Thursday, March 5, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Lincoln Mitchell: My Challenge to Rush Limbaugh Top
Rush Limbaugh's challenge to debate President Obama should not, and of course will not, be taken seriously by the White House. Debating a clownish, if frightening, entertainer like Limbaugh, even if he is, as Rahm Emanuel and others have pointed out, the de facto leader of the rudderless Republican Party, would certainly not be the best use of the President's time, nor would it set a particularly good precedent. While I never have been able to stand Rush Limbaugh, I recognize that he is very smart and extremely media savvy. Picking this fight with the new President and offering to debate him is just the most recent way in which Limbaugh has demonstrated this. In politics, it is always to your advantage to get in a conflict, or even a debate, with somebody more powerful than you. At the local level, for example, a candidate for City Council gains in stature if she has a conflict with the mayor, while a mayor has nothing to gain, politically, from sharing a stage with a candidate for a more minor office. A similar dynamic is at play between Limbaugh and Obama. If, in some strange alternate universe Obama were to agree to debate Limbaugh, no matter how badly Obama humiliated Limbaugh, Limbaugh would gain in status by engaging with the President of the United States, while Obama would lose some dignity and gravitas simply by sharing a stage or studio with a cranky extremist radio personality like Limbaugh. A direct confrontation with Limbaugh would be bad for Obama and almost certainly will not happen, but the elevation of Limbaugh is good for Obama and the Democrats. As Limbaugh, who combines a discredited right wing ideology with a demographic profile that makes it difficult for the party to expand beyond its insufficient base, increasingly becomes understood as the real leader of the Republican Party, the party will slink increasingly further away from mainstream America and political relevance. Moreover, Limbaugh's proudly repeated boast that he is rooting for Obama to fail, while red meat to the Republican base, cannot be playing well with the millions of Americans of all political views who are hoping for the president to succeed in his efforts to right our economy. Limbaugh's angry and blustery style is emblematic of the past in American politics and precisely the kind of style against which the people voted in November. The group that is injured the most by Limbaugh's rising prominence in his party is not Democrats, but moderate Republicans. This admittedly small faction within that party is an essential ingredient of any Republican recovery. Without a strong moderate wing of the party, the Republicans simply will not be able to grow and compete with the, now majority, Democratic Party. It is very possible that over time, the moderate wing of the party will make a comeback, but Limbaugh's ascension postpones that likely eventuality. A Republican Party that is not buoyed by a moderate wing, while more annoying, presents less of a threat to Obama's ambitious programs and agenda; and keeping Limbaugh front and center in the Republican Party, makes the work of moderate Republicans far more difficult. The Republican Party needs to be the home for moderate conservatives who, for example, are concerned about the economy, have mixed feelings of the stimulus bill, don't like high taxes, but don't really care about gay marriage or abortion. Limbaugh scares these people off; and, for now, Obama seems to still have their support. Thus far, the administration, and the Democratic Party leadership, seem to understand the value of Limbaugh's rising role in the Republican Party, as well as the parallel need to avoid any direct confrontation with him. Allowing Limbaugh to lead the Republican Party into a more confrontational and belligerent opposition will also make it easier for the administration to explain the difficulties they have encountered trying to embrace a new bipartisan spirit for which many had hoped. There is no easier way for the administration to explain this than to simply point out that if Rush Limbaugh is the new face of the Republican Party than bipartisanship, in this circumstance, is not only almost impossible, but irresponsible as well. At the same time, Obama can continue to leverage his enormous popularity to win the relatively small number of votes he needs from Republicans in the senate to reach cloture on proposed legislation. This is not a particularly easy balance to maintain; and it may get more difficult as Limbaugh will probably keep attacking Obama and banging the debate drum even more loudly. Limbaugh may even begin to accuse Obama, rather implausibly, of lacking the courage to debate him. If, however, it makes Rush Limbaugh feel any better, I will take up his offer and defend my president, by debating with Limbaugh anytime, online, in the studio or in person. More on Barack Obama
 
Rachel Maddow On "The View": Gets Praise From Elisabeth, Talks Coming Out, Limbaugh, Obama Top
Rachel Maddow made her "View" debut Thursday morning and covered a range of topics, from coming out to her conservative parents to her thoughts on Rush Limbaugh to why she thinks Barack Obama is the right President for the time. Maddow — who, at 5'11", was described by Joy Behar as "a tall lesbian" — spoke, as she often does, about not being a typical "TV news babe." She discussed the first time she met her partner, Susan Mikula — like a scene from "Gay Desperate Housewives" — and how she came out: by plastering an announcement all over the dorm bathrooms at Stanford, without telling her parents (who received an anonymous letter alerting them to the news and "did not react well"). Maddow also described her look as a tomboy growing up. "I had long blonde hair, but even as a little girl with long blonde hair, I looked like one of the Hanson boys," she said. Maddow discussed her hate mail — of which there's a steady stream, some targeting her sexuality — but she also received an unlikely compliment from conservative co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck. "You do an exceptional job," Elisabeth said. "I think it's important to recognize people who do a great job on both sides of issues." Regarding man-of-the-moment Rush Limbaugh, Maddow said, "I think that Rush is very successful and very smart, and the idea that the President would actually debate him is hilarious. The idea that I would ask somebody from the Republican party...of course that would be great for me, but it would be stupid for any politician." When asked about the economy and the administration, Maddow had high praise for the President. "I think that we are in a pickle as a country," she said. "I think that the economic crisis is so much bigger than any of us can grasp. And I think that we need somebody with big ideas who's willing to take big action....I think the budget's a good budget, I think the stimulus plan is a good stimulus plan, I think we need to think big." Watch: More on Rachel Maddow
 
Michael Jackson Announces London Shows Top
LONDON — Michael Jackson returned to the stage Thursday after eight years marked by more scandal than music-making and told a crowd of screaming fans that he would play a series of London concerts before retiring from public performance. Wearing his trademark sunglasses and a silver-embroidered black military-style jacket, he said the series of shows in July will be his "final curtain call." Jackson appeared at the 02 Arena _ where the concerts will be staged _ to announce the gigs. "This is it. This is it," Jackson said, as the fans screamed. "These will be my final shows, performances, in London. This is it. And when I say this is it, I mean this is it. "This is really it. This is the final curtain call, OK? See you in July." Jackson didn't specify how many shows he'll play, though posters have shown he's booked for 10 dates. Tickets are expected to sell quickly for the shows, despite concerns the 50-year-old star may not be up for a return to the spotlight. The King of Pop has been plagued by financial, legal, and medical woes for years and has not performed a major concert since 2001. His last studio album was released the same year. A previous attempt to relaunch Jackson's career collapsed amid reports of ill health and court action.
 
The Best (And Most Bewildering) Of Britain's Home Remedies Top
Cherry Chappell has compiled a vast compendium of traditional homemade remedies. Here is a selection of the best - some sound sensible, while many are bewildering.
 
Mississippi Votes To Accept All Stimulus Money, Defying GOP Governor Top
Last month, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) criticized "excess spending" in the federal recovery package, saying he (like Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal) would reject $50 million in unemployment benefits for part-time workers. But yesterday, the state legislature passed a bill circumventing Barbour: More on Stimulus Package
 
Dow industrials plunge another 200 points Top
NEW YORK — The Dow Jones industrial average has fallen another 200 points today on new concerns about the stability of General Motors and the ongoing uncertainty about the financial system. In afternoon trading, the Dow is down 228.35, or 3.32 percent, to 6,647.49, a low not seen since April 1997. The Standard & Poor's 500 index dropped 25.61, or 3.59 percent, to 687.26. The S&P has not traded below this level since October 1996. The Nasdaq composite index fell 39.54, or 2.92 percent, to 1,314.20. Investors are having another change of heart and are selling stocks again after a one-day burst of optimism. The major market indicators extended their slide to levels not seen in more than a decade Thursday as investors contended with more disheartening economic data. The big indexes were all down more than 2 percent. Stocks fell across the board, with the beleaguered banking sector posting some of the steepest losses. Shares of Citigroup Inc., still shaky despite receiving billions in government aid, sank below $1. General Motors, meanwhile, dropped below $2 as it warned of possible bankruptcy. The market is also extremely anxious ahead of Friday's February Labor Department report that is likely to show the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Even some positive news, including some better-than-expected retail sales and factory orders, was not enough to stoke investor confidence. The reports failed to show a significant improvement and so the market gave back its big gain from Wednesday, said Doreen Mogavero, president of brokerage Mogavero, Lee & Co. "The economic data is still obviously a huge worry," she said. "I don't think anyone thinks we're in the clear because the market was up yesterday." Stocks fell initially after China deflated investors' hope that it would take new steps to stimulate its economy, but the discouraging economic data sent stocks even lower. The hope that China would unveil more government spending to help its economy was a major factor behind the market's bounce Wednesday, which sent the Dow Jones industrials up nearly 150 points. The rally followed a five-day pummeling. "It's been this continuous (cycle of) hope leads to disappointment," said Todd Salamone, senior vice president of research, Schaeffer's Investment Research. The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies fell 15.87, or 4.27 percent, to 355.43. On the New York Stock Exchange only 258 stocks advanced while 2,788 fell. Volume came to 884.9 million shares. Investors moved out of stocks and back into safer assets like Treasurys and gold. "We have the same story," said Alan Skrainka, chief market strategist at Edward Jones. "We have concerns about the stability of the financial system, concerns about the economy getting worse, and just a lack of confidence." Wednesday's rally, built on the hope that China could boost its spending, showed how hungry the market is for good news, analysts said. But there are just too many other dismal economic factors to contend with that make a rally hard to sustain. Since the Dow and the S&P 500 index plowed through their November lows last week, dashing hopes that the market had indeed hit a bottom, investors have been left wondering how much lower the market can go. At the same time, there is a contingent of investors with a "why sell now" mentality who are fearful of missing the next rally, Salamone said. "A lot of people are banking we can't go much further, but if you look to the '30s, we could indeed go a lot lower," he said, referring to Wall Street's huge losses during the Great Depression. "Those are the very people that represent selling pressure in the future." Discouraged by little evidence that Washington's efforts to stabilize the economy are working, investors have lost faith in the administration, he said. "At this point, you've got to be asking will anything help?" Salamone said. "The fact could very well be that the government can't do very much. They may be able to eliminate some of the pain, but at the same time they may be simply prolonging what inevitably has to happen, which is continued deleveraging." Among Thursday's gloomy reports, the Commerce Department said orders for manufactured goods fell by 1.9 percent during the first month of the year. While this was better than the 3.5 percent drop economists had expected, it marked a record sixth straight month of declines. Meanwhile, government data showing that initial unemployment claims fell more than anticipated last week failed to buoy stocks. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters/IFR predict the Labor Department on Friday will report that U.S. employers slashed 648,000 jobs in February _ more than the 598,000 jobs cut in January. "We know that there are lots of job losses," said independent market analyst Edward Yardeni. "The initial claims data didn't change that perception." Rising unemployment is of particular concern because it means many consumers have less to spend. And consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, is crucial to helping the economy turn around. A handful of better-than-expected retail sales reports, including one from Wal-Mart Stores Inc., weren't enough to convince investors that consumer spending is improving. The future of General Motors also plagued investors. The automaker said in its annual report that auditors raised serious doubt about its ability to continue operating. GM has already received $13.4 billion in federal loans, and is seeking a total of $30 billion from the government. GM dove 38 cents, or 17.3 percent, to $1.82. Negative comments from Moody's Investors Service weighed on already depressed financial stocks. Concerns about capital levels led the ratings agency to downgrade the ratings of Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. Moody's also lowered the outlook on JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s ratings to negative. Bank of America shares dropped 32 cents, or 8.9 percent, to $3.27; Wells Fargo plunged $1.46, or 15.1 percent, to $8.20; JPMorgan tumbled $1.81, or 9.4 percent, to $17.49. Government bond prices rose. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note, which moves opposite its price, fell to 2.83 percent from 2.98 percent late Wednesday. The yield on the three-month T-bill, considered one of the safest investments, slipped to 0.22 percent from 0.25 percent Wednesday. Gold prices advanced, even as the dollar rose against other major currencies. Light, sweet crude fell $1.08 to $44.30 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Markets overseas were mostly lower. Britain's FTSE 100 fell 3.18 percent, Germany's DAX index dropped 5.02 percent, and France's CAC-40 fell 3.96 percent. Earlier, Japan's Nikkei stock average rose 1.95 percent after Wall Street's Wednesday rally, but Hong Kong's Hang Seng index fell 0.97 percent. ___ On the Net: New York Stock Exchange: http://www.nyse.com Nasdaq Stock Market: http://www.nasdaq.com More on Financial Crisis
 
Michael Jackson's Face During Tour Announcement (PHOTOS) Top
Michael Jackson held a press conference in London on Thursday to announce that he will once again perform live in a concert series this summer. Jackson's appearance gave the press its first opportunity to photograph the reclusive "King of Pop" in years. He has been spotted by paparazzi on occasion at book stores and in Las Vegas , and even reportedly dressed as a woman in Bahrain, but there have been few public appearances in years. Below are photos and zooms of photos of Jackson on Wednesday. Despite wearing black sunglasses and what appears to be a thick wig, there was still plenty to look at. PHOTOS: (All photos Getty & AP) More on Photo Galleries
 
Mike Stark: Dinner with Terry McAuliffe Top
Last Friday, I spent some time at an informal dinner hosted by Democratic candidate for Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe. After a few minutes of banter, the roundtable began in earnest. T-Mac's espoused platform is jobs, jobs, and one other thing I can't quite remember right now, but it's on the tip of my tongue. Oh, yeah: more jobs. He spoke for a long time about how the Republican-led House of Delegates has stood in the way of effort after effort at making Virginia a hospitable place for new green businesses. I nearly fell out of my chair when T-Mac openly admired the steps Haley Barbour has taken in Mississippi to attract business. Haley Barbour? That wasn't to be the first thing Terry said that left me agape... Soon thereafter, buried within a long answer to another question, T-Mac mentioned his opposition to tax increases. Again, I wanted to make sure I heard clearly: "You're opposed to raising taxes?" He was. "Have you driven around Northern Virginia? Have you seen all these 8,000 sq. ft. estates? These mansions? All these new houses built for lobbyists, war profiteers and others that have grown fat in the last eight years? You're opposed to raising their taxes at the same time the state shutters children's hospitals?" Mac said he'd get back to me on that. About 20 minutes later, I brought it up again. His response was that he simply couldn't run on a campaign platform that included tax increases. I noted the subtlety. I can't tell, so I'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether he was placating a critic (me), or speaking in a form of political shorthand that was meant to leave the impression that he would be open to some sorts of tax increases. McAuliffe also spoke a lot about the African-American outreach he has been doing. He won plaudits from some of the other bloggers in the room, but I've been around politics long enough to know that outreach is only as good as the policy changes that result from the dialogue. With that in mind, I asked, "With regard to African-Americans and the state budget, have you looked at what the elimination of parole has done to Virginia state prison populations? There was recently an article in the press about some states looking to rescind the death penalty as a cost-saving measure? Have you considered anything like that?" T-Mac's response was pretty disappointing. He spoke about the need for better schools and his plan to streamline the felon re-enfranchisement process. I didn't hear him say anything at all about criminal justice reform. In the end, I got the impression that McAuliffe has a lot of work to do if he is to win over progressives. For many of us, it is easy to believe that establishment Democrats from the nineties (and who personifies the ideal better than Terry McAuliffe?) have much more in common with their Republican colleagues than they do with those of us striving every day to get by. It's these folks that grew chummy with the lobbyists, the corporate chiefs and the beltway pundits that ride the cocktail circuit. T-Mac in particular has got a long history of making things work out pretty well for himself after decimating the organizations he led. I'll have more on that in the weeks and months ahead. For now, though, maybe it is sufficient to note that one of those 8,000-square-foot mansions I referenced in my first question is owned by T-Mac.
 
