Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Jake Whitney: Dambisa Moyo and Why Western Aid is Killing Africa Top
This post has been cross-posted at guernicamag.com . Take the poorest region in the world, where 70 percent of the people live in poverty, 25 million have HIV/AIDS, a child dies every 30 seconds from Malaria, more than half the countries are run by non-democratic regimes, which has had eleven civil wars and two instances of genocide in the past 15 years, and you help it by...making it poorer?? The debate over how best to help Africa pull itself out of the debilitating poverty, corruption and disease it has been mired in for decades has been dominated -- in recent years, anyway -- by white, middle-aged male Westerners. Most of us are familiar with Bono's courting of world leaders in drawing attention to the crisis, Bob Geldof's Live Aid benefit concerts, and Bill Gates' efforts -- through The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation -- to eradicate malaria, which kills more Africans every year than AIDS. Celebrities like these have occupied center stage in the debate, and their argument has been simple and loud: send more aid! Commendable, to be sure, and commonsensical on the face of it: Africans have scraps; we have a cornucopia -- let's help them. But is it working? A new voice has boomed across the stage and it's embodied by someone who is not white, male, middle-aged, from the West, or even a celebrity (yet). Dambisa Moyo is a thirty-something Zambian-born economist who was educated at Harvard and Oxford, and who has held stints for the World Bank and Goldman Sachs. Her first book, Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way for Africa, released on March 3, is attracting notice for its starkly contrarian plea not to increase aid, but to stop it. Moyo's argument goes like this. Systematic aid increases corruption, destroys accountability and inhibits entrepreneurship. It fosters laziness in governments and citizens, encourages "reckless consumption" instead of investment in the domestic infrastructure, and foments conflict -- even civil wars -- because warring factions are intoxicated by the prospect of gaining access to all that free cash. In addition to killing the aid program -- she suggests a five-year fade out -- Moyo would prescribe free-market policies such as delving into the capital markets, creative finance such as micro-finance, and attracting new direct investors, such as China. I interviewed Moyo for Guernica Magazine (the interview will appear at www.guernicamag.com in the April 1st edition), and over the course of three conversations, she was invariably polite, articulate, passionate, and accommodating (so accommodating, in fact, that when I mistakenly phoned an hour early and caught her in a meeting, she apologized profusely because she couldn't speak at that very moment: "Is it okay if we speak in an hour? Are you sure? I'm sorry, I hate to do this..."). Moyo repeatedly told me that her book should not be viewed as controversial - in fact, she said, most Africans agree that her proposals are just common sense. She calls it "somewhat bizarre" that in light of the strong evidence that aid doesn't work, many in the West continue to push for more. But is her solution tenable? In Dead Aid, Moyo has a chapter titled "The Chinese Are Our Friends," in which she holds up China -- which invested $900 million in 2004 alone -- as a sought-after business partner, while the "Western liberal consensus" is scolded for believing "(often in the most paternalistic way) it is their responsibility to look after Africa." But China's investment in the continent comes at a price. The Chinese, for example, have undercut other investors because they can offer more attractive deals since they don't worry about human rights or environmental factors. And as we've seen in Sudan, their oil lust causes them to support governments that slaughter their own people. Is this really what she wants? "In the very narrow prism of economic development, I think it is better for the Chinese to be in Africa," she says, though she acknowledges it's not an altruistic presence: "China's goal is to develop China and to raise the living standards of the Chinese people; fortunately, there are benefits for Africa." She admits that the Chinese are "not perfect," but she asserts that it should be up to Africans, not the West, to keep them in line. Ultimately, "Are Africans getting jobs and improving their lives because of the Chinese presence? Overall, the answer is yes." If there was a tense moment in our conversations, it was during our discussion of China. In Dead Aid, Moyo says China is out to conquer Africa with money instead of arms. I asked her that if this were true, would it really be better for Africa to have China's money controlling it instead of the West's? Moyo: "...Some of the worst despots across Africa have been under the ostensible reign of Western interests. Mugabe, for example, and [Former President] Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire, or Idi Amin; the continent is riddled with these people in historical lore. The Chinese have created jobs; they've built roads. The West has failed to do that in 60 years in Africa." Me: "But they've also helped prop up a regime in Sudan that's engaged in genocide." Moyo (as if there were periods after the first three words): "As I said, it's not perfect. However, we shouldn't be pointing fingers after the list of despots I just mentioned..." To Moyo, the jobs outweigh the abuses. Another of Moyo's controversial assertions is that the West's attempts to use aid to cultivate democracy have been misguided. That is because democracy should not viewed as a prerequisite for a good economy. Instead, the opposite is true: a good economy must set the stage for democracy, and there needs to be a middle class before you can even think about having a genuine, liberal democracy. "When the people are impoverished and the governments are relying on aid, the middle class does not exist. And there is no one to hold the government accountable." That accountability comes, she says, only when the people are paying taxes. When governments don't rely on taxes for revenue, leaders don't feel they owe their people anything, and the people don't expect anything from their leaders. This opens the door to corruption. And despite ostensible "conditionalities" on aid, in reality the money flows with virtually no strings attached, so corrupt leaders eschew much-needed infrastructure projects and instead partake in reckless consumption, or what Moyo dubs "negative corruption" -- stealing the money and giving it to their wives for shopping sprees in London, or stashing it in foreign bank accounts where it does nothing to help the country. But is cutting off aid to corrupt leaders really going to make them less corrupt? No, Moyo says, but it will destroy their governments. She offered Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe, as an example. If aid to a despot like Mugabe were cut, he'd have to rely on taxes for revenue. If he pilfered the taxes as he did aid, the people would get fed up and stop paying them. With no money to support the army or a civil service, his government would collapse. Yes, it was possible, she acknowledges, that a tyrant like Mugabe would fight to the end, perhaps borrow money from a friendly dictator or some such, and that mass bloodshed could be the price. But, she points out, Mugabe was sent $300 million in aid in 2006 alone. "Where is he going to get $300 million? Aid organizations are the main reason he's still in power." To Moyo, if there is a controversial thread in her book, it is her discussion of why aid continues to flow despite the mounds of evidence that show it's actually detrimental. During our initial conversation, she told me the story of an American who said to her, "'If you ever see something that doesn't look logical, just follow the money.'" She then added, "The fact that we're seeing such a ridiculous system in place, it's important to follow the money and see who's benefiting." Who was she referring to? I asked in a follow-up email. At first she demurred, saying that she didn't want to stir up controversy, so perhaps we could just omit those comments. I persisted. She replied by mentioning an "aid industry" composed of 500,000 people, mainly in the West, and she pointed me to a section in Dead Aid where she asserts that if aid stopped flowing the budgets of the aid industry would be cut and all those Westerners would lose jobs. In our final conversation, she elaborated: The World Bank can only survive if it's spending money...We've reached a very low-level equilibrium where it's not clear whose interest it is in to develop Africa...It's not in the interest of those in the aid industry to develop Africa because then there'd be no more industry and 500,000 people would lose their jobs. The only people whose interest it is in is Africans, but they have no voice. More on Africa
 
Stuart Whatley: The Double-Standardization Of Double Standards Top
The administration's plan for the now-defunct American auto industry giants General Motors (GM) and Chrysler LLC is to enter a "surgical" structured bankruptcy, whereby the bad, fattening "cream" is skimmed off, leaving only the good, leaner remnants behind. In the case of GM, the hope is that a standalone "good" company will remain (call it Skim GM), whereas for Chrysler, the "good" remains are encouraged to join with Italy's charitable Fiat SpA. (It is generally agreed that GM has received the better deal, and some have even written off Chrysler altogether as being destined for oblivion.) So the Saturn, Hummer and others will go the way of the Oldsmobile, Wagoner/Wagoneer and the Dodo , while what proves more staple and profitable, like say a Cadillac, gets to stick around a little longer. It comes as no surprise that this plan for an Automobile Purgatory has duly raised the specter of double-standardization. As the Washington Post 's Eugene Robinson, who's dubbed it "Detroit Dissonance" , writes, "The president is telling Detroit to shape up or die while at the same time politely asking Wall Street, whose recklessness and greed caused this economic crisis, if it would be so kind as to accept another heaping helping of taxpayer funds." Likewise, as David Sirota writes on this site , "There is clearly a double standard at work: Just a few days ago, Wall Street executives were hosted at the White House for a cheery photo op and reassurance that they will be getting hundreds of billions more in no-strings-attached bailout cash. Then this week, Obama demanded the firing of GM's CEO, and said he may withhold the mere $30 billion or so that the automakers are requesting." Robinson and Sirota's call-outs are appropriate, and should be duly noted by policymakers (surely they are). But, in this double standard revelation, what is surprising is that anyone is actually surprised. Surely there is nothing new about double standards in business and finance, especially in the current crisis. In fact, there may even be a rising double standard for what constitutes a double standard. The double-standardization in approaches to the current crisis of course began most notably with the failure of Lehman Brothers in September, under Paulson and Bush. The result of that administration putting its foot down was an economic cataclysm of sorts. Cries immediately arose from some, namely Lehman Brothers, that the Bush administration was guilty of using a double standard, given the government's precedent for largesse in the case of AIG and Bear Stearns. As children learn early on in life when picking kickball teams, life isn't fair. While GM and Chrysler wail lamentably about the dissonance between Detroit and Wall Street's treatments, Ford Motor Co. now has its own complaints about the possibly advantageous treatment of GM. Honestly, who wouldn't want a "surgical" bankruptcy to cut out the "bad" and come out leaner, meaner and more competitive than ever? -- all after devouring billions in government bail out funds. For everyone who draws a short straw, there is someone somewhere else drawing an even shorter one. As Gettelfinger and the United Auto Workers (UAW) cry 'double standard!' and 'we've given up enough!', non-union American autoworkers working for foreign firms elsewhere in the US point out that they have for decades been paid less and enjoyed less benefits than their UAW counterparts. So who's the victim of a double standard, the GM and Chrysler workers getting stiffed now or the Toyota workers who never had the same perks to lose in the first place? It's a clash of irreconcilable perceptions, which is no doubt an endless cycle. One hopes and prays that Wall Street boneheads will eventually get their comeuppance, but it's beginning to seem like complaining of double standards in the business world is analogous to whining about the smell on a fishing boat. Ironically, many problems in the financial and business system are the result of double standards, namely non-bank entities like GE Capital who engage in banking practices without being subject to due regulation and oversight. Clearly these dilettante enterprises must be reined-in and accounted for under the same oversight umbrella as everyone else. However, restructuring such a vast and complex system surely cannot be done in one fell swoop without catastrophic side effects. It presumably will require a piecemeal approach that will inherently result in unequal treatment for various entities -- much to the chagrin of whoever first draws the shorter straw. In an undertaking as massive as restructuring the entire financial system or American automaker business model, one must start somewhere. And whoever avoids initial scrutiny and regulation will be seen as enjoying the better end of an unjust double standard -- so the cries will grow shriller. The big question is, can systemic restructuring really happen without double standard treatment along the way? This is a question I daresay I should leave to the experts. But those who feel victimized by double standard treatment now might do well to remember that time they didn't get picked by either team in kickball. Sure it's not fair, but given the current situation, there will probably be a lot more of said unfairness to come. More on Economy
 
Dan Agin: A Warning: Cumulative Lead Exposure and Cognitive Deficits in Older Women Top
Thanks to our several generations of stupidity and neglect, the most persistent and dangerous environmental hazard in America is still lead poisoning. Our usual attention is on damage to fetuses and children, but now comes an important public health study that tells us with hard evidence that cumulative lead exposure at ordinary community levels is associated with significant cognitive decline in older women (Weuve et al. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2009. 117(4):574-580). The authors of the study (17 people at Harvard University, University of Michigan, and Rush University Medical Center in Chicago) are unequivocal in their conclusion: "These findings suggest that cumulative exposure to lead, even at low levels experienced in community settings, may have adverse consequence for women's cognition in older age." The study involved measurements of both bone lead and blood lead levels in 587 women 47 to 74 years of age. Bone lead (patella and tibia lead in this study) is essentially a measure of cumulative exposure, while blood lead is essentially a measure of recent exposure. The difference in measures is due to the fact that most lead sooner or later is sequestered in bone, where it accumulates, and from where it's later released as a doppelganger for calcium. When lead gets into the brain, early or late, it's a powerful neurotoxin in very low concentrations. Ten years were spent in cognitive assessments of the women in this study. The authors are established investigators in their field, and the results need to be taken seriously by the public. The important correlations in this study are with tibia bone lead. Concerning the magnitude of the cognitive deficits, the authors state: "The average decrement in cognitive test scores we observed for each standard deviation increase in tibia lead corresponded to the decrement in scores we observed for each 3-year increase in age among women in our study." In plain language: the more lead in your bones, the faster your cognitive decline. This is the first study of its kind specific to women. Women typically have lower lead exposures than men, but this study shows that even among women, cumulative lead exposure may adversely affect cognitive function. Impaired cognitive function is a strong risk factor for dementia--and women have a higher lifetime risk of developing dementia. It's true that lead levels in the environment have fallen drastically in the past several decades, but older adults have been accumulating lead in their bones for many years, and if and when the lead in bone is released by metabolism in old age, the brain will be poisoned. The authors point out that regulatory intervention and consequent widespread reductions in lead exposure "could have a substantial impact on the burden of cognitive impairment in the population." This is science. In science you base your conclusions on the facts and observations at hand, with the reservation that tomorrow you may need to change your mind when new facts and new observations suddenly appear. Meanwhile, unregulated contamination of our environment continues to rot your brain and the brains of your children. We do need some changes in our attitudes.
 
Ford's US Sales Drop 41 Percent In March Top
DETROIT — Ford Motor Co. says its March sales in the U.S. fell 41 percent from a year earlier as low consumer confidence and job uncertainty continued to keep buyers away from showrooms. The Dearborn-based automaker says it sold about 131,000 light vehicles, compared with about 222,000 in March 2008. Other automakers plan to report their results later Wednesday. Analysts expect the industry's overall sales to show little improvement from February, even though Edmunds.com reports automakers' average incentive spending hit a record high last month. In an effort to boost sales, Ford announced its "Advantage Program" Monday. It will pay customers' monthly payments _ up to $700 _ for a year if they lose their jobs.
 
The Progress Report: The New Af-Pak Strategy Top
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, Ryan Powers, and Matt Duss To receive The Progress Report in your email inbox everyday, click here . Last Friday, President Obama announced his new plan for Afghanistan, in which he will add 4,000 more troops -- in addition to the 17,000 announced in February -- to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" the al Qaeda network in Afghanistan and Pakistan "and to prevent their return to either country in the future." The new troops will focus on training and augmenting Afghanistan's police and military, with the goal of increasing the size of the Afghan army from 83,000 to 134,000 by 2011. The result of an intense process of policy review launched by the president immediately upon taking office, the plan represents a significant shift in America's perception of national security. Rather than focusing efforts solely on the military side of the conflict, the President's new policy also adds hundreds of civilian advisers -- including experts in agriculture, education, and law -- who will "concentrate on improving life for ordinary Afghans." Additionally, the plan includes an increased regional focus, recognizing that stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan cannot be obtained without the consultation and cooperation of other countries in the region. MAKING UP FOR LOST TIME: For years, the war in Afghanistan has been a casualty of the war in Iraq. By diverting troops and resources to Iraq, the Bush administration allowed the Taliban to re-establish themselves in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas, and Afghanistan steadily collapsed back into insurgent warfare. Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) stated yesterday, "[W]e have under-resourced Afghanistan for too long, we took our eye off the ball when we went into Iraq. All of our resources were devoted to that effort." Having failed to complete the mission in Afghanistan, the Bush administration handed the new president a war that promises to be as difficult and costly as Iraq has been. The number of Afghan civilian deaths "jumped by almost 40 percent over a one-year period, according to a United Nations survey, from 1,500 in 2007 to more than 2,000 in 2008." As with his choice of George Mitchell as special envoy to the Israeli-Arab peace process, President Obama signaled early on his intention to make Afghanistan one of his administration's highest priorities by appointing skilled diplomat Richard Holbrooke as special envoy to the conflict. THE CHALLENGE OF PAKISTAN: According to Brian Katulis and Peter Juul of the Center for American Progress, the President's Pakistan strategy "represents an even starker shift from the Bush administration's policies." By including both Afghanistan and Pakistan in Holbrooke's portfolio, the President's new policy acknowledges that dealing with instability in Afghanistan requires attention to growing instability in neighboring Pakistan, where the Taliban and al Qaeda currently have sanctuary. Pakistan faces a serious challenge from domestic religious extremists, who have carried out a number of attacks in recent weeks, including an attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore in early March, and a spectacular raid on a police station earlier this week. Commenting on the policy review process, journalist Steve Coll wrote that "for the first time in decades, the entire American foreign policy and national security system -- the uniformed military, the State Department, the N.S.C. -- really bore down on the problem of Pakistan, in all of its daunting complexity." Katulis and Juul wrote that "the Obama administration has rightly chosen to view the militancy problem in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single, unified challenge that can only be solved through coordinated action in both countries." AN OPENING TO IRAN?: Yesterday, delegates from 70 nations gathered in The Hague to discuss reconstruction in Afghanistan, and the ways that NATO and other international partners could contribute to greater stability there. One notable participant was Afghanistan's neighbor Iran. On the sidelines of the conference, Ambassador Holbrooke conversed briefly with Iranian deputy foreign minister Mohammad Mehdi Akhondzade, the highest-level contact between the United States and Iran in nearly four decades. Though Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had no contact with Iranian representatives, she told reporters that "the United States handed the Iranian delegation a letter requesting its intercession in the cases of two American citizens who are being held in Iran and another who is missing." It is thought possible that securing cooperation with Iran in an area of mutual interest -- stability in Afghanistan -- may provide an opening for broader negotiations in the future, something Obama has made clear that he would like to undertake. As he indicated while a presidential candidate, Obama's new approach to the conflict in Afghanistan is an attempt to bring all elements of U.S. power to bear upon America's national security challenges. More on Foreign Policy
 
