Monday, March 9, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

NAMBLA's Cuomo Target: AG Victim of Threat From North American Man/Boy Love Association Top
ALBANY - A $10,000 Internet bounty was placed on Attorney General An drew Cuomo's head by a suspected agent of the North American Man/Boy Love Association, The Post has learned. The shocking death threat by the infamous organization of pederasts was posted three weeks ago on an Internet news-group bulletin board that originated in The Bronx, law-enforcement sources said.
 
Dems Introducing Card Check Legislation Tuesday Top
Tomorrow, Democrats in both houses of Congress plan to introduce a union-organizing bill that is labor's top priority for the year, Democratic officials said. The result could be a high-decibel, high-stakes brawl between business and labor, which strongly supported President Obama. Unions have been getting impatient for attention to the issue, and the push to introduce legislation is a way to ratchet up pressure on Congress. More on Obama's First 100 Days
 
The Progress Report: New Era Of Engagement Top
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, and Ryan Powers To receive The Progress Report in your email inbox everyday, click here . Over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton returned from a five-country, seven-day tour of the Middle East and Europe. The Los Angeles Times wrote that while it was "[b]illed as no more than a modest 'listening tour,' Clinton's trip offered the most complete picture yet of how the new administration hopes to overhaul American relations with the world." A State Department spokesperson explained before the trip that Clinton hoped to "reconnect" the U.S. with Europe and the Middle East in an effort to consolidate "some of this enormous political goodwill on both sides of the Atlantic, harnessing it to a common agenda -- not an American agenda, but a common transatlantic agenda." The trip was significant because it demonstrated that President Obama and his administration are committed to making good on a number of key campaign promises, including engaging in "vigorous diplomacy" with sometimes hostile regimes like Iran, devoting significant resources to negotiating a "comprehensive peace" in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and working closely with other world powers, like Russia, to reduce the risk of such threats as nuclear proliferation. ENGAGING IRAN: During her trip, Clinton met with a group of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels to discuss, among other things, the war in Afghanistan. Clinton called the conflict "NATO's biggest military challenge." As part of addressing this challenge, Clinton called for a "high-level conference on Afghanistan at the end of March" and specifically asked that Iran be involved in such an effort. "If we move forward with such a meeting, it is expected that Iran would be invited as a neighbor of Afghanistan," Clinton said. Despite Iran's recent unwillingness to participate in French-led talks in Paris, Iran and NATO have several common interests in reducing the level of violence in Afghanistan. The West and "Shi'ite Iran share a common dislike for the hardline Sunni Taliban." As Clinton pointed out last week, both the U.S. and Iran "want to see an end to opium and heroin production in Afghanistan; Washington because it helps fund the Taliban and Tehran because the drugs are smuggled across the border and feed the habits of up to 2 million Iranians." Despite the Obama administration's willingness to engage Iran on specific regional issues, direct talks with Iran in the near future seem unlikely. According to Politico, administration officials have seen "little indication that Iran is willing to make even token steps, to ease back on either its nuclear program or its support for terror groups." But by "keeping the possibility of direct talks on the table and collaborating at forums like the upcoming Afghanistan conference, the administration thinks it can undercut the reluctance of its allies and Moscow to move forward" with tougher economic sanctions if Iran continues its nuclear program. "There's a great deal of concern about Iran in the entire region," Clinton explained. "It is clear that Iran intends to interfere in the internal affairs of all these people and try to continue their efforts to fund terrorism, whether it is Hezbollah or Hamas or other proxies." COMPREHENSIVE MIDDLE EAST PEACE: Speaking at the international Gaza reconstruction conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, Clinton reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to "a comprehensive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors." To this end, Clinton pledged $900 million dollars in "assistance to the people of Gaza and the West Bank." The U.S. contribution will include "$300 million in U.S. humanitarian aid for the war-torn Gaza Strip, plus about $600 million in assistance to the Palestinian Authority." Further, while she appeared to recognize Israel's right to link opening the Gaza border to a cease-fire agreement with Hamas, Clinton stressed that the U.S. expected Israel to allow "humanitarian aid to get into Gaza in sufficient amounts to alleviate the suffering of the people." Further demonstrating U.S. commitment to a two-state solution, Clinton referred to Israel's plans to "demolish Palestinian homes in Arab East Jerusalem" as "unhelpful" and called the Palestinian Authority "the only legitimate government of the Palestinian people." Finally, demonstrating that the Obama administration is committed to acting on its commitment to "comprehensive peace," Clinton dispatched Jeffrey Feltman, the assistant secretary of state, and Daniel Shapiro, the top Mideast official at the National Security Council, to Syria, where they met for more than three hours with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem and Bouthaina Shaaban, an adviser to President Bashar al-Assad. While Feltman advised that observers should "keep expectations in check," he also said the talks were "constructive" and that there was much "common ground." During the meeting, the U.S. urged Syria "to stop interfering in Lebanon, to stop supporting terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas and to control the flow of insurgents crossing its border into Iraq," while Syria asked that the U.S. "take a more active role in Israel-Syria peace talks." Addressing the Israel-Syria talks, Clinton said that the importance of the Syrian "track of the peace effort cannot be overstated." HITTING THE 'RESET BUTTON' WITH RUSSIA AND THE WORLD: In Geneva, Clinton met her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, for the first time. Clinton attempted to renew U.S.-Russia relations after the Bush administration and NATO isolated Russia in response to its invasion of Georgia last summer. She presented Lavrov with a "reset button" that was meant to, as Clinton put it, represent "what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is, 'We want to reset our relationship.' And so we will do it together." Clinton explained that the U.S. would need to cooperate with Russia in a number of areas including the war in Afghanistan, ensuring Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon, and nuclear disarmament. In particular, Clinton signaled the Obama administration's willingness to compromise on a controversial Bush-era plan to construct a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. "We believe that Russia and the United States have the opportunity to cooperate on missile defense, to do joint research and joint development and even eventually, assuming we can reach such an agreement, joint deployment," Clinton said. Clinton's sentiments echoed what Obama said in a letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which he explained that, "to the extent that we are lessening Iran's commitment to nuclear weapons, then that reduces the pressure or the need for a missile-defense system." More broadly, Clinton tried to hit the reset button on the perception of the U.S. abroad by appearing on several popular television shows in Palestine and Turkey, as well as meeting with "young professionals in Belgium," and women's leaders in Israel. More on Foreign Policy
 
Larry Abrams: The Years of Agonizing Reappraisal Top
I was thinking about going down to DC for the inauguration last month, but decided it was too cold to sell my "I was there for the fall of capitalism but all I got was this lousy T-shirt." So I stayed home which was probably a good thing, as I don't think it was the right crowd for my product. Even now, my impression is that people don't really get it: that despite the great gifts of Obama, the first political-economic initiatives of his administration suffer from a "systemic cognitive deficit." Then too, as a friend of mine says, "Barack didn't put in for this." Obama's 2008 campaign was like a good pop movie, but it wasn't a populist campaign, nor a campaign that challenged the underlying assumptions of the system: it was a Public Relations campaign with Obama as "the brand" representing Hope & Change. It was a great campaign for the end of the Reagan era, but God willing, Barack was not only the best of the "branded" candidates, but the last. Not only is the conservative Reagan era over, but so is the era of finance capitalism, though we are not yet ready to absorb that, nor are we ready for what comes next. So let's just call these, "The Years of Agonizing Reappraisal." Specifically, the big problem that Obama and the rest of us face is that the answers to the twin dilemmas of excess debt and falling demand plaguing the world economy are diametrically opposed. The stimulus aims to 'jump start' the economy by recreating the missing demand that our missing jobs, vanished savings and mounting personal bankruptcies have led to. But of course the way we created all that Demand in the first place was by over consuming and running up lunatic levels of personal debt -- often perforce -- that mirrored what Wall street and big business were doing on an enormous scale with leveraged debt in the macro financial economy. In the economy of the 80's and 90's, there was an explicit trade-off for your willingness to go deeply into debt. You were now empowered to buy more than you could ever reasonably afford to buy -- say, for example a house whose price had been artificially pumped up, in turn, by the speculative logic of the debt system. You were rewarded by the system for being an irresponsible super-consumer who would never ever be able to get out of debt again for the rest of your (miserable) life. The neo-cons even came up with a suitably Orwellian name for this system: they called it "The Ownership Society." In all, it was an evil system riding for a fall and now like Humpty Dumpty it has. Now we can't recreate that missing demand, we can't jump-start the economy, no matter how big the financial stimulus; we can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again even if we wanted to. We are in a cycle of falling demand because no one can give us credit anymore to keep up our over consumption. We are in a cycle of falling demand because the system itself has failed. Of late though, I've been wondering why the mainstream economists either don't see or don't want to talk about this, and find myself thinking back to a long ago conversation with a friend who later became an oft quoted institutional economist in the 90's. I ran into him at the crossroads of campus late one afternoon as he was coming out of a Hegel seminar, taught by a well known dissident Communist political philosopher. The seminar was invitation only -- my friend was a nominally Marxist Phd candidate -- and I was curious to know what the hell was going on in there. He told me only that it was pretty heavy going, and when I replied that at least it would help him in his future academic career he just shook his head sadly. "No," he said, "it isn't going to help at all." "Larry," he explained, speaking carefully as one would speak to a small child, "what people in the economics department call macro-economics is not what people like you or me call macro-economics. In the department they're not interested in philosophy, they don't see the connections and they're not particularly interested in making them. It's mechanical, it's about equations and modeling out how the elements of the real economy work together, and they're pretty good at it. But that's all they're interested in." In the classic book 1972 book Reinventing Anthropology , Dell Hymes points out a similar dynamic in his own discipline. "How much of what goes in departments is for the sake of mankind's self-knowledge (let alone liberation) and how much for the sake of perpetuating, extending and propagating departments? " He adds, "By virtue of its subject matter, the study of man, anthropology, is unavoidably a political and ethical discipline, not merely an empirical specialty. It is founded in a personal commitment that has inescapably a reflective philosophical dimension." Substitute the word "anthropology" with the name of any of the other social sciences: sociology, history, political science, even economics and you get the idea. Right now, Larry Summers and Tim Geitner clearly have the upper hand in Obama Administration councils, by virtue of being economics professionals. The problem with Summers and Geitner however, judging by the solutions so far proposed, particularly their half-assed bank bailout scheme, is they're wearing ideological blinders. To Summers, Geitner and Fed Chairman Bernanke, there is no alternative to the free market and apparently even short term nationalization of the banks is off the table. Instead, we have the Fed and treasury socializing the losses of companies that are too big to fail like Citigroup, AIG, and soon Bank of America, to avoid "spooking investors." Of course this bit of economic legerdemain fools no one, let alone investors. Except for the terrified political professionals in the White House, it seems pretty obvious to everyone else that the treasury is not only risking the dollars of taxpayers, but the whirlwind of their coming political wrath. Looked at empirically, it's possible to see exactly where the world economy is headed: toward what economists call stagnation, in this case, medium or long-term stagnation. Obama clearly has a lot on his platter, and it would be a shame if his initiatives on Health Care Reform, the Environment, Labor and potentially even the Middle East were all overwhelmed by his administration's failure to deal honestly and effectively with this ongoing crisis. President Obama now has a choice that will define his Presidency: go along with Summers, Geitner and Bernanke, or begin to develop new lines of thinking about the economy; particularly, about the efficacy and sanctity of the so-called free market. In the meantime I'm going down to the basement to set up the silk screen for a new T-shirt I'm printing up to sell along with the first. It'll read, "The truth is a commodity too." More on Economy
 
Natalia Rose: Relationship Detox Top
When you cleanse your body, you become more sensitized to all aspects of your life. You will naturally want to clean and organize your immediate environment, such as your home or office space. Then, at a certain point, you will be ready to examine your relationships -- how you respond to others, whom you choose to spend your time with, what levels of intimacy you seek, and whether to sign up for certain social commitments. You will find it much easier to identify those relationships that attract a higher caliber of experience and those that do not. However, before you try to detoxify your relationships, be sure to take a good look at yourself. Typically, once you detoxify your relationship with yourself, you will be able to elevate your other relationships with ease. The hardest part is identifying and then breaking free of the belief systems and social programming that you have absorbed over your lifetime in order to reveal your authentic self. Before you destroy another relationship with anger, take time to clear your physical and emotional blocks and see what happens. If you're brave enough to surrender your ego to the process, you'll find it most liberating -- and really quite fun! Overeating and Relationship Toxicity Much of the overeating and junk food consumption I see in my clients originates from relationship conflict. Eating thoughtlessly can almost always be traced back to unexpressed hurt, a fight, or a deep wound from a relationship that was never honestly addressed. Imagine: Just like on the Internet or in the neurotransmitters in the brain, there are invisible lines of energy that run between people. If the feelings in the relationship are supportive and life-generating, a healthy and harmonious energy will flow between them through an invisible cord. If the feelings are painful, distrustful, or angry, an unhealthy, erratic energy will flow between them. Now, imagine yourself in the middle of a circle of all the people you've come into contact with in your life. An energy cord extends between you and each person on that circle. The deeper the relationship, the thicker the cord will be. Some of those cords will transmit harmonious currents of energy; others will transmit neutral currents; and yet others will transmit disturbing currents that threaten to throw you off balance. The dangerous cords that trigger anxiety can sometimes be traced to an "energy vampire" -- someone who lives off your energy by engaging you in exhausting dramas, emitting past resentments, or unconsciously soaking in your energy to feed his or her own. Energy vampires leave you feeling drained, depressed, and sometimes downright sick because they leach your life force. Remember, everything is energy. Emotions and thoughts move between people in relationships even if those people are not in the same room. For truly effective, long-term detoxification, you must ultimately cleanse your relationships of toxic energy, just as you must cleanse the cells in your body of toxic substances. Otherwise, these relationship cords might pull you right back to an emotional state that's ripe for disordered eating. How to Dissolve Damaging Relationship Energy Cords First, look honestly at the relationships in your life to see if the energy cords are transmitting useful energy in both directions, or simply weakening one or both parties. In our mainstream culture, we are steeped in drama--television dramas, movie dramas, celebrity dramas, political dramas, news dramas, workplace dramas--dramas of every kind. We mimic these dramas in our personal lives in ways that go completely unnoticed because they are so common. They override our authenticity and make us reactionary beings--like programmed robots. Once you know what to look for, it's easy to identify these types of relationships. They are often characterized by unhealthy competition, jealousy, repressed anger, and socially conditioned expectations. Cutting the cords that transmit these energies and seeking to eliminate thoughtless interaction will significantly reduce overeating and self-sabotage. It is one of the most healing steps you can take in your life. Now, imagine yourself surrounded by a powerful violet, white-gold and pink flame and watch it expand to burn away every old energy cord with the people in your life. Then imagine yourself reinstating healthy cords with those who are very close to you and with whom you wish to share supportive, life-generating energy. You will never destroy anything useful with this pure flame. Try practicing this exercise every day for a week. Next, commit yourself to stepping out of any destructive dramas that emerge to create and feed inharmonious energy, much in the same way that you've committed yourself to protecting your body from re-accumulating waste from unfit foods. As a result, your relationships will glow with new health! More on Relationships
 
Jimmy Kimmel Talks Break-Up: "She Couldn't Date An Imbecile Anymore" (VIDEO) Top
Jimmy Kimmel showed up on "The View" Monday, dressed in drag as former co-host Rosie O'Donnell, and fielded questions about his recent, second break up with longtime girlfriend Sarah Silverman. "The View" is in Los Angeles this week, and Kimmel walked about in a wig, clogs and wedding ring for his two-segment appearance. Sherri Shepherd told Kimmel they feared he would no-show when news broke of his split. Kimmel said, "The only thing better than breaking up is going on 'The View' right after you break up." Asked what happened, Kimmel said, "What do you think happened? I'm a 41-year-old man with a bra filled with Koosh balls. I'm an imbecile. She couldn't date an imbecile anymore." Walters then pressed him on if it's really all over, to which he sputtered, "I don't know, I mean, you know, I think, I don't know. Ask her. I don't know what's going to happen." WATCH: More on Jimmy Kimmel
 
