Thursday, April 23, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Joan Garry: Remembering the Days of Remembrance Top
This week marks the Days of Remembrance, an annual program of the US Holocaust Museum . It is of course in the service of ensuring that we never forget. President Obama, the first president to ever host a White House seder, is not forgetting. He was at the Capitol Rotunda at 11am eastern this morning. He is helping us all to remember. We never forget at our house. All we have to do is think about the names of our three children, each a gift from relatives we've never met. Or seen. There is not a single photograph. All we have to do is think about Eileen's mom and dad. Both gone now but survivors. More than that. Neither simply survived. They made a life for themselves here - by all measures a successful one. And of course they brought us my partner Eileen. Our fourteen year old twins just returned from a school trip to DC . It was a great trip and President Obama was even nice enough to be home when we visited his home. The trip that included several hours at the Holocaust Museum. While a few parents waited out front for the kids to arrive from the hostel, we were moved out of the way briefly by a security guard and his bomb sniffing dog. Turns out it was only a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in the unmarked bag. My friend Kristen loves dogs and started a conversation about the dogs. Turns out, much to Kristen's surprise, that there are 5 of them at the Holocaust Museum. All the time. And that the Holocaust Museum handles more threats than any other museum in the district. It was at that moment that 24 kids arrived. The spell of that moment was momentarily lost. But the operative word is momentary. I often joke that Ben and Kit look like they could have just walked off the set of "Fiddler on the Roof." They are beautiful with dark hair with the most beautiful big brown eyes. Unlike their older sister who is lighter and could "'pass" for a " shiksa ," there is no "passing" for Ben and Kit. They are Jewish adolescents. I had been to the Museum before. With their older sister Scout. I don't think we talked for hours afterwards (this quite an accomplishment from the two of us). We lingered at any photo of the Lodz ghetto, looking for someone who might have been Nana at age 17. We scoured lists for Nana's hometown of Zdunska Wola on walls listing the decimated communities throughout Poland. And what Scout and I took away was no sighting of Nana. Just hundreds and hundreds of photos of young Jewish adolescents - in ghettos, in camps, at liberation - each one bearing an uncanny and disturbing resemblance to Ben and Kit. At the end of the tour, Kit (I know you are thinking that Kit doesn't sound Jewish. Bingo. She is named after my Irish grandmother Kitty Conlon. Her middle name honors one of her many aunts and uncles lost to us) and I lit candles in the Hall of Remembrance . We asked the guard if we could light more than one. For Mania and Ben, for Sarah and Zelig, for Pola, for Ruchle, for Alta and Hesh. As we lit the candles, I said the names out loud. To remember. Before we left the room, I lit two more. One for the nameless young boys and one for the nameless young girls - each one beautiful. With dark hair and the most beautiful brown eyes.
 
Alex Remington: A Modern Classic: Cynic's Traced in Air, A Reunion Album Better Than the Classic Debut Top
One of the best metal albums of the decade quietly came out last November. The band Cynic was something like a progressive metal NWA: one classic album, a supergroup lineup that went on to do great work in a lot of different genres, and then an early-'90s breakup that seemed to shut the door on any possible reunion. Until now. 15 years after their incredible, weird, serious, transcendent, brooding debut, Focus , the band reunited for Traced in Air . Only 34 minutes long, if anything, it's even more focused. Their one major sonic change is welcome, as they ditched the dated vocoder vocals of the debut. The songs flow seamlessly into one another, with the guitar washes and doubled death and sung vocals filling the sonic space like a wall of sound from opener "Nunc Fluens" to closer "Nunc Stans." (The titles translate as philosophical concepts of eternity, no great surprise for a band that named itself after an ancient Greek philosophical school and titled its most famous song "Veil of Maya.") After the breakup, bassist Sean Malone formed Gordian Knot, another progressive metal band, while lead singer Paul Masvidal sang and played guitar with drummer Sean Reinert in a band called Aeon Spoke, which took their sound in an emo singer-songwriter direction. (Wikipedia notes some have called Aeon Spoke's sound "progressive ethereal rock," but never mind that. It's basically acoustic emo, albeit quite good acoustic emo.) Elements from their solo projects, acoustic and prog, can be heard in the work here, as the songs stretch out from verse to bridge to break. New guitarist Tymon Kruidenier of Exivious takes over for Jason Gobel, and he and Masvidal don't do as many dueling leads as Masvidal and Gobel had on the earlier album. Instead, the guitars tend to track on top of one another, behind the vocals, along with the drums, in the general wall of sound. Though Cynic was legendary in its day in progressive metal circles, they were unheard of in most others -- go ahead, ask an indie hipster if they've heard of them -- which means that we can cross "selling out" off the list of likely reasons a band might reunite. Some of the album's material apparently dates back to the band's first breakup in 1994, which isn't surprising, considering how similar the two records sound. Still, I think I like Traced in Air slightly better. Focus was a bit more sprawling, while Traced in Air is a bit more modest, self-contained. The runtime is no drawback. The songs are all constructed from the same sonic palette, and many tend to begin and end in a similar place. The album's movement occurs within the tracks, not between them, which is not surprising for an album bookended by eternity. I listened to this CD last night as I walked home, and though I'd heard it before, I listened to it as if for the first time, my mouth open in awe. It's majestic, masterful, beautiful. It was worth the wait.
 
Johann Hari: The Last Green Taboo: Should We Try To "Engineer" Our Climate? Top
'Geo-engineering' sounds like a bland and technical term - but it is actually a Messianic movement to save the world from global warming, through dust and iron and thousands of tiny mirrors in space. It is also the last green taboo. Environmentalists instinctively do not want to discuss it. The wider public instinctively think it is mad. But in the past few years, the taboo has been breached. James Lovelock - one of the founding fathers of modern environmentalism - proposed a way to slash global warming without cutting back on a single fossil fuel. 'Geo-engineers' believe that man should consciously change the planet's environment, using technology, to counter the effects of global warming. They are like a chef who realises she has accidentally put in too much cayenne, so reaches for lashings of oregano to balance it out, only this time, the recipe is the atmosphere of the planet earth. Ken Caldeira, a geo-engineering expert at the Carnegie Institute, says: "In effect, we're already engineering the climate by emitting so many greenhouse gasses. We just don't want to admit it. You can argue that the only reason difference between what we're doing today and what geoengineering advocates are proposing is a matter of intention. And frankly, the atmosphere doesn't care about what's going on in our heads." Grand geoengineering schemes come in two main flavours. The first tries to increase the oceans' capacity to absorb carbon from the atmosphere. At the moment, the oceans are, along with the rainforests, the most effective natural mechanism for taking carbon out of the atmosphere. So geo-engineers ask: is there anything we can we do to supercharge them? The simplest proposal is to sprinkle vast amounts of iron along the surface of the world's seas. This would create the ideal conditions for a surge in the quantity of plankton, the friendly micro-organisms who 'eat' carbon while they are alive. When they die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean - taking the carbon with them to a watery grave for centuries. It has been tried in a number of small-scale experiments off the coast of the Gallapagos Islands - and it did indeed cause dead seas to spring to life with carbon-sucking plankton. Enter James Lovelock, with a similar proposal. He suggests another way to spur the oceans to sink massive amounts more of carbon dioxide. His plan is to build vast vertical pipes across the world's seas. They would pump water from the bottom of the oceans - which is rich in nutrients, but mostly dead - to the top. This rich water would be ideal for micro-organisms like salps to breed in. They too 'eat' carbon - and then excrete it, where it sinks to the floor of the ocean. The second school of geoengineering projects try to reflect much more of the sun's energy back into space, so it doesn't stay here and cook us. For example, we know that when volcanoes erupt, they release huge amount of tiny sulphuric dust into the atmosphere that serve as a blanket and measurably cool the planet down. When Mount Tambora blew in 1815, for example, it was known as the "year without summer." So scientists like the Nobel Prize-winner Paul Crutzen have suggested we may have to artificially simulate this effect, by spraying sulphur into the atmosphere: in effect, fighting pollution with pollution. The US National Academy of Sciences has gone even further, suggesting that 55,000 small mirrors placed in the upper atmosphere would be enough to counter about half the impact of global warming. So why have greens been reluctant to discuss these solutions? They have a very good reason. All the evidence suggests that, in reality, it cannot work - but it sounds just plausible enough to join denialism as another hallucinatory excuse to do nothing while the planet boils. To understand why, you need to look to the conservative philosopher Edmund Burke. In the eighteenth century, Burke argued that the functioning of human societies was so complex it could not be fully understood by the rational mind. If you pulled out one thread for impeccably rational reasons - by, say, abolishing the monarchy - you would find that dozens of other threads would come loose too, in ways you couldn't have predicted and would never have wanted. Burke was seriously wrong about human societies - but, by a strange historical quirk, his approach applies quite well to understanding the ecosystem of the planet. Look again at the geo-engineering schemes we're discussing and you'll see how. Plans to make the plankton and salps 'eat' the carbon for us bump up against an unintended consequence. Too much organic matter sinking all at once triggers the release of methane - the most warming gas of all. What about pumping sulphur into the atmosphere? Ken Caldeira explains: "One of the problems... is that it would destroy the ozone layer, so you might solve the problem of global warming, but then we'd all die of that." Nor do any of these schemes deal with the other great problem caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. They are making the oceans more acidic, killing off shell and coral formation at the bottom of the food chain. So even if we somehow blunted the global warming effect, the increased carbon in the atmosphere would still kill the oceans - and ruin our sources of food. Yet soon, the fossil fuel industry may start marketing geo-engineering as The Solution, an alternative to cutting back. The scientist Josh Tosteson puts the necessary response well when he asks: "Do we really have the capacity to understand complex systems at the level of the globe well enough to make conscious perturbations that result only in the consequences that we want, and nothing else?" (Burke couldn't have put it better.) It is far smarter to try to stay close to the carefully balanced ecosystem that has evolved over millions of years than to cack-handedly engineer our own, with the extremely limited knowledge we have. Looking to smoke and mirrors in space, or James Lovelock's beautiful pipe-dream, to save us from having to cut back our carbon emissions is achingly tempting. I love the belching world we live in, and I wish it could be made to work. But carrying on pumping out greenhouse gases because of the possibility of geo-engineering is like telling an alcoholic that he doesn't need to quit drinking, because in a few years you'll give him a liver transplant - with a few rusty old knives you found in your garage. Yet if we don't slash emissions now, in just a few decades' time we will be inescapably smacking into these geo-engineering choices. Do you save us from runaway global warming for a while, at the cost of destroying the ozone layer forever? Do you cool the oceans while letting them become acidic and die? Do you want to have to make that call? Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper. To read more of his articles, click here or here . To read Johann's latest article for Slate, click here .
 
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Eerie Similarities Between President Obama and Bush's First 100 Days Top
Eerie Similarities Between President Obama and Bush's First 100 Days President Obama will get the ritual grade for his first 100 days in office on April 29. His first days will be compared to FDR's first 100 days. And to a lesser extent JFK's first 100 days. But comparing him to these two presidents is not a fair comparison. FDR faced the worst economic crisis in American history. JFK faced no immediate foreign or domestic crisis. President Obama falls somewhere in between the two. The better comparison is with his predecessor President Bush. He is the president whose towering White House failures helped pave the way for Obama's win. And there's some eerie similarities in the way Bush handled his first 100 days and the way Obama is handling his. Bush got the same intense look in his first 100 days as President Obama will get in his; and for good reason. Bush's win was deeply tainted but also historic. Millions thought then and now that he bagged the White House through fraud, deceit, manipulation, and a huge helping hand from a politically compliant High Court. Obama's win was historic and tinged with racial and ideological fears. Though the Bush legacy is truly dreadful, it wasn't that way at the start. He got the same first 100 days pass from voters that Obama and every other president has gotten. His April 2001 poll numbers topped sixty percent. This matches Obama's April numbers. A Washington Post/ABC Poll even gave Bush high marks on his handling of the economy. Bush did what every other new president did during his first hundred days. He used the early public goodwill to make politically favorable appointments, ink executive orders and shove through Congress programs that likely would draw fire later on, clamp a vise like grip on executive power, and cast an eye on cementing his historic legacy. Obama has done the same. Bush introduced a $1.6 trillion tax cutting program to Congress, launched a "Faith-Based" Initiative to help local charitable groups, and a catchy named "New Freedom" Initiative to help disabled Americans. In his first address to Congress, he cast himself as the education president, talked about health care reform, and made a vague promise to tackle paying off the national debt. Obama has followed pretty much the same script. Bush worked hard to dispel the notion that he was a foreign policy boob, topped by his widely ridiculed gaffe in not knowing the name of Pakistan's president. He quickly met or talked with dozens of foreign leaders and diplomats. That included all of the Latin American leaders. The one exception was Fidel Castro. Obama also took big campaign hits for being a foreign policy novice and has moved just as quickly to meet and talk with foreign leaders. The exception again is Fidel and brother Raul. Bush took a stab at bipartisanship when he let stand a Clinton administration rule that would expand acres of wetlands across the United States, and ended a long running trade dispute over bananas with the European Union. He hinted that he would take seriously the Kyoto accords on climate warming, reduce the use of coal burning plants, and tighten regulation on toxic chemicals in water supplies. He reneged on every one of them. But he still paid pay lip service to them. Obama has made these issues priorities too. Obama made one of Bush's more controversial executive orders a quick casualty. That was Bush's reinstatement of the Mexico City policy denying US aid to countries that advocate abortion as a method of family planning. Anti-abortion advocates hailed him for it. Abortion advocates hailed Obama for overturning the order. Bush's most controversial cabinet appointment was the Bible spouting, fundamentalist John Ashcroft as Attorney General. Obama picked Eric Holder as Attorney General. This also stirred some controversy over partisanship and ideology. Bush staunchly backed a national missile defense system in Europe. So has Obama to an extent. He called a missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland the most cost-effective and proven defense system. He tied the decision to go ahead with it directly to Iran's nuclear threat and international security concerns. Critics hotly disputed the need for the system when Bush backed it. They still dispute the need for it. Near the close of his first 100 days Bush told an audience at the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner that the world was a dangerous place; it was us versus them. Then he paused and admitted that he wasn't really sure who the "them" was. Bush was wildly chaired at the dinner. America's love fest with him was still in full bloom. It didn't last. FDR, JFK's and every other president's didn't last either. President Obama will do better after his first 100 days. At least that is better than Bush did after his. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard on weekly in Los Angeles on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and nationally on blogtalkradio.com
 
Dan Fogler: Tribeca Film Festival: Hysterical Psycho Top
The title says it all. I wanted to direct an homage to Alfred Hitchcock with my own modern stamp of course. Acid-Hitchcock , or Rock & Roll-Hitchcock , I'd settle for either of those. And by all means stop me if I sound like an asshole at any point during this article. I made Hysterical Psycho as an acting experiment really in preparation of playing the young Hitch in a film yet to be made called the Number 13 . In that film I would play a young bohemian Alfred still living with his insane mother having just directed his first film which was meant to be a comedy but it didn't work as a comedy; however with some brilliant editing his unfunny comedy is transformed into a rather excellent thriller... So you see where I might have gotten the idea for mixing genres in my film. Funny scary, hysterical psycho. I stole from all my favorites not just Hitchcock ( Psycho, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Birds, Rope , etc) but also: Kubrick ( The Shinning ), Coppola ( Apocalypse Now ) Scorsese ( Taxi Driver, Goodfellas ) Spielberg ( Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark ), Lucas ( Empire Strikes Back ), Raimi ( Evil Dead ) Tarantino ( Reservoir Dogs ) Brooks ( Young Frankenstein ) and even classic Loony Toons. This is obviously a movie I would go see...I didn't go to film school so I just put all my favorite shots from movies I loved in and I hoped for the best. You can find shots and references to all of the above films in Hysterical Psycho . I'm an observer a watcher of movies my whole life. I've acted in movies and made my own little short films but never a feature. So I took all of that time I spent admiring other folks work and put it into my own film. The ultimate compliment I think for a film maker. I love movies, many an afternoon skipping school where spent in a funky run down Brooklyn movie theater. Some of these stints would venture as far as Manhattan and the Tribeca cinemas and now film fest was a tangible venue for a young Brooklyn bohemian with thoughts of some day seeing his own face on the silver screen there. And now to have my directorial debut there is just poetic. Everyone who worked on the film made it for the love of the game, and this little Brooklyn boy is freakin' excited to share Hysterical Psycho with you. In the immortal words of Alfred Hitchcock I bid you a very "good evening". Peace, love, enjoy.
 