Governors Control Stimulus Money, White House Says Top
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has released the first round of school dollars from the economic stimulus package. Education Secretary Arne Duncan made the announcement Wednesday at Doswell Brooks Elementary School in the Maryland suburbs, just outside of Washington. The administration made available half of the dollars for federal programs that fund kindergarten through 12th grade and special education. In addition, Duncan will provide applications for states to get money from a special fund to stabilize state and local budgets. President Barack Obama says the stimulus law will save teachers' jobs, although there is no estimate of how many jobs will be rescued. Nationwide, about 294,000 teachers _ 9 percent _ may face layoffs because of state budget cuts. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. WASHINGTON (AP) _ The first round of school dollars from the economic stimulus law is going to states this week. To mark the occasion, Education Secretary Arne Duncan on Wednesday is visiting first- and fifth-grade classes at Doswell Brooks Elementary School in Capitol Heights in the Maryland suburbs of Washington. Public schools will get an unprecedented amount of money _ double the education budget under President George W. Bush _ from the stimulus law over the next two years. On Wednesday, the administration is making available half of the dollars for federal programs that fund kindergarten through 12th grade and special education. In addition, Duncan will provide applications for states to get money from a special fund to stabilize state and local budgets. President Barack Obama says the stimulus will save teachers' jobs, although there is no estimate of how many jobs will be rescued. Nationwide, about 294,000 teachers _ 9 percent _ may face layoffs because of state budget cuts, according to a University of Washington study. However, loopholes created by Congress could let states and school districts spend the money on other things, such as playground equipment or new construction. The White House has stymied efforts by lawmakers in South Carolina to accept that state's share of $48.6 billion made available under the stimulus law to help states cope with their budgets and keep teachers employed. South Carolina Republican Gov. Mark Sanford has said he may decline more than $700 million because the White House won't let him spend the money to pay down his state's debt. In a letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the White House said there was no provision in the stimulus law for a state legislature to accept that money without approval by the governor. In its letter, obtained by The Associated Press, the White House Office of Management Budget urged Congress to change the law. "It would be an unfortunate (and we believe an unintended) policy outcome if the children of South Carolina were to be deprived of their share of federal stimulus dollars ... because the governor chooses not to apply for stimulus funds," OMB Director Peter Orszag wrote Tuesday. Duncan said last week he will "come down like a ton of bricks" and withhold the second round of funds from anyone who defies Obama's wishes. At the same time, the administration wants to do more than save teachers' jobs. Obama wants to transform the federal government's role in education. His administration views the stimulus bill as a once-in-a-lifetime chance to put lasting reforms in place. In their applications, states must show improvement in teacher quality, data systems, academic standards and tests and supporting struggling schools. States and districts will also have a chance to compete for money from a $5 billion fund solely for these kinds of innovations. Previous education secretaries had a fraction of that, about $16 million a year, to distribute for their own priorities. ___ Associated Press Writer Jim Davenport contributed to this story from Columbia, S.C. More on Sarah Palin
 
Romney: Obama Could Bring Olympics To Chicago, But It Won't Make Money Top
Former Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney today touted Democratic President Barack Obama as someone who is key in bringing the 2016 Summer Olympic Games to Chicago. More on Olympics
 
The Healing Power Of Comfort And Compassion Top
I never really got to know the young woman. I met her during my third-year psychiatry rotation, when our team was consulted for concerns about depression. Privacy rules won't allow me to use her name (where possible, I've gotten consent from the others involved in this story). She was terminally ill, sick not just with the disease but with all the complications of its treatment, and confined to bed in the intensive care unit. By the time I met her she could barely speak. Her face was a vacant yellow moon, and her sparse, colorless hair sprawled tangled and sweat-soaked across her pillow. What I did come to know of her was through her boyfriend, Josh. They had been together since middle school and had stayed together even as the rest of her life fell apart. More on The Inner Life
 
Bill Donius: The Workplace: Culture of Inclusion vs. Culture of Exclusion: What is the Impact? Top
Culture of Inclusion vs. Culture of Exclusion: What is the Impact? There is a mostly invisible minority that is present in significant numbers in workplaces across the country. I classify the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered group as a mostly invisible as many in this group may not choose to be "out" at work. They may not feel comfortable proclaiming their sexual orientation or identity for fear of reprisal. This is unfortunate, but still a reality in many parts of the country. If an organization is not particularly diverse or open to diversity, it is more likely that those who are different will attempt to hide their diversity. This is an unfortunate result as people generally don't give 100% when they don't feel 100% comfortable. Moreover, research shows that when employees do not feel valued, they feel distracted and spend more time conducting non work related activities, including searching for other work. Conversely, when employees feel valued and respected, they are much more likely to be engaged and thereby put forth their best efforts on the company's behalf. Leadership that inspires, rather than rules motivates employees. Employees are able to quickly differentiate a culture of inclusion from one of exclusion. This is precisely why embracing a diverse workplace is important. Employees will connect the dots to conclude that an organization that chooses to operate in a progressive manner, demonstrating equality by employing those with diverse backgrounds, sexual orientations, gender identities is one that truly values each person's individual contribution. Therefore, all employees are more likely to feel welcome, accepted, valued and respected within the organization. Most of us have diversifying elements within our backgrounds or families. Embracing the richness of diversity makes for a much better climate than trying to avoid the diversifying elements. I learned in my thirty years in various workplaces and varying industries that an organization is only as strong as its weakest link. A company may be spending a lot on advertising and marketing. However, money may be wasted if its employees don't take pride in the company and work to enhance the company's results. If morale is poor, employees may actually negatively affect future sales. There is a recent conference board survey that shows that 56% of workers are disengaged at work. Further 15% of this group is "actively disengaged". Organizations that find ways to connect with their employees and thereby lower these percentages will certainly be able to more effectively compete against their competitors. One sure way to improve morale in a company is to treat each employee with respect. This means recognizing them for who they are as individuals, valuing their input and making them feel welcome in the organizational family. In my years as CEO of a bank, I ensured that we placed a high value on each of these elements. The net effect was very positive. We were able to dramatically lower turnover, boost retention and increase job satisfaction. In fact, we were voted, "The Best Place to Work in St. Louis" in 2007 by the St. Louis Business Journal for medium sized companies. The old saying is true, take care of your people and profits will be taken care of. It is key to do more than just pay lip service to the notion of treating employees with respect. An organization must ensure by its actions that it is able to give voice to the individual. This can be accomplished by a number of tools that ensure that an organization is receiving input and feedback at each level of the organization. Examples include an employee morale committee, a social events committee, Q+A events with the CEO (that are unscripted), and interdepartmental committees that focus on process improvement within the organization. I hope that I offered a few insights into one person's view on the importance of diversity in the workplace. Creating dialogue on a topic is a healthy way of continuing progress. Note: William A. Donius was elected CEO of Pulaski Bank in 1997. He took the bank public in 1998 with Pulaski Financial Corp. NASDAQ listed PULB as the holding company. Under his leadership the bank grew from $168 million to $1.3 billion. Pulaski Bank is the largest purchase market, mortgage originator in St. Louis and one of the top three in Kansas City. Pulaski Bank was voted the Best Place to Work in St. Louis in 2007, received a Torch Award from the Better Business Bureau in 2008 and is ranked as one of the best performing smaller banks/thrifts by industry publication SNL. Donius retired from the CEO position in April of 2008 and remains Chairman of the bank. This essay represents his personal view and may represent the view of the bank. Donius was appointed to a two-year term on the U.S. Federal Reserve Board TIAC Council in 2008. Donius served a four-year term on the Board of Directors of America's Community Bankers ending in 2007. In addition, he served as Chairman of for profit subsidiary, America's Community Bankers-Partners for two years. More on CEOs
 
China Blocks YouTube, Again Top
The Internet is justly said to be the freest space available for self expression in China. Yet a report (PDF) released Wednesday finds the Chinese Internet to be the least free of 15 countries studied, tying for bottom place with Cuba. More on China
 
Obama's Aunt's Immigration Case Set For 2010 Top
BOSTON — President Barack Obama's aunt will remain in the United States until at least next year as she awaits a chance to make her case before an immigration judge in her bid for asylum from her native Kenya. Zeituni Onyango (zay-TUH'-nee awn-YAHN'-goh) had an initial appearance in U.S. Immigration Court in Boston on Wednesday. At the brief hearing, a judge set her case to be heard Feb. 4, 2010. Onyango wore a curly red wig to the hearing and declined to comment to reporters as she was led away from court by her attorneys and police from the Federal Protective Service, a component of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement responsible for security at federal buildings. Onyango, 56, first applied for asylum in 2002, but her request was rejected and she was ordered deported in 2004. She did not leave the country and continued to live in public housing in Boston. Her lawyer, Cleveland immigration attorney Margaret Wong, said in a statement Wednesday that Onyango first applied for asylum "due to violence in Kenya," but she did not reveal what grounds she has cited in her renewed bid for asylum. The court hearing was closed at her lawyer's request. Wong's spokesman, Mike Rogers, said the next hearing date was set for nearly a year later because Judge Leonard Shapiro's calendar is so booked. Ilana Greenstein, a Boston immigration attorney who handles a large volume of asylum cases, said 10 months is not an unusual lag time between hearings in immigration court. "That's just the way it goes," she said. "Most of the judges are so overloaded, their case logs are so astronomical that they are forced to set cases out up to 18 months." The hearing next February is known as an "individual hearing," or merits hearing, when Onyango will be given the opportunity to present her reasons for seeking asylum. The Department of Homeland Security acts as a prosecutor at such hearings. The judge will then decide if Onyango will be allowed to stay in the United States or whether she will be deported. Obama has said he did not know his aunt was living here illegally and believes laws covering the situation should be followed. Onyango's status as an illegal alien was revealed just days before Obama was elected in November. After intense media coverage, Onyango left Boston and went to Cleveland to live with a relative. In December, a judge agreed to suspend her deportation order and reopen her asylum case. Wong said in a statement that she is "working hard to keep matters in the court system and towards a favorable outcome for Ms. Onyango." Onyango, the half-sister of Obama's late father, first moved to the United States in 2000. Since Kenya gained independence from Britain in 1963, periodic tensions have arisen among the Luos _ Onyango's tribe _ and some of Kenya's other tribes, including the Kikuyus, the largest tribe in Kenya. In 2008, more than 1,000 people were killed in the East African nation following a disputed presidential poll, in which a Luo candidate, Raila Odinga, was declared the loser to President Mwai Kibaki, a Kikuyu. People who seek asylum must show that they face persecution in their homeland on the basis of religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a social group. More on Barack Obama
 
Wendy Diamond: Dr. Ruth, Robin Leach and Ellen Degeneres all in a Lucky Week! Top
The "ruff" economy seems to be getting to everyone, even Lucky! So this week, I took her out and about so she could be the Lucky dog she used to be, still is and always will be! We started off the week at a very pet-friendly chic London hotel in New York City chatting with Patti LaBelle sans her two Rottweilers, Rain and Bolo. Not sure Lucky would be okay in the company of two Rottweilers, but she drooled while lapping it up with Patti. She probably was imagining one of her favorite's Best Buddy Bits™ Peanut Butter Dog Treats exclusively at www.petsmart.com to go with Ms. Lady Marmalade. Hopes are we will do a fundraiser with Patti, Rain and Bolo in her hometown of Philadelphia. Our question of the last few months to many celebs, Ms. LaBelle included, is what does she think President Obama should name his dog? With no hesitation, LaBelle blurts out Pookie! Lucky and I didn't ask why and who are we to question one of the most legendary musical Diva's of our time (no -- not Lucky the Diva -- she can't bark a note), we're talking Ms. Labelle. We flew out to Los Angeles for meetings, restaurant openings, and the Genesis Awards. Hollywood's much-anticipated opening of the Food Network's Too Hot Tamale chef Susan Feniger's new restaurant, The Street. We were celebrating with Susan as we will be featuring her two Goldendoodles, Augie and Chewie, for our Bone Appetit section on www.animalfair.com. Her dogs weren't invited, not all dogs have manners like Lucky; takes after her mother. In between vegetable dumplings, we ran into Desperate Housewife, herself Dana Delany, she loved Lucky and sadly had no pets to discuss at the time, her too hot male friend has two cats, as I said to Dana, and will announce now, men with cats are more nurturing and in touch with their feminine side. Listen, Dana is used to cat fights, as she is on the hit show with Hollywood's claw-bearing Teri Hatcher and Nicolette Sheridan. Meeeooow - Hissssss! Our favorite spotting was Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous host himself Robin Leach. Robin, although not a pet person, was still sure to tell us about his son's Maltese, Manna. Certainly even Lucky dreams of "Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams," well maybe more treat dreams. So yes Robin was asked the most important dog question of our time -- and not sure if Robin was confused being in Hollywood, not the rich and famous Beverly Hills, but he replied that President Obama should name his dog "lost" as we gazed at him in bewilderment he added -- like the television show! Woof? Maybe at that point he had way to much champagne? Off to celebrate all the do-gooders in the animal community, it was time for Lucky and I to dress up to attend the 23rd Genesis Awards dinner at the Beverly Hilton. Presented by the Humane Society of the United States, the event was dedicated to ending the Canadian seal hunt; even Lucky signed (well pawed) the petition and so should all of you. The seals are so innocent and why man takes joy in beating them is beyond inhumane. The awards pay tribute to the major news and entertainment media outlets for producing work in TV, film, print and the arts that helps to raise public awareness for animal issues and related causes, so obviously there was nowhere else on earth we'd rather be than in the company of all these amazing and giving people. During the vegan dinner Lucky and I schmoozed with Byron Howard, one of the directors of the animated Disney hit film Bolt. Lucky spent the whole time flirting with him, as certainly Lucky is as animated a character herself, it doesn't seem so far fetched. Did I also mention that Marley the actual dog from "Marley & Me" was in attendance! Lucky and Me, that has a ring to it, okay enough, the stars of the evening were the people helping bring awareness to the inhumane issues we face in our society! Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi, received our beloved Gretchen Wyler's award in her honor, The Wyler Award, the most prestigious award of the night, for helping so many animal causes. We cracked up remembering the Animal Fair (animalfair.com) crazy photo shoot with Portia and Bean -- another Maltese! Lucky is a fan of any woman with a Maltese (including me)! We ended the week at the 52nd Annual New York Emmy® Awards Gala at the Marriott Marquis hotel honoring Katie Couric, anchor of the CBS Evening News, 60 Minutes correspondent and dog addict. Our favorite Dr. Ruth, was on hand with a bone to pick with us. And it wasn't about the birds and bees, but Elvis the contestant on CBS' Greatest American Dog! Dr. Ruth is upset because we kicked Dr. David Best and his dog Elvis off of CBS's Greatest American Dog. Dr. Best promised Dr. Ruth money for her documentary (drruth.com) if Elvis won. She feels, thanks to us, that David did not bring home the bacon, that's $250,000 worth of bacon bits. On top of that she complained Dr. Best was in the doghouse on the show and missed out on her 80th birthday party--and that's a whopping 560 dog years. We all made up at the end and still we can now count on Dr. Ruth to answer any questions we have on puppy love! Dr. Ruth shared her wisdom over President Obama's issue with naming his dog, "Let the two girls come to an agreement on a name, Mr. President. You have too many other bones to pick!" More on Celebrity Kids
 
Alan Farnham: Forbes To Sell Brother Top
In a further sign of worsening conditions in the magazine industry, Forbes LLC announced it would be selling one of the company's namesake brothers. The announcement, made late Tuesday by Chairman and Editor-in-Chief Steve Forbes, came amidst a new wave of layoffs at the magazine and caught few observers by surprise. The company in recent years has sold off assets ranging from its south seas island, a helicopter from the company yacht, Faberge eggs, a Colorado cattle ranch, toy soldiers, a palace in Morocco and historical documents including Lincoln's final address as President. The Forbes building itself, at 60 Fifth Avenue, was put on the market in 2007. Yesterday's announcement squelched rumors the company has nothing left to sell. "Pop always told us," said Mr. Forbes, referring to his late father, legendary publisher Malcolm Forbes, "that people are our greatest asset. Now the time has come to prove him right by monetizing one of my three brothers." Exactly which brother would be sold was not immediately clear. Initial speculation favored Christopher, 'Kip' Forbes, whose role in the organization has been diminished following the sale of artworks from the family collections, over which he had responsibility. A number of Middle Eastern buyers are believed to be interested in the still-boyish executive, bon vivant and man-about-town. Siblings Timothy and Robert manage other divisions of the company, for now. A sister, Moira, has no involvement in the business and is believed not to be for sale. In making his announcement, Mr. Forbes professed optimism about the future, especially that of Forbes.com, which attracts some 20 million users daily. "If pop were here," he said, grinning broadly, "I'm sure he'd crack open the world's most expensive bottle of wine." The Forbes family once owned the most expensive bottle, bought at auction for $156,000 in 1985. It was later found to contain vinegar. Mr. Forbes is author most recently of 'Flat Tax Revolution: Using a Postcard to Abolish the IRS.' He is a four-time winner of the highly prestigious Crystal Owl Award, given annually to the financial journalist whose economic forecasts for the coming year have proved most accurate. More on Magazines
 
Cuban Gynecologist Wants To Sell You A Car! (VIDEO) Top
Rudy used to be a gynecologist back in the old country, but here he's a car salesman. He wants to liberate the Impalas and have people with bad credit driving all over the road. Despite being an evil Commie, Rudy's adorable, and when he tells us that his guard dog was stolen, it makes us want to cry. I vow only to buy cars from Rudy from now on and see him for all my gynecological needs. This video comes to us courtesy of Rhett McLaughlin and Link Neal--a North Carolina-based comedy duo best known for their internet videos. Along with this Web ad they've also produced a "making of" video . WATCH: (via Buzzfeed) More on Funny Videos
 
Rachel Maddow's 36th Birthday: Send Her Your Wishes! Top
Over the past few months, the Huffington Post community has made its love for Rachel Maddow pretty clear. So clear that we even created a page all about her: the Rachel Maddow Big News Page . Today, your new favorite cable news host turns 36 — she was born on April 1, 1973. Send Rachel your birthday message — or relive your favorite Maddow moments — in the comments below, and we'll make sure to pass them on. More on Rachel Maddow
 
