Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

The Progress Report: Obama's Recovery Address Top
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, and Ryan Powers To receive The Progress Report in your email inbox everyday, click here . Thirty-five days after being inaugurated as America's 44th president, Barack Obama discussed his economic agenda before a joint session of Congress last night. He focused on three priorities -- health care, energy, and education -- that will form the backbone of his long-term vision for economic growth and development. Those three core policy areas also received significant attention in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which Obama signed into law earlier this month. "Now is the time to act boldly and wisely -- to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity," Obama said last night. Although the President came into the House chamber with sky-high approval ratings, Americans remain deeply worried about the recession. He offered them not just a budget plan but what he called "a vision for America -- as a blueprint for our future." He declared, "We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before." MOVING IMMEDIATELY ON HEALTH CARE: Obama emphasized health care reform as the key to both restoring economic health and ensuring that the American dream lives on, and he made it clear he would not wait to move on a bold plan. "So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year," he said. Congress is already acting. In November, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), the powerful chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, released his own principles for health reform and has since held numerous meetings on restructuring the system. And under the direction of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), "many of the leading figures in the nation's long-running health care debate have been meeting secretly in a Senate hearing room" and "appear to be inching towards" a consensus that real reform will require every American to have health insurance and find ways to make it affordable. The Wonk Room's Igor Volsky notes that Obama left the details of reform up to Congress -- and "the devil will certainly lie in the details." Still, as Obama pointed out, he and Congress have already "done more to advance the cause of health care reform in the last thirty days than we have in the last decade," including passing landmark health IT innovation, new incentives for disease research, and unprecedented funding for preventive care, all in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He also signed a law providing health insurance to 11 million children, a bill Bush vetoed twice. 'IT BEGINS WITH ENERGY': Obama's vision for restoring robust economic growth and reclaiming new opportunity for all "begins with energy," he said. The recovery plan has already taken big steps to advance the goal of clean energy: It made huge investments in renewable energy, efficiency, and building a new, clean electrical grid. But Obama went further last night, challenging Congress to pass a broad cap-and-trade program that places a price on dirty fuel and invests in renewables -- and will allow the U.S. to "to truly transform our economy, to protect our security and save our planet from the ravages of climate change." The Obama administration is serious about implementing cap and trade; its budget factors in revenues from carbon pricing starting in 2012. Transforming how America gets its energy will go a long way toward rebuilding the American economy as well. A Center for American Progress study found that a $100 billion investment in green energy and technology creates two million jobs within two years. This week, the Center for American Progress Action Fund hosted the National Clean Energy Summit, where political leaders from across the ideological spectrum joined business, labor, and environmental leaders to discuss the urgent need to shift to a clean energy economy. They identified a national clean energy smart grid as a top priority in transforming America's energy economy -- and CAP is leading the way, with a report explaining how such a grid would work, enumerating the jobs it would create, and recommending the policies needed to implement it. EDUCATION IS 'A PRE-REQUISITE': The recovery plan Obama signed into law this month enacted "the largest increase in federal aid since Washington began to spend significantly on education after World War II," spending $150 billion on school districts, child care centers and universities. Education Secretary Arne Duncan praised the bill, saying it would "avert literally hundreds of thousands of teacher layoffs." The bill also included $13.9 billion in added funding for Pell Grants. Rebuilding crumbling schools and injecting needed funds into university scientific research, however, is not enough. "In a global economy, where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity. It is a pre-requisite," Obama said, announcing a goal "to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education." He earned a prolonged standing ovation when he declared that dropping out of high school "is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself; it's quitting on your country." Obama asked Americans to commit to at least one year of higher education or career training -- a goal that will require more flexible university programs as well as a renewed focus on secondary education to prepare students for higher learning. More on Barack Obama
 
Henry Blodget: How Far Will Stocks Fall If This Is Another Great Depression? Top
You really don't want to know the answer to that question, but here it is: Another 75% from today's level. In the Great Depression, the S&P index fell 86%. It is currently down about 50%. The S&P 500 peaked at about 1,550 18 months ago. An 86% fall from there would be about 200. The S&P 500 is currently trading at 775. A fall from 775 to 200 would be about 75%. So, if this is Great Depression 2.0, you ain't seen nothing yet! And how are we doing so far? So far, the market collapse is almost perfectly shadowing The Great Crash. (Click here to see a chart that maps the two declines together ). Here's hoping history doesn't repeat itself. See Also: When Will Stocks Recover?
 
Kevin Morris and Glenn Altschuler: Juvenal Delinquencies Top
Review of Snark, by David Denby. Simon & Schuster. $15.95. 128 pgs. In his meandering, meditative new book, Snark , David Denby, film critic for the New Yorker, does not invoke Justice Potter Stewart's standard for obscenity - "I know it when I see it." But he might as well have. Snark, according to Denby, is a clever insult, designed to get a cheap laugh without making a substantive point. It is "spreading like pinkeye, throughout the media, especially the Internet." But then again Denby deems "vituperation, which is insulting, nasty, but well, clean," a valuable activity in a democratic culture. While he's wondering why we can't all just get along, or, at least, find a little "grace" in our dealings with one another, he's also advising readers to "commit" a savage insult: "You'll feel better. You'll make other people feel better." Denby traces the roots of snark to the Ancient Greeks and Romans. In the evolution of snark, from Juvenal to Alexander Pope to Spy magazine, and "today's lame practitioners," he sees "a line down, a collapse, a devolution, as snark increasingly loses its intellectual complexity and wit." In homage to Lewis Carroll's nonsense poem, The Hunting of the Snark , Denby's book is organized, not all that helpfully, into seven "fits." His Fourth Fit, entitled "Anatomy of a Style", for example, contains nine "Principles of Snark," and the exposition collapses under the weight of the gag into a kaleidoscopic - and painfully obvious - monologue (snark attacks without reason, gives old jokes a new twist, tries to disguise hackneyed prejudices, accentuates the negative, reduces human complexity to caricature, brings fear and loathing to celebrity culture, assaults the elderly, ignores journalistic principles, and, we kid you not, trashes "expensive, underperforming restaurants.") Denby bemoans snarkiness in contemporary political discourse. He is disturbed - rightfully so - not just by the racist material promulgated against Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, but by the subtle and not-so-subtle statements and messages of Republican attack ads, Fox News, and "off the record" comments by Karl Rove. Recognizing, belatedly, that his partisan slips are showing, he acknowledges, halfway through the book, that "Liberals are not without sin." And then skewers Maureen Dowd, the "most gifted writer of snark in the country," devoting an entire chapter - or "fit" - to her, which concludes: "like the ravenous Cyclops, snark see with one eye. And then it complains that other people lack dimension." Taking after Dowd doesn't make Denby an equal opportunity snark shark. Indeed, he goes out of his way to gives liberals he likes a free pass. Not everyone, we guess, will agree with him that the claws of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are sharp but not snarky. And while some may believe, with Denby, that Keith Olbermann's tirades are "voluminously factual, astoundingly syntactical and always logically organized," many more will conclude, as we have, that if the daily designation of Bill O'Reilly as the 'Worst Person in the World," accompanied by an impersonation of his "Ted Baxter" voice and a recitation of Bill-O's sexual hang-ups, ain't snark, then God didn't make no little green apples and AIG was a steal at seventy-nine. The heart of the book, the part that resonates, is Denby's thesis, presented in fits and starts, that snark is "mean, it's personal, and it's ruining our conversation." Denby insists that "when writing becomes the vessel of social ambition, snark becomes more likely" and that "when such a shift is combined with the development of new reading and writing technologies, like the internet, snark becomes inevitable." As Denby says, it is "reasonable to ask: What are we doing to ourselves? What kind of journalistic culture do we want? What kind of internet culture? What kind of interpersonal - and national - conversation?" He is angry - and rightfully so - at the phenomenon of anonymous postings on websites. He points to the (now defunct) website Juicy Campus which invites coeds to comment on each other. "Who are the hottest girls on campus?' 'Who are the biggest sluts?'. The women are named, but the men identifying them hide behind a handle." Certainly, anonymous postings involving personal attacks are cowardly, juvenile and quite possibly actionable. But they do not seem to us to be a distinctive category of snark. The public square in America has always been a rough place; but snark goes to the level of civility of the speechmaker. Anonymous postings are drunken hecklers. Snarky or not, they do not deserve a platform. Snark stimulates us to think harder about the public square and how it will look in the future. We wish Denby had provided a comparative perspective to help us understand snark in the cycle of American politics. Is there more snark in newspapers, on TV, and even on the internet than there was in the nineteenth century, when "scandalmonger" James Callender and a legion of lesser lights revealed the lurid details, many of them imagined, about Alexander Hamilton's sexual relationship with Maria Reynolds, a married woman, and Thomas Jefferson's child-producing rape of his slave, Sally Hemmings? As Americans enjoy snark in our culture of infotainment will they - can they - address issues of politics and public policy as they did in earlier times? What does it tell us that the electorate ate up Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky jokes, but was overwhelmingly opposed to his impeachment? And that for all of the Obama/Osama crap that was out there, Barack still won? Denby suggests, albeit too briefly, that "snark sounds like the seethe and snarl of an unhappy and ferociously divided country." Is it, then, an epiphenomenon of a more dangerous phenomenon, political polarization? When Americans gravitate to media outlets tailored to their point of view, do they greet snarky comments as subscribers to Democratic Party newspapers in the nineteenth century did when they read that Abraham Lincoln was an "ourang outang" - as rabid reinforcement of what they already think or believe? "I have a tendency, I know," Denby admits, "to be bothered by cynicism, slander, and failed nasty wit more than I should, and indeed, to take things too seriously." He may be right about the pernicious tendencies of snark to debase our culture. But maybe, he - and we - should be more worried about a democratic mass media that has conflated opinion with information and sorted out viewers into us and them. More on Bill O'Reilly
 
More Evidence Links Alcohol, Cancer In Women Top
WASHINGTON — A study of nearly 1.3 million British women offers yet more evidence that moderate alcohol consumption increases the risk of a handful of cancers. British researchers surveyed middle-aged women at breast cancer screening clinics about their drinking habits, and tracked their health for seven years. A quarter of the women reported no alcohol use. Nearly all the rest reported fewer than three drinks a day; the average was one drink a day. Researchers compared the lightest drinkers _ two or fewer drinks a week _ with people who drank more. Each extra drink per day increased the risk of breast, rectal and liver cancer, University of Oxford researchers reported Tuesday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The type of alcohol _ wine, beer or liquor _ didn't matter. That supports earlier research, but the new wrinkle: Alcohol consumption was linked to esophageal and oral cancers only when smokers drank. Also, moderate drinkers actually had a lower risk of thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and renal cell cancer. For an individual woman, the overall alcohol risk is small. In developed countries, about 118 of every 1,000 women develop any of these cancers, and each extra daily drink added 11 breast cancers and four of the other types to that rate, the study found. But population-wide, 13 percent of those cancers in Britain may be attributable to alcohol, the researchers concluded. Moderate alcohol use has long been thought to be heart-healthy, something the new research doesn't address but that prompts repeated debate about safe levels. U.S. health guidelines already recommend that women consume no more than one drink a day; two a day for men, who metabolize alcohol differently. "You have to balance all those things out," said Dr. Philip J. Brooks, who researches alcohol and cancer at the National Institutes of Health. "This kind of information is important for people to know and to consult with their physician about the various risk factors they have." More on Health
 
Kenneth Thorpe: The Obama Budget and Health Reform Top
President Barack Obama will unveil his budget tomorrow, and many are anxiously anticipating what this will mean for health care, as all signs, including his speech to the nation last night, show he is ready to move forward with health reform. Indeed, the budget is a critical factor because it will lay out the administration's top priorities, which will likely center around the economy, health care, and reigning in the growing Federal budget deficit. Obama has said that some short-term investments are needed before long-term economic recovery and fiscal stability can be realized. Health care may just be the most important of these investments. Specifically, we need to invest in a new health system that can tackle the growing problem of chronic disease, which is crippling both our health care system and our economy. Of the $2.2 trillion we pour into health care each year, a frightening 75 cents of every dollar goes towards treating patients with chronic illnesses. In Medicaid, this figure is an even more regrettable 83 cents of every dollar; in Medicare, it's an astounding 96 cents. Illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, that in many cases could have been prevented by changes in behavior or could be better managed through early detection and appropriate access to treatment, have risen dramatically over the past three decades, leaving Americans in much worse shape at earlier and earlier ages. The rise in obesity is at the root of this increase. With younger and younger Americans suffering from overweight and obesity, the outlook is grim for finding a solution to stem rising health costs short of helping Americans transform their unhealthy behaviors. The truth is, we can never expect to improve the affordability of health care until we face the dual crises of obesity and chronic disease. And, until we deal with cost, the chance of extending health care coverage to more Americans is grim. The good news is, President Obama has already achieved two important down payments for health care reform through recent allocations in the stimulus package: $19 billion for health information technology and $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research. Both signal a promising new approach to health care -- one that seeks not only to expand coverage but also to improve efficiency and health outcomes. In addition to the stimulus investments in health information technology and comparative effectiveness research, President Obama must realign health system incentives to prioritize prevention and chronic care management by creating new primary care models that are more accountable and better coordinate care between physicians, hospitals and other health providers. These are not particularly controversial issues. However, there are many difficult choices that President Obama and Congress must confront in the debate. While preventing and better managing disease will save money in the long run, a number of critical questions remain. How will we pay for the additional costs including expanding coverage? Will we change, but not eliminate, the tax treatment of employer provided health care to reductions in Medicare spending? Do we need an individual health care mandate and should there be a public health plan as part of the effort to provide universal coverage? If so, how do we make it fair? After President Obama unveils the U.S. budgetary priorities for 2009, these are the questions and issues that will continue to be part of the debate in the coming weeks and months. One thing is for certain though: if President Obama wants to make health care affordable for every American, we need systemic change that makes it easier for Americans to lead healthy lives. And, in light of the economy, we need that change now. Kenneth Thorpe, Ph.D., is the Robert W. Woodruff Professor and Chair of the Department of Health Policy & Management, in the Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University. He serves as the Executive Director of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease. More on Stimulus Package
 