Jake Goldman: Additional Interrogation Reports Released Top
Case No. 4689 - Former VP Dick Cheney v. Room Full of People Who Kind of Look Like They Have, At the Very Least, Thought About Al Qaeda. Notes: VP Dick Cheney was walking back from Chik-Fil-A after a hearty lunch, (Note: VP Cheney was very amused by the "Eat Mor Chikin" Cow posters, and had a Secret Service guard steal the kiosk for Cheney's bedroom) when he saw several young men with beards and Che Guavara shirts on, sitting on benches. Some were listening to iPods (probably a loop of a person screaming) and the others were reading (Probably books that said a lot of things about "American Infidels.") VP Cheney spoke into his wrist and said "Hey, C.I.A., I need you to do a sweep of the mall lawn. I've got some interrogatin' to do." He then laughed for about seven minutes and was then told by his security detail that he did not have a microphone or any kind of wireless device in his shirtsleeve, so he was talking to no one. Cheney then took the matter into his own hands and caught all the "suspects" in a large net he was carrying in his briefcase (Note: it was the ONLY thing in his briefcase). Cheney then took the suspects to a Super 8 motel and tried the following methods of Interrogation, Cheney-style. (Note: not authorized by the C.I.A. or, anyone really). -Sung the entire Patsy Cline greatest hits album. (also dressed up like Patsy Cline) -Milkboarded (same as waterboarding, just with milk) -Grimaced at suspects for an hour -Danced shirtless and yelled -Took out several bonesaws and repeatedly said "I know how to use these, and I am not afraid." (Note: never used any bonesaws, was probably afraid). -Read them his manuscript "Oversteppin' My Boundaries (And Feelin' Fine)" Apparently, the memoir reading worked and when VP Cheney got to chapter 19 "I Knew There Was a Confederate Flag Hanging in That Lodge and I didn't--and Still Don't--Give A Shit," one of the suspects leapt up and yelled "Please, please stop. We're just a lo-fi rock band from Brooklyn. We're playing the Lizard Lounge tonight. Please, let us go." VP Cheney then, took a hair sample from each band-member/suspect and released them from the interrogation room. He was later spotted at the Lizard Lounge, watching the show, cradling and kissing a Bonesaw. One onlooker saw Cheney feeding the saw a shot of whiskey. The band never played another show again. More on Dick Cheney
 
Broadcasting Good News: Co-Workers Donate Paid Time Off To Pregnant Nurse (VIDEO) Top
Need some good news? NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams now does a segment called "Making A Difference" that shares stories from viewers of "random or regular acts of kindness" that offer you just that. As MSNBC's site states: "Making a Difference" stories usually air every Friday on NBC Nightly News. The series was conceived in response to viewers who complain that the broadcast features only "bad" news Watch this episode titled "Pinching Pennies on Behalf of a Pal", wherein generous co-workers donated 96 hours of their own paid time off to a pregnant friend: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy *** Difficult times have been known to bring communities together as people lean on one another for support. In this recession, there's no shortage of communities around the country that have rallied around a struggling neighbor, reached out a helping hand to those around them, or donated free dry cleaning to the job-seeking and unemployed . We know there are more stories like these and HuffPost wants to highlight them. If you read or hear about an act of kindness in your community, email us the story at goodnews@huffingtonpost.com. These vignettes are a much needed counterpoint to the doom and gloom surrounding the economy; let's help change the conversation -- we can't do it without you. *Follow HuffPostLiving on Twitter and become a fan of Huffington Post Living on Facebook * More on NBC
 
Michelle Obama: Bo Is A "Crazy" Dog Top
WASHINGTON — The first lady's take on the new White House puppy? He's "crazy." Michelle Obama says "Bo" the Portuguese water dog loves to bark and play _ expected for a puppy _ and also likes to chew on people's feet. Mrs. Obama says she spends lots of time walking and training Bo, the energetic six-month-old pup who arrived at the White House last week as a gift to the Obama daughters. Mrs. Obama gave her update on Bo during a White House program Thursday marking the annual Take Your Child to Work Day. Dozens of executive branch employees brought their children and grandchildren to participate, including Vice President Joe Biden, and the kids got a question-and-answer session with the first lady. More on Bo Obama
 
Fortune 's Stanley Bing: The Cooler is Me Top
I was perusing today's gallery of top performing Fortune 500 stocks on CNNMoney. Some are well-known, like Wal-Mart (WMT), McDonald's (MCD) and the repository of their activity, Waste Management (WMI). Others, like C.H. Robinson Worldwide (CHRW), which is a logistics provider, are less intuitive. But scanning the 24 bear baiters, I realized they all had one thing in common. I don't own any of them. Not W.R. Berkley (WRB), the insurance holding company, not Darden Restaurants (DRI), which brings families together over steaming plates of shrimp and/or fettucine alfredo at the Red Lobster or the Olive Garden. Not a share of either. Not even Pulte Homes (PHM), which builds, obviously, homes. I could have bought some at some point, I suppose. But I didn't. There are two ways to look at this. One is that I'm stupid and should have somebody providing me with sound, reliable investment guidance. While this is quite possibly true, I believe it ignores the real, underlying phenomenon at work here, one that is backed up with ample evidence. These 24 companies are doing well for the simple reason that I am not invested in them. That's the cause that has produced this happy effect in each and every one of them. Let's look at the record. In the early 1990s, I invested in a number of tech companies that had been doing very well indeed. Immediately thereafter, they all went into the tank. I'm not talking weeks later. I'm talking hours later. Like, I bought a stock and that afternoon it lost 10% of its value. The next day another 15%. By the end of that week, down 55% and falling. My broker, as they will, usually told me to hang on until the next upturn, which then did not arrive, ever. On several occasions, the upturn did come, though, but only after I sold the stock. And I'm not talking about weeks after, either. Again, hours. Like, I would sell and within minutes the security would experience a significant and inexplicable bounce. But it wasn't inexplicable to me. It was me. I did it. About 10 years ago, I decided it would be smart to stop messing around with high-risk, fast-growth companies and go with conservative, blue-chip firms that had produced value year in and year out. You know the companies. I'm not going to mention them. I don't want to hurt them. They employ many nice people and I have nothing against them. True, I lost money with every single one. But that's not their fault. I'm sure they wondered why their stocks were down. Now they know. It was me. Many are still languishing at fractions of the value at which I bought them. That's because I still hold them. The ones I sold at a loss are doing better now. Most recently, I purchased Google (GOOG) at $700. You know how that's doing. Analysts are still a bit flummoxed as to why this great company is now trading at a less dramatic multiple than before. Some ascribe the decline to the challenged advertising market. Others cite the economy. It's none of those things. I think we can now be relatively confident about the true reason. It's me. So as I look at this list of companies that are facing the recession and achieving uncommon success, I come to one conclusion. As tempting as a call to my broker would be, I will refrain. I have incredible destructive power within my grasp, and I have to use it judiciously. This recovery that's in the wind is a delicate thing and I'm not one of those guys who's looking for ways to kill it.
 
Daniel Menaker: Boehner's blunder Top
It's telling that in a news conference today John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, referred to some of the Bush Administration's terrorist-suspect interrogation methods as "torture"--as reported just now on the Huffington Post by Ryan Grim. Boehner uses this honest word as part of a defense of these methods, but the diction says more than the defense--a point that Grim has rightly seized on as the real news from the press conference. Boehner is not lying on my analytic couch, thank God, and my guess is that he is not lying on anyone else's analytic couch, either, unfortunately--as he is a politically benighted man and also seems singularly sour and joyless--but his use of "torture" was an ur- Freudian slip of the tongue. It shows a man in moral conflict about these methods, whether or not he would admit to or is even conscious of that conflict, because it is an inescapably horrific and negative word, no matter how couched and cushioned it may be by its surrounding rationalizations, and the law says that the practice of torture is a crime. Almost as telling, in another way, is the word "tecnhiques," as used by Boehner in this instance and by many others on this subject in many other instances. It is a word that implies finesse and expertise, if not actual art, and it is a chilling unconscious effort to normalize and cosmeticize the awful and gross reality of real-world torture. "Methods" and "practices" seem more straightforward. And "torture" standing on its own two monstrous feet without any other noun following it would be more straughtforward yet. You don't need to go to school to know how to torture. To imply otherwise is to torture our language.
 
Netanyahu Unveils Economic Rescue Plan Top
Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu and Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz unveiled on Thursday a rescue plan for Israel's "plummeting" ecomony. More on Israel
 
Jane S. Smith: Garden Eugenics Top
This is the year everybody plants a vegetable patch. The Secretary of Agriculture has an edible garden. The White House has an edible garden. Hummers are out, rototillers are in, and sales of seeds and garden supplies are soaring. But the same hard times that inspire us to work the soil can also send us looking for scapegoats. Let's be careful that the virtuous desire to grow our own food does not lead to proclamations about the moral purity of one crop over another. This is no time for garden eugenics. You remember eugenics, the pseudo-science of a century ago that warped the principles of genetics to encourage the 'best people' to have many children while raising fears about the uncontrolled procreation of 'degenerates' who were often identified as having dangerous hereditary qualities like poverty, ignorance, or 'mongrel' heritage. Thankfully, this kind of thinking has fallen far out of fashion--except in the realm of crops. The same language of purity, the same reverence for ancient bloodlines that makes people cringe when applied to humans, is often applauded when applied to plants. Older varieties are preferred to newer ones. Heirlooms are honored over hybrids. Organic is confused with local. And substantial improvements get tarred with the same brush as dubious adventures in bioengineering that may even alter the biological balance of the planet. Gardeners, get a grip! It's possible to go back to the land without going back to the Stone Age. In fact, it's essential, unless you really want to limit your diet to ferns. If, like many people, you're hoping to cut down on grocery costs while enjoying freshness and reducing your carbon footprint, go for the seeds that are most likely to give you a thriving, bountiful harvest. And accept the fact that most of those seeds have been improved by the age-old process of selection and the more recent but still venerable techniques of hybridization. A century ago, before it was possible to patent a living organism, innovation in the garden was not synonymous with ownership, and new plant introductions were not regarded as a threat to biodiversity. Even as the environmental movement was coming into being and broad swatches of wilderness were being set aside by Congress as national parks, there was little question that improving cultivated plants was a worthy goal, and that anything that increased yield or improved quality was an asset. In the years before supermarkets, refrigeration, and long-distance shipping provided a safety net for the home grower, the development of hardier, sweeter, longer-lasting edible crops was a matter of intense public enthusiasm, and anybody who could improve a plant was considered a public benefactor. If we're going back to the cottage garden our great-grandparents tended, let's honor their desire for improvement. All the heirloom designation means is that a plant grows true from seed. Save the seeds for next year, and you'll get a reasonably close approximation of what grew this summer. Hybrids, made from crosses of different varieties, also produce seeds, but next year's crop won't be the same as this year's and it won't have the famous first generation "hybrid vigor" that Charles Darwin noted long before anybody understood why it occurred or what it meant. Since your goal is to eat everything in your garden before it goes to seed, the predictable duplication of ancestral traits is not really an issue. Plant Great-aunt Agatha's favorite pickling cucumber, by all means, but save some ground for stringless beans, sweet and tender carrots, wilt-resistant lettuce, and other newer varieties that are, in fact, tastier and hardier than anything our grandparents grew. Discourage rabbits with sturdy marigolds that can stand the summer heat, indulge yourself with hybrid roses that bloom all season, and thank the breeders who have worked to bring you these improved varieties. And while you're at it, forget that other piece of lingering snobbery, the importance of a good neighborhood. Plant where you can. Lettuce grown on the western slope may indeed taste different from lettuce grown on the east, but the best place to start your garden is wherever you can. Clear the ground. Mulch it. Start a compost pile in the corner to make next year's soil even richer. Plant in containers, if all you have is concrete. Pick a crop that can survive your particular conditions of sun, wind, rain, or traffic. It will probably be a hybrid, carefully cross-pollinated and selected to meet just such challenges. Embrace its multiple origins and be proud of your efforts, mongrel though they be. In the salad bowl, the fruit cup, and the veggie stir-fry of democratic gardening, it's achievement we should honor, not origins. More on Food
 
Brendon Ayanbadejo: Same Sex Marriages: What's the Big Deal? Top
First and foremost, church and state are supposed to be completely separated when it comes to the rule of law in the United States. So the religious argument that God meant for only man and woman to be together has no bearing here! America is not Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, or any other religion that is out there. And the pantheon of gods can attest that there are hundreds of them. We are a secular capitalistic democracy. That's it. It seems that Obama felt the need to embrace Christianity more to fit in. During his presidential campaign he never really sided for or against same-sex marriages. I know the cards were stacked against him with his name and ethnicity but any candidate still has to fit a schoolboy criteria in order to be considered a legitimate candidate. I am at least glad being black is finally off the list as a negative characteristic! If Britney Spears can party it up in Vegas with one of her boys and go get married on a whim and annul her marriage the next day, why can't a loving same sex couple tie the knot? How could our society grant more rights to a heterosexual one night stand wedding in Vegas than a gay couple that has been together for 3, 5, 10 years of true love? The divorce rate in America is currently 50%. I am willing to bet that same sex marriages have a higher success rate than heterosexual marriages. Maybe I am a man ahead of my time. However, looking at the former restrictions on human rights in our country starting with slavery, women not being able to vote, blacks being counted as two thirds of a human, segregation, no gays in the military (to list a few) all have gone by the wayside. But now here in 2009 same sex marriages are prohibited. I think we will look back in 10, 20, 30 years and be amazed that gays and lesbians did not have the same rights as every one else. How did this ever happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Are we really free? More on Gay Marriage
 
County Board Demands Answers From Stroger At Emergency Meeting Top
The heat just won't die down for Todd Stroger. Cook County Commissioners called an emergency meeting for Thursday, ostensibly to check on the county's finances following last week's forced resignation of Chief Financial Officer Donna Dunnings. But the meeting also gives commissioners an opportunity to grill Stroger about the Dunnings fiasco and his mutating story of why he forced her out. The actual text of the meeting agenda reads: The Board expects to hear from administration officials and outside bond and legal counsel who have knowledge on how to protect the financial resources of the people of Cook County. Stroger has made the media rounds since forcing Dunnings to resign over her relationship with former county patronage worker Tony Cole, a former busboy with a lengthy criminal record whom Stroger personally hired and then fired. Stroger's interviews, however, have not tamped down the criticism or resignation calls and a County spokesperson told the Tribune 's Eric Zorn that he will have "no further comments" about the Dunnings-Cole story.
 
William Parente, New York Man Who Killed His Family, Was Under Investigation For Alleged Ponzi Scheme Top
A Long Island lawyer who fatally beat and suffocated his wife and two daughters in a hotel room -- then remained with the bodies for nearly half a day before killing himself -- was under investigation for allegedly running a $20 million Ponzi scheme, sources said yesterday.
 
James Boyce: Yes, There Are Racists in the GOP Top
And in other news, the sun came up this morning. When I (James) went on MSNBC two weeks ago to talk about immigration reform, I didn't think that I had anything that outlandish to say. Contessa Brewer, the daytime host, asked Republican strategist Ben Port and me if we thought we were going to get immigration reform passed and I said frankly that we won't, because there is a segment of the Republican party that is racist and will stand in the way of real reform. Simple enough, right? Well, after my turn at the 1:25 mark, when I said that within the Republican Party there is a segment of that group that is very anti-immigration, and essentially racist, Contessa and Ben reacted as though I had insulted one of their mothers (or both). When I finished, I immediately called Max Bernstein, who co-chairs dotPAC with me, to ask if I had said something really out of line because I got cut off and everyone had their mouths agape with shock that I could say such a thing. He certainly didn't think so, and with good reason. Yes, total shock at the idea that there is a racist segment of the Republican Party. The distribution of the Barack the Magic Negro song by a candidate for the RNC Chairmanship and former leader of the Tennessee Republican Party? The SoCal mayor who made and sent a postcard of the White House lawn with watermelons sprouted all over it? Macaca? The 24 hour news cycle makes for unbelievably short memories, clearly. Those examples aside, there is a segment of the GOP that brings that attitude to the immigration debate, and it's made up of House members, not the aforementioned marginal figures in the Party. To wit: "The millions who have lost the equity in their homes, or half their life savings, and the 3.6 million Americans who have lost their jobs in the last year are true patriots who are sacrificing for their country. The last thing in the world we need is an economic stimulus plan which will put Pedro and his friends back to work." That's Dana Rohrabacher, the Congressman from the pristine beach communities in Southern Los Angeles and Northern Orange County. Nothing racist about that statement at all, no sirree. Next up, we have Houston congressman John Culberson. Culberson is known for being on the cutting edge of his use of technology and social networking, but when it comes to the viewpoint behind the tweeting and Qik-videoing, he falls somewhere between the age of internment camps and the McCarthy era. Observe: "A concern that I continue to see is that a lot of those scientists from communist China, my impression is, and correct me if I am wrong, come here and learn as much as they can, and then leave. And I'm not really all that much into helping the communists figure out how to better target their intercontinental ballistic missiles at the United States. They basically steal our technology for military applications. And they are red China, let's not forget." We can't forget this one either: "A large number of Islamic individuals have moved into homes in Nuevo Laredo and are being taught Spanish to assimilate with the local culture." The context here is how, to quote the Twittering idiot, "Al Qaeda terrorists and Chinese nationals are infiltrating our country virtually anywhere they choose from Brownsville to San Diego." Yes John, those brown people just learn Spanish and all of a sudden no one can tell them apart, as they assimilate with the rest of the local brown culture. Then we have James Sensenbrenner, who authored a piece of paranoid legislation that had it become law would have subjected all Hispanics in America to ritualistic profiling and relentless eligibility and citizenship tests in all aspects of their everyday lives. If you have 15 minutes and feel like losing your appetite, go read the bill. And we can't forget Michele Bachmann of Minnesota: "One amendment [to a MN legislature budget] was offered that said that drivers license tests should be in English only, and that amendment failed. It's an outrage, it's unthinkable..." Nevermind that this was in response to a tragic and fatal car accident where the perpetrator was an undocumented immigrant with a phony license, and having an English requirement for a drivers license would send the fake ID business through the roof. Bachmann's unmatched abilities to match bigotry with mere poor logic were also on display last September when she plamed the entire subprime mortgage crisis on the fact that banks didn't just stick to lending money to white folks. So yes, Ben and Contessa. There is a segment of the Republican party that is clearly racist and will block real immigration reform by appealing to the xenophobic wing of their constituency that keeps them edging past their opponents every two years. That's why dotPAC is raising money for each of these bigots' eventual Democratic challengers on ActBlue, and running ads in each of their districts on Facebook highlighting their indecency. Give a few bucks to the eventual Democratic nominees and show these bigots that they have no place in mainstream politics, let alone the halls of Congress. More on GOP
 
Yoani Sanchez: On May Day Cubans Will Beat Out a "Kitchen Chorus" for Freedom Top
The old pots and pans for feeding the family can be transformed, in the event, into the ballot we can't leave in the box and into the hand we dare not raise in the assembly. Any object can serve, if given the space required: a piece of fabric hung from the balcony, a newspaper waved in public, a pot banged along with others. The great metallic choir made up of spoons and pans could be--on May first at 8:30 in the evening--our voice, to say what we have stuck in our throats. Restrictions on coming and going from Cuba have lasted too long. So I will ring my pot for my parents, who have never been able to cross the sea that separates us from the world. I will join the symphony of pans also for myself, forced to travel only in the virtual world in the last two years. I will pound out the rhythm of the spoon while thinking of Teo, condemned to permanent exile if he happens to board a plane before the age of eighteen. I will beat the drum for Edgar, who is on a hunger strike after seven denials of his request for permission to leave. At the end of the metallic concert I will dedicate a couple notes to Marta, who didn't get the white card to meet her granddaughter who was born in Florida. After so much beating on the bottom of the pan, it probably won't serve me for frying even one more egg. For the necessary "food" to travel, move about freely, leave home without permission, it's well worth it to break all the equipment in my kitchen. Yoani's blog, Generation Y , can be read here in English translation . More on Cuba
 
Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Samples Missing, Likely Destroyed Top
FREDERICK, Md. — An investigation of three disease samples missing from a Fort Detrick lab found that the samples were likely destroyed, according to Army officials. The probe started after the samples were reported missing last year and was not connected to an inventory started after the FBI concluded that a researcher was responsible for the 2001 anthrax mailings, officials said Wednesday. Samples of Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis were discovered missing last year in an inventory of a group of samples left by a departing researcher, said Caree Vander Linden, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick. VEE occurs naturally, typically in horses and mules, though it can also make humans ill, she said. An extensive investigation found no evidence of criminal activity, said U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command spokesman Chris Grey. Vander Linden said the the samples were likely among those destroyed when a freezer malfunctioned. The investigation was separate from the suspension of much of the research at the lab in February while officials made sure the lab had accounted for all dangerous germs and poisons. That inventory was expected to take up to three months and Vander Linden said it was not yet complete. The decision to halt research for the inventory came after a review of inventory controls prompted by the FBI's conclusion that Fort Detrick scientist Bruce E. Ivins was responsible for the anthrax mailings that killed five people and sickened 17 others in 2001. Ivins killed himself in July after learning he would be charged in the attacks. His attorney maintains he was innocent.
 
