Friday, March 6, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Dave Johnson: Bankers Will Say It Is Bankers Top
The people in charge of the economy are basically bankers. Not too many plumbers are involved in running the Federal Reserve or Treasury Department. Bankers will say the economic crisis is a banking problem. Bankers think banks are very, very important to the economy -- the most important component. They say things like "Our economy runs on credit." And they say the way to fix this mess is to prop up the banks -- give them trillions and trillions of dollars until the economy is fixed. And because bankers think bankers are so smart and important to the economy we can't fire them or put them in jail, or even ask for all that bonus money back. So they are putting all the money in the world into the banks. For some reason it isn't working. Of course, a plumber would say that the problem with the economy is that all the pipes are clogged. Keeping the pipes working is the most important component of our economy. And a historian will tell you that the problem is a return of the Great Depression. Not repeating the Great Depression is the most important thing to the economy. I'm a regular person. I think regular people are the most important component of the economy. I think the problem with the economy is that regular people stopped being able to share in the benefits of the economy. I think too many jobs were shipped overseas -- without the people getting those jobs being paid enough to participate in the economy themselves. I think that not providing health care caused too many bankruptcies. I think the people who still had jobs were asked to work harder and work longer hours and accept less, so that a few greedy executives could get more and more money. I think not providing sufficient vacations and day care and pensions and empowerment used everyone up. I think regular people used up their savings and then went into debt and then finally couldn't do it anymore. I think we should fix THAT. I think our economy might work if regular people around the world received some of the benefits from that economy. I think that the economy might work better if people did not have to get into deeper and deeper debt just to get by. I think our government (which is us, isn't it?) should make sure businesses are engaging in honest and safe and sustainable practices, and provide us with human rights like health care, and make sure everyone gets good wages, and sufficient vacations, and safe & empowering workplaces and some choices and some say in things. Then maybe people would be able to participate in that economy and it would start working again. But I'm just a regular person. What do I know? More on The Recession
 
Mark Nickolas: How Many More Failed Banks Will FDIC Seize Today? Top
The FDIC has seized failed banks on each of the past seven Fridays. As I understand it, the government prefers to seize banks after the close of business on Friday to prevent any unnecessary runs on the banks and give them the weekend to ensure a seamless transition to a new bank for depositors on Monday. Here are the number of bank failures over the past seven weeks: Feb 27 (2) Feb 20 (1) Feb 13 (4) Feb 6 (3) Jan 30 (3) Jan 23 (1) Jan 16 (2) So, with the economy continuing to deteriorate, the question is how many more failed banks will the FDIC at the close of business today? Based on the clear acceleration of failures in recent months (see below), I'll predict four more banks will go under today. Mark Nickolas is the Managing Editor of Political Base , and this story was from his original post, " How Many More Failed Banks Will FDIC Seize Today? "  
 
DePaul Hate Crimes: Police Investigate Gay Student Attack, Racist Graffiti At School Top
Two hate crimes are now being investigated on the campus of DePaul University. The attacks - one over religion, the other because of sexual orientation -- happened within weeks.
 
Harry Shearer: Is It Too Late For a Sense of Urgency? Top
"Sense of Urgency Grips Coastal Restoration Summit", reads the headline in Thursday's New Orleans Times-Picayune . The story, about a summit of scientists and state officials, as well as reps from the Army Corps of Engineers, came to the point quickly: The summit was prompted by repeated demands by a number of influential coastal scientists and state restoration officials that the Corps of Engineers speed up efforts to include very large diversions of water from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers in its plans for coastal restoration. Without such diversions, the Mississippi, leveed by the Corps, will continue to dump its sediment deep into the Gulf of Mexico, and the coastal wetlands of Louisiana--which historically have acted as a buffer against the severity of hurricanes--will continue their recent erosion at the rate of a football field each hour. Yet, the Corps appears poised to deliver a required report to Congress that lacks clear recommendations for actions to be taken, instead offering a Chinese menu of possible approaches--meaning the promise of more delay before the wetlands stop eroding. And there is a real danger in delay: Some of the nation's leading coastal scientists have come to consensus recently that the state may have less than a decade to launch major coastal restoration projects -- before the erosion advances to the point where it can't realistically or cost-effectively be stopped. The causes of the erosion are clear: years of building canals and pipelines across the wetlands to service the offshore oil industry, as well as the walling off of the river which once replenished the land. The means to reverse the process are equally well known. All that's missing is...a sense of urgency. Let's see...since the Army Corps is part of the Federal government, what could possibly imbue it with the sense of urgency? Some nudging from the White House, perhaps? Is any attention left to deal with the causes and consequences of a disaster caused by the faulty design and construction of a federally built levee system and federally sanctioned structures that have promoted wetlands erosion? To all those Obama supporters who, when I would point out his tepid and vague commitments to New Orleans, said, "Give him some time" , I ask, have we waited until the window--for money, for attention, for commitment--has slammed shut?
 
Mario Almonte: Can Hope Float the Economy - and Sink the Republicans? Top
When Peter Pan revived Tinker Bell by declaring, "I do believe in fairies," few would have predicted that the President of the United States would attempt the same principle in an effort to revive a moribund economy. Yet, that was President Obama's strategy in his first speech to a joint session of Congress last week. He called upon Americans to believe passionately in his programs, and if they did, he assured us, "We will rebuild, we will recover," and the U.S. "will emerge stronger than before." In my younger, less enlightened days before the collapse of Lehman Brothers, AIG, GM, and Countrywide, I would have considered the speech rather naïve. Yet, now I know better. Apparently, the immense financial wizardry displayed by all those brilliant minds at those major conglomerates and on Wall Street was no more substantial than the smoke and mirrors of the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz. Today, after stripping away all the economic analyses and political posturing, hope really does seem to be the only thing that can float the economy again. For the past six months, stocks on Wall Street have bounced up and down apparently under nothing more potent than hope and despair. They rise one day on the latest positive government report and plunge the next day on any negative company news. The Dow fell 250 points recently following a stray remark by a legislator concerning the possibility of nationalizing banks. The following day stocks edged back up again after Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner insisted that they had no such intentions. The previous week, rumors that one of the Jonas Brothers had violated the terms of his promise ring dragged down the Dow some 200 points; the next day, official confirmation that Angelina Jolie was pregnant with another set of twins sent it back up again. Republicans' Broken Record The Republicans, meanwhile, continue to chase their own tails, whip themselves into a frenzy, and scare away the little children in a desparate effort to splash a little mud on President Obama's still-shiny suit of popularity. They say insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over again - and expecting a different result each time. It seems, at the moment, that mass insanity is rampant within Republican circles. Last year, a stubborn insistence on running a viciously negative presidential, "gotcha" type of campaign cost them the White House. Now, marginalized in the House and Senate, they stubbornly persist on running a viciously negative, "gotcha" type of opposition against Obama in the hopes of getting the American public to lose confidence in him. The results? The latest opinion polls find that Obama's popularity is as strong as ever. Confidence that the economy is "headed in the right direction" has jumped 15 points to 41% in the past month. Two-thirds of Americans "feel hopeful" that Obama is doing the right thing. The number of Americans that trust Democrats to get them out of the recession has doubled. Half of those responding believe that politics, not principle, motivates Republican opposition to Obama's plans. So have the latest polls finally driven the message home to Republicans? Apparently not. They continue to support - and abjectly bow to - mob-inciting conservative talk show entertainer Rush Limbaugh, who proudly stands behind his very public and fervent hope that President Obama fail. It's the same kind of piggish, clueless vindictiveness of a passenger on a storm-tossed boat in the middle of an angry sea - who hates the captain so much he hopes he's too incompetent to keep the boat from sinking. Republicans apparent prefer to go down with the ship to prove their point than make safe harbor and be proven wrong about the competency of the captain. Even Republican pollster Whit Ayres hasn't gotten the message. Discussing what needs to happen to get Republicans out of the ditch they've dug themselves into, he remarked that their last, best hope is that Obama "overreaches" - another word for fails. Considering the dire sense of hopelessless and uncertainty on Wall Street, among consumers, and in global markets, President Obama imploring the American people to believe in happy endings was not so farfetched a request, after all. Republicans, unfortunately, continue to be the sourpusses in the crowd who refuse to believe in fairies. More on Barack Obama
 
Phil Ramone and Danielle Evin: Dog Ears Music: Volume Sixty-Two Top
Cesária Évora Folksinger/songwriter Cesária Évora (a.k.a. Cize) was born in 1941 in Mindelo, Cape Verde, on the island of São Vicente, into a Dickensian childhood. At the age of 7, she lost her father and ended up in an orphanage, where she first discovered her voice. By her teens, the very beautiful Cesária was brought to Lisbon to record but only found rejection. Many years later, at the age of 47, she went to Paris to make a record, which started an avalanche of great success: almost a dozen albums, sold-out concerts, gold records, and several Grammy nominations. Cesária Évora's collaborations include Caetano Veloso, Bau, and Jacinto Pereira. The title "Flôr di nha Esperanca," from the 1999 album Café Atlantico, overflows with romantic agony. Buy : iTunes Genre : World Artist : Cesária Évora Song : Flôr di nha Esperanca Album : Café Atlantico Ólafur Arnalds Modern electro-classical composer Ólafur Arnalds was born in 1987 in Mosfellsbaer, Iceland, just north of Reykjavik. Arnalds's music-head is cool-haircut sophisticated and seriously exquisite. He makes classical just rock, while taking rock 'n' roll to finishing school, and you can't take your ears off him. This budding maestro recently completed a tour as the opening act for Sigur Rós and is now collaborating with Janus Rasmussen on techno side project Kiasmos. The title "Haust," from Arnalds's 2008 EP Variations of Static, resonates with a whip-handed virtuosity. Buy : iTunes Genre : Experimental Artist : Ólafur Arnalds Song : Haust Album : Variations of Static The Knux Hip-hop duo The Knux was founded by New Orleans-born brothers, Rah Al Millio (Alvin Lindsey) and Krispy Kream (Kintrel Lindsey), in 2005, after Hurricane Katrina. Forced to relocate, they landed in Texas, then settled in L.A.'s Hollywood Hills. These inventive two write, produce, and play everything. The Knux has appeared on HBO's Entourage, toured with Common, and is featured in the soundtrack of Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay. The title "Shine Again," from the duo's 2008 release Remind Me in 3 Days..., is forward and melodic. Buy : iTunes Genre : Hip-Hop Artist : The Knux Song : Shine Again Album : Remind Me in 3 Days... Lucinda Williams Distinguished Americana rock diva/master of song Lucinda Williams was born in Lake Charles, Louisiana, into an artful and musical family (her father was a professor, poet, and musician; her mother a pianist). Collaborations include Willie Nelson, Elvis Costello, John Prine, and M. Ward. A three-time Grammy winner, Williams is an emotionally driven artist whose well of empathy runneth deep. "Essence," the title track of the HBO documentary Ganja Queen, originally from her 2001 album Essence, just stays with you. Buy : iTunes Genre : Americana Artist : Lucinda Williams Song : Essence Album : Essence The Jaggerz The Jaggerz were a pop-rock sextette founded in the late '60s in Pittsburgh by Donnie Iris, Jimmie Ross, Bill Maybray, Thom Davies, Jim Pugliano, and Benny Faiella. The band is best known for the 1969 top-ten hit "The Rapper," which earned them a gold record. The original unit disbanded in the mid-'70s (half the group reunited in 1998) but left behind a harmony-filled collection. Remember The Jaggerz with "Memoirs of the Traveler" (a track sampled by rap hero The Game), from their 1970 release We Went to Different Schools Together . Buy : iTunes Genre : Pop Artist : The Jaggerz Song : Memoirs of the Traveler Album : We Went to Different Schools Together Maxine Brown Soul singer Maxine Brown was born in South Carolina in 1939. Maxine started singing as a child, and by her teens she was performing with gospel groups in New York City. In 1960, Brown signed with Nomar Records and had a hit with "It's All in My Mind" the following year. Over the next two decades, she wrote and recorded several below-the-radar hits for a number of labels, but never reached the household recognition she so deserved. Her collaborations include Otis Redding, Luther Vandross, and Chuck Jackson. In 1991, Brown was elected to the R&B Hall of Fame. Most recently, she's performed with R&B legends Ella "Peaches" Garrett and Beverly Crosby as Wild Women Don't Have the Blues. Rediscover Ms. Brown with "It's All in My Mind," from Solid Gold Hits Volume III. Buy : iTunes Genre : R&B Artist : Maxine Brown Song : It's All in My Mind Album : Solid Gold Hits Volume III
 