Richard Laermer: No Such Thing as a Free Launch! Top
It's time business people stopped babbling about "the launch." This is the definition of self-importance. The cavemen didn't even talk about something new as though it were the end-all and the only celebratory aspect of their bleak lives. We should know better. Enough, please! Everyone realizes the Beta does not exist -- it's an old-hat marketing ploy. To get something done, and seen, you must show it to folks along the way and make people feel a part of the process. So with no further pre-rambling, here is a list of ways to launch in what is now late '00s. 1. It's just a launch. You got to know by now that no one really wants to hear that you have something new. Once the value sets in, please, by all means, shout out. But until then act like it's already available and you just want it known to the world as the piece you're proudest of. 2. Tell folks -- subtly -- you are testing something (Alpha, anyone!) Let them in on it. Remember, this is a severely open source world. 3. Don't worry about the competitors -- anyone and everyone should know you did a good job. Scare the crap out of them too. Everyone talks about competitive advantage and losing market share; in this case you are the first mover and I hope the best one. Let them try and copy you; no one will be better. It's up to you to be resolute. Pump your chest out and stand behind your evolving, beautiful thing! 4. You are one of 10 million ideas being released into the stratosphere; don't forget: you cannot invent the wheel, sliced wheat bread, or the next Google. (Or, aha, even the next HuffPo!) 5. The date is so not important. Not ever. Never. No. Nyet! Dates are a man-made phenomenon. It's just a date. Maybe your investors need to know by when will I be able to see this new contraption...but, alas, the world does not care about your date. They just want to know it's ready for consumption. We had a client in '08, of all years, who said no way could we even tell a blogger until the day it launched, as if on that day the stars and moon would collide in honor of the big day. Gees. So just remember to... 6. Share. (See #2.) Do it some more. When people feel involved with a property they want more of it. I once met a Broadway producer, he who raises lots of money every day, and he said: "If you want people involved, never tell them it's done. 'The show is still being worked on.' They'll want to share the process." 7. Two words: "Tell me." Ask folks what they think; get surveys, start chats. Get input. Give away prizes. Whatever it takes to make folks get all WOM-y here. 8. Stop pretending it will be "ready and then we'll market it" -- no one believes that theory we used to use all the time: You are marketing it the second you talk about it to the strato/twitter/Face/blogosphere. 9. Once you do have people who love it, then brag about what you've done. There's nothing wrong with it. I said be subtle above; but like Sondheim said, "Don't put yourself down -- let others do that, they usually do." Anyway, if you don't brag no one else will. Give folks the adjectives to use. People only say what they heard someone else say, eh? Keep in mind it'll get better; give away some ideas of what fabulous features are coming. 10. Repeat, rinse, repeat. You did something new -- well guess what? "Here: 2.0" is something you care about. No one else can see the diff. So don't, please don't, make a big deal out of every little nook and cranny you change. Remember that the people you are talking to, the consumers, are the ones who invented hype. They roll their eyes and laugh out loud. And laughter reverberates. The fake Beta is something I've been against for a while. Think about it clearly: Google Alerts (BETA) ? Come on! That's been around since we were in short pants. Everything is in test mode and it's time people stopped using that term for every "new idea." Just don't use beta cause we all know it's just a slogan for new and improved. Introduce things as something new, how totally innovative. Peeps, it's true: "The launch" is the past. Some fabulous Web destination, your new gizmo, a tremendously colorful cover of a book -- they all go up one day and are here tomorrow! And the next day. And the next. Don't attach dates like kids do with midnight on New Years Eve -- the fireworks and all -- just make sure what you have out there is what you want to show, even if it's not perfect. Correction: especially if it's not perfect. I know distributors want to hear you have a date, so make one up. But tell everyone it's here -- that's it -- and you're happy and clapping your hands. And most of all, you want their advice on making the neo-launched idea the best that it can be. Happy Realigning! And call me if you need help explaining why to your boss. Twitter @laermer Blog Laermer.com Bad Pitch Blog badpitch.blogspot.com Book PunkMarketing..com
 
Robert Rose: Teacher Accountability and Autonomy Top
When a contractor is hired to build a room addition you expect him to follow your agreed upon contract. He is considered an expert and held accountable for the results. If he doesn't live up to building codes or does a poor job, he can be penalized or sued. You can negotiate changes as he is building it, but you cannot tell him how to do it! You respect him as an expert so he has complete autonomy in determining how to do it. Not so for teachers. They are certainly held accountable, but their autonomy is limited. They have little input about curriculum, objectives, goals, techniques, or materials to be used. They are selectively seated on various committees and their opinions are voiced, but they have about the same actual power that student governments have in running a school. People with real political power decide all the important legal, educational decisions. Unfortunately, these people are the furthest from the actual classrooms and they have little understanding of what is necessary for the teacher to deal with the individual uniqueness and needs of each student and class. A part of the problem is that these people remember what school was like for them, but the world has changed radically. The civil rights movements made groups and individuals extremely sensitive about any real or believed violation of their rights. Mainstreaming means teachers have to deal effectively with students no matter what their problem or disability is. Technology and the media have opened up new (and often fun) ways of sending and receiving information that has made the teacher as the only source or center of learning -- obsolete. Yet, from preschool to universities most teachers are trained (often forced) to stand in front of the room and talk and talk and talk. Curriculum with mandated texts, data, scope and time sequences with "teacher-proof materials" frustrate teachers who could be using their sensitivity, knowledge, training, and experience, but they know any deviation will bring harassment or termination! Despite these obstacles and because of more effective classroom management techniques, it is easier for many to control their students. Control, not education occurs. Control is effective for the kind of learning that was useful in the past, but limits the kind of creativity and deeper thinking needed to meet the increasingly complex problems of modern society. Still, I see the most talented, gifted young teachers that I've seen in my fifty years in teaching. I watch as they desperately try to go beyond the confines imposed upon them. I show them ways to live within the system and to flourish, but too many across the nation quit because they feel disrespected -- and alone. Education needs a new paradigm that emphasizes freedom of choice in thought and action for teachers, students, and parents, not control and conformity. Professors complain that students entering universities have few thinking skills. How can teachers train their students to think when they themselves are penalized for thinking? I see teachers who have great ideas mandated to do only what they are told. How can they encourage the students to be creative, thinking beings in this type of closed system? Part of America's greatness has been its entrepreneurial dynamics with people risking their own time and money to reap well-earned rewards That same enterprise that drives small business is what is needed for teachers -- and students. Each teacher should be like a contractor. He should be encouraged to teach in his own style, use the techniques, materials, and technology that work best for his students and for him -- after he has thoroughly assessed them. Then, with real power over his life, he would be able to be a model and to help his students develop their own abilities. A national curriculum of specific goals, objectives could remain as a guide for the skills and information considered important to for that grade or class. A teacher would be expected to cover these, but the breadth and depth would depend on his assessment of the class and individuals. The techniques, materials, timing, and depth of his delivery would be determined by the teacher. In return for this autonomy (which not all teachers would want) he would be held accountable for student progress. However, instead of just the arbitrary -- and defective -- national test being the only criterion, he would do the following. Each student would be tested using several different types of tests that would give him a more accurate baseline of each of the necessary skills. This data would be kept on a computer-based portfolio available to anyone at any time. Reasonable progress would be expected on each student based on his natural abilities (Raven's Matrices is a culture-fair test of this) and his actual achievement on teacher-made, publisher-made, and district wide tests. The teacher would then be realistically accountable for what he actually tried to teach the class and how much he helped each student improve. Improvement is the key concept. A caveat. He also should be held accountable only for the time he has each student. Therefore, those who he had all year would be counted as ten tenths. If a student entered and was in class for two months, he would be counted as two tenths. As it stands now the teacher is unfairly accountable. In one school I taught I began the year with twenty-seven students. Only eight of them remained for the entire ten months. I was judged on the scores as if all had been in attendance all year. Fortunately for me, they still scored at grade level or higher. This unfairness though is one reason teachers resist placement in schools with high rates of transiency and why good new teachers quit in utter frustration. Accountability, like with the contractor, is only fair and possible when teachers have the freedom, the autonomy to use all the tools at their disposal in the manner the best fits them and their students. Plus, they should be evaluated for the actual teaching time they have with their students.
 
David Wild: In Praise of Joaquin -- Back Off Bitches, Don't Give Phoenix a Bad Rap Top
In recent weeks, Joaquin Phoenix has willfully, or not, made himself a kind of multi-media punch line -- first by announcing he was retiring from acting to pursue a career as a rapper, then with his fantastically curious appearance on David Letterman's show, and finally when Ben Stiller brilliantly parodied that same oddball appearance at the Academy Awards. Now I am as unclear as the next clueless pundit about whether or not Phoenix's retirement story is all an elaborate post-modern gag and the documentary being shot by Casey Affleck is one big Sasha Baron Cohen-styled put-on. But having had the pleasure of working with Phoenix a couple of times -- interviewing him, filming him, and writing and producing a Walk The Line TV special that he and Reese Witherspoon hosted -- I just wanted to add one man's slightly kinder, gentler perspective. From my limited experiences with him, Joaquin Phoenix seems like one of the more sincere people in a business where that quality is in dangerously short supply. As a result, he seems to have considerable trouble with just going along on the star-studded flow. At the Walk The Line TV special, Joaquin was utterly paralyzed with fear by the idea of getting onstage as himself and speaking to an audience without a character to hide behind. Another time we met up, he seemed slightly tortured about how to accept an award he had won without being an arrogant Hollywood schmuck. Coming from the family Joaquin did, and experiencing the loss that he has, how could he not be ambivalent about some of the more silly side effects of celebrity? And even though one sensed that he could be a lot of work to deal with me, it was clear to me that this is a man who is probably tougher on himself than on anyone else. In fact, from what I saw, he treated people around him with great warmth and generosity. And even if the guy was driving you crazy -- he did so in a charming, lovable and sweet way. And let's not forget one significant mitigating factor - that Joaquin Phoenix is one of those rare actors capable of true onscreen greatness. For proof, see To Die For, Gladiator, Quills, Hotel Rwanda and Walk The Line . About that last role: I can think of few gigs in film history that took bigger balls to take on than playing and singing the part of Johnny Cash. Having spent some time with the real Man in Black, let me restate the obvious and remind everyone that Joaquin Phoenix pulled it all off spectacularly and that Reese Witherspoon ought to let him have custody of her Oscar part-time since they shared that triumph very much together. So tonight, I'm going to go see Joaquin Phoenix in Two Lovers , and I for one am also going to hope for that our sakes that Joaquin keeps acting, and that he gets to take the stage at the Oscars stage someday soon and do a really funny parody of Ben Stiller - maybe he can even rap it too.
 
