility to serve the common good -- by stimulus spending if necessary -- is exactly what has conservatives freaked. Private sector panic that government might spend to benefit the public: that's an ideological blockage that's as old as the country itself. Looking back, the picture's not pretty. After Gettysburg came a spurt of Reconstruction that benefited equality and the public good. Almost immediately, came reaction. Conservatives won out, ending Reconstruction, selling out African Americans, and setting up the structures that we are so familiar with, namely white dominance over blacks, and corporate dominance over we the people and our government. All these years on, we need economic, cultural and ideological reconstruction fast. To get there, that "blockage" can't be only a footnote. It's the central feature. If the 21st Century's going to turn out differently, and the US is to survive as a nation, Barack Obama needs to pick that baggage up that and empty it out. Laura Flanders is the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on Free Speech TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415) on cable (8 pm ET on Channel 67 in Manhattan) and online right here at GRITtv.org or streaming live on The Nation.com Mondays through Thursdays from 2 to 4 pm ET. More on The Bailouts
 
New York Daily News Stops Matching Employees 401(K) Top
DAILY News Chairman Mort Zuckerman went inside the beleaguered tabloid's newsroom yesterday morning for an interview with CNN, during which he insisted that the paper was "here to stay." Shortly after he left, Mark Kramer, the CEO of the Daily Snooze, dispatched a memo to all employees to let them know that the paper was halting any corporate contributions to its employees' 401(k) plans. Needless to say, insiders are livid. K
 
Michael Giltz: American Idol -- Hollywood Week Day Three Wins Night Top
Idol won the night with a 13.5 rating, per Marc Berman of Mediaweek, though CBS's strong lineup led by The Mentalist was a very strong second. And fans of Fringe should expect a time-slot switch -- no show holding onto just 43% of Idol 's audience can expect to stay in place forever. The most telling moment of Tuesday night's episode wasn't a performance or a backstage glimpse of drama (hey, Tatiana!). It was the voice-over from Ryan Seacrest when discusssing Leneshe Young, a promising singer with a background of grinding poverty. Ryan said Lenesha stole America's heart not just with her singing...but with her story. Really? Because I wouldn't have liked Lenesha's solid performances less if I heard she had grown up in the Hamptons. And the less I hear about people's wrenching backgrounds and personal growth in the face of adversity the more I like it. But that's not Idol . Especially until we get to the final 12, the Idol episodes aren't edited to highlight the singing. They're edited to highlight the stories. 72 people began the day and were grouped into four rooms -- with three rooms going forward and one being sent home. Or as Ryan cruelly put it, sent back to "their everyday lives." It's almost impossible to judge them fairly because we virtually never saw a complete performance and more often than not it was a medley of different people forgetting their lyrics or doing well or whatever. Adam Lambert -- sang Cher's "Believe." It could have been a bold choice but it definitely came across as cabaret to me. The way he sang it just made the song sound gay, in the bad sense of the word. Just strange. Matt Giraud -- played piano and nailed "Georgia On My Mind." We even got a shot of the backup singers (who were just watching) nodding their heads and smiling throughout. I'd take a lot of comfort from that any day. Jamar Rogers and Danny Gokey -- Jamar again seemed the weaker of the two though still improving. If only he would lose the giant wallet chain. Danny gave a nice raspy spin on "I Hope You Dance," apparently the first of MANY covers of that tune. Anoop Desai, Jorje Nunez and Scott Macintyre -- a quick medley of all three, with Macintyre sounding flat and uninteresting to me, especially notable since he was supposed to be more comfortable than ever when sitting down to the piano to perform. Kendall Beard, Stevie Wright and Lil Rounds -- another medley, with Lil Rounds sounding by far the best. Kristin McNamara -- a so-so performance and more notable for her chat with Ryan when he said Nancy (the woman who got fed up with the uber-drama from Kristin and Nathaniel) wanted to apologize but was just teasing. Shouldn't Kristin apologize to Nancy? Then loads of people we barely know led by one we know too well: Tatiana Del Toro, who is shown giving a terrible performance, a relief since it means she'll be going home. She's followed by Alexis Grace, Kenny Hoffpauer, Jasmine Murray and Nathaniel Marhsall, none of which stand out. Joanna Pacitti -- friend of the producers who has already had her songs placed on numerous TV shows, etc. Pacitti had a record deal that went nowhere. Now she has a second chance and to prove how stressful Idol can be, she blows it completely by mumbling her lyrics. Followed by a montage of other train wreck performancs by Casey Carlson, Stephen Fowler and Nick Mitchell aka Norman who jokes his way through another song. Is this Idol or Mad TV? Anna Marie Boskovich -- the latest of many to trudge through "I Hope You Dance." Ju'not Joyner -- who already has a cool spelling of his name to go with stardom, does a good take on "Hey There Delilah." Kaylan Loyd -- Simon ended her song. Kai Kalama -- lost his voice Michael Sarver -- oil rigger who sounded so-so. Now imagine being in the room with Tatiana. Even if you think being with her is a good sign because she's so annoying you might imagine she'll get through for another day (though the contestants won't know how much airtime she'd get for weeks), still...very annoying to sit with her in a corner, all alone, holding court with herself. And why did we watch tonight? Did anything make sense? Of course not. Tatiana and Nick Mitchell got through. As did Joanna Pacitti who completely forgot her lyrics, the one unforgivable sin of Idol. Yes, it was done just to goose ratings -- there's certainly no vocal reason some of these people got through. But before we yell and scream, remember that it's meaningless. More people will be cut tomorrow and then the final 36 will be cut down to the final 12. THAT'S when it starts to matter who makes it and not a minute before. But still, Tatiana? Have the producers no shame? Entertainment Weekly's Michael Slezak feels your pain. More on American Idol
 
Presented By: Top
 
Val Brown: Sex and The City The Movie. Part Deux. Top
If you're not a fan of Sex and the City, you probably won't want to read this. I thoroughly enjoyed the SATC movie, though it had its faults. It was a little long. I thought Jennifer Hudson was miscast. And I found it totally implausible that Big did not find a way to contact Carrie after the wedding debacle (the best part of which was Carrie beating him over the head with the bouquet, and Charlotte mermaid-ing around the car with her funny mean look). But Big's unanswered email the only attempt to communicate? Come. On. I mean, go to her house maybe? But aside from that, it was great -- the clothes, the dramas, the witty repartee (much of which was Samantha's). The new movie will shoot later this year and come out in 2010. Something to look forward to in bleak times. Presumably Michael Patrick King is putting the finishing touches on the script right about now. But the moment I read the item on the sequel I thought, "they've got to tone things down." They can't ignore the recession, particularly in New York, ground zero for the financial collapse. By the time the movie comes out, we will have had two years of this and things may be worse, not better. How will they address this? It's a sticky wicket. We all want the escapism, designer clothes, expensive restaurants, town cars. Though they've taken on serious issues before, it remains to be seen if they'll tackle the recession head on. So, herewith some plot predictions and possibilities (and dare I say, suggestions?) some but not all of which have to do with hard times. Career/Money (one in each category): 1) Big had a lot of money with Madoff or in some other insecure investments (isn't he in real estate?) He loses a lot of his fortune. Carrie and he would need to downsize, except one of Carrie's books has been turned into a movie, and it becomes a blockbuster. This upsets the apple cart and is a blow to Big's ego. They go to counseling, which he is of course reluctant to do. Hilarity ensues. 2) Miranda loses her job and becomes a housewife. This drives her crazy. Steve's bar continues to do well and he becomes the breadwinner, despite that fact that most restaurants in New York are hurting and will continue to. 3) Samantha has to close her agency and takes a job in-house at a PR agency. Needless to say, she has an affair with the boss or an associate. 4) Billings are down at Harry's firm because people don't get divorced when there are money troubles. Charlotte goes back to work in a gallery. Babies: 1) Carrie has a baby. Or maybe, sadly, loses a baby and is devastated even though she was unsure about becoming a mother. 2) Miranda has another baby. 3) Samantha's heretofore unmentioned sister dies and she gets custody of her niece. 4) Big had an illegitimate child he did not know about. Mother appears with child. Clothes: 1) Patricia Fields throws a little J. Crew into the mix. 2) Carrie discovers that Payless has great patent leather heels for 25 bucks (it's true). 3) Carrie starts her own low-end clothing line that goes bust (also true). Various and Sundry: 1) Transportation: We see Big on a subway. 2) Charity: Carrie works the soup line in stilettos. 3) Aging: Samantha has a facelift. 4) Abodes: Someone moves to the country (Harry and Charlotte?) but comes back because they hate it. 5) Travel: There'll be some location shooting. Maybe they all go to London for Carrie's movie premier, thereby making room for some nice English cameos. 6) Health: I don't think Samantha's cancer comes back and no one will die. (Given that the first movie grossed over $400 million and they all had points, I think they'll be leaving things open for a "threequel"). 7) Romance: There needs to be a bit of dramatic tension here. I think one of their men comes back from the past and stirs things up. Aiden, The Russian, Trey? Or someone new comes into the life of Carrie or Charlotte. Yes, that's it, finger-wagging Charlotte has an affair. Ok, that's all I've got. Clearly, I have too much spare time. Would love to hear your ideas, readers. More on Recession
 
Keith Blanchard: Let's All Stop Whining And Let The Athletes Juice! Top
He was young...he was stupid. It was a different culture back then. He was under tremendous pressure to perform at a high level. No, that's not from the intro to Dubya's upcoming memoirs. This weekend, we were shocked, shocked!! to learn that Alex Rodriguez, baseball's own golden boy, used steroids after all. Here's his red-eyed confession . And here, just for fun, is a 2007 clip of him lying his face off about it to Katie Couric , and being damn sanctimonious too. "I've never felt overmatched on the baseball field," swore A-Rod in his '07 denial. "And I felt that if I did my work...I didn't have a problem competing at any level." Cue the laugh track. Yes, A-Rod, like so many athletes before him, has been busted, and has now had to issue the Standard Public Apology found on page 3 in the media-relations handbook. ("Remember, you were young and stupid. You were under tremendous pressure. And for that pity-inducing red-eyed look, rub your fingertips across a fresh-cut onion right before the interview!") Having confessed, he awaiteth forgiveness. Should he get it? Tough one. Alex Rodriguez, a professional sportsman, cheated. He cheated just as surely, and as effectively, as if he used a carbon nanotube superbat, or ran a shorter basepath than everyone else. He reaped the benefits; set records, got endorsements, made millions. And let's be really clear on this: He didn't do it because he was young and stupid...you don't get a hypodermic needle, acquire a banned substance in secret, and inject yourself in the ass, again and again over a period of years, because you're in an immature daze. No, Alex Rodriguez cheated because he knew it would make him artificially better. And damn, it did! Every high school athlete in America knows the real equation, and it is this: If you use steroids, it will make you better at sports . There's no denying it. You will be able to lift more, run faster, recover more quickly, compete better. Sure, there are consequences. It's illegal, for one thing, so you will have to hide your usage. It may cause long-term serious damage to your health, much of which may be irreversible. Whatever, Grandpa. It's guaranteed to boost your performance right now . Which could mean the difference between whether or not you make the team...which in turn could mean the difference between whether you get to spend your life as a professional athlete or have to sweat it out as an insurance broker like your stupid dad. We need to stop pretending we're shocked that an athlete would take a banned substance "just" to triumph over his peers, earn zillions, and generally live the life of Riley. It's an incredibly powerful inducement well worth trading in a dozen rickety years at the hazy end of your life for. For a young, promising athlete with dreams, the question really is: Can I afford NOT to take steroids? Especially if anyone I'm competing against is? What to do, what to do. We clearly can't police it--the banned-substance creators have always been one step ahead of the banned-substance monitors. We can't stop it--the "think of your future" pleas of parents and teachers are empty threats, set against the vivid real world successes of the likes of A-Rod, Mark McGwire, and Barry Bonds. So let's stop whining and let 'em juice! I'm serious: We should throw in the towel. Let athletes do whatever they want to their bodies, and take their own consequences. You're an adult; pump your body full of whatever you have to to get the job done. Steroids, bovine growth hormone, Kryptonite, whatever. You are the racer, and your body is your machine; you choose your fuel. I mean, are athletes here to entertain us or aren't they? If football is fun now, imagine the same game with 600-pound linemen, overballooned meat machines staggering around on the field with testicles the size of unshelled peanuts. I'm not even kidding about this. When two ballplayers collide I want their foreheads to shatter, great shards of bone splintering all over the turf in a cysty snow. Roger Maris could only squeak out a pathetic 61 homers without the use of steroids. Barry Bonds took every steroid known to man--uh, allegedly--and belted out 73. And he had to sneak the juice in the shadows, like a disgusting junkie. What if Bonds could shoot up without fear of repercussion? Pants-down, bent over in the on-deck circle, with a bat-boy syringing his butt, and the crowd going nuts? Bonds fully juiced could probably hit 100 dingers, screaming like a demon all the way round, and punching the catcher right in the facemask every time he crosses home plate. Tell me that wouldn't keep your attention. Oh, sure, it'll make it tough to compare the players of one era to another. But that's an old man's game. I'd trade that in any day for 9-foot NBA players who can dunk without leaving the floor. Boxers who can collapse ribcages, hockey goalies with adamantine claws that spring from their knuckles to ribbon the throats of any offensive player who comes too close. We've tried ineffectively enforcing weak rules, letting players cheat at will and wagging our finger for show whenever we catch one. Now it's time for a simpler solution. If we can't do away with the steroids, let's do away with the scandal, and let ballplayers play ball without fear. Leave the doctors on the sidelines, where they belong, and let our athletes be superheroes...real, superhuman superheroes, with powers beyond our mortal imagining. And if their skulls crack from the snap of a comb two years after they retire, or their knees crumble to dust in the nursing home, or if they occasionally snap and kill their families in a bloody androgen spree, well, that's the price you pay for superlative entertainment. The time has come to recognize that we have an inaccurate record of human achievement today. Who knows what the longest long jump or fastest mile could be, if athletes were unencumbered by our overprotectiveness? If steroid use extends the boundaries of human achievement, as we all believe it does, then until we drop the restrictions we'll never know how good we really are. For a sporting world that prides itself on superior statistical achievement, surely nothing less than unfettered freedom to excel will do. We worry about which juicy players to put an asterisk next to, but it may be that future generations will put an asterisk over our entire era, with a caveat like this: "Records from the 1950-2009 era are thought to be artificially low, because of oppressive restrictions on what athletes could and couldn't put into their own bodies. Athletes often lived long into their 40s and 50s in those days, but at what cost to their on-field records we may never know." Don't hold our athletes down--let them juice up. The ass to risk should be your own. More on Sports
 
Madeleine M. Kunin: A Generation of Healthier Children Top
The first step to providing health insurance for more Americans was taken last week when President Barack Obama signed the SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Plan) bill into law. It brought back memories of when I signed Dr. Dynasaur into law in 1989 when I was governor. Vermont can take pride in knowing that we were the first state to recognize that if children have good health care they stand a better chance of becoming healthy adults. It is one of the most cost effective investments that the nation can make. Unfortunately, we had to wait for a Democratic President to recognize the value of this program. President Bush had exercised one of his rare vetoes on such a program, claiming it was too expensive. President Obama and the more heavily democratic Congress understood that children's health insurance is a cost effective way to expand coverage for all Americans and reduce health care expenses in the long term. Children's health coverage is much less expensive than coverage for adults. In the early days of my administration in the 1980's we debated how to provide greater access to health insurance to Vermonters. Gretchen Morse, my Secretary of the Agency of Human Services, came up with the proposal to start Dr. Dynasaur. I immediately put the program at the top of my agenda. Over the years the program has been expanded by Governor Howard Dean and the legislature. The expanded federal program, which was started in 1997, will be paid for by an increase in the cigarette tax, an appropriate funding source. Studies have consistently shown that when the price of cigarettes goes up, smoking, particularly among young people, goes down. This is a win/win situation. The state of Vermont can be proud that Vermont led the way for the nation by providing health insurance for children whose families could not afford private insurance. The payback is a whole generation of healthier children who have grown into healthier adults. The same benefits will now be available to children nationwide. This was originally posted at Chelsea Green . Madeleine M. Kunin is the former Governor of Vermont and was the state's first woman governor. She served as Ambassador to Switzerland for President Clinton, and was on the three-person panel that chose Al Gore to be Clinton's VP. She is the author of Pearls, Politics, and Power: How Women Can Win and Lead from Chelsea Green Publishing .
 
