Sunday, March 29, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Colombia Guerillas Fail In Bid To Kill Defense Minister Due To Spelling Mistake Top
A special forces unit of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) had planned to celebrate the movement's 45th anniversary by killing Juan Manuel Santos. Ten rebels had disguised themselves as policemen and painted two motorbikes in police colours. Unfortunately, they managed to stencil the word "Policia" back to front on the bikes' fuel tanks. "Ten members of the terrorist group the Teofilo Forero of the narco-terrorists of the FARC have been captured," announced President Alvaro Uribe, who has made the crushing of the rebels and their 40-year insurgency his government's central priority. "They were planning an attack on the minister of defence and members of his family."
 
John Wellington Ennis: Freedom Tower: Screw the Name, Just Build it Already Top
Upon the news that the Freedom Tower would be renamed the much more conventional "World Trade Center One" there has been much uproar. The New York tabloids have charged that the name change is unpatriotic, Mayor Bloomberg insists that New Yorkers will still call it Freedom Tower, like they refer to Avenue of the Americas as Sixth Avenue. In my hometown of Chicago, I suspect people have yet to start referring to the Sears Tower by whatever its name is now . The Freedom Tower has been a storied symbol of rebuilding on the sacred ground of Ground Zero. It will have 1,776 floors to symbolize our year of independence as a nation. Ironically, it already has become a symbol -- a symbol of all the inaction of corporate largess, greedy landlords, and egotistical developers eager to get their name on the corner stone of the new landmark. Like so much else in America since 2001, it has flourished with the housing bloodlust, and withered in the bubble burst when cash-strapped firms really didn't want to pay top dollar in huge bulk. And while it undoubtedly shall become a national symbol, this is ultimately a neighborhood in downtown New York. While every American experienced a terrible new kind of pain on 9/11, it was a little different if you were in Manhattan and could smell it. The local New York experience of loss and destruction was compounded with the invasion of media, tourism, and opportunism. This reached the pinnacle of disgrace at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York. Occurring the latest a political convention had ever been held before so as to be as close as possible to the September 11th anniversary, America's Mayor Rudy Giuliani dramatically told the convention that once he realized that he was seeing bodies, not debris, falling from the flaming towers, his first response was to turn to his mobbed-up body-man Bernie Kerik and say: "Bernie, thank God that George Bush is our president." Meanwhile that week , across the street from Ground Zero, a peaceful protest of veterans and anti-war activists were walking up the sidewalk single file, in accordance to the strict terms of their agreement with the NYPD. The police swept in with orange webbed fencing and arrested them all anyway. I was there. I filmed it. Is that the kind of freedom the Freedom Tower symbolizes? These protesters were transferred to the West Side Highway warehouse pier that had been set up haphazardly to process and detain the over 1,800 citizens that would be arrested that week. This facility held open-air cages with oil-slicked floors and round-the-clock PA system and lights for sleep deprivation. It was soon dubbed "Guantanamo on the Hudson." The police were candid that they would be held until Bush left Manhattan after the convention ended Thursday night. In a lawsuit with the NYCLU, charges against all those arrested that week would eventually be dropped. In Times Square, I again filmed cops casting their orange web nets on a crowd, arresting as many tourists just getting out of Broadway shows on a Sunday afternoon as peaceful protesters. Is that the kind of freedom the Freedom Tower symbolizes? Of course, "freedom" might have become a tad played-out as a stirring nomenclature. To front on France for having the "Gaulle" to question the whole rush to war thing, Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) symbolically renamed French fries and French toast "freedom fries" and "freedom toast" at the Capitol Hill cafeteria, burning France like it was 1944. As I show in my documentary FREE FOR ALL! , Bob Ney was simultaneously taking bribes and getting drunk in the morning, while authoring the devastating Help America Vote Act, which foisted electronic voting upon us as a nation and led to widespread voter disenfranchisement through provisional ballots, over one million of which were promptly discarded in the 2004 election. Bob Ney was recently released from federal prison, having served 10 months of a 30-month sentence for corruption charges. Is that the kind of freedom the Freedom Tower symbolizes? It is also true that many of the prospective tenants felt that the name "Freedom Tower" was a little taunting to terrorists. I'm sure many Americans in that case could come up with much more in-your-face names to symbolize their feelings about terrorists, but they are not leasing space there. (Nor is anyone else, apparently, except the Chinese .) This sensitivity toward symbolism is no doubt sensitive. You know what else would be a good symbol to our enemies who destroyed the World Trade Center? A REALLY TALL FUCKING BUILDING STANDING THERE. Here is what is there as of this year. (You can see how the WTC site has been progressing over time from this modern guy's blog .) Impressively little has happened since Mayor Giuliani hastily rushed all of the debris to scrap yards out of the city, making forensic examination for remains and evidence impossible. In his bluster to clean up the site quickly, Giuliani dismissed the threat to workers at the site. It is now estimated that workers' WTC lung disease will kill more people than the original terrorist attacks . Quite honestly, the most patriotic thing to do would have been to rebuild immediately on the WTC site to hurry up and start turning a profit again, as a capitalist "screw you" to religious fundamentalists. Vendors selling American flags, or pork on a stick (or better yet, pork on sticks with American flags), it would have been stirring. But lost in all of this zoning out are the memorials that were decided upon by many people after an inspiring competition drew stunningly beautiful submissions from around the world. At the time, it was clear that having those built to help us come to terms with our loss was what mattered most. I would say it still does. More on Rudy Giuliani
 
Biodegradeable Gum Goes On Sale... As Street Cleaners Cross Their Fingers Top
It is an environmental scourge that saddles local government with clean-up bills running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. But today the world's first biodegradable chewing gum is arriving on British supermarket shelves, potentially putting to an end the sticky mess caused by the conventional product. Chicza Rainforest Gum is manufactured in Mexico by Consorcio Chiclero - a consortium of 56 co-operatives employing some 2,000 chicleros (gum farmers) and their families. The workers extract natural gum from the sap of the chicle tree, which is then used to make the product.
 
Frank Schaeffer: The Krugman/Limbaugh Nightmare: President Obama Might Succeed Top
The president that Tim Geithner works for is making policy, and he didn't ask Paul Krugman or Rush Limbaugh for their permission ! So Krugman and Limbaugh are building personal Obama-Will-Fail, media-based ego empires to hedge their anti-Obama bet. Yes, I know that open discussion, a "loyal opposition" and all that play a part, and that the strength of the Democratic Party is the free exchange of ideas, as opposed to the top down ideological "purity" of the folks in the Republican Party. However the Obama critics to the left criticize some members of his team for being beholden to the "Wall Street mentality." Well, what about the ethos they are beholden to? These commentators live in a media news cycle bubble, wherein after only 8 weeks they already expect miracles, or they are academics who live in the academy bubble where it's all hot air all the time with no personal buck-stops-here accountability. Enough is enough! Some of us -- including this life-long Republican and now independent voter -- voted for Obama, and, guess what?: we will back him! We trust Obama more than his detractors. We actually believe in him and are ready to think in years not sound bites. The Krugman/Limbaugh legacy now depends on Obama (and America) failing in order to vindicate these (and many other) naysayers. Luckily for Krugman/Limbaugh, their "predictions" get a big hearing so they can help guarantee the outcome of their Obama Is Wrong prophecies; sort of like God. Maybe not even "sort of," because together Krugman/Limbaugh make the perfect team: the smart white lefty and the stupid white righty together at last ! The Nobel committee said; ""Krugman has deepened our understanding of the determinants of trade and the location of economic activity." And Limbaugh has 20 million listeners! Nevertheless, Obama thinks he can lead America without Krugman/Limbaugh. See, Krugman/Limbaugh backed Hillary and sniped at Obama through the primary. But the American people wouldn't do what Krugman/Limbaugh told them to do and didn't back their candidate, irrespective of the fact Krugman/Limbaugh said only Hillary could win and govern. If Obama succeeds will Krugman's Nobel Prize become an SNL-style joke, something like Arafat's Nobel? Will Krugman/Limbaugh get made fun of by Jon Stewart? What will Krugman/Limbaugh do if by the end of next year an economic turnaround is in full swing? (Note to Krugman/Limbaugh: buy stock - in anything but newspapers -- just in case.) Krugman worked his whole life for a Nobel Prize, the way some actors strive for an Oscar. Some folks need more affirmation than others. It's tough to prove that a life spent in the softest of soft "sciences" in academia matters as much as being Bono or the President or something sexy like that! So Krugman got his prize and now he's on the cover of Newsweek too and all over the Sunday news shows! Suck on that all you jocks who made fun of Krugman at high school in Bellmore! Suck on that Clinton administration Undersecretary of Commerce Jeffrey Garten, who said of Krugman that; "He behaves like someone with a massive chip on his shoulder." Suck on that all you who questioned Krugman's judgment, just because he worked for Ronald Reagan and was a consultant for Enron! How could anyone question Krugman's liberal credentials or political savvy just because he's a progressive ripping into our progressive first black president? Didn't Krugman write a book called The Conscience of a Liberal ? See? He is the conscience of liberalism! As for Limbaugh, how could he be wrong? A $400 million radio deal proves he must know something we ordinary voters don't about the American way. Thanks to Obama, Krugman/Limbaugh are more famous -- and therefore richer (and more relevant, perhaps even sexier -- if you're into old white men!) -- than ever, all because Krugman is a Democrat smearing (and sneering at) the new Democratic president's economic team and policies, and all because Limbaugh had the guts to say what every flag-waving, Jesus-loving Republican really hopes: better America fails than Republicans are proved wrong! Talk about no honeymoon! Krugman/Limbaugh are mugging Obama at the altar! And things are looking up for the muggers: Obama is distracted by trying to fight the two wars he inherited, turn around the economy he inherited, revamp education, change our energy policy, stop global warming, prevent nuclear war... all that actual responsibility stuff Krugman/Limbaugh don't "do." So all Krugman/Limbaugh need to do to guarantee they are proved right -- is to keep chipping away at Obama's economic plans and credibility night and day until the rest of us (right and left) lose confidence in Obama. Unlike the President, Krugman/Limbaugh only have one task: go negative 24/7. Plus, unlike Obama, Krugman/Limbaugh take no actual risks. Crazy racists don't usually shoot white academics and/or white entertainers. And when tenured professors fail (and/or zillionaire entertainers), who cares? They've got theirs. Still, Krugman/Limbaugh's reputation may not be completely secure, even with the help of the we-never-met-a-doom-story-we-didn't like media. What if the nightmare scenario occurs? What if a few years from now Krugman/Limbaugh are just obscure footnotes to history, some sort of bitter joke? Maybe they'll wind up the way radio personality and pontificator Reverend Coughlin did after Roosevelt succeeded and all Coughlin's shrill predictions of ruin (made in the 1930s) came to nothing. Sure Coughlin was of the far, far nutty right and Krugman is of far, far nutty left, but those Far-Everything-Ideologue-Guys have to stick together against what they regard as the cowardly center, those who are about responsibility and real time choices and necessary compromise. From the Krugman/Limbaugh nightmare point of view America is scarily strong, rich, resilient, generous and creative. In comparison to the rest of the world our problems are flea bites. What is so scary for Krugman/Limbaugh and the rest of the Obama-Must-Fail-Prophets-For-Profit-and-Glory, is that every challenge confronting us has a ready solution. Worse yet -- from the Krugman/Limbaugh point of view -- we're about to shift to a vast trillion dollar entrepreneurial green economy. We're about to rebuild our infrastructure. We are about to launch a massive environmental clean up. We have a much loved and fearless levelheaded president and, for the first time in decades, the world loves our president. What scares Krugman/Limbaugh silly is that by the end of next year we may see the beginnings of a massive economic turnaround. But there is hope for the Krugman/Limbaugh mugging duo yet: Obama has the toughest start of any American president with the exception of Lincoln, so he should be easy to take down. And we mere voters who back our president notwithstanding, Krugman/Limbaugh can count on the sound bite 24-hour news cycle carnivore press to amplify their voices because doom passes for entertainment these days. So Krugman/Limbaugh are probably good to go for another round of self-fulfilling prophecy spouting, even if -- worst case -- the President succeeds. For Krugman/Limbaugh it's you lose we win. Even if they are proved wrong they'll get away with it, because the media will never give a black man the credit for saving our country, just like they didn't give him a honeymoon. Frank Schaeffer is the author of Crazy For God: How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back . Now in paperback. More on Barack Obama
 
Joyce McFadden: Finally! FertilityAuthority.com! Top
As a therapist who works with women and men going through fertility treatments, and as a woman who went through them myself for ten years, I'm really pleased to announce the arrival of FertilityAuthority.com. It can be an incredibly stressful and lonely experience to strive for a baby. For women and couples anywhere along the spectrum of IVF, donor egg, surrogacy, adoption or being child-free, FertilityAuthority is there for you as a resource. It's the only web portal dedicated to fertility, updated daily to provide you with information, news and insights. And while it offers educational information (much of it written by seasoned healthcare journalists and vetted by accredited Reproductive Endocrinologists) it also serves a more important purpose: connecting women and men to others experiencing infertility . FertilityAuthority has blogs, message boards and patient videos through which you can learn about others' real-life experiences and insights. Infertility has reached epidemic proportions (7.3 million women and their partners experience infertility in the U.S. alone) and FertilityAuthority supports women as they go through the process. It connects men and women with doctors, clinics and therapists, provides information to help them understand their condition, and keeps them abreast of the latest news and scientific advances in fertility. Set in motion by an all-female team of seasoned media veterans, many of whom have experienced infertility, and with Alexis Stewart as its celebrity spokesperson, they understand what content they need to provide to empower women and men to be proactive regarding their fertility. Since the site is brand new, more features will be added as it matures, and they want your feedback so you can have a hand in shaping it as it becomes even more tailored to meet the needs of its readers. You can also find fertilityauthority.com on Twitter , Facebook and LinkedIn - so there are lots of ways to connect with them and their community.
 