India: Divorces Become More Common As Romance Gains Importance Top
NEW DELHI -- In India, love is in the air. Unfortunately, so is the raucous noise of lover's quarrels and the soporific drone of the court judge. The flawed, but familiar, bonds of tradition are fading away. And there's nothing to replace them except for what Danny DeVito identified in "The War of the Roses" as the "two dilemmas that rattle the human skull: How do you hang on to someone who won't stay? And how do you get rid of someone who won't go?" For thousands of years, Hindu society had the first problem licked. Marriages were contracts of servitude that sent a daughter off to her husband's family home with a hefty dowry and the injunction not to complain, because it was a one-way trip. Now, though, India is working on DeVito's second dilemma. Women are gaining independence through education and a more important role in the workforce. Divorce laws have been made more liberal, and progressive legislation has been adopted to curb "bride burning" to extort dowries. Women no longer have to suffer psychological or physical abuse. More couples live in nuclear families instead of with the husband's mother and father, which ought to make things easier but has instead resulted in a relaxing of the unofficial ban on a wife's family butting into the couple's business. And, perhaps most significantly, a new cultural obsession with romance and personal fulfillment has raised the bar for a happy marriage. "If people have to be romantic and romance has to endure through thick and thin, the idea can be that if romance withers, the marriage is ended," says Patricia Uberoi, a New Delhi-based sociologist. India does not track a national divorce rate, but some analyses of the number of divorce petitions filed in municipal courts indicate that divorce has doubled since 1990 in trend-setting Mumbai and Delhi. "Statistically the number of cases on the docket has exploded," says Prosenjit Banerjee, a Delhi divorce lawyer. That means that even though the number of courts devoted to divorce proceedings has grown to around a dozen over the past 10 years, up from just four or five, there are still more than 30 cases listed before each court every day. The phenomenon has already spread beyond the cosmopolitan centers. Though the broadest available figures, from the National Family Health Survey, still place the figure much lower, some estimates now peg the (once negligible) national divorce rate at close to 6 percent. The statistical discrepancy that can probably be attributed to the glacial pace of the Indian courts, since the NFHS counted the number of divorced people and other estimates focus on the number of divorce cases. At least among Internet users, the problem knows no geographical boundaries. About 60 percent of the 50,000 customers who have registered with SecondShaadi.com, an online matchmaking service for divorced Indians that launched a year ago, live outside India's five largest cities; more than a third live outside the 20 largest cities. "In a few years, we may not even be talking about divorce and remarriage as a stigma anymore," says Vivek Pahwa, the company's chief executive. For men and women trapped in bad marriages, that's wonderful news. Rani, a 23-year-old woman from the provincial town of Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, for instance, applied for the courts after her husband sent her back to her parents a year into their marriage with a demand for a dowry supplement of 50,000 rupees (the equivalent of a year's salary in these parts). And when she gave birth to a daughter, her husband didn't even come to look at the baby. After three years of legal wrangling over the dowry -- prohibited since 1961, though the law is widely flouted -- she now says, "I want to be divorced this minute!" But the state is flailing helplessly as it tries to balance tradition with modernity when it comes to the legal and law enforcement responses to marital discord. Because a court-ordered divorce can take 15 years, women's attorneys often advise them to file dowry or domestic violence cases against their husbands instead, says Geeta Luthra, a lawyer who works on divorce and other women's issues. The criminal courts are equally slow, but the threat of being arrested and spending time behind bars while their lawyer argues for bail exerts pressure on men to settle. That's unfortunate, Luthra says, because the "eight false cases" are making the one genuine dowry petitioner more difficult to believe. The domestic violence act of 2005 poses another kind of threat: An abused wife can be awarded any "matrimonial home" that she resided in during her marriage -- whether or not her husband holds the deed. "The idea is that by scaring the husband and his family they'll force them to settle. And the settlement basically means money," Banerjee says. "The law is certainly being abused. That's not my assessment, that's the assessment of the high court and the supreme court." For men like Rakesh, a middle-class Delhi resident, this means almost weekly trips to court and the police station's special cell for women. After he refused his wife's demand to move into a second home that his family owned and rented to tenants, his wife filed a police case against him and threatened to have him, his aging mother, his two brothers and their wives thrown in jail for dowry violations he maintains are completely fictitious. He tried to come up with a compromise -- he even rented a house for the couple to live in separate from his family. But when nothing worked he filed for divorce. Now when he's not at the special police division devoted to women's issues suffering verbal abuse in the guise of police-enforced couples counseling, he spends his time wondering whether today is the day he'll get the warning he's going to be arrested and should seek anticipatory bail. Still, the terms of the debate over dowry and domestic violence cases sometimes suggest what's at stake is a disagreement over the traditions of marriage. For instance, a web site designed to help men victimized by false cases asks, "Wife forcing you to live separately? Wife does not respect you and is discourteous to your parents?" This sort of thing cuts both ways, says Luthra. Perhaps understandably, women are less tolerant and more demanding than ever before. But it's not uncommon for a man to sue for divorce on the grounds that his wife refuses to do the housework, fails to play the good hostess when his friends drop by, or is impolite to her in-laws. On the other hand, Luthra says that these days, among couples who don't live with the husband's parents, the wife's mother may call with advice 10 times a day. That's a problem any culture -- traditional or modern -- can understand. Read more from GlobalPost.com More on India
 
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Will Obama Stand Up to, or Smile at, Dictators? Top
The picture of the President of the United States smiling broadly as he met President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela startled me. Our President is a nice guy. Chavez is anything but. The US State Department maintains that Chávez has attacked democratic traditions and has put Venezuelan democracy on life support with unchecked concentration of power, political persecution, and intimidation. Foreign Affairs Magazine says that Chávez is a power-hungry dictator with autocratic and megalomaniacal tendencies whose authoritarian vision and policies are a serious threat to his people. In testimony before the U.S. Senate, the South American Project Director for the Center for Strategic International Studies said that Chavez's government engages in "arresting opposition leaders, torturing some members of the opposition (according to human rights organizations) and encouraging, if not directing, its squads of Bolivarian Circles to beat up members of Congress and intimidate voters -- all with impunity". In spite of a presidential term limit of 6 years, Chávez has suggested that he would like to remain in power for 25 years. Hmmm. An autocratic dictator who abuses human rights and undermines democracy being warmly embraced by the American president? There's something wrong with that picture. Then there was the incident of President Obama seeming to bow before King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the G-20 Summit in London. The President's people denied it was a bow, but it certainly was a sign of great deference from the American president to the dictator of a country who just six weeks ago sentenced a 75-year-old woman to 40 lashes for having been secluded with her nephew after he delivered bread to her home. This is the same Abdullah whom, when asked why Saudi Arabia prohibits the public practice of religious other than Islam, said, "It is absurd to impose on an individual or a society rights that are alien to its beliefs or principles." Of course President Obama is pursuing a renewed relationship with Cuba, a country that engages in systemic human rights abuses , including torture , arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions. Censorship is so extensive that Cubans face five-year prison sentences for connecting to the Internet illegally. And not only is emigration illegal but even discussing it carries a six-month prison sentence. Watching all this, I was wondering what the new standards were. How oppressive must a leader be before we determine that he has not merited a hug by the democratic standard-bearer of the free world, the President of the United States? Yes, I get it. We have to speak to our enemies and America has to push "reset" on its relationship with many of these countries. We should try and change them through charm. But who said the President himself, rather than a lower-level diplomat, must do so? And if President Obama feels that he has to be the one to greet a man like Chavez, must it be with the kind of ear-to-ear grin that one might show girl-scouts selling cookies? It must surely be disheartening for those who suffer oppression in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia to see the American president back-slapping their oppressors when these victims have always looked up to the United States as their champions. In Turkey President Obama boldly declared that "the United States is not, and never will be, "at war with Islam." But the person who was at war with Islam, Saddam Hussein, the man who killed nearly one million Muslims, was removed by a country who has already paid with the lives of 4500 of its service men and women. The same is true of the Taliban, another group whom the Obama Administration is considering talking to, who beat Muslim women in the streets of Afghanistan. Yet the President seems reluctant to publicly identify these real enemies of Islam. Like many Americans, I have watched our President and have been awed by his capacity to draw those who hate us near. He is a man of considerable charm and grace. But I have to admit that I am increasingly troubled by his seeming inability to call out rogue dictators. While he was campaigning for the presidency Obama promised, "As President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide." But in a press conference in Ankara with President Abdullah Gul he refused to use the word "genocide" when challenged by a reporter on the issue. Yet it was Obama's early foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power of Harvard, who wrote "A Problem from Hell," a definitive book on the non-American intervention in repeated twentieth century genocides, beginning with the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks which killed 1.5 million between the years of 1915-1923. When I read the book it changed my life. As a Jew who does not want the world to forget the Holocaust, I can only imagine the pain of the Armenian community as they struggle to have modern Turkey acknowledge the crime. And why should modern Turkey not oblige? No one is blaming them for something that happened 90 years ago. It is not today's generation which is at fault. But nations must come to terms with their own history. Could any of us imagine what kind of country the US would be if it denied that it was ever responsible for the abomination of African-American slavery and segregation? All this leads to one important question. Suppose President Obama succeeds in building friendships with Chavez, Castro, Ahmedenijad and the Taliban. What then? Does Americas still get to feel that it stands for something? Will we still be the beacon of liberty and freedom to the rest of the world, or will we have sold out in the name of political expediency? And do any of us seriously believe that Presidential friendship is going to get a megalomaniac like Hugo Chavez to ease up on the levers of power, or are we just feeding his ego by showing him he can be a tyrant and still have a beer with the President of the United States? Will the Iranians really stop enriching Uranium through diplomacy rather than economic sanctions? I know that the Bush Administration made many mistakes and I am fan of President Obama precisely because of his sunny optimism. But Bush was not, as Chavez once called him, the devil and it could just be that his emphasis on America being the great champion of democracy and freedom, a mantle that was most eloquently articulated by President Kennedy in his inaugural address, is a legacy that ought to belong to President Obama as much as it did to his predecessor. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is the founder of This World: The Values Network. He has just published his newest best-seller, The Kosher Sutra. www.shmuley.com . More on Barack Obama
 
Jeremy Scahill: Jay Bybee's Rules at Home: "Be Nice. Don't Hit." Bybee's Rules for the CIA: Torture Prisoners Top
Bybee seems to be against corporal punishment, but has no problem with slamming prisoners against walls, locking people in boxes and simulating drowning. Jay Bybee authored one of the most chilling of the four Bush-era torture memos declassified last week by the Obama administration. Bybee signed the August 2002 memo in his capacity as a Deputy Attorney General working in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. Now he is a federal judge sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the largest appellate court in the US (Remember, Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid helped him get there). Following the disclosure of the memos and Bybee's role in developing legal strategies for justifying the torture of prisoners, activists launched a campaign to demand that Rep. John Conyers, chair of the Judiciary Committee, hold a hearing to determine whether grounds exist for Bybee's impeachment. As the Center for Constitutional Rights points out : 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. It is unacceptable for an individual who abused his status as a government lawyer and violated the law in conspiring with other members of the Bush Torture Team to sit as a federal judge, someone who hears and decides issues of constitutional import. At the time of his confirmation hearing, his role in the Torture Program was secret, as was the program itself. Jay Bybee's actions constitute High Crimes and Misdemeanors by any standard. This morning, an anonymous email I received directed me to a Mormon publication, Meridian Magazine , that profiled Bybee (who is a Mormon) when he was first appointed to the bench. While reading this, keep in mind that Bybee was the author of a memo that gave the legal green light to heinous acts of torture. The Meridian Magazine article is a sappy, fawning profile of Bybee, but there are some gems in the context of the current situation: Regarding the law itself, Bybee said he appreciates the role of law in a society which must ask the fundamental question, "How are we going to conduct ourselves?" He explained that there is a system of rules and standards in the law as well as in our personal lives. In his own home, for example, a standard is, "Be nice," and a rule to encourage that is, "Don't hit." He also pointed out that standards are always harder to enforce because it is difficult to define exactly what the standard is. "How do you define honesty," he asked, "and who is applying the definition?" [...] Regardless of his opinions about a specific law, Bybee said, "I will enforce a law even if I wouldn't have voted for the law itself had I been a legislator, and I will apply the law unless it crosses the contours of the Constitution." [...] It's no surprise that Bybees interest in the rule of law extends to a study of ancient law, notably in Old Testament times. As the Gospel Doctrine teacher in his ward, he saw parallels in the way people interpreted and applied ancient law to the way many individuals do so today. "People in the Old Testament were absolutely devoted to the law of Moses and required exact obedience to it," he explained. "Their main concern was that they not find themselves on the wrong side of the law, and they spent their lives trying to bring themselves and each other into conformity with it. While we should admire their zeal to follow the rule of law, we nevertheless have to recognize that without understanding the spirit or purpose of the law, there arent enough rules in the world to make a person be good." [...] Bybee believes that society would function better if people demonstrated an attitude of reconciliation rather than revenge. He said some lawyers become entrenched, and instead of finding common ground and shared values between contending parties, such lawyers tend to "litigate to the death." Wow. "Litigate to the death." That is almost the perfect concept for Bybee's role in the US torture apparatus. Read more by Jeremy Scahill at RebelReports.com
 
Brad Balfour: Q & A: Oscar-winning Michael Caine Asks "Is Anybody There?" Top
Whatever compelled Oscar-winner Sir Michael Caine to play 80-something retired magician Clarence in Is Anybody There? it's fortunate that he did. The septuagenarian Brit takes even a simple, sentimental tale like this and, through his rich performance and nuanced turns, give us a real peek into a man whose life has been slipping away from him as he enters the twilight of his life. From his first raggedy appearance on screen, Clarence is transformed into someone much younger as he mentors a lonely 11-year-old boy Edward ( Bill Milner ) trapped in the makeshift nursing home that his house has become when his parents started a business caring for a group of old people in the '80s. Clarence shows glimmers of his old self as he teaches Eddie some magic tricks and convinces to have a birthday party with kids he generally shies away from---he'd rather search for he ghost of the dead old folks rather than play with his peers. But inevitably it's too late and the ravages of Alzheimer's take control bring an end to Clarence and the film. So Caine continues to turn out sterling work (as he should after working in more than 100 films) however one might feel about this quiet film. In doing such a performance, he has also mentored in real life, giving a boost to the talented 14 year old Milner (who also did a remarkable job in his other film Son of Rambow ) and support to young director like Crowley. Certainly what career moves Caine makes now are for fun--and maybe a little money. He's done a slew of benchmarks from early films like The Ipcress File, and Alfie, to Oscar winners like Hannah and Her Sisters and Cider House Rules. But it didn't hurt him by joining the latest incarnation of the Batman franchise as Bruce Wayne's butler (and confidante) Alfred in the recent two films, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Q: Do you believe that there's an afterlife? MC: I'm hoping there's an afterlife. As you get older, you hope even more fervently. But I am still far enough away to have a few doubts [though] I'm sure they will tighten up as you get closer [laughs]. I've noticed it with older people. Q: Your wife claims to have the ability to see ghosts--is there a story that you have that she experienced that you can talk about? MC: No, not really because I don't discuss it. It's one of those things where she believes in ghosts and I don't and we never talk about it. We never talk about it. I'm sorry. We just don't talk about it. I hope she's right. Q: Why? MC: Well, it'd be fun wouldn't it? Something is better than nothing. Q: You seem like someone who doesn't have the word "retire" in your vocabulary. How do you do it? MC: I just enjoy what I do. You have to remember, when I started out I was an amateur actor, amateur meaning "to love." I like what I do and I enjoy the process of filmmaking provided, and this is the situation that I'm in, that I have complete and utter choice of where, what, why, when, how and with whom. That's what happens to me now. I don't work for a living. I just work in order to improve myself as an actor which is what I've always done. I've never been competitive with other actors. I've been competitive with myself and I'm my own worst critic, a terrible critic I am and unless I get something right I feel very unhappy. But with this picture I couldn't have done any better than I did. There are a probably dozen other actors who could've done it better than I did, but I couldn't have done it better. So I'm very happy about what I've done. Q: What excited you about playing this angry senior citizen? MC: The depth and range of it. You go through every emotion and so does the audience. If we do it right we should make you roll with laughter at one point and cry your eyes out at the next. That to me is the epitome of an actor's job, to get the most extreme emotions out of you with the most reality. I love the relationship with the boy. It's sort of like a hill. I lead him up a hill into his childhood and he leads me down a hill to my death. Q: Did you visit any nursing homes or want to spend any time in one for the role? MC: No, I didn't. I knew all about them. My mother was in a nursing home, but not like that. My mother was in a very luxurious nursing home. But I did see a lot of people like that. People, when they get older get infirm and do strange things. The great thing about it was, [with] the nursing home [inhabitants], was that I'd known all those actors [who played them] for 50 years. Someone like Barbara Harris who was in Dirty, Rotten Scoundrels with me. I've known [actors] Leslie Phillips all my life and Sylvia Syms [who play Reg and Lillian, two of the nursing home residents]. I was looking at them and I didn't know what they had turned into when they had become old. I saw it. They had become old just like everyone else and it was fascinating. Q: Here you've got the challenge of working with a younger actor in Bill Milner. Did he give you a run for your money? MC: Oh, boy did he! Bill is a very wonderful, natural actor. He's never had theatrical training and so he didn't have to get rid of all those tricks for when you act in front of a camera like a stage actor. I was a stage actor for years. He's a very self-possessed, very professional little bit and of course he has an incredible advantage over a lot of other child actors. Bill doesn't have a theater or a stage mother. She's not acting out her failed fantasies through her son or daughter. She's a very, very nice, very, very educated woman who's quite surprised by his choice. I think that he was found in the school amateur dramatic society and not in a drama school. Q: He reminds me of the talented Freddy Highmore. MC: Who's Freddy Highmore? Q: The young British actor who was in Neverland with Johnny Depp. MC: Oh, yeah, I remember him. I forgot his name. He's very self-possessed, Bill is. Journalists ask if I gave him any advice and I said, "No. He didn't need any. He could do it." Q: Did Bill give you any advice? MC: Oh, yeah. He'd give me advice all the time [laughs]. No. He didn't give me advice, but we were very lucky really because without a great little boy of course the picture was in the toilet. Q: You've never had to worry about losing your career over the years, but your character is someone who did. How did you draw on those observations, not having experienced them? MC: Well, I've known so many people like him in my life. I worked in repertory and the old character actors, if you an old character actor working in repertory you're working for ten pounds a week and you're him. I've learned from dozens of those. I like old actors though. They're funny. Q: To see you go from the sophisticate in Sleuth to this character... There are those little details that you pickup on, little mannerisms and looks. How do you make those choices? MC: Well, they're just a guy. It's just observing people of that age. I mean, I'm nearly that age. I reckoned that he was about 84 or 85. I'm 76. I've just done another part where I've played an older man called Harry Brown , the picture is about an old man who lives in the projects and becomes a vigilante when they kill his friend. In that [one] what happens to me is that I keep getting made down instead of made up when I go into makeup in the morning. Instead of trying to make me look the best that I can they try to make me look the worst that I can. So I'm now looking for a movie where I get made up and it's not Batman because Batman is a bit of a ways away, but something else where I get made up. Q: Do you ever get sentimental, looking back on your younger self in either film or photos? MC: No. No, I never look back at all. All of my sentiment and emotion goes into my family. I'm an extremely family oriented person and I have a very, very happy family life. That doesn't just include blood relations. I have friends who are close to me. But one of the things for this movie was that one of my closest friends of Alzheimer's while we were doing this film. So I knew exactly what it was because I had lived with Alzheimer's for five years, not like his friends or family, but I knew the stages and everything and I knew what happened. So in one case it was a bit scary doing it, but I did know what I was doing on a daily basis. Q: What are some of the films that have been most memorable for you in your long and distinguished career? MC: Well, films are memorable for different reasons. Zulu because it was my first speaking part where I had more than 10 lines. The Ipcress File was the first time I had my name above the title. Alfie opened a market for me in America. It goes right through to films like Dirty, Rotten Scoundrels where I made a very funny film, a very happy film and for that location they gave me a villa in the south of France for three months. I'm still waiting for another movie like that. I've never gotten it. But the films that I loved making--the original Sleuth. Well, I loved making the second Sleuth [as well] but we got slaughtered for that, but I still loved making it. And, The Quiet American, Little Voice, and Hannah and Her Sisters. I loved working with Woody [Allen] and love New York so I was very happy with that. I thought that Hannah and Her Sisters was Woody's warmest film with sort of Thanksgiving and everything, but it was funny then because I would have a line of dialogue in the picture, I'd say, 'Well, you know me, I'm not fond of kids and I don't like the country.' Mia [Farrow] would always say, 'He's right and he's saying that to me. It's personal to me.' All these things, I kept saying lines to Mia and she'd say, 'That's another one. You see?' It was very funny. Q: In reviewing your career, what are some of the things that you realize you managed to accomplish in terms of craft, accents or whatever? MC: I managed to get to a stage where I imagine, and I've never taken drugs, but I imagine if you take a drug of your choice you get some ecstatic feeling. I have a situation now in takes where I know I've absolutely nailed it. I know. I think that's why I'm still doing it because that's the drug that I need. The director says cut and nobody even says, 'Lets try it.' They say, 'We're over here -' and they just walk away because you can't do it again. That's for me what I've learned to do. Q: How did you avoid drugs all your life and these years in this business? MC: Well, they weren't there when I was young. It was alcohol. We were all drunks. All the British actors of my time were all bombed out of their minds. I remember seeing a Shakespeare play--I forget what it was--with Trevor Howard and a very old British actor who's a very famous drunk called Wilford Lawson. He was always pissed. They came on, and I saw a matinee, and they were both very drunk in this Shakespeare play. A member of the audience shouted out, "You're drunk." And Trevor Howard said, "If you think we're drunk wait until you see The Duke of Buckingham." Q: You've never been drunk and done a role? MC: Oh, no. I never drink at work at all. Nothing, no. I'm very professional. I mean, I can drink. Well, I used to drink vodka like the lads and [go to] discos and piss [off] and all of that stuff, but I mean I'm very, very family oriented. I'm a big cook and a good connoisseur and I only drink very good red wines now. Q: You've been married for so many years; how are you and your wife Shakira alike and different? MC: My wife and I are alike in that we're both Pisces and we're both slightly off-the-wall and very gentle people. But we're at different ends of Pisces and so she's very, very gentle and I'm the other end into some serious sign. I forget what it is, but I can be quite tough for a Pisces. Q: You've said that you met her on a TV commercial. MC: Well, I didn't meet her but I saw her on the television, yeah. Q: And you're still together after all those years. MC: Yeah, [we've had] 38 years together, which shows you that I was right, doesn't it? I've seen thousands of beautiful girls on television commercials. Why I went nuts over this one I don't know. We never watched television in those days. But my best male friend and I, we just stayed in one night from the discos and getting bombed and all of that, and we just had a quiet night in. I cooked some dinner and then we watched the television--we were just going to have a quiet night, get some sleep. Q: Of all the many actors you've worked with, who have you bonded with the most and stayed in touch with the most? MC: Sean Connery. That's a bit of a cheat really because Sean and I were friends anyway before we made the picture. Actors, movie actors don't see each other again. I've worked with Roger Moore, too, and he's another one that I'm close to. But even for those, I live in England. One lives in Switzerland and the other lives in the Bahamas. So I never see them. You never see each other. My circle of friends are not actors at all. None of them are actors really because they're are not available. They're always off somewhere. One of my friends was my tailor, one of my best friends, who died of Alzheimer's. Dougie Hayward. Another close friend is Leslie Briscue who's a composer. He's always where he wants to be and he lives near me in England, or the photographer Terry O'Neal or a guy called Johnny Gold who had the big discotheque Tramp in the '60s where I used to go and have and drink vodka. So you bond with actors and get on with them very well and then you don't see them. If you're a leading actor you don't work with another actor. You work with a lady, if you see what I'm saying. Q: How did you bond with James Bond, so to speak? Did you two meet outside of work? MC: Oh, yeah. Q: What was the connection that made you such good friends? MC: Well, we always were. Sean Connery when I met him was a chorus boy in South Pacific. What had happened was that they came to London to do South Pacific and had to have all these American sailors, big tough sailors singing "There's Nothing Like a Dame." They did auditions with London chorus boys who were not really very butch and they had all these little, skinny guys and it looked ridiculous when they sang "There's Nothing Like A Dame". So the producer went around to all the gymnasiums and Sean was like Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was Mr. Edinburgh. He was going for Mr. Great Britain and Mr. World. He was a big
 
