Sunday, March 29, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Aubrey Sarvis: Time for Courage and Leadership, Mr. President Top
Put yourself back in the Sixties, aging boomers, and you kids listen up, too. Remember Pete Seeger's famous song, "Where have all the flowers gone?" You boomers may even have sung it a few times. Now flash forward four decades. We're going to adapt the lyrics to fit the new circumstances. It's spring and we know where the flowers are. Today the question is, where have all the leaders gone? Yes, yes, we all know the frighteningly serious threats we face -- to our national security, to our financial security, to our future. There's no need to list them but there is a pressing need to do something about them, and to do something about them requires what I've been writing about for weeks now: leadership, my friends, leadership. We can argue about whether our leaders are going the right way or the wrong way in Iraq and Afghanistan, in rescuing the American economy which is no longer ours alone but global, and in any number of other fronts. But we cannot argue that we're not going anywhere -- except on one front. Where is the leadership on repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell? This morning Defense Secretary Gates was asked about repeal on Fox News Sunday . He said what no one would deny, that "we have a lot on our plates right now." But he went on. "Let's push that one down the road a bit." We've been pushing Don't Ask, Don't Tell "down the road a bit" for almost 16 years! Sixteen years! Ever since Congress passed the miserable law in response to President Clinton's efforts to open military service to all qualified men and women regardless of sexual orientation. (The idea was to teach Clinton a lesson and show him who's boss, which at that time was not one boss but several: the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff whose chairman was Colin Powell, and Senator Samm Nunn and other members of both houses of Congress who fretted about "tight quarters" on submarines.) But when the American people elected Barack Obama last November, we thought all that would soon be behind us. No more "let's push that one down the road a bit." It's right there on the White House web site clear as spring water and it's worth quoting in its entirety: " Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell [boldface theirs]: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals." You can't get much more clear than that. So why isn't the administration doing it? What's going on here? Did I see the secretary sending up a trial balloon this morning? Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is not rocket science. It doesn't require a Nobel Prize-winning economist who can disentangle all those numbers and come up with the right workable plan that even non-economists can understand with a little effort. It doesn't require a brilliant geo-strategist like Admiral Mahan who changed the course of modern warfare. No, what repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell requires is very simple but seems to be in short supply, as David Rothkopf writes in Sunday's Washington Post. It requires leadership. No punts, no waffling: just straightforward repeal language in Obama's Defense Department budget -- as in H.R. 1283, as in the statement on the White House web site -- declaring the administration's opposition to this counterproductive, expensive, discriminatory law which is wrong on every front and a failure besides. Anyone who thinks gay men and women aren't serving in the military now, today, is living on another planet. The American people are solidly behind repeal. Most service members don't care who is serving next to them, just that they be able to do their jobs well. The Congress, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, and White House know this. What are they afraid of? Why don't they show some spine and act like serious men and women? Surely the answer cannot be that they don't have spine, that they're just blowing whichever way the wind is blowing that day, that they're not serious. But if that's the wrong answer, please President Obama, Secretary Gates, and Admiral Mullen, please tell us what the correct answer is. Because right now a lot of people are confused as to where this administration really stands on repeal. This does not send reassuring signals about the president's ability to deal with the really serious problems that we face. And Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a serious problem, especially to the thousands of service members who must pretend to be something they're not if they want to keep their jobs, to the thousands of often highly skilled men and women who have been discharged when they would rather have continued to serve, and to the military readiness of the United States which is directly and adversely affected by this law. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a wrong that can be made right. Just say what you said in your campaign, Mr. Obama, and what's on your White House web site. Do what you said you'd do. Keep your word.
 
Scott Mendelson: Mother behind Megan's Law speaks out against branding 'sexting' children as child pornographers Top
The current insane trend of charging young people (usually girls) with various forms of child pornography for posting or texting sexual images of themselves has reached such a nadir that the very woman who brought about Megan's Law (which forces convicted sex offenders to register their address with the state every ninety days) is now against it. The case that has caused such outcry involves a fourteen-year old girl who is being charged with 'distribution of child pornography' for posting 30 explicit images of herself on My Space. Quoted from The Associated Press - Maureen Kanka -- whose daughter, Megan, became the law's namesake after she was raped and killed at age 7 in 1994 by a twice-convicted sex offender -- blasted authorities for charging the 14-year-old girl. The teen needs help, not legal trouble, she said. "This shouldn't fall under Megan's Law in any way, shape or form. She should have an intervention and counseling, because the only person she exploited was herself." If convicted, the unlucky teenager could face seventeen years in jail and/or be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life. Yeah, that'll teach her. I wrote about this just over a month ago. I'll say now what I said then. Here's the simple version of why this is stupid beyond belief. I have a 19-month old daughter. I certainly would prefer she not send sexually explicit photos of herself to her boyfriend (or to a social networking site) when she's fourteen. But, I'm far more afraid of her being branded as a sex offender, with all the goodies that go along with that (having to register, being forced to live in designated areas, being stigmatized, basically being removed from the fabric of society) for engaging in said adolescent sexual misbehavior. And going after kids for being dumb kids in the name of protecting kids is the pinnacle of illogical. I've never been a fan of Megan's Law. I feel that it amounts to punishment after incarceration and it makes it almost impossible for a convicted sex offender to make any kind of fresh start (thus make recidivism more likely, in my opinion). But it's nice to know that even Maureen Kanka knows that there should be a line between actual sex crime and juvenile misbehavior. As a father, things like this and that Connecticut school that just outlawed touching between students terrify me far more than peer pressure, drugs, or teen bullying. I can do all I can to teach my child to deal with irrational children, but what the hell do I tell them about dealing with irrational, authoritarian adults who can wreck their lives without a second thought? Scott Mendelson
 
Fake Financial Times Handed Out By G-20 Activists Spoofs Recession Reporting Top
Has The Onion's radical cousin sprouted in London? On Friday, less than a week before the Group of 20 meeting, anti-capitalist protesters in London handed out thousands of copies of a spoof version of the Financial Times newspaper.
 
Ralph Dittman: Texans Fight to Keep All Forms of Stem Cell Research Top
Just when President Obama is attempting to open the federal door on all forms of stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cells (hESC), Texas right wing fundamentalists are trying to close the state door, specifically on hESC. The Texas Legislature meets every other year for exactly 140 calendar days. The 81st Texas Legislature opened its doors for business on January 13. Traditionally, a major consideration of the Senate Finance Committee is the state budget, referred to as Senate Bill 1 (SB 1). This year proved a little different than previous sessions. From out of nowhere, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, introduced a rider amendment (rider) to SB 1. The wording on the rider is blunt and to the point: "No funds appropriated under this Act shall be used in conjunction with or to support any activity whatsoever, including research, which involves the destruction of a human embryo." Sound familiar? It's the same fishy odor as that of the Dickey Amendment at the federal level. Only now, it's wrapped in state paper. The effect of the rider would be to forbid using state money for responsible medical research using embryonic stem cells derived from fertilized eggs destined to be discarded by IVF clinics. The rider would also ban embryonic stem cell research allowed by President Bush's executive order at public universities and other institutions in Texas. To make "double-dog" sure (remember, this is good ole boy legislation, involving backstabbing and intrigue. Right, Senator Nelson?) that he could do all he could to torpedo Texas hESC research, Senator Ogden, along with Senator Dan Patrick, introduced SB 1695: "A person may not use state money or a facility owned, leased, or managed by a state agency, department or office for research involving the destruction of human embryos, including embryonic stem cell research, or to support research involving the destruction of human embryos." The SB is more broadly written than the rider. The SB would unequivocally end all embryonic stem cell research, along with any in-vitro fertilization (IVF) research in any of the laboratories of our state. Even private institutions like Baylor College of Medicine would be affected because they receive state funding. A recent national poll showed that over 60% of America supports hESC research. A Texas poll showed 55% in favor. We have just swept out the federal theocrats that spent the last eight years attacking and stifling hESC. Have we come this far in freeing up this essential form of research only to be confronted by attempts to impose these same crippling prohibitions at the state level? Beware America : Texas is just the beginning. Any state that hasn't already bolstered its research foundation with pro-hESC legislation will be fighting the same battle as that going on in Texas now. Our goal is to preserve a state research policy that is based on logic, principle, and the scientific method rather than our opposition's policy which is polluted by the fundamentalists' twisted interpretations of the same witch-hunt doctrines that put Copernicus on trial, endorsed the Inquisition, and launched the Crusades. The world is not flat and we are not at the center of the universe. Even if we lose the battle here in Texas, perhaps we have given the rest of America a little time to prepare for the state-to-state skirmishes about to break out across the nation's legislatures. Footnote for my neighbor Rev. Dr. Ed Young and my state senator Dan Patrick: God is on our side, the side of real people, not little balls of cells which have been barred from ever entering a uterus and which, by any ontological definition, are not people. In the Scriptures, Jesus spends at least a third of his ministry making the crippled walk and the blind see. Already, there is an FDA-approved study to utilize precursor embryonic derived stem cells (derived using excess IVF embryos) to repair human spinal cord injury. Is that the legacy you want to leave, Dan? That you were the champion of a ball of cells no bigger than the eye of a needle? I'll take the role of champion to that GI who can't walk because of the shrapnel he took in his spine while protecting you and me. I think God would rather have that GI walk again, and has given me the intelligence to pursue embryonic stem cell related research to try to accomplish that goal. And I don't think God wants to waste those IVF embryos just washed down the drain as medical waste. I think God wants them used for the many, many cures they can provide. No scriptural passage gives you the right to deny the rewards that this essential research promises to literally hundreds of millions of otherwise hopeless real people. Dr. Young, when does ensoulment occur? You must think it occurs at conception. But that's just a modern concept flawed in many respects. I contend that ensoulment doesn't take place until after day 14 of fetal development. Other great religions say that the entire first 40 days is a "period of water" with no ensoulment. Until 1863, the entire Catholic Church believed according to the logic of St Thomas that ensoulment didn't take place until quickening, that's anywhere from 17 to 19 weeks gestation. So what gives either of you the right to superimpose your beliefs over mine and all the Catholic Popes that reigned? What gives you the right to deny the major hope for a cure held by millions of chronically ill people?
 
Paul Abrams: Will 'Trickle Down' Banking Work Better than 'Trickle Down' Economics: Thoughts from a Non-Wall Street CEO Top
("If you owe a bank a small amount of money, the banks owns you. If you owe them a large amount of money, you own the bank".-- The Donald). Last week CNBC's Erin Burnett told us Wall Street CEOs told her that Secretary Geithner seeks their proposals and opinions, demonstrating whose opinions he considers valuable. They, as expected, tell him how to fix them , equating themselves with banking and credit. (Humility does not exactly run rampant on Wall Street). That is not necessarily the best way to fix banking, or the economy, but that is the feedback he is getting--the same self-interest that brought the system crashing down around us. He ought to try talking to some non-Wall Street CEOs. He will get different perspectives. For the last 8 years we had another failed experiment with trickle down economics. The Bush Administration asserted that cutting taxes for the wealthy would result in investment and job growth. [Amazingly, Congressional Republicans now want to double-down on trickle-down]. The result of the Bush experiment was the most anemic recovery in the post-war era. Real median incomes actually fell. Income disparity widened to levels not seen since 1929. One of the many lessons of the Great Depression, that only a strong middle class can sustain prosperity, was lost, victims of the triplet sins of arrogance, ideology and greed. Republicans often argue, erroneously, that the New Deal did not work, and that only World War II got us out of the depression. In "Winning the Economic Argument: Show this Graph to Opponents and Ask them to Explain" (February 19, 2009), and earlier articles ("Wanted: A Good Keynesian. Massive Pubic Investment Will Fix the Economy, October 13, 2008; "McCain's Plan: Not Just Worse Than Alternatives, But the Dumbest Plan Since Putin Reared His Head:, October 16; 2009), I have shown that it was not the New Deal that was inadequate, but Roosevelt's decision to cut back on spending in 1936. Nonetheless, Republicans keep insisting on World War II (massive government spending, tax increases, rationing) that got us out of the Depression, and that the New Deal actually hindered it. Well, for the last 8 years the Republicans had their tax cuts for the wealthy plus war. They coupled trickle down economics with 2 wars ("when you to go war, nothing is as important as cutting taxes"--Tom DeLay). They produced a feeble recovery, enabled only by the extraordinary growth of consumer debt based on the factitious increased value in peoples' homes, making them feel wealthier and providing the opportunity to borrow to purchase big-ticket items. Absent the housing bubble, absent 2 wars, trickle down would not likely have produced any growth at all. Now, with the banking and credit system in turmoil, the proposed solution appears to be 'trickle down' banking: fix the big banks, and the rest of the system will purr. (See, "Son of TARP: Don't Do 'Bad Bank', Do Only 'Good Bank',"February 2, 2009). Doubt it. If it does work, it will not be as efficient or as potent as it could be for a very simple reason: much of the money will go to repair balance sheets, neither loaned nor spent. Consider this: $700B loaned at the old conservative 10:1 ratio, could create $7T in credit. That's $7 Trillion. Compare that to the money going to purchase toxic waste improving the balance sheets and the viability of the big banks, and continuing to shovel money to AIG so it can pay "insurance" to the other financial institutions that own the toxic assets-- but doing nothing other than keeping the big banks afloat. (See, "It's the Liquidity Stupid: Why Not Put the $700B into Good Banks?", September 24,2008--note date of this article!). When I mentioned this to a former (elder) Bush senior economic advisor at the recent Stanford (Institute of Economic Policy Research) Summit, he countered with the example of Lehman Brothers' failure. He omitted that, when Lehman failed, there were no alternative sources of credit as proposed in the above paragraph. But, then again, one might expect this of a Bush economic advisor--the economy was not very good under Bush the elder either. Because of AIG's machinations with so-called "insurance" (with flimsy-at-best collateral to back it), many of the big banks have credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities on their balance sheets. We have now learned that AIG is a mere conduit for government bailout money to firms like Goldman Sachs who are seeking the insurance they bought for these troubled assets. Unfortunately, AIG ain't got the dough. AIG should be forced to do what all companies do in such situations--negotiate settlements with its creditors such as Goldman. Remember The Donald's adage (above). Instead of providing government money and guarantees to hedge funds that will supposedly price those assets, put the money to good use on main street through good regional banks (good = no CDS or MBS on the balance sheet), and invite the creation of new banks that will have no bad debts from the past by offering the government to use some TARP money to purchase preferred stock. I would take that offer...and, I would be willing to abide by restrictions on total compensation. If one is building a good, solid, institution for the ages, that would be reward enough. I would call it, "Western Civilization Savings". For good reason. Main street CEOs have a lot more to offer Geithner than their Wall Street brethren. He ought to make the phone calls. More on Financial Crisis
 
