Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Dave Johnson: Watch Out For Wikipedia Top
Try this: start or edit a Wikipedia article that includes information that might be unfavorable to conservative corporate interests, perhaps in the area of tort reform (incl medical malpractice, etc) or trade/protectionism, etc. Try adding citations to studies that show that tort reform is a corporate-funded effort to keep people from being able to sue companies that harm them... I tried it and it was removed in a few minutes. Or try to edit the entry on Protectionism, perhaps adding something like the words "unfair competition" as in protecting America jobs from unfair competition from countries that exploit workers. Someone did this the other day and the edit lasted a few minutes before it was removed because it changed the "long accepted definition of protectionism." In other words, the idea that our standard of living should be protected from competition using exploited workers is unfair goes against the corporate-interest meaning of the term. Try editing entries covering other issues around trade, economics or corporate issues. See how long it takes before a pro-corporate viewpoint is returned to the article. Or add an article about a progressive organization. I added an article about the Commonweal Institute , and it was immediately removed, so I put another up and it was immediately flagged for removal. (I am working to save it...) An article about me - put up and edited by others - was also removed twice. The circumstances involved a professional "leading tort-reform advocate" -- while I'm the person who wrote this report about how the tort reform movement is involved with the corporate/conservative movement. Go figure. This is a problem at Wikipedia. It is quite possible that there are people who are paid to show up and push Wikipedia to reflect a conservative, pro-corporate viewpoint. And why wouldn't this be the case as it is in so many other areas where corporate interests are affected? (I know of one corporate-funded conservative movement insider who spends much of the normal workday and evenings editing Wikipedia.) So it seems the Wikipedia organization may be unable to sufficiently police the site to keep this from happening, and to keep new people from having unpleasant experiences and being shouted down and driven away. There are so many areas of political life where conservatives shout down or intimidate everyone else until they give up and go away. Wikipedia is fast becoming one more. This has real-world implications. Wikipedia shows up at the top of many if not most Google searches, and people tend to believe this means it is a reliable source. This positioning implies a public-interest responsibility for accuracy and objective presentation of material. On non-controversial topics Wikipedia is a very reliable and possibly the best source for information because over time the "wisdom of crowds" effect brings increased expertise to bear. But like so many things today, in areas where corporate resources can be focused, the subject matter increasingly reflects the viewpoint that serves the interests of the few at the top. Wikipedia's prominence is the likely reason this conservative information-purging occurs. It is also the reason Wikipedia has a responsibility to do something about it. (Edited a bit from the original .)
 
Ian Millhiser: Supreme Court's Judge-For-Sale Case Is Just The Tip of a Larger Iceberg Top
When a jury ordered Don Blankenship's company to pay $50 million to one of its competitors, Blankenship had a plan; rather than pay the money, Blankenship decided to buy a judge. An unknown lawyer named Brent Benjamin was in the midst of a quisical election campaign against incumbent West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Warren McGraw. With no name-recognition, and only $25,000 in the bank, Benjamin's campaign was going nowhere. That is, of course, until Don Blankenship showed up. Seeing an opportunity to shape the judges who would decide his appeal, Blankenship spent $3 million dollars in contributions, independent ads and other expenditures intended to place Brent Benjamin on the bench. One ad, funded entirely by a front-organization created by Blankenship, accused incumbent Justice McGraw of voting to free an free an incarcerated child rapist, and of allowing that rapist to work in a public school. Armed with Blankeship's millions, Brent Benjamin became Justice Benjamin, and he soon cast the deciding vote in a case overturning the verdict against Blankenship's company. Blankenship paid $3 million to buy a judge, and saved $50 million for his company---a 1667% return on his investment. Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case which could reverse Justice Benjamin's decision and require similarly bought-and-paid-for judges to recuse themselves from cases involving their sugar daddies . But the Blankenship/Benjamin incident is only the tip of a much larger iceberg. Indeed, thousands of Americans who depend on the courts for impartial justice are left in the cold by an increasingly pro-corporate judiciary. Like Don Blankenship, the business interests who supported George W. Bush's two campaigns for President were rewarded with judges who are overwhelmingly sympathetic to their concerns. The federal judiciary is more conservative now than it has been since the Great Depression, and corporate interests have reaped the rewards. A University of Houston study found that President Bush's judges side with civil-rights plaintiffs, workers, consumers and other similarly disadvantaged parties only 33% of the time , three percent less often than even Ronald Reagan's appointees to the bench. Another study, published in the Harvard Law & Policy Review , determined that federal appeals courts are almost five times more likely to side with employers than with employees in discrimination cases , now that President Bush has stacked the bench with judicial conservatives. Such pro-employer bias explains the Supreme Court's now-infamous decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire , which held that employers are immune to accountability for paycheck discrimination, so long as they keep their decision to discriminate secret for six months. To be clear, there is no evidence suggesting that the overwhelming majority of Bush's judges benefited from corporate money in the way Justice Benjamin did. Their bias stems from a deep-seeded ideology, not from inattention to judicial ethics. Indeed, fearing that even George Bush's judges might expect powerful interests to follow the law---at least on rare occasion---many companies have created their own privatized justice system which all-but-guarantees that they are free to act with impunity. With the Supreme Court's blessing, thousands of companies outright refuse to do business with their customers or employees unless those individuals sign away their power to hold the company accountable in court. Instead, these companies force anyone they do business with into their own biased, privatized arbitration which sides with the company a massive 94% of the time . And thousands of ordinary Americans are caught in this trap every day without even knowing it. Virtually all credit card companies, for example, require their customers to sign up for corporate arbitration before they will issue a card---if you have a credit card, you have almost certainly be forced to sign up for biased, privatized arbitration. Similarly, employers routinely force their workers to sign up for arbitration under threat of termination, and many homebuilders won't hammer a single nail until the homeowner gives them immunity from the law. Even nursing homes and other long-term care facilities think they should be immune from laws protecting the most vulnerable seniors. In one of the most egregious cases, an assisted-living center even tried to force an elderly Alzheimer's patient into arbitration after she was found covered in fire ants. So the Blankenship/Benjamin incident may be the most dramatic recent example of a judge placing powerful interests ahead of the interests of justice, but it is only a symptom of a larger disease. Corporate-owned courts presided over by the business community's hand-picked arbitrators are fast becoming the rule, and a deeply ideological bench is only sometimes available as an imperfect alternative. Like Don Blankenship's competitor, millions of ordinary Americans don't stand a chance when they appear before a judge who was placed on the bench solely because of their conservative, pro-corporate viewpoints---or worse, are kicked out of court and forced in front of an arbitrator whose job is to ensure that powerful interests never face real justice.
 
Carrie Pollare: Losing Noah: Coming to Terms with Canine Cancer Top
Have you seen the TV commercial where a child comes running to his mother, so excited because their dog has learned a new trick? The mother is horrified, as she realizes the trick is the dog scooting across their carpet on its behind. Most people would probably find that very funny. I can't watch it. You see, a little scoot across the floor was the very first sign that our dog, Noah, had cancer. At first, we were so nonchalant about this incident. I saw him do it one night and my husband said, "Oh, I saw him do the same thing a few days ago." Anticipating something minor, but always the overly cautious mother, I took him to our vet. Never in my wildest dreams did I think he would say, "I feel a lump in his anal gland." What?! Thus began what has now become a year-long nightmare. After crying my eyes out for the first of what would be many times, I got angry. There was no way this could happen to my "Poppy" (no, it's not a typo). Hadn't he had enough pain in his life...homeless on the streets of a Los Angeles ghetto, used as target practice by derelicts with a bee bee gun, and now this is how it would end? And, in spite of those difficult beginnings, my doggie is a beautiful sweet spirit, who I've snuggled with every night on my bed for 10 years before we go to sleep...who we call the "con artist" because his communication techniques are hysterical when he wants treats or a walk...who taught himself to "get a bear" (which is the generic name we use for all of his stuffed animals) to calm himself down because he gets so excited when someone comes to the door. So he runs it out, back and forth, until he can greet without jumping. And, at 10 years old, he still has the energy of a two year old pup. As I've said in past posts, these horrific personal experiences are exactly what drives me to make our "I'm Tired of..." bracelets campaign a raving success, to raise money to find cures for insidious diseases, like cancer, whether it impacts humans or animals. It helps give some purpose to my ordeal and, maybe, ultimately bring hope and answers for others. It also gives me the ability to impart what I've learned, so that maybe I can help another doggie get diagnosed earlier or get the right kind of treatment. I wear both " I'm Tired of Animal Cruelty " and " I'm Tired of Cancer " bracelets in honor of my Poppy. We were sent to a surgeon for what would be two surgeries, the first to remove the actual tumor and then a second to remove a lymph node where it had spread. Then it was on to a cancer veterinarian group to figure out the next steps. Yes, canine cancer is so prevalent today that there are veterinary groups that specialize in the field...so widespread that the Los Angeles Times recently ran a story on the very cancer practice, called Veterinary Cancer Group , that would take care of Noah. I've also learned that the course of treatment is very similar to cancer treatment for humans. We were told that he needed radiation treatments to kill anything left at the tumor site every day for about a month and then chemotherapy to catch and kill any cells that got away once a week for another month. After that, he would require checkups with chest x-rays, ultrasounds and exams every three months for life and pills to slow any progression of what might still be there every day for life. As you might imagine, this was not an inexpensive proposition. We're talking a year of college tuition type of expensive if you include the surgeries. But, we were told that, without these treatments, Noah would be gone in less than a year. With them, he might live two or three more years. In my mind, there was just no choice. People told me I was out of my mind. How could I spend that kind of money on a "DOG?" Time to just let him go, they said. We could always get another one, they said. Seriously?! How could they think that I had any choice in this matter? How could they be so callous? He was not just a "possession" to be tossed out because he was now "defective." He was my precious Noah and I, quite frankly, didn't care how much it would cost. We'd figure it out. As we went through the process, I learned that there were a lot of people who felt the same way, as I sat with them, day in, day out, in the waiting room. Each of us had our own sad story, which we discussed like a support group as we waited for our dogs to come out from radiation, each of us praying this would work. Then there were the dogs...their fur shaved off at the cancer site and marked in blue ink like a checkerboard, showing the world where radiation was being administered, some with raw, red skin. But through it all, each was a little trooper and my Noah always came out bouncy and wagging his tail, always making sure the technicians gave him lots of biscuits. Finally, we got the word that Noah was cancer free. That celebration went on for a year, as each checkup showed no signs of cancer. At our one-year anniversary, which was to be a major milestone, it all fell apart. The doctor found a new "nodule" where the original cancer had been. I felt like I'd been hit with a baseball bat. We had done everything right. How could this happen? We were told that he needed yet another surgery to remove it. Numbly, I agreed. That surgery was done at the beginning of January of this year. This past week, we went back for our first post-surgical checkup and, as unbelievable as this is, the chest x-ray turned up two little "nodules" in his lungs. It was then that the reality hit me: we are going to lose this war. It was a stunning blow, from which I'm having a hard time recovering. So here we are. More pills to try to slow the cancer with no idea if it will work or how long he has to live...Regular checkups to watch the progression...Me, sick to my stomach in anticipation of what's to come and just so completely sad...beaten up...devastated. The experience actually inspired me to create a short slide show with the help of Best Friends Animal Society , called " Smile ." You are probably asking yourselves how I could smile about any of this. Actually, the slide show makes me laugh because each photo is of dogs (and cats) who are "smiling." I've decided that now, I'm going to focus on Noah's quality of his life for however long I have left with him. Tonight, I'll go to the market to buy him a roasted chicken...his favorite.
 
AIG's PR Machine: Four Top PR Firms, Plus In-House Team Top
AIG PR: American International Group is keeping the spin machine employed. The US insurance giant - which just received its fourth taxpayer bailout - has four public relations firms on its payroll. More on AIG Bailout
 
Snow-Covered Nation's Salt Is Seeping Into Groundwater Top
March 3, 2009 -- Salt does a great job of melting ice on frozen winter roads. But most road salt ends up in lakes, streams and groundwater, where it threatens the health of aquatic organisms, according to new research. The study focused on salt applied to roads around Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn. But the same is probably true in other icy places, said lead researcher Heinz Stefan, a water resources engineer at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. The work highlights the fine balance that often needs to be struck between human safety and the environment. More on Environment
 
Tesla Opening Chicago Dealership Top
Tesla Motors , the Silicon Valley-based electric car manufacturer, is planning to open a Chicago dealership in the spring. The store at 1053 W. Grand Ave., in River West near the Kennedy Expressway will be the company's third and the first outside of California. The company's only car in production, the Roadster sports car, sells for over $100,000. Tesla plans to unveil a sedan model prototype for roughly half the price in late March. The full Tesla release: Tesla to Open Midwest Regional Sales & Service Center in Chicago Tesla Motors Inc. is opening a Midwest regional sales and service center in Chicago, the first of seven retail facilities the electric vehicle manufacturer plans to launch this year. The Chicago store -- which will open this spring -- is at 1053 W. Grand Ave., near the Kennedy Expressway in the River West neighborhood. The site is visible from the Ohio Street off-ramp and offers convenient access from the suburbs and further afield. The location gives prospective customers the opportunity to experience Tesla's best-in-class performance under a range of driving conditions, including highways and urban streets. Tesla's first showrooms opened last summer in Los Angeles and Menlo Park, Calif. After Chicago, Tesla plans to open a store in London, U.K. It is finalizing site selection in Manhattan, Miami and Seattle and is scouting sites in Washington, D.C. and Munich, Germany. "People in Chicago will soon see how the Tesla retail experience is vastly different from that of a traditional dealership," said Michael van der Sande, Tesla's Senior Vice President of Global Sales, Marketing and Service. "Tesla's cars are unique, and the look and feel of our stores reinforce the close connection we have with our customers." Tesla is the only production automaker selling highway-capable EVs in the United States. The Tesla Roadster beats nearly every other car for acceleration yet is twice as energy efficient as a Toyota Prius. With an EPA-estimated range of 244 miles per charge, it costs roughly $4 to refuel and can be completely recharged in as little as 3.5 hours. The Tesla Roadster has far fewer moving (and breakable) parts and requires less maintenance than an internal combustion engine vehicle. Tesla requests that owners bring in the car - which never needs oil changes or exhaust system tune-ups, among other costly repairs -- every 12,000 miles or once a year for a diagnostic check and software upgrade. Tesla will unveil a prototype sedan March 26. The Model S will be an all-electric, zero-emission four-door with an anticipated base price of $57,400. After a federal tax credit of $7,500, the effective price should be less than $50,000. Because of tax incentives and relatively inexpensive maintenance and refueling, the lifetime ownership cost will be much lower than luxury cars with similar sticker prices. "Tesla has no intention of being a niche automaker," said Tesla CEO, Chairman and Product Architect Elon Musk. "The Chicago store will introduce the company to even more people in the United States and position us to launch a more affordable sedan for mainstream drivers." About Tesla Motors San Carlos, Calif.-based Tesla Motors Inc. designs and manufactures electric vehicles with exceptional design, performance and efficiency, while conforming to all North American and European safety, environmental and durability standards. The Roadster, which has a 0-to-60 mph acceleration of 3.9 seconds and a base price of $109,000, is the only highway-capable production EV for sale in North America and Europe. Tesla expects to begin producing the all-electric, zero-emission Model S sedan in late 2011. Please visit www.teslamotors.com. (via Jalopnik , Windy Citizen ) More on Cars
 
