Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Jeffrey Feldman: Old Man Cheney Top
Whenever Dick Cheney grants one of his throaty interviews to FOX News, my mind jumps instantly to Frank Capra's iconic film "It's A Wonderful Life" (1946).  While some vice presidents fade into obscurity and others become presidents, Cheney has chosen to revive Lionel Barrymore 's legendary performance as Old Man Potter .    So far, Cheney has been dead-on convincing. Cheney's most recent performance was acted out on the Sean Hannity show, where he warned of the grave dangers that would be visited on America as a result of President Obama's diplomatic style abroad and his release of the so-called "torture memos" at home. (watch video here ) Watching that interview is like watching out takes from Frank Capra's vault. The similarity is eerie. Of course, Henry F. Potter never talked about torture and totalitarianism in "It's A Wonderful Life."  Even though the violence of war enters periodically into the narrated cross-fades, Capra's tale of George Bailey is almost entirely about the 20th-Century struggle between two kinds of economics in America.  In one corner is George Bailey (James Stewart), owner of the town savings and loan that enables working Americans to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, buy homes, and otherwise escape the financial tar pit of the company town.  In the other corner is Potter, who owns everything else and seeks to use his financial power to keep the townsfolk in debt and underfoot. Despite the clash of economic philosophies in the film, the real power of "It's A Wonderful Life" is in the morality play it stages between bright-eyed, suburban optimism and sulfurous, factory-town pessimism.   This exchange between George Baily and his father about Potter early in the film sums up which side Capra wants us all to take in this epic struggle: GEORGE I'm going to miss you, too, Pop. What's the matter? You look tired. POP Oh, I had another tussle with Potter today. GEORGE Oh . . . POP I thought when we put him on the Board of Directors, he'd ease up on us a little bit. GEORGE I wonder what's eating that old money-grubbing buzzard anyway? POP Oh, he's a sick man. Frustrated and sick. Sick in his mind, sick in his soul, if he has one. Hates everybody that has anything that he can't have. Hates us mostly, I guess. ( link ) George and his father tell the audience that the struggle is not just between a rich industrialist and a family savings and loan, but between those who love American optimism and those who hate it. By the end of the film, Potter, of course, loses the battle. Along the way, however, something extraordinary happens: every single character in the film migrates over to George Bailey's optimistic, American individualism, except Old Man Potter.  Cops, misers, soldiers, cabdrivers, old, young, married, and single--even God ends up siding with George Bailey's version of the American dream.   Everyone rallies to George's side, everyone chooses optimism over pessimism, everyone breaks free of company town greed, invests in a community of home owners, and celebrates civic pride.  Everyone bathes in the optimism except one person:  Old Man Potter.   "Happy New Year--in jail!" Potter grouses at an ecstatic George Baily who finally understands the joy of his own life. "Go on home, they're waiting for you!"  Rather than joining the new age, Potter retreats and retrenches his belief that misery prevails when optimism fails.  Hence, preemptive gloom is the true voice of wisdom.  While George Baily and his friends toast their friendship and the promise of a hopeful future, Old Man Potter stays at the office, presumably carrying on his dark satanic grumblings despite the explosion of personal triumph that engulfs the yuletide Bedford Falls.  There is neither joy nor Christmas for the factory baron who never believed the people were anything but a mob of dreamers to be manipulated by fear and squeezed for profit.  At least Dickens' Ebeneezer Scrooge gets some reprieve at the end of his tale.  Not so for Potter.  He ends "It's a Wonderful Life" more angry and crabby than he began. The theatrical grumpiness injected into American political debate by Dick Cheney is startlingly similar to the onscreen misery generated by Capra's unrepentant villain. Like Potter and all his nay saying about small loans, Cheney's doomsday soothsaying has little to do with foreign policy, diplomacy, torture or anything else one might be tempted to describe as "expertise" or "issues."  Cheney is simply America's Old Man Potter, grumpiness transposed from the black-and-white backrooms of Bedford Falls to the interview chair of FOX News. Similar to Potter, Cheney's political crankiness seems fused with his physical demeanor evermore in each public appearance.  And like Potter, the more crumpled, blanketed, zimmer-framed and wiry-haired Cheney becomes, the more the public revels in rooting against him. Therein lies the paradox of Potter's role in the film and Cheney's role as former VP.  Nobody wants or thinks for even a second that this new-old antagonist of American optimism will win out in the end--but along the way, there is a certain pleasure in watching the Old Man Potter and Old Man Cheney fail again and again and again. At first glance, in other words, it may seem that people like Sean Hannity are just promoting the political views of Old Man Cheney to advance their broader interest in conservative politics.  In reality, the Sean Hannity's of the world prop Cheney on stage with little more in mind than cashing in on the fight. Sean Hannity, and by extension the production team at FOX News, does not believe that Americans by the millions will suddenly abandon their optimism and flock to the doom-and-gloom of Dick Cheney.  Instead, he believes he can cash in on the morality play of the moment by pushing Cheney back onto the stage, subsequently churning as many viewers and as much ad revenue as he can from all the trouncing Cheney receives. In the end, then, Sean Hannity's interview with Dick Cheney serves as a kind of Tom Stoppard rendition of "It's a Wonderful Life" that might take place after the lights came up and the audience left the theater.  Once the town rallies to George Bailey's side and sets out to build 1950s suburban utopia, a few young entrepreneurs hatch a plan to profit from the grumpy image of Old Man Potter.  "It would be easy," the loudest among they might say in an Australian accent (hypothetically). 'All we need to do is roll the old goat on stage, egg him on with a few lines about the dreamers in the new administration, and then make sure the cameras are rolling when he starts carping.'  It's a wonderful life, alright.  And Old Man Cheney is here to stay. (cross posted from Frameshop ) More on Barack Obama
 
Elizabeth Warren To Geithner: "People Are Angry" (VIDEO) Top
In her opening statement at Tuesday's Congressional Oversight Panel hearing on the Trouble Asset Relief Program, COP chairwoman Elizabeth Warren told Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner that the public is not happy. "People are angry that even if they have paid their bills on time consistently and never missed a payment, their TARP-assisted banks are unilaterally raising their interest rates or slashing their credit lines," said Warren, who added that people are upset about foreclosures and a shortage of financing for small businesses. "People are angry because they are paying for programs that haven't been fully explained and that have no apparent benefit for their families or the economy as a whole, but still seem to leave enough cash in the system for lavish bonuses and golf outings," the TARP watchdog said. "None of this seems fair." Panel member Richard Neiman, state superintendent of the New York banks, told Geithner that he had asked Huffington Post readers in a blog post to submit questions for him to ask the Treasury secretary. "Literally within hours of the posting there were hundreds of responses that expressed deep concerns and even skepticism of the program, many accompanied by deeply personal stories," Neiman said. He highlighted one response in particular: "When are those banks going to stop sitting on all that money and start lending again?" "That question is undoubtedly a common question," Neiman said. He noted that he'd seen progress, but said, "Additional information is clearly needed to get to the bottom of this." Watch Neiman's remarks: Neiman said he would provide questions from Huffington Post readers to the panel in hopes they'd be made (more) public. In his prepared remarks ( PDF ), Geithner said the Bush administration's interventions at the end of 2008 -- TARP -- were "successful in achieving the vital, but narrow, objective of preventing a major systemic meltdown." The Treasury secretary said his department is "committed to an open and transparent program with appropriate oversight." To this end, Geithner touted FinancialStability.gov, the department's new website, and said the department would post all investment contracts on its website within ten days of each transaction's closing. Warren, who said at a March 31 congressional hearing that working with her oversight panel did "not seem to be a priority for the Treasury department ," encouraged Geithner to finish his remarks so they could get to questioning, during which she engaged in some testy back-and-forth with the Treasury secretary. "The banks have received 10 times more money than the auto industry and yet they're receiving different treatment," Warren said. "Are the banks better managed than the auto industry?" Geithner didn't take the bait, but noted that letting the financial industry collapse would have created "much more headwinds for businesses across the country." He said that the financial industry had been forced to make changes. "Going forward, where institutions need exceptional assistance, that assistance will come with conditions," Geithner said. Get HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter . More on Timothy Geithner
 
Pirate In New York, Questions Linger About His Personal Life Top
MOGADISHU, Somalia — At home in central Somalia, Abdiwali Abdiqadir Muse frequented a dusty, outdoor cinema after school, watched Bollywood films dubbed into his native Somali and, his mother says, "was wise beyond his years." Now Muse _ the sole surviving Somali pirate from the hostage-taking of an American ship captain _ is a world away in New York City to face what are believed to be the first piracy charges in the United States in more than a century. He smiled but said nothing Tuesday as he was led into a federal building under heavy guard. "The last time I saw him he was in his school uniform," the teen's mother, Adar Abdirahman Hassan, 40, told The Associated Press by telephone Tuesday from her home in the central Somali town of Galkayo. "He was brainwashed. People who are older than him outwitted him, people who are older than him duped him." She said he was "wise beyond his years" _ a child who ignored other boys his age who tried to tease him and got lost in books instead. "He took all his books the day he disappeared, except one, I think, and did not come back," she said, adding that she did not know which book he was reading _ Hassan is illiterate. Muse's personal details are murky, with his parents in Somalia insisting he was tricked into getting involved in piracy. His age also remained unclear. His parents said he is only 16, but U.S. law enforcement said he is at least 18, meaning prosecutors will not have to take extra legal steps to try him in a U.S. court. Muse's mother said she has no records to prove his age, but she and the teen's father say he is 16. "I never delivered my babies in a hospital," she said. "A traditional midwife helped me deliver." A schoolmate, however, said he believed Muse could be older. "I think he was one or two years older than me, and I am 16," said Abdisalan Muse, reached by telephone in Galkayo. "We did not know him to be a pirate, but he was always with older boys, who are likely to be the ones who corrupted him." It is rare for Somalis to have formal birth records, and U.S. officials did not say on what basis they believe him to be 18 or older. The teenager was flown from Africa to New York, where he was being charged under two obscure federal laws that deal with piracy and hostage-taking, according to a law enforcement official familiar with the case. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the charges had not been announced. Muse grew up poor in a one-room home, the eldest child of a divorced mother, in one of the most impoverished, violent countries in the world. A nation of around 8 million people, Somalia has not had a functioning government since 1991. A quarter of Somali children die before age 5 and nearly every public institution has collapsed. Muse's mother sells milk at a small market every day, saving around $6 every month for school fees for her oldest son. "I cried when I saw the picture of him," Hassan said, referring to the photo of her son being led in handcuffs in New York. "Relatives brought a copy of the picture to me. Surely he is telling himself now, 'My mother's heart is broken.'" She said the last time she saw her son in person, she was pushing him out the door so he would not be late for school. Since that day weeks ago, he simply disappeared. Asked why she believed he left, Hassan was at a loss. "A young man, at his age, could say he needed money, perhaps," she said. "I used to give him his school fee because I could not afford more than that. But of course he needed money." The boy's father, Abdiqadir Muse, said the pirates lied to his son, telling him they were going to get money. The family is penniless, he said. "He just went with them without knowing what he was getting into," Muse said in a separate telephone interview with the AP through an interpreter. He also said it was his son's first outing with the pirates after having been taken from his home about a week and a half before he surrendered at sea to U.S. officials. ___ Hassan reported from Mogadishu, Muhumed contributed from Nairobi, Kenya. More on Pirates
 
Kerry Trueman: The Doctor With A Dirty Prescription To Purge Our Bodies, And Our Planet Top
Cross-posted from The Green Fork. Enough with the Earth Day blah-blah-blah--until we start celebrating earth with a small "e" everyday , all the compact fluorescent light bulbs and reusable shopping bags and hybrid cars and stainless steel water bottles in the world won't cut it. We need to learn to love and cherish our dirt, because without healthy soil, we're toast. And that means weaning ourselves off our fossil-fueled food chain and supporting the farmers who grow their crops without pesticides and chemicals. J. I. Rodale , the visionary whose publishing empire launched the organic movement in America back in the early forties, foresaw that industrialized agriculture would ultimately degrade both ourselves and our surroundings. His motto was simple: "healthy soil=healthy food=healthy people". Rodale founded the Soil and Health Foundation in 1947 to encourage an alternative to industrial farming. Now called The Rodale Institute , this 333-acre research farm in Kutztown, Pennsylvania has been demonstrating for decades how to nourish ourselves and steward the land by growing foods without petroluem-based by-products. Instead, their energy (i.e., calories) comes from the sun, and farmland that's naturally replenished with compost, manure, and cover crops--the way farmers grew food for centuries before the military-industrial complex started to steep our soil in oil. Evidence is mounting that what agribusiness calls "conventional" agriculture is, in fact, a disastrous experiment that has failed to feed the world. We now know, too, that industrialized food production is a key culprit in the rising temperatures and reduced life spans that threaten our future. So, half a century after J. I. Rodale founded the Rodale Institute, I asked Dr. Tim LaSalle , its current CEO, to talk about the Rodale Institute's mission to address these challenges by helping farmers to make the switch to sustainable agriculture . KT: The Rodale Institute recently delivered a truckload of compost from your research farm in Pennsylvania to the front of the USDA's headquarters near the National Mall--literally helping to lay the ground for the "People's Garden". But Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack reportedly shattered some Agribiz nerves along with the asphalt when he jackhammered that patch of pavement to make way for a productive--and certified organic--food garden. Vilsack's apparent endorsement of organic agriculture marks a departure from the USDA's long-standing reluctance to acknowledge the advantages of organic food production over "conventional" agriculture. Why do you think the USDA's changing its tune now? TS: Perhaps the Secretary sees the need for big changes in US agriculture for human and ecological health. He would be right to point to organic farming for all that it can do. Regenerative organic agriculture is the future-oriented, scientifically documented way to farm--a way that improves soil quality, cleans up watersheds, sequesters carbon in the soil to fight global warming, and produces food with greater nutrient density and enhanced nutrient profiles in vegetables, fruit and meat. Additionally, it out-produces conventional chemical-based farming in weather-stressed years. Perhaps this is a timely recognition that the USDA runs the National Organic Program , the only third-party accredited, federally sanctioned approach to sustainable agriculture in the country. By their rules, organic farmers can't use most synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, don't apply sludge to their soils, use genetically modified seeds, inject their cattle with rBGH and don't routinely give their livestock antibiotics. This demonstration garden is a chance for the Secretary to highlight that the USDA program works, because organic farming works. It's keeping tons of agricultural chemicals out of waterways, pulling up to 7,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per acre per year from the atmosphere and keeping it in the ground (much more than conventional systems), and restoring biodiversity to farms across America. That's good farming and farming that is truly caring for human and ecological health at the same time. KT: The so-called "Green Revolution" brought American-style industrial agriculture to developing nations such as Africa and India a few decades back, promising to solve chronic food shortages through the use of high-yield crops and chemicals. But, as NPR reported last week , this resource-intensive system of food production has ultimately proven catastrophic for India's farmers. Depleted water tables and exhausted soil have led to massive crop failures, driving nearly 200,000 Indian farmers to commit suicide since 1997, as the BBC recently reported . And there was more bad news for biotech crops last week. A study from the Union of Concerned Scientists reported that "genetically engineered crops do little to improve yields and instead promote the proliferation of herbicide-resistant weeds that actually curb production." Germany, meanwhile, went so far as to ban a strain of genetically modified corn from Monsanto, declaring it "a danger to the environment." You co-authored a report calling for an " organic green revolution " based on regenerative agriculture--i.e. farming methods that replenish the soil instead of depleting it, and draw energy from the sun rather than fossil fuels to grow food. The Rodale Institute has devoted more than half a century to studying the environmental and health benefits of this kind of agriculture, which can produce higher yields and more nutritious foods. Your report asserts that an organic green revolution may, in fact, be "the only way we can solve the growing problem of hunger in developing countries." So why do ostensibly well-intentioned individuals and institutions, such as Jeffrey Sachs and the Gates Foundation, continue to bet on biotech and insist that industrial agriculture offers the only viable solution to the global food crisis? Can organic agriculture truly feed the world when our population is expected to reach 9 billion by the year 2040? TL : The input-intensive, industrial model benefits from most of the research dollars and industry promotion. Its advocates have tremendous influence throughout government and business, so it's what sounds legitimate until we actually look at available peer-reviewed research, as well as successful organic operations and businesses throughout the world. Only truly sustainable farming maximizes on-farm, natural resources, cuts toxic damage to people and the environment, and reduces the overall degradation of soils and water while producing better food and livelihoods for the people involved. Last year's UNEP report on food security in Africa --which of examined 286 projects covering 37 million hectares in 57 countries--found that when organic and near-organic practices were adopted with all their ecological benefits, crop yields also increased by more than 100 per cent from previous practices. The old "green revolution" failed in Africa because soils were so depleted already. The principles of organic farming are known and well adapted to local conditions in India and Africa, where many family-owned farms using biodiverse farming systems achieve better water management, more nutritional output per acre, and more economic opportunity than conventional industrial agricultural production of commodity crops. The Rodale Institute and our partners can show farmers anywhere how to convert some, or all, of their farm to organic management, achieving as much improvement in soil quality and resilience in the face of changing weather as they are willing to undertake. We can help them to find other farmers in their area who have kicked chemicals and fossil-fuel dependent fertilizers, who raise their own fertility through special cover crops and who see more returns in productive capacity every year for their biological improvements. KT: Industrial agriculture generates a significant portion of the world's greenhouse gases. The regenerative agriculture that Rodale's been pioneering does just the opposite, by pulling carbon out of the air and storing it in the soil. So, making the switch from industrial to organic agriculture could have a profound impact on climate change. But how do you get people excited about something as abstract as carbon sequestration? TL : Climate change is not abstract. Ice caps shrinking, the increase in crippling multi-year droughts, wholesale shifts in growing patterns, weather-induced expansion of disease-bearing insects, habitat loss for animals and plants--these are real. Let us all get excited to know that the most significant single step you can take toward slowing global warming is to buy organic food and promote organic agriculture. It's where we can make the biggest difference the fastest--by locking more carbon in the soil through photosynthesis on more acres. Organic farming of crops and pasture can remove more than 7,300 pounds of carbon dioxide per acre per year from the atmosphere. The movements to expand organic farming, and get serious and creative about fighting climate change, are overlapping and creating tremendous new opportunities. There's excitement because people are being empowered to do things that matter to them, their families, their communities and the communities impacted by how their food and fiber is grown. This new level of connectivity is electric, really, in waking up our consciousness in this time of economic disruption to how valuable clean water, healthy soil, pure air, whole food and cooperative communities can be. This investment promises the best returns we could ask for. KT: The White House kitchen garden has generated a lot of enthusiasm and excitement-- and the disapproval of Agribiz lobbyists who felt compelled to send Michelle Obama a letter accusing her of setting a bad example by attempting to grow food without benefit of pesticides and chemicals. What would you say in response? TL : Most mothers try to give their children the most healthy and nutritious food they can. We applaud the First Lady for setting an example of a great way for many families to assure more of what they eat is free from contaminants. That letter was a little preposterous to suggest that more pesticides are a good thing, and that people really shouldn't waste time growing food for themselves. The letter also shows we're at a tipping point in popular understanding of how our food should be produced. Our nation's dangerous experiment with fossil-fueled fertility and toxic-dependent pest management is coming to an end--that's clear. People who are still invested in that approach, and who haven't opened their imagination and scientific study to what else is possible that is much better for them and the country, are understandably fearful--even when their system is destroying our soil and water, contributing to climate change and demanding more energy inputs than it produces. We have to come out of this decade with drastically new ways to raise food. These ways have to use natural systems channeling solar power through crops, pasture and humanely raised livestock that builds soil carbon, doesn't pollute our water and increases economic opportunity for food producers in rural and urban areas. Organic can do this, and it's doing it now, and with the declining supplies of fossil fuels, it is the only real future we have.
 