Harry Moroz: What Else To Look For from the Conference of Stimulators Top
The House and Senate versions of the stimulus package function in much the same way, mixing tax cuts with spending to produce a more-or-less quickly acting, jobs-producing stimulus. The Senate package, as has been thoroughly reported by now, removes $40 billion in spending to prevent state-level education cuts and $20 billion for school modernization and rehabilitation. In exchange, we get expanded exemptions from the Alternative Minimum Tax, at a cost of $70 billion, less generous tax cuts for lower income Americans, and less money for Head Start and food stamps. But the Senate version of the stimulus, in part altered by a lengthy and even chaotic amendment process, is a significantly different policy document than the House version, even if the bills' ultimate stimulative effects would be "somewhat" similar (the House version would produce 400,000 to 500,000 more jobs than the Senate's). Still, several provisions included in the Senate bill challenge the now-accepted wisdom of progressives that the House legislation is the hands-down winner. Here are some thoughts on the policy differences between the documents and what to look for when the bill emerges from conference. Housing Policy The Senate version includes adjustments to the Hope for Homeowners Program , a loan modification program that has had difficulty attracting lender participation. So far, no loans have been fully modified. Changes designed to attract lender - and homeowner - participation include lowering the amount the government can recoup if a home's value appreciates after modification and reduced fees for government insurance of modified loans. More importantly, in an amendment proposed by Senator Dodd, the Senate version requires the Treasury Secretary to develop a mortgage modification plan and mandates that he use $50 billion in TARP funds to carry it out. The provision provides a measure of accountability to Geithner's promise yesterday to use an equivalent $50 billion sum to prevent "avoidable" foreclosures. Interestingly, the Senate also included a provision that permits Treasury to pay mortgage servicers a fee for modifying mortgages while providing them legal cover from investor suits. As necessary as it may be to incentivize servicer participation in modification programs, the provision essentially pays servicers to modify mortgages without including any test of a modification's affordability , creating a servicer subsidy that makes subsequent default and foreclosure likely. Indeed, a recent study found that 45% of voluntary modifications increased a mortgagor's monthly payment. The House legislation omits foreclosure mitigation efforts, but includes $4.2 billion for the rehabilitation of foreclosed properties into affordable housing. The Senate bill leaves these CDBG funds out. After pushing for inclusion of housing provisions in the TARP II reauthorization , Rep. Barney Frank has been silent in the stimulus debate, leaving foreclosure mitigation to his Senate-side colleagues. Health Insurance The House bill makes some important adjustments to health insurance for the unemployed that the Senate moderates forgot to include. While both bills subsidize COBRA, the federal program that allows unemployed workers to continue enrollment in their former employer's health plan, the Senate version only pays 50% of an individual's premium while the House version pays 65%. This is a significant difference: about $672 assuming the average annual premium for single coverage of $4,479 . The difference eats up about half the $25 monthly increase in unemployment benefits that both stimulus versions include. The Senate version also omits House provisions that allow states to offer health insurance to unemployed and low-income individuals through Medicaid, an effort to plug the serious health insurance gap that high rates of unemployment create. A similar measure excluded from the House bill would allow older workers fired from their jobs to use COBRA coverage until they reach eligibility for Medicare (though the subsidized COBRA benefit would only last a single year). Executive Compensation The Senate version follows President Obama's commitment to executive pay limitations and commits it to legislation. Though enforcement of restrictions on compensation ($400K for executives), clawback provisions, and prohibitions on golden parachutes - along with promulgation of the rules to guide this enforcement - will limit the effectiveness of these provisions, inclusion of executive pay limits provides an opportunity to hold President Obama's commitment to improved corporate governance to task. Say-on-pay provisions , even if nonbinding, are a particularly important means of engaging shareholders against often intractable boards of directors. The House includes no such provisions. Tax Breaks The Senate amendment process allowed two ineffective, and potentially dangerous, tax breaks to slip into the stimulus package. One would provide a $15,000 tax credit to all homebuyers and the other would allow taxpayers to deduct loan interest and sales tax on auto purchases. Both fail to target their benefits to individuals at the margin who are likely to purchase a house or a home only if they are provided the credit/the deduction. Worse, in the long run, the housing credit could unnecessarily inflate housing prices (and encourage speculation). The House did not include the auto loan deduction, but did include a version of the homebuyer credit. The House's credit is targeted only at first-time homebuyers and essentially changes a government-sponsored interest-free loan into a tax credit. The House version might be the lesser of two evils . Refundable Tax Credits Senate policymakers generally made the House's tax credits less targeted to the lower-income households most likely to spend the extra money. Only 30% of the Senate's American Opportunity education tax credit - that provides a maximum $2,500 for higher education - is refundable, while 40% of the House's is. The income requirement for receiving a refundable child tax credit is dropped in the House version, but only lowered (to $8,100) in the Senate's. The refundable portions of these credits essentially allow low-income households to receive refund checks from the government (so the same number of households will receive a smaller refund from the education credit, but fewer households will receive the child credit). The Senate's alterations aren't enormous, but ultimately put less money in the hands of the lower-income households most likely to spend it. More on Taxes
 
Zondra Hughes: For Men Only: the Truth About Single Women Top
If you're a single man of means, you probably believe that all women are out to lasso you , entrap you , walk you down the aisle , take you home and give you gorgeous babies . Your male friends have probably told you that we're plotting to limit your options , so we make you unattractive by dressing you in funny-looking clothes and then feeding you until you're too fat to wear those clothes. This is true. All of it. Some of us may get the chronology mixed up, i.e., making you unattractive before walking you down the aisle, but the end result is the same. You've been warned. I'm only kidding, guys. Now that we've gotten that silly misconception out of the way, here's the truth about what single women really think about men and relationships . The Intimidation Myth: Women were not put on earth to intimidate or degrade our potential helpmates. In the workplace, at home and abroad, women adore men that are responsible, kind and committed. A grown woman blessed with a healthy self-esteem and sense of self, is not in competition with you. She does not want to take your place in the world. She wants you to grow, flourish and be the man you are destined to be. On the flip side, if you are not on her team, and you are not interested in her growth, she wants you to just step aside and let her do her thing. No drama. No David vs. Goliath showdowns. Just step aside. Storybook Romance Myth: No two women are the same and thus our definitions of romance vary. Storybook expectations depend on the book she's reading. Some women want that Omar Epps vs. Sanaa Lathan Love & Basketball intensity. Some women want that slaphappy, he's-fat-but-he's-my-teddy bear kinda love, as in the sitcom, The King of Queens . Some adore the tender playfulness of The Huxtables. Some crave the ghetto fabulous, skid-row kinda love of Bobby & Whitney. We all have an expectation of what our romance should be and that notion is deeply rooted in our family values and upbringing. So, if you're a Huxtable kinda guy and she's a Bobby & Whitney kinda gal, well, you're not equally yoked and yours is a love story that's destined for an unhappy ending. The Monogamy Myth: Allow me to be clear on this point: Women would prefer to be monogamous. We want to believe that you are monogamous. However, if your other women are ringing our cell phones and if you're working double-shifts -- without the paycheck to prove it -- then all bets are off. Girls that have been hurt will cheat with the best of them, and cheaters wear many faces : Innocent girls cheat. Church ladies cheat. Curvy girls cheat. Girls that wear glasses cheat. Girls that wear big hats cheat. Girls that wear jogging pants cheat. Golden Girls cheat. Girls with children cheat. Choir Girls cheat. Girls who listen to Reggae cheat. Blondes cheat. Brunettes cheat. Blondes with telltale brunette roots cheat, and on it goes. However, if you remain committed and monogamous, then so will she. But if you cross your woman, she will head to the Bahamas so fast that your head will spin. And she will cheat. Trust me on this one. Here's a final thought: A real woman isn't desperate for your wedding ring. A real woman doesn't want to waste your time -- and she doesn't want you to waste hers. A real woman doesn't degrade you or bring you down. A real woman doesn't judge you by what you earn or what you drive. To a real woman, nothing is more attractive than a sincere man of substance that she can look up to. If you're that man of substance, that real woman will become your real woman in due time. More on Sex
 
Ancient Mummy Unveiled In Egypt Top
SAQQARA, Egypt — Egypt's chief archaeologist has unveiled a completely preserved mummy inside a limestone sarcophagus sealed 2,600 years ago during pharaonic times. The mummy was exposed for the first time Wednesday. It lies in a narrow shaft 36 feet below ground at the ancient necropolis of Saqqara outside of Cairo. It's part of a burial chamber discovered three weeks ago that holds eight wooden and limestone sarcophagi, along with 22 other mummies from the 26th Dynasty _ Egypt's last independent kingdom. Laborers used crowbars to lift the sarcophagus' lid and exposed the linen-wrapped mummy inside. Antiquities chief Zahi Hawass says the mummies are an important discovery and much of Saqqara has yet to be unearthed.
 
Chicago Mulls Crackdown On Products Containing BPA Top
It was the first City Council committee meeting in memory that included presentations about heat-labile molecular bonds and synthetic estrogen. But beyond the crash course in chemistry and physiology, the license and finance committees set a more significant precedent Tuesday when they heard testimony on a proposal that could make Chicago the first place in the country to restrict the sale of products containing bisphenol A, a widely used chemical that's been linked to a range of health problems. More on Health
 
Christina Bellantoni: POTUS: On the road again Top
I was on the road yesterday with President Obama, who was in top salesman form in Florida. He wasn't selling himself the presidential candidate as he did for two years, instead offering his best pitch for the stimulus plan, which passed the Senate as he spoke. The town hall in Fort Myers (and the one the day before in Elkhart, Indiana dubbed a "road trip" by Jon Stewart last night) were opportunities for Obama to be reminded of his connection with voters. Covering him all that time on the trail, I got to know Obama's style pretty well and he was clearly enjoying himself yesterday. He tends to pull energy from the crowd, and when they are engaged and happy to see him, he performs better. Here's my story from today's front page, which I have to admit I wrote most of while sitting on a dock with my feet in the water. FORT MYERS, Fla. | President Obama on Tuesday for the first time staked his fledgling presidency on pulling the country from its economic crisis, promising dispirited Floridians that his stimulus plan will produce tangible results such as jobs and tuition credits or he'll be ousted from office in 2012. Mr. Obama -- who earned a small victory when the Senate passed his $838 billion plan but then was hit with a big drop in the stock market -- was on the campaign trail again, using a town-hall meeting and one of the best weapons in his arsenal: himself. Mr. Obama engagingly pushed his plan, joking that he would pull from the best ideas "whether it comes from a Democrat or a Republican or a vegetarian," acted as comforter in chief and, when asked about the country's notorious impatience, he strayed from his standard answer that the crisis won't be solved overnight. "I expect to be judged by results and ... I'm not going to make any excuses," he said. "If stuff hasn't worked and people don't feel like I've led the country in the right direction, then -- you'll have a new president." But even after he cautioned people that they can vote him out of office, his nearly 2,000 fans at the town hall were already asking for four more years. "Our economy will likely be measured in years, not weeks or months," Mr. Obama said, and someone interrupted him with: "You have eight." The crowd at the Harborside Event Center erupted in laughter and cheers, and the president chuckled, "For our TV audience, somebody said I had eight -- which we're not clear about yet." Read the full piece here , and here's some video I shot from the town hall.     The president will do another event today, visiting an infrastructure project in Northern Virginia with Gov. Tim Kaine, who also as chair of the DNC is pushing for the stimulus plan. —   Christina Bellantoni , White House correspondent, The Washington Times Please bookmark my blog at  http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/bellantoni Find my latest stories  here , follow me on Twitter and visit my  YouTube page More on Stimulus Package
 
Dutch Politician, Geert Wilders, Banned From Britain For Anti-Islam Campaign Top
Geer Wilders, a far-right Dutch MP whose film linking Islamic texts with the terror attacks on New York sparked protests around the Muslim world was last night banned from entering Britain. Geert Wilders, who leads the small Dutch Freedom Party, was due to show his controversial 17-minute film at an event in the House of Lords tomorrow, but was informed yesterday by British officials that he would not be allowed to enter the country. The decision sparked an immediate diplomatic row after the Dutch Government pressed Britain to reverse the ban. The film Fitna, which criticises the Koran as a "fascist book", sparked violent protests around the Muslim world last year. The film, which has been posted on the internet, juxtaposes images of the Koran with footage of the 9/11 twin tower attacks and other terrorist atrocities. Mr Wilders had been invited to show the film at an event in Westminster hosted by Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the former Conservative, who is now a UK Independence Party member of the House of Lords. The film starts with an image of the hugely controversial cartoon of the Prophet Mohamed with a bomb as a turban that sparked global protests after it was printed in a Danish newspaper. The film then shows images of the 9/11 aircraft flying into the World Trade Centre, with quotes from calls to the emergency services from people inside the buildings. It also contains images of bloodstained corpses following the 2004 Madrid rail bombings before showing gruesome images of beheadings and attacks. The film then shows statistics indicating a growing Muslim population in the Netherlands . Last night, the Home Office refused to comment on Mr Wilders' case. But a spokesman said: "The Government opposes extremism in all forms. It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country. That was the driving force behind tighter rules on exclusions for unacceptable behaviour that the Home Secretary announced in October last year." Mr Wilders, who lives with round-the-clock security after receiving death threats, said a letter from the British embassy informed him he was being refused entry because his views "threaten community harmony and therefore public security" in the UK. He condemned the British Government's decision as "cowardly". "This is something you'd expect from Saudia Arabia, not Great Britain," Mr Wilders told a parliamentary session. But he signalled that he might make the journey to London on Thursday despite the ban. "I am seriously considering just trying it out and just getting on the plane," he said. "Then I'll see what happens. Let them handcuff me," he was quoted as telling Dutch newspaper NRC. The Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen said his government would continue to press Britain to reverse the ban. He said he "deeply regretted" that a Dutch lawmaker had been barred entry to the UK. Mr Verhagen said he had first contacted the British ambassador in The Hague. Having failed, Mr Verhagen then telephoned his British counterpart David Miliband. "It is highly regrettable that a Dutch parliamentarian is refused entry to another EU country," he said in a statement. Mr Wilders, whose Freedom Party holds nine of the 120 seats in the Dutch Parliament, said he was shocked by the travel ban. He said: "We are talking here about a European Union country, one of the oldest democracies in the Western world." Lord Pearson, who invited Wilders to show Fitna at the House of Lords, said he was "very surprised" at the news and was looking into what had happened to the Dutch MP. Read more at The Independent . More on Europe
 
Angelina Jolie Rebuked By Thai Official Top
BANGKOK — A senior Thai diplomat rebuked Hollywood star Angelina Jolie on Wednesday for speaking out on behalf of Muslim refugees from Myanmar. Jolie _ who is deeply involved in the plight of refugees in her capacity as a United Nations goodwill ambassador _ called on the Thai government to respect the human rights of Myanmar's Rohinyga "boat people" last week while touring a camp in northern Thailand for other refugees from the military-ruled nation. The Rohingya, who are denied citizenship in their native land, have been trying to land in Thailand after treacherous sea journeys in recent months only to be towed back to sea and cast adrift by the Thai Navy. Virasakdi Futrakul, permanent secretary of Thailand's foreign ministry, said Jolie's mission last week was to inspect a camp that houses refugees mostly from Myanmar's ethnic Karenni minority not deal with the Rohinyga. "We probably have to warn UNHCR that they should not have comment on this because it was not the purpose of her visit," he said. UNHCR spokeswoman Kitt McKinsey declined to comment on Virasakdi's remark. "She was extremely touched by the plight of the Rohingya people. She expressed the hope that the human rights of the Rohingya people will be respected just as the human rights of everyone in the world should be respected," McKinsey said last week. More on Angelina Jolie
 