Shunit Harpaz: It's Netanyahu Again Top
Benjamin Netanyahu was appointed by Israeli President Shimon Peres to establish the next government, following the February 2009 general elections in Israel. Netanyahu is going to be the next Israeli Prime Minister and there is no reason to Yahoo about it. Chances are that he is going to build a narrow right-wing government, together with the parties that have recommended appointing him as PM, carrying 65 of the 120 seats in the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset). Commentaries say it reflects the Israeli people's will. After giving the left-wing parties a chance multiple times, they figured that peace is still a vague dream rather than a reality. Israelis are tired of living in fear, and residents of many cities in the south wanted to deliver the message -- No More. Out of this fear and hopelessness they elected right-wing parties to deal with Hamas and Hezbollah. The irony is that Netanyahu himself is going to appear as somewhat "dovish" in his new government. To his right he'll have Avigdor Lieberman, the real story behind this election. Lieberman, an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, led a negative campaign questioning the loyalty of Arab citizens living in Israel and their representatives in the Knesset. His key election platform was the commitment to require Arabs, by law, to declare their loyalty to Israel rather than Hamas and Hezbollah. At the backdrop of this election campaign were the frequent incidents of Arab representatives in the Knesset criticizing Israel for hurting Palestinian residents. Their unbalanced approach -- ignoring the suffering of Israelis who were hit by Hamas missiles -- found a growing segment of the public very resentful. Those who were angry with the Israeli Arabs' empathy towards Palestinians chose Lieberman to the Knesset -- making his party the third in size, leaving behind the veteran Labor party. Joining Lieberman in this right-wing government will be numerous smaller parties, including the nationalist 'Jewish Home' and 'National Union' along with religious 'Shas' and 'Torah Judaism'. Now the question is -- how is this going to work out? And the answer is: quite poorly. Netanyahu will face pressure from Europe and America to continue the peace process. In return, Netanyahu will provide the brightest explanations and clear rationale of why its mission impossible. The relationship between Netanyahu and the world is going to be one of rhetoric attrition. Netanyahu is a man of many words; most of them will make you run to the mountains screaming. He is an artist of making people fear of coming doomsday; this is how he won the Israeli elections -- twice. It should be interesting to listen to the first meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu. One will be hopeful and present opportunities and the other will pick and choose historic details as an example to show no feasibility. It's hard to imagine them working well together, coming from different ideologies, different character personas. Obama and Netanyahu will not be natural partners for achieving peace. All the political progress that Obama has in mind with the Syrians and the Palestinians will advance towards Netanyahu's besieged barrier. There will be no good-will gestures, as no member of the new government is going to support any. Netanyahu will be blocked by his own cabinet members from offering anything to the new American administration. How can a government work this way? Well, it really can't. It is impossible to put the Middle East into deep freeze. The truth of the matter is that no political horizon evolves from the already-tense situation. The Hamas will not dissolve itself just because there is a right-wing government in Israel. Furthermore, it will increase its effort to hurt Israelis wherever they are. In response, Netanyahu's government will fight back, focusing on assassinating Hamas leaders via direct air strikes. The vicious circle will not dissolve. Netanyahu's government will not last long; a country cannot function when there is no political advancement. The only hope is that Israelis will regain their composure and next time vote for peace-longing parties and Prime Minister. More on Israel
 
Jerry Weissman: The Art & Science of Oprah Winfrey: Part III Top
Part III: The Art Oprah Winfrey's powerful appeal that draws 46 million viewers a week is based on empathy, a scientifically-proven human connection discussed in yesterday's post. To understand how she communicates that dynamic--the art that leverages the science--let's compare her style with that of other prominent talk show hosts, focusing on seven key presentation factors. Although each of these hosts is quite successful in his own right, none of them has nearly the emotional impact on his audiences as Oprah does on hers. Roles. Because of her grounding in news, Miss Winfrey conducts her interviews by immersing herself in her subjects' stories. David Letterman, Jay Leno and their contemporaries, Jon Stewart and Conan O'Brien, as well as their illustrious predecessor, Johnny Carson, began their careers as comedians and so, during their interviews, function as performers. Miss Winfrey assumes the role of a congenial conversationalist with her guests. Other talk show hosts strive to match or outdo their guests' stories. Only Larry King, with his origins as a newscaster, gives his guests their full due. Interaction. Miss Winfrey listens carefully to her guests and responds warmly to their stories. The TV listings call Larry King "avuncular," which describes his affability but sets him somewhat apart from his guests. The comedians who go for the laughs widen that gap. Eye Contact. Miss Winfrey spends most of her air time engaged directly with her guests, making eye contact. Her counterparts, because of their performance orientation, play to the studio audience or to the camera and therefore to the vast unseen universe of viewers, appearing glib but impersonal. Larry King is the one exception among the others; he spends most of his air time in eye contact with his guests. Eye contact appears sincere, impersonal does not. Setting. Miss Winfrey sits on a comfortable upholstered chair facing her guests with nothing but air between them. Most other talk show hosts, including Larry King, sit behind a desk, the perennial standard of talk show decor. A desk on a talk show is the equivalent of a lectern in a speech: a barrier that impedes empathy. Posture. Miss Winfrey sits relaxed and open in her chair. The desks force the other talk show hosts to either sit up ramrod straight or to slouch on the desktop. Smiles. Many of Miss Winfrey's guests are the recipients of her generosity or the generosity of her sponsors. These "makeover" episodes produce many smiles from the guests and Miss Winfrey smiles along empathically. Most of the other talk show hosts, observing the venerable show business rule of never laughing at one's own jokes, play deadpan; except for Jon Stewart who, as an actor and a comedian, is a man of many funny faces. (Please see my prior post about Jon's expressiveness.) Gestures. Miss Winfrey rarely uses props, leaving her hands free to gesture expressively and expansively. Other talk show hosts handle coffee cups, pencils, pens, index cards, and photographs which lead to distracting mannerisms. To paraphrase Stephen Covey, Oprah Winfrey demonstrates seven habits of a highly effective person--and television superstar. More on Jay Leno
 
Norman Solomon: Freeing Up Resources... for More War Top
Hours after President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress, the New York Times printed the news that he plans to gradually withdraw "American combat forces" from Iraq during the next 18 months. The newspaper reported that the advantages of the pullout will include "relieving the strain on the armed forces and freeing up resources for Afghanistan." The president's speech had little to say about the plans for escalation, but the few words will come back to haunt: "With our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat Al Qaida and combat extremism, because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens halfway around the world. We will not allow it." Obama didn't mention the additional number of U.S. troops -- 17,000 -- that he has just ordered to Afghanistan. But his pledge that he "will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people" and his ringing declaration, "We will not allow it," came just before this statement: "As we meet here tonight, our men and women in uniform stand watch abroad and more are readying to deploy." Get the message? In his first speech to Congress, the new president threw down a 90-month-old gauntlet, reaffirming the notion that committing to war halfway around the world -- in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan too -- will make Americans safer. With drumrolls like that, the mission could outlive all of us. And so, a colossal and fateful blunder, made by a very smart leader, arguably our best and brightest, is careening forward with the help of silence that defers all too readily to power. This is how the war in Vietnam escalated, while individuals and groups muted their voices. Many people will pay with their lives. The reasons why the war in Afghanistan cannot be won are directly connected to why the war is wrong. In essence, people do not like their country occupied for years on end, especially when the occupiers are routinely killing civilians (whatever the rationale). Monochrome words like Taliban and "terrorists" might seem tidy and clear enough as they appear in media coverage, or as they roll off a president's tongue, but in the real Afghan world the opponents of the U.S. war are diverse and wide-ranging. With every missile strike that incinerates a household or terrorizes a village, the truly implacable "extremists" can rejoice at Uncle Sam's assistance to their recruiting efforts. Those who are fond of talking and writing about President Obama's admirable progressive values will, sooner or later, need to come to terms with the particulars of his actual policies. In foreign affairs, the realities now include the ominous pairing of his anti-terrorism rhetoric and his avowed commitment to ratchet up the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. I don't often make predictions, but I'm confident about this one: Within a few years, some members of Congress, and leaders of some progressive groups with huge email lists, will look back with regret as they recall their failure to clearly and openly oppose the pivotal escalation of the Afghan war. They could save themselves a lot of shame, and save others their lives, by speaking out sooner rather than later. In the process, they might help save the Obama presidency from running aground in Afghanistan. _______________________ Norman Solomon, author of "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death," discussed Obama and the war in Afghanistan on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal." More on Afghanistan
 
Presented By: Top
 
9 Things You Can Give Up For Lent To Help The Earth Top
The Daily Green and NRDC put together a list of things that you can give up for Lent (or just because!) to help the environment. Our favorite is this easy one: Give Up 2 Degrees Cost: $0 Electric power plants are the country's largest industrial source of the pollutants that cause global warming. By snuggling under a blanket on the couch on a snowy winter night instead of turning up the heat, or enjoying the breeze from a fan in the height of summer instead of turning up the air conditioning, you can save pounds of pollution, as well as some money off your utility bills. Set your thermostat in winter to 68 degrees F (20° C) or less during the daytime and 55 degrees F (13° C) before going to sleep or when you are away for the day. And during the summer, set thermostats to 78 degrees F (26° C) or more. More on Green Living
 
Tom Geoghegan: My State of the Union Top
Two months ago, I entered this race declaring we are in the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Every day more and more people lose their jobs, health care, and homes. We are witnessing not the unraveling of a few years of excess, but the insolvency of many of the economic practices and theories that became conventional wisdom over the past 30 years. Most important of these, and that which has caused the greatest destruction, is the idea that debt is wealth. Over the last 30 years, American wages stagnated and people grew deeper in debt -- their homes, educations, health care, every aspect of life. And at the national level, the story hasn't been much different. We lost manufacturing and borrowed from across the globe. There were only two winners in all this, Wall Street and the banks. Now, the financial system that created the illusion of debt as wealth, and profited so handsomely, is in crisis. In fact, it has seized up and is seriously causing a massive contraction across the US and the entire global economy. Our economy will not be able to start recovering until our financial system is healthy, and we will not be able to begin the turn around of 30 years of failed economic policy unless we reform our financial system. So let's do the following: The government needs to nationalize unhealthy banks. We need to close down insolvent institutions and sell their assets. Healthy institutions can be re-capitalized and re-privatized, with sales helping to pay back the tax-payers. All banking institutions under government receivership, must immediately cut their credit card rates to 12% and likewise cut fees and charges to consumers. This will be the first step in helping get Americans out of debt. Foreclosures must end. People struggling with payments must be allowed to reduce their principal. Keeping people in their homes and paying their mortgages is the best way to stop the collapse in housing prices. We need to relieve the surge in lay-offs and keep people employed so they can continue paying their bills. We need to fully fund state and local governments and help struggling businesses. These four steps need to be taken immediately. Over the long term, we must engage in a protracted effort of bringing both the American people and government out of debt. We need to shrink the size of the financial sector and make it more profitable to manufacture instead of trading paper. In doing this we will bring down our trade deficit, cut government debt, and decrease consumer debt by raising wages. Once these initial steps are taken, we must then enact two key reforms. The first is single-payer universal health care or Medicare for all. This will save us money and help make American manufactures more globally competitive. Then we must make Social Security a livable public pension, providing every American true economic security. These are the reasons I'm in the race. These are the issues I will lead on in Congress. We face a very grave time, but I assure you we have the answers and solutions to move forward. They're just not the same answers and solutions we've heard for much of the last three decades. We must take bold actions and I ask you to join me in taking them. www.geogheganforcongress.com More on Rahm Emanuel
 
Reid: Congressional Budget Increased For GOP Welfare Top
A ten percent increase in the budget for Congressional operations was needed because Senate Republicans wanted to retain previous staff levels despite having lost roughly 20 percent of their ranks in the 2008 elections, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said Wednesday. Congressional Republicans have been pouncing on any instance of wasteful spending they can find, but the congressional-operations.line item will likely remain safe from their ire. The one-tenth hike brings the budget for Congress itself to $4.4 billion. Reid, asked about the increase at a press conference, initially dodged the question, speaking instead about spending in general. The unsatisfied reporter repeated the question about a ten percent raise for the congressional budget. "How is that going to help get out of the depression?" she pressed. Don't blame us, said Reid. "We had a situation -- you should direct that question to Senator McConnell," he said, referring to the Senate Minority Leader, "because we had trouble organizing this year. He wanted to maintain a lot of their staffing even though they had lost huge numbers. And the only way we could get it done is to do what we did. So you should direct that question to Senator McConnell." A McConnell spokesman didn't immediately return a phone call.
 
Nadya Suleman, OctoMom, Offered $1 Million To Make A Porn Top
OctoMom is used to having multiple people inside of her at once -- and now one porn company is willing to shell out big bucks to harness that skill on film. Major porn distributor Vivid Entertainment has just fired off a letter to Nadya Suleman, offering her 1 million bucks to star in a skin flick of her own More on Nadya Suleman
 
Leahy Takes Bush Truth Commission To Senate Floor Top
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy took to the Senate floor on Wednesday to discuss the possible outlines of a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate the misdeeds of the Bush administration. Stating that he is in discussion with members of Congress, outside groups, and even the White House, Leahy boiled down his argument to one very rudimentary question: "How can we restore our moral leadership and ensure transparent government if we ignore what has happened?" "I share that desire to move forward, and to reestablish ourselves as a Nation dedicated to the rule of law, respected and trusted throughout the world," he said, according to prepared remarks. "We also know that the past can be prologue unless we set things right." Later, he declared that such a commission would not be "comprised of partisans, intent on advancing partisan conclusions." Rather, he said, "we need an independent inquiry that is beyond reproach and outside of partisan politics to pursue and find the truth. Such a commission would focus primarily on the subjects of national security and executive power in the government's counterterrorism effort." The Senator's remarks on the floor represent the next step in a politically tricky process to put a truth and reconciliation committee in place. Leahy first announced the idea of such a committee several weeks ago during a speech at Georgetown. Up to this point, the Obama administration has refused to take a stance on his proposal, though the president's chief counsel, Greg Craig, has been in discussion with the Vermont senator. Leahy does have other allies in the endeavor, most notably his fellow Judiciary Committee member, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. The Rhode Island Democrat recently told Salon.com that he is "convinced" that a commission to investigate the Bush administration's authorization of torture is "going to happen." Outside government, support appears easier to come by. Last week, a group or prominent law enforcement, political and legal officials penned a letter to the president urging him to set up an investigative commission to uncover the successes, malfeasance, and potential illegalities of Bush's counterterrorism policies. The list of signatories included Thomas Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; Judge William Sessions, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Major General Antonio M. Taguba, USA (Ret.), who led the investigation into the abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Another person on that list, Fritz Schwarz, author of "Unchecked and Unbalanced: Presidential Power in a Time of Terror" and an official at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the Huffington Post that President Obama is subjecting the country to national security risks if he does not ensure that such an investigation is undertaken. "First and most importantly by learning the facts we are less likely to make the same mistakes, assuming we made mistakes," said Schwarz. "The policies that we followed [during the Bush years] have made us lest safe. And if that is true it is absolutely vital to convince the American public that protecting our values includes understanding what went wrong." "I think there is a national security imperative [to this]," he added. "It is dangerous not to look back, because if we don't look back, we are certain the next time there is a terrorist event in America, which there will be, God willing not as bad as 9/11, we are likely to repeat the same mistakes."
 