Beth Arnold: Letter From Paris: The Cuban Dreamland Top
President Barack Obama landed in Trinidad on Friday and promptly proceeded to do what he does best: put out the fires in our relationships with other nations and their leaders that have been charred by the Bush administration's global bungling. After Obama calms the men and women who really want to be our friends, as well as those who want to make their marks by taking a swipe at our powerful capitalist democracy, our president proceeds to build consensus by using his extraordinary community organizing skills. Thank God the global mutilation of our reputation has stopped, and the healing has begun. I liked the Miami Herald 's take on the recent Summit of the Americas: Healing the breach in the Americas OUR OPINION: President's words, actions help to reconnect with a trouble region Those who criticized the slow progress of the G20 or this summit are taking the short view and not taking into account the foundation Barack Obama is building that will enhance every other interaction the United States has with these various players, friendly or not, over the next what I believe will be eight years. Remember what Kevin Costner said in Field of Dreams: "If you build it, they will come." And what of Cuba? Obama declared he "seeks a new beginning" -- including direct talks -- with the island's communist regime. Communist or not, don't we all? Just checked, and I could buy a ticket today on Air France, a terrific airline, to travel from Paris to Havana on April 30th and return May 8th for €950 or about $1220. Husband James Morgan and I slipped into Cuba 10 years ago for our anniversary. I was struck by the island's electricity, which is both dreamy and horrifying. I came away with intense feelings about Cuba and began a fascination with the island that has lasted ever since. Let me tell you why: Cuba has been luring people to its shores for centuries. It's like a Bermuda Triangle that sucks people in with its tropical lushness, heat, music, gambling, sex, rum, the freewheeling hospitality, and diverse Hispanic culture. There is something in the air that is like breathing heroin--of which people around the world have caught the whiff, and once they arrive on the island, they can't find their way out again. In Havana, music floats through the air everywhere you go almost 24 hours a day, from opera to son, mambo, rumba, and more. Music has lifted up the Cuban people no matter who has abused or been a tyrannical dictator to them--and there have been plenty. Music feeds the Cuban soul. I happen to think this is a universal chord in which people around the globe can find release, common ground, and is a human levelizer. But in my opinion it's been a life saver for Cubans. There is something almost mystical about Cuba's predicament. Cuba and its native inhabitants have been abused since the Spanish first set foot on the island's shores, when the native Indians were made slaves and soon died off as happened every place the Spanish colonized. The Spanish ruled Cuba for centuries, but whoever has been in charge of the island has taken advantage of its people, and that includes the country's own Batista, from whom Castro was supposed to have been saving his country, and Castro himself. For most of its history, sugar cane production controlled the economy, the class system, and Cuba's destiny. There is also the matter of Cuba's prime location , which the Spanish, British, French, and Americans have fought over at various times: Cuba is located in the northern Caribbean at the confluence of the Caribbean Sea, the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. Cuba is south of the eastern United States and The Bahamas, west of the Turks and Caicos Islands and Haiti, east of Mexico and north of the Cayman Islands and Jamaica. No matter what the government claims, racism is alive and well in Cuba. Like everywhere else in the world, the lighter your skin, the more advantages you have. One of the most profound experiences of our trip was being in a store--I will not say what kind here for obvious reasons--and a man came up and asked if we were English. We answered, Americans. He proceeded to tell us that there were no human rights in Cuba. That Castro was "a motherfucker." That people were being put in prison, disappearing, being killed. I asked him if he could leave. He said that a certain amount of people could apply every year and possibly get out, but he couldn't leave his parents. He had a wife and children. At a certain point, he moved us away from an open window. He told us that you never knew who was listening. He knew no one else in the store spoke English, so he was safe speaking with us, but he didn't know who might be listening outside. At the end of our conversation, I asked him what I could do to help him. He said, tell the truth about Cuba. And I have. I wanted to help him personally more and tried a little. Not as much as I should have. It was hard to get through to him. Of course, he had no Internet. The only books, magazines, newspapers, etc. were accolades to Communism, Fidel, Marti, and Che. There was no access to the world outside. No openness, which stood out like hell, since Havana was crumbling around us. This beautiful city full of ghosts was like the lost Atlantis suddenly emerging from a dead sea. It is time for American policies toward Cuba to change, but I must admit when I left there, I could see the point of trying to hold Fidel's feet to the fire. I felt sorry for the Cuban people and angry at this freedom imposter. As you've read over and over, there were doctors driving taxis, and professors being bartenders. Any service job in which American dollars could be gotten were the best jobs to have to supplement the pitiful $12 or so that the Cubans got paid per month to live. They had no meat or much of anything else at all. Not only that they were prisoners on their own island. The people had big spirits and were survivors. They were very careful what they said to us, and we were known to be journalists, which was good and bad. One woman was so blown away that we could travel. That was the only thing she admitted to missing. She dreamed of going places away from the island where her life was playing out--not that she didn't love her homeland. We were supposed to have a VIP exit from the country, and the fellow who picked us up at our hotel and drove us to the airport wandered and wandered around once we got there. Turned out he didn't know what to do or where to go. He had never been to the airport. I've had a compulsion to write about the island. This is a paragraph in a novel called Trulove Clement that I started but haven't finished: From the time Tru was a little girl, George and Swan drank cocktails and told Tru their Cuban stories--what they'd experienced years before, when Havana still shimmered with chances for all to leave their dreary lives behind and find exotica, prospects for their fantasies to be fulfilled, their fortunes to be made in the Cuban frontier. Tru saw the memories still glimmering in their eyes that had seen it, in their taste for sweet rum and the music that connected deep in their souls and careened through them. The gambling was for more than money. It was a dreamland. Beth Arnold lives and writes in Paris. To see more of her work, go to www.betharnold.com . She would love to hear what you think about Cuba. More on Barack Obama
 
Caryl Rivers: For Sarah Palin, It's Not So Easy Being Green Top
by Caryl Rivers Sarah Palin is feisty, gives a dynamite speech, and the camera loves her--not surprising, since she's a dead ringer for Tina Fey. She's positioning herself to run for president in 2012--but why is she still pushing fossil fuels when much of corporate America is going green? The Alaska governor has actually said that climate change is harming her state. "We Alaskans are living with the changes that you are observing in Washington," Palin said. "The dramatic decreases in the extent of summer sea ice, increased coastal erosion, melting of permafrost, decrease in alpine glaciers and overall ecosystem changes are very real to us." Still, she is calling for increasing domestic oil production. ("Drill, Baby, Drill!") And she claims not to believe that climate change is man-made. Is Palin trying to walk a tightrope between American voters increasingly concerned about the survival of the planet and the extreme Christian right that forms the base of her most enthusiastic support? This will require fancy footwork, because the far right is vehemently opposed to taking climate change seriously--even when fellow Christians do it. When the National Association of Evangelicals raised global warming as a serious issue, a group of right-wing Christian leaders, including James Dobson, Gary L. Bauer, Tony Perkins and Paul Weyrich, signed a letter that chastised the group for its concern. They said such concern "distracts the faithful from more pressing issues" and that global warming was being used "to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time." What issues? A campaign against abortion and same-sex marriage and promoting "the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children." In fact, some on the religious right welcome climate change, because it might hasten Armageddon, when Christ will return to lift the faithful to heaven, and drown all the unbelievers along with the polar bears. Palin is a political creature of the religious right. Jane Mayer reported in the New Yorker that arch conservatives from a breakaway Episcopal church in Virginia, including a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, pushed Palin onto the GOP ticket. (Falls Church Anglican bitterly opposed consecration of a gay Bishop, Rev. V. Gene Robinson, in 2003) So which way will Sarah Palin jump if many evangelicals as well as corporate honchos are turning green? Among the well known leftists worrying about climate change are the U.S. Army, Mobile Oil and the American Trucking Association, notes Amy Zuckerman. She is the executive editor of Footprint, a new global web magazine devoted to the issues of greenhouse gases, transportation and climate change. When "left wing extremists" like General Electric (having a bulb give-away for this Earth Day) are touting green, one has to wonder who is hanging Sarah out to dry. "Even Jeb Bush banned offshore oil drilling when he was governor of Florida," says Zuckerman. She is the co-author of the new book "2030: A Day in the Life of Tomorrow's Kids" - which depicts an eco- and tech-friendly future that Sarah Palin has yet to embrace. While arch conservatives rail about "left wing environmentalists," the U.S. Army worries about a future in which all its tanks, humvees and aircraft run out of fuel. Today, the American Trucking Association and the U.S. Army are teaming up to research synthetic rubber and synthetic oil and a vast array of lightweight structural materials. The green vehicle of the reasonably near future not only will be highly fuel-efficient, it also could capture its own energy output for feedback into its electrical system, and its surface coatings, made of nanomaterials, could heal damage to itself. Move out 20 or more years, and U.S. trucks may flow along magnetic highways, barely touching the ground and using only minimal fuel, reports Zuckerman. Much of corporate America sees Greenbacks in going Green. Even the Fox Network has actors from its entertainment shows touting concern about climate change in its PSAs. So Palin has a choice. Will she stick to the narrow base of her party, the anti-green, fundamentalist Christian crowd that loves her? If she does, she has no shot at becoming a viable candidate, since increasingly, independent and minority voters will control the future. The ball is in Palin's court--a court that is becoming increasingly green around her. Boston University Journalism professor Caryl Rivers is the author of "Selling Anxiety: How the News Media Scare Women.
 
Charles Shaw: "Kettling": Another "Special Relationship" Between the US and UK Top
Since London and New York share so much, it will probably come as no surprise to Britons that " kettling "-- the police practice of cordoning off city blocks at both ends and containing protesters for hours before arresting them for all intents and purposes -- had its US debut five years ago during the 2004 Republican National Convention. It was there that I and over 1000 other people were mass-arrested and interned in a makeshift prison camp set up on Pier 57, a filthy and hazardous decommissioned bus depot on the West Side Highway that came to be known as Guantanamo on the Hudson . At the time I was an official with the US Green Party, serving as Co-Chair of the Peace Action Committee. I was in New York to organize and lead a week of rallies and protest actions on behalf of the Greens , and to participate in marches and direct actions organized by United for Peace and Justice, Still We Rise, and the War Resisters League. Even before the onset of the convention, the police presence was overwhelming. New York City boasts a Police Department of 40,000 active officers, and as far as anyone could tell, they were all deployed in the streets that week. It was a literal police state. Everywhere we went we were photographed and videotaped. Squads of police tooled around on scooters, bicycles, horses, and in cars, vans, paddy wagons, and a few APC-type vehicles. Blimps and helicopters with high zoom cameras hovered above us. Midtown was closed down in a five-block radius around Madison Square Garden, inaccessible to traffic, guarded by automatic weapons and makeshift checkpoints. The policy of mass arresting and detaining protesters was deliberate and premeditated, as revealed in NYPD documents released in 2007 under court order . The intention was to disrupt, discourage, and, ultimately, disperse the protest presence from the streets by creating a climate of fear. Under the broadly defined rubric of "domestic terrorism," using the Patriot Act, an elevated terror alert, and a "temporary state of emergency," as legal justification, virtually anyone could be construed as a lawbreaker. As a result of this zealotry, the arrests did not discriminate: media, legal observers, and innocent bystanders alike were all caught up in the sweeps. The mass-arrests began Friday night , August 27, during the Critical Mass ride. Five thousand bicyclists had been peaceably riding around the city for hours before police started cordoning off the route. The ride ended abruptly without incident or provocation at 10 th Street and Second Avenue, when police formed a line with motorcycles and slowly pushed into the crowd of bicyclists, knocking many of them over while fellow officers pounced, cuffed, and made arrests. The scene repeated itself with another group of riders uptown at 37 th St. and Seventh Avenue. In both instances police on mopeds closed off blocks while riders were encircled with orange plastic netting. Cameras rolled as riders were thrown off their bicycles, heads driven into the asphalt, and cuffed with plastic flex-cuffs before being dragged away to awaiting buses and paddy wagons. Nearly 300 people ended up on Pier 57 that night, and remained in detention for the rest of the weekend. On Monday, August 30, a group calling themselves March For Our Lives began an unpermitted march at United Nations Plaza along the East River and slowly moved over to Chelsea on the West Side. Because they had no permit, they marched single file on the sidewalk, which is ostensibly legal, so long as there are no obstructions. Around 29 th St. and 8 th Ave. multiple reports said that a number of undercover police on mopeds suddenly jumped the curb onto the sidewalk and began ramming into the marchers, provoking a defensive response from some of those hit by the mopeds, which in turn led to mass arrests and the use of tear gas, pepper spray, and batons. Tuesday, August 31 was an important day for us: known as "A31," it was to be a full day of non-violent civil disobedience and direct actions all across Manhattan. Here I participated in a " die in " organized by the War Resisters League , one of the oldest anti-war groups in America. After taking over the intersection at 28 th and Broadway, fifty other protestors and I were arrested and detained, sent to Pier 57 for a whole day, and then to Central Booking for another day and a half before we were ordered released by the New York Supreme Court, a story you can read about in great detail in a piece I published shortly after my release . Nearly half of all those arrested during the week of the convention were rounded up on A31. However, most of those arrested were not engaging in any civil disobedience or direct action. A good percentage of them were part of a marching band parade that was kettled on 16 th St., and quite a few were innocent bystanders who happened to find themselves walking on that particular block at the wrong time. Some even lived on the block,showed identification, but were arrested anyway. No one was allowed to leave despite repeated orders, and promises, to disperse. Independent filmmaker Mike Hall caught the whole experience on film and turned it into a short documentary, 16 th Street Tactical . The imagery will be familiar to anyone who witnessed the G20 protests. It shows the police cordoning off the block, refusing to let anyone leave, and then steadily mass-arresting everyone. 16 th Street Tactical also contains footage from a local political talk show in Boston that features both myself and the filmmaker talking about our experiences during arrest and detention (also on YouTube in seven parts). A virtual tsunami of Civil Rights lawsuits followed in the wake of the convention, including one I belong to that looks to remain unresolved for at least a couple more years at best as NYPD lawyers stall. Some of the best work in this regard has been done by the New York Civil Liberties Union , which has doggedly documented police actions through discovery and FOIA, filed many of the civil actions , and published detailed reports like Rights and Wrongs at the RNC . In the end, the actions in New York amounted to little more than the criminalization of dissent. Everyone was a target, everyone was guilty before proven innocent, and everyone -- even the innocent and the neutral -- lost their rights and freedoms in one way or another. The entire city lost, and so too did the nation. Somewhere deep within an NYPD database are the names, faces, and in many cases fingerprints of thousands and thousands of decent citizens who simply came to exercise free speech and redress their government, and who left with little more than an arrest record. This piece originally appeared in openDemocracy. Charles Shaw is a regular contributor to Reality Sandwich. He is the editor of openDemocracy's " Ethical Politics Blog " and the Editor of the Dictionary of Ethical Politics , a collaborative project of Resurgence and openDemocracy. More on Civil Rights
 