Leahy Knocks Cheney: "I Don't Need Any Lectures From Him" Top
Senator Patrick Leahy and Dick Cheney have a legendarily icy relationship, one that crested with the former Vice President telling the Judiciary Committee Chairman "go fuck yourself" on the Senate floor. And while in a recent interview Cheney insisted that the animosity between the two has been "patched up," some, it seems, still remains. In an interview with Leahy last night, I asked him about the former V.P.'s latest, cryptic assertion that the Obama administration was making it easier for terrorists to successfully attack the United States. The senior Senator from Vermont didn't disappoint. "I just want to say here Bush and Cheney were in charge when the last attack happened," Leahy said. "They were warned about the last attack before it happened. On September 10th their proposal was to cut our counter-terrorism budget substantially. I don't need any lectures from him. They screwed up badly. "They are also the same people who said the war in Iraq would be over in a couple weeks, shock and awe and we would find the weapons of mass destruction. Their policy was to let Osama bin Laden get away when we had him cornered and send the troops into a useless war in Iraq. No, no, I don't think he has a great deal of credibility." More on Dick Cheney
 
Stimulus Deal Reached Tentatively Top
WASHINGTON — Negotiators for Congress and the White House have tentatively settled on a $790 billion price tag on President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill and are working to narrow differences on individual elements of the bill. After unofficial talks stretching into the late evening on Tuesday, officials announced a formal meeting of negotiators for mid-afternoon in the Capitol as they try to get a bill to Obama's desk for signing by week's end. Democratic aides said that Obama's negotiating team had prevailed in restoring some lost funding for school construction projects during talks Tuesday, and had also increased aid to state governments above the $39 billion approved in a compromise with a handful of Senate GOP moderates. Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit would be reduced from $500 per worker to $400, with couples eligible for an $800 credit, instead of $1,000, said a Democratic aide close to the talks. This aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations are private. Earlier Tuesday, the Senate sailed to approval of its $838 billion economic stimulus bill, but with only three moderate Republicans signing on and then demanding the bill's cost go down when the final version emerges from negotiations. Negotiators initially were working with a target of about $800 billion for the final bill, lawmakers said. But GOP moderate Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Tuesday night on MSNBC's "Hardball" that he was insisting on a figure at around $780 billion. Baucus had said earlier that $35.5 billion to provide a $15,000 homebuyer tax credit, approved in the Senate last week, would be cut back. There was also pressure to reduce a Senate-passed tax break for new car buyers, according to Democratic officials. Asked about the timing of a final deal, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on Wednesday cautiously said "I don't want to disrupt the delicateness by laying down anything or predicting." But he told The Associated Press that negotiators were "making good progress." "Time's growing short," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, as she walked into the latest in a series of meetings with a small group of Senate moderates whose votes are essential to passage of the bill. Wednesday's meeting built on a series of negotiations Tuesday in which White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and other top Obama aides met in the Capitol with Democratic leaders as well as moderate senators from both parties whose support looms as crucial for any eventual agreement. House Democratic leaders promised to fight to restore some of $16 billion for school construction cut by the Senate. Those funds could create more than 100,000 jobs, according to Will Straw, an economist at the liberal Center for American Progress. In another development, Obama announced Wednesday that Caterpillar's chief executive told him the company will rehire some of the 22,000 workers it laid off last month, if the stimulus bill passes. The heavy equipment maker can be expected to benefit as highway construction funds begin to flow. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., acknowledged Wednesday that finding an agreement on differences over tax cuts and aid to states and localities will be difficult. "We're going to have to resolve those differences. Simply talking about what we need to do is not going to be very effective if we don't do it," he said in an interview on the Fox News Channel. The moderate senators _ Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Specter _ are demanding that the final House-Senate compromise resemble the Senate measure, which devotes about 42 percent of its $838 billion in debt-financed costs to tax cuts, including Obama's signature $500 tax credit for 95 percent of workers, with $1,000 going to couples. The $820 billion House measure is about one-third tax cuts. Collins said last week she won't vote for any final bill exceeding $800 billion in spending and tax cuts. Specter warned that the Senate bill must stay "virtually intact." The GOP moderates also want the final bill to retain a $70 billion Senate plan to patch the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, for one year. The provision would make sure 24 million families won't get socked with unexpected tax bills during the 2010 filing season. The AMT was designed 40 years ago to make sure wealthy people pay at least some tax, but it is updated for inflation each year to avoid tax increases averaging $2,300 a year. Fixing the annual problems now allows lawmakers to avoid difficult battles down the road, but economists say the move won't do much to lift the economy. House leaders are tempering expectations that they'll restore many of the cuts. "You cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the effective and of the necessary, and we will not," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. While they're fighting to preserve cuts to Obama priorities, Specter is fighting to preserve an enormous $10 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health, while Collins obtained $870 million for community health centers in talks last week. ___ Associated Press Special Correspondent David Espo contributed to this story.
 
Brett Favre To Retire, Agent Says Top
NEW YORK — Brett Favre informed the New York Jets on Wednesday he will retire after 18 seasons, ending a record-setting career in which he was one of the NFL's premier quarterbacks. The 39-year-old instructed agent James "Bus" Cook to tell the team of his decision, six weeks after Favre's only season with the Jets ended in disappointment as New York failed to make the playoffs. In an e-mail to ESPN, Favre said he has no regrets about ending his career in New York and praised owner Woody Johnson, general manager Mike Tannenbaum and fired coach Eric Mangini. "Mike and Woody, as well as the entire organization, have been nothing short of outstanding," Favre said in the e-mail. "My teammates _ Thomas (Jones) and Kerry (Rhodes) included _ were a pleasure to play with. Eric could not have been any better. I enjoyed playing for him. My time with the Jets was short, but I'm honored to be given that chance." Running back Jones and safety Rhodes were critical after the season of Favre and his performance. The Jets went from 8-3 to missing the playoffs. Favre threw nine interceptions as the Jets went 1-4 down the stretch, and a torn right biceps might have contributed. "I had a great conversation with Brett this morning," Johnson said in a statement. "Considering that he came from a totally different environment and joined our team during training camp, his performance last season was extraordinary. As I spoke with people throughout the organization, they all told me how much they enjoyed working with him. Brett Favre is a Hall-of-Fame player, but he is also a Hall-of-Fame person. Brett, (wife) Deanna and his family will always be a part of the Jets family." Favre retired last March but quickly changed his mind and a bitter divorce with Green Bay ensued. He was traded to the Jets in August and was a Pro Bowl selection despite an overwhelmingly disappointing season that cost Mangini his job. New York hired former Baltimore defensive coordinator Rex Ryan to replace Mangini, and he, along with Johnson and Tannenbaum, repeatedly said they wanted Favre to return. Instead, Favre spent several weeks after the season at his home in Kiln, Miss., away from football before deciding to retire _ again. "It was an honor to coach against Brett over the years," Ryan said. "If he's not the best quarterback ever, then he's certainly in the conversation. I have great admiration for him as a player and a person. I wish him only the best in his life after football." Favre had two years left on his contract and was due $13 million for next season. "When we acquired Brett, we knew we would get everything he had," Tannenbaum said. "He took the time to mentor younger players and his competitiveness and enthusiasm at practice and during games was contagious. I spoke with him this morning and told him that he will be a friend of the Jets for years to come and it was an honor to work with him." If this is indeed it for Favre, he leaves the game with a slew of records, including career touchdown passes (464), completions (5,720), yards passing (65,127), regular-season victories (169) and interceptions (310). The three-time NFL MVP also holds the mark among quarterbacks with 291 consecutive starts, including the playoffs, despite playing through several injuries throughout his career. "It was a great honor to play with Brett," wide receiver Chansi Stuckey told The Associated Press. "He had an illustrious career, and I want to thank him for giving the Jets the opportunity to play with him." New York now will move forward with a new quarterback, whether that will be Kellen Clemens, Brett Ratliff, Erik Ainge or perhaps a veteran free agent such as Jeff Garcia, Kerry Collins, Byron Leftwich or Rex Grossman. After the Jets' season-ending 24-17 loss to Miami, Favre said he felt discomfort in his rocket right arm "for quite a while." It turned out to be a torn biceps tendon that didn't require surgery. He refused to completely blame his late-season struggles on his arm injury, but said his accuracy suffered as a result. After coming out of a brief retirement last winter, Favre was acquired from Green Bay for what will be a 2009 third-round draft pick to help the Jets take a big leap forward after a 4-12 season. They did that by more than doubling their win total, but it wasn't enough. He finished with 3,472 yards passing and 22 touchdowns, but the 22 interceptions were his most in three seasons. It wasn't all bad with the Jets for Favre, who showed a few glimpses of greatness _ as well as great zip on his passes _ early on. He threw a career-high six touchdown passes, tying Joe Namath's team record, in a 56-35 victory over Arizona in Week 4. Favre also helped rejuvenate the franchise after he came to the Jets, drawing thousands of fans to training camp practices. Favre, named a team captain just weeks after joining the Jets, was coming off one of his most productive seasons, passing for 4,155 yards, his most since 1998, with 28 TDs and 15 interceptions. After an introduction to the city by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Favre struggled to get in synch with his receivers and learn the playbook. But by midway through the season, Favre appeared at the top of his game again _ and had the Jets atop the AFC East at 8-3 with consecutive road victories at New England and Tennessee. Then came the free-fall in which New York lost four of its last five. More on Sports
 
Mario Almonte: Republicans Dance While Economy Burns, Obsessed with Scoring Political Points on Economic Stimulus Package Top
Even as it slugs its way through the Senate, few doubt that President Obama's massive economic stimulus package will soon reach his desk and be signed into law. When the dust settles, Obama will have finally pushed through his first major piece of legislation of his young presidency. Yet the real political victory, if one wants to call it that, belongs to the Republicans. Between its introduction and passage, Republicans successfully undermined public confidence in the bill by adopting the old adage, "the devil is in the detail" and making sure to give Obama hell every step of the way. In an $800 billion-plus spending program, there were bound to be a few low hanging fruits. They nitpicked the smaller, million dollar items that amounted to, as Obama observed on Anderson Cooper on CNN, "less than one percent of the total package." Nevertheless, the strategy worked. Rasmussen Reports revealed declining public support for the bill as it muscled its way through the House and into the Senate. The 45% that initially supported the plan slipped to 42% a week later; to just 37% in the final week. A CBS poll found support slipping from 63% a month earlier to just 51% last week. Even world markets posted mixed results when the bill passed the House, with Asian markets rising and European markets falling. In recent days, Obama has taken the offensive with town hall meetings and a prime time press conference, even an appearance on Telemundo, trying to restore public confidence in the bill. But it appears he is waging a losing battle. At this point, even global markets, which once desperately awaited the significant infusion to the American economy, are now taking a wait-and-see attitude. Veteran Democrats like Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) accused Republicans of the same old partisan tricks in opposing the bill so overwhelmingly. Obama should consider this "an early lesson," said Schumer. He didn't explain why no Democrat thought it necessarily to warn Obama in the first place. Republicans, meanwhile, savor their victory. Should the bill succeed in creating "between three and four million new jobs," as Obama hopes, they can insist the economy was recovering anyway; the bill simply amounted to a free government handout. And, in fact, there are indications that the banks are lending money again and the real estate market is bottoming out. Should the bill fail, they can say they told us so. But the truth is that no one really has a clue to whether the stimulus package will work. The dramatic, unprecedented twists and turns of modern financial markets continue to catch even the most brilliant economists flatfooted, forcing them to throw away the playbook and draw up new rules almost every day. For all anybody knows, like the common cold, the sick economy might simply run its course and emerge healthier than ever before, with or without the bill. Yet, everyone agrees that public confidence in the economy is an important ingredient in any recovery scenario. Should the markets continue their downward spiral, Republicans - having successfully tarnished initial enthusiasm for Obama's stimulus package - must wonder whether their political victory came at a price far greater than they might have been willing to pay. More on Stimulus Package
 
Caryl Rivers: Backsliding on Roe Top
Some people think Barack Obama can end the culture wars. In historical terms, that would be like predicting in year 50 of the Hundred Years War, that the light at the end of the tunnel was just ahead. The Culture Wars will continue because it's just about all the right has left. Fiscal conservatism? George Bush knocked that into a cocked hat. An American century backed up by military force? The neocons screwed that up with the fiasco in Iraq. Smaller government? Gone, after Bush in effect nationalized the financial system. But what did conservatives jump on first in the stimulus package? A family planning program that involved condoms. Many on the right hope that hot-button issues like abortion, contraception, school prayer and creationism will keep people voting against their own pocketbooks and for the tub-thumper issues that the religious right feeds on. But there are some liberals who are so eager to end the culture wars, and to get back the white male vote, that they are perfectly happy to throw women under the bus. The strategy? Let Roe v. Wade go down and return the issue to the states. Damon Linker blogs for the New Republic , "How could Obama -- how could liberals, how could supporters of abortion rights -- both win and end the culture war, once and for all? By supporting the reversal or significant narrowing of Roe, allowing abortion policy to once again be set primarily by the states -- a development that would decisively divide and demoralize the conservative side of the culture war by robbing it of the identity politics that holds it together as a national movement." This issue gains special relevance with the news that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a firm supporter of women's rights, is battling cancer. Most of us hope Ginsburg will be healthy and back on the court as soon as possible, but her illness underlines the importance of the retreat from Roe by some on the left. Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, argued in the Atlantic that overturning Roe might be good for Democrats, because the pro-life forces would overreach, alienating the public. "When the dust settles, in five or ten or thirty years, early-term abortions would be protected and late-term ones restricted." In the interim, of course, in the states that adopted draconian restrictions, women would have to bear children they could not afford to support, either emotionally or financially. Rich women, as usual, could travel to a blue state, check into an upscale hotel and have the procedure. Poor and working-class women would have a much harder time. We might even see the return of the coat hanger, as desperate women try to self-induce abortions. I remember a time when abortion was illegal, and I know women who went to back-alley abortionists. Some were lucky and got skilled doctors; others had physical problems for years thanks to unsterile conditions or unskilled providers, and the unluckiest of all died at the hands of such people. Brookings Institute fellow Benjamin Wittes writes, "Since its inception, Roe has had a deep legitimacy problem, stemming from its weakness as a legal opinion. Conservatives who fulminate that the Court made up the right to abortion, which appears explicitly nowhere in the Constitution, are being simplistic -- but they're not entirely wrong. In the years since the decision an enormous body of academic literature has tried to put the right to an abortion on firmer legal ground. But thousands of pages of scholarship notwithstanding, the right to abortion remains constitutionally shaky; abortion policy is a question that the Constitution -- even broadly construed -- cannot convincingly be read to resolve." But similar arguments were made for years against Brown v. Board of Education. Conservative legal scholars said the decision was more an act of sociology than of law. But if memory serves, no liberals argued that we ought to repeal Brown and bring back segregated schools, because of the "softness" of the decision. It's certainly unlikely that Barack Obama will appoint a pro-life justice to the court, but it's disturbing that some on the left don't seem to think that women's reproductive rights are all that important. Roe is going to need all the support that can be mustered, because the departure of the Bush administration may bring the extreme factions in the pro-life movement to the fore. Bush after all, kept throwing them goodies to keep them quiet. He appointed to an influential FDA panel on women's health an OB-GYN who would not prescribe birth control to his patients because they might practice premarital sex. He also decreed that women suffering from premenstrual syndrome should read the Bible. In one of Bush's last moves, he approved a "conscience clause" by the department of Health and Human Services, allowing workers at more than 584,000 U.S. medical facilities that receive federal funding to refuse to provide care or administer procedures with which they disagree, including emergency contraception. The rule could prohibit states from enforcing laws that require hospitals to offer the morning-after pill for rape victims. As a pro-choice president moves into the White House, will the newly frustrated, violent wing of the pro-life movement return to the days of clinic bombings and the targeting of doctors who provide abortion? In recent years, reports the Southern Poverty Law Center, many in the pro-life movement have moved away from public demonstrations, alienated by the violent few. "But at the same time, those who have always advocated some violence have become increasingly revolutionary, seeing themselves as fighting a holy war to recreate society in a religious mold. Today, those in the most militant wing of the anti-abortion movement are more and more willing to kill." Over the last 20 years, violent anti-abortion activists have committed six murders and 15 attempted murders and have also been behind some 200 bombings and arsons, 72 attempted arsons, 750 death and bomb threats and hundreds of acts of vandalism, intimidation, stalking and burglary. Media images of abortion have moved decisively to the right since the early days after Roe was decided, when it was regarded as a vindication of the rights of women to control their own lives, and to leave the decision of whether and when to bear a child to a woman and her doctor. Today, try to find a television show or a popular film that presents a woman opting to have an abortion with anything resembling approval. More typical is the movie "Knocked Up" in which a female television reporter has a one-night stand with a nerdy slacker and gets pregnant. What does she do? She leaves her job and marries the slob -- who, in the unlikeliest of denouements, magically turns into a good dad and husband. What's really likely in such a scenario? The woman would end up as a single mother with no job, and the child's father would run away as fast as he could from responsibility. Today, those who support abortion rights need to argue forcefully that reproductive freedom is an important human right. Women must not be forced by law or custom to bear children without their consent. Roe v. Wade was a giant step for the rights of women, and deserves the strongest possible support from those on the left. Boston University journalism professor Caryl Rivers is the author of Selling Anxiety,: How the News Media Scare Women (University Press of New England.)
 
