Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Auren Hoffman: Birds of a Feather Shop Together Top
The Early Bird (Who is Your Friend) Gets the Worm It's not too radical to claim that people are more like their friends than they are like other people that fit their demographic or psychographic makeup. Social psychology has shown that people tend to develop relationships with those that have similar interests to them, transcending demographics and psychographics. And those that have a strong relationship with each other have the capacity to influence each others' behavior. Marketers traditionally have put consumers into various buckets in order to compartmentalize and therefore easily learn and make assumptions about them. These marketers lack the Holy Grail social-graphic information: friend connections and relationship information amongst their consumers. Past - Demographic Targeting Looking at John S., for example, he fits in the 25-34 year old, white male from San Francisco, CA bucket; now, marketers will assume that John is likely to respond to offers other people from his bucket generally respond to. In the absence of any other information about John, this demographic convention is the best they can do, with additional information obviously being more useful. Present - Psychographic Targeting When it comes to targeting people based on their psychographics and interests, politicians, especially, have been highly successful. If John S. subscribes to Guns & Ammo magazine, he might be very open to a message from a pro-gun candidate despite living in an area where the vast majority of inhabitants strongly support a ban on guns. This type of psychographic targeting is more successful than targeting purely on demographics -- psychographic targeting is not as broad and can be more descriptive. Thus, John's interests in one area is a good predictor of what he might buy in another area, independent of the behavior of those within his demographic bucket. Future - Social-graphic Targeting A more powerful predictor of John's purchasing behavior is what his friends are doing and buying. For instance, people interested in wine tend to hang out with people who also are interested in wine. And if a company is pitching a product, its best prospects are the friends of its current consumers: a golden leads list. A study by Shawndra Hill , now Assistant Professor of Operations and Information Management at the University of Pennsylvania, shows a very strong correlation among friends purchasing the same items. This intuitively makes sense: one cannot pick his demographic makeup, but can and does pick his own friends, often based on similarity in attitudes, values, interests, and personality. This similarity leads to similar behavior and buying patterns amongst those friends. Implications of Social-graphic Targeting The problem for marketers and companies is knowing who someone is friends with since few companies have access to the social graph of their consumers. But companies with access can leverage that information for better targeting. By better targeting consumers, companies can cut down on advertisements, spam, and harassment to consumers and create a world with more relevance, consumer happiness, and better use of everyone's time. Companies with this information include telecom providers, social networks, webmail and IM clients, and search aggregators. As one's social graph becomes a commoditized way to do better targeting, these companies (and others) will become increasingly valuable. Telecom providers have great social graph data. They know who often calls each other -- an accurate representation of one's social graph. These companies can do analysis on this data and even determine types of relationships based on the frequency, duration, and timing of calls (e.g. most people tend to call their mom on Mother's Day). Similarly, free webmail clients (Gmail, Hotmail) and IM chat clients (AIM, Yahoo) have a gigantic social graph of everyone that communicates with each other. In the future, this social graph data can be used to change the way these webmail and IM clients display ads based on the behavior and activity of one's social graph. Online social networks have a good idea of who people know and the extent of their relationships. They could partner with retailers to better pitch products based on what peoples' friends are doing. Facebook already does this with Social Ads (and is what they attempted to do with Beacon). Search aggregators, such as Google and Rapleaf [disclosure: I am an employee of Rapleaf], aggregate public connections data from thousands of blogs, forums, social networks, discussion boards, and more. These aggregators can enable marketers to better understand their consumers and provide a more customized experience and product recommendations based on the consumers' friends' interests and buying behavior. Companies that really want to better serve their consumers with a more customized experience can leverage these friend maps effectively. It turns out that the obvious is true: birds of a feather really do shop together.
 
Johann Hari: Britain Now Has Its Own Abu Graib - Inflicted By Troops, On Troops Top
Over the past fortnight, there have been torrents of emotional tributes to British soldiers from the country's politicians - and they are all hollow. Yes, they meant it when they expressed sorrow at the young men murdered in Northern Ireland. Yes, they were genuinely repulsed when welcome-home military parades in Luton were disrupted by Islamists who glorify the Taliban. But the purple patches of praise for "Our Boys" - and the long list of fallen soldiers that now opens every Prime Minister's Questions - seem vacuous when you remember a stark fact, exposed once more this week in the important new play 'Deep Cut' at London's Tricycle Theatre. These self-same politicians are still refusing to investigate the highly suspicious deaths of British troops - even though they were almost certainly killed by a culture of sadistically humiliating and hurting our soldiers. As most people now vaguely know, between 1995 and 2002, four young recruits to the army were found dead at the Deepcut Barracks in the rolling English countryside, where they were supposed to be undergoing training. Two of them were just seventeen years old. The army swiftly ruled that they were suicides. It is now clear that the truth is much more complex - and dark. This is not just a matter of history. As you read this story, keep asking yourself one question. If the British army reacts to the death of its own troops in the open air in the middle of Britain with such reflexive indifference and elaborate cover-up, what are they doing in Helmand Province, or Basra, when civilians there are abused? Here's what we know. Over a thousand young recruits passed through the Deepcut barracks every year - many of them just sixteen, many of them illiterate - and from the moment they arrived, they were inducted into a culture where they were forced to participate in extreme and bizarre acts: being thrown out of a window if their locker was untidy, being pissed on by officers, being made to swim through a cess-pool. One female private was forced "to run around the parade ground naked wearing a belt with mess tins attached to it"; another was ordered to get out of the shower "naked and wet" and made to go on parade with other soldiers at the height of winter. A racist gang called "the Black Card Club" would inform an ethnic minority soldier he had been selected "for a beating" by leaving a card with a white cross in their locker. It has finally emerged - after all this time - that there have been more than one hundred allegations from terrorised recruits, including of at least one gang-rape. Female recruits were told they could have an "easier life" if they "consented" to have sex with large numbers of men. One corporal already convicted for predatory sexual behaviour towards teenage boys was posted to the Deepcut gym, where he forced young soldiers to participate in canings and sex. When soldiers protested, they were told to "stop being a poof". Former recruits have subsequently started to come forward, and one says: "No-one knows how many were attacked, but everyone knew it went on... Horrible [sexual] things went on involving groups of officers and it is difficult even thinking of it now. Many women ended up in psychiatric hospitals." It's an Abu Graib at the heart of Britain - inflicted by troops on troops. This is the context in which four young recruits were found shot dead. There are two possibilities. Either this culture drove them to suicide - or it escalated to the point of murder. Whichever is the case, the army hierarchy didn't want to know. They prioritised avoiding an embarrassing fuss over finding out the truth. The play 'Deep Cut' focuses on one of the victims: Private Cheryl James, a bubbly seventeen year-old Welsh girl. Her body was found in a foetal position with a gun neatly by her side one night in 2002. Despite the fact this was the third suspicious death in the same place, the Surrey Police investigation assumed it was a suicide from the start. They barely interviewed relevant witnesses, and even sent the bloody shirt in which one of the victims was found away to be washed clean. Since then, her friend and fellow Deepcut soldier Mark Beards has come forward to say that on the eve of her death, Cheryl was given the choice of becoming a sex slave to a clique of bullies or facing trumped-up disciplinary charges. Did this drive her to kill herself - or was she punished for refusing? Her family's attempts to try to secure an investigation were treated with contempt by the army, who refused to even return their calls for months on end. The BBC's Frontline Scotland programme asked Frank Swann, one of Britain's leading forensic experts, to study the evidence. He explains: "After spending six weeks conducting a serious forensic study and tests... I am satisfied [they] were in fact murders." Twenty year-old Private Sean Benton was found with five shots run through his body, but the gun that killed him - the SA80 - fires between 650 and 700 rounds a minute on automatics. So Swann says: "You could not reproduce that pattern on Benton unless you were fourteen feet away. That means Benton would have needed arms fourteen feet long to shoot himself." Similarly, Private Geoff Gray was found with two deadly shots to the head - in different places. Swann says: "It can't be done." All attempts to get a public inquiry have been stone-walled. The government asked Nicholas Blake QC to look into it, but didn't give him the power to compel or cross-examine witnesses, producing a farcically empty report. There appears to be no determination to root out this culture and make sure it never happens again. So let's go back to that early question: if the military treat each other with sadism and a culture of impunity even for murder, how are they treating ordinary Afghans and Iraqis? This is not just a matter of justice - it is a matter of national security. Soldiers need fitness, discipline, and preparation for life under extreme pressure, and yes, some of that preparation will be gruelling. But they don't need extreme cruelty. Indeed, if our troops are being primed to react to circumstances of stress - or even everyday life - with ritualised humiliation and reflexive violence, then we will all be less safe, because we will be hated even more wherever they are sent. The army is supposed to be a public service meeting our needs, not a self-serving, self-preserving clique covering up crimes by its own. Even the neutered Blake inquiry demanded that the government establish an independent body to investigate allegations of abuses within or by the army. They refused. But far from hindering army efficiency, over time independent investigations will massively increase it. Compare it to your own life: would you do your job better or worse if you knew nobody was ever going to check you were doing it right or investigate your mistakes? Ever time you hear a politician pouring out platitudes about how much they respect and revere Our Great Troops, snap back: so when is the public inquiry into the killing of soldiers at Deepcut starting then? Unless they give you a date, you can be sure they are lying. Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper. To read more of his articles, click here or here . Johann is interviewed on the latest Drunken Politics podcast about Palestine, piracy, and what makes him happy. Part One is here. Part Two is here. To see Deep Cut in London, go to http://www.tricycle.co.uk/ or call 00 44 20 7328 1000
 
eBay's Meg Whitman: Can She Save California? Top
(Fortune Magazine) -- It's been barely a month since Meg Whitman declared that she was running for governor of California, and the skewers are already out. The state's press has cast her as a political novice. Late-night comics are loving this notion of eBay's former CEO in charge of America's largest state. "Well, that makes sense," said Jay Leno. "I mean, the state's broke. If we're going to start selling stuff, who better to be governor than the head of eBay?" Many businesspeople, as well as most of her friends, think she's crazy to want to be governor at a time of crisis. Yahoo (YHOO, Fortune 500) CEO Carol Bartz says that when Whitman recently came to her office seeking support, "I asked her, 'Why in the world would you want to do this?' I probably asked her that question 10 different ways."
 
Sahil Kapur: Key Difference Between Modern Liberalism and Conservatism: Nuance Top
We live in a complex era. Our problems are challenging and daunting. Finding the right solutions demands that we abandon dogma in favor of pragmatism. This underscores the current political debate between liberalism and conservatism. Crooks and Liars offers an interesting take on conservatism and 13-year-old CPAC speaker Jonathan Krohn: After all, conservative thought (as it were) has always reflected the way a 13-year-old would view the world: like a highly dualistic, light-and-darkness morality fable, filled with heroic patriots and defenders of freedom contending against the slithering forces of puling liberal evil. It's witty and hyperbolic but there's a grain of truth to this, namely that at the core of the conservative ideology lies a thirst for heroes and villains, a visceral resistance to change, rigid adherence to tradition, fear of the unknown, a tribal tendency to chastise those who are different, and the encapsulation of complex realities into simplistic principles. Personal responsibility, individual liberty and less government are wonderful ideas, but like all successful concepts, they require nuance. To what extent does the poor son of a crackhead single mother who grew up without access to a good education have the personal responsibility to buy health care at exorbitant prices? Should he be expected to create a stable, happy life for himself while paying the same flat tax rate as Donald Trump? At what point should Trump's individual liberty be so obstructed as to afford the government a slightly larger fraction of his multi-billion dollar pie so it can be spent on health care and education for the less fortunate? At what point should the Constitutional rights of oil companies to destroy the environment be called into question, so as to protect our planet and our children from our wastefulness and stubborn refusal to evolve? In the modern conservative movement, 'less government' refers to the conviction that government is always and inherently bad. But there's nothing liberal or ideological about public services or building schools, bridges and roads. How about if big government were to slash that Social Security check to your ailing grandmother, forcing her to live in poverty? How about if big government were to cut Medicaid and your poor cousin could no longer afford treatment for a life-threatening disease? The alleged tenets of modern conservatism are great; they just need to be tempered with reality. That's where liberalism steps in. It subscribes to these principles but on a more thoughtful, nuanced level. Conservatives often decry liberalism as without a core philosophy. What they don't realize is that liberals do have core values; liberals simply understand that reality is far too complex and multidimensional to reduce ideology to a few overly simplistic catchphrases. Government has flaws, but so does the private sector (as amply proven by the current economic crisis). It's important to realize the shades of gray in both. Some issues are so important and encompassing they demand government activism -- like combating climate change and providing health care and a quality education to everyone. Modern conservatism's unyielding assumption that government is categorically bad underscores its lack of nuance and extreme nature. Complex times like these require complex thinkers, and conservative purists like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and all the others who still believe government should play no role in helping us out of this crisis are plainly not complex thinkers. The self-fulfilling tragedy is that those who run for office on a platform that government is bad are very likely to prove it if elected, by sitting on the sidelines and refusing to act when necessary. Principles are vital, but they need a healthy dose of reality to make sure they continue to yield the desired results. Our core values should be cherished on their merits and questioned on their limitations. Any idea pushed to an extreme can prove more destructive than worthwhile. There's a fine line between principle and dogma; and we all know the latter isn't a virtue.
 
Will JPMorgan's Outsourcing Push Hurt Bill Daley's Senate Bid? Top
How exactly does Bill Daley, brother of the Chicago mayor and longstanding chairman of JPMorgan's Midwest Region, expect to make a viable run for U.S. Senate in Illinois with headlines like this surfacing? JP Morgan Chase Expanding India Outsourcing By 25%? More on Outsourcing
 
Whoopie! Cookie, Pie Or Cake...It's Having Its Moment Top
Now whoopie pies are migrating across the country, often appearing in the same specialty shops and grocery aisles that recently made room for cupcakes. Last fall, they even cracked the lineup at Magnolia Bakery in Manhattan, which helped turn cupcakes into a national craze thanks to the bakery's exposure on "Sex and the City." Under the name "sweetie pies," heart-shaped whoopie pies showed up in the February catalog from Williams-Sonoma. Baked in Maine with local butter and organic eggs, they sell for $49 a dozen. More on Food
 
Quinn Bradlee: Money Doesn't Buy (True) Friends Top
There is something that I have been meaning to let everybody know, but also at the same time I have been a little scared and have not wanted to admit it... but it's true. My whole life I have had everything handed down to me and have mostly been able to get whatever I want and (most of the time) when I want it. I have discovered that this is not how life typically works, and that most of the time, those types of people end up not having a lot of friends. I have always thought that maybe that is the reason why I don't have many friends. The one thing that has really bothered me in my life is that when I bring my friends to my house, they end up believing that I have all the money in the world and that my parents and I will just never have to worry about money. I will admit that in the past I have not had to worry about money but that has changed since the financial crises. My dad has always told me that money doesn't grow on trees, and that my grandfather had to work three jobs once during the Great Depression. I always just ignored him because I never thought I would ever have to worry about it. I was pretty spoiled as child; my grandmother would serve me breakfast, lunch and dinner in bed when I would go and visit her on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. I always received birthday presents and always an amazing amount of Christmas presents. I will never forget when Nintendo came out and I had asked for it and I got it. While I am grateful for my ability to have material things, I do know that money does not buy you everything that you want. There were two things that I didn't have growing up, and even though I have one of those things now, I still don't have the other -- friends. I finally got a girlfriend though, who I love with all my heart, and she loves me with all of her heart. The thing about being wealthy is that whenever I have parties, I never think that my friends are there just because they want to see me. I think that they are there because they want to come to a forty room mansion in Georgetown with a tennis court and in a pool. Being rich is as easy as it looks: money can buy you trouble and fake happiness. Yes, I drive a Mercedes 350 coupe which was my fathers, but I mostly drive it alone. And yes, I live in Georgetown, now next to my parents but the house that I live in, built by Todd Lincoln, Abraham's son, was once attached to the main house. I never throw any parties there, it is always my roommates, the girls mainly. At first I thought that whenever their friends came over, they were really excited to see me. But unfortunately I think I have learned that they could care less about me -- they're just there to see the house. Whenever I see my roommates' friends, I can see now that they're no more than just fake smiles. To be fair, I do have a few genuine friends, but only a few. These are the people who support and care about me for me -- not for who my family is.
 
