Sunday, April 19, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Blog Alert
Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Obama To Address Credit Card Abuses Top
WASHINGTON — The White House says that it will back congressional efforts to clamp down on credit card abuses in an effort to address the recession's effect on Main Street. The House and Senate are considering a credit card bill of rights to limit the ability of credit card companies to raise interest rates on existing balances and to require greater disclosure. White House economic adviser Larry Summers said people need to save more, but that the government also needs to curb credit card pitches that addict people to plastic. President Barack Obama is "going to be very focused, in a very near term, on a whole set of issues having to do with credit card abuses, having to do with the way people have been deceived into paying extraordinarily high rates that they wouldn't have paid if they knew what they were getting themselves into," Summers said. Summers said the administration wants to see a better-regulated financial system, encourage savings and eventually get back to a situation where government spending is not a drain on the economy. "Individuals are going to have to save more, that's why savings incentives are so important," he said. "That's why we need to do things to stop the marketing of credit in ways that addicts people to it _ so that our households are again saving, and families are again preparing to send kids to college, for their retirement, and so forth." Summers made the comments in an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." He was attending a summit of Western Hemispheric leaders in Trinidad and Tobago. More on Barack Obama
 
Congress To Address "Pent Up Demand" For A Climate Bill Top
WASHINGTON — The last time Congress passed major environmental laws, acid rain was destroying lakes and forests, polluted rivers were on fire and smog was choking people in some cities. The fallout from global warming, while subtle now, could eventually be more dire. That prospect has Democrats pushing legislation that rivals in scope the nation's landmark anti-pollution laws. Lawmakers this coming week begin hearings on an energy and global warming bill that could revolutionize how the country produces and uses energy. It also could reduce, for the first time, the pollution responsible for heating up the planet. If Congress balks, the Obama administration has signaled a willingness to use decades-old clean air laws to impose tough new regulations for motor vehicles and many industrial plants to limit their release of climate-changing pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday said rising sea levels, increased flooding and more intense heat waves and storms that come with climate change are a threat to public health and safety. The agency predicted that warming will worsen other pollution problems such as smog. "The EPA concluded that our health and our planet are in danger. Now it is time for Congress to create a clean energy cure," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., one of the sponsors of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. If passed, it would be the first major environmental protection law in almost two decades. In addition to attempting to solve a complex environmental problem associated with global warming, the bill also seeks to wean the nation off foreign oil imports and to create a new clean-energy economy. "It's a big undertaking," said the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Waxman and Markey presented their 648-page bill last month. From 1969 to 1980, Congress passed more than a dozen environmental bills tackling everything from air and water pollution and garbage, as well as protections for fisheries, marine mammals and endangered species. In 1990, the Clean Air Act was overhauled to address the problem of acid rain created by the sulfur dioxide released from coal-burning power plants. "We had two decades of extraordinary legislation and almost two decades of nothing," said Richard Lazarus, a Georgetown University law professor and author of "The Making of Environmental Law." "If this one passes, it will certainly be an outburst." There are many reasons why Congress' chances to succeed in passing global warming legislation are improved this year, but by no means assured. After President George W. Bush did little about global warming in his two terms, there is "a lot pent up demand" for action on climate, said William Ruckelshaus, the first administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Both the Democratic-controlled Congress and President Barack Obama agree that legislation is needed to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and radically alter the nation's energy sources. They want to pass a bill by the end of the year. "For the first time ever, we have got the political actors all aligned," said Lazarus. "That is not enough to get a law passed, but that is a huge start. We haven't been close to that before." Unlike the 1970s, when the first environmental laws passed nearly unanimously, Republicans are opposed. They question whether industry and taxpayers can afford to take on global warming during an economic recession. Then there is the question whether the public will have the appetite to accept higher energy prices for a benefit that will not be seen for many years. Climate change ranks low on many voters' priority lists. Every year since 2001 has been among the 10 warmest years on record. Sea ice in the Arctic and glaciers worldwide are melting. But the problems are not as apparent as they were in the 1970s, or even the early 1990s, when Congress addressed acid rain and depletion of the ozone layer. "If carbon dioxide were brown, we wouldn't have the same problem," said Gus Speth, who organized the Natural Resources Defense Council in 1970. "But it's a subtle issue. ... The problems are chronic not acute, and it is largely invisible to people unless they're reading the newspaper or checking the glaciers or going to the South Pole." In 1969, oil and debris in the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland burst into flames, an incident that led to the passage of the Clean Water Act. That same year, a blowout at an offshore oil platform off Santa Barbara, Calif., spilled millions of gallons of oil onto beaches. And long before that, a smog episode in Donora, Pa., in 1948 killed 20, sparking a crusade against air pollution. "There was so much evidence _ sort of smell, touch and feel kind of evidence _ that the environment was really in trouble," said Ruckelshaus. "We had real problems, real pollution problems that people could see on the way to work. And there were rivers catching on fire and terrible smog events." With climate, "you are asking people to worry about their grandchildren or their children," he said. "That is why it will be so tough to get something like this through." ___ On the Net: House Energy and Commerce Committee: http://tinyurl.com/c68ukd Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/ Natural Resources Defense Council: http://www.nrdc.org/ More on Climate Change
 