Michael Wolff: It's the Beginning of the End of Facebook Top
The wheels are coming off the bus at Facebook. There is one sure sign, one incontrovertible indicator at technology companies that need cash and have no business plan, of maximum identity crisis, even on-the-verge-of-meltdown turmoil: the departure of the CFO. Gideon Yu, Facebook's CFO since summer 2007, left the building yesterday. Before that, another CFO left Facebook less than two years ago--which indicates that Facebook's ubiquity and sheer fabulousness are masking either growing pains or long-term turmoil. The CFO in a company that depends on higher and higher valuations to keep its investors happy is the second most important person in the enterprise and often the paramount figure. Getting rid of your CFO is only a smidgen different from getting rid of your CEO. Continue reading at newser.com More on Facebook
 
Thomas Frank: Lock 'em Up -- Jailing Kids is a Proud American Tradition Top
At first glance, the news from Luzerne County, in northeastern Pennsylvania, is not good. In what is known locally as the "kids for cash" scandal, two judges have pleaded guilty to accepting $2.6 million in kickbacks from a for-profit juvenile correctional facility -- a privately owned jail for kids, essentially. And here is what the judges delivered, according to the charges of the U.S. Attorney overseeing the case: In 2003 one of them, Judge Michael Conahan, who had authority over such expenses, defunded the county-owned detention center, channeling kids sentenced to detention to the private jail -- along with the public's money. For good measure, the feds charge, Mr. Conahan also agreed to send the private facility $1.3 million per year in public funds. Over the succeeding years, the private jail, along with a second lockup-for-profit that had opened in another part of the state, won tens of millions of dollars in Luzerne County contracts, allegedly with the two judges' help. What has drawn the media's attention, though, is the remarkable strictness of the judges' judging. Mr. Conahan's alleged partner in the scheme, Judge Mark Ciavarella Jr., reportedly sent kids to the private detention centers when probation officers didn't think it was a good idea; he sent kids there when their crimes were nonviolent; he sent kids there when their crimes were insignificant. It was as though he was determined to keep those private prisons filled with children at all times. According to news stories, offenses as small as swiping a jar of nutmeg or throwing a piece of steak at an adult were enough to merit a trip to the hoosegow. Over the years Mr. Ciavarella racked up a truly awesome score: He sent kids to detention instead of other options at twice the state average, according to the New York Times . He tried a prodigious number of cases in which the accused child had no lawyer -- here, says the Times , the judge's numbers were fully 10 times the state average. And he did it fast, sometimes rendering a verdict "in the neighborhood of a minute-and-a-half to three minutes," according to the judge tasked with reconsidering Mr. Ciavarella's work. My question is, what have the Luzerne County judges done that deviates in the least from our American political traditions? These jurists have merely taken to heart the unvarying message of 40 years' worth of election results -- that more people, many more, need to go to jail -- and have come up with an entrepreneurial solution to the problem. We the people say it loud and clear every Election Day, in high-crime periods as well as peaceful stretches: More of our population needs to be behind bars. We love retribution so much we make hits of TV shows in which society's ne'er-do-wells come in for lectures not only by stern, righteous judges, but by tattooed, mulletted bounty hunters as well. And over the years we have embraced all sorts of instruments ensuring that more people got locked up for longer and longer stretches: Three strikes laws, mandatory sentencing laws, zero-tolerance policies. Maybe they aren't "fair," but they've helped to make the U.S. number one in percentage of population in the clink -- in fact, as Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb pointed out in Parade magazine on Sunday, America has an amazing 25% of the world's prisoners. Taking this path has not always been easy. In the 1990s, when we started to realize that child crooks were "superpredators" who needed to go to prison along with everyone else, some were unwilling to act. Others stepped up. "We've got to quit coddling these violent kids like nothing is going on," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) in 1996. "Getting some of these do-gooder liberals to do what is right is real tough. We'd all like to rehabilitate these kids, but by gosh we are in a different age." But taking law and order to the next level in this different age required money, by gosh. Privatizing bits of the prison industry was a step in the right direction, but what we didn't have -- until recently -- were proper instruments for incentivizing the judiciary. That's what the "kids for cash" judges were apparently experimenting with. Today the do-gooders revile those efforts as "kickbacks," but before long we will see them as legitimate tools of justice. Our laws governing lobbying and campaign contributions have struck the right balance between the wishes of the people and those of private industry, so why are we so quick to doubt that the same great results can be achieved by putting the government's justice-dealing branch on the same market-based course? The public will get to see their neighbors' kids go to jail, the judge who sends them there will be able to afford a nice condo in Florida, and the company that satisfies the public's desire for punishment will make a handsome profit. It will be a win-win result for everyone. Thomas Frank's column, The Tilting Yard, appears every Wednesday at OpinionJournal.com Also in Opinion Journal : Treasury's Very Private Asset Fund The G-20's Funny Money
 
Dylan Loewe: What the NY-20 Special Election Means for the Midterms Top
The race to fill the Congressional seat left vacant by Hillary Clinton's Senate replacement is too close to call, with Democrat Scott Murphy ahead of Jim Tedisco by only 65 votes. Absentee ballots have yet to be added to the tally, suggesting the race will almost certainly hinge on which candidate built a better absentee organization. Republican leaders have tried to frame the race as a referendum on Obama, suggesting that a loss for Democrats would signal some kind of vindication for Republican opposition to the Obama presidency. In reality, Republicans may unknowingly dodged a bullet if Scott Murphy holds his lead. Nothing could endanger the long-term health of the GOP more than a little misunderstood positive reinforcement. Believing that the special election did anything to justify their continued political missteps would have been a serious mistake. After all, the seat wasn't exactly a Democratic stronghold. The seat vacated by Kristen Gillibrand was traditionally a Republican district. Gillibrand's win in 2006 grew out of a perfect storm of events - disapproval over the war in Iraq boosted Democrats nationwide; her political ideology matched that of her district; and seven months before Election Day, her opponent stumbled into a frat party after getting hammered at a bar. Yikes. Regardless of the outcome in the special election, the results, as they currently stand, tell an important story, one which might echo all the way to the midterms. After two landslides, the big question in the next election cycle will be whether Democrats will be able to hold onto the most conservative seats they picked up in 2006 and 2008. There are a number of seats that ended up in Democratic hands in ways that just won't repeat themselves. In 2008, Democrat Tom Perriello picked off Virgil Goode in Virginia in an extremely conservative district. But in 2010, without an Obama campaign investing unprecedented dollars into turnout operations in Virginia, does he have a chance to hold the seat? If the NY-20 tells us anything, it's that Democrats like Tom Perriello might be alright after all. The NY-20 may never have ended up in the Democratic column without a Republican incumbent with a drinking problem. It's just far too conservative, and is exactly the kind of seat that would be primed for the Republicans to retake, especially in an open seat race. The fact that a Democrat either won the seat or came close to winning it says something about how surprisingly strong a hold Democrats have on conservative districts. The DCCC has to feel positive about the results here. In a district with 71,000 more Republicans than Democrats, it's clear the Democratic party is defending a durable majority. The race also suggests that the unanimous opposition by the GOP to the economic stimulus bill could be very costly during the 2010 midterms. After two weeks of equivocation, Jim Tedisco ultimately opposed the stimulus bill and saw his poll numbers plummet soon after. Once ahead by fourteen points, Tedisco eventually trailed by four in the final poll before the election. It is certainly possible that the stimulus vote will be two years too old to be good fodder for the midterms. But if the economy has shown significant signs of improvement, if the Democrats are able to argue - with convincing proof - that their policies are actually fixing the economy, then the consequence of opposing the stimulus bill could mean a devastating election, for a third cycle in a row.
 
Stephanie Gertler: Rewind: Looking Back in Harsh Economic Times Top
Last week, we flew to Florida on Wednesday morning to visit my husband's parents for an annual golf tournament. Although this year's visit was a hardship, we felt it was important, and made the trip. As we settled onto JetBlue, we were exhausted -- but at least there would be sunshine while our cell phones rang and we remained slaves to the laptop. We are grateful to have jobs, yet find ourselves working overtime to sustain a lifestyle, and bolstering the lives of our three twenty-something's along with their significant others as they prepare for changes in an uncertain world: moves, graduation, graduate schools, a business start-up, and generally trying to make ends meet. As for my nearly 90-year-old parents, my sister and I are a great tag team -- she had me covered while I was away. It was rainy, windy and cold in Florida until Sunday when we left under sunshine and blue skies. We knew that would happen. Our youngest was at home when we returned -- back from spring break with three loads of laundry -- so I tackled the laundry and unpacked while Mark hit his PC and accessed info he couldn't get from the laptop. Come 10 p.m., not only did it feel like we'd never been away, but we knew things would just pick up speed come morning when the alarm rang at 6 a.m. When we moved back to New York City from the suburbs three years ago, we pictured ourselves with shorter commutes, and therefore more time, dinner for two at on-the-cheap neighborhood restaurants, and stolen weekends away. Romantic notions that didn't pan out. Time, in particular, became more elusive. We are hardly alone when it comes to being in our middle age and feeling this wasn't even remotely anticipated. Indicators of tough times are literally close to home. Yes, there are the global headlines, but I am a firm believer in grass roots evidence. My husband reports that he sees more and more patients with chest pain and shortness of breath -- and more often than not, the symptoms are those of anxiety. The emergency room calls at least once a night, typically around 3 a.m., when a sleepless stressed soul wanders in. The liquor stores where we live in NYC's Financial District are doing well, yet shuttered store fronts (from boutiques to Staples) are ubiquitous along with red and white banners announcing "Going out of Business." Restaurants are significantly emptier at dinner, reservations easy to come by, with enticements to bring your own wine with no charge for corkage. (The Wall Street Journal just reported that liquor and candy sales are soaring.) And in this early spring, the homeless population is also soaring. Less obvious is an insidious sense of rage and despair -- heard in angry cell phone conversations as people walk the streets or stand in lines at ATMs where they take the receipt, hang their heads, and walk away cash-less. And then there is my friend who went to the unemployment office for the first time this morning and was heartened by the compassion she received although she'd dreaded the encounter. "We were all shapes, sizes, ages, races, religions, qualified, over-qualified," she said. "It's no longer a source of shame anymore. Desperation, yes. But not shame." The playing field has been leveled among us all. We, from all walks of life, are running on overwhelm -- and many on desperation and empty as well. On the plane home, Mark and I watched The Seven Ages of Rock -- a documentary replete with clips from Woodstock and Monterey. I looked at the crowd: tie-dyed, body-painted, wearing love beads, carrying peace signs...and I wondered how our generation got to the point where financial corruption and greed usurped what were our "anti-establishment" ideals to make the world a greener, better, and far more peaceful planet. "What did my generation do?" I asked my 26-year-old son David this morning. "I see all this anger and sorrow just in the neighborhood. I can't help but stare." "There were the others," he said. "Not everyone was at Woodstock, you know." Out of the mouths of babes. He's been reading the late David Foster Wallace. "Wallace says that writers of fiction are voyeurs," David said. "Like you." Indeed, we are, and must be, keen observers of the "human condition." Perhaps we often take what we see that one step further. But these days, I trust my observations as fact not fiction. This story is all too real. I guess my world back in the 60's and 70's was pretty narrow despite growing up in New York City and attending N.Y.U. -- a world unto itself where my crowd consisted of the old beatniks, the peaceniks, those of us who wanted to work for Legal Aid, the ACLU, and join the Peace Corps. When Real Life set in with kids and mortgages, did those of us who once derided the establishment climb on board Reaganomics and off of the "Peace Train?" But did we ever dream it would come to this? Last night, I dragged myself to yoga, and although instructed to breathe, place my clasped hands over my heart, and clear my head, it was nearly impossible: I thought about my husband who is working harder now than he did at 30 (and the fact that too many physicians like him don't have regular check-ups), and about myself who was once tireless. The instructor came over and pressed down my shoulders: "You carry the stress here," he said. The stress I pretend not to have? Lately, for comfort, I've been listening to old songs...like Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone" and Joni Mitchell's "River" and "For Free." I even picked up my old copy of The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran. "Trust in dreams,' he said, "for in them is the hidden gate to eternity." Ah, to rewind... More on Economy
 
Reuse Magazines: Donate Them To Hospitals Top
Instead of throwing your old magazines out, take them to a hospital for the patients and their families, or take them to a nursing home. They will bring a lot of happiness there. More on Magazines
 
The Media Consortium: Weekly Pulse: Key Dems Back Public Option Healthcare NewsLadder Top
By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire Blogger The chairs of five key congressional committees have finalized a plan for healthcare reform, and their blueprint includes a critical public option. The chairs' decision to support government-administered health insurance for everyone who wants it is sure to attract ferocious opposition from both the insurance industry and its patrons in the GOP. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) also put single-payer healthcare on the agenda by introducing the American Health Security Act (AHSA) of 2009. John Nichols of The Nation describes the bill as an important piece of legislation. If AHSA became law, it would create a federal health insurance system administered by the states. The insurance program would give patients an unlimited choice of doctors and hospitals because their insurance would cover them everywhere. The proposed program would be financed by redirecting current healthcare spending and supplementing the total with a modest tax increase that would cost most consumers less than their current health insurance premiums. As Ezra Klein of TAPPED explains in his public insurance primer , single payer healthcare is a step beyond the public option. Under single payer, the government is the sole supplier of health insurance, whereas, under the public option, consumers are allowed to choose public or private insurance. Public insurance will be cheaper and more comprehensive because the government will be able to use its vast bargaining power to lower prices. Also, U.S. government administered health insurance plans like Medicare and SCHIP consistently spend a smaller portion of their budgets on administrative costs than private insurers. Republican Congressional leaders are opposed to the public option because they fear that the private insurance industry won't be able to compete with government-administered insurance. Dave Weigel, the Washington Independent 's crack conservatologist, interviewed Rick Scott, the founder and principle funder of Conservatives for Patients Rights. CPR has been running ads nationwide warning that Obama is plotting a government takeover of healthcare. Scott also resigned from Colombia/RCA, a for profit-hospital corporation, in the middle of a $1.7 billion fraud investigation. Weigel asked Scott if he was concerned that his past might color public perceptions of his current healthcare advocacy: TWI: People can still say, “Look, this was the guy who resigned in the biggest fraud settlement in American history.”  RICK SCOTT: But, you know, we were the biggest company. If you go back and look at the hospital industry, and the whole health care industry since the mid-1990s, it was basically constantly going through investigations. Great institutions, like ours, paid fines. It was too bad.  With all the talk about healthcare reform, it's easy to forget that there's more to health than insurance or the medical care it can provide. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! explored the bigger picture with Dr. Steven Bezruchka, a public health scientist who studies how inequality itself makes us sick. Yesterday, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius had her first Senate confirmation hearing yesterday for the post of Secretary of Health and Human Services. As Emily Douglas of RH Reality Check notes, last week, Sebelius signed a bill into Kansas law that would force women to undergo medically unnecessary ultrasounds before obtaining abortions. The normally pro-choice Sebelius probably signed the bill to dodge controversy before her confirmation hearing, according to Dana Goldstein of TAPPED. Agit prop ultrasounds are a favorite tool of anti-choice activists, WHO claim that the sight of the sonogram is necessary to informed consent. But women have been making decisions about abortions without sonogram assistance since the beginning of civilization. In practice, the ultrasounds are just another obstacle that anti-choicers throw in the path of abortion providers. It's disconcerting that Sebelius was willing to sign a frivolous law to ease her own confirmation. RH Reality Check 's Kay Steiger offers a first hand account of Sebelius's first day of confirmation hearings. The governor said she supports a public option for health insurance and opposes conscience clauses for healthcare providers who seek to deny women abortion and contraception on religious grounds. Finally, members of Congress are engaged in last minute wrangling prior to a vote on Obama's budget. Democrats may try to use the budget reconciliation process to put healthcare reform to the Senate in a filibuster-proof format. (Due to an obscure rule , the Senate can pass a budget reconciliation with a simple majority, but only if the provisions in the budget are deemed to relate directly to spending and revenue.) Brian Beutler of Talking Points Memo reports that Congressional Republicans are vehemently denouncing the reconciliation option. Surprise, surprise. This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care. Visit Healthcare.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on healthcare affordability, healthcare laws, and healthcare controversy or follow us on Twitter . And for the best progressive reporting on the ECONOMY, and IMMIGRATION, check out, Immigration.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net . This is a project of The Media Consortium , a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and created by NewsLadder . More on Kathleen Sebelius
 
Conficker Worm Reaches Go Time, To No Effect Top
NEW YORK — The malicious Conficker Internet worm got more aggressive about trying to reach its creators Wednesday, but computer security researchers appeared correct in their predictions that the effects would be muted. The worm's programming included a change in tactics on April 1: The estimated 3 million to 12 million computers infected by Conficker were told to step up their attempts to "phone home" for commands. But that seemed to be the only sign of life from the bug. "One thing we're not seeing is any mass malicious activity," said Joris Evers, an analyst with McAfee. "The Internet today is working just as well as it was working yesterday." The worm can take control of unsuspecting PCs running Microsoft's Windows operating system. But its creators likely want to use their vast "botnet" to send spam or perform other cybercrimes, and not to bring down the Internet. That's one reason analysts say the people behind the virus will probably wait to send any commands. "Everyone who is fighting Conficker is on high alert," Evers said. Security companies monitoring the worm have been largely successful at blocking infected machines from communicating with whoever programmed it. Microsoft issued a software update, called a "patch," to protect PCs from vulnerability back in October. But not everyone applied the patch. In one telltale sign of an infected machine, Conficker blocks Microsoft's site as well as those of most antivirus companies. Computer owners can work around that obstacle by having someone else e-mail them a Conficker removal tool. ___ On the Net: Microsoft page on Conficker: http://tinyurl.com/bzkwy2
 
G-20: Europe Welcomes Obama (SLIDESHOW) Top
Barack Obama arrived in London last night for the start of his eight-day, five-country trip. He has begun meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev today and will be attending the G-20 Summit tomorrow. The international community has been anticipating President Obama's first trip abroad. Check out this slideshow of European newspapers covering Obama's trip. One paper in Austria even compares Obama to Superman. For more coverage, check out HuffPost's G-20 Summit Big News Page . For photos, videos, schedules and more, go here. More on G-20 Summit
 
NATO: Albania, Croatia Join Top
BRUSSELS, Belgium — Albania and Croatia became NATO's newest members Wednesday in a historic expansion into the volatile western Balkans region where the alliance fought its first war a decade ago. The two Balkan nations will be ceremonially inducted into NATO during a summit in Strasbourg, France, and Kehl, Germany, on Friday and Saturday to mark the alliance's 60th anniversary. The two new states will take total members nations to 28. "This is very welcome news" NATO spokesman James Appathurai said. "Albania and Croatia have worked very hard to meet alliance standards with regard to democracy, and the reform of their militaries." NATO forces have operated in the Balkans since the mid-1990s, when thousands of troops were deployed to Bosnia to act as peacekeepers in the aftermath of a 4-year civil war between ethnic Serbs, Muslims and Croats in which nearly 100,000 people perished. In 1999, the alliance mounted its first-ever combat operation, when its air forces pounded Serbia for more than two months. The operation was designed to end the crackdown by strongman Slobodan Milosevic on ethnic Albanian separatists in the southern province of Kosovo, which sparked the flight of hundreds of thousands of the province's two million people. Albania and Croatia have "overcome a difficult period in their history to become contributors to regional stability and international security," Appathurai said. "They will now benefit from collective security the alliance offers, but they will also bear the responsibility that collective security requires." The two newest members have already deployed troops to the NATO-led force in Afghanistan, where Croatia has 530 soldiers and Albania 140, according to NATO. Founded in 1949, NATO has twice taken on new members since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, its Soviet-dominated Cold War foe. Seven former-communist nations entered in 2004, following Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic who joined in 1999. In contrast to the alliance's previous eastward expansion which infuriated Russia, Moscow has not objected to the inclusion of Albania and Croatia in NATO. This is partly because neither Albania nor Croatia were members of the old Communist military alliance. The former six-member Yugoslav federation broke free of the Soviet Union in 1948, while Albania followed suit in the early 1960s. Albania and Croatia officially joined Wednesday after the alliance received necessary paperwork from all member states, Appathurai said.
 