Mark Fowler: Democracy in Iran: Change Begins at the Ballot Box Top
America is at its best when it leads by example. This will be particularly important as the U.S. administration strives to fashion a new policy towards Iran. President Obama has made a very public offer to the Islamic Republic and while their response so far is not encouraging, it was not altogether unexpected by those who know Iran. There is simply too much at stake, however, to rely on the same tired old prescriptions, and while it will not be easy we will need to persevere and approach this effort with a new level of nuance and creativity. There are two distinct audiences in Iran, the primary being the regime and its hard line supporters, led by the Supreme Leader. The fact is that nothing will change between the U.S. and Iran without the acquiescence of Iran's Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. For this to happen, the administration will need to walk the fine line between addressing the strategic interests of the U.S. and its allies while also acknowledging issues that matter most to those in charge in Iran. The Supreme Leader will also need to be convinced that the ultimate goal of the west is not simply to roll back the Islamic revolution in Iran. The latter in particular may in the end prove impossible but the effort must nonetheless be made for there to be any chance of success. While there are a multitude of tactical matters to be considered, it will be critical that the U.S.'s overall strategic approach be based on a new paradigm; one that does not predicate success solely on the eventual capitulation of Iran to the demands of the west. The hard truth is that notwithstanding the serious economic challenges Iran is facing, its leadership is not currently in a position where they have no other option than to bow to the demands of others. This could change, but thirty years of waiting for just such a situation, during which the Islamic republic has proven itself to be tremendously resilient, would indicate it likely will not anytime soon. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the facts and doom any effort to eventual failure. In the meantime, the signals coming out of Iran, while certainly conflicting, are quite interesting. Many of the statements emanating from Teheran certainly tend to be confrontational and at times harsh, primarily in response to what the Iranians view as continued confrontational statements and actions from the U.S. and its allies. No one, however, including the Supreme Leader has yet voiced a definitive no to the possibility of either dialogue or improved relations with the U.S. Even the latest very critical statements from Khamenei, presented during the Teheran hosted Palestinian conference - and even more recently in his Norooz message to the Iranian nation - do not expressly preclude engagement. Instead, the predominant message, across the board - including from the reformist camp - emphasizes an Iranian perception that the actions of the Obama administration have yet to match its rhetoric of change. Another important development that we cannot ignore is that Iran's leadership has chosen to cast America very much in the role of supplicant, thereby placing the U.S. in the unenviable position of making the first move, a quintessential Iranian negotiating tactic. Meanwhile, Iran watches and waits, taking the very Iranian tack of "Naaz Mikonand" (ناز می کند), or, "playing hard to get". As the U.S. administration continues to study its options, among these must be actions that clearly demonstrate that a change in tone is capable of leading to a substantive change in both attitude and approach. The administration's invitation to Iran to attend the recent "Afghanistan Conference" is a good case in point. Selective relaxation of the current sanctions regime obviously offers additional options. As the senior partner in this diplomatic dance, however, the U.S. needs to take additional actions, with no expectation of an immediate quid pro quo, in order to demonstrate good faith and build confidence with its decidedly skittish junior partner. At the same time, we should not forget there is yet another very important audience in Iran that we cannot afford to ignore; its people. In addressing the people of Iran, there are very few actions that the U.S. government can take that will not backfire. To single out any individual risks causing them to become a target of, at best, regime ire and at worst, the regime's internal security services. To address any particular issue risks making it a cause celebre' by which the hard liners can point to yet another case of internal interference by the "global arrogance". There is one issue, however, that the U.S. government - all the way up to the President - can address openly, with virtually no chance for blowback, TO GET OUT THE VOTE. Iranians are proud of the democratic system in Iran. While certainly not "free and fair" as we understand the democratic process, largely as a result of the non-transparent candidate vetting process employed by the regime, the system in place is far and away one of the more democratic in the region. And granted, the overarching authority of the Supreme Leader largely neutralizes the "power of the people" on many issues of the highest import. Notwithstanding these limitations, the regime - including the Supreme Leader - seeks to acknowledge the will of the people on many issues, or at least pretends to. To do otherwise risks losing popular support altogether and abandoning any pretense of democracy, no matter how tenuous. As a regime that came from the streets - one that expends an enormous amount of energy and resources on catering to, and/or controlling its varied constituencies - Iranian leaders simply cannot afford to openly thwart the wishes of its people. The bad news is that apathy among voters is high. This serves to benefit the more hard line elements and threatens to allow a more hard line minority in Iran to continue to thwart the will of the apparently more moderate majority. The good news is that the promise of change through democracy, no matter how limited, offers an opportunity to promote common cause with America, and particularly with our newly elected President. In short, the U.S. administration should encourage all Iranians, in the strongest possible terms, to vote in the upcoming Iranian Presidential election as a celebration of the Democratic traditions that both nations share. No candidate should be singled out, nor any particular issue highlighted or supported. A simple message of "a responsibility to vote" will suffice. This will serve several purposes. First, it will emphasize an important, shared value with which many in Iran will be able to identify. In addition, higher voter turnout, more than almost any other means, is likely to result in the election of more moderate candidates by causing the regime to think twice about manipulating the vote count as it appears to have done in recent elections. High voter turnout should also serve notice to Iran's leadership that the people of Iran are engaged, watching and that they expect those in positions of leadership, both elected and non-elected, to serve all of their needs. Whether Iran's leadership responds is certainly questionable, and perhaps doubtful, but they will most certainly be placed on notice and will be mindful of the message this sends. Lastly, this is a message the regime will be hard pressed to reject or spin as they can hardly object to anyone, even the "Great Satan" encouraging the people of Iran to exercise their right to vote. While this may be perceived as naïve by some, it is one of the few messages that stands a chance of reaching the broadest possible audience in Iran - both the Iranian people and its leadership. This will also allow America to once again lead by example, as a Nation that has itself just used the power of the ballot box to assert the will of the people and bring about change. More on Iran
 
Iraqi Child Suicide Bombers In Training Arrested Top
Iraqi forces arrested four children, all under 14, who are allegedly linked to al-Qaida and training to become suicide bombers, an Iraqi general said. More on War Wire
 
Ian Millhiser: Inhofe: Obama's Judicial Nominee is a Secret Muslim Top
Noted global warming denier James Inhofe, who once insisted that the United States base its foreign policy on the book of Genesis , announced on the Senate floor yesterday that he will filibuster the nomination of Judge David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit. Judge Hamilton, a highly regarded district judge whose nomination received enthusiastic support from Hamilton's homestate Republican Senator Richard Lugar, is President Obama's first nominee to the federal bench. Inhofe says he will filibuster Judge Hamilton because Hamilton's enforcement of the Establishment Clause offends Inhofe's fundamentalist beliefs : Many remember David Hamilton because of his 2005 decision as a Federal district court judge presiding over the case Hinrichs v. Bosmah , in which he enjoined the Speaker of Indiana's House of Representatives from permitting ``sectarian'' prayers to be offered as part of that body's official proceedings, meaning that the chaplain or whomever opened the proceedings with prayer could not invoke the name of Jesus Christ. In his conclusion, Hamilton wrote: ``If the Speaker chooses to continue any form of legislative prayer, he shall advise persons offering such a prayer (a) that it must be nonsectarian and must not be used to proselytize or advance any one faith or belief or to disparage any other faith or belief, and (b) that they should refrain from using Christ's name or title or any other denominational appeal.'' Further, ruling on a postjudgment motion, Hamilton stated that invoking the name of ``Allah'' would not advance a particular religion or disparage another. So, praying to Allah would be perfectly acceptable. I imagine we will hear this claim---that Hamilton banned references to Jesus but endorsed references to "Allah"---a lot in the future, so let me take a moment to explain why Inhofe doesn't know what he's talking about. In Marsh v. Chambers , the Supreme Court held that legislatures can open their session with a non-sectarian prayer, and that such a prayer could invoke "God." Marsh , however, also established that such prayers must be entirely non-sectarian, emphasizing that the prayer in that case was permissible because it was not used "to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief." So non-sectarian statements of reverence to God are kosher, but prayers that offer a uniquely Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Wiccan view are forbidden. This is the Supreme Court's rule, and if Jim Inhofe has a problem with it than his beef is with the Justices, not with David Hamiltion. Hinrichs v. Bosmah , the case that Inhofe cites in attacking Judge Hamilton, was a suit challenging the Indiana House's practice of routinely bringing in Christian clergy who would offer Christian prayers before the session began, often invoking the name "Jesus." Because a lower court judge like Judge Hamilton must follow Supreme Court precedents, Hamilton followed the Supreme Court's decision in Marsh , and held that the Indiana House must stop opening its sessions with sectarian prayers. In a post-judgment motion, the Speaker of the Indiana House posed the question of whether or not he could begin the legislative session with a prayer that used the word "Allah," Hamilton responded as follows: The Speaker has also asked whether, for example, a Muslim imam may offer a prayer addressed to "Allah." The Arabic word "Allah" is used for "God" in Arabic translations of Jewish and Christian scriptures. If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic Allah, the Spanish Dios, the German Gott, the French Dieu, the Swedish Gud, the Greek Theos, the Hebrew Elohim, the Italian Dio, or any other language's terms in addressing the God who is the focus of the non-sectarian prayers contemplated in Marsh v. Chambers , the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others. If and when the prayer practices in the Indiana House of Representatives ever seem to be advancing Islam, an appropriate party can bring the problem to the attention of this or another court. In other words, Hamilton held that, because the Supreme Court held in Marsh that it is ok for a prayer to invoke the word "God," it is also ok for a legislative prayer to use the Arabic or Spanish or Greek word for God. Hamilton explicitly did not say that an Islamic prayer could be offered at the opening of a legislative session. To the contrary, he explicitly warned that if a legislative prayer "ever seem[s] to be advancing Islam" than the courts will treat that "problem" accordingly. Judge Hamilton is nothing like the right-wing judges Inhofe got used to supporting in the Bush years. Unlike George Bush's judges, David Hamilton does not believe that corporations should have sweeping immunity from the law , and I suspect that this is the real reason why many conservatives are lining up against him. Conservatives know that they cannot win the case against Hamilton on the merits, so they make up stories about how Judge Hamilton is a secret Muslim. Fortunately, Senator Lugar's support of Hamilton all but ensures that Hamilton will be confirmed once Senator-elect Franken arrives to cast the 60th vote for cloture. Even so, the fact that conservatives are planning to filibuster President Obama's very first nominee---especially a nominee as distinguished and well-qualified as David Hamilton---suggests that we can expect scorched-earth opposition to virtually all of Obama's nominees moving forward. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are the author's own, and should not be understood as representative of any organization he may be affiliated with. (crossposted at Overruled )
 
Brian Williams To Receive FDNY Humanitarian Award Top
Firefighting, no doubt, is in the blood of the NBC "Nightly News" anchor. And it'll be part of a big Thursday ahead for Williams, who on the same night will be one of three presented the FDNY's Humanitarian Award, and also appear on NBC's comedy "30 Rock." Growing up, Williams says he looked up to the members of the FDNY, so he's flattered to be able to spend a night with them. More on Brian Williams
 
Halle Berry's Flip-Flops: Love Them Or Lose Them? (PHOTOS, POLL) Top
At the Los Angeles premiere for "The Soloist" on Monday night, star Jamie Foxx's friend Halle Berry showed up wearing a formal full-length dress, but opted for casual footwear, wearing flip-flops instead of the traditional high heels. It's worth noting that temperatures in southern California approached 100 degrees yesterday. What do you think of this look? Vote below and see more premiere pictures here. PICTURES:
 
Gavin Newsom: It's Official...I am Running for Governor of California Top
It's official. Today, I became a candidate for governor because California needs a new direction. I hope you will join me as we set out to build a campaign that does more than win an election. Together we can create the kind of campaign that changes California. If you want to help us get off to a strong start, please contribute here . In San Francisco, we're showing what can be accomplished when we stop looking back and start looking for solutions. We are the first, and still the only, city in America implementing universal health care. We're proving what you already knew - it is less expensive to keep people well than it is to treat their sicknesses. Join us and you can help take the fight for excellent and affordable health care to all of California. Across California, teachers are facing layoff notices; but we are protecting teachers from layoffs, raising test scores and breaking down the barriers to a college education. Contribute today and we'll build the kind of campaign that can force Sacramento to stop arguing about better schools and start creating them. The unemployment rate in California is soaring. But in San Francisco, the local economy is doing better because we helped attract new industries and new high-wage jobs. We are working together to grow our economy with a local stimulus plan that will put people back to work, starting with environmental initiatives and green-collar job training programs. In San Francisco, we've done all of this while balancing our budgets - and our bond rating has gone up, thanks to sound fiscal management and a rainy day reserve. Join us , and we'll create the kind of state government that stops searching for someone to blame and starts finding solutions. The truth is, we can't keep returning to the same old, tired ideas and expect a different result. If we take a new approach, and recognize that we are all in this together, I believe we can put California on a new path toward a better future. Join us in a new kind of campaign that gives all of us the tools we need to make change. Join us on Facebook , Twitter or at www.GavinNewsom.com . Make your voice heard and help us make real change. Some of you already know me. You know I am not afraid to stand up and fight for what's right. From quality health care for everyone to equal rights for all Californians, I will do more than talk about problems - I will work with you to solve them. We all know California can do better. Let's work together to set a new direction for California. More on Green Living
 