Amitai Etzioni: The Human Costs of Extending the Recession Top
For each day that implementation of the stimulus package is delayed, and the longer the deep recession lasts--the greater the human and social cost. Much has been made of the devastating economic costs we are facing. Decade of research show that other costs are equally high. For example, an increase in the unemployment rate of one percentage point that is sustained, and not reversed, for five years, is brings about an increase in homicides of 5.7 percent, in suicides of 4.1 percent, in state mental hospital admissions of 3.4 percent, in state prison admissions of 4.0 percent, according to an often cited 1976 study by Harvey Brenner which was presented to the US Congress' Joint Economic Committee. The relation between recession and homicide was again affirmed in a 1984 Report to the Joint Economic Committee. Additionally, unemployment is the single strongest predictor in cases where men murder their wives. An abuser's lack of a job increases the risk of femicide fourfold, says a 2003 study reported in the American Journal of Public Health and led by Jacquelyn Campbell at the Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing. True, in recent months the number of divorce filings in courts across the country has dropped. Marriage counselors and divorce lawyers say that many unhappy couples are putting off divorce because the cost of splitting up is just too much in a time of stagnant salaries, falling home values and rising unemployment. People are "putting off the decision to divorce until the economy gets better...That's been my experience over the last 35 years. When you have an economic downturn people are not so quick to change their situation," states Gary Nickelson, President of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. You may consider this a silver lining in a nation in which all other measures of social problems are rising, or consider it one reason spousal abuse is increasing. In any case, the longer we allow the recession to drag on, the greater the human and social price people are made to pay, above and beyond the economic costs. Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University and author of The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics. Email: icps@gwu.edu More on Stimulus Package
 
Roombas Of Doom: How Vacuum Cleaners Will Kill Us All Top
For the latest installment of "Future Shock," Samantha Bee sat down with Colin Angle, the CEO of iRobot and creator of the Roomba, who received nearly $300M from the government to turn the tiny vacuum cleaner thingies into weapons. Angle explained that our fears over a Terminator-like robot attack is unfounded because the future is going to be much stranger. Bee also talked to an ethicist who has misgivings about the devices. She calmed his fears by proclaiming, "We don't want them getting married or anything, just defending out shores." She went on to advocate shooting stupid children. WATCH: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M - Th 11p / 10c Future Shock - Roombas of Doom Daily Show Full Episodes Important Things With Demetri Martin Funny Political News Joke of the Day More on Daily Show
 
Sarah Newman: Sustainable Valentine's Day Top
V. Day is coming soon and I'm not referring to the WWII holiday or Eve Ensler's spin on February 14th. It causes plenty of angst amongst couples about how they should profess their undying love for each other on this special Christian-rooted Hallmark-marketing holiday. Is it with a bouquet of flowers? An over-priced dinner (re-labeled holiday special by restaurants)? Chocolates? For those of us who are single, we might have the following instincts for dealing with February 14th: hide and pretend the day doesn't exist (I sometimes use the Jewish card to explain to people that I don't celebrate a holiday honoring St. Valentine), embrace it as International Quirky Alone Day or comb through all of your Facebook friends to find a group of like-minded single people to spend time downing lots of alcohol and chocolate while also paying for an over-priced meal. Whatever your take is on February 14th, it's an opportunity to actually not spend much money (and who has any left to spend in this economy?) and make it a sustainable day. Here are a few suggestions: 1. Buy organic flowers . Did you ever think about all of the pesticides that are applied to conventional flowers and the effects of these on workers and the environment? The thought of it could make a gladiola wilt. 2. Give Theo's fair-trade organic chocolate . If the recipient has a special place for Jane Goodall or wildlife, then you might want to consider their special line which honors the conservationist and donates to her organization. I had the pleasure of visiting the factory with my sister and while they nearly threw me out for eating all of their samples, I can attest to the delicious-ness of all of their products. 3. Prepare a homemade dinner with local produce . It's a lot cheaper than eating out, will probably taste better and is a great way for you to show your love for a local farmer. 4. Skip flowers and plant a tree . It lasts longer, helps the planet and will be a living testament to your love for another person. 5. Practice safe sex and protect the environment. Yes, birth control will help keep our population growth down, but more importantly, you can use vegan condoms and organic lubricant . And, if anyone reading this happens to live in Brazil, you can help to protect the Amazon by purchasing new government-issued condoms made from an Amazonian tree. 6. Make your own cards. Yes, let's get out the crayola crayons, scissors, glitter and glue to make a homemade gift for someone special in your life. I guarantee you that even if you're not the most artistically-inclined person, your homemade card will probably be a lot more meaningful than a store-bought one. 7. Write your own poem. You don't need to be Shakespeare to express your love and you can also be a green hero by using recycled paper. 8. If you decide to purchase a gift, consider supporting a local business which is probably struggling during these tough economic times. You can help your local economy and buy a lovely V. Day gift. 9. Choose organic lingerie . So, this isn't as racy as Victoria Secret stuff, but it's eco-friendly for you and the planet. And, who isn't attracted to a green girl? 10. Enjoy organic champagne . Yes, I keep seeing those ads about the name champagne being illegally used by American winemakers who are ignoring their French counterparts pleas for accurate labeling (real champagne is only grown in Champagne, France). Whatever you want to call it, I'm suggesting you enjoy an organic beverage of choice. The original post of Sarah's Social Action Snapshot appeared on Takepart.com More on France
 
John R. Bohrer: Want An Economic Stimulus? Enact Marriage Equality Top
This morning, NPR carried a depressing story about the economic downturn and Atlantic City. Three casinos put up the money for a luxury express train from New York Penn Station to lure in new revenue--which they badly need. Hotel layoffs are rampant. The economy and increased competition from neighboring states brought their gambling revenues down 7 percent last year. This takes a toll on New Jersey taxpayers since the state gets an 8 percent cut. Anyone paying attention to Governor Jon Corzine knows what he's saying about the economy: it's "Priority #1, Priority #2, and Priority #3." He (along with nearly every other governor) is eagerly waiting for Washington to grow the federal deficit and inject money into the states ASAP . Then why not enact marriage equality? Go ahead and disregard that it's morally the right thing to do... Forget that the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission said almost one whole year ago that the current law "creates a second-class status" for tax-paying citizens... Never mind that the word "marriage" matters in so many ways, legally and socially... You got it: economic recovery is the top priority. So go get a marriage equality bill passed right now. The reason? $248 million. Based on the economic impact to places with similar laws, the Williams Institute at UCLA projects that marriage equality would result in $248 million of direct spending in NJ over the course of 3 years. Resident couples and those from out of state would spend, spend, spend . Especially those from New York, whose wedded status would be recognized by their home state. It seems like a no-brainer. We already know that civil unions don't work. What's the problem? Politics, of course. New Jersey is one of the few states that holds off-year legislative elections, and even the most sympathetic legislators are worried about a backlash. But the thing is, they could say this every year... Oh wait, they do . "He will sign a bill, but doesn't want to make it a presidential-election-year issue," Corzine's spokesperson said in February 2008, after the first NJ Civil Unions Review Commission report condemned the current system. When the commission's latest report was released in December, the Governor seemed to agree with its findings, "that civil unions may have widened that gap and fostered inequity by creating a separate class of relationships." But ... "While this administration is focused squarely on the economic crisis for the foreseeable future, it's clear that this issue of civil rights must be addressed sooner rather than later." In other words, 'When the economy's taken care of (like that's happening any time soon), we'll get on it.' But why can't it be a part of improving the economy? Call it 'The Equality Economy Act of 2009' or something of the sort. It's an honest title. While it would be a giant leap forward for so many New Jersey families, the majority of us who are straight will benefit from the $248 million in increased spending. It's a great opportunity for New Jersey. This is essentially the same legislature that passed civil unions into law in late 2006. They can and should pass a marriage equality bill now. The economic dividends will be great, and so will the moral ones.
 
Writers Guild May Suspend Jay Leno Over Strike Monologues Top
A year has passed, but the WGA West is still reviewing the possibility of disciplinary action against Jay Leno for "Tonight Show" monologues he delivered while the guild was on strike. It's understood that the guild has brought disciplinary proceedings against Leno, who is a Writers Guild of America member and writer for his NBC latenighter. The specifics of the proceedings are unclear, but the process should come to a head soon. According to the strike rules the WGA distributed to members before the strike began on Nov. 5, 2007, the guild's constitution gives it the authority to hold hearings to review allegations of violations of strike rules and to discipline members. That discipline may include "expulsion or suspension from guild membership, imposition of monetary fines or censure," according to the WGA's strike rules. There is also an appeals process. More on Jay Leno
 
Car Bombs Kill 16 At Baghdad Bus Station Top
At least 16 people have been killed in two simultaneous explosions at a bus terminal in the Iraqi capital Baghdad, police and medical sources have said. Another 40 people were wounded in the blasts, caused by a two bombs near the terminal in the Bayaa neighbourhood in the south west of the city. More on Iraq
 
Evan Wolfson: Marriage and Gays: What Would Lincoln Do? Top
Abraham Lincoln may have been the first American to write about a same-sex couple getting married. His 1829 poem recounting the marriage of Nate and Billy was "perhaps the most explicit literary reference to actual homosexual relations in 19th century America." Lincoln's most important early biographer, William Herndon, initially included the poem in his Life of Lincoln , but as so often with gay subjects, it was subsequently omitted and largely ignored by later scholars. Recently there has been greater willingness to debate evidence that our greatest president may himself have had same-sex attraction and even acted on it, as the iconic Lincoln biographer, Carl Sandburg, intimated in 1924 when he wrote of Lincoln's "streaks of lavender." In 2005, C.A. Tripp's Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln marshaled accounts of Lincoln's relations with men such as Captain David Derickson, including a November 1862 diary entry by the wife of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy that reads, "There is a Bucktail soldier here, devoted to the President, drives with him, and when Mrs. L is not home, sleeps with him. What stuff!" Like other scholars, Tripp explored Lincoln's singularly intimate relationship with Joshua Speed, who told Herndon, "If I had not been married & happy -- far more happy than I ever expected to be -- [Lincoln] would not have married." But it's not because of Lincoln's sexual orientation or other "stuff" that February 12, Lincoln's birthday, has for 12 years now been the centerpiece of National Freedom to Marry Week . Lincoln's strongest connection to the freedom to marry cause lies in the values he embodied in his life, and embodies in ours. He was committed to equality, freedom, and lifting people up. He called Americans to the "better angels of our nature," and he combined a deep moral integrity with a determined and strategic focus on achieving what is most important and right. In the wake of last November's Proposition 8 temporarily halting marriages in California, and with marriage equality shimmering within reach in other states such as New York and New Jersey , gay and non-gay people and organizations across the country will spend Freedom to Marry Week asking our fellow citizens to, in Lincoln's words, "think anew" about how exclusion from marriage harms gay families while helping no one. Freedom to Marry Week in this Lincoln bicentennial year recalls his admonition, "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." In Lincoln's Virtues , William Lee Miller described Lincoln's distinctly independent mind and great empathy (both as a child and adult). Young Lincoln rejected much of his world (hunting, fighting, chasing girls, slavery, churchgoing, cruelty to Indians, etc.) and yet remained engaged in the world, embracing and non-dismissive of others. Lincoln's ability and determination to put himself in the other's shoes -- to say of Southerners, as he did in numerous speeches as a candidate and as president, "they are just as we would be in their situation" -- while holding steadfastly to his lifelong belief that slavery is wrong, offers a lesson to those of us seeking to further move the public toward marriage equality. Lincoln's combination of tactical maneuvering and incremental action with consistent articulation of a clear moral standard over time helped elevate public understanding and commitment to what is right. Even while biding his time or falling short of "purist" demands for immediate and extreme steps -- he was a politician, not philosopher -- Lincoln understood that "explicit public clarity...that slavery is a great moral evil was essential to the permanent solution to the problem of slavery." Now slavery was an exceptional injustice, and I don't equate the wrong of marriage discrimination to it. Likewise, the challenges confronting President Obama and our country today are many and serious, though not of the existential scope as those confronting Lincoln. Still, Obama, like me a fervent admirer of Lincoln, would do well to ask himself what Lincoln would do faced with the question of whether to continue the denial of the freedom to marry to these committed couples. As a candidate for the Illinois Senate in 1996, a body in which Lincoln also served, Obama in his own hand supported the Marriage Resolution now on Freedom to Marry's website. He said, " I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages. " I believe Lincoln, with today's understanding of who gay people are, would, too. And once Lincoln had taken such a step, he would have stuck with it, as when he courageously refused to retreat from the Emancipation Proclamation even when facing a difficult reelection battle in 1864. As Lincoln said, "The promise, being made, must be kept." In recent years, Obama has wavered on marriage equality, while expressing commendable support for gay families and substitute legal status such as civil union -- getting the what (equality) right, but not the how (marriage). Lincoln, however, would not have abandoned a clear commitment to the right result even when, where necessary, moving by intermediate steps. President Obama seems determined to embrace Lincoln's empathy model -- "there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America.... We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states." I hope he and other politicians also embrace Lincoln's courage and lessons on how to combine strategy with moral education, moral leadership, that prepares and moves Americans in fulfillment of our deepest values. After all, as a recent Freedom to Marry study reported, no legislators who voted for marriage equality or against anti-gay measures lost their seat in the last several election cycles. As Lincoln's words and actions skillfully paved the way for America's "new birth of freedom," he returned again and again to the Declaration of Independence's promise that "all should have an equal chance." Lincoln didn't expect that promise to waft in by itself, or solely on the work of others. He led. More on Gay Marriage
 
