Monday, April 13, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

William Fisher: Gitmo Lawyers: The Last Growth Industry? Top
President Barack Obama has ordered the Navy's prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by next January, suspended Military Commission trials, and assigned Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct case-by-case reviews of the 241 prisoners still detained there to determine which ones should be prosecuted, released or sent to other countries. Yet the Obama Defense Department is still trying to recruit lawyers to defend its detentions. In a ''help wanted'' ad circulated through the American Bar Association, the Pentagon (DOD) is offering $39,407-- $130,211 a year for lawyers who will help respond to habeas corpus petitions filed by detainees in federal courts. Habeas Corpus petitions challenge the government's right to imprison them. That right was granted to the detainees in a landmark Supreme Court decision in June 2008. The job posting said, ''Attorneys with any litigation experience are encouraged to apply" for the three-year positions. It said the positions are "located in the Washington, D.C. area, with the potential for some travel to Guantánamo Bay.'' The ad says the DOD Office of the General Counsel is looking for applicants who can "start immediately." An increasing number of individual detainees' cases are now coming before different federal judges, who are weighing whether the Pentagon has enough evidence to hold them as war prisoners, even after President Obama declared that they would no longer be categorized as "enemy combatants." The original lawsuits challenged the legal basis for their detention under former President George W. Bush - a right they were afforded by a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now Obama's name has been substituted for Bush's. Pentagon lawyers working on these habeas cases have been mandated to find evidence to justify the detentions of the Guantánamo captives. But lawyers defending the detainees say that the additional Defense Department lawyers have failed to make any meaningful effort to locate or produce exculpatory evidence. Most of the Guantanamo detainees have been held for up to seven years without charge. Nineteen of them have won their cases but are still being held because the U.S. has refused to accept them onto American soil, and has been unable to find other countries to accept them. A Pentagon spokesman told The Miami Herald that there were no job openings. The newspaper reported that the Defense Department has been advertising the job offers since last summer, before Obama took office, as part of an active effort to amass résumés "to address any future hiring requirements, including to replace any departing attorneys.'' Former acting Pentagon General Counsel Daniel Dell'Orto notified the Court last August that the DOD was hiring 40 attorneys to help on the cases. At that time, it had approximately 30 lawyers working "exclusively on habeas corpus litigation.'' Over the years, the Justice and Defense departments have created entire units to defend the policy -- as well as the new special war court championed by the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists by military commissions. Meanwhile, the war court has increased its numbers of lawyers, even as the Bush policy is under review by Obama Administration. There are now 63 military commissions prosecutors, an increase from 61 in December. These government lawyers would prosecute detainees should Military Commission trials resume following the Obama review. Government lawyers have failed in their effort to stop the cases wholesale on grounds that they were hindering the war effort by jamming the docket at the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. In another Guantanamo development, lawyers for Binyam Mohamed face the prospect of six-month jail sentences in America after writing a letter to President Obama detailing their client's allegations of torture by U.S. agents. That prospect has been triggered by a complaint made by a unit known as the Privilege Review Team (PRT), which is composed of U.S. DOD officials who monitor and censor communications between Guantánamo prisoners and their lawyers. As a result of that complaint, Clive Stafford Smith, director of legal charity Reprieve, and his colleague Ahmed Ghappour, have been summoned to appear before a Washington court on May 11. The PRT complaint accused Stafford Smith and Ghappour of "unprofessional conduct" and said that by releasing the redacted memo, Reprieve breached the rules that govern Guantánamo lawyers. A number of lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees have previously accused the PRT of using its powers to suppress evidence of the abuse and mistreatment of detainees. The background to this event is arguably reminiscent of something from a Kafka novel. Stafford Smith had written to the president after judges in the U.K. ruled against the release of U.S. evidence detailing Mohamed's alleged torture at Guantánamo. The letter asked the president to reconsider the U.S. position and urged him to release the evidence into the public domain. He attached a memo summarizing the case because his U.S. security clearance gives him access to the classified material. In order to comply with classification guidelines, the memo did not identify individual officers by name or specify locations of the abuse. He and Ghappour submitted the memo to the Privilege Review Team for clearance. However, the PRT redacted (edited) the memo down to just the title, leaving the president unable to read it. Stafford Smith included the redacted copy of the memo in his letter to illustrate the extent to which it had been censored. He described it as a "bizarre reality". He wrote, "You, as commander in chief, are being denied access to material that would help prove that crimes have been committed by U.S. personnel. This decision is being made by the very people who you command." Stafford Smith described the PRT's actions as intimidation, saying the complaint "doesn't even specify the rule supposedly breached". Anyone for Kafka?
 
Laura Liswood: Expectations for the New President Top
On April 4, 2009, the Washington Post had a front page article with a headline of " Blacks at Odds Over Scrutiny of President." The article stated that for many African Americans there was now a division between those who want to continue to praise Obama and his historic ascendancy and those who want to be more critical now that the election is over. In the article, Patricia Wilson-Smith of Black Women for Obama says "it is way too soon for people to ask Obama to fix long-held racial disparities." And yet Jeff Johnson of BET is quoted in the same article as saying after the inauguration -- which thrilled him -- "Now what's he going to do?" reflecting upon, amongst other challenges, a 50% dropout rates for some high school students and high unemployment. The Post article had a discussion about the expectations for this first black president by African Americans in the United States and perhaps globally. I was struck by the familiarity of this dilemma given my experience with women presidents and prime ministers. I remember talking with Benazir Bhutto about what women thought would happen once she came to office as Prime Minister of Pakistan , which she did three times, the last resulting in her assassination in 2008. She understood that women thought that much would instantly change for their status and for the living conditions of women and girls once the leader was a woman. The expectations were enormous. And conversely they did not want her to fail because she represented "all" women and if she failed it would set women back in their pursuit of leadership. It would be like, "we tried a woman and she failed, so we won't try that again." The fact was the Bhutto and other leaders as women cannot always, and probably never will be able to, fulfill this inflated belief that a woman leader can make substantial changes on issues that are deeply imbedded in culture. And that assumes they want to make the changes (see Margaret Thatcher). In addition, taking Bhutto's example, there were no women in her cabinet in Pakistan, only three women in Parliament, and the literacy rate for women in rural areas was 17%. She might have wanted to change things but she had few allies and resources to do so. A first-in-the-position woman leader also finds that she is under intense scrutiny. If she creates even a few programs or policy changes directed towards the benefit of women and girls her critics will say "she only really cares about women." Ironically, a male leader who does substantial programs for women and girls would be hailed as a hero. Generally speaking, white male presidents don't get that same amount or kind of scrutiny . It does not surprise me that the debate around President Obama includes the issue of how much to expect; what can change; and how critical the group he comes from should be towards him. Both women and African Americans belong to the historically out-of-power groups. There are pent up demands and desires for societal changes and a huge desire to see him or her succeed. I believe we would be hearing some of the same dialogue and consternation if the president were the first woman. More on Obama Election Day
 
Jane Hamsher: The Corporate Lobbyists Behind the Tea Parties Top
Anyone who has watched Fox News of late has seen them talking about the April 15 "tea party" demonstrations, which they take pains to characterize as a spontaneous grassroots uprising against government spending that they are simply "covering." Neil Cavuto said : "We are are going to be in the middle of these protests because at Fox, we do not pick and choose these rallies and protests. We were there for the Million Man March , even though, as I pointed out, it turned out to be well shy of a million men." The Million Man March happened in 1995 . Fox News didn't go on the air until 1996 . Why all the effort to distance themselves from the teabaggers? It's obvious they are integrally involved -- Fox has given them millions in free publicity, despite the fact that there's no evidence of "ratings gold" here. Four of their biggest stars will be appearing at the rallies, Fox Nation will be hosting a "virtual tea party," Glenn Beck is holding a $500 a plate fundraiser for them and Fox has been officially promoting the entire affair as the FNC Tax Day Tea Parties : Maybe they're afraid that if people knew that those behind the demonstrations were the very same lobbyists and influence peddlers the teabaggers claim to decry, the whole thing would be revealed to be what it is -- a hollow excercise in extremist right-wing hypocrisy. A report by Lee Fang at Think Progress documents the involvement of corporate lobbyists FreedomWorks in organizing the teabaggers. FreedomWorks is run by ladies' man (and registered lobbyist ) Dick Armey, and if they're not "organizing" the Tea parties, it's news to him. From a letter he wrote on March 10: FreedomWorks has been organizing many of these "tea parties" and we are listing the details on our website IamWithRick.com If you visit the website, you can rsvp for an event near you, and you can download guidelines to organizing a tea party in your home town if there isn't one being planned already. On the Freedomworks website, it says: "If you are not able to organize or attend a Taxpayer Tea Party, you can still help the cause by donating or buying a t-shirt . The "donation" for the Tea Parties page goes to -- you guessed it -- the FreedomWorks Foundation . The "thank you" lettter is signed by Matt Kibbe, President & CEO, who cut his teeth working for Lee Atwater. He was behind the attempt to get Ralph Nader put on the ballot in Oregon in 2004, prompting a complaint to the FEC of illegal collusion with the GOP. FreedomWorks was launched a GOP version of MoveOn. "We believe that hard work beats daddy's money," said Dick Armey at the time. Armey seems to be a bit irony challenged -- Steve Forbes is on the FreedomWorks board. As Krugman notes , their money comes from the Koch, Scaife, Bradley, Olin and other reliable funders of right wing infrastructure including Exxon Mobil . This fact that none of this would be possible without the open checkbooks of right wing billionaires and the lobbyists who love them is beyond the grasp of Glenn Reynolds : These aren't the usual semiprofessional protesters who attend antiwar and pro-union marches. These are people with real jobs; most have never attended a protest march before. They represent a kind of energy that our politics hasn't seen lately, and an influx of new activists. In 2004, a woman who identified herself as a "single mother" in Iowa, Sandra Jacques, appeared at a George Bush town hall and gushed about his plan to privatize Social Security. She left out the part about being an employee of Freedomworks, who were lobbying on the issue at the time . Before any media covering these events accept the idea that this is just a grass roots outpouring of populist sentiment, they ought to take a look behind the curtain -- where Dick Armey is laughing and counting his cash. Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com More on George Bush
 
U.S. Pot Legalization Should Be Discussed: Mexican Ambassador Top
As the bodies pile up on the Mexican battlefield, where rival drug cartels war against each other and the Mexican military, the government there is increasingly looking for an exit strategy. Contrary to their public image, a major source of revenue for the cartels comes from the marijuana trade. Precise numbers are obviously hard to come by, but some U.S. government drug policy officials estimate that more than half of drug cartel revenue comes from the pot business -- meaning it may be more accurate to refer to them as "marijuana cartels." Taking pot revenue away from the cartels could significantly weaken them, leading some leading Mexican officials to suggest legalizing and regulating the trade. The Mexican ambassador to the United States, Arturo Sarukhan, became the latest on Sunday to call for the United States to seriously consider legalizing its appetite for marijuana. "This is a debate that needs to be taken seriously, that we have to engage in on both sides of the border: both in producing, in trafficking, and in consumption countries," Sarukhan said on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday, when asked about legalization. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently made international news by finally admitting that U.S. demand for drugs fuels violence south of its border. Earlier, former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria, former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo all joined together to push blame for the drug war on the United States. Ryan Grim is the author of This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America
 
William Bradley: Obama's Crisis Management: Of Pirates and Missiles Top
President Barack Obama made his first public statement, very measured considering the successful outcome, about the Somali pirate crisis only today after the rescue of American freighter captain Richard Phillips. Barack Obama's management of two flashpoint crises -- both relatively minor but caught up in the now typical hysteria of our media culture -- gives us some good clues about his crisis management style. The just concluded hostage crisis off the coast of Somalia and last month's North Korean missile launch showed Obama in no drama mode, determined to avoid distraction and continue with his core messaging strategy. Obama actually took a lower profile public role with the more consequential of the two crises, the Somali pirate hostage crisis, than he did with the North Korean missile launch. But he seems to have spent more time behind the scenes on the crisis on which he spent the least amount of time before the cameras. American freighter captain Richard Phillips just after his dramatic Sunday rescue from Somali pirates by the US Navy. I'm told that Obama didn't want to add to the inherent drama of American freighter captain Richard Phillips in a lifeboat with four Somali pirates with public pronouncements during the standoff. In part because the insertion of his public statements would would work against the overall strategy of wearing down and disheartening the pirates, bobbing on the waves of the Indian Ocean in an out-of-gas lifeboat. And in part because the operation could have gone sideways, with dramatically bad results. That would have been especially true if Obama had paid any attention to his critics on the far right, who in their usual hysterical fashion agitated for a swift raid on the lifeboat. Ironically, the French did much the same thing on Friday, sending commandos onto a hijacked yacht. They killed all the pirates, but lost a French hostage in the bargain. Phillips, in close quarters on a much smaller lifeboat, could easily have been killed had the boat been raided early on in the stand-off, when the pirates were less tired and more pumped up on the excitement of their mission and the drama of confronting the US Navy. Early on in the stand-off, Phillips briefly escaped his Somali pirate captors. Obama and his advisors and military commanders took a different, though no less lethal, tack than the French, who have now staged three raids on ships hijacked by the Somali pirates. It was reminiscent of Obama's approach in the Democratic primaries, in which he relied on "the math" of the situation. In that case, Obama inexorably rolled up an insurmountable delegate advantage, sweeping smaller states and blocking the Clinton campaign's ability to come back with a few high-profile late primary victories. In this case, Obama used the resources of the US military and government to shut down the pirates' options and make them more vulnerable. With advice from FBI hostage negotiators, the commander of the nearest Navy ship, USS Bainbridge, Commander Frank Castellana, set in motion a plan to string the pirates along and wear them down, establishing rapport while denying their goals. Ransom for the hostage, which would set a dangerous precedent, was denied, as was safe passage for the pirates. When other pirates sought to link up with the lifeboat with their captured vessels, with other hostages aboard, the Navy blocked them. The American crew of the Maersk Alabama cargo ship successfully fended off their hijackers. But that was only the beginning of the drama. Meanwhile, choosing from a set of options, Obama ordered the insertion of a group of Navy Seal (Sea Air Land) commandos aboard the the destroyer Bainbridge. Out of sight of the pirates, the Seals executed a parachute jump into the ocean and made their way to the Bainbridge. There, with sophisticated sniper rifles, they surreptitiously took up position. On Friday, Obama gave the order for the pirates to be killed if Phillips was judged by the captain of the Bainbridge to be in terminal danger from his armed captors. Which, of course, could be seen as being true at any point. When the drifting lifeboat, which got very hot during the day and very cold at night, ran into choppy water, the pirates agreed to be taken in tow by the Navy destroyer. One pirate used his injury as an excuse to be taken aboard the Bainbridge. Meanwhile, the Bainbridge shortened the two line to less than 100 yards. The expert Seal snipers, with their sophisticated weaponry, ended the stand-off with a headshot for each of the pirates. The pirates who remained aboard the lifeboat with Phillips never knew the Seals were there. Obama gave more attention in his public statements, though less in private discussion, to the North Korean missile launch during that crisis. That's probably because North Korea, unlike the Somali pirates, is a nation-state. And because North Korea has a pretty well-established pattern of trying to get attention and validation through various missile launches and brandishings of nuclear reactors. In a sense, it was all part of an established kabuki. The launch actually failed in its mission of putting a North Korean satellite in to orbit. While the first stage of the rocket was successful, launching it over an agitated Japan, failure occurred somewhere in the second or third stages. Some over on the American right said that Obama should have stopped the North Korean launch. Obama had ordered US Navy destroyers with anti-missile capability into the area, but did not order the shoot-down. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the missile should have been stopped, if not shot down, perhaps by special operations forces. He was quite vague, actually, perhaps because what he was saying didn't make much sense. Since the missile could have been shot down, it wasn't necessary to actually do so. And North Korea - which the Bush/Cheney Administration removed from the list of threatening rogue nations after going through this sort of thing on several previous occasions - has a habit of making a spectacle of itself in order to publicize one of its few industries which actually has some success, and to try to get international aid. What it will ultimately get is some new sanctions, which will probably be ineffectual. Both crises revealed a lot about how Obama approaches crises in the form of issues he has not previously selected to focus on. Long-term solutions with regard to Somalia and North Korea? That's another matter. You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com. More on Barack Obama
 
Paul Rudd Dances With Elmo; Officially Becomes World's Cutest Man (VIDEO) Top
At this point, we all know how much Paul Rudd loves to dance , but until you've seen him dressed as a giant earth boogying down with some muppets, you haven't lived. Rudd lent his time to the Sesame Street special "Being Green," that just released in time for Earth Day. It celebrates recycling and conserving water and energy, but mostly it just celebrates Paul Rudd whose infectious joy and self-deprecation can't help but make you laugh. (via Videogum) WATCH: Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook! Become A Fan! More on Earth Day
 
Stephen Colbert, Decemberists To Face Off Again Top
NEW YORK — Stephen Colbert and his musical nemesis, the Decemberists, will face off again. The Decemberists announced Monday that they will perform on Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" on April 27. Colbert and the band engaged in a mock feud in 2006 after Colbert accused the Decemberists of copying his idea of a fan-created "green screen challenge." The feud culminated in a much ballyhooed "ShredDown" in which Decemberists guitarist Chris Funk took on Colbert in a guitar solo contest. Colbert claimed victory in one of the show's most star-studded episodes that featured Henry Kissinger, Morley Safer, Peter Frampton and former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer. ___ Comedy Central is owned by Viacom Inc. ___ On the Net: http://www.decemberists.com http://www.colbertnation.com More on Stephen Colbert
 
Nicko Margolies: The Perilous Future of TV Top
This article originally appeared on PSFK.com . Over the past decade traditional television content has quickly migrated to our computers and as consumers demand easier access to media, major content providers are clamoring to be ahead of the curve. Entertainment industry executives met at conference earlier this year hoping not to get caught off guard like the music and newspaper industries, but a dominant solution has yet to surface. The Future of Television conference , hosted by Digital Media Wire , brought together an impressive collection of speakers who struggled to come to a coherent conclusion. The business model of TV advertising has struggled to transfer successfully onto the internet as consumers seek out ease of use and quick results for their favorite content. Local stations have been hit particularly hard by the shift in mediums. The recent downturn of the financial and auto industries have disproportionately damaged local stations who rely heavily on these big buyers for advertising revenue. Television shows were some of the first forms of video content to appear online and viewers are quick to seek out episodes they've missed on their computers. Websites like TV.com and Hulu have partnered with major entertainment groups to bring traditional television media online and available to loyal viewers with minimal commercial interruption. The trick is bring these viewers back into the living room to utilize the rich content through their TVs. This seemingly dangerous forecast for television has a possible upside as consumers are spending over eight hours a day in front of screens. The next step is to make internet streaming and on-demand services profitable enough to retain advertising revenue while fulfilling the consumer's desire to avoid monthly fees. A recent article at Content Agenda addressed the state of television's advertising revenue stream: "TV advertising is still healthy and strong, but we're at an interesting point," said Bill Bradford, senior vice president and chief product officer for Fox Digital Media. "Content is now being consumed on many different platforms. We haven't hit critical mass yet on all these platforms, but it does have people asking what is going to happen when we hit that tipping point." ... To continue reading this article, please visit PSFK.com .
 