A Darfuri Speaks Out: Sudan's President Treats My People Like Bargaining Chips Top
On March 4th 2009, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for the arrest of President of Sudan Omer Al-Bashir. Within hours, Al-Bashir ordered 13 humanitarian aid groups out from Darfur and Sudan. This was not a mere reactionary move. The regime in Khartoum is comprised of a very calculating gang. That is the secret of their survival for almost 20 years in power. The expulsion of the humanitarian aid groups is meant to present the international community with tough choices. It is the start of the scenario of "Let's talk." Khartoum is very good in negotiating its way out of troubles. Al-Bashir's bargaining chips here are the lives of 4.7 millions Darfuris. Yes, they are his citizens in the first place, but they also have been his hostages for six years. Some observers say that most of the influential individuals around Al-Bashir are western educated. These individuals understand exactly how the international community thinks, but the international community does not understand how the government of Sudan thinks. Over the last six years, I have seen and felt the systematic destruction of the once wonderful society I grew up in. Al-Bashir, after killing hundreds of thousands of my people and burning their homes, confined those who managed to stay alive in sub-human shelters called camps in Darfur and Eastern Chad. Their misery didn't end there. Deprived of security and peace, they found the humanitarian aid groups were the only means of survival. The aid groups provided almost everything to those Darfuris trapped in those camps, but more importantly they provided hope and protection to them. Had it not been for the humanitarian aid workers, Janjaweed attacks would have been deadlier and more rampant. The mere presence of the humanitarian aid workers in the camps and around the Darfuri people was a deterrent from attacks by the Sudanese armed militias. The aid workers were the eyes and ears of the world in Darfur. After Al-Bashir announced the expulsion of the 13 non governmental organizations (NGOs), the international community seemed caught off guard. China came to the aid of its ally Al-Bashir in the UN Security Council and struck down an attempt to pass a resolution ordering Al-Bashir to reverse his expulsion decision. Seeing the world leaders doing nothing, Al-Bashir was emboldened and expelled three more NGOs. The international community stood by as if searching for words other than those already heard. Al-Bashir got bolder and announced on Monday, March 16th, that he will get rid of all remaining foreign NGOs within a year and turn over the humanitarian aid operations to Sudanese organizations. Darfuris know exactly what Al-Bashir's announcement means. In the camps, refugees suspect most Sudanese humanitarian organizations are a cover for government security agencies. Without the NGOs, it is not just security and hope that will be missed in the camps. Now starvation, thirst, diseases, will be added to Al-Bashir's arsenal in his quest to annihilate the people of Darfur. Right now, as I write this, meningitis is spreading through the Darfur camps for internally displaced persons (IDP). New cases climbed to 38 cases in the Kalma IDP camp and 9 cases have been reported in the Kassab IDP camp. Now than ever immunization is needed in all camps. Also, the situation in the Zamzam IDP camps is deteriorating rapidly. There are 63,000 new comers since January without any services or registration. They gather on the bare ground of the camp. They are the first casualties of NGOs expulsion. The water problem is getting worse. Some women and children spend close to 11 hours at the pump just to fill one 4-gallon plastic container. The clinics are closed in the camp. Only God knows how acute the health situation is in the camp in the absence of NGOs. This is a calculating regime. Each time the international community seems in disarray, that is the time Al-Bashir and his cronies make their moves. They only stop when they are stopped. In October 2006 in an op-ed, Dr. Susan Rice, Mr. Anthony Lake, and Congressman Donald Payne wrote: "History demonstrates that there is one language Khartoum understands: the credible threat or use of force. After Sept. 11, 2001, when President Bush issued a warning to states that harbor terrorists, Sudan -- recalling the 1998 U.S. airstrike on Khartoum -- suddenly began cooperating on counterterrorism. It's time to get tough with Sudan again." I believe that, with 4.7 millions human beings' lives at stake, now is the time to get tough with Al-Bashir's regime. Mohamed Suleiman lost members of his family to the Darfur genocide while still others remain in Darfur. Now living in the United States, Suleiman translates English language news about Darfur into Arabic and houses it online in an effort to increase awareness within the Sudanese community in the United States. He is an member of the Executive Committee of the San Francisco Bay Area Darfur Coalition. More on Darfur
 
Brandon Friedman: No, gay soldiers won't be allowed to cross-dress while on duty. Top
This is Dan. (Military Times photo) As you can see from the photo, Dan is a combat veteran of Iraq. Dan is not only an infantry officer, but he also has a degree in Arabic--something very important if you're going to be in a place like Iraq. Dan earned his degree in Arabic--and his commission--from a very good school in upstate New York known for providing America with some of its best leaders. The school he attended is commonly known as "West Point." Now, notice that Dan is not wearing a dress. He's wearing the Army's standard ACU. Also, notice that Dan is not wearing makeup, eyeliner, or dangly earrings. He's just wearing the normal Kevlar helmet and protective eyewear that you typically see infantrymen wear in Iraq. Observe that Dan also looks as though he's barking orders, something infantry officers sometimes have to do in dangerous situations. What he's not doing, however, is hitting on the other male soldiers in his unit. And he's not spying on his fellow male soldiers in the shower. Dan isn't doing any of these things because he's a professional. And this is important to note, because Dan is gay. In fact, Dan recently helped found a new group of former West Pointers and Army officers just like him. The Army Times described it this way on Monday: Thirty-eight graduates of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., came out of the closet Monday with an offer to help their alma mater educate future Army leaders on the need to accept and honor the sacrifices of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender troops. "Knights Out" wants to serve as a connection between gay troops and Army administrators, particularly at West Point, to provide an "open forum" for communication between gay West Point graduates and their fellow alumni and to serve in an advisory role for West Point leaders in the eventuality -- which the group believes is both "imminent and inevitable" -- that the law and policy collectively known as "don't ask, don't tell" are repealed by Congress. "We're publicly announcing our sexuality, our orientation," said 1st Lt. Dan Choi, a National Guardsman with the 1st Bn., 69th Infantry, based in Manhattan. "It's just one part of who we are in saying that we are standing to be counted." Now, most Americans-- 81 percent , in fact--are proud of the work Dan has done in serving his country, regardless of his personal life. But that last remaining 19 percent (probably closer 40 percent in the Army)--who don't think Dan should be allowed to acknowledge his sexual orientation publicly--aren't so sure. And this has caused them to come up with some very strange arguments to force Dan to keep his sexuality a deeply hidden secret. Take for example their arguments in the YouTube clip below. It's a 5 ½ minute segment of a BlogTalkRadio show I did last week, in which I discussed the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy with conservative mil-blogger and Iraq vet, C.J. Grisham , mil-blogger and Afghanistan vet, Troy Steward , and a former conservative Alabama radio show host, Pamela Furr. The point in illuminating this segment is to show that there's no substantive opposition remaining in the fight to repeal the DADT policy. All the arguments we're seeing consist of vague fears about "social experimentation," discomfort with the "shower situation," and mild terror over the thought of cross-dressing soldiers. But soldiers like Lieutenant Dan Choi dispel all the hysteria. And that's a good thing. Because, in the end, gay soldiers are identical to straight soldiers: They're professional, they're competent, and they take care of their troops. And any time they're not, they are--and should be--treated the same as any straight male soldier who sexually harasses a female soldier. That is, with harsh discipline. So it's time for a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Conservative America's fears are unfounded. As long as you can shoot straight--or speak Arabic or Pashto--it's shouldn't matter whether or not you are straight. Soldiers like those involved with Knights Out have demonstrated that. Also available at VetVoice More on Iraq
 
The Media Consortium: Weekly Pulse: Drugs, Sex, and the Single Payer Healthcare NewsLadder Top
By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire Blogger This week, we bring you news of drugs, sex, and single-payer health insurance, including a fun video clip on Obama's new drug czar from the Rachel Maddow show. Now that Obama has chosen his top healthcare advisers, the administration is beginning to chart a course for healthcare reform. Not surprisingly, there is vigorous debate about what our new healthcare system would look like, and how to pay for it. Single-payer health insurance was a hot topic for independent media this week. The private health insurance industry has failed to contain costs and cover the majority of Americans. The strain of the employer-funded health insurance system is crippling American competitiveness and leaving consumers unsatisfied. Universal, publicly-funded health insurance would be a better and cheaper alternative, explains Ramón Castellblanch in the Progressive. Castellblanch, an associate professor of health education at California State University, says that single-payer is simply a government-administered insurance program for everyone, not government-administered healthcare. There's also broad consensus that fixing the healthcare system must involve more than providing health insurance. Insurance is a tool for spreading risk and sharing cost, but it won't fix the deeper problems that made healthcare unaffordable in the first place. In Salon , Rahul K. Parikh, M.D. describes the carrots and sticks built into Obama's plan to motivate doctors to practice evidence-based medicine more efficiently. Evidence-based medicine means treatment supported by the best scientific research. It has been estimated that up to one third of medical treatment is unnecessary and ineffective. Some reformers believe, therefore, that making medicine more evidence-based will improve quality and cut costs. Maggie Maher argues in AlterNet that such cost-saving reforms are well and good, but we will still need to raise taxes in order to pay for healthcare reform. Opponents of healthcare reform often try to frighten consumers with claims that government intervention will remove their ability to make choices about treatment. As political scientist Scott Lemieux explains in TAPPED, Obama's healthcare plan would increase choice : First of all, many people who have insurance are seriously restricted in their choice of physicians. There's nothing about private insurance that guarantees that patients will have wide discretion in choosing who will perform their medical care. For example, Canada's single-payer system would even provide more patient discretion. And then, of course, people without insurance effectively have no choice at all. Obama's plan will at least give many of them more options than they have now. People who can afford to pay out of pocket for the doctor of their choice can still do so. Mike Lillis of the Washington Independent reports that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is doing his best to convince the public that reforms like comparative effectiveness research would amount to "rationing" of healthcare. As Scott Lemieux argued in his TAPPED post, linked above, rationing is the status quo , as the main rationing criteria is the patient's ability to pay. Delivering care based on what works, as opposed to who can pay, would be change we can believe in. If there's one thing we love to write about at the Weekly Pulse, it's czars . All kinds of czars . This week, president Obama picked a shiny new drug czar: Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske. In the following clip, Rachel Maddow discusses the implications of the pick with Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Institute. Some activists are concerned that choosing a cop to run the Office of National Drug Control Policy is a mistake, but Mirken argues that Kerlikowske's record as a pragmatic urban police chief is cause for cautious optimism . In legal drug-related news, Martha Rosenberg of AlterNet explains why the multi-billion dollar merger between pharmaceutical giants Merck and Schering-Plough is a marriage made in hell , though the two firms do have many common interests: Scientifically dubious research designed to "prove" the efficacy of their latest blockbuster drugs, and questionable "awareness" campaigns to promote their products, to name a few. "Many are saying the drug companies need a new business model, having dealt themselves out of the game with their crash-and-burn blockbusters and with third party and Medicaid benefits managers saying "You've got to be kidding" about extravagant patent drugs," Rosenberg writes. At TAPPED, Beth Schwartzapfel weighs the pros and cons of making birth control pills available over the counter . Some reproductive health activists believe that making the pill more readily available would help more women manage their fertility with few risks, but some medical professionals caution against the change because they worry that women will miss out on other kinds of care, like pap smears, if they can just buy pills at the pharmacy. Finally, Kimberly Whipkey of RH Reality Check writes that the FDA has approved the next generation of female condom , and not a moment too soon: Air America reports on an alarming new study that shows the rate of HIV/AIDS in Washington, D.C. is on par with those of West Africa. Speaking of AIDS, what medical school did Pope Benedict go to? The pontiff made his first unequivocal pronouncement against condoms this week, sparking pointed criticism from various outlets, including Marissa Valeri of RH Reality and Miriam Perez of Feministing . Americans are finally realizing that our corporate, profit-driven healthcare system isn't working. ( Democracy Now! reports on the formation of the new activist group, Single Payer Action , an organization dedicated to advocating direct action to demand a single-payer health insurance system.) There is widespread political will for sweeping change, even if questions remain as to how to supply high quality healthcare for everyone at an affordable price. 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 Sex
 
Steffany Stern: Peaceful Revolution: Fighting for Women Means Fighting for Free Choice Top
In the summer of 1881, the washerwomen of Atlanta were working long hours for meager wages, in harrowing working conditions. These were very poor, mostly black women, and their work was essential to sustain their families. Despite their endless hours of hard work, their wages stagnated over time, and most struggled to make ends meet. Then on July 20, women who'd had enough came together to form a trade organization called the Washing Society. They launched a grassroots citywide campaign and strike for higher wages and better working conditions. Together, they knocked on the doors of nearly every worker in the city, asking them to get involved. The Washing Society did not rest until employers and government listened to them. Their campaign ultimately raised wages and improved workplace standards for thousands of Atlanta washerwomen. The Atlanta washerwomen knew they were more powerful united than they were apart. This history--the history of collective action--is a recurring theme in women's history, and it's exactly what we should be celebrating this Women's History Month. Our greatest victories for women's rights have resulted from collective struggles, and that remains true today with so many of the battles for women's equality being fought in the workplace. Women today make up half the workforce, but we still struggle to get ahead and build financial security. We continue to face obstacles to fair wages, basic benefits, pensions, or paid time off to help us meet the dual demands of work and family. The light at the end of the tunnel? Women who come together in unions have access to better pay, greater benefits, and upward mobility that far eclipses that of non-union women. The Download file ">Center for Economic and Policy Research reports that union women's wages are 11.2% higher than non-union women's wages. Women workers in unions are an astounding 19% more likely to have medical benefits provided by their employer, and 25% more likely to have an employer-provided pension. In fact, being a member of a union has a greater positive impact on wages and benefits than a college degree. What unions do to put women on equal footing is good for women and good for the families who depend on them. This Women's History Month, we are seeing an unprecedented push for the Employee Free Choice Act , which would make it significantly easier for workers who want to form unions to do so. The timing may be a coincidence, but it shouldn't be: the Employee Free Choice Act would be a landmark victory for women, paving the way for greater economic security. Most women's rights advocates, President Obama and the Labor Secretary Solis support the legislation. It remains to be seen, however, if Congress will pass it. Women's History Month reminds us to celebrate our history, which is filled with examples of collective action bringing meaningful victories that make life better for women and their families. Let's be sure we learn from it, and apply its lessons to our struggles today. Women need to be able to exercise our collective power to achieve better pay and benefits at work. The Employee Free Choice Act would help us do just that. To urge your Senators and Representative to support the Employee Free Choice Act, please visit www.nationalpartnership.org/FreeChoice . A Peaceful Revolution is a blog about innovative ideas to strengthen America's families through public policies, business practices, and cultural change. Done in collaboration with MomsRising.org , read a new post here each week.
 
Joy Behar, Boyfriend Steve Janowitz, May Finally Marry Top
Joy Behar's unmarried days may soon be over. The 66-year-old View co-host says she's considering getting married to her longtime boyfriend, Steve Janowitz. "I have been with a guy for 26-and-a-half years," the comedian said on Barbara Walters's SIRIUS XM Radio show Tuesday. Asked if they have talked about marriage, Behar answered, "Yes."
 
Felipe Sixto, Bush Aide, Gets Thirty Months In Jail Top
WASHINGTON — A former Bush White House aide was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison on Wednesday for stealing nearly $600,000 from a government-funded program that promotes democracy in Cuba. Felipe Sixto apologized for stealing from the Center for a Free Cuba, telling U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton that in addition to his own greed and selfishness, he "wanted to provide a lifestyle for my family I could not afford." That argument from Sixto did not sway Walton, who compared him to Bernie Madoff, who has pleaded guilty to ripping off thousands of investors of billions of dollars. While the situations are different, Walton said Sixto, like Madoff, wanted a lifestyle "far above" what he deserved. "The mentality that brings you before this court is the same," Walton said. Walton sentenced him to 30 months in prison, three years supervised release and fined him $10,000. Sixto had asked for home confinement or probation. Sixto pleaded guilty Dec. 19 to theft. He acknowledged overcharging the organization more than $579,000 when purchasing radios and flashlights with federal funds. His lawyer said 90 percent of the money had been paid back to the center, with some of it coming from a mortgage that Sixto's parents took out on their house. Walton also criticized Sixto for accepting a job in the White House, knowing that he had been stealing from the center, an independent institution that receives millions of dollars in USAID funds for rent, travel and equipment such as shortwave radios and laptops. Sixto quit his job as a special assistant to President George W. Bush for intergovernmental affairs almost a year ago after learning that the center was beginning legal action against him. Walton said having employees like Sixto inside the White House makes people question the honesty and integrity of government officials.
 
Wayne Besen: Obama's Latest Preacher Problem Top
George W. Bush longed to escape his daddy's shadow, while Barack Obama has turned to shadowy preachers in his long search for a father figure. His filial approach to faith began with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and has now taken a sharp turn right. The New York Times reports that the president has surrounded himself with a cadre of clerical crackpots known as the Circle of Five . These holy men are: Rev. Joel Hunter, former head of the Christian Coalition; anti-gay Bishop T.D. Jakes; the ex-gay loving Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell; and Jim "waffling" Wallis, a protean progressive. The only Obama shaman who isn't shameless is the civil rights era preacher Rev. Otis Moss Jr. Rev. Jakes refers to homosexuality as "brokenness" and has claimed that he wouldn't hire a sexually active gay person. But it seems T.D. can't even keep his own son off the D.L. (down low). His "sexually broken" heir was arrested earlier this year for cruising a Dallas Park in search of gay men. Wallis, the chief executive of Sojourners , a Christian magazine, holds "traditional" views on homosexuality and abortion, according to the Times article. Although Wallis has taken some affirmative steps on GLBT equality, he prides himself on not being a part of "the religious left." Rev. Caldwell has endorsed Metanoia, an ex-gay ministry designed to "help homosexuals understand with God's help that 'change [is] possible." When the GLBT community worked to elect Obama, this is not what we thought he meant when he promised "change." "Whoa, OK, so let's assume [the Obama Administration decides to release] a mealy mouthed message like 'the President does not believe in ex-gay therapy' or some such nonsense," wrote blogger Pam Spaulding . "If he doesn't, then what is he doing talking to Caldwell when there are plenty of other prominent pastors he could choose to break bread with who don't subscribe to that view?" We must also remember that during his campaign, Obama tapped "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to croon at a concert tour in South Carolina. And, this insult was compounded by the injury of selecting Rev. Rick Warren to give the Inauguration invocation. I can live with Obama's poor Sunday choices if on Monday he hears our voices and passes landmark gay civil rights legislation. Still, it is disconcerting that such a cool and rational leader keeps returning to the theological armpit to fill his pulpit. Will spending time in the biblical backwater influence Obama's views and lead him to sell us down the river? By embracing these conservative clerics, Obama is also setting a wretched example overseas. Last month, the State Department released a report to Congress that documents "an unfortunate crisis in human rights abuse directed against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people worldwide." Much of this violence was the result of brutal religious oppression. Yet, Obama pals around with reprehensible reverends, thus undermining his own administration's call for moderate religious leadership abroad. The Pope, who takes his road show to Africa this week, could have used Obama's absent leadership. In Nigeria, for example, lawmakers are debating a draconian law that would imprison gay people for living together. It encourages violent witch-hunts by requiring Nigerians to turn in their gay neighbors. Those who don't rat out gays could be jailed for up to five years. The BBC reports that during a debate on this unconscionable legislation, Rev. Patrick Alumake told the National Assembly that the top leaders of the Catholic Church in Nigeria supported the measure. "There are wild, weird ways of life that are affecting our own culture very negatively, we have people who either by way of the media or traveling around the world have allowed new ideas which are harmful to our nation and our belief," said Alumake. Catholicism is also the largest religion in Uganda. There, the penalty for homosexuality is life in prison. Last week, American anti-gay leaders held a conference in Kampala , the Ugandan capital, where a local group leader pledged to "wipe out" homosexuality. If he chose, the Pope could have a significant impact this week by urging African Catholics to stop persecuting homosexuals. But, we know this won't happen. After all, we are talking about a Vatican that dispatched its minions to Albany, New York last week to fight against a bill to temporarily lift the statute of limitations for lawsuits alleging the sexual abuse of children. If the Pope won't protect innocent youths, he certainly won't lift a gold ringed finger to save the lives of people he considers "objectively disordered." While there will be no moral leadership from this Pontiff, we expect Obama to understand that his clerical choices do matter. It is time Obama stops searching for Daddy and becomes the man of the (White) house, by picking preachers who are not at irreconcilable odds with his human rights policies. More on Barack Obama
 
GOP Congressman Calls For Geithner's Resignation Top
Rep. Connie Mack, R-Fla., called today for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to resign or be fired in the wake of the AIG bonus shake-up. "Well before Timothy Geithner became Secretary of the Treasury, he was working hand-in-hand with AIG and other financial institutions to provide them hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money as one of the key architects of the financial sector bailout. I was outspoken against the bailouts then, and I'm even more outraged now. "I've had serious concerns about Secretary Geithner from the moment he was nominated. In the months since, he has shown us time and again why he was the wrong choice for this critical post. "This week's news on the AIG bonus scandal is but the latest fiasco under his watch and he has lost the confidence of the American people. "Quite simply, the Timothy Geithner experience has been a disaster. The Treasury Department is in disarray. Taxpayer dollars are being wasted. America's economy hangs in the balance. America needs and deserves a Treasury Secretary who can truly lead us forward. "Timothy Geithner should either resign or be fired for the good of the country, and President Obama should nominate a new Treasury Secretary with the experience and leadership skills America deserves." According to USA Today's On Politics blog, no other members have called for Geithner's resignation. His spokeswoman, Stephanie DuBois, says that "to the best of my knowledge" Mack is the first member of Congress to do so.
 
