Friday, April 24, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Ben Carmichael: Energy Boon or Dirty Boondoggle: Which Would You Choose? Top
Driving many conversations on energy and climate is a single question: What will the future look like? Even if you're not interested in the environment, you've asked a similar question before. If you've ever wondered what the weather will be over your vacation, if you've ever filled out a sports bracket, or if you've guessed what gas prices will be like tomorrow, you've ventured a forecast. Now, let me venture another guess -- hardly ever were you right. That was only one person, in one instance. In instances of collective forecasts, the problem can be worse. Consensus is rare. Opinions diverge, camps form and passions run hot. When it comes to predicting the future of energy, this is especially true. For energy and environment experts, the question of what the future will look like is most often interpreted to be asking: how much longer will oil dominate? In response, roughly two large groups have formed. On the one hand, there are those who predict that the age of oil is coming to an end -- that we live in a world where we are skimming the bottom of our limited reserves of oil. The second group argues that, while finite, our reserves of oil will extend further than we anticipate. The former are far more precautionary, the latter more bullish. It's a case of mutual cat calling: one thinks the other lacks regard for sustained profit, the other a lack of regard for a sustainable planet. Adding to the catalog of bullish forecasts is a recent article published in the last edition of the Energy Journal of the International Association for Energy Economists . According to the group of scientists from the Pontifical Catholic University of Chili and Colorado School of Mines, the future of oil is both cheap and plentiful. (See here for Joe Romm's excellent commentary.) The abstract says: Large quantities of conventional and unconventional petroleum resources are available and can be produced at costs substantially below current market prices of around US$120 per barrel. The suggestion is that oil will persist as the dominant energy source for the foreseeable future. This, in my opinion, cannot be true. Nor should it be. Consider the history of oil. Before oil was coal, and before that was biomass, aided by animal and human muscle. Wood was supplanted by fossil fuels in the US as recently as the 1880s. For thousands of years before that, energy consumption remained low, and dependent on specific fuels. It was only in latter part of the 19th and for all of the 20th century that we have had a rich, and diverse set of rapidly changing energy sources that support a high-energy culture. Oil, in this sense, is an ancient geological resource we've only very recently become dependent on. Since oil came to replace coal as recently as 1966, only a few generations have relied upon it. That's only a fraction of our time as a species with culture, let alone of our time on earth. There is a very real sense in which our expectations are historically unrealistic, if not unjustified. This, then, is certain: oil will not remain the sole energy provider into the indefinite future. It cannot. It is finite, and our dependence on it only growing. Though projections vary, the extraction of a finite resource are likely to follow the general shape of a bell curve. Given that we're annually extracting more oil than we discover, and that most of our wells were discovered prior to 1970, oil is bound to peak sometime soon. After that, costs of production and extraction will climb, driving a shift away from oil as it becomes too costly both for us to purchase and for the environment to tolerate. What remains uncertain is when this peak will occur, and what price will be considered too costly. The shape of this curve could elongate, for instance, under an optimistic scenario in which extraction techniques and efficiency technologies improve. The duration of this extension will largely be determined by changes in demand, which is in turn determined by a complex web of population, consumption and economic productivity. This all leads to a simple, but hard truth: we don't know when oil production will peak. In fact, we can't. To quote George Monbiot from The Guardian : There is nothing certain about the hypothesis that global supplies of conventional petroleum might soon stop growing and then go into decline. There is a large body of expert opinion, marshalling impressive statistics, which is convinced that peak oil is imminent. There is also a large body of expert opinion, marshalling impressive statistics, which insists that it's a long way off. I don't know who to believe. The key data - the true extent of reserves in the OPEC nations - is a state secret. Anyone who tells you that oil supplies will definitely peak by a certain date or definitely won't peak ever is a fraud: the information required to make these assessments does not exist. Given this, the certainty behind such forecasts as those made in the recent IEA Journal as hubristic. Such forecasts remind me of a line Daniel Day Lewis character from "There Will Be Blood," who, when standing above one of his oil wells, says, "There's a whole ocean of oil under our feet!" They may be right; extraction and efficiency could improve dramatically, demand for oil could lessen, and we could continue to rely on oil for years to come. Trouble is, it's both hard to know and also highly improbably. Meanwhile, the costs to our planet will surely be great. The trouble is that we persist in asking a question we cannot answer. And so, perhaps we should be asking a different question. Instead of asking, when will oil peak, why do we not ask: how can we avoid a decline in oil production from being disruptive? How can turn what some fear will be a boondoggle into what many believe can be a boon? To that question, there are many options. Speaking on Earth Day, President Obama put it well when he said: "The choice we face is not between saving our environment and saving our economy. The choice we face is between prosperity and decline. We can remain the world's leading importer of oil, or we can become the world's leading exporter of clean energy." The choice for many countries is the same: transition to a cleaner, more modern energy economy in an economically efficient, non-socially disruptive way, or delay an inevitable, more costly transition later. What do you see when you look ahead? Which future would you choose? This post was originally posted on On Earth. More on Barack Obama
 
Peter Jan Honigsberg: I Debated a War Criminal Top
I Debated a War Criminal Professor Peter Jan Honigsberg In September 2005, the Federalist Society at the University of San Francisco School of Law, where I teach, invited me to debate Professor John Yoo of Berkeley Law School on the legitimacy of the term "enemy combatant." Professor Yoo had just written a book promoting his theory of executive power, and the Federalist Society was sending him around the country to promote not only his book, but also the Bush Administration's platform. Professor Yoo has been in the news this past week as one of the authors of the "torture memos" used to justify the "harsh interrogations" of people captured in the war on terror. While earlier memos were released during the Bush administration, President Obama declassified additional memos last week. In the memos, torture was very narrowly defined as organ failure or death. Anything less was not torture, no matter how cruel or inhumane. When I arrived in the classroom, Professor Yoo was waiting, as were over 150 people. It was standing room only. Professor Yoo went first. He was a very smooth speaker. To people in the audience who were not versed in the subject, he sounded eminently reasonable. I realized that his seductive tone was powerful and could trump anything I said if I were not careful in how I presented my case. Professor Yoo argued that enemy combatant was a legitimate term and that the executive had the plenary power as commander in chief to do whatever he needed to prosecute the war. And that included the power to mistreat combatants in any way necessary. When it was my turn, I explained that enemy combatant was a generic term that had no established meaning, and that the definition was altered frequently to suit the administration's objectives. I described how the term had been used to circumvent the Geneva Conventions and allow the mistreatment, sensory deprivation and torture of detainees. After my talk, we took questions from the audience. Professor Yoo never lost his cool. When the debate ended, the students invited me to join Professor Yoo and them for lunch. Yoo talked about his work as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. It was at the lunch that I saw another side of John Yoo. He was not quite the same appealing person. Off stage, he boasted about his terribly important role as clerk to the Justice. His hubris peeked through his smooth veneer. I have no doubt that it never crossed his mind that one day his writing of the torture memos might come back to haunt him. My parents almost died at the hands of the Nazis. They told me stories of those times, and in my youth I often wondered what a war criminal looked like. Meeting John Yoo showed me. I now understand what Hannah Arendt -- one of the leading political theorists of the 20th Century who, as a Jew, fled Nazi Germany -- meant when she wrote on the banality of evil and how unthinking bureaucrats facilitate evil. When you meet him, Yoo appears as a normal and pleasant person, as someone who cares for his family and his dog. However, he will willingly sign a torture warrant when you leave. Friends said I "won" the debate. But who really cares who won? What I took away from that day debating John Yoo was something much more important and something I will never forget: I had never expected that I would meet the kind of war criminal bureaucrat my parents had spoken about. That day, I did. Peter Jan Honigsberg's book, Our Nation Unhinged: The Human Consequences of the War on Terror , published by the University of California Press, has just been released.
 
Clinton Admits US Role In Pakistan Insecurity Top
WASHINGTON: The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Friday said that the US was also partly responsible for the present conditions in Pakistan as it virtually abandoned country after the Soviets left Afghanistan. More on Foreign Policy
 
Matthis Chiroux: Refusing to Redeploy: My Story Top
On Monday, I scored a small but significant victory for the peace movement, for troops and civilians all over the world, and for myself: I faced the military for my refusal to deploy to Iraq and walked away a free man with a general discharge from the Army's Individual Ready Reserve. This does not affect my discharge from Active Duty Service, however, which is the term of enlistment from which my G.I. Bill derives. My benefits remain mine, and I will use them to continue my education, something I believe all people should have an inherent right to -- without fighting in anyone's army. At the hearing on Monday in St Louis, Missouri, I was accompanied by my three JAG attorneys, my civilian representation, James Branham; and by Prof. Marjorie Cohn, the President of the National Lawyers Guild, and my mother Patricia, both of whom testified on my behalf. The hearing was also attended by Mike McPherson, Executive Director of Veterans for Peace, Bill Ramsey, of St. Louis Instead of War, and Alexandra, my girlfriend. My eyes were glued to the panel of officers I was facing, the whole time. I looked those officers in the eyes, and I could see the humanity in each of them. I don't know if they agreed with me, but there was humanity; their hearts and minds were open. The prosecution opened the proceedings by reading a list of when they sent me the call-up, when I contacted them in Feb. 2008 and asked for a delay to finish a semester of school I had just paid $4,500 for. They tracked when they issued me several delay orders until the final orders for me to report back for active duty on June 15th -- Father's Day last year. They tracked when they sent me several failure to appear notices and when they finally initiated the discharge process against me. After this, they showed the YouTube video of my refusal to deploy after a hearing of former, and some still active duty, soldiers and marines on Capitol Hill last year. They followed that with excerpts of the speech I gave on the front porch of a rowhouse in northwest DC, where Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) activists lived at the time, on Father's Day last year, the day I was supposed to report. Then followed a Democracy Now interview I did the day after. They questioned a young Captain about the paperwork process, and then they called me to testify. I thought I'd be more nervous than I was, but I very much felt relieved. You know, there's all kinds of nifty ways to communicate now-a-days, and maybe call me old-fashioned, but there's nothing like looking someone in the eyes and telling them what's in your soul. And I bared it for those officers with humanity in their eyes. I told them I believe that the war in Iraq is illegal, and that as a soldier, I thought it was my responsibility to resist it. I told them I was originally planning on deploying, despite my belief that the war is illegal, but that after I was exposed to Winter Soldier, Iraq and Afghanistan, in March last year, I found clarity. And I found courage. We submitted the Winter Soldier book, as well the IVAW-produced Warrior Writers book for the record as exhibits -- to be referenced by future panels of officers taking part in hearings like mine. The officers asked me why I thought the war was unconstitutional, and I pulled the copy of the Constitution that I carry with me from my back pocket. I read from Article 6, Paragraph 2, the Supremacy Clause. The prosecution objected, insisting the document was irrelevant. After much deliberation, the lead council of the board, a civilian lawyer, shut down debate and said the board wouldn't hear the constitution, and that questioning should continue. So I said fine, I can just quote it, and I quoted, "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." I said when we violated the U.N. Charter to invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, we had violated U.S. law and the Constitution, and that it is every Soldiers' responsibility to resists the crimes of our government for which we are ultimately responsible. I focused upon the eyes of each board member as I spoke. I told them I was there because they needed to know that we are not cowards, and we are not traitors, but people who are dedicated to doing what's right. Startlingly, they stared back at me with no disgust in their eyes. They heard me, and they considered what I said. They didn't smile, but then again, they did not threaten me. They listened. And as I spoke and the words rolled off my tongue, I felt a heavy weight lifted from me. I suddenly felt the solidarity of millions there in the room with me. I thought of Franz Jägerstätter, an Austrian citizen who refused to fight in Hitler's army. He was decapitated after the authorities had exhausted every avenue of opportunity to get him to accept some form of duty, even if without a weapon. I thought of those brave GIs in Vietnam who stood against the system, who worked to prevent the victimization of their brothers and sisters by resisting the genocide. Many went to jail. One was shot and killed while trying to escape. I thought of my brothers and sisters in IVAW, those who realize the humanity in us all deserves to be respected beyond what the military has trained us to think. In her testimony, Professor Cohn gave the most thorough, detailed, understandable and spot-on breakdown of the illegalities of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan I've ever heard. She focused on the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Nürnberg Tribunals, U.S. Federal and Constitutional law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. When my mother testified, she recounted the last thing I said to her in July 2002 before I got out of the car to catch a ride to basic training: "I have to go be a grown-up now." I had no idea what I was getting into. My lead attorney told a story of his father, a retired sergeant major. He said he was shocked to learn one day that his father supported Mohammad Ali's decision to refuse deployment to Vietnam, despite the fact that he had done two tours himself. His father told him that he disagreed with Ali's decision but had respect for any man who would stand up for what he believed in and be held accountable by his own will. His father told him this is what it means to be honorable. "Sgt. Chiroux is an honorable man," said my attorney. "He could have stayed home. He's here. He's a man of honor. He deserves an honorable discharge." After deliberation, I was found guilty of misconduct for refusing to deploy to Iraq. The panel recommended I be given a general discharge from the reserves under honorable conditions. I left the building with the biggest smile I've had for years. I feel truly vindicated. My ass is mine, and so is my soul. Maybe the decision can be overturned in time, but at least on Monday, they got the principle right. Later that same afternoon, I testified at Winter Soldier in St Louis and spoke of long moments in my life which have remained mere shadows for years. I'll tell you about them tomorrow. More on Iraq
 
Sheldon Filger: UK Economy Sinks Amid Worst British Financial Crisis Since Great Depression Top
When Gordon Brown was Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer under Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, he relished boasting in the House of Commons on the efficacy of his stewardship of the UK's economy. However, now that the Global Economic Crisis has impacted the United Kingdom with particular severity, Prime Minister Gordon Brown is being seen as ineffectual as both a politician and economic manager. The British economy is plunging into the depths of its most severe contraction since the 1930s, with all the macroeconomic indicators pointing south. The response to this financial meltdown has been happy talk, at times bordering on the ridiculous. At one point, Brown even claimed that his spendthrift ways had "saved" the global economy. As recently as last November, Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling claimed that in 2009 the UK economy would contract be a mere 1%, a fantasy calculation that even the Labour government now concedes. Yet in the supposedly more realistic budget just tabled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, imagination still takes precedence over reality. The UK government now projects a decline in the nation's economy of 3.5% in 2009, with a return to growth in 2010. However, the International Monetary Fund released its own estimate on the global economy shortly after the British budget was tabled, projecting a decline in the UK's economy of 4.1 % in 2009 and likely a continued contraction in 2010. Interestingly, this number reflects growing pessimism by the IMF concerning the UK economy, as it had projected a decline of 2.9% back in January. The imploding British economy has set off deflation in key asset classes, particularly real estate. Unemployment is skyrocketing, having reached an official figure of 6.7 %, or 2.1 million jobless. However, the opposition Conservative Party has claimed that the actual number of British unemployed stands at more than three million. Whatever the true number of unemployed is now, it will certainly rise substantially during the next two years. Complicating the economic problems in the UK is its disastrous banking crisis, which rivals that of the United States. Much of Britain's banking sector is insolvent, prompting a costly bailout by Gordon Brown's government. With plunging tax revenues due to the nation's economic contraction, the UK has been forced to borrow vast amounts of money to cover the cost of subsidizing the nation's zombie banks. The combination of bank bailouts and stimulus spending has created staggering budgetary deficits, prompting the governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, to warn that further government indebtedness threatens the long-term stability of the UK's finances. The IMF actually challenged the official UK government estimate on the cost of taxpayer funded bank bailouts, presented in Darling's budget at 60 billion pounds. When the IMF issued its own cost estimate of 200 billion pounds, Gordon Brown and his team went ballistic, forcing the International Monetary Fund to lower is projection to an earlier figure of "only" 130 billion pounds, still more than double the official UK estimate. However, strong-arming the IMF cannot alter the fact that the national debt of the UK is climbing at an astronomical rate. Alistair Darling is projecting that the UK will need to borrow more than $500 billion during the next two years, a sum that exceeds the cumulative borrowing of all previous British governments since the creation of the Bank of England more than three centuries ago, according to the leader of the official opposition, David Cameron. The UK economy has been transformed, in effect, into a candle burning at both ends. Insolvent banks are consuming taxpayer funds at a rate that is intergenerational while the domestic economy tanks and unemployment soars .In the meantime, the national debt is exploding. Deflation is raging now, while the specter of hyperinflation hovers around the corner, as eroding financial fundamentals cripple the value of Britain's currency. Amid the acute economic and financial crisis afflicting the UK, the nation's political establishment offers only rosy projections. Tony Blair may have been called George W. Bush's lap dog, but Gordon Brown is proving to be his economic disciple.
 