Ivory Coast: Stampede At Soccer Match Kills At Least 22 Top
ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast — A stampede at a World Cup qualifying soccer match in the Ivory Coast killed at least 22 people and wounded 132 Sunday, authorities said. Fans at the Felix Houphouet-Boigny arena pushed against each other shortly before the game between Ivory Coast and Malawi, setting off a panic that led to the stampede, Interior Minister Desire Tagro said on state television. "They started pushing to get in because the match was about to start and each and every one of them wanted to get in," Tagro said. An Associated Press photographer said people began shoving and pushing 40 minutes before the beginning of the game. Police fired tear gas into one section of the crowd. Ollo Kambire, a reporter for "Super Sport," a daily newspaper focusing on sports, said that a wall collapsed under the weight of the fans as they pushed toward the field. "We saw people falling. ... Then there was panic and a stampede," he said. Ivory Coast won the match 5-0. There have been a number of stampedes at Africa's crowded stadiums. Badly equipped security forces are far outnumbered and are often unable to control the voluminous crowds. More on Sports
 
Dr. Susan Corso: Maeve: A Magdalen for Peace Top
Maeve (rhymes with rave) the magnificent Magdalen is back! She is ever so welcome. The third novel of The Maeve Chronicles , Bright Dark Madonna , tells the story of the third chapter in the life of the Celtic Magdalen. It takes us through the formation and establishment of the early church, and it tells the heart-breaking (to me) story of how Mary Mags, as she is known in my house, got written out of herstory. When I was invited to review the third installment, I decided to give myself the gift of rereading the first two: Daughter of the Shining Isles a.k.a. Magdalen Rising relates Maeve's marvelous beginnings as the only daughter of the eight warrior/weather witches of an Otherworld Island, Tir na mBan. The Passion of Mary Magdalen delves deeply into the story of Maeve and Jesus. At the beginning of the third book, Maeve -- the gentile whore/goddess/widow of Jesus -- is pregnant, and none too sure of her place in Jesus' history. As the novel progresses, Maeve attains the age I am now, and I was fascinated by her desire for peace. Peace in herself. Peace in her relationships. Peace in her world. And, peace with her own story. Cunningham has her Maeve/Magdalen become a cave contemplative for three years, not the thirty that legend gives the Magdalene. One of the things that each of us faces as we grow older -- and hopefully wiser -- is whether to let our story die with us, or to tell our story so that future generations will learn it and learn from it. This Maeve is no exception. I think somehow that telling the story of one's life is part of what allows us to make peace with that story -- with the parts we played, the parts we didn't, the parts others played, and those they didn't. Storytelling is Elizabeth Cunningham's supreme gift, and as we witness Maeve's process with raising her daughter and coming to terms with her true place in the story, we see a vision of a woman lost. Her post-resurrection Christ Jesus speaks to her from the inside out, "Being lost is the way, how else can you be found. How else can you find what you have lost: sheep, coins, love?" Ah, such wisdom. Wisdom delivered via the mouths of avatars for millennia. The path, anyone's path, is the path of becoming lost in order that one might find oneself. So to all of us who have ever felt lost, Cunningham delivers through Bright Dark Madonna the supreme advice for the spiritual life: if you feel lost, you're doing it right. Perfectly right. That is the lesson of the bright, dark, wild, wonderful, lost-and-found Maeve Magdalen. From Maeve's hilarious Curriculum Vitae in "A note on reading this book Or this is not your mother's Mary Magdalen" to the final chord which promises a fourth Maeve Chronicle (Hip! Hip! Hooray!) there is scholarship, whimsy, and delectable fiction so close to fact that it's tempting to believe Maeve's story wholesale. As I wrote on beliefnet.com a few years ago, "let me just put it this way: Were I to write a novel about Mary Mags, this is one I would want to write." Allow me to rephrase: were I to write a third novel about Mary Mags, this is one I would want to write. I can't wait for the fourth installment. P. S. In that same introductory note, Elizabeth Cunningham wrote: "Let your hair down (if you have any: I don't -- the real reason I am a novelist, the vicarious thrill of writing about someone with long, red hair.)" For the record, Elizabeth: I, too, am a novelist, and I actually have long, red hair. Reading a protagonist as compelling as your redheaded Maeve makes me especially proud to stand in that short line of recessive genes. Visit Dr. Susan Corso's website or subscribe to Seeds at www.susancorso.com
 
Jamie Woolf: How to Share Bad Economic News with Kids Top
The trick is to be honest without creating needless worry. First of all -- your kids are already aware, at least to some degree, of what's going on in the world. They talk about it in class at school. They discuss with their friends things they heard their parents say around the dinner table. So if they come to you with questions and you don't give them straight answers, you damage your credibility as a parent. Just as you and your coworkers want to know if you'll have a job tomorrow, your kids want to know what the family's economic fate will be. So what is the best way to keep your kids informed without oversharing and creating anxiety? Here are four tips to keep in mind: 1. Don't make empty promises. You don't want to say, 'Mommy will never lose her job' or 'We'll always have our house.' You may feel certain today, but circumstances can always change, and making these rigid statements will put your credibility on the line. Instead, reassure them with the truth. Tell them that no matter what happens, your family will stick it out together. That's one promise you know you will always be able to keep. 2. Keep quiet until you have specific plans. Caution should be the rule of the day. If you are thinking about selling your house or relocating for a new job, wait to share the news with your kids until you know as many details as possible and can answer the questions that arise. Of course, you have to balance truth and secrecy. If your child asks you point-blank, 'Mommy, are you going to lose your job?' tell her, 'I don't know yet,' and then add reasonable reassurance. And don't wait until the last minute to spring bad news on your kids. Do that and they'll think you've been keeping a secret from them. Be as honest and open with them as often as you can. 3. Share a unified message. Make sure you and your partner are in agreement about what to share and what to keep quiet. During any kind of crisis that involves your family, the number one priority should be maintaining the lines of communication between you and your partner. Make sure that the two of you are on the same page as far as what you will and will not share with the children. And if you have a big announcement, tell your children together to ensure a unified message is conveyed. Seeing the two of you as a unified front will reassure them that you are working together as a family through whatever may come your way. 4. Give them something to do to help. One of the worst parts of any crisis is feeling helpless to do anything about it. Children are especially prone to feeling helpless, particularly in an economic crisis that they may not fully understand. Getting them involved will empower them and make them feel better about the situation at hand. Explain to your kids that saving money is very important right now. Then ask them to help you brainstorm ways the family can save money. And give them a money-saving task that is their responsibility, like turning off lights in unoccupied rooms or gathering old toys and making posters for a family yard sale. Get them involved with lowering your grocery bill by clipping coupons together on Sunday afternoons, or having them help hunt for bargains at the store. Not only will they feel good about being involved, but it creates a new way for you to carve out some quality time together. Featured on KGO ABC View From the Bay , March 19, 2009. Watch the video: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=view_from_the_bay/parenting_babies&id=6718710 About the Book: Mom-in-Chief: How Wisdom from the Workplace Can Save Your Family from Chaos is available at bookstores nationwide and from major online booksellers. >> Buy the book on Amazon For more information, visit http://www.mominchief.com More on The Recession
 
Ann Pettifor: Challenging the Dogma of Yesterday's Men Top
As I'm sure he expected, President Lula's "blue-eyed Banker" statement caused an international uproar. But Lula's point was beautifully illustrated last week when the CEOs of the major U.S. banks - 'Yesterday's Men' - emerged from the White House after being "wooed" by the Administration. In her latest op ed piece , Maureen Dowd called Lula's comment "...international lunacy". But if white bankers and economists have angered US citizens and roiled Congress, we should have the humility to understand how much more they have angered people in far-away countries - people suffering collateral damage from the crises in the US, Europe and Japan. Crises for which they have no responsibility. For years the leaders of countries in these regions were lectured by white, largely Chicago-trained economists on how to run their economies. The same economists that encouraged de-regulated bank lending in the US, that reviled government intervention, and that encouraged the growth of e.g. AIG's reckless build-up of liabilities - spread their dogma to poor countries. In ways that were to foreshadow the crisis in the US, financial de-regulation policies were effectively imposed on poor countries by the 'Washington Consensus'. These policies led to frequent crises: to a massive build-up of liabilities and debt, to cuts in government spending, bank failures and even country (sovereign) insolvency. And then double standards were, and are imposed. The US, Europe and Japan responded to their own financial crises by government (central banks) creating money (as opposed to borrowing money). This money is used to finance a fiscal stimulus, or government spending, to build and repair infrastructure, create jobs and moderate the crisis. In contrast, poor countries are forbidden by the Washington-based International Monetary Fund from creating money, and instead are forced to do the reverse. That is: contract their economies by hiking, not lowering interest rates; by bankrupting, not bailing-out their finance and other industries. And by slashing government spending. This causes bankruptcies and unemployment to rise dramatically - leading to a further downward spiral, and to social and political unrest. Last week the International Labour Organisation predicted that in 2009, between 40%-50% of men and women globally will not be able to earn enough to lift themselves and their families above the $2 a day poverty line. Most of these men and women will be black and poor, and will have had no responsibility for the crisis. Indeed their political protests will have been drowned out by the power and influence of white, often faceless, foreign economists. Their descent into deeper poverty will be fostering widespread anger - and enthusiastic support for President Lula's comments. We would be foolish to dismiss their anger. Instead we should be acknowledging the fact that this crisis is not of their making. And we should be encouraging an infusion of new blood into the economics profession - to develop alternatives to the failed economics of these last three decades. In my last post I promised a list of economists and financial experts that President Obama could usefully call upon to challenge the advice he gets from Larry Summers, Tim Geithner et al. Thanks in part to the Huff Po, we have been hearing from many liberal economists that appear not to be part of the White House magic circle, namely: Paul Krugman; Dean Baker of CEPR; Prof. Joseph Stiglitz; Simon Johnson of MIT, Prof. Jeffrey Sachs; Prof. James Galbraith; Prof. Nouriel Roubini and Prof. Kenneth Rogoff. But there are many more he could call upon. I would strongly suggest that he seeks the advice of that sage of Steady State Economics, Prof. Herman Daly of the University of Maryland. Prof. Daly is a 'new economist'; advised the World Bank in the 1980s, and has pioneered ecological economics. His time has come. I strongly recommend that the President set aside time on his visit to London next week to meet up with Graham Turner a former City of London economist. He has carefully studied the experience of Japan's long debt-deflationary agony, has written a book about it and, to my mind, has a better grasp of the management of Quantititave Easing than many in central banks. In preparing my list it rapidly became clear: as far as diversity goes, economics, banking and finance still looks very much like America in the 1950s. The journal of Blacks in Higher Education undertook a survey back in 1994 and found 11 black economists at the nation's 30 highest-ranked universities. By 2006, this had risen to a miserly 13. I strongly advise the President to include all 13 in his deliberations. The broader the spectrum of advice, the better. Next the President should look to the example of Iceland, where, after the catastrophic meltdown of the Icelandic economy, women are at the forefront of the clean-up. " It goes back to our Viking women " said one of them. "While the men were out there raping and pillaging, the women were running the show at home." First on the list of women he should seek advice from would be our own Arianna Huffington, an economist and one of the 50 most influential figures shaping the direction of the upcoming G20 summit, according to London's Financial Times. Then he should consult the woman who, way back in 1997, took on Greenspan, Summers and Rubin over the need to regulate derivatives. The woman who was roundly beaten by that triumvirate: Brooksley E. Born of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Again the President might take the opportunity of his London trip to meet up with Prof. Victoria Chick Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of London. Prof. Chick is a Keynesian true to Keynes and an expert on Keynes's advice to Roosevelt's administration in the 1930s. Advice that helped lift the US of out of the Great Depression. Next I nominate Carmen M. Reinhart , Professor of Economics at the Department of Economics at the University of Maryland. And finally, Professor Sakiko Fukuda-Parr , Professor of International Affairs at the New School, New York. By broadening the spectrum of economic advice - President Obama would both strengthen his own position; but also offer the most effective rebuttal to the taunts of President Lula. More on Larry Summers
 