The Week Ahead: Can Wall Street Keep Up Its Rally? Top
Whether last week's Wall Street rally can continue largely depends on several job and housing reports released this week and on the details that emerge about Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's bank rescue plan. When Geithner announced the plan on March 26, the S&P leapt 2.3% but many on Wall Street are waiting to get more details, as Business Week reports : But the plan offered few specifics in many of the areas it addressed, from tougher regulation of complex financial derivatives to new rules for money-market funds. And Geithner steered well clear of some of the most contentious questions facing policymakers--the questions that are sure to turn agreement about broad principles into a pitched, possibly months-long political battle that pits financial interests against consumer advocates and one another. "It's like with all these programs--the devil's in the details," said Kevyn Orr, a Jones Day attorney who previously worked for the Resolution Trust Corp. as it cleaned up after the savings and loan crisis in the early 1990s. The partisan bickering, that emerged during the debates over the stimulus package, is sure to continue when the House and Senate consider their budget resolutions, which largely track President Obama's outline. Budget committees in both chambers approved the blueprints on party-line votes last week. And the auto bailout will dominate headlines again, with Obama expected to announce the next steps to help GM and Chrysler on Monday. On Sunday, it was reported that the White House asked GM CEO Rick Wagoner to step down as a precondition for getting more federal aid, in the wake of some criticism that the giant automaker did not do enough to cut costs and slash debt as part of its agreement with the government. Obama's visit to Thursday's G-20 summit in London - where the ripple effects of the global financial crisis will be discussed amid widespread criticism of the American style of capitalism - will surely impact world markets. MarketWatch reports : While not officially on the agenda, some underlying tensions about trade and currencies might come to the fore. The governor of China's central bank on Monday called for a new global reserve currency to replace the dollar. "There are hurdles," said Johnson of Johnson Illington Advisors, "not just with the economic numbers and earnings reports next week, but also with the rhetoric on currencies. There are tensions starting to build over some underlying trade issues." The most-watched economic numbers this week will be the Labor Department's Friday report on how many jobs were lost in February. The Associated Press reports that: The most critical report of the week comes Friday, when economists expect the Labor Department to say that 640,000 jobs were cut last month. The unemployment rate is expected to have risen to 8.4 percent from 8.1 percent in February, according to the consensus of economists polled by Thomson Reuters. Other important numbers are: On Wednesday, the Institute for Supply and Management releases its assessment of the health of the manufacturing and service sectors. And new housing numbers will be released throughout the week: The Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller January index of home prices is due out Monday; the National Association of Realtors releases its pending homes sales index for February on Wednesday; and the Commerce Department releases a report on February construction spending, also on Wednesday. More on Auto Bailout
 
Lionel: Sanity at Long Last! Prostitution Laws Are Un-American. Top
The New York Post today announced the arrest of Sean Delonas for impersonating a cartoonist. That was a joke. What's not a joke was the following: The NYPD quietly shut down its highly successful Vice Squad operations on Craigslist without any explanation to the officers, The Post has learned. The move came after five years of targeting sex-for-cash ads on the site, which led to arrests in all five boroughs, sources said. The Vice Squad Craigslist program was shut down about 18 months ago, sources told The Post . But NYPD spokesman Paul Browne insisted it happened as long as three years ago because a new commanding officer of the squad thought it was "a waste of resources." Before the NYPD shut down the Craigslist vice operations, officers would regularly set up similar illicit meetings with prostitutes, usually in hotel rooms, by responding to ads and arresting all parties involved, the sources said. It was not uncommon for the squads to conduct up to two stings a night when the operation was in full swing. The shutdown came suddenly and with little explanation, the sources said. The New York legislature needs to go one step further and legalize consensual sexual conduct between adults for consideration. It's called dating. Or, as it is commonly referred to in Connecticut, marriage. It is the year 2009, and despite the very serious problems that we as a society face in the form of crime, i.e. actual and not theoretical victimization against the citizenry, we -- no, the government still concerns itself with antediluvian statutes. Using a triage mode, we simply have no time to deal with this nonsense. Please, understand that I and we know that law enforcement personnel are not subject to a veto when it comes to selectively enforcing laws. They do as they're told, as it should be. I wouldn't be surprised if they found it demeaning to avert their attention from real crime with real victims to instead slink around adult video emporia trying to lure hapless gay men just looking to . . . you know. This is the subject of an actual case to be discussed later. The very idea that one cannot sell or negotiate a lease for one's time and body is nothing short of absurd. It's the notion of a woman selling her "self" that cracks me up. The contrived notion of victimization is laughable. With the exception of women forced into white slavery, they know exactly what they're doing. And let's remind ourselves of the obvious; children can never consent and are not part of this discussion. It's nobody's business what a citizen can and cannot negotiate when it comes to their time and talent(s). This is just basic. Whether it's Paris Hilton plying her "celebrity" wares or some attention-starved urchin posting a YouTube clip, fundamental freedom permits and allows our unfettered right to demean ourselves. Finally, it's only sexual intercourse and other versions of enumerated copulation that are verboten. If you get your proverbial rocks off snapping bubble wrap nude and you pay someone to accompany you while doing such, that ain't sex and that ain't prohibited. Even though it is sexually gratifying. Now that's just stupid. It's not sexual excitation for sale that's the problem, it's the enumerated acts that are provided for consideration, that's prostitution and proscribed. And that's just un-American.
 
John L. Esposito: Need for a New Paradigm: Obama and the Muslim World Top
After the decades-long failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, compounded by eight years of George W. Bush policies that alienated Muslims globally, President Barack Obama moved quickly to distance himself from the Bush legacy, declaring: "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." Obama emphasized a readiness "to listen" rather than to dictate and his desire to restore "the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago." But will there be a new paradigm, a significant shift in American foreign policy? Thus far, Obama's track record is mixed. He announced the phased closing of Guantanamo and sent former Senator George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East. However, these decisions were quickly counter-balanced by the administration's response to the firestorm and smear campaign of unsubstantiated accusations in response to the appointment of Chas Freeman, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Assistant Secretary of Defense, to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council. The Israel lobby, including AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and its supporters in Congress viciously attacked the reputation of Freeman, a distinguished former diplomat and sometime strong critic of Israel's policies in Palestine. Leading the attack was Steven Rosen, a former official of AIPAC, recently hired to run the Washington office of Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum. Ironically, Rosen himself is currently under indictment for passing secrets to Israel. Publications such as the National Review , the Wall Street Journal , the Weekly Standard , and the editorial page of the Washington Post and members of Congress followed suit. In the end, Chas Freeman withdrew his nomination. President Obama accepted his resignation, choosing not to fight the media attack; he remained silent as he had done during the Israeli invasion and war in Gaza. These incidents have much broader implications for Obama's credibility in forging his new way forward in relations with the Muslim world. As a presidential candidate, he had distanced himself from the Arab and Muslim community and courted the Israeli lobby in his concern to get the American Jewish vote. While many understood the political necessity of his position in a closely contested election campaign, the critical question today is whether President Obama will now make key decisions without bowing to domestic pressures from the powerful forces of Congressional members, lobbies and interest groups. Will he take the political risk and reverse the historic lack of even-handedness in American foreign policy in the Middle East, reflected most recently in the Bush administration's policies and the undue influence of the Israeli lobby, hard-line Christian Zionists on the White House and Congress and the administration's responses to the Israeli invasions of Lebanon and most recently Gaza? The potential blowback from the war in Gaza cannot be underestimated. While Obama's closing Guantanamo is important, its significance in the Arab and Muslim world is nothing compared to America's policies in Gaza. Gallup Polling (Oct 2008), prior to the Gaza war, found that while closing the Guantanamo detention facility would improve attitudes in the Arab world toward the United States, it did not match the level of support for U.S. pressure on Israel. Respondents rated the Israeli/Palestinian issue more important to perceptions of the U.S. than closing down Guantanamo. Significant numbers of citizens in many Arab countries (such as Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon - all American allies) said their view of the United States would improve "very significantly" by increased U.S. pressure on Israel." President Bush's subsequent uncritical support of Israel in the Gaza war and then presidential candidate Barack Obama silence failed the test. We are quickly approaching a time when President Obama can no longer say that he "inherited" this or that "mess" -- he must lead, given the cards he has, and lead now. The brutality of the war in Gaza, with its disproportionate death toll (1300 Palestinians to 13 Israelis), massive destruction of Gaza's neighborhoods, universities, schools etc. and tragic toll on the lives of innocent women and children, has become a symbol in the Arab and broader Muslim world for America's perceived double standard in the promotion of democracy and human rights. If the Obama administration is to effectively distance itself from the Bush administration, then it will need to "walk the way it talks." Obama's commitment to a "new" policy and "to listen" will require that the US meet, listen and work with all the major players in Palestine, not just Fatah and Israel but also HAMAS, a leadership chosen by the Palestinian in free and fair democratic elections in 2006. Equally important, the Obama administration cannot effectively pursue a new paradigm unless the primary players and regional powers are committed to the need for a new paradigm. The Palestinian leadership, including HAMAS, must make clear and demonstrate that it, too, is ready not only to negotiate for a free and secure Palestinian state but also recognize the existence and security of Israel. Palestinians and the Israelis must be ready to acknowledge that both have legitimate claims, that a military option is no solution and that diplomacy and negotiation are the way forward. Given the current realities, recent Israeli election results and a Netanyahu-Lieberman government, the leadership divisions in Israel and Palestine, and the realities of American politics, the road to peace will be steep and extraordinarily difficult. Senator Mitchell's credibility and effectiveness as a mediator will heavily depend on whether President Barack Obama (and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton) can transcend the fears of most American politicians and the pressure groups that support hard-line Israeli policies. America's policy of "Israeli Exceptionalism," privileging Israeli interests and thus failing to pursue an even-handed policy, would have to be supplanted by a more balanced policy that held Israel to the same standards as other states in the international community, including compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding the return of Palestinian territory taken in the 1967 war and subsequent annexation of land and building of "illegal" settlements. Will Obama rise to the occasion, embarking on a bold new paradigm and policy? Only time will tell. The future direction of the Obama administration remains unclear as does that of the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership. That President Obama has the desire, vision and intelligence to reach out to the broader Muslim world is without doubt. But will he do what no recent American president has done and take the political risk to resist pressures, in the words of Chas Freeman, of "a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government," and its supporters in Congress? Only time will tell.
 