Shahid Buttar: Leaving Cards on the Counter-Terror Table: Ways to Better Wage the "War on Terror" Top
When taking the oath of office last month, President Obama declared to "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents...that, 'Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.'" His commitment to resisting extremism reflects the continuation of his predecessor's war paradigm in confronting international terrorism. But as the Obama Administration crafts its approach to combating extremism, it enjoys a series of opportunities to engage the counter-terrorism mission more seriously than did the Bush Administration. For eight years, our nation has been presented a false choice between liberty and security. But the choice is simply false : we can better wage the struggle against militants by ending corporate subsidies that fan the flames of violence abroad. If policymakers recognized how these instances of corporate welfare facilitate terrorism at its root, several debates (including those around civil liberties, agricultural subsidies, import tariffs, the war on drugs and foreign policy) would shift dramatically. We need not sacrifice our nation's fundamental constitutional freedoms to address extremist violence. Rather, we need merely stop pursuing corporate subsidies that -- while seemingly unrelated to terrorism -- inadvertently encourage it. U.S. Support for Dictators Abroad Oceans of ink, and too little sweat, has been spilled exposing the simple reality that U.S. military aggression in Iraq has encouraged and strengthened militant extremists by enraging and mobilizing their recruits. Bush Administration officials (e.g., Rumsfeld, Cheney, Yoo, Addington and sitting 9th Circuit Judge Jay Bybee ) did the same by condoning torture. And U.S. military support for Israel, unmitigated even by flagrant human rights violations and the mass slaughter of civilians, further inflames this tension. While these policies have proven contentious, many others have not even gotten a public hearing -- despite offering a slimmer political target, greater promise in preventing terror, and greater support for Rule of Law principles violated by the Bush Administration. The U.S. gives billions of dollars each year to proxy powers across the globe governed by dictators. This "aid" largely takes the form of U.S. taxpayer-funded purchases from U.S. corporate weapons dealers to supply arms ultimately used to oppress freedom-seeking people abroad. Our willingness to place corporate welfare above democracy abroad at once both reveals our nation's hypocrisy and antagonizes the very same populations whose hearts & minds we need to win. The three countries in which established U.S. foreign policy continues to most undermine our long-term security interests are not Iraq, Afghanistan, or Israel -- but rather Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. While the U.S. maintains a more subtle military presence in the latter three countries, our support for authoritarian regimes there has supported militants by undermining U.S. claims to support democracy abroad. We have given over $25 billion in military aid to Egypt since 1979. Washington has pledged $20 billion for Saudi Arabia over the next 10 years. And $10 billion sent to Pakistan's former dictator since 2001 ultimately disappeared. These subsidies for U.S. corporate weapons manufacturers are even more expensive in terms of their costs to our international legitimacy. In sharp contrast, freedom is, after all, free. Put simply, while the U.S. claims to its own citizens to support democracy abroad, that claim is a charade transparent to people in other countries. It's not "our freedoms" that "they hate," but rather our weapons -- and our longstanding penchant of giving them to regimes that deny freedoms and oppress their own people. Even conservative foreign policy experts have argued that, well before 9-11, the "presence [of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia wa]s known to contribute to anti-American sentiment." The U.S. has somehow managed to get on the wrong side of the inexorable march towards democracy that it once helped start. And we have betrayed that value for crass economic reasons. Even the Federal Reserve Chairman conceded that invading Iraq was driven by ambitions to capture middle east oil resources. The variety of corporate interests driving militarism -- those of weapons dealers, military contractors or outright mercenaries seeking corporate welfare -- are well documented. Princeton economist Alan Krueger argues that poverty and economic deprivation can not, without more, explain violent extremism. He is accurate, as is the implication that fixing poverty, alone, would not fix the problem. After all, the 9-11 hijackers were middle class; Saudi Arabia (where they came from) is a rich country; and poor sub-Saharan African countries have never exported terror to the U.S. Be that as it may, poverty -- especially when combined with the political deprivation implicit in supporting dictatorships -- doesn't help. And militants themselves have shared a recurring message explaining their motivation: it is political deprivation, at root, fueling escalating global dissent against U.S. foreign policy. Rather than support dictatorships, we should support democracy. It is our strongest, most significant and most honored export. For 50 years, confused and counter-productive "aid" from Washington has entrenched autocrats perceived as friendly to our short-term interests. We need to set aside subsidies for weapons dealers in favor of investing instead in our international goodwill. Agricultural Subsidies Agricultural subsidies play a key role in facilitating terrorism, while also failing to achieve the benefits claimed by supporters. In the short term, humanitarian assistance in the wake of major disasters can in the short-term help build pro-U.S. sentiment in areas torn by crisis, as it did in Pakistan after a major earthquake in 2005. But "development assistance" over the longer-term often takes the form of food aid, which can destabilize local food production capacity, predisposing recipient countries to discontent that militants leverage in their outreach and recruitment efforts. When U.S. grain is dumped on foreign markets at less than the cost of local production, the ultimate effect is to drive small farmers in those countries out of the market, leaving their countries dependent on U.S. grain . When it becomes scarce (like when we squander it on ethanol ), they suffer price shocks: less supply increases the cost, which quickly grows out of reach, leaving millions hungry. Pakistan is a classic example. When Benazir Bhutto was assassinated last year, the country was roiling from shortages and resulting price shocks affecting everything from milk to wheat. If ever there were a recipe for uncontained violence, a starving population would be it. Moreover, while systematically encouraging the overproduction driving food aid, farm subsidies don't even help their intended recipients. According to the conservative Heritage Foundation, "although farm subsidies are promoted as being necessary to provide income maintenance for poor farmers, they . . . function as the largest corporate welfare program maintained by the federal government. . . . [F]ar from saving America's family farms, the current farm subsidy system is destroying them." Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicates that " 10% of recipients receive 66% of the payments ," while "80% of producers get just 16% of all subsidies." The next time corporate farm enterprises lobby Congress to maintain subsidies through which they fleece the American people of billions of dollars, they should face tough questions. They should address how subsidies displace small farmers, and by encouraging overproduction, fuel an outmoded industrial production paradigm risking catastrophic environmental costs. And international development and counter-terrorism experts should explain how the uses of that overproduction abroad undermines international stability and lays a foundation for militant recruitment. Textile Tariffs Tasneem Noorani, the former Secretary of several federal agencies in Pakistan, including the Departments of Commerce and Interior, said in an interview last year that "the single most effective thing that Washington could do to stop terrorism" would be to lift textile tariffs . Doing so would let people from Central Asia make a decent living under the free trade principles long championed in DC. Market theorists counsel developing countries to focus development efforts on their comparative advantages: products in which they are most uniquely suited to fill global demand. For Afghanistan, Morocco, or Pakistan artisans, the local comparative advantages would include textiles, which account for nearly half of Pakistan's manufacturing base . But U.S. markets -- as advocates for global justice have long noted -- are not free. In sharp contrast, tariffs on textile imports place developing countries at an enormous economic disadvantage. Despite pursuing Washington's advice to build capacity to fill western demand for cheap fabrics and clothes, they are largely excluded from the U.S. market. Nor is the observation recent; diplomatic proposals to allow Pakistan access to the U.S. textile market have been steadily rejected for years in order to protect the vestigial remains of an industry once powerful in the American south. Many Carribbean countries, and some in Africa, receive preferential status for their textile imports. But why limit the supposed benefits of free trade to these countries? To whatever extent tariffs and other import protections help domestic textile manufacturers (which is itself limited for several reasons), any potential competition impedes those benefits. The source is arbitrary. Is the U.S. interest in economic stability really greater in, say, Jamaica, than in Afghanistan or Pakistan? The War on Drugs Perhaps the strongest step we could take in the short-term would be to cut militant networks off from one of their primary sources of fundraising: the poppy trade in Afghanistan. I will not here reiterate the overwhelming arguments against the failed War on Drugs: that it has led to institutional racism throughout our criminal justice system; that it has enriched domestic smugglers who have taken advantage of black markets that inevitably emerge to fill unabated demand; that it violates the fundamental principle that individual behavior in a democratic society should be regulated only to the extent it imposes concrete harms on third parties; or that it forms a legal subsidy for alternative industries left unregulated, like alcohol and beverages. The salient point for now is that poppy cultivation in Afghanistan continues to climb , and that the Taliban and al-Qaeda have largely captured the industry's profits in return for protecting shipments. The poppy trade has become a vital financing vehicle for militants. Senior U.S. government officials testified as long as five years ago that "profits from the production of illegal narcotics flow into the coffers of warlord militias, corrupt government officials and extremist forces." Unfortunately, the trend is in the wrong direction. After dropping dramatically under Taliban control, it is the only sector of the global drug trade expanding in recent years, with the crop doubling in size since 2000 under NATO stewardship. Afghanistan now accounts for 92% of the global heroine supply, worth over $3 billion (nearly half the country's GDP) per year. The current U.S. strategy -- unsupported by our NATO allies -- is to try eradicating the poppy crop. That strategy is even more futile than it is expensive: last June, DEA agents arrested an Afghan police chief with 30 kilos of heroine worth over $1.5 million. There is no reason to presume that his participation in the drug trade was any more the exception than the rule. Noting the economic pressures facing Afghan farmers , several U.S. agencies and the British and Canadian governments have agreed with the conclusion, written in a report by the State Department's Inspector General in 2007, that eradication efforts are " not realistic ." Eradication can succeed only in further inflaming anti-U.S. sentiment. Proposing an alternative policy, former U.S. National Security Advisor Brent Scrowcroft has gone so far as to suggest that " NATO should buy the whole poppy production " to keep it from falling into terrorist hands. Getting the poppy trade out of militant hands is absolutely crucial. However, this may be an arena in which markets can do more effectively what we might otherwise leave to the government. A response taking into account the free market principles championed by Scowcroft's allies would suggest letting end users (like medical patients in India , or heroin users in Europe, rather than U.S. taxpayers) purchase Afghanistan's poppies. Either approach would save the $420 million spent on eradication in 2006 alone , and a market-based solution would further save the $3 billion annual cost of buying the crop wholesale in Afghanistan. Moreover, end users buying at retail would generate nearly
 
Jesse Kornbluth: Van Morrison: 40 Years Later, 'Astral Weeks' Chills and Thrills Top
Many who profess to love the music of Van Morrison have no idea that he made a CD called Astral Weeks . I can understand that. "Astral Weeks" was released in 1968, to zero fanfare and indifferent sales. Over the years, those who heard it became evangelists for it: Elvis Costello called it "the most adventurous record made in the rock medium," and Steven Van Zandt, of Bruce Springsteen's band, said that "'Astral Weeks' was like a religion to us." Soon enough, it achieved cult status --- one of the most inventive and satisfying CDs ever recorded, known only to the in-crowd. I'm not a music critic --- I don't even pretend to play one on the Internet --- but it bothers me that crap sells in the zillions while quality sits alone in the corner. In 2004, it seemed to me that a web site about The Best could bring overlooked gems like "Astral Weeks" to a larger audience. So when I launched HeadButler.com, "Astral Weeks" was one of my first reviews --- and, soon enough, the CD became the site's poster child, its 25-words-or-less creation myth. And now it's back. Astral Weeks Live At the Hollywood Bowl was recorded in November of 2008 before a predictably rabid audience. Morrison did not attempt to replicate the CD. That would have been impossible, for in concert he makes Dylan seem predictable. He will suddenly change words and tempo, abandon himself to a groove, call an abrupt halt --- and expect the band to read his mind. I have seen Morrison several times over the years, and each time I walk away blinking at the mystery. He looks like a squat, stout, Irish postman and acts like an ill-tempered dictator. He may not hate the audience; maybe he just likes to show us his back. But when he opens his mouth, none of that matters. If I ventured in the slipstream Between the viaducts of your dreams Where the mobile steel rims crack And the ditch and the back roads stop Could you find me Would you kiss my eyes And lay me down In silence easy To be born again That's how the opening song begins, a love song set in urban decay. But the genius of Morrison --- the reason I see a line of connection from Blake to Wordsworth to Morrison --- is how quickly he reaches the exalted. In just a few verses, he's here: Going up that Mountainside Where the water runs crystal clear And then, 40 years after the original, he adds this: I believe I've transcended. The rest of the performance is a demonstration of spiritual transcendence. This is not of great interest to many people who listen to music. They want a bouncy beat and a catchy lyric. So, a lot of the time, do I. But then I come to this: Then you're high, on your high-flying cloud Wrapped up in your magic shroud As ecstasy surrounds you This time it's found you. It's not just the words that transcend. The band is open, loose, inventive; this music is subtle as jazz and heart-pounding as rock. And Morrison almost seems to be having a good time --- in his phrase, "stepping lightly, just like a ballerina." What's in it for you? First, the message of the holy power of love: "You shall take me strongly in your arms again/And I will not remember that I ever felt pain." Then the esthetic pleasure of hearing something great becoming, perhaps, even greater. And, personally, in a darkened room, late at night, a trip to the most exalted part of yourself. What a wonderful world, with two astral weeks in it. [Cross-posted from HeadButler.com ]
 
David Wild: My Wicked Bromance with Chris Isaak Top
In so much as one straight Jew from New Jersey can love a straight non-Jewish man from the wrong side of Stockton, California, I love Chris Isaak. Chris's debut album "Silvertone" came out in 1985 just before I started at Rolling Stone , and it was a stunner recalling rock's more romantic past but somehow retaining the shock of the new too. Here was a brand new rock & roll star that the original rock & roller might recognize one of their own. Sure, it didn't hurt that Chris -- like his beloved Elvis Presley or Ricky Nelson -- looked almost as beautiful as he sang. Still, with all that shining talent and obvious star power, Chris still didn't really breakthrough in America until a wildly atmospheric song called "Wicked Game" from his 1989 album "Heart Shaped World" became a major left-field smash in 1991 with a little help from David Lynch, and later Herb Ritz and Helena Christensen for a famous video that made the beach a much hotter place to be. That's right around the time that I first met Chris and discovered to my initial chagrin that this good-looking bastard was not just a pretty face (albeit with a busted nose from boxing) but also an incredibly funny, smart and nice guy with a great attitude and a serious work ethic. Later the world-- and least then small sliver of the world that got Showtime -- discovered just how funny he could be on The Chris Isaak Show , a wonderfully offbeat gem of a show that in the early 21st Century felt like sort of like Ozzie and Harriet Meets Seinfeld And Jam Together . Recently, I've spent a lot of time with Chris, with his manager Sheryl Louis and her dog Rodney as a Producer on Chris's brand new show The Chris Isaak Hour , a very musical interview series that premieres Thursday at 10PM on the Bio Channel, part of the A&E family. A few years back, due to some inexplicable technical error, I actually hosted a music interview show on Bravo for two seasons called Musicians that was eventually canceled when NBC bought Bravo and apparently I decided that I was too butch -- or was it too ugly? -- to be on so close to Queer Eye For The Straight Guy. Back when I was doing my show, I remember thinking how great our show would be without me, but instead with a fully qualified host who was poised, and handsome and hell, even musical. Well, now working with the folks at Scott Sternberg Productions, Chris and Sheryl, I've been able to find out. Chris is great, as you'll see Thursday when he talks and plays with Trisha Yearwood, and in the weeks to come when he hosts everyone from Stevie Nicks to Michael Buble to Glen Campbell to Yusuf (the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens), all with Rodney the dog at his side and me safely off-screen. Thankfully, Chris hasn't quit his day job either. In fact, he's just put out his first new studio album in seven years Mr. Luck -- and for what's left of my money, it's his best album ever, just beating 1995's masterful Forever Blue for that honor. So please give this annoying dashing and talented bastard a shot, and help keep my wicked bromance alive and well.
 