Paul Rieckhoff: Veterans Oppose Outsourcing VA Health Care Costs Top
Etched into the entrance of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is a phrase from President Abraham Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address: "To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan." With these words, President Lincoln pledged America's solemn obligation to care for the men and women who have honorably served this country. It is disappointing that President Obama, a student of Lincoln, is considering a proposal that would allow the VA to bill a veteran's private insurance for the cost of caring for a service-connected injury. This is also surprising in light of the record increase in veterans' health care funding in the President's budget and repeated assurances during his campaign about making veterans a priority. The VA now covers the full cost of medical injuries related to military service and bills third-party insurers for non-service related injuries. If a veteran goes to the VA to treat strep throat, for instance, his or her personal insurance is billed. However, if that individual suffers a Traumatic Brain Injury in Baghdad, the VA covers the cost of caring for this injury. The notion that the VA may abdicate this responsibility to the men and women who have served in uniform has sparked outrage among veterans , lawmakers on both sides of the aisle , and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest organization representing VA workers. And with good reason. This proposal forsakes a sacred promise to our veterans, the promise that we will care for them in return for their service. If enacted, this policy could result in disabled veterans facing higher premiums or losing private health insurance entirely. For the 1.8 million men and women like me who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11, this idea is dead on arrival. The cost of war should not be shifted onto the backs of disabled veterans, who have already paid more than their fair share. Small business owners, many of whom are disabled-veterans themselves, might not be able to keep pace with increased health care premiums for their employees. As these small business owners know all too well, the single biggest cost burden today is skyrocketing health care expenses. And as thousands of veterans return home to the toughest job market in decades , many potential employers would surely think twice about hiring a disabled veteran if they knew that the cost to pay employees' health care premiums would rise. The Administration may defend a third-party billing proposal as a cost-saving mechanism. While we are all concerned about the economic difficulties the country is facing, we cannot allow our veterans to bear the brunt. They have already shouldered enough of a load; over 600,000 of them have served more than one combat tour, taking an emotional, economic, and physical toll on them and their families. If the President and the Office of Management and Budget want to cut costs, they should focus on Wall Street, not at the VA. In the coming years, with the new surge of tens of thousands of veterans returning home, there could not be a more critical time to heed Lincoln's words and honor our men and women in uniform. This country founded the VA for the purpose of caring for those who served and sacrificed and we must ensure that it continues to fulfill that duty. Our nation cannot go back on its commitment to these warriors and their families. Crossposted at IAVA.org . More on Afghanistan
 
Joseph A. Palermo: Cheney, Rove, and Fleischer and the Importance of Net Neutrality Top
Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer and other right-wing mouthpieces are trying to frame future debates while they reinvent the George W. Bush years. Their eerie falsehoods, half-truths, revisions, and lies are given added weight because they sit atop a bed of chatter and static, often called the "echo chamber," of Fox News and right-wing talk radio. Everything that comes out of Cheney's mouth (or Rove's or Fleischer's) is carefully calculated and designed to cast doubt about the current president while whitewashing the disasters of the previous one. Their dire warnings about how President Barack Obama is not "keeping us safe" from terrorists, and their repeated claim that Bush "kept us safe," starkly reveal their propaganda goals. Cheney's take on 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, and the budget deficits of the Bush years should send shivers up any rational observer's spine. In 2004, Cheney said the same thing about John Kerry: a vote for Kerry meant a vote for a heightened chance of terrorist attack and more dead Americans. Disgusting. It is even more sickening since Cheney is the one with the blood of 4,500 Americans and 200,000 Iraqi civilians on his hands. He's in no position to lecture us on how to prevent American deaths. Yet there is CNN's John King or NBC's David Gregory or ABC's George Stephanopoulos sitting across a table nodding and giving these monsters a platform to shamelessly propagandize the American people. Cheney, Rove, and Fleischer (the same people who lied us into going to war in Iraq) appear on our television screens with two principal aims: 1). To lay down a base of rhetorical fire, through repetition, that might frame the larger political debate as the Obama Administration moves forward and unexpected events challenge the Democratic leadership; and 2). To re-write the legacy of the George W. Bush years. Back in the 1980s, the Republican Party had the upper hand with the first computerized donor lists, "soft money" (a Reagan campaign creation), and "direct mail" operations (where Karl Rove got his start), while the left and the progressives were still relying largely on 19th century techniques such as distributing leaflets and organizing demonstrations. During the Clinton years it looked like the GOP might control the Internet when the Drudge Report dominated the 24-hour news cycle and right-wing websites had astounding "synergies" with talk radio, cable news, and whatever party line the Newt Gingrich Congress was pushing. One of the greatest achievements of Barack Obama's presidential campaign was its domination of Internet communications, which fused Netroots connectivity with Grassroots political organizing. The Huffington Post and other progressive news and information sites, along with MoveOn.org and other Internet organizing networks, played a key role in this dramatic shift in communications technology away from the Right and toward progressive social change. We need to lock in this advantage. A chunk of the Obama Administration's stimulus money is aimed at laying down Internet connections in areas that are underserved. This expansion and upgrading of the nation's Internet cable system should make it possible for millions of people to by-pass the filter of giant media corporations and access alternative information that undermines the Cheney-Rove-Fleischer revisionist narrative of the George W. Bush legacy. We have a very rare opportunity right now to lock in a progressive advantage in Internet communications, information sharing, and Netroots mobilizing. With Democratic majorities in Congress and a liberal Democratic administration we can blunt the political influence of media conglomerates and the Right. That is why the Republicans and their corporate media sponsors want to destroy Net Neutrality. They know from their experience with talk radio and the creation of Fox News that corporate absorption of the Internet and ending net neutrality would be a propaganda coup. The Obama Administration's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a revivified Anti-Trust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice could pursue all sorts of reforms that would open up the nation's political discourse. A few minor changes in the rules and regulations governing the public airwaves and corporate media consolidation could transform the political economy of the media sector. Such reforms would make it more difficult for networks to shove people like Cheney, Rove, and Fleischer down our throats because enhanced competition would mean that rivals might be broadcasting more attractive fare. Breaking up Rupert Murdoch's empire (starting with revoking the waiver that allows him to own the New York Post ), and busting up Clear Channel's monopoly of radio would be a good place to start. Congress, working with the Obama Administration, could then revisit the odious Telecommunications Act of 1996 and remove or rework its worst provisions. Look at what the media monopolies did during the Bush years. The Bush Administration never could have lied us into going to war in Iraq if it were not for the duplicity of the corporate media. Without some fundamental changes to our media environment the Cheneys and Roves and Fleischers (or their trained cadres) will be back in power. These calculating neo-cons want to claw their way back into power because they believe they're entitled to hold power. Forever. I thought I had seen the last of unelected hacks like Richard Perle and Elliot Abrams after their disgraceful exits from the Reagan Administration but they came roaring back as soon as W. was in power. They don't need any new ideas because the "ideas" they promulgate serve power. We need as many non-elite, outside the Beltway voices as possible. We don't need to hear more aristocratic propaganda about the benefits of unfettered capitalism; we don't need to hear more authoritarian scare tactics that justify torture, false imprisonment, and war; we don't need to hear more Kulturkampf designed to divide working people through exploiting wedge issues and to control women's bodies and lay claim to the flag, the military, mom and apple pie. It's time to take steps to open up our media system. More on NBC
 
Stephanie Gertler: Truth in Marriage Top
Once my kids were settled in school, I returned to work full-time at a Connecticut newspaper. It was truly starting over. Besides picking up everyone's slack as an editorial assistant/cub reporter, I was called "Blondie" by the macho sports writer and a twenty-something reporter who fancied herself a lot like Lois Lane although she didn't get the reference when I called her "Lois." I had to prove myself: a wife and mother was a bad risk, they said bluntly. Maybe I wasn't up to the task. Before a promotion came along, one of my weekly assignments was "Street Beat" where I stood in front of the town library, courthouse, or elementary school, and posed philosophical questions wrapped around current events to harried passers-by. A "for example" is "What should Hillary Clinton do in light of her husband's scandalous affair?" Naturally, this elicited many opinions from tossing Bill's furniture out on The White House Lawn to standing by her man a la Tammy Wynette. And with that, and other Street Beat questions, everyone always had a rapid and gut response. So, last week I thought it might be fun to "street beat" a question that has gnawed away at my brain since 1981 when Mark and I married. Ready? "What is truth in marriage?" How timely -- Ruth Madoff, Silda Spitzer, Dina McGreevy -- to name just a few wives who have had to deal with truths about their husbands in the last year. Yesterday, I wrote three drafts -- all deleted one by one until finally, at the end of the day, I thought, what kind of truth am I talking about here? Truth that hinges on "Do these pants make me look fat?" or confessions about Ponzi schemes, cavorting with prostitutes, and being a gay American? It was all too unwieldy. I decided to take the question Street Beat style and ask others. I called my friend Jeff, wondering how a man might answer. "Let me put it this way," Jeff said. "If I was walking down the street with my wife and saw ten beautiful women, I wouldn't say, 'hey, look at those ten beautiful women.'" "That's it?" I was disappointed. "Well, not exactly. I mean, if she asked if I noticed, I'd answer honestly. But I wouldn't make a big deal about how beautiful they were. And if I had an evening out with the guys when I had some heavy flirtation with some woman, I wouldn't come home and tell my wife. Bottom line: if you need to tell your spouse something to alleviate your own guilt, then it's just hurtful. If something doesn't impact the marriage, why be hurtful because you have to unload?" Hmmm...seemed reasonable but made me a little, well, edgy -- begging the question "is omission a form of a lying?" Then I called my friend Nancy who has been divorced for 16 years. Nancy laughed out loud. "You're joking, right? Truth in marriage? Steph, I gotta go. And find another topic." At the end of the day when my head was splitting, my friend Ellen called. I asked her the question. "How about 'IS there truth in marriage?'" she replied. "Forget the 'what is truth' part. Look, marriage is like peeling an onion, not Gump's box of chocolates. It's not black and white. It's filled with filters. Truth in marriage is debatable. It's what we can live with. All the margins and measures. Who thought up that question?" "I did." "What the hell were you thinking?" I admitted that I was at my wit's end. "I've never had a problem writing anything before. This blog is making me crazy," I moaned. "Look up truth in the dictionary," Ellen suggested. "I'll hold on." And there it was -- undefined and redundant: being true; sincerity, honesty, accuracy, actual existence of; established fact. So, in the great words of Oscar Wilde, indeed "truth is rarely pure and never simple." And in my words and new perception, truth is not only subjective, but subject to change. I have always contended that everyone has their own versions of truths: even the eyewitness who saw the perpetrator running off in a blue coat when in fact he was wearing a red jacket is not a liar. It's simply how we see things. "Why don't you ask Mark when he comes home tonight?" Ellen suggested. "See what he has to say." Now that was pretty scary: Did I want this answer from my husband? As a physician, Mark deals in unequivocal truths: Cholesterol, hemoglobin, blood pressure -- high, low, normal. And Mark is not an emotional thinker -- which isn't to say he's unemotional, but he deals scientifically. He'd make a lousy psychiatrist. I took my notebook to dinner last night, and after wine, and as we ordered dessert, I asked him both Ellen's question and mine. "OK, what is truth in marriage or is there truth marriage? You can answer one or the other." He took my notebook, pen poised. "Go powder your nose or something." Upon my return, I read, "If the answer to the second part is 'no,' then the first part is moot. To answer either is the 'third rail' of marriage. There is truth, but it reveals itself in unexpected ways. There is no truth...period. One man's ceiling is another man's floor." "What?" I asked, feeling the blood drain from my face. "Third rail? That's when you get electrocuted, right?" "Great Cotes de Rhone, isn't it?" he asked, diving into a profiterole. "Don't change the subject. Are you saying there is no truth in our marriage? " He faked some choking, pushed his hair back from his forehead, and strummed his fingers on the table. "Look," he said. "Knowing what you know after 27 years, would you marry me?" "No," I said. "Absolutely not." "But you do love me." "Yes." "So there's your truth," he said. "And mine." More on Marriage
 
Greg Mitchell: As 6th Anniversary Nears: Amazing Poll Reveals Most Iraqis Wish We Did Not Invade Top
A surprising new poll by leading media organizations, as the sixth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq queitly approaches this week, finds that despite progress there, most Iraqis still dislike or distrust America -- and wish we did not invade in the first place. The new poll of more than 2,200 Iraqis, an annual venture by ABC and the BBC and NHK networks, finds that most Iraqis agree that things are going much better there and they feel a lot safer. This is significant and great news. At the same time, they seem to have not warmed to the U.S. much and want us to leave very soon. Last year, 70% of Iraqis in the same survey said we were doing a bad job there. This year that dropped all the way to ...69%. And that includes the always more favorable views of the Kurds. That means 90% of Sunnis are negative (remember, they are supposed to be "awakening" towards us), and two out of three Shiites agree-- largely unchanged from 2008. Nearly as many (64%) say the U.S. is hurting Iraq as Iran (68%). But the views of nearly every other country have improved quite a bit, including Saudi Arabia, Syria and the UK. But here's a key finding and the rejoinder to the constant call for war critics (and Obama) to admit that it was, despite everything, correct to topple Saddam: 56% now say the U.S. was wrong to invade, actually up (despite the cooling of violence) since last year's 50%. And 57% say they aren't too concerned about what might happen after the U.S. exits. This also runs counter to conventional wisdom in the U.S. media. In fact, about half want us to leave faster than the current timetable. From an ABC summary: "Just 27 percent are confident in U.S. forces (albeit nearly double its low). Just 30 percent say U.S. and coalition forces have done a good job carrying out their responsibilities in Iraq. Still fewer, 18 percent, have a positive opinion of the United States overall. Barely over a third think the election of Barack Obama will help their country." * Greg Mitchell's latest book is "Why Obama Won." His book last year on Iraq and the media was titled, "So Wrong for So Long." More on Iraq
 
Russia: In Russia, Patriotic Baby Names On Rise; Playground Beatings Likely To See Increase Top
By Katya Tylevich Aw. If it isn't little Privatizatsia ("Privatization") and darling Viagra, two Russian newborns who stand almost no chance of leading happy childhoods thanks to the names bestowed upon them by their loving parents. In Soviet times, it was not unusual to have a friend named Stalina or an enemy named Ninel (read it backwards for a "come on" moment). In fact, early Bolsheviks were suckers for "Red Baptisms" which branded miserable young souls with names like Melor (acronym for "Marx Engels Lenin October Revolution"). Today, the Moscow registry office notes an increase in modern equivalents of politicized or otherwise attention-getting monikers. Patriotism is stimulus for a name like Kosmos ("Space"), of course, but there's also the idea that a child named for a prescription boner drug will stand out next to a ho-hum Volodya or Katya, and profit for it. Might as well just name the kid "Opportunist" and be done with it. Since Russian parents are now in the market for eyebrow-raisers, perhaps we can be of service. Below, our votes for Russian names -- some Soviet, some literary, some straight up old school -- that we want to see get more wear. Listen up, members of Nashi. We know you've been procreating. In alphabetical order: Akulina (f.) -- "Akula" means "shark," so this is like "sharkessa" Agafon (m.) -- So you want to name your child "Agatha," but you can't pronounce the "th" sound, and your child is a boy. Russia has a solution. Agrafena (f.) Barikada (f.) -- from the word "Barricade" Elpidifor (m.) Elektrifikatsiya (f.) -- literally means "Electrification" Kim (m.) -- Another anglicism? No, an acronym for "Communist Youth International" [Коммунистический интернационал молодёжи] Oktyabrina (f.) -- from the word "October" as in "October Revolution" Vladilen (m.) -- as in "VLAdimir Ilyich LENin" More on Russia
 