Special Election For Burris Seat Rejected By State Senate Panel Top
SPRINGFIELD---Over Republican objections, Democrats who run the Illinois Senate defeated legislation today that would have allowed for a special election to replace appointed Democratic U.S. Sen. Roland Burris before his term ends in January 2011.
 
Charlotte Moses Fischman: Why New York City Needed A Comprehensive Web Site for Mental Illness Top
When our family was thrust into the world of mental illness, we felt like we had been cast into outer space. We moved from having a daughter with an eating disorder, like every other young woman in her class, to a child that was seriously and persistently mentally ill; from a child that was early decision to one of the Ivies to a child that was not well enough to attend college. We searched for information. We tried to understand the public mental health system and figure out whether our private insurance was sufficient. We spent hours on the phone, moving from one contact to another, saving our handwritten notes as though they were the Dead Sea Scrolls. Now that we are 12 years into this journey, the New York City community finally has a behavioral health web site to help families, consumers and providers. Go to www.nycnetworkofcare.org to see the site developed for New York City by the National Alliance on Mental Illness of New York City, Inc. (NAMI-NYC Metro) through funds raised through the annual NAMI Walk. It is an online clearinghouse that provides critical information, communications and advocacy through a single point of entry. It ensures there is "No Wrong Door" for those navigating the system of behavioral health services. Let me illustrate the uses of this comprehensive website. The Services Directory There have been many times in my family's history when we have tried to identify services or programs that would be appropriate for our child. In the early years, she was hospitalized repeatedly. At the end of each inpatient stay, it was necessary to put together a discharge plan -- a treatment plan that would hopefully prevent the next hospitalization. As parents, we became discharge planners. Why? Because the social workers that worked at the hospitals as discharge planners had limited information about available day programs, group therapies, volunteer opportunities, rehabilitation services. They had no comprehensive, updated guide to what was available on a borough-by-borough basis. The Network of Care has now been loaded with over 3000 entries about programs and services in the five boroughs. If an Asian family is looking for a culturally appropriate program, that information can actually be found on the Network of Care. If I were looking for a program that might prepare my child to go into the workforce, the Network of Care would provide me guidance. And the best part, given the diversity in New York City, is that some of the information on Network of Care is available in 13 languages as well as sign language. Housing Let's talk about housing. There were many times in our journey when it did not appear in my child's interest to live at home. The search for housing for mentally ill persons is a task that falls to family, and it is a very complex subject. There is supportive housing, low income housing, government-sponsored housing, private housing; residential treatment programs. There is an unfamiliar vocabulary and an endless search. The Network of Care has a Housing section designed by the Center for Urban Community Services (CUCS) which explains the subject in plain English and gives directions on how and where to apply. Insurance The Network of Care has an INSURANCE channel with information about private insurance, government programs, Veterans insurance and even insurance for the uninsured -- i.e. individuals that do not qualify for public insurance programs and do not have insurance through their employers. When mental illness struck our middle class working family, we had private insurance. This was pre-parity, pre-Timothy's law, so our private policy had arbitrary limits on mental health benefits. So my child entered the world of MEDICAID -- a process and a government benefit that was wholly unfamiliar to us. Families now have the Network of Care as a gateway to this world of mental health insurance. Personal Record Keeping As parents, one of our jobs has been to maintain a record of our child's history in terms of psychotropic drugs used and abandoned; hospitalizations; other forms of treatment such as ECT; and the contact information for providers that have included psychopharmacologists, therapists, eating disorder specialists, nutritionists, group therapies; inpatient information. My own memo for my daughter runs more than 50 pages. It is critical to have this kind of history in easily accessible form because mental illness is often chronic; medications sometimes have to be changed or adjusted; hospitalizations may occur. Network of Care has a channel called MY FOLDER, which is a secure location where either family members or consumers can enter medical information and keep it current. In the event of an incapacity or hospitalization, access could be provided to this electronic medical record to the treatment team. The Network of Care accomplishes what state and federal governments have only dreamed about. In sum, as a family member, I am so grateful to NAMI for the Network of Care -- a virtual encyclopedia of mental health information custom made for New Yorkers. Please visit www.networkofcare.org to tell me what you think.
 
St. Patrick's Day Booze Crackdown At University Of Illinois Top
College students drink. College students go to class. But mixing the two? It has happened with shamelessness at the University of Illinois during "Unofficial St. Patrick's Day," an all-day celebration of excessive drunkenness that occurs each year around the time of the Irish holiday.
 
Britain Re-Establishes Contact With Hezbollah Top
LONDON — Britain is re-establishing contact with the militant group Hezbollah following the formation of a unity government in Lebanon, the British government said Thursday. The Foreign Office said that it has established contact with the group's political wing but still has no contact with its military wing. Britain ceased contact with members of Hezbollah in 2005 and listed the military wing as a proscribed terrorist organization last year. The Foreign Office said that it had reconsidered its position following positive developments in Lebanon. "Our objective with Hezbollah remains to encourage them to move away from violence and play a constructive, democratic and peaceful role in Lebanese politics, in line with a range of UN Security Council Resolutions," the ministry said. The ministry said Britain's ambassador attended a meeting in January in Beirut alongside a Hezbollah lawmaker, and that the government was seeking to build relations with other legislators attached to the group. Israel and Hezbollah fought a brutal 34-day war in the region in 2006. More than 1,200 people in Lebanon _ most of them civilians _ and 159 in Israel died in the conflict. Hezbollah has a large rocket arsenal but is not believed to have used it against Israel since the 2006 war. It has denied involvement in recent rocket attacks on Israel. After showing its military strength against Israel in 2006 and then again in May 2008 against its Lebanese rivals _ when it took control of large parts of Beirut by force _ Hezbollah became a partner in Lebanon's government with veto power over decisions. More on England
 
Explosion In Bozeman, Montana Collapses 3 Buildings Top
Crews were working to extinguish a fire caused by the explosion. Boodles restaurant and bar were destroyed, KBZK-TV reported. A police dispatcher said the adjacent Rockin R bar was also destroyed. Police evacuated the two blocks surrounding the businesses, housed in brick buildings. Jason Shrauger with the Gallatin County Disaster and Emergency Services said it was unknown what caused the explosion or if there were any injuries.
 
Tonya Harding Slams Barack Obama: "He Has To Bring Me Up?!" (VIDEO) Top
During an interview with HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, Tonya Harding verbally slams Barack Obama for using her name to get across a few points. At one event in 2007 Obama said : "Folks said there's no way Obama has a chance unless he goes and kneecaps the person ahead of us, does a Tonya Harding," Obama joked, referring to the female skating champion who conspired to harm a competitor during the 1994 U.S. Figure Skating Championships. "We decided that's not the kind of campaign we wanted to run," he said. Watch Harding's reaction below: See another clip from the interview that features Harding's fishing skills: More on Video
 
Max Bergmann: Britain's Making the Special Relationship Less Relevant Top
The special relationship is losing its luster and it relevance. Contrary, to the UK press, this has little to do with the personal relationship between Obama and Brown or his electoral troubles, but is a byproduct of Iraq and the UK's growing estrangement with Europe. On the face of it everything now seems fine. As Brown departed for Washington, there was a lot of British commentary about whether Obama and the U.S. even cared about the "special relationship." Personal relations between Obama and Brown were interpreted to be frosty and much was made over Obama's statement prior to Brown's arrival that called the U.S.-UK alliance a "special partnership," not a relationship. It was even said that Obama hated the British because they tortured his father . But in their meeting at the White House, Obama made pains to stress the relationship was special and Gordon Brown's speech yesterday was so rah rah America it could have been given at CPAC. So everything is right in the relationship, right? Well not really, especially if your British. As the FT noted, Obama is not going to turn down an ally: "The Obama administration wants cordial productive relations with Britain, as with other countries." But that does not make the UK particularly relevant to the U.S. right now. Yes over the last eight years the Brits have been with us side by side in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that in some ways is sort of the problem. By backing the Bush administration in Iraq the UK hasn't exactly enhanced their global clout and their military is now under great stress, which prevents greater assistance in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the UK's relationship with Europe - never cozy - has become increasingly estranged. Blair claimed that the UK was a "pivotal" country in world affairs,  due to, as the Economist noted, "Britain's possession of efficient armed forces, together with its twin loyalty to America and the European mainland, give it a unique bridging role." In the run-up to the Iraq war, Blair leveraged these dual loyalties to America and Europe to make the UK an important international player that was essential to the U.S. The Economist had a great cartoon at the time showing Blair with a foot in both an American row boat and a European row boat that were headed in opposite directions. Bush offered the UK a choice, Europe or the U.S. Having chosen the Atlantic relationship, it was natural that there would be growing estrangement with Europe. But this has been compounded by American disinterest under Bush in rebuilding U.S.-European relations, as well as by the arrival of Brown, who is much more disinterested in Europe then Blair was. The problem for the "special relationship" is that an increasingly eurosceptic Britain is much less relevant to the U.S. than a Britain that is firmly entrenched as an important player in the EU. So British debates over what's more important the relationship with Europe or America offer a false choice, especially since the American president is no longer George Bush.  For the UK to maintain its traditional relevance to the U.S., it needs its place in Europe. Without that place in Europe, Britain will no doubt be an important and close ally - just like Canada, Australia, and Japan - but they bring a lot less influence to the table.  With the possibility of David Cameron unseating Brown - ushering in one of the most eurosceptic governments the UK has had since it joined in 1973 - and overall anti-immigrant and anti-Europe sentiment growing in the UK, the Obama administration should make it clear that we want the UK to play a constructive role in Europe. U.S. pressure could at the very least serve as a check on potential British obstructionism on the Lisbon Treaty, as well as on other efforts to de-link the UK from Europe. It's high time we used the special relationship to attempt to influence British behavior in Europe, just as they use it to influence our behavior globally. More on England
 
The Fastest Undressing Ever (VIDEO) Top
Ok, I have no scientific proof that he is actually the fastest undresser ever, but I dare you to beat him (actually don't, you'll probably get hurt). It's amazing the speed with which this man can take his clothes off. I'm in complete awe. And that technique...who knew?? WATCH: (via Buzzfeed) More on WTF
 
Greyhound Bus Beheading Suspect Not Criminally Responsible: Canada Judge Top
WINNIPEG, Manitoba — A Canadian judge ruled Thursday that a man accused of beheading and cannibalizing a fellow Greyhound bus passenger is not criminally responsible due to mental illness. The decision means Chinese immigrant Vince Li will be treated in a mental institution instead of going to prison. The family of victim Tim McLean dismissed the trial as a "rubber stamp" that allows Li to get away with murder. "A crime was still committed here, a murder still occurred," said Carol deDelley, McLean's mother. "There was nobody else on that bus holding a knife, slicing up my child." The judge said Li should not be held criminally accountable for stabbing McLean dozens of times last July and dismembering his body while horrified passengers fled. Justice John Scurfield said Li's attack was "grotesque" and "barbaric" but "strongly suggestive of a mental disorder." "He did not appreciate the actions he committed were morally wrong. He believed he was acting in self-defense," Scurfield said. Both the prosecution and the defense argued Li can't be held responsible because Li was suffering from schizophrenia and believed God wanted him to kill McLean because the young man was a force of evil. He will be institutionalized without a criminal record and will be reassessed every year by a mental health review board to determine if he is fit for release into the community. DeDelley said a yearly hearing is ridiculous, and that Li should be locked up for the rest of his life. Li's trial barely lasted two days and only heard from two witnesses, both psychiatrists, who testified he is mentally ill. That Li killed the 22-year-old carnival worker was never in question at the trial. Li has admitted he killed McLean but pleaded not guilty. Witnesses said Li attacked McLean unprovoked as their bus traveled at night along a desolate stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway. An agreed statement of facts between the prosecution and defense detailed how passengers stood outside the bus as Li stabbed McLean dozens of times and beheaded and mutilated his body. Finding himself locked inside the bus, Li finally escaped through a window and was arrested. Li then apologized and pleaded with police to kill him. Police said McLean's body parts were found throughout the bus in plastic bags, and the victim's ear, nose and tongue were found in Li's pocket. A psychiatrist called by the prosecution Wednesday testified that Li cut up McLean's body because he believed that he would come back to life and take revenge. After the trial, government prosecutor Joyce Dalmyn said McLean's family understood that she had to tell the court about Li's condition. "The evidence was so overwhelming that he was not criminally responsible. I absolutely had an obligation to bring that to the court's attention, and the family understands and respects that," Dalmyn said. She said people who are mentally ill should not be convicted when they don't know what they did was wrong. "They need to be treated," she said. "I certainly agree in Mr. Li's case he needs to be treated for a very long time." McLean's family is vowing to turn their attention to fighting the law that allows people who are found not criminally responsible to be released into the community once they are deemed well, without serving a minimum sentence in jail. DeDelley said her son didn't die in vain. His death highlights concerns about the justice system, she said. "Now people are aware that there is a problem," she said. More on Canada
 
Veronica Conway: The Truth About the Monkey Business Top
The Page Six cartoon - caricaturing the police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut - has created considerable controversy. The cartoon shows two police officers standing over the chimp's body: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," one officer says. More recently, a photo emerged, taken from a window display at a Georgia bookstore. It shows several books featuring Barack and Michelle Obama, and then shows another book, positioned squarely in the center of the display, that features a monkey. While this demonstrates the undercurrent of racism in the collective consciousness, what is less apparent is how race and racism operate predominately at the subconscious level, which in many respects, makes it more insidious, less apparent and, seemingly insolvable. It seems insolvable because no one has addressed the real, underlying issue: cultural conditioning. There is a tool called the Implicit Association Test or the IAT. The Race Test measures unconscious or automatic associations of "good" and "bad" with Black and White people. When it comes to gender and racial equality, most people know what their opinions are. Most people have no idea what their unconscious attitudes are about race. While many IAT testers would declare themselves racially neutral, more than 80 percent of all of those who have ever taken the test end up having pro-white associations. This, by the way, includes African-American test takers. Does this mean that 80 percent of the population is racist? Probably not. It means that attitudes towards things like race and gender operate at the conscious and subconscious level. At the conscious level, is where we choose to believe about race and then there is what happens at the subconscious level. The more deeply subconscious a concept or belief is, the more powerfully it operates in our lives. The election of the first African-American president appears to be triggering and resurfacing racial perceptions at the deepest unconscious levels. The reason that these perceptions have not disappeared, permanently, is because they have not been addressed at the level where they have the most impact: the subconscious level. Until we can address it at that level (not just white people, all people) true healing will never occur, and we will continue to witness the external manifestation of internal belief systems. It is critical that everyone get clear about their own belief systems, so that they effectively navigate their cultural conditioning, and ultimately, create the seeds of a society that is tolerant, loving and inclusive...from the inside out. To find out more about cultural conditioning and its impacts on performance, visit www.theblackpaper.com To take the IAT visit www.understandingprejudice.org/iat .
 