Dr. Cara Barker: What If Help Were Closer Than You Think? Top
We are going to get through this, together. As President Obama put it: "We will rebuild." Despite the downward spiraling charts depicting this global economy, it is vital to remember that the pendulum always swings back the other way. Out of destruction, comes reconstruction, if we so choose. Not just on a national, or international level, but on the most individual. In fact, it just might be a worthy mantra to repeat as needed with every business closure, and repossession of homes: we are going to get through this, together. Some years ago, a book was written entitled What to Say When You Talk to Yourself. Today, we might take a listen. Where fear is running the show, we put ourselves at risk. Just ask the researchers and clinicians at Harvard's Mind Body program. Believing we are alone is as unproductive, as thinking it is impossible to rebuild through collaboration. Just yesterday, in a local restaurant, I saw a man in a dark gray business suit lean across the table and say to his lunch partner: "There are just some things you've got to do all by yourself, right?" Well, maybe. Not according to Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers . And, not according to Sunday night. Take the Oscars, for instance. It's all about whom reigns supreme, who's the winner, correct? At least this is what awards like these have been touted to signify. Isn't that what we've been taught? And, yet... From where I sit, the truly magical moments, this year at the Oscars, transcended all others. Three, in particular, stirred the heart, revolving around one simple Truth: we are not in it alone, but rather, deeply connected. This was an evening for Awakening Hearts. Moment #1 came when the Fabulous Five Female actresses, including Halle Berry, Shirley MacClaine, Whoppi Goldberg and crew, assembled on stage to deliver heartfelt messages of appreciation, and encouragement to the aspiring candidates, before them, front row, center. In their eye contact, and warmth, I felt that sort of precious intimacy that comes when the Elders of a tribe anoint, and bless its novitiates. The rapture on faces like Anne Hathaway's stole the show. Her gratitude glowed. But, then, again, who amongst us would not be moved by such a gift bestowed by our own mentors? How can we do better at letting those we care for know that they are being seen as extraordinary human beings? Roll the credits. Something infinitely more important than movies is being shown us. There is the little story of our single lives, and then, the Big Story, of which you and I play our part. The Web of Life would not be the same without you. The second magical moment, spoke to our hearts when Shaun Penn used his platform for a purpose larger than self-aggrandizement. His focus championed inclusion. Speaking from his own breathtaking Voice, Penn reminded us of those we've kept marginalized; as well as those, like Mickey Rourke, who've had the guts to begin anew. His Lazarus-like comeback from the professional graveyard was nothing less than generously exquisite. As this exchange unfolded, an imaginary soundtrack played in my head: "He ain't heavy, he's my brother..." The memory of three time Olympic champion, Wilma Rudolph words came back: "Winning is great, sure, but if you are really going to do something in life, the secret is learning how to lose. Nobody goes undefeated all the time. If you can pick up after a crushing defeat, and go on to win again, you are going to be a champion someday." The third magical moment for humanity was that dance of grief celebrating life between Keith Ledger's mother, father, sister, and we, the audience. Each of us was reminded that we are each members of the cast in this Theater of Life for as long as our role is played, the Spirit, of which, lives on after the curtain has come down. Recognition of how brief one's candle may burn came home. What matters is today, rebuilding our lives together from what we have. The evening was one that sang the song of connection, community. We are reminded that no matter what happens, the beautiful, the bountiful, the sorrowful, or the spectacular, we are in this thing together. While the pedestrian subject is movie making, the greater text is co-creation. Like any theatrical troupe threatened with shrinking budget, we can fold our tents and quit. Or, we can challenge ourselves to give our best possible performance with the attitude 'on with the show,' trusting that we are going to get through this, together. The future before us can be beautiful to the degree we are willing to hold this as our vision, edit the game plan as necessary, call forth the best cast of players, and do as many takes as this invention requires. We've got to be willing to say what we've never said before, do what we've never done before, and dream beyond what we've allowed ourselves to dream before. How Do We Do This? We remember that no matter what, we have choice. A few days ago, a program aired comments made by fellow Americans regarding how they felt about the recently approved stimulus package? One man replied: "It's not fair! Why should people like me, who've worked hard and paid the bills, be penalized, getting nothing, while slackers get help?" Sidebar: get 'nothing?' How about the self-confidence, sense of direction, and trust we build when we keep our word? Is this 'nothing?' But, I digress. The interviewer acknowledged the man's frustration, and dug deeper. "Think about it this way. Suppose your neighbor's house was on fire. Would you do nothing?" "No," said the interviewee. "It's not my problem, or fault!" To the same questions, a woman replied: "Sure, if his house was on fire, I'd call 911. But, I'm not going to help him rebuild it. I didn't cause the fire." What, again, ever happened to the notion 'I am my brother's keeper'? As a practical matter, if my neighbor, Lou's, house goes up in flames, the sparks are a very short distance from my own. What befalls my neighbor befalls me. Again, I ask 'when does our attitude of 'me' become one of 'we'? We are in a metaphorical fire fanned by indifference, fear, and mistrust of our own guidance system. The antidote can come only with rekindling a passion in our hearts for community. A word, whose Latin roots come from partnership, or 'friends in deed." So, what does it mean to partner? Just Consider. Consider your own best friend. When I'm with mine, I feel free to be my most natural self, to grow, to risk, and, yes, to seek forgiveness when, as Obama put it, "I screwed up." My best friend values who I've been, grieves with me what's ending, and welcomes the yet-to-be-discovered onto center stage, without a trace of hurtful competition. A true partner supports our equal value, reflects back to us that anything desired in our heart is possible. When assassins say: "That will never work," a deep down friend says 'never say never,' and 'why not?' Partners champion hope. When we give up on ourselves, they remind us who we are. When necessary, they confront our nerdiness. Healthy, partnering communities, remind us that help is closer than we think for our vision, and we will get through whatever we must get through, together. A community of partners reminds us that we are here to champion one another, to create meaningful solutions, to walk alongside one another, and, dare I say it? To have a good time, in the bargain. Partners play with an attitude of optimistic purpose, under girded by strong social ties, which, by the way, are two of the main characteristics researched in Blue Zones of those who age joyously, in amazing health, and live beyond the rest of us. Dr. Oz is right. We live our best lives when we connect with one another, and what brings well-being. A Gift to You Check out the following, if you want to give yourself a gift of play through film. It comes from one of improveverywhere's projects. I promise you'll end up with an endorphin jumpstart for a feel-good day. Here's a tip for the 'gift that keeps on giving': Play with the idea of getting a gang of willing co-creators together to see what you could dream up that would bring a sense of joy and teamwork to unspecting fellow travelors? Let us know yours! Awakening our Hearts is where its at! As always, it's a joy to hear from you, to be part of your community. I hold you in my heart as partner and co-creator of this column, welcoming, always, your comments, feelings and experiences. Feel free to forward whatever inspires you, makes you chuckle, and reminds us that we are in this puppy together. I'll do my best to respond to you and your circle, and welcome you spreading the word, if you are so inclined. Come back to share a cup of tea! More on Olympics
 
Sarah van Gelder: After the Crash: How to be Happy Anyway Top
By Sarah van Gelder and Doug Pibel. The economic boom didn't bring us (or the planet) happiness. So maybe there's an upside to the downturn. "The pursuit of happiness." It's so American that it's in our Declaration of Independence, where it's listed alongside life and liberty as an inalienable right. But how successful have we been in that pursuit? And now that the global finance system is imploding, how likely is it that we'll be happy in the coming months and years? Can't Buy Love Since roughly the 1970s, Americans have been buying things madly, whether we could afford them or not. We were promised that a bigger car, a more trendy purse, or a flat-screen television would bring us happiness, and we've been acting accordingly. We were promised that an ever-growing economy would make us all rich. But while our gross domestic product increased more or less steadily from the 1970s until the onset of the current financial crisis, most of us did not see a rise in our standard of living or our wellbeing. Wages stagnated, while the costs of basic needs--like homes, medical care, food, and energy--climbed rapidly. Those in the top 20 percent increased their net worth by 80 percent over the last 25 years, while the bottom 40 percent actually lost ground. Few families today can make it on a single wage-earner's income, and a health problem or a job loss can send a middle-class family into poverty or even homelessness. Yet we continue to buy the products that are supposed to make us happy, driving many of us deeply into debt. Families are carrying an average credit card debt of $5,100, with interest rates that often make payoff nearly impossible. In recent years, home equity reached record lows as people borrowed against the value of their homes. In 2004, the most recent year for which Federal Reserve figures are available, debt secured by real property exceeded $290,000 per household, almost three times what it was only 15 years before. All this debt makes life more precarious. It also increases our dependence on long work hours, which--if we can find work at all--combines with long commutes to eat up the time we might otherwise have for things that research shows actually would make us happy. Who's Happier A better economy doesn't necessarily mean a happier country. SIDEBAR: Just the Facts It's easy to fall into the trap of believing that having more stuff will lead to happiness, because there's an element of truth in the advertiser's promise. We do need a certain amount of food to live, after all. Shelter is good. We need clothes, tools--a bit beyond the bare necessities can be nice. And having stuff has always been a way to show that you are successful and entitled to respect. But after the novelty of a new outfit or laptop wears off, we're left with a hole in our wallets and an empty feeling, which--advertisers tell us--we should fill by shopping for yet more new and improved stuff. Following this advice may keep the corporate economy humming, but has it made us happy? Many figures suggest the answer is: not really. Broad standards of wellbeing like the Genuine Progress Indicators show that our health, quality of life, economic security, and environment, taken together, stayed flat, although we worked harder. A 20-year study by the OECD found the United States has the highest rate of inequality and poverty among the developed countries, and the income gap has grown steadily since 2000. A recent Gallup poll found that just half of Americans live free of worries about money or health, compared to 83 percent of those in Denmark. When the World Health Organization and Harvard Medical School studied rates of depression in 14 countries, the U.S. topped the list. How Many Planets Does it Take? It's not only Americans who are taking a hit from an economic system that puts money and growth ahead of real wellbeing. People around the world are losing access to their own natural resources and economic sovereignty. Corporations seeking to profit by stimulating and feeding our appetite for stuff have trampled on the livelihood and ways of life of Mexican farmers, indigenous rainforest dwellers, African miners, and Thai factory workers. When land buyouts or subsidized agricultural imports make traditional lifeways impossible, many of these people arrive in crowded cities with no choice but to work for rock-bottom wages or attempt an arduous migration to a higher-wage country. Champions of globalization like Thomas Friedman tell us that in a few generations these workers will have a standard of living similar to ours in the United States. But ecological footprint analysis shows it would take more than six Earths to give everyone in the world the level of consumption Americans "enjoy." Of course, we have only one planet, and this one is overheating. The Pursuit of Happiness Is this what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he substituted "the pursuit of happiness" for the phrase contained in the earlier Continental Congress draft, "life, liberty, and property ?" Jefferson's ideal was an economy based on small farmers who produced for themselves most of what they needed. Their happiness was not something they trusted corporations to provide for a fee, but rather something they created themselves, through their work and human relationships within a community. The economy of the time was founded, in part, on a slave-owning society built on land often stolen from native peoples, but Jefferson's ideals had a strong influence on the young country. Freedom, independence, and self-sufficiency were all popular values. The U.S. has moved a long way from the Jeffersonian ideal. Today, we produce little of what we use. We exchange our work for money, and buy food, clothing, and other necessities from big box stores and purchase child care and elder care from corporate chains. Since we no longer have the time, skills, extended families, and access to land that were commonplace just decades ago, we have become completely dependent on money. That dependency leaves us at the mercy of those who control the economy and the money supply. And those who accumulate the money have inordinate influence over our government. It is the precise opposite of the Jeffersonian ideal. It's also a departure from the way humans have lived for most of history. Life After the Crash So maybe it's just as well that the crisis is finally upon us. Maybe this time of creative destruction offers us the chance for a fresh start, a chance to build a society that puts ordinary people first and provides the conditions for their happiness. After the shock of the crisis wears off, maybe we'll look around like characters in a Fellini movie who come outside at dawn after a debauched night of excess. We'll turn off the television, log off the internet, notice the bright colors of sunrise, and speak to the neighbors who we've never found time to meet. We may spend less of our lives working as the cash economy shrinks and companies close their doors. But maybe we'll learn to share the work and reclaim time for the aspects of our lives that research tells us contributes to real happiness--time with families and friends, civic involvement, exercise, creativity. It wouldn't be the first time. During the Great Depression, for instance, the Kellogg Company cut employee shifts from eight hours to six to extend the number who had jobs. Productivity went up so much that the company could afford to pay the same for the shorter shift. Meanwhile, civic organizations, adult education, and family life in Kalamazoo blossomed. Maybe we'll find ways to trade among friends and neighbors --some winter squash or homemade pie for some child care or home repair. Maybe we'll reclaim the skills we used to have, and teach each other how to grow food, fix things ourselves, sew and knit, and pass skills along to our children and grandchildren. Somehow, in the exuberance of the economic bubbles of the '80s, '90s, and '00s, we lost track of something. Money exists to serve us as a tool, not the other way around. Our lives and society do not have to be turned over to the rulers of high finance and their hired representatives in Washington, D.C. We the people can reject the economic orthodoxy that has served us so poorly, and rebuild our economy on a different foundation. Rebuilding What sort of society do we want to rebuild? What will expand our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness without diminishing the chances for other people, now and in the future, to have the same? Here are some of the things we'll need to do: Economic policies for the future must assure that everyone is included, and that we lift up those at the bottom. When we allow inequality to burgeon in our society, we create crime and violence and hate, which damage everyone's ability to find happiness. We can no longer afford nine-figure paychecks for CEOs and double-digit returns on speculative investments. To paraphrase Gandhi, we have enough for everyone's needs, but not for everyone's greed. The environmental overshoot game is up. The next economy must function within the present production of our environment. We can no longer afford to live off the bounty of the past, like the millions of years of fossil deposits that make up today's diminishing oil reserves. Instead we must turn to solar energy, wind, and other renewables, and grow food and fiber by building the soil, not by dumping petroleum products on it. We can't continue to use our atmosphere, oceans, aquifers, and soils as dumps. No amount of "Runs for the Cure" will solve the cancer problem if we continue to poison our food, water, and air. And the climate is reaching a dangerous tipping point. We can no longer allow the money economy to grow like a cancer on our society, until it takes over all facets of life. The economy needs to serve people, communities, and the health of natural systems, not the other way around. Instead of relying on footloose unaccountable global corporations, we can turn to local and regional production to serve our needs and provide sustainable employment, including small and medium-sized businesses, co-ops, farmer's markets, and so on. As we do that, we'll get much clearer on real sources of happiness. Research tells us that the sources of the good life are in loving relationships, mutual respect, meaningful work, and gratitude, and as we discover the power of these qualities, the lure of advertising and materialism will no longer fool us. Overconsumption will take its place alongside other passing fads. As we begin to relearn the skills and rebuild the relationships we lost in the pursuit of money and things, we will begin to find a happiness that we are in charge of; one that is not dependent on the fluctuations of the stock market or the amount of stuff we own. Painful as it may be in the short term, we can emerge from this crisis healthier and wealthier, with the sort of wealth that really matters: strong communities and relationships with loved ones, healthy ecosystems, and the skills to make a living and enjoy life. Sarah van Gelder & Doug Pibel wrote this article as part of Sustainable Happiness , the Winter 2009 issue of YES! Magazine . Sarah is executive editor and Doug is managing editor of YES! Magazine. More on Energy
 
Presented By: Top
 
Michael Wolff: The New York Times Is Falling Down, Falling Down... Top
The New York Times , which last month mortgaged itself to a shady Mexican media mogul, this week suspended its dividend, as its market value descended, dipping below $4 a share, to a half-billion dollars. I can remember a time not long ago when people spoke of $12 a share being crisis territory at the Times . But this column is not about the Times ' sorry financial state. It's about whatever they're smoking there as the business goes down the drain. First of all, there's the letter from the Times threatening criminal prosecution that arrived in our offices at Newser the other day. It seems that the Times doesn't want us using an itsy-bitsy T logo to identify the Times as one of our sources. Out of the hundreds and hundreds of media oranizations we link to at Newser only the Times has raised this as an issue. Given its perilous financial state, you'd think the Times should surely be spending its money on solving other problems. The larger point, probably, is not their little logo, but their irritation or confusion over the fact that Newser, as a news aggregator and curator, links to the Times --and, to boot, summarizes the Times ' long and windy stories. This is a sensitivity on the Times ' part, which might indicate that the company, although it has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to understand the Internet, has less than a clear idea about what happens here. Or, in the manner of so many formerly great modern media companies, the Times is divided in what it understands--some people at the Times get it, but others don't, and each group pulls against the other. Or, to speculate with as much curiosity as paranoia (more theirs, I'd argue, than mine), maybe it's about me. The Times seems ever more conscious of its enemies, one of whom--by paying annoying and diligent attention to its decline--I seem to have become. My razzing, along with our efforts at Newser to replace the Times (trust me: our summaries of the Times stories are all you need), have earned us this ham-handed lawyer's letter. Continue reading at newser.com
 