Miles Mogulescu: Should Obama Stop Trusting Geithner's Advice? Top
Did Tim Geithner know in advance the amount of bonuses AIG paid to the executives of AIG's derivatives unit who designed and sold the financial insurance policies which helped bring down the global financial system? When did he learn about it and what did he do to try to do to stop it? Did he know that most of the bonuses were already paid last Friday, so that by the time President Obama went on television on Monday to denounce the bonuses and say that he would use every legal means to stop them, it was already too late to do anything about it? Moreover, on the bigger issue of the $180 billion AIG bailout itself, did Geithner know last September (when he was still head of the New York Fed and helped engineer the AIG bailout along with Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke) that the biggest recipient of AIG bailout funds was Hank Paulson's former employer, Goldman Sachs? And did he know that Goldman Sachs may have misled both the New York Times and Congress about it, deceiving the American taxpayers who were ultimately on the hook for the bailout funds? The answers to these questions may go to Tim Geithner's very fitness to serve as President Obama's Treasury Secretary. Perhaps the only good that can come from the answers is if they cause President Obama to reconsider following Geithner's advice, including Geithner's private/public hybrid plan to rescue the banks (and their shareholders and bondholders), and instead consider Federal receivership of some of the largest insolvent banks. First, the bonuses: When President Obama went before the American people on Monday, denounced the bonuses, and promised to "pursue every single legal avenue to block" their being paid, did Geithner know that most of the bonuses had already been paid the past Friday, making it all but impossible for the President to keep his promise? If Geithner knew, did he tell the President before the President spoke? If Geithner knew, but didn't tell the President, then he set the President up to mislead the public. If Geithner did tell the President beforehand, then the President participated in the deception. Either way, the President's credibility with the American people was damaged and Geithner deserves much of the blame. If the American people come to see the Obama administration as complicit in Wall Street's unethical behavior, than Obama's entire economic program could end up in shambles. Second, the AIG bailout itself: The nearly$180 billion in government bailout funds to AIG and its counterparties dwarfs the $165 million in bonuses to executives of AIG's derivatives unit. Until two days ago, the identity of the AIG counterparties who received most of the AIG bailout money was kept secret from the public and Congress by AIG, the Fed and Geithner's Treasury Department. Only now do we learn that over $100 billion of the AIG bailout money was passed through AIG to some of the largest banks and financial institutions throughout the world. The largest tranche went to Goldman Sachs, which received $12.6 billion. Just as AIG's executives received their full bonuses, the AIG counterparties received full compensation for their potential losses in AIG, and were not asked by the responsible Federal Reserve and Treasury Department officials to share any of the losses with the taxpayers. Who were the officials responsible for designing and implementing the AIG bailout? Tim Geithner (who, before he was Obama's Treasury Secretary was head of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve Bank); Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke; Bush's Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (previously Goldman Sachs' Chairman). Moreover, according to the New York Times , also present at the key Federal Reserve meetings last September which decided to let Goldman Sachs competitor Lehman Brothers fail, but to rescue AIG, was current Goldman Sachs Chairman Lloyd C. Blankfein. According to the Times, Goldman Sachs was AIG's largest trading partner, and "a collapse of the insurer threatened to leave a hole of as much as $20 billion in Goldman's side." We now learn that Goldman received $12.6 billion from the AIG bailout (as well as tens of billions more from other Federal bailout funds.) But at the time, Goldman's spokesman claimed , apparently falsely, that "our exposure to AIG was, and is, not material." In February, the very same Goldman Chairman Blankfein denied to the House Financial Services Committee that Goldman had a major stake in bailing out AIG. It now turns out that AIG and Blankfein were not being truthful. Moreover, Geithner must have known they weren't being truthful and chose to keep it a secret from the American people and from Congress. Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer may have had his personal sexual indiscretions, but he remains well-tuned into to the financial indiscretions of Wall Street. Writing in Slate , he asks some scorching questions about AIG which he suggests should be answered in public, under oath, by Geithner, Bernanke, Paulson, and Blankfein: "What was the precise conversation among Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson, and Blankfein that preceded the initial $80 billion grant? Was it already known who the counterparties were and what the exposure was for each of the counterparties? What did Goldman, and all the other counterparties, know about AIG's financial condition at the time they executed the swaps or other contracts? Had they done adequate due diligence to see whether they were buying real protection? And why shouldn't they bear a percentage of the risk of failure of their own counterparty? What is the deeper relationship between Goldman and AIG? Didn't they almost merge a few years ago but did not because Goldman couldn't get its arms around the black box that is AIG? If that is true, why should Goldman get bailed out? After all, they should have known as well as anybody that a big part of AIG's business model was not to pay on insurance it had issued. Why weren't the counterparties immediately and fully disclosed? Failure to answer these questions will feed the populist rage that is metastasizing very quickly. It will raise basic questions about the competence of those who are supposedly guiding this economic policy." No one is accusing Geithner of personal corruption or of trying to enrich himself. But his passivity in the face of the AIG bonuses, his willingness to pay AIG's counterparties 100 cents on the dollars, and his seeming complicity in the cover-up of Goldman Sachs' misstatements, indicate that he's far too close to Wall Street's special interests and far too out of touch with Main Street's concerns to serve Obama and the nation well. Nowhere is this clearer than in his approach to the financial crisis which rejects government receivership of insolvent banks and instead provides government guarantees to hedge funds and private equity firms to buy toxic assets and prop up the management and shareholders of the private banking system. As Robert Kuttner points out , this approach may be in danger of leading Obama and the nation off a cliff. If the questions regarding Geithner's recent actions leads Obama to reassess relying on Geithner's advice, and consider alternative plans to rescue the financial system, including putting involvent banks under temporary Federal receivership, then it might end up doing some good. More on AIG
 
Michael Giltz: American Idol -- Top 11: Ratings Down 23% Top
It was a topsy turvy peformance night on Idol, with Simon looking bored, Paula providing some cogent analysis (again), a minor stumble from Lil Rounds and praise for Anoop. The show was a ratings hit, of course, scoring an 11.9 rating. But Marc Berman of Mediaweek points out that's a serious 23% drop from last season. There's no denying that Idol is the #1 show in the country and the audience will be there come the finale. But week to week people are not as focused on it, which is a shame since this season seems so wide open and the talent is good. Ken Levine weighs in with his usual caustic commentary here. Michael Slezak of Entertainment Weekly offers his own obsessive comments here, while EW's Adam B. Vary describes the scene in the audience. Here's the AP roundup. Randy Travis was a good celebrity coach -- you can only do so much in 20 minutes and he wisely limited himself to positive encouragement and small tweaks like suggesting people slow or raise the tempo of a particular song. On the other hand, for a man who was dogged by gay rumours for years (Travis was single until he married his manager Lib Hatcher -- she left her husband to manage him and they got married in 1991 just 12 weeks after a tabloid claimed Travis was gay), Travis might have been politer and less shocked by Adam Lambert, who he treated like an alien. But what a voice -- it's one of the best country voices since George Jones and his last album has a stone cold classic, "Dig Two Grave" -- you can hear it here. MICHAEL SARVER -- Sings the Garth Brooks ditty "Ain't Goin' Down Till The Sun Comes Up," one of 19 #1 country hits Brooks had. He's kept such a low profile for years, it's easy to forget how stunningly popular Brooks was in the mid 90s. He recorded lots of fun songs, but like Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start The Fire," "Ain't Goin' Down" is practically a novelty record with its rush of words and little opportunity for singing. Sarver ran out of breath and several points and the camera spent too much time on the harmonica player (backup singers and musicians should be seen once, at most during a performance). The judges were polite but mixed, except for Simon who came down hard. Worst of all, it was forgettable. ALLISON IRAHETA -- Sang "Blame It On My Heart," a #1 country hit for Patty Loveless, whose favorite album of mine is probably Mountain Soul. Iraheta's vocals weren't overwhelming -- at times she got drowned out a bit by the band. But she looked and sounded like a pro. This tune -- like the Garth Brooks tune -- has a lot of words in it. The difference is that Sarver sounded like he was cramming all the words in while Iraheta was performing it. Really really strong and more and more a dark horse Kelly Clarkson type every week. KRIS ALLEN -- Sang Bob Dylan's "To Make You Feel My Love," which appeared on Dylan's classic Time Out Of Mind album. I seem to recall Dylan specifically giving it to Billy Joel to record -- or maybe Joel released it as a single before Dylan's album came out? -- but in any case, it's not a Garth Brooks tune as such, though Joel took it only to #50 on the pop charts (his last single to chart) while Brooks took it to #1 on the country charts. The tune has been recorded by many others since then. I say all this to try and distract myself from Allen's dimples, but even when I replayed his performance and didn't look at the TV screen (where he was poised on a stool and looked sensitive and very Tiger Beat-ish, it was pretty terrific. Like almost everyone last night, he had a very rough time on the last note, which was the only flaw in otherwise excellent performance. Restrained is a word that rarely gets used when it comes to Idol but that's exactly what Allen delivered and it was great. Another one coming on strong. LIL ROUNDS -- Sang the Martina McBride gem "Independence Day," which is practically a standard now, in my opinion. Her performance was also restrained but there's no doubting she seemed a little more tamped down -- until she got to the finale and belted out "DAYYYYYYYY!!!!!" with roof rattling force. But she looked good and the performance was solid. Paula wisely said Lil should not have performed two verses in a row, a good comment that Simon -- who seemed especially bored -- oddly mocked. ADAM LAMBERT -- Sang Johnny Cash's "Ring Of Fire." Sort of. On Idol, the worst sin is to be forgettable and Lambert certainly won't have a problem with that. No one will forget his bizarro rendition of this tune. I could have done without Randy Travis's "I don't even know what to say about the boy" comments. Really? He's been all over the world and is shocked by a dude with black nail polish? But Lambert's uber dramatic singing was ludicrous, to say the least. Paula made a good allusion to Led Zep's "Kashmir," but that's giving this take too much credit. Simon summed it up nicely by saying, "What the hell was that?" I've never been a big fan of Lambert so maybe his fans can weigh in, but to me it revealed his gimmicky vocals once and for all. On the other hand, when I played it back again, it's clear that Lambert is in control vocally and however odd his choices, he has the range to sing it. I assume it was too weird for him to be forgotten and get the lowest votes, but if he is I'm almost certain the judges would use their Save to give him another chance. SCOTT MACINTYRE -- Sang Martina McBride's #1 country hit "Wild Angels," yet another in a string of "inspirational" tunes that places MacIntyre squarely in the Josh Groban songbook. MacIntyre simply does not have a good voice. He ran out of breath repeatedly, hit harsh notes, had wavering pitch, was drowned out by the music and had a very thin ad weak last note. There was also some lame falsetto somewhere in the middle. The judges were very mixed with Paula and Simon having a good back and forth about whether MacIntyre should always perform with a piano or not. Of course, I don't like Groban either (who can actually sing) and the audience lapped it up. ALEXIS GRACE -- Sang Dolly Parton's "Jolene," Parton's second #1 country hit as a solo artist and her first tune to hit the pop charts (it went to #60 back in 1974). The song is a perfect fit for feisty Grace since it's about a woman fighting to keep her man from a temptress. But instead of feisty Grace, she decided to sing the song as if the woman pleading with Jolene had already given up. Parton sounded ready to claw the woman's eyes out and do whatever she had to to save her marriage; Grace sounded defeated. It was meandering and weak, a real shame since Grace has been one to watch. The judges were down on her and worst of all it was forgettable. DANNY GOKEY -- Sang Carrie Underwood's signature tune "Jesus, Take The Wheel," a big hit with some terrible driving advice for people who skid on ice while in a car. I thought Gokey was fine on the verses and very good on the chorus, though playing it back a second time he seemed a little less focused and all over the place when wailing away. Still, strong and the judges loved it. ANOOP DESAI -- Sang Willie Nelson's timeless "You Were Always On My Mind," the biggest pop hit of his career. (It reached #5 and was on the charts for 23 weeks, edging out the execrable "To All The Girls I've Loved Before," which also hit #5 but was only on the charts for 21 weeks.) Anoop had his game face on and -- remarkably -- actually delivered. Randy Travis proved his insight by rightly predicting that Anoop's performance would bring about a 180 on people's opinion about his singing ability. Simon said Anoop deserved to be in there and got a fist pump from Anoop (the contestants always know that Simon's endorsement is the most important of all). He really did deliver his own take on the tune without bastardizing it. The only stumble for Anoop was when Ryan asked him if he was surprised by the praise from the judges and Anoop said no, he always expects to do great. Dude, a simple, "I was thrilled" would have played much better. MEGAN JOY CORKREY -- Sang Patsy Cline's first pop hit, the #12 tune "Walkin' After Midnight," which was a perfect fit for Megan Joy's quirky, Madeline Peyroux voice. Unfortunately, she was waylaid by influenza and even had to go to the hospital, which makes it impossible for me to udge her performance or predict how she'll do. Will audiences forgive her vocals and the dorky hip-shaking? If she's the lowest vote getter, will the judges Save her because of the illness or say that she probably wouldn't win it all anyway? Hard to say. MATT GIRAUD -- Sang Carrie Underwood's #1 country hit "So Small." He gave, by far, the best performance he's delivered yet and the judges raved. To my count, that means Danny Gokey, Lil Rounds, Allison Iraheta, Kris Allen and -- given the raves generally from the judges -- Adam Lambert are all contenders. The bottom three: I predict Michael Sarver, Alexis Grace and...Megan Joy? Adam Lambert? Scott MacIntyre? I'm gonna say Adam Lambert (to give him a scare), with Sarver and Grace the bottom two and Alexis Grace going home. What do you think? More on American Idol
 
Aaron Glantz: The War Comes Home Top
As we approach the 6th anniversary of the war in Iraq, President Obama plans to draw down our troop presence there while beefing up the number of troops in Afghanistan, but another battle is brewing on the homefront. In January alone, 24 soldiers were believed to have committed suicide. I discuss veterans' struggles in America below. The War Comes Home from New America Media on Vimeo . Aaron Glantz is the author of " The War Comes Home: Washington's Battle Against America's Veterans " More on Afghanistan
 
Lou Dobbs Complains About 'Ethnic Holidays' Like St. Patrick's Day (VIDEO) Top
Lou Dobbs has a lot of time to fill on his radio show, and no one much wants to talk about NAFTA Highways or the coming Invasion of the Mexican Lepers anymore, so this presents difficulties. Luckily, yesterday was Saint Patrick's Day -- or, as it is also known, "Amateur Night (Observed)" -- the one day a year where we celebrate Irish stuff. Anyway, Dobbs is against "ethnic holidays," but that's not all -- he is evidently powerfully confused by them . For the clearest sign yet that this man is five years away from yelling at scary clouds and loud noises made by the teevee, give a listen: [LISTEN.] "And by the way, I've got to wish to you, each and every one, Happy Saint Patrick's Day! I do that, and I have to be honest with you, despite my fervent anti-ethnic holiday position. That's right! I'm against St. Patrick's Day. I'm against St. Columbus Day. Saint Joseph's Day. I'm against all of those things. Is there, by the way, is there a Jewish, a Jewish ethnic holiday? Is there one? No? Okay. The Jews have disappointed me. I mean, is there a St. Mauritius? No? A Belize? I don't know. We gotta have -- there's gotta be something else going on here! How about an Asian ethnic holiday? Is there one? You know, a Saint Jin Tao Wow? Chinese New Year? All right, we can do that ... I mean, what is with all of these ethnic holidays? I mean how about an American Day? How about were all the same kind of day?" Yeah, it's been getting harder and harder out here for AMERICANS, who've only got the Fourth of July, Memorial Day, Veterans' Day, Flag Day, President's Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, The Day After Thanksgiving, V-E Day, V-J Day, and the playing of the National Anthem before every single sporting event, ever to celebrate our wondrous amalgam of ethnicity. Meanwhile: do Jews have an ethnic holiday? I imagine that Dobbs is splitting the difference between "religious holidays" and Saint Patrick's Day-like celebrations of Judaism. I took up the issue with Spencer Ackerman: JASON: So, besides NOFX concerts, do y'all Jews have a holiday that's like Saint Patrick's Day? SPENCER: There's Jewish Christmas! Whereby you eat Chinese food and go see a movie, and then get f**ked up. JASON: Ahh! OF COURSE. SPENCER: It's the original War on Christmas. Anyway, next year in Kilkenny! [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] More on Video
 