Stanley Kutler: We're Paying Congress for This? Top
We're Paying Congress for This? By Stanley Kutler Great crises and problems often have become the subjects of extensive congressional investigation and oversight. Congress has made prominent inquiries into, for example, the Civil War, the Reconstruction, the "money trust" in the Progressive Era, the banking follies of the 1920s and the Great Depression, the prewar defense preparations at Pearl Harbor, the oversight of military contracts during World War II, the Korean War and the emerging character of Cold War foreign policy during the mid-1950s. Congress' work gave us transparency and usually led to useful, progressive legislation. And now comes Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank's choreographed extravaganza in the House of Representatives, supported by an echoing committee, with sound bites worthy of a night in the Borscht Belt. The ostensible probe of executive bonuses at AIG--forget about any investigation of the company's decisions that so damaged the financial world--offered a painful reminder of Congress' now largely ignored unique power of investigation, derived from its constitutionally sanctioned authority to legislate. True, Congress has abused this power from time to time, but that is no argument against its existence. Rep. Frank provided a perfunctory, carefully staged hearing this month. His fellow committee members had been prepped and primed--seemingly by their press aides rather than by any legal staff. The "hearing" proceeded with hilarity and irony, especially coming from legislators who over the past 20 years had enabled much of the corporate chicanery. The mice that roared eventually produced only a parody of legislation, mercifully about to die. Frank's congressional sideshow made more imperative than ever the need for thorough, uncompromising investigations and hearings on any number of issues that have brought us to the present crisis. When Republicans controlled Congress, they disdained anything that might detract from the doings of a Republican administration or would interfere with their fundraising for the next election. Democratic control has offered little beyond the one-day, made-for-television soap operas of Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Alas, these short showings proved to be only a television pilot, not fit for renewal or continuation. Remember the brief appearance by Monica Goodling, a graduate of Pat Robertson's school of law, who vetted Justice Department appointees for ideological purity during the Bush administration, making certain no elite liberals (or elite anything, it seemed) made the grade? Goodling acknowledged in testimony in 2007 that she had "crossed the line" when she improperly used political considerations to evaluate applicants. But she testified for just one day, and followed her attorney's strategy of running out the clock. Why did the committee fail to follow up? Why do witnesses appear for quick one-offs, offering only a limited opportunity for probing questions? Owen Lattimore probably set the record when he testified for 12 days in 1952, with famed attorneys Thurman Arnold and Abe Fortas providing the best civil liberties that money could buy. Two examples from the not-so-distant past are instructive for what we do not need. Traditional congressional investigations can turn out to be duds--witness the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987. A joint committee conducted aimless, fragmentary proceedings. The senators and representatives vied for precious television exposure. The co-counsels--Arthur Liman for the Senate and John Nields for the House--reflected different cultures and constituencies. Liman was a senior partner in Paul, Weiss, and he had been counsel for the New York state investigation of the 1971 Attica prison riot. Nields had prosecuted Mark Felt for his role in the FBI's illegal break-ins. To watch the committee's proceedings was to view two field generals marching backward, constantly stumbling into each other. Despite their impressive talents, Liman and Nields simply were overwhelmed by the committee's elephantine proportions and its festering internal rivalries. Their task was not helped by President Reagan's "memory lapses"; Vice President George H.W. Bush's insistence he knew nothing; the generally unhelpful testimony by administration officials, some of whom were convicted (and later pardoned by the first President Bush) for unlawfully withholding information from Congress; and by the competing criminal investigation by Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh. Back then, we did not appreciate the doings of Rep. Richard Cheney (R-Wyo.), whose minority report a decade later morphed into disturbing theories of the "unitary executive," with its notions of unbridled executive power. The Senate Select Committee on Campaign Finance in 1973--better known as the Watergate Committee--offered a contrasting image. The seven-man committee was led by Sam Ervin (D-N.C.), highly respected by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle and who, despite a folksy and sometimes bumbling appearance, was a shrewd, savvy man totally in command of the proceedings. He selected Samuel Dash as his chief counsel, and together they worked nearly four months to prepare their inquiry. The first 37 days of the Watergate investigation offers a model for other inquiries. Ervin successfully co-opted ranking Republican committee member Howard Baker (R-Tenn.), while another Republican member, Lowell Weicker (R-Conn.), soon distanced himself from President Nixon's supporters. Dash engaged minority counsel Fred Thompson in what may have been the mismatch of the century. Dash carefully prepared his case, working from the bottom up. He and his staff selectively leaked information, usually to pique public interest. Dash began the public hearings by questioning relatively obscure but important officials, such as the financial officers of Nixon's re-election committee or relatively low-level White House aides. The media predictably criticized him, demanding that Dash instead call Nixon's top aides. He did, but by the time they appeared, Dash had made his case. Our current economic and fiscal crisis deserves serious, thoughtful consideration. AIG's mistakes involve billions of dollars, not millions; similar poor, reckless choices were made throughout the financial sector. The administration of George W. Bush must account for a variety of actions that include torture and rendition; we have had only glimpses into how politics trumped science and good public policy across a broad range of issues in the Bush era. All that--and more--is grist for congressional inquiry and, inevitably, outrage. President Obama is offering up plans for financial recovery, but he is terribly reliant upon a corps of advisers, a number of whom enabled the causes of our present economic condition. Congress, with its own expertise, might prod the executive into accepting alternatives. But given its present reactive, blustering responses, it is now merely a pathetic giant. Stanley Kutler is the author of "The Wars of Watergate" and other writings.
 
Rick Ayers: Oakland: Tragedy in Our Town Top
As I write this, the city of Oakland, my city, is observing a day of mourning - a huge funeral for the four police officers killed last Saturday in a confrontation with a young man, Lovelle Mixon. It is a tragedy for all the families as well as for our city and the US. What a senseless, horrible waste of life. And yet. The media has not served us well - has not asked any questions, has not sought a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the context. Nor has anyone dared to question the problems in the police department - not only their contentious and negative relationship with the African American community in East Oakland, but even about the chaos in leadership (the most recent chief just resigned) and command. For example, after two officers -- Mark Dunakin and John Hege -- were shot at MacArthur and 74th during a traffic stop, and after the SWAT team figured out where the shooter had hidden himself, why did they not create a perimeter, get innocent people out, isolate the scene, and act with care for their own personnel and the neighbors? Instead, the police tore into the apartment, not even giving Mixon's sister a chance to get out. Bursting into the bedroom, they were met with a barrage of fire, which killed Ervin Romans and Daniel Sakai. Those second two officers certainly did not need to die. A strong leadership, even in the emotion of the moment, would have insisted that no one charge into that bedroom. And yet. Very little has been said about the proliferation of weaponry, the wild gun culture, that is making our communities shooting galleries. The AK-47 that Mixon had was one that is freely sold over the counter in Nevada. Indeed, the bloody drug wars of US cities as well as all over Mexico are armed by the US gun industry. Someone at the funeral mentioned that whenever a police officer leaves for work, their family does not know if they will come back alive. The same can be said for all Oakland school children. What a horror. And yet. The funeral for the police officers was made into a platform for speeches and public appearances by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and state Attorney General Jerry Brown, and Mayor Ron Dellums. Such actions always have another motivation, a broader agenda, which seeks to use the tragedy as an opportunity. And yet. There are those who will try to mount a political offensive as a result of these killings - an offensive that may well have consequences that are the opposite of what is needed. Some of the police who spoke also went beyond the act of mourning - lashing out even at the media (which has been nothing but worshipful in everything I've seen) and proposing an agenda that emphasizes more repression, more prison time. I'm reminded of the period after the terrible crime of 9/11. The US had sympathy and goodwill from all over the world. Instead of seeking a broader understanding of why such a horror would be perpetrated, the Bush administration used it as an opportunity to launch an all-out war of domination in the Middle East. They rejected any discussion of why people from the region hate the US so much, how to build bridges and equity. No. The discussion was about a "clash of civilizations," the enemy being all Muslims, all Arabs, all who were defined as "others." How sad, what a lost moment. And here we are. Can we talk about the economic crisis that is engulfing communities of color? Or the violence of the drug war? Or the distrust of the police and courts as centers of violence and injustice? Or the massive imprisonment of black men in our country in conditions that amount to cruel and unusual punishment? Attorney General Jerry Brown (prosecutor of the San Francisco 8 case) said that this incident is a failure of the parole system. In fact, it's a failure of the educational, prison-rehabilitative, parole, housing, employment, nutrition, and every other social service system of our society. These young men, who see no opportunities for success in school, who come from generations of impoverished children, relegated to the lowest paying jobs -- if there are jobs at all -- who live with the constant police presence, gentrification, imprisonment, and killings -- they need to be given hope. I have often been surprised to hear young people talk about the deep importance of not "snitching," of never calling 911. But then again I don't face the prospect of myself, or my children, being thrown into the horrors of the California prison system - which today holds about 160,000 inmates. What would lead a parolee to kill four police and himself to avoid being sent back to prison? I don't live with the memory of Gary King, Oscar Grant, Casper Banjo - black men killed by the police. I was not a target of the criminal Oakland "Riders" police group or the Los Angeles Ramparts Division CRASH unit. Everyone is hurt by this tragedy. But the media, the politicians, and the police have not taken a stance of uniting with the community. They have fed the notion of the African American community as a site of depravity, a place to be dominated. The ugliest expression of this sentiment can always be found in the "comments" on line at the end of the stories. While the editors apparently screen these for offensive comments, they gladly posted hundreds of comments that referred to Mixon and young black men in general as "animals" and "vermin." They say, in a more raw way, the same message we get from columnists like The San Francisco Chronicle 's Chip Johnson as well as some orators at the funeral. These notes express the unedited subconscious, the collective racism, that has a grip on our society. These attitudes are setting up East Oakland to be like Baghdad, a community tensely occupied, one which increasingly alienates the citizens as state violence increases. And they feed the American disease, the notion that we white people, or we middle class people, or we privileged people are the embattled defenders of civilization against the savagery, barbarism, and animalistic danger -- the dangerous other -- which is always trying to pull us down. This is an age old myth, used by the conquistadors and the yellow press, which is being trotted out again. And it takes us directly away from any solutions. Oakland is a beautiful city, one with a long and proud history - a wonderful place to live, to take walks, to explore. The lowlands used to be marshy and teeming with life when the Ohlone lived here - particularly the Huchiun-Aguasto tribes. It has always been a working class and port city. During World War II, a great migration, particularly from Texas and Louisiana, of African American workers made its way up here to work in the shipyards. West Oakland had a large number of African American home-owners and strong community institutions. The Black Panther Party was founded in Oakland in the 1960's and social activism has been a strong part of our community for many decades. Many immigrants from Mexico and Central America live in East Oakland - traditionally around the Fruitvale district but now out beyond High Street too. We have the old Chinatown and the new, mostly Southeast Asian districts out towards the avenues. Dedicated educators have worked to make the schools more effective, pioneering small school developments and a number of very successful charter schools. And don't forget the A's and the Raiders! For all its problems, Oakland is a city where friendship, solidarity, and interaction between all communities are daily occurrences. We all own it. Not the drug dealers and gun slingers; not the Riders and the haters. We should not let those who would erect the barricades define this city. I fear for the retaliatory actions that police will take in the coming months. Yesterday I was walking down the street in my lightweight neighborhood of Oakland, Piedmont Avenue. An Oakland police car with two officers in it cruised along. They stopped and glared at the African American homeless man who often solicits money outside the grocery store. They shouted at him to stop leaning on the car, stop blocking the sidewalk. The police officers drove on, their lower lips thrust forward in anger and hurt. This is far different from the behavior of the foot patrol we used to have. In some ways, being a cop is like being a teacher. I know the students certainly feel that we are the authority figures, the cops. And I hate it when I feel I have to police the youth. But what I mean is that we are responsible to teach all the kids, everyone who comes in the door. When teachers get to a stance that it's "us against them," or when they decide to pick out the "good kids" and to define others as the rejects - then they have lost it. Plenty of teachers get drawn into such a stance by the frustrations of the job. But the beauty of all of our students, and of our city, is still there for those willing to see it. Setting up African American people as the enemy, continuing to hire police who don't live in Oakland, allowing the reactive emotion of the cops to lead their actions - these are all formulas for more disaster in Oakland. Such a sentiment is not very popular right now. The knee-jerk reactions always dominate after a horror like this. Understanding the context -- the world that creates crime, the awful and stupid and criminal choices that people make in these conditions, the possibility of community, the economic and social issues -- these are the harder things to do. Can we even talk about it?
 
Rick Wagoner, GM CEO, Will Step Down At Obama's Behest Top
UPDATE: Politico is reporting that the Obama administration asked GM CEO Rick Wagoner to step down: The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said. The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government's behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason. And the Wall Street Journal reports the same: An administration official confirmed that Mr. Wagoner was asked to step down by the administration as a precondition for ongoing restructuring within the company. ************************************** General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner will step down from the company, according to several reports. The timing is curious, considering that President Obama is expected to announce on Monday the next steps to help GM and Chrysler, which have received $17.4 billion in emergency funding from the U.S. Treasury and are asking for more help: G.M. has asked for up to $16.6 billion more, and Chrysler another $5 billion. On Friday, Wagoner was in Washington, DC to meet with the White House auto task force, led by former investment banker Steve Rattner. Wagoner and GM have been criticized for not doing enough to slash debt and cut costs as part of the giant automaker's agreement with the government. CNBC first reported that Wagoner would step down, adding that GM did not confirm or deny the report. The New York Times reports : The unexpected move by Mr. Wagoner, who has been at the helm of G.M. for eight years, was not confirmed by the company. But a statement about Mr. Wagoner's future will be issued after the president's address... There was no indication yet who would take over the top job at General Motors. As recently as March 18, Mr. Wagoner said in an interview that he had no indication that his job was in jeopardy because of the task force.
 