Melissa Silverstein: Interview with Patricia Clarkson of Phoebe in Wonderland Top
Patricia Clarkson opens today, March 6 as Miss Dodger in Daniel Barnz' film, Phoebe in Wonderland co-starring with Elle Fanning, Felicity Huffman, Bill Pullman and Campbell Scott. The film opens in the following cities: Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, San Francisco, Washington DC, Chicago, Boston, Miami, Dallas, Philadelphia and Seattle. Women & Hollywood: What was it about the Phoebe in Wonderland script that made you want to work on the film? Patricia Clarkson- There was something about Miss Dodger that I thought was unusual, unique, genuinely eccentric, mystical and fantastical and I couldn't quite figure it out at once. It intrigues me when I really have to delve into a character and I just got excited about it. W&H: Alice in Wonderland is a seminal book for girls. This is what girls dream about when they are little. PC: Yes it is. I remember when I first encountered Alice in Wonderland . I can't remember the exact age but it mystified and captured me. We did do a little play of it at Girl Scouts or something but I didn't play Alice (I can't remember what I played) but I remember being upset at not playing Alice. W&H: Miss Dodger created a safe place for Phoebe while she was struggling in so many other aspects of her life. Why is that so important? PC: I had several teachers who took me into my theatre life which really opened up a whole new part of my world and changed me. In 8th grade I started doing theatre and I remember it was as though I had taken a trip to a foreign land that I had never seen before yet felt completely at home. I remember feeling a genuine wave of happiness and of feeling complete. I had a wonderful teacher in junior high who guided me and another in high school who shaped me. Then I went on to study and have had many mentors at Fordham and Yale. I have had the great fortune of having had remarkable teachers guide and illuminate me. W&H: There is a scene in the film where Felicity Huffman as Phoebe's mom Hillary is talking with you because she is struggling to figure out what is going on with her daughter and you tell her point blankly that she is perfectly normal in your class. She is almost jealous... PC: That I am symbiotic to her daughter. That I have found a wave length because I get her. We are kindred spirits and I think that's hard on any mother if there is a person who connects with your child in a way you don't. W&H: That's one of the interesting things about this film. Here's a mother, an accomplished woman, desperately struggling and it reveals some of the hard things about being a mom which a lot of movies don't address. PC: Yes it does and I think there are some tense and stunning moments in the film that are unusual for film. There's the whole fantastical element which I think Daniel (Barnz- the writer and director) did a beautiful job of integrating into the film which is an especially difficult thing to do with no time and no money. W&H: How do you explain the fantastical elements? PC: You take this journey of Alice in Wonderland -- Phoebe in Wonderland - a little girl who retreats into her own world. It is quite specific and fascinating and very much a part of the film. This film is defined sometimes by those flights of fancy. W&H: I found the characters quite well written and not stereotypical. How do you search for your characters? PC: I read so many scripts and I'm offered a lot of stuff and I think I'm better at seeing something immediately in the script. So when I read Pheobe in Wonderland I called my agent and said this is really beautiful and I want to be a part of it. I knew. It wasn't filled with these terrible cliches even though it is a movie that you might think has been done before but never in this way. W&H: When you are deciding to take a movie does the budget play into your decision? PC: Sometimes more so now. My guerilla filmmaking days are fewer and far between. There was some money with this film. It was still tight but I felt it had enough. W&H: You've played such a diversity of women- you don't really play the "girl". That must be conscious. Give us some insight into how Patricia Clarkson picks what she does? PC: Sometimes it's dictated by necessity as I get older. Fortunately I can pick and choose. I have the freedom and advantage but I'm drawn to scripts. I'm looking to shake things up, and you're right I don't play the classic girl. Elegy is kind of classic. That's as classic a woman as you get down to the nudity. But then I turned around and did this, and I play this crazy character in the next Woody Allen film, and then in the fall I have a movie called Cairo Time which is the most classic woman I have ever played on screen. A real leading lady. It's about mixing things up and keeping myself interested. I gravitate towards things that spark me and I don't know what that is. W&H: You just mentioned Cairo Time - what's that? PC: It's a beautiful independent film. I am the star. The director is a woman name Ruba Nadda, a Canadian filmmaker. The male lead is a Canadian actor Alexander Siddig. With everything from Miss Dodger to Woody Allen, first and foremost I am drawn to the actual project. As much as I love Miss Dodger I was drawn to the whole script and the fact that Elle Fanning, Felicity Huffman, Campbell Scott, and Bill Pullman were also involved. I knew I'd be in great company and that I'd better bring my A game. W&H: 6% of films and 10% are directed by women, what is your opinion on those statistics? PC: I think it's a catch-22. Not enough women are given chances so less women are directors. It's a male dominated industry. There's no way around it. We have to keep trying. We have to forge ahead. It's an ageist industry also, but hey, I'm 49 years old and I've got more movies than I know what to do with. Sometimes you have to try and not be a part of the cliche. You have to keep fighting to break through and this industry benefits from women writers and directors. It's important that people in our industry seek out female writers and directors and make it a pet project of theirs. Cross posted on Women & Hollywood
 
Elizabeth Gregory: A Family-Friendly Recession?: Cut Hours, Not Jobs Top
We've heard a lot recently about how this recession is affecting men's jobs more than women's. But while women's relative labor-force participation rises in recessions, most of the jobs women hold on to earn small wages and low status. In the long-term, recessions can have very negative effects on women's careers -- both at the individual and national levels. Gains for women earned through years of effort may be swept away in the undertow of layoffs, when flexibility and diversity efforts suddenly disappear. Women's movement up business ladders and through glass ceilings is endangered right now. Early reports suggest that on Wall Street, a disproportionate number of women overall and almost all those hired in through firms' "opt-in" programs to work flex time have been let go. Little thought is being given to maintaining diversity as layoff decisions are made. This could have huge negative effect long-term. One financial insider (who requests anonymity in sensitive times) observes about the downturn: "In this industry, it definitely set women's progress back at least 20 years." The current issue of Forbes documents a resurgence of sexism in the finance field -- "In the worst financial crash since the Depression, financial services and insurance firms have cut 260,000 jobs. Seventy-two percent of the missing workers laid off have been women, even though they constituted 64% of employment before the crash began." Women overall earn a lot less than men do because many industries are still strongly sex-segregated, often because women with kids need part-time or otherwise flexible work. Historically the jobs offering such arrangements have paid less. But the professions are not as gendered as they used to be, and some women do make high wages. Additionally, once sufficient numbers of women reach positions of influence within business and government, they change the gender-dynamics of the workplace at all levels, introducing family-friendly policies and challenging the gendering of the pay structure. The work still gets done, but on a new, more flexible schedule. It takes a while to establish these new dynamics, which allow women to contribute more fully to the national economy. While women comprise only 15.2% of boards of directors and 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs, they hold 50.6% of professional and management positions. As a result, 79% of businesses reported offering some flex options in 2008, the pay equity bill is now law, and we have several initiatives in Congress to put all workers on an equal playing field. Progress has been made, but the recession could halt it, and not just in the finance world. In troubled economic times the historical tendency has been to send the ladies with higher-status jobs back home, or down ladder, pushing them out not just through individual actions but through policy changes and negative media messages. In the Depression, working women were scapegoated for men's lack of jobs, and the group's career progress was set back for decades. Similarly, in the recessions of the 70s and 80s and in this decade, women's progress up ladder was slowed by a hostile environment that paralyzed the EEOC, undermined access to abortion and birth control, and portrayed women's job losses as the result of a choice to stay home. When recessions past ended, laid-off men returned to good jobs. Women remained largely in dead-end, low-wage work. With their collective status diminished, post-recessionary women had less ability to influence business policy than before the recession, and the system remained biased in favor of people without care-giving commitments (remember that these are not "merely personal" commitments, they are essential to the running of the nation). Eventually the trickle up began again, but the recessionary cycle ensured that it remained just a trickle. Recessionary setbacks have been a big part of the answer to the question "Why has women's progress been so slow?" The Wall Street example makes it clear that long-term setbacks could occur again now. Can we break the recessionary pattern? Absolutely. Firstly, as Ellen Galinsky of the Families and Work Institute notes, flexibility has suddenly become a mainstream business strategy for companies seeking to retain current workers rather than having to start from scratch with new employees come the upturn. Reduced hours are among the cut-backs on the table, until things improve. President Obama endorsed that option in his Inaugural speech, and the savings to the nation when people stay in jobs speak for themselves. Reduced hours may look like automatic family friendliness, but if the reduction is entirely on the employers' terms it doesn't help parents in need of flexibility much more than the standard workweek did. If employers work with employees, male and female, in devising reduced schedules, all parties gain. And the government can assist. In 17 states, a Shared Work program helps employees and employers who must reduce hours by paying pro-rated unemployment benefits. In 2008 in New York 83% more employers participated in this program than in 2007, and a 2009 surge is already underway. In Texas the program is little known, but word is spreading. This option makes much more sense than layoffs in many environments and should be available nationwide. Where potential savings on worker health care pushes employers to consider cutting workers they might prefer to cut hours for, government should cover the difference. A second break with old patterns lies in society's enormous capital investment in women's education and in the extensive work experience women now have. Like any other form of capital, business leaders should find ways to utilize this human capital in a downturn. Smart employers will make every effort to hold onto their best talent, whatever the worker's gender. Thirdly, the enormity of the failure of the business culture of greed means the time is ripe to rewrite the model and move toward a culture of care. Rather than view the downturn as reason to turn away from initiatives that support women's participation in better-paid jobs, the nation will be best served if we redouble our efforts in that direction, to take advantage of our full national talent pool. It's time for new ideas and big pictures. In today's troubled economy, business and government can collaborate to keep workers, male and female, employed by cutting hours instead of jobs, at all levels. One by-product could be that the old recessionary patterns that slow women's progress up career ladders finally fall away. But we're going to have to work actively and intentionally to make that happen. Elizabeth Gregory is the author of Ready: Why Women Are Embracing the New Later Motherhood (Basic Books); she teaches at the University of Houston. More on Financial Crisis
 
Dal LaMagna: Where is Mohammed al-Daini? Top
The United States may be leaving Iraq, but we should not be abandoning the Iraqi people. Particularly those who have put their lives on the line to rebuild their country in peace. Particularly someone like Mohammed al-Daini, a member of the Iraqi Parliament and critic of the Maliki government who disappeared recently under suspicious circumstances after being accused of terrorism by that government. I worked with al-Daini in 2006 and 2007; our goal was to reduce and stop the violence in Iraq. This is what I know: At a news conference Feb. 22, Major Gen. Qassem Atta, spokesman for Baghdad's military, charged al-Daini, a Sunni secular Member of Parliament, with orchestrating the suicide bombing that took place in the Parliament cafeteria on April 12, 2007. He aired video tapes showing al-Daini's nephew, Riad Ibrahim al-Daini, and bodyguard, Alaa Khairallah, confessing to crimes they said he had directed. "The suicide bomber entered with an authorization paper from Mohammed al-Daini and blew himself up at the parliament," the nephew said on the video, adding that he had taken the assailant to the scene. Al-Daini denied the charges saying his nephew and bodyguard were tortured. Al-Daini appeared on the Dubai-based satellite network al-Sharqiya to rebut accusations linking him to any of the actions, calling the arrests of his nephew and bodyguard a "politically motivated" act by Iraq's Shiite-dominated government. "The goal behind this is to put pressure on me, and it is political blackmailing," he said. Sixteen members of al-Daini's extended family were arrested. Al-Daini was on a plane flying from Baghdad to Amman, Jordan, when it was ordered to return. At the airport, he was reportedly arrested. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) who was recently in Baghdad could not find out if al-Daini was in custody. Al-Daini's wife doesn't know; she hasn't heard from him since last Feb. 23. Al-Daini was the subject of a BBC Channel 4 television special report that aired in 2006, in which he helped expose secret jails run by the Interior Ministry in Nissoor Square in Baghdad and in the Diyala province east of Baghdad. Reps. McDermott and Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) invited him to come to the United States to speak to members of Congress who were interested in hearing from secular nationalist members of Parliament. Back then, we seemed to only be hearing from Shiite legislators, all supporters of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. After waiting three months for al-Daini's visa and wondering if it would ever be approved, McDermott and I concluded the next best thing would be a live " video conference " between the secular Sunni lawmakers and the U.S. Congress. Nine U.S. representatives spoke via a satellite link to four Iraqi MPs, including al-Daini and Osama al-Nujaifi, who was injured in the cafeteria bombing. A month later, al-Daini's visa was approved. He brought with him documents that he said showed that Maliki was a de facto pawn of Iran and that the Maliki government was guilty of crimes. At that point, I didn't know al-Daini very well. So, I had him stay at my house for two weeks in 2007 rather than a hotel because I wanted to get to know him personally. When you spend time with someone hour after hour; eating together, jogging in the morning, living life, you get to know them in a more intimate way. He spoke with a reporter from every major news outlet. The only organization that ran a story was the New York Times on May 14, 2007. It was not a very good article for al-Daini; the article aired unproved accusations against him. It was not surprising that Maliki supporters would strike back. On June 5, 2007, I flew to Amman, Jordan, and stayed in his apartment with al-Daini, his wife, his new baby daughter, his brother, and nephew, Haidar, who had been kidnapped for ransom twice in Baghdad. I stayed there two weeks. His family, friends and political associates came to the apartment to talk with me. Some of these people were injured in the suicide blast that the Maliki government is accusing al-Daini of orchestrating. The charge seems implausible to me. Al-Daini and I worked on organizing a cease fire between Iraqi insurgent groups and the Coalition Forces. He would organize what groups he could through third-party representatives. I would get access to the Coalition Forces. We flew to Baghdad for a meeting with Gen. David Petraeus, who because of an emergency could meet with us only briefly in the hallway of the U.S. Embassy. He turned us over to Lt. Gen. Graeme Lamb and Major Gen. Paul Newton, both of the British army. Al-Daini had organized eight insurgent groups, 18 tribal leaders and a group of exiled Iraqi intellectuals to support a proposal for a cease fire. Lamb and Newton seemed interested and requested a written proposal. Our efforts, unfortunately, went nowhere. Al-Daini was in the Parliament cafeteria sitting two tables away from the counter where the suicide bomber detonated the bomb. He was speaking to Nassar Al Rubaie (a Sadrist) just as the explosion took place. Many of his friends and political associates were sitting either at his table or the one next to it where Mohammed Awad, the legislator who died, was sitting. Awad was a member of the National Dialogue Front, the same group Mohammed belonged to. An alliance of insurgent groups linked to al-Qaeda says it carried out the deadly attack on the Iraqi Parliament. The Islamic State in Iraq said in a statement it had sent a "knight" into Baghdad's highly-fortified Green Zone. It is extremely unlikely that someone who has organized a suicide bombing of the Parliament cafeteria is going to be sitting there while it happens. I know Mohammed al-Daini. I know his moods, his laugh, and his drive. This is a man who was working to stop violence. He was not someone who perpetrates it. Al-Daini's defenders believe that whoever instigated the suicide bombing was directing it at him because of his charges about the secret prisons and the message he was trying to deliver to Americans about the Maliki government. The same day this story about the charges against al-Daini broke out, Feb. 23, President Obama was announcing plans to disengage from Iraq. But we should not abandoned Iraqis' hopes for a free and safe society. Al-Daini deserves a fair trial in a way and a place where his family and friends won't feel threatened. American authorities should put him in protective custody, if they can find him. Dal LaMagna, an American businessman and political activist, is an original investor in the Huffington Post. He ran a short-lived campaign for president in 2007 on a platform of opposing the war in Iraq. More on Barack Obama
 
Green Custard Thrown In Opposition Of Airport Expansion Top
LONDON (AFP) -- A protester threw a cupful of green custard in the face of business secretary Peter Mandelson on Friday, in a stunt to highlight opposition to a new runway at London's Heathrow airport. Mandelson was arriving for a London summit on carbon strategy when protester Leila Deen approached him and hurled a large cupful of custard straight in the former European Union trade commissioner's face, at close range.
 