Angie Harmon: Republicans "Don't Point Fingers" And "Have Class" Top
Angie Harmon gave a lengthy interview to Foxnews.com, and today part two is online, including Harmon's thoughts on the Republican party. The interview started with Harmon defending Bristol Palin, and became the larger reasons Harmon loves the Republican Party: "I think one of the greatest things about the Republican Party is the understanding, we don't point fingers and we have class... Not all of us are supposed to believe the same things and think the same way," she added. "I think the difference between the parties is, with the Democrats you can sit down with them and have a 15 minute conversation and if you're not believing everything they say and buying into what they're selling you, it is like you're some dumb hick who doesn't deserve to live here anymore. But with the Republicans, it is like okay I want to know what you know, you want to know what I know, okay great lets go have a beer after work, we're still friends. In part one of the interview, Harmon said how disagreeing with Obama does not make her racist. Harmon is married to retired football star Jason Sehorn, with whom she has three young daughters. More on Celebs Talk Politics
 
Bethenny Frankel: My Review of Celebrity Apprentice as a Former Contestant Top
My intention really was to write a blog about "what you don't see" on reality TV with regards to the editing. That was until I watched the Celebrity Apprentice tonight which was incredibly tragic. I was on The Apprentice which was a much more intense version, given that we were slaves willing to sell our souls to the devil, sign any contract and do anything at any time. insiders know that Mark Burnett gives out 50 page contracts to contestants, and if you even so much as dispute a comma in the contract, you are out. He doesn't care, and there are several hundred thousand people willing to jump in, take your spot and exploit themselves as I once did. Naively, when I first applied it was for The Apprentice: Season 2 with Donald Trump, I ended up being on the Martha Stewart Version later but people are always so surprised at how intense the screening process is. At the risk of Burnett suing me (which he is never afraid to do) you basically send in a tape (which I did on a bet) or go to an open call (which is where more people are chosen). Then the process weeds down to a few hundred people around the country that meet with the casting crew -- so you can be taped talking about whatever makes you tick. I was so intent the first time. I had my hair and makeup done, the perfect outfit and I was there to sell how great a businessperson and do-er I was. Low and behold, I was asked to the top 50, to go to hotel, be sequestered for a week, be locked in my room all day and night (except for brief psychological IQ, and emotional testing and meals). During the meals and walks through hallways, you couldn't even look at anyone else. Essentially, the real game and the mind games begin here. In typical Bethenny fashion, my being a dog on a bone and telling Mark just how dedicated I was didn't work. I was the first alternate but missed the top 18 by 1. I was devastated and not until years later did I have to go through the same process to get on Martha's show, the more appropriate fit. The difference was that this time I was at my wits end and just threw caution to the wind having my "I truly don't give a crap what you think" attitude. This reality television format (like most) is TV is built on outlandish and dramatic characters vs. actual credibility and business acumen. I was so naive that I actually thought this process was about wanting the job at the end of the competition. This brings me to the current Celebrity Apprentice which is in theory a great idea. It just is funny to me that they can leave for appearances; they have access to their normal lives and can call friends when in a jam. The laymen's apprentice is for the person looking to be a sheep and abused with no phones, papers, credit cards, cars or any freedom. Truth be told: I loved it and what I loved most is no different than what I loved about scavenger hunts. Ready set go and let's see how quick and creative we can be. I loved knowing exactly what the tangible goal is and going for it. I digress... on the Celebrity Apprentice -- poor Dennis Rodman. His boardroom scene with Trump and both teams were tragic. I don't think the show had been as great this season until this episode. For good reasons, it hasn't been overly dramatic because the talent are great people. Jesse James has such understated intelligence and morality. Hershel Walker takes his job seriously. He is a disciplined athlete, but Dennis, who obviously has a drinking problem, has taken a different route. He always has been but is really now a complete accident waiting to happen. Brian McKnight, Hershel, Clint Black and Jesse James are so impressive as are Joan and Brande Roderick. I love a hot blond being as smart as some of those moguls. The show has gotten better, and I can't yet predict winners. Brande would be so great, but she isn't as sharp as Melissa Rivers or Annie Duke. Khloe won't last long. She may be gone next week. My top 4 have to be Joan, Melissa, Annie Duke and Brian or Jesse James. I really can't wait, and truth be told, I'm jealous. That is one game I can play. I don't sleep, I'm beyond competitive, I love a task and I love to be in charge and organized. Great idea. Hopefully, Dennis will make a comeback and be sober. I can't help but comprehend and visualize Madonna and Carmen Electra being attracted to that at any point. to that. They must be missing a major screw if they matched up with him for even more than a moment. I love that the show will turn celebrities into housekeepers, valets concierges and service people. Maybe now they'll be very respectful when they're on the road. More on Reality TV
 
Varu Chilakamarri: Meat Week Top
I'm not a pushy person. But when I tell you that I've been a vegetarian for fifteen years and that my husband Mike -- a lifelong carnivore before meeting me -- is now a vegetarian who salivates whenever we walk by a Wendy's, well...you might get the wrong idea. I maintain that Mike's path to vegetarianism was, like my own, based on a moral opposition to the inhumane treatment of animals. As he often explains, "Why should I hurt something that never did anything to me, if I don't have to? Although I can't tell you how much I miss bacon." Okay, so maybe he's not the best advocate for vegetarianism. This became all too clear one night over dinner with our vegetarian friends Jacob and Rachel. As we dined on a plate of crisp greens, Mike and Jacob reminisced about the last time they'd had meat. They spoke with the same wistfulness as two guys recalling their bachelor heydays. "So, do you remember your last time?" asked Jacob. "December '04," replied Mike. "You?" "I don't know, it's been a while..." trailed Jacob. "What are you talking about, did you forget Passover?" Rachel reminded him. "Oh yeah! Meat Week. I guess that was the last time," Jacob offered, before taking another big bite of spinach. Mike's eyes grew wide. "Meat Week? What's that?" Jacob, who is Jewish, started telling us about how difficult it was being a vegetarian during Passover. Sensing our unfamiliarity with the holiday, he gave us a brief primer on Passover, including its restrictions on the consumption of breads, pastas, and beans. Jacob had decided that during the week of Passover, his religious commitments would override his vegetarian ones, and for one week only, he'd consume meat. At the time, the look of epiphany on Mike's face didn't register with me, but I soon learned that our delicate dietary regime was in danger. It started out with Mike occasionally joking about converting to Judaism so that he could participate in Jacob's "Meat Week." But then, a rare opportunity emerged. In April (coincidentally when Passover is actually practiced), I'd be going out of town for a business trip. Mike would be eating alone. The Meat Week gods couldn't have planned it better. He began telling all his meat-loving friends about his plans to partake in Meat Week. They debated the merits of fast versus fancy food. Invitations to French restaurants and barbecue rib joints were received from people we hadn't seen in months. I tried my best to dissuade Mike from his plan. Before the flesh-filled festivities were to begin, I tried cooking up the best, hardiest vegetarian dishes I could think of so that Mike would realize, "on his own," that he was quite happy with his current situation. One deep dish lasagna, two vegetable curries, and three soups made from scratch later, I was feeling pretty optimistic. "You're quite the cook," Mike said one night. I smiled. But then he continued, "I'm so glad I'm having Meat Week when you're gone, because there's no way I could make vegetables taste that good." I'm not really sure what I felt about Meat Week. Conflicted, I suppose. On one hand, I was opposed to the concept for the same reasons I was a vegetarian to begin with. In my pre-Meat Week jitters, I worried that this was the summit of one gigantic slippery slope lined with grease drippings. I knew that life would be very inconvenient if my meal-time partner suddenly went his own way. On the other hand, I knew that Mike's commitment to vegetarianism was still in its infancy and had to be nurtured, not forced. Most of my male friends took his side. "Let him have his meat!" they cried, as if Meat Week stood for something more in the great power dynamic between men and women. One noted the similarities Meat Week had with Mardi Gras or Carnival, when people often feast on meat before giving it up during the 40-day period of Lent. Meat Week was just Mike's version of these festivals, they reasoned, except that he would follow it by disavowing meat for 358 days rather than forty. Some of my girlfriends took issue with Mike's decision, albeit for non-nutritional reasons. "So now it's okay to cheat, as long as it's just for one week?" one said. "How can you be morally opposed to something one day and embrace it the next?" In their attempts to explain Meat Week, everyone seemed to take an extreme position -- Mike's supporters cast Meat Week as a spiritual endeavor that one embarks on with a fork, while my allies clamored to indict Mike and his meaty mistress. It seemed that everyone approached Meat Week with a surprising degree of absolutism. And that's when it struck me. I had stubbornly tried to fit Mike's behavior into a neat moral and logical paradigm. This was the same approach that all the naysayers had always taken with me, when they wanted to poke holes in my dietary decisions. For years, people had peppered me with questions ranging from the interesting to the inane. "How come you still eat eggs and milk?" "Are your shoes leather?" "What about plants, don't you care about their feelings?" I rejected these "all or nothing" arguments when they were directed at me, so was I not compelled to reject them when directed at others? While I didn't agree with Meat Week, perhaps I could appreciate what it represented, and in a twisted sort of way, even be inspired by it. I began to wonder whether it made sense for me to remain a committed vegetarian all year round. Maybe my rigid adherence to the vegetarian diet was actually holding me back. And so I decided to change up my own practices, if only for a week. "Mike," I declared, "I have news. I've decided that during Meat Week, I'm going to be a vegan." More on Marriage
 
Fox Harassment Spreads: College Professor Stalked Top
This morning, Fox and Friends praised producer Griff Jenkins for stalking and ambushing Columbia University professor Alan Brinkley to grill him on portions of his book Jenkins found objectionable. Jenkins -- who perfected his harassment tactics as a minion of harassment expert Bill O'Reilly -- appeared on Fox and Friends to defend his "worthy cause" of ambushing unwitting writers who write things he disagrees with: More on Bill O'Reilly
 
Brad Balfour: Q & A: Actor Gary Sinise Helps "Brothers At War" And Grapples With Iraq and Its Effect on A Family Top
Presently known for playing Detective Mac Taylor on the hit TV series, CSI NY, the talented Gary Sinise has done it all--acting, directing, making music and producing everything from plays to films. Now, Sinise plays the role of executive producer for the recently released documentary feature, Brothers At War. Since Sinise has been nominated for an Oscar ( Forrest Gump ), a couple of Emmys and a Tony (for directing Sam Shepard's Buried Child ), he's a good man to have on board. Though he only got involved pretty much after the principal shooting and editing was done, Sinise signed on to give the film's creator, director and producer Jake Rademacher, a boost in getting the public to come see his family film. Rademacher not only makes his directorial debut creating this intimate portrait of an American family during this turbulent time of war, he's also one its subjects since he's one of the three brothers involved in this story of a family. Sinise is already known for offering support to the troops through his past tours to Iraq with his Lt. Dan Band. His musical side project is named for his most famous role, Lt. Dan Taylor in Forrest Gump. Sinise has been doing USO tours in Iraq and fundraising events ever since 2003, playing bass at 30-some dates a year. In 2004, he co-founded the Operation Iraqi Children's Foundation which provides kids with school supplies and other resources. Through this film, Rademacher sets out to understand his two brothers' military experience, their motivation to be in Iraq, and the sacrifices of those who are serving there. For the gravel-voiced Sinise--who has his rap on the film down to a set of well-worn, thought-out bits of banter--this film clearly provides a positive counterweight to the plethora of features critical of the war. After Sinise made a disparaging remark in an early interview about director Brian DePalma's Redacted, a cinema verite polemical feature about several soldiers in the Iraq War, he offers answers that now avoid controversy. Jake got embedded with four combat units in Iraq and this deep access to US and Iraqi combat units alloweds him to get behind the camouflage curtain. With humor as well, we see what happens with secret reconnaissance troops on the Syrian border, the sniper "hide sites" in the Sunni Triangle, and what it's like running with the Iraqi Army as well. As Rademacher follows his siblings, we see them at home where this life-threatening work and the separations it creates ripple through everyone involved from the parents, wives, and children. Jake sees how alike and different his life is from his brothers, and this doc offers a rare look at the bonds between soldiers on the frontlines and the people left behind. Implicit in the experience of seeing the film is a strong sympathy with the military and in turn, with the missions in Iraq and, by association, Afghanistan. So it's no wonder that Sinise, who is not known for liberal sympathies, chose to lend his clear support to this film. Q; How did you get involved in this production? GS; A mutual friend of the filmmaker Jake Rademacher and mine, Michael Broderick, who's an actor and former Marine, had seen the film. [He] introduced Jake to me thinking that we would get along and that I would appreciate the movie. So Jake and I set up a screening, a time where we could see the movie together. I saw the film and very much appreciated it and enjoyed it and just fell in love with that family and wanted to do what I could to help support it. Q; Did the film enlighten you to some aspect of a military family or with people involved in the military you weren't familiar with, or in the war that you hadn't thought about or was aware of before? GS; Well, I don't know. I think what it is, is that having gone on so many bases and visited so many troops and military families, performing for them this showed me what I already knew. It reaffirmed that. It's a look at military families and military life, the Iraq war and the integrity of the people that I know that are serving that; I responded to positively and wanted to support that. Because Jake is a brother, not a journalist, he's not someone looking for a story from the outside. He's inside looking for a story, someone who wants to know a little bit more about his brothers and what they do. So he's got a very personal interest and agenda, to just find out about his brothers and what makes them tick and to get to know them a little bit better and see why they're serving and what they're doing over there. That's the aspect of it that I liked a lot. He's just a guy who knows very little bit about the military, wanted to be in the service. Years ago, Jake envisioned himself going to West Point and that kind of thing. Well, he didn't have the eyesight and didn't have other things like that, but his two younger brothers joined. You can tell that there's an awkwardness in the beginning of the film with him and his older brother, when he first gets to Iraq. I don't know if you remember that part, but when he first gets to Iraq, he hugs his brother and then his brother immediately sees one of the soldiers who's with him and jumps on that guy as if they're closer to each other than he is to his own brother. That tells you a little bit about what his mission is, to sort of understand his brothers a little bit more, get closer to them and find out what makes them tick. So it's this particular movie about brothers at war that's set in Iraq and on military bases back here at home with the families that has a personal heart to me. It had a lot of heart and it shows you a lot of very interesting things that people aren't that aware of or might have slightly been aware of. Unless you have a personal connection to someone in the military you probably don't know that much about what military families go through or why someone serves or what motivates them to do that and this helps explain that a little bit. Q; Did you have any creative input into the film at all? GS; When I first saw it, it was cut. It's changed a bit since I saw it. Things have been trimmed and slightly adjusted. John Ondrasik's song at the end was added after a screening that I setup that he attended. John's a friend of mine and after I saw the movie I hosted a screening in Hollywood for a group of people and I brought a bunch of different people together, trying to get some distributors in there and some people that might be able to help the film, One of those people was John Ondrasik. He called me the next day and said, 'I was very moved by that movie. I went home and...I'm sending you an MP3 of something that I whipped up on piano last night when I got home.' He wrote the song that's on the end of the movie and sent it to me. He didn't know what he was going to do with it or anything, but as we moved along and when they finally got distribution at Samuel Goldwyn we went back to John and Jake talked to him about adding the song in the end titles. I made little suggestions about this and that, but Jake was on his way with the film and basically I just said, 'How can I support?' So I started trying to introduce him to people that might be able to help him find a way to a distributor which eventually we did with Samuel Goldwyn. Q; Some people have felt that the film was pro-war. How do you feel when your hear comments like that? GS; Had they seen the movie? Q; They were never asked. GS; Well, it'd be interesting afterwards if they'd have that feeling about it. Like I said, it's a personal movie. There's a personal agenda by this filmmaker to understand his brothers a little bit more. That's the heart that I like about the film. We've seen lots of footage from Iraq. We've seen news clips of bombs going off and all kinds of things going off. There's very little action in this movie until the end of the film when we see what we haven't seen which is an Iraqi team out on patrol and basically, they get ambushed by Syrians who came across the border. They came across the border and used a cell phone to blow up some Iraqis. The guys that blew up those Iraqis in the movie were Syrians. We don't really see our Marines working hand-in-hand with the Iraqis in this way. That's what I see when I go over there. I talk to these guys all the time. I talk to them about what they're doing. Generally they want to complete the mission. They want to succeed. They want to have the Iraqis stand up and secure their country and come home, having succeeded. Also, having known that what they did over there meant something and left something that might have a chance to last over there and be better. So it's not your usual, typical bombs going off, chaos type stuff going on. It just shows the military families and what they are going through. When Isaac comes home to meet his little baby who was born right after he deployed, or just before he deployed, he knows that she's not going to have a clue as to who he is. That's not an untypical thing that happens to someone who gets sent off to war. These young families have kids and then they go off and their kids don't know who they are. So it's interesting to watch him get to know her. Now I've seen him with her and she can't get enough of him. He's a great dad, a wonderful leader and his men that are serving with him look up to him. I see a lot of that in the military when I go out there. There's a lot of integrity that we don't get to see often enough, a lot of very dedicated and committed people that serve. People serve for various reasons. Some of them for very patriotic reasons. They just want to serve their country. Some want to get out of their town and see the world or get an education or get some benefits, whatever it is that they're serving for. But folks like Isaac, that's a military guy. That's a guy who went to West Point. He wants a career in the military and he's going to serve his country for a long time, until he's done. Those folks have a high degree of integrity and they're good folks. That's what I'd say. Q; This movie seems to be made for this time as opposed to if it had been made at the beginning of the Iraq war. It's less about the immediate dangers and more about how they function in that on-going environment. Would you agree that this couldn't have been the same movie that was made at the beginning of the war? GS; Well, he happened to be over there at a very dangerous time. This was a time when he was there in 2005 and 2006 into 2007, and he went back twice; it was a very dangerous and explosive time over there. Q; Do you think it would've been a different film at the beginning than what we see now, edited and put together at this point? GS; It might've been. I don't know. Yeah, maybe it would've been. That's hard to say. Again, he says in the beginning of the film, "I want to know why my brothers are serving. I want to see what they're doing there." So that's what he goes in search of. It's kind of humorous a little bit at the beginning of the movie, he's kind of bumbling and doesn't know what he's doing over there and he's throwing up on the side of the road and asking for sunscreen, but at the end I think that he learns something not only about his brothers through those that are serving with his brothers, he learns some good things about himself. His brothers are closer because of it. You can see his relationship with his younger brother Joe. Joe doesn't trust him. Joe says basically, "You don't know. You went over there on one trip. You don't know what we do over there. You're pretending you're a know it all about what's going on." He goes back without his brothers being there to find out more about who his brothers are. That's when he ends up in a crossfire with these terrorists firing at the Iraqis and he sees the integrity of our Marines over there and what they're doing to try and help those Iraqi troops get better and standup and take care of themselves. He comes back and his brother has a more accepting feeling towards him because he knows that he cared enough about finding out a little bit more about what's going on over there to go and put himself in harm's way. His younger brother gains a lot of respect for him, I think, through that. Q; It seems like Jake really wanted to experience what his brothers were going through. He finally did get the ambush, as you spoke about, with the Syrians attacking the Iraqi patrol. Do you think the film would've been the same without that scene? GS; You mean had he not seen combat like that? Well, I don't know. I think that was an important part of it. The fact that he placed himself in harm's way and went out mission after mission after mission with these guys just to try to understand them and what they were doing, I think that was a part of his younger brother's... Q; Disappointment in him? GS; Well, no. His gaining respect for him. You see that. I mean, he was close with his brothers, but remember when he comes home the first time and he jumps on the bed with his brother and he tries to hug him, his younger brother just gets up and runs down the stairs. He doesn't want to have anything to do with him and he won't talk to him. It was Jake's feeling that was hurting him that was another motivating factor for him to go back a second time to try to understand a little bit more about what his younger brother had seen. His younger brother had seen some pretty bad stuff, some difficult stuff. Jake just said, "I'm going to go try to find that part of it..." The uglier side of it. Seeing Iraqis get blown up is not pretty and that was difficult for him. Q; The recent smatterings of Iraq war films haven't been successful at the box office. It's hard to release films like this at times of war. what you've thought of the recent slate of Iraq war films--especially those that raise questions about the war? GS; I haven't seen a lot of those movies so I can't speak to that. I don't know... It'd be hard for me to speak about those other movies because I haven't seen them. Q; Can you talk about releasing a film like this while we're still engaged in the war. GS; I can speak to some of the reaction that this movie is getting from the people who serve because we have opened it in some of these military towns like Columbus, Georgia and Fayetteville, North Carolina where Fort Bragg is. It's in Jacksonville, North Carolina, at Camp Lejeune and we've screened it at Fort Hood and some other places. Jake even took it to Iraq one time to screen it for folks over there. They're responding positively to it. The military wives that have to deal with these deployments respond to those two young wives in the movie and what they're going through and how difficult it is for them. They
 