Mark Weisbrot: World Recession Forces Economic Re-thinking Top
A serious economic crisis can force some rethinking of economic and political dogma. The current crisis is serious for most of the world; the IMF is projecting world economic growth of just one half percent this year - the worst since World War II - and this number could easily be revised downward. In the United States, one of the first casualties of the current recession was the extreme fiscal conservatism that has plagued the country for decades. It seems like ages since the Clinton administration, facing projected budget surpluses of more than $5 trillion, decided that it needed to pay off the entire national debt before committing to any new social spending. Obama's proposed budget has a deficit for this year of 12.3 percent of GDP -- twice the size (relative to the economy) of the next largest deficit in the six decades since the second World War. That was Ronald Reagan's "military Keynesian" budget of 1983. Like his successor George W. Bush, Reagan never admitted that deficit spending was needed to pull the economy out of recession. Instead he pretended that he was just meeting "defense needs" and granting tax cuts where tax cuts were due (mostly to the wealthy). Today there is a pretty sizeable consensus that deficit spending is very necessary, whatever the Republican leadership may think - if they are thinking at all. This is really just a matter of national income accounting. With consumption and investment falling, that leaves only government purchases and net exports to pull us out of this recession. More on net exports (exports minus imports) in a minute - but for now this part of our economy is not set to grow enough to pull us out of the recession. Hence the need for the government to step in, in a big way. Of course, this could be just a temporary change in thinking, with desperation focusing the mind. But there are some signs that it may persist. For example, the New York Times reported on Sunday that Obama's projected budget deficit for 2013 is " 3 percent of the overall economy, a level that economists consider sustainable. " Indeed this is true, and the arithmetic is simple: if the debt grows at the same rate or slower than the Gross Domestic Product (in nominal terms) it will not grow as a percentage of the economy. That is what matters, not the absolute size of the public debt - a big scary number ($10.9 trillion) that is often thrown around by conservatives. As evident as this is, the major media have almost never looked at the problem in this way before. Another long-held belief that is currently being challenged in practice but needs to be rethought is the extent to which the government can finance a fiscal stimulus through money creation, rather than by traditional borrowing. The conventional wisdom is that this would dangerously increase inflation. But inflation is falling in most of the world, and in the U.S., prices are actually dropping. The U.S. consumer price index fell at an annual rate of 8.4 percent over the last quarter. Even the core index (excluding food and energy) was up by only 0.9 percent over the quarter, and the rate of inflation has been declining. The U.S. government has already financed at least $1.2 trillion of borrowing during this crisis by creating money, which was added to the Fed's balance sheet. This technically adds to the national debt, but since the government owes the money to itself, there is no net outflow of interest payments from the government on this debt. This reduces the long-term debt burden of the necessary stimulus. Clearly there are circumstances under which this "monetizing" of some additional borrowing makes sense because the threat of increasing inflation is minimal. The present economic downward free-fall seems to be such a circumstance. This has international implications as well. The Obama administration has proposed scaling back at least some foreign aid. Of course, much of our foreign aid is military aid that is often destructive. But it would be a shame to cut back on such life-saving aid that goes to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other diseases that plague the poorest counties - when this funding needs more than ever to be greatly expanded. On a larger scale, since the dollar has a special status as the world's reserve currency, the United States could conceivably contribute to the world economic recovery by providing dollars to help developing countries through the international credit crunch and world recession. Our government has done a little bit of this: e.g. it created an international currency swap arrangement of $30 billion each for Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, and Singapore, which added to the hard currency reserves that these countries could tap if necessary. But many countries are not adopting the expansionary macroeconomic policies that they - and the world - need, for fear of running short of foreign exchange. In other words, the United States - because of the special position of the dollar - could to some extent play the role of a world central bank in the present world recession. This would help stimulate our own economic growth as well by increasing demand for U.S. exports. Of course, if the dollar were to lose value internationally in the process (because of the increased supply of dollars worldwide), this would be an added gain for the U.S. economy. That is because the U.S. dollar is overvalued, and this overvaluation has artificially stimulated our imports and reduced our exports for many years. The idea that the United States needs a "strong dollar" could be the next widely held economic misconception to bend to reality. The column was published by The Guardian Unlimited on March 4, 2009.
 
Obama's Teleprompter Crutch Top
President Barack Obama doesn't go anywhere without his TelePrompter. The textbook-sized panes of glass holding the president's prepared remarks follow him wherever he speaks. Resting on top of a tall, narrow pole, they flank his podium during speeches in the White House's stately parlors. They stood next to him on the floor of a manufacturing plant in Indiana as he pitched his economic stimulus plan. More on Barack Obama
 
Janice Horowitz: Dueling Docs by Janice Horowitz Top
Dueling Docs The Issue Cosmetic procedures The Facts Everyone's doing it (except you, of course). Having their faces cut, sewn and injected so that they, too, can look as young as Jennifer Aniston ten years ago. With all the cosmetic tinkering going on - from stalwart injectables like Botox and Restylane to plastic surgery - just finding a natural 50 year-old- face in any urban area seems a near impossibility. Especially in today's non-existent job market where older women, not to mention men, have to compete with someone half their age simply to hold onto their job or find a new one. But cosmetic interventions are a major expenditure, compared to say, groceries, with surgery costing from $2,500 for a cheek implant to more than twice that much for a basic face lift and injectables running upwards of $500 a pop--all rarely covered by insurance. In the face of nose-diving portfolios and little disposable income to go around, should ridding the face of wrinkles really be a priority? For that matter, should it ever be a priority? Two doctors on debate the issue: Dr. Philip Prioleau, dermatologist, and Dr. Cap Lesesne, plastic surgeon, both in private practice on Manhattan's Upper East Side. The Debate Dr. Prioleau: "I think it's fine if you want to get these things done, but there's just too much of it. With the financial crisis and less money to spend, things may change, but I see women who are on their third facelift. They come to my office looking so weird. They come in with guppy lips. And then they tell me they haven't had any surgery. It's such a strange thing: women develop these strange looks on their faces and then that's considered the norm." Dr. Prioleau thinks women should stop focusing on their external appearance and well, get a life. "Women should feel strong and powerful about who they are. Granted, it's really tough out there for women these days. Many need to get a new job or need to hang on to their current job. But they should read a book rather than put money into cosmetic procedures. Women need to start thinking out of the box rather than doing what their peers are doing." He continues: "Women have been trying to beautify themselves for ages. Take Cleopatra. Yes, she wore makeup, but she probably spoke 7 languages and was one of the most brilliant women who ever lived." Dr. Prioleau can't overlook the fact that doctors stand to gain from a patient's need to look younger. "The way I look at it, Botox is a gateway drug and then patients move onto Restylane and other injectables and maybe plastic surgery after that. These drugs are perfect for doctors. They're an annuity. They don't last so patients have to keep coming back for more. " Dr. Prioleau offers up a radical idea: "Let's put a tax on cosmetic procedures. Call it a luxury tax, like the VAT in France. If someone pays $400 for injectables - let them pay $100 in tax. If a facelift costs $30,000 then let them pay a few thousand in taxes, like they would for a Porsche. The average person can't afford a face lift. It's a luxury. Then why is it tax-free?" He also thinks that the government - and hence the rest of us - wind up subsidizing cosmetic procedures because government funds help pay for medical school training. "And the minute the students are trained, they go out and inject Botox. Dermatology is one of the most sought after residencies because people can do Botox and work just two days a week. It's a waste of resources!" Dr. Prioleau suggests another tax "Maybe the medical student who goes in for cosmetic procedures should pay tax on his or her training, too." Dr. Prioleau doesn't necessarily mind cosmetic surgery if people are aware of the risks, but he still wonders if a surgical candidate shouldn't "talk to a therapist before submitting to surgery. I worry that if at the outset, a woman doesn't have body dysmorphic disorder (a psychiatric problem where a minor body defect becomes a major preoccupation), she may develop it as she gets deeper and deeper into doing these things. I really think women should be getting a psychological evaluation before having these things done." Dr. Cap Lesesne "I would strongly disagree. I don't think women need to be evaluated by a psychiatrist to have a face life. These women aren't crazy. The people I see usually have something that concerns them about their appearance and they want to do something about it. It's not the psychiatrist who's doing the surgery - it's the surgeon and under every state law, the surgeon is responsible for the patient, not a consultant. Tell me, should every psychiatrist patient see a plastic surgeon first? Dr. Lesesne, who turns down about 5% of the patients who come to him, emphasizes that a plastic surgeon has the tools to assess who's right for surgery. Besides the obvious physical risks, like uncontrolled high blood pressure and diabetes which can make someone a poor candidate for surgery, Dr. Lesesne says: "You kind of know if someone is not in the right psychological condition for plastic surgery. They don't appreciate the risk of complications, they don't understand informed consent and they simply have unrealistic expectations of what surgery can fix and not fix, something you can assess quickly." He adds: "It's perfectly legal to just say no to a patient." As for considering cosmetic procedures a luxury and taxing them? "That's rubbish," says Dr. Lesesne. "Then add extra tax on all expensive women's handbags and on all expensive restaurants. "For a lot of people, particularly now, having plastic surgery or Botox is not a luxury. It's a necessity. A lot of people are out of a job and they need the work. It's a competitive world out there now. "If you have a physical issue, you can read a book until you're blue in the face. Meantime, you're getting older and younger people are taking your job. You're reading your book to feel better about yourself? Good luck." He continues: "Somewhere on that bell curve between narcissism and self denial, there's normality. My patients are mostly normal. As long as you look at these procedures as taking away a wrinkle and not changing your life and you've rationalized the risk, then you should go ahead and do it." "I'll tell you, the biggest form of narcissism is not on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It's on Pennsylvania Avenue because they think they have superior intelligence and the right to control other people's lives. Someone who wants to fix their face is just thinking about themselves, they're not imposing it on anyone else." More on Health
 
Digital TV Converter Coupons Start Flowing Again Top
NEW YORK — The agency that mails out coupons for digital TV converter boxes expects to eliminate its wait list in two and a half weeks, an official said Thursday. Helped by $650 million from the economic stimulus package, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration has started to mail out coupons to the 2.3 million households on the wait list, said Bernadette McGuire-Rivera, associate administrator of the Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications. The fund that pays for the $40 coupons reached its spending limit in early January. The NTIA was still able to mail out coupons, but only as old ones expired, 90 days after being issued. The NTIA now expects to change its rules so that people who received coupons before but let them expire can now apply for new ones, McGuire-Rivera said. Coupons are now being mailed "first class," McGuire-Rivera said. The government had been criticized for mailing the coupons "standard mail," which can take weeks. The converter boxes allow older, generally non-flat TVs to receive new digital broadcast signals. U.S. full-power TV stations were scheduled to turn off their analog signals on Feb. 17, but because of the coupon backlog, the deadline was extended to June 12. About a quarter of stations shut down on or around Feb. 17 any way, but most of them are in small markets.
 
Jonathan Spalter: A new leader at the FCC Top
Given the enormous role the FCC can play for ensuring not only the vitality and health of our nations' communications sector, but also the reasonable interests of the American consumers who support it, the announcement that Julius Genachowski will be nominated for FCC chair comes not a moment too soon. And President Obama's decision to give his old friend and law school class mate this important slot augurs well for the future of innovation, common sense, and the common good in telecommunications regulation. That Julius comes to this position having had real-world experience in the business world -- both in technology and media -- is a decided advantage. At a time when literally thousands of companies supporting hundreds of thousands of good jobs are seeking to deploy exciting new communications applications and services and will depend existentially on decisions that will be made by the FCC, it is nice to know that at the helm of that body is someone who has learned something about the immense challenges of meeting a payroll, getting a product to market, and creating productive jobs for American citizens. It is confidence-building as well that Julius has also been able to deepen his understanding about technology and communications having worked as a venture capitalist, learning directly from early stage tech companies and the markets they serve. Through this optic, our presumptive FCC chair will be able to bring not only his broad fluency in matters of policy, but also an appreciation for the elegant technology, coding, algorithms, product development, and deep consumer research that goes into the development of next-generation communications services supported by venture capitalists. Add to this another dimension -- a human one -- that will bring a fresh change from the previous leadership at the FCC. Julius is not merely a man of experience and intellectual integrity, but also a leader known for his humanity. As many who have worked with him over the years have seen, he is a leader who values openness, inclusiveness, and probity. He is a listener, who will bring an affirming style and an open door that will boost morale within the Commission, but also raise the promise of an honest and forthright partner for those innumerable companies, organizations and consumers who will depend heavily on the wisdom of his and his colleagues' decision-making. I had the chance to collaborate with Julius during his first stint at the FCC under the Clinton Administration while I was at the White House, and later in the private sector when we both were executives at global media companies which had business dealings. The good qualities he displayed in these roles no doubt will mark well his tenure at the FCC, re-inventing that agency for a new future of promise and prosperity for the communications industry and the hundreds of millions of citizens it serves. Good luck, Julius! Jonathan Spalter, chairman of the Mobile Future coalition, served as chief information officer at the United States Information Agency during the Clinton administration. More on Barack Obama
 
California Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Gay Marriage Case (VIDEO) Top
SAN FRANCISCO — California Supreme Court justices heard arguments Thursday on lawsuits seeking to overturn the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex nuptials as thousands demonstrated outside the courthouse. Gay rights advocates are urging the court to overturn Proposition 8 on the grounds it was put before voters improperly, or at least prematurely. Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy The measure's sponsors argue the ballot initiative was approved correctly and it would be a miscarriage of justice for the court to overturn the results of a fair election. The ballot initiative, which passed with 52 percent of the vote in November, changed the California Constitution to trump last year's 4-3 Supreme Court decision that held that denying same-sex couples the right to wed was an unconstitutional civil rights violation. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on three points: is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution; does it violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution; and if it's not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8? Minutes into the proceedings, the justices peppered lawyer Shannon Minter, arguing for gay rights advocates, with tough questions over how the 14 words of Proposition 8 represent a revision of the state's constitution. Outside, gay marriage rights supporters and opponents held signs lobbying the justices to take their side. Dana Tibbits, who drove 400 miles from her home in Ventura County to join the crowd of Proposition 8 supporters, said she there for the "approximately 7 million voters whose voices need to be heard." "I'm concerned about the justices, the weight of our vote and the weight of our decision," Tibbits said. On the other side, Ronald Cruz, 31, a law student at UC Berkeley, said he wanted the measure overturned. "The rallies and marches make it clear we are not taking second class treatment anymore and that is what drives court decisions on civil rights," he said. On Wednesday night, several thousand people marched from San Francisco's Castro District to City Hall to demonstrate public support for invalidating Proposition 8. The Supreme Court's seven justices have 90 days after the oral arguments in which to issue a ruling. More on Gay Marriage
 
GOP Rep: Health Care Is A "Privilege" Top
The president may be holding a health-care summit today at the White House, in an effort to cull ideas for health-care reform, but some Republicans are making it clear they aren't going to stand for it. Zach Wamp, the always self-assured Tennessee congressman, was on MSNBC this morning, railing against any health-care reform effort, calling it a move toward "socialism" and that Obama was engaging in almost "class warfare."
 