Peggy Drexler: Lost and Found:When Dad Gets Too Close Top
Lost and Found Women storm the world of men, many are finding that part of the time-honored connection with the first man in her life has changed. While issues with fathers certainly also impact sons, they haven't been subject to a revolution. For much of a century, men were locked in the mold of provider and protector. They built sons; wives built daughters. The gender paradigms haven't just changed - they've done a double back flip with a twist. In researching a new book on a new generation of daughters and their fathers, I have interviewed dozens of accomplished women in their 20s and 30s. In this series, I share their stories of staking out new common ground with dad - and my observations. When Dad Gets Too Close For many, the new world of common interest between father and daughter creates a common platform for a better and closer relationship. But what happens when dad - maybe because of changes in his own life -- wants to move from caring father to full-time buddy? It has left many daughters asking themselves: when it comes to creating a closer relationship with dad, how close is too close? And how do you create space without creating distance? Marsha, a 35-year old production design manager for a medical products company, said she bonded with her father when he started to drive her to school every day. "He kind of introduced me to the Beatles," she said. "I remember us singing Yellow Submarine so loudly one time, that people in the next car started to sing with us. It was great." When he sent her cards, he signed them "love, your co-pilot. The bond deepened over sports. He worked with her and coached her in basketball and baseball throughout a successful high school career. He also, she quickly points out, wanted her to be feminine. "I remember him driving me all over Connecticut and into the city until I found the perfect prom dress." But then his life changed, and so did hers. Her parents are going through a divorce her father did not see coming. Especially hard on him, she said, is being forced to sell the family home he loves - and helped build. He is increasingly leaning on her for support and companionship. "We have always done lot of things together," he said. "But we seem to be spending more and more time together. I feel like he needs me right now; like I am some kind of connection to a life he wants back. It's almost a role reversal. This guy who was always so strong now seems confused and vulnerable." She still likes spending time with him, she explained. But it is taking away from the time she spends with her new fiancée, who - fortunately, she said - understands. She finds herself closer to drawing a line, but finds it difficult. "He wanted me to go meet some friends for a night out," she said. "No big deal, but for some reason I hit a wall. I had to tell him that I wanted to be his daughter, not his bar buddy. I was afraid he would pull back. But I think it helped. I'm there for him. He knows that. But I think the lines are a little more clear now." Others look back and realize that their relationship with their current father-daughter relationship has been complicated by the one they had growing up. Again, an issue or void in a father's life often contributes to the turbulence. Rachael is a hospital administrator and recovering alcoholic whose closeness to her father - then and now - centers on alcohol. Growing up, her father's absences and blackouts - plus a wealthy but rootless international lifestyle - made a relationship impossible. That is, until they started drinking together. "I think the first time I got drunk with my father was when I was 11,"she said. "It went on for years. Sometimes we would get his driver and drink in a limo. He had a whole bar in there. It was a way to talk to him. But then after a while we wouldn't talk. We would just drink." In AA and sober for six years, her relationship with her father now centers on helping him stop drinking. "I used to go from missing him to hating him," she said. "Now I feel sorry for him. I'd rather act like a daughter than a sponsor, but he needs me. He's only 62, but he looks 82. I feel like it's my job to save his life. So far, he's trying. If that stops though, I'm going to have to think about this train we're on, and where I get off." For both these women, boundaries are critical. Daughter's can be part of their father's lives without being central to them. Setting limits is not a lack of love, or loyalty or concern. It's a matter of having your own life, and living it. It's not an issue of harming a father-daughter relationship; it's the importance of reconstructing it in ways that create more appropriate and constructive roles for both. The relationship will be stronger, healthier and less prone to blow-ups.
 
The Progress Report: 'This Time, We Will Not Fail' 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 . President Obama yesterday kicked off his ambitious goal of reforming health care and providing insurance to all Americans, the first major government effort at reform in 15 years. At the White House's health summit, Obama pledged to pass comprehensive legislation this year, despite economic crises and U.S. engagement in two overseas wars. "When times were good, we didn't get it done. When we had mild recessions, we didn't get it done," Obama said. "There's always a reason not to do it. Now is exactly the time for us to deal with this problem." Indeed, with increasing job losses, approximately 14,000 Americans are losing their health coverage every day. Forty-six million Americans are without health insurance (86.7 million over the last two years), while others are paying more than they can afford. The health care cost share of GDP "is anticipated to rise rapidly from 16.2 percent in 2007 to 17.6 percent in 2009, largely as a result of the recession, and then climb to 20.3 percent by 2018." Referring to a statement made by Health Care for America Now's Richard Kirsch, Obama addressed the cost issue, arguing that "by covering more people, we can also lower costs at the same time, presumably because those who are not insured at the moment are ending up using extraordinarily expensive emergency room care." In his new budget, Obama plans to set aside $634 billion over 10 years as a down payment to reform the health system. While the fund represents a strong start toward reform, it will not be enough to provide affordable coverage for all and a stronger commitment will need to be made. But Obama also "indicated for the first time that he was open to compromise on details of the proposal he put forth in the 2008 campaign." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) -- who has spent decades as a champion of expanding access to quality health care -- said at yesterday's summit that previous efforts to reform health care "haven't been the kind of serious effort that I think we're seeing right now." "This time, we will not fail," he urged. THIS IS NOT THE 1990s: A number of interests groups, led by the health insurance lobby, effectively killed major reform when President Clinton led the last effort to seriously overhaul the nation's health care system in the early 1990s. Today, however, "insurers, drugmakers, doctors, hospitals and employers, as well as consumers, are more optimistic that a prescription can be found," and have joined the vast effort, mainly with the common interest of driving down costs. "The stakeholder community is no longer organizing to say 'no,'" said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). Indeed, Obama was surrounded at yesterday's summit "by men and women who made their careers killing health-care reform." Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who "proudly reminded" attendees that he was instrumental in killing Clinton's reform plan in the 1990s, "announced that he supported the principles that have been outlined by Obama." Insurance lobbyist Chip Kahn, who also helped kill Clinton's plan with his infamous "Harry and Louise" TV ads, praised Obama for arranging the bipartisan summit, adding that Obama "successfully launched the process we need to achieve health reform, which we all want." AHIP also strongly opposed Clinton's efforts, but yesterday, Ignagni told Obama, "You have our commitment to play, to contribute and to help pass health-care reform this year." STILL OPPOSITION TO REFORM: Despite Ignagni's pledge, Time Magazine's Karen Tumulty said that in a "break-out session" yesterday at the summit, the AHIP president made "one of the more radical" proposals for getting reform enacted, "which is to take most of this out of the hands of Congress, set up a commission...to come up with a plan and present it to Congress on a sort-of take it or leave it basis." The Wonk Room's Igor Volsky, was who also at the summit, noted that the insurance industry may believe "that it can get a better deal out of (and have more influence over) some kind of commission." One group is already rallying opposition to Obama's agenda: the Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR) and its leader Rick Scott, a health care entrepreneur who once pledged to run hospitals more like McDonald's. CPR's obstruction started yesterday when the group took out a full-page ad in the Washington Post, recycling the right's talking points and accusing Obama of providing "virtually no details" of his health plan. The ad asked the president to share the details of his plan to "allay our fears and end the speculation." Obama's and Sen. Max Baucus's (D-MT) health plans are available for download on CPR's own website. Moreover, obstructionists in the media are starting to rev their engines as well, with many right-wingers, like de-facto GOP leader Rush Limbaugh, charging that Obama is on a "relentless drive toward socialized medicine." As Media Matters noted, such statements are "neither accurate nor original." In fact, "socialized medicine in its purest form is difficult to come by in the real world," observed the Center for American Progress. The Urban Institute wrote in an April 2008 analysis, "socialized medicine involves government financing and direct provision of health care services," and therefore, progressive health-care reform proposals do not "fit this description." DR. DEAN WEIGHS IN: In an interview with The Progress Report this week, former Vermont governor Howard Dean outlined the principles he believes should guide the health care reform debate. He argued against a single-payer system, against an individual mandate, and for extending free health care to all Americans under the age of 25. Dean also expressed support for building upon the existing employer-based health care system by giving Americans the choice of keeping their existing insurance plan or enrolling in a new public option. "People hate the health care system, but they love their own doctor and they pretty much like the care they get," he explained. "So what you cannot do is create some system that is going to scare people." Dean argued that free choice and competition should be the cornerstones of health reform. "The brilliance of Barack Obama's plan on the campaign trail was a) no one has to change if they like what they've got and b) if you want to, you could essentially buy into Medicare," Dean said. "I don't think we should impose a single payer on everybody, but I do think we should give Americans the choice of having one if they like it. If it works for them, that's what they'll choose; if it doesn't work for them, they'll choose the private sector." More on Barack Obama
 
Viktor Bout, Alleged Arms Smuggler, Says US Framed Him Top
BANGKOK — A Russian businessman who allegedly armed dictators around the world angrily accused the United States on Friday of framing him and pressuring Thailand to extradite him to face terrorism-related charges. Waving his hands and shouting, Viktor Bout described himself as a hapless victim who has been forced to endure for the past year "extremely inhumane" conditions in a Thai prison as he waits to hear whether he will be sent to the United States. "What about human rights? What about presumption of innocence? What about rule of law?" Bout, 41, yelled before he was led from a holding cell to a hearing on the extradition request. "If I am the biggest arms dealer, where is the proof?" he shouted. Bout, who has been dubbed the "Merchant of Death" and was the model for the arms dealer portrayed by Nicolas Cage in the 2005 movie "Lord of War," has been linked to some of Africa's most notorious conflicts, allegedly supplying arms to former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. He has repeatedly denied any involvement in illicit activities and has never been prosecuted, despite being the subject of U.N. sanctions and a travel ban. The U.S. is seeking Bout's extradition on charges he conspired to sell millions of dollars worth of weapons, including 100 surface-to-air missiles and armor-piercing rockets, to leftist rebels in Colombia. If convicted, he would face up to life in prison. He was arrested in March 2008 during a sting operation in Thailand in which undercover U.S. agents posed as rebels from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known by its Spanish acronym, FARC. Bout's extradition hearing started last June but has been repeatedly postponed by a shifting cast of attorneys and defense witnesses who have failed to appear. His hearing was delayed again Friday because his wife said she was too sick to testify, and is to resume Monday. Five other witnesses including Bout are expected to take the stand later this month. Shackled at the ankles and his face pressed against the bars of the holding cell, Bout appeared angry and defiant one moment and deflated and depressed the next. "There are no prospects at all. No real hope," he said in comments broadcast on Russia's NTV channel. "If you are just by yourself versus the American administration, what (hopes) can you have? I will face a life sentence in America." Bout's wife Alla handed out a statement in which her husband complained that the Thai prison was "probably worse than Guantanamo," the U.S. military prison in Cuba, and said he was arrested "not for committing any crime but as a result of a provocation, or rather a frame-up operation by the U.S. intelligence." He described the Thai court system as being under the sway of American drug enforcement agents and the Thai government of being held "hostage" to American political pressure. Bout's wife described the past year as "devastating." "This is like medieval times," she said, speaking through a translator. "At first, I cried. But now I'm used to this atrocity." The hearing has taken on a political tone in recent weeks after more than two dozen members of the U.S. Congress sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking that the Obama administration make Bout's extradition a priority. Russia's Foreign Ministry issued a statement calling the lawmakers' demands "bewildering" because "his guilt on charges put forth in the United States has not been proven." On Thursday, State Department spokesman Karl Duckworth said the extradition remains "high priority for the U.S. government under the Obama administration." ___ Associated Press writers Ambika Ahuja in Bangkok and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report. More on Thailand
 
Rory O'Connor: Public Displays of Connection Top
For media makers and consumers alike, the game changing power of online social networks is simply this: they greatly decrease the cost of creating so-called "bridging social capital." By facilitating easy group formation -- thus making it easier than ever to stay in touch with more people with more disparate viewpoints -- emerging media's tools and technology offer an intriguing possible solution to journalism's ongoing trust and credibility dilemma. A still-growing body of academic research supports the notion that online networks (such as Facebook or Slashdot, to name just two) actually make finding and sharing credible news and information more possible than it was in the previous era of legacy media. A team at Michigan State University, for example, has examined the use of Facebook by undergraduate students over the last three years, using surveys, interviews, and automated capture of the MSU Facebook site to try to understand how and why they use the social network. "What we found surprised us," Nicole Ellison, assistant professor of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media, told the ' Freakonomics ' blog of the New York Times . "Our survey included questions designed to assess students' 'social capital,' a concept that describes the benefits individuals receive from their relationships with others. Undergraduates who used Facebook intensively had higher bridging social capital scores than those who didn't." The students found that Facebook helped them maintain or strengthen 'bridging' social capital relationships with people they didn't know that well, but who could provide them with useful information and ideas. They used the site to look up old high school acquaintances, to find out information about people in their classes or dorms that might be used to strike up a conversation, to get contact information for friends, and many other activities. Such tools, which enabled them to engage in online self-presentation and connect with others "will be increasingly part of our social and professional landscape, as social network sites continue to be embraced by businesses, non-profits, civic groups, and political organizations that value the connections these tools support," Ellison said. Judith Donath , associate professor at M.I.T.'s Media Lab and a faculty fellow at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society, added that in the "big picture," social networking technologies will "support and enable a new model of social life, in which people's social circles will consist of many more, but weaker, ties. Though we will continue to have some strong ties (i.e., family and close friends), demographic changes...are diminishing the role of social ties in everyday life. Weak ties (e.g., casual acquaintances, colleagues) may not be reliable for long-term support; their strength instead is in providing a wide range of perspectives, information, and opportunities." Donath's associate danah boyd (sic), Ph.D. candidate at the School of Information, University of California-Berkeley, and fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, added, "Social media (including social network sites, blog tools, mobile technologies, etc.) offer mechanisms by which people can communicate, share information, and hang out...social media provides a venue to build and maintain always-on intimate communities." Donath believes, "As society becomes increasingly dynamic, with access to information playing a growing role, having many diverse connections will be key. Social networking technologies provide people with a low cost (in terms of time and effort) way of making and keeping social connections, enabling a social scenario in which people have huge numbers of diverse, but not very close, acquaintances. In " Public displays of connection ," a 2004 paper they co-authored, Donath and boyd noted, "In today's society, access to information is a key element of status and power and communication is instant, ubiquitous and mobile. Social networking sites... are a product of this emerging culture." They explain that the "public display of connections" on such sites is a signal that helps others in your network judge your reliability and trustworthiness. New communication technology encourages us to "bridge disparate clusters," they argue, thus providing us "with access to new knowledge." Trading our previous, offline privacy for more online "public displays of connections" enables others to determine our credibility -- and by extension, that of news and information we may then share through the network. The emerging media, the authors remind us, also make it less costly to maintain loose or "weak" social ties. Such ties ("the kinds that exist among people one knows in a specific and limited context") are "good sources of novel information.... a person who has many weak yet heterogeneous ties has access to a wide range of information." In the future, Donath and boyd noted, "the number of weak ties one can form and maintain may be able to increase substantially, because the type of communication that can be done more cheaply and easily with new technology is well suited for these ties. If this is true, it implies that the technologies that expand one's social network will primarily result in an increase in available information and opportunities -- the benefits of a large, heterogeneous network." By virtue of being in such a network, where one's identity, trustworthiness and reliability can be readily assessed, people may access more credible information as well. "It is possible to imagine a scenario in which social networking software plays an increasingly important role in our lives," Donath and boyd concluded -- a prediction that has come to pass in just five years. "For instance, email is becoming increasingly unusable as spam fills inboxes, keeping one step ahead of filtering heuristics. Perhaps a social network based filter is the solution -- email from your connections would always go through, and perhaps the next degree out." This early but suggestive recognition of the emerging social media's filtering capabilities by Donath and boyd is now accepted by many other academic researchers. But can that filtering function be adapted to help solve journalism's trust deficit and credibility dilemma? There is now widespread agreement that we need some sort of credibility/trust filter for news and information delivery -- but predictably far less accord on what the best filter may be. Instead of online social networks, corporate executives like Google's Eric Schmidt offer "brands" as their answer. "Brands are the solution, not the problem," Schmidt recently told a collection of top American magazine editors. "Brands are how you sort out the cesspool ." (Coming next: brands, trust and journalism)
 
Walgreens May Resume Beer And Wine Sales Top
Walgreen Co. executives are considering selling booze at its drugstores after phasing out beer and wine at all but a few hundred stores in the 1990s.
 