Liz Neumark: There's No Place Like Home Top
How often do we get to go back to the place we grew up? And what if there is more than one place? What does it look like -- and how will it feel in the context of who I was then and the person I am today? Monday was an unusual day in that I had lunch and dinner in the two apartment buildings where I lived until leaving home. It was purely a random coincidence, as my reason for being in either building had nothing to do with a pilgrimage to my past. I was invited to a luncheon hosted by the Barnard College development office in the home of an alumnus, who lives in the same building I lived in from the age of 10 through college. Walking into the building, not to see my family was an unusual experience. I was a visitor, not a resident and in that case, had to be "announced." The purpose of luncheon was to introduce the new College President, Debora Spar, to alumnae in intimate groups. What is immediately apparent about Debora Spar is her down to earth nature and accessibility. She is smart, articulate, warm, focused and connected with each of us almost instantly. In her brief remarks about her priorities for the college (economic policies first and foremost) she talked about developing the program for Women's Leadership. She talked about 4 key areas where young women can learn critical skills: Public speaking; the art of negotiating; basic financial principles; and resilience -learning not to fear failure and take risks. Barnard is dedicated to women -- and their success. " Studies have found that, by attending women's colleges, women: * Constitute more than 20% of women in Congress, and 30% of a Business Week list of rising women stars in Corporate America, yet only represent 2% of all female college graduates. * Have more opportunities to hold leadership positions and are able to observe women functioning in top jobs (90% of the presidents and 55% of the faculty are women). * Are three times more likely to earn a baccalaureate degree in economics and one and one-half times more likely to earn baccalaureates degrees in life sciences, physical sciences and mathematics than at a coeducational institution. * Tend to be more involved in philanthropic activities after college." It was an exhilarating lunch, as we realized that Debora Spar is the ideal college president to champion women's education and grow the next generation of leaders. I was inspired and eager to play a role in mentoring today's students. And, being in a sense back home, I thought about my family and upbringing, which made no distinction between the capabilities or expectations of men or women. (www.Barnard.edu) The evening began with a large cocktail party at Christie's to benefit the Women's Campaign Fund following which all the guests split into 10 smaller groups for dinners held around the city in private homes. Dinner took me back again to Central Park West and the building I lived in from birth till adolescence. (My maternal grandparents lived there for over 40 years on a different floor.) I had not walked into that lobby in over 14 years, since the death of my grandmother. Our hostess lived on the floor above my grandparent's apartment and from her living room window looking east was the same view I had grown up with -- the Guggenheim. Was it just coincidental that despite a minor spelling difference, she and my grandmother have the same last name? And when we talked about it -- Cathy told me that in fact from time to time she gets mail addressed to Grandma (requests for contributions.) This was a day of parallel themes and the Women's Campaign Fund is "dedicated to advancing the political participation and leadership of pro-choice women." Perhaps some of the candidates supported by WCF will have begun their careers at Barnard, learning leadership skills in a nurturing and environment geared to support the needs of young women. "A nonpartisan membership organization, Women's Campaign Forum (WCF) is unique among women's organizations. We recruit, train, launch and support pro-choice women to run for office beginning in their earliest days in politics. We also build a national network of women voters, donors and activist whose efforts and venture capital ensure women's voices are heard." Women are 52% of the population; yet hold only 17% of the seats in Congress. In statewide elective office, women hold almost 24% of the available positions. We have a long way to go! Betsy Gottbaum, NY City Public Advocate, talked about the valuable lessons she learned via WCF - media training and campaign coaching to name just a few. (www.wcfonline.org) As a business owner for over 25 years, I have faced challenges. But having come of age in an environment that celebrated the natural gifts of being female -- both at home and during my years at Barnard -- I never questioned my role as an entrepreneur. It always seemed a perfectly natural thing to do. And failure, though not something I take lightly, has always been the best way to learn and become stronger. Not only is being a female CEO an advantage (in my opinion) but for the first year and a half of our existence, all employees of Great Performances; Artists as Waitresses, Inc. was exclusively female. As we grew and integrated men into the organization, we always maintained a female culture and sensibility. This culture remains at our core today. Our values guide us with every decision we make. It has always been about the journey, the daily decisions and how we get there. We continue to support women, in particular working mothers who have the double burden of working and finding balance to raise their families. And our mission of serving privileged New Yorker's is coupled with our commitment to care for the underprivileged and underfed neighbors in our community. Our support of anti-hunger projects and our leadership in educating children about nutrition and health through the creation of The Sylvia Center balances our passion for creating outstanding events for hundreds of clients annually. Supporting organizations that promote the growth and development of women for leadership roles is critical. As I spent the day participating in institution building I realized that my experiences as a child, daughter and a student prepared me for my career. The homes I lived in were filled with dreams of accomplishing the impossible and reaching deep to find the strength and commitment to following through irrespective of gender. Monday was an unusual day -- in the midst of networking, listening and dining and sharing, I was able to see the past and the future. In "going home" again, I reaffirmed the values that formed my journey. It's good to know that in looking backwards, one can also move ahead.
 
John W. Delicath: Beyond Stem Cells and Global Warming: Media Ignore Bush Administration's Widespread Interference with Science Top
The fact that the Bush administration routinely and repeatedly allowed politics to trump science in the policy-making process is well-known and extensively documented . Yet, the media continue to act otherwise. During coverage of President Barack Obama's executive order on stem cell research and his presidential memorandum on scientific integrity, most reports gave only a cursory account of Bush's interference with science, adopting a common refrain that critics have accused the Bush administration of putting politics before science on issues such as stem cells and global warming. Other reports adopted a simple "politics" frame, portraying the memorandum as a "break with" or "rebuke of" Bush, thereby reducing Obama's concern about scientific integrity to something intended to score political points. The decline of science reporting at newspapers and cable news outlets means the political press and Beltway punditocracy will play an increasingly important role in discussing the use of science in government decision-making, especially as it relates to politics. Given that they largely failed to mention the widespread abuse of science under Bush while covering Obama's stem cell announcement, this is a worrisome development. Members of the Obama administration are going to have their work cut out for them in undoing some of the decisions made by Bush officials at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the Interior Department, and the Justice Department. It is important that the public has some context for this work to help them understand why it is important. Moreover, it is vital that the media help the public appreciate the significance of political interference in science. As Chris Mooney warned in The Republican War on Science , we're not just talking about issues important to public health and the environment, "but the very integrity of American democracy, which relies heavily on scientific and technical expertise to function." Indeed, political interference with science in the policy-making process threatens our health, our environment, our prospects for economic renewal, and our standing in the world. Bush's history on this front cannot be forgotten, nor can we afford for it to be repeated. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which spent years researching and documenting the political assault on science during the Bush presidency, states the case in no uncertain terms: In recent years, scientists who work for and advise the federal government have seen their work manipulated, suppressed, distorted, while agencies have systematically limited public and policy maker access to critical scientific information. In 2004, the UCS released a report titled Scientific Integrity in Policy Making: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science . Over the next four years, the UCS conducted surveys of scientists at seven federal agencies and issued numerous reports documenting specific instances in which Bush officials ignored, manipulated, distorted, or suppressed scientific evidence. The list of the federal agencies, departments, and offices where the UCS identified political interference in science is staggering. It includes more than 20 different entities : • Bureau of Land Management • Centers for Disease Control • Climate Change Science Program • Consumer Product Safety Commission • Department of Agriculture • Department of Defense • Department of Education • Department of Energy • Department of Health and Human Services • Department of Justice • Department of State • Election Assistance Commission • Environmental Protection Agency • Federal Emergency Management Agency • Fish and Wildlife Service • Food and Drug Administration • Forest Service • National Aeronautics and Space Administration • National Institutes of Health • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • Occupational Safety and Health Administration • Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement • President's Council on Bioethics • U.S. Geological Survey Far from being limited to stem cells and climate change, the reports covered a host of issues across a wide range of government decision-making, including: • Ground Zero • endangered species • chemical safety • air pollution • toxic pollutants • public lands use • drug approvals • contraception • sex education • whistleblowers • EPA libraries • federal scientific advisory system • Iraq war intelligence • school vouchers • racial profiling • voter fraud Were the media interested, they would have found an A-Z Guide to Political Interference in Science at the UCS website documenting the litany of specific instances of interference by Bush officials; a timeline establishing when those instances were exposed; all of the organization's reports ; and an extensive record of previous reporting on the issue. The media could have also consulted Mooney's 2005 book The Republican War on Science , which chronicled the Bush administration's politicization of science. In a review of the book for The New York Times , John Hogan wrote that Mooney "addresses a vitally important topic and gets it basically right," later adding that Mooney "argues that the current administration has imposed its will on scientific debates in a more systematic fashion, and he cites a slew of cases ... to back up his claim." Scientific American called the book a "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists." Instead, many media outlets hailed Obama's break with Bush on stem cells but saw fit to simply ignore the history of the widespread abuse of science under Bush. In fact, many media outlets covered Obama's executive order on stem cells without even mentioning his memorandum on scientific integrity. That was certainly the case with television news. The evening news broadcasts on ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS all covered Obama's stem cell announcement, but none mentioned his memorandum on scientific integrity. The day of Obama's announcement and the White House ceremony, none of CNN's or MSNBC's evening political talk shows addressed the memorandum or Bush's record of political interference in science. MSNBC's Chris Matthews began that evening's edition of Hardball by exclaiming: "The triumph of science." Yet, he neglected to mention Obama's memorandum on scientific integrity, let alone raise the issue of the Bush administration's political interference in science. The story of Bush's widespread and systematic political interference with science also went largely untold in newspaper reports; the extensive documentation of that interference was essentially ignored or diminished by reporting that suggested the charges were merely allegations by critics of Bush's approach to stem cells and global warming. USA Today stated that the memorandum on scientific integrity "addresses the controversy over the politicization of science that threaded through all eight years of the Bush administration." Bloomberg reported that the Bush administration "had come under criticism from Democrats and some independent researchers for pressuring government scientists to tailor their conclusions to support goals on such issues of climate change." The Christian Science Monitor stated that "government employees" had "charged" that the Bush administration interfered with science "in a range of areas," including stem cells, climate change, and "reproductive health policy," while Politico noted that "[m]any on the left and in the scientific community believe that, from stem cells to climate change, George W. Bush manipulated or ignored data and research for political purposes." The Washington Post stated the Bush administration was "often accused of using selective scientific findings to support its ideological views on climate change, health-care decisions, and other issues." In explaining the purpose of Obama's memorandum, The Hill reported that it was a "respon[se] to charges from scientists and Democrats that President George W. Bush put his political ideology ahead of scientific evidence in areas such as stem cell research and climate change." Similarly, McClatchy Newspapers described Obama as joining "a chorus of critics complaining that the Bush administration ignored science on issues such as global warming." The Associated Press also presented the Bush administration's well-documented politicization of science as a two-sided issue. It reported: "Many scientists and environmental activists complained that the Bush administration had censored and marginalized science. That's a perception that Bush science adviser John Marburger repeatedly called untrue and unfair." The AP did, however, cite four specific examples of interference, though three were on the issue of global warming. The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times fared only somewhat better. One L.A. Times article was fairly typical in simply noting that Bush was accused of allowing "prevailing religious and conservative views" to displace science. A second L.A. Times article was more extensive, reporting that Bush's approach to science created a "rift" with "a large segment of the nation's research community," which felt that "scientific data had been ignored or skewed as the Bush administration set policy on climate change, oil and gas drilling, and other aspects of environmental and health policy." The article cited at least three specific examples of interference. Similarly, The New York Times ran two articles, one stating simply that "[m]any Democrats criticized the Bush administration for politicizing science on a range of issues, from climate change to protecting endangered species to family planning," while a second was more extensive, noting that "Bush was often accused of trying to shade or even suppress the findings of government scientists on climate change, sex education, contraceptives and other issues, as well as stem cells." The article further reported: Congressional Democrats and scientists themselves issued report after report asserting that the White House had distorted or suppressed scientific information: including efforts to strip information about condoms from a government Web site and the editing of air quality reports issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. The problem with newspaper reports that made passing reference to the use of science under Bush, of course, is that they failed to note that political interference was widespread and systematic and offered little sense of the breadth and scope of the problem or the many different forms of political interference across the government on a far-ranging set of issues beyond stem cells and climate change. These reports also failed to inform their readers that the charges of political interference with science under Bush are well-substantiated with credible evidence from a range of sources, including agency officials and scientists, independent scientists and scientific organizations, and independent reporting. It is telling that the UCS was mentioned in just three reports: a New York Times article noted that "[t]he Union of Concerned Scientists ... maintains an 'A to Z' list on its Web site of 'case studies' in what it calls the politicization of science under Mr. Bush"; a link to the Web page for " The Union of Concerned Scientists' list of 'abuses' of science " appeared below an article on the McClatchy Newspapers website; and the Q&A section of a USA Today article featuring answers derived from "interviews with researchers and policy experts" noted that Obama's scientific integrity memorandum "echoes a 2008 Union of Concerned Scientists call for transparency in how federal agencies make science decisions and for insulation from political interference." In keeping with the virtual blackout on Chris Mooney and The Republican War on Science -- Mooney has never been interviewed on network or cable news or invited to appear on any of the political talk shows, despite favorable book reviews and appearances on CSPAN's Book TV, and NPR's Fresh Air With Terry Gross and Science Friday -- the media found a way not to mention Mooney or his book at all. The UCS states that changes in the structure of the federal
 
Golan Heights Apples Seen As Sign Of Peace To Come Top
When Hala al-Safadi bit into the apple, she felt as though she had been instantly transported back to her home town, which she left for good nine years ago. "They must be from our farm there or from a nearby farm. I can smell my childhood in them," she said. More on Syria
 
The Progress Report: Mexico's Drug War Hits Home Top
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, Ryan Powers, and Matt Duss To receive The Progress Report in your email inbox everyday, click here . With the severe economic recession and continuing U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, the growing crisis of drug-related violence in Mexico has thus far received less public attention than it should. But Obama administration officials are clearly aware of the problem. On Feb. 25, 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a congressional committee that "Mexico right now has issues of violence that are a different degree and level than we've ever seen before." Turf wars between drug gangs and Mexican authorities led to the deaths of some 6,000 people last year, more than twice the previous record, according to Deputy Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Mark Koumans. In a written statement to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Koumans said that the number of murders in Ciudad Juarez on the U.S.-Mexico border in January 2009 "was three times higher than in January 2008." In response to requests from the governors of Texas and Arizona, President Obama is reportedly considering deploying National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. Yesterday, Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, the head of Northern Command, told a Senate committee that an inter-agency government team could complete work on an integrated plan to address Mexico's escalating drug war as early as this week. A COUNTRY ON THE BRINK: In an interview with World Politics Review, the head of Colombia's anti-narcotics police, Gen. Alvaro Caro, warned, "It's going to get worse. ... The Mexican cartels are very structured, well armed and organized, and have the power to corrupt." The Los Angeles Times, which has a detailed website collecting its extensive coverage of the issue, recently noted that drug traffickers "have escalated their arms race, acquiring military-grade weapons, including hand grenades, grenade launchers, armor-piercing munitions and antitank rockets with firepower far beyond the assault rifles and pistols that have dominated their arsenals." "It's a real war," Tijuana Mayor Jorge Ramos recently told reporters. "We're not faking." Though Napolitano recognized that the Calderon government was taking steps to deal with the violence, she did acknowledge "a possibility, remote as it may be...of [Mexico] becoming a narcostate. But the United States has a direct interest in Mexico." "So having a stable and peaceful neighbor is very, very important, and this drug war is very, very important," Napolitano added. HOMELAND INSECURITY: A 2008 Justice Department report found that Mexican drug traffickers pose the biggest organized crime threat to the United States. The presence of the Mexican drug cartels in the U.S. has more than quadrupled since 2006. According to a December report by the Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center, "Mexican drug-trafficking organizations have established a presence in 230 U.S. cities, including such remote places as Anchorage, Alaska, and Sheboygan, Wisconsin." Cartels have established Atlanta, GA as the principal distribution center for the eastern United States. Phoenix, AZ, is now "the kidnapping capital of the United States, thanks largely to the cartels operating on both sides of the border." But confronting the supply of drugs is only dealing with half of the problem. In naming former Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske as his drug czar, Obama indicated an intention to increase "drug prevention and treatment, which took a funding hit in the Bush years." At his nomination ceremony, Kerlikowske "said success depends largely on reducing demand." THE MERIDA INITIATIVE: First proposed by President Bush in October 2007, the Merida Initiative is a multi-year partnership "to provide equipment and training to support law enforcement efforts to curb the flow of illegal narcotics" through the U.S., Mexico, and Central America. The initiative was signed into law last June, and appropriates $1.4 billion for the effort (compared to over $850 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.) Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently said, "I think we are beginning to be in a position to help the Mexicans more than we have in the past. Some of the old biases against cooperation between our militaries and so on, I think, are being set aside." But the initiative has its critics. Jorge Angel Pescador Osuna, the former Mexican consul general in Los Angeles, said last year that "[Mexican] foreign policy has been subordinated to that of the Americans, the policemen of the world. ... What we need here is to strengthen our democracy, and we will not accomplish that by using the military for civilian law enforcement." Mexican Interior Secretary Juan Camilo Mourino suggested that the conditions established by the U.S. Congress for the provision of assistance represent an infringement of Mexico's sovereignty. Amnesty International, however, called the final bill "an important first step to prevent military and police abuses." Describing current efforts, Secretary Napolitano told the Wall Street Journal that "we already are beginning to increase our operation of looking at guns and cash going southbound, because it's those guns and cash that are fueling the battle against Calderon and...the very, very violent battle in Mexico." More on Mexico
 
Extreme Sheep Art (VIDEO) Top
I'm pretty sure this is the coolest sheep video you've ever seen. I say that as someone who has seen "Babe," those terrible Serta ads, and that horror film "Black Sheep," and know that they cannot compare to "Sheep Pong" or the "Leonardo Baa-Vinci." "BaaaStuds," a group of men who seem to have been contracted by Samsung, "took to the hills of Wales armed to the teeth with sheep, LEDs and a camera, to create a huge amazing LED display." They strapped the LEDs to the sheep and created expansive works of glowing sheep art by speeding up the footage. This approach helped them make a giant sheep out of many tiny sheep and sheep fireworks. WATCH: More on Funny Videos
 
