Friday, March 27, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Juliette Powell: Colbert Shrugged: Ayn Rand Institute Responds to 'Rand Illusion' Top
Since March 11th, I've received several hundred messages via facebook and twitter ( @juliettepowell ) suggesting I look at The Colbert Report 's 'The Word' segment called 'Rand Illusion '. And so I did, again and again, torn between a giggle and a sigh. Call me old school but my first reaction to all of these Atlas Shrugged references in the media of late was to wonder if these pundits had actually read and understood the book. I suspect they have, but probably figure that, of the millions who have read Rand's acclaimed 1957 novel, few would actually bother to argue about it in a public forum. Having personally read the book several times -- four, to be exact -- these last couple weeks have shown me that I do care enough to help set the record straight on Rand's story and philosophy. Why? Because I found myself talking back to the tv monitor every time a media commentator 'explained' what John Galt would do in this economic crisis and because, even though I've read Rand's books multiple times and was quite sure where Galt might stand, given the myriad of media references to Atlas Shrugged lately, I genuinely began to wonder -- perhaps I was the one who had completely misinterpreted Rand's work. Since Rand herself can no longer address the way her words are being interpreted, I found someone who could. Interview with Onkar Ghate, senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (part 1) by Juliette Powell What do you think of the Colbert Report's segment called the 'Rand Illusion' where Colbert asserts that Atlas Shrugged is a 'Conservative Bible' and 'is being used by Conservatives to spur a movement . . . a calculated work slowdown? What do you think Colbert wanted to accomplish and what did he accomplish? Stephen Colbert's television show of course parodies (allegedly) right-wing television hosts like Bill O'Reilly. In the process it ridicules Republicans, conservatives, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and so on. The segment on Atlas Shrugged was an attempt to ridicule Rand's novel. I found the segment distasteful. Many people of course disagree with the ideas contained in Atlas Shrugged . Rand knew that the novel challenged moral ideas entrenched in Western thought for over 2,000 years. To disagree with the ideas and theme of the novel is different from what the Colbert segment did. It treated the novel as though it were not a significant work of literature -- the segment suggested that if you've read to the end of the book " the world does owe you. " This is ludicrous. In purely literary terms, Atlas Shrugged is a great novel. The segment then went on to misrepresent the content of the story. For instance, to claim that Atlas Shrugged " can be used to justify anything " is absurd. Perhaps more than any other novel, Atlas Shrugged presents a firm and detailed view of what is morally right and morally wrong. Rand said (accurately) that the theme of the novel is " the role of the mind in man's existence -- and, as corollary, the demonstration of a new moral philosophy: the morality of rational self-interest. " One may of course disagree with the moral philosophy contained in the novel, but to suggest that the book is so vague as to be capable of justifying anything is disingenuous. Or to take another example, the Colbert segment said that the hero of Atlas Shrugged , John Galt, tells the poor of America: "You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you." But if you read the actual novel, you will discover that Galt has called on strike the men of the mind (rich and poor alike) and that these words of his are in fact addressed not to the poor. They are addressed to those who advocate or accept a philosophy that damns the individual's happiness, mind and life. Here is the passage from the novel, in context (John Galt is speaking on the radio): "Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you need us. We do not consider need a claim. Do not cry that you own us. You don't. Do not beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind. "We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one's happiness is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt. " There is a difference between our strike and all those you've practiced for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of granting them. We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality--the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind. " We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you. " ( Atlas Shrugged , Part III, Chapter VII) So what did Colbert want to accomplish? As I said, he wanted to ridicule Atlas Shrugged . Did he succeed? No, because the segment simply ignored the novel's literary virtues and misrepresented its content. Is Colbert, and the media in general, taking a cheap shot -- going for the easy laugh using Rand's philosophy of selfishness -- or are they using humor and irony to open a much needed public debate? The Colbert segment was a cheap shot, so, no, I don't think he was trying to open a debate. If anything, by attacking a straw man, he was trying to close debate. But I don't think the media in general has been taking cheap shots at Rand or Atlas Shrugged during the present financial crisis. There have been many more accurate stories, such as the one in The Economist (which the Colbert segment mentioned) -- a news story that reported the dramatic increase in the sales of Atlas Shrugged and suggested a connection between this fact and the financial crisis. What we are witnessing, I think, is the fact that precisely because Atlas Shrugged is a radical book -- it presents a new view of morality, a morality of rational self-interest -- it creates passionate admirers and passionate detractors. And as has been the case since the novel's publication in 1957. Detractors almost always misrepresent the book's ideas because they are unable or unwilling to mount an argument against what Rand actually says. The Colbert segment was a small example of this. Ayn Rand fans, Colbert fans -- the ball is in your court! What do you think of the Ayn Rand Institute's response to Colbert's 'Rand Illusion' segment so far? I'll try to connect with the folks at Colbert for their comments and hope to have that, along with Part 2 of my interview with Onkar Ghate, senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute shortly. Keep checking in here for Part 2 in the next few hours and days where we discuss the political implications of the mediatization of Atlas Shrugged . If you want to reach me directly, facebook me or @juliettepowell ~> j* More on Stephen Colbert
 
Bill Shireman: The Media's "Buy-Us" - Why I Eat Chocolate When I Don't Want To Top
The media has a liberal bias, argue angry conservative talk show hosts, from their high-paid perches atop the nation's leading media companies. Or, the media has a conservative bias, claim liberal Pacifica Radio commentators, pointing to what they claim is corporate control even of public broadcasting. They are right - the media is biased. It's just not a left-right bias. The media has three distinct biases. First, the media is biased to favor bad news. That's because bad things happen less frequently than good things. That's why we call them news. When the media starts focusing on good things, we'll be in trouble: it might mean things have really gone south. Second, the media is biased against whoever is in power, at least after a generous honeymoon period - in government, business, and every institution. That's because, to appeal to the widest audience, they need to speak to us as individuals - something we all share - rather than as members of particular groups. Powerful leaders of big institutions are the "them" to a large audience of "us." But third, and most important, the media is biased in favor of selling things. In an ad-supported media system, the media naturally, and mostly unconsciously, presents programming that keeps people in a mood to shop. That's why the media mostly speaks to people's basic impulses, not their highest aspirations. Talk shows that cause people to think deeply, dramas that make them look introspectively at their lives, headlines that make them calm - these trigger not impulsiveness but awareness. They awaken people from their unconscious, auto-pilot lives. That's not always good for reflexive consumption. Impulsiveness helps drive economic activity. People buy things when they are being impulsive - they let external triggers, rather than conscious choice, determine their behavior. It's not that being thoughtful makes one disdainful of material consumption - it's just that when people are thoughtful, they often make different choices, and material consumption becomes just one means, not the core purpose, in their lives. In other words: we have a lot of freedom in our lives. When we're not conscious of this, we follow our instincts, to hunt, gather, and consume stuff. Our brain juices reward us with positive, but fleeting, satisfaction. But when we are aware of our freedom, we look around us, see the abundance we already have, and use what we already have. We do it by choice, because it is in our best interest. And we feel good about it, in a deeper and more sustained way. Our impulses are fundamentally a positive force. Planted deep inside us, shaped by millions of years of evolution, impulses bias us toward actions that serve the interests of the species. Our genes "know" that sweet things come with energy and nutrients, that salty and fatty things contain proteins and vitamins, that large bosoms signal that a woman can bear and nourish a child, that muscles make a man stronger and better able to protect a family or a community. The problem is, in a market economy, these signals can easily be hijacked, to trigger people to do things that are not - if they were to choose from a neutral starting point - exactly in their best interest. Think of the number of products and services that are driven by what I call concentrated attractors - ingredients that, in nature, attract us to what is good for us, but in the economy, are often concentrated to such a degree that they squeeze out almost everything of real value. Concentrated attractors are everywhere, and we are all dependent on them, and guilty of reinforcing them. So before you decide to demonize corporations, the media, government, or some other group for conspiring to force us to buy these things, look in a mirror. You'll find that you, too, use concentrated attractors to your own advantage. Signaled by nature that foods rich in sugar and fat are good for us - because of the other things that fruits, vegetables, grains and meats contain - we are compellingly attracted to fast food, candies, cookies, and snacks that contain lots of attractors, but few nutrients. But those are just the obvious examples. Sitcoms draw our primitive brains into fictional "relationships" that substitute for the time we might otherwise spend with real Friends and actual Housewives . Tabloids lure us by gossiping about prominent people in our society, as if they were actually relevant to our lives. Augmented body parts and oversized bank accounts often drive men and women, despite their better judgment, to partners who don't actually offer them the fecundity, security, or integrity that they truly crave. We're unconscious of these drivers most of the time. When I'm on a writing binge, I sit here pounding my laptop while sipping a green tea latte and eating chocolate chips. I like these things, within reason. I don't want them taken away. I can make my own choices - but I'd like a little assistance from the culture, to awaken me from my impulses so that I can actually make a choice. We're all smart enough to know the difference between an empty attractor and the good stuff it once attracted us to. And we all have free choice: we don't have to give in. But admit it: that doesn't always stop us. I love my chocolate, my energy drinks, and plenty of other things. So do you. But we love other things a lot more. We would not trade those things for all the chocolate in the world - at least not consciously. Yet sometimes we do. Impulsive "choices" are made in a blink of an eye, before we are even aware of them. Suddenly I want chocolate - lots of it. I've made my choice, that's it. It takes a lot of work and will to drag myself back to a point of neutrality, from which I can actually decide whether I want it, and the hours of hard bicycling I'll need to burn it off. In fact, most of us - even in the social cause and advocacy community - make our living in part by appealing to people's impulses, to cause them to do things that are not exactly healthy or wise. We raise money for good causes by finding "evil enemies" and fomenting fear that they are about to destroy us, "unless you help now." Maybe we're selling better stuff than some others. But often, we're not. Our actions become contorted by the rationales we have created in order to fund them. We begin to believe our myths about a uniformly evil enemy. We lose sight of our highest objectives. The key is to take a systemic approach to this. Stop pretending that we are victims. Start realizing that the marketers - us and them - are all trapped by the same system we. They need to attract us - and we them - with concentrated attractors, or lose out - that's the only thing that reliably works. Should we ban media advertising? Prohibit every product we don't like? Tax into submission whatever is politically vulnerable? Other products and practices will simply emerge to take their place. We need a wider net, a broader systemic approach. An opportunity to harness one is at hand. The twin crises of economy and climate are the loudest indicators of change. What they tell us is that a fundamental shift is in the works. We are moving from three centuries of industrialization to the potential of a sustainable economy. The industrial economy cultivated the values of consumption, and carried these to a non-sustainable extreme. A sustainable economy cultivates new values that give rise to new choices. By advancing a sustainable economy - breaking our dependence on fossil fuels, hyper-consumption, and hyper-waste - we can found our future on relationships, experiences, connections, engagement - and the information, communications, clean technologies, and smart agriculture and manufacturing practices that advance these healthy foundations. Sustainability cultivates and grows a very different set of values than today's industrial culture. It provides a gentle, gradual, and compelling path to reward more conscious patterns of consumption, which will enrich both companies and "consumers" (the industrial era term for "people") when they do things that they actually choose. If we reflexively condemn the old industrial "enemy" for manipulating "us" - government, business, activists of the right or left - we're once again being victimized by our impulses: to look around for the enemy, demonize it, and kill it. If we kill our target, but leave the system intact, then the next demon will slip right into their place, and our effort will have been utterly wasted. Sustainability brings options and awareness that can help bring the market into better alignment with our interests. My colleague Tachi Kiuchi and I write about these in What We Learned in the Rainforest - Business Lessons from Nature (www.amazon.com/rainforest). I look forward to exploring with you some of the values of sustainability, and ways to cultivate them, in the months ahead.
 
John Marshall: And The Oscar Goes To...Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk! Top
Scene: The Academy Awards, the Kodak Theater, 2011. Javier Bardem, 2008 winner, Best Supporting Actor, announces the 2011 Best Supporting Actor: Sean Penn for The Three Stooges, directed by the Farrelly Brothers. Penn strides to the podium. Penn: Thank you. Thank you. You CHUCKLEHEAD, WEASEL-FACED SONS OF PORKYPINES. I did not expect this REMIND ME TO KILL YOU LATER but I do know how hard I make it to appreciate me I CAN'T SEE! I CAN'T SEE! I GOT MY EYES CLOSED. Directors either grant us a voice WOOWOOWOOWOOWOOWOO or they don't and the Farrelly Brothers did it right ANYTHING THE WRIGHT BROTHERS DO, THE WRONG BROTHERS CAN DO. I put myself entirely in their HANDS. Whistling, he flutters his hand like a bird, smacks Javier Bardem twice in the face and klonks him on the head with the Oscar. Finally, for those who were protesting as we drove in tonight WHY, YOU NUMBSKULLS! YOU HARDBOILED EGGHEADS! YOU HOT AIRDALES! MAYBE YOU SHOULD BUY A TOUPEE WITH BRAINS! The orchestra starts playing "Three Blind Mice." OH, A WISEGUY, EH? YOU WON'T PLAY ME OFF, YOU HALF-BROTHER TO A WEASEL. He goes up to the conductor and tries to poke him in the eyes, but the conductor blocks the poke with his baton. Penn smacks the conductor in the chin, causing a chain reaction of knocked heads that goes through the orchestra, the audience, the city of Los Angeles and the state of California. I'm very, very proud to live in this country that, for all its OW! OW! OW! OW! OW! creates such courageous chowderheads. In conclusion, despite a sensitivity that sometimes has brought enormous challenge, Sigmund, of the Sea Monsters, rises again and he is my brother. Thank you all very much. Penn lies down on the floor and spins around and around like a clock, causing the show to miss its tribute to another biopic, Brian De Palma's Heckle & Jeckle. More on Sean Penn
 
Beth Arnold: Letter From Paris: David Byrne Burns Down the Olympia Top
David Byrne burned down the house at the Olympia Hall on Wednesday night. No warm-up band--just him and his troupe of singers, dancers, and musicians, who performed a fantastical set of Byrne and Brian Eno songs from their new album Byrne is touring, Everything That Happens Will Happen Today . No smoke and mirrors for Byrne. The show was a happening--a rock modern dance--the choreography young, loose, and urban, a David Byrne Appalachian Spring . The singers danced and played music, and the dancers sang and played all across the stage, including through Byrne's legs and over his head. Byrne and his company blew the audience away, and the French, who may be adorable but don't really know how to boogie or have any soul moves, were up out of their seats shaking their booties throughout the entire concert. David Byrne comes to raise the hair on your arms and the sweat on your palms. Eno and Byrne have made a new record, " Everything that Happens will Happen Today ," their first in 30 years--the formula was lost, but now it has been found. It was a special pleasure to see him at the Olympia , which was founded in 1888 by the creator of the Moulin Rouge, "the oldest music hall in Paris." ...It may have opened as a music hall under the German occupation of France during World War II, but certainly in 1945 after the Liberation, it was a music hall free to Allied troops in uniform. Attendees had to listen to the playing of four national anthems before the varied programs that always ended with a spirited French can-can performed by dancers, some of whom were no longer young... Everyone from Josephine Baker to Judy Garland, Edith Piaf, Diana Krall, Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Madonna, Leonard Cohen, James Brown--you get the picture--has played dates in its plush comfiness. I've seen The Chieftains, Sarah McLaughlin, Paul McCarntey, Byrne now, and others. Missed some I would've loved because getting a full view of all future concerts in Paris isn't easy. But if you love music and you're coming to town, check out who's playing at The Olympia. You might catch a lucky break and see a show to remember. You might see David Byrne burning down an old favorite with his modern art.
 
Court To Examine New Madonna Adoption Top
A Malawian court will investigate Madonna's application to adopt a 14-month-old baby girl named Mercy James from the same orphanage where she got David Banda, officials said Friday. The pop singer or her representatives are expected to appear in court Monday for adoption proceedings, officials told Reuters. Madonna is scheduled to travel to the south African country over the weekend. More on Celebrity Kids
 
T.I. Sentenced To One Year For Machine Gun, Silencer Purchase Top
ATLANTA — A judge sentenced Rapper T.I. to one year and a day behind bars on federal weapons charges on Friday. The 28-year-old rapper, whose real name is Clifford Harris, entered court smiling as he greeted his lawyers and family members. He wore a dark gray suit and black dress shirt and tie for sentencing. "Today I would like to say thank you to some, and apologize to all," the rapper told U.S. District Judge Charles Pannell Jr. at the 1 and 1/2 hour session. Harris pleaded guilty last March after he was arrested in 2007, attempting to buy unregistered machine guns and silencers. The arrest on Oct. 13 of that year occurred blocks from where he was to headline the BET Hip-Hop Awards in Atlanta hours later. He will have between 30 and 60 days to report to prison. Harris already has completed about 1,000 hours of community service and has warned youths about the pitfalls of guns, drugs, violence. He will need to complete 470 additional hours. "Everything I learned was through trial and error," Harris also told the judge. "I've learned lessons in my life to put in my music so people won't make the same mistakes as I." At Friday's hearing, former United Nations Ambassador Andrew Young spoke on Harris' behalf. "He's been able to do the work I've been trying to accomplish for so long in stopping violence in this country," Young told the judge. Harris had faced a maximum of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each count, until he cut a deal and pleaded guilty last March to the federal weapons charge and was sentenced to one year and a day in prison. Pannell said he was pleased with Harris' progress through his community service. "I think this has been a great experiment," the judge said. "I hope this experience can lead to other experiments so others won't make the same mistake at all. I congratulate you." Harris initially pleaded not guilty and was released on a $3 million bond before being placed under house arrest. Ed Garland, one of his attorneys, said they are not sure where he will serve his sentence. Upon his release, Harris is to be placed on three years of supervised release. He also will be credited for 305 days of home detention he already has served and must serve an additional 60 days, authorities said. Harris agreed to community service to avoid a lengthy sentence. He already has made 262 public appearances as part of that deal. Much of that work has been done with children. Although he has taken part in a voting campaign and had an MTV reality show, "Road to Redemption" to scare teens straight, that was not part of the community service. Harris is one of the co-chief executives of Grand Hustle Records and one of Atlantic Records' most successful artists. His sixth album, "Paper Trail," has sold nearly two million copies. It also charted two smash No. 1 songs, and a third with Justin Timberlake is near the top of the charts. T.I. said fear was the reason he tried to buy the guns. His best friend, Philant Johnson, was killed following a post-performance party in Cincinnati in 2006. A man was found guilty last year in the murder case.
 