Sam Donaldson: I Want To Ask Castro, Before He Dies, If He Killed Kennedy (VIDEO) Top
Asked to reflect upon the coming end of Fidel Castro's time and regime in Cuba, longtime ABC newsman Sam Donaldson had one last request: to be beside Castro's bedside to ask if he was responsible for John F. Kennedy's assassination. "You mentioned the assassination," Donaldson, appearing on ABC's This Week on Sunday said in reference to early conversation about the shooting of JFK. "In his dying breath I'd like to be at [Castro's] bedside and say, did you do it? Meaning November 22, 1963." A few co-panelists expressed playful shock with Donaldson's conspiratorial yarn. "Oh, my goodness," said Peggy Noonan, sifting her fingers through her hair. "Come on, Sam," added Cokie Roberts. "Wait a moment," Donaldson responded. "I think it is still open." More on Video
 
Axelrod: "The Tea Bags Should Be Directed Elsewhere" (VIDEO) Top
During an appearance on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday, senior White House adviser David Axelrod expressed bewilderment with some of the virulent anti-Obama sentiment at many of the tax day tea parties. Axelrod noted that President Obama had recently signed tax cuts that would benefit 95% of American families. "The tea bags should be directed elsewhere," he said. Watch: Send us tips! Write us at tv@huffingtonpost.com if you see any newsworthy or notable TV moments. Read more about our media monitoring project here and click here to join the Media Monitors team. More on Tax Day Tea Parties
 
Naomi Klein: Vote Out Larry Summers Top
Today the Washington Post has a "Spring Cleaning Special" in which ten writers make the case for something that deserves to be tossed out this spring. On the trash heap is everything from academic tenure to the White House press corps to the phrase "Muslim world." I chose to argue for the elimination of Barack Obama's chief economic adviser, Larry Summers. My argument is that Summers represents an often overlooked cause of the global financial crisis: Brain Bubbles (not to be confused with bubble brains). This is the process wherein the intelligence of an inarguably intelligent person is inflated and valued beyond all reason, creating a dangerous accumulation of unhedged risk. Brain Bubbles need to be popped; Larry Summers needs to be stopped! You can read the piece here . The good news is that Washington Post readers seem to agree. Last I checked, readers were voting to toss out Summers more than anyone or anything else on the list. So add your voice and vote out Summers here . You never voted for him anyway. In fact, chances are that you voted for a presidential candidate promising to reverse the elites-first economics that Larry Summers -- the ultimate Brain Bubble -- has championed his entire career. More on Larry Summers
 
Yellow Atlantic Research Submarine To Get Second Chance Top
WASHINGTON — A second try is about to get under way at sending a little yellow submarine gliding across the Atlantic Ocean to collect scientific data from beneath the waves. "The launching is tremendously exciting because there is just so much that we don't really know about what happens in the oceans," said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "The capacity to fly through the ocean, across the Atlantic, taking data about temperature, salinity and other properties of the water gives us keen insight into what's happening down there," she said in a telephone interview. The first glider was lost last year before it completed its trip. The second, improved version has been put together by the same team at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. If conditions cooperate, the launch is set for Wednesday _ Earth Day. Rutgers professor Scott Glenn, who is leading the glider project, points out that Earth is the ocean planet. Unmanned and without a motor, the glider can rise and dive, seeking out currents that will carry it along without worrying about refueling. Whenever it comes to the surface, it radios its findings back to the scientists. "The ocean plays such a critical role in the dynamics of the climate system, having a better understanding of what's happening in real time is invaluable information," said Lubchenco (LUB-chen-co). "We're beginning to be able to infer much about the kinds of plants and animals and microbes that may be present from some of the kinds of data that the glider will be taking," she added. Glenn said the device will be able to take a daily profile of water conditions and maneuver, directed by radio messages from student researchers. "If we can do it with one, we can do it with 10," he said, and then with more, and that will make an impact on forecasting ocean conditions. "That's important because the ocean is very important for climate change and it is undersampled," said Glenn, co-director of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Coastal Ocean Observing System. And the robots can be sent into hurricanes and into Arctic and Antarctic conditions. "If you lose them it's sad, but its just wires, you can build another one. These are the things that we can take risks with," he said. "We're doing some risk taking here that will benefit the entire scientific community." The glider has been improved with new software, a new surface that scientists hope will discourage marine organisms from attaching to, and the ability to dive as much as 660 feet down, farther than the first version. The glider has been reinforced to resist bites from creatures such as sharks. The first glider was lost after it developed a leak, possibly from a bite. Like its predecessor, the new glider (yellow, as before) has been named Scarlet Knight after the Rutgers school mascot. The glider is part of the Integrated Ocean Observing System, a project to collect and use ocean information continuously covering oceans, coastal waters and Great Lakes. "Oceans are vital to all of life on earth. A billion people a day depend on seafood for their primary or sole source of protein, oceans drive the climate system, oceans provide most of the oxygen that we breathe," Lubchenco said. "They provide wonderful places for recreation, they are an important source of jobs, livelihoods. Just within the U.S., half of Americans live in coastal areas and 60 percent of gross domestic product comes from coastal areas, so clearly they are an integral part of our very fabric. Yet we know precious little about them," she said. "We're constructing a vast, three dimensional jigsaw puzzle," Lubchenco said. "We have bits and pieces of the puzzle and we're building out from that. So every track that this glider makes, every new sensor that we have in the oceans" provides data to construct a more meaningful and dynamic picture of the world, she said. "We have only just begun to tap the potential that is here on planet ocean." ___ On the Net: NOAA: http://www.noaa.gov Integrated Ocean Observing System: http://ioos.noaa.gov Mid-Atlantic Regional Coastal Ocean Observing System: http://marine.rutgers.edu/marcoos/
 