Obama Pitches Renewed Effort To Pitch In -- Help Us Cover It! Top
On Tuesday, President Obama will meet with former president Bill Clinton and Sen. Ted Kennedy in the Oval Office to talk volunteerism, after which the trio will travel to a public boarding school in Southeast Washington, where Obama will sign the Serve America Act, a bill to increase the number of service opportunities -- such as jobs with AmeriCorps -- supported by the federal government. After signing the bill, the president and First Lady Michelle Obama "will participate in a service activity in Washington, D.C.," according to the White House. During his campaign Obama pledged to boost volunteerism, saying his predecessor squandered an opportunity after 9/11 to tap public eagerness to serve. Service is a significant part of the platform of Organizing for America, the grassroots advocacy network that grew out of Obama's campaign machine. It could be that there is a latent groundswell of volunteers ready to be tapped for service. Several volunteer coordinators told the Huffington Post on April 6 that while the recession was reducing donations from foundations, the coordinators were overwhelmed by the number of volunteers offering to help out . Those new AmeriCorps positions will certainly fill up fast -- Michael Stoops, director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, said he was swamped with applications for unpaid AmeriCorps internships with his organization. On Monday, White House adviser Valerie Jarrett addressed New Yorkers via video after New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced initiatives to make New York City a leader in volunteerism. "This will unleash the power inside millions of New Yorkers to help those who need it most," Bloomberg said, according to the Washington Post . "Together we'll be the first to bring to life a new era of service in America." The Huffington Post wants to keep its eyes and ears on the burgeoning service movement. Is New York really going to take charge of this thing, or is some other place going to step up? We want readers to let us know what kinds of service projects they're involved in and what kinds of volunteer opportunities they see sprouting up in their towns. Tell us about it at submissions+service@huffingtonpost.com . Get HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter . More on Michelle Obama
 
Hamas Leader To Address British Parliament Top
Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal is set to address a meeting of MPs and peers in the British parliament via a videoconference from Damascus on Wednesday. More on Hamas
 
Limbaugh Berates Caller For "Regurgitating Left-Wing Drivel" (AUDIO) Top
Rush Limbaugh blasted a caller on his radio show who blamed the host for encouraging anti-Obama rhetoric and advocating for last week's tax day tea parties. The caller told Limbaugh he was partially responsible for the anger among the tea party protesters, along with Fox News and other conservative pundits. "I truly believe a lot of the tea parties and all that activity had a lot to do with you and some other conservative radio and Fox News who is 'fair and balanced,' but they were actually, they had commercials for this stuff", the caller said. Limbaugh blamed the caller for repeating "left-wing drivel." This is a classic, what you are doing to me ... you are regurgitating the drivel I have read on left-wing blogs. You are classic. You have not said one original thing. I've heard everything you've said spewed by television commentators, written by bloggers and you are trying to mischaracterize and impugn the people who went to the tea parties as nothing but a bunch of mind-numbed robots, who were led there by svengalis and pied-pipers like me. Limbaugh claimed he was not responsible for a "single tea party", and that people were reacting based on their own emotions. "I had nothing to do with a single tea party!" he said. These that people who showed up showed up because they understood intellectually what is happening to their future and their children's future and what is happening to their country and they want to stop it." LISTEN: Become a fan of HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter . More on Tax Day Tea Parties
 
The Progress Report: Impeach Judge Bybee Top
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, and Ryan Powers To receive The Progress Report in your email inbox everyday, click here . Last week, President Obama released four Bush-era Office of Legal Counsel memos that had authorized torture. "In dozens of pages of dispassionate legal prose, the methods approved by the Bush administration for extracting information from senior operatives of Al Qaeda are spelled out in careful detail -- like keeping detainees awake for up to 11 straight days, placing them in a dark, cramped box or putting insects into the box to exploit their fears," The New York Times writes. The earliest memo, from 2002, was signed by Jay Bybee, then an Assistant Attorney General and now a federal judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Bybee's memo provided "a legal authorization for a laundry list of proposed C.I.A. interrogation techniques," including waterboarding. The techniques Bybee approved are illegal by U.S. statute and an international treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory. Bybee attempted to give legal cover to illegal acts, and thus broke the ethical, professional, and legal standards that govern lawyers. For this, Judge Jay Bybee should be impeached. The Progress Report has launched a campaign to persuade the House Judiciary Committee to initiate impeachment hearings against Bybee. Already, more than 3,000 of you have taken action. Join our effort to convince the committee to launch hearings. WHAT BYBEE APPROVED: "[I]n the finest legalese" and with "grotesque, lawyerly logic," Bybee wrote 40 pages of justification for treatment that clearly constituted "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." He approved a method called "walling," which entailed slamming a detainee against a wall. Bybee claimed that "any pain experienced is not of the intensity associated with serious physical injury." He also gave a thumbs up to slapping a detainee's face as long as the interrogator took off any rings. "The facial slap does not produce pain that is difficult to endure," he insisted. And feel free to place detainees in stress positions, Bybee said: these "simply involve forcing the subject to remain in uncomfortable positions." Most notoriously, Bybee declared that waterboarding -- a technique perfected during the Spanish Inquisition that the United States later prosecuted Japanese officers for conducting against U.S. POWs -- was both legal and safe. "The waterboard...inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever," Bybee claimed. He said that U.S. law bans only techniques that cause "pain and suffering," a phrase "best understood as a single concept, not distinct concepts of 'pain' as distinguished from 'suffering.'" Since waterboarding causes no "pain," Bybee declares it legal. In fact, he wrote, even one separates "pain" from "suffering," waterboarding would still be acceptable: "The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering." HOW TO IMPEACH BYBEE: The Progress Report is asking readers to sign a petition to be sent to the House Judiciary Committee, urging it to hold hearings on Bybee. After the hearings, the Committee would draw up articles of impeachment, and pass them with a simple majority vote. From there, the articles move to the full House, which can also approve them with a simple majority. The House sends two "managers" to serve as prosecutors in the impeachment trial, conducted in the Senate if a majority agrees to move forward. It takes 67 Senators to convict -- and a conviction would remove Bybee from the bench. Calling for his impeachment in January, Yale Law professor Bruce Ackerman wrote, "[Bybee's] impeachment is not a prelude to a sweeping political vendetta. It focuses on a very particular problem: Jay Bybee may serve for decades on one of the highest courts in the land. Is his continued service consistent with his role in the systematic perpetration of war crimes?" The New York Times called for Bybee's impeachment this weekend, writing that the "memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution." "His flagrant contempt for the rule of law is utterly inconsistent with his judicial position and speaks directly to his competency to function in that office," stated the Center for Constitutional Rights. "He ought to be impeached," House Judiciary Committee member Jerry Nadler (D-NY) told the Huffington Post yesterday. "It was not an honest legal memo. It was an instruction manual on how to break the law. "Senate Judiciary Committee member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) agreed that impeachment is "certainly possible." "The idea of the author of one of these memos sitting on the federal bench makes a farce of the whole legal system," wrote the Center for American Progress Action Fund's Matthew Yglesias. A PATH TO ACCOUNTABILITY: In 2003, Bybee was nominated by President Bush and approved by the Senate to sit on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. During his confirmation hearing, Bybee refused to answer questions, citing executive privilege at least 20 separate times. "If the Senate had known the truth, it would have rejected him," Ackerman wrote. Launching the impeachment process would force Bybee to finally answer questions. And with the Obama administration hesitant to launch prosecutions of any kind, an impeachment hearing might be the closest thing Americans get to a full accounting of Bush's torture program. Indeed, when pressed yesterday on why Obama was refusing to hold Bush administration lawyers who authored the torture memos "accountable," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stated simply, "The president is focused on looking forward. That's why." Looking forward, however, "it is simply obvious that, if there is no accountability when wrongdoing is exposed, future violations will not be deterred," House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) said yesterday. Sign our petition here .
 
Michael Wolff: American Torture: I Know Who's Going to Pay Top
The 183 instances of waterboarding authorized by the Bush administration is the smoking gun. It's now impossible to overlook that there existed a program of systematic American torture. This is a problem for the new administration. Torture trials are not going to get them any credit, or earn them any favors. They'll take the moral superiority, but would just as soon leave aside the practicalities of placing specific blame. They're worried, though, that it's not going to go away. They're obviously going back and forth right now, trying to figure out which side they ought to be on. The decision to release the secret reports was one impulse; the move to reassure the CIA torturers that they're above board, another. But it's pretty unavoidable. Because the torture was carefully rationalized, the documentation is going to be bureaucratic and meticulous. We will have dispassionately recorded in hundreds of hours of video unimaginable brutality--our dispassion will make the brutality all the more vicious. And it will reach, of course, to ever-and-ever higher places. You don't do this stuff without covering your ass. Continue reading at newser.com More on Barack Obama
 
Michael Shaw: Reading The Pictures: More Trials and Tribulations Of Administration's Wall Street Posse Top
click for full size When I heard a major Wall Street private equity player -- as opposed to someone more directly connected to industry -- had become the point man in the GM takeover, I was was pretty confused. But then, shades of Milken, Icahn, Jacobs and Kerkorian, this is the culture that has taken root inside the Obama administration. Former New York Times reporter and now confidant of management; husband of the former National Finance Chair for the Democratic Party; former Deputy Chairman of the investment bank, Lazard; co-founder of Quadrangle, the multibillion dollar investment group; manager of Michael Bloomberg's money; '08 Clinton supporter; and well known social climber , it's been widely known for years that Steven Rattner desired to make the jump from Wall Street to D.C. And now, we find out that Rattner, the point man and pretty much-Car Czar for the Treasury reporting to Geithner is caught up in pay-to-play allegations involving Quadrangle, a cheesy low budget movie and the New York State pension fund. Why do I like this shot of Rattner, posing in 2005 for a NYT reporter? Because it captures him, smooth and relaxed, during New York's gravy days, clearly flaunting his vantage; his elevation from the pavement; the fact he's on top of it all. For more visual politics, visit BAGnewsNotes.com (and follow us on Twitter ). (image: Ruth Fremson/The New York Times caption: Steven Rattner, an investment banker, is leading the effort to help Mayor Bloomberg's campaign aides court prominent Democrats. July 26, 2005 ) More on Financial Crisis
 
Chicago Segway Tour: A Local Saddles Up For The Ride Top
There's a reason GOB from Arrested Development rides around in a Segway: It makes you feel like an authority figure lording over your minions by carting around in your personal chariot. Indeed, while tooling around Chicago on a Segway, it was hard not to greet the foolish pedestrians still dragging around the city on their outmoded legs. More on Travel
 
Obama: Bush Officials' Prosecutions Possible Top
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is leaving the door to open to possible prosecution of Bush administration officials who devised harsh terrorism-era interrogation tactics. He also said Tuesday that he worries about the impact of high-intensity hearings on how detainees were treated under former President George W. Bush. But Obama did say, nevertheless, he could support a Hill investigation if it were conducted in a bipartisan way. Obama has said he doesn't support charging CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, acting on advice from superiors that such practices were legal. But he also said that it is up to the attorney general whether to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who wrote the memos approving these tactics.
 
Miles J. Zaremski: Health Care Reform Rally a First for Chicago Top
According to the organizers of a rally for health care reform held on April 18 at a local college on Chicago's north side, it was a first for the Chicago-land area. It was an SRO crowd, well over 500 who gave up part of a lovely day weather-wise to be packed inside a large gymnasium-type room. If the passion, enthusiasm and determination displayed by those who attended is reflective of the electorate's mood nationwide, the lobbyists supporting the likes of the insurance industry and drug manufacturers that may oppose any change or who will try to influence those on the Hill to mouth the right words, like Motherhood and apple pie, without passing true reform, will be crushed by such public sentiment. If anything, what I observed harkens back to the movie Network , where the line most remembered was, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this any more." Placards were in abundance, such as "Healthcare, Not Warfare," "Healthcare is Not a Community -- Private Insurance Must Go," "Healthcare Can't Wait," and "Single Payer Healthcare for All." Nametags were cleverly made out of band-aids, as if to suggest that incremental changes the size of a band-aid to fix health care as has been done in the past are no longer acceptable alternatives. The rally was organized by three groups, Health Care for America Now (HCAN), a national grassroots campaign of 866 organizations in 46 states representing 30 million Americans dedicated to ensuring quality health care afforded by all (this includes 185 legislators on the Hill and President Obama/Vice President Biden), Citizen Action/Illinois, the state's largest public interest organization and a progressive political coalition committed to creating social change in Illinois and elsewhere, and The Illinois Main Street Alliance, a coalition of nearly 400 Illinois small businesses working for a comprehensive health care coalition. Speakers and participants included the usual variety of community organizers and leaders, in addition to local state representatives, the president of Local No. 1 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and those individuals who had their own stories to tell of financial woes occasioned by unanticipated health care costs. U.S. Rep. Jan Shakowsky (D. Ill.-9th Dist) was featured. She advocates a public plan, as do many of the colleagues in Congress. An April 2, 2009 letter was read and distributed that was authored by the co-chairs of the 77 Member Congressional Progressive Caucus to Speaker Pelosi and Senate majority Leader Reid, calling for a single-payer approach to health care reform. If there was any thread throughout the entire rally by speakers and advocates alike, it was to have choice in health care insurance, but one of which must be a public health care option for all citizens. It was certainly clear that the private sector has failed in its task to provide cost-effective, quality health care. In this regard, one must recall that managed care programs came about because the fee-for-service system was a failure; HMOs and PPOs and the like now join these ranks. Also, and as this writer has scribed in the past, a call for health care as a fundamental right/service applied equally to everyone was articulated loud and clear; this is a necessary predicate and springboard for any discussion to change the present system. Additionally, while the usual statistics were put forth, showing that the current health care delivery system has fallen off a cliff, how millions of Americans continue to suffer because of bills that go unpaid/remain uninsured or underinsured, and how we are 37th on the World Health Organization list of nations providing health care (somewhere with Costa Rica, with France being first on its list), it is hard to imagine that this gathering does not express, as if in microcosm to it, the will of the country for health care change. Heaven help any politician in Washington who thinks (s)he can stand in the way of this movement now. The locomotive has not only left the station, but is barreling down the tracks like the high speed train President Obama only last week indicated he wants to have for this country. And, he is the engineer driving that train; let's hope he keeps it on the tracks long enough to have passed and signed into law a health care reform bill reflecting the desperately needed sea-change for a new era of affordable and accessible health care for all Americans citizens. More on Health
 
Arthur Agatston, M.D.: What Do United Airlines, Obesity, and Preventive Medicine Have in Common? Top
The recent press about United Airlines joining the ranks of other major carriers in establishing a tough policy about seating obese passengers brings up the larger issue of what we can do to stop the epidemic of obesity in this country. As a preventive cardiologist in Miami Beach and the author of The South Beach Diet Supercharged , I see the consequences of the obesity epidemic every day in my practice. Not only am I treating patients with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, metabolic syndrome, prediabetes, diabetes, and advanced heart disease, but also patients with related ailments like sleep apnea, joint issues, and depression. Today an unbelievable two-thirds (66.5 percent) of Americans are either overweight or obese and that number appears to be growing, not shrinking. 3 Steps to Preventing Obesity I firmly believe that the first step in stopping this epidemic lies with the insurance system, which currently pays more for doctors to perform procedures than to listen to and educate patients. Today primary-care doctors often find themselves having trouble meeting overhead and so they try to see more people in less time, leaving the patients feeling rushed and neglected. Doctors have little time to practice preventive medicine--to teach obese patients, for example, about the value of a proper diet and exercise program or to get to the root cause of a person's weight problem. This simply can't be done in a typical 10-minute doctor visit. Until incentives for prevention can be built into our health-care system, until doctors can afford the time they'd like to spend with patients, the problem of obesity and so many other chronic diseases will continue to persist in this country. The second step in halting the obesity epidemic lies with getting rid of our fast-food, supersized-is-better mentality. Do I need to say more? The third step lies with families themselves. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that by 2020 a third of all children in this country will be overweight or obese. As we know, fat children often become fat adults. In fact, a child who is overweight during adolescence stands a 70 percent chance of being overweight as an adult and an 80 percent chance of being overweight if his or her mom or dad is. There is no question that our empty-calorie, sedentary lifestyle (kids not only need to eat right, but they also need to also exercise on school playgrounds and in the park, not on video games) may be trumping medical advances in the prevention and treatment of coronary disease, and that this generation of kids may have more heart disease and die earlier than their parents--unless sustained changes are made. Overfed Yet Undernourished I often say that our children are overfed yet undernourished. That's because most children are not getting the foods they need to thrive. Like their parents, these children are eating a steady diet of nutrient-deficient, highly processed foods that are high in sugar and saturated and trans fats and very low in fiber. And they're washing it all down with a glass or two of sugary soda. If we are to stop the epidemic of obesity in this country, parents must take a good look at what kids have on their plates. Regardless of a person's age, an optimal diet is one that contains whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables, lean protein, good fats, and plenty of fiber. I am not advocating that an already overworked parent needs to prepare a special meal for every member of the household, but no extra work is required to make a sandwich with whole-wheat bread instead of refined white bread, or to make spaghetti using whole-wheat pasta instead of refined white pasta, or to offer a piece of fresh fruit instead of chocolate cake for dessert. The point is--good nutrition begins at home. Our President is leading by example by establishing a vegetable garden on the White House grounds. But while parents can begin to work on this problem now, changing our health-care system and weaning ourselves off of fast food are clearly going to take some time. In the meantime, we need to support, not discriminate against, the obese in this country and we need to urge our government to provide the incentives to stop this health crisis in its tracks.
 