Nicholas Rosen: Going to the Mat: Confessions of a Yoga Guinea Pig Top
A few years back, I got a call that would change my life. That sounds like a dramatic cliché, something from the movies. But that was the point. It was my friend Kate Churchill on the phone. She wanted me to be the subject of Enlighten Up!, her documentary about yoga. Not that I was a yogi. At the time, my idea of a sacred cow was a burger from the Corner Bistro. But Kate had a theory that yoga could change anyone, and she was looking for a hard case. After six months of intensive yoga, a man who couldn't touch his toes would reach enlightenment. The ensuing journey would bring me across the country, studying with and interviewing many of the biggest names in the yoga world. I played a dual role, serving as both yoga guinea pig and journalist in pursuit of the true story of yoga -- where does it come from? What was it meant to achieve? -- and followed the thread all the way to the heart of India. I enjoyed yoga as much as the next guy: the stretching, the core strengthening, the gender ratios in class. Still, I couldn't figure out the connection between yoga class and spiritual enrichment. Downward dog is a great hip opener, but was it a path to nirvana? To find out, I undertook (or was subjected to) an intensive regime of stretching, breathing, and chanting things in an ancient language that I didn't understand. I twisted myself into postures otherwise only achieved in a car accident. I even discovered body parts I never knew existed (For instance, I didn't know I had a "xiphoid process" until a particularly rigorous 4-hour session of pranayama breathing caused this weird, semi-ossified cartilage at the tip of my sternum to poke out of my chest like an alien impregnating Sigourney Weaver. Who knew you could injure yourself breathing?) While awaiting the spiritual payoff from all this stretching, I looked for empirical answers. And my research divulged some surprising things: The yoga we practice these days, although dressed in the trappings of ancient Hindu authenticity, was born about one hundred years ago, largely under the influence of western culture. While the yoga world routinely refers to yoga as a five thousand year old tradition, it is only a little older than Bollywood. The REAL yoga, ancient and obscure, was nothing like the feel-good hippie stretching of today. It was more like black magic: transforming one's semen into magical nectar, flying around and taking over other peoples bodies, and the like. Yogis were like boogeymen and dark sorcerers. This according to David White, the leading American scholar in ancient yoga, who noted, "I haven't seen them teaching this stuff at the local yoga studio." In a rare interview, BKS Iyengar, the 90-year old ambassador of yoga to the West, told me that his yoga, as taught to him by his master, was a purely physical exercise and completely unrelated to ancient philosophy. He says he invented and refined much of it himself. It wasn't until 1960, while on a visit to London, that English intellectuals introduced Iyengar to the ancient "yoga sutras". Five years later, he combined the yoga poses and the Hindu teachings together in his book "Light on Yoga," which then sold hundreds of thousands of copies in the United States. And voila -- the modern yoga craze was born. But it was basically a new age invention, not an ancient practice. What did all this show me, beyond the savvy of yoga marketers and the credulity of American spiritual wannabees? It gives the lie to the notion that one yoga is more "authentic" than another, or that we in the west have somehow bastardized yoga into a profane exercise craze. It was already a crazy 20th century hybrid of calisthenics and khirtan when it got here. Along my yoga odyssey, I encountered a western yoga culture struggling to reconcile ad hoc philosophy with modern life, exemplified by the teacher at Jivamukti in New York City who told the class that we shouldn't get too negative on the war-mongering Bush Administration, because negativity is "unyogic." But as the weeks went by I eventually settled into a rhythm of yoga practice that formed its own logic. The pain eased, and I began to feel myself growing longer and stronger, and more sensitive to the slight maladjustments in posture and bodily symmetry. I learned to close my eyes, breathe in and visualize the oxygenated blood trickling through my veins. My shoulders began to settle back and my chest expanded, bestowing the sensation that my heart was opening to the world. I found most precious moments always came during final relaxation. Once, I became gradually aware of a wash of green light trickling in from the windows of the room, like the dark ether at the bottom of the ocean. I sunk deeper into meditation and for the first time I think I really began to dream while awake. I was still bemused by yoga philosophy, but even when the yoga teacher was saying something inane, like "Remember, your hamstrings are a symbol of your ego, so we must all just let go" - I found myself increasingly susceptible to this benign, new-age propaganda. Lying there all sweaty and exhausted, I began to send out healing and love to all beings on the earth - hell, even the Martians -with only a little tongue in my mental cheek. And as much as I resisted the belabored classroom lectures and dime-store wisdom, I nevertheless found myself measuring my own behavior against them. Because frankly, practicing things like non-attachment and universal love and cross-legged headstands is pretty great, even if they can be found in the self help for hippies section of the bookstore. And so what if yoga's ancient pedigree is kind of a myth? Why do things have to be ancient to be worthwhile? I mean, human sacrifice is ancient, but that doesn't make it cool. Meanwhile, the civil rights movement was invented in a 20th century, East-meets-west, Gandhi-meets-King Asian fusion. And that's pretty cool. Despite all the misappropriated hype about karma and enlightenment, yoga practice is still a powerful tool. The stretching and breathing, when coupled with a meditative, focused intention, can make you feel pretty damn good, even if the whole thing is choreographed to a Kanye West track. And one important day, working it out on the mat, I realized I needed to call my mom more often. And by measure of this subtle, earthly transformation, I guess Kate may have proven her hypothesis after all. More on Yoga
 
Mike McCready: What Kind Of Twitter Tweeter Are You? Top
I've recently gotten into Twitter. I've been using Facebook and Facebook has a space where you write short "status updates" that alert all of your friends to what you are doing at any particular moment or as to what's on your mind. I find Facebook to be good for keeping in touch with an extended group of friends: people you went to school with (all the way back to elementary) and with whom I have since lost touch, close friends and family and a few professional contacts who over the years have crossed into the definition of "friend." Not long ago, I read that the average Facebook user has 130 "friends." Interestingly, a few days later I was in a bar in New York with a friend and I was thinking about what I'd read. So, I asked, "How many friends do you have?" He looked at me a bit perplexed by the question, hesitated and then said, "uhmmm... two?" "No." I clarified, "I mean on Facebook." "Ooohhhh" he smiled, "I dunnno. Like 700." I think that little story illustrates the usefulness of Facebook. It enables you to manage superficial relationships with hundreds of people in your life that you know or have met along that way and with whom you'd like to stay in touch. It is designed intelligently and if you log into Facebook a couple of times a day for a month you can usually catch tidbits of the lives of almost everyone you know. I was a little late to Facebook and I decided I didn't want to make that mistake again so I signed up to Twitter as soon as I was hearing the buzz. I wanted to know what that was all about and while that was why I got started, I have to say I've found Twitter to be incredibly useful in both practical and entertaining ways. I'm not a stakeholder in the company but I do follow one of their pioneer investors, Fred Wilson (@fredwilson). In case you don't yet know, Twitter is (according to Wikipedia): a free social networking and micro-blogging service that enables its users to send and read other users' updates known as tweets. Tweets are text-based posts of up to 140 characters in length which are displayed on the user's profile page and delivered to other users who have subscribed to them (known as followers). Senders can restrict delivery to those in their circle of friends or, by default, allow anybody to access them. Users can send and receive tweets via the Twitter website... or applications such as Tweetie, Twitterrific, Twitterfon, TweetDeck and feedalizr. The service is free to use over the Internet. While friends (including many Facebook friends) and family follow me on Twitter and I follow them, I find Twitter is most useful for following the tweets of people I don't know very well or at all. I'm interested in them or in their lives and thoughts to a certain degree, but I don't necessarily know them very well outside of Twitter. On Facebook you are required to "accept" a friendship request by confirming you indeed know the person requesting to connect with you but on Twitter most people have their account set up so that anyone can follow them. That enables anyone to just start following Barack Obama's Twitter feed (mostly inactive since he became President (@barackobama). Mine is set up like that too (@mjmccready) but I tend to post once or twice a day at most. Also, I use Twitter to maintain contact with a large number of people I know and am interested in but with whom I just don't have time to maintain a closer relationship. Both Twitter and Facebook expand my ability to manage a large number of social relationships. The only other networking tool I use is LinkedIn but I'll talk about that another day. I think Twitter helps fulfill two conflicting human psychological needs. 1. The need to feel like you belong (to a larger collective, a group of peers etc). 2. The need to feel unique. These needs are conflicting because if you start feeling like you belong too much you start to not feel special. You start to feel like nothing distinguishes you from your peers and friends. You blend in. On the other hand, if you start to feel too unique you start to be unable to relate to others. No one is like you. No one "gets" you on an intimate level and true, empathetically meaningful friendships elude you. A lot of people we think of as eccentric are just so unique almost no one "gets" them. It's important for humans to find that psychological balance and to a certain degree, Twitter is a tool that enables us to compensate. For me, following a range of people on Twitter is interesting for a lot of reasons but a side effect has been being able to observe how people handle those two conflicting needs. I've become very self conscious of how my own tweets are perceived by others and that awareness has changed my Twitter behavior. I've learned that the best way for me to use Twitter is to always play to the interest of my intended audience. When "tweeting" becomes too much about me it's not a satisfying experience to those who follow me. I'm not a celebrity so not every mundane detail of my life is interesting to anyone but my mother (and usually not even her). But the best way for me may not be the best way for you or for the next person. You have to find your voice and that can take some experimenting. There's a learning curve on Twitter, both in determining who you follow and what you yourself post. Who Tweets? I've noticed that there are many kinds of "tweeters." I'll list a few. You may recognize yourself or people you follow. I've been a few of them myself as I struggled to get the hang of it at first so I've learned some of this firsthand. The kinds of tweeters I'll describe are not mutually exclusive. That is, people can be one or more of the following types in any combination. The Celebritweeter - Most people who follow celebrities are their fans and are interested in the lives of those they follow no matter how mundane each of their tweets. Everything they post is interesting to the fan and it gives fans an interesting insight into the real, everyday life of the celebrity. Some celebrities like to tweet because it gives them the opportunity to maintain control of their PR. Their tweets go out directly to their fans and it allows the celebrity to control the story without the tabloid middleman. Of course, the tabloids follow the celebrities too, just waiting for the occasional drunk (or otherwise thoughtless tweet) that will make for good fodder. People who hate a particular celebrity might follow them too even if it's just to poke fun at them in their "retweets" to their own followers. The Politweecian - These are the elected officials and those aspiring to become elected officials who want to keep your attention and use Twitter to keep the dialog going. They want to use their 140 character posts to persuade you and influence your opinion. This is so much better than the usual length of their discourse that it can actually become constituents' preferred method of hearing from their representatives. Of course, be prepared to get a link to every news article that so much as mentions their name in a favorable light, every photo of them next to anyone of interest (even if they're in the far background and can barely be made out) and links to blog posts and bills they want you to be aware of. The good thing about Twitter is that you can talk back and make your return tweet visible only to the sender or to the sender and all of your followers (but not necessarily all of their followers). The Punditweeter - I'm talking about the Fred Barnes' (@FredBarnes), Rick Sanchez's (@ricksanchezcnn) and Nicholas Kristof 's (@nytimeskristof) of the world. Also the George Stephanopoulos' (@GStephanopoulos ) and the David Gregory's (@davidgregory). Some just want to inform you. Others will ask you to submit questions to them for the upcoming guests on their shows and others just want to lambast the other side and reinforce your thinking one way or another. They are closely related to the Pontificatweeter. You can find a list of politicians and pundits on Twitter here: http://www.politicaltwits.com/ The Pontificatweeter - The pontificatweeter is like the punditweeter but without the notoriety. This is just anyone who has built up a following on Twitter and uses the platform to influence their followers, tell them what they ought to be thinking and why. They don't necessarily try to inform you. They are sometimes a bit narcissistic in that they assume Twitter is for, ummm, pontificating. I can't wait to hear about the first cult leader to emerge from Twitter. It'll happen. The Comedian - These are my favorite people to follow on Twitter. Some are official comedians with varying degrees of celebrity and some are regular people with other jobs who have tremendous wit and sense of humor. They tend to always have some funny insight about their otherwise mundane lives. Some test out new material on Twitter. They're usually entertaining. I just stop following those that aren't but there's nothing better than a tweet that makes you laugh out loud. Hats off to anyone who can brighten your day in 140 characters or less! Here are a few: @gruber, @moltz, @lonelysandwich, @seoulbrother, @mathewbaldwin, @nevenmrgan, @antichrista, @nick, @mike_FTW, @hodgeman The "Hey, Look At Me" Tweeps - This is the person who wants to be acknowledged for being special. They use their followers as a continuous source of positive reinforcement. Their followers are their "tweeps" (their peeps). They tell their tweeps every time they do something "exotic", out of the ordinary or "cool" solely for the purpose of saying "Hey! Look at me!!" Maybe they want to generate envy. Maybe they just want to feel special and unique. Be prepared to hear from them every time they visit a trendy club or when they land at Charles de Gaul. They must get their need to belong satisfied elsewhere. The Clutweeter - These are the people who put the Twit in Twitter. They are the worst kind of Tweeter. It's clutter. It's just short of spam only because you subscribed to get their tweets but the content of them may as well be advertisements for Viagra and pleas for you to help them get millions of dollars out of Nigeria. This is someone you know (or at least thought you wanted to know more about) but you got more than you ever bargained for. They feel compelled to tweet about every mundane thing in their lives and their tweets are void of any insights, humor, entertainment or useful information. They tell you the number of emails they have in their inbox to answer. They tell you when they break for lunch. They tell you when they wake up and go to bed. I think that if we're close enough for that level of detail about your life to be interesting to me we should just get married and stay in touch on the phone and through email when we're apart. So, after my initial period of learning what Twitter is all about this is what it comes down to for me. Those who follow me will hear about music and the music industry, some politics and rants against the right, a bit of Barcelona and New York (restaurants, movies shows etc), links to my blog posts here and elsewhere and some occasionally random stuff about me and the crap I think about that I deem might be interesting enough to share. I'll send along the occasional retweet (RT) of someone I'm following if I find it to be really interesting or hilarious. I've decided to start following everyone who follows me. I'm going to try that for a while and see if I can manage it. I've been using Tweetdeck to manage it all and Tweetdeck enables you to "favorite" certain people and to push those who are less interesting or less relevant to the background while still enabling you to scan everyone's tweets. So far that's working well. I'm still somewhat new to Twitter so I'll let you know how it goes. I'd love to hear your experiences as well. This is me: @mjmccready You find me here: http://www.twitter.com/mjmccready Hope to see you there. More on Twitter
 
Harry Kalas, Phillies Announcer, Dead At 73 Top
WASHINGTON — Longtime Philadelphia Phillies broadcaster Harry Kalas, who punctuated innumerable home runs with his "Outta Here!" call, died Monday after being found in the broadcast booth before a game against the Washington Nationals. He was 73. "We lost our voice today," team president David Montgomery said, his voice cracking. "He has loved our game and made just a tremendous contribution to our sport and certainly to our organization." Kalas was found by the Phillies director of broadcasting at about 12:30 p.m. and taken to a local hospital, Montgomery said. Kalas had surgery earlier this year for an undisclosed ailment that the team characterized as minor. He looked somewhat drawn last week as the Phillies opened the season at home. Kalas joined the Phillies in 1971. Before that, he was an original member of the Houston Astros' broadcast team from 1965-70. He also did voiceover work for NFL Films and for commercials. In 2002, he received the Baseball Hall of Fame's Ford C. Frick Award for his contributions to the game. Kalas joined the Phillies radio and TV broadcast team the year the club moved into their former home, Veterans Stadium, replacing fan favorite Bill Campbell. He wasn't immediately embraced by Phillies fans, despite being paired with Richie Ashburn, a Hall of Famer as a player, and longtime announcer. But Kalas evolved into a beloved sports figure in Philadelphia. He and Ashburn grew into a popular team, and shared the booth until Ashburn's death in 1997. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. WASHINGTON (AP) _ Longtime Philadelphia Phillies broadcaster Harry Kalas has died at age 73. Team president David Montgomery announced the death Monday a short time after Kalas passed out in the broadcast booth before a game in Washington against the Nationals. Montogomery's voice was cracking as he said that "we have lost our voice." Kalas had been with the Phillies since 1971 and was known for his distinctive "Outta here!" home run call.
 