Rick Horowitz: Economic News: Desperately Seeking Succor Top
It came to me in a flash. This was unusual. More than unusual, actually -- this was nearly unprecedented. When it comes to the world of economics, to the world of Wall Street and high finance, almost nothing comes to me in a flash -- except for the daily discovery that I don't have a clue. I'm not sure that counts. Anyway, this was something else again; this was financial insight of an entirely different order. A chance to turn my prospects around after so many months of merciless meltdown. Naturally I wanted to share it with you. After all, we're in this together, right? Why should I be the only one who profits from my being... a prophet? Straws. You heard me: straws. I'm going big into straws -- they're the world's next huge growth sector. The kind of straws people grasp at. Look around you. Check your laptop. Read your paper. Tune into your favorite cable show. Or just eavesdrop on the conversation at the next table. Everybody's grasping at straws. It's the new national pastime. The People Who Keep Track of Things issue their latest monthly reports -- sales of durable goods (whatever those are), sales of new homes, sales of existing homes, and you can hear people exhaling for the first time in weeks. They're grasping at straws. Are the new numbers wonderful? Hardly. But they could have been worse. In fact, The People Who Predict Things about The People Who Keep Track of Things had expected them to be worse, and had said so, right out loud. So when the new numbers came in, and they were only, say, the second -worst numbers anyone had seen in the past who-knows-how-many years, instead of the first -worst -- Break out the Champagne! Perhaps, at long last, we've finally reached: The Bottom. Perhaps, at long last, the turnaround can begin. Or maybe not. But nobody wants to hear "Or maybe not." And can you blame them? So everyone's grasping at those straws. So I say it's time to invest in straws. Let's corner the straw market, and ride the tide of exploding straw demand to riches we've only dreamed about! Or do you have a better idea? I don't hear you having a better idea. I don't -- Wait a second. I feel a strange buzzing sensation in the general vicinity of my brain. Could it be -- but it couldn't be! -- another flash of insight? But that's totally unprecedented! There's no way in the world I can be -- Yes! We need a new index. It just came to me: We need a new market index. It's hard enough these days for people to keep track of all the financial data that's being thrown at them. There's the good news. The bad news. The worse news. The even-worse news. But what about this strange new category we've been dealing with so often lately? The news-that's-bad-but-could-have-been- really -bad-so-it's-almost-kind-of-good news? What do we do with that? We file it under Not Quite As Awful As We Feared. Ladies and gentlemen, introducing the NQAAAWF Index! You can thank me later. Two flashes in one day. I think I need a nap. Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com. More on Financial Crisis
 
How Insurers Secretly Blacklist Millions With Common Ailments Top
Trying to buy health insurance on your own and have gallstones? You'll automatically be denied coverage. Rheumatoid arthritis? Automatic denial. Severe acne? Probably denied. Do you take metformin, a popular drug for diabetes? Denied. Use the anti-clotting drug Plavix or Seroquel, prescribed for anti-psychotic or sleep problems? Forget about it. Trying to buy health insurance on your own and have gallstones? You'll automatically be denied coverage. Rheumatoid arthritis? Automatic denial. Severe acne? Probably denied.
 
Marc Gunther: The Low Carb(on) Diet Top
You've probably heard of the Atkins diet, the South Beach diet and the Best Life diet. Now it's time to consider Low Carbon Diet. It's good for the planet, and good for your health, your waistline and your bottom line. What's not to like? While the impacts of agriculture and food production on global warming are complex, the Low Carbon Diet is pretty simple. You eat less beef and cheese. You throw away less food. And you try, when possible, to eat locally grown food. This would be of no more than passing interest, except for one thing: a food service company called Bon Appetit , which operates more than 400 cafeterias in 28 states, is putting the Low Carbon Diet into practice, and it seems to be affecting the way thousands of Americans eat. Two years ago, Bon Appetit, which operates cafeterias for Target, Cisco, eBay, MIT, Wheaton and Oberlin Colleges, among others, launched the Low Carbon Diet on Earth Day. For a day, it served no hamburgers for lunch. More important, the company set a goal of reducing beef consumption by 10%. A year later, every site had reduced beef consumption by at least that much, and the system as a whole cut it back by 23%. "It's time to become accustomed to thinking of meat and cheese as 'special food' rather than simply as lunch and dinner," says Helene York, the architect of the Law Carbon Diet and the director of strategic initiatives at Bon Appetit. York also runs the Bon Appetit Foundation, where her job, in part, is to spread the word about the connections between diet and global warming. By some accounts, the food system accounts for as much as one-third of global greenhouse gas production. Some of my favorite writers -- Michael Pollan, Mark Bittman, Peter Singer and, long before any of them, Frances Moore Lappe -- have written eloquently about how we eat can change the world. Food has become a big environmental issue in the blogosphere. (See the Ethicurean , Sam Fromartz's ChewsWise and Tom Philpott's Victual Reality columns at Grist). These conversations will shape individual behavior. But only when big companies like Whole Foods, McDonald's and Wal-Mart get into the game will change come at the scale we need. That's what got me interested in Bon Appetit . Founded by a couple of chefs and based in San Francisco, Bon Appetit a division of a $20-billion-a-year public-traded British food company called Compass PLC. The company, whose slogan is "food services for sustainable future," employs more than 500 chefs, many classically trained, who prepare meals from scratch when possible. Bon Appettit began a "farm-to-fork" initiative encouraging chefs to buy locally back in 1999, it rolled out a sustainable seafood program in 2002 (after winning the food service contract at the Monterey Bay Aquarium) and it made a national commitment to buy cage-free eggs in 2005. York, who is in her late 40s, found her job at Bon Appetit on Craigslist. A Yale MBA, she had worked at Aetna and Citigroup, then managed a Jewish theater troupe before getting into the food business. She launched the Low Carbon Diet in 2007, with a goal of curbing the company's greenhouse gas emissions by 25% over three years. You can check out the diet at www.eatlowcarbon.org . It's instructive, if not comprehensive or precise. You can see, for example, that a chicken and cheese burrito has more than three times the global warming impact of chicken noodle soup, or that a breakfast of toast and jam will warm the planet less that a bowl of cold cereal and milk. More interesting than the diet itself is how Bon Appetit persuades its customers to change their habits. "You lead with flavor, and I don't say that lightly," York told me. For example: a chef named Chip Griffin, who runs a Cisco Systems cafe in Boxborough, Mass., created what he called "the best-tasting turkey burger in Massachusetts" for Earth Day last year. He worked at the grill station himself, touting his healthier choice. Afterward, hamburgers went back on the menu, but the turkey burger has outsold them ever since. This year, Bon Appetit has pledged to eliminate all air-freighted seafood, reduce tropical fruit consumption by 50 percent and reduce cheese and meat consumption by 25 percent (from the 2007 baseline). The company has also begun to measure all of the food that it throws away because when food is disposed of in landfills, it decomposes and emits methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Where feasible, Bon Appetit has set up composting programs or looked for ways to get its food scraps back to farmers who feed them to pigs and chickens. "We're looking at food scraps as a resource, rather than as waste," York says. These are solid steps, but as you dig into the environmental impact of food, things get complicated in a hurry. Measuring the carbon footprint of the food on your plate is an inexact science. Is it better to buy local or buy organic? Are farmed shellfish sustainable -- or not? No ordinary person can be expected to sort out all those choices, but they matter. Which is why we need more companies like Bon Appetit to guide us. More on Climate Change
 
Raymond Leon Roker: Fast Times at Facebook High Top
Read this weekend's NY Times piece on Facebook's explosive growth (from 100 million to 200 million in one year). For all its recent user revolt--usually via their status updates, ironically--the only social networking site that matters is growing at 1 million users a day. But the article asks the legitimate question of how this growth--that now includes your mom, boss and old junior high friends--helps or hurts Facebook's community and usefulness. I guess it depends on how you use it. I learned early on the downside of social media, having been publicly burned by my ex-girlfriend on Friendster. Thank god I only had about 60 friends back in the spring of 2003. But that was enough to teach me a few things about privacy controls and safeguarding my password and profile. I dread to think what an attack on my Facebook profile would mean with nearly 2800 friends getting a real time feed. Since then I've heard and witnessed several stories of friends and acquaintances who had exes stalk or terrorize them via MySpace or Facebook. Guess I was sort of a pioneer. What the NY Times piece reminds us of is that in this ever connected and status obsessed online ecosystem, you have to constantly be vigilant about your connections and information. It's a given that perspective employers are looking at your profile, but less understood is how more benign connections and looser degrees of separation can come back to haunt you. When you leave a comment on a photo or add a friend, who sees that? And, more importantly, what do they make of that connection? Are you guilty by your associations when matched against somebody else's? Does your business competition derive trade secrets from your status updates, or even your wall posts, no matter how cryptic? Assume the answer is yes to all of these. Facebook actually has some pretty smart privacy controls to limit your potential embarrassment and sequester your real friends from the randomness of your extended social graph. But the company estimates only 20 percent of its users know how to or chose to use them. It's worth exploring these tools and making some adjustments and always remembering that six degrees of separation is a myth. It's really one to two. The other poignant question posed in the piece is how Facebook can hope to remain a place for multiple generations to congregate in harmony when you reach a state of critical mass (I'd say we're about there). And how do bosses and staff co-exist? And how do moms, their girlfriends, and even their moms mingle a profile or two over from their teenage kids? Creepy? Weird? The end of life as we know it? "Uniting disparate groups on a single Internet service runs counter to 50 years of research by sociologists into what is known as 'homophily' -- the tendency of individuals to associate only with like-minded people of similar age and ethnicity." --NY Times I really don't worry about the kids. Never have. As they say, the kids are alright. Always will be. In fact, I'd argue that until adults (read: moms and dads) really get Twitter, that will fast become the new hangout and real life status update. I'm sure, by now, Facebook status is as private as posting a note on the family fridge. But @whoever updates still have an air of intimacy to them, even if that won't last. One thing the Times article didn't discuss was how much Twitter's recent rise lead to Facebook's new look and more instant feel. Facebook may have also learned, though, that people liked it's uniqueness and don't want it to be Twitter necessarily. At least not yet. In the end, if you're not one of those with social media phobia, this is all about the pursuit of a more perfect digital map for your world. We all want to use these tools to do everything from find a job, get laid, bitch, share, or just show off. And only the slowest adapters fail to see the slippery edges of total inter connectivity (Watch that post!). For them, they'll learn soon enough. For the more experienced, and for those who learned the hard way, we'll hopefully be part of the next wave, on Facebook or beyond. Helping those super smart developers in the world's Silicon Valleys build us ever better water coolers. This was originally posted on my blog Source Source More on Facebook
 