Emanuel To Torture Memo Critics: "Go Get The New York Review of Books" Top
Rahm Emanuel had a message to critics of the administration's decision to release torture memos: the information is already out there, read the New York Review of Books. The brash White House chief of staff, appearing on ABC's This Week, pushed back hard at those individuals -- notably former CIA chief Mike Hayden -- who insist that the release of documents pertaining to the treatment of detainees was a security threat. "We've banned these techniques and practices," said Emanuel. "Banned them. Because we didn't think they were consistent with America's security... Second is, we've enhanced America's image abroad. These were tools used by terrorists, propaganda tools to recruit new terrorists. And the fact is having changed America's image does have an impact on our security and safety and makes us stronger." Pressed a bit further about the security implications of such disclosures -- the notion being that terrorists were somehow now briefed on the intricacies of American interrogation policy -- Emanuel reminded the detractors that much of the info was already public knowledge. "One of the reasons the president was willing to let this information out [was that] the information was out," he said. "So if they're saying you basically have exposed something, it's been written. Go get the New York Review of Books. It is there . So the notion that somehow we're exposing something -- it's already been out. In fact, President Bush...allowed a lot of this information out. So the notion that somehow this all of a sudden is a game changer doesn't take cognizance of the fact it's in the system and in the public domain. Therefore, it's not new... Number two: it's one of the key tools al Qaeda has used for recruitment. There has been a net cost to America by changing the way America is seen in the world, which means banning this technique and practice, we have actually stopped them and prevented them from using it as a rallying cry." Become a fan of HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter . More on Rahm Emanuel
 
Robert Schlesinger: Larry Summers Contradicts Self on U.S. Cuba Policy Top
One of the disappointments of the Obama administration thus far has been the extent to which it has embraced the traditional U.S. policy toward Castro-run Cuba. Yes, the president lifted Bush 43-era restrictions on Cuban-Americans traveling to the isolated island, but that leaves in place a travel ban for the remainder of the population, not to mention a trade embargo whose futility is demonstrated by its longevity. The National Economic Council's Lawrence Summers was on Meet the Press this morning and the first question host David Gregory posed to him was about Cuba--under what circumstances would President Obama lift the Cuban embargo? (This question is in itself incorrect: Obama cannot unilaterally lift the embargo; doing so would require an act of Congress.) Summers gave an answer that could have been given by virtually any U.S. official for the last 50 years: U.S. policy depends upon what Cuba does next. "Cuba's known what it needs to do for a very long time and it's up to them in terms of their policies, their democratization and all the steps they can take and we'll have to see what happens down the road," Summers said. He added: "Fundamentally, David, this is an issue that's going to get decided on the basis of Cuba's behavior, on the steps that they choose to take or that they choose not to take in terms of their policies in this hemisphere." In other words: Cuba will dictate U.S. policy toward Cuba. But he concluded on a contradictory note: "The president's decisions are really going to be grounded in what's best for the United States." The last statement does not follow from the earlier ones. Letting a strategically insignificant country dictate our policy is not in U.S. interests; treating Cuba like a strategic peer is not in our interests; leaving this Cold War policy in place is not in our interest for reasons having to do with both economics (there's a reason the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, opposes the embargo) and international relations (for many decades we made Cuba policy a litmus test for our southern neighbors--now they are doing the same with us, demanding that we normalize relations). In fairness we should not expect too much too quickly. Lawrence Wilkerson, the former aide to Colin Powell, was on a panel at the New America Foundation this week and made a good point about this: Obama has made aggressive policy turns on Iraq, Iran, nuclear weapons, and so forth. Cuba is low-hanging fruit when it comes to looking strong on national security, it's easy to maintain the policy while expending political capital on larger (and more important) issues. And herein is the great irony of U.S.-Cuba policy: Because it ultimately has little strategic value, there has traditionally been more down-side to changing policy than up-side. But the politics are starting to change , so maybe there's room to maneuver here. New America's Steve Clemons, who organized the Cuba panel mentioned above, made a great point in his blog: The Obama administration is unlikely to go it alone, but if Congress joins them , they might yet make sensible changes to our Cuba policy. Fingers crossed. More on Cuba
 