Holly Robinson Peete: Autism Recovery: Pediatricians Coming Along Slooowly Top
The other day on the Today Show, Dr. Nancy Snyderman presented a story of a family whose boy has "recovered" from autism. [ Watch it here. ] I sat watching with my mouth open. I was stunned not because the boy made such progress over a disorder that pretty much every pediatrician will tell you is incurable, but because Dr. Nancy Snyderman was actually reporting on it on a major network news program. I had never seen such a thing! You see, we moms in the trenches of autism have been seeing some kids improve dramatically for years and years. We are the ones who have been the coordinators of improvement. The overseers, statisticians and documentarians of progress and recovery. But we are never asked to share that data by the American Associations of Pediatrics or the Center For Disease Control. Our doctor visits were virtually "hope-free". I have seen my own son -- now age 11 -- notch milestones that developmental pediatricians said he'd never, ever achieve. In fact the day he was diagnosed in 2000 at 3 years old is referred to at our home as the "Big Never Day". A disarmingly icy female pediatrician told us our son would "never" do so many things that he does today not the least of which are mainstreaming at school or saying "I love you, Mom" unprompted...check and check! While I was encouraged by Dr. Snyderman's piece on young Jake Exkorn's success I couldn't help but be a bit cynical because after Matt Lauer said "it's a real sign of hope" Snyderman made such a deliberate point of declaring "and there's real science behind it and that's important". I took that very personally because so many pediatricians I have met with over the last 10 years would never validate stories from so many of us about how a lot of our kids responded to treatment-especially diet and biomedical which most seemed to regard as taboo for some reason. We have been ridiculed at the mere suggestion of recovery. My requests for blood work and other diagnostic work ups for my son were met with disdain. Why? Why wouldn't you want to comprehensively treat a child with autism? What might you learn about this devastating neurobiological disorder? When I have spoken publically about our journey I have been criticized as a "celeb junk science peddler" for talking about what I believed triggered my son's autism, offering hope and discussing what has helped improve my boy's cognitive function. Unlike other celebrity autism activists' claims, my son is NOT "cured" or "recovered" (new hurdle is puberty which mixes poorly with autism, fun!)but his progress is noteworthy and in some ways we feel so blessed because tragically not every family has access to treatment and have been given zero hope from their doctors . That breaks my heart. But I have long seen that recovery is possible when all the stars align with a variety of treatments and the means to access them. It was surreal for me to see Dr. Snyderman tout this as some sort of "breaking news" or anomaly. I will be upfront that I had not been a huge fan of Dr. Snyderman's hard-core rigid stand on vaccine safety. She has basically towed the line well by using her position on the Today Show to declare numerous times that there is no causation or link and basically relaying that all 30 plus shots given under every circumstance to every child is 100% safe all the time. Case closed. Jury dismissed. That is certainly her right to say that but well...that was not our experience. I know for a fact that not all kids can tolerate them because my kids could not. Let's identify them please before any damage is done and discuss alternatives. And if she is right then why then does the vaccine injury court even exist paying millions to families who have the resilience to go up against the machine and claim their child's autism spiral was kicked off by toxic overload of vaccines? Overall, we just need pediatricians to have better, nuanced and less condescending conversations with parents concerned about vaccine safety because the "I'm a doctor and I'm never wrong" attitude is driving parents away from vaccines and I don't necessarily believe that is a good thing. I am not anti vaccine but I am anti people labeling me as such just because I raise concerns and objections based on my family's experience. After his devastating injury from the MMR shot in 1999 imagine my frustration when I couldn't find a single pediatrician who would work with me with alternative options as I struggled years later with giving the same shot to my two younger boys. They all come from the same gene pool after all and it is not uncommon that several siblings can get autism. They all kept telling me to just give it to them without "studying" the details of what happened to my first boy... That left me scared, alone, hopeless and helpless. But my absolute favorite thing Dr. Snyderman said this morning were three words: "We are learning". "We are learning"...That was a really nice and encouraging statement. There was something about her tone. Softer. Less defensive. It gave me a slight impression that the deep communication chasm between many disenfranchised autism parents and mainstream doctors is closing a smidge. I know she was only referring to learning about "recovery" but maybe exploring better treatment options is next then ...who knows? An alternate vaccine schedule perhaps and more rigorous study of susceptibility/predisposition to vaccine injury??? Well... a mom can dream! But seriously, if the AAP wants to lower the rising rate of unvaccinated children in schools they need to really listen to and acknowledge the fears of ALL parents not just those who legitimately fear measles outbreaks. The stonewalling is counterproductive trust me. Meanwhile every 20 seconds a child is diagnosed...We definitely need some more Kumbaya moments! At the Peete house over the last 10 years, we have had remarkable results with diet, enzymes and vitamin B therapy, glutathione replacement treatment, chelation, music therapy and most notably lately hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT). But popular vaccine advocate Dr. Paul Offit called HBOT "quackery" (because there's no science he claims)...what a buzz kill! But we will endure that negative thinking all day long while enjoying our son's resulting explosion in language! ( Check this out! ) So I think in general there has been this reluctance to "treat" autism with anything but traditional behavioral therapies. A rigid reluctance to think outside the box and treat the whole child -looking into their gastrointestinal issues for example. So many children on the spectrum are physically ill yet in my experience pediatricians seem so uncomfortable with this fact. I would love to have the chance to ask Dr. Snyderman why this is. But like the "recovery" piece that ran this morning maybe she will come around to report on the high rate of GI issues among kids on the spectrum-old news for us autism parents -but probably only when there is "real science" to back it up. Meantime: tic toc... In the end though I am very hopeful for the future of these children and babies to come for regardless of our various vantage points and experiences we all share in the tangible dream of eradicating autism once and for all. More on Today Show
 
Ken Levine: The Cause of Global Warming -- Put Down That Pie! Top
Get out your aerosol spray cans, they're not the problem after all!! Scientists now know the real cause of Global Warming. Fat people. Well, maybe not all scientists, but certainly Dr. Phil Edwards of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine - one of the more prestigious of the institutions that combines two random names. "Moving about in a heavy body is like driving in a gas guzzler" the I-assume-slender Dr. Edwards contends. Each obese person is said to be responsible for emitting a TON more of climate-warming carbon dioxide per year than a thin one. Do the math. That's an extra BILLION TONS of CO2 a year. Phillip Morris may be killing you but Sara Lee is killing the world. And it doesn't stop there. Since heavyset people tend to exercise less they drive more, which is another major cause of carbon emissions. So a hefty person who buys a Supersize meal from the drive-through window is personally responsible for melting polar ice caps. I hope it was worth it. Hey, producers of 24 - there's your storyline for next season. McDonalds is introducing one-pounders. Jack has 24 hours to blow up the central slaughterhouse. The US and Great Britain are two biggest offending nations. They're both getting fatter by the decade. So the next time you hit that cake stall hard during high tea at Harrod's just know that every finger pastry destroys another rain forest. And of course the ultimate irony is this: Al Gore has been on a personal campaign to make the world aware of Global Warming. But since he won for President (and wasn't allowed to serve) he's picked up a few LB's himself. Al Gore is part of the problem! That said, his movie, An Inconvenient Truth is a disturbing cautionary tale that should be seen by everyone. Just don't go to the concession stand for a tub of popcorn, 64 ounce Coke, and four boxes of Snow Caps. Those Snow Caps may be the last anyone on earth ever sees. You can sign up for Ken's Twitter here . And read his blog here .
 
Josh Dorner: Newt King Coal & Other Big Oil Buffoons Top
This week, the defenders of dirty energy really, really outdid themselves in their efforts to try and derail the clean energy jobs plan currently starting to wend its way through the House of Representatives. The House Energy & Commerce Committee held a marathon series of hearings on the plan, with testimony from more than 60 people, including EPA Administrator Jackson, Energy Secretary Chu, business leaders, environmentalists, economists, and so many more. If the strategy was to give Big Oil's besties enough rope to hang themselves, well, they more than obliged. The hearing was capped off this morning with appearances by Nobel Laureate and former Vice President Al Gore and former Republican Virginia Senator John Warner, one of his party's most respected voices on national security and the lead sponsor of last year's Senate global warming bill. They offered rational, reasoned, and bipartisan support for the bill because of its positive impacts on our planet, on our national security, and, most importantly, our economy. The bill received another boost this morning when Rep. Dingell, former chairman of the committee and a longtime antagonist on climate issues, predicted it would pass . And so, just who did the beleaguered and increasingly erratic minority on the committee choose to follow these two elder statesmen? A washed-up buffoon, would-be presidential candidate , and one of the most divisive political figures in America: Newt Gingrich. The defenders of dirty energy are so intellectually bankrupt that they sound just like a broken record of lies, mistruths, and distortions. One look at Newt's testimony shows that the when this particular broken record scratched, it went all the way back to 2001 and the heady days of Cheney Energy Taskforce . Newt's so-called "plan" was merely a re-tread of these failed, dirty, and dangerous energy ideas: offshore drilling, oil shale, Arctic drilling, tax breaks for Big Oil, bribing states to allow more drilling, eviscerating environmental regulations, "green" coal (yes, he really calls it that!), nukes, and other such nonsense. He did borrow one idea from a more recent leader in his party--Senator McCain's idea to run the energy economy like a game show with various prizes for energy technologies instead of the kind of real investments and real policies that will actually build the clean energy future. We all know how well that one worked out ... Newt did come up with one seemingly novel idea--new tax breaks for Big Coal! This is hardly surprising, considering that his latest vanity project, an AstroTurf production company called American Solutions for Winning the Future, has received over $250,000 from Peabody Coal . It also recently used some of the millions it has received from a cabal of hyperconservative billionaires to help put on America's favorite wingnut traveling circus, the "tea party." As if foisting the tea parties on America wasn't enough, we are also to learn that the current GOP leadership in Congress has " studied Mr. Gingrich's years in power and had been in regular touch with him as he sought to help his party find the right tone and message." Considering that Gingrich came last in new poll of potential challengers to Obama in 2012, this might also explain the dismal poll standings of said GOP leaders. Unfortunately, Newt just capped off a week of tomfoolery from Big Oil's besties on the committee. Here's a children's treasury of some of the lowlights. Rep. Shimkus (R-IL), when he wasn't too busy attacking the $983 billion in economic benefits offered by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 because he claims it hurt Peabody Coal, denounced the clean energy jobs plan as the "worst assault on democracy and freedom" EVER. Worse even than 9/11 and both wars we're currently fighting--and worse still than the Clinton impeachment! Believe it: Rep. "Smokey Joe" Barton, the energy panel's Ranking Member, went on a diatribe against hybrid cars yesterday, saying that the American people would only buy them if forced to buy the government, "backed by the army." Did I mention that GM makes hybrid vehicles in his district? This, however, was nothing--NOTHING--compared to a tortured exchange between Barton and Energy Secretary (and Nobel Laureate) Chu. It's unclear what Barton was trying to get it, but our friends at Media Matters called it "Barton v. Pangaea." Dr. Chu gently reminded Barton of this little thing we call plate tectonics aka the Contintental Drift Theory. This particular exchange was later rendered even more bizarre when Barton's own staff put out a press release and video of the embarrassing change, claiming it was Barton who "stumped" Secretary Chu. Stumped by sheer idiocy? Yes: For a long, sad list of other such bloviations, check out the Sierra Club's Broken Record Project . More on Dick Cheney
 
Burma: Satellite TV Threatens Junta Top
YANGON (Myanmar) - SATELLITE dishes that allow people to get international news and entertainment programs should be banned in Myanmar because foreign powers are using them to sow unrest and spread immorality, a state-run newspaper said on Friday. More on Burma
 
Greg Mitchell: Part II: Soldier Who Killed Herself--After Refusing to Take Part in Torture Top
Yesterday, I posted a piece here that drew wide attention around the Web -- a summary of it was the top diary at DailyKos for the entire day -- perhaps because of its tragic relevance to the current torture debate: The story of Spc. Alyssa Peterson, who committed suicide in September 2003 a few days after refusing to take part in interrogations that likely involved torture. The piece has drawn more than 200 comments here, including one from a man who claims to be Alyssa's older brother, supporting the gist of my piece (I first wrote about Alyssa almost three years ago). I'll return to that comment if I can confirm that he is, indeed, her brother. Yesterday I promised a Part II, relating to a soldier who served with Alyssa. That woman, Kayla Williams, has posted here in the past, on different subjects. They served in the same battalion in Iraq at the same time. Kayla Williams spoke with Alyssa Peterson about the young woman's troubles a week before she died -- and afterward, attended her memorial service. Williams even has her own Iraq interrogation horror story to tell. So what, in Williams' view, caused Alyssa Peterson to put a bullet in her head in September 2003 after just a few weeks in Iraq? And why were the press and the public not told about it? The death of Alyssa Peterson is unspeakably sad, and what was fully in her mind will never be known, especially since her parents apparently knew little about her death until years after it happened. The press, which has rarely challenged the official version of Iraq fatalities, has not probed the incident, to this day (although it is featured in two chapters in my new book on Iraq and the media). But this tragedy also begs the question: Which interrogation techniques drew her ire? And were they of such a nature that this might explain why this young woman of Mormon faith and, reportedly, good nature would suddenly turn a gun on herself? The official Army investigation notes that all papers relating to the interrogations have been destroyed. But what do we know about what was going on in Iraq in 2003, beyond credible claims that treatment of prisoners was being "Gitmo-ized"? Perhaps the most specific testimony that may relate to Alyssa Peterson comes from another Arabic-speaking female U.S. soldier who also served in the 101st Airborne at that time in the same region of Iraq. She even wrote a book partly about it. This is former Army sergeant Williams, author of the 2005 memoir, L ove My Rifle More Than You . Much of the media publicity about the book focused on her accounts of sexual tension or harassment in Iraq, but it also holds several key passages about interrogations. In the book, Williams, now 32 and out of the Army, described how she had been recruited to briefly take part in over-the-line interrogations. Like Peterson, she protested torture techniques -- such as throwing lit cigarettes at prisoners -- and was quickly shifted away. But she told me that she is still haunted by the experience and wonders if she objected strongly enough. Williams and Peterson were both interpreters -- but only the latter was in "human intelligence," that is, trained to take part in interrogations. They met by chance when Williams, who had been on a mission, came back to the base in Tal Afar in September 2003 before heading off again. A civilian interpreter asked her to speak to Peterson, who seemed troubled. Like others, Williams found her to be a "sweet girl." Williams asked if she wanted to go to dinner, but Peterson was not free -- maybe next time, but of course time ran out. Their one conversation, Williams told me two years ago, centered on personal, not military, problems, and it's hard to tell where it fit in the suicide timeline. According to records of an Army probe that were obtained by radio reporter Kevin Elston, Peterson had protested, and asked out of, interrogations after just two days in what was known as "the cage" -- and killed herself shortly after that. This might have all transpired just after her encounter with Williams, or it might have happened before and she did not mention it -- they did not really know each other. Peterson's suicide on Sept. 15 -- reported to the press and public as death by "non-hostile gunshot," usually meaning an accident -- was the only fatality suffered by the battalion during their entire time in Iraq, Williams reports. At the memorial service, everyone knew the cause of her death. Shortly after that, Williams (a three-year Army vet at the time) was sent to the 2nd Brigade's Support Area in Mosul, and she described what happened next in her book. Brought into the "cage" one day on a special mission, she saw fellow soldiers hitting a naked prisoner in the face. "It's one thing to make fun of someone and attempt to humiliate him. With words. That's one thing. But flicking lit cigarettes at somebody -- like burning him -- that's illegal," Williams writes. Soldiers later told her that "the old rules no longer applied because this was a different world. This was a new kind of war." Here's what she 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. "They stripped prisoners naked and then removed their blindfolds so that I was the first thing they saw. And then we were supposed to mock them and degrade their manhood. And it really didn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. I didn't know if this was standard. But it did not seem to work. And it really made me feel like we were losing that crucial moral higher ground, and we weren't behaving in the way that Americans are supposed to behave." As soon as that day ended, after a couple of these sessions, she told a superior she would never do it again. In another CNN interview, on Oct. 8, 2005, she explained: "I sat through it at the time. But after it was over I did approach the non-commissioned officer in charge and told him I think you may be violating the Geneva Conventions. . . . He said he knew and I said I wouldn't participate again and he respected that, but I was really, really stunned. . . ." So, given all this, what does Williams think pushed Alyssa Peterson to shoot herself one week after their only meeting? The great unknown, of course, is what Peterson was asked to witness or do in interrogations. We do know that she refused to have anything more to do with that after two days -- or one day longer than it took for Williams to reach her breaking point. Properly, Williams points out that it's rarely one factor that leads to suicide, and Peterson had some personal problems, to be sure. "It's always a bunch of things coming together to the point you feel so overwhelmed that there's no way out," Williams says. "I witnessed abuse, I felt uncomfortable with it, but I didn't kill myself, because I could see the bigger context. "I felt a lot of angst about whether I had an obligation to report it, and had any way to report it. Was it classified? Who should I turn to?" Perhaps Alyssa Peterson felt in the same box. "It also made me think," Williams says, "what are we as humans, that we do this to each other? It made me question my humanity and the humanity of all Americans. It was difficult, and to this day I can no longer think I am a really good person and will do the right thing in the right situation." Such an experience might have been truly shattering to the deeply religious Peterson. Referring to that day in Mosul, Williams says, "I did protest but only to the person in charge and I did not file a report up the chain of command." Yet, after recounting her experience there, she asks: "Can that lead to suicide? That's such an act of desperation, helplessness, it has to be more than that." She concludes, "In general, interrogation is not fun, even if you follow the rules. And I didn't see any good intelligence being gained. The other problem is that, in situations like that, you have people that are not terrorists being picked up, and being questioned. And, if you treat an innocent person like that, they walk out a terrorist." Or, maybe in this case, if an innocent person witnesses such a thing, some may walk out as a likely suicide. More on Iraq
 
Melissa Kirsch: New York Times CorrectionWatch: Style Wars Top
Welcome to the latest installment of NYT CorrectionWatch(tm), in which a minor blunder produces minor hilarity and profound self-flagellation: Because of an editing error, an article on Wednesday about a 50th-anniversary edition of the book The Elements of Style misspelled part of the publisher's name. The publisher is Pearson/Longman, not Pierson/Longman. The article also overlooked an element of style in The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage in referring to Roger Angell's introduction for the fourth edition of the book. He wrote the foreword, not the "forward." (As the Times stylebook notes, a "foreword" is the word before Chapter 1.) Error #1: A teensy gaffe: forgiven, I guess, but I suspect Pearson's eating his/her hat right now. It's not my job to forgive any error, for this is indeed CorrectionWatch, and if you call my attention to it, I'm duty-bound to slap you on the wrist. But the second paragraph is where the comedy comes in. Error #2: Who's writing the Corrections? Perhaps someone with something close to a sense of humor, as not only is the error pointed out (the article used "forward" when it should have been "foreword") but it is noted that this distinction is clearly stated in the TIMES stylebook. I enjoy how the editor (never named! never blamed!) is not only singled out, but the source that would have prevented this grave oversight is also named. Is it just an attempt to imitate the chuckly, style-referential parentheticals with which the reporter was permitted to clutter the piece (charming? cloying?), or is the Corrections editor keen to get a plug in for the New York Times Manual of Style , to, in effect, steal a little of The Elements of Style 's thunder on its 50th birthday? The Grey Lady would never stoop to such antics! Or would she ? PS Not even a brief mention of the devastatingly beautiful, Times contributor Maira Kalman-illustrated version from 2005? Previously in New York Times CorrectionWatch : New York Times CorrectionWatch: Brilliant Idea Was Totally Bogus New York Times Violates (At Least) Ten Commandments of Journalism in Reporting Charles Heston's Death New York Times Correction Tally on Heston Obituary Now Officially Farcical New York Times Obituary Correction Watch: We'll Fix It When We Get Around To It Melissa Kirsch is the author of The Girl's Guide to Absolutely Everything .
 