Rob Kall: Barry Schwartz on Incentives, Education and Making Wise Choices Top
Rob Kall Interviewed TED speaker Barry Schwartz on the Rob Kall Bottom-Up Radio show, WNJC 1360, February 25, 2009. The interview was transcribed by Jay Farrington and Carla Gilby, and edited by Jay Farrington. Listen to a recording of the radio interview. Barry Schwartz is the Darwin P. Cartwright Professor of Social Theory and Social Action at Swarthmore College. Kall : I have with me Barry Schwartz, who recently gave an incredible talk at the TED Conference. If you haven't seen TED, it's at ted.com , where you're going to find amazing lectures and presentations. I found out about you from Twitter. You were all over Twitter, I tell you. Schwartz : Yes, this was my introduction to Twitter. I'm a little bit behind the curve when it comes to technology. Kall : Well, what you're not behind the curve on is a lot of wisdom. What you had to say really touched a lot of people. You spoke about wisdom, you spoke about the loss of wisdom, and you talked about it in terms of where we are currently. I was thinking last night, watching Bobby Jindal talk; did you hear what he had to say? Schwartz : I only heard a few minutes of what he had to say. I mostly listened to the guy right before him. Kall : Well, Jindal gave an example of a sheriff who was really frustrated because there were these rules that were keeping boats from going out that weren't insured, to rescue people. And he argued that more government and lots of government is bad because it creates dumb rules. It reminded me of your 'Mike's Lemonade Story.' Your 'Mike's Lemonade Story' is basically about a father... Should I tell it or do you want to tell it real briefly? Go ahead, tell it, tell it. Schwartz : It's a true story, it happened in Detroit. A dad was at a baseball game with his 11-year-old, and the 11-year-old wanted some lemonade. His dad went to the concession stand and the only lemonade they had was Mike's Hard Lemonade. The dad didn't realize that meant it had alcohol in it, so he brought it back to their seats. A security guard saw a kid drinking this alcoholic beverage and called the police, who called an ambulance. The kid was rushed to the ER. It was ascertained that he was okay, he didn't have any alcohol in his blood, and they were all set to let him go. But then the Child Welfare Services intervened and the child was put in a foster home for several days, then allowed to go home only if his father left the house and checked into a hotel. So they were protecting the child from potential abuse by the parent. After a couple weeks, this all got fixed and the family was reunited. At every step in the process, people said the same thing: I hate to do this, but I have to follow procedure. And you can see why, the reason these procedures were put in place, is that, no doubt in the past, welfare workers have been negligent, neglectful, and what have you. So these rigid procedures were designed to protect against disaster. And my point was that they work to protect against disaster, but, at the same time, they assure mediocrity. Mediocrity is the best you'll get when you expect people to adhere to a rigid set of rules. It is certainly true that when you rely on rules, usually promulgated by government agencies, terrible things will sometimes happen, preposterous things will sometimes happen. But the idea that you can simply eliminate these rules and trust that people will routinely want to do the right thing and know how to do the right thing is just self-deception. It takes a certain kind of person to want to do the right thing and know what that is, and part of the point of my talk is that our reliance on rules and, even worse, on incentives, has virtually guaranteed that we won't find such people. Kall : Your talk was about incentives on Wall Street in particular, I think. Schwartz : But it's true in general, I think. If you start giving teachers bonuses if their students exceed some score on these standardized tests, teachers will find a way to teach to the test. Test scores will go up, but education won't. Kall : And with Wall Street, the incentives led people to take us down a disastrous economic path. Schwartz : That's true, but people have short memories. These same incentives were hailed 15 years ago as a revolution in the running of our financial industry. You were creating incentives that made the compensation of the CEO compatible with the success of the company, right? Small salaries and huge bonuses meant that you wouldn't get fat, lazy CEO's with three-martini lunches, because the better the company did, the better they would do. Isn't that fabulous? You could just turn them loose, knowing that what's in their interest is also in our interest and we'll all end up better off. So this was a revolution in compensation. A smart revolution, engineered by brilliant economists, and, indeed, look what it got us. So the reaction to the current crisis is, 'Well, the problem is that we had dumb incentives; let's get smarter ones.' Well, we thought we had done that. The point I tried to make in the talk is that there is no set of incentives that you can create that is smart enough to substitute for people wanting to do the right thing because it's the right thing. By relying on incentives the way we have, we essentially create an addiction to incentives on the part of people so that they'll only act in a particular way if it's in their interest to do that. The moral dimension of your work as a banker, or teacher, or pretty much anything else simply gets eroded. That was the point of my talk. Kall : And you talked about the alternative being to celebrate moral exemplars. Schwartz : Correct. Instead of being embarrassed by our naiveté when it comes to great lawyers, either in fiction or in history, as motivating us to want to become lawyers, we should celebrate these people, acknowledge that we want to be lawyers because of the good that lawyers do; we want to be doctors because of the good that doctors do; and so on, and so forth. We should acknowledge openly and celebrate that, and the celebration of these kinds of people should be built into the training that we get in law, medicine, education, or anything else. But my sense - I teach at an institution that has very smart students - and my sense is that you're really regarded as naive to have this kind of noble aspiration; you don't understand how the world works; you've got to put a shell on; you've got to become cynical. Under those conditions, you won't get anyone to do anything unless you make it worth their while financially. So I think we're headed exactly down the wrong road. I think that president Obama knows that, although I sometimes get a little nervous that he, too, thinks that incentives are this sort of magic tool to get us exactly what we want and need from our professionals. Kall : Well, he did say last night that we've gone down the path seeking short term profits instead of long term prosperity. I like that quote from him. Schwartz : Yes, indeed. And the question is: What is it that induces us to pursue long term prosperity? What is it that gets us to care about the well being of future generations? It ain't incentives. Kall : So what is it, then? How do we systematize it, because there are so many failures in the educational system? You've talked about how education should be done by example and how teachers should be the moral exemplars; yet we've got an awful lot of... what is it? Half of the students don't make it through high school, half of the students who start college don't make it through college. Schwartz : True, the education system is a mess, but you're not going to make it better by giving teachers bonuses if their students exceed some score on standardized tests. This is the magic bullet quick fix, and all it is, is cosmetic surgery. The underlying problem remains and, as Rahm Emanuel said, you should never let a crisis go to waste. Well, we certainly have a crisis now, and I think that means we ought to think much more boldly about what it will take to fix the educational system. You want teachers who love to teach, and you want to enable them to work under conditions where it's possible for them to teach well. You certainly need to pay them enough, and we don't pay teachers enough. They need to make enough money that they can live a decent life and raise a family and all that stuff. You don't want their compensation to be a disincentive, but I don't think that you get better teachers by offering compensation above and beyond what's enough to live a decent life. What's more important is creating working conditions that allow them to do their jobs well. Kall : Well, what about the seniority system? Right now, in many school districts, if you've been there longer, you get paid the most. Schwartz : And, in addition, you get to pick what school you teach at. The sad truth, since I'm a supporter of organized labor in general, the sad truth is that I think teachers unions have really been bad actors in the development of the teaching profession over the last couple of generations. There's very little evidence that there's interest in anything other than the welfare of the teachers, and that creates constraints on what supervisors can do that make it almost impossible to transform the system. I think one reason why charter schools are working, when they are, and why they're even created, is that it's a way around union contracts, so that the principal of the charter school has the freedom to do stuff that a principal in the regular school that's part of the regular system couldn't do. Kall : Now, you're part of the tenure system, right? Schwartz : I am. Kall : So what do you see as the solution? No Child Left Behind? I can't imagine you behind that. Schwartz : No, I'm certainly not. You can have standards without having standardization. It takes more time, it takes more effort, it takes confidence in the judgment in the people who are doing the evaluations. We seem reluctant to trust in the judgment of teachers and evaluators and the consequence, again, like the lemonade story, is that we settle for mediocrity by ensuring against catastrophe. So, there is not a quick fix to this and it's too bad that there's not a quick fix, but I think, again, this crisis may have given us the opportunity to think big about what teacher training should be like and what the teachers' work environment should be. Kall : So, have you been thinking big? Schwartz : I always think big. The nice thing about being a tenured college professor is that you can have all these thoughts and nobody actually acts on them. Kall : So what do you see as the opportunity here within this crisis for changing things-in any area, not just teaching. Where has this taken you? Schwartz : Well, there is about to be a massive expenditure of resources in lots of different areas of current American life and Obama has certainly, and I think correctly, made a big deal about the importance of improving education. So, the thing to do is re-vision what a classroom is like, what kind of people you want to hire as teachers, what kind of conditions you want to give them to work under-and in that way, transform the system. There was an article that Malcolm Gladwell had in The New Yorker several weeks ago, in which he made the case, and I think he's right, that no one knows how to predict who's going to be a good teacher. You can't look at credentials, they're just not predictive. You can't look at college grades. Some people are fabulous and some people aren't and you don't know until they start teaching. So what that would imply is that you have a system where lots of teachers get hired and most of them aren't retained, because you essentially learn, by watching them, who's good and who isn't. The system we have is exactly the opposite. You know, you get tenure after two years. There's virtually no evidence about how good you are, nor do you have much of an opportunity to learn how to be good, so all this effort is put into the initial screening. Then, once you get the job, it takes dynamite to get you out of it. Kall : My son is 19; he's a freshman in college. He has already learned, because he took some college courses while he was in high school, not to take a course without checking out ratemyprofessors.com. Schwartz : Well, that's... The quality of teaching is critical, but I'm not sure that ratemyprofessors.com is the way to find out about qualities, other than how entertaining the course is. Again, the easy way to evaluate is a bunch of bubbles on a form, but it probably doesn't tell you much about the actual quality of the teaching. Kall : So there's really not anything in place within the teaching system to do a proper evaluation of a teacher, then? Schwartz : Here's an interesting thing: Swarthmore is a school where the emphasis is on teaching. They expect us to do our own research, but the emphasis is squarely on teaching. We have no institutionalized course evaluations. If you want to give them out, you can, each professor, and they're for you, they're not published anywhere. On the other hand, when people come up for promotion, they solicit 40 or 50 letters from students - open-ended, discursive accounts of the strengths and weaknesses of the teacher. Kall : The administration does that? Schwartz : That's correct. That's the way you get tenure, that's the way you get promoted to full professor. So, instead of relying on the easy evaluation, the so-called objective evaluation, of checking boxes on rating forms, they want students to write narratives about what your strengths and weaknesses were, and those letters are scrutinized. I've done this now many times when junior colleagues of mine have been up for promotion - those letters are scrutinized to try to develop a sense of what each individual's strengths and weaknesses are. So there are standards, very high standards, but there is not standardization. We can afford to do that, it's a small school, we have a lot of money, it's time consuming, it's effortful, we can afford it, but I think going for what's easy is never going to get you the excellence that we aspire to. I think the same thing is true in other professions. There is a slow sort of revolution building in medical training, because you develop these people now with unbelievable technical skills who don't know how to treat patients. They know how to treat organ systems. How do you teach smart people to be doctors? There are several places now where you get assigned a patient right at the start of your medical training - there's always someone looking over your shoulder, but you see that patient all year long. You get involved with that patient, the patient's life circumstances, the patient's family, and so on, so you know how to be a doctor to people rather than a doctor to organ systems. Students shadow doctors. You'll spend six weeks shadowing a
 
CEO Compensation, Perks Surge Despite Firms' Troubles Top
Companies may be floundering, but their chief executives continue to see their pay checks and benefits grow. According to Crain's New York Business : Amid the deepest economic collapse in generations, corporate America is coming up with a novel way to justify extravagant executive pay: Ignore the bad news. Companies that sank into the red last year are looking past a host of business expenses, ranging from asset write-downs to higher-than-expected operating costs, to rationalize paying brass even more than they got in flush times. Others appear to be reducing pay but continue to bestow extraordinary perks, such as "golden coffins." Golden coffins are becoming increasingly controversial. According to the Wall Street Journal : Activist investors want to drive nails into what they call "golden coffins" -- generous posthumous payouts to senior management. Shareholders have submitted nonbinding resolutions to curb rich death benefits at 14 U.S. businesses so far this year. Amid red-hot outrage over executive compensation, the measures are drawing substantial support, including nearly 67% of the votes cast at the Jan. 28 annual meeting of Shaw Group Inc. More on Photo Galleries
 
Martha Stewart's Dog, Chow Genghis Khan, Dies In Pennsylvania Explosion Top
LEHIGHTON, Pa. — Martha Stewart's chow puppy was one of 17 dogs killed in a propane explosion at an eastern Pennsylvania kennel. The domestic maven wrote on her blog that she was "deeply saddened" by the death of her dog, Ghengis Khan, in Friday's blast at Pazzazz Pet Boarding, a kennel in the Pocono Mountains that breeds and trains show dogs. Fifteen dogs were killed in the explosion, and two more died over the weekend. The kennel was getting a propane delivery when the tank ignited, setting the pens on fire and injuring the driver, Timothy Kleinhagen, of Summit Hill. Though badly burned, Kleinhagen managed to toss a cairn terrier over the kennel fence to safety. He was listed in critical condition Monday at Lehigh Valley Hospital. "That man is a hero," said the kennel's co-owner, Karen Tracy. "My heart goes out to his family." Genghis Khan was a grandson of Stewart's previous chow, Paw Paw, which died last April at age 12. Stewart announced on her blog in December that she was adopting Genghis Khan, then 7 weeks old, calling him "very cute and square." She said she expected him to be "conquering his new territory in my home soon, with great charm and prowess. I'm also confident that Sharkey and Francesca (Stewart's French bulldogs) will be enamored with him." It wasn't immediately clear how much time Genghis Khan had spent at Stewart's Westchester County, N.Y., estate. Stewart also sent condolences to Tracy, who breeds and trains dogs that compete in shows throughout the country, including Westminster. Many of the dead dogs belonged to Tracy and her mother, Jean Ahner, who live on the property in Franklin Township, Carbon County, about 75 miles north of Philadelphia. "My heart goes out to Karen Tracy and I am hoping for a speedy recovery for those (both pets and humans) injured in this terrible event," Stewart wrote. Officials have said a spark or static electricity may have started the blaze, which remains under investigation but is considered accidental. AmeriGas Propane Inc., which owned the truck that Kleinhagen was driving, has declined to comment.
 
Human Rights Watch: Year After Tibet Riots, Hundreds Of Detainees And Prisoners Unaccounted For Top
(New York, March 9, 2009) - The first extensive analysis of official Chinese accounts regarding the arrests and trials of Tibetan protesters from March 2008 shows that by the Chinese government's own count, there have been thousands of arbitrary arrests, and more than 100 trials pushed through the judicial system, Human Rights Watch said today. New Human Rights Watch research and analysis point to a judicial system so highly politicized as to preclude any possibility of protesters being judged fairly. Human Rights Watch has examined dozens of court reports, statements by leading officials, local judicial statistics, and official Chinese press reports. These documents reveal that the number of protests was higher than previously acknowledged by the government, that protesters have been sentenced outside the Tibetan Autonomous Region in the provinces of Sichuan and Gansu, that protestors died or were killed in Lhasa, and that courts have sentenced protesters under state security charges for nonviolent acts such as waving the Tibetan flag and throwing pamphlets on the street. "The Chinese government has refused every external request for a real accounting of the detention, arrest and sentencing of those involved with the Tibetan protests," said Sophie Richardson, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. "Both the arrests and the releases seem to have been arbitrary, and we still know next to nothing about those who are still detained or have been imprisoned." Against a backdrop of ever-more intrusive controls over religious and cultural activities, accelerated state-led economic development, and large-scale compulsory resettlement of farmers and nomads, major protests against Chinese rule erupted on March 10, 2008, in Lhasa and spread across the Tibetan plateau. That date marked the anniversary of the failed 1959 uprising against Chinese rule. Over the next four days, hundreds of monks from Drepung, Sera, and Ganden temples peacefully protested. But on March 14 near Romoche temple, members of the public started protesting police who were preventing monks from leaving the compound; some protesters turned violent and burned several police cars. The police retreated and then inexplicably disappeared from Lhasa for much of the rest of the day. Rioters burned Chinese shops and government buildings and attacked Chinese-looking passersby. Dozens of protests were held in Tibetan communities across the plateau over the course of that week. The Chinese government has framed all discussions about Tibet as a sovereignty issue, claiming that the country's territorial integrity and inter-ethnic relations were threatened by a secessionist movement supported by "hostile foreign forces." The government has consistently rejected all allegations of human rights abuses in Tibet, by claiming that Tibetans' rights are fully protected under the law; pointing to political, social and economic development over the past half-century; or rejecting the expression of such concerns as conspiracies to fan ethnic dissatisfaction against the Communist Party and the government. "The government's national security concerns do not exempt it from its obligation to respect fundamental rights and freedoms and offer equal status before the law to all its citizens, whatever their ethnicity," said Richardson. "Yet Beijing's own official accounts reflect judicial defects so severe that it is not possible to deliver a fair trial to any one accused of having taken part in the protests last year." Human Rights Watch said that the government's official figures about arrests and convictions suggested that several hundred suspected protesters are still in custody. The Chinese government, which says that the protests resulted in 21 casualties, has not responded to demands from the United Nations and international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch to account for these detentions. In a joint appeal on April 10, 2008, six United Nations special procedures mandate holders issued an urgent appeal calling on the government of China for "complete compliance with due process and fair trial rights according to international standards for those detained or charged with crimes, including provision of each person's name, the charges against them, and the facility where they are detained or imprisoned, as well as ensuring access to legal defense." The official sources reviewed by Human Rights Watch are silent on vital aspects of the protests, such as the circumstances under which protests led to clashes with the security forces, or whether the government used only such force as was necessary to protect public order and safety. But the sources do shed light on several crucial dimensions of the handling of the protests, such as the largest number of incidents officially publicly acknowledged; the indication that some protesters were killed during the security operations in Lhasa around March 14; the previously unreported sentencing of several protesters in Gansu and Sichuan province; details about direct instructions given to courts and legal professionals by local officials, politicizing the judicial process; and how peaceful dissent was construed as criminal behavior. The sources reflect a pattern of systematic political interference with legal and judicial processes in the name of an ideologically driven "anti-separatist campaign" under the Communist Party leadership. The principle of independence of the judiciary is thoroughly undermined by the leadership's demand that courts and police tailor their actions to political requirements. "It is not in dispute that the Chinese government has the duty to maintain public order and prosecute violent protesters," said Richardson. "But it can and should accomplish this while respecting both the law and international human rights standards." The key findings presented in this report - based exclusively on Chinese official sources - raise sufficient concerns on their own to warrant an immediate investigation into the protests and their aftermath. Human Rights Watch called on the government to: · provide a full accounting of all those detained, released, tried and sentenced relating to public order disturbances in Tibet in the last year; · allow immediate access for international observers, including access by the International Committee of the Red Cross to all detention facilities; and · fully respect the rights of those who have been accused, detained, tried, or released. Background and Findings About 2.6 million Tibetans live in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), which occupies about half of the distinctive geographic area known as Tibetan plateau. Most of the other 3 million Tibetans live on the rest of the plateau, in officially designated "Tibetan Autonomous Prefectures and Counties" under the jurisdiction of the provinces of Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu and Yunnan. More Than 150 Incidents of Protest Acknowledged The Chinese government has never given a full and detailed account of the protests and of the response by the security forces. The number and extent of protests that took place, as well as the details of how they escalated and how the security forces responded, remain unknown. This lack of information is disturbing given the substantial reports of human rights violations documented by nongovernmental organizations outside China that ought to have prompted both domestic and international investigations into the reports. Official sources reflect that the initial demonstrations by monks from Sera and Drepung monasteries on March 10-13 did not involve violence on the part of the protesters. Yet, following the violence that broke out in Lhasa on March 14, 2008, as security forces inexplicably left the center of the city to protesters and violent rioters for several hours, the Chinese Communist Party and the government quickly revised its characterization of all Tibetan protests as the "March 14th smashing, looting, beating and burning incidents" irrespective of whether they took place in Lhasa or elsewhere, before or after March 14, and involved violence or not. This far from neutral characterization, which still stands, permeates all official accounts and gives a high ideological tone that makes it difficult to establish the nature of the different incidents that took place over a period of several weeks across the Tibetan plateau. The political skewing of official accounts was compounded by the government rapidly placing all Tibetan areas off-limits to foreign visitors and journalists for the subsequent months, which prevented independent observers and journalists from documenting the protests and their aftermath. Even basic information such as how many incidents were recorded by the authorities is unavailable. However, in what might be the most authoritative acknowledgment of the number and extent of the Tibetan protests ever made by the authorities, a short mention in a Chinese-language only dispatch by the state news agency Xinhua on April 2, 2008, acknowledged that "150 incidents of 'smashing, looting, beating and burning' had taken place between March 10 and March 25 in the Tibetan areas of Qinghai, Gansu and Sichuan provinces and the Tibet Autonomous Region." No other estimate about the number of protests was ever made public. Other official accounts acknowledge specific protests in a least 18 county-level areas situated in the prefectures of Chandu (Tibetan: Chamdo), Aba (Tibetan: Ngaba), Ganzi (Tibetan: Kartze), Gannan (Tibetan: Kanhlo) and Guoluo (Tibetan: Guolok) in the Tibet Autonomous Region and the provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, and Sichuan. In early April 2008, UN special rapporteurs urged the Chinese government to "respond ... positively to outstanding visit requests to enable mandate holders including the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions to carry out the responsibilities entrusted to them by the Human Rights Council." After a brief interval during which a limited number of visitors were allowed back, all Tibetan areas were closed again in late February 2009, and remain so today. Acknowledgment that Protesters Died or Were Killed The documents reviewed also show that, contrary to the government's insistence over the past year that no protester was killed during the security operations in Lhasa that followed the March 14 violence, a statement by Palma Trily (Chinese: Baima Chilin,) the vice-chairman of the Tibet Autonomous Region, had acknowledged the death of three protesters. "I can take the responsibility to inform you that, until now three law-breakers have died," Palma Trily told a reporter from the Hong Kong Chinese-language broadcaster Phoenix TV at a news conference in Lhasa on March 27, 2008. "Some tried to jump off a building during their arrest and died after arriving at the hospital." No public investigation into the incidents was conducted, and no official mention of these three deaths appears in other official documents and state-media reports. Prosecutions in the Tibet Autonomous Region Statements by government officials and state media reports present a confusing picture regarding the number of people arrested and sentenced for their role in the protests. The government claims that only 76 people have been sentenced and that all the 953 people initially taken into custody have subsequently been released, sometimes after having been given "public order punishment" and "education." But these figures cover only a fraction of the total number of arrests inside and outside the Tibet Autonomous Region. The number of 953 people taken into custody - of which 362 were described by the authorities as having "voluntarily surrendered" - also excludes arrests that took place after April 2008, and is lower than figures appearing in some Chinese-language state media reports. In particular, it is lower than the number provided by Baema Cewang (Chinese: Baima Caiwang), vice-chairman of the regional government, on November 4, 2008, that 1,317 persons had been initially detained by the Public Security forces. Basic information about the conduct of the trial of the 76 defendants remains unavailable. There are also serious doubts about the fairness of the procedures. In the case of the first group of alleged protesters sentenced, the government initially announced that the 30 defendants had been tried in an "open court session" on April 29, 2008. When Human Rights Watch challenged the account by pointing out that the verdicts had been reached covertly earlier, state media acknowledged that the trials had in fact taken place a week before (see "Tibetan Protesters Denied Fair Trial," at: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/04/29/china-tibetan-protesters-denied-fair-trial). Isolated state media reports gave the names and sentences, but not the whereabouts, of a small number of people sentenced, such as seven people accused of being agents of the Tibetan government in exile and providing "intelligence" to overseas entities, and sentenced to prison terms ranging from eight years to life. Arrests and Prosecutions in Gansu and Sichuan Provinces Information about detentions and prosecutions in Tibetan areas outside of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) is all the more limited. In Gannan (Tibetan: Kanhlo) Prefecure, home to over half a million Tibetans, the authorities had publicly reported that through April 8, 2008, law enforcement agencies had put 432 protesters under criminal detention, accepted the "voluntary surrenders" of 2,224 people having taken part in violent protests, and released 1,870 people. The authorities gave no details about the status of the 334 people not released, including 106 monks. The names, whereabouts, charges and place of detentions of people detained and awaiting trial in Gannan were never detailed, and no conviction there was ever publicly reported by the government or national state media. But official documents examined by Human Rights Watch now establish for the first time that courts in the provinces of Gansu and Sichuan sentenced several dozens of Tibetan protesters during the year 2008 under charges ranging from disrupting public order to "inciting separatism" to other state security crimes. Neither government officials nor national state media have so far publicly disclosed any sentencing outside the Tibet Autonomous Region. An official speech obtained by Human Rights Watch, and delivered on January 6, 2009 by the head of the Gannan Tibetan Prefecture Intermediate People's Court, indicates that 27 people were sentenced in 2008. The Gannan courts tried 16 cases of "violent crimes of 'March 14' smashing, looting, beating and burning" involving 27 people. Sentences ranged from two to 20 years of imprisonment, including 10 sentences in the 10-15 year range and eight in 5-10 years range. The crimes listed included arson, looting, "collectively attacking state organs," and "inciting separatism." The identity of all the people sentenced, their whereabouts, and relevant details about their trials, such as whether they had benefited from adequate legal representation, also remain unknown. There are similar concerns about detainees and protesters unaccounted for in the two Tibetan autonomous prefectures of Ganzi (Tibetan: Kardze) and Aba (Tibetan: Ngaba) in Sichuan province, home to another million Tibetans. In Ganzi prefecture, official reports state that 289 people had "voluntarily surrendered" after several clashes in mid-March 2008. In Aba county, 381 "law breakers" had "voluntarily surrendered" by March 24, 2008. Nothing has been since heard about the fate of these individuals, including how many were subsequently released or prosecuted. Doubts Over 'Voluntary Surrenders' There are also concerns that not all surrenders to the authorities described as "voluntary" in official sources were indeed voluntary. Under Chinese law, the term zishou, or "voluntary surrender," simply
 