David Sloan Wilson: Truth and Reconciliation for Group Selection X: Naïve Gene Selectionism Top
Naïve group selectionism ( see T&R III ) is the unquestioning belief that adaptations can evolve at all levels of the biological hierarchy--for the good of individuals, groups, species and even ecosystems--without requiring special conditions. Many people are prone to naïve group selectionism, today no less than in the past. That is why I always caution against it and featured it early in this series of blogs. If multilevel selection theory tells us anything, it is that adaptations at level X of the biological hierarchy require a corresponding process of natural selection at the same level and tend to be undermined by selection at lower levels. Another form of naivete is just as common but less well publicized--the unquestioning belief that natural selection operates at the level of the gene and that this constitutes an argument against group selection. Call it naïve gene selectionism. Ever since the rediscovery of Mendel and his peas, evolution has been conceptualized in terms of gene frequency change. Genes codes for traits that are expressed in individual organisms, such as wrinkly and smooth seeds. When a trait increases the relative fitness of the individual bearing the trait, then the frequency of the gene(s) coding for the trait increases in the population. Group selection is a straightforward extension of this scheme. Genes still code for traits that are expressed in individuals, such as altruism and selfishness as defined by Hamilton ( see T&R IX ). The main twist to the story is that a trait such as altruism does not increase the fitness of the individual, compared to selfish individuals in the same group. Group selection is required to explain how altruism can evolve despite its local disadvantage, as we saw in the case of the haystack model. When altruism does evolve by group selection, however, the frequency of the gene(s) coding for altruism increases is the total population. How could it be otherwise? In sexually reproducing species, each individual is a unique collection of genes that will never occur again, no matter how well it survives and reproduces. George Williams made this point in Adaptation and Natural Selection ( see T&R IV ) and used it to argue that genes are "units of selection" in a way that individuals are not. After all, an entity must persist across generations to be operated upon by natural selection. Genes replicate with high fidelity and persist across generations, whereas sexually reproducing individuals do not. If sexually reproducing individuals are not "replicators" and "units of selection", then what are they? Depending upon the author, they became variously known as "interactors", "vehicles", and "targets" of selection. These terms reflect the fact that individuals are the entities that actually interact with the environment and each other. Genes differentially survive and reproduce only insofar as they cause individuals to differentially survive and reproduce. Notice that these distinctions apply to all the standard examples of evolution, such as Mendel selecting his peas, moths adapting to trees darkened by soot, and the beaks of the finches on the Galapagos Islands. Calling genes "replicators" and individuals "targets" doesn't add anything new. As George has told me on numerous occasions, he wrote Adaptation and Natural Selection largely to explain the basic concepts of population genetics to a wider biological audience, not to propose a radical new theory of his own. So, what's wrong with the "gene's eye view" of evolution if it merely popularizes the standard story of genetic evolution? The error is to suppose that it constitutes an argument against group selection. As I have already shown, what I call "the original problem" ( see T&R II ) is the standard story of genetic evolution with a single twist. Genes code for traits that are expressed in individuals, but the traits are locally disadvantageous and require between-group selection to evolve. We might need to use terms such as "interactor", "vehicle", or "target" to describe groups in this case, but we don't need to tinker with the concept of genes as "replicators." Nevertheless, as group selection entered its dark age, the concept of genes as "replicators" and "the fundamental unit of selection" became regarded as a drop-dead argument against group selection. Here is one of hundreds of examples that could be cited, from Richard Alexander in 1979: In 1966 Williams published a book criticizing what he called "some current evolutionary thought" and chastised biologists for invoking selection uncritically at whatever level seemed convenient. Williams' book was the first truly general argument that selection is hardly ever effective on anything but the heritable units of "genetic replicators" (Dawkins, 1978) contained in the genotypes of individuals. In this passage, Alexander properly cautions against naïve group selectionism but then unknowingly commits naïve gene selectionism. Williams didn't reject group selection because only genes are replicators, but because (according to his assessment) within-group selection invariably trumps between-group selection. Genes are the replicators regardless of which level of selection prevails! Richard Dawkins' role in establishing naïve gene selectionism will be the subject of my next installment. Also, a word about the word "naïve" is in order. When an idea proves to be wrong, early adherents are often portrayed as naïve, as if any smart and well-informed person should have known better. That is a naïve rendering of scientific and intellectual discourse. Typically, ideas emerge as wrong only after protracted interactions among smart and well-informed people. It is only in retrospect that the idea becomes "obviously" wrong and continuing adherence can be called naïve. Speaking of wrong ideas, George Williams made a wrong move when he used the uniqueness of sexually reproducing individuals to conclude that only genes have the persistence to qualify as "units of selection." As Elliott Sober pointed out in his 1984 book The Nature of Selection , phenotypic traits have the persistence that George was looking for, regardless of their genetic (or nongenetic) basis. Imagine selecting for a trait such as wing length in a laboratory population of fruit flies. Before you begin the selection experiment, you measure wing length for a number of generations and get the same bell-shaped curve. The bell-shaped curve persists across generations , even though each fruit fly is a unique collection of genes that will never recur. Now you begin the selection experiment by allowing only the flies with the longest wings to reproduce. If the trait is heritable, then there will be a response to selection and the bell-shaped curve will shift in the direction of longer wings. The fact that each fly is a unique combination of genes is beside the point. Moreover, the very existence of genes is beside the point. If phenotypic distributions can recreate themselves generation after generation and respond to selection without the existence of genes, then so much the worse for genes. This is not just idle speculation. It is likely that stable gene-like entities are the product of evolution, not a pre-condition for evolution. Biological evolution preceded genes and some forms of biological and cultural evolution might still proceed without genes or gene-like entities. The concept of evolution without replicators is fascinating but shouldn't obscure the simpler and more basic point that I am making in this installment of the T&R series. Even when genes do function as replicators, they have no bearing upon the group selection controversy because they function as replicators regardless of which level of selection prevails. We need to guard against naïve gene selectionism in the same way that we guard against naïve group selectionism. To be continued.
 