Jennifer Donahue: Ingraham, Coulter: STOP IT! Bullying is NOT OK- Ask My Daughters and Students Top
I am also confused, Meghan. Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter seem to really, really dislike you. We know they disliked your father, but going after you seems to be taking it a little far. You are 24 years old, not an elected official, not making policy decisions, and not running for president. Here we have two women, both within a year of the age of President Obama, with the power to reach the minds of young women. If these two women care about the Republican party, democracy, and the future of America as they say they do (and I take them at their world that they do care about those things), they would come up with something, anything, productive to say, rather than get involved in this kind of bullying. Ladies, there are young women watching. I taught them at Harvard, and I teach them at Saint Anselm's New Hampshire Institute of Politics. Is this the civic discourse you want to teach? Will your lessons help them engage in civic and political life, or prepare them to discuss issues related to democracy? Will it encourage them to question the world around them, or consider supporting the Republican party (if that is part of your goal.) Not that it really matters, but it is interesting to read these Wikipedia bios on Ingraham and Coulter. Here is wikipedia's personal bio section on Laura Ingraham, born in 1965: Ingraham once was engaged to conservative author and fellow Dartmouth alumnus Dinesh D'Souza and has dated former New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli [9] as well as MSNBC host Keith Olbermann.[10] In April 2005, she announced that she was engaged to businessman James V. Reyes, with a wedding planned in May or June 2005. On April 26, 2005, she announced that she had undergone breast cancer surgery. On May 11, 2005, Ingraham told listeners that her engagement to Reyes was canceled, citing issues regarding her diagnosis with breast cancer. Despite the breakup, she maintains that the two remain good friends, and has told listeners in 2006 that she is currently in good health.[11] She is a convert to Roman Catholicism. In May 2008, Ingraham began proceedings to adopt a young girl from Guatemala, whom she has named Maria Caroline.[12] Here is Ann Coulter's, born in 1964: Coulter has been engaged several times, but never married.[11] She has dated Spin founder and publisher Bob Guccione, Jr.,[12] and conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza.[13] In October 2007, she began dating Andrew Stein, the former president of the New York City Council, a liberal Democrat. When asked about the relationship, Stein told the paper, "She's attacked a lot of my friends, but what can I say, opposites attract!"[14] On January 7, 2008, however, Stein told the New York Post that the relationship was over, citing irreconcilable differences.[15] Coulter owns both a condominium in Manhattan and a house, bought in 2005, in Palm Beach, Florida. Although she says that usually she lives in New York, she votes in Palm Beach and is not registered to do so in New York.[16] She is a fan of the Grateful Dead,[17][18] and some of her favorite books include The Bible, Wuthering Heights, Anna Karenina, true crime stories about serial killers and anything by Dave Barry.[19] More on John McCain
 
Peter A. Ubel: Stimulating Physical Activity by Building Healthy Neighborhoods Top
Hiking in Switzerland several years ago, I came across a trail that seemed to dead-end at a farmer's gate. I looked around for a way to avoid the property, but there was none. Instead, the trail continued through the middle of the farm. I walked through the gate, side-stepping some livestock in the way (and side-stepping even more livestock manure!), until I exited the farm through another gate, back out to public property. What a wonderfully un-American attitude towards property rights. And towards walking. The Swiss have created a culture of walking. I wonder if we can use some of the Obama stimulus money to begin transforming our culture in similar ways. Compare my experience in Switzerland to the typical visit to the suburbs. No sidewalks on the street. No grocery stores or shops within walking distance. That doesn't promote a culture of physical activity. The desire to walk, or to exercise in any manner, is not just a function of individual choice. It is also a desire that is strongly influenced by one's surroundings. A study in Salt Lake City recently showed that people who live in older neighborhoods are thinner than those who live in newer neighborhoods, a thinness partly attributable to their greater tendency to walk. We Americans are unlikely to cede property rights to local fitness enthusiasts any time soon. We won't be opening up our gates to walkers and bikers either. But because of the Obama stimulus bill, many local governments are looking for shovel-ready construction projects. I hope that in doing so, they look for ways to design neighborhoods that promote physical activity. The free market, left to its own devices, doesn't necessarily consider what kind of neighborhoods promote our best interests. We are our neighborhoods. Our culture begins at home. With intelligent regulations, such as thoughtful neighborhood zoning, we can influence our ability and willingness to engage in healthy activities like biking and walking. We owe it to ourselves to create healthy neighborhoods. To read more of my blogs, and to learn more about my new book, Free Market Madness, check out my personal website: http://www.peterubel.com More on Stimulus Package
 
Stephen Kent: Hugging the Third Rail: Unemployment Is So Bad, Washington May Finally Cut Payroll Taxes Top
I'm no economist, though I've worked with plenty of them.   As a public interest and public policy PR consultant, the economic indicators I notice most are perceptual and rhetorical:  things like the steady uptick in comparisons to the Great Depression, and the new CNN/Opinion research poll that says concern over unemployment has tripled in recent months, making it the top economic issue facing Americans.   I also note the unemployment worries have prompted some counterspin, for example the claim by Christina Romer, head of the National Council of Economic Advisers, who says current unemployment is not really so bad that it bears comparison with the Depression. Here's an NPR Morning Edition piece about that.   This leaves some cognitive dissonance in the heads of us non-economists, who have to wonder, poll numbers and competing expert claims aside, how bad is unemployment now, in based on the evidence?  The answer, as I've discovered working on employment policy issues,  is much worse than we think.   It's not just the latest dismal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) numbers showing the highest unemployment in over 25 years, and 4.4 million jobs loss since the recession started in December 2007, 2.6 million in the last four months, with well over half a million jobs hemorrhaging month to month.   It's not even the fact that the job loss is unusually broad-based, cutting across American industries, demographics and geography.    The worst of the bad news about American unemployment - and the yet worse news sure to come -- is that it is part of a huge, submerged structural problem, an iceberg with which our titanic fiscal and monetary policy mistakes have long been on a collision course.   For many years we have propped up consumer spending through debt and inflated home equity, while virtually ignoring job creation. The Bush years produced only 4.8 million new jobs, not nearly enough to accommodate population growth. And for half a century we have been accustomed to funding entitlements with ever growing, highly regressive payroll taxes which cannibalize jobs.  That left us with a structurally weak job market even before the current crisis began. Official unemployment is now 8.1% (officially 12.5 million Americans), which sounds high, but manageable compared to the double digit rates Boomers remember.  After all, unemployment topped out at 10.8% when I graduated from college in late 1982. A source for the NPR piece who remembers the 1930s said,   "I don't like the comparisons with the Great Depression, because you're comparing 7.5-8 percent unemployment to 25 percent unemployment." But in fact, if you make an apples-to-apples comparison, current unemployment is much worse than the early 1980s and within striking distance of Depression era rates, because our ever narrowing official definitions of who is officially unemployed chronically mask the severity of the problem.  For example, in 1994, the Bureau of Labor Statistics decided not to count those out of work for a year or more (4 million people at the time).  The Clinton administration also reduced household sampling in the inner cities which probably further undercounted unemployment, especially among minorities.   The Bush administration used largely the same measures.  But according to statistician John Williams, whose Shadow Government Statistics tracks and corrects political biases in government stats,   if we revert to the same criteria that were used in 1994, before the criteria changed, today's unemployment rate wouldn't be 8.1%, it would be 19.1% (almost 30 million Americans).  Many analysts expect to see official 9.4% unemployment by the end of 2009. By pre-1994 measures, that would be equivalent to 22.5% (almost 35 million Americans). Goldman Sachs and others forecast 10% or higher official unemployment by the end of next year.   By pre-1994 measures that begins to approach 1930s Depression rates of 25% unemployment, and something like 40 million unemployed!   Believe it or not, that's not even the worst of it.  According to the employment policy group Get America Working!, for which I consult, and which Hendrik Hertzberg has written up in his current New Yorker piece , if you disallow creative redefinition of who is and is not considered part of the workforce, the true number of unemployed Americans could be higher still.   There are 75 million nonworking Americans aged 16 to 75 who are not in the military or institutionalized, who are at least potential members of the workforce.  Among them, a disproportionate number of women, minorities, seniors, youth, people with disabilities and legal immigrants are under- or unemployed.   No one knows exactly how many of them would be willing and able to work if jobs were available, but it is safe to say tens of millions, perhaps the great majority of the 75 million.  As long as there aren't enough jobs to engage them, their potential contributions to the economy are still being lost, which hurts us and them, whether they are  officially counted as unemployed or not.  President Obama proposes to create or preserve 3.5 million new jobs through stimulus spending, tax cuts, small business loans, government hiring including a million census takers, and other measures.   These steps are deeply necessary and long overdue, but also woefully insufficient to address a structural problem that includes an overhang of tens of millions of Americans who aren't working. To change the larger equation, the US should consider doing what EU countries have done: make deep cuts in payroll taxes to stimulate the economy and job growth. Payroll taxes raise hiring costs and structurally depress jobs.   But they also fund Social Security and Medicare, so changing them has long been shunned as the "third rail" of American politics (touch it and you die).   Yet amid the economic crisis and hitherto unthinkable bailout packages the "third rail" stigma has faded, and rethinking payroll taxation has been promoted from beyond the political pale to "Not Insane," the title of the Hertzberg New Yorker piece which explores it. Hertzberg finds that the practice of funding a huge chunk of the federal budget through "a direct tax on work and workers--on jobs per se" is what's crazy.  But meanwhile, major payroll tax cuts are built into Obama's budget proposal.   About 80% of the $645 billion the Obama administration proposes to raise through cap and trade revenues over 10 years would be used to cut payroll taxes, so working families won't suffer unaided from higher energy costs.   Why single out payroll taxes? First, they  are the biggest tax three-quarters of Americans pay, and also the most regressive, so cutting them helps middle class and working poor families more than cutting other taxes.   Second, historically payroll taxes have careened out of control,  ballooning from one percent of Federal revenues in 1936 to nearly 35% today. Our addiction to payroll tax revenue has powerfully distorted the effective price of labor relative to non-labor inputs to business, such as energy and natural resources, rendering pollution and energy waste too cheap and hiring people too dear.  The current relative price distortion could be 30% or more.  It's a defensible statement that this distortion has been a deep, hidden, structural cause of our environmental and economic problems, and has helped create the conditions for both climate change and massive unemployment.  But we may finally be on a political path to reversing it.   Early adapters on both sides of the aisle from Al Gore to T. Boone Pickens, Thomas Friedman to Charles Krauthammer,  Eugene Ludwig to Lawrence Lindsey, have long understood the structural problem and advocated payroll tax "shifting" -- PRT cuts coupled with some form of higher energy taxes. They were outliers, but they are looking increasingly mainstream.   It's 'way too early to celebrate climate legislation as if it were a fait accompli, and we are still in for a politically tough, complex debate on the specific merits of taxing vs. trading carbon, and on exactly how the revenues will be used. But the fact that payroll tax cuts are big parts of both the White House cap and trade proposal and competing carbon tax proposals ( pending carbon tax legislation would use 96% of revenues to cut payroll taxes, vs. 80% in Obama's cap and trade proposal), and that payroll tax cuts are coupled with new taxes on a non-labor input to business (carbon fuels) is an epoch-making sign of the times.   It means that after decades in the wilderness,    t he economic and climate crises have forced Washington to seriously consider embracing the  "third rail" and shifting the tax burden from employment, which we urgently need more of, to an undesirable like carbon emissions, which we urgently need less of.   If the federal government manages to take payroll tax shifting all the way from "third rail" to "Not Insane" to enactment, it will not only make the tax code fairer, it will also drive down carbon emissions and create many, many millions of jobs.   What would be insane, at this point in our history, would be to lose this opportunity to do so.  
 
Lt. General Robert G. Gard Jr. (USA, Ret.): Past Time to Join the Landmine Treaty Top
This month marks the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of an international agreement that has prevented incalculable civilian deaths and injuries from war: the 1997 Landmine Treaty. While 156 countries have signed on, the United States is one of a small minority of states that has not yet agreed to join the ban on the production, use, sale, and stockpiling of anti-personnel landmines. President Barack Obama has an opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to international cooperation by urging the Senate to approve the treaty and thereby place the United States in the company of nations committed to ending the use of these indiscriminate weapons. A dozen years ago, I joined a group of retired military officers that urged President Bill Clinton to sign the global treaty. As a commander of U.S. troops in combat in Korea and Vietnam, I did not allow my soldiers to use anti-personnel landmines because I believed them to be a net liability. Pentagon casualty reports from Korea, Vietnam, and the 1991 Persian Gulf War attest to the toll that landmines, many of them our own, have taken on our service men and women. Veterans across this country can testify to the devastating injuries these counter-productive weapons have inflicted on both U.S. servicemen and civilians in the countries where they have been employed. The U.S. military has not used landmines in combat since 1991 and has not procured any new landmines since 1997. The real reason for the Pentagon's resistance to having the United States join the treaty was fear of the "slippery slope." Defense officials worried that caving in to a landmine ban would lead to efforts to ban other weapons that possess genuine military utility. The United States has agreed that non-self destructing "dumb" landmines are no longer necessary. President George Bush in 2004 announced a policy that will lead to the destruction of the U.S. stockpile of these weapons by 2010. But we continue to resist joining the mine ban treaty out of a desire to retain so-called "smart," or self-destructing, landmines, even though our use of these weapons reduces the operational tempo of our forces and causes casualties among our own troops. According to a 2002 report by the Government Accountability Office, our "smart" landmines caused numerous injuries and six percent of the deaths of U.S. service members in Operation Desert Storm in 1991. The mine ban treaty has worked. In the last ten years, the world has seen a near total end to the use of these weapons by national militaries, as well as a reduction in their use by non-state combatants. The treaty has resulted in the destruction of millions of mines. It also has brought international assistance to thousands of mine victims and billions of dollars for clearing mines and other explosive ordnance that remain active and lethal long after wars have ended. This treaty, literally, has saved thousands of lives and prevented horrible injuries. Admirably, the United States has contributed over $1.3 billion since 1993 to clear mines and aid victims of landmines. This financial commitment has been undermined, however, by our lack of political commitment to ending their use. As President Obama seeks to repair America's reputation abroad, advocating U.S. adherence to the mine ban treaty would be a low-cost, meaningful gesture of diplomatic goodwill with both humanitarian and practical benefits. U.S. participation would almost certainly aid efforts to universalize the treaty by increasing pressure on other hold-out nations like China and Russia. More on Russia
 
Chad Lindsay: New York's Newest Subway Hero Top
Today's New York Times introduces us to a brand, new kind of subway hero: the anonymous one. Chad Lindsay, 33, spent his Monday morning commute covered in "blood and dirt" after rescuing a man who'd fallen on the C train tracks of Penn Station. In Mr. Lindsay's words: "I'm kind of zoned out, and I saw this guy come too quickly to the edge...He stopped and kind of reeled around. I felt bad, because I couldn't get close enough to grab his coat. He fell, and immediately hit his head on the rail and passed out." "I dropped my bag and jumped down there. I tried to wake him up,...He probably had a massive concussion at that point. I jumped down there and he just wouldn't wake up, and he was bleeding all over the place." ..."He was hunched over on his front. I grabbed him from behind, like under the armpits, and kind of got him over to the platform. It wasn't very elegant. I just hoisted him up so his belly was on the platform. It's kind of higher than you think it is." "I couldn't see the train coming, but I could see the light on the tracks, and I was like, 'I've got to get out of this hole.' " "Someone pulled him out, and I just jumped up out of there." Sounds easy enough, right? Turns out Mr. Lindsay even had some time to spare: the train didn't come for "another 10 or 15 seconds." But the most interesting part of this story is that Mr. Lindsay wanted to remain anonymous. After police arrived, another train came through the station, and Mr. Lindsay hopped on, was cleaned up by five ladies with Handi-Wipes, and went to work. As it were, his anonymity was short-lived -- his identity was disclosed by a friend after seeing the story on the NY Times City Room blog -- but the story of an everyday hero still strikes a chord. And we'd love to recognize more of them! Please keep an eye out for these stories neck of the wood, whether it's in your local paper or someone you know, and make sure to send their stories our way. Please e-mail living@huffingtonpost.com with any recommendations.
 