Quigley Planning DC Fundraiser For General Election Bid Top
Mike Quigley, who won the Democratic primary for Rahm Emanuel's old seat on Tuesday, is wasting no time in solidifying support among national Democrats with Chicago roots and is planning a trip to D.C. in the next two weeks, according to a person close to Quigley. The Dover Group, which has been consulting with Quigley on fundraising and strategy, is also planning a March fundraiser in Washington, the person said.
 
Dave Belden: A Letter From the Grunts Top
This week I got an email from a stranger that I actually read. I want to share it: it's to the President from Veterans for Peace of Bellingham, WA: about Afghanistan. After it, I write a little about the man who sent it, who I called up and talked to. He has quite a story. He saw it all happen before. Maybe the best line in it is this one: We are at a historic moment very much like the moment when President Johnson was escalating the Vietnam War and Dr. King asked him to stop and think. President Johnson missed his opportunity... Or maybe it's this: We might try using our resources to empower women instead of killing men. Here's the full letter: An Open Letter to President Obama. Feb. 24, 2009. Dear President Obama, While you are reviewing U.S. policy toward Afghanistan, we ask that you include a perspective that has been lacking in the national conversation since Sept. 11, 2001. You have received much advice, whether sought or unsought, from political and military experts. We ask that you give even greater consideration to seeking out spiritual guidance. There is no shortage of people seeking to advise you on how to win a war. But there is a critical shortage of people around you who might ask a more important question: How can we make peace? Since Sept.11 our national conversation has been lacking a spiritual perspective. When Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his great "Beyond Vietnam" speech at Riverside Church, the event was organized by Clergy and Laity Concerned About Vietnam. Perhaps the religious community has not been as organized during these last few years as it should have been, and perhaps no one can take Dr. King's place, but we can still take advantage of the wisdom he revealed in that speech. There is no shortage of deep spiritual thinkers in our country today, but there is a shortage of leaders willing to seek their guidance. We are asking you to be that leader. If we really want peace in Afghanistan, we should start with an offer of a cease-fire. That is the most immediate concern, to stop the killing of the innocent. Then comes the hard part, negotiating for justice. Everyone has a viewpoint in Afghanistan, but instead of encouraging a dialogue to seek common ground, we have focused on a military solution to the problem of injustice. The Taliban's idea of justice may be light years away from ours, but we are not going to solve the problem of male injustice to women in Afghanistan by killing all the men. And if we did, there are another 10 million men on the Pakistani side of the border with the same anti-woman attitude. In fact, it is a planet-wide problem that cannot be fixed by war. We might try using our resources to empower women instead of killing men. We are at a historic moment very much like the moment when President Johnson was escalating the Vietnam War and Dr. King asked him to stop and think. President Johnson missed his opportunity to be one of our greatest presidents because he let the military/political dimension overrule the spiritual dimension. George Bush called himself a war president. He was misguided. We voted for you, President Obama, because we believed that you would seek the path of peace. We believe you can make us proud again. War is the worst way to solve problems. Peace is the best way. We believe our country can become a leader in peacemaking. You can start to lead us along that path. With best wishes to you and your family, and for peace for everybody, no exceptions. If you agree with this letter, you can have your family sign it and mail it to the Obama Family at: The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20500 I called Bill Distler, who sent me the letter. He said that Veterans for Peace in Bellingham, WA has an active core of about twenty. Most are Vietnam vets, only one is an Iraq vet. Bill says the Iraq vets mostly don't want to talk about it yet. "It's way too much to lay on 19 and 20 year olds," he says; it took him many years before he could see clearly how wrong his war was, the Vietnam War, and how the mess he got into wasn't his own fault. Bill is receiving 100% disability for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but he says his war was in the jungle, in forests. The Iraq War vets' traumas have been and still are in buildings, highways, city streets. He can stay out of forests, but every plastic bag on the highway, every window, every street corner can trigger an Iraq vets' PTSD. "The psych trouble for these guys will be way more," he concludes, and adds: "The people who talk about war are either those who didn't go, or they're the officers, who have a different perspective. To know about war, ask the grunts." "I wandered for years after Vietnam," Bill tells me. "Settled in Bellingham in 1985 and worked in an organic flour mill... My beautiful daughter Lily is 8 years old. My beautiful wife Lisa and I have been married since 2000, my first marriage at 52 years old." It's only in recent years he started to organize against war, appalled at what Bush had done. "My brother Ken was in the 4th Infantry Division in the Central Highlands from Jan. to May '69 when he was wounded in a huge firefight that left about half of his company killed or wounded. He killed himself in 1994. I still feel that he is watching me from heaven and encouraging me to keep going. If I accomplish anything good, I feel that I share that with him." If I have one comment about his letter it's this: let's not imagine that all the men in Afghanistan are anti-woman. That would be as false as imagining that all the soldiers serving the American empire are pro-war. We ran a terrific article in Tikkun by Wil Morat about Afghan men, all Muslims of course, who are risking their lives to support women's rights. (Our website just crashed and we haven't got a lot of it back yet, but you can get Wil's article here ). More on Vietnam
 
Robert Naiman: Can We "Reset" Relations with Colombia? Top
President Obama wants, quite reasonably, to "reset" relations with Russia. He also said, quite reasonably, he would "go through the federal budget line by line, programs that don't work, we cut." Our relations with Colombia also need to be reset. "Plan Colombia," which was supposedly going to cut the flow of Colombian cocaine into the U.S., doesn't work, neither to reduce the flow of illegal drugs, nor to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Colombia. Since Plan Colombia doesn't work, it should be cut. An October report from the Government Accountability Office found that coca-leaf production in Colombia had increased by 15% and cocaine production had increased by 4% between 2000 and 2006, and recommended cutting funding. Plan Colombia has cost U.S. taxpayers over $6 billion. Plan Colombia has also failed to promote human rights. Broadly speaking, the practical political meaning of Plan Colombia in the Colombian political context has been: "Washington supports the Colombian government, and therefore the Colombian government can do whatever it wants without restraint." The human consequences of this political blank check have been disastrous. A recent report by Human Rights First found human rights defenders in Colombia are frequently accused by the government and its supporters of belonging to leftwing guerrillas, and are secretly investigated for months or years before being "illegally detained," Inter Press Service reports . "The steadfast investigation of spurious criminal complaints against defenders stands in stark contrast to the failure to investigate attacks, threats, and other forms of intimidation perpetrated against them or against civilians more generally," HRF said. In Colombia, the government accusation of "supporting the guerrillas" can be a death sentence, since it's understood as a "seal of approval" for paramilitary violence. On February 20, Senators Brown and Murray wrote the Colombian Ambassador expressing concern at attacks made by President Uribe against human rights advocates who had testified before the House Committee on Education and Labor. Brown and Murray expressed concern for "the effect [these] comments may have on the safety of those who voluntarily testified." Uribe has publicly smeared human rights critics as members of the guerrillas' "international bloc." Last week, the Fellowship of Reconciliation and dozens of human rights organizations and religious institutions released a letter to President Obama calling for major changes in U.S. policy toward Colombia. The groups urged the President to end the failed drug policy and to invest in drug treatment for U.S. citizens and aid for the millions of Colombians displaced by war. "Rather than ending the drug trade, the problem has increased - with more coca plants grown in Colombia, and cocaine as easily available in the United States," said Mark Johnson of FOR. "There is no better time than now to end Plan Colombia." The letter urged the Obama Administration to end military aid to Colombia - currently the largest recipient of U.S. military aid in the Western Hemisphere - and called for renewed diplomatic efforts to support a negotiated settlement to the armed conflict in Colombia. Many are looking to the Obama Administration for changed policies in Latin America. Senator Lugar has called for scrapping the Cuba embargo. Reps. Grijalva and Kaptur are asking the Obama Administration to affirm that the U.S. won't interfere in El Salvador's March 15 Presidential election and will respect the result. These are all worthy efforts that should be supported. But our failed Colombia policy deserves special attention: it's literally a matter of life and death. Our carte blanche support for the Colombian government has fostered a climate of impunity for violence against civilians. And all it would take to begin to make change is cutting an expensive government program that doesn't work. More on Barack Obama
 
Schumer Privately Tells White House He's Concerned About Intel Chairman Top
Senator Charles Schumer has privately expressed concerns directly to White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel about Chas Freeman, the Obama administration's pick to head the group that prepares some of the intel community's most politically sensitive assessments, a person familiar with their conversation tells me. More on Rahm Emanuel
 
Michael Wolff: Obama Isn't Going to Sell Us Baloney--That's Too Bad Top
The president is trying to be a salesman, booster, and all-round positive guy. He’s jaw-boning, trying to convince the American people it's a good time to buy. "Buying stocks," said the president, "is a potentially good deal," adding with perhaps just a bit of irony, "if you've got a long-term perspective on it." So what's wrong with this picture? For one thing, the new president doesn't look like a guy who's done much stocking picking in his time. For another, he's spent the better part of the last 2 years telling everybody how bankrupt--morally and then economically--the country is. But now he's in a tough spot. It's not just his gumption, and savvy, and political deftness, and good luck that stand between us and the apocalypse, but his optimism and salesmanship. If he doesn't believe, nobody else is gonna go for it either. And honestly it doesn't look like he believes. Continue reading at newser.com More on Barack Obama
 
Wednesday's Late Night Round-Up: Rush Limbaugh, Ashton Kutcher, And Sarah Palin's Wardrobe Top
Both Leno and Letterman took on Rush Limbaugh last night: The former for his size and latter for his drug use. The hosts have gotten weeks of fodder from the recent dealings between the radio host and RNC Chair Michael Steele and Rush's speech at CPAC. Jimmy Fallon stayed on message by mocking the Republican party: "The Republican party said it would donate Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe to a needy cause. That's nice, that's nice. They looked around, turns out the neediest cause is the Republican party." More from Jon Stewart and Jimmy Kimmel below. To see yesterday's round-up click here. More on Funny Videos
 
Frances Beinecke: Off to a Green Start: A Roundup of Obama's Environmental Progress Top
People often ask me these days what it is like to advocate for environmental protections under the Obama administration. My answer is simple: it is a tremendous relief. It has only been five weeks since President Obama took office, but already the landscape has changed dramatically. Back in the long dark days of the Bush administration, NRDC kept what we called the Bush Record . It was a compendium of the many Bush policies that undermined or completely eradicated our nation's environmental safeguards. We posted it online because it had to be updated so often. Thankfully those days are over. The decisions coming out of Washington now are actually strengthening America's protections for the air, water, and atmosphere that we rely on. Of course, there will be challenges ahead. Government agencies will make decisions NRDC doesn't agree with, and Congress will still require vigilant watchdogs. But the Obama administration has already taken several bold and affirmative steps to protect public health and the environment, and I think they deserve to be trumpeted. Here is the beginning of what I hope will be a very long list: • January 26, 2009: President Obama directs the EPA to reconsider the agency's decision to deny California's strong limits on global warming pollution from cars, and he calls on the Department of Transportation to raise national fuel efficiency standards. • February 4, 2009: More than 100,000 acres of Utah wilderness win protection from oil and gas drilling after the Department of Interior announced that it will cancel 77 leases issued under the Bush administration. • February 5, 2009: President Obama signs a presidential memorandum requesting that the Department of Energy set new efficiency standards for common household appliances. This will save in 30 years the amount of energy produced by all the coal-fired power plants in America over a two-year period. • February 6, 2009: The EPA announces it will reconsider its decision to deny California permission to set standards controlling greenhouse gases from motor vehicles. • February 6, 2009: On instruction from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the Solicitor General asks the Supreme Court to drop the Bush administration's desperate appeal to resurrect EPA's illegal and harmful power plant mercury rule. • February 10, 2009: Department of Interior Secretary Salazar announces that he is going to make a thorough review of the five-year Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing program that was announced in the final days of the Bush administration. • February 10, 2009: Administrator Jackson grants a petition by NRDC to reconsider and "stay" for three months a harmful midnight air pollution rule adopted by the Bush administration in mid-January 2009 that would allow dirty industries to release more pollution. • February 13, 2009: Congress came to an agreement on an economic stimulus package that includes bold investments for renewable power and energy efficiency, including weatherization programs that will save consumers billions while creating up to 90,000 jobs. Repairing our nation's outdated and corroded water and waste systems will also create more than 200,000 jobs and improve the safety of our beaches, streams, and drinking water. • February 17, 2009: EPA Administrator Jackson grants a petition by NRDC, Sierra Club and EDF to reconsider a disputed memo signed by Administrator Johnson in December 2008 that refused to regulate carbon dioxide from new coal-fired power plants. She announced that EPA would convene a public process to review this memo, in what was widely seen as the first step to reversing the Bush policy. • February 20, 2009: The Obama administration puts its support behind an international, legally binding treaty to reduce global mercury pollution. This position--a dramatic change for the stonewalling of the Bush years--influences policy reversals from other nations including China and India. Now more than 140 countries commit to regulating this dangerous neurotoxin. • February 24, 2009: In his first State of the Union address, Obama calls on Congress to pass legislation to cap global warming pollution and drive expansion of renewable energy. He also pledges $15 billion a year to invest in solar, wind, biofuels, and more efficient vehicles, and to put American to work making our homes and buildings more energy efficient. • February 25, 2009: Thousands of acres in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado will be protected from harmful oil shale research and development after Department of Interior Secretary Salazar announces that he will reverse course on the Bush administration's leasing program. • February 26, 2009: The Obama administration releases a federal budget that is the first in history to make critical investments in our clean energy future and tackle global warming head on. It includes revenue from a cap and invest program to limit global warming pollution, which is forecast to generate $150 billion over 10 years starting in 2012. This is an impressive list, but it is only the beginning. President Obama initial decisions show that he meant what he said on the campaign trail. He has a bold, ambitious vision to move American to a new clean energy future, and he has a powerful sense that the safeguards protecting our health and environment must be strengthened. But most important, he has the conviction to put those beliefs into action. This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog .
 