Charlie Cray: Is the House of Cards that Jack Built Crumbling? Top
It's no surprise that GE's stock slumped to $6.66 yesterday, causing the Post and the Times to lump them in with GM. That's what happens when companies put financial engineering before real engineering. Who could have predicted this, you might ask? Well actually, a group called United for a Fair Economy predicted it when they gave GE the "lifetime achievement award" among the T itans of the Enron Economy back in 2002. And anyone who bothered to read Thomas F. O'Boyle's book, At Any Cost: Jack Welch, General Electric and the Pursuit of Profit would have understood that it would only be a matter of time before the House that Jack Built crumbled like a house of cards. In the 1980s, Welch said American factories must "automate, emigrate, or evaporate." But he might as well have said "automate, emigrate, then evaporate." It's been a long time since the company founded by the hero of American ingenuity -- Thomas Edison -- became mostly a bank, but that transformation, which happened well over a decade ago, may in the long run have been fatal. While CEO Jeffrey Immelt has led the company into new areas of innovation (including much-needed windmills), they are still sideline businesses that have effectively been subordinated to GE Capital. And so last year, when it started getting difficult for GE (a AAA rated firm) to access credit markets for its short-term debt, it began a downward spiral that now threatens to tank the entire company. As Bloomberg reports , GE invested heavily in a "lot of mediocre real estate," and while company officials claim they "exited early," GE may still have "too much exposure" to real estate loans. (One analyst is predicting up to $11 billion in cumulative losses/write-downs.) No wonder investors are nervous. Perhaps that is why the company is turning up the conglomerate's propaganda machinery. And yet, even after Jon Stewart did a brilliant slam on CNBC (one of GE's propaganda divisions) -- NBC continued to public the kind of bilge that only the desperate would publish. Yesterday's headline: "Why a Lousy Jobs Report Could Actually Help Stocks" Now that's desperation.
 
CNBC: Madoff Plea Deal In The Works Top
CNBC is reporting that a plea deal between Bernard Madoff and the the US Attorney General's office in New York is in the works. According to the news station, the AG is saying it will file a new complaint based on a "waiver of indictment" from Madoff. The alleged perpetrator of a multi-billion dollar ponzi scheme, Madoff has the right to be indicted by a grand jury unless a plea deal is struck. The latest move may suggest a plea deal, CNBC reported. In addition, there was supposed to be a hearing last week with Madoff and his attorney, Ira Sorkin, over possible conflicts of interest for the lawyer. The hearing was "abruptly canceled," CNBC reported. This "might have suggested plea talks took on a new urgency," the station said. More on Bernard Madoff
 
Kim Bensen: Lighten Up: Believe! Top
I took some time to sort through our family photos last week. If you're envisioning a lovely, creative scrapbooking moment - don't. Much as I'd love to, I'm not at that point in my life right now. I just wanted my photographs and disks safe, unbent and not falling out of their shoeboxes. Anyway, as I was trying to get them somewhat organized, I was struck by how MUCH I had yo-yoed over the years. I don't think I was ever the same weight three weeks in a row! No one wants to spend their life yo-yoing up and down and up and down the weight scale. We don't want to be on a "diet" of deprivation or foods that taste like plastic just so we can look and feel good for one afternoon. None of us relishes four different wardrobe sizes (or more) stuffing our drawers and falling out of our closets. And yet that is how so many of us live our lives. One time I was working on a public relations brochure for our local Chamber of Commerce which entailed overseeing a photo shoot with then Connecticut Governor John Rowland. A month previous we set up the appointment with his staff. I decided I would wear my black and white checked skirt which looked professional and fit me perfectly. When the morning of the shoot came I slipped the skirt on over my head, but had a hard time pulling it down over my hips. How much had I gained? I could only zip the skirt half way up. I decided to put a safety pin under the zipper to keep it from sliding down. My jacket would cover the unzipped section of the skirt. But when I checked in the mirror, I realized to my horror that while the front of my skirt hung beneath my knees, the back of my skirt was a good six inches shorter! This was ridiculous. I rolled the front waistband of my skirt up a few times in the front to even off the hemline. But now while it was even, it was also way to short. It looked like I was wearing a mini skirt! I sucked in and somehow managed to get the zipper all the way up, but it hurt terribly. I knew I would pay for it by the end of the day. I took a good hard look at myself in the mirror that morning - something I usually avoided. I was completely disgusted with what I saw. My face had become so masculine, so distorted from what it used to be. What was I doing to myself? I remember saying these words: "Well, you look terrible Kim, but enjoy it because this time next month you'll WISH you looked this good." I wasn't trying to put myself down, I was simply being a realist. The truth was I was still gaining, daily. There ARE people in this world who have weighed the same amount their entire adult lives. I know they exist; I've even met one or two. But they are becoming a rare breed indeed. For most of us, remaining a constant weight takes focus, determination and a lot of hard work. And it begins with believing. Part of the problem is that many of us who HAVE always yo-yoed believe we WILL always yo-yo. Why would this diet be any different? What in the world makes us think our life can change now? THESE ARE LIES! The truth of the matter is, it doesn't matter how long you've struggled with your weight, it doesn't matter how much you have to lose. Lifestyle changes DO happen to others and they can happen to YOU. Don't give up! The only way you'll NEVER lose weight is if you stop trying. be•lieve -verb (used without object) 1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully .
 
Jon Stewart Trashes CNBC Again — On Letterman (VIDEO) Top
Jon Stewart wasted no time following Wednesday's epic CNBC take-down , appearing on the "Late Show with David Letterman" Thursday night and continuing the thought. Except to Letterman, he didn't just focus on CNBC — he blasted all three 24-hour financial news channels, presumably CNBC, Fox Business, and Bloomberg. "The thing that upsets me the most, honesty, there are three 24-hour financial networks," Stewart complained. "All their slogans are like, 'We know what's going on on Wall Street.' But then you turn it on during the crisis, and they're like, 'We don't know what's going on!' It'd be like turning on The Weather Channel in a hurricane, and they're just doing this: 'Why am I wet? What's happening to me? And it's so windy! What's going on, I'm scared!' How do you not know? Watch: More on David Letterman
 
Wealthy To Be Invited To Invest in The Bailout Top
The government is seeking to resuscitate the nation's crippled financial system by forging an alliance with the very outfits that most benefited from the bonanza preceding the collapse of the credit markets: hedge funds and private-equity firms. The initiative to revive the consumer lending business, outlined by officials this week, offers these wealthy investors a new chance to make sizable profits -- but, thanks to the government, without the risk of massive losses. More on The Bailouts
 
"Cops" For Kids! (VIDEO) Top
Gabe over at Videogum found this amazing video from Sunset Television that reworks a typically not-safe-for-kids episode of "Cops" into a seriously-safe-for-kids version of "Cops" by putting cartoon heads on all the criminals/officers. I know what you're thinking, "Won't this scar kids horribly by showing them beloved animals flashing the police and seeing dogs getting the shit kicked out of them by bunnies?" The answer is no. This is awesome. WATCH: More on Funny Videos
 
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Red Baiting President Obama Top
Nothing that House and Senate Republicans and would be ex-officio Republican kingpin Rush Limbaugh have said or done to torpedo President Obama's program has worked. So why not try one more thing, red baiting. In quick succession South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, one time Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, and the more loonier House Republicans, Michelle Bachman and Zach Wamp have lambasted President Obama as the second coming of V.I. Lenin. Their silly, discredited, and thoroughly desperate commie slur of Obama is not not new. Midway through the campaign fast fading Republican rival John, McCain egged on by the Fox Network hit team grab at a horribly outdated interview in 2001 in which then Illinois Senator Obama told a Chicago radio station that he favored "redistributive change." He tweaked the Supreme Court for not doing more to make that happen. McCain and Fox screamed red. Obama was making the point that breaking down the barriers of Jim Crow segregation was a pyrhic victory without decent jobs and income for poor blacks and Latinos. Civil rights leaders for years said pretty much the same thing and that's that the goal of the civil rights movement revolution was incomplete without an economic boost to the poor. Mercifully, the red tar of Obama got no traction. This didn't stop a swelling pack of bloggers, web pundits, and conservative talk jocks from launching a shrill campaign of Kremlin taunts and baiting of Obama. Obama's big spending plan to ratchet up the economy, pay for jobs, expanded education and health care, and to hit the rich harder to pay for these has sent them into hysteria. The red taint ploy fell flat during the campaign and it will fall flat again. Recent reports on wealth and income show that the staggering gap between rich and poor has grown even wider in the near decade since Obama casually uttered the term "redistributive wealth." A recent poll by of all places the Fox Network found that by big margins Americans say that making the rich pay a bigger share of their income in taxes isn't a bad idea. They agree that the tax system is way out of whack and that those from the Wall Street fast buck artists to tax dodging corporate executives wallow in obscene wealth while the poor get poorer and the middle-class get soaked. Even a majority of Republicans agree that the rich can and should pay more. Still, the red baiting bunch have managed to get some media play. And that's no surprise. The American economic sacred cow is that laissez faire wealth is tantamount to a divine right of kings, and any attempt to touch it is economic heresy. In the past anyway, politicians knew that's it was the kiss of death to be seen as an advocate for making the rich pay more. GOP presidents and presidential candidates for decades ritually played the tax and spend card to brand their Democratic rivals as dangers to middle-class wage earners. This stoked fear that underneath the Democrat's supposed taxing and spending that not only would the rich be hammered but the poor would be the beneficiaries. The wealth taking scare has worked in the past because wealth and income iniquities are so great, and the notion that there's nothing wrong with those iniquities is so deeply entrenched in the tax policy, philosophy and politics of the GOP and many Democrats. Any talk of putting more wealth into the hands of the non-wealthy in the way of tax cuts, a Social Security tax increase on upper income wage earners, capital gain increases, and closing tax shelter loopholes will always draw swift and long shrieks from more than a few wealthy individuals and corporations. This is plainly regarded as wealth redistribution downward. Democrats and Independent politicians from Upton Sinclair to Huey Long to Ralph Nader have railed against the top heavy wealth of the relative handful. They have been routinely branded as crackpots or socialists, and then quickly politically marginalized. In his wink and nod hint that there was a red taint to Obama, McCain simply snatched at the formula that GOP contenders have typically used. DeMint, Huckabee, and the wacky fringe House Republicans Republicans are just doing more of the same now. Obama ridicules all such talk that his economic program is out of the pale and mocks the GOP self-appointed defacto boss Limbaugh who has whipped up the pack against the supposed socialist leaning tax and spend Obama. However, President Obama must be mindful that as the tax battle heats up over how and who will bankroll his job, health, housing and education programs, he'll hear the smear again. The red red bait card is just too tempting and time tested not to play especially by a party that doesn't have much else going for it. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press, January 2009). More on Barack Obama
 
Steve Benen: A pre-recession mindset Top
About a month ago, the New York Times ' Frank Rich, commenting on the Republican Party's approach to the economy, said , "The nightmare is that we have so irrelevant, clownish and childish an opposition party at a moment when America is in an all-hands-on-deck emergency that's as trying as war." As "trying as war" strikes me as the key point that seems to go overlooked. The ongoing crisis is, by most measures, the economic equivalent of a 9/11-style terrorist attack. "Everything changed" in September 2001? Everything should change now. Except there's ample evidence that helps prove just how little has actually changed, at least in the minds of some policymakers. President Barack Obama's economic advisers are increasingly concerned about the U.S. Senate's delay in confirming the nominations of Austan Goolsbee and Cecilia Rouse to the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Without Senate confirmation, the two economists are barred from advising the president as the administration tackles the worst financial crisis in 70 years and tries to advance the spending plan Obama submitted to Congress last week. "It's frustrating," said Christina Romer, who heads the three-member CEA. "These are hard economic times and we desperately want to get them through the Senate and definitely on the job." "They are both superb economists," she said. "I can't imagine what the holdup is." The holdup, alas, is not a mystery. Goolsbee and Rouse were poised to be confirmed by the Senate on Jan. 20. Senate Republicans delayed the committee process, and have pushed off confirmation. Apparently, the GOP believes anonymous holds and delaying tactics are warranted because, as they see it, some of Bush's nominees for the White House Council of Economic Advisers were mistreated by Senate Democrats. Everyone agrees that Goolsbee and Rouse are qualified and ready to get to work, but Republicans are looking for some cheap payback. Democrats were (falsely) accused in recent years of having a "pre-9/1 mindset." It's time the political world comes to terms with the fact that Republicans are guilty of a "pre-recession mindset." Imagine if, in late 2001, George W. Bush were putting together a team of national security advisors, and Senate Democrats put anonymous holds on his well-qualified choices because of something that may or may not have happened during Clinton's presidency. Most political observers would consider this crazy, and they'd be right. And yet, here we are . Republicans are pushing the same tax cuts they wanted before the recession. They're making the same arguments about spending they offered before the recession. They're engaged in the same petty games they enjoyed before the recession. In the midst of "an all-hands-on-deck emergency that's as trying as war," and in " the throes of a catastrophic economic crisis ," the failed minority party, ignoring the election results, public opinion, and everything we know about economics, have the same approach to the economy that they had at this point a year ago. And the year before that. And the year before that. Under the circumstances, we can't afford a pre-recession mindset .
 