Dan Dorfman: Swimming with the Sharks Top
A sucker's rally? Or the kickoff of a new upswing in stock prices? That's Wall Street's $64,000 question following last week's spirited 9% Dow rally, the biggest weekly rise of the year. For some thoughts, here's what a bull and bear have to say. You choose! From our bear, Los Angeles day trader Donald Lacey: "You've got to be bonkers to swim in shark-infested waters, but it's widely happening -- no, not in the movies, but in real life -- on the financial front." That's how he construes the rush by many investors to get back into the stock market during and following the rally. "The buyers are boobs," Lacey tells me. "They should go back to kindergarten and wear dunce caps because they're not just swimming with sharks; they're swimming with Jaws." His contention is that the recent rally is irrational, given the current risky environment, and is little more than one of those fleeting and not unusual market sprints in an ongoing bear market. The risks still remain enormous, he says, pointing in particular to: --A jobless population of 12.5 million -- and rising. --A glut of nearly 20 million vacant homes -- and rising. --A steadily weakening world-wide economy. --The threat of a flood of earnings disappointments. --A big increase in savings, rather than spending. --A continuing credit freeze, with banks generally hoarding cash instead of lending it. --Non-stop Congressional feuding over the Administration's proposed rescue plan for the economy and the ailing financial system, in turn raising questions about the viability of the effort. Lacey figures it could take years to resolve these problems. It means, he says, that "it's way too soon for a renewed leap into stocks because common sense tells you the investment scene remains riddled with land mines." Based on this thinking, he believes "we'll see 5,000 in the Dow before we see 10,000." Our bull, veteran San Francisco money manager Gary Wollin, one of those alleged "boobs," ridicules such thinking. He has just turned bullish for the first time in 16 months, and he's putting his money where his mouth is, having just completed a four-day buying spree during which he fattened his nearly $100 million stock portfolio through close to a $10 million purchase of the shares of eight companies. That, in turn, reduced the cash exposure in his portfolio from 25% to 15%. "I just think it's time to slowly and carefully take a more constructive view of the market," he says. "Buy now and I think you'll be richer 6 to 12 months out." On the face of it, a $10 million purchase, given the current approximate $7.5 trillion value of all common stocks, is hardly an imposing figure. Still, it's a sign of market confidence at a time when such confidence has been as conspicuous as a happy Republican. Addressing himself to the recent rally, Wollin argues that "even if this isn't a market bottom, the market is bottoming." He notes that when you have bad news and stock prices go up in the face of it -- such as the recent downgrading of the credit rating of General Electric by Standard & Poor's Corp -- it's a sign of better days ahead. Wollin is not oblivious to the risks, such as the ongoing chaos in the banking, credit and housing sectors, as well as the hefty decline in consumer spending and poor auto sales. There's still a lot to be worried about, he says, but he firmly believes all the bad news has already been baked into the process and that the market is likely to move higher over the next quarter or two as the economy continues to worsen. It's worth keeping in mind, he points out, that the Dow has already dropped about 50% from its October 2007 high of 14,164 to its recent low of 6,547. Wollin's thinking, though he's no household name, should not be taken lightly, given his deft market timing. Indicative of this, he's been consistently bearish or cautious since he turned negative on stocks on November 30, 2007, when the Dow was trading at 13,311. "I don't expect the Dow to go to a million overnight, but in 6 to 12 months I think it'll be at least 10% higher or maybe even 20%," he says. Though down both last year and this year with respective losses of 23% and 10%, Wollin's clients may take some solace out of the fact that they've done better than the overall market. The eights stocks he bought during his buying spree -- which he describes as "the bluest of the blue and each of which has the muscle and wherewithal to survive" -- are Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Triple M, ExxonMobil, Chevron and General Electric, U.S. Steel and Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold. (It's worth noting, however, that GE bears abound, with some predicting a drop to below $5 a share). Wollin views his eight purchases as market outperformers and rates each a potential 25% to 30% market gainer over the next 12 months. On one point, both our bull and bear are in accord. They're both negative on the financial stocks, including the banks, which led last week's rally with a 34% gain. A lot of their earnings power is gone, Wollin observes, pointing to their exit from such businesses as mortgage financing and derivatives. Likewise, banks have become much more conservative in their lending. Lacey cites another widespread worry -- the "unknown extent of garbage assets on bank balance sheets." He, too, is also putting his money where his mouth is, having sold short (a bet stock prices will fall) a number of bank shares during the recent rally. Meanwhile, holders of equity mutual funds seem obviously worried about the sharks. According to liquidity tracker TrimTabs Investment Research, which is bearish, the last two weeks showed a $28.5 billion outflow from such funds, $16.4 billion of which were from those based in the U.S. DanDorDan@aol.com More on Financial Crisis
 
How Obama Convinced His Advisors To Push Health-Care Reform Top
In early January, most of Barack Obama's senior staff assembled with the president-elect for a meeting inside a windowless, eighth-floor office at the transition headquarters in Washington. It was a pivotal moment in Obama's transformation from candidate to commander-in-chief. Obama's advisers had taken all of his campaign pledges, factored in his promise to reduce the deficit, and put together a provisional blueprint for governing. For the first time, Obama would get a sense of how his proposals fit together in the real world. More on Barack Obama
 
Craig Newmark: Respectful use of social media to promote good efforts? Top
Okay, I look at social media/networking sites, particularly FaceBook and LinkedIn. It's routine for people to contact all their "friends" and connections to support the causes they believe in. That seems pretty good, respectful and ethical to me, maybe done infrequently, with a light hand. Still, seems like a good idea to hear from people about this. In my case, I'd be communicating with my networks, almost 100% of which initiated the contact with me. I'd let people know what I was planning. The kind of efforts I'd promote would include: Presdident Obama's call to service Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America teachers who need classroom projects funded via donorschoose.org microfinance via Kiva.org or LendforPeace.org transparency and accountability in government via SunlightFoundation.com I need to hear from you about this, and please, disregard any trolling either directly in response, or on sites desperate for traffic. Please contact me via Twitter, which I'm on a lot for customer service as @craignewmark Thanks! More on Twitter
 
AIG: How A Meme Spreads Top
One of the cool features at Memeorandum, my favorite aggregator of political content, is that you can warp back to any previous point in time to see which stories were dominating bandwidth on the World Wide Web. Here, for example, is what the world looked like on Election Night, or on the morning that Sarah Palin was selected to be John McCain's running mate. I thought it would be useful to examine how the current controversy surrounding AIG has spread throughout the Internet over the past several days. This story has been a little bit unusual in that it's not all that newsworthy: AIG's intention to pay its so-called retention bonuses has been public knowledge for some time. But the story has absolutely blown up within the past 72 hours.
 
Nancy Lublin: No Answer Top
I hate caller-id. Sure, it allows me to screen calls from my mother, but it also allows foundations to screen my calls. I run a charity. If my name pops up in your call id, chances are I'm about to ask you for something--money, free ad space, your first born. So it is probably no surprise that people often don't take my calls. This phenomena isn't unique to the not for profit sector. Venture capitalists don't seem to be hunched over their phones either. I can be creative. A guy at Nike didn't return my calls for 6 months. So I sent a singing (and I think dancing?) gorilla-clad dude to his office. He called me that day. The producer of the Teen Choice Awards was tough to reach, so I flew down to Charlotte, North Carolina and took him to lunch. (We ended up striking a deal to have the first non-celebrity category ever on Teen Choice last year.) And, I've had my cell number printed on the face of M&Ms that I've sent to people, reminding them to return my call. (Hello? Judy McGrath at MTV? I'm still here...) So there are ways around the "I'm too important to return your call thing." But what really gets me is the principle. Some of these folks really are busy and important (ie Judy McGrath). But some of them are only busy and important by association. Working at The Gates Foundation doesn't actually make you as powerful as Bill Gates. It means that you have the privilege of giving away his money. But it doesn't actually make you as smart or as powerful as the man himself. So that junior person at the big fat foundation--maybe its her first job after getting a masters degree in something obscure--you should probably lower yourself enough to return some calls. Or that junior associate at some Sand Hill Road venture firm, you could return some of those cold calls, right? I mean, didn't these people have mothers who taught them manners? Truly, it doesn't take long to return calls. If you don't want to talk to me, you can call me at 8pm--when you know you'll get my voicemail. Or just send a curt email. Frankly, its more than rude, its just bad business. I might be onto something amazing. And if you don't like what I'm doing now, chances are good that someday you might want in on something else I do. If I was able to find your number and had the balls to cold call you, chances are good that I've got something of value to you, someday. And you never know. You might lose that job. You might come up with a great start-up or charitable idea. Or, I might win the lottery and become superbly loaded. Or, I might have gone to nursery school with someone you really need. Think about that the next time I send a tap-dancing Gorilla.
 
Paul Hipp: Free Money in the USA Top
Don't you kind of feel like someone at AIG needs to go to jail? Or maybe lots of people at AIG need to go to jail? Well, while we wait for President Obama and team to swoop down and stop the bad people from stealing the money that we don't have anymore, we might as well dance! Here is my new song "Free Money In The USA." The song (complete with click track count in) is available as a free download on my MySpace page at: www.myspace.com/paulhipp Please feel free to download it and make your own video then send me the link to your video -- I'll post the best one on Huffington Post! The lyrics are below the video which is here... FREE MONEY IN THE USA I cant pay my bills, my cards are maxxed but the same old greedy banker hacks are taking million dollar bonuses from my tax Busting laws and breaking backs AIGee your dumb said the man in the suit With his bonuses and his sack of loot The same guys who caused the train to crash Are the only people still making cash AIG I'm dumb FDIC my thumb Shoved up my BofA Free money in the USA I got no place to stay I lost my 401k Now it's all gone away Free money in the USA Binding legal obligations In a broke and worthless paper nation one six five million in bonus pay Free money in the USA The first banker to press that case may win in court but will one day face an angry mob that he will meet coming through the gates of easy street Cancel all bonus's or put them in jail We're all to goddamn big to fail With so many people out of work I hear some wealthy banker jerk Say they can't attract the brightest and best Like the ones who got us into this mess Without hundreds of millions in retention pay Free money in the USA Go down to the unemployment line There's a lot of people who'd do just fine To right this ship and fix your bank For a decent wage and a hearty thanks for some honest pay for an honest day Fuck aig fuck BofA-holes © Paul Hipp 2009 www.paulhipp.com More on Bailout Bandits
 
Madoff Accountant Friehling Charged With Fraud Top
NEW YORK — Bernard Madoff's longtime accountant was arrested on fraud charges Wednesday, accused of aiding the man who has admitted cheating thousands of investors out of billions of dollars in the past two decades. The charges against David Friehling, 49, come as federal authorities turn their attention to those who they believe helped Madoff fool 4,800 investors into thinking that their longtime investments were growing comfortably each year. Friehling is the first person to be arrested since the Madoff scandal broke three months ago. Friehling ran an accounting office in a nondescript suburban building north of New York City, and quickly drew scrutiny. Experts in accounting said it would be preposterous for such a tiny firm to audit properly an operation the size of Madoff's. He had served as Madoff's auditor from 1991 through 2008 while he worked at the sole practitioner at Friehling & Horowitz. He was paid a tidy sum by Madoff: Prosecutors said he made between $12,000 and $14,500 a month from 2004 to 2007, or $144,000 to $174,000 a year. Friehling faces up to 105 years in prison if he is convicted. He is charged with securities fraud, aiding and abetting investment adviser fraud and four counts of filing false audit reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Friehling's lawyer, Andrew Lankler, did not immediately return a phone call Wednesday. Acting U.S. Attorney Lev L. Dassin said in a release that Friehling is not charged with knowing about Madoff's Ponzi scheme _ early investors being paid with money raised from new investors. However, Dassin said: "Mr. Friehling's deception helped foster the illusion that Mr. Madoff legitimately invested his clients' money." Madoff, 70, pleaded guilty to securities fraud, perjury and other charges on Thursday and was immediately sent to prison to await a June sentencing, when he faces up to 150 years in prison. During his plea, Madoff said he began a Ponzi scheme in the 1990s in response to the pain of a recession, thinking it would be a shortlived solution. He said he never recovered, though, and knew prison awaited him. As recently as November, Madoff notified investors that they had about $65 billion in their accounts. Investigators say they have recovered only about $1 billion. Prosecutors have said they believe Madoff's fraud started in the 1980s. More on Bernard Madoff
 
Bradley Burston: The Racist Israeli Fascist in Me Top
Originally published on haaretz.com LOS ANGELES - I was determined to duck it. I was resolved to fly to the States, speak about the situation in Israel, and reply with nothing more than a half-smile and a "next question, please," to the well-read and otherwise openhearted people who ask questions of the tenor of "Between you and me, what is wrong with these people, your friends, the Israelis?" Subtextual Translation of the question: What is with these blights on the backside of humanity? A vast war machine pretending to be a tiny country, a mobilized citizenry sterilized of morality, drained of compassion, bereft of conscience, bestial in war, imperial in ambition, Goliathized in its marriage of high tech and high explosive; incorrigibly bigoted bullying simpletons, little more than racists who vote for racists, fascists who fall for fascists, an embarrassment to the West, an embarrassment to the Jews, an embarrassment, at root, to the progressive individual who asks the question. I was all set to say nothing. On the plane coming over, however, I read an essay about Israel and Israelis that changed my mind. I have the extraordinary novelist Anne Roiphe to thank for writing the piece, which made my blood boil, and, in the process, forced me to say what I honestly thought. Ms. Roiphe, it must be said, is a compelling, wonderfully compassionate writer, who clearly cares about Israelis and knows just about everything about them, except for the first, most basic thing. "I couldn't feel worse," Ms. Roiphe begins her Jerusalem Report essay about the recent Israeli election, and especially about the Israeli Jews who voted for Avigdor Lieberman, whom she accurately terms dangerously demagogic and deeply unkind. "I feel as if my spouse had cheated on me with Mussolini." Perhaps as a consequence, it develops that Ms. Roiphe has begun to see Israel, and Israelis, with the kind of tunnel vision that allows no light at its end. She suggests that the import of the election was a vote against peace. "I would call it pathological that Israel is listening to leaders who don't understand that the entire West Bank cannot belong to Israel without making it a pariah nation, without violating the spirit of the Torah, and the scared memory of the Jewish people." With a smirk and a slap, she lets us know that she gets us. "I understand peace has been so long in coming and that Palestinians have done stupid things: electing Hamas, tossing rockets into Israel, mocking those of us who thought that leaving Gaza might be a fine first step. I understand the despair and the frustration and the need to jump around waving one's sword in the air, slicing up whatever clouds appear in the sky." May Ms. Roiphe pardon me, but she does not understand. I'm not sure that, at a distance of thousands of miles, anyone could. Examine the results of the election closely, and you'll find that a clear majority voted for parties who have gone on record as favoring an eventual Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and less than six percent voted for parties who categorically reject that solution. What, then, explains the incomprehensible behavior of these people, my friends? What common denominator, other than evil intention, can explain the continued occupation of the West Bank, the risk of demographic disaster, the ill-understood rage of a people ostensibly the perpetrator and not the victim of wrongdoing. You won't like the answer. But in all the blindingly complex bazaar of the Middle East equation, it really comes down to one word: rockets. It was Saddam Hussein's rockets in 1991 that got us into this peace process, and it is Palestinian rockets right now, day after day after day, that sent that peace to its grave and which cover it with a little more silt and rubble every few hours. It was fundamentally rockets and not racism that put Avigdor Lieberman where he is today. And it is rockets, more than any other single factor, that explains what happened to the Israeli left, to Meretz, and, in particular, to the Labor Party. When Saddam Hussein fired 39 ballistic missiles into Tel Aviv, Haifa and Dimona, he radically changed the way Israelis viewed the importance of holding on to the territories. Overnight the threat was coming from 1,500 kilometers away, so what good was it to hang onto and permanently settle the hills of Samaria in the West Bank, or the sand dunes of northern Gaza? It was this, as much as any other factor, that paved the way for the opening of what we've come to know as the peace process, beginning at the Madrid conference in 1991. In 2005, less than a day after Israeli forces removed every last Jew from Gaza, Palestinians set up rocket launchers on the ruins of settlements that had been just been evacuated. They took aim not only at Sderot, but at some of the very kibbutzim who had most strongly championed the cause of an independent Palestine alongside Israel. This act, and the thousands of rockets that followed, utterly changed Israelis again. It put a sudden end to the idea of land for peace, because no one, even some of the most ardent advocates of Palestinian statehood in the West Bank, was about to agree to leave Ben-Gurion airport, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem within range of the rockets. Suddenly there was a consensus again. And the peace process, the peace movement, and with it Labor and Meretz, were kicked to the curb. Ten years ago, Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah in Lebanon, electrified radical Islam and particularly the Palestinians, when he said that Israel was as fearsome and as fragile as a spider's web. Push Israel with suicide terrorists, he indicated, and the whole web will tear and collapse. It didn't work. Suicide terror, in fact, acted to strengthen and unify Israel. In the eyes of the post-9/11 world, suicide terror changed Israelis from villains to victims, and Palestinians from an image of the valiant David to a creepy, loathsome version of Goliath. Now, however, Hamas is beginning to see something else. At this point, the best way to destroy Israel, is to leave it exactly as it is. Titrate, adjust the flow of rockets fired at Israeli civilians to a level which is thoroughly acceptable to the rest of the world, but which is also entirely unbearable to Israelis. Then, sit back and watch demographics and despair work their magic. No wonder Hamas officials who are seen as moderates urge a 50-year truce. By that time, Israeli Arabs will be able to simply vote the Jewish state off the map. A clear majority of Israeli Jews know this as well. But I have yet to meet one Israeli, Meretz voters included, who is willing to hand over the West Bank while Ashkelon is even now in the gunners' sights, and rockets fly unabated. I have long believed that in terms of their destructive effects on peace prospects, the settlements are the Qassams of the Jews. What I failed to recognize at first, was that the effect of Qassams is to enshrine West Bank settlements, and, more than any other single factor, protect them from eviction. In the main, the world has no idea -- nor does it particularly care -- that when a rocket up to nine feet long flies up to 25 miles traveling at half a mile per second and lands with up to 44 pounds of explosives packed into its warhead -- the human consequence could easily be carnage. As far as the world knows, that rocket will fall without a sound. A house may be destroyed, childrens' nerves shot to shreds, perhaps for life. Entire communities, whole cities, suffer from post-traumatic stress. But unless 10 Israelis are killed, or 20, that rocket never existed. 10,000 rockets, fired at civilian areas, unprotected by anything -- I am truly ashamed to acknowledge -- other than miracles. It is these miracles, these barely averted catastrophes, literally thousands of them, which have become the central fact of Israeli life. That, and an anger which no one outside Israel can know or fully comprehend, an aching, soul-deep frustration, an always humming fear, a sickness and fever over the nearness of true disaster, as well as a sense of abandonment by those abroad who cannot be expected to know what these people, my friends, are going through or why. It is not the world's fault if it believes that Israelis do not have a right to their anger. The world is really not at all to blame if it prefers to view Israelis as ferocious without provocation, hateful without just cause. The world only knows what we in the media choose to reveal. For a decade, we have dismissed the rockets as little more than toylike, backroom-cobbled nuisances, convenient pretexts for military onslaughts by Israeli politicians keen to evade graft raps. The fact, however, remains. Day in and day out, Palestinian rockets target and, at times, demolish, homes, day care centers, health clinics, synagogues, kibbutz dining halls, town squares, factories, elementary schools, high schools, apartment houses. For years now, by some miracle, an enormous number of Israeli lives have been spared. These are people trying to live their everyday lives under fire, and who have no other defense, no protection whatsoever, except the intercession of some form or another of poorly understood providence. On the weekend that Ms. Roiphe's article appeared, I wonder how many of her fellow New Yorkers heard at all that a Katyusha rocket had crashed into a empty schoolroom in Ashkelon, close to where worshippers were gathered in a synagogue, and, soon thereafter, another landed 600 feet from that city's Barzilai Hospital and its thousands of patients and staff. No one killed = Nothing happened. The world long ago grew tired of its Israelis and their whining. The world could not care a whit less about the miracles that save them. The world has even had time to grow tired of its Palestinians as well. But the world should know this: No matter how progressive the government in Israel, no matter how grave the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza, without an end to the rockets, there will be no peace process and certainly no peace. While the rockets are flying, nothing else moves. Nothing that Israel has tried, neither diplomacy nor brutality, has been able to stop the rockets. Only Hamas can do that. The world and Washington could have made the rockets a priority years ago, and perhaps brought this to resolution. But the world has other things to think about, and Washington as well. Back in New York, Anne Roiphe seems to have given up on her brethren in Israel. "Under the present conditions, it is vitally important that American Jews, liberal, decent, democratic, continue to play a major role. We may have to be the ones to carry the Jewish nation forward, in all its intelligent moral purposes." I wish a had as much faith as she in her fellow American Jews, my direct people of origin. As it is, I have next to nothing in common with my direct neighbors, Russian Jewish immigrants to Israel, other than the fact that, in a sense, I am one of them. I guess destiny will out. Had my family stayed in Russia before the war and not emigrated to Los Angeles, had they survived the Holocaust and Stalin, had I been one of the million former Soviet Jews who moved to Israel 20 years ago, I might well have found myself a proud voter for Avigdor Lieberman, angry with my fellow Israelis who disdain me as non-Israeli, angrier with the Arabs that toss rockets, furious with Israeli Arabs who support the tossing of rockets, and finally, contemptuous of -- even as I uselessly blare my loyalty to -- a place which is contemptuous of me. Ours are dreadful times. Ours are ugly choices. You want to see peace, Ms. Roiphe? Pray for a miracle. But more so, pray for the event that no one expects, the shocking occurrence that no one could have foreseen -- a journey by Benjamin Netanyahu or Avigdor Lieberman that resembles those of the ultra-hawks who shocked their own peoples with jolts toward peace, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon -- the event that jars everyone from their accustomed outlook and despair, and forces them to reconsider the possibility that the humans of the Holy Land might still someday have a common future. More on Palestinian Territories
 