McCain: Going After Bush-Era Lawyers Would Start A "Witch Hunt" Top
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned Thursday that any attempt by the Obama administration to prosecute the Bush-era lawyers who wrote memos signing off on waterboarding would start a "witch hunt." More on John McCain
 
The Media Consortium: Weekly Immigration Wire: Building Up to Change Immigration NewsLadder Top
by Nezua, TMC MediaWire Blogger As the U.S. moves closer and closer to enacting immigration reform, the situation on the ground is evolving as well. Nothing is static for an issue that touches so many people across so many communities. This week's wire follows up on trends observed last week : holding mainstream media accountable, enforcement tactics, and immigration's positive effect on the economy. But if you'd first like to get up to speed on immigration reform fundamentals, stop over at Feministing's interview with Christine Neumann-Ortiz . (And definitely don't miss Feministing's call to action to stop the infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio.) Last week, the Wire highlighted the importance of holding mainstream media accountable—especially when it comes to giving proper context to quoted sources . This week, Texas Observer's Melissa del Bosque writes that "[t]he truth differs wildly from the perception." when it comes to the actual political situation in Mexico and the image cultivated by mainstream media. While some outlets continue to develop an image Mexico as lawless and volatile, the actual scenario is not as dramatic. Following up on enforcement tactics, Marcelo Balivé, writing for New America Media, explores the "backlash against immigrants" that "continues to rage countrywide." According to Balivé, anti-immigrant sentiment is bleeding over into American perceptions about Mexican culture, "casting a pall on all Hispanic immigrants, whether they entered the country illegally or not." On a more positive note, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) head Janet Napolitano's recent statements that ICE will henceforth target employers rather than workers is a move in the right direction, though she gives no indication of how that might manifest on a practical level. Napolitano also admits that there will be "no halt to arrests of undocumented workers." This is unfortunate. The effects of ICE raids, and the ongoing hunt for "illegals in our midst" is hurting most Latinos in the U.S., even citizens. Even the so-called "Sanctuary" cities, which refuse to enlist local law enforcement to federal duties like immigration control, are no longer offer a feeling of safety . San Francisco, much like Postville, Iowa, is now feeling the devastating effects of the ICE raids. I'm not sure how the Democratic party intends to square its support for community-shattering raids with previous promises to a large part of their constituency. In the American Prospect , Ann Friedman writes that nearly one year after the raid in Postville, "The lingering effects of the raid make depressingly clear how misleading the "immigrants take from our communities" narrative really is." Friedman asks that we consider what a community loses when we act as if a huge part of that same community is "illegal." Following up on last weeks coverage of immigration as an economic issue , Pramila Jayapal and Renee Radcliff Sinclair argue that Immigrants Keep Washington’s Economy Strong for the American Forum: The Office of Financial Management estimated that in 2007, Washington households with at least one foreign-born member contributed $1.48 billion in tax revenue, or 13 percent of the state's total tax revenue. Even low-income immigrant households earning less than $20,000 a year contributed a total of $50 million in tax revenue. And in other immigration news, Wiretap's Naima Coster writes of an ethical conflict of interest when "anti-immigrant policy and the capitalist ambitions of pharmaceutical giant Merck" are joined. Is it right to federally mandate all women immigrants to receive the Gardasil vaccine, which has claimed approximately 20 lives and produced "thousands of cases of adverse effects"? Women have good cause to be concerned with the immigration issue "because of the displacement and separation of families—and the inherent link ... between women and family life," writes Elisabeth Garber-Paul for RH Reality Check. It's a point also implicit in Made in LA , an Emmy-winning documentary that follows the lives of three Latina immigrants fighting for labor protections and the right to pursue freedom, happiness and a fair living. This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration. Visit Immigration.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on immigration, or follow us on Twitter . And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy and health issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and Healthcare.NewsLadder.net . This is a project of The Media Consortium , a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder .
 
Tom Engelhardt: Killing Civilians Top
Crossposted with TomDispatch.com How Safe Do You Actually Want to Be? Almost like clockwork, the reports float up to us from thousands of miles away, as if from another universe. Every couple of days they seem to arrive from Afghan villages that few Americans will ever see without weapon in hand. Every few days, they appear from a world almost beyond our imagining, and always they concern death -- so many lives snuffed out so regularly for more than seven years now. Unfortunately, those news stories are so unimportant in our world that they seldom make it onto, no less off of, the inside pages of our papers. They're so repetitive that, once you've started reading them, you could write them in your sleep from thousands of miles away. Like obituaries, they follow a simple pattern. Often the news initially arrives buried in summary war reports based on U.S. military (or NATO) announcements of small triumphs -- so many "insurgents," or "terrorists," or "foreign militants," or "anti-Afghan forces" killed in an air strike or a raid on a house or a village. And these days, often remarkably quickly, even in the same piece, come the challenges. Some local official or provincial governor or police chief in the area hit insists that those dead "terrorists" or "militants" were actually so many women, children, old men, innocent civilians, members of a wedding party or a funeral . In response -- no less part of this formula -- have been the denials issued by American military officials or coalition spokespeople that those killed were anything but insurgents, and the assurances of the accuracy of the intelligence information on which the strike or raid was based. In these years, American spokespeople have generally retreated from their initial claims only step by begrudging step, while doggedly waiting for any hubbub over the killings to die down. If that didn't happen, an "investigation" would be launched (the investigators being, of course, members of the same military that had done the killing) and then prolonged, clearly in hopes that the investigation would outlast coverage of the "incident" and both would be forgotten in a flood of other events. Forgotten? It's true that we forget these killings easily -- often we don't notice them in the first place -- since they don't seem to impinge on our lives. Perhaps that's one of the benefits of fighting a war on the periphery of empire, halfway across the planet in the backlands of some impoverished country. One problem, though: the forgetting doesn't work so well in those backlands. When your child, wife or husband, mother or father is killed, you don't forget. Only this week, our media was filled with ceremonies and remembrances centered around the tenth anniversary of the slaughter at Columbine High School. Twelve kids and a teacher blown away in a mad rampage. Who has forgotten? On the other side of the planet, there are weekly Columbines. Similarly, every December 7th, we Americans still remember the dead of Pearl Harbor, almost seven decades in the past. We still have ceremonies for, and mourn, the dead of September 11, 2001. We haven't forgotten. We're not likely to forget. Why, when death rains down on our distant battlefields, should they? Admittedly, there's been a change in the assertion/repeated denial/investigation pattern instituted by American forces. Now, assertion and denial are sometimes followed relatively quickly by acknowledgement, apology , and payment. Now, when the irrefutable meets the unchallengeable, American spokespeople tend to own up to it. Yep, we killed them. Yep, they were women and kids. Nope, they had, as far as we know, nothing to do with terrorism. Yep, it was our fault and we'll pony up for our mistake. This new tactic is a response to rising Afghan outrage over the repeated killing of civilians in U.S. raids and air strikes. But like the denials and the investigations, this, too, is intended to make everything go away, while our war itself -- those missiles loosed, those doors kicked down in the middle of the night -- just goes on. Once again, evidently, everyone is supposed to forget (or perhaps simply forgive). It's war, after all. People die. Mistakes are made. As for those dead civilians, New York Times reporter Jane Perlez recently quoted a former Pakistani general on the hundreds of tribespeople killed in the Pakistani borderlands in air strikes by CIA-run drones: they are, he said, "likely hosting Qaeda militants and cannot be deemed entirely innocent." Exactly. Who in our world is "entirely innocent" anyway? Apologies Not Accepted A UN survey tallied up 2,118 civilians killed in Afghanistan in 2008, a significant rise over the previous year's figure, of which 828 were ascribed to American, NATO, and Afghan Army actions rather than to suicide bombers or Taliban guerrillas. (Given the difficulty of counting the dead in wartime, any figures like these are likely to be undercounts.) There are, in other words, constant "incidents" to choose from. Recently, for instance, there was an attack by a CIA drone in the Pakistani borderlands that Pakistani sources claim may have killed up to eight civilians; or there were the six civilians, including a three-year-old girl and a ten-year-old boy, killed by an American air strike that leveled three houses in Afghanistan's Kunar Province. Sixteen more Afghans, including children as young as one, were wounded in that air attack, based on "multiple intelligence sources" in which, the U.S. military initially claimed, only "enemy fighters" died. (As a recent study of the death-dealing weapons of the Iraq War, published in the New England Journal of Medicine , indicates, air strikes are notoriously good at taking out civilians. Eighty-five percent of the deaths from air strikes in Iraq were, the study estimated, women and children and, of all methods, including suicide and car bombs, air power "killed the most civilians per event.") But let's consider here just one recent incident that went almost uncovered in the U.S. media. According to an Agence France Presse account , in a raid in the eastern Afghan province of Khost, the U.S. military first reported a small success: four "armed militants" killed. It took next to no time, however, for those four militants to morph into the family of an Afghan National Army artillery commander named Awal Khan. As it happened, Khan himself was on duty in another province at the time. According to the report, the tally of the slain, some of whom may have gone to the roof of their house to defend themselves against armed men they evidently believed to be robbers or bandits, included: Awal Khan's "schoolteacher wife, a 17-year-old daughter named Nadia, a 15-year-old son, Aimal, and his brother, who worked for a government department. Another daughter was wounded. After the shooting, the pregnant wife of Khan's cousin, who lived next door, went outside her home and was shot five times in the abdomen..." She survived, but her fetus, "hit by bullets," didn't. Khan's wife worked at a school supported by the international aid organization CARE, which issued a statement strongly condemning the raid and demanding "that international military forces operating in Afghanistan [be] held accountable for their actions and avoid all attacks on innocent civilians in the country." In accordance with its new policy, the U.S. issued an apology : "Further inquiries into the Coalition and ANSF operation in Khost earlier today suggest that the people killed and wounded were not enemy combatants as previously reported... Coalition and Afghan forces do not believe that this family was involved with militant activities and that they were defending their home against an unknown threat... 'We deeply regret the tragic loss of life in this precious family. Words alone cannot begin to express our regret and sympathy and we will ensure the surviving family members are properly cared for,' said Brig. Gen. Michael A. Ryan, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan." A U.S. military spokesman added, "There will undoubtedly be some financial assistance and other types of assistance [to the survivors]." The grieving husband, father, and brother said, "I want the coalition leaders to expose those behind this and punish them." He added that "the Afghan government should resign if it could not protect its people." (Don't hold your breath on either count.) And Afghan President Hamid Karzai, as he has done many times during past incidents, repeatedly demanded an explanation for the deaths and asked that such raids and air strikes be drastically curtailed. What Your Safety Is Worth All of this was little more than a shadow play against which the ongoing war continues to be relentlessly prosecuted. In Afghanistan (and increasingly in Pakistan), civilian deaths are inseparable from this war. Though they may be referred to as "collateral damage," increasingly in all wars, and certainly in counterinsurgency campaigns involving air power, the killing of civilians lies at the heart of the matter, while the killing of soldiers might be thought of as the collateral activity. Pretending that these "mistakes" will cease or be ameliorated as long as the war is being prosecuted is little short of folly. After all, "mistake" after "mistake" continues to be made. That first Afghan wedding party was obliterated in late December 2001 when an American air strike killed up to 110 Afghan revelers with only two survivors. The fifth one on record was blown away last year. And count on it, there will be a sixth. By now, we've filled up endless "towers" with dead Afghan civilians. And that's clearly not going to change, apologies or not, especially when U.S. forces are planning to "surge" into the southern and eastern parts of the country later this year, while the CIA's drone war on the Pakistani border expands. And how exactly do we explain this ever rising pile of civilian dead to ourselves? It's being done, so we've been told, for our safety and security here in the U.S. The previous president regularly claimed that we were fighting over there, whether in Iraq or Afghanistan, to keep Americans safe here; the former vice president has made clear that among the great achievements of the Bush administration was the prevention of a second 9/11; and when, on March 27th, President Obama announced his latest Afghan bailout plan , he, too, played the 9/11 card heavily. As he was reported to have put it recently , "he is not 'naive about how dangerous this world is' and [he] said he wakes up every day and goes to bed every night thinking and worrying 'about how to keep the American people safe.'" Personally, I always thought that we could have locked our plane doors and gone home long ago. We were never in mortal danger from al-Qaeda in the backlands of Afghanistan, despite the perfervid imagination of the previous administration and the riotous fears of so many Americans. The rag-tag group that attacked us in September 2001 was then capable of committing acts of terror on a spectacular scale (two U.S. embassy buildings in Africa, a destroyer in a Yemeni harbor, and of course those two towers in New York and the Pentagon), but only every couple of years. In other words, al-Qaeda was capable of stunning this country and of killing Americans, but was never a threat to the nation itself. All this, of course, was compounded by the fact that the Bush administration couldn't have cared less about al-Qaeda at the time. The "Defense Department" imagined its job to be "power projection" abroad, not protecting American shores (or air space), and our 16 intelligence agencies were in chaos. So those towers came down apocalyptically and it was horrible -- and we couldn't live with it. In response, we invaded a country ("no safe havens for terrorists"), rather than simply going after the group that had acted against us. In the process, the Bush administration went to extreme efforts to fetishize our own safety and security (and while they were at it, in part through the new Department of Homeland Security, they turned "security" into a lucrative endeavor ). Of course, elsewhere people have lived through remarkable paroxysms of violence and terror without the sort of fuss and fear this nation exhibited -- or the money-grubbing and money-making that went with it. If you want to be reminded of just how fetishistic our focus on our own safety was, consider a 2005 news article written for a Florida newspaper, "Weeki Wachee mermaids in terrorists' cross hairs?" It began: "Who on earth would ever want to harm the Weeki Wachee mermaids? It staggers the imagination. Still, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has named Weeki Wachee Springs as the potential terror target of Hernando County, according to a theme park official. "The Weeki Wachee staff is teaming up with the Hernando County Sheriff's Office to 'harden the target' by keeping the mermaid theater and the rest of the park safe from a potential terror attack, said marketing and promotion manager John Athanason... Terror-prevention plans for Weeki Wachee may include adding surveillance cameras, installing lights in
 
The Power Of The Grandparent Economy Top
At 70 million strong, your generation of grandparents is one of the largest, fastest-growing, and most powerful segments of the U.S. population. Yet there has been surprisingly little research into the size or the spending power of today's grandparents -- until now. Grandparents.com commissioned Peter Francese, founder of American Demographics, to uncover the facts and to shatter some myths about grandparents. The result is The Grandparent Economy, a fascinating study that sheds new light on your economic clout -- and your commitment to your families.
 