Brian Kahin: Microsoft Roils the World with FAT Patents Top
Last week Microsoft roiled the world by filing a patent infringement suit against TomTom, a Dutch maker of GPS devices. Microsoft's shares are trading at an 11-year low and is in the news for laying off workers, but Microsoft still has $20 billion in cash on hand, a good and necessary thing if you're engaging in patent litigation. TomTom, by contrast, whose shares were already down 90% within the past year, is reported to be on the verge of bankruptcy, This is big news. First, it means that I can no longer say that Microsoft has yet to file a lawsuit over software patents. (It had previously filed a few over patents on mouse technology.) Second, it is a direct attack on Linux, the open source operating system that offers the only significant competition to Windows in many markets. Until now, Microsoft has shown restraint in not asserting its vast portfolio of patents, despite some notorious saber rattling against Linux two years ago. At that time, Microsoft vice-president Horacio Gutierrez fumed: "This is not a case of some accidental, unknowing infringement. There is an overwhelming number of patents being infringed." He claimed that 42 Microsoft patents were infringed by the Linux kernel alone, but declined to identify them. But Microsoft's own practices with regard to software patents were described in congressional testimony by its former CTO, Nathan Myrhvold: Most tech companies have made a deliberate decision to ignore the patent system.... They send people to technical conferences, and encourage them to read scientific papers so they can learn the latest techniques. Yet, they do not allow them to read patents - not even patents by the same people whose research papers they use, or patents of the institution from which they hire employees.... They do not check their products to see if they infringe anybody else's patents - a common practice in other industries, known as patent clearance. Indeed, a good practical reason to avoid reading patents is that they are written by attorneys . In any case, Gutierrez has put aside his indignation. Today he claims this litigation is not about Linux but merely about poor TomTom, who has long failed to see the justice of licensing a mere eight of Microsoft's 10,000+ patents. In short, it's just happenstance that three of the patents implicate Linux. So here's what it looks like to me 1. Microsoft has abandoned its long history of not suing on software patents, in order to attack the Linux operating system. (Other patents at issue are specific to GPS systems.) 2. It has attacked Linux in the embedded devices market, where Linux has been conspicuously successful. This avoids the problem of suing developers or users of Linux distributions, such as Red Hat, which would threaten the many large Microsoft customers that use both Windows and Linux. 3. Even if the Linux community rides to the rescue, TomTom will be under pressure from its shareholders to settle quickly on "undisclosed terms" and, weakened as is, to avoid the cost and uncertainty of making a posterchild of itself. 4. More likely, TomTom will sell out to Microsoft, which tried to buy TomTom in mid-2006. Companies with large patent portfolios can drive hard bargains. With TomTom in a bind at the bank, Microsoft can use its patents to acquire TomTom on the cheap. 5. By demonstrating its willingness to sue a small company, Microsoft can induce others to settle, while undermining confidence in the market for embedded Linux. By contrast, when IBM sought to impress the world with its patent portfolio, it at least picked on Amazon -- a company able to defend itself and with a reputation for asserting patents aggressively. (Remember the one-click ordering patent that Amazon used in its holiday-season attack on Barnes and Noble?). 6. Microsoft is throwing eight patents at TomTom in dual proceedings -- one before the International Trade Commission and the other in court. Beyond imposing extra legal costs on TomTom, the ITC proceeding allows Microsoft automatic injunctive relief if it wins, which is no longer automatic in District Court. Microsoft argued against automatic injunctive relief in an amicus brief before the Supreme Court, but now it can get an injunction simply because TomTom's devices are imported. At the same time, Microsoft is forcing TomTom to defend a lawsuit in Microsoft's home district in Washington State, where Microsoft has demanded a jury trial. (Patent owners win before juries nearly two-thirds of the time, but only half the time before judges.) But the move also comes at a potentially high price for Microsoft. It drastically undercuts what creative and pragmatic people within Microsoft have been doing to and develop trust within the open source community and engage constructively with open source businesses. It is no coincidence that Gutierrez was promoted to corporate vice president the previous week, giving him extra juice to stand tough against those within Microsoft who have been cut off at the knees by this provocative litigation. Microsoft's attack sticks a fat finger in eye of Europe, where authorities have been less solicitous of a company that is not their national/regional champion. Microsoft has continued to slug it out with the Directorate-General for Competition years after litigation was settled in the U.S. Now it is targeting a (former) European success story with patent claims that have been invalidated in Europe as "non-inventive." Microsoft has long been an advocate of software patents in Europe both directly and through its policy surrogates, the Alliance for Competitive Technology and CompTIA. This move concretizes one of the big nightmares that caused many European policymakers to question the scope of software patents -- an issue that is now a subject of an administrative proceeding at the European Patent Office. Moreover, the use of the ITC exposes a US practice that is in principle a violation of the WTO charter -- discriminating against imports by subjecting them to automatic injunctions. In fact, the lawsuit publicizes a patent trap of Microsoft's own creation. Microsoft created a de facto industry standard in the FAT (File Allocation Table) format that it made widely available for adoption without letting it be known that it held and would assert the patents behind the standard. What makes the FAT patents valuable is not the technology behind them but the fact that they were promoted and accepted as a standard without word that Microsoft would someday come asking for money. Two of the patents are for converting between long and short file names - a FAT function that is commonly implemented in digital cameras, MP3 players, and other devices, not just in Windows and Linux. Does this remind you of ugly creatures jumping out from under bridges, demanding tolls from those in the midst of crossing, and, in some cases, eating them alive? Some wishful thinkers within the open source community may accept Microsoft's claim that this is about TomTom rather than Linux, along with the blather that accompanies most patent litigation about how Microsoft would rather license than litigate. But this is in fact a landmark assault into the most troubled and controversial terrain of the patent system. It will reverberate for a long time to come. More on Microsoft
 
Google's Tip Jar: Saving Money In The Recession Top
Google is using its Moderator product to help people share ideas on how to save money in recessionary times. Moderator is a tool that helps groups determine which questions should be asked at all-hands meetings, conferences, and online Q&A sessions, among other scenarios. Google has set up a site called Tip Jar, which is powered by Moderator, to gathers money-saving tips in one place and allow visitors to vote and rank them in order of usefulness. The most popular tips will rise to the top of the list. And users can submit tips to the lists as well. More on Google
 
City Budget Gap Widens To Over $60M, More Big Cuts Loom Top
Nose-diving revenues have forced Chicago's 2009 budget at least $10 million deeper into the hole -- to a gap of well over $60.5 million -- turning up the heat for more layoffs and union concessions.
 
Paul E. Lingenfelter: Using the Stimulus for Lasting Value in Higher Education Top
The Congress and the President wrote the economic stimulus bill to create jobs, prevent the loss of jobs, and create lasting value, a foundation for prosperity in the future. The governors surely want the same things, but they are arguing for more flexibility so they can spend the funds quickly on the high priorities of each state. Somehow flexibility has to be reconciled with accountability for wise spending. It might help if we recognize that the state stabilization fund is a tourniquet, not a transfusion. The $39.5 billion allocated for education budgets in the states is only 7.4% of state and local education spending in 2006. Spread over three years, 2009, 2010, and 2011, it is likely to barely replace revenues lost from plummeting sales, income, and property taxes. The stimulus money is not a cure for fundamental problems. It is money to buy time, manage a short-term crisis, and build a foundation for dealing with the fundamental problems. Part of the stimulus is designed to prevent lasting damage; we should use all of it to create lasting value. To create lasting value we must focus on three critical questions. What does the public need from higher education? Fifty years ago we had a clear answer to this question. In the 1960s the states dramatically increased their investment in higher education in order to educate the baby boom. It was easy to get consensus in the 1960s; the number of 18-24 year olds was increasing rapidly, and Sputnik had recently been launched into space. Consensus is harder now because we need to educate a larger proportion of our population (a more difficult task) to cope with a less clear threat -- the loss of competitiveness in the global economy. Compared to the 1960s, all people must now be educated to an increasingly higher standard. The basic dynamics are the same, however - when there is a consensus about goals and priorities, investment will follow. What can higher education do better with the money we have now? The public has deep faith in the value of education, persistently expressed in public polls, political rhetoric, and the recurring pattern of recovery in funding for higher education. But too many in the public lack confidence that additional investment will generate the results we need. Additional spending is unlikely to produce better outcomes in higher education, without changes in how we allocate resources and how we approach teaching and learning. The most important financial issue in higher education is not how incremental dollars are used, but the use of existing funding. The economic stimulus funding is critically needed to avoid the deterioration of higher education in this recession, but it is no cure. Money is necessary, but not sufficient for meeting the national need for greater educational attainment. The priorities and the incentives of the budget process in states and in institutions will determine the effectiveness of higher education far more than any amount of this emergency stimulus funding. Where can strategic investments help us get the results we need? While the use of existing budgets is critical, no business and no country have ever become more successful without making strategic investments. Money motivates action, and people with ambitious, shared objectives are willing to make strategic investments to achieve them. Defining shared objectives is critical. An economic crisis focuses the mind. It is an opportunity to re-examine our priorities and our strategies for the future. Let's not waste it. .
 
Ivan Katz: The Trumpeter Tipples Top
The press in Scotland has uncovered the news that orchestral musicians have been known to drink. This is of the "Mob Influence on Waterfront" or "Cronyism in Department of Sewers and Streets" genre. It would be quite easy to dismiss the report that ran on March 1, 2009 in Scotland on Sunday as just so much "What else is new?" were it not for the fact that the examples cited were pretty shocking. In the year 1910, H.L. Mencken wrote: It would be interesting to find out why all performers upon the viola are pessimists and all double bass players such heavy drinkers. Alcohol seems to have no effect whatever upon an experienced double bass player. There is one man in the Gewandhaus orchestra at Leipzig whose daily potation consists of 18 liters of Munich dunkle , almost enough to paralyze a whole lodge of Elks. And yet he is always sober, alert and accurate in his playing. He is, indeed, the only double bass player in all Germany who can get through the scherzo of Beethoven's Fifty Symphony without once stopping to remove the rosin dust from his eyes. So we have, at the very least, a documented history going back nearly a century of the fact that musicians have been known to knock back a few stiff ones. But what Scotland on Sunday reported was considerably more alarming than the news that taking the Temperance Pledge is not a job requirement for orchestral musicians. It seems that at the annual conference of the Association of British Orchestras, remarks were delivered by one Bill Kerr, described as "the orchestral organizer of the Musicians' Union." Mr. Kerr mentioned certain "regrettable incidents" involving musicians who he claimed drank to overcome boredom and pre-performance nerves. Mr. Kerr spoke of the unhappy doings of "the heavy brass section" of a major UK opera and ballet orchestra, noting that "They should have been sacked, really, but they would have been very hard to replace." Scotland on Sunday did not further specify the precise crimes and misdemeanors of the besotted brass players. The press report indicates that the brass section or a significant part of it hit the pub before they were called upon to play. Inebriation with resulting very bad playing likely ensued. "It is indefensible and reprehensible, but it is human nature," Kerr is reported to have said. The report continued: "Another conference delegate recalled an incident in which a percussionist had fallen off the back of a high stage while drunk." One can just imagine the audience reaction to that macabre spectacle. The newspaper report concluded by helpfully observing: "Experts say stage fright is one of the main reasons musicians drink alcohol before a performance, while group culture is another. Anecdotally brass players drink more than other sections of the orchestra." Now, Mr. Kerr is a union representative, and part of his professional duties requires him to stand up for the lads, minimizing the over-consumption of alcohol by union musicians as "human nature" or, if you prefer, "boys will be boys." This is, for lack of a better word, absurd. Playing music in an orchestra is decidedly hard work, and at the professional level it is performed by men and women who possess immense talent and a boundless capacity for the dull but necessary labor of practice, practice, practice. And the professional musician, as the old insurance slogan had it, gets paid for results. These men and women are professional musicians because they are good at what they do, and the vast majority of them would rather play music -- and play it well -- than do anything else in the world. The pride that they take in their work, and in their ability to make gorgeous music despite what they often see (with no small amount of justification) as the short-comings of the orchestra conductor is laudable. Although professional musicians may often look like an old school librarian or a concrete salesman, it is best to view them as having a good deal in common with professional athletes. Athletes and musicians train constantly to meet the physical rigors of their profession; all the talent in the world will not avail the violinist who does not have the strength or endurance to depress the strings and manipulate the bow during an entire concert any more than the greatest strategic mind in the history of the 440 can achieve success if his legs give out at the 400 mark. The need to constantly practice to hone and refine their skills is common to both musicians and athletes. And like the athlete, the musician cannot make the innumerable spur of the moment adjustments that orchestra playing requires if his or her judgment is impaired by liquor or mind-altering drugs. The finest muscle movements must be carefully calibrated to produce the sound the musician seeks to make, and one need not be a member of some Blue Ribbon Commission on Alcohol Intoxication to know that downing the better part of a fifth of Scotch is not going to have a salubrious effect on the imbiber's ability to negotiate a difficult passage in the music of Richard Wagner. And for every jazz musician who was able to create a masterwork while in a Southern Comfort induced haze, hundreds were brought to ruin by the same means. The notion that a musician will drink to "calm the nerves" or deal with performance anxiety is as antiquated as the notion that a steel worker requires a tumbler of gin as an "eye opener" before beginning his shift at the mill. All it will do is to make him insensible to the fact that he is playing badly. There are a dozen medications that any competent physician can prescribe that will address the "per-performance nerves" issues without anesthetizing the musician, as half a bottle of Canadian Rye will usually do. Excusing a performance impaired by alcohol as "boys will be boys" is not unlike excusing drunk driving on the same basis. If the musicians are bored waiting around to perform, there are other, less deleterious ways to while away the idle hours than drinking, such as the poker game, contract bridge, the Game Boy, the Blackberry and reading a book. For despite the comments of Mr. Kerr and apologists of his ilk, the old rule applies: Drinking and Delius don't mix.
 
Former NY Gov Spitzer Buying Washington Highrise Top
Eliot Spitzer is returning to Washington, D.C., but this time as an investor in the commercial real-estate market. The former New York governor, who resigned in disgrace a year ago after getting caught patronizing a prostitute in a Washington hotel, has purchased a prominent office building blocks from the White House through his father's real-estate company. More on Real Estate
 