Simran Sethi: Reduce, Re-Use, Recycle, Relate: A Post-Earth Day Manifesto Top
"We are each other's harvest; we are each other's business; we are each other's magnitude and bond." Gwendolyn Brooks Dave Lowenstein and Gwendolyn Brooks hooked me. Just over two years ago, I was contemplating my stay in Lawrence, Kansas and sorting out future plans. The circumstances that brought me there weren't going to keep me there. All my work was in New York and Los Angeles. I had no compelling reason to stay. Then I walked by a mural. The mural, replete with brilliant images of incredible African-American artists connected to Kansas, is the backdrop for Lawrence's Saturday Farmers' Market. But that particular Sunday was scorching hot and downtown was a ghost town. The one car parked in front of the colorful wall at 9th and New Hampshire featured a bumper sticker demanding a living wage for Lawrence. I got up close to the words. I took a photo of the bumper sticker. In that sticky, solitary, epiphanic moment, everything became clear. I wanted to stay in this small town in a flat state, because of our magnitude and bond. While I've always been committed to social and environmental issues, I've gotten extra love over the last few years as everyone everywhere tries to "go green." ( Green Barbie ? Really? You're made of petroleum.) On Wednesday, I appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show in honor of Earth Day. The amount of exposure given to issues that I hold dear is exciting and I am thrilled and honored to be asked back on Ms. Winfrey's show. We have to begin with the basics and Oprah has done an incredible job of getting people started on all kinds of important journeys. In my work as an environmental journalist, I'm delighted that people want to know what they can do to make things better. I've suggest reusable cotton bags in lieu of paper or plastic, explained why I prefer BPA-free stainless steel bottles over reusable plastic ones , and talked about how the mercury in CFLs create less toxic waste than the mercury generated through the use of inefficient incandescent light bulbs . But as the Earth Day green-hype winds down, it's also the media's job to let you know that the planet won't be saved in 10 Easy Steps. Small changes are an essential first move and I applaud all who make them. However, we don't get to check the Earth off the list after we've bought the hybrid and recycled. Going green is messy and complex. It takes time, dedication and a willingness to make new mistakes. And it requires all of our efforts. Not just those of a certain educational level, socio-economic strata, or hip/hippy threshold. After we tackle plastic, we have to address policy. As I tell my students at the University of Kansas School of Journalism , environmentalism is about our relationship with and to our world. And as we all know, the best relationships are the ones we work on. We are our eco-system. Everything we use - from energy to food to the stuff of our everyday lives - has an impact . "Going green" doesn't just mean buying more products. A good starting point is to buy different stuff (zero VOC paint, non-toxic cleaning products, reusable bags and bottles...) but, ultimately, we can't shop our way to sustainability. Reduce is the first edict of environmentalism, with Re-use and Recycle following close behind. It is our relationships - to the planet, to our stuff, to our communities - that contain the most potential for widespread change. Historically, the environmental movement was about land conservation and wildlife protection. Jerome Ringo , the first person of color to head a national environmental organization, described to me the folks involved in early environmentalism as "the people who would catch a fish to hang it on the wall, not to put a fish on their plates." Today, everyone can and must have a seat at the table: from folks fishing in Kansas' Kaw River to dairy farmers herding cattle (apologies, vegans). We have to stop tearing each other apart and find common ground. Low income communities and communities of color have borne the brunt of environmental injustices - including our addictions to oil and coal. The most polluting industries end up in the neighborhoods that are most vulnerable. And research shows that, when controlling for other factors, race is the strongest determinant of where toxic waste, dirty energy, and other contaminants will end up. Being green isn't just about screwing in a CFL. Beyond the light bulbs and tote bags, we have to be aware of how our lifestyles affect our community, and the other communities and ecosystems that border our own. This is a lesson that I learned in Lawrence, where every environmental decision requires buy-in from neighbors who may not share my passion for environmentalism or point of view. Two years after my initial decision to put down roots in Kansas, I'm working on a book about the incredible environmental lessons I have learned in a red state that doesn't seem to paint itself green. The book will be published by Harper One next summer and focuses on a redefinition of environmentalism that includes conservatives, farmers, laborers, hunters, even climate change skeptics. As environmentalists, it is our relationships with each one of these constituents that will define our ability to conserve resources and protect our planet. We are each other's magnitude and bond. This piece was written by Simran Sethi , with Heather Mueller . With thanks to the University of Kansas School of Journalism and The Lawrencian , where an earlier version of this article appeared. More on Earth Day
 
Youth Radio -- Youth Media International: Palestinians Regard Permaculture As A Necessity, Not A Choice (VIDEO) Top
Originally published on Youthradio.org , the premier source for youth generated news throughout the globe. By Nora Barrows-Friedman Back in my hometown of Berkeley, California, the practice of permaculture is associated within a feel-good, hippie-elite framework. It's a choice, just like buying locally grown organic heirloom tomatoes from an independent grocer instead of buying conventional Chilean-grown tomatoes hawked at Safeway. But inside the occupied West Bank, permaculture is not just a decision of conscience but a necessary means of empowerment within an ever-changing, uncertain landscape. The reasons for this earth-friendly approach include accelerated loss of water-rich land to Israeli settlements, and Israeli restrictions on certain types of fertilizer and restrictions on what types of vegetables can be exported out of the occupied-territories. Out of creative necessity for food security, Palestinians have begun to re-green the land; reclaiming the ancient ways of growing crops. Palestinians in the area say they are excited to participate in this burgeoning permaculture movement. "I was born here," Munther Rishmawi, a Beit Sahour resident says. "My grandfather farmed here on this same ground. And I'm learning to be a farmer in a new way...in Palestine, we don't have a lot. We just have land." Alice Harrison, an environmental scientist from the United Kingdom, came to Palestine as a tourist and was moved by the humanitarian and environmental fallout from the Israeli occupation. She helped start the Bustan Qaraaqa farm last year after working on water development at a Palestinian NGO. "We were writing these reports about the environment being destroyed," Harrison says. "From the top-down development level, nothing was happening to prevent the destruction of Palestine. So, instead of saying this is terrible, something must be done, we thought, this is terrible, what do we do now?" Harrison says the practice of permaculture in Palestine is multi-faceted. "We're developing simple things that anyone can do in order to salvage something from the occupation...We're also responding to the economic crisis and the food security crisis." Farmers at Bustan Qaraaqa say that over 70 different species of native plants are being propagated and rooted throughout this wadi (Arabic for desert valley). Tiny sprigs of ricinus and pale green thyme reach for the sky in their little pots made from the bottoms of plastic juice bottles. Sage and mint grow in soil-filled car tires, and almond and apricot saplings nurture wildflowers at the base of their skinny trunks. Permaculture is not a tidy, clean-cut way of farming. Instead, plants and trees are packed in all together, grouped by need for certain nutrients, sun or shade, The term "weeds" does not apply; permaculture insists that every plant has its place and can offer something beneficial to the landscape. In the nursery at Bustan Qaraaqa, long, thick blades of wild grass protect new sprouts from the blazing sun. Across the Green Line, Israeli agri-business flourishes and Israelis enjoy unrestricted access to land and water resources. Water grids and sophisticated irrigation provide an abundance of crops and full swimming pools during the summer. Even illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank enjoy these privileges, while Palestinians in surrounding villages and refugee camps struggle with a fraction of the water supply. According to a report published this week by the World Bank, the average Israeli receives access to four times as much water as the average Palestinian, resulting in what it calls a "near catastrophe" for the Palestinian Authority's current water system. The green fields of vegetable and fruit crops in Israel are fed from water aquifers and the Jordan river as settlements across the West Bank are deliberately placed on top of the most fertile land and the biggest underground water tables. On the other hand, Palestinian farms, villages, towns and refugee camps (all of which are restricted from accessing the same water tables and the Jordan river) must then rely on rainwater-catching tubs on top of roofs and beside homes -- a meager source of water especially in the hot summer months. Bustan Qaraaqa addresses this water crisis head-on. Volunteers are building a massive cistern on the southern edge of the property that will catch and reserve rainwater to be used for irrigation and fish farming; schools of tilapia will be introduced both as a form of mosquito control and as a source of food for the community. "Palestine could lead the world in arid-zone agriculture," says Alice Harrison. "Already, 80% of the farming is rain-fed. It's a sustainable set-up to begin with -- but, it's predicted that, because of global climate change, rainfall in this area will decrease 20% by 2050. We should be prepared for it." Working to re-green a drying land within an expanding humanitarian crisis, Bustan Qaraaqa farm volunteers are beginning to coordinate with Palestinian refugee camps, helping develop ideas for rooftop gardens and water re-use. "This isn't a movement for yuppies," Harrison continues. "This is a very grassroots concern. These are real problems people are facing." She quotes a Bedouin friend of hers. "He says that in the [Palestinian] environmental movement, this is a case of us recognizing ourselves." Youth Radio/Youth Media International (YMI) is youth-driven converged media production company that delivers the best youth news, culture and undiscovered talent to a cross section of audiences. To read more youth news from around the globe and explore high quality audio and video features, visit Youthradio.org More on Israel
 
Kamran Pasha: Why Suicide Bombing Violates Islam Top
The evil of suicide bombings must be defeated by Muslims, as it violates every tenet of Islam. In the past two days alone, at least 150 people were killed in Iraq in a wave of suicide bombings which have torn apart any illusion of security in that tragic country. As a Muslim, as a human begin, I am filled with horror at images of men, women and children torn to shreds by the madness of people who turn themselves into incendiary devices. And I am filled with outrage and fury at the diabolic forces that seek to present this monstrous, murderous, terrorist activity as somehow sanctioned by my faith. Let me put this in as simple terms as possible. Suicide bombings, indeed all forms of terrorism, are rejected by mainstream Islam, and always have been. The Holy Qur'an says it in very clear, without any ambiguity: "Do not kill yourselves, for truly God is merciful. And if any do that in rancor and injustice, soon shall We cast them in the Fire. " (Surah 4:29-30) The Qur'an makes it clear that there are rules to human conflict and limits that must be followed: "And fight in the way of God against those who fight you. But do not transgress the limits. Truly God does not love transgressors." (Surah 2:190) As I discuss in my new novel Mother of the Believers , traditional Islamic law established very clear rules of war based on the practice of Prophet Muhammad and his early followers: Do not kill civilians. Do not kill women and children. Do not harm monks or priests of other religions. Do not destroy the environment. Abu Bakr, the first leader of Islam after Prophet Muhammad, gave these commandments when Muslims were fighting the forces of the Byzantine Empire, which had sought to destroy the new religion and killed the Prophet's ambassador: "Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules to keep by heart: Do not commit treachery, nor depart from the right path. You must not mutilate, neither kill a child or aged man or woman. Do not destroy a palm tree, nor burn it with fire and do not cut any fruitful tree. You must not slay any of the flock or herds or the camels, save for your subsistence. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them to that to which they have devoted their lives. You are likely, likewise, to find people who will present to you meals of many kinds. You may eat; but do no forget to mention the name of God." Muslims always took great pride in the fact that they acted honorably, even in war. They looked with contempt upon the warriors of Europe, who slaughtered civilians mercilessly during the Crusades. When the Muslim leader Saladin defeated the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem and retook the holy city, he spared its Christian populace and pointedly said: "We will not do to you what you did to us." His comment was in reference to the First Crusade, where Christian "holy warriors" massacred tens of thousands of civilians upon taking Jerusalem in 1099. Muslims were slaughtered en masse, the Jews of Jerusalem were locked into its main synagogue and set on fire. And Arab Christians were murdered by their co-religionists for the sin of having dark skin and looking like the enemy. The Gesta Francorum , a Crusader chronicle of their activities, proudly notes that the "the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles." In the town of Ma'arra in Syria, the Crusaders committed the ultimate atrocity -- cannibalism. As Crusader chronicler Radulph of Caen wrote: "In Ma'arra, our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled." To this day, the Crusaders are referred to in the Muslim world as "the cannibals of Ma'arra." The Muslims looked at this kind of atrocity committed in the name of God as unworthy of any great religion, and held themselves above such monstrous behavior. So how is it possible that its modern equivalent, the mass murder of civilians through suicide bombings, should now be done in the name of Islam? In Dying to Win , Robert Pape, a scholar at the University of Chicago, analyzes the history and motivation of suicide bombers. Many people who read the book will be surprised to learn that suicide bombing was a tactic that was first used regularly by Hindu terrorists known as the Tamil Tigers. One of the most prominent victims of this tactic, Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, was killed on May 21, 1999 by a female suicide bomber from the Tamil Tigers. According to Pape, Gandhi's murder marks the first use of the "suicide vest" which has become the tool of suicide bombers throughout the world today. A full chronology of the history of suicide bombing among Hindu extremists can be found at: http://www.spur.asn.au/chronology_of_suicide_bomb_attacks_by_Tamil_Tigers_in_sri_Lanka.htm (A warning that the link contains graphic photos of the carnage caused by suicide bombers.) One of the greatest tragedies of modern Islam is that Muslim extremists began to adopt this horrific tactic of suicide bombing over the past two decades. Palestinian militants, arguing that they had no other effective way to combat Israeli oppression, began to employ these tactics, and the image of the "Muslim suicide bomber" began to take hold in the media. I remember at the time most Muslims I spoke with expressed disgust at these horrific acts, but some added the caveat -- "What else can these poor people do? They have no tanks or jets to take on Israeli tanks and jets. This is their only way to fight." My response then and now is that Islam is a religion that has established rules of war for a reason. Human conflict is perhaps inevitable, but unless there is a sense of morality among warriors, even among the warriors of the oppressed, human beings will descend into monstrosity. The nobility of a cause is forever tainted when dipped in the blood of innocents. The argument that Israeli military activities kill countless Palestinian civilians is not an argument that is supported by the noble spirit of Islam. As Saladin pointed out, the Muslims would not inflict on the Christians the atrocities that the Crusaders had inflicted on their victims, simple because we as Muslims were better than that. And I warned those who would excuse the suicide bombers as long as they targeted "the unbelievers," that in Islam all human beings are brothers and sisters and have rights before God and man. I predicted that once some Muslims turned their back on Islam's strict rules of war and went beneath themselves in order "to win," the wrath of Allah would be unleashed upon the Islamic community. If we allowed suicide bombings against non-Muslims, then soon would God punish our sins by inflicting the same horror on Muslims. Tragically, my prediction came true. Suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan now kill thousands of Muslims a year, innocent people going to pray or shop in the marketplace, their only crime being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This kind of monstrous behavior is not Islam. It never has been Islam. And it will never be Islam, no matter what kind of self-serving justifications the terrorists use. For those who wish to learn more about mainstream Muslim positions about war, terrorism and suicide bombing, I refer you here: http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/suicide_bomb.htm http://www.harunyahya.com/terrorism3.php It is time for Muslims and people of all faiths to stand together in love and justice and end this horrific scourge of terrorism and suicide bombing on humanity. I look forward to the day that the world will no longer associate such monstrosity with my beloved faith. And that one day, mankind will believe that Islam really does represent what its name stands for: "Peace." Kamran Pasha is a Hollywood filmmaker and the author of Mother of the Believers, a novel on the birth of Islam as told by Prophet Muhammad's wife Aisha (Atria Books; April 2009). For more information please visit: http://www.kamranpasha.com More on Afghanistan
 
Ray Bradbury Too Sick to Speak at Columbia College Commencement Top
Science fiction author Ray Bradbury won't be at Columbia College's graduation ceremonies this year due to health concerns.
 
Iceland Election: Viking Women Poised To Take Charge Top
Iceland will be holding elections this Saturday, and women are poised to take charge. More on Iceland
 
Dave Zirin: Obama's 100 Days: Bursting the Bubble Top
Obama's 100 Days: Bursting the Bubble by Dave Zirin edgeofsports@gmail.com IF WE'VE learned nothing else in the last six months, it is that there are some very powerful people who suffer from what is being called Baracknophobia. This is the irrational fear of right-wing Republicans who suffer from the delusion that Barack Obama is a dangerous radical aiming to overthrow the entire U.S. political system. Barack Obama--as he would be the first to tell you--is no radical. He has an Iraq withdrawal plan praised by John McCain. He has an Afghanistan war plan praised by William Kristol. He will not investigate or prosecute the torture that occurred under the Bush regime. And he has handed trillions of tax dollars to the banks while leading the charge against nationalization. And yet Baracknophobia festers. All you have to do is turn on Fox News and watch some very powerful politicians, as Stephen Colbert puts it, "crank up the crazy and twist off the knob." There's Newt Gingrich, saying, "We are ushering in socialism to America." There's Michael Steele, the man who says he will bring the urban/suburban hip hop vibe into the Republican Party, imploring people to rise up against socialism. There's Jim Cramer, the CNBC broadcaster who Jon Stewart pantsed on the Daily Show, saying, "We've elected a Leninist!" My goodness. I will say that for anyone who considers themselves a socialist, it is wonderful to have the most hated politicians on the planet use the word as an insult. It's like being called ugly by a frog. They are, as columnist Matt Taibbi put it, fighting for the Heavyweight Championship of Stupid. But Baracknophobia also contains an edge of racism and violence. There was the cartoon in the New York Post that had the officers shooting the monkey, with a caption: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill." There's the lunatic Glenn Beck on Fox News, who said Obama and Rep. Barney Frank were "bloodsuckers," and the way to stop them is to "drive a stake through the heart." And there's Michele Bachman--she wants residents of her state "armed and dangerous," because Obama will be sending children to "re-education camps." And there are those who held the Fox News-sponsored protests around the country on April 15: the teabaggers. So how do we explain all the craziness? On the one hand, it is a howl of their irrelevance. The Republican Party and its election manual of tax cuts for the wealthy, war abroad and bigotry seem about as in step as the flat earth society. The right also feels Baracknophobia not because of any position Obama stands for, but because of what we saw in Chicago's Grant Park on November 4, and because of the 2 million people who came out in the bitter D.C. cold on Inauguration Day. There is hope, and nothing scares those who traffic in hate and fear more than hope. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WE HAVE a very real opportunity right now amid the crisis and hope swirling around us to rebuild both the left and radical struggle in this country. And you see that connection between change in the White House and people's confidence to fight at some of the recent struggles. There are the signs at gay marriage rallies that say, "Yes we can!" There was successful divestment at Hampshire College from corporations to contribute to Israel's war machine. There was the historic victory of the Smithfield workers organizing a union at a massive pork processing plant in North Carolina. Smithfield worker Aleisha Rascoe told the local paper: "If we can change the White House, we can change the hog house. And we did, we made history all in the same year." But while we celebrate the inspiration, we also have to be clear that Obama doesn't support gay marriage or divestment from Israel, and his attitude toward unions, if his lack of initiative around the proposed Employee Free Choice Act is any indication, is half-hearted. There's only one conclusion to draw for our side: Now is not the time to cheerlead Obama just because those who oppose him on the right are knuckle-dragging lunatics. Now is the time to agitate--to make him hear our voices loud and proud. Obama speaks about Washington, D.C., being a bubble. The bubble needs to pop, and we need to be heard. If we allow the decisions that affect our lives to be made behind closed doors, we are cutting our own throats. Now is the time for the left to exercise its political independence. Now is the time for us to revisit the political tradition of radical struggle in this country. Now is the time for us to pose our own solutions for what is clearly a broken system. Now is the time for us to call for an end to the wars abroad, and an end to the drug war at home. And now is the time to animate our struggles with the idea that another world is not only possible, but necessary. We have to demand more. As the great historian Howard Zinn said in a speech: Some people might say, "Well, what do you expect?" And the answer is that we expect a lot. People say, "What, are you a dreamer?" And the answer is, yes, we're dreamers. We want it all. We want a peaceful world. We want an egalitarian world. We don't want war. We don't want capitalism. We want a decent society. Are we dreaming? We better hold on to that dream--because if we don't, we'll sink closer and closer to this reality that we have, and that we don't want." The road may be long, but the wind is at our back. Obama said in a recent meeting with CEOs, "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks." We need to say to Obama, "If you don't mind, please get out of the way." More on Obama's First 100 Days
 