25 Things I Hate About Facebook (VIDEO) Top
Julian Smith , a self-proclaimed "scatterbrained creative type," made this video about Facebook and the 25 things he most hates about it. He gets many things right. I hate when people tag me in ugly photos, especially when they look good in them and are engaging in an unacceptable level of schadenfreude. Then again, there is a simple way of avoiding all these things: not being a member of the site. WATCH: More on Facebook
 
Chris Brown Charged With Two Felonies Top
LOS ANGELES — Chris Brown has been charged with two felonies stemming from an argument with his girlfriend, Rihanna, court documents show. Brown is expected to be arraigned Thursday afternoon on charges of assault likely to cause great bodily injury and making criminal threats. The 19-year-old R&B singer remains free on $50,000 bail. The felony complaint handed down in court Thursday morning identifies Brown's alleged victim only as "Robyn F." Rihanna's real name is Robyn Rihanna Fenty. If convicted, the possible sentence ranges anywhere from probation to four years and eight months in state prison, said district attorney's spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons. Los Angeles police arrested Brown on Feb. 8 and booked him on suspicion of making criminal threats. Police said at the time a woman identified Brown as her attacker during an early morning dispute in an upscale Los Angeles neighborhood. A phone message left for Brown's attorney, Mark Geragos, was not immediately returned Thursday. Brown's publicist Tony Knight said any statement would likely come from Geragos after today's hearing. Rihanna's spokesperson had no comment on the charges filed against Brown. Brown issued a statement a week after the incident saying that he was "sorry and saddened" about the incident. Rihanna also later issued a statement, saying she wouldn't comment on the alleged beating at the request of authorities. She thanked fans for their support. Brown's arrest has been a dent in the "Run It!" singer's squeaky-clean image, and compelled sponsors to drop him or not renew his deals. The alleged attack also came hours before the couple were scheduled to appear and perform at the Grammy Awards. Both were no-shows for event. More on Chris Brown & Rihanna
 
Free Credit Report: How The Ads Soak Consumers Top
Commercials for FreeCreditReport.com have reached a saturation point in the consciousness of the television-watching public. The affable, scruffy young man with the guitar -- alternately a victim of identity theft or plain old bad credit -- has sung his way into our hearts and minds. His siren song warns us to monitor our credit worthiness, because if we don't, we'll wind up like him, with a bad job waiting tables wearing a puffy shirt in a pirate-themed restaurant. The videos are ubiquitous on TV and wildly popular on YouTube, where they've received hundreds of thousands of hits and have spawned numerous imitation fan videos. That ubiquity didn't happen by accident. Experian, the company that owns FreeCreditReport.com, spent $70.7 million in 2007 and $19 million in just the third quarter of 2008, an increase of 28% over the same period in 2007, according to SmartMoney . Consumer advocates say it's a fundamentally dishonest business, because a person who registers with the Web site only gets a free credit report after enrolling in a $14.95-a-month credit-monitoring program. As the economy shrinks and lending withers, critics say FreeCreditReport.com is unfairly capitalizing on people's concerns over their credit worthiness. "It is unfair and deceptive to link the FreeCreditReport.com to the notion that you're going to improve your FICO score or your ability to fight identity theft," says Ed Mierzwinski, program director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group in Washington, D.C. "And it isn't free." Experian paid $950,000 to settle Federal Trade Commission charges of deceptive advertising in 2005, and $300,000 for the same reason in 2007. By federal law enacted in 2003, consumers are entitled to a free credit report every year, available at AnnualCreditReport.com . "A million dollar fine every five years is chump change," says Mierzwinski. "That's gonna keep them off the Golf Channel." After the FTC's wrist-slapping, a disclaimer appeared on FreeCreditReport.com alerting consumers that if "you don't cancel your membership within the 7-day trial period, you will be billed $14.95 for each month that you continue your membership." Mierzwinksi attributes the FTC's leniency to an overly business-friendly Bush administration. Deborah Platt Majoras, appointed by President Bush to head the FTC in 2004, was previously a partner in the law firm Jones Day, which had represented Experian against accusations of false advertising and unfair business practices. Majoras told USA Today in 2007 that she recused herself from the FTC's 2005 investigation of Experian but not the subsequent case two years later. Majoras has since returned to the private sector. Mierzwinski and other consumer advocates wonder whether revenue from FreeCreditReport.com is fueling an Experian scheme to dramatically boost its share of the credit-monitoring market. Earlier this year, Experian announced that it would no longer allow the Fair Isaac corporation to sell the Experian version of its FICO score to consumers as of Feb. 14. Fair Isaac measures people's creditworthiness and sells its findings on myFICO.com as three different numerical FICO scores, with each score calculated using data from each of the Big Three credit bureaus--Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax. Fair Isaac also sells FICO scores to lenders, who use them to determine a potential borrower's likelihood to repay a loan. Experian still allows Fair Isaac to sell consumers' FICO score to lenders. In 2006 the Big Three banded together to create their own system to score consumers on creditworthiness, call Vantage. (Fair Isaac immediately sued , saying the credit bureaus were violating antitrust laws and engaging in unfair competitive practices. The lawsuit is ongoing.) "Experian's made the calculation that they're willing to forgo the revenue they make selling the Experian version of the score at myFico.com," says Privacy Times editor Evan Hendricks, "in order to build up the revenue and market share of FreeCreditReport.com and the Vantage fake-o score they sell there."
 
Mortgage Woes Break Records Again In 4Q Top
NEW YORK — A stunning 48 percent of the nation's homeowners who have a subprime, adjustable-rate mortgage are behind on their payments or in foreclosure, and the rate for homeowners with all mortgage types hit a new record, new data Thursday showed. But that's not the worst of it. The reckless lending practices in states like Florida, California and Nevada that were the epicenter of the housing crisis are no longer driving up the nation's delinquency rate. Instead, the foreclosure crisis now is being fueled by a spike in defaults in states like Louisiana, New York, Georgia and Texas, where the economies are rapidly deteriorating and thousands are losing their jobs. A record 5.4 million American homeowners with a mortgage of any kind, or nearly 12 percent, were at least one month late or in foreclosure at the end of last year, the Mortgage Bankers Association reported. That's up from 10 percent at the end of the third quarter, and up from 8 percent at the end of 2007. Prime and subprime fixed-rate loans saw sharp increases in the fourth quarter, a sign that the problem is now the economy. "We're seeing increases in fixed-rate categories and that's where the problems are coming from," said Jay Brinkmann, the group's chief economist. "The foreclosure picture is more clearly driven by the jobs market." That trend highlights one of the biggest challenges confronting the Obama administration's mortgage relief plan launched this week. While the $75 billion plan could help change the loan terms or refinance up to 9 million homeowners, unemployed borrowers will have a hard time qualifying. On Thursday, the Labor Department said new unemployment claims last week totaled 639,000, lower than expected, but still at elevated levels. Factory orders also slipped for the sixth month in a row in January, the Commerce Department reported. "There can be no doubt that employers continue to shed labor at a frightening pace, with no end in sight," Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics, wrote in a client note Wednesday. The key is what kind of workers are losing their jobs, Brinkmann said. Unemployment for people with college degrees, some college education or technical training _ those most likely to own homes and have prime fixed-rate loans _ has nearly doubled over the past six months. In New York, for example, where the financial industry is handing out pink slips like ticker tape, homeowners who once had good credit are defaulting at an increasing clip. The only bright spot in the report is the devastation wrought by subprime ARMs appears to be waning. Their 30-day delinquency rate continues to fall and is at the lowest point since the first quarter of 2007. That offers little reassurance to Florida, where 60 percent of homeowners who have a subprime ARM are at least one payment behind and one in five of all mortgage holders aren't current.
 
Sallai Meridor Resigns From Post As Israeli Ambassador To Washington Top
The Israeli ambassador to Washington has resigned, according to the Jerusalem Post. "Due to the sensitivity of the ambassador's post in the most important country in the world that is also Israel's greatest friend, it would be proper to allow the incoming government the option of appointing - at soon as it is established - its trusted man or woman to the post of ambassador in Washington," Meridor said in a statement. In his outgoing statement he wished Israel's new prime minister designate Benjamin Netanyahu "much luck in coping with the challenges facing Israel." Foreign Policy's the Cable reports that the resignation may be due to expectations the Obama and Netanyahu administrations will clash. "The bigger story of Sallai resigning may portend that he wants to get out of the ship before the hurricane hits," said one Washington Middle East policy analyst informed of the news. "I think that these are two governments on a collision course." "You have an American administration which for the first time in eight years wants to accelerate the peace process, while in Israel you have a new administration that wants to turn it around," he added. "That's a sure fire formula for collision." More on Israel
 
Bush: Next On War Crimes List? Top
George W. Bush could one day be the International Criminal Court's next target. More on George Bush
 
Dr. Irene S. Levine: Friendship and Money: Minimizing Losses Top
Given the uncertainties of the economy and the high rates of unemployment, money seems to be on everyone's minds these days. This is the second part of a two-part interview on Friendship and Money with MSN Money columnist Emma Johnson . Part I of this interview can be found here: She's Fired, You're Not . How do economic inequities between friends affect relationships? In a perfect world, money wouldn't affect friendships. But there are a few things going on here. For one, in our culture we measure success in terms of professional accomplishments and money, and we often judge ourselves by these sticks. So when one friend gets ahead financially, another might start feeling left behind and less successful all around. The other thing that happens is that money often has a big impact on our lifestyles. When one friend starts making big bucks, she might move to a tonier zip code, start worrying about private schools for their kids, and spend weekends researching a second home to buy. This is her new life. The friend from way-back-when can't identify with these new concerns, and vice versa. These are not trivial differences and can create big rifts in how people relate. There are practical considerations, too, depending on the relationship. If a pair of friends is in the habit of spending money together -- be it dinners out, shopping or vacationing -- that can all come to a grinding halt once one party can no longer afford it. Worse, the unemployed woman may feel the need to now live beyond her means just to keep that much-needed friendship alive. Should women talk openly with each other about their financial woes or those of their partners? Why? I believe we all need someone to talk to about the important things in our lives. We've been raised to believe that talking about money is impolite, but it is such an important part of our lives -- and often our worries -- that the practice of bottling up all our money woes might just be at the root our country's lousy financial habits. Blabbing about the nitty-gritty of your income, credit card statements, taxes and inheritances is probably not a great idea most of the time, but there are no holds barred when you have a really truly great friend who will not judge you, will give you some tough love when needed and, most importantly, listen. On the other hand, if you're tickled because your husband got a raise, your great aunt died and left you a chunk of change and you found a wad of cash in your attic, remember: no one likes a braggart. Are there circumstances when you should lend a girlfriend money to keep her afloat? What are the perils? What safeguards would help preserve the friendship? Lending money to a friend or relative is always a tough situation, and can be a real stressor in the relationship. Whenever you get together, the money will be on everyone's mind, but no one will talk about it. And there is no better way to create resentment than to have an unpaid debt between parties. If you do decide to lend money, write up a contract signed by both friends, and have it include terms of the loan, repayment dates, interest, etc. But lending money should be a business decision, not an emotional one, and that is tricky between friends. Ask yourself: - What is this person's financial history? - What is the likelihood they will be gainfully employed soon? - Is the loan for a true emergency or basic living expenses, or something frivolous? - And perhaps most important, Will this loan put my own finances in peril? In the piece I wrote for Psychology Today about friendship and money, I profiled a woman who made all her own money and had a very modest existence, one she shared with a girlfriend who later came into a significant inheritance. The newly rich friend felt guilty about it and insisted on treating her friend to meals out, vacations and trips to the mall -- which the working woman resented very much. They were able to talk it though, but that financial inequality proved to be a big deal. Emma Johnson is a New York journalist who writes about business, finance and money topics for publications including the New York Times , Wall Street Journal , Entrepreneur and Psychology Today . Her series on MSN Money, Jump Start Your Life , explores money topics for people in their 20s and 30s. Irene S. Levine, PhD is a freelance journalist and author. She holds an appointment as a professor of psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine and is working on a book about female friendships, Best Friends Forever: Surviving the Myth, that will be published by Overlook Press in September, 2009. She recently co-authored Schizophrenia for Dummies (Wiley, 2008). She also blogs about female friendships at The Friendship Blog . More on The Recession
 
Students Talk About Taking Green Back Home (VIDEO) Top
Democracy Now put together this great video piece interviewing a diverse group of attendees at last week's PowerShift conference, showing students who want to take their new knowledge back home to Kentucky, New Mexico, Southeast Asia and other places to improve the quality of life and the economy together. It's really pretty impressive. WATCH: More on Video
 
Brandon Roberts: Introducing the Principles for State Implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Top
Brandon Roberts manages the Working Poor Families Project . As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, each state will benefit from investments that range between one and 65 billion dollars. With National unemployment at a 32-year high and the stock market at an 11+ year low , the need for these funds to be spent effectively is dire. For the sake of millions of Americans in need, as well as the American economy as a whole, this money must be spent openly, efficiently, and with accountability. State leaders, faced with growing budget deficits and rising unemployment, will be under great pressure to spend their share of the recovery funds as quickly as possible. The urgency is great, so time is indeed of the essence. But while speed is important, ensuring that the funds are spent in the most efficient way possible is critical too. To that end, the Working Poor Families Project has just released a set of principles outlining how money allocated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act should be spent. The primary goals of the principles are as follows: Make investments that stabilize the economy, promote growth, and benefit those hurt most by the recession. Assure that funds are spent in an open and accountable manner that maximizes benefits. You can read the principles here . The Recovery Act funding gives states the opportunity to invest in low-income workers and their families. These are the people who have been hit the hardest by the recession. States should make sure to use resources that help workers get the education and experience needed to obtain middle-skill jobs in high-demand sectors such as construction, health care, and green industries. If used effectively these funds can foster economic growth and build secure economic futures. As Bob Giloth, Director of the Family Economic Success unit at the Annie E. Casey Foundation recently noted, "The Recovery Act funding gives the states an opportunity to strengthen systems and programs that build low-income workers' skills and give them the tools to move ahead. States can use the funds to make systemic changes that will pay dividends for low-wage workers now and for years to come." State leaders should take the principles we've just released into account as they work to turn our economy around. The principles have been endorsed by the following organizations: Center for Community Change Center for Law and Social Policy Center for State Innovation CFED Coalition on Human Needs Community Action Partnership Corporation for a Skilled Workforce Council for Adult and Experiential Learning Economic Analysis and Research Network Economic Mobility Corporation Economic Policy Institute Gamaliel Foundation Half in Ten Jobs for the Future National Employment Law Project OMB Watch Transportation Equity Network Progressive States Network Wider Opportunities for Women Workforce Strategy Center To learn more about the principles or the Working Poor Families Project , please visit: http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org . More on Stimulus Package
 