FDA To Allow 'Morning-After' Pill For 17-Year-Olds Top
WASHINGTON — Women's groups cheered the government's decision to allow 17-year-olds to buy the "morning-after" emergency contraceptive without a doctor's prescription, but conservatives denounced it as a blow to parental supervision of teens. The Food and Drug Administration said Wednesday it would accept, not appeal, a federal judge's order that lifts Bush administration restrictions limiting over-the-counter sales of "Plan B" to women 18 and older. U.S. District Judge Edward Korman ruled last month in a lawsuit filed in New York that President George W. Bush's appointees let politics, not science, drive their decision to restrict over-the-counter access. Women's groups said the FDA's action was long overdue, since the agency's own medical reviewers had initially recommended that the contraceptive be made available without any age restrictions. Korman ordered the FDA to let 17-year-olds get the birth control pills. He also directed the agency to evaluate clinical data to determine whether all age restrictions should be lifted. The FDA's latest action does not mean that Plan B will be immediately available to 17-year-olds. The manufacturer must first submit a request. "It's a good indication that the agency will move expeditiously to ensure its policy on Plan B is based solely on science," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit. Conservatives said politics drove the decision. "Parents should be furious at the FDA's complete disregard of parental rights and the safety of minors," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. Plan B is emergency contraception that contains a high dose of birth control drugs and will not interfere with an established pregnancy. It works by preventing ovulation or fertilization. In medical terms, pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg attaches itself to the wall of the uterus. If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it can reduce a woman's chances of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent. Critics of the contraceptive say Plan B is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. Recent research suggests that's possible but not likely. The battle over access to Plan B has dragged on for the better part of a decade, through the terms of three FDA commissioners. Among many in the medical community, it came to symbolize the decline of science at the agency because top FDA managers refused to go along with the recommendations of scientific staff and outside advisers that the drug be made available with no age restrictions. "The FDA got caught up in a saga, it got caught up in a drama," said Susan Wood, who served as the agency's top women's health official and resigned in 2005 over delays in issuing a decision. "This issue served as a clear example of the agency being taken off track, and it highlighted the problems FDA was facing in many other areas." The treatment consists of two pills and sells for $35 to $60. Women must ask for Plan B at the pharmacy counter and show identification with their date of birth. The drug is made by a subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, an Israeli company. It does not prevent sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV/AIDS. Supporters of broader access argued that Plan B is safe and effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy and could help reduce the number of abortions. Opponents, including prominent conservatives, counter that it would encourage promiscuity and might even become a tool for criminals running prostitution rings, as well as for sexual predators. Early in the Bush administration, more than 60 organizations petitioned the FDA to allow sales without a prescription. But according to court documents, the issue quickly became politicized. In 2003, a panel of outside advisers voted 23-4 to recommend over-the-counter sales without age restrictions. But top FDA officials told their subordinates that no approval could be issued at the time, and the decision would be made at a higher level. That's considered highly unusual, since the FDA usually has the last word on drug decisions. In his ruling, Korman said that FDA staffers were told the White House had been involved in the decision on Plan B. The government said in court papers that politics played no role. In 2005, the Center for Reproductive Rights and other organizations sued in federal court to force an FDA decision. The following year, the FDA allowed Plan B to be sold without a prescription to adults. But the controversy raged on over access for teens. ___ AP Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this report. ___ On the Net: FDA's Plan B page: http://tinyurl.com/ch3ys6 More on Health
 
Michael Wolff: Hannity Wants to Be the Face of US Torture Top
You wouldn't necessarily think that the right wing would want to distinguish itself by its enthusiasm for torture, but that's clearly the message Sean Hannity is gleefully sending by his offer to be waterboarded . Before getting to torture's attractions, let me make two points: My colleague at Vanity Fair , Christopher Hitchens, who is sometimes partial to right-wing positions, has already had himself waterboarded and written about it to vivid effect . So, Hannity knows he can do this with little risk. But the second point is that Hannity will never do it. I once filled in for the hapless Alan Colmes on the Hannity and Colmes Show , and Hannity spent the whole show completely obsessed with the placement of every strand of his hair. That guy's not going underwater (even for a major ratings coup). Oh, and a third point: If he is going to do this, we ought to insist it be done to him 183 times--the number of times the US waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a single month--the terror being in the repetition. Continue reading on newser.com
 
Bob Franken: Tortured Torture Policy Top
I can see why our intelligence officials were so opposed to the release of those memos. Without a doubt, they were embarrassed. Not by the admissions that U.S interrogators tortured the prisoners, we knew that. If I were them, I'd be mortified that the public knew how pathetic the torture was. No wonder there were so few redactions. What's to redact? I mean, putting a major terrorist in a small box with insects? In most American cities that would be called apartment rentals. Maybe he thought the CIA agent was his landlord. And how about what they called "Diet Manipulation"? Now that's vile. The captives were forced to subsist on nothing but Ensure. I can see the new TV ads now for the "Torture Weight Loss Diet". There was nothing new here. News reports had already described just how far our shameful conduct had gone. This just makes it official - that is, if you believe that these documents describe the full extent of the abuse, which I do not. Nor am I willing to swallow that there was such a big ruckus within the administration over whether these should be released. If you do, then I have some land in Guantanamo to sell you. It's a great story to peddle when someone is trying to convince the media and public that these papers described anything approaching the most egregious techniques used by Americans on their detainees. By pretending this batch is all there is, the ACLU can claim its victory while the dirtiest secrets are still kept in the black darkness. That's not cynicism, but merely long experience dealing with national security officials from several administrations, who only pretend they believe in the public's right to know. Not that this tip of the iceberg isn't despicable enough. Let's be clear: Even this smidgen of visible nastiness is unworthy of a country that always used our propaganda to present the enemy as the torturer. It turns out that we were also willing to cross that line. It seems though that if we take these memos at face value, we weren't all that good at being bad guys - not entirely comfortable. That's probably a good thing. It would explain the need to rationalize the behavior, using immoral lawyers to contrive amoral justifications. What's most chilling about their handiwork is the cold, methodical language in their twisted analyses. Among other things, these enablers dishonored the tradition of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Council. Oh hell, they dishonored Justice, their profession and the United States. Are there other memos? Are there papers that support the more fierce unsavory conduct? Probably. We know there was plenty more to rationalize. Were there any that covered the subcontractors? And what about the "rendition", which is what spies like to call their outsourcing? If the wimpy torture tactics failed to deliver the desired results (whatever they were), the detainees would be packed up and sent off to countries that were in the brutality major leagues. There are any number of them who could pick up where Americans left off in Gitmo, or Bahgram or Abu Ghraib. We're talking about some of our friends on both sides of the Mideast divide, or countries ending in "stan" or "zhan", who were only too happy to show how the pros did it. But back to the "made in America" torture: What do we do about it? It seems that even though "I was just following orders" was never a valid war crimes defense, the Obama Administration is ready to accept it this time around, probably to avoid an insurrection of spy guys. No wonder they were cheering him like the CIA's first rock star Monday. They must have been appalled at Langley when the president seemed to back away and say a day later that prosecutions and investigations were possible within "...the parameters of various laws." Call that a confusing clarification. Of course, we still should consider how to deal with the higher-ups who gave the orders. Do they deserve to be brought to justice somehow? What about the lawyers who contrived legal justifications for misdeeds? Should they be disbarred? Should the one who was rewarded by being appointed an Appeals Court Judge be impeached? What should we make of watching the President and his minions flip-flopping about who should be accountable as well as who should investigate, and for that matter, whether. Perhaps just as important, what do we do about those who are now trying to deceive us into believing they've bared the entire dark soul of the nation's secret conduct? Shouldn't they also be punished for thinking we're so stupid?
 
David Rees: More Eco-Stumpers From The Mind Of Joe Barton Top
Rep. Joe Barton of the great state of Texas had a gold-star day yesterday. He outsmarted a Nobel-Prize winner! Barton sits on the House Energy & Commerce Committee. He asked Energy Secretary Steven Chu a simple question: "How did all the oil and gas get to Alaska?" Chu started talking about "millions of years," and "plates bumping into each other," or some such nonsense. It was clear he had no idea what he was talking about and probably didn't even know what oil was. And this guy is supposed to be the Secretary of Energy? It was a real "the emperor has no clothes" moment. I can't imagine how embarrassed and humiliated Chu must have felt. As the internet kids say: "MEH, FAIL LOLZ." Anyway, Barton was feeling pretty good about his incisive line of questioning -- justifiably so -- and he went on Twitter (amazing computer program that allows politicians to stay in touch with their constituents and thereby build a better-informed electorate, up to 140 characters at a time) and wrote: "I seemed [sic] to have baffled the Energy Sec with basic question - Where does oil come from? " SCORE! Here are some other questions Barton should have asked: "Why can't I see the wind? Is it made of ghosts?" "Why does the ocean have so much water in it?" "How come sometimes when I look at a cloud, it reminds me of a shape, like a horse or an airplane or something?" "Why are things all different colors?" "If solar power is so great, why isn't there a Psalm in the Bible that says, 'Solar power is so great / that is my honest opinion, sayeth the Lord' ?" "If global warming is so real, how come I had never heard of it until people started talking about it?" Add your eco-stumpers in the Comments. I'll forward them to "Nobel-Prize winner" Steven Chu -- and then we'll find out how "smart" he really so-called "is." More on Climate Change
 
Leeat Granek, PhD: Musings of the Technologically Challenged Top
For the past two weeks I have been anxiously awaiting the results of a fellowship competition I applied for in September. This is how academia works. You are constantly trying to convince funding agencies that you are smart enough to get their money. Applications are long and tedious and take up months of precious research time to complete. We wait a very, very long time to get results. Sometimes more than a year. Often, as in my case, these grants determine our future, even what country one will live in. I am not a patient person. In fact, its my worst quality, so when April 15th, the designated "results day" finally came, I was on shpilkes. In fact, I had been compulsively checking the website everyday since the first of April just in case they released them early. April 15th came and went and not a word from the funding agency. I called. I emailed. I checked the site again . Nothing. On Friday April 17th, I was told that it was a technical glitch and that I would know the results by the afternoon. The minutes inched excruciatingly by and still the same blank page appeared when I logged in to see the results. On Tuesday, I finally got an answer. But not the one I wanted. There is a technical error with my research account, and while everyone else is able to access their results, I am not. The program coordinator told this to me over the phone. She laughed nervously when I asked her to tell me the outcome of the competition. "I am not authorized to give you this information", she said. "You have to get it online." And so we are at a standstill. It is becoming increasingly Kafkaesque. The results are available. She can see them. The technical people can see them. Other applicants can see them. But because of some strange and mysterious computer malfunction, I am the only one who does not know where I will be living next year or what kind of research I will be doing. If it weren't so ridiculous, I would think this is some kind of character lesson to teach me patience. I have always believed that our over reliance on technology will lead to our downfall. My friends, family, colleagues, and students roll their eyes when I proclaim this. I am not a technological person and it's an ongoing source of ridicule in my community. I think my purple leather agenda is the ultimate in sophistication and luxury. I don't have a blackberry or an iphone. I use a landline. The most complex piece of technology I own is a shiny, white imac, and its only because my older brother convinced me to buy it. I am technologically challenged. And yes, I know I am not cool because of it. Still, I don't understand why my neighbors email me instead of knocking on my door. I don't get why people text when they can just call each other. It's cheaper and it takes less time. And now, I can't get my head around why I can't access my own records because of a computer glitch. I long for the days when you waited patiently for the mail to arrive with answers. The excitement of ripping open that envelope, the thrill of the unknown, the proof of it in writing, is unparalleled to any technological experience I have had. I miss making plans and committing to them because there were no cellphones or devices to send messages changing the time, the location, or canceling altogether. I want to go back to the days where coffee shops were for reading books, flirting with strangers, and musing about life with friends instead of work spaces littered with laptops and pagers. Most of all, I am nostalgic for the time where common sense and humanity took precedence over technology. Where we shaped our equipment to suit our needs instead of our equipment shaping us. Call me a dinosaur. Call me old-fashioned. Call me "out of the loop". Whatever it is, it's better than not being called at all. More on Technology
 
Mark Weisbrot: "Deeds, Not Words" Will Determine Future of U.S.-Latin American Relations Top
What is the opposite of "damage control?" Repair control? Obama's Latin America advisor and director for the Summit of the Americas Jeffrey Davidow did his best to undermine the president's efforts at diplomacy in Trinidad. Responding immediately to Obama's charm offensive, Davidow told reporters that "there is a sizable population in Venezuela, probably the very, very vast majority of Venezuelans who have a more favorable attitude to President Obama than they have to [Hugo Chávez]." Davidow is a career "diplomat" - his tenure stretches back to 1973, when he served in the U.S. embassy in Chile while the Nixon administration overthrew the last (pre-1990s) social democratic government in South America. He knew exactly what he was doing last weekend: deliberately insulting a foreign head of state - and one with a penchant for responding in kind - so as to re-start the war of words that his boss was trying to put behind us. This was distinctly different from just pandering to the Republicans or the Florida Cubans - who went ballistic over the Obama-Chávez handshake and smiles that graced the front page of the New York Times. There were many other ways to backtrack and perform that traditional act of political cowardice. Davidow's statement was designed to provoke. He should be dismissed, and not invited to provide further advice to the present administration. Davidow's tactic was a common practice during the Bush administration: whenever President Chávez of Venezuela, sometimes prompted by U.S. Members of Congress, tried to pursue a thaw in relations, the Bush administration would deliver one insult after another until Chávez would finally let loose with a scathing response. Perhaps the most clever of these was then Vice President Dick Cheney's provocation in November 2007, saying that Chávez "does not represent the future of Latin America, and the people of Peru I think deserve better in their leadership. . ." If you watch the video it does not appear to be a slip of the tongue. And Cheney may not know who the president of Uruguay is, but as an oil man from Halliburton, he can certainly find Venezuela on a map. He probably said "Peru," because he knew that Chávez would respond by saying, "look at this idiot who doesn't even know the difference between Venezuela and Peru." Which Chávez promptly said. This time Chávez is not taking the bait. In fact, most of the left presidents of Latin America were duly impressed with President Obama's personal attitude - he acted like the former community organizer he is, as he strode over to Chávez to shake his hand. These presidents seem determined - for now -- to respond to Obama's charm offensive with peace, love and understanding. Even Raul Castro of Cuba responded immediately to Obama's easing of travel and remittance restrictions for Cuban-Americans by stating that he is ready to discuss "human rights, freedom of the press, political prisoners - everything." He added: "We could be wrong. We admit it. We're human beings." Chávez, who said he had no doubt that relations with the U.S. would improve under Obama, announced the naming of a new ambassador to the United States, a post that is currently vacant, and discussed this at the summit with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Obama also made some unprecedented statements for a U.S. president, acknowledging that the United States has "at times sought to dictate our terms." All of this, as well as the continued pressure from presidents including Brazil's Lula da Silva and Argentina's Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner for an end to the Cuba embargo, has widened the rift between Obama and his advisers. President Evo Morales of Bolivia asked Obama to denounce an apparent assassination plot against him. Last Thursday, three of the five men that the government says were part of this plot were killed in a shootout with police, and evidence seized in their hotel led to a sizeable arms cache. Morales said that if Obama did not repudiate this plot, "I might think it was organized through the embassy." Obama stated: "I just want to make absolutely clear that I am absolutely opposed and condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected governments, wherever it happens in the hemisphere." Morales has reason to be suspicious. In addition to past U.S. intervention there, the U.S. Agency for International Development is currently pouring $89 million annually into Bolivia, an amount that is - relative to Bolivia's economy -- equivalent to what the United States is spending on the Iraq war. USAID, which is part of the U.S. State Department, has admitted to funding opposition groups in Bolivia but has refused to disclose all of the groups that it is funding there. This is despite repeated requests under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. One of President Obama's campaign promises was for more transparency in government, including responses to such requests for information that is not classified intelligence. Not only the Bolivian government but the American people have a right to know what groups and activities U.S. tax dollars are funding in Bolivia - especially since some of the opposition groups there have been engaged in violent actions aimed at toppling the elected government. So long as the administration refuses to release this information, it is difficult to see how Obama can accomplish his stated goal of re-establishing trust. Latin America's left leaders are willing to do as Obama asks and put aside the grievances of the recent past - including Washington's documented role in overthrowing Venezuela's elected government in 2002. But they cannot ignore the present. As Obama himself said at the Summit, "The test for all of us is not simply words, but also deeds." This column was published by The Guardian Unlimited on April 22, 2009. More on Barack Obama
 
Houston, We Have A Solution: Let Texas Secede (VIDEO) Top
At a "tax day tea party" last week, Governor Rick Perry fired up the crowd by yelling "secede." He said that the federal government had abandoned the country's founding principles of limited government and that Texas' economy is in good shape compared with other states. (If it weren't for that pesky threat of civil war they might've tried this earlier.) This call to arms brought other level-headed Americans such as Glenn Beck and Ron Paul on board. Many have responded to Perry's threat of secession by saying "go ahead." The following video joins that chorus, noting that we would be rid of some pesky Americans (i.e. George Bush) and that all we'd miss is Austin. The video's creator, Andy Cobb, has been on a roll recently getting us inside footage of the teabagging movement and the 2M4M campaign . WATCH: More on Funny Videos
 
Boehner: Memos Outline "Torture Techniques" Top
While cable news outlets and major newspapers continue to use euphemisms such as "harsh interrogation tactics" to describe the Bush administration's approach to intelligence gathering, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) used a more succinct term Thursday: "torture." "Last week, they released these memos outlining torture techniques. That was clearly a political decision and ignored the advice of their Director of National Intelligence and their CIA director," Boehner said at a press conference in the Capitol. The techniques discussed include waterboarding, slamming detainees into walls, and depriving them of sleep for up to 11 days. Boehner argued that a discussion of such torture techniques was "inappropriate," as it could tip off U.S. enemies to the tactics used and "denigrate" the United States and its allies. Torture is illegal under U.S. and international law. "This is another sideshow here in Washington," Boehner said about the ongoing discussion about torture. "When it comes to what our interrogation techniques are going to be or should be, I'm not going to disclose, nor should anyone have a conversation about what those techniques ought to be. It's inappropriate. All it does is give our enemies more information about us than they need." Two reporters pressed Boehner about his assertion that the discussion wasn't appropriate. "Shouldn't the American public know what's being done in their name?" asked one. "Shouldn't they have an idea?" Boehner paused. "Let me take a deep breath here," he said. "We're talking about terrorists who are hell bent on killing Americans. All right?" "Alleged terrorists," noted the reporter. "And 3,000 of our fellow citizens died. And there were techniques that were used by Americans and our allies around the world that helped keep America safe," Boehner said. "I'm not going to allow our professionals and our allies around the world to get denigrated because they were working to keep our country safe." Become a fan of HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter .
 