Tara Stiles: My Date With Austin Scarlett Top
I went on a date with Austin Scarlett to the Frick Collection's Young Fellows Ball Thursday, Feb, 26, 2009. It was a Cinderella story beginning to end. I was introduced to Austin through a mutual friend, Patrick O'Leary. Patrick was involved in a cover shoot I did for CITY magazine by Phil Toledano. Patrick reps top photographers at Art Dept, a title that makes him uber cool, creative, and in-the-know with people doing good work. Patrick told me that his good friend Austin was attending a ball at the Frick and needed a fun girl to go with and wear his dress, so I got the gig. I have a bit of peripheral history with Bravo TV and its stars (surrounding Queer Eye for the Straight Guy), which adds to a developing theory involving a magnetic force and myself to all things Bravo. I've got a stellar idea for a yoga makeover show. Just putting it out there Bravo people. Call me. Now I'm not a big viewer of reality TV, but most everyone says that, while still keeping up with one or two shows (myself included). A long time ago, way back in 2004, a friend of mine convinced me that Project Runway, the first season, was worth watching. I'm not admitting that I was glued to the premiere of every episode, even if I was, but I did catch a few shows and found myself interested in the designers more than I expected to be. It was obvious from the show that Austin Scarlett was one to watch and one to buy. He is a talent that only needed an outlet, and a TV show seemed to fit just fine. He knew what he was doing and had a fresh and dramatic creativity that made him stand out. Notably, Austin has had a productive life before and after his reality TV debut. Originally from Eugene, Oregon, Austin Scarlett (yes that's his real name) received a degree in fashion design from the Fashion Institute of Technology, where he specialized in couture and eveningwear design. Austin's designed for clients, film, Broadway, dance, and opera. He produced couture collections under his own name for fall 2005 and spring 2006 when he signed on to be the creative director of the Kenneth Pool label. Austin invited me to a couple fittings to try the dress on before the big event. The Frick is Austin's favorite museum. He had recently joined the museum as a young fellow, and this was his first formal ball as a member. Hanging on the mannequin in his studio was a ballet pink dramatic start of a gown constructed out of haircloth, the stiff fabric typically made from horsehair. I thought it would probably be really itchy but it wasn't, and was surprisingly fun to wear. Austin and his helpers made a bunch of adjustments, taking things in and pinning everything into Austin's desired shape. The dress was short in the front and cascaded down the back in tiers. Wearing it I felt edible, like something sweet and gooey. On the night of the ball I went to Austin's downtown apartment to get ready. He lives on a high floor, not typical in my New York downtown apartment experiences. He answered the door in his pajamas, Billy Holiday was playing through the speakers, city lights and the Empire State Building sparkled in through the windows. Living in New York, I seem to forget or skim over experiences that are specific to New York glamour, and this was one of them. I felt like I had walked into a present day Breakfast at Tiffany's. This is how Hollywood sees New York. Living in New York, we often forget its charm. A car picked us up and drove to the Frick, where ball goers poured out of cabs and cars to make their grand entrance. Little did they know, that this dress, Austin's dress, was about to steal the show. We walked in with a loose plan. Look dramatic, and have a good time. Photographers flocked to Austin and me, snapping away when we reached the front steps. It was pretty fun. We socialized with socialites and exchanged a few business cards. All the women were glammed up more than usual for this event. A fun couple was dressed in 18th century duds. We chatted with them for a while. Everyone wanted to know all about the dress and what Austin was up to these days. I'm sure he was a little tired of hearing the frequently offered: "You should have won." No one was on the dance floor, probably because the music was Bar Mitzvah ready. YMCA and Baby Got Back at the Frick? I was confused, but in the mission of getting Austin's dress the exposure it deserved, we took to the dance floor and shook it. Later in the evening when the champagne was flowing more freely, the dance floor was packed like a high school homecoming dance, but with much nicer dresses. It was all a bit surreal. It was quite amazing to peruse the 18th century portraits at night when the museum was closed to the public. It was a bit "Night at the Museum," the Ben Stiller movie where the animal displays come to life. In our version the guests wandered around the Frick like it was their living room, dressed and mannered to properly accompany the decor. Photographers snapped away like we were a live performance. It felt a bit like we were players in the game Clue, photographic evidence of "who, what and where" to be revealed late that night on Wireimage, Fame Game, and other websites and newspapers. Austin surely would have won if there was a best dress award. It all seemed quite a success. And fun too. Shortly after the stroke of midnight, the party started to wind down. We were about to turn into pumpkins! Austin plucked some oranges from the display and told me to take the flowers. "They're just going to throw it away." We hopped in a cab with our party favors and were whisked back downtown. At Austin's place I changed out of my gown and back into my Urban Outfitters getup. The hairspray and eye makeup didn't go with my new look. Within minutes Austin was back in his pajamas ready to get some beauty sleep. We hugged goodnight and I walked a few blocks home, over-stimulated by the events of the evening. I could get used to that kind of glamour. Thanks Austin!
 
Dan Agin: The Roots of Anti-Liberalism: Part I Top
With all the current prattling by conservative hacks about "liberals" and "liberalism", as if caring about the conditions of other people is a horrible attitude, you would think the more intelligent among the hacks would understand the lessons of history. Or is that too "liberal" for them? Without the lessons of history, our future may be a dark time. And of lessons, history has plenty to offer us--about ourselves, our children, and the roots of anti-liberalism. In its baldest expression, anti-liberalism is not caring about your neighbors, the people of your city, the people of your country, or the human species. You care about "country" or "freedom" or "business"--but not about people. You paint yourself as a "rugged individualist" or a "philosophical conservative" or, more recently, as a political and social "moderate"--because these days "moderate" may be a safer label at dinner parties. But no matter the label, it's all anti-liberalism and striking in the way the lessons of history are so conveniently ignored. Anti-liberals have their slogans. "Self-reliance" and "fiscal responsibility" and various other anti-liberal slogans fly around the media like intoxicated pigeons, but if one looks behind the slogans they are all part of the political mechanics of anti-liberalism. The most cogent historical lesson for us is probably ancient Rome, a thousand-year nightmare of anti-liberalism that made 20th century Fascists (who tried so hard to ape the Romans) look like amateurs. Although 20th century Soviet Communists did not try to ape the Romans, they quickly embraced an anti-liberalism as degenerate as that of the Fascists. Absolute power and anti-liberalism feed each other. Anti-liberalism is a social attitude, and we need to take it seriously and try to understand it. The roots of social attitudes are always intriguing. How do they arise? How are they sustained? Why do they change? We can make substantive contact with the anti-liberalism of ancient Rome through a glass case in the Louvre museum in Paris. It's a small terra cotta piece from ancient Rome that needs some close attention. The general image of the piece is more imposing than the craftsmanship. Most of the details are eroded, but enough remains to startle our eyes and mind. A woman is astride a bull, apparently tied to the animal, hands tied behind her back, her face turned upward as she no doubt screams. She appears to be wearing a loincloth, but otherwise she's naked. A leopard has mounted the bull in front of the woman, the leopard on its haunches with its paws grasping the woman's waist, its mouth at her chest as it tears at one of her breasts in the process of killing her. This is no presumed heroic gladiator fighting a wild beast with sword and shield. This is a woman with tied hands and no weapon presented as live meat to a wild animal. Miniature pieces with similar depictions were apparently sold in shops near the various arenas of the Roman Empire, souvenirs of the "games", where on the bloody sand the bulls and leopards and live human meat and various spectacles of human killing were seen directly by a cheering mob of many thousands. The spectacles were seen by the crowds from dawn to dusk, at least a hundred days a year for centuries. When school children today are taught the glories of ancient Rome, the tranquility of the Pax Romana, the noble life of Roman orators and poets, the gore and human blood on the sands of the arenas remains an adult secret. We hide from our children the reality that in ancient Rome death was a spectator sport. There are those who believe that it's not possible to objectively evaluate the violent acts of another culture. Not only do I disagree with that attitude, but I think it's necessary that we make many such evaluations, mandatory that we try our best to understand anti-liberalism--and especially its dangerous culmination in murderous group violence. The alternative, to place historical phenomena like American lynch mobs and Nazi death camps beyond analysis, is too simplistic and too dangerous. We must analyze, take into account our personal cultural biases--and continue to analyze. The population of the city of Rome during the early Empire was about one million. The slave population totaled about 500,000. The legal status of nearly everyone else fluctuated through the centuries, but in general anyone living in the city of Rome who was not a slave or a freed slave had full citizenship, including the children of freed slaves born after freedom of their parents but not before. Within the group of citizens of Rome, social status was determined officially by wealth and property more than by lineage. Many politically powerful people were the descendants of freed slaves in a family line that some time after freedom managed to acquire sufficient wealth. It's probable that approximately 1,000 extremely rich families ruled the city and the empire. A Roman slave had no legal existence and was more or less considered a detached part of the master's body. A former slave had some privileges but not full citizenship. Children of freed slaves during most of the Empire did not have full citizenship and had little social acceptance. On the other hand, freed slaves and their descendants who managed to accumulate wealth (all shopkeepers and tradesmen were former slaves or the descendants of slaves) achieved social status and even had access to noble titles. During the Empire, any slave--man, woman, or child--could be killed, tortured, or raped by a master essentially without recourse. In contrast, if a slave in a household murdered the master, all the slaves in the household were usually executed. Rome was a city stratified according to social class, with social class determined essentially by wealth. Twenty per cent of the population of the city of Rome was on the grain dole (the Roman version of welfare)--mostly freedmen and their children--all without a source of income. Approximately 600 senators lived in Rome, all with many slaves, some with as may as 100 slaves. Wealthy commercial families also had many slaves in their household. In addition, many citizens of wealth maintained farms and vineyards outside Rome, all the agricultural industries manned by slaves. The essential social situation was hardly complicated and was familiar to many societies before and since: oppression of a majority by a minority, with harsh punishment and fear of punishment as mechanisms of control: an apotheosis of anti-liberalism. (to be continued)
 
Mark Blankenship: Big Love Wife Watch! : Round Seven (Spoilers!) Top
Welcome to Wife Watch!, the only blog post that ranks the most powerful wives on this week's Big Love . This week, I'm starting with the final scene of the latest episode, "Fight or Flight." If you haven't yet seen it, you may want to stop reading, taking a 56-minute break with your HBO On Demand, and then come back. Cool? So... let's have a moment of silence for dear, sweet Kathy Marquart, whose polygamy hair was the death of her. I have to say, I didn't appreciate until recently what a great character Kathy is. She's so sweetly unassuming that I overlooked how well she understands Juniper Creek politics and how unabashedly she loves the people around her (cheers to Mireille Enos for playing her so well.) In this episode, it was great to watch her rally more women to her anti-Roman cause while also forging a deep bond with Wanda. The scene where she floated off to pick flowers for Wanda's hair, dressed in her wedding gown, while Wanda plunked out "This Little Light of Mine" on a Casio was both moving and chilling. Moving because you knew how happy Kathy was. Chilling because this show punishes that kind of contentment. Personally, I figured Wanda was going to hurl the Casio at Kathy's head and end the whole sister wife thing right there. Wanda's dangerous when she's calm, you know? But the actual shitstorm was even crazier. Selma Green in a dress? Trying to force Kathy to marry Hollis in a secret ceremony conducted by Roman? And then getting stabbed with a pitchfork after Kathy breaks free, only to be trampled by a giant hog? And then Hollis stabs the hog? Can't. Be. Topped. And I loved the symbolism of Kathy's death-by-braid. It was Roman who smashed his jeep into her truck as she tried to get away, so he's obviously her killer. But how fitting that she might have lived if her braid hadn't been stuck in the truck door, snapping her neck when she hit a pole. That braid is crucial to the identity of the compound women, and so it's partially Kathy's life that doomed her. You were never going to be First Wife, Kathy, even though Wanda wanted to cede her authority to you. But you will be missed. Speaking of Wanda, she almost helped Barb into this week's top spot. When she asked Barb for advice on how to behave like a true first wife, she basically announced that Barb was queen of the roost. Barb also handled herself well when she was reconnecting with Sarah. By not freaking out (too much) about Sarah's decision not to go to college---and by admitting that she was relieved that Sarah lost her baby---Barb was just the kind of mother her daughter needed. But Barb's getting entangled in this whole "my sister and brother-in-law bought some letter about polygamy, then somehow convinced Bill to pay for it in exchange for a casino loan" fiasco. Frankly, I don't care. This otherwise brilliant show spends way too much time dealing with the office politics of Mormonism. No matter how much the land deals and building codes affect the Henrickson's well-being or the power struggles at Juniper Creek, they are always, always boring. No wife who gets too close to them will ever come out on top. For proof that work can be interesting, just take a look at Nicky . My girl kissed her boss! And they went on a date! And even after Margene busted her for using Margene's name at the office---and Nicky admitted she'd been spying on the D.A. to help Roman's case---Nicky kept seeing her undercover sweetie! As usual, Chloe Sevigny forced me to find new ways to praise her performance, especially during the scene where the family tried to stage an intervention about her birth control. Sevigny's face maintained an outward mask of composure, but we could see ripples of hurt, anger, and fear. And then she fainted. Oh my god! She fainted right there in the kitchen, like Pirandello's hysterical wife! But that doesn't do much for her power in this episode. No, in this installment, the first wife is finally, finally Margene . I know some of you have been in her corner since the beginning, but this time, she totally earns it. After almost breaking down about the fact that her entire life revolved around caring for the children, Margene realized that Nicky had been lying about work. And so, with ruthless perkiness, she cornered Nicky in her lie. With Nicky forced to watch, Margene told Barb that she and the Nick-ster had decided to swap places... that Nicky would watch the kids while Margene went back to work. And oh, you could see in Ginnifer Goodwin's eyes that she knew exactly what she was doing. Nicky couldn't resist this plan without exposing her D.A. deceit, and so, boom. Margene got her way. Good one, lady. When you go back to work, try to avoid all those business meetings with Bill, okay? I'd hate to see you drop in the ranks after you waited so long to climb them.
 