Stephanie Miller: The Stephanie Miller Show Talks to Paul Begala Top
Today's clip from The Stephanie Miller Show features Stephanie speaking with CNN's Paul Begala about Obama's overseas trip, the president's economic plan, the fight between Rove and Biden, and pirates. Listen Live at http://www.stephaniemiller.com More on CNN
 
Kittens Set On Fire, Left In Drawer Top
Firefighters in Westchester found four kittens inside a burning desk drawer in an apartment building in Mount Vernon, N.Y., Sunday. The Westchester SPCA says that someone set fire to papers in the drawer inside a basement of the building and then left the kittens to die. The smoke from the fire drifted upstairs and someone called the fire department. Firefighters responded, put out the fire, and rescued the kittens. More on Crime
 
Anneli Rufus: Eating for Almost Nothing Top
After imagining all his life that he would never, ever be anywhere near this desperate, an unemployed friend of mine recently went onto the food-stamp program. When it first kicked in -- it's more of a credit card than actual stamps -- he had to realign his thinking on a major scale. He feels ashamed -- heck, he has a graduate degree and his family used to own hotels. Having been accustomed for decades to eating whatever he liked, whenever he liked it, from natural-food stores and macrobiotic restaurants and the occasional prime-rib house, Brent suddenly had to learn to eat on $6.50 a day. He asked me for advice, because he knows I'm a scavenger. This means I seek out the cheapest food possible. It's even better if it's free. ("Possible" is a subjective term, of course. Because I'm a hypochondriac with a low gross-out threshold when it comes to food, I don't fish my meals out of trash bins, though some do, and I don't begrudge them this.) Brent used to tease me for being the way I am. "You love that free food," he'd smirk. He's had to stop smirking. So what did I tell Brent? First, I asked him whether his area has any discount grocery outlets. Selling the exact same name-brand (and often organic and fair-trade) items as do mainstream supermarkets, but at a fraction of the mainstream price, these stores acquire their inventory in closeouts -- often because of company bankruptcies, changes in packaging, or the impending arrival of expiration dates. From staples such as coffee and pasta to exotic ice cream, these emporia are a scavenger's Xanadu. But beware: an inventory based on happenstance is an ever-shifting inventory. That pomegranate yogurt in stock right now might never come this way again. I also told Brent to check out 99-cent stores and ethnic markets in his area. I'm a regular at our local Chinatown stores, where I am ever-thankful for whatever well-priced produce we can't grow in our own backyard. (And we do grow a lot. Without a yard, Brent can't.) Brent has another problem that impacts his food-stamp usage. Semi-homeless, he is living in a space without cooking facilities. Nonetheless, it has a sink. So whatever food Brent acquires must be ready-to-eat, or can be prepared just by adding water. His neighborhood supermarket is a mainstream supermarket, but at least it has a bulk section. So I told him what to seek there; it's not Cordon Bleu dining but I've done it and it works: Mashed-potato flakes. Tabouleh. Instant/powdered chili, refried beans and hummus. (Fantastic Foods is one company that supplies yummy versions of these to supermarkets' bulk sections.) I directed Brent to a story in the Conway, Arkansas Log Cabin Democrat about common-sense culinary dollar-stretchers. Oats top the list, then eggs, ever-versatile potatoes, dried beans and rice -- with fried rice, my own favorite fallback plan, recommended as a filling high-carb but potentially also high-protein family pleaser that comes out to a few cents a plate, even given the notable increase in worldwide rice prices this past year. But Brent would have to borrow cooking facilities for that. I told him: canned chickpeas with chopped (or powdered) garlic and a spritz of lemon juice. As for that juice -- well, here we rise to the second tier of scavenging, which does not entail stores at all. As urban-foraging organizations such as Los Angeles-based Fallen Fruit want us all to know, America's city and suburban streets are rife with fruit trees growing in public spaces, or whose branches overhang the sidewalk. Pick that fruit. It's free. So are the food samples announced at web sites such as Hey, It's Free and Free Stuff Times . Brent won't go hungry. He also won't be having prime rib anytime soon, unless someone else is paying. But somewhere between starvation and luxury lies this other realm, familiar in a long-ago America and now becoming real again: Goodbye, fifty-buck meal. Hello, fifty-cent meal. Yes. We can.
 
Robert Stavins: The Making of a Conventional Wisdom Top
Despite the potential cost-effectiveness of market-based policy instruments, such as pollution taxes and tradable permits, conventional approaches - including design and uniform performance standards - have been the mainstay of U.S. environmental policy since before the first Earth Day in 1970. Gradually, however, the political process has become more receptive to innovative, market-based strategies. In the 1980s, tradable-permit systems were used to accomplish the phasedown of lead in gasoline ­(at a savings of about $250 million per year), and to facilitate the phaseout of ozone-depleting chloroflourocarbons (CFCs); and in the 1990's, tradable permits were used to implement stricter air pollution controls in the Los Angeles metropolitan region, and - most important of all - a cap-and-trade system was adopted to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and consequent acid rain by 50 percent under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 (saving about $1 billion per year in abatement costs). Most recently, cap-and-trade systems have emerged as the preferred national and regional policy instrument to address carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions linked with global climate change (see my previous posts of February 6th on an " Opportunity for a Defining Moment " and March 7th on " Green Jobs "). Why has there been a relatively recent rise in the use of market-based approaches? For academics like me, it would be gratifying to believe that increased understanding of market-based instruments had played a large part in fostering their increased political acceptance, but how important has this really been? In 1981, my Harvard colleague, political scientist Steven Kelman surveyed Congressional staff members, and found that support and opposition to market-based environmental policy instruments was based largely on ideological grounds: Republicans, who supported the concept of economic-incentive approaches, offered as a reason the assertion that "the free market works," or "less government intervention" is desirable, without any real awareness or understanding of the economic arguments for market-based programs. Likewise, Democratic opposition was based largely upon ideological factors, with little or no apparent understanding of the real advantages or disadvantages of the various instruments. What would happen if we were to replicate Kelman's survey today? My refutable hypothesis is that we would find increased support from Republicans, greatly increased support from Democrats, but insufficient improvements in understanding to explain these changes. So what else has mattered? First, one factor has surely been increased pollution control costs, which have led to greater demand for cost-effective instruments. By the late 1980's, even political liberals and environmentalists were beginning to question whether conventional regulations could produce further gains in environmental quality. During the previous twenty years, pollution abatement costs had continually increased, as stricter standards moved the private sector up the marginal abatement-cost curve. By 1990, U.S. pollution control costs had reached $125 billion annually, nearly a 300% increase in real terms from 1972 levels. Second, a factor that became important in the late 1980's was strong and vocal support from some segments of the environmental community. By supporting tradable permits for acid rain control, the Environmental Defense Fund seized a market niche in the environmental movement, and successfully distinguished itself from other groups. Related to this, a third factor was that the SO2 allowance trading program, the leaded gasoline phasedown, and the CFC phaseout were all designed to reduce emissions, not simply to reallocate them cost-effectively among sources. Market-based instruments are most likely to be politically acceptable when proposed to achieve environmental improvements that would not otherwise be achieved. Fourth, deliberations regarding the SO2 allowance system, the lead system, and CFC trading differed from previous attempts by economists to influence environmental policy in an important way: the separation of ends from means, that is, the separation of consideration of goals and targets from the policy instruments used to achieve those targets. By accepting - implicitly or otherwise - the politically identified (and potentially inefficient) goal, the ten-million ton reduction of SO2 emissions, for example, economists were able to focus successfully on the importance of adopting a cost-effective means of achieving that goal. Fifth, acid rain was an unregulated problem until the SO2 allowance trading program of 1990; and the same can be said for leaded gasoline and CFC's. Hence, there were no existing constituencies - in the private sector, the environmental advocacy community, or government - for the status quo approach, because there was no status quo approach. We should be more optimistic about introducing market-based instruments for "new" problems, such as global climate change, than for existing, highly regulated problems, such as abandoned hazardous waste sites. Sixth, by the late 1980's, there had already been a perceptible shift of the political center toward a more favorable view of using markets to solve social problems. The George H. W. Bush Administration, which proposed the SO2 allowance trading program and then championed it through an initially resistant Democratic Congress, was (at least in its first two years) "moderate Republican;" and phrases such as "fiscally responsible environmental protection" and "harnessing market forces to protect the environment" do have the sound of quintessential moderate Republican issues. But, beyond this, support for market-oriented solutions to various social problems had been increasing across the political spectrum for the previous fifteen years, as was evidenced by deliberations on deregulation of the airline, telecommunications, trucking, railroad, and banking industries. Indeed, by the mid-1990s, the concept (or at least the phrase), "market-based environmental policy," had evolved from being politically problematic to politically attractive. Seventh and finally, the adoption of the SO2 allowance trading program for acid rain control - like any major innovation in public policy - can partly be attributed to a healthy dose of chance that placed specific persons in key positions, in this case at the White House, EPA, the Congress, and environmental organizations. The result was what remains the golden era in the United States for market-based environmental strategies. _____________________________________________________________________________________ If you would like to read more about the factors that have brought about the changes that have occurred in the political reception given to market-based environmental policy instruments over the past two decades, here are some references: Stavins, Robert N. " What Can We Learn from the Grand Policy Experiment? Positive and Normative Lessons from SO2 Allowance Trading. " Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 12, Number 3, pages 69-88, Summer 1998. Keohane, Nathaniel O., Richard L. Revesz, and Robert N. Stavins. " The Choice of Regulatory Instruments in Environmental Policy. " Harvard Environmental Law Review, volume 22, number 2, pp. 313-367, 1998. Hahn, Robert W. " The Impact of Economics on Environmental Policy. " Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39(2000):375-399. Hahn, Robert W., Sheila M. Olmstead, and Robert N. Stavins. " Environmental Regulation During the 1990s: A Retrospective Analysis. " Harvard Environmental Law Review, volume 27, number 2, 2003, pp. 377-415.
 
Jermaine Dye, Paul Konerko Each Hit 300th Home Run Back-To-Back Top
DETROIT — Jermaine Dye and Paul Konerko of the Chicago White Sox have hit back-to-back home runs _ the 300th career homer for each player. Dye led off the second inning with a homer and Konerko followed with a home run to give Chicago a 2-0 lead over the Detroit Tigers on Monday. According to the Elias Sports Bureau, it's the first time teammates hit century milestone home runs of at least 300 in the same game. Dye drilled a 2-1 pitch over the left-center field fence and Konerko hit a full-count pitch over the left-field barrier. It was the second homer of the year for each player. More on Sports
 