MJ Rosenberg: VIDEO: West Bank Protest Was Peaceful But IDF Killed Demonstrator Anyway Top
This is pretty horrific. A group of unarmed Palestinians (and some Israeli supporters) were demonstrating this weekend against a piece of the separation wall that divides a Palestinian town in two. (This is one of the parts of the wall that was built to make life more convenient for settlers). They march. The Israelis tell them to go home. They yell back that they are unarmed and just want to demonstrate (as they do every week). They keep yelling at the soldiers (in Hebrew) that they are a peaceful assembly of Arabs and Israelis. Then the soldiers fire tear gas and a canister hits a demonstrator in the chest. Watch the rest. President Obama needs to deal with the settlements now. The whole enterprise is insane. More on Israel
 
Craig Newmark: eDemocracyCamp, emergent broad public/private partnership Top
Hey, there's a bunch of people meeting right now to push ahead participatory or networked democracy, people who know how things work. You can check out the eDemocracyCamp site and also follow it via Twitter . Nick Troiano is liveblogging it at Live from eDemocracyCamp2 , for example: " Government should be transparent . ...   Government should be participatory . ...   Government should be collaborative . " Those are the basic principles of the directive to be issued by the "Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services" - The CTO was just named by the President yesterday.  Real stuff is happening here, an emergent broad public/private partnership.
 
Caption This Photo, Vote For Friday's Best, See Thursday's Winner! Top
Original Caption: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (L) kisses former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno (R) after she was awarded with the Justice Award by the American Judicature Society at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center April 17, 2009 in Washington, DC. The award is the highest honor given by the society for Reno's devotion and dedication to the administration of justice in the United States. FRIDAY'S FAVORITES: THURSDAY'S WINNER: "I used my Obama tax cut to buy tea bags for the protest against increased taxes." By KarenT. More on Caption Contest
 
Boehner Cites Cow Farts To Downplay Global Warming (VIDEO) Top
Minority Leader John Boehner described the overwhelming scientific consensus that carbon dioxide is contributing to climate change as "comical" during an appearance on Sunday, noting that cow flatulence contributes CO2 to the environment all the time. Appearing on ABC's This Week, the Ohio Republican was asked what to describe the GOP plan to dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, "which every major scientific organization said is contributing to climate change." Boehner replied: "The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know when they do what they do you've got more carbon dioxide." "It's clear we've had change in our climate," he added. "The question is how much does man have to do with it and what is the proper way to deal with this? We can't do it alone as one nation." The argument that carbon dioxide has not influenced climate change is something that global warming deniers have pushed for years. The oil industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute launched advertisements several years ago proclaiming that CO2 is "essential to life" because "we breath it out." The preponderance of scientific evidence, of course, shows that carbon dioxide can be a dangerous pollutant at excessive levels. In 2007, the Nobel-prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and "very likely" man-made. Boehner's argument that the amount of C02 in the air is natural, meanwhile, is disproved by data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . "Natural sources of CO2 occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of atmospheric CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by oceans and growing plants, also known as 'sinks,' and are emitted back into the atmosphere annually through natural processes also known as 'sources.' When in balance, the total carbon dioxide emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are roughly equal. Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700's, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution." Perhaps surprisingly, Boehner isn't the first Republican congressman to raise flatulence in the discussion of global warming. A few years ago, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher claimed that a past incident of climate change may have been caused by " dinosaur flatulence , you know, or who knows?" Here's video of Boehner:
 
Gretchen Rubin: How To Be Happier: Know Yourself (It's Harder Than It Sounds) Top
I'm working on my Happiness Project, and you could have one, too ! Everyone's project will look different, but it's the rare person who can't benefit. Join in -- no need to catch up, just jump in right now. Each Friday's post will help you think about your own happiness project. In my studies of happiness, I'm always asking myself, "Is this bit of happiness wisdom a universal truth, or is this just true for some people?" I haven't identified many universal truths, but one of them is " Know thyself ." You can't build a happy life if you don't recognize and acknowledge the things that make you happy. That's why the first of my Twelve Commandments is "Be Gretchen." This doesn't sound too hard, does it? Yet I'm continually astonished how difficult it is to do. One reason that it's challenging is that we're so judgmental. We judge others, and we judge ourselves. I was thinking about this last night. At dinner, I was seated next to a very friendly, intelligent woman. In the course of the conversation, she told me two things about herself: 1. She is a non-materialistic person who isn't interested in "stuff." 2. She loves beautifully-made clothes (result: she loves buying clothes). I couldn't read her mind, of course, but I think I detected some uneasiness as she talked about these two ideas. She didn't value stuff, and she didn't want to be the kind of person who valued stuff, yet she had this other passion that conflicted with that conception. Can you be non-materialistic yet crave Prada? (I have another friend with a similar issue -- his passion is tech equipment.) One of my Secrets of Adulthood is you can choose what you do , but you can't choose what you like to do. This woman has three options as she lives her life: First, she could live up to her non-materialistic ideals and squelch her love of clothes. This seems sad to me. Most of us don't have so many passions that we can drop one without losing an important source of happiness. Second, she could stop talking about her non-materialistic ideals, because they made her feel hypocritical, and throw herself into clothes-buying and clothes-wearing. That might be fun, day to day, but in her heart she'd probably feel that she was living a life out of synch with her values. Third, she could strive to accept herself: her non-materialistic values are real, and her love for clothes is real. To me, the third option is like the best option. Sometimes, we don't like what we like. We wish we were different -- more spiritual, more sophisticated, more adventurous, more cultured. But you don't get to pick what you like. You might argue, "If she truly believed in the value of living a non-materialistic life, she wouldn't be interested in fashion and fancy clothes." That sounds like it would be true, but I don't think it is true. Human nature isn't always consistent. In Song of Myself , Walt Whitman wrote: Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.) There's a sadness to a happiness project , and that's the sadness that comes from accepting ourselves: the parts we embrace and the parts that we wish were different. Now, this a difficult issue, because -- what does it mean to live in accordance with your values? It seems that they can't be real values if they don't actually guide your actions, if you don't make choices that reflect your beliefs. True. Maybe this woman would choose not to buy Prada etc., because she wanted to live her beliefs. But perhaps she could find other ways to enjoy that passion, rather than squelching it entirely. A difficult issue. What do you think? * Thought-provoking study : "Psychologists have found that how much people smile in old photographs can predict their later success in marriage." * Interested in starting your own happiness project? If you'd like to take a look at my personal Resolutions Chart, for inspiration, just email me at grubin, then the "at" sign, then gretchenrubin dot com. (Sorry about writing it in that roundabout way; I'm trying to thwart spammers.) Just write "Resolutions Chart" in the subject line. More on Happiness
 