Kimberly Brooks: Rebecca Bird Paints the Explosion Top
I walk into Paul Kopeikin's new gallery in West Hollywood and what do I see? I see the fantasies (realities?) of Iran and North Korea. I see Alan Greenspan's testimony that he found a "a flaw in the model ... that defines how the world works." I see the value of my pension plan. I see the image everywhere I go, reflected in everyone's shiny pupils. It's as if it's coming from inside them. I see the paintings of Rebecca Bird. Rebecca Bird, Untitled, watercolor on paper: 12" x 12", Courtesy Kopeikin Gallery, Los Angeles In her current show, "Everything that Ever Existed Still Exists," Bird delicately -- even preciously -- petrifies images of infamous nuclear explosions in paint. The names of the locations are erased, leaving the images just as anonymous as those civilian victims of the bombs or testing sites. While some of the clouds are recognizable, Bird's interpretation of these events captures peacefulness and tragedy, past and present, personal and global, all at once. The show, curated by Fette, one of my favorite art bloggers , runs through April 18, 2009. Rebecca Bird, Tree, watercolor on paper, Courtesy Kopeikin Gallery, Los Angeles Kimberly Brooks: Aside from picking up any newspaper lately, what was the inspiration behind this body of work? Rebecca Bird: The impetus for my work usually comes from seeing something surprising, which leads to an inquiry. In this case the moment of surprise happened at New York Public Library picture collection, where I found a group of government photos from the National Archive of nuclear bomb tests. From the national archive of nuclear bomb tests. At the time, I was trying to create a visual representation of what an internalized trauma might look like, something hard to explain to anyone who hadn't experienced it. I was looking for imagery that was violent or explosive. I had started working with the subject of explosions very generally. When I first saw these photographs of nuclear bomb tests I realized they had the same barriers to comprehension as any violent event seen from the outside. I felt like I was both the person who is unable to convey their own subjective experience, and the person who can't understand it based on what they see. Rebecca Bird, Small Problems Obscuring Big Problems, 2006, watercolor on paper, 26 1/2" x 39" Courtesy Kopeikin Gallery, Los Angeles KB: I've always found the images eerily beautiful too. Where does the title of the show, "Everything That Ever Existed Still Exists," come from? RB: There are two strains of content in the work, one which is about pain on a personal level, and one that is about tragic historic events. Using nuclear explosions as a metaphor for any smaller event is inherently out of proportion, but the lack of proportion is in turn a perfect metaphor for an event which ultimately cannot be measured or communicated. The removal of any indicators of scale or context from the images is important for this reason; the images could be enormous, or microscopic, or happening inside of you. Everything about how these pictures are painted emphasizes the distance between seeing the images and understanding what they are of; they are hugely destructive explosions, but rendered in precise watercolor. The cool, watery pastel colors are beautiful or nostalgic, and the images are above all very still. It suggests that something can happen very quickly and yet happen forever. Rebecca Bird, Omega, 2005, watercolor on paper, 38" x 50", Courtesy Kopeikin Gallery, Los Angeles KB: The work looks very layered and detailed. Describe your process of working. RB: I work very close to the subject that I am painting, often with the object I am painting resting on the page as I work. I start from one end and go to the other, I put in one detail at a time: this means that I am never looking at the whole picture as I work, always at one tiny part of it. In these paintings I go through a process of examining every grain of the photograph without grasping the event pictured as a whole. There is something organic about the way the image grow on the page. Rebecca Bird, P H, 2007, watercolor on paper, 30" x 43 1/2", Courtesy Kopeikin Gallery, Los Angeles KB: Did you ever feel guilty about painting a devastating historical event in a way that is both beautiful and also personal? RB: I am always confused when I see news photos of wars and disasters - does seeing a picture of a distant tragedy allow me to empathize with its victims, or does the shock actually numb my response? Given that these events are the sum of many smaller personal tragedies, is it even possible to empathize with every other person? You end up defining suffering in terms of numbers, and scale. Seeing includes a whole range of emotions including guilt. In the face of these events does any single person still matter, whether a victim or an observer? In these paintings, I want to emphasize the distance between seeing and understanding. When using historical images -- of the atomic cloud over Nagasaki or the attack on Pearl Harbor -- the "name" of the event is not in the title, because giving something a name is another way of not going into the detail of what it means. There is no image that can lead to understanding. KB: Is there a work of art that inspires you? RB: This work was influenced by the use of explosions in movies and comic books to symbolize or simulate catharsis, particularly Katsuhiro Otomo's epic manga and anime "Akira." In "Akira," the end of the known world is mirrored by, and brought about by, the gradual loss of sanity of a teenage boy. The gorgeous, monumental destruction of the climactic sequences are a perfectly overblown metaphor for self-absorbed pain. Katsuhiro Otomo, from the comic book "Akira", copyright Kodansha Ltd. Tokyo/ New York. Rebecca Bird graduated from the Cooper Union School of Art in 2000. While a student she received the Ellen Battelle-Stoeckel Fellowship to the Yale Norfolk Summer School in painting. Immediately after graduating she was awarded a Fulbright to study traditional painting techniques in Kanazawa, Japan. She spent one year in Japan before settling in Brooklyn, NY. She has had work in solo and group shows in New York, Seattle, San Francisco, Luzern, Kanazawa, and Beijing. Her solo exhibition "Everything that ever existed still exists" at Kopeikin Gallery in Los Angeles runs from March 14 - April 18, 2009. *** First Person Artist is a weekly column by artist Kimberly Brooks in which she provides commentary on the creative process , technology and showcases artists ' work from around the world. Come back every Monday for more Kimberly Brooks. More on Alan Greenspan
 
Romain Mesnil, French Pole Vaulter, Runs Naked Through Paris (VIDEO) Top
Desperate times can call for desperate measures, and sometimes these measures include running naked through the streets of Paris. Romain Mesnil, a French pole vaulting champion, did just this in hopes of drawing attention to his need for a new sponsorship deal, having seen his contract with Nike expire last year. From Reuters' report: Romain Mesnil, who won a silver medal at the 2007 Athletics World Championships in Osaka, used to be sponsored by U.S. sports brand Nike (NKE.N) but says his contract expired last year and was not renewed. "It was probably for budgetary and strategic reasons. It's the crisis," he wrote on his website. Best of all, he videotaped his naked dash through the City of Lights and posted it on his website (sorry fans of full nudity, a black square was added to the video to cover his private parts.) Mesnil's stunt has even been something of a success, Reuters says: The video has succeeded in drawing attention to Mesnil's plight, at least in France. It was broadcast on primetime state television news bulletins. WATCH:
 
Abigail Pogrebin: CLASH OF THE KINDLES Top
My husband and I are in love with our Kindles. But the little handheld machines are straining our marriage. I should start with the arc of the romance: It all began with Kindle One. My husband brought the gadget home and I salivated as he began to wirelessly receive and efficiently peruse three newspapers every morning, two weekly magazines, and all the books he could wish for. In a few short minutes, he'd download any book that struck his fancy, be it a classic novel or a new expose; instant literary gratification. I've had it with chiropractor appointments to correct the strain of schlepping books, magazines and newspapers in a shoulder bag around Manhattan. I warmed to the prospect of one compact library. My husband sensed my growing envy and one evening surprised me with my very own Amazon appliance. In an instant (after a brief battery charge) I entered the Wide World of Kindleland! So much to ingest on one slim, clean, white object! Never an idle moment without entertainment, edification, culture! Whether I was stuck between subway stops, delayed in an airport, waiting in a doctor's office, I was at peace, because I had so much to read . The Kindle offered this strange assurance: You will never be bored, you will never be caught un-stimulated, uneducated, you have an edifying smorgasbord handy right in your purse. I also became a walking conversation starter - strangers asked me about the device and I was suddenly The Kindle Spokesperson. I extolled its attributes - how readable the print, how navigable the controls, how vast its store. I apologized for its $350-plus cost (as if I myself had set the price), quickly pointing out that purchasing books is cheaper than Barnes and Noble. I spread the Kindle gospel as if it were my calling. What I didn't tell strangers was the one casualty of entering KindleWorld: marriage harmony. My husband and I had taken our beloved Kindles into bed. Why not? For fifteen years, we've read before turning out the lights. It's our nightly ritual, a sweet, quiet tradition. These new contraptions didn't violate our No-Laptops-In-Bed rule: Kindles earned their own dispensation - they counted as books of course, completely appropriate for our nightly routine. But suddenly our peaceful rite was not so tranquil at all. It was, in fact, cacophonic. All I could hear was the insistent clicking of his "Next Page" button, disrupting the oasis of our white duvet. I became agitated, anticipating my partner's next button depression every minute or so. Suddenly I couldn't concentrate on my own Kindle book because my husband was clacking away at my side. It wasn't his fault, but I blamed him. "Can't you click softer?" I'd demand politely. I demonstrated how I'd already found a less obtrusive way to click-pushing the "Next Page" button more slowly, holding it a touch longer, releasing less abruptly. My husband didn't appreciate my efforts; he wasn't, after all, the one hyper-sensitive to Kindle maneuvers. He questioned why my click-anxiety was any different from anticipating the next page-turn of an old-fashioned book. But it was. I couldn't focus on the words before my eyes, which required me to keep pressing the "Prev Page" button ("Previous Page") to retrace my steps, which contributed my own new rash of clicking. It became a veritable din. And God forbid I ever wanted to turn my light off ahead of my husband and go to sleep. Who can doze off with all that racket going on? How could Amazon have done this to us? In their meticulous efforts to create the perfect "electronic reader," how could they have failed to forsee the clamor of the relentless CLICK, CLICK, CLICK, the test of a strong marriage? I know we'll survive this. But in the meantime, I'm appealing to the Amazon inventors, now that Kindle 2 is out and louder than the first: Give Kindle 3 a softer touch. Help preserve our unions. We love your gizmo, but we love our spouses more, and we need to protect the hush of bedtime reading. On one of Kindle's "resting" home pages, they display the definition of "Kindle": "to become impassioned or excited." I'd rather be excited by what I'm reading rather than by what I'm hearing. Don't worry, Amazon, I'll still laud your product to strangers because there's nothing like holding hundreds of books in the palm of your hand. But my husband and I might need separate bedrooms. More on Marriage
 
Judith Ellis: Resuscitating CNBC with Reliable Rationale and Reason Top
This Tuesday morning on CNBC's Squawk Box from 7-9 Arianna Huffington will be the guest host. The show will feature Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Nouriel Roubini, and Congressman Barney Frank. Maybe this will begin the process of rehabilitating CNBC's tattered image. After Jon Stewart evisceration of CNBC's financial analysts, we all know they need it. Arianna Huffington's piece on Jon Stewart's interview with Jim Cramer and John King's interview with Dick Cheney is great. The Huffington Post article can be read here . Brilliant comparisons are made between the Jon Stewart and John King interviews. Squawk Box this Tuesday promises to be interesting with both professionalism and punch. While the intentions and knowledge of Huffington, Taleb and Roubini my be trusted, the same may not be said of Barney Frank. I tend to distrust politicians generally. Senator Chris Dodd (D) and Senator Richard Shelby (R) would be among these. Neither would get my vote if I were constituents in their states. I have some thoughts about Congress and some questions for Congressman Frank. Has the Federal Reserve become a hindrance to a viable democratic capitalistic system where there should be checks and balances? The Fed does not have absolute power! Not only has the Federal Reserve failed us, but Congress, too, in their lack of oversight of the Fed -- instead there appears to have been, rightly or wrongly, collusion in regulating these big American banks with ties with hedge funds and the likes of Barclays in London and Deutsche Bank in Germany. This week Treasury Secretary Geithner asked that the Treasury be given more power to regulate some companies, namely those such as AIG, and perhaps GE, who are not banks but behave as such. To give the Federal Reserve more power seems like a sick solution. How do you give more power to those who have utterly failed the American people who seem bent on a global imperialistic financial agenda to concentrate wealth among the few in the world? JP Morgan, the founder, was astute at this kind of global financial focus many years back shortly after the Civil War. There is no surprise that Wall Street bankers are arrogant and self-centered. Although JP Morgan served the US well with his financing of Thomas Edison, and his investments in infrastructure, big banking seems to have been conceived out of arrogance and dominance, the necessity of centralized global power in banking. Some may assert that it is simply human nature. OK. Regulation is then mandatory, perhaps the kind that is revisited for efficacy and maintained for stability. Please ask Mr. Frank that as a member of Congress how is it that the oversight of the Federal Reserve went completely unwatched? For many years Alan Greenspan was instead a revered demigod of sorts with Congress shaking its head in agreement to everything proposed. I have written here on Being Alan Greenspan that included a scathing critique by Bill Flickenstein. He has written of Greenspan often, beginning some years back. Mr. Flickenstein provided more oversight over the past years than members of Congress on the right, left and center. They, by and large, seem to have their self-interest at heart, one that seems to go straight to the heart of campaign financing in order to keep their "illustrious" civil servant careers. I hope that Mr. Frank will have to answer hard-hitting questions, perhaps from those coming from the people. While Arianna Huffington never seems to shy away from hard-hitting questions for all sides -- Democrats and Republicans -- and doesn't seem to bite her tongue, I also understand that politically sometimes it is not always the platform, especially considering certain shows on certain networks work, not to mention the resuscitation of CNBC. My very wealthy right to the right of right Republican partner said that since Taleb and Roubini will be on Squawk Box with Huffington that he will sell short on Tuesday. As one who does not typically take tips from anyone, he took Huffington's guest appearance on Squawk Box with Taleb and Roubini as Tuesday's tip. That's funny! Truth generates short-selling. I'm really looking forward to the show on Tuesday. Maybe Huffington should have a show every Tuesday. It would be great to have a finance show that addresses critical issues and how they affect the masses. The perfect storm seems to have been created in that the masses were duped, though not without culpability with the complicit will of Congress through legislation and the creation policy for the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to accept mortgages so that individuals and Wall Street banks could collect billions of dollars in fees beforehand and a bailout thereafter. These are some of the questions and thoughts that I'd like to see addressed when Arianna Huffington hosts Squawk Box this Tuesday. What would you like answered or what comments would you make? More on Jim Cramer
 
Scott Mendelson: Scott Mendelson's Huffington Post weekend box office rundown... Top
Well, it's 3.5x for Monsters Vs. Aliens . The much hyped 3D toon from Dreamworks took in a best-of-2009 opening weekend of $58.2 million. This includes $16.8 million on Friday, $24..3 million on Saturday (an uptick of 45%), and a $17 million Sunday. So, yes, it played like a family film through and through. This is the biggest opening for any kind of 3D film, besting the $40 million that Chicken Little scored in November 2005. Of course, Chicken Little didn't have nearly as many 3D screens as Monsters Vs. Aliens . Plus, today's 3D screens for the Dreamworks feature are charging a $2-3 premium on tickets. For the record, 56% (about $32 million) of its weekend total came from the 28% of its screens with 3D capabilities and 9% of the gross (about $5.2 million) came from the 143 IMAX theaters. Whether the grosses of such 3D hits as Coraline , Monsters Vs. Aliens , and My Bloody Valentine deserve a Roger Maris astrix is open to debate. For now, until any major records are broken, we'll just let it be. But rest assured, as soon as a 3D movie breaks a major record like biggest opening weekend, you'll be sure to hear complaining from the studio of the prior record holder (unless of course, the new record holder is from the same studio as the prior record holder, in which case every other studio will carp). As for legs, let's review similar films. Chicken Little had mediocre reviews and word of mouth, but it held on through 2005 anyway to gross $135 million (which was and still is Disney's highest grossing non-Pixar toon since Lilo and Stitch in summer 2002). The recent 3D toon Bolt opened with a softer $26 million (against the $69 million debut of Twilight ), but it held its ground over the holidays and crossed $114 million. Two years ago this weekend, Disney's Meet The Robinsons debuted in 2D and 3D theaters to about $25 million. Alas, because you people are soulless monsters who don't deserve Meet The Robinsons , it petered out at $96 million (I'd turn you all into ducks, except I don't know how and I don't need a duck). So, like any other type of movie, there is no real pattern to discern. But, since the reviews are similar and the debut is probably similar in terms of tickets sold, I'll go with the Chicken Little multiplier. That one had a 3.4x weekend-to-total multiplier. So a similar final gross is $197.2 million. Let's toss in the holiday weeks coming up (various schools have Spring Break during the next month) and Dreamworks' bragging necessities, and we'll give it $210 million by closing time. However, if it performs like the quick-kill 2.8 multiplier Madagascar 2: Escape To Africa (which is much better than I expected, by the way), it'll end its run with $166 million. Coming in second with a shockingly large debut is Lionsgate's The Haunting In Connecticut . That one had a decent for a horror film multiplier of 2.4x. So it ended the weekend with $23 million. It comes in just under the $23.9 million debut of Lionsgate's Fahrenheit 9/11 on the list of non- Saw /non Tyler Perry films from Lionsgate. In fact, this opening tops all of the various Screen Gems/Sony horror films that have been raking in over the last three years. That 'end of 2008 blitz' may have been a mixed blessing for Lionsgate, but 2009 has been one whammy after another (save the low-budget New In Town ). My Bloody Valentine , Madea Goes To Jail and now The Haunting In Connecticut have all opened north of $20 million. And next month brings Crank 2 , which should deliver a solid improvement on the much liked original. The 3D action cartoon Battle For Terra is a riskier gamble (in which mankind is the villain, invading the home of a race of peace loving aliens... subtle), but we'll see how it fares about X-Men Origins: Wolverine ). For movie box office info, including what holdovers crashed and burned, what older movies stood their ground, and why the makers of Coraline have another reason to be furious, check out the rest at Mendelson's Memos . Scott Mendelson
 