Howie Klein: What Are The Real US Aims In "Bringing Freedom" To Cuba?  Top
On Wednesday afternoon author Reese Erlich ( Dateline Havana ) will be live-blogging at Firedoglake about his new book and about the blowback from Cuba-American affairs on domestic U.S. politics. There's a real battle brewing right now between the American people and entrenched, big money right-wing agendas. I hope you'll remember to wander over to FDL at 4pm (PT) for what's going to be a fascinating chat. When asked recently by Latin American reporters, Vice President Joseph Biden said the U.S. would not lift its embargo against Cuba. He and President Obama want the Cuban people to "live in freedom." But what exactly does that mean? Foreign correspondent Reese Erlich looks at that issue in this excerpt and update from his book Dateline Havana: The Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Future of Cuba , Polipoint Press , Sausalito, CA, 2009. For more info see www.reeseerlich.com. Since 1991 the U.S. government has fostered numerous university and think tank projects aimed at planning Cuba's imminent transition from communism to democracy. Beneath the rhetoric about self determination and respecting the rights of Cubans on the island, they describe means by which the U.S. can once again reassert control of Cuba. In 2004 the Bush Administration's Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba issued an elaborate report. The U.S. would assist in developing the police and security services, building roads, bridges, and airports. Of course, the report assumed Cubans will welcome capitalism and U.S. foreign investment. The new Cuba would sign a U.S.-Cuba free trade pact, and join the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. "The U.S. Government and the IFIs [international financial institutions] should be prepared to assist a free Cuba in developing a new investment regime that fosters foreign investment and investor confidence, consistent with appropriate free market mechanisms...." Cuba would have to settle outside claims "as expeditiously as possible," according to the report. Thus Cuban Americans who say their property was nationalized would either get the property back or potentially receive hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation. According to these reports, if Cuba follows such pro-U.S. policies, its people would finally breathe the free air of democracy and eat the golden fruits of capitalism. Let's sketch out a more realistic transition plan based on the actual historical experience in Cuba and the former eastern bloc.  Cuba's government implodes Let's say a economic crisis hits Cuba, and the Cuban government makes a series of serious political blunders. Cubans start fleeing to Florida by boat and raft. Angry Cubans demonstrate in the streets of Havana. Without either of the Castro brothers as leaders, the Communist Party splits. Some leaders take up the banner of democracy while others try a military crackdown. The situation worsens. The old power crumbles and new leaders come to power, much as happened in the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. Cuban exiles from Miami hop the first planes to Havana, promising freedom, democracy and an end to economic injustice. At least initially, people welcome the exiles and hope the new system will meet their needs. But very quickly a number of unforeseen elements of democracy emerge. The new government won't actually hold elections until political parties are organized and election mechanisms are in place. And they can't do that until the state controlled media are privatized and the Communist Party institutions dismantled. The U.S., through its Miami surrogates, will make sure the pro-U.S. parties are well funded and receive overwhelming media coverage. If Cubans opposed to the new system hold demonstrations, let alone take up arms, the new democratic regime would be forced to suppress them. The pro-U.S. political parties form militias to protect their interests, as they did before 1959. The U.S. sends in armed private contractors, military advisors and/or troops depending on the need. The new government won't hold elections until the turmoil subsides. Even U.S. diplomats concede that the Cuban Communist Party has considerable popular support. Cuban communists, unlike many of their brethren in the eastern bloc, retain an ideological commitment to Marxism and an ability to mobilize ordinary people. The Cuban Army will certainly have set aside caches of weapons to wage guerrilla war. But even if armed insurrection and mass upheaval don't occur, the new regime will face massive problems. Until now, Cuba has escaped the scourge of heroin and cocaine that has spread through Latin America. The Cuban government has adopted very tough policies to keep out the international drug cartels. But Cuba occupies a perfect geographic location to become a transport hub for drug lords, not to mention a lucrative new market. The Miami Cubans won't be the only ones on the first planes to Havana. Mexican, Colombian and other drug lords will send kilos and cash. The old, New York-based mafia will also seek to return to operate drug, gambling, and prostitution rings. But they've been out of touch for 50 years, so the drug lords of Colombia and Mexico have a natural advantage. A few violent gang wars should sort everything out. It took 10 years of horrific clashes in Russia in the 1990s, but eventually a few strong gangs emerged triumphant. But won't the new democrats and the U.S. drug enforcement officials stop the mafia? The U.S. has conflicting interests on this issue. The drug trade is the perfect source of cash for pro-U.S. political parties and their armed militias. Sectors of the Miami elite already have lots of experience working with drug lords. In general, the U.S. would not like to see drug lords achieve new markets and share political power. But if the drug lords help pro-U.S. political parties, they become a tolerated evil. That's how the United States operated in the Batista days when some of his cabinet members were directly involved in cocaine smuggling. And this is not just ancient history. The U.S. immediately started cooperating with drug-running cabinet members in the Hamid Karzai government in Afghanistan after the U.S. invasion of 2001. The newly democratized and privatized Cuba would also face tough choices about how to handle the country's extensive social services. The Cuban government currently puts major efforts into educating doctors. They learn not only medical skills but are inculcated with a spirit of helping ordinary people. After graduation they serve two years in underserved communities. Government run hospitals and clinics provide the only new jobs in the medical field. Cuba's medical infrastructure does need improvement. The U.S. embargo and Cuban government mistakes have degraded parts of the system. The country needs new equipment and new buildings. After the collapse of socialism, U.S. hospital chains could set up branches in Cuba with modern equipment. They would also attract the best doctors by offering better salaries. Some Cuban doctors would open lucrative private practices. The government could continue to fund public hospitals, but how long would it take for the best doctors to migrate to the private sector, leaving the poor with second class care? And how long would it take for the cash-starved government to slash the health care costs to balance the budget? Good quality, free health care would become a distant memory. We don't have to speculate on this scenario. Russia's health care system went into cardiac arrest after Boris Yeltsin seized power in 1991. Partly as a result of poor medical care, life expectancy in Russia has actually declined since the early 1990s. Black Cubans would suffer the most in this transition. The new, all-white elite from Miami would have little concern for them. Without health care, education, transport and other subsidized programs, black Cubans' economic conditions would plummet far faster than whites. Even if you don't believe everything that I've sketched above, many Cubans do. The prospect of a pro-U.S. Miami elite running Cuba terrifies them.  The Future of US-Cuban relations starts in Washington The decision to alter U.S.-Cuban relations will depend on developments in Washington, not Havana. Future administrations could decide that the changes in Cuba are significant and therefore initiate negotiations. They would certainly be opposed by the Cuba Lobby and entrenched anti-communists in the State Department and security agencies. On the other hand, a growing number of elected politicians, business people and grass-roots activists favor opening up relations with Cuba. The question is: will opponents of U.S. policy be able to reach a critical mass? To some extent, the Cuba debate cuts across traditional political party lines. In recent years conservative Republicans and moderate Democrats have joined together to maintain the status quo on Cuba. A strong majority of Republicans and Democrats voted for both the 1994 Torricelli and 1996 Helms-Burton laws. George Bush Jr. tightened the embargo once again in 2004 with bipartisan support from such politicians as senators John McCain and Hilary Clinton. When President Bill Clinton was in office, many progressives hoped he would lift parts of the U.S. embargo during his second term when he no longer faced political pressure to get elected. He informally loosened the embargo by not pursuing civil fines against Americans traveling to Cuba. He also allowed Cuban musicians and artists to perform in the U.S. But otherwise, he continued the same stringent policies against Cuba as previous administrations. During her 2008 campaign for president, Sen. Hillary Clinton took a strident, hard-line against Cuba. She courted the Miami ultra-conservative vote by saying she would keep Bush's 2004 restrictions in place. Her position on Cuba was identical to that of Sen. John McCain. Senator Barack Obama differed with Bush on some Cuba policies. He opposed the 2004 restrictions, reflecting the views of many Cuban-American Democrats in Florida. He voted against funding TV-Marti, saying it was a waste of taxpayer money. Sen. Hilary Clinton voted in favor of that bill. But Obama's differences were incremental. He campaigned in Miami using strident, anti-communist rhetoric. "Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. ... This is the terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century-- of elections that are anything but free or fair; of dissidents locked away in dark prison cells for the crime of speaking the truth. I won't stand for this injustice, you won't stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba." Ironically, some conservative Republican leaders-- not running for national office-- sounded more conciliatory. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a conservative Republican from Texas, said, "I have believed for a while that we should be looking at a new strategy for Cuba and that is opening more trade, especially food trade, especially if we can give the people more contact with the outside world, if we can build up an economy that might make the people more able to fight the dictatorship. I think that's something that we should have considered a while back, honestly." Hutchison reflected the views of many politicians from farm states. Agribusiness could be making a lot more profits if the U.S. lifted the trade embargo. Given the dynamics of Washington, it seems unlikely that any president will take the lead in changing Cuba policy. Pressure to change will have to percolate up from the grassroots to the House, Senate, and eventually to the White House.  Pressure to change policy In September 2003 the House of Representatives voted 227-188 to eliminate the ban on Americans traveling to Cuba, and a month later the Senate voted to lift the ban by 59-38. Those majorities consisted of farm state legislators, liberals and libertarian-minded Republicans who opposed unilateral sanctions. Under the threat of a veto by President Bush, however, Congress dropped the bill. Strong critics of U.S. policy included progressives such as Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California) and Rep. Charles Rangel (D-New York) but also conservatives such as Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Florida) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas). Philip Peters, a former State Department official and now a fellow at Washington's Lexington Institute, told me House Republicans play a crucial role on any Cuba vote. He divided them into three categories. "About a third vote in favor of lifting sanctions. A third is genuinely opposed to it. And another third vote to maintain the sanctions, although their real opinion is opposed. These are the same legislators who favor trade with China and ... Vietnam." That one third and their Democratic counterparts are subject to tremendous lobbying. For example, the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, funded by wealthy Cuban Americans from Dade County, Florida, contributed $446,500 to Congress members in 2006-07, including a minimum of $1000 to every 2006 freshman representative. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Montana) had supported loosening the embargo in order to help agricultural exports from his state. But he switched sides and received $10,500 in campaign contributions from the PAC.   But such groups are increasingly out of touch with the Cuban American community. According to a respected public opinion poll, 55 percent of Cubans living in Miami now oppose the U.S. embargo. Even some hard-line anti communist groups have admitted the embargo's failure.   For the U.S. to change course on Cuba, several factors would have to come together. Washington leaders would have to perceive Raul Castro's economic reforms as significant. U.S. business interests would need to pressure Congress and the president to lift the embargo. And the Cuba Lobby would have to face some political setbacks. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former top aide to Colin Powell, said Cuban Americans are starting to break with hard-line, anti-Cuba policies. "Ultimately that's the straw that will break the camel's back. But it will take time. Once we get Cuban-Americans feeling differently about Cuba, we will get a sea change. Let's face it, we have a stupid policy towards Havana." And if the U.S. doesn't change policy, attorney and lobbyist Robert Muse told me, Cuba can afford to wait. "We're isolated on Cuba. Cuba needs a rapprochement with U.S. far less than it did 15 years ago." Thumbing its nose at the U.S., he said, "gives Cuba stature in the world." So the ball is in the U.S. court. The question remains whether U.S. leaders are willing to play. More on Cuba
 
SaraKay Smullens: My Mother, My Daughters, MySelf: Lessons Learned Top
April 10th, was the sixteenth anniversary of my mother's death. It was also my birthday. My mother died at 3:30 a.m. As if by some unknown hand, each year I awaken at this time on my birthday, always with a shudder. Losing my mother would have been easier if her life had been a happy, fulfilled one. She did not get what she deserved. Never blessed with the opportunity for an education, my mother remained an avid reader and observer of every facet of life imaginable, from politics to the arts. When she typed her fingers moved so quickly that they became impossible to differentiate; she would have been a whiz at the computer. Her gardening was magical. Her flowers adored her as much as her daughters did. My mother was also effortlessly exquisite until the day she died. As a little girl I remember people stopping her on the street, again and again, telling her again and again that she looked just like Claire Bloom, one of the most gorgeous actors of her day. My father was equally a show stopper. He was a taller, broader equivalent of Gregory Peck. On the dance floor they were magical together. Until my mother stopped dancing, and my father danced with others. For my mother and my father were completely unsuited emotionally and temperamentally. And divorce for religious reasons was completely out of the question. My mother and I were deeply intertwined. I always knew that her closeness to me helped her to compensate for all of her loneliness. Early in my childhood she became so ill that she could not care for me, and I lived with relatives. When I returned to her once again she was pregnant with my sister, and I was almost seven years old. Deep in myself I made a promise: I would be so good to her that she would never be sick again. And I was...Every honor, every accomplishment; every undertaking was for her...for I was terrified of losing her again. But then as I grew older I made the decision to leave her. I needed to begin my own life, to learn to make my own choices, and to right my own mistakes. Though my mother put on a happy face, she never really forgave me. And, in truth, although there were moments, even hours, of closeness, she left me once again. And so my mourning for her began many years before she died. With this mourning ever with me, I decided to will myself to learn from our relationship. I am blessed with four children, now adults. I cherish them in the core of my being with deep intensity. But I refuse to allow myself to hold them tightly. I understand that they belong only to themselves and have never belonged to me. I also understand that if I am not disciplined I could cripple them with my love, draining their sense of security and at the same time establishing a pattern of attraction to those who may not mean them well. I have watched it happen to others. I have seen it happen to myself. I also learned that if we love our children well others will become even more important to them than we are. In appreciating the necessity of this, we set them free. One of our daughters, my mother's oldest granddaughter, decided to marry on my birthday, the sixth anniversary of her grandmother's death. She named her first granddaughter, now seven, after my mother; and my oldest granddaughter looks just like her great grandmother. Equally beautiful. Today is my daughter's tenth wedding anniversary. Her life is both demanding and fulfilled, but she has telephoned me twice today to fill me in on this and that... One does not get over the loss of a beloved. The mourning is eternal. But blessedly the sharp excruciating pain dims as years past. Still there are moments when unexpectedly the knife visits again, plunging sharply and deeply. But if you work hard, and if just a little luck comes your way, there are joys that bring velvet to the knife. There is pride that you have done your best.
 
Tina Dupuy: Hey, Tax Day Tea Parties -- your 'grassroots movement' can't have corporate media sponsorship Top
The 'silent majority' has to shut up. No seriously, they do. In order to be a silent majority they have to first - wait for it - be silent about something. And the current group that claims this title while planning and touting a " FNC Tax Day Tea Parties " or Tax Day Tea Party, is far from quiet. "Silent Majority No More", reads the front page of the Tax Day Tea Party website. Fox News hosts are attending the gatherings around the country. Silent? Majority? First, they have to be gentle. Stoic. But mainly, hushed. Then they have earned the right to call themselves the brilliant, Nixon coined ' silent majority '. He was referring to the people that weren't protesting. Hint, hint. Yes, a perfect moniker for lovers of all things rhetorical. The phrase implies that if you don't vocally disagree - you're by default onboard. Genius. So, Tax Day Tea Parties are planned for April 15 - tax day. Thousands of protesters (not all in the same place) are going to protest. Something. Obama probably. Government maybe; with politicians that hate government. Mostly Obama. Their message is clear - they're sick of not being heard. As one commenter put it on taxdayteaparty.com, "HI- TEA parties across America-A great idea! YES- We can have a voice in the direction of our country." Yes. Say it. And another, "This administration has made the people that have been paying attention MAD AS HELL AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT. STAND UP STAND UP STAND UP." Yes, stand up. You've been pushed around by Obama for too long - nearly 80 whole days. You poor long suffering muted people. Wait, taxes? Are they angry about taxes? And there's a tea party? Like a revolt? Like the precursor to the Revolutionary War? The Boston Tea Party was standing up to tyranny after years of neglect. Not standing up to being mad that your candidate didn't win. The tea was a symbol of the tone deafness and arrogance of King George. Everyone knew Englishmen (which the colonist were) could never live without tea, so British Parliament imposed a huge tax on it. So instead of Liptons being thrown into various bodies of water around this country - the symbolic equivalent would be cutting up your credit cards. Credit card companies are taxing Americans with no representation - but they know that Americans can't live without them. So where's that mutiny? The Founding Fathers weren't hotheads. They didn't just 'get mad' and usurp a king's authority. They had real grievances, real ideals, real leaders and a really brutal, bloody struggle. The Fox News Channel Tax Day Tea Parties wasting perfectly good tea to protest government spending is like Jeep Cherokee sponsoring a Trail of Tears 5K. Yeah. Yeesh. But they're mad! And they're ' teabaggin '. And the 'Mainstream Media' is just ignoring this super important story except for Fox News who's attached their name to the demonstration. Yeah. A mainstream media news channel part of a huge media conglomerate (whose charm to its loyal followers is that it's 'alternative') is beating the drum for this protest. Your grassroots movement can't have corporate media sponsorship. But heck, if you're an ear piercing minority calling yourself a 'silent majority' what's a little fact fudging between friends. It's a little archaic throw back to the Bush Misnomers (titles for things that don't match what they actually do) - the Clean Sky Initiatives (that aided in pollution) - The Patriot Act (that squashed The Constitution) or my favorite The State of the Union Address (the wedge for the divide was more like it). Conservatives are either high-profile kvetchers or the silent majority. Not both. Republicans are either breaking filibuster records or the silent majority. Not both. You guys are heard. Like Phil Donahue once said to Bill O'Reilly on his show, "Loud doesn't mean right." Actually, Phil, these days - it does. I am a member of the actual current silent majority (all the polls have Obama's job approval rating hovering over 60 percent , more than who voted for him). I want the stimulus bill to stimulate the economy. I want businesses and markets to be regulated just enough to ban legal pirates but not too much to make them dead in the water. And I hope that it works. More on Barack Obama
 
Diane Dimond: Who's Watching Our Trillion Dollars? Top
Get ready for a new crime wave to sweep the nation. It may take a while for us to notice, but it will come. It'll be sparked by the billions and billions of economic stimulus dollars being doled out by the federal government. As an understated FBI director Robert Mueller put it during an appearance before Congress recently, the infusion of cash will "lead to an inevitable increase in economic crime and public corruption cases." Just as serial bank robber Willie Sutton said when asked why he robbed so many banks, "Because that's where the money is." It's the same thing today. Any sudden windfall of money is like an aphrodisiac to the dishonest. It happened after Uncle Sam pumped a mountain of money into the South after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We taxpayers were taken to the cleaners by fellow citizens and public officials who saw a gravy train. They hoodwinked the system with unsavory business practices; they submitted false victim's claims and used government issued emergency debit cards for everything from Hawaiian vacations, NFL football tickets, adult erotica, even the services of a divorce lawyer! Are you ready to digest some numbers? The General Accounting Office now pegs the amount lost to the unscrupulous in the hurricane zone at as much as 1.4 billion dollars. The FBI's Katrina Fraud Task Force has brought charges against 907 defendants in 43 districts across the country. Some are private citizens, others are public officials, accused of lining their pockets at the expense of the voters. Now, take those numbers and do the math on the potential for criminality with the more than a trillion dollars that's begun to pour into our economy. The possibilities for the criminally minded are mind boggling. A tsunami-like wave of embezzlement, fraud and outright theft is sure to be the result. So, who's watching to make sure the money - our taxpayer's dollars - go where they are supposed to? At this writing only one state, California, has appointed a watchdog. Her name is Laura Chick, the controller of Los Angeles*, a woman who's made a career of exposing waste and incompetence where ever she finds it. As California's new Inspector General Chick will watch the flow of the $50 billion dollars her state is expected to get from the federal stimulus program to make sure the anticipated jobs are created. Ok. That makes me feel better - for California! What about the other 49 states?! Think about it. Do you fully trust your state's public servants to do the right thing with the massive influx of funds that's coming your way? More numbers: In the last two years U.S. courts have convicted 1,800 federal, state and local government officials on fraud and corruption related charges. Included were judges, state senators, county sheriffs, police officers, public school superintendants and, oh yeah, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Currently, the FBI has 2,430 other public officials under active investigation. In addition, pretty soon the FBI's work on all that suspected mortgage and financial fraud is expected to come to fruition and more cases will be filed against more suspected cheaters. Whew! FBI Director Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee, "While the FBI is surging to mortgage fraud investigations, our expectation is that economic crimes will continue to skyrocket (due to) ... the unprecedented level of financial resources committed by the federal government to combat the economic downturn..." But wait a minute. Does America even have enough FBI agents left over to watch out for the well-being of our trillion dollars? Sadly, the answer is no. It is likely that left unchecked lots more corruption will take place and years down the road the FBI will have another whole spate of cases. Perhaps I'm being too negative. Maybe the dire economic straits we find ourselves in will galvanize and unify our population - even the criminals. Maybe the unscrupulous will behave themselves for the sake of our country and the trillion dollars will go to exactly where it was intended, to create jobs and stimulate the economy back into balance. What do you think the odds are of that happening? The only way we can even come close is for every state to hire its own Laura Chick and for everyone who has control over the stimulus funds to realize we're all in this mess together. It's only our unity of purpose that will see us through to a better day. I think we all need to demand peak performance here. And, it's time for the President of the United States, along with every Governor, to announce that anyone caught diverting stimulus money will be enthusiastically pursued and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And when they deliver that warning they should mean it like their political life depends on it. -30-
 
How To Give When You Don't Have Money To Spare Top
Given the current economic climate, it goes without saying that many people are having to make very difficult decisions, cutting back on spending and going without anything not strictly essential. For some, that means some hard choices about charitable donations: if you're a regular or occasional contributor to good causes, you might be seriously curtailing your gifts. This can have a negative effect on you. However, if you value being able to help others and contribute, you may feel upset or even guilty that you're no longer in a position to do so. Or perhaps you've rarely or never given to charity in the past, but you've been moved by the suffering caused by the financial crisis - yet you yourself have little money to give. The good news is that there are a number of ways you can make a real difference, without much money. Here are three ways that you could put into practice today, whatever your financial circumstances. Why not give one a try? More on The Giving Life
 