Paul Hogarth: Repealing Prop 8: Ballot May Be Last Option Top
It's depressing to think - after having just lost an expensive and exhausting campaign - that repealing Proposition 8 could mean going back to the ballot. It is unfair and unjust that a slim majority of California voters took a fundamental right away from a minority, jeopardizing equal protection. But the state Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the City Attorney's lawsuit yesterday, and the signs were very discouraging. Justice Joyce Kennard (who last year voted to grant marriage equality ) was hostile to the case against Prop 8, and Chief Justice Ron George was skeptical. Not that there isn't any hope: perhaps the extreme arguments made by Prop 8 lawyer Kenneth Starr will inadvertently sway the Court into recognizing the measure's dangerous effects. But no one should expect the Court to repeal Prop 8. Activists must get ready for a 2010 proposition campaign as the next available remedy, however deficient a political solution that would be. We must learn from the colossal mistakes of the past campaign, and a new generation of activists will make it happen. Unlike the federal Constitution - which can only be amended by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate and a three-fourths vote by the state legislatures - California can change its constitution by a simple majority vote of the people. The state distinguishes between an "amendment" and a "revision" (with the latter requiring a higher threshold), but there is very little case law to flesh out the details. Generally speaking, an amendment tinkers around the edges of the constitution - while a revision has a more profound impact. Prop 8 abolished a fundamental right for a protected minority group (i.e., gays and lesbians), when a core purpose of the Courts and the constitution is to protect minorities. If that doesn't have a profound impact, I don't know what does - since no rights are sacred. The legal grounds to overrule Prop 8 are sound , but that doesn't mean the Court would do it. Roe v. Wade didn't just happen because an all-male Supreme Court woke up one day to discover that women have a constitutional right to choose. A mass movement worked for years to make this inevitable. A political movement is necessary to overturn Prop 8, giving judges the "space" to do the right thing. Even then, the courts are an inherently conservative institution that shy away from controversy - and rely heavily on caution, tradition, legal and historical precedent. Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) had barely started his oral argument yesterday morning, when Chief Justice Ron George interrupted. "Are you saying the passage of Prop 8," said George, "also took away - beyond the label of marriage - the core of the substantive rights of marriage?" Minter gave an admirable response, but the question wasn't a good sign. George had written the marriage decision that argued the term 'marriage' was essential to enjoying its rights and dignity, but now he was parsing it out as just a word. And he's the "swing" vote on the Court's 4-3 split. Associate Justice Joyce Kennard - who had also supported the Court's marriage decision - then piled on, maintaining an adversarial tone throughout the three-hour proceeding. "What Prop 8 did was take away the label of marriage and its applicability to same-sex couples," she said, "but it left intact our holding that sexual orientation is a suspect class. Is it still your view the sky has fallen in and gays and lesbians are left with nothing?" By far the most revealing exchange was when Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart began to mention Kennard's opinion last year. Kennard cut her off, became extremely defensive and said: "in the Marriage cases, the Court was asked to do what it normally does - interpret a statute. Here, we have a body of case law that talks about amendments and revisions. We are talking about the power of the people - an inalienable right." The right of voters to change the Constitution was Kennard's main concern throughout the arguments. "How can the court willy nilly disregard the will of the people," she asked. Kennard also zeroed in on the precedent of an earlier case, where voters were allowed to restore the death penalty by passing a constitutional amendment - after courts had thrown it out as cruel and unusual punishment. "It would appear to me," she stated, "that life is a fundamental right." But unlike equal protection or fundamental rights, the definition of cruel and unusual punishment is "public standards of decency" (i.e., will of the voters.) As attorney Raymond Marshall said, "cruel and unusual punishment is unique because it's an issue that can be decided by the people." He also added that voters did not single out a suspect class to receive the death penalty, and the matter still has judicial review. Chief Justice George repeatedly focused on two points throughout the oral arguments, which don't bode well for the result. When Shannon Minter explained how rights cannot be taken away by mere amendments (because an amendment must be consistent with the Constitution's general principles), George characterized that logic as a "one-way street." How can an amendment extend rights, he asked, but then not take them away? He also repeatedly asked if the problem was with how California changes its constitution, and that maybe the amendment process could just be changed - a "political solution." As I stood in Civic Center Park to watch the proceedings on a satellite video, George's skeptical queries - peppered with Kennard's "questions" that were actually long-winded statements - gave me a sinking and depressing feeling that we were going to lose. If there's a glimmer of hope, it may be from the other side's presentation. Kenneth Starr (of Monica Lewinsky fame) gave the oral argument for upholding Prop 8, and blurted out a few legal points that - if drawn to their conclusion - would create an awful precedent. By arguing that Prop 8 could not be overruled, he said: "the people are sovereign ... even if unwise. And they can tug at equality." In other words, no protections for minorities are sacred - as long as a majority of the voters choose to enshrine it in the constitution. Can the Court reconcile the precedent of upholding Prop 8, with Ken Starr's notion that we can "tug at equality"? When asked if rolling back domestic partnerships for gay couples would also be a valid use of the initiative process, Starr said it would be an "acceptable amendment" - which may have disturbed some of the Justices. It was clear from oral arguments the Court will not go along with Starr's request to invalidate the 18,000 marriage licenses of same-sex couples who wed before the passage of Prop 8, but how can they recognize it as a valid amendment without incorporating Starr's logic? Don't count on the Supreme Court to do the right thing - certainly not after today's oral arguments. If we're going to win back marriage equality, it may have to be at the ballot box in 2010 - after an organized, grassroots effort collects signatures and then passes a constitutional amendment to repeal Prop 8. Everyone agrees that "No on 8" ran an awful campaign , and a whole new crop of activists who felt alienated by its top-down structure are coming out of the woodwork to create a better future. The trick is to keep that energy going. What's amazed me is how many groups organically sprouted out of Prop 8's passage. Join the Impact is still going on strong, and One Struggle, One Fight is planning a March to Sacramento at the end of the month. The Courage Campaign is building the grassroots infrastructure we'll need to run a successful statewide campaign, and a new group - And Marriage for All - is doing the critical outreach to communities of color. And I'd be remiss not to acknowledge what Marriage Equality USA and Molly McKay has done for years, cultivating a network of grassroots chapter leaders through the state. I won't lie. The prospect of having to wage another statewide electoral campaign for me is overwhelming, exhausting and depressing. The lawyer in me still yearns for "justice in the courts," with a majority of Justices concluding Prop 8 was not a proper amendment. It would make those right-wing blowhards explode, because we'd have marriage equality in this state for good - and they could never take it away at the ballot box again with lies and distortions. But I know that if we must go back to the voters, we'll never walk alone. A whole new army of allies have joined us, and this time we're determined not to lose. EDITOR'S NOTE: Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published . He was a law school intern at Equality California during the summer of 2005, and got his J.D. from Golden Gate University in 2006. He is an attorney licensed to practice law in California. More on Gay Marriage
 
T. Boone Pickens: It's Not About Political Parties Top
Earlier this week I traveled to New York City to go on The View and talk about the Pickens Plan. Right out of the gate Whoopi Goldberg asked me was whether I was a Republican or a Democrat. My response to her question? "I'm an American first." When you cut to the chase, that's the core message of the Pickens Plan. Ending our country's addiction to foreign oil isn't about being a Republican or about the Democratic Party. It's about America. It's about the future of our country. Is that a Republican issue? Is that a Democratic issue? In both cases the answer is yes, and the reason why is because securing our energy future is an American issue. Last year, the money we spent on imported oil could have funded highway repairs in this country for the next seven years. Does that burn you up? It sure does me. Why on earth are we shipping half a trillion dollars overseas to a few friends and a lot of countries that don't like us when we could be building tens of thousands of schools right here in the United States? I'll tell you why: leadership. For the last 40 years, each and every presidential candidate has said, "Elect me, and I'll make our country energy independent." All of us know how that story pans out. Back in the 1970s when Richard Nixon was president, we imported one-quarter of our oil. Today that percentage has almost tripled. Since I launched the Pickens Plan last summer, I've met with citizens, senators, students, governors, and elected officials from coast to coast. I made a point of sitting down with both presidential candidates to explain the obstacles and the opportunities facing us and to pledge my support to ending this senseless outflow of American dollars. A lot of people have voiced support for developing our energy security, but one of the true leaders has been Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. That point was hammered home a few weeks ago when Sen. Reid hosted the National Clean Energy Project in Washington, which was sponsored John Podesta's Center for American Progress Action Fund. Who did the Senator invite? Republicans, Democrats, financial leaders, academics -- in a word, Americans. And for those of you with short memories, this event was not Sen. Reid's first energy summit. Last August in Las Vegas, he hosted the equally successful National Clean Energy Summit. Harry Reid gets it. A lot of people feel more comfortable labeling Sen. Reid a lifelong Democrat and me a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. But as we've gotten to know each other better, it's become apparent that we have more in common than either of us could ever have imagined. His hometown in Nevada is a small town called Searchlight. I can tell you right now that the hardworking people where he grew up are just as incensed at our wasteful energy policy as my family and the friends who taught me so many important lessons growing up in Holdenville, Oklahoma. No matter where you are from or what your political party, being wasteful is not an American value. Spending hard-earned dollars at home, creating desperately needed jobs, investing in the infrastructure necessary to support our 21st century economy -- these are the sort of the values that Sen. Reid and I learned growing up. And I think they are some of the key reasons we've both been working so hard to get America to change its energy policy. Tonight my work week wraps up in Los Angeles where I'll go on Bill Maher's show on HBO. I'll be curious to see if he's more interested in figuring out my political affiliation ... or helping America develop a solution to its addiction to foreign oil. More on Richard Nixon
 
Banks Declining TARP Funds, $2 Billion Turned Down Top
German American Bancorp Inc. said this week it would turn down $25 million in taxpayer capital from the Treasury Department and raise funds through a private debt offering instead. German American, of Jasper, Ind., joined roughly 50 other banks that were approved for aid through the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program but have publicly opted out, saying they didn't need the money or objected to the restrictions that would come with it.
 
Seattle Post-Intelligencer May Go Online Only Top
Staffers chosen to participate in an online-only version of the Seattle P-I were notified of their selection Wednesday and Thursday. The selections indicate The Hearst Corp.'s plan for such a Web site is advancing.Two reporters said they received "provisional offers" from P-I New Media head Michelle Nicolosi or Hearst executive Ken Riddick. They said they were told they will be given formal offers if the Web site gets the go-ahead from Hearst's senior management. The reporters wouldn't give details, saying they had been asked during their interviews not to comment. Nicolosi also declined to comment. Riddick, who has been at the P-I over the past two days, didn't return a call seeking comment. More on Newspapers
 
Barnes & Noble Buys Fictionwise, E-Book Retailer Top
Bowing to the growth in demand for e-books, Barnes & Noble, the world's largest chain of bookstores, has acquired Fictionwise, an online retailer of electronic books. Barnes & Noble, which has not recently sold e-books on its Web site, bn.com, paid $15.7 million in cash for Fictionwise.
 
Wayne Besen: Keep Religion out of Military Top
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) introduced a bill this week to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a law that prohibits gay and lesbian military personnel from serving openly. While this is welcome news, there is no guarantee of a "welcome mat" for gay and lesbian soldiers if the ban is lifted. In the years since Don't Ask, Don't Tell was adopted in 1993, there has been a rigorous effort to force religion into the barracks. Fundamentalist Christian groups have infiltrated some of our leading military bases and have made life uncomfortable for anyone who does not conform. This first came to light in 2005 after the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs had become a bastion of Anti-Semitism and Christian proselytizing. The problem escalated as some cadets were reportedly harassed and called "filthy Jews." A chaplain who complained about the Biblical abuse was unceremoniously demoted and shipped off to Japan. To stop the attempted conversions, the military brass had to meet with the Anti-Defamation League. Sadly, the proselytizing continues with powerful military leaders behaving more like missionaries, than soldiers entrusted with fulfilling military missions. "Why is it acceptable that soldiers are unable to serve this nation without attending state-led religious practices they find offensive and false?" Specialist Dustin Chalker, an army medic based at Fort Detrick, in Maryland, asked in The New York Times . The Times article said that many service members are made uncomfortable by the outsized influence of private groups, such as Officers Christian Fellowship and the Campus Crusade for Christ's Military Ministry. "You can't and shouldn't eliminate the spiritual component in the military," argued Bruce Fister, Executive Director of Officers' Christian Fellowship, in the Times . Excuse me, why is there a "spiritual component" in a pluralistic military whose goal is to safeguard a people governed by the United States Constitution? The very document that they are entrusted with protecting forbids a state religion. The fact is, a service member can pray anytime he or she desires. Within a ten mile radius of almost any base is a plethora of evangelical or fundamentalist churches to choose from. Thus, no one will be denied their freedom of religion if the presence of these predatory organizations is expunged from military bases. It is time to drain the swamp. Of course, we all know the purpose of these groups is to turn religion from a private, individual matter into a coercive team sport. "Team Jesus" is a better instrument to pressure cadets into converting -- especially if it offers ambitious soldiers a competitive advantage to rise through the ranks. (At the Air Force Academy in 2005, the football coach actually did post a locker room banner that read, "Team Jesus.") It is also problematic that a group with the name "Crusade" is allowed anywhere near our military. In case these religious renegades haven't noticed, we are fighting two wars in the Muslim world. The very word "crusade" is a potent rallying cry for Al Qaeda to recruit terrorists to murder U.S. forces. A group with a name like Campus Crusade sends the wrong message and may endanger our troops. Finally, religion does not always equate with moral superiority. I wouldn't doubt if the porn lobby is secretly cheering for mass conversions on military bases. A new nationwide study of credit card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider shows that states that consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption. "Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," said Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School. As we contemplate the battle over allowing openly gay people in the military, we should also consider what type of military they would serve in. As a nation, we must ensure that the military's number one priority is preparing for war, not worship. If we don't grapple with this issue, Don't Ask, Don't Tell may become, Do Tell, Live In Hell for gay and lesbian service members brave enough to come out. More on Religion
 
Obama Administration Vows To "Break The Destructive Cycle" Of Job Loss Top
The Obama administration says it will do what is necessary to "break the destructive cycle" of job loss and put Americans back to work. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis was reacting to Friday's report of a jump in the unemployment rate to 8.1 percent and the loss of 651,000 jobs in February.
 
Hammad Hammad: I'm American, But to Israel I'm a Number Top
"Void in Israel, see Palestinian ID #." That's what an Israeli stamp states in Hebrew on my American passport. In Israel, I am a numbered Palestinian despite my American citizenship. Although the Oslo Accords of 1993 paved the way for limited Palestinian self-governance under the Palestinian Authority, they have not led to statehood. Instead, the creation of the Palestinian Authority has consolidated Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza and the people who live there. One method of Israeli control is the "Palestinian Hawiya," or identity cards that Palestinians are required to have. These identity cards effectively control the population within enclaves in the West Bank, trap residents in Gaza, and reduce people of Palestinian descent, even American citizens, into faceless numbers. To visit my ill grandmother in the West Bank I am not allowed to fly into Tel Aviv, about two-hours from her home in Ramallah. Instead I fly to Queen Alia International Airport in Amman, Jordan. I spend the night in Amman due to the limited hours of operation of border crossings. The bridge between Jordan and the West Bank usually takes about ten hours to cross, due to Jordanian, Israeli and Palestinian immigration centers. This is on a good day. Many people are held longer and some are denied entry. The bridge is flimsy. I can cross it by foot in 2 minutes. Palestinian poet Mourid Barghouti eloquently described it: "How was this piece of dark wood able to distance a whole nation from its dreams? To prevent entire generations to take their coffee in homes that were theirs? How did it deliver us to all this patience and all this death? How was it able to scatter us among exiles, and tents, and political parties and frightened whispers?" Usually, I am admitted. However, because I am not given a "Tourist Visa" like other Americans, I am limited to travel on Palestinian-only roads and must go through checkpoints between Palestinian cities and towns. I am not allowed into any Israeli cities, not even Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem. It is even "illegal" for me to be in a car with a yellow Israeli license plate. Because of my Palestinian identity, and regardless of my citizenship, I need a permit issued by Israel to visit the American Consulate in Jerusalem from the West Bank. Yes, I am required to ask permission to visit my own country's consulate. The US Consulate informed me via email that to Israel my "U.S. passport, unfortunately, is only secondary." I have asked several times what the US Consulate is doing to reverse this discriminatory policy. I am still waiting for a response. As an American, $3 billion of my tax money goes to Israel, a country a little larger than the size of New Jersey. As a Palestinian, I am not allowed beyond checkpoints without special military permits that are virtually impossible to obtain. To vote in the US Presidential election, my dad had to meet a woman at a checkpoint to take his ballot to the Consulate. If Palestine were an independent state, then the permits, entry requirements, etc. would make sense for Palestinian passport holders. But Palestine isn't an independent country. Israel is the occupying power in charge of the Palestinian Territories. Further, as an American I should be allowed to enter Israel as a tourist regardless of my background. Although I must go through Jordan to visit my sick grandmother, I am lucky in that I am allowed in at all. Several thousand international volunteers or workers in the West Bank are denied entry at every border each year. My uncle, an American with no Hawiya, was held at a detention center in Tel Aviv while challenging their decision to deny him entry. The Israeli Authorities sent him back to the US after 30 days. This policy is Israel's systemic way of separating families, stifling the development of the Palestinian economy, and scaring foreigners from entering and documenting the effects of the Israeli occupation. We must work together to make Israel accountable for how it spends our tax money, since the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention is clear that this policy is against any International Humanitarian and Human Rights law. Israel can't forbid me from being a tourist in my ancestor's homeland forever. Perhaps in the next American election, my family in the West Bank can vote at the American Consulate in Jerusalem -- instead of questionable transfers of ballots at one of Israel's 600 checkpoints. More on Jordan
 