James Moore: The Death of a Brand Top
There is an old saw in marketing and public relations that if you don't quickly brand your company's products and services the public will brand them for you. Whether that brand ends up being good or bad becomes secondary to the fact that you are not likely to ever get out from under the image the marketplace has provided. The new adage we are likely to see adopted will say something along the lines of, "When the president of the United States starts bad mouthing your brand, it's not going to survive." AIG's predicament will be studied for years to come in marketing and communications classes. When the company decided to pay out millions of dollars in retention bonuses after seeking billions in bailouts from taxpayers, there was probably nothing the greatest crisis communications expert in history might have ever done to manage the situation. AIG's first step was to insist that it had contractual obligations to pay and this is factually correct. The company had signed deals to keep critical employees in the competitive financial products division. However, the people getting these bonuses are precisely the same individuals who created the nonsensical derivatives that turned America's economy into a stick of butter in a microwave. If you were consulting the company and were sitting in some of those meetings after the public had learned of the bonuses, what might have been your advice? According to most reports, the checks have all been delivered, even to several people who had already left AIG. The source of the company's money, even though it came from taxpayers, seems to be irrelevant to the legal obligation to pay the derivatives traders. AIG executives had a choice to violate a contract and not pay or to anger the taxpayers who had just given the company a hand. Had they refused to pay they were almost certain to have lost every court case filed against them for contract violations. The morally correct decision would have been to not pay and then consult with legal advisors for the company and immediately begin discussions with Washington. There may have been job performance language that would have enabled a refusal to pay based upon the failed derivatives markets. Unfortunately, no one had the foresight to make those choices and now the company is faced with a firing squad on the left and a gallows on the right. There is nowhere to turn that does not suggest an ugly fate. There's no spin to be spun. There is talk in Washington of designing a tax that speaks directly to the bonus structures of these traders in an attempt to return the money to taxpayers through a circuitous route. In one of the bailout bills coming out of the capitol, there was also an amendment that would have prohibited the paying of these bonuses or at least would have taxed them at a level that net profits to the failed derivative traders would have been minimized. The amendment was mysteriously stripped from the bill so nothing has happened preventively, and AIG is doomed. There is, quite frankly, nothing a crisis communications expert can do to mitigate AIG's situation, which is why you have seen the company and its executives remain decidedly silent. First, they run what amounts to one of the world's greatest financial scams and help send the U.S. economy into a state of collapse and then they ask taxpayers to save their company because it is so important to America and the world that it can't be allowed to die and then they use that bailout money to provide bonuses to the precise individuals who drove the company and the country off a cliff. How can that be fixed, either in reality or perception? It can't. No matter what a communications expert advises an AIG executive to say, it is too late; actions have outstripped any ability to undo harm. Anything anyone says will be a bit like what Texans describe as "puttin' earrings on a hawg; there's some ugliness there ya just can't hide." Consequently, AIG is dead. The company may continue to exist in some form but the brand must disappear. AIG is a brand that will forever belong to the company that screwed up the economy and then used taxpayer money to give bonuses to the screw ups. That is their brand through eternity. They will never get out from under that nor will they recover from a president saying bad things about their decisions. RIP AIG. Also at http://www.moorethink.com
 
AIG Anticipated Major Losses And Rigged Bonuses: Frank Top
The contracts that AIG executives have cited as justification for bonus payments insured that they would receive the money regardless of massive losses. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who read from the contracts in question at a hearing of a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee Wednesday, suggested AIG executives structured the contracts in such a way in anticipation of dramatic losses. Frank, chairman of the committee, also said that if AIG CEO Edward Liddy did not provide the names of the recipients of the bonuses, he would subpoena them. He suggested the federal government file suit to reclaim the bonuses, arguing that they are illegitimate since the company performed so poorly. "I looked at the contract that's being invoked as unassailable," said Frank, "and here's what it says: The bonus pool for any compensation year, beginning with the 2008 compensation year, will be effected by the incurrence of any realized losses arising from any source subject to the limitations set forth in section 3.07. And section 3.07 says, Notwithstanding any other provision of the plan for any compensation year beginning with 2008, there shall be a 67.5 million dollar limit per year on the extent to which the pool can be reduced. Frank went on to read a passage that insured that even if AIG lost tens of billions of dollars, those responsible would still be rewarded. "What it says is," said Frank, "if the losses in the year exceed 225 million dollars, then that loss above 225 million is irrelevant to reducing the bonus pool. Two hundred and twenty-five million turned out to be a rounding error in their losses." Frank translated the language. "It means that if in fact they have a net loss for the year, they still get the bonuses. This is the problem. This is the problem with the contracts," he said. "So they give themselves contracts that effectively insulate them from losses." The structure of the contracts, Frank said, suggests that AIG executives anticipated major losses, yet sought to protect their compensation. Such contracts could be susceptible to a court challenge brought by the federal government as the owner of the company. "I do believe that it is time for us to assert our ownership rights under this arrangement," he said. "That may be a controversial lawsuit, but it's a better one than trying to interfere under our regulatory authority."
 
Bethenny Frankel: Celebrity Apprentice Top
I have to begin by saying "I love it!" That isn't easy because it really is the Acela of train wreck television. Having been on the Martha Stewart Apprentice , I understand the game. Unlike the celebrities, though, we were sequestered for 2 months with no phone, TV, newspapers, credit cards and we had to sleep in the same loft. What is amazing is that the 16 candidates I was with had no television or entertainment industry experience, and they didn't come off nearly as horrendous as a group as this one does. I'm fairly certain that Andrew Dice Clay is missing a brain. He has absolutely no clue what is going on around him and absolutely no business sense. It's no wonder that he single-handedly ruined his career using profanity and cursing on live television, not once but twice. In other head injury news, Dennis Rodman had no interest in improving upon his beyond tarnished image, so he acted as if he were Madonna, the pop tart he briefly dated. The constant pissing contest over who was more famous was completely absurd and made it crystal clear as to why they're all on the has-been Apprentice . As much as I would love to get back in that Apprentice ring, I think if I were asked, I'd know that my career had come to a screeching halt. Annie Duke seems to have the right content, but her delivery is way too abrasive. Trump had it right that she chews up men and spits them out, so she has that fighting way out of the game. I do, however, think she has a strong mind, and if used properly, she could be a good contestant. She may however implode like a 70's Vegas casino. I did understand her wanting to know how much the men would pay for a whole tray of cupcakes. Luckily it was 9k. Had it been 900 dollars, there would be a problem. Brande Roderick was refreshing. Kudos to Burnett for choosing and showing a seemingly intelligent playmate. On the other hand, the beautiful black "deal or no deal" girl said in the board room "grown ass woman." Now there's a Rhodes scholar for you. She was belligerent. Not a fan. Big deal. Someone wanted to show you how to ice a cupcake. I like Annie's thorough nature, plus giving a mistake cupcake for a taste test was idiotic. Had the men's cupcakes not been sweetened with salt, this could have gone the other way. Brian McKnight won't be there for long. He sealed his fate by saying he wants to avoid the bulls-eye. Trump hates an under the radar contestant. Jesse James seems like he has inhaled too much bike paint. This just isn't who I'd see one of America's highest paid actresses married to. He's the Spiccoli of the group. Scott Hamilton simply seems soft. They'll chew him up although he really is sweet. Take a position babe. Herschel is good. He owns it. He's strong. I'm not sure he's the brightest bulb on the tree, but I like his passion. Khloe Kardashian is a non-event so far. Maybe she's being smart, watching the game and will come guns blazing. My gut is she'll go somewhere in the middle. Who knew Joan was so sweet and had such a nice heart. I love her for doing this. Her daughter also seems like a smart cookie. I think they'll both go for the long haul. There is also a not so memorable golf pro that screwed up the cupcakes, and the adorable and seemingly bright and calm Tom Green. I now have a crush on him. Clint Black is quiet but could be intelligent-no way to tell yet. This 15-car pile-up is one that I won't stop watching any time soon. Least Surprising: that Donny Deutsch managed to get his name mentioned 3 times to promote his off-the-air talk show.
 
Jeff Zucker Defends CNBC, Jim Cramer Top
NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker leapt to the defense of CNBC this morning, describing Comedy Central host Jon Stewart's evisceration of the network and Mad Money host Jim Cramer as "incredibly unfair to CNBC and the business media." "CNBC is a spectacular organization and in particular Jim Cramer," he said. More on Jim Cramer
 
Soldier Field To Host Two Pro Lacrosse Games, First Time Game To Be Played At Stadium Top
For the first time ever, lacrosse will be played at Chicago's historic Soldier Field. The Chicago Machine and the Chicago Park District announced Tuesday that the professional lacrosse team will play two home games at Soldier Field ... More on Sports
 
Livechat With CNN's Jack Cafferty, Today At 2PM ET Top
Since 2005, Jack Cafferty has stalked CNN's Situation Room, giving voice to the emails of CNN viewers, articulating his own outrages, and generally making Wolf Blitzer sweat. Along the way, he's racked up some impressive accomplishments in a two decades-and-counting-career, including an Edward R. Murrow Award, an Emmy, and a New York Associated Press State Broadcasters Award. Cafferty is also the author of two books, 2007's It's Getting Ugly Out There: The Frauds, Bunglers, Liars, and Losers Who Are Hurting America and his latest, Now or Never: Getting Down to the Business of Saving Our American Dream , in which he challenges the Obama administration to deliver some "change we will believe in when we see it." Today, we are very pleased that the award-winning newsman will be joining the Huffington Post community for a live chat. This will be different from a "Twitterview," in that it will be "comprehensible." Also, it will be you, the Huff Post reader, that will get to ask Cafferty questions! So please join us today at 2pm for our livechat. Can't make it at 2 but still want to ask Cafferty a question? No problem: just email me your name, city, and question, and we'll do our best to pose it for you ! PREVIOUSLY, on the HUFFINGTON POST: from 2007: Jack Cafferty LiveChat: Getting "Ugly" on Hillary, Petraeus, Bush's Lies, Ineffectual Dems, and More [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] More on CNN
 
Lawrence O'Donnell: Ron Silver: A Great Friend, A Great Actor Top
The thing about Ron, the overwhelming thing, was the energy. I have never known anyone who could match Ron's energy. I never argued with him--I really only argue for money on TV--because I knew he could knock me over with the force of his energy before mounting his attack on my logic. I'll miss the energy almost as much as his artistry. I used Ron when I met him. He was in the middle of his Tony Award winning run in Speed The Plow . He was at the best table at Orso, and I was at the second best. He smiled, got up and approached. I knew why. My table mates were my boss, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and his wife Liz. Ron got to meet the senator and I got to hit Ron up for tickets to the hottest show in town. Little did I know that twenty years of friendship with a great pal and an astonishing actor were to follow. I'm one of the lucky ones who got to work with Ron. The West Wing was the perfect place for us to join forces professionally--a political operative got to write a political show and a political activist got to play a political operative. He had a great run of episodes, including an Emmy nomination, leading up to President Bartlet's reelection. Then there wasn't anything for his campaign consultant character to do for a few years of the show. I was always looking for ways to bring Ron back, mostly because I just missed him and knew we would have a great time together on the set. When we started the final presidential campaign of the series, I wrote Ron back into the show and had him change parties--no stretch there--so he could work with Alan Alda. Between takes, Ron poured his energy into laughing with Alan, and when action was called watching those two masters work was thrilling. In the last two difficult years of his life, the energy was still there even as the voice was getting weaker. When I joined him as a guest on his radio show, I marveled at his strength, his bravery, his nobility in the face of an enemy that was trying to take away his energy. I wouldn't attempt to host a radio show if I had a headache and here Ron was doing it with cancer and an attitude that very clearly said, yeah, cancer, so what? Every time I saw him in the last two years, I thought it might be the last time, but we always had a plan to see each other again--see you at the White House Correspondents Dinner, see you in Denver, see you--and he always showed up. And, as Alan Alda told me on Sunday, he stayed funny til the end.
 
Stroger Plans Cook County Hiring Freeze Top
Cook County Board President Todd Stroger on Tuesday said he plans to issue an executive order next month calling for a countywide hiring freeze.
 
ZP Heller: The Sex Appeal of Congressional Oversight Hearings Top
Where is the public outcry for congressional oversight hearings on the war in Afghanistan? Granted, the words "congressional oversight hearings" aren't particularly sexy--certainly not as alluring as "shock and awe," "insurgency," "counterinsirgency," "airstrikes," and "Hellfire missiles." But one thing that is always sexy is power, and Congress has the power to prevent these airstrikes and missiles from killing thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, thereby removing some of the hostility toward our country and reasons for joining the Taliban's insurgency. As Tom Hayden wrote his week , Congress has the power to bring in experts to examine the overall goals for this war; costs and budgeting; skyrocketing casualty rates; use of private contractors; human rights violations and torture. If that kind of power isn't sexy, I don't know what is, but the fact of the matter is Congress won't call for oversight hearings until we make them . Now there are some true leaders in Congress who have already shown a willingness to oppose the Obama administration, the Pentagon, and a corporate press that has remained largely uncritical of the administration's plans for military escalation. Senator Bernie Sanders is one of those leaders. Though he doesn't approve of President Obama's decision to send an additional 17,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, here's how he tactfully voiced his dissent: The last thing in the world that I want to see is our new President -- who I have a lot of confidence in in many respects -- we don't want to see him bogged down the way LBJ was bogged down in Vietnam. We don't want to see another war in Iraq, which was so disastrous in so many respects. Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation's Editor-in-Chief and a Get Afghanistan Right supporter, echoed this admonishment to avoid history repeating in her recent piece on oversight hearings. "President Obama repeatedly said during his campaign," vanden Heuvel wrote, "that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We can't afford to repeat the mistake of blind escalation in Afghanistan as we did in Iraq and Vietnam." Vanden Heuvel mentioned other critical congressional leaders like Senator Russ Feingold, who has been as outspoken as Sanders on the war, if not more so. In addition, Peace Action and 16 organizations got eight members of Congress to sign a letter to the President, claiming escalation will be counterproductive to achieving stability to Afghanistan. While this is certainly noteworthy considering the dearth of vocal congressional opposition to Obama's call for escalation, we don't need to wait around for the president to read a letter in the hopes of changing his mind. We have the ability to make the Obama administration and military leaders inform us of every single detail of their plans for Afghanistan. We have the ability to tell Congress to exercise their power, hold oversight hearings, compel our policymakers and military leaders to explain exactly what our military is after and what they hope to achieve in a war that is killing thousands and costing upwards of $1 trillion by the end of Obama's first term. That is our power over our elected leaders in Congress , tell me it's not sexy. More on Barack Obama
 
Jail Economy: Marijuana Worth 10 Times As Much Top
The laws of supply and demand in the jail have made marijuana an especially precious commodity that is often measured in the caps of toothpaste tubes.
 
Offensive Obama Ad Of The Day (PIC) Top
Ads of the World found this crazy advertisement for Duet Ice Cream made by Russian agency Voskhod. It promises a new flavor of the week: "Black in White" and has a pictures of cartoon Obama standing in front of the White House grinning wildly. This, of course, is an ad for an ice cream bar that swirls chocolate inside of vanilla. The only way this could be more offensive would have involved some cartoon nudity and a cartoon white lady. Not to be outdone, the ice cream packaging itself does hint at that with a a female white head with a pink bow atop it next to a slick looking cartoon black head with sunglasses. It's not only disturbing that they portrayed our president this way, but that they got our flag so egregiously wrong. This isn't the first instance of oversees advertising insensitivity. The Germans released 'Obama Fingers' recently--fried chicken bearing a black man's name. And Japan compared Obama to a monkey in this bizarre cell phone ad. Of course, some of this has to do with cultural misunderstanding. We have no idea if German's are aware of the stereotype involving African-Americans and fried chicken, but to compare an historic movement to a normal ice cream pairing is certainly belittling. We don't use the Russians to sell anything but fall-out shelters in this country. (via Copyranter) More on Advertising
 

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)