Eric Margolis: Obama Takes Up The White Man's Burden Top
"The White Man's Burden" is a poem by the English poet Rudyard Kipling. It was originally published in the popular magazine McClure's in 1899, with the subtitle The United States and the Philippine Islands.[1] Although Kipling's poem mixed exhortation to empire with sober warnings of the costs involved, imperialists within the United States latched onto the phrase "white man's burden" as a characterization for imperialism that justified the policy as a noble enterprise. `Wikipedia.' President Barack Obama, who swept into office on a tidal wave of anti-war sentiment, has decided to take up what British imperial poet Rudyard Kipling called the `White Man's Burden' by sending US forces ever deeper into Third World troublespots. Accordingly, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates presented a controversial new military budget last week that will shape the course of US foreign and military policy for decades to come. This has produced a great deal of unhappiness among the uniformed brass at the Department of Defense. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, furious debate has raged in the Pentagon over the future and mission of US military forces The Pentagon has been deeply divided over whether the US military should to be configured to fight conventional wars against Russia and China, or be transformed into a more lightly armed, agile force to combat Third World guerillas. Both the Bush and Obama White Houses have been pushing the Pentagon to opt for the latter by beefing up forces and deploying new equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan. But many generals and admirals have been bitterly resisting cuts in US conventional forces. Last week, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates finally put an end to this debate. Gate's newly announced defense budget makes clear that America's military future lies in what the Pentagon calls, `expeditionary warfare' or `counter-insurgency operations.' These, it is clear, will take place mostly in the Muslim world. The British, less given to euphemisms than Americans, used to call their distant operations against unruly natives, `colonial warfare' or `little wars.' However, in 1914, the British Empire's army, trained to fight colonial wars against lightly-armed Zulu, Dervishes and Afghans, met the modern Imperial German Army and suffering a bloodbath. Neither Britain's generals nor its soldiers were ready for the horrors of modern warfare. Mowing down Zulu impis and Fuzzy-Wuzzies was one thing; facing the tough Germans quite another. While Gates was waving his big stick and warning all misbehaving Muslims, President Barack Obama was playing the good cop on his carefully staged, sanitized visit to Turkey, offering the `hand of friendship' to the very same Muslim world to which Secretary Gates was planning to dispatch more US troops and Predator killer drones. This sharp irony was completely lost on the US media and much of the political establishment, though a few more thoughtful Democrats did protest. Though the US deficit just reached a staggering US $1 trillion for the first half of 2008, military spending will still rise 4%. The Afghan and Iraq wars will alone cost $200 billion this year. So much for Obama's promised government austerity. Plowshares will be beaten into swords. Congressmen and lobbyists will scream to high heaven when some major weapons programs are terminated, but overall, the US military industrial complex will suffer little. Supporting the Afghan and Iraq wars is now the Pentagon's priority. The 50,000 US troops due to remain in Iraq on a `training mission' appear likely to face renewed resistance. Fifty more deadly Predator and Reaper drones will be acquired. They are the Pentagon's favorite tool for `taking out' foes in Pakistan and Afghanistan, along, of course, with civilian `collateral damage.' The British writer George Orwell called using such euphemisms, `making murder respectable.' More special forces and advanced ground and air sensors to target `terrorists' and `insurgents' (ie those resisting the American Raj) will be deployed. Over 500 more versatile F-35 strike aircraft will be purchased. Production of the magnificent stealth F-22's, costing $140 million apiece, will shortly end at 187 units. This has dismayed the Israelis, who were planning to order the F-22. Political pressure may yet keep the F-22 production line open to fill the Israeli order unless it is satisfied with more F-35's. The Army loses heavy combat vehicles, artillery, and anti-missile systems. The US Navy loses one of its eleven carriers and some planned high-tech destroyers. Coastal combat vessels for shallow water Gulf and Third World operations will be added. Thirteen billion dollars of gold-plated presidential helicopters worthy of an airborne mogul emperor were sensibly postponed. These realignments of defense spending clearly show the Obama administration intends to pursue a long war strategy in Afghanistan, Iraq, perhaps Somalia, and in other future Third World hot spots located near major oil deposits. President Bush's so-called `war on terror' cost taxpayers $808 billion. Obama has renamed it `overseas contingency operations,' but otherwise he seems to be following Bush's lead. What caused so much heated debate in the Pentagon - and the heads of some senior generals like former Air Force chief of staff Michael Moseley - is the concern that reconfiguring the US military to fight `counter-insurgency' wars in the Muslim world will undermine national defense and America's ability to wage future wars against other great powers like China, Russia or even India and Europe. Keeping one US soldier in Afghanistan costs $330,000 annually. The US military has been engaged in various conflicts abroad for 17 years: much of its equipment is seriously run down. The average age of US Air Force fighters is 24 years old. The USAF KC-135 tankers that allow long-range power projection average 47 years old and America's flying Dreadnaught, the B-52 heavy bomber, is ready for the Smithsonian Aerospace Museum. The Iraq and Afghan wars have worn out the US Air Force and Navy: equipment replacement from operations in Iraq is alone estimated at over $60 billion. Senior commanders say their forces were `broken' by President George Bush's overseas military adventures. Meanwhile, Russia is planning for small wars around its frayed borders, but it is still retaining substantial military muscle. China and India are steadily modernizing their armed forces. The US Navy's carriers, America's key to strategic power projection, are now seriously threatened by three new weapons. China's improved, 2,000 km range DF-21 missile than can be guided onto carriers by radar, satellite and drones; Russia's 300 kph `Shkvall' rocket-powered torpedo that travels in a self-generated air capsule; and the Russo-Indians supersonic BrahMos 300 km range anti-ship missile. They may make US carriers sitting ducks. It takes decades to order and deploy new weapons systems. The Obama administration has now locked the US military on a course that cannot be quickly changed if new strategic threats emerge. Like Britain's Imperial Army in Kipling's time, it will continue to defend the far-flung frontiers of the Empire while the rest of the world is changing fast.
 
Justice Clarence Thomas: Too Much Focus On Rights Top
Justice Clarence Thomas has not asked a question from the Supreme Court bench since Feb. 22, 2006. He speaks only to announce his majority opinions, reading summaries in a gruff monotone. Glimpses of Justice Thomas in less formal settings are rare. [...] 'Today there is much focus on our rights," Justice Thomas said. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights." "I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances," he said. "Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?" More on Supreme Court
 
Obama Cuba Policy Overhaul: "Reaching Out To The Cuban People" Top
On Monday afternoon, the White House released a fact sheet explaining the new shifts in U.S.-Cuba policy. Read below for more: * * * * * FACT SHEET: REACHING OUT TO THE CUBAN PEOPLE Today, the Obama administration announced a series of changes in U.S. policy to reach out to the Cuban people in support of their desire to freely determine their country's future. In taking these steps to help bridge the gap among divided Cuban families and promote the freer flow of information and humanitarian items to the Cuban people, President Obama is working to fulfill the goals he identified both during his presidential campaign and since taking office. All who embrace core democratic values long for a Cuba that respects basic human, political and economic rights of all its citizens. President Obama believes these measures will help make that goal a reality. Cuban American connections to family in Cuba are not only a basic right in humanitarian terms, but also our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of grassroots democracy on the island. There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans. Accordingly, President Obama will direct the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and Commerce to support the Cuban people's desire for freedom and self-determination by lifting all restrictions on family visits and remittances as well as taking steps that will facilitate greater contact between separated family members in the United States and Cuba and increase the flow of information and humanitarian resources directly to the Cuban people. The President is also calling on the Cuban government to reduce the charges it levies on cash remittances sent to the island so family members can be assured they are receiving the support sent to them. Specifically, the President has directed the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and Commerce to take the needed steps to: · Lift all restrictions on transactions related to the travel of family members to Cuba. · Remove restrictions on remittances to family members in Cuba. · Authorize U.S. telecommunications network providers to enter into agreements to establish fiber-optic cable and satellite telecommunications facilities linking the United States and Cuba. · License U.S. telecommunications service providers to enter into roaming service agreements with Cuba's telecommunications service providers. · License U.S. satellite radio and satellite television service providers to engage in transactions necessary to provide services to customers in Cuba. · License persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to activate and pay U.S. and third-country service providers for telecommunications, satellite radio and satellite television services provided to individuals in Cuba. · Authorize the donation of certain consumer telecommunication devices without a license. · Add certain humanitarian items to the list of items eligible for export through licensing exceptions. REACHING OUT TO THE CUBAN PEOPLE Supporting the Cuban people's desire to freely determine their future and that of their country is in the national interest of the United States. The Obama administration is taking steps to promote greater contact between separated family members in the United States and Cuba and increase the flow of remittances and information to the Cuban people. Lift All Restrictions on Family Visits to Cuba We will lift all restrictions on family visits to Cuba by authorizing such transactions by a general license, which will strengthen contacts and promote American good will. We will ensure the positive reach of this effort by: · Defining family members who may be visited to be persons within three degrees of family relationship (e.g., second cousins) and to allow individuals who share a common dwelling as a family with an authorized traveler to accompany them; · Removing limitations on the frequency of visits; · Removing limitations on the duration of a visit; · Authorizing expenditure amounts that are the same as non-family travel; and · Removing the 44-pound limitation on accompanied baggage. Remove Restrictions on Remittances We will remove restrictions on remittances to a person's family member in Cuba to increase Cubans' access to resources to help create opportunities for them by: · Authorizing remittances to individuals within three degrees of family relationship (e.g., second cousins) provided that no remittances shall be authorized to currently prohibited members of the Government of Cuba or currently prohibited members of the Cuban Communist Party; · Removing limits on frequency of remittances; · Removing limits on the amount of remittances; · Authorizing travelers to carry up to $3,000 in remittances; and · Establishing general license for banks and other depository institutions to forward remittances. Authorize Greater Telecommunications Links with Cuba We will authorize greater telecommunications links with Cuba to advance people-to-people interaction at no cost to the U.S. government. This will increase the means through which Cubans on the island can communicate with each other and with persons outside of Cuba. · Authorize U.S. telecommunications network providers to enter into agreements to establish fiber-optic cable and satellite telecommunications facilities linking the United States and Cuba. · License U.S. telecommunications service providers to enter into and operate under roaming service agreements with Cuba's telecommunications service providers. · License U.S. satellite radio and satellite television service providers to engage in transactions necessary to provide services to customers in Cuba. · License persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to activate and pay U.S. and third-country service providers for telecommunications, satellite radio and satellite television services provided to individuals in Cuba, except certain senior Communist Party and Cuban government officials. · Authorize, consistent with national security concerns, the export or re-export to Cuba of donated personal communications devices such as mobile phone systems, computers and software, and satellite receivers through a license exception. Revise Gift Parcel Regulations We will expand the scope of humanitarian donations eligible for export through license exceptions by: · Restoring clothing, personal hygiene items, seeds, veterinary medicines and supplies, fishing equipment and supplies, and soap-making equipment to the list of items eligible to be included in gift parcel donations; · Restoring items normally exchanged as gifts by individuals in "usual and reasonable" quantities to the list of items eligible to be included in gift parcel donations; · Expanding the scope of eligible gift parcel donors to include any individual; · Expanding the scope of eligible gift parcel donees to include individuals other than Cuban Communist Party officials or Cuban government officials already prohibited from receiving gift parcels, or charitable, educational or religious organizations not administered or controlled by the Cuban government; and · Increasing the value limit on non-food items to $800.
 
Wall Street Refugees Seek Work Top
Lots of people cope with tough times by quaffing a cold beer or two. Drew Weinstein hopes folks will soon reach for one of his. Mr. Weinstein, who last October lost his job as a research analyst at investment bank Cowen & Co., has said good-bye to Wall Street to take a shot at starting Magellanic Brewery. His plan is to hire other breweries to make his beer, a light lager he describes as "a better Budweiser."
 
Alan Lurie: Bad Banker Top
I love reading NewYorker cartoons. With one picture and a short caption, many of these cartoons lightly capture existential truths that would require entire books to unfold. Last week's issue featured a cartoon that showed a depressed man lying on a psychiatrist's sofa, staring aimlessly at the ceiling. The psychiatrist looks at him and says, "Just because you work at a bad bank doesn't mean that you are a bad banker." We are learning the hard way the devastating results of an unrestricted selfish focus on short-term monetary gain: of bad bankers doing bad things. And we are seeing the public's anger at the people who pursued vast quantities of wealth, seemingly without concern for consequences to others. As the cartoon suggests, then, does the pursuit of wealth necessarily label us as "bad"? This may lead us to believe that we have only two options: to relentlessly pursue wealth and risk following the path of those whose irresponsibility led us to this point (and become a "bad banker"), or reject wealth as inherently corrupting, and focus instead on the development of morality and spirit? The best of philosophical and spiritual teachings tell us that there is a higher resolution which leads to an understanding that allows us to experience wealth while maintaining a path of growth and concern for others. These teachings urge us to move from a mode of greed to one of abundance. To many, these terms may sound similar because both are associated with wealth and prosperity. It's not surprising, therefore, how much confusion - in my experience - there seems to be around this distinction. So, in order to make the difference very clear, please allow me to present a very simple metaphor: Two young brothers are each given a pile of birthday gifts from their parents. One child quickly opens the presents, and after he is done feels let down. "Is that it?" he complains. "How come I didn't get all the stuff I was hoping for?" He compares his pile to his brother's. "Why did he get such good stuff? That's not fair". He feels slightly sick, and then is suddenly angry. The other child opens his gifts. "Wow!" he says. "Look at all these gifts." He plays happily, and feels good knowing that these gifts came to him from his parents simply because he is their child. He looks over and sees the anger on his brother's face. "I wish that he could feel better so we could play together", he thinks. This is a deliberately simple example because the essential differences are simple: different basic beliefs in the fundamental workings of the cosmos. We can distinguish between greed and abundance as follows: Greed, • begins with belief that there are limited resources, leading to a feeling of lack - that there is not enough for everyone. • flows from the fear of not being good enough as one is and with what one already has, leading to hording and accumulation for its own sake, with the hope that "someday I will have enough to feel secure". • builds the desire to only receive, leading to selfishness and sole reliance on one's own limited energy source, producing fatigue. • sees wealth as an end in itself, stemming from the sense that life is basically meaningless, leading to depression. The Greek philosopher Epicurus said of greed, "Nothing is enough for the man to whom enough is too little." Abundance, • begins with recognition of the incredible richness and diversity of creation, leading to knowledge that, if treated with respect, there is more than enough for everyone. • flows from a love that come through the recognition that wonderful gifts are given to us "unmerited", leading to gratitude. • builds the desire to participate, leading to the urge to give, and increased energy from the limitless Source. • sees wealth as a tool and a gift, stemming from the knowledge that life is inherently purposeful and gracious, leading to happiness. The motivational teacher Wayne Dyer said, "Abundance is not something we acquire. It is something we tune into." Of course these differences manifest with an infinite variety, depending on the person and their experience and inclination, but this framework presents the essentials of each. The ancient Jewish book of wisdom, "Saying of the Ancestors", asks, "Who is rich?", and answers, "One who is happy with his lot". This does not mean that we should be complacent, and not strive to increase our wealth, or that we should eschew ambition, but tells us that abundance can not flow when we are not grateful for the gifts that we already have. In fact, gratitude frees us to pursue prosperity free of attachment. Like the child who sits amid a pile of presents and complains that he does not have enough, though, ingratitude shuts out abundance because - to stay with the earlier metaphor - a good parent will not give any more gifts to one who is ungrateful for what he has. When we look at the incalculable vastness of space and the unbelievable diversity of species and resources on our planet, we see that the essential urge of creation is endless abundance. We do not need to be "worthy" of abundance because it already exists, just waiting for us to recognize and appreciate it. And this abundance has been provided to us as a blessing of our birth. Wealth, then, is a blessing that facilitates our purpose and supports others. From this perspective, greed is a distortion of the intuition of infinite abundance; when we project that intuition on to physical objects and our own fleeting needs. There has been much written recently about how to tune in to and attract abundance. Unfortunately much of this has focused merely on receiving desired material gains, as if there is a magic secret for manipulating the Universe in to giving you the stuff that you want. True abundance, though, is a two-way flow of giving and receiving - not only material wealth, but attention, concern, and love. The greatest abundance flows when we too desire to be a blessing to others, paradoxically creating more abundance for us. As Joel Osteen said, "When you focus on being a blessing, God makes sure that you are always blessed in abundance. "
 
Fossella DUI: Guilty Plea For Former Rep. Top
NEW YORK — Former Rep. Vito Fossella pleaded guilty to drunken driving charges in a Virginia court on Monday, the day a jury trial was to begin in the case that ruined his political career. The former congressman said he was moved in part by last week's drunken-driving accident that killed a Los Angeles Angels pitcher. Attorneys for the Staten Island Republican _ whose May 1 arrest led to revelations he had fathered a child from an extramarital affair _ had planned to fight Fossella's five-day sentence in Alexandria, Va., with arguments that the breath-test machine police used was faulty. Police say the test showed Fossella's blood-alcohol level was 0.17 percent, well above the legal limit. Defense attorney Barry Pollack said attempts to obtain information about the breath-test machine in other courts were unsuccessful and the former congressman "decided that what made sense for him was to accept responsibility for his actions." The death on Thursday of 22-year-old Nick Adenhart, who was killed when the car he was driving in was broadsided by a suspected drunken driver, partially led to Fossella's surprise decision, Pollack said. "It certainly highlighted again for Mr. Fossella and I think for the public the dangers of drinking and driving," Pollack said. "With that in the news, Mr. Fossella thought it particuarly appropriate for him to acknowledge his own wrongdoing and not to fight over the issue of the accuracy of the reading in this particular case. The fact of the matter is, he had something to drink." Fossella, 43, entered the plea in Alexandria Circuit Court. He has four days remaining on the five-day sentence issued in December and will serve them beginning this Friday over two weekends in Alexandria. He was given credit for the day he served when he was arrested. Fossella, who had served in Congress since 1997, was pulled over after running a red light on May 1, and convicted of drunken driving in October. He appealed his conviction, which automatically entitled him to a jury trial under Virginia law. Fossella told police at the time of his arrest that he was on his way to visit a daughter he had in the area, raising questions about who his daughter was. He later acknowledged he had fathered a child through an affair with a former Air Force officer. The congressman has a wife and three children in his home district. Fossella was the only Republican member of the New York City congressional delegation before he stepped down. Democrat Michael McMahon won Fossella's congressional seat last November.
 