Robert Kuttner: Obama's Banking Rescue: O for Opaque Top
I fear that these columns have been too polite. They have directed criticisms at Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and national economic policy chief Larry Summers. Lord knows, they richly deserve the criticism. But let's not kid ourselves. The man they work for is named Barack Obama. President Obama has promised to run an administration of unprecedented openness. And in some respects, such as the ground rules for spending stimulus funds, he has. But in the most important area of all, the financial rescue, the administration is making trillion dollar decisions relying on the Federal Reserve and a small Wall Street club of advisors, with no transparency or public accountability. In normal policy-making, an administration comes before Congress to request a law; one or more Congressional committees hold hearings; a broad range of witnesses are called; and then the legislation is drafted, enacted, and funds are appropriated. Criteria for spending the public's money are explicitly legislated; and Congress gets to conduct oversight hearings after the fact to see whether the money has been well spent. But compare that process with the bank rescue, a policy with all the transparency of J.P. Morgan. The current approach to the bailout began last October when a panicky Hank Paulson, then George W. Bush's Treasury Secretary, met with Congressional leaders and told them if they didn't cough up a blank check of $700 billion in a matter of days, the economy would collapse. It took Congress three weeks, but Paulson got his blank check. There were no hearings, no expert witnesses, and no serious discussion of alternative approaches. But at least Congress legislated the funds, and added as a condition the creation of both a Congressional Oversight panel and an independent inspector general. However, Paulson's decisions on which firms to bail out, and on what terms, were entirely ad hoc. Treasury has not cooperated well with the oversight panel, as the panel's several reports attest. Then in January, Obama succeeded Bush--and if anything the closed-door operation became even more secretive. In devising their horribly convoluted and risky approach to the next phase of the banking bailout, chief economic strategist Summers and Treasury Secretary Geithner did not consult closely with Congress. The new rescue package was not legislated. There were no hearings. Rather, they met extensively with key Wall Street banking barons, to design government guarantees so lucrative that speculative hedge funds and private equity companies would bid for toxic securities clogging bank balance sheets. They would make a financial killing, but maybe banks would be recapitalized and start lending again. This is described as a "public-private partnership," but the new private investors put up just three percent of the money. The rest comes from the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and what's left of Paulson's original pot, now down to less than $100 billion. But if nearly all the risk and all the money is coming from the Fed, who needs the middlemen? The plan is also advertised as a system for "price discovery" in which free market auctions allow market forces to discern the "correct" market price is financial assets that nobody has wanted to buy or sell. But, obviously, nothing that is 97 percent government-financed and government-guaranteed is a free-market price. See economist Jeff Sachs on this. In the days before the plan was finally announced last Monday, Geithner and Summers had several meetings with key private equity and hedge funds, so that there could be well-orchestrated announcements that private capital liked the government's plan and would come to the table. Summers and Geithner effectively gave away one of the most important imperatives for solving the financial crisis--making sure that these unsupervised and highly speculative parts of the system are belatedly regulated. Recently, in response to tough questions from Senator Carl Levin , Gary Gensler, Obama's new chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, made several explicit commitments about more stringent regulation of hedge funds and private equity. But Gensler is singing one song, while Geithner sings a very different tune. It's awfully hard to crack down on these people when you are fairly begging them to come to your new government-guaranteed casino. Even more alarmingly, the administration is now using the Federal Reserve as an unlegislated, all-purpose slush fund. Because the Fed's operations are largely beyond the reach of Congressional appropriations or scrutiny, the Fed can do whatever it wishes with its money. The Geithner plan was negotiated behind closed doors, the main players being the Fed, the FDIC, the Treasury, and power-brokers on Wall Street. What we have is something perilously close to a dictatorship of the Fed and the Treasury, acting in the interests of Wall Street. The contrasts with the first hundred days of the Roosevelt administration are striking. Like Roosevelt, Obama faces an economic emergency. Like Roosevelt, he faces an angry public, which has been bilked by excesses on Wall Street. And like Roosevelt, Obama has a supportive Democratic Congress that is willing to substantially defer to the White House on an emergency recovery plan. But unlike Roosevelt, who used the public's indignation and Congress's support to constrain the barons of private finance, Obama's economic team is using government funds to put the most abusive players on Wall Street back in the saddle. And Geithner and Summers, working with the Fed, are assembling their plan with no public scrutiny. In the course of a week, the administration's own rhetoric on the A.I.G. bonuses has shifted from "We were bound by contracts" to "This is an outrage" to "Never mind." Wall Street was out for favor for just days. Meanwhile, Geithner is out with a new proposal to give the Federal Reserve even more sweeping powers to be a "systemic risk regulator." All of this invites a couple of hard questions. First, was this the only way to proceed? I have addressed this in a previous column arguing that a superior approach would be a new Reconstruction Finance Corporation. For details of a well articulated rationale for a new RFC, see the recent speech by Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, whose jurisdiction covers eleven Midwestern states. (PDF) Second, where is Congress? Basically, the key Democratic Committee chairman, whatever their private reservations, have been persuaded that they need to support their president and that the Geithner plan is worth a try. But at the very least, they should be asking harder questions and demanding more transparency. For instance, the Treasury needs to define tactics to game the bailout that will be be prohibited. Congress needs to know which Wall Street moguls the Treasury team met with, and exactly what they were promised. And the whole plan needs to be legislated, rather than made up on the fly by Summers, Geithner, and Bernanke. At the very least, Congress should act now to cap the kind of windfall profits that hedge funds and private equity companies are likely to make with government bearing nearly all of the risk. There is a good precedent for this. During and after World War II, ending only in the early 1970s, there was a government agency called the Renegotiation Board. Defense Contractors had to agree to a contractual provision allowing a post-audit, after the contract was finished. If their profit exceed the stipulated amount, the government got a refund. By the same token, hedge fund and private equity bets made with government guarantees should have limits on their upside. And before the Fed is turned into an even more potent all-purpose regulator, Congress should turn it into a true public institution--a reform project that has been deferred since Roosevelt's day. At a recent conference of the New America Foundation, economist and Obama adviser Laura Tyson, an in exchange with me, defended the administration's approach on the premise that there was no way that Congress would legislate the one to two trillion dollars in public funds that will be needed to make this rescue work. So, in Tyson's view, there was no alternative other than having Treasury contrive its own plan, using the Fed as an all purpose source of unlegislated financing. http://www.newamerica.net/publications/resources/2009/looking_towards_london_g_20_global_growth_summit_laura_dandrea_tyson_and_martin_wolf I think this is exactly backwards. The administration has, in fact, put $750 billion into its current budget for bank-bailout funds to be tapped later. And if the White House had proposed a more progressive approach to the whole financial rescue--taking failed banks into receivership, involving Congress in the program design, doing comprehensive government audits of bank balance sheets before rather than after the fact, and forcing bank shareholders and bondholders rather than taxpayers to take more of the hit--Congress might well have provided at least some of the funds, leaving the Fed to provide the rest. Under the present arrangement, the Fed provides nearly all of the funds, an approach that carries no transparency and huge risks of its own. Until last September, the Fed bought and sold mainly Treasury bonds, the safest securities there are. And it did so for one purpose only--to conduct monetary policy. Now, the Fed is buying trillions of dollars of junk assets, and it will be under tremendous pressure to keep these on its own books, compromising its capacity to run the nation's monetary policy. It's possible that the Geithner plan will "work" in the sense of re-starting the Wall Street bubble machine, this time with a limitless line of direct credit from the Federal Reserve. If that happens, it will defer an even more serious day of reckoning, as the cost of the Fed's immense credit creation comes due. But the greater likelihood is that the plan will merely enrich some speculators, but neither bring zombie banks back to life, nor get a normal banking and credit system operating again. And then the administration will need to come back to Congress, this time with less credibility, with the economy in even worse shape, having burned through more than a trillion dollars. We were promised unprecedented openness. In the most momentous area of policy for getting the economy functioning again for ordinary Americans, we have instead unprecedented secrecy, designed by and for Wall Street. We expected better of Obama. Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and senior fellow at Demos. His recent book is "Obama's Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency." More on Economy
 
Diane Dimond: You Don't Agree Top
It's time again to let some of you get a turn to sound off about what I write in this space. Every week I examine some crime and justice related topic that captures my attention. You readers don't always agree with my thoughts. Jose Armas seemed angry about my column on the growing number of felony cases, like ID thefts, traced back to illegal aliens. "The real criminals," he wrote, "Are the employers, the magnets who lure them and hire them with impunity, and then stand silently by as their undocumented workers are demonized by politicos, the media, illegal vigilantes, racists and biased so-call authorities like Dimond who commit media malpractice." Wait, illegal aliens commit the crimes and I'm the bad guy?! Go figure. And please note, I reject the term 'undocumented workers' as it's a euphemism to disguise the illegality of entering our country without papers. After I revealed how the TV show C.S.I. incorrectly portrayed the way Crime Stoppers handles tipsters Bruce Goodman, the Chief of Police in Louisville, Colorado steamed, "One television program maligns Crime Stoppers and you are furious because you worry that you will lose the trust of the tipster? Well, I worry about the faith and trust of all of the public we serve and how it is made harder by the unrelenting crap from Hollywood." For the record, Chief, I cringe when cops (and journalists) are made to look silly on TV but there's not much I can do about it. On the column about the hundreds of thousands of backlogged, untested DNA rape kits in America Connie Monahan wrote to disagree about the necessity of completing those tests because, "only 20% of cases" involve rape by a stranger. I disagree. There isn't a court in the land that wouldn't want to introduce DNA results if they were there for the testing - whether the defendant was a stranger or an acquaintance of the victim's. I think Marilyn Novak got it right when she wrote "It's a sign of disrespect for women," that just 150 million dollars would get rid of the rape kit backlog and help take to trial countless suspected rapists. Patricia Fourdney agrees with my assessment that prostitution is not a victimless crime. "I've always felt that in the case of prostitution the 'wrong party' suffers the pain and penalties .... I felt the same way when the women and children were taken from the LDS compound in Texas. Why didn't they remove the men?!" Good question, Patricia! The column on presidential candidates who dodge talking about crime brought a memorable reply from John Shelton. He says politicians should be made to fill out a form declaring what they think is wrong in the country and "a solid solution" ... to solve it. Then every newspaper in the nation would have to publish it. Any deviation during their campaign and they would be automatically eliminated. Period." Dianne Layden took me to task for using the phrase "city fathers" in a column. She wrote, "This term is both sexist and inaccurate." She's right. I apologized to her and to anyone who took offense. No column garnered as much response as the one in which I declared Mexico to be our enemy for exporting its drug cartel violence to America. I concluded the National Guard should be dispatched to the U.S./Mexican border, like, yesterday. "As horrific as your message was, it's about time someone said it," wrote William Kenna Jr.. His sentiment was shared by T.M.C. who concluded, "If the United States doesn't be careful, this country will become the United States of Latin America." Others called me "irresponsible" for neglecting to highlight U.S. gun sales to Mexican terrorists. Yes, some American gun sellers have done business with the cartel and the Mexican government has said many weapons they seize are American made. Seldom are serial numbers or other proof of that claim offered. The L.A. Times reports the cartels military-grade weapons of choice the last year and a half seem to be coming from Central America. Readers Dick Yeck and Michael Daly took me to task for ignoring "the real problem" in our relationship with Mexico. Yeck wrote, "Dimond should review the basic law of supply and demand, and instead of blaming Mexico for this situation look at the drug demand issue in the United States." To those critics I say, "Wake up!" Do you really believe that if somehow all the drug addicts in America were cured the violence in Mexico would suddenly stop? I believe the cartel would simply cross our border to commit other types of crimes like bank robberies or kidnappings for ransom. You may not agree with everything I write in this space but I hope I give you things to think about. -30- Diane Dimond's official web site is www.DianeDimond.net . She can be reached at Diane@DianeDimond.net
 
Aubrey Sarvis: Time for Courage and Leadership, Mr. President Top
Put yourself back in the Sixties, aging boomers, and you kids listen up, too. Remember Pete Seeger's famous song, "Where have all the flowers gone?" You boomers may even have sung it a few times. Now flash forward four decades. We're going to adapt the lyrics to fit the new circumstances. It's spring and we know where the flowers are. Today the question is, where have all the leaders gone? Yes, yes, we all know the frighteningly serious threats we face -- to our national security, to our financial security, to our future. There's no need to list them but there is a pressing need to do something about them, and to do something about them requires what I've been writing about for weeks now: leadership, my friends, leadership. We can argue about whether our leaders are going the right way or the wrong way in Iraq and Afghanistan, in rescuing the American economy which is no longer ours alone but global, and in any number of other fronts. But we cannot argue that we're not going anywhere -- except on one front. Where is the leadership on repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell? This morning Defense Secretary Gates was asked about repeal on Fox News Sunday . He said what no one would deny, that "we have a lot on our plates right now." But he went on. "Let's push that one down the road a bit." We've been pushing Don't Ask, Don't Tell "down the road a bit" for almost 16 years! Sixteen years! Ever since Congress passed the miserable law in response to President Clinton's efforts to open military service to all qualified men and women regardless of sexual orientation. (The idea was to teach Clinton a lesson and show him who's boss, which at that time was not one boss but several: the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff whose chairman was Colin Powell, and Senator Samm Nunn and other members of both houses of Congress who fretted about "tight quarters" on submarines.) But when the American people elected Barack Obama last November, we thought all that would soon be behind us. No more "let's push that one down the road a bit." It's right there on the White House web site clear as spring water and it's worth quoting in its entirety: " Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell [boldface theirs]: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals." You can't get much more clear than that. So why isn't the administration doing it? What's going on here? Did I see the secretary sending up a trial balloon this morning? Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is not rocket science. It doesn't require a Nobel Prize-winning economist who can disentangle all those numbers and come up with the right workable plan that even non-economists can understand with a little effort. It doesn't require a brilliant geo-strategist like Admiral Mahan who changed the course of modern warfare. No, what repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell requires is very simple but seems to be in short supply, as David Rothkopf writes in Sunday's Washington Post. It requires leadership. No punts, no waffling: just straightforward repeal language in Obama's Defense Department budget -- as in H.R. 1283, as in the statement on the White House web site -- declaring the administration's opposition to this counterproductive, expensive, discriminatory law which is wrong on every front and a failure besides. Anyone who thinks gay men and women aren't serving in the military now, today, is living on another planet. The American people are solidly behind repeal. Most service members don't care who is serving next to them, just that they be able to do their jobs well. The Congress, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, and White House know this. What are they afraid of? Why don't they show some spine and act like serious men and women? Surely the answer cannot be that they don't have spine, that they're just blowing whichever way the wind is blowing that day, that they're not serious. But if that's the wrong answer, please President Obama, Secretary Gates, and Admiral Mullen, please tell us what the correct answer is. Because right now a lot of people are confused as to where this administration really stands on repeal. This does not send reassuring signals about the president's ability to deal with the really serious problems that we face. And Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a serious problem, especially to the thousands of service members who must pretend to be something they're not if they want to keep their jobs, to the thousands of often highly skilled men and women who have been discharged when they would rather have continued to serve, and to the military readiness of the United States which is directly and adversely affected by this law. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a wrong that can be made right. Just say what you said in your campaign, Mr. Obama, and what's on your White House web site. Do what you said you'd do. Keep your word.
 