Donald Cohen: How to pay for the next war Top
President Obama announced that we would add 4,000 more troops to the 17,000 he already ordered to Afghanistan. In his address to Congress, he also announced that he would restore honest and transparent budgeting to pay for our military commitments. "This budget," Obama said, .... for the first time, includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price." Obama's declaration was a clear rejection of George Bush's supplemental off-budget appropriations designed to make it hard to oppose without being accused of abandoning the troops. Given estimates that the Iraq war may ultimately become the most expensive in U.S. history, Bush's approach was fiscal irresponsibility wrapped in post-9/11 "yellow ribbon" patriotism. It saddled us with massive deficits and avoided the hard choices of balancing national priorities. Even worse, the Bush wartime tax-cuts represented an outrageous exception in American history. An Urban Institute analysis of war finance in U.S. history claimed Bush's tax cuts, while a nation at war, "constituted an extraordinary episode in the history of war finance." Never before had we sent troops to battle without raising the revenues needed to fight that war. Now with new leadership in the White House we have an opportunity to change how we go to war and how we pay for it. Last July, a bipartisan commission led by former Secretaries of State James Baker and Warren Christopher called for a strengthening of the 1973 War Powers Act to give Congress greater legislative authority in the process of committing U.S. troops. The proposal would require the President consult with Congress before deploying U.S. troops into "significant armed conflict" lasting, or expected to last, more than a week. Congress would have 30 days to approve or pass a joint resolution of disapproval. The disapproval would have to withstand a presidential veto. The War Powers Act, passed over Richard Nixon's veto in response to the Vietnam War, has been largely ignored by presidents ever since. The Commission's proposal would be the positive first step towards more restoring meaningful Congressional authority. But, unfortunately, the fear of being branded as soft on terrorism or not supporting our troops may make even this legislative power still too weak to matter in the face of a presidential veto. Add that to the unbending Republican rejection of any tax increase, no matter how important the purpose or need, and we could be heading once again into a war we don't want without the money to fight it. We need an entirely new approach of sending our troops to battle that ensures the wars we wage our truly in our national interest, that we actually have the resources we need and that taps into an enduring American tradition of shared sacrifice when needed and when asked. We should simply modify the War Powers Act so that every commitment of 50,000 US troops or more would automatically - without legislative action - trigger a broad, progressively levied surtax to pay for the costs of war. Taking this step acknowledges the needs of wars that are unanticipated (they all are,) costly (they all are) and have unpredictable paths (they all do.) The tax would sunset when all costs are paid. An automatic War Surtax would ensure we have the resources to give our troops what they need to succeed and would guarantee that every American does their part, not just those that are being asked to sacrifice their lives on the battlefield. America has a long history of presidential leadership and congressional action to increase revenues in times of war. Likewise, Americans have been repeatedly willing to a sacrifice for national interests. For example: • The Civil War was paid for by America's first income tax that generated $55 million during the war. Paying income tax to support the war was viewed as an act of patriotism. • A federal excise tax on telephone was established in 1898 during the Spanish- American war. It was repealed after the war, but reestablished or raised during WWI, WWI, Korean War and the Vietnam War. • The War Revenue Act of 1917 imposed a progressive surtax on the incomes of most Americans. • The Excess Profits Tax, a predominantly wartime fiscal instrument, was designed primarily to capture wartime profits that exceeded normal peacetime profits. These taxes were used extensively in WWI, WWI and the Korean War. They were repealed after each war. Not all of these taxes were met with wild enthusiasm but popular reluctance to higher taxes, and in some cases war tax resistance, was tempered by a sense of patriotic duty and shared sacrifice. "It takes taxes to beat the Axis" declared the narrator to Donald Duck in a Disney short film produced during World War II. Mere reluctance became Orwellian resistance in the Bush years. "Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay declared in March 2003 as we went to war. The Iraq war would have ended a lot sooner - and might have never started - if we were all asked to pay a monthly surtax that brought the costs and impacts of war into our living rooms as regularly as it is in homes of families with sons and daughters at war. Simply stated, it should never be easier for elected representatives to send American troops to battle than to tax Americans to pay for it. And it shouldn't be easy for any of us to ignore the sacrifices our troops and their families make every day while at war. An automatic war-tax would insulate decisions to go to war from election cycle tax politics. It would commit and connect every American to our national purpose and guarantee we have the funds to support our troops on the ground. It would guarantee that we don't continue the post-Vietnam tradition of disgracefully neglecting the needs of veterans when they come home with the social and physical damage created by war. It would mean that we wouldn't have to starve our schools, roads, health care and rob our future with crushing national debt. And it would cause us all to think a little harder about why and when we should go to a war. More on Afghanistan
 
Melissa Silverstein: Pondering the Chick Flick Top
Most women, including feminists, have a love/hate relationship with the chick flick. A mere mention of the term can send you into a lather bemoaning the disparagement that the entire genre has wrought on womankind. The current offerings are especially troublesome. But this was not always the case. Back in the 1930s and 40s, during Hollywood's golden era, the chick flicks were called women's films, which were defined by film historian Jeanine Basinger as "a movie that places at the center of its universe a female who is trying to deal with emotional, social and psychological problems that are specifically connected to the fact she is a woman." While women were the central characters in films like Mildred Pierce, Now Voyager and The Philadelphia Story , to name a few, the audiences were both men and women. Fast-forward to the late 70s and early 80s when feminism was saturating the cultural landscape of the country and, for a brief moment, also penetrating Hollywood as women moved into powerful positions behind the scenes. The films of that period show some of the strongest, most feminist women ever seen onscreen and displayed the depth and range of the rising female consciousness. These films--including Julia, Norma Rae, An Unmarried Woman, Silkwood, 9 to 5, My Brilliant Career, Yentl, Places in the Heart, Out of Africa, The Color Purple, Children of a Lesser God, Desert Hearts -- relayed women's stories as important and valid to the culture and often appealed to men as well. But just like the women's film flamed out, by the late 1980s, feminist films began to disappear as the blockbuster mentality grew in combination with the "backlash" documented by Susan Faludi. Since that time women have slowly and steadily been losing clout onscreen in a disturbing way that belies their behind-the-scenes power positions. In recent decades, the women's film landscape has slowly and steadily been usurped by the chick flick, and its dominance makes no one happy. Unlike the films in previous periods, the genre seems to have some sort of embedded kryptonite that repels men. These films regularly have female ticket buyers at 60 and sometimes even 70 percent of the audience on opening weekend. Still, the economics of Hollywood don't favor these films, which tend always to be referred to as counter programming. They are smaller (few, if any explosions), which translates into smaller budgets for marketing and advertising, which in turn guarantees lower box office. Thus few movies about women break out from the pack, although 2008 had some important exceptions including Sex & the City and Twilight , which both opened with blockbuster numbers. Even the record-setting Mamma Mia ! which has grossed a half a BILLION dollars worldwide, didn't open big here in the United States. Its staying power propelled it into the top 15 grossing films of the year. Things are not equal in Hollywood and the current incarnation of the chick flick reflects that gender disparity by favoring films with sexist and regressive images of women. Yes, women have become executives at all levels of the industry--heads of production and even running studios--yet for all those individual successes, women are still woefully underrepresented in all facets of the film business. According to new data released this month, women make up 16 percent of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films. Directors are a scant 9 percent and writers 12 percent (Center for the Study of Women in TV and Film.) The industry reasoning that dismisses women (who buy 50 percent of the tickets) as counter programming easily dismisses any successes of films about women as flukes. As Bonnie Bruckheimer, a long time producer of chick flicks including Beaches states: "when a chick flick does well, they will find some excuse as to why it did well so it's not the norm." You would think that it would make sense for industry leaders to try and figure out a way to reproduce successes instead of continuing to ignore women. For some time there has been a glimmer of good news. There is a brand of "chick flicks" that are targeted at younger women (perhaps because it's safer to empower young women): a combination of feminism and girl power that engages the post Title IX generation. Films like Legally Blonde, Blue Crush, Bend it Like Beckham and The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants show young, strong female characters. But once you reach adulthood, your film counterparts are pitted against each other and characters seem to be solely focused on getting and keeping men. No matter how far we may have advanced in the public sphere, the feminist battle with the movie industry is not gaining ground. Quite frankly, looking the early part of 2009, things are getting worse. The studios released several films that were easily lumped into a pattern, and not such a good one. Films like Bride Wars, Confessions of a Shopaholic and He's Just Not That Into You --produced and written by both men and women--were laced with misogyny so blatant that critics across the country took note. Anne Thompson, who has been writing about women and Hollywood for a variety of publications and currently blogs at Thompson on Hollywood , comments, "I get very unhappy with the kind of misogyny that is so much about laughing at the foibles of women. A lot of men seem to think that it's very amusing for women to turn on each other and behave badly." The next couple of months don't look to be any better, if trailers for the upcoming Sandra Bullock and Jennifer Aniston films are any indication. And yet with all the complaints about the chick flick, the genre has become the only place where women have significant roles in the studio system. But wait, that may be changing now too. Thanks to Judd Apatow and his merry band of comedians, now we have "bromances," chick flicks without chicks. Films like Wedding Crashers, Knocked Up and the current I Love You Man are embraced by the studios since they appeal to guys. So what's a film-loving feminist to do? Best advice would be don't let the label deter. There are many films worth seeing that get pegged as chick flicks. When a good film about women opens in your neighborhood you must GO on opening weekend no matter what its genre. It's that simple. The more we support these films, the more of them will be made. It might take a little work to find them, but every ticket makes a huge difference. On the other hand, don't be complicit in perpetuating the trend of misogynistic films just because they are out there. Read up on the films and know what you are spending your time and money on. Hollywood listens to the cash register both when its full and when its not. Originally posted at the Women's Media Center
 
Queen Rania of Jordan: A Promising Glimpse of Africa's Future Can Be Found in Its Children Top
Ironic. The peace conference, that brought me to South Africa, has been postponed. A gathering billed to bring people together ... that symbolized the power of dialogue and intercultural understanding... that was to be a medium for solutions to ongoing conflicts around the world has, instead, polarized opinions, fuelled frustration, and caused divisions. In many ways, this unfortunate turn of events underscores many of the unresolved problems that our global community faces today. In my part of the world, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is an open wound that we desperately need to heal. Perhaps if we all subscribed to the African concept of Ubuntu -- that we all become people through other people, and that we cannot be fully human alone, we could learn a lot. There'd be less hatred and more harmony. And that's a good word on which to start my reflections because I had the best possible start to my working visit to Johannesburg: a meeting with President Mandela and Graça Machel. This was a moment in time...an experience to cherish forever. In Madiba's presence, even before he speaks, something magical happens. Goodness and goodwill flow from this great man. Grace, humility, and courage light up the room. He makes you feel as if you, too, can be a force for good. People say that Madiba has slowed down, but as he spoke of his efforts to secure his legacy , especially for the children of South Africa, I wondered how everyone kept up with him. He has said in the past, "There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children." Currently, only three children's hospitals serve the entire African continent with its population of 741 million. Countries like Australia, Canada, and Germany, each boast nineteen or more facilities. The inequity is glaring and unfair. Madiba's state of the art Children's Hospital, due to open in July this year, is an example of how he believes children should be treated. He smiles, his eyes crinkle, his infectious laugh fills the room...and I leave feeling like I can take on the world. Next stop, Soweto and the Phefeni Secondary School to learn about the Girls' and Boys' Education Movement (G/BEM) run by the South African government and UNICEF. South Africa is on track to meet the MDG gender equality goal by 2015, but there is still work to do. G/BEM empowers girls by involving girls and boys in activities and discussions covering everything from teenage pregnancies and drug abuse to sexual harassment and human rights. Their logo, rather movingly, reads, "I am my brother's and sister's keeper.' And they are. When I was growing up, I remember being told what to do by adults. But, 16 year old, Zanele taught me something that day. Her name, in Zulu, means "girls are enough," and she certainly lived up to that. This unbelievably articulate young woman told me about the progress of the G/BEM club that she coordinates, and how poetry, art, music and drama give everyone the chance to express themselves. It struck me that peer-to-peer learning was much more effective than anything adults could hope to achieve. On the way to my next stop -- one of the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund projects -- I was able to bear the traffic with help from U2's new album on my iPod and the lush landscape passing by outside. Kids' Haven , started by the big-hearted Moira Simpson in 1992, is a residential shelter offering care to children who have been abused or abandoned. Part of the haven is a children's village with six homes for girls and boys. The houses are very simple; the children don't have much, but there is warmth and love in every home; the children are grateful for a second chance. One little boy I met, Moses, is 2 and the cutest little guy ever. He and his siblings are from Burundi, and have been at the village for five months. They were victims of last year's xenophobic riots in Soweto, during which his mother was arrested and jailed. Her five children were about to be deported back to Burundi, all alone, until Lawyers for Human Rights intervened at the airport and called Moira, who took them all in. Each one of Moira's children has a frightening and heartbreaking story to tell. But no matter what trauma they've experienced, she believes that with love and support, they can live happy, fulfilled lives. And while her and her tireless team has the heart, they also need support. Back in my hotel, sitting outside, dreamily watching the fish, on a balmy African evening, my husband calls to reassure me that he's conscientiously holding down the fort back home. I miss them all, but I worry about my youngest the most. He finds the disruption of our playtime, bath, dinner, story, and bed routine unsettling. But, he was sufficiently compensated today by the treat of having daddy pick him up from pre-school! I was told that as he climbed into the car, he cast a proud, almost boastful, glance at his toddler mates! More on South Africa
 
G20 Protests: London Protesters Threaten Bankers, Evoke Executions Top
Mark Barrett, a professional tour guide, spent last Saturday painting Barack Obama's election catchphrase "yes we can" on a banner that protesters will carry as they try to occupy London's financial district April 1. Barrett is helping organize a protest outside the Bank of England, one of several called to express anger against banks and bankers and mark the arrival in London of leaders of the Group of 20 nations -- including Obama, now president.
 
Michele Bachmann Calls For "Orderly Revolution" Top
Wow. Just plain wow. This past Wednesday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show, and sharply reiterated her calls for revolution in America, warning against the imminent dangers of tyranny under Barack Obama: More on Michele Bachmann
 
Thanksgiving Parade: Macy's May Skip Times Square Top
For the first time in its 84 year-history, the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade may bypass Times Square this November. The city is considering moving the parade route from Broadway to Sixth Avenue for several reasons not least of which is Mayor Bloomberg's plan to transform much of Times Square into a pedestrian plaza starting in late May.
 
Michael Wolff: It's Not The New York Times Top
Among the biggest media stories going, it surely seems to me, is the end of the New York Times. The verities not just of journalism but of the establishment itself--nurtured, and in part created, by the New York Times --necessarily change. This seemed so large to me that, not too long ago, I proposed the Times' decline and fall as a natural book topic. The response among various publishers was practically unanimous: Not enough people would be interested. It's just the last of the Times Mohicans. Everybody else has moved on. That is why it will be a minor-most story that, yesterday, the Times announced a paring of 100 jobs and salary cuts of 5%. What this is, of course, is the first of many stages of cuts, which, doled out piecemeal as they have been at every paper across the nation, will reduce the Times to an imitation of itself. If few people care about the end of the Times , fewer still will notice that it is ending. This seems like tragedy but is probably not. Continue reading at newser.com More on Newspapers
 
Michael B. Laskoff: Republicans Pull a Boehner Top
Last fall, after Obama had won the White House, I took pity on the Republicans and tossed it the kindest gift I could muster, an idea. Granted, it wasn't one that they have taken to -- getting behind the gay marriage cause -- but it was nevertheless an actual idea. I did that with tongue in cheek, but I'm coming to conclude it was better than anything that the party can develop or present on its own. Since then, the Republicans have gone from midlife crisis to senile dementia. Far from having any ideas, they have become deranged enough to pose a credible danger to themselves. As evidence, I pose their leadership, which is now more Limbaugh than anything else. The Great Bloviator -- The Axis of Reactionism -- may be entertaining, but demagogue and point man are not always the same thing. Meanwhile, the parties elected 'leaders' are so baffled that they don't even look smart on Fox News. Clear evidence of this was provided abundantly yesterday in reaction to two historic but entirely predictable events. On one front, Republic leaders did little more that react with squeamishness when Geithner laid out his plan to expand oversight of previously unregulated financial markets. Other than describe the virtues of a free market, again, and rail about the dangers of over-regulation, they provided no specifics or alternatives. On the Senate side, the New York Times Reports that, "Republicans emerging from briefings at the White House an on Capitol Hill [regarding Afghanistan] withheld comment. Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for Representative John A. Bohner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, said in a statement that he 'had a constructive meeting at the White House' and that he would 'reserve public comment until the president makes his formal announcement.'" In other words, he has nothing to say, good or bad. That's the problem: Republicans have nothing to say. To torture a bad pun, they have a Boehner but don't know what do with it. To a certain extent, that makes good political sense: Obama will become less popular as the economy fails to bounce back quickly enough to support his political fortunes. Moreover, the Democrats in Congress have already begun to demonstrate, through the budget process, that their local political concerns will clash often and mightily with Obama's national objectives. Hence, Republicans will have plenty of opportunities to score quick and dirty points. Sniping, however, is a political tactic not a motivational idea with which to lead a country or build a credible political opposition. For proof of this, look no further than the UK in which the Tories cannot retake Downing Street despite the fact that The Labor Party is an utter mess. That's sad on both sides of the Atlantic. The fact is that the US is a two party system, which means that we need a strong opposition with credible ideas to thrive. In the absence of loyal opposition, there is no competition for ideas with which to propel the ship of state. Republicans, we need you to get back on your feet. Stop being a backseat driver and find a compelling, election worthy agenda. It's in your own best interest and that of the America. More on Gay Marriage
 
Why Getting Rid Of Clutter Might Not Make You Zen Top
If a person's belongings are a reflection of her mind, then I am a person of many "multitudes," to quote Walt Whitman. I collect Fiesta ware, Eva Zeisel pottery and glassware, Bauer Pottery, red cocktail shakers, cool cocktail shakers, Ianthe silver plate, globes, books on forensics, whisks, wooden Christmas ornaments, collectibles from the years the Kentucky Derby falls on my birthday, old cookbooks, dream catchers, owls, pint glasses, Hess trucks (for my son), Dallas Cowboys collectibles, snow globes and anything with Marilyn Monroe looking sad. Oh, sure, I would lose track of the occasional set of keys, but I had my stuff under control. That is, until my husband moved it. We had so many fights, I began hiding my stuff and he began throwing it away. It's allegedly in storage; but I'll believe that on the day my cat Mowgli comes home from the farm. I never even considered changing my ways until The BlackBerry Incident. The phone was lost in my laundry pile for three hours despite nonstop looking. If acceptance is the first step toward recovery, then let me say here: I buy too much stuff. So it was with great excitement that I read "Throw Out Fifty Things: Clear the Clutter, Find Your Life" by Gail Blanke, a professional motivator and contributor to Real Simple magazine. Her premise, namely that stuff is just "life plaque" holding us back from achieving our true potential, was thrilling. My collections were hindering my progress! Forget about 50 things, I could throw out 500 things (in an hour). My Pulitzer Prize awaited.
 