Martha St Jean: A Reasonable Observer's Response to the Torture Memos Top
Sam Stein's article detailing some of the "techniques" used on prisoners was telling on two points: how far we are willing to go in order to illicit information and how far we will reach into our rationale to justify our actions. Stein quotes part of what is now being widely referred to as the "Bush Torture Memo." While detainees subject to dietary manipulation are obviously situated differently from individuals who voluntarily engage in commercial weight-loss programs, we note that widely available commercial weight-loss programs in the United States employ diets of 1000 kcal/day for sustained periods of weeks or longer without requiring medical supervision. To paraphrase the logic of the writers of the memo in regards to "dietary manipulation," If Americans restrict the number of calories they take in to such a low level, it must be safe. For the record, dieting is not fun - forced dieting, even worse. Restricted dieting while being subjected to waterboarding and other interrogation "techniques" - I imagine must be torture. (No pun intended.) Torture is not about leaning to the left or the right within the political spectrum . It should be avoided not because that is "the right thing to do," but because we must not lose our souls to acts of inhumanity. This is not only a domestic disgrace but demonstrates to the international community how we too, as Americans, are not beyond ignominious acts. Many of us have read some of the letters that Brian A. Benczkowski, had sent to Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General. In one Benczkowski writes: The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than the purpose of humiliation and abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer, in measuring the outrageousness of the act. That said, even if an act were motivated by such a compelling government interest, it still would be necessary to consider the nature of the act itself, such as "the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects," and the like...Under this analysis, some acts would clearly be deemed outrageous regardless of the identity of a detainee or any information he may possess. These memos have provided more questions than answers. Where were the "reasonable observers" who should have given dissenting viewpoints based not only on the legal ramifications but moral ones? Who will stand when those who should be safeguarding personal and public liberties are the ones stifling them? When will we say that, "This is enough." Today is your opportunity. On his blog for Salon.com, Glenn Greenwald quotes Chris Matthews , "This whole torture debate is likely to tell us a lot about the kind of president Barack Obama intends to be. Will he buckle to the left, the netroots, and pursue an investigation into torture having said he didn't want to? Or will he go post-partisan and leave the past to the historians?" The answer to that question is debatable. There is something we can do. Let us discontinue the practice of changing the definitions of words to suit our actions. The definition of the words torture, humiliation, abuse, reasonable and outrageous have shifted further than the fault lines that caused the 2004 Andaman-Sumatran earthquake and led to almost 300,000 deaths in South Asia. In this case, the lack of body bags does not mean that a type of death has not taken place. To read a log detailing the life of a detainee click here . More on Barack Obama
 
Maegan Carberry: Stars! Sex! Murder! Party Like It's 1909. Top
This past month I've been absolutely riveted reading Paula Uruburu's book about the country's first "it" girl, Evelyn Nesbit, and the murder of her lover, Stanford White in " American Eve ." (The lover was offed by her insane millionaire husband, Harry Thaw, in 1906 and was a tabloid sensation, complete with an OJ-worthy trial of the century.) The book was sent to me by Penguin Press innocuously enough in March when I returned home to Los Angeles after a two-month stint in New York, where I've been living "bicoastally" this year. I was sucked in instantly as I read that this crazy non-fictional event went down in Madison Square Park. The apartment I've been staying at when I go to Manhattan is quite close to the park, and it has become a bit of a favorite hang for me in the city. Since I'm a little superstitious about coincidences, I immediately hit the couch with blankets and the book at my first possible opportunity. I'm always exhilarated by how, despite advances in modern technology, the human condition is fairly constant throughout history. You start thinking Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus are the product of some sort of cultural decline, but those two pop princesses hold nothing on Evelyn. From her disastrously negligent stage mother who pimped her out for a life of luxury, to the pervy old men who abused her, to the gawking public that watched, this book is further proof to me that Alexis de Tocqueville's theory about our country's inevitable slide into a diluted, cultural void (from Democracy in America) is dead on. Even more true when you consider how swiftly we're becoming an unchecked nation of crowd-sourcers obsessed with our me-centric devices. I'm so glad I took the time to read this book and delve into a bit of New York's history. (I vowed after a lovely dinner with friends in Brooklyn in January, in which I had nothing but politics to talk about, that I would have to make a concerted effort to broaden my election-fried brain's horizons and get more interesting.) Since I've just moved permanently to New York, as a newbie it's fascinating and romantic to imagine all the other people who have come here over the centuries looking for adventures that would push their minds and boundaries. I walk in the park and imagine Evelyn's gorgeous gowns and the flashes of old-fashioned cameras, what she must have thought caught between two powerful and commanding men, how lonely she must have been with nothing but her good looks and work. In an interesting corresponding detail, a few weeks ago a New York Times reporter named William Niederkorn began following me on Twitter, which alerted me to his amazing blog, The Times Traveler . He blogs stories from the NYT that occurred 100 years ago. This morning we met for a lovely early breakfast in Gramercy Park and discussed the old turn-of-the-century headlines. It was amazing listening to him talk in past-present speak: "Ah, yes. Harry K. Thaw is about to have a bad couple weeks as he tries to get out of his asylum." I love William's project because it's amazing, between all the frenetic news coverage we consume in a day, to think of the history we're creating. To imagine some nano-blogger updating via ESP 100 years from now, chuckling at the nuances of our tweets, seeing our "future" with the benefit of hindsight. What's so serious - torture, wire-tapping, a war - hangs in the balance of the moment, but is nothing without context. A story that can go any way we choose to live it, document it. So much of storytelling these days is about reacting at lightning speed, and I am as guilty as the next person of perpetuating it. It's experiences like these, though, that remind me of the important need to practice slow journalism now and then. The reflective kind that uncovers beautiful mysteries, and leaves your skin tingling on a routine walk in the park.
 
Larry Abrams: The Voodoo Economist Top
In good times, Free Enterprise works well for some people. In bad times it doesn't work well for anyone. Believers in the mystic efficacy of the market call this the business cycle. Everyday people, who only awake from our political stupor in times of serious emergency, call this alarming. Nevertheless, this is what we find. The Obama administration thinks that raining down money on the financial markets, along with a measure -- or two -- of New Deal, Keynesian style pump priming of the economy will ease liquidity and eventually restore demand to more or less previous levels. Voodoo economists say, Dream on. Owing to the insane levels of consumer debt that we, the people had to carry in order "to grow" the now collapsed Ponzi Finance economy, it's highly unlikely that we will able to re-inflate Demand to 1990's or early 21st century levels. If consumption at 2006 levels is what's necessary to re-inflate demand sufficiently to "end the recession," it's not going to happen; not next year, not anytime soon. In 1933, when FDR came in, the Financial Crisis of 1929-30 had already long before morphed into a Great Depression and it was clear to anyone, including the five or six Capitalists with their heads on straight (and that's being excessively generous), that only massive government intervention in the economy could save Capitalism. The Obama Administration, on the other hand, is coming in near the beginning of a deep slump: near enough, that many are still not convinced of the slump's severity, and the administration is still concerned with "not spooking the markets." However the biggest -- and still somewhat hidden -- problem that Obama faces is that it's not clear there is another way forward for Capitalism this time. The Ponzi finance economy of the Reagan-Clinton-Bush era didn't just happen. It's roots go back to the initial decline of American manufacturing in the late 60's. By the end of the Seventies, we were flooded with a slew of Marxist jeremiads that saw the crisis of those years as presaging the collapse of the system. What many of these analyses missed, however, was the possibility of further innovation in Capitalism: What they missed was the coming Tech and computer revolution. Capitalist true believers, of course, like to trumpet Tech as the example of what the Market can do if left to its own devices. This assertion is frankly even dumber than crude Marxist assumptions about the inevitability of Capitalism's collapse. The deep wellspring of state support for the research that underlay the Tech revolution: particularly the development of the Internet by government computer scientists belies the boosterism of the true believers. The big problem with Capitalist Tech innovation, at least in the Reagan/Clinton/ Bush era of Ponzi Finance Capitalism, was the mixed, muddled, and corrupted way it went about fulfilling its larger, non-financial, promise. The vast preponderance of email on the internet is spam, and the majority of sites on the web are dedicated to porn. And let's not even talk about Twitter. What drove the so-called Capitalist innovations of Tech were stock market valuations and these typically turned out to have nothing to do with even potential profitability. The entire system was predicated on the assumption that the Market knew, when in fact the Market is an ass, and proud of it. It's still quite possible to believe that a next wave of Capitalist innovation could be led by Biotech, Green energy and what have you. However in the absence of a market that can fairly value these emerging technologies, what we are left with is the same, incredibly profligate, inequitable, wasteful and broken, Finance Capitalist model. And it's not clear that the world can survive too much of more of that. We need a new global economic system, and with the demise of Command Economy Socialism, ironically only two short decades before the collapse of its bete noire, Capitalism, only Voodoo Economics can supply it. The genius of the American System has always been the controlled competition of checks and balances and that's what the Voodoo Economic Recovery plan builds on. We're talking about Real Competition here, not the fake Japanese monster movie competition between highly leveraged and cannibalistic oligarchies that characterized late Capitalism. The only entity with enough Capital to compete with the too-big to-fail mega Corporations of the 21st Century is the State itself. For an idea of how this would work, we need look no farther than the Auto Industry. The Auto Industry is collapsing before our eyes, and if nothing is done about it, the Midwest and Upper Midwest are going into a depression that will not lift in our lifetimes. We sense now that Obama and his "temple whore economists," Summers and Geitner, are really gonna blow it here big time, but using the Public-Private Competition model instead, here's what would happen. The government would first of all bailout both Ford and GM by assuming the health care and legacy costs of the two companies. In exchange, we, the people will receive an equity -- and voting -- stake in the two companies as well as significant public and union representation on their boards. Chrysler, the least viable of the Big 3, would be bought from Cerberus Capital Management and run by a Public Corporation -- call it US/Chrysler. Over the course of several years it would be converted to a dedicated green car company, whose chief line; the "Green T" would be a stripped down, low, cost hybrid or electric car, affordable for every American family and financed by the new US/Chrysler Bank. In the Voodoo Economic Recovery Plan, this model of the auto industry would be followed throughout the economy. When most of the big Banks are taken into the receivership, as they surely will be by early 2010, one of the Banks will not be resold to private investors, but will be kept by the people and managed by a Public Entity. Like a private bank, the "Public Bank" will also be responsible to its shareholders: the people of the United States. Profitability would be a goal, but wise public investment in green community building, low cost student loans, affordable mortgages and non-usurious commercial credit would be it's raison d'etre. The Pharmaceutical Industry has created an empire by utilizing public, government and university research to make obscene profits for itself, and then paying an army of lobbyists to cover its tracks. This is an industry crying out for Public Competition. Public Power and utility companies would be systematically established in every area of the country to compete with the existing private companies. The goal of public power would the replacement of fossil fuels with renewables as well as fair and reasonable service to its customers. On it would go throughout the economy: Could Microsoft dominate the software and computer industry if a public tech company, capitalized at the same levels as Microsoft, was pushing open source and Linux software as a competing platform? Could Google continue as a Big Brother like power unto itself if challenged by a well-capitalized, less self-interested, search engine? Maybe yes, maybe no, but a Public Tech company would create thousands of tech jobs and a tech industry more focused on value and function, and less on planned obsolescence and weird nerd fetishisms, either way. There were many weaknesses of the late Capitalist system, but the most obvious was the structural one. Capital needs to grow, which in turn, means enterprises have to grow larger and larger, until too-big-to fail, the epithet for our times, is the most obvious term that applies to them. But it's not only that they're too big to fail, giant enterprises simply do not work particularly well. This goes for Public Enterprises too. Voodoo Economists do not believe that publicly owned companies would intrinsically operate any more efficiently than private or publicly traded Companies. If we have to hazard a guess, we'd say that they will operate spectacularly better at first based on the go-getter idealism and unflagging energy of the first generation of workers and management . . . . . . And then fall off in efficiency through succeeding generations, until eventually they more or less resemble the Post Office. C'est la vie. The Voodoo Economic Recovery program does not pretend to be a panacea for the troubles of the world, it's just a way of leveling the playing field, and pointing needed social investment in the right direction. Parenthetically it should also crack open the door for small and mid level manufacturing to take advantage of the rebirth of Capitalist competition, which became almost an afterthought in the last generation. Voodoo economics, of course, has gotten a bad rap over the years; especially from Bush I who accused Ronald Reagan of it, but as we say at the Institute, consider the source. And for that matter, don't criticize what you can't understand. Here at the Institute, we've been reluctant to criticize this administration over their first hundred days simply because they've inherited such a mess. But now, as we've watched the Obama Administration take baby steps in a hundred different policy directions, it's become obvious that addressing the mess directly is not their MO. The Obamaites are going to try and, Clinton-like, politically finesse the mess, and wait for openings to take their shots. The problem is those openings may never come. This "Recession" may, or may not, lift a bit over the next year, but it's not going to "end." We're in the beginning of a structural change in the World Economy. Voodoo Economists expect this realization to kick by the first quarter of 2010, if not before. Of course by then, it may be too late to save Obama's Presidency -- or at least the "change" part of it. Someone will have to take the fall, and we suspect it will be Obama's Machiavellian Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who's so busy triangulating, it's not clear who he's triangulating with. In the Jewish religion the current season between Passover and the ancient beginning-of-Summer Festival, Shavuot, or "Festival of Weeks," is called "the counting of the Omer." The Omer lasts seven Shabbats, seven weeks, 49 days. In the way of Prophecy, we suggest here, that like the Omer, Rahm Emanuel's days (as Chief-of-Staff), are numbered.
 
Kerry: Detainee Photos Could Be Terrorist Propaganda, But Truth Is Important Top
Senate foreign relations committee chairman John Kerry said on Friday that he was concerned the release of photos depicting the abusive treatment of detainees in U.S. custody could become "propaganda tool" for terrorist organizations. In an interview with the Huffington Post, the Massachusetts Democrat was asked to respond to news that the Department of Defense would be releasing 44 photos pertaining to the harsh handling of detainees at prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I think showing the truth is always important," said Kerry. "But I do think it will be used as a propaganda tool and have some damaging impact. But this didn't happen under Obama, it happened under Bush and every one understands that." Kerry stressed in the interview that this was not a decision made by the Obama administration. "They are not releasing them because they want to, but because there was a FOIA request and a judge is ordering them released," he said. He also stressed that Obama had put an end to these interrogation tactics, which would, in due course, eliminate a galvanizing tool used by these same terrorist cells. "We are trying to move to a new place," he said, "and we have ended these policies." But he did concede that the pictures "will be used as a tool... as were the other photos [from Abu Ghraib]." The remarks were part of a broader discussion with the Senator on current state of American foreign policy. The release of the 44 photographs comes in response to an American Civil Liberties Union Freedom of Information Act request for all information relating to detainee treatment. Last week, the Obama White House released four OLC memos in response to the same FOIA request. Lawyers for the ACLU hailed the move as another nod towards a more transparent approach by the White House. But CIA officials told ABC News that they were disappointed the Obama administration did not fight the FOIA request up to the Supreme Court. "They should have fought it all the way; if they lost, they lost," said Dr. Mark M. Lowenthal, former Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production. "There's nothing to be gained from it. There's no substantive reason why those photos have to be released." Get HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter .
 
California Town Declares "Random Acts Of Kindness" Week Top
Waterford, a small town of 8,100 people in Northern California, is celebrating "Random Acts of Kindness Week" this week. City officials decided are trying to remind residents of Waterford that a nice deed can turn a stranger into a friend, which is an important message in trying times like these. Susan Herendeen, of the Desert News, reports: There are no rules to follow: A motorist could give up a prime parking spot. A pedestrian could plug quarters into an empty parking meter. A farmer could offer free vegetables from his garden. An appreciative person could pen a thank-you note. Hugs count, too. This is not the first year Waterford has held a Random Acts of Kindness Week. Pastor Glenn Stanford, along with the Waterford Ministerial Association, began campaigning for this week in April years ago but in recent years the awareness of the week had dissipated. With all the economic turmoil this year, Stanford and Waterford town officials were encouraged to bring the week back. Read the whole story here . *** 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 The Giving Life
 