Sen. Gregg Makes Up "Light Switch Tax" To Bash Obama Budget Top
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A 'LIGHT-SWITCH TAX'.... In an apparent effort to be an even more shameless hack, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) argues in a Washington Post op-ed today that "all American families will get stuck with a new 'light-switch tax' on electricity bills that is in the president's budget." More on Obama's Budget
 
Patt Morrison: Two Toxic Ideas: Border Fence, Border Poison Top
Isn't it enough that this country built about 700 miles of fencing along a 2,000-mile border with Mexico -- the previous administration's stunt gesture toward "border control" that ranks up there with the TSA yanking grannies out of line at the airport to show that it's protecting us from hijackers, and discrimination suits? That infuriating fence is both inadequate and excessive. It despoiled hundreds of square miles of precious habitat and endangered thousands of species of flora and fauna while likely doing precious little to stop illegal immigration, merely moving corridors to unfenced areas. (Funnily enough, what's slowed the northward flow most effectively is the crummy economy on this side of the border. Mexicans are actually going back to Mexico as work disappears here.) Yet now this administration's Customs and Border Protection wants to Vietnamize the border. It wants to defoliate miles and miles of brush along the banks of the Rio Grande so that no one can hide in the canebrakes. What -- has some government contractor taken out a patent on some new chemical -- Agent Naranja ? More than 30 years after that fabled last helicopter left Vietnam, and this is what ranks as a big idea? Thankfully, the idea's on hold at the moment, mostly, I gather, to mollify the Mexicans. Americans living along the border have already had their property despoiled; the border law passed by Congress allows the fence to be no respecter of environmental concerns or property rights, all in the name of that unassailable imperative, homeland security. I hope that the Obama Administration will come to its senses, both about potentially poisoning the banks and waters of a vital river, and about continuing the building of this ridiculous fence. Where is the Janet Napolitano who, as governor of Arizona, famously said: Show me a 50-foot-tall fence and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder? Has Homeland Security bamboozled her out of that? You want to patrol the border and keep the habitat poison-free at the same time? I hear there are a lot of Americans out of work. Let's use some of that stimulus money and that human capital we keep hearing about, and invite more Americans to put on a Border Patrol uniform. And maybe, instead of killing those invasive-species bushes by indiscriminate aerial spraying that kills a lot of other things too, we can hire people to go in there and do some selective gardening. And if we still can't persuade Americans to do the job, there's a labor hiring hall right across the border.
 
Ken Levine: American Idol: Top 9 Top
This week's theme was "Songs we can make more money from". They could be anything as long as they were available on itunes. Next week will be Coca Cola themes from the 60s and 70s. The following week - songs with the word Ford in them. A few initial thoughts: I don't know if Paula got a new eye job or pumped collagen in her face instead of Botox but she's starting to look like Jack Palance. And I've just concluded that I hate Kara. Why? She may be a lovely person but the way she whines and pretends to be so pained -- it just reminds me of every network and studio junior executive, two years out of Sarah Lawrence, who has given me insipid writing notes over the years. "Kennnnn, I really lovvvve this script but I just want to see more, y'know, more heart, more humanity, more... I dunno, I just want to like Mussolini more." So whenever she gives a critique that's all I hear. New opening. The judges make an entrance now. I like it. If the Mod Squad were still on the air, that would be their opening titles. Anoop Desai got things going by attempting Usher's "Caught Up". He was one bad ass altar boy. I can't remember verbatim what Kara said but I think it was: "I really lovvve the characters but I just wish the priest had more... I dunno, penis jokes." Megan Joy gave Bob Marley's "Turn Your Lights Down Low" her usual gatling gun interpretation. She wore enough string necklaces to qualify as a Mardi Gras float. I think Kara said: "I know grandpa is dead but can he still come back at the end?" Danny Gokey did a nice version of Rascal Flat's "What Hurts the Most". I'm a fan of his. If the Disney Channel ever does a biopic on Robert Downey Jr. Danny will get the part. Kara: "I am such a fan of this script but you know what it needs? Backstory. Who are all those other people on the subway with Bob? What does each one want?" Allison Iraheta came dressed as American Girl Doll: Cyndi Lauper. My only criticism with her singing No Doubt's "Don't Speak" is that she didn't sing it directly to Kara. Best moment of the night: Paula complimenting Allison on playing the guitar by saying, "Glad you brought your ax." Yeah! Look at Jack Palance, talking all street and shit! Scott MacIntyre wowed the judges with Billy Joel's vintage oozeburger, "Just the Way You Are". Again, I'm paraphrasing. Kara: "I love that you made the Scott character blind but then you don't have him bumping into things so really, what's the point?" Matt Giraud tried to show he was contemporary by doing "You Found Me" by Fray. This is like when Bing Crosby sang "Hey Jude". Kara: "Mxixwehesdd wxkxxighggg meemememmnetnetm". (After awhile that's all I hear.) Lil Rounds made a courageous choice. She dared to sing a Celine Dion song without fireworks and fifteen chorus boys. If Lil were on season two the judges would be genuflecting. But now in season eight, despite her pipes, she's just another boring belter. This week however she brought her two adorable children so she could have sung the national anthem of Iraq and still sailed through to the next round. The two best performances were saved for last. Kris Allen did a killer version of "Anal Sunshine When She's Gone" (at least that's what it sounded like). And Adam Lambert again proved that he's in a completely different league than the rest of these nimrods. Best singer, best showman, most original contestant in years. And with the new do he looks like a gay Dean Cain. He chose Wild Cherry's "Play That Funky Music White Boy" and once again established himself as the only reason to watch the show this season. Not that Kara won't have notes. But Adam is the one contestant smart enough to just ignore them. And that's why he's going to be the next American Idol . You can sign up for Ken's Twitter here . And read his blog here . More on American Idol
 
Fairfield Greenwich's Andres Piedrahita: $45 Million Compensation To Give Money To Madoff Top
In case you were wondering how Fairfield Greenwich Group's principals paid for their lives (18,000 sq ft villas in Mustique, G3s, race horses, etc.), here's one example. According to the Mass AG's fraud suit against FGG, Andres Piedrahita paid himself $45 million in 2007 alone. Walter Noel and Jeffrey Tucker, meanwhile, apparently added less value. They only took home $30 million apiece.
 
Scott Mendelson: X-Men Origins: Wolverine leaked online.. Top
Alas, this is no April Fool's Joke... I wasn't going to name names, but it's pointless now. Someone at 20th Century Fox is in big, big trouble. An apparent full-length DVD quality work print of one of their biggest summer pictures. X-Men Origins: Wolverine has been leaked to the internet a full month before release. Since the film isn't out yet and no one in the know has commented, we cannot say how recent the cut of this film is. The film is allegedly pretty much complete, save for certain unfinished special effects shots and what not. Reviews (which I have not read) are popping up all over the internet as we speak. While I have not watched the print, I did take a twenty-second gander (for confirmation) at a streaming video site (after updating my anti-virus software) and I can say that the image and sound are pretty much low-grade DVD quality. Rumors are sure to begin regarding how in the hell this happened and who is responsible. With a copy this (allegedly) good, it's pretty obvious that someone high up the food chain is responsible. Could it be a general annoyed and/or glory seeking Fox employee? Could it be someone upset over the alleged behind the scenes tinkering of Gavin Hood's original concept. Which begs the question, if the finished film ends up being different, is this the cut that existed prior to the meddling? If this cut is not the final cut, then the only plausible reason to leak it (aside from just creating chaos) would be if it was a prior version that represented director Gavin Hood's preferred version. That would be the best case scenario for Fox, as if it really is a 'director's cut', then the geeks will now still have to see the final product in theaters for comparison. My advice to Fox - spend the next month emphasizing how different the leaked cut is to the final print, regardless of whether that's true. Two years ago, a perfect print of Sicko was leaked online about a week before release, with blame being assigned to everyone from political opponents of Michael Moore to Michael Moore himself. Regardless of who is responsible, this is the rare case where piracy is a genuine news story. This isn't a work print of Hostel 2 released a week or so before release. This isn't a radically different cut of Rob Zombie's Halloween leaking days before release. This is an apparently 90% complete DVD-quality copy of one of the summer's biggest films being leaked online a full month before its theatrical release. This is relatively virgin territory and everyone will be watching the box office for tea leaves. The only thing I can remember approaching this is the leak of a very early work print of Ang Lee's Hulk a few weeks before the theatrical release back in June, 2003. Some viewers ripped on the film online, complaining of poor (uncompleted) special effects, but most people who cared knew that the film was not as it would be seen in theaters (yes, the film was a financial failure, but remember that it still broke the June opening weekend record with $62 million). If Hulk is the precedent, then the effect on the box office should be minimal. Even if this is as almost perfect as claimed, the vast majority of people do not know how and do not care to download movies and watch them on their computer. Although, playing devil's advocate, this is not Taken or Gran Torino . This is a $100 million+ tent pole picture that is specifically targeting the very demographic that knows how to download movies. This may be the first real test of the effects of piracy on tent-pole movie going. Plus, you have countless fan boys who still blame Fox for the Watchmen debacle and would theoretically see this as their revenge. If the box office takes a hit, you can be sure you'll hear Jeffrey Katzenberg again trumpeting 3D as the savior of the industry. And, among the major summer spectacles, Wolverine is indeed vulnerable as it is not being goosed in any way (no 3D, no IMAX), that would theoretically demand a trip to the theater. On the plus side, if the film ends up under performing, 20th Century Fox now has an airtight, media-friendly excuse that cannot truly be challenged or refuted (which, if the film is lousy, will lead to goofy conspiracy theories that Fox leaked it intentionally to give the film an excuse to fail). Come what may, this is just another reminder that the real piracy threat comes from within the studio, not from some movie critic who just wants to keep his cell phone on his person in case of an emergency. Scott Mendelson
 
Obama's Political Arm Gathers 642K Pledges In Support Of Budget Top
Organizing for America, the post-election reincarnation of the Obama presidential campaign's massive grassroots organizing arm, will hand over some 642,000 signed pledges to congressional offices today in support of President Obama's budget, which has been taking heat from Republicans and some moderate Democrats. The 11 a.m. press conference was scheduled Wednesday morning, just an hour after Republicans on the Hill introduced the second version of their alternative budget. Here's a video released by the DNC on the pledges. More details as they come in. More on Obama's Budget
 
Alex G. Coutinho: Dead Aid: The Wrong Prescription for Africa Top
Ms. Moyo in her book Dead Aid takes the approach of lumping together all of Africa's 50 years or so of post colonial history and its troubles and blaming it on only one thing -- Western aid. I was born in Uganda 50 years ago and have studied, lived and worked as a physician in Africa all my life and can clearly and honestly state that Western aid, if provided in a smart way, will literally awaken the dead -- the Lazarus effect seen with antiretroviral therapy. There are 2 million Africans alive today because of ARVs provided by Western aid who would take offense at the title of Ms. Moyos book! Ms. Moyo has a clever writing style using anecdotes and largely unproven statistics to justify her central theme, that aid is bad and that Africa will not only survive but thrive with no further aid. Furthermore all of the countries of Africa receive a simplistic broad brush approach from Ms. Moyo with a naive and frankly insulting message that those of us who have chosen to live and work in Africa and serve its peoples, exist in corrupt, dead beat, donor-driven economies and states which are a heartbeat away from civil war and chaos. While there are several countries both inside and outside Africa that have that characteristic, I am happy to say that overall the recent scorecard for Africa is good, with steady economic growth in the majority of countries, increasing democratic governments and better education and health. In fact the current economic turmoil is a very immediate concern for Africans with anticipated reduced aid but more seriously reduced remittances from Africans like Ms. Moyo who live and work outside of Africa!! While we continue to have serious problems here in Africa, the alternative solutions provided by Ms. Moyo from her perch in the USA, of mimicking India and China reflect a shallow analysis of the real challenges here in Africa. In addition the open endorsement and justification of undemocratic methods to achieve economic progress would not go down well in modern Africa -- ask any African who lived in apartheid South Africa! Frankly I would rather be free and poorer than rich, but living in an oppressive regime. As for the naive assumption that China or the Middle East would line up to invest in Africa, particularly in these times of economic turmoil and low oil prices, smacks of a daydream. Africa's problems are predominantly those of a systematic failure to harness the full potential of its people. Countries that first invest in their people by educating them, protecting their health and providing opportunities inside and outside their countries are those countries that have progressed, with stable economies, a higher GDP and "happiness factor." In addition countries like India and China have huge internal markets which give these countries considerable insulation from export-driven economic vagaries. Africa needs to focus on social development -- health, education and job creation, while at the same time developing its production capacities and as large an internal market as possible. The other necessary ways forward are, of course, visionary leadership, eradication of corruption, good stewardship of natural resources and, for a while at least, management of Africa's burgeoning population till generated resources can support larger populations. I do share the same aspiration for a prosperous Africa that is not dependent on crumbs from the rich. Nonetheless we are now in an interconnected global economy and global destiny and the solutions to underdevelopment do include aid -- albeit aid that is linked to social welfare and development, rather than aid to build up armies or aid in return for mortgaging the natural wealth of a country to another "model" development partner. Ms. Moyo you are not the sole voice of Africa and yet your voice is currently being listened to. Use that voice responsibly and spend more time at the grassroots in Africa and see where we have come from, where we are today and where we would want to be tomorrow. For the vast majority of Africans, our priorities remain food security, health, education and economic self sufficiency. We do not aspire to have flat screen televisions or even holidays -- we just wish to live in dignity with our families and continue to hope that with each passing generation life will get better and there will be more opportunities for our children and grandchildren. More on Africa
 