Jeff Danziger: Naked Bathers Top
More on Warren Buffett
 
Frances Beinecke: Take Action During a Bad Week for Polar Bears Top
It's been a hard week for polar bears. Last Wednesday, the New York Times reported that scientists and officials from the five Arctic nations concluded that climate change is "the most important long-term threat" to the bears. Now the U.S. Minerals Management Service is considering the approval of oil and gas leases in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas-- also known as the Polar Bear Seas. These two developments remind us--as if we needed another reminder--of the precarious state of our Northern ecosystem. I saw it for myself when I traveled by boat through the Svalbard archipelago in the high Norwegian Arctic. I will never forget passing a polar bear stuck on an island, stranded because the sea ice had receded so far from shore. I knew the bear would not eat until the winter--it simply couldn't hunt without the ice. The climate scientists onboard the ship made it clear that with summer sea ice melting at such alarming rates, the bear we saw stranded was just one of many. Before the ice melts for good, we've got to do two things: 1) We have to create national and international programs for curbing global warming, and 2) We have to establish an international regime for managing the Artic Ocean. If we don't protect the last undeveloped ocean on Earth, it will go the way of all the other oceans. Jane Lubchenco , Obama's choice for undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere, will be an important voice in this, but the challenge is that the United States is just one piece of the Arctic puzzle. We need all the Arctic nations to come together before it is too late. Later in the spring, I will be attending a meeting of the Aspen Institute's Arctic Commissions in an ongoing effort to build that consensus. In the meantime, there is something you can do. Please click here to tell the Obama administration you don't support the Minerals Management Service giveaway of Arctic wilderness to oil and gas giants. If approved, an invasion of oil rigs could decimate the heart of critical habitat for polar bears and other Arctic wildlife. One-fifth of the world's polar bear population, along with walruses, whales and other marine mammals, depend on this fragile Arctic ecosystem for their survival. An oil spill would be devastating for these animals, which are already threatened by global warming, habitat loss, and existing oil development. It's unconscionable to allow oil and gas leasing in this imperiled habitat when scientists fear the extinction of Alaska's polar bears by 2050. The deadline for comments is March 30th, so please act now and urge the Obama administration to cancel any new oil and gas leasing in America's Arctic. This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog .
 
Reid Knocks Liberals -- And "Centrists" Top
Politico is leading its site with a story headlined, " Reid to liberals: back off ," a message that's sure to raise the hackles of those who are pressuring moderate Senate Democrats not to stand in the way of President Obama's budget. Here's the Politico lead-in: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that liberal groups targeting moderate Democrats with ads should back off, saying pressure from the left wing of his party won't be helpful to enacting legislation. "I think it's very unwise and not helpful," Reid said Friday morning. "These groups should leave them alone. It's not helpful to me. It's not helpful to the Democratic Caucus." Reid, who said he hadn't seen or heard the ads, added that "most of [the groups] run very few ads -- they only to do it to get a little press on it." MoveOn.org and Americans United for Change, the labor-backed organization that serves as the White House's chief third-party operation, have started separate ad campaigns targeting moderate House and Senate Democrats to back Obama's budget. A number of liberal activists have expressed concerns about a group of 16 Senate Democratic moderates who have been meeting in an attempt to bolster their influence. There is some very important context missing from Politico's write-up -- namely that Reid's comments are kabuki theater. One of Harry Reid's jobs as majority leader is to stick up for his caucus. It is certainly very difficult for him to publicly endorse ads that target his own members. That said, if Reid didn't want Americans United to be running ads against those moderate Dems, the ads would not be running. AU is more than "the White House's chief third-party operation," as Politico dubs it -- just four months ago, before Obama was inaugurated, AU was the chief third-party operation of the Democratic leadership in Congress , and important figures in Reid/Pelosi circles continue to be deeply involved in the group's strategy. So yes, when asked about the ads in a public setting, Reid calls them unhelpful. But actions speak louder than words -- the ads ran, and on the substance, Reid has not been an ally of the "centrists" as they try to hatchet away at Obama's budget. Moreover, as the Politico piece notes further down in the piece, Reid even threw a light-hearted barb at those very Dems: "Some people of course go to those meetings [of "centrist" Dems] so they can issue a press release back home that'll make them appear more moderate."
 
Cops To Picket City Hall During Olympics Evaluation Top
Saying it has been "backed into a corner," the Chicago police department's patrolman's union announced today it will be having an "informational picket" at City Hall next Thursday to protest the lack of a contract.
 
Holbrooke: Karzai "Extremely Gratified" By Obama's Afghan Policy Top
Afghan President Hamid Karzai was "extremely gratified" with Barack Obama's speech and approach to the war in Afghanistan, the president's chief diplomat to that country, Richard Holbrooke, told reporters on Friday. Speaking to the press shortly after Obama laid out new diplomatic and military procedures to handle terrorism on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, Holbrooke cautioned that he might have to "jump out" to take a call from the Afghan leader. "President Karzai has called and is trying to reach me now," said Holbrooke. "He sent in word that he watched the speech live from CNN, that he was extremely gratified by it and would be issuing his own statement of support." But while Karzai was passing on praise for Obama's approach to his country, the good will was not directly reciprocated. Noting that elections in that country were arriving shortly, Holbrooke and others decline to offer a specific endorsement of the Afghan leader -- just the "elected leadership." "We support the elected leadership of Afghanistan and we support the elected leadership of Pakistan," said Bruce Riedel, chair of Obama's interagency policy review on Pakistan and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the president's address, while not weighing directly into internal Afghanistan governance, did little to hide his desire for greater reforms from that institution. Obama called for a renewed effort to build an Afghan Army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000. But he warned that "this push must be joined by a dramatic increase in our civilian effort. Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people." Hours after his speech, Holbrooke was stressing a similar point. And, like Obama, he made it a point to note the destructive role of instability and terrorist safe havens in Western Pakistan. "We can leave as the Afghans deal with their own security problems," he said. "That's what the president put emphasis on today on training the national army, training the policy." "The exit strategy," he went on, "includes governance, corruption, but above all, and this is the single most difficult aspect of what we are talking about today, it requires dealing with Western Pakistan... You can have a great government in Kabul and if the current situation in Western Pakistan continued the instability in Afghanistan will continue." The focus on interconnectedness between Pakistan and Afghanistan is, indeed, the defining thread of the Obama policy -- one that has foreign policy observers alternatively thrilled and nervous. The president on Friday pledged "to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," by, in part, sending greater resources to Pakistani troops so that they could "root out the terrorists." More on Pakistan
 
Gabriel Ledeen: (Re-) Creating Anbar's Awakening Top
Signaling his commitment to campaign promises of a "surge" in Afghanistan, President Obama recently authorized the deployment of 17,000 additional troops to reinforce our flagging efforts. While he is still awaiting the official "strategic review" of the war, the president undoubtedly believes that the additional troops are necessary to counter the resurgent Taliban in much the same way that our surge in Iraq succeeded in quelling violence and securing the apocalyptic Baghdad. Such a comparison, with especially significant strategic implications, requires a more thorough understanding of our Iraqi successes than currently exists. The differences between Afghanistan and Iraq are myriad and meaningful -- that is clear -- but the focus on implementing our newly recast counter-insurgency doctrine in the "other" war should give us reason to consider what exactly we did to turn the tide in Iraq. As most now recognize, the change began in Iraq's most infamous province, al Anbar. The popular consensus regarding Al Anbar contends that the tribal movement known as the "Awakening" was an impromptu rejection by Sunnis of Al Qaeda in Iraq's (AQI) brutal methods and radical rule. This consensus is wrong, or at best, only partially right. I saw this dramatic transformation as a Marine officer deployed to Haditha in 2006 and Karma in 2007-2008. The Anbar Awakening was not a spontaneous uprising against the horrible brutality of the insurgents. Rather, it occurred and succeeded due to the conditions created by U.S. forces who steadily built the foundation for Anbar's stability. Through dynamic security operations, complex relationships with tribal leaders, and consistent moral authority, we successfully separated the population from the insurgency, demonstrated our potential for victory, and earned the support of Iraqis yearning for peace. It was only after we established these conditions that the Sunni sheiks could urge their tribes to awaken and stand together with U.S. forces against the AQI terrorists. When I arrived in the Haditha area of Al Anbar in March of 2006, the local Sunnis had substantial reasons to distrust the U.S. military. The U.S. had dismantled the old Sunni dominated Iraqi Army, Shi'ites dominated the new government, and there was no cooperation from Baghdad. The Sunnis concluded that they had little hope for the future under Coalition/Shi'ite rule. We had been unable to protect those who worked with us as AQI's murder and intimidation campaign grew to horrific levels. Sunnis couldn't choose between the apparently impotent Coalition and the vicious insurgency and were paralyzed by uncertainty. As Marine General Mattis told author Bing West for his book The Strongest Tribe , "Not one man in a hundred will stand up to a real killer. It's ruthlessness that cows people." Our ruthless enemy used fear as a weapon; we needed to give the Iraqis reason to hope. The most critical condition required for the emergence of the tribal Awakening movement was a dynamic and effective security infrastructure. American military forces could not achieve such an impact alone, due to inadequate force levels and an inability to effectively distinguish insurgents from civilians. Good security required the active participation of screened and trained local Iraqi police and army units, partnered with U.S. forces, focused in the population centers. We increased our presence in these population centers by establishing combat outposts and remaining in neighborhoods for duration operations. Our Marines patrolled continuously, which disrupted the enemy's freedom of movement and fostered relationships with the local population. We partnered with Iraqi Army units to develop them tactically and to mentor their leaders. Our embedded Military Training Teams lived with the Iraqi Army, developed close personal ties and fought side by side with them as the lessons gradually took hold. When locals were afraid to join the police force, we went outside the area and brought in Iraqis who had previously fled to help us retake control. We built and provided protection for new police units, and together began a concerted offensive against insurgents who soon had nowhere to hide. Security was a necessary but not sufficient condition for success in Anbar. Other key conditions included empowering tribal leaders, maintaining moral authority, and cultivating confidence in our long term objectives and capabilities. Our commanders set a grueling operational tempo and we established these conditions day-by-day. We involved tribal sheiks in decisions and the distribution of projects and funds. We made them choose between us and the insurgents by rewarding those who worked with us and marginalizing those who did not. Marine leaders insisted on maintaining moral authority and ordered Marines to act with kindness and compassion towards Iraqis whenever possible. "First, do no harm", and "Seek first to understand" were maxims that reinforced our respect for the humanity and dignity of the Iraqi people. We tried to improve their lives and give them hope in the future, as AQI murdered their neighbors to keep them in fear. Through our actions we convinced the Iraqis that we were there to provide them a chance for a better life, and through our persistence we showed them that together we were capable of succeeding. As we developed these conditions, AQI became more desperate to regain control of the shifting population and increased the intensity of their murder and intimidation campaigns. When the enemy became more desperate they became more vulnerable. Through adaptive tactics, burgeoning local support, and increasingly effective Iraqi forces, we were able to damage their operations and separate them from the population. In their desperation insurgents turned against the population, and thereby gave the tribal sheiks the final push they needed to stand with us against the terrorists. This is indeed a model for counter-insurgency operations, as those of us who participated in it well know. Describing the Awakening movement as a miraculous Sunni uprising blinds us to the lessons we ought to have learned, and degrades the understanding we should be cultivating and applying to all theaters of this long war. Gabe Ledeen served as a Marine officer in an infantry battalion from 2004-2008 and completed two tours in Al Anbar, Iraq. More on Afghanistan
 
Hillary Newman : America is Fu... eled Top
A few weeks ago, I pulled into my neighborhood gas station not to fill up my gas tank, but to fill my brain with FUEL . FUEL is a documentary that tells the story of Josh Tickell's quest to spread awareness about the potential of biodiesel as an alternative energy source. After watching the film and hearing Josh speak, I wanted more- so I set up an interview... I read that it took about 11 years to make your documentary, FUEL , from start to finish. Lets break down those 11 years and take a closer look. Initially, what was your intent and hopes for the film? Initially, I just wanted to see if I could drive a van on biodiesel that I made myself. That was the Veggie Van (you can learn more about that saga at www.veggievan.org). But secretly, personally, I always planned to make a movie. I wanted to do something that my sociology college professor told me that was 'insane' - to both catalog and catalyze the green movement. So I set out on the road in 1997, made fuel from Long John Silver's grease and filmed everything that happened. I lived in the Veggie Van for 2 years, traveling around the country. Not a lot of great footage was produced, but that trip lay the groundwork for the research of the movie. For the next couple of years, I finished my first book and tried to pretend that I was going to get a real job. Then, I got seriously committed to making the movie, went to graduate school for two years (during which time I continued to shoot and edit) and then graduated with an MFA in film in 2002. I moved to LA and for the next 7 years, I did little other than shoot and edit FUEL. (Oh yeah, I wrote my second book, Biodiesel America, but that was because I had to put all my notes in one place). The movie premiered at Sundance in 2008 and won the audience award for best documentary. Two days later, biofuels were slammed in two articles in Science Magazine. Then the biofuels backlash happened. Instead of selling the movie to a distributor, we spent the next year fundraising and re-cutting the movie. The final film, FUEL, was completed in November of 2008 and began its self-funded theatrical release. Where there any specific scientific breakthroughs or events that helped drive FUEL in a direction? The anti-biofuels backlash, which by the way, was mostly funded by oil interests, made the movie obsolete overnight. It was challenging, but we had to turn what was essentially a movie about biodiesel into a movie about green energy and the green energy movement. It was our initial failure and the re-framing of the subject thereafter that gave the movie its guts. In a way, the oil companies played their entire hand at once (blowing their wad on thinly veiled anti biofuels propaganda) and we had an opportunity to address the food vs. fuel issues in the movie. It turns out that the anti-biofuels backlash showed how easily swayed environmental groups are. Oil had hit $148 a barrel, pushing food prices through the roof, which opened up the beef market in Brazil which pushed soybean (read - cow food) production through the roof. Viola! Deforestation. Similarly in Malaysia - the cause of the deforestation was the booming demand for hardwood, an acre of which is worth more than the average person in Malaysia makes in their lifetime. Once the valuable wood is cleared and the land is practically worthless, palm oil plantations are planted (which take 5 years to bear fruit). And 99.9% of the palm oil is turned into margarine, lamp oil and junk food. So the whole anti-biofuels argument was B.S. And the irony is that it was bought - lock stock and barrel - by the very organizations that had been fighting the oil companies! The green movement has picked up quite a bit of momentum in the past several years. Talk a little bit about your approach and what tactics worked best to spread your film. We're really still figuring it out. The green movement is very disenfranchised. There's no central voice - unless you consider Whole Foods or Gaiam a voice. But really, unlike movements that were clearly defined by leaders and objectives, this one is amorphous, large and moving in so many directions at once. Part of our strategy is to find the common threads that can bring different factions together - from Prius drivers to hard core cyclists to green shoppers to yoga people to vegans to transition towners - FUEL applies to the whole movement. It's a matter of getting people to the theater where the magic of community really takes over. FUEL includes a good amount of coverage on the political presence in America's addition to oil. How do you see the Obama Administration playing a role? In some ways, President Obama is fighting tooth and nail to get out from under the grip of big oil. The incentives package included a number of good provisions for public transportation and alternative energy. But in other ways, for each step forward, there seems to be at least one step back. The entire bailout of the banks and the auto companies is a total scam. Those institutions should be left to wither and die. It is the way of the free market that when an institution has repetitively screwed the American people, we don't prop them up with more tax money - we punish them! So there are a lot of inconsistencies in this administration's approach. I think for us to move forward with any efficacy, we are going to have to take a hard stand against oil finance and against the associated industries. What are the differing viewpoints on energy, specifically oil, that currently exist? (Economist views, Science community, Corporate views, etc.) There's the mythological view held by "flat-earth" economists and companies that resources are infinite and energy is finite. Ergo, whomever controls the energy controls the economy. Hence our current mess. Then there's reality. And in reality there are a finite amount of resources but an infinite amount of solar energy. This 'whole system' paradigm is not yet dominant. But when it becomes dominant, it will restructure the fabric of our society - from the grassroots up. Do you think the Free Market can solve our energy problems? Um, free market? What's that? I don't think we've had a free market in terms of energy - ever. The closest thing may be in some remote unindustrialized society. But in the western world, control over energy resources has always been the norm and from that has been a constant 'exception' in the free market system - governments have always propped up energy systems and the companies that run them. Until now. I think we are starting to see that shift with the decentralized energy production systems being installed in countries like Germany and Sweden. It's a scary thing to truly lose control over your population as they become self-sufficient in energy and food and even water, but it is the only way our societies will survive and evolve. These old monolithic, centralized institutions that dole out energy as if it were a sacred commodity are crumbling and underneath them the economy they built is also crumbling. Cometh a new era. The era of decentralized, miniatureized and easily replicable energy production technology. The energy production of tomorrow will take a quantum leap forward - like the mainframes of yester year have turned into the iPhones of today. When we speak of oil (the 80+mb per day) we are speaking of conventional oil. What makes this kind of oil so important? It's easy to get, our infrastructure is made to drill it, process it, turn it into gasoline and agri-products (fertilizers, pesticides etc), and we know where the rest of it is (plus or minus 10%). It's also important because our current infrastructure cannot run on anything else. Our species uses about 29 billion barrels of it a year and there are approximately 1 trillion barrels left in the crust of the earth. That gives us 30 years - assuming consumption won't increase, which it is in fact doing. And fast. India is releasing the $2,500 car. How will 250 million new cars affect the world's supply of sweet crude? Oh yeah, there's one other thing about conventional oil - the US passed its peak in conventional oil production in 1971. We produce less each year than we did the year before. Where do you see us 25, 45, 85 years from now? I don't have a crystal ball - but I hope that somewhere between reacting to the inevitable global resource crisis and following a proactive vision for sustainability that we will evolve into a new era of sustainability in all areas of human civilization and development. At least, that's the hope that drives me to do what I do.   What is your next step? To push to get FUEL into 150 theaters across America by the end of summer. My favorite books and blogs... I like this blog. A piece of advice for President Obama... Give the nation a clear objective and time frame. Sweden will be petroleum free by 2020. What about the US? This was the thing that made Kennedy so powerful. He made unreasonable promises and then got the scientific community to perform to those expectations. Don't try to fix our spiraling debt with more debt financing from countries overseas. Instead, divorce the US dollar from petroleum. It will hurt to pull the oil needle out of Lady Liberty's arm, but it's the only way the Republic will withstand the coming economic and oil shocks. A piece of advice I will always hold on to... Frustration comes from thinking it should be some way that it isn't. - Ecowarrior
 