Monroe Price: Obama-izing Journalism: Can Reporters be Counted on as Stimulus Watchdogs? Top
We're already into a decade of immense, uncharted, and widely distributed federal spending but with one vital part of the democracy in jeopardy. At the same time that our President is engaged in a Hail Mary of economic planning, our much-reputed constitutional mechanism for accountability (otherwise known as newspapers, journalism and the engine of information called the First Amendment) is in a weak-kneed trance. How can we use this moment -- the need for skilled, consistent, ubiquitous journalistic accountability -- to address structural issues that diminish the Fourth Estate? I was thinking about this while talking with my son, Asher Price, the environmental reporter for the Austin, Texas daily, the American-Statesman . He had just blogged about the money that would rain, under the stimulus plan, on the Texas State Energy Conservation Office. To get a feel of how much the federal stimulus package could affect Texas, consider testimony today from Robert Wood, Director of Local Government Assistance at the state comptroller' office and Dub Taylor, manager of the State Energy Conservation Office at a House committee meeting on stimulus money. In any given year, the State Energy Conservation Office gets between $1.8 million and $2.5 million, which pays for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, "green job" training, and the retrofitting of buildings with efficient lighting, air conditioning and heating system. This year, according to estimates by the two men, the office could get $233.8 million in federal money. The members of the Select Committee on Federal Economic Stabilization appeared to want assurance the money would be spent wisely. "Money corrupts, and this is a whole lot of money," said state Rep. Myra Crownover, R-Lake Dallas. Reading this, I wondered how journalists would handle watching how Taylor's office will spend the funds. But it's a generalizable question: what kind of reportage should the public want and receive in Texas (or California or Wyoming, etc) to monitor expenditures? To be sure, I was impressed with our President's using his bully pulpit to say that he wanted the public and his own officials to make sure all this money was spent to get jobs (and that the school money went to schools and that the foreclosure relief money went to the right recipients). Recovery.gov , the special website set up by the Administration to track the relief spending, is hardly enough of an instrument, though it's part of the answer. I relished the videos of Vice-President Biden turning reassuringly to the Budget Director, Peter Orszag, and asserting that he and other members of the cabinet were going to "follow the money" to see that it was going where it was meant to go. But as hard as it is to "mess with Joe," it'll take a pretty extensive posse to guard against corruption, waste and fraud as all these hundreds of billions pass through the cruel capillaries of American bureaucracies. The point is that there's an immense journalistic job at hand and a somewhat dispirited professional cadre out there to do it -- bloggers aside (and that's a big but possibly insufficient aside). It's a classic case of a valuable public benefit that the private sector is unlikely, unaided, to perform in a way that measures up to the need. Newspapers, bleeding dollars, are laying off writers, folding editions, and otherwise becoming victims of technology and their own misdirections, and are now unlikely to invest a lot to cover something that doesn't necessarily produce subscribers and advertising. The on-the-ground spending of the stimulus money -- the politics at work, the number of jobs actually created, the inevitable floating of no-bid contracts -- can be a defining demonstration of journalism's signature role, one intensively demanded in this moment of potential democratic crisis. But the financing of that role must explicitly be addressed. Here's a case where the obvious, though controversial, answer may actually be a correct one. The quickest, easiest way to increase capacity of newspapers would be for a sliver of stimulus money -- an accountability expense -- to be set aside to subsidize "accountability journalists." Abroad, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the State Department (as well as the Gates Foundation and others) already invest in improving journalism-based transparency. And there is the excellent Transparency International , designed partly to protect (as well as possible) the effectiveness of funds invested in development. We could learn from these efforts. A concrete proposal: the government should create a $10 million fund for 100 "accountability fellowships" to be administered, say, by the Columbia Journalism Review, the Poynter Institute or some other neutral entity. Think of a journalistic equivalent of the National Endowment of the Arts, and its state counterparts, much more nimble and quick acting, to whom a newspaper, a television station, or an individual journalist or blogger could apply for funds--in relatively small amounts -- for support of important public interest reporting on the stimulus implementation. Officials don't voluntarily create oversight mechanisms. But in this climate I could see some states or some municipalities taking the initiative and establishing coverage of stimulus expenditures, for local coverage. Both Republicans and Democrats might come together over the idea. If this government support of a journalistic initiative is unlikely, there are other ways to start. Foundations like the Knight Foundation should invest in training journalists now to have a Stimulus and Economic Recovery beat: how to trace federal dollars down through states, through banks, through school systems. Other mechanisms might be created to share fraud-discovery savings with those who unearth skullduggery. Newspapers don't usually try to recover some portion of the value that they save taxpayers, but here's a bit of an outside idea, from the Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund : "Qui tam is a mechanism in the law that allows persons and entities with evidence of fraud against federal programs or contracts to sue the wrongdoer on behalf of the Government. The qui tam provisions include strong incentives both to report fraud against the Government and to participate in the resulting litigation." Some complex set of incentives could provide financial awards to newspapers that, through their journalistic efforts, ensure more efficient use of federal dollars and prevent or uncover corruption or waste and abuse. Obviously, there are dangers and traps in all of these measures: support that becomes partisan, inquiries that become witch-hunts, funding practices that legitimate bad practices instead of bringing them to the sunlight. But that doesn't mean that the need should go unmet. Paul Staff makes the case for journalistic watchdog-ism eloquently in a New Republic requiem, "Goodbye to the Age of Newspapers (Hello to a New Era of Corruption)" . And a lovely piece by David Simon in the Washington Post , ironically headlined "In Baltimore, No One Left to Press the Police" , makes a similar point about journalism and coverage of crimes. Not all problems can be fixed, but we could do a better job trying. What's needed, especially at this time of waning newspaper morale, is for a group of journalists or papers or supporters of journalism to say, here's a huge public need that is tailor-made for journalism, and here's how we're going to step up to this very technical, very demanding, very complicated plate. More on Newspapers
 
Rihanna To Cops: Chris Brown's Beatings Kept Getting Worse Top
Even if Rihanna refuses to cooperate with prosecutors, the L.A. County District Attorney may have evidence even more powerful than the gruesome photos. Multiple law enforcement sources tell TMZ, the night of the attack Rihanna told cops she was the victim of escalating violence -- and the perp was Brown. LAPD cops interviewed Rihanna after the attack and she told them Brown had been violent toward her in the past and that the attacks were getting "more violent" as time went on. The interview is potent evidence if the L.A. County D.A. charges Brown with felony domestic battery, and that could happen as early as today. More on Chris Brown & Rihanna
 
Congratulate Rush: Americans Invited To Send Letters To Limbaugh Top
Americans United For Change, a pro-Obama organization that helped rally support for the economic recovery package, has set its sights on Rush Limbaugh. The group is urging people to send a letter to the talk show host, congratulating him for his "sweet new gig" -- true leader of the Republican Party. The full letter: Dear Friend, You've got to wonder if there's a rash of skinned knees going around the GOP these days, what with Republican politicians falling all over themselves to kiss the ring of their new Dear Leader. Congratulate Rush Limbaugh on ascending to the Republican Party's heights -- by dragging it down to his level. Send Rush a note of congratulations now: http://www.americansunitedforchange.org/Congrats Limbaugh says he hopes President Obama's economic plan fails, and Republican leaders have rushed to agree. Never mind that the fate of our economy -- and Americans who are suffering because of its decline -- are at stake. And that siding with Rush means rooting against recovery. Michael Steele learned only a few days after taking the helm of the RNC who the real head of the party is. After calling Limbaugh's show "incendiary" and "ugly" on cable TV, he was forced to backtrack and apologize profusely to Rush. Lesson learned: you don't insult Dear Leader, no matter what he says. Right now, it's good to be Rush. Join the lovefest by sending him a congratulations card: http://www.americansunitedforchange.org/Congrats Pass it on to your friends and colleagues! No one should miss the chance to congratulate Rush on his sweet new gig. Thanks, Jeremy Funk Americans United for Change More on Barack Obama
 
Cameron Diaz And Jimmy Fallon's Dance-Off (VIDEO) Top
Cameron Diaz stopped by Jimmy Fallon's show Wednesday night where the new late-night host challenged her to a dance-off. The best-of-three dance move challenge came after Fallon had asked her three questions submitted to him on Twitter. Sample Twitter-submitted question: "What would you do if you came face-to-face with a bear in the woods and why?" Both segments are below. And if the dance off leaves you wanting more, scroll down below the two Fallon clips for some bonus movie segments of Diaz dancing, just because. WATCH THE DANCE OFF: WATCH THE TWITTER QUESTIONS: In Charlie's Angels: More Charlie's Angels: Dancing to the Killers in "The Holiday" More on Twitter
 
Beatles Edition Of `Rock Band' Coming Top
NEW YORK — Rock Band is getting the perhaps greatest rock group of all time: The Beatles. The Beatles' management said Thursday that a Beatles version of the Rock Band video game will debut Sept. 9. In addition, they'll sell accompanying instruments modeled after the ones used by the band. This is the first time Rock Band has based a game on one group, according to MTV Games. It has not yet been determined what Beatles songs will be included in the edition, available for Xbox360, Playstation 3, and Wii video game consoles. Representatives of the Beatles and Rock Band had been planning a collaboration for months, but initially, the final project was not supposed to be a Rock Band game, but another type of game compatible with the instruments used for the popular series. But MTV Games said in a statement: "As we moved through the creative process, it just seemed to make sense to clearly highlight the association between The Beatles game and the critically acclaimed Rock Band franchise. The game is being developed by Harmonix and will utilize and build upon the core foundation of Rock Band to create a brand new and innovative Beatles experience." Giles Martin, son of Beatles producer George Martin, is developing the product. The Beatles, who broke up nearly four decades ago, have been slow in embracing new technology: their music is still not available for sale on iTunes. The band's management, Apple Corps Ltd., is partners in the project with MTV Games and Harmonix. ___ http://www.thebeatles.com More on Technology
 
Charles Karel Bouley: If CPAC Is the Future Why Are They in the Past? Top
Limbaugh? A Brainwashed Child? Sellouts? The Real Future of the Republican Party Where do I begin? The debacle known as CPAC, where a group of very misguided individuals met to spread half truths and basic contempt for their country (add sedition to this year's gala) has come and gone again. And it's not the conference that really was the debacle this year, no, it was its typical train wreck of wrong ideas and bloated, antiquated ideologies and sheer projection where they vilify the very behavior they inflict. No, it was the coverage by the media, the credibility given to the speakers and the unchallenged comments in most of the mainstream media that was horrifying at best and a complete breach of the public's trust at worst. Let's start with the conference itself. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News...each said in describing the event that "Its website says it is the largest gathering of conservatives in the nation..." Umm, OK. But is it really? Isn't your job to tell us more than what they say? I mean, my website could say I'm the most listened to man in America, doesn't make it so. And everybody's profile on every website says they weigh 20 pounds less than they really do. Since when is the truth of a political action committee's website, a PAC whose panels includes such gems as "Al Franken and ACORN: How Liberals Are Destroying The American Electoral System" or "Media In the Obama Generation: Is Journalism Dead?" not questioned. They may be right about the dead journalism if that reporting is any indication of its current livelihood. Then there's the whoopla over a 13-year-old conservative child who authored a book. I won't say his name, as I consider what is being done to him child abuse, but really people...this is where new leaders are coming from? We wouldn't let a 13 year old drive us to the store or drive a train, yet one is credible enough to have an opinion on politics, world affairs and social issues? Listening to the youth of America is one thing, brainwashing them in to a rigid ideology and making them reminiscent of the youth movement in Germany prior to WWII is another. The "highlight" of the gala was Rush Limbaugh, a recovered (?) criminal drug addict who pimped out his maid to get his hands on illegal opiates in mass quantities, drugs that made him need surgery so he could hear, and behavior that would have landed a mere mortal in jail (which he, himself, condoned). This savior of the people stood before the nation for hours on CNN, as if he were a newsmaker we needed to hear. Like me, he's a talk show host. Nothing more. He has no political street credibility other than he talks about it a lot. He's a mean, rotund, cigar-smoking conservative Oprah. Funny, when she speaks at events CNN doesn't cover them wall-to-wall. In any event, he urged his millions of listeners to continue wishing for the failure of President Barack Obama and his administration's policies. He stated Dems wanted Bush to fail. Yes, all Americans should have, he was and is a war criminal and his regime bankrupted a nation socially and financially and robbed it of all credibility throughout the world. Left a smoldering mess of ashes and debris; a country raped and pillaged for eight years laid waste by neoconservatives with no morals and nothing but contempt for people not like themselves. I can see the comparison. Afterwards, the abomination didn't stop. CNN had a roundtable of Republicans to talk about the events, and not one person challenged anything said by these people. It was then I realized the level of hypocrisy in this country is going to reach critical mass and explode if someone doesn't start hip-checking these people a la Number 747 the big Earline Brown of the Los Angeles T-Birds (yes, I watched roller derby). These people sat by happy while Bush and their party devastated us. Now, they sit and project their behavior on Democrats and openly wish for the failure of the very country in which they live. They throw events to basically talk about another coup like the one of 2000 and make their intentions to "return to the America of the past, the America we were all born in to..." My hair bristles at the repetition of that ludicrous remark by Limbaugh. All born in to. Describes them perfectly. What about legal immigrants and naturalized citizens, you SCHMUCK!!! Make it known to the media outlets that we demand they begin to give these seditionists the same treatment those who opposed the war got during the early days of Iraq. Remember calls of "Un-American" and people being called "unpatriotic" if they said Bush was wrong and the war unjust. If you didn't support it, you didn't support our troops, wanted them to die. Meanwhile, they were dying needlessly, understaffed, underfunded, no planning... It's time to stop allowing these people to speak unchallenged. The time of civility is over. Our nation is all but lost. To Rush and every attendee at CPAC I offer you the same invitation I am quite sure Thomas Jefferson or John Adams would: start seeing America for what it can and wants to be, free, united, harmonious and start working towards the better of all people, black, white, straight, gay, all Americans whether they look like you, earn what you do, or not or simply get on a lovely ship and go off the Spice Islands. Well, nowadays, how about you go and occupy Iraq. Go build your world of strict religious rule, protracted morality and over inflated sense of self importance. We've got your mess to clean up here and we don't need you sitting around telling us a: how we're getting it wrong and b: how you can do it better. As my mom would say, either grab the mop and start helping or get the hell out of the kitchen. I vote for the latter. Oh wait, we already did.
 
Jerry Weissman: Obama & "You" II Top
In my previous post , "Obama & You," I described how, during his pursuit of the presidency, Barack Obama, in order to involve his potential voters, consciously shifted from speaking about himself to speaking about his audiences, the electorate. Shifting from "I" to "you" or its variation, "your," he deployed the word extensively on his website, in his campaign materials, and especially, throughout his speeches. Tracking Obama's word usage from candidate to president demonstrates a further shift in his focus. In his historic Inaugural Address, he used "you" only 15 times, but said "us," 23 times, "we" 62 times, and "our" 70 times. "Us," "we," and "our," are words that involve the "you" of the audience, but are more inclusive. In his first formal address to a joint session of congress, his focus widened from the electorate to include the assembled members of congress. He was seeking cooperation and commitment from them and from all citizens to work together, to "rebuild and recover." His word count: "you" 40 times, "us" 19 times, "our" 115 times, and the lion's share went to "we" for a grand total of 138 times. Granted, the latter speech was about three times as long as the Inaugural Address but, in his goal to rally a worried nation and a recalcitrant congress, he shifted his pronoun usage. Hendrik Hertzberg of the New Yorker noted that "he spoke of 'we'--of common responsibility of past and future alike." Inclusiveness was the order of the day. As a benchmark of the shift, away from himself, Obama said "I" only 15 times, and "me" only 7 times. The speech was not about him, it was about all of us. The president was rallying us round the flag. As a footnote, Obama used "I" and "me" throughout the speech quite correctly--probably in response to a New York Times article (published on the day of the speech) by two grammarians who chided his prior usage of those pronouns. And in a second footnote of delicious irony, the Times copy editors applied their self-proclaimed punctuation style of using an apostrophe "s" to indicate a plural in the title of said article: "The I's Have It," thus making the grammarians--whose new book is called Origins of the Specious: Myths and Misconceptions of the English Language --appear ungrammatical. More on Barack Obama
 
Report: Chris Brown Punched Rihanna, Threatened to Kill Her Top
A detective's notes from the scene of the alleged Rihanna assault reportedly reveal disturbing details about what happened between the singer and her boyfriend Chris Brown in the early hours of Feb. 8. According to FOX 11 in Los Angeles, which claims to have obtained the notes from a search warrant in the case, Rihanna, 21, read a lengthy text message from a woman on Brown's phone, which led to an argument. Brown -- who has a standing court date Thursday -- allegedly tried to force his girlfriend out of the Lamborghini, and hit her head against the passenger window. More on Chris Brown & Rihanna
 