Stephen Zunes: Missing an Anti-Racism Moment Top
In boycotting the United Nations conference on racism, the Obama administration demonstrated that just because an African American can be elected president doesn't mean the United States will be any more committed than the Bush administration in fighting global racism. Rejecting calls by liberal Democratic members of Congress, leading human rights groups, Pope Benedict XVI, and most of the international community to participate, the Obama administration instead gave into pressure by Congressional hawks and other anti-UN forces by joining a handful of other nations refusing to participate in the historic gathering. The five-day conference, which is taking place this week in Geneva, assessed international progress in fighting racism and xenophobia since the UN's first conference in Durban, South Africa eight years ago. The Bush administration withdrew from that gathering, but there had been hope the Obama administration wouldn't continue its predecessor's ideology-driven opposition to the UN and its human rights agenda. With pressure from the United States and some other countries, the draft declaration prepared for this year's conference dropped a call to ban "defamation of religion," which raised concerns regarding restricting free speech, as well as any references to Israel and Palestine. State Department spokesperson Robert Wood acknowledged that the draft was "significantly improved," and that the United States was "deeply grateful" that requested changes had been made. Yet he announced the United States would boycott the conference anyway because the document reaffirmed the final declaration of the 2001 meeting in Durban right-wing critics had labeled "anti-Israel." Anti-Israel? Despite ongoing claims to the contrary by various right-wing pundits, however, the final document didn't contain any anti-Israel statements or language equating Zionism with racism. Efforts by some participating states to include that and similar objectionable language were defeated. Indeed, the only mention of Israel in the final 61-page document was as follows: We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation. We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon all States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion; We call for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region in which all peoples shall co-exist and enjoy equality, justice and internationally recognized human rights, and security. Why would the Obama administration find such a statement so reprehensible that it would boycott a conference whose focus isn't on Israel, but on ending racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerances? Since the document explicitly recognizes Israel's right to security, the Obama administration apparently objects to its formal recognition that Palestinians are under foreign occupation, and that they have a right to self-determination and statehood. Yet virtually the entire international community — including the United Nations, the World Court and a broad consensus of legal scholars — recognizes this reality. According to the State Department, the Obama administration believes the 2001 declaration "prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians." In other words, it appears the Obama administration believes that assuming the Palestinians' right to self-determination and statehood, and calling for a Middle East in which all peoples "shall coexist and enjoy equality, justice and international recognized human rights, and security" should not be givens.  During the more than 15 years of these U.S.-facilitated negotiations, the Palestinians have seen illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank more than double, their freedom of movement restricted, their human rights deteriorate, and their social and economic standards plummet. Moreover, the new Israel government with which the Palestinians need to negotiate is led by a coalition of far right-wing parties that have refused to acknowledge Palestinian rights, and have threatened further war against its neighbors. Its foreign minister is an outspoken anti-Arab racist who has proposed the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population in Israel and the occupied territories.  Yet the Obama administration insists that rather than the international community reiterating the longstanding international legal principle of the right to self-determination, the Palestinians' future should instead be placed on the bargaining table under an ongoing U.S.-led "peace process," which has thus far only worsened their suffering. Addressing Anti-Semitism Legitimate concerns about Israeli policies regularly appear at international forums sponsored by the United Nations. But they have sometimes been contaminated by sweeping statements condemning the state of Israel itself, and portraying some of the most racist and chauvinistic aspects of Zionism as representative of Jewish nationalism as a whole. However, these kinds of discriminatory resolutions have been declining in recent years, as countries have become more willing to recognize that, while some governments may pursue racist policies, no state should be singled out as inherently racist in and of itself. Efforts by anti-Israel delegations at the 2001 anti-racism conference in Durban were defeated and weren't considered a realistic threat at the Geneva Conference either. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim that Israel was a "racist state" during a speech on the opening day of this year's conference was not well-received, prompting many delegates to walk out in protest. Still, even some of the more reasonable resolutions critical of Israel proposed at the 2001 conference distracted attention from the broader issues at stake. Such efforts often result in dividing Jews — themselves a historically oppressed people — from their natural allies among people of color. Furthermore, other governments that have as bad or even more racist policies than Israel have not been subjected to as much attention at such conferences.  The Israeli government has been able to inflict its racist policies on neighboring Arab populations largely as a result of the unconditional diplomatic, economic, and military support of the United States. Any country with a history of war with its neighbors that found itself effectively immune from sanctions, or any other negative repercussions for violating international norms, would likely behave the same way, regardless of whether it were Jewish, "Zionist," or anything else. Were it not for the United States providing Israel with protection from international pressure to end its illegal occupation and colonization of neighboring lands, the "just, comprehensive and lasting peace" called for in the 2001 declaration the Obama administration apparently finds so objectionable could have by now been a reality. However legitimate some of the concerns regarding anti-Semitism at international forums, nothing in the final 2001 declaration at Durban — the alleged reason for the U.S. boycott this year — appears to have been even remotely anti-Semitic. Indeed, the final declaration states: We recall that the Holocaust must never be forgotten…We recognize with deep concern the increase in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas against Jewish, Muslim and Arab communities…We condemn the persistence and resurgence of neo-Nazism, neo-Fascism and violent nationalist ideologies based on racial or national prejudice, and state that these phenomena can never be justified in any instance or in any circumstances. Even if the 2001 declaration was as problematic as the Obama administration depicted it, participation in this year's conference would not have implied an endorsement of every single phrase of a lengthy and wide-ranging declaration hammered together by representatives of more than 200 governments. Reaction to the Decision The Congressional Black Caucus, which strongly encouraged U.S. participation in the international meeting, stated that it was "deeply dismayed" by Obama's decision. "Had the United States sent a high-level delegation reflecting the richness and diversity of our country, it would have sent a powerful message to the world that we're ready to lead by example," the statement reads. "Instead, the administration opted to boycott the conference, a decision that does not advance the cause of combating racism and intolerance, but rather sets the cause back." Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) observed how the U.S. decision to boycott the conference was "inconsistent with the administration's policy of engaging with those we agree with and those we disagree with." She added that "the United States is making it more difficult for it to play a leadership role on UN Human Rights Council as it states it plans to do. This is a missed opportunity, plain and simple." A spokesperson for Human Rights Watch noted how the meeting would lack the diplomatic gravitas it deserved as a result of Washington's absence. "For us it's extremely disappointing and it's a missed opportunity, really, for the United States," she said.  Other human rights groups, as well as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, also expressed their disappointment. By contrast, the right wing applauded Obama's decision. A bipartisan group of congressional hawks, which pressured Obama to boycott the conference, sent him an open letter applauding Obama's decision. The letter claims that the meeting "undermines freedom of expression and is tainted by an anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic agenda that questions the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state." The effort was led by such influential members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee as Ron Klein (D-FL), Mike Pence (R-IN), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Eliot Engel (D-NY), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (D-FL), as well as Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, all of whom previously attacked the United Nations, the World Court, and various human rights groups for challenging certain U.S. and Israeli policies. By accepting the recommendation of these congressional militarists and unilateralists to boycott the conference, while rejecting calls to participate by the Black Caucus, reputable human rights groups, UN officials, and world religious leaders, Obama has given the clearest indication yet as to who he will listen to in determining how his administration approaches the United Nations and other international initiatives in support for human rights. More on Durban II
 
Paula Gordon: Thug(s) Top
I really, REALLY, don't like doing this. There are many positive things going on in our world on which I would like to focus. HOWEVER, the bad guys are in full-howl, frothing-at-the-mouth mode and, not content with the wreckage already wrought, seem determined to drive us all permanently into the abyss. "Thug" is an apt description of my Senator, Saxby Chambliss (R/GA), for which I'd love to lay claim, but can't. Credit a friend, former Georgian and well-known historian who was visiting us. He was recalling how abhorrent he found being nominally represented by those who distort facts and pander to hate. ("Thug" applies equally well to the unrelenting, virulent malignity I confront daily in unrelenting emails from the wrong-wing, in which Chambliss is an eager fellow-traveler.) Ugly is bad; hypocrisy knows no shame. When the greater good of the American people is well served -- say, an economic stimulus plan to begin to repair the devastating fallout generated by the greed and corruption of Chambliss' corporate handlers and race-baiting electoral base -- Senator Chambliss hates "govm't". And for goodness sake, never let facts get in the way. "Instead of focusing on three major issues - job creation, housing and compassion for Americans who have lost jobs through no fault of their own - to boost the economy, this bill has morphed into a bloated government giveaway." [from Sen. Chambliss' website 2/10/09] GovernmentContractsWon.com reports Georgia got 11,821 "defense" contracts worth $6,025,053,234 in 2008 alone, $40,551,006,306 over the course of the Bush Administration (which began, lest we forget, the same year Chambliss' notoriously unseated Max Cleland in an unconscionably slanderous campaign). And Chambliss dares talk about "pork" or "earmarks"? Georgia gets about $1.01* back for every dollar it sends to Washington. Unlike, say, Alaska which gets $1.84 for each tax dollar, Georgia is merely helping to redistribute money from taxpayers to the politically well-connected. But let a Defense Secretary -- even a holdover from a Republican administration -- lead a belated challenge to what General/President Dwight Eisenhower (another Republican) aptly named the phenomenally bloated "military-industrial complex" and Saxby? Oh, that's different. Senator Chambliss hates government spending ... except when he doesn't, and unabashedly contradicts himself, as he reportedly did on "Talk of the Nation": "When it comes to stimulating the economy, there's no better way to do it than to spend it in the defense community." That is incorrect. That is wrong. That is bad economics. The economic multiplier effects of weapons-of-mass-destruction and weapons-of-lesser-destruction are substantially less than, say, similar amounts of money INVESTED in wind turbines or health care or education or policing or mass transit. It's tough to choose between contempt and ridicule, so let's stick with the facts and choose both. Chambliss is an old-fashioned front for the military-industrial-security/business-as-usual complex. And, by all means, underscore "business": big business; business with lots of lobbyist and political payrolls. Diane Nash, an underappreciated, heroic figure from America's Civil Rights movement, never let any of us off the hook. Since the people are sovereign in the U.S., if we don't like something, change it. That takes engagement. True, it's tough to stay engaged in the country which proudly includes the political party, the Know-Nothings. It's especially hard when far right wing extremists -- sectarian and secular alike -- cynically distort what they touch and trumpet their abominations. However, engagement is essential if we are to control our own destiny. Freedom of speech** is only the beginning. It allows for us to "out" thuggery. Sunlight IS a powerful disinfectant. Then we're required to act. That includes my never letting the Saxby Chamblisses of the world forget that they have FAILED to represent ME and working hard for those who do -- between elections as well as during them. Please understand that I do not want to silence Saxby Chambliss. I want him to shut up. He has the right to hold false views. Within a very broad range, he has the right to share those views. He has the right to sell his view to the highest bidder (assuming certain legal niceties are followed). And I have the right and the civic duty to publicly disagree. As "The Economist" put it in their April 18th edition (p 36): "... the Glenn Becks of the world are more than just a joke." Saxby Chambliss may be less than a joke but he is 1% of the United States Senate (once Al Franken takes his seat). He is dangerously unfunny. He is not the problem; he is part of the problem. He is a symptom of the problem, which, by current evidence, is a Republican party whose members act as if their principal constituent is the mutant offspring of Rush Limbaugh and Haliburton. Thuggish. * -- These "balance of payments" figures are taken from the Tax Foundation website reflecting data for 2005. ** -- For a preview of legendary reporter Anthony Lewis' take on the vital role of speech AND action guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, check out our YouTube video at YouTube.com/user/SunlightOxygen, featuring an excerpt of his appearance with us on "The Paula Gordon Show". The entire conversation is available (MP3) on our website. Both are free. Thanks to the excellent newsource, Alternet.org, for reproducing Amanda Terkel's 4/13/09 "ThinkProgress" comments, in which she quotes Senator Chambliss in "Krugman Calls Out GOP Hypocrisy on Job Creation and Defense Cuts".
 
Kenneth Lerer: How We Got Here and How We Get Out of Here Top
Kenneth Lerer delivered the following speech at the Columbia Journalism School Annual New Media Lecture Series on Thursday, April 23, 2009 This is the end of my year at Columbia and I want to really thank you for having me. I've had a totally terrific time. I learned a ton from Sree throughout this year, so thank you Sree, as well as from the students who came to the lectures. I sat in on one of Michael Shapiro's classes one day last Fall, where we brainstormed ideas for Brooklyn Ink. (By the way, a site that I think could be a real business.) And I remember one of the students asking me, with all the press about newspapers and magazines going out of business, if I thought there would still be a job available for her by the time she graduated. I assured her there would be, that yes the business of journalism was certainly in a state of flux, but that didn't mean she would have nowhere to go. But her question hit home and I thought of my own two children, and how hard it is and how anxiety-provoking it can be looking for a job. Since that class, it seems that I have had that same conversation with different students everyday I've been on campus. So I thought I'd talk a little about the state of print journalism today, and how we got here and how are we going to get out of here. And within that discussion there may even be some ideas on where to find the best jobs. To underscore the importance of this issue, just a few days ago, as you know, the Pulitzer prizes were awarded and the New York Times won 5, including one for best investigative reporting and one for breaking news reporting. Few things are more important in the world of journalism, than to assure that the New York Times and other great institutions not only survive, but also flourish... so they can keep producing great, quality news. There is no reason why they can't succeed. They do not have to compromise their journalism even as their business model evolves inevitably to digital. I want to make one thing clear. Anyone who whispers, or says out loud, that the future of journalism is in doubt, could not be more wrong. I'm really excited and optimistic about its future. Here's why, in short: there are more readers of news than ever before and that number is growing every year... we've only just begun to explore the countless areas where news will be expanded and democratized online... there is and will be more and more content to choose from and more ways to choose it... we can access almost limitless commentary and expert analysis, within minutes of important events... journalists can reach unlimited readers, all around the world, and they can engage and debate with no technological barrier. No, journalism isn't in jeopardy; it's just in another transition to a new and better place. And as long as the public puts a premium on quality information and analysis -- and the public always will -- journalism will survive and thrive. A lot of what we're seeing online today is actually a return, full circle, to the way things were when American newspapers began; a mixture of advocacy and investigative in-your-face journalism. There is a long and distinguished history of such newspapers -- from the papers that were fiercely loyal to Jefferson or Hamilton, to the abolitionist broadsheets, to the activist newspapers at the turn of the century. As my partner Arianna Huffington says, the mission of journalism has always been "truth-seeking, not striking some fictitious balance between two sides." And anyway, who can doubt that it's always been important to give consumers what they want. The truth is, the delivery system is changing. But there are aspects of journalism that have remained constant over time. That said; it's impossible to ignore the transition we're in today. You can't pick up a newspaper, or read a blog, without finding a story about the mounting troubles that have overtaken the print world. (And by the way, not just the print world has been affected. We're all very familiar with the sweeping changes that are reshaping the broadcast news business. But today I'll stay focused on print and on newspapers more specifically. And while no one knows what the future will look like exactly, I'm confident that within a few years, tops, the news landscape will look fundamentally different from what it looks like today, with many new players, with some new leaders, but still totally fulfilling its vital purpose. The truth is that the market changes we are now seeing have been inevitable for years -- and very obvious. But the financial crisis of the last year has greatly accelerated the scope and pace of change and is threatening the survival of American institutions that have outlasted Panics, Depressions, and both World Wars... The Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post Intelligencer -- both founded during Abraham Lincoln's lifetime -- folded this year. The Tribune Company, which owns The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times , and five other daily papers, declared bankruptcy last December. And early this month, The New York Times threatened to close The Boston Globe -- one of the defining papers in America -- if management can't get union concessions. And even papers that seem safe for now have instituted massive spending cuts. Printed dailies are becoming slimmer, and so are the staffs that create them. In a belated, almost desperate effort to adapt, publishers everywhere are trimming costs and closing production plants. Meanwhile, Internet news sources -- including some of the online versions of the papers themselves -- continue to gain readers while opening real new pathways of information. Not surprisingly, we're now in the midst of an industry-wide debate over what all this means for the future of news. Virtually everyone with a stake in journalism has weighed in. Some fear that journalism will vanish if papers no longer hit the doorstep. Others say that the delivery medium is meaningless; they don't care if news is printed, or not, as long as quality content remains. But the future of journalism is not dependent upon the future of newspapers and as all this is debated back and forth that's very important to remember. The news business now faces real practical questions, such as how to pay for digital content and how to preserve standards online. But beyond these logistical challenges, we have to ask whether printed newspapers can remain relevant, or whether they're becoming anachronisms like paper checks and fax machines. And if digital news is the future, how much of the old system can we -- or should we -- preserve? There are no perfect answers to these questions and there are very difficult choices to be made. But at this point we have to see the world as it is and not kid ourselves. So before we deal with these questions: how did we get to this point? Figuring out how we got here may help us get out of here. It would be easy for traditional newspapers to blame their present distress on the economic turbulence of the last nine months and some are doing just that. But that would be wrong. The changes that have been moving across the business for over a decade are far too big for that. We need to look beyond the current headlines -- to the time before the economic downturn, before the housing bubble, before Google, before Twitter, before George W. Bush. After all, the Internet hasn't been lurking under our radar all these years; it's been exploding all around us. There were clear and present danger signs that presaged this time of change. By the time Craigslist appeared in 1995, AOL and Internet Explorer had already made Internet usage common and easy. Sure it was slow, and you had to pay by the minute. But the Internet had an undeniable and unstoppable presence by the mid-1990s. It was powerful enough that in 1998 the Lewinsky scandal broke online, prompting a CNN reporter to complain that "in the Internet Age... a 30-year-old former CBS gift-shop clerk ... can wield nearly as much power as.... the editor of The New York Times ." While he didn't mean this as a compliment, his comment did underscore a too-often ignored truth about Internet news, one that has been proven many times since. Web reporting is not a sideshow to print journalism. It breaks and creates -- important news. This was a decade ago: one year since Google, two years since Slate. But the Internet's potential was already clear. By this time we were reading more and more about the growing blog phenomenon. Newspaper circulation began a downward trend that hasn't stopped since. The pieces may not have come together yet, but they were surely lining up. As new technologies appeared, it was never a question of if they would evolve, but when. Once we had the laptop, it was only a matter of time until we had the BlackBerry, then the Kindle. Wi-Fi got better; computers got faster; the Internet kept growing. News blogs like Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish built large and loyal followings. Aggregators like Google News let readers find stories from across the web and not just in the major outlets. Sites like YouTube let people get involved and Facebook and MySpace led the industry in building huge online communities. This all happened over the last ten years. At the time, it wasn't totally obvious that these developments would change the news business forever, but it was clearly where the consumer was going -- and of course they did go there in huge numbers. Newspapers made token attempts to adapt, but they never reformed their business models in the transformative way that would have been required for the inevitable shift online. So why didn't newspapers see the signs? Why didn't they foresee or react to what was happening when their next generation of readers, including their own children, became so plugged into the Internet? Even if they couldn't envision the exact shape of tomorrow, it was clear that it wouldn't be a repeat of yesterday. It was obvious that the old assumptions wouldn't hold for much longer. Part of the problem was that these assumptions were embedded into huge corporate structures that weren't built for sharp turns. Years of media consolidation created a handful of conglomerates that now control enormous swaths of the media market. Some, like Disney, G.E., Viacom and Time Warner have bought up all types of media, from magazines and TV to movies and books. Newspaper companies followed the lead and expanded as well. News Corp., Hearst, and the New York Times Company now own over two hundred newspapers between them. This vertical integration left them with far less competition, so they were able to grow without innovation. But they also lost perspective. They doubled down on a business plan that seemed to work short term, and then stifled creativity by barricading themselves in a corporate echo chamber. So they kept expanding their control in the analogue world, even while the digital world was on the rise. It's not that newspaper owners simply ignored the Internet; they were paralyzed by their apparent success. While threats to their industry dominance were clear on the horizon, for most of this time their business model seemed fundamentally sound. It wasn't the first time something like this happened, and it won't be the last. In 1978 Casio Company revolutionized the typing industry by inventing the electronic typewriter, complete with text memory -- but why didn't it enter the computer market with the force of companies like Apple? Or have you ever wondered why Price's Patent Candles Ltd. didn't become General Electric? The history of business is a succession of innovations that have toppled industry leaders, again and again. Clayton Christensen calls this The Innovator's Dilemma. The problem, as he describes it, is that the best companies in any industry will eventually lose market dominance by doing everything that a good business should do. (By the way, if I were in charge of Columbia University I would make this required reading for every incoming student) Good businesses listen to their customers, they give them what they want, and because of this they ultimately fail. Customers are no better at seeing the future than corporations. And if something doesn't exist yet, they rarely know that they might want it someday. For years, newspapers made market decisions based on a specific set of values -- derived from customer preferences and expectations. So these companies invested in making sure that their papers were delivered on time, that they had features and magazines and ink that smudged less. Trivial as they may have seemed at the time, these were the choices that brought us here today. While newspaper publishers invested in creating a product with the qualities their loyal customers cared about, they ignored the things that subscribers apparently didn't value and certainly didn't demand. Breaking news at the instant it occurred: No one expected the papers to deliver a new copy to their home no matter how big the story. Longtime readers also never expressed much interest in engaging with their news, or debating other readers in a public forum. Letters to the editor were late and little more than a tired afterthought. So even though the Internet made revolutionary advances possible, newspaper publishers saw little incentive to pursue major changes. Why establish an Internet presence when almost none of their customers were asking for it? The Internet had a small reader base, one that couldn't provide nearly as much revenue as the printed product's buyers. Why should journalistic giants enter a nascent market with such little payoff? And this, really, was the essential problem. Traditional media outlets could have developed the online market. They were large successful businesses; they had the resources to devote to the business if they had wanted to. But they concluded that because most of their customers weren't asking for it, they didn't have to do it. They lived with this conclusion until it was too late. For too long they complacently relied on the mantra: Who wants to read on a screen? Digital news was a classic case of what Christensen terms a "disruptive technology" -- a development that mainstream consumers aren't interested in -- at first. Whatever their assets, these innovations have too many downsides, or so it seems. In this case, Internet news wasn't as professional as print media. It wasn't very portable, and there wasn't very much of it. And of course, you had to read it on a screen -- no one will ever do that. But, like other disruptive technologies, the Internet also had some new and potentially transformative assets. Online news was cheaper; it was more up to date. And technology predictably made Internet transmission more convenient. While newspapers, comforted by the knowledge that they were satisfying their customers' demands, ignored the Internet's potential strengths, new and smaller companies emerged to exploit these possibilities. As the professionalism of Internet news improved, the technology's other assets became more and more appealing to mainstream consumers. Reading the day's stories online became a viable alternative to buying a paper. And then it was only a short step to where newspapers find themselves today. When a disruptive change occurs in an industry, the companies that are first to innovate dominate the new market. And because print newspapers waited too long to meaningfully move online, they left an opening for other enterprises to take over the provision of Internet news. By the time this technology became commonplace, it was already too late for most traditional news outlets to catch up. So it's not that newspapers didn't notice the Internet. And it's not that they didn't hold to their original business model because they were stupid, or lazy, or because they had some sort of pathological aversion to technology. Newspapers are in trouble now because, ironically, they
 
