Saturday, February 28, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Hermene Hartman: The Three R's: Roland, Racism and Resignation Top
The Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune editorials have called for the resignation of Senator Roland Burris. I oppose their position. I should hope fraternities, preachers, politicians, teachers, civil rights organizations, unions and the black press would stand up at this time and take a stand for Senator Burris. Roland's integrity is intact. His public relations machine is not. The whirlwind has been caused by the fact that he started from scratch--no office, no campaign--he started at ground zero. One day, he stood up to be the Illinois senator of the United States. Now, it is time to stand up to the job. Roland voted for President Obama's stimulus package. His vote was needed for the passing of the bill. Perhaps a Democratic sense is that Burris served his purpose and now he is dispensable. Ulterior Motives This is a coveted seat and the Republicans want it badly and so do some Democrats. Look closer. All who are calling for his resignation have vested interests. Governor Pat Quinn wants to put his own person in the seat. And if we follow Quinn's lead of holding a special election, it would take 180 days to do so and it could cost a bankrupt state $50 million dollars. That's money that we don't have. Does Governor Quinn think the stimulus money would pay for an election? Save it for the next time such an appointment is required. State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias was all set to run for the governor's seat, and now he is hot for the Senate. Pundits say he can swing the black vote thus making it easier for him to beat a black candidate. This is President Obama's basketball buddy and he probably thinks he has a leg up for the Senate race. Perhaps he is the Greek Obama. Illinois State Comptroller Dan Hynes is interested in the seat. Cook County Clerk David Orr is really vocal about Burris. However, in his nearly 20 years in office, he has never spoken out about other political scandals or controversial topics--there have been pay-to-play scandals, affirmative action fronts, family ties, indiscretions and even wrongful deaths. So why is Orr speaking out now? Give Him a Chance Roland Burris deserves a fair chance. For all practical purposes, Illinois has been without a full time junior senator for the past three years. And now that we have one, let him do his job. A good Burris trait was demonstrated in his recent vote for the stimulus package. He voted for the package one day and kicked off a Listening Tour to hear from the people of Illinois about the package. On the flipside, senior Senator Dick Durbin came home and went to Greece with Alexi Giannoulias. A political deal in the making, perhaps. Certainly a contrast. Do You See What I See? Roland Burris is the only African American in the United States Senate. Upon taking the office, the press couldn't find dirt on him, so they were creative. They mocked the size of Burris' ego because both of his children are named after him. What's wrong with that? Frank Sinatra did it. As did the Kennedys. Are you egotistical to name your child after yourself or are you a proud parent? How many juniors do you know? The media have even zeroed-in on Burris' unfinished tombstone in Oak Woods Cemetery. Quirky? Absolutely. But shouldn't we all plan for that ultimate moment? The press has mismanaged Burris and some of it is his own doing. Given that Burris entered the post under former Governor Rod Blagojevich's cloud, he is still subjected to more scrutiny than most--and at least one journalist admits the race-tinged double standard. After discussing media bias on WVON-AM Talk Radio, Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass asked his fellow journalist Steve Rhodes if accused black candidates are treated differently. Rhodes acknowledged, 'You don't see the same ferocity applied to the Daleys and the Madigans.' Hmmm. Think about it. The basic difference in the media coverage is that the white politician is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty and the black politician is assumed guilty until proved innocent. White accused candidates are treated with respect and decency. The television cameras and print photographers show them in their office, lawyer's office, in the courtroom or in front of the courthouse. Black candidates, however, are ambushed on the street like criminals or they're shown running down the street, clumsily getting out of the shiny new car and in other awkward and/or damning situations. Images are powerful, and just as powerful are the images that are not seen. Some politicians are never shown in shifty situations--think of Fast Eddie Vrdolyak or even former Governor Ryan--even when the FBI raided the City Hall building, the building and its corridors, were shown, but not Mayor Daley. Burris' position is under a dark, hanging cloud because he took the appointment from Blagojevich, who was also treated disrespectfully--like a black politician, almost--in the media. If Burris is guilty of perjury, he should be removed from office, as the proper authorities would do. But there is more at play here. Much more. The Democratic vote is important in Washington at this critical hour. Burris should serve his appointed term. And the people of Illinois should vote their choice at the next election in 2010. That's just my humble opinion.
 
Presented By: Top
 
Rachel Thebault: Owen Wilson vs. Matthew McConaughey Top
A few months ago, my husband, Robin, started working with a personal trainer. When he came home from his first session, he mentioned the trainer asked him to name a celebrity that had the body type he was going for, and Robin told him "Owen Wilson." I almost spit out my water. "Interesting choice," I said. Not that there's anything wrong with Owen Wilson -- he has a perfectly good body. In fact, I thought Owen Wilson was a fair analogy to Robin's status quo. You know the type -- skinny, not-so-toned guy. I just wondered why he needed to enlist a personal trainer for this. Robin asked, "He's the guy who's always hanging around Lance Armstrong, right?" I said yes, but that doesn't make him fit by association, and I dropped the subject, suspicious that this was too easy a goal. A few days later, I was flipping through an US Weekly and came across a picture of Lance Armstrong, with Owen Wilson to his left. Robin said, "THAT'S the guy I was thinking of," and pointed to the right of Lance...at Matthew McConaughey (rippling pecs and six-pack abs glistening from his recent bike ride). At his next session, Robin told the trainer his mistake, and the trainer replied, "Well, then, I guess we have some work to do after all!" I thought of this story recently, when asked how my goals for my business had changed, in light of the economic crisis. At the start of the year, they had changed dramatically, preparing for the worst. I was only hoping I could keep my head above water and maintain my status quo from the year before. (Call it the Owen Wilson Plan.) I was looking at my operating expenses with a fine-toothed comb, figuring out anywhere and everywhere I could trim them. Renegotiating rent, reducing labor and marketing costs. However, the more I planned for these reductions, the more I saw my business shrinking before my eyes. If I reduce labor and marketing, how can I meet my existing customer's needs and expectations? My sales would start to shrink even more. In this economic environment, even status quo takes a lot of hard work. So I thought to myself, if I'm going to be spending so much time in the gym (to continue the analogy), why stop at Owen Wilson? Why can't I have the Matthew McConaughey body? Yes, it will require a lot of time and hard work, but unless I'm ready to call it quits, I'm in for that this year anyway. The profile of my growth plan has changed -- last year at this time it was additional stores, wholesale opportunities, ancillary product lines -- but I am still pushing for growth. I have just changed my "workout regime": * If existing customers are each spending less, try to capture more customers: I am fortunate because I have a "local" business, but with products that can reach customers nationally. Blogging, email newsletters and Internet marketing are inexpensive ways to drive people to www.tribecatreats.com to order treats, even if they can't make it into the store. * Give customers more reasons to buy our products: I plan on adding selective additions to our menu and packaging things in creative ways that will meet my customers' needs that aren't already being met. Further, we will be extending our hours of operation to include Sundays, offering our customers an additional day of the week to enjoy our treats. * Cut costs without effecting our value proposition: We wouldn't even consider reducing our food costs by purchasing lower quality ingredients, but renegotiating our shipping costs with UPS? That's a saving that can be directly passed on to our customers and hopefully gain us more Internet business. American Express OPEN recently polled small business owners to gauge their sentiment and future plans. 50% of respondents agreed that over the next six months they expect the economic climate to negatively affect their business. Only 25% agreed that they expected to grow regardless of the economic climate. As owners of small businesses, we have the livelihoods of our families and those of our employees in our hands, so we do have to think realistically and set our goals accordingly. But this does not mean hunkering down and preparing for the worst. So set your goals -- Owen Wilson, not bad; Matthew McConaughey, even better -- and know that it will take a lot of hard work to achieve them. Also remember that setting goals and accomplishing them are two different things, so celebrate each achievement that gets you closer to your goal. In the end, those companies that have weathered the storm will come out even further ahead. More on Small Business
 
Violence Between Repo Men, Car Owners On The Rise Top
HALSELL, Ala. — Alone in his mobile home off a winding dirt road, Jimmy Tanks heard a commotion at 2:30 a.m. just outside his bedroom window: Somebody was messing with his car. The 67-year-old railroad retiree grabbed a gun, walked out the back door and confronted not a thief but a repo man and two helpers trying to tow off the Chrysler Sebring. Shots were fired, and Tanks wound up dead, a bullet in his chest. The man who came to repossess the car, Kenneth Alvin Smith, is awaiting trial on a murder charge in a state considered a Wild West territory even by the standards of an industry that's largely unregulated nationally. Since Tanks' death last June, two other repo men from the same company Smith worked for were shot, one fatally. "It's gotten to where it's a crazy world out there," said Smith, 50, an ex-Marine who preaches part-time and sings gospel music. Smith said Thursday that he fired in self-defense after Tanks fired a shot. With the U.S. dealing with an economic slide that has cost millions of jobs, the number of vehicle repossessions is expected to rise 5 percent this year. That's after it jumped 12 percent to 1.67 million nationally in 2008, said Tom Webb, chief economist with Manheim Consulting, an automotive marketing firm. That followed a 9 percent increase in 2007, creating more opportunities for bad outcomes in an industry where armed confrontations and threats happen every day. Joe Taylor, whose Florida-based company insures repossession companies, said licensing and training is the answer to avoiding such violence. "If a guy is just put right on the street without training, the potential for violence is very, very high," said Taylor, who runs Insurance Services USA. Federal law says workers can't "breach the peace" while repossessing items, but it doesn't go further to state just what that means, leaving definitions up to courts. All three Alabama shootings were in the middle of the night, which an industry leader said was a sign of a problem. "The smart operators aren't out there at 2 or 3 o'clock at night with people who can put you in a bad situation," said Les McCook, executive director of the American Recovery Association, a trade group for repossession companies. It was June 26 that the repo man came for Tanks' car in Halsell, a tiny, rural Choctaw County town near the Mississippi line. Tanks already had filed for bankruptcy and was behind on his payments, court documents show. Tanks heard a noise and went outside with a gun, something anybody would do, said Choctaw County Sheriff James Lovette, who knew Tanks for years. Smith was indicted Tuesday, but no charges were filed against a man and his teenage son who accompanied Smith, said Lovette. Smith's defense lawyer, Rusty Wright, said Tanks came out of the trailer and fired, and that Smith "just wanted to stop him." "This is not the gunslinging cowboy that people think about with repo guys," Wright said. "(Smith) wasn't out to kill the guy." The sheriff declined comment on whether Tanks shot at Smith. Lovette said Smith worked out of Birmingham with Ascension Recovery, a subsidiary of the Chicago-based Renovo Services. The same recovery firm employed a repo man who was shot and killed on Jan. 8 in Birmingham, as well as a third worker who was wounded while towing a vehicle in the city on Feb. 10. The CEO of Renovo Services, David Cowlbeck, didn't respond to questions sent by e-mail about the fatal shootings. He called the unsolved February wounding of 30-year-old Jason Williamson "a random act of violence." "We trust that the perpetrators are quickly apprehended and charged accordingly," Cowlbeck said in a statement. Lovette is asking the Alabama Sheriff's Association to push a bill limiting the hours when repossession companies can operate and requiring them to contact local law enforcement before working in an area. "There's a time and place for everything, and 3 a.m. is not it," said Lovette. The three states that actively license and monitor recovery agents _ California, Florida and Louisiana _ report less violence than other states, Taylor said. But most state legislatures aren't interested in repossession law until people start dying, he said. "You don't find many state legislators who have had a car repossessed. They are just unfamiliar with that world," said Taylor. Tanks was killed just two weeks after he married Georgia Tanks, who keeps a floral spray at the spot where he died beside the car, which is long gone. She wasn't at home the night he was killed because she was away teaching Vacation Bible School in nearby Meridian, Miss. She has filed a wrongful death suit in the slaying. "It's senseless," she said, wiping away tears as she looked at their wedding photograph. "The legal stuff I don't know anything about. I just know God is going to let justice be done." Smith, too, is haunted by what happened that night. "I've played it through in my mind a million times to see if I could have done something different," he said. "I couldn't have." More on Cars
 