Daniel Cubias: Who Will Save Us Now? The Surprising Potential Saviors of the Economy Top
We've never been more obsessed with bottoming out. Every day brings a fresh prayer that the economy has gotten as bad as its going to get -- not only for this recession but for the rest of our lives -- and a fervent, dry-mouthed wish that tomorrow will see prosperity's inevitable return. But so far, all that praying has been as useful as a cowboy hat on a toad (as my father-in-law would say). The gasping economy has hit Latinos particularly hard. Up until a few months ago, we Hispanics had been making great strides toward economic equality. The day when Latinos were no longer assumed to be members of the lower class was fast approaching. But then the chasm opened up on the capitalist freeway, and Latinos hit the brakes with both feet. Currently, we're more likely than any other group to lose our homes, and we're more likely than most to be unemployed. Hispanic Business reports that "by the end of 2008 the general Hispanic jobless rate had spiked at 9.2 percent, almost 2 percent higher than the rate for the entire U.S. population." The overall rate is now closing in on 9%, and one presumes that Latinos will continue to lead the dismal pack. Hispanic males, in particular, are stuck with an ungodly 11% unemployment rate. Furthermore, the Pew Hispanic Center notes that "76% of Latinos, and 84% of foreign-born Latinos, say their current personal finances are in either fair or poor shape, while 63% of the general U.S. population says the same." So as bad as it is for America right now, it's even worse for Latinos. And as I indicated in a previous post, there's the extra indignity that Hispanics are subtly being blamed for this mess. Many discussions of the subprime mortgage fiasco -- the catalyst for this chaos -- include the insinuation that too many Hispanics bought too many houses that they couldn't afford. Of course, many Americans will be delighted that our anorexic economy has stemmed the flow of illegal immigrants. After all, given the choice between being poor in their native country or being poor in the United States, a lot of potential immigrants will skip the border crossing and opt for poverty at home. Hell, many immigrants are actually moving back , which might cause some conservatives to rejoice, even as a dark thought crosses the right-wing mind: The USA is simply not so attractive anymore. So is there any good news in this flood of pessimism? Well, some reports indicate that the group hitting bottom the quickest may be the very same one that jumpstarts the economy. Yes, Latinos are the potential salvation to this financial cataclysm. A remarkably optimistic article from MSNBC claims that Hispanics "remain a thriving, even booming, market that's expected to grow by 48 percent in the next four years." The report goes on the say that "marketers now see that the Hispanic market in the U.S. is a great business opportunity" and that "businesses and cultural institutions... are chasing Latinos aggressively, because that's where the money is." Hispanic Business adds that "Hispanics will likely supply valuable labor and sustain the U.S. economy far into the 21st century." Well, that's more like it. There are several reasons for our newfound clout. For starters, we tend to be younger than other demographics and thus eager to spend money on fun non-essentials such as downloading ringtones or hitting the movies. Another reason is that the strong focus on the family (Latinos tend to have more children) means that we're signing more credit-card receipts for baby carseats and the like. Finally, there are just a whole bunch of us, and as I'm sure you know, we're now the largest minority in America. We Latinos apparently sense our potential for helping out the nation. The Pew Hispanic Center reports that, despite the fact that the economic disaster has hit us harder, "Latinos are more optimistic than others about the future: 67% expect that their financial circumstances will improve over the next year; just 56% of the general population feels the same way." Perhaps our optimism comes from the same drive that fuels so many of us to take a chance on a new life in a new country. Maybe the traditionally strong spiritual base that many of us possess helps to guide us through troubled times. Or maybe we're just used to having less and don't get worried about losing things. In any case, we seem poised to stimulate the economy. If that's true, however, what is a social conservative to do? Latinos have been attacked as scourges on the economy for so long that it's cultural whiplash to claim that now America really, really, really needs us. The irony is rich, even if the country is not. As a result of this new status, perhaps young Latinos wandering around stores will no longer be tailed by suspicious proprietors who assume that any group of Hispanics are there to empty the cash register and pistol-whip the owner. Maybe these young people will be recognized for who there are and what they represent: the very salvation of the global economy. That would be so damn cool. More on Immigration
 
Caption This Photo, Vote For Friday's Best, See Thursday's Winner Top
Original Caption: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Joseph Leiberman (I-CT) during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Capitol Hill March 25, 2009 in Washington, DC. FRIDAY'S FAVORITES: THURSDAY'S WINNER: "I know! We sent Cantor the tickets, but we didn't think he'd go!" By mark1014. More on Caption Contest
 
Scott Mendelson: Mother behind Megan's Law speaks out against branding 'sexting' children as child pornographers Top
The current insane trend of charging young people (usually girls) with various forms of child pornography for posting or texting sexual images of themselves has reached such a nadir that the very woman who brought about Megan's Law (which forces convicted sex offenders to register their address with the state every ninety days) is now against it. The case that has caused such outcry involves a fourteen-year old girl who is being charged with 'distribution of child pornography' for posting 30 explicit images of herself on My Space. Quoted from The Associated Press - Maureen Kanka -- whose daughter, Megan, became the law's namesake after she was raped and killed at age 7 in 1994 by a twice-convicted sex offender -- blasted authorities for charging the 14-year-old girl. The teen needs help, not legal trouble, she said. "This shouldn't fall under Megan's Law in any way, shape or form. She should have an intervention and counseling, because the only person she exploited was herself." If convicted, the unlucky teenager could face seventeen years in jail and/or be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life. Yeah, that'll teach her. I wrote about this just over a month ago. I'll say now what I said then. Here's the simple version of why this is stupid beyond belief. I have a 19-month old daughter. I certainly would prefer she not send sexually explicit photos of herself to her boyfriend (or to a social networking site) when she's fourteen. But, I'm far more afraid of her being branded as a sex offender, with all the goodies that go along with that (having to register, being forced to live in designated areas, being stigmatized, basically being removed from the fabric of society) for engaging in said adolescent sexual misbehavior. And going after kids for being dumb kids in the name of protecting kids is the pinnacle of illogical. I've never been a fan of Megan's Law. I feel that it amounts to punishment after incarceration and it makes it almost impossible for a convicted sex offender to make any kind of fresh start (thus make recidivism more likely, in my opinion). But it's nice to know that even Maureen Kanka knows that there should be a line between actual sex crime and juvenile misbehavior. As a father, things like this and that Connecticut school that just outlawed touching between students terrify me far more than peer pressure, drugs, or teen bullying. I can do all I can to teach my child to deal with irrational children, but what the hell do I tell them about dealing with irrational, authoritarian adults who can wreck their lives without a second thought? Scott Mendelson
 
Fake Financial Times Handed Out By G-20 Activists Spoofs Recession Reporting Top
Has The Onion's radical cousin sprouted in London? On Friday, less than a week before the Group of 20 meeting, anti-capitalist protesters in London handed out thousands of copies of a spoof version of the Financial Times newspaper.
 
Ralph Dittman: Texans Fight to Keep All Forms of Stem Cell Research Top
Just when President Obama is attempting to open the federal door on all forms of stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cells (hESC), Texas right wing fundamentalists are trying to close the state door, specifically on hESC. The Texas Legislature meets every other year for exactly 140 calendar days. The 81st Texas Legislature opened its doors for business on January 13. Traditionally, a major consideration of the Senate Finance Committee is the state budget, referred to as Senate Bill 1 (SB 1). This year proved a little different than previous sessions. From out of nowhere, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, introduced a rider amendment (rider) to SB 1. The wording on the rider is blunt and to the point: "No funds appropriated under this Act shall be used in conjunction with or to support any activity whatsoever, including research, which involves the destruction of a human embryo." Sound familiar? It's the same fishy odor as that of the Dickey Amendment at the federal level. Only now, it's wrapped in state paper. The effect of the rider would be to forbid using state money for responsible medical research using embryonic stem cells derived from fertilized eggs destined to be discarded by IVF clinics. The rider would also ban embryonic stem cell research allowed by President Bush's executive order at public universities and other institutions in Texas. To make "double-dog" sure (remember, this is good ole boy legislation, involving backstabbing and intrigue. Right, Senator Nelson?) that he could do all he could to torpedo Texas hESC research, Senator Ogden, along with Senator Dan Patrick, introduced SB 1695: "A person may not use state money or a facility owned, leased, or managed by a state agency, department or office for research involving the destruction of human embryos, including embryonic stem cell research, or to support research involving the destruction of human embryos." The SB is more broadly written than the rider. The SB would unequivocally end all embryonic stem cell research, along with any in-vitro fertilization (IVF) research in any of the laboratories of our state. Even private institutions like Baylor College of Medicine would be affected because they receive state funding. A recent national poll showed that over 60% of America supports hESC research. A Texas poll showed 55% in favor. We have just swept out the federal theocrats that spent the last eight years attacking and stifling hESC. Have we come this far in freeing up this essential form of research only to be confronted by attempts to impose these same crippling prohibitions at the state level? Beware America : Texas is just the beginning. Any state that hasn't already bolstered its research foundation with pro-hESC legislation will be fighting the same battle as that going on in Texas now. Our goal is to preserve a state research policy that is based on logic, principle, and the scientific method rather than our opposition's policy which is polluted by the fundamentalists' twisted interpretations of the same witch-hunt doctrines that put Copernicus on trial, endorsed the Inquisition, and launched the Crusades. The world is not flat and we are not at the center of the universe. Even if we lose the battle here in Texas, perhaps we have given the rest of America a little time to prepare for the state-to-state skirmishes about to break out across the nation's legislatures. Footnote for my neighbor Rev. Dr. Ed Young and my state senator Dan Patrick: God is on our side, the side of real people, not little balls of cells which have been barred from ever entering a uterus and which, by any ontological definition, are not people. In the Scriptures, Jesus spends at least a third of his ministry making the crippled walk and the blind see. Already, there is an FDA-approved study to utilize precursor embryonic derived stem cells (derived using excess IVF embryos) to repair human spinal cord injury. Is that the legacy you want to leave, Dan? That you were the champion of a ball of cells no bigger than the eye of a needle? I'll take the role of champion to that GI who can't walk because of the shrapnel he took in his spine while protecting you and me. I think God would rather have that GI walk again, and has given me the intelligence to pursue embryonic stem cell related research to try to accomplish that goal. And I don't think God wants to waste those IVF embryos just washed down the drain as medical waste. I think God wants them used for the many, many cures they can provide. No scriptural passage gives you the right to deny the rewards that this essential research promises to literally hundreds of millions of otherwise hopeless real people. Dr. Young, when does ensoulment occur? You must think it occurs at conception. But that's just a modern concept flawed in many respects. I contend that ensoulment doesn't take place until after day 14 of fetal development. Other great religions say that the entire first 40 days is a "period of water" with no ensoulment. Until 1863, the entire Catholic Church believed according to the logic of St Thomas that ensoulment didn't take place until quickening, that's anywhere from 17 to 19 weeks gestation. So what gives either of you the right to superimpose your beliefs over mine and all the Catholic Popes that reigned? What gives you the right to deny the major hope for a cure held by millions of chronically ill people?
 
Paul Abrams: Will 'Trickle Down' Banking Work Better than 'Trickle Down' Economics: Thoughts from a Non-Wall Street CEO Top
("If you owe a bank a small amount of money, the banks owns you. If you owe them a large amount of money, you own the bank".-- The Donald). Last week CNBC's Erin Burnett told us Wall Street CEOs told her that Secretary Geithner seeks their proposals and opinions, demonstrating whose opinions he considers valuable. They, as expected, tell him how to fix them , equating themselves with banking and credit. (Humility does not exactly run rampant on Wall Street). That is not necessarily the best way to fix banking, or the economy, but that is the feedback he is getting--the same self-interest that brought the system crashing down around us. He ought to try talking to some non-Wall Street CEOs. He will get different perspectives. For the last 8 years we had another failed experiment with trickle down economics. The Bush Administration asserted that cutting taxes for the wealthy would result in investment and job growth. [Amazingly, Congressional Republicans now want to double-down on trickle-down]. The result of the Bush experiment was the most anemic recovery in the post-war era. Real median incomes actually fell. Income disparity widened to levels not seen since 1929. One of the many lessons of the Great Depression, that only a strong middle class can sustain prosperity, was lost, victims of the triplet sins of arrogance, ideology and greed. Republicans often argue, erroneously, that the New Deal did not work, and that only World War II got us out of the depression. In "Winning the Economic Argument: Show this Graph to Opponents and Ask them to Explain" (February 19, 2009), and earlier articles ("Wanted: A Good Keynesian. Massive Pubic Investment Will Fix the Economy, October 13, 2008; "McCain's Plan: Not Just Worse Than Alternatives, But the Dumbest Plan Since Putin Reared His Head:, October 16; 2009), I have shown that it was not the New Deal that was inadequate, but Roosevelt's decision to cut back on spending in 1936. Nonetheless, Republicans keep insisting on World War II (massive government spending, tax increases, rationing) that got us out of the Depression, and that the New Deal actually hindered it. Well, for the last 8 years the Republicans had their tax cuts for the wealthy plus war. They coupled trickle down economics with 2 wars ("when you to go war, nothing is as important as cutting taxes"--Tom DeLay). They produced a feeble recovery, enabled only by the extraordinary growth of consumer debt based on the factitious increased value in peoples' homes, making them feel wealthier and providing the opportunity to borrow to purchase big-ticket items. Absent the housing bubble, absent 2 wars, trickle down would not likely have produced any growth at all. Now, with the banking and credit system in turmoil, the proposed solution appears to be 'trickle down' banking: fix the big banks, and the rest of the system will purr. (See, "Son of TARP: Don't Do 'Bad Bank', Do Only 'Good Bank',"February 2, 2009). Doubt it. If it does work, it will not be as efficient or as potent as it could be for a very simple reason: much of the money will go to repair balance sheets, neither loaned nor spent. Consider this: $700B loaned at the old conservative 10:1 ratio, could create $7T in credit. That's $7 Trillion. Compare that to the money going to purchase toxic waste improving the balance sheets and the viability of the big banks, and continuing to shovel money to AIG so it can pay "insurance" to the other financial institutions that own the toxic assets-- but doing nothing other than keeping the big banks afloat. (See, "It's the Liquidity Stupid: Why Not Put the $700B into Good Banks?", September 24,2008--note date of this article!). When I mentioned this to a former (elder) Bush senior economic advisor at the recent Stanford (Institute of Economic Policy Research) Summit, he countered with the example of Lehman Brothers' failure. He omitted that, when Lehman failed, there were no alternative sources of credit as proposed in the above paragraph. But, then again, one might expect this of a Bush economic advisor--the economy was not very good under Bush the elder either. Because of AIG's machinations with so-called "insurance" (with flimsy-at-best collateral to back it), many of the big banks have credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities on their balance sheets. We have now learned that AIG is a mere conduit for government bailout money to firms like Goldman Sachs who are seeking the insurance they bought for these troubled assets. Unfortunately, AIG ain't got the dough. AIG should be forced to do what all companies do in such situations--negotiate settlements with its creditors such as Goldman. Remember The Donald's adage (above). Instead of providing government money and guarantees to hedge funds that will supposedly price those assets, put the money to good use on main street through good regional banks (good = no CDS or MBS on the balance sheet), and invite the creation of new banks that will have no bad debts from the past by offering the government to use some TARP money to purchase preferred stock. I would take that offer...and, I would be willing to abide by restrictions on total compensation. If one is building a good, solid, institution for the ages, that would be reward enough. I would call it, "Western Civilization Savings". For good reason. Main street CEOs have a lot more to offer Geithner than their Wall Street brethren. He ought to make the phone calls. More on Financial Crisis
 