Rob Morrison: Daddy Diaries: Confessions of a Stay-At-Home Anchorman Top
We bought our second home four years ago. Ah, 2005, those were the days. My wife and I looked forward to leisurely weekends on Long Island's North Fork with family, friends and, of course, our newborn son. With two thriving careers, the prospect of a second mortgage wasn't daunting at all. And for a while it was a perfect retreat. Times have changed. This summer an older couple from Palm Beach, strangers, will be spending their days and nights in our country escape. They found it online after we listed it as a rental property. We're hardly alone. Realtors nationwide say that many second homeowners are turning to the rental market for relief from current economic pressures. Diane Saatchi, Sr. VP with Corcoran Realty in the Hamptons, says she's seen a 20 - 30% increase in rental inventory this year. "People's portfolio's have suffered, they've lost jobs," she says, "Folks who were once skeptical about renting out their places are now very serious about it." For my wife and I it was a practical decision. We weighed the pros and cons. But for others it's a necessity. For instance, Suzanne and her husband from Houston saved for years to buy a retirement home in an exclusive resort in Costa Rica. They paid close to $3 million. Seemingly overnight their retirement account dwindled, she lost her lucrative job, and the real estate market crashed. Unable to sell their house now for even half what they paid, they're trying to rent it just to "buy themselves some time," as they put it. John, in Virginia, has two places in Colorado he's currently trying to rent - one his former primary residence, the other a weekend place at Copper Mountain. A family matter forced him to move cross-country quickly. He's had no luck selling either place, and at this point, summer rentals there aren't tracking well. He sarcastically says this season should be "interesting." Ms Saatchi confirms that demand for rentals is down in the Hamptons too. However, she projects it will pick up as the weather gets warmer. For those considering putting their places on the rental market, she advises them to "polish the product and price it aggressively." "Be flexible and accommodating. Be willing to rent for shorter periods and if someone offers you slightly less money that you're asking...take it." As far as renting yourself vs. hiring a realtor, Ms Saatchi and I agree that it pays to do it yourself, if you can, to save the 10% realtors fee. However, it is a lot of work, and if time or distance is a factor, a realtor becomes your first line of defense. The obvious upside for renters this summer is that they are in the driver's seat and there are deals to be had no matter where your travels take you. So enjoy. Just remember to take care of the place...and water the lawn...and turn off the AC when you're out...and sometimes you have to jiggle the handle upstairs...and... Sorry, that's just the new landlord in me talking. More on Real Estate
 
Putin Sacks Russia's Military Spy Boss Top
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has dismissed the head of the country's powerful GRU military intelligence service, the Kremlin has said. More on Russia
 
Capitol Evacuated, White House Locked Down Over Airspace Violation Top
WASHINGTON — A single-engine plane strayed into restricted air space near the U.S. Capitol on Friday, forcing officials to place the White House in temporary lockdown and take steps to evacuate the U.S. Capitol. The episode was over within minutes as two F-16 fighter jets and two Coast Guard helicopters were dispatched and intercepted the plane. U.S. Northern Command spokesman Michael Kucharek says two helicopters established communications with the pilot and escorted the plane. The FAA says it landed at Indian Head Airport in Charles County, Maryland. Gil Bauserman, owner of the airport, said the plane was flying from Maine to North Carolina. Bauserman said the airport was notified by the military that the plane would be making an unscheduled landing at the airport. President Barack Obama was believed to be in the White House at the time. The White House declined to say where the president was, but Obama remained on schedule for a 1:30 p.m. EDT appearance in the Diplomatic Reception Room to deliver remarks on education. The Senate was in session, and briefly recessed. The House was not meeting. Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the Capitol's alert level was briefly elevated but quickly returned to normal. Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley said the security measures were taken "out of an abundance of caution." Authorities have been on high alert for planes entering airspace in and around major government buildings since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.
 
Lea Lane: My Surprising Talk With a Naked Actor Top
Well, he got naked an hour after we talked. Long ago I purchased a matinee ticket for a well-reviewed drama, Indiscretions, brought across the pond from London to Broadway. The writing was intelligent, and Kathleen Turner was at her sexiest. Much was made of the adult, thought-provoking theme, and the full-frontal nudity. My friends Judy and Stan were busy looking at the reviews on the posters at the front of the theater. The day was warm and bright as I walked into the sunshine. I spied a young man, maybe in his early 20s, smoking by the stage door in a grubby tee-shirt and jeans. He was short and slim, with delicate features. "Got a ticket to the show?" "Yes, I managed one last minute." I wasn't quite sure if he was an actor or a stagehand. "Are you in it?" "In it down to me bum." Aha. He was the guy who spends much of the last act letting it all hang out. "I guess you're the one who winds up nude!" "Today and tonight. Think you can stand it?" Since he was friendly and coy, I kidded him back. "I'll try hard not to laugh if you don't." He smiled at me, and took it further. "I never laugh on stage. Too busy shivering. It's cold in there, so be kind." We both chuckled at the implication. He explained that he was trained in England and that this was his first time on Broadway, and how excited he was to be in an American production. "Oh I'm sure this will be the first of many plays here." I couldn't remember his name or the reviews about him, but figured a polite word of encouragement was appropriate. "I hope you're right," he smiled. "New York's amazing." We chatted a bit more, about New York and movies versus Broadway, and he admitted he wanted to do both. I admired his ambition, but had my doubts. He finished his cigarette and turned to go back into the theater. "Well, you'll be seeing me soon. Onstage." "All of you." I couldn't help it. He was so sweet and cute. He grinned, and waved off. And sure enough, there he was less than an hour later, emoting and disrobing. I made a silent wish for his success. I didn't have to worry. Jude Law did very well for himself, indeed.
 
Rep. Earl Blumenauer: There Must Be Consequences Top
It's hard to calculate the damage that has been done by the Bush Administration-approved interrogation policy. The ill-advised and immoral practices that have come to light are intolerable. The United States, from before its founding under the leadership of George Washington, enforced a moral imperative against torture. It was not only inhumane but also bad strategy and bad tactics. The proud tradition of, at least officially, being opposed to torture included the United States leadership in international agreements we didn't just sign, but helped to negotiate. The torture policy under the Bush Administration was counterproductive in the extreme. Waterboarding somebody 183 times and having a doctor monitor the oxygen level in the prisoner's blood so that they bring him right to the point of death but don't actually kill him is barbaric by any standard. These tactics, after all, were what we prosecuted people for war crimes when they were inflicted against our troops in World War II. These torture techniques were developed by mimicking what our enemies did to our soldiers in prior conflicts. They aren't just counterproductive in terms of a vague image of the United States, they're actually dangerous. My daughter in the Peace Corps is at greater risk because the degrading and brutal treatment of these prisoners has inflamed the attitudes of people who are inclined not to like us. It undercuts any moral authority we have to condemn, much less prevent, brutal treatment of the United States civilians or soldiers. As the stories come out of the mistreatment -- not just torture, but death of people in American custody --we should be systematic, thoughtful, and dispassionate about a full accounting. While I'm open to the President's idea of a commission, I think Congress should be involved with investigations by the appropriate committees. There is behavior that was quite possibly illegal. It was possibly against the law. I think it was unethical for the legal personnel and they violated their professional oaths of responsibility. If so, then they should be disbarred or, in the case of those on the bench, impeached. There were clearly illegal activities not operating under clear guidance. Criminal prosecution would be in order through our legal system. Not everyone involved is guilty of these intolerable practices. One of the most important mechanisms of a commission or legislative activity would be to spotlight men and women of principle and integrity who refused to go along. It is important to acknowledge people who did their duty, because we're coming to find out that many people stepped up and did the right thing. Some argue that in this already hopelessly partisan and bitterly divided Congress, in a 24-hour news cycle, and a desperate search by the extreme right wing to rediscover some sort national cause, that this would be divisive. I think ignoring it is worse than divisive in terms of consequences. Divisiveness didn't stop the other side as they are formulated and followed disastrous torture policies that have already divided us in our country, has divided up dedicated professional public- servants, and divided us from our friends and allies around the world. At minimum, I hope we can accelerate the current process of exposing the cleansing light of truth. This will provide the public with more information to help form a judgment and perhaps, consensus, that once and for all the United States shall torture no more.
 
Blagojevich Reveals His Hair Care Secrets Top
Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich divulged some of the secrets behind his famous coif when TMZ caught up with him at LAX Airport Thursday. Asked what kind of hair care products he used, Blagojevich credited his roots in the "Disco Era." "Let me say this," Blagojevich said. "I came of age in the Disco Era when the brush was like an extension of your arm. So you know, habits form early. But, you know, just comb my hair a lot." As to whether he's more of a shampoo or conditioner guy, Blagojevich quickly said shampoo before wondering if he was being setup . "You like that?" Blagojevich asked the laughing TMZ cameraman . "Are you making fun of me?" The cameraman from TMZ, whose recent foray into political coverage has included intense scrutiny of Rep. Aaron Schock's (R-Ill.) abs , assured him it wasn't a joke. Satisfied, Blagojevich said his morning hair routine is as simple as "towel dry, comb it and I'm on my way." But when asked what he would pay for a lifetime supply of hairspray, the former governor had clearly had enough. "I got a lot of priorities in life and that's actually not one of them," Blagojevich said before ducking into a waiting town car. Blagojevich is in Los Angeles to promote the NBC reality series "I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here!" He wanted to appear on the show as a contestant but was denied permission to travel to Costa Rica , where the show tapes, by the judge in his federal corruption trial. NBC hoped to have Blagojevich's wife, Patti, take his place on the show, according to the Sun-Times ' Natasha Korecki . But she will reportedly stay stateside with her husband: [A] defense lawyer, who did not want to be named, said the couple will heed their attorneys' warnings and not allow Patti to do the show. While in LA, Blagojevich snapped promo pictures with "The Hills" stars and "I'm A Celebrity ..." castmembers Spencer and Heidi. More on Rod Blagojevich
 
Paraguay Paternity Scandal: Lugo Seeks Forgiveness Top
ASUNCION, Paraguay — President Fernando Lugo asked for forgiveness Friday for a paternity scandal in which three women claim the former Roman Catholic bishop fathered their children. The claims against Lugo less than a year into his presidency have embarrassed the government and put the opposition on the attack. Lugo acknowledges fathering one of the three children in question _ a 2-year-old boy born to a former parishioner _ but has not said whether the other two may be his. "I am a human being, and therefore nothing is foreign to me," Lugo said in a statement he read to reporters. "Asking forgiveness for these circumstances, I want to stress that my version will always be the truth." Three women have come forward this month claiming the former bishop is the father of their sons. The president said Friday he has made "personal errors," but did not acknowledge the two children in the other two paternity claims. "You will see this president as a father who is prepared to share his love and care," Lugo said. He declined to answer questions on the matter, referring reporters to his lawyer. The scandal is seen as an embarrassment for both Lugo's administration and the church. But in Paraguay's macho culture, political analysts say the paternity claims could help Lugo by lending him an air of virility and strength. More on Latin America
 
Vanessa Richmond: 'Having Kids Is So Gay': The Rise of a New Male Demographic Top
"Having a kid is so gay," a man told me recently. How's that for irony? Especially given that the guy is pushing 40. It's the kind of juvenile language that only makes sense when you understand the near-hysteria about family life that exists in a new tribe of middle aged, North American males: the Baby Bailers. Clearly, there are rational reasons to have kids and rational reasons not to, whether you're a man or a woman. And from the amount of column inches devoted to the topic lately, you might even get the idea that people like arguing about the question of to breed or not to breed more than doing it. What we're discussing here, however, is a lot of men on cusp of middle age who, at some sub-rational and visceral level, see their masculine identity threatened by the act of fathering a child. They understand babies to be enemies of what makes it great to be a straight man. Thus, having one is "gay." The joke may be on them. Research shows married, child-rearing fathers, relatively speaking, tend to be pretty darn happy (more on that later). And of the dozens of Baby Bailers I've heard about from friends who do "cave" (to use the word of a male friend), most tend to be glad. (I've also heard of many who didn't have kids for rational reasons and are glad they didn't). The problem is that because gender identity is involved, the struggle over "giving in" (another male friend's term) can be excruciating for both the man and the woman, and based on anything but reason. 'Bros before hos' Who are the Baby Bailers? They are well into their 30s, even 40s. They tend to have careers, apartments (often mortgages), and even wives or long-term girlfriends. They also tend to have hobbies, which often include being in a band, playing video games, watching online porn and partying. Hobbies are great. But in this case, those hobbies, and the male friends they share them with, become the most important part of their lives because they symbolize freedom and fun. Many see having kids as a symbolic defeat: when the wife or girlfriend wins, their masculinity loses. "Masculinity, is a homosocial experience, performed for, and judged by, other men," writes Michael Kimmel in Guyland . A professor of sociology at SUNY Stony Brook, credited with founding (fathering?) man's studies, Kimmel sums up the "guy" phenomenon with the phrase "bros before hos." His recent book looks at men aged 16 to 26, but says, with a few differences, the analysis also applies to men in their late 30s and 40s who are resisting the symbolic end fatherhood would bring to their "guy" status. According to Nicholas Townsend , who conducted an extensive ethnography on middle class masculinity, four things make someone a grown up man: being employed and a good worker, owning a home, being a spouse and, finally, being a father. Most embrace the first two easily, then start to resist. "Growing up is the negation of fun, pleasure, happiness and sexiness, which is all based on the fantasy idea that adulthood is a loss for men," says Kimmel. "Boyhood is fun, but adulthood is sober and responsible." He says these guys are able to juggle serious careers, mortgages and even relationships with the pursuit of "boyishness" because to them, it's like balancing work and family. The idea is, "If I'm going to capitulate and have a real job and a real apartment, I still want to feel like a guy. So I'm going put my feet up on the table, fart in public, do raunchy things, and say sexist things with my friends, because [in] the workplace... I have to watch what I say all the time and what I do. I can't make fag jokes or girl jokes there." So guys try to prolong their post-adolescent male bonding pleasures and their kind of fantasy locker room world though activities like video games and online porn. "The thing that's interesting is that they are pretty unapologetic about it. Ten to 15 years ago, guys who watched porn and played video games, they were a bit sheepish and guilty about it. Now, they're saying -- so what?" Bailers I've interviewed often say they're "not ready" to have a baby, that they just need a few more years. This can seem humourous coming from a man in his 40s. The listener begins to calculate that micro-sliver of time between fatherhood's "ready" and "expiry" dates. As one 51-year-old dad told me, "I have to take a few ibuprofen just to be able to make coffee in the morning. I'm not exactly looking to do a 3 a.m. poo call." He has two kids, the eldest of which is 14, and feels like he "just got it done in time." He explained, "You know like in the movie, where the character races ahead of the fireball, with the huge iron door closing, and at the last second, he dives under the door and it closes on his shoe? Like that." I guess that's what the ibuprofen's for. But, according to Kimmel, the Baby Bailers "believe that a grown-up relationship, with a grown-up woman, is a loss... And what is lost is fun," whatever the age. When they flick on the TV, they see their fears reinforced. Shows like Two and a Half Men, How I Met Your Mother and Rules of Engagement "basically portray singleness as fun and married life as a kind of compromise at best, and drudgery at worse," says Kimmel. Consider, as well, pre-wedding rituals. "When a woman is getting married, her friends take her out to celebrate. When a man is getting married, his guy friends take him out for an elegiac last night of freedom, to get him drunk and laid, because he'll never get to do that again: she's trapped you, she's caught you." But that myth contradicts the data, according to Kimmel: married men are much happier than unmarried men. In many cases, they gain a chef, a laundress and a sex partner. Married men have much more sex than unmarried men and are less likely to see therapists than unmarried ones. (Married women, on the other hand, tend to have lower happiness levels and are more likely to see therapists than unmarried ones). "The more men are sort of grown up -- the more they do housework and child rearing -- the happier they are, the happier the kids are, and the happier the woman is," says Kimmel. Don't tell that the Baby Bailer, and don't expect the expanding brood of macho Brad Pitt to hold sway. As one Baby Bailer told me, the rich dad is different. "They don't have to give anything up. They can just hire people to do everything, and still have fun and have a life." "Giving things up," is a dreaded concept I've hear a lot in my conversations with Baby Bailers. But Neal Pollack , author of Alternadad , a book about his quest to retain his identity after becoming a father, says "My wife and I played more video games than ever the first six months after our kid was born. I mean, all the kid is doing is eating and crapping. Any dad who is a gamer before is still a gamer." And though it's harder to go out with friends as much, "if they're real buddies they'll still be there." "Men are afraid that fatherhood is going to take over their identity. And it does for a little while, but if they want to, they can integrate fatherhood into their previous identity." Pollack found the first couple of years to be "an emotional maelstrom," but now finds his old self is still there. It doesn't help that men get a lot of messages that their old self must transform into some kind of uber-father they never knew. UBC sociologist Nathanael Lauster says expectations are increasing. While people used to put their baby in a drawer in a bedroom of a rental apartment a few decades ago with full social sanction, now elaborate staging is often considered necessary: a house with yard (what he calls "the moral home"), a car, expensive strollers, baby clothes, nannies and so on. That's why he says affluent men might be more willing to become fathers -- since they know they can afford those "requirements." Plus, Lauster says affluent men they have less fear of being labeled a "deadbeat dad," a term men can acquire for contributing insufficient money or even time. For every Baby Bailer who worries he'll need to work harder, there's one so immersed in his career that he's terrified of sacrificing it to the new definition of family life. "At one point," Lauster says, "there wouldn't be this idea that men would have to give up work to become a father. Men would actually intensify their work commitments than they would prior to have children and that's how they would demonstrate their commitment." Exhibit A: the 1960 version of father portrayed as Don Draper on Mad Men. But a note to Baby Bailers: Evidence suggests that men's work performance can actually increase after becoming a father. "There's the myth of the unencumbered worker," says Kimmel. "That worker is gendered and it's male. We think those are the best employees -- they have no trouble making it to a 7 a.m. meeting, or staying late. But when you're a parent, you're far more reliable and far more likely to remain loyal to the company, especially if the company is flexible." But hey, there I go again, engaging in rational talk about something as fundamentally emotion driven as gender identity. There's a commercial for the Hummer SUV, in which a bunch of guys is working out at the gym, and an announcer asks the man with the white mini van, the symbolic family vehicle, to come forward as he's left his lights on. No one does. Kimmel says the message is, "You henpecked, feminized pussy." So it's social forces, I get it. But I'm thinking if "gay" means a grown up man, well, heterosexual breeding culture could really use some. This piece first appeared on The Tyee .
 