Sen. Jeff Merkley: How a Bill Becomes a Job Top
Last time I posted here, Congress was embroiled in a vigorous debate about whether to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Opponents were fighting tooth and nail against the bill deeming certain parts of the package "wasteful spending." One of the programs opponents were calling wasteful was funding to restore forest health and prevent wildfires. I vehemently disagreed that it was wasteful to improve forest health by clearing out forests that have become overgrown, choked, or diseased because of poor and unnatural forest management practices. This work helps restore eco-systems and wildlife habitat to their natural condition, protects local communities from wildfires and creates jobs. Working with my colleagues in Congress, we kept the wildfire prevention funding in the final legislation. Now we're able to see the first results of those efforts. The Forest Service has begun the process of awarding contracts for forest health projects. In Oregon, they've already allocated over $10 million with more to come. The Medford Mail Tribune recently looked at how $3 million of those funds will be used. They found that because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 150 people will be put to work promoting forest health and helping prevent wildfires in Southern Oregon, with some of those people to start work immediately. Many of these jobs are coming to Jackson County, which currently has a 14 percent unemployment rate. Moreover, the businesses awarded the contracts are upgrading and replacing equipment. One business owner said he'd already purchased six new trucks and "30 chain saws, fire clothes, boots and other supplies" from local stores. That's great news for the store owners who may have been facing falling sales and their own tough choices. In short, the recovery package is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing: investing in long-neglected projects; creating jobs; and spurring demand in local economies. Now, 150 new jobs in two counties in Southern Oregon may not sound like a lot, but in small timber towns like the one I was born in, it's a big deal. These are jobs that will help families make ends meet and put food on the table. And keep in mind that those jobs are the result of just a portion of funds in one part of one state from one program dealing with forest health. If you multiply the effects many times over for the jobs created through other forest health projects, energy conservation programs, improvements at veterans' facilities, mass transit construction, roads work and investments in health and education and you'll see major opportunities for job growth around the country. Apparently, to the opponents of the recovery act, these jobs are waste. If it were up to them, these jobs would never have come to Oregon and that's a shame. Now those same opponents are trotting out their same tired arguments again, opposing the President's budget. I'm sure they'll fight against investing in our future by helping spur a green energy economy and providing universal, affordable health care for all Americans. Again they're saying that investments in our future are "wasteful." They're embracing the phony math of the Bush years to try to caricature a bold plan to meet our nation's challenges head-on. We can't allow these opponents of solutions and reform to set the terms of the debate. We need to take the offensive against the ideology that torpedoed our economy. We need to challenge opponents to justify their opposition to restructuring our energy economy, their opposition to improving health care and education, and their opposition to creating jobs. The netroots have been great in voicing their support of the economic recovery package as well as putting pressure on Congress to keep important programs in the bill. We have plenty of tough battles coming around the bend on mortgage reform, universal health care, fighting global warming, and - most immediately -- the budget that makes it all possible. We'll need your energy and passion to help set the record straight about these priorities. No amount of political posturing or rhetoric will stop me from doing whatever I can to promote job-creating programs, both to strengthen working families and to break the vicious vortex destroying our economy. We need to put our nation back on the path of long term, broadly shared economic growth. What matters most to me is doing what I was elected to do: help make life better for Oregonians and making America work for working Americans again. I look forward to partnering with all of you to keep fighting for change.
 
Michael Giltz: American Idol -- Top 9: Kris Allen Shines Top
In a blessedly brief Idol (anything less than two hours feels like a speeded-up pleasure), the Top 9 Idol contestants sang any song that was available for purchase on iTunes, surely the weakest theme ever. And as Kara Dio Guardi sparred with the audience, delivered some bizarre lines (Studio 57?) and seemed to reach out to the other judges without success, it's gonna be the audition rounds for season 9 before we'll know whether she's coming back or not. According to Marc Berman of Mediaweek, the show scored a 13.3 overnight rating, followed by the dead-on-arrival Osbournes variety show, which lost 63% of its Idol lead-in. The show began with the contestants walking out to center stage with Adam Lambert discretely guiding Scott MacIntyre. Ryan Seacrest mentioned that Idol finalists have scored 29 Top 40 hits. It wasn't clear to me whether he meant Top 40 on the Billboard charts or Top 40 on iTunes, but surely the total was low: if you include R&B and country and other charts, I'd say Idol finalists have scored significantly more hit singles. ANOOP DESAI -- Sang Usher's "Caught Up," the final Top 10 hit from the massive, 9 million selling album Confessions . (His most recent album, Here I Stand , was such a flop that Usher is reportedly releasing another album sometime this year.) Anoop was wearing a ridiculous jacket with a chain on it a la Michael Jackson and strode the stage with a suburban swagger. I knew it was a mistake last week when Randy Jackson urged him to get funky again and indeed Anoop fell flat. Though not because of his vocals, which were servicable, especially if you listened to them without watching him. But he just looked like a goof. Kara said rightly that he looked as if some frat guys had just dared him to sing Usher and Simon called it posturing. For a guy who got into the Top 13 because of his likability, the more we see of Anoop the less we like. He seemed defiant during the critique, which never helps. But perhaps some of his annoyance came from the fact that every judge began by saying his vocals were pretty good but still trashed him. That plus going first means he is in serious trouble. MEGAN JOY -- Sang Bob Marley's "Turn Your Lights Down Low" from Exodus but somehow thought the song belonged as much to Lauryn Hill, who covered the tune on a compilation album and had a Top 15 hit in the UK with it. Megan Joy needs to have Christopher Cross produce her debut album because she is the very definition of a studio voice -- someone who has a very limited vocal ability but quirky and intriguing enough that in the studio she might be able to piece together some good work. Certainly she'll never really cut it live. But whereas Anoop sang ok but seemed annoying, Megan Joy sang poorly but still came across as fun and goofy, including that odd moment of pointing towards the sky (or the band). Her vocals were flat and low and shaky throughout but I strongly disagree with the judges who said it was a terrible song choice. Seems well within her range to me; she just isn't that good a singer. DANNY GOKEY -- Sang the Rascal Flatts tune "What Hurts The Most," their biggest pop hit to date. Gokey had a bum last note and oversang in the "big" moments just a tad, but it was a strong performance and a marked improvement over last week. The judges -- relieved to have the guy they've been touting back on form -- praised him to high heaven, with Randy again offering terrible advice that Danny should move more on stage. Uh, no he shouldn't. ALLISON IRAHETA -- Sang No Doubt's massive hit single "Don't Speak" (#1 for 16 weeks!), which counts as a golden oldie for the 16 year old since she was about four when it came out. Yes, her outfit was more appropriate for a Cyndi Lauper cover, but the judges again ignored what a fine vocalist Allison is. Her version had some nice touches but was a tad too close to the original for my taste. Still, she sounded strong again. The judges all spent more time trashing her dress with the result that Allison again seems overlooked in the talent department. Is she under the radar a la Kelly Clarkson or simply being fatally ignored? SCOTT MACINTYRE -- Sang Billy Joel's "Just The Way You Are," the first breakthrough hit of Joel's career. (It hit #3 and stayed there for two weeks and ultimately went gold. Previously, "Piano Man" had only hit #25. Joel went on to have 33 Top 40 hits.) Scott just sat at the piano and played the song, which is about as good a showcase for him as you can ask for. But it also highlights his many weaknesses. He was flat and off key and every time he tried for a vocal run or big note it was a disaster. Vocally, he's just as bad as Megan Joy but without the quirks to keep it vaguely interesting. The entire performance was at a funereal pace, which Paula referred to as "legato." All the judges praised him to high heaven so I have to assume he'll be safe for another week, though frankly he belongs in the bottom two. MATT GIRAUD -- Sang the current hit song from The Fray, "You Found Me." He sang the tune at his keyboard surrounded by the anonymous pretty girls who flood the front of the stage, a number of whom seemed more focused on the camera than his performance. It was kind of a mess and reminded me of a bar band covering a Top 40 hit -- serviceable and similar to the original, but soulless. The judges hated it. That combined with Matt looking unconfident and unhappy made for a very bad night. LIL ROUNDS -- Sang Celine Dion's "I Surrender" from A New Day Has Come, which was never a single but has been performed on Idol multiple times. Rounds had a terrible look -- too much makeup and lip gloss that made her seem ready for the prom but not primetime. And her vocals were strained and flat on the big notes. Paula Abdul nailed it by saying she didn't want Lil to be adult contemporary but r&b and fun. Still, the first three judges were overly friendly when Lil could have come in for some serious critiques. Only Simon came down hard, calling it a wedding performance. I would have predicted the bottom three until Ryan joked with Lil's kids and one of them ended up hugging Randy while tears streamed down Lil's face. She'll be safe. ADAM LAMBERT -- Sang Wild Cherry's #1 smash "Play That Funky Music," as good an example of a one-hit wonder as there is. Lambert insisted he would TRY to make it sound contemporary, but I wondered where the problem was. Last week was the first time I truly enjoyed Lambert's performance and that good will carried over to this week. I still don't like the vocal histrionics (every time he does a high-pitched vocal riff I think of KISS). But he stayed on melody for most of the tune and delivered the song flawlessly. The guy definitely can sing, even if I still think his sensibility is more for faux rock of the Rent kind than actual pop music. I never liked his original hair style but it seemed like his real look. The Elvis look of the past two weeks seems more like a wig, like part of a costume, than the spiky look. And proving he's smart, Adam gave a shout out to the much-maligned house band. It's always a good idea to keep the behind the scenes folk on your side. And again, he delivered the song very well. That's two weeks in a row where I can applaud Adam. Kara's comment about it being like Studio 57 was truly jaw-dropping. KRIS ALLEN -- Sang the Bill Withers gem "Ain't No Sunshine," his first big hit. If you don't own Just As I Am, do yourself a favor and buy it immediately. ( Paired with his second album, Still Bill, it's a must have. ) I've been a fan of Kris for purely superficial reasons from the get-go. But he keeps getting better and better every week. Tonight's performance was truly sensational. The tune has a tricky bridge with a string of "I know" repeated over and over. Withers makes it seem effortless and gripping but many other artists sort of just stumble through that moment. Kris broke it down very nicely and cleverly in a way that didn't mimic Withers but didn't abuse the melody either. He was soulful and intense and just generally great. All the judges rightly praised him but not enough in my book. With Lil stumbling and Danny just repeating himself, Kris looks like the one with the mojo to me. Who belongs in the bottom three? Allison was treated so dismissively that I worry it'll be her. Matt Giraud was treated so roughly and seems so unhappy, it could easily be him. Lil Rounds would also be a contender if it weren't for her cute kids. Scott MacIntyre belongs there but the judges are propping him up right now. But being bad and going early is a deadly combination, so I think Anoop and Megan Joy are definitely in the bottom three. They'll be joined by...Matt Giraud. The bottom two is Anoop and Megan Joy and because there are so few women left, I think Anoop is going home. Go here to read Enetertainment Weekly's Michael Slezak rundown of the show, with another EW journalist reporting on the show from the studio audience. Vote For The Worst (which tries to rally people to support their pick for the weakest singer) continues to bang the drum for Megan Joy. Dial Idol -- which predicts who is going home based on the amount of busy signals their automated dialing system picks up -- says Anoop is in danger. And the Associated Press recaps the show, but can't even be bothered to mention Matt Giraud. Ouch. More on American Idol
 
David Latt: Republicans Go All Alice-in-Wonderland Over Dawn Johnsen, Nominated to head the Office of Legal Counsel at Justice Top
Neil A. Lewis in today's New York Times reports that Republicans are threatening a filibuster to prevent the confirmation of Dawn Johnsen because, according to Senator John Cornyn of Texas, "Ms. Johnsen lacked the 'requisite seriousness' to head the Office of Legal Counsel." As a law professor at Indiana University, Ms. Johnsen had criticized the memos of Bush Administration lawyers like John C. Yoo, William J. Haynes II, Jay S. Bybee, and David S. Addington who argued after 9-11 that the President could abrogate laws regarding torture and ignore international treaties he disagreed with. The broad reading of presidential authority was "outlandish," and the constitutional arguments were "shockingly flawed," Ms. Johnsen has written. While her language was harsh, the memos have largely been withdrawn, and among lawyers a consensus agreeing with her views has emerged. So Senator Cornyn's attack is based on...what? Because she repudiated the Bush Administration's legal opinions, that proves she lacks "requisite seriousness". This is truly down-the-rabbit-hole thinking. Ms. Johnsen stood up to protest illegal behavior so the Republicans argue she is unfit to head the Office of Legal Counsel. She stated her position in an article in Slate : ...we must regain our ability to feel outrage whenever our government acts lawlessly and devises bogus constitutional arguments for outlandishly expansive presidential power. Otherwise, our own deep cynicism, about the possibility for a President and presidential lawyers to respect legal constraints, itself will threaten the rule of law... OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] , the office entrusted with making sure the President obeys the law instead here told the President that in fighting the war on terror, he is not bound by the laws Congress has enacted. It is because she was such an articulate defender of the law that she should take charge of the very office that Mr. Yoo and Mr. Bybee had undermined. That is precisely the opinion of Democrats like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Again from Neil A. Lewis' article: After the 'long, dark days of degradation" of the office...it is hypocritical of Republicans who were then silent to complain now about partisanship... Where were [Repubicans] when those incompetent, ideological opinions were being issued? What's truly criminal in the Senate Hearing is the abuse Ms. Johnsen has to endure because she defended the law when it was under severe attack by Bush Administration officials both in the White House and the Justice Department. In these darkly partisan times we can expect that the Republican leadership will push their opposition because they need to sound tough, even if it makes them sound like the Mad Hatter.
 
Ruby Reid: Obama Supporters Engage In 50 State Post-Election Advocacy Top
SAN FRANCISCO--Two weeks ago, Democratic Senator Evan Bayh (IN-D) announced the formation of 15 "blue dogs" (technically, the "Moderate Dems Working Group") in the Senate who, he said, would hold President Barack Obama's feet to the fire on the budget. In response, Obama supporters setup a sidewalk phone bank outside a swanky, high-dollar fundraiser in San Francisco on Sunday afternoon, calling the constituents of Senate blue dogs hobnobbing inside. Although the President's plan to lift the country out of the current economic crisis has broad support, blue dogs have been reluctant to get behind Obama's proposed 2010 budget. In order to generate political capital, Organizing For America (OFA) recently began to activate Obama's vast campaign volunteer network to increase awareness and support for the President's economic and budgetary agenda in all 50 states. Post-election legislative advocacy and activism by volunteers organized during an election campaign is unprecedented, especially on a national scale. On Sunday, Phone bankers on the sidewalk called hundreds of voters in the Senators' home states, engaging their local constituents directly. Others held signs like, "Honk for Obama" or "Support Obama's Budget." Cars and buses honked and passengers waved support and put thumbs in the air as they passed by. Susan Pfeifer, in black sweatshirt, surrounded by fellow OFA volunteers. Volunteers also handed flyers to everyone entering the fundraiser venue, and they encouraged attendees to engage the Senators in conversation about the budget during the event. They also asked attendees to make their support for the Senators contingent upon each Senator's support for Obama's budget. Attendees of the high-dollar dinner included Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ, DSCC Chair), Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Sen. John Tester (D-MT). When the limousine carrying Menendez arrived, volunteer José Torres caught his eye and waved him over. Torres explained the reason for the activity on the sidewalk to a receptive Menendez, who voted for Obama's budget in committee. Menendez had Torres introduce him to the phone bank volunteers and thanked them for their efforts. When the callers told him that they were currently calling Menendez's own constituents in New Jersey, he replied enthusiastically, "That's great!" (D-IA) Senator Tom Harkin signing the pledge handed to him by Kenya Wheeler Tara Schubert, Volunteer Coordinator for San Francisco OFA, said the sidewalk phone bank was significant for her team because it was the first post-election activity in which they contacted voters in other states, I live in a blue state, in a blue city. But I can still have an effect on national issues through these contacts with voters in other states. Schubert said that one New Jersey voter told her, I'm doing what you're doing, making calls to Congress and encouraging others to make calls to support President Obama. Kenya Wheeler marveled at how engaged the voters seemed on the other end of the phone, noting that several had already contacted their Senators to ask them to support Obama's 2010 budget. During one conversation in which Wheeler was waiting for a Delaware constituent to retrieve a pen to write down the phone numbers of her senators, Wheeler looked up to see Senator Carper of Delaware thanking phone bankers for their work. After shaking Carper's hand, Wheeler asked if he would sign the pledge. He declined, saying guilefully, "Barack and I are buddies." and hurried on to greet another volunteer. Volunteers on the sidewalk making calls Harkin also shook hands and thanked the volunteers and even allowed several volunteers to snap photos of each other with him. When he made his way over to Wheeler, Wheeler shook Harkin's hand, remarking that Obama got his start in Iowa. He made a point to thank Harkin for Iowa's historic role in Obama's election then asked Harkin if he would sign the pledge to support Obama's budget. Without hesitation, Harkin exclaimed, "Of course!" He diligently filled out every blank and box in the form and then signed it Your Senator, Tom Harkin . Volunteer Susan Pheifer reflected on the past successes of Obama campaign volunteers in San Francisco, noting, While this might not have been our highest volume phone bank, it certainly was one of the most satisfying. Event organizers said the goal of the sidewalk phone bank was to demonstrate in no uncertain terms that the message of change the country endorsed on November 4 was not just a political slogan. Wheeler asserted, Just as the tactics of political engagement have been changed, so have the expectations of the American people. No longer will we simply elect a leader, sit back and expect him (or her) to create the change we need. Instead, a new understanding is unveiling that speaks truth to the words of Ghandi, "You must be the change that you wish to seek in the world." More on Obama Fundraising
 
Donna Fish: Your DNA; Your Picky Eater Top
"My kid only eats three things!" Many parents say. A while back an article in the New York Times spoke of a company that now can analyze your DNA and find out such specific information as to why in fact, you might have never wanted to drink milk when you were a kid. (Lactose intolerance tells your body to stay away!) Parents can pull their hair out, worrying about their kids who refuse to try any new foods. Even formerly adventurous babies, can turn into toddlers and preschoolers who get so picky with their eating, that parents go bananas. Aside from the beige food eaters, picky eaters are the most typical of early childhood. This is important to understand, because like with any parenting issue, the less personally you take it, and the less you need to truly worry about it becoming a problem, the more relaxed you can be which is always best for your kids! Some things to consider: Every kid's palate develops on their own timetable, just like their motor, speech and cognitive development. Think about it; eating involves the three senses of taste, smell and touch. Similarly to how one child reads earlier because the muscles of the eye steady the letter on the page sooner, your child's senses are developing on their own timeline. Don't worry if you and your husband enjoy more subtle flavours; your child might need more time to develop that part their palate. Many allergists believe that children who are picky eaters are instinctively tuned into their bodies' signals that are telling them to stay away from a particular food until their bodies have developed enough immunity to said food. Children are often just less interested in variety, and love the same things. Think of how many times they have to wear the same Superman outfit to preschool, or the same T- shirt? Their world is expanding and they are also asserting their own individuality and taste. Taste, remember! Again, try not to take it personally. Here are some tips to help you live through the years (and criticizing you may get from so-called well wishers)!: 1) If you are worried that they aren't getting their nutritional needs met, look at your kids' food over the course of one to two weeks, not just each day. (What nutritionists advocate.) There is more room for those days your kid barely eats anything, or it seems like they really do only exist on mac and cheese. 2) Teach them about the major food groups and what they do for their body. Get them to go grocery shopping with you and pick out the ways they want to eat their protein. Let them pick the fruit, if they won't eat veggies, If they won't even do that, challenge them to find another way to get their vitamins. Make it into a game. They are the expert on their body, but they do have the job of taking the best care of it that they possibly can, you say to them. Empower them to take more responsibility. Get them to do some of the work. 3) Let them pick one or two back up meals if they never eat what you prepare for dinner. If they are too young to prepare it themselves, try to keep it simple and something they can reach in the fridge themselves. Don't worry if it is something like a yogurt, or cereal. Let them portion out their own food. 4) Leverage the siblings if you have more than one child! As they won't eat the carrots on their plate, ask them if you or if their sister or brother can eat them? Model a "Good, more for me!" attitude, and your own enthusiasm about eating. 5) You can use the 'try each thing once' rule, but don't worry if it doesn't work or they start to fight you on it. I find that the more pressure you put on them, the less likely they are to find it and appreciate it for themselves when they are ready. It can also set up a power struggle as they begin to individuate themselves. 6) You can try to hide veggies in their food, (Deceptively Delicious advocates might swear by this), but it often doesn't last long. If you do this, don't expect it to last and be prepared to deal with the issue square on. Most of all, remember that there is alot of evidence to help you as a parent, not take this issue personally. Think of your own and your husband's background. Were you a picky eater? Are there any food allergies in your family? After all, it could just be in their DNA, not that you are doing a bad job. Or, your child simply needs time to 'grow into' their palate. Who knows, they may even become the next 'Top Chef'! Visit me at: www.donnafish.com
 
'Yoo Arrested In Italy': ABC News Reporter Falls For April Fools Prank Top
The latest victim of the inevitable collision between the instantaneous internet and the April Fool's joke is ABC's Jake Tapper. [...] So, Tapper jumped on ABC's internal news distribution system early this morning to alert the network that former Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo-- the author of controversial Bush Administration policy memos after 9/11-- had been arrested in Italy for "war crimes."
 