Tom Engelhardt: The Imperial Unconscious Top
Cross-posted from TomDispatch.com Afghan Faces, Predators, Reapers, Terrorist Stars, Roman Conquerors, Imperial Graveyards, and Other Oddities of the Truncated American Century Sometimes, it's the everyday things, the ones that fly below the radar, that matter. Here, according to Bloomberg News, is part of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's recent testimony on the Afghan War before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "U.S. goals in Afghanistan must be 'modest, realistic,' and 'above all, there must be an Afghan face on this war ,' Gates said. 'The Afghan people must believe this is their war and we are there to help them. If they think we are there for our own purposes, then we will go the way of every other foreign army that has been in Afghanistan.'" Now, in our world, a statement like this seems so obvious, so reasonable as to be beyond comment. And yet, stop a moment and think about this part of it: "there must be an Afghan face on this war." U.S. military and civilian officials used an equivalent phrase in 2005-2006 when things were going really, really wrong in Iraq. It was then commonplace -- and no less unremarked upon -- for them to urgently suggest that an "Iraqi face" be put on events there. Evidently back in vogue for a different war, the phrase is revelatory -- and oddly blunt. As an image, there's really only one way to understand it (not that anyone here stops to do so). After all, what does it mean to "put a face" on something that assumedly already has a face? In this case, it has to mean putting an Afghan mask over what we know to be the actual "face" of the Afghan War -- ours -- a foreign face that men like Gates recognize, quite correctly, is not the one most Afghans want to see. It's hardly surprising that the Secretary of Defense would pick up such a phrase, part of Washington's everyday arsenal of words and images when it comes to geopolitics, power, and war. And yet, make no mistake, this is Empire-speak, American-style. It's the language -- behind which lies a deeper structure of argument and thought -- that is essential to Washington's vision of itself as a planet-straddling goliath. Think of that "Afghan face"/mask, in fact, as part of the flotsam and jetsam that regularly bubbles up from the American imperial unconscious. Of course, words create realities even though such language, in all its strangeness, essentially passes unnoticed here. Largely uncommented upon, it helps normalize American practices in the world, comfortably shielding us from certain global realities; but it also has the potential to blind us to those realities, which, in perilous times, can be dangerous indeed. So let's consider just a few entries in what might be thought of as The Dictionary of American Empire-Speak. War Hidden in Plain Sight: There has recently been much reporting on, and even some debate here about , the efficacy of the Obama administration's decision to increase the intensity of CIA missile attacks from drone aircraft in what Washington, in a newly coined neologism reflecting a widening war, now calls "Af-Pak" -- the Pashtun tribal borderlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since August 2008, more than 30 such missile attacks have been launched on the Pakistani side of that border against suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban targets. The pace of attacks has actually risen since Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, as have casualties from the missile strikes, as well as popular outrage in Pakistan over the attacks. Thanks to Senator Diane Feinstein, we also know that, despite strong official Pakistani government protests, someone official in that country is doing more than looking the other way while they occur. As the Senator revealed recently, at least some of the CIA's unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) cruising the skies over Af-Pak are evidently stationed at Pakistani bases. We learned recently as well that American Special Operations units are now regularly making forays inside Pakistan "primarily to gather intelligence"; that a unit of 70 American Special Forces advisors, a "secret task force, overseen by the United States Central Command and Special Operations Command," is now aiding and training Pakistani Army and Frontier Corps paramilitary troops, again inside Pakistan; and that, despite (or perhaps, in part, because of) these American efforts, the influence of the Pakistani Taliban is actually expanding , even as Pakistan threatens to melt down. Mystifyingly enough, however, this Pakistani part of the American war in Afghanistan is still referred to in major U.S. papers as a "covert war." As news about it pours out, who it's being hidden from is one of those questions no one bothers to ask. On February 20th, the New York Times' Mark Mazzetti and David E. Sanger typically wrote : "With two missile strikes over the past week, the Obama administration has expanded the covert war run by the Central Intelligence Agency inside Pakistan, attacking a militant network seeking to topple the Pakistani government... Under standard policy for covert operations, the C.I.A. strikes inside Pakistan have not been publicly acknowledged either by the Obama administration or the Bush administration." On February 25th, Mazzetti and Helene Cooper reported that new CIA head Leon Panetta essentially bragged to reporters that "the agency's campaign against militants in Pakistan's tribal areas was the 'most effective weapon' the Obama administration had to combat Al Qaeda's top leadership... Mr. Panetta stopped short of directly acknowledging the missile strikes, but he said that 'operational efforts' focusing on Qaeda leaders had been successful." Siobhan Gorman of the Wall Street Journal reported the next day that Panetta said the attacks are "probably the most effective weapon we have to try to disrupt al Qaeda right now." She added, "Mr. Obama and National Security Adviser James Jones have strongly endorsed their use, [Panetta] said." Uh, covert war? These "covert" "operational efforts" have been front-page news in the Pakistani press for months, they were part of the U.S. presidential campaign debates, and they certainly can't be a secret for the Pashtuns in those border areas who must see drone aircraft overhead relatively regularly, or experience the missiles arriving in their neighborhoods. In the U.S., "covert war" has long been a term for wars like the U.S.-backed Contra War against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the 1980s, which were openly discussed, debated, and often lauded in this country. To a large extent, when aspects of these wars have actually been "covert" -- that is, purposely hidden from anyone -- it has been from the American public, not the enemies being warred upon. At the very least, however, such language, however threadbare, offers official Washington a kind of "plausible deniability" when it comes to thinking about what kind of an "American face" we present to the world. Imperial Naming Practices: In our press, anonymous U.S. officials now point with pride to the increasing "precision" and "accuracy" of those drone missile attacks in taking out Taliban or al-Qaeda figures without (supposedly) taking out the tribespeople who live in the same villages or neighboring compounds. Such pieces lend our air war an almost sterile quality. They tend to emphasize the extraordinary lengths to which planners go to avoid "collateral damage." To many Americans, it must then seem strange, even irrational, that perfectly non-fundamentalist Pakistanis should be quite so outraged about attacks aimed at the world's worst terrorists. On the other hand, consider for a moment the names of those drones now regularly in the skies over "Pashtunistan." These are no less regularly published in our press to no comment at all. The most basic of the armed drones goes by the name of Predator , a moniker which might as well have come directly from those nightmarish sci-fi movies about an alien that feasts on humans. Undoubtedly, however, it was used in the way Col. Michael Steele of the 101st Airborne Division meant it when he exhorted his brigade deploying to Iraq (according to Thomas E. Ricks' new book The Gamble ) to remember: "You're the predator." The Predator drone is armed with "only" two missiles. The more advanced drone, originally called the Predator B , now being deployed to the skies over Af-Pak, has been dubbed the Reaper -- as in the Grim Reaper. Now, there's only one thing such a "hunter-killer UAV" could be reaping, and you know just what that is: lives. It can be armed with up to 14 missiles (or four missiles and two 500-pound bombs), which means it packs quite a deadly wallop. Oh, by the way, those missiles are named as well. They're Hellfire missiles. So, if you want to consider the nature of this covert war in terms of names alone: Predators and Reapers are bringing down the fire from some satanic hell upon the peasants, fundamentalist guerrillas, and terrorists of the Af-Pak border regions. In Washington, when the Af-Pak War is discussed, it's in the bloodless , bureaucratic language of "global counterinsurgency" or "irregular warfare" (IW), of "soft power," "hard power," and "smart power." But flying over the Pashtun wildlands is the blunt-edged face of predation and death, ready at a moment's notice to deliver hellfire to those below. Imperial Arguments: Let's pursue this just a little further. Faced with rising numbers of civilian casualties from U.S. and NATO air strikes in Afghanistan and an increasingly outraged Afghan public, American officials tend to place the blame for most sky-borne "collateral damage" squarely on the Taliban. As Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen bluntly explained recently, "[T]he enemy hides behind civilians." Hence, so this Empire-speak argument goes, dead civilians are actually the Taliban's doing. U.S. military and civilian spokespeople have long accused Taliban guerrillas of using civilians as "shields," or even of purposely luring devastating air strikes down on Afghan wedding parties to create civilian casualties and so inflame the sensibilities of rural Afghanistan. This commonplace argument has two key features: a claim that they made us do it (kill civilians) and the implication that the Taliban fighters "hiding" among innocent villagers or wedding revelers are so many cowards, willing to put their fellow Pashtuns at risk rather than come out and fight like men -- and, of course, given the firepower arrayed against them, die. The U.S. media regularly records this argument without reflecting on it. In this country, in fact, the evil of combatants "hiding" among civilians seems so self-evident, especially given the larger evil of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, that no one thinks twice about it. And yet like so much of Empire-speak on a one-way planet, this argument is distinctly uni-directional. What's good for the guerrilla goose, so to speak, is inapplicable to the imperial gander. To illustrate, consider the American "pilots" flying those unmanned Predators and Reapers. We don't know exactly where all of them are (other than not in the drones), but some are certainly at Nellis Air Force Base just outside Las Vegas. In other words, were the Taliban guerrillas to leave the protection of those civilians and come out into the open, there would be no enemy to fight in the usual sense, not even a predatory one. The pilot firing that Hellfire missile into some Pakistani border village or compound is, after all, using the UAV's cameras, including by next year a new system hair-raisingly dubbed "Gorgon Stare," to locate his target and then, via console, as in a single-shooter video game, firing the missile, possibly from many thousands of miles away. And yet nowhere in our world will you find anyone making the argument that those pilots are in "hiding" like so many cowards. Such a thought seems absurd to us, as it would if it were applied to the F-16 pilots taking off from aircraft carriers off the Afghan coast or the B-1 pilots flying out of unnamed Middle Eastern bases or the Indian Ocean island base of Diego Garcia. And yet, whatever those pilots may do in Afghan skies, unless they experience a mechanical malfunction, they are in no more danger than if they, too, were somewhere outside Las Vegas. In the last seven years, a few helicopters, but no planes, have gone down in Afghanistan. When the Afghan mujahedeen fought the Soviets in the 1980s, the CIA supplied them with hand-held Stinger missiles, the most advanced surface-to-air missile in the U.S. arsenal, and they did indeed start knocking Soviet helicopters and planes out of the skies (which proved the beginning of the end for the Russians). The Afghan or Pakistani Taliban or al-Qaeda terrorists have no such capability today, which means, if you think about it, that what we here imagine as an "air war" involves none of the dangers we would normally associate with war. Looked at in another light, those missile strikes and bombings are really one-way acts of slaughter. The Taliban's tactics are, of course, the essence of guerrilla warfare, which always involves an asymmetrical battle against more powerful armies and weaponry, and which, if successful, always depends on the ability of the guerrilla to blend into the
 
Henry Henderson: A February Coal Snap in Michigan: Attorney General Prevents Governor from Upholding the Law Top
Last month, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm used her State of the State address  to stake out an exciting new clean energy future for the wolverine state. By focusing on energy efficiency and renewable energy, she was just weeks ahead of President Obama's similarly visionary stimulus plan. But despite a plethora of truly exciting energy policies outlined in the speech, one garnered the most attention, by far---a perceived assault on coal. The state had been marching down a dangerous road, with more coal plants in development than any other in the nation. Granholm ordered her Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to re-examine the need for these plants and to ensure that a proper evaluation of alternatives had been conducted. Basically, she was following the law; protecting the state's economy and the health of its citizens ---and most importantly from a legal perspective, doing the things that the Clean Air Act requires in the interest of the people of Michigan. But in response, the forces trying to perpetuate the old energy economy mobilized to oppose the clean energy future of the state. The ACCCE... The coal apologists... And amazingly, the state's Attorney General . That is correct: the State of Michigan's chief law enforcement officer is actually publicly working to prevent the Governor from upholding the law... ...not to mention vitalizing the state's economy... Last week the AG ruled, incorrectly, that the Governor overstepped her authority by asking her direct reports to fulfill the requirements of the Clean Air Act. As a result of this political battle , the state DEQ will move forward with public comment on those proposed coal plants. Hopefully, the US EPA will step in to support the Governor's position. Beyond the legality of her actions, there is the fact that this week the EPA rejected woefully inadequate pollution permits awarded by the DEQ for a coal plant on the Northern Michigan University campus this week. And the President's call for "market-based carbon cap" legislation from Congress to deal aggressively with global warming pollution---which is also set forth in his budget as an important way to fund federal support for clean energy projects. (Of course, this is why the coal folks are trying so hard to push these plants through in Michigan...it might be their last chance for a free pass on pollution.) Either way, NRDC's attorneys and experts will have plenty of comments to share with the state regulators and our local environmental partners who have been fighting this battle so hard... In a time when we see so much focus on re-imagining and rebuilding our energy sector...when the industrial opportunities begin to present themselves for a state struggling as mightily as Michigan...it is unfortunate to see old economy die-hards and political opportunists fighting the broader environmental and economic good in a state that had been getting the vital leadership of a Governor promoting needed energy and economic reform.   This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog .
 
ProPublica: First Stimulus Contractor is GOP Donor Top
by Michael Grabell A skeptical person might think the first contractor to benefit from President Obama's $787 billion stimulus package would have political connections to the Democratic Party. Not so. The chief executive of the construction company awarded the first recovery project is actually a big Republican donor -- and contributed to Obama's opponent John McCain. The selection of the company, American Infrastructure , was announced by Obama  at a news conference highlighting how stimulus money was helping transportation projects. The $2.1 million road resurfacing project in Silver Spring, Md., will support 60 jobs and be completed by late fall, Gov. Martin O'Malley's office said . In 2008, the company's chief executive, A. Ross Myers, gave $25,000 to McCain Victory 2008 and $20,400 to the Republican National Committee, according to Federal Election Commission records. He has donated thousands of dollars each to Rudolph Giuliani's presidential campaign, RNC chairman Michael Steele's Senate campaign and Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-Pa., who sits on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Myers was one of the top donors to Lynn Swann, a Republican who unsuccessfully tried to unseat Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, according to Pennsylvania campaign finance records . Democrat Rendell was often mentioned as a potential Obama pick for transportation secretary, and his deputy chief of staff was appointed undersecretary for transportation policy this week. So was Obama's decision to highlight this company out of more than 100 other contractors that received funds Tuesday a subtle attempt to get reporters to dig into the firm's background and unwittingly affirm his promise of post-partisanship? "It certainly doesn't matter to the 60 employees that were brought back to work for this job," said Mark Compton, director of government affairs for American Infrastructure. He noted that the company has had to lay off 350 employees, 17.5 percent of the staff, because of the economic downturn. "We as an industry are struggling, and this was an investment that was worth making," he said. The news conference was also an exercise in branding, in which President Obama unveiled two seals that will go on stimulus projects. And a company named American Infrastructure has a symbolic ring to it. American Infrastructure is a classic bootstraps story. The family business from Worcester, Pa., was started by Myers' grandfather in 1939. It has since grown to 2,000 employees with subsidiaries in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. The company is a community booster, funding scholarships and youth athletic programs. And the Myers-Lawson School of Construction at Virginia Tech is named after Myers and another construction firm owner. ProPublica director of research Lisa Schwartz contributed to this report. Michael Grabell is a reporter for ProPublica, America's largest investigative newsroom. More on Stimulus Package
 