Johann Hari: Botox is destroying Hollywood acting Top
For a decade now, Hollywood acting has been slowly, steadily poisoned by a bacterium called Clostridium botulinum. This week, I was watching the hypnotically horrible Coen brothers movie, No Country For Old Men, and I couldn't shake off the sense there was something different, something thrilling and vivid, about the performances of all the lead actors: Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin. It was only after half an hour of awe that I realised what it was. They can all move their faces. Today, most actors in most movies have deliberately paralysed faces, incapable of registering anything. An ocean of Botox and collagen has been jabbed into the most famous faces on earth - leaving the audience feeling disconnected without knowing why. Yet in this movie, the lines and crevices on the forehead of Tommy Lee Jones are as rugged as the Texas desert his sheriff character patrols. With imperceptibly tiny movements of these crags of skin, he can convey pain and panic and grief. Similarly, Javier Bardem's portrait of a blank-eyed psychopath works precisely because we can see that his sagging face is capable of more than blankness. The majority of Hollywood stars are simply incapable of doing this. I don't just mean people like Melanie Griffiths, who have been left looking like Salvador Dali nightmare scenes; I mean the top-of-the-billing big stars who are still revered as greats. I'm thinking of one famous actress who claims that her face remains unlined because of the care she takes in looking after it. A decade ago, she was an impish, clever performer skipping towards greatness. Today, she has been jabbed and stabbed into a simulacrum of perfection - so her face can do nothing. It cannot register pleasure or pain; it can only remain in a frozen rictus, fitting for a performance in high-end adverts and no more. Almost every American movie I see now contains a cast in the same poisoned state. Sure, Hollywood actresses have always altered their appearances: in the 1930s, several starlets swallowed tapeworm eggs to lose weight. But the procedures of the Nineties and Noughties are more disabling, in acting terms, than those of the past. In the 1940s, Rita Hayworth had a few minor cosmetic procedures: she had electrolysis on her hairline to give her a more exaggerated widow's peak. (The studio though it made her look "more exotic".) Marilyn Monroe had work on her chin-line. But they didn't do anything that would alter their abilities to move their faces - and act. Botox is much more extreme for an actor. It doesn't just tighten or alter skin; it paralyses nerves. In Sarah Churchwell's brilliant book The Many Lives of Marilyn Monroe, there is a small story that shows how important the tiny, almost unreadable facial signals rendered impossible by Botox are to big screen acting. In the 1956 movie Bus Stop, Marilyn was cast opposite Don Murray, a much-garlanded stage actor breaking into the movies for the first time. When he shot scenes with her, he concluded that she was a dead, dismal actress, because she didn't seem to be doing anything in their scenes but standing there limply. Later, Dame Sybil Thorndike had exactly the same reaction. But when they saw the rushes, they realised Marilyn was the only one among them who knew how to act for the camera: she had tiny, toned-down facial responses that were sure to melt the boy in the 22nd row. If Marilyn had been Botoxed, she would have been turned into precisely the clothes-shop dummy Murray and Thorndike thought she was. Collagen is just as bad: if a face has puffed-up, immobile lips, its capacity for basic expression is largely gone. This is, I'm sure, one reason why British actresses have been doing so well at the Oscars for the past 10 years: they haven't been facially paralysed. Helen Mirren, Judi Dench and - last year, in the achingly sad Away From Her - Julie Christie have accepted the potential richness that comes from worry-lines and crows' feet. They use them. They know they suggest depth and richness and life. Of course, this Botox-bind leaves actresses who are hitting the Hollywood-elderly of 40 in a cruel position. If they refuse to have the face done, they can't get cast. But if they have the face done, they can't act. They are trapped by our creepy desire to have any sign of ageing banished from our sight-lines, even on the cinema screen. Alfred Hitchcock once said, "The greatest special effect is a close-up of the human face." Botox has stripped this effect from the movies - and left our films frozen. Johann hari is a columnist for the Independent newspaper. To read more of his articles, click here .
 
Susan L. Solomon: Patients Before Politics: Putting Science First Top
For the last eight years, human embryonic stem cell research - which is improving our understanding of how we can treat and defeat diseases such as Parkinson's and diabetes - has been a hostage of Presidential politics. Today's executive order by President Barack Obama changes that, lifting many restrictions on federal funding for research on new stem cell lines derived from human embryos. Unfortunately, this stroke of the pen does not remove key legislative hurdles that will continue to prevent federal dollars from being spent on this critical science. Stem cell research represents the most revolutionary area of medical research today, opening possibilities for treating cancer, diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, blindness and paralysis. The previous administration's ban cost researchers precious time in the race for new cures, treatments and discoveries. TIME magazine recently cited a New York Stem Cell Foundation-funded breakthrough by Dr. Kevin Eggan as the most significant scientific achievement in 2008. Because of the ban on federal funding, this groundbreaking work was only possible through the generosity of private donors. President Obama's symbolic decision to address this transforming medical issue will ultimately give laboratories nationwide new resources to change lives. But while the new administration brings a refreshingly friendly attitude toward science, in general, and stem cell research in particular, researchers will still lack easy access to the full range of possibilities that stem cells present. Significant obstacles remain in the path of stem cell research progress. The President possesses unilateral authority only to allow federal funding of research on new and existing embryonic stem cell lines - he cannot single-handedly green-light federal funding to create the stem cell lines themselves. That's because Congress in 1996 banned the use of human embryos, even those discarded in fertility clinics or voluntarily made for scientific purposes, for research purposes - including the creation of embryonic stem cells. That piece of legislation, the so-called Dickey-Wicker Amendment, is inextricably linked to abortion politics, and is unlikely to be removed from the books in the near future. It is crucial to our ultimate success to allow wide access to all of the stem cell lines that have already been created from embryos, as well as to continue to create new lines for comparative and other purposes, including the research that can only be done with human embryonic stem cells. Researchers throughout the world feel that the new "induced pluripotentiary stem cells" (iPS for short) are powerful tools for scientists studying the mechanisms of human disease in their laboratories. However, scientists agree that human embryonic stem cells remain the "gold standard" of research, making the production of new stem cells of urgent importance. Private funding sources like NYSCF, which are by nature far more nimble than government agencies, are still essential to advancing stem cell research. Private philanthropy is, and will continue to be, a critical and necessary driver of the most innovative and promising stem cell science. We cannot continue to ask our best scientists to work with one hand tied behind their backs. Finding better treatments and cures for these terrible diseases is urgent work. The New York Stem Cell Foundation will continue to use private philanthropy to ensure that scientists are able to perform the experiments that simply wouldn't be funded or initiated elsewhere, which will continue to change the way scientists and the public view what is possible in this burgeoning medical area. And we hope that Congress will act quickly, once and for all, to put patients before politics by putting science first. www.nyscf.org More on Health
 
Mike Hegedus: An hour of 'Nightly' nightly? Be afraid, be very afraid. Top
It was a few months back when I read that the New York Times was going to start selling advertising on its front page. I guess I read it wrong. There was advertising in a strange place in Monday's NYT but it was on the front of the Business Section and NBC was the 'client'. At least that's what it looked like to me. Of course that's just my opinion. Opinions as it turns out carry allot of weight these days in the 'news' business. The first 'ad' for NBC in the Times dealt with CNBC. As cable ventures go, and relative to it's own ratings history, these are halcyon days for the business channel. In terms of total TV viewing, 282,000 homes, which is what CNBC has averaged in the first two months of the year, aren't many. But in the fractured world of cable television and at this particular time, with the economy circling the drain, it's significant. CNBC has always been the 'home' team television outlet, and the 'home' team is Wall Street. If the 'Streeters' do well, lots of people watch. If the 'home' team is a loser, not so much. To stem this up and down tide , this one time forgotten child of the NBC 'family' has finally succumbed to that bastion of cable news--opinion. Up until recently the 'opinion-miesters' on the channel, the likes of Jim Cramer and Larry Kudlow, were kept at arms length, on the fringes of the business day coverage. You know what you're getting with Larry and Jim (well sort of--someone probably should ask Cramer why he 'disappeared' from CNBC's air in the early days--and if Larry is 'praying' about running for the Senate shouldn't he be 'praying' off the air?) In other words--caveat emptor-if you're buying stocks based on what Cramer and Kudlow are telling you--shame on you. But these days not only are Jim and Larry popping up in coverage during market hours, and elsewhere on NBC owned properties as 'experts', but so are all those boxes. How many cubes can you get on the screen at once with everyone talking at the same time? It looks like a goofy version of the Muppet Show. How many 'voices' can you listen to at once--and should the 'anchors' and 'reporters' be expressing opinions? Where does fact end and fiction begin? Speaking of fiction. An hour of 'Nightly News' every night? That little nugget was in the second NBC 'ad' , just below the CNBC one. NBC News President Steve Capus quoted as saying that NBC is '..postioned..' to be the first network to expand to a full hour newscast. No timetable. No Mas! This brought about by the relatively strong ratings and revenue performance of the news division. Turns out that even with all the talk about the 'death' of television news, over 25 million people a night still tune in to the three network broadcasts to see what's going on. Hmmm, 25 million people, should be some money in there somewhere. The problem has been that the current network management, at all levels, right down to the local stations, hasn't been innovative enough to figure out how to get it. A group that came to maturity during the '..turn on the transmitter and the money comes out..' era of broadcasting has been stymied by the growth of the Internet and the audience division created by cable. So when times get a little flush the answer is---an hour of 'Nightly' nightly? And what will that hour of 'Nightly' be filled with exactly? Aren't news divisions shrinking? Haven't news people been calved in droves? Isn't there talk of 'sharing' resources with competitors? I've got it! How about ten little boxes with everyone talking at once? Hey, Cramer and Kudlow still have some empty slots available. The bright spot in the 'ads' was the talk about profits. Apparently both the news division and CNBC are making them. Which is good to hear with unemployment in journalism so high. If 'Nightly'goes to an hour a night, and CNBC keeps growing more and more popular, there will be jobs for the taking! But before you run over with your resume, I'd call first. That's just my opinion. More on CNBC
 
Marshall Fine: American Idol: Welcome to Branson Top
It's that time of year when, with the Oscars out of the way and the Grammys and Emmys still just dots on the horizon, the entertainment press runs out of things to write about - and so it becomes fixated on American Idol . If this isn't an annual warning about the imminent approach of the apocalypse, I don't know what is. Unless it's the continuing popularity of Ryan Seacrest. This morning alone, Monday, March 9, I found a massive Associate Press story online about American Idol fever - and a full-blown album review on the front of the New York Times' Arts section of the latest release by Kelly Clarkson. The AP story treated the Idol phenomenon the way it does all phenomena - as something to gush over, as though this ongoing exercise in mediocrity and the lowering of standards is a trend to be applauded, an event over which to marvel. The NYT review of the Clarkson album was appropriately dismissive. But it spoke to the desperation of even the biggest of newspapers that it would even deign to devote space and ink to someone with as limited a gift as Kelly Clarkson. To call her a recording artist is to diminish the term "artist" - and perhaps "recording." Even as I finished with those, I opened the door to find a delivery of a new batch of hype/gibberish from the Fox network about the newly sifted Idol finalists, with little cards featuring the faces and names of those frighteningly talented singers who will dominate the culture for the next three months (even as the economy slides deeper and deeper into a Bush-produced crater). Poser-looking types like Adam Lambert (with his Fall Out Boy-inspired haircut and eyeliner). The clean-cut Anoop Desai (the temptation to make a Slumdog Millionaire joke here must be resisted). Lil Rounds. Megan Joy Corkrey. Scott MacIntyre (must fight urge to make Andrea Bocelli joke). Ted Mack and Major Bowles must be spinning in their graves with envy,. If you get those references (Ted who?), you're probably too old to care about American Idol . I know I am - but who can avoid it? Its commercials seem to dominate every other show on Fox, forcing their way into our homes. (Thank God for Tivo.) This bogus colossus of hype, American Idol squats over our culture like an obese person after a big meal, squeezing out tomorrow's stars - of the Las Vegas showroom. Manufactured. Comfortable. Colorless. For the rest of this post, click here to go to my website, www.hollywoodandfine.com. More on American Idol
 