Michael Pento: The Reality Behind Real Estate Top
Much has been written lately about the beginnings of a recovery in the real estate market. Just last week housing bugs (investment "bugs" are not exclusive to those who only love gold) were cheering the latest data point which they claimed as evidence the market is making a comeback. The Pending home sales index rose 6.3%, to 87.7 from 82.5 in November. That figure was also 2.1% higher than that of December 2007 when it registered 85.9. Helping to drive the increase in pending home sales are three major factors: lower home prices, lower new home construction rates and lower mortgage rates. However, although those three factors have improved greatly since the bubble burst in 2006, they still do not signal an end to falling prices. At the height of the bubble, the median home price-to-income ratio reached about 5:1. It has since retreated to 3.6:1, which is still above the historic level of 3.2:1 but promising nonetheless. According to the distinguished Vince Farrell of Soleil Securities, the spread between thirty-year fixed rate mortgages and the 10-year Treasury note is about 235 basis points. The historic spread is about 170 bps and the high water mark spread was well above 500 bps. Although rates are falling, (much like home prices) they are still above historic norms. But, nevertheless, they're still headed in the right direction... another point for housing bulls. New home construction rates are now running at 550,000 units annually, down 15.5% in January from its November reading and down 45% from its year-ago period. The peak of new home construction rates reached over 2mm units annually in August of 2005, a number I repeatedly said had to come down. While we'd reach a housing bottom if home builders weren't building any new homes at all, this decreased rate represents another real estate positive. So with all this good news out there, why am I still projecting a continuation of falling home prices? Inventories, especially the key reading of vacant homes for sale. The reason the number of vacant homes for sale is more salient than those that are occupied is that a home sitting vacant is much more likely to stay on the market until it is sold, regardless of price (as opposed to occupied homes, with owners who might simply pull the listing if they don't like the price). Because the owners of so many unoccupied homes are banks, they are especially motivated to hit the bid on a property. Data released this month show there are currently a record 19 million U.S. homes that are sitting vacant. Of those empty homes, 2.23 million units are on the market -- another record. The share of empty homes for sale rose to 2.9% in the fourth quarter of 2008, the most since data recording began in 1956. And according to FDIC data, U.S. banks owned $11.5 billion worth of homes -- a figure which stood at just $5.4 billion a year ago! Additionally, at the end of 2008 the supply of new homes hit an all time high of 12.9 months. Thus, despite all the "good news" on the home front, the supply of both new and vacant homes for sale remain at all-time highs. Now, some good news was registered in existing homes, as the supply dropped to 9.3 months, down from 11.2 in November of 2008. Still, even this number represents about twice the amount needed to bring about price stability. The reason there is an intractable level of homes for sale clearly stems from the faltering economy, which is causing massive layoffs and skyrocketing unemployment. The rate is currently 7.6%, a 17-year high. This compels homeowners (many of whom owe more on their home than it is worth) to walk away from their properties. After all, how much motivation do home owners need to abort if they are already upside down on the home and now find themselves without a job? Home prices and mortgages rates may have to fall well below historical levels in order to clear away the massive buildup in inventories, and it's a condition which may need to exist for a protracted period of time before home price stability can occur. Until home prices stabilize there can be no stemming the decline of bank assets. Until bank assets stop falling, there can be no real healing in the stock market or the economy. Today we got the latest round of bailout babble from the Treasury Department. In this newest bank bailout plan, there is supposed to be yet another attempt at stemming the rise in foreclosures with a $50 billion forbearance package. In their continued effort to abrogate the market, however, government stubbornly chooses to ignore the obvious: what took years to build into a bubble will take years to reconcile. Healing takes time, but that is not part of our new administration's plan to fix the real estate market. Instead, like his predecessor George W. Bush, the Obama team feels it is better to artificially prop up home prices at an unsustainable level rather than have them retreat to a price that can be supported by the free market. But then again, isn't this just more evidence that the idea of free market capitalism is being trampled -- by both parties. Michael Pento is the Chief Economist for Delta Global Advisors and a contributor to greenfaucet.com More on Real Estate
 
GOP Sen. Shelby: Geithner "Wasted" Senate's Time Top
Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, on Wednesday lambasted Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's new plan for using the second $350 billion in financial bailout money. Speaking on CBS News' The Early Show, Shelby said the plan, presented in a speech and a Senate committee hearing yesterday afternoon, "was vague, indefinite, opaque at best." More on Timothy Geithner
 
Erica Heller: The Year of the Geezer: The Triumph of Stump, the Sussex Spaniel Top
Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks? Just take a look at the latest comeback kid, the pride of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, 10 year-old Stump, the Sussex spaniel. Sassy and sleek, mighty geezer Stump essentially retired from show business four years ago, but still took home Best in Show on Tuesday at the 133rd Annual show, at Madison Square Garden. As the oldest dog ever to win this honor, and even though traditionally, spaniels do nothing for me (although I would probably take a bullet for most terriers), I could not help but be overwhelmed with overweening joy. Yes, Stump was almost eclipsed by the competition, by the other dogs competing in Best in Show, a standard poodle, a Scottish terrier, a puli, a Brussels griffon and a Scottish deerhound, but Stump proved to be no schlump. "I didn't know who he was or how old he was," Judge Sari Brewster Tietjen exclaimed. "He's just everything that you'd want in the breed, and I couldn't say no to him." Ebullient, brimming with canine charisma, even with little preparation for the event, according to his handler, Scott Sommer, Stump proved to be an unstoppable force. Even when a giant schnauzer threatened to bump Stump, the crowd clamored wildly for the Sussex spaniel, and nothing could sway them. Restored to good health after a mysterious illness several years ago, Stump in his dotage showed that (to juggle metaphors), like a fine wine, every dog has its day, and for Stump the late bloomer, his bloom was decidedly worth waiting for. Now, to all of us out there today rattling cages for work, born before the name Smith Corona could be confused with some brand of Mexican beer, Stump provides encouragement and unbridled optimism, and I find myself wishing, just wishing, that Judge Tietjen would retire from her current job and instead, take over the HR department of some place, any place, where we'd like to be hired. And also deserve to be. Meanwhile, "Stump's going to travel back to Houston and kind of stay there," Sommer, said. Unlike another Texan we know of, who recently shrank off there in bewildered, abject shame, Stump has earned his proud place in history and his moment in the sun.
 
Blagojevich Says Family Finances OK, Won't File For Unemployment Top
Ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich says he and his wife are out of work but don't plan to file for unemployment. Blagojevich was removed from office Jan. 29 after an impeachment trial by Illinois lawmakers that was triggered by his arrest on federal corruption charges. And Illinois' former first lady, Patti Blagojevich, was fired Jan. 20 from her $100,000-a-year job as chief fundraiser for a Chicago homeless agency. During an interview on WLS Radio's "The Don and Roma Morning Show" today, Blagojevich said he and his family are doing fine financially despite those career setbacks. Blagojevich also joked about a job offer he's received from the Joliet Jackhammers to be a rookie for the Northern League team. The Democrat described himself as being "52 going on 8" and said his childhood dream has always been to be a centerfielder for the Cubs. More on Rod Blagojevich
 
Michelle Jaconi, Former "Meet The Press" Producer, To Be John King's Executive Producer Top
Michelle Jaconi, a 12-year veteran of NBC News' "Meet the Press," is joining CNN as Executive Producer of "State of the Union with John King," CNN announced Wednesday. Jaconi served as producer and political analyst for Tim Russert's "Meet the Press," and will be charged with building CNN's new politics show into a similar Sunday morning powerhouse. "Michelle is a perfect fit for our team and our mission," John King said. "Her deep experience in smart and aggressive Sunday morning television speaks for itself. And her passion for making things relevant to the people who matter most - the families and communities outside Washington - is what we're looking for in this key leadership role." "Joining CNN and State of the Union at this moment in history is an extraordinary opportunity," Jaconi said. "CNN is at the top of its game, and John is the best political reporter of his time. I'm honored to work with John and his team to reinvent Sunday morning news. It's the right time, the right network and the right reporter. " CNN Political Director Sam Feist said he's counting on Michelle to land newsmaker interviews. "Michelle, with her experience in landing and producing brilliant interviews, will help us leverage the resources of CNN's political team and newsgathering operation to create a program unlike any other," he said. More on Meet the Press
 
WATCH LIVE: Obama Discusses Job Creation In Springfield, VA Top
President Obama is in Springfield, Virginia this morning with Governor Tim Kaine. Click on live player below to watch Obama speak about jobs that will be created by his stimulus plan.
 
Arthur Rosenfeld: On Mastery Top
Some women claim their ability to perform multiple tasks simultaneously is confirmation of the obvious superiority of the female mind; some men respond that multi-tasking is simply a term for doing a bunch of things badly. Parents lament that computer games and Internet surfing is costing their kids their intelligence; a new study shows that searching the Internet actually makes us smarter. However you spin it, the complexity of modern life has us more distracted than ever, and inundated by stimuli and messages that divide our time in such a way that no one activity is likely to bear the brunt of it. It's a pity, this, because while being a jack of all trades may make it easier to slip into current of 21st century life, the weapons of mass distraction around us make it harder and harder for us to achieve any kind of mastery. Without narrow focus, long practice and plenty of patience we are likely to see the beauty of the landscape around the lake, perhaps even notice the patterns on the water when the wind blows or we skim a stone, but we will probably miss the plants growing at the bottom, the baby garfish swimming between the tall weeds just above the bottom, and the flash of a watersnake's tail as it navigates a cluster of thick branches just below the surface. Has mastery become an old-fashioned notion? Maybe so, with information developing at such a rate that whatever we learn in school is obsolete by the time we get out and whatever technology we come to command at our first job will likely be considered archaic by the time we arrive at our second. Still as any quantum physicist or superstring theoretician knows, there are layers upon layers to experience, and universes within worlds. Spending time at one thing long enough to develop mastery develops a quantum awareness within us, lends us ability to see past the differences in things and tease out the similarities, to understand the sort of foundation truths that transcend fields of study, industries, software programs and even particular human relationships -- truths that are all pervasive, meaningful and useful. Some of us are lucky enough to have engaged a career whose dimensions have remained stable over time, allowing us to go deeper and deeper into our chosen field and thereby develop insights that not only make us valuable to employers, but which reveal the world to us in irreplaceable ways. In addition to a vocation or job, we might have worked long and hard at a successful marriage. It seems we are increasingly unlikely to develop mastery in an avocation or hobby these days, not only because our culture puts a tremendous financial slant on activities and experience (if it doesn't make you money, doesn't get you something, why in the world are you doing it?) but because we have so many choices for each hour of free time that we're unlikely to stick with any one for very long. Mastering a hobby is unlikely in the zany "rush to the end" frenzy of modern life. We might like to garden but be pulled out of the yard and into the house by eBay auctions or on-demand video. We might like to play football but notice that our knees are often sore and anyway the kids like the Nintendo Wii more than mixing it up on real turf. We might in the past have learned to play a classical instrument or at least become knowledgeable connoisseurs of classical music, preferably at a live performance or on a really great high-fidelity system. Now we find that live orchestras are rare, hi-fi is an indulgence for a few wealthy folks, and most of the dynamic range and quality is removed from music by the recording process anyway. We listen rather than play, and sample a bit of this or a bit of that on our MP3/MP4 player, thereby missing the deeper experience of music and gaining no mastery over anything but switches and buttons. Mastery takes time, something most of us have trouble finding. It takes discipline, a quality in short supply today. It takes patience, an attribute best appreciated in its absence. It takes dedication, something peer pressure and changing social mores makes more difficult all the time. And yet staying with a practice or a field for years on end offers even more than the insights already cited. Mastery, it turns out, is not merely valuable for the pure joy of gaining command of a flute, a sword, a foreign language, a woodcarver's chisel, an artist's palette, a golf club, tennis racket, calligraphy pen or guitar; mastery is all about self-knowledge. Nobody seems to talk about it anymore, but decades spent mastering something we truly love reveals us to ourselves in ways nothing else can. So let go of fear and excuses and distractions and delay. Pick whatever really rings your chimes -- you probably already know what it is -- and commit to mastering it no matter how long it takes. The decision itself will make you stronger, and the rewards are sweeter than you can possibly imagine at the start.
 
Broke State Unable To Pay Struggling Social Service Agencies Top
About 60 vendors attended a town hall meeting Monday on the South Side hosted by Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes to find out when they can expect payment from the state for the vendors' services to disadvantaged individuals and families. The state has not been able to pay its bills on time because of the dogged economy, and when the state cannot pay, vendors like Blue Gargoyle feel the sting.
 
Grant Cardone: Teenage Unemployment Hits 20% Top
With 20% of all teenagers unable to find a job it is obvious that what our children are learning in the school system is not valued in the marketplace! While our current economic contraction is causing much of the increase in unemployment amongst this age group the reality is employers do not value the skill set or work ethic of these potential workers. There is a disconnect between what is being taught in schools and what is needed and valued in the marketplace. The basic understandings of discipline, team work, purpose, drive, contribution, doing whatever it takes, enthusiasm, appreciation for work, task completion, and communication skills are completely neglected in the schools today and have been for many years. With a 1/3 dropout rate, it is obvious that even the kids do not believe that what they are being taught will benefit them outside the classroom. While I hear so many politicians speak of their 'great concern' about what our kids will inherit, the facts are without understanding of how to work and an appreciation for work, combined with basic skills that are applicable in the real world, it will matter not what they inherit for they won't be equipped to work their way through it! The economy is only as efficient as the workforce that makes it up! While too many jobs have been lost to other countries offering lower wages, we have also lost jobs to cultures where the workforce appears more appreciative and more willing to do whatever it takes. Go to India and China and see how motivated and shamelessly willing the individual worker is to sell, promote and market the products, services of the company or industry they work. You don't have to look far, here at home, to see people suffering from a lack of purpose, enthusiasm, communication kills, team work, the handling of stress, multitasking, organizational skills, and the ability to complete a simple task. Heaven forbid you mention the word selling and the worker looks at you with disdain. This disconnected attitude communicates, "Give me my salary, let me do my job and whether the company actually collects revenue has nothing to do with me." Both the current workforce and our next generations of workers must be taught real world applicable skills that can connect with the solving of problems! The worker today must transition from thinking about his job to how his/her job is connected to the creation of revenue for the solvency of the company and security of that job! Grant Cardone, author of Sell to Survive More on Job Cuts
 
Australia's Animals Scorched In Wildfires Top
SYDNEY — One turtle's shell melted and fused to its body, while a baby wallaby's ears were fried to a crisp. Kangaroos seared their feet, and birds scorched by Australia's worst-ever wildfires plummeted from the sky. More than 180 people were killed in the weekend's fires, and on Wednesday, the scope of the devastation to Australia's wildlife began to emerge with officials estimating millions of animals also perished in the inferno. "It's just horrific," said Neil Morgan, president of the Statewide Wildlife Rescue Emergency Service in Victoria, the state where the raging fires were still burning. "It's disaster all around for humans and animals as well." Animal shelters and clinics across the region have been inundated with hundreds of burned and blistered creatures who escaped the fires. Many of the kangaroos rescuers found were suffering from burned feet, a result of their territorial behavior, one rescuer said. After escaping the initial flames, the creatures _ which like to stay in one area _ likely circled back to their homes, singeing their feet on the smoldering ground. Already one furry survivor has emerged a star: a koala, nicknamed "Sam" by her rescuers, was found moving gingerly on scorched paws by a fire patrol on Sunday. Firefighter David Tree offered the creature a bottle of water, which she eagerly accepted, holding Tree's hand as he poured water into her mouth. A photograph of the encounter has now been seen around the world. Sam was being treated at the Mountain Ash Wildlife Shelter in Rawson, 100 miles (170 kilometers) east of Melbourne, where she has attracted the attention of a male koala, nicknamed "Bob," manager Coleen Wood said. The two have been inseparable for the past few days, with Bob keeping a protective watch over his new friend, she said. Meanwhile, workers at the shelter were scrambling to salve the wounds of possums, kangaroos, lizards _ "everything and anything," Wood said. "We had a turtle come through that was just about melted _ still alive," Wood said. "The whole thing was just fused together _ it was just horrendous. It just goes to show how intense (the fire) was in the area." The animals arriving appear stressed, but generally seem to understand the veterinarians are trying to help them, Wood said. Kangaroos and koalas are widespread in Australia and are not particularly scared of humans. Wildlife Victoria, a wildlife rescue group, has teams in place at several staging areas near the worst-hit regions, with volunteers seeing a range of injuries from burned lungs and smoke inhalation to singed paws. Rescuers were just being allowed to venture into the blackened zones Wednesday, and while the scope of the impact on wildlife was still unclear, it was likely to be enormous, Wildlife Victoria president Jon Rowdon said. "We've got a wallaby joey at the moment that has crispy fried ears because he stuck his head out of his mum's pouch and lost all his whiskers and cooked up his nose," he said. "They're the ones your hearts really go out to." Rescuers had set up vaporizing tents to help creatures whose lungs were burned by the searing heat and smoke. "There will probably be a significant number which probably can only be euthanized to end their suffering," Rowdon said. "And my heart goes out to the people who are given that task." ___ On the Net: Wildlife Victoria: http://www.wildlifevictoria.org.au/cms/ More on Australia
 