Michael Pertnoy and Michael Kleiman: The Last Survivor: Denial Top
The Last Survivor: Denial from Genocide Prevention Month on Vimeo . Archbishop Vicken Aykazian speaking at the "Honor the Past, Act Now for Darfur" commemoration event in Washington, D.C. on Sunday, April 19th. Despite, the world's refusal to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide of 1915, the Armenian community acts as some of the strongest advocates for the Darfuri people. In the 1980s, with her children grown, Hédi Fried, decided to dedicate her life to Stockholm's community of Holocaust Survivors of which she is a part. Now, at 84 years old, she has dedicated her remaining years to ensuring that the stories of horror that she was made to witness and experience are passed on to future generations - allowing a new generation to take on the important responsibility of keeping and sharing such memories. In Hédi's view, the degree to which we allow our memory to fade is tied to directly to the persistence with which the past will repeat itself. Voices such as Hédi's are imperative at a time in which it has become all too common to deny that the Holocaust ever occurred. "The first time I heard it, I laughed," Hédi told us, speaking of her first encounter with such denial. "The second time I heard it, I realized that this was nothing to laugh at; and the third time, I realized I had to do something." Unfortunately, the trend of denial is not relegated to the Holocaust alone. While deniers in Iran hold conferences that seek to dispute the facts of the Holocaust, Hutus in Rwanda have insisted that tales of one million Tutsis slaughtered in 1994 are mere myths. In addition to the extreme pain such claims undoubtedly bring to Survivors like Jacqueline, who is reminded daily of the genocide's reality by the extreme absence that remains in her life, denial has turned to acts of violence. In April, the day after a commemoration event in Kigali that honored the victims of the 1994 genocide, a grenade was thrown at the city's genocide memorial - the same horrific incident occurred last year. And, even as genocide continues in Darfur, governments across Africa have already launched a widespread campaign of denial - insisting that claims of genocide are the stuff of Western propaganda. Indeed, it is more important than ever that champions of truth speak up to ensure that our collective memory does not fade at the hands of those who seek to repeat the horrors of the past. However, in denouncing those who spread variations on history, deviations from the truth, and all out lies, we must remind ourselves that as a nation, we too are engaged in this evil movement of denial. Tomorrow, Armenians around the world will commemorate the horrific genocide that was carried out against their people. On April 24, 1915, the Ottoman authorities arrested 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Istanbul. The execution and deportation of these Armenians launched a genocide that would claim nearly two million lives. 94 years later, the Armenian community still waits for the world to acknowledge this crime. Nations around the world, including our own, continue to refuse this simple request. In Darfur, four million refugees wait for the world to respond to their continued cries for help. In response, we tell them that there is little we can do - that it is far too complicated of a situation for us to get involved. Despite the indifference to evil that saturates such refusals of intervention, implicit within them is at least an acknowledgment of the suffering of the Darfuri people - an assertion that the horror they are experiencing is real and not a delusional figment of their nightmarish imaginations. While it is rightfully outweighed by the frustrations of our unwillingness to act, we must not forget that acknowledgement is indeed a powerful thing. For one will never seek to stop, what he does not believe to exist. In Germany, the government is unable to take back their trespasses of the past. Such impossibilities are a fact of our limitations as mortals - the movement of history insists that we look forward. Understanding these restrictions all too well, the German people have done what they can to ensure that the horror that began in Germany in the 1930s, does not repeat itself there. They have adopted a firm policy of Holocaust education in their schools and a newly erected Holocaust Memorial in downtown Berlin serves as a daily reminder to the German people of both the atrocious actions undertaken by their nation and the inhumane silence with which they responded to such actions as citizens. In comparison to the 11 million lives taken during the Holocaust, this may seem like a rather small step. Small as it may be, it is unlikely that the next genocide we witness as a people will be carried out in Germany. In Turkey, these small, pertinent steps of acknowledgement are constantly refused. Such denial is not only a slap in the face of the Armenian community, it is an affront to all us - an attempt to rob us of the facts of our collective story of life; an insistent error in the history of our species; an attempt at tipping the balance of memory, compelling us to repeat the horrors of the past. As a nation that values freedom, peace, and truth, it is our responsibility to speak up to such atrocious lies. Today, President Obama will speak at our National Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. Undoubtedly, just days following the annual commemoration of the Holocaust - Yom Hashoa - the President will honor the memory of those who perished during the Holocaust. What remains to be seen is whether, on the day preceding the 94th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, he will honor the two millions lives taken in 1915 with the simple action of acknowledgement. In the aftermath of genocide those who survive are often left with very little. An indiscriminate killer, genocide claims mothers, fathers, children, siblings, teachers and friends as its victims. As it continues it kills a people's history and traditions. What it cannot take is the memory of those who come out alive. It is us only us, the people of posterity, who can commit such an atrocious crime against those who have already lost so much. Watch a 20-minute sneak preview our film now and commemorate the Armenian Genocide along with the five other genocides commemorated in April by participating in Genocide Prevention Month .
 
Oprah Shines Light On Great Pacific Garbage Patch (VIDEO) Top
Oprah's green episode for Earth Day started with chilling footage and description of a giant island of trash -- "The Great Pacific Garbage Patch" . Currently, scientists believe the world's largest garbage dump isn't on land...it's in the Pacific Ocean. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch stretches from the coast of California to Japan, and it's estimated to be twice the size of Texas. "This is the most shocking thing I have seen," Oprah says. Just a month ago, the Natural Resource Defense Council's Kate Slusark blogged here at HuffPost Green about the giant oceanic trash dump : To give you a little background: Years of bottles, bags, toys, packaging and plastic trash from all corners of the Earth are swirling in a plastic whirlpool in the North Pacific. Discarded water bottles from Iowa, takeout containers from New York City, flip-flops from California and plastic debris from the world over make their way from land into storm drains, streams, rivers and other waterways. They are carried out sea, where they get trapped in swirling ocean currents - forming a giant, floating trash dump of an enormous proportion - no matter how you quantify it. WATCH: What can you do about it? Well, as Kate wrote , you can be sure to recycle your plastic! And you can use less plastic. Oprah also gave green living tips with HuffPost Green contributor Simran Sethi , and talked to Michael Pollan (who also blogged for us about "a food revolution in the making" for us here at HuffPost Green yesterday). VBS.tv produced a 12-part Web series on Garbage Island earlier this month. Here's part one: More on Earth Day
 
The Joys Of Taking A Staycation Top
So last week we joined the ranks of Americans who are staying home and calling it a vacation. To be sure, taking a staycation remains a niche trend, at least according to the U.S. Travel Association, which estimates that in recent months only 9 percent of leisure travelers gave up out-of-town trips in favor of them, despite the uncertain economic times. More on The Balanced Life
 
House Republicans Beat Up House Dems In Letter To Obama Top
House Republicans, in advance of a meeting Thursday at the White House, sent President Obama a letter outlining the difficulties they say they've had in reaching bipartisan agreement with congressional Democrats. The House minority is "disappointed by the lack of an open dialogue with regard to legislation and advancing the best possible solutions for the American people," reads the letter, which the GOP provided [PDF] to the Huffington Post. Since the beginning of Obama's presidency, the House GOP has sought to align itself with Obama's call for bipartisanship while attacking House Democrats -- and Speaker Nancy Pelosi in particular -- as overly partisan. Obama's approval ratings make him an unattractive political target. "Democratic leaders in Congress have so far ignored your call for a new era of bipartisanship in Washington -- however the next 100 can be different," offer the House Republicans. The final letter, said a GOP aide, will be signed by House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio), Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) and three other members of leadership, Reps. Mike Pence (Ind.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.). The letter also offers GOP solutions to the economic mess: income tax cuts, capital gains tax cuts, small business tax cuts and tax credits for homeuyers. Become a fan of HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter . More on Barack Obama
 
Byron Williams: Teapot Tempest--Much Ado about Historical Inaccuracies Top
The Boston Tea Party is arguably the most famous direct action protest in United States history. In 1773, the British colony of Massachusetts stood up to the British government by refusing to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain. A group of colonists boarded three ships and destroyed the tea, throwing it into Boston Harbor. The Tea Party was part of a resistance movement throughout the 13 colonies that protested the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament. The colonies held that the act violated their rights to be taxed only by their elected representatives. Hence, the slogan that rang throughout the colonies from 1773-76: "No taxation without representation." Last week, hundreds of thousands of citizens gathered in more than 800 cities to voice their opposition to escalating government spending by participating in the "Tax Day Tea Party." These "tea parties" were billed as "a grass-roots protest to irresponsible fiscal policies and intrusive government." A rather ironic twist to hold a protest on April 15, the day tax forms were due. One should consider the artisans and supporters of the tea parties were either noticeably silent, or in some cases, overt cheerleaders from the previous presidential administration who engaged in the unprecedented, and fiscally irresponsible, act of going to war while cutting taxes. When fired Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil attempted to warn the Bush administration about growing deficits, Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly opined, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter." The aftermath of Cheney's "deficits don't matter" economics is record debt and the first war completely financed on the government's credit card waiting for our children and grandchildren to pay in full with interest. Why no tea party for that? I don't doubt the frustrations expressed by Americans who came out in protest, but why now? The economic downturn that is besieging the nation did not begin Jan. 20; it has been years in the making. My problem with the tea parties is it disingenuously plays on the emotions and fears of people in the same manner that portrayed the Iraq invasion and occupation as a legitimate response to the 9/11 tragedies. Moreover, like the arguments made to justify invading Iraq, originators of the tea party concept take a unique approach to historical analysis to justify their cause. Taxation was indeed an issue that fueled the Boston Tea Party, but it was also about being taxed by a foreign government. The "Tax Day Tea Party" used an event critical to transforming the 13 British colonies into the United States of America for their own political purposes, thus, cheapening a key point in history. One of the obvious shortcomings of the tea party is it was a rather monochromatic looking group -- hardly representative of the diversity that is America. If one accepts the taxation without representation critique, then I would argue that the tea party failed to include or attract those with legitimate concerns. Where was the post-Hurricane Katrina contingent? How was their frustration represented at the tea party? They could speak firsthand on what taxation without representation means in the 21st century, as could the residents of Washington D.C. Conversely, there would be little reason for corporations -- which have the benefit of lobbyists and large campaign contributions to ensure representation of their interest -- to bother showing up to an event based on feeling left out. Can anyone imagine companies that attended the closed-door meetings with Cheney on developing an energy policy, or Halliburton with its no-bid contracts, taking to the streets feigning righteous indignation? I support anyone exercising their rights to free speech and to peacefully assemble. But there is an incongruent aspect to the tea parties in that they exhibit more anger toward an administration that is less than 100 days old than they did in eight years of the previous administration, whose policies contributed largely to the outrage. Maybe this wasn't a grass-roots movement, but a desperate political attempt by the party who signed off on the current fiscal debacle to remain relevant. I just wished they had been more accurate with their use of history. Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or visit his website: byronspeaks.com
 
Alan Lurie: The Beginning of EVERYTHING Top
This is Part 1 of a two-part article: Let's journey back approximately 13.7 billion years, to the Beginning of Everything - the moment in time when time itself began: All that is and ever will be - all space, time, and matter - is contained within an infinitely dense and infinitely hot primordial "egg", the size of an atomic nucleus. Within .000000000001 of a second, the four forces of nature - the strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity - begin to separate as this egg expands at a speed faster than light, and within .0001 of a second the Universe is nearly a mile in width, and trillions of degrees hot. The Universe continues to expand and cool as simple elements meet to form new substances, and the pull of gravity collapses clouds of cosmic gasses in to stars, and then planets. Chemical-rich cosmic debris bombards our little Earth, fertilizing its land and air, birthing life. Simple single-celled organisms grow more complex and diverse, until suddenly self-aware beings arise who can begin to wonder why they were born, where they come from, and what they are meant to do. This description is based on the familiar theory of the Big Bang. Just 80 years ago, however, the accepted theory was that everything that exists always existed in an unchanging and unchangeable "steady state", and that the Universe consists solely of the Milky Way Galaxy. Then, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that many of the glittering objects that everyone thought were nearby stars are actually incredibly distant Galaxies, and in that one moment humanity learned that the Universe is hundreds of billions of times larger than we had thought. Hubble also observed that every object in the sky is moving away from every other object. If this is so, it was postulated, all matter must have, at some distant moment in the past, emerged from the same point. Suddenly, the comprehensible, predictable notion of the Universe was shattered forever, and scientists discovered that there seems to be, in fact, a Beginning of Everything. This Beginning, though, is stranger and more elusive than anyone could have imagined. Scientists recognize that they can not understand the precise moment of the Big Bang, because a tiny fraction of a second before this event all reason breaks down, and everything that we know about reality collapses in to incomprehensible impossibilities. Newer propositions, such as String Theory, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and the possibility that ours is just one in an endless creation of Multiple Universes, do nothing to clarify this dilemma. It appears that there is simply a moment in time that is inaccessible to human rationality. Does the trail end here, then, a tiny fraction of a second before the Big Bang? If so, we are left with several essential questions, such as: How can order emerge from chaos? How can something come from nothing? Why did physical creation happen at all, and How can inanimate, simple unified matter eventually become the incredible diversity of life? In order to explore these questions, let's journey back again, approximately 13.7 billion years, plus .000000000002 of a second or so, to bring us to a moment "before" creation. We can get a glimpse of this pre-physical existence by examining a component of our being that is not physical; that is not restrained by space, time, and matter, yet is intensely real. This component points us toward an understanding of creation that complements the Big Bang theory, yet resists the scientific method, because it is not physical in nature. It creates our very experience of life, giving us the ability to form abstract concepts, to remember, to plan, and to emotionally connect with others. This is our consciousness. We may think that consciousness is simply the electric impulses in our brain. These impulses, however, are just the carriers of thoughts, not the thoughts themselves, and certainly not the totality of our awareness. Inexplicably, our physical body produces, or contains, non-physical awareness. Even if our entire consciousness is defined by the activities of the brain, we are still left with the basic question: What animates the brain - what is its "power source" -, where does consciousness come from, and how does it interact with us? We may phrase the question of consciousness as follows: How is it that there is a non-physical component to our physical being that is unrestrained by the limitations of space, time, and matter; that allows us to be self-aware, and to which we can connect? This is not a theoretical question, because there is nothing closer to us than our consciousness. It is the very core of our being, defining who we are, and is the vehicle for our lives, our growth and continued evolution. Without consciousness we are just lumps of organic matter. The exploration of consciousness, though, takes us beyond the realm of science, which utilizes measurable and repeatable observation, and in to a different way of knowing, relying on our experience and intuition - that which we immediately recognize as true, even though we haven't processed the information rationally. Because consciousness is non-physical, we can say that it did not necessarily originate in the primordial egg, but exists "outside" of physicality, and that it somehow came "through" the Big Bang co-mingled with physicality, bursting in to existence embedded in space, time, and matter. This is not as fanciful a leap as it may sound. After all, just as all matter that exists, and will ever exist, began in the primordial egg, any quality that we have now must have existed at the moment of creation as well, because in order for us to have it, it must have existed then, in a potential state. All our emotions, thoughts, and desires, then, were formed by the essential energies that came in to being with physicality at the beginning of time. And, because consciousness is not dependant on physicality to exist, we can envision it as existing "before" the creation of physicality. That is, we can see Consciousness (I capitalize it to indicate the pure consciousness - eternal and unchangeable -that existed independent of a physical vessel in which to "dwell") as the only reality before the Big Bang, existing without time and space. This Consciousness contains/contained the seeds of all the varieties of consciousness that we experience in their essence: pure Being, and pure Desire to Become. Pure Being is the eternal "now" of existence, forever re-created moment by moment, and the Desire to Become is the urge to grow toward the future, which is embedded in all life as the need for relationship - the desire to know and to be known; to love and to be loved. This is the mechanism of evolution. Stay tuned for Part 2 next week, in which we explore the questions of suffering, and the very reason that we are here.
 