Obama On Stock Market: The 'Fits And Starts' Are A Normal Reaction Top
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama compared the stock market Tuesday to the daily tracking polls used during campaigns, saying that paying too close attention to how Wall Street "bobs up and down" could lead to bad long-term policy. "What I'm looking at is not the day-to-day gyrations of the stock market, but the long-term ability of the United States ... to regain its footing," Obama said after meeting in the Oval Office with visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He said the developments he follows most closely are whether lending is flowing more freely, businesses are investing and the unemployed are going back to work. The president said he is "absolutely confident" that those things will happen. But Obama also said that it will take time for the mistakes of the past to work their way through the system and that the spectacular losses happening now are a "natural reaction" to those mistakes. "There are a lot of losses that are working their way through the system and it's not surprising the market is hurting as a consequence," he said. "`We dug a very deep hole for ourselves. There were a lot of bad decisions that were made. We are cleaning up that mess. It's going to be sort of full of fits and starts, in terms of getting the mess cleaned up, but it's going to get cleaned up. And we are going to recover, and we are going to emerge more prosperous, more unified, and I think more protected from systemic risk." On Monday, the Dow Jones industrial average plunged far below the 7,000 mark to end at 6,763 _ the lowest close for the Dow since April 25, 1997. The 300-point drop Monday leaves the index more than 52 percent below its record high of 14,164.53 set in October 2007. "The stock market is sort of like a tracking poll in politics. It bobs up and down day-to-day," Obama said. "And if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you're probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong." More on President Obama
 
TriBeCa Ball 2009 Draws Clinton, Timberlake, Schreiber & More (PHOTOS) Top
A mix of politics, entertainment, and fashion elite came out Monday night in support of perhaps the one thing that unites all three worlds: the naked body. Bill Clinton, Justin Timberlake, and Liev Schreiber — all without their better halves — headlined the TriBeCa Ball Monday night, held to sponsor the New York Academy of Art. The NYAA is an educational and cultural institution dedicated to the advancement of figure drawing, painting, and sculpture, and it was the first graduate school in the United States devoted exclusively to the study of the human figure. Amid paintings and sculptures of nude bodies, fashion legends like Nicole Miller and Kate Spade joined with newly minted stars like Jason Wu to celebrate the Academy. The event honored Schreiber and wife Naomi Watts (in Milan for Fashion Week), hotelier Andre Balazs, and "Top Chef" host Padma Lakshmi, among others. WWD's "The Eye" reports that Clinton was the guest that had the crowd most abuzz. "His presence caused more furor than any amount of Champagne ever could among the group of usually blasé New Yorkers," they wrote. "His Secret Service detail were the only ones who were not in a tizzy. Said one, 'That guy's a chick magnet.'" Read the full WWD report here. See photos below, courtesy Patrick McMullan : More on Slideshows
 
Michael Giltz: Books: The Biggest News In Publishing Since The Kindle Top
In the smartest move in years by the troubled book industry, the Thomas Nelson imprint announced a series of new titles it is releasing this year in the "NelsonFree" format. Buy a title at the regular hardcover price and you'll get a free audiobook AND free electronic book version included. Imagine if you bought a DVD and had to decide at the store whether you wanted to watch it on your TV or your laptop. If you wanted to do both, why you'd have to buy it twice. Imagine if you bought a CD that could only be played on your home stereo. If you wanted to play it in your car, you'd have to buy another copy. And if you wanted to play it on your iPod, why you'd have to buy yet another copy. So instead of paying $15 for an album, you'd have to pay $45. Crazy, right? But that's exactly how most publishers treat bookbuyers, even though the internet has made the distribution of ebooks and audiobooks wildly inexpensive for them. Do you like John Grisham? If you want a hardcover of The Associate to put on your shelf and share with your spouse, that's gonna cost you $27.95. Want to listen to it on your iPod or in your car? Well, the audio version will cost you $44.95. Is your mother living with you but has poor eyesight? You can buy a large print version also for $27.95. Oh, but you just bought the Kindle. I bet you'd love an electronic version. That would cost $10 for the Kindle version...but it's not available in that format yet. Me, I prefer reading Grisham in the mass market paperback format (the small, easily portable version sold at airports). That will be probably $8 or more -- when it comes out in a year or two. So just to read the new John Grisham any way you want, you would pay about $120. Of course, no one is going to do that, but being forced to choose what way you want to read a book is crazy. The book world has idiotically followed the disastrous lead of the music industry, which killed the single -- the cheap inexpensive way to start collecting music that turned teenagers into lifelong music consumers. The result? Collapsing album sales softened somewhat by the return of singles via iTunes (which record companies fought every step of the way). Similarly, the book industry has decided you HATE to buy cheap paperbacks at $7 and would MUCH RATHER buy $14 paperbacks in the bulkier trade paperback format, which is a lot heavier and harder to carry around. You also have to wait a year or more to do so, even though in other parts of the world the paperback is released the same time as the hardcover. The book world has sadly imitated the movie industry by haplessly trying to emulate the DVD. They thought that meant including an author interview at the end of a paperback as an "exciting" extra. In truth, Nelson is the first publisher to recognize the lesson of DVDs. DVDs succeeded because they offered far superior quality than VHS, provided extras like commentary tracks that were previously impossible and -- this is important -- were the same or cheaper than videotape. Now, taking advantage of the internet and cheap distribution methods, Nelson has dragged the book world into the 21st century. Buy the right to read a book and they'll give it to you in every format possible -- a print edition, an audio edition and an electronic edition so you can read it when and where you want. And they did it without raising the price. If Random House and Ballantine and Simon & Schuster and the rest have a brain in their heads, they'll follow suit immediately.
 
Richard Seireeni: How Is Green Business Doing Today? Top
The Dow closed below 6800 today. The last time that happened I was in my forties and still able to ski black diamonds at Mammoth. Aside from an annoying time check, I'm sure this news motivated a lot of bloggers to get blogging, including me. I've just published a book titled The Gort Cloud about the brand building and marketing experiences of America's leading green brands. I was curious to know how they are doing. So I asked them, "How is your green business doing today?" First to respond was Carsten Henningsen, founding director and chairman of Portfolio 21 Investments , "Speaking from the green multinational perspective: Portfolio 21, a mutual fund investing in greener corporations worldwide, is experiencing negative performance like the rest of the world; however, this green basket of 105 companies is outperforming the markets. In other words, Portfolio 21 investors are not losing quite as much as the rest of the markets." Well, that is reassuring, but who agrees with him? A report just released by the business consulting firm A.T. Kearney reported, "during the current economic slowdown, companies that show a "true" commitment to sustainability appear to outperform their industry peers in the financial markets. Indeed, in 16 of the 18 industries examined, companies recognized as sustainability-focused outperformed their industry peers over both a three- and six-month period, and were well protected from value erosion." And there are other reports echoing the same conclusion, some of which were aggregated in a recent article by the prolific and prescient writer, Joel Makower, in GreenBiz.com. This follows one of my own posts on GreenBiz titled, " Wall Street vs. Green Street: Who is Doing Better? " So, like the rest of us, I'm wondering why I didn't follow the sage advice to invest in the things you believe in. Instead, my not-so-green retirement portfolio is in shambles. So if we leave the financial investment world and head over to the personal hedge fund called "your home", we have the perspective of Chris Bartle, founder of Green Key Real Estate , "In 2008, we definitely felt the downturn in the economy and especially in the real estate industry. We only grew revenues by 50%. However, we tripled the number of franchises we have, tripled the number of agents we have, all while most of our competitors were losing agents and offices. So, our revenue per agent declined, but we continued to attract agents and franchisees who see green as the future of real estate. We are building the business for the return of the market." Well, they are not making more land but we are certainly making more people. When the housing market comes back, as it surely will, greener buildings should command a premium, especially given that energy costs are not going to decline and concerns about indoor environmental quality are only growing. This should be good news for three other companies featured in my book, Interface , makers of FLOR carpet tiles, YOLO Colorhouse , manufacturers of low VOC paints, and Michelle Kaufmann Designs , designer and manufacturer of green prefab homes. Shifting gears, let's take a look at one of the founding industries in the green movement: food. It's no wonder that food was the jumping off point for sustainable and healthful products given that food is ingested: LOHAS, the pioneering lifestyle advocates in this space, are known for the mantra, "No impurities in the temple." Chief advocate for this belief is Gary Hirshberg of Stonyfield Farm , "In general green businesses, like Stonyfield, have more loyalty from their consumers which cushions the blows in times like these. Other companies that do not have value-add propositions can only sell on price; but, when your brand offers added health, safety and environmental benefits, consumers stick with your product and look to save money elsewhere in their budget. In all of my 26 years at Stonyfield, never have I watched sales more closely - and its daily fluctuations. Our category (yogurt) is flat but we are growing slightly, so in fact we are doing better than the two leading brands in the category. Stonyfield is a sustainable brand; our competitors are not. The same is true for other leading companies - Honest Tea, Sambazon, Applegate Farms - all sustainable brands and all in double digits. Not growing as fast as they were but still growing, which in this market is excellent. So yes, the performance of sustainable brands is outpacing their counterparts, even when the market is down and the consumer is worried." I would not be surprised to hear that three of Gary's Vermont neighbors, Ben & Jerry's Homemade , Seventh Generation and Green Mountain Coffee , would agree. They too are subjects of my book . Rounding out this perspective are the opinions of one of the original thinkers and inventors in the green space, Spencer Brown of Rent-A-Green Box , the green moving solution. Spencer has a long history of creating solutions, more recently solutions that will bring us closer to the Age of Sustainability. Spencer shoots from the emotional hip, "people are so tired of doing things the same old way that if there's a new choice, one that is cheaper and greener and makes sense, they (will support it because) they are doing something good for themselves and the planet... and (if) it's new, they want new... out with the old and in with the new... its like a weird thing... green business is good, bright, feels good, the right thing in a world of wrongs and mistrust... and lies and all of the BS that we are seeing... green guys are the new eco-heroes of the economy... That's a huge plus, and I think green companies are getting these fence sitters who are like.. wow... I really want something that makes me feel good... so out with the old and in with the new... and green is serving that feeling." Well, that's how I feel. Out with the old. In with the new and the green. Damn the torpedoes. Full green ahead. More on Sustainable Development
 
Ali Gharib: Dutch MP Geert Wilders and U.S. Allies Tied to European Far Right Top
Bleached-blond Dutch MP Geert Wilders towered over his security team when he strode into Washington's National Press Club last Friday. Just the day before, the accused Islamophobe screened his controversial 17-minute internet movie, Fitna, and gave a speech on Capitol Hill, where sources told me that three members of Congress, Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ), Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), and staff representing at least another seven came to hear Wilders speak. Kyl, said the sources, skipped the movie itself. (None of the three Congressmen's offices returned calls for comment.) Later Friday afternoon, he would be speaking before a group of 500 fans at an unofficial event at the widely attended Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). All week long Wilders had been rubbing elbows with a veritable who's who of conservative organizations - promoting himself with the same speech (at least four times, by my count), showing his film, and raising money to cover his mounting legal woes. Wilders is being prosecuted in his native Netherlands for incitement to hate and, considered a public security threat, was banned earlier this month from entering the UK - a decision British foreign minister David Miliband defended by denouncing Fitna as "extreme anti-Muslim hate". Because Wilder was too controversial to get a speaking slot at CPAC proper, anti-Muslim conservative blogger Pamela Geller - who continues to declare Obama a Muslim and accuses "President Be Hussein" of leading a Nazi revival - teamed up with Jihad Watch blogger Robert Spencer , and David Horowitz in personally shelling out the money to get Wilders in front of a crowed. Geller's blog, which has banner ads to donate to Wilders's legal defense, has been among the very few hubs of his feverish defense in the U.S.. Before the CPAC event, things heated up at the Press Club when I asked Wilders a question about contacts Gellar and Spencer - among others from the International Free Press Society (IFPS), co-sponsor of the Press Club event and apparent front for defending Wilders's "free speech" - had with far-right European parties that Wilders has been careful to distance himself from in the past. My colleagues and me had uncovered some the connections between some of Wilders's most vocal (but less widely known) supporters and the Vlaams Belang (VB) party in Belgium. Geller and Spencer, among others, had attended a Counter Jihad 2007 conference connected to the VB, a Flemish nationalist party that fellow anti-Jihad crusader and American Enterprise Institute fellow Ayaan Hirsi Ali has credited with a "way of thinking [that] will lead straight to genocide." Gellar and Spencer approached and pounced on me immediately after the event ended, quizzing me on my name (Ali Gharib), credentials, and information. They insisted that the VB had not, as I said in my question, co-sponsored the event, but merely appeared there. Which they were actually, I must admit, partially right about. But while VB is not listed as a sponsor, they are one of only eight organizations under the umbrella of Counter Jihad Europa , which did sponsor the conference, and IFPS vice president Paul Belien said that while "the VB did not organize the conference, it provided an important part of the logistics and the security of those attending." Belien is married to VB parliamentarian Alexandra Colen and represented Belgium alongside VB leader Filip Dewinter at the conference. Spencer, to his credit, denied any ideological tie to VB (perhaps because even he recognizes their own racist far-right ties), and insisted that he had merely attended a conference they were at. But Geller was shouting in their defense throughout. What I had done by asking the question was step on a landmine of a blog-battle between Geller another conservative blog, Little Green Footballs. LGF's Charles Johnson has been steadfastly calling a spade a spade and decrying the anti-Jihad Jihad's alliances with far-right racist groups like the VB, which he calls "the fascists [Geller is] shilling for." After asking them several times, Geller and Spencer moved out of my way so I could keep conducting interviews, but they followed me around and continued to shout at me. At IPS, Eli Clifton, Daniel Luban and me summed up the sticky situation for anti-Jihad warriors hoping to forge global ties: [...T]he VB connection illustrates the difficulties involved in forging a transatlantic coalition against Islam. Many of the most influential critics of Islam in the U.S. are neoconservatives, such as Pipes and Gaffney, who are also strongly pro-Israel; by contrast, anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe is often manifested in far-right parties whose views are anathema to much of the U.S. population, particularly Jews. Wilders's success and influence will likely depend on how well he can straddle the two camps, retaining his popular base of support in Europe while cultivating right-wing elites in the U.S. Indeed, it appears that though Wilders once pledged to steer clear of racist parties with neo-fascist tendencies, those very bonds are being formed between groups like the VB and Jean-Marie LePen's National Front in France and the blatantly racist British National Party. Wilders, for his part, has said that he would consider forming a coalition with VB after the next round of European parliamentary elections, in which both Wilders and the VB are running (picked up by LGF via Ha'aretz ). Wilders may just, in fact, be catching up to some of his most vociferous anti-Muslim U.S. allies who, up until now, have outflanked even Wilders himself in terms of ties to the European far right. More on Barack Obama
 