Robert Naiman: Can Congress Save Obama from Afghan Quagmire? Top
A progressive Presidency is a terrible thing to waste. It only comes around once every so often. Wouldn't it be a shame if Americans' hopes for the Obama Administration were squandered in Afghanistan? Members of Congress who want the Obama Administration to succeed won't do it any favors by keeping silent about the proposed military escalation in Afghanistan. The actions of the Obama Administration so far clearly indicate that they can move in response to pressure: both good pressure and bad pressure. If there is only bad pressure, it's more than likely that policy will move in a bad direction. In announcing an increase in U.S. troops before his Afghanistan review was complete, Obama partially acceded to pressure from the military. If we don't want the military to have carte blanche, there needs to be counterpressure. Some Members of Congress are starting to speak up. Rep. Murtha recently said he's uncomfortable with Obama's decision to increase the number of troops in the country by 17,000 before a goal was clearly defined, AP reports . Sen. Nelson is calling for clear benchmarks to measure progress in Afghanistan, and said he may try to add benchmarks to the upcoming war supplemental bill this spring, CQ Today reports . But these individual expressions of discomfort will likely not be enough to stop the slide towards greater and greater military escalation. Eight Members of Congress (Walter Jones, Neil Abercrombie, Roscoe Bartlett, Steve Kagen, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Ed Whitfield, and Lynn Woolsey) have initiated a letter to President Obama urging him to reconsider his support for military escalation. The letter argues that military escalation may well be counterproductive towards the goal of creating a stable government that can control Afghanistan, noting that a recent Carnegie Endowment study concluded that "the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops. The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban." [You can find the letter - and ask your Representative to sign it - here .] There is political space for challenging the logic of escalation. Forty-two percent of Americans think troops in Afghanistan should be increased, up from 34 percent in January, CBS News reports , no doubt reflecting the largely uncritical press treatment that the proposal for military escalation has received. But the same CBS News/New York Times poll still found that more people thought that U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan should be decreased (24%) or kept the same (23%) - i.e. 47% thought troop levels should be decreased or stay the same, rather than increased. If we want the US government to seriously pursue diplomacy, there must be serious counterpressure against sending more troops without end. If you want recycling, you have to discourage the establishment of new landfills. If you want economic development and human rights to be at the center of trade policy, you have to jam up corporate trade deals. If you want diplomacy, there has to be a significant political pushback to military escalation. More on Barack Obama
 
Natasha Chen: John Judis at Hoover Institution: Democratic Majority for Decades? Top
John Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic , addressed about one hundred people at Stanford University on Wednesday as a Hoover Media Fellow. Judis spoke for almost an hour on the issues facing our economy and how in the process of fixing these problems, Obama has the chance to solidify a Democratic majority for decades to come. For the crowd of mostly elderly members of the Hoover Institution and Stanford communities, this argument may not have been the greatest news but did open the door to intelligent discussion about the transition from a societal model that is industrial-based to one that is intellectual-based. To put the Obama administration into the context of a historical and socioeconomic timeline, Judis presented three ways of looking at history: geopolitical, economic and political. First, there is the "theory of empire," which outlines periods of history according to the rise and fall of empires and likely the method by which school children begrudgingly memorized information for history tests. "It has a way of explaining how countries once at the top of the pyramid begin to fall," Judis said. He further quoted Lenin in predicting that when the No. 1 power begins to erode off the top of the pyramid, those lower in the stack begin to fight for power. Judis said "we've started to enter a period like that," suggesting that the U.S. has overreached itself at least militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan, which undermines its economic and political stability by diverting attention from home to overseas. Then Judis suggested looking at history through business cycles, with the ebb and flow of prosperity and recession or worse yet, growth to depression and back. In case anyone in the room hadn't met with reality yet, Judis said that our current economic downturn is global and therefore far worse than previous recessions when certain countries that were not affected could at least help out those in trouble. "There isn't a silver lining in that respect," Judis said. He also reiterated that "we won't be able to get out of it by normal means," and that it would fall on Obama and his team to go to extraordinary measures. The failing of both an all-powerful empire and economy together exacerbates rivalries between countries, according to Judis. "There's only one word to describe it: trouble." Within countries, these downfalls encourage what he calls "toxic nationalism." The final prism through which Judis makes sense of today's events is political realignment, with the dominant party and perspective of the country changing every thirty or forty years. His own book The Emerging Democratic Majority foreshadowed the resurgence of the Democrats that began in the mid-2000s. "It reflects the coming of America in a post-industrial society," Judis said, "with new people coming in, professionals, immigrants, women in the workforce...more secular, more cosmopolitan." More specifically, there have been "soft" vs. "hard" realignments, with the latter happening only when party power switches corresponding to a major crisis. "I hate to say it in this setting," Judis said, "but Herbert Hoover and the Republicans got nailed for the depression." With some heads shaking in the audience, Judis continued his argument nonetheless, that with a similar economic emergency at hand now, Obama has a chance for precisely such a hard realignment that could last for decades, if he can prevent total catastrophe. "The world's people are going to have to get better control over what's happening to their relationships with each other - that's resources, finances." More on Obama Transition
 
Scott Gilmore: Catch As Catch Can: Salvadoran General Who Oversaw Torture is Indicted ... for Passport Fraud Top
On Monday February 23, 2009, U.S. authorities indicted General José Guillermo García -- a former defense minister for El Salvador -- on two felony counts of immigration fraud. At first glance, two measly immigration charges for a man who presided over years of horror and human rights abuse in the early 1980s hardly seems just. We should rejoice nonetheless. You might recall General García from a 2002 civil trial in which he was found responsible for the nightmarish torture of three Salvadorans during that country's civil war. After a four-week trial, García and another Salvadoran commander, General Vides Casanova, were found responsible for the torture of three civilians. In 2006, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the jury's $54.6 million verdict. Details are here and here . Words can't do justice to the horrors inflicted on Dr. Juan Romagoza Arce, Neris Gonzalez and Carlos Mauricio, the survivors who filed the case with the San Francisco-based Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA). But these three courageous plaintiffs weren't García's only victims. Previously, the families of four United States churchwomen who were raped and murdered by members of the Salvadoran National Guard in 1980 unsuccessfully brought a suit against Generals García and Casanova. Bill Ford who passed away last year, was a lawyer and brother to one of the victims. In both cases, he worked tirelessly to bring García to justice. A PBS film Justice & the Generals tells the story of Ford v. Garcia and Romagoza v. Garcia . All told, tens of thousands of Salvadoran civilians were cruelly tortured and killed by government forces during García's 1979-1983 tenure as defense minister. After the trial, the good general returned to retirement in Florida to sun himself and shelter his assets -- both outstanding Florida traditions thanks to its beaches and broad homestead exemptions . Then one day García got the itch to travel and he just had to scratch. There was one problem though: U.S. immigration authorities had confiscated his passport. According to the indictment, García applied for a new passport in El Salvador, claiming that his previous one had been lost. Later, in 2006, García landed at Miami International Airport and presented the fraudulently obtained passport to immigration officials -- um yes, officials of the very same agency that had seized his passport in the first place. Methinks the fraud wasn't hard to spot. When challenged, García claimed that his lawyer told him that the U.S. government had lost his first passport. And just like that, one immigration felony becomes two: using a passport procured by false statement and making a materially false statement to a federal officer. Flash forward 2 ½ years and a revitalized D.O.J. under Eric Holder is in possession of two passports for a noxious human rights criminal. Presto , U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, R. Alexander Acosta and Special Agent Anthony V. Mangione, from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, unseal a two-count can of indictment against García. Like all indicted war criminals since General Pinochet, General García responded to the charges by becoming "seriously ill". Federal authorities announced that he would be turning himself in any day now. When he does, he'll face charges carrying a combined maximum sentence of 15 years, but here's a gentleman's wager that García won't face the whole fifteen. All of this raises the question: why isn't the D.O.J. indicting García for torture under 18 U.S.C. § 2340 ? That's the statute which makes torture -- wherever it is committed -- a criminal offense. Please note: if you prefer your legalese rendered in poetic free verse, check out §2340's statutory definition of torture . But I digress. So, why no criminal torture charges? Unfortunately, 18 U.S.C. §2340 was enacted shortly after the ratification of the Torture Convention , but many years after the civil war in El Salvador. According to a doctrine that our Latin (er, Bavarian ) legal forefathers called nullum crimen sine lege -- no crime without a prior existing law -- the U.S. cannot prosecute Garcia retroactively for torture. So passport fraud is all we get. Unsatisfying as it may seem, this indictment is actually a great leap forward in denying safe haven to torturers in the United States. As a first step in Attorney-General Holder's human rights enforcement efforts, it's not bad. To date, General García is the highest-ranking human rights abuser to be pursued by the U.S. government. Hopefully, this will be a sign of things to come for the Obama administration. We should applaud this move as we decide how we as a nation deal with torturers -- both foreign and our own- - and the government officials who authorize and cover-up their acts. And we should recognize that any victory against a human rights offender is worth celebrating. As CJA legal advisor Carolyn Patty Blum , who represented the plaintiffs in Romagoza v. Garcia , observed: indicting Garcia for immigration fraud is like "indicting Al Capone for tax evasion...You get these guys any way you can." You can read Carolyn Patty Blum's moving account of the verdict announcement in Romagoza v. Garcia here . More on Immigration
 
Jenna Henry Hansen: Culture of Rape(Lay) Top
In a land far, far away, we played fun-for-the-whole-family video games, such as Pac Man and Super Mario Brothers . However, these days stealing cars, stabbing people, and finding prostitutes to "up your strength" is not nearly entertaining enough. Thus, for some audiences games like Grand Theft Auto seem to be commonplace and woefully out-dated. Logically, to hold a gamer's attention and interest, game creators must seriously up the ante. Among those raising the stakes, is Illusion Software , a company based in Yokohama, Japan. Developing and distributing three-dimensional sexual games such as Artificial Girl , Battle Raper , Illusion is the force behind the now controversial game RapeLay . Sexually explicit, violent and R-rated games are not a new phenomenon. Why should we be surprised by video game brutality in a society where the violence level in the media continues to swell? The Parents Television Council reports that since the 2000-2001 season, violent content on TV has increased by 52.4%. Even though RapeLay , as of late, has caused quite a bit of raucous, it was released in 2006. Unfortunately, an attempt to ban the game has given it unwarranted attention. According to JazzOleg, a reviewer on the Moby Games site, "The concept of the game is absolutely extreme. Nothing like that has been done before." The objective in the interactive game RapeLay is for your "character" to stalk then brutally rape women, as many as possible. Wait, there is a catch: before your character can go into "free mode" to rape other women in the game, he must first rape a mother and her two young daughters, who have "falsely accused you [him] of raping them." Now the big twist: you cannot get any of the women pregnant. If you do impregnate a woman, you must force her to have an abortion because if she has the child you will be thrown under a train. As with most video game systems, RapeLay allows others to simultaneously play the game together. With several users playing the game, it is possible to gang rape the women further blurring the lines of societal ethics. This reminds me of a U.S, street gang initiation "running a train," otherwise known as gang rape. Many Japanese software creators are known for realistic graphics, life-like characters, superior animation and amazing effects. JazzOleg writes, "You rape women and control every action of the rape. You control the movements of the protagonist's body parts; you have the illusion...of a totally physical interaction with the girl. It's the most realistic sex simulation ever seen." RapeLay and the creator Illusion have sparked news because of the movement to ban the game. Apparently, the game was advertised and sold on foreign Amazon sites but was made available in the U.S. through independent sellers. U.S. Amazon Marketplace distributors decided to stop the sale of RapeLay because of too many user complaints, "We determined that we did not want to be selling this particular item." A spokeswoman said. Although RapeLay and games in the same category make me feel violently ill, I do not support censorship. While at times I am guilty of taking certain things for granted, you had better not try to take away my right to choose. Even if it is disgusting, reviling and utterly unacceptable, why should I dictate another person's choice to play an, albeit sick, twisted video game? Aside from the whole Bill of Rights 'minutia,' banning is certainly not the ideal option. A ban on this, or anything, will only make it more popular. As an adolescent, anything that was off-limits to me became desirable. For three years this game has gone under the radar. Banning or trying to ban the game shines a spotlight on it. People want to know more about it. Why is it banned? Is it really that bad? Curious parties scavenge the Internet to purchase a copy and consequently the price of the game will skyrocket. Simple supply-demand economics. Before writing, I deliberated over the painful thought of giving this alleged 'game' any more unnecessary attention. Then life slapped me in the face. Fighting opposing emotions, I brought the issue regarding game to the attention of my high school seniors. With extreme judgment control, I presented a description of the game and news stories regarding the proposed ban. I wanted to check the shock value of the game. My theory proved to be nauseatingly true-the male students in my classes became interested in the game. A few of my male students admitted that learning about the game made them want to play it. One student said he, "only wanted to check it out." Yikes, how I wish I had been wrong. Will this game promote rape or rapists? I have no idea. It certainly will not help discourage violence against women. Just as explicit rap music lyrics; movies; TV shows and Marilyn Manson were all blamed for real-life imitation -- this game has a huge, red bull's-eye on it. Perpetuating a culture of rape, making rape a game, desensitizing people to rape, promoting thrills through violence and rape simulations are all devastatingly terrifying to me. What sickens me more, are those that enjoy the objective of rape that this game demands. It did not surprise me to read blog comments like, "Come on people, it is just a game." Only two weeks ago one of my high school seniors informed me, "There are a lot of girls that say they were raped but they are only lying." If we cannot ban it, what do we do? We could start with rape education, rape and violence prevention and possibly slam myths and stereotypes into the ground. At the very least, it might help change a teenager's perception and thus stop the circulation of harmful misinformation. According to Illusion's policy, the games are not intended for sale or use outside of Japan. However, most of Illusion's titles are readily available to US residents -- via the Internet, of course. Important note: though the Illusion's site is accessible you must be able to read Japanese to use it. There will always be piracy and file sharing on the web and the traditional burning of DVDs. We are living in a society where anything is readily available; you just need to know where to look. Obviously, if people want the game, they will find a way to get it. More on Japan
 