Ari Melber: Cheney Urges Transparency for Obama at 100 Days Top
It's not too soon anymore. As President Obama nears his 100th day in office, the political and media assessments of his administration are piling up, including this Nation event in Washington on Wednesday. Now sure, many people say the " 100 days " frame is a bit tired. But it's also useful. We can step back from the crush of hourly stories -- the pirates and puppies, the budgets and bonuses -- to consider the larger policies and priorities of this administration. The American Prospect recently took this tack in reviewing Obama's record on transparency -- a big campaign promise. There is impressive change, in reforming freedom of information policies and releasing the torture memos. There is also more of the same, however, with the administration deploying a radical reading of the "state secrets privilege" to deny torture victims their day in court. In fact, Obama's transparency record is drawing new fire from a very unlikely source. Dick Cheney is now urging Obama to be less secretive. On Monday night, the former Vice President announced that he was "formally" asking the administration to release secret documents that, he says, show the utility of torture. (The Fox News interview is here .) I asked Sen. Claire McCaskill about that request today, during a panel at a George Washington University conference. McCaskill said she was surprised to hear "Cheney" and "transparency" in the same sentence, but she supported Obama's increased transparency and is open to the declassification of further documents. Other members of Congress on the panel, including Republican Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Democrat Steve Israel, also voiced some support for Obama's transparency agenda thus far. Israel stressed that if anything, the country needs even more government information and debate on torture. He also cited Twitter messages he is now receiving about Jay Bybee, after Israel announced his support for impeaching the judge , who authored memos advancing torture. We'll dig into these issues much further at our Wednesday event , with Rep. Donna Edwards, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Chris Hayes, William Greider, John Nichols and Deepak Bhargava. If you have questions or ideas, comment below and I'll share them with the moderator. (I posed several citizen questions from Twitter to Sen. McCaskill and other members of Congress on today's GWU panel.) If you live near Washington, of course, drop on by. And with his newfound interest in open government, maybe Cheney will be there, too. Ari Melber writes for The Nation, where this post first appeared . More information on The Nation's Obama @ 100 event is here. More on Twitter
 
Pot Dealer Calls Cops To Get Money Back Top
Most robbery victims would not hesitate to call police. Wisconsin resident Cory Oxtoby, 19, probably hesitated a little, then called anyway. More on WTF
 
Feingold Unloads On Peggy Noonan: "Never Heard Anything Quite As Disturbing" Top
Senator Russ Feingold, one of the harshest critics of the Bush administration's nation security policies, says he can not bring himself to support President Obama's apparent decision not to investigate or prosecute illegalities from those years. "Part of what troubles me are the lawyers -- we should see their law school degrees -- who consciously wrote these memos justifying and explaining full well those outrageous arguments," the Wisconsin Democrat said on Tuesday in reference to the Bush-era torture memos released last week. "I cannot join the president, or his spokesman, or [chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel, who said we aren't going [to prosecute these people]. I can't. I just disagree with them." Later, the Senator took a swipe at some of the rationalizations for avoiding prosecution that have been voiced by Washington lawmakers and pundits. "If you want to see just how outrageous this is, I refer you to the remarks made by Peggy Noonan this Sunday," he said, referring to the longtime conservative columnist's appearance on ABC's This Week . "I frankly have never heard anything quite as disturbing as her remark that was something to the affect of: 'well sometimes you just have to move on.'" "Some things in life need to be mysterious," Noonan said on Sunday about the release of the torture memos. "Sometimes you need to just keep walking. ... It's hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, oh, much good will come of that." Feingold's remarks, delivered before the Religious Action Center convention, represent some of the most forceful pushback against the line coming out of the White House to date. Emanuel and senior adviser David Axelrod have suggested that prosecution of Bush officials is likely off the table due to the political sensitivities that would accompany such retroactive action. On Tuesday morning, however, the New York Times reported that White House "aides did not rule out legal sanctions for the Bush lawyers who developed the legal basis for the use of the techniques." A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a long-time critic of torture, Feingold viewed investigations and, perhaps, prosecutions as a key tool to restoring America's moral standing. "It is truly horrifying and unforgivable that anybody operating under the auspices of the United States of America had involvement in any of this," he said. "So I'm not even completely ready to [cede the argument] that people who devised these techniques should be off the hook. I understand the argument. I also remember when people said that they were just following orders. So that troubles me and I am thinking about it." Become a fan of HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter .
 
Eric C. Anderson: An Embarrassment to the Uniform Top
It is time to put an end to institutionalized homophobia within the United States military. A society that prides itself on the constitutional preservation of citizen rights and legal protection of our civil rights should not tolerate continued official endorsement of irrational prejudice within the very body charged with forcibly defending those unalienable rights. I don't come to this conclusion as an idealistic bystander. I have served as an officer in the United States Air Force for the last 18 years. At every step in my service I have been repeatedly informed of my responsibility to prevent discrimination based on gender, race and religion. I was also specifically instructed on my responsibility to neither ask nor tell when it came to issues of sexual orientation. To be quite honest, however, I never found it necessary to ask my fellow service members whether they were hetero- or homosexual. My focus--during tours of duty across the planet--was on the mission. I, and my fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, met that task with little interest in what took place in another service member's bedroom. The same, alas, can not be said of the officers who were appointed over me. As the 15 April 2009 Washington Post editorial by General Lindsay, Admiral Johnson, Lt General Shuler, and General Went demonstrates, senior officers apparently have a lot of time to worry about their subordinates' bedmate preferences. These senior officers also suffer no compunction about publicly proclaiming an irrational prejudice not tolerated among lower ranking service members. I realize, of course, the four officers listed above are retired--and therefore believe they have a right to express such sentiments. Unfortunately, the close-minded perspective they advocate is alive and well among their active-duty cohorts. Consider, for example, a comment General Peter Pace, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made on 12 March 2007. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Pace told reporters "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way." Sadly, General Pace is not expressing a minority view. A recent poll finds 58% of the uniformed members of the armed forces oppose lifting a ban on openly gay people serving with the Air Force, Army, Navy, or Marines--and at least 10% are threatening to leave if the rules are changed. Here's the catch, I bet a poll of senior officers and their subordinates in 1948 would have revealed similar sentiments. Only then the issue was desegregation of the armed services. How similar is the conversation? Arguing against allowing African-Americans to serve side-by-side with white soldiers, Army General Omar Bradley warned it was not the business of the armed services to conduct "social experiments." President Truman publicly admonished General Bradley for his comments and I suspect President Obama may be forced to offer similar rebuke of vocal high-ranking officers in the future. But many of us who have served in the trenches do not need convincing. As General Shalikashvili, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, wrote in January 2007, "Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq. ... These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers. ... I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces." Given that General Lindsay, Admiral Johnson, Lt General Shuler, and General Went felt perfectly comfortable openly avowing their prejudice, President Obama is going to have to take a strong stand about discrimination against gay Americans. The president claimed he wanted to demonstrate a sense of inclusiveness by having Rick Warren, who has an admitted anti-gay political agenda, give the invocation at his inauguration. Now he has the chance to exhibit such inclusiveness by allowing gay men and women to openly serve in the military. It's time to put an end to this politically-abetted discrimination that is such an embarrassment to the uniform.
 
Representative Harman 'Urged' Times To Not Publish Wiretapping Expose Top
One of the major points of intrigue in the unfolding Jane Harman/wiretapping scandal , is whether or not Representative Harman did, as Congressional Quarterly contends, play a role in helping to keep a New York Times expose on wiretapping out of the paper until the 2004 election is over. From CQ : According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he "needed Jane" to help support the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times. Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program. Yesterday, the Times Bill Keller gave Greg Sargent some denial-like substance : "Ms. Harman did not influence my decision. I don't recall that she even spoke to me." Today, however, Keller gave another statement to Sargent , through spokeperson Catherine Mathis, that does recall Harman, attempting to exert influence: Congresswoman Harman spoke to Washington Bureau Chief Phil Taubman in late October or early November, 2004, apparently at the request of General Hayden. She urged that The Times not publish the story. She did not speak to me, and I don't remember her being a significant factor in my decision. In 2005, when we were getting ready to publish, Phil met with a group of congressional leaders familiar with the eavesdropping program, including Ms. Harman. They all argued that The Times should not publish. The Times published the story a few days later. So, the Times says that Harman made an effort, on the eve of the 2004 election, to keep the paper from publishing their expose. And the Times did wait until 2005 to do so. Naturally, there's no definitive way to quantify how the revelations of warrantless wiretapping might have influenced the decision, but plenty of reasonable people argue that it could have tipped the balance. Harman will loom large in their considerations going forward. I'd note that I find Keller's pair of denials here a little strange. Yesterday, he tells Sargent that he cannot remember whether Harman spoke to him, but is certain that Harman did not influence his decision to run or not run the story. It's a little iffy to be so certain that you weren't influenced by something you don't recall. But Keller's now inverted his denial: Harman "did not speak" to Keller, but now his memory is a little fuzzy on whether or not Harman was "a significant factor in my decision." If she didn't speak to Keller, how could she have influenced his decision? Through Taubman, maybe? In October/November 2004? [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .]
 
Survey On Huffington Post Top
Welcome... And thank you for taking the time to participate in our survey! We value and appreciate your responses.
 
Quentin Young Withdraws As State Health Board Chairman Over Conflict Of Interest Top
CHICAGO (AP) -- A doctor recently appointed by Gov. Pat Quinn to lead a scandal-plagued state board has withdrawn from the job because of a conflict of interest. Quinn's office announced Tuesday that Dr. Quentin Young withdrew as chairman of the Health Facilities Planning Board because he has a minority interest in a doctor's office that owns property being leased to a health care system. Under state law, board members can't have business relationships with health care institutions. Young identified the conflict after his appointment last week. Quinn had tapped Young to help resurrect the image of the board, which was caught up in the scandal that helped bring down former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. -ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
Craig Newmark: Big stuff happening at Fed Tech Managers meeting, IRMCO.gov Top
Y'know, sometimes big things happen when really good people get together, maybe even inflection points in American history. We don't normally notice until years later, but social media changes that. I spoke early at this conference , discussing good work being done by the Federal Web Managers Council, Sunlight Foundation, and many others. They're doing real work which I feel will result in big improvements regarding the way we govern ourselves. (My role is not significant, but maybe I say something important, with a thin veneer of (attempted) comedy:) Free the Nerds! A lot of the people fueling this effort are speaking at this conference, like Vivek Kundra, our country's CIO, Bev Goodwin, Beth Noveck, Mark Drapeau, who are pioneers of the use of social media in Washington. To get a good sense of what's going on, check out the IRMCO Twitter feed .
 
Michael DeJong: The Hypocrisy of Green Top
March is when we welcome the first signs of spring -- fading winter; the sound of songbirds; the once bare, leafless branches hosting buds at the end of every twig; the overhead migration of ducks; and the smell of part rainfall, earth and ozone creating a scent that certainly defines springtime and -- for many -- also Earth Day. With Earth Day under our proverbial feet, many consider their "green-ness." With the promise of a "green" economy as a growth economy, the majority of consumers agree with the popularity of "green," as more and more venders offer these kinds of alternatives. With more information now than ever before available on how to become or go "green" on television, cable or on the Internet, many understand the recognizable benefits to individuals and society on the whole. Studies like the ones offered by the green initiative at NBC-Universal (which, by the way, has the first-wind powered station and, during Earth Week 2009, will be donating 10,000 trees to local parks and schools throughout the U.S. in partnership with the Arbor Day Foundation; and for full disclosure, I used to write as Mr. Green for their "Ask Mr. Green" column on their GreenIsUniversal site) claim that three-quarters of those surveyed believe "'green' is good for the economy" because it reduces waste, increases sustainability, creates jobs, saves money, and leaves a healthy economy and environment for future generations. Everyone knows that buying and selling is good for the economy. But by buying "green," consumers are purchasing stuff not just because they need it -- they're buying eco-goods because they're also considered to be good for the planet. Of late, many consumers have even boycotted companies or products because of their undesirable policies and practices -- compared to a growing number of individuals who recommend environmentally responsible products or services to friends and family. Hoping that environmental awareness will eventually convince people to buy "green" products, manufacturers now produce products that eco-savvy shoppers supposedly want. Granola cruncher or not, to some, "green" isn't just about a carbon footprint and rain forests, it's also about social responsibility and being aware of how businesses affect the environment, our society, and our future resources. Unfortunately, Earth Day for many has become yet another narcoleptic occasion to enact pointless environmental rituals while denouncing the greed and excesses they also find themselves ankle deep in. (President Obama is commemorating Earth Day this year with a trip to Iowa, one of the largest wind energy production states in the country. Perhaps he might also inspire us away from our greedy, over-consumptive, egotistical selves, organizing us to make a personal sacrifice for the greater good.) Although many sing dirges to global warming, I'll guess that few really care to do anything. If they did they might start whistling another tune by starting small by making mindful alterations to their purchasing habits, minimizing travel, changing light bulbs, insulating/caulking homes, and purchasing used stuff instead of new when available. Only by starting small and personal can someone begin to grow and work up to noticeable improvements. With the "green" industry growing -- one of few that is -- it's a marvelous opportunity for us to grow bigger and better. For this Earth Day, don't use meaningless gestures to show the world that you care, but instead, plant seeds that show how you also take care.
 