John R. Bohrer: Politico Labels Bush U.S. Attorney as GOP's Future, Ignores Evidence He Politicized Office Top
An anonymous U.S. Attorney who was cut loose in the firing scandal that brought down Attorney General Alberto Gonzales tells Politico that some of the prosecutors who remained "wished they had been fired, too." There was a reverse presumption that if they stayed in office, they would be seen to have compromised themselves. The story is about several Bush-era U.S. Attorneys who are likely to seek higher office, but its primary subject is Chris Christie, a Bush "Pioneer" fundraiser in 2000 and New Jersey Republican candidate for governor in 2009. According to Politico, Christie is the prime example of how "the U.S. attorney badge has taken on a new sheen for the GOP." Though what the story does not mention are these revelations from two years ago, as summarized by Blue Jersey's huntsu : In January 2006, Chris Christie was on a list of US Attorney's who were being looked at for replacement. In September 2006, in the midst of a hard-fought U.S. Senate campaign being dominated by accusations of corruption, Chris Christie authorizes a last minute subpoena that plays into Tom Kean Jr.'s political attacks against Bob Menendez. In November 2006, after the election is over, Chris Christie is taken off the list and allowed to keep his job. This wasn't small news only discussed on blogs. Outlets like the Star Ledger and New York Times devoted articles and columns to the apparent scandal. But oblivious to these reports, the Politico reporter points to Christie as one of those who rose above the politicization and stain of the Bush Justice Department -- that he is "[f]ar from being a source of embarrassment." Those in the know feel otherwise. And perhaps Chris Christie is one of them. Had he received a pink slip like the prosecutors with integrity did, the circumstantial evidence that he played politics with his office would not be as persuasive. Because if there are U.S. Attorneys who look like they compromised themselves for the Bush White House, Christie remains at the top of that list.
 
Mark Joseph: Molly Jenson Releases Debut Album; Visits With "Bono" Top
Six months ago we picked this day, March 3rd, as the release date for the debut album by our artist Molly Jenson. Of course we had no idea that a little band from Ireland named U2 would choose the same day as well. Subsequently, some of Molly's biggest fans joined a campaign called Make Molly #1 to topple the Irish rockers from their likely lofty perch at the top of the pop charts. The day is now upon us and according to Amazon, U2 is at the top of the heap and Molly's at #1,106, but hey, the week isn't over yet. We decided to have a little fun with the whole thing with a video we shot recently with Molly and "Bono." Funny or Die has just posted it here. I hope you enjoy it as we much as we did shooting it. By the way, this Bono is actually, Pavel Sfera . He's a great guy and you should definitely hire him for your next party. One sneaky guy recently hired him to go to dinner with him and his girlfriend without telling her that he wasn't Bono. Classy. We'll be celebrating the album's release tonight at a party in Hollywood. In the meantime, our friends at Spinner.com are hosting a listening party where you can listen to the entire album here. Or better yet, pick up a copy here . I think you'll enjoy it.
 
Jack Cafferty: I Have A Crush On Michelle Obama Top
I think I am developing a crush on America's first lady. Michelle Obama is more compelling than her husband. He's good, but she's utterly fascinating. Mrs. Obama has blown away the stale air in a White House musty from eight years of the Bushes. It's like the sun came out and a fresh spring breeze began wafting through the open windows. More on Michelle Obama
 
Josh Dorner: Use Your Cell Phone Cam to Tell EPA You Want Clean Cars Top
President Obama is listening. One of the first things his new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, Lisa Jackson, did was to acknowledge that Americans want cleaner cars; cars that go further on a gallon of gas and emit less global warming pollution. EPA is now considering whether to reverse the Bush administration's unlawful decision to block California and more than a dozen other states from implementing landmark standards to cut global warming emissions from our vehicles -- and the EPA is asking us, the public, what we think. This Thursday, we'll be delivering photos of folks from around the country, holding car keys (or bike lock keys or even just your house keys), and saying, "EPA is the key to cleaner cars." Will you add your photo and tell EPA we want clean cars? Click HERE to get started. All you need is your cell phone camera and a set of keys--any keys! EPA is holding the hearing this Thursday to help decide whether it should give California the go-ahead to cut global warming emissions from cars by 30 percent. We know that you probably can't come to Washington, D.C., so we at the Sierra Club will deliver your message directly to Administrator Jackson and others. And we're going to do it in a unique way -- a photo petition -- to make sure that they see for themselves that tens of thousands of Americans from across the country are clamoring for cleaner cars. Clean cars are a priority for people across the country. Right after President Obama was sworn in, we welcomed the President, and suggested he tackle the Bush Administration's worst decisions quickly. He listened. So please continue the momentum and add your photo today!
 
Lloyd Chapman: Obama Policies to Allow Goliath to Slay David Top
President Barack Obama is expected to support legislation or policy that will allow wealthy venture capitalists to dominate federal programs designed to assist small businesses. If he is successful, it will force thousands of small businesses to close their doors and cost countless American jobs. ( http://www.vcjnews.com/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=46450 ) The Small Business Act requires that a small business be "independently owned." Firms that are owned and controlled by venture capitalists are not considered small businesses in federal small business contracting and grant programs. The venture capital industry, led by the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) has spent millions of dollars lobbying members of Congress to change the current definition of a small business to allow even billionaire venture capitalists to own a controlling interest in a small business and still qualify as participants in federal small business programs. Small business advocates are concerned that such a change would set a dangerous precedent for venture capital participation in all federal small business programs, and lead to the diversion of billions more in federal small business contracts to wealthy venture capitalists. The American Small Business League (ASBL) is concerned that President Obama may attempt to sell federal small business programs to the venture capital industry by pushing Congress to add language to the omnibus spending bill, making changes to existing Small Business Administration policy or by issuing an executive order. According to MAPLight.org, the venture capital industry contributed more than $1.2 million to President Obama's campaign. Additionally, the venture capital lobby has focused its campaign to buy political influence on key democratic leaders like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) and Senator John Kerry (D - MA). ( http://www.maplight.org/map/us/interest/F2500 ) Small business advocates point to the appointments of venture capitalist and Tootsie Roll heiress Karen Gordon Mills to run the Small Business Administration (SBA), and Julius Genachowski of Rock Creek Ventures to head the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as further indications that President Obama may support the interests of the venture capital industry over small businesses. Small businesses are the engine that drives this nation's economy in the car that takes American's to work. That 'car' is responsible for nearly all-new jobs. President Obama needs to consider America's 27 million small businesses before he facilitates the wholesale diversion of billions of dollars in small business grants and contracts to some of our nation's wealthiest investors. Legislation or policy that will allow venture capitalist owned-firms to participate in small business programs would damage our nation's small businesses, cost America's middle class billions and push our country further towards a depression. It is just not reasonable. More on Small Business
 
Immigrants Returning Home In Greater Numbers Top
As the debate over H-1B workers and skilled immigrants intensifies, we are losing sight of one important fact: The U.S. is no longer the only land of opportunity. If we don't want the immigrants who have fueled our innovation and economic growth, they now have options elsewhere. Immigrants are returning home in greater numbers. And new research shows they are returning to enjoy a better quality of life, better career prospects, and the comfort of being close to family and friends. More on Immigration
 
National Review Edges Toward Endorsing Obama Iraq Plan Top
Spencer Ackerman catches the Editors of the National Review being more-or-less okay with the President Barack Obama's plans to withdraw troops from Iraq in accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement that the United States entered into with the Iraqi government last year. And good for them! How did this come to pass? Basically, a crap-ton of magical thinking and hair-splitting. Obama's willing to allow that the "Surge" did not yield nothing ? Then it must have yielded everything! The left wanted a sixteen month withdrawal? Well BURN, it's nineteen months! Will troops still be fighting, or participating in "combat missions," or "in harms way?" Yes? Well, then, suck it, peaceniks! Basically, there's not a stitch of strategic concern beyond who's talking points can be depicted as having barely prevailed. If the National Review can preserve some sort of idea that there's another editorial board somewhere chafing at how they didn't get everything they wanted from the President they supported, that's good enough for them. Nevertheless, considering these same editors once insisted that withdrawal equaled "defeat-o-cratism" and that the American people would never embrace either , this is a significant moment of backtracking. Though not without some fundamental errors in fact: Obama outlined a scheme for withdrawal not that different from the one George W. Bush left him. With the war ebbing in Iraq, it was inevitable that our force levels would come down. Ha, ha, uhm...no : Wrong on both counts. Obama did not inherit a "scheme" for withdrawal. What he inherited was a Status of Forces Agreement with a withdrawal timetable that Bush was outflanked by the Iraqis into accepting. Bush deserves credit for bowing to that reality, but the fact that the SOFA included a timetable at Iraqi insistence was most certainly not what he wanted. It did not include any formula for drawing down troops before 2011. Nor was it in fact "inevitable" that troop levels would in fact come down: had John McCain been elected president, he could have followed through on his campaign rhetoric and sought to revise the SOFA. Instead, McCain flip-flopped. I agree with Spencer that "whatever path conservatives need to take to embrace withdrawal is welcome." Most importantly, we can all note the end of the regime elucidated by the unnamed Bush aide who told Ron Suskind, "when we act, we create our own reality." The next step for the editors of the National Review is a cleansing one: coming to terms with the fact that the strategy in Iraq, aimed at creating a Western style democracy in Iraq, and/or disarming enemies of weapons of mass destruction, and/or significantly impacting the war on terror to our benefit, and/or bringing a measure of stability to the region failed to achieve any of those things. But we now know that the Editors of the National Review won't simply take a withdrawal plan enshrined by the SoFA which has received total buy-in from the military and slag it off as "defeatism" in a fit of pro-war purity. And that's a start. More on Barack Obama
 
Keely Field: Rhianna, Please Say It Isn't So Top
As I'm sure you have heard by now, People Magazine and and US Weekly are suggesting that R&B stars Rhianna and Chris Brown are back together again despite all the negative publicity over the nasty end to their evening out on the eve of the Grammys in February, which left a bruise-covered Rhianna alone and abandoned. Of course Los Angeles prosecutors are taking their time deciding whether to file formal charges against Brown while police investigate who leaked the picture last week of a bruised Rihanna for the whole world to see. Nice work LAPD, so much for privacy of a victim. I have a question for you...What will happen to the criminal case against Brown if Rihanna has decided to take him back and decides not to testify against him? What keeps amazing me is when I her that this incident should have been kept a private and personal matter. Would that somehow make this more acceptable? Could it be the ones that wanted this to remain a personal matter, really didn't think the world should know because they have seen this "end of the fairytale" picture happen in their own lives or the lives of others around them? Or that it's somehow hard to believe that someone this rich and famous could actually, even with all the education on abuse out there, still actually do this? I have read a lot of blogs and articles on this issue, and some people's response has been, "Well, young people do make mistakes." Young people make mistakes, but let me tell you, beating a girl's face is no mistake! Domestic abuse is a crime and this is not "part of growing up." For anyone to go back to an abuser, no matter how old they are, is simply wrong. From the moment I saw the horrific picture's of Rhianna's badly beaten face on the TMZ website, it reminded me of a girl I knew in high school through college. She had already had two abortions by the time she was eighteen -- which I personally held her hand through -- and had been dating the same abusive man for years in high school all the way through her first two years of college. With her abusive boyfriend, it started out badly, with his drinking, and never ending temper, even at the young age of sixteen. He would bet money on anything and drink all night and lived with his usually absent adoptive parents, as his parents had abondoned him when he was younger. He would do anything to feel power over a woman, and even though she knew she could do better, and was surrounded by friends who loved her, she kept forgiving him and going back to her. She used to say, "I am the only one who gets him and he is the only one who gets me, even through the good and bad times." She used to say, "I would rather be with him and have to work at this relationship, than be alone." I would always tell here that she would never be alone and that safe and alone is immensely better than abused and with someone. His anger was unstoppable, and would lead to him yelling and this led to smacks across her face and shoving her down a flight of stairs. She wore thick make-up to cover up her bruises. I will never forget telling her I was going to the police and I was going to report him for domestic violence. She never would follow through when the police would show up at his house to follow up on my reports, and she would never press charges. She was a good storyteller and would find a way to twist the truth and claimed I misunderstood what was really happening. She got really good at lying to herself. I will never forget telling her that she could end up dead one day, and that I could not support the relationship and I would continue to call the police anytime there was violence until one time, she would finally come to her senses, turn him in and break free of this cycle of abuse. She finally escaped, after months of me pleading with her and I convinced her to get a restraining order against him, as he had threatened her life on more than one occasion, and she had me as a key witness. Since he never showed up to court to defend himself, she won the case and was granted the order. Apparently Rhianna and her are not the only ones who thinks that hitting a girl is OK. Eugene Kane from the "Milwaukee Journal Sentinel," visited a group of eighth-grade students at Hi-Mount Elementary School in Milwaukee recently for Black History Month. Following his talk, the subject of Brown and Rhianna came up. Kane asked the girls whether they thought many of their peers believed it was all right for their boyfriends to attack them physically. Almost every hand in the room went up. It is clear that many of these girls have no idea what a healthy relationship is. Kane found that many come from fractured families with a history of abuse. Too often, they simply view it as "normal." Therein is the real problem with the Chris Brown and Rhianna fiasco. It reinforces the stereotype of abusive relationships. The fact that they are so "beautiful" and "famous" gives the violence a certain type of credibility in the eyes of too many young people. If they are doing it, it must be OK. It must be what a "real man" does. Parents would be wise to use this event as teachable moment for their children. Hitting, verbal or physical violence is never a part of a good relationship -- no matter who you are. I think it's sad there are young females all over the internet blogging about this incident and actually defending Chris Brown, saying Rhianna must have "prompted him," and that these things are exaggerated. This is not the case people, wake up and realize that abuse is wrong on any level and one woman saying it's ok makes it less of a crime. If this was your daughter, sister or mother in this picture with bruises, contusions from ear to ear and a split lip, you would not be defending anyone but her: the real victim.
 