Christopher Herbert and Victoria Kataoka Rebuffet: Weekly Foreign Affairs Roundup Top
The Week's Top Stories in Foreign Affairs: A Failed Mexican State? Facts: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Mexico and committed more US manpower and technology to fighting the arms and drug trade. She also acknowledged that US drug consumption is a major driver of the trade. SI Analysis : Everyone is speculating about what growing instability just south of the US border means for regional security, and whether Mexico is a failing state (according to the US Joint Forces Command report suggesting that Mexico could suddenly collapse). However, US Spy Chief Dennis Blair unambiguously announced this week that "Mexico is in no danger of becoming a failed state." Also, Moody's Investment Service says that Mexico is not at risk of failure and will maintain its investment-grade rating. In addition, Stratfor analysts say that Central America will have a growing role in the drug war because of increased reliance on land-based smuggling routes. The success of Washington's efforts to curtail the drug trade will depend on how it manages its relations with, in particular, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. An American Strategy for Afghanistan? Facts: The US announces its strategic plan for the war in Afghanistan today. This comes just ahead of a UN Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague on March 30 for all major stakeholders (which will include the US and Iran). In addition to a significant troop increase (17,000 plus 4,000 special forces) and enhanced funding , the US is expected to make the provision of basic civil services a priority. In preparation for the Obama plan's release, US aides expressed concern that elements in the Intelligence Service in Pakistan are actively aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan. SI Analysis : The US Administration took a great amount of time to conduct a strategic review before setting out this strategy, which tries to address security, state-building and development needs. An action plan for what to do is pertinent and necessary. What will be more interesting will be to see the continued development of US policies towards Hamid Karzai's government in Afghanistan and Asif Ali Zardari's in Pakistan . Another important issue: how does the US plan to motivate NATO allies to remain committed to engagement in Afghanistan while providing a timeline for an exit ? This is all the more important as some reports point to a realignment of Afghan and Pakistani Taliban forces to counter increases in US pressure. All Eyes on the G20 Facts: On April 2, the world's 20 largest economies will meet in London to discuss the global financial crisis while setting out a strategy to rebuild the world economy, stave off inflation, prevent major acts of protectionism and lay the foundations for future financial regulation. British PM Gordon Brown , the host of the summit, has made optimistic statements saying there are grounds for significant unity and action. Critics suggest that all they see is division and lethargy on the part of many economies. The US and Britain have prioritized the stabilization of the global financial system and have introduced aggressive stimulus plans to restart their markets. Europe, led by France and Germany, has made inflation its main concern. Eastern European nations are hoping for a regional plan, partially because their financial woes and liabilities are larger than their own economies can support. China is hoping that it can boost trade (the World Bank says global trade has slowed for the first time since the end of WWII) and secure the value of US treasuries (while staving off any commentary on the Chinese human rights record, military growth and currency levels). Russia, focusing mainly on its domestic economic concerns, will play only a " peripheral role " at the summit, according to several accounts. SI Analysis : Stakes are very high, not only for the world economy. The current economic instability is tightly linked to political instability the world over. Catastrophists point to historical similitude ahead of both World Wars. Eastern Europe already appears to be coming apart at the seams, especially if recent events in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Latvia are to be any indication of what is to come. China is deeply concerned about its own domestic political stability if it cannot sustain aggressive growth for its economy. Countries as varied as Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Botswana and Indonesia -- to name only a few -- seem poised to face great political instability if they cannot bolster their markets. And this does not even speak of the countries with the world's poorest in Africa and Asia (and Haiti), who may not go hungry quietly. The G20 will also be an opportunity for President Obama to make initial direct overtures to China and Russia, hopefully setting a new tone for US foreign relations with Beijing and Moscow. Sobering Moment of the Week: Rejecting Obama's New Year message Facts : On Wednesday, Iran's Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani spoke in direct rejection to US President Obama's Nowruz (Iranian new year) video greeting to Iran. The video was aimed at growing a positive relationship between Washington and Tehran, especially given a host of regional potential synergies, ranging from Afghan and Iraqi security to alternative energy pipeline developments. Larijani spoke out against the video, and criticized Obama for ignoring the US' negative history with Iran. This follows Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's less vehement rejection earlier this week. SI Analysis: There is a silver lining for Washington and peace-mongers: Neither Larijani nor Khamenei have directly rejected talks between the US and Iran. This week NATO and Iranian diplomats held their first formal talks in 30 years . On Thursday, Iran announced that it will indeed attend a UN-hosted international conference on Afghanistan on March 30 in The Hague. It will also be at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) meeting in Moscow Friday (March 27). Both conferences are chances for the US and Iran to meet on the sidelines. Speculation of the Week: Czech Collapse Bodes Poorly for US Missile Defense... Facts: While holding the rotating presidency of the EU, the Czech Republic's government passed a vote of no-confidence . Immediate implications include: That the possible Czech ratification of the Lisbon treaty , which would allow for a permanent EU President and PM, looks unlikely. This could condemn the EU to a rotating (and inefficient, some say ineffectual) six-month leadership by its Member States EU leadership and coherency at the upcoming G20 Summit will be more difficult to muster SI Speculation: The prospect of European unity is under great duress due in large part to the global financial crisis. The economic environment has certainly stifled Eastern Europeans in their resolve to turn West. And one implication is less enthusiasm in the Czech Republic for backing US plans for an eastern European missile defense shield. The Czech Parliament was slated to confirm the country's commitment to hosting a US radar, a key component to the shield. This vote will likely be delayed, perhaps indefinitely. However, if a new reactionary leadership emerges from the rubble, the issue may never actually make it to the floor... Hodge-Podge or Under the Radar: Awaited Moment of the Week: Netanyahu's Rise to Power Facts: Israeli leader Binyamin Netanyahu is finally ready to preside over the government of Israel after winning support from both right-wing Shas and Israel Beiteinu and left-wing Labor. All these groups will join Netanyahu's Likud-led coalition. The former Prime Minister is expected to lead a more hawkish Israeli government, despite his overtures to Palestinians this week. Many voices in the Arab world agree that Netanyahu is unlikely to be a broker for peace . SI Analysis : Netanyahu will probably be a thorn in the side of US peace prospects in the Middle East. Attempting to keep Washington out of his business, Netanyahu announced this week that he expects "no pressure" from the US over peacemaking activities. Geopolitical Shift of the Week: China in Africa Facts : This week South Africa rejected a visa to Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama for his scheduled visit to a peace conference in Johannesburg . Many of the attendees, including several Nobel laureates, withdrew from the event in protest and the conference was canceled . South Africa reportedly admitted that it banned the Dalai Lama's visa due to a desire to please China , which is one of the country's chief international investors. In somewhat unrelated news, Chinese officials in Tibet have named March 28 "Serf Liberation Day" further cementing Beijing's hold on the region. SI Analysis : While South Africa has received a great deal of criticism, and some say the visa denial "backfired," other commentators view the incident as a major victory for Beijing's influence in Africa. Reports point to a downturn of Chinese investment all over Africa given the global financial crisis and worries from Beijing that proposed infrastructure projects will not return sustainable profits. South Africa is clearly aware of this financial reticence from Beijing and is courting China to remain in good financial favor, especially given the large price tag of its upcoming 2010 World Cup. Continued Countdown of the Week: North Korea Facts : The global community continues to wait for North Korea's missile launch scheduled to take place sometime between April 4 and April 8. Pyongyang maintains that the launch is intended to be a test for its non-existent space program. The US, South Korea and Japan are convinced the launch is for an ICBM able to carry a warhead as far as Alaska. Tokyo, Seoul and Washington have spoken out against the launch. Japan has threatened to shoot down the missile and the US has suggested it would increase sanctions to prevent any North Korean actions. The missile will likely land in the Pacific Ocean if not intercepted. SI Analysis : Pyongyang holds a major playing card. This week, North Korean border patrol forces captured 2 American journalists working along the China-North Korea border. The US must tread softly lest it compromise its position or have the incident elevate to a full-fledged crisis. In any case, North Korea has much to gain from the situation, especially renewed domestic faith in Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il who has been rumored to be ailing. Report of the Week: Pentagon's Evaluation of China Facts: On Wednesday the Pentagon released its annual report to US Congress on Chinese military activity . The findings: China's military continues to increase its technology and the scope and prowess of its forces. The Pentagon also says that there is a "lack of clarity" over what China's intentions are for its military might. SI
 
911 Emergency Calls Disappearing From Computers: Operators Top
Stacked-up calls to Chicago's 911 emergency center are "disappearing completely" from computer screens because of glitches in a $6 million upgrade to the dispatch system, call takers complained Thursday.
 
Jerry Weissman: Obama's Virtual Town Hall - I Top
In January and March , I wrote about President Obama's artful use of the word "you," the most persuasive word in the language--according to a purported Yale University study . Purported or not, "you" is an essential element in any communication, because it implies the "co-" in "communication," the two-way exchange that is necessary for results to take place. Those earlier posts traced the president's use of "you" throughout his campaign, in his Inaugural Address, and in his first address to congress. Yesterday, in his first ever (for any president) internet town hall meeting , Barack Obama was back at it. He kicked off the session with a prepared statement , "Here in Washington, politics all too often is treated like a game. There's a lot of point scoring, a lot of talk about who's up and who's down. A lot of time and energy spent on whether the President is winning or losing, on this particular day or this particular hour. But this isn't about me. It's about you." That moment represents the ultimate melding of message, messenger, and audience; a direct effort on the part of the president to connect directly with the American people. Two days before the web event, Obama held a traditional press conference in the White House for professional reporters who were there as representatives of their readers, the public. (In fact, the 13 reporters Obama called upon were from a more diverse set of set of media outlets than from the usual major chains.) But in the web event, the president fielded questions from the citizens themselves, and answered them directly, live and in person. There was no filtering, no tape delay, no spokesperson, and so, no chance for evasion. Obama kept the "co-" in "communication." At the outset, he said, "When I was running for President, I promised to open up the White House to the American people. And this event, which is being streamed live over the Internet, marks an important step towards achieving that goal." In our next post, you'll read more about how the president handled the questions in that virtual town hall. More on Barack Obama
 
Confederate Cemetery Gets Stimulus Funds For Restoration Top
ALTON -- A Confederate graveyard and memorial in the Mississippi River city of Alton will be getting a $250,000 upgrade, paid for by the federal economic stimulus measure Congress passed. The Confederate Cemetery and Memorial contains the remains of more than 1,300 Confederate soldiers who died at the former Alton federal military prison and at the quarantine hospital on an island across the Mississippi. Prisoners afflicted with smallpox were housed at the hospital during the Civil War. Many of the soldiers buried in Alton were from the western part of the Confederacy, including Arkansas, Tennessee, Texas and Missouri. Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery in Missouri oversees the cemetery. More on Stimulus Package
 
Tom Hayden: Don't Go There, Mr. President! Top
GO THERE, MR. PRESIDENT! 17,000 or 21,000 more American troops will not protect Americans against Al Qaeda attacks. The Obama Plan instead will accelerate any plans al Qaeda commanders have for attacking targets in the United States or Europe. The alternative for al Qaeda is to risk complete destruction, an American objective that has not been achieved for eight years. A future terrorist attack need not be planned or set in motion from a cave in Waziristan. The cadre could already be underground in Washington or London. The real alternative for President Obama should be to maintain a deterrent posture while immediately accelerating diplomacy to meet legitimate Muslim goals, from a Palestinian state to genuine progress on Kashmir. President Obama is right, at least politically, to take very seriously the threat of another 9/11 from any source. Besides the suffering inflicted, it would derail his agenda and perhaps his presidency. This is all the more reason he must understand that by repeatedly threatening to "kill al Qaeda" he is provoking a hornet's nest without protection against a devastating sting. The hard choices are laid out very clearly in writings by the CIA's former point man on Osama bin Ladin, Michael Scheuer, who also ran the Agency's rendition program and still supports it. Scheuer is a tough guy, in other words, who says the options are either to kill all the jihadists, make it quick, and withdraw [not a real option], or begin pursuing an agenda which addresses what he calls Muslim issues: the American military and civilian presence in the Arab Peninsula, the unqualified US support for Israel, US support for states which oppress Muslims [China, India, Russia], US exploitation of Muslim oil and suppression of its price, US military presence in the Islamic world, US support and protection of Arab police states. [Michael Scheuer, Marching Toward Hell , 2008] Such an approach would create an option to violence for many millions of jihadist sympathizers and potential recruits. It would create an incentive not to inflict terrorism, blow up airplanes and hotels, or deploy a nuclear bomb in a suitcase. It would disturb the multinational oil companies and the Israel lobby, but open a better path to stability than wars against the Muslim world. Escalation of American troop levels is a slippery slop. John F. Kennedy sent 16,300 Americans to save South Vietnam from the Vietcong. President Obama obviously has no intention of sending hundreds of thousands of American troops into Afghanistan or Pakistan. But escalation, once it begins, is increasingly difficult to stop. Already, Obama's generals want more troops than the president is sending. The neo-conservatives and Republicans are demanding a "Must-Win War" and denouncing any talk of an exit strategy. A gradual American escalation may play into the jihadist game plan, drawing more Western troops into jeopardy, or permitting a retreat into mountainous wastelands if necessary. Any "redeployment" [another word for retreat in the minds of the neo-cons] other than returning with Bin Ladin's head on a platter, provokes a right-wing reaction at home. The easy solution to these pressures is another escalation followed by another, like one drink at a time. [See D. Ellsberg, Secrets , 2002] A regional diplomatic and political solution is possible, but not by imposing U.S.-NATO dominance. In the model currently applied, military force is to be followed by diplomacy with NATO at the center. Whatever the reason -- access to oil resources, global dominance, the clash of fundamentalisms, distrust of the region - this desire for Western dominance delays and may even derail any possible diplomatic solution. The primary powers in the actual region include Iran, India, Russia and China, all distrusted on various levels by the US government, which therefore wishes to include them only as junior partners or satellites of NATO. Take the example of Iran; with 150,000 American troops on its border with Iraq, and upwards of 100,000 more on its border with Afghanistan, are they going to revert to their 2001 posture of supporting the US in Afghanistan? Or take the Shanghai Cooperation Organization [China, Russia and Central Asian countries]; will they be persuaded to welcome NATO? They already are on record calling for US military withdrawal from the region. Or take the Kashmir crisis; does the US expect Pakistan to withdraw support for the Taliban and other jihadists they see as a bulwark against the Indian threat in Kashmir and Afghanistan while the US tilts towards India? The other problem with a diplomatic solution for the US is the uncomfortable matter of democracy. In Afghanistan, the Karzai regime might not survive this year's election, in which case the US will be seeking a substitute who signs off on the occupation. In Pakistan, the US has spent nearly a decade, and $11 billion in taxpayer money, supporting a military dictatorship and now, after the assassination of Benezir Bhutto, the US has been backing the Zardari regime against the more popular movement of Nawaf Sharif supported by thousands of lawyers and civil society in the streets. Anything resembling genuine popular democracy in Afghanistan or Pakistan would end the Western military occupation, or at least the air war, house to house roundups, and mass incarceration at Bagram and force a reversal of the current ratio of 18:I spending priority on the military. [See Tariq Ali, The Duel , 2008, and Ahmed Rashid, Descent into Chaos , 2008]. The cost is far too high, another trillion in time. Bush's war costs in Afghanistan have been $173 billion from 2001 through 2009. Obama's proposals for Iraq/Afghanistan are $144 billion this fiscal year, but not broken down. The secret war by the US-trained "Freedom Corps" in Pakistan is budgeted at $400 million. As America's infrastructure decays, the Army Corps of Engineers is spending $4 billion for construction in Afghanistan this year, including 720 miles of roads this year alone. [ W. Post , Mar. 22]. The expansion of Afghanistan's army will cost "up to" $20 billion in the next several years, while Afghanistan's entire national budget is $1.1 billion for this year. [Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation , Mar. 23]. Cost overruns and corruption being what they are, it is easy to predict the Afghan/Pakistan wars costing one trillion dollars by the end of the president's first term. Military spending will continue to outpace civilian reconstruction aid indefinitely. In summary, be prepared for a war that spans the length of the Obama presidency, an Obama War. Expect the Congress to be inert and distracted. Expect little help from the media. But hey, we've been here before. It's time for a new movement against reckless escalation, especially one which threatens to divert our attention from the crisis at home, while leaving only poverty, malnutrition and anti-American hatreds rising abroad. The new movement could begin this week, a living memorial to the passing of Dr. Martin Luther King on April 4, 1968. • Visit Get Afghanistan Right and learn more about reasons to oppose an escalation in Afghanistan. • Call your Member of Congress and let them know you oppose escalation in Afghanistan. If you're not sure who represents you, visit the House of Representatives website and input your address - it will give you the name of your congressperson and it will take you to their email form. You can reach them through the Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121. United for Peace and Justice prepared some fantastic fact sheet to help you prepare. • Call the White House and tell the President you oppose escalation in Afghanistan: 202-456-1111. • Sign the petition over at Rethink Afghanistan calling for oversight hearings on the Afghanistan policy. (They've also just posted part 2 of their excellent film... see the trailer ). • Sign Sojourner's petition to Obama. • Sign the Friends Committee on National Legislation's petition calling for an investment in peace, not war, in Afghanistan. More on Barack Obama
 
Private Company Creates Rival To Obama Web Site Top
As critics slam the administration's Recovery.gov website for a lack of accessible data, a private company has launched a rival -- Recovery.com. Onvia, a 12-year old consulting group, started Recovery.com with the goal of providing real-time data on spending that comes out of the $787 billion stimulus bill.
 
Deepak Moorjani: Deutsche Bank: A Letter to Shareholders Top
When speaking about the banking sector, many people mention a "subprime crisis" or a "financial crisis" as if recent write-downs and losses are caused by external events. Where some see coincidence, I see consequence. At Deutsche Bank, I consider our poor results to be a "management debacle," a natural outcome of unfettered risk-taking, poor incentive structures and the lack of a system of checks-and-balances. In my opinion, we took too much risk, failed to manage this risk, and broke too many laws and regulations. For more than two years, I have been working internally to improve the inadequate governance structures and lax internal controls within Deutsche Bank AG. I joined the firm in 2006 in one of its foreign subsidiaries, and my due diligence revealed management failures and also inconsistencies between our internal actions and our external statements. Beginning in late 2006, my conclusions were disseminated internally on a number of occasions, and while not always eloquently stated, my concerns were honest. Unfortunately, raising concerns internally is like trying to clap with one hand. The firm retaliated, and this raises the question: Is it possible to question management's performance without being marginalized, even when this marginalization might be a violation of law? Two years later, our mounting losses are gaining attention, and I offer my experiences and my thoughts in the hopes of contributing to the shareholder and public policy debate. Background Born and raised in Toledo, Ohio, I was infused with Midwestern values of hard work, individual responsibility, honesty, quiet integrity and fiscal prudence. After careers in New York City and Menlo Park, I moved to Tokyo in 2005 to pursue investments in corporate restructurings and distressed assets. At the time, the Japanese market offered unique opportunities. I joined Deutsche Bank in 2006 to build an investment business within its commercial real estate lending operation, and I was generally surprised by the aggressive sales culture within our firm. While many people consider the banking sector's problems to be caused by residential lending, I witnessed multi-billion dollar loan proposals for commercial property. With funds provided at more than 90% loan-to-value, these loans were "priced to perfection" and assumed that property prices and rental rates would continue to rise. For perspective, a single billion-dollar commercial real estate loan is equivalent to 2,000 residential loans of $500,000. In general, my colleagues are hard-working, decent people, but the system of incentives encourages people to take risks. I have seen honest, high-integrity people lose themselves in this cowboy culture, because more risk-taking generally means better pay. Bizarrely, this risk comes with virtually no liability, and this system of OPM (Other People's Money) insures that the firm absorbs any losses from bad trades. As these losses have grown, taxpayers are being forced to absorb these losses. As an example, my firm recently received nearly $12 billion from AIG (which has effectively been nationalized with $180 billion in taxpayer funds). Essentially, every American household sent my firm a check for $105. The reason for this payment: my firm bought credit default swaps from AIG. In plain-speak, we bought unregulated "insurance" from AIG to cover losses from bad trades. What did taxpayers get in return? Nothing. Taxpayers simply paid an IOU triggered by our gambling losses. (Note: This $12 billion payment was more than 50% of our market capitalization at the time of its disclosure). Solution While shareholders (and taxpayers) are becoming angry, I think they should be furious. Our management has eviscerated the concept of moral hazard by systematically adopting pay schemes that reward excessive risk-taking despite its long-term implications. If governments have decided to socialize our losses, governments are implicitly saying that the banking industry is fundamentally sound. In effect, governments would be voting in favor of the status quo. In my opinion, the status quo does not work, and we need to address the core issues of structure and compensation. Capping executive compensation is a first step, but as a solution, it is insufficient. While I am on the "inside" at Deutsche Bank, much of my career has been within partnership structures, and I continue to advocate a partnership-like structure for our firm. With collective liability, partnerships provide a proper alignment of incentives between management and its stakeholders. In a partnership, bonuses are paid from profits, not revenues. Losses are shared, and these losses introduce an appropriate penalty for excessive risk-taking. If profits are overstated in one-year, the already-paid bonuses are clawed-back (returned to the partnership). Conclusion Our asymmetric incentive structure is fundamental to our problems. The question remains: Do we maintain the status quo and naively hope for better results, or do we begin to implement structural reforms in order to align the incentives? If taxpayers are forced to pay for the losses from bad trades, this socialization of risk adds to the moral hazard problem. This socialization of risk actually encourages more aggressive behavior in the future. Maintaining the status quo is not a good bet, and we cannot afford to ignore the fundamental issues of structure and compensation. We need to introduce personal responsibility into the system, because accountability is glaringly absent from the status quo. The collective liability aspect of partnerships achieves this goal; collective liability is the most powerful way to align incentives and encourage rational risk-taking. As an employee and as a shareholder, I am doing my part to build a better firm. Unfortunately, the political landscape within our firm finds it difficult to assimilate any criticism of management's leadership. To my fellow employees, I ask that you resist the incentives that reward groupthink. To my fellow shareholders, I ask that you implement the changes needed to address our asymmetric incentive structures.
 