Iraq War: A Look Back (SLIDESHOW) Top
President Obama today announced his plan to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by August 2010 and declared that the US has "begun the work of ending this war," reports the New York Times. Nearly six years after American troops crossed the border into Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, Mr. Obama said "renewed cause for hope" produced by improved security would allow Americans to begin disentangling militarily and turn the country over to the Iraqis themselves. "Let me say this as plainly as I can," the president told thousands of Marines stationed here. "By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." To mark the beginning of the end, the Huffington Post has compiled a slideshow of the most significant moments from the war. It has been a long war. It is a long slideshow. And now, six years since the U.S. invasion, the end is in sight. More on War Wire
 
Mark Nickolas: Bunning Threatens To Resign Early And Give Dems 60 Senate Seats If GOP Doesn't Back Off Top
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) is a first-rate crack pot (recall here , here and here ), but his insanity might hasten the speed at which Democrats take back this Senate seat, per the latest installment from the Louisville Courier-Journal : The Kentucky Republican suggested that possible scenario at a campaign fundraiser for him on Capitol Hill earlier this week, according to three sources who asked not to be identified because of the politically sensitive nature of Bunning’s remarks. The implication, they said, was that Bunning would allow Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, to appoint his replacement — a move that could give Democrats the 60 votes they need to block Republican filibusters in the Senate. “I would get the last laugh. Don’t forget Kentucky has a Democrat governor,” one of the sources quoted Bunning as saying. “The only logical extension of that comment is, ‘(Make me mad) … enough and I’ll resign, and then you’ve got 60 Democrats,’ ” said another source who was present at the event. Let's hope Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (R-TX) keep provoking Bunning. Mark Nickolas is the Managing Editor of Political Base , and this story was from his original post, " Bunning Threatens To Resign Early And Let Dem Have 60 Seats If GOP Doesn't Back Off ."
 
Ryanair Could Make Passengers Pay For Toilets Top
DUBLIN — When nature calls at 30,000 feet, is $1.40 a wee price to pay? Or could it force passengers without correct change into a whole new kind of holding pattern? The head of budget European airline Ryanair unleashed a flood of indignation and potty humor Friday when he suggested that future passengers might be obliged to insert a British pound coin for access to the lavatory to get some in-flight relief. Airline chief Michael O'Leary suggested that installing pay toilets would lower ticket costs and make flying, somehow, easier for all. Not even his own aides seemed to be sure if he was serious or pursuing his penchant for making brazen declarations to get free publicity for Ryanair. "One thing we have looked at in the past, and are looking at again, is the possibility of maybe putting a coin slot on the toilet door, so that people might have to actually spend a pound to `spend a penny' in future," O'Leary said, using a British euphemism for going to the bathroom. When asked during an interview on BBC Television what would happen if a customer really had to go but didn't have correct change, O'Leary dismissed the scenario as implausible. "I don't think there's anybody in history (who has) gone on board a Ryanair aircraft with less than a pound," he said. He cited the British currency even though Ireland and most of Europe uses euros. O'Leary spokesman Stephen McNamara said his boss often spoke tongue in cheek _ but he then defended the idea of in-flight pay toilets as part of a logical trend. "Michael makes a lot of this stuff up as he goes along and, while this has been discussed internally, there are no immediate plans to introduce it," McNamara said, adding, "Passengers using train and bus stations are already accustomed to paying to use the toilet, so why not on airplanes? Not everyone uses the toilet on board one of our flights, but those that do could help to reduce airfares for all passengers." Analysts agreed that the man who pioneered charging passengers to check bags, to use a check-in desk and even to use a credit or debit card to make an online booking just might be serious about mile-high toilet extortion. Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist at BGC Partners in London, said there might be some truth to O'Leary's statement. "This begs a simple question retort of: Is there absolutely nothing that this airline won't do? Not really, so if you are thinking about flying cattle-class Ryanair in future, beware," he said. David Castelveter, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, which represents the major U.S. airlines, said he wasn't aware that any were considering a toilet fee. Not surprisingly, passengers reacted with indignation and outrage at the prospect. Vitaly Zananetskin, who was boarding a Ryanair flight to London at Riga International Airport in Latvia, called it "a bad idea." "I would just try to go to the restroom before going on board and then try not to drink too much during the flight," he said. "A three-hour flight without a toilet is tolerable. Of course, if it gets so bad that your eyes are watering, then you can pay the money." On the recession-hit streets of Dublin, Ryanair passengers waiting for an airport shuttle bus seemed resigned to the idea of paying for an O'Leary-provided potty. "Your only choice with Ryanair, really, is not to fly Ryanair. Your dignity goes out the window. If you have a complaint, they're not programmed to care," said Samantha Jones, a 30-year-old Welsh woman. She discounted the practicality of a restroom rebellion. "If you are given a choice between wetting your knickers or not wetting your knickers, you will pay whatever fee they make you pay, and Mr. O'Leary knows this well," she said. "Frankly, I'm surprised he's talking about letting us have a wee for a pound, not more!" Rochelle Turner, head of research at British consumer rights magazine Which? Holiday, said Ryanair had a well-documented practice of "putting profit before the comfort of its customers" _ but this one could backfire. "Charging people to go to the toilet might result in fewer people buying overpriced drinks on board. That would serve Ryanair right," she said. Noah Cole of Portland, Ore., who has flown on Ryanair, called it "unconscionable" to charge for a bathroom, and he even predicted money-changing problems. In other words, if you only have dollars, can you still euro-nate? "What if you don't have the requisite currency? Do you beg your seatmate for a euro so you can go to the bathroom?" Cole said in Dallas. "That's the nightmare scenario." ___ Associated Press writers Gary Peach in Riga, Latvia, and Airlines Writer David Koenig in Dallas contributed to this story. More on Airlines
 
Romney Misquotes Reagan At CPAC Top
The spirit of Ronald Reagan lives on at the Conservative Political Action Committee, but the late Great Communicator might not like the mangling that Mitt Romney did to one of his well-known sayings. During his address Friday, the former Massachusetts governor implored the audience to stick close to true conservative principles, which he contrasted with false liberal principles. "Ronald Reagan used to say that the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, but that what they know is wrong," Romney said. The second he dropped the Reagan quote, several conservative journalists in the press room threw up their hands in despair. He had it wrong, violating what one said was the GOP's 12th commandment: "Though shalt not misquote Reagan." The real quote owes its staying power to its smooth flow and a rhythm that Romney's formulation lacks. "Well," said Reagan, "the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." More on Mitt Romney
 
Up In Arms: Is Michelle Obama's Sleeveless Style Appropriate Or Not? (POLL, PHOTOS) Top
*Scroll down for slideshow and polls* Michelle Obama made the sleeveless dress something of a signature look this past week, choosing to bare her arms four times in seven days. The First Lady impressed many, but also made a few waves on Tuesday night when she broke with tradition and wore a sleeveless Narciso Rodriguez dress to the President's address before Congress. Opinion was divided over whether it was appropriate to show so much skin at such a ceremonial event. Social Secretary Desiree Rogers defended the decision, telling the Washington Post that Mrs. Obama's feeling is "If I want to wear no sleeves to hear my husband speak, that's what I'm going to do." After appearing in a (relatively) conservative houndstooth suit last Friday, the First Lady went sleeveless in ">a purple Jason Wu dress to speak to culinary students in the White House kitchen on Sunday afternoon. That night she co-hosted a black-tie dinner for the nation's governors (along with her husband, the President), donning a sparkly strapless gown by Chicago native Peter Soronen . The next night, on Wednesday, she went sleeveless again with an emerald Kai Milla dress to the White House's Stevie Wonder concert. On Friday, the White House released the Michelle Obama's official portrait in which she again bared her arms, this time in a more sober black Michael Kors dress. Take a look at Michelle Obama's sleeveless ensembles this past week. Then tell us where you stand on this important national issue in the polls below. SLIDESHOW: POLLS: More on Michelle Obama Style
 
Northern Trust Seeks To Repay Bailout Money After Flap Over Lavish Parties Top
Northern Trust Corp., stung by a flap over its sponsorship last weekend of a PGA golf tournament in California, is moving to become the first U.S. bank to repay the bailout funds it received. In a letter Friday to House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, Northern CEO Frederick H. (Rick) Waddell said, in effect, that the bank doesn't need the $1.6 billion it sold in preferred shares to the federal government last fall.
 
Myrna Pérez: Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows: Jesus Wouldn't Have it Any Other Way Top
The Washington Post printed a story this week about the Poverty Forum, "an unusual coalition of Christian leaders and policy experts from across the ideological spectrum" that is working together to advance a series of anti-poverty initiatives. The Forum plans to present its recommendations to the Obama administration next week; included among these is passage of legislation that would restore federal voting rights to persons disenfranchised on account of criminal convictions. The strange bedfellows aspect of the collaboration -- Former President George W. Bush's speechwriter Michael Gerson called it "an orgy of strange bedfellows" -- provides an irresistible media hook, but such collaborations among devoted Christians shouldn't be all that surprising. Make no mistake, I'm thrilled at the existence of such an alliance. But given Jesus' own teachings about our obligations to the less fortunate and instructions as to how best to treat our enemies, I cannot help but be disappointed that such alliances are newsworthy. There is no shortage of Biblical lessons on the subject of our responsibility to the poor (or prisoners for that matter, giving a special appropriateness to the recommendation to restore voting rights to persons disenfranchised on account of criminal convictions -- people who in large part are poor and have been prisoners). And anyone who has been to Sunday School or recited, read, or heard the Lord's Prayer knows we cannot hold grudges against our enemies. So something seems off-kilter when conventional practice is to write off political enemies when trying to effectuate Jesus' teachings to help the poor. One of the most widely known parables specifically contradicts this view. The Good Samaritan in Jesus' story was not just some guy who helped an injured person ignored by a hypocrite priest and religious official. He is someone who, in helping the injured Jew, helped an enemy. And, his manner of "helping" -- taking the injured Jew to an inn and promising to pay the inn owner for all costs incurred in the course of nursing him back to health -- exposed the Samaritan to some real risk. Jesus presents a portrait of someone who honors his obligations, and acts charitably and compassionately, while exposing himself to danger (it was not safe to linger on that road from Jerusalem to Jericho), and also donates to his enemy, food, clothes and shelter. It is a much more modest ask for Christian advocates and activists to spend some of their political capital trying to forge alliances with political enemies to achieve the Samaritan's same objectives. The collaboration giving rise to the Poverty Forum is surely a blessed event. I hope, however, that soon it becomes an ordinary one.
 