Robert Guttman: HAPPY 60TH BIRTHDAY NATO; TIME TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS? Top
As President Barack Obama prepares to attend the 60th anniversary summit of NATO in Strasbourg, France and Kehl, Germany on April 3rd and 4th the question has to be asked among all the hoopla and celebration: Is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization still necessary? Everyone will welcome France back to NATO's integrated alliance structure and a document will come out of the summit proclaiming the strong transatlantic unity and strong bonds of NATO. We will all agree that it was very successful in its initial goal of keeping the peace in Europe and Soviet troops from crossing into Europe. But, the Soviet Union is gone and has been for a long time. The main threat from Russia comes not from their military but from their economic role as a provider of natural gas and oil to Europe. Europeans fear a cutoff of energy from Russia more than any type of military action. NATO was successful in its original goal and Europe is a peaceful place these days; the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact no longer exist; and the European Union now encompasses most of the countries of Europe. It is a completely different situation now than in the 1940s and during the Cold War years. NATO was successful and NATO was competent and NATO kept the peace but a new era is upon us and NATO is grasping for a new role and it may not have a role to play in 2009 and beyond. The main threat today to Europe and the United States is the economic meltdown and the huge financial crisis we are all facing. Certainly we are facing terrorist threats but is NATO really the organization to keep terrorists at bay? The crunch for President Obama will come in Strasbourg when he asks for more troops for the NATO mission in Afghanistan. And, the reply from many of our NATO allies will be sorry but we will not provide any more troops because we do not see Afghanistan as that large of a problem. Europeans are more inward looking today. They see no huge threat to their countries from Afghanistan. President Obama is seeking more NATO troops from countries who do not want to provide them and if they do provide them have certain restrictions -not going into battle in the southern part of the country--that makes them almost useless. We now have a military alliance where many of the members do not want to engage in military operations. This is hardly a recipe for a successful future for NATO. When I interviewed NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer several years ago he told me: "We cannot lose in Afghanistan. We have to succeed in Afghanistan. If we fail, then who will have confidence in us again? Our credibility as NATO, as the Euro-Atlantic community is on the line. And our credibility is one of our strongest assets. To preserve it, we have no choice but to succeed. NATO has a tradition to keep. NATO has never made empty promises. So NATO should not make empty promises now." Well, NATO is not succeeding in Afghanistan at the moment and the political will seems to be missing from many of our NATO allies to continue the mission in that war torn nation. There are many military threats in the world today that will rear their ugly head and take over the headlines from the economic crisis in the near future but the question is: Is NATO the right military organization to deal with these crises? Maybe we should call NATO a huge success, pat every one on the back and dissolve the military organization and move on. Could the European Union take on the military role? Could a new military organization take the place of NATO? Instead of planning new missions around the globe for NATO why not ask the basic question: Is NATO still necessary anymore? NATO did its original job and the peace was kept in Europe and Soviet tanks did not attack during the Cold War---its goals were met and met successfully so why keep coming up with new out of area missions that do not have the full backing of most of the members. Re-think NATO. It may be time to say happy birthday and goodbye.
 
Jim Randel: SUCCESS IN THE SHADOWS Top
My office is on the perimeter of a golf course. I enjoy watching the golfers. There is a member of this club who is a world-class, amateur golfer. He has won several international tournaments. And here is what I have learned from him: success is earned in the shadows. Let me explain. This man is out on the golf course practicing every day, usually at dawn or at dusk. In fact sometimes there is hardly enough light to see. But, he is always there - before or after his work day (he is a stockbroker). This man's example is a metaphor to me and how I feel about success. If you want something really badly, if you want to excel and be the best you can be, then ready yourself to earn your success in the shadows. Understand that you will need to get up early to practice, study, prepare or review when others are sleeping. Understand that you will need to work at your endeavor when you are tired and others are relaxing. Understand that you may be very lonely at times when you struggle alone with a personal challenge while others enjoy friends and family. Understand that you will experience frustration, disillusionment and self-doubt as you seek to improve your standing, for success will never come as quickly or as easily as you hope. Those who are prepared to struggle in the shadows, when it is hard to see the light, are those most likely to find success in their chosen endeavor. One of my favorite writers is a doctor named William James who many consider the father of American psychology. In 1890 he completed a 2,900 page study titled The Principles of Psychology. Here is an excerpt: "(Some identify their goal) and know that the facing of its difficulties shall remain a permanent portion of their task ... They find a zest in this difficult clinging to the truth or a lonely sort of joy in pressing on the thorn ... which no passively warranted possession of it can ever confer. And thereby they become the masters and the lords of life. They must be counted with henceforth; they form a part of human destiny." If you have a dream, understand that at times your quest will be painful and fatiguing, that at times no one will see the reality of your dream but you, that at times you will feel isolated and unsure, and that at times you will struggle in the shadows searching for the strength and the light to press on. More on Economy
 
Ayers: Canceled School Lecture Teaches 'Terrible Lessons' Top
Controversial author Bill Ayers says separate decisions by school officials and a bookshop owner to cancel his scheduled appearances next week in Naperville are "absurd" and "outrageous." [...] "This cancellation provides terrible lessons for these young people about the limits of freedom and the importance of obedience, and it must be painful for many of them to watch people they admire collapse under pressure," Ayers wrote Tuesday in an e-mail. "It has all the hallmarks of suppression of speech: incitement of fear, intimidation of well-meaning folks, mob rule."
 
Mike Papantonio: Lessons from Darwin - We're Still Evolving Top
The Galapagos Islands sit 600 miles off the coast of Ecuador. Graciela Cevullos Montalvo has made her living as a naturalist guide on those islands for 20 years. Becoming a naturalist guide in an area where Charles Darwin figured out the process of evolution is no minor accomplishment. There are many applications for guide positions, but a relative small number of guides make the cut. Graciela has developed strong opinions about the successes and failures of our modern culture based on what she has observed on this archipelago for two decades. Bring up the topic of why Darwin's theory of evolution frightens some people, and she in a wise philosophical way will tell you that some religious leaders have so little faith in the power of God that they fail to understand how faith and science can co-exist. When I explained to Graciela that there are places in America where there is still resistance to teaching Darwinian evolution in schools, her rolling eyes and frown told me all I needed to know about her opinion on that issue. She explained that fearful skeptics visit these islands every day and some leave still unwilling to acknowledge what their eyes and good sense should be telling them about the truth of evolution. Graciela tells me that what she sees taking place on these islands strengthens her faith in God. She doesn't understand why skeptics have such fear. Graciela's wisdom showed up in most of her strong opinions. She didn't need to dissect the concepts found in Darwin's Origin of Species to figure out what mankind can learn from the Finches and Frigate birds that are constantly adapting to survive on these harsh islands. Almost every day, Graciela is navigating her athletic frame across rugged rock and shoreline explaining the lessons of the Galapagos. One of the constant themes is that even the most partially evolved animal species she encounters daily are successful is sustaining life primarily by furthering the well-being of their entire community. She goes through a litany of examples where birds, sea lions, and iguanas take from their surroundings only what they need to live. In a kind way, she points out how dramatically different they are from the more evolved human that could best be described as locus-like in the way they interact in their community. She wonders why we seem to be blind to the fact that our survival requires us to leave something for generations to follow. She doesn't appear to be optimistic about the possibilities of humans finding a greater sense of community that will lead us to end our consumption of natural resources that are as basic as drinkable water, breathable air, and sustainable food supplies. In the course of several discussions with Graciela, one powerful opinion in particular surfaced. It's worth mentioning. She believes that the arrogance that is so prevalent in our modern culture may prevent us from benefiting from the lessons of the Galapagos. Graciela seems to believe that even penguins have a better chance for sustained survival than humans. But still, Graciela leaves me hoping that just like all the wonderful creatures on these islands, humans too are still evolving.
 
Steve Young: O'Reilly Announces Plan To Boycott Minnesota (Not An April Fool's Joke) Top
With most every legal option exhausted by Norm Coleman and Al Franken about ready to take his U.S Senate seat, Bill O'Reilly has made his position quite clear. Until Franken leaves the US Senate, he will be boycotting Minnesota. Last night on The O'Reilly Factor... Hi. I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching tonight. Tonight I will be doing something I never thought I would have to, but that's only because the unimaginable has happened. Al Franken, the despicable smear merchant who I have cleverly referred to for years as Stuart Smiley will be officially seated in the U.S. Senate. That is the subject of tonight's Talking Point. First of all, it's important to know that I am a objective observer who has no dog in this fight, but when I see this great country being brought down to such a level that a vile gutternipe can be elected to the U.S. Senate, I can no longer sit on the sidelines. READ THE REST OF THE UNFREAKINGBELIEVABLE O'REILLY FACTOR HERE Award-winning TV writer Steve Young is author of "Great Failures of the Extremely Successful" www.greatfailure.com and blogs at the appropriately-named SteveYoungonPolitics.com More on Al Franken
 
Marilia Duffles: Brazil's Charmingly Un-PC President Top
Like President Lula, I am also Brazilian and occasionally engage in cross-cultural communication with a Brit. My husband. Just as Gordon Brown and the chattering classes stiffened in reaction to Lula's white man comments, my husband did, too, with this cultural exchange: While buying olive oil in a Brazilian central market last year, the customer behind me cheerfully greeted the convivial black sales guy with "Oi passaro preto" (Hiya black bird)! Recognizing this as affectionate Brazilian wit, my mother and I roared with laughter. Offensive? No. Endearing? Yes. We Brazilians are Latin which means we express ourselves in candid, colorful ways. Refreshingly so. This light-hearted mockery -- sacanagem -- directed at those we care about is the Brazilian version of the Brits' "taking the Mickey out of someone." A lighter version, my husband emphasizes. And it's a far cry from the political correctness that thwarts any brain from naturally engaging its socially cognitive gears. Like the visually engaging "black bird," Lula's use of "white men with blue eyes" to make his point is economic in more ways than meets the eye: The brain's clever use of visual metaphor happens to be the most efficient processor of information. "When political rhetoric capitalizes on visual abstraction, it leaves a lasting impression on voters' collective minds", says George Lakoff, professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley. So, to be perfectly metaphoric, tame your Irish hackles, Maureen Dowd. No need to engage in Rush-esque behavior by playing ditto-head to the New York Post which described Lula as a bearded "socialist nutcase". With their logic, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich must also be a nutcase (though a blue-eyed one) given he said that "Bill Clinton's Wall Street agenda brought America and the world crashing down with it . . . I hope we are not seeing history repeat itself with Mr Obama." Downing Street, in charming verbal diplomacy reminiscent of my capitalist husband, says the remarks made by Lula were meant for "domestic consumption." And, what's more, that "people in Brazil are very frustrated and angry at what they feel is the injustice of the situation: a crisis that has essentially come from the banking sectors in places like the United States and the U.K., but is affecting their country." But, being Brazilian, I think Lula meant it for global consumption. To awaken the collective conscience of the blue eyed. . .and varying shades thereof. And his choice of words not only cut to the white man's chase but unwittingly payed homage to them as well: Anglo-Saxon Englightenment, as Richard Layard the British economist put it this week, says that "progress means the reduction of misery and the increase of happiness, not wealth creation or innovation which are sometimes useful but never the final goal." One of the intellectual giants of the Enlightenment was Adam Smith, the Scottish moral philosopher whose Theory of Moral Sentiments says that in spite of our self-interested nature, humans have a moral conscience that comes from observing and being connected with others and that human cooperation depends on compassion. "The emotion we feel for the misery of others." Lula's grand stand this past week echoes Smith's and that of another Brit. Charles Dickens' Hard Times increased sales of his lagging periodical Household Word by railing against utilitarianism. Dickens carefully carved characters reflect proponents of utilitarianism like John Stuart Mill (Mr. Gradgrind, the facts and number-driven teacher) whose use of statistics to justify the unequal distribution of wealth contributed to the harsh socioeconomic inequalities during Britain's Industrial Revolution. As Dickens drew upon his childhood experiences -- a father in debtor's prison -- to shape his self-described "compassionate knowledge", so too does Lula who clearly lived the hard times of poverty. "I lived through misery and hunger; our family lived in a shack that frequently flooded", he eloquently explained to CNN's Fareed Zakharia the week prior to the G-20 Summit. Branded a leftist by those fearful of his undoing former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso's fiscal and monetary policies before him, Lula instead ran with this economic torch while simultaneously lighting the ambers of poverty reduction. The Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) program, improved infrastructure in the favelas, increase in low-income housing construction, and annual increase in the minimum wage have all contributed dearly to a more equitable income distribution in Brazil. His popularity rating after almost eight years in office is an impressive 80%. Lula's actions, along with the long road from his impoverished past to the presidency of the world's sixth largest economy, is what gives him not just the moral sentiment Smith defined but the moral authority to declare the actions of those who brought not just America but the world to its financial knees as "irrational behavior." With any luck, the G-20 summit will help turn Lula's comments into a Dickensian "household word." Interestingly, those clever Greeks, too, also unwittingly understood the use of metaphor given that the word "economics" is derived from the Greek for household. More on G-20 Summit
 
Jim Wallis: Video: Rush Limbaugh to Speak at Sojourners' Mobilization to End Poverty Top
  In an inspiring display of bipartisan bridge-building, talk radio personality Rush Limbaugh has accepted Jim Wallis' invitation to deliver a keynote address at Sojourners' Mobilization to End Poverty conference in April. "I've always said the monologue of the extreme right is over, and a new dialogue has begun," said Wallis. "Well, that dialogue is about to get a whole lot louder." Limbaugh, longtime champion of conservative media, announced his acceptance of the invitation on his daily radio show. Interrupted occasionally by call-ins of incredulous listeners, Limbaugh detailed months of off-the-record conversations with Wallis during which the two forged a deep friendship despite political, theological, philosophical, ideological, ecological, anthropological, eschatological, and soteriological differences. That dialogue came to a head one night when an anguished and sleepless Limbaugh called Wallis after 3:00 am, seeking spiritual solace. "I responded like any good evangelical would," said Wallis. "I told him he should read his Bible. And then I hung up and went back to sleep." Vexed but desperate, Limbaugh grabbed his trusty KJV, fanned it open at random, closed his eyes, and thrust his index finger upon whatever page it might find, landing upon this passage from James 5 : Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter. "I admit, of all the verses for him to read, this passage sounds a bit harsh--especially in the King James," said Wallis. "But with 2000 verses on poverty in the Bible, Rush was bound to hit one of them." Limbaugh's response to the Word was swift and dramatic: "Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount." As part of Limbaugh's dramatic change of heart, he has reciprocated Wallis' speaking invitation by naming him the new co-host for his daily radio show, giving it a more faith-based focus. "The way Kathy Lee needed Regis, that's the way yall need Jesus," said Limbaugh. "That's what Jim will bring to the show on a daily basis--that good ole' Red Letter Christian gospel!" Limbaugh further detailed his plans to team up with Sojourners and others to fight domestic and global poverty, issuing this challenge to all Dittoheads in a recent broadcast: "I want everyone within the sound of my voice to call upon their members of congress to cut the number of Americans living in poverty in half in the next ten years, and to support America's commitment to the Millenium Devleopment Goals. ... And always remember to recycle. ... Oh, and one last thing: fur is murder." Watch a video sneak preview of Rush's speech at the Mobilization to End Poverty : With Mobilization attendees and legions of conservative talk radio fans both reeling from this dramatic turn of events, many are asking what other surprises are in store for the Sojourners conference. Anonymous sources have confirmed that TV talk show host Stephen T. Colbert (pictured) will be delivering the a prayer of invocation to kick off the event. Also, Bono has cancelled the free U2 concert for emerging leaders due to lack of interest. Instead, band members The Edge, Larry Mullins Jr. and Adam Clayton will accompany Jim Wallis in leading the young people in a sing-a-long of church camp fireside favorites. "Arky Arky" anyone? OK, as you may have already guessed--April Fools! But seriously folks, come to Washington, D.C., this April for the Mobilization to End Poverty! +Click here to see the amazing line-up of actual speakers and to register online +Email this April Fool's blog post to your friends +Share this April Fool's blog post on Facebook More on Satire
 