5 Surprising Foods With A Salty Secret Top
I'm always checking labels for hidden sodium and going easy on it--the stuff makes me hold water like a water balloon! So, I was happy to see the study about how more foods are ditching extra salt, only to learn a new report from Consumer Reports (CR) finds plenty of salt in foods you wouldn't think to check. CR analyzed thirty-seven foods to check their sodium levels. Among the surprises: * Twizzlers: Black Licorice Twists, four strands have 200 milligrams; four strands of Twizzlers Strawberry Licorice have 115 mg. More on Food
 
Rick Horowitz: Humble or Bumble? Obama's New Diplomacy Top
If the Bluster Years are really over, what'll we do for fun? I mean, what's the point of being the Number One country in the whole wide world if you can't tell the whole wide world where to stick it? When the going gets tough, the tough get pushy -- that's the way it's always been, and that's the way it's supposed to be. And all of a sudden, we're supposed to...listen? To them ? We've got more weapons than anybody. (We've got more weapons than everybody.) We've also got responsibilities in every corner of the planet, not that we asked for them -- it just comes with being Number One. And the first responsibility, in every corner of the planet, is to take no guff. What we say goes. What we want we get, or we're taking names. And now all of a sudden, we're supposed to find...consensus? We're supposed to try to see things from somebody else's perspective? Where's the fun in that? If somebody else's perspective had been worth considering, it would have been our perspective already, right? We wouldn't have had to wait for somebody else to open our eyes and tell us what's what. We tell them what's what -- that's the whole point. We sit them down and we tell them how it's going to be. If we even bother to sit them down. When you're Number One, you don't sit down with just everybody. Sitting down with us isn't a right, it's a privilege. You have to earn your way to the table, and you don't do it by ticking us off. You do it by behaving yourself. And now all of a sudden, we're supposed to make time for every tin-pot nobody with two missiles to rub together? We're supposed to find out what's on their mind? We're supposed to see whether we can do business together? It was never like that in the Bluster Years. We had better things to do than waste our time talking to people like that, or even going to conferences where people like that might show up, just so we might bump into them in the hallway and figure out what they're thinking and maybe even do a little deal about something or other just to get the ball rolling. We don't have to get the ball rolling. It's our ball, and we can take it and go home any time we want. Or at least we could during the Bluster Years. You were either with us, or you were against us, and we didn't tie ourselves in knots figuring out who was in which category. It was simple. Everything was simple. The money was always in dollars. The conversation was always in English. We apologized for nothing, and we had nothing to apologize for. And now all of a sudden, the president -- the president of the United States, mind you -- is telling foreigners that we screw up from time to time. That we've gone our own way much too often. That we've been arrogant! Like we don't have a hundred perfectly good reasons to be arrogant. Next thing you know, he'll be apologizing for us speaking English. Bad enough he keeps sticking foreign words into his foreign speeches just to show them he "gets it" or something. What's next? We'll all have to talk Turkish? We'll all have to think like Iranians? It was so much better when we ran everything. # # # Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com. More on Barack Obama
 
Peggy Drexler: There's a new dog in town Top
The long wait of an anxious nation is over. The new first dog is here, and his name is Bo. We have two yellow labs at home - a great choice, but not if you are allergic (or, for that matter, worry about damage to the rose garden). For short-haired animals, their hair is everywhere; you see it drifting in the shafts of kitchen sunlight. So I will put aside my breed snobbery, and add my welcome to the nation's capitol. As anybody who has brought a little ball of chaos into their lives knows, now the fun starts. Bo's arrival, of course, played out perfectly for the times. He was selected in secrecy; the selection was leaked; a newspaper was promised the exclusive; but was beaten by the Internet and, of course, there is controversy. What about the campaign promise to adopt? They are quotes that every dog bought from a breeder is a death sentence for one in a shelter. (A bit of a heavy burden, I think, for little girls who just want a puppy.) There are even same news-cycle talking points: Bo was previously with another family (and called Charlie then), but there seemed to be a conflict with the dogs already in residence. So he was returned to the breeder who provided the family dogs of Ted Kennedy, which then re-gifted Charley to the Obamas. So, go talking points, Bo, as a first-family failure, could have conceivably met the fate of other dogs who don't fit in, and been dropped off at a shelter. I buy that. Really. Anyway -- get used to it, Bo. You are more than a dog now. I can only hope he won't star in holiday videos as Barney, the Bush dog, did. Toward the end, it was animal abuse - or abuse of all dog lovers who watched in spite of themselves, and suffered the dialogue that even made the dog look embarrassed. Barney deserved better. But it's a new day. The arrival of Bo is truly change we can believe in. Once a puppy arrives at a house - even the big white one on Pennsylvania Avenue, things will never be the same. There will be lessons in the laws of puppies" "If I can reach it, it's mine. And what's mine, I'll chew if I want to." There are lessons in the lethality of puppy teeth, which shred wrists and forearms, and can clamp down mid-nuzzle - on the occasional ear. There will be the realization your dog is, quite possibly, the smartest dog ever. When is the last time you heard someone say their dog is dumb? By most objective measures, our big, love-bomb of a dog, Stuart is not the brightest toy in the basket. Even though his trick repertoire peaked at sit, we prefer to say he's "chill". Prepare, also, to be one of "those people" you swear you will never be - the insufferable ones; the ones who believe that the rest of the world finds your puppy stories as hilarious/heartwarming as you do. Word of caution, Mr. President. Putin doesn't care. Anyway, he seems like a cat person. There will be discoveries of the hard to define, but amazingly comfortable smell of puppy fur; the power of the loving gaze of big brown eyes, the joyous greetings that - in their own way - will be just as satisfying as your reception in the capitols of Europe. Congratulations are also in order. You will quickly realize that Bo - who will soon answer to nicknames like Bo-dog, B-dog, Bobo, Beauregard or Bo-dacious - is the best dog in the world. Even when he's not.
 
The Gods Of Retail: In-N-Out Burger, Alaska Airlines, Forever 21 Have Christianity In Common Top
Ten companies with Christian ties.
 
How Long Until The Duggar Family Is More Populous Than Vermont? Top
The Duggar family of TLC fame just announced that they are expecting their first grandchild. Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar have 18 children ranging from 0 to 21 years old. Their eldest, Josh, was married in September and will welcome the littlest member of the brood just one month after his first anniversary. The Duggars live in northwest Arkansas and can be seen on TLC's hit "18 Kids and Counting." Michelle Duggar gave birth in December to their youngest child, Jordyn-Grace, and as the title of their show suggests, it may not be her last. Assuming they do stop at 18, and assuming each of their kids have the same amount of children (which are both big 'ifs') how long until those with Dugger blood outsize the population of America's smallest state? After the next generation of Duggars breads at this rate, there will be 324 members of the clan (not counting the husbands and wives that married in). The third generation will have 5,832 members, the fourth will have 104,976, and the fifth will have 1,889,568...almost three times the population of Vermont. This would mean... There would be one Duggar for every two square miles of America. If all the Duggars earned the average American salary, they would collect $85 billion a year before taxes, enough to bailout AIG . There would be more Duggars than Muslims in America . In one more generation... There would be almost as many Duggars in America as African Americans . Duggars would outnumber lawyers 42 to 1. There would be more Duggars than Canadians . Of course it would take the Duggar family at least 200-300 years to bread this much, and the number of African Americans, Muslims, and lawyers could also grow. These statistics require an amazing amount of hypotheticals, they are just meant to give you an idea of how fast a family can expand when they start having kids young and keep going!
 
Harvey Wasserman: Yet Another $50 Billion for Rust-Bucket Nukes? Top
The nuke power industry is back at the public trough for the fourth time in two years demanding $50 billion in loan guarantees to build new reactors. Its rust-bucket poster child is now the ancient clunker at Oyster Creek, whose visible New Jersey rust and advanced radioactive decay are A-OK with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which just gave it a twenty-year license extension. The industry's savior may be France, whose taxpayer-funded EdF and Areva Corporations may be poised to build their own reactors on US soil using French and American taxpayer money. And President Obama's first big test on nuke power may be how he fills a vacancy -- and the chair -- at the NRC. The latest demand for a $50 billion taxpayer handout has been sleazed into the Senate budget bill. It has already been kicked out of the Stimulus Package, and George W. Bush's Energy Bills of 2007 and 2008. Bush did get $18.5 billion in guarantees into his 2005 Energy Bill, but that is being being challenged. This latest bailout incarnation has been widely tagged "nuclear pork" even in the right-wing Washington Times, which says the Senate accepted it "without debate, explanation or a recorded vote." The amendment came from Sen. Michael Crapo (R-ID) with support from Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad (D-ND). Crapo says the guarantees are part of a program created in the 2005 Bush Energy Bill is aimed at "clean energy" programs, not just "advanced" nuclear power. But no Congressional experts take that disclaimer seriously. No independent financiers will take an un-subsidized flier on new reactors. Nuke operators can't get private insurance on a major melt-down. With the proposed Yucca Mountain dump all but dead, the industry -- after fifty years -- has no certified place to take its high-level radioactive waste. Guarantees are also part of a bill supported by Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) who chairs the appropriations subcommittee that oversees energy spending, and has been working with Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), a pro-nuke cabal of business and retired military leaders. Green energy groups such as Friends of the Earth, Nuclear Information & Resource Service, Beyond Nuclear, NukeFree.org, Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility and others are gearing up for yet another Congressional fight. If they win this time, they'll have to fight it out again and yet again as the industry gloms onto new bills on a "clean energy bank," global warming, reprocessing and more. "The $50 billion in nuke loan guarantees proposed in February's economic stimulus bill were taken out in House-Senate conference following a national outpouring of opposition," says Michael Mariotte of NIRS. "With a similar outpouring, we can defeat these again in the conference committee that will meet after the Easter recess." Mariotte says green energy groups are organizing a national write-in campaign to begin next week, and a call-in effort for April 27, the day after the anniversary of the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe. No one doubts the industry will pour on one legislative scam after another in its desperate attempt to get taxpayer money as it is being priced into oblivion by rapid advances in renewables and efficiency. Reports are also circulating that France's heavily subsidized reactor pushers, EdF and Areva, may use newly purchased stakes in Constellation and other US utilities to strong arm their way into the American electricity market. Among other things they may use French taxpayer money to build reactors on American soil. Their foreign ownership status may insulate them from even the infamously lax NRC regulation. The Atomic Energy Act prohibits "foreign ownership, control or domination" of a US reactor project, but the industry will try to work around that. As the over-priced, inefficient French fleet wobbles at home without meaningful regulation, and with no solution to its waste problems, the EdF/Areva reactor pushers apparently view the US as virgin territory. Indeed, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has just granted a 20-year license extension to America's oldest reactor. The Oyster Creek plant opened in December, 1969 with an expected design life of forty years. It now has visible rust around its core and has been constantly plagued by errant releases of hot water and lethal radiation. Perched 50 miles east of Philadelphia and 75 miles south of New York City, Oyster Creek could not be licensed at all by today's standards. Its reactor containment was never required to withstand a jet crash and is far flimsier than the lid that blew off Chernobyl Unit Four in the Ukraine in 1986, releasing massive quantities of radiation into the surrounding countryside. Because Oyster Creek's old core is laden with far more residual radiation, a breach could blanket the densely populated American northeast with an apocalyptic cloud of death and destruction. Owned by the Chicago-based Exelon Corporation, Oyster Creek has been bitterly opposed by area residents and nuclear experts who fear its vital internals are crumbling. The re-licensing process did not require a test of metals in the core, which can become dangerously embrittled after decades of exposure to super-hot water and intense radiation. In 1991, Massachusetts' elderly Yankee Rowe was shut by lightening. Congressional pressure then demanded an embrittlement inspection that the reactor's owners would not do. Parallel issues have been contested in bitter re-licensing fights at Minnesota's Monticello, Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island Unit One, Vermont Yankee and Indian Point, 45 miles north of New York City. The first terror jet to hit the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 flew directly over Indian Point, whose elderly containments could not withstand an airplane's impact. But the NRC's willingness to re-license the rickety, trouble-plagued Oyster Creek signals a willingness to ignore a wide range of serious health, safety and environmental concerns. Thus pushers of the "Peaceful Atom" are pumping hard for taxpayer handouts and against meaningful regulation, even for the oldest and most decrepit reactors still pumping radiation into the American landscape. Fittingly, there is now a vacancy on the five-member NRC that President Obama could fill. He could also appoint a new chair. The number of Commissioners over the past three decades who have been at all responsive to legitimate safety and health concerns has been miniscule. An independent-minded appointee would signal that the administration is serious about the health, safety and environmental issues that cut to the core of the "Peaceful Atom." But whomever Obama appoints, it's painfully clear that history's most expensive failed technology is not going away without a long, hard fight. Harvey Wasserman edits the NukeFree.org website. His SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH is at www.solartopia.org. More on Nuclear Weapons
 
Population And Earth: Zero Growth Or Armies Of Greenies? Top
Today, Grist's advice columnist fields a question about population growth and its impact on the environment. It's a touchy subject. Here's the question. Dear Umbra, You once replied to a request for some simple things all environmentally concerned individuals should do by pointing them toward some "Top Ten lists" for eco-minded people. Without a doubt, hands down, the number 1 action that should be followed for anyone concerned with the environment is to limit your procreation to 1 child per individual (2 per couple), i.e., replace yourself only. This dwarfs anything you might do in other areas, like using compact fluorescents or choosing paper over plastic, or weatherizing your home. Read Umbra's answer here . She's careful to say how much she dislikes weighing in on this subject. It's definitely loaded. It used to be talked about a lot more, so maybe it's worth a poll and some lively commenter debate. Here we go...
 
Judy Baar Topinka May Run Again In 2010 Top
Confirming chatter among GOP insiders, former state Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka says she has been asked and is considering running in the 2010 elections, most likely either for her old job or for Illinois comptroller.
 