The Week Ahead: Can Wall Street Keep Up Its Rally? Top
Whether last week's Wall Street rally can continue largely depends on several job and housing reports released this week and on the details that emerge about Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's bank rescue plan. When Geithner announced the plan on March 26, the S&P leapt 2.3% but many on Wall Street are waiting to get more details, as Business Week reports : But the plan offered few specifics in many of the areas it addressed, from tougher regulation of complex financial derivatives to new rules for money-market funds. And Geithner steered well clear of some of the most contentious questions facing policymakers--the questions that are sure to turn agreement about broad principles into a pitched, possibly months-long political battle that pits financial interests against consumer advocates and one another. "It's like with all these programs--the devil's in the details," said Kevyn Orr, a Jones Day attorney who previously worked for the Resolution Trust Corp. as it cleaned up after the savings and loan crisis in the early 1990s. The partisan bickering, that emerged during the debates over the stimulus package, is sure to continue when the House and Senate consider their budget resolutions, which largely track President Obama's outline. Budget committees in both chambers approved the blueprints on party-line votes last week. And the auto bailout will dominate headlines again, with Obama expected to announce the next steps to help GM and Chrysler on Monday. On Sunday, it was reported that the White House asked GM CEO Rick Wagoner to step down as a precondition for getting more federal aid, in the wake of some criticism that the giant automaker did not do enough to cut costs and slash debt as part of its agreement with the government. Obama's visit to Thursday's G-20 summit in London - where the ripple effects of the global financial crisis will be discussed amid widespread criticism of the American style of capitalism - will surely impact world markets. MarketWatch reports : While not officially on the agenda, some underlying tensions about trade and currencies might come to the fore. The governor of China's central bank on Monday called for a new global reserve currency to replace the dollar. "There are hurdles," said Johnson of Johnson Illington Advisors, "not just with the economic numbers and earnings reports next week, but also with the rhetoric on currencies. There are tensions starting to build over some underlying trade issues." The most-watched economic numbers this week will be the Labor Department's Friday report on how many jobs were lost in February. The Associated Press reports that: The most critical report of the week comes Friday, when economists expect the Labor Department to say that 640,000 jobs were cut last month. The unemployment rate is expected to have risen to 8.4 percent from 8.1 percent in February, according to the consensus of economists polled by Thomson Reuters. Other important numbers are: On Wednesday, the Institute for Supply and Management releases its assessment of the health of the manufacturing and service sectors. And new housing numbers will be released throughout the week: The Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller January index of home prices is due out Monday; the National Association of Realtors releases its pending homes sales index for February on Wednesday; and the Commerce Department releases a report on February construction spending, also on Wednesday. More on Auto Bailout
 
Lionel: Sanity at Long Last! Prostitution Laws Are Un-American. Top
The New York Post today announced the arrest of Sean Delonas for impersonating a cartoonist. That was a joke. What's not a joke was the following: The NYPD quietly shut down its highly successful Vice Squad operations on Craigslist without any explanation to the officers, The Post has learned. The move came after five years of targeting sex-for-cash ads on the site, which led to arrests in all five boroughs, sources said. The Vice Squad Craigslist program was shut down about 18 months ago, sources told The Post . But NYPD spokesman Paul Browne insisted it happened as long as three years ago because a new commanding officer of the squad thought it was "a waste of resources." Before the NYPD shut down the Craigslist vice operations, officers would regularly set up similar illicit meetings with prostitutes, usually in hotel rooms, by responding to ads and arresting all parties involved, the sources said. It was not uncommon for the squads to conduct up to two stings a night when the operation was in full swing. The shutdown came suddenly and with little explanation, the sources said. The New York legislature needs to go one step further and legalize consensual sexual conduct between adults for consideration. It's called dating. Or, as it is commonly referred to in Connecticut, marriage. It is the year 2009, and despite the very serious problems that we as a society face in the form of crime, i.e. actual and not theoretical victimization against the citizenry, we -- no, the government still concerns itself with antediluvian statutes. Using a triage mode, we simply have no time to deal with this nonsense. Please, understand that I and we know that law enforcement personnel are not subject to a veto when it comes to selectively enforcing laws. They do as they're told, as it should be. I wouldn't be surprised if they found it demeaning to avert their attention from real crime with real victims to instead slink around adult video emporia trying to lure hapless gay men just looking to . . . you know. This is the subject of an actual case to be discussed later. The very idea that one cannot sell or negotiate a lease for one's time and body is nothing short of absurd. It's the notion of a woman selling her "self" that cracks me up. The contrived notion of victimization is laughable. With the exception of women forced into white slavery, they know exactly what they're doing. And let's remind ourselves of the obvious; children can never consent and are not part of this discussion. It's nobody's business what a citizen can and cannot negotiate when it comes to their time and talent(s). This is just basic. Whether it's Paris Hilton plying her "celebrity" wares or some attention-starved urchin posting a YouTube clip, fundamental freedom permits and allows our unfettered right to demean ourselves. Finally, it's only sexual intercourse and other versions of enumerated copulation that are verboten. If you get your proverbial rocks off snapping bubble wrap nude and you pay someone to accompany you while doing such, that ain't sex and that ain't prohibited. Even though it is sexually gratifying. Now that's just stupid. It's not sexual excitation for sale that's the problem, it's the enumerated acts that are provided for consideration, that's prostitution and proscribed. And that's just un-American.
 
John L. Esposito: Need for a New Paradigm: Obama and the Muslim World Top
After the decades-long failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, compounded by eight years of George W. Bush policies that alienated Muslims globally, President Barack Obama moved quickly to distance himself from the Bush legacy, declaring: "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." Obama emphasized a readiness "to listen" rather than to dictate and his desire to restore "the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago." But will there be a new paradigm, a significant shift in American foreign policy? Thus far, Obama's track record is mixed. He announced the phased closing of Guantanamo and sent former Senator George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East. However, these decisions were quickly counter-balanced by the administration's response to the firestorm and smear campaign of unsubstantiated accusations in response to the appointment of Chas Freeman, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Assistant Secretary of Defense, to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council. The Israel lobby, including AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and its supporters in Congress viciously attacked the reputation of Freeman, a distinguished former diplomat and sometime strong critic of Israel's policies in Palestine. Leading the attack was Steven Rosen, a former official of AIPAC, recently hired to run the Washington office of Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum. Ironically, Rosen himself is currently under indictment for passing secrets to Israel. Publications such as the National Review , the Wall Street Journal , the Weekly Standard , and the editorial page of the Washington Post and members of Congress followed suit. In the end, Chas Freeman withdrew his nomination. President Obama accepted his resignation, choosing not to fight the media attack; he remained silent as he had done during the Israeli invasion and war in Gaza. These incidents have much broader implications for Obama's credibility in forging his new way forward in relations with the Muslim world. As a presidential candidate, he had distanced himself from the Arab and Muslim community and courted the Israeli lobby in his concern to get the American Jewish vote. While many understood the political necessity of his position in a closely contested election campaign, the critical question today is whether President Obama will now make key decisions without bowing to domestic pressures from the powerful forces of Congressional members, lobbies and interest groups. Will he take the political risk and reverse the historic lack of even-handedness in American foreign policy in the Middle East, reflected most recently in the Bush administration's policies and the undue influence of the Israeli lobby, hard-line Christian Zionists on the White House and Congress and the administration's responses to the Israeli invasions of Lebanon and most recently Gaza? The potential blowback from the war in Gaza cannot be underestimated. While Obama's closing Guantanamo is important, its significance in the Arab and Muslim world is nothing compared to America's policies in Gaza. Gallup Polling (Oct 2008), prior to the Gaza war, found that while closing the Guantanamo detention facility would improve attitudes in the Arab world toward the United States, it did not match the level of support for U.S. pressure on Israel. Respondents rated the Israeli/Palestinian issue more important to perceptions of the U.S. than closing down Guantanamo. Significant numbers of citizens in many Arab countries (such as Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon - all American allies) said their view of the United States would improve "very significantly" by increased U.S. pressure on Israel." President Bush's subsequent uncritical support of Israel in the Gaza war and then presidential candidate Barack Obama silence failed the test. We are quickly approaching a time when President Obama can no longer say that he "inherited" this or that "mess" -- he must lead, given the cards he has, and lead now. The brutality of the war in Gaza, with its disproportionate death toll (1300 Palestinians to 13 Israelis), massive destruction of Gaza's neighborhoods, universities, schools etc. and tragic toll on the lives of innocent women and children, has become a symbol in the Arab and broader Muslim world for America's perceived double standard in the promotion of democracy and human rights. If the Obama administration is to effectively distance itself from the Bush administration, then it will need to "walk the way it talks." Obama's commitment to a "new" policy and "to listen" will require that the US meet, listen and work with all the major players in Palestine, not just Fatah and Israel but also HAMAS, a leadership chosen by the Palestinian in free and fair democratic elections in 2006. Equally important, the Obama administration cannot effectively pursue a new paradigm unless the primary players and regional powers are committed to the need for a new paradigm. The Palestinian leadership, including HAMAS, must make clear and demonstrate that it, too, is ready not only to negotiate for a free and secure Palestinian state but also recognize the existence and security of Israel. Palestinians and the Israelis must be ready to acknowledge that both have legitimate claims, that a military option is no solution and that diplomacy and negotiation are the way forward. Given the current realities, recent Israeli election results and a Netanyahu-Lieberman government, the leadership divisions in Israel and Palestine, and the realities of American politics, the road to peace will be steep and extraordinarily difficult. Senator Mitchell's credibility and effectiveness as a mediator will heavily depend on whether President Barack Obama (and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton) can transcend the fears of most American politicians and the pressure groups that support hard-line Israeli policies. America's policy of "Israeli Exceptionalism," privileging Israeli interests and thus failing to pursue an even-handed policy, would have to be supplanted by a more balanced policy that held Israel to the same standards as other states in the international community, including compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding the return of Palestinian territory taken in the 1967 war and subsequent annexation of land and building of "illegal" settlements. Will Obama rise to the occasion, embarking on a bold new paradigm and policy? Only time will tell. The future direction of the Obama administration remains unclear as does that of the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership. That President Obama has the desire, vision and intelligence to reach out to the broader Muslim world is without doubt. But will he do what no recent American president has done and take the political risk to resist pressures, in the words of Chas Freeman, of "a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government," and its supporters in Congress? Only time will tell.
 