Kari Henley: How Do We Beat The Health Care Blues? Top
Anyone out here have the health care blues these days? Can you name someone who is just thrilled with their health insurance policy and the simplicity of meeting all their health care needs? The Obama administration is attempting to tackle a gigantic mess with the national health care crisis, and so many lives are hanging in the balance. The words nerve-wracking, frustrating and hopeless come to mind. It is difficult to obtain full statistics about how many people have either lost their health insurance, been downgraded to a lesser plan with higher deductibles, or are crossing their fingers and not buying any at all. As of the 2006 census, over 47 million Americans were uninsured, and some speculate that post-recession the numbers are over 50 million. There are over 105 million Americans without dental insurance, and over 17 million people aged 19-30 years old who are the 'invincibles:' deliberately taking the risk not to buy health insurance and hoping they won't get sick. Many of the writers here try to inspire you, give you tools to cope, and lessons to thrive through tough economic times. Certainly there is nothing more disruptive to positive thinking, setting clear goals and pursuing a dream than fearing that one bad accident means you can lose your house in medical bills, or that if a child develops leukemia, you may have to file for bankruptcy. The serpent of fear creeps through almost every income bracket. One medical malady could spell financial ruin - how do we deal? The US is already the most stressed out nation on Earth, and the #1 cause of death is heart disease. Stress does not help heart conditions, and a majority of the issues that bring us to the doctor are stress related. What do most of us do about stress? Eat more (obesity), drink more (alcoholism and liver problems), exercise less (osteoporosis), eat the wrong sorts of foods (high cholesterol), or smoke (lung cancer). We all know these aren't the best choices. I know when I'm stressed out of my mind, a baby lettuce salad or a snickers bar is no contest, and an hour of TV is much more appealing than working out. How did we get here, and what happened to the local town doc who came with the black bag and stayed for Sunday dinner? The incredible rise in health care costs has made us utterly dependent on the insurance industry. We don't even know what standard procedures cost anymore. How much does it cost to have your tonsils taken out? How much to correct sleep apnea? Time Magazine's health writer, Karen Tumulty, wrote an article in March about her personal experience of the health care crisis when her brother, Pat, paid for personal insurance while unemployed, avoided going to doctors despite not feeling well, and sadly found that his kidneys were failing at age 54. A few weeks of tests cost him over $14,000, and this did not begin to cover the treatments required. To read the full article, click here: Tumulty writes: "Pat represents the shadow problem facing 25 million people who spend more than 10% of their income on out-of-pocket medical costs. They are the underinsured, who may be all the more vulnerable because, until a health catastrophe hits, they're often blind to the danger they're in. In a 2005 Harvard University study of more than 1,700 bankruptcies across the country, researchers found that medical problems were behind half of them -- and three-quarters of those bankrupt people actually had health insurance. As Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law professor who helped conduct the study, wrote in the Washington Post, 'Nobody's safe ... A comfortable middle-class lifestyle? Good education? Decent job? No safeguards there. Most of the medically bankrupt were middle-class homeowners who had been to college and had responsible jobs -- until illness struck.'" Fear often has a paralyzing affect. Why aren't we, as Americans, angrier at this strangle-hold for basic human needs? Why do we let the insurance companies get away with tens of millions of dollars in bonuses being paid to their CEO's, knowing most of that money came from denying care to the sick and helpless? ABC's 20/20 ran a story on Friday about how AIG continues to pamper their exec's with spa vacations, while denying 43% of the most serious health claims of injured contract workers in Iraq. In next week's article I will highlight a few ways our nation is taking health care back into our hands, putting doctors and patients back in front of one another, and taking action while we wait for an overhaul. In the meantime, how do we beat the health care blues? Here are a few tried and true 'words of wisdom': 1. "An apple a day, keeps the doctor away." How many of you actually EAT one piece of fresh fruit every single day? How about the recommended daily intake of 5-6 fruits and vegetables per day? Come on, it's hip to 'go raw.' 2. "An ounce of prevention..." The world of alternative medicine has skyrocketed, and for many, it helps. Naturopathy, acupuncture, herbs and chiropractic care have helped millions recover from stress related illnesses and ailments. 3. "I get by with a little help from my friends." The Beatles were so right. Study after study shows the health benefits of developing strong social connections. If you need a drink, go out with friends. The laughs will do more for you than the vodka. If you want to get in shape, forget the gym and walk, bike or run with a buddy. If you want to eat, invite friends over and share a meal together. Stress reducing hormones are released when we are in close proximity to others. 4. "What the world needs now... Is love, sweet love." How often, on a given day, do you experience: awe, joy, curiosity, bliss, wonder, love or amazement? It is no accident that books on 'Happiness' are all the rage; increasing positive emotions boosts health across the board. Take the 'positiviy ratio' test by Dr. Barbara Fredrickson, to see how you evaluate an average day's emotions. Let's hear it: how do YOU beat the health care blues? Feel free to leave a comment below and start another spirited Huf Po dialogue. For weekly updates, click on the Become a Fan box above. More on Health
 