Heidi Kingstone: Shopping Cures World Ills! Top
Too bad the flyer didn't come in time for my birthday earlier in the week, but it's never too late to celebrate. I woke up to the good news that the Blossom Bag is exclusively available at Harrods. "Casual, chic and fashion-forward, the Blossom is Celine's new signature bag for 2009." I think I am just jealous. "Customers," the blurb tells me, "can choose from an array of exotic skins in a vibrant summer colour palette as well as selecting details such as a satin lining, clasps and buckles -- crating a bag that is perfectly unique to them. This bespoke service invites customers to interpret the Blossom in their very own style." That's a relief. Clearly in the circles where everyone has a Blossom individuality counts. The bags sell from $4,100 and go right up to $22,000 (just in case you want to order now), which I do. The order takes six weeks, for me too long as I am a instant purchase kind of girl. You can chose crocodile skin, python, and linings in yellow, fuchsia, red, blue, purple, buckles in silver or gold (not real, but I'm sure that's possible). I passed Roman Abramovich, the Russian billionaire who lives in London not far from Harrods, and is down to his last £2 billion. Times are tough. Surrounded by his six bodyguards (he doesn't use Russian ones as he doesn't trust them) he was intently talking on the phone. Was he ordering the Blossom for his art-collecting model Russian girlfriend? Maybe not. In fact, the really chic fashionistas don't go for this kind of fashion -- it's too accessible. Yikes. They seek out the vintage piece so that no one knows exactly what it is -- creating a stir -- and creating envy. Or they go to Zara. As for creating a stir, Louis Vuitton may do this best -- their marketing is remarkable. This year's sell-out is the Stephen Sprouse day-glo Monogram Vernis Roses collection. When Madonna went to Malawi to purchase her new baby, the press went on about her $2,800 Chanel jogging outfit. What they seemed to miss was that she held, casually, almost dragging in the African dust, this cashmere and silk scarf. LV make very few of these items, which happened to be magnificent, and successfully create a buzz. They are sold out across Europe. In the UK most of us are still reeling from the recent swoop of putative terrorists, 11 Pakistani nationals, picked up on Thursday, apparently planning a 'spectacular' in England. So, there is nothing else to do but shop, despite Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi putting a gloss on the tragedy that struck Italy this week. Think of it as camping, he said to the survivors of the earthquake in L'Aquila, now living in tents because their houses were destroyed. The title of Leonard Sorcher's little book sums it up perfectly. Optimists see the bagel, pessimists see the hole. More on Terrorism
 
The Progress Report: Gone But Not Forgotten Top
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, Ryan Powers, and Igor Volsky To receive The Progress Report in your email inbox everyday, click here . It has now been three months since President Bush and his family boarded their plane back to Texas and handed the reins of power over to President Obama. Yet Bush administration officials are pushing to make sure that the American public remembers them -- or rather, remembers what they want them to remember. While Bush has been focusing on fundraising for his presidential library and hitting the lecture circuit, his top aides have been aggressively taking to the airwaves to criticize Obama. With Obama's approval rating still above 60 percent, these aides are pulling out all the stops to shape Bush's legacy and pass blame on to his successor. However, there's little proof that these attacks are working. In a recent C-SPAN poll of presidential historians, Bush made a list of the top 10 worst presidents in U.S. history. Even abroad, officials are attempting to hold the Bush administration accountable. Last month, a Spanish court "agreed to consider opening a criminal case against six former Bush administration officials...over allegations they gave legal cover for torture at Guantanamo Bay." THE DECIDER : Even while still in office, Bush was looking forward to making a "ridiculous" amount of money on the lecture circuit. According to his bio on the Washington Speakers Bureau website, the point of his speaking tour is to promote his policies that were "controversial at times" but "kept the country safe for more than seven years." Bush is now lecturing approximately once a week. His first appearance was in Canada, where activists and human rights lawyers tried to bar his entry into the country. Bush has also been working to raise $300 million for his presidential library, although "the prospect" of being identified "in perpetuity" with Bush's agenda "freezes the blood" of some of Southern Methodist University's leading academics. Even though he is writing a book on his time in office, Bush is not sitting around and reflecting on his missteps and regrets. "He's secure in the place he's in. He's confident in the decisions he made. There's none of that 'Shoulda, woulda, coulda,'" said former aide Dan Bartlett. One event that Bush is trying to wipe from the American public's minds is the Iraq war. His advisers have said that the war is "unlikely" to be one of the topics of focus at the presidential library; in fact, Bush's official 483-word bio on the library website doesn't have a single mention of Iraq. A newly released five-minute promo video for the library mentions the word "Iraq" just once, although it devotes a full 35 seconds to clips showing extensive footage of 9/11 and Bush's subsequent reaction. THE LOYAL BUSHIES: Finding work has been tough for many former loyal Bushies. A Washington job recruiter estimated that only "25% to 30% of ex-Bush officials seeking full-time jobs have succeeded," a rate that is "much, much worse" than when Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton left office. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been one of the most high-profile job seekers; he has blamed his troubles on the "rough economy" rather than his incompetence while in the Bush administration. Others have been lucky enough to stay in the public light by appearing on cable news. Fox News contributor Karl Rove continues to use his platform to attack the Obama administration -- even though Bush has said that Obama deserves his "silence." Last week, for example, Rove called Vice President Biden a "blowhard" and a "liar." He also went after Obama for praising the "Turkish secular movement" while abroad, even though Bush did the same thing while in office. Former chief of staff Andrew Card's objections have been less substantive, focusing on the fact that unlike Bush, Obama does not require his staff to wear a jacket at all times in the Oval Office. In January, Card said that the new dress code showed a lack of "respect" for the office and created a "kind of locker room experience." Most recently, the President's brother, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, has made headlines for telling Obama to leave his brother alone. "If I had one humble criticism of President Obama, it would be to stop this notion of somehow framing everything in the context of, 'Everything was bad before I got here,'" Jeb Bush told Fox News's Sean Hannity last week, not noting that his brother also repeatedly attacked Clinton. In addition to attacking Obama, these Bushies have banded together to create a Bush-Cheney Alumni Association, committed to "help build a lasting legacy for President George W. Bush and the Bush-Cheney Administration." SAME OLD DICK: The former vice president has been one of Obama's loudest and most controversial critics. On March 15, Cheney received widespread attention -- and criticism -- for saying that Obama is "making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack." Senior White House Adviser David Axelrod responded that although Bush has "behaved like a statesman...I just don't think the memo got passed down to the vice president." Both Biden and Attorney General Eric Holder similarly came out and condemned Cheney's comments. Cheney is also up to his old secrecy tricks, refusing to transfer his records and gifts to Bush's presidential library. Next week, top administration officials will be gathering in Dallas for a reunion with the ex-president. One person who won't be there? Cheney, who is still reportedly at odds with Bush over his decision not to pardon Scooter Libby.
 
Marilyn Chambers, Porn Star And Former Model, Dies At 56 Top
LOS ANGELES — A friend of adult film star Marilyn Chambers says the actress has been found dead at her home in northern Los Angeles County. Peggy McGinn says the 56-year-old Chambers was found by her 17-year-old daughter Sunday night and the cause of death has not been determined. Chambers starred in the 1972 film "Behind the Green Door," which was more widely distributed and attracted a more mainstream audience than the usual adult fare. Chambers, whose given name was Marilyn Briggs, was once a model for Ivory Snow. She was among the first porn superstars when the stag films of the 1940s through 1960s gave way to the more polished sex films of the 1970s.
 
James Berman: Fear Recedes Top
The economy continues to worsen: GDP is contracting. Unemployment is at 8.5%. Housing still swoons despite the lowest mortgage rates in recorded history. The horrible realities of a brutal recession -- layoffs, shuttered storefronts, bankruptcies and liquidations--get worse by the day. Why then would the stock market have risen to 8,000 -- up from its low of 6,547 -- over the past few weeks? One possible reason is that the stock market recovers well ahead of the real economy. If this market behaves like any other over the past century, it will rise long before the good times return. In the five years following 1932, the Dow soared from 41 to 194, while bread lines and Hoovervilles still dominated the American landscape. Has the market bottomed? The unsatisfying answer is no one knows. It's unknowable whether the market will go back below 6,500, slump to 5,000, or continue its ascent. What we do know is that the market will lead the way and the economy will follow. A common question is why? One reason is economic, the other psychological -- and the two are related through that intersection of behavior and finance. As an economic tool, the market is a discounting mechanism: it attempts to gauge future cash flows long before they occur. Given the time-value of money, the eventual profits of companies are worth less in the present, adjusted for inflation and risk. All the estimated inputs -- a mixture of educated conjecture, countless assumptions and irrational emotion -- fluctuate second-by-second, desperately trying to set prices. The market has no interest in today's cash flows, since they're already here. Like a mare with blinders, the market only looks ahead, never sideways or backwards. When the Dow rises or falls, it's changing its economic assumptions for future profits, not present ones. As respected value investor Bill Miller says: "If it's in the papers, it's in the price." Everything that's collectively "known" is already priced into stocks. A frequent question asked of all value managers is: "Don't you read the papers? Don't you see what's going on?" Of course. But what's in the papers is already known, collectively, and to the market especially. To trade on news doesn't work since savvy traders discount headlines instantaneously. Common knowledge doesn't influence markets, only true surprises do. Anyone who follows individual stocks has witnessed the phenomenon of a stock declining for weeks and then rallying sharply as soon as terrible earnings are announced. The stock price factors in the bad news ahead of the earnings announcement -- then rises once traders look to the next quarter. Or the stock that rises on favorable expectations then collapses as soon as the good news becomes a certainty. Hence, the old market saw: buy the rumor, sell the news. The counterintuitive nature of stock movements -- that they often fluctuate inversely to conventional expectations -- is a result of the pricing mechanism of markets, which discounts the future to the present. The second reason is psychological. The market reacts to emotions instantaneously. Market prices, influenced by thousands of mouse clicks per second, assimilate the current mood, or "sentiment," at any given instant. Imagine the market as a vast monitoring device, taking the pulse of mass psychology moment by moment. When optimism reigns, prices rise. When panic takes hold, prices immediately reflect that sinking feeling: bids are overwhelmed by sells. If one person is panicked by the broad economic climate, so is everyone else, preventing the panicked seller from profiting by his own panic. Said simply, when the seller sells, he's dumping stocks at prices that already reflect panic. He cannot "get out" before the price goes down. The price is already down when he places his order. The early stages of a recession are the most terrifying, as people grapple with the switch from optimism to despair. Given novelty's sway on human emotions, the first feelings of panic are felt the most intensely, are the most surprising, and thus cause the greatest fall in prices. The panic about what may happen long precedes what actually happens. The fear of losses long precedes the actual losses: the imagination reacts first. Panic is, by definition, a short-term emotion. It can only grip the psyche for an instant since the mind soon acclimates to its cause. As Thomas Paine wrote in The Crisis (the anonymous pamphlet published when America appeared to be losing the Revolutionary War): Panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt. Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before. Once the mind grows through its panic, the anxiety dissipates. The mere dissipation is what allows prices to recover from distressed levels. As if in a vast, collective sigh of relief, markets instantaneously rise to reflect the fading of fear. It doesn't require any positive economic signs to create this price rise, only the conversion of apprehension to acceptance. Once the anticipation of losses becomes the reality of losses, panic recedes. The unknown becomes known. Nauseating dread turns to resignation. We have no idea what the market will do next week, next month, or even next year. But we do know that stock prices will recover before the economy -- and that their long-term movement will be upwards. More on Economy
 
EFCA Ad War Heats Up: SEIU Responds To Chamber's Latest Top
The SEIU has just put up a response advertisement to the Chamber of Commerce's own $1 million ad campaign, accusing the Chamber of using stale and false political accusations against the Employee Free Choice Act. The spot, which will run on the web, points out that the Chamber's main critiques of the labor-backed legislation - including dire warnings about bureaucrats from Washington - seem recycled from those it used to fight the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1989 and the Family Medical Leave Act in 1991. The underlying message is that the Chamber was drastically on the wrong side of history in those two fights, and remains so now. On a meta-level the escalation of the ad wars really hits to a new stage in the broader debate on the Employee Free Choice Act. From a union perspective, the stakes have gone up in the past few weeks as Sens. Arlen Specter, R-PA, and Blanche Lincoln, D-AR - two key votes - both said they would opposed cloture. On Monday, meanwhile, the Chamber announced its latest salvo: a pricey ad campaign that focuses on a EFCA provision that would empower federal arbitrators with the task of negotiation a deal between union forces and management if the two parties fail in their own negotiation. In the Wall Street Journal piece announcing the ad campaign, the Chambers chief lobbyist, Steven Law, call this provision "anathema." Union officials, of course, have a different take. And in an email sent to reporters, AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale pointed out that when it comes to your "credit card statement, your bank statement, or your phone bill.... any disputes you have with the companies are to be settled by arbitration." "This is yet another example of the pure hypocrisy by big business," Vale concluded. "They have no problem with arbitration for THEMSELVES -- they just don't want America's workers to have the same right." More on Video
 
Easter Egg Roll Fashion: See Who Wore What At The White House Monday (SLIDESHOW) Top
There was a lot to be happy about at the White House on Monday--Captain Richard Phillips was rescued from Somalian pirates on Sunday, First Puppy Bo Obama has finally arrived, restrictions on travel to Cuba are being eased --and the fashion at Monday's Easter Egg Roll reflected everyone's good cheer. Michelle Obama went casual and colorful in a green top, yellow cardigan, navy blue jacket and capri pants, Washington's Best-Dressed winner Desiree Rogers took a break from her signature black to wear a white suit and practically everyone, for some reason, wore silver flats. SLIDESHOW: *Follow Huffington Post Style on Twitter and become a fan of Huffington Post Style on Facebook * More on Michelle Obama Style
 
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Dennis Rivera: Healthcare Reform Is Too Important to Fail Top
By now many of us are all too familiar with the troubling facts informing our need to take action on healthcare reform: forty-six million Americans lack health insurance and tens of millions more are underinsured and at risk of financial ruin; family budgets are squeezed and businesses are less able to compete globally because of skyrocketing healthcare costs; and despite our world class hospitals, our healthcare system still fails to prevent millions of avoidable, deadly heart attacks and strokes. The time to act is now. But still, the "who" and "how" of health reform is up in the air. That is why we heartily support President Obama's plan to address healthcare reform immediately and to evaluate any reform proposal against eight commonsense, nonpartisan principles: protecting families' financial health, making health care coverage affordable, aiming for universal coverage, providing portability of coverage, guaranteeing choice, investing in prevention and wellness, improving patient safety and quality of care, and maintaining long-term fiscal sustainability. These are principles that everyone -- Democrats, Republicans, Independents, mayors, business and labor -- can and should rally around. We need everyone's participation and everyone's good ideas if we are to reform the fragmented system we have today. In our respective roles as Mayor and leader of the nation's largest union of nurses, doctors and healthcare workers, we have worked tirelessly to improve the health care of our city residents and fellow New Yorkers. New York City has supported our award-winning public hospital system which serves more than 450,000 uninsured patients; invested in the nation's largest primary care electronic health record network linking more than 1,100 doctors with real-time, prevention-focused electronic health records; connected thousands of residents with public health insurance and small businesses with affordable coverage for workers; and engaged in innovative public health campaigns to reduce smoking and promote wellness. In New York City as well as in major cities around the country, SEIU healthcare workers have dedicated themselves to expanding healthcare coverage and improving the quality of care in hospitals, clinics and community health centers. We know these efforts are making a real difference in the lives of New Yorkers and working families everywhere. But in this time of economic emergency, our country needs and deserves more than partial solutions that are fraying under the weight of state and local budget crises. Our families, our communities, and our businesses need Washington's committed leadership to fix our broken healthcare system. We see the momentum growing. With each passing week, the Obama administration and key members of Congress have begun to build the foundation for major healthcare reform legislation. In a little over sixty days, they have expanded SCHIP coverage to more children, dedicated new funding to improve healthcare technology and invest in our healthcare workforce to aid America's economic recovery, and approved a budget that establishes a critical down payment on real healthcare reform. And yet, some of the hardest work is still to come, and our challenge is to keep Congress focused on achieving a real and comprehensive solution -- and not to walk away when the going gets tough. In this time of crisis, we have to be willing to try new things and keep focused on our goals to make health care more affordable, effective and accessible. In the past few months, we've heard a lot about how government has to step in when a company is 'too big to fail.' Well, this push for healthcare reform is too important to fail. It's too important to our cities. It's too important to our nation. It's a challenge we can't turn from -- and it's an opportunity we must seize. More on Health
 
Cheney Attacks On Obama Are Wrong: Poll Top
Dick Cheney finds himself, once more, on the wrong side of polling data. CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll asked respondents whether they agreed with the former vice president's remarks that Barack Obama's policies were making the country more vulnerable to attack. The response: a resounding "no." Only one-quarter (26 percent) of respondents said that the "actions Barack Obama has taken as president have increased the chances of a terrorist attack against the U.S." Nearly three-quarters of respondents (72 percent) said they had not. Cheney has made just such an assertion twice since his administration has left office, prompting individuals like Vice President Joseph Biden to ask: what, exactly, Cheney and the prior White House accomplished in the war on terror. In addition to receiving the public's backing in the spat against Cheney, Obama also has its support for his policies in Afghanistan. More than half (53 percent) of respondents said they favor the war in Afghanistan while 46 percent oppose. Those results are nearly diametrically reversed from February 18-19, when 47 percent supported and 51 percent opposed. The one area where the president runs into thorny turf is with his commitment to target al Qaeda officials in Pakistan without that country's approval. Only 37 percent said they support the policy, which was a chief tenet of the Obama campaign. Sixty-one percent say U.S. government should not "take action without Pakistan's permission." Get HuffPost Politics on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter . More on Dick Cheney
 