Rob Corddry Is Unemployed (VIDEO) Top
Last night on the "Daily Show," former correspondent Rob Corddry showed up "unexpectedly" to discuss the current unemployment crisis. He spoke for the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs to better looking people and have therefore been denied "hot and cold running pussy." Corddry proceeded to take the audience on a journey through his career ending with his recent turn as Ari Fleischer in Oliver Stone's "W." Which should have opened up "meatier, non-bald character guy" roles for the millions of Americans out of work. Corddry then tried to insinuate himself back into the "Daily Show" cast. Suffice to say to say it all ended badly, with Jon making a tragic Sophie's Choice-esque decision between Corddry and Jason Jones. (Ok, it's not that dramatic, I'm embellishing a little .) WATCH: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M - Th 11p / 10c Unemployment Report Daily Show Full Episodes Important Things With Demetri Martin Political Humor Joke of the Day More on Daily Show
 
Senate Dems May Punish Bayh, Feingold For Omnibus Opposition Top
Senate Democrats are debating whether Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) should be punished for opposing a $410 billion omnibus. Some Senate Democrats, including members of the Appropriations Committee, are angry that Feingold and Bayh have panned the massive spending bill after legislative priorities important to both lawmakers were included in the package. More on Evan Bayh
 
Paul Hogarth: Repealing Prop 8: Ballot May Be Last Option Top
It's depressing to think - after having just lost an expensive and exhausting campaign - that repealing Proposition 8 could mean going back to the ballot. It is unfair and unjust that a slim majority of California voters took a fundamental right away from a minority, jeopardizing equal protection. But the state Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the City Attorney's lawsuit yesterday, and the signs were very discouraging. Justice Joyce Kennard (who last year voted to grant marriage equality ) was hostile to the case against Prop 8, and Chief Justice Ron George was skeptical. Not that there isn't any hope: perhaps the extreme arguments made by Prop 8 lawyer Kenneth Starr will inadvertently sway the Court into recognizing the measure's dangerous effects. But no one should expect the Court to repeal Prop 8. Activists must get ready for a 2010 proposition campaign as the next available remedy, however deficient a political solution that would be. We must learn from the colossal mistakes of the past campaign, and a new generation of activists will make it happen. Unlike the federal Constitution - which can only be amended by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate and a three-fourths vote by the state legislatures - California can change its constitution by a simple majority vote of the people. The state distinguishes between an "amendment" and a "revision" (with the latter requiring a higher threshold), but there is very little case law to flesh out the details. Generally speaking, an amendment tinkers around the edges of the constitution - while a revision has a more profound impact. Prop 8 abolished a fundamental right for a protected minority group (i.e., gays and lesbians), when a core purpose of the Courts and the constitution is to protect minorities. If that doesn't have a profound impact, I don't know what does - since no rights are sacred. The legal grounds to overrule Prop 8 are sound , but that doesn't mean the Court would do it. Roe v. Wade didn't just happen because an all-male Supreme Court woke up one day to discover that women have a constitutional right to choose. A mass movement worked for years to make this inevitable. A political movement is necessary to overturn Prop 8, giving judges the "space" to do the right thing. Even then, the courts are an inherently conservative institution that shy away from controversy - and rely heavily on caution, tradition, legal and historical precedent. Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) had barely started his oral argument yesterday morning, when Chief Justice Ron George interrupted. "Are you saying the passage of Prop 8," said George, "also took away - beyond the label of marriage - the core of the substantive rights of marriage?" Minter gave an admirable response, but the question wasn't a good sign. George had written the marriage decision that argued the term 'marriage' was essential to enjoying its rights and dignity, but now he was parsing it out as just a word. And he's the "swing" vote on the Court's 4-3 split. Associate Justice Joyce Kennard - who had also supported the Court's marriage decision - then piled on, maintaining an adversarial tone throughout the three-hour proceeding. "What Prop 8 did was take away the label of marriage and its applicability to same-sex couples," she said, "but it left intact our holding that sexual orientation is a suspect class. Is it still your view the sky has fallen in and gays and lesbians are left with nothing?" By far the most revealing exchange was when Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart began to mention Kennard's opinion last year. Kennard cut her off, became extremely defensive and said: "in the Marriage cases, the Court was asked to do what it normally does - interpret a statute. Here, we have a body of case law that talks about amendments and revisions. We are talking about the power of the people - an inalienable right." The right of voters to change the Constitution was Kennard's main concern throughout the arguments. "How can the court willy nilly disregard the will of the people," she asked. Kennard also zeroed in on the precedent of an earlier case, where voters were allowed to restore the death penalty by passing a constitutional amendment - after courts had thrown it out as cruel and unusual punishment. "It would appear to me," she stated, "that life is a fundamental right." But unlike equal protection or fundamental rights, the definition of cruel and unusual punishment is "public standards of decency" (i.e., will of the voters.) As attorney Raymond Marshall said, "cruel and unusual punishment is unique because it's an issue that can be decided by the people." He also added that voters did not single out a suspect class to receive the death penalty, and the matter still has judicial review. Chief Justice George repeatedly focused on two points throughout the oral arguments, which don't bode well for the result. When Shannon Minter explained how rights cannot be taken away by mere amendments (because an amendment must be consistent with the Constitution's general principles), George characterized that logic as a "one-way street." How can an amendment extend rights, he asked, but then not take them away? He also repeatedly asked if the problem was with how California changes its constitution, and that maybe the amendment process could just be changed - a "political solution." As I stood in Civic Center Park to watch the proceedings on a satellite video, George's skeptical queries - peppered with Kennard's "questions" that were actually long-winded statements - gave me a sinking and depressing feeling that we were going to lose. If there's a glimmer of hope, it may be from the other side's presentation. Kenneth Starr (of Monica Lewinsky fame) gave the oral argument for upholding Prop 8, and blurted out a few legal points that - if drawn to their conclusion - would create an awful precedent. By arguing that Prop 8 could not be overruled, he said: "the people are sovereign ... even if unwise. And they can tug at equality." In other words, no protections for minorities are sacred - as long as a majority of the voters choose to enshrine it in the constitution. Can the Court reconcile the precedent of upholding Prop 8, with Ken Starr's notion that we can "tug at equality"? When asked if rolling back domestic partnerships for gay couples would also be a valid use of the initiative process, Starr said it would be an "acceptable amendment" - which may have disturbed some of the Justices. It was clear from oral arguments the Court will not go along with Starr's request to invalidate the 18,000 marriage licenses of same-sex couples who wed before the passage of Prop 8, but how can they recognize it as a valid amendment without incorporating Starr's logic? Don't count on the Supreme Court to do the right thing - certainly not after today's oral arguments. If we're going to win back marriage equality, it may have to be at the ballot box in 2010 - after an organized, grassroots effort collects signatures and then passes a constitutional amendment to repeal Prop 8. Everyone agrees that "No on 8" ran an awful campaign , and a whole new crop of activists who felt alienated by its top-down structure are coming out of the woodwork to create a better future. The trick is to keep that energy going. What's amazed me is how many groups organically sprouted out of Prop 8's passage. Join the Impact is still going on strong, and One Struggle, One Fight is planning a March to Sacramento at the end of the month. The Courage Campaign is building the grassroots infrastructure we'll need to run a successful statewide campaign, and a new group - And Marriage for All - is doing the critical outreach to communities of color. And I'd be remiss not to acknowledge what Marriage Equality USA and Molly McKay has done for years, cultivating a network of grassroots chapter leaders through the state. I won't lie. The prospect of having to wage another statewide electoral campaign for me is overwhelming, exhausting and depressing. The lawyer in me still yearns for "justice in the courts," with a majority of Justices concluding Prop 8 was not a proper amendment. It would make those right-wing blowhards explode, because we'd have marriage equality in this state for good - and they could never take it away at the ballot box again with lies and distortions. But I know that if we must go back to the voters, we'll never walk alone. A whole new army of allies have joined us, and this time we're determined not to lose. EDITOR'S NOTE: Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published . He was a law school intern at Equality California during the summer of 2005, and got his J.D. from Golden Gate University in 2006. He is an attorney licensed to practice law in California. More on Supreme Court
 
Heidi Kingstone: The Worst Refugee Situation in the World Top
The Worst Refugee Situation in the World? The Rohingyas Every so often the tragic human situation of the Rohingyas pushes itself to the forefront of international consciousness. Lately it has been as a result of the Thai authorities forcing hundreds of desperate men out to sea in open boats and left to die. When 220 of these former Burmese refugees, known as Rohingyas, were discovered and then Angelina Jolie, the Hollywood celebrity and UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador, talked about their plight, it focused the spotlight on them again, if only briefly. Then, the story disappeared, but not the reality of their impossible circumstances stuck literally between a rock and a hard place with no where to go. These persecuted and displaced refugees come from Myanmar (Burma) where they have lived for many generations, yet they are stateless, the government refuses to recognize these Muslims as citizens in the largely Buddhist country. Instead they make the lives of this minority intolerable and by doing so hope the estimated million or so remaining Rohingyas will follow the other 250,000 who have slipped over the border into the eastern part of Bangladesh. The Rohingyas and the Bangladeshis of the Chittigong region speak a similar language, are physically alike, and practice the same religion. Over the past two decades they have fled in successive waves looking for sanctuary. Bangladesh, though, has enough of its own problems. Beyond desperately poor, prone to natural disasters -- floods, famine, plagues of rats, disease -- with over 150 million people crammed together on low-lying land in a space smaller than England, it is one of the most densely populated, not to mention corrupt, countries on earth with few resources to feed and house its own people let alone absorb the Rohingyas. The border between the two countries, while guarded, is possible to cross in certain places either by boat or simply by foot. At one point I stood and talked briefly to the Burmese woman in her field where she grew tomatoes, corn and chillies a few metres away across a narrow stream of water. The life the Rohingyas seek in Bangladesh is hardly paradise. In fact it lead several long-term aid workers to comment that this was the worst refugee crisis in the world. The (Rohingya) refugees break down into four categories -- the first are official and registered -- 23,620 are housed, fed, and looked after by UNHCR who is in the country at the invitation of the Bangladesh government. Others, about 5000 are the self-settled, those miserable men and women who have built shelters on the outskirts of Kutupalong, the UN camp and are possibly in the worst condition - they have nothing and are entitled to nothing. The third type of which there could be 200,000 have melted into the host community. Many, though, are lured back to the UNHCR camp by the guarantee of regular supplies. This is a major source of concern for the government in a country where food insecurity is standard and malnutrition levels are prevalent in 50-60 percent of the general population. The fourth kind are also unregistered, but now have shelter, sanitation, healthcare and water provided by a British-based charity called Islamic Relief. These 500 families lived in inhuman conditions, in the open air, in a mangrove bed, in makeshift shacks that were flooded twice a day by the tidal Naaf river, the natural border between Myanmar and Bangladesh, but prohibited from moving any further inland by the government worried that by recognizing them they would also be responsible for them. To help, Islamic Relief asked for 20 acres to build a site called Leda, in order to rehouse the 10,000 refugees. The government finally agreed to donate 15 acres of land (later expanded to 20). In order to ensure that the government didn't change its mind, the forest had to be cleared, the drains dug, 360 latrines put in, and 1940 palm leaf structures erected along with drawing up plans for the healthcare centre, all within three months before the monsoon season. Since July the number in Leda has swelled to 13,000, bringing new worries about possible degradation. While most Rohingyas consider themselves Burmese, they have no desire to return to a place where they face brutally discrimination. Men are often taken by the army and used as forced labour where many die. Once the men go the women are stranded. Land is routinely confiscated. They are subjected to numerous impossible restrictions such as not being allowed to leave the village without permission, which also means not being able to sell goods at market. They cannot get married without state authority, and that costs the bride's side and the groom's side 400,000 Myanmar kyat -- a fortune. They are only permitted to have one child. Women are subjected to sexual violence. There are no schools for the Rohingyas so they remain at the bottom of the pile without any means of escape. The government of Myanmar tells the Rohingyas they are Bangladeshi, the Bangladeshis tell them they are Burmese. For every solution, there is a problem, and for some problems there are no clear solutions. The Rohingyas have come in two major waves, in 1978, and 1991 when 250,000 flooded across the border and 230,000 were 'voluntarily' repatriated. They returned to find their diabolical situation had not improved and re-crossed the border. That still remains an option, but not a very serious one. The other is resettlement in third countries. So far 244 people have been sent to Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the Ireland, but that strategy has its obvious limitations. The third is local integration -- giving the Rohingyas citizenship of Bangladesh. "At the root of the problem it's a political issue," says Islamic Relief's Country Director, Dr Ahmed Nasr, which needs international support. "Some sort of pressure should be used, and Bangladesh also needs some incentives, maybe more aid." Meanwhile the UN is making the case for the Rohingyas to stay in Bangladesh until the conditions in Myanmar are conducive to their return. The Bangladesh government is theoretically opposed to the integration of the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh but the UN is advocating for their basic rights to be met -- current challenges include the right to education, right to work and freedom of movement. The World Food Program has been providing support since the refugees first arrived in 1992 and plans to spend US$9.6 million over the next two years, providing food and livelihood support to the refugees in the official camps. Something needs to be done as many of these people have lived in camps for 16 years. They are psychologically tired. It's a tough life, and there are no easy answers but so far neither government is taking responsibility. Myanmar remains aloof, happy to open the gates and let the Rohingyas out. In Leda camp people talked to me about the food shortage. In IR's remit they can provide sanitation, housing, healthcare but not food or education. The charity wants them to be self-reliant, urging them to work in the salt fields nearby, or as rickshaw wallahs. The host community has issues. They are equally poor, but the Rohingyas undercut them in their desperation. Kabizatul Kubra, a Bangladeshi woman from the local community, says she has sympathy with their plight. "We're sad they lost so much, they are also created by Allah, like us, but we are a poor country and they should go back." Her concerns are that if food is not provided, they will turn to "thieving". She accused the women of being prostitutes and the men of polluting the water source but conceded that since Leda camp was established the host community has benefited from the healthcare centre, which they are also able to use. The communities pray together, and they are largely tolerated. Another woman complained to me that locals beat them up when they go to gather firewood. Outside her small living space were her husband and son, their skinny bodies prone and unconscious as a result of a beating a few days earlier. There are serious issues facing Leda, despite the efforts made by Islamic Relief which have been rated ++ by Francois Grunewald from Groupe URD (French acronym for Emergency Rehabilitation Development, a French not for profit Research and Evaluation Institute -- www.urd.org) who visited the camps during a mission for the European Humanitarian office DG ECHO. There is not enough water, and there are growing concerns on how hygiene and sanitation can be dealt with in the site as the land available is already congested and the water resources declining rapidly. IR is damming the canals and when it rains using it as a natural reservoir. But this will work only in a few months, during the rainy season. There will be four to five difficult months before that. While migration levels have leveled off, there has been a recent incident in Myanmar where communities have been violently attacked, so Bangladesh is anticipating the influx of about 1,000 refugees. After a discussion with some of the women, one handed me a letter in English citing the legal demand (sic) of the refugees. "No. 1: We want democracy in Myanmar. No. 2: We want nationality. No. 3: We want compensation." Leda may be a well-managed camp, clean, orderly, where there is a small market, where runner beans grow on the roofs, a team of five doctors are on call, a mental health clinic, and a therapeutic feeding centre, but in the end it is a refugee camp. Another woman I met there, a mid-wife, said as we walked around the camp followed by dozens of children, "We are just floating here," suffering in the interregnum between not being able to start a new life and not being able to forget the old one. More on Burma
 
Dean Not Likely For Surgeon General Post, Allies Say Top
With Dr. Sanjay Gupta having taken his name out of the running for the administration's Surgeon General post, the early chatter has reverted back to the man progressives are pining to have in a health-care-related role: Howard Dean. The former DNC Chair, who told the Huffington Post that he was interested in the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services, has all the qualifications one would want in a Surgeon General. But sources close to the Vermont Governor tell us, and The Plum Line's Greg Sargent , that he isn't interested in the post. "I don't think he wants Surgeon General," said one ally of the former chair, who added that the post was not as substantive as HHS. "He wants to be part of the healthcare fight," said another, arguing that more could be done on that front from the outside. Nevertheless, Dean's name is being floated for the post, primarily by his progressive defenders. "It's time for the media to stop asking Dean about the already-filled HHS position," wrote Igor Volsky of the Center For American Progress' Wonk Room , "and start asking about the (soon-to-be) vacant surgeon general position."
 