Barry Schwartz: What Work Is and What It Can Be Top
I had a student many years ago who, after flirting with medical school, ended up in the world of finance, as an options trader. He was extremely successful, and became wealthy. He and I maintained contact after he graduated, and his name came up one night when my wife and I were having dinner. "What does he do, again?" my wife asked. "He trades options. He's an investor," I replied. "No. No. I know that. Who does he work for? Who does he trade for? Who are his clients?" "He has no clients. He trades for himself." My wife pondered this for a moment, and then ended the conversation with, "Oh, I see. So he makes money for a living." Just so. He made money for a living. Everybody makes money for a living, but most of us actually do something that has a point, in addition to just making money. We examine and treat patients, we teach students, we draw up contracts and wills, we write for newspapers, magazines, and web sites, we clean floors, or we serve meals. That is, we engage in some activity that has an effect on the world. We surely wouldn't be doing whatever we do if we didn't get paid (except, maybe, for writing for web sites), but there's more to what we do than just the paycheck. If we're lucky, we love and value our work. But even those who are not so lucky can find meaning in their jobs and take pride in doing those jobs well. I think it's worth keeping the distinction between "working for money" and "working only for money" in mind as we contemplate the current collapse of the world financial system and the growing, populist anger at bankers who reaped millions in bonuses while allowing their companies to fall apart. Yes, the bonuses were obscene. Yes, they came to seem even more obscene as we found out how badly the banks were being managed. And yes, it is appropriate to rein in executive compensation as a condition for banks receiving taxpayer handouts. But if we think that reducing compensation will solve the current crisis and prevent a recurrence, we're mistaken. We're also mistaken if we think that "smarter" as well as smaller incentives will do the trick. We have a deeper problem. We've created a culture in which, like my former student, most of the major players "make money for a living." If, thirty years ago, you casually asked a banker you'd just met at a cocktail party "what do you do?" a common answer might have been: "I make loans so people can buy or improve houses, or expand their businesses, or start new ones" or; "I invest in new businesses," or; "I help people build adequate nest eggs for retirement." If you'd asked a few months ago, the answer to the "what" question might more likely have been: "I make money. By any means possible. Let me tell you about this great scheme of slicing and dicing risky loans into marketable securities." Of course, bankers were always interested in making money. But when bankers had clients, they bore some responsibility for the clients' welfare. Meeting client needs and helping clients achieve their goals were a central part of the bankers' day-to-day activities. These responsibilities to others established standards of conduct and set limits on the pursuit of high returns. But about 30 years ago, many large banks started to change what they did. "Why work for clients," they wondered, "when we can make more money just doing deals for ourselves?" As proprietary accounts came to dominate investment banking, the bankers became folks who just made money for a living. That was it. There were no interests, other than theirs, that needed to be considered. And I think this change has as much to do with our current financial predicament as the shameful lack of regulatory diligence ushered in by the Bush administration. President Obama will certainly do his best to make sure that we take regulation seriously again. But there is no regulation that can not be subverted by people of bad will, just as there is no incentive "smart" enough to insure against the future mismanagement of companies. Sure, we can "incentivize" against the current form of corporate bad behavior, but then we can just sit back and wait for that bad behavior to morph into a new, perhaps more sophisticated form. It is worth remembering that the "perverse" incentives that generated the most egregious recent behavior in the financial world were hailed only a few short years ago as the "smart" alternative to what had gone before. At a press conference on December 18, then President-Elect Obama said of the major players in the financial drama that "they must ask, not just is it profitable, but is it right." But whereas we may have some idea what "right" means when a banker serves clients, what does "right" mean to someone who makes money for a living? Better regulation and smarter incentives -- sticks and carrots -- may help in the short run. But something more is needed in the long run. We have to reintroduce a point to banking aside from just making money. It's not just banking that has become "making money for a living." You might once have asked a steel manufacturer "what do you do," and been told "I manufacture girders that provide the infrastructure for office towers." Now, if you could find a steel maker, he'd tell you "I make money. I just made a great deal, closing my steel plant in Indiana and buying shares in a Korean steel company." A pharmaceutical executive who might once have said, "I make drugs that prevent and cure disease and ease suffering" might now say "I make money. Let me tell you about this great line of 'copycat' drugs we've developed to protect us from patent expiration." A newspaper-publishing conglomerate CEO who might once have said "I contribute to democracy by keeping citizens well-enough informed that they can be intelligent participants in the political process" might now say "I make money. I've just finished trimming down our news division, and channeled the savings into our 'first-person-shooter' video game division." When the work people do involves aims that are appropriate to banking, steel making, drug making, journalism, or anything else, how people do the work is more likely to take care of itself. The obligation to meet the needs of clients or customers establishes standards of conduct that impose limits on what people will do in the service of profit. But when the work people do is only about making money, how they do it becomes "by any means possible." Under these conditions, we have only two flawed tools at our disposal to protect us from abuse and exploitation. We can try to turn the greed that we just take for granted as "human nature" to our advantage by using incentives to leverage behavior in a better direction. Or we can try to overwhelm greed with fear (Thomas Hobbes' advice to us in The Leviathan ), by reaching for the stick of regulation and punishment. What we can't do is expect people to ask, "is it right," nor can we expect them to have any clue what "right" means. Sure, we need to regulate financial industries better, and we need to eliminate perverse incentives. But what is left out of this mix of carrots and sticks is character: the commitment and knowledge to aim at the right thing. A critical purpose of banking is to serve others. Carrots and sticks don't teach character; they substitute for it. And worse, over-reliance on carrots and sticks can have the perverse effect of eroding the motivation to do our work well. Years of research in psychology has shown that rewards and punishments can be very effective in changing behavior. But, at the same time, they can create an addiction to rewards and punishments. Behavior that might once have occurred for other reasons (for example, because it's the right thing to do) will now only occur when the reward or punishment dispenser is watching. Even if the rules and incentives for bankers could be designed exactly right -- which is highly dubious -- how could we trust that bankers wouldn't find a way game the system, discovering shadows that the regulators' flashlights don't illuminate? The banking system, as we've painfully seen, only works when there is trust, and when the system depends entirely on regulation and incentives, "trust" becomes an empty word. The problem with the slogan "trust but verify" is that ever increasing attention to verification gives the lie to the notion that there is any trust. Over the last few decades, we've developed an implicit attitude that everybody "makes money for a living." For example, just recently Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John G. Roberts has been on a mission to raise the salaries of judges. Whereas forty years ago, judges out-earned senior law professors and law school deans, they now earn less than half as much. Indeed, the real income of judges has dropped during this period. Roberts' argument for salary increases is not about justice or fairness. Who is to say what a "just" or "fair" salary is? No, the argument is about efficacy: if we want to retain good judges and entice good lawyers to leave their lucrative jobs with firms, or their cushy appointments at law schools, we have to pay them more. This certainly seems like a reasonable point of view -- a view that, given the ethos of our times, needs no supporting evidence. Thus, it is surprising that recent studies of judicial performance suggest that the reduced real income of judges has had almost no effect on retention, productivity, or quality of performance. The authors of these studies were certainly amenable to the argument that judges should be paid more if the evidence -- some sort of cost-benefit analysis -- warranted it, but their conclusions were that the evidence did not suggest that a salary increase was needed. Why is this result surprising? I think it's because everyone just takes it for granted that "you get what you pay for." What I want to suggest is that perhaps "you get what you pay for" is the wrong way to be looking at the issue. What do we want in a judge? In addition to knowledge of the law, we want honesty, integrity, dedication, and wisdom. Is there any reason to believe that higher salaries will buy us more of these virtues? On the contrary, I think the evidence from our current economic collapse suggests that there is a negative relation between salary on the one hand, and honesty, integrity, dedication, and wisdom on the other. Raising salaries will succeed in getting us judges for whom high salaries are important. But what makes anyone think that these are the kinds of people we want? Instead of putting scarce resources into salaries, we should be spending money to improve the conditions under which judges work (manageable case loads, able assistance, room for judicial discretion, and so on) so that it is actually possible for judges to perform their work virtuously, and also possible for virtuous people to want to be judges. The same arguments apply as we try to recruit more and better teachers and more and better primary care physicians. They certainly should be paid enough -- enough to lead decent lives and see to the needs of their families. But beyond that, resources should go to making the conditions under which they work adequate for them to do their jobs well. Enticing doctors or teachers with high salaries will get us the kinds of doctors who prescribe the drugs made by companies that give them perks or kickbacks, and teachers who focus their efforts on getting students to do well on the tests that will determine the teachers' compensation. There is no reason to assume that money buys us the things that matter to good judging, teaching, or doctoring. We should leave the people who are motivated by the prospect of large financial rewards to work in occupations where making money is the only point, and seek people motivated by other things for professions that demand qualities of character that are not especially compatible with "making money for a living." Lest I be accused of being simplistic, I want to acknowledge that it is possible for people to operate with multiple motives. It is possible to pursue wealth while simultaneously pursuing justice, or excellence in teaching, with honesty and integrity. My point is only that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that more money will get us more of what we want in judges, or teachers, or doctors (or even bankers). And there is some reason to think that it will get us less. What I find especially interesting, as pundits debate the likely consequences of lowering the ceiling for compensation for heads of financial firms, is that many of the people who worry about a "brain drain" are not, themselves, doing what they do for the money. Nor would most of them be lured away from their efforts to influence public opinion and affect public policy by an offer of more money to do something else. The pundits are "better" than that. Yet, they believe that most people, including bankers, are not. In an ideal world, nobody's work would be just about the money. People could pursue excellence in what they do, take pride in achievement, and derive meaning from knowing that their work improved the lives of others. In keeping with Rahm Emanuel's wise observation that you should "never let a crisis go to waste," perhaps we should take the current crisis as an opportunity to pursue such an ideal world. Perhaps we should use the current crisis as an opportunity to remake the work that many people do. If people were reminded that there is a point to what they do, in addition to making money, regulation would be ever so much easier, and incentives would be less important. If people could be reminded that what they do has, and is meant to have, a significant effect on the lives of others -- that virtually every form of work is, in this sense, moral work -- then making money, by any means possible, might stop being the only thing that guides people's conduct. Proper attention to the moral dimension of the work people do will not be achieved by ethics courses, nor will it be achieved by regulations and incentives. It will only happen if it becomes a norm that suffuses the daily practices of our business leaders and the organizations they run. A primary aim of all these money-making and profit-driven corporations has to be a dedication and service to others. Built into decision-making algorithms, risk models, and business plans should be this question: how can we do well by doing good, by serving our customers, clients, patients, and students as they are meant to be served. Better regulation and smarter incentives will perhaps protect us from really bad bankers (and drug makers, teachers, doctors, and newspaper publishers), but it will never get us good ones.
 
Web 101: A New Model For Women In The Workplace Top
Reporting from New York -- Sitting in a bare cubicle, with her reading glasses perched halfway down her nose and typing away on a laptop she'd brought from home, Lois Draegin looked a bit like the extra adult wedged in at the kids' table at Thanksgiving. This accomplished magazine editor lost her six-figure job at TV Guide last spring and is now, at 55, an unpaid intern at wowOwow.com, a fledgling website with columns and stories that target accomplished women older than 40.
 
David Nelson, Muziic Creator, Harnesses YouTube In New Free Music Service Top
A 15-year-old has created a free-music service by harnessing YouTube's vast library of music videos. Muziic, created by teen developer David Nelson, has built an iTunes-like interface on top of YouTube. The service enables users to stream YouTube's music to their PCs without fiddling with videos. Users can build playlists and organize songs in a way similar to iTunes.
 
Fur Flies In Washington, WSJ Attributes It To New Administration Top
Furs came out around the time of the inauguration, when subfreezing temperatures coincided with high-glamour events. They've stayed as nearly 6 inches of snow covered the White House Monday. Also, the administration has attracted a lot of professional African-American talent to the D.C. area, and fur-industry officials say that black consumers are disproportionately big fur buyers. Their share of the market is up even as nationwide sales have declined. In 2006, the last year for which data are available, black consumers represented 27% of fur sales in the U.S., compared with 16.5% in 2002, according to the Fur Council, based in Los Angeles.
 
Feds Questioning Alderman Mell's Paid Work For Blair Hull's 2004 Senate Bid Done Through Burris Associate Top
It was widely known that former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's father-in-law, Ald. Richard Mell (33rd), was supporting wealthy businessman Blair Hull in the U.S. Senate race Barack Obama ended up winning in 2004. Few people, however, knew Mell was getting paid to work on Hull's campaign. [...] Mell was paid by a political consulting company owned by Fred Lebed, the right-hand man of embattled Sen. Roland Burris. More on Rod Blagojevich
 
Michelle Obama: A Voice For Women In The White House Top
If one woman symbolizes International Women's Day for Americans, and black American women in particular, it's Michelle Obama, the successful career-woman and mother of two who six weeks ago became First Lady. Obama, who turned 45 days before her husband Barack was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States in January, is hugely popular in the United States. Nearly half of Americans -- 49 percent -- have a favorable opinion of her, according to a recent poll by the New York Times/CBS. More on Michelle Obama
 
ZP Heller: 17,000 Troops Will Be "a Drop in the Bucket" in Afghanistan Top
Nearly every expert seems to agree that 17,000 additional troops will be insufficient to stabilize Afghanistan. Andrew Bacevich says 17,000 troops "hardly amounts to more than a drop in the bucket." Robert Pape believes the Obama administration is merely rehashing the same surge strategy employed in Iraq. And Stephen Kinzer says, "The Afghans are probably the world champions in resisting foreign domination and infiltration into their country," meaning that if 500,000 Russian soldiers were unable to quell Afghan resistance in the 1980's, how well will 17,000 more US soldiers fare? Perhaps that's why Gen. David McKiernan and the Pentagon could be calling for 100,000 troops to occupy Afghanistan for up to a decade. 100,000 troops? And at what cost to our economy, considering the war already runs us $2 billion a month? Jim Hightower writes that "we're getting a rush job" in Afghanistan, eerily similar to the way in which the Bush-Cheney regime led us into Iraq. With his usual piercing folksy wit, Hightower urges us to ask some fundamental questions ("Why is it our mission to remake Afghanistan? What is our national interest, our plan, our 'victory,' our exit point?") before rushing deeper into an interminable war that will cost thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Hightower recommends regional diplomacy as an alternative to military escalation, noting negotiations shouldn't really involve the United States, considering our thoroughly tarnished reputation. And he astutely points out that a counterinsurgency in Afghanistan's mountainous terrain will be counterproductive, since it will only push terrorists into a nuclear-armed Pakistan. Now, for the sake of argument, let's balance Hightower's assessment with a recent article from the Wall Street Journal that looks at how our military will apply the 17,000 reinforcements already committed. Reporting from a remote military outpost near the Pakistan border, the WSJ takes us through firefight after firefight where our soldiers are sitting ducks and the ultimate response is to call in more airstrikes. Gen. David Petraeus wants to use these 17,000 troops to create more of these small isolated bases since this strategy had relative success in Iraq. To the WSJ 's credit, they bring up the vast differences between the two countries: outposts in Iraq were in urban areas, whereas lack of modern infrastructure in Afghanistan means these already remote bases will be even more isolated. The article also mentions David Kilcullen, a counterinsurgency expert who advised Petraeus on Iraq and Afghanistan, who thinks this outpost strategy is a colossal mistake. What the Journal fails to do, however, is make the connection between the outpost strategy and the skyrocketing death toll in Afghanistan. 2008 was the bloodiest year of this war to date, though it looks like 2009 will be much worse and not simply because our country is committing so many more troops. Sadly, 155 American soldiers died last year, and we've lost 30 more in 2009 already. But the more ghastly stat comes from the United Nations , which estimates 2,118 civilians were killed last year--up 40 percent from the year before--and 522 of those deaths came from Western airstrikes. As Derrick Crowe concludes , this indiscriminate bombing of Afghanistan is what fuels so much animosity toward the United States. It stands to reason that if we build more remote outposts, stranding more troops who then have to call in more airstrikes, we are perpetuating a cycle of violence from which we will never be able to escape. And if Petraeus is pursuing this doomed strategy with only 17,000 troops, what will he do with 100,000? As I see it, we have two choices in Afghanistan. We can heed Hightower's warning; ask critical questions concerning this war before our military leaders convince President Obama to escalate it any further; and demand congressional oversight hearings that challenge policymakers and inform the public. Or, we can continue to read reports of firefights in remote regions of Afghanistan that result in more dead soldiers, more dead civilians, more dollars spent, and more war. More on Barack Obama
 