Ann Jones: Death on the Home Front Top
Crossposted with TomDispatch.com Women in the Crosshairs Wake up, America. The boys are coming home, and they're not the boys who went away. On New Year's Day, the New York Times welcomed the advent of 2009 by reporting that, since returning from Iraq, nine members of the Fort Carson, Colorado, Fourth Brigade Combat team had been charged with homicide. Five of the murders they were responsible for took place in 2008 when, in addition, "charges of domestic violence, rape and sexual assault" at the base rose sharply. Some of the murder victims were chosen at random; four were fellow soldiers -- all men. Three were wives or girlfriends. This shouldn't be a surprise. Men sent to Iraq or Afghanistan for two, three, or four tours of duty return to wives who find them "changed" and children they barely know. Tens of thousands return to inadequate, underfunded veterans' services with appalling physical injuries, crippling post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suck-it-up sergeants who hold to the belief that no good soldier seeks help. That, by the way, is a mighty convenient belief for the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, which have been notoriously slow to offer much of that help. Recently Republican Senator John Cornyn from Texas, a state with 15 major military bases, noted that as many as one in five U.S. veterans is expected to suffer from at least one "invisible wound" of war, if not a combination of them, "including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and mild traumatic brain injury." Left untreated, such wounds can become very visible: witness, for example, the recent wave of suicides that have swept through the military , at least 128 in 2008, and 24 in January 2009 alone. To judge by past wars, a lot of returning veterans will do themselves a lot of damage drinking and drugging. Many will wind up in prison for drug use or criminal offenses that might have been minor if the offenders hadn't been carrying guns they learned to rely on in the service. And a shocking number of those veterans will bring the violence of war home to their wives and children. That's no accident. The U.S. military is a macho club, proud of its long tradition of misogyny, and not about to give it up. One decorated veteran of the first Gulf War, who credited the army with teaching him to repress his emotions, described his basic training as "long, exhausting marches" and "sound-offs [that] revolved around killing and mutilating the enemy or violent sex with women." (The two themes easily merge.) That veteran was Timothy McVeigh, the unrepentant Oklahoma City bomber, who must have known that blowing up a government office building during business hours was sure to kill a whole lot of women. Even in the best of times, the incidence of violence against women is much higher in the military than among civilians. After war, it's naturally worse -- as with those combat team members at Fort Carson. In 2005, one of them, Pfc. Stephen Sherwood, returned from Iraq and fatally shot his wife, then himself. In September 2008, Pvt. John Needham, who received a medical discharge after a failed suicide attempt, beat his girlfriend to death. In October 2008, Spc. Robert H. Marko raped and murdered Judilianna Lawrence, a developmentally disabled teenager he met online. These murders of wives and girlfriends -- crimes the Bureau of Justice Statistics labels "intimate homicides" -- were hardly the first. In fact, the first veterans of George Bush's wars returned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, from Afghanistan in 2002. On June 11, 2002, Sgt. First Class Rigoberto Nieves fatally shot his wife Teresa and then himself in their bedroom. On June 29th, Sgt. William Wright strangled his wife Jennifer and buried her body in the woods. On July 9th, Sgt. Ramon Griffin stabbed his estranged wife Marilyn 50 times or more and set her house on fire. On July 19th, Sgt. First Class Brandon Floyd of Delta Force, the antiterrorism unit of the Special Forces, shot his wife Andrea and then killed himself. At least three of the murdered wives had been seeking separation or divorce. When a New York Times reporter asked a master sergeant in the Special Forces to comment on these events , he responded: "S.F.'s [Special Forces members] don't like to talk about emotional stuff. We are Type A people who just blow things like that off..." The killings at Fort Bragg didn't stop there. In February 2005, Army Special Forces trainee Richard Corcoran shot and wounded his estranged wife Michele and another soldier, then killed himself. He became the tenth fatality in a lengthening list of domestic violence deaths at Fort Bragg. In February 2008, the Times reported finding "more than 150 cases of fatal domestic violence or [fatal] child abuse in the United States involving service members and new veterans" since the Afghan War began in October 2001. And it's still going on. The Pentagon: Conveniently Clueless In April 2000, after three soldiers stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, murdered their wives and CBS TV's 60 Minutes broke a story on those deaths, the Pentagon established a task force on domestic violence. After three years of careful work, the task force reported its findings and recommendations to Congress on March 20, 2003, the day the United States invaded Iraq. Members of the House Armed Services Committee kept rushing from the hearing room, where testimony on the report was underway, to see how the brand new war was coming along. What the task force discovered was that soldiers rarely faced any consequences for beating or raping their wives. (Girlfriends didn't even count.) In fact, soldiers were regularly sheltered on military bases from civilian orders of protection and criminal arrest warrants. The military, in short, did a much better job of protecting servicemen from punishment than protecting their wives from harm. Years later the military seems as much in denial as ever. It has, for instance, established "anger management" classes, long known to be useless when it comes to men who assault their wives. Batterers already manage their anger very well -- and very selectively -- to intimidate wives and girlfriends; rarely do they take it out on a senior officer or other figure of authority. It's the punch line to an old joke: the angry man goes home to kick his dog, or more likely, his wife. Anger may fire the shot, but misogyny determines the target. A sense of male superiority, and the habitual disrespect for women that goes with it, make many men feel entitled to control the lesser lives of women -- and dogs. Even Hollywood gets the connection: in Paul Haggis's stark film on the consequences of the Iraq War, In the Valley of Elah , a returned vet drowns the family dog in the bathtub -- a rehearsal for drowning his wife. The military does evaluate the mental health of soldiers. Three times it evaluated the mental health of Robert H. Marko (the Fort Carson infantryman who raped and murdered a girl), and each time declared him fit for combat, even though his record noted his belief that, on his twenty-first birthday, he would be transformed into the "Black Raptor," half-man, half-dinosaur. In February 2008, after the ninth homicide at Fort Carson, the Army launched an inquiry there too. The general in charge said investigators were "looking for a trend, something that happened through [the murderers'] life cycle that might have contributed to this." A former captain and Army prosecutor at Fort Carson asked, "Where is this aggression coming from?... Was it something in Iraq?" What Are We Fighting For? Our women soldiers are a different story. The Department of Defense still contends that women serve only "in support of" U.S. operations, but in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan "support" and "combat" often amount to the same thing. Between September 11, 2001, and mid-2008, 193,400 women were deployed "in support of" U.S. combat operations. In Iraq alone, 97 were killed and 585 wounded. Like their male counterparts, thousands of women soldiers return from Afghanistan and Iraq afflicted with PTSD. Their "invisible wounds," however, are invariably made more complex by the conditions under which they serve. Although they train with other women, they are often deployed only with men. In the field they are routinely harassed and raped by their fellow soldiers and by officers who can destroy their careers if they protest. On March 17, 2009, the Pentagon reported 2,923 cases of sexual assault in the past year in the U.S. military, including a 25% increase in assaults reported by women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, assaults committed by men who serve under the same flag. What's more, the Pentagon estimated that perhaps 80% of such rapes go unreported. And then, when women come home as veterans, they, like their male counterparts, may be involved in domestic homicides. Unlike the men, however, they are usually not the killers, but the victims. Shortly after Sgt. William Edwards and his wife, Sgt. Erin Edwards , returned to Fort Hood, Texas, in 2004 from separate missions in Iraq, he assaulted her. She moved off base, sent her two children to stay with her mother, brought charges against her husband, got an order of protection, and received assurances from her husband's commanders that they would prevent him from leaving the base without an accompanying officer. She even arranged for a transfer to a base in New York. However, on July 22, 2004, before she could leave the area, William Edwards skipped his anger management class, left the base by himself, drove to Erin Edwards's house, and after a struggle, shot her in the head, then turned the gun on himself. The police detective in charge of the investigation told reporters, "I believe that had he been confined to base and had that confinement been monitored, she would not be dead at his hands." Base commanders excused themselves, saying they hadn't known Erin Edwards was "afraid" of her husband. Even if true, since when is that a standard of military discipline? William Edwards had assaulted a fellow soldier. Normally, that would be some kind of crime -- unless, of course, the victim was just a wife. Back in North Carolina, near Fort Bragg and the nearby Marine base at Camp Lejeune, military men murdered four military women in nine months between December 2007 and September 2008. Marine Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach, eight months pregnant, went missing from Camp Lejeune in December 2007, not long before she was to testify that a fellow Marine, Cpl. Cesar Laurean, had raped her. In January, investigators found her burned body in a shallow grave in Laurean's backyard. By then, he had fled to Mexico , his native country, and been apprehended there; but Mexico does not extradite citizens subject to capital punishment. On June 21st, the decomposing body of Spc. Megan Touma, seven months pregnant, was found in a motel room near Fort Bragg. In July, Sgt. Edgar Patino, a married man and the father of Touma's child, was arrested and charged with her murder. On July 10th, Army 2nd Lt. Holly Wimunc, a nurse, failed to appear for work at Fort Bragg. Neighbors reported that her apartment was burning. Days later, her charred body was found near Camp Lejeune. She had been in the process of divorcing her estranged husband, Marine Cpl. John Wimunc, and had a restraining order against him. He and his friend Lance Cpl. Kyle Ryan Alden were charged with murder , arson, and felony conspiracy. On September 30th, Army Sgt. Christina Smith was walking with her husband Sgt. Richard Smith in their Fayetteville neighborhood near Fort Bragg when an assailant plunged a knife into her neck. Richard Smith and Pfc. Mathew Kvapil, a hired hit man, were charged with murder and conspiracy. Striking about these "intimate homicides" is their lack of intimacy. They tend to be planned and carried out with the kind of ruthless calculation that would go into any military plan of attack. Most were designed to eliminate an inconveniently pregnant lover and an unwelcome child, or to inflict the ultimate lesson on a woman about to make good her escape from a man's control. In some of them, in good soldierly fashion, the man planning the killing was able to enlist the help of a buddy. On military websites you can read plenty of comments of comradely support for these homicidal men who so heroically "offed the bitches." Give Peace a Chance The battered women's movement once had a slogan: World peace begins at home. They thought peace could be learned by example in homes free of violence and then carried into the wider world. It was an idea first suggested in 1869 by the English political philosopher John Stuart Mill. He saw that "the subjection of women," as he called it, engendered in the home the habits of tyranny and violence which afflicted England's political life and corrupted its conduct abroad. The idea seems almost quaint in competition with the brutal, dehumanizing effectiveness of two or three tours of duty in a pointless war and a little "mild" brain damage. We had a respite for a while. For nearly a decade, starting in 1993, rates of domestic violence and wife murder went down by a few percentage points. Then in 2002, the vets started coming home. No society that sends its men abroad to do violence can expect them to come home and be at peace. To let world peace begin at home, you have to stop making war. (Europe has largely done it.) Short of that, you have to take better care of your soldiers and the people they once knew how to love. Ann Jones is a journalist and the author of a groundbreaking series of books on violence against women, including Next Time She'll Be Dead , on battering, and Women Who Kill , a contemporary classic to be reissued this fall by the Feminist Press, with a new
 
The 'Yes We Can Flan': British Village Hosts Obama Food Festival Top
The foodie residents of the Cambridge villages of Shelford and Stapleford - recently identified as the 16th century European ancestral home of Barack Obama's family - have announced a culinary extravaganza designed to celebrate the president's heritage. Oh, and appeal to the millions of bored American tourists who are likely to descend on the region as a result. The local butcher, baker and candlestick-maker have created a series of culinary delicacies in the president's honour which include a yummy curry dish called 'The Barack O Bhuna', 'The Yes We Can Flan' and 'The Village Big Cheese'. Talk about Puns R' Us. More on Barack Obama
 
Karzai, Zardari Meet In Turkey To Discuss Combating Islamist Extremism Top
Afghan president Hamid Karzai has met his Pakistani counterpart, Asif Ali Zardari, to discuss ways to combat Islamist extremists in both countries. More on War Wire
 
Mass. charges Madoff 'feeder fund' with fraud Top
BOSTON — Massachusetts' top securities regulator has charged a Connecticut investment firm with fraudulently misrepresenting its lack of knowledge about Bernard Madoff's business operations. Secretary of State William Galvin filed an administrative complaint Wednesday seeking restitution for Massachusetts investors for losses from Fairfield Greenwich Group. Galvin says the fund invested over 95 percent of its Sentry Funds' $7.2 billion in assets in Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. Madoff is in jail awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to swindling thousands of investors of billions of dollars. Fairfield Greenwich spokesman Thomas Mulligan the company is still examing the complaint and had no immediate comment. More on Bernard Madoff
 
Raul Alfonsin, Former Argentine President, Dies Top
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — Raul Alfonsin, the Argentine president who guided his country's return to democracy following a military dictatorship that left thousands missing, died on Tuesday. He was 82. Alfonsin's personal doctor, Alberto Sadler, said he died of lung cancer. The government declared three days or mourning. The presidential inauguration of the burly, mustachioed leader on Dec. 10, 1983, ended more than seven years of a repressive military regime that left at least 13,000 disappeared. He won an open election that the military was forced to call, in disgrace, after the nation's defeat in the 1982 war with Britain over the Falklands Islands. His presidency was marked by two milestones: his daring decision to bring to trial the leaders of the dictatorship for human rights violations, and an economic collapse that made him hand power to his successor six month early. Annual inflation had surpassed 3,000 percent. Few discussed his crucial role in the restoration of democracy at a time when military regimes ruled most of South America, but his presidency came to be seen as a milestone in the region. He was instrumental in getting several political groups to set aside differences and unite in a loose coalition that paved the way for the 1983 election. He garnered 51.7 percent of the vote, handing the powerful Peronist party its first election defeat ever. In office, he quickly ordered the trial of nine members of the former ruling military junta, on charges including kidnapping, torture and the forced disappearances of thousands. It was a bold step in a country where the military dominated for decades, having taken power in six coups in the 20th century. "I think that sometimes I take too many risks, because what we did no one had done before," he said looking back. Alfonsin said the trials were needed to restore a strong judicial system and break the destructive cycle of political chaos and military coups. The trials, unprecedented in Latin America, ended in December 1985 with the conviction and imprisonment of five former military rulers, including two ex-presidents. Four others were acquitted. Alfonsin established a National Commission on the Disappearance of People which produced for the courts a lengthy report known as "Nunca Mas," or "Never Again," detailing the military's ruthless campaign against dissident based on testimony by hundreds of victims and their relatives and witnesses. Official records now put the number of disappeared during Argentina's 1976-83 dictatorship at 13,000, while human rights groups say the toll is closer to 30,000. Alfonsin was right about the risks involved in trying the military. He survived three military uprisings between 1987 and 1988, and as a result asked Congress to approve legislation ending the trials and exempting from guilt lower ranking officers. Only now are many of the dictatorship's most notorious figures being prosecuted, after Argentina's Supreme Court struck down in 2005 sweeping amnesties from the 1980s that shielded hundreds of former officers from prosecution. Alfonsin kept his aura as a key figure of democracy until the end. "You are a symbol of democracy," Cristina Fernandez told him as she was sworn in as Argentina's Peronist president in 2008. Alfonsin made clear, however, there was still work to be done. "Our democracy is limp and incomplete," He said as the nation marked the 25th anniversary of civilian rule. He explained his strong rejection of authoritarian rule as inherited from his father, a fervent supporter of the Republican Forces crushed by Gen. Francisco Franco in the Spanish civil war. After elementary school, however, he attended a military academy for five years. "Those were five very good years, for they served to tire me of military officials," he later observed. As a 23-year-old law graduate from the University of La Plata, Alfonsin married Maria L. Barrenechea, whom he knew since childhood and courted at neighborhood dances in Chascomus, outside Buenos Aires. Law practice was a base for launching his political career: city commissioner in 1955, a provincial legislator three years later and a member of the national House of Deputies in 1963. In 1976, the military toppled President Isabel Peron, who had succeeded her husband, Gen. Juan Domingo Peron at his death, and launched a harsh campaign to wipe out leftist subversion. In response, Alfonsin and several prominent citizens formed the Permanent Assembly on Human Rights, which denounced rights abuse, challenging the regime. Alfonsin was his party's uncontested presidential candidate when the military permitted elections in 1983. He won on a platform of human rights and honesty in government. He is survived by his six children. A vigil will be held in his honor at midnight on Wednesday in Congress. More on Latin America
 
Iran Denies US Meeting At Hague Summit Top
Iran has denied that a meeting took place between their main representative at an international conference on Afghanistan and a senior US official. More on Iran
 
Obama's Wednesday G-20 Schedule Top
Today is President Obama and the First Lady's first full day in the United Kingdom for the G-20 Summit. The following is today's schedule; bear in mind that the UK is 5 hours ahead of Eastern Standard time. 8:00 A.M. : The Obamas arrived bright and early at Downing Street to meet with UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown after spending the night in the US Ambassador's Winfield House. 9:00 A.M. : President Obama and Prime Minister Brown hold a joint press conference. [WATCH:] 11:45 P.M. : Obama met with Russian President Medvedev, followed by a joint statement from the two leaders committing to increased nuclear disarmament. Obama also accepted an invitation to visit Moscow in the near future. 1:00 P.M. : Obama met with with British Conservative leader David Cameron (Gordon Brown's domestic rival). 2:00 P.M. : Obama met with Chinese leaders, including Chinese President Hu Jintao, wherein the two leaders agreed to "intensify coordination and cooperation on global economic and financial issues." Afterwards, Obama accepted an invitation to visit China later this year. Late afternoon : President and First Lady Obama will meet with Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II of England, which Obama has proclaimed he is "very much looking forward to." 7:00 P.M. : Obamas will attend a G-20 leaders reception, hosted by the Queen and Prince Philip, followed by a G-20 leaders 'working dinner', hosted by Gordon and Sarah Brown . More on G-20 Summit
 

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)