Harry Moroz: Your Wealth Is In A Safe Place Now Top
Last night, the House passed legislation permitting modification of mortgages on primary loans. Though the bill has been kicked around for over a year , the banking lobby only ratcheted up its campaign to shape the final legislation in the last several days. Changes to the initial bill, then, obviously favor the financial industry. The first major change increased the amount lenders can recover from homeowners if their home's value appreciates after bankruptcy. In principle, such a recovery provision makes sense: mortgage holders take a hit when mortgage principle is reduced in bankruptcy. But the change merely ratchets up by 10% the amount the lender can recover from the borrower, suggesting that the New Democrats in favor of amending the legislation wanted to sweeten the deal for the banks. However, two quite obvious considerations mitigate how much of a "giveaway" this really is. First, home sales are way, way down (and will stay down). Second, home prices are way, way down (and will stay down). Because of this, the recapture provision functions less as a straight handout to banks and more as a disincentive for underwater homeowners to seek out bankruptcy in search of a principal write down and, thus, a chance at regaining equity. The other major change limits the situations in which bankruptcy judges can reduce mortgage principal, among other measures explicitly permitting only interest rate reductions if such reductions make a mortgage affordable. Like the previous change, this alteration also seeks to prevent underwater homeowners from using bankruptcy as a means to recover equity in their homes. While this concern is perhaps understandable, the narrow "affordability" provisions in the bill, which define affordability by monthly income, ignore the fact that until recently many middle-class homeowners relied on home equity to maintain a middle-class standard of living. As housing prices continue to plummet, these homeowners lose a significant source of wealth: poof , as the Federal Reserve said, went the 17% growth in median household wealth between 2004 and 2007. Principal reductions, in and out of bankruptcy, are the only means of restoring this wealth and are important to prevent foreclosures (and to incentive homeowners not to abandon their houses when they owe more than the house is worth). The chatter about making mortgages "affordable" - in Obama's housing plan as well - is insufficient. Of course the housing crisis is a complex beast that requires imperfect solutions, as the bankruptcy bill and Obama's housing plan are. But we should remember that by avoiding principal write downs - and focusing on monthly mortgage payments - the burden of wealth destruction is being placed on homeowners, not on banks. More on Bankruptcy
 
Chris Brown Hits The Bar After Court Appearance (VIDEO) Top
Hours after appearing in court and being charged with two felonies for his alleged attack on Rihanna, Chris Brown spent a night on the town. TMZ reports : "TMZ caught Brown leaving the SLS Hotel in Beverly Hills around 3:45am. Brown spent much of the evening at the hotel bar." Meanwhile, new details emerged from the night of the attack, including punching, choking and death threats. Brown had his arraignment pushed back to April. Rihanna did not appear in court. The Video: More on Chris Brown & Rihanna
 
Words of Wisdom: Michelle Obama's Most Inspirational Quotes Top
There are no shortage of reasons to admire and be inspired by Michelle Obama; her poise, her style , and her steadfast determination to make a change in this world, one soup kitchen at a time make her a strong role model for men, women, and children everywhere. But while her husband Barack has been championed as the all-star orator, Michelle herself is no stranger to the power of words. Beliefnet.com has put together an uplifting list of some of Mrs. Obama's most encouraging words. Below are our favorites. On being the First Lady and Mom-in-Chief: "My first job in all honesty is going to continue to be mom-in-chief. Making sure that in this transition, which will be even more of a transition for the girls...that they are settled and that they know they will continue to be the center of our universe." On the importance of self-care: "Women in particular need to keep an eye on their physical and mental health, because if we're scurrying to and from appointments and errands, we don't have a lot of time to take care of ourselves. We need to do a better job of putting ourselves higher on our own 'to do' list." On dealing with stress: "Exercise is really important to me--it's therapeutic. So if I'm ever feeling tense or stressed or like I'm about to have a meltdown, I'll put on my iPod and head to the gym or out on a bike ride along Lake Michigan with the girls." On staying true to oneself: "One of the lessons that I grew up with was to always stay true to yourself and never let what somebody else says distract you from your goals. And so when I hear about negative and false attacks, I really don't invest any energy in them, because I know who I am." And on making a difference: "And in my own life, in my own small way, I've tried to give back to this country that has given me so much. That's why I left a job at a law firm for a career in public service, working to empower young people to volunteer in their communities. Because I believe that each of us--no matter what our age or background or walk of life--each of us has something to contribute to the life of this nation." What do you find most inspirational about Michelle Obama? How have her words and/or actions made an impact on your life? Related: SLIDESHOW: Michelle Obama Spends Lunchtime Serving Those In Need SLIDESHOW: Michelle Obama Visits DC Social Services Center, Tells Teens: "When You Get, You Give Back" SLIDESHOW: The Obamas And Bidens Give Back On National Day Of Service SLIDESHOW: Obama Family's Thanksgiving Food Drive Visit SLIDESHOW: Three Anything But Ordinary Citizens Who Inspired The President SLIDESHOW: Michelle Obama Entertains Kids At The White House In Celebration Of African American History Month More on The Giving Life
 
Stuart Whatley: Understanding Syrian Rapprochement: Optimists Versus Cynics Top
As part of Hillary Clinton's Middle East excursion this week, the Obama administration dispatched two emissaries to Syria (Daniel Schapiro from the National Security Council and Jeffrey Feltman from the State Department), marking the first high-level diplomatic overture to President Bashar Assad since 2005. However, underlying the prospect for renewed diplomacy with Damascus is the universally accepted possibility that Assad will merely feign peace efforts without ever following through -- for which he, and his father before him, are notorious. Thus, in terms of Syrian rapprochement, the foreign policy community may be boiled down into two factions: the optimists and the cynics. The optimists view rapprochement with Syria as being worth the effort, even if the attempt follows precedent and backfires. The 'Syria track' is an optimal precursor to any "Grand Scheme" peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians, both of whom are, for the time being, under either inchoate or hopelessly divided governments. Rather than the erstwhile, duplicitous dictator of the Bush years, this sanguine crowd sees Assad as somewhat of a changed man. Indeed, Assad is cognizant that, despite Iran's largesse, Syria's economy continues to languish behind those of more open, capitalistic nations. And he has expressed an interest in opening the economy to more tourism, foreign investment and international aid. Meanwhile, the cynics think that Assad's untrustworthiness, due to his failure to respect past commitments, precludes any possible peace now. They believe that he only plays along with "peace processes", with no intention of actually following through on a deal, to buy time or reposition himself politically -- and they often cite specific occasions in the past when Assad or his father led Western and Israeli diplomats along in humiliating diplomatic goose chases. Thus, the cynics refuse to accept that anything has changed or that Assad is in any way willing or even capable of giving up his Iranian "sugar daddy" . To the cynics, attempting reconciliation with Assad at this point would be a perverse 'faith-based' effort of sorts -- which in this context involves pathetically submitting oneself to the caprice of a tin-pot dictator. *** An example of the current optimist approach may be found in Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, who recently met with Assad and other Syrian officials. Kerry is confident that improved ties with Damascus are indeed possible; however, he has also been careful to issue all the necessary caveats, by noting that any rapprochement process will no doubt be arduous. As a member of the sanguine camp, Kerry has emphasized the fact that, though Syria will not cut off its current ties to the Islamic Republic easily, the door was already opened late last year in Turkish brokered talks with Israel, against Iran's wishes. Kerry, speaking at the Brookings Institution Saban Center this week, highlighted the economic carrots America can offer Syria, while also addressing the cynic's claim that Assad is only resorting to his usual diplomatic legerdemain. According to Kerry, "we have financial incentives to offer Syria that have much greater value to them than cost to us. It is telling that, even as global markets are in freefall, Syria is opening a stock market for the first time. Loosening certain sanctions in return for verifiable changes in behavior could actually benefit US businesses. And the sanctions can always be tightened again if Syria backtracks." Kerry was hosted at the Saban Center by Martin Indyk, a former Ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of state for near east affairs under Bill Clinton. Indyk, like Kerry, readily acknowledges that rapprochement attempts with Damascus could very well become vapid theatrics with no salient end; however, unlike the cynics' view, he sees plenty of possible rewards in the process itself, regardless of whether anyone seals the deal. Namely, talks between Israel and Syria could "spook" the Iranians; compel Hamas to be less hard-line towards Israel; and promote Lebanese independence as well as spur Hezbollah to join the peace process. In response to Indyk's sanguine silver lining perspective, one notable cynic, the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens, has responded , well, cynically...: "Put simply, while the peace process expanded Hafez Assad's options, the same process reduced Israel's. That goes double for his son, who would enter into a peace process with his father's achievements as a baseline from which to seek further concessions. Indyk may believe that the mere resumption of a process without a serious expectation of a peace deal is some sort of achievement, but he fails to consider how it puts Assad in the enviable position of never having to engage that process with even minimal good faith. Which, in turn, amounts to an inducement for bad faith. How either the United States or Israel might benefit from this is a mystery." Syria cynics tend to take umbrage at the supine position inherently required for peace overtures towards Assad. In the past, Assad has capitalized on such attempts by painting the U.S. and Israel as weak, thereby solidifying is own clout at home where he, as an Alawite, rules over a vast Sunni majority. Moreover, the linchpin for Syria-Israeli dealings is the Golan Heights, a small chunk of Syria that Israel has controlled since 1967. Unfortunately for the optimists, the political climate in neither Syria nor Israel is in any way conducive to cutting this Gordian Knot. Cynics insist that Assad cherishes his satrapy over Lebanon far more than the prospect of regaining control of the Heights, and will thus not be easily compelled to fall for this bargaining chip. Moreover, Israel's recently elected Likud party prime minister-designate Benyamin Netanyahu is a champion of the cynic camp. During the campaign, he expressly rejected the possibility that Israel would relinquish the Heights. Though he has yet to form a coalition government, and is unlikely to attract the moderates and leftists of Kadima and Labour, his designate position is enough to stall or forego implementation of the 'Syria track'. In prepared responses before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Clinton said, "the President-Elect believes that we must never force Israel to the negotiating table with Syria, but neither should we ever block negotiations when Israel's leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests." Thus, unless this policy is altered, the Obama administration's rapprochement efforts could very well be in vain. Despite the sanguine goals of the U.S., or even Assad (though that is the big question), if Netanyahu maintains his past hard-line, anti-reconciliation position, all peace attempts may merely be pushing on a string. This would signal a cynic victory. But then again, the new administration's foreign policy clout is yet to be truly tested. For the optimists, Netanyahu's victory is not a 'game changer', but rather, a mere speed bump. More on Barack Obama
 
Jeff Biggers: Al Gore: Your Heroic TVA Watchdogs Are Being Arrested Top
Matt Landon deserves a Medal of Honor. He's a modern day Tennessee Volunteer and American hero. After a billion of gallons of toxic coal sludge broke through the TVA coal ash pond on December 22, he and the United Mountain Defense non-profit organization have worked full-time through the holidays and winter to deliver aid and water, assist the affected residents, collect data and provide professional air and water monitoring. National and international media have relied on Landon's dogged and insightful reporting behind the scenes. Landon has given tours to untold numbers of legal and legislative aides, including Robert C. Tanner, the Majority Senior Investigator for the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. Considering the gross negligence of the TVA, and the whopping $825 million bill for clean up costs, you would think the TVA had enough sense to recognize Landon's and UMD's important role and accept their help. Instead, the TVA police have not stopped harassing, detaining and arresting Landon and other members of the United Mountain Defense. Amazingly, Landon was arrested again yesterday for giving a ride home to an elderly disabled Swan Pond resident, Eva Hewitt. The two were returning from the Tennessee Environmental and Conservation public meeting held earlier that day where Eva was one of several community members who spoke at a citizen's press conference about health concerns relating to the TVA disaster. Eva is blind in one eye and does not drive so Matt was returning her to her home on South Swan Pond Road. Eva said "It's a shame they arrested him when he was just trying to help me out and give me a ride home." "I feel that arresting me today is just a continuation of the ongoing harassment I have experienced from the TVA police," Landon said. "TVA has tried to prevent United Mountain Defense from conducting independent water testing, deploying independent air monitoring, delivering bottled water to locals and working with the community of Roane County and they have consistently harassed me while doing this work. The citizens of Roane County deserve more from TVA and I do not plan on abandoning them in this time of need. " Three days ago, two other United Mountain Defense volunteers were detained by cigar-chomping TVA police that would have made Bull Connor, the police scourge of the Civil Rights Movement, proud. The TVA police arrested volunteers for setting up independent air quality monitoring stations. The monitoring program was initiated in response to complaints by local residents of worsening respiratory problems since the disaster and UMD's discovery that TVA's air testing is inadequate. For the latest updates on the continuing scandal of the TVA coal ash disaster, visit: http://dirtycoaltva.blogspot.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)