Alan Fein: Underestimate Obama At Your Peril Top
I received an email from a friend in Los Angeles overnight telling me that my buddy Chris Matthews quoted me on the midnight edition of Hardball . Earlier on Monday, I had emailed Chris to vent my frustration. For the last week or so I had been throwing things at my television while listening to Washington insiders tell me what a naive, stupid rookie Barack Obama was. It seemed to me that I had heard it all before, beginning early in the primary season, when Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, Howard Wolfson, called the Obama campaign "amateur hour." Then, everyone in Washington chuckled about how Hillary was running rings around Obama, how he was being "too nice" while she smashed him up. Then, in July and August, those who really understood politics insisted that "Obama's letting McCain define him," and he was blowing the election. Each time, this Obama guy paid attention to his own clock, and stepped up when he needed to. By holding back on Hillary while he methodically collected delegates, he was able to win over her supporters and actually make many of them enthusiastic for him in the fall. By reacting to McCain with grace, he was able to look like the grownup when the stuff hit the fan. I think Washington insiders underestimate Obama at their peril, and often look silly doing it. They act like the kid who used to be the smartest kid in the class, until the new kid came along. They remain in denial, convinced they know better. I try civil cases for a living. To me, the way Washington reacted last week reminded me of how an occasional client will react with panic while the other side is putting on a case. The client is worried that I'm not doing anything to stop them, and I'm letting them control the agenda. The savvier client stays calm. He knows we are right on the merits, and he knows how it will all play out. The truth is, the other side gets to put on their case. They get to talk, too. Even if it is stupid. You have to sit there and look respectful (and hopefully graceful and confident) while they are doing it. When it's our turn, we will cross examine them and put on evidence, and take out their entrails. Obama chose to begin by letting the other guys -- the guys who have been wrong for eight years -- have their say. He was nice to them. He had them over for drinks and the Super Bowl. In return, they treated him like a dog, and the people inside the Beltway laughed at how dumb Obama was. Now, Obama is having his say. He's putting on his evidence. Today here in Florida, he'll call one of his witnesses, our Republican governor, who actually has to deal with the mess his party in Washington has created for him. He is driving a wedge between local Republican officeholders and Republican congressmen and senators. This morning I heard the host of Morning Joe suggest that Washington might have gotten it wrong by beating up on Obama for two weeks, as 67% of the people agree with the way Obama is handling the crisis while 58% are unhappy with the Republicans in Congress. In fact, Obama has again treated his adversaries with respect, whether they deserve it or not. Again, he looks like the grownup, because he is. People outside of Washington really like that. Some of the experts are saying, "Well, he could have done all this a week ago." But, in fact, now is the time the rubber is meeting the road. Now, its voting time and conference committee time. It's closing argument time. You want to win the case when the jury begins to deliberate. As I say, underestimate this guy at your peril. More on Barack Obama
 
Holly Cara Price: Rubbernecking: Rock of Love Bus with Bret Michaels, Week Five Top
Since Valentines Day - or, perhaps more appropriately, VD - is this week, we'll begin our rubbernecking with VH1's Rock of Love Bus with Bret Michaels . Bret Michaels, who is both a solo um, artist and the lead singer from the band Poison, started to channel his inner Flavor Flav in July 2007 with VH1's Rock of Love , in which a posse of um, cats moved into his big mansion so he could sort through them and ultimately decide who would become his main squeeze. The winner, Jes, revealed after the show's finale that she was not similarly inclined on the Reunion show, and said she thought he should have picked the second runner up, Heather. Checkmate! New season on the horizon! Rock of Love Season II premiered January 2008, with a similar premise as the first series. After a season chockfull of horrendous skankdom, Bret chose a gal calling herself Ambre Lake (seriously) as the winner, and we haven't yet been told why that didn't work out. Hmmm... ratings, perhaps? In any case, Rock of Love Bus with Bret Michaels premiered January 4 of this year with an entertaining new twist. Instead of the girls moving in to Bret's Hollywood mansion, since he is a self professed road hog who spends most of his time playing concerts in America's heartland (can you say Dubuque, IA? Thackerville, OK? Jim Thorpe, PA?), he's taking the um, cat posse on the road with him in two tour buses - one pink (for the blondes) and one blue (for the brunettes). I guess he doesn't like redheads. So as we hop onto the bus, so to speak, ROLB has just aired Episode #5. This ep began with the buses rolling in to the parking lot of Larry Flynt's Hustler Club outside St. Louis (I can hardly think of a more depressing scenario). The girls were challenged to beautify - er, skankify - three rather icky looking Midwest chicks. The result was kind of like heroin addict train wrecks. I mean, post makeovers, you could picture all three of them under a bridge somewhere in the burbs of St. Louis flashing some leg to make some easy cash and score a fix. It was that bad. After they are paraded out to show Bret the girls' handiwork, our hero turns the tables on the um, cat posse and announces that he's bringing the three new girls along for the duration of the tour. Because, well, he's not really feelin' it with any of the current skanks, in spite of their copious tattoos, slutty outfits, and bad hair dye jobs. The only one he's even remotely interested in, it seems, is Ashley, who scores big with Brett this week with both a private solo acoustic show on the bus and a sleepover. The other drama of the week is that the girls are positive that Natasha (AKA Man-Voice) is really a dude. Natasha's way over the top eye makeup (think fake eyelashes on top of fake eyelashes), her husky voice, and her penchant for always wearing tutus (what's she hiding?) have everyone convinced. Although our hero insists that this gossip has nothing to do with his decision, he sends her on her way with these words, "I think that you're a stunningly beautiful girl. I think in a different world we would have really hooked up and had a great time. Know what I mean?" After which they hug and we hear the romantic sound of microphones being crushed against Bret's Ed Hardy leather jacket. Natasha gets a special shout out at the end of the show from Bret, who wishes her well. You can kind of feel that she'll return as a guest star on a future season treating the girls viciously, a la Lacey. Quote of the week is from Farrah, who opines "What the French??" after the three new girls are the first picked to stay at elimination. Yes, for the time being, they will continue to rock Bret's world. Outfit of the week is Brittanya's at the elimination, kind of a cross between Jane Fonda in Barbarella and the cheapest whore you've ever seen. My pick for next off the bus is either Beverly (too mouthy and actually, normal - she doesn't belong here) or Brittanya (she almost was tossed off this week. Apparently she has no brain, though she does have other attributes Bret likes). Happy VD!
 
Deirdre Imus: On Vaccinations: Consider the Source and Follow the Money Top
Last month, Dr. Paul Offit, Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the vaccine industry's most outspoken activist, warned Huffington Post readers not to "risk going unvaccinated." When presented with conflicting information on a critically important health issue I generally follow two simple rules...educate myself on the issue and "follow the money." When it came to Dr. Paul Offit, and the credibility of this advice, this was an easy assignment. I normally wouldn't waste my time responding to Dr. Offit. After all, he is entitled to his opinion. However, this man's relentless campaign that includes attacking concerned parents and the dissemination of false information needs to be exposed for what it is. Dr. Offit has been on a very aggressive crusade in defense of vaccines for years. With what appears to be unlimited resources, Offit is routinely granted ample unchallenged opportunities to mount his campaign in newspapers around the country. In recent years, Offit has become the "go-to guy" on all things related to vaccines. While other physicians, civic leaders and even members of congress are denied the opportunity to share their views on this issue, Offit is frequently provided with generous op-ed space to promote his views on the safety of vaccines, the need to take away vaccine exemptions, and the need to protect vaccine manufacturers from any liability. In short, if the word vaccine or autism appears in the article, so does Dr. Offit. In his recent Huffington editorial, Offit continues his attack on worried parents who choose not to vaccinate their children, or even just spread them out a little, which the CDC says is okay to do. He blames them for the relatively small outbreaks of childhood diseases. In this case, last year's 135 cases of measles. ...the reason that some parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children is based on the mistaken notion that vaccines cause autism; or that vaccines cause diabetes or multiple sclerosis or asthma or allergies; or that vaccines weaken or overwhelm the immune system; or that vaccines have not been adequately tested. Many studies have addressed these concerns and should have reassured parents. But there appears to be a rift between studies that exonerate vaccines and the public's knowledge of those studies. First of all, Dr. Offit is quite frankly, "full of it." The reason some parents are choosing alternative vaccine schedules, or to not vaccinate their children, is because they have lost confidence in the safety of vaccines and the people who recommend them, like Dr. Paul Offit. The level of distrust is evident in the nearly 500 comments posted in response to his article. There are also some children who have serious medical conditions, or have experienced severe life-threatening reactions to previously administered vaccines, which make them vulnerable to subsequent adverse vaccine reactions. In consultation with their physician, some children are given medical exemptions because the risk of vaccination may be greater than the disease. Does Dr. Offit think he knows better than a family's personal physician when it comes to what is best for an individual child and that a child should be vaccinated anyway? Since we have Dr. Offit's Huffington piece, let's look at the credibility of his professional opinion and see if he is really providing parents with good advice. According to a 2008 study , it is Dr. Offit who might be "mistaken" when he claims vaccines don't cause diabetes. Vaccine Induced Inflammation Linked to Type 2 Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome, published in the Open Endocrinolgy Journal. [the study] shows a 50% reduction of type 2 diabetes occurred in Japanese children following the discontinuation of a single vaccine to prevent tuberculosis. The current data shows that vaccines are much more dangerous than the public is led to believe and adequate testing has never been performed even in healthy subjects to indicate that there is an overall improvement in health from immunization. The current practice of vaccinating diabetics as well as their close family members is a very risky practice," says Dr. J. Barthelow Classen. Multiple studies suggest Dr. Offit might also be "mistaken" when he says vaccines don't cause asthma or allergies. One by researchers at the UCLA School of Public Health published in 2000, examined the effects of the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DPT) and tetanus vaccines and found an asthma and allergy association in vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children. The odds of having a history of asthma was twice as great among vaccinated subjects than among unvaccinated subjects (adjusted odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 6.74). The odds of having had any allergy-related respiratory symptom in the past 12 months was 63% greater among vaccinated subjects than unvaccinated subjects (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 2.54). The associations between vaccination and subsequent allergies and symptoms were greatest among children aged 5 through 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: DTP or tetanus vaccination appears to increase the risk of allergies and related respiratory symptoms in children and adolescents. In another study published last year, Canadian scientists found childhood asthma could be reduced by 50% if the first dose of DPT is delayed by more than two months. It is Dr. Offit who is again "mistaken" when he says vaccines don't cause multiple sclerosis (MS). Published in 2004, a prospective study from the Harvard School of Public Health examined the potential link between the hepatistis B vaccine and MS. Conclusions: These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that immunization with the recombinant hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of MS. Just last month the US government's Court of Federal Claims, also known as "vaccine court," rendered a judgment awarding compensation to a woman who received the hepatitis B vaccine, developed multiple sclerosis and then died. Several more similar cases have been awarded since 2006. This is just another example of the thousands of claims awarded compensation by the special court set up to review injuries caused by vaccines. It is an indisputable fact that over the past 20 years, the vaccine court has dispensed close to $2 billion in compensation to families whose children were injured or killed by a vaccine. Dr. Offit is also "mistaken" when he claims vaccines don't "overwhelm the immune system." Last year, government officials conceded the vaccine injury claim of a young girl with autism named Hannah Poling and agreed that the family is "entitled to compensation" from the federal vaccine injury fund. [ Ga. Girl helps link autism to childhood vaccines ] In a second decision for epilepsy, medical officials from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services determined Hannah's "autistic encephalopathy" was "caused" by an "underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, exacerbated by vaccine induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves." The problem with Dr. Offit is he apparently sees no problem in misleading confused and concerned parents or his equally concerned colleagues. He routinely insults the intelligence of parents with a condescending attitude about their ability to make an informed decision. In an effort to bolster the safety of vaccines, he repeatedly cites a select group of studies he claims support his opinions and ignores the ones that don't. Each one of the epidemiological studies Offit relies upon has been discredited by experts in epidemiology for their methodological flaws and the conflicts of interest of the authors involved in those studies. None of the studies he points to have ever studied what is called "regressive autism" or examined how multiple vaccines given at the same time may affect sensitive populations. Former NIH Director, Dr. Bernadine Healy, made this very important point abundantly clear when interviewed by CBS News. I think the government, or certain public health officials in the government, have been too quick to dismiss the concerns of these families without studying the population that got sick. I haven't seen major studies that focus on three hundred kids who got autistic symptoms within a period of a few weeks of a vaccine. I think that the public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational without sufficient studies of causation. I think that they often have been too quick to dismiss studies in the animal laboratory, either in mice, in primates, that do show some concerns with regard to certain vaccines and also to the mercury preservative in vaccines. Just to be clear, I am not against vaccines and my own child has been vaccinated. But I share the growing concerns of many parents that have studied this issue closely and question the number of vaccines given to children under today's recommended schedule, some of the toxic ingredients in vaccines, and whether we know enough about the synergistic effects of multiple vaccines given to immune compromised children and during critical developmental windows. A vaccine profiteer personified -- he is now a multimillionaire from his partnership with Merck -- Dr. Offit doesn't share these concerns and continually makes intellectually and factually dishonest remarks regarding vaccine safety. In a 2005 article in Babytalk magazine, Dr. Offit irresponsibly claimed a "healthy infant could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once." By anyone's standard this is a sensational and stupid statement that has no basis in fact, and speaks volumes about Dr. Offit's objectivity. As a consultant to Merck and patent holder on the Rotavirus vaccine, Offit has built a career, and perhaps a fortune, defending vaccines. He is also affiliated with several industry-funded organizations like Parents of Kids with Infectious Diseases (PKIDs) and Every Child by Two (ECBT). In short, a highly visible, very well paid public relations machine for the vaccine industry. Offit is the embodiment of Upton Sinclair's theorem; "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Whenever I read yet another Offit editorial I am immediately reminded of the massive propaganda campaign waged by the tobacco, asbestos and lead industries. It is called "manufacturing uncertainty," and has been an essential industry marketing strategy for decades. David Michaels, a former Assistant Secretary of Energy and professor at George Washington University School of Public Health explained this strategy in The Art of 'Manufacturing Uncertainty' . ...By definition, uncertainties abound in our work; there's nothing to be done about that. Our public health and environmental protection programs will not be effective if absolute proof is required before we act. The best available evidence must be sufficient. Otherwise, we'll sit on our hands and do nothing. Of course, this is often exactly what industry wants. That's why it has mastered the art of manufacturing uncertainty, of demanding often impossible proof over common-sense precaution in the realm of public health. The tobacco industry led the way. For 50 years, cigarette manufacturers employed a stable of scientists willing to assert (sometimes under oath) that there was no conclusive evidence that cigarettes cause lung cancer, or that nicotine is addictive. An official at Brown & Williamson, a cigarette maker now owned by R.J. Reynolds, once noted in a memo: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public." Toward that end, the tobacco manufacturers dissected every study, highlighted every question, magnified every flaw, cast every possible doubt every possible time. They also conjured their own studies with questionable data and foregone conclusions. It was all a charade, of course, because the real science was inexorable. But the uncertainty campaign was effective; it delayed public health protections, and compensation for tobacco's victims, for decades. The tobacco industry, left without a stitch of credibility or public esteem, has finally abandoned that strategy -- but it led the way for others... Decades from now, this campaign to manufacture uncertainty will surely be viewed with the same dismay and outrage with which we now look back on the deceits perpetrated by the tobacco industry. But will it be too late? To say Dr. Offit has a stake, professionally, financially and perhaps legally, in dispelling the risks associated with vaccines in general, and refuting any association between vaccines and autism specifically, is a colossal understatement. We can all learn a great deal by simply looking back on history and remembering how corporations, whose products are linked to serious diseases, employed scientists, physicians and public relation firms to disseminate misinformation and manage the business of "damage control." By doing so, we realize that we have seen Offit's act before. More than ever, as more vaccines are recommended, parents simply want safer vaccines and a more individualized vaccination schedule. Dr. Offit does nothing to repair the confidence chasm regarding vaccine safety. In reality, he makes matters worse with his patented brand of hubris so overbearing and uncompromising, that he undermines his own credibility and the credibility of the vaccine program he so desperately seeks to protect. Of course this is just my opinion. More on Autism
 