IMF Global Financial Stability Report Puts Financial Losses At $4.1 Trillion Top
WASHINGTON — The International Monetary Fund said Tuesday U.S. financial institutions could suffer $2.7 trillion in losses from the global credit crisis, part of a worldwide total expected to top $4 trillion. The $2.7 trillion estimate for the United States was nearly double the IMF's projection from just six months ago. The agency for the first time estimated losses for other regions of the world, saying the global total could surpass $4 trillion. The IMF also warned that governments must take decisive policy actions to contain the fallout. The agency said governments have made progress getting extra money into the banking system, but more needs to be done to deal with toxic assets on banks' books and shutting down insolvent financial institutions. Additional capital is needed to cushion balance sheets against further loan losses and to restore investor confidence, the IMF said. The Obama administration has said it's considering converting some of the $200 billion in loans to banks into purchases of common stock as a way to bolster their capital reserves. The financial system remained under "severe stress" as the economic crisis broadens from the banking sector to consumers and businesses, the IMF said in its "Global Financial Stability Report." "Further determined policy action will be required to help restore confidence and to relieve the financial markets of uncertainties that are undermining the prospects for an economic recovery," the IMF said. The stability report and an updated economic outlook due out Wednesday will form the basis for meetings slated to begin with talks among the Group of Seven rich industrial nations and the Group of 20 major industrial and developing economies on Friday. Discussions among the nations that serve on the steering committees of the IMF and World Bank are scheduled for Saturday and Sunday. Those talks will seek to flesh out the commitments made at a G-20 leaders summit in London last month. At that meeting, President Barack Obama and the other leaders pledged to boost financial support for the IMF and other international lending institutions by $1.1 trillion. Emerging economic powers like China and Brazil are demanding a bigger voice in how the IMF and World Bank are run in return for their increased support. Besides debates over rearranging the governing structure of the lending institutions, the weekend talks are expected to focus on reforms that should be made in how the IMF, the world's global policeman, performs its duties. The 185-nation lending institution came under severe criticism a decade ago, during the 1997-98 Asian currency crisis, for the types of stringent reforms it imposed on countries seeking IMF loans. IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn has sought to revamp the agency's lending programs to make them more flexible. The IMF has created a new line of credit it's willing to extend to countries with solid economic track records without the tough restrictions of normal IMF loan programs. So far, Mexico has been offered $47 billion and Poland $20.5 billion under the new program. The agency already has shown greater flexibility in the loans it has extended for countries caught up in the current crisis, including those made to the formerly communist Eastern European countries of Hungary, Latvia, Ukraine, Serbia and Romania. Some economists worry that without stringent IMF programs, countries will not make the tough choices needed to trigger an economic rebound. But most believe the new flexibility is a welcome change from past approaches. "There was a general feeling after the Asian crisis that some of the loan conditionality had been too intrusive," said Michael Mussa, a former chief economist at the IMF. "The old IMF was too harsh. Some of the conditions they imposed in the past did not take into account practical realities," said Sung Won Sohn, an economist at the Smith School of Business at California State University. At the same time, some member nations are pushing to give the IMF greater powers as a global economic watchdog. They argue that if the agency had played a greater monitoring role, some of the financial market excesses that led to the current crisis could have been avoided. However, any move to increase the IMF's oversight is likely to meet stiff resistance among countries like China where officials have objected to IMF lectures on its undervalued currency. The financial stability report said the estimate of $2.7 trillion in losses in the U.S. included $1.07 trillion in loan losses and $1.6 trillion in losses on securities backed by mortgages, consumer and business debt. The losses for the 16 nations using the euro currency and Britain were estimated at $1.2 trillion. The losses in Japan were put at $149 billion. The IMF said banks worldwide have raised about $900 billion in new capital since the crisis began, with about half of that coming from public sources. In the U.S., the government has spent $200 billion from a $700 billion bailout fund to inject fresh capital into more than 500 banks. More on Global Financial Crisis
 
Jerry and Joe Long: Cheney Wants Documents Released, Jack The Ripper Wants Brothels Closed, Peter Luger Wants Vegan Menu... Top
It's come to this. Dick Cheney wants more disclosure. Yes, the Empire's media continue to treat the reality of torture with all the introspection of the Lot family hauling ass from Gomorrah. Yet you only need to watch the pathetically jibbering Michael 'It-Was-A-False-Wall-With-Neck-Support' Hayden to know. The fear is real. It is impossible to read 'Angler' and not come away with the knowledge that George W Bush was the laziest coward to ever hold the presidency. Cheney was and is a proactive coward. He will jettison everyone and everything to save his ass. And so we await the mother of all document dumps. A chance to see what Cheney and Feith and Addington saw...or thought they saw. After Waterboarding #47 KSM gave us this...after Waterboarding #152 KSM gave us that. Dick Cheney is now in favor of both looking back and sharing information with our enemies. But, when you can envision a day where you can't make an overseas business trip without a cyanide capsule in your navel, desperate times call for desperate measures. More on Dick Cheney
 
Waylon Lewis: American Apparel, Naked. Top
I've been a fan of American Apparel for years. Its founder, Dov Charney --as everyone under the sun knows--is something of a maniac--and a sex maniac, at that. But I don't fault him too much--he's wide open about his "interests," exhibiting a transparency we can only wish for in our political and economic sectors. More important to me is that fact that AA, almost alone among fashion lines, makes its stuff in the good ol'US of A. Downtown LA , as a matter of fact. They got solar panels on the roof, free ESL classes for employees, they pay remarkably well and their clothing ain't shipped halfway across the world from shady sweatshops that may or may not be well-supervised. While they weren't pioneers in using organic cotton (Patagonia wins that title), AA does offer the best organic men's briefs (and I'm sure lots of great women's stuff), and blank tees for you or your business to print on. My business, elephant journal, has printed on AA for 5 years, now, and because of their progressive practices I've been an evangelist for their blank tees with my friends in the green industry. But, of course, most importantly to their success...their style. They're out of control--in a good way. Their fashion sense is personal, retro, preppy, cute , disco, outre...whatever their designers want to wear, it seems, they figure we'll want to wear. And most of the time they're right. Click here to check out a bunch of their saucy, cheeky, clean, modern ads. This sexytime for eco folks video details, in scantily entertaining fashion, just how eco, progressive ...er, wow....solar American Apparel. ..what was I...recycling ESL free bicycles and...vertical integration, Made in Downtown LA--what an amazing body...what was I talking about? Video: Dov Charney talks a good game: Bonus, the Hipster Olympics video, a Youtube sensation: More on Sex
 
Dan Glickman: Can Movies Save the Day? Top
Spring is here. That means one thing for movie fans--summer blockbuster season is upon us. Thoughts turn to Star Trek, Harry Potter, Transformers and other big action films. Spoiler alert: In the end, good prevails over evil, the world--in fact--does not come to an end and all is right in the universe (at least until the sequel). ...If only truth could imitate fiction. This morning in our nation's capital, MPAA is bringing together the film community and the Washington policy community to talk about "the business of show business." At the start of each new Congress, we pull back the curtain on a unique and creative American industry and shine a spotlight on how movies contribute not just to our culture, but our economy. As part of this event, we release a biannual economic impact report on the contributions of the film and television industry to the U.S. economy. Among the highlights: · More than 2.5 million American jobs are supported by film and television--actors and writers, yes, but also truck drivers, architects, accountants, make-up artists, ticket takers, set builders, costumers, animators, digital effects folks, stuntmen and more. Overwhelmingly these are middle-class folks who earn a living wage. · Our industry contributes $80 billion annually to the U.S. economy. · We employ over 115,000 businesses in every state in our union. · And, with American movies embraced around the world, we contribute $13.6 billion to the U.S. balance of trade. Our report includes case studies that bring this creative community to life. Take the film Marley & Me. In addition to Jennifer Aniston and Owen Wilson, 2,000 folks in Florida and 500 in Pennsylvania helped make that movie (along with the 22 dogs who played Marley). Whether it's Clint Eastwood filming Gran Torino in Michigan, Brad Pitt playing Benjamin Button in Louisiana or Terminator: Salvation recreating the cyborg wars in the New Mexico desert, innovative policies are fueling what is fast-becoming a truly national industry. State-of-the-art production facilities are cropping up across the country. One in Pontiac, Michigan is creating 6,000 jobs 30 miles outside Detroit. What a powerful symbol of the opportunities creative industries can help deliver throughout America. And, the benefits continue long after production wraps. Tourism can increase up to 75% after a popular film's release. In fact, 20 years after Field of Dreams won us over at the movies, 65,000 people still travel each year to Dyersville, Iowa to visit that cornfield. Of course, one side effect of making something people love is that we follow the box office almost as fervently as we follow baseball scores. Both are favorite American pastimes. The story at the cinema is quite positive right now. That's a good thing. It means jobs and economic opportunities. But the movie theater is just one aspect of the business. Home video and television face serious and well-documented challenges. So there remain real questions about how we keep the jobs, growth and great films coming. In this environment, the right policies matter. We care a lot, for example, about free and fair trade. We want to make sure that American films can be seen around the globe. We also devote substantial time and resources to rallying the world to the cause of intellectual property rights and protecting the value of creative works. We just had a significant victory in the Swedish courts. But we also know that we need to innovate ourselves. We need the flexibility to respond to consumers and give them new ways to enjoy the legitimate, genuine article in flexible and fair ways--at the movies, online or anywhere they choose. I'm proud of the starring role that movies play bringing joy and inspiration to people around the globe. But the real-world role we play at the heart of our modern, creative economy is too often overlooked. This summer it may be Decepticons versus Autobots. But with the right policies and a focus on the value of creative industries, next summer's big hit might just be America: The Sequel. What a comeback story it could be. As they say at the movies, a brighter day awaits.
 
Robert Stavins: What Baseball Can Teach Policymakers Top
With the Major League Baseball season having just begun, I'm reminded of the truism that the best teams win their divisions in the regular season, but the hot teams win in the post-season playoffs. Why the difference? The regular season is 162 games long, but the post-season consists of just a few brief 5-game and 7-game series. And because of the huge random element that pervades the sport, in a single game (or a short series), the best teams often lose, and the worst teams often win. The numbers are striking, and bear repeating. In a typical year, the best teams lose 40 percent of their games, and the worst teams win 40 percent of theirs. In the extreme, one of the best Major League Baseball teams ever ­- the 1927 New York Yankees - lost 29 percent of their games; and one of the worst teams in history - the 1962 New York Mets - won 25 percent of theirs. On any given day, anything can happen. Uncertainty is a fundamental part of the game, and any analysis that fails to recognize this is not only incomplete, but fundamentally flawed. The same is true of analyses of environmental policies. Uncertainty is an absolutely fundamental aspect of environmental problems and the policies that are employed to address those problems. Any analysis that fails to recognize this runs the risk not only of being incomplete, but misleading as well. Judson Jaffe, formerly at Analysis Group, and I documented this in a study published in Regulation and Governance. To estimate proposed regulations' benefits and costs, analysts frequently rely on inputs that are uncertain - sometimes substantially so. Such uncertainties in underlying inputs are propagated through analyses, leading to uncertainty in ultimate benefit and cost estimates, which constitute the core of a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), required by Presidential Executive Order for all "economically significant" proposed Federal regulations. Despite this uncertainty, the most prominently displayed results in RIAs are typically single, apparently precise point estimates of benefits, costs, and net benefits (benefits minus costs), masking uncertainties inherent in their calculation and possibly obscuring tradeoffs among competing policy options. Historically, efforts to address uncertainty in RIAs have been very limited, but guidance set forth in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A‑4 on Regulatory Analysis has the potential to enhance the information provided in RIAs regarding uncertainty in benefit and cost estimates. Circular A‑4 requires the development of a formal quantitative assessment of uncertainty regarding a regulation's economic impact if either annual benefits or costs are expected to reach $1 billion. Over the years, formal quantitative uncertainty assessments -- known as Monte Carlo analyses -- have become common in a variety of fields, including engineering, finance, and a number of scientific disciplines, as well as in "sabermetrics" (quantitative, especially statistical analysis of professional baseball), but rarely have such methods been employed in RIAs. The first step in a Monte Carlo analysis involves the development of probability distributions of uncertain inputs to an analysis. These probability distributions reflect the implications of uncertainty regarding an input for the range of its possible values and the likelihood that each value is the true value. Once probability distributions of inputs to a benefit‑cost analysis are established, a Monte Carlo analysis is used to simulate the probability distribution of the regulation's net benefits by carrying out the calculation of benefits and costs thousands, or even millions, of times. With each iteration of the calculations, new values are randomly drawn from each input's probability distribution and used in the benefit and/or cost calculations. Over the course of these iterations, the frequency with which any given value is drawn for a particular input is governed by that input's probability distribution. Importantly, any correlations among individual items in the benefit and cost calculations are taken into account. The resulting set of net benefit estimates characterizes the complete probability distribution of net benefits. Uncertainty is inevitable in estimates of environmental regulations' economic impacts, and assessments of the extent and nature of such uncertainty provides important information for policymakers evaluating proposed regulations. Such information offers a context for interpreting benefit and cost estimates, and can lead to point estimates of regulations= benefits and costs that differ from what would be produced by purely deterministic analyses (that ignore uncertainty). In addition, these assessments can help establish priorities for research. Due to the complexity of interactions among uncertainties in inputs to RIAs, an accurate assessment of uncertainty can be gained only through the use of formal quantitative methods, such as Monte Carlo analysis. Although these methods can offer significant insights, they require only limited additional effort relative to that already expended on RIAs. Much of the data required for these analyses are already obtained by EPA in their preparation of RIAs; and widely available software allows the execution of Monte Carlo analysis in common spreadsheet programs on a desktop computer. In a specific application in the Regulation and Governance study , Jaffe and I demonstrate the use and advantages of employing formal quantitative analysis of uncertainty in a review of EPA's 2004 RIA for its Nonroad Diesel Rule. Formal quantitative assessments of uncertainty can mark a truly significant step forward in enhancing regulatory analysis under Presidential Executive Orders. They have the potential to improve substantially our understanding of the impact of environmental regulations, and thereby to lead to more informed policymaking. More on Regulation
 
Greg Mitchell: Online Entries Shut Out in Pulitzers: Why? Top
For the first time, the venerable Pulitzer Prize board this year allowed entries from "online-only" news sites for its 14 journalism awards (there was no separate category). At my magazine, Editor & Publisher , we have charted the response ever since, revealing the names of some of the sites that entered early on and the rules. Now the Pulitzer Prizes for 2009 have been awarded, and no online-only outlet got a single win, or even a finalist nod. A mainly online site at the St. Petersburg Times , PolitiFact, did get a prize, and in a growing trend, half of the 14 winners had significant multimedia content. So what happened? We reported exclusively late yesterday that indeed, the board received 65 entries from online sites (from 37 separate sites) but 21 were rejected outright-- a rather high number. The explanation from Pulitzer chief Sig Gissler was that these sites were not "primarily" presenters of original content, but more focused on aggregating. So they were dismissed. That means that if a certain site broke the biggest and most significant story of the year, but didn't do mainly original reporting, it would not even be considered. Apparently. Gissler told us that he felt the online sites got a fair shake and were considered as equals in all categories--at least the ones that weren't disqualified. "They have made a successful step forward for the Pulitzer Prizes," he declared. Blogs can be considered for the commentary and criticism prizes, but still must come from sites with mainly original reporting. It's not known if any objections to the rules were raised by the six jurors who came from online-only sites, such as ProPublica and MinnPost.com, or if any changes will come down. Stay tuned. But I noted THAT in a tweet last night from Joan Walsh, editor of Salon, that it seems that her online magazine did not enter this year -- nothing from Mark Benjamin? -- and that she is considering trying next year. * Greg Mitchell is editor of Editor & Publisher. His new book is "Why Obama Won."
 