Follow HuffPost Politics On Facebook, Twitter! Top
Get HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter . More on Twitter
 
John Mayer: "Twitter Is Silly and Dumb!" Top
The way John Mayer uses Twitter, you'd think he would have nothing but high praise for the social networking phenomenon. But no, the singer actually has some harsh words for the latest in social messaging. "It's inherently silly and it's inherently dumb," the singer told me last night at the One Splendid Evening benefit for the VH1 Save the Music Foundation aboard the Carnival Splendor cruise ship in San Pedro, Calif. "If you really think that Twitter is the pathway to spiritual enlightenment, well...It's one step away from sending pictures of your poop." More on Twitter
 
Jon Soltz: Obama Got Afghanistan/Pakistan Right Top
For those of us who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was extremely important that the new president get the situation in Afghanistan right. Not just for America's security, but for those troops still in Afghanistan, and those heading to Afghanistan to put their lives on the line in the war. With today's announcement, President Obama has shown that he "gets it." That's why we at VoteVets.org are supporting the plan with a petition, which you can sign on to, right here . There's a lot to like about the plan. But, there are three key things I'm particularly focused on, that represent a stark departure from the previous administration. They show that this president not only has reasonable goals in the region, but a good idea of what it will take to get there. Point One: The Military Can't Do It All The president recognizes that the war against terrorists requires much more than just throwing troops at the problem. That alone will go a long way towards setting policies that make America safer, and taking the burden off our military. The president said today, "To advance security, opportunity, and justice - not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces - we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers.... These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run - because it is far cheaper to train a policeman to secure their village or to help a farmer seed a crop, than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility." This is key, and something that was lacking in the region for a long time. Those hardline radicals who want to take control thrive on poverty and misery of the people. The single best thing we can do to ensure that the Afghan people aren't so destitute and broken that they're tempted to join these radicals, is to send civilian training and humanitarian aid. Point Two: Though it's the "War in Afghanistan," we need to treat it like a region That the president made a point of including Pakistan in this strategy, offering greater aid to them if the Pakistani government makes more of an effort to work and coordinate with us, is as smart as it is practical. Everyone - myself included - has not helped when we bind the efforts in the region under the name "The War in Afghanistan." This is a regional problem, that requires a regional solution. President Obama understands to get the support of the Pakistani people, which will make it easier to get the help we need from the Pakistani government, it takes carrots. And his plan focuses squarely on that. His support for legislation sponsored by Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years, along with another bill that creates opportunity zones in the border region will go a long way towards getting the cooperation we need to really focus in on al Qaeda, and close in on them from the Pakistani and Afghan sides of the border region. Point Three: There is a tighter focus, open to reaching out to some of the enemy Maybe most importantly, this president has given up the pipe dream of setting up a European-style democracy in Afghanistan, and instead has refocused our goals on a more urgent mission - protecting America and the world from terrorism. We've finally left fantasy-land, where America can simply go somewhere, topple a government, and western-style democracies will pop up and thrive. Afghanistan is a very different beast. And, while the president committed to helping build out infrastructure for the Afghan people, and improve the lives of the Pakistani people, he's not letting dreams of a grand new western democracy get in the way of more practical and tighter goals - namely, fighting al Qaeda and taking the region away as a home base for the terror network, forever. To do so, the president recognized something that I wrote about last week - there are elements throughout the region that are fighting us now, but could become our partners. This might have been the most striking parts of the President's speech: "There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who have taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. That is why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province. As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated. And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans - including women and girls." I couldn't have put it better myself. Now, will everything go exactly according to plan? Of course not. Nor is this going to be quick. But with the points above, and the rest that the President laid out, those of us who served finally have confidence that this President gets it, and will keep us on the right course - the reasonable and practical course. That's something we veterans have been waiting for. Crossposted at VetVoice.com More on Barack Obama
 
Keely Field: Talk of 2012 Already? Top
I've noticed around the blogosphere and on certain television networks that polling has already begun for the 2012 Presidential Election. Obama is just approaching month three as the Commander in Chief, and yet, the polling begins... A new poll shows how dismal the Republicans could have it in 2012, especially if they insist on nominating Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as their presidential candidate. Public Policy Polling has found that in the 2012 Election: Sarah Palin would be crushed by Barack Obama. President Obama could expect to win the election by 20% of the vote. Considering that Senator Barack Obama became President Barack Obama by only 7% of the popular vote over Senator John McCain (with Sarah Palin in the supporting role), the Republican camp might want to rethink its current direction. Why? Because this is not the story many polls taken among the party faithful have shown. But that is the problem one runs afoul of when conducting a survey or poll within one group. How do the Republicans shape up when polling amongst themselves? Sarah Palin usually winds up on top or near the top. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released on February 27 showed Sarah Palin with a 3-point edge over former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (29% - 26%) and an 8-point lead over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (29% - 21%). A month after the Republicans lost the election, Palin had enjoyed higher numbers, 31%, in a CNN/ORC Poll but had come in second to Mike Huckabee (34%) as the Republicans favorite for president in 2012. On November 8, 2008, just after the loss to Barack Obama and several rounds of infighting between Sarah Palin and John McCain staffers, Republicans were much more certain of who they wanted in 2012. A Rasmussen Reports Poll revealed that 64% of Republican voters wanted Sarah Palin as the GOP's next presidential pick. But things have cooled down a bit since then. Among the party faithful at the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Mitt Romney came out on top in a straw poll. Sarah Palin tied for third with Ron Paul with 13% of the vote, a full 7% behind front runner Mitt Romney. Louisiana governor and Republican rebuttal sacrifice Bobby Jindal finished second, only a point ahead of Palin. If Obama's term goes as well as expected and most of his promises are fulfilled, he will be re-elected with no problem. In this case, I think that we will see several little-known conservatives make their debut on the national scene. In the event Obama does well, 2012 could be a big year for, say, Ron Paul to go for the nomination. Do I think he has any chance of winning? Negative. Do I think he has any chance of securing the nomination in 2012? If Obama succeeds, absolutely. Of course this is all dependent on whether or not he chooses to seriously go for it. I know the prospect of Ron Paul being the nominee in 2012 may sound a bit out there to some, but it's possible. If Joe Lieberman decides to run for a fifth term in 2012, a new Quinnipiac poll suggests that it may be a lost cause. The new poll tests Lieberman as an independent against Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. The numbers: Blumenthal 58%, Lieberman 30%. Yikes. Lieberman's active campaigning against the Democratic Party last year hasn't won him too many friends back home. Democrats go for Blumenthal by 83%-9%, and independents are for Blumenthal 55%-29%. Lieberman is the de facto Republican nominee in this match, and with GOP voters he scores 67%-23% over Blumenthal. Lieberman's job approval is also at only 45%, with 48% disapproving. Among Democrats that's a 21%-70% rating, Republicans 75%-20%, while independents give him a narrow approval of 48%-46%. A lot can happen in four years, but right now it doesn't look like Lieberman has too many options. He can't run as a Democrat, he would still lose as a Republican, and there's no reason to believe that staying as an independent will provide much more of an opportunity. Future 2012 Political Candidates take note of 2008, and how Obama was a fundraising machine: During his 2008 primary and presidential campaigns, Barack Obama employed essentially the same web-based tools and tactics as Howard Dean, but on a much larger scale. To put Obama's fund-raising accomplishments in context, when the 2007-2008 primary season came to an end, Democratic and Republican candidates had raised a record-shattering $1.26 billion -- 81% more than in 2003-2004 -- with Democratic candidates out-pulling Republican candidates $787 million to $477 million. During the Presidential campaign, McCain, who ran solely on the $84.1 million provided by the U.S. treasury, was in a much different pool than Obama, who elected not to accept public financing. Relying on small donations from hundreds of thousands of contributors, Obama, with $77 million cash in hand at the end of August, 2008, outspent McCain five to one during the 3-month general election season, with $150 million left over. We shall see what a difference four years makes......change has only just begun! More on Sarah Palin
 
Ari Melber: President Obama's Never-Ending Virtual Town Hall Top
"We're actually going to have some live stuff," explained President Obama, "instead of some virtual stuff." On that plucky note, Obama essentially ended the first open, democratically operated virtual town hall in White House history, turning his attention to a small crowd assembled in the East Room. Thursday's town hall drew swift and divergent reactions, but few observers noted how the gathering actually contained two completely distinct events. The "live stuff," to use the President's taxonomy, was an entirely routine presidential meet-and-greet with supporters. Five questions were chosen randomly, but they were all drawn from a screened pool of friendly faces. One questioner was invited by the DNC; another by a union that endorsed Obama; another said that he served on Obama's education platform committee. And so on. For such guests, these kind of events are usually seducing or intimidating - earnest people can easily become props. There was a second event in the East Room, however, just before those invited guests asked their questions. Six random people - who had not been vetted and had no idea the questions that they calmly posed at home would reach the President - suddenly found their voices amplified in Washington. Not because they were handpicked for a White House event, or because they finagled tickets to a rare presidential visit, but because their questions drew thousands of votes from fellow citizens. The "virtual stuff" did not stop at empowering only those six voices, either. " Open for Questions, " an innovative, potentially combustible experiment with interactive government, sparked a rolling, two-day national debate about the economic issues facing the nation. Over 92,000 people generated roughly 100,000 questions. The depth of participation was staggering: Visitors voted for over 25 questions on average, suggesting participants wanted to listen to each other, not simply be heard. People even debated the administration's attempt to define the category of the "economy," rallying behind questions criticizing the war on drugs by casting it as an economic issue. While the town hall did not break major "news," in the conventional sense, it clearly operated on a wider axis than traditional White House events. Take health care, for example. The administration only talks about employer-based reforms, and so far, the Washington press corps has accepted those boundaries. In the President's first two press conferences, there was not a a single question on popular proposals for single payer health care. Many citizens, however, are still wondering if the U.S. will adopt "a universal health care system, like many European countries," as a Californian named Richard wrote, in what became the most popular health care question on WhiteHouse.gov. (A single payer query was also one of the most popular questions according to citizen votes at Ask The President , a similar, independent portal backed by The Nation, The Washington Times and Personal Democracy Forum.) In response, Obama argued that the U.S. can pursue universal health care without abandoning employer-based health care. "I don't think the best way to fix our health care system is to suddenly completely scrap what everybody is accustomed to," he said , "and the vast majority of people already have [employer health care]." h Obama also took a peppy video question from three Kent State students about student loan assistance and national service scholarships. Their question had almost no public support, drawing only six votes, as Internet Evolution's Nicole Ferraro noted. Student loan issues have been a popular priority in similar forums, though, as the New York Times reported , the top query on Ask The President was a question contrasting bailout assistance to student loan repayment. In response to the students' video, Obama explained his plan to stop private banks from profiting on government-backed student loans, a measure that some Congressional Democrats oppose, and he made the bullish promise that national service legislation would pass "in the next few weeks." Then, even after the town hall ended, unanswered questions from WhiteHouse.gov kept bubbling up, both in online discussions and more influential forums within the White House. During the Press Secretary's daily briefing on Thursday, Robert Gibbs discovered that the press wanted to pick up where the citizen questions left off. Several reporters pressed for answers to citizen questions that the President only vaguely addressed. It was an unusually lively exchange - one regular correspondent said it was the least controlled briefing this year. Obama laughed off the popular questions about marijuana during the town hall - blogger Nancy Scola's Mary Jane Rule holds that pot questions always win in open web forums - but several journalists had serious follow ups. "When the President said he doesn't think legalizing marijuana would give the economy a boost, was he giving a political answer or an economic answer?," asked one reporter, continuing, "does he have economic numbers to back that up?" First Gibbs tried to joke about a lack of government studies on that front, but the reporter pressed on: "What about medicinal marijuana?" Gibbs referred that angle to the Justice Department. Then an NBC reporter protested to ask why Obama even mentioned marijuana, stating, erroneously, that "no one asked about it online." Gibbs noted that the question actually was popular, but then he attempted to downplay the support as the product of an "interest group." Some reporters swallowed that unsubstantiated claim, including Friday's Washington Post , but others pushed back, such as the Washington Times ' Jon Ward: You said from the podium a couple minutes ago that interest groups drove up the questions on the web site about marijuana. But the President and Secretary of State have also said in recent days that demand domestically is driving the problems on the border. You seem to be contradicting yourself a little bit and trying to say that the web site issue was an interest group issue... does the White House think that this is a major issue on the minds of the American people? Obviously you think demand is high. Gibbs pivoted to express the administration's support for Hillary Clinton's analysis of the drug trade, but said it was a "stretch" to ask about marijuana as an economic stimulus. Ward did not let up, however, pressing Gibbs to articulate what the administration would do to "drive down [narcotics] demand." The conversation continued, as journalists fleshed out and sharpened queries on an otherwise neglected topic, all because a few thousand citizens put it on Thursday's agenda. The interplay between the media's chosen topics and the virtual town hall experiment also went beyond the administration's reluctance to address drug policy. First, a little context: The White House briefing room runs on its own Washington power law . Top news organizations are assigned coveted front row seats , and the Press Secretary often gives those reporters two or three questions a day. Everyone else usually sits through the briefing without being called on. On Thursday, however, ABC correspondent Jake Tapper used his front row perch to amplify two sharp questions from WhiteHouse.gov that were not used in the town hall: There were a couple of questions that were on your web site that were not asked that I thought were interesting that I wanted to just get an answer from you here; that they weren't the top vote-getters. One was from Jason in Detroit. He said, "Will we ever see any CEOs go to jail for destroying the economy?"...From Peter in Oregon, he said: "I appreciate the efforts of the administration to fix the economy quickly. However, why aren't you giving the American public the chance to review these bills? In your campaign you promised we would have at least five days." The bill delay issue was more critical than any questions posed at the virtual town hall, and one conservative blogger had already flagged it as an issue that Republicans could use to organize within the Open for Questions experiment Tapper, to his credit, used the government's own forum to press unanswered citizen questions. And the administration, to its credit, built a transparent portal that lets everyone see all the questions, including popular or important items that did not make the town hall. Those are key steps towards more open, transparent interactions between the people, their government, and the press. Reporters can use their access to give the virtual town hall questions life long after the event ended, or to sharpen, advance and contextualize generalist sentiments - legalize pot! - by repurposing them in larger policy debates - many Americans use drugs, as the administration just told Mexico, so how can you claim only interest groups support marijuana and what is your demand-side approach to drug policy? Ultimately, virtual town halls and press conferences can be symbiotic, not competitive. Journalists and citizens both want access to the President, but few would openly argue against access for all. After the town hall, several reporters reflexively scored citizen participants as if they were auditioning to be White House correspondents. "No hardballs," grumbled one reporter. Some political strategists, meanwhile, still presume a binary battle between online citizen access and pressers. "The prime-time news conference," says former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry, "will probably be a relic real soon." He sees the virtual town hall, in contrast, as the "future." Well, maybe a distant one. This week, however, the prime time presser drew a staggering 40 million views with blanket coverage across every network, while the virtual town hall was only carried in full by CNN and C-SPAN. (FOX and MSNBC showed excerpts, and another 60,000 people watched a live stream online). The topics, tone and purpose of these forums diverge a lot, as they should. Obama ran a campaign urging voters to reject Washington's gamesmanship and "false choices," and the town hall did the same. It's not about reporters versus citizens, or hardballs versus softballs, or real versus virtual. It's about opening up government to the people. What they do with it, naturally, is up to them. -- Ari Melber covered the White House virtual town hall for The Nation , where this article was published. Thursday's White House daily briefing with Robert Gibbs:
 
Paul Armentano: President Obama: What Is So Funny About Taxing And Regulating Marijuana? Top
Speaking live at an online Town Hall Meeting Thursday morning, President Barack Obama pledged "to open up the White House to the American people." Well, to some of the American people, that is. As for those tens of millions of you who believe that cannabis should be legally regulated like alcohol -- and the tens of thousands of you who voted to make this subject the most popular question in today's online Presidential Town Hall -- well, your voice doesn't really matter. Asked this morning whether he "would ... support the bill currently going through the California legislation to legalize and tax marijuana, boosting the economy and reducing drug cartel related violence," the President responded with derision . "There was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation, and I don't know what this says about the online audience," he laughed. "The answer is no, I don't think that [is] a good strategy." Obama's cynical rebuff was short-sighted and disrespectful to a large percentage of his supporters. After all, was it not this very same "online audience" that donated heavily to Obama's Presidential campaign and ultimately carried him to the White House? Second, as I've written previously in The Hill and elsewhere, the overwhelming popularity of the marijuana law reform issue -- as manifested in this and in other similar forums -- illustrates that there is a significant, vocal, and identifiable segment of our society that wants to see an end to America's archaic and overly punitive marijuana laws. The Obama administration should be embracing this constituency, not mocking it. Third, will somebody please ask the President: "What is it that you think is so funny about the subject of marijuana law reform?" Since 1965, police have arrested over 20 million Americans for violating marijuana laws, yet nearly 90 percent of teenagers say that pot is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to obtain. That's funny? According to this very administration, there is an unprecedented level of violence occurring at the Mexico/US border -- much of which is allegedly caused by the trafficking of marijuana to the United States by drug cartels. America's stringent enforcement of pot prohibition, which artificially inflates black market pot prices and ensures that only criminal enterprises will be involved in the production and sale of this commodity, is helping to fuel this violence. Wow, funny stuff! Finally, two recent polls indicate that a strong majority of regional voters support ending marijuana prohibition and treating the drug's sale, use, and distribution like alcohol. A February 2009 Zogby telephone poll reported that nearly six out of ten of voters on the west coast think that cannabis should be "taxed and legally regulated like alcohol and cigarettes." A just-released California Field Poll reports similar results, finding that 58 percent of statewide votes believe that regulations for cannabis should be the same or less strict than those for alcohol. Does the President really think that all of these voters are worthy of his ridicule? Let the White House laugh for now, but the public knows that this issue is no laughing matter. This week alone, legislators in Illinois , Minnesota , and New Hampshire voted to legalize the use of marijuana for authorized individuals. Politicians in three additional states heard testimony this week in favor of eliminating criminal penalties for all adults who possess and use cannabis. And lawmakers in Massachusetts and California are now debating legally regulating marijuana outright. The American public is ready and willing to engage in a serious and objective political debate regarding the merits of legalizing the use of cannabis by adults. And all over this nation, whether Capitol Hill wants to acknowledge it or not, they are engaging in this debate as we speak. Sorry, Obama -- this time the joke's on you. More on Economy
 