Stanley Kutler: We're Paying Congress for This? Top
We're Paying Congress for This? By Stanley Kutler Great crises and problems often have become the subjects of extensive congressional investigation and oversight. Congress has made prominent inquiries into, for example, the Civil War, the Reconstruction, the "money trust" in the Progressive Era, the banking follies of the 1920s and the Great Depression, the prewar defense preparations at Pearl Harbor, the oversight of military contracts during World War II, the Korean War and the emerging character of Cold War foreign policy during the mid-1950s. Congress' work gave us transparency and usually led to useful, progressive legislation. And now comes Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank's choreographed extravaganza in the House of Representatives, supported by an echoing committee, with sound bites worthy of a night in the Borscht Belt. The ostensible probe of executive bonuses at AIG--forget about any investigation of the company's decisions that so damaged the financial world--offered a painful reminder of Congress' now largely ignored unique power of investigation, derived from its constitutionally sanctioned authority to legislate. True, Congress has abused this power from time to time, but that is no argument against its existence. Rep. Frank provided a perfunctory, carefully staged hearing this month. His fellow committee members had been prepped and primed--seemingly by their press aides rather than by any legal staff. The "hearing" proceeded with hilarity and irony, especially coming from legislators who over the past 20 years had enabled much of the corporate chicanery. The mice that roared eventually produced only a parody of legislation, mercifully about to die. Frank's congressional sideshow made more imperative than ever the need for thorough, uncompromising investigations and hearings on any number of issues that have brought us to the present crisis. When Republicans controlled Congress, they disdained anything that might detract from the doings of a Republican administration or would interfere with their fundraising for the next election. Democratic control has offered little beyond the one-day, made-for-television soap operas of Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Alas, these short showings proved to be only a television pilot, not fit for renewal or continuation. Remember the brief appearance by Monica Goodling, a graduate of Pat Robertson's school of law, who vetted Justice Department appointees for ideological purity during the Bush administration, making certain no elite liberals (or elite anything, it seemed) made the grade? Goodling acknowledged in testimony in 2007 that she had "crossed the line" when she improperly used political considerations to evaluate applicants. But she testified for just one day, and followed her attorney's strategy of running out the clock. Why did the committee fail to follow up? Why do witnesses appear for quick one-offs, offering only a limited opportunity for probing questions? Owen Lattimore probably set the record when he testified for 12 days in 1952, with famed attorneys Thurman Arnold and Abe Fortas providing the best civil liberties that money could buy. Two examples from the not-so-distant past are instructive for what we do not need. Traditional congressional investigations can turn out to be duds--witness the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987. A joint committee conducted aimless, fragmentary proceedings. The senators and representatives vied for precious television exposure. The co-counsels--Arthur Liman for the Senate and John Nields for the House--reflected different cultures and constituencies. Liman was a senior partner in Paul, Weiss, and he had been counsel for the New York state investigation of the 1971 Attica prison riot. Nields had prosecuted Mark Felt for his role in the FBI's illegal break-ins. To watch the committee's proceedings was to view two field generals marching backward, constantly stumbling into each other. Despite their impressive talents, Liman and Nields simply were overwhelmed by the committee's elephantine proportions and its festering internal rivalries. Their task was not helped by President Reagan's "memory lapses"; Vice President George H.W. Bush's insistence he knew nothing; the generally unhelpful testimony by administration officials, some of whom were convicted (and later pardoned by the first President Bush) for unlawfully withholding information from Congress; and by the competing criminal investigation by Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh. Back then, we did not appreciate the doings of Rep. Richard Cheney (R-Wyo.), whose minority report a decade later morphed into disturbing theories of the "unitary executive," with its notions of unbridled executive power. The Senate Select Committee on Campaign Finance in 1973--better known as the Watergate Committee--offered a contrasting image. The seven-man committee was led by Sam Ervin (D-N.C.), highly respected by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle and who, despite a folksy and sometimes bumbling appearance, was a shrewd, savvy man totally in command of the proceedings. He selected Samuel Dash as his chief counsel, and together they worked nearly four months to prepare their inquiry. The first 37 days of the Watergate investigation offers a model for other inquiries. Ervin successfully co-opted ranking Republican committee member Howard Baker (R-Tenn.), while another Republican member, Lowell Weicker (R-Conn.), soon distanced himself from President Nixon's supporters. Dash engaged minority counsel Fred Thompson in what may have been the mismatch of the century. Dash carefully prepared his case, working from the bottom up. He and his staff selectively leaked information, usually to pique public interest. Dash began the public hearings by questioning relatively obscure but important officials, such as the financial officers of Nixon's re-election committee or relatively low-level White House aides. The media predictably criticized him, demanding that Dash instead call Nixon's top aides. He did, but by the time they appeared, Dash had made his case. Our current economic and fiscal crisis deserves serious, thoughtful consideration. AIG's mistakes involve billions of dollars, not millions; similar poor, reckless choices were made throughout the financial sector. The administration of George W. Bush must account for a variety of actions that include torture and rendition; we have had only glimpses into how politics trumped science and good public policy across a broad range of issues in the Bush era. All that--and more--is grist for congressional inquiry and, inevitably, outrage. President Obama is offering up plans for financial recovery, but he is terribly reliant upon a corps of advisers, a number of whom enabled the causes of our present economic condition. Congress, with its own expertise, might prod the executive into accepting alternatives. But given its present reactive, blustering responses, it is now merely a pathetic giant. Stanley Kutler is the author of "The Wars of Watergate" and other writings.
 
Rick Ayers: Oakland: Tragedy in Our Town Top
As I write this, the city of Oakland, my city, is observing a day of mourning - a huge funeral for the four police officers killed last Saturday in a confrontation with a young man, Lovelle Mixon. It is a tragedy for all the families as well as for our city and the US. What a senseless, horrible waste of life. And yet. The media has not served us well - has not asked any questions, has not sought a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the context. Nor has anyone dared to question the problems in the police department - not only their contentious and negative relationship with the African American community in East Oakland, but even about the chaos in leadership (the most recent chief just resigned) and command. For example, after two officers -- Mark Dunakin and John Hege -- were shot at MacArthur and 74th during a traffic stop, and after the SWAT team figured out where the shooter had hidden himself, why did they not create a perimeter, get innocent people out, isolate the scene, and act with care for their own personnel and the neighbors? Instead, the police tore into the apartment, not even giving Mixon's sister a chance to get out. Bursting into the bedroom, they were met with a barrage of fire, which killed Ervin Romans and Daniel Sakai. Those second two officers certainly did not need to die. A strong leadership, even in the emotion of the moment, would have insisted that no one charge into that bedroom. And yet. Very little has been said about the proliferation of weaponry, the wild gun culture, that is making our communities shooting galleries. The AK-47 that Mixon had was one that is freely sold over the counter in Nevada. Indeed, the bloody drug wars of US cities as well as all over Mexico are armed by the US gun industry. Someone at the funeral mentioned that whenever a police officer leaves for work, their family does not know if they will come back alive. The same can be said for all Oakland school children. What a horror. And yet. The funeral for the police officers was made into a platform for speeches and public appearances by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and state Attorney General Jerry Brown, and Mayor Ron Dellums. Such actions always have another motivation, a broader agenda, which seeks to use the tragedy as an opportunity. And yet. There are those who will try to mount a political offensive as a result of these killings - an offensive that may well have consequences that are the opposite of what is needed. Some of the police who spoke also went beyond the act of mourning - lashing out even at the media (which has been nothing but worshipful in everything I've seen) and proposing an agenda that emphasizes more repression, more prison time. I'm reminded of the period after the terrible crime of 9/11. The US had sympathy and goodwill from all over the world. Instead of seeking a broader understanding of why such a horror would be perpetrated, the Bush administration used it as an opportunity to launch an all-out war of domination in the Middle East. They rejected any discussion of why people from the region hate the US so much, how to build bridges and equity. No. The discussion was about a "clash of civilizations," the enemy being all Muslims, all Arabs, all who were defined as "others." How sad, what a lost moment. And here we are. Can we talk about the economic crisis that is engulfing communities of color? Or the violence of the drug war? Or the distrust of the police and courts as centers of violence and injustice? Or the massive imprisonment of black men in our country in conditions that amount to cruel and unusual punishment? Attorney General Jerry Brown (prosecutor of the San Francisco 8 case) said that this incident is a failure of the parole system. In fact, it's a failure of the educational, prison-rehabilitative, parole, housing, employment, nutrition, and every other social service system of our society. These young men, who see no opportunities for success in school, who come from generations of impoverished children, relegated to the lowest paying jobs -- if there are jobs at all -- who live with the constant police presence, gentrification, imprisonment, and killings -- they need to be given hope. I have often been surprised to hear young people talk about the deep importance of not "snitching," of never calling 911. But then again I don't face the prospect of myself, or my children, being thrown into the horrors of the California prison system - which today holds about 160,000 inmates. What would lead a parolee to kill four police and himself to avoid being sent back to prison? I don't live with the memory of Gary King, Oscar Grant, Casper Banjo - black men killed by the police. I was not a target of the criminal Oakland "Riders" police group or the Los Angeles Ramparts Division CRASH unit. Everyone is hurt by this tragedy. But the media, the politicians, and the police have not taken a stance of uniting with the community. They have fed the notion of the African American community as a site of depravity, a place to be dominated. The ugliest expression of this sentiment can always be found in the "comments" on line at the end of the stories. While the editors apparently screen these for offensive comments, they gladly posted hundreds of comments that referred to Mixon and young black men in general as "animals" and "vermin." They say, in a more raw way, the same message we get from columnists like The San Francisco Chronicle 's Chip Johnson as well as some orators at the funeral. These notes express the unedited subconscious, the collective racism, that has a grip on our society. These attitudes are setting up East Oakland to be like Baghdad, a community tensely occupied, one which increasingly alienates the citizens as state violence increases. And they feed the American disease, the notion that we white people, or we middle class people, or we privileged people are the embattled defenders of civilization against the savagery, barbarism, and animalistic danger -- the dangerous other -- which is always trying to pull us down. This is an age old myth, used by the conquistadors and the yellow press, which is being trotted out again. And it takes us directly away from any solutions. Oakland is a beautiful city, one with a long and proud history - a wonderful place to live, to take walks, to explore. The lowlands used to be marshy and teeming with life when the Ohlone lived here - particularly the Huchiun-Aguasto tribes. It has always been a working class and port city. During World War II, a great migration, particularly from Texas and Louisiana, of African American workers made its way up here to work in the shipyards. West Oakland had a large number of African American home-owners and strong community institutions. The Black Panther Party was founded in Oakland in the 1960's and social activism has been a strong part of our community for many decades. Many immigrants from Mexico and Central America live in East Oakland - traditionally around the Fruitvale district but now out beyond High Street too. We have the old Chinatown and the new, mostly Southeast Asian districts out towards the avenues. Dedicated educators have worked to make the schools more effective, pioneering small school developments and a number of very successful charter schools. And don't forget the A's and the Raiders! For all its problems, Oakland is a city where friendship, solidarity, and interaction between all communities are daily occurrences. We all own it. Not the drug dealers and gun slingers; not the Riders and the haters. We should not let those who would erect the barricades define this city. I fear for the retaliatory actions that police will take in the coming months. Yesterday I was walking down the street in my lightweight neighborhood of Oakland, Piedmont Avenue. An Oakland police car with two officers in it cruised along. They stopped and glared at the African American homeless man who often solicits money outside the grocery store. They shouted at him to stop leaning on the car, stop blocking the sidewalk. The police officers drove on, their lower lips thrust forward in anger and hurt. This is far different from the behavior of the foot patrol we used to have. In some ways, being a cop is like being a teacher. I know the students certainly feel that we are the authority figures, the cops. And I hate it when I feel I have to police the youth. But what I mean is that we are responsible to teach all the kids, everyone who comes in the door. When teachers get to a stance that it's "us against them," or when they decide to pick out the "good kids" and to define others as the rejects - then they have lost it. Plenty of teachers get drawn into such a stance by the frustrations of the job. But the beauty of all of our students, and of our city, is still there for those willing to see it. Setting up African American people as the enemy, continuing to hire police who don't live in Oakland, allowing the reactive emotion of the cops to lead their actions - these are all formulas for more disaster in Oakland. Such a sentiment is not very popular right now. The knee-jerk reactions always dominate after a horror like this. Understanding the context -- the world that creates crime, the awful and stupid and criminal choices that people make in these conditions, the possibility of community, the economic and social issues -- these are the harder things to do. Can we even talk about it?
 
Rick Wagoner, GM CEO, Will Step Down At Obama's Behest Top
UPDATE: Politico is reporting that the Obama administration asked GM CEO Rick Wagoner to step down: The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said. The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government's behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason. And the Wall Street Journal reports the same: An administration official confirmed that Mr. Wagoner was asked to step down by the administration as a precondition for ongoing restructuring within the company. ************************************** General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner will step down from the company, according to several reports. The timing is curious, considering that President Obama is expected to announce on Monday the next steps to help GM and Chrysler, which have received $17.4 billion in emergency funding from the U.S. Treasury and are asking for more help: G.M. has asked for up to $16.6 billion more, and Chrysler another $5 billion. On Friday, Wagoner was in Washington, DC to meet with the White House auto task force, led by former investment banker Steve Rattner. Wagoner and GM have been criticized for not doing enough to slash debt and cut costs as part of the giant automaker's agreement with the government. CNBC first reported that Wagoner would step down, adding that GM did not confirm or deny the report. The New York Times reports : The unexpected move by Mr. Wagoner, who has been at the helm of G.M. for eight years, was not confirmed by the company. But a statement about Mr. Wagoner's future will be issued after the president's address... There was no indication yet who would take over the top job at General Motors. As recently as March 18, Mr. Wagoner said in an interview that he had no indication that his job was in jeopardy because of the task force.
 