Jeff Schweitzer: Ends vs. Means: A Gross Misunderstanding of Our Nation's History Top
Dick Cheney has discovered transparency. His pious call for declassifying certain memos regarding torture is like Pat Robertson advocating for atheism. The former Vice President has built his career on secrecy and utter disdain for government disclosures. He refused to provide transcripts from meetings on energy policy. To avoid compliance with archiving laws, he made the absurd claim he is not part of the Executive Branch. But now Cheney insists, on the ironic argument that the American people need to know about their government, that Obama release secret memos showing how effective torture can be in soliciting vital security information from high-value captives. He is making this request in an attempt to offset the damage done from recently released memos written by the Office of Legal Counsel to justify torture on spurious legal grounds under the Bush Administration. As pundits debate the merits of releasing these memos, something important has been lost in the discussion. Cheney assumes that if we find evidence that proves valuable intelligence was gathered as a result of torture, then his actions to support torture require no further explanation. He believes, and has explicitly stated, that the ends (our security) justify the means by which we achieve that security. That perspective denigrates our history as a nation, and ignores the principled sacrifices of those who came before us. Let's go back to the winter of 1777 in Valley Forge. Following the battle of White March, General Washington had to move his troops to a secure location to over-winter before the next season of fighting began. For reasons of logistics and geography, Washington chose to encamp at Valley Forge, just over 20 miles northwest of Philadelphia. His 11,000 troops were sick, hungry, cold, wet, and poorly clothed. If Washington followed the tradition of warfare throughout human history, he would have appropriated by force the provisions necessary to support his troops from local farms. But he did not do so because he lacked legal authority for such actions. Instead, his troops suffered deprivation because Washington knew something that Cheney clearly does not: the ends do not justify the means. The very existence of the new nation was at stake in 1777, yet Washington did not succumb to convenience or invoke national security to take illegal actions. He chose, instead, to send repeated requests to the Continental Congress for the appropriate authority that came too late due to the limitations of communications, which proved slower than the passing season. If anybody could ever reasonably invoke the idea that the end justifies the means, Washington would be that man. Yet he did not, because he believed to his core in the value of laws in a nation struggling to come into existence on the principles of inalienable rights for its citizens. Cheney's actions are a wicked inverse example of General Washington's stand on principle. When we appeal to the corrupt idea that ends trump means, nothing constrains our worst instincts. We end up with Japanese detention camps, witch hunts for "communists" by the House Un-American Activities Committee, illegal wire tapping, falsified evidence for war, and torture -- a gross and callous disregard for law that Washington fought specifically to prevent. Cheney and friends invoke national security as some blanket amnesty for any past or future ethical or legal violations. Our Founding Fathers would find that offensive. Cheney's ideology is a terrible perversion of our founding vision and in direct contradiction to the actions that Washington himself took in the most difficult of times. The notion that any means can be justified by an appropriate end has been discredited throughout human history. All major ethical theories from Socrates and Plato to Hume to Kant universally reject the idea. Cheney is on the wrong side of ethics, on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of common human decency. We are all fortunate that the man is no longer in power. More on Dick Cheney
 
Solar Power Plant Planned For Chicago Top
CHICAGO (AP) -- Exelon Corp. has announced plans to build a solar power plant on Chicago's South Side. However, officials said the plan is contingent on Exelon, parent of Commonwealth Edison, getting a federal loan guarantee for up to 80 percent of its costs. The $60 million project is planned for a 39-acre plot in the West Pullman neighborhood. The company is negotiating with the city of Chicago to lease the property. Exelon officials said Wednesday the plant would have 32,800 solar panels that would convert the sun's rays into electricity that could serve 1,200 to 1,500 homes for a year. Exelon would market the electricity in exchange for a renewable energy credit for each megawatt produced. --- Information from: Chicago Sun-Times, http://www.suntimes.com/index -ASSOCIATED PRESS More on Green Energy
 
Pelosi Rebukes Stewart: You're Wrong, I'm No Hypocrite Top
Republicans in Congress are petrified of offending conservative talk-radio icon Rush Limbaugh, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) isn't scared of taking on left-leaning Jon Stewart More on Comedy Central
 
Lawmakers: Congress Will Investigate Torture, Bipartisan Support In Place Top
The central debate dominating discussions of a possible investigation into torture by the Bush administration seems to have shifted sharply in the past few days: from whether such an investigation should take place, to now what form it will have when it comes. If investigations actually do go forward, there seem to be three clear options: creating an independent commission, launching a congressional probe, or having the Department of Justice tackle the topic, likely by appointing a special prosecutor. Each form has its champions, its benefits and shortcomings. Of the three, the Obama White House -- which still prefers no investigation at all -- is the least enthusiastic about Congress handling the matter. The president has said that if an investigation were to happen, he wanted it done in an independent and non-partisan matter by people above reproach -- qualities sometimes tough to come by in Congress. That said, on Thursday morning, Sen. Claire McCaskill told MSNBC that she was "sure there will be some form of investigation in Congress." She said she could not make the same value judgments about the other two forms of investigation. Meanwhile, one of the few legislative vehicles actually geared toward starting the torture investigation process already has bipartisan support. Legislation backed by House Judiciary chairman John Conyers to establish "a national commission on presidential war powers and civil liberties" has one rather notable co-sponsor: Republican Rep. Walter Jones, a vocal GOP critic of the Bush administration. Jones' office did not return requests for comment but Conyers' office confirmed the North Carolinian remains a co-sponsor of the legislation. The chairman himself said he views Obama's remarks on the suitable way to investigate torture to be something of an endorsement of his proposal. "The President's comments today on possible approaches to a fuller accounting of these matters are exactly right," remarked Conyers in a statement. "Having introduced legislation to establish just such a non-partisan truth-telling Commission on the very first day of this Congress, that is the approach I have long favored." The same cannot be said , at this juncture, of the other congressional proposal for investigations. Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy's truth and reconciliation commission is not, at this point, formal law and its support is primarily from figures outside government. As for Democratic leadership in Congress, Sen. Harry Reid's office confirmed to the Huffington Post on Thursday that the Majority Leader is withholding judgment until the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence finishes its own report on interrogation policies. Perhaps the people best suited to envision what a torture investigation might look like are those who participated in one of the last big investigations. Daniel Marcus, a law and government professor at American University, served as the general counsel to the 9/11 Commission. In an interview with the Huffington Post, he said that the effort to look into the cause and intelligence failures of that terrorist attack were different from what would or could be done when looking into the Bush administration's policies on detainee treatment. "The parallels are not exact here," he said. "I do think that we and the world already know a lot about what happened [with the use of torture] and we now, as a matter of policy, have repudiated what was done, said it was illegal, and said we are not going to do it anymore. So it is a different kind of situation than the 9/11 commission where no one knew what the hell had happened, what went wrong on 9/11, what happened, why was our intelligence so wrong..." There were also, Marcus noted, fundamental differences over the scope and goals of the 9/11 commission, and those disagreements would surely accompany an investigation into torture (which would be more retributive in nature). In this regard, the major news regarding the investigation could come before the process even begins. "There are two problems," said Marcus. "One is that, if you don't want to foreclose criminal investigations, you are going to have a hard time getting testimony to people without giving immunity. And the commission can't grant immunity unless it is under their statute. On the other hand, if you give immunity you may be fouling up potential criminal investigations. So you have to decide what approach makes sense here: whether it is more important to have a let it all hang out truth commission which would hold people accountable but make it less like for criminal prosecution, or whether to pursue the criminal prosecution route." Become a fan of HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter .
 
Leora Tanenbaum: A Rabbi Is Not a "Rabbi" in the Jewish Orthodox Twilight Zone Top
Last month, a woman named Sara Hurwitz was honored in a ceremony at a prestigious modern Orthodox synagogue in the Bronx, the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale. There was a lot to celebrate: Hurwitz had completed eight years of intensive learning -- the same curriculum completed by male Orthodox rabbinical students. She had passed the rabbinical ordination exams. She has been serving her community -- officiating at funerals, brit milah (circumcision) ceremonies, and the like. She lectures to the community and teaches classes. She offers guidance both spiritual and Jewish legal. Even though she is a rabbi, her title is not "rabbi." This, my friends, is for one reason alone: she is a woman. Hurwitz's official title, a brand-new, made-up word, is MaHaRaT. The term is an acronym for "Manhiga Hilchatit Ruchanit Toranit," meaning Jewish legal and spiritual leader and Torah teacher. As a member of an Orthodox community myself, I find this Maharat business maddening, insulting, and degrading. Maharat is a no-name new name. It's created just for the ladies. Stewardess, waitress, actress...Maharat. I respect Hurwitz. It's never easy to be a pioneer, and she clearly has the Judaic chops for the job. I heard her speak at a recent conference on Jewish prayer and I thought she had a phenomenal presence and wisdom. I also admire the rabbi who leads the Hebrew Institute, Avi Weiss, who is recognized as a great trailblazer within modern Orthodoxy. Weiss is the founder and president of a rabbinical seminary, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, which is dedicated to intellectual openness, including the expansion of women's role in Judaism. The seminary is an alternative to Yeshiva University, increasingly seen as dogmatic and insular. Hurwitz studied privately for six years with Weiss, and it is he who devised the new title. Rabbi Weiss has taken many risks during his career. He is an activist who has led protests and demonstrations on a range of issues. In the 1970s and '80s Weiss called for the emigration and absorption of Soviet Jews who were not allowed to practice their religion and who were imprisoned for merely requesting permission to leave their country. Since the 1980s he has also been a loud voice in an effort to preserve Holocaust sites from Christianization or desecration. Here, too, he has taken a risk. After all, Hurwitz is functioning as a rabbi, and within the Orthodox world -- believe it or not -- this is a very big deal. Simply put, the fact that Hurwitz is permitted to perform rabbinic functions, and that she is receiving recognition and validation for it, is a precedent. It's huge, and it's exciting. It appears that Weiss chose not to make the logical next step, calling Hurwitz "rabbi" (which means "my teacher"), because of the howling reaction this action would elicit from the Orthodox establishment. Although his reputation as an Orthodox iconoclast is sealed, he does have to consider the future careers of the students at his seminary. In the liberal Jewish denominations, women have been ordained as rabbis since the 1970s (Reform and Reconstructionist movements) and 1980s (Conservative). But within Orthodoxy, the "rabbi" title for a woman with the exact same credentials as a male rabbi is considered as forbidden as eating pork on Yom Kippur. Yet in fact there is no Jewish legal obstacle to calling women "rabbis." I must point out that within Orthodoxy a woman is not permitted to lead a mixed-gender prayer service or to serve as a witness. Thus, a female Orthodox rabbi is barred from two congregational functions, which could pose a problem from time to time. But it's easy enough to get a pinch hitter. Besides, within Orthodoxy there are so many rabbis who do not serve pulpits that the term "rabbi" is not synonymous with "pulpit rabbi" -- and therefore the term "rabbi" should not be withheld from someone who can't perform all the functions of a pulpit rabbi. Names do matter, and the title "rabbi" -- as with "priest" for Catholics -- brings with it a high level of respect and awe that "Maharat," let's face it, does not replicate. "Rabbi" is the pinnacle of Judaic authority. Many people regard their rabbi as a mediator of sorts between themselves and God. Children and adults alike look up to their rabbi as a role model. Eventually, I suppose, "Maharat" will cease to sound silly and gobbledy-gooky, and we will accept it as a legitimate title. But it will continue to belittle the women who hold it -- and, by extension, all women -- because it will always signify "she who is not fit to be called 'rabbi.'" Hurwitz is already a role model and many people will come to regard her, if they don't already, as a Judaic authority. If now is not the right time to call female rabbis "rabbis," then when?
 
Paul Hogarth: Garamendi Runs for Congress - But in the Wrong District Top
With his fourth run for Governor failing to get traction, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi yesterday announced his plan to run for Congress in the East Bay's 10th District - in a special election to replace Ellen Tauscher. On name recognition alone, Garamendi will be the front-runner in a crowded field - although State Senator Mark DeSaulnier has key endorsements that will make it competitive. But while running for Congress is a smart move for Garamendi, it would be far better for Democrats - and progressive politics - for him to run in District 3 against Republican incumbent Dan Lungren. Tauscher's seat is safe for Democrats regardless of who runs in the special election, while Garamendi is probably one of the few candidates who can win District 3. He has deep roots in the 3rd District - which includes a large swath of the Sacramento suburbs, along with Garamendi's native Calaveras County. It is traditionally a "red" district, but Barack Obama carried it last November - and Lungren came unexpectedly close to losing to an under-funded Democratic challenger. At a time when Democratic activists are pushing the Party to take back "Red California," Garamendi's choice of districts could not be more disheartening and misguided. Expect this to become an issue at this weekend's State Democratic Convention. Tauscher Seat Draws Many Candidates Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher has been nominated for a high-level position in the State Department, and expects to resign her seat after getting confirmed. While no special election has been scheduled yet, many politicians in the East Bay's 10th District (which includes most of Contra Costa and Solano Counties) are already positioned to replace her. With no term limits in Congress, an open seat is truly a "once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity for ambitious politicos - and there is no shortage of viable home-grown Democrats ready to make a run. The 10th District was a conservative, suburban area when Tauscher first won it in 1996 - but Democrats there now have an eighteen-point edge in voter registration, making it (for all intents and purposes) a "safe" blue seat. State Senator Mark DeSaulnier of Concord already has Tauscher's blessing for the seat, along with endorsements by Congressman George Miller, State Assemblyman Tom Torlakson and State Senate President Darrell Steinberg. State Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan of Alamo - who picked up a "red" district in the last election - is also considering a run, although some have wondered if it's a good idea. Former San Francisco Examiner reporter Adriel Hampton is actively campaigning, and Anthony Woods - a Harvard-educated openly gay African-American Iraq War veteran - is contemplating a run. All of these candidates are Democrats. Based on polling for the race prior to Garamendi's entry, "undecided" was the landslide winner - because all four candidates have very low name recognition. As a four-time candidate for Governor, two-time State Insurance Commissioner, and current Lieutenant Governor, it is fair to assume that John Garamendi will be the new front-runner. And with the compressed schedule of a special election, Garamendi would benefit from the crowded field to win a relatively easy victory by a plurality vote. It's no surprise that Garamendi has dropped out of a grueling run for Governor (where he was simply outgunned by three better-funded opponents ), and going to Congress is a nice consolation prize. But is it wise for Garamendi to run for Congress in District 10 - or should he run in District 3 against Dan Lungren? Garamendi currently lives in Walnut Grove, in the southwest corner of Sacramento County - at the very edge of District 10. Half of the town is in District 10, but the other half is in District 3. As he told the San Francisco Chronicle , his house literally straddles the border. Rather than enter a crowded field of Democrats, Garamendi would better serve the Party's goals and the progressive cause by running in the 3rd District. All he would have to do is change his voter registration to his family ranch in Calaveras County - where he has deep roots. Lungren Seat is Tough, But Winnable As I've written before , California is a deep blue state that is only getting bluer - as Republicans are increasingly turning off voters in places like Orange County and the Central Valley. New registration statistics from the Secretary of State's Office show that, for the first time, Republicans don't have a majority of registered voters in a single Congressional District. And last November, Barack Obama carried eight Congressional Districts that currently have Republican incumbents - although the Democratic Party did not target them. In California, Democrats have seats ripe for the picking. One of these districts is Congressional District 3 - which includes the suburbs east of Sacramento, parts of Solano County, and stretches to the Nevada border to include all of Alpine, Amador and Calaveras Counties. Right-wing Republican Congressman Dan Lungren (who lost to Gray Davis in the 1998 Governor's race by a 20-point landslide) has represented it since 2004, and initially expected to have a safe seat. For the longest time, Democrats assumed that fielding a candidate there was a hopeless cause. But in 2006, an upstart Democrat named Bill Durston challenged Lungren - with no real support from the State Party. He lost by 22 points, but tried a second time in 2008. Again, the Party offered him few resources - but he came within 5.5% to scoring an upset. On the same ballot, Barack Obama beat John McCain in the 3rd District. Demographics played a role - the latest voter statistics show that registered Republicans outnumber Democrats there, but only by two percentage points. Five years ago, the margin was seven points. The national Democratic Party plans to target District 3 for 2010, and a candidate with high name-recognition could be what it takes. Durston, however, has ruled out a third attempt to challenge Dan Lungren. Without Garamendi, there is no clear candidate yet. Garamendi's Roots in District 3 If John Garamendi were to run for Congress, the logical place would be District 3 - not District 10. He was born in Calaveras County, and his family has a ranch there - where he has many high-profile political functions. In 1974, he was first elected to the State Assembly to what was then the 7th District, which includes much of the same territory . In 1976, he won a seat to the State Senate - which he represented for fourteen years. Again, it contained much of the same territory. While Democrats should be diligent and leave no district behind , it's also important to field candidates who can actually win. And there are not many Democrats with Garamendi's stature who could relate to rural voters in that way. Because he was running for Governor, Garamendi has about $750,000 "cash-on-hand" in campaign contributions. Assuming he can clear the legal hurdles to transfer these funds to a Congressional race, it would dwarf Dan Lungren's re-election warchest of $121,000. Of course, Garamendi could also easily outspend any of the Democrats in District 10 - but the more than six-to-one advantage he would have over Lungren proves that the race is eminently winnable. In fact, the only way I could see why Garamendi wants to run in District 10 is that it would be easier. But everyone else would miss out -- it would replace a spirited race full of "new blood" candidates in District 10 with a lame coronation, while shutting out the Democrats' best opportunity to win an extra Congressional seat. Garamendi has been running for Governor since 1982, when he lost the primary to Tom Bradley. He ran for State Controller in 1986 (a stepping stone for Governor), but lost the primary to Gray Davis. He was elected State Insurance Commissioner in 1990, but passed on re-election to run for Governor in 1994 - only to lose the primary to Kathleen Brown. After working for the Clinton Administration, he was again elected Insurance Commissioner in 2002. In 2003, he entered the race for Governor during the Gray Davis recall - but dropped out two days later when it was apparent Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante had more support. Three years later, the two men ran for each other's job - which Garamendi won. Shortly afterwards, he announced his plan to run for Governor in 2010 - where he has lagged behind other Democrats in polling and fundraising. It's no surprise that Garamendi has formed an "exit strategy" to run for Congress - given how the California Governorship has eluded him for three decades. But if he wants a legacy that helps Democrats and progressives get stronger, Garamendi should run in District 3 - where his candidacy would be more helpful. A group of bloggers have already launched a website that urges him to switch into the District 3 race. Garamendi would be wise to listen to such counsel. EDITOR'S NOTE: Paul Hogarth will be a delegate at this weekend's California Democratic Convention in Sacramento. Stay tuned for a preview and updates in the next few days. He is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron , San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily where this piece was first published .
 
Greg Mitchell: U.S. Soldier Killed Herself--After Refusing to Take Part in Torture Top
With each new revelation on U.S. torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo (and who, knows, probably elsewhere), I am reminded of the chilling story of Alyssa Peterson, who I have written about numerous times in the past three years but now with especially sad relevance. Appalled when ordered to take part in interrogations that, no doubt, involved what we would call torture, she refused, then killed herself a few days later, in September 2003. Of course, we now know from the torture memos and the U.S. Senate committee probe and various new press reports, that the "Gitmo-izing" of Iraq was happening just at the time Alyssa got swept up in it. Alyssa Peterson was one of the first female soldiers killed in Iraq. A cover-up, naturally, followed. Peterson, 27, a Flagstaff, Ariz., native, served with C Company, 311th Military Intelligence BN, 101st Airborne. Peterson was an Arabic-speaking interrogator assigned to the prison at our air base in troubled Tal Afar in northwestern Iraq. According to official records, she died on Sept. 15, 2003, from a "non-hostile weapons discharge." A "non-hostile weapons discharge" leading to death is not unusual in Iraq, often quite accidental, so this one apparently raised few eyebrows. The Arizona Republic , three days after her death, reported that Army officials "said that a number of possible scenarios are being considered, including Peterson's own weapon discharging, the weapon of another soldier discharging, or the accidental shooting of Peterson by an Iraqi civilian." And that might have ended it right there. But in this case, a longtime radio and newspaper reporter named Kevin Elston, not satisfied with the public story, decided to probe deeper in 2005, "just on a hunch," he told me in late 2006 (there's a chapter about it in my book on Iraq and the media, So Wrong for So Long ). He made "hundreds of phone calls" to the military and couldn't get anywhere, so he filed a Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] request. When the documents of the official investigation of her death arrived, they contained bombshell revelations. Here's what the Flagstaff public radio station, KNAU, where Elston now works, reported: "Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners. She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokespersons for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed." She was then assigned to the base gate, where she monitored Iraqi guards, and sent to suicide prevention training. "But on the night of September 15th, 2003, Army investigators concluded she shot and killed herself with her service rifle," the documents disclose. The Army talked to some of Peterson's colleagues. Asked to summarize their comments, Elston told me: "The reactions to the suicide were that she was having a difficult time separating her personal feelings from her professional duties. That was the consistent point in the testimonies, that she objected to the interrogation techniques, without describing what those techniques were." Elston said that the documents also refer to a suicide note found on her body, which suggested that she found it ironic that suicide prevention training had taught her how to commit suicide. He filed another FOIA request for a copy of the actual note. Peterson, a devout Mormon, had graduated from Flagstaff High School and earned a psychology degree from Northern Arizona University on a military scholarship. She was trained in interrogation techniques at Fort Huachuca in Arizona, and was sent to the Middle East in 2003. A report in The Arizona Daily Sun of Flagstaff -- three years after Alyssa's death -- revealed that Spc. Peterson's mother, Bobbi Peterson, reached at her home in northern Arizona, said that neither she nor her husband Richard had received any official documents that contained information outlined in Elston's report. In other words: Like the press and the public, even the parents had been kept in the dark. Tomorrow I will write about Kayla Williams, a woman who served with Alyssa, talked to her about her problems shortly before she killed herself, and also took part in torture interrogations. She also opted out, but survived, and is haunted years later. Here's what Williams told Soledad O'Brien of CNN : "I was asked to assist. And what I saw was that individuals who were doing interrogations had slipped over a line and were really doing things that were inappropriate. There were prisoners that were burned with lit cigarettes." * Greg Mitchell's latest book is "Why Obama Won." He is editor of Editor & Publisher. More on Iraq
 