Obama Finds Inspiration In Ordinary Americans (SLIDESHOW) Top
***Scroll down for slideshow.*** Last night, Obama gave his first State of the Union address. But the real winners of the evening were the ordinary citizens Obama highlighted in his speech. Leonard Abess Jr., Ty-Sheoma Bethea, and the entire community of Greensburg, Kansas are examples of "anything but ordinary" citizens who have done what they could to give back in these trying times. These are their stories. I think about Leonard Abess , the bank president from Miami who reportedly cashed out of his company, took a $60 million bonus, and gave it out to all 399 people who worked for him, plus another 72 who used to work for him. He didn't tell anyone, but when the local newspaper found out, he simply said, "I knew some of these people since I was seven years old. I didn't feel right getting the money myself." I think about Greensburg, Kan ., a town that was completely destroyed by a tornado, but is being rebuilt by its residents as a global example of how clean energy can power an entire community -- how it can bring jobs and businesses to a place where piles of bricks and rubble once lay. "The tragedy was terrible," said one of the men who helped them rebuild. "But the folks here know that it also provided an incredible opportunity." And I think about Ty-Sheoma Bethea, the young girl from that school I visited in Dillon, S.C. -- a place where the ceilings leak, the paint peels off the walls, and they have to stop teaching six times a day because the train barrels by their classroom. She has been told that her school is hopeless, but the other day after class she went to the public library and typed up a letter to the people sitting in this room. She even asked her principal for the money to buy a stamp. The letter asks us for help, and says, "We are just students trying to become lawyers, doctors, congressmen like yourself and one day president, so we can make a change to not just the state of South Carolina but also the world. We are not quitters." Like Obama, we too find our inspiration in "anything but ordinary" citizens: our readers. A few weeks ago we asked you to share your acts of decency and generosity, as well as the moments of sheer perseverance and kindness of community you may have witnessed in others. You responded with a flood of answers -- so for more inspiration, take a moment to read the round-up of our readers' random acts of kindness . We know that there has to be more where that came from, so please e-mail us at submissions+living@huffingtonpost.com or share them in the comments below. More on Slideshows
 
Adlai Wertman: The Army of Unemployed Top
With 47 million Americans already living in poverty, the newly unemployed will only serve to increase those numbers. While Obama is certainly sympathetic to this group, the homeless need much more than sympathy. The stimulus package offers very little to those who started and remain in extreme poverty. Middle class tax cuts and public works projects will do little to help the long-term unemployed and those who may never find their way in the job market. The 13% increase in food stamp payouts will not keep families away from food pantries which have reported demand growing by as much as 100%. This week's announcement from Kimberly Clark and Procter & Gamble that diaper prices will rise by 7% certainly doesn't help. The axiom states that 'as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.' But what happens when the rich get poorer? Those who were not working before the collapse have fallen deeper into poverty. Even opportunities in the underground economy are falling -- too many people are cutting their own lawns today. Compounding the problem, while the poor have always given a higher percentage of their income to charity, no income means no giving. According to the Association of Fundraising Professionals, 53% of charities received decreased donations in the fourth quarter of 2008 (the time of year when many charities receive as much as 60% of their annual income). Is this a time, though, where we can apply a basic math rule -- two negatives equal a positive? Could a large group of unemployed actually be good for the charities? Without sounding callous, we now have millions of people with more time on their hands. And this is not just any time -- it is the time of able bodied, often highly-skilled workers. It is also the free time of those with college and graduate educations, managers, executives, administrators and finance experts. This idle talent pool needs to be put to work to bolster the talent base of charities whose backs are sagging under the weight of a 'perfect storm' (i.e. more demand for services, fewer options to help clients and less money to pay for staff and resources). I am not talking about one day events where a group paints a school house. While those events are noble and helpful, they don't provide the kind of real help non-profits need. They need volunteers who bring their business and craftsmanship skills and talents to the table. Charities need volunteers who will regularly commit to one, two or even five days a week in the office, classroom or clinic. There is a desperate need for the skills they can bring to bear -- marketing, accounting, organizing and human resources management, to name a few. So while Washington D.C. continues to grapple with stimulus plans, foreclosure rates and bank insolvencies, those collecting unemployment can become an army of volunteers in their hometowns. And while being unemployed is certainly a cause for depression, helping others is often a great cure. More on Poverty
 
Lanny Davis: A Nuclear Iran? Just Suppose ... Top
This story was originally published in the Washington Post and on The Hill's Pundits Blog . Please note: Lanny Davis is a volunteer with the Israel Project , an American nonprofit group that tries to get out facts about Israel to the media. This column represents his own personal views, not those of the Israel Project. Just suppose ... hypothetically, of course: The people of Mexico elect as president a man who questions whether al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attack, who refuses to acknowledge that the United States has the right to exist and says it should be "wiped off the face of the earth," and who trains and funds anti-U.S. terrorists in Cuba and a Central American nation who launch thousands of rockets and missiles into downtown Miami, New Orleans and Houston, killing Americans. And suppose this Mexican president, backed by senior officials of his government, defies a U.N. Security Council resolution by continuing to develop enriched uranium that would give Mexico the ability to make an atomic bomb. And suppose, further, that there are grounds to fear the Mexican president will secretly sell atomic bombs to anti-American terrorists he has funded or supported, including al Qaeda? How would Americans react to such a threat? What would a U.S. government do under such circumstances? Surely, at the very least, Americans would demand, and the U.S. government would agree to lead, a total economic embargo on Mexico - blocking all trade and all financial transactions using the U.S. banking system, and freezing all Mexican assets in the U.S. And Americans would expect their government to exert maximum pressure on friends and allies and trading partners in Europe and Asia to do the same. And, if the sanctions didn't work, it is hard to imagine that the U.S. would not seriously consider taking military action to prevent Mexico under this hypothetical-fact scenario from developing a nuclear weapon. I have been very careful here in what may seem to be a far-fetched hypothetical. It certainly is far-fetched when it comes to our friendly neighbor to the south, Mexico, and I apologize for using it in the hypothetical to make my point. But it is not far-fetched - it is stunningly factually accurate - if you substitute the name Ahmadinejad for Mexican president, Iran for Mexico, and Israel for America. Iran's popularly elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has questioned whether the Holocaust ever happened (though he has at times tried to take back his words after they were denounced throughout the world). Indeed, in public statements, he has asserted that there was a cover-up of the evidence concerning who was really behind 9/11 - just as he claims there is an ongoing cover-up on whether there was a Holocaust. The Iranian president, without any public repudiation by the highest leaders of the Iranian theocracy, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has denied Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state and has said he favored "wiping Israel off the face of the earth." He and his government have indisputably funded and trained Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which have been branded internationally as terrorist organizations, and both intentionally have launched rockets to kill Israeli civilians. And last week, the Financial Times reported that, in defiance of the U.N. Security Council resolution, Iran has reached a point in its nuclear enrichment program that allows it to create a nuclear bomb. So now what is America to do about Iran's nuclear weapons program? And does anyone expect Israel to react any differently than America would if the above far-fetched hypothetical were actually true? President Obama indicated during his campaign and since the election that his administration would be willing to engage in negotiations with Iran to improve relations with the U.S. and to persuade it to stop its nuclear bomb development program. I applaud him for that. But in his first prime-time press conference, on Feb. 9, Mr. Obama also said: "[Iran's] actions over many years now have been unhelpful. ... [Iran has been] financing terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, the bellicose language that they've used toward Israel, their development of a nuclear weapon or their pursuit of a nuclear weapon ... create the possibility of destabilizing the region and are not only contrary to our interests but I think are contrary to the interests of international peace." Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appear to be willing to use "carrots" and "sticks" to try to persuade Iran to abandon its effort to develop a nuclear bomb. The "carrots" would be to offer improved economic and political relations with the U.S., aimed at appealing to what appears to be a significant middle class in Iran who are unhappy with their government and their daily lives, average Iranian families who prefer good relations with the U.S. and the West, including expanded trade, travel, improved education and cultural exchanges - in short, a better future for their children. The "sticks" would be to institute and enforce much tighter economic sanctions - going so far as an absolute trade and financial embargo, including a ban on all U.S. company trade with Iran, a freeze on all Iranian financial assets deposited in this country and a block on all use of American banks and financial networks and systems. Even though most of these sanctions were already on the books, they have often been ignored. As the Associated Press reported in the summer of 2008, U.S. exports to Iran grew more than tenfold during President George W. Bush's years in office, with household-name companies and major industries selling a variety of products to Iran, including military parts for F-16 fighter jets (!) In the past, as far back as Jimmy Carter during the hostage crisis, America has been unable to persuade its European and Asian friends and allies to cooperate in also imposing these across-the-board sanctions, and thus, so far, they have failed to impose any real pain on Iran or be taken seriously within Iran. Perhaps the best way for the world to understand the true danger of a nuclear Iran is to recognize that the threat goes far beyond Israel's true existential threat. It's still a little-known fact that there is great hostility toward Iran and fear of its developing a nuclear bomb from Sunni-dominated Arab governments in the Middle East. This is not only religiously based, given centuries of hostility and warfare between the Shi'ites that dominate Iran versus the Sunnis that prevail in most of the rest of the Middle Eastern Arab nations. It is also based on long memories by Arabs going back several thousand years, when the imperial Persian Empire occupied and abused ancient Arab peoples. It is increasingly obvious that such Sunni Arab nations as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan cannot afford to allow Iran to go nuclear without trying to do so themselves. There is also reportedly genuine fear that Arab states in proximity to a nuclear weapon-possessing Iran, such as Syria, Iraq and the Persian Gulf states would feel pressure to cut deals with a nuclear-bomb-possessing Iran at the expense of Western interests. But what if the economic sanctions fail? The military option will not be easy. Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities are reportedly buried under thousands of feet of concrete- and steel-protected laboratories spread out in many locations throughout the nation. (At least, that is what Iran would like the world to think - perhaps just as Saddam Hussein wanted the world to think that he had WMD?) Therefore, air power alone may not be enough. But that does not mean that the Iranian government and the Iranians who elected Ahmadinejad president can assume that the world, the U.S. and especially Israel can afford to sit idly by while Iran develops the capability to build a nuclear bomb. If there is no choice, there could well be a military option exercised, which at the very least could do damage to Iran's nuclear progress, slow it down and be a signal of more to come unless Iran reverses its policy. If the Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi got the message from U.S. military strikes and decided to abandon his nuclear bomb program in favor of the "carrots" of U.S. and Western economic aid and trade, perhaps the supreme leader of Iran and Iranian voters will get the message and oust their extremist Holocaust denier and Israel hater who is their president. In the final analysis, this issue may be the greatest challenge facing the Obama administration. If there are two people who can find the right balance to communicate to Iran's leaders between "carrots" and "sticks," it is Mr. Obama and the brilliant and capable Mrs. Clinton. Let's hope Iran's supreme leader and council take up Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton on their invitation to unclench Iranian fists and reach out to shake the American leaders' open hands. ----- Lanny Davis, a Washington lawyer and former special counsel to President Clinton, served as a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board from 2006 to 2007. He is the author of "Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics Is Destroying America."
 
Lebanon: 3 Rafik Hariri Murder Suspects Freed Top
Lebanese authorities on Wednesday freed three of seven suspects held over the 2005 murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the office of public prosecutor Said Mirza said. According to AFP, the three are Lebanese brothers Mahmoud and Ahmed Abdel Aal and Syrian Ibrahim Jarjoura, all civilians who were being held on suspicion of withholding information and misleading the probe into the assassination. More on Lebanon
 
Jodi R. R. Smith: Customer Service Made Simple Top
Did you know...The average business never hears from 96% of unhappy customers. For every complaint received there are in fact 26 customers with problems, 6 of which are considered serious. An average customer with a problem tells 9-10 others, 13% tell 20 or more. - Bruce L. Katcher, Ph.D. Good help is hard to find. I stood there in utter amazement as the woman to whom I was trying to hand my money, answered a ringing phone and then, instead of putting the caller on hold, told me to wait until she finished the call. If the check had not already been written and had the event not been a fundraiser for a non-profit organization, I would have walked away. As I have said time and time again, etiquette is not rocket science, but it does require a bit of thought. Given the economy, businesses need to keep the customers they have and employees should work to keep their jobs. Here are some small steps that make a big difference in business. I Am Invisible ~ Even if you can not assist the customer immediately, eye contact will let the customer know that you are aware that he/she is there. Take A Number ~ Customers should be assisted in the order that they arrived. And those customers who took the time to come in person should be assisted before those who call on the telephone. Ask The Question ~ If you work in a place of business, the customer service question is "How may I help you?" If you work in a retail establishment, the customer service question is "May I help you?" The second question allows for the possibility of browsing, the first does not. Soft Sell Me ~ Any "special" offer that expires within 24 hours is clearly a pressure scam. If you are forcing the customer to make a quick decision, the customer can assume there is something about the product that you are hoping they will not discover. Acknowledge and Empathize ~ Not all customers are as polite as they should be to you. With that said, a smile and a kind word can help defuse a situation. If the customer becomes abusive, then seek help from a manager; do not respond in kind. Always Accessorize ~ You know the product better than the customer. If there is something that matches, something that will help the item last longer, or something that will make the customer's life easier, please say so. Don't Look Down ~ You may be working for the chicest restaurant in town, but the customer is still the reason why you receive your salary. Please don't assume a snooty attitude. Privacy Please ~ By looking at the customer's purchases you may be able to deduce a good deal about the customer. And maybe you can... but please do not pry by asking personal questions. Dozens and Dozens ~ The marketing adage is that a happy customer may tell one or two of their friends. But an unhappy customer tells, on average, 11 others. So for every one customer who is treated badly, there are a dozen people who have discussed the experience. Being polite is your best marketing tool. Thank Me ~ After the customer has patronized your establishment, do thank him/her for the business. This is not the same as "Here ya go," or instructing the customer to "Have a nice day." A simple thank you, with a smile thrown in, will suffice. Exceed Expectations ~ At some point, customers may appear so exasperated that even the smallest gesture can create customer loyalty. Going even the smallest of extra steps helps to create feelings of good will as well as happy customers. Jodi R. R. Smith is a nationally known etiquette expert and author. To email your etiquette emergency, click to www.Mannersmith.com. Copyright © 1996-2009 Mannersmith Etiquette Consulting. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to reproduce, copy or distribute this newsletter as long as this copyright and full information about contacting the author is attached. More on Recession
 