Robert J. Elisberg: The Writers Workbench: Spy vs. Spy Top
It's taken a while, but the world has finally, seemingly caught on that having anti-spyware and anti-virus protection is a good thing. Time was that the two were separate, but these days, there's been an overlap. (Indeed, the definition of "anti-spyware" has grown to the extent that "anti-malware" is often used instead.) These days, most A-V programs have anti-spyware protection included, and anti-spyware programs include some defense against viruses. In fact, many programs now blend the two, bundling anti-virus and anti-spyware in one interconnected unit. There are advantages to this, having everything working together - but advantages, as well, to having separate programs that do their individual job at peak efficiency. Sunbelt Software has long had been a leading anti-spyware program, Counterspy, and recently put out an all-in-one product, VIPRE. But it's their standalone flagship product that we'll be taking a look at here. "The Writers Workbench" appears monthly on the website for the Writers Guild of America. To see this entire column, complete with product graphics and additional "TWW Notes," please click here CounterSpy 3.0 Before getting to the program itself, I had a few difficulties getting it up and running in the first place. I downloaded the program and installed it with the clear Wizard. When I attempted update the full set of risk definitions, however, I kept getting an "out of date" message, and the program stopped downloading. Checking with tech support, the fix was very easy, but required several steps. (I first needed to download several small programs to create log files, which isolated the problem. Then I had to manually download the full definitions directly online, rather than through the program. This resolved the issue, and I was able to continue with the installation. More on this later.) CounterSpy has long been one of the industry leaders in spyware detection. That said, it's always good to run two anti-spyware programs: one for active protection, and one to run manually once a week, since there is no standard of what "spyware" actually is, and different programs check different definitions for different risks. (Important note: "Definitions" are what tells your program what to look for. Because new, malicious spyware is being developed all the time, if you stick with old definitions - and never renew your subscription, or get the latest program - your software will only use those old definitions to check your system, and you will be woefully unprotected. It's like buying the greatest lock for your house, but leaving all the windows open.) As good as CounterSpy has been in the past, the question is raised whether the new version is worth upgrading to or just stick with renewing your virus definition subscription. CounterSpy 3.0 comes with some very strong improvements over earlier editions. For starters, it uses significantly less memory and therefore is less of a drain on your system, something that tends to be a problem with many anti-spyware programs. Also, the program is noticeably faster in its scanning. There is also an improved Rootkit protection, along with a process they call "FirstScan." This is important, because Rootkits are the nefarious intruders that can take over your system the moment it begins its boot-up. The program also uses a new technology for detection malware, which the company says is a subset of the VIPRE technology it developed for its bundled product. But what will likely be most noticeable to uses is that, finally, CounterSpy has given itself a major facelift and made the program significantly more user-friendly. This has long been one of CounterSpy's bugaboos: it's been a power-user program, but in being so, left easy of use a few steps behind. It never was "hard," but it never was intuitive. That, at long last, has changed. And it's a pleasure to see. The homepage is loaded with information that's well-laid out. The current status of the worldwide spyware threat is constantly updated. A box contains your personal statistics from all the scans of your system the program has made. And your current status of protection, updates and scans is far more clear than before. In addition, links are clearly presented for taking you to scheduling scans, editing your settings, updating and more. One oddity. Clicking the "Scan Now" link doesn't scan now. It takes you to the Scan page, where you can choose which level of scan you want to do. And only then do you start you scan by clicking the "Scan Now" button. (You can also access this page by clicking on the Scan tab at the top of the home page.) The Settings window is also much more clear than previously, with all your options for updates, scanning, active protection, integrating with Windows security and more accessible though tabs. Most of the default settings are what you'll want to stick with, but changing choices is easy and well-defined. By and large, Help screens give good information. A couple more oddities. The Help file recommends setting automatic updates for every 4 hours. But in the program, it's set for every 2 hours by default. Also, under Scan Settings, the defaults for Quick scan and Deep System scan appear to be exactly the same, with the exact same option boxes checked. But that's not the case. The options aren't for what a Quick scan and Deep System scan will check, but rather what additional options you want scanned on top of the basic Quick scan or Deep System scan. This isn't problematic, but could be made more clear. CounterSpy does a good job with Active Protection monitoring changes made to your browser - in case, for instance, your homepage has been "hijacked" by malware. However, at the moment, it only monitors Internet Explorer. Most spyware issues, of course, are unrelated to this, and for the most part, if there's an intrusion, the program's new Kernel-based Active Protection will stop it or the scanner will clean it. If you choose to run CounterSpy manually, rather than under Active Protection, you must remember to manually update your risk definitions before scanning. Testing this, I noted that it would occasionally stop during the process, although re-clicking Update Now got things going again. There's a monitor that logs your process, though surprisingly it seemed to disappear on occasion. Also, after several months of running perfectly, that same "out of date" issue that occurred during installation reoccurred. (The company says that the problem crops up if definitions get corrupted, which can take place when a download gets interrupted or a partial update remains in your TEMP directory.) The problem was easy to address: simply manually download the full definitions file from the online Support page. This overwrites everything. It does takes a lot more time, however. (By the way, although noted above that it's a good idea to have to more than one anti-spyware program, you should never run two in Active Protection mode at the same time. Conflicts with anti-spyware programs are the rule. Run one "active" and the other manually.) CounterSpy also monitors changes to your Registry, regardless of what browser you use. The company notes that it expects to add support for Firefox in the future. While this will be a good improvement, it's surprising that they haven't done so yet, considering that Firefox has been around for a while. The program provides a "Manage" page that keeps all of your important information in one handy place, at your fingertips. Things like scan History, all your Quarantined items (questionable files that the program has protected your system from, but without deleting, in case it turns out to be a "false positive," and you need it later), safe files that you always want to allow, and your scan schedule. CounterSpy has made excellent improvements for his version 3.0, and if you already own the program, it's worth considering an upgrade. Even if you're comfortable with the old interface, the new version's speed, smaller memory use and rootkit protection are all very advantageous. The "out of date" problem with risk definitions is an annoyance, but doesn't occur often (and may not ever occur for some) and is very easy to address. If you prefer a bundled anti-virus/anti-spyware program, know than the core of CounterSpy 3.0 is used in Sunbelt Software's new VIPRE program. If you're looking for a change to a new standalone anti-spyware program, there are several good ones out there, but CounterSpy 3.0 is high on the list. At the time of writing, it retails for $20. To see this column complete with product graphics and additional "TWW Notes," visit the WGA website .
 
Michael Reese Building Won't Be Razed For Olympics: City Top
Despite concern from some preservationists, the original building of Michael Reese Hospital will not be torn down as part of a redevelopment that could become the Olympic Village for the 2016 Summer Games, city officials insisted Monday. More on Olympics
 
Bill Scher: Corporations Negotiating Health Care Bill While Funding Obstruction Top
Senate leaders are negotiating health care reform with a wide range of "lobbyists representing doctors, hospitals, insurers, drugmakers, the American Cancer Society, the seniors lobby AARP and others," the Washington post reminds us today. Fair enough. Everyone deserves a seat at the table, presuming you are there in good faith seeking an effective bill. But if you're pretending to be interested in crafting a good bill, while spending money to spread misinformation and undermine a bill, then you should be kicked out of the room. Apparently, some lobbyists in that room are not acting in good faith. Politico interviewed the face of conservative health care obstruction , Rick Scott, the scandal-marred former HMO chief who now runs Conservatives for Patients Rights. Scott's ads falsely accuse Obama of hiding details of his health care plan and that the plan would mean "all your medical decisions are made by a central national board , bureaucrats to decide the treatments you receive ... even the doctors you see." Politico pressed Scott on who funds his efforts to derail reform: Who else is funding [your] organization? I told people I am not disclosing their names. But there are lots of people who believe the same way we do. Are they mostly individuals or corporations? It is both. ... The bigger dollars will be companies. Are there companies giving money that are at the table talking with the Democrats? How far do you want to go? (Laughs and refuses to answer.) Scott's cover up for those companies is a damning omission. Clearly, there are companies sitting at the table by day, and paying for lies in hopes of smashing the table at night. Senate leaders should press to find out who are the duplicitous companies, and kick them out of the room. Originally posted at OurFuture.org
 
Emma Ruby-Sachs: Miss USA and the B-Word Top
In Sunday night's Miss USA contest, Perez Hilton, celebrity blogger extraordinaire, asked Miss California what she thought about gay marriage. Her answer , supporting "opposite marriage," earned her both cheers and boos from the crowd and likely cost her the Miss USA crown. It also spurred a video response from Hilton calling Miss California a dumb b****. Hilton apologized for using the b-word, then retracted his apology and now even the BBC is covering the newest tensions surrounding gay marriage in America. But no one is talking about the b-word that should be used to describe Miss California: bigot. A bigot is one who is ( according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary ) "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." To take a state institution like marriage and quarantine it from same-sex couples despite the complete lack of evidence that such a restriction is rational or in the best interests of the citizens of the state is intolerance. The basis for the marriage restriction that many put forward (although Miss America didn't even have the where-with-all to go this far) is that gay marriage constitutes a threat to religious freedom. However, no equal rights initiative has contemplated ordering religious institutions to recognize same-sex couples. Unfortunately, Miss America is not the only bigot in America's public life. We could list a large number of Republicans, Rudy Guliani for one, and a number of Democrats. Even President Obama holds the intolerant and bigoted view that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. Sure, he couches it with talk of equal rights under the law, but has, so far stood behind civil unions as an alternative to marriage - a plan that would create the same kind of separate but equal legal scheme rejected by Brown v. Board of Education . Miss California, like many who share her take on the marriage issue, was careful to talk about her "opinion" and "beliefs" and the way she was raised as if this excused her intolerance. Barack Obama talks about tradition and belief as well in defense of his own position. But the fight for equality is not just an exercise in name-calling. And it is not a polite exchange between friends about what to eat for dinner. There is no room for preference or belief when it comes to legally enforceable discrimination that is imposed on the entire population The unequal treatment of LGBT Americans creates real casualties and ongoing disastrous effects for many citizens. We don't want to re-insert Perez Hilton's chosen b-word back into accepted public discourse, but we must begin to call the opposition to equality what it is: bigotry. More on Barack Obama
 
Steve Cobble: How Europe & Canada Could Help Us! Top
President Obama's recent trip to Europe focused a lot on the need for Europe to help us get the world economy going again by revving up their stimulus spending to complement ours. This is all well and good, but Europe (and our good friends the Canadians) can also help the U.S. get its act together by putting on the brakes--not the economic brakes, but the military brakes . Here are some suggestions: (1) Keep pushing us to get out of Iraq . We need the pressure, because a lot of the retrograde forces here in the U.S. really don't want us to leave. (2) Don't join us in Afghanistan with military forces . Do volunteer to help take the lead on diplomacy . (Bachelet, Sarkozy, da Silva, don't you want to be an international star? Afghanistan's your chance--help put together the diplomacy that can give President Obama a way out...) (3) Keep demanding that we give up on the Bush/Cheney idea of European Missile Defense , which doesn't work, and was really designed to irritate Russia. The Poles & Czechs have already rejected missile defense, and they're supposed to be the countries that benefit most! So keep pushing back, and maybe we can drop the whole idea--which will save us billions for economic stimulus investment. (4) Suggest that we could improve our international image by getting rid of several hundred overseas military bases , many of which--like the proposed base expansion in Italy, or the brand new AfriCom headquarters--are very unpopular. More savings, too. (5) Push the political leadership of your own nations to pull out of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, before it's too late to stop it. The time is now, when President Obama's budget is being considered in Congress. Since this last point is not as well-understood as the other four above, let me spend a couple more paragraphs on it. Grassroots activism against the F-35, a hugely expensive high-tech addition to the global arms race, is particularly critical in the 8 nations that have agreed to jointly build the F-35 with the U.S.--the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Turkey, Australia, and Canada. Since the Pentagon's proposal is to build 2,458 of these F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, at a minimum cost of $100 million apiece , the future costs are huge. Some experts believe that the life-cycle costs of the F-35 will approach a trillion dollars, more than Obama's first stimulus package! And I must say, when I look at this list of F-35 partners, I am particularly disappointed to see the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, and Canada on it. I sort of expect the U.K. to go along with whatever grandiose military ideas the Pentagon comes up with, since even massive Labor Party antiwar activism could still not stop Tony Blair from his stupid, illegal, and disastrous backing for George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. But why is the Netherlands building F-35s? Why are Norway & Denmark? Perhaps the NDP in Canada can begin to make a fuss about the Joint Strike Fighter, putting pressure on the Liberals to oppose the Harper government on this wasteful spending. Perhaps the Labor Party in Australia can take another look at these outlays, now that they have come back to power. And when the Italians next get around to voting out that buffoon Berlusconi again, maybe the left coalition can revisit these fighter planes. One can only hope. In the meantime, it comes as no surprise to Europeans and Canadians that the American peace movement, based as it is in the heart of the Empire, is too weak to roll back our military/industrial/petroleum complex on our own. We need a little help from our friends. Help us get out of Iraq, stay out of Afghanistan, end European missile defense, close our overseas bases, and cut back on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. If you raise hell from your end, we've got a chance back home... More on Afghanistan
 
Art Brodsky: Obama's New Chief Technology Officer -- iTunes to Roller Skates Top
A word to the wise for those who might have occasion to work with Aneesh Chopra, President Obama's newly designated Chief Technology Officer, from a colleague who has worked with him for the past three years: "Put on your roller skates. He moves at 100 miles an hour." That's from Karen Jackson, head of Virginia's Office of Telework Promotion and Broadband Assistance, no slouch herself in the moving-quickly department herself. The White House announced Chopra's appointment on Saturday (April 18). Chopra is Virginia's Secretary of Technology for Virginia, the agency that includes Jackson's office. Chopra's appointment, along with Vivek Kundra (another former official in Virginia's state government) as the Chief Information Officer, form what looks to be an Inside-Outside team for technology development, including broadband. The CIO is Mr. Inside, working to use information technology to help transform how the government works. The CTO will develop national strategies for using advanced technologies, working on a much larger canvas. His job will be to use his "bully pulpit" to foster private sector innovation, whether in education, health, or any other part of the economy. Obama described Chopra's portfolio in his Saturday speech: "Aneesh will promote technological innovation to help achieve our most urgent priorities - from creating jobs and reducing health care costs to keeping our nation secure." The part about fostering innovation is heartening because the Administration is slowly if gradually building up a roster of dedicated officials to help move the government along technologically, as my day-job employer, Public Knowledge , and several other groups recommended in a letter to the Administration earlier this month. The appointment of Alec Ross as a senior State Department advisor for innovation was another welcome sign] that those who favor technological progress are making their presence known, even as the Administration also is finding room for numerous attorneys who have their roots in the tech-mandate-centric entertainment industry . Chopra knows first hand that the keys to innovation don't always involve the development of technology. It involves removing barriers to innovative behavior. Jackson said one of Chopra's best skills is that he "knows how to unbundle bureaucracies." "Aneesh doesn't see hard boundary lines like others do," Jackson said. That will give him the ability to "engage the private sector in ways that hadn't been done before. One of his big things it to look across silos, and not see lines as black and white, as they have always been." One example is a program to make educational material available online through iTunes. Announced on April 7, the "Virginia on iTunes U" program features free access to educational content through iTunes. It took engaging the state Education Department to make that program come to fruitition, as Chopra realized through family experience that some people don't learn well in traditional settings. Another program combined the General Education Degree (GED) high-school equivalency with a Microsoft certification. That project took in representatives of the adult education sector, cable industry and two state secretariats in order to make the program a reality. "That's partnering, and teaming that doesn't go on regularly," Jackson said. But the pulling together of cross-function teams is something at which Chopra excels, she added: "It took a while to warm up to that at the state level. It was one of those things that push people outside of their comfort zone. That's not a bad thing." Another example is the 72-member state broadband task force that drew from every part of the state to come up with a policy and plan for bringing broadband to areas which have been slow to receive it. That project worked and has been continued as an advisory council in legislation signed by Gov. Tim Kaine (D). One of his big jobs when entering the Federal government will be to look at the stimulus programs, not as an end game, but as a starting point, to make sure programs and networks are sustainable beyond the first infusion of Federal money. It won't be business as usual when Chopra attacks those programs. Instead, as he did in Virginia, Chopra "encouraged everybody and forced everybody to think outside the box," Jackson said, describing her soon-to-be-former boss as "a visionary, big-picture kind of person." He will need all of those skills, perhaps not to work within government as he did in Virginia, but within the contentious private sector, outside of government. Those barriers can be as intractable, if not more than, governmental ones. Its one thing to get two governmental departments to sit down which never talk with each other to agree on a common approach to a problem, and no one should minimize the internal cultural and other barriers. It's quite another level of challenge to persuade a company to work with a competitor in a different industry, or even within its own sector, on a common problem or project.
 