Michael Shaw: Reading The Pictures: Obama Puts Bankers On Parade Top
The CEOs arrived today at the White House alone or escorted by other company executives; some were quickly ushered in through the security gate by Bartlett, while others were forced to go through the usual routine for visitors. Dimon was among the first to arrive and was asked by the guard at the gate to repeat his name twice and spell it once. -- B ank CEOs Tell Obama They Are Working Toward Recovery (Bloomberg) I'm thrilled how Obama corralled those bank CEOs on Friday for a selflessness workshop, then kicked them loose out on the driveway to face a hungry media. For a group of men who thrive on anonymity outside the business sphere, Obama's move to put them on center stage was a clever act of taking names. Considering the single file; B 0f A CEO Ken Lewis' suck-it-up face; and the fact that reporters and photographers were eagerly lined up on either side of Lewis, Mack, Pandit and company, one association here is to running the gauntlet. (Of course, there was also the delicious scene of Mr. Pandit trying to get out of the White House grounds which had its own great "watch your back!" elements.) The other visual element I found particularly telling is located on Lewis' lapel. What I can't get over is the fact this guy actually went to the White House Friday wearing a Bank of America pin. In symbolic defiance of Obama's "one for all" message (and the fact "44" puts such stock in his U.S.A. pin), this accessory is a wonderful demonstration of the problem-at-hand -- the co-opting of the American brand in the name of the corporate state. For more visual politics, visit BAGnewsNotes.com (and more take-aways via Twitter ). (images: Mark Wilson/Getty Images. caption 1: (L-R) John Stumpf, CEO Wells Fargo, Kenneth D. Lewis, Chairman, CEO, and President of Bank of America, U.S. Bancorp CEO Richard Davis, John Mack CEO of Morgan Stanley, Vikram Pandit ,CEO of Citigroup, John Koskinen, CEO of Freddie Mac, and others walk out of the White House after a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House on March 27, 2009 in Washington DC) More on Financial Crisis
 
Ben Cohen: Blogosphere Must Challenge Obama's War Top
Obama's decision to amp up the war in Afghanistan is basically going unchallenged by the main stream media, and a travesty given the awful mess they failed to prevent back in 2003. While Obama painted himself as the anti war candidate during the election, his record suggests otherwise. An ardent supporter of the original attack on Afghanistan, Obama is as pro war as any other American President, (just not the insanely stupid ones), an inconvenient fact his supporters and media likes to ignore. The debate is again being constructed around the technicality of the war, rather than the morality. As Joe Klein wrote after listening to Obama lay out the detail: "Taken together, this is a sober, well-reasoned policy. I hope it works." And that about sums up the criticism we're hearing from the beltway journalists. The plan itself appears to be a mix of carrots and sticks, devoid of any long term exit strategy and awfully expensive. While Obama promised that "We will not blindly stay the course,"  and that he, "Will not, and cannot, provide a blank check," the open ended nature of the plan of course allows for increased spending at the Presidents discretion. As Fred Kaplan states : At a press conference after Obama's speech, Bruce Riedel, who led the White House strategic review on the new policy, admitted that specific benchmarks haven't yet been defined. Holbrooke added that the strategy itself is "a framework within which there's plenty of flexibility to bring in ideas which are not in this report." Obama is attempting to differentiate himself from the last administration by making serious efforts to build an international coalition and promising to let the public see how much it costs, but the major expenditure and man power will be covered by America. And we don't really know how much money, and how much time this mammoth task will take.  While the rhetoric surrounding the 'surge' in Afghanistan is far more sophisticated and intelligent in comparison to Bush's simplistic slogans, the premise is basically the same. It is an open ended 'War on Terror', designed to protect American by fighting abroad. As we have seen, any troop presence in their countries will be deeply resented by the population and causes a great deal more hatred towards the United States. While individual goals may be reached, the overall strategy is self defeating and enormously damaging. It is a continuation of a war on an idea, not a nation, and can therefore never be won. The war in Afghanistan was illegally waged in the first place, a fact the MSM failed to report on, and liberals have largely ignored as well. Afghanistan did not attack the United States and had nothing to do with 9/11. The strike was pre-emptive and regarded by international law a the 'supreme' war crime. Any surge is simply a continuation of this crime. The United States essentially owns the Afghani government, giving it little to no credibility in the region. Hamid Karzhai has little control over the country, and is widely viewed as a U.S stooge. The hatred resides amongst the general population, and any efforts to work with the government will simply make the matters worse. While Obama will seek to build an international consensus around his plans, the fact is that the war will become another endless pit that will consume more and more money that no one actually has. It is a war leveraged against our children's future, and one that will cost them dearly when they have to pick up the tab. It will be left to the blogosphere to challenge Obama on his foolhardy mission to 'defeat Al Qaeda' in the region, a difficult task given his popularity. But it is a task we must take on if Obama's otherwise promising Presidency is to succeed. Obama was largely elected through the power of the internet, and it is the internet that must keep him honest. Ben Cohen is the Editor of The Daily Banter Photo by by Army.mil More on Afghanistan
 
Dr. Irene S. Levine: Big hurts, little hurts and apologies: How to save a friendship Top
"If I'd known how devastated she would be, I would have done whatever it took to get there," explains Karen, a woman now in her late 40s. When Karen was 24, she opted not to attend the funeral of her best friend Megan's father, who had died suddenly of a heart attack. The funeral was being held more than four hours away from where Karen and Megan lived and Karen had no car. Public transportation was a real hassle and Karen wasn't even certain that she could find a way to make it to the service on time. She made the decision to skip the funeral entirely, planning instead to spend "quality time" with her friend during the days that followed. When Karen contacted Megan to arrange to visit her afterwards, Megan was livid, no longer wanting to have anything to do with Karen. During the phone call, Megan was abrupt and said she was still grieving. She told Karen she was stunned when she heard that she wasn't coming to the funeral. Although it was never her intention, Karen quickly realized she had caused a big hurt. No friendship is conflict-free and even good friends say the wrong things or make mistakes occasionally. Some hurts are big but most are relatively minor. If you've insulted a good friend or done something stupid, apologize immediately. Sometimes your friend will make allowances for your lapse because you share a bank of goodwill based on history and trust. But you'll need to be careful not to make the same mistake again. However, if you've made a big blunder or blurted out something totally regrettable, all you can do is try to apologize although it may take some work to turn things around. In the case of Karen and Megan, with hindsight, Karen realizes that she probably should have made an effort to get a ride with someone else. Karen had never lost anyone in her own family and didn't realize how traumatic the loss would be to her friend. Her apology came in the form of "I'm sorry," said in a perfunctory way, because she felt too guilty and uncomfortable to say anything more. The two women, who had been close all through high school and college, never spoke again. Now many years later, Karen's parents are gone and she still thinks about how she "blew" that friendship by not showing up when she should have. She also realizes that, perhaps, if she had made a better effort to apologize, she could have saved the friendship. Here are some tips for making apologies that matter: Step back and think about what happened . You can't sweep it under the carpet and pretend it never happened because it will affect your friendship. Examine your own motivations, the consequences, and how you can undo it. Take responsibility for what you did wrong . It doesn't help to provide feeble excuses (e.g. I didn't have a car) if what you did was hurtful or offensive, in both your opinion and your friend's. Make a clear-cut apology. Acknowledge the effect of your mistake . In this case Karen could have said, "I'm so terribly sorry that I wasn't there for you when you needed me. I wish I had been by your side." Explain your motivations, assuming they were well-intended . Karen might say: "I didn't realize how important my support would be at the funeral. I had hoped to be with you soon after." Try to find some way to make amends . For example, Karen might have simply asked Megan what she could do to support her afterwards. Could she help her address condolence cards? Bring her dinner? If your friend doesn't immediately forgive you, follow-up with a personal note, restating what you said in person or by phone. This gesture will allow your friend time to mull over what happened and hopefully come to the decision that she wants to save the friendship too. Be sensitive to timing . While you might be ready to apologize, your friend may still be seething or feel too hurt to respond. Give her time before you attempt to apologize again. Figuring out timing was particularly tricky for Karen. While it was difficult for Karen to approach Megan while she was grieving, not doing so may have fueled the fire. Don't let too much time pass so that the friendship drifts apart . Ask her to get together to talk or to go to the movies to show her you hope for reconciliation. If your friend is unwilling or unable to forgive you, don't lash out in anger. Step back and learn from the experience. At least, you've done what you can to clear your conscience. On the other hand, if you are unable to see what you did wrong, it is difficult to apologize because your apology won't come across as sincere. You need to talk to your friend about what happened so you can better understand what role you played in making her unhappy. When there's been a big hurt--even if a heartfelt and appropriate apology is accepted--there's been a breech of trust. You need to seize the opportunity and work on strengthening the friendship. Have a friendship dilemma that is bothering you? Perhaps I can help. Write to me at: Irene@fracturedfriendships.com. I rene S. Levine, PhD is a freelance journalist and author. She holds an appointment as a professor of psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine and is working on a book about female friendships, Best Friends Forever: Surviving A Break-up With Your Best Friend, that will be published by Overlook Press in September, 2009. She recently co-authored Schizophrenia for Dummies (Wiley, 2008). She also blogs about female friendships at The Friendship Blog. More on Relationships
 
Jacqui Smith, British Minister, Promises To Pay For Porn She Expensed Top
The Home Secretary is to pay back parliamentary allowances claimed for pay-per-view television services, reportedly including two adult films. Jacqui Smith said she "mistakenly" claimed for the TV package while billing for an internet connection.
 
Study: Cholesterol Drug Lowers Blood Clot Risk Top
ORLANDO, Fla. — Statin drugs, taken by millions of Americans to lower cholesterol and prevent heart disease, also can cut the risk of developing dangerous blood clots that can lodge in the legs or lungs, a major study suggests. The results provide a new reason for many people with normal cholesterol to consider taking these medicines, sold as Crestor, Lipitor, Zocor and in generic form, doctors say. In the study, Crestor cut nearly in half the risk of blood clots in people with low cholesterol but high scores on a test for inflammation, which plays a role in many diseases. This same big study last fall showed that Crestor dramatically lowered rates of heart attacks, death and stroke in these people, who are not usually given statins now. "It might make some people who are on the fence decide to go on statins," although blood-clot prevention is not the drugs' main purpose, said Dr. Mark Hlatky, a Stanford University cardiologist who had no role in the study. Results were reported Sunday at the American College of Cardiology conference and published online by the New England Journal of Medicine. The study was led by statistician Robert Glynn and Dr. Paul Ridker of Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. Ridker is a co-inventor on a patent of the test for high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, or CRP. It is a measure of inflammation, which can mean clogged arteries or less serious problems, such as an infection or injury. It costs about $80 to have the blood test done. The government does not recommend it be given routinely, but federal officials are reconsidering that. For the study, researchers in the U.S. and two dozen other countries randomly assigned 17,802 people with high CRP and low levels of LDL, or bad cholesterol (below 130), to take dummy pills or Crestor, a statin made by British-based AstraZeneca PLC. With an average of two years of follow-up, 34 of those on Crestor and 60 of the others developed venous thromboembolism _ a blood clot in the leg that can travel to the lungs. Several hundred thousand Americans develop such clots each year, leading to about 100,000 deaths. However, this is uncommon compared to the larger number who suffer heart attacks. Many doctors have been uncomfortable with expanding statin use to people with normal cholesterol because so many would have to be treated to prevent a single additional case. "I don't know that it changes the big picture very much" to say that a statin can prevent blood clots, Hlatky said. "Where do you draw the line? Are we giving it to 10-year-old kids that are fat?" AstraZeneca paid for the study, and Ridker and other authors have consulted for the company and other statin makers. Many doctors believe that other statins would give similar benefits, though Crestor is the strongest such drug. It also has the highest rate of a rare but serious muscle problem, and the consumer group Public Citizen has campaigned against it, saying there are safer alternatives. Crestor costs $3.45 a day versus less than a dollar for generic drugs. Its sales have been rising even though two statins _ Zocor and Pravachol _ are now available in generic form. Researchers do not know whether the benefits seen in the study were due to reducing CRP or cholesterol, since Crestor did both. Another new analysis reported Sunday and published in the British journal the Lancet found that the patients who did the best in the study were those who saw both numbers drop. Many doctors remain reluctant to expand CRP testing or use of statins. A survey by the New England journal found them evenly divided on the questions. Others questioned why so few people in the study were getting other treatments to prevent heart problems. "If more of them were on aspirin, you would have less benefit from the statin," said Dr. Thomas Pearson of the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. Dr. James Stein of the University of Wisconsin-Madison said that doctors examining treatment guidelines should pay close attention to the new results. He said the CRP test had helped him convince patients that they need to be on a statin drug. "There are very few times you can say to a patient, 'this medicine is going to keep you alive.' We should try not to pick apart studies that save lives," Stein said. ___ On the Net: Heart meeting: http://www.acc.org Medical journal: http://www.nejm.org
 