Greg Mitchell: Most Amazing Jim Cramer Clip Yet: He Calls Andrew Cuomo a 'Genuine Communist' Top
Somehow Jon Stewart missed perhaps the most damning Jim Cramer of all from the CNBC archives. A truly embarrassing, and revealing, video has been posted on YouTube for well over a year, showing Cramer railing against New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for his early mortgage crackdowns, including going after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, he calls "this guy" Cuomo a "genuine Communist." He gesticulates wildly and practically screams throughout the clip, posted by the Business and Media Institute at businessandmedia.org in November 2007. Cuomo had just delivered subpoenas to Fannie and Freddie calling on them to review their appraisals and mortgages with Washington Mutual. Fannie and Freddie later became insolvent--and WaMu went under. So Cuomo looks pretty damn good today. Yet the video finds Cramer starting by calling Cuomo the most powerful guy on The Street and "most important man in America" just then - but he means this "negatively" and is "tired of it." He goes on to argue: "Cuomo's about confiscation -- genuine communist...The Chinese are capitalists, we got a communist." He hits him for holding up sales of more houses still on market. "Can I give you the real headline? Cuomo says, let's make it harder to get a mortgage, let's make it harder to lend.....Is this really the intent of this Democrat who wants to be president of the universe?... Well thank you Mr. Cuomo....Who is this guy? Did you vote for him? ....Cuomo, wow. "This guy is going to shut down the mortgage market." He calls him "General Cuomo." And : "Cuomo is about losing money." The host at least pushes back a bit. And she says Cuomo has been invited on but has not yet accepted. Cramer says, "Come on, he would walk a mile for a camera." The New York Times' City Room blog has just linked to the video, meaning more exposure to come. Greg Mitchell's latest book is "Why Obama Won." He is editor of Editor & Publisher. More on Jim Cramer
 
Charlotte Hilton Andersen: Rihanna's Got a Gun: What Her New Tattoos Mean Top
Rihanna - she of the battered by Chris Brown fame (What? She's a singer too??) - recently got some new ink done : Lots of people are questioning the aesthetics of the tiny tattoos but even more are asking what it all means. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's pretty obvious. She was recently victimized, both by her boyfriend and then by the press, and now she's sporting permanent guns, an overt symbol of power and violence. Let's not over analyze this. What is interesting to me is the different ways that victims use to regain their equilibrium after an assault. For me, the real question is, how will Rihanna ever feel safe again? The immediate answer that most people give to that question is to pursue legal action and put your attacker behind bars where presumably he can no longer hurt you or anyone else and also runs a risk of being assaulted himself - punishment and revenge in one neat rap of the gavel. I can tell you that it doesn't work that way . For one thing, court cases are not immediate. Chris Brown is not currently in custody despite a substantial body of evidence against him. It may happen. It may not. Either way it doesn't provide immediate safety. Another problem with the court-as-protection argument is that once a person is victimized, they feel vulnerable on all fronts. It helps if their particular attacker is removed from their vicinity but it doesn't preclude an attack by someone else. One of the tools that abusers often use is to put the blame on the victim. I remember the very first thing my boyfriend said to me after he sexually assaulted me: "Do you see what you made me do?" He then went on to say how I was complicit in my own assault (despite being asleep when he started) and how he was really upset about it and that I shouldn't let this happen again. When I weakly protested, he threatened to kill me and kill himself. I accepted his rationalization. I can't really explain it except to say that a) it is quite common for victims to accept the blame and b) I was doing what I thought was the safest thing at the time - I just wanted to get out of that car alive. This trick of having the victim take responsibility for the assault is insidious in that the victim then internalizes it as being something they did wrong. And logically, if we did it wrong once, we could do it wrong again and therefore be open to future assaults. It worked like a charm on me. Another way, very popular in Hollywood, for victims to find a sense of safety is to learn how to protect themselves. Martial arts, learning to shoot, self-defense, and even hiring a bodyguard are popular leading-lady options. This works. But it works a lot faster in the movies. As I am discovering through my own study of karate, it takes a really really long time to get enough skill to withstand a determined attack. It definitely feels good to be doing something proactive to protect myself and gain confidence in my body but right now, as my Sensei pointed out to me, I'm probably more a threat to myself than anyone else. Not to mention that skills learned in a classroom setting are much more difficult to apply in real life, Kill Bill notwithstanding. A third way that victims seek safety is by comparing their situation with others. I went through a period of time where I was so obsessed with watching movies and shows, talking to other victims and reading books and articles about rape, domestic violence and assault that to the casual observer it must've looked as if I were in the throes of a very strange fetish. All this information was a two-edged sword though. If the situation were radically different from mine - say the victim was a child - then I felt safer. However, and this happened far more often, if there were similarities between her and me, then I felt even more vulnerable with my new awareness of all the "could haves" and "might happens" out there. Law and Order: SVU was the bane of my existence. I couldn't not watch it. And then I wouldn't be able to sleep without nightmares for days afterward. Eventually this urge dies down but it never quite goes away. It's the what-if game. The last and least glamorous, although probably the most common way that victims seek safety is talk therapy of some kind. This helps, too, although it also takes a long time. No matter which tactic the victim employs, however, this constant mental replaying of the assault (which is both reflexive and retraumatizing) often leads victims to change themselves or their situation in some meaningful way. Some of us move or change jobs or cut our hair. Others lose weight or gain weight. Change our style of dress. Alter our daily schedule. Avoid public transportation or friends houses or walking late at night. Refuse to talk about it. Won't shut up about it. Start drinking. Quit drinking. And some of us get tattoos of guns. Some alterations are more effective than others in actually providing protection but every single one of them sends a message: I'm taking my power back. I'm doing something. I'm going to tell you the truth. It's been 10 years since my assault and abusive relationship and I still don't feel entirely safe. A homeless man approached me in a dark parking lot recently and before he could even ask me for money, I had burst into hysterical tears - the panic overtaking me in a way that I am still ashamed of. It's one of my greatest frustrations in my karate training now is that every time we learn a new move, I silently think "This wouldn't have worked. This wouldn't have saved me then." And yet I am too untrained and too afraid to learn the moves that would have saved me. Unless nothing would have. And that's the crux of it for me. I will always wonder if there was nothing I could have done to prevent what happened. What if what I did was really the best thing to do in the situation? But I can't allow myself to think that because that would mean that my assault was inevitable. And if I couldn't have protected myself then then how can I hope to prevent it from happening again? I think I'll get a tattoo of a gun. More on Chris Brown & Rihanna
 
Andrew Sullivan: Obama's Pot Answer "Pathetic" Top
The chuckle suggests a man of his generation. The dismissiveness toward the question of ending Prohibition as both a good in itself and a form of tax revenue is, however, depressing.
 
Fargo Red River Flooding: Level Tops Historic Marker, Undermines Dike Top
FARGO, N.D. — The Red River rose to a daunting 112-year high early Friday and breached one of the dikes fortifying the city, but the mayor pledged to "go down swinging" as he called for more evacuations and additional National Guard troops to prevent a devastating flood. The river swelled to 40.32 feet _ more than 22 feet above flood stage and inches more than the previous high water mark of 40.1 feet set in 1897. It was expected to crest as high as 43 feet on Saturday. Fargo's main dike protects the city at the 43-foot level. Fargo Mayor Dennis Walaker says the city has no plans to build the dike any higher. He says officials believe the Red River will crest at between 41.5 and 42 feet, and there wasn't time to raise the dike again. "We're not going to proceed to take it to 44. Is that a gamble? We don't think so," Walaker said. Walaker says they are adding 800 members of the guard from North Dakota and South Dakota to patrol dikes for breaches, on top of the 900 troops already in place. Officials asked people to stay off of roads to keep streets clear for sandbag trucks and avoid traffic jams that have been plaguing the area. Authorities in Fargo and across the river in Moorhead, Minn., expanded evacuations Friday across several blocks of their cities. Officials said 400 people had been evacuated in Fargo. Sen. Byron Dorgan also said that Northwest Airlines was sending two jetliners to move patients from hospitals to safer areas. Just after 2 a.m. Friday, residents in one neighborhood were roused from sleep and ordered to evacuate after authorities found a leak in a dike. The leak left the integrity of the dike in question, police Capt. Tod Dahle said. "It's not like there's a wall of water going through," he said. "It's just a significant leak." Fargo spokeswoman Karena Lunday said it was the only overnight breech and crews would start patching it Friday morning. "We want to go down swinging if we go down," Walaker said. The American Red Cross planned to send another 150 people to the North Dakota flood zone to operate emergency shelters. They will join the 85 such volunteers already working in Grand Forks, Bismarck, Fargo and Moorhead, Minn. Spokeswoman Courtney Johnson said Friday it's not necessarily a sign that the Red Cross is expecting a disaster. "No one living has ever seen something like this," she said. "We preach preparedness. We can't not be prepared." Residents in this city of 92,000 had been scrambling in subfreezing temperatures to pile sandbags along the river and spent much of Thursday preparing for a crest of 41 feet, only to have forecasters late in the day add up to 2 feet to their estimate. The National Weather Service said in its follow-up statement that the Red was expected to crest between 41 and 42 feet by Saturday, but could reach 43 feet. It said water levels could remain high for three days to a week. The first estimate sparked urgency among thousands of volunteers in Fargo. The second shook their spirits. "I've lived here 40 years and over a 30-minute span I've reached a point where I'm preparing to evacuate and expect never to sleep in my house again," said Tim Corwin, 55, whose south Fargo home was sheltered by sandbags to 43 feet. But the sandbag-making operation at the Fargodome churned as furiously as ever, sending fresh bags out to an estimated 6,000 volunteers who endured temperatures below 20 degrees in the race to sandbag. "I was skeptical as far as volunteers coming out today, but they're like mailmen," said Leon Schlafmann, Fargo's emergency management director. "They come out rain, sleet or shine." Several unusual factors sent the Red River surging to historic heights this year. The winter was unusually cold and snowy, which left a large snowpack sitting on top of frozen ground that couldn't absorb it. Then a warm snap and heavy rain quickly melted the snow and sent it into toward the river. And it all happened to a river that flows north. When most rivers in the United States melt, they send the extra water south toward warmer, open water. When the Red breaks up, it sends hunks of ice north into colder water that is often still frozen. Officials ordered the evacuation of another Fargo neighborhood and a nursing home late Thursday after authorities found cracks in an earthen levee. Residents were not in immediate danger, and water wasn't flowing over the levee, Walaker said. Still, officers went door to door to the roughly 40 homes in the River Vili neighborhood and were evacuating Riverview Estates nursing home. Authorities also asked the 1,000 residents who live between the main dikes and the backup dikes in various parts of the city to leave within 24 hours. That evacuation could become mandatory. Authorities across the river in Moorhead, also stepped up evacuations Thursday. The city of about 35,000 recommended that residents leave the southwest corner of the city and a low-lying township to the north where some homes had already flooded. Fargo's largest hospital and at least four nursing homes also moved residents. "A few of them said they didn't want to go. I said I'm going where the crowd goes," said 98-year-old Margaret "Dolly" Beaucage, who clasped rosary beads as she waited to leave Elim Care Center. "I'm a swimmer," she said, smiling, "but not that good a swimmer." In rural areas south of Fargo, crews were rescuing stranded residents. Pat Connor of the Cass County sheriff's department said 70 people had been rescued by Thursday evening, and he expected that number to grow. The federal government announced a disaster declaration Thursday for seven Minnesota counties. The entire state of North Dakota had received a disaster designation earlier in the week. On the Canadian side of the northern-flowing Red River, ice-clogged culverts, ice jams and the rising river threatened Manitoba residents. Several homes were evacuated north of Winnipeg and several dozen houses were flooded. "We're in for probably the worst two weeks that this community has ever seen in its entire existence," St. Clements Mayor Steve Strang said. The Red River crest threatening North Dakota isn't expected to arrive in Manitoba for another week. ___ On the Net: Red River at Fargo water levels: http://sn.im/enwgc More on Extreme Weather
 
Ali A. Rizvi: Religious Fundamentalism Spreads... Beyond Islam Top
In the same week that Hindu fundamentalists obliterated plans to build a Charlie Chaplin statue, on the grounds that Chaplin was a Christian who made no contribution to India, video clips of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Varun Gandhi surfaced online, showing him glorifyingly speaking of "cutting the throats" of Muslims, and mocking their "scary" names. Meanwhile, the Hindu nationalist group Sri Ram Sena vowed to continue its attacks on women drinking in bars and couples courting in public -- expanding their target population to include female British tourists in the city of Goa. In the Varun Gandhi videos, Hindu extremist groups like the Taliban-inspired anti-statue, anti-woman Sri Ram Sena may feel as if they've found a high-profile voice: Varun is the grandson of late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and the great-grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, a declared secularist and atheist who couldn't have been more removed from his descendant's crazed religion-fueled nationalist diatribes. It isn't just the Hindus. Mere days after ending the controversy over his lifting of the excommunication of Holocaust denier and 9/11 conspiracy theorist Bishop Richard Williamson, Pope Benedict XVI decided to elaborate further on his view that abstinence works 100% of the time as a birth control method (right, ask The Virgin Mary how well that worked for her) by declaring that the use of condoms aggravates the spread of HIV/AIDS. Now, the Pope has publicly pulled several other Ahmedinejads in the past. He has written that homosexuality is an "intrinsic moral evil" and an "objective disorder." He has also claimed that non-Catholics are in a "gravely deficient situation," without the "fullness of the means of salvation." Most recently, the Vatican declared its support for the Brazilian Church's decision to excommunicate of a group of doctors who performed an abortion on a 9-year old girl -- pregnant with twins -- as a result of being raped by her stepfather. The Pope's homophobia and bigoted statements about non-Catholics who don't necessarily think Jesus is their savior aren't all that different from Varun Gandhi's Muslim-bashing -- which, in turn, isn't all that different from the sentiments that fuel the ideology of the Taliban. There are millions of people in the world who think that way. However, these two examples are unique: one of these men is the most significant spiritual and religious leader in the world, and the other belongs to a family that gave the world's largest democracy three of its most legendary prime ministers, including its first. So, is Talibanization going mainstream? To religions beyond Islam? Well, we know that the Catholic authorities aren't throwing acid on teenage girls' faces like the Taliban do. That, actually, is something that Jerusalem's Jewish Haredi Modesty Patrol did to a 14 year old girl last year. Her crime? Wearing pants. In the same week as the Pope's condom controversy and Varun's inflammatory videos made news, a member of the Modesty Patrol was sentenced to four years in prison in a separate incident -- a sexual gang assault on a divorced woman. Although it's tempting to dismiss these incidents as aberrations, religious extremism and bigotry do seem to be going mainstream in Israel. On the same day that the Modesty Patrol mercenary was sentenced, news broke that Avigdor Lieberman, the right-wing hardliner whose Israel Beiteinu party had a strong showing in Israel's recent elections, is in consideration as Israel's next foreign minister. Lieberman is a man who has, among other things, openly advocated the expulsion of Israeli Arabs from the Promised Land, and offered to provide buses to transport Palestinian prisoners to the Dead Sea, where he has recommended drowning them. More disturbingly, Lieberman suggested in 2006 that Israel should conduct itself in Gaza like Russia did in Chechnya, that is, without any concern for civilian deaths. This moves the issue beyond the realm of aberrant extremist ideology, not only because Lieberman is now a prominent leader in the Knesset possibly destined to become Israel's foreign minister, but because his suggestion was put into practice in a significant way during Israel's recent offensive in Gaza. In last week's investigation into the Israel-Gaza conflict, IDF soldiers talked about how they were encouraged to kill Palestinian civilians. They also described how the assault was framed as a religious war by military rabbis, who distributed literature to the troops saying among other things that this was a holy war, that "we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land" and that they needed to "fight to expel the Gentiles who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land." Somehow, Israeli authorities appear to be drawing inspiration -- like Hamas -- from the likes of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Taliban. Meantime, the Adiv fabric-printing shop in south Tel Aviv sold hundreds of T-shirts, caps, and other items of clothing custom-made for Israel soldiers, featuring pictures of dead children and bombed mosques. Included was one of a dead baby clutching his teddy bear, his mother weeping at his side, bearing the inscription, "Better Use Durex." In Canada, a different aspect of religious fundamentalism surfaced last week, when Federal Science and Technology Minister Gary Goodyear, a central figure in the controversy over the science funding crunch in the country, was asked whether he believed in evolution. He refused to answer. "I'm not going to answer that question," he said. "I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate." The Pope, I'm guessing, would have been a little more unequivocal in his response. These events, most of which occurred in the span of one week, are reflective of a dangerous resurgence of religious fundamentalism in non-Islamic countries. The most perplexing part of it is that it isn't just limited to a few seemingly random incidents fueled by fringe extremist groups. The characters in these stories -- the Pope, a member of India's Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, a powerful Knesset leader, and a Canadian federal minister -- are influential, mainstream figures whose ideas and decisions impact the lives of billions of people every day. In the early days after 9/11, a lot of false dichotomies were created in an attempt to place the attacks in some sort of context. It was said that terrorism has no place in Islam. That it is not religion, but the "cultural distortion" and "misinterpretation" of it that's the problem. That Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism. That Sharia law has nothing to do with Islam. That all religions preach love and peace. Unfortunately for the apologists, people who couldn't reconcile these assertions with the events they were witnessing around the world found it easier to see through them than ever before. The Torah, Bible, Quran, and other ancient religious scriptures are easily available online in their entirety, complete with translations in multiple languages, by multiple translators, supplemented with commentary. Easy -- and searchable -- access to these these texts has opened them up to intense scrutiny, and the anonymity-driven confrontation-friendly forum provided by the internet has resulted in unprecedented, taboo-shattering, critical discussions on their contents. One consequence of this is that religious people who believe that the scripture of their respective faith is truly the word of God -- the majority of whom only selectively familiar with it -- have found reinforcement for their beliefs. For example, it isn't difficult to sell the idea of a holy war to Israeli soldiers when passages from the Torah such as Shmot 23:31-33 instruct them to drive non-Jewish inhabitants out of the land promised to them by God himself (described in detail as "from the Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines"), and to "make no covenant with them." This gives some hefty, divine weight to Avigdor Lieberman's arguments, and shatters the misconception that Zionism is merely the "politicization" of Judaism. While the religious Jewish community has remained adherent to these scriptural accounts of the Promised Land, it has, for the most part, been quick to brush aside other passages from the Torah that advocate, for instance, death by stoning for everything from not being a virgin on your wedding night (Devarim 22:20-21) to blasphemy (Vayikra 24:16). Interestingly, stoning people to death is a practice associated more widely with Islamic law, probably because it is still practiced widely in many parts of the Muslim world. This is not without reason: while not explicitly mentioned in the Quran, stoning is widely accepted as punishment for sins such as adultery in the hadith (traditions of the prophet Muhammad). Also, even though the majority of Muslims are horrified by the idea of child marriage or domestic violence, both of these practices have strong footing in Islamic history and scripture, and it would be naive to dismiss them simply as "cultural distortions." By almost all accounts, Muhammad did take a nine year old bride as his eleventh wife; and beating your wife if you "fear disobedience" is permitted in Islamic scripture (Quran, verse 4:34). Other concepts like armed jihad against infidels (9:5) and resistance against Christians and Jews (5:51) are also present in the Quran. The Christian Bible, which recognizes the five books of the Torah as the Old Testament, forms the basis for the beliefs of Pope Benedict XVI and evangelists like Pat Robertson about issues like homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13). And the aggression against women practiced by Indian extremist groups such as Sri Ram Sena has its roots in the sacred Hindu text Manu Smriti , which purportedly contains the word of Brahma, the god of creation, and allows men to have virtually complete, unfettered authority over women. While this renewed interest in scripture has affirmed the beliefs of many, giving legitimacy to their extremist leanings and possibly even radicalizing them, it has also allowed skeptics, rationalists, and even some moderately religious people to question that which was previously unquestionable. Many who believed that it wasn't religion at fault but the people who "misinterpret" it, are beginning to ask whether it might actually be the other way around. And they're speaking out. How do you condemn the occupation of Palestinian lands and still defend the Bible or Torah -- which command it explicitly as an instruction from God -- as sacred books? Can you denounce a 47 year old Yemeni man's marriage to an 8 year old girl while you defend the prophet Muhammad's child marriage with an even wider age difference? If you speak out against the Torah/Old Testament-endorsed execution of gay men and stoning of non-virginal single women, does that make you anti-Semitic? Or a "Christophobe"? Questions like this, which would easily have made one an outcast in the recent past -- or worse, invited a death fatwa -- are now being asked more frequently and more loudly. Most of the response to these completely legitimate and important questions has come in the form of ad hominem accusations of religious bigotry directed at the questioners, taking offense, and hurt feelings. Flawed terms like "Islamophobia" and "Christophobia" have emerged, and accusations of anti-Semitism are being flung around so loosely that the phrase is in danger of losing its deserved significance. And this is where a fundamental distinction needs to be made. Hating Jews, Muslims, or Christians for what they believe is clearly wrong. Criticizing the belief systems themselves , however, is not. Human beings have rights. Cultures, religions, and ideological belief systems do not. This basic concept was sadly lost on the United Nations when it passed a non-binding anti-blasphemy resolution last year, curtailing any criticism of religious belief. The resolution, brought forth by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), is a massive impediment in the fight against human rights abuses carried out under systems such as Islamic Sharia law. Rational, reasonable people worldwide are rightly outraged by this move to put ideology before human beings. There is now a push by the OIC, a group of 57 Muslim countries, to make the resolution a binding one. But this isn't a one way street. Will Arab and Muslim countries still be able to criticize the Torah-supported Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory under the same legislation? Or is Islam finally losing its long-held monopoly on fundamentalism? More on Palestinian Territories
 