Joseph Minton Amann and Tom Breuer: Media Drunk Tank: A Spendulus for the Rest of Us Top
Oh, the folks at Fox News are a witty group. They somehow manage to combine Aryan good looks with the comedic sensibility of a Rush Limbaugh...or maybe Gallagher's brother. You see, the kids over at Fox News refer to the Stimulus Bill as a "Spendulus Bill." Get it? Because it involves a lot of spending. Hilarious, right? We'll wait while you hold your side, Sally Jo. But just in case you don't get the joke, they repeat it over and over. On February 10, it was the lead story on FoxNews.com: "Senate OKs 'Spendulus' Bill." And just in case you didn't catch it there, two headlines down: "'Spendulus' Debate on Senate Floor: WATCH LIVE." And further down the page: "Will Americans Block the 'Spendulus' Plan Before It's Too Late?" Ah, yes. Pray tell, how do lesser men breathe in the rarefied air of the Fox newsroom? It's as if the Algonquin Roundtable traveled through time, was gradually replaced by members of your community college's introduction to creative writing class, and started meeting on alternate Tuesdays at Arby's. Now, there are obviously quite a few insipid twits writing copy over at Fox News and, yes, a lot of them seem to have access to the teleprompters, but is this what it's come to? Coulterisms? And while the network's flair for comedy was more than exposed in the criminally unfunny 1/2 Hour News Hour and the even less humorous late-night show Red Eye , do they really need to crib from Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin? But maybe this is just more of that good old-fashioned straight shootin' we've come to expect from Fox News. CNN and MSNBC never refer to the current stimulus package as a "Spendulus" Bill. Those damn liberals--always spinning. Please Call Your First Sexpert to the Stand Fox News has finally addressed the issue of "persistent genital arousal disorder" or PGAD (which we always thought had something to do with gay grandparents). In a piece titled, "FOXSexpert: The Never-Ending Orgasm," we learned that this condition "might sound like a dream come true" but it's really "an absolute nightmare." The odd thing is that on Foxnews.com, the piece is accompanied by a picture of the writer, Fox sex correspondent Yvonne K. Fulbright, showing cleavage and coyly biting the tip of her eyeglasses. Dr. Fulbright explains, "Attempts at relief include self-pleasuring or having sex with a partner. Yet these sexual activities provide only temporary relief or actually exacerbate the problem." The same could be said for being an O'Reilly intern. All we can say is, for being the nation's No. 1 "conservative" network, Fox sure has a knack for mixing its hard news with soft-core porn. It's as if National Review began running the rejected Penthouse Forum letters of William F. Buckley Jr. Who's the Loser Now, Chia Head? Donald Trump was a supporter of John McCain back when an old man with horrible taste in women could still dream of being elected leader of the free world. We saw a lot of him back then. He paraded around on The Factor and Hannity & Colmes and every other show that would book him to discuss the real estate market, politics, and Rosie O'Donnell's waistline. Well, it turns out Trump could now use a loan from the former daytime talk show host. Back in December of '07 when the Trump-O'Donnell feud was blistering, his stock (TRMP) was at 22.37 a share. By January of last year, it was down to 3.03 a share. And now it hovers around 25 cents a share. Now change has come to more than just Washington. Suddenly the Donald is all about Obama, telling Greta Van Susteren, "We have a young, vibrant, smart president who, I think, is going to do a really good job" and "is going about things the right way." That's right, Donald. Kiss up now while you can still try to negotiate some of your overleveraged assets. The man needs a bailout more than his nightly Enzyte smoothie. That being said, we can't wait to see Joan Rivers go postal on the new season of Celebrity Apprentice. Hey, There's a Dating Site for Sean Hannity Fans. Seriously. Are you an angry white man who browbeats and verbally harangues his friends and family, loves guns and theocracy, is still holding out hope that a porno of Barack Obama will one day surface clearly showing the president's Kenyan birth certificate stuck to Bill Ayers' sweaty forehead, and is inexplicably alone for Valentine's Day? Well, then you're a prime candidate for Hannidate! Over at Sean Hannity's online fiefdom, hannity.com, you can find anything a fearful, disaffected, right-wing sex machine would need, including the ephemeral hope of a love you don't have to purchase with leftover freeze-dried food and surplus ammunition from your halcyon Michigan Militia days. Here's how hannity.com's Web toady describes Hannidate: "Hannidate--The place where people of like conservative minds can come together to meet. Whether you are looking for a life partner, or just someone to hang out with, here you'll be able to find exactly who you are looking for, locally or around the world." Hmmm--"or around the world." In other words, you get access to roughly the same database as members of russianbrides.com but at a fraction of the price. Now, Hannity is clearly not King Crazybritches over at Fox. That honor undeniably goes to Bill O'Reilly. Combining the recessive crazy alleles of two Bill O'Reilly fans would no doubt lead to a dangerously unstable genome that might herald the rise of a distinct species of unhinged sociopaths that could very well imperil civilization itself, and we urge all world governments and the UN to take appropriate and immediate measures to prevent this. But if Hannity's not nuts himself, at the very least he's manufactured at a facility that processes them. His male viewers are paranoid, angry, rabid, wild-eyed fans-o'-fetus who desperately need love. His female viewers? Well, they don't exist now, do they? (And, yes, we do realize Ann Coulter watches the program.) So sign up for Hannidate now! It's never too late to find that special someone who continually parrots banal reactionary jargon and looks unsettlingly like one of Ronald Reagan's old colonoscopy videos. More on Fox News
 
Eric C. Anderson: Hold the Intelligence Community Accountable Top
As a member of the intelligence community, I understand the appeal of the truth commissions suggested by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Congressman John Conyers (D-MI). This nation would be well-served by a non-partisan investigation of matters such as the treatment and torture of terrorism suspects. While this is certainly an important policy matter, rather than focusing on the actions of particular interrogators I suggest considering a broader concern--the value and accuracy of information the intelligence community has provided over the past decade. It is well known that questionable interrogation techniques were employed in pursuit of the Global War on Terrorism. It is also clear these techniques were approved by political appointees in the Bush administration. So who should be held accountable? The interrogators or their supervisors? Recent history shows us it is easy to prosecute the interrogators--the government employees, members of the military, and defense contractors who did what they were told by those in authority. We now know these authorities assured the interrogators their conduct was necessary and legal. There is scant evidence to suggest, however, that those who actually ordered waterboarding or other overly aggressive and unproven interrogation tactics are likely to be held responsible for their roles. We need only look as far as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal for confirmation of this suspicion. Focusing on the value and accuracy of intelligence would allow a truth commission to incorporate President Obama's desire to look forward. We need a strong understanding of how and why our intelligence has failed in so many instances so that we can make smarter, sounder decisions in the future. To that end, the intelligence community should lay out its track record for a full public accounting. How can this be done? First, commission members should review all reports issued by the National Intelligence Council since 2000. That would include the 2003 Iraq National Intelligence Estimate, evaluations of Iran's nuclear intentions, and a passel of lesser documents including Sense of the Community Memorandums. Then the commission should evaluate the reports. First, members should determine whether the intelligence community made the correct call. This might be tough as intelligence community managers like to bury their assessments in a plethora of "possiblys" and "probablys." The next task is to identify which intelligence community agencies actually made correct calls--and which repeatedly missed the mark. This requires nothing more than a simple tally sheet. Follow up with two sets of hearings. The first session should be with working level analysts--leaving managers and bosses out. Ask these analysts what calls they made and why. Have them lay out the data and explain how they reached their assessments. Then ask them whether their assessments actually made the final reports. My bet: more often than not, the answer will be no. Now turn to the managers. Ask them the same questions as those asked of the analysts with one addition. Why did they or didn't they change the analysts' final call? The number of "I don't recall" responses may well equal those provided by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during his hearings regarding the U.S. Attorney scandal. This is the opportunity for the truth commission to determine whether assessments were changed to meet political agendas. Hearings cannot be an end in and of themselves, it is critical to impose accountability. The best way for Congress to do this is not with legislation, but through the power of the purse. Intelligence agencies with a demonstrated track record of providing decision makers with accurate, valuable information should be awarded greater funding. Those who failed to meet the mark should see their budgets reduced. Intelligence failures should be met with the same consequences encountered in private industry. Success is awarded with profit and recognition while inadequate results lead to bankruptcy and a search for new employment options. It's time for Congress to hold the intelligence community accountable and Senator Leahy may be offering just the means to accomplish that task.
 
Alon Ben-Meir: The Violence And Settlements Anathema (Part 2) Top
To make serious progress toward a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, George Mitchell must first work on restoring confidence in a peace process that years of havoc and destruction have all but destroyed. To that end, he needs to address the two core sensitive issues that both Israelis and Palestinians place tremendous importance on--ending the violence and fundamentally shifting the settlements policy. The settlements issue has been contentious not only between Israel and the Palestinians but within Israel itself. No issue has eroded the Palestinian's confidence in the peace process more than the settlements. For the Israelis, the settlements and their expansion are a highly emotional and politically charged national subject. Any future Israeli government will face vehement opposition from the settler's movement, which exercises disproportionate power on the government's policy toward its activities. Ideally, building a structure of peace and instilling trust in the negotiating process would require a complete freeze of all settlement activities including the settlement blocks that Israel wishes to incorporate into Israel proper in exchange for a land swap to compensate the Palestinians for the territory. But that may be easier said than done. To provide some practical suggestions, it is necessary to break down the settlers' movement into its three basic constituencies. In so doing some possible interim solutions can realistically be made to demonstrate to the Palestinians that Israel intends on changing its settlements' policy and evacuating the vast majority of the West Bank. The quality-of-life settlers are those who moved to the West Bank primarily for economic reasons, the majority of whom live in the block of settlements located closer to the green line. According to Peace Now statistics, there are about 190,000 residents in these settlements, several of which are no longer considered settlements and officially have been named as cities, home to more than 30,000 people each including Ma'ale Adumim, Modi'in and Beitar. The routing of the security fence leaves most of these settlements on the Israeli side of the fence. The pressure on the government to allow for natural growth in these settlements is enormous and no government is likely to freeze completely their natural expansion even under intense American pressure. The ideological settlers use mainly religious arguments to justify the settlements and their presence in the West Bank. They view the return of the Jews to the land of Israel as a fulfillment of God's will. They occupy settlements located for the most part deep inside the West Bank very close to and often in the heart of Palestinian populated areas. It is quite evident however that the public support for these settlements is declining. A growing majority of Israelis tend to accept the fact that the Israel will need to evacuate most of these nearly 100 settlements that dot the West Bank. The Ultra-orthodox settlers in the West Bank are a function almost exclusively of cheap and segregated housing close to the Green Line. They are descendents of devoutly religious Jews who oppose change and modernization. They have historically rejected active Zionism and continue to believe that the path to Jewish redemption is through religious rather than secular activity. There are eight ultra orthodox settlements that were built in the eighties and nineties with roughly 80,000 residents, all of which are located within the settlement blocks that Israel wants to incorporate into Israel proper. These settlements are currently expanding more rapidly than other settlements due primarily to a higher birth rate. Based on the settlers' ideological leanings and the location of the settlements, Mr. Mitchell should focus on four possible areas where he can persuade the next Israeli government to take action, considering the political constraints under which any future Israeli coalition government operates. First Mitchell should push for the dismantling of all new illegal outposts; the government can take this action without losing much political capital and it can certainly justify it by citing American pressure. The mushrooming of new outposts has been a terrible source of Palestinian frustration as they signify further entrenchment rather than disengagement. Second on the agenda should be removing small clusters of settlements occupied by ideological activist settlers in places such as Nablus and Hebron that are troublesome and heavily tax Israel's security forces. All of these settlements are deep in the West Bank and most Israelis agree that they must eventually be evacuated for any peace deal. Third, Israel must create a program of diminishing incentive that will provide settlers who are willing to relocate voluntarily with equal housing an extra incentive of say $100,000 if they leave within the first year from the initiation of the program. (This amount is compelling based on the Israeli standard of living.) The incentive will then be reduced by $25,000 every six months thereafter. The idea is to create reverse migrations to Israel proper while psychologically preparing the Israeli public and the Palestinians for the inevitability of ending the occupation. While many settlers will not accept the compensation and try to hold out for a better deal, the government must be resolute and not give into blackmail; these settlers must eventually be forcefully evacuated with no incentive. Lastly, whereas a complete moratorium on expansion of settlements may be untenable, the United States can exert sufficient pressure on Israel to be sensitive to Palestinian sensibilities and not commence major development projects at sensitive moments in the negotiations. Meanwhile, the negotiations on the final borders should be accelerated to reach an agreement on the settlements that Israel could incorporate into its own territory. Such an agreement with the Palestinians would greatly facilitate the movement of ideological settlers from their current locations to these settlements while still fulfilling their ideological mission. The new Israeli prime minister, including Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, is likely to be under intense American pressure to make meaningful concessions for advancing the peace. Although Netanyahu as a Prime Minister will be a tough negotiator and will demand full compliance in return from the Palestinians for any concession he makes, he may also prove to be the more worthy interlocutor and more trusted by the public. It should be noted that the largest territorial concessions--the Sinai, Hebron and Gaza were all made by Likud leaders Begin, Netanyahu and Sharon respectively. Mr. Mitchell concluded his report of the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee with the following words, "Israelis and Palestinians have to live, work, and prosper together. History and geography have destined them to be neighbors. That cannot be changed. Only when their actions are guided by this awareness will they be able to develop the vision and reality of peace and shared prosperity." No American president has taken such a keen and immediate concern with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict this early in his term as President Obama, and no agreement between Israel and the Arab states has been achieved without direct American involvement. If time, circumstances and leadership matter, there may not be a better time to push for a solution than now. (This is part two of a two-part analysis on violence and the settlements in Israel and the Palestinian territories.) More on Israel
 