Bush Endangered Species Rule Put On Hold By Obama Top
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama wants agencies, at least for now, to resume full scientific reviews of projects that might harm endangered wildlife and plants. Officials said Tuesday that the president will sign a presidential memorandum to put on hold a last-minute Bush regulation until the Interior and Commerce departments complete a review of the rule. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to get ahead of the president's announcement during a visit to the Interior Department. The Bush-era regulation made optional the consultations federal scientists have performed for 35 years on endangered species decisions. The rule allowed federal agencies to decide for themselves whether projects such as dams and power plants posed risks to endangered species or the places they live. The existing rule also prohibits a project's contribution to global warming from being part of the evaluation of any threat to endangered species. The changes, completed in just four months, were described at the time by the Bush administration as minor. But Democrats and environmentalists have argued that the regulations modified long-standing policy. Democratic leaders in Congress who are attempting to reverse the rule applauded the president's decision. "I wholeheartedly support the president's proposal to restore the protections for endangered species that the Bush administration spent so many years trying to undermine," said Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee. Rahall is pushing to overturn the rule through a congressional resolution. There is also a provision tucked into the $410 billion spending bill the House passed last week that would allow the Interior and Commerce secretaries to withdraw regulations. Since the Bush rule took effect before Obama was sworn in, a rule overturning it would have to go through a lengthy review process before taking effect. More on Animals
 
Jonathan Richards: Rush to Appeasement Top
Is there no limit to the Republicans' appetite for self-abasement? More on Michael Steele
 
Chicago 2016 Names Obama Confidante Marty Nesbitt To Board Top
Chicago's Olympics bid committee is maintaining its close ties to President Barack Obama, naming Martin Nesbitt to its 13-member board of directors. More on Olympics
 
Bush More Popular Than Limbaugh: Poll Top
Republicans appear to be bowing down left and right to conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh, even though most Americans view the radio talk show host unfavorably.
 
William Klein: Son of Irtnog Top
In 1938, E.B. White wrote an essay entitled " Irtnog ," a cautionary tale that should be a lesson to the texters and Twitterers of today--that is, if anyone paid attention to cautionary tales anymore. "Along about 1920," White wrote, "it became apparent that more things were being written than people had time to read. That is to say, even if a man spent his entire time reading stories, articles, and news, as they appeared in books, magazines, and pamphlets, he fell behind..." "...Then along came the Reader's Digest . That was a wonderful idea. It digested everything that was being written in leading magazine, and put new hope in the hearts of readers... [But] It was obvious that something more concentrated than digests would have to come along to take up the slack." "It did. Someone conceived the idea of digesting the digests. He brought out a little publication called Pith , no bigger than your thumb...Everything was so extremely condensed that a reader could absorb everything that was being published in the world in about forty-five minutes. It was a tremendous financial success, and of course other publications sprang up, aping it: one called Core , another called Nub , and a third called Nutshell ..." " Distillate came along, a superdigest which condensed a Hemingway novel to the single word "Bang!" and reduced a long article about the problem of the unruly child to the words "Hit him." "It was not until 1960, when a Stevens Tech graduate named Abe Shapiro stepped in with an immense ingenious formula, that a permanent balance was established between writers and readers...He was positive that he could take everything that was written and published each day, and reduce it to a six-letter word." "He worked out a secret formula and began posting daily bulletins, telling his result. Everything that had been written during the first day of his formula came down to the word "Irtnog." The second day, everything reduced to "Efsitz." People accepted these mathematical distillation; and strangely enough, or perhaps not strangely at all, people were thoroughly satisfied - which would lead one to believe that what readers really craved was not so much the contents of books, magazines, and papers as the assurance that they were not missing anything..." E.B. White's prophecy of 1937 turns out to be even more advanced than the state of abbreviated communication today. White foresaw a way to reduce all the news to one six letter word. "Tweets" are by contrast long-winded at up to 140 characters. The other day Allesandra Stanley of the New York Times wrote an insightful column about the "media narcissim" of news anchors and commentators who believe America wants to know what David Gregory had for lunch and the name of Rick Sanchez' pet turtle. And like most media pandering in the name of "interactivity," the portion of the audience that takes the bait is tiny--around 2% of the four million viewers who tune into "Meet the Press" and 1% of the masochists who endure the robotic David Shuster at "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" follow them on Twitter. "Left alone in a cage with a mountain of cocaine," Stanley writes, "a lab rat will gorge itself to death. Caught up in a housing bubble, bankers will keep selling mortgage-backed securities -- and amassing bonuses -- until credit markets seize, companies collapse, and millions of investors lose their jobs and homes." "And news anchors and television personalities who have their own shows, Web sites, blogs and pages on Facebook.com and MySpace.com will send Twitter messages until the last follower falls into a coma." Howard Kurtz , in a similar column, quoted the political poseur Ann Marie Cox, the former Wonkette, who believes the public is clamoring for "what is a basically a live feed from inside my head regarding whatever I'm doing that day." According to Kurtz, 79,000 people actually are--or so they say. Like most online conversations, participants quickly shift away from the subject at hand and focus on the topic they really find fascinating--themselves. Gore Vidal used to say "I never pass up the chance to have sex or be on TV," but now, the truly self-obsessed can find fame, however fleeting, on the internet (and sex too, often at the same time). It reminds me of that wonderful scene in the old Steve Martin movie, The Jerk , where his downtrodden character is overjoyed to reach a level of celebrity he never imagined--his name appears in the phone book. As the long-form written word becomes more and more obsolete, with newspapers going out of business and book publishers hiding behind closed doors, the "Twitter effect" is a race to the bottom of critical thinking, and an illusion of widespread popularity. Can you really reduce the day's news to a few lines of stream of consciousness composed by your thumb? What are you missing while you are tweeting? Oh, never mind. Just say "Irtnog!" More on CNN
 
Organized Labor Digging In Against Wal-Mart's Chicago Push Top
Opposition to Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is stiffening at City Hall even as the retailer pitches its expansion as an antidote to recession. [...] The reason: Organized labor, a powerful Chicago interest, isn't budging from its stance that Wal-Mart shouldn't build stores unless it agrees to allow workers to form unions. Mr. Daley wants to keep labor's support to draw the 2016 Olympics to Chicago.
 
CBS Chief: CNN Merger "Unmanageable," "Not In The Cards" Top
CBS Corp. CEO Leslie Moonves ruled out a merger of the company's news operations with Time Warner's CNN. Speaking at the Deutsche Bank media and telecommunications conference, Moonves was asked about a possible merger of CBS News and responded, "We've have five different discussions with CNN about doing something together, and it has appeared to be unmanageable." He added that Time Warner has also had talks with ABC. "We do look for opportunities to do a deal with CNN, but it's not in the cards." More on CBS
 
Don McNay: Looking for Bailout Love in All the Wrong Places Top
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes And I can take or leave it if I please. -Theme Song from MASH Shortly after I started my business career, I read an interview with former MASH star Wayne Rogers. Rogers is a well known investor and his business philosophy was a simple formula: There are four kinds of deals. Good deals with good people, which everyone wants. Then there are bad deals, with bad people, which no one wants. The two other variables are good deals with bad people and bad deals with good people. Rogers said a bad deal with a good person will succeed because a good person will try to make it right. He said a good deal with a bad person will always fail. Roger's belief system was one of best pieces of business advice ever given. It is a good rule of thumb for any kind of transaction. I wish Washington and Wall Street lived by the same values. We wouldn't be knocking on depression's door. When you look at the continuing bailouts of AIG and Citigroup, the people in Washington don't get it. They are continuing to make bad deals with bad people. Citigroup and AIG employ thousands of good people. But they have had rotten apples in leadership. They created a culture that is probably impossible to change or fix. Both companies had close relationships with big time politicians. Relationships that meant disaster for the American people. In the book Fallen, Giant: The Amazing Story of Hank Greenberg And The History of AIG, by Ron Shelp, Shelp talked about AIG's close ties to government officials around the world. He said, "One of the consequences of AIG's intense political involvement was an odd sense of entitlement." Shelp said that "AIG shaped the rules to its own interests." And, "On occasion, it flouted the rules." Shelp said that when questioned, "Greenburg would make his standard reply to almost every criticism, ("You don't understand insurance") and the lawyers and the lobbyists would make the problem go away." That culture has now created a situation for AIG that the lobbyists and lawyers can't make go away. The political connections must still be out there. AIG was bailed out a day after Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail. The Shelp book was a puff piece (if the title wasn't a giveaway, try reading the rest of the book) and described an ugly corporate culture. Imagine what a expose by someone not connected to AIG would look like. Citigroup had a similar corporate culture. It was well connected. It paid former President Clinton's Treasury Secretary $126 million in bonuses over an 8 year period. It spent money on outrageous things. In 2007, Todd Thomson, a high ranking Citigroup executive, threw a bunch of underlings off the corporate jet in China so that he could have a private ride back to the United States with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo. That flight had to be more expensive than the auto makers' flights to visit Congress. Both AIG and Citigroup have a history of not treating their customers fairly. Shelp said, "AIG had a notoriously tough claims department that is famous for finding reasons for sending policyholders away empty-handed." People buy insurance to compensate them for losses like car crashes and house fires. They expect to be treated honesty and fairly. AIG thought differently. As bad as it might be for AIG policyholders, it is a lot worse to be a Citigroup credit card holder. Horror stories abound about Citigroup raising card holders' interest rates and using abusive collection practices. In July 2008, Citigroup paid $18 million to the state of California to settle accusations that it took money from credit card customers' accounts. A few months later, taxpayers bailed Citigroup out. Then we bailed them out again and bailed them out again. Citigroup and AIG are bad deals with bad people. Let's forget about the Wall Street jargon and talk some common sense. Washington and Wall Street keep using terms like "too big to fail" or "systemic risk" as excuses to keep throwing money at Citigroup and AIG. Instead, we can look at two variables. Are the taxpayer bailouts bad deals? Of course they are. If they were good deals, private investors would be jumping at them and we wouldn't need taxpayer money. The second thing to ask, are we dealing with good people? There is nothing in their recent history to suggest that are they are good. AIG went on a junket a week after getting bailout money. Citigroup is still sticking it to credit card holders. The theme song to MASH is called Suicide. We are on the road to economic suicide if we keep making bad deals with bad people. Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC is the founder of McNay Settlement Group in Richmond, Kentucky. He is an award winning, syndicated financial columnist and the author of Son of a Son of a Gambler and The Unbridled World of Ernie Fletcher. You can write to him at don@donmcnay.com or read other things he has written at www.donmcnay.com More on Citibank
 
Tom Hayden: A Peace Movement Win Top
After years of frustrating ambiguity, President Obama has clearly committed to a complete withdrawal of all US troops in less than three years. Speaking to the Marines in North Carolina, Obama finally clarified that the proposed "residual force" of 50,000 or more will be a "transitional" one, departing one year after combat operations end on August 31, 2010. That position is consistent with the terms negotiated by the Iraqi government in the final days of the Bush Administration, in what the Iraqi side notably called the "withdrawal agreement." Even Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were left confused by the initial announcement, questioning whether leaving 50,000 residual troops was really a withdrawal. Obama cleared that up with Friday's speech. In perspective, the Iraq war was wrong and illegitimate every day it was fought, and should have ended sooner. Some wanted "out now," some wanted twelve months, some eighteen. The generals in Iraq may still want to stay indefinitely. But a phased withdrawal is tolerable -- and there's not much a movement can do about it -- if combat casualties steadily decline and all troops are heading for the exit. By agreeing to the Iraqi pact with Bush, Obama found a basis for rapidly removing the transitional troops as well. Before Friday, he remained deliberately unclear on the subject, leaving the spectre of a long counterinsurgency war like those in Central America. This is a clear victory for those in the peace movement who supported Obama as the first anti-war candidate with a chance to become president. The media will not acknowledge the role of the peace movement, nor will some on the Left. It will have to be explained as part of the legacy of our times. It will have to be defended against the hawks, because things can go wrong in Iraq in a hurry. And it's a lesson that should fortify many as they take on the long wars ahead. More on Nancy Pelosi
 
Cook County Patronage Watchdog Quits, Cites Stroger Resistance Top
CHICAGO - A federal hiring monitor says efforts by Cook County Board President Todd Stroger to eradicate illegal patronage hiring is moving too slowly. Julia Nowicki made the assertion is a six-page letter to county commissioners, adding it will be at least 18 more months before the federal courts find that monitoring of Cook County hiring is no longer needed. Nowicki announced Monday she is leaving the post to concentrate on her private law practice. She said commissioners can push Stroger to take steps to eliminate the perception patronage continues to hobble county government. Stroger spokesman Eugene Mullins said Monday "perception is not reality." During her tenure, Nowicki awarded $3 million to people who didn't get jobs and promotions because of politics. She will be replaced by Mary Robinson, former administrator of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. Information from: Chicago Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com
 
Obama On Russia Deal: No "Quid Pro Quo" Top
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says reducing Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons lessens the need for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe but he has offered no "quid pro quo" on the matter with Russia. The president spoke in the Oval Office on Tuesday alongside visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Obama has written Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (dih-MEE'-try med-VYEH'-dyev) about the proposed missile defense plan, among other matters. Obama said the plan is directed toward Iran, not Russia. Moscow has raised concerns about the plan to deploy U.S. missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama said he has made clear that the U.S. needs to "reset or reboot" its relationship with Russia. (This version CORRECTS Corrects day of week to Tuesday sted Monday in 2nd graf; will be led.) More on Barack Obama
 