Byron Williams: A Follow-up to Last Week's Piece Top
Last week, I wrote a column about the gay-lesbian pursuit to be fully added to the preamble of the United States that reads: "We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union." It seems, based on the e-mail and phone messages I received, quite a few readers took exception with my mentioning the Civil Rights Movement and that the contemporary struggle of gays and lesbians was the unfinished business of civil rights. I did want to share some of my favorites responses from last week's commentary: "I read your articles everyday and you are so gay it's pathetic. But stop putting your nasty opinion in the paper because I'm sick of it. Don't start involving your gayness with blackness because you're not black. Men and women being married is not the same as YOU gays being married. You got all these rights now so leave it alone and stop putting your nasty opinion in the paper. I'm going to write the paper to let them know you're sick! You need to keep your gay (expletive) at home!" This next one gets right to the point: "Hey Byron, you gay (expletive) you! How in the hell are you going to preach homosexuality? What kind of church do you have? You're going straight to hell. You look like a closet (expletive) in the paper. Can't you think of other issues for black people besides supporting these (expletive) (expletive). God is going to strike you down, you (expletive) (expletive). You need to be feathered and tarred, you gay son of a (expletive)." And for a theological take: "Byron, what kind of bible do you use in your church? You better read Genesis and Romans instead of supporting (expletive) (expletive) (expletive). You're an (expletive). Are you gay? You're just one (expletive) in the community. Next time you should say, 'I support gay rights because I believe in (expletive) (expletive)!' " This by no means is representative of everyone who does not share my support of same-gender marriage, but it is reflective of a visceral hate that cannot be ignored. The mere assumption that I am "other" than what is accepted by the dominant culture opens the door to unbridled dehumanization. Like Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man," my humanity is hidden deeply under a shroud of hatred that justifies actions I suspect many of the authors of the aforementioned e-mails would otherwise condemn. Beyond a fundamental disagreement, nothing short of my being relieved of my journalistic duties, or, in the extreme case, tarred and feathered would suffice. What a cruel irony that homophobia, under the guise of sound religious doctrine can be articulated each Sunday from many pulpits across the country, but to suggest that equal protection under that law does not come with qualifiers brings calls for public flogging. If there is any aspect to this unfortunate display of inhumanity that remains a mystery to me, those who expressed such hatred stand to lose nothing. They are not being asked to forfeit any rights already conferred. Nor are they being asked to alter their Neanderthal theology. Though not explicitly stated, the communication I received last week raises an interesting question: Why do I care? Why risk my "privilege" as a straight man in order to receive the diatribe traditionally reserved for gays and lesbians? The answer is linked to my seemingly contradictory understanding of theology and the Constitution. My theological understanding teaches me that we must err on the side of love; it is an inconvenient love that transcends what an individual may like or agree. My unwavering belief in the Constitution teaches me that we must support the principles that the Founders articulated beyond individual issues, which means the measure of one's belief in the Constitution cannot be limited to the issues we support. In this case, my personal support for same-gender marriage is secondary to my unequivocal support for equal protection under the law. Moreover, I am proud to have a position that puts me in the company of civil rights icons such as Rev. Joseph Lowery, Rep. John Lewis, and the late Coretta Scott King. Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or visit his website: byronspeaks.com
 
Urban Coyote Attacks On The Rise, Alarming Residents Top
DENVER — A coyote ambling into a Chicago sandwich shop or taking up residence in New York's Central Park understandably creates a stir. But even here on the high plains of Colorado, where the animals are part of the landscape and figure prominently in Western lore, people are being taken aback by rising coyote encounters. Thanks to suburban sprawl and a growth in numbers of both people and animals, a rash of coyote encounters has alarmed residents. Wildlife officials are working to educate the public: Coyotes have always been here, they've adapted to urban landscapes and they prefer to avoid humans. "Ninety-five percent of this problem is a human problem, and we really need to focus on that 95 percent to solve it," said Nicole Rosmarino, wildlife program director of the environmental group WildEarth Guardians. Since December, four people in the Denver area have been nipped or bitten by coyotes. A fifth told police a coyote lunged at him. State wildlife officers have killed seven coyotes. An eighth was killed by a sharpshooter hired by Greenwood Village, in Denver's southern suburbs. "These are coyotes that were born and raised in the 'hood," said Liza Hunholz, an area manager with the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Marc Bekoff, a professor emeritus of ecology at the University of Colorado, says there are more people and less habitat along Colorado's Front Range, bringing the animal and people populations into closer proximity and producing what he calls "an unprecedented scare response." "The communities seem to be really feeding one another," said Bekoff. He has studied coyotes for 40 years and believes that in some cases dogs are mistaken for coyotes. Coyotes once were found primarily on the Great Plains and in the Southwest, but have expanded their turf to most of North America. Populations of wolves, a fierce competitor, have shrunk, and swaths of forest have turned into coyote-friendly open spaces. After generations of urban living, some coyotes navigate subdivisions as easily as the cactus and scrub oak of the high desert where their ancestors roamed. Experts won't even try to guess how many coyotes there are nationwide. Coyote sightings have skyrocketed in Greenwood Village. Last year, police received 186 reports, including 15 clashes with pets. Already this year, there have been 142. "People are afraid to let their pets out or their children to walk to school," said Greenwood Village City Manager Jim Sanderson. Jacque Levitch, of south Denver, was bitten by one of three coyotes she said confronted her and her Labrador retriever, Taz, on Feb. 21. "I hit it with my right fist and right forearm," Levitch said. Taz was all right. Levitch had to endure rabies shots. She said her neighbors now carry big sticks and golf clubs. "If nothing is done, I can only see the problem escalating," Levitch said. In New York City, a coyote pup was found in the Bronx last year, and in 2006 police captured a coyote in Central Park. In California's San Bernardino County, two toddlers were reported injured in separate coyote incidents last year. One toddler was killed in California in the 1980s in the country's only known fatal coyote attack. WildEarth Guardians' Rosmarino thinks in most cases it's people who need to change their behavior. She has organized volunteers in Greenwood Village and other cities to walk through parks to shoo coyotes and make them more wary of people. Most coyotes do everything they can to avoid people, said Stan Gehrt (GURT), an assistant professor at Ohio State University's School of Environment and Natural Resources. That's true even in Chicago, where Gehrt has led a study since 2000. About 300 coyotes there have been radio-collared and tracked. The coyote that walked into the Chicago sandwich shop in 2007 got a lot of attention. But Gehrt said few people are aware of how many have lived in Chicago for decades. One of his subjects has a hiding spot near the downtown post office and thousands of people pass within yards of it each day. "Even though they live in urban areas and figure out how people work ... it doesn't mean they're necessarily becoming more aggressive toward us," Gehrt said. They also haven't changed their diet. Gehrt expected to find urban coyotes eating a lot of garbage and pets. But their scat shows rodents are still the meal of choice, followed by deer, rabbits and birds. Coyotes view pets such as cats and dogs as competitors, not food, Gehrt said. Most coyotes are submissive toward dogs, though some will stand their ground _ especially during breeding season, when they may see dogs as rivals for mates. Mating season peaked in February, when some of the Denver-area incidents occurred. Residents are warned to not feed coyotes, to keep dogs on short leashes, and to yell or throw rocks at coyotes so they associate humans with bad things. Bird seed may attract mice and voles, which then can draw hungry coyotes. Don't leave out pet food and garbage, and don't leave pets alone. A coyote that bit a boy snowboarding on a golf course in Erie, 26 miles north of Denver, had been fed by golfers. Reducing the number of coyotes doesn't work, Rosmarino said, because the animals breed more and have bigger litters when their population declines. The U.S. Agriculture Department's Wildlife Services killed more than 90,000 in 2007 to stem livestock attacks. Relocation also doesn't work, Gehrt said. Coyotes moved from Chicago to the country headed back to the city. "The coyotes are here, they've always been here and the only way to deal with them is to understand them and make them afraid of you," said Ned Ingham, a Greenwood Village retiree and one of Rosmarino's volunteers. "We live in an area with wildlife."
 
John Farr: The Best Original Movie Scores By Farr Top
From the first organ accompaniment in those early silent movie theatres, music has played an integral though often underappreciated role in creating a non-musical film's desired mood and impact. By and large, over the last quarter century, the most successful use of music in new releases- particularly those seeking to evoke a certain period- has taken the form of soundtracks, comprised of popular songs from the time that get re-introduced to generations old and new. Notably, cult director Quentin Tarantino has adopted this approach to strong effect: "Reservoir Dogs" accounts for why my children have Bob Dylan's "Stuck In The Middle With You" (performed by Stealers Wheel) on their iPods, while "Pulp Fiction" gets the credit for their well-justified appreciation of Dusty Springfield's "Son Of A Preacher Man". (One of the movies that helped popularize the now-common "various artist" soundtrack approach was Francis Ford Coppola's 1973 feature "American Graffiti"). It hardly makes sense to complain about a practice helps viewers appreciate the best songs that we, or even our parents, grew up with. Still, there is something special about a fabulous original piece of music that helps a great picture stick with you. Surveying the historical span of filmmaking, the use of original music appears more prevalent from the dawn of sound through the 1970s- or perhaps it's just that the scores themselves were more memorable over this period. During Hollywood's Golden Age in the thirties and forties, you had Max Steiner, who composed one of the most powerful, recognizable title themes ever- for "Gone With The Wind" (1939). Over at Warners, the brilliant Erich Wolfgang Korngold was creating heroic music that enhanced the sweep of Errol Flynn's various swashbuckling vehicles. Other big names of the day included Miklos Rozsa, Alfred Newman, and David Raksin, who reportedly composed the classic theme to 1944's "Laura" over a single weekend. Perhaps generational factors account for my own preferences, but beyond the two specific scores listed above, for me the most enduring original music came mostly in or around the 1960s, attached to equally iconic films. The following lays out my own picks for the ten most memorable movie scores over this fertile period when (not coincidentally) all popular music was beginning to expand in exciting new directions. You'll find in this list many composers known for other fine scores in addition to the features specified. (Note: all movies referenced are endorsed by our site. For full write-ups of these films, and close to 2,000 other outstanding titles, visit www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com ). 1) "North By Northwest" (1959) / "Psycho" (1960)- Composer: Bernard Herrmann 2) "The Magnificent Seven" (1961)- Composer: Elmer Bernstein 3) "Breakfast At Tiffany's" (1961) / "The Pink Panther" (1964)- Composer: Henry Mancini 4) "Lawrence Of Arabia" (1962)/ "Doctor Zhivago" (1965)- Composer: Maurice Jarre 5) "Dr. No" (1962) / "Goldfinger" (1964)- Composer: John Barry (and for "James Bond Theme", Monty Norman ) 6) "A Man And A Woman" (1966)- Composer: Francis Lai 7) "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" (1967)- Composer: Ennio Morricone 8) "The Thomas Crown Affair" (1968)- Composer: Michel Legrand 9) "Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid" (1969)- Composer: Burt Bacharach 10) "The Godfather" (1972) / "The Godfather, Part II" (1974)- Composer: Nino Rota
 
Huffington Post Launches Investigative Journalism Venture Top
NEW YORK — The Huffington Post said Sunday that it will bankroll a group of investigative journalists, directing them at first to look at stories about the nation's economy. The popular blog is collaborating with The Atlantic Philanthropies and other donors to launch the Huffington Post Investigative Fund with an initial budget of $1.75 million. That should be enough for 10 staff journalists who will primarily coordinate stories with freelancers, said Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post. Work that the journalists produce will be available for any publication or Web site to use at the same time it is posted on The Huffington Post, she said. The Huffington Post Web site is a collection of opinionated blog entries and breaking news. It has seven staff reporters. Huffington said she and the donors were concerned that layoffs at newspapers were hurting investigative journalism at a time the nation's institutions need to be watched closely. She hopes to draw from the ranks of laid-off journalists for the venture. "All of us increasingly have to look at different ways to save investigative journalism," she said. The Huffington Post venture is reminiscent of ProPublica, a nonprofit independent newsroom funded by The Sandler Foundation and headed by Paul Steiger, former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal. ProPublica works with a $10 million budget. Huffington said she hoped to encourage others to fund similar ventures. Foundation spending to support journalists is a promising trend, although the money set aside for such ventures represents far less than what a newspaper would spend to thoroughly cover a community, said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Foundation-based journalism will also require organizations to prove that situations are being looked at with a truly open mind, a larger burden than that faced by newspapers, he said. The Huffington Post skews liberal, but its founder promised that the work done by the investigative fund would be nonpartisan. The group would be discredited quickly if it puts out faulty information, said Nick Penniman, the fund's executive director. "We care about democracy, not Democrats," he said. Rosenstiel said the HuffPost is following another recent trend encouraging content to be reproduced virally for maximum exposure, instead of trying to direct people exclusively to the site. The HuffPost also promises to give a higher profile to work produced by other reporting groups, such as The Center for Public Integrity and The Institute for Justice and Journalism.
 