Obama Stem Cell Research Executive Order Signing (LIVE VIDEO) Top
President Obama is delivering remarks and signing an executive order lifting the ban on federal funding for stem cell research as well as a memorandum on scientific integrity. Watch live at 11:45: Obama's full remarks, as prepared for delivery: Today, with the Executive Order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers; doctors and innovators; patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield. At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions. To regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair. To spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles. To treat Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them. But that potential will not reveal itself on its own. Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research - from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit - and from a government willing to support that work. From life-saving vaccines, to pioneering cancer treatments, to the sequencing of the human genome - that is the story of scientific progress in America. When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives. But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research - and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly. It is a difficult and delicate balance. Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view. But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans - from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs - have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided. That is a conclusion with which I agree. That is why I am signing this Executive Order, and why I hope Congress will act on a bi-partisan basis to provide further support for this research. We are joined today by many leaders who have reached across the aisle to champion this cause, and I commend them for that work. Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No President can promise that. But I can promise that we will seek them - actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground. Not just by opening up this new frontier of research today, but by supporting promising research of all kinds, including groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells. I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society. This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let's be clear: promoting science isn't just about providing resources - it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient - especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology. By doing this, we will ensure America's continued global leadership in scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs. That is essential not only for our economic prosperity, but for the progress of all humanity. That is why today, I am also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making. To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That is how we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals - to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives. As we restore our commitment to science, and resume funding for promising stem cell research, we owe a debt of gratitude to so many tireless advocates, some of whom are with us today, many of whom are not. Today, we honor all those whose names we don't know, who organized, and raised awareness, and kept on fighting - even when it was too late for them, or for the people they love. And we honor those we know, who used their influence to help others and bring attention to this cause - people like Christopher and Dana Reeve, who we wish could be here to see this moment. One of Christopher's friends recalled that he hung a sign on the wall of the exercise room where he did his grueling regimen of physical therapy. It read: "For everyone who thought I couldn't do it. For everyone who thought I shouldn't do it. For everyone who said, 'It's impossible.' See you at the finish line." Christopher once told a reporter who was interviewing him: "If you came back here in ten years, I expect that I'd walk to the door to greet you." Christopher did not get that chance. But if we pursue this research, maybe one day - maybe not in our lifetime, or even in our children's lifetime - but maybe one day, others like him might. There is no finish line in the work of science. The race is always with us - the urgent work of giving substance to hope and answering those many bedside prayers, of seeking a day when words like "terminal" and "incurable" are finally retired from our vocabulary. Today, using every resource at our disposal, with renewed determination to lead the world in the discoveries of this new century, we rededicate ourselves to this work. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America. More on Barack Obama
 
Fart Machine Disrupts City Council Meeting (VIDEO) Top
Someone used what appears to be an iFart application (but could be another fake fart creator) twice during a Medina, Ohio council meeting in 2008. Mayor Jane Leaver tries to hold it together, but breaks down after the second "fart" hits around :53 which prompts a member of the council to ask for a recess. WATCH: Kid Uses Fart Machine During City Council Meeting - watch more funny videos (via The Daily What) More on Funny Videos
 
Lawrence Coburn: The Consumer Review Opportunity for Local Businesses Top
The Rise of Consumer Reviews It wasn't so long ago that consumer product reviews were a difficult sell to many retailers and product marketers.  Way back in 1999, when I first started pitching reviews to enterprises as a way to convert sales and increase engagement, I'd often get serious push back. "What if people say bad things about my products?" "Can we just show the positive reviews and delete the negative ones?"  "What's to stop my competitors from posting bogus reviews?" Today, it's hard to find an ecommerce site that doesn't prominently display consumer reviews -- both positive and negative.  According to a recent Forrester Research study , online U.S. adults trust consumer ratings and reviews more than any other information source, except for an email from a person they know.  Another recent Forrester study debunks the myth that a negative review is a show stopper on a sale. So is anybody really surprised that online reviews are moving to local businesses?  Consumers appreciate the honest feedback of other consumers in deciding where to spend their money, and it doesn't matter if the purchase is a product, a night out on the town, or a contractor for home repairs. From brash, well funded startups like Yelp to 100 year old companies like RH Donnelly , there are deep pockets at work in proliferating local business reviews in the face of consumer demand.  Rather than waste time trying to silence the websites that host these reviews, or the consumers themselves, local businesses would be better served to channel their energy towards maximizing the value of this new medium.  It's still early enough in this space that a quick moving merchant can do much to use consumer reviews to their advantage. What Businesses Can Do The task of maximizing the positive impact of local business reviews can be broken down into four steps: 1) Get Listed At the most basic level, you want to make sure that you have placement on all of the major local business directories, and that your information is accurate. For the basic local business information such as phone number, address, and zip code, there are two big data companies that serve as providers to most of the online services -- these companies are InfoUSA and Acxiom .  Because this data is the source for so many other services, it's important to make sure those two companies have your basic info right -- if they have it wrong, it's going to show up wrong in a lot of places. Once you have your basic info taken care of, it's time to start ensuring that your business is covered by the major online service providers.  As a starting point, I would make sure your business is represented in the following directories: Yelp , Yahoo! Local , RateItAll , Google Local , Local.com , CitySearch , DexKnows , SuperPages.com , InfoSpace , and MagicYellow.com .  GetListed.org is a handy, free tool that will show you if your business is listed on some of the heavy hitter local directories. In addition, I would do two searches on Google; 1) search for your business name; and 2) search for your business vertical (e.g. San Francisco Barber Shops, Boston Gyms, etc.).  Then I would find the directories that are appearing on the first page of search results for both your business name and vertical, and make sure you are listed and maximizing your presence on those sites. 2) Claim Your Business Once you have submitted your business to the major directories and reviews oriented social media sites, many directories will offer you the opportunity to claim it.  Claiming a business shows the service host that you are in fact an owner or representative of the business, and as such, are authorized to edit the company's listing / profile. After claiming your businesses, you will typically be able to update information, write a description and submit photos.  People tend to underestimate the impact of well written editorial business information with photos.  On every reviews-oriented business directory that I'm aware of, the editorial information comes first, and this information is entirely in your control.  Make the most of it. 3) Enlist Your Happy Customers to Spread the Word It is very rare that the consumer reviews of a given product or business represent a statistically significant sample of consumers.  Because local business reviews are so new, and the landscape of service providers is so broad, it's entirely possible that your one disgruntled customer has taken the time to post a scathing review, and your hundreds of satisfied ones have not. For this reason, it is critical to proactively tilt the odds in your favor to ensure that the voices of your happy customers are represented on your public business profiles.  This doesn't mean cheating by trying to manipulate your business' rating.  It just means using the tools available to steer your happy customers to post their support as part of your normal operating procedure.  Link to your profiles from your company website, or even better, if available, embed a "widget" that shows your company's rating with a link to your profile.  Include a mention of your business profiles in your regular communications with your customers.  Showcase your happy customers' reviews in online and offline marketing material. Some local business review sites also offer category landing pages that list merchants in order of consumer rating.  For example, check out this page about " San Francisco Coffee Shops ."  This page shows up first on Google for the query " San Francisco Coffee Shops ", and lists local merchants in order of average rating.  A merchant in this category with just a few ratings from happy customers has the chance to show up at the top of a page that is one click away from top category result on Google.  And for no charge. There are just some of the ethical ways to harness the marketing power of your happy customers to drive your company new business. 4) Engage the Community The final step to maximizing the value of local business reviews is to become active in the communities in which your business is being discussed.  Almost all of the local business reviews sites have user to user messaging tools, which is a way to communicate privately with your happy and unhappy customers.  Many of the communities offer commenting or voting tools in which reviews can be publicly responded or reacted to.  And some review sites, like TripAdvisor , offer official merchant response tools. I would go easy on publicly challenging or trying to discredit people who post negative reviews.  A more effective approach is to calmly try and make the situation right, and if that doesn't work, apologize for the perceived injustice and promise to try and do better next time.  If you suspect the review is fraudulent, it's much better contact the host site directly than to engage in a public flame war.  In general, the more you comply to the host site's TOS, the more you will be accepted as a genuine member of the community. Conclusion The recent Yelp controversy has brought to light exactly how influential consumer reviews are becoming for local businesses.  For local business owners, I believe there is a tremendous opportunity to proactively take control of your online identity, and make sure that you are presenting the best possible impression for new visitors for each of the local directory sites displaying your information.  Check your data with the big data source companies.  Submit your business to directories relevant to your geography or vertical.  Claim your profiles, and make the most of the publishing tools to make your page look professional.  Steer your happy customers to the various review sites and turn them loose.  And finally, participate in a respectful way in the conversations happening about your company. And heck, if the value is there, you can even try an advertising campaign or two on the review sites - just don't feel like you have to. More on Technology
 
Odile Weissenborn: Cristina vs. Hillary: International Women's Day in Argentina Top
Despite the Argentine government's effort to make International Women's Day a national public holiday (and despite the appropriate color of the presidential compound--known as "the Pink House," la Casa Rosada), Argentina isn't recognized for its prominent women. Evita Peron is the exception, I suppose, although she's known for her glamour and hardly for the advancement of her gender. Evita's successor, Isabel Peron, enjoyed the dubious distinction of being Juan Peron's puppet Vice President; she became Argentina's first female president in 1974, but alas, her lack of political experience lent nothing to the status of women. In 2007, Argentina got its second female president, its first elected female president: Cristina Fernandez Kirchner. Cristina Kirchner had previously served as First Lady when her husband Nestor Kirchner was president, just as presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had served as First Lady when Bill was president. Like Hillary, Cristina had a distinguished professional career. Unlike Hillary, whose real career in politics began only 8 years before she ran for president, Cristina was first elected to political office some 17 years before, in 1989. Although Cristina looks up to Hillary (a picture of Hillary was projected on the wall when Cristina announced her candidacy), Cristina is quick to remind us that her political career began well before her husband became president. When she was asked to compare herself to Hillary in an interview with Time magazine , Cristina pointedly answered: "Don't forget, one difference is that I was a Senator before my husband became President." So why is it that the world seems to dismiss Cristina--but not Hillary--as someone who "owes her job to a prominent husband"? The Economist wrote just those words in 2007 , along with this statement: "for Argentine women, the best route to the political summit is still to be a Peronist wife." When discussing her candidacy, the Times of the UK ignored her previous career , instead telling its readers, "at least an hour a day [is] set aside for her makeup." According to the Times, her "enthusiasm for mascara and designer handbags...played no small part in her seemingly effortless stroll towards victory." Disregarding her history in politics, the Times concluded, "lipstick goes a long way in dazzling the masses." Perhaps the esteemed media know more than I do about Cristina Kirchner. Maybe, on the occasion of International Women's Day, she's really not a woman worth lauding. I turned to Dora Barrancos, a leading academic, former politician and international authority on politics and gender. When Buenos Aires was recognized as an autonomous state (like Washington, D.C. in the U.S.), Barrancos was elected to its very first legislature. She used her platform to help draft what remains the most progressive law on access to contraception in Argentina, no small feat in a country that outlaws abortion. Now, she's Director of the Interdisciplinary Institute of Gender Studies and Chair of the department of Latin American Social History at the University of Buenos Aires; she also coordinates the Masters program in Social and Cultural Studies at the National University of La Pampa. Our meeting at her home was interrupted several times by calls from radio stations seeking interviews. "Cristina had a longer political career than her husband, and she was much more well known," said Barrancos, giving me a refresher course on Cristina's early days as a Congresswoman in Buenos Aires while her husband remained in the small, faraway province of Santa Cruz. "What the media says about her is very misogynistic." "Political life is tremendously difficult, especially for women in this country," Barrancos continued. Keeping up with the old boys' network is that much harder in a machista culture where dinner begins at 10pm although school still begins at 8 in the morning. Barrancos told me that meetings are often called for 9pm and 11pm; when she served on the legislature, she was one of the few women who had to balance this with motherhood, still responsible for getting her kids to school on time the next morning. "Any woman who has succeeded here in politics," said Barrancos, "should be given a lot of credit." But Cristina herself seems to have no problem with this double standard. According to an article published in the Buenos Aires Herald, Cristina "sees herself in a traditional role" and this was her motivation to initiate a credit program for the purchase of washing machines and kitchen supplies. Indeed, she freely uses the word "housewife" to describe herself, and she has said proudly, "I never lose my place in the house." What's really distressing is Cristina's stance against abortion. Although abortion has always been illegal in Argentina, a Catholic country, Cristina has a long affiliation with the leftist Peronist party, and the party hasn't always taken such a hardline stance. What's more, Cristina's husband seemed to be a pro-choice president. His administration, which directly preceded hers, had even been called "pro-abortion"; his health minister openly supported use of the "morning after" pill. Not everyone thinks Cristina has a pro-life agenda; they say perhaps now she's just trying to placate the Catholic church. Conservatives, on the other hand, charge her with holding a "pro-life" placard over the front door while hoping to sneak abortion in through the back door. But in a radio interview just days before the presidential election in 2007, Cristina said unequivocally, "I have always defined myself as being against abortion." Sure enough, just months into her presidency, Cristina canceled a vote scheduled for legislation that may have made it easier to obtain abortions in the case of rape. And her new health minister -in a complete reversal from the position of her husband's health minister--essentially equated illegal abortions with criminal acts. Responding to a report on maternal deaths due to illegal abortions, health minister Graciela Ocaña said, "This is a topic having to do with criminal policy; it isn't relevant for the Ministry [of Health]." This can't bode well for feminists like Barrancos. How can she defend Kirchner? "Cristina isn't a feminist," agrees Barrancos. "But her stance on abortion doesn't take away from the effort she put forward in her career. She may seem to be anti-feminist, but her very life -her success as a woman--is feminist." Barrancos doesn't shy away from criticizing Cristina. "She sometimes expresses herself with a total lack of consciousness of feminism," she complains. "I've heard her say, 'Women shouldn't walk behind their men or get in front of their men; they should only stand beside their men.' She can sound like a woman from the 1940's." "She's in denial," smiles Barrancos. "But such an intelligent woman with so many accomplishments can't really deny feminism!" And it's impossible, anyway, to find a perfect poster child for feminism. Even the famous Hillary Clinton, Barrancos points out, failed there. She stood passively by an adulterous husband. Perhaps we should just stop trying to turn prominent women into perfect role models. Are prominent men expected to be perfect role models? Let's appreciate the successes of all women without castigating them for falling short as feminists. This has been said before, and I know it's cliché, but maybe one day women won't need their own "international day." Women can be recognized every day, just like men, and they can be just as blessedly imperfect. More on Hillary Clinton
 
Diane Dimond: Our Enemy To The South Top
It is a politically incorrect thing to say but I'm going to say it anyway. Mexico is our enemy. Drug desperadoes are, in effect, running that country now and have rendered the Mexican government nearly impotent. It's gotten so bad, for example, that the Mayor of Juarez has fled his country in fear, along with his entire family. They've moved to America! Just how Mayor Jose Reyes Ferriz plans to govern from El Paso, Texas is not known. His safety now rests squarely on the shoulders of the El Paso Police Department. What a metaphor for our problem with Mexico! A quick history: In 2000, when President Vicente Fox took office he promptly arrested and jailed the leaders of Mexico's drug cartels. Biting off the head of the snake didn't work as planned. The gangs have been fighting each other for territory ever since. In 2006, when Felipe Calderon became Mexico's President he tried to regain control. But Calderon's soldiers and police have been overwhelmed. There have been an astounding number of mob murders, kidnappings-for-ransom and assassinations of government officials ever since. More than 5,700 people lost their lives to Mexico's drug violence last year. Some were Americans simply visiting the country. Now, Mexico's massive crime wave is spilling across our border in tsunami-like fashion, flooding our country with ruthless criminals who aren't just illegally entering the U.S., they are, literally, like crime-on-the-hoof, crossing our border in the most brazen fashion and committing bloody criminal acts. Mexico's problem has become our problem in a big way. A recent report from the U.S. Joint Forces Command lumps Mexico and Pakistan together as being at risk of "rapid and sudden collapse." The retiring CIA chief, Michael Hayden, says Mexico could rank right next to Iran and Iraq as the biggest challenge for President Obama. Our Justice Department says Mexican gangs are "the biggest organized crime threat to the United States." Hello? Is anyone in Washington listening? Is anyone coming up with a workable, consolidated plan to counter this threat and keep us safe? I suggest one great place to start is trying to curb U.S. gun dealers from selling arms to Mexican cartel assassins. Mexican authorities say the bulk of the weapons they've seized came from America. During a recent trip to California a law enforcement officer I know warned me about going anywhere near the border area. "Whatever you do -- do not go to San Diego," he told me. "It isn't safe." Phoenix, Arizona has now been declared the "Kidnap Capitol" of America. More kidnappings-for-ransom and bloody home invasions happen there than any other U.S. city. Almost every case is connected to Mexican drug smuggling. University students in Arizona are being warned not to take Spring Break across the border. In New Mexico, drugs from the cartel stream in to major cities like Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Farmington severely straining police departments already struggling with budget cuts. In Nevada last year, 6 year old Cole Puffinburger was kidnapped by Mexican gang members. They really wanted little Cole's grandfather who had apparently run away with millions of their drug dollars. The boy was ultimately found unharmed but the brazen gunmen got away. The episode sent a shock wave through Vegas, some 400 miles inland from the U.S/Mexican border. In Laredo, Texas, several Americans who crossed the border into Nuevo Laredo to shop or dine have never returned. They simply disappeared into the drug fueled vortex of crime that's sucking the life out of so many innocent people. And in Florida, a recent quadruple murder trial was held in the brutal killings of an entire family. Prosecutors say the parents owed $187,000 to a Mexican drug cartel. The Mexican assassins who came for them apparently considered their 3 and 4 year old boys as mere collateral damage. The wicked facts speak for themselves. Crime is the major export our neighbor to the south sends us -- every day -- whether we like it or not. And as Mexico continues to be hit by the worldwide economic crisis, as their supply of fresh, sweet crude oil continues to be depleted and thus the outside money they get for it, the situation will only get worse. When does America do something concrete about this? We've debated immigration policy, borderline fences and beefed up border patrols. We've discussed de-criminalizing drugs to deprive the gangs their profit and we have poured millions of drug fighting dollars into Mexico. Still the violence comes. And we let it. In December America gave Mexico $197 million to help fight the drug cartels. In January we gave them $99 million more with a promise to keep up the payments. This is not the "change" we were promised. This is just more business as usual. Our country is under attack by another country. If there was ever a time to call out the National Guard and have them stand shoulder-to-shoulder at the U.S./Mexican border until the threat is lessened it is now. And, if you're planning a vacation -- I'd stay out of Mexico. Diane Dimond's web site is: www.DianeDimond.net -- Write her at: Diane@DianeDimond.net More on Mexico
 