Jim Lichtman: Separated at Birth, Part II Top
Here we go again ! What's the difference between Somali pirates and credit card executives? If you ask a growing number of Americans - many of whom have been hit with higher interest rates recently - not much. According to a Fox News report (Apr. 23), "'Bank of America is doing the most dramatic changes I've seen,' said Emily Peters, a personal-finance expert for Credit.com. She said she has heard of cases where BofA card rates have been going up 10 to 20 percentage points." In a meeting yesterday (Apr. 23) with executives from 14 credit card companies, including Visa, MasterCard, Bank of America and Chase, President Obama warned companies to change their ways to help consumers or face action by Congress. In a press conference last week (Apr. 16) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Somali pirates that the U.S. will track down and freeze all money used by the pirates to fund their operations on the Indian Ocean. It's the money, stupid - When interviewed, a spokesman for the pirates, Sugule Ali said, "We just saw a big ship. So we stopped it." When the pirates discovered that the ship's cargo contained $30 million in heavy weaponry, Ali insisted "We are not going to offload the weapons. We just want the money." The pirates were asking for $20 million in cash. "We don't use any other system than cash," but added that they're willing to negotiate. "That's deal-making," Ali said. When interviewed about the rising interest rates for customers, Bank of America spokeswoman Betty Reiss told ABC News, "[it's] about properly pricing our portfolio either based on risk or realigning a portion of the portfolio that is priced below what is prudent in the current market." The threat of action - "The days of any-time, any-reason rate hikes and late-fee traps have to end," President Obama said after his meeting with credit card executives. "No more fine print, no more confusing terms and conditions." The president made clear to executives at the special White House meeting "...that he intends to back efforts to crack down on what lawmakers consider to be deceptive practices..." "We have noticed that the pirates are buying more and more sophisticated equipment...," Mrs. Clinton said. "They are clearly using their ransom money for their benefit - both personally and on behalf of their piracy. We think we can begin to try and track and prevent that from happening," she said. "We may be dealing with a 17th-century crime, but we need to bring 21st-century solutions to bear." One solution - Wait a second, maybe there's another solution here. Maybe the two should work together ; share the risk and the reward. Why not have Betty Reiss jump into the pirate boat and work the RPG, while Sugule Ali works the BofA portfolio? I know what you're thinking; too much risk... for the pirates. Maybe Bank of America should just redesign their logo to carry a skull and crossbones, and change the Annual Percentage Rate to read - AP Rrrgh! Jim Lichtman's commentaries can be found three times a week at www.ethicsStupid.com . More on Bank Of America
 
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf: What Shariah Law Is All About Top
We hear a lot about "firebrand" Muslim clerics calling for the installation of Shariah law. It conjures images of women being stoned and forced into hiding behind burkas and denied educations. We think of beheadings and amputations as a form of justice. And we cringe. But it is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is about God's law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." The Declaration says "men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad. Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah. In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government - legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law. The two pieces of unfinished business in Muslim countries are to revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities and to ensure that the balance between the three branches of government is not out of kilter. Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam.
 
Joseph P. Viteritti: Public Schools Must Be Democratic; A Response to Tom Vander Ark Top
Tom Vander Ark believes that Mayor Bloomberg of New York should be left in charge of the city schools. So do I. I said so in a report I wrote for the Commission on School Governance in New York and in a recent book that I published with the Brookings Institution, When Mayors Take Charge. In both places I supported a plan for mayoral control that would allow New York's chief executive to remain one of the most powerful educational leaders in the nation. But Vander Ark has a problem with my commentary in Education Week (April 8) suggesting that in order to function effectively mayoral control requires institutional balance, so that the mayor and schools chancellor can be held accountable for their actions and parents can have input in decisions made by school professionals. Checks & balances and public participation are fundamental principles of American democracy. Public school students learn them at an early age when they study American history and civics. Vander Ark thinks that it was such an institutional balance in the past that led to the decline of urban schools. Vander Ark denies that putting an elected official in charge of city schools adds a new layer of politics to education. He does not like the proposal requiring the Independent Budget Office in New York to publish and analyze school performance data. Chancellor Joel Klein seemed to think it was a reasonable idea when it was suggested to him at a meeting with the Commission on School Governance. Vander Ark also rejects the idea that administrative decentralization is needed in big city school systems. He should know that Joel Klein has implemented three separate administrative decentralization plans since he became chancellor, and points with pride to a policy that put more power in the hands of school principals. Vander Ark is somewhat dismissive of the work done by the Commission on School Governance appointed by New York City's Public Advocate (who is elected citywide like the mayor) at the request of legislative leaders. That Commission was composed of individuals with distinguished careers in public service, some of whom have children in the school system. For a year they heard testimony from a broad cross-section of New Yorkers about the experience with mayoral control. We learned a lot by just listening, and the people who came before us had every right to be heard. What we heard became the basis for our findings and recommendations. Democracy does not stop at the schoolhouse door. For most Americans that is where it starts, and it ought not be feared.
 
Phil Ramone and Danielle Evin: Dog Ears Music: Volume Sixty-Nine Top
Carly Simon Doyenne of song Carly Simon is one the most prolific and masterful American singer/songwriters of the 20th century. Her sense of melody and lyric is always an odyssey encased in a thumbprint voice so perfect it even makes tears think twice. Simon's catalog is extraordinary and towering, with over twenty albums and countless soundtracks to her credit. Accolades include a 1989 Academy Award, a Grammy, and a Golden Globe for the title "Let the River Run" and a Best New Artist Grammy in 1971. Collaborations include Mike Nichols, Marvin Hamlisch, Jimmy Webb, Michael McDonald, Jacob Brackman, Arif Mardin, and Frank Filipetti. The title "Forever My Love," from her 1974 album Hotcakes , produced by Richard Perry, weaves a spell that will forever enchant. Buy : iTunes Genre : Pop Artist : Carly Simon Song : Forever My Love Album : Hotcakes Latin Playboys David Hidalgo and Louis Pérez (also members of the triple Grammy-winning Los Lobos) have been writing songs together since meeting at East L.A.'s Garfield High in the early '70s. Their four-decade-long partnership has proved them creative kings, fantastically finishing each other's musical sentences. As the Latin Playboys, their legion includes producers Mitchell Froom and Tchad Blake. With two inspired albums under their belt, they have recently issued the collection Unreleased Songs & Rare Recordings. But start with their mind-blowing title "Chinese Surprize," from their 1994 debut Latin Playboys , recorded old-school style on 4-track cassette. Buy : iTunes Genre : Rock Artist : Latin Playboys Song : Chinese Surprize Album : Latin Playboys Little Junior Parker Blues-harpist/crooner Little Junior Parker was born Herman Parker Jr. in the Mississippi Delta region in 1932. Junior's teens were the stuff of blues lore: mentored by blues giant Sonny Boy Williams, toured with the legendary Howlin' Wolf, and sweated out his first recording date with the notorious Ike Turner. Parker's band The Blue Flames enjoyed hits in the early '50s, but by mid-'60s Parker saw leaner times, as his health began to fail. He passed away in 1971, just shy of 40. Parker was inducted into the Blues Hall of Fame in 2001. His 1970 cover of The Beatles track "Tomorrow Never Knows," from the 2006 Children of Men (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) , lulls with an ominous purr. Buy : iTunes Genre : Blues Artist : Little Junior Parker Song : Tomorrow Never Knows Album : Children of Men (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) The Breeders The Breeders were founded in 1988 by alt-punk patriots Kim Deal of the notorious Pixies and Tanya Donelly of Throwing Muses. Currently L.A. based, the Dayton, Ohio, unit features Deal and her twin sister, Kelley, on guitars, along with Mando Lopez on bass and Jose Medeles on drums. The Breeders have just issued their fifth release, the EP Fate to Fatal . Check out the title track, "Fate to Fatal"--it's pure Breeders. Catch them on tour now. Buy : iTunes Genre : Alternative Rock Artist : The Breeders Song : Fate to Fatal Album : Fate to Fatal Tour : Visit Rooney Rooney is the L.A.-based pop-rock troupe of Robert Schwartzman (vocals, guitar), Taylor Locke (guitar), Ned Brower (drums), Matt Winter (bass), and Louie Stephens (keyboards), founded in 1999. Rooney's finger-bleeding paid off when their debut nearly went gold in 2003 (according to their Website), and in 2007 their sophomore release, Calling the World , earned a No. 1 single in Europe with "When Did Your Heart Go Missing?" The track "Blueside," from their 2003 release Rooney , serves up sugary heartthrob harmonies. Currently cooking up more in the studio. Buy : iTunes Genre : Pop/Rock Artist : Rooney Song : Blueside Album : Rooney The Sea and Cake The Sea and Cake is the Chicago-based alt-quartette of Archer Prewitt (guitars), John McEntire (drums), Sam Prekop (frontman, guitar, painter) and Eric Claridge (bass), founded in the early '90s. Each of the band's members are cast from an artful die, and their fingertips tingle with musical color. The unit has released close to a dozen recordings. The title "Up on Crutches," from The Sea and Cake's 2007 album Everybody , just kind of shimmers. Buy : iTunes Genre : Rock Artist : The Sea and Cake Song : Up on Crutches Album : Everybody
 
Henry Blodget: The Economist Is Like Coffee Made With Cat Poop Top
Nick Carlson at Silicon Alley Insider offers one theory on why The Economist is soaring while Time and Newsweek and other similar magazines crater: Vanity Fair's Matt Pressman says there are four reasons "Time and Newsweek will never be the Economist." These include: * There aren't that many readers up for grabs * They can't win over the finance crowd * They don't understand what The Economist is The best reason Matt comes up with, is that those magazines "they can't match the snob appeal"of the Economist: "The Economist is like that exotic coffee that comes from beans that have been eaten and shat out undigested by an Indonesian civet cat, and Time and Newsweek are like Starbucks -- millions of people enjoy them, but it's not a point of pride." He's onto something there. See Also: 5 Idiots Who Lost Business With Twitter
 
Catholic Relief Services: Let's Eradicate Malaria Top
By Ken Hackett Not that long ago, there was a simple explanation for why malaria would never be eradicated - only poor people get it. That meant that though this disease kills approximately 880,000 people each year and infects tens of millions rendering many unable to work, to go to school, to contribute to their lives and societies for long periods of time, there was little profit to be made in curing malaria so drug companies tended to give it little attention. As we mark World Malaria Day on April 25, it must be acknowledged that the situation has changed. The war against malaria is being fought on many fronts. Fueled by generous philanthropists - especially the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation - scientists across the globe are searching on a level never seen before for a vaccine that will protect people from malaria. They are also at work on better treatments for this mosquito-borne disease that can cause intense headaches, violent nausea and debilitating fevers. But meanwhile millions of people still contract malaria. So, far from the scientists' laboratories, out there in those poor countries where the disease runs rampant, the fight against it is engaged. For instance, at Catholic Relief Services (CRS) on this World Malaria Day, we are announcing a program that will distribute 2.8 million insecticide-treated mosquito nets throughout the West African nation of Niger. The aim is to have 80 percent children younger than 5 years-old and pregnant women- double the current number -- sleeping under these nets by 2012. These are the people most vulnerable to malaria, most often its fatal victims. While the cost - about $10 each -is often cited as the reason many do not have nets, it is not enough to provide them for free. Distribution must be accompanied by education in their proper use for nets to become effective fighters against malaria. But it has been proven that with the right education - especially when accompanied by a targeted insecticide campaign - nets can be an effective tool in reducing the incidence of this deadly disease that saps the health not only of people, but also of countries' economies. This net distribution is part of the effort by the Global Fund to hand out 70 million bed nets throughout the malaria-affected areas of the world. The very existence of the Global Fund is a tribute to how the fight against malaria has changed. This unique public-private partnership is dedicated to eradicating three diseases - AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. It was created in 2002 and since then has funded more than 572 programs in 140 countries, spending over $15 billion. This represents a quarter of all international funding for the fight against AIDS, two-thirds for TB and three-quarters for malaria. On top of that, last year's reauthorization of the President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) recognized that to fight AIDS effectively, action is also needed against TB and malaria, diseases that often work hand-in-hand with HIV and AIDS to devastate the populations of these poor countries. PEPFAR will provide crucial funding for the malaria fight. So the battle is joined. But understand that even with all these resources, this will be a long fight. If an effective vaccine was developed tomorrow, it would be only one step, an important one for sure, but one that would need to be followed by many more. Think of how long it was between the development of a vaccine for smallpox and its eradication in 1979 - almost 200 years. But it is a battle that can be won. The reason malaria is so rare in developed countries is that once it is gone, it is gone. If no one is getting it, then mosquitoes can't bite infected people and infect others. Malaria used to be common in the United States. But now it is rarely seen, and only then when brought from overseas. That can be true everywhere. Then, like smallpox, this scourge can disappear from the globe. At CRS we know that this is a long struggle. We have been involved in fighting malaria literally since our inception as an organization to help World War II refugees in 1943. We are still at it and we will keep at it until malaria is no more. On this World Malaria Day, we ask you to join us. Ken Hackett is president of Catholic Relief Services, the official overseas humanitarian organization of the Catholic Church in the United States. More on Africa
 
Andy Borowitz: Cheney Starts Pro-Torture Facebook Page Top
In his most aggressive public relations move since leaving office, former Vice President Dick Cheney today established a Facebook page for fans of torture. In recent weeks, Mr. Cheney has been speaking out in praise of such controversial interrogation tactics as waterboarding, but in establishing his Facebook page the vice president seems to be attempting something far more amibitious: creating a social network for torture fans everywhere. "This is a place where fans of waterboarding can meet, chat, and yes, hook up," Mr. Cheney told Fox News host Sean Hannity last night. The former vice president extolled his torture fan page as a dating site, telling Mr. Hannity, "This way when you go out on a date with somebody you know going in how he or she feels about waterboarding. I think that's important in building a long-term and hopefully loving relationship. It's certainly something Lynne and I share." But based on the tepid early response to Mr. Cheney's torture fan page - only he and his wife Lynne have signed up to date - the vice-president may face obstacles in creating a social network of waterboarding fans. "I can't think of a creepier place to hook up with someone than a site that Dick Cheney is involved in," said Tracy Klugian, 27, of Madison, Wisconsin. "I'd feel like someone was always watching me." At the White House, Vice President Joe Biden was harshly critical of his predecessor's remarks on torture, telling reporters, "Dick Cheney had eight years to run his mouth without thinking. That's my job now." More on Joe Biden
 
Valerie Tarico: If the Bible Were Law, Would You Qualify for the Death Penalty? Top
This week the Supreme Court declined to review a Texas murder case in which a juror brought a Bible into the sentencing process -- showing that the Bible recommends death for anyone who kills another person with an iron rod (Numbers 35:16). Let me say for the record that I'm not against the death penalty, and in this case it sounds like the defendant fit my criteria, too. I know I'm ruining my liberal credentials here, but I frankly don't have any moral problem with the jury condemning him to death. However, to do so based on the sanctification of a Bronze Age legal code is somewhat horrifying -- especially given the list of other "crimes" that are recommended for capital punishment in the Bible. Yes, yes, the court assures us that even though bringing the Bible into the sentencing was improper, there is no evidence that it swayed the jury. Rest assured that when the Bible and other authorities (like our judicial system ) are at odds, we can trust Texas jurors to ignore the Bible and do what is right. Even though half the country believes that God made humans in their present form because the Bible says so -- we can count on Texans (school boards excepted) to follow the evidence and the Constitution. All the same, just in case an issue like this should come up in your state, thirty six different offenses in the Bible qualified for capital punishment. Do any of these apply to you? Cursing Parents For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9 Working on the Sabbath Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15 Premarital Sex (girls only) . . .If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman's virginity was not found, then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father's house and the men of her town shall stone her to death, Deuteronomy 22:20 Disobedience (boys only) If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. Deuteronomy 21:18 Worshipping any god but Yahweh If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that . . . hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; . . .Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5 Witches Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22: 18 Wizards (epileptics? migraine sufferers? schizophrenics?) A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27 Loose Daughters of Clergy And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. Leviticus 21:9 Girls who are Raped within the City Limits If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city . . . But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. Deuteronomy 22:23-25 Blasphemers And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:16 Anyone Who Tries to Deconvert Yahweh Worshipers If anyone secretly entices you -- even if it is your brother, your father's son or your mother's son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend -- saying, "Let us go worship other gods," . . . you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them. Deuteronomy 12:6 Men who Lie With Men If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13 Adulterers And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20: 10-12 Men who Lie with Beasts and Beasts who Lie with Men And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. Leviticus 20:15 So. Are you up for the death penalty? Just so you know, it could be worse. As I am reminded by people who want me to make nice, this list represents an advancement from mob justice. They are right, and the Levitical Code would a fascinating window into human moral history were it not for the fact that juries in Texas, politicians in Colorado, and clergy in Africa all advocate the death penalty for one person or another on the basis of these texts (murderers, homosexuals, and child witches respectively). When people put God's name on Bronze Age documents, and then make those documents a golden calf, they get stuck with Bronze Age moral thinking. Maybe it's time to take the Bible down off of its pedestal , and acknowledge the obvious human handprints on the texts. Maybe it's even time to do again what Thomas Jefferson did : cut the book apart, keep the parts that are worth keeping , and leave the rest on the floor in the cutting room of history. More on Supreme Court
 