Susan Brison: Let Vermont Move Forward on Marriage Equality: an open letter to Governor Jim Douglas Top
The Honorable Jim Douglas Governor of Vermont 109 State Street, Pavilion Montpelier, VT 05609-010 Dear Governor Douglas, Fifteen years ago, my husband Tom and I bought our house in Thetford, Vermont, partly for the spectacular view of the mountains across the Connecticut River in New Hampshire, but mainly because we already had a wonderful community of close friends there. A number of them happen to be lesbians, living in committed relationships like our own. My parents, who live in Colorado, came to know them and would see them on their visits here and ask after them in our phone conversations. Although my folks knew that our friends Annelise and Alexis lived together as a couple, when I called them excitedly one day, in 1996, to announce that Alexis was going to have a baby, my mother's bewildered response was, "Oh? I didn't even know she was married!" I shouldn't have been surprised. My mother had been raised to believe that homosexuality was a sin, but she, like my father, had come to not only accept, but love, our lesbian friends. Which is not to say that she wasn't occasionally a little confused, but, after a brief conversation about sperm donors and artificial insemination, the next thing I knew, she was making a baby quilt for Alexis and Annelise's daughter, Evann. A few years later, when Annelise became pregnant with their second child, she made another baby quilt. And she made two more around that time, for babies of other lesbian friends. Our son, Gabriel, who is now fourteen, spent so much time with these kids that one day when he was four or five he asked me, with genuine puzzlement, "How come I don't have two moms?" He was too young to be involved in the Vermont marriage debates a decade ago, but he's keenly interested in civil rights these days, so he joined me and some one thousand Vermonters at the statehouse in Montpelier on March 18 to attend the public hearings on the marriage equality bill before the Vermont legislature. We heard Evann, now twelve, testify in favor of the bill that would give her parents the right to get married: "It hurts me sometimes when I feel invisible, because few people understand my feelings about my family, and few people want to ask about families with two moms. It's time to ask. It's time to understand. And it's time to accept and honor families like mine." We heard Evann's mom, Alexis, testify that it comes down to "what's best for the kids. And when you really think about it, why is it better for the children of gay and lesbian parents to be less secure, financially and legally, than other kids?" And we heard many Vermonters, gay and straight, with kids and without kids, argue that everyone should have full civil rights, that no one should any longer be treated like a second-class citizen. As you know, a few days later, the Vermont senate voted 26-4 for the marriage equality bill and it was sent to the house where it stood an excellent chance of passing. But the next day, you announced you would veto the bill--the first time in your tenure that you've threatened to veto a bill before the entire legislature voted on it. In the press release announcing your intention to veto the bill, you said: "I respect the passionate opinions of individuals on both sides of this debate and hope that when the Legislature makes their decision, whatever the outcome may be, we can move our state forward, toward a bright future for our children and grandchildren." Governor Douglas, if you truly respect all Vermonters, I urge you to honor the votes of our elected representatives when they make "their decision." Don't veto the bill. Allow it to become law, free the legislature to move on to other urgent tasks, and let the families of our gay and lesbian friends and neighbors enjoy all the civil rights you and I already enjoy. Our state is well on its way toward to that bright future all our children and grandchildren deserve. All you need to do is not hold us back. Sincerely, Susan Brison More on Gay Marriage
 
James Warren: This Week in Magazines: Is the "End of Excess" Really Upon us? Why Paul Krugman is Pissed at Obama, and Why the Death of Newspapers Won't Supposedly Impact Democracy Top
April 6 Time proclaims "The End of Excess" is here. Ah, were it true. Kurt Andersen pens a provocative, extended op-ed-as-cover story (the two giant newsweeklies' increasingly favorite species), essentially arguing that we're coming back to Kansas from Oz after a self-destructive economic era. We will have to admit our powerlessness over easy money and cheap fuel and "make a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves and be entirely read to remove our defects of character." He's correct in asserting we're exceptional but not magical as a country, and thus not "exempt from the laws of economic and geopolitical gravity." But does that mean that "our age of self-enchantment has ended," with a long-term, potentially sharp recalibration of expectations for how we lead our lives now imminent? One would hope that a new humility were on the way, that we will now plot what he calls our "reconstruction and reinvention," with the aggressively sober President Obama leading the way. And, yet, when the downturn is over, it will be interesting to assess how much soul-searching will have prompted individual and national recalibration of our goals and behavior. One can hope he's correct and still take note of how one of the symbols of our just-concluded era of accumulation, namely Wall Street pacesetter Goldman Sachs, is impatiently and publicly craving to return the federal aid it received last fall. Its aim is simple: to be liberated from federal limits on executive compensation. And there may be other yellow warning lights that our pre-crash quests for the extra car, the fancy master bathroom and the multitasking perfection of our children may simply return and override any fleeting contrition inspired by our current comeuppance. You could juxtapose Andersen's essay with "The Life Cycle of Conspicuous Consumption" in April Money, where George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen suggests the current modesty will give way to "a new social dynamic" in which, "It will start to look smart to affiliate yourself with a nascent economic recovery. The pendulum will swing back toward consumption." And, perhaps, that consumption will include some of the high-end goodies (and oddities) comprising the April 13 Forbes cover story, "What Recession? Some Entrepreneurs Have Hungry Customers Waiting in Line for Years." From $7,000 hand-built bicycles to $12,000 English Labradors, there's an unceasing market for deluxe. Elsewhere in Time, Laura Fitzpatrick's "The Financial Aid Game" is a terrific inside look how one college, Skidmore, is juggling its need for revenue and applicants' increasing need for assistance, with handy examples of multiple families and how much aid they are receiving, if at all. Will applying for aid hurt your chances of acceptance? "At Skidmore, one figure suggests the answer is yes: students of color, who disproportionately applied for financial aid, made up a higher percentage of this year's applicant pool than last year's." But reflecting 'the demands of financial aid,' says [dean of admissions-financial aid Mary Lou] Bates, they make up only 24 percent of the admitted pool this year, in contrast to 28 percent last year. As the magazine quotes Morton Schapiro, president of Williams College and a higher-education economist, "You've always been in an advantaged position to be rich and smart. Now you're at an even greater advantage." ---Newsweek's "Obama is Wrong" is a solid profile of Princeton economist Paul Krugman, a high-profile voice criticizing the president's economic recovery strategy from the political left. Much of his argument turns on doubts about the amount of assistance being given directly to banks and his belief that nationalization of some is incumbent. Since he's an intellectually honest Nobel Prize winner, it's no surprise that few White House folks will go on the record but, clearly, they think he's totally wrong. And, conspicuously, Krugman concedes he's not totally versed in all the "details" of the various recovery plans dealing with rather complex issues. This quotes one unidentified White House officials as noting that pundits will always be right some of the time and can outlandish, knowing that, at worst, they'll lose a few readers even if wrong. The White House, meanwhile, could totally wreck the economy if it's wrong. It's a predictable, media-bashing response but not without a scintilla of truth, given the undoubted dynamic among many elite pundits, especially in Washington, to be constantly provocative in this 24/7 Internet world. And, when it comes to Obama, one suspects many don't want to look as if they're doing too much cheerleading from the left, or that they've gotten on, or off, an Obama bandwagon too quickly if they're on the political right. Elsewhere, Newsweek.com includes "The End of Verse?" Marc Bain tries to dissect a National Endowment for the Arts report on the seeming increase in reading of fiction, but decline in reading of poetry. "Sunil Iyengar, the NEA's director of the Office of Research and Analysis, says the agency can't answer with certainty why fewer adults are reading poetry. He and others believed the opposite would be true, largely because of poetry's expansion onto the Internet. 'In fact,' he says, 'part of our surmise as to why fiction reading rates seem to be up might be due to greater opportunities through online reading. But we don't know why with poetry that's not the case.'" ---Nicholas Lemann has these words to the wise in April 6 New Yorker's Talk of the Town "Madder and Madder" offering: "Those in Washington who say they represent, or even embody, the public's anger at bankers should do their constituents a favor by focusing not on whom to demonize but on the hard work of building support for a program that would actually help people. Those who aren't angry--like, maybe, President Obama--ought to stop pretending they are, and, instead, try to persuade the country that pure rage is not something to be honored and respected at this dangerous moment." And you're informed elsewhere in Talk of the Town that the United Nations, amid all its generally depressing topics of discussion, had a rollicking discussion one recent evening on, ah, "Battlestar Galactica," the Sci Fi Channel cult classic which just finished a four-year run. Mike Peed's "Shuttle Diplomacy" tells you why, while disclosing the identity of a UN official who opined that "every one of us is a Cylon, and every one of us is a Colonial." ---April 6 ESPN The Magazine is very good on "Welcome to Mannywood," a breakdown of the hitting aplomb of iconoclastic baseball superstar Manny Ramirez. Its baseball preview issue will be a statistics lover's delight, as it focuses on a new obsession with analyzing how well players are defensively. With stats maven Nate Silver employing his Fielding Runs Above Average metric, which seeks to account for runs saved or lost relative to the Major League Average, "Defensive Shift" argues that Seattle, Detroit and the New York Yankees made very positive, off-season defensive changes, while the Cardinals, Cubs and Angels should be worse defensively. Interestingly, a related piece, "Smell the Glove," argues that Yankees icon Derek Jeter has been dead last defensively at his position for three consecutive years when one factors in "the number of balls he doesn't reach compared with the average major league shortstop." ----This week's Journey to the Obscure, or, as my five-year-old puts it, "This makes my head hurt" comes via "Factors Influencing Olive Oil Brand Choice in Spain: An Empirical Analysis Using Scanner Data." It's in Vol. 25 of Agribusiness, in case your copy was not delivered. Here's the abstract: "Olive oil consumption is growing all around the world as a consequence of the extension of the Mediterranean diet. Because of limited production, pricing, promotions, and consumer-related variables are essential to explain olive oil consumer behavior. As a consequence of this increasing consumption, it is fundamental to analyze the main factors influencing consumers' olive oil choices for both brands and retailers to be able to compete more efficiently and satisfy consumer needs more closely. But, few such studies are concerned with olive oil (although a great many works in the literature analyze the influence of these factors in other product categories). In a sociocultural context like the Spanish market, in which brand awareness is strong and the use of the product is very high, these factors are even more important. Thus, the main objective of this article is to determine and assess how different marketing variables, such as price, price discounts, use of store flyers and loyalty, explain olive oil brand choice." I'll save you the wait. Apparently, being a national brand is important, given unusually strong loyalty to those brands. Price is a factor but the brand leaders don't play around much with pricing promotions, lest they endanger their image. --- "Democracy's Cheat Sheet?" on Slate.com is newspaper lover Jack Shafer's cautionary note about those folks (present company included) who assert that vibrant daily newspapers are important to democracy. He disagrees. Shafer is really smart and has some good points ("Democracy survived its first century without much in the way of the investigative and accountability journalism we associate with newspapers"). But some other points are not quite as telling, such as citing a Pew poll showing that less than half of Americans "say that losing their local newspaper would hurt civic life in their community 'a lot.'" All that might tell you is that a long self-satisfied industry never made the case to citizens as to its relevance, or that civics instruction in the nation's schools is so dismal that kids are clueless as to papers' role in the political process (and thus television's and radio's role, given how those guys rip off papers each day). As for the suggestion that Illinois exemplifies the disjoint between ongoing corruption and admirable journalism, the reality is that there probably would be a lot more had it not been for lots of expensive exposes about the process. And, even if one argues that no newspaper can truly keep government accountable all the time, it might be mentioned that declining coverage (especially of institutions like state legislatures) will accelerate the lack of accountability. And, somewhere in there, is bad news, even if one stipulates that many papers are mediocre and that most people wouldn't lose sleep if they disappeared. When the cat's away..... ---March-April Foreign Affairs' "Reshaping the World Order" by Dartmouth's Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth suggests that despite the inherent, even "anarchic" world of decidedly self-interested states, a needed reshaping of the world order, notably international institutions like the United Nations and World Bank, is in order. In fact, it's a desperate need, they argue, as they lay out a variety of prospective changes; with the underlying premise that the United States should be the Big Fish and tailor changes in our national self-interest. This is thoughtful but misses a chance to make far more specific suggestions for some critical areas, notably the growing and generally underappreciated mess of humanitarian aid. As it stands now, the key institutions, mostly part of the United Nations universe, tend to serve as their own judge and jury when assessing their roles in particular crises, as well as being independent fundraisers. Far greater cohesion and centralization is a desperate need, with more thought to also be given the tricky matter of military intervention in certain instances, given the near certainty that humanitarian aid crises will just mushroom. The mess in Darfur, with an awful Sudanese dictator, is one of multiple examples. ---Is the $2,000 Nano from India's Tata Motors the car for a new century? "The New People's Car" in March 26 Economist has some doubts, especially given the firm's many corporate troubles. But maybe, just maybe. "Rakesh Batra of Ernst & Young India, a consultancy, says rivals are watching closely, and Tata must succeed when it comes to quality, service and the availability of parts if the Nano is not to fall flat on its pert little nose. Undaunted, Mr Kant believes that the Nano is tapping into a social and economic revolution in India. 'There is a paradigm shift under way in the country,' he says. 'Through the explosive growth of cellphones and television, the aspirations of rural people are converging with urban people.' He also points to India's plan to connect every village with a population of more than 1,000 to the road network by 2010. Nor are his ambitions for the Nano limited to India. The Nano Europa, a plusher version that meets Western safety and emissions standards, will go on sale in 2011, with an American version due a year or so later. 'The interest in the Nano", he says, 'is worldwide.'" ---"Inside the Ivory Tower" in March-April Foreign Policy surveyed 1,743 international relations scholars at four-year colleges and universities and found ample frustration with the role they see themselves playing in policymaking, "and, more often, the frustrating lack of influence they think they have from their perch above the fray of international politics. Most revealing? Nearly 40 percent of respondents reported that these scholars have 'no impact' on foreign policy or even the public discourse about it. Indeed, the only academics judges less effectual in the policy realm were historians." Of course, if you were looking to influence President Obama, it probably didn't hurt to be an Abe Lincoln scholar, like Doris Kearns Goodwin. She, and probably others, have likely had some impact, especially with the "team of rivals" notion. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might concur.
 