Yvonne R. Davis: My Friend Ian Browde's Right Brain Reflections Top
His intent is to share what his right brain perceives is the most meaningful contextual shift for humanity since the Industrial revolution about 250 years ago. Since the shift, the Sustainability Revolution, is contextual, and much of what we think, feel and do is changing fundamentally. The economic context shift is picking up speed ... We are in the midst of what we call the "economic downturn," or "the recession," or "the economic crisis." The reality is much deeper than any of those terms imply. In fact, my right brain avers, we are experiencing the demise of individualistic capitalism, the system we thought of as synonymous with democracy; as the way the world should function! Wait, wait! Before you jump to conclusions, get defensive, argumentative or dismissive and at least hear my right brain out. It began in 1980 with Ronald Reagan becoming president of the United States, the leading example of "the capitalist system." During those years, Reagan et al focused on cutting taxes and reducing reliance on government while increasing U.S. national defense (calling it "defense" is actually a misnomer - a topic my right brain will explore down the road) It was when capitalism as individualistic economic ideology culminated and began its decline, which is now accelerating and it feels like a crisis. If my right brain remembers correctly the 1980s was the "me" era when Leona Helmsley, Ivan Boesky and Donald Trump emerged as icons of "the haves," and the United States triumphed at the LA Olympic Games while the Soviets sat out "citing security concerns and chauvinistic sentiments and an anti-Soviet hysteria being whipped up in the United States." (Wikipedia/NY Times). With Apple, Microsoft and Silicon Valley growing prodigiously, Michael Jackson, and Madonna wowing the world, Americans that had it flaunted it and turned a blind eye while Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North traded drugs and guns with Iran and the Contras in the basement of the White House. Simultaneously, the antithesis of individualistic capitalism, communism or state capitalism, was nearing the end of its disgusting run. Led by a person of intellect, Mikhail Gorbachev, whose 'perestroika' (restructuring) was actually aimed at opening up the choking Soviet economy, the Soviet system collapsed in part in the period 1987 - 1991. My right brain says "in part" because it is resurging again temporarily under Putin like individualistic capitalism did under Bush-Cheney for a few years. Ironically, while Reagan took, and America gave him, credit for the collapse of communism, it was really the first phase of individualistic capitalism's demise that he, and we, had achieved! Individualistic capitalism ("capitalism"), the thesis, had to have state capitalism ("communism"), the antithesis, to survive. Once communism fell, it was just a matter of time before capitalism went too. And now it is on its way, inexorably, unequivocally. "Why is individualistic capitalism over?" my right brain asks, "and what is replacing it?" It is over because it is unsustainable, simple as that. It is unsustainable because its two keystone principles "individualism" and "maximal growth" attempt to defy the laws of Nature. Human beings are not individualistic evolutionarily or by design. We are relational creatures who need one another to survive. In fact, we not only need other humans to survive, we need a healthy ecosystem of water, air, soil, plant, insect and animal life - there is no doubt about it. In Nature, growth is optimal not maximal and where that precept is denied the organism dies out like the brontosaurus did. Trees, animals, humans and all other organisms grow and then they reach a level of sustainability where aspects of them are shed for new growth (innovation) to appear. With the election of Barack Obama as U.S. president, the world has entered a new economic context, "social or community capitalism," which will become our paradigm by 2015 - 2020. The economy will never return to what it was. Over the next decade we will see the emergence of local and community-based micro-economies, of companies and corporations that we will assess by 3 if not 4 bottom lines; financial, social benefit, environmental and even spiritual. We will address climate change and thus we will learn to become green (read: sustainable) in everything we do; how we think, converse, lead, govern, manage, tend, attend, work, play and relate. We will significantly alleviate poverty, hunger and violence on the large scale i.e., government, cartel and gang related. This is an exhilarating time to be alive! More on The Recession
 
Andy Rooney Worries About The Environment (VIDEO) Top
Andy Rooney is worried about global warming, and he used his perch on "60 Minutes" to talk about it this week. His message is general, but the audience that he reaches is wide. It's certainly not the first time that the environment has been brought up on "60 Minutes," but I can't recall another time when Rooney spoke about it. Of course, I haven't even been alive for the whole time that Rooney's been doing "60 Minutes," so it might be worth digging through some archival footage from the last time people seemed to take notice of the planet in the US. Here's the clip: More on Earth Day
 
Lydia Khalil: Change the Tone Towards Iraq Top
During President Obama's whirlwind tour of Europe presented a new image of America, the president did what he did best - empathize and listen, all the while deliberately and patiently pursuing his interests. But the tone taken with European leaders did not carry over to his surprise stop over in Iraq. His chidings to Iraqi leaders "to take responsibility for their country and for their sovereignty" was uncharacteristically tone deaf and ignores the trajectory of Iraqi politics for the past two years. Iraqis are already committed to regaining their sovereignty... at times at the expense of U.S. interests and goals in the region. Iraq's commitment to sovereignty was amply demonstrated during the negotiations of the Status of Armed Forces Agreement, an agreement that is to govern the presence of U.S. troops during their remaining time in Iraq. The Bush administration hoped that it could engineer an agreement that would allow the U.S. military to carry on much as it had under the UN mandate and allow military commanders to set their own withdrawal plans contingent upon conditions on the ground. But Iraqi officials, with sovereignty as their foremost consideration, rebuffed US officials at every turn. They insisted on a timeline for withdrawal and negotiated limitations on the conduct of U.S. troops on their soil and in their skies. Iran- our rival for Iraq's affections -understood intuitively what we have failed to grasp. The Iranians played upon Iraqi desire to restore sovereignty and employed a sophisticated propaganda campaign to turn opinion away from the agreement until terms more favorable to their regional standing were pushed through. The Iranians used their influence with Iraqi government officials to press the case that a SOFA, even with a timetable, would stifle Iraqi sovereignty further. While Iran has been able to parlay Iraq's desire for full sovereignty into strategic gains, the United States has been unable to do likewise. Obama could have used a bit more of that magic he displayed in Europe in his meetings with Maliki as he seeks a responsible exit from Iraq. Maliki's tenure as prime minister is dedicated to the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty. His party's recent election victory is a referendum on that effort. But Maliki has used the sovereignty argument to justify the consolidation of power within his office, to delay the integration of former insurgents into the work force and to kick up conflicts with the Kurds over their autonomous status. All of these measures could negatively impact U.S. interests and to keep pushing the sovereignty button could be misconstrued by Iraqi officials as acquiescence to policies that we may not necessarily agree with and which may go against our interests. By the time the results of those policies manifest themselves, it will be too late to use whatever influence we have left to walk the Iraqi government back from these measures. These are the certain realities and limitations that are now placed on the United States' Iraq policy because of Iraq's emerging domestic political realities and our own desire to disengage. During the SOFA negotiation period, U.S. officials and pundits failed to grasp this emerging dynamic of diminishing U.S. leverage set against the growing independence of Iraqi politics. It is particularly disconcerting that we still don't recognize that the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty is at the heart of much of Iraq's dealings with the outside world, particularly the United States. Obama should stay true to his intentions and hold Iraq to its status as an independent and sovereign state. But President Obama's new approach should not be reserved for European leaders, but on display in Iraq as well. U.S. policy towards Iraq no longer bolstered by a substantial military presence is best achieved by gaining a deep and detailed knowledge of emerging Iraqi politics and how to influence them, not by lecturing Iraqis on something they know all to well. It's time to change our tone with Iraqi leaders. More on Barack Obama
 
Norwegian Caught Having Sex With Girlfriend While Driving At 100mph Top
A Norwegian man faces a heavy fine and a driving ban after police caught him having sex with his girlfriend while speeding on the motorway, police said on Monday. More on Crime
 
"IRON MAN" ROBOT SUIT Cyberdyne: HAL in 2009 (PHOTOS) (VIDEO) Top
Ever dream of being Iron Man? Well, that dream might not be as far fetched as you might think. Cyberdyne, a Japanese company founded Professor Sankai, creator of the "Robot Suit", has developed a real life Iron Man exoskeleton called HAL. While this name might take remind you of a certain evil robot from 2001: A Space Odessey, HAL actually stands for Hybrid Assistive Limb Suit. The Post Chronicle reports on the development of Cyberdyne's robot : The 'Iron-Man' robot suit from Cyberdyne. The idea of melding human flesh and bone with robotic parts is something more than a few people have looked into...Cyberdyne is a Japanese robotics company, and HAL is Hybrid Assistive Limb, designed to help people with weak muscles or disabilities. The purpose of HAL? Cyberdyne explains specifically who HAL is for: "HAL" is expected to be applied in various fields such as rehabilitation support and physical training support in medical field, ADL support for disabled people, heavy labour support at factories, and rescue support at disaster sites, as well as in the entertainment field. The Scientific American expands on the abilities of the "Real-Life Iron Man" : CYBERDYNE...designed the HAL exoskeleton primarily to enhance the wearer's existing physical capabilities 10-fold. The exoskeleton detects--via a sensor attached to the wearer's skin--brain signals sent to muscles to get them moving. The exoskeleton's computer analyzes these signals to determine how it must move (and with how much force) to assist the wearer. The company claims on its Web site that the device can also operate autonomously (based on data stored in its computer), which is key when used by people suffering spinal cord injuries or physical disabilities resulting from strokes or other disorders. Interested in having your own HAL? The Post Chronicle reports that the HAL is going into production and will be available soon in Japan for around $4,200 while the Scientific American claims that the HAL exoskeleton is already available but only for rent in Japan for around $1,300 a month. THe Cyberdyne cite states that HAL is in fact currently available for Japanese residents, for varying costs depending on region, and that HAL will soon be available to consumers in the European Union. Breakdown of how the HAL suit helps: MORE PHOTOS: WATCH: More on Technology
 
Andy Schupak: Letter from Cuba Top
Visiting Cuba is like landing on another planet. Contrary to what we read, this is no Orwellian nightmare. I saw no thought police, just about no murals with Fidel's image, and I did not see one person who looked defeated. In fact, the people generally look happier, and have more spirit, than the typical New Yorker. That's not to say this is a utopian dream. The photos you've seen of the 57' Chevys, the war torn houses, and the hospitals that look like garbage dumps are real. In fact, Havana makes Detroit look like the Upper East Side of NYC. Other images you might have expected are missing. I saw very few policemen. And I didn't see one tank patrolling the streets. The only soldiers I did see were guarding the Museum Of The Revolution, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were just part of the display. I did see a lot of spirit and national pride displayed, especially when it came to the Cuban national team playing in The World Baseball Classic. I even saw religious services. Even though Cuba is officially an atheist state, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Christians are allowed to practice their faith. I heard there is virtually no major crime, though I did see prostitution, and the black market runs rampant. Just about everyone I met tried to sell me something, or asked me to send something from America that they could sell Now here's something you might never expect: strong criticism of the government. The openness was surprising. I didn't see one person who didn't criticize it. Young people generally called Fidel and Raul dictators, with ministers that are "old men," out of touch with reality. But, interestingly, many people I met say the Castros only exert authority when they have strong disagreements with Cuba's elected assembly. Others say the assembly makes the laws and approves any dictums that come down from Raul. Who knows? It's obvious to Cubans, especially younger ones, that if socialism is supposed to improve the quality of life, Castro has failed big time. They see that Cuba is just another 3rd world country with a failed economy, where people live on the equivalent of $25 per month. To be fair, the government does guarantee Cubans a certain percentage of caloric in-take to stay healthy. And Cubans do look very healthy. In fact, their life expectancy is exactly the same as ours. Cubans are also guaranteed health care and an education, and illiteracy has virtually been eliminated. That's the good news about education. The bad news is that a good percentage of people with Masters Degrees are forced to wait tables. One of my tour guides learned six languages as an undergraduate and graduated law school. I gotta tell you, he's pissed." Why," he asks, "provide such a great education without being able to make use of it?" I found something even more surprising than open criticism of the government. The younger generation, the angriest group of the Cubans I spoke to, do not want to lose the gains made by the revolution. While they do want to get rid of the Castros' repressive government, they want to keep the socialist economic system. Criticism is also on display in the National Museum of Fine Arts, where there are many works of art that make critical statements about the government. One, for example, is a "birdcage" in the shape of Cuba that clearly expresses the anger Cuban people feel about being caged in by a repressive government. I didn't see too many pieces praising the revolution. I did see many wonderful paintings with Jose Marti, Cuba's national hero and advocate of freedom of expression, as the main subject. Next door to the art museum is the Museum of The Revolution, where praise for the revolution and its leaders, Fidel and Che, are on display. Remember that photo of Fidel riding into Havana on a tank? The tank sits right in front of the museum. (It's always great to see the real thing.) But also on display is the museum itself, showcasing the failures of the revolution. I've never seen a museum in such disrepair, just like many of the other government buildings. This museum is really the only place I saw something praising the revolution. I barely saw billboards with Fidel's image. It's almost sad; Fidel and Che images are most visible in gift shops for tourists! These iconic figures are not pushed as heroes of the revolution, but peddled as pop hero merchandise. Talking about merchandise being peddled: There are malls in Cuba with stores that sell the same name brands we're familiar with! What you don't see are ads in newspapers advertising our name brands. The daily newspaper is just what you'd expect. It's a mouthpiece of the government. The paper has just one editorial writer who's Frank Rich, Rush Limbaugh, and Keith Oberman rolled into one. Fidel Castro!! He writes a daily column. And evidently Fidel's got something in common with Rush. Both fulminate about Barrack Obama scheming to destroy their way of life. I know this. If the paper accepted letters to the editor, I'm sure we'd see a lot of angry response to Fidel's Obama columns. Most Cubans I spoke to cheer the election of Obama. They believe he'll improve relations and end the American economic embargo. In the main, the people I spoke to believe the American embargo has just the opposite effect intended. It provides Castro with the propaganda tool he needs to maintain control, and contributes to the repression and starvation the Cuban people experience. The end of the blockade, the Cuban people feel, will bring American tourists with the money and freedom needed to create a new beginning for Cuba. Andy Schupak is a freelance journalist living in New York. More on Travel
 
Cameron Sinclair: The Architect's Dilemma : Part 2 Top
A few days ago there was a great followup by Francis Anderton on my piece last week regarding excess vs. relevance in architecture . She suggests that the debate is irrelevant and that we only talking about a resistance sculptural objects. However the idea that this is a black and white matter is simply not the case. Certainly, as she clearly points out, many 'big name' architects have done socially responsible work - although far less than the sort of pro bono requirements laid out in the medical or legal profession. The debate is not about individuals or replacing one ism with another, it is about investigating what happens in the vacuum left with a global downturn in the economy. Will the profession retrench to just super-rich clients or become more theoretical while we ride out the recession OR is there a role to play for the expanding architecture into realms that are more relevant to the current climate? The debate that sparked this back and forth was under the umbrella of the Corbusian legacy and the ethics of architecture. I think we can agree that within the public realm his work has been diluted over the decades into poorer implemented social housing. From Quito to Kigali, what happens when these sky-piercing towers are replicated 'on a dime'? What corners are cut and what are the affects on the community at large? downtown Quito The other issue I take with her stance is that this is not about particular people but how the practice of architecture evolves over the next few years. By naming names Francis repositions this as a personal issue but the fact is most architects have practiced excess and relevance from within their firms. Take for instance some of the projects done by Studio Gang, Frank Gehry , Morphosis or a personal favorite and future Pritzker winner David Adjaye . On face value Francis lumps them into the 'stararchitect' group but on finer inspection you find a more complex practice. I'm interested to see how these practices evolve over the next 20 years. Adjaye/Associates, Canopy, Nobel Peace Centre This is not a profession of individuals. The dilemma we have is not starachitect vs. non-starachitect but how we adapt and change as a group of professionals that is dedicated to improving the physical environments that we call life. Here we are talking about affects to the environment, the local community and resource depletion. There is no 'architecture with a big A' there is only architecture and how we implement buildings matters not just for the state of the world but the survival of the practice.
 

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

1 comment:

  1. Rishi SinghMay 9, 2009 at 7:11 AM

    What Is Dhyansanjivani ?
    Dhyansanjivani are group of spiritualists, with non commercial purpose. They are looking out to spread the message of spirituality through their web site.

    master of master..Dhyansanjivani is a monthly magazine containing articles on ancient Indian Spiritual Sciences Mantras, Tantric Procedures, Talisman, Astrology, Sadhanas, Yoga, Ayurveda, Meditation, Hypnotism, Numerology, Palmistry, Alchemy, Occult sciences etc. It details numerous Sadhanas and Dikshas to realise ambitions & resolve tensions, worries & problems regarding finance, domestic, marital , black magic, intelligence, health etc. It also includes practical methods to attain spiritual upliftment , kundalini activation etc. You can attain Totality and Perfection by taking Dikshas from Reverent Trimurti Gurudevs and performing Sadhanas..learn spiritual power

    Dhyansanjivani Is The World famous No 1 Spiritual Astrology Web Site
    We Have All Types Of Spiritual Products Like Yantras, Rudraksha, Siyar Singhi, Hattha Jodi, Billi Ki Naal, Kanchi Nariyal, Gemstone, Moti, Parad Products, Raksha Kavach And Many More Products....
    We are also Performing All Types Of Vedic And Tantric Method Puja / Sadhana / Yagna"s.
    Also We Show You Your Online Puja Nobody Can Show Puja Online But as a proof We Show you Live Online Puja.
    We Also Perform Puja At Your Request on Temple Or Any Where For More Info About This Site Visit Here Its Really Very Useful Web Site

    www.dhyansanjivani.org

    Article Posted by: Rishi Singh

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)