The Media Consortium: Weekly Immigration Wire:Obama Administration Absent on Immigration Immigration NewsLadder Top
by Nezua, TMC MediaWire Blogger President Obama is shaking up the established political and corporate order with a bold economic agenda. Sadly, immigration reform remains untouched by Obama’s energizing blueprint for Change. Immigration policy and programs are still tied to President George W. Bush and former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff: Paramilitary-style raids, detention centers, and the deputizing of otherwise-engaged local police forces continue to stand strong. Even as President Obama moves to close Guantánamo (though some argue his method) , the promise of change in the U.S. remains tainted as long as the detention industry grows. Roberto Lovato sums up this hypocritical inattention to immigration reform for New America Media: The proliferation of stories in international media and in global forums about the Guantánamo-like problems in the country’s immigrant detention system- death, abuse and neglect at the hands of detention facility guards; prolonged and indefinite detention of immigrants (including children and families) denied habeas corpus and other fundamental rights; filthy, overcrowded and extremely unhealthy facilities; denial of basic health services – are again tarnishing the U.S. image abroad, according to several experts. As a result, reports from Arizona and immigrant detention facilities have created a unique problem: they are making it increasingly difficult for Obama to persuade the planet’s people that the United States is ready claim exceptional leadership on human rights in a soon-to-be-post-Guantanamo world. Our current immigration policy is not thoughtful, measured legislation crafted by a consensus of experts. It is, in most cases, a patchwork of painfully and barely functioning laws, like a bone that knits crooked simply because it was never set properly. While those who benefit from unchecked ICE raids boast that “ we can make a person disappear ,” the rest of us can only wonder how “American” such a goal is. It’s a policy wrongly reliant on public loathing and lack of oversight. It supersedes U.S. laws to target “the Other.” Agreement 287(g), which bestows immigration-enforcement powers on state and local police forces to relieve some of the federal government’s duties, has been disastrous in practice. Aarti Shahani and Judith Greene report on the particular fusion of civil and criminal law that is resulting in such chaos for New America Media. They aptly characterize the 287(g) agreement as “a state and local bailout of the federal government’s failed immigration enforcement business.” Some background: The amendment of section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was made under the radar of public attention and passed by a Republican Congress under Democratic President Bill Clinton. This change was a part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( AEDPA ). President Clinton let the ammendment stand. Florida, under the guidance of Gov. Jeb Bush, was the first state to use the provision to target the immigrant community following 9/11. Critics of the merge between federal obligations and state enforcement charged that “turning police into deportation patrol would result in racial profiling, and make immigrant victims afraid to call 911,” write Shahani and Greene. In actuality, 287(g) has played out poorls. Fanatics and TV-star wannabees like Sheriff Joe Arpaio have been given power at the expense of hard-working men and women. Yesterday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a congressionally commissioned report on the 287(g) program and, in essence, pronounced it a “misuse of authority.” And in the face of all this, we have but weak and startled declarations of ignorance by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and silence from the Oval Office. Public News Service reports on the many human beings are “ living in limbo “as they wait for the Obama administration to push forward on immigration reform. Even President Obama’s Aunt Zeituni is facing deportation. In an interview with Katie Couric on Nov. 2, 2008, Obama deflected the issue by claiming he hasn’t “been able to be in touch with her” but that immigration laws, “have to be obeyed.” In WireTap’s Crickets Louder Than Obama As Aunt Faces Deportation , Beatriz Herrera responds with some passionate and true words: “Laws need to be obeyed, huh?” Herrera writes. “What about the fact that his Auntie Zeituni came here seeking asylum because Kenya’s politicians couldn’t obey their own laws, and as a result civil war broke out, forcing her to immigrate to the US?” By working to close Guantánamo, peppering his speech with talk of law and order, and restoring US image to the world abroad, Obama risks muddying up his accomplishments with a blatant hypocrisy. We simply cannot lead the way when investing in detention systems from Arizona to Iraq. When did prisons become the solution to so many of our problems? The below video is from GritTV and features excerpts from a documentary on the U.S. detention system. Perhaps the President is arranging his legislative actions carefully and we have yet to see how we will make the change that millions are waiting for. But from the ground level, silence and the continuation of the Bush administration’s failed policies speaks louder. Returning to Wiretap, Beatriz Herrera speaks her heart about Obama’s absence from these issues. I’m sure she speaks for many of us as well: I don’t want to turn my back on My First Black President, but having solidarity with him means he needs to have solidarity with me and my community of immigrant people of color, and he could start by taking an Air Force One flight to Auntie Zetuni’s house in the projects of South Boston and find out what the hell is going on. This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration. Visit Immigration.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on immigration, or follow us on Twitter . And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy and health issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and Healthcare.NewsLadder.net . This is a project of The Media Consortium , a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder . More on Barack Obama
 
Lee Camp: A Detailed Analysis of Rush Limbaugh's Power (in Cartoon Form) Top
 
Hillary Clinton Invites Iran To Afghan Talks Top
BRUSSELS, Belgium — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed on Thursday a high-level international conference on Afghanistan to be sponsored by the United Nations and attended by a wide range of countries including Pakistan and possibly Iran. Clinton presented the proposal at a NATO foreign ministers meeting where she said the session could be held March 31 and led by the U.N.'s special representative for Afghanistan, Kai Eide of Norway, who was appointed to improve coordination of international civilian assistance to Kabul. She said discussions were under way with the U.N. on possibly having U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon open the conference. "We hope that this meeting could provide an opportunity to reach a common set of principles, perhaps embodied in a chairman's statement, on a common way forward," she said, according to a prepared text released by her staff. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told a news conference that the proposed conference could be seen as a "big tent meeting" that would include a wide range of parties with an interest in stabilizing Afghanistan and preventing it from again serving as a haven for al-Qaida. Clinton said that Afghanistan and Pakistan should attend the conference, along with NATO allies and those countries that have troops in Afghanistan. Without citing others by name, Clinton also proposed having in attendance "key regional and strategic countries," which appeared to mean Russia, India and possibly others, plus "major financial contributors and relevant international organizations." Robert Wood, the State Department spokesman traveling with Clinton, said, "I would expect that Iran would be invited." That adds a new dimension to international diplomatic efforts in Afghanistan, which until now have had limited contributions from Iran. Reaction to her proposal from other NATO foreign ministers was not immediately known. The war effort in Afghanistan has deteriorated the past two years as the Taliban and extremist insurgency has gained strength and U.S. and allied casualties have increased. President Barack Obama has approved sending an additional 17,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan this spring and summer, but he also has emphasized the need to have a broader, unified international approach to the conflict. More on Hillary Clinton
 
Jim Wallis: An Involuntary Lent Top
In 1956, a few hundred Catholic teachers and catechists gathered at Mt. Carmel High School on Hoover Street in Los Angeles for workshops and teaching on religious education. Today, this gathering is called the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress and brings together 40,000 Catholics from around the world for fellowship, worship, and learning. I had the blessing and the privilege of being this year's keynote speaker for the event. I opened that morning by reading from a "Lenten Letter" written by Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. He had this reflection on both Lent and the current economic crisis: According to the calendar, Ash Wednesday occurs this week and we begin another Lent. Except for this year. Lent actually began in 2007 for many thousands of families all across the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and we have been in a long and protracted season of Lent ever since. In what sense? ... With the economy continuing to spiral downwards day after day, with millions of jobs being eliminated, with people unable to make their house payments thus losing their homes, and with so many fearful of what tomorrow might bring--we have truly been on a long Lenten journey over these past two years. Incredible difficulties have burdened families: parents ever fearful that they cannot provide for their children, the unknown financial calamity that lurks just around the corner, the awful feeling of being one paycheck away from complete financial meltdown. In prior years when life and our financial security were far more predictable, Lent meant that we could choose which special sacrifices we wanted to undertake--but just for six weeks, until Easter Sunday. And then back to normal. But now we have a new reality: We aren't choosing our sacrifices this year, they have chosen us. And they aren't just for six weeks; they have been our burden for over 75 weeks now with no sign of relief in sight. All of us now know people whose lives have been touched in some way by this crisis. For some, it has been mere inconveniences, for others here in the United States and across the world, it means hardship and suffering. One of the lessons of Lent is that suffering can be redemptive. But that only happens when we are changed for the better by it. We go through the season of Lent not just to change our actions for a moment but so that our character can be changed for a lifetime. While I support the president's budget , it does not bring Easter morning to the country. A lot more than government needs to change in the midst of this crisis; voluntary business practices, the function of our local churches, and our personal habits all must change as well. Those of us who have practiced charity, simplicity, and restraint should be patient and insistent teachers for our friends, neighbors, workplaces, and churches. For those of us who have now discovered these virtues, by choice or not, I pray that we learn these lessons not just for a season, but for a lifetime. Jim Wallis is the author of The Great Awakening , Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com . Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis More on Economy
 
The Progress Report: Lifting Bush's Shroud Top
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, and Ryan Powers To receive The Progress Report in your email inbox everyday, click here . During his confirmation hearings in January, Eric Holder promised that if he became attorney general, he would increase the Justice Department's transparency. Specifically, he pledged to make public controversial memos the Bush administration fought to keep secret. Earlier this week, Holder made good on his promise, releasing nine Bush-era memos that formed the basis for the previous administration's policies on issues such as torture, wiretapping, and the suppression of free speech. Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch said the memos "read like a how-to document on how to evade the rule of law." "Americans deserve a government that operates with transparency and openness," read a statement by Holder, underscoring the clean break with the Bush administration. "It is my goal to make OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinions available when possible while still protecting national security information and ensuring robust internal executive branch debate and decision-making." Also this week, the Obama administration revealed in court documents that the CIA destroyed 92 tapes showing interrogations of detainees -- far more than the Bush administration was willing to admit. In December 2007, the New York Times reported that the CIA had destroyed at least two videotapes documenting suspected al Qaeda operatives being subjected to "severe interrogation techniques." WHAT THESE MEMOS REVEAL: Some of the memos were released in response to a lawsuit against former OLC attorney John Yoo, by Jose Padilla, whom the United States held for years as an enemy combatant. The Obama administration concluded that there was no classified information in these documents; this admission was a stunning contrast to the Bush era, when officials attempted to maximize government secrecy by increasing the classification of government documents. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) praised Holder's quick release of the memos, saying that they finally "provide details of some of the Bush administration's misguided national security policies." The picture they end up painting is of an administration that believed "the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights," as the Associated Press reported. Furthermore, several of the memos -- including ones on extraordinary rendition and First Amendment rights -- were eventually rescinded, reflecting the "major legal errors committed by Bush administration lawyers during the formulation of its early counterterrorism policies." CREATING A DICTATORSHIP: A memo written by Yoo on Oct. 23, 2001, contained one of the most surprising revelations: the Bush administration considered suspending First Amendment rights. "Freedom of speech is integral to a free society," President Bush said in May 2008. However, seven years earlier, Yoo wrote, "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully. ... The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically." After reading the memos, Harpers' Scott Horton wrote, "We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship." In fact, Yoo's memo was too much even for Steven Bradbury, the man who failed to gain Senate confirmation to head the OLC because of his extreme views on torture. On Oct. 6, 2008, Bradbury wrote a memo saying that Yoo's suggestions to ignore free speech were "overbroad" and "not sufficiently grounded." A BLANK CHECK: Yoo's October 2001 memo also dismissed the Fourth Amendment, claiming that protections against unwarranted searches and seizures could be subordinated in the war on terrorism. Yoo similarly proposed invading Americans' privacy in a Sept. 25, 2001 memo, advocating "warrantless searches for national security reasons." The Associated Press noted that the document "did not specifically attempt to justify the government's warrantless wiretapping program, but it provided part of the foundation." In fact, one of the most controversial memos from the Bush era that many lawmakers have been asking to be released is one explicitly justifying the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping. Another major focus of the memos is the treatment of detainees. A March 13, 2002 memo written by then-assistant attorney general in the OLC Jay Bybee argued that the president had the authority to transfer detainees to other countries, whether or not they may be tortured there. Recognizing his controversial proposals, Bybee provided ways for the Bush administration to avoid being held legally liable. "So long as the United States doe[s] not intend for a detainee to be tortured post-transfer, however, no criminal liability will attach to a transfer even if the foreign country receiving the detainee does torture him," he wrote. "These memos were meant to provide the president with a blank check with respect to the rights of not only prisoners overseas but people in the United States as well," concluded the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer. FINDING THE TRUTH: The release of these memos came as Congress determines how to investigate -- and perhaps even prosecute -- the Bush administration's misdeeds. Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the creation of a "truth commission" to investigate these wrongdoings. Leahy initially hinted at providing "blanket immunity" to Bush officials willing to testify, but both Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have warned against this approach. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has also put together a report looking at whether Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury "knowingly signed off on an unreasonable interpretation of the law to provide legal cover for a program sought by Bush White House officials." Whitehouse and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) have called on the Justice Department to release this report.
 
Byron Williams: President Obama may not want to look back, but he should Top
Las week, after President Barack Obama announced his plan to end the Iraq combat mission by 2010, he sat down for an interview on "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." Lehrer asked the president whether Iraq was worth the American lives lost and wounded, as well as the Iraqis who have been killed? The president responded: "Well, you know, I don't want to look backwards. As you know, I opposed this war, I did not think it was the right decision, but I don't want to in any way diminish the enormous sacrifices that have been made by our men and women in uniform." I understand the president's response at a visceral level, but given where we are as a country, it just feels too safe and too vacuous for someone of his obvious intelligence, which leads me to conclude it was too political. The president may not want to look back, but behind us is where the truth lies. Iraq was not only the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the republic; it was the cornerstone to the amorphous war on terror. As information trickles out, it becomes increasingly apparent that the war on terror was a systematic circumvention of the Constitution. It was previously reported that the CIA, in 2005, destroyed two videotapes from 2002 depicting "severe interrogation." But it was recently revealed it wasn't two videotapes -- it was 92! Moreover, the Justice Department released nine post-9/11 legal memos this week from the Bush administration indicating the Fourth Amendment, which grants the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, was not applicable in the war on terror. There is also the Oct. 23, 2001, memo written by former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo stating: "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully." This is the advice given to the president of the United States from the Justice Department? When one also factors in former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007 that "the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas," we have more than a notion that the previous administration operated as if Constitution was optional. In an unprecedented manner, the Justice Department rescinded these controversial memos days before President George W. Bush left office, citing them as "bad advice." Obama may not want to look back, but just over his shoulder may be an administration that found exceptions to arguably 80 percent of the Bill of Rights -- leaving only the right to bear arms and no soldier shall be quartered during peacetime without the owner's consent as secure. Perhaps that president's reluctance to review past events may be due to his own complicit actions in rendering the Fourth Amendment a secondary consideration. As candidate Obama, he left the campaign trail to return to Washington, voting to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- legislation that many constitutional scholars believe violates the Fourth Amendment. However, the Senate Judiciary Committee has already scheduled hearings into whether to create a "truth commission" -- an independent panel to investigate Bush administration policies. I have long been in favor of a truth and reconciliation commission, but I am opposed to one that is led by Congress. Regardless of its intentions, there is no way to avoid a "truth commission" led by Democrats from becoming anything short of partisan. Whatever is proven, the ensuing political cacophony from both sides runs the risk of drowning out the importance of the truth. The American people must know definitively if the war on terror was a battle cry, a public-relations campaign, or an insidious attempt to sidestep the Constitution. Only the president has the moral standing to rise above the current political atmosphere to realize the truth that is owed to the American people. But if he is content to only look forward, he may tragically miss an opportunity to stop the bleeding from the nation's gaping wound that did not heal when he took office. Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or visit his website: byronspeaks.com
 

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)