Dave Hackel: Evil Bully Sits Down With Smug Sycophant Top
If Dick Cheney were to sit down and allow himself to be questioned by Walter Cronkite, it would be news. But, I'm sorry, Dick Cheney sitting down with Sean Hannity is like watching a ten-year-old interview his father for a school project. Actually, that's probably an insult to both ten-year-olds and fathers. That would be sweet and off the cuff. The Hannity-Cheney love fest was anything but. Don't know if you saw the "exclusive two-part" extravaganza, but it was laughable. It was also brilliantly staged. To me it looked like every bit of it was prepared, agreed upon and well rehearsed. Orchestrated -- right down to Sean's "Gee, you don't say" head nods. First, Hannity, the man who thought it unpatriotic to criticize a sitting President when "W" was in office, laid the groundwork by using his radio show to spew his usual venom. He hurled insults at President Obama from every direction; attacking his character, his morals, his history, and both his economic and foreign policies. Then, at the end of every day's laundry list of talking points, he called the President a Socialist. Next, Hannity started plugging the fact that, wonder of wonders, Dick Cheney had "agreed" to sit down and talk with him. (Or was it Hannity who said, "Yes, sir!," when Cheney demanded air time?) Then, when the big day arrived, Hannity played the part of an innocent awe-struck interviewer as he queried the former Veep using his own daily radio Obama barbs. Only now they were posed as questions. Sean wondered in his best "let me get this straight" earnestness, "So it's not a question of limited government vs. big government? It's Capitalism vs. Socialism?" Cheney agreed and Sean seemed flattered. Actually, they're both pretty good actors. I mean if you needed to cast a evil bully and a smug sycophant -- who better? Hannity also trotted out the cowardly phrase "Some people think...." to frame more of his own right wing opinions that he'd shouted only hours earlier on his radio show. Yes, Sean, some people do think. Try it. Cheney covered all the bases. Perhaps my favorite moment was when he talked about the recent Fox fomented "tea parties." He said that thousands of people expressing themselves was great. "That'll have an impact on Capital Hill," he said. This from the man who, when told that two-thirds of the American people didn't support the war in Iraq, said, "So?" Suddenly public opinion matters. But, enough of Dick Cheney. Former Vice Presidents may be news, but he's old news. The problem is that it's also old news that this abhorrent behavior is repeated on Fox often. This week it was Cheney. But Rove and Gingrich are also in the rotation. Hell, the other day somebody even dusted off Tom Delay and let him sit in front of a live microphone. They lend these people their bully pulpit then quote them on all their shows as if these remarks came from a source other than themselves. And the problem is compounded by the fact that every other major news outlet in the country runs the quotes, too. They give credibility to the bias by repeating it. So, please NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and every major newspaper in the country -- ignore these people. I beg you. Quit even using their names. If you do, they'll fade away. But if you keep mentioning them and what they say, you make what these partisans spit up seem like it's actually fact-based news. It's not. It's not even "news-lite." It's fear and hatred all dressed up in a suit and tie.
 
Hundreds Of Chicago Schools Going Year-Round Top
The Chicago Board of Education voted Wednesday to put more than a quarter of public elementary schools on a year-round schedule. That adds up to 132 of 483 elementary schools that have traded the traditional summer vacation to start classes a month earlier, with several two- to three-week breaks staggered throughout the year.
 
Henry Henderson: Solar for the South Side - A "can do" plan for urban solar array in Chicago? Top
In today's Chicago Tribune, Josh Boak reported on a plan to install 32,800 panels in a former industrial site on Chicago's South Side. It would amount to the largest solar power project in an American urban center. The site for the proposed solar array is promising: Chicago's West Pullman neighborhood. A century ago, this was part of the innovative and prosperous company town built by George Pullman to produce his famous railroad cars. At the time, these were the cutting edge of transportation technology, and the community was considered both an industrial wonder as well as an amazing social experiment.  As technology, transportation, and industry changed, the community was left more "on the edge" than at the leading front of prosperity and productivity. The new solar energy plan has the promise to again harness cutting-edge technology as a ticket to rebirth for this once vibrant area. While we have not seen all the details of the plan, there is a lot to like about the concept: "Brownfields" to "Bright Fields" -  investment in new, clean energy is per se good, and particularly good when it transforms a community at the heart of old, shuttered, industrial sites, with the legacy of pollution. Locating solar generation in an urban environment adjacent to customers and a rich built environment will avoid a host of transmission issues that burden large-scale solar farms outside of metropolitan areas. Green Jobs where they are needed - Chicago's South Side needs good jobs and will be the likely recipient of the many new green jobs that the project would create, reinvigorating the local economy. As more of clean energy projects like this are established, the economies of scale will help to drive down the cost of solar technology. Proposals like this one show the potential to clean up both our cities and our energy supply while bolstering the economy and environment. Apparently, not everyone shares this optimism. The Tribune's "comment forums" are rife with posts that rip the plan, complain that renewable energy is a waste and mock solar in "the Windy City."  These whingeing, negative, pewling comments bring to mind EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's remark about the "no we can't crowd" who say NO to innovation. These nay-sayers have little faith in American ingenuity and capacity to create new technologies and build a clean energy economy. Personally, I cannot help but feel a sense of deep, bracing, fundamentally American optimism about the promise of generating clean energy in the heart of Chicago communities like West Pullman. This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog .
 
Ken Watanabe: The Importance of Problem-Solving Top
Why is it important to learn problem-solving skills? Because we all have to make decisions. Whether you're a student, a parent, a businessperson, or the president of the United States, you face problems every day that need solving. Maybe you're trying to save your company, keep your job, or end the world financial crisis. Maybe you simply need to eat better or find more time to spend with your family. Whether the issue is big or small, we all set goals for ourselves, face challenges, and strive to overcome them. But what you might not know is there's an easy way to consistently arrive at effective and satisfying solutions. There's a universal and fundamental approach to solving problems, but chances are no one has ever bothered to show you how. I saw the importance of problem solving first hand when I was working as a consultant for the global management consulting firm McKinsey & Company. For six years, I worked with major companies all over the world to help solve their business challenges using a straightforward yet powerful set of problem-solving tools. And these were tools that anyone could use. They didn't require complicated computer software or an MBA. These simple approaches are basic enough for a child to understand. So in 2007, when Japan's prime minister made education his nation's top agenda, I felt compelled to do my part as the nation turned its focus to the educational system. Although Japanese business leaders, educators, and politicians have long talked about the need for Japan to shift from "memorization-focused education" to "problem-solving-focused education," no one had figured out a concrete and effective way to make this happen. So I left McKinsey to write a book and to teach kids. My aim was to teach Japanese children how to think like problem solvers, to take a proactive role in their own education and in shaping their lives. I tried to frame the tools we used at McKinsey in a fun and approachable way, one that would show kids what a practical approach to problem solving could help them accomplish. Although I don't claim to be any kind of expert on education, I hoped that the book would at least provide a starting point, one that would help shift the debate from whether we should teach problem solving to how we should go about teaching it. The book, Problem Solving 101 (originally publishing in Japan as Problem Solving Kids ), spread through the education community and to a wider general audience. It turned out that adult readers in Japan, from parents and teachers to CEOs of major corporations, had been craving a simple and useful guide to problem-solving techniques. You can check out some of the problem-solving tool boxes and challenge yourself at www.ProblemSolvingToolBox.com . It's important to realize that being a problem solver isn't just an ability; it's a whole mind-set, one that drives people to bring out the best in themselves and to shape the world in a positive way. Rather than accepting the status quo, true problem solvers are constantly trying to proactively shape their environment. Imagine how different our world would be if leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Eleanor Roosevelt, JFK, and Steve Jobs lacked this attitude. Now I'm focusing on helping kids put that attitude into practice. The experience kids get from having an idea, taking initiative, and learning from both their successes and their failures is invaluable. So I'm creating more opportunities for them to learn from real-life situations rather than just in the classroom. When I work with kids, I let them learn the same way Warren Buffett did. Buffett got his first business experience when he was only six years old, buying Coke bottles from his grandfather's store and selling them for a profit. The kids I work with get to run a food and drink business using a 1965 VW van I've renovated for use as a transportable shop. The kids decide what food and drinks to sell, where to sell, and how to compete against other teams by actually selling what they have cooked or prepared. They learn the importance of not just problem solving skills, but also leadership, teamwork, creativity, persistence, charm, and kaizen (continuous improvement) to make their vision come true. Only after this experience do I help them ask the important questions and provide them with the problem-solving tools that could help them with future projects. As many people have already learned, problem solving is easy when you know how to approach it effectively. My aim is to help people make problem solving into a habit, one that empowers them to solve not only their own problems, but the challenges of their schools, businesses, communities -- and maybe even the world. More on Japan
 
Dennis Markatos: US Electricity Emissions in Freefall Top
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) US electric power estimates for January and February just came out. And the numbers are dramatic. Net generation in January was down ~3.3% from January 2008, largely on lower demand from industrial users. February showed an even greater ~6.9% nosedive in net generation of electricity on a warm February and further industrial slowdown. Combining the first two months, year-to-date total electricity generation is down ~4.5% so far in 2009. Composition Changes: Lower Carbon Intensity On top of the lower overall consumption of electricity is a shift toward lower carbon intensity of the electricity generated. This shift was strongest in February when dirtier coal consumption for electricity fell 13.4% while demand for cleaner natural gas increased 2.4% and wind climbed significantly as well. The low price of natural gas is driving the shift from coal, as I wrote in February may happen . This could lead to coal's share of electricity falling below 48% in 2009, a continuation of coal's share decline of the last ten years described a couple weeks back . Carbon Emissions Poised to Fall 3+% When you add up fossil fuel consumption in early 2009, you get a picture of emissions in freefall. Rather than the 2.5% emissions drop I described a few days ago from the April EIA Short Term Energy Outlook, emissions from energy use are currently falling at a 5% rate. Coal use is falling ~8%, natural gas for electricity is down ~4%, and oil demand is more than 4% below 2008 levels . Since it is possible that weather (a hot summer and cold early winter) and a late 2009 economic recovery may bring emissions levels closer to those in 2008, for now I will say that emissions are poised to fall more than 3% this year. But keep the higher 4-5% range in mind as possible - which would bring US emissions to just ~6.5% above 1990 levels. Bottom Line: US carbon dioxide emissions are poised to fall dramatically in 2009. The more we deploy efficiency and renewables, the faster we can send emissions down and keep them down as our economic recovery revs up in late 2009/2010. I'll keep you updated at SETenergy.org as this develops during the months ahead. More on Climate Change
 
Gretchen Rubin: Quiz: Are You an Over-Buyer or an Under-Buyer? Top
I've posted this quiz before, but I can't resist putting it up again. This distinction encapsulates one of my very favorite (if not most weighty) personal insights into human nature: the difference between over-buyers and under-buyers . I also love the satisficer/maximizer distinction, but I didn't come up with that one myself. It's not particularly productive to be in too deep as an over- or under-buyer; both offer certain advantages but also some definite drawbacks. Does one of these descriptions fit you? You're an over-buyer if ... --You buy several summer outfits for your as-yet-unborn baby, then it turns out he outgrows those clothes before the weather warms up. --You often lay in huge supplies of slow-moving items like shampoo or cough medicine. --You often make a purchase, such as a tool or tech gadget, with the thought, "This will probably come in handy." --You have a long list of stores to visit before you travel. --You find yourself throwing things away--milk, medicine, even cans of soup -- because they've hit their expiration date. --You buy items with the thought, "This will make a great gift!" without having a recipient in mind. --You think, "Buying these things shows that I'm responsible, organized, and thoughtful." You're an under-buyer if... --You buy saline solution, which you use every morning and night, one bottle at a time. --You often scramble to buy an item like a winter coat or bathing suit after the point at which you need it -- and often, these items are sold out by the time you show up at a store. --You're suspicious of specialized objects and resist buying things dedicated very specific uses: suit bags, special plastic plates and cutlery for children, hand cream, rain boots, hair conditioner. --You often need to come up with a makeshift solution, such using soap because you've run out of shaving cream, because you don't have what you need. --You often consider buying an item, then decide, "I'll get this some other time" or "Maybe we don't really need this." --If you must buy something, you buy as little as possible--say, by putting $10 of gas in the car. --You think, "Not buying these things shows that I'm frugal and not a consumerist sucker." Me? I'm an under-buyer. Under-buyers feel stressed because we don't have the things we need. We make a lot of late-night runs to the drugstore. (I constantly run out of saline solution.) We're surrounded with things that are shabby, don't really work, or aren't exactly suitable. Over-buyers feel stressed because they're hemmed in by stuff. They often don't have enough storage space for everything they've bought, or they can't find what they have. They feel oppressed by the number of errands they believe they need to do, and by the waste and clutter often created by their over-buying. So under-buyers--buy what you need, without procrastination! Don't wait for the first morning of your ski trip to buy ski gloves! Over-buyers--think it over before you whip out your wallet! You don't need a ten-year supply of toothpaste! What do you think? Do you recognize yourself in either of these categories? * A friend, Melanie Rehak, has started a terrific new blog, Eating for Beginners -- "on food, farming, and raising a family." My favorite feature is the "Friday Food Writers," when Melanie quotes a wonderful food-related passage from literature. Delicious! Her book by the same name will be published next year, and I can't wait to get my hands on it -- and I'm not even a foodie. * Consider starting a group -- organized around happiness projects! (Or a book group focused on happiness books.) I'm busily creating the starter kit to send out to anyone who is interested. If you want a starter kit, email me at gretchenrubin1 [at] gmail [dot com] , and I'll add your name. (Use the usual email format -- that weirdness is to thwart spammers). Just write "happiness-project group" in the subject line. Or sign up here . More on Happiness
 
Naked Wizard Taser Brawl At Coachella (VIDEO NSFW) Top
The police officers beg and plead for the man to put on his robes, but all the Naked Wizard wants to do is be free of his wizard sleeves and hang in the breeze. He throws his colorful garb onto the grass. "It doesn't have to stop," the Naked Wizard says. "I'll tell you what," the cop says. "You can have a great time -- but you can have an even better time if you put your clothes on...Can I get them for you?" The officer grabs the gown and tosses to the Naked Wizard, but he casts it away again. Then the cops put on their rubber gloves, and things get ugly. Herewith, the best Tasering video since "Don't Tase me bro!" WATCH (Video contains Naked Wizard nudity): Naked Wizard Tased By Reality from Tracy Anderson on Vimeo .
 
David Wild: Go Ahead Punks, Make My Night and Ask The Boxmasters a Question Top
Tonight at the Grammy Museum in Los Angeles, I will be serving as the moderator/host/resident Jewish guy for a very special interview and performance by The Boxmasters. Ladies and gentlemen, I LOVE the Boxmasters. In fact, I've been called "The 4th or 5th Boxmaster" -- though the band and my wife are currently in court disputing this title. In any case, I've had the pleasure of knowing this exciting hillbilly rock power trio for over a year now -- or in Boxmasters time, three-double albums and a Christmas collection ago. Seriously, Prince looks at these guys, and says, "Another double album? Slow down already boys, you're gonna hurt yourselves." That's right, folks, The Boxmasters are so damn good -- and so prolific -- they've actually turned Prince into a paternally concerned older Jewish gentleman. Despite what you might have heard from random bloggers, media bastards and other non-American troublemakers, The Boxmasters are a wonderfully cool and sincere band and in my personal experience, they're fantastic guys too. But because as far as I know, I'm not actually getting paid for this gig tonight, I've decided to allow all of you -- yes, even Canadians with the proper papers -- to send me your best questions for me to consider. I promise to use at least the best, most illuminating question that I get, and to give you full credit onstage and pay you absolutely nothing for your time and trouble. And really ladies and gentleman, when it comes right down to it, isn't that what blogging is all about?
 
Rusty Selix and Sherry Novick: Tricking Voters, Hurting Kids Top
On the ballot for the May 19th California Special Election are two measures, Props. 1D & 1E, that impact our respective communities (children's services and mental health) and have two appalling things in common. First, both measures take money out of specific programs that were approved by voters to help vulnerable and underrepresented populations - children and people with mental illness. They direct that money instead to the state General Fund, where the Legislature and the Governor can spend the money as they please. These cuts could be devastating to individuals served by these programs. And passage of either measure would set a terrible precedent for future raids on these funds. But what's worse is that both measures are like wolves in sheep's clothing. The Legislature wrote Props. 1D & 1E to make them sound like they protect and expand services, even though they really cut programs. Maybe that seems a bold claim, but you can judge for yourself. Watch these person-on-the-street videos to see how voters react to the ballot language initially, and then seconds later when they learn what the measures actually do. How did Prop. 1D & 1E wind up with such confusing ballot descriptions? The Legislature exempted itself from the laws that normally require neutral, fair analysis of ballot measures. Then they wrote language that appears on the ballot to make the measures sound great. Yes, we need to balance the budget, but we should do it transparently and responsibly and let voters make an informed decision. The fact is that Props. 1D & 1E were put on the ballot as part of the "budget deal" that was cut in February. Neither measure would do much to balance the budget, but Republican legislators insisted on these measures as the price of their support for new taxes in the budget. Not everyone suffers in the budget. The "deal" gave major corporations a pass. Chevron is one of the largest funders of the "yes on everything" campaign being run by Gov. Schwarzenegger, and many more household names have given $50,000 to $100,000 or more. These corporate interests either got direct breaks in the budget or avoided paying their fair share. California's most vulnerable citizens were not so fortunate. Cutting $268 million per year from children's services and $230 million per year from mental health care - as these measures would do - will devastate those successful programs. In each case, we will see higher state and local government costs after these early interventions are cut off. This coming weekend California Democrats are meeting in Sacramento. They need to recognize that Props. 1D & 1E are deceptive and harmful. The California Republican Party has already voted to oppose them, and the Democrats should do the same. Let's do what's necessary to fix California's budget, but not by trying to fool voters and not by harming children and people with mental illness.
 
Burns Strider, Former Clinton Aide, Starts Progressive Faith Group Top
Burns Strider, one of the Democratic Party's most influential faith operatives--he was faith outreach director for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign--is playing a lead role in launching a progressive faith group called the American Values Network.
 
Two suicide bomb attacks kill dozens in Iraq Top
Two suicide bombers wearing vests stuffed with explosives blew themselves up in separate attacks in Iraq on Thursday, killing almost 70 people, many of them Iranian pilgrims, police said. The blasts occurred as apprehension grows in Iraq ahead of a pullout by U.S. troops from city centers in June, and after warnings from officials that insurgent groups may try to take advantage of that to launch attacks. More on Iraq
 

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)