Adam Green: NBC's David Gregory Says: You're Stupid Top
It's incredible. Just as 20,000 viewers signed an open letter to CNBC telling them to listen to Jon Stewart and hold Wall Street accountable instead of mindlessly repeating Wall Street talking points, NBC doubled down. This morning, Meet The Press host David Gregory repeated what CNBC's Erin Burnett has been saying all along: The public is ignorant. If only the simpleton public understood what the Wall Street "experts" understand, we wouldn't be so populist and angry. See for yourself: In these economic times, NBC needs to stop blaming the public and instead focus like a laser on holding Wall Street accountable. David Gregory, instead of calling the public stupid, how about saying on the air that there are, in fact, no "best and brightest" at AIG worth giving bonuses to if they threaten to leave? That being said, CNBC is still the center of the fight to get the media to do their job. If they truly start holding Wall Street's feet to the fire, and debunking absurd talking points put out there by the supposed "experts," that will have ripple effects throughout NBC and the entire financial news industry. You can join leading economists, journalists, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and over 20,000 members of the public in signing the open letter to CNBC here . More on NBC
 
What If Your iPod Shuffle Could Say What It Really Thought? (VIDEO) Top
The new iPod shuffle talks to you. If you sync it with a Mac you get a male voice telling you what song, artist, playlist you're listening to, if you sync with a PC you get a female voice. Gizmodo assistant editor Adam Frucci obviously has a Mac and hipsterish taste in music that his iPod doesn't appreciate. As he walks the streets of Brooklyn listening to Animal Collective and Sonic Youth, his shuffle asks if his haircut comes with these songs and tells his PBR-drinking owner that he no longer has a say in what comes out of his earbuds. The video, from UCB Comedy, comes with a surprise ending, but more shocking is how well they were able to match the robotic-yet-soothing tones of the shuffle guy's voice. WATCH: (Via Buzzfeed) More on Funny Videos
 
Marianne Schnall: Jane Fonda on Joining the Blogosphere Top
Communicating with Jane Fonda Not content merely to speak to her Broadway audience eight times a week through a critically acclaimed performance, Jane Fonda is blogging daily and twittering nightly. She finds herself hooked on the instant feedback. In her memoir, My Life So Far (Random House, 2005), Jane Fonda reveals how it wasn't until age 60, after many life lessons in what she calls her "third act," that she felt she discovered her voice. Now that she has it, she is determined to find meaningful ways to use it, through the many channels that she finds opening up to her. Ironically, Fonda was in the process of writing her next book on aging for Random House, when playwright Moises Kaufman sent her the script for a play called 33 Variations . Fonda had just been writing about how many renowned artists like Matisse and Beethoven did some of their best work later in life, and the part Kaufman was offering to her was an American musicologist who becomes obsessed with why Beethoven, in his later years, was driven to write 33 variations on a waltz by Anton Diabelli. Fonda, who loved the script, took it as a sign, and returned to Broadway after 46 years to star in the play, currently performing to rave reviews and standing ovations. In addition to acting in plays and films that inspire her and working on her next book, Fonda has also been drawn to some of the newer media outlets emerging -- no surprise since media has long been one of her interests; she is a co-founder (with Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan) of the Women's Media Center. Fonda, who had been slow to join the Internet and had only googled for the very first time last year, decided to launch a blog and her own web site , in large part to "show you can teach an old dog new tricks." Explains Fonda, "I had just turned 71. It was the start of a new year, and I was going to Broadway after 46 years. I thought it would be interesting to keep a daily journal to take folks through the process -- the good and the bad, the ups and the downs." She adds, "It has been fun." It has been fun for her visitors as well, who get exclusive access to personal photos and backstage details of interactions with famous friends like Gloria Steinem, Robert Redford and Lily Tomlin, as well as personal musings about whether or not to read her reviews, having to perform while sick, the ritual of her daily nap, the times she felt unsure of herself and the moments when it all clicked in. Her blog has been flooded by supportive comments from friends and fans, including those who have just seen the show. Asked what she likes best about entering the blogosphere, she answers, "Keeping a record and getting feedback." Fonda has even taken to the latest craze of twittering lately, delivering live tweets during intermission about who is at the show, or when her dog ran out on stage during a curtain call. She already has close to 9,000 "followers" on twitter. Asked whether she is feeling hip and with it these days, she answers, "You betcha." Her blog, which is candid and revealing, can at times feel like her autobiography, but as Fonda points out, the process is very different. "My memoir was far deeper and more detailed. I do the blog very quickly...five minutes a day maybe." Fonda sees both benefits and parallels through being able to communicate different aspects of herself on all these levels -- artistically through the play, and literally through writing her blog. Says Fonda, "It's immediate audience feedback and immediate blogosphere feedback. Oddly, I think it helps me be present in the moment." In addition to chronicling her experience doing the play, Fonda also has been using her site to promote organizations such as V-Day , the Women’s Media Center , the Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention , The Jane Fonda Center at Emory University , and the Sisterhood is Global Institute -- all causes dear to her heart. The site includes an Activist section and a section titled "Matters that Move Me." Visitors are also treated to a slide show of photos from her past and present, as well as videos, and sections like "Family and Friends" and "Ask Jane." I ask her what her goals are for the site. "It's too soon to say anything definitive about my website 'goals,'" she responds. "There are many interesting aspects to my life and I thought I might as well expose them -- my non-profit involvements, activism, as well as my professional matters, my books and videos." She is thinking of how the site might develop in the future. "I may do another video to go with my book on aging--'maybe' being the operative word. But if I do, a website is a good way to sell them, and books." People have already begun pitching her on other innovative uses for the site. "Someone suggested that I sell canvas bags with my 1971 mug shot on them as a way to raise money for my non-profits. Maybe from this post I will hear from folks if they think this is a good idea or not. I'm kind of learning as I go and the feedback I get will help inform my decision about whether or not to continue blogging after the play." As it goes, time itself may tell. "I am planning two films this year and there are interesting adventures in the future so there may be reasons to continue writing about what's happening. If I feel I don't have anything worthwhile to write about then I will stop." Asked whether she is enjoying herself with all her many activities and media outlets, she answers, "Frankly, I have never been happier. I won't go into the details of this happiness because I'm writing a book about it, but it is something. It's like all the strands of my life are coming together." This article originally appeared at The Women's Media Center . Visit Jane Fonda's web site at http://www.janefonda.com . For information on 33 Variations , visit http://www.33Variations.com . More on Twitter
 
Marcia G. Yerman: Taking the Wraps Off Condoms Top
In 1564, renowned Italian physician Gabriele Falloppio wrote about the syphilis epidemic of 1490, documenting the use of condoms. In those days, condoms were sheaths made of linen that had been treated with chemicals. Method of application...they were tied on to the male appendage with a ribbon. Condoms have come a long way. Currently, a mother-daughter team is doing their part to promote women being pro-active about their own health and sexuality. Marsha G. Bartenetti and Rachael Sudul have developed a condom carrier that doubles as a mirrored compact. What looks to be a simple and attractive makeup accessory, serves a greater purpose. A hidden well contains two 2" x 2" condom foils. Bartenetti lives in Los Angeles. A singer and an established voice-over artist, she envisioned her product years before "the face of AIDS" was a reality. Her next-door neighbor was Carl Djarassi, a pioneer in the development of the birth control pill. He believed that the condom was one of the best forms of preventing pregnancy. She shared her idea with him, but didn't move forward on the concept until 2005 when she decided, "It's time. Let's do it." She used her savings from her successful career to launch Just in Case . Bartenetti has created a family company with Sudul, a 37-year-old mother of two who lives in Lafayette, Louisiana. Drawing on Sudul's background in the cosmetics industry, they are on a mission to revolutionize the way women think. Speaking with both women via telephone, it's clear that they come to this issue with equal passion, but different sensibilities. Bartenetti recognizes the generation of women who were "trained not to say anything" when it came to advocating for themselves. "Women have to set the standard," Bartenetti emphasized, explaining her belief that "women are afraid to ask." She is clear on the philosophy that "I care about myself" is a necessary and appropriate point of view for a modern woman's sexual mindset. Giving women the compact and self-assurance to say, "That's the way I like it" is interwoven with the company's branding of "Love Well. Love Wisely." On the information card that comes with the packaging is their registered tag line, " ...protection never had such style ." Sudul's input into the conversation reflects an attitude informed by a list of statistics she rattles off. "One in four teens has STDs; HIV/AIDS is the foremost cause of death for young black women in our country; unwanted births are contributing to poverty." She is plain spoken when she states, "Our daughters are in trouble. We have to see what is happening in our own backyards." She reiterates, "We are in big trouble when you have young girls that don't think blow jobs are sex." Sudul confirms that there is information "out there" - but insists that it is not yet impacting behaviors. Data bears out her opinion. An August 2008 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) relates that females accounted for 27 per cent of new HIV infections in 2006. In a breakdown along age lines, the study showed that the 13-39 demographic had 9,130 of the 14,410 new infections; women 40-49 comprised 3,640; women 50 plus made up the remainder at 1,640. In a New York Times article (3/16/09) entitled " A Rise in Sexually Transmitted Diseases ," graphs presented what was characterized as "a growing health problem." Teenage girls (15-19) were shown to be at a far higher rate of infection than boys from gonorrhea, and at a precipitously higher rate of chlamydia. Dr. Stuart Berman of the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions (CDC) was quoted about the efficacy of condoms, saying, " Condoms are a very good way to reduce the risk of getting infections. If you use them all the time, and use them correctly, they work." On March 18th, Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America , commented on the CDC teen birth rate report saying, "With nearly 750,000 teens getting pregnant every year, the United States is facing a teen pregnancy health care crisis. Bartenetti and Sudul are working to create a "paradigm shift" with "Just in Case." Entering the dialogue with the goal of building a trend to "change behavior," they said, "We are redefining beauty to include sexual health." They see their product as a fashion accessory and a "confidence builder." Sudul references it as "something that's cool." The duo won a special 2006 Award for Originality at the International Package Design Award show, where competitors included Estée Lauder and Revlon. The compacts start at $24.95 for the classic design, which comes in a variety of colors. There is a custom made compact studded with Swarovski crystals that retails at $199.00. The subtext is, "Take responsibility and value yourself." Sudul puts it more bluntly asserting, "Unprotected sex equals Russian Roulette." The company has made giving back to the community an integral part of their business plan, by donating a percentage of their profits to AIDS organizations and women's health charities. They designed a special edition compact in partnership with YouthAIDS , where 10% of the proceeds benefited the educational program of Population Services International. With the compacts spreading out to more boutiques and retail outlets, hopefully women of all ages will take ownership of the need to integrate non-negotiable safe sex into their lives. Then women will be changing the statistics...one condom at a time. This article originally appeared at Empowher - Women's Health Online Technorati Profile More on HIV/AIDS
 
Amb. Marc Ginsberg: AF"Lack" -- NATO's AWOL Allies in Afghanistan Top
Watching President Obama unveil his well-constructed Obama Doctrine for Afghanistan and Pakistan this morning, it is all too clear from his message that the safety of Europeans is as much on the line as the safety of Americans as events in Afghanistan unfold. But you wouldn't know it given how many NATO members are AWOL in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda and other extremists are able to replicate the Afghanistan sanctuaries of pre 2001, I dare so (and so just did President Obama) no European capital would be immune from renewed plotting and planning by Osama Bin Laden and his extremist allies. But you wouldn't know it if you hung around NATO's Brussels headquarters very long. Based on the number of "red cards" and, conditions, and caveats that NATO members have placed in the way of developing a unified, cohesive strategy to reverse a losing struggle against extremists in Afghanistan, Americans have reason to wonder whether NATO can adapt to 21st century challenges, rather than pat itself on the back for surviving the 20th century challenges it overcome. Shortly, President Obama will travel to Europe to attend ceremonies commemorating the 60th anniversary of NATO, which will be hosted by France and Germany. In a gesture designed to rebuild trans- Atlantic ties, President Nicholas Sarkozy will lead France back into full NATO membership. That is all well for the good, and as a strong proponent of NATO, I believe that France's reintegration into NATO's command structure is a good sign. However, with all the hoopla attendant with the festivities, NATO's future and it ability to prove its utility as an alliance is fundamentally linked to the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. On the eve of the NATO 60th Summit, Americans have good reasons to be disappointed by the indifference many European leaders have displayed to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. Undoubtedly, this is one of the legacies of Euro-resentment generated against the Bush Administration's follies in Iraq. But there is a new U.S. president, and a new more determined and cohensive Taliban about to unleash a new Spring offsensive against NATO forces in Afghanistan. There are 26 members in NATO, but the brunt of the effort in Afghanistan is being borne principally by the United States, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark. That leaves, by my count, more or less 21 NATO members happily enjoying the benefits of NATO membership without shouldering the front line burden in Afghanistan. Our 21 good NATO friends are fair weather spectators, if that. Ironically, the two major NATO nations hosting the 60th anniversary Summit -- German and France -- are the very two NATO members most at fault for undermining NATO's ability to reverse the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. The Germans have stayed conveniently on the sidelines in a perpetual "Ocktoberfest" mode in northern Afghanistan -- a region as far away from the fighting as they can get deploying their right to flag a "national exception" -- self-imposed restrictions on the conditions of their deployment. Every intelligence report on the subject indicates that Al Qaeda operatives make no distinction between a New York or a Berlin, just because Germany is pretending it is not in the fight in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda. I single Germany out in particular because of all beneficiaries of NATO's longevity, Germans owe more to NATO than any other nation. Germany's charade toward Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is no longer defensible and Americans have good reason to be more than annoyed at Berlin as the President unveils a well-constructed and integrated approach to the "AFPAK" crisis. Perhaps Chancellor Angela Merkel will muster the necessary political courage in the days ahead to meet President Obama's challenge and get out of the foxhole once and for all and rejoin NATO on the frontlines in Afghanistan. If Germany leads, the other 20 sideliners may follow. If she has to go in front of the German people and make the case once and for all, I'll help her write her script. In the name of our troops in Afghanistan, I'll do whatever it takes to get the Germans to meet our president halfway. The Germans are not the only rubberneckers. Despite the warming of relations with Washington, the French, too, have red-carded the use of NATO surveillance aircraft needed to better target Al Qaeda. Why? They refuse to permit NATO to spend the money necessary to deploy the aircraft to Afghanistan. That has hampered NATO's mission, as well. Mon Dieu. Even if Paris is not willing to put more ground troops into Afghanistan, at least don't make it harder for other NATO allies shouldering the fighting. President Obama's remarks this morning highlighted how quickly and seamlessly his national security team was able to construct a commendably hard and soft power approach to the AFPAK crisis. The "Euro"phoria over Obama's election provides good political capital for NATO's European leaders to translate renewed trans-Atlantic friendship into an appropriate, effective and constructive response to the Obama Doctrineby convincing Europeans they have as much at stake as Americans do in the future stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan. More on Germany
 
Norquist: Specter's EFCA Opposition A Major Step To Republican Resurrection Top
Sen. Arlen Specter's early opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act could serve as an influential pivot point by which Republicans can reclaim electoral prominence, one of the GOP's chief strategists told the Huffington Post. Earlier this week, the Pennsylvania Republican surprised labor and business officials alike when he announced that he would oppose the union-backed legislation. The decision was a major setback for the labor community, which viewed Specter as the best chance for the GOP defection needed to achieve a filibuster-proof 60 votes. The Senator had voted for cloture on EFCA in 2007. Republicans, not surprisingly, were elated. And in the hours following Specter's pronouncement, the man who broke the news, Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist, predicted that it would have long-term political ramifications. "This is the second important shoe to drop in the campaign to take back the Senate and House," Norquist told the Huffington Post. "The first was when everyone stood together on the stimulus in the House... [The Employee Free Choice Act] is the law that, if changed, would make it difficult for the Republicans to compete nationally. It is changing the rules. It announces that, from now on, my football team [in this case, Democrats backed by labor money] will start with 20 points. It is possible to win in that scenario but it is much more difficult to see that happening." As Norquist sees it, passage of EFCA would have led -- per the law's design -- to easier avenues by which unions could organize. That, in turn, would have caused a consolidation of money and organization around labor-backed candidates. All of which may be true. But such a prognostication, union officials contend, misses another important dynamic. Labor has not shied away from backing Republican candidates in the past, notably Specter in his 2004 primary and George Pataki during his gubernatorial races in New York. By coming out united against the Employee Free Choice Act, the GOP is casting its lot, even more than in the past, with business over labor. And the numbers in that equation are tilted decidedly towards the latter. "I think the Republican Party has gotten tugged so far to the right because of the base and it is tough for everybody right now," AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told the Huffington Post Friday morning. "There aren't any Rockefeller Republicans left, if you will. There are very few of them. And those that are there are continually threatened and bludgeoned and told that they will have to get in line with the far right or they will be taken out, whether it is in a primary or general election. So it is difficult to look at the Party right now. They haven't come up with any ideas recently that have distinguished them." As for Specter, Trumka insisted that there was still wiggle room to win his vote: "I really don't know what happened to him because he was an original co-sponsor. He voted for cloture a couple times. The reason he gave was a canard at best because the Employee Free Choice Act does not take away the right to a secret ballot. It changes who gets to exercise that right... We were very, very disappointed in [Specter's decision]. And I guess it will shake out. We will find out why he did what he did and what he is willing to do. He left the door open, and we will see."
 