Deborah Levine: Madonna, Angelina & Me: What an Absentee Dad Can Teach Us All About Adoption Top
Adoption has been a hot topic lately, what with Madonna's application to adopt another child from Malawi denied, and the father of young "Slumdog Millionaire" star Rubina Ali's alleged attempt to sell her for $250,000. Not to mention endless speculations about where in the world Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt will be adding to their brood next. But while the media's attention to adoption generally inspires me to change the channel or turn the page (they almost always get it wrong, leave out part of the story or rely on stereotypes), a recent encounter I can't seem to shake has compelled me to add a story of my own to the already overcrowded adoption dialogue. While visiting my parents in Miami last week, my daughter and I stopped into a local nail salon for mother-daughter pedicures, a treat we save for occasions like vacations or the first warm spring day. We chose our colors and were directed to our chairs. Lili dunked her toes into the bubbling footbath. I handed the technician my polish. "Is she adopted?" he asked, before my flip-flops even hit the floor. At home in Brooklyn, our neighborhood nail places are staffed mostly by Chinese immigrants, so Lili, who was born in China herself, is used to being asked about her heritage by strangers who paint little flowers on her tiny blue nails. Here in Miami, my manicurist (I'll call him Dave), like most of the salon's employees, was Vietnamese. While his coworkers were taken by my daughter's gap-toothed grin and giggles, Dave was more interested in me, the adoptive mom. For the next 30 minutes, as he scrubbed and massaged and filed and polished, Dave told me the saga of his own family: How he and his wife had married young and had three kids before he was 30. How the marriage fell apart six years ago and ended in divorce. How he and his ex-wife decided to relinquish their children for adoption at the ages of 9, 5 and 2. Though my first instinct was to jump up from my chair and yell, "Overshare!" I listened as Dave went on to tell me that a couple had been interested in adopting the children, but only the younger two. Unable to bear the thought of separating them, or stomach the idea of signing away their rights to ever see them again (as the prospective parents insisted), Dave and his ex-wife decided not to relinquish the children. Instead, Dave, whose own father left before he was born, took off from their Upstate New York town and headed down to Miami where he's been ever since. Until recently, he hadn't spoken or written to any of his kids in the six years since he left, though he apparently does make child support payments ("has to," he says). "If you adopted my kids, would you let me see them?" Dave asked, right after telling me he'd been a "real bad dad." "I'm not adopting your kids," I told him, unwilling to go there. "Two is enough for me." The truth is, I would love for my own kids to be able to have contact with their biological mothers and fathers. Almost all children available for adoption from China were abandoned anonymously, so there's little hope they'll ever meet their birth families. And it's obvious that, even at ages six and three, not knowing who and where they came from has left a blank page in my children's stories that no one else can fill in. It's not hard to imagine how someone adopting older children would be threatened by the idea of the birthparents being a part of their lives. But whether present and in the flesh or cobbled together from memory and fantasy, a child's biological parents are a part of every adoptive family in one way or another. Families like mine are asked personal and intrusive questions all the time. Most of us are used to it, and we all have our ways of dealing with the nosy strangers in the check out line and the friends and relatives who really should know better. But Dave and his desire to share his story with me caught me off guard. I felt like the priest at his confessional, who he was hoping would absolve him of his parenting sins simply because I was an adoptive mom. Part of me wanted to say, "Hey, deadbeat dad, go home to your kids or spare me the sob story and finish my top coat." Yet I was struck by how, in spite of everything, Dave really did seem to love his kids. The idea of relinquishing his daughter and sons forever with no further contact had been unthinkable to him. And though he may not have seen or spoken to them in six years, Dave beamed when he described his plans to drive the 25 or 30 hours from Miami to visit them. At the end of their most recent phone call, he told each of his kids that he loved as missed them, and they told him the same. It must have been the first time in over half a decade he'd heard those words. Was Dave nearly in tears as he described that phone call, or was I imagining it? I'm not sure. Over the course of our encounter he'd also asked me to adopt him more than once. One thing I am sure of is that it's impossible to jump to conclusions about any one family's story, whether it's mine or Dave's or Madonna's or Rubina Ali's. In every adoption story, someone's loss is another's gain. The knowledge that I wouldn't have my dear, sweet, hilarious, full-of-life kids had someone else not made the impossible decision to place them at the doorsteps of a preschool and an orphanage is something I carry with me every day. Every new accomplishment, milestone and lost tooth I get to witness is an event the mothers and fathers who gave my children life will never get to see. I have not walked in the shoes of a young woman in rural Hunan, a grandmother in Malawi, a poor man in the slums of Mumbai or a regretful absentee dad in Miami. Some of us are blessed with choices, others must weigh one unthinkable option against the next. When our nails had dried, Lili and I went back to our family, our vacation and our busy lives. But I still haven't been able to leave Dave entirely behind. Pedicures with my daughter will never be the same. More on Slumdog Millionaire
 
The Progress Report: Obstructing Progress Top
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, and Ryan Powers To receive The Progress Report in your email inbox everyday, click here . Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that in the next five weeks until Memorial Day recess, the Senate will "tackle a hefty legislative agenda that includes bills to rein in predatory practices in the housing and credit card industries and a reform of government procurement." Looking back on what Congress has accomplished since the beginning of the year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, "The three pillars of the president's budget -- education, energy and health care -- have already been advanced down the field to a significant extent in the first three months." The optimistic tone of the Democratic leaders in Congress, however, is not shared by their counterparts in the Republican Party. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said in a press conference yesterday that, in the last four months, "it's become clear to him [Obama] that the idea of bipartisanship 'was a ruse.'" However, the seeming absence of bipartisanship isn't a result of the Obama administration's lack of trying. Congressional Republicans have done little but delay key executive branch nominees and attempt to block key legislation, all the while failing to offer any alternative ideas of their own. DELAYING NOMINEES: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) objected to a motion to begin debate on the nominations of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) as Secretary of Health and Human Services, David Hayes for deputy secretary of the Interior Department, and Thomas Strickland for assistant secretary for fish and wildlife at Interior. Regarding Sebelius, McConnell said he objected because members of his caucus had not yet had time to consider her candidacy properly. However, the real reason is that a select few in the Republican caucus are attempting to delay her appointment -- at the insistence of right-wing social conservative groups -- because of her commitment to pro-choice women's health policies. The delay is reminiscent of what transpired after Ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill's nomination, when a small group of Republican senators -- including John McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC), and Sam Brownback (KS) -- announced their opposition, claiming Hill "lacks experience in the Middle East." As the National Security Network's Max Bergmann pointed out, they really took issue with his desire to avoid bombing North Korea. Further, the only substantive result of delaying Hill was to hinder the Obama administration's ability to effectively and efficiently make progress in Iraq. Indeed, Gen. David Petraeus was reportedly "frustrated by the delay." A similar chain of events is likely to play out with Sebelius, Dawn Johnsen, Harold Koh, and many other key nominees. The goal in holding up Obama nominees, it should be clear by now, is not to find better qualified nominees or answer substantive concerns. Rather, it appears to be part of an attempt on the part of Republicans in Congress to "obstruct and delay" the implementation of the legislative agenda the American people voted for last November. BLOCKING THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA: Since January, Congress has expanded access to health care for low-income children through the passage of SCHIP Expansion, laid the ground work for economic recovery with the passage of Obama's Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and passed a budget resolution that demonstrated the Obama administration's intention to push for real progressive changes in the tax code, the health care system, and environmental regulation. On health care in particular, congressional Republicans have worked hard to register their opposition to reform. As the Wonk Room's Igor Volsky explained yesterday, "Key Republicans voted against the popular SCHIP legislation, eight Republican senators (including health care heavy weights Grassley and Hatch) voted [in committee] against Gov. Kathleen Sebelius's nomination to head the Department of Health and Human Services, misrepresented the intent of health information technology...in the stimulus, and have already taken the public option off the table." But both the Senate and House leadership are serious about making health care reform happen this year. Due to obstructionism, however, they may now have to implement health care reform through the budget reconciliation process, which would allow the reform measures to be "protected from filibusters and passed by a simple majority vote." Republicans used reconciliation to pass the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, key provisions of their signature legislative agenda in 1994, the Contract with America, and on many other occasions in the last 30 years. Now, however, the Republicans have developed a bit of "political amnesia" and are calling the use of reconciliation the "Chicago approach to governing" and "a declaration of war." Further, they are plotting retaliatory parliamentary tactics -- including refusing to attend committee hearings and demanding that the text of bills, often hundreds of pages long, be read aloud -- that would "grind the Senate to a virtual halt." Yesterday, however, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) conceded that Democrats have the "right" to pass health care reform using the reconciliation process. FAILING TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE: While Republicans have worked hard at saying "no," they have repeatedly failed to offer realistic alternative proposals. Several days after presenting his budget proposal, Obama pointed out during a prime-time press conference that congressional Republicans were failing to offer concrete alternatives to his budget. In response, Boehner hurriedly assembled a news conference to introduce their alternative "budget." "Here it is, Mr. President," Boehner declared, brandishing a glossy 19-page document in his hand. The only problem was that Boehner's budget didn't contain any numbers. When Republicans finally offered a detailed plan on, ironically, April Fool's Day, it did not appear to make any more economic sense than the brochure of recycled ideas they released the week before. Indeed, despite the growing recession, the plan called for a five-year spending freeze which, as the Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo explained, would "negate the stimulus, while betting economic recovery will occur thanks to an abundance of supply-side tax cuts." This trend appears likely to continue. Indeed, in a week dominated by congressional hearings on energy and health care, Boehner mentioned each issue only once yesterday in his press conference -- and that was to tell reporters that House Republicans still have no alternative health care plan and no alternative energy and environment plan. "Our health care solutions group is continuing to do their work. Our energy solutions group continues to do its work." Still, he insisted that "you'll continue to see us try to be the party of better solutions."
 
Prince William Checks Out Construction Equipment (PHOTOS) Top
Prince William spent part of Friday on a visit to the World Headquarters of JCB in Rochester, England, to mark the production of the company's 750,000th machine. JCB is a manufacturer of construction equipment. Dressed in a double-breasted suit with a fresh haircut, the heir to the throne got up behind the controls of the the 750,000th JCB vehicle, visited with schoolchildren and tried on some safety goggles. PHOTOS: GETTY More on Photo Galleries
 
Roger Cohen: Only By Ignoring Wrongdoing Can We Preserve The Republic Top
I had to figure that Roger Cohen, writing in this morning's New York Times , was going to lose me the minute he began: Language is lethal. The Bush administration's legal memos opening the way to torture are a reminder of the intimate link between a bureaucrat's lawyerly subordinate clause and a man's near drowning. Spare me. There's nothing unhealthy about the release of those legal memos. They are, in fact, good medicine. A tonic for the constitution and the Constitution. They do a body politic good. You want to know what's a lot closer to being lethal? Nearly drowning. Cohen, you see, doesn't quite want the story of our illicit torture regime to be swept under the carpet entirely. At the same time, he doesn't want anyone to face any consequences. So, in lieu of actual prescriptives, we get a cockeyed dance of inane half-stepping, coupled with instances in which actual words seem to send Cohen into some sort of psychological panic: "I keep re-reading some of the sentences in the memos from the dark side. Like a labyrinth, they lead back in on themselves." Cohen writes: Opacity is the refuge of the faceless tormentor. The constitutions of totalitarian states are always unreadable, impenetrable -- and very long. In a thicket of words lies plausible deniability when the time for horror's accounting arrives. That hour always comes around. I could not agree more. The difference between Cohen and I, however, is that I take accountability seriously. Cohen's solution would be to build the tormentors an opaque refuge. So I'm wary of the clamor for retribution. Congress failed. The press failed. The judiciary failed. With almost 3,000 dead, America's checks and balances got skewed, from the Capitol to Wall Street. Scrutiny gave way to acquiescence. Words were spun in feckless patterns. Those checks and balances are recovering now. I don't think this recovery would be served by prosecutions, either of C.I.A. operatives or those who gave them legal advice. Such legal action, if initiated, would split the intelligence services and the military in paralyzing ways at a time when two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, are still being fought. The country would be lacerated. [...] A Truth Commission could address the broad collapse of accountability that opened the way for an imperial presidency and the use of cruel and inhuman treatment, while avoiding a facile search for scapegoats that would allow too many to disregard their own small measure of responsibility. This makes no sense. Cohen is in favor of a Truth Commission -- a structure by which the "lacerating" stuff would be brought out into the light. But then, he would hold no one accountable? Seriously, Cohen needs to think before he accuses other people of spinning words in "feckless patterns." Think about this nonsense. Could you imagine if your local district attorney announced: "We have identified Joe Schmoe as the person who murdered Jane Doe. However, we are declining to prosecute, because it would tear the community apart." Meanwhile, there is a criminal literally tearing the community apart, but to Cohen, the important, preservative work comes when we, as a nation, agree to stop pondering painful words and metaphors and sentences. Let us instead ponder, LOSE OURSELVES IN, the sentences of our new President that make us feel better. Cohen writes: "That, of course, is Obama's favorite word: responsibility. I think it demands some acknowledgment that, "There but for the grace of God go I." Seriously? I'd hope that God would require a substantially less feckless understanding of the word "responsibility." [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .]
 
When Indignation Was Righteous: Republicans Once Wanted To Investigate The Past Administration Top
Washington was abuzz with talk of investigating the past administration but Congress and the White House were at odds. Executive branch officials were worried about the partisan fracas that would ensue. The former wanted a probe, confident that old White House hands, only recently removed from office, had engaged in a rash of criminal activity. "We need to look at to make sure exactly what happened is known to the public and to deter any future president from doing like behavior, if it was wrong," said one well-respected member of Congress. "In that regard, if we can do it in a bipartisan fashion, I think that's what we should do. Every American benefits when you can control X abuse of power. If this was an abuse of power, then we need to know about it." It was February 2001. The topic was Bill Clinton's controversial pardon of Marc Rich, not the use of torture techniques on detainees. And the above quote was attributed to then-Rep. Lindsey Graham, not, say, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It is hardly rare for a politician to take contradictory stances during a career in Washington. But as the current Congress contemplates investigating the use of harsh, even illegal interrogation techniques by Bush administration officials, the readjustments in political sensibilities is somewhat remarkable. Once hell-bent on looking into the slightest hint of malfeasance during the Clinton years, Republicans inside and out of government are now responding with disgust to suggestions that even an independent commission be set up to look into the authorization and use of torture. "What they have essentially said is if we have policy disagreements with our predecessor, we are going to do is turn ourselves into the moral equivalent of a Latin American country run by colonels in weird sunglasses," said Karl Rove , during an appearance on Fox News. "Is that what we've come to in this country?" Actually, we've been there. In the early months of 2001, as the Bush administration was publicly urging people to "look forward," Republicans in Congress were consumed by two decidedly backward-looking investigations. The most prominent of these was the controversial pardon of Rich, the fugitive financier whose ex-wife had donated heavily to Democratic causes. This is "outrageous," said then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who called for a congressional investigation. "We should at least take a look at what happened and ask ourselves, should we take some action to try to prevent abuses that do occur?" "Congress has an obligation to find out if this was appropriate," said House Government Reform Committee Chair Dan Burton (R-IN) on January 26. "[My] panel will obtain 'subpoenas if necessary'" "It needs to be investigated," said then New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. "I think it is worthy of investigation. The facts cry out for an answer to be given for why is it that this man was pardoned. Because the pardon process is an important thing. ... Until we get the answers to this question, that whole process is put in some jeopardy of being misunderstood by the public." "While the president alone possesses the power to pardon," said Sen. Mitch McConnell. "it's important to remember that he is not personally exempt from federal laws that prohibit the corrupt actions of all government officials." Even some Democrats were getting involved. "I think the important question is, is there something more Congress can do to try to express through ourselves the will of the American people about a procedure for issuing pardons," said Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). "Pardon procedures should be examined." Eight years later, these same officials view the possibility of criminal investigations -- in this case for harsh interrogation techniques as opposed to bone-headed, possibly corrupt pardons -- as anathema to basic American values. "It would take our country in a backward-looking direction at a time when our detainee-related challenges demand that we look forward," read a letter to Barack Obama signed by Lieberman, Graham and Sen. John McCain. "Given the great challenges that face our country in dealing with detainees... we have every interest in looking forward to solutions, not backward to recriminations. That is why we do not support the idea of a commission that would focus on the mistakes of the past." (McCain appears to be the most consistent of the three, having said of the Rich pardon back in March 2001, "I think that's a decision for the U.S. attorney to make. I think it's appropriate that the Congress wind down their investigations and move onto the issues of the day.") Certainly, there are differences between the two presidential controversies. Clinton's pardon, as Rove might argue, was an individual choice as opposed to a government policy. As such, when Congress held hearings on the matter and the U.S. attorney's office in New York investigated it, the basis was not any particular policy disagreement. That said, try replacing the word "pardon" with "torture" in the above quotes. At the very least, it is telling to recall just how open Republicans once were to the notion of looking back and righting past wrongs, however seemingly trivial. Indeed, the other, less controversial investigation called for at the time was an effort to determine whether Clinton officials had trashed the Oval Office and Air Force One shortly before leaving the White House. Former Rep. Bob Barr demanded a probe, declared that ''the Clinton administration [had] treated the White House worse than college freshmen checking out of their dorm rooms." Former Senator Rick Santorum, meanwhile, told the Washington Times that, "there needs to be at least someone to look into it." The GAO, at Barr's request, did just that, interviewing 78 Bush and 72 Clinton aides and tasking one employee to work on the case full-time for nearly nine months. When the results came back mixed -- the vandalism was playful at worst -- the Bush administration did not hide its displeasure. As the New York Times reported : The Bush White House was deeply disappointed with the report. Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to President Bush, had demanded that the accounting office provide more detail, including the full text of graffiti and other messages that were ''especially offensive or vulgar.'' The accounting office said such details were unnecessary and inappropriate. But Bush administration officials said the details would have revealed the ''mind-set or intentions'' of Clinton administration pranksters. Moreover, in a response much longer than the actual report, the Bush administration said, ''It appears that the G.A.O. has undertaken a concerted effort to downplay the damage found in the White House complex.'' Get HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter .
 

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)