Kimberly Brooks: Rebecca Bird Paints the Explosion Top
I walk into Paul Kopeikin's new gallery in West Hollywood and what do I see? I see the fantasies (realities?) of Iran and North Korea. I see Alan Greenspan's testimony that he found a "a flaw in the model ... that defines how the world works." I see the value of my pension plan. I see the image everywhere I go, reflected in everyone's shiny pupils. It's as if it's coming from inside them. I see the paintings of Rebecca Bird. Rebecca Bird, Untitled, watercolor on paper: 12" x 12", Courtesy Kopeikin Gallery, Los Angeles In her current show, "Everything that Ever Existed Still Exists," Bird delicately -- even preciously -- petrifies images of infamous nuclear explosions in paint. The names of the locations are erased, leaving the images just as anonymous as those civilian victims of the bombs or testing sites. While some of the clouds are recognizable, Bird's interpretation of these events captures peacefulness and tragedy, past and present, personal and global, all at once. The show, curated by Fette, one of my favorite art bloggers , runs through April 18, 2009. Rebecca Bird, Tree, watercolor on paper, Courtesy Kopeikin Gallery, Los Angeles Kimberly Brooks: Aside from picking up any newspaper lately, what was the inspiration behind this body of work? Rebecca Bird: The impetus for my work usually comes from seeing something surprising, which leads to an inquiry. In this case the moment of surprise happened at New York Public Library picture collection, where I found a group of government photos from the National Archive of nuclear bomb tests. From the national archive of nuclear bomb tests. At the time, I was trying to create a visual representation of what an internalized trauma might look like, something hard to explain to anyone who hadn't experienced it. I was looking for imagery that was violent or explosive. I had started working with the subject of explosions very generally. When I first saw these photographs of nuclear bomb tests I realized they had the same barriers to comprehension as any violent event seen from the outside. I felt like I was both the person who is unable to convey their own subjective experience, and the person who can't understand it based on what they see. Rebecca Bird, Small Problems Obscuring Big Problems, 2006, watercolor on paper, 26 1/2" x 39" Courtesy Kopeikin Gallery, Los Angeles KB: I've always found the images eerily beautiful too. Where does the title of the show, "Everything That Ever Existed Still Exists," come from? RB: There are two strains of content in the work, one which is about pain on a personal level, and one that is about tragic historic events. Using nuclear explosions as a metaphor for any smaller event is inherently out of proportion, but the lack of proportion is in turn a perfect metaphor for an event which ultimately cannot be measured or communicated. The removal of any indicators of scale or context from the images is important for this reason; the images could be enormous, or microscopic, or happening inside of you. Everything about how these pictures are painted emphasizes the distance between seeing the images and understanding what they are of; they are hugely destructive explosions, but rendered in precise watercolor. The cool, watery pastel colors are beautiful or nostalgic, and the images are above all very still. It suggests that something can happen very quickly and yet happen forever. Rebecca Bird, Omega, 2005, watercolor on paper, 38" x 50", Courtesy Kopeikin Gallery, Los Angeles KB: The work looks very layered and detailed. Describe your process of working. RB: I work very close to the subject that I am painting, often with the object I am painting resting on the page as I work. I start from one end and go to the other, I put in one detail at a time: this means that I am never looking at the whole picture as I work, always at one tiny part of it. In these paintings I go through a process of examining every grain of the photograph without grasping the event pictured as a whole. There is something organic about the way the image grow on the page. Rebecca Bird, P H, 2007, watercolor on paper, 30" x 43 1/2", Courtesy Kopeikin Gallery, Los Angeles KB: Did you ever feel guilty about painting a devastating historical event in a way that is both beautiful and also personal? RB: I am always confused when I see news photos of wars and disasters - does seeing a picture of a distant tragedy allow me to empathize with its victims, or does the shock actually numb my response? Given that these events are the sum of many smaller personal tragedies, is it even possible to empathize with every other person? You end up defining suffering in terms of numbers, and scale. Seeing includes a whole range of emotions including guilt. In the face of these events does any single person still matter, whether a victim or an observer? In these paintings, I want to emphasize the distance between seeing and understanding. When using historical images -- of the atomic cloud over Nagasaki or the attack on Pearl Harbor -- the "name" of the event is not in the title, because giving something a name is another way of not going into the detail of what it means. There is no image that can lead to understanding. KB: Is there a work of art that inspires you? RB: This work was influenced by the use of explosions in movies and comic books to symbolize or simulate catharsis, particularly Katsuhiro Otomo's epic manga and anime "Akira." In "Akira," the end of the known world is mirrored by, and brought about by, the gradual loss of sanity of a teenage boy. The gorgeous, monumental destruction of the climactic sequences are a perfectly overblown metaphor for self-absorbed pain. Katsuhiro Otomo, from the comic book "Akira", copyright Kodansha Ltd. Tokyo/ New York. Rebecca Bird graduated from the Cooper Union School of Art in 2000. While a student she received the Ellen Battelle-Stoeckel Fellowship to the Yale Norfolk Summer School in painting. Immediately after graduating she was awarded a Fulbright to study traditional painting techniques in Kanazawa, Japan. She spent one year in Japan before settling in Brooklyn, NY. She has had work in solo and group shows in New York, Seattle, San Francisco, Luzern, Kanazawa, and Beijing. Her solo exhibition "Everything that ever existed still exists" at Kopeikin Gallery in Los Angeles runs from March 14 - April 18, 2009. *** First Person Artist is a weekly column by artist Kimberly Brooks in which she provides commentary on the creative process , technology and showcases artists ' work from around the world. Come back every Monday for more Kimberly Brooks. More on Alan Greenspan
 
Romain Mesnil, French Pole Vaulter, Runs Naked Through Paris (VIDEO) Top
Desperate times can call for desperate measures, and sometimes these measures include running naked through the streets of Paris. Romain Mesnil, a French pole vaulting champion, did just this in hopes of drawing attention to his need for a new sponsorship deal, having seen his contract with Nike expire last year. From Reuters' report: Romain Mesnil, who won a silver medal at the 2007 Athletics World Championships in Osaka, used to be sponsored by U.S. sports brand Nike (NKE.N) but says his contract expired last year and was not renewed. "It was probably for budgetary and strategic reasons. It's the crisis," he wrote on his website. Best of all, he videotaped his naked dash through the City of Lights and posted it on his website (sorry fans of full nudity, a black square was added to the video to cover his private parts.) Mesnil's stunt has even been something of a success, Reuters says: The video has succeeded in drawing attention to Mesnil's plight, at least in France. It was broadcast on primetime state television news bulletins. WATCH:
 
Abigail Pogrebin: CLASH OF THE KINDLES Top
My husband and I are in love with our Kindles. But the little handheld machines are straining our marriage. I should start with the arc of the romance: It all began with Kindle One. My husband brought the gadget home and I salivated as he began to wirelessly receive and efficiently peruse three newspapers every morning, two weekly magazines, and all the books he could wish for. In a few short minutes, he'd download any book that struck his fancy, be it a classic novel or a new expose; instant literary gratification. I've had it with chiropractor appointments to correct the strain of schlepping books, magazines and newspapers in a shoulder bag around Manhattan. I warmed to the prospect of one compact library. My husband sensed my growing envy and one evening surprised me with my very own Amazon appliance. In an instant (after a brief battery charge) I entered the Wide World of Kindleland! So much to ingest on one slim, clean, white object! Never an idle moment without entertainment, edification, culture! Whether I was stuck between subway stops, delayed in an airport, waiting in a doctor's office, I was at peace, because I had so much to read . The Kindle offered this strange assurance: You will never be bored, you will never be caught un-stimulated, uneducated, you have an edifying smorgasbord handy right in your purse. I also became a walking conversation starter - strangers asked me about the device and I was suddenly The Kindle Spokesperson. I extolled its attributes - how readable the print, how navigable the controls, how vast its store. I apologized for its $350-plus cost (as if I myself had set the price), quickly pointing out that purchasing books is cheaper than Barnes and Noble. I spread the Kindle gospel as if it were my calling. What I didn't tell strangers was the one casualty of entering KindleWorld: marriage harmony. My husband and I had taken our beloved Kindles into bed. Why not? For fifteen years, we've read before turning out the lights. It's our nightly ritual, a sweet, quiet tradition. These new contraptions didn't violate our No-Laptops-In-Bed rule: Kindles earned their own dispensation - they counted as books of course, completely appropriate for our nightly routine. But suddenly our peaceful rite was not so tranquil at all. It was, in fact, cacophonic. All I could hear was the insistent clicking of his "Next Page" button, disrupting the oasis of our white duvet. I became agitated, anticipating my partner's next button depression every minute or so. Suddenly I couldn't concentrate on my own Kindle book because my husband was clacking away at my side. It wasn't his fault, but I blamed him. "Can't you click softer?" I'd demand politely. I demonstrated how I'd already found a less obtrusive way to click-pushing the "Next Page" button more slowly, holding it a touch longer, releasing less abruptly. My husband didn't appreciate my efforts; he wasn't, after all, the one hyper-sensitive to Kindle maneuvers. He questioned why my click-anxiety was any different from anticipating the next page-turn of an old-fashioned book. But it was. I couldn't focus on the words before my eyes, which required me to keep pressing the "Prev Page" button ("Previous Page") to retrace my steps, which contributed my own new rash of clicking. It became a veritable din. And God forbid I ever wanted to turn my light off ahead of my husband and go to sleep. Who can doze off with all that racket going on? How could Amazon have done this to us? In their meticulous efforts to create the perfect "electronic reader," how could they have failed to forsee the clamor of the relentless CLICK, CLICK, CLICK, the test of a strong marriage? I know we'll survive this. But in the meantime, I'm appealing to the Amazon inventors, now that Kindle 2 is out and louder than the first: Give Kindle 3 a softer touch. Help preserve our unions. We love your gizmo, but we love our spouses more, and we need to protect the hush of bedtime reading. On one of Kindle's "resting" home pages, they display the definition of "Kindle": "to become impassioned or excited." I'd rather be excited by what I'm reading rather than by what I'm hearing. Don't worry, Amazon, I'll still laud your product to strangers because there's nothing like holding hundreds of books in the palm of your hand. But my husband and I might need separate bedrooms. More on Marriage
 
Judith Ellis: Resuscitating CNBC with Reliable Rationale and Reason Top
This Tuesday morning on CNBC's Squawk Box from 7-9 Arianna Huffington will be the guest host. The show will feature Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Nouriel Roubini, and Congressman Barney Frank. Maybe this will begin the process of rehabilitating CNBC's tattered image. After Jon Stewart evisceration of CNBC's financial analysts, we all know they need it. Arianna Huffington's piece on Jon Stewart's interview with Jim Cramer and John King's interview with Dick Cheney is great. The Huffington Post article can be read here . Brilliant comparisons are made between the Jon Stewart and John King interviews. Squawk Box this Tuesday promises to be interesting with both professionalism and punch. While the intentions and knowledge of Huffington, Taleb and Roubini my be trusted, the same may not be said of Barney Frank. I tend to distrust politicians generally. Senator Chris Dodd (D) and Senator Richard Shelby (R) would be among these. Neither would get my vote if I were constituents in their states. I have some thoughts about Congress and some questions for Congressman Frank. Has the Federal Reserve become a hindrance to a viable democratic capitalistic system where there should be checks and balances? The Fed does not have absolute power! Not only has the Federal Reserve failed us, but Congress, too, in their lack of oversight of the Fed -- instead there appears to have been, rightly or wrongly, collusion in regulating these big American banks with ties with hedge funds and the likes of Barclays in London and Deutsche Bank in Germany. This week Treasury Secretary Geithner asked that the Treasury be given more power to regulate some companies, namely those such as AIG, and perhaps GE, who are not banks but behave as such. To give the Federal Reserve more power seems like a sick solution. How do you give more power to those who have utterly failed the American people who seem bent on a global imperialistic financial agenda to concentrate wealth among the few in the world? JP Morgan, the founder, was astute at this kind of global financial focus many years back shortly after the Civil War. There is no surprise that Wall Street bankers are arrogant and self-centered. Although JP Morgan served the US well with his financing of Thomas Edison, and his investments in infrastructure, big banking seems to have been conceived out of arrogance and dominance, the necessity of centralized global power in banking. Some may assert that it is simply human nature. OK. Regulation is then mandatory, perhaps the kind that is revisited for efficacy and maintained for stability. Please ask Mr. Frank that as a member of Congress how is it that the oversight of the Federal Reserve went completely unwatched? For many years Alan Greenspan was instead a revered demigod of sorts with Congress shaking its head in agreement to everything proposed. I have written here on Being Alan Greenspan that included a scathing critique by Bill Flickenstein. He has written of Greenspan often, beginning some years back. Mr. Flickenstein provided more oversight over the past years than members of Congress on the right, left and center. They, by and large, seem to have their self-interest at heart, one that seems to go straight to the heart of campaign financing in order to keep their "illustrious" civil servant careers. I hope that Mr. Frank will have to answer hard-hitting questions, perhaps from those coming from the people. While Arianna Huffington never seems to shy away from hard-hitting questions for all sides -- Democrats and Republicans -- and doesn't seem to bite her tongue, I also understand that politically sometimes it is not always the platform, especially considering certain shows on certain networks work, not to mention the resuscitation of CNBC. My very wealthy right to the right of right Republican partner said that since Taleb and Roubini will be on Squawk Box with Huffington that he will sell short on Tuesday. As one who does not typically take tips from anyone, he took Huffington's guest appearance on Squawk Box with Taleb and Roubini as Tuesday's tip. That's funny! Truth generates short-selling. I'm really looking forward to the show on Tuesday. Maybe Huffington should have a show every Tuesday. It would be great to have a finance show that addresses critical issues and how they affect the masses. The perfect storm seems to have been created in that the masses were duped, though not without culpability with the complicit will of Congress through legislation and the creation policy for the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to accept mortgages so that individuals and Wall Street banks could collect billions of dollars in fees beforehand and a bailout thereafter. These are some of the questions and thoughts that I'd like to see addressed when Arianna Huffington hosts Squawk Box this Tuesday. What would you like answered or what comments would you make? More on Jim Cramer
 

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)