Joseph A. Palermo: Republicans: Spare Me Your Newfound "Fiscal Responsibility" Top
At his press conference on Monday, President Barack Obama had to remind Mara Liasson of Fox News and NPR that it was the Republicans who doubled the national debt over the past eight years and it's a little strange to be hearing lectures from them now about how to be fiscally responsible. That interchange was my favorite part of the press conference. A savvy inside-the-Beltway reporter of Ms. Liasson's caliber shouldn't have to be reminded that George W. Bush and the Republican Congress were among the most fiscally reckless politicians in U.S. history. The most inexcusable action the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration took vis-à-vis the federal budget was to launch two wars and two open-ended occupations without raising one dime in revenues to pay for them. Never in the history of this country has an administration and Congress cut taxes while launching open-ended wars. Bush and the Republican Congress didn't think twice before throwing the entire $850 billion price tag for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars right onto the national debt. Not only did they refuse to pass new "revenue enhancements" to pay for the wars, but they also fought tooth and nail to block any legislation that would raise revenues. They didn't budge an inch on repealing the totally irresponsible Bush tax cuts of 2001 that immediately ballooned the deficit before 9-11. Any "conservative" administration and Congress (one would think) would either raise taxes to pay for their new wars or at least roll back the tax cuts they enacted upon seizing power. In 2008, John McCain campaigned on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. So pardon me for not being moved when I hear Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, and other Washington Republicans (along with the Right's echo chamber) whining and griping about the "excessive spending" in the stimulus bill and the effects it will have on the national debt. The journalist Will Bunch illustrates the cultural production and consumption of an ersatz Reaganism that contemporary Republicans are aping in his new book, Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future. Bunch lifts the veil on the Reagan myth and shows that it is a product of a "Ronald Reagan Legacy Project" that rightwingers launched in 1997. "The areas where Bush diverged" from Reagan, Bunch writes, "were the areas where the Gipper had done his very best: using rhetoric to motivate and inspire confidence, dealing with mistakes and those times when compromise or even backpedaling were necessary, [and] a willingness to talk to enemies . . ." (pp. 168-169). The posturing of the Washington Republicans since Obama was elected proves correct the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard when he outlined his understanding of "simulacrum" in advanced capitalist societies where ideologies and images are copies of copies without originals. It's the kind of Reaganism mass produced on T-shirts and coffee mugs, not the real record of Reagan's actions when he was president like his "cutting and running" in Lebanon, or his raising taxes thirteen times to ward off an even worse fiscal crisis, or his negotiating in an atmosphere of detente with the Soviet Union he once called an "evil empire." The Republicans today are conforming to an ideology based on a myth that other Republicans created in 1997, a copy of a copy without an original. So in 2009 what is left of the Grand Old Party? It appears that Republican politics today have become the politics of pastiche: They love independent women like Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter yet they hate independent women like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi; they love tax cuts and deregulation yet they also love to control women's bodies and decide who shall marry and who shall not; they love fictive workers like Joe the Plumber yet they hate real workers who want to pass the Employee Free Choice Act; and they hate the Senate filibuster until they love it to death. And while the "angry white male" is becoming the UNEMPLOYED "angry white male" the Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele says "work" does not mean "jobs." More on Stimulus Package
 
Indra Adnan: Is Hillary Soft Enough to be Smart? Top
Hillary Clinton's forthcoming trip to Asia will be the first test of 'smart power' - America's new comprehensive tool box for international relations. For those who don't keep up with the jargon, smart power is a balance between what Joseph Nye termed 'soft power' (getting results without the use of force) and 'hard power' (using both arms and money to have your way with the world). While soft power has been around for over 20 years and has become a globally accepted measure - particularly in Asia where Hillary is heading - smart power will be under close scrutiny. But what is genuinely new about smart power ? Practitioners of conflict resolution the world over will ask how it differs, for example, from 'containment' which has always been on offer in the age of nuclear deterrence. We are all familiar with the idea of 'speaking softly while carrying a big stick ' - that's what we pay our diplomats for. Certainly, history suggests that, the world over, we could afford to shift foreign policy explicitly towards soft power. According to the Oxford Research Group , since the 1990s more wars have been ended by negotiated settlement (59) than by military victory (27). Moreover, out of 285 campaigns to resist dictatorship in the 20th century, non-violent campaigns have achieved success 55% of the time, compared to 28.4% for violent resistance campaigns. In truth, soft power has a better record. Yet in our responses to conflict, whether in the government or in our media, we continue to give hard power credit - as if it were the one thing we can ultimately rely on when we are under threat. It doesn't help that in the battle for the Democratic nomination, Hillary was the 'hard power candidate'. Her stated readiness to "obliterate" Iran in the event of open conflict, contrasted sharply with Obama's willingness to go into talks with no pre-conditions. But herein lies a poignant truth about women in politics: Hilary could not then and cannot now afford to promote 'soft power' for fear of appearing weak . 'Smart power', given her own concerns about politics and gender, is the best she can do. Going into politics for women has always required a tacit denial of all things soft. Children are managed away; relationships are hidden; sensuality is boxed away in power suits and heavy briefcases. Discussion is conducted like a sport - competitive debate rather than the engaging dialogue that women excel in. Bombastic or witty performances score much higher than effective mediation. And any vulnerability is eagerly pounced upon. With these hard edges, politics has alienated a lot of women (as well as men). Although the numbers have risen significantly at the top level - 15% women in Bush's cabinet to 25% women in Obama's - the general picture is less encouraging with only one extra woman in the Senate and 10 in the House. And a dearth of women in politics impoverishes our public life. Research has shown that women are better mediators, networkers and holistic thinkers - those soft power skills that are sorely needed in the traditionally male bastions of finance and international relations right now. But as Feminocracy found in a recent report, they are rarely tempted to apply for the jobs. And out of all the conventional wisdoms being challenged at the moment, probably the most striking is this: it might take a male leader - Obama himself - to enable a real surge in authentic female leadership . And the key to this will be the President's instinctive understanding of the effectiveness of soft power. Soft power is the very essence of the Obama phenomenon . He won his votes, not simply through the hard power of wealthy friends and business - although there were some - but through the interactions of networks and community activists. Since the election, all these networks have continued at the same pace, their continuing force felt on Martin Luther King Day when Obama called upon every citizen to do some voluntary work in the community - starting with his own family. He took on the Republicans, not by vilifying them - the easiest of targets at this time - but by reaching out to them, in a transcendent vision of a re-united America. He didn't reason away his plural origins, he championed them, going as far as to use his middle name - Hussein - when taking the oath. An olive branch, maybe, to "unclench the fists" of America's modern day enemies. And as if that wasn't all soft enough, he selected the first three words of the famous Gandhi quote, " be the change you wish to see in the world" - the very antithesis of hard power - as his inaugural slogan. Even more important perhaps has been Obama's personal embodiment of soft power - his manner and style - and the way that has been reflected and magnified under a media lens. His calm, measured speech, his evident tactility and friendship with political opponents, his easily-displayed adoration of wife and family is evident to every viewer and listener. Sometimes you suspect the hand of his press agent, organizing for him to be regularly photographed in 'private' moments - alone in the tunnel, in the lift, gazing at his Blackberry - when logic suggests that the President rarely stands alone. If so, the result is to portray him as personal, accessible, vulnerable even, but not in any way weak. If this kind of coverage were extended to the rest of politics it would change the culture of politics significantly. Less the politician as public servant, standing in line, grinning for the photographer in a short burst of forced relaxation. More politician as human being - self-aware, looking to connect with the people using every tool available, interacting amongst colleagues more than performing, thinking of his family at school and in the community even as he makes policy. How ironic that it has taken a man to confidently display such softness and prove its efficacy and popularity. But maybe it takes a man to truly subvert a masculine structure from the inside. For those of us who believe that a more balanced leadership in society - not just in terms of gender, but in terms of qualities too - will deliver a different kind of governance , Obama's arrival on the international scene is very welcome. For Hillary it might just be the prompt she needs to bring out the soft power in the smart. More on Asia
 
Senators Loath To Reveal Their Own Tax History Top
When Timothy Geithner appeared before the Senate Finance Committee last month, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) accused the soon-to-be treasury secretary of "dancing around" questions about his taxes. When news broke that Tom Daschle had failed to pay taxes due on a car and driver, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) declared himself "very troubled by it." But neither Kyl nor Cornyn seems interested in answering questions about his own tax history. More on Timothy Geithner
 
James Floyd, M.D.: More Than a Band-Aid for Health Care Reform, Single-Payer is the Solution Top
As the global economic crisis deepens, our broken health care system continues to neglect an increasing number of uninsured Americans, which will top 50 million this year. Tens of millions more who have health insurance still cannot afford the care they need. The resulting illness from inadequate health coverage will lead to missed days of work and lost jobs, making it harder for us to recover from the recession. Two weeks ago, the House passed President Obama's economic stimulus plan, which includes $127 billion in federal funding to expand Medicaid and subsidize health insurance for the unemployed. Most of this has been retained in the Senate version of the bill as well. These measures are a prelude to Obama's proposal for comprehensive health care reform, which will likely boil down to increased regulation of the private insurance industry and subsidies for the poor and middle-class to purchase coverage. Some Democrats will fight to include a competing public plan. However, a weak public plan in our current system could easily become a dumping ground for patients with costly and unprofitable illness who are already shunned by private insurers. There is a better solution that will expand health care access to all Americans and also help our struggling economy: eliminate private health insurance and create a single-payer system that automatically covers everyone under one national health insurance plan. A single-payer system would be funded by progressive income taxation, rather than unaffordable premiums or employer contributions that distort labor markets and leave workers tied to undesirable jobs. It would also address the fundamental problem of costs. Private health insurers drive up health care spending with unnecessary overhead - high executive salaries, decreased cost-efficiency from smaller insured groups, and profit. They also increase administrative costs for hospitals and physicians who must deal with hundreds of different insurance plans. As a result, Americans spend 31 cents of every health care dollar on administrative costs , by far the highest rate in the world and much higher than the 17 cents spent in Canada. Further driving up costs is the unrestricted use of expensive and unproven technology and medications. Such waste is best controlled with a centralized system of payment, as has been done successfully by the Veterans Health Administration. A single-payer system would eliminate enough excess spending to provide every American with the same high-quality coverage, without spending more money than we already do. China recently announced plans to spend $123 billion to provide universal health care for its 1.3 billion citizens. Two decades after free-market reforms dismantled their system of non-profit rural-based care, drugs and visits with physicians are now unaffordable for most of the poor, who often incur crippling debts to pay for care. Chinese economists argue that providing government funding for universal coverage is important for productivity. Also, not having to worry about catastrophic health care costs encourages people to consume rather than save, providing a direct boost to the economy. These same arguments apply to the United States, where half of all personal bankruptcies and home foreclosures are caused by medical bills. Many politicians agree that a single-payer system is the best way to eliminate wasteful spending and provide health care to every American, but argue that we cannot win a battle with the narrow interests that defend our broken system. To quote President Obama during his inauguration speech: "Stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply." The economic recession and hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate bailouts and stimulus spending have changed everything. It is finally time for us to move to a single-payer system. James Floyd, M.D., is an internist and health researcher with Public Citizen . More on Stimulus Package
 
Jacob Heilbrunn: Geithner Must Go Top
As the stock market plunges, as unemployment soars, and as banks fail, who has President Obama selected to revive the economy? Henry M. Paulson's mini-me, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. It's becomingly increasingly obvious that Geithner is the single, worst choice President Obama has made to join his cabinet. Before he can do any further damage, Obama should consider appointing a Treasury Secretary who can hold a press conference without his voice cracking like a teenager just entering puberty. Geithner didn't offer a plan yesterday so much as a new faith-based initiative that is more notable for what it doesn't do than what it does. It doesn't impose pay limits on bankers and it doesn't provide any means to assure that they start lending in exchange for billions in handouts. What Geithner's plan, such as it is, would help accomplish is to create a new class of welfare kings, living high on the federal dole even as they tout the virtues of the free-market economy. Obama set the stage for Geithner by making a big deal at his press conference Monday about not wanting to release any details about the bailout so as to avoid bigfooting Geithner. But what on earth was Obama talking about? Now we know that there weren't any details for Geithner to spill in the first place, which is giving everyone else the willies. Maybe it's no wonder Geithner was suffering from stage fright. Today Wall Street executives will be grilled in congressional hearings, but it won't amount to much more than theater. The moment, though, for theatrics has ended. It's time for the administration to start acting decisively to revive a prostrate economy or watch its fearful audience start to rush toward the exits.
 
TARP Recipients Testifying For Congressmen They Bankrolled Top
The eight CEOs testifying Wednesday before the House Financial Services Committee about how their companies are using billions of dollars in bailout funds may find that the hot seat is merely lukewarm. Nearly every member of the committee received contributions associated with these financial institutions during the 2008 election cycle, for a total of $1.8 million. And 18 of the lawmakers have their own personal funds invested in the companies. All of the companies represented at the hearing have received millions, even billions, from the government's Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of New York Mellon, Bank of America, State Street Corporation, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Wells Fargo. These companies' PACs and employees gave $10.6 million to all members of the 111th Congress in the 2008 election cycle, with 61 percent of that going to Democrats. More on Goldman Sachs
 
Merrill Lynch Blasted By NY Attorney General Cuomo For Giving $3.6 Billion In Bonuses Top
NEW YORK — New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo laid out further details Wednesday about $3.6 billion in bonuses Merrill Lynch & Co. executives received, calling the investment bank's executives irresponsible. Cuomo detailed the size and scope of the bonuses in a letter sent Wednesday to U.S. House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank. "In a surprising fit of corporate irresponsibility, it appears that, instead of disclosing their bonus plans in a transparent way as requested by my office, Merrill Lynch secretly moved up the planned date to allocate bonuses and then richly rewarded their failed executives," Cuomo stated. In the letter, Cuomo said he requested information on Merrill's expected bonuses as early as Oct. 29, but never received any details about the size of the bonus pool and criteria it planned to use to make the payments. The Merrill bonuses were paid in late December, just days before Bank of America Corp. completed its purchase of New York-based Merrill. Last month, when news of the bonuses broke, former Merrill Chief Executive John Thain resigned from his new post as head of the wealth management division of the combined bank. Cuomo has already subpoenaed Thain and Bank of America's chief administrative officer, J. Steele Alphin, as he investigates the timing of the bonuses. Cuomo is likely to seek testimony from other executives at the banks, according to the letter. North Carolina's Attorney General Roy Cooper also made a request for documents from Bank of America about the bonuses. The initial reports of the bonuses came just days after Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America received an additional $20 billion from the government that it said it needed to help offset the losses it was absorbing from the Merrill acquisition. The government also promised to cover losses on more than $100 billion in risky assets. Bank of America's Chief Executive Ken Lewis is scheduled to testify Wednesday along with other banking executives whose firms have received government funds. Cuomo said in the letter that Bank of America, whose deal to acquire Merrill closed Jan. 1, was apparently complicit in the move to award bonuses before Merrill's fourth quarter earnings were announced. Bank of America spokesman Scott Silvestri said in a statement that Merrill Lynch was an independent company last year, and its board of directors had ultimate approval over how much to pay employees. Silvestri said: "Bank of America did urge the bonuses be reduced, including those at the high end. Although we had a right of consultation, it was their ultimate decision to make. In addition, a substantial amount of the Merrill bonuses were contractually guaranteed." Bank of America on the other hand, severely slashed its 2008 year-end bonuses. Bank of America's top executives received no incentive compensation in 2008, and the next level of executives bonus pool was reduced by 80 percent, Silvestri said. Thain did not take home a 2008 bonus, nor did four other top executives at Merrill: its president and chief operating officer, its president of global wealth management, its chief financial officer and its general counsel. Cuomo said four executives at Merrill alone received bonuses totaling $121 million. Nearly 700 employees received a bonus of at least $1 million. The letter did not disclose names of the bonus recipients. The North Carolina Department of Justice last week issued an "investigative demand" seeking records, including a list of Merrill employees who received bonuses. Bank of America is required to respond by March 4, according to the 11-page demand. The payouts came as Merrill was also on the brink of reporting a more than $15 billion fourth-quarter loss as it has been among the hardest hit by the ongoing credit crisis. The government helped orchestrate the acquisition of Merrill by Bank of America over the same weekend in September that another investment bank, Lehman Brothers, went under, setting off the most intense period of the financial crisis. _____ AP Business Writer Ieva M. Augstums reported from Charlotte, N.C. AP Writer Michael Gormley from Albany, N.Y. contributed to this report. More on Bailout Bandits
 
Officials May Be Banned From Putting Names On State Signs In Wake Of Blagojevich Scandal Top
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Gov. Pat Quinn has wiped former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's name from signs and office doors across the state. Now Illinois lawmakers are considering banning future governors from putting their public stamp on projects. A House panel voted 17-0 on Tuesday to restrict statewide officials from putting their names on signs and billboards paid for with state money. The move comes in the wake of complaints over Blagojevich's name on signs for the Illinois tollway system. The legislation approved Tuesday by the committee would also keep a governor's name off greeting road signs at the state's borders. Glenview Republican Rep. Beth Coulson argues the proposal is important even though Quinn already removed Blagojevich's name. The legislation, House Bill 286, now moves to the full House for further review. More on Rod Blagojevich
 
Xeth Feinberg: The Uncomfortable Circle: Social Network Top
 

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)