Noura Erakat: Paving New Paths to Accountability Top
On February 24th, Al Haq , a human rights organization based in the West Bank, filed suit against the United Kingdom for breaching its duty as a High Contracting party to the Geneva Convention. The suit alleges that the UK failed to prevent "persistent violations of fundamental principles of international law" during Israel's offensive against Gaza as well as other violations committed before the commencement of "Operation Cast Lead." At first glance, Al Haq's suit against a third party for violations allegedly committed by another country may seem dubious. Yet, this approach emerges as a necessary strategy given the multifarious roadblocks that impede Israeli accountability. Lacking state structures and frameworks, including a functioning judiciary, Palestinians have no option but to seek judicial recourse in Israeli and international courts. In 2002, the Knesset rescinded what little recourse existed in Israeli courts when it passed the Civil Torts (State Liability) Law. This law retroactively broadened Israel's state immunity from any damages in Israeli-occupied territory; it effectively left Palestinians injured by Israeli laws and military actions in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem with no judicial recourse other than third party jurisdictions. While a UN International Criminal Tribunal, similar to those established in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, would appear to be the most appropriate third party venue, such an option is a near impossibility in the case of Palestine/Israel. An international tribunal requires a UN Security Council resolution, which places ultimate power squarely in the hands of the United States. The U.S.'s consistent policy over the past four decades -- vetoing 42 resolutions critical of Israel -- is unlikely to shift in the near future, notwithstanding the leadership of Obama and his envoy to the UN, Susan Rice. International human rights lawyers, well aware of this straitjacket in international law, are now preparing suits against members of the Israeli Army. Spanish attorneys garnered their first victory in late January when Spanish Judge Fernando Andreu decided to investigate a 2002 bombing in a densely populated residential suburb of Gaza city that killed a Hamas leader, fourteen civilians (including nine children), and injured seventy-seven others. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations Relief Works Agency, and the International Red Cross Society have also called for investigations into alleged Israeli war crimes. In addition, 30,000 other members of the international community have made the same call in a petition to the UN General Assembly . Growing international calls for accountability reflect mounting impatience with the limitations of international legal structures. These calls amount to a rejection of the Israeli and U.S. standing policy of defining themselves as leaders of democracy while defying international law at every turn. By way of example, Israeli officials insist that all tribunals would be biased and claim that internal military investigations are the only viable option for legal redress. Last week an Israeli Army spokesman decried all suits brought against soldiers and officers involved in "Operation Cast Lead" as tantamount to "legal terrorism." This attempt to use familiar discursive tools -- terror/barbarism -- in order to continue the current modus operandi of Israeli impunity is base, but effective nevertheless. This combination of claims to ostensible moral and civil superiority and the now decades long U.S. and Israeli capacity to remain beyond the reach of international law has left the human rights community's looking for legal alternatives. The last Israeli military investigation to result in serious reprimand of Israeli soldiers and officers was the 1983 Kahan Commission which found that then Defense Minister, Ariel Sharon, failed to prevent the Sabra and Shatilla massacres of hundreds of Palestinians. Since then Israel has stymied or prevented investigations into its military operations, including "Operation Grapes of Wrath" (Southern Lebanon,1996) and "Operation Defensive Shield" (the West Bank, and specifically Jenin, 2002). The Israeli Army's recent orders, compelling foreign and Israeli journalists to delete army personnel's names and faces from stories, photographs, and documents of the Gaza offensive, indicates that today, an Israeli military investigation will be, perhaps more than ever, primarily aimed at protecting its soldiers not redressing Palestinian claims. Colonel Liron Liebman recently said as much: "Commanders during the fighting shouldn't be losing sleep because of the investigations...It's impossible not to make mistakes in such a crowded environment, under pressure. There's a large gap between mistakes and the 'war crimes' people like to accuse us of." Unfortunately for the Colonel, but more catastrophically unfortunate for the Palestinians in Gaza, claims against the Israeli army's deliberate targeting of civilians are evidenced by brain scans demonstrating that children were shot at close proximity . The community of nations must not accept military investigations in lieu of an international one. Doing so undermines the universal jurisdiction principle that some crimes are of such magnitude that they warrant their universal prosecution and repression, More importantly, failure to establish an international resolution to the violations committed during "Operation Cast Lead" and a continued enabling of Israeli policy's rejection of the possibility of an international solution will further attenuate any glimmer of resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel's intransigent refusal to partake in international peace building efforts, as opposed to unilateral ones, has incited its own citizens to action. Israeli activists have compiled the names of nine battalion commanders of the Golani and Paratroop brigades as well as the armored corps that they consider guilty of war crimes. By filing suit against the United Kingdom, Al Haq is building on these various efforts and expanding a movement that demands the enforcement of the international rule of law by making all states interested parties. Indeed all states should at this stage be interested in safeguarding the rule of law, particularly given the increasing human cost of the U.S. inaugurated "shock and awe" policy of bludgeoning civilian communities with the most sophisticated of military arsenal. The failure of state interest amounts to the international community's active participation in the suspension of Palestinian political and human rights in Gaza. Such a suspension has drastic consequences for humans the world over and it can only bode ill for the very possibility of a viable mode of international law. More on Palestinian Territories
 
Gail Vida Hamburg: Wars Made Real: Photography at Dover Air Force Base Top
The Obama administration's decision to reverse the 18-year Pentagon ban on photography of soldiers' caskets returning to Dover Air Force Base is an important one for the public. Leaving the decision to military families to accept, or reject, public recognition of the service of their deceased is a respectful, Solomon-esque decision by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Anyone who was not on Mars during Captain Sully's recent heroic aqua landing on the Hudson knows how exemplary acts of courage, altruism, and heroism touch us all. In 2005, I wrote an article for Intervention Magazine comparing the way Italy honored its returning war dead from Iraq to the way America treated its own fallen military. I cited the case of Nicola Calipari -- the Italian intelligence officer who rescued a kidnapped journalist from Iraqi captors, only to be gunned down by jittery American soldiers at a checkpoint in Baghdad. I wrote then: "Calipari's return to Rome was a national event that united all Italians, merging their raw sorrow with the singular grief of his widow and children. It was the second time Italy pulled out all the stops for its Iraq War dead. In November of 2003, it staged an elaborate state funeral for nineteen of its citizens, killed in a suicide truck bombing in Nasiriyah. In both instances, Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, his ministers, President Carlo Ciampi, and an honor guard in full-dress uniform stood with grieving families on the tarmac of Rome's Ciampino military airport to receive their dead. There were national days of mourning and public visitation hours to the reposed, and at night, the Coliseum's lights were dimmed in a mark of respect. All Italy watched, on television, as officers from Italy's civil services carried the flag-draped coffins past honor guards representing every branch of the military. The Carabinieri (paramilitary corps), in their regal uniforms and blue-and-red plume hats, stood guard while lone buglers played the Last Post and other laments. Stricken Italians lined the routes of the funeral cortege to pay their respects, before the bodies were entombed in Rome's war memorial. I suggested that the participation in these last rites, "symbolized a shared sacrifice between those who prosecute wars, those who must fight them, and those who grieve and honor them-not just the dead and their families, but the entire nation. The pageantry on display was no more excessive than the heroism of the fallen, for surely there can be no greater excess than surrendering one's life for one's country." At the time I wrote those words, it had been one year since ABC's Ted Koppel had presented, The Fallen , his Nightline tribute to the soldiers who had died in Iraq. Mr. Koppel read the names off camera while the photographs of the dead men and women were projected on the screen. It was an elegy, remarkable for its quiet, sobering grace. Supporters of the war and George Bush naturally cried foul; any story that didn't fall into the Jessica Lynch mold of heroism (later learned to be void of key features of heroism, such as oh, heroism) was viewed as unpatriotic by the Pentagon's media machinery. Several broadcasting companies, including those owned by Sinclair Broadcasting, accused Mr. Koppel, a distinguished newsman who was/is no one's tool, for disseminating political propaganda. There were 70,000 hits to my story on Intervention Magazine. Most readers agreed that we ought to honor our fallen soldiers, if not with the full pageantry, as seen in Italy, at least through media coverage, so that all American citizens would understand the cost of war. "The trouble is, I support the war as long as it doesn't cause me grief," wrote one poster. The rest of my readers, Iraq War supporters all, spewing Mr. Bush's straight-jacket, postlogical logic -- we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here; so there were no WMD, so?; since Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, we must bring them freedom and democracy so they don't perpetrate another 9/11 -- let me know that the Italians were excessive. They were adamant that we didn't need to show our war dead, and that the ban on photography at Dover Air Force Base did not need to be lifted. They offer the same argument today, as they criticize Secretary Gates decision. Perhaps they're right. Instead of giving military families the choice to accept or reject public awareness of the return of their loved ones, similar to protocols for funerals already in place at Arlington National Cemetary, let's keep things the way they are. Yes, let's all pat ourselves on the back for being American patriots: let's fire up the grill, get plastered on booze, eat ourselves into a stupor, watch television, go shopping and call it Memorial Day. More on Barack Obama
 
Obama, McCain Relationship Back On Top
Washington observers are fond of intensely analyzing the relationship between President Barack Obama and the man he beat in the fall election, Sen. John McCain. The two have consulted on a wide variety of matters and found convergence on others. But on Monday afternoon, the Arizona Republican took to the Senate floor to unleash a withering attack on the president for deciding to sign an omnibus-spending bill backed with pork. "The measure has over 9,000 unnecessarily and wasteful earmarks. So much for the promise of change," McCain said . "What are we doing here? Not only business as usual; an outrageous insult to the American people." The on-and-off partnership, it seemed, had taken a detour towards the frosty. And yet, within a matter of hours, the two seem to be, well, on again. On Tuesday, McCain, along with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), announced that he would reintroduce legislation to provide the president with a line-item veto to target wasteful spending. This came just one week after the president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, told reporters that Obama would "love to take [a line-item veto] for a test drive." Had McCain deliberately greased the legislative wheels to give the president the tool he desired? Or was he simply acting on a long-held view about how best to combat wasteful spending? The Senator's office did not immediately say whether they had talked to the White House about the measure. But the parliamentary maneuver gets at a broader truth: both McCain and Obama share political interests, despite their lingering electoral frictions. While McCain ridiculed the president on the Senate floor for agreeing to sign an omnibus loaded with earmarks, he glossed over the fact that the president too has criticized the bill's pork (albeit while saying he will support the overall package). The two, likewise, have struck similar tones on Afghanistan and Iraq. It has been, by and large, spending matters on which McCain has feuded with the White House. And it is the extent to which he has sought the spotlight to air his displeasure that has annoyed Democrats and spurred reports of lingering tensions. More on Barack Obama
 
Markus Ziener: Russia: Not a quick fix Top
Was the building of a missile shield in close proximity to Moscow ever a good idea? Hardly. Not only because it is technically dubious. But most of all it politically produced so much bad blood that the costs and potential benefits never came anywhere near a reasonable ratio. So Mr. Obama is doing the right thing to correct this mistake. But is it realistic in return to expect the Russians to cooperate on the issue of Iran? Same answer: Hardly. Why? First of all because the U.S. and Russia do not share the same threat assessment in regard to Iran. If anything became clear during the years of negotiating sanctions against Teheran it is this. At its core the Russian leadership does not believe that Iran's nuclear program poses an existential threat. Sure, even Russia would rather see an Iran that has not gone nuclear. But still this scenario is not something that defines Russian security policy. Moreover, other than the US Moscow does not need to worry much about Israel's security. Against this backdrop no one needs to wonder that inside the Kremlin many US proposals do not bite. Since the fall of the Shah in 1979 almost every U.S. government overestimated the influence Moscow can exert over Tehran. They seem to forget that Russia and Iran share a troubled and at times bloody history. Whether it was tsars or dictators, Moscow had always tried to subjugate or at least control the Persian Empire. This applies even to the recent past when the Soviet Union supplied Saddam Hussein in Iraq with weapons to fight the Islamic regime of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. The mere fact that Russia today is doing business with Iran does not at all mean that Tehran would accept any advice. Besides, there is a real danger that Moscow takes Obamas move as remission for past sins, i.e. that everything related to the Georgian crisis is already forgiven and forgotten. Furthermore, abandoning the missile shield could signal that Washington does not want to interfere in Moscow's backyard and implicitly accepts the Russian concept of near and far abroad. If this would be the result of Obama's first major foreign policy initiative then there is reason to be concerned. At the security conference in Munich U.S. Vice President Joe Biden announced that relations with Russia will be "reset" to enable a new start. But the withdrawal of the missile shield alone won't do the trick. Before the NATO summit is due in April Obama will have to come up with a couple of more ideas. More on Russia
 
Limbaugh: ABC Falsely Reported That GOP Leader Disagreed With Me Top
Okay, the Limbaugh wars have just taken yet another weird new turn -- Rush is claiming that a high profile GOP leader who appeared to disagree with his professed hope that President Obama will fail didn't actually disagree with him at all. More on ABC
 
Auren Hoffman: When and Why We Pendulum Top
When us humans come out of a suboptimal experience, we tend to over-correct in the opposite direction in our next experience. Repeated over-correcting results in pendulum-ing (which is often sub-optimal behavior). For instance, let's say you dated a workaholic investment banker and the relationship goes sour (for reasons not qualifying you to be part of Dating a Banker Anonymous ). The next person you may be inclined to date might be a starving artist or someone completely in the opposite direction. In reality, if you dated that investment banker but you just wished they worked a bit less, you may want to date a trader, lawyer, or accountant. In dating, many people are always looking for the opposite of the person they last had a relationship with. Rather than completely over-correcting, a repeated iterative correction, without going to the extremes, may prove more fruitful. In math, this idea is represented as a limit of a function oscillating and eventually approaching an asymptote; in physics this is known as damped oscillations (for all the math and science geeks). In the physical world for instance, repeated or extreme over-correcting while driving can cause a car to roll. The idea is to make gradual correction in the opposite direction towards that happy medium. The past 16 years of picking Presidents, demonstrates that the nation has an inclination towards penduluming. In 1992 we were concerned that President George H.W. Bush was out of touch with the public (e.g. not knowing the price of milk and never seeing a scanner before). And so this country chose a guy named Clinton who was a man of the people and loved McDonald's. The nation was then tired of this guy cheating on his wife and so we yearned for the stability in the prior administration, thus we pendulumed to a George W. Bush who was pious and talked about his love for religion. And this past election we elected someone perceived as very different from Bush. Even national security policy can vary widely. World War I was a total quagmire because most countries succumbed to a bizarre notion that the first country to strike would have an overwhelming advantage. Of course, this did not happen and the world saw years of trench warfare with little territory gained. Seeking to avoid this horrible kind of war is what led to Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. He did not want to rush into things which turned out to be the wrong thing to do. Later, World War II turned into the complete mobilization of the nation but a huge cost of 400,000 lives and required the attention of almost the entire country. So when we got into a war in Vietnam we pendulumed to a more limited engagement -- the thought was to rather fight them when they were distant and weak then when they were closer and stronger. Clearly that didn't work out, so we followed the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force in the first Gulf War. But, of course, Vietnam taught us that occupation was a likely failure so we left Saddam Hussein in power. Then in the most recent Iraq campaign we went back to a more limited engagement...but we decided to be an occupying force yet again. It appears our leaders are oscillating back and forth and cannot decide on the best strategy. And it is not just military leaders, voters, and hopeless romantics that pendulum. We all do it in business. You may join a work environment with no process that is too chaotic, and then move to a new company which might quickly overwhelm you with the initially desired bureaucracy. Or if you tried to outsource your lead gen and it did not work you might decide to never outsource anything ever again. The human species as a whole is very fickle about what we want. We think we want one thing and when the outcome does not totally work out, we often go for something completely different. We're constantly taking excessive measures in an attempt to correct or make amends for an error, weakness, or problem, while running off of very little data. And so ideally you would want to collect additional data and make iterative corrections. Just don't swing too far to the left or right. More on Relationships
 