Brian Ross: A Little Transparency for Bobby Jindal - Hypocrisy In Republican Posturing Top
Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana, sat there with a straight face and talked about the need for transparency in government on Tuesday night in his rebuttal to President Obama's congresssional "get-together." Apparently we can't call it a State of the Union in five weeks, even though Obama has done more in five weeks than Bush did for the country in eight years. The problem with transparency is that you have to talk about the stuff that's uncomfortable, that you don't want seen. This has not been a strong suit of the post-Reagan Republicans, who have taken a big page from the actor-turned-politico who used smoke-and-mirrors to exceptional effect. The last thirty years of largely Republican rule have been largely based on deception and misdirection, particularly of their own partisans. Take the abortion issue. Republicans have been dangling the carrot of "solving" the abortion issue over single-issue Christian conservative voters for decades to keep them coming out to the polls to vote. The truth is that the Republicans have been the party in power for most of the last 30 years, or have been in control of the Congress when not holding the White House for the majority of that time. Appointing right-wing judges is a carrot. If they really wanted to take the lead on banning abortion, they would have followed through with the oft-floated Constitutional amendment that was proposed in those early days of co-opting Southern religious conservatives away from the blue dog Dems. Even if they did not succeed, as there would surely be opposition, they would have been walking the walk. Republicans do not ever push social issues beyond lip service because it would rob them of a mass of voters and volunteers who are needed to keep the politics of affluence, the real Republican agenda, moving forward. Jindal's call for transparency is just the latest hypocrisy from a Republican Party that has too long relied on the politics of fear and lies. You want transparency, Bobby? Let's start with your party's heel dragging on the Stimulus Plan. Republicans have been clinging to their bedrock "principles" as a grounding for their extreme opposition to the Stimulus Plan. We cannot run up a bill for future generations say hand-wringing hypocrites like representative John Boehner will tell you. Unfortunately standing on Plymouth Rock in the middle of a storm of the century is not an easy thing to do. These same Republicans had no problem running up a bill for a war that, even as one of their own, Colin Powell, complained, had no clearly defined goals and no exit strategy. What has been spent on the war, and has been thrown into the pockets of military contractors and international corporations profiteering from Bush's Folly, makes the Stimulus Bill look like a drop in the bucket. Where has their indignation been? What funds did they shut down from the Department of Defense until Rummy made procurement and spending more transparent? Even prior to the Iraq War, though, the Republican-dominated Congress passed generous tax cuts, slashed and burned checks and regulations, and turned loose the freewheeling free-enterprise system to spin an Emperor-has-no-clothes financial system built on mountains of "derivatives," ridiculous piles of worthless paper backed up by even more worthless guarantors, credit agencies and insurers. In his rebuttal, Jindal said: "Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina -- we have our doubts." Aside from the unintentional indictment of his own party, as George Bush was at the helm of state when it hit the rocks in New Orleans, one has to ask: When the state has established conditions that deregulate the marketplace and allow such conditions to occur that lead the major financial institutions of this country to ruin, does the same government not have the responsibility, really the obligation, to not only re-regulate free enterprise, but to help put it back on a responsible footing that does not crush the lives of the citizens it is charged to protect and serve? Jindal stated that Republicans want to cut taxes for the average Joe: That is why Republicans put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income tax rates for working families, cutting taxes for small businesses, strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers, and stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for home-buyers. These plans would cost less and create more jobs. I would have to agree with the governor that these plans would cost less and create more jobs. They are in the Stimulus Bill and Republicans actually tried to kill them. GOP congressmen in conference slashed the middle-class and working family tax cuts that Jindal was calliing for last night. The Associated Press reported on February 11th that: "[Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max] Baucus had said earlier that $35.5 billion to provide a $15,000 homebuyer tax credit, approved in the Senate last week, would be cut back. There was also pressure to reduce a Senate-passed tax break for new car buyers, according to Democratic officials ..." He derided a "'magnetic levitation' line from Las Vegas to Disneyland," but seems to have no problem with the billions that we have spent buying bomb, missiles, and vastly overpriced airplanes, tanks and the like in the thirty years of Reagan-era military spending. On healthcare, Jindal said: "Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not by government bureaucrats." I don't know where Mr. Jindal gets his insurance, but here in Florida I deal with the bureaucrats of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, who make the State of Florida look downright efficient. The code is simple: Protect the deep pockets of the insurance industry which has funded the GOP machine for decades. The notion that the Republicans stand for independence of the average businessman working hard to make it is a pure and simple lie. The Republicans engaged in decades of corporate welfare that have enriched the defense establishment, the pharmaceutical business, and Wall Street. The topper of Jindal's speech, though, was the immense hypocrisy of his call for transparency: "To strengthen our economy, we must promote confidence in America by ensuring ours is the most ethical and transparent system in the world. In my home state, there used to be saying: At any given time, half of Louisiana was said to be half under water, and the other half is under indictment. No one says that anymore. Last year, we passed some of the strongest ethics laws in the nation and today, Louisiana has turned her back on the corruption of the past. We need to bring transparency to Washington, D.C., so we can rid our Capitol of corruption and ensure we never see the passage of another trillion dollar spending bill that Congress has not even read and the American people haven't even seen." Had there been transparency in the Republican-run government over these last decades, we would not be in the position to have to have a stimulus bill in the first place. Had the Republicans believed in some modest regulation that kept the financial system on a sound footing, we would not be facing a Citibank and Bank of America teetering on the brink of insolvency. Most bills in the congress are not read cover-to-cover by the politicos who vote for them. That is why they have those well-educated and well-paid staffers. To use incendiary words like "corruption," makes for good speechifyin', but hardly smacks of the attitude of a party that is concentrating on the people's business, rather than their own political advantage. Mr. Obama has been getting straight with the American people. He has held open the hand to the Republicans to rediscover statesmanship, and put away the brinksmanship. Mr. Jindal's speech was an embarrassing relic, a paltry political peroration that has no place in a political dialogue in the midst of a national crisis. When hacks like Bobby are being put on the pedestal by the GOP, and more sensible politicians like Ms. Snowe or governor Crist are being threatened with financial sanction, it just affirms that there has been a bankruptcy, but it is not GM or Citibank. The GOP is politically Chapter 11. More on Charlie Crist
 
Monzer al-Kassar Sentenced To 30 Years For Masterminding Arms Deals Top
A Syrian-born arms dealer has been sentenced to 30 years in prison for conspiring to sell millions of dollars of weapons to Colombian rebels. More on Colombia
 
Iris Erlingsdottir: Iceland is sinking Top
The Iceland of my youth was not a rich country. When I was growing up, our diet mostly consisted of fish, lamb, potatoes, and the few crops that could be grown near the Arctic Circle. "Exotic" foods like fresh apples and oranges were reserved for Christmas - "The deli -síjus apples have arrived..." announced the ad-reader on the state-owned radio each December. I was 14 when I first tasted iceberg lettuce. I thought I had died and woken up in consumption heaven when, as a 17 year old exchange student, I first experienced an American supermarket. Because there was so little foreign currency available, we had rather few consumer goods. I have almost no photographs of myself as a baby, because my parents didn't own a camera - in the 60s a luxury item for our working class family of seven. People rarely left the island. Summers away from school were spent working, and I was 12 when I began working in a fish factory, cleaning cod for export (which I found a welcome change from the babysitting I had done every summer since the age of nine). Due to the country's dependence both on unreliable fish catches and foreign demand for fish products, Iceland's economy remained very unstable well into the 1990s. Iceland became one of the founding members of the European Economic Area (EEA) in 1994, which allowed its economy to diversify. Aluminum refineries were built, even though there is no aluminum on the island, to take advantage of the country's cheap electricity. Economic growth averaged about 4% per year from 1994 until last year. At the end of 2007, the United Nations' Human Development Index ranked Iceland as the most developed country in the world. Unemployment was essentially non-existent, and foreign workers were brought in to handle the tasks that Icelanders felt were now beneath them, such as fishing. Young people no longer ate fish . Only two of 200 business administration graduates chose to go into the fishing business in 2007. 2008 brought a 90% decline of the Icelandic stock exchange, a 50% decline in the Icelandic krona, and the complete collapse of all of Iceland's banks. Unemployment is expected to be in the double digits shortly. Foreign workers have fled or been forced out of the country, and thousands of residences stand vacant or uncompleted. Automobile sales have essentially stopped. So what now? When will we hit bottom? If it was business as usual in the rest of the world, Iceland would probably be able to stabilize itself, with assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), negotiate some sort of debt forgiveness settlement with its largest foreign creditors, and adapt itself to a more realistic budget. We would have to cut back from the glory years, but we would still live a good life. Unfortunately, of course, the rest of world is not doing so well. Experts, such as Paul Volcker and George Soros, recently stated that they can't see the bottom, that things may be worse than the Great Depression. The Great Depression passed mostly unnoticed in Iceland because most people were so poor that it was a stretch to fall any further. My parents tell me stories that almost defy belief. The novel Independent People by our cultural icon, Nobel prize-winning author Halldór Laxness, describes early 20th century Iceland amid farmers and fishermen - much like my grandfather, a West fjords seaman - who would rarely leave their valleys and fjords, except for a trip to the nearest village to shop for necessities, a country whose farmers might be so destitute that they "died without ever having transacted a business deal involving more than a few dollars at a time." In 1882, an Icelandic family in front of their home, getting ready to leave for church services . Photo credit: Ponzi, F., Brennholt Publishing. It seems almost unimaginable that we could ever sink that low again. Almost. It is hard to see how we will be able to maintain a middle-class standard of living if there is a severe global downturn. We didn't build an infrastructure during the fat years that will permit us to support ourselves during the lean years; everything has been partied away. Rather than working to repair the flaws in the system, however, we seem to be going out of our way to alienate the countries in the best position to help us. The banks took in hundreds of millions of Euros from investors in Britain and in the Netherlands that they can no longer repay. Norwegian authorities claim that one of the banks embezzled €47 million. Last week, the "Green" Party Minister of Fisheries reaffirmed that Iceland will defy the International Whaling Commission and pleas by the ambassadors of United States, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, France and Finland and commence massive whaling. Although a spontaneous uprising of the people forced the government to resign, I see no signs that the new bosses will respond to the nation's demands for change. Why hasn't "the group of thirty" that bankrupted the country been arrested and questioned as formal suspects, their assets frozen? The special prosecutor should have a smorgasbord of charges - theft, fraud, tax evasion, conversion, to name a few (he doesn't have to start with the treason immediately, although it belong on this list). The Icelandic authorities diligently throw people „suspected" of selling drugs or stealing a car in jail and confiscate coke and stolen goods, but these individuals who have stolen hundreds of millions of dollars cannot be touched! Who is protecting them and why? It's back to business as usual. The Icelandic political parties and the media have fallen back into their same old pattern of finger-pointing and ad hominem attacks, and but for a miracle, I suspect the elections will put the same professional politicians who got us into the mess back in charge - that would be a new bottom for us. Or perhaps not, to quote a cultural giant of our times, Homer Simpson: "Not a chance! I can sink way lower." I've never been so afraid for my country, for my family. More on Iceland
 
Washington Post Profit Plunges 77% Top
WASHINGTON — The Washington Post Co. said Wednesday its fourth-quarter profit plunged 77 percent despite modest revenue growth led by the company's education and cable TV businesses. The company, which owns the Kaplan academic testing service and publishes Newsweek magazine along with its flagship newspaper, posted net income of $18.8 million, or $2.01 per share. That compared with $82.9 million, or $8.71 per share, in the same quarter a year earlier. This marked the company's ninth consecutive quarter of declining profit. Revenue grew 3 percent to $1.16 billion. Together, Kaplan and the Cable One unit provide most of the company's revenue and are bolstering its finances at a time when newspapers around the country face steep declines in ad revenue. Four newspaper publishers have filed for bankruptcy recently, and newspapers in Denver and Seattle might be closed if their owners can't find a buyer for the publications. The same fate could await the San Francisco Chronicle if publisher Hearst Corp. can't dramatically reduce that newspaper's expenses in the next few weeks. At the Washington Post Co., newspaper revenue dropped 13 percent to $202 million in the fourth quarter. The division posted an operating loss of $14.4 million, after a year-ago profit of $25 million. However, even with the recession, revenue from the education division climbed 13 percent for the fourth quarter to $609 million. Cable TV revenue grew 11 percent to $184 million. For the full year, the company said its net income dropped to $65.7 million, or $6.87 per share, from $289 million, or $30.19 per share, in 2007. Full-year revenue climbed 7 percent to $4.46 billion. The company said its results for 2008 included a $142 million write-down on the value of its community newspapers and other assets. Of that, $75.7 million was written off during the fourth quarter. The company also booked $111 million in charges during 2008 for early retirement expenses and other one-time items. Washington Post Co. shares were down $11.48, or 3 percent, at $373.51 in morning trading. More on Wash Post
 
Presented By: Top
 
Krugman Jindal Response: GOP Has Become 'The Party Of Beavis And Butthead' Top
What is the appropriate role of government? Traditionally, the division between conservatives and liberals has been over the role and size of the welfare state: liberals think that the government should play a large role in sanding off the market economy's rough edges, conservatives believe that time and chance happen to us all, and that's that. More on Paul Krugman
 
Michael Sigman: America Beyond Compare? Top
"Anything you can do, I can do better." --Irving Berlin, America's songwriter Why does everything American have to be better than everything else? My mom lives in a comfortable community in South Florida, as does a friend's dad, whom I saw recently for the first time in decades. His first words to me were, "Your mother lives in the number two community around here. We're number one." Google the phrase "America is the greatest country in the world," and you'll get thousands of links, mostly to politicians falling over themselves to be the best at characterizing America as the best. (A similar search for New Zealand, a darn good country, yields six.) Some like to add that God, The Best of the best, has sanctioned this view. America may even be the greatest country in the universe! It's obviously is better than, say, Bhutan, whose GNP is 162nd out of 194 sovereign nations. (Maybe that's why the Bhutanese prefer to measure GNH, or Gross National Happiness; Business Week , hardly a touchy-feely publication, rated Bhutan the happiest country in the world in 2006.) Candidates for public office further embarrass themselves by insisting that Americans are the smartest and greatest people in the world, especially when we support said candidates. When we choose their opponents, it's because our innate brilliance has been corrupted by an evil force like (1) the left wing media, (2) right wing talk show hosts or (3) the Devil, who, depending on whom you talk to, is either (1) or (2). I love my street, but I don't know if Middle Crescent Drive is the best block in town. Maybe Lower or Upper has more to offer. My neighborhood, Laurel Canyon, is a sweet slice of L.A., but so are Coldwater and Topanga. While we're on the subject, let's stipulate that Earth is a way cool planet. But can't it just be what it is without ruining the self-esteem of all the other celestial bodies? True champions in areas that call for individual achievement -- like tennis, swimming and chili cooking -- tend not to brag about it. Think Tiger Woods, Magic Johnson or Stephen Hendry (snooker legend). Granted, Muhammed Ali was a showboat, but his charm and an ironic wink made him the exception that proves the rule. (There are plenty of great athletes who grandstand, but we needn't concern ourselves with them.) Of course, a healthy competitiveness is a fine and necessary thing. It keeps the species on its toes -- all species, come to think of it. And it's a lot more fun to win than to lose. We love stories about people who work harder than the rest to become world class entrepreneurs or chess masters. (Deep Blue, the computer that beat world chess champion Gary Kasparov in 2002, has nothing to apologize for.) With the possible exception of the Dalai Lama and a few other enlightened beings, we're all in the habit of competing with and comparing ourselves to those around us, from the guy we're trying to outrun on the (stationary!) treadmill at the gym to the unintelligible computer service-person who holds our technological fate in his hands. We feel superior to the maniac who just cut us off on the freeway, even though he might be rushing to the hospital to save a life. And we beat ourselves up when we hear an eight year-old girl nail that Clementi Sonatina we never quite mastered, even though the kid may have practiced 12 hours a day since she was three. Most of our comparing and judging is normal, even reflexive. When we need to elevate ourselves at the expense of others, though, even winners often lose. (As another great American songwriter, Randy Newman, reminds us, "It's Lonely At The Top.") Politicians and other America-firsters would do well to see the absurdity of insisting we're the best. There's a psychological term for this kind of delusion: It's called the "Lake Wobegon Effect," and it's named for Garrison Keillor's fictional town in A Prairie Home Companion, where "all the children are above average."
 