John Lundberg: A New Poem From Ruth Lilly Prize Winner Fanny Howe Top
This past Tuesday, The Poetry Foundation awarded its prestigious Ruth Lilly Poetry Prize to Fanny Howe in recognition of her lifetime of accomplishments.  The prize includes an eye-opening award of $100,000. And Howe can now count herself in the company of past Ruth Lilly Prize winners, a list that reads like a who's who of great American poets, including Adrienne Rich, W.S. Merwin and John Ashbery.  Fanny Howe was kind enough to take time from her busy week to share an extraordinary new poem, "The Hut," with us. She also sent us the following paragraph, which serves as a sort of guide to the poem and to her poetry in general. It's a great opportunity to get to know one of the most ambitious and rewarding poets writing today. "This poem is a new and unpublished poem of mine that expresses my wish for every poem and at the same time attempts to reflect that wish in the structure of this poem.  It is very simple and shows the narrator, the first person, as someone without attributes, a dream-self really, who can still imagine, and even see, the original form that underlies all other forms, no matter how "brutalist" in design they have become.  This structure can't be destroyed or blown away or robbed.  It belongs to the world of the unconscious which is the source of all that is solid and sensory.  It is air-tight, and still warm, but buried under historical forces." 
 - Fanny Howe The Hut Up the hill is a hut made of sound where two windows rhyme and the tiles stay on because they are nailed to a dream. The dreamer wonders: Can this be mine? The floor is solid and straight and is amber from sap. The walls don't leak or let out heat from gray embers in the grate. This is the original home at the heart of brutalist design. No storm can slam its shape apart. No thief can carry it off like a tent. It dwells in ashen buildings where the present sleeps. Fanny Howe has written more than 20 books, including novels, essays and of course, poetry.  She currently makes her home in Martha's Vineyard. 
 
 
 
Summit Of The Americas Style: See Who Wore What This Weekend (PHOTOS) Top
As this weekend's Summit of the Americas in Trinidad draws to a close, one burning question remains: what was everyone wearing? Scroll down for the fashion wrap-up. Or click here to read more about the Summit of the Americas . More on Photo Galleries
 
Why We Should Get Rid Of The White House Press Corps: Ana Marie Cox Top
Intense interest in the Obama administration has swelled the ranks of the White House press corps. Outlets such as Politico have thrown a basketball team's worth of bodies at the project, and outlets that didn't even exist until recently -- Fivethirtyeight.com, the Huffington Post -- have created their own White House correspondent positions.
 
Charles Karel Bouley: Keanu Wins Celebrity Grand Prix Top
Keanu Reeves and Al Unser Jr. have won the Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach Celebrity Grand Prix. Reeves won after Raven Simone and Danny Way (a favorite to win) crashed on the route. Each is fine, although their cars may need some major help. The race is for charity with each racer's charity getting $5000 and an additional $5k to each of the winners' charities. People magazine also has donated an additional $15k to the winner's cause. It's the 33rd Celebrity race as part of the 35th Grand Prix. More on Sports
 
Jeff Biggers: Mother Gunnoe: Mountaintop Removal Organizer Wins Goldman "Environmental Nobel" Prize Top
"Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living" Mother Jones Listen here, King Coal. Maria "Mother" Gunnoe, a fearless community organizer for the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition in West Virginia, whose home sits on the frontlines of an atrocious mountaintop removal operation in Boone County, has just been awarded the prestigious Goldman Prize. Considered the "Nobel prize for the environment," the award recognizes a grassroots leader on each continent and their extraordinary actions to protect the natural world and human rights. Gunnoe is the second anti-mountaintop removal activist in Appalachia to win the Goldman Prize in the last six years: West Virginian Judy Bonds was recognized in 2003 for her work against devastating strip mining operations in the Coal River Mountain area. Since 1997, when Gunnoe served as a volunteer on underground mine fires and air quality issues, the West Virginia and Cherokee native has been one of the most vocal advocates for justice in the Appalachian coalfields. Refusing to back down to numerous threats from King Coal thugs or leave her ancestral land, she has emerged as an inspiring heroine in the coalfields for the rest of the nation. In 2000, her house and orchards along the hills of her grandfather's homeplace became the frontlines for a mountaintop removal operation that would eventually lead to wide scale erosion, flooding and water contamination. Gunnoe's home has been flooded seven times in the last eight years. She writes: "The mountains are slipping into the hollow and in turn, it's washing by me, and [it's] flooding the people across from me. Everyone downstream from where that mountaintop removal site is gets flooded and their wells are contaminated. My well is contaminated. Can't drink my water. I buy on average about $250 worth of water a month, and that's on a slow month." Since President Jimmy Carter signed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act in 1977, which shamefully recognized mountaintop removal as an approved mining technique, over 500 mountains have been clear cut and blown to bits in Appalachia, and an estimated 1,200 miles of streams have been jammed with mining waste. A frequent speaker around the nation, and a mother of two teens, Gunnoe has also pointed to the issue of human rights violations from mountaintop removal. In the essay collection, Like Walking onto Another Planet, she wrote: "People around here are swiggin' down contaminated water all day long, every day. The health affects are sometimes long-term. It's usually pancreatic cancer or some kind of liver disease, or kidney stones, gall stones - digestive tract problems. And then, too, people's breathing. The blasting is killin' people - just smotherin' them to death through breathin' all of the dust. The computers and electronics and stuff in my house stay completely packed up with black coal dirt and rock dust together. Why do they expect us to just take this? It's not gonna happen down at the state capital. I mean they're not gonna go up there and blast off the top of a mountain in the background of the Capitol." Here's a clip of Gunnoe describing the flooding at her home in Bob White, West Virginia: For more information on Gunnoe and the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, see: www.ohvec.org More on Barack Obama
 