North Carolina Nursing Home Shooting Kills 6, Injures 3 Top
CARTHAGE, N.C. — A gunman opened fire at a North Carolina nursing home Sunday morning, killing at least six people and wounding several others, police said. The gunman was also injured before he was apprehended by police after the 10 a.m. shooting at Pinelake Health and Rehab in the town of Carthage, Police Chief Chris McKenzie told several television stations. A police officer was also hurt. "It's a horrible event in any size town, particularly, though, when you deal with a small town such as Carthage," McKenzie said. "It's hard. This is my home, my small town. I was born and raised here so, yeah, I take it to heart a little bit. All you can do is move forward." Gretchen Kelly, spokeswoman at FirstHealth Moore Regional Hospital in nearby Pinehurst, said six people were brought to the hospital from the nursing home. Kelly said two of the injured died at the hospital, but it wasn't clear if those two were among the six initially reported dead by police. Kelly said two other patients had been discharged, while two were still being treated. She wouldn't release further details on the injuries or conditions of those hospitalized. McKenzie said the gunman wasn't a patient at the nursing home, located about 60 miles southwest of Raleigh, but didn't offer any further details on what the gunman's motive might have been. Late Sunday afternoon, authorities appeared to be conducting a search of the nursing home's parking lot, which they had blocked off with yellow police tape. Among the items they found was a camouflaged-colored rifle or shotgun, which was leaning against the side of a Jeep Cherokee. The road leading to the home was filled with parked cars, both of police and relatives of those living at Pinelake. Howard McMillian, of Lakeview, said he raced to the scene as soon as he heard about the shooting. His 56-year-old sister lives at the nursing home, and McMillian said his brother had gotten a call from officials saying she was unharmed. "I know she's real nervous," McMillian said. "I just want to make sure she's OK." A nursing home Web site said the facility that opened in 1993 has 110 beds, including 20 for those with Alzheimer's disease. Calls to the nursing home by The Associated Press rang unanswered Sunday, and McKenzie and several state law enforcement agencies didn't immediately return messages or declined to comment. Police planned a news conference for later Sunday afternoon. Carthage is a small town of roughly 1,800 people in the North Carolina Sandhills, an area popular among retirees and home to several noted golf courses, including the famed Pinehurst resort and its No. 2 course that regularly hosts the U.S. Open. Pinelake Health and Rehab was last inspected in May, and the review resulted in an overall five-star _ or "much above average" _ rating from federal Medicaid officials. ___ Associated Press Writer Erin Gartner contributed to this report from Raleigh, N.C. ___ On the Net: Pinelake Health and Rehab: tml http://www.peakresourcesinc.com/nursing/pinelake.h
 
Richard Z. Chesnoff: CARYL CHURCHILL: LOVING TO HATE ISRAEL Top
I went to hear a reading of acclaimed British playwright Caryl Churchill's hyper-controversial "Seven Jewish Children - a play for Gaza". It was presented by the ever adventurous New York Theatre Workshop at its cavernous East 4th Street theater. The actual reading - which lasted barely eight minutes - was extremely well done and was followed by a lively audience participation- discussion hosted the night I attended by literary luminary Mark Crispin Miller. For the most part, the audience discussion was more than civil - and given the number of would be playwrights present and eager to talk about themselves, at times slightly boring. So what's the big stink? It's in the very nature and tone of Ms Churchill's latest creation, a blatant attempt to use drama to spew forth her own very one sided, super narrow Mideast political perspective and then call it "art". Churchil has never made a secret of where she stands on the Mideast conflict. She is vocally, ardently pro-Palestinian and decidedly anti-Israeli (or as one of the theater's spokespeople told me "she's really just anti-Zionist" - - as if that made it kosher). Her new play consists of a supposed stream of consciousness dialogue among a handful of fictional Jewish and then Israeli parents who debate just what to tell or not tell a little Jewish girl at various moments of modern Jewish history - from Nazi pogroms to Israel's birth to the recent battles in Gaza. The moment the abbreviated time span reaches the beginnings of a reborn Jewish state, the characters become increasingly repulsive, boorish interlopers. The final lines of the Gaza war mini-sequence contain Churchill's ultimate punches. As she portrays it, the once oppressed have become the true oppressors, the once weak are now the super strong, the "chosen people" as they refer to themselves, are bloodthirsty by choice, immoral haters, merciless. "Tell her there's dead babies, did she see babies? tell her she's got nothing to be ashamed of. Tell her they did it to themselves. Tell her they want their children killed to make people sorry for them, tell her I'm not sorry for them, tell her not to be sorry for them, tell her we're the ones to be sorry for, tell her they can't talk suffering to us. Tell her we're the iron fist now, tell her it's the fog of war, tell her we won't stop killing them till we're safe, tell her I laughed when I saw the dead policemen, tell her they're animals living in rubble now, tell her I wouldn't care if we wiped them out, the world would hate us is the only thing, tell her I don't care if the world hates us, tell her we're better haters, tell her we're chosen people, tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? tell her all I feel is happy it's not her....' Churchill's defenders see her mini-play (really more of a poem) as legitimate theater, the political drama of a playwright entitled to a singular perspective. Others. Like The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg see "Seven Jewish Children" as little more than agit-prop with some decidedly dangerous echoes of classic anti-Semitic blood-libel . I'd agree with Goldberg. In fact, while it is arguably political drama , I am puzzled how anyone would see it as pure art - especially when it deals with so complicated an issue as the Mideast conflict. Indeed, why choose to comment on this most recent phase of the decades old conflict by restricting it to a supposed discussion between Jewish/Israeli parents, especially repulsive one who are far from representative of Israeli parents who generally preach peace to their children - not war. More to the point, why examine the Gaza battles and totally ignore the supposed thoughts of Palestinian Gaza parents who allow their children to be systematically taught to hate Christians as well as Jews, whose children are told that there must never, ever be peace with Israelis, whose children are exhorted from toddlership that there is no higher Palestinian goal than to strap an explosive belt around one's waist and then venture forth to murder as many Jewish men, women and children as possible. The answer is because Ms Churchill, like her Hamas friends, is not interested in promoting true Mideast peace. I don't believe she's even that interested in defending all those hapless Palestinians she claims to identify with (she has forfeited any claim to royalties for this play in exchange for audience contributions to Palestinian medical welfare). What interests her most, like a dangerously increasing number of left wing Britons, is to strike out at Israelis and Israeli actions, and in doing so to question the Jewish state's very validity. In the end, Churchill has produced a let's-hate-the-Israelis piece of political propaganda disguised as avant-garde drama. Her work is a sad reflection of a growing tendency among "progressive intellectuals" here as well as abroad not merely to criticize specific Israeli government policies - their perfect right, even obligation - but to openly challenge Israel as such, to challenge its very right to exist as a Jewish state more than 60 years after its renaissance was ratified by the vast majority of the family of nations. Indeed, it is increasingly chic in supposedly intellectual circles to claim "I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm merely anti-Zionist". If that means "I disagree with certain Israeli government policies" - than calling oneself "an anti-Zionist", is a dangerous misnomer. Lord knows most of the people of Zionist Israel sharply disagree with their government's policies at one time or another. However, if by "anti-Zionist" one questions Israel's very legality, then this Zionist would argue the term is nothing more than a camouflage for anti-Semitism: it is denying to Jews the right that all nations have to a home on their ancestral land, even if, as in the case of Israel, they must share that land with another people that clearly doesn't want to share it. Like so many who now proudly define themselves as "anti-Zionists", Caryl Churchill simply loves to hate Israel. And that ain't art. More on Gaza War
 
Roger Warner: The C.I.A.'s tribe in danger Top
[Part 3 in a series: The Strange New Life of an Old Secret War] It wasn't the usual kind of Agency interrogation. At a table under a tree, in the yard of a locked detention center, in the city of Nong Khai, in the country of Thailand, across the wide Mekong river from the country of Laos, in the interior of Southeast Asia, sat two men. They had never met before, but they were connected by history. One of them was Bill Lair , an American in his early eighties, retired from the C.I.A. During the 1960s, back during the Vietnam war era, Lair himself had started and led an enormous covert operation in the mountains of northeastern Laos. At the core of Lair's operation was a Laotian hilltribe, the Hmong. The other man at the table was a Hmong named Blia Shoua Her. After the Americans left Indochina in 1975, and after Laos was taken over by their communist enemies, many Hmong kept on fighting instead of leaving for refugee camps in Thailand and then going to America. Those who stayed in the resistance in Laos became known as the "jungle' Hmong. Until recently, Blia Shoua Her had been a "jungle" Hmong leader. (see video ) Bill Lair was on a private fact-finding mission, looking into a multi-nation Hmong crisis. In Thailand, he already had discovered an outer layer of fake refugees, hoping for free rides to America. Now he was looking for the inner core, the real refugees fleeing from Laos. These were the tribespeople who had fought for the C.I.A. back in the Vietnam war years, who somehow had stayed loyal after the Americans left, and who had suffered because of it. These were the Hmong who deserved U.S. government help. In the locked detention center, the old spook and the tribesman spoke in their common language, which was Thai. Gently, Lair asked the Hmong leader about his life, about his training in the American war years, and what it was like after the Americans left and the communists took over. Lair knew the Hmong well, and knew Laos well, and by talking directly without interpreters would know if he was hearing the truth. The Hmong man said he had gotten military training as an adolescent, in program that Lair personally had set up, back in the 1960s. But then he had returned to his village to become a civilian leader. In the year that everything changed - 1975, when the Hmong military commander, Gen. Vang Pao, left with the Americans - Blia Shoua Her said he was asked to stay by "Vang Pao," (apparently, one of the general's supporters). For more than thirty years after that, he and the people of his village farmed until they were attacked, then retreated into the forests, farming and fleeing, again and again in a cycle. His band of "jungle" Hmong only fought to defend themselves from the soldiers of the Lao People's Democratic Republic. They ate bark and bugs, hid from government planes, and raised children and grandchildren without the help of teachers or doctors. After his wife was shot and killed by government soldiers while foraging for wild foods in 2006, Blia Shoua Her decided to get out. He considered surrendering, but the Laotian secret police have a history of torturing "jungle" Hmong. So he escaped from Laos across the Mekong river with part of his band to what he hoped was safety in neighboring Thailand. He told Bill Lair he had one son in Sacramento, California who was an American citizen. Maybe the Thais would let him go to America. Or maybe not. Turns out, there was a problem, a change in Thai policies. Out of the frying pan, into the fire. By the time of Lair's visit, in 2007, the Thai and Lao governments had agreed in principle to repatriate the 150 Hmong in the Nong Khai detention center, and another 8,000 in a Thai refugee camp. (This policy was hardened when Vang Pao was arrested on trumped-up U.S. government charges in June 2007). A short time before our arrival, there had been an attempt to forcibly repatriate the Nong Khai group. It had only been thwarted when Blia Shoua Her and his people barricaded themselves in their cells and threatened to commit suicide. As Lair put it, "If they are repatriated - because they have caused so much trouble for the Lao government - my own feeling is that they will be executed. If not, they will be held in detention centers in Laos and probably won't live very long." The Hmong imprisoned in Thailand felt that if they were going to die anyway, why give their old enemies the satisfaction of killing them? Suicide seemed a rational option. One after another, the Hmong inside the Thai detention center lifted their shirts or the bottoms of their trousers to show us their bullet scars. One of Blia Shoua Her's younger sons had lost an eye to shrapnel, his face disfigured. They were the real thing. Living fossils of a long-ago covert war. And they had suffered because of their loyalty to an old American cause that few Americans today know anything about. By visiting these "jungle" Hmong, by speaking with them directly, Lair had confirmed that there was an inner core of legitimate refugees whom the U.S. government should help. But he couldn't do much to solve their dilemma himself. Not the way he could have in the old days, when he was running the C.I.A.'s covert war. Back then, at the height of his powers in the 1960s, he could have freed anyone he wanted from a prison or a detention center in either Thailand or Laos. And if Hmong in the jungle needed to be rescued, Lair could send a helicopter to get them, with soldiers on the ground or planes in the air to provide armed escort. But that was then. This was now. He was long retired, and the C.I.A. was out of Laos entirely, and didn't have the clout it once had in Thailand. So he would have to go to the U.S. embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, to see what the diplomats could do about the jungle Hmong dilemma. It was the next step. The State Department was in charge. Or, at least, it was supposed to be. Next in this series : The State Department's human rights disgrace. Note : Lair made his visit to Nong Khai in March 2007. Two years later, as these words are written, Blia Shoua Her and the 150-plus Hmong in Nong Khai are still in danger. They've been kept indoors, jammed in cells, and subjected to harassment that is very nearly torture. Whether they will be forcibly repatriated, and killed, or resettled in the West is anybody's guess. Click here for a brief video of Lair's visit to Nong Khai . And a tip of the hat to my colleague, Roger Arnold, who photographed Blia Shoua Her in the jungles of Laos, and who has visited him in Nong Khai many times since. I edited the video, but it combines footage and imagery that both Roger Arnold and I (Roger Warner) shot and collected. Previous installments in this series: Part 1: The Weirdest Terrorism Court Case in America Part 2: The C.I.A. Man Returns More video: An overview of the Sacramento terrorism case and its Southeast Asian context
 

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)