Paul Szep: The Daily Szep: The Republicans Top
 
Lita Smith-Mines: Who Are the People in Your Neighborhood? Top
I didn't use a coupon to my neighborhood pet store this past weekend. It was a really good coupon in this economy: 20% off any purchase. I usually spend about $60 every other week there stocking up on food for my dogs, turtle, and fish, and believe me, I can really use the $12. Yet I didn't use the coupon. The store is literally run by a Mom and Pop I have come to know as I regularly visited their small store in a modest shopping center. Even as two heavy-hitting mega-pet chains have moved into the area within a few miles of "my" pet store, I have remained a steadfastly loyal customer. The shopkeepers are struggling like everyone else, watching formerly free spending customers skimp and save on food and treats for beloved pets, with pooch owners forgoing new toys and accessories altogether. Personally, I used to spend $40 weekly without batting an eye, but as my income began to shrink I reduced my pet-spending in the store by 25%. Mom & Pop shared their woes with me, and as a local business owner and blogger, I listened. They knew which pet owners in the surrounding communities were unemployed, which were about to be foreclosed upon, and which had confidentially inquired about adoptions for four-footed family members they could no longer afford to feed. The owners saw credit lines shrink, inventory suppliers demand cash, and modest local pet specialty bakeries and accessory designers fail. Though the proprietors were past the age of raising children or funding college tuitions, retirement now looked impossible as their savings were slashed and the sales value of their store lessened. I have seen neighborhoods devalued by swelling numbers of foreclosed homes and communities devastated by burgeoning numbers of empty storefronts. I have watched professional acquaintances and personal friends lose their businesses, their jobs, and their self esteem, even as I have suffered many professional set-backs. I do what I can to counsel those in serious danger of foreclosure without compensation, and I try to remember that as long as I have a roof over my head and enough food to feed my family and pets, I am better off than those who need the cans of beans and bags of pasta I am able to contribute to the food banks. The $12 I didn't save at the pet store would have been almost enough for school lunches for my son for a week, or gone towards the co-pay of a medication I have delayed picking up. And though the $12 may have been just a pittance of Mom & Pop Shopkeeps' overhead, I am firm in my belief that by my not using the coupon I was bolstering their bottom-line as well as their confidence in hanging on for another week or two. Because if their store fails, my neighborhood falters from the loss of yet another locally owned enterprise, which diminishes both the long-term value of my real estate and the day -to-day quality of life. In my little corner of the world, I am trying to stretch $12 as far as it will possibly go. More on Real Estate
 
Mike Papantonio: Stimulus-Hating Governors Need Money More Than Others Top
Mississippi has one of the highest poverty levels in America, and Haley Barbour wants to make sure it stays that way. Last week, he joined the ranks of a handful of Republican governors who say they don't want any part of Obama's stimulus package. Politics is no different than any other part of our culture where it comes to the reality that third-rate leadership always trickles down to create third-rate results. It is a truth that surfaces in everything from coaching professional football to teaching first graders how to read. Success or failure of any organization flows from the top. For example, Louisiana is the only state in America with a negative economic growth rate, but the GOP presidential hopeful Governor Bobby Jindal stands right beside Barbour in his position that Obama's economic stimulus is bad for his pathetically impoverished state. You might remember that Jindal was heralded as the new brand of GOP visionary who would move Louisiana's economy into the 21st century. That expectation looks remarkably ridiculous today. Then there is South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford who apparently wants to emphasize the idea that he is an exceptional failure even among other failed Governors. South Carolina is one of those perpetual red states where they consistently distinguish themselves somewhere in the top ten crowd. That top ten crowd includes the highest in unemployment, the highest in infant mortality, the highest illiteracy and the highest in poverty. But Sanford who by the way is also a GOP presidential hopeful has a unique view about improving the quality of lives for his constituents. Sanford tells us that "Money is the mother's milk of politics. Once you have shown people money, you create an added constituency for government service." In other words, never give people a break and they will be content to live out the only sad, shabby life they know. Sanford drives home the point that a mediocre mind is an enemy of progress. It despises excellence and merely perpetuates mediocrity. Of course, all this hot air grandstanding by this GOP crowd of mediocre political midgets begs the question. If they don't want the billions being offered to their constituents, there is a solution. Don't accept a dime. That will further enhance the failed image of their leadership. It will shine more light on the fact that there is a pattern here. That pattern is that each one of these governors are leaders of southern red state economies that have remained dependent welfare states under their leadership. The other common thread is that each one of them after failing their own state constituents now want to become GOP presidential candidates. They want to expand the failed social policy in their own states to all of America. Mediocrity is seductive. It makes failure easier to live with.We see that principal playing itself out as this story develops. When Barbour leaves office, Mississippi will still have the lowest median family income in America. Jindal will no doubt leave Louisiana with a failed education system created by an endless cycle of severe poverty. But both will be regarded as the new golden boys by America's out of touch conservative leadership. More on Sarah Palin
 
Mohammed Ajmal Kasab Charged With Murder For Mumbai Attacks Top
MUMBAI, India — Investigators charged the lone surviving gunman from the Mumbai attacks with 12 crimes on Wednesday, including murder and waging war against India. Pakistani Mohammed Ajmal Kasab has been held by the police since he was captured in the early hours of the attacks, but had not been formally charged. Nine other attackers were killed during the three-day siege, which left 164 people dead and targeted luxury hotels, a Jewish center and other sites across the city. Special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam said he expected the trial to begin in the coming weeks and conclude in three to six months. The charges _ which are detailed in a document more than 10,000 pages long _ also included Kasab's confession, accounts from 150 witnesses and closed circuit television footage that shows him and his accomplice walking into Mumbai's crowded Chhatrapati Shivaji train station and spraying it with bullets, Mumbai police's main investigator Rakesh Maria had said earlier. Indian law requires that charges be filed against a suspect within 90 days of arrest. Kasab was formally arrested November 28. Kasab has been given a copy of the police charge sheet, Nikam said Wednesday. He also said that at least 35 other suspects in the attacks had "absconded" and authorities would continue investigating. He declined to list their names or nationalities. If convicted on the two most critical charges _ murder and waging war against India _ the 21-year-old Kasab will likely face the death penalty. India has blamed the attack on Lashkar-e-Taiba, an Islamist militant group widely believed created by Pakistani intelligence agencies in the 1980s to fight India rule in the divided Kashmir region. India has also said that all 10 attackers were from Pakistan. Earlier this month, Pakistani officials acknowledged that the Mumbai attacks were partly plotted on its soil and announced criminal proceedings against eight suspects. More on India
 
Walden Bello: Asia: The Coming Fury Top
As goods pile up in wharves from Bangkok to Shanghai, and workers are laid off in record numbers, people in East Asia are beginning to realize they aren't only experiencing an economic downturn but living through the end of an era. For over 40 years now, the cutting edge of the region's economy has been export-oriented industrialization (EOI). Taiwan and Korea first adopted this strategy of growth in the mid-1960s, with Korean dictator Park Chung-Hee coaxing his country's entrepreneurs to export by, among other measures, cutting off electricity to their factories if they refused to comply. The success of Korea and Taiwan convinced the World Bank that EOI was the wave of the future. In the mid-1970s, then-Bank President Robert McNamara enshrined it as doctrine , preaching that "special efforts must be made in many countries to turn their manufacturing enterprises away from the relatively small markets associated with import substitution toward the much larger opportunities flowing from export promotion." EOI became one of the key points of consensus between the Bank and Southeast Asia's governments. Both realized import substitution industrialization could only continue if domestic purchasing power were increased via significant redistribution of income and wealth, and this was simply out of the question for the region's elites. Export markets, especially the relatively open U.S. market, appeared to be a painless substitute. Japanese Capital Creates an Export Platform The World Bank endorsed the establishment of export processing zones, where foreign capital could be married to cheap (usually female) labor. It also supported the establishment of tax incentives for exporters and, less successfully, promoted trade liberalization. Not until the mid-1980s, however, did the economies of Southeast Asia take off, and this wasn't so much because of the Bank but because of aggressive U.S. trade policy. In 1985, in what became known as the Plaza Accord, the United States forced the drastic revaluation of the Japanese yen relative to the dollar and other major currencies. By making Japanese imports more expensive to American consumers, Washington hoped to reduce its trade deficit with Tokyo. Production in Japan became prohibitive in terms of labor costs, forcing the Japanese to move the more labor-intensive parts of their manufacturing operations to low-wage areas, in particular to China and Southeast Asia. At least $15 billion worth of Japanese direct investment flowed into Southeast Asia between 1985 and 1990. The inflow of Japanese capital allowed the Southeast Asian "newly industrializing countries" to escape the credit squeeze of the early 1980s brought on by the Third World debt crisis, surmount the global recession of the mid-1980s, and move onto a path of high-speed growth. The centrality of the endaka , or currency revaluation, was reflected in the ratio of foreign direct investment inflows to gross capital formation, which leaped spectacularly in the late 1980s and 1990s in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. The dynamics of foreign-investment-driven growth was best illustrated in Thailand, which received $24 billion worth of investment from capital-rich Japan, Korea, and Taiwan in just five years, between 1987 and 1991. Whatever might have been the Thai government's economic policy preferences — protectionist, mercantilist, or pro-market — this vast amount of East Asian capital coming into Thailand could not but trigger rapid growth. The same was true in the two other favored nations of northeast Asian capital, Malaysia and Indonesia. It wasn't just the scale of Japanese investment over a five-year period that mattered, however; it was the process. The Japanese government and keiretsu , or conglomerates, planned and cooperated closely in the transfer of corporate industrial facilities to Southeast Asia. One key dimension of this plan was to relocate not just big corporations like Toyota or Matsushita, but also small and medium enterprises that provided their inputs and components. Another was to integrate complementary manufacturing operations that were spread across the region in different countries. The aim was to create an Asia Pacific platform for re-export to Japan and export to third-country markets. This was industrial policy and planning on a grand scale, managed jointly by the Japanese government and corporations and driven by the need to adjust to the post-Plaza Accord world. As one Japanese diplomat put it rather candidly, "Japan is creating an exclusive Japanese market in which Asia Pacific nations are incorporated into the so-called keiretsu [financial-industrial bloc] system." China Masters the Model If Taiwan and Korea pioneered the model and Southeast Asia successfully followed in their wake, China perfected the strategy of export-oriented industrialization. With its reserve army of cheap labor unmatched by any country in the world, China became the "workshop of the world," drawing in $50 billion in foreign investment annually by the first half of this decade. To survive, transnational firms had no choice but to transfer their labor-intensive operations to China to take advantage of what came to be known as the "China price," provoking in the process a tremendous crisis in the advanced capitalist countries’ labor forces. This process depended on the U.S. market. As long as U.S. consumers splurged, the export economies of East Asia could continue in high gear. The low U.S. savings rate was no barrier since credit was available on a grand scale. China and other Asian countries snapped up U.S. treasury bills and loaned massively to U.S. financial institutions, which in turn loaned to consumers and homebuyers. But now the U.S. credit economy has imploded, and the U.S. market is unlikely to serve as the same dynamic source of demand for a long time to come. As a result, Asia's export economies have been marooned. The Illusion of "Decoupling" For several years China has seemed to be a dynamic alternative to the U.S. market for Japan and East Asia's smaller economies. Chinese demand, after all, had pulled the Asian economies, including Korea and Japan, from the depths of stagnation and the morass of the Asian financial crisis in the first half of this decade. In 2003, for instance, Japan broke a decade-long stagnation by meeting China's thirst for capital and technology-intensive goods. Japanese exports shot up to record levels. Indeed, China had become by the middle of the decade, "the overwhelming driver of export growth in Taiwan and the Philippines, and the majority buyer of products from Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and Australia." Even though China appeared to be a new driver of export-led growth, some analysts still considered the notion of Asia "decoupling" from the U.S. locomotive to be a pipe dream. For instance, research by economists C.P. Chandrasekhar and Jayati Ghosh, underlined that China was indeed importing intermediate goods and parts from Japan, Korea, and ASEAN, but only to put them together mainly for export as finished goods to the United States and Europe, not for its domestic market. Thus, "if demand for Chinese exports from the United States and the EU slow down, as will be likely with a U.S. recession," they asserted , "this will not only affect Chinese manufacturing production, but also Chinese demand for imports from these Asian developing countries." The collapse of Asia's key market has banished all talk of decoupling. The image of decoupled locomotives — one coming to a halt, the other chugging along on a separate track — no longer applies, if it ever had. Rather, U.S.-East Asia economic relations today resemble a chain-gang linking not only China and the United States but a host of other satellite economies. They are all linked to debt-financed middle-class spending in the United States, which has collapsed. China's growth in 2008 fell to 9%, from 11% a year earlier. Japan is now in deep recession, its mighty export-oriented consumer goods industries reeling from plummeting sales. South Korea, the hardest hit of Asia's economies so far, has seen its currency collapse by some 30% relative to the dollar. Southeast Asia's growth in 2009 will likely be half that of 2008. The Coming Fury The sudden end of the export era is going to have some ugly consequences. In the last three decades, rapid growth reduced the number living below the poverty line in many countries. In practically all countries, however, income and wealth inequality increased. But the expansion of consumer purchasing power took much of the edge off social conflicts. Now, with the era of growth coming to an end, increasing poverty amid great inequalities will be a combustible combination. In China, about 20 million workers have lost their jobs in the last few months, many of them heading back to the countryside, where they will find little work. The authorities are rightly worried that what they label "mass group incidents," which have been increasing in the last decade, might spin out of control. With the safety valve of foreign demand for Indonesian and Filipino workers shut off, hundreds of thousands of workers are returning home to few jobs and dying farms. Suffering is likely to be accompanied by rising protest, as it already has in Vietnam, where strikes are spreading like wildfire. Korea, with its tradition of militant labor and peasant protest, is a ticking time bomb. Indeed, East Asia may be entering a period of radical protest and social revolution that went out of style when export-oriented industrialization became the fashion three decades ago. More on Vietnam
 
Gov. Jim Doyle: Congressman Dave Obey: Chief Architect of Plan for America's Recovery Top
Wisconsin and our entire nation are on the road to recovery thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, whose chief architect is Wisconsin's own Congressman Dave Obey. The Recovery and Reinvestment package is critical to Wisconsin and every state in the nation. I am grateful to all of the members of our Congressional Delegation who supported it, but especially Congressman Obey. Congressman Obey led the effort in Washington to shape the plan. As chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Congressman Obey was a great ally. We met in Wausau the day after the election -- as everyone saw what terrible shape the economy was taking. He fully understood the challenges Wisconsin and every other state in the country faced. His tireless work on behalf of the people of Wisconsin helped protect education and health care. We now have a Recovery and Reinvestment plan that lets states be partners in moving this country forward. It will be up to me and our Legislature to make sure we use the recovery money wisely. The Recovery and Reinvestment plan very clearly does two things. First, it helps get people to work immediately and lays a foundation for future economic growth. Here in Wisconsin, we were able to increase our funding for transportation by 20 percent in the budget I proposed earlier this week. We will be able to get to work on fixing bridges and roads. We will make sure our cities have clean water. We will connect more of Wisconsin with passenger rail, and we will provide clean, alternative energy to power our state. We will modernize our medical records to make patient treatment safer and more efficient. We will make our communication networks stronger and fix our schools. Wisconsin will work hard to meet the challenge of this Recovery and Reinvestment Act to maintain jobs and get people to work on projects that add long-term value to the state. Second, the plan recognizes that during the current economic crisis we cannot let education and access to health care deteriorate. It will help us keep teachers in classrooms. It will help us make sure a sick child gets to a doctor. It means that, as the economy is trying to recover from a deep recession, we will be in a better position to help move our country forward. Wisconsin and America are going through tough economic times, but we have great hope for the future with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. People across the nation will feel a direct impact from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Here in Wisconsin, it is estimated that we will be able to create or save 70,000 jobs, provide Pell Grants to 91,500 students and tax credits to 2.2 million hardworking families under the new law. Whether it is through infrastructure projects, grants, tax breaks or extended benefits, college students, K-12 students, hard working Wisconsin families and workers who have lost their jobs will benefit from this package. The Recovery and Reinvestment funds also mean that we can maintain state budget priorities and we do not have to make deeper cuts to education and medical care in the biennial state budget bill. Wisconsin stands to receive more than $3.7 billion in Recovery and Reinvestment funds, not including direct aid to individuals, tax breaks from the tax relief package or federal competitive grants. That would not have happened without Congressman Dave Obey's hard work and vision. I am especially proud that he is a Wisconsinite who has shown extraordinary leadership that will help heal our nation and benefit every state for years to come.
 