UN Chief Presses Clinton For Stronger Climate Leadership Top
SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt — At his first meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the U.N. chief pressed for more money and stronger American leadership on climate change, the Middle East, chaos in Somalia and justice in Darfur. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was encouraged by Clinton's response to his request for additional cash for peacekeepers and other badly stretched U.N. priorities. They spoke on the sidelines of an international conference in Egypt on Monday that raised $5.2 billion in pledges for rebuilding Gaza, at the conclusion of the U.N. secretary-general's nine-day, six-nation African tour. "She is quite supportive, and she told me that she will, her administration, the Obama administration is committed to working very closely politically and also (with) these financial contributions," Ban told The Associated Press in a wide-ranging interview this week. The U.N. had a difficult relationship with the United States under former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, who served for 16 months in 2005-2006. He aggressively pursued former President George W. Bush's agenda, including pressing for sanctions against Iran and North Korea and an overhaul of the United Nations, antagonizing many U.N. member states with his abrasive approach. His successor, Zalmay Khalilzad, a gregarious and affable diplomat, improved relations. Ban, who became secretary-general in January 2007, has promoted a good working relationship with the world body's single biggest backer. The United States provides 22 percent of the organizations $4.86 billion operating budget, but is perenially late in paying its dues. "I told her that we highly value a stronger partnership between the U.S. and the U.N.," he said. "Policy-wise, we will fully cooperate, but at the same time we expect (more) U.S. support for the United Nations politically and financially." Ban told Clinton, a co-member of the so-called Quartet of Mideast peacemakers that also includes Russia and the European Union, that "we are looking forward to full engagement and leadership" from the U.S. toward a two-nation peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The former New York senator visited Ban's native South Korea twice as first lady; he served as the nation's foreign minister. Now, they are determined to work toward his current No. 1 priority _ brokering a new international climate treaty by the end of the year. Clinton assured Ban he could count on U.S. leadership to reduce carbon dioxide, methane and other industrial gases that trap heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse. On her first stint of Middle East diplomacy, Clinton called for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace and signaled a possible warming in U.S. relations with Syria. She said President Barack Obama would continue the Bush administration's focus on seeking a two-state solution that involves Israel and a sovereign Palestinian state. She made it clear, however, that Obama would take a more active approach than Bush. More on Global Warming
 
Fox News Ratings Remain Strong, #2 Cable Channel In Primetime Top
Fox News is continuing its ratings dominance as America settles into the Obama era. After a strong month of February , in which the network ranked #3 in primetime among all cable channels, Fox News posted even stronger ratings for the week ending March 1. It placed #2 in primetime among all cable channels — behind only USA — and averaged 2.6 million viewers for the week, which included President Obama's first address to a joint session of Congress. This marks the seventh consecutive week that Fox News has placed in the top three cable channels in primetime — meaning that is has sustained interest for the duration of the Obama administration, emphatically ending any debate whether the network would succeed under a Democratic administration. As a comparison, CNN ranked 14th in primetime (averaging 1.2 million total viewers) and MSNBC ranked 19th in primetime (averaging 1.1 million total viewers). In total day ratings, where Nickelodeon is a perennial first-place winner, Fox News placed 4th (averaging 1.3 million total viewers), CNN ranked 17th (averaging 685,000 total viewers), and MSNBC placed 26th (averaging 483,000 total viewers). More on Fox News
 
Bill Ayers Spending Week At University Of Illinois As Guest In Residence Top
School reform activist, education scholar and former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers will be a Unit One/Allen Hall guest-in-residence next week [at the University of Illinois].
 
Muhammad Sahimi: Madam Secretary, the Name is Persian Gulf Top
The State Department statement was relatively brief: "The Secretary [of State Hillary Rodham Clinton] is pleased to announce the appointment of Dennis B. Ross to the position of Special Advisor to the Secretary of State for The Gulf and Southeast Asia." Which "Gulf?" Gulf of Mexico? Gulf of Aqaba? Gulf of Tonkin? Gulf of Aden? Gulf of Carpenteria? There are so many of them! We read on. "This is a region in which America is fighting two wars and facing challenges of ongoing conflict, terror, proliferation, access to energy, economic development and strengthening democracy and the rule of law." Oh! That Gulf. Well, Madam Secretary, you need first and foremost an advisor on history because, given his long history of bias toward Iran, in addition to be totally unfit for the job, your advisor and "expert," Dennis Ross, does not know the history of that region. The name of that Gulf is Persian Gulf, nothing less, nothing more. It has been that way since at least 330 B.C., when the Achaemenid Empire established the first Persian Empire in Pars (or Persis , the region which is called Fars in the present Iran) in southwestern region of Iran. After that historical event, Greek - not Iranian - sources started calling the body of water that bordered this region the Persian Gulf. It has stayed that way ever since. In his 1928 book, A Periplus of the Persian Gulf , Sir Arnold Talbot Wilson, the British civil commissioner in Iraq from 1918-1920, stated that, No water channel has been so significant as Persian Gulf to the geologists, archaeologists, geographer, merchants, politicians, excursionists, and scholars whether in past or in present. This water channel which separates the Iran Plateau from the Arabia Plate has enjoyed an Iranian identity since at least 2200 years ago. Madam Secretary, I know that the United States and its allies import significant amount of oil from the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. I know that the U.S. supports the corrupt and dictatorial Arab regimes there, because they protect what is perceived as the vital interests of the U.S. (although those regimes are the main culprit in the rise of al-Qaeda). I also know that these nations are spending tens of billions of dollars to buy weapons from the U. S. - weapons that they neither need, nor will they ever be able to use - and that the U.S. nuclear industry is going to make billions more by selling nuclear reactors to Bahrain and other Arab nations in that region (but not, of course, Iran). Therefore, the new and changed State Department - just like the old ones - wants to appease these regimes, and avoid doing anything that would offend their rulers. I know all of that. But, Madam Secretary, all such considerations do not, and cannot, change the history of that region. The 990 km long body of water that starts from Arvand Rud that carries the waters of Euphrates and Tigris rivers, and ends at Strait of Hormuz - another Iranian name, recognized internationally - that connects it to the Oman Sea, has always been, and will always be, the Persian Gulf. This has been recognized internationally. Nothing, and least of all the billions and trillions of the corrupt Arab rulers, can change that. If your advisors do not know that, or are not willing to tell you that, then, you need new advisors. To be successful in your efforts that region, the first thing you need to know is the region's history. Madam Secretary, President Obama has said that the U.S. talks with Iran must be built on mutual respect. One good place to start showing this respect toward Iran and Iranians is calling that historical body of water what it has always been called, the Persian Gulf . More on Iran
 
Jeffrey Wasserstrom: The International Impact of China's Olympic Moment Top
Predictions relating to China are notoriously error-prone--just think of all the times when the imminent demise of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been announced and then failed to materialize --but here's a safe one. Five months from this Sunday, when Chinese officials mark the first anniversary of 08/08/08 (the date when the world's eyes were trained on the Bird's Nest stadium gala that opened the Olympics ), many commentators in the PRC and other places will be musing on the meaning of the Beijing Games. This would have happened in any case, but Zhang Yimou (who directed last year's Opening Ceremony and will be choreographing the PRC's 60th birthday part in October) is doing something to make doubly sure that the commentaries flow. As fond of sequels as any Hollywood director, he'll be back at the Bird's Nest on 08/08/09 putting on a lavish version of "Turnadot," the same Puccini opera that he once staged at the Forbidden City. But instead of waiting for another six months to pass and the first arias to be sung in the Bird's Nest Stadium (where the surreal soundtrack on my visit as a tourist last November was nothing but soft-rock Carpenters' tunes), I'm getting a jump on things by marking the half-year anniversary of the Games (it's been just over six months since the August 24 Closing Ceremonies) with this preliminary effort to consign the 2008 Olympics to history. I'll stress two things that stand out about its international aspects six months on. (For those interested in its important domestic impact, see the longer version of this essay that appeared earlier this week at the invaluable--to professional historians and also simply the historically-minded-- History News Network website. ) My first point is that the Games should be seen as a part of an ongoing, ambitious, and so far partially successful re-branding effort on the part of the CCP. China's leaders had varied goals vis-à-vis the Games, including many that were purely designed to play to constituencies within the PRC, but clearly they hoped to convince the world that the country they rule: a) can pull off thoroughly modern events (hence the high-tech stadiums); b) does not pose a threat to the international order (hence the "One World, One Dream" slogan); and c) is a place ethnic Chinese living elsewhere should feel free to identify with--however they felt about Mao (hence the use of a quote from the "Analects" of Confucius but nothing from the Chairman's "Little Red Book" during the Opening Ceremony). Why consider this drive only partially successful? Well, the Games definitely left many television viewers around the world convinced that Beijing can put on a thoroughly modern show, but not necessarily sure this is a comforting development. The lines of drummers drumming on 08/08/08, for instance, had their worrying side to many viewers--as illustrated, satirically, in an October episode of the cartoon show "South Park" (now a popular download) that incorporates images from the Opening Ceremonies into a character's nightmares about an impending Chinese invasion of the United States. The Olympics certainly did help encourage overseas Chinese to identify with the country, due partly to the nods toward "traditional" imagery on 08/08/08. It is important, though, to place this into a long-term perspective that began well before the start and is lasting beyond the conclusion of the Games. At least as important as anything in Zhang Yimou's show has been Beijing's establishment of "Confucius Institutes" in different parts of the world, and Hu Jintao's oft-repeated claim that promoting social "harmony" is the new watchword of a Party that under Mao emphasized the importance of class struggle. The second thing that stands out six months on is that commentators paid too little attention last year to one illuminating historical analogy: that between the Beijing Games and the Tokyo Games of 1964. Similarities between China and Japan's first Olympics were occasionally mentioned last year , but much more was said about other analogies for Beijing 2008, especially Seoul 1988 (the favored point of reference of those who thought it good China was hosting the Games) and Berlin 1936 (the favored point of reference of those who thought it was bad for such an authoritarian country to have gotten the nod from the International Olympic Committee). The Seoul and Berlin analogies had some explanatory value, but in retrospect neither seems nearly as apt as Tokyo 1964--especially since there are no indications that China's now moving toward either political liberalization a la South Korea (there's actually been a post-Olympic tightening of political controls) or military expansion under a charismatic leader a la Nazi Germany (keeping control at home seems enough of a challenge at present, especially with the global economic downturn). Like Japan in the 1960s, on the other hand, the PRC is rising in global economic importance, lacks a clearly articulated and consistent official ideology, and has leaders eager to convince the world to focus on their country's current aspirations and abilities and forget a dark period in its recent past (hence no allusions to the Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution in the upbeat Opening Ceremonies). There's also a nice parallel between Japan and China relating to symbols of modernity: the Tokyo Games are associated with the first bullet trains, the Beijing ones with a state-of-the-art airport. And an even nicer one regarding each country's efforts to use a second mega-event to carry forward the rebranding drive showcased at its first Summer Games. Just as 1970 Osaka Expo (Japan's first World's Fair) followed on the heels of the Tokyo Games, the 2010 Shanghai Expo (China's first World's Fair) is coming soon (something that, as with the Beijing Games before it, though generally without the same level of excitement or outrage, some are looking forward to and others viewing with great skepticism ). And lest anyone miss the connection between the Beijing and Shanghai mega-events, the latter has its own countdown clocks and its own rosy slogan ("Better City, Better Life"), and it is being billed as an "Economic Olympics" that, like the athletic one of six months ago, will show off the sleek new look of a thoroughly modern metropolis. An expanded version of this piece first appeared on the History News Network on 3/2/2009 More on China
 
Pakistan: Sri Lankan Cricket Team Attacked By Gunmen With Rifles, Grenades, Rocket Launchers (VIDEO) Top
***SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO*** LAHORE, Pakistan - At least a dozen men ambushed Sri Lanka's cricket team with rifles, grenades and rocket launchers Tuesday, converging on the squad's convoy as it drove through a traffic circle near an eastern Pakistani stadium. Seven players, an umpire and a coach were wounded, none with life-threatening injuries, but six policemen and a driver died. The attackers struck as a convoy carrying the squad and match officials reached a traffic circle 300 yards (meters) from the main sports stadium in the eastern city of Lahore, triggering a 15-minute gunbattle with police guarding the vehicles. The assault, just ahead of a match, was one of the worst terrorist attacks on a sports team since Palestinian militants killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. By attacking South Asia's most popular sport, the gunmen guaranteed themselves tremendous international attention while demonstrating Pakistan's struggle to provide its 170 million people with basic security as it battles a raging Islamist militancy. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said the incident "has humiliated the country" and the head of the Interior Ministry, Rehman Malik, declared Pakistan was "in a state of war." Malik told The Associated Press that authorities were investigating whether the attackers wanted to take hostages. "We are looking at the possibility the gunmen wanted to hijack the bus and take it to a nearby building and create a drama," Malik said. "The way they came prepared and in large numbers indicates such a plan." Tuesday's attackers melted away into the city, and none was killed or captured, city police chief Haji Habibur Rehman said. The attackers abandoned machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and plastic explosives, Punjab police chief Khwaja Khalid Farooq said. They carried backpacks stuffed with dried fruit, mineral water and walkie-talkies -- provisions also abandoned at or near the scene, officials said. Authorities did not speculate on the identities of the attackers, but the chief suspects will be Islamist militants, some with links to al-Qaida, who have staged high-profile attacks on civilian targets before. The bus driver, Mohammad Khalil, accelerated as bullets ripped into the vehicle and explosions rocked the air, steering the team to the safety of the stadium. The players -- some of them wounded -- ducked down and shouted "Go! Go!" as he drove through the ambush. Sri Lanka had agreed to this tour -- allowing Pakistan to host its first test matches in 14 months -- only after India and Australia backed out of scheduled trips over security concerns. The assault will end hopes of international cricket teams -- or any sports teams -- playing in the country for months, if not years. Tuesday's attack came three months after the Mumbai terror strikes that killed 164 people. Those raids were allegedly carried out by Pakistan militants, and the assault in Lahore resembled them in many respects. Both were coordinated, used multiple gunmen, apparently in teams of two, who were armed with explosives and assault rifles and apparently had little fear of death or capture. U.S. State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters in Washington that the United States "utterly" condemned "this vicious attack on innocent civilians but also on the positive relations that Pakistan and Sri Lanka are trying to enjoy." Authorities will also consider possible links to Sri Lanka's Tamil Tiger separatist rebels who are being badly hit in a military offensive at home, though Sri Lankan military spokesman Brig. Udaya Nanayakkara said it was unlikely the group was involved. Authorities canceled the test match against Pakistan's national team, and Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa ordered his foreign minister to immediately travel to Pakistan to help assist in the team's evacuation. A special flight is expected to bring the players home in the early hours of Wednesday, according to a Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry official. TV footage of the attack showed at least two pairs of gunmen with backpacks firing from a stretch of grass and taking cover behind a small monument before moving on. It was taken from the offices of a Pakistani news channel overlooking the site of the ambush. "These people were highly trained and highly armed. The way they were holding their guns, the way they were taking aim and shooting at the police, it shows they were not ordinary people," said Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab province. "This is the same style as the terrorists who attacked Mumbai." An Associated Press reporter saw police handling what looked like two suicide jackets. "It is a terrible incident, and I am lost for words," said Steve Davis, an Australian who was to have umpired the match. Lahore police chief Rehman said "between 12 and 14 men" took part in the assault and they resembled Pashtuns, the ethnic group that hails from close to the Afghan border, the stronghold of al-Qaida and the Taliban. He said officers were hunting them down. Two Sri Lankan players -- Thilan Samaraweera and Tharanga Paranavitana -- were being treated for bullet wounds in a hospital but were stable, said Chamara Ranavira, a spokesman for the Sri Lankan High Commission. Umpire Ahsan Raza was hit in his abdomen, medical Superintendent of the Services Hospital, Mohammad Javed, said. Team captain Mahela Jayawardene and four other players had minor injuries, the Sri Lankan Cricket Board said. Ranavira said British assistant coach Paul Farbrace also sustained minor injuries. Haider Ashraf, another police officer, said six policemen and a driver of a Pakistan Cricket Board vehicle were killed. Sri Lankan Foreign Secretary Palitha Kohona said little could be done to stop such an attack, saying "there is never enough security to counter a well organized and determined terrorist group." The Dubai-based International Cricket Council condemned the attack. But ICC President David Morgan told the British Broadcasting Corp. that the organization had no role in deciding on whether Pakistan was safe enough for a tour since Sri Lanka and Pakistan agreed to the match. One militant group likely to fall under particular suspicion is Lashkar-e-Taiba, the network blamed for the Mumbai terror attacks in November, in which 10 gunmen staged a three-day siege targeting luxury hotels, a Jewish center and other sites. In the past, India and Pakistan have blamed each other for attacks on their territories. Any allegations like that will trigger fresh tensions between the countries, which are already dangerously high. ___ Associated Press writers Krishan Francis and Ravi Nessman in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Zarar Khan and Asif Shahzad in Islamabad, and Babar Dogar in Lahore contributed to this report. More on Pakistan
 