NOOSE DANGLED ON COLLEGE CAMPUS: Lewis University Students Charged In Noose Incident Top
JOLIET, Ill. (AP) -- Three Lewis University students have been charged with disorderly conduct for allegedly being behind the hanging of a noose in a dormitory window. The Will County state's attorney's office has charged Matthew McCormack, and Daniel Rusch, both of the Chicago suburb of Schaumburg, and Michael Lisman of Kansas City, Mo. with making threatening remarks. Dorm residents also claim the men lowered a noose in front of their window. Lewis officials say the students have been barred from the school's campus, pending a student judicial hearing. The school's 376-acre campus in Will County houses about 1,000 students in 11 residence halls. -ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
Susan Linn: Marketing Earth Day (and Other Stuff) to Children Top
Have you done your Earth Day shopping yet? Between greeting cards, jewelry, mugs, and teddy bears commemorating the day, its roots in environmental activism have all but been forgotten. Now corporations use Earth Day to sell us on the belief that we can buy our way into ecological sustainability. We can't. Reducing consumption is essential to preserving the earth's resources and preventing its degradation. The same companies that are painting themselves green depend on the profits they earn convincing us to buy more than we need. Nowhere is this more obvious, and more troubling, than in the world of children's media and marketing, where companies like Disney, Sesame Workshop, and Nickelodeon are eco-marketing as never before. Disney is inviting families to celebrate Earth Day by visiting their stores and marketing an organic cotton Winnie the Pooh, to be sold along side its countless non-organic licensed toys and accessories. Sesame Workshop has literally turned Elmo green to promote a new DVD-but they have no plans to halt production of the electronic Elmo toys that become obsolete each holiday season as a new, "improved" version is introduced. Nickelodeon has launched "The Big Green Help," a social marketing campaign that urges kids to recycle and eat local, but also to watch commercially sponsored "green-themed" episodes of hit programs like iCarly and to play green games with Nick characters online. What these companies aren't doing is cutting back on their relentless marketing to children. Instead, as one Nickelodeon executive put it, "On Earth Day, we are using the power of our brand to connect kids to an issue of importance to them." Interjecting brands into an issue that kids are already concerned about may be profitable, but it's bad for children and the environment On a recent afternoon, Nickelodeon ran thirty-five ads for McDonald's Happy Meal toy giveaways in just five hours. One little toy may not seem like a lot of plastic, but in 2006, fast food restaurants gave away 1.2 billion of them and retail sales of licensed toys brought in $22.3 billion. First graders acquire an average of seventy new toys a year. That's a lot of landfill. Thanks to environmentalists and public health advocates, we have begun to take a long, overdue look at how those toys are made, how they're packaged, how far they travel, and where they'll end up. But shouldn't we also examine the environmental behaviors and values children learn in a society where the norm is a new toy the equivalent of every five days? Conservationists stress the need to imbue children with environmental values so they will become stewards of the earth. But consumer values undermine environmental values. Marketing doesn't just sell children individual products. Its dominant message is that consumption is the path to happiness and self-fulfillment. We are raising children to construct their identities around the things that corporations sell. They need more toys to alleviate boredom. They need the latest must-have electronic gadgets and accessories in order to fit in. Since successful marketing continually redefines "must-have," children are pressured to discard yesterday's fads for tomorrow's trends. This cycle of acquisition and disposal is the antithesis of sustainability, yet the dollars spent on marketing to children continue to escalate. Today marketers spend $17 billion annually targeting children, a staggering increase from the $100 million spent in 1983. Increases in spending, combined with advances in technology and decreased regulation, mean that children are more immersed in marketing than ever before. By allowing marketers unfettered access to children, we teach kids to prefer the mall to the playground, screentime to playtime, and consumption to conservation. How can we expect children whose sense of self is enmeshed in what they own to become effective stewards of the environment? Airing green-themed children's shows on Earth Day will not mitigate the cumulative impact of relentless advertising. The United States, which consumes twenty-five percent of the world's resources with five percent of its population, regulates marketing to children less than any other industrialized democracy. If we're serious about preserving the environment, that will have to change. The authors are with The Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood at Judge Baker Children's Center in Boston. More on Earth Day
 
Barbara Graham: Are You The Left Out Grandparent? Top
So I'm sitting downstairs in the living room feeling useless while upstairs my daughter-in-law and her mother scurry about, attending to the new baby girl who has just arrived home from the hospital. I have been a grandmother for five days, and this is my first taste of Mother of the Father Syndrome. Don't get me wrong. I adore my daughter-in-law and I'm confident the feeling is mutual. We love taking long walks together and chatting over endless cups of mint tea. If we weren't related by marriage, we would be good friends. And yet. There is a mysterious transmission of accumulated wisdom and babycare know-how that seems to pass along bloodlines from maternal grandmothers to their adult daughters. No doubt this is biology at work, and paternal grandmothers are simply not part of that intimate loop. Still, I successfully raised a child myself and so when my daughter-in-law turns exclusively to her mother for advice, I'm caught off guard. Feeling like a third wheel on a hot date is not something I anticipated. In fact, I only realized I felt this way about two minutes ago when I poked my head in the door of the baby's room. Mother and daughter were hovering over the wriggling infant, animatedly discussing diaper rash. Having nothing pithy to add to the conversation, I backed out of the room. They didn't seem to notice. My ego is bruised slightly, but I console myself with three thoughts. The first, which I will not admit to anyone else for fear of ruining my chances of ever being asked to take care of my granddaughter, is that my own babycare skills actually feel a tad rusty. When I briefly had the baby to myself in the hospital, I was so terrified of accidentally dropping or suffocating her that I left the door open so that if anything untoward happened the nurses would hear me shrieking. The second thought that soothes my insecure grandmother soul is that the baby will never know -- or care -- which of her two grandmothers was most on the ball about diaper rash, burping, or gas. But third, and most important, my daughter-in-law's reliance on her mother is not a rejection of me. As the primary caretaker of the baby, at this early stage of parenthood, when her life -- and body -- are in a state of red alert, it is natural for her to seek refuge in her greatest comfort zone -- her own mother. It's not about you, I admonish myself. The truth is, I am lucky. Yes, I sometimes feel jealous of The Other Grandmother. Yes, I sometimes feel as though I'm back in junior high when I start obsessing that my granddaughter will love her more. Still, in our extended family, which includes step- as well as biological grandparents, everyone treats everyone else with respect. I know that this is not always the case. Oh, the stories I hear! I have one friend, a paternal grandmother, who has been kept at arm's length since the day her grandson, now 2, was born. "We will tell you exactly when you can see the baby, and for how long," this woman's son told her over the phone from the hospital. The time allotted for her visits turns out to be one hour each week. She's never been permitted to hold her grandson and has yet to spend time alone with him, although the maternal grandmother is a household fixture. My friend, who previously considered herself close to her son, is furious, confused, grief-stricken. It kills me to reinforce stereotypes, but in families where the paternal grandmother is made to feel like chopped liver, it's usually the daughter-in-law who calls the shots. In Eye of My Heart, the new book I edited, Claire Roberts writes: "My grandkids seem to have great affection for me. But to my son's wife, I am the dreaded abominable mother-in-law." E-mails between Roberts and her two granddaughters, ages 10 and 13, are closely monitored by their parents and the girls undergo a debriefing worthy of the CIA whenever they've spent time with Roberts. She explains that they "understand that there's 'a situation' with Gramma and their mother -- and, therefore, with their father, too. Sometimes it's not the daughter-in-law, but her mother who asserts herself as Number One Nana. In another essay in the book, Judith Viorst (author of Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day) relates this story: "A friend of mine complains that whenever she takes her son's children on an outing, she gets a thank-you note from the other grandmother, full of appreciation for the time she has spent with the boys and services she has rendered to the family. Though these thank-you notes are gracious, oh so gracious, they leave my friend feeling peeved and patronized. For the way this woman competes, she says, "is to treat me as if I'm some sort of helpful assistant rather than someone who's on a par with her.'" Okay, so maybe my mother-of-the-father ego gets roughed up a little every now and then -- whose doesn't? Still, I never forget that I'm one of the lucky ones. I count my blessings daily for not being among the hapless half Margaret Mead described when she wrote: "Of all the peoples whom I have studied, from city dwellers to cliff dwellers, I always find that at least 50 percent would prefer to have at least one jungle between themselves and their mothers-in-law."
 
Etan Bednarsh: ESPN's Mel Kiper and Todd McShay Should Actualy Make NFL Draft Selections Top
More than any other sport, the NFL has successfully transformed its non-game activities into events. There is no bigger musical showcase than the Super Bowl Halftime Show. Fantasy Football has been turned into a thriving industry . Even the NFL schedule was announced in prime time . But no non-game event gets more sports coverage than the NFL Draft. Sports blogs and newspapers spend the days before the draft updating their mock draft. The combine scores (which is now broadcast live) are analyzed and reanalyzed. Mock drafts are filled out and updated. ESPN hires two analysts, Mel Kiper and Todd McShay solely to cover the draft. In fact, the only thing more overstated than the actual NFL Draft is complaining about how much coverage there is about the NFL Draft. So I won't complain. I'll make a simple suggestion: Have Mel Kiper and Todd McShay make picks. Use the model of a fantasy football league and give them a pick in each round, and have them pick their "squad." Then, watch how their guys perform down the line and match them up against the very general manager's they analyze. This would work to counter a lot of the draft coverage criticism. It makes them accountable - The same way we can look back and grade a GM's draft, we can look back and grade the experts. It can answer whether these guys are truly experts - As the old saying goes, those who can, draft; Those who can't, draft analyze. This gives Kiper and McShay the opportunity to prove their mettle. It ratchets up the competition between them - ESPN and sports blogs that follow it obviously love the tension between its on air analysts. Let their draft records speak for themselves. Beyond just backing up their analysts' credentials, ESPN and sports fans could have fun with this. They could hire an ex-NFL GM to grade McShay and Kiper (the ubiquitous Mike Lombardi might enjoy that.) And the fans could follow along. After all, this fits right into the teeth of the fantasy football culture. In fact, ESPN could simply adapt their fantasy football draft capabilities to the NFL draft and give fans capabilities to make alternate selections for their teams. So much of fantasy football is about being a General Manager and so much of blogging is about getting your own opinions out there. I can't imagine a more fruitful place in the sports world for those desires to meet than the moment when actual team building is occurring, the NFL Draft. Let Kiper and McShay defend their credibility and let fans try and match up against them. ESPN, if you want to answer your draft critics and expand the way fans interact with your draft coverage, it's simple- Have Mel Kiper and Todd McShay make picks. More on Sports
 
Dr. Gino Yu: The Science of Unconsciousness Top
Even while you do nothing or while you meditate, a tremendous amount of activity happens in your body. Trillions of cells actively process chemicals to grow, move, and carry out the functions necessary for life. Each one of these cells that make up who you are actively engages in activity, reproduces and dies. Surprisingly, of the trillions of cells in your body that make up who you are, only a fraction of them are you. For every human cell in your body, there are an average of ten bacterial cells also residing in your body that live in symbiosis with us most of the time (Bonnie Bassler gaves a great talk on how bacteria communicate at TED this year which is available online ). These trillions of cells work together to keep you alive this very moment as you gaze at this screen and read this article, completely unconscious of all this activity. In fact, millions of cells in you have died while others have also been born just in the period it has taken you to read this article up to this point, while your consciousness processed these words and perhaps just becoming consciously aware of what's been going on in you since the day you yourself were conceived. When you are at rest, the cells that make up your parasympathetic nervous system actively influence the cells that make up the organs which keep your body alive such as your heart beat, breathing, and pushing food through your digestive system. When you experience stress, the cells of your sympathetic nervous system kick in to over-ride the parasympathetic system (governing your natural state at rest) to increase heart rate, raise blood pressure, slow digestion, increase perspiration, and affect vision perception. In the early days of human survival, this response prepared your body to either "fight" or "flee." This same sympathetic nervous system becomes activated when we read or hear stories that incite us to experience stress. From the perspective of most cells in your body, experiencing the sight of a charging lion, and the experience of reading the latest shocking headline on the front page of the Huffington Post, seem very similar if not identical. With the recent increases of heart disease, hypertension, digestive disorders, and obesity, the stories that make up our world view are just as potent as the predators that hunted us on the African plains. The material world is as it is. We observe the natural world and we develop stories for how and why things happen. I've just told you a story I learned from reading science books. There are other stories told to me by my parents, my friends, and the media. Many I've made up from my direct experiences living over the past 45 years. We experience stress when our perception of the material world clashes with the stories that we've become emotionally attached to (our world-view). What would happen if you were to let go of these stories? What would the trillions of cells in your body do without the stress and fear they create? What then would motivate our action? Imagine. A big thanks to HeevenSteven who made the only comment to my first article and provided the title for this one, which I dedicate to John Lennon. As part of the Asia Consciousness Festival, John Stewart, Steven Schafer, and myself are organizing a workshop on Meaningful Media on June 10th in Hong Kong. This workshop brings together researchers in the areas of consciousness, media, and media technology to explore ways we can apply stories and new media to inspire health and positive action. For more information about the festival including the Workshop, please see http://www.asiaconsciousness.org .
 
Mike Lux: Secession Politics Top
It's always fun to see conservatives openly discussing the whole secession from the union option, as Gov. Rick Perry did last week. Or to see conservative politicians with associations to openly secessionist groups, like Sarah and Todd Palin, become national icons for the conservative movement. I know a lot of people are surprised by secession talk -- one friend said to me, "I thought that was settled in 1865" -- but they shouldn't be. Conservatives have never given up on the states' rights ideas that drove us into the Civil War in 1861. In fact, as I argue in my book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be , John C. Calhoun -- with his fiery philosophy of states' rights -- was in fact the founder of the political movement that became modern American conservatism. Calhoun argued that the rights and prerogatives of the individual states were more important than that of the federal government. He argued that states had originally joined the union of their own free will, and had every right to -- at any time and for any reason -- nullify national laws for that state, to refuse to enforce laws passed by the federal government, and to secede from the union. It was the perfect philosophy for justifying the Civil War, and -- a century later -- for the defiant opposition to the federal Supreme Court decisions and civil rights laws that ended Jim Crow. Now you would have thought that fighting the horrible and bloody Civil War, and being thoroughly crushed in that endeavor, would have ended the states' rights followers hopes and power in the American political system. Not so much. In fact, as I write in the Progressive Revolution: Southern elites actually expected that all would return to the way things were before the war: that they would still have the catbird's seat in terms of congressional power, and that they would still have the right to control the lives of their former slaves despite emancipation. While the radical Republicans were able to push through three outstanding progressive constitutional amendments immediately following the Civil War, and give freed slaves some civil rights in Reconstruction, after 1877 Southerners were able to regain their political power and put Jim Crow in place. 80 years later, the ideological heirs to those conservative states' rights leaders used the doctrine once again to bitterly, and in some cases violently, fight to preserve Jim Crow. And even after they lost that fight, conservatives continued to pay obeisance to the philosophy and rhetoric of states' rights. The ultimate example of this was a campaign stop in 1980. Again from The Progressive Revolution : The most symbolically weighted moment of the new partnership between the South and the conservatives in the Republican Party occurred on August 3, 1980. Ronald Regan, in the official kickoff of his general election campaign, went to a little town called Philadelphia, Mississippi. Philadelphia was an odd choice in a whole lot of ways: it was a small town, kind of hard to get to, and not close to any major media markets. Mississippi was a small state with only seven electoral votes, and it certainly wasn't a swing state in the general election, as Regan was expected to carry it easily. And he sure wasn't there to hearken back to Bobby Kennedy's famous tour of destitute homes in the poor African American region of the Mississippi Delta. The only thing Philadelphia, Mississippi, was noteworthy for in its history was that it was the town where the civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner has been murdered during Freedom Summer, fifteen years prior. Reagan wasn't there to talk about Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner's deaths - he didn't mention them at all. What he did do was talk about states' rights: "I believe in states' rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we've distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the Constitution to that federal establishment." Reagan was there to seal the deal between the modern conservative movement and the old South. Going to the town where these courageous civil rights activists had been murdered in cold blood and talking about states' rights was one of the most shameful symbolic political acts in modern American history, but it was effective. To this day, Conservatives continue to beat the dead horse of Calhoun's states' rights philosophy. Rejected by George Washington, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, the Warren Court, Martin Luther King, but beloved still by the conservative movement, the states' rights philosophy is one of the bedrocks of modern conservative thought. That philosophy has been embraced by conservative intellectuals like Russell Kirk and William Buckley, and politicians like Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Jesse Helms, and Newt Gingrich. It is as much a fundamental cornerstone of American conservatism as any other idea. So when Gov. Perry of Texas, or the Palins of Alaska associate themselves with something as crazy sounding as secession, don't be surprised: it really is what they believe. More on Sarah Palin
 

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)