Tate Gunnerson: A Feast for the Eyes: Chicago's Feed a Little Bit Country, a Little Bit Rock and Roll Top
Before I start, I have to say it's killing me that I can't add music to accompany this piece. Any story about down-home West Side breakfast joint needs some good fifties country music or . . . wow . . . any kind of music really. The choice might feel apt or ironic or whimsical or even sarcastic, but any tune will work. Would having music start playing when you read a post enrich the experience for you or would it feel like an intrusion? I'd like to know because . . . huh? Oh, sorry . . . and now, Feed! People have been telling me for months I need to check out Feed, the popular Chicago Ave. breakfast joint. Former Strange Closets Open House star Tracy Ostmann-Haschke gave it rave reviews (she also painted the country diner's murals) and during my recent interview with artist Sharon Bladholm , the environmentally conscious artist praised Feed owners and partners Donna and Liz for the way they incorporate a degree of sustainability into their lives (they raise chickens and rabbits in an urban environment). It sounds positively quirky, but think about it: this practice could, nay, should be implemented by all of us (I'll take photos). If we all had a little farm and a pile of critters, the benefits would far outweigh the way of life we have right now with our convenient and bountiful but badly lit grocers, central air conditioning and ice cubes. If we all had little farms, we'd reduce carbon emissions, strengthen community bonds (neighbors trading eggs for tomatoes or rabbit meat for example) and provide the U.S. food system with a much needed shock absorber in the event a crisis of some sort disrupts the enormously efficient but increasingly vulnerable world food supply chain (just in time delivery just a few minutes late just might cause food riots). Hey I'm not joking! Continued . . . People laugh when I say this (although it's often difficult to understand me through the megaphone and the corner of State and Lake is very noisy); they say Americans will never elect that kind of life, that we're too obsessed with our TV's and our SUV's (and as we age, our RV's). But we're going through a seismic shift; the way we produce and consume energy and information, the way we think about and treat our climate and environment, the way we create and think about our possessions, the way we define being American and being a global citizen. And the most important problem we face - how to monetize blog content (if we assume the 2012 stuff to be myth). So we need to take action now! You go first. When I praised co-owner Donna Knezek about really going first, she literally rolled her eyes and waved me away, saying their chickens could never produce enough eggs to serve a busy Saturday morning. But that's not the point; it's a start. I almost forgot that this is a design blog, and there are lessons there, too. Cozy, colorful and 100% country (a bit kitsch perhaps, but Liz and Donna beg to differ), the place ain't fancy but it's got a constantly changing style as friends and regular customers regularly bring in poultry and/or country-centric gifts. So remember the color and change it up to stay fresh. Does that qualify me to keep my Design Blogger Membership card? 2803 W. Chicago (at California) 773-489-4600 P.S. I knew Donna and Liz were kindred spirits when I walked in and saw what was on the jukebox: More on Food
 
Merrill Markoe: Imaginative new definitions for sin in a changing world Top
The following in on the front page of Motor Authority , a site I check every day. Okay, okay. I've never read it before. It was forwarded to me by the man with whom I live. But wow. Say what you will about the Muslim religion, this has to be the most creative new definition of sin to come along in my lifetime. It brings sin in to a fantastic previously unexplored wonderland realm. " Saudi Muslim Scholar calls Ethanol Fuel Use a Sin " Posted Today, 12:22 PM by Kenneth Hall The use of alcohol-based fuels could be a violation of Islamic precepts In the Koran the Prophet Mohammed set out clear rules for Muslim interaction with alcohol, forbidding the use, purchase, sale, service, transportation or even manufacture of the substance. And that's the basis a Saudi Muslim scholar is using to call ethanol use by Muslims a sin. Setting aside the obvious motivation to preserve oil use and production, the religious case against ethanol is a strong one. Fuel ethanol is, by chemical definition, nearly pure alcohol. And it is the same type of alcohol used recreationally the world over. A scholar at the Saudi Islamic Jurisprudence Academy, Sheikh Mohamed Al-Najimi, is the source of the warning - he's been careful not to call it a fatwa - about the use or involvement with ethanol fuel. The story began with the scholar warning students traveling outside Saudi Arabia not to use ethanol powered vehicles. Far from a final decision on the matter, however, Najimi has proposed further study on the matter, though he stands by his interpretation. There does remain some room for interpretation, as the scriptural basis for the prohibition appears to be rooted in the intoxicating nature of ethanol, not as a general proscription against its molecular structure. For instance, ethanol is a necessary element in the production of vinegar, which the Koran notes was a seasoning favored by Mohammed. Regardless of whether the fuel is contraband for Muslims, however, many other reasons not to use ethanol have been cropping up over the past year. Taking away valuable crop sources, pollution due to fertilizers, harm to the soil, and the lack of a sustainable production model have all come to weigh against the use of crop-based ethanol. Other methods of production, such as the bacterial sources espoused by Coskata and Mascoma, on the other hand, may yet prove viable, especially as they learn to convert inorganic waste products - trash - into fuel, tapping into a plentiful resource that no one will miss. **** Yes, yes, but you can't make cocktails out of vinegar, bacteria sources or organic waste products. Or can you?
 
David K. Richards: Humpty Dumpty Finance Top
The current financial mess is fixable, and even fixable quickly; but in order to gather political support for implementation of the right fix it is important to understand, and explain to the public, why the fixes applied since Lehman went bankrupt in September have not worked. The essential point to understand is that the 'modern' securities-based system of Wall St. finance was fatally wounded when Lehman Brothers went under, although this demise has not been accepted by many academics or Wall St. bankers. Like Humpty Dumpty, this system can not be put back together again. Geithner & Co.'s attempts to resurrect it, the latest misguided effort being TALF, will fail, and cause further delay in restoration of normally functioning private credit markets. We need to recapitalize the banks with massive amounts of new private capital, so they have the capacity to hold many more of the loans they make on their own balance sheets, and bank lending can supply the funding gap opened up by the demise of the securities-based credit system.. Flaws in the System To begin, it is important to recognize how Wall St. has transformed the bank-based credit system, which existed in the 1930's and prevailed until the mid-1990's, into the 'modern' securities-based credit system we have today. Non-bank sources currently supply more than half the credit needs of businesses and consumers. This transformation in the way credit is supplied has made it difficult for the Federal Reserve to reignite credit growth through massive expansion of the Federal Reserve balance sheet, which was the supposed 1930's style antidote. The old-style banking system, in which banks kept the loans they made on their balance sheets, would have responded quickly to Bernancke's interest rate cuts and aggressive injections of excess reserves. But banks today no longer keep most of the credits they underwrite on their own balance sheets, nor do they keep them in the form of individual loans. Instead, banks gather credits together to form asset-based or mortgage-based bonds which they then distribute or sell to pension funds, insurance companies, banks, hedge funds, and other investors worldwide. (Banks do keep some of these newly created asset-backed bonds on their own balance sheets.) It is also important to recognize the critical and pivotal role that credit rating agencies and the writers of credit default insurance played in the functioning of this 'modern' credit system. Many of the asset- backed bonds kept by the banks were rated AAA by Moody's, S&P, and Fitch. Importantly, the AAA rating was granted by the agencies because it was supported by the added protection provided by credit default insurance ("credit default swaps", or "CDS"), the largest provider being American International Group (AIG), which was the largest insurance company in the world. Based on the impressive strength of AIG's AAA rated balance sheet and the AAA rating granted to the bonds by the rating agencies, it was widely believed that there was almost no risk that the AAA rated bonds would default. Under Basel II bank regulations, banks were required to set aside little, if any, capital reserves against holdings of AAA credits. Thus, under the umbrella of the AAA rating, banks could add earning assets and leverage to their balance sheets without the added burden of allocating more regulatory capital. This same dynamic made the AAA asset-backed bonds attractive to many insurance companies and other regulated entities, including foreign banks. This ability to hold AAA rated bonds without setting aside additional capital led to a highly levered global financial system. This 'modern' model of writing loans and distributing them has a serious, fatal flaw. It undermines the integrity of promises. It is the classic 'agency problem' identified and studied by countless economists, where the self-centered motivations of the agents conflict with the security interests of the principals. When lenders are separated from borrowers, intermediaries (such as mortgage brokers, home appraisers, loan packagers, rating agencies, or bond salesmen, as well as the top leadership of major banks), can be enticed by lucrative commission revenues to pursue sloppy or even fraudulent lending practices that, in the past, had been constrained by the old-fashioned model, where banks kept the loans they wrote on their balance sheets, and where banks were kept in check by close monitoring by the FDIC. The Crash Without confidence in the writers of credit default insurance and the rating agencies, the model of 'modern finance' can not function. In September, when Lehman Brothers went under and AIG was back-stopped by the government, confidence in the rating agencies and their AAA ratings collapsed. Credit default insurance prices went through the roof and the prices of the heretofore AAA bonds dropped by a corresponding amount. Hardly any sizable organizations were willing to continue writing credit default insurance. The sharp decline in ABS bond prices and the jump in quotes for CDS immediately cut the value of bank assets and shrank, by the same amount, bank capital positions as calculated for regulatory purposes. This happened despite the fact that the banks had sold the bonds only in rare cases. Suddenly, many banks become undercapitalized, which froze the credit markets. Writers of credit default swaps had to post massive additional amounts of 'good' collateral, i.e. government bonds or cash. In order to raise this cash, writers of CDS sold anything and everything. The result was a stock, bond, and commodity market crash. Under current accounting practices, called 'mark to market', accountants and bank regulators insist on using the observable prices available in public and private markets to determine bank capital positions. But these 'marks' are only available in what are now very thinly-traded markets for asset backed bonds and credit default swaps. In hindsight, it is clear that writers of credit default insurance on individual securities under-reserved and under-priced their product. They failed to take into account systemic risk--that in financial markets, the risk of default of any one bond or counterparty is increased by the defaults of others. Simply put, in financial markets risks are correlated, not uncorrelated. It is also clear that only the government is big enough to underwrite systemic risk. The government can do this either as the 'lender of last resort', which it fully understands, or, given today's 'modern' securities-based credit system, it must act as the 'credit insurer of last resort.' This is, in effect, what the government is doing when it offers 'guarantees' to various capital markets, such as commercial paper and mortgages. ABS Pricing and the Debate Over Bank Solvency There is no doubt that banks have many bad loans and securities on their balance sheets. But the size of the losses is in dispute because the structure of the asset backed bonds is complex, and because the value can reasonably be assessed in more than one way. Markets for the heretofore AAA bonds and the corresponding credit default swaps are thin, with wide spreads between bid and asking prices. Nevertheless, transactions occur, and they occur at levels that banks contend are unrealistically low. Based on the 'marks' currently extant, many banks are grossly undercapitalized, and in several cases, if banks were required to sell their bonds at current prices, they would be insolvent. The banks claim that reasonable estimates of discounted cash flow make it ridiculous to sell bonds at such low recent prices or to use these prices to determine bank capital requirements. They further contend that the potential returns on these asset-backed bonds are greater than the potential returns on new loans, so why sell them? Accountants and many bank regulators insist that the quotes are the best available and should be used to calculate bank capital levels and solvency. Others make the valid point that it is in the interest of banks to lie about the true value of their assets. But the banks have a valid counter argument when they claim that recent low price levels reflect a sizable 'uncertainty discount'. Because the bonds (or the various bond tranches) are comprised of a multitude of individual credits or mortgages, a potential buyer of the bonds has no way of assessing value without drilling down into the details. This research is intensive, expensive and time consuming. Only a few investors do it. And even then, value must be judged in light of assumed economic conditions, by region or generally, now and over the next few years. Because of this extraordinary complexity it is not unreasonable to accept that the banks, which have been holding these assets for some time and have large staffs, may have a much better idea of the discounted present value than nearly all potential bond buyers or CDS writers. Another factor to consider when attempting to price these bonds is that some bond 'marks' reflect forced liquidation because of margin calls or regulatory pressures, or desperate attempts to obtain scarce and prohibitively costly credit default insurance. Nobody disputes that banks will suffer large losses. Loss estimates range from $1 trillion to more than $3 trillion depending on whether one uses estimates of discounted cash flow or relies on the 'marks' of the thinly traded markets. The essential point to come to grips with is that, because of their complexity, it is virtually impossible to establish an indisputable value of these asset- backed bonds anytime soon, and possibly not before the contractual maturity of the instruments in question. It simply cannot be done. Nevertheless, it is widely recognized that, if the credit markets are to regain their normal working condition, the so-called 'toxic', hard-to-value asset-backed bonds must be removed from bank balance sheets, or 'ring fenced' by some form of government guarantee. With economic recovery dependent on the reemergence of normalized credit conditions, there is an obvious urgency to making this happen. How Not to Fix the Credit System Bank nationalization, the Swedish model of the early 1990's, is not the answer. There are three reasons why nationalization should be avoided. First, Sweden had only 5 banks and there were few if any derivatives and credit default swaps outstanding. We have 10,000 banks and lots of credit default swaps outstanding. Second, because the value of the 'toxic assets' is disputable, it is not clear that the banks are at present insolvent and must be taken over by the government. Other ways of dealing with the problem exist that avoid the well-recognized problems of government ownership. And third, under a government takeover, many outstanding derivative contracts--what Warren Buffett has memorably termed "financial weapons of mass destruction"--might have to be commuted. This would trigger events similar to those that followed the Lehman bankruptcy and have catastrophic implications for the financial and industrial entities around the globe, and could lead to a cascade of bankruptcies. The public/private scheme, announced February 10th as part of the Capital Assistance Program, is another less-than-optimal option. It is basically TARP 1 warmed over and obfuscated. Like TARP 1, it is designed to enable banks to remove the 'toxic' assets from their balance sheets at prices above those quoted in the current thin markets. Private investors would buy asset-backed bonds from the banks, on a leveraged basis, perhaps 10 to 1, with borrowed money lent to them by the government on a non-recourse basis at near government rates. Even though this public/private scheme could help recapitalize the banks by paying above recently quoted prices, it is misleading (to say the least) to claim that the elevated values for the 'toxic' assets will be established by the 'private market.' Let's remember that it is government credit that will underpin the leveraged transactions. More important, the scheme is unfair to taxpayers because they would be the ones supplying the credit and would, therefore, be on the hook for the losses. The government could just as well buy the assets, or guarantee them, at the same elevated prices that the leveraged private investors might be comfortably paying. Any prospective profit that the private investors hope to make would then accrue to the taxpayers. Why concoct a subterfuge that subsidizes prospective profits for Wall St. fat cats? Who are the authorities trying to fool? Finally, any program that attempts to avoid mortgage defaults, or requires a re-write of mortgage payment terms has serious problems, both legal and financial, and is likely to be counterproductive in re-establishing confidence. Although re-writing debt contracts is standard practice in bankruptcy, it creates uncertainties when it is done outside standard bankruptcy proceedings.. In the case of mortgage-backed bonds, re-writes of payment terms can trigger rating downgrades and lower mortgage-backed bond prices. This will negatively impact bank balance sheets and necessitate increased collateral obligations for writers of credit default swaps, such as AIG. In other words, an attempt to directly help homeowners by cutting payment terms may increase the losses recorded by AIG, which the government has committed to make good, and make it more costly for banks to recapitalize. It will also make investors more wary of making new mortgages, and necessitate an expanded role for government owned FNM and FRE. The recent well-intentioned attempts to prevent foreclosures by reducing payments are also patently unfair to taxpayer homeowners who keep current on their own mortgage payments but will be required to pay subsidies to others who are delinquent on their payments. The Way Forward The best way to reestablish confidence in the financial system is the following: Part #1. The 'uncertainty discount' in asset backed bond pricing should be dealt with by fixing a floor under the asset side of bank balance sheets. But this should be done without buying the toxic assets from the banks (the TARP plans). Instead, it can be done by a government guarantee, or re-insurance, that limits the losses any bank can incur from further decreases in asset backed bond prices. In effect, the government would act as 'credit default insurer of last resort', or as the re-insurer of systemic, or aggregate risk. The government, with its unlimited balance sheet, is uniquely positioned to capture 100% of the market for systemic credit-default insurance. Under this scheme, a bank would be required to 'buy' credit default insurance from the government in exchange for preferred stock which would be convertible into 10% to 15% of common equity after the recapitalization outlined in Part #2 below. The basic model is similar to that used for Citibank last year. In that agreement, CITI takes the first 10% of a $300 billion package of 'toxic' assets, and 10% of any losses below that first $30 billion. The taxpayers foot the bill for all other losses. This was a good idea, and it turned around the stock market in mid-November. But the insurance scheme was not made systemic and it did not incorporate the growing risk of losses from an extensive, severe economic contraction. In addition, it was not accompanied by a recapitalization of the bank. In other words, its scope was too limited, too timid. Part #2. Once the government underwrites systemic credit default insurance, the asset position of the bank is stabilized. The upper limit of losses becomes firmly established. This makes it possible to raise private capital in large amounts, although it will entail dilution of current common stock shareholders. Bank stock prices have fallen to levels that already assume massive dilution, if not nationalization. In any event, concerns about the extent of the dilution should not stand in the way of
 
Presented By: Top
 
Allison Kilkenny: Iraq and Afghanistan: Consider the Alternative Top
Today, President Obama unfurled his shiny plan to keep 35,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq under a "new mission of training, " and to send 17,000 more troops into Afghanistan. This may seem like a sleight of hand artifice (removing troops from Point A, only to drop them in Point B,) but many hawkish pundits, columnists, and bloggers respond to criticism of Obama's plan by deploying the straw-man directive for readers to "consider the alternative." Meaning, I guess, we're supposed to concede the point that keeping armed forces in Iraq is better than some imagined, hypothetical scenario where all hell breaks loose the second our forces leave, the country dissolves into sectarian warfare (worse that the civil strife that has already occurred,) and some kind of apocalyptical genocide breaks out (the kind of genocide we care about, not the Darfur or Congo kind .) Let's set aside the points that sectarian violence may be declining because of mass exoduses from Iraq, a significant amount of the population being dead, and US forces bribing Iraqis not to shoot each other, (all of which the Washington Post described as troops "stop(ping) a sectarian civil war.") What is this "alternative" I'm supposed to be considering? Over at Politico, Yousef Munayyer imagines the alternative to permanent occupation as crafty foe behaving themselves only until the final US Blackhawk helicopter departs the Iraq landscape so they can then rain down terror upon the population. The fundamental problem with measuring success in the fight against insurgency is that we can never be sure if they have stopped fighting because they have given up or because they are just laying low and waiting for us to leave . I don't know if I would call 50,000 troops "residual" but the heart of the problem is that we simply can't move out quicker because we just don't know what will happen . This is a variation of the "consider the alternative" argument. Because the US military does not yet possess the gift of clairvoyance, we have to remain committed in the region indefinitely because, gee, just consider what might happen in this hypothetical I've invented. It's like John McHugh (R-NY) said today after his meeting with Obama. We have to consider the possibility that something bad may happen, like "the situation on the ground deteriorat(ing) and violence increas(ing)," which may very well happen because, ya' know, we totally ripped apart the Iraqi infrastructure and societal fabric. But how do US troops occupying the region convey a new era of autonomy and peace to the Iraqis? They don't. They can't. Their presence just delays the inevitable: US troops leaving the region, and chaos and strife following a tumultuous time, followed by (hopefully) rebuilding. That's what will happen if the troops leave tomorrow. That's what will happen if the troops leave in December. The only difference is less men and women of all nationalities will die if it happens tomorrow. To be sure, Iraq and Afghanistan are tremendously volatile regions, but deploying the "consider the alternative" argument is manipulative. Sure, something bad can happen at any given moment. Something bad might be happening in Denmark right now, or rather, something bad may happen eventuall y. That's a 1% chance, and Dick Cheney says that's all we need. Shall we invade? Something bad is actually happening in Darfur and the Congo right now, so why aren't our troops on their way there? We don't know what may happen, but we do know what has happened . The wars have been disastrous, and the explanations for the decrease in violence in Iraq ranges from speculative to insincere. Killing off the population and bribing those who remain isn't a diplomatic strategy. It's making the best of a fucked-up situation. It's reason for shame, but it's certaintly not a mandate to stay in the region indefinitely because a handful of hawkish pundits keep lobbing hypotheticals at the American population. It's just until December! comes the scream of rationalization for a new Magic Number pull-out date. We have to remain in the region until December to ensure a fair, free election. Mind you, we can't figure out how to run our own elections , but we're going to import democracy to the Iraqis. International organizations independently monitor elections all the time, but suddenly we need an occupying force to handle procedures. With the help of the UN, elections are held in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces, with about 15 million citizens eligible to vote. If we're hanging around to see how the Iraqis really feel about the US occupation, they've already been abundantly clear that they want us gone. Furthermore, it's more than a little insulting to imply that Iraqis can't handle their own elections without Big Brother America holding their hands throughout the process. It's also ridiculous to imply Iraqis are somehow better off with Americans in their country. In some respects, things in Iraq are worse now than they were pre-American invasion. Take, for example, the looting of museums, disappearance of electricity, and appearance of smoking craters. "In an ideal world, the Iraqi security forces could handle the election security themselves," says Dennis Hertel (D-MI), Vice-President of the International Elections Monitors Institute ( IEMI ). "Whenever there is a threat, you have to make sure the security is adequate so people can vote. Violence is intimidation for the people participating in the election." And Hertel admits that the best possible scenario is for third party, international watch groups to monitor the elections without a military presence: "The best thing is if you don't have to have armed forces, or even legal officers for elections." Surely, Iraqis may need help rebuilding, training their military, and protecting their citizens, but a unilateral occupation isn't the answer to their problems. It is only a promise of continued strife and violence. If the United States is serious about helping (and not occupying,) they should throw full support behind the UN and look for partners in the international community to provide non-military aid. I guess we're supposed to take Obama's new Iraq and Afghanistan plans very seriously because they suddenly have bipartisan support. But the fact that John McCain, the man who once said that it would be totally cool if our troops remained in Iraq "for 100 years," now agrees with Obama's wartime policies is a very, very bad sign. When McCain later had to explain his comment because it was tremendously awful, he cited a longstanding, ugly truth of American power: we occupy a lot of countries. It's just part of that crazy stuff we do all the time. American Military Bases (Wikipedia) There are 737 military bases scattered around the planet, which staff roughly 2,500,000 US military personnel. It's become commonplace to send our troops to foreign countries and station them there indefinitely. It's become so banal that the so-called Progressive candidate, Barack Obama, can admit to keeping 35,000-50,000 armed troops in Iraq (with no deadline,) toe the line with John McCain and John Boehner , and the mainstream media accepts that this is a responsible, sane plan. It's accepted because, once again, something bad is out there... waiting . The Taliban are bad news. Hardly anyone disputes that. They terrorize innocents (particularly women, young girls, and anyone trying to receive an education,) but unilateral military action has never nurtured diplomatic relations. American has been in Afghanistan for eight years, and all that has been accomplished is a resurgent Taliban insurgency that is busily overwhelming areas of Pakistan, a country with a nuclear weapon. But a continuation of unilateral firebombing of civilian-populated regions doesn't work. Unlike the reasons to stay in the Middle East afforded to us by the mainstream media, that's not speculation. Occupying a country and terrorizing the population ensures only one thing: blowback. Yes, pulling out of Iraq may lead to bad things that will demand attention from the international community and the UN, but the United States galavanting across the region and crushing indigenous people inspires only hatred. This isn't some radical, new lesson we have to learn. We've known this since 1991 during the Gulf War, when our Saudi Arabia-stationed bases pissed off this guy named Osama bin Laden. How many little Osamas are witnessing the brute, awful strength of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan? How many members of their families and communities have our troops killed? This just doesn't make sense for Obama's administration, or for our country. Our military and money is spread preciously thin. As Paul Krugman explained in his column today, Obama's economic plan just may work, as long as nothing bad happens (like blowback from our irresponsible and irrational actions abroad): According to the Obama administration's budget projections, the ratio of federal debt to G.D.P., a widely used measure of the government's financial position, will soar over the next few years, then more or less stabilize. But this stability will be achieved at a debt-to-G.D.P. ratio of around 60 percent. That wouldn't be an extremely high debt level by international standards, but it would be the deepest in debt America has been since the years immediately following World War II. And it would leave us with considerably reduced room for maneuver if another crisis comes along . That doesn't really sound like Era of Responsibility, does it? Everything will be fine as long as nothing bad happens ever again because of these stupid things we're doing in other people's countries, and none of the people we're bombing remember it was us, who bombed them. I'm sure Krugman wasn't imagining another 9/11 in his hypothetical, but it's a distinct possibility considering we're broke, and our military is crouched in a foreign desert, messing with the locals. A long-term goal for this mess should be to make the Taliban and radicalism unappealing. That won't happen if we keep bombing countries. Poor, desperate people tend to falls into the clutches of radicalism because radicals can point up to the American jets that just decimated entire villages and say, "They did it." Militarism only fuels more anti-America fervor. Charity and multilateral efforts to help a people (not through occupation,) but through aid will gradually make such radicalism unappealing. It's not a quick fix. It will take generations, but it's worth adopting some patience into our foreign policy strategies. And sure, there will always be a handful of baddies out there that hate us (and will always hate us,) and they'll try to hurt us. But let's consider this alternative: A surplus in the economy from the money saved not waging wars abroad, and a strong military at home (including care for veterans.) Imagine skilled interrogators, who know how to coax forth answers with a game of chess, and not waterboarding. Imagine well-trained intelligence officers networking abroad, or new, secure American infrastructure and a well-funded FDA to keep our food safe . Imagine justice and accountability, and the permanent banishment of secret prisons and tribunals so that future terrorist attacks cannot possibly be justified to the world as self-defense or "pay back." Even in this imagined alternative, we can never be fully protected from the possibility of something bad happening. We can only be properly equipped to deal with the aftermath in a rational way. What we certainly do not need is 35,000-50,000 troops in Iraq and 17,000 more troops in Afghanistan. No imagined alternative will justify this empirical behavior. Cross-posted from allisonkilkenny.com . Also available on Twitter. More on Afghanistan
 
Jerry Springer Show May Leave Chicago For Connecticut: Report Top
Jerry Springer's nationally syndicated television show looks to be headed out of Chicago, lured by tax credits to Stamford, Conn., sources said. Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell on Friday said the state and NBC Universal are working on a deal to establish a television production studio in Stamford, about 30 miles from New York City.
 
Current TV's "Vanguard": "Narco War Next Door" Top
Ruthless Mexican drug lords are using increasingly violent tactics against government crackdowns on the deadly drug trade. As the situation escalates with an increasing number of kidnappings and murders, the U.S. wants to ensure the violence stops at the border. "Vanguard" Journalist Laura Ling investigates the "Narco War Next Door." From Tijuana, Juarez, and Sinaloa, Ling interviews kidnapping victims, FBI agents and police officers as well as the Mayor of Juarez, Jose Keyes Ferriz and human rights activist Victor Clark. "Vanguard" airs every Wednesday at 10 p.m. ET/PT. "Vanguard" pods are also available on Current.com/Vanguard . Watch the video: Hundreds of people are being deported from the U.S. back into Mexico daily. Many deportees are gang members who committed crimes in the U.S. Laura Ling speaks with a recent deportee in Tijuana, Mexico about the fate of deported gang members in Mexico, many of who end up as foot soldiers in Mexico's drug war. Mexican Drug Tunnel The Casa del Tunel art museum isn't just any museum celebrating Mexico's contemporary artists. In its previous incarnation, the museum was an actual cross-border tunnel used to smuggled drugs from Mexico into the U.S. The tunnel began in what was once a home and ended across the border in a San Ysidro parking lot. The tunnel has since been sealed and the house turned into a museum run by the Border Council of Arts and Culture "to create a new model at the U.S.-Mexico Border region for sustainable cultural development." More on Mexico
 
Scott Ballum: Lawrence Lessig & Shepard Fairey on Art, Commerce and Corruption Top
This article originally appeared on PSFK.com . Thursday night, we were treated to an insightful and inspiring production at the New York Public Library as part of their Live from the NYPL series and sponsored by Wired . Titled "Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy" , the event featured Lawrence Lessig , founder of Creative Commons among other things, and Shepard Fairey , whom you may have heard of recently . Moderated by cultural historian Steven Johnson , it intended to focus on the future of art and ideas in an age when practically anything can be copied, pasted, downloaded, sampled, and re-imagined. Less about commerce and more about moral and congressional corruption crippling artistic expression, the panel was self-admittedly pretty one-sided about the whole debate. Johnson, the 35th most popular man on Twitter, according to Live from the NYPL Director Paul Holdengräber, opened the evening with the famously reclipped Charlie Rose video by Andrew Fillipone, Jr, in which Rose appears to be interviewing himself with little success about the future of the internet. Johnson laid the groundwork for the evening in his assessment that, though these issues were timely due to the widespread and accessible nature of technology and information, they were also timeless - old values that we have been wrestling with for centuries. He invoked the original 'remix' by Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin's insistence that ideas get better as they flow and circulate, attracting "the attentions of the ingenious." To his panelists, he posed the question: "Where do we think innovation and creativity come from? From building walls and protecting them, or from sharing and expressing them?" Lessig picked up the idea that the now-famous Fairey was not the first to base his art on others work, and drove it further home with images of Warhol's Marilyn , Will.i.am's Yes We Can , and music by Girl Talk . "Remixing with new voices," he argued, "is creative practice." What is different now from when Jefferson or Warhol were working isn't this idea - it's the law. He presented an exploration of what the law could and should do. It's intention being to produce motivation for creatives to create, the law protects artwork and creates ways for an artist to be compensated. However, as when record labels pull YouTube videos of babies dancing along to the radio, the cost often outweighs the benefit. In favor of copyright deregulation, Lessig argued that the presumption should be that permission is free (rather that the presumption that it is not), protecting the Remix artwork in question. Instead, current regulation and public policy is fueled by corruption and campaign dollars to make money for Congressmen and lawyers. This regulation is not going to stop the remixing anyway, only criminalize it. To read the rest of this article, please visit PSFK.com . To read more of Scott's articles, please visit PSFK.com.
 
O'Connor Denies Claiming Support Of Emanuel, Durbin In Campaign Fliers Top
Is Mayor Daley's "unofficial floor leader" claiming "unofficial endorsements" from Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Dick Durbin? No, no, no, Ald. Patrick O'Connor (40th) is not trying to imply any endorsement by Durbin or Emanuel -- the man he hopes to replace in Congress -- by running their photos and testimonials in his campaign literature, a spokesman said. More on Rahm Emanuel
 
John Kerry: Facts Are Stubborn Things Top
To paraphrase the conservative columnist's favorite president, "There you go again, George." George Will has been one of my favorite intellectual sparring partners for a long time, a favorite more recently because he had the guts to publicly recognize the disaster that was George W Bush's presidency. But in his latest Washington Post column, George and I have a pretty big loud disagreement. Don't get me wrong. I'm happy to see Will embracing the idea of recycling, but I'm very troubled that he is recycling errors of fact to challenge the science on global warming. I'm even more troubled that Will used his February 15th column not only to cast doubt on sound science, but also to denigrate the work of two fine scientists. Lets be very clear: Stephen Chu does not make predictions to further an agenda. He does so to inform the public. He is no Cassandra. If his predictions about the effects of our climate crisis are scary, it's because our climate is scary. Likewise, John Holdren is a friend of mine and one of the best scientific minds we have in our country. Pulling out one minor prediction that he had some unknown role in formulating nearly three decades ago, as Will did in his February 15th column, and then using that to try to undo his credibility as a scientist may be a fancy debating trick, but it's just plain wrong when it comes to a debate we can't afford to see dissolve into reducto ad absurdum hijinx. (A side note: The incident in question occurred in 1980, which, as I recall, was just about the time Ronald Reagan made the claim that approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation and that, consequently, we should "not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emissions standards from man-made sources.") Dragging up long-discredited myths about some non-existent scientific consensus about global cooling from the 1970s does no one any good. Except perhaps a bankrupt flat earth crowd. I hate to review the record and see that someone as smart as George Will has been doing exactly that as far back as 1992. And it's especially troubling when the very sources that Will cites in his February 15th column draw the exact opposite conclusions and paint very different pictures than Will provides, as the good folks at ThinkProgress and Media Matters for America have demonstrated so thoroughly. This has to stop. A highly organized, well-funded movement to deny the reality of global climate change has been up and running for a long time, but it doesn't change the verdict: the problem is real, it's accelerating, and we have to act. Now. Not years from now. No matter how the evidence has mounted over two decades -- the melting of the arctic ice cap, rising sea levels, extreme weather -- the flat earth caucus can't even see what is on the horizon. In the old Republican Congress they even trotted out the author of Jurassic Park as an expert witness to argue that climate change is fiction. This is Stone Age science, and now that we have the White House and the Congress real science must prevail. It is time to stop debating fiction writers, oil executives and flat-earth politicians, and actually find the way forward on climate change. This is a fight we can win, a problem we can overcome, but time is not on our side. We can't waste another second arguing about whether the problem exists when we need to be debating everything from how to deal with the dirtiest forms of coal as the major provider of power in China to how to vastly increase green energy right here at home. "Facts are stupid things," Ronald Reagan once said. He was, of course, paraphrasing John Adams, who could have been talking about the science on global change when he said, "Facts are stubborn things." Stubborn or stupid -- lets have a real debate and lets have it now. I know George Will well, I respect his intellect and his powers of persuasion -- but I'd happily debate him any day on this question so critical to our survival. More on Wash Post
 
Afghans Protest Amid Claims Foreign Forces Desecrated Koran During Mosque Raid Top
Hundreds of protesters have clashed with police in southern Afghanistan amid claims international forces opened fire inside a mosque and copies of the Quran were ripped up. More on Afghanistan
 
Eileen McMenamin: GOP Governors Sound Bipartisan Notes Top
Anyone watching the Sunday talk shows this week might be forgiven for thinking bipartisanship is in the air. Despite the fact that President Barack Obama's federal stimulus plan received only three Republican votes in the U.S. Senate, some Republican governors seem to be ready to reach across the political aisle -- without fear of having their hands bitten off. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is not exactly viewed as conservative torch-bearer by his constituents in California, offered this defense on ABC's This Week : "When you're in the center, you get attacked from the left and you get attacked from the right. And this is a good sign, actually, because that means that you're in the right place." Schwarzenegger, who is supportive of the stimulus plan, and is even offering to take South Carolina's share of the stimulus money should Governor Mark Sanford decide his state is going to turn it down, was asked why he is still a Republican. "Well, because I still believe in the Republican principles. But remember one thing, that it doesn't really matter if you're a Republican or Democrat," he said. "We should go beyond all this. Is it a Republican idea or is it a Democratic idea? Which philosophy does it fall under? It doesn't matter." To some, it does matter. Take Republican consultant Alex Castellanos' recent comments about Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who supports the stimulus package, in the St. Petersburg Times . "I don't think he's helped any national Republican ambitions he may have by stepping up to the plate and batting for the other team. ...There's a difference between working in a bipartisan way for the common good and switching sides and putting on the other team's jersey. At the one moment when we've finally found our voice and remember who we are as Republicans, Charlie Crist forgets. It's stunning." What is also stunning to some Republicans is the fact that GOP governors are willing to work with President Obama and the Democratic Congress at all. Republican members of the House and Senate, virtually unified in their opposition, took to the airwaves last week to denounce the stimulus plan. GOP governors, however, remain more divided, with a portion of them going out of their way to signal they are willing to work with the Democrats and others aligning with the hard-core Congressional opponents. But in the face of balanced budget requirements, it may be that some Republican governors are feeling a bit more pragmatic about how to move forward in their states. Governor Charlie Crist offered his view on NBC's Meet the Press : "I'll take ideas from anybody. It really doesn't matter if they're a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent; if they're a Floridian and they care about the people of our state, I want to work with them to make sure that we have a better future and a brighter future." In the midst of a budget face-off with the California legislature last week over an almost $42 billion deficit, Schwarzenegger said, "Anyone that runs around, I think, and says that this can be done without raising taxes, I think has not really looked at it carefully to understand this budget or has a math problem and has to get back, as I said, and take Math 101." Ultimately, Schwarzenegger prevailed in the stand-off when he corralled the final Republican he needed to pass the deal. The bottom line comes down to the governors' bottom lines. Governors tend to be held more immediately accountable for results in their states than do members of Congress. This is particularly so for Schwarzenegger and Crist -- Republicans who govern, respectively, in a solidly Democratic and a swing state -- who may not have the luxury of squabbling with the other party. Call it safety in numbers for members of Congress, but the governors are work horses to the Congressional show horses. "We've got to rebuild America," said Schwarzenegger. "And we've got to help people, be public servants, not party servants. So you've got to do what the people want you to do rather than getting stuck in your ideology." As the National Governors Association meeting in Washington, D.C. wrapped up, there was still doubt among some of the GOP participants that the stimulus bill would have the desired results in terms of job-creation and stimulating the economy. Southern Republicans like Governors Haley Barbour and Bobby Jindal were making noises about whether they would even accept all of the stimulus funds on behalf of their states. But Crist summed it up this way: "We're in a tough time...I think we do need to be bipartisan. We need to be, in fact, nonpartisan. We're all Americans. Our country is at a dire point, and we need to do everything we can to work together to get America through this." More on Charlie Crist
 
Gingrich On EFCA: "Mortal Threat To American Freedom" Top
How serious and committed are conservatives to the defeat of the Employee Free Choice Act? This committed: "This bill is a mortal threat to American freedom and we will never forgive somebody who votes for cloture or for passage." That's New Gingrich, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington D.C. The former House Speaker is launching a new media campaign, titled American Solutions, to help with his efforts to defeat the legislation -- which has been described at the conference as nothing short of the demise of Western civilization. Gingrich also hawked his innovative anti-EFCA tactics while at the podium, reminding attendees that they could win a free Wii by signing up with American Solutions. Already one has been given away. Beyond the free video game consoles, Gingrich's tactics shouldn't be understated. This is nothing short of a major warning to the possible EFCA defectors in the Republican Party -- namely Sen. Arlen Specter -- that there will be hell to pay for sitting this fight out. The hope among some union activists is that Republican Senators will vote for cloture on EFCA before casting ballots against the bill. For Newt, this would be as treasonous as supporting the bill.
 
Sylvia Sukop: Milk Money for School Top
Tomorrow is your last chance to bid on clothing worn by Sean Penn in his Oscar-winning performance in Milk , being auctioned off to benefit the Harvey Milk High School in New York and Variety-The Children's Charity of Southern California. Like the nesting shirts in Ennis Del Mar's closet in the final scene of Brokeback Mountain -- the last gay-themed film to win over a sizeable mainstream audience -- Milk's suit, shirt, tie and "No on 6" pin have achieved iconic status in the GLBT community and will now benefit that community. (The auction is underway at www.clothesoffourback.org .) Oscar-nominated costume designer Danny Glicker recreated the actual ensemble that Milk was wearing on November 7, 1978, the day he and his supporters celebrated the statewide defeat of Proposition 6, which would have initiated a witch hunt targeting gay teachers in California public schools. It's hard to believe that three decades ago the majority of California voters got it right and just three months ago they got it wrong. It's a sad fact that gay youth still need reassurances from people other than their own family, friends, teachers, clergy and public officials that "you are beautiful" and "God does love you," as Milk screenwriter Dustin Lance Black proclaimed in his emotional acceptance speech last Sunday night. I recently sat down with Glicker -- who, like Black and director Gus van Sant, is gay -- to talk about his work on the film that's inspiring a new generation of civil rights activists. Glicker's extensive research into Milk and his milieu included hands-on visits to the GLBT Historical Society in San Francisco, which gave him generous access to Harvey Milk's original clothing, including the actual suit he was wearing when he was assassinated. SS: So you were able to look at and handle Harvey Milk's actual clothes? DG: Yes, they were very generous at the archives and I worked very closely with his real clothes including the suit that he was murdered in. The suit that Sean wears as Harvey when he's murdered is an exact reproduction of the suit that real Harvey was wearing. We measured everything from lapels to belt loops to the bullet holes. SS: That must have been very intense. DG: It was absolutely intense. It was also very precious and very humbling. I can tell you that on this movie I felt like I wasn't only a designer, I felt like I was an archivist and a journalist and I felt very protective of the story. I already felt this great responsibility to begin with. But handling the suit, wearing special white gloves -- the suit is in acid-free tissue paper on a table -- I remember touching it and touching the fabric and the shirt still covered in dried blood, and just feeling profoundly sad for the fragile humanity that it represented. At the same time I felt very grateful to be entrusted with the story. In that moment, the level of responsibility was so apparent and I felt grateful to be reminded of that--that this wasn't some fun 70s romp. It wasn't about wacky bellbottoms and kooky patterns. It was this incredibly profound story about a single person who accomplished amazing things in a very short amount of time, and then was murdered. I understood that I was there to protect the integrity of the look of the movie and to protect the integrity of the way Harvey was perceived. SS: Sounds like you took that on as an almost sacred responsibility. DG: When you're working with an actor of the quality of Sean Penn, you have to be absolutely dedicated to serving the story and the actor's transformation and physical experience. It cannot be an ego-driven pursuit. Costume design is about serving actors and serving directors. Of course you have to find a way to bring your ideas and experience and knowledge into it, but it is not this frivolous pursuit. SS: There are other key characters and hundreds of extras in the film. How did you get a handle on designing the whole look of this era? DG: Milk had two major mandates going for it regarding the look. First, it's the story of a person and a time that are very well documented, and second, I knew the movie was going to be intercut with a lot of archival footage. Not only were we documenting real people in real places but we were documenting them in a nine-year span of time, so we had these enormous binders of research in chronological order that meticulously chronicled their evolution. I have never worked on a project with more research than I had on Milk . On top of that, because so many people in the movie are associated with photography, as Harvey did own a camera store, the documentation of that time was ten-fold. That said, it was still very challenging to place it back into its proper time frame, to unlock the logic of their clothes, how they dressed, the way they wore their clothes. Anytime we were filming something that was documented, automatically I recreated it exactly as it was. If it is a documented event, Sean will always be wearing exactly what Harvey was wearing--the Levi's jackets, the suits. SS: Do you think Milk has influenced contemporary fashion? DG: After Milk came out there was an enormous amount of interest in the "Castro clone." Obviously it's a fabulous look from that time, but I also think that right now men are exploring in adventurous ways different forms of expressing their identity. And if you go back to the 70s, the Castro clone was a really exciting way for gay men to express their masculine identity. Now of course -- all over the glossies -- you have straight men exploring the gay aesthetic as a way of expressing their identity. You have straight guys across the country who want nothing more than to look like the boys of Abercrombie & Fitch, which is not the most traditional aspirational goal for straight guys to have. Well, maybe it's traditional if you go back to ancient Greece! More on The Oscars
 
Presented By: Top
 
Maura Judkis: Power Shift Brings Young People to Washington to Lobby for Climate Action Top
Today marks the start of Power Shift '09 , a weekend that will bring 10,000 young people to Washington to lobby Congress for action on climate change. Those who attend will hear from speakers such as Sen. Nancy Pelosi, and learn the skills necessary to lobby on Capitol Hill. At the end of the weekend, another group, Capitol Climate Action , will be hosting the largest civil disobedience demonstration for climate change yet at the coal-fired Capitol Power Plant. Endorsed by a myriad of environmental organizations and NASA climate scientist James Hansen, young people in dress clothes will risk arrest to demonstrate at the plant. Both events are a testament to the role that young people will have in changing climate policy. I talked to Jessy Tolkan , the executive director of Power Shift '09 about how she thinks this weekend could change our climate policy forever. You've led young people for a while now - what's the best way for them to make their voices heard all year round, rather than just this weekend? Young people need to flex their political muscle 365 days a year. They need to do that by constantly buzzing in the ears of Congress and political leaders, being visual on their college campuses and communities, and physically building the movement. We need to consolidate our power - by that, I mean making sure that our congressional officials know we are a voting bloc and making sure corporations know that we have tremendous purchasing power. We need to consolidate so we can take on special interests that have kept us out of power for a long time. How do you teach college kids how to lobby? Over the course of four days at Power Shift, we'll be exposing our students to workshops that will highlight some of the most innovative thinkers on the topics of public policy, clean energy technology and the green economy. We'll start with hour long briefings, dividing the 10,000 students into groups of 200 for discussions on the current political climate, hammering home the message that we must pass climate change legislation in 2009. We have more than 300 trainers that will be training our lobby day participants. How will this year's session be different from your previous lobbying day for Power Shift '07? The fun part of walking into Congress with thousands of young people in 2009 is that this demographic voted in record numbers and is largely responsible for electing the current president and the current Congress. We've accrued more political power - we're a demographic that matters and we proved that we mattered in huge ways. There were 5,000 students who came in 2007, and since then energy action has mobilized millions of voters. We've come with a detailed plan to let these members know we'll be watching them every step of the way. We represent only a small fraction of constituents across this country that share in the commitment to pass bold climate action in 2009. I read in a study from the Center for Public Integrity that the climate change lobby is growing fast - are you encouraging the participants to choose lobbying as a career? This weekend we have a career fair that will highlight opportunities not only in organizing and activism but also entrepreneurial opportunities, science opportunities, and opportunities in the arts. The Energy Action Coalition is not just a coalition of young environmentalists, nor only political activists. Our goal is not to just build a generation of political lobbyists, but citizens throughout a wide spectrum of careers who carry passion for our energy future. What changes do you hope the weekend will bring about? What changes do you think the weekend will actually bring about? We're at a place where our hope is more than just hope. It is rooted in indications that our hope will be a reality. Our big picture hopes for the weekend are that we light that spark that grows this movement strong enough and loud enough to encourage Congress to pass bold climate action in 2009. The concrete things are that 10,000 well-trained, sophisticated leaders will leave with a plan of action to go back to their communities and multiply themselves in this movement 10 times over. They will have been given the organizing skills, policy savvy, understanding of coalition building, and inspiration to go out and continue to build public demand for action.   The protest comes shortly after the president has pledged to put energy and climate at the top of his priority list. How will that affect the goals of this weekend - do you think you're pushing for things that are inevitable? We never thought we'd see a president talking about the need for urgent action on climate and energy. We recognize that our role is now more critical than ever. It is the role of this youth movement to push the envelope much further, to make a case for urgency and boldness. We want to make sure that this issue, in the space of so many other priorities, does not get overlooked. If you were president, what's the first climate action you would take? I would immediately cap carbon. I would institute a plan to have more aggressive short-term targets that would reduce carbon 40 percent by 2020. I'd institute a moratorium on the development of new coal plants. I'd urge Congress to pass a renewable portfolio standard. I'd invest an impressive amount of money in clean energy structure and green jobs, and I would get it done by December 2009, because, as president, I would want to signal to the international community that the U.S. is ready to lead, and that we are turning around eight years of being obstructionist. I don't want to go to Copenhagen without signaling that we're ready to be true leaders. Obama should just let me know if it's getting tough, because I'm ready to step in. How is Power Shift connected to Capitol Climate Action's civil disobedience? The Energy Action Coalition is not the organizer of Capitol Climate Action. We're proud to be able to offer young people the opportunity to gain valuable skills and let people engage in the political process. But we recognize that it will take a variety of tactics and participation from different constituencies to achieve what we want on climate and energy. We're happy to see that the public is rising to the challenges that this issue presents. More from Fresh Greens at U.S. News & World Report : How Much Does Lent Decrease Our Carbon Footprint? Tendril Shows off Smart Meter Solution Economic Downturn May Be Making American Diets Healthier
 
Heather Robinson: Bangladeshi Journalist, Champion of Free Speech in the Muslim World, Attacked Top
On Monday, a gang of thugs stormed the newspaper office of The Weekly Blitz , an independent newspaper based in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and physically attacked its editor, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. Choudhury, 39, advocates normalized relations between his country and Israel, and also has worked to expose the widespread brainwashing of Bangladeshi youth into radical Islam. Choudhury sustained injuries to his eye, shoulder and neck in last Monday's attack, which he believes was perpetrated by members of Bangladesh's ruling Awami League party. In a phone interview from Bangladesh on Tuesday, Choudhury shared details of the attack. "I don't say these people were sent by the government, but they are members of the ruling party," he said. "They were beating me and shouting I am a Mossad agent. Many people here are anti-Israel and they were trying to capitalize on anti-Israel sentiment. "Since the new government [came to power] in January, this is the first attack on a news office." Choudhury suggested the Bangladeshi police were not effectual in protecting him or his staff, several of whom were beaten alongside him in broad daylight. There is, he maintains, "a kind of silent cooperation from law enforcement." "The police came but did not stop them," he said. "The police were interested in escorting us but they did not do anything to the attackers." The attackers confiscated his laptop, which he says contained much of the material for his book, Inside Madrassa. The book concerns widespread brainwashing of children that takes place in the madrassas of Bangladesh, which are not accountable to the government, as well as institutionalized discrimination against women in his country, he says. This is not the first time the Bangladeshi government has tried to stifle Choudhury, who is a Sunni Muslim, for his investigative reporting and his views. In 2003, as he was attempting to travel to Israel, government agents arrested him. They incarcerated him, held him for 17 months, and tortured him. During those 17 months, he was denied medical treatment for his glaucoma, which worsened as a result of his incarceration. After Choudhury was imprisoned, Dr. Richard Benkin, an American human rights activist and retired college sociology professor with whom he had exchanged information online, became aware of Choudhury's plight. Benkin brought the case to the attention of his Congressman, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who pressured the Bangladeshi government to release Choudhury. At that time, the government in Bangladesh was a center-right government. Bangladesh's present government is a left-wing government known as the Awami League that holds secularist and anti-American views. But Choudhury explains that, left or right, those in power in Bangladesh have not exhibited tolerance for free speech. "Whether Muslim or secular, they are anti-Zionist. Because I promote relations with Israel, for me there is no mercy with them," he says. His family also suffers. "My wife and children are terrorized," he says. "But it is the life they have learned to live, in adversity." As a journalist, he feels it is his duty to continue raising awareness, particularly about the mass indoctrination of children taking place in many of the schools of Bangladesh. "The madrassas are not accountable to the government," he says. "[Children] are taught to hate the Jews and Christians ... kill them and remain good Muslims." As of Thursday, Choudhury was in the process of healing physically, but still under threat and unable to go to his newspaper's office. He continues to publish The Weekly Blitz online from his home. His staff is unable to go in to the office because they do not have police protection. Benkin continues to advocate for Choudhury, and told me in a phone interview today that it is vital to raise awareness about Choudhury's plight. Benkin has received support for Choudhury from leaders in the U.S. Congress from both sides of the aisle. "I approached Dick Durbin and Rick Santorum around the same time--as far left and as far right as you can go--and both were equally supportive," Benkin said. "Both recognized the value in opposing this sort of human rights violation." Benkin said U.S. citizens can reach out to their representatives in Congress and urge them to enforce House Resolution 64, which passed in 2007 by a vote of 409 to 1. That resolution called upon the government of Bangladesh to stop harassing Choudhury, and drop charges against him. "[The current Bangladeshi government] figured they could [harass Choudhury] without anyone caring," Benkin said. "There's a new administration in Dhaka and a new one in Washington and they are trying to figure out if they can harass journalists without any consequences."
 
Jacob Heilbrunn: Democrats Should Support Obama's Troop Plan Top
Leading Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid are raising some reservations about President Obama's plan to leave up to 50,000 troops in Iraq. Pelosi told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: "I don't know what the justification is for 50,000, a presence of 50,000 troops in Iraq... I do think that there's a need for some." Democrats should stop bickering and rally around Obama by supporting his troop plan. If Iraq remains or becomes even more stable in 2010, then Obama will almost surely draw down troops even more quickly than he's currently announcing. The 50,000 number is obviously a preventive measure, to make sure that the situation in Iraq doesn't deteriorate into factional violence. Imagine the criticism Obama would come under if Iraq is in a lot worse shape a year from now. A "Who Lost Iraq" debate would erupt, with the GOP claiming that cowardly Democratic policies had led directly to defeat. Consistent with his pragmatic bent, Obama has struck out a middle course, knowing that in 2011 all U.S. combat troops are obligated to depart Iraq. The entire sordid Iraq mess is coming to an end. The Iraq War will rapidly fade from American consciousness, though the damage it has done to that country, including creating millions of refugees living in Syria, Jordan and elsewhere, will not. If Democrats want to worry about something, it shouldn't be Iraq, but Afghanistan and Pakistan, which pose a mortal threat to Obama's presidency. More on Obama's First 100 Days
 
Jonathan Krohn: 13-Year-Old Conservative Wunderkind Wows CPAC, Joe The Plumber Top
The future of the conservative movement presented himself on Friday, and he was 13. Jonathan Krohn, the author of "Define Conservatism" and political prodigy voted "Atlanta's Most Talented Child" in 2006, was the talk of the Conservative Political Action Conference for a brief portion of the afternoon session. His two-minute address on "Conservative Victories Across the Nation" addressed the lost principles of the Republican Party, which he called the "shell" to conservatism's "filling." It was filled with the type of rhetorical flow and emotional pitch one would expect from a seasoned hand. Except, Korn is more than four years away from being able to vote. Certainly, it was enough to win him a whole host of plaudits, from his co-panelists to the big-name attendees. "Watch out David Keene," said Millie Hallow, the moderator of the panel, in reference to the conservative luminary who heads CPAC. "He came up to me, grabbed my hand, and shook it," said Joe the Plumber. "If I didn't know any better I would say he was 30 years old. He definitely has a great confidence about him. I enjoyed talking with him.... He's definitely sharp." How, exactly, a 13-year-old (Krohn turns 14 on Sunday) got to this place is story of an intense, downright obsessive, interest in politics. Sitting at a table and signing copies his books -- his red tie flopping on top of the white tablecloth, a flag pin pinched to his sports coat -- he assigns credit for his fast ascension to none other than Bill Bennett. "I got into politics when I was eight years old. Six years now. And I got involved because I started listening to talk radio. It goes back to one event. The Democrats filibustered something in the Senate when I was eight years old. I don't remember what it was on and I didn't honestly care when I was eight years old. I cared about the history and the Senate rules," he told the Huffington Post. "I listened to Bill Bennett and tons of other talk show hosts who talked about that and other policies and started branching out and caring about other issues in regards to politics. Bill Bennett really became an idol for me. I listened to him every morning from 6 to 9 for, oh, years. And I started learning more and started to be able to think on my own, understanding politics on my own. I started to be able to use my mind to engage in political conversations under the conservative banner." He talks fast and with high-pitched emotion (no cracking of the voice), often banging his two fists against the table (each one holding a pen) for dramatic effect. His mother, naturally protective, reminds him at one point that he's talking to a reporter from the Huffington Post. "I know he is a liberal," he replies. "But you are not the first liberal I talked to at CPAC." The topic on his mind - or at least mine - is how the Republican Party can resurrect itself. "Conservatism, conservatism, conservatism..." he replies. Whether these are talking points, I'm not sure. Either way, he has them down. "A lot of people say to me, 'oh, you're a Republican.' And I say, 'No, I'm a conservative.' I'm a Republican when I support candidates. When I talk about the party I'm affiliated with I'm a Republican. But when it comes to what I am, I'm a conservative." It was, Krohn says, an abandonment of philosophy that brought the GOP to its current state; on issues from immigration reform to bailouts. "I think they started losing it because the American people saw the American party wasn't really based on conservatism," he says. And it will only be when Republicans return to their core conservative beliefs that electoral power will be reassumed. It's an idea the majority of CPAC participants ardently believe. But he's the only 13-year-old, waxing philosophically, articulating them. As for his choices for president, Krohn talks, once more, like a seasoned vet. "I would love to see Newt Gingrich," he said. "But it's impossible to see him up there. I don't see him doing it. I would love Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney as well."
 
Obama's Iraq Speech Receives Mixed Reviews On Capitol Hill Top
The reaction of Capitol Hill lawmakers to President Obama's Iraq troop drawdown speech today has been rather mixed. Interestingly, the President seems to be drawing strong support from Republicans, while Democratic reaction has mostly been mixed, with general support for the drawdown but caution or outright criticism of the fact that as many as 50,000 troops will remain after August 2010. The Democratic leadership seems to hedge by showing both support for the troops but also issuing caveats regarding the residual force presence. From Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office: "As President Obama's Iraq policy is implemented, the remaining missions given to our remaining forces must be clearly defined and narrowly focused so that the number of troops needed to perform them is as small as possible. The President's decision means that the time has come at last for Iraq's own security forces to have the prime responsibility for Iraq's security." And from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: "I strongly believe that we must responsibly end the war in Iraq to make America more secure, and must keep in Iraq only those forces necessary for the security of our remaining troops and the Iraqi people. I look forward to further discussing this plan with the President and working with him to ensure we are doing what is best for America's security interests and ensuring our military remains the strongest fighting force in history." Meanwhile, a press release from House Minority Leader John Boehner voices strong agreement with the 50,000 figure: "I believe he has outlined a responsible approach that retains maximum flexibility to reconsider troop levels and to respond to changes in the security environment should circumstances on the ground warrant." And on the Senate side of the GOP leadership, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says he is pleased with the plan (but meanwhile accredits it much more to General Petraeus than to Obama): "It is encouraging to see the Obama Administration embrace the plan of Gen. David Petraeus that began with the successful surge in 2007, and continues shifting combat responsibilities to our Iraqi allies. I commend our men and women in uniform, our military leaders, and the President's decision yesterday for making it possible to take another step toward realizing our goal of a stable Iraq." Also of note, Obama's former opponent Senator John McCain agrees fully with the remaining troop levels: "The American people should be clear: the President's plan, even after the end of its withdrawal timeline is reached, will leave in place up to 50,000 U.S. troops. All will be in harm's way, and some will continue to conduct combat operations. They will play a vital role in consolidating and extending the remarkable progress our military has made since early 2007. That is why I believe that the administration should aim to keep the full complement - 50,000, as briefed by Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen - and not succumb to pressures, political or otherwise, to make deeper or faster cuts in our force levels." And on the flip-side, some House Democrats are vociferously attacking the plan for being utterly insufficient. For example California Democrat Lynn Woolsey calls it "unacceptable": "Call such a troop level what you will, but such a large number can only be viewed by the Iraqi public as an enduring occupation force. This is unacceptable." And from Dennis Kucinich, the one other Democratic primary runner other than Barack Obama to have voted against the Iraq War: "I support President Obama for taking a step in the right direction in Iraq, but I do not think that his plan goes far enough. You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war. You can't be in and out at the same time." More on Nancy Pelosi
 
James Zogby: "Arabesque" Top
Last Friday, the "Weekend" section of the Washington Post featured a cover story on "Arabesque: Art of the Arab World," the Kennedy Center's three-week-long festival of Arab arts and culture. There is no better way to begin a reflection on the program, than to quote the opening lines of the marvelous "Weekend" review by Ellen McCarthy. She wrote: "The residents of Washington might now know it yet, but something extraordinary is about to take place on the banks of the Potomac. Something that has never happened here - or anywhere, really." McCarthy was so right. From the moment the curtains opened on "Arabesque's" first night, I knew something quite remarkable was occurring, and I was, quite simply, overwhelmed. "Arabesque" is a wonder. Negotiating the logistics and politics necessary to assemble the festival was monumental. Locating the talent, securing visas, transporting sets, costumes and works of art was, itself, a remarkable undertaking, a tribute to the foresight and vision of the Kennedy Center's Director, Michael Kaiser, and the determination and the commitment of his staff to see the project to fruition. Five years in the making, the Director and staff of Washington's prestigious Kennedy Center, traveled across the Arab world to assemble a wide range of artists from all 22 Arab countries. Eight hundred performers, in all, have come to the U.S., from the traditional (Berber singers from Morocco), to the more avant-garde (Marcel Khalife, or Debbie Allen's remarkable "Omani Dancers"). There were musicians, singers and dancers, poets and painters, story-tellers, artists and craftsmen represented in the group. "Arabesque" provides Americans and Arabs alike with a profound learning experience. As Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, noted, never before have artists from all 22 Arab countries been represented under one roof in one festival. As the festival unfolds over its three-week run, tens of thousands of Americans will see the richness and diversity of Arab culture, in all its many exquisite forms. On each day of the program, there are multiple events taking place on the Kennedy Center's many stages. On one night, for example, there were Syrian dervish dancers, a performance by a Palestinian theater troupe, and a Somali hip-hop group. At the same time, the Kennedy Center's interior has been transformed. There are exhibits of Arab bridal dresses and examples of Arabic architecture. And the basement of the Kennedy Center has become a veritable Arab souk, displaying crafts from Morocco to Iraq, for appreciation by and sale to the thousands of tourists who visit the Kennedy Center each day. Arabs, too, will learn. As I have come to note, not only do Americans (and even Arab Americans) not know the richness and diversity of Arab culture; but Arabs, too, have not been exposed to the variety of cultural expression across their broad region. We "know of" each other, but do not always "know" each other. But, here we are, thanks to the Kennedy Center, all under one roof. The experience of "Arabesque" will shatter stereotypes, and put new definition to the meaning of being Arab. For too many Americans, Arabs exist only as one-dimensional political beings, lacking hearts or souls. I remember what was, for me, a profoundly hurtful moment: on the 25th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel, hearing comments by them-Prime Minister Golda Meir, who observed that she felt "so sad" for the "other side" (read: "Arabs"). We (read: "Israelis") are a joyful people, who laugh, make art, and love beauty. They, on the other hand, know only how to be angry and make war. This, of course, was but an elaboration of a theme developed by Chaim Weizmann in the 1930s , when he characterized the conflict that was unfolding in the region as being between "the forces of civilization and the barbarism of the desert." This was later given artistic form on the book and film "Exodus," which portrayed Israelis as fully human, and Arabs as one-dimensional war-like figures, without value. During the next three weeks, this caricature of Arabs will be destroyed. And so, when the curtain rose on the opening night of Arabesque, and I saw 140 Syrian children of the Al-Farah Choir, I was, in fact, overwhelmed. Thankful, that after thirty years of combating negative stereotypes and defending my heritage, I would see the day when, in my nation's premier cultural center there would be a celebration of Arab arts and letters. The culture of my people was being recognized. I looked at the smiles and joyful movements of those youngsters and felt pride in their accomplishment. They are our little ambassadors. They, and the hundreds of others on the program who traveled thousands of miles to join the festival, were defining, better than any politicians, what it means to be an Arab, using the universal language of art. There are lessons to be learned from "Arabesque." It should be repeated. The seeds that have been planted by this festival will grow on their own - but how much better if they are nurtured and cultivated? The lesson here is that not only is the Arab past glorious, but that the present and future are, as well. All of us owe thanks to the Kennedy Center for reminding us of that, and challenging us to do better at remembering it.
 

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)