Touhidul Alam Arrested, Accused Of Being 'Mutiny Leader' Top
Security forces in Bangladesh have arrested a man they accuse of organising a mutiny by border guards that left scores of officers dead, military officials say More on Asia
 
Jacob Heilbrunn: Fired Up: Obama's New Foreign Policy Top
Don't look now, but the Obama administration is making as radical moves in foreign policy as it is with the economy. Just as President Obama is jettisoning the laissez-faire approach that the Bush administration adopted toward the financial markets, so he is abandoning its refusal to meet and cut deals with America's adversaries, whether it's Russia, Syria, or Iran. Obama's overhaul of foreign affairs could well prove to be as momentous as his attempt to create a new New Deal at home. Take Russia. According to Russian leader Dimitri Medvedev, Obama sent a secret note several weeks ago offering to scrap the ill-advised and costly missile defense system that George W. Bush and former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld pushed to install in Eastern Europe. No, Russia doesn't the power to compel Iran to abandon its dream of nuclear missiles. But a Russia allied with Europe and the U.S. could help exert real pressure on Tehran to reconsider its plans. Moreover, Obama clearly wants to draw Russia back into the western camp. Cutting a deal with it is classic power politics and a sign that Obama, unlike Bush, has a keen understanding of the game of international politics. You might call it, as defense secretary Robert Gates did, a sign of an "analytical" mind. Bring on the analysis. Ditto for Syria and Iran. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is right to seek talks with Syria, which has played a dangerous role in Lebanon and played footsie with Iran. Detaching Syria from Iran would further help weaken the revolutionary power of the Iranian revolution. It could also lead to a broader peace settlement with Israel. The main point is that instead of standing aloof and sulking in the corner, as the U.S. has for years, it's starting to wield its influence. For too long, Bush allowed America's foes to dictate events by refusing to engage them. Obama is taking the opposite approach. Just as the economy needs to be jump-started, so does foreign policy. Obama has recognized that. The revitalization of American diplomacy and power has begun.
 
Jonathan Powers: Rebalancing our National Security Strategy Top
Originally posted at The Moderate Voice When President Obama announced his decision to send 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, he did so with an interesting caveat. He explicitly stated that we cannot solve the problems of Afghanistan by military means alone. He's right, and he deserves credit for saying so. However, it is crucial that we apply that lesson not only to a single issue, but to a broader national security strategy. We live in a world where security has come to mean more than soldiers and submarines, but also development and diplomacy, as well as hearts and minds. Our broader security strategy needs to take that into account. A recent story from Afghanistan drives home this point with great clarity. A few months ago, several young Afghan girls were attacked with acid by extremists for the "crime" of attending school. One of those girls, Shamsia, will remain physically scarred and partially blind for the rest of her life. Yet these girls made a heroic return to school in January , showing true bravery and rebuffing the extremists' tactics of fear. It is this courage and the courage of millions of other every day citizens around the globe that we must tap to battle extremists. If we are to live in a safer world, we must develop a national security strategy that aims to mobilize men and women in all nations to embrace Shamsia's example. No one understands this better than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates . In a recent article in Foreign Affairs , he outlines the need for "reprogramming the Pentagon for a new age" and creating a new and balanced strategy because "the United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory." He fully understands that the military must develop more than conventional firepower to win this long war. As a veteran of the Iraq war, I believe Secretary Gates is definitely on the right track. I saw first hand how the military became overextended in Iraq. My soldiers and I worked regularly with Iraqis to help them improve their economy and refurbish their schools. But as rewarding as that work was, it was not what we were trained to do. We were trained to fire artillery rounds and conduct checkpoint operations, not to design development projects. These are missions traditionally done by the State Department, but the Bush Administration failed to strike the right balance between the job of a soldier and the job of a civilian. Fortunately, many military leaders realize that a fully funded State Department can help lay the foundation for real national security. General David Petreaus recently claimed that our objectives in Afghanistan are "not just the desire to help the Afghans establish security and preclude establishment of extremist safe havens, but also to support economic development, democratic institutions, the rule of law, infrastructure, and education." These are the efforts that will deny extremist groups the kinds of desperate populations that are ripe for extortion. The economic crisis that we face today provides us an opportunity to prioritize this needed change by ensuring that we have a strategic balance in our spending. A prime example of unbalance spending is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter . At a price tag of $242 billion , it is the most expensive aircraft program in the history of the Department of Defense. Meanwhile, soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are dying due to a lack of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPs). Similarly, a dearth of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) makes it more difficult to scour the mountains of Afghanistan looking for Osama Bin Laden or Taliban fighters. Scrapping the F-35 altogether may not be the solution, but cutting expensive programs that are geared for tomorrow's conflicts will be necessary if we are to afford the military and diplomatic tools we need to win today's wars. President Obama and his national security team face incredible challenges. They also have a unique opportunity to drive the real change our national security strategy needs. Rebalancing our approach and taking cues from great leaders like Secretary Gates and General Petraeus will allow us to create an environment for true security. Only then can we tap into the courage of people like Shamsia and her friends who dream of a future of education and opportunity, not fear and terrorism. Jon Powers is the Veterans Program Director for The Eleison Group, LLC , where he is working on developing the outreach efforts of the progressive community to veterans and military families. He is an Iraq War veteran, a former congressional candidate in New York's 26th district, and a fellow with the Truman National Security Project . More on Afghanistan
 
Marcia DeSanctis: Time to do away with "Best" as an Email Sign-off Top
In the hierarchy of email signoffs, by far the worst is 'Best'. Maybe it's just me, but nothing displays contempt more succinctly, or says "Leave me the hell alone from this point forward," as concisely as this most reviled of four-letter words. Here's the other encrypted message hidden in this verbal snub: Unlike you, I am too busy and important for a far more acceptable 'All the best'. Two extra words. Would it kill you? In these troubled times, legions of the scared and unemployed are drawing upon every drop of courage to email even the most tenuous of leads. Nothing takes more confidence - increasingly in short supply - than contacting somebody cold. If and when a return email appears in the inbox (the tension of which deserves another column entirely) a little warmth would go a very long way. 'Best' with all of its chilly undertones, assumes power and conveys just enough insult to make the message of annoyance clear. Meanwhile, the barriers between the privileged and the destitute are falling. We all share the same high wire and it is a terrifying place to be. Today's most powerful could be tomorrow's most hopeless. Put more bluntly, for every person with a corner office, the pavement outside is altogether too visible. Circumstances should be forcing us to move to a higher, more cooperative plane, citizen to citizen. Which means signing off more generously. Which means banning 'Best' from our e-vocabulary. Surely we can do better. It's not just prospective employers who are over-relying on this infernal sign-off. The word is everywhere, and rarely does it mean best anything. From school letters to bill collectors to perfunctory correspondence with your lawyer or accountant, our societal need for electronic shorthand is slowly stripping our humanity. Best. Best what exactly? Best wishes? Best of luck? These would impart respect or at least a little consideration. The best is yet to come? (Then give me a job interview.) More likely it appears to mean, I wish you the best in your future endeavors as long as they don't involve me. Alone with no ellipsis, 'Best' lets you know where you stand: the bottom of the sign-off food chain, way below Love, xxoo, xx, xo, x, Warm regards, Sincerely yours, and the dubiously perky Cheers. Today there was an email from Howard Dean - Howard Dean! - in my inbox. I was procrastinating so I read the whole thing, which he signed, 'Thank you, Marcia, for all you do'. I have never met Howard Dean, and realize I was one of three or so million recipients of this letter, but all the same, the sign-off was genuinely warm. It was a small gesture, but a noticeable one, and I appreciated the familiarity. Had it been signed 'Best', I would have felt a blast of icy air through my laptop, and had my doubts about the DFA's interpersonal skills. We are all too rushed, plugged in, ever on the grid, and have more demands on our time than most of us can bear. So when it comes to email, courtesy is easily jettisoned to make way for speed and efficiency. But we could all try to be more conscious of the emailing habits we seem to readily adopt, that keep us disconnected and even more isolated from each other. 'Yours' is more human, 'Fondly' is a trusty perennial which conveys affection but not devotion, and as for abbreviations, nothing beats the military's 'VR', short for 'Very Respectfully', which could do a lot towards making a job-seeker feel human and whole. Pete Best was the only Beatle not to make it past 1962, and I embrace the symbolism: my hope is that 'Best,' the most unsubtle, unfriendly of email cold shoulders, will have a similarly short career.
 
Britney Spears Returns To First Tour In 5 Years Top
NEW ORLEANS — Britney Spears is bringing her circus act to the stage Tuesday night. The pop star is kicking off her first tour in five years with "The Circus" tour. New Orleans Arena is the first stop on the 27-city nationwide tour. The tour marks yet another step as Spears rehabilitates her image and her career after an extended downward spiral. So far, it's worked: She's got a platinum album with her recently released "Circus" CD and two hit singles. ___ On the Net: http://www.britneyspears.com More on Britney Spears
 
Palin Foe Gets Job With Obama Administration Top
Juneau Democrat Kim Elton said this morning he's resigning from the state Senate to become director of Alaska affairs for the U.S. Department of the Interior. Elton's resignation is effective at 5 p.m. today. More on Sarah Palin
 
Term-Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility: Fed Rolls Out New Consumer Credit Program Top
WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve on Tuesday rolled out a much-awaited program aimed at boosting the availability of credit to consumers and small businesses. The Fed will lend up to $200 billion to spur consumer lending _ for autos, education, credit cards and other consumer debt. The money will be used to provide financing to investors to buy up the debt. The bold program, dubbed the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, was first announced late last year and originally scheduled to start in February. Participants _ companies and investors that pledge eligible collateral to back the loan _ must request the new government loans by March 17. The Fed will provide the three-year loans on March 25. The Fed said the program has the potential to generate up to $1 trillion of lending for businesses and households. "The TALF is designed to catalyze the securitization markets by providing financing to investors to support their purchases of certain AAA-rated asset-backed securities," the Fed and Treasury Department said in a joint statement. "The TALF will assist lenders in meeting the borrowing needs of consumers and small businesses, helping to stimulate the broader economy." Under the program, the Fed will buy securities backed by different types of debt including credit card, auto, student and small business loans. The credit crunch _ the worst since the 1930s _ has made it much more difficult for people to obtain such financing , and those that do can be socked with high rates. Prior to the financial crisis, banks relied heavily on packaging loans into securities and selling them to fund additional lending. That process has financed about 25 percent of all auto, student and other consumer loans in recent years, the Treasury Department said Tuesday, until the credit markets ground to a halt in October. Anil Kashyap, a professor at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, said the program should make it easier for consumers to get loans. But he cautioned that the Fed's willingness to finance some debt could distort the markets by making other debt securities that lack the government's backing less attractive to investors. "We'd really rather the credit markets just work properly," Kashyap said. The Fed plans to keep the program running through December, but said it could be extended. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced an expansion of the Fed's program on Feb. 10, saying it also will include support for commercial mortgage-backed securities. The central bank said teams from Treasury and the Fed are now analyzing the right terms for the commercial real-estate component. The Fed and Treasury currently anticipate that securities backed by car fleet leases as well as certain equipment _ including for heavy construction and for agriculture _ will be eligible for Fed funding in its April operation. Participants in the second round of funding must request the government loans by April 7, which the Fed will disburse on April 14. The program, the Fed said, will remain focused on securities that will have the greatest impact to aid the troubled economy and shaky financial markets and that can be added at a low risk to the government. ___ AP Economics Writer Christopher S. Rugaber contributed to this report. More on Federal Reserve
 
LIVE VIDEO: Treasury Secretary Geithner Testifies On The Proposed 2010 Federal Budget Top
LIVE VIDEO: Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner testifies before the House Ways and Means committee on the proposed 2010 federal budget. Event scheduled to being at 12:30pm ET. WATCH IT LIVE: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Obama Budget
 

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)