Experts: School Fitness Programs Not Active Enough Top
Fitness programs in schools help to get children moving, but experts say more is needed to curb rising obesity rates. Instead of low intensity aerobic exercise, which dominates most school programs, Frederick Hahn, the author of the new book "Strong Kids, Healthy Kids," believes the emphasis should be on strength training and eating the right foods. "All kids need to let off steam," he told Reuters. "But almost all the so-called fitness programs for kids are wrong-headed." More on Health
 
Court Will Not Expand Minority Voting Rights Top
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that electoral districts must have a majority of African-Americans or other minorities to be protected by a provision of the Voting Rights Act. The 5-4 decision, with the court's conservatives in the majority, could make it harder for southern Democrats to draw friendly boundaries after the 2010 Census. The court declined to expand protections of the landmark civil rights law to take in electoral districts where the minority population is less than 50 percent of the total, but strong enough to effectively determine the outcome of elections. In 2007, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down a state legislative district in which blacks made up only about 39 percent of the voting age population. The court said the Voting Rights Act applies only to districts with a numerical majority of minority voters. Justice Anthony Kennedy, announcing the court's judgment, said that requiring minorities to represent more than half the population "draws clear lines for courts and legislatures alike. The same cannot be said of a less exacting standard." Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito signed onto Kennedy's opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case. The four liberal justices dissented. A district like the one in North Carolina should be protected by federal law "so long as a cohesive minority population is large enough to elect its chosen candidate when combined with a reliable number of crossover voters from an otherwise polarized majority," Justice David Souter wrote for himself and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens. The decision complicates matters for southern Democrats who will redo political boundaries after the next census. Democrats have sought to create districts in which African-Americans, though not a majority, still were numerous enough to determine the outcome of elections with the help of small numbers of like-minded white voters. Those districts could be challenged under Monday's decision. In another election-related case, the court let stand an appeals court decision that invalidated state laws regulating the ways independent presidential candidates can get on state ballots. Arizona, joined by 13 other states, asked the court to hear its challenge to a ruling throwing out its residency requirement for petition circulators and a June deadline for submitting signatures for independent candidates in the November presidential elections. Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued and won a favorable ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. More on Supreme Court
 
Blagojevich Loses Bid To Remove Prosecutors Top
U.S. District Chief Judge James Holderman has denied a motion by lawyers for former Gov. Rod Blagojevich to remove federal prosecutors in Chicago from the ongoing corruption case. More on Rod Blagojevich
 
"Flight Of The Conchords" Guys Take On Style And David Bowie (VIDEO) Top
We all (hopefully) remember David Bowie's 1980 hit, "Fashion." Last night the "Flight of the Conchords" guys responded to it with a trippy, style-inspired music video called "Fashion Is Danger" that includes at least a dozen hair changes and fabulous non sequiturs. WATCH:
 
Pentagon: Chinese Ships Harassed US Vessels Top
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon charged Monday that five Chinese ships shadowed and maneuvered dangerously close to a U.S. Navy vessel in an apparent attempt to harass the American crew. Defense officials in the Obama administration said the incident Sunday followed several days of "increasingly aggressive" acts by Chinese ships in the region. The incident took place in international waters in the South China Sea, about 75 miles south of Hainan Island. U.S. officials said a protest was to be delivered to Beijing's military attache at a Pentagon meeting Monday. The USNS Impeccable sprayed one ship with water from fire hoses to force it away. Despite the force of the water, Chinese crew members stripped to their underwear and continued closing within 25 feet, the Defense Department said. "On March 8, 2009, five Chinese vessels shadowed and aggressively maneuvered in dangerously close proximity to USNS Impeccable, in an apparent coordinated effort to harass the U.S. ocean surveillance ship while it was conducting routine operations in international waters," the Pentagon statement said. The Chinese ships included a Chinese Navy intelligence collection ship, a Bureau of Maritime Fisheries Patrol Vessel, a State Oceanographic Administration patrol vessel, and two small Chinese-flagged trawlers, officials said. "The Chinese vessels surrounded USNS Impeccable, two of them closing to within 50 feet, waving Chinese flags and telling Impeccable to leave the area," officials said in the statement. "Because the vessels' intentions were not known, Impeccable sprayed its fire hoses at one of the vessels in order to protect itself," the Defense statement said. "The Chinese crew members disrobed to their underwear and continued closing to within 25 feet." Impeccable crew radioed to tell the Chinese ships that it was leaving the area and requested a safe path to navigate, the Pentagon said. But shortly afterward, two of the Chinese ships stopped directly ahead of the Impeccable, forcing it to an emergency stop to avoid collision because the Chinese had dropped pieces of wood in the water directly in front of Impeccable's path. "The unprofessional maneuvers by Chinese vessels violated the requirement under international law to operate with due regard for the rights and safety of other lawful users of the ocean," said Marine Maj. Stewart Upton, a Pentagon spokesman. "We expect Chinese ships to act responsibly and refrain from provocative activities that could lead to miscalculation or a collision at sea, endangering vessels and the lives of U.S. and Chinese mariners," Upton added. In Beijing, Chinese officials did not immediately respond to voicemail messages and e-mail. China views almost the entirety of the South China Sea as its territory. China's claims to small islets in the region have put it at odds with five governments _ the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan. The incident came just a week after China and the U.S. resumed military-to-military consultations following a five-month suspension over U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. And it came as Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi was due in Washington this week to meet with U.S. officials. Pentagon officials said the close encounter followed several other incidents involving the Impeccable and another U.S. vessel Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday. _ On Wednesday, a Chinese Bureau of Fisheries Patrol vessel used a high-intensity spotlight to illuminate the ocean surveillance ship USNS Victorious as it operated in the Yellow Sea, about 125 nautical miles from China's coast, the Pentagon said. The move was made without notice or warning, U.S. officials said. The next day, a Chinese Y-12 maritime surveillance aircraft conducted 12 fly-bys of Victorious at an altitude of about 400 feet and a range of 500 yards. _ On Thursday, a Chinese frigate approached USNS Impeccable without warning and crossed its bow at a close range of approximately 100 yards, the Pentagon said. This was followed less than two hours later by a Chinese Y-12 aircraft conducting 11 fly-bys of Impeccable at an altitude of 600 feet and a range from 100-300 feet. The frigate then closely crossed Impeccable's bow yet again, this time at a range of approximately 400-500 yards without rendering courtesy or notice of her intentions. _ On Saturday, a Chinese intelligence collection ship challenged USNS Impeccable over bridge-to-bridge radio, calling her operations illegal and directing Impeccable to leave the area or "suffer the consequences." Sunday's incident is reminiscent of a similar early foreign policy crisis that forced former President George W. Bush to deal with Beijing shortly after he took office _ China's forced landing of a spy plane and seizure of the crew in April 2001. That incident between a Chinese jet and U.S. Navy spy plane infuriated Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who responded by breaking off U.S. military contacts with China for a time. The Chinese fighter jet collided in midair with a U.S. Navy EP-3 surveillance plane. The Navy plane was so badly damaged that it made an emergency landing on China's Hainan Island. The Chinese pilot died and the U.S. crew of 24 was detained by the Chinese military for 11 days. China refused to allow U.S. officials to fix the Navy plane and fly it off the island; eventually it was shipped home in pieces. __ Associated Press writers Lolita Baldor and Matthew Lee contributed to this report. More on China
 
Inside RNC, Steele's Management Is Causing Confusion, Resentment Top
Public criticisms of Michael Steele's brief tenure as RNC chair have focused, so far, on the big picture. His rhetorical flourishes and lack of a coherent strategy, observers say, have left the party too often fielding questions on the defensive. But the concerns with the new RNC Chair aren't strictly macro in nature. A Republican strategist familiar with the situation said that inside the committee, staffers are distraught and confused over a hectic internal management style that has stepped on more than a few toes. "There was a firing of tons of staff. But the way the firing was done, more specifically, was problematic," said the source. "There were a lot of people pissed about them being let go. I think the fact that a bunch of people were let go right ahead of [Obama's] non-State of the Union address taking place was not good." "The RNC fired all the communications staff," the source added, "only then they went and told about five or six who were deemed 'indispensable' that they weren't really fired and that they should stay on for another month but not tell their soon-to-be-former colleagues. I believe that before press staff were fired, some of them at least were subjected to sitting through an hour long lecture about things changing. It was like, come on, if you're firing people, just fire them. The interviews for re-hires have also been really onerous. One person had to interview for a full hour-and-a-half." Another source inside the committee confirmed the above description and noted that future overhauls were expected. As the New York Times reported on Sunday, "about 70 staff members have already resigned or been fired." Among them were some popular members from the old regime, including Cyrus Krohn, who spearheaded the RNC's efforts to rebuild its online infrastructure. Krohn has said that the reason behind his departure was a desire to move back to Seattle with his family. But a well-connected Republican notes that Krohn had let it be known -- quite publicly, in fact -- that he wanted to stay on-board with the RNC. "And," the official added, "who leaves a job without having another one lined up in this economy?" More on Michael Steele
 
Kay Goldstein: Self-Help 101: Compassion Top
Some days are like a running a slalom- exhilarating, challenging and satisfying. Other days, we seem to hit all the road blocks or our mind naturally is drawn to the one thing that we did not think went so well. That one thing, those little missteps sudden loom large in our psyche. We get anxious, self critical. We reach for our self help books, our daily practice, our affirmations, we vent to our friends on the phone, but we are still drowning in those judgments. All of our efforts are directed to not acting, being, or feeling a certain way. Regret abounds. We all experience judgment: the little voices in our head that say things like "Not THAT way, dummy." "I can't believe I did that." "I should have..." "I don't deserve, etc..." Essentially, for most of us, we have the overriding feeling that wherever we are, we should be somewhere else - better farther, deeper, more evolved. Whoever we are, we are supposed to be someone else . Judgment shapes our entire experience and for many in a negative way. So here we are, our mind judging our every move and even our inaction. Do we heap on another layer of judgment for our predicament? Or do we respond with gentleness and compassion? In this state, all the self help practices, philosophies and techniques only serve to remind us that we are not good enough; we need to improve and be better. It is true, based on some external standard, that we are not perfect. Imperfection is intrinsic to our humanity. There is always room for a little or a lot more evolution. But we forget that those tools are designed to help us become more aware and accepting- not more judgmental. If we use them in any other context, we are defeating ourselves, even as we believe we are "getting better" and trying very hard to do the right thing. This is where the practice of compassion for self is so profound. For it is compassion for self that gives us the really big picture, the spaciousness that allows us to be truly human and relieves us of the necessity to resist parts of ourselves or to project them on to others. Defensiveness dissolves in the face of true compassion. Generosity of spirit and forgiveness emerge. A startling clarity and coherence frames our view. As we shift internally, we might even change some external aspects of our behavior. We breathe and we act. The primary hindrance in developing compassion for ourselves and others is the rigidity of judgmental thinking. Where compassion is expansive, flowing and open, judgment is restrictive. To find our judgments, we must be still, willing to approach ourselves and behavior as an impartial witness. One way to do that is in the meditative state where our awareness, focus and attention invites that impartial witness of self. The "shoulds" fall away or at least are seen for what they usually are- harsh and unyielding taskmasters. Compassion for self is not self indulgence or self pity as Dr.Kristin Neff points out on her website and in her research. It is not making excuses or engaging in hollow attempts at comfort that do not support our growth. "Compassion is feeling the feelings of others"- Robert Thurman Compassion is often talked about in the abstract and usually thought to be reserved for others. The reality is that we cannot in truth give fully of ourselves to others when we hide or negate some aspects of our being. Compassion for ourselves is in fact the best way to really develop compassion and tolerance and understanding of others. If we don't divide our selves into good and bad, then we experience our sameness/oneness with other humans. We are naturally empathetic. With compassion, we can see ourselves as we are with much less fear. Since so much of our energies are usually directed to NOT seeing ourselves because of our fear of judgment, a view of ourselves with compassion is comforting and liberating. Courage and patience is summoned instead of fear, anxiety and self-loathing. For example, suppose you often push yourself toward perfection and over-achievement and then find yourself exhausted, depressed and withdrawing from this behavior into a protective or resistive mode. Neither approach leaves you feeling present and strong. It is only when witnessing these behaviors with compassion for yourself and the suffering they create that you find the coherence, clarity and power to enable you to experience and know balance. And it is in that experience of self acceptance that you may reach a helping hand to others. "You know, there's a lot of talk in this country about the federal deficit. But I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit -- the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes..."- Barack Obama In practicing self-compassion we put ourselves into our own shoes first. Then we will know how we really feel, and free of judgment, know what is truly the right thing to do to for ourselves and for others. Kay Goldstein, MA teaches meditation and writes poetry, fiction and articles addressing the challenges and joys of daily living and spiritual practice. More on Barack Obama
 
Michelle Obama's Arms Analyzed By Robin Givhan: They Represent "Vanity And Power" Top
In the New Yorker's Style issue , Pulitzer Prize-winning fashion reporter Robin Givhan writes about the same thing Maureen Dowd defended in The New York Times on Sunday: Michelle Obama's arms. They are not outlandishly sinewy Madonnaesque limbs. Obama's athletic arms are achievable--in between the kids' soccer practice, the executive suite, and the grocery store. Those arms represent personal time. They are evidence of a forty-five-year-old woman's refusal to give up every free moment in service to husband, kids, and all the nagging distractions that could have filled her days and left her tuning in to "Oprah," trying to figure out how she'd lost herself along the way. The arms imply vanity and power: two things that make many women uncomfortable and yet are fundamental to self-confidence. Keep reading with password . More on Michelle Obama Style
 
Union Bill Creates Jobs -- For GOP Operatives Top
Danny Diaz's morning e-mails are back. Diaz, until last month the relentless communications director for the Republican National Committee and reliable source of jabs at Democrats, now sends out a new "Morning Roundup" of attacks on the Employee Free Choice Act.
 
Exxon Aims For Big Role In Iraq's Oil Sector Top
Exxon Mobil Corp is in constant dialogue with Baghdad to create the investment climate that would allow it to become a significant player in Iraq's energy sector, Exxon's chief executive said on Monday. More on War Wire
 

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)