2008 "Worst Year" In Fortune 500 History Top
It was 1955, the year Disneyland opened and Ray Kroc sold his first hamburger. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were born that year. And it was in 1955 that Fortune magazine published the very first Fortune 500 list. More on The Recession
 
Army Raises Recruiting Standards As Economy Lags Top
The Army last month stopped accepting felons and recent drug abusers into its ranks as the nation's economic downturn helped its recruiting, allowing it to reverse a decline in recruiting standards that had alarmed some officers. While shunning those with criminal backgrounds, the Army is also attracting better-educated recruits. It is on track this year to meet, for the first time since 2004, the Pentagon's goal of ensuring that 90 percent of recruits have high school diplomas. More on The Recession
 
Jay Bybee: NYT Calls For Impeachment Of Torture Memo Author Top
Sunday's New York Times called on Congress to impeach federal judge Jay Bybee over his now infamous role in authoring one of the Bush administration memos arguing for the legality of torture. "These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution," wrote the paper. "Congress should impeach him." Sen. Claire McCaskill left open the door to pursuing such a course during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. Asked by host Chris Wallace whether she would favor the impeachment of Bybee, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, McCaskill replied: "I think we have to look at it. But I think we do need to sort out how do you get lawyers at the top levels of the Justice Department to give this kind of advice." The Missouri Democrat shot down any talk of prosecuting CIA agents involved in the interrogation of terrorism suspects that could, upon review, have crossed the line. She was not as forgiving with the government lawyer's who drafted the legal memorandum justifying those interrogation techniques. "The lawyers that gave this advice, what's scary to me is one of them got a lifetime appointment on the federal bench," said McCaskill. "Yikes! A lawyer responsible for this kind of advice that clearly went too far in terms of stretching what our law is. It worries me that he's sitting on the federal bench right now. Now, whether we should go down the road, I don't think we want to look in the rearview mirror. I think this president has made that very clear. We've got big problems ahead of us we need to focus on. But I do think there probably needs to be more questions asked of the lawyers who gave this advice." Congress has the political authority to impeach a lifetime-appointed federal judge, but it's unclear whether the move would have sufficient support. The Senate confirmed Bybee by a 74 to 19 vote, and many congressional Republicans would likely resist impeachment. But as the New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin recently noted , Bybee was confirmed before the torture memos became public: Today, Bybee is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He was confirmed by the Senate on March 13, 2003--some time before any of the "torture memos" became public. He has never answered questions about them, has never had to defend his conduct, has never endured anywhere near the amount of public scrutiny (and abuse) as Yoo. It is an understatement to say that he has kept a low profile since becoming a judge. Bybee is generally the forgotten man in torture studies of the Bush era. The best known of the legal architects of the torture regime is John Yoo, who was a deputy to Bybee. For better or worse, Yoo has been a vocal defender of the various torture policies, and he remains outspoken on these issues. But whatever happened to his boss? Become a fan of HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter .
 
Hayden: We'll Have To Clear Interrogation Practices With ACLU, New York Times (VIDEO) Top
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden lashed out at the Obama administration on Sunday for releasing memos on interrogation techniques used on detainees, warning at one point that the future processes would need clearance from the ACLU and New York Times. "I think the really dangerous effect of this... is that you have agency officers stepping back from the kinds of things that the nation expects them to do," said Hayden. "I mean, if you were to go to an agency officer today and say 'go do this' and [they'd respond] 'why am I authorized to do this?' I say it's authorized by the president, the attorney general said it's lawful and it's been briefed to congress. That agency officer is gonna say 'yeah I know... but have you run it by the ACLU. What about the New York Times editorial board? Have you discussed this with any potential presidential candidates?' You're going to have this agency on the front line of this current war playing back from the line." The remarks came during an appearance on Fox News Sunday and were several days removed from an op-ed Hayden penned that was similarly critical of the Obama administration's decision. On Fox, Hayden offered a defense of some of the harder interrogation techniques, insisting at one point that important intelligence was gleamed from waterboarding. He declined, however, to discuss reports that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was waterboarded 183 times in one month, when asked if such treatment was inhumane. Hayden left the program on a rather interesting note. Asked if he thought further revelations about, or investigations into, these interrogation practices would take place - something the Obama administration has largely insisted won't happen - Hayden said he was positive of it. "God no it is not the end of it," he said. "If you look at the letters that director Panetta and director Blair put out to the intelligence community workforce, they make it very clear; literally, explicitly say, this is not the end of it. in fact They suggest it's just the beginning. There will be more revelations. There will be more commissions. There will be more investigations. And this to an agency, again, I'll repeat, that is at war and is on the front lines defending America."
 

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)