Stephen Zunes: The Budget's Foreign Policy Handcuffs Top
Hopes that a Democratic administration with an expanded Democratic congressional majority might lead to a more ethical, rational, and progressive foreign policy were challenged with last week's passage of the 2009 omnibus budget bill , which included many troubling provisions regarding the State Department and related diplomatic functions. In the House of Representatives, all but two dozen Democrats supported and all but 20 Republicans opposed the bill. It passed the Senate by voice vote, believed to have been mostly divided by strict party lines. While the Obama administration had little to do with putting the bill together and seemed willing to wait to put its imprint on the budget for the 2010 fiscal year, it was nevertheless disturbing that the new president didn't challenge the inclusion of segments of the legislation that seemed to be designed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, and other Democratic congressional leaders to undercut his authority to pursue a different Middle East policy than his predecessor. Most notably, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders refused calls for conditioning U.S. military aid to Israel, Egypt, and other countries in the region on their adherence to internationally recognized human rights standards. In addition, in reaction to the United Nations Human Rights Council raising concerns about human rights abuses by Israel and other U.S. allies in the region, Pelosi's bill bars the use of any U.S. funds to be appropriated as part of the annual contribution of UN member states to support the Council's work. Also problematic is that — while Congressional Democrats formally dropped their longstanding opposition to Palestinian statehood in the 1990s (in contrast to President Barack Obama, who has supported Palestinian statehood since his days as a student activist in the early 1980s) — the Democratic-sponsored appropriations bill contains a series of measures which appear to be designed to prevent the emergence of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel. Fueling the Arms Race Challenging the widespread consensus by arms control specialists and other observers that the Middle East already has too many armaments, Pelosi and the Democrats have clearly determined that, in their view, the region doesn't have enough armaments and that the United States must continue its role as supplier of most of the region's weaponry. As teachers, librarians, social workers, health care professionals, and other Americans are losing their jobs due to a lack of public funding, the Democrats' appropriation bill pours billions of dollars' worth of taxpayer funding into sophisticated weapons for both Israel and neighboring Arab states. And, with his signature, it appears Obama agrees with these distorted priorities. Pelosi and the Democrats made clear their outright rejection of recent calls by Amnesty International and other human rights groups to suspend U.S. military aid to Israel in response to the use of U.S. weapons in war crimes during the assault on the Gaza Strip in January, instead siding with the former Bush administration in allocating $2.5 billion of unconditional military aid to the Israeli government this fiscal year. Rather than being directed toward counterterrorism or other defensive measures, the bill stipulates that funds will be used for the procurement of advanced weapons systems, roughly three-quarters of which will be purchased from American arms manufacturers. An additional $1.3 billion in foreign military financing is earmarked for the Egyptian dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak, $235 million for the autocratic monarchy in Jordan, $58 million for Lebanon, and $12 million for the repressive regime in Tunisia. The only other country specifically targeted for military aid in this legislation is Colombia, which will receive $53 million. While last year's appropriations bill blocked Egypt from access to part of its military aid until it had taken clear and measurable steps to "adopt and implement judicial reforms that protect the independence of the judiciary" and "review criminal procedures and train police leadership in modern policing to curb police abuses," such provisions were removed from this year's bill, yet another indication of the Democratic majority's lack of concern for human rights. Sabotaging a Palestinian Unity Government As European governments and others, recognizing that some kind of government of national unity between Fatah and the more moderate elements of Hamas is necessary for the peace process to move forward, Pelosi and her colleagues are attempting to sabotage such efforts. This year's appropriations bill prohibits any support for "any power-sharing government" in Palestine "of which Hamas is a member," unless Hamas unilaterally agrees to "recognize Israel, renounce violence, disarm, and accept prior agreements, including the Roadmap." By contrast, there are no such provisions restricting the billions of dollars of aid to the emerging coalition government in Israel, which includes far right parties that have likewise refused to recognize Palestine, renounce violence, support the disarming of allied settler militias, or accept prior agreements, including the roadmap. In short, to Pelosi and other Democratic congressional leaders, Palestinians simply do not have equal rights to Israelis in terms of statehood, security, or international obligations. The Democrats are willing to sabotage any Palestinian government that dares include — even as a minority in a broad coalition — any hard-line anti-Israeli party, yet they have no problems whatsoever in pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into supporting an Israeli government dominated by hard-line anti-Palestinian parties. There's a word for such double-standards: racism. Other Anti-Palestinian Provisions Migration and refugee assistance are other areas where the anti-Palestinian bias of Pelosi and other Democratic leaders becomes apparent. There are dozens of countries in which the United Nations, assisted in part through U.S. aid, is involved in relief operations, including those dealing with Rwandans, Kurds, Congolese, Afghans, Iraqis, Somalis, and other refugee populations from which terrorist groups operate or have operated in the recent past. However, Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have determined that it's among Palestinian refugees alone that the State Department is required to work with the UN and host governments "to develop a strategy for identifying individuals known to have engaged in terrorist activities." Pelosi's bill stipulates that not less than $30 million in funds for migration and refugee assistance should be made available for refugee resettlement in Israel. None of the other 192 recognized states in the world are specifically earmarked to receive this kind of funding, which is normally made available on assessment of humanitarian need. In recent years, successive Israeli governments have encouraged immigrants to live in subsidized Jewish-only settlements, illegally constructed on confiscated land in the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights, in violation of a series of UN Security Council resolutions and a landmark advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. The inclusion of this funding is widely interpreted as an effort by Pelosi and other Democratic lawmakers to encourage further Israeli colonization in occupied Palestinian and Syrian territory so as to decrease the likelihood of a peace settlement. Only $75 million in aid is allocated to the West Bank and none of it is allocated to the Palestinian Authority itself. In contrast, annual U.S. economic assistance to Israel (which doesn't include the billions in military aid) goes directly to the Israeli government and has usually totaled more than 15 times that amount, even though the per-capita income of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is less than one-twentieth that of Israeli Jews. Pelosi's bill contains lengthy and detailed conditions and restrictions on programs in the West Bank, with extensive vetting, reporting, and auditing requirements required for no other place in the world. This year's bill adds requirements that all funds are subjected to the regular notification procedures, also an unprecedented requirement. There are also a number of other stipulations not found for any other nations, such as the provision banning any assistance to the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation. Despite all the additional administrative costs such restrictions require, the bill caps administrative expenses at $2 million; no such limitations exist involving aid to any other nation. The Democrats' goal appears to be to make it all the more difficult for Palestinians — already suffering under U.S.-backed Israeli sieges — to meet even their most basic needs for health care, education, housing, and economic development. Roadblocks for Palestinian Statehood Though the United States remains the world's number one military, economic, and diplomatic supporter of repressive Middle Eastern governments — including absolute monarchies, military juntas, and occupation armies — the appropriations bill includes language insisting that the "governing entity" of Palestine "should enact a constitution assuring the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and respect for human rights for its citizens, and should enact other laws and regulations assuring transparent and accountable governance." No such language exists in regard to any other nation. There are also provisions blocking U.S. support for a Palestinian state unless it meets a long list of criteria regarding perceived Israeli security needs. Again, no such conditions exist for any other nation in terms of its right to exist. One target of Pelosi and other Democratic leaders is the Palestinians' desire to regain the Arab-populated sections of East Jerusalem, which have been under Israeli military occupation since 1967. In addition to its religious significance for both Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Muslims, Jerusalem has long been the most important cultural, commercial, political, and educational center for Palestinians and has the largest Palestinian population of any city in the world. Given the city's significance to both populations, any sustainable peace agreement would need to recognize Jerusalem as the capital city for both Israel and Palestine. In an apparent effort to delegitimize any Palestinian claims to their occupied capital, however, Pelosi's bill prohibits any "meetings between officers and employees of the United States and officials of the Palestinian Authority, or any successor Palestinian governing entity" in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem "for the purpose of conducting official United States Government business with such authority." Even if the Israelis do agree to end their occupation of Arab East Jerusalem, Pelosi and the Democrats have inserted language that no funds could be used to create any new U.S. government offices in Jerusalem that would interact with the Palestinian Authority or any successor Palestinian government entity. Nuclear Nonproliferation Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues continue to pursue nonproliferation based on ideological litmus tests rather than universal law-based principles. For example, the bill requires that any assistance to Russia be withheld until the Russian government has "terminated implementation of arrangements to provide Iran with technical expertise, training, technology, or equipment necessary to develop a nuclear reactor, related nuclear research facilities or programs, or ballistic missile capability." However, there are no such restrictions on the United States itself continuing its nuclear cooperation with India, despite India's maintaining and expanding its nuclear weapons arsenal in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1172, nor are there any objections included regarding ongoing U.S. ballistic missile development with Israel, despite Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal and its ongoing violation of UN Security Council Resolution 487. The appropriations bill stipulates that the United States will support the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency — which successfully dismantled Iraq's nuclear program in the early 1990s — "only if the Secretary of State determines (and so reports to the Congress) that Israel is not being denied its right to participate in the activities of that Agency." This appears to be an effort to prevent one of the means by which the United Nations could conceivably pressure Israel into ending its ongoing violation of Resolution 487, which calls on Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the trusteeship of the IAEA. There are no other countries whose potential exclusion from the IAEA would jeopardize U.S. funding. Moving Forward It should also be noted that there were a number of positive changes to the FY2009 budget impacting the Middle East. Language that required the State Department to designate the birthplace of U.S. citizens born in Israeli-occupied parts of greater East Jerusalem as "Israel" — thereby effectively recognizing Israel's illegal annexation of Palestinian territory — was dropped. There was also a new segment in the bill directing the Secretary of State to report on Moroccan suppression of human rights in the occupied Western Sahara. Most significant is a provision banning nearly all cluster-bomb exports to Israel and other Middle Eastern countries, an initiative which had been defeated during the last session of Congress thanks to near-unanimous Republican opposition, as well as negative votes from such leading Democratic senators as Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Obama — who, in contrast, voted in favor of the resolution — apparently helped to insure the inclusion of this provision in the bill, which has been applauded by human rights groups. Meanwhile, a number of additional anti-Palestinian amendments introduced from the floor by Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) were voted down after vigorous lobbying by Americans for Peace Now and other liberal groups. Nevertheless, it's disappointing that so many other right-wing provisions involving the Middle East were included in the omnibus spending bill, particularly since this year's appropriations were put together by a Congress with the largest Democratic majority in decades. It will be President Obama, and not the Democratic-controlled Congress, who will ultimately determine the direction of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere in the coming years. Unfortunately, even assuming the best of intentions by a president who came to office in large part due to popular dissatisfaction with the direction of U.S. policy in the region, he won't be able to fundamentally change the direction of that policy if Congress continues to pursue policies supporting militarization, occupation, and repression. More on Obama's Budget
 
Biden Pens Op-Ed To Latin America Top
Vice President Biden is currently in Chile for the Progressive Governance Summit, where he will meet with Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Spanish President Zapatero, Brazilian President da Silva and Argentine President Fernandez. As part of his diplomatic effort, the vice president penned an op-ed, titled "A New Day for Partnership in the America", that appeared in 11 newspapers and three languages throughout Latin America. Here is the press release with the English version: March 27, 2009 A New Day for Partnership in the Americas By Vice President Joe Biden Next month, President Obama will travel to Trinidad and Tobago to meet his colleagues from across the Western Hemisphere at the Summit of the Americas. In advance of that historic meeting, I am traveling to Central and South America to consult with Latin American leaders gathered in Chile and Costa Rica about the Summit and the challenges faced by the people of the Americas. These meetings are an important first step toward a new day in relations and building partnerships with and among the countries and people of the Hemisphere. The President and I understand that only by working together can our countries overcome the challenges we face. Today, we are more than just independent nations who happen to be on the same side of the globe. In today's interconnected world, we are all neighbors who face many common concerns. The current global economic crisis has touched virtually all of us--every country, every community, every family. Citizens everywhere are searching for answers, looking for hope--and turning to their leaders to provide them. It is our duty as global partners to heed their calls, to together forge a shared solution to a common problem. Our Administration is taking several steps to make this happen. Our Congress has approved the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is designed to promote job creation and to set a course for growth for the next generation. The President has proposed a budget designed to set a foundation for the economy of the future, with important investments in health care, education, and energy. And we are working with our partners in the G-20, who meet next week in London, on a coordinated plan to ensure recovery and restart growth, and to reform the international regulatory and supervisory system to ensure that no such crisis occurs again. Rekindling the U.S. economy and ensuring that international financial institutions serve the interests of the people are particularly important for the Americas. Our economic interconnection means that a robust U.S. economy is good for the hemisphere and can become an engine for bottom up economic growth and equality throughout the region. The economy isn't the only challenge requiring our cooperation. We also face dual challenges of security - both for our countries and for the individuals who inhabit them. Our countries are plagued by gang violence and the illegal trafficking of weapons and narcotics. In the United States, we need to do more to reduce demand for illicit drugs and stem the flow of weapons and bulk cash south across our borders. We applaud Mexico's courageous stand against violent drug cartels, as well as Colombia's anti-drug efforts, but we know that they will have the side effect of pushing traffickers into Central America. We will build on the Meridá Initiative - started last year under President Bush - to assist Mexico and the Central American nations in a joint effort to confront that threat head-on. The drug trade is a problem we all share and one whose ultimate solution we must devise together. Consistent with the Inter-American Democratic Charter, we must also focus on building and encouraging strong democracies, where basic fairness, social equality, and a deep respect for human rights and the rule of law are the guiding principles of everything we do. Democracy is about more than elections; it's about strong, transparent governance and a thriving civil society. It is also about addressing as effectively as possible the challenges of poverty, inequality and social exclusion We recognize that the United States is still striving to meet its constitutional goal of forming a "more perfect union" and that we have, in the past, fallen short of our own ideals. But we pledge every day to honor the values that animate our democracy, and to lead by example. This is why, on his third day in office, the President ordered the closure of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Finally, we all face the threat to our planet posed by the changing climate, and, so, we share the need to develop clean energy sources to combat--and reverse--this critical threat. The President and I are deeply committed to leading in the development of an urgent and coordinated response to climate change. Working as partners, we must harness the potential of green energy in a way that protects our planet for future generations, while also catalyzing economic growth for the generations of today. As we face these threats and as we confront the most serious economic crisis in generations, the countries of the Hemisphere must look forward. And we must work together, as partners, to give our citizens hope that brighter days lie ahead. More on Latin America
 
Cloud Computing Safety: Understanding The Risks Top
All the data that make up our lives seem to be heading for the clouds. From photos on Flickr (YHOO) to memos on Google Docs, we are entrusting more and more to computers in giant data centers--a model called cloud computing. It's certainly convenient to have access to our stuff wherever we are and on whatever device we choose. But is it safe? Yes, if you exercise reasonable care. The major providers of Web-based services have generally established an enviable record as stewards of their customers' data. Still, there are perils--just as there are with clouds of the atmospheric variety. A little thought and prudence may save you grief down the road.
 
iTunes Price Hike To $1.29 For Hottest Songs Top
The world's largest music store, Apple's iTunes, plans to boost the price of many hit singles and selected classic tracks to $1.29 on April 7, breaking the psychological barrier of 99 cents in what could be the first big test of how much consumers are willing to pay to download individual songs. Although the date for higher prices has not been publicly announced, Apple has been notifying record labels it will go into effect on that date, industry executives said.
 
Marlene H. Phillips: McCain Emails Supporters for Money, Vows to 'Guide Our Nation out of the Current Economic Crisis' Top
Arizona Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain emailed supporters yesterday asking for a 'generous contribution' towards his campaign to seek another term in the U.S. Senate. The email was peppered with criticism directed at the current president and the current Congress but offered no alternative ideas. In the ten-sentence request for money, McCain borrowed heavily from the phrasebook used during his unsuccessful run at the White House. The Arizona Republican used the term 'fiscal responsibility' twice, twice mentioned 'reforming Washington,' and spoke of "continuing my service" in two concurrent sentences. The email is addressed: "My friend." McCain, who said during the presidential campaign that he "doesn't understand economics," lashed out at the economic plans being formulated by his former opponent: "The Obama administration, along with the current Democratic-led Congress is spending your tax dollars at an unprecedented rate -- as I have said, committing generational theft." In contrast, McCain casts himself as the embodiment of fiscal prudence: "I am committed to continuing my service as your voice in Congress for a stronger economy and fiscal responsibility to guide our nation out of the current economic crisis." Despite his own involvement in the savings and loan scandal, as one of the so-called Keating Five (a Phoenix columnist once called him "The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five"), McCain pledges to stand for "fiscal responsibility and reform in Washington." Three links embedded in the email all lead to a donation form. There are no links to information regarding McCain's ideas for solving the current economic crisis. The email concludes with an expression of appreciation, for "your support and dedication to our cause of reforming Washington." More on John McCain
 
Pope Condom Saga: Facebook Groups Rise Up Against The Vatican Top
 

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)