Burris Gets Support From Senate Republicans Top
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said Burris should stay where he is. "He came nominated by a governor who was in office, he came with the paperwork, the Senate seated him, and anything outside of that is something for Sen. Burris to think about," Burr said. Likewise, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called on Burris's critics to stop their calls for his resignation at least until the Senate Ethics Committee completes its investigation. Graham said that to do otherwise would be to judge the Illinois senator prematurely.
 
Eating Pizza Hut In Italy (VIDEO) Top
You know those terrible Pizza Hut commercials in which they make unsuspecting people eat fast food and pretend it's not gross? Well Funny or Die knows what's up and added subtitles to this commercial to reveal what the Italians were really thinking when forced to eat Pizza Hut lasagna. WATCH: Pizza Hut in Italy - watch more funny videos More on Funny Or Die
 
The Media Consortium: Weekly Pulse: Czar 44, Where are You? Healthcare NewsLadder Top
By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire blogger The Obama administration may be about to pull the plug on the health czar. The position has gone unfilled since Obama's appointee-apparent, former Sen. Tom Daschle, withdrew his name from consideration for both czar and Secretary of Health and Human Services in early February. Several serious candidates are emerging in the unofficial race to lead HHS, but there's no corresponding shortlist for health czar. The czar and his Office of Health Reform were initially touted as proof that Obama was really serious about shepherding a health reform package through Congress. But the Obama team may ultimately decide that the Office of Health Reform is an obstacle instead of an asset without Daschle and ditch it altogether. As Erza Klein explains in the American Prospect , the position was created especially for Daschle and any other candidate might be worse than nothing as far as passing a healthcare reform package goes. Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly agrees, and says that nixing the health czar doesn't necessarily indicate that the Obama administration is any less committed to healthcare reform. The purpose of the health czar was to create a single emissary to represent President Obama's healthcare agenda to Congress. When the Clintons tried to reform healthcare in 1993, they discovered that various powerful administration officials were claiming to speak for the president. The health czar was supposed to prevent future confusion by speaking for the president. Lots of senior healthcare officials are already close to Obama and a similar situation could arise. Daschle would have been a credible health czar because he's closer to the president than any of them, and a former congressional heavyweight to boot. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is a front-runner for HHS secretary and she has a very good relationship with Obama. But Gov. Sebelius is a Washington outsider who has never served in the U.S. Congress, which might make her a less compelling candidate for czar. Ezra Klein, linked above, argues that if nobody can fill Daschle's shoes, appointing a less compelling czar might just add to the din of executive branch officials vying for the attention of key Congressional leaders. Maybe it's a good idea to send as many Obama health officials to Congress as possible. If nothing else, they might cut into time the reps are currently spending with health insurance industry lobbyists , as Talking Points Memo reports. Speaking of contenders for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Gov. Howard Dean recently published an article on AlterNet defending Obama's comparative effectiveness research (CER) agenda against right wing critics like Rush Limbaugh. Dean draws on his experience as a doctor and a healthcare policy-maker to argue that CER is a way to put more scientific evidence in the hands of doctors, so they can choose the very best treatment for the money. Right wingers don't like the idea. They're literally afraid that if science determines that a treatment is bogus, the government will stop paying for it. Right wingers calls this "rationing." Taxpayers might call it evidence-based policy. Last we checked, Medicare and Medicaid were not faith-based programs. As Dean points out, the CER to be funded by the new economic stimulus bill is officially for doctors, not legislators. "Mr. Limbaugh and his cohorts would have you believe that this research will be used to deny needed care to your great Aunt May and be run by the politburo. But the Bill passed by Congress states right up front that the Government can not make coverage decisions based on this research," Dean wrote. Realistically, though, that's kind of a hollow assurance. Once the research is done, there's no way to stop legislators from using publicly available research findings to make healthcare decisions. In another corner of the healthcare reform-o-sphere, Katrina vanden Heuvel says that time is right to reform New York's draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws in The Nation . These laws have been on the books 35 years. The laws essentially force judges to send drug possessors to jail based on the weight of the drugs they were caught with, whether the judge thinks imprisonment would be a good idea or not. New York's budget crisis might be a blessing in disguise for drug reform, vanden Heuvel argues, because policy-makers are sick of paying to keep drug offenders locked up whether they need it or not. And finally, some good news from RH Reality Check . Many people just wouldn't feel right stepping out without a spritz of perfume, a blast of breath-freshener, or regrettably, a full-body shellacking with Axe Body Spray. As Joe Veix reports for RH, another spray-on product may one day be added to the essential equipment list: contraceptive . An Australian company is currently testing a hormone spritz for women. The product is applied to the forearm. Like thE contraceptive patch, the spray is designed to deliver hormones through the skin. Researchers hope that through-the-skin delivery can produce the same results as pills, but with lower doses of hormones and fewer side effects.   This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care. Visit Healthcare.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on healthcare affordability, healthcare laws, and healthcare controversy. And for the best progressive reporting on the ECONOMY, and IMMIGRATION, check out, Immigration.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net . This is a project of The Media Consortium , a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and created by NewsLadder . More on Kathleen Sebelius
 
Presented By: Top
 
WATCH LIVE: Obama Announces Commerce Secretary Pick Top
Watch President Obama introduce former Washington Governor Gary Locke as his nominee for Commerce Secretary. Read more about Gary Locke . Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy
 
William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis Top
As a white-collar criminologist and former financial regulator much of my research studies what causes financial markets to become profoundly dysfunctional. The FBI has been warning of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud since September 2004. It also reports that lenders initiated 80% of these frauds. When the person that controls a seemingly legitimate business or government agency uses it as a "weapon" to defraud we categorize it as a "control fraud" ("The Organization as 'Weapon' in White Collar Crime." Wheeler & Rothman 1982; The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One . Black 2005). Financial control frauds' "weapon of choice" is accounting. Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime -- combined. Control fraud epidemics can arise when financial deregulation and desupervision and perverse compensation systems create a "criminogenic environment" ( Big Money Crime . Calavita, Pontell & Tillman 1997.) The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence. To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud. Don't ask; don't tell: book profits, "earn" bonuses and closet your losses The first document everyone should read is by S&P, the largest of the rating agencies. The context of the document is that a professional credit rater has told his superiors that he needs to examine the mortgage loan files to evaluate the risk of a complex financial derivative whose risk and market value depend on the credit quality of the nonprime mortgages "underlying" the derivative. A senior manager sends a blistering reply with this forceful punctuation: Any request for loan level tapes is TOTALLY UNREASONABLE!!! Most investors don't have it and can't provide it. [W]e MUST produce a credit estimate. It is your responsibility to provide those credit estimates and your responsibility to devise some method for doing so. Fraud is the principal credit risk of nonprime mortgage lending. It is impossible to detect fraud without reviewing a sample of the loan files. Paper loan files are bulky, so they are photographed and the images are stored on computer tapes. Unfortunately, "most investors" (the large commercial and investment banks that purchased nonprime loans and pooled them to create financial derivatives) did not review the loan files before purchasing nonprime loans and did not even require the lender to provide loan tapes. The rating agencies never reviewed samples of loan files before giving AAA ratings to nonprime mortgage financial derivatives. The "AAA" rating is supposed to indicate that there is virtually no credit risk -- the risk is equivalent to U.S. government bonds, which finance refers to as "risk-free." We know that the rating agencies attained their lucrative profits because they gave AAA ratings to nonprime financial derivatives exposed to staggering default risk. A graph of their profits in this era rises like a stairway to heaven. We also know that turning a blind eye to the mortgage fraud epidemic was the only way the rating agencies could hope to attain those profits. If they had reviewed even small samples of nonprime loans they would have had only two choices: (1) rating them as toxic waste, which would have made it impossible to sell the nonprime financial derivatives or (2) documenting that they were committing, and aiding and abetting, accounting control fraud. Worse, the S&P document demonstrates that the investment and commercial banks that purchased nonprime loans, pooled them to create financial derivatives, and sold them to others engaged in the same willful blindness. They did not review samples of loan files because doing so would have exposed the toxic nature of the assets they were buying and selling. The entire business was premised on a massive lie -- that fraudulent, toxic nonprime mortgage loans were virtually risk-free. The lie was so blatant that the banks even pooled loans that were known in the trade as "liar's loans" and obtained AAA ratings despite FBI warnings that mortgage fraud was "epidemic." The supposedly most financially sophisticated entities in the world -- in the core of their expertise, evaluating credit risk -- did not undertake the most basic and essential step to evaluate the most dangerous credit risk. They did not review the loan files. In the short and intermediate-term this optimized their accounting fraud but it was also certain to destroy the corporation if it purchased or retained significant nonprime paper. Stress this: stress tests are useless against the nonprime problems What commentators have missed is that the big banks often do not have the vital nonprime loan files now. That means that neither they nor the Treasury know their asset quality. It also means that Geithner's "stress tests" can't "test" assets when they don't have the essential information to "stress." No files means the vital data are unavailable, which means no meaningful stress tests are possible of the nonprime assets that are causing the greatest losses. The results were disconcerting A rating agency (Fitch) first reviewed a small sample of nonprime loan files after the secondary market in nonprime loan paper collapsed and nonprime lending virtually ceased. The second document everyone should read is Fitch's report on what they found. Fitch's analysts conducted an independent analysis of these files with the benefit of the full origination and servicing files. The result of the analysis was disconcerting at best, as there was the appearance of fraud or misrepresentation in almost every file. [F]raud was not only present, but, in most cases, could have been identified with adequate underwriting, quality control and fraud prevention tools prior to the loan funding. Fitch believes that this targeted sampling of files was sufficient to determine that inadequate underwriting controls and, therefore, fraud is a factor in the defaults and losses on recent vintage pools. Fitch also explained why these forms of mortgage fraud cause severe losses. For example, for an origination program that relies on owner occupancy to offset other risk factors, a borrower fraudulently stating its intent to occupy will dramatically alter the probability of the loan defaulting. When this scenario happens with a borrower who purchased the property as a short-term investment, based on the anticipation that the value would increase, the layering of risk is greatly multiplied. If the same borrower also misrepresented his income, and cannot afford to pay the loan unless he successfully sells the property, the loan will almost certainly default and result in a loss, as there is no type of loss mitigation, including modification, which can rectify these issues. The widespread claim that nonprime loan originators that sold their loans caused the crisis because they "had no skin in the game" ignores the fundamental causes. The ultra sophisticated buyers knew the originators had no skin in the game. Neoclassical economics and finance predicts that because they know that the nonprime originators have perverse incentives to sell them toxic loans they will take particular care in their due diligence to detect and block any such sales. They assuredly would never buy assets that the trade openly labeled as fraudulent, after receiving FBI warnings of a fraud epidemic, without the taking exceptional due diligence precautions. The rating agencies' concerns for their reputations would make them even more cautious. Real markets, however, became perverse -- "due diligence" and "private market discipline" became oxymoronic. These two documents are enough to begin to understand: the FBI accurately described mortgage fraud as "epidemic" nonprime lenders are overwhelmingly responsible for the epidemic the fraud was so endemic that it would have been easy to spot if anyone looked the lenders, the banks that created nonprime derivatives, the rating agencies, and the buyers all operated on a "don't ask; don't tell" policy willful blindness was essential to originate, sell, pool and resell the loans willful blindness was the pretext for not posting loss reserves both forms of blindness made high (fictional) profits certain when the bubble was expanding rapidly and massive (real) losses certain when it collapsed the worse the nonprime loan quality the higher the fees and interest rates, and the faster the growth in nonprime lending and pooling the greater the immediate fictional profits and (eventual) real losses the greater the destruction of wealth, the greater the (fictional) profits, bonuses, and stock appreciation many of the big banks are deeply insolvent due to severe credit losses those big banks and Treasury don't know how insolvent they are because they didn't even have the loan files a "stress test" can't remedy the banks' problem -- they do not have the loan files More on Timothy Geithner
 
Ty'Sheoma Bethea: Obama Inspired By Letter, Invites Young Student To Speech Top
One of the guests at President Obama's address to Congress Tuesday night was Ty'sheoma Bethea, an eighth grader from a small town in South Carolina. Bethea wrote Obama and asked that money from the stimulus go to her dilapidated school. She had reportedly never been on a plane before boarding a flight to D.C. with her mother for the speech. The president referenced Bethea's story in his remarks, and quoted her letter: I think about Ty'Sheoma Bethea, the young girl from that school I visited in Dillon, South Carolina - a place where the ceilings leak, the paint peels off the walls, and they have to stop teaching six times a day because the train barrels by their classroom. She has been told that her school is hopeless, but the other day after class she went to the public library and typed up a letter to the people sitting in this room. She even asked her principal for the money to buy a stamp. The letter asks us for help, and says, "We are just students trying to become lawyers, doctors, congressmen like yourself and one day president, so we can make a change to not just the state of South Carolina but also the world. We are not quitters." In an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America," Bethea revealed her own ambition: to be the first female president. She said she was inspired to write the letter because she thought too much of the stimulus money was going to people who already had enough. Watch:
 
Romney's House Broken-Into, Jewelry Stolen Top
Somebody stole between 15 and 20 pieces of jewelry from Mitt Romney's Park City mansion, the Police Department said, describing that the person who took the jewelry appears to have had access to the